The ‘L’ in TULIP: Limited Atonement, Part 4

November, 2007

by: Jack Hughes

• Calvanism

In this Calvary Review we continue to look at the atonement, one of the key doctrines in what is often referred to as the five points of Calvinism. Because the subject is weighty and we have already covered so much ground, it would be best to get up to speed on the subject by looking at the previous Calvary Review articles. We have looked at the history and origin of the five points of Calvinism or what is often referred to as “T.U.L.I.P.”, a mnemonic where each letter stands for one of five key doctrines. In the previous Calvary Review we started looking at various texts, some which seem to indicate that Jesus died for the elect only and others which indicate Jesus died for all.

We have pointed out that some in attempting to maintain a certain theological system often reject the plain meaning and best interpretation of those texts which infringe upon their system. While it is good to be able to defend one’s theological system it is not good to defend it at the expense of what the Scriptures plainly teach. The Scriptures must be the source of our theological system not the verbal dough we push through the cookie cutter of our system to make the Bible say what we want.

We also noted that people are often quick to impose certain definitions on phrases or words and different people often impose different meanings on the same words which makes discussion impossible. So we must be careful not to assume that words or phrases such as “die for,” “redeem,” “propitiation,” “Savior,” etc. are equivalent to “atoned for.” While it is certain that those who are saved receive atonement, it is not true that in order to offer salvation, atonement for sins must be received. Even the elect do not receive atonement for sins until after they believe. (See previous reviews)

So we looked at multiple texts which teach that Jesus died for some (e.g., Mt. 26:28; Jn. 10:15-16; Acts 20:28; Rom. 5:8; Heb. 9:28). Then we looked at texts that indicate Jesus died for all or everyone. These texts fall into two categories. Texts that use universal terms such as “all,” “every,” “everyone,” “anyone,” “whosoever,” etc., in which the context argues for “all” of a certain category and secondly the texts that use those same terms but which are best understood to mean everyone. Among the first group we looked at Rom. 8:32-33; II Cor. 5:14-15; II Pet. 3:9. All of these texts use universal terms but their contexts push us to take the interpretation that all of a certain category is being discussed, namely the elect.

Then we started to look at terms that seem to be more universal such as the word “world” and looked at Jn. 1:29; 4:42; I Jn. 2:1-2; 4:14. Again, context determines the meaning of any word and in the case of the texts above, the word “world” is used in a general sense. Jesus is “the Savior of the world,” not because He actually saves everyone, but because He is offered to the entire world as Savior. This then argues for the view that Jesus’ death made universal provision for all, since the Gospel is offered to all, though only the elect receive the benefits of Jesus’ atoning death.

We ended the last Calvary Review discussing texts which argue that Jesus died for all men (not to be confused with “died to save all men”). Keep in mind that we are looking to see if the Scriptures teach that Jesus died for all men universally. Not to save all men, but to make a provision that was sufficient for all, which could be legitimately offered to all, and by which men could be judged for not receiving. We only had time to look at Isa. 53:6. So we continue looking at texts which argue for Jesus dying for all men universally.

In I Tim. 2:1-6 Paul uses the word “all” universally when he writes, “First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.”

This text cannot be skirted around. There is a very strong contextual precedent for taking “all” as meaning everyone universally. When Paul speaks of praying for “all men” he means everyone without qualification. When Paul says pray “for kings and all who are in authority” he means every leader without qualification. When he says “all godliness and dignity” he means godliness to the fullest degree. None of the first four uses can mean “some.” Then comes the statement that God desires “all men to be saved” and that Jesus “gave himself a ransom for all.” It is best to take the latter uses of “all” the same way as they are used in the near preceding context. Paul is talking about all men universally, not some. God desires every single person to be saved. This is not to be confused with God’s absolute will of election, but His desirous will. Secondly, Paul says Jesus gave himself a ransom for all. This does not mean that Jesus redeems all, but that He made a redeeming provision sufficient for all and which is offered to all in the Gospel.

In I Tim. 4:10 Paul says, “For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.” Of course Paul does not mean that Jesus saves everyone. It could be argued to mean that Jesus preserves and sustains all men and in that way is their Savior, but this is not what Paul labored to accomplish. Paul labored and strove to see people saved. Jesus is the Savior of all men potentially, as His death is sufficient for all and offered to all. Paul says something similar in Tit. 2:11 where he writes, “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men” and goes on to explain the demands of the Gospel upon those who receive it which is repentance from sin and obedience to Christ. Salvation is offered to all men. The only way that salvation can be offered to all is if Jesus died for all, otherwise there would be no Gospel to offer.

