Objections to the Doctrine of a Limited Atonement Considered
His revealed will, can be frustrated by man; and that the work of Christ was an uncertain hazard, failed to a great extent, and might even have failed completely, so that not a single sinner was saved.
But this is quite contrary to such passages as Ps. 33:11; Isa. 46:10. (2) That Christ did no more than make salvation possible for sinners, leaving the actual realization of it dependent on the uncertain obedience of man; and that, while Christ atoned for all, the application of His work is simply contingent on man's response. But according to Scripture the purchase and the bestowal of salvation are inseparably connected, Rom. 5:10; 8:32–34; Gal. 1:4; Eph. 1:7; Heb.
7:25. (3) That many whose sins were atoned and for whom the penalty was paid, are yet lost and will have to bear the penalty of sin eternally, a very inconsistent position, from which there is no logical escape, except in Calvinism or in absolute Universalism. We shall even have to believe the absurdity that Christ laid down His life for the salvation of those who had already died in their sins and were consigned to outer darkness. (4) That Christ by His atoning work did not merit faith, repentance, and all those graces of the Spirit which constitute the application of the work of redemption. But the Bible teaches quite the opposite, Rom. 5:10; Gal. 3:13, 14; Eph. 1:3, 4, 8–
10; 2 Tim. 2:25; Titus 3:5, 6.
Objections to the Doctrine of a Limited Atonement Considered Objections naturally expected.
IT cannot be denied that some rather serious objections can be raised against the doctrine of a limited atonement. Not to admit this would be folly and might even be an indication of ignorance or superficiality. The situation in the theological world would lead us to
suspect this a priorily. There must be some at least seemingly adequate reasons why all but the Calvinistic Churches reject this doctrine. At the same time it should not be forgotten that the doctrine of a universal atonement is burdened with even greater difficulties. The objections to the doctrine that Christ atoned for the sins of the elect only may be, and are usually, arranged under the following heads: (1) passages which teach that Christ died for the world or for all men; (2) passages implying the possibility of some being lost for whom Christ died; and (3) the universal and sincere offer of salvation. We shall consider these successively.
There are several passages of Scripture which teach either explicitly or by implication that Christ died or gave Himself "for the world" or "for all." Remensnyder, a Lutheran author, after referring to some of them, says: "Those passages are so specific that we cannot mistake their meaning. They show that the divine scheme of redemption was comprehensive and universal." The Atonement and Modern
Thought, p. 84. Arminians in general are of the opinion that the doctrine of a universal atonement is so plainly taught in Scripture that one cannot deny it without going contrary to revealed truth.
Passages seemingly teaching that Christ atoned for the world.
The following passages are referred to particularly as teaching that Christ died for the whole world: John 1:29, "Behold, the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of The world"; John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have eternal life"; John 6:33,
51, "For the bread of life is that which cometh down out of heaven, and giveth life unto the world.… Yea, and the bread which I give is my flesh, for the life of the world"; Rom. 11:12, 15, "Now if their fall is the riches of the world, and their loss the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness.… For if the casting away of them is the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be but life from the dead?" 2 Cor. 5:19, "God was in Christ reconciling the world
unto Himself"; 1 John 2:2, "And He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world."
Answer to this objection.
The objection based on these passages proceeds on the unwarranted assumption that the term "world" invariably, or at least in the passages quoted, denotes all the individuals which constitute the human race. But it is abundantly evident from Scripture that the term has a variety of meanings. A mere reading of the following passages will prove this conclusively: Luke 2:1; John 1:10; Acts 11:28;
19:27; 24:5; Rom. 1:8; Col. 1:6. It is clear also that, when it is used of men, it does not always include all men, John 7:4; 12:10; 14:22;
18:20; Rom. 11:12, 15. Moreover, it should be noted that in some of the passages quoted the word cannot possibly denote all men. If it has that meaning in John 6:33, 51, those passages teach that the bread of life, which came down out of heaven, actually gives life to all men, that is, saves them all. This is more than the opponents themselves believe. The passages prove too much, and therefore prove nothing. Again, in Rom. 11:12, 15 the word "world" cannot be all-inclusive, for the context clearly excludes Israel. Moreover, these passages also speak of the application of the work of redemption, and on the supposition that the word "world" denotes all men, would prove more than is intended, namely, that the fruits of the atoning work of Christ are actually applied to all. We do find in them, however, an indication of the fact that the word "world" is sometimes used to indicate that the Old Testament particularism belongs to the past, and made way for New Testament universalism. The blessings of the Kingdom were not for Israel only, but for all the nations of the world, Matt. 24:14; Mark 16:16; Rom. 1:5; 10:18. In all probability this is the key to the interpretation of the word "world" in such passages as John 1:29; 6:33, 51; 2 Cor. 5:19; 1 John 2:2. Dr. Shedd assumes that the word "world" means all nations in Matt. 26:13;
John 3:16; 1 Cor. 1:21; 2 Cor. 5:19; 1 John 2:2; but holds that in other places it denotes the world of believers, or the Church. He ascribes this meaning to it in John 6:33, 51; Rom. 4:13; Rom. 11:12, 15. Dogm.
