Limited Atonement:
Limited atonement declares that the mission and death of Christ was restricted to a limited number—to his people, to his sheep.[1]
In other words, the Calvinist believes that Christ died only for the elect, those predestined to salvation from the foundation of the world. This, of course, would be logical if the first two points, total depravity and unconditional election, were true. If God decided who was going to be saved, why would Jesus die for anyone else? And it seems that Calvinists rarely, if ever, use Scripture to back up this tenet, choosing merely to point to the logical demands for it. Since their first two points actually aren’t true, an appeal to logical consistency fails. The premise upon which they build their arguments has already crumbled, so this house of cards is easily blown away.
What the Calvinists prefer to do is defend their position against the Bible passages that prove it to be false, and they attack opposing views by saying that a universal atonement can’t be true because not everyone is saved.
For example, the following verse indicates that Christ died for all.
He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. (1 John 2:2)
Let’s look at R.C. Sproul’s explanation, and I’ll comment on it as we go.
The world for whom Christ died cannot mean the entire human family. It must refer to the universality of the elect (People from every tribe and nation) or the inclusion of Gentiles in addition to the world of the Jews. It was a Jew who wrote that Jesus did not die merely for our sins but for the sins of the whole world. Does the word our refer to believers or to believing Jews?
We must remember that one of the cardinal points of the New Testament concerned the inclusion of the Gentiles in God’s plan of salvation. Salvation was of the Jews but not restricted to the Jews. Wherever it is said that Christ died for all, some limitation must be added or the conclusion would have to be universalism or a mere potential atonement.[2]
Sproul tries to make us believe that “whole world” means the world outside of Judaism, that John means something to the effect of “other nations besides the Jews.” Does John say that? Not at all. Where in the context does he refer to Jews and Gentiles? Nowhere. Sproul has to conjure this meaning in order to make it fit his system. When the Scripture writers wished to make the Israel versus Gentiles distinction, they were quite capable of doing so. For example:
Is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one. (Romans 3:29-30)
This is the blatant error that Calvinists so often commit, making unreasonable assertions about Scripture and indefensible insertions into Scripture in order to make the Bible fit their preconceived notions. Why not allow the Scripture to create and inform our system rather than the other way around?
As we continue to look at Sproul’s argument we should ask, why can’t “world” mean the entire human family? Because, according to Sproul, it would necessitate either universalism or potential atonement. Universalism means that everyone is saved, while potential atonement means that Christ died for people who might or might not be saved. Universalism is easily refuted from Scripture; clearly not everyone is saved. Potential atonement, however, is exactly what is , that Christ died so that everyone has the opportunity to be saved, though not all will respond to God’s gracious offer.
Such a notion is scandalous to the Calvinist. That God’s desire could somehow be thwarted by man’s decision is beyond their comprehension. As Sproul goes on to explain.
Christ’s atonement was real. It effected all that God and Jesus intended by it. The design of God was not and cannot be frustrated by human unbelief. The sovereign God sovereignly sent his Son to atone for his people.[3]
But God is often frustrated by human unbelief. The Bible is bursting with examples.
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. (Matthew 23:37)
Wasn’t God frustrated with obstinate Israel in the wilderness, in their desire for a king, and in their response to the Babylonian invasion? Of course He was. God’s desire for obedience is often thwarted, and His desire for each person to be saved is often unrealized. But God’s ultimate purpose is never thwarted.
Sproul continues:
Our election is in Christ. We are saved by him, in him, and for him. The motive for our salvation is not merely the love God has for us. It is especially grounded in the love the Father has for the Son. God insists that his Son will see the travail of his soul and be satisfied. There never has been the slightest possibility that Christ could have died in vain. If man is truly dead in sin and in bondage to sin, a mere potential or conditional atonement not only may have ended in failure but most certainly would have ended in failure. Arminians have no sound reason to believe that Jesus did not die in vain. They are left with a Christ who tried to save everybody but actually saved nobody.[4]
Here we see Sproul appealing to the logical conclusion of his system, that if man is truly dead in sin, at least in the Total Depravity of Man view, then no one would ever come to faith. The strangeness of this argument is that he juxtaposes two opposing systems in order to argue for his own. In other words, he says something like this. “Arminians have no sound reason to believe that Jesus did not die in vain, because since man is Totally Depraved, none would ever come to faith.” But we deny Total Depravity! Those who oppose Calvinism (Arminians and others) have sound reason, because we don’t agree with Calvinist notions. We believe man is capable of responding to the gracious offering of salvation. Sproul’s is actually a rather confused argument and points out his inability to see outside his tightly sealed systematic box.
