The ‘L’ in TULIP: Limited Atonement, Part 5

December, 2007

by: Jack Hughes

• Calvanism

In this Calvary Review we finish up our extended look at one of the more debated points of reformed doctrine, the doctrine of limited atonement, the “L” in the T.U.L.I.P. Pneumonic. Because we have discussed so much already we don’t have time to review what we have learned. However you can catch up on past issues of the Calvary Review at (http://www.calvarybiblechurch.org/calvary_review.aspx/Calvanism).

In our last Calvary Review we looked at what is sometimes referred to as the “General Redemption” view of the atonement. This view is a mediating view between universalism (Jesus dies and makes atonement for everyone) and a strict limited or particular atonement view which says Christ died for the sole purpose of saving the elect and the elect only. Those who hold the general redemption view agree that the elect and the elect only have their sins atoned for by the death of Christ. Thus they agree with all who hold to limited atonement or particular redemption at that point.

However, they also believe the Scriptures teach there are non-redemptive purposes for Jesus dying on the cross. The primary purpose was the salvation of the elect, but this single purpose does not exhaust the reasons why Jesus died. Two primary other reasons have been discussed. Jesus died for all (not to be confused with making atonement for all) so that, 1) the Gospel could be preached and legitimately offered to all men, and 2) so the non-elect could be judged for not receiving the truth of the gospel so as to be saved. Other non-redemptive reasons have been put forth (see previous Calvary Review) but these two stand out as primary in the Bible.

Another important and unfortunate reality is that few people in the reformed camp comment on the general view of the atonement. In fact some who believe in general atonement confess to believing in limited atonement. They agree that we should tell unbelievers that Christ died for them, that God loves them, and that there is a difference between dying for all, and having one’s sins atoned for. Most reformed arguments against non-limited atonement views labor to refute those who want to deny the sovereignty of God in salvation. Many repeatedly stress that the key question that must be answered is, “For whom did Christ die?,” and by that they mean die to save, or “What was God’s intention in sending Christ to die?” by which they mean die to save. Those of the reformed persuasion object to salvation being placed into the hands of man and rightly so. For instance Loraine Boettner has written, “According to the Arminian theory of the atonement God has simply made it possible for all men to co-operate with divine grace and thus save themselves — if they will.” In Boettner’s mind there are only two views, the right view which stresses God’s sovereignty and the wrong view that puts men in charge of their own eternal destiny.

Boettner’s comments are indicative of many in the reformed camp who see only two possibilities to the subject of the atonement – God’s sovereignty or man’s sovereignty, Jesus died to atone for the sins of the elect only or Jesus died and atoned for the sins of every man. Being thoroughly convinced of the sovereignty of God in salvation, they conclude all other views false. And logically so, for God is absolutely sovereign in salvation. But this is not the question we are investigating in this series. We agree that only the elect have their sins atoned for. We agree that God is sovereign in salvation. What we have argued for is that the phrase “died for” should not be thought of as a synonym of “atoned for the sins of” or “died to save.” The Scriptures teach Jesus died for all, but also teach only the elect have their sins atoned for. So the key question we have asked and answered is this, “Are there non-redemptive purposes for the death of Christ?” We have concluded that there are and that it is biblical to proclaim to unbelievers that Christ died for them without being a universalist or denying that the elect and the elect only have their sins atoned for. The death of Christ, the provision of Christ’s sacrifice is universal, but the atonement is limited or definite and restricted to the elect.

Now I want to move on to examine some of the history of those who had a general atonement view or something similar to it. While their explanations of how things work differ, they all agreed that the Gospel which includes “Christ died for our sins” should be preached to all men as a legitimate offer of salvation, which includes a legitimate means of salvation, the death of Christ.

History of the General View of the Atonement

One of the principles you learn in books on interpreting the Bible is “the checking principle.” The checking principle says you need to check with other scholars and in church history to see if anyone else has come up with your interpretation of Scripture in the last two thousand years. If not, your view is very suspect. So, we need to ask who in history has taught that the elect and the elect only have their sins atoned for by the death of Christ, but who also believe Christ died for all and that His death made a universal provision available to all men? Or we might say it this way: who believes there are non-redemptive purposes for the death of Christ?