Theol. II, p. 479 f. Dr. Kuyper expresses a similar idea, namely, that the word "world" denotes the real nucleus of the world, the organism of humanity that is saved by Jesus Christ, and finds that it is so used in John 4:42; 3:16; 1:29, and other passages. Uit het Woord, Tweede
Serie, 1, p. 409 f. Van Andel also applies this thought in the interpretation of John 1:29; 3:16; 2 Cor. 5:19. The difficulty is that, on this supposition, the word "world" is regarded as a designation of two opposite concepts, namely the human race as estranged from and opposed to God, and the human race chosen and redeemed, and united in the service of God.
Passages seemingly teaching that Christ atoned for all; Answer to the objections.
There are also a number of passages which speak of Christ as having died for all men, Rom. 5:18; 1 Cor. 15:22; 2 Cor. 5:14; 1 Tim. 2:6;
Titus 2:11; Heb. 2:9. To these may be added those passages which express the idea that it is the will of God that all should be saved, 1
Tim. 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9. But these passages do not at all prove the point, since it is perfectly evident that the word "all" does not always mean "every individual of the human race." The meaning of the word is naturally determined by the context. If one speaks of the meeting of a society and says that they were all there, one naturally means, not every individual of the human race, but all the members of the society under consideration. When a preacher substitutes for another and on returning home says, They were all surprised to see me, he naturally refers to a very limited number of the race, namely, to the people of the church which he served. Again, when an ocean liner sinks, and it is reported that all were saved, the word "all" can only refer to those who were on the ship. All this is so self-evident that it need hardly be stated; and yet the advocates of a universal atonement often accuse their opponents of refusing to accept the plain teachings of Scripture, and assert with an air of impatience that when the Bible says "all" it means all, that is every individual of the human race.
In some of the passages mentioned above the meaning of the word "all" is clearly restricted by the context. For instance, the connection plainly shows that the "all" or "all men" of Rom. 5:18, and 1 Cor.
15:22 includes only those who are in Christ. All who are in Adam are contrasted with all who are in Christ. If the word "all" is not so limited in these passages, but actually refers to all individuals of the human race, then they teach, not only that Christ atoned for all men distributively, thus making salvation possible for all, but also that He actually justifies and endows them all with new life, so that all are saved without exception. Thus the Arminian is forced into the camp of the absolute Universalist, where he does not want to be. There is a similar limitation in 2 Cor. 5:14, "For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that one died for all, therefore all died."
The death of Christ is the death of all to the law, to self, and sin, and this results in a life for Christ. But this can be said only of those who are actually saved. Paul suffered that death, and was therefore now constrained by the love of Christ as the ruling principle of his life.
Titus 2:11 speaks of an appearance of the grace of God, bringing salvation to all men in such a way as to instruct them "to the intent that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts they (we) should live soberly and righteously and godly in this present world." The grace of God is certainly not revealed to all men in that way. The "all" in this verse evidently refers to all classes of men. Even Moses Stuart, who believes in universal atonement, admits that the word "all" in Heb.
2:9 cannot be taken in a general sense, but refers to Jew and Gentile.
He gives the same explanation in the cases of 1 Tim. 2:3, 4; and Titus 2:11. The passages in 1 Tim. 2:3, 4, and 2 Peter 3:9 refer to the revealed will of God that both Jews and Gentiles should be saved, but imply nothing as to the universal intent of the atonement.
Possibility of those being lost for whom Christ died.
A second objection to the doctrine of a limited atonement is based on a few passages which are said to imply the possibility that those for whom Christ died are finally lost, Rom. 14:15; 1 Cor. 8:11; 2 Peter 2:1;
Heb. 10:29. In the first pasage we read: "Destroy not him with thy
meat for whom Christ died." A very similar passage is that in 1 Cor.
8:11, "For through thy knowledge he that is weak perisheth, the brother for whose sake Christ died." In both cases the stronger brethren of the church are warned against placing an offense (a SKANDALON or trap) in the way of the weaker brethren, and thus doing something that would in itself be apt to cause them to stumble, to fall from faith, and ultimately to perish. By doing that they would be acting entirely contrary to the spirit of Christ. He died to save these weaker brethren, and the stronger ones should be willing to forego a certain privilege, in order to keep them in the way of salvation. These passages do not imply that the weaker brethren could actually fall away and perish any more than the warnings and exhortations directed to believers throughout the New Testament proceed on the assumption that they might still fall from grace and perish. They are evidences of the fact that God uses means to keep them in the way of salvation, and that among these means warnings against evil influences and evil tendencies occupy an important place. Some commentators assume that the word "perish" in these passages does not necessarily refer to eternal destruction, but may simply mean "embitter" or "injure."
