I. The Necessity of the Atonement—Why Did Christ Have to Die?
Once God determined to save sinners, there was but one way of accomplishing this purpose that would be in harmony with God’s own character and law, and consonant with the nature of sin and the needs of man. This one way was the substitutionary blood atonement of the incarnate Son of God. The unregenerate man cannot believe the gospel because he cannot see the real need of an atonement. He does not believe that he is a helpless depraved sinner who cannot save himself. One reason for this blindness and ignorance lies in the sinner’s wrong view of the character of God and his holy and righteous demands as revealed in his law. As long as he views God as nothing but love, the sinner will miss seeing God’s absolute holiness, perfect righteousness, and unflinching justice. The necessity of these attributes being satisfied by an atoning sacrifice will be ridiculed as pagan and inhumane.
II. The Nature of the Atonement—Exactly What Did Christ Accomplish by His Atoning Death on the Cross?
The necessity of the atonement addresses the question of “why?” The nature of the atonement speaks to the question of “what?” It is over the what that Christians disagree.
We have prepared a chart—Two Views of the Atonement, Appendix One—which contrasts the theological views of the two main groups and presents the Scripture verses that each uses. It is easy to see the differences in their views of the nature of the atonement. One group sees an atonement—a payment that forever removes sin—as merely a possibility until the sinner does his part with his free will to make the atonement effectual. In this view, the sinner’s faith is “his contribution” in salvation. The other group sees the atonement of Christ as a real atonement that removes forever the sin of all those for whom it was made. This view presents the death of Christ not as merely making salvation possible for all men but actually guaranteeing that all those for whom Christ died will be saved. It is also clear that the two views are miles apart. It might be helpful to review the central differences between the two. Remember that both groups believe that the atonement was absolutely essential and that it is only through the atonement of Christ that any sinner can be saved.
Study the chart in Appendix One carefully and note the radical difference in the (1) intention of God in the atonement, (2) the actual success of the atonement, (3) the power of God alone to make the plan of salvation work, and (4) the real character, or nature of the atonement.
It is important that we recognize that salvation is the work of a triune God. When we say, “The Lord saved me,” we do not mean that only the Lord Jesus Christ saved us. We mean that the Triune Lord saved us. The Lord God the Father saved us in electing grace; the Lord God the Son saved us by his atoning death; and the Lord God the Holy Spirit saved us by regenerating us and enabling us to savingly believe. We owe just as much to the Father and the Holy Spirit as we do to the blessed Lord Jesus, and our worship and praise should reflect our debt and gratitude to the Father and to the Holy Spirit for their work.
Not only is it true that each person in the Trinity has a distinct and necessary part to play in our salvation; it is just as true that the work of each will be successful. Success is guaranteed because all three persons in the Godhead work together toward the same goal. All those chosen by the Father were redeemed by the Son, and all those redeemed are brought by the Holy Spirit to believe the gospel. This is why the whole plan of salvation will succeed and accomplish everything God intended in its execution. Neither he who planned and brought about the death of Christ, nor those for whom that atoning death was intended, will ever be disappointed.
The core question: it is essential that we clearly understand the fundamental point of difference, as it concerns the atonement, between those who believe in free grace and those who believe in free will. The question is not, “For how many people did Christ die?” The essential question is, “Did the death of Christ, in and of itself, secure for certain the salvation of some people, or did his death merely make it possible for all men to be saved by an act of their ‘free will’?” In other words, the discussion is not about how many people Christ died for, but rather what Christ accomplished by his death on the cross! What inevitably had to follow because of Christ’s atoning sacrificial death? Put another way, the question is, “What is the one single ingredient that makes God’s plan of salvation by grace through faith work in one person, who believes in Christ and is saved, but not in another, who rejects Christ and is lost?”
There is one sense in which it is impossible to limit the death of the Lord Jesus Christ. Our Lord suffered as the infinite Son of God. That is why he could suffer an eternal hell in a moment of time. It is also the reason that his death can avail for many poor sinners. Christ’s death is not limited in its power in any way at all. If God had purposed to save all men without exception, Christ would not have suffered one more ounce of wrath. If only one person had been chosen to be saved, our Lord would not have suffered any less. The whole point involves the purpose of the Father in putting his Son on the cross. Exactly what did the Father plan to accomplish? Was it merely to give sinners a “second chance” to succeed where Adam failed, or was the atonement a carefully planned method of saving his elect? The answer of free-will religion to this vital question follows.
