Was Christ's Atonement Limited or Universal?

Since the days of the Reformation, the extent of Christ’s atonement has been a fiercely debated topic within the Church. The question of whether Christ died for all men, or only for those who would believe in him has intrigued both laymen and scholars alike.

To say that particular redemption is a controversial doctrine is an understatement. Many believers today, even some who adhere to the Calvinist doctrines of total depravity, unconditional election, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints, have a hard time accepting the notion that Christ’s atonement applied only to his elect. There are many four-points Calvinist scattered throughout the Reformed community, and, unsurprisingly, nearly all of the believers within the Arminian and Pelagian camps reject the doctrine of particular redemption.

The Reformed position asserts that Christ died for the purpose of actually saving his sheep (i.e., the elect), and only his sheep. R.C. Sproul clarifies, “The Reformed view holds that Christ’s Atonement was designed and intended only for the elect… In this view there is no possibility that God’s design and intent for the Atonement could be frustrated.” He continues, “All for whom Christ died are redeemed by his sacrificial act.” Roger Nicolle states that the atonement was “intended to secure the salvation of all those and those only who will in fact be redeemed.”

In his book Grace, Faith, and Free Will Robert Picirilli, a champion of universal atonement, lays out the Reformed position fairly: “Limited atonement is shown by the fact that Scripture speaks of the death of Christ as actually accomplishing salvation rather than merely making it possible. To suggest, as the Arminians do, that the atonement provided opportunity for salvation rather than salvation is to make it incomplete. This would mean that Christ did not affect redemption by his work… The point of all this is that Jesus actually redeemed, ransomed, made propitiation for, reconciled persons; he did not merely provide for the possibility of such things to transpire. He did not make salvation possible, He saved.”

For the Reformed framework to consistently function, the doctrine of particular redemption should be embraced; once unconditional election is granted, limited atonement logically follows. To assert that Christ’s atoning sacrifice applies to the entire world simply does not make sense to many who believe that God chose to save only a select few. Loren Henry states, “There is no way that one can accept God’s predestination of his elected ones without understanding that atonement is given to them and them alone. God either knows those who are his own or he doesn’t. Which is it?”

The reason that many scholars prefer the term “particular redemption” as opposed to “limited atonement” is because the term “limited” could be misleading to some who do not understand exactly what is limited. The doctrine does not place a limit on the power of the atonement; rather it limits the atonement’s scope. The issue concerns the atonement’s efficiency, not sufficiency.

Contrarily, there are many believers who not only abhor the idea of particular redemption, but they think that the doctrine in unbiblical. Some, like Donald Bloesch, state that the “Calvinist position, especially as transmitted through Reformed orthodoxy, stands in palpable conflict with the New Testament witness.” Due to both the difficulty of the doctrine and fact that many feel that the Bible does not teach particular redemption, the majority of American churches today instead believe in what is called general redemption or universal atonement, which promotes the idea that the death of Christ was designed to include all humankind, regardless whether all believe. Proponents of universal atonement assert that when the Bible states that Christ died for all it means exactly that – Christ died for everyone. Not only is this the most prominent position in today’s church, it is actually the historic view of the church including virtually all writers before the Reformation with the possible exception of Augustine.

Universal atonement does not necessarily mean universal salvation, but it does imply that all people are the beneficiaries of God’s grace in some way or to some degree. Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof, however, warned against the idea of universal atonement by giving the slippery slope argument: “The doctrine that Christ died for the purpose of saving all men logically leads to absolute universalism… The Arminians cannot stop at their half-way station, but must go all the way.” Certainly all who believe in universal atonement don’t believe in universalism, but many Reformed believers, like Berkhof, feel that there is no reason as to why the Arminians do not take their doctrine to its logical conclusion.

Not surprisingly, there are many verses in the Bible that can be used to teach both unlimited and limited atonement. Those who champion particular redemption will assert that the Bible clearly teaches that the death of Jesus actually secures salvation for his people, thus making it (salvation) a certainty and limiting the atonement (Elwell). Classic references that are often cited to solidify this argument include Galatians 1:4, and Ephesians 5:25-27. Reformed scholars will also point out that the Bible reveals that Christ died for “his sheep” (John 10:11, 15), “his church” (Acts 20:28), “the elect” (Rom. 8:32-35), and “his people” (Matt. 1:21).

Another compelling biblical argument for particular redemption, based upon the Trinitarian harmony of God, can be found in Ephesians 1:3-14. This passage can be divided to show the Father’s election (3-6), the Son’s redemption (7-12), and the Spirit’s seal (13-14).  The Son and the Spirit, in this passage, work in harmony with the Father. Unlimited atonement, however, sets the Son against the Father and Spirit. For, in such a scenario, the Father chooses a particular people, and he only sets the seal of the Spirit on believers, but the Son dies to redeem everyone (Peterson); there is a contradiction here. Those who adhere to unlimited atonement must concede that the redemptive harmony of the Godhead is shaken by that doctrine. Ephesians 1:3-14, [when rightly interpreted according to Reformed believers], presents the Father, Son, and Spirit working in unison to save their people and this implies a definite or limited atonement (Peterson).