(Note: Calvinists tend to label as Arminians all who oppose their beliefs. This is a faulty notion. Not all who oppose Calvinism are Arminians. I am not one. This is another Calvinist fallacy.)
It is true that God’s ultimate design is not thwarted. God has graciously offered salvation to all by freely giving His Son in painful, bloody sacrifice. All who respond in faith are saved. This is God’s purpose, that all who call upon His name be brought to salvation. And in this, God’s desire NEVER fails. He never fails in saving someone who lifts up his hands in repentance. His saving arm never loses its power in pulling a soul from the pits of sin. His sturdy grip never releases a man who keeps his feet firmly on the path of life.
The atonement is potential in that it is potentially available to all. Not all respond. The atonement is not, however, unlimited in its effect. It is not automatically conferred upon people who do not respond.
Jesus Christ died in order to allow anyone who comes to Him in faith to be saved. That this sacrificial grace is available to everyone in the world is abundantly clear in Scripture, and efforts to prove otherwise fail, exposed as efforts to preserve a doctrinal system by adding words and notions that don’t exist in the Bible.
John 3:16
16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Whom does God love? Only the elect? That's what Calvinists believe, but the verse says nothing of the sort. Those roads have to be blatantly inserted in order to fit their system.
1 Timothy 2:1-6
2:1 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. 3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony borne at the proper time.
Whom does God desire to be saved? All men. Again, the Calvinists have to insert words to make phrases that fit their system, such as "all elect men." Such a notion isn't there.
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
Does God want all to come to repentance or only the elect? The text says all, but the Calvinists add words to make it say "all the elect" or something similar.
Again, the Calvinists have no Scripture to back up the notion that Jesus died only for the elect. They rely instead on logical inference, that since, according to them, the first two points are true, then this one must be true as well. Yet, the first two points aren't true, and the Scriptures deny the third, so this idea that Jesus died only for the elect is hereby refuted.
[1] Chosen by God page 205.
[2] Chosen by God pages 206-207.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
Limited atonement declares that the mission and death of Christ was restricted to a limited number—to his people, to his sheep.[1]
In other words, the Calvinist believes that Christ died only for the elect, those predestined to salvation from the foundation of the world. This, of course, would be logical if the first two points, total depravity and unconditional election, were true. If God decided who was going to be saved, why would Jesus die for anyone else? And it seems that Calvinists rarely, if ever, use Scripture to back up this tenet, choosing merely to point to the logical demands for it. Since their first two points actually aren’t true, an appeal to logical consistency fails. The premise upon which they build their arguments has already crumbled, so this house of cards is easily blown away.
What the Calvinists prefer to do is defend their position against the Bible passages that prove it to be false, and they attack opposing views by saying that a universal atonement can’t be true because not everyone is saved.
For example, the following verse indicates that Christ died for all.
He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. (1 John 2:2)
Let’s look at R.C. Sproul’s explanation, and I’ll comment on it as we go.
The world for whom Christ died cannot mean the entire human family. It must refer to the universality of the elect (People from every tribe and nation) or the inclusion of Gentiles in addition to the world of the Jews. It was a Jew who wrote that Jesus did not die merely for our sins but for the sins of the whole world. Does the word our refer to believers or to believing Jews?
We must remember that one of the cardinal points of the New Testament concerned the inclusion of the Gentiles in God’s plan of salvation. Salvation was of the Jews but not restricted to the Jews. Wherever it is said that Christ died for all, some limitation must be added or the conclusion would have to be universalism or a mere potential atonement.[2]
Sproul tries to make us believe that “whole world” means the world outside of Judaism, that John means something to the effect of “other nations besides the Jews.” Does John say that? Not at all. Where in the context does he refer to Jews and Gentiles? Nowhere. Sproul has to conjure this meaning in order to make it fit his system. When the Scripture writers wished to make the Israel versus Gentiles distinction, they were quite capable of doing so. For example:
Is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one. (Romans 3:29-30)
This is the blatant error that Calvinists so often commit, making unreasonable assertions about Scripture and indefensible insertions into Scripture in order to make the Bible fit their preconceived notions. Why not allow the Scripture to create and inform our system rather than the other way around?