The other two passages are of a somewhat different kind. In Heb.
10:29 we read: "Of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite to the Spirit of grace?" And in 2 Pet. 2:1: "But there arose false prophets also among the people, as among you also there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction." These passages do indeed constitute a real difficulty, but can be explained without assuming that Christ died for all men. The most plausible explanation is that given by Smeaton, as the interpretation of Piscator and of the Dutch annotations, in his comments on 2 Peter
2:1, namely, "that these false teachers are described according to their own profession and the judgment of charity. They gave
themselves out as redeemed men, and were so accounted in the judgment of the Church while they abode in her communion." The Doctrine of the Atonement as Taught by the Apostles, p. 447.
Objection derived from the universal offer of salvation.
The third main objection to a limited atonement is derived from the universal offer of salvation. The Arminians were not slow to urge the objection that the Calvinists with their doctrine of unconditional election and limited atonement could not seriously offer the salvation in Christ to all men. But the Synod of Dort did not grant the contention, and explicitly asserted that the gospel call is not only universal but also perfectly sincere on the part of God. It must be admitted, however, that there have been Calvinists who showed considerable hesitation on this point. And we need not flatter ourselves with the thought that we can easily reconcile the doctrine of an unconditional election and a limited atonement with the universal bona fide offer of salvation, for, in spite of all that can be said, there will remain some difficulties. It is customary to point out that the sacrifice of Christ was of infinite value and therefore quite sufficient for the sin of the whole world, but this does not solve the problem.
Problem as seen by Dr. Cunningham.
In connection with this question Dr. Cunningham calls attention to a rather important distinction. We take the liberty to quote him somewhat at length: "There, are obviously two questions that may be entertained upon this subject: First, Is an unlimited atonement necessary in order to warrant ministers of the gospel, or any who may be seeking to lead others to the saving knowledge of the truth, to offer men, without exception, pardon and acceptance, and to invite them to come to Christ? And secondly, Is an unlimited atonement necessary in order to warrant God in addressing, and in authorizing and requiring us to address, such universal offers and invitations to our fellow-men? The neglect of keeping these two questions distinct,
has sometimes introduced error and confusion into the discussion of this subject. It is the first question with which we have more immediately to do, as it affects a duty which we are called upon to discharge; while the second is evidently from its very nature, one of those secret things which belong to the Lord. It is very evident that our conduct, in preaching the gospel, and in addressing our fellowmen with a view to their salvation, should not be regulated by any inferences of our own about the nature, extent, and sufficiency of the provision actually made for saving them, but solely by the directions and instructions which God has given us, by precept and example, to guide us in the matter,—unless, indeed, we venture to act upon the principle of refusing to obey God's commands, until we fully understand all the grounds and reasons of them. God has commanded the gospel to be preached to every creature; He has required us to proclaim to our fellow-men, of whatever character, and in all varieties of circumstances, the glad tidings of great joy,—to hold out to them, in His name, pardon and acceptance through the blood of the atonement,—to invite them to come to Christ, and to receive Him,—and to accompany all this with the assurance that 'whosoever cometh to Him, He will in no wise cast out.' God's revealed will is the only rule, and ought to be held to be the sufficient warrant for all that we do in this matter,—in deciding what is our duty,—in making known to our fellow-man what are their privileges and obligations,—and in setting before them reasons and motives for improving the one and discharging the other. And though this revelation does not warrant us in telling them that Christ died for all and each of the human race,—a mode of preaching the gospel never adopted by our Lord and His apostles,—yet it does authorize and enable us to lay before men views and considerations, facts and arguments, which, in right reason, should warrant and persuade all to whom they are addressed, to lay hold of the hope set before them,
—to turn into the stronghold as prisoners of hope." Historical Theology II, p. 344 f.—He then goes on to discuss the other question, finds a good deal that might be said to prove that God, in offering pardon and acceptance to men indiscriminately, does not act inconsistently and deceptively, but finally admits that difficulties
remain which in the last analysis "just resolve into the one grand difficulty of all religion, and of every system of theology,—that, namely, of reconciling the inconsistency between the supremacy and sovereignty of God, and the free agency and responsibility of man."
Op. cit. II, p. 346.
No right to assume that God shows no love whatever to the reprobate.
