Why does Limited Atonement Matter?

[Justified]

One time I was asked by a 4 (3.5?) point Calvinist "what difference does it make if we believe in Limited Atonement?" In a word, why is it important? Obviously, I think it is important; it is the truth, and on that ground alone we are obligated to believe it. His main thrust was: what is the practical difference between someone who believes in Limited Atonement and someone who doesn't? How does it affect our lives?

My opinion is that Limited Atonement exists within the framework of all of Calvinism, which is a coherent whole, and if you are wrong on this point, a simple use of logic will cause you to deduce other, more dangerous doctrines which are harmful to the individual and the church. However, suppose we grant that someone is simply able to live with this tension in doctrine; how will this affect their life?

 

[py3ak]

It will mean that there is no assurance that there will be anyone in heaven, let alone a multitude whom no man can number. If one person for whom Christ died is not redeemed, why not more? Why not me? Why not everyone?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Here's one reason.

The atonement and Christ's intercessory work are perfectly conjoined. In short, Christ receives the answers to his perfect sacrifice and prayers, always.

To deny a particular redemption (another shorthand for L.A.) separates Christ's dying efforts from effectual results. As well, it separates his ongoing prayers from the answers he both wills, and knows the result beforetimes, as the divine Son of God. But no, Christ prays the effectual application of the blood he shed upon all those for whom it was shed.

Jn.17:20-21, "I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me."

Without P.A./L.A., Jesus prays for the salvation of some who will not be saved. This, in my mind, is even more problematic than the idea that the death of Christ was not only sufficient for the sins of the world, but also somehow efficient for all without exception either. He dies for some who won't be saved? How could divine efficiency and intention be divided?

Simply put: if some for whom Jesus prays for salvation yet aren't saved, how can I be assured that his prayers for me will deliver my soul from death? The matter is once more put into doubt. Either something more must yet be done for the saved by God; or else the responsibility falls to the individual soul to make Christ's prayers effectual.

 

[Captain Picard]

"We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, 'No, certainly not.' We ask them the next question—Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer 'No.' They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say 'No; Christ has died that any man may be saved *if'— and then follow certain conditions of salvation. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as to infallibly secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ’s death; we say, *No, my dear sir, it is YOU that do it.' We say Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but ARE saved, MUST be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything BUT saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it."~Charles Spurgeon

 

[MW]

how will this affect their life?

The Christian life is a life of faith, Galatians 2:20 -- a continual going out from our emptiness to receive of the fulness of Christ. The life of faith is severely affected by the conviction that faith is something of itself and contributes something towards personal salvation. One might say faith is thereby changed into something other than faith. It becomes another faith, which is no faith. And it is a recurring fact of historical theology that those who universalise the atonement make faith something more than a receiving and resting upon Christ alone for salvation.

 

[Paul1976]

As usual, I like Bruce Buchanan's answer. Let me add a few simpler thoughts.

One thing to keep in mind is limited atonement is a poor name for what we believe (although it does allow for TULIP to work as a nice acronym...). The problem is that the only people who do not believe in limited atonement are universalists. And hopefully nobody here takes them seriously. Everyone else believes that atonement is limited in some respect - some are saved and some are not. Arminians limit atonement by saying that Christ's sacrifice made possible the salvation of all, but only becomes effectual when a sinner believes. To our natural inclinations, this sounds more appealing as it makes us the decisive element in our salvation. A simple way of showing the problem with this thinking, though, is that it suggests that Christ's atonement covered every sin except for the sin of unbelief. When you think about it that way, it sounds absurd. Calvinists limit atonement to the elect, but under this theology, Christ's atonement not only covers all his peoples sins, but secures and guarantees their salvation. When Christ said "It is finished," He meant it.

I do prefer particular redemption to limited atonement also, although few who are not already reformed will know what you're talking about.

