Did Christ Die For All?
by Samual Telloyan
Copies available from:
Bible for Today, 900 Park Avenue, Collingswood, NJ 609-854-4452
Ask for #586
Introduction
The question considered in this study of the Bible is, "For whom did Christ
die?" Some answer, "For all." Others answer, "Only for the
elect." What sayeth the Scriptures?
Those known as Arminians hold that Christ's death was for all men alike, and that it
secured for everyone a measure of common grace whereby all are able to believe if they
will. This Arminian view is not the subject of this investigation; only the differences
among Calvinists are here being examined.
Those who consider that Christ died only for the elect can for convenience be referred
to as limited redemptionists. By limited redemption or limited atonement, according to
Thomas Simmons, is meant "that Christ died for the elect and for the elect only; that
the value and design or application, the sufficiency and efficiency of it are the same;
that Christ in no sense whatsoever died for any that shall perish in hell."
Berkhof has stated it precisely: "Did God in sending His Son into the world to be
the Savior of sinners, and did Christ by taking upon Himself the work of redemption,
intend to save all men, that is, all the individuals of the human race; or did they intend
to save only the elect?"
Those who feel that this position is not true to Scripture, the unlimited
redemptionists, say that Christ Jesus died for all, but only those who trust Him receive
eternal life. Chafer says of this group, which he calls moderate Calvinists: "Men of
this group believe that Christ died actually and fully for all men of this age alike, that
God has ordained that the gospel shall be preached to all for whom Christ died, and that
through the proclamation of the gospel He will exercise His sovereign power in saving His
elect. This group believe in the absolute depravity of man and his total inability to
believe apart from the enabling power of the Spirit, and that the death of Christ is a
sufficient ground for any and every man to be saved, should the Spirit of God choose to
draw him. They contend that the death of Christ; of itself saves no man, either actually
or potentially, but that it does render all men savable; that salvation is wrought of God
alone, and at the time the individual believes."
Now, the task is to examine the arguments for and against the limited and unlimited
atonement.
The Limited Atonement
Arguments for Limited Atonement : Some who have held to limited atonement in the
past were Augustine, Wycliffe, Luther, Spurgeon, Whitfield and Jonathan Edwards.
The first argument for the limited redemption rests on the tenet of election. Berkhof
states, "God from all eternity decreed to save a certain definite number of the
fallen human race, and at the same time determined the means by which He would effectuate
their salvation. It is but reasonable to suppose that He adapted the means precisely to
the end which he had in view. Since the election was clearly personal in decreeing the
salvation of certain persons who stood out clearly in the mind of God, we can only suppose
that He designed the necessary means also for those and for no other persons and made them
effective for the end in view."
Charles Hodge says basically the same thing: "If God from eternity determined to
save one portion of the human race and not another, it seems to be a contradiction to say
that the plan of salvation had equal reference to both portions; that the Father sent His
Son to die in the same sense for the elect and the nonelect. The doctrine of election and
the extent of the atonement are inseparably united. If you hold to one, you must hold to
the other; if you deny one, then you must deny the other."
A second argument for limited atonement, quite similar to the first, is from the
covenant of redemption. In this covenant a relation supposedly was established between the
Father and the Son and those for whom Christ would lay down His life. Since the covenant
of redemption did not include all, it follows that Christ did not die for all. Hodge
stated, "The nature of the covenant, therefore, determines the object of His
death."
A third argument for the limited atonement is the argument from the special love of
God. It is stated that God had a peculiar love to His people, to His church, to the elect,
and that this love prompted Him to send Christ. This love is compared in Scripture to the
love of a husband for his wife, which is exclusive. To this peculiar and infinite love,
the gift of Christ is uniformly referred (I John 4:10, 3:16; Rom. 5:8; John 15:13; Rom.
8:35-39; 5:1-11).
A fourth argument for the limited atonement is found in the Old Testament priesthood.
The High Priest interceded for all those for whom he offered sacrifice. He bore upon his
breast the name of the twelve tribes. He represented them, and no others, in drawing near
to God. What was true of the Old Testament Aaronic priesthood is true of Christ, for they
were types of Christ. Christ therefore intercedes for all for whom He offered Himself as a
sacrifice. He cannot be said to intercede for those who do not actually receive the
benefits of his salvation. "I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast
given me" (John 17:9).
A fifth argument for the limited atonement is that if Christ really satisfied the
demands of the law for all men, if He made atonement for all, meeting all their legal
requirements, it would seem that the law would have no further claim on them as a
condition of life, and could not very well exact another satisfaction of them by eternal
punishment.
