Thursday, November 22, 2007

Limited or Unlimited Atonement?

I want to write about the most difficult issue I have ever wrestled with in the development of my theology and doctrinal position. For many years I have made no apology for being a Calvinist in my understanding of Scripture. It is clearly the most biblically consistent and logical theological position. However, until a few years ago if you asked me to what degree I was a Calvinist, I would have told you that I was a “Four Point Calvinist.” The point on which I balked is what is known as “Limited Atonement” or “Particular Redemption.” I couldn’t see how John Calvin arrived at such a conclusion when the Scriptures contained statements such as “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

But a few years ago, a close pastor friend informed me that he had become a “Five Point Calvinist.” I began studying the issue to try to prove to him that he had made a mistake. As I began to read and think about the issue, I upgraded my response to say that I was a “Four-and-a-half Point Calvinist.” By that, I didn’t mean that I only half-way believed in Particular Redemption; rather, what I meant was that I believed that the Scriptures taught both Limited and Unlimited Atonement, and so it was sort of a paradox. I thought both viewpoints were true, so I called it “Four-and-a-half Point Calvinism” to indicate my acceptance of both views.

Finally, my son-in-law, a pastor in Kansas, challenged me to study the issue in depth. I remember him telling me, “There simply is no other way logically that it can be anything but Limited Atonement.” I set out to read all I could from both sides of the issue in an attempt to settle, once and for all, what I believed about that issue. After spending about a year in study—sometimes very intense, sometimes superficial—I finally concluded that the correct understanding is that of Limited Atonement or Particular Redemption. So I would like to explain why I believe that this is the correct biblical position.

Now, I understand that it is somewhat dangerous to venture into this territory because it is quite controversial among evangelical Christians. In fact, some friends of mine left our church because we were just “too Calvinistic” for them. But studying this issue is necessitated by the many texts of Scripture that we read which cause us to wonder which is correct. I just finished studying 2 Peter 2:1, in which Peter comments that false teachers who secretly introduce destructive heresies into the church also deny “the Master who bought them.” For years, I understood that passage as many other people do. I took it to mean that Christ actually has purchased redemption in full for all people, even false teachers. It is commonly thought by many (if not most) people that Christ died to pay in full the penalty for everyone’s sins, whether they ever believe or not. The popular notion is that God loves everyone, wants everyone saved, so Christ died for everyone.

This means that His death was only a potential sacrifice or atonement that becomes an actual atonement when a sinner repents and believes the gospel. In this view, the believer’s role in evangelism is to convince sinners to receive what has already been done for them. All can believe and be saved if they will, since no one is excluded in the atonement.

However, if you take that viewpoint to its logical conclusion, it ends with hell being populated with people whose salvation was purchased by Christ on the cross. Thus, the lake of fire is filled with damned people whose sin Christ fully atoned for by bearing the punishment they deserved to receive under God’s wrath.

On the other hand, in the Unlimited Atonement view, heaven will be populated by people who had the same atonement provided for them, but they are there because they received it. In this view, Christ died on the cross for the damned in hell the same as He did for the redeemed in heaven. The only difference between the fate of the redeemed and that of the damned is the sinner’s choice.

This perspective says that the Lord Jesus Christ died to make salvation possible, but not actual. He did not absolutely purchase salvation for anyone. He only removed a barrier for everyone, which merely makes salvation potential. The sinner ultimately determines the nature of the atonement and its application by what he does. As once Bible teacher has stated, according to this perspective, when Jesus cried, “It is finished,” it really should be rendered, “It is stated.”

But the interpretational difficulties and fallacies arising from that view stem from the misunderstanding of two very important biblical teachings: the doctrine of total depravity (perhaps absolute inability would be a better term) and the doctrine of the atonement itself.

Correctly understood, the doctrine of total depravity says that all people are dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1), separated and alienated from the life of God (Rom. 1:21-22), doing only evil from desperately wicked, deceitful hearts (Jer. 17:9), completely incapable of understanding the things of God (1 Cor. 2:14), blinded by the love of sin and by Satan (2 Cor. 4:4), doing only the will of their father the devil, unable to seek God, and unwilling to repent (Rom. 3:10-23). So, since that is the condition of mankind, answer me this: How is the sinner going to make the right choice to activate the atonement on his behalf?

Clearly, salvation comes wholly and only from God. He must give light, life, understanding, repentance, and faith. Salvation comes to the sinner from God by His will and power. Since that is true, when coupled with the doctrine of sovereign election, the conclusion must be that God determined the extent of the atonement.

