For Whom Did Christ Die?

Introduction

The extent, or better, the intent of the atonement is “one of the most controversial teachings in Reformed soteriology.”1 There are numerous textual and logical arguments used and abused by proponents who enter the debate. Heated discussions go back and forth due to a passion for the beauty and efficacy of the atonement, the grace and love of God, and the dignity and supreme worth of Jesus Christ, the suffering servant. The purpose of this paper is to present positive arguments for a definite atonement and to offer a critique of the universal atonement position. To that end, four main arguments will be presented for a definite atonement followed by an evaluation and critique of four main arguments for a universal atonement.

Limiting the Scope

The length of this paper limits the number of texts and arguments that can be discussed in detail. In that regard, texts mentioned in the discussion are those seen as most convincing in the minds of their supporters. Moreover, only views of the atonement under a Calvinistic theological system will be considered and discussed. The Scriptures are clear that salvation is a monergistic work and the atonement is part of that work, as such, other views (e.g., Arminian view of a general atonement) are not discussed. Therefore, when speaking of an unlimited atonement or universal atonement, it is meant to be taken in a Calvinistic sense, i.e., the application of this universal atonement remains the prerogative and effectual working of the triune God and not man.

Statement of Positions

Definite atonement (also referred to as limited atonement, particular atonement, or particular redemption) argues that Christ died intending to effectively die for the elect only, thereby securing their salvation. The limitation on the atonement is not because of any external condition, but God’s decree. Universal atonement (also referred to as multiple intentions view, unlimited atonement, un/limited atonement, four-point Calvinism, or universal provision–limited application) argues that (1) Christ’s death was a provisional (yet actual, and not hypothetical) payment for the sins of every single person; and it (2) secured the saving benefits of the cross for the elect.2

Arguing for Definite Atonement

Admittedly, there are not a large number of texts that explicitly teach definite atonement. Such is to be expected for a doctrine that is heavily debated. There are, however, a number of texts in both Old and New Testaments related to the nature of penal substitution and atonement which are helpful in understanding the intent of the atonement. A number of textual and theological arguments can be offered for the doctrine. Four will be discussed in this section in support of definite atonement. They are: (1) Trinitarian harmony; (2) the nature of substitution; (3) exclusion passages; and (4) the efficacy of the cross.

1. Trinitarian Harmony

In Ephesians 1:3–14, Paul offers a thanksgiving and praise of what God has done in Christ. The passage can be divided in such a way that highlights how each member of the Triunity is involved in redemption. Verses 3–6 speak about the Father’s choice in election: “He chose us in [Christ] before the foundation of the world,” and “he predestined us for adoption as sons” (Eph 1:4–5).3 Verses 7–12 speak of the redemption purchased with the Son’s blood: “In him we have redemption through his blood” (Eph 1:7). And, verses 13–14 speak of the Spirit’s sealing: “You also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit” (Eph 1:13). The objects of the Father’s election, the Son’s redemption and the Spirit’s sealing are the same throughout the passage, viz., the elect. This continuity suggests that those whom the Father elects are the same as those for whom the Son sheds his blood and are the same as those whom the Spirit seals.4

The work of the Father and Spirit exclusively for the elect is agreed by all parties—even if their view of the extent of the atonement differs. However, the unlimited atonement position makes the work of the Son extend to every single person and suggests disunity between Father, Son, and Spirit.5 The entire passage from verse 3 to 14 “presents Father, Son, and Spirit working in unison to save their people, and this implies a definite or limited atonement.”6 In other words, the Father’s sovereign choice to save a people for his name is accomplished by the Son in his substitutionary death and the saving benefits are applied by the Spirit. Therefore, what is argued is that the intent of the Son’s death is the same as the Father’s sovereign choice and the Spirits work of application.

Other passages also speak on the unity between Father and Son in redeeming a particular people. In John 4:34 Jesus says, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work;” and as stated in John 5:19, Jesus does “nothing of his own accord.”7 Jesus lived to do the Father’s will, and this includes giving eternal life to all those whom the Father has chosen (John 17:2). He manifested the Father to those whom the Father elected (John 17:6). He prayed for those whom the Father had given to him, not for those of the world (John 17:9). This unity of purpose must also apply to the cross-work of Christ. Why would Christ, coming to do the very will of the Father in all respects, provide atonement for those whom the Father never chose to redeem? The Fathers intent is to redeem a particular people, and therefore, some are excluded. The Son, sent to do the Father’s will in saving a particular people again implies a definite atonement.

2. Exclusion Passages

The previous section argued for a definite atonement by noting the unity between Father, Son, and Spirit in the work of redemption. The work of the Father and Spirit are clearly exclusive to the elect and therefore, the Son, acting in harmony with the will of God, would also atone exclusively for the elect. Countering this argument, those who support a universal provision would argue that the intent of the triune God is to provide atonement for all, but limit its application to the elect. Therefore, the intention of Father, Son, and Spirit are united in providing atonement for all, and in applying the saving benefits of it to the elect. The burden of proof then shifts back to those who hold to particular atonement to provide passages that speak of the exclusive work of Son on behalf of the elect. This section, therefore, presents exclusion passages (i.e., passages that say the Son did not die for the non-elect) and argues that they support a particular atonement.

