Limited atonement is the teaching that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect. Thus it can be said that Jesus died only for the unconditional elect. This teaching forms one of the five points of Calvinism.
It's important to note that limited atonement does not mean an inferior or insufficient atonement. The love of God is not diminished as a result of a limited atonement. The opposite teaching, which is unlimited atonement would mean that God leaves salvation as a choice for the unregenerate and sinful mind. If God did not choose to save us, we would not have chosen to save ourselves.
Read my post about Calvinism to find out more on the five points, or, continue reading for more information on limited atonement.
Merits of Limited Atonement
Since limited atonement is based on the teaching that Jesus' death is sufficient for all, but only efficient for the elect, there needs to be compelling scriptural evidence.
Therefore, the evidence for limited atonement can be broken down into three areas:
Evidence that Jesus' death is sufficient for all
Evidence that Jesus death is efficient for the elect only
Evidence that God chooses who to save
Evidence that Jesus' death is sufficient for all
The evidence that Jesus's death is sufficient for all is not called into question by those that believe in unlimited atonement. Neither side of this doctrine question whether Jesus died, or whether it is sufficient. In that sense, the evidence below is only to meet the prerequisite that limited atonement.
The below verses demonstrate to us that Jesus died and rose again, that he had power over life and death and offers this salvation for the whole world. The question is not whether God is powerful or merciful to save. It is whether the atonement is effective for all or effective only for those called by God:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
John 3:16-17 ESV
He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
1 John 2:2 ESV
Evidence that Jesus' death is efficient for the elect only
While both limited and unlimited atonement believe that Jesus' death is sufficient for all people, limited atonement puts forth the criteria that it is only efficient for those that God has called. This belief is built upon unconditional election, which points to God's people always choosing God, and total depravity, which points to humans never choosing God without his will.
The below verses show us that Jesus died for the sake of his people. The prophesy of Isaiah points to the suffering servant that would be stricken for God's people, and Matthew confirms that he came to save his people. In John we also see that Jesus came for those that would follow him, not of blood or will of man, but of God. Furthermore, that his sheep know him, they follow him, and it is they that will never perish and no one will snatch them out of his hand:
By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people?
Isaiah 53:8 ESV
She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.
Matthew 1:21 ESV
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 1:12-13 ESV
Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.
John 10:25-28 ESV
Evidence that God chooses who to save
The third criteria is whether God chooses to save us, or whether we choose to respond to God. Another way of phrasing this would be conditional or unconditional election and indeed, the argument of limited atonement sits on the premise that those who would respond are chosen by God.
The below verses are taken from my article on unconditional election, which provides furter exploration of this theme:
And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days.
Mark 13:20 ESV
Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies.
Romans 8:33 ESV
You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.
John 15:16 ESV
In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.
Ephesians 1:11-12 ESV
Arguments against Limited Atonement
Clearly, there are many verses that support a limited atonement, that is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect. This particular redemption is proof that God not only loves whom he saves, but takes responsibility for their salvation. However, the strength of limited atonement can also be tested by evidence against it.
There are sevearl oppositions to limited atonement, particularly that it seems limited or diminished by comparison to unlimited atonement.
In order to demonstrate that election is unlimited, we must test whether God leaves the choice of salvation in the hands of mankind. For while God may have provided us a way out, salvation would be our responsibility to choose.
Evidence in opposition can be categorised as follows:
Evidence that salvation is optional
Evidence that God let's us choose
Evidence that atonement is efficient for all
Evidence that salvation is optional
Evidence that salvation is optional is an argument against limited atonement. It can be argued that if we choose to respond, then atonement must become unlimited to match all those that would respond. However, it is only a strong argument inasmuch as it proves that the choice is solely ours.
Under the argument of limited atonement all of the elect will respond. To be a compelling argument against limited atonement the below verses need to prove that we not only respond, but it is our choice to respond or not.
The evidence that salvation is optional largely overlaps with the evidence that there is salvation that is sufficient for all. We can see in John that Jesus' sins are for the whole world, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, and only through Jesus do we have propitiation of our sins:
The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
John 1:29 ESV
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
John 3:16-17 ESV
For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.
Romans 11:32 ESV
He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
1 John 2:2 ESV
Evidence that God let's us choose
The evidence that God let's us choose also largely overlaps with the previous verses that salvation is for whosoever should follow Jesus. However, there is another verse that also suggests God gives us a choice.
The below verse demonstrates that God invites us "Come" and for each of us to invite others "Come", anyone that is thirsty should come. Let the one who desires take the water of life without price. This invitation seems to be that we would have a choice of coming forth and taking what God offers and that it comes without price.
The Spirit and the Bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.
Revelation 22:17 ESV
Evidence that atonement is efficient for all
There are differing opinions on what unlimited atonement might entail. Most modern believers that agree with unlimited atonement would put forth the argument that atonement is for the elect only, but that all are free to come forth and receive from God.
However, Athanasius put forward the idea that Jesus' sacrifice was efficient for the whole world. Furthermore, while limited atonement is considered one of the five points of Calvinishm, these points were made after he had died. In his own writing, John Calvin writes that Jesus' died that whosoever believes in Him would be invited. That none would be with excuse before God, because God had reconciled to himself the sins of the whole world.
The below verses are also used to demonstrate this interpretation of universal or unlimited atonement:
The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
John 1:29 ESV
For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.
Romans 11:32 ESV
He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
1 John 2:2 ESV
Final Remarks
Clearly there is strong evidence both for limited and unlimited atonement. God clearly chooses the elect, and his sacrifice is clearly sufficient for the whole world. Whether Jesus is discussing foreknowledge of those who would choose him, or predestined those who would choose him; it is hard to say.
Out of all the points of Calvinism, limited atonement is the most contested. Rightfully so, because these passages do seem to offer a clear illustration that God's sacrifice is not just sufficient for all, but also that it would be efficient for all the weary that chose to receive rest. Indeed, an unlimited atonement suggests that God died for the sins of the whole world, even if it is only efficient for those that choose him.
As to my opinion, I suppose that I find no major contest between the two doctrines. Both argue that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, both argue that it will save only the efficient. The only sense of unlimited atonement that I would disagree with is the sentiment that the whole world is reconciled to God, irrespective of whether they choose to follow Jesus.
Outside of that argument, it would seem clear that we should invite all to receive rest, to drink from the fountain of life. We know little of God's will or plan for the individual, so we ought not be discouraged by whether they are elect or not elect, only that God is sufficient to save.
Comments