contra calvino. En inglés

7/27/2019 contra calvino. En ingls

1/19

Downloadable Articles

The Extent of the Atonement:

Limited Atonement VersusUnlimited Atonement

by Ron RhodesThe following discussion of limited atonement versus unlimited atonement has

been put together because many people have contacted me for moreinformation regarding what this debate is all about - and why I (Ron Rhodes), inparticular, hold to unlimited atonement.

The following discussion is intended as a brief summary. Not every argumentfor limited atonement has been listed; not every argument for unlimitedatonement has been listed. But the major arguments for both positions are setforth in a brief fashion. I also quote from advocates of both positions.

Though I strongly believe in unlimited atonement, I have many friends whobelieve in limited atonement. We do not divide over this issue; neither should

you.

My position is known in theological circles as "4-point Calvinism."

As a backdrop, "5-point Calvinists" hold to T-U-L-I-P:Total Depravity.

Unconditional Election.

Limited Atonement.

Irresistible Grace.

Perseverance of the Saints.As a 4-point Calvinist, I hold to all the above except limited atonement.

I point this out simply because it has been the habit of some of the limitedatonement persuasion to say that all who hold to unlimited atonement areArminian in their theology. This simply is not so.

The Issue Defined


2/19

Theologian Walter Elwell summarizes the debate over the extent of theatonement this way: "Although there are variations as to the basic ways inwhich this subject can be addressed, the choices boil down to two: either thedeath of Jesus was intended to secure salvation for a limited number or thedeath of Jesus was intended to provide salvation for everyone. The first view is

sometimes called 'limited atonement' because God limited the effect of Christ'sdeath to a specific number of elect persons, or 'particular redemption' becauseredemption was for a particular group of people. The second view is sometimesreferred to as 'unlimited atonement' or 'general redemption' because God didnot limit Christ's redemptive death to the elect, but allowed it to be for mankindin general."

LIMITED ATONEMENTDefinition of Limited Atonement: "A reference to the view that Christ's atoning

death was only for the elect."

Louis Berkhof says: "The Reformed position is that Christ died for the purposeof actually and certainly saving the elect, and the elect only. This is equivalentto saying that He died for the purpose of saving only those to whom He actuallyapplies the benefits of His redemptive work."

Representative Passages Offered in Support of LimitedAtonement

Matthew 1:21: "She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name

Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."

Matthew 20:28: "...the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, andto give his life as a ransom for many."

Matthew 26:28: "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for manyfor the forgiveness of sins."

John 10:15: "...and I lay down my life for the sheep."

Acts 20:28: "Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the HolySpirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which hebought with his own blood."

Ephesians 5:25: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the churchand gave himself up for her."

Hebrews 9:28: "So Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of manypeople; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvationto those who are waiting for him."

John 15:13: "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for hisfriends."


3/19

Arguments Set Forth in Favor of Limited AtonementThe Bible speaks of a limited extent of the atonement.

The Bible says Christ died for a specific group of people - "the church," "His

people," "His sheep."Louis Berkhof says: "Scripture repeatedly qualifies those for whom Christ laiddown His life in such a way as to point to a very definite limitation. Those forwhom He suffered and died are variously called 'His sheep,' John 10:11, 15,'His Church,' Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25-27, 'His people,' Matt. 1:21, and 'the elect,'Rom. 8:32-35."Since the elect were chosen before the foundation of the world, how can Christhonestly be said to have died for all men? Put another way, how could Christdesign that which by virtue of His omniscience He knew would never come to

pass?Reformed scholar Charles Hodge explains the problem this way: "If God frometernity determined to save one portion of the human race and not another, itseems to be a contradiction to say that the plan of salvation had equalreference to both portions; that the Father sent his Son to die for those whomHe had predetermined not to save, as truly as, and in the same sense that Hegave Him up for those whom He had chosen to make the heirs of salvation."The argument seems to be that "it would have been a waste and a lack offoresight on the part of God to have Christ die for those whom he had notchosen to salvation."

It is argued that the nature of ransom is such that, "when paid and accepted, itautomatically frees those for whom it is intended. No further obligation can becharged against them. Now, if the death of Christ was a ransom for all alike, notjust for the elect, then it must be the case that all are set free by the work of theHoly Spirit."Some advocates of limited atonement say that Christ is defeated if He died forall men and all men aren't saved.If Christ died for all people, as unlimited atonement advocates say, then God

would be unfair in sending people to hell for their own sins.It is argued that "no law court allows payment to be exacted twice for the samecrime, and God will not do that either."Christ paid for the sins of the elect; the lost pay for their own sins.

