The following is an letter I wrote to a friend who had questions about the reformed doctrine of “limited atonement.” Others have defended this distinctive of reformed Christianity more extensively and cogently. I offer this to those who may have similar questions about Christ’s atonement.
+++++++++++++++++++
Reformed theology teaches that Jesus died for a particular people. This is often called limited or particular atonement. This is established in the Bible in that every time Jesus’ death and resurrection is mentioned it speaks of redemption being accomplished (John 17:6, 9, 10; Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25). Jesus said to his disciples: “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.” (John 10:14, 15) Jesus knows his own sheep and lays his life down for them. Jesus does not die for those who are not his.
God has from the foundation of the earth ordained some to be his. Jesus would only die for those whom the Father had chosen, otherwise there would be disharmony in the holy Trinity. If the Father decrees some to be saved, Jesus the Son will accomplish salvation for them. It makes no sense for Jesus to die for those who are not elect.
Another thing to consider is that Jesus did not potentially save; he actually saved those who are elect. Those who deny particular atonement believe that Jesus died for everybody. But if this were true, then Jesus would only be a potential Savior. On this view, it would be possible for all men to reject Jesus making his death vain.
Evangelical Christians believe that Jesus’ death was substitutionary. This means that Jesus was punished for the sins of others. Does it make any sense, then, for God to punish Jesus for the sins of all men and yet send some to hell? How, for example, could have Jesus die for the sins of, say, Lenin and yet send him to hell? God does not punish the same sins twice. If Jesus really did die for everybody, then it is compulsory heaven for all. But we know this is not the case. Thus, we are forced to conclude that Jesus did not die for everybody.
But what about the verses that say Jesus died for the world? Such passages (in John especially, but in other places as well) are not referring to every individual, but to all kinds of people; people from every tribe and nation. No longer is God’s chosen people a particular tribe (the Hebrews), but all tribes.
It is really those who deny particular atonement that believe in limited atonement. Such limit Christ’s work by making his atonement merely potential. Christ’s death only potentially satisfied God’s justice toward sinful men.
Much more could be said, but I hope this gives you a basic understanding of particular atonement. And far from being cold and severe, this doctrine gives the Christian great comfort. Jesus did not die for humanity in general. He died for particular people. He died for my sins. He died for your sins. When the apostle reflected upon Christ’s atonement, he speaks in the most personal terms. “The life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.”
Turning to your other question, “is it fair that Christ dies for some and not others,” the quick answer is yes. All men deserve hell. God out of his free grace has chosen to save some. How could that be unfair? God is just in all that he does. He is surely just in punishing some while saving others. God chooses some vessels for honor and some for dishonor. That he chooses not to save all is sobering. But it is not unfair. An analogy may help. Suppose I lent two men $100 each and both defaulted. Could I not forgive the debt of one but not of the other? How would this be unfair? If this is true of men, how much more of God?
I also have used this dialogue with confused believers:
Q. When were you saved?
A. a.a.uh.uh.I guess when I ah. ah asked Jesus into my heart…
Wrong answer. You were saved when Jesus died on the cross. That is, Jesus died for you individually. If you were the only person who ever lived, Jesus would have died for you. He knew your name and every thing about you when He died. He knew you worst sins. There is never a sin you can commit which He didn’t know about and took the punishment for…(depending on the need, I develop these points further).
Isn’t that wonderful? But if this is the case, and it is, then doesn’t it make sense that this is also the case for everyone else who is also saved? But obviously not for those who aren’t saved. This is what we mean by particular atonement. It is particularly for you and everyone who is saved.
Jim — I think the point you are highlighting is that this doctrine needed not be an abstract, logic-chopping conviction, but rather has an existential and joyful aspect.
What a load of theological nonsense. This is what happens when men who are devoid of apostolic authority try to interpret the Holy Scriptures and have not the Spirit of God to guide them.
“God has from the foundation of the earth ordained some to be his. Jesus would only die for those whom the Father had chosen, otherwise there would be disharmony in the holy Trinity. If the Father decrees some to be saved, Jesus the Son will accomplish salvation for them. It makes no sense for Jesus to die for those who are not elect.”
