A History of the Views of the Extent of the Atonement

*Note: I have decided to post a series of five papers that I wrote for a class called Bible/Theology Integration. All five papers were written with the following question in mind: "What is the extent of the atonement?" This is part 1 of 5.

The two major views of the extent of the atonement both seek to answer the question, “For whom did Christ die?” This debate is often categorized as a subsection of the debate involving Calvinism versus Arminianism. While there are brief writings regarding the extent of the atonement that precede the Protestant Reformation, it was following the Reformation that the controversy really developed. Robert Lightner, a former professor of systematic theology at Dallas Theological Seminary, argues that there was virtually no debate on the subject prior to the Reformation (11-12). Lightener does argue though, that the universal position of the early Church fathers regarding this subject would be that of what is now called universal atonement. However, he acknowledges that what they were writing about was the nature of the atonement and not its extent, which makes it difficult to know for certain their beliefs regarding the latter. So this is a debate that finds its origins in the Protestant Reformation and one that continues today.

There are two basic positions in this debate . The first is known as universal atonement. This is the doctrine that states that Christ’s death on the cross paid the price for all mankind. It was formally introduced by followers of Jacobus Arminius (Arminians) in a document called a Remonstrance. This document had in itself five articles, each one addressing a particular area of the debate going on between the Arminians and the followers of the teachings of John Calvin (Calvinists) and other reformers. It was the second article of the document that addressed the extent of the atonement, stating: "That accordingly, Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for all, by his death on the cross, reconciliation and remission of sins; yet so that no one is partaker of this remission except the believers" (Documents of the Christian Church).

The other position is known as limited atonement (or definite atonement or particular redemption). This doctrine articulates that while the death of Christ was sufficient for all of mankind, it is only effectual for the elect. Its formalization came in a response to the Remonstrants by those who held to a more strictly reformed or Calvinistic theological understanding. The response came at an assembly called the Synod of Dort where, among other things, all five of the Remonstrants were answered with a counter set of statements.

Early on following the Synod of Dort in 1619 and the Westminster Assembly in 1647, the more popular view was that of limited atonement. This had a great deal to do with the politics of the region as those in political power tended to set the theological policies of the people (Gonzalez). It was not until John Wesley and the spread of Methodism that this really began to change. In our time, universal atonement holds a definite advantage in popularity.

It is interesting that many scholars believe that the name associated so closely with this doctrine, Calvinism, may actually be a misnomer as many feel that the position of Calvin in either universal atonement or unknowable. Lightner believes that, “In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, which were written early in his life . . . he does not commit himself on the matter” (13). He also believes that in his later years that there is evidence from his commentaries that that he taught unlimited atonement (13). This position is argued against by most Calvinists, who do believe that a good case can be made from Calvin’s writings that he did indeed hold to limited atonement.

As mentioned above, in the modern-day church the number of people who hold to a universal atonement far outnumber those who hold to a limited atonement. In general, those holding to a limited atonement would be Presbyterians, Reformed Baptists, Anglicans, and other denominations that consider themselves in the reformed tradition. Those who hold to a universal atonement would be most Baptists, Assembly of God churches, Pentecostals, Methodists, and other churches that consider themselves more in line with the Arminian tradition. However, there are some people who consider themselves Four-Point Calvinists or Amyraldians. These people hold to the other four general statements of Calvinism but reject limited atonement.

It is clear from the history of this debate as well as from the fact that it is still thriving today, that this disagreement is not going to go away any time soon. However, unlike some debates of the past and present, this one has genuine Christians on both sides of the issue who are absolutely dedicated to allowing Scripture to speak. Both sides have godly men and women who care more about properly understanding the work of Christ than they do about their own egos.



Bibliography

Bettenson, Henry and Chris Maunder eds. Documents of the Christian Church. “The Five Articles of the Remonstrants.” Oxford, UK: Oxford, 1999.

Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity Volume 2: The Reformation to the Present Day. San Francisco: Harper, 1985.

Lightner, Robert P. The Death Christ Died: A Case for Unlimited Atonement. Schaumburg, Illinois: Regular Baptist Press, 1967.