I will also comment that, as I discovered the doctrines of grace, it took me the longest by far to understand the need for P.R. in the system. I've heard many times that most people who consider themselves 4-point Calvinists would eventually become 5-point Calvinists if they took the time to understand the need for P.R. That was true in my case, although I never went through a distinct 4-point phase.

 

[Justified]

Bruce and Reuben, I made many of those same points to the person I'm talking about. His response was "well, given Perseverance of the Saints we can already have assurance of salvation." My response was that that and limited atonement can't be separated from one another, but he kept pressing the point, "but how does a person who believes in Limited Atonement behave any differently." I was a bit frustrated, because I was trying to make the point that the assurance of salvation was directly linked with Christ's once-for-all, sufficient atonement.

 

[Justified]

how will this affect their life?

The Christian life is a life of faith, Galatians 2:20 -- a continual going out from our emptiness to receive of the fulness of Christ. The life of faith is severely affected by the conviction that faith is something of itself and contributes something towards personal salvation. One might say faith is thereby changed into something other than faith. It becomes another faith, which is no faith. And it is a recurring fact of historical theology that those who universalise the atonement make faith something more than a receiving and resting upon Christ alone for salvation.

Thanks Mr. Winzer. I think you make some fine points (as well as everybody else). I'll keep that in my meditations.

 

[Justified]

Paul, I myself prefer the term Particular Redemption. The problem with the person in question was that he wanted to make everything about utility. He thought it was just "an intellectual thing" that really had no bearing at all on the health of the Church, so our argument wasn't necessarily about the truth of LA, but of it's utility.

 

[py3ak]

Bruce and Reuben, I made many of those same points to the person I'm talking about. His response was "well, given Perseverance of the Saints we can already have assurance of salvation." My response was that that and limited atonement can't be separated from one another, but he kept pressing the point, "but how does a person who believes in Limited Atonement behave any differently." I was a bit frustrated, because I was trying to make the point that the assurance of salvation was directly linked with Christ's once-for-all, sufficient atonement.

A person who believes in limited atonement doesn't start out by functionally denying Hebrews 10:14. I think that's a pretty fundamental text for assurance.

 

[Paul1976]

If you can only argue on the basis of utility and not truth, you're probably not going to convince him. He probably has more important things to learn that P.R. anyway. You might get him thinking about the purpose behind creation. That expanded my view of the centrality of God.

 

[timfost]

I, too, much prefer P.R. over L.A. I think there are many misconceptions that come along with the doctrine, many of which stem from hyper-Calvinism or a misunderstanding when God's sovereignty is attempted to be understood outside of the incomprehensible nature in which scripture represents it. I think patience is required when speaking to someone with such inconsistency, knowing that it is a difficult doctrine that needs more scriptural background than a simple argument will impart.

In short, denial of this doctrine robs the Godhead of design in Christ's sufferings. When we believe and understand a sovereign God, can any of His works lack design?

 

[Peairtach]

It makes the atonement personal; for Evan Kramer and Richard Tallach, rather than the attempted salvation of the anonymous amorphous mass of everyone who's ever lived.

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me (Saul of Tarsus), and gave himself for me(Saul of Tarsus). (Galatians 2:20)

God the Son foreknew you and set His heart on you from all eternity, and in His divinity, certainly, He knew those He was dying to infallibly save even by name, and in His humanity He certainly knew He was dying for a particular people.

If you're asking for "practical effects", the Truth is greater than visible practical effects. It depends how an individual Christian who believes these things allows them to affect the spiritual and hence practical aspects of their lives.

 

[Darryl Le Roux]

It matters because it makes the work of the Lord on that cross null and void should it not be true. We know for certain that two men are in hell as we speak. Therefore, should the atonement be universal, it was ineffective.

