Limited Atonement
Limited Atonement, also known as definite atonement and particular redemption, is regarded by some as a kind of Shibboleth of Reformed or Calvinistic Orthodoxy. Disavow particular redemption, and you are a closet Arminian, an Arminian in Calvinist clothing, or even an inconsistent Universalist. If your TULIP lacks the middle petal, it's a disfigured flower, they feel. Who wants tu-ips in a vase? It's all five points or none at all.
While defenders of Particular Redemption are free to attempt to demonstrate that their five-point Calvinism is the most consistent and coherent kind, that does not preclude others of a Calvinistic persuasion who reject particular redemption from similarly demonstrating that they believe the more consistent position is theirs.
The Meaning of Definite Atonement
Limited Atonement, Definite Atonement or Particular Redemption are three terms for the same idea: that Christ's intention was to substitute for those chosen before the foundation of the world, and for no one else. Definite atonement does not merely teach that Christ died for the elect, which everyone can agree with. Definite atonement is defined by what it denies: that any atonement was made for the non-elect. Christ did not substitute for the non-elect, that no provision was made for the non-elect. In other words, Christ did not die for all men. It is the negative aspect of limited atonement that we quarrel with: that Scripture teaches, or even implies, that no provision of atonement was made for the non-elect.
Hypothetical vs Definite
Proponents of definite atonement believe that only definite atonement upholds the logic of atonement. They say that if Christ died for people who do not trust Christ and therefore go to hell, what was Jesus accomplishing on the Cross? Was His blood wasted? Was it ineffectual? Or do some go to hell with their sins atoned for, for some reason facing a double-jeopardy of a penalty paid twice? Definite atonement seems to be a way out of this problem: Christ propitiated the wrath of God on behalf of the elect. Nothing in the atonement was mere potential or hypothetical. Christ actually atoned for the specific sins of a specific set of people. Anyone who goes to hell did not have his sins propitiated, which is why he is punished. Logically then, Christ did not die for him. This is because God did not intend to save him, because He did not choose him. On the other hand, the person saved had his sins propitiated, which is why he does not go to hell. Christ died for him, because God intended to save him, and chose him. His atonement was actual and definite.
Who Was Atoned For in A. D. 33?
Of course, this idea of contrasting “actual” with “hypothetical” atonement quickly falls on its own sword. For if the only kind of atonement that exists is “actual” atonement for its intended beneficiaries, the next logical question is, when was this actual atonement achieved? That is, when were the elect's sins covered and God's wrath towards them appeased? Was it in A. D. 33, when Christ died on the cross? If so, we have a difficult theological problem. If the sins of all the elect were actually atoned for in A. D. 33, how do we explain Paul's words that believers were once “were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others” (Eph. 2:1-3)? How could any true believers, at any time in their existence, have been “children of wrath, dead in sins”, if their sins were actually atoned for in A. D. 33? The logical end of insisting that atonement must be an actual atonement, is that all the elect had their sins forgiven, and God's wrath was propitiated in A. D. 33.
This leads to the heresy of eternal justification: the hyper-Calvinist view that the elect are actually justified before their conception or physical birth. The saved are born saved; the regenerate are regenerate from the womb; the justified have been justified before birth. Since most proponents of particular redemption do not want to embrace eternal justification, they then recognise a fact found in Scripture: a distinction exists between the provision of atonement, and the application of atonement.
Provision vs Application
To avoid the logical consequence of eternal justification, it must be true that what was provided for the elect in A. D. 33 was not applied to them until the moment of regeneration. Application and provision are not simultaneous or synonymous. The only way to avoid saying that the elect have always been justified is to admit that the atonement was provided long ago, but only applied during the lifetimes of the elect. But what is this, except admitting that the atonement made in A. D. 33, was hypothetically true of the elect for centuries before they are born and for perhaps decades of their unconverted life, but not actually true, until the moment of repentance and faith? So, in fact, advocates of particular redemption do believe in a hypothetical aspect to the atonement, in that they know there is a period of time in the life of an elect person when the atonement has been provided but is not yet applied. What the proponent of limited atonement really means by “definite atonement” is definite application of atonement. He means the atonement is limited in its application and particular in its application. But he already accepts that the atonement can be hypothetically provided and not actually applied in the life of the man not yet regenerated.
In truth, the terminology of actual and hypothetical is unhelpful, for it suggests that an actual provision is something that may or may not have happened. Nothing was hypothetical about Christ's death. It was actually provided as an atonement. The point is that, on that day in A. D. 33, it was provided, but had not yet been applied to anyone, except retroactively to O. T. Saints, and to the thief on the Cross.