Since Christ didn't pray for everyone in His High Priestly prayer in John 17, butonly for His own, Christ must not have died for everyone.It is argued that since the intercession is limited in extent, the atonement must

be too.


4/19

As Louis Berkhof puts it, "Why should He limit His intercessory prayer, if He hadactually paid the price for all?"In the Middle Ages such scholars as Prosper of Aquitaine, ThomasBradwardine, and John Staupitz taught limited atonement. It is claimed that

even though John Calvin did not explicitly teach the doctrine, it seems implicit insome of his writings. Calvin's successors then made limited atonement explicitand included it in Reformed confessions of faith like the Canons of Dort and theWestminster Confession of Faith.

Though terms like "all," "world," and "whosoever" are used in Scripture inreference to those for whom Christ died (e.g., John 3:16), the terms are to beunderstood in terms of the elect. In other words:

"All" refers to "all of the elect" or "all classes of men (Jew and Gentile)."Louis Berkhof says "the word 'all' sometimes has a restricted meaning inScripture, denoting all of a particular class, 1 Cor. 15:22; Eph. 1:23, or all kindsof classes, Tit. 2:11."

What does the Bible mean when it says Christ is the "Savior of all men"?Charles Hodge answers: "What is meant is that He is our Savior, the Savior ofmen rather than of angels, not of Jews exclusively nor of the Gentiles only, notof the rich or of the poor alone, not of the righteous only, but also of publicansand sinners....""World" refers to "world of the elect" or to people without distinction (Jews andGentiles).Louis Berkhof says the unlimited atonement position is based "on theunwarranted assumption that the word 'world'...means 'all the individuals thatconstitute the human race.'....When it is used of men, [the word] does notalways include all men, John 7:4; 12:19; 14:22; 18:20; Rom. 11:12, 15."

Berkhof also says: "There are passages which teach that Christ died for theworld....In the passages referred to it may simply serve to indicate that Christdied, not merely for the Jews, but for people of all the nations of the world."In keeping with the above, the word "whosoever" is interpreted to mean"whosoever of the elect."

Such universal terms simply show that Jesus died for all men without distinction(that is, all kinds of people, and people from among both the Jews andGentiles), not that Jesus died for all men without exception (i.e., every lostsinner).

UNLIMITED ATONEMENTDefinition of Unlimited Atonement: "A reference to the doctrine that Christ'sredemptive death was for all persons."


5/19

Representative Passages Offered in Support of UnlimitedAtonement

(Note: To clarify my position on a few of these verses, I have added someexpositional text and quotations from various biblical scholars.)

Luke 19:10: "For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost." (The"lost" seems to refer to the entire world of lost humanity, not just the lost elect.)

John 1:29: "The next day John saw Jesus coming towards him and said, 'Look,the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.'"What is the "world" here? Exegete B. F. Westcott says: "The fundamental ideaof kosmos [world] in St. John is that of the sum of created being which belongsto the sphere of human life as an ordered whole, considered apart fromGod....the world comes to represent humanity in its fallen state, alienated fromits Maker."

John Calvin says of this verse: "He uses the word sin in the singular number forany kind of iniquity; as if he had said that every kind of unrighteousness whichalienates men from God is taken away by Christ. And when he says the sin ofthe world, he extends this favor indiscriminately to the whole human race."

Ryle similarly states: "Christ is...a Savior for all mankind....He did not suffer for afew persons only, but for all mankind....What Christ took away, and bore on thecross, was not the sin of certain people only, but the whole accumulated mass

of all the sins of all the children of Adam....I hold as strongly as anyone thatChrist's death is profitable to none but the elect who believe in His Name. But Idare not limit and pare down such expressions as the one before us....I dare notconfine the intention of redemption to the saints alone. Christ is for everyman....The atonement was made for all the world, though it is applied andenjoyed by none but believers."John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, thatwhoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."The Greek lexicons are unanimous that "world" here denotes humankind, not

the "world of the elect."John 3:16 cannot be divorced from verses 14-15, wherein Christ alludes toNumbers 21 with its discussion of Moses setting up the brazen serpent in thecamp of Israel, so that if "any man" looked to it, he experienced physicaldeliverance. In verse 15 Christ applies the story spiritually when He says that"whosoever" believes on the uplifted Son of Man shall experience spiritualdeliverance.John Calvin says: "He has employed the universal term whosoever, both toinvite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from

unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term world which He formerly used[God so loved the world]; for though nothing will be found in the world that is


6/19

worthy of the favor of God, yet He shows Himself to be reconciled to the wholeworld, when He invites all men without exception [not merely 'withoutdistinction'] to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance intolife."John 4:42: "They said to the woman, 'We no longer believe just because ofwhat you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this manreally is the Savior of the world.'"It is certain that when the Samaritans called Jesus "the Savior of the world,"they were not thinking of the world of the elect.