Answer of free-will theology: Christ died and paid the penalty for every man’s sins, thereby providing, or making possible, salvation in the same way, and to the same degree, for every man without exception. Jesus died and paid for the sins of Judas in the identical sense that he paid for Peter’s sins. All men are equally redeemed, but they must personally be willing to accept their redemption before it is effectual. An individual’s redemption depends solely on his willingness to accept or reject the atonement. Either way, every man is redeemed (meaning potentially redeemed) because Christ died and paid for all the sins of all men. Peter was actually saved only because he was willing to accept the atonement that Christ had “provided” for all men. Judas was just as redeemed as Peter, and the only reason Judas was not saved was that he was not willing to accept the redemption that Christ would provide. The one and only difference between Peter and Judas was Peter’s willingness to accept what Christ would do.
The gospel according to this view of free will is: Christ died for you. Your sins have already been paid for by the Son of God. It is no longer the “sin” question; that was settled at the cross. It is now the “Son” question. All your sins are paid for, and the only sin that will send you to hell is rejecting the redemption Christ provided for you.
In this view, all men are “redeemed” by the death of Christ. The individual need only “claim by faith” his redemption. You need only to be willing to “let Christ save you.” It is Christ’s intention and desire to save all men; nonetheless many will still perish. Christ can only save those who cooperate with their free will. The gospel of free will must always go back to man and his so-called free will as the ultimate cause of the success or failure of God’s plan of salvation. It must make the affirmation that Christ died for “me personally” to be the foundation of assurance. This is radically different from the gospel message in the Scriptures.
It is obvious that the free-will view has no real redemption but merely a potential, or hypothetical, redemption. It is not the power of Christ’s sufferings, but man, by his willingness, that is the one determining factor in every conversion.
Let us consider the answer that the religion of free grace gives to the question, “Did the death of Christ, in and of itself, secure for certain the salvation of some people, or did his death merely make it possible for all men to be saved by an act of their free will?” Did the atoning death of Christ actually redeem us, or did it merely make us redeemable if we would do our part and be willing to cooperate?
Answer of free-grace theology: although the death of Christ is of infinite value and could save ten thousand worlds of sinners, God’s intention, or purpose, in putting his Son on the cross must be measured by its accomplishments. The redemptive work of Christ in and of itself actually redeems and assures the salvation of specific people, that is, all those given to Christ by the Father (cf. John 10:11, 14-16; 6:37). It does not make all men potentially redeemable if they will do their part by being willing to be saved. Christ’s death is not just provisional in its nature; rather, it actually secures salvation for all of its objects.
The gospel, according to this view, is Christ died for sinners. He saves every sinner that comes to him; and every sinner that the Father has given to Christ will come to him. That promise of salvation includes sinners as bad as you and me.
In this view, Christ actually bought a people for himself out of every tribe and tongue. Christ’s desire “to seek” and his success “to save” are fully realized because his intention and accomplishments involve the same people. He saves all without exception that he seeks. He does not seek all and save some.
III. The Problem with Terminology
Limited atonement sounds very narrow as compared to unlimited atonement. This comparison leads to misconception and meaningless controversy. We maintain that all Christians believe in limited atonement. The biblical doctrine of hell supports this statement. We all believe that the ultimate benefits of the atonement are limited to those who believe in Christ. The lost man does not share in the benefits of the death of Christ. Of course, the Arminian will insist that the only reason the lost man does not benefit from the atonement is that his free will chooses not to benefit. That is begging the question. The real question is not, “Is the atonement limited?”—as I just said, the fact that people are in hell and will be there for all eternity answers that question—but rather the question is, “Who does the limiting, God or man?” Does God’s sovereign grace and purpose dictate the ultimate success or failure of the redemptive work of Christ, or does the “sovereign” and fickle will of man decide whether God’s intentions and purposes will be realized?
To repeat, all Christians limit the death of Christ! The debate is over the cause of the limitation; is it God’s grace or man’s will? Those who teach free will believe that man’s will limits the success of God’s great plan of redemption. God then has an unlimited purpose—to redeem all men—but a limited power; he can only actually redeem those who make themselves willing and “allow” God to redeem them. We who believe free or sovereign grace hold to the exact opposite. We are convinced that God has a limited purpose—to redeem his people—and an unlimited power— to secure their consent and make them willing “in the day of his power” (Ps. 110:3).