Of course passages that say that Christ gave himself for his friends (John 15:13), or his people (Matt 1:21), do not of necessity mean that he did not die for those who are not his friends or those who are not his people.8 Galatians 2:20, where Paul states that Jesus “loved me and gave himself for me,” does not intend to teach that Jesus died only for Paul and for no one else. The same reasoning is said to apply to passages where Jesus gave himself for the church (Acts 20:28; Eph 5:23–27; 1 Cor 8:11; Rom 14:15), the many (Matt 20:28; 26:28), the elect (Rom 8:32–34), and for us (Titus 2:14). While these texts are not conclusive in proving a limited atonement they are consistent with it. In fact, it can be argued that these texts make much better sense of a particular atonement than a universal one.9 In addition, these texts are not the only verses in support of particular atonement, but they must be interpreted in light of passages which implicitly and explicitly include the elect and exclude the non-elect. These explicit exclusion texts will be discussed now.

In John 10:11 and 15 Jesus states that he is the good shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep. While not immediately stating that he did not lay down his life for those who are not his sheep, the context and figure of speech he used implies that he gave himself for his sheep to the exclusion of others. More direct, in verse 26, he talks to the Jews and says, “you do not believe because you are not among my sheep.” The passage seems clear in teaching that Jesus gave himself for his sheep and gave them belief leading to eternal life, and those in verse 26 who do not believe, he did not give his life.10 The context is clear that he did not lay down his life for the strangers, wolves, thieves, robbers, and those outside his flock. Those who do not believe are not his sheep and do not enjoy eternal life purchased by the laying down of his life.

Another passage that explicitly excludes the non-elect from the benefits of the cross-work of Christ is found in John 17. Christ’s high priestly prayer opens with: “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him” (John 17:1b–2). He opens by noting that even though he has “authority over all flesh,” he gives eternal life to all whom the Father has given. John 3:16 states that God loves the world, but in John 17:9 Jesus prays not for the world, but those whom the Father has given him out of the world. In other words, while praying as high priest specifically about the salvation of the elect, he excludes those who are not his.11 The same exclusive group of people for which Christ is interceding is in view in John 17:19 where Jesus says, “For their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.” That is, when Jesus consecrates himself as high priest, he does so for the sake of those whom the Father has given him (the elect) and to the explicit exclusion of the non-elect.

3. The Nature of Substitution

Penal substitution is an important doctrine and one that implies a particular atonement. The nature of substitution is a personal one, i.e., one person takes the place of another person and vice versa. It must be differentiated from penal satisfaction—where there is a potential satisfaction for all with an actual satisfaction for some. This is not penal substitution. Sinners have amassed great personal guilt before God and are individually culpable—this demands a personal substitute. This personal substitution is exactly what is meant by a particular atonement.

By including all sin (rather than particular people) in the substitutionary work of Christ suggests a diminishing of the personal aspect of the death of Christ. Granted, to say that Christ made a provisional substitution for everyone which is only made effective when God regenerates them does have some merit. It is granted that Christ’s substitutionary atonement on behalf of the elect was made as a provision (argued here to be a guaranteed provision) until the time of regeneration when the benefits of Christ’s death are applied. However, there is an important distinction between a universal provision and a particular provision which guarantees the application of the benefits of Christ’s work. This certainty of application is due to the personal nature of substitution where the elect are known personally to God because of his decree (Rev 13:8; Eph 1:4). Christ’s cross-work was a proleptic accomplishment, not a mere provision possibly applied, but it was actually finished and guaranteed. His person for person work necessitates it.

The personal nature of substitution has implications not only for the death of Christ, but also for his resurrection. Scripture says that Christ died a substitutionary death, therefore, everyone for whom Christ has died, has died with him (2 Cor 5:14). And, everyone who has died with Christ, will live (Rom 6:8; Gal 2:20). If all those who have been crucified with Christ will be raised to new life, then a definite atonement is necessary or else universalism results. If, however, Christ’s substitutionary work was done for everyone, is there not a sense which one who has rejected the grace of God say “I have been crucified with Christ” (Gal 2:20) like Paul and every one of the redeemed?

To suggest the idea of a provisional or potential union in the death and resurrection of Christ is difficult in this case. There is no textual basis found to assume that all have died in Christ provisionally or potentially.

4. Efficacy of the Cross

Does Scripture present the atonement as making provision for all or as effective for some?12 Berkof states that “there is an inseparable connection between the purchase and the actual bestowal of salvation.”13 He makes this statement when considering texts such as “we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son” (Rom 5:10); “[Christ] gave himself for our sins to deliver us” (Gal 1:4); “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us” (Gal 3:13); “you were ransomed…with the precious blood of Christ” (1 Pet 1:18–19); “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree” (1 Pet 2:24); “we have redemption through his blood” (Eph 1:7); “the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost” (Luke 19:10). These passages do seem to inseparably link the accomplishment/provision of the cross and the actual application of the benefits. If Christ became an actual curse for every single person, how are not all redeemed (Gal 3:13)? To divorce the provision and application in such a way that there can be provision but never an application seems to run counter to these texts. To see why this is the case, the goal of this section is to examine passages on the efficacy of the cross and see why they are best explained by a particular atonement.14

One such passage is Revelation 5:9, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.” The significance of this passage is that Jesus purchased a part of the human race from a larger whole. From every tribe and language and people and nation (i.e., from humankind), Jesus has purchased some by his blood. This means that Christ’s death via his substitutionary atonement actually purchased a group of people from the world.15 It does not say that Christ died for every single person but that he died for people from every nation, and that his death actually purchased them (thus guaranteeing their salvation).

