A Thought Provoking
Introduction to
the Extent of the Atonement:
By
Jack Kettler
The doctrine of limited atonement or
particular redemption will be the focus of
this brief introductory and hopefully
thought-provoking look at the extent of
Christ's atonement. The doctrine of limited
atonement may be an emotional shock
to some. Unfortunately, it is usually the
case, that those who disagree with
the Biblical doctrine of limited atonement
assume their position to be true and
then fall back on emotionalism when
challenged. What must be determined however
is if this teaching is Scriptural? At the
end of this study, I will provide
links to classic Reformed studies on this
topic that will provide meat for the
serious student of God's Word.
The word atonement covers words that we find
in Scripture such as redemption,
redeem, purchase, satisfy, propitiation, and
ransom. In addition, theologians
use the word “substitutionary” or
“vicarious” to describe Christ’s atonement.
Atonement, in essence means acting on behalf
of or representing another. At the
most fundamental level, God has acted to
bring reconciliation and salvation to
lost sinners. Was this atonement universal
in scope or limited? Does Christ's
atoning death save everyone? Alternatively,
is the atonement limited in scope,
only to those who believe? If you believe
that Christ's death was universal in
scope, you are forced to limit its
effectiveness to actually save anyone.
Did Christ die for everyone's sins on the
cross? Many modern-day evangelicals
would “yes” to this. When asked, does this
mean that everyone will go to
heaven, they say emphatically no because not
everyone has faith. Is this lack
of faith or unbelief a sin? If so, is it a
sin that Christ died for on the
cross? If this sin of unbelief is a sin
along with all other sins that were
atoned for by Christ's death, certainly,
this means that everyone is going to
heaven? If you would say no, not everyone is
not going to heaven, then you must
answer, what sins are still unaccounted for
that would prevent someone from
going to heaven? Again, is unbelief a sin
that Christ died for, or not? A
person who believes in a universal unlimited
atonement is trapped in an
inescapable circle of un-biblical thought
and robs the Biblical words that
cover the concept of the atonement of all
meaning. In essence, the system of
universal atonement, however emotionally
pleasing as it may sound, saves no
one.
The atonement is a historical fact. It is
something that is objectively real.
It is a completed accomplished fact. The
atonement has a specific design to it.
It is limited to whom it is designed for.
The atonement is efficient to save
those to whom it was intended. Limited
atonement or particular redemption
expresses the Biblical concept that Christ's
redeeming work was intended to
save God's elect, and secures salvation for
them, not just hypothetically.
The famous Baptist preacher, Charles
Haddon Spurgeon, makes a strong case for
limited atonement by exposing the affront
to Divine justice universal atonement
implies:
Some persons love the doctrine of
universal atonement because they say,
"It is so beautiful. It is a lovely idea
that Christ should have died for
all men; it commends itself," they say,
"to the instincts of
humanity; there is something in it full of
joy and beauty." I admit there
is, but beauty may be often associated
with falsehood. There is much which I
might admire in the theory of universal
redemption, but I will just show what
the supposition necessarily involves. If
Christ on His cross intended to save
every man, then He intended to save those
who were lost before he died. If the
doctrine be true, that He died for all
men, then He died for some who were in
hell before He came into this world, for
doubtless there were even then myriads
there who had been cast away because of
their sins. Once again, if it was
Christ's intention to save all men, how
deplorably has He been disappointed,
for we have His own testimony that there
is a lake which burneth with fire and
brimstone, and into that pit of woe have
been cast some of the very person who,
according to the theory of universal
redemption, were bought with His blood.
That seems to me a conception a thousand
times more repulsive than any of those
consequences which are said to be
associated with the Calvinistic and
Christian
doctrine of special and particular
redemption. To think that my Saviour died
for men who were or are in hell, seems a
supposition too horrible for me to
entertain. To imagine for a moment that He
was the substitute for all the sons
of men, and that God, having first
punished the Substitute, afterwards
punished
the sinners themselves, seems to conflict
with all my ideas of Divine justice.
That Christ should offer an atonement and
satisfaction for the sins of all men,
and that afterwards some of those very men
should be punished for the sins for
which Christ had already atoned, appears
to me to be the most monstrous
iniquity that could ever be imputed to
Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of the
Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen
deities. God forbid that we should
ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and
wise and good! (1)
The following Scriptures
establish
what is known as particular or definite
redemption:
“Surely he hath borne our griefs, and
carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem
him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our
transgressions;
he was bruised for our iniquities:
the chastisement of our peace was
upon him; and with his stripes we are
healed.” (Isaiah 53:4-5) (Underlining
emphasis mine)
Christ was wounded for our
transgressions, not everyone's.
