What is Limited Atonement?
Limited Atonement is the belief that Christ's sacrifice is very limited in its scope. Only the sins of the elect are covered, whereas anyone who is not elect was never even potentially saved.
​
The Bible Brain Position
Of all the so called Doctrines of Grace, I find Limited Atonement to be the most indefensible, and the first reason for that is that it is quite literally so. There are no scriptures, be it a verse or a passage, that state any kind of limit to atonement. Calvinists instead argue using deductive reasoning. Now, I am by no means saying deductive reasoning is an invalid form of hermeneutics. Quite the opposite, it would be impossible to do Bible study without it. You could even commit some grievous sin by simply changing the words used to describe an action. However, though entirely valid, deductive reasoning has one flaw: If a single premise fails, the whole argument fails. The main argument Calvinists use for Limited Atonement is that if Jesus died for all, and yet all are not saved, therefore Jesus failed. Jesus, of course, did not fail. Quite the opposite, He clearly tells us "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out." (John 6:37). It is also unfathomable that God should fail. Thus, the conclusion is that Jesus only died for those who will be saved. If a person goes to Hell, it's not because they rejected God's grace, but because that grace was never offered in the first place. The main problem with this argument is it has a faulty premise: That God intended for everyone He died for to necessarily come to Him. But when we look at the famous John 3:16, we see a different story. God so loved the world that He gave His only Son that whoever believes in Him would not perish, but have eternal life. And so the question for the Calvinist is, does everyone who believes in Him receive eternal life? Answer: Yes. So in what sense would someone who doesn't believe being condemned mean Jesus failed? It would mean He failed if it said "God so loved the world that He gave His only Son so that the world would not perish, but have eternal life", but as it stands, grace is only effective for those who believe. Above, we also see the main problem for Calvinists. Whereas they can only use deductive reasoning, non-Calvinists can use both deductive reasoning and explicit statements. We've already covered John 3:16, which states that God so loved the world that He gave His only Son. Verse 17 even continues to say that He did not send His Son to condemn the world, but that the world, through Him, might be saved. But there are deeper statements even than this. A common example is 1 John 2:2, which says Christ is not the propitiation of our sins only, but the sins of the world. Calvinists are quick to point out that the word "world" has more than just one meaning. This, of course, is true. However, as with all words, context determines meaning, and as it turns out, you would have to make up an entirely new meaning for the word "world" to have it mean only the elect. At this point, if John had meant the sins of the elect, He would have written the elect. There is also the issue of the comparison between Christ and Adam. In 1 Corinthians 15:22, we read "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive." Are the vessels of wrath dead in Adam? Of course they are! This is the very premise of Total Depravity. If they're not dead in Adam, they don't even need Christ to make them alive. But here's the problem: as in Adam all die, even so in Christ, all shall be made alive. And so here we have a clear statement of potential. This verse is obviously not teaching Universalism, because that would be seriously contrary to everything else the Bible teaches. The Bible is flooded with statements that, sadly, many people will be condemned. So what can this possibly mean? Well, it could be an example of what's called "prevenient grace". That is, yes, we were all totally depraved and incapable of choosing God and His ways, but God regenerates everyone to the point of being capable of choosing Him, even if He only gives them the choice. I could get behind such an interpretation. But to me, the simplest interpretation would be that when Jesus said "it is finished", He meant the entire sin debt accrued by the entire world has been cancelled. This would make sense of why false teachers, who are destroyed, are said to be denying the Lord who bought them (2 Peter 2:1). How can they be denying the Lord who bought them unless He actually bought them? Obviously, God doesn't need to buy the vessels of destruction. Who would He buy them from? Everything under Heaven is His! (Job 41:11). The only feasible interpretation is He purchased them with His own blood, like He did with the elect. The question must be asked, then, if Jesus died for all sin, why can't sin be forgiven even without faith? I think the parable of the unmerciful servant (Matthew 18:21-35) helps us out here. Obviously, the context of this does not address the extent of the atonement. However, it does show us that a debt can be returned even after it has been forgiven. In verse 27, we are told that after the servant begged for time to pay his debt, "...the master of that servant was moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt." This is reiterated in verse 32, when the Master declares "I forgave you all that debt...". And then the Master delivered the wicked servant to the torturers "...until he should pay all that was due to him." (v34). Jesus even finishes the parable by saying "So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses." So, evidently, a forgiven debt can be returned. In the case of the unmerciful servant, it was returned because he, himself, would not forgive a smaller debt than he, himself, owed. In the case of the unsaved, the debt is returned because they did not believe. With all this in mind, I believe that Limited Atonement is by far the weakest of the Doctrines of Grace. I can at least understand the reasoning behind the other 4 points, even if I don't fully agree with all of them, but when it comes to Limited Atonement, I just cannot understand the appeal. It is no surprise that Limited Atonement is the most commonly rejected of the 5 points. 4 point Calvinists who reject Limited Atonement are, in my eyes, far closer to the truth, and while Limited Atonement is not necessarily heretical, I believe it as close to heresy as you can get without actually taking that plunge.
​
And 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 KJVKJV