Moise Amyraut (1595 – 1664)

Moise Amyraut was a prominent French Protestant theologian. Amyraut was highly influenced by French theologian John Calvin and studied under Scottish theologian John Cameron before becoming a professor of theology at Saumur. Amyraut was an expert on the teachings of Calvin and believed the reformed church was drifting away from true Calvinistic teachings. One of the areas where he saw the drift was in the area of Calvin’s view of the atonement. He believed the followers of Calvin, “scholastic Calvinists,” went beyond want Calvin taught in the area of the atonement. He believed the statements of limited atonement produced at the Synod of Dort did not accurately represent what Calvin taught. Amyraut, wanting to help clarify what Calvin and the Scripture taught came up with a mediating view, which is very close to the general view of the atonement.

Amyraut believed that Christ died for all and that His death was sufficient for all, though efficient for only the elect. Amyraut also affirmed that to be saved every believer had to place their faith in the Gospel. He said these things in reaction to some who rejected the idea that Christ died for all. Unfortunately, in trying to explain how Christ could die for all and yet not atone for the sins of all he came up with the idea of “hypothetical universal predestination.” Basically, Amyraut believed that there was a dual purpose to save in the mind of God, a hypothetical purpose and an absolute purpose. His idea presented God as king of schizophrenia. Predestination is by nature absolute and never hypothetical. Yet the basic truth Amyraut was trying to defend is that Christ died for all, though the elect only have their sins atoned for. Thus he came very close to the general view of the atonement.

It is helpful to understand some of the forces that led to Amyraut’s view. Calvin rightly emphasized the sovereignty of God, not man, in the process of salvation. Yet many took this too far and made predestination the center of gospel theology, rather than the Gospel itself. In the New Testament, predestination is a truth communicated to the elect after they believe. It is not part of the Gospel message. The preacher is not told to preach predestination to the lost, but the Gospel “Christ died for our sins…” (I Cor. 15:1-4). Once a person is saved they are then encouraged by the doctrine of predestination. This Amyraut rightly taught.

Many in the reformed camp in formulating their thoughts about the process of salvation, rightly reasoned in a linear fashion. They started in eternity past when God chose whom He would save. They then reason from God’s eternal decree before the foundation of the world, to the death of Christ, from the death of Christ, to the proclamation of the Gospel, from the Gospel to saving faith by grace, to justification, and finally glorification. Logically and sequentially this is correct and even what Amyraut believed, but it is not correct evangelistically.

In preaching the Gospel to the lost we do not start with predestination. In fact we have no idea who, among the masses of unbelievers, are predestined. Instead, we start with the Gospel and a universal call to repentance and faith in the person and work of Christ. The Gospel is that Christ died for the sins of the world, died for all, died so that whoever believes in Him would not perish, etc. Those who place their faith in the universal call of the Gospel, repent and believe are saved and receive atonement for sins. Once saved they can be encouraged with the doctrine of predestination. Thus Amyraut came very close to the general atonement view, but missed the mark when, in trying to explain what the Scriptures teach, He came up with the dual saving purposes of God and the idea of hypothetical predestination.

Richard Baxter (1615 – 1961)

Baxter is hailed as one of the greatest puritans of all time. His works The Reformed Pastor and The Christian Directory have set him apart from his contemporaries in the doctrine and practice of shepherding the church. Baxter, though reformed, also had problems with some of the scholastic Calvinistic views of the atonement. Baxter wrote: “When God telleth us as plain as can be spoken, that Christ died for and tasted death for every man, men will deny it, and to that end subvert the plain sense of the words, merely because they cannot see how this can stand with Christ’s damning men, and with his special love to his chosen. It is not hard to see the fair and harmonious consistency: But what if you cannot see how two plain truths of the Gospel should agree? Will you therefore deny one of them when both are plain? Is not that in high pride to prefer your own understandings before the wisdom of the Spirit of God, who indicted the Scriptures? Should not a humble man rather say, doubtless both are true though I cannot reconcile them.” (Richard Baxter, Universal Redemption of Mankind by the Lord Jesus Christ, London, 1694, 282-283)

Baxter was reacting against those who denied that Christ died for all and tried to explain away the Scriptures which plainly teach he did. Baxter was arguing against most Calvinists who understood the phrase “died for” meant “died to save” or “made atonement for the sins of.” Scholastic Calvinists could not accept that Jesus made atonement for the sins of all, and yet many of those who had atonement for sins perished. Thus much of the debate back then, as it is today, is fueled by presupposed yet differing definitions of key words and phrases.

