The Restricted Design of the Atonement
This work of renewal and sanctification is primarily a work of the Holy Spirit; but it is a work in which the regenerated sinner can and should co-operate. The Spirit as the principle of a new obedience will even prompt him to say with Paul, "I delight in the law of God after the inward man," Rom. 7:22. And as long as he listens to the voice and follows the promptings of the Spirit, he will not think of saying what according to the opponents the doctrine of justification will give them occasion to say, Let us continue in sin that grace may abound!
They will rather heed the admonition of the apostle, "Having therefore these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God,"
2 Cor. 7:1.
The Restricted Design of the Atonement The real point at issue.
WHAT was said in the preceding respecting the close relation between the atonement and the covenant of redemption, in which Christ appears as the representative, not of all men, but only of those whom the Father has given Him, already contains a clear indication of the limited design of the atonement. But it will not be superfluous to call particular attention to this subject, especially in view of the widespread conviction that the atonement in Christ is universal in purpose. Before entering upon a discussion of the question, whether the atonement is universal or particular, it will be necessary to state the point at issue clearly and precisely. The question is not, whether the atoning work of Christ was sufficient for all men, for this is admitted by all. Even Calvinistic Churches state this explicitly in one of their Confessional standards, namely in the Canons of Dort II, Art.
3. Neither is it, whether the atonement actually effectuates or at least
insures the salvation of all men, since this extreme position is taken only by absolute Universalists, which are few in number and take little account of the teachings of Scripture. On the basis of the love of God they simply conclude that all souls are included in the gracious redemptive purpose of God, and are saved through Christ as the highest revelation of the love of God.
Lutheran position.
The real point at issue in the controversy that has been carried on for centuries pertains to the design or purpose of the atonement. Did
God in sending His Son into the world to be the Savior of sinners, and did Christ by taking upon Himself the work of redemption, intend to save all men, that is, all the individuals of the human race; or did they intend to save only the elect whose representative Christ became in the Counsel of Redemption? Lutherans and Arminians take the former position, and Calvinists the latter. Koestlin calls attention to the fact that Luther in his earlier period apparently believed in a limited atonement, but accepted the broader view later on. The Theology of Luther II, pp. 287, 288. Dr. Valentine, the late professor of Systematic Theology in the Lutheran Seminary at Gettysburg, expresses the doctrine of his Church in the following words: "The design of the atonement was to remove the moral and legal obstacles to the salvation of all men, so that it is applicable to one as well as another on terms that are open and impartial to all."
Christian Theology II, p. 159.
Arminian position.
The Arminian position is entirely in harmony with this, as appears from the second of The Five Arminian Articles, where we read that "Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that He has obtained for them all, by His death on the cross, redemption, and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins, except the believer." Watson says that the question "put in its most simple form is, whether our Lord Jesus
Christ did so die for all men, as to make salvation attainable by all men. The affirmative of this question is, I think, the doctrine of Scripture." Theological Institutes III, p. 2. Miley states the point very clearly when he says: "The true inquiry, therefore, respects the will of the Father and the Son, or what was the pleasure of each respecting the extent of the atonement." Systematic Theology II, p. 221.
Statement of the issue by Calvinists.
That this is also the sense in which Calvinists understand the question, appears from the following statements. "The pivot on which the controversy—respecting the extent of the atonement— turns is, what was the purpose of the Father in sending the Son to die, and the object which Christ had in view in dying; not what is the value and efficacy of his death." Turretin, The Atonement of Christ, p. 124. "But the question does truly and only relate to the design of the Father and of the Son in respect to the persons for whose benefit the atonement was made; that is, to whom, in the making of it, they intended it should be applied." Hodge, Atonement, p. 359. "The controversy with regard to the extent of the atonement does not turn
—though many of the Universalists would fain have it so—upon the question of the infinite sufficiency of Christ's sufferings and merits, it must turn upon the question of the purpose, design, or intention of God in inflicting sufferings and death upon His Son, and of Christ in voluntarily submitting to them." Cunningham, Historical Theology
II, p. 334.
Semi-Pelagian and Arminian construction of the doctrine.
The most prevalent view is that of a universal atonement, but this doctrine is not construed by all in exactly the same sense. SemiPelagians and Arminians are of the opinion that, since man by sin lost the ability to fulfil the conditions of the covenant of life (or, of works), God now offers him salvation on other and easier terms, namely faith and repentance or evangelical obedience. He makes this offer in view of the work of Jesus Christ which, on that theory, made
salvation possible for every individual of the human race by paying the penalty of sin. Christ died for all men distributively, and gives to all men sufficient grace to enable them to repent and believe. Now it merely depends on their will, whether they will ultimately be saved or not. It is admitted that the application of the atonement is not universal. The Arminian Articles state that "no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins, except the believer"; and the Council of Trent says that "the heavenly Father, the Father of mercies, sent Christ, His
Son, to men, that all might become His adopted children.… Yet, although He died for all, all do not receive the benefits of His death, but only those who become partakers of the merits of His passion."