Likewise, when Jesus said, "I am the Light of the world" (John 8:12), He wasnot thinking of Himself as the Light of the world of the elect. "The sun in theheavens shines on all men, though some, in their folly, may choose to withdrawinto dark caves to evade its illuminating rays."

When Jesus called His disciples "the light of the world" (Matt. 5:14), He did notmean they were the "light of the elect."

Likewise, the "Savior of the world" in John 4:42 cannot be limited to the elect.Acts 2:21: "And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

Romans 5:6: "You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless,Christ died for the ungodly."

2 Corinthians 5:14-15: "For Christ's love compels us, because we are convincedthat one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those wholive should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and wasraised again."

1 Timothy 2:3-4: "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all mento be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."

1 Timothy 2:5-6: "For there is one God and one mediator between God andmen, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men - the

testimony given in its proper time."

1 Timothy 4:10: "We have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of allmen, and especially of those who believe."

Titus 2:11: "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men."

Hebrews 2:9: "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels,now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by thegrace of God he might taste death for everyone."The word "everyone" is better translated "each."


7/19

Henry Alford comments: "If it be asked, why pantos (each) rather than panton(all), we may safely say that the singular brings out, far more strongly than theplural word, the applicability of Christ's death to each individual man."2 Peter 3:9: "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand

slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone tocome to repentance."

1 John 2:2: "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours butalso for the sins of the whole world." (Note the distinction between "ours" and"the whole world.")

1 John 4:14: "And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son tobe the Savior of the world."

Arguments Set Forth in Favor of Unlimited AtonementThere are certain Scripture passages that seem very difficult to fit within theframework of limited atonement. For example:Romans 5:6 says: "At just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christdied for the ungodly." It doesn't make much sense to read this as saying thatChrist died for the ungodly of the elect.

Romans 5:18 says: "Consequently, just as the result of one trespass wascondemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness wasjustification that brings life for all men."Regarding this verse, John Calvin says: "He makes this favor common to all,because it is propoundable to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all[i.e., in their experience]; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the wholeworld, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all donot receive Him."

Regarding the two occurrences of the phrase "all men," E. H. Gifford comments:"The words all men [in v. 18] must have the same extent in both clauses."1 John 2:2 says: "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours

but also for the sins of the whole world." A natural reading of this verse, withoutimposing theological presuppositions on it, seems to support unlimitedatonement.

Isaiah 53:6 says: "We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turnedto his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Isa. 53:6).This verse doesn't make sense unless it is read to say that the same "all" thatwent astray is the "all" for whom the Lord died.

"In the first of these statements, the general apostasy of men is declared; in the

second, the particular deviation of each one; in the third, the atoning suffering ofthe Messiah, which is said to be on behalf of all. As the first 'all' is true of all


8/19

men (and not just of the elect), we judge that the last 'all' relates to the samecompany."

Theologian Millard Erickson comments: "This passage is especially powerfulfrom a logical standpoint. It is clear that the extent of sin is universal; it is

specified that every one of us has sinned. It should also be noticed that theextent of what will be laid on the suffering servant exactly parallels the extent ofsin. It is difficult to read this passage and not conclude that just as everyonesins, everyone is also atoned for."1 Timothy 4:10 says: "...we have put our hope in the living God, who is theSavior of all men, and especially of those who believe."There is a clear distinction here between "all men" and "those who believe."

Erickson notes that "apparently the Savior has done something for all persons,

though it is less in degree than what he has done for those who believe."In 2 Peter 2:1, it seems that Christ even paid the price of redemption for falseteachers who deny Him: "But there were also false prophets among the people,just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introducedestructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them -bringing swift destruction on themselves." Millard Erickson notes that "2 Peter2:1 seems to point out most clearly that people for whom Christ died may belost....there is a distinction between those for whom Christ died and those whoare finally saved."John 3:17 says: "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn theworld, but to save the world through him."Regarding this verse John Calvin says: "God is unwilling that we should beoverwhelmed with everlasting destruction, because He has appointed His Sonto be the salvation of the world."