So then, for whom did Christ die? He died for all who would believe because they were chosen, called, justified, and granted repentance and faith by the Father. The atonement is limited to those who believe, who are the elect of God. Unless an individual believes in universal salvation, he must believe that Christ’s atonement is limited to some degree—either limited by the sinner who is sovereign, or by God who is sovereign.

Those who hold to an unlimited atonement position are simply mistaken. If one asserts that sinners have the power to limit the application of the atonement, then the atonement by its nature is limited in actual power and effectiveness. With that understanding, it is less than a real atonement and is, in fact, merely potential and restricted by the choice of fallen human beings. But in truth, only God can set the atonement’s limits, and He extends the atonement to all who will believe because they have been chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.

Those who hold to the unlimited view must affirm that Christ actually atoned for no one in particular but potentially for everyone without exception. Whatever He did on the cross was not a full and complete payment for sin, because sinners for whom He died are still damned. Hell is full of people whose sins were paid for by Christ—sin paid for, yet punished forever.

Of course, such thinking is completely unacceptable. God limits the atonement to the elect, for whom it was not a potential atonement, but an actual and real satisfaction for sin. God provided the sacrifice of His Son, which actually paid for the sins for all who would ever believe, who are those chosen by Him for salvation.

It was that issue that finally convinced me of the necessity of a limited atonement. This question kept going through my mind: “To what degree do you believe Christ’s death was propitiatory?” The conclusion that I came to was, if I believe that Christ’s death was satisfactory and sufficient to propitiate God’s holy demand for the punishment of sin, then either all men will be saved because God’s wrath against their sin has been satisfied, or else Christ must have died only for the elect. I could not get around that conclusion with any other satisfactory answer, and thus I came to believe in Particular Redemption.

David Clotfelter has written a wonderful book titled Sinners in the Hands of a Good God. He makes these observations:

From the Calvinist point of view, it is Arminianism that presents logical impossibilities. Arminianism tells us that Jesus died for multitudes that will never be saved, including millions who never so much as heard of Him. It tells us that in the case of those who are lost, the death of Jesus, represented in Scripture as an act whereby He took upon Himself the punishment that should have been ours (Isa. 53:5), was ineffective. Christ has suffered once for their sins, but they will now have to suffer for those same sins in hell.

The Arminian atonement has the initial appearance of being very generous, but the more closely we look at it, the less we are impressed. Does it guarantee the salvation of any person? No. Does it guarantee that those for whom Christ died will have the opportunity to hear of Him and respond to Him? No. Does it in any way remove or even lessen the sufferings of the lost? No. In reality, the Arminian atonement does not atone. It merely clears the way for God to accept those who are able to lift themselves by their own bootstraps. The Calvinist does not believe that any fallen person has such power and so he views the Arminian atonement as unsuited to the salvation of sinners and insulting to Christ.

So how do we deal with the matter of the many passages in Scripture (such as John 3:16) which speak of God’s love for the world? First of all, we must understand that words such as “all” and “world” are not always used in their comprehensive sense. We don’t even use them that way in our speech, so why do we expect such in the Bible? Rather, they often refer to a particular class of people rather than to people universally. Several verses in Scripture use the words “all” and “world” in that sense; specifically, John 1:29, John 12:19, 2 Corinthians 5:19, and Romans 5:18. And every other verse which does use the word “world” in regard to Christ’s atonement has a reasonable explanation for how it does not necessarily carry the universal sense of the term. If you are interested in further reading on this specific issue, I recommend James Montgomery Boice and Philip Graham Ryken’s book, The Doctrines of Grace. They give a wonderful explanation of this issue, relating it to specific verses.

Now, I do not believe, as some Calvinists seem to imply, that God hates sinners. Rather, the Scriptures tell us that God does love all men, but that He has set His affection on some, electing them before the foundation of the world for salvation. But His wrath does abide on those who reject Him. Just as one of my children’s disobedience may have incurred my wrath, at the same time, their rebellious actions did not remove or diminish my love for them. I still had to punish their sin, but I still loved them. So too, while God’s wrath abides on unbelievers and those who reject His Son will be eternally punished in hell for their sin, He demonstrates His love toward mankind through His wonderful gifts of health, food, sunshine and rain, and countless other blessings. A god who hated unrighteous man would not be so benevolent, kind, and gracious as is our loving heavenly Father.

Now some people’s objection to limited atonement comes at the point of the presentation of the Gospel. This was the point of concern of one of the couples who left our church. They objected to the Calvinist positions on election and particular redemption and said, “But how do you present the Gospel to someone if you can’t tell them that ‘Christ died for your sins’?”

