Of all the Five Points of Calvinism, none cause quite as much upset as Limited Atonement. It’s not the most helpfully named thing, which is aimed at saying the scope of the atonement is limited to the elect rather than all people in general, but it sounds like its saying its effects are limited which is why some prefer Particular Redemption or Definite Atonement. The doctrine is ultimately driving at the idea that Jesus died for particular people, as opposed to all people in general (particular redemption), and that the people Jesus intends to save are actually saved by his death on the cross (definite atonement) rather than just potentially saved by his death and then only actually saved upon their belief.
The issue concerning Limited Atonement is brought into sharp focus when we ask two simple questions: (1) did Jesus’ death actually pay for anybody’s sin; and, (2) did Jesus death actually save anyone? There are only three possible answers to these questions:
- Jesus’ death paid for everybody’s sin and therefore saves everyone
- Jesus’ death paid for nobody’s sin and therefore saves no one
- Jesus’ death paid for particular people’s sin and therefore saves those particular people
Those who affirm option one fall for the heterodox doctrine of universalism. If Jesus has paid for everybody’s sin, God has nothing to hold against anybody; there is no further price to be paid and there is no condemnation for anybody. History’s greatest wrong’uns are all heading straight for Heaven on such a view. But the fact is, Jesus did not speak about the ‘outer darkness’ on the basis that nobody is going there. Matthew 8:11-12 fairly clearly rules out any possibility that everyone is saved and there are many other bible passages that make the matter clear. Jesus death did not pay for everybody’s sin and evidently all are not saved.
Option 2 is not a great deal better. If Jesus death hasn’t paid for anybody’s sin then his death was ultimately pointless. He is a failed saviour who was unable to save any of his people. When he said ‘it is finished’ on the cross, he may as well have said ‘I am finished’. Fortunately, the Bible tells us clearly enough that Jesus’ death has actually redeemed a people. Revelation 5:9-10 says Jesus’ blood has actually ransomed people from every tribe, tongue and nation. 1 John 2:2 tells us that Jesus’ death has actually paid for the sins of the whole world. Unless we want to fall back onto option one and argue everybody is saved, ‘whole world’ cannot mean every single person in the world regardless of repentance or belief in Jesus, not least as John himself has ruled that out. John’s usual use of ‘world’ tends to mean something like ‘all kinds of people’, Jews and every kind of Gentile. Galatian 3:13 tells us Jesus’ death has categorically lifted the curse for some. There is no biblical ground for arguing that Jesus’ death has failed to pay for anyone’s sin.
This leaves us with option 3. Jesus’ death has paid for particular people’s sin and is applied only to those particular people. There are no other options. Either Jesus death has paid for everyone – in which case there is no more sin anywhere to be paid for and all are saved – he has paid for nobody’s sin in which case his atonement has failed to achieve anything at all and everyone, everywhere remains condemned, or else he has only died for particular people and paid for their particular sin. There simply are no other options and, given universalism is evidently unbiblical and a counsel of despair is similarly unbiblical, we are left with only one possibility: Jesus only died for some.
But someone will no doubt argue that Jesus died for all, but his death is only applied to those who believe. The argument is usually framed as Jesus having atoned for sin, he has paid the price on their behalf, but they have rejected his gift. Their sin has been paid for on the cross and Jesus offers them the benefits of his atonement, but if they do not take it then they have rejected his free gift of grace. The problem with this is highlighted by John Owen:
In other words, if Jesus paid for all the sin of all men that must include their sin of unbelief. If he has died for all and paid for the sin of all in toto then all are necessarily saved. There is no sin counted against them anymore. On the other hand, If Jesus died for all, but did not die for their unbelief, given all of us are unbelievers by nature, Jesus hasn’t paid for all the sin of anybody. If unbelief is excluded, nobody’s unbelief is covered by Christ’s death, meaning his atonement has failed and all are condemned. If we want to say Jesus died for all people everywhere we have universalism; if we say he died for all except for unbelief, he hasn’t effectively paid for all sin for anybody. We also have to contend with there being no biblical grounds to argue Jesus saves all nor that he died for some sins of all and all sins for some.
There is only one other position open to us: Jesus died, and only ever intended to die, for the sin of the elect. He went to the cross knowing for whom he died, paying for the sins of those he was dying for in toto, and definitively ensuring their salvation – and only their salvation – at that point. In the end, Jesus either died for everybody, died for nobody, or he actually died for a particular people whom he was willing, able and then did effectively save. The Bible really only points in one direction on this question too. Jesus died effectively for the elect and the elect alone.
It was reading Spurgeon in my early 20s that convinced me of this:-
“We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, “No, certainly not.” We ask them the next question—Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer “No.” They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say “No; Christ has died that any man may be saved if”— and then follow certain conditions of salvation. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as to infallibly secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ’s death; we say, “No, my dear sir, it is you that do it.” We say Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it.”
