Kingdom People

January 5, 2007

Why “Limited” and “Unlimited” Atonement Debates Miss the Point

Filed under: Theology — trevinwax @ 6:50 am

winepour.jpg 

Did Jesus come to earth to die only the sins of those who would trust in Him? Or did Jesus come to die for the sins of the whole world? Did Jesus die for everyone? Or only for the Elect? Alas, the questions that arise in theological discussions between Calvinism and Arminianism.

Those who hold that Jesus came to the world with the intention of dying only for the Elect espouse what is called “limited atonement” or “particular redemption.” Those who believe that Jesus’ intent was to die for the sins of all humanity hold to “unlimited atonement.” Both positions seem to have biblical support. But I believe that Scripture’s seemingly contradictory evidence for these views should alert us to the fact that we are probably asking the wrong question.

The debates regarding the extent of the atonement place a foreign paradigm on the biblical text and thus inevitably bring forth answers that are skewed by our presupposed theological framework. Both the limited and unlimited views of the atonement are misplaced, because they are putting emphasis on only one portion of God’s salvific work, instead of taking in the vast, universal scope of redemption described by Scripture.

First, the question of the atonement’s extent comes up when we seek to express the meaning of Christ’s atoning death apart from his triumphant resurrection. Indeed the Apostle Paul commands us to hold these two truths together when he writes that “if Christ has not been raised, you are still in your sins.” (1 Corinthians 15:17)

Secondly, the question of limited or unlimited atonement arises when we overemphasize God’s work in saving individual human beings to the exclusion of the Scriptural teaching of God’s restoration of the entire cosmos. (Romans 8:18-25, 2 Corinthians 5:19)

Christ’s death on the cross in the place of sinners is substitutionary. (1 Corinthians 5:7, Ephesians 5:2, Colossians 1:20, Romans 5:8-9) He, the innocent, righteous One drank the cup of God’s wrath in order that guilty sinners might not have to. (Mark 10:45) But in addition to this, Jesus died to “reconcile the world” to God (2 Corinthians 5:19) and to defeat the powers of sin and death (1 Corinthians 15:25-26) that hold the creation in bondage and decay (Romans 8). Ultimately, the main point of Christ’s death and resurrection is not simply the salvation of individual human beings, but the restoration of the universe to its original shalom, which has as its ultimate end the glorification of God, that He may be “all in all.” (1 Corinthians 15:28)

Instead of taking the question of the atonement’s extent by beginning with our personal salvation in the center, I suggest we begin with the grand picture of God as “all in all,” and begin to work backwards from there to the question of limited or unlimited atonement.

The Gospel is first and foremost an announcement about Jesus. (Ephesians 1:16-23) Jesus is the King, the world’s True Lord. Christ’s atoning death is the obedience and sacrifice required by God in order to save and vindicate his people. Their vindication will be the evidenced in the resurrection of the physical body and participation in God’s new creation. Jesus is the firstfruits of this new creation. (1 Cor. 15:20-21) In the resurrection of Jesus, we see that God has declared him to be both “Lord and Christ.” (Acts 2:36)

Therefore, Scripture can speak of the atonement using both limited and unlimited terminology. The atonement is limited in its application because Jesus’ blood covers only those who put their trust in him. In this sense, Jesus is the Lord over his church, a particular group of people who have been “called out” from among all tribes and tongues and nations. They have pledged allegiance to their King, confessing him as Lord and believing in his resurrection. (Romans 10:9-13) The called-out chosen ones of God are the only ones who will experience God’s new creation and avoid the wrath to come.

In another sense, the atonement is unlimited, because Jesus did not come only to die for the sins of his elect (the limited position), nor even for the sins of all people (the unlimited position), but in order that the entire universe might be brought back into the shalom for which it was originally created. In this sense, Scripture can speak of Jesus’ atonement being universal in scope (though not in the universalistic sense that guarantees salvation for all).

1 Timothy 4:10 speaks of Jesus as the Savior of all. How can this be? Obviously not everyone confesses Jesus as personal Lord and Savior! This verse teaches us that Jesus is Lord and Savior, whether people believe in him or not. 

People can claim that George W. Bush is not the U.S. president and even refuse to submit to his authority. That does not change the fact of his presidency. In the same way, Jesus’ lordship and his identity as the Savior “of the world” (1 John 2:2) does not depend on my confession of him as such. He is the Savior of all and He is the Lord of all, even though he goes unrecognized by the majority of the world’s population. His lordship is objective reality, not dependent on my subjective experience. Scripture affirms that the day of his “appearing,” will come, when every knee will bow and every tongue confess his lordship (Philippians 2:11).

Jesus is Savior of all, and “especially of those who believe”. (1 Tim. 4:10) In one sense, the entire world benefits from Christ’s death on the cross through common grace, the blessings of living under Christ’s rule, the influence of the Church, and the beginning of new creation. In a more specific sense, however, only the elect benefit personally and eternally from Christ’s death through participation in the eternal state, the forgiveness of sins, and membership among God’s chosen people.

