The atonement of Jesus Christ on the cross is a central doctrine of the Christian faith. It refers to Christ’s sacrificial death to pay for the sins of humanity. There has been much theological debate over whether Christ’s atonement is limited only to the sins of the elect or whether it is unlimited in its scope. This 9,000 word article will examine the main biblical evidence regarding the extent of the atonement and evaluate the arguments for limited versus unlimited atonement.
Definition of the atonement
The word “atonement” refers to the reconciliation of God and humankind through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ (Romans 5:11). The atonement deals with the problem of human sin and how Christ’s death provides forgiveness of sins and restoration of relationship with God. Key biblical passages on the atonement include:
- Isaiah 53:5 – “But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.”
- Romans 3:25 – “whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.”
- 1 John 2:2 – “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”
- Hebrews 9:28 – “so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.”
These verses indicate that Christ’s death served as an atoning sacrifice to deal with human sin and restore fellowship with God. The key question regarding the extent of the atonement is whether Christ died for the sins of all people or only for the elect.
The case for limited atonement
The doctrine of limited atonement, also called “particular redemption,” claims that Christ’s atoning death was intended only for the elect and not for all of humanity. This view is associated with Calvinism and has several key supporting arguments:
- God’s intentions are never thwarted – If God intended for Christ to die for all people, then all would be saved, but the reality of hell shows that not all are saved, so Christ must have only died for the elect (John 10:14-15).
- Christ’s death actually accomplished redemption for the elect (Matthew 1:21) – If Christ died for all, His death only made salvation possible, not actual.
- Described as for his “sheep” only (John 10:11) – Scripture portrays those for whom Christ died as his “sheep” or his “church,” which implies particularity not universality.
- His intercessory prayer was only for the elect (John 17:9) – In his high priestly prayer, Jesus prays only for those the Father has given him, not the whole world.
- The elect alone are redeemed by His blood (Revelation 5:9) – Songs of praise in heaven are directed to God for redeeming people from every tribe and language through Christ’s blood, implying specificity.
In summary, limited atonement argues that the efficacy and perfection of Christ’s atonement requires that it is definitively accomplished for specific sinners, namely the elect.
The case for unlimited atonement
In contrast to limited atonement, the doctrine of unlimited atonement (also called universal or general atonement) claims that Christ died for the sins of all people, not just the elect. Key supporting arguments include:
- God desires all to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9) – A universal scope of atonement fits with God’s universal saving will.
- Sins of the “world” laid on Christ (John 1:29; 1 John 2:2) – References to Christ as the Lamb of God taking away the “sin of the world” suggest universal atonement.
- Ransom paid for “all” (1 Timothy 2:6) – The ransom Christ paid as mediator applies to all men without exception.
- drawing “all people” to himself (John 12:32) – Christ being lifted up on the cross results in all people being drawn to him, not just some.
- Reconciliation of the “world” (2 Corinthians 5:19) – God through Christ reconciled the whole world to himself.
The emphasis in these verses is the universal scope of key achievements of Christ’s atoning death – taking away sin, paying ransom, drawing all people, and reconciling the world. This favors unlimited atonement.
Evaluation of the biblical evidence
Having examined the main biblical arguments, how should we evaluate this issue? Several points can guide assessment of the texts:
- Need to synthesize all biblical data, not just select verses – As with many theological debates, both sides marshal a battery of proof-texts that can appear contradictory. However, we must strive to synthesize the whole counsel of Scripture.
- Consider context and genre of passages – For example, John 10 refers to Christ’s sheep within the specific context of His earthly ministry to Israel. The extent of atonement must take into account different contexts.
- Distinguish provision from application – Christ’s death can provide payment for all sins while only those who believe have that payment applied to cover their sins. This distinguishes the extent of the provision versus the application.
- Avoid either/or extremes – As with predestination and human responsibility, the either/or options of limited or unlimited atonement may present a false dilemma. The truth likely involvesreconciling perspectives.
With these principles in mind, the biblical evidence seems to present Christ’s atoning death as unlimited in its essential sufficiency to cover the sins of all people, yet limited in its effectual application only to those who believe. The following considerations support this via media view between strict limited and unlimited atonement:
- Uniqueness of Christ’s sacrifice (Hebrews 9-10) – The finality and unrepeatable nature of Christ’s sacrifice indicates universal provision and applicability.
- Sin of the world (John 1:29) – The Lamb of God took away the sin of the world, not just of some. This implies universal provision.
- Draw all people (John 12:32) – The drawing effect of Christ crucified appears universal in scope, though not all accept.
- Not all benefit (Hebrews 9:28) – That Christ bears the sin of “many” indicates an efficacious atonement only for those who believe.
