A Few Thoughts on Limited Atonement

You may be aware that a new book on the doctrine of "Limited Atonement" has just been released. You may also know that Calvinists, historically, have taken a variety of positions on the subject. With that in mind, I would like to interact with a few statements made recently on the Gospel Coalition blog (and by the way, just to be clear, I would generally consider myself to be a strong supporter and advocate of TGC and its work). Nevertheless, here are the statements to which I will respond:

Many Amyraldians or "4-point Calvinists," while espousing a particular election (by the Father) and a particular application (by the Spirit), hold to a universal atonement (by the Son). What's problematic about emphasizing particularity at the stage of application but not at the stage of atonement?The Amyraldian view of the atonement leads to disharmony or dissonance in the triune God: the Father elects some, the Son dies for all, but the Spirit only draws some (those whom the Father elected). The same problem attends semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism. Hypothetical universalists seek to get around the problem by positing "two levels" in the atonement: a universal intent and a particular intent (see, for example, Curt Daniel and Norman Douty). According to this scheme, the Trinity is united at each level of intent. However, this position lacks scriptural support despite attempts based on a certain (and, we believe, superficial) reading of 1 Timothy 4:10. 

Hypothetical universalism also leads to a confusion within the will of the Son. How can Christ on the cross, in his one act of propitiation, will both to die for the non-elect and not to die for them? This distorts orthodox Christology. Christ is presented in the Bible as King, Shepherd, Bridegroom, Head, Master, Firstborn, Cosmic Savior, and Last Adam. This is who the incarnate Son is, and therefore when he dies for sinners he cannot fail to be for them who he is. The person and work of Christ cannot be separated. In short, both trinitarianism and union with Christ point toward a definite intent in the atonement, as both ensure its efficacy. (Source: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/12/05/did-jesus-die-to-save-everyone/)

I am not an Amyraldian or "4-Pointer," and probably not a "hypothetical universalist," as those terms are usually defined among today's Calvinists. I do not deny that the intent of the atonement was to save a particular people. I do, however, deny that this was the sole intent, and I also deny that the atonement's extent has to be measured by its intent. My theology is Classic/Moderate Calvinism, as opposed to "High Calvinism." Classic/Moderate Calvinism is a prestigious tradition that is often castigated and misrepresented (or perhaps simply misunderstood) by High Calvinists.

It is from this perspective that I will respond to a few of the statements made above, beginning with this one:

The Amyraldian view of the atonement leads to disharmony or dissonance in the triune God: the Father elects some, the Son dies for all, but the Spirit only draws some (those whom the Father elected).

This problem is not relevant to Classic/Moderate Calvinists, as I will now demonstrate. In fact, our position exposes a significant inconsistency in the High Calvinist view. This is how they often frame the discussion:

1. Election is particular
2. Atonement is particular
3. Calling is particular

In other words: "God's work is particular, so why confuse things by generalizing just the atonement?"

On the other hand, this is how we frame it:

1. Election is particular in scope, but this does not limit God's general love and common grace which are extended toward all humanity
2. Atonement is particular in intent, but this does not limit the universal sufficiency of the atonement as potentially salvific for all of humanity
3. Calling is particular, but this does not limit the general call of the Gospel as God's command for all people everywhere to repent and believe.

Most High Calvinists will agree with our views on 1 and 3, but for some reason cannot accept the correlating balance on 2. This is actually in inconsistency on their part, not ours.

In other words, we say: "God's work is general and particular, so why deny the general aspect of just the atonement?" In fact, we might even go a step further, and offer a much more reasonable and Biblical solution, by viewing the General Love of God, Common Grace and the General Call of the Gospel as grounded in and made possible by the general/universal aspects of the atonement. The Cross IS God's Word of love and grace to all mankind. The Cross IS God's call of repentance to all of the world's people. The Cross IS God's extended hand of forgiveness to all humanity. And our Gospel is THE WORD OF THE CROSS.

Hypothetical universalists seek to get around the problem by positing "two levels" in the atonement: a universal intent and a particular intent (see, for example, Curt Daniel and Norman Douty).

A bigger problem is faced by the High Calvinist, as I have shown above. Additionally, I would suggest that few people understand Calvinism as well as Curt Daniel. My High Calvinist friends would be well advised to listen to him.

According to this scheme, the Trinity is united at each level of intent. However, this position lacks scriptural support despite attempts based on a certain (and, we believe, superficial) reading of 1 Timothy 4:10. 

Despite this dismissive comment, 1 Timothy 4:10 presents a strong exegetical case for the atonement's unlimited extent and limited intent, if not a dual intent. Furthermore, in the Classic/Moderate approach the Three Persons of the Trinity are certainly united in expressing a general love, a general atonement and a general call toward all humanity, while also working to achieve a specific end for a particular people in each of those activities. Why don't High Calvinists level the same criticism against General Love, Common Grace and the Free Offer of the Gospel (as Hyper Calvinists do)? Again, it is clear that the High Calvinist scheme is inconsistent by overlooking the fact that General Love stands alongside Unconditional Election, and the Free Offer stands alongside the Effectual Call. The next statement demonstrates this oversight well:

Hypothetical universalism also leads to a confusion within the will of the Son. How can Christ on the cross, in his one act of propitiation, will both to die for the non-elect and not to die for them? This distorts orthodox Christology.

This is quite a stretch, and, I might add, a little bit uncharitable. The phrase, "died for," is far too ambiguous to become the basis for judging a person's Christology as "distorted" or less than orthodox. Why can't Christ "die for" all of humanity in one sense, and "die for" a particular people in another sense? Furthermore, is the Father's will confused when He elects some but extends love and grace to all? Is the Holy Spirit's will confused when He tells us to proclaim Good News to everyone but inwardly draws only His chosen ones?

Following the logic of the statement quoted above, the Father cannot love those He did not elect, and the Spirit cannot send the Gospel to those He will not convert, without somehow being "confused." In our view, neither the Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy Spirit are ever confused; they each work in both general and particular ways, being in precise harmony with themselves and with One Another.

As a Calvinist and a Bible believer, it makes the most reasonable sense to embrace the universal extent of the atonement while not denying its particular intent. Whatever you call it, the result will be truly CONSISTENT CALVINISM.

Particular and General: A Key Tension in Reformed Soteriology

Reformed soteriology is humble and grand enough to tolerate significant tensions. One evidence of this is its ability to view the overarching, eternal purpose of God in both general and particular ways. In doing so, it maintains a clear line of division between the generalities we can know and the particulars known to God alone. It views the particulars abstractly, as categories without content. For example, we know abstractly that God has sovereignly elected some (i.e., the "elect" as a category); but we do not know concretely who they are (i.e., the content of the "elect" category). At the very same time, Reformed soteriology views the generalities concretely, as partially categorized content (for example, we know the general truth that God loves and desires to save every living person, without exception). The Biblical Calvinist does not apply election in an unwarranted way; he does not use this truth to invalidate God's general love for the non-elect and His general desire to save all sinners. Election is specific to a subset of humanity, but God's love and saving desire are all-humanity-wide. God is love.