When God’s work of new creation is at the center of our thinking and not our own personal salvation, the question of “limited” or “unlimited” atonement is shown to be too narrow. Wondering about the atonement’s extent misses the point and fails to understand the meaning of Jesus’ blood within the larger picture of cosmic redemption brought through the cross of Christ.

written by Trevin Wax. © 2007 Kingdom People Blog

28 Comments »

  1. Wow. Excellent post. I will be linking to this one.

    Comment by Stephen Newell — January 5, 2007 @ 1:59 pm

  2. Thanks for the link. I’m glad you found the article helpful.

    Comment by trevinwax — January 5, 2007 @ 2:07 pm

  3. [...] 6.Hey, what about Sarah? 7. Trevin Wax weighs in on “limited” atonement. 8. This apparent strategy of President Bush may be the most significant event of [...]

    Pingback by Jesus Creed » Weekly Meanderings — January 6, 2007 @ 8:11 am

  4. An Alternative to Calvinism and Arminianism?

    Trackback by The Schooley Files — January 6, 2007 @ 11:32 am

  5. [...] read this article today called “Why ‘Limited’ and ‘Unlimited’ Atonement Debates Miss the Point” by Trevin Wax. He does a very good job of outlining the two view on limited atonement (Christ died [...]

    Pingback by Stability of Our Times » Article: Limited and Unlimited Atonement — January 6, 2007 @ 12:04 pm

  6. Trevin, I like your thoughts here on this. We’re not framing the issue the way Scripture does, consequently whatever picture we put up, isn’t right- perhaps.

    Comment by Ted Gossard — January 6, 2007 @ 12:09 pm

  7. If I recall correctly Jesus ministered to the dregs of society, prostitutes, beggars, and lepers. His concern was for the poor and the hungry, in spirit and body.

    Got your hands dirty lately?

    Comment by mssuicidebomber — January 6, 2007 @ 4:27 pm

  8. I always seem to find mssuicidebomber and she always seems to miss the point of a post. Interesting outline of the two extreme atonements.

    Comment by Alex E. Sidoro — January 7, 2007 @ 4:49 am

  9. No I did not miss the point of the post Mr Sidoro. I simply refuse to engage in the intellectual debate. I chose instead to offer a more practical approach.

    Theologians have taken a simple man, with a simple message, and built layer upon layer of dogma,continue to debate this dogma, thereby divorcing themselves from their humanity.

    A person can intellectualize any subject and not have to confront life, death, the poor, the hungry.These were the subjects Christ concerned himself with. He encouraged action, not thought. It is my understanding that according to the Bible a man cannot think himself into atonement, he must act. The final answer will be revealed upon the death of the body. Until then all is faith and speculation.

    Comment by mssuicidebomber — January 7, 2007 @ 9:59 am

  10. Thank you for the feedback. Let’s try to keep the comments on-subject. There are other posts where we can discuss Christian actions (or lack of). This is one where we are discussing Christian belief. Jesus encouraged both action AND thought. (What else does “Love the Lord your God with all your MIND” mean?)

    Comment by trevinwax — January 7, 2007 @ 11:50 am

  11. My apologies. I admit to having issues with Christian belief.

    Comment by mssuicidebomber — January 7, 2007 @ 12:26 pm

  12. Good article, and I like where you took it. My question is this, who are the elect? Rather, does God choose who will be covered by “limited atonement” (as suggested by Romans 9), or do we have a choice to make (as suggested by Deuteronomy 30)?

    Just curious as to your thoughts. Thanks

    Comment by Ish — January 8, 2007 @ 11:05 am

  13. I believe God chooses, and as a result of God’s choice, we then choose Him.

    Comment by trevinwax — January 8, 2007 @ 11:18 am

  14. Thanks for the thoughts.

    Comment by revish — January 8, 2007 @ 6:24 pm

  15. [...] 9th, 2007 A really good article at Kingdom People Blog regarding limited and unlimited atonement. Here are some [...]

    Pingback by Limited and Unlimited Atonement Miss the Point « Theologian — January 9, 2007 @ 8:56 am

  16. [...] Miss the Point” Posted by lbc3 under Christianity , Atonement , Limited Atonement  Why “Limited” and “Unlimited” Atonement Debates Miss the Point « Kingdom People [...]

    Pingback by Kingdom People: “Why ‘Limited’ and ‘Unlimited’ Atonement Debates Miss the Point” « Handiwork — January 9, 2007 @ 9:08 am

  17. I think it is a stretch to say the debate misses the point. Instead, it seems that this article misses the point of the debate. The point of the debate between particular atonement and unlimited atonement is concerned with the relationship between the work of Christ on the cross and humanity. The word “atonement” itself locks us into this. The physical world was not atoned for. Yes, the world will be restored, but the physical world had no sins for which atonement was necessary. So, it seems that we have to accept the limited confines of the debate, which is about humanity and the cross, and not the rest of the physical world.
    I do appreciate, however, the healthy reminder that the work of Christ does indeed have cosmic implications.

    Comment by Jonathan Brooks — January 9, 2007 @ 9:27 am

  18. Interesting point of view. Unfortunately, it is clear that “God sent His Son” and “Jesus died on the cross” for humans. We are the ones that need atonement. The earth was only cursed after the Fall.