The efficacy of a particular atonement can also be demonstrated from Romans 8:31–39. Romans 8:32 says, “He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?” The “us” in this text is the elect (Rom 8:33) and the underlying assumption is arguably a particular atonement. If a universal provision for everyone without exception has been made then the non-elect seemingly qualify for the reception of “all things.” Paul’s argument loses its meaning if Christ has died for every single person. Instead, the link between the atonement and the guarantee or efficacy of the application is what is in view. The elect can find solace and assurance in this passage since Christ has died for them, and if he has done that, will he withhold anything from them?

The union with Christ in his death, and the guaranteed benefits of his life have been argued previously. The efficacy of this relationship is highlighted here. As argued, everyone for whom Christ has died, has died with him (2 Cor 5:14). And, “if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him” (Rom 6:8). In other words, everyone that has died with Christ will also live with him. Christ died on behalf of the elect which effectively secures their salvation. That is, there is an efficacy, an unbroken chain between those for whom Christ died and those who will be raised in newness of life (Rom 6:4).

Critics of particular atonement argue that substitution is not necessarily efficacious or automatic, i.e., a penalty can be paid without it automatically taking effect.16 This is a necessary presupposition for the universalist, since, if substitution were automatic or effectual, then everyone for whom Christ substituted would be saved (i.e., it would necessitate a particular atonement).17 However, nowhere does Scripture say that Christ died to make provision for redemption, expiation, propitiation, or reconciliation. All of these things are spoken in terms that suggest efficacy.18 That is, Christ did not merely make a payment, but he made a payment that was accepted by the Father, thereby propitiating his wrath and working reconciliation (Heb 10:12–14). In other words, Christ made a purchase, not strictly a payment. All for whom this payment was made and accepted will be effectively saved—purchased for God.

5. Other Supporting Arguments

Besides the textual arguments mentioned above, there have historically been a number of logical arguments offered for particular atonement. Logical arguments have a place but these arguments should be seen as secondary to the exegetical arguments since the text of Scripture must always be the norma normans non normata (“norming norm that cannot be normed”). For example, a common logical argument for particular atonement is the argument of double jeopardy or double payment.19 The argument asserts that if Christ has died to take away the sins of unbelievers, then God is unjust to punish unbelievers in hell. If God’s wrath has been propitiated for every single person (1 John 2:2) then how can he punish anyone in hell? In response, those holding to a universal provision will say that there is no double payment involved since Christ’s provision made on the cross was not applied to unbelievers. Arguments such as this can go back and forth and in the end, must be settled by the text of Scripture. In light of the problems of logical argumentation, two further textual arguments supporting a particular atonement will be examined now.

i. Universal Atonement Proof-Texts

While seemingly counterintuitive, texts traditionally used to argue for a universal atonement can also be used to argue for a particular atonement. Two of these passages (John 1:29 and 1 John 2:2) will be examined here.

John 1:29 says, “The next day [John the Baptist] saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!’” and 1 John 2:2 says, “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” In each of these texts the discussion often centers on the interpretation of “world.” Is “world” to be seen as (1) everyone without exception (every single individual) or (2) everyone without distinction (Jew, Gentile, slave, free, male, female, etc.)? Critics of particular atonement argue that a straight forward reading of the text must understand “world” in the first sense and that qualifying “world” to mean everyone without distinction “always has the feel of special pleading.”20 The criticism suggests that a theological presupposition is being forced upon the text. Is this criticism valid? Is the doctrine of particular atonement unable to handle these texts and must it qualify the normal understanding of the term “world” to make these texts fit?

It is typically argued by particularists that “world” can mean many different things.21 And, it is generally agreed by all that not every instance of the word “world” carries the same meaning.22 As mentioned earlier, Revelation 5:9 can be used as warrant for seeing “world” as the world without distinction.23 However, the most convincing argument does not come from other passages, but from John 1:29 and 1 John 2:2 themselves. Discussions on the meaning of the word “world” overlook the other important key term in each passage. In one case Jesus takes away the sin of the whole world, and in the second case, Jesus is the propitiation for the whole world. In both cases qualifications must be made or else these texts teach universalism and contradict the rest of Scripture. In the case of John 1:29, either “he takes away sin” or “whole world” must be qualified. And, in the case of 1 John 2:2, either “he is the propitiation” or “for the whole world” must be qualified. Those not holding to a particular atonement and see the qualification of “whole world” as special pleading must instead qualify “take way sin” and “propitiation” to be a provisional taking away and a provisional propitiation.24

Propitiation is the “placating, pacifying, or appeasing of one’s anger or wrath.”25 In this case, Christ’s death is the sacrifice that removes God’s wrath. The other three times propitiation is used in Scripture (Rom 3:25; Heb 2:17; 1 John 4:10) propitiation only refers to the elect. Therefore, from the word itself, its context, and how it’s used in Scripture, adding qualifications to propitiation to make it provisional lacks warrant. Whereas, the efficacy of the atonement, the infinite value of Christ, and other passages such as Revelation 5:9 imply that qualification of the “whole world” to mean “world without distinction” is warranted in both passages and is better suited than qualifying the act of propitiation or what it means to “take away sin.”