Let's imagine for a moment that we are speaking with two unbelievers. God knows that one of them is elect and is going to be brought to repentance, and He also knows that one of them will die in the stubbornness of his heart. For our part, we don't know which one of them is elect, or if both of them are elect, or if neither of them is elect. We don't know if either of them will repent and be saved. Even if they both appear to repent and believe, we won't know for certain that their conversions were genuine until we meet them in heaven. On earth, we can't know with absolute certainty that they are truly saved and will persevere to the end. Those are particulars that belong to God's own purpose and wisdom. 

What we can know for certain and by faith is this: God has a purpose for both of them. Both are created in God's image and are loved by Him. Both are enemies of God. Both, in their current state, would gladly choose an eternity in hell over intimate fellowship with their Creator. Both are sinners who need saving grace. God would be pleased greatly by the salvation of both, and He will also be pleased to display His justice if they remain His enemies and perish. If they repent, they will be saved. From the standpoint of generalities--from our human standpoint--both unbelievers are identical. In our eyes, both are potentially elect. But from God's standpoint--in His own omniscient knowledge of the particulars--they are very different. One is elect and will be brought to faith, and the other is destined for damnation. Even if we knew for certain that one of them was elect, we wouldn't have any way of knowing with any certitude which one it is. So unconditional election is a solid and certain truth, but it is equally a mystery.

So then He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills. (Romans 9:18) 

High Tension Wires:
Very Powerful!

We can approach these two unregenerate souls with the sure knowledge that God elects, but not that God elected either of them in particular. We can approach them in the certain understanding that God will bring justice directly upon some human beings, but not in the sure knowledge that either of these sinners will have to personally bear the wrath he justly deserves. We can know that both of them are currently under the wrath of God, already condemned for their unbelief--yet neither of them has perished yet, so we can be hopeful about both of them. We know that both will perish if they do not repent. We know that Jesus bore the wrath of God, and we know that if either of these unsaved persons repents he will no longer be under God's wrath. He will pass from death to life and will be created anew in Christ. We look at these two people and see potentials, not particulars. We see conditions, not determinations. We see a process partly finished, but up to the point of our visible horizon neither one is differentiated from the other. In God's mind they may be different, but in our minds they cannot be. It is enough for us to know that God knows.

What happens when you remove
the tension from one side?

The great error of the hyper Calvinist is to attempt in his own mind a coalescence of the generalities and the particulars, so that they become one in his mind. He tries to know things he cannot know, and is forced to rely on his own senses to determine who is and is not elect. He seeks to preach God's love to the elect only, to communicate God's saving desire to the elect only, to preach the Gospel to the elect only. He tries to be as efficacious in his efforts as God is in His ordination of all things. Thus, the hyper Calvinist simultaneously exalts his own perceptions while oversimplifying the complexities of God's dispositions. He limits everything to the unknowable particulars, which he concretizes, having no room in his thinking for the generalities or the undefined abstractions. The inherent arrogance of this approach should be obvious. The lopsidedness is striking.

This understanding will help us to take a Biblically balanced view of many topics, among them the extent of atonement. We can posit particular redemption from the standpoint of divine particularity. God knows whom He saves by the atonement. Once we have said this much, what need is there to limit the sufficiency or the potentially salvific nature of Christ's work? The fact that God will not apply the redeeming power of the blood of Christ to all people is no reason to believe it does not essentially contain that power. From the standpoint of generality, we can make no assumptions. So, in considering the elect abstractly, we can say "Christ died especially, efficiently, particularly for them." In looking concretely at the masses of lost humanity, we must say, "Christ died for the whole world." We can tell a lost sinner, "Christ died for you," and this will be true in many senses whether the person we are speaking with is specifically elect or not.

The best Calvinist thinkers and scholars of the past have embraced key tensions and important distinctions between the general and the particular. Those who have been most Biblically grounded have warned us to remain purposely ignorant of those things which God has not seen fit to reveal, and to hold solid and steadfast in embracing all that He has made known in His awe-inspiring wisdom.

An Irenic Discussion of Arminianism and (Moderate) Calvinism

For the last week, I have been enjoying a healthy and deeply interesting dialogue about Calvinism and Arminianism with Dr. Roger Olson on his blog site. This has been an occasional but ongoing conversation since he first started blogging back in July of 2010. Although we are poles apart on a number of theological issues, Dr. Olson has been gracious in his dealings with me as an "opponent." I am including our back and forth comments below for the benefit of curious folks who want to know whether this can even be done . . . and for contentious folks who don't think it can be done. I am also posting this because it contains defenses of key Moderate Calvinist stances regarding theological paradox, compatibilism, the extent of the atonement, God's decrees, and other matters.

As followers (and representatives) of Christ, we must be unified in our love for one another, even if we are not unified on every point of doctrine. It's more important for Calvinists and Arminians to love one another than to "defeat" one another.

See it all here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/12/calvinism-and-the-god-as-author-analogy/#comments

1. 
   
2. Derek Ashton says:
   December 29, 2012 at 7:30 pm
   Dr. Olson,

   Interesting topic here! Speaking for myself as a more-or-less Piper-esque Calvinist (and not implying that he would claim my views), I want to address the line of reasoning some previous commenters have chosen. Specifically, I would like to address the idea of taking certain tenets of Calvinism to their “logical conclusion.”

   It is worth noting that the Desiring God article linked in your post is a good bit more in-depth and honest about the tensions than many of your readers may realize. I would also suppose that Calvinists in general have much more sophisticated views than the “determinism taken to its logical conclusion” approach which seems to be a “straw man of choice” in this thread. In itself, the term compatibilism implies that “determinism taken to its logical conclusion” is insufficient to describe the viewpoint to which compatibilistic Calvinists adhere. In fact, the term contains an implicit denial of “determinism taken to its logical conclusion.”

   Compatibilism certainly involves some mystery and tension. But let’s be honest–all Christians embrace logical tensions to some degree. Take the statement, “Jesus is God” to its “logical conclusion” and we have grounds to deny essentials like the virgin birth, the humanity of Christ, the death of Christ (and therefore the resurrection), etc. because God can’t “logically” be born, be a creature, die, etc. Take “Jesus is a human being” to its “logical conclusion” and we have grounds to deny His deity, eternality, etc. Such reasoning is obviously not valid (at least not for Christians), yet I see no difference between this and the kind of reasoning contained in some of the comments above (note that I am not saying anyone here is not a Christian; only that the reasoning employed is invalid for Christians). Many core doctrines of the Christian faith contain this kind of tension, and it would not be proper to take one facet of the doctrine to its “logical conclusion” without overlaying and nuancing through appeals to other aspects of the doctrine. Let’s not sugar coat this, or pretend that every aspect of every Christian doctrine can properly be “taken to its logical conclusion.”

   One could ostensibly take selected portions of the ancient creeds and use them to argue against the truths contained in other portions of the same creeds. Even Arius would have agreed with parts of the Nicene creed; then, by taking them to their “logical conclusion,” he would have argued against the other parts. Arius took portions of the Biblical teaching to their “logical conclusion” without embracing other portions because, in his mind, it would not logically make sense to do so. Is there not a danger in this kind of reasoning, which seems to make human understanding, rather than God’s Word, the ultimate measure of the Truth. Arius was, after all, a genuine heretic on both Calvinist and Arminian terms.