I believe J. I. Packer has given the best response to that issue. He points out that the phrase “Christ died for you,” which has become so common in today’s presentations of the Gospel, simply cannot be found in any of the sermons recorded in the Bible. In his book Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, he writes these words:

The fact is that the New Testament never calls on any man to repent on the ground that Christ died specifically and particularly for him. The basis on which the New Testament invites sinners to put faith in Christ is simply that they need Him, and that He offers Himself to them, and that those who receive Him are promised all the benefits that His death secured for His people. What is universal and all-inclusive in the New Testament is the invitation to faith, and the promise of salvation to all who believe…. The gospel is not “believe that Christ died for everybody’s sins, and therefore for yours,” any more than it is, “believe that Christ died only for certain people’s sins, and so perhaps not for yours.” The gospel is, “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, who died for sins, and now offers you Himself as your Saviour.” This is the message which we are to take to the world. We have no business to ask them to put faith in any view of the extent of the atonement; our job is to point them to the living Christ and summon them to trust in Him.


Well said. We only need to present the Gospel and then allow God, in His sovereignty, to draw to Himself as many as [have] been appointed to eternal life” (Acts 13:48). Calvinists have often been accused (and sometimes justifiably) of showing little concern for the lost. But it should never be that way. We have no idea who the elect are, and Christ has left us with the responsibility to share the Gospel and then trust Him to call those to Himself whomever He chooses to call. We must be obedient in doing so.

Also, we must be gracious and kind to our Arminian brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with us on these matters. Truth divides, but we must not be harsh, unfriendly, or unloving, even though we disagree with them. We should pray for them to study the Word, think seriously about such matters, and hopefully they will gain greater understanding of the truth; just as happened in my own situation.

Saturday, November 17, 2007

Sufficient Grace for Weak Believers

I attended our monthly elders meeting at church this past Thursday evening. During our meeting, we received report after report on individuals and couples within our church who are hurting and suffering due to medical and financial situations. It wasn’t simply one or two cases, but multiple cases of people fighting horrible (perhaps terminal) disease, and people who, through no fault of their own, face tremendous financial burdens which threaten the loss of all they have. We concluded our meeting with prayer for each of those individuals and couples, asking the Lord to grant healing and give grace to them as they undergo those trials.

I drove away with a sense of gratitude that the Lord has not burdened me or my family at this point in time with one of those situations. I wondered if I would be able to face those kinds of situations with as much grace as many of them are demonstrating in the midst of their pain.

As I had those thoughts, I was reminded of what our Lord told Paul when he was going through God’s refining fire. Paul tells us in 2 Corinthians 12:9 that when he begged the Lord to remove his “thorn in the flesh,” the Lord’s reply was, “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” Paul’s response was to rely on the Lord’s sovereign purposes for him and glory in his weakness in order that he would experience Christ’s indwelling power.

Many American Christians have been deceived into thinking that if they live lives of obedience to the Lord and His Word, He will honor them with good health, prosperity, and wealth. In fact, there is a group within American evangelicalism that proclaims what is known as the “health and wealth gospel” or the “prosperity gospel.” They will tell you that you should give your tithes and offerings to the Lord and if you have enough faith, He will return to you an abundance like you have never experienced. In their theology, that abundance is always physical blessing—never spiritual blessing.

In the end, the health and wealth “Word of Faith” proponents do nothing but enrich their own pockets with the donations of their followers and leave them with broken dreams of better health and full wallets. It is a man-centered message which focuses on “what’s in it for me?” rather than a God-centered message which says, “How can I bring greater glory to God in the midst of the pain He is bringing into my life?”

God’s Word never promises us a life that is free from pain. If that was God’s intention, He would have refused Satan’s request to test Job and allowed that righteous man to continue living his life which was filled with abundance of wealth and good things. But instead, God calls Satan’s attention to Job and then permits him to rip everything away from Job except his life and his wife who didn’t understand how Job could continue to praise God in the midst of all he was going through. He lost his health, his children, and his wealth, and never once did God explain to him why it happened.

What we need to learn that God is willing to jeopardize everything we have in order to bring greater praise and honor to His name. We may never know why He causes such things to take place, but we can know that He has our good and His glory in mind. We will never fully understand on this side of heaven, but according to His Word, it is for our good (Romans 8:28).

Our walk with Him is not about fulfilling our dreams for a bigger house, a new car, a full bank account, and a healthy diagnosis. Rather, it is about living in such a way that regardless of what difficulty and pain He brings into our lives—whether physical, emotional, or financial—He receives all the glory for His abundant grace to us. He has promised to give us sufficient grace for those trials; but not so that we might receive praise, but so that His power would be demonstrated in our weakness. May we endure with Paul’s mindset: Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Corintians 12:9b-10).