Calvin also stated: "The word world is again repeated, that no man may thinkhimself wholly excluded, if he only keeps the road of faith."

Many passages indicate that the Gospel is to be universally proclaimed, and

this supports unlimited atonement.

Matthew 24:14: "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the wholeworld as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come."

Matthew 28:19: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing themin the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..."

Acts 1:8: "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; andyou will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to theends of the earth."

Acts 17:30: "In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands


9/19

all people everywhere to repent."

Titus 2:11: "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men."In view of such passages, it is legitimate to ask: "If Christ died only for the elect,

how can the offer of salvation be made to all persons without some sort ofinsincerity, artificiality, or dishonesty being involved? Is it not improper to offersalvation to everyone if in fact Christ did not die to save everyone?"

"How can God authorize His servants to offer pardon to the non-elect if Christdid not purchase it for them? This is a problem that does not plague those whohold to General [Unlimited] Redemption, for it is most reasonable to proclaimthe Gospel to all if Christ died for all."

Those who deny unlimited atonement cannot say to any sinner, "Christ died foryou." (After all, he may be one of the non-elect.)Reformed counselor Jay Adams comments: "As a reformed Christian, the writerbelieves that counselors must not tell any unsaved counselee that Christ diedfor him, for they cannot say that. No man knows except Christ himself who arehis elect for whom he died."

Louis Berkhof, a defender of limited atonement, admits: "It need not be deniedthat there is a real difficulty at this point."

Theologian Robert Lightner comments: "Belief in limited atonement means thatthe good news of God's saving grace in Christ cannot be personalized. Thosewho hold to such a position cannot tell someone to whom they are witnessingthat Christ died for him because that one may, in fact, not be one for whomChrist died."Such Christians believe the gospel must be presented in very general terms,such as: "God loves sinners and Christ died for sinners."

"To believe that some are elect and some nonelect creates no problem for thesoulwinner provided he is free in his convictions to declare that Christ died foreach one to whom he speaks. He knows that the nonelect will not accept themessage. He knows also that even an elect person may resist it to near the day

of his death. But if the preacher believes that any portion of his audience isdestitute of any basis of salvation, having no share in the values of Christ'sdeath, it is no longer a question in his mind of whether they will accept or reject;it becomes rather a question of truthfulness in the declaration of the message."2 Peter 3:9 says: "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as someunderstand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, buteveryone to come to repentance." How can this be if Christ died only andexclusively for the elect?

Romans 5 indicates that through Adam's act of disobedience the entire human

race became the recipients of sin. And through one act of obedience the lastAdam made provision for the gracious gift of righteousness for the entire human


10/19

race. The disobedience of the one was co-extensive with the obedience of theother.

Scripture says that Christ died for "sinners" (1 Tim. 1:15; Rom. 5:6-8). The word"sinner" nowhere is limited to the elect or to the church. It is used exclusively in

the Bible of lost humanity. Scripture tells us that Christ died for sinners, notpenitent sinners, and for the ungodly, not for just some of them.

Seemingly restrictive references can be logically fit into an unlimited scenariomore easily than universal references made to fit into a limited atonementscenario."The problem that both groups face is the need to harmonize passages thatrefer to limited redemption with passages that refer to unlimited redemption. Tothe unlimited redemptionist the limited redemption passages present no realdifficulty. He believes that they merely emphasize one aspect of a larger truth.

Christ did die for the elect, but He also died for the sins of the whole world.However, the limited redemptionist is not able to deal with the unlimitedredemption passages as easily."

The two sets of passages noted earlier - one set seemingly in support of limitedatonement, the other in support of unlimited atonement - are not irreconcilable.As Elwell puts it, "It is true that the benefits of Christ's death are referred to asbelonging to the elect, his sheep, his people, but it would have to be shown thatChrist died only for them. No one denies that Christ died for them. It is onlydenied that Christ died exclusively for them."

Millard Erickson likewise says that "statements about Jesus loving and dying forhis church or his sheep need not be understood as confining his special loveand salvific death strictly to them....It does not follow from a statement thatChrist died for his church, or for his sheep, that he did not die for anyone else,unless, of course, the passage specifically states that it was only for them thathe died....Certainly if Christ died for the whole, there is no problem in assertingthat he died for a specific part of the whole. To insist that those passages whichfocus on his dying for his people require the understanding that he died only forthem and not for any others contradicts the universal passages. We concludethat the hypothesis of universal atonement is able to account for a larger

segment of the biblical witness with less distortion than is the hypothesis oflimited atonement."

