Limited Atonement or Particular Redemption

The doctrine of limited atonement (or better, “particular redemption”) comes in two parts. Number one: Jesus actually redeems His elect. This means that the atoning work of Christ was actually, rather than potentially, done on the cross. A good way to think about it is to reflect on the title of a book by Dr. John Murray, Christ’s Redemption Accomplished and Applied. The substitutionary work was accomplished in Christ’s death. And Christ’s work is later applied to every one of the elect.

The second part is this: Jesus only redeems His elect. That, of course, is the whole thought behind the word “elect.” Christ’s death was not intended to potentially save everyone, but to definitely save a certain group. God’s intention was and is to save His elect. When Christ was sent, He came knowing that price He was to pay was for those people, and only those people. Arminians believe that salvation is possible for everyone but guaranteed for no one. They leave open the chance that no one will be saved. Loaraine Boettner put it this way, for the Calvinist “the atonement is like a narrow bridge that goes all the way across the stream; for the Arminian it is like a great wide bridge that goes only half-way across.”

All right, I will now try to answer some of the most frequently asked questions from a collection of completely made-up people. Being the mind behind both the questions and the answers, I will try not to throw myself too many softballs. Just try to use your imagination, OK.

Phil: How do you explain passages like 1 John 2:2 where it says that Jesus Christ “is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” If it says “world” doesn’t it mean world?

Well Phil, the first thing you have to understand is that the Bible limits the scope of the words like “all” and “world” on a regular basis. Take 1 Timothy 6:10, “the love of money is the root of all evil.” Obviously this can’t mean exactly what it says. As Tom Wells teaches in A Price for a People, Adam and Eve’s first sin couldn’t have been a result of money loving. There wasn’t even anything they could buy. Everything was theirs except that one tree. We see that “all” is limited to “all kinds.” Or look at John 6:33, “for the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” Again, if you take “world” at face value, you have to say that all men are saved. But the Bible clearly teaches that some go to hell. In the same way, considering the overwhelming amount of passages saying that Christ died for a particular group, we have to limit the meaning of “world” in verses like 1 John 2:2 and John 3:16. I think the authors do this to emphasize that gentiles as well as Jews will be saved—all kinds of people.

Darla: OK, but can’t Christ have died for everybody by just, like, giving them an opportunity to accept Him. So, like, Christ died for everybody but not everybody will be saved because they won’t all, like, accept Him?

Thanks for the question Darla. First, God would be exacting punishment for sins twice. If Christ paid the price for the sins of all men, God would be unfair in sending anyone to hell, because their sins would already be remitted (forgiven). God would have to save everyone, if Christ died for everyone. Second, the very word “substitution” demands that Christ work was actual rather than potential. You cannot potentially substitute for some one else. Christ did something!

Darla: Then can’t God just make some people accept Him?

Now you’re back to God limiting the atonement to a certain group of people. Which, I may say, is exactly where I want you.

Todd: Then how do we evangelize?

That’s a great question, and a very reasonable one. Let me start by saying how we don’t evangelize. One of the most common wrong ways is to tell people that God loves them. But if you think about it, we have no right to tell any sinner that God loves them. If they are not one of His elect, it would be more truthful to say that God is angry with them. Now on to correct evangelism. I think the best place to find examples is the book of Acts. What we find there is that the apostles spent most of the time talking about Christ’s resurrection and power. They were stressing the authority of Christ and exposing the sinfulness against him. Really, the gospel is the same as always. Not, “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for you life.” But, “Christ died, was resurrected, and, from the right hand of the throne of God demands your allegiance. Therefore, repent and believe.”

Now, I realize that there are a lot more questions about, and arguments against this doctrine. But, I just don’t have time look at them here.