Baxter goes on to say, “So others will deny these plain truths, because they think that all that Christ died for are certainly Justified and Saved: For whomsoever he died and satisfied justice for, them he procured faith to believe in him: God cannot justly punish those whom Christ hath satisfied for, etc. But doth the Scripture speak all these or any of these opinions of theirs, as plainly as it saith that Christ died for all and every man? Doth it say, as plainly any where that he died not for all? Doth it any where except any one man, and say Christ died not for him? Doth it say any where that he died only for his Sheep, or his Elect, and exclude the Non-Elect? There is no such word in all the Bible; Should not then the certain truths and the plain texts be the standard to the uncertain points, and obscure texts?” (Ibid, 282-283).

Thus Richard Baxter defended the biblical truth that Christ died for all, that the Gospel offered legitimate salvation to all, but that only the elect in the end had their sins atoned for. He was rightly irritated that so many clear texts were explained away in order to defend a strict limited atonement view which says that Christ died only for the elect. Thus Baxter had a general view of the atonement.

John Newton (1725 – 1807)

Newton was a slave-ship captain and after being converted to Christ became a pastor in the Church of England. He was a writer of many hymns, the most famous being “Amazing Grace.” In a sermon entitled “The Lamb of God, the Great Atonement,” in a section discussing the extent of the atonement, Newton writes: “The design and extent of this gratuitous removal of sin, by the oblation of “the Lamb of God,” is expressed in a large and indefinite manner: he “taketh away the sins of the world.” Many of my hearers need not be told, what fierce and voluminous disputes have been maintained concerning the extent of the death of Christ… For myself, I wish to be known by no name but that of a Christian, and implicitly to adopt no system but the Bible… If, because the death of Christ is here said to take away “the sin of the world,” or, (as this evangelist expresses it in another place,) the “whole world,” it be inferred, that he actually designed and intended the salvation of all men, such an inference would be contradicted by fact. For it is certain that all men will not be saved… But, on the other hand, I cannot think the sense of the expression is sufficiently explained, by saying, that the world, and the whole world, is spoken of, to teach us that the sacrifice of “The lamb of God” was not confined, like the levitical offerings, to the nation of Israel only; but that it is available for the sin of a determinate number of persons, called “the elect,” who are scattered among many nations, and found under a great variety of states and circumstances of human life. This is undoubtedly the truth, so far as it goes; but not, I apprehend, fully agreeable to the Scriptural manner of representation. That there is an election of grace, we are plainly taught; yet it is not said, “that Jesus Christ came into the world to save” the elect, but that he came to save, “sinners,” to “seek and to save them that are lost.” Upon this ground, I conceive that ministers have a warrant to preach the Gospel to every human creature, and to address the conscience of every man in the sight of God; and that every person who hears this Gospel has thereby a warrant, an encouragement, yea, a command, to apply to Jesus Christ for salvation; and that they who refuse, thereby exclude themselves, and perish, not because they never had, nor possibly could have, any interest in his atonement, but simply because they will not come unto him that they might have life.”

Here Newton argues for the general view of the atonement, that God is sovereign in salvation, that predestination of the elect is certain, that the salvation of the elect is a divine act of God, and that not all men will be saved. These things all Calvinists believe. Yet not all Calvinists believe it is right to tell unbelievers “Christ died for you” or “Christ died for your sins.” Newton believes Christ died for all men, though he does not believe Christ atones for the sins of all men. The implications of this are that Newton believes there are non-redemptive purposes for the death of Christ and hence holds to a limited application of the atonement to the elect but a universal death offered to all.

R. L. Dabney (1820-1898)

Dabney was one of the greatest and most influential Presbyterian theologians of the 19th century. He was a professor at Union Theological Seminary and later founded Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary. He was a great preacher and is hailed as a champion of old school Presbyterian Calvinism. Dabney in his Systematic Theology, wrote this in conclusion to his discussion of the nature of Christ’s sacrifice, “This seems, then, to be the candid conclusion, that there is no passage in the Bible which asserts an intention to apply redemption to any others than the elect, on the part of God and Christ, but that there are passages which imply that Christ died for all sinners in some sense, … Certainly the expiation [sacrifice] made by Christ is so related to all, irrespective of election, that God can sincerely invite all to enjoy its benefits, that every soul in the world who desires salvation is warranted to appropriate it, and that even a Judas, had he come in earnest, would not have been cast out.” Here Dabney correctly concludes that only the elect are redeemed and have their sins atoned for, but that there are texts which imply (I would say clearly state), that Jesus died for all sinners and that all are sincerely invited to be saved because he did. (Systematic Theology, 607).