Sess. VI, c., 2, 3. A distinction is made between what is usually called the "impetration" (purchase) and the application of redemption.
Lutheran representation of it.
Lutherans hold that God sent His Son into the world to make full and real legal satisfaction for the sins of all men individually. On the ground of this perfect satisfaction the offer of salvation is now made to all who hear the gospel. In the gospel call and in the sacraments they receive a grace which, if not resisted, is quite sufficient to secure their actual salvation. Knapp expresses it thus: "Actu primo, Christ died for all men; but actu secundo, not for all men, but only for believers—that is, according to the purpose of God, all might be exempted from punishment and rendered happy by the death of Christ; but all do not suffer this purpose actually to take effect with regard to themselves; and only believers actually attain to this blessedness." Christian Theology, p. 348.
View of the School of Saumur.
The idea of the School of Saumur and its followers, called Calvinistic Universalists, is still different. They assume a twofold decree respecting the redemption of man, the one general and the other particular. Pursuant to the former Christ came into the world for the purpose of saving all men conditionally, that is, on the condition that
they would believe. In virtue of this decree, which preceded the decree of election, His work naturally had no special bearing on an elect number, and in fact did not secure the salvation of a single sinner. It merely made salvation possible for all. Since God foresaw that, on account of the wickedness of their hearts, none would believe, He determined in a second decree to bestow upon some the faith that was required unto salvation. In accordance with this decree
Christ came into the world to purchase salvation absolutely for an elect number. He not only made salvation possible for them, but made it effectual in their lives. This is an unsuccessful attempt to combine Arminianism and Calvinism. Cf. Turretin, The Atonement of Christ, p. 119 f.
The Calvinistic view.
All these views have one element in common: they assume that there is a difference in extent between the design of God's atoning work in Christ and the result actually attained, between the objective atonement and its subjective application. In opposition to all such theories the Calvinist holds that the design of the atonement was limited, that is, that God sent His Son into the world for the purpose of atoning for the sins of the elect; and that Christ gave His life only for those who were given Him by the Father. Moreover, they believe that the atonement is effectual in the lives of all those for whom it is made. It necessarily carries with it all that is needed for the application of the work of redemption. Christ not only made salvation possible, but actually saves, and saves to the uttermost, every one for whom He has made atonement. God's designs do not fail through the failure of men to meet the requirements of the gospel. This view is substantiated by several considerations.
Proof from doctrine of election.
The doctrine of sovereign election, as taught in Scripture, may certainly be regarded as expressive of the purpose of God respecting the redemption of sinners. It is to the effect that God from all
eternity decreed to save a certain definite number of the fallen human race, and at the same time determined the means by which He would effectuate their salvation. It is but reasonable to suppose that He adapted the means precisely to the end which He had in view. Since the election was clearly personal in decreeing the salvation of certain persons who stood out clearly in the mind of God, we can only suppose that He designed the necessary means also for those and for no other persons and made them effective for the end in view. What consistency would there be in God's electing certain persons unto life everlasting, then sending Christ into the world to make salvation possible for all men but certain for none, and finally leaving it entirely to man to accept or reject the offered salvation, perhaps only to find that others than those whom He had elected made use of the opportunity. And it does not help matters much to substitute foreknowledge for predestination, as the Arminian does. If God knows precisely, as He does, who will and who will not accept the offer of salvation, does it seem reasonable to think that He would send Christ into the world to suffer and die for the purpose of saving those of whom He is sure that they will never meet the conditions and be saved? The question of Boettner is quite pertinent: "Who can believe that He, like a feeble mortal, would
'shoot at the convoy without perceiving the individual birds?' "
Moreover, it should be borne in mind that the positive will of God, His eternal decree, cannot be frustrated by men. "The counsel of Jehovah standeth fast forever," Ps. 33:11. "My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.… I have purposed. I will also do it," Isa.
46:10, 11. "In whom we also were made a heritage, having been foreordained according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His will," Eph. 1:11. According to the doctrine of universal atonement the very purpose of God is frustrated. While He purposes to save all men, only a limited number is actually saved.
The purpose of God is defeated through unbelief. Man rather than God is in control of the destinies of life.
Proof from the Counsel of Redemption.
A related argument is derived from the Counsel of Redemption. In this covenant a definite relation was established between Christ and those for whom He was to lay down His life. He became their representative, and thus laid the basis for His atoning work. Without such a personal relationship or union a vicarious atonement would have been quite impossible. Now it is perfectly evident that this covenant did not include all men, but only a limited number. Jesus speaks repeatedly of those whom the Father has given Him, John
10:29; 17:6, 9, 11, 12, 24, in opposition to others who are of the world.