   What I appreciate in the writings of compatibilistic Calvinists like Piper is a willingness to honestly accept all of the Biblical data, even when it goes beyond the ability of the human mind to reconcile all of the ensuing tension. While I admire the rigorous commitment to logic on the part of many Arminians, I have yet to find one that (to my satisfaction, at least) admits all of the Biblical testimony into the system. For me, losing precious Biblical propositions is worse than having inexplicable holes in the system. And with that said, I am a Calvinist today because I do not find a more logically consistent system that takes in all of the Biblical data. I easily find more logically consistent systems that don’t take it in. For me, it’s Sola Scriptura first, and then the fun part of working out the logic as far as possible.

   Note: I am not saying Arminians don’t believe the Bible; I am saying their system, especially as represented in this thread, seems to inconsistently elevate human logic in opposition to the Calvinistic doctrine of Providence while readily accepting the logical tensions of the Incarnation and other orthodox doctrines. No Arminian says of the humanity of Christ: “Whatever the Bible means in those passages, it can’t mean that!”

   Finally, to answer your questions in the post, I would take the position that evil does not become good simply because God ordains it. It would never become a ground for rejoicing simply because God ordained it. Our sadness at the atrocities in this world may in fact reflect God’s own heart and mind in the matter. However, along with Him, we rejoice exuberantly in all of the good that He ultimately brings about through the evil that is done. Per Romasn 8:28.

   To illustrate this in a more personal way: by God’s grace, I hate and abhor my own sins. I am deeply saddened and shamed by them. Yet I also rejoice in the forgiveness and grace that I could never have experienced if I was sinless. I don’t love being a sinner; but I love being redeemed from sin! Yet I couldn’t have been redeemed if I had never been a sinner. Thus, as a forgiven perpetrator of heinous crimes against a holy God and His creatures, my Calvinistic theology lines up perfectly with my experience and what I find in the Scriptures. If anything, a true Calvinist will ask God for MORE feelings of moral repugnance against evil. And at the same time he will ask for more JOY in God’s good grace as well. All of this lies right at the heart of Jesus’ teaching: “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.” Apparently He believes in paradoxes, too.

   A happy New Year to all, and much joy in Christ!

   Derek Ashton
   Reply
   • rogereolson says:
     December 30, 2012 at 1:36 pm
     Derek, I always appreciate your civility even when we sharply disagree. You will not be surprised to read me say that, in my opinion, it is Calvinism that seeks logical consistency over biblical fidelity. I will point this time to only one example: limited atonement (which I realize some Calvinists reject but which seem to be part and parcel of what you call eloquently “Piper-esque” Calvinism). As I have explained in Against Calvinism, the high Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement must ignore much Scripture. Of course, I think you would agree, neither side in this debate really “ignores” any Scripture. What we are calling ignoring is really interpreting in a non-natural sense. I hope you will agree that no intelligent Arminian literally “ignores” any of Scripture. What we do is interpret Scripture differently (than Calvinists). So, to be fair, I don’t believe any informed, intelligent Calvinist literally ignores any of Scripture. What happens, in my opinion, is that much of Scripture is interpreted in non-natural ways in order to make it fit with the system. I’m sure you would admit that’s what you really mean when you say non-Calvinist systems of theology overlook or ignore crucial passages of Scripture. In my opinion, limited atonement does exactly what Piper argues we must NOT do in his long footnote about Clark Pinnock in (I think) Desiring God. He argues that Pinnock believes some things because Scripture allows it and logic requires it. I can’t believe any Christian does otherwise. We all believe some things because logic (or evidence) requires it and Scripture allows it. That’s how I view limited atonement. I don’t say Calvinists who believe in it ignore or overlook Scripture; I say they take something they believe (e.g., unconditional election of some sinners and irresistible grace granted to them only) and force it to its logical conclusion (limited atonement) and then interpret Scriptures no non-Calvinist would interpret this way as supporting limited atonement. As for your explanation of your feelings about evils God ordains I will just say I can’t even imagine living with that level of cognitive dissonance. If I came to believe that God ordained and rendered certain an event such that he manipulated the thoughts and motives that sinfully caused it I would have to celebrate all of that and not isolate the good results and celebrate only them. That seems absurd to me. I realize it doesn’t to you. However, I thank you for joining the discussion. Your Calvinist voice is always most welcome here because you are not insulting or uncivil. I wonder if you would answer this question I have put to many Calvinists without satisfactory answers? From where did the first evil inclination come?
     Reply
     • Derek Ashton says:
       December 31, 2012 at 4:36 am
       Dr. Olson,

       Thank you for your very kind words.

       I actually agree with what you mentioned concerning non-natural exegesis used in support of limited atonement. My views on that topic are more in line with Richard Baxter (and many other puritans, including numerous Westminster divines), R.L. Dabney, William G.T. Shedd, Bruce Ware, and (I suppose) John Calvin. I am drawn to the moderate historical stream within Calvinism whose adherents are apt to take texts such as I John 2:2 at face value. I disagree at least partly with Piper’s approach on this.

       There are admittedly those on both sides of the Calvinist/Arminian spectrum who engage in system-driven exegesis (and some on both sides who tend not to, thankfully). One of the arguments I have made to fellow Calvinists is that they should take a more moderate view on limited atonement simply because it fits more consistently with God’s universal love/saving desire for all people (which is strongly affirmed by Piper) and the free offer of the Gospel (also strongly affirmed by Piper). These mainstream Calvinist essentials, which unfortunately aren’t conveyed well by the TULIP acronym, logically argue for a less limited atonement than most of today’s vocal Calvinists are promoting.

       Concerning the doctrine of Providence, I don’t think a Reformed view requires that God “manipulates the thoughts and motives” behind sinful actions. All mainstream Calvinists retain, at the very least, the concept of “unconstrained” and “voluntary” creaturely actions (thus no one is “manipulated” under normal conditions). This is one of the critical distinctions entailed in compatibilism. Of course, I understand that this quibble probably doesn’t make the Reformed approach any more attractive for committed Arminians.

       Your question about the first evil inclination certainly provokes thought. My Biblicist side wants to say Scripture leaves this entirely in the realm of mystery. And that is probably the best place for me to leave it, as much as I would like to speculate. Do you see Open Theism, Arminianism, Molinism or any other non-Calvinist system answering this in a more satisfying way?

       You probably know that Augustine danced around with this question in the Enchiridion, chapters 10-23. His answers are paradoxical: God only created good; evil is a corruption/privation of that good; thus evil cannot exist apart from good, while good can exist apart from evil; anything totally evil would cease to exist because in it there would be no good thing left to corrupt with evil; thus a being cannot be evil without also being good in some sense.

       Augustine’s answer is sensible enough, but still leaves your question unanswered. What prompted the initial privation of good? I suppose only God truly knows.

