by Jack Brooks
Limited atonement is the Reformed-Presbyterian doctrine that Christ’s death on the cross paid the price for the sins of the elect only. The Reformed see it as a necessary logical consequence of unconditional election, substitutionary ransom, and the only safeguard against universalism. Speaking as a pastor, I see it as having harmful psychological effects on the people who hold it.
This doctrine of Five-Point Calvinism presents the cross as an automatic event similar to the Roman Catholic doctrine of ex opere operato.1 According to Calvinism, the cross obtains faith for the elect.2 Wayne Grudem says this.3It is standard Reformed fare. According to Grudem, the cross accomplishes the justification only of the elect. This is why the Reformed wrongly conclude that the doctrine of general atonement results in universalism. If the cross works unconditionally and unilaterally and Christ died for everyone, then everyone must be saved. But the claim that the cross works unconditionally and unilaterally is itself a Calvinist presupposition, so Calvinist criticism of general atonement amounts to circular reasoning.
A unilateral, unconditional application of Christ’s cross-work is also inconsistent with scriptural pictures of redemption. The bronze serpent was a picture of Christ on the cross (John 3:14-15). Its heal-ing potential was unlimited. But the snake-bitten person had to look at it for healing to happen (Num. 21:8-9). The animal sacrifices ceremonially cleansed the worshiper, but the man had to lay his hand on the head of the animal first (Lev. 1:1-4). God provided sacrificial lambs for all of Israel, but each family had to paint their doors with its blood in order for the death-angel to pass over (Exod. 12:12-13). None of these Old Testament types show an unconditional, unilateral redemption. Paul preached that Christ’s death reconciled the world to God, but then preached to the lost people of the world, “Be reconciled to God!” (2 Cor. 5:18-20), which shouldn’t be necessary if the cross worked unilaterally and unconditionally.
The Problem of Bad Interpretation
There are so many texts which teach a general atonement that a selective hermeneutic is needed to force those passages to fit the mold of limited atonement. Examples can be found in the writings of John Gill, the prominent eighteenth-century British pastor and theologian. Although Gill had an outstanding mastery of ancient languages, his approach to the Bible was nevertheless controlled by his creed. For example, Gill limits the “all we” in Isaiah 53:6 to the elect.4 Yet, there is nothing in the passage that calls for this limitation. In fact, the logical New Testament counterpart of Isaiah 53:6 is the “all” in Romans 3:23 (which Gill says refers to all humanity). But Gill must limit the “all” in Isaiah 53:6, since otherwise the verse teaches general atonement. Gill arbitrarily forces “the elect” into 53:6 to avoid general atonement.
In another example, Gill claims that the phrase “the whole world” in 1 John 2:2 means “Gentiles as op-posed to Jews.”5 There are two reasons to reject this interpretation. First, the theme of Jew or Gentile is absent from John’s epistles. John uses universal polarities, such as light/darkness (1 John 1:5), obedience /disobedience (1 John 2:3-11), or love for the Father/love for the world (1 John 2:15). These categories cut across all Jew-Gentile distinctions. Second, the phrase “the whole world” is defined in 1 John 5:19 as all unsaved people: “We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.” Even the elect are under Satan’s control prior to faith (Eph. 2:1-3). Believers were spiritually dead “even as the rest” (v. 3). Gill contradicts himself by saying that “whole world” in 1 John 5:19 means all sinners without exception.6 He forces the text into a limited-atonement mold. John Calvin does the same.7
The Problem of Dishonesty and Despair
I have many times heard or read Reformed preachers say in evangelistic messages that Christ died for “sinners.” To the educated listener, this is normal Christian language. But to the person familiar with Reformed orthodoxy, this is a dodge. Calvinist theologian D. A. Carson rightly calls this sort of thing “sleazy.”8 If the Reformed evangelist was honest, he should say to an audience, “Only God knows the identity of the elect. I cannot know who Christ died for. I don’t know if Christ did anything for you.” You can easily imagine how disastrous such preaching would be!
What to do, then? Reformed preachers in Britain took a number of different paths. The hyper-Calvinists9 said that appeals may only be made to those who show signs of election. One problem with this approach is that Jesus didn’t follow it. Christ sent His men out to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt. 10:6), not to the lost sheep who showed-some-evidence-of-being-elect. Christ invited everyone without exception to come to Him (Matt. 11:28).
Other Calvinists preached the substitutionary death of Christ, including a forthright presentation of limited atonement. This was Charles Spurgeon’s approach:
I do not believe we can preach the gospel if we do not preach justification by faith with-out works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out up-on the cross.10
Spurgeon offered some individuals hope of salvation, and based it on their feelings: “Leaving controversy, however, I will now answer a question. Tell me, then, sir, whom did Christ die for? Will you answer me a question or two, and I will tell you whether He died for you. Do you want a Saviour? Do you feel that you need a Saviour? Are you this morning conscious of sin? Has the Holy Spirit taught you that you are lost? Then Christ died for you and you will be saved.”11 If a visitor didn’t feel guilty (or guilty enough), or they were still making up their minds, he or she had to go home in despair on the presumption they weren’t elect. Unlike Spurgeon, the apostle Paul told his as-yet-unbelieving audiences, “Christ died for our sins” (1 Cor. 15:1-3). Paul did not preach, “Christ died for someone.”