Robert Lightner similarly argues: "The task of harmonizing those variousScriptures poses a far greater problem for those who hold to a limitedatonement than it does to those who hold to an unlimited position. Those whohold to an unlimited atonement recognize that some Scriptures emphasize thefact that Christ died for the elect, for the church, and for individual believers.However, they point out that when those verses single out a specific group theydo not do so to the exclusion of any who are outside that group since dozens ofother passages include them. The 'limited' passages are just emphasizing one

aspect of a larger truth. In contrast, those who hold to a limited atonement havea far more difficult time explaining away the 'unlimited' passages."


11/19

The fact is, the Scriptures do not always include all aspects of a truth in any onepassage. "If these texts are used in isolation to 'prove' that Christ died only forthe elect, then it could be argued with equal logic from other isolated passagesthat Christ died only for Israel (cf. John 11:51; Isa. 53:8), or that He died only for

the Apostle Paul (for Paul declares of Christ, 'Who loved me, and gave himselffor me,' Gal. 2:20). As well might one contend that Christ restricted His prayersto Peter because of the fact that He said to Peter, 'But I have prayed for thee'(Luke 22:32)."Let us examine in greater detail some passages that speak of Christ being theSavior of the Israelites.Acts 13:23 says: "From this man's descendants God has brought to Israel theSavior Jesus, as he promised."This verse indicates that Jesus was the proffered Savior to Israel, not that every

Israelite had placed faith in Christ and was saved by the Savior.

"What ground have we for thinking that all of these persons received thesalvation? None, whatever. Yet, plainly, it was put within their reach."In Matthew 1:21 we are told that Jesus "will save his people from their sins."Throughout the Old Testament God speaks of the Israelites as "My people."

Seven times God tells the Pharaoh, "Let My people go" (Exod. 5:1; 7:16; 8:1,20; 9:1, 13; 10:13).

(I urge the reader to check a concordance to see for himself that God continuesto refer to the Israelites as "My people" throughout the entire Old Testament.)

The last occurrence is Zechariah 13:9: "They will call on my name and I willanswer them; I will say, 'They are my people,' and they will say, 'The LORD isour God.'"

Now, in Luke 1:68 Zacharias said: "Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel,because he has come and has redeemed his people." Zacharias is using the

phrase "his people" in the standard Old Testament sense.

In Matthew 1:21, when an angel told Joseph, "She will give birth to a son, andyou are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from theirsins," the words "his people" seem to be referring specifically to the people ofIsrael, not the entire company of God's elect (which includes non-Israelites orGentiles). Yet, as Norman Douty asks, "Who believes that the Jewish peoplehave a monopoly on Christ's saving grace? All hold that it goes beyond theirconfines to the Gentile world as well."Likewise we read in John 11:50: "You do not realize that it is better for you that

one man die for the people than that the whole nation [i.e., Israel] perish."In none of these passages do the advocates of limited atonement insist that the


12/19

Jewish people exclusively are the objects of God's saving grace. Similarly,when Christ is said to have purchased the church with His blood (Acts 20:28),we cannot limit Christ's atoning work to the church alone.Galatians 2:20 declares that Christ loved Paul and gave Himself for him ("Thelife I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave

himself for me"). But this does not mean that Christ gave Himself only for Paul.To sum up, Christ did not give Himself in the atonement only for Paul, or onlyfor Israel, or only for the church, but for all men.Universal terms like "world" should not be restricted in contexts which speak ofthe atonement.It is true that words like "all" and "world" are sometimes used in the Bible in arestricted sense. But context is always determinative. Robert Lightnercomments: "Those who always limit the meaning of those terms in contexts thatdeal with salvation do so on the basis of theological presuppositions, not on the

basis of the texts themselves."

A word study of the word "world" - particularly in the apostle John's writings,where it is used 78 times - indicates that the world is God-hating, Christ-rejecting, and Satan-dominated. Yet this is the world that Christ died for.Particularly in John's writings, interpreting "world" as "world of the elect" seemsa great distortion of Scripture.

Among the scholarly lexicons, encyclopedias, and dictionaries that knownothing of the meaning "world of the elect" for the biblical word "world" (kosmos)are:Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.

Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament.

Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.

Souter's Pocket Lexicon of the New Testament.

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge.

Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.

The New Bible Dictionary.

Baker's Dictionary of Theology.