       Blessings,
       Derek
       Reply
       • rogereolson says:
         December 31, 2012 at 10:11 pm
         Derek, I always appreciate your irenicism (which doesn’t in any way dilute your strongly held theology). The problem I have with any Calvinist appealing to mystery when faced with the question of the source of the first evil inclination is the typical Calvinist doctrine of providence which, according to my understanding of it, anyway, excludes anything real (and even evil, though a privation of the good only, is real in that it exists) from escaping God’s ordination. Surely, if God is as all-determining and controlling as most Calvinist theologians assert (e.g., Helm and Sproul), then nothing, not even the first evil inclination, can fall outside God’s plan and determination. The way most Calvinists have handled this (including Edwards) is to say that God brought it about by withholding the grace needed for the creature not to develop an evil inclination. Edwards admits that this amounts to making God the author of sin and evil in a restricted sense. God, he argues, is not the cause of them, but, like everything else, they only exist because God desires them to and renders them certain. (I have expounded this and documented it in Against Calvinism.) It seems to me a key difference between Calvinism and Arminianism (and this difference existed also between, say, Luther and the Anabaptists) is that one side sees evil as having purpose above, higher than the purpose of the creature (e.g., selfishness). It has divine purpose, ultimate purpose. The other side regards evil as a surd, lacking any purpose at all. God can bring good out of it, but it has no divine purpose behind it. God never intended for it to come into existence. The problem with the first view, it seems to me, is that, from an ultimate perspective, evil is not really evil. Anyway, that is how I would have to regard it did I hold that view.
         Reply
         • Derek Ashton says:
           January 2, 2013 at 10:17 am
           Dr. Olson,

           I see your point, and this is truly an important difference, as you noted. On Calvinistic terms, no event (including the first evil) can ever be viewed as non-ordained or unforeseen by God. He could not have been “surprised” when the first evil occurred.

           However, does the classical Arminian approach really view evil as entirely purposeless? It would seem that God’s omniscience entails an awareness on His part of every evil that ever will or can occur, and His omnipotence would include the ability to prevent or allow it. If this is so, then He must maintain ultimate control over evil (and therefore have some kind of purpose in allowing it). If not, He could choose not to allow it.

           Blessings,
           Derek
         • rogereolson says:
           January 2, 2013 at 2:05 pm
           Purposeless in terms of intentionality. Of course God had a purpose in allowing it. The difference lies in intentionality. In Calvinism, as I understand it (having read scores of books by Calvinists including Calvin himself), every event is foreordained and rendered certain by God for a specific purpose. God intends it to happen, not just to permit it to happen (Calvin rejected the language of permission in discussing divine providence). In Arminian theology we distinquish between two wills of God: antecedent (in which evil does not exist at all) and consequent (in which God permits evil in order not to control creatures so that they can only do what he intends for them to do). Thus, in Arminian theology, evil has no purpose in God’s overall plan. It happens. God deals with it, overcoming it and, when possible, bringing good out of it.
         • Derek Ashton says:
           January 3, 2013 at 2:17 am
           Dr. Olson,

           Thank you for explaining this in further detail; those are useful distinctions. Does this approach make the cross “plan B” rather than God’s original design?

           Much has been made of Calvin’s critique of divine “permission,” but he makes it clear that what he opposes is a “bare permission” by which God would relinquish His Lordship and Providence, and merely respond to human wills rather than rule over them.

           I really appreciate your taking time to discuss these matters with me. At the end of the day, we are fellow Christians. That is what counts!

           Blessings,
           Derek
         • rogereolson says:
           January 3, 2013 at 3:10 pm
           Thanks, Derek. I always enjoy having dialogue with you. But, as I’m sure you have noticed, we tend to go around in circles–always returning to the same questions and answers and differences. I wonder to what extent our basic differences (also between most evangelical Calvinists and evangelical Arminians) are a matter of perspective? I’m not relativizing the matter because I do believe one of us is right and the other wrong (or we’re both wrong). But I’m continually puzzled by how equally sincere, God-fearing, Bible-believing, Jesus-loving, reasonable people can see God’s sovereignty in Scripture so differently? To answer your question. I don’t think of the cross as “Plan B” in the ordinary sense because, as a classical Arminian (not an open theist) I think God knew all along what was going to happen. I do think the cross is part of God’s consequent will, not God’s antecedent will. But just in case you have difficulty with that, think about the fact that ONLY (not shouting, just emphasizing) a supralapsarian can really say that the cross is God’s “Plan A,” part of God’s antecedent will. An infralapsarian (most Calvinists) will also have the same challenge (from a supralapsarian) as you give me. I once asked John Piper about this, hoping to trap him (we were having a very irenic, civil discussion but he was trying to trap me, too–into affirming open theism) and he said he “might be” a supralapsarian. He indicated he was leaning in that direction. I think that would be the way anyone would have to go if they affirm that the cross is “Plan A” in the sense of logically preceding God’s decree to permit the fall. What do you think? Can an infralapsarian say that the cross is God’s “Plan A” in the sense you mean–”God’s original design?”
       • Derek Ashton says:
         January 5, 2013 at 10:02 pm
         Dr. Olson,

         Yes, I have noticed that our discussions (and most between Calvinists and Arminians) seem to always take the same turns. It is easy to get frustrated with this and start pressing harder (or louder) in an effort to get things resolved. But I doubt it is necessary to get past the differences; perhaps just understand them better. That is what I most appreciate about our dialogues. You have been involved in this discussion with many different Calvinists and for a good while, so your restraint in this regard is very much appreciated. It says much about your character.

         Regarding your question, I believe the cross was/is “Plan A,” but not because of supralapsarian leanings. Some infralapsarians would take all of the decrees together and call that, collectively, “Plan A.” From this standpoint, every Calvinist can (and should) view the cross as “Plan A” or God’s original design. This is perhaps similar to your approach in the comment above, which seems to take God’s antecedent and consequent will(s) together as “Plan A.” The move seems warranted in both cases, and perhaps points to an important similarity between the two schools of thought when backed into the same corner!

         As a side note, I like the approach taken by R.L. Dabney, who said the following (so much better than I can say it):

         “… he who apprehends the action of the infinite mind reasonably and scripturally at once, sees that, while the sublapsarian is right in his spirit and aim, both parties are wrong in their method, and the issue is one which should never have been raised. As God’s thought and will do not exist in his consciousness in parts, so they involve no sequence, neither the one nor the other. The decree which determines so vast a multitude of parts is itself a unit. The whole all-comprehending thought is one coëtaneous intuition; the whole decree one act of will. But in virtue of the very consistency and accuracy of the divine plan, and infinity of the divine knowledge, facts destined to emerge out of one part of the plan, being present in thought to God, enter into logical relation to other parts of the same plan. As the plan is God’s thought, no part precedes any other. But none the less those parts which are destined to be, in execution, prior and posterior, stand in their just causal relations in his thinking. One result decreed is to depend on another result decreed. But as the decree is God’s consciousness, all is equally primary. Thus there will be neither supra- nor infra-lapsarian, and no room for their debate.” (This is from Dabney’s essay entitled, God’s Indiscriminate Proposals of Mercy, as Related to His Power, Wisdom and Sincerity)

         While slightly more sympathetic to the infralapsarian position, Dabney stands with a number of other Calvinists in the moderate stream who disparaged the lapsarian debates in general. In their view, the whole project goes well beyond the bounds of Scripture and involves us in questions that are ultimately unanswerable (or at least defy systematization). Herman Bavinck was another notable representative of this viewpoint.

         So it would appear that we can both agree that the cross is viewed as God’s original design from each of our perspectives. Now, please don’t take the following as an attempt to “trap” you (and I doubt I could successfully trap you, anyhow) . . . but does this put you in the position affirming that evil, in general, was also part of “Plan A,” or God’s original design? And would this not make evil “intentional” and “purposeful” from the divine perspective, even if taken as God’s consequent will? Finally, does this potentially put us in the same boat as far as theodicy is concerned? Maybe the differences can be illustrated more succinctly in this attempted summation:

         ***The Calvinist says God (in His secret, sovereign will) deliberately decrees to permit evil (for a purpose), and every evil is used for the greater good.
         ***The Arminian says God (in His consequent will) knowledgeably chooses to permit evil (for a purpose?), and some evils are used for the greater good.