Therefore, “takes away sin” and “propitiation” in these passages speak to the accomplishment, efficacy, and particularity of the atonement. Out of the world, from every tongue, tribe, and nation, God’s people were redeemed. Christ efficaciously took away sin, and propitiated the wrath of God for his people.

ii. Old Testament Typology

The Old Testament sacrifices were modeled after the sacrifice of Christ, and therefore, are relevant to this discussion.26 Jesus’ death is associated with the Passover lamb (Matt 26:17–19; 26–28) and the historic Passover lamb (Exod 12) was strictly for God’s chosen people and not for the unbelieving Egyptians. Similarly, Christ is commonly referred to as high priest and the high priest interceded for God’s people (Lev 16), not for everyone in the world. The sacrifices were not for the Assyrians, Amalekites, or Canaanites. Likewise, Christ, acting as high priest, made atonement for the sins of God’s people.27

Evaluation and Critique of Universal Provision

Positive arguments for the doctrine of particular redemption have been presented without much interaction with the universal provision and limited application view. It is to this task to which this paper will now turn. What follows is an attempt to clearly and succinctly state the position of universal atonement. After which, arguments in support of the doctrine are outlined then critiqued. The goal is to follow the advice of Mortimer Adler, who rightly surmises that one must be able to say “I understand,” before one can say “I disagree.”28

Statement of Position

Universal atonement can be described as a universal provision and a particular application. Universal provision is the idea that Christ made an actual payment for the sins of every single individual.29 Particular application is the idea that the saving benefits of the atonement are applied solely to the elect. In this way, the doctrine accounts for both the texts which speak of Christ’s atonement in universal terms (speaking of the provision), and Christ’s atonement in particular terms (speaking of the application). The view is not to be confused with the Arminian view of universal atonement in that this view correctly recognizes that the saving benefits are applied solely on the free, sovereign choice of God himself.30

The position is also championed as the multiple intentions view of the atonement. Bruce Ware lists the following five intentions:

1) Christ died for the purpose of securing the sure and certain salvation of his own, his elect. 2) Christ died for the purpose of paying the penalty for the sin of all people making it possible for all who believe to be saved. 3) Christ died for the purpose of securing the bone fide offer of salvation to all people everywhere. 4) Christ died for the purpose of providing an additional basis for condemnation for those who hear and reject the gospel that has been genuinely offered to them. 5) Christ died for the purpose of reconciling all things to the Father.31

The number of intentions and the precise nature of intentions are a matter of discussion among supporters of the view, but the first two in Ware’s list are common to all. While multiple intentions can be seen by both particularists and non, nevertheless, the idea is significant. If Christ died for the intent of paying the penalty for the sin of all people and for the intent of securing the salvation of the elect, then atonement texts do not need to be forced to agree. It does not need to be either/or, but rather, both/and. Atonement texts that speak in universal terms can be taken at face value; and atonement texts that speak of particularity can likewise be taken at face value. These seemingly contradictory texts are that way because there are multiple intentions in the atonement—with universal and particular elements.

A complete discussion on the different intentions of the atonement is beyond the scope of this paper, but the one intent that will be discussed is that “Christ died for the purpose of paying the penalty for the sin of all people.” This will be the main point of emphasis in the critique. It will be argued that Christ did not die for the purpose of paying the penalty for the sin of all people; rather he died to pay the penalty for the sin of his elect only.

Critique

In this section, three main textual arguments used to support a universal atonement are examined. The arguments are based on passages that speak of: (1) a universal atonement or provision; (2) Christ dying for the lost; and (3) God’s love for the world. What is important to note is that texts portraying the atonement in universal terms are treated “as normative or determinative.”32 These texts will be examined to see if taking them as determinative is warranted. Due to limitations in space, all texts used to support a universal atonement cannot be dealt with. The texts that are discussed were chosen because they are the most common or deemed most convincing by advocates of a universal atonement.

After the discussion of these three textual arguments, one logical argument will be considered, viz., the infinite value of Christ demands an infinite/unlimited atonement. Other logical arguments such as: a universal atonement must provide the basis for common grace, and a universal atonement provides a genuine offer of the gospel33 will not be discussed as textual arguments receive priority.