Arndt and Gingrich's A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.


13/19

Walter Martin, founder of the Christian Research Institute, observes: "John theApostle tells us that Christ gave His life as a propitiation for our sin (i.e., theelect), though not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world (1 John2:2)....[People] cannot evade John's usage of 'whole' (Greek: holos). In thesame context the apostle quite cogently points out that 'the whole (holos) world

lies in wickedness' or, more properly, 'in the lap of the wicked one' (1 John 5:19,literal translation). If we assume that 'whole' applies only to the chosen or electof God, then the 'whole world does not 'lie in the lap of the wicked one.' This, ofcourse, all reject."

We must also ask, How can the Holy Spirit have a ministry to the whole world inshowing men their need of Jesus Christ (John 14-16) if the death of Christ doesnot make provision for the whole world?John 16:8-11 says: "But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am goingaway. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will

send him to you. When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard tosin and righteousness and judgment: in regard to sin, because men do notbelieve in me; in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father,where you can see me no longer; and in regard to judgment, because theprince of this world now stands condemned."

Notice in this passage that "the world" is clearly distinguished from "you" and"your."

Yet the Holy Spirit is said to bring conviction on the world. And one of the thingsthe Spirit convicts "the world" of is the sin of not believing on Christ (v. 9).

We are not to conclude that "the world" that is convicted of unbelief is the worldof the elect, are we? (If so, then Satan, the "prince of this world" [v. 11, samecontext], must be the "prince of the elect.")Calvin says of this passage that "under the term world are, I think, included notonly those who would be truly converted to Christ, but hypocrites andreprobate."Though God is completely sovereign over all things, this does not mean Hebrings into reality everything He "desires."Norman Douty offers this insight: "Consider the beginnings of human history.God told our first parents to refrain from eating of the tree of knowledge of goodand evil. Did He want them to eat of it, or did He not? Plainly, He did not wantthem to do so. Yet they ate of it. Was He frustrated? Of course not. He was notfrustrated because, by His efficient grace, He could have induced them torefrain. Yet He chose to withhold that grace and to permit the fall. Nevertheless,the full responsibility for that sin belonged to Adam and Eve, who had sufficientgrace to refrain, but did not use it."

Consider Matthew 23:37: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets

and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your childrentogether, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing."


14/19

What Christ desired was not what came about.

Douty concludes: "As God could have induced our first parents to refrain fromeating of the tree, so He could have induced...the resistant Jews of Christ's timeto have received His gracious ministry of salvation. But He did not choose to

effect these desirable ends. Yet this in no wise means that He wanted evil tobefall any. He merely allowed the violation of His desires in order to carry out ahidden purpose He had in mind."

One further example relates to Jesus, who told some Jews in John 5:34: "I saythese things that you may be saved." But "saved" they were not. Why? BecauseChrist added in verse 40, "You are unwilling to come to Me, that you may havelife." Here is a clear case of "but ye would not," despite the clear offer ofsalvation.

"There are reasons which are based on the Scriptures why our sovereign God

might provide a redemption for all when He merely purposed by decree to savesome. He is justified in placing the whole world in a particular relation to Himselfso that the gospel might be preached with all sincerity to all men, and so that onthe human side men might be without excuse, being judged, as they are, fortheir rejection of that which is offered to them."That one rejects limited atonement does not in any way mean that one lessensor diminishes the clear scriptural doctrine of the sovereignty of God.Any who make such an allegation are simply uninformed.

"Without the slightest inconsistency the unlimited redemptionists may believe inan election according to sovereign grace, that none but the elect will be saved,that all of the elect will be saved, and that the elect are by divine enablementalone called out of the state of spiritual death from which they are impotent totake even one step in the direction of their own salvation. The text, 'No man cancome to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him' (John 6:44), is asmuch a part of the one system of doctrine as it is of the other."Matthew 26:28 says, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out formany for the forgiveness of sins." The reference to "many" in Christ's words do

not support limited atonement but rather support unlimited atonement.

One must keep in mind that earlier in Matthew Jesus had said that few findeternal life (Matt. 7:14) and few are chosen (22:14). But Christ did not say Hisblood was poured out for a few, but for many.

John Calvin thus declares of this verse: "By the word many He means not a partof the world only, but the whole human race."

This is the same meaning as in Romans 5:15: "For if the many died by thetrespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that

came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Notethat the "many" of verse 15 is clearly defined in verse 18 as "all men": "...just as


15/19

the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result ofone act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men."