         Both are taking measures to maintain that God is not directly “responsible” or “culpable” for the evil that occurs. Yet both view evil as God’s “will” in some sense. However, if my summations above are correct, Calvinism more satisfactorily vindicates God’s permission of evil by putting every evil to good use. For Calvinists, this is part of what is meant by “works all things together for good” in Romans 8:28.

         Blessings,
         Derek
         Reply

A Defense of Moderate Calvinism

Following are excerpts of some excellent thoughts that were recently shared by David Ponter in a thread on Terry Tiessen's blog. David does a nice job of laying out the Moderate Calvinist reasoning here. We recognize that there are various types of Calvinists in the world. My convictions are decidedly moderate, but I have found immense value in learning from higher and lower Calvinists, too. I've even found the occasional hyper-Calvinist or Arminian whose Biblical admonitions stir my heart and lead me to Christ. I try not to pick (too many) fights. However, if you want to know what makes us Moderate Calvinists tick, the following is a great summary. David writes:

If I may, you say: 

"I also agree that “four point” Calvinism is incoherent. In the three middle points of TULIP, we find the economy of the Trinity in salvation summed up – the Father elects, the Son redeems, and the Holy Spirit efficaciously applies the Son’s work. To assert that the Father has chosen particular people from before he created the world and that the Holy Spirit effects salvation in the hearts and lives of these people, but then to suggest that the Son died with the intention of saving everyone (not just those whom the Father gave to him [Jn 17:9]) seriously disrupts the unity of purpose within the Trinity." 

David: That seems to be a common objection to moderate-classic Calvinism, but it flows from a misunderstanding. If you lock your thinking into 5 points or 4 points then such misreading may result. The error lies in thinking that TULIP mirrors the 5 points of Dort. The L in Tulip focuses on a negation: “Christ did not die for such and such,” or “he only died for such and such.” In Dort, however, the focus is only on efficacy: Christ especually died for such and such. Dort makes no pronouncement against any other sense in which it may be said that Christ died for all. Indeed, quite a few of the delegates held to a classic Augustinian and medieval position that Christ died for all men as to the satisfaction, sustaining a universal sufficiency, but for the elect as to efficacy and intent to actually save. When folk are locked into 5 or 4 point thinking, this classic-moderate view of Calvinism looks contradictory, as it appears that 4 point Calvinism denies that Christ died for any one especially and effectually. Classic-moderate Calvinism held that the extent of the satisfaction is universal, but the intent to apply is limited to the elect. 

The other problem comes from the fact that 5 point thinking argues that the classic position posits conflict within the Trinity. This would be a strange thing for any Banner of Truth or John Murray Type calvinist to claim, as its “in kind” the very objection the Hoeksemians urged against the free offer and God’s revealed desire that all men be saved. The standard hyper objection is how could the Father desire the salvation of all, when the Son only died to make salvation possible for the elect alone, etc. The evangelical Calvinist response is to rightly posit the twofold aspect of God’s will. By secret will and intention, The whole Trinity determines to save the elect alone. By revealed will intention, the whole Trinity, however, also desires the salvation of all men, and that a way of salvation be made possible for all. Of course, under the terms of 5 point TULIP thinking that last idea is problematic. And so in the same way, the classic-moderate Calvinist says that God by secret intention designed the effectual and unconditional salvation of the elect, and also the whole Trinity by revealed will intention, also designed that the satisfaction of Christ truly be of such a nature that it is a universally sufficient satisfaction for all, thereby properly grounding the offer. 

Or stated another way, Curt Daniel sums up the answer to your objection: 

“Then there is the argument from the Trinity. It is argued that if Christ died for all men equally, then there would be conflict within the Trinity. The Father chose only some and the Spirit regenerates only some, so how could the Son die for all men in general? Actually, this argument needs refinement. There are general and particular aspects about the work of each member of the Trinity. The Father loves all men as creatures, but gives special love only to the elect. The Spirit calls all men, but efficaciously calls only the elect. Similarly, the Son died for all men, but died in a special manner for the elect. We must keep the balance with each of these. If, on the one hand, we believe only in a strictly Limited Atonement, then we can easily back into a strictly particular work of the Father and the Spirit. The result is Hyper-Calvinism, rejecting both Common Grace and the universal Free Offer of the Gospel. On the other hand, if the atonement is strictly universal, then there would be disparity. The tendency would be towards Arminianism – the result would be to reject election and the special calling of the Spirit.” Curt Daniel, The History and Theology of Calvinism (Good Books, 2003), 371.

____________________________________________________________________

Let us try this question: “for whose sins was Christ punished?” 

The standard TULIP answer is: “for the sins of the elect alone.” 

The classic-moderate Calvinist answer is: “for the sins of all men, all mankind.” 

Once we have that question on the table, we can being to identify the proper entailments. In terms of the TULIP position, the very nature of the satisfaction is limited, as well as its intent. So extent and intent are coterminous. 

In classic-moderate Calvinism, the extent is unlimited and universal, but the intent (to effectually apply) is limited. 

Dort only affirms this proposition against the Arminians: there is an effectual intent to apply the satisfaction which is limited to the elect. This proposition is affirmed by all classic-moderate Calvinists of all wings,whether Davenantian, or Amyraldian, Baxterian, or the Calamy variety; all forms of what literature calls hypothetical universalism. The same statement, tho understood as having different consequences and connections, is also understood by TULIP proponents. 

Further, a limited satisfaction for the sins of the elect only, cannot ground a universal sufficiency. It can only ground a hypothetical sufficiency. As Owen, Witsius, Turretin and co, note, on the terms of limited satisfaction, it can only be said that the satisfaction is of such an infinite internal or intrinsic value, that had God elected more, it *would* *have* *been* sufficient for them too. When the classic proponents of limited satisfaction (Owen, et al) define the sufficiency of the death of Christ, they can only do so by using ‘conditional contrary-to-fact subjunctives.’ “If Paul had been paying attention, he would have seen the speeding car…” The meaning is, he didnt see the speeding car. With me so far? 

The classic-moderate Calvinist says that the satisfaction is actually sufficient for all exactly because Christ was punished for all human sin, the sins of all. He sustained a perfect satisfaction for the sins of all mankind. Thus extent is universal. However, contrary to Arminianism, intent is limited. Dort itself does not speak to the extent question, it is neutral. It only speaks to the intent question. The modern TULIP, however, speaks to extent as well as intent: as did Owen and others of that school within the broader Reformed movements.

The standard TULIP answer to the question above is to reply: If it were the case that Christ was punished for the sins of all men, then all men must be saved, because God cannot demand a second punishment for sin from the person for whom Christ has already suffered. This argument dates back to Perkins (at least), but was made popular by Owen; the double payment argument which under-girds his famous trilemma: ‘Christ either suffered for all the sins of some men, all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men…’ etc. The double payment argument, however, has been refuted by men like Polhil down to C Hodge and Dabney and Shedd. 

