Shepherds College Systematic Theology Session 10

 Definite Atonement and Election The doctrine of definite atonement (also known as limited atonement) focuses on the question of the design of Christ's atonement. It is concerned with God's intent in sending Jesus to the cross. Anyone who is not a universalist is willing to agree that the effect of Christ's work on the cross is limited to those who believe. That is, Christ's atonement does not avail for unbelievers. Not everyone is saved through His death. Everyone also agrees that the merit of Christ's death is sufficient to pay for the sins of all human beings. Some put it this way: Christ's atonement is sufficient for all, but efficient only for some. This, however, does not really get at the heart of the question of definite atonement. Those who deny definite atonement insist that Christ's work of atonement was designed by God to atone for the sins of everyone in the world. It made possible the salvation of everyone, but made certain the salvation of no one. Its design is therefore both unlimited and indefinite. The Reformed view holds that Christ's atonement was designed and intended only for the elect. Christ laid down His life for His sheep and only for His sheep. Furthermore, the Atonement insured salvation for all the elect. The Atonement was an actual, not merely potential, work of redemption. In this view there is no possibility that God's design and intent for the Atonement could be frustrated. God's purpose in salvation is sure. Reformed theologians differ over the question of the offer of the Atonement to the human race. Some insist that the offer of the gospel is universal. The Cross and its benefits are offered to anyone who believes. Others insist that this concept of a universal offer is misleading and involves a kind of play on words. Since only the elect will in fact believe, in reality the offer goes out only to them. The benefit of Christ's atonement is never offered by God to the impenitent or the unbelieving. Since belief and repentance are conditions met only by the elect, then ultimately the Atonement is offered only to them. John writes that: "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2). This text, more than any other, is cited as scriptural proof against definite atonement. At first glance it seems to argue that Christ's death was intended for everybody (the whole world). However, if it is taken in that sense the text proves more than non-Reformed people want it to prove. It becomes a proof-text for universalism. If Christ indeed propitiated or satisfied God's demands for the punishment of the sins of everybody, then clearly everybody would be saved. If God punished sins that were already propitiated then He would be unjust. If the text is understood to mean that everyone's sins have been conditionally propitiated (contingent upon faith and repentance) then we are back to the original question of only the elect satisfying the conditions. The other way to view this text is to see the contrast in it between our sins and those of the whole world. Who are the people included in the word our? If John is speaking only of fellow believers, then the previous interpretation of the text would apply. But is that the only possible meaning of our? In the New Testament a frequent contrast is made between the salvation enjoyed by Jews and that enjoyed by non-Jews. A crucial point of the gospel is that it is not limited to Jews but is extended to people all over the world, to people from every tribe and nation. God loves the whole world, but He does not save the whole world; He saves people from all parts of the world. In this text, John may merely be saying that Christ is not only a propitiation for our sins (Jewish believers) but for the elect found also throughout the whole world. In any case, the plan of God was decided before anybody was in the world at all. The atonement of Christ was not a divine afterthought. The purpose of God in Christ's death was determined at the foundation of the world. The design was not guesswork but according to a specific plan and purpose, which God is sovereignly bringing to pass. All for whom Christ died are redeemed by His sacrificial act.1 It is sometimes assumed that the doctrine of definite atonement originated during the Reformation era of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, but the idea can be traced through the patristic and medieval periods as well. Although the doctrine was not articulated as clearly as it would be in later centuries, we can find versions of definite atonement from Augustine (354-430) to a theologian named Gottschalk (808-878) to medieval schoolmen like Peter Lombard (1100-1160) and Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). Of particular importance is the classic distinction given by Lombard that Christ's death was sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect. Even though Lombard's view, taken as a whole, was consistent with a Reformed view of the atonement, the sufficient/efficient distinction by itself was ambiguous enough to be affirmed by most parts of the church. The debate between the Arminians and the traditionally Reformed at the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) was about the relationship between the sufficiency of the price and the efficacy for the elect. The two key words are intention and effectively. At issue were these two questions: What outcome did God purpose to achieve by the cross? and, What did the death of Christ actually accomplish on the cross? To the first question Dort said, "It was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son's costly death should work itself out in all the elect, in order that God might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation." The issue was not whether Christ's death was sufficiently capable of saving all men, but whether God's intention was to put forth Christ as an effectual atoning sacrifice for every person. Arminians acknowledged that the atonement was only efficient in the elect. Dort, however, maintained that the decisive factor in making the death of Christ efficacious for only some was not human will, but God's will. The Arminians may have agreed on the outcome-an atoning sacrifice for the elect-but they denied a particular and divinely ordained intention in Christ's death. The issue could not be clarified by sufficiency and efficiency, but by sufficiency and intentionality. The second crucial question is about the death of Christ and what it actually accomplished. Here the key word is effectively. "It was God's will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and p 230 only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father." Both sides at Dort actually taught a "limited" atonement. While the Reformed famously limited the extent of the atonement, the Arminians limited the nature of the atonement. Christ's death for the Arminians became the means of removing original sin and granting men the prevenient grace necessary to believe. And yet there was no guarantee-not by human experience, let alone by divine decree-that anyone would enjoy the redeeming power of the cross. In order to defend the notion that Christ died for "all men and for every man," the Arminians championed an atonement that allowed for the potential salvation of everyone but actually secured the salvation of none. Definite atonement is such good news because it doesn't just make sinners save-able; it makes them saved.2 THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION Reformed theologians say that one must believe to receive the benefits of the cross, but even that faith is a gift from God. Christ fulfills the eternal design of salvation so that every person for whom He died is saved. Jesus died only for the elect; He did not die for everyone. Many object to this, pointing out the Bible's teaching that Christ died for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). Yes, Christ did die for people from all parts of the world, which is the way the Scriptures speak of "the world." In other words, from a biblical standpoint, Jesus did not die merely for Jews. He died for Jews and Gentiles of every kind. He died for people from every tribe, tongue, and nation. He died for the whole of the elect, which includes people from every part of the world. However, He did not die for the nonelect. He did not die for Satan. He did not die for those who, in God's eternal decree, are not the special objects of His favor of election. Holding to the L in TULIP is the litmus test of whether one really believes what the other letters represent. People say they believe in total depravity-the T-but they do not believe in limited atonement. They say they believe in unconditional election-the U-meaning that God has sovereignly chosen from all eternity those whom He will save merely out of his own good pleasure, but they do not hold to limited atonement. However, we cannot believe one and not believe the other. If we believe that election is unconditional and that it is grounded in God's sovereign mercy and grace from all eternity, then we must also see the purpose of the cross. The value of the cross extends universally, but God's design and purpose for the cross were to save only some of fallen humanity by satisfying the demands of His justice. He determined to apply the work of His Son to the benefit of those whom He chose from the foundation of the world. The cross has always been part of the eternal plan of God's redemption, and its design is intended for the elect. It is comforting to know that Christ did not die in vain, and that His accomplished redemption will certainly be applied to those whom He purposed to save.3 1 R. C. Sproul, ed., The Reformation Study Bible: English Standard Version (2015 Edition) (Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust, 2015), 1875. 2 DeYoung, Kevin. Daily Doctrine: A One-Year Guide to Systematic Theology. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2024, p 229. 3 R. C. Sproul, Everyone's a Theologian: An Introduction to Systematic Theology (Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust, 2014). --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------