Or, How Atonement Works
Scripture: Selected Scriptures
Date: February 17, 2013
Speaker: Sean Higgins
There is no audio available for this sermon.
History hinges on the cross of Christ, everything in the Christian’s life hangs on the cross as well. The death and resurrection of Christ is the center of God’s plan of redemption, it is the heart of the gospel, and it is the core of our hope.
When the Bible talks about the atonement of Christ’s death it means that He paid the penalty for sin, His death satisfied God’s wrath and provided forgiveness. When we talk about Christ’s “substitutionary atonement” we mean that Jesus died in the place of, instead of, sinners (2 Corinthians 5:21). Romans 5:8 says, “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God (1 Peter 3:18). He paid their price, He took their punishment on Himself.
He paid the price for whom? This is the layer where a lot of people run and hide. Sometimes you’ll hear people talk about being 4 Point Calvinists, and almost all of the time Limited Atonement (or Particular Redemption) is the point they reject.
But here is the question: did Christ’s work on the cross make atonement possible or did Christ’s work on the cross accomplish atonement? In other words, does Christ’s work on the cross need our faith to make the atonement effective, or did Christ’s work on the cross guarantee our faith because atonement was finished?
The Arminian says Christ’s death was designed to make salvation possible for every person in the world; the target of the cross was universal and general. Christ’s death made salvation possible for everyone, but it did not actually secure or guarantee the salvation of anyone. Man’s faith is the final, but necessary, component that determines whether or not Christ’s atoning work will be effective.
The Calvinist says Christ’s death actually secured the salvation of all of God’s elect; the target of the cross was individual and particular. Christ’s death accomplished and guarantees salvation for all of God’s chosen people. Christ’s atoning work does not need man’s faith to make it effective; Christ’s atoning work effectively provides faith as the final component.
Before we go any further, I hope you see that everybody limits the atonement in some way. The only people who place no limits on the atonement are called Universalists, and a Universalist is one who says everyone is saved and going to heaven. But Universalism doesn’t even have one biblical leg to stand on. So if you think that some people are currently in, and others are going to, hell, you believe in some sort of limited atonement.
The Calvinist limits the atonement in its scope (that is, who the atonement is for. It is an issue of quantity). But Arminians limit the atonement in power (that is, what the atonement actually accomplished. It is an issue of quality).
Loraine Boettner wrote one of the foremost books on Calvinism titled The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (1932). His chapter on Limited Atonement is one that profoundly shaped my thinking on this issue. He gives a great illustration of the difference between the two limitations:
For the Calvinist it is like a narrow bridge which goes all the way across the stream; for the Arminian it is like a great wide bridge which goes only half-way across.
Another helpful distinction comes from B.B. Warfield (The Plan of Salvation, [1915], 121-122):
The things we have to choose between are an atonement of high value, or an atonement of wide extension. The two cannot go together.
Let’s think about this logically for a bit more. The foremost book on the atonement I know is called The Death of Death in the Death of Christ by John Owen (a puritan who lived 1616-1683). In his book he lists the three possibilities that took place at the cross. Jesus atoned for:
Which one is correct?
If the last is true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so none are saved. The atonement was limited in sufficiency. Everyone goes to hell because the payment didn’t satisfy God’s demand for anyone.
If the second is true, then Christ suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world. The atonement was limited in extent, but not in power. Some men go to hell because Christ did not satisfy God’s demand for them, even though He did for others. This explains how some can still go to hell, how some can be saved, and how Jesus gets all the credit for the saved.
But if the first is true, why aren’t all men free from the penalty of their sin? That is, if Christ paid for the sin of every person, if He took the place of everyone, than how can God justly send anyone to hell? If Christ paid the penalty, how is it right for God to punish Christ and the person for the same sin? Not only does this require a “double-payment” for sin, this makes Christ’s substitution almost worthless. I have difficulty thinking of the Father pouring out wrath on His Son, knowing that He was adding punishment that would do no good.
Again, you could be a Universalist, saying that He did pay for all the sins of all men and so all men are saved. But if you don’t think everyone is saved, you must give another answer.
