The Doctrine of Limited Atonement Defended

Note: This is an essay that I wrote for my English Comp class at college. The assignment was to write a persuasive research essay. I won’t include my “Works Cited” page here for the sake of length.

The Doctrine of Limite Atonement Defended
Of all the Reformed doctrines of salvation, perhaps the most controversial is the doctrine of limited atonement (Clark, sec. 1). The doctrine, which states that Christ died to pay for the sins of the Elect, rather than the sins of all the world, is not only disputed from outside Calvinist circles, but also sometimes within (Boice 114). People take issue with not only the term ‘limited’ being used in association with the atonement, but also with a teaching that says that the atonement is not universal in nature (Clark, sec. 1). John Murray points to this objection when he writes, “The term “limited” atonement has given much offense. It may not indeed be the most fortunate terminology. It is capable of misunderstanding and misrepresentation” (200). This essay is not an attempt to provide an air tight Biblical exegesis on the doctrine of limited atonement. Rather, it defends the doctrine of limited atonement by showing what some of the most respected Reformed theologians say about this issue in response to those who would teach that Christ’s atonement is universal (Schaff 545). This essay will show that the doctrine of limited atonement clearly illustrates how the work of Christ in salvation is in unity with the Trinity, how the atonement is particular in its intent, and how it is active in its nature.

One of Limited Atonement’s strongest assets is that it shows complete unity in the Trinity (Sproul 276-277). This was John Owen’s starting point in his classic work, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. He writes, “The agent in, and chief authority of, our redemption is the whole Blessed Trinity; for all the works which outwardly are of Deity are undivided and belong equally to each person, their distinct manner of subsistence and order being observed” (51). Owen is stating that the work of salvation is one that involves all the persons of the Trinity. He then goes on to outline what role each person of the Trinity plays in salvation in the following three chapters (51-67). In the introduction for Owen’s work, J.I.Packer summarizes Owen’s Trinitarian argument. “One view [limited atonement] presents the three great acts of the Holy Trinity for the recovering of lost mankind-election by the Father, redemption by the Son, calling by the Spirit-as directed towards the same persons, and as securing their salvation infallibly” (4). The point of this argument is to show that a universal atonement puts the Trinity at odds with itself. The Father’s election is not universal, or all would be saved. Furthermore, it is only the Elect in whom the Holy Spirit does the work of renewal. The Holy Spirit and the Father are completely unified in their tasks of salvation, and therefore the Son must also be in harmony (4). If Christ’s atonement is universal as some propose, then the Son is not in harmony with the works of the Father and Holy Spirit. This cannot be. As Owen points out, “all the works which outwardly are of Deity are undivided” (51). Therefore it can be shown that universal atonement puts the Trinity in conflict with itself, but limited atonement teaches a Trinity that is in complete harmony (51-67).

If the atonement is to be in unity with the Trinity as we have discussed, then we can confidently confess that the atonement is particular in its intent. This is where the title “limited atonement” comes from. It is not referring to the power of the atonement but rather the scope of its intent and effect (Sproul 277). R.C. Sproul writes, “If God has determined from all eternity to save the Elect, and part of his plan of redemption is to save them, and only them, then it follows that Christ died for the Elect and only for them” (276). Several objections to this point are raised, pointing to sources of Scripture that associate Christ’s death with words likes “all” and “world”. R. Scott Clark of Westminster Theological Seminary in California spends ample time examining these objections in light of Biblical interpretation. Scott insists that Scripture uses inclusive language like “all” and “world” in several instances where the terms do not literally mean “all the people everywhere” or “all the world”. He notes that context must always be considered, and that Scripture interprets itself (secs. 5.1-5.2). Scott also notes that,

The work of Christ must also be interpreted against the background of more than 2000 years of sacrifices pointing to his advent, life and death. These sacrifices were offered by Israelites for themselves and their families. They were offered by the high priests for all Israel. They were not offered for everyone who ever lived (sec. 5.2).