A sixth proof for the limited atonement arises from the absurdities involved in the
unlimited position Limited redemptionists would have unlimited redemptionists say that
God's positive will, His divine purpose, and not merely His revealed will can be
frustrated by man. According to this unlimited position, it is even possible that not a
single sinner could be saved. One would even have to believe that Christ laid down His
life for the salvation of those who have already died in their sins and were consigned to
outer darkness.
Shedd stated: "It is not rational to suppose that God the Father merely determined
that God the Son should die for the sin of the world, leaving it wholly, or in part, to
the sinful world to determine all the result of this stupendous transaction; leaving it
wholly, or in part, to the sinful world to decide how many or how few this death should
actually save. Neither is it rational to suppose that the Son of God would lay down His
life upon such a peradventure; for it might be that not a single human soul would trust in
His sacrifice, and in this case He would have died in vain."
A final argument, the one carrying the most weight, is that various verses of Scripture
appear to teach a limited atonement. These Scriptures are the following with their
teaching importance stressed.
"And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall
save his people from their sins" (Matt. 1:21). "He was taken from prison and
from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of
the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken" (Isa. 53: 8) .
"I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. As my
Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father and I lay down my life for the sheep"
(John 10:11, 15). "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over
which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath
purchased with his own blood" (Acts 10:28). "Husbands, love your wives, even as
Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it" (Eph. 5:25). "So Christ
was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear
the second time without sin unto salvation" (Heb. 9: 98). "Therefore I will
divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong;
because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the
transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the
transgressors" (Isa. 53:12). "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay
down- his life for his friends" (John 15:13) . "I pray for them: I pray not for
the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine" (John 17: 9) .
These seven points are the basic arguments which the limited redemptionists give for
holding to a limited redemption in Scripture. The question now needs to be asked whether
these arguments are irrefutable. Are these Scriptures convincing beyond a shadow of a
doubt. or is there room to question the use of these verses?
Refutation of the Above Arguments : Concerning the first argument that the
doctrine of the election limits the atonement only to the elect, it can be stated that
this is not a Scriptural argument but rather an argument from reason. Berkhof in
presenting this view of election and limited atonement used the words, "It is
reasonable to suppose" and "we can only suppose." No chapter or verse of
Scripture is given, just a rational argument. Doctrines should not be founded upon reason
but upon Scripture.
Concerning the second argument for the limited atonement, namely that of the covenant
of redemption, it may be objected that this is another argument from reason and not from
Scripture. Where is the chapter and verse which tells of a pre-historic covenant between
the Father and Son for the salvation of the elect?
Concerning the third argument, that the love of God was peculiar to His people, His
church, His elect and that this love prompted Him to send Christ, it may be stated that
this is all very true and not to be denied; but it does not show that Christ did not also
love the harlots, drunkards, blasphemers and all Christ-rejectors. Christ has a special
love for His people, His church, His elect because these have responded to His love and
received Him as their personal Savior.
The fourth argument concerning the Old Testament High Priest may be refuted by noting
that all of those for whom the High Priest interceded were not saved. Salvation was an
individual affair and was provided for by individual obedience to God in offering the
proper sacrifices.
The fifth argument has been refuted by Chafer: "It is one of the points most
depended upon by the limited redemptionists to claim that redemption, if wrought at all,
necessitates the salvation of those thus favored....men are not severally saved by the act
of Christ in dying, but rather they are saved by the divine application of that value when
they believe. The blood of the passover lamb became efficacious only when applied to the
door post."
In regard to the sixth argument about the absurdities in the unlimited position
allowing man to frustrate the plan of God and perhaps for none to be saved, it may be said
that this is an argument based upon reason and not upon Scripture.
Concerning the limited redemptionists' strongest argument, that of the Scriptures,
where it speaks of Christ dying for His sheep, His church, His people, for many, it may be
stated that Scripture does not always include all the truth involved in the theme
presented at a given place. These verses state that Christ died for a certain group, but
they do not state that He died for them exclusive of all others. Just the statement that
Christ died for the elect does not prove the point of the limited redemptionists.
According to this logic of the limited redemptionists John 11:51 and Isaiah 53:8 teach
that Christ died only for Israel, and Galatians 2:20 would prove that Christ died only for
the Apostle Paul, for Paul declares, "who loved me, and gave himself for me." As
well, one might say that Christ restricted His prayers to Peter, for Luke 22:32 says,
"I have prayed for thee."
These passages present not the slightest difficulty. The unlimited redemptionist
interprets these great passages precisely as does his opponent. He believes in the
sovereign election of God and the heavenly purpose to gather out a redeemed people for His
name. He believes that these verses identify a part of the total number for whom Christ
died.