The quotation from Cunningham already makes it apparent that there are certain considerations which may relieve the difficulty somewhat. The following are some of the most important:
We have no right to proceed on the assumption that God's eternal decree to pass a large number of sinners by with His elective grace and to condemn them for their sins, necessarily implies that He had no feelings of love and compassion for them at all, and that therefore the reprobates can only be visited with sin and curse. It is an unscriptural position that God has no compassionate feelings of love for the reprobates at all. This is contradicted in numerous passages of Scripture, which testify to such love, Gen. 39:5; Ps. 145:9, 15, 16;
36:6; Matt. 5:44, 45; Luke 6:35, 36; Acts 14:16, 17; Rom. 2:4, and particularly by such passages as Ezek. 18:23, 32; 33:11; Matt. 23:37.
Bavinck correctly says: "Maar ook omgekeerd deelen de reprobati in vele zegeningen, die niet als zoodanig uit het besluit der verwerping, maar uit de goedheid en genade Gods hun toevloeien," and quotes among others also the passages cited above. Geref. Dogm. II, p. 416.
An interesting and suggestive discussion of this matter may be found in R. L. Dabney's Discussions under the caption, "God's
Indiscriminate Proposals of Mercy. He argues that the absence of a volition in God to save does not necessarily imply the absence of compassion. Says he: "The absence of an omnipotent, and inevitably efficient, volition to renew that soul (the soul of a reprobate) does not prove the absence of a true compassion in God for him; and for the same reason the propension may have been in God, but restrained from rising into a volition by superior rational motives," p. 286. And
again, after referring to some of the gospel invitations: "That there is a just distinction between God's decretive and preceptive will no thoughtful person can deny. But let the question be stated thus: Do all the solemn and tender entreaties of God to sinners express no more, as to the non-elect, than a purpose of God, uncompassionate and merely rectoral, to acquit Himself of His legislative function towards them? To speak after the manner of men, have all these apparently touching appeals after all no heart in them? We cannot but deem it an unfortunate logic which constrains a man to this view of them. How much more simple and satisfactory to take them for just what they express?—evidences of a true compassion, which yet is restrained, in the case of the unknown class, the non-elect, by consistent and holy reasons, from taking the form of a volition to regenerate, p. 307.
The atonement of Christ sufficient for all.
It is also well to bear in mind, though it does not solve the problem, that the sacrifice of Christ has an inherent value quite sufficient for the atonement of the sin of the whole world. The Schoolmen were accustomed to saying that Christ died sufficiently for all men, but efficaciously for the elect. This language was adopted by some orthodox theologians and even by Calvin. But after the extent of the atonement had been made the object of special study, Reformed theologians generally refused to state the truth in that form, because it was apt to give the impression that Christ in dying intended that all men should share in the proper effects of His atoning death. They prefer to say that the death of Christ, viewed objectively and apart from His design and purpose, was inherently sufficient for all, though efficacious only for the elect. Miley clearly discerns that the truth of the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice, so stated, does not solve the difficulty. He says that, while it ascribes to the death of Christ an inherent, it fails to ascribe to it an actual sufficiency. Though sufficient for all, it was not intended for all. However, the statement of this truth has the advantage of narrowing the debate down to the intention of God and of Christ.
The offer of salvation is not a revelation of God's secret will.
Another consideration that should be borne in mind is, that the offer of salvation does not pretend to be a revelation of the secret counsel of God. Hence it does not impinge on the veracity of God. It springs out of His will of complaisance and is expressive of that in which He delights. God may simply call on the non-elect to do a thing in which He delights, simply because He delights in it. While this disposition in God does not terminate in a volition to save the reprobate, it is not altered by the decree of reprobation. "For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord Jehovah: wherefore turn yourselves and live." According to Calvin this passage clearly expresses the idea that God does not delight in the death of him that perishes (the reprobate), but would have him turn and live.
The promise in the universal call is always conditional.
The promise contained in the universal offer of salvation must always be considered as conditioned on faith and conversion. The promise of the gospel is never an unconditional promise. And the condition is of such a kind that man, as he is by nature, cannot fulfil it. Faith and conversion are the fruit of the operation of the Holy
Spirit. But the fact that man cannot obey the demand of the gospel, does not absolve him from the duty to comply with it any more than man's inability to keep the law can be urged as a legitimate excuse for disobedience. And for that same reason the preacher, who feels duty bound to urge on man the demands of the law, is also warranted and obliged to present to them the claims of the gospel.
The universal call does not consist in the declaration that Christ died for all.
The universal offer of salvation does not include the declaration that Christ made atonement for all sinners distributively, or that God intends to save each one of them. It consists of three parts: (1) An exposition of the atoning work of Christ as in itself, and apart from