The Old Testament sacrificial system is a foreshadowing of Christ’s work on the cross. Here Scott shows that the intent of Christ’s atonement is particular because the intent of the Old Testament sacrificial system was also particular (sec. 5.2). He summarizes the Reformed position by stating, “If God did not intend to redeem any in particular, then it means that the atonement was indefinite. If it was indefinite, then Christ died for no one particularly” (sec. 2). He is stating that an indefinite atonement, or universal atonement, makes the cross of Christ out to be impersonal. He goes on to say, “It is the Reformed contention that God’s Word teaches that Christ died for persons, his sheep, those whom he loved, from all eternity” (sec. 3). Scott believes that by making the atonement particular in its intent, the atonement actually becomes personal. Christ died for us, the Church. A personal God, a personal Savior, is at the very heart of the Christian faith (sec. 3).

Finally, if we believe that the atonement is particular in its intent, then we can state that the atonement is active in its nature. The Reformed church confesses an atonement that actively achieves salvation (Sproul 272-279). In contrast, this is what the Arminian Remonstrance, which confesses a universal atonement, says in regards to the atonement’s nature.

Jesus Christ, the Saviour of all the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer (Schaff 545).

John Murray responds to this point of the Remonstrance when he writes, “[Universal atonement] is in its essence that Christ died for all men alike and procured for them equally and without distinction redemption and forgiveness of sins. The atonement as such, it says in effect, has as its intention the provision of salvation for all, the making of salvation of all men possible, the placing of all men and every man in a salvable state or condition” (200). Therefore, according to the Arminian Remonstrance, universal atonement actively saves no one, but rather it makes salvation possible for all (Murray 200). This is a consistent view in the scope of universal atonement. To avoid universal salvation the Arminian Remonstrance recognized that it must confess an atonement that is passive in nature. If they were to teach that the atonement is universal in intent and active in nature then they must teach that all men are saved, for all the sins of all the world would be paid for and salvation procured for them at the cross (Sproul 277-288). However, James Montgomery Boice points out the problem with a passive view of the atonement. “A redemption that does not redeem, a propitiation that does not propitiate, a reconciliation that does not reconcile, and an atonement that does not atone cannot help anybody” (123). John Owen also points out the flaws in a passive atonement.

The merit of the death of Christ being to them as an ointment in a box, that hath neither virtue nor power to act or reach out its own application unto particulars, being only set out in the gospel to the view of all, that those who will, by their own strength, lay hold on it and apply it to themselves may be healed (38).

However, because of the atonement’s particularity, the Reformed believe in an atonement that doesn’t merely make salvation possible, but actively achieves it. At the cross, Christ actively and effectively achieved and secured salvation for all the Elect. Limited atonement states that because the atonement is active in nature, the power of the atonement comes from Christ alone. Man’s belief or unbelief does not determine its power. As Boice points out, an active atonement is “a redemption that redeems, a propitiation that propitiates, a reconciliation that reconciles and an atonement that atones” (123). R.C. Sproul reflects on the power of an active atonement as well by saying, “We want to understand that the atonement that Christ offered was both real and effectual. It certainly brought to pass what God has intended to accomplish by it” (273). This is the heart of the doctrine of limited atonement. The atonement did not simply make salvation possible; it actively achieved it at the cross for the Elect (Sproul 276).

So much more could be said about the doctrine of limited atonement, and more has been said on both sides of the argument. This debate has been going on in the Church for centuries (Clark, sec. 4). To some, this issue may seem trivial. Many people simply see this issue as one more doctrine that divides the body of Christ. For the Reformed church though, this issue is about giving God all the glory in salvation (Sproul 276). Would we believe that Christ’s precious blood was spilt to merely make salvation possible, achieving it for no one in particular? Can we believe in an atonement that divides the work of the Trinity? How does such a view give God glory? Ultimately it allows man’s belief or unbelief to determine the power of the atonement. Rather, if we confess that Christ’s atoning work is united with the works of Father and Holy Spirit, if we confess an atonement that is particular in intent and active in nature, then the work of salvation is God’s alone, and to God alone goes the glory(Sproul 276; Owen 4).

Advertisement