If It's Hypothetical for the Elect...
Now, if the elect could have an atonement that was “potentially”, or “hypothetically” theirs during their unregenerate state, but only “actually”, and “definitely” theirs once they believed, it seems the claimed problem of “hypothetical atonement” or “wasted blood” or “ineffectual sacrifice” is non-existent, or else it is a problem for the elect, too. And if it is not a problem to have a provision/ application distinction for the elect, the question becomes, why would it be a problem for one to exist for the non-elect: to have a provision made, that is never applied? If Christ's blood is not “wasted” when its application is delayed by centuries, it is no more wasted if its application is delayed indefinitely, so to speak. In fact, a provision which is not ever applied better explains other biblical evidence.
Just One Verse Excluding the Non-Elect
If limited atonement accepts the distinction between provision and application (which it does in the case of the elect), what is required to sustain it as a logical implication of the other four points of Calvinism is at least some biblical evidence that shows provision of atonement was not made for the non-elect. That is, if provision and application are restricted to the elect, we would want to see at least one verse negating provision to the non-elect, or one reference explicitly restricting provision to the elect. The statement that Christ died for His Bride is not sufficient evidence to exclude His dying for others. To settle that no provision for the atonement of the non-elect exists, we would need an explicit negation, along the lines of, “And He is the propitiation for our sins, and for our sins only, and not for the sins of the whole world”. Failure to demonstrate this, while maintaining that limited atonement is logically necessary would actually be a form of the logical fallacy of composition. This is the fallacy that asserts that because something is true of a part of something, it must be true of the whole. Its corollary fallacy reverses matters: it asserts that if something is true of a part, it must be true of the whole.
The limited atonement advocate is really saying that since the elect (who make up a part of humanity) are saved through the provision and application of atonement, the rest of humanity must be absent both provision and application. But that does not hold. It is quite possible for the non-elect to possess non-applied provision. What is true of part of humanity does not have to exist in mirror opposite form in the rest of humanity.
Instead of these negations, we find references to universal provision. We find application limited to the elect, but we find several references describing provision for the whole world.
• And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world. (1 Jn. 2:1)
• And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world. (1 Jn. 4:14)
• …who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, (1 Tim. 2:6)
• For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. (1 Tim. 4:10)
• But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone. (Heb. 2:9)
Indeed, there are plausible ways of explaining these universal texts (and others that speak of God's universal saving intent, such as 2 Peter 3:9 or John 3:16) in light of limited atonement – that “world” refers to “Jews and Gentiles” or “all the elect”. But again, given the absence of texts clearly showing that no provision of atonement was made for the non-elect, these explanations become less plausible. There becomes less and less reason to believe that these texts, which appear on face value to describe a universal provision, are actually referring to “all believers” or “the whole world of the church”. The more difficult explanation is needless when a distinction between provision and application is understood.
The simpler explanation is preferred: Christ's death provided atonement for the whole human race. Sufficient merit and propitiatory power exists in the sacrifice of Christ to atone for all the sins of all men. Every man can find a substitute that completely covers his sins in the person and work of Christ. The question is not, “Which individuals was Christ substituting for in A. D. 33?” The question is, “Which race's salvation was Christ providing full atonement for in A. D. 33?” When one with infinite merit, as the Second Adam federally representing a new race, offers Himself, the answer is: the whole race of Adam.
Condemned for Rejecting What, Exactly?
For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (Jn. 3:17-18)
John 3:18 speaks of unbelievers already existing in a state of condemnation. What are they condemned for? For not believing in Jesus Christ. In John 3, belief in Jesus Christ stands for belief in His person and work (3:14-16). To reject Jesus is to reject His claims about Himself, and necessarily to reject His death on the cross. But if Christ made no provision for the non-elect, what exactly are they rejecting? Are they rejecting a provision that was never made for them? And why would you be counted guilty for rejecting something never truly provided for you? Where is the guilt in that?
If the answer comes that they are condemned for overall unbelief, as in Romans 1, that would be true as far as it goes, but John 3 makes it clear that their condemnation is for rejecting Christ. This is not the condemnation of suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. This is culpable guilt for rejecting something truly provided, truly offered, and yet spurned. The best way to understand this, is the simple truth that Christ's atonement was provided for the non-elect, but has not been applied. The face value interpretation of the New Testament's treatment of the scope of the atonement is: universal provision of atonement for all mankind, and limited application, to those who believe, the elect.
David de Bruyn