It is not the limited aspect but the particular aspect of the atonement that the Bible emphasizes. Christ died for specific people and actually secured a complete salvation for each one of those for whom he died. He did not die for an undefined group, that is, for everyone in general but no one in particular, and then hope that some of that general group would be willing to give him a chance. Isaiah says, “He shall see his seed.” As our Lord died on the cross, he knew for whom he was dying and also knew they would be saved. The issue is not with how many but with the nature of his sufferings.
The terms limited and unlimited presented as opposites sound as if the limited view is narrow and the other, unlimited, is magnanimous. We must remember that the “five points of Calvinism” have a negative slant precisely because they were negations (by the Synod of Dort) against the negations of the followers of James Arminius, who opposed the established truth of the Reformation.
We could, perhaps, more clearly present the issue by using the the terms effectual atonement versus ineffectual atonement, or efficient atonement versus inefficient atonement. These opposite terms are far closer to the crux of the matter than are limited and unlimited. Let the free-will universalist honestly admit that he preaches an ineffectual and inefficient atonement. Let him admit that he does not have a real atonement, but only a hypothetical one. The atonement of free-will religion can only be effective and actually atone for sin when man’s free will allows it to do so. This makes salvation depend ultimately on man for its success. In reality, this view is teaching that man’s free-will faith is the real redeeming factor in conversion. The mighty atonement of Christ is unable to accomplish God’s earnest desire or purpose until the even mightier free will of man consents to allow it to happen.
The choice is not simply between universal and particular atonement. The choice is between an atonement that actually atones and an atonement that is purely hypothetical and does not really atone. If we are consistent and honest, the real difference is between particular atonement and universal salvation. Why are some men in hell paying the penalty for their sins if Christ has already paid the penalty for all of the sins of all men? What about those who were already in hell when Christ died? Surely the Father did not punish Christ for men like Ahab who were, at that very moment, in hell enduring the punishment for their sin.
We are not discussing the extent of the atonement in terms of how many. We are discussing the nature of the atonement, which does not pertain to the number of people for whom Christ died. The nature of the atonement deals with the question of the actual accomplishment of Christ in his death. If people insist on talking about the extent of the atonement, then we must ask, “The extent in relationship to what?” If we mean the extent of the atonement in relationship to God’s sovereign purpose, then we will measure God’s purpose in the atonement by what it actually accomplishes. The atoning work of Christ will secure every thing that God intended it to accomplish. If someone starts at the other end and asks, “For whom was the atonement made?” we will ask him, “Who will ultimately be saved?” In both cases the answer must be identical. If Christ died for all, then all will be saved; if only some sinners are saved, it is because it was for them alone that Christ died.
We must see that the disagreement is over salvation as merely a possibility (in which case the atonement is only hypothetical) and salvation as a certainty (because the atonement is a real atonement). That is the heart of the difference.
C.H. Spurgeon was often accused of preaching a very “narrow” atonement. His opponents said their atonement, or bridge to heaven, was as wide as the whole world, and his was not. Spurgeon responded by saying, “I grant that my atonement, or bridge to heaven, is more narrow than yours. However, your bridge only goes halfway across the chasm, and mine goes all the way. In your scheme, the sinner’s will must furnish the other half.”
IV. Particular Atonement is the Historic Doctrine of the Church
Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Knox, and the great Confessions of Faith neither deny the doctrine of limited atonement, nor do they confirm it. Until the actual question of the extent of the atonement was raised at the Synod of Dort, the church had not expressly declared the doctrine of limited atonement. Still, this does not deny that the church was in agreement with that which Dort confirmed. The church historically has been in essential agreement with the doctrine of limited atonement, but only implicitly. Universal atonement is the new and novel doctrine when one looks at all of church history. Neither creeds nor great leaders prove what the church must believe, but rather what she has believed. Being old or being found in a creed does not make a doctrine true. The historic creeds are like guardrails along the side of a highway. They must never be confused with the road itself. The Bible alone is the road, but the guardrails are a great asset in keeping one on the road. When anyone sees a doctrine that no one else in the history of the church has ever seen, he should have an abundance of very clear biblical proof to support his position. It is well to be concerned with any “new” truth that all of the great saints of God missed for nearly two thousand years.