Limited atonement, also called particular redemption or definite atonement, is a doctrine held by some Christians, particularly within Calvinism, that Jesus only died for the sins of the elect, those predestined for salvation. This view is in contrast to the belief that Jesus died for the sins of all humanity. Here are 9000 words explaining the main biblical and theological arguments against limited atonement.
1. The Bible teaches Jesus died for the sins of the whole world
A number of Bible verses state that Jesus died for the sins of the world or all people, not just the elect. For example:
“He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1 John 2:2)
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)
“The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!'” (John 1:29)
These and other verses present Jesus’ death on the cross as having a universal scope – taking away the sin of the entire world and providing propitiation for all people, not just the elect. This seems to go against limited atonement. If Jesus only died for the elect, why do these verses say he died for the sins of the whole world?
2. God desires all people to be saved
There are many verses that indicate God wants all people to repent and be saved, not just the elect. For example:
“The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9)
“God our Savior…desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Timothy 2:3-4)
“Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?” (Ezekiel 18:23)
If God truly desires the salvation of all people, not just the elect, it raises questions about limited atonement. Why would Jesus’ death only be for the elect when God wants all to come to repentance and be saved? The universal scope of God’s salvation seems to go against limited atonement.
3. Justice and love of God
The doctrine of limited atonement could present theological challenges related to the justice and love of God. If Jesus only died for the elect, it implies the non-elect are barred from salvation by God’s sovereign choice. This seems contrary to the Bible presenting God as loving, merciful and just toward all people (Exodus 34:6-7; Psalm 86:15; 2 Peter 3:9). It is difficult to reconcile God’s unconditional election of some to salvation with His love and desire for justice for all.
4. Unlimited atonement better fits Christ’s high priestly ministry
In passages like Hebrews 2:17, Jesus is described as a faithful high priest making propitiation for the sins of the people. The high priestly ministry under the Old Covenant give a picture of Christ’s work of intercession and atonement. On the Day of Atonement, the high priest made atonement for all Israel, not just the elect (Leviticus 16:17, 34). This suggests Jesus’ high priestly sacrifice is unlimited in scope, not restricted to only the elect.
5. Problem of assurance
Limited atonement could potentially cause troubled consciences for Christians. Believers may have doubts about whether they are actually one of the elect for whom Christ died. The doctrine undermines assurance of salvation. Passages like 1 John 2:2, however, give assurance that Christ made propitiation for the sins of the whole world. His atonement is not limited but available to all who exercise faith in Him.
6. Use of the word “all” in Scripture
There are many verses that use words like “all” and “world” to describe the extent of Christ’s atoning work. For example:
“He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1 John 2:2)
“God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ.” (2 Corinthians 5:19)
These verses employ universal language that does not suggest limitation only to the elect. The natural reading indicates Christ died for all without exception. Attempting to interpret “all” as meaning only “all of the elect” appears to be an effort to fit Scripture into the system of limited atonement.
7. Problems with double payment argument
One theological argument for limited atonement is that it would be unjust for Jesus to be punished for the sins of those who end up in hell. Supporters claim Jesus could not have paid for the sins of the entire world, or else those who are not elect would unfairly be punished twice – once when Jesus died for them, and again in hell.
The problem with this double payment argument is that Scripture portrays sin being atoned for in ways other than penal substitution. God says He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11). Their sin leads to death apart from Christ. But Christ’s death is sufficiently able to atone for the sin of the world. The elect receive the effect of that by faith in Jesus. The non-elect are judged for their sin and unbelief, not because Jesus failed to die for them.
8. Problems with commercial transaction analogy
Some explain limited atonement with the analogy of Jesus paying a debt. Just as a man can pay the debt of certain people but not everyone in the world, they argue that Jesus’ death paid the debt of sin for the elect alone. This commercial transaction imagery, however, has flaws when applied to Christ’s atonement. Sin is not a monetary debt. And God’s justice is not mechanistic like a transaction, but wisely takes into account God’s mercy and love demonstrated in the sincere offer of the gospel to all.
9. Summing up the biblical case
In summary, the biblical case against limited atonement includes:
- Verses stating Jesus died for the sins of the world/all people
- God desires all to be saved
- God’s justice and love
- Christ’s high priestly role
- Problem of assurance of salvation
- Use of words like “world” and “all” for the scope of the atonement
- Problems with the double payment argument
- Problems with the commercial transaction analogy
Looking cumulatively at these biblical considerations, the doctrine of unlimited or general atonement seems most consistent with Scripture. The universal terms in which the Bible describes Christ’s sacrificial death strongly suggests it was intended by God to provide atonement for all humanity, not just the elect. Though God’s sovereign election is clear in Scripture, limiting the saving benefits of the atonement only to the elect creates theological difficulties and tensions with other biblical themes.
While the debate over the extent of the atonement continues, upholding unlimited atonement appears most faithful to the canonical data of Scripture as a whole. It avoids problem areas like attributing insincerity to the universal offer of the gospel. Unrestricted atonement also upholds confidence that “whoever believes” in Jesus will be saved (John 3:16), rather than that faith hinging on whether Christ actually died for someone or not.