Notice that in this verse Paul speaks of Adam's sin, and of the resultant deathcoming upon all his descendants. But then the apostle goes on to speak of the

grace of God and of its resultant gift (of life), abounding to the same company.

I say, "to the same company," because "the many" in the second clause of theverse is coextensive with "the many" in the first clause.

Answers to Three Common Questions1. If Christ died for those who go to hell, what benefit have they from His death?Answer: "We may as well ask, What good did the bitten Israelites get from thebrazen serpent to which they refused to look? None, of course, but God got theglory of being a God generous enough to provide for them."

2. If satisfaction has been made for all, how can any go to hell? Answer:"Though God has provided atonement for all, He has also stipulated that noneget the good of it, except through repentance and faith. Deliverance from doomwas not contingent on the atonement itself but on the reception of it. Men canstarve in the presence of a free feast, if they refuse to partake of it."

3. Why would God have Christ die for those whom He, in His omniscience,knew would never receive His provision? Answer: "Why did God richly endowthe angels who subsequently sinned, when He knew they would not use Hisgifts to their everlasting good? Why did He bestow valuable gifts on our firstparents, to be employed for their and our advantage, when He knew they wouldnot so employ them? Why did He send Noah to preach to people He knewwould not receive His message? And why did He send the prophets to Israel,when He knew they would continue in their apostasy? There is such a thing asthe divine benevolence."

Reply to Some Criticisms Made By Proponents of LimitedAtonement

The charge that unlimited atonement leads to universalism is special pleading.

"Just because one believes that Christ died for all does not mean all are saved.One must believe in Christ to be saved, so the fact that Christ died for the worldapparently does not secure the salvation of all. Those who assert this aresimply wrong."God makes the provision of salvation for all men, but it is conditioned by faith.Thus, salvation becomes actual only for the elect, although it is potential andavailable to all. "Our inheriting eternal life involves two separate factors: anobjective factor (Christ's provision of salvation) and a subjective factor (ouracceptance of that salvation)."

Moderate Calvinists distinguish between the provisional benefits of Christ'sdeath and the appropriation of those benefits by the elect.


16/19

Although the provision of atonement is unlimited, yet the application of it islimited.

In his book The Death Christ Died, Robert Lightner explains: "[Moderate

Calvinists] believe the cross does not apply its own benefits but that God hasconditioned His full and free salvation upon personal faith in order toappropriate its accomplishments to the individual. This faith which men mustexercise is not a work whereby man contributes his part to his salvation, nordoes faith, in the moderate Calvinist view, improve in any way the final andcomplete sacrifice of Calvary. It is simply the method of applying Calvary'sbenefits which the sovereign God has deigned to use in His all-wise plan ofsalvation."God is not unfair in condemning those who reject the offer of salvation. He isnot exacting judgment twice. "Because the nonbeliever refuses to accept the

death of Christ as his own, the benefits of Christ's death are not applied to him.He is lost, not because Christ did not die for him, but because he refuses God'soffer of forgiveness."

The electing purpose of God is not complete until the elect are in glory. Sincethis is true, and since the cross provides salvation dependent on faith for itsreception, and since the cross does not secure salvation apart from that faith,there is no contradiction with God's sovereignty.

Unlimited atonement has been held by a majority of scholars throughout churchhistory.Millard Erickson points out that unlimited atonement has been "held by the vastmajority of theologians, reformers, evangelists, and fathers from the beginningof the church until the present day, including virtually all the writers before theReformation, with the possible exception of Augustine. Among the Reformersthe doctrine is found in Luther, Melanchthon, Bullinger, Latimer, Cranmer,Coverdale, and even Calvin in some of his commentaries....Is it likely that theoverwhelming majority of Christians could have so misread the leading of theHoly Spirit on such an important point?"

Robert Lightner addresses Calvin's position on the issue: "Those who subscribeto a limited atonement generally argue that that is the position espoused byCalvin. But it is highly debatable that he did, in fact, hold that view....Whereassome scholars have attempted to show that there is harmony between Calvinand later orthodox Calvinism, others have argued that contemporary Calvinismhas veered significantly from Calvin's teaching, including his teaching on theextent of the atonement."(The reader will recall that a number of Calvin's citations in this paper show himfavorable to unlimited atonement.)

Quotations from the Early Church Fathers


17/19

Clement of Alexandria (150-220): "Christ freely brings...salvation to the wholehuman race."

Eusebius (260-340): "It was needful that the Lamb of God should be offered forthe other lambs whose nature He assumed, even for the whole human race."