1. Universal Atonement Passages

Two common passages that put the atonement in seemingly universal terms (John 1:29; 1 John 2:2) have already been discussed above and were used to argue for a particular atonement.34 What is considered by some proponents of a universal provision to be an indisputable text is 1 Timothy 4:10, “…we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.”35 But how exactly does this verse teach a universal atonement? Erickson says, “Apparently the Savior has done something for all persons, though it is less in degree than what he has done for those who believe.”36 If the context is soteriological, how does God save all people (i.e., both unbelievers who are eternally damned, and believers who are eternally saved) and especially save those who believe (i.e., believers who are eternally saved)? How can God be seen as the Savior of those who are perishing eternally? Seeing this passage as a proof text for a universal provision with a particular application seems to be imposing the doctrine onto the text.37

What is the proper understanding of 1 Timothy 4:10? The option of seeing “all people” here as every kind of people is not a workable one. To demonstrate, the statement “God is the Savior of Jews, Greeks, Scythians, Barbarians, and especially those who believe” is a nonsensical statement because of the categorical mismatch. Along a different line of argumentation, some argue that “especially” would be better translated “namely” or “that is.” This would render the text to be “God is the Savior of all men, that is, those who believe.” While potentially helpful, one would have to wonder why Paul did not use the normal words for “that is” (cf. Rom 7:18).

A better and more plausible understanding, both linguistically and contextually, is summarized by Steven Baugh.38 Baugh argues that this passage is speaking of common grace, i.e., God “makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matt 5:45). In this understanding, the passage is not soteriological and sheds no light on the extent of the atonement.39 Some object to this understanding on the basis that Pauline usage of “Savior” is consistently soteriological.40 What Baugh demonstrates in his article is that the historical context of “Savior” must be considered, i.e., the time and place (Ephesus) to which the letter was written sheds important insight. During that time and in Ephesus the term “Savior” was a common term meaning “protector,” “benefactor,” or “patron.”41 However, this is not only a meaning made possible by the historical context; it is made probable by the immediate context of 1 Timothy 4:7–10.42 Paul is referring to the historical circumstances at Ephesus when he mentions bodily training, an activity that Greeks held in high regard. Paul points out that while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in this life and the life to come. In verse 10, he comments on this saying as trustworthy because God provides good things to all, but especially to those who believe. That is, verse 10 is the basis for verse 8. God provides benefits to those who devote themselves to bodily training, but God especially provides benefits to those who devote themselves to godliness “for the present life and also for the life to come” (1 Tim 4:8).

Therefore, 1 Timothy 4:10 is not speaking of the atonement but is speaking of God being the benefactor for all people, giving common grace to all and especially to those who believe. This interpretation agrees with the historical context of the letter and more importantly the literary context of 1 Timothy 4:7–10.

2. Christ Died for the Lost

If it could be demonstrated from Scripture that Christ died for the lost, then particular atonement must be false. The whole idea of particular atonement is that Christ did not die for the lost, but he died only for the elect. A verse which is said to teach that Christ in fact did die for some of the lost, and thus support an unlimited atonement is 2 Peter 2:1: “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.”43 Does this verse teach that Christ died for these false teachers who eternally perish? What does “Master who bought them” mean? Can it be assumed that what is being spoken of here is a universal, provisional atonement that was not savingly applied?

First, it must be noted that “bought” is a difficult term for the those who argue that this passage is talking of a provisional atonement. Shedd, who defends a universal provision, says: “Atonement must be distinguished from redemption. The latter term includes the application of the atonement. It is the term redemption, not atonement, that is found in those statements that speak of the world of Christ as limited by the decree of election.”44 That is, Shedd argues that the atonement is universal and speaks of the provision of the cross, but redemption is limited to the elect and speaks of the application of the saving benefits of the cross. This is significant because the term “bought” in 2 Peter 2:1 is best understood to be synonymous with redemption and not atonement.45 Therefore, the text would mean that Christ redeemed some who were lost, which is not what is argued by proponents of a universal provision.46 It also questions the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement. If these false teachers were bought, is Christ’s purchase in vain? Can Christ pay the purchase price for their salvation and have it rejected by men? This cannot be the proper understanding of the text.

Other problems also appear if “bought” is understood to be a provisional payment rather than an actual purchase. The meaning of the word is: to buy, purchase, or acquire.47 It speaks of a complete transaction, not just a payment or provision made. This leads to wondering as to why Peter would use “bought” here to communicate the idea of a provisional payment that still required their acceptance to make it an actual purchase.

In addition to the word “bought”, it is unclear who “Master” is referring to. The term is not the usual title for Christ, but it is used of him in Jude 4. Since the term is also used of God the Father (Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; Rev 6:10), it is unclear whether the text is referring to Christ or to the Father. What is argued in using this text as support for a universal atonement is that “Master” refers to Christ, and “bought” refers to a provisional atonement on the cross. However, both of these are not explicit in the text and, as shown above, it is very improbable that “bought” is referring to a provisional atonement.48

What is the proper understanding of this text? Gary Long documents four differing views on this text, two of them view the passage as soteriological and two do not.49 He argues for a commonly held understanding which sees the text being an Old Testament allusion to Deuteronomy 32:6.50 In that passage, Moses says to the rebellious people who have turned away from God: “Do you thus repay the LORD, O foolish and unwise people? Is not He your Father who has bought you?” (NASB). Like the rebellious false prophets who denied the God who bought them out of the land of Egypt, these false teachers are now denying their sovereign master who has worked mightily in their day.51 Understanding the Old Testament allusion, these teachers would realize that Peter is grouping them with the false prophets of the past. Therefore, 2 Peter 2:1 is not a text which demonstrates that Christ died for the lost.

