Limited vs Unlimited Atonement - Another Look
There have been centuries of debate regarding these two schools of thought, and there will be debates for years to come. I want to analyze both again and provide arguments for each one.
I want to start with the unlimited atonement view. Unlimited Atonement teaches us that when Christ died on the cross, he died for everyone that will ever live. In other words, Jesus died for the sins of the entire world, for all time. What this has to mean is Jesus paid the sin debt for everyone – even those who die in sin and are lost forever. In the unlimited atonement view, Jesus died for those who he knew beforehand would never believe in him. So, in this sense, Jesus died to make men only savable, but did not guarantee their salvation. The unlimited atonement view lays out God’s plan of salvation, sinful man surveys it through the preaching of the gospel and decides (on his own) to accept or reject the offer. Man decides if salvation succeeds or fails in the unlimited atonement view.
Why?
Because God is not choosing man first, man is choosing God first. If man has the power and moral resolve to incline him/herself to faith in God – man is choosing God, then it “frees” God to react to man’s faith to choose and save him. What has happened is the faith of man has dictated the choosing or election of him. In the unlimited view, God chooses man after man chooses him. God is at the “mercy” of man’s choosing or rejection of him. Limited atonement teaches that God has chosen those who he wants to be recipients of his saving grace. The Bible refers to these people as the elect of God. Jesus refers to them as his sheep (John 10:27-30). Those that are chosen are predetermined by God before creation (Ephesians 1:4). In other words, there is nothing that man does good or bad that determines God’s choice of who he wants to save. God’s choosing is un-influenced. It is what scholars call a monergistic[1] work.
A deeper analysis of each
Some including the writer see unlimited atonement as a man centered doctrine. Why? Because man is the initiator of the process. If Jesus washed away everyone’s sins, then everyone goes to heaven. There would be no hell. We know that is not true. What the majority report (i.e., unlimited atonement) is telling us is that we have countless souls suffering in hell right now for whom Christ died. Christ dies for the sins of those who go to hell, and the condemned also pays for the same sins in a Christless eternity – a double payment for sins. The Bible never teaches a dual punishment for sins. Either Christ pays your sin debt if you’re saved, or the unredeemed pays their own sin debt for eternity. What this means if one dies in unbelief, Christ did not pay your sin debt. His provision is available, but one has to repent and believe for the atonement to benefit you.
Question, did the Father send the Son to suffer and die for those he knew would never believe in him?
There are others including myself that see limited atonement as a God/Christ centered doctrine. Limited atonement teaches God decided to choose before time began those who he decided would be saved. God choosing before hand is also called predestination and divine election which by the way is the minority report. It is the minority report because in the minds of many predestination seems unfair. Why would one have the audacity to teach that God chooses some and passes by others? Why would God save some and condemn others? Here is my reply. Number one God is never obligated to show mercy and grace to an evil humanity. If he were, it’s no longer mercy and grace, it’s a debt God owes to man. We all deserve eternal damnation. God has every right exercise his justice and destroy us all right now. But, because he is so rich in mercy, and he loves us so much, he devised a plan before creation to rescue mankind. He sends Jesus Christ to come and die the death we deserved. For those who repent and believe they will be saved, for those who reject Christ’s love, they will be condemned (John 3:17-19).
Now, limited atonement teaches the atonement is limited to whom it extends, the elect, but it is unlimited in its power to save the elect – redeeming them. The difference in unlimited atonement is that it teaches that it is unlimited in its reach but is limited in its power to save anyone. Why? Because it leaves the decision to sinful man alone to decide to repent and believe in Christ which the sinner will never do. Why? Man is dead (spiritually) in his trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1; Colossians 2:13). Like I said earlier in unlimited atonement, man must choose God in order for God to react and choose him for salvation. In the limited view, God chooses man in eternity past, and at the precise moment in time the chosen hears the gospel, God will regenerate (make them alive or born-again John 3:3) they will repent and believe and be saved. All those whom God chooses will be saved -guaranteed (Matthew 1:21).
Here is the sum of the matter. Everyone who is a real Christian believes in a limited and an unlimited atonement. The question is in what manner do you believe these doctrines? If you say Christ died and washed away the sins of all people for all time, then you have to believe that all will be saved, and hell does not exist. That would be the doctrine of Universalism, everyone goes to heaven.
If one leans toward limited atonement, then you will be labeled a Calvinist because your view is considered narrow regarding who Jesus came to die for – the elect or chosen of God alone. This view is considered not fair because it supposedly leaves the non-elect out in the cold. The question is often asked, why won’t God save all? The reason this question is asked because many believe what God does for one, he has to do for everyone. The better question we should ask is, why God saves anyone since none deserve it?
So, in the final analysis the Lord is displaying tremendous grace by deciding to save throughout history an enumerable number of souls. God is not preventing anyone from coming to him. All one has to do is repent of their sins and believe.
Comments
1. Has Apostle John been a universalist, because of 1 John 2:2? :-)
2. Who are the ones that their names were written in the Book of Life, but Jesus blot them out? (Rev 3:5)
Thank you.
Your first question: Is the apostle John a Universalist because of 1 John 2:2?
My answer is no although 1 John 2:2 seems to support Universalism. I believe the text is saying that when Christ died for the sins of the whole world, it does not mean everyone that will ever live. But rather all kinds of people in the world. Keep in mind that when Jesus died on the cross, there were already countless souls in hell. It wouldn't make sense to say he also died for the sins of those that were already being punished for their sins. Hope this answer your question.
Your second question is: Who are the ones that their names were written in the Book of Life, but Jesus blot them out? (Rev 3:5)
Remember if your name is written in the Lamb's book of life, that means you're saved. Salvation is eternal. If a person's name could be blotted out, salvation is not eternal. Rev 3:5 is assuring believers that their name WILL NOT be blotted out; not that it can be blotted out.