Athanasius (293-373): "Christ the Son of God, having assumed a body likeours, because we were all exposed to death [which takes in more than theelect], gave Himself up to death for us all as a sacrifice to His Father."

Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386): "Do not wonder if the whole world wasransomed, for He was not a mere man, but the only-begotten Son of God."

Gregory of Nazianzen (324-389): "The sacrifice of Christ is an imperishableexpiation of the whole world."

Basil (330-379): "But one thing was found that was equivalent to all men....theholy and precious blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which He poured out for usall."

Ambrose (340-407): "Christ suffered for all, rose again for all. But if anyonedoes not believe in Christ, he deprives himself of that general benefit."He also said, "Christ came for the salvation of all, and undertook the redemptionof all, inasmuch as He brought a remedy by which all might escape, althoughthere are many who...are unwilling to be healed."

Augustine (354-430): Though Augustine is often cited as supporting limitedatonement, there are also clear statements in Augustine's writings that aresupportive of unlimited atonement. For example: "The Redeemer came andgave the price, shed His blood, and bought the world. Do you ask what Hebought? See what He gave, and find what He bought. The blood of Christ is theprice: what is of so great worth? What, but the whole world? What, but allnations?"He also stated, "The blood of Christ was shed for the remission of all sins."

Cyril of Alexandria (376-444): "The death of one flesh is sufficient for theransom of the whole human race, for it belonged to the Logos, begotten of God

the Father."

Prosper (a friend and disciple of Augustine who died in 463): "As far as relatesto the magnitude and virtue of the price, and to the one cause of the humanrace, the blood of Christ is the redemption of the whole world: but those whopass through this life without the faith of Christ, and the sacrament ofregeneration, do not partake of the redemption."He also said, "The Savior is most rightly said to have been crucified for theredemption of the whole world." He then said, "Although the blood of Christ bethe ransom of the whole world, yet they are excluded from its benefit, who,being delighted with their captivity, are unwilling to be redeemed by it."

Quotations from the Reformers of the 16th Century


18/19

Martin Luther (1483-1546): "Christ is not cruel exactor, but a forgiver of thesins of the whole world....He hath given Himself for our sins, and with oneoblation hath put away the sins of the whole world....Christ hath taken away thesins, not of certain men only, but also of thee, yea, of the whole world...Not onlymy sins and thine, but also the sins of the whole world...take hold upon Christ."

Philip Melanchton (1497-1560): "It is necessary to know that the Gospel is auniversal promise, that is, that reconciliation is offered and promised to allmankind. It is necessary to hold that this promise is universal, in opposition toany dangerous imaginations on predestination, lest we should reason thispromise pertains to a few others and ourselves. But we declare that the promiseof the Gospel is universal. And to this are brought those universal expressionswhich are used constantly in the Scriptures."

Other people involved to some degree in the Reformation who held to unlimitedatonement include: Hugh Latimer, Myles Coverdale, Thomas Cranmer,

Wolfgang Musculus, Henry Bullinger, Benedict Aretius, Thomas Becon, JeromeZanchius, David Paraeus, and, as noted earlier, John Calvin.

Quotations from Other Luminaries from Recent Church HistoryPhilip Schaff: "His saving grace flows and overflows to all and for all, on thesimple condition of faith....If, by the grace of God, I could convert a singleskeptic to a childlike faith in Him who lived and died for me and for all, I wouldfeel that I had not lived in vain."

B. F. Westcott: "Potentially, the work of Christ extends to the whole world." And"the love of God is without limit on His part, but to appropriate the blessing oflove, man must fulfill the necessary condition of faith."

A. T. Robertson: [The word "world" in John 3:16 - "For God so loved the world"- means] "the whole cosmos of men, including the Gentiles, the whole humanrace," and adds that "this universal aspect of God's love appears also in II Cor.5:19; Rom. 5:8."

MY CONCLUSIONIn this brief outline, we have looked at both sides of the debate regarding theextent of the atonement. I believe that when one considers all the scripturalevidence collectively, the correct view is unlimited atonement.

Go Back to Downloadable ArticlesThe above article is an example of the quality materials produced by Reasoningfrom the Scriptures Ministries. Write us for a full listing of other availableresources:

Reasoning from the Scriptures MinistriesP.O. Box 80087

Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Downloadable.htmlhttp://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Downloadable.htmlhttp://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Downloadable.html


19/19

Documents

contra calvino. En inglés