Theology - Prologue to Lesson 24 - The Extent of the Atonement

 

The nature of the atonement: propitiation, redemption, and reconciliation ACCOMPLISHED on the cross at Calvary. The Scripture presents Christ’s work as complete.

Having examined the nature of the atonement, we should next ask about the scope of the atonement: For whom did Christ die as a substitute?

The majority of texts speak in a limited way (cf. for example Mark 10:45; John 10:15; Rom 5:15, 19; etc.), though there are a handful of texts that could be understood universally (cf. 1 Tim 2:2-4; 2 Pet 2:1; 1 John 2:2).

 

Three answers are logically possible.

1.   UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT

a.   Definition – On the cross, Christ bore the punishment for the sins of EVERYONE who has ever lived/will live.

b.   Problem: there are logical inconsistencies with this view.

                                       i.    If the atonement is accomplished, and Christ made ACTUAL propitiation, reconciliation, and redemption; then how is salvation not universal if He died for everybody?

                                     ii.    If Christ propitiated the unbeliever’s sins, then why are unbelievers still punished for their sins in hell?[1] This is often termed ‘double jeopardy.’

                                    iii.    What would be the purpose of Christ dying for everyone who died in their unbelief and disobedience to God BEFORE Christ’s death? For instance, if He propitiated everybody’s sins, did He propitiate the Exodus Pharaoh’s sins? For what purpose?

                                    iv.    What would be the purpose of Christ dying for everyone who never heard/never will hear the gospel? By God’s design, most people who have ever lived have never heard the gospel of salvation in Christ Jesus.

                                     v.    If He absorbed the wrath of God for everyone, but people can still perish, then what kind of Savior is He?

                                    vi.    If we maintain that God elects SOME to salvation and the Holy Spirit regenerates THOSE TO NEW LIFE, but Christ died for ALL, then there is inconsistency in the Godhead.

c.    The solution that is usually employed to solve the logical inconsistencies in this view is to water down the biblical view of the atonement. Christ only made it possible for someone to be propitiated, reconciled, redeemed. He didn’t ACTUALLY save anyone. He POSSIBLY saved everyone or some or no one. But that rubs against the grain of Scripture. That makes Christ less than a Savior. It is certainly not the grand, victorious Savior who laid down His life to absorb the wrath of God for His sheep from every tribe, nation, and tongue.

d.   Imagine that a large parking lot is closed. There is a sign at the entrance warning that anyone who parks in the parking lot will be issued a hefty citation. No one pays attention. A hundred people park in the lot. The police go through and give out one hundred citations. A wealthy man, seeing what has just happened, goes down to city hall and says, “I want to pay all one hundred parking tickets issued for that closed parking lot.” The clerk is surprised, but the transaction is accepted and the tickets are paid. Soon, a man who had parked in the parking lot brings in his ticket to pay it. “It’s already paid sir,” the clerk says. “Well, what a wonderful surprise,” says the man. “Is there anything else I need to do?” The clerk replies, “It’s all taken care of. You don’t need to do a thing.” The man goes away happy. Soon, another man comes in to pay his parking ticket, and the clerk tells him the good news. But the man scowls, “I don’t believe it. Who would do that?” The clerk replies that a nice gentleman had taken pity on the rule-breakers. The man throws down the money, and he says, “I don’t want anyone’s charity. I want to pay my own fine.” The clerk is rather bewildered, and says, “There’s nothing I can do. Your fine has already been paid. Whether you believe it or not. Or whether you want it or not. It’s paid.” That is the logical inconsistency of the universal atonement view.

2.   HYPOTHETICALLY UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT

a.   Definition – The hypothetical universal atonement view states that Christ’s atonement was sufficient for all humanity (it COULD save everyone), but it’s only effective for the elect.

b.   The best way I can illustrate this is by imagining an island where everyone is sick. A cure has just been discovered, and the vials are being shipped in on an airplane. When the medicine arrives, it has everything needed to make a quick and total recovery. It is 100% effective. Some take it, and are cured. Others refuse and continue to get sicker until they die. The medicine was sufficient for all, but only effective for those who would take it.

c.    This view emphasizes the value of Christ’s blood while still maintaining the efficaciousness (effectiveness) of the blood. This view recognizes the Bible’s assertion that Christ made actual, effective propitiation for His sheep.

d.   This view was an accepted position at the Synod of Dort when the church came together to defend their doctrine from the universalist view.

 

3.   LIMITED ATONEMENT

a.   Definition – Christ died only in place of His elect in order to secure their propitiation, reconciliation, and redemption before God.

b.   Everyone holding this position would affirm the value of Christ’s blood. That is, even if there were an infinite number of persons being atoned for, Christ’s blood is valuable enough to pay for them all.

c.    This view makes the purpose of the Godhead the same: the Father elects people to salvation, the Son atones for those people, and the Spirit regenerates those same people.

d.   Jesus Himself limited His High-priestly prayer to His elect. He did not pray for the world (cf. John 17:9).

e.    This view avoids the ‘double jeopardy’ inconsistency.

f.     This view avoids both having Christ die for people who died in their sins previous to His work on the cross and for people who never heard of Him.

g.    Problem: what do you do with the handful of texts listed above that appear to be universal?

h.   This is the view that most contended for at the Synod of Dort.

i.     Variations of this view widely accepted before the Reformation.

THE SYNOD OF DORT

Since I have mentioned the Synod of Dort, I should give some explanation of its importance in Reformed Soteriology. As Protestant Theology was being developed through the study of the Bible, soteriology was especially developing rapidly. The Reformers all were seeing in their study the statements about God’s sovereignty in salvation, and their theologies were developing in accord with this.[2]

After a hundred years of Reformation, the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) was a response to the teachings of Jacob Arminius and his disciples. Arminius watered down the sovereignty of God in order to preserve his view of man’s free will. The synod came together to hear preaching from both sides, and the delegates ruled unanimously in favor of Reformed soteriology.

In answer to Arminian theology’s universal atonement and unconditional election, the acronym TULIP was put forward as a summary of biblical soteriology.

Total Depravity – Mankind is dead in sins and transgressions (Eph 2:1), and the wisdom of God is foolishness to them (2 Cor 2:14) because sin has so corrupted their faculties. Their free will is totally in bondage to sin, and they cannot/will not respond favorably to the gospel.

Unconditional Election – God chose some before the foundation of the earth to be saved (Eph 1:3). The Trinity accomplished salvation through the cross of Jesus Christ. The Trinity will apply the atonement to all the elect, so that they all will be saved.

Limited Atonement – The atonement of Christ was designed only for the elect, therefore it is efficient only for the elect.

Irresistible Grace – When God gives the inward call to His elect, the elect cannot/will not resist. This is discussed later in Lesson #24.

Perseverance of the Saints – All of the elect will continue in faith until the end, and they will all be glorified. This is discussed a bit in Lesson #24, but we will save the main discussion for Lesson #25.

---

[1] Some have tried to answer by saying that all of the sins of unbelievers were paid for by Jesus, but they will be sent to Hell for their sin of unbelief. Unbelief is certainly a sin. However, the Bible presents people as going to Hell for their sins. Revelation 20:12 says that all unbelievers will be judged according to their deeds. That certainly includes their rejection of Jesus and failure to believe in Him. However, the text doesn’t limit it to that. Romans 2:6-9 makes the same claim. People will die for their evil deeds.

[2] That is not to say that they were completely cut off from the historical understanding that had developed over the centuries. The Reformers were pleased to see that their study of the Bible brought them to many of the same conclusions as the church fathers before them (Augustine, Thomas of Aquinas, Peter Lombard, etc.).