3. God’s Universal Love

Does God only love some sinners? That is the question that starts off one book that argues for a universal atonement.52 What is made explicit by supporters of a universal atonement is that “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 for all of them.”53 The text that is used more than any other is John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” Erickson argues that if God commands us to love our enemies (Matt 5:44), then certainly God loves his enemies (Rom 5:8), presumably those who do not even become believers.54

It must be recognized that because God would love his elect in a special way does not mean that he does not love the reprobate in any sense. Scripture portrays God’s love in many different senses or ways.55 God does love the world, but he does not love everyone with the effective love with which he loves the elect. Supporters of both a limited atonement and a universal atonement would agree that God loves the elect in a special way—Scripture and a monergistic salvation demands such.

So how is John 3:16 to be understood? The purpose clause gives the reason why God sent his Son: to save those who believe. This purpose comports with both a universal and a particular view of the atonement. The point of focus, however, is placed on the phrase “For God so loved the world.” However, this phrase does not mean that God loved the world so much, defining his love in terms of a measurable quantity. Rather, the word translated “so” has the sense “in such a manner.”56 In other words, God loved the world in such a manner that he gave his only Son for the purpose that the one believing in him will have eternal life. Moreover, the “world” that John is talking about is not every single person (and is not the world of elect as some wrongly surmise), but it is a normal Johannine usage which means the “moral order in willful and culpable rebellion against God.”57 Therefore, the idea being conveyed is not that God’s love is extended to such a big thing as the world, but to such a bad thing, i.e., not to so many people, but to so bad a people. With this understanding, John 3:16 offers no insight into the extent of the atonement as commonly thought by those who advocate an unlimited atonement.

4. Infinite Work of Christ Must Cover All Sin

A logical argument that deserves a response is that the infinite nature of Christ demands, as a logical corollary, an infinite atonement. Since the value of the atonement is based on the dignity and worth of Christ, his death is sufficient to save all sinners in the world. This is a true statement and advocates of particular redemption affirm this truth.58 Christ’s atoning work on the cross cannot be qualified as in the number of sins or amount of sin that it covers; his death is of supreme value and has no limit. But does such an understanding imply or demand an unlimited atonement? While Christ’s death is of infinite value, his death was a substitutionary one, one where his sheep are proleptically united with him in his death and are raised to life in his resurrection. While unlimited as to the worth of the atonement, the substitutionary aspect makes it personal and limited to the elect chosen before the foundation of the world. This “limitation” on the infinite accomplishment of Christ should not be a logical problem for advocates of an unlimited atonement. The application of Christ’s atonement is said to be personal and specific even though the atonement was of infinite value. In the same manner, the provision can be personal and specific while remaining meritoriously infinite.59

Conclusion

There are many passages of Scripture upon first reading seem to put the atonement in universal terms, i.e., an actual provision was made for everyone. However, upon closer examination, the payment (purchase) for sin is a special and efficacious act of God for his elect only. The exclusion passage in John 10, the nature of substitution, and the efficacy of the cross are strong arguments in favor of a definite atonement. Moreover, as was demonstrated, careful exegesis of the universal texts are problematic for the unlimited atonement position. That is, these texts do not teach a universal atonement when they are examined closer. Therefore, the definite atonement position best accounts for the evidence from Scripture and is in keeping with God’s gracious act to redeem a people for his name.