Even more compelling to the argument that Jesus died for all is an examination of texts that use “whosoever,” “everyone,” “anyone” and similar terms. For instance, in the oft quoted text of Jn. 3:16-17 Jesus says to Nicodemus, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.” Here you have the term “world” as discussed above but also the term “whoever.” Here Jesus makes it clear that God gave Jesus to the world that “whoever believes” would not perish. While it is agreed that only the elect believe, the offer is made to “whosoever.”

Luke writes something similar in Acts 2:21 where he says, “And it shall be that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Paul says something similar in Rom. 10:13 where he says, “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Or in Heb. 2:9 where the author of Hebrews says, “But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.” John in Rev. 22:17 uses some similar phrasing when he writes, “The Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come.’ And let the one who hears say, ‘Come.’ And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.” Here the Holy Spirit and the bride of Christ, the church, are speaking to “the one who hears,”“the one who is thirsty,” and “the one who wishes” giving a universal call to all men to receive salvation in Christ. The phraseology is similar to that found in Isa. 55:1-2 where Isaiah writes, “Ho! Every one who thirsts, come to the waters; And you who have no money come, buy and eat. Come, buy wine and milk Without money and without cost. Why do you spend money for what is not bread, And your wages for what does not satisfy? Listen carefully to Me, and eat what is good, And delight yourself in abundance.” The Gospel is offered freely to “every one” and the Gospel is that Jesus died for our sins, was buried, and rose again on the third day. Jesus’ death made a provision that was sufficient for all and offered to all.

As mentioned earlier you either have to attempt to explain away what these texts and others like them mean, or you have to figure out how only the elect receive atonement and how all are offered salvation by grace, through faith in the Gospel. Some, who claim to be Calvinists, deny that Christ died for all. They would object to telling a group of unbelievers that God loves them or that Christ died on the cross and shed his blood for them. Yet this is what the Scriptures teach. Jesus died for all. Jesus offers the free gift of eternal life to all. Jesus saves and atones for the sins of those who believe, the elect. Those who do not believe, He judges for rejecting the Gospel and the offer of salvation extended to them.

So what do we call this view of the atonement? It is not the limited atonement view presented by many who fancy themselves to be followers of John Calvin, nor is it universalism which argues that all men are saved and all men have their sins atoned for in Christ. The view is described by some as “The General Redemption” view of the atonement.

Walter Elwell in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology defines general redemption saying, “The doctrine of general redemption argues that the death of Christ was designed to include all mankind, whether or not all believe. To those who savingly believe it is redemptively applied, and to those who do not believe it provides the benefits of common grace and the removal of any excuse for being lost. God loved them and Christ died for them; they are lost because they refuse to accept the salvation that is sincerely offered to them in Christ” (pg. 99).

Elwell then goes on to give eight arguments for holding to general redemption. First, it is the historic view of the Church (to be discussed in the next Calvary Review). Second, “when the Bible says Christ died for all it means just that. The Word aught to be taken in its normal sense unless some compelling reason exists to take it otherwise, and no such reason exists.” Third, the Bible says Jesus “takes away the sin of the world” and is “the Savior of the world” and there is no place in the New Testament where the word “world” means “church” or “elect.” Fourth, just because the Bible teaches that Christ died for all does not mean that all are saved. “One must believe in Christ to be saved, so the fact that Christ died for the world apparently does not secure the salvation of all. Those who assert this are simply wrong.” Fifth, “God is not unfair in condemning those who reject the offer of salvation.” He is not punishing Christ for sins the first time and the unbeliever the second time. “Because the nonbeliever refuses to accept the death of Christ as his own, the benefits of Christ’s death are not applied to him. He is lost, not because Christ did not die for him, but because he refuses God’s offer of forgiveness.” Sixth, it is unattested that Christ died for believers. “But it would have to be shown that Christ died only for them. No one denies Christ died for them. It is only denied that Christ died exclusively for them.” Seventh, the Bible says that Christ died for sinners, which includes everyone (e.g., I Tim. 1:15; Rom. 5:6-8). Finally, “God sincerely offers the Gospel to everyone to believe, not just the elect. How could this be true if Christ did not actually die for everyone. . . Even Berkhof, a staunch defender of limited atonement, admits, “It need not be denied that there is a real difficulty at this point (Systematic Theology, p. 462).””

So we have to take some time to work through the various scriptural issues related to the atonement, arguing for general redemption, which actually includes limited atonement or atonement of the elect and the elect only. Yet there are a few more stones that need to be overturned, namely, who in church history has believed this view and did Calvin actually teach the strict view of the atonement which some of his followers claim he did? Until next time, remember that Christ died for you!