“He shall see of the travail of his soul,
and shall be satisfied: by his
knowledge shall my righteous servant justify
many; for he shall bear
their iniquities. Therefore will I
divide him a portion with the great, and
he shall divide the spoil with the strong;
because he hath poured out his soul
unto death: and he was numbered with the
transgressors; and he bare the sin
of many, and made intercession for the
transgressors.” (Isaiah 53:11-12)
We see explicit qualifiers in these two
passages that restrict Christ's death,
using words like many (not all) bare
their (again, not all).
“And she shall bring forth a son, and thou
shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall
save his people from their sins.”
(Matthew 1:21)
Matthew could not be clearer; Jesus “shall
save his people.” Jesus
effectively paid for the sins of His people.
“Even as the Son of man came not to be
ministered unto, but to minister, and to
give his life a ransom for many.”
(Matthew 20:28)
The Son of man came to be “a ransom for
many” (not all).
“For this is my blood of the new testament,
which is shed for many for
the remission of sins.” (Matthew 26:28)
“And he said unto them, this is my blood of
the new testament, which is shed
for many.” (Mark 14:24)
In these two passages, Christ says His blood
is shed for many (not
everyone). If Christ's atonement was
universal, this type of restrictive
language makes no sense.
“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)
Christ lays down His life for the sheep,
not the goats.
“I have manifested thy name unto the men
which thou gavest me out of the world:
thine they were, and thou gavest them me;
and they have kept thy word....I pray
for them: I pray not for the world, but
for them which thou hast given me;
for they are thine....And all mine are
thine, and thine are mine; and I am
glorified in them....And for their sakes I
sanctify myself, that they
also might be sanctified through the
truth....Neither pray I for these alone,
but for them also which shall believe on me
through their word....Father, I
will that they also, whom thou hast
given me, be with me where I am;
that they may behold my glory, which thou
hast given me: for thou lovedst me
before the foundation of the world.” (John
17:6, 9-10, 19, 20, 24)
Christ's high priestly intercessory prayer
is for those (they) whom the Father
had given Him. Not every person who has ever
lived or will live.
“And when the Gentiles heard this, they were
glad, and glorified the word of
the Lord: and as many as were ordained
to eternal life believed.” (Acts
13:48)
Only those who were ordained to eternal
life believed. Christ's atoning
sacrifice was intended for and effective for
those who were ordained to eternal
life.
“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to
all the flock, over which The Holy
Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the
church of God, which he hath
purchased with his own blood.” (Acts
20:28)
The Church, not the world is
purchased with his own blood.
“He that spared not his own Son, but
delivered him up for us [elect] all,
how shall he not with him also freely give
us all things?” (Romans 8:32)
God delivered up his Son for us all,
the elect.
“But we speak the wisdom of God in a
mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God
ordained before the world unto our glory.”
(1 Corinthians 2:7)
“For he hath made him to be sin for us,
who knew no sin, that we might
be made the righteousness of God in him.” (2
Corinthians 5:21)
Christ bears the sins of His people by
actually paying for our sins to the
satisfaction of the Father.
“In whom we have redemption through his
blood, the forgiveness of sins,
according to the riches of his grace.”
(Ephesians 1:7)
Our redemption involves the delivering us
from our sins. Christ's blood was the
redemption price that paid for our salvation
according to the riches of his
grace. This redemption is real and effective
for those for whom it was
intended.
“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ,
also loved the church, and gave
himself for it.” (Ephesians 5:25)
Christ gave himself for the His Church, not
everyone indiscriminately.
As noted in the underlining from the above
Scriptural passages, it is quite
clear that the design of the atonement was
limited. Christ died for His people,
i.e. the church. In John chapter seventeen,
the intercessory prayer of the Lord
Jesus Christ was restricted to His people.
It was not a universal prayer for
every person on earth.
An Objection to this teaching:
The most common argument against the
doctrine of limited atonement are passages
that speak of Christ’s atoning death in a
universal sense. Some passages of
this nature are where the apostle says; and
he is the propitiation for our:
and not for ours only, but also for the
sins of the whole world in 1 John
2:2. The apostle also tells us that Jesus is
called the Saviour of the world
in John 4:42, and in another passage; The
next day John seeth Jesus coming
unto him and saith, Behold the Lamb of
God, which taketh away the sin of the
world John 1:29. The apostle Paul also
appears to suggest a universal view
of the atonement when he says: Who gave
himself a ransom for all 1
Timothy 2:6.