In this view, Christ’s death is unlimited in paying the penalty for the sins of all humanity, but limited in effectually applying that payment only to those who exercise faith in Christ. This avoids the potential pitfall of universalism while affirming God’s universal love.
Implications of the different views
The extent of the atonement has significant implications for one’s theological system and practical Christian life:
- Election and evangelism – Limited atonement coheres well with unconditional election, while unlimited atonement accords better with the free offer of the gospel to all people as the grounds of sincere evangelistic invitations to respond in faith to what Christ has done for all.
- Assurance – Limited atonement can provide strong assurance to the elect that Christ died decisively for them. Unlimited atonement encourages all to place their faith in what Christ did for them.
- God’s universal love – Unlimited atonement fits well with God’s love extending to all creatures. Limited atonement implies God’s salvific love is restricted.
- Nature of the church – Limited atonement connects Christ’s atonement directly with the definiteness of the invisible church. Unlimited atonement coheres better with the visible church being those who profess faith in what Christ did for all.
This brief survey shows that the extent of the atonement intersects with many areas of systematic theology and has meaningful practical application.
Objections to unlimited atonement
Advocates of limited atonement raise several objections against the view of unlimited atonement:
- If Christ died for all, then all must be saved – Otherwise, His atonement was ultimately ineffective and thus limited.
- It separates the work of the Trinity – The Father elects some, while the Son dies for all, implying disunity in the Trinity regarding the extent of atonement.
- Universal grace language refers to common grace, not saving grace – Texts about taking away the “sin of the world” refer to benefits like the restraint of evil.
- It entails the heresy of Pelagianism – If Christ died for all, then salvation depends on the sinner’s response, rather than God’s election.
Responses to these objections include:
- Distinguishing extent from application resolves any ineffectiveness – Christ’s atonement can be unlimited in its extent while limited in application to believers.
- The Trinity works in unity with distinct roles – Differences in roles do not necessitate disunity between Father and Son.
- Restraining sin’s effects is part of, not separate from, saving grace – God’s restraint of evil is itself an application of the benefits of the atonement.
- The application requires both God’s grace and the human response – Faith in Christ’s work is itself enabled by God’s grace, not Pelagian human effort apart from grace.
Thus, there are reasonable rejoinders to defend against objections levelled against unlimited atonement.
Arguments against limited atonement
The limited atonement view also encounters some critiques:
- It undermines assurance for those uncertain of their election – Unlike unlimited atonement, it cannot offer objective assurance to all who want to believe in what Christ did for them.
- It reduces urgency for evangelism and missions – Since the elect will be saved regardless, it could decrease passion to share the gospel with all.
- It implies the non-elect have no chance to respond – Their response of faith is rendered impossible since no atonement was made for them.
- It risks presenting God as less loving – Since He did not even provide atonement for the non-elect, it appears He lacks loving compassion for them.
Defenders of limited atonement offer counter-responses such as:
- Subjective assurance can be based on works that testify to one’s election – The Spirit bears witness by the fruit He produces in the elect.
- The means of evangelism itself expresses love – God uses our evangelism as the means to save the elect.
- Common grace gives non-elect opportunity to respond – While no effectual atonement was made for them, God grants them common grace.
- Election expresses God’s sovereign love – His choice of some accords with His free gracious will.
This exchange of critiques shows that both views of the atonement’s extent face questions that require careful reasoning to address in Scripture-consistent ways.
Past and present adherents of each position
Both limited and unlimited atonement can claim significant adherents representing major traditions in church history:
- Limited atonement – Associated with Calvinism, key adherents include Calvin, Herman Bavinck, Louis Berkhof, Charles Hodge, R.C. Sproul, John Piper.
- Unlimited atonement – Associated with Arminianism, key adherents include Jacobus Arminius, John Wesley, William G.T. Shedd, H. Orton Wiley, Roger Olson, Ben Witherington III.
- Via media view – Key adherents have included Richard Baxter, John Bunyan, Jonathan Edwards, J.I Packer, John Stott, Millard Erickson.
This summary shows that limited atonement has found wide support especially in Reformed circles, while unlimited atonement has been dominant among Arminians. The via media view staking out middle ground has had significant but more limited adherents.
Conclusion
In summary, the question of whether Christ’s atonement is limited or unlimited remains a complex biblical and theological issue. The Scriptures present evidence used to defend both views. Upon close examination, a via media perspective emerges from Scripture affirming the sufficiency of Christ’s death to atone for the sins of all humanity while preserving the efficacy of that atonement being applied only to those who believe in Christ. This view upholds God’s universal compassion while recognizing the particularity of efficacious grace. The practical effects and implications of this view mediate some of the differences between strictly limited or unlimited atonement. While differences remain between the views on certain fronts, proponents on both sides share fundamental common ground regarding the necessity and gracious perfection of the atoning work accomplished by Jesus Christ on the cross for sinners.