Historically, in terms of those first and second generation Reformers which we can access in extant translations, in all of them, with one or two possible exception, affirmed an unlimited satisfaction for all human sin. Names such as Musculus, Luther, Bullinger, Zwingli, Gualther, Cranmer, Ridley, even Calvin. I know this will touch some buttons for you, but it is actually not that hard to document: http://calvinandcalvinism.com/?page_id=7147

Did you notice the implicit, yet Biblically grounded, paradoxes in David's argument? Notice, also, that affirming these Moderate Calvinist paradoxes has a long and prestigious precedent in the history of Reformed theology. High Calvinists are true Calvinists . . . but so are moderates. Studying the differences can be very beneficial, providing one is not pugnacious or arrogant about his own conclusions.

Three Good Reads in Reformed Theology

I've been enjoying these and finding them very beneficial.

#1 The first "good read" is this group of extended quotations from some leading theologians regarding the secret and revealed will of God. This is direct source material, so you can get it from the proverbial horse's mouth. I like this bit from Calvin:

"In fine, give up all fondness for your puerile dilemma, for the Scriptures assure me of the secret will of God; asserting what I have learned from them I do speak of an ascertained truth; but because I do not reach so great a height, I reverently adore with fear and trembling what is too sublime for the angels themselves. Often therefore in my writings I admonish my readers, that on this subject nothing is better than a learned ignorance; for those rave like madmen who arrogate to know more about it than is fit."

And this one from Jonathan Edwards caught my attention:

"... all that own the being of a God own that he knows all things beforehand. Now, it is self-evident, that if he knows all things beforehand, he either doth approve of them, or he doth not approve of them; that is, he either is willing they should be, or he is not willing they should be. But to will that they should be, is to decree them."

Apparently Edwards never met an open theist! God alone knows if Edwards will ever meet one in the future (think about it).

_____________________________________________________________

#2 A second "good read" is Paul Manata's Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Reformed Theology - A Contemporary Introduction. Lots of deep philosophical stuff here. Manata has a gift, and I am grateful that he uses it to advance good theology! He argues that Reformed Theology is, by definition, both deterministic and compatibilistic, and decidedly unaffirming of libertarian free will. It's all worth reading and considering, and well documented, too.

_____________________________________________________________

#3  The third "good read" is David Ponter's response to James Anderson's attempt to reconcile the Free Offer of the Gospel with a provisionally Limited Atonement using Newcomb's Paradox (see here and here). It's a deeply complicated argument, but worth thinking about. To me, this is a little bit like Gandalf vs. Saruman (I won't say which one is which). Although James Anderson is a personal hero for expounding so brilliantly on theological paradox, in this case I concur with Ponter (also a personal hero for expounding brilliantly on historic Moderate Calvinism) in his closing remarks:

"Anderson wants to argue that if a moderate Calvinist insists that limited atonement precludes a sincere offer, he must accept that election likewise precludes a sincere offer, for the same reasons. However, a proper rebuttal rejects the assumed univocal relationship between limited atonement and election in relation to the sincere offer, such that one can counter that limited atonement is incompatible with the free offer, while election is not. The only avenue Anderson can have, as I see it, is to attempt to claim that we should see election as equally incompatible with a sincere offer (given our assumptions?). But on what grounds could he suggest that? and does he really want to argue that in the first place? Perhaps Anderson might say both election and limited atonement bare a paradoxical relationship to the sincere offer. My reply would be limited atonement and the sincere free offer entail a contradiction (you cannot offer what you are not able to give), while election and the free offer entail a paradox (one offers, by revealed will, what one does not intend to give, by secret will). We would say we are warranted in rejecting the contradiction, while retaining the paradox. Anderson could only claim that one can indeed sincerely offer what one is not able to give."

The issues in these three "good reads" are tied together, and each of them has bearing on both hyper Calvinism and Arminianism (mind you, I'm not saying any of the people mentioned in this post are hyper Calvinists - far from it - only that the issues covered have direct bearing on refuting that error). To be balanced, I believe we must hold to the paradox of God's revealed and secret wills which are united perfectly in the glorious mystery of His eternal wisdom; we must hold to the paradox of compatibilism so that man is responsible for his actions under the total sovereignty of God; and we must hold to the Free Offer of the Gospel backed up by an infinitely powerful atonement, which, paradoxically, is not intended to save all people. Thank God it saves some!

The General and Particular Aspects of the Atonement - Curt Daniel

Following are some quotes from Dr. Daniel's September 2010 sermon on Limited Atonement.

CURT DANIEL - LIMITED ATONEMENT (CLICK TO LISTEN)

"There is a general aspect of the atonement of Christ for all. Now, even the best Calvinist theologians will admit, yes, there is a general aspect to the atonement before we look at the particular aspect. For example, because of Christ's work on the cross there is a delay of judgment for sinners. Think about that. We deserve to be punished, we deserve to be hauled in before God's bar of judgment long ago. The fact that we are still alive here on earth is due to the work of Christ on the cross. In the same way, the fact that we are not in hell right now. There has been a stay of execution - not a pardon - but a stay of execution because of Christ's work that has delayed judgment and hell for people now. Even for those that will end up in hell, the delay right now whereby God is pleading with them is due to the work of Christ. It's a temporary reprieve."

"... there is common grace. There is a general love of God. Jesus talked about the bounties of health, family, friends, happiness. Rain falling on the just and on the unjust, common grace, the bounties and beauties of creation - all flow to us through the cross. And Christ has purchased those for everybody, elect and non-elect, sinners and saints, and for everybody."

"... there is a free offer of the Gospel that can go out to all . . . the atonement of Christ has provided more than enough for everybody, and He sends Christians out with the free offer: 'Come, for all things are now ready.'"

"Now some scholars will say that this universal aspect of the atonement can be seen in verses such as John 3:16, 'the world,' I John 2:2, 'the whole world,' II Cor. 5:14, 'all,' and other ones, and I see that there is some truth in what they are saying."

"Because Jesus Christ is God and not simply man, what He did on the cross has infinite value and universal sufficiency. Now, the theologians have come up with a formula for this. Now I want to say it and then repeat it, because you might miss it, but it's very important. All that Jesus did on the cross would have been necessary for the salvation of only one person. One person committing only one sin would still require an infinite payment to the Father. However, Jesus would not have had to suffer more even if there had been a million times as many human beings to be saved, because Jesus made an infinite satisfaction to the Father. And that would have been required if there had been only one person or if there had been ten million times as many people as there have been in human history. So however many there are to be saved, Christ paid a sufficient amount for everybody because His atonement had infinite value. It's not that if one more person had to be saved Christ would have had to suffer more or die a second time. It's finished. He paid an infinite price, and in that sense you can say it has general implications for everybody."

"Jesus Christ died in a special way only for those that God had elected to salvation. This does not deny the general aspect . . . some have put it like this: in the general aspect Christ did some things for everybody, but in this aspect He did everything for some people - those that He had chosen."

"... human beings are unable to save themselves, but God has chosen some people to be saved, and because they have been chosen Christ did something especially for them. Now, this does not deny a general aspect of the atonement. It's concentrating on a special aspect that guarantees their salvation. That's why it's sometimes called particular redemption, for the elect in particular. It's limited in scope, not in value. It has a specific purpose for them. There is a general purpose, but there is a specific purpose."