C. H. Spurgeon (1834 – 1892)

Spurgeon was the greatest Baptist preacher the world has ever known. A genius, prolific writer, and the prince of preachers. Spurgeon sought to communicate all matters of theology in a simple way to the common masses. As all lovers of Spurgeon know, he prided himself in his Calvinistic theology and was a self-proclaimed Calvinist until the day of his death. In a sermon entitled “The Death of Christ” Spurgeon, reacting against the false idea that the damned can have their sins atoned for said, “Now, such an atonement I despise! I reject it. I may be called Antinomian or Calvinist for preaching a limited atonement; but I had rather believe a limited atonement that is efficacious for all men for whom it was intended, than a universal atonement that is not efficacious for anybody, except the will of man be joined with it. Why, my brethren, if we were only so far atoned for by the death of Christ that any one of us might afterwards save himself, Christ’s atonement were not worth a farthing, for there is no man of us can save himself, no not under the Gospel; for if I am to be saved by faith, if that faith is to be my own act, unassisted by the Holy Spirit, I am as unable to save myself by faith as to save myself by good works. And after all, though men call this a limited atonement, it is as effectual as their own fallacious and rotten redemptions can pretend to be.”

It is clear from many other statements Spurgeon made that he did not believe anyone could go to Hell having their sins atoned for. Yet Spurgeon did believe there were non-redemptive purposes for Christ’s death. He didn’t make the same mistake of many Calvinists and place predestination in the center of his Gospel theology. He frequently proclaimed that Christ died for all. In His work All of Grace Spurgeon appeals to the unrepentant saying, “Assuredly the contemplation of the death of Christ is one of the surest and speediest methods of gaining repentance… if you believingly think of Jesus dying for you, repentance will burst forth. Meditate on the Lord’s shedding His heart’s blood out of love to you. Set before your mind’s eye the agony and bloody sweat, the cross and passion; and, as you do this, He who was the bearer of all this grief will look at you, and with that look He will do for you what He did for Peter, so that you also will go out and weep bitterly. He who died for you can, by His gracious Spirit, make you die to sin.” Regular and frequent statements like this can be found throughout Spurgeon’s sermons from the first to the last. This can only lead us to the conclusion that Spurgeon believed Christ died for and shed his blood for both elect and non-elect. He believed in limited atonement for only the elect. He believed there were non-redemptive purposes of the atonement and preached Christ died and shed his blood for all. Thus Spurgeon held to the general view of the atonement.

William Shed (1820 – 1894)

Shed was one of the greatest systematic theologians of Calvinistic theology. After pastoring for several years Shed became professor of Bible and theology at New York’s Union Seminary. His best known work is his Dogmatic Theology. Shed wrote, “Christ's death as it relates to the claims of the law upon all mankind, cancels those claims wholly. 'It is an infinite propitiation for the sins of the whole world,”' 1Jn 2:2.” (D. T., vol 2, 437). Later he writes, “This one offering expiated ‘the sins of the whole world,’ and justice is completely satisfied in reference to them. The death of the God-man naturally and necessarily cancelled all legal claims. When a particular person trusts in this infinite atonement, and it is imputed to him by God, it then becomes his atonement for judicial purposes as really as if he had made it himself." (Ibid., p. 438). Thus Shed does not try to explain away the death of Christ for all men. His solution is a universal atonement with particular application for those who believe. Shed does fall into the camp of those who believe Christ died for all, but that only the elect have their sins atoned for.

Charles Hodge (1873 – 1966)

Charles Hodge was another very influential 20th century Presbyterian theologian. He taught exegetical and didactic theology at Princeton Seminary and labored to expound and defend what he believed was orthodox Calvinism. Concerning the crucial question “For Whom did Christ Die?” Hodge wrote in his Systematic Theology, “The whole question, therefore, concerns simply the purpose of God in the mission of His Son. What was the design of Christ’s coming into the world, and doing and suffering all He actually did and suffered? Was it merely to make the salvation of all men possible; to remove the obstacles which stood in the way of the offer of pardon and acceptance to sinners? or, Was it specially to render certain the salvation of His own people, i.e., of those given to Him by the Father?” What Hodge is asking is if there are any non-redemptive purposes for the death of Christ. Hodge goes on to answer his question, “Christ died…sufficiently for all, efficaciously only for the elect. There is a sense, therefore, in which He died for all, and there is a sense in which He died for the elect alone”(S.T., 545-546) Hodge reveals his grasp of the issue when he says, “The people of God are not justified from eternity. They do not come into this world in a justified state. They remain (if adults) in a state of condemnation until they believe.” (S. T., 472). This is a critical point of understanding for those who have problems with Jesus dying for the non-elect, for even the elect, before coming to Christ, are sinners with God’s wrath abiding on them (Jn. 3:36; Eph. 2:1-3).