Thanks for sharing, quick question.
Was reading Mark 3:28-30 the other day. Is that not a fourth option, essentially saying that the only sin that remains is the rejection of the Spirit’s saving work? It’s very much like option 3, but a bit more nuanced.
Mark 3:28-30
[28] “Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, [29] but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin” [30] for they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.”
That is precisely the sin of unbelief John Owen is talking about though, so I don’t see how it is really a different option because we all reject the spirit at some point.
I propose a 4th option.
4. Jesus died for the sins of everyone, the whole world but the gift of salvation must be received. Those that reject the gift of salvation are still in their sins.
John 3:36
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
John 5:24
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
I did mention that option in the article and, via John Owen, note how it’s not really a fourth option.
Nobody doubts those verses you quote. But they don’t say anything about who jesus died for. It tells us only that those who abide in christ are the elect.
I respectfully disagree. These verses clearly speak that whoever believes HAS everlasting life. Not will have. These verses are not talking about abiding in Christ but being regenerated. transformed “from death unto life”.
Jesus died for every human being in every age. He did His part, now the sinner must be reconciled to Him.
It is commanded of the unbeliever.
2 Corinthians 5:20
Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
Who is the “ye”. vs. 19 says it is the world “reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.”
We persuade all to be reconciled because they can be persuaded by God’s grace.
2 Corinthians 5:11
Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.
So how do you answer the issues presented in the post? If jesus died for all, then all sin is forgiven and, therefore, all are saved?
If you want to make a case that jesus died for all sin but it has to be accepted by the individual, how do you answer john owen’s challenge that their unbelief is a sin and jesus either therefore didn’t die for everyone’s sin in full or he did and we end up with universalism?
Jesus DID die for all, not just all kinds of people but for every single soul that has ever lived. He satisfied, propitiated the wrath of God. The offer is universal. All CAN be saved. But the offer must be applied. Redemption is not for those who refuse it. They reject it.
John Owen’s challenge is not a problem. Paying for unbelief does not remove it. Unbelief is a sin that we all have and had before we were saved. Jesus died for the sin of unbelief which is in everyone. There is no disconnect. Jesus expiated the sins of all but justification is applied when that person believes.
So yes, Jesus died for everyone in general and for no one in particular. But in His foreknowledge He knew those who would become His sheep.
A person becomes one of the Elect when they believe and are placed into Christ “in Christ” who is the One elected and chosen from before the foundations of the world not us.
Salvation is a gift bought and paid for by the blood of Jesus. But if a person does not receive that gift, it is not theirs.
Ezekiel 18:23 “Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?”
It is not semi-pelagianism to receive the finished work of Christ, it is not works to receive a gift. I do not take any glory away from the Lord when I appropriate what Christ has done for me.
If I may say so, you don’t appear to be quoting any scripture in support of your position here. You note only Ezekiel, which doesn’t support your position. It simply tells us that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (which, of course, he doesn’t).
Your logical case still runs into problem though. You argue that Jesus’ death placated God’s wrath. Which is to say, God is no longer angry at sin because his anger has been satisfied. So how can he send anyone to Hell now his anger at ALL sin for ALL people (on your view) has been satisfied? If Jesus’ death is the propitiation for all, God is no longer angry at sin for anyone. If he remains angry at some people’s sin, then he hasn’t actually been propitiated at all.
The point in Ezequiel was that they have a choice: they can turn from their wicked ways or face the consequences of their sin, death. Got has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, that is why He made a way of escape for those willing to take it. 2 Cor. 5:20 be reconciled to God. Rom. 10:13 Believe and be saved.
The Bible, not me, states that God is satisfied with the death of Christ for sins. But if a person refuses that gift of salvation, then God wrath abides on them still. John 3:36.
God is not willing that any should perish in their sins, but that all should come to repentance. God is not limited in knowledge and power. His way is clear – trust in Jesus as Lord and Savior. Not all people will trust Him. Only He knows who will. His gift of salvation’s grace is offered to all. We are not God. We cannot know who will or will not accept. Jesus gave his life for all.
If jesus gave his life for all, what sin is still held against anyone? If no sin is held against anyone, how do we not have universalism?
Jesus will ONLY save ‘His people’ – those pre-destined for salvation, Matthew 1:21 ‘And she will have a Son, and you are to name Him Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.’
Amen to this! The book of John is one of the best in making clear Jesus died for an elect group of people. I’m reading through it again now and it’s all the more clear to me that Jesus didn’t die for every single person in the world. I used to not believe this but as I began to study the scriptures for myself in my early 20’s God began showing me this beautiful truth of election.