The Problem of No Real Assurance of Salvation
Many years ago, my apologetics professor at semi-nary told me how, when he was still pastoring, he used to fellowship with a group of Reformed pas-tors. Those pastors related how one of the chronic spiritual problems with which their people struggled was a lack of assurance of their own salvation. But this should not have been a surprise, since the doctrine of limited atonement destroys assurance.
Imagine an enormous crowd of ragged debtors gathered outside a windowless bank. Christ walks up to the crowd and says, “I am going inside, to my Father who is the bank president, and I will completely pay off the debts of some of you!” Christ turns, and goes into the bank. Three days later, He comes out, and announces, “I have paid off the debts of some of you!”. Then He leaves.
A preacher stands up and says, “This is Good News!” A person in the crowd timidly raises his hand and asks, “How do I know if my debt was paid?” The preacher asks, “Do you feel as if your debt was paid? Do you feel badly about being in debt? Do you feel that Jesus paying off your debt will be your only hope of getting out of debt?” The man says, “Yes.” The preacher answers, “Then congratulations, your feelings mean you are highly likely to be numbered among those who have had their debts paid off!” The man smiles, but still looks anxious.
A second man raises his hand. “But isn’t it possible for me to feel all those ways, but still be mistaken?” “Oh, yes!” says the preacher. “False faith is a very real danger. I’m glad you recognize the danger.” He goes on to say to the crowd, “People, make sure you aren’t deceived into a false faith!” The crowd begins murmuring with even greater anxiety.
One might feel deep conviction of sin, and believe that Christ is the Son of God, and still be lost be-cause feelings and opinions do not prove reality. Even Judas Iscariot felt horrible about himself (Matt. 27:3). There are lots of religious people who believe that Jesus was the Son of God and yet they are not saved, because they are still relying on their own good works. Now, if a Calvinist replies, “Then they should rely on Christ!”, the answer back is then, “Rely on what exactly?” According to the doctrine of limited atonement, Christ might not have done anything for them. And so we are back at the beginning.
If no one but God knows who the elect are, then no one but God knows for whom Christ died. The re-sult is that the cross is no longer a sure object of saving faith. In addition, the cross cannot be a basis for assurance, because inward feelings do not prove outward reality. We could feel saved, and be in terrible error. Limited atonement shifts faith from the cross to a shaky foundation of emotion, combined with moral behavior. Is it any wonder that Re-formed Christians struggle with assurance?
The Problem of Softening the Doctrine
In real life, most Calvinists soften the doctrine by saying Christ’s death is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect. This is an old solution, so old that Calvin wrote about it in the sixteenth century. The problem with this venerable saying is that a no-thing can’t be sufficient for anything. This is similar to the famous paradox of Schrödinger’s cat. A box arrives at Schrödinger’s door. His friend says, “If there’s a cat in there, it could jump out of that box and bite you.” Schrödinger opens the box but finds it empty. His friend says, “A cat could jump out of the box and bite you.” “Don’t be absurd,” snorts Schrödinger. “There’s nothing here. A no-thing can’t do anything, not even potentially.”
If limited atonement is true, then the infinitely righteous value of His blood/death doesn’t permit for any surplus, since Christ’s payment of His blood to God was for specific people. It isn’t like Jesus’ blood was a $10,000 bill, by which He paid off my friend’s $6,789 bill, and so Jesus has $3,211 “left over” for non-elect me. So the sufficient/efficient saying feels good, but is meaningless.
Conclusion
The doctrine of limited atonement demands scripture-twisting, and numerous logical fallacies, to find it in Scripture. It justifies unbelief toward Christ within the lost, because they realize (correctly) that they can’t put trust in something that might not exist. It causes anxiety among Christians, because it directs us to look inward for assurance rather than outward to Christ’s death. Limited atonement builds on an ex opere operato view of the cross. It is a harmful influence. ■
______________________________
1. This Latin expression means literally “out of working, it works” and is used by Catholicism to teach that the sacraments have saving efficacy in and of themselves—by their very act—not because of the participant’s spiritual worthiness or faith.
2. Some Reformed writers teach that the cross obtained non-saving benefits for the reprobate/non-elect, but there is no evidence of this in Scripture.
3. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 595-96.
4. Gill’s Exposition of the New Testament, Isaiah 53:6.
5. Ibid., 1 John 2:2.
6. In his commentary on 1 John 5:19, Gill writes, “that is, the men of the world, the greater part of the inhabitants of it, who are as they were when they came into it, not being born of God; these are addicted to sin and, wickedness; the bias of their minds is to it, they are set upon it, and give themselves up to it, are immersed in it, and are under the power of it: or “in the wicked one”; Satan, the god of this world; they are under his influence, and led according to his will, and they are governed by him, and are at his beck and command; and this is known, by sad experience, it is easy of observation.”
7. “The design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world.” Calvin’s Commentaries, 1 John 2:2.
8. D.A. Carson, The Love of God and the Intent of the Atonement. http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/carsonatonement.html
9. Critics often throw the phrase “hyper-Calvinist” at normal garden-variety Calvinism. Hyper-Calvinism has specific marks. See Ian Murray’s Spurgeon vs. Hyper-Calvinism, Banner of Truth (2010).
10. The Autobiography of Charles H. Spurgeon, Vol. I, 1834-1854 (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1898), 172.
11. Charles H. Spurgeon, The New Park Street Pulpit, Sermon #181.
Jack Brooks has been at the Ironworks Pike Community Church in Georgetown, KY, since 2001, where he serves as the teaching elder. He is a graduate of Columbia Biblical Seminary.