Think Wink.

Recently, I was listening to John Piper’s Bethlehem Institute lectures on the five points of Calvinism, TULIP. While I was listening and reading along in his outline, he made a great point about Limited atonement that I want to post about here. The question he really asked is that, do Calvinists or Arminians limit the atonement? I had to really follow him on this because, even though I knew this, I had never put it in these terms. If you want to read his outline and the thoughts he has there, click here and turn to pages 21-24 to read the .pdf file of all his lectures. To listen to his lectures, click here and look at the top of the page in the audio section.

Classically, Calvinists are said to limit the atonement to who can be saved. Arminians are said to not limit the atonement. But is this true? Do Arminians not limit the atonement? Here is what Piper said.

Arminians take all the passages which say the death of Christ is “for us” (Romans 5:8; 1 Thessalonians 5:10) or for “his own sheep” (John 10:11, 15) or for “the church” (Ephesians 5:25; Acts 20:28) or for “the children of God” (John 11:52) or for “those who are being sanctified” (Hebrews 10:14) and say that the meaning is that God designs and intends the atonement for all people in the same way, but that God applies it as effective and saving only for those who believe and become part of “us” and “the sheep” and “the church” and “the children of God.”

In this view, then, the sentence, “Christ died for you,” means: Christ died for all sinners, so that if you will repent and believe in Christ, then the death of Jesus will become effective in your case and will take away your sins.

Now, as far as it goes, this seems to me to be acceptable teaching. But then Arminians deny something that I think the Bible teaches. They deny that the texts about Christ’s dying for “us” or “his sheep” or his “church” or “the children of God” were intended by God to obtain something more for his people than the benefits they get after they believe. They deny, specifically, that the death of Christ was not only intended by God to obtain benefits for people after they believe (which is true), but even more, Christ’s death was intended by God to obtain the very willingness to believe. In other words, the divine grace that it takes too overcome our hardness of heart and become a believer was also obtained by the blood of Jesus.

There is no dispute that Christ died to obtain great saving benefits for all who believe. Moreover, there is no dispute that Christ died so that we might say to all persons everywhere without exception: “God gave his only begotten Son to die for sin so that if
you believe on him you may have eternal life.”

The dispute is whether God intended for the death of Christ to obtain more than these two things: 1) saving benefits after faith, and 2) a bona fide invitation that can be made to any person to believe on Christ for salvation. Specifically, did God intend for the death of Christ to obtain the free gift of faith (Ephesians 2:8) and repentance (2 Timothy 2:25)? Did the blood of Jesus obtain both the benefits after faith, and the benefit of faith itself?

Does the historic Arminian interpretation of any of the “universal” texts on the atonement necessarily contradict this “more” that I am affirming about God’s intention for the death of Christ? (Texts like: 1 Timothy 2:6; 1 John 2:1-2; Hebrews 2:9; 2 Corinthians 5:19; John 1:29; 2 Peter 2:1.)

I don’t think so. Arminians historically are just as eager as Calvinists to avoid saying that these texts teach “universal salvation.” So they do not teach that the death of Christ “for all” saves all. Rather, they say, in the words of Millard Erickson, “God intended the atonement to make salvation possible for all persons. Christ died for all persons, but this atoning death becomes effective only when accepted by the individual.” Erickson then says, “This is the view of all Arminians” (Christian Theology, p. 829, emphasis added). What has come clearer to me as I have pondered these things is that Arminians do not say that in the death of Christ God intends to effectively save all for whom Christ died. They only say that God intends to make possible the salvation of all for whom Christ died. But this interpretation of these “universal” texts does not contradict the Calvinist assertion that God does intend to obtain the grace of faith and repentance for a definite group by the death of Christ.

Arminians may deny this assertion, but they cannot deny it on the basis of their interpretation of the “universal” texts of the atonement. That interpretation simply affirms that all may have salvation if they believe. Calvinists do not dispute that. They only go beyond it.

Here’s the rub: if he did this “more,” he didn’t do it for everyone. So at this level the atonement becomes “limited.” And this is what Arminians stumble over: is there anything that God would do to get some unbelievers saved that he would not do for all?
This “limitation” implies a choice on God’s part to save some and not all.

Next he gives this link between Christ’s death and the terms of the New Covenant as promised by the Prophet Ezekiel:

Luke 22:20, “And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood‘” (cf. Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 11:25).

Ezekiel 36:26-27, “And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules” (cf. Ezekiel 19:11; Jeremiah 24:7; Jeremiah 31:33-34; Jeremiah 32:38-40 Deuteronomy 30:6).

The New Covenant that was promised by the Old Testament prophets guaranteed our obedience to God’s commands, which includes our faith in Jesus (cf. Ephesians 2:8; 2 Timothy 2:25).

I agree with Pipe on this issue. The atonement has to be limited in some sense. The Calvinist limits the application to a definite group of people but does not limit what the atonement itself accomplishes. The Arminian limits what the atonement actually accomplishes but does not limit to who the atonement applies. The Arminian position does a terrible disservice to the death of Christ because it weakens the death of Christ itself. The apostle Paul said this to Timothy in 1 Timothy 1:15, “The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.” Paul didn’t say that he made salvation possible, but to definitely save sinners. Christ came to accomplish something, the salvation of sinners. There is no text that says he made salvation a possibility, but there are texts that say there is a definite group that are saved.

Thus I find that it is more biblical to say that Christ died for everyone who has faith because Christ’s death purchased that faith in him in the saved sinner.

Related posts:

What I Don’t Like About the SBC and its Theology

Sunday Morning Drive

All, Some, or What?