Two problems with this idea immediately surface. It is God’s will that all be saved. This is as clear in Holy Scripture as it is that Jesus died upon the Cross for our sins.
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
This verse is problematic for the erroneous doctrine of “limited atonement” which Calvin concocted. (and which 15 centuries of Christians prior to this had never taught). In order to mitigate the force of this verse, I have heard Calvinists declare that “all” really means “all of the elect”. How special. And they claim that we Catholics play fast and loose with the Bible!!
The salvation of God is a restoring and redemption of all that was lost to mankind in the Fall. God establishes the Last Adam (1 Corin. 15:45) as the new covenantal Head over mankind, and in doing so, He reverses the effects of the Fall in the same manner in which they took place. This means that just as all mankind was separated from God in Adam (Romams 5:12) so now is all mankind reunited with God through the work of Christ.
“Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life.
Rom 5:19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”
The grammatical construct of the two verses above shows that all mankind — every man, woman, and child ever born on earth, is positively affected by the salvation work of Christ on the Cross. Of course, in typical Calvinist fashion, you will no doubt try to rework the words to make the Bible fit your soteriology, but you do so in error.
“Another thing to consider is that Jesus did not potentially save; he actually saved those who are elect. Those who deny particular atonement believe that Jesus died for everybody. But if this were true, then Jesus would only be a potential Savior. On this view, it would be possible for all men to reject Jesus making his death vain.”
Another false premise. The death of Christ Jesus restored Creation to unity with God under the federal headship of a new and Last Adam (1 Corin. 15:45) As such. Creation is regenerated (pallinogenesis) or “re-genesised”. The rejection of any of mankind of Christ’s federal headship and salvational work in no way nullifies what He accomplished.
Your view of salvation is erroneous, thereby bringing you to a false conclusion. The Cross work of Christ has succeeded. Mankind and Creation is under a new federal Head, regardless of how individual men view or treat His Kingdom.
Brother Ed
Ed:
You wrote:
If that were true, you should stop there, and direct us all to the apostolically authorized interpretation of Holy Scriptures.
Or do you claim such authority for yourself? I notice you did not stop there but proceeded with something that looked like an attempt to interpret Scripture.
Please clarify.
-Turretinfan
Excellent point, TF!
Just as Harold Camping likes to say, “Just study the Bible…read no commentaries” he in the next breath gives his own interpretation. He’s a walkin’, talkin’ commentary but doesn’t see it.
Any information which I put out is not in contradition with the official teachings of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church which our Lord founded upon St. Peter. If by chance I ever do utter anything that leaves the board in this respect, I recant in advance.
The promise of infallibility was only given to one particular person — St. Peter and his successors in the office which Jesus established upon him. The fact that there can be men who teach the strange and bizarre doctrines like Harold Camping teaches is a very clear proof that this protection of God’s Spirit does not extend out of that office.
There is nothing wrong with my presenting information which corrects Protestant errors, as long as I, unlike Protestants who cannot even agree among themselves on doctrinal points, do not usurp the authority of Truth found in the Catholic Faith.
Brother Ed
Are the popes infallible when they contradict one another?
May I have an example of such contradiction? Surely you must have something particular in mind.
Thank you.
Brother Ed
The general claim of the pope to be the universal bishop was denied by Gregory centuries ago.
At the time of the Council of Carthage, the church taught that none of the bishops were “prince of priests or first bishop.”
Honestly, I’m not qualified to go a great deal further, it just seems to me that the claim of papal infallibility and the exclusive rights of interpretation of Rome or even unanimity in doctrine are somewhat silly notions when the church’s teachings have changed (if even slightly, though I think more) over the years and various groups and individuals within the church have disagreed. How is that any different from the level of disagreement that exists in the protestant church? How does a fallible group like Rome settle the issue of disagreement? Claiming to be the final arbitor doesn’t make it so, and claiming infallibility just reduces it to a level rediculousness.
No GV, there is no similarity between the unity of doctrine within the Catholic Church, despite some areas of difference, and the overarching doctrinal chaos which is Protestantism.
For example (and a good one, I think), we have but one doctrine on baptism, that is — it saves. Yet within Protestantism, you will find a variety of teachings on what baptism is, how it is to be done, whether it saves or not (this is usually a HOT debate!) and a number of other issues.