Friday, November 9, 2007

Thanking Your Teachers

I just returned from a wonderful trip to northern California. I spoke at a Police Couples Conference at Hume Lake Christian Camp in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, about an hour-and-a-half east of Fresno. For the four days we were there, we had no cell phone signal and no email—and we survived! At the conclusion, some dear friends of ours picked us up and drove us across the state to the San Jose-Santa Cruz area where they have a home at the Mt. Hermon Christian Retreat Center. We spent three days with them, touring San Francisco, Monterey, Carmel, and Santa Cruz. We saw everything of significance there is to see in that area. We had a wonderful time of fellowship, friendship, and LOTS and LOTS of food.

But I want to discuss my experience at Hume Lake. It must be one of the most beautiful places God has created, and I found the camp staff to be very gracious hosts. But I was bothered by one thing that took place. It had nothing at all to do with Hume Lake as an organization, but rather with the couples who attended the conference.

I gave a series of messages on our speech and controlling the tongue. I gave the series at my church several years ago, and recently re-preached the first message of that series. It was very well received. Now, I must say that our church is, overall, very biblically astute. Our congregation is generally concerned about such issues in their spiritual walk, and so the response to the message was very positive.

Because I have spent many years in ministry to and among law enforcement officers, I know what problems they (as well as all of us) have controlling their tongue. So I purposely selected this series in order to challenge them to think about the importance of this issue in their spiritual life. The messages were not filled with law enforcement-related illustrations or “war stories” as they are known among police officers, because as I have said many times before, believers don’t grow spiritually on war stories; they grow on the Word of God. My experience at such conferences has often been that cops are looking for sermons that are light on sound teaching and heavy on war stories. Even Christian cops don’t often hunger for the meat of the Word, but rather for that which meets their “felt needs.” Unfortunately, my experience this time was no different.

My first message focused on how we often speak with anger, accusation, manipulation, and blame shifting in our daily lives and relationships. The illustrations were to-the-point and even received some understanding laughter from the conference attendees. But when it was over, no one even commented on the subject. It was so obvious that my wife mentioned it to me. I assured her that knowing cops as I do, I know that they are a very hard audience and don’t often express their feelings to another. But that didn’t assuage my own feelings of disappointment that no one seemed interested or affected by the message. Eventually the wife of one of the attendees came to me and said, “That was good; I hope my husband was listening.” I thought, “What about you? Were you listening? None of us is exempt from doing such things in our speech, and you’re focusing on your husband instead of yourself.”

I continued on through the weekend, speaking five times. There were 130 attendees at the conference. It was clear from their response in each session that they were listening. There was laughter at the appropriate places, and nods of agreement at others. I even saw some taking notes. And after a seminar that I taught on dealing with problems at work, one couple asked me to spend some time with them counseling them on how to deal with an irresponsible adult son. The situation they related was so horrible that my heart just broke for them. I gave them the best advice I could give and prayed with them.

But by the time the weekend was finished, there had been only a handful who came and commended me for my efforts. Those who did had some very gracious comments and I appreciated them greatly. One fellow, a police officer from California who is clearly a spiritually mature believer, came to me on the last day and told me how wonderful the messages were. He particularly liked my last one and said, “Please just keep teaching the Word without apology or compromise.” Interestingly, the lady who hoped her husband was listening thanked my wife and me for being available and participating in the various social events that took place. She said, “So many of our speakers in past years never participated in anything. They were sort of distant and untouchable. But you were right here with us. Thank you so much.”

Based on my experience that weekend, let me make a couple of suggestions for your consideration. First of all, take the time to commend those who teach you the Word of God. Look beyond what your sinful flesh would like to hear and listen to what the Holy Spirit is teaching you. I recognize that they may not be the best speakers (I certainly am not) and you may, at times, struggle to keep your mind from wandering, but if those who teach you are true and faithful to the Word, commend them. It will encourage their hearts. You don’t need to gush all over them and feed their pride, but let them know that you appreciate what God taught you through them.

Second, if you are a person who ministers in some way to others, be available, be down-to-earth, be touchable. They don’t need a spiritual leader who acts as though he is without sin and has achieved some high level of sanctification that they can never achieve. Rather, let them know that you struggle with the same things they are struggling with and that you are real, just like them. It will open doors to reach people at their point of deepest need.

And if you are ever in California, I highly recommend the Hume Lake Christian Camp as a place to visit or attend a conference.