Limiting the Atonement

I have been told that my Calvinistic view of the Atonement "disgraces the cross" and that it "slaps Christ in the face". Some Arminians get very angry when they are exposed to the idea of "Limited Atonement". When I was an Arminian I did too. It sounded like heresy to me also. This was actually the last of the so-called "5 points of Calvinism" for me to grasp.

The Reformed doctrine of the Atonement went against all I had ever heard preached, or that I had preached myself. It seemed to contradict John 3:16, and Romans 10:13, that says "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved". Today I want to let an Arminian theologian weight in on the topic and see if only we Calvinists are guilty of teaching a "limited Atonement"!

Concerning the Atonement, Arminian Theologian Dr. J. Kenneth Grider (pictured above), has written:

"A spillover from Calvinism into Arminianism has occurred in recent decades. Thus many Arminians whose theology is not very precise say that Christ paid the penalty for our sins. Yet such a view is foreign to Arminianism, which teaches instead that Christ suffered for us. Arminians teach what Christ did he did for every person; therefore what he did could not have been to pay the penalty, since no one would then ever go into eternal perdition." -Evangelical Dictionary of Theology p.80 (emphasis mine)

Please note what Dr. Grider has said:

1. When modern Arminians speak of Christ "paying the penalty" for sins, it is a spill over from CALVINISM and their form of Arminian theology is "not precise".
2. True Arminianism teaches that Jesus only "suffered" for sins.
3. The idea that Christ paid for anyone's sin is FOREIGN to Arminianism.
4. Had Jesus actually "paid the penalty" for sins, Grider would have to conclude that not one person who has ever lived would be cast into Hell! (Universalism)

(I want to point out that Universalists are simply taking modern Arminianism --that Jesus died for every person who ever lived AND that it was an actual payment for their sins-- to its logical conclusion. The conclusion of Dr. Grider's statement shows that he would probably agree. Thankfully, no Arminian that I know would ever teach Universalism.)

To my knowledge, neither Arminians, nor Calvinists, teach that the Atonement had any redemptive power for the sins of fallen angels. Neither side teaches that people can be saved without repentance and faith and in Jesus. Therefore, we see at least in these respects, both sides limit the Atonement in some ways.

Calvinists contend that Jesus died to pay the penalty for the sins of the Elect: thus limiting for whom Jesus' blood was intended to save. Grider's form of Arminianism teaches that Jesus "suffered" for the sins of every human who ever lived, but that his blood actually made no payment for the sins of anyone: thus limiting it's power to atone for, or take away, the sins of anyone! Either way you slice it, whether Calvinist or Arminian, you teach a "limited Atonement".

I believe that the idea of a "general atonement" is actually foreign to Scripture. When one looks at the Old Testament sacrificial system, there were always specific sacrifices, for the specific sins of specific people! Even the national "Yom Kippur" sacrifice (Leviticus 16) was specific (or limited) in that was only for Israel: God's chosen people! None of the other nations had any part in it!

Revelation 5:9 says that Jesus "purchased for God with [His] blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation (NASB)". Notice it says, Jesus purchased "men from" every tribe, tongue, people, and nation: not that He purchased "every man from" every tribe, tongue, people, and nation! This verse alone shows very clearly that Jesus' blood did not, and will not, actually purchase redemption for every single person without exception.

Let me be clear, Calvinists affirm that Jesus' blood was sufficient to pay for all the sins of every human who has ever lived. We believe that -had God decreed it- Jesus' blood could have redeemed all of humanity without exception. I believe true Calvinists would defend that idea to the last man. There's no disputing Jesus' death was of infinite value and power.

Charles Spurgeon sums up the Calvinist position quite well:

"We hold most firmly the doctrine of particular redemption, that Christ loved his Church, and gave himself for it; but we do not hold the doctrine of the limited value of his precious blood. There can be no limit to Deity, there must be infinite value in the atonement which was offered by him who is divine. The only limit of the atonement is in its design, and that design was that Christ should give eternal life to as many as the Father has given him; but in itself the atonement is sufficient for the salvation of the whole world, and if the entire race of mankind could be brought to believe in Jesus, there is enough efficacy in his precious blood to cleanse everyone born of woman from every sin that all of them have ever committed."

Please understand, my desire is not to close up the doors of Heaven to anyone. I do not want to limit the Atonement where God has not limited it Himself. I hope that I have shown that no matter what theological position you subscribe to -outside of Universalism- you limit the Atonement in some way whether you realize it or not!

None of us know whom God has chosen for Salvation. However, we are commanded to share the Gospel and make it known that whoever repents and believes in Jesus will be saved. We can do this boldly knowing that Jesus has laid His life down for the sheep, and that His sheep will hear His voice when He calls them.

Soli Deo Gloria!