  1. R. A Blacketer, “Definite Atonement in Historical Perspective,” in The Glory of the Atonement: Biblical, Historical & Practical Perspectives: Essays in Honor of Roger Nicole, ed. Charles E. Hill and Frank A. James (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 304.
  2. This second point is not clearly discussed as to how the death of Christ makes provision for all, yet secures the application for the elect. What makes logical sense is when A. H. Strong states that the application is properly secured “through the work of the Holy Spirit” (Systematic Theology [Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1907], 771). This would seem to move the securing of salvation to the electing work of the Father and the sealing work of the Spirit rather than the cross-work of Christ.
  3. All Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version unless otherwise indicated.
  4. See Robert A Peterson, Salvation Accomplished by the Son: The Work of Christ (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 567–69.
  5. While advocates of a universal provision would argue that the intent of the Son is in perfect unison with the Father and Spirit (i.e., God intended a universal provision in the Son), this passage does not speak of a universal provision. Instead, this passage portrays a triune work of electing, redeeming, and sealing the elect. In addition, non-particularists insist that the order of the divine decree was that atonement was to be made for all, followed by the Father’s election. This explains why the Son would die for all, and yet the Spirit would apply the work to some. This, however, is not completely satisfactory since when Christ died in actual history he knew who the elect were and still died in a non-effective way for the reprobate.
  6. Peterson, Salvation Accomplished by the Son, 568.
  7. See also John 5:30; 6:38; 8:29–30; 10:30; 12:49–50; 14:30–31.
  8. Reymond is quick acknowledge this point in A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 673–74. See also Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 600.
  9. For instance, in Ephesians 5:25–27, how can the illustration of a husbands love for his wife be illustrated by Christ’s death for the church if Christ’s death was for everyone? The illustration suggests a special and personal relationship, an exclusiveness between man and wife and between Christ’s death and his church. Therefore, this passage is wholly consistent with and suggests a particular atonement (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 600). It can be argued that these texts apply to the application of the atonement and not of the extent of the atonement (Rolland McCune, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity [Allen Park, MI: Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009], 2:214). However, the language of these texts seems to speak of the atoning work of Christ apart from the elective choice of God (and applicatory work of the Spirit) which is said to be the basis for application. That is, the texts do not speak of the application of Christ’s atoning work, but the work itself. To interpret each of these texts as referring to a limitation in the application of the atonement must come from a theological argument of necessity rather than exegesis of the texts themselves.
  10. See Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 674.
  11. James R White, The Potter’s Freedom: A Defense of the Reformation and a Rebuttal of Norman Geisler’s Chosen but Free (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press Publishing, 2009), 265.
  12. Those holding to a universal provision would point out here that it is not an either/or but a both/and. As the passages are discussed, the viability of a both/and position will be noted.
  13. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1958), 395.
  14. Arguing for a particular atonement from the efficacy of the cross is not to imply that those who do not hold to a particular atonement see no efficacy in the cross or that Christ did not do exactly what he intended to do.
  15. By understanding “every tribe and language and people and nation” as the “world” gives warrant to interpreting “world” as all without distinction rather than all without exception.
  16. Norman Geisler, although coming from an arguably Arminian perspective, uses this argument. See Norman L Geisler, Chosen But Free (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2001), 87.
  17. When speaking of automatic and effectual, the time between the death of Christ and the application of the benefits to the elect is understood but is not the real issue. The difference is that in particular redemption, Christ’s death secures the application for all those for whom he died as a substitute. Such that, “If Christ died for us, we died in Christ” (Sinclair B Ferguson, “Preaching the Atonement,” in The Glory of the Atonement: Biblical, Historical & Practical Perspectives: Essays in Honor of Roger Nicole, ed. Charles E. Hill and Frank A. James [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004], 434).
  18. “He actually took away sins (John 1:29), bore God’s wrath (1 John 2:2; 4:10), redeemed us (Gal 3:13–14), and reconciled us to God (Rom 5:10–11; 2 Cor 5:18–19). It is for this reason, then, that the title of Murray’s little book is not Redemption: Provided and Applied, but Redemption: Accomplished and Applied” (Mark Snoeberger, “Introduction,” in Three Views on the Extent of the Atonement, ed. Mark A. Snoeberger and Andrew D. Naselli [pre-publication draft, Nashville: B & H], 7).
  19. See Grudem, Systematic Theology, 595; Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1999), 557.
  20. McCune, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, 2:206. Robert Lightner says that this text is the most important text of Scripture dealing with propitiation and the extent of the atonement and the unlimited atonement reading of this text is “the normal, unbiased approach” (Robert P Lightner, The Death Christ Died: A Biblical Case for Unlimited Atonement [Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1998], 81).
  21. In fact, just a few verses later in 1 John 2 it says, “Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” (1 John 2:15). Obviously, “world” here is not everyone without exception otherwise the exhortation would be to not love anyone.
  22. Shedd, who advocates a universal atonement, categorizes the use of “world” into three categories: (1) world of believers, or the church (John 6:33, 51; Rom 4:13; 11:12, 15); (2) denoting what is contrary to the church (John 1:10; 7:7; 14:17; 17:9; 1 John 2:15); and (3) all mankind or in distinction from the Jews (Matt 26:13; John 3:16; 1 John 2:2) (William G. T Shedd, Dogmatic Theology [Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2003], 748–49).
  23. See also John 11:49–52, “But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.” He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad” (emphasis added).