The Unlimited Atonement
Because one's view of a doctrine must come from the Scriptures, it will be necessary in
this section to present only the Scriptures which seem to present unlimited atonement.
Isaiah 53:6. "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his
own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Unquestionably the
first "all" in this verse is an unqualified "all." All have gone
astray, elect and non-elect, Israel and Gentile. All have turned to their own way and all
are lost in sin.
There is another important "all" in this verse, the last word of the verse.
The verse is not stating that all will be saved, but rather that all are lost and that
Christ has paid the penalty for every sinner, elect and non-elect alike. Jenkyn stated,
"No passage of Scripture can be adduced which limits the atonement to the sins of the
elect. Whenever the death of Christ is mentioned in connection with sin, it is always with
sin universally and as a whole."
1 John 2:1, 2. Beyond question the Apostle John was writing to Christians when he
stated, "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not, And if
any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is
the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole
world."
The elect people of God are encouraged not to sin, but if they would sin Jesus Christ
is an advocate at God's right hand to plead His blood in their behalf. The apostle
continues by stating that the blood of Christ was not only shed for the elect but for the
sins of the whole world. This strongly asserts not unlimited salvation, but unlimited
atonement.
This Scripture as read from the view of the limited atonement advocates would be
ridiculous. It would be something to this effect: "He is the propitiation for our
(the elect) sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of those who comprise the
world of elect people."
In fact, even Calvin in his later days wrote in regard to I John 2:2 as follows:
"Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and in the goodness of God is
offered unto all men without distinction, His blood being shed not for a part of the world
only, but for the whole human race; for although in the world nothing is found worthy of
the favor of God, yet He holds out the propitiation to the whole world, since without
exception He summons all to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than the door unto
hope."
2 Peter 2:1. "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there
shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even
denying the Lord that bought them and bring upon themselves swift destruction."
The false prophets in this verse are unsaved, for they are headed for destruction.
Peter under the Holy Spirit says that even though they are unsaved Christ died for them.
Lenski stated, "Here we have an adequate answer to Calvin's limited atonement: The
Sovereign, Christ, bought with His blood not only the elect but also those who go to
perdition."
Jenkyn-stated: "So the atonement of Christ is adapted, and therefore designed, to
save man from sin, though the event in numerous instances may be otherwise. Some will not
come unto Him that they might have life; they will not have Him to rule over them; they
neglect their great salvation; they tread under foot the blood wherewith they were atoned,
and they deny and reject the Lord that bought them."
Romans 10:13; Revelation 22:17. "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the
Lord shall be saved." "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that
heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come, And whosoever will, let him take of
the water of life freely." The word "whosoever" is used at least 110 times
in the New Testament and always with the unrestricted meaning.
I Timothy 4:10. "For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust
in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, specially of those that believe."
This verse seems to be quite clear in teaching that in its sufficiency the atonement of
Christ is universal; that is, provision is made for all mankind; not one is excluded. But
in its efficiency the atonement is limited; that is, actual provision is made only for
those who accept God's offer of salvation through Christ Both aspects, the atonement for
all, the salvation of the elect, are present in I Timothy 4:10.
To read this verse from the standpoint of the limited atonement would make it appear
ridiculous. The effect would be: "For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach,
because we trust in the living God who is the Savior of the elect, specially of those that
be elect."
Robert G. Farley gives an illustration which can be applied here: "The prospective
mother prepares a complete and beautiful outfit for her expected child. But the child is
still-born. Yet the outfit was prepared just the same as if it had lived. And Christ's
work is completed as much for one man as for another, as much for the unbeliever as for
the believer."
In conclusion it must be said concerning the view of the limited atonement that many of
the arguments for it are arguments from reason rather than from the Scripture. Rationally
considered, the view sounds plausible; however, doctrine is not based on reason but upon
Scripture.
The verses cited by the limited atonement advocates are not exclusive. The verses speak
of salvation for the elect, but these verses are only a part of the whole picture. Some of
the limited verses do not even deal with the atonement (such as John 17:9). In order to
hold to the limited view, one has to re-interpret the plain meaning of Scripture.
Conclusion
Concerning the unlimited view of the atonement, upon close examination of the proof
texts, this view is the plain teaching of Scripture. The unlimited atonement is consistent
with all the other theology of the Bible. The unlimited view is in perfect harmony with
the grace and justice of God. The infinite sacrifice of Christ is infinite in value, and
therefore, has no limit. The unlimited view of the atonement is a much greater incentive
to soul winning than the limited view.
Topical
Category:
email