If the question is raised, whether this giving may not refer to a giving in time by means of regeneration, calling, and conversion, it may be said that this interpretation is clearly ruled out by such a passage as John 6:37. "All that which the Father giveth me shall come unto me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." Moreover, it is plainly taught in Scripture that the covenant of grace, which is based on the counsel of redemption does not include all men. The work of Christ is clearly connected with the covenant of redemption or the covenant of grace, and cannot be dissociated from it. He is called the Mediator of a new covenant. Heb. 8:6; 9:15; 12:24, and the Surety of a better covenant, Heb. 7:22. Since then He is the Mediator and Surety of a limited number, we cannot very well proceed on the assumption that He laid down His life for the purpose of saving all men.
Proof from the fact that God requires no double satisfaction.
Another argument is based on the fact that, according to the doctrine of universal atonement, as held by some, God is really exacting a double satisfaction for sin. If Christ really satisfied the demands of the law for all men, if He made atonement or amends for all, meeting all their legal requirements, it would seem that the law would have no further claim on them as a condition of life, and could not very well exact another satisfaction of them by eternal punishment. If it be said that this is due to the failure of sinners to accept the atonement, the answer is that, according to Scripture, the atonement of Christ necessarily carries with it the realization of the work of
redemption, since He paid the penalty of those for whom He atoned in full and merited for them all that is necessary unto salvation.
Through His atoning work He not only made salvation possible for them, but actually secures their reconciliation and the application of all that He has merited for them. The good Shepherd lays down His life for the sheep and brings them in, John 10:15, 16. "For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled through the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by His life," Rom.
5:10; cf. also 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 1:4; Eph. 1:7. Faith itself is a gift of God and a fruit of the atoning work of Christ, Eph. 2:8. Christ not only places salvation at man's disposal, but saves to the uttermost, Heb.
7:25. This means that there is no condemnation for those for whom the price was paid.
Proof from the intercession of Christ.
The close connection between the atonement and the intercessory work of Christ furnishes us another argument for a limited atonement. The atonement and the intercession are simply two integral parts of His priestly work, of which the latter is based on the former in such a way that the two are, from the nature of the case, equally restricted as far as their objects are concerned. The intercession of Christ consists in part in the presentation of His atoning sacrifice to the Father as the ground on which He confidently expects the blessings of salvation for His people, and in an intimation of His will in prayer that the purchased blessings of salvation be conferred. This prayer naturally aims at the realization of the work of redemption in all those for whom atonement was made, and yet is clearly limited in extent. This follows from the fact that His prayer is always effective, and yet countless numbers are not saved. He says that the Father always hears Him, John 11:42, and feels justified in giving His intercessory prayer the form of a demand:
"Father, I will that they also whom thou hast given me be with me where I am," John 17:24. Moreover, He says expressly: "I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me"; and "Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that
believe on me through their word," John 17:9, 20. And if He prays for them only, it would seem to follow that they only were the objects of His atoning work. This argument is not affected by Jesus' prayer recorded in Luke 23:34, which is simply a prayer that the Father shall not place the sin of the crucifixion to the special account of those who were actually engaged in it, since they were doing it in ignorance. It forms no part of His official intercessory work.
Proof from Scripture passages.
There are, moreover, several passages in Scripture which contain a clear delimitation of the work of the atonement as far as its objects are concerned. In the annunciation the angel said, "… and thou shalt call His name Jesus; for it is He that shall save His people from their sins," Matt. 1:21. Jesus Himself spoke with a similar restriction when
He said: "I am the good Shepherd; the good Shepherd layeth down His life for the sheep," John 10:11, 15. In the following chapter the writer of the Fourth Gospel speaks of Jesus as dying for the nation;
"and not for the nation only, but that He might also gather together into one the children of God that are scattered abroad," John 11:51,
52. Paul admonishes the Ephesian elders "to feed the Church of the Lord which He purchased with His own blood," Acts 20:28. The same truth, that Christ gave Himself for the Church, is also taught in Eph. 5:25. In verse 23 He is specifically called "the Saviour of the body, that, is, of the Church. And Romans 8:32 ff. teaches that He died for the elect: "He that spared not His own Son, but delivered
Him up for us all, how shall He not also with Him freely give us all things? Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect?"
Proof from the absurdities of the opposite position.
Furthermore, an argument may be derived from the absurdities involved in the opposite position. If we proceed on the assumption that Christ was sent into the world and died for the express purpose of saving all men, then it follows: (1) That we must be ready to believe that God's positive will, His divine purpose, and not merely