  24. That is, Christ is the propitiation for the whole world provisionally until his work is applied by the regenerating work of the Spirit. Some would take exception to this particular qualification and instead qualify “takes away sin” and “propitiation” in another manner, but the argument still stands. E.g. “takes away sin” in John 1:29 can be defined as “bears sin.” That is, rather than talking about the expiatory work of Christ, it is referring to a substitutionary payment and not its application. While such is a possible use of the word, it is unlikely to see it this way in this context. Jeremias says that John, “is thinking of the setting aside of sin by the expiatory power of the death of Jesus, so that we should translate the statement as follows: “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (i.e., by the atoning power of His blood, cf. 1 Jn. 1:7)” (TDNT, s.v. “αἴρω,” by J. Jeremias, 1:186). This interpretation is confirmed by all the major English translations of the Bible that render αἴρων in John 1:29 as “takes away” rather than “bears.”
  25. McCune, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, 2:186.
  26. Ibid., 2:180.
  27. For a fuller discussion of these issues, see Carl Trueman, “Particular and Effective Atonement,” in Three Views on the Extent of the Atonement, ed. Mark A. Snoeberger and Andrew D. Naselli (pre-publication draft, Nashville: B & H), 4–8; 13–19.
  28. Mortimer J Adler and Charles Van Doren, How to Read a Book (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1972), 142–43.
  29. The word “actual” is important to stress here. This view is to be recognized as distinct from Amyraldism since Amyraldism defines the atonement as potentially or hypothetically universal. McCune writes, “Being infinite, the atonement of Christ made an actual provision for all and not just a hypothetical provision. This is because of the infinite value or worth of Christ’s sacrifice. The sufficiency is real and not hypothetical. An adequate payment was made for all sin” (McCune, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, 2:205).
  30. Millard J Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 852.
  31. Bruce A Ware, “Extent of the Atonement: Outline of The Issue, Positions, Key Texts, and Key Theological Arguments”, 3.
  32. Erickson, Christian Theology, 851. In context, Erickson is referring to the passages 1 Timothy 4:10, 1 John 2:2, and Isaiah 53:6.
  33. For a response to this argument see Roger Nicole, “Covenant, Universal Call and Definite Atonement,” JETS 38, no. 3 (1995): 403–412.
  34. These texts can be considered universal by the particularist, but universal in terms of kind rather than in terms of individuals.
  35. Erickson considers 1 Timothy 4:10 to be among the “most impressive” verses that teach a universal atonement that simply cannot be ignored (Christian Theology, 851).
  36. Ibid.
  37. Demarest seems to fall into this fallacy. He says “1 Tim 4:10 teaches that Christ is universal Savior in that he made redemptive provision for all persons, but he is the effectual Savior of those who believe” (Bruce A Demarest, The Cross and Salvation: The Doctrine of Salvation [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1997], 191). One must make a logical jump to assume that God being the Savior of all refers to Christ making a provisionary atonement. Even if “Savior for all” means “redemptive provision for all,” the text would still not support what Demarest interprets it to mean. Rather, the text would confusingly read that Christ is the redemptive provision for all, and he is especially the redemptive provision of those who believe.
  38. Steven M Baugh, “Savior of All People: 1 Tim 4:10 in Context,” Westminster Theological Journal 54 (1992): 333–40.
  39. This understanding of 1 Timothy 4:10 is not a recent one. Baugh cites Calvin, Turrettin, Berkhof, and R. B. Kuiper as others who support this position (ibid., 334).
  40. Demarest, The Cross and Salvation, 191.
  41. There is a surviving inscription from Ephesus that says Julius Caesar is the “universal savior of human life” because he prevented money in the temple of Artemis from being confiscated during a civil war (Baugh, “Savior of All People: 1 Tim 4:10 in Context,” 336).
  42. “Train yourself for godliness; for while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come. The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance. For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe” (1 Tim 4:7b–10).
  43. Erickson says, “2 Peter 2:1 seems to point out most clearly that people for who Christ died may be lost” (Christian Theology, 847). Erickson cites other passages (Rom 14:15; 1 Cor 8:11; Heb 10:29) as further support but admits that these verses are debatable and not conclusive. However, 2 Peter 2:1 is said to affirm that some for whom Christ died do perish (Christian Theology, 851).
  44. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 742.
  45. McCune says this word group translated “bought” in 2 Peter 2:1 “is theologically synonymous with the other words denoting redemption by the payment of a ransom price” (A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, 2:185).
  46. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 742–43.
  47. BDAG, 14.
  48. A ransom or purchase made for all is sometimes argued from 1 Timothy 2:5–6a: “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all.” However, “all” here is defined by the first two verses: “I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way” (1 Tim 2:1–2). Paul exhorts his readers to pray for all people. Is Paul asking them to pray for every single person in the human race? The context shows that he is concerned with all kinds of people, especially those in positions of authority. For there is one mediator between God and men (whether slave or free, king or subject) and Christ gave himself as a ransom for all (i.e., all kinds of people).
  49. Gary D Long, Definite Atonement (Frederick, MD: New Covenant Media, 2006), 79–99.
  50. Ibid., 96.
  51. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 600. Grudem summarizes the presentation made by John Gill.
  52. Norman F Douty, The Death of Christ: A treatise which considers the question: Did Christ Die Only For the Elect? (Irving, TX: Williams & Watrous Publishing Company, 1978), 9.
  53. Erickson, Christian Theology, 848.
  54. Ibid., 848–49.
  55. D. A. Carson sees five ways in which God’s love can be described (The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2000]);.Peterson sees three ways: (1) God’s love for everyone by virtue of common grace; (2) God’s love for his elect (incl. Christ’s cross-work and application of the cross); and (3) God’s salvific stance toward his fallen world (as seen in John 3:16) (Salvation Accomplished by the Son, 574).
  56. Robert Letham, The Work of Christ, Contours of Christian Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 240.
  57. Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God, 17. This type of “world” can be seen in 1 John 2:15–16, “Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world.” The same in Romans 12:2, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind.”
  58. John Owen who vehemently argues for a limited atonement says, “To the honour, then, of Jesus Christ our Mediator, God and man, our all-sufficient Redeemer, we affirm, such and so great was the dignity and worth of his death and blood-shedding, of so precious a value, that it was in every way able and perfectly sufficient to redeem, justify, and reconcile and save all sinners in the world, and to satisfy the justice of God for all the sins of mankind, and to bring them everyone to everlasting glory” (The Death of Death in the Death of Christ [London: Banner of Truth, 1959], 185).
  59. The shortcomings of a logical argument are evident here since either position can posit logically consistent systems. The textual arguments must remain primary in the discussion of the issue.