    Comment by Manuel — January 9, 2007 @ 10:50 am

  19. Well said, Jonathan Brooks. I appreciate the post and the reminders it brings, however it still fails to answer the questions so wrapped up in the atonement debate. It is probably not accurate to say that the debate is missing the point. That, of course, would depend on what “the point” is. Your post correctly reminds us of the universal effects of Christ’s cross-work, however, it does not answer the question of what eternal effects Christ’s work has on those who do not believe. Nor does it answer the question of what God’s intention was, as it relates to us humans, in sending his Son to die. Those are the issues the particular/universal debate addresses.

    Comment by Will — January 9, 2007 @ 12:53 pm

  20. The reason my article doesn’t answer the questions you have posed is because I believe the questions themselves are misplaced. God’s intention is that He be all-in-all. The story of the world is about His glory, first and foremost. When we place our personal salvation in the center of the picture, our questions get skewed. That’s why the “limited” and “unlimited” positions seem to both have biblical support. The NT writers were not addressing that issue, because they saw their own salvation within the overarching plan of God for redeeming all of creation (humanity, of course, included - which is why an atonement is necessary to begin with).

    Comment by trevinwax — January 9, 2007 @ 1:04 pm

  21. >No I did not miss the point of the post
    >Mr Sidoro. I simply refuse to engage in the
    >intellectual debate. I chose instead to
    >offer a more practical approach.

    The ironic thing is that it is what you
    wrote that is in fact Phariseeism.

    “Obey Jesus’ radical commands of action, but
    you’ll have to do it all under your own power;
    no supernatural help for you” is pure works of
    the flesh. Destined to fail in the long run;
    nothing but filthy rags before God.

    Comment by holmegm — January 10, 2007 @ 5:07 am

  22. One thing about the atonement is that it is the satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. Not all will be redeemed but all have been purchased. In the universal purchase, all have been bought. That means that you have a new owner. The new owner still expects to be paid. You simply now have a new owner to pay. The advantage of having Christ as the new owner of humanity is that He agrees to cover your debt, in its entirety, simply by trusting in Him. That’s His special offer. You didn’t get that offer with the old owner, but you do with the new owner. However, if you do not take His offer, then your debt remains, which will be paid in Hell until every last cent is paid up. That is the distinction between the universal purchase, and individual redemption.

    Richard Coords
    Editor of ExaminingCalvinism.com

    Comment by Richard Coords — January 15, 2007 @ 5:04 pm

  23. Exploring Atonement

    So, over the next [I don’t know how long] I have decided to do a series on Exploring the Atonement.
    Being the seasoned theologian and all (sarcastic), I thought it would be a fantastic topic to get to know better - especially since I’ve hea…

    Trackback by Coops was here — March 5, 2007 @ 3:23 am

  24. One must remember that the Scripture is complete in its entirety. The Will of God is revealed and hence, whoever is to expound or comment on the Scripture must do it in full and not just what you want people to hear. As this subject is about the “atonement”, make up your mind whether it’s limited or unlimited.

    The Scripture clearly defines that “Christ shall save his people from their sins (Matthew 1:21).” And Jesus even says, “and he calleth his own sheep by name… I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. (John 10:3,14)” In these verses alone, it clearly demonstrate that the Atonement by Jesus Christ is indeed “limited”. Yes, there is a particular group of sinful people, whom the Scripture calls, the “elect” that will receive mercy from God. “For many are called, but few are chosen. (Matthew 22:14)”

    So then, are you able to go to Christ of your own will (the Scripture does not preach such a gospel) or because God has drawn you to Christ (in John 6:44, Christ proclaim “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him…”).

    And finally, when was the “elect” chosen? When he was on earth and he chose Christ? Far be from this gospel of confusion, Paul in Ephesians 1:4 says “According as he hath chosen us in him (Christ) before the foundation of the world…” The doctrine of sovereign election is established. And in the lives of Jacob and Esau, Paul says in Romans 9:11, “For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth…”

    Praise and glory to God. Amen.

    Comment by Chris Tan — March 27, 2007 @ 3:54 am

  25. The best view I’ve read to bring the apparent clash between Limited and Unlimited passages together into a good systematic understanding is “God’s Wrath Postponed” by D Michael Turner. It can be previewed in Google Books.
    Your views are close, but slightly different.

    Comment by David Turner — April 27, 2007 @ 6:09 pm

  26. Thanks David for the tip. I’ll look it up on Google.

    Comment by trevinwax — April 27, 2007 @ 6:46 pm

  27. [...] that Calvin affirmed the later Calvinist concept of “particular redemption.” Click here for my thoughts on that [...]

    Pingback by Book Review: Theology of the Reformers « Kingdom People — October 8, 2007 @ 3:55 pm

  28. [...] #6. Why “Limited” and “Unlimited” Atonement Debates Miss the Point [...]

    Pingback by The Best of Kingdom People: 6-10 « Kingdom People — October 25, 2007 @ 3:45 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Blog at WordPress.com.