It’s almost time for Holy Week. Saturday will be April Fool’s Day. April 2 will be Palm Sunday which is the beginning of Holy Week. Holy Week is associated with commemorating the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus on the cross. This doctrine of limited atonement has been very controversial. It can be like, “Did Jesus only die for those who would believe?” It has come to a point that some Fundamental Baptist preachers haven’t done much research on John Calvin. Some even said, “Maybe Calvin didn’t underline John 3:16.” I’m afraid that some of these Fundamental Baptist preachers haven’t done further research into other commentaries that would be deemed Calvinist. John Gill was a Reformed Baptist. The Commentary Critical and Explanatory of the Whole Bible was also written by Calvinists.
To further understand the teaching of limited atonement, I read through the writings of the late Robert C. Sproul Sr. (Presbyterian) and John F. MacArthur (Reformed Baptist). If I’m not wrong, the Baptist Theological College (BTC) in Cebu City is also pretty much Reformed or Calvinist. I would like to help the non-Calvinist brethren at least try and understand what limited atonement is and isn’t.
I’d like to share this excerpt of what Sproul Sr. said about the doctrine of limited atonement:
Sufficient for All, Efficient for Some
There is a lot of confusion about limited atonement. To try to straighten the confusion, let me say what limited atonement does not mean. Limited atonement does not mean that there is a limit placed upon the value or merit of the atonement of Jesus Christ. It’s traditional to say that the atoning work of Christ is sufficient for all. That is, the meritorious value of the atonement is sufficient to cover the sins of all people, and certainly, anyone who puts their trust in Jesus Christ will receive the full measure of the benefits of that atonement.
It is also important to understand that the gospel is to be preached universally. This universal offer of the gospel is another controversial point. On the one hand, the gospel is offered universally to all who are within earshot of its preaching. On the other hand, it’s not offered universally in the sense that it’s offered to everyone without any conditions. It’s offered to anyone who believes. It’s offered to anyone who repents. And the merit of Christ’s atonement is given to all who believe and to all who repent of their sins.
One of the traditional ways of talking about this is to say that the atonement is sufficient for all but efficient for some. That is, not everyone actually receives the full benefits wrought by Christ’s saving work on the cross; namely, those who do not believe.
So far, all of those distinctions simply distinguish our theology from universalism. All who are particularists, that is, all Christians who are not universalists, would agree that Christ’s atonement is sufficient for all and efficient only for some. So, that distinction between sufficiency and efficiency doesn’t really get to the point of this doctrine.
Definite Redemption
The doctrine of limited atonement is chiefly concerned about this: What was the original purpose, plan, or design of God in sending Christ into the world to die on the cross? Was the Father’s intent to send His Son to die on the cross to make salvation possible for everybody, but also with the possibility that it would be effective for nobody? That is, did God simply send Christ to the cross to make salvation possible, or did God, from all eternity, have a plan of salvation by which, according to the riches of His grace and His eternal election, He designed the atonement to ensure the salvation of His people? That’s what this doctrine has to do with: Was the atonement limited in its original design? Because of that, I’m going to have to fool around with our little acrostic TULIP again. As I did with the T and with the U, I’m going to mess with the L as well.
We prefer not to use the term limited atonement because it is misleading. We would rather speak of definite redemption or definite atonement, meaning that God the Father designed the work of redemption specifically with a view to providing salvation for the elect. And even though Christ’s death is valuable enough to meet the needs of everybody, there was a special and unique sense in which He died for His sheep. He laid down His life for those whom the Father had given Him.
The problem that emerges from this technical point of theology in terms of God’s eternal decrees and His ultimate design for the atonement is often discussed in light of several passages in the New Testament, such as when it says that Jesus died for the sins of all the world, and so on. Incidentally, these difficult questions have been treated masterfully in what I think is the best treatment of this doctrine ever written, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ by the Puritan theologian John Owen. If you have never read John Owen’s The Death of Death, I strongly commend it to you. It is a magnificent treatment of the grace of God, rich in biblical exposition, and deals with some of the difficult passages we encounter in the New Testament in great detail and with great brilliance.
The atonement is limited because people go to hell. Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount: “Many will say to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and I will say to them, ‘Depart from Me, you workers of iniquity. I never knew you’” (Matt. 7:22–23). Jesus talked more about hell then He did about heaven. We know that hell is a reality, and we know people go there and perish forever. So, we all believe in a limited atonement, right? Not everybody’s going to be saved.
You either believe in a limited atonement, or you believe in a universal atonement. If you believe in a universal atonement, to be logically consistent, then there’s no hell and no one will be in hell; everyone will be in heaven. If you affirm an unlimited atonement, then you really are going to end up as a universalist. If Jesus actually died for the whole world, then the whole world is saved. So, we can’t go there because there is a hell and it’s full of people, in fact, most people.
The atonement is limited. The question is, Who limits it? Do we limit it or does God limit it? The answer to that question, biblically, is crystal clear: God limited it. He limited it to the elect. Either God determined whom He would save and takes the glory, or God just threw atonement out there as some nebulous option and hoped some people would grab hold of it and become a part of His redeeming purpose. The Bible does not allow for that. So, you just need to remind yourself that you believe in a limited atonement.
Some can argue that Jesus died for all but people must receive the atonement or never benefit from it. In the preaching of the Gospel, the Gospel is never complete without the sacrificial death of Jesus. However, the message is so repulsive to sinful humanity. Why doesn’t everyone believe in the message of Jesus’ death on the cross for the sins of mankind? It’s true that people need to receive atonement. However, a closer study of Romans 3:10-19 also reveals that no one seeks after God. How can the sacrificial death on the cross be effective for the lost sinner who rejects it? How can this lost sinner accept the Gospel if no one seeks after God? There’s a balance between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility.
The doctrine of TULIP really starts to point here and there, especially about why not everyone accepts Christ’s vicarious sacrifice. First, we have the Total Depravity of man. Man is so corrupted in sin that their best isn’t good enough. Man is incapable of seeking God. Second, the doctrine of Unconditional Election is next. Some try to make it more palatable by saying that God knew who’d believe or who wouldn’t. However, apart from God, unsaved people will only have the free will to reject the Gospel. Third, we have the Limited Atonement. The efficacy only works for those who are unconditionally elected. Fourth, we have Irresistible Grace, which means that those whom God has elected, are made willing to believe. When God calls the people, they soon become willing to believe the Gospel even if they have shown previous signs of resistance. Fifth, we talk about the Perseverance of the Saints. Perseverance is the fruit, not the root, of salvation.
This is however not a call to major in the minors. This is more of trying to help non-Reformed brethren try and understand that Calvinism isn’t an issue. KJV vs. non-KVJ Only isn’t an issue. The real issue is preaching the Gospel to the lost. The Great Commission is the responsibility to do preaching. God does the choosing. Only God knows who will receive and who will reject.
Reformed Baptist Christian Blogger 