"... although it's provided for all in one general sense, it's guaranteed for the elect in a special way. Now, as I said before, the special aspect or intent of the atonement is sometimes misunderstood. And so the theologians will compare Scripture and Scripture, and the formula that has generally emerged is something like this: Christ's death is sufficient for all, but it is efficient only for those that have been chosen, and those are the two aspects . . . By the way, you can see that 'for all, but especially for some' even in Scripture. I Timothy 4:10 says that Jesus is, quote, the Savior of all mankind, especially of those that believe."

Your Doctrine of the Atonement is Too Small - Part 2

In part 1, we discussed the limited redemptive purpose of the atonement (reflecting the truth of particular redemption). Alongside of this, we discussed the atonement's universal revelatory purpose (in connection with the general preaching of the Gospel to all the world). Here, we will look at the potency of the atonement, as potentially salvific for all people and powerful enough to cover all sins. The atonement's real potency as a bearing of the sin of all mankind is an essential ground for the free offer of the Gospel, and it does not conflict with the particularity of God's purposes in the redemption of the elect. Like so many other theological issues, this one has become polarized by the false dichotomy of an "either/or" proposition. It is said that either Christ died effectively for the elect, or He died ineffectively for all people. It is said that either Christ's atonement is sufficient for all sinners, or God's purpose for the atonement is particular.


The framing of these propositions can only lead to a reduction and narrowing of the real truth about the atonement. It is wrong to say Christ's death was somehow ineffective, yet it is equally unacceptable to regard His death as limited in its saving power. The solution lies in understanding the Biblical account of what God intended to accomplish in the atonement. If we think the atonement is designed to accomplish something God did not intend for it to accomplish, we will be forced to diminish either its particularized effectiveness or its universal power. Only by giving careful attention to what the Bible actually teaches can we avoid painting ourselves into a corner by drawing premature conclusions. In order to discover the Biblical truth regarding the atonement's inherently infinite power, we'll look briefly at some of the clues found in John's writings.

The Johannine Concept of "The World"

John uses the Greek term kosmos in three key passages which are sometimes mistakenly called "Arminian" texts (as a side note, such designations are ill-conceived because there are no "Calvinist" or "Arminian" texts, just Biblical ones).

John 1:29 - Christ sacrificially bears the sin of the world

John 3:16 - God shows His love to the world by giving His Son

I John 2:2 - Christ is the propitiation for the world

Some Calvinists attempt to counter Arminian arguments by creatively re-interpreting the meaning of kosmos in these verses, but this only damages their case because it is exegetically unwarranted and entirely unnecessary. Understanding "world" in the universal sense of "all humanity" or "all mankind" or "mankind as a race" is exegetically superior and entirely consistent with historic Calvinism, as I will now attempt to demonstrate. [UPDATE: a more precise definition of "world" in these contexts is "all living unregenerate humanity."]

A Quick Side Note on the Error of Arminianism

There can be no doubting that Arminian theology depends upon the universal extension of the atonement to all mankind. However, the problem with Arminianism is not merely its affirmation of a universal aspect in God's plan to save sinners. It is the over emphasis of this truth, to the neglect of the very real particularities, that makes Arminianism a false and misguided system. The defining feature of Arminianism is a purposeful ineffectiveness on the part of God which is designed to make room for man's supposed decisive freedom of will in the matter of salvation. God tries to save everyone but can't quite do it because human choice stands in the way. This is truly bad theology that should be refuted strenuously, but the defining feature of a Calvinist must lie in an unyielding commitment to the whole counsel of God rather than mere opposition to Arminian errors. When an Arminian brother states a Biblical truth, Calvinists ought to be the first to say "Amen" because we are not so much against them as we are for the Word and honor of God. The defeat of Arminianism lies in Biblical balance, not in the utter refutation of every argument presented by Arminians.

In this article, I'll leave off from commenting on John 3:16 and focus instead on the two passages which directly address the extensive power of the atonement. After reading the remainder of this article, I hope readers will have no problem agreeing that "world" truly means "world," and that Christ's sacrifice is sufficient, in and of itself, to save all mankind.

The Sin-Bearing Potency of the Atonement

The sin-bearing potency of the atonement is clearly revealed by John the Baptist, the greatest of all Old Covenant prophets, in John 1:29

The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

"Takes away" translates the Greek word airō, which means "to raise up, to lift, to bear, to carry." The language is distinctively that of sacrifice, corresponding to the Hebrew term, nasa, which has approximately the same meaning and is often used in connection with ritual sacrifices. It connotes the carrying of a weight, or the bearing of a burden. In Genesis 4:13, Cain says "my iniquity is too great to bear (Heb. nasa)." As the Lamb of God, Jesus bore the sin of the world. He suffered the punishment due for that sin and was treated as if the sin was His own (though it was not). 


1. The word "sin" is singular, not plural. So "sin" as a general reality is being carried, not the specific sins (plural) of particular individuals. Humanity's problem with God is a matter of SIN (in principle), not just sins (specific acts, thoughts, words, etc.). Sins are events, but SIN is the very nature of mankind in his fallen state. Sins are a result of SIN. Humanity is "under sin," therefore humanity commits "sins." The elect do not come to believe because their specific sins, as events in time, were borne by Christ. The eternal and infinite reality of the world's SIN was borne by Him, so that all who come to Him may cast their sins on Him.
2. To illustrate the prior point, consider the faith of the Old Testament saints. They looked ahead to Christ's sacrifice and cast their sins on Him for atonement. If their faith had to be initiated by an atonement made chronologically prior, they could not have been saved. But saving faith can look ahead to the cross, or back to it, because in the cross humanity's full weight of sin is carried to judgment. Covenant theology correctly recognizes faith as the only means of salvation, both before and after the cross.
3. To maintain the idea of limited sin bearing, some would take this passage as John the Baptist informing his fellow Jews that Christ will atone for the sin of the Gentiles (and not just the Jews). But the argument itself would force us, without any ground from the text, to go even further and limit it to the elect Gentiles. This move would gratuitously reduce the meaning of kosmos to "the elect," which hardly seems appropriate. Nevertheless, hyper-Calvinists like John Gill promote this unwarranted maneuver because their theology demands it.
4. Note how John uses kosmos just a few verses prior, in the prologue of his Gospel:

"There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not." (John 1:9)

To make "world" mean the elect Gentiles here would lead to an absurdity:

There was the true Light which, coming into the [realm  of] elect Gentiles, enlightens every man. He was in the [realm of] elect Gentiles, and the elect Gentiles were made by him, and the elect Gentiles knew him not.

Surely we can do better than that! Survey the way John uses kosmos throughout His Gospel and you will quickly see the "elect Gentile" idea is based purely on a theological prejudice. Why not accept the following translation?

There was the true Light which, coming into the realm of humanity, shines light upon every man. He was in the realm of humanity, and humanity was made by Him, and humanity knew Him not. (John 1:9) 

The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who bears the sin of humanity! (John 1:29)

Taking John 1:9 and 1:29 this way does not pose the slightest threat to a Reformed view of salvation and preserves us from the charge of Scripture twisting. At the end of this article, we'll offer a solution for the tension this creates in systematic theology. For now, can you accept that it is the plain meaning of the text itself?

The Wrath-Averting Potency of the Atonement

No single verse of Scripture is clearer than I John 2:2 in affirming the complete sufficiency of the atonement for all of humanity. There are several exegetical and contextual clues which argue strongly against the common high Calvinist interpretation that reduces "world" to the elect. Let's take a brief look . . .