Charles Hodge, though thoroughly Calvinistic, believes in the general atonement view. So the question you might be asking is why so many self-proclaimed preachers and professors of Calvinistic theology believed in the general view of the atonement? The answer is simple, it is what the Bible teaches and also what John Calvin believed.

John Calvin

Calvin was the first theologian to systematize reformation doctrines in a comprehensive way in his most famous work The Institutes of the Christian Religion. Calvin was also a faithful preacher of God’s Word and preached through virtually every book of the Bible. His written sermons are contained in 22 volumes. Calvin championed the sovereignty of God in salvation and vigorously denied that the non-elect have their sins atoned for. However he did believe that there were non-redemptive purposes for the death of Christ. Commenting on Isa. 53:12 Calvin wrote, "I approve of the ordinary reading, that he alone bore the punishment of many, because on him was laid the guilt of the whole world. It is evident from other passages, and especially from the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, that 'many' sometimes denotes 'all.'"

Commenting on Rom. 5:18 Calvin said, "For though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him."

Commenting on Gal. 1:3-5 Calvin wrote, “For the faithless have no profit at all by the death and passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, but rather are so much the more damnable, because they reject the means that God had ordained: and their unthankfulness shall be so much the more grievously punished, because they have trodden under foot the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was the ransom for their souls.”

Commenting on Mk. 14:22-26 and the shedding of blood for many Calvin wrote, “Which is shed for many.” By the word many he means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race; for he contrasts many with one; as if he had said, that he will not be the Redeemer of one man only, but will die in order to deliver many from the condemnation of the curse. It must at the same time be observed, however, that by the words for you, as related by Luke, Christ directly addresses the disciples, and exhorts every believer to apply to his own advantage the shedding of blood. Therefore, when we approach to the holy table, let us not only remember in general that the world has been redeemed by the blood of Christ, but let every one consider for himself that his own sins have been expiated.”

One might wonder if this is what Calvin believed at the end of his life. It is, for in his last will and testament he says, “I testify also and declare, that I suppliantly beg of Him, that He may be pleased so to wash and purify me in the blood which my Sovereign Redeemer has shed for the sins of the human race, that under His shadow I may be able to stand at the judgment-seat” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church).

Thus it is apparent that high-Calvinists or scholastic Calvinists who deny there are non-redemptive purposes for the death of Christ and that Christ died for all are really not Calvinists at all in their understanding of the atonement. For Calvin believed it was God’s purpose that Christ die for both the elect and non-elect, that He died to save and atone for the sins of the elect and died to shed his blood and make a universal provision that could be offered to all men, including the non-elect.

Eric Svendsen, of New Testament Research Ministries, says, “I’m convinced that Christ had a dual purpose in the atonement: one for the elect, and another for the non-elect. In the case of the elect, the atonement provides the necessary ground for redemption. In the case of the non-elect, the atonement provides the necessary ground for condemnation in the rejection of the Gospel. Further, I think the limited atonement view so focuses on the former that it neglects the latter, and in so doing unwittingly renders groundless the condemnation of the non-elect in their rejection of the Gospel. At the very least, I don’t think the limited atonement camp can any longer make the charge that every other view except five-point Calvinism posits some sort of “unfulfilled purpose” of Christ in his death and atonement.” (http://ntrminblog.blogspot.com/2005/02/limited-atonement-debate-in-historical.html)

John Newton, anticipating the objections of scholastic Calvinist’s to the teaching that Christ died for all said, “I know something of the cavils and curious reasonings which obtain upon this subject, and I know I may be pressed with difficulties, which I cannot resolve to the full satisfaction of inquiring and speculative spirits. I am not disheartened by meeting with some things beyond the grasp of my scanty powers, in a book which I believe to be inspired by Him whose ways and thoughts are higher than ours, “as the heavens are higher than earth.” But, I believe, that vain reasonings, self-will, and attachment to names and parties, and a disposition to draw our sentiments from human systems, rather than to form them by close and humble study of the Bible, with prayer for divine teaching, are the chief sources of our perplexities and disputes.” To that I say, “Amen!”

Let us believe and proclaim to all men what the Scriptures plainly teach, Jesus died and shed His blood for all men. Let us hold with certainty the sovereignty of God in salvation. Let us believe that the elect and the elect only have their sins atoned for, and that Christ died for the non-elect that the Gospel might be preached to them and so they might be judged who “do not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.”