AP

Over the past few days in AP, we have seen how the ‘Five Points of Calvinism’ are a re-ordered expression of the findings of the ‘Canons of Dort’, and that the first two of these Five Points are ‘Total Depravity’ and ‘Unconditional Election’.  This brings us to what is probably the most controversial of the Five Points: Limited Atonement.  Once again, the main problem is a misunderstanding of the adjective.  In this case the adjective ‘limited’ refers to the purpose of the atonement, not the value or quality of it.  For this reason, it is probably more accurately referred to as ‘Particular Redemption’, rather than ‘Limited Atonement’.  The only reason ‘Limited Atonement’ has persisted as the third of the Five Points is to retail the mnemonic ‘TULIP’ to help us remember them!

The question that this point addresses is, “For whom did Jesus die?”, and the way we answer this question, or rather, the way Scripture answers it, affects our doctrine, or understanding, of the `Trinity’.

We have already seen in our previous articles that our ‘Fall’ in Adam has had a devastating effect on every part of our being.  We were created ‘perfect’, made in the very image and likeness of our perfect God, but we rebelled against submitting to his rule over us and chose instead to make our own choices and determine our own destiny.  As God clearly warned our original progenitors, such a choice would result in the death of our intimate relationship with him – exclusion from the Garden of his presence and denial of access to the fruit of the Tree of Life – in other words, spiritual death!  This not only excluded us from the only source of true life, but rendered it impossible for us not only to get back into the Garden with all its benefits, but even to want to!  Dead people might be given life by the miracle of ‘new birth’, but dead people can’t decide to be reborn or to produce life in themselves.  Reflection on these consequences of Biblical truth has led us to the conclusion expressed by ‘Total Depravity’ and ‘Unconditional Election’.

In terms of our understanding of the Trinity, it is God the Father, the First Person of the Trinity, who sovereignly chooses whom, out of his great love and compassion and mercy and grace, he will save or rescue or bring back into restored fellowship or relationship with him.  His mercy is his refraining from giving us what our sins deserve, and his grace is filling us with the very life we don’t deserve.  How did he choose to achieve this amazing outcome for us?  He sent his own Beloved Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, among us to take all the shame and punishment of all our sins upon himself and shed his blood upon a cruel cross as a substitutionary sacrifice in the place of all those whom he has chosen, his Elect.  We should note at this point that if Jesus came to shed his blood as the sacrifice for all the sins of everybody, then either the Father has no basis remaining to send anyone to Hell (eternal separation from him) as their sins have already been justly dealt with (Universalism), or Jesus’ death has not achieved his designed purpose and his statement from the cross, ‘It is finished’, becomes meaningless.  Neither of these possibilities is consistent with the outline of the Plan of Salvation presented to us throughout Scripture from Genesis to Revelation, and I for one cannot express how both humbling and comforting it is to hear Jesus’ cry, “It is finished”, and know, without a shadow of doubt, that all my sins are forgiven – because Jesus did achieve everything he left Heaven and came to Earth to do.

I cannot leave this topic without making reference to the many verses of Scripture which might imply that Jesus died for everyone.  Examples of these are Isaiah 53:6; John 1:29; 4:42; Romans 5:18-19; 1 Corinthians 15:22; 2 Corinthians 5:14-21; 1 Timothy 2:4-6; 4:10; Hebrews 2:9; 1 John 2:2.  In 1 Corinthians 15:22 Paul writes: “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.”  Here, Paul must be using  the word ‘all’ in two different ways.  When he says “as in Adam all die” he must mean ‘all without exception’ as is clear from Romans 3:23 and 6:23 – ‘All without exception have sinned, … and the wages of sin is death’.  But when he says ‘so in Christ all will be made alive’ he must mean ‘all without distinction’. 

One of the big theological questions the Early Church had to address was that, since Jesus died and rose again, the term God’s chosen people no longer applied exclusively to descendants of Abraham, but now the Gospel of God’s saving grace applied to people of every nation, language, ethnicity and cultural background – to ‘all without distinction’, because we know that, as John makes clear throughout his Gospel “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” (John 3:36)  This statement is significant because the only reason God’s wrath does not remain on me is because it was placed on Jesus in my place, and if, for every sinner, ‘the wrath of God’ was placed on Jesus, God would be unjust to let it remain on that sinner.  In all the other verses listed above the same argument must apply.  Jesus’ dying for the “sins of the whole world” must simply mean no one is excluded simply because of skin colour, language or ethnic background!  Hence there is consistency in the whole message of the Bible.

‘Limited Atonement’ is never implying that there is not enough love/compassion/mercy/grace in Jesus’ death for everyone, so God has to limit its application.  It is sufficient for all, but only efficient for the Elect because they are the very ones for whom it was always intended, and Christ’s work on the cross was therefore finished (perfected).  Jesus didn’t ‘die for all’ in the ‘hope’ that ‘some’ might make their own decision to be saved; he died for ‘some’ (the Father’s Elect’) to ensure that they would all be saved.  It is finished!

– Bruce Christian