Which Is More Loving?
I recently had the privilege of reading two books. The first book the author referred to himself as a “Moderate Calvinist”. He believes in an unlimited atonement. As a reminder, those that believe and teach and unlimited atonement position believe that when Jesus died on the cross, he atoned for the sins of everyone that will ever live for all time. No one is left out. The second book is a rebuttal against the first one.[1] The author of the second book states that the atonement of Christ is limited to the elect or chosen by God before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4).
Both views are compelling, and both appear to be supported by scripture. But, which view is correct, the unlimited view or the limited view?
If you believe that Christ died for all men for all time, then you by default believe that he knowingly died for those who will go to hell and pay the penalty for their own sins for eternity. I said numerous times that that is a form of double jeopardy.
Also in the unlimited atonement view, the atonement is powerless to save. Why? Because salvation hinges strictly on the sinner’s choice to believe. All Jesus was able to do was simply make a way or take away some type of barrier for man to incline himself out of unbelief into belief. In other words, Christ did his part by dying for sin. Man must finish what Jesus started by believing so that he can be saved. Man’s belief in the unlimited atonement view completes the salvation process. Negatively, man’s unbelief in the unlimited atonement view neutralizes the Lord’s work on the cross (for him) because in the final analysis the unbeliever dies in sin and is eternally lost.
So I must ask this question, “What good is an atonement that does not take away sins and guarantees the sinner’s salvation?” In other words, those that believe in an unlimited atonement have to believe that Jesus’ death only produces a potential salvation and not an actual one. Why? Because salvation only becomes actual when the dead in trespasses sinner chooses to believe. Did Jesus die to make salvation only a possibility, or did he die to actually save his people from their sins (Matt 1:21)?
How will any man who is dead in his sins believe without the Spirit of God resurrecting him (Eph 2:1;Col 2:13)? Jesus said that we must be born again to even see the kingdom of God (John 3:3, 5-6). No one came to life naturally on their own. We cannot come to life spiritually on our own either. God must bring us back to life like he did with Lazarus (John 11:43). The physical resurrection of Lazarus is a perfect illustration of what happens to those whom God chooses to give spiritual life to. God has to give us his power for it to take place.
In the limited atonement view, we see the Father sending the Son to die for those whom God chose, his elect, his sheep. All of whom God chose before time will at the precise point in time that he chooses will be absolutely saved. How do I know this? Because this is what God predetermined before the world began. In this way, the atonement is successful. God is not depending upon man to actualize salvation. Rather, God actualizes it from the beginning so that is successful in the end. God grants man repentance and faith so that he will believe when hears the gospel (Eph 2:8; II Tim 2:25). God is the root cause of salvation because it his gift to man through his Son. And because that is true, the effect of the cause is the salvation of all who believe.
Many will argue against the limited atonement view by saying things like, “You in the reform camp are alleging Jesus died for only the elect and not the non-elect? Dying for some and not all means God is not all loving! That’s not fair!” Others will declare that the limited view over emphasizes God’s sovereignty and violates the free will of man. “If God is choosing in eternity past who he will save, then those chosen really have no choice but to be saved right”? In other words, those who misunderstand the limited atonement position believe God is saving people against their will. Like I have said in previous articles, man’s will is never violated by God, rather God’s is activating or empowering the corrupt will of man through his loving choosing of that man so that he willingly comes to the Son who was sent by the Father to save him in the first place. And as I stated before, If God does not lovingly interrupt our lives to resurrect our dead spirits then no one could ever be saved. We must remember man is a walking corpse in this world without the Lord. We will not seek God on our own (Rom 3:11). God must seek us first so that we desire by His power to seek him.
John said it this way, “We love him because he first loved us” (I John 4:19).
With this insight we understand why Jesus said to Nicodemus in John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believes in him would not perish, but have eternal life.” Because of the Father’s love for his world, he sent his only Son to save those who would believe in him.
So, which is more loving, Jesus dying for every man that will ever live, but saving no one in particular because he has to hope man has enough inherent goodness within himself to will himself from unbelief to belief on his own, or Jesus dying for those whom the Father chose before time again as a gift to the Son for him to come and redeem thus guaranteeing their salvation forever? I choose the latter for that is what the Bible teaches – a limited atonement, not a universal atonement.
[1] The first book is “Chosen But Free” by Norman Geisler
The second is “The Potter’s Freedom” by James White
Comments