Simple summary.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

This has been articulated in many ways but here goes:

Hebrews 10:1-18 (ESV)

1*For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. 2*Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? 3*But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4*For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
5*Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said,

“Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired,
but a body have you prepared for me;
6* in burnt offerings and sin offerings
you have taken no pleasure.
7* Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God,
as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’*”

8*When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), 9*then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second. 10*And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11*And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12*But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13*waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14*For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
15*And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,

16* “This is the covenant that I will make with them
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws on their hearts,
and write them on their minds,”

17*then he adds,

“I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.”

18*Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.

Christ either:
1. Made full atonement for sin once and for all or
2. Something needs to be added to that sacrifice.

This may be thought of as the power of Christ's atonement.

IF, as some claim, Christ has died for all people then let us consider condition 1. above.

Christ made full atonement for sin once and for all (power)
That atonement was made for all men (population)
Therefore, all men are saved (effect)

The Scriptures teach:

Christ made full atonement for sin once and for all (power)
The atonement was made for the elect (population)
Therefore, the elect are saved (effect)

So now we turn to what the Arminian insists. He still wants to limit the effect of what happened because he realizes that all are not saved but what does he go after? The power of the atonement.

The atonement made salvation possible for men to be saved (power)
The atonement was made for all men (population)
Therefore, those who add some condition to the atonement will be saved (effect)

Essentially the great sin of this position is to deny what Christ actually accomplished. Arminians well know that if we are to take Hebrews 10:1-18 on its face then the only way to avoid universalism is that Christ died only for the elect. The only other option is to deny what Hebrews 10 teaches.

 

[timfost]

Upon thinking about this conversation some more, again, I believe that some of the major problems that 4-pointers (whatever that means) have with this doctrine is that sometimes us 5-pointers are not clear in articulating what the doctrine does not imply.

1. Christ's sufferings were not designed by themselves to atone. Otherwise, we agree with the doctrine of eternal justification (see Crisp and Gill). Faith is instrumental in applying the atonement (its etymology means "covering"). Therefore, the elect ate not covered in Christ's righteousness until they are granted faith in Christ. In this way the atonement (or satisfaction) of Christ has a universal promise upon the condition of faith, though only the elect will be given faith since saving faith is not produced by anyone or anything but its Author.

2. The promises of God are always good. John 3:18: "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." This does not prove a hypothetical universalism as the Amyraldians teach, but rather a blaming of condemnation on unbelief (or second causes, also see Dort 2:6). This does prove that as we understand Christ's sufferings to be particular in design, they also has a universal application.

3. Particular redemption never hindered anyone from coming to Christ. This cannot be stressed enough to those who are having difficulty with the doctrine. Rather, because of it's particular design, salvation is rendered certain for all the elect, which is the same as saying for all those who believe. This is probably the most practical and encouraging part of the doctrine: my salvation is completely in the hands of God, not me. When we understand our total depravity, salvation being in God's hand is of unspeakable consolation.

For the most part, a denial of particular redemption compromises or destroys all of the other four points.

 

[MW]

This does prove that as we understand Christ's sufferings to be particular in design, they also has a universal application.

If they are particular in design their application must be limited to those for whom the particularity was designed. An architect designs the house to fit the particular condition of the family that will live in it. It does not have a universal application precisely because it was designed to meet particular conditions. Likewise, particular redemption was designed to meet the condition that sinners cannot believe in their own power. They require the gift of faith. Therefore Christ procured the gift of faith as a part of the covenant promise, and God gives faith in accord with His righteousness. The application is co-extensive with the design. It cannot be universalised without destroying its particularity.

 

[timfost]

Have I misunderstood Dort? Does not Dort also speak about the atonement in relation to reprobates? Please consider Dort 2:3-8.

 

[MW]

Have I misunderstood Dort? Does not Dort also speak about the atonement in relation to reprobates? Please consider Dort 2:3-8.