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. (I John 2:1-2)

1. John does not say Christ propitiated for the sins of the whole world, but that He IS THE PROPITIATION. John is pointing us to the incalculable value of the Person of Christ as the One offered in sacrifice, not to the work of Christ as having secured actual redemption for all people. Christ is the propitiation for the whole world, but He is the advocate of believers only. As our advocate, He applies the benefits of His propitiatory work to believers in particular.

2. John does not necessarily mean Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, but that he is the propitiation FOR THE WHOLE WORLD. The phrase, "sins of" is added by the translator, as A.T. Robertson notes: "It is possible to supply the ellipsis here of τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν (the sins of) as we have it in Hebrews 7:27, but a simpler way is just to regard "the whole world" as a mass of sin (I John 5:19)" Thus, we can regard Christ as the propitiation for the world. That is, He is the only sin-bearing and wrath-averting sacrifice the world can ever have before God.

3. To make "world" in this passage mean "elect Gentiles," one would have to interpret John's "our" as referring to Jewish believers only. However, John was writing to a mixed group of believers, probably late in the First Century when the Church was already filled with Gentiles. In this context, "world" clearly means something like "world of humanity," not "world of elect Gentiles."
4. I John 3:1 and 3:13 provide important context, showing that the "world" referred to in 2:2 cannot be made to mean "elect Gentiles" or anything like it.
5. I John 5:19 says the "whole world lies in the power of the evil one." Here John lets us know exactly what he means by "world." The "whole world" for which Christ is the propitiation is the same "whole world" which now lies in the power of the evil one. It would be ludicrous for John to mean all the elect Gentiles lie in the power of the evil one, especially in view of the way he carefully recounts Jesus' debate with the Jewish Pharisees in John 8, showing clearly that they were the children of the devil.


I John 2:2 is not arguing against the Jewish eclecticism that the Church had dealt with decades earlier. It is instead a powerful argument for the exaltation of the sufficiency and exclusivity of the work of Christ - and the potency of that work. With great joy we realize that Christ's blood is more than sufficient for both our sinful condition and all of our particular sins, and more than sufficient for the sins of every person to whom we proclaim God's mercy in the Gospel.

Don't be afraid of this plain Biblical Truth, my Calvinist brothers. Our soteriology does not fall apart simply because John says Christ is the propitiation for the whole world of humanity. Nothing in the Bible is ever going to make Arminianism or any other error true. We must be willing to recognize the definite effects of the atonement without trimming down its real sufficiency. Christ's work could potentially save every human being. There is enough sin-bearing potency in His one sacrifice to save every sinner who has ever lived, every sinner who will ever live, and every sinner who could ever live. We don't need to limit the inherent power of the atonement when God has only limited its application.

The Infinite Power of the Atonement

The wisest of our Reformed forebears affirmed this famous axiom of the atonement:

"Sufficient for all, efficient for the elect only." 

This means Christ would not have had to suffer more if there were more elect souls. He bore the concentrated wrath of God in its fullness, offering enough in His one sacrifice to save all sinners and to cover all sins.

What do we gain by reducing the atonement to a mere extension of the doctrine of election? Clearly, this was not what the writers of the Canons of the Synod of Dordt had in mind when they penned the following:

Head 2: The Death of Christ, and the Redemption of Men Thereby

ARTICLE 3. The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.

ARTICLE 6. And, whereas many who are called by the gospel do not repent nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief, this is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves.

Note the use of the word "infinite." When we consider the power of Christ's atoning work, we must bear in mind that we are not dealing with the finite quantities of a mathematical transaction, but the infinite punishment due for infinite offense rendered against an infinitely holy God. The atonement is an infinite sacrifice offered by an infinite Being in behalf of infinitely sinful sinners. Again, He does not bear our sins as mere events, but sin itself as the reality of our condition. If our sinfulness, for which Christ atoned, is infinite in its nature, there can be no limit to the sufficiency of the atonement. On the other hand, if our sin is infinite but the power of Christ's atonement is in any sense finite, we cannot possibly be saved. Note that I said "power", and not "effect".


What, then, of double jeopardy? Did Christ suffer a punishment for all sinners that some sinners will later have to experience in hell? No, Christ did not suffer more - or less - than He would have needed to suffer had God's eternal purpose involved the salvation of one, some, or all sinners. Infinity is infinity, no matter how many times it is multiplied or divided, so the question is one of application. The world's infinite sin was multiplied to Christ's account, and now His atonement is divided to the elect (a.k.a., those who believe). The transaction can neither increase nor reduce the infinite sinfulness of the sin, nor can it alter the infinite potency of the price that was paid for it. If sin itself, with its infinite penalty, has been borne by the Son, then every specific sin brought to Him can justly be forgiven, and every specific sinner who comes to Him can justly be saved from sin. For those who do not come, the atonement has no effect. Sufficient payment is not the same as effectual payment.


As Calvinists and Bible believers, we know that the ones who come to Him are those effectually called and irresistibly drawn by saving grace.


The atonement is the payment of an infinite debt, and because the payment is infinite it is sufficient for all. Christ died under the weight of all humanity's sin. Christ died for the world - not with a final saving result for every sinner who has ever lived - but in some sense, Biblically, we cannot avoid the conclusion that the atonement is for the world of sinners. It is not just for the "world" of the elect. Yet, because of divine election, it is meant especially for the elect.

It should be noted that even the non-elect benefit from Christ's atonement because it gives God a just ground for delaying their punishment and blessing them temporally with common grace. On the ground of an infinite atonement, God by the standards of His own justice is free to give or withhold as much mercy as He chooses, on whom He chooses, for as long as He chooses.


I don't think this is the final word on the matter. Yet I believe I have offered a reasonable and exegetically-driven explanation of a moderate Calvinist approach that takes the apparently contradictory Biblical teachings of Universal Atonement and Particular Redemption seriously. And I believe I have shown they are not irreconcilable.

One final note: if you won't take my word for it, consider the Heidelberg Catechism:

Question 37. What dost thou understand by the words, "He suffered"?

Answer: That he, all the time that he lived on earth, but especially at the end of his life, sustained in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sins of all mankind: that so by his passion, as the only propitiatory sacrifice, he might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, and obtain for us the favour of God, righteousness and eternal life.

That strikes the right balance.

For further study, see Curt Daniel's discussion of the Extent and Intent of the Atonement
_________________________________________________
NOTES:

We can learn much from Wayne Grudem's balance and sobriety as he discusses the extent of the atonement:

The statements "Christ died for his people only" and "Christ died for all people" are both true in some senses, and too often the argument over this issue has been confused because of various senses that can be given to the word "for" in these two statements. . . . 

. . . the sentence, "Christ died for all people," is true if it means, "Christ died to make salvation available to all people" or if it means "Christ died to bring the free offer of the gospel to all people." In fact, this is the kind of language Scripture itself uses in passages like John 6:51; I Timothy 2:6; and I John 2:2. It really seems to be only nit-picking that creates controversies and useless disputes when Reformed people insist on being such purists in their speech that they object any time someone says that "Christ died for all people." There are certainly acceptable ways of understanding that sentence that are consistent with the speech of the scriptural authors themselves.

(Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Zondervan: 1994, p. 601)

Although I disagree with some of Grudem's arguments and find his discussion of the extent of the atonement a bit confusing and convoluted, I greatly appreciate his demeanor and charity.