Various groups and individuals within the Church who have disagreed with the de fide teaching of the Church have a name. They are called “heretics”. The teaching of the Church is quite plain and it is found in the Catholic Catechism. Unlike Protestantism, Catholic doctrine is not up for debate and it is not a popularity contest. You either believe it or you are a heretic in danger of damnation. Quite simple, really.
It is not a “claim” to be final arbitor. Jesus said that the Church would be built upon the rock of St. Peter, and that the Church would not be overcome by the gates of hell, which must mean that the doctrinal and moral teaching of the Petrine office must be free of error.
Can’t have it any other way.
How do you know that your chosen brand of Protestantism is 100% the right brand vs all other forms which disagree with your positions?
Brother Ed
When you say, “despite some areas of difference” is that an argument for or against doctrinal unanimity?
Actually, you do not have “one doctrine of baptism.” I don’t know much, but I know the doctrine of the “baptism of desire” for those who wanted to be baptized and couldn’t for one reason or another is not tought in Scripture. Neither is baptismal regeneration taught anymore than circumcisional regeneration. Many of the 1st century Jews were teaching such, and we have it on good authority that their souls were in great peril (Gal.1).
Further, and more in line with the original post, you spoke of the above as “a load of theological nonsense,” and yet, the writer is arguing for a sacrifice that actually saved (the writer of Hebrews says “perfected”) individuals. Rome would have us believe, contrary to the infallible book of Hebrews that Christ’s sacrifice must be repeated over and over. The problem Roman Catholics are left with is they have a sacrifice that can be repeated ad infinitum and they can partake of this sacrifice everyday of their lives and never be saved. The sacrifice of the mass never perfects anyone. This therefore cannot be the sacrifice of Christ, because it did perfect all those for whom it was given. That’s the very point of the Reformed doctrine of limited atonement.
Rome’s claims are very impressive (I for one am always impressed when fallible men have the stones to claim infallibility; that’s awesome), but I think I’ll stand where I’m at. Rome cannot claim the Scriptures as its foundation and then contradict them at such vital points.
Brother Ed,
Tim has already pointed out under a different topic (I think) that he is only willing to consider certain sects as truly Protestant. Therefore, you have no right to say that it is doctrinal chaos because the various sects are fairly uniform in doctrine.
For example, you list those people who believe that baptism saves as being Protestant. Yet, Protestants would reject that those who affirm any work-salvation are within Protestantism.
You state, “Various groups and individuals within the Church who have disagreed with the de fide teaching of the Church have a name. They are called “hereticsâ€.” Thus, you obtain a facade of unity by claiming that only those who adhere to W, X, Y, and Z are truly Catholic. Yet I know a catholic who does not adhere to the same doctrines as you do yet he still calls himself a Catholic.
Thus, it seems you are stacking the deck in your favor to say that Protestants do not have a right to define thier limits yet Catholics do. The Protsetant movement must be defined historically. An Independent-Baptist dispensationalist has cut himself off historically from Protestantism. So have the Charismatics etc… This significantly narrows the charge of chaos.
Why is your claim to unity so important? All you are saying is that those who agree with you agree with you… afterall, you cannot stop someone who disagrees with you from claiming to be a Catholic any more than I can stop an Independent-Baptist disper from calling himself Protestant. Does mere numerical agreement prove anything? After all, all Protestants agree about one thing: Roman Catholicism is not the true Church…. but what have I just demonstrated, other than a psychological state?
P.S. If you claim that unity is a mark of the true Church then all that means is that perhaps the Orthodox Presbyterians are part of the true Church since they have unity. “Ah” you say, “but they are not unified with the Roman Catholic church!” But this is to beg the question… I understand that you may argue the point on other grounds (historical veracity) but my point is to get you off of your “unity soapbox.” It really means nothing in itself.
Falwell loved Israel, but hated biblical truth.
I have two questions for Brother Ed. I have been baptized into the trinity as a young child in a protestant church, I believe that Christ died for me, and I know far more Bible and doctrine (right and wrong) than any Catholic I have ever met. I am Protestant. One, what must I do to be saved?, and two, are all those Catholic know nothings who go to Mass that I know saved or lost?