Most people answer, even though Jesus paid for everyone’s sin, some go to hell because they don’t believe. Here is where the infamous check writing illustration comes in. We owe God for our sin. Jesus dies on the cross and writes us a check to cover everything we owe. But we have to sign the check or it isn’t any good. In other words, we have to believe or the atonement isn’t any good for us. Unbelief is what keeps the atonement from being effective. John Owen answers the point,
I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins! (*The Death of Death in the Death of Christ)
So if Christ died for all their sins, He also died for unbelief. What is it that God has left to punish? So why does He send any men to hell? The answer is not because they didn’t believe, it is because their sins weren’t paid for.
Well, even if that sounds neat and tidy logically, is it accurate and consistent biblically?
John 10 is a great passage on Jesus as the Shepherd and it is an encouragement to the sheep as to how trustworthy their Shepherd really is. Throughout the chapter Jesus identifies two distinct groups, those who are His sheep and those who aren’t. John 10:22-27. Those who are His sheep hear His voice and follow Him. Those who are not His sheep do not believe because they are not His sheep. (Note that it isn’t because they don’t believe that they aren’t His sheep, they don’t believe because they aren’t His sheep.) Anyway, look back earlier in the chapter:
I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep . I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep . (John 10:11, 14-15)
If it says Jesus laid down His life for the sheep, does that mean He didn’t lay down His life for the non-sheep? The answer is not unclear. Jesus repeats the intent of His sacrifice twice, “for the sheep.” The sheep is a definite, specific, particular group contrasted with thieves, robbers, strangers, and wolves. The virtue of the Shepherd, the reason He is called good, is because of His willing life-giving on behalf of the sheep.
Is this picture consistent with what we see about the intention of Christ’s death in other parts of Scripture? In Matthew 20:20-28 Jesus is responding to the mother of James and John, explaining to her the nature of true greatness, that whoever would be great must be a servant and whoever would be first must be slave. Jesus Himself is the perfect example of that service, and notice who His service is for.
The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many . (Matthew 20:28)
This is not the only passage that talks about His death being for many and not all.
For this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. (Matthew 26:28)
And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many , will appear a second time, (Hebrews 9:27-28)
The word for is the idea of “in place of, on behalf of.” And the word many is purposefully different than words like “all” or “everyone.” It denotes a large group, but not an unlimited number.
In His work of being our high priest, He made propitiation (He appeased God, basically another word for atonement) for the sins of the people .
Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people . (Hebrews 2:17)
In His high priestly prayer, Jesus goes out of His way again to make clear that there are two groups of people, His people and those who are not His people. Vv. 2, 6, *9-10, 19, 20, 25. There is a very specific group He is concerned about, His disciples and those who would become His disciples, but not the whole world.
And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. (John 17:19)
And then one more passage that narrows the intended scope of His atoning death. Caiaphas spoke to the chief priests and the Pharisees who were beginning to plan how to put Jesus to death, and he prophesied:
“…it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.” He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. (John 11:50-52)
Who are the children of God scattered abroad but the elect? So the Bible consistently affirms that Christ paid the price for His sheep, and they will be saved.
Hebrews 7 describes Christ’s ongoing work as high priest.
He is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. (Hebrews 7:25)
We know from John 17 in His high-priestly prayer that He prays for all those that the Father gave Him and not for the whole world. The Father chose men to give to the Son, the Father sent the Son to be the substitute for the sheep, the Son atoned for their sin and now intercedes for the sheep, and the Spirit applies the work of the Son at the right time.
So to summarize the biblical affirmations,
If you deny #1, then you must limit Jesus’ ability in #s 2 and 3.
There is no doubt that those of you who know your Bibles, or for that matter, anyone who knows John 3:16, has some questions.
The problem with talking about the atonement being only for the sheep, for the elect, is the passages of Scripture that use words like world, all, and everyone. There are a number of verses that use these sweeping words to communicate what seems to be a much broader intent in Christ’s death. While you certainly can do more study of this on your own, let me explain what I think is the essential factor in the discussion. This is a perspective that is foreign to us.
Who were most of the NT books written to? That is, what kind of people were the original audience of Scripture? The Jews. And the Jews had major misunderstandings about their Messiah. Not only did they misunderstand His purpose—they thought of His deliverance only in terms of politics, not deliverance from sin. They also misunderstood His target—deliverance for Jews and Gentiles!
The gospel is for the Jew first and also for the Greek (Romans 1:16). We have a very hard time with this. We don’t think in terms of Jews and Gentiles. We would be satisfied leaving off the last phrase in verse 16. The Jew/Gentile discussion seems unimportant and irrelevant for most of us American Christians.