Please consider the rejection of errors under the second head, as it carefully defines the limits in which Christ's work is to be understood. Dort rejects any "worth of what Christ merited" which "might have existed, and might remain in all its parts complete, perfect, and intact, even if the merited redemption had never in fact been applied to any person." Again, Dort regards it as a necessary teaching that "Christ by His satisfaction merited ... faith, whereby this satisfaction of Christ unto salvation is effectually appropriated." Faith is never set forth as a condition of the efficacy of Christ's work but is always an effect of it.

 

[timfost]

Of course Christ merited faith! I said that in my last post.

Faith is never set forth as a condition of the efficacy of Christ's work but is always an effect of it.

Yes and no.

1. Yes, Christ merited faith by His satisfaction.

2. No, in that regardless of man's inability, He is responsible before God to put faith in Christ where in turn Christ promised to forgive him if he does (again, see John 3:16-18, a passage to which you avoided a response).

Question 32: How is the grace of God manifested in the second covenant? Answer: The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provides and offers to sinners a Mediator, and life and salvation by him; and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him, promises and gives his Holy Spirit to all his elect, to work in them that faith, with all other saving graces...

Just because faith is the condition offered to sinners does not deny that Christ merited it and meets the condition through His work.

Do you deny duty-faith?

 

[MW]

Do you deny duty-faith?

No, but the gospel requires and gives faith. Duty-faith of man's natural and moral working is not required in the gospel, as is evident from the Catechism answer you have quoted. Neonomians make the gospel a new law. If your "universal application" of the atonement depends on the condition of faith, then this faith is man's natural and moral working. It is something other than what Christ has merited by His work of mediation. It is something other than a gift of grace.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Do you deny duty-faith?

No, but the gospel requires and gives faith. Duty-faith of man's natural and moral working is not required in the gospel, as is evident from the Catechism answer you have quoted. Neonomians make the gospel a new law. If your "universal application" of the atonement depends on the condition of faith, then this faith is man's natural and moral working. It is something other than what Christ has merited by His work of mediation. It is something other than a gift of grace.

Dordt:

Article 8: The Saving Effectiveness of Christ's Death

For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son's costly death should work itself out in all his chosen ones, in order that he might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation. In other words, it was God's will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father; that he should grant them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit's other saving gifts, he acquired for them by his death); that he should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins, both original and actual, whether committed before or after their coming to faith; that he should faithfully preserve them to the very end; and that he should finally present them to himself, a glorious people, without spot or wrinkle.

Dordt sees the faith of Christ's elect as inextricably tied to the very intent of Christ's death.

 

[MW]

Dordt sees the faith of Christ's elect as inextricably tied to the very intent of Christ's death.

Yes; precious faith is obtained through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, 2 Pet. 1:1.

 

[timfost]

Dordt sees the faith of Christ's elect as inextricably tied to the very intent of Christ's death.

Amen

 

[timfost]

Do you deny duty-faith?

No, but the gospel requires and gives faith. Duty-faith of man's natural and moral working is not required in the gospel, as is evident from the Catechism answer you have quoted. Neonomians make the gospel a new law. If your "universal application" of the atonement depends on the condition of faith, then this faith is man's natural and moral working. It is something other than what Christ has merited by His work of mediation. It is something other than a gift of grace.

Confused... what kind of faith then is man's duty? Does God require the saving faith that Christ merited of every man? Does God require saving faith in the elect?

 

[MW]

Confused... what kind of faith then is man's duty? Does God require the saving faith that Christ merited of every man? Does God require saving faith in the elect?

Try breaking it down into its components as indicated by the Larger Catechism answer. (1) The offer of the Mediator and the requirement of faith belongs to the gospel. (2) Appropriation of Him belongs to faith. (3) The enabling for faith belongs to the promised Holy Spirit.

What is required by the gospel? Not bare faith. Not faith as a moral and natural work of the sinner. The gospel requires appropriating faith, a faith that interests the sinner in the Mediator.

The gospel warrants the sinner to receive Christ, and life and salvation by Him. It is faith which appropriates Christ in order to receive what is promised in the gospel. Faith says, I receive Him for my Mediator and receive life and salvation by Him. The gospel offers no salvation apart from this appropriating faith.