Biblical verses that have been used to advocate the doctrine of universal atonement include Isaiah 53:6; 1 John 2:2; and 1 Timothy 2:1-6; John 3:16; 2 Corinthians 5:14-15; Romans 5:6; 1 Timothy 1:15; and 1 Timothy 4:10. Respected theologian and author Millard J. Erickson cites another powerful passage that is often used to show general redemption: John 1:29. He comments: “John the Baptist introduced Jesus with the words, “Look, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” Erickson continues, “There seems to be a contradiction between the scriptural indications of God’s love for the world, for all persons, and the belief that Christ did not die to save all of them.” After reviewing all of the pertinent verses and theological information, Erickson concludes, “Some of the verses that teach a universal atonement simply cannot be ignored.”

Calvinists will claim that the biblical passages that speak of Christ dying for “the world” have been misunderstood. Their arguments assert that many times these “world” references are speaking in terms of race. One example of this is found in Luke 2:1 where Scriptures tell us that “there went out a decree… that all the world should be taxed (KJV).” Obviously, this text is not stating that the entire known world was to be taxed; rather it is letting the readers know that the entire Roman world was to be taxed. Another great example can be found in Romans 8:32, which states that God gave up is son for “us all.” In this verse, the “us all” referred to here is a reference to the elect. This can be clearly seen when one looks three verses prior to Romans 8:28 which states “those who have been called according to his purpose;” those who have been called are the “us all” in verse 32. More examples are available, but for the sake of time they will not be explored here.

Both sides must honestly state that biblical arguments can be made for both limited and unlimited atonement. If there were an easy and cohesive scriptural solution to this problem, it would have been found by now. There is certainly a healthy tension here that likely will not be relieved.

When approaching this issue, it should be fairly noted that what a believer concludes regarding this doctrine will likely stem from, or be grounded upon what he or she already believes regarding the doctrines of total depravity and unconditional election, although, as was noted earlier, this will not always be the case. Church history evidences the fact that Scripture can be used to support both the Arminian and the Calvinist views; this explains why after two thousand years there is still such a lively a debate between both groups of sincere Christians. The strong Calvinist is likely going to adhere to the doctrine of particular redemption as a way to stay as hermeneutically consistent as possible. Likewise, the Arminian, in an effort to be consistent, is likely to view the atonement as general.

Making the determination of whether Christ’s atoning sacrifice was intended for everyone who ever lived, or for only the elect is truly a difficult task that has challenged the brightest minds in Christianity for centuries. The question that needs to be asked in this debate is: Did Christ’s atoning work actually save, or simply make salvation possible?

It is, after much deliberation and study, the Reformed-leaning opinion of this writer that redemption is indeed particular. This position is held to for may reasons, but perhaps the most important being that particular redemption, when compared to the other available positions, places upon God the maximum amount of glory. As an example: if Christ’s sin-bearing does not actually bear away God’s wrath for every person for whom he died, then… the center of gravity has been shifted from Christ and located in the Christian, instead of Christ’s atoning work (Horton).

Another related example is the fact that both Arminans and Calvinists place a limit on Christ’s atonement; Arminians limit the power of the atonement while Calvinists limit the scope or extent. In other words, one must limit its design either in extent (it was not intended for all) or effectiveness (it did not secure salvation for all) (Steele). By simply limiting the scope, Calvinists are maximizing the power of the atonement and giving God much more glory than the Arminians. There must be some sort of limit to the atonement, so to choose the doctrine that refuses to limit God’s power seems like the safest choice of the two options that are available. This reason alone, though it is not alone, is enough to compel me to believe in particular redemption. It should be noted, however, that this position is held with an open hand. This is not a belief that should be viewed as any type of litmus test for true Christianity, and it is certainly not a hill that is worth dying upon.

In the end, Arminans, "moderate" Calvinists, and five-point Calvinists will likely all agree that man’s purpose is to glorify God. Therefore, when Christians come to a theological fork in the road and are debating which doctrine they believe is the most biblically accurate, it is a beneficial practice to ask: “which doctrine bestows upon God the maximum amount of Glory?” To commonly default or lean towards the god-glorifying side of the equation is a healthy and humbling discipline.

So while particular redemption certainly is debatable, it is without question the most Christ-exalting doctrine of the choices that are available concerning the extent of the atonement. Particular redemption says: “Christ saves, he gets the job done, and he does not fail at what he sets out to accomplish,” as opposed to “Christ makes salvation possible, but the sinner must activate salvation for the atonement to be effective and powerful.”  

There is a certainness found in this doctrine. The pressure and emphasis is taken from the sinner and placed upon God. It is an important piece of a much bigger theological understanding that seeks to bestow upon God the maximum amount of glory; for that, it should be lauded.

Life, despite our faulty sense of self-importance, is not about us; it is all about him. Humans are merely extras on the set and Christ is the star. His plans will not be frustrated, and his ‘purposes’ indeed will come about. Christians serve a God who literally saves, whose power is unmatched, whose thoughts are beyond comprehension, and whose grace is truly amazing.