Yet I think you will find that when words like “all” and “world” are used in reference to Christ’s death they are meant to challenge the narrow, Israel-centric attitude of the Jews. Let’s consider a couple of these passages.
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:1-2)
There it is: the whole world . This is an issue of exegesis, not logic. Most Five Point Calvinists are accused of being driven by logic. While I don’t have a desire to be illogical this is primarily an interpretational issue, not a logical one. There are only a few ways to interpret verse 2. Most people think that whole world means every person, specifically unbelievers. They think the our refers to Christians and that Jesus is the propitiation for every believer and every unbeliever. But if the target is unlimited, the propitiation has to be limited. There are two possibilities if the target is universal.
He could be the partial propitiation, that is, He could have appeased God in some sense for everyone. But what sense would that be? In what way did Jesus appease God’s wrath against those who are in hell, or those who will experience God’s wrath to come? The verse says that propitiation was for sin, so was it only for some sins or certain kinds of sin? What good was that propitiation for them? If it was only for some sins, then what is the additional propitiation that Christians get, since Christians are saved? There just aren’t verses that talk about complete appeasement for believers and an incomplete appeasement for unbelievers. The partial propitiation interpretation is no good.
This second interpretation option is that Jesus is a potential propitiation. This is basically the Arminian position. The bridge is very wide but it only goes halfway across. Jesus appeased God’s wrath but it isn’t valid until we believe. But when you read the verse, the passage doesn’t actually say it was a potential propitiation. It says He is the propitiation for our sins . It is declared as a fact. And if it is reality, then it isn’t potential. It’s a done deal. Also, if the propitiation were only potential, then the door is still open for the possibility that Christ appeased God’s wrath for some that God is still wrathful towards.
Honestly, I’m not really excited about limiting the propitiation. Limiting the atonement to a certain percentage of sins, or to certain kinds of sins, or saying it is only potential misses the encouragement the verse is meant to provide. But there is a third possible interpretation.
I’ve added the word “full” to make the contrast clear between this third interpretation and the previous two. If propitiation were simply allowed to mean what it means, we wouldn’t need a qualifier like “full.” Nevertheless, the epistle of 1 John was written by the apostle John, one of the pillars of the Jerusalem church. As a Jew, writing to a primarily Jewish audience, John was trying to expand their national horizons. There are no national limitations on Christ’s work of atonement.
The our is not just Christians, it is Christian Jews. Christ is not the propitiation for Jews only, but for the whole world, for all kinds of people in the world including Gentiles.
So again, we either limit the atonement by extent or power. We either say it is limited because it was partial or potential, or that it is limited in that it was intended for a specific group, even though that group consists of persons regardless of nationality.
No discussion of potential problem passages would be complete without considering John 3:16. The Gospel of John was likewise written by the apostle John and, while we ought to celebrate the broad nature of the verse, I’m not convinced it refers to every person without exception.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16)
In John chapter three, John is relating a conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus, a Pharisee and ruler of the Jews (verse 1). Nicodemus was undoubtedly a prime example of someone thinking that salvation was for Israel and Israel alone. Jesus is expanding Nicodemus’ understanding by explaining that whoever believes in Him will be saved (though better translated “every one believing”); whoever among the Jews and whoever among the Gentiles. There is a broad, sweeping promise in the gospel, as it goes into all the world.
But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. (Hebrews 2:9)
The question here is whether everyone refers to every human being, or everyone within a certain group. Immediately after saying that Christ tasted death for everyone, the writer of Hebrews explains God’s design in this suffering of Christ was to “bring many sons to glory.” This means that the everyone of verse 9 probably refers to everyone of the sons in verse 10. It was for everyone of these that Christ tasted death.
For an excellent sermon on Hebrews 2:9, read John Piper, For Whom Did Jesus Taste Death
There are other verses as well but this sampling shows that there are possible explanations for preaching particular atonement to every nation.
Perhaps the best way to say it this is: Christ died for all the sins of all those who would ever believe. Or another helpful summary statement: *He did not die for all men without exception, but for all men without distinction* . He didn’t die just for Jews but also for Gentiles. Atonement was made not just for men, but also for women; old an young, educated and uneducated, from every race, etc. No one can say, “I really want to be saved by believing Jesus, but I can’t because He didn’t die for me.” No one can say that, because any who believe can be saved.
