A Multi-Intentioned View of the Extent of the Atonement

Shultz

• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781630871222
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Religion

Christians strongly disagree about the extent of the atonement. Some believe that the atonement only extends to the elect, those whom God chose to save before the foundation of the world. Others believe the atonement is unlimited, that Jesus died for all people whether they ever believe in him or not. Despite the differences in these two traditional understandings they share one thing in common: both believe that Jesus died for a single, intended purpose. But what if God's intentions in the atonement are multiple, not single? The Bible teaches exactly this, that Jesus died both to pay for the sins of all people and to secure the salvation of those God chose to believe in him before time began. This book explains and defends a multi-intentioned view of the extent of the atonement, asserting that this view does the best job of understanding all of what the Bible says about the extent of the atonement, is more theologically comprehensive than the traditional views, and has the best potential for consensus on who exactly Jesus Christ died for when he was crucified for our sins.

Chapter 1

Introduction

The Debate over the Extent of the Atonement

At issue in the extent of the atonement is the question: for whom did Jesus Christ die? Evangelicals have debated the answer to that question since the Reformation with no consensus, though the issue can be traced back to the earliest days of church history. The recent revival of Calvinist theology within evangelicalism has only intensified the debate, as the extent of the atonement is the most disputed of the “five points of Calvinism.”1 As Calvinists and Arminians continue to contrast their respective systems of theology, the extent of the atonement continues to be a point of contention.2 Other reasons contribute to the ongoing nature of this debate as well. Scripture refers to it often, but almost always indirectly, and in the context of other doctrinal or practical matters, which makes it open to different interpretations. Those on both sides of the debate often talk past each other, using the same vocabulary but defining their terms differently, which produces unnecessary confusion. Uncharitable and arrogant rhetoric often drives those on both sides of the issue to accentuate their differences, preventing healthy discussion and circumventing consensus.3

Traditionally there have been two primary evangelical positions regarding the extent of the atonement.4 Either Jesus died only for those who experience the saving benefits of his atonement, or he died for all people regardless of their salvific destiny. The former position is most commonly referred to as “limited atonement,” but is also called “definite atonement” or “particular redemption.”5 Particular redemption asserts that God offered his Son, Jesus Christ, as an atoning sacrifice in order to save a particular group of people, his elect, and therefore Christ only paid for the sins of the elect. Christ’s death did not make salvation possible for all people, though there is some disagreement concerning the sufficiency of the atonement for all of humanity.6 Supporters of particular redemption base their position in part upon verses of Scripture that seem to restrict the atonement to those who are saved, such as Matthew 1:21; John 6:37–40; 10:11, 15; Acts 20:28; Romans 8:31–39; 2 Corinthians 5:15; Ephesians 5:25; Titus 2:14; and Revelation 5:9. They also appeal to several biblical and theological arguments to make their case. Supporters of particular redemption assert:

1. Since God is completely sovereign, and his will can never be thwarted, all people would be saved if Christ died for all people, because Christ would desire to save everyone for whom he died, and therefore unlimited atonement logically results in universalism.
2. If Christ paid for every person’s sins, then God would be unjust to send anyone to hell, because he would then be making them pay for sins that had already been paid for by Christ. If even the sin of unbelief is paid for, then God would be unjust to punish sinners for their unbelief.
3. Since Christ died to actually secure salvation for his people (Rom 5:10; Gal 1:4, 3:13; Eph 1:7), he could not have died for all people because not all people are saved.
4. Scripture seems to present Christ’s atonement and intercession as coextensive (John 17), which means that Christ only died for those for whom he also intercedes, the elect.
5. Unlimited atonement creates conflict within the Trinity because it has the Son working to save all people while the Father and the Spirit work to save only the elect.
6. Unlimited atonement undermines union with Christ, for if believers are presently united with Christ, they were certainly united with him in his death and resurrection.

Many consider particular redemption to be the traditional Calvinist position, though it has never been a consensus view within Calvinism.7

The second answer given to the question of whom Jesus died for is that Jesus died for every single person who has ever lived and who ever will live. This position is most popularly known as “unlimited atonement,” but is also called “general atonement,” “general redemption,” or “universal atonement.”8 Unlimited atonement asserts that God offered his Son as an atoning sacrifice in order to pay for the sins of everyone in the entire world. This atonement then makes salvation possible for all people, without exception, and becomes effective when accepted by the individual through faith. Unlimited atonement appeals to Scriptures such as Isaiah 53:6; John 3:16; Romans 5:6–8; 2 Corinthians 5:14–15, 19; 1 Timothy 2:4–6; 4:10; 2 Peter 2:1; 3:9; 1 John 2:2; and 4:14. Like advocates of particular redemption, supporters of unlimited atonement also use several biblical and theological arguments to advance their position. They assert:

1. Since God loves all people, it is inconceivable that he would send Christ to die for only part of the human race.
2. God’s desire for the salvation of all people demands an unlimited atonement (1 Tim 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9).
3. The universal gospel offer demands an unlimited atonement.
4. The atonement does not automatically save the elect; Christians must put their faith in Christ’s atonement for it to save them, therefore unlimited atonement does not necessarily result in universalism.
5. God is not unfair in sending those whom Christ died for to hell as long as they are not in Christ through faith.
6. Passages of Scripture that describe the atonement as being for believers do not necessarily rule out other passages of Scripture that speak of it being for all people.

Unlimited atonement is the traditional Arminian, Lutheran, and Catholic position, and some Calvinists hold to it as well.

Many consider the Calvinist understanding of unlimited atonement to be different enough from the non–Calvinist understanding so as to be considered on its own. Disagreement between the Calvinist and non–Calvinist positions has to do with the intent, or purpose, of the atonement. The majority of those in the unlimited atonement camp, Arminians and non–Calvinists, believe Christ’s intent in the atonement was to pay for the sins of all humanity equally.9 Calvinists who hold to unlimited atonement, however, believe that Christ paid for the sins of all humanity, but he did so with different intentions for the elect and nonelect.10 Labels such as Amyraldianism, hypothetical universalism, limited/unlimited atonement, four–point Calvinism, and moderate Calvinism all have been used of this position. Many evangelicals use one of these terms as a blanket term for all Calvinistic proposals of the extent of the atonement, but there are significant differences in some of these proposals.11 While none of the Calvinistic positions on the atonement have created widespread consensus, this recognition of more than one purpose in the atonement offers us a promising way forward in the debate.

The Need for a Multi-intentioned Approach

The debate over the extent of the atonement centers on the intent or purpose of the atonement. Louis Berkhof puts it this way: “On the other hand, the question does relate to the design of the atonement. Did the Father in sending Christ, and did Christ in coming into the world, to make atonement for sin, do this with the design or for the purpose of only saving the elect or all men? That is the question and that only is the question.”12 In seeking to ascertain whom Christ died for on the cross, both particular redemption and unlimited atonement atte...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Foreword
• Acknowledgments
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Historical Background for a Multi-Intentioned View
• Chapter 3: Jesus Christ’s Payment for the Sins of All People in the Atonement
• Chapter 4: The General Intentions of the Atonement
• Chapter 5: The Particular Intentions of the Atonement
• Chapter 6: Conclusion
• Bibliography