As we continue to look at Sproul’s argument we should ask, why can’t “world” mean the entire human family? Because, according to Sproul, it would necessitate either universalism or potential atonement. Universalism means that everyone is saved, while potential atonement means that Christ died for people who might or might not be saved. Universalism is easily refuted from Scripture; clearly not everyone is saved. Potential atonement, however, is exactly what is , that Christ died so that everyone has the opportunity to be saved, though not all will respond to God’s gracious offer.
Such a notion is scandalous to the Calvinist. That God’s desire could somehow be thwarted by man’s decision is beyond their comprehension. As Sproul goes on to explain.
Christ’s atonement was real. It effected all that God and Jesus intended by it. The design of God was not and cannot be frustrated by human unbelief. The sovereign God sovereignly sent his Son to atone for his people.[3]
But God is often frustrated by human unbelief. The Bible is bursting with examples.
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. (Matthew 23:37)
Wasn’t God frustrated with obstinate Israel in the wilderness, in their desire for a king, and in their response to the Babylonian invasion? Of course He was. God’s desire for obedience is often thwarted, and His desire for each person to be saved is often unrealized. But God’s ultimate purpose is never thwarted.
Sproul continues:
Our election is in Christ. We are saved by him, in him, and for him. The motive for our salvation is not merely the love God has for us. It is especially grounded in the love the Father has for the Son. God insists that his Son will see the travail of his soul and be satisfied. There never has been the slightest possibility that Christ could have died in vain. If man is truly dead in sin and in bondage to sin, a mere potential or conditional atonement not only may have ended in failure but most certainly would have ended in failure. Arminians have no sound reason to believe that Jesus did not die in vain. They are left with a Christ who tried to save everybody but actually saved nobody.[4]
Here we see Sproul appealing to the logical conclusion of his system, that if man is truly dead in sin, at least in the Total Depravity of Man view, then no one would ever come to faith. The strangeness of this argument is that he juxtaposes two opposing systems in order to argue for his own. In other words, he says something like this. “Arminians have no sound reason to believe that Jesus did not die in vain, because since man is Totally Depraved, none would ever come to faith.” But we deny Total Depravity! Those who oppose Calvinism (Arminians and others) have sound reason, because we don’t agree with Calvinist notions. We believe man is capable of responding to the gracious offering of salvation. Sproul’s is actually a rather confused argument and points out his inability to see outside his tightly sealed systematic box.
(Note: Calvinists tend to label as Arminians all who oppose their beliefs. This is a faulty notion. Not all who oppose Calvinism are Arminians. I am not one. This is another Calvinist fallacy.)
It is true that God’s ultimate design is not thwarted. God has graciously offered salvation to all by freely giving His Son in painful, bloody sacrifice. All who respond in faith are saved. This is God’s purpose, that all who call upon His name be brought to salvation. And in this, God’s desire NEVER fails. He never fails in saving someone who lifts up his hands in repentance. His saving arm never loses its power in pulling a soul from the pits of sin. His sturdy grip never releases a man who keeps his feet firmly on the path of life.
The atonement is potential in that it is potentially available to all. Not all respond. The atonement is not, however, unlimited in its effect. It is not automatically conferred upon people who do not respond.
Jesus Christ died in order to allow anyone who comes to Him in faith to be saved. That this sacrificial grace is available to everyone in the world is abundantly clear in Scripture, and efforts to prove otherwise fail, exposed as efforts to preserve a doctrinal system by adding words and notions that don’t exist in the Bible.
John 3:16
16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Whom does God love? Only the elect? That's what Calvinists believe, but the verse says nothing of the sort. Those roads have to be blatantly inserted in order to fit their system.
1 Timothy 2:1-6
2:1 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. 3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony borne at the proper time.
Whom does God desire to be saved? All men. Again, the Calvinists have to insert words to make phrases that fit their system, such as "all elect men." Such a notion isn't there.
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
Does God want all to come to repentance or only the elect? The text says all, but the Calvinists add words to make it say "all the elect" or something similar.
Again, the Calvinists have no Scripture to back up the notion that Jesus died only for the elect. They rely instead on logical inference, that since, according to them, the first two points are true, then this one must be true as well. Yet, the first two points aren't true, and the Scriptures deny the third, so this idea that Jesus died only for the elect is hereby refuted.
[1] Chosen by God page 205.
[2] Chosen by God pages 206-207.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.