Thanks for this article. It was very clear on a subject that many Calvinists avoid. But when we understand it and truly see from Scripture the security we have through Christ’s definite atoning work, we can only rejoice in God’s glorious and gracious work of salvation. There are passages in Hebrews 9 and 10 that emphatically state what Jesus’ death accomplished – he put away sin for all time, and by a single offering he perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. The effectiveness of Christ’s atoning work is NOT dependent on our decision to receive the benefits. If that were true then we are left with the logical conclusion that Christ has done what’s necessary on the cross, but salvation is ultimately dependent on man’s decision.
Mr. Kneale, I notice that you are attempting to make a logical argument, not a biblical one. And it’s flawed logic. You wrote, “If he has died for all and paid for the sin of all in toto then all are necessarily saved.” This is false. “Who Jesus died for” and “those who are saved” are different categories, which means you are confusing action with effect.
But more to the point, what does the Bible teach? You didn’t quote a single Bible verse. Surely for you to defend this doctrine it must be all over the Bible?
You are right, I was making a logical case based on the agreed facts about what the Bible says. But, yes, it is all over the Bible. I did indeed reference several verses that were indicative, and not exhaustive, but perhaps you didn’t see those.
Yes, you referenced several verses. I did see them. None of them teach Limited Atonement. If it’s all over the Bible, then make a biblical case. Quote and explain the Scriptures.
We might be here a while if I do that. but I can give you some indicative verses (I did do that already, but I’m happy to give a few more):
Is 53:8 – he was stricken for “my people” NB, not all people
Matt 1:21 – he will save “his people” from their sins
Matt 20:28 – the son of man came to give his life as a ransom “for many” NB: not for all
Luke 1:68 – Jesus came to redeem “his people”, not all people
John 10:11 – Jesus gives up his life for “the sheep” not the goats also
John 10:15 – ‘I lay down my life for the sheep.’
John 13:1 – speaking of his going to the cross, Jesus ‘loved his own who were in the world’ and ‘now showed them the full extent of his love’
John 17:1-2 – Jesus came to give eternal life “to all those you [the Father] have given to him”
Gal 3:13 – Jesus “redeemed us” and came to be a curse “for us”, not for all in general
Eph 5:25 – Christ loved the Church and gave himself up “for her” not for all
Rom 3:25 – “God put Jesus forward as a propitiation by his blood” – that is, to placate God’s wrath against sin. Meaning there is no more anger against sin, and therefore no condemnation, which applies to all for whom Jesus was put forward.
Rom 8:3-4 – Jesus was the sin offering, and condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law should be met “in us”, not for all
Rom 8:31-39 – ‘gave himself up for us all’ necessarily refers to those Paul refers to in the rest of these verses otherwise those very verses lose all their rhetorical power.
There’s a few.
You may read my analysis if you like: https://mountainmantrails.blogspot.com/2024/01/who-did-jesus-die-for-by-steve-kneale-q.html
Jesus died for His people, therefore Jesus did not die for anyone else. Christ loved the church so he could not love any others. Tom loved his friends, therefore Tom does not love his enemies. The negative inference fallay! Read Dr. David Allen’s, “The Extent of the Atonement: A Critical and Historical Review” to betetr understand what the church ahs taught about Christ’s atonement.
I could encourage you to read Jim boice or rc sproul similarly. We can all quote books to support our positions and it doesn’t get us very far.
I explained in my post my case and then presented these verses (as asked) in support. They are not a case on their own save to say they don’t actually make much sense on the alternate reading.
I propose a fourth option:
They are both true.
Christ died for all and Christ died for the elect.
Scripture clearly teaches both as true; thus I believe that both are true.
The Scriptures that you have cited are indeed true.
So is this one:
1 John 2:2
[2] He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
There are others that I could cite but that one seems most clear.
We have no qualms holding Scriptural truths that are seemingly opposed — Christ is 100% God and 100% Man; Scripture was penned by fallible men but is God’s inerrant and complete Word; God the Son was dead three days in the tomb but we don’t believe that God the Father was dead with Him; and most unbelievable of all — God as a fetus in a mother’s womb.
Why do we obsess and quibble over this “L” doctrine?
All the TULIP doctrines are not inerrant.
God’s word is.
Interestingly I did reference the very verse you quote here in the post and explained what John means by ‘whole world’ and the rest of the post explains why that can’t mean ‘every single person in the world’.
Its logically true that if christ died for all then he also died for the elect because the elect are included in ‘all’. So this is just another way of saying jesus died for everyone. But my post does explain the logical and biblical problems with that view.
If jesus died for all, we have to explain biblically why his death hasn’t therefore saved everyone and what his death actually accomplished if it didn’t save anyone in reality.