Limited Atonement

Limited atonement, or as many theologians prefer, definite atonement, is one of the doctrines of grace codified in the Canons of Dort (1619). One of the five points designated by the acronym TULIP, the doctrine of limited atonement is one of the most controversial of Reformed doctrines. Many Reformed theologians do not like the term limited, as it can suggest the mistaken idea that God exercises a diminished love with an extremely narrow scope. The reality is the reverse, however: God’s love for His people is so great that He sent His Son to save His elect, who are a great multitude of men and women from all nations (see Rev. 7:9).

Limited atonement explains that the Father did not send His Son to die to create a possibility that some might be saved; rather, He sent Jesus to guarantee the salvation of His children. In the atonement, God intended to save to the uttermost a particular people and accomplished that b
y having Christ die to pay for only the sins of His set-apart people.
Advocates of the Reformed doctrine of limited atonement argue that if salvation were merely made possible by the death of Christ, this would bring into question the power of Christ’s atonement. They affirm the sufficiency of Jesus’ life and death and focus on God’s intention, or “scope and aim.” The Father’s intent in sending His Son was perfectly achieved such that all those for whom Christ died will come to faith. Those who reject limited atonement, on the other hand, believe that some of those for whom Christ died will not savingly benefit from His work and will not come to saving faith.

Arminians trace their theology back to Jacob Arminius and his followers, the Remonstrants. They believe that God sent Jesus to die for the sins of all people without exception and foreordains certain individuals to salvation on the basis of foreseen faith, thus rejecting limited (or definite) atonement. Ultimately, Arminians believe that it is up to the individual to decide whether Christ’s atonement will actually save him or her.

Calvinists reject this view. John Owen, in his famous The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, argued that the Arminian version of atonement in which Christ paid for the sins of all people who will ever live creates many problems. This is because Scripture tells us two important things: one, that in His atonement Christ actually suffered God’s wrath against sin in full, with no additional payment required on the part of the sinner (Heb. 9:1–10:18); and two, that rejecting Christ sends impenitent sinners to hell, where they suffer God’s wrath for all eternity (John 3:18, 36; 2 Thess. 1:8–9). The people in hell make a payment of eternal suffering for their sin for rejecting Christ.

In light of these truths, several difficulties with the Arminian view emerge. First, the Arminian view of the atonement requires that people in hell pay a second payment for their sin. If Christ truly paid for every sin on the cross, including unbelief, then the unbeliever in hell pays an additional payment for his unbelief. This denies the biblical truth that once Christ pays for sin, no further payment is required.

Second, the belief that Christ died to pay for all the sins of all people creates a contradiction in the Arminian view. If some sinners are in hell because of their unbelief and God does not demand a double payment for sin, Christ could not have died for the sin of unbelief in particular. If He had died to pay the full penalty for everyone’s unbelief, then no one would be in hell. Since God does not require sinners to suffer the divine penalty for the sins that Jesus paid for, the fact that anyone is in hell necessarily implies that the sins of those people were not covered by the cross. Thus, in the Arminian view, Christ must not have died to pay for all the sins of all people. On this view, Christ both did and did not die for all sins—a logical contradiction.

Third, the Arminian view conditions the effectiveness of the atonement on our faith. That is to say, the atonement does not actually accomplish anything for a particular individual unless and until that person comes to faith. Christ did enough to make every person potentially savable, but the full payment was not actually made until the believer added his or her faith to what Jesus accomplished. This violates the teaching that no further payment for sin is required beyond what Christ did for His people. It implies that saving faith in some sense merits our salvation, compromising the biblical teaching that saving faith is not itself the righteousness that God rewards with eternal life but that it is an instrument that merely rests on Christ and receives His perfect righteousness. As Owen argues, all of God’s saving graces, including the faith by which we are saved, were purchased by Christ. It is not that our faith makes Christ’s atonement effectual; rather, Christ in His atonement purchased the gift of faith for His people such that all those for whom He died will certainly come to faith, receiving Christ’s righteousness. Saving faith, while it is a righteous act in important ways, is not itself the righteousness that saves us. Only Christ saves. Faith merely lays hold of Christ. Faith is effectual to save because of the object—Jesus—to which it clings, not because of the exercise of faith itself.

Fourth, the Arminian view undermines all assurance of salvation and comfort in what the Apostles’ Creed confesses as “the life everlasting.” If faith is what makes the atonement effective to cover my sins personally, then if I believe, fall away, and then return to faith, my sin would be covered, then not covered, and then covered again.

One final problem is that the Arminian view makes Christ into a failure. In the Arminian view, Christ desires to save all people and He has paid for the sins of all people, yet not all people are saved. He does not accomplish all that He fully intends to do. This is impossible because Christ is God and Scripture tells us that no purpose of God can be thwarted (Job 42:2).

As Charles Spurgeon put it, both Arminians and Calvinists limit the atonement, but they do so in different ways. Arminians limit the* effect *of the atonement, making salvation merely possible. Calvinists limit the intent of the atonement, believing that the atonement actually saves, but that it saves only those people for whom it was intended. The only other alternative is universalism, the belief that all are saved regardless of faith in Christ, which is a belief that runs counter to the teaching of the Bible.

Another view that was eventually rejected by the Reformed was the hypothetical universalism of Moses Amyraut (known as Amyraldianism). This view teaches that God sent Jesus to die for the sins of the whole world but decreed to bring only the elect to faith. In other words, Jesus’ death atoned for the sins of all, but it is not applied to all. The problem with this view lies in the way that the decree of God is understood. If God planned things this way, then God planned something that did not actually take place. He would have planned for the salvation of all sinners but then subsequently chosen not to bring all sinners to faith. This creates a logical inconsistency in God’s decree and actions to bring about the decree.