Jim
Turretinfan wrote:
“If that were true, you should stop there, and direct us all to the apostolically authorized interpretation of Holy Scriptures.
Or do you claim such authority for yourself? I notice you did not stop there but proceeded with something that looked like an attempt to interpret Scripture.
Please clarify.”
My answer runs thus:
The scriptures were not “canonized” by the Apostles….or even the generation that immediately proceeded them. The documents existed in the Church, to be sure, for a variety of reasons and purposes. But it would be another 250 years later that the scriptures would be collected and authorized qua Apostolic authority. In the midst of various documents that contended for such authority, the Church only gave assent to the writings that now make up our 27 books of the New Testament.
Furthermore, the Church did give an interpretation to the Apostolic authority by it’s construction of the Creed (Nicene)….and the theological terminology (like “Trinity”) that continue to remain standards in discussions of Christianity.
So, it is right to say that the Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Church hold the “keys”…..by the Word of God Himself who promised them such.
Interestingly, the doctrine of “particular” redemption is conspicuously absent from the writings of the post-Apostolic Fathers of the Church, until Augustine.
There is consistent testimony against this doctrine, but I will only cite a few.
Hear what St. Clement, a companion and minister of St. Paul, has to say concerning “particular” redemption:
“Let us look steadfastly to the blood of Christ, and see how precious that blood is to God, which, having been shed for our salvation, has set the grace of repentance before the whole world”
from–First Epistle of Clement
Or Justin Martyr:
“For Christ called not the just nor the chaste to repentance, but the ungodly, and the licentious, and the unjust; His words being, ‘I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.’ For the heavenly Father desires rather the repentance than the punishment of the sinner.”
from–First Apology of Justin Martyr
Or Irenaeus:
“And from this fact, that He exclaimed upon the cross, ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,’ the long-suffering, patience, compassion, and goodness of Christ are exhibited, since He both suffered, and did Himself exculpate those who had maltreated Him. For the Word of God, who said to us, ‘Love your enemies, and pray for those that hate you,’ Himself did this very thing upon the cross; loving the human race to such a degree, that He even prayed for those putting Him do death.”
from–“Against Heresies”
Or Athanasius:
“For His it was once more both to bring the corruptible to incorruption, and to maintain intact the just claim of the Father upon all. For being Word of the Father, and above all, He alone of natural fitness was both able to recreate everything, and worthy to suffer on behalf of all and to be ambassador for all with the Father”
from–“Incarnation of the Word”
Athanasius completes this chain of testimony, being himself a participant in the Council that decided upon the issue of the N.T. “canon” (Nicea, 325 A.D.).
I would like to know how the Reformation can have anything approaching “authority”, since it came 1200 years, or so, after the fact?
As far as the truth is concerned, the Reformation offered it’s own jaundiced hermeneutics as the foundation for it’s own system of theology…divorced from any historical tie with the Apostolic tradition; a “tradition”, that I already noted, which gave us the scriptures.
Appealing to the scriptures as the “final authority” makes little sense, since heretics always appeal to the scriptures. The real question of debate is over which “hermenetical” tradition would be closer to exemplifying the correct understanding of Christian doctrine: the one immediately proceeding the Apostles–some of whom were associates of the Apostles, like Clement and Polycarp–or the one 1400 years after the fact? Do we take the “lens” and testimony of the Church Fathers or the “lens” and testimony of the Reformers?
Gregory — of course heretics appeal to Scripture — because they know that everything stands or falls at that point.
The glaring contradiction that your school misses is that your pointing to the fathers for authoritative interpretation is quite different from the authority pointed to by the fathers themselves. You say (for example), “X is true because Athanasius said it,” while Athanasius said, “X is true because the Scripture teaches X.” Athanasius did not say, “X is true because Athanasius believes X.”
You are therefore at fundamental odds with the orientation of the fathers, while we stand with them at that most critical point.
As to the specific issue of particular redemption, your citations make the same mistake that Wesley in his polemical essay on the subject made in his endless listing of defeater-texts from the Bible. But they only defeat if the meaning of the text is actually contradictory to the doctrine, and therein is where the discussion should begin, not end. See John Murray’s essay on the free offer of the gospel, for example, to discover the richness of the Reformed view on these matters.