Many Calvinists believe that Christ’s death has both limited and unlimited effects. The limited effect is salvation for the elect, but there are also non-salvation effects of the cross for every unbeliever. Those Calvinists who think there are both limited and unlimited effects typically refer to themselves as Four-and-a-Half Point Calvinists.
They say, for example, that on the cross Christ purchased common grace for everyone. That is, His death allowed for the Father to give sun and rain to unbelievers. While there is no denying God’s common grace to His creatures, I can’t find an actual verse anywhere that connects the cross and common grace. Common grace comes from God’s gracious character. His general kindness is part of His nature. But nowhere in Scripture does it say these temporal “good things” were part of Christ’s atoning work.
The same people also suggest that Christ purchased delayed judgment on the cross. Again, I can’t think of any verse that connects the cross with any postponement of judgment. In Romans 3:25 we read that He doesn’t judge immediately because of His divine forbearance , but likewise, this is part of His character, not a purchase of the cross. Besides, I’m not sure that delayed judgment is better, since the more an unbeliever experiences God’s common goodness the more accountable he is. Delayed judgment is inevitably worse judgment, and certainly Christ did not purchase greater accountability.
It is also suggested that Christ purchased a global gospel offer on the cross. That is, His dying for the world means that the gospel can be preached to everyone in the world. But again, where is the verse that says Christ suffered so that the gospel could be preached to everyone? What Scripture explains the purpose of the atonement in terms of purchasing the universal offer of salvation?
I can only find one Scriptural effect of Christ’s death that has universal implication.
and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. (Colossians 1:20, see also Romans 8:19-21)
There is some sense in which the death of Christ overcame the effects of sin on creation itself. Though creation didn’t sin, creation benefits from the cross as Christ redeems many sons and sets creation free from the curse of futility due to man’s sin. But this is not a universal effect for unbelievers. The reconciliation that Christ made on the cross for creation is established, just as the reconciliation of the elect is a done deal. It is not partial or potential.
So other than this reconciliation of creation, I cannot find any passage that reveals unlimited effects of the cross. There are some blessings give to all mankind, but those flow from God’s character, not the cross. The purposeful, direct purchases and benefits of the cross are limited to the sheep.
When we use the phrase “limited atonement” we don’t mean that Jesus was limited, or that He wasn’t able to do everything He wanted to at the cross. It doesn’t mean that He would have needed to suffer more pain or somehow die a second death in order to save more people. In fact, His death on the cross has infinite value because the Sacrifice Himself was of infinite value.
His work on the cross had a particular intent, to save the elect, and therefore was limited in scope.
Jesus came to save His people from their sins (Matthew 1:21), exactly as the Father planned. His work on the cross accomplished reconciliation, justification, and sanctification (Romans 5:8-10). He continues His work for the sheep even now through intercession (Hebrews 7:25), and that not for the whole world but for all the Father gave Him (John 17:24-26). This is still a great number from every tribe, tongue, and nation (Revelation 5:9). In particular, His death was not just for the Jews but for all the children of God scattered throughout the world (John 11:52).
We really don’t call this a “limited” atonement? Charles Spurgeon said,
If Christ has died for you, you can never be lost.
That is something not just to defend, but to celebrate! Not only that, this is something to preach! He died for everyone who will ever believe. That means if you believe, your sins are atoned for.
It is the death of Christ that guarantees for us everything we need.
He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? (Romans 8:32)
Who are “us all”? Even the people who are in hell? Did the Father really not spare His son, pouring out punishment on Him, and then not give faith to those He paid for? Don’t you think the Father planned on giving us “faith” in the all things ?
(And by the way, does all things mean a Hummer, and good looks, and long life, etc.? Not at all. The “all” has a context, namely all the good things necessary for eternal life.)
If you are a believer, there is no peace like when you really grasp that Christ died on your behalf. What comfort is it to think that Christ paid the same penalty for those who are now in hell? What good did His sacrifice do for them? And what makes His sacrifice more valuable for us? Our faith? No. Jesus paid it all, all to Him we owe. Sin had left a crimsoned stain, He washed it white as snow. This is why we look to the cross (not to look to ourselves looking to the cross).