Confusion arises when the gospel is made to assume the office of faith. Understandably, the gospel and faith in the gospel appear to be the same from a believer's perspective. The promise and the thing promised are joined together in the believer's own experience. They must be distinguished, however, when looking at the way the gospel functions in relation to a sinner who is being called to believe on Christ. "Appropriation" belongs to faith, not the gospel. By the work of the Holy Spirit giving faith to the sinner the gospel promise will be appropriated and made his own.

 

[timfost]

So does God command all to repent and believe? I think the question is pretty simple...

 

[MW]

So does God command all to repent and believe? I think the question is pretty simple...

God commands all to repent and believe. That is simple enough. This is what the law demands.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Dordt sees the faith of Christ's elect as inextricably tied to the very intent of Christ's death.

Amen

Do you deny duty-faith?

No, but the gospel requires and gives faith. Duty-faith of man's natural and moral working is not required in the gospel, as is evident from the Catechism answer you have quoted. Neonomians make the gospel a new law. If your "universal application" of the atonement depends on the condition of faith, then this faith is man's natural and moral working. It is something other than what Christ has merited by His work of mediation. It is something other than a gift of grace.

Confused... what kind of faith then is man's duty? Does God require the saving faith that Christ merited of every man? Does God require saving faith in the elect?

Tim,

I know Matthew has been answering you but I find it interesting that you wrote Amen to what I pointed out in Dordt and then expressed confusion to Matthew following your confidence. In other words, your confusion following your Amen leads me to believe you were actually confused about what you were saying "Amen" to.

The point of my quote was to demonstrate that part of the Father and the Son's design of the atonement was that the Son would procure the faith of those who would believe. He didn't merely ensure, by His death, that He had committed an act that other's could theoretically have faith in but He actually procured the faith of those to whom it would be given.

Your follow on questions to Matthew lead me to believe you are confused between the gift of faith and the exercise of faith. Faith is a gift. This does not mean that the Spirit exercises faith for the believer but that the Spirit enlivens us so that we may see our sin, turn from it, and turn to Christ. Faith is thus a gift but it is we who exercise that gift. It is not a gift in the sense that we decide whether or not we want to receive that gift but it is a gift in the sense that we are given life and that life produces repentance and faith.

So then we return to the issue where you and Matthew started interacting and that's on Dordt's language about the relative worth of the Atonement.

We can't read into Dordt some idea that the Atonement is theoretically powerful enough to atone for the sins of all mankind but that it is only able to save those who have faith. One might say that if God had purposed that the Atonement would save all men by Christ's death that it could do so and that's their point. The reason for this is that faith is part of the design of the atonement (as I quoted). It is because of the atonement that men believe. Their faith was purchased by Christ. Those who would believe had their ability to believe (whom the Spirit would grant faith) by His death. Thus, if the design of the Atonement is "theoretically" for all mankind then "theoretically" Christ purchased faith for everyone and "theoreticall" the Spirit makes all men alive and "theoretically" all men exercise that faith.

I hope that clears things up.

 

[MW]

It is not a gift in the sense that we decide whether or not we want to receive that gift but it is a gift in the sense that we are given life and that life produces repentance and faith.

This is worth pondering. The faith which sinners place in the Saviour is an "evangelical grace," wrought by the Word and Spirit of God. It is not a legal act. There is a way of interpreting John 3:16ff in a legal/moral manner. By contrast, the evangelical interpretation maintains what the passage as a whole says, that sinners are condemned already. It is not the gospel which condemns them. It is the law.

One of the problems with the doctrine of "universal application" is that it requires a legal faith; it calls on men in their natural state to believe in Christ as a condition of salvation, and then condemns men because they have not fulfilled the condition required of them. This turns the gospel into a "new law." It is not good news at all.