It should be noted, that these verses are
easily found to be in harmony with
other passages that support the doctrine of
limited atonement by understanding
that the Scriptures use the words; “world,”
or “all” in a restricted
or qualified sense. There is nothing in the
larger context of Scripture that
demands these passages have to mean every
person in the whole world. This is
unmistakable, especially when other
Scriptural passages are taken into account
that act as qualifiers. For example, we see
that; and it came to pass in
those days, that there went out a decree
from Caesar Augustus that all the
world should be taxed Luke 2:1, And
all went to be taxed, every one into
his own city Luke 2:3. Obviously,
these passages could not be talking about
every individual in the whole world. This
decree of Caesar did not pertain to
the indigenous Indians in the Americas and
to those in Africa. To think so,
would be absurd.
Moreover, when the Pharisees said; do
you see how you can do nothing? Behold,
the world is gone after him in John
12:19, can anyone maintain that every
person in the world went after or followed
Christ? Clearly, there is a
restriction or limit to the word “world.”
The word “world” by the
context has to be limited to what happening
in the nation of Israel during the
First-Century. It should be abundantly clear
that the word or phrases “all”
or “all the world” do not mean every
person on the planet. These types
of objections fail to mitigate against the
doctrine of limited atonement
because it takes certain words out of
context by forcing an absolute universal
meaning onto the words.
In the beginning, the question was raised,
did Jesus die for everyone's sins,
and how everyone who affirms this is trapped
into a circle of contradictory
thought by saying that non-belief keeps men
from going to heaven even though
Christ died for the sin of non-belief. The
Puritan, John Owen, raised these
questions with far greater precision, which
proves the atonement properly
understood could not be universal in scope,
and if so, efficient to save
anyone. I would encourage those who doubt
this teaching on the extent of the
atonement to read John Owen's “The Death
of Death in the Death of Christ”
This work has never been refuted by any
Universalist, Arminian, as well as
Semi-Pelagians.
Consider just one of John Owen's
arguments:
The Father imposed His wrath
due
unto, and the Son underwent punishment
for, either:
1. All the sins of all men.
2. All the sins of some men, or
3. Some of the sins of all men.
In which case it may be said:
That if the last be true, all men have
some sins to answer for, and so, none
are saved.
That if the second be true, then Christ,
in their stead suffered for all the
sins of all the elect in the whole world,
and this is the truth.
But if the first be the case, why are not
all men free from the punishment due
unto their sins?
You answer, “Because of unbelief.”
I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it
not? If it be, then Christ suffered the
punishment due unto it, or He did not. If
He did, why must that hinder them
more than their other sins for which He
died? If He did not, He did not die for
all their sins! (2)
It may be objected that this is
a
logical argument. In response it could be
said, so what? It should be noted
that this objection does not disprove the
argument, it is merely question
begging. Owen's work is the most thorough
biblical examination of the extent of
the atonement on this subject ever printed.
The claims of ignorance by
Arminian, Semi-Pelagians concerning the
existence of this work and this
particular argument is not a substitute for
refuting it.
In conclusion, it can be said that God who
determines that certain ones will be
saved because of His election limits the
atonement to those whom it is intended.
God determined that Christ should die for
the elect alone. All whom God has
elected and Christ died for will be saved or
as stated: “Neither are any other
redeemed by Christ, effectually called,
justified, adopted, sanctified, and
saved, but the elect only.” (Chapter 3,
paragraph 6 of the Westminster
Confession of Faith)
“Blessed art thou, O LORD:
teach me
thy statutes.” (Psalm 119:12)
“Study to shew thyself approved
unto
God, a workman that needeth not to be
ashamed, rightly dividing the word of
truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Notes:
1. Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Autobiography,
2 Volumes, (Edinburgh:
Banner of Truth Trust, 1962), 1:172.
2. John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of
Christ, (Edinburgh, Banner of
Truth), pp. 173, 174.
“To God, only wise, be glory
through
Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans 16:27)
and “heirs according to the promise.”
(Galatians 3:28, 29)
Mr. Kettler has previously
published
articles in the Chalcedon
Report and Contra
Mundum. He and his wife Marea
attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. He
served as an ordained ruling elder
in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. He
worked in and retired from a fortune
five hundred company in corporate America
after forty years. He runs two blogs
sites and is the author of the book
defending the Reformed Faith against
attacks, titled: The
Religion That
Started in a Hat. Available at:
www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com
The serious reader should
take advantage
of the material that can be accessed at
the following links: