The Extent of the Atonement: Apologetic (Part 4 of 5)

There was man who walked into the billing office of the local cable company and patiently took his place in line. After waiting for several minutes his turn arrived and he stepped up to the customer service window and was greeted by a smiling woman. “How can I help you today sir?” she asked. “I need to pay a bill.” he responded with noticeable enthusiasm in his voice. The woman began with her standard question for bill payers: “Can I get your name or account number?” “Oh” he replied, “I won’t be paying my bill today. I need to pay the bill of a friend.” The woman was not surprised. It was well known to everyone in the office that there was a man going around and paying the bills of many of the company’s customers. So she got the information from the man and finished the transaction. Later that day a downtrodden man called the same office to tell them that he was sorry, but that there was no way he could afford to pay his bill. He told them that he knew he was already a month late, but there was just no money. To his surprise, the person on the other end of the line informed him that there was no bill to be paid; someone had paid it on his behalf.

The analogy is obviously lacking in innumerable ways, but it what it does is present a picture of what the paying of another’s debt would look like. When our Savior went to the cross and atoned for sins he presented to the Father payment for all the sins of those for whom he died. What would happen if, in the story above, the person who answered the phone told the man “Well sir, while it does appear that someone has already paid this debt on your behalf, we are still going to need payment.”? That would be nonsensical to us because once the debt is paid, no more can be demanded of the debtor. The universal view of the atonement assumes just that. Those who hold it believe that Christ paid the price on the cross for every man woman and child, yet many of those people will still end up separated from the Father because of their sins. This paper will show some of the reasons why the view known as Particular Redemption is better supported by Scripture than a universal atonement.

In my previous papers on this topic I showed that the main difference between the two views is how each side understands the passages in Scripture that include language such as “all men” or that say that Christ died for “the world.” In those papers I also showed that the context of those passages allow for a more narrow view depending on the audience or on what the writer means when he uses the term “world.” For example, when John writes that, “God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him” (ESV John 3:17), he is using the term “world” not to indicate its bigness, but instead its badness (Carson, 17). The evidence for a universal atonement disappears quickly once these types of passages are placed in their proper contexts and within the Scripture as a whole.

The view that the atonement was universal in its scope does great damage to the concept of redemption. If those who hold to a universal atonement are correct, what sort of redemption did Jesus accomplish? It seems that there was really nothing at all accomplished. In his book, Putting Amazing Back into Grace, Michael Horton quotes a prominent scholar (Lewis Sperry Chafer) who holds the universal view saying just that: “Christ’s death does not save either actually or potentially; rather it makes all men saveable” (107). Horton goes on to argue that if this is truly the case, “there is no real ‘power in the blood.’ Rather, the power would seem to be in the will of the creature” (107).

A view that sees the redemption as particular in nature and scope is the only one that stands in agreement with the language used in the Bible. Words such as “atoned,” “redeemed,” and “propitiated” are used without apology in the scriptures when referring to the death of the Savior and what it accomplished. The Bible does not talk about people “possibly” being saved, but instead speaks of the work of God through Christ as final and accomplishing something very certainly. In the 53rd chapter of Isaiah we have one of the clearest prophecies regarding the sufferings that would come upon the messiah. In this great text we also see that there is indeed “power in the blood.” It reads, “Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities” (53:10-11). Notice that in the last section it is those who will be “accounted righteous” that have their iniquities borne by him.

One last area that I would like to examine briefly is the role of the Trinity in redemption. I have noticed that those who hold the view of particular redemption always cover this area. John Owen, a puritan who wrote what most adherents to this view hold as the end-all treatise on it, spent twenty pages covering the role of each member of the Trinity in redemption. I had some trouble understanding the reason for this until this simple statement from Horton: “Part of the problem we have in coming to this discussion is that we view Christ’s work as distinct, and, in fact, detached, from the work of the Father and Spirit. The heavenly Father has designed and is governing the plan of redemption. And Christ was sent by the Father to accomplish the Father’s purpose. So what was that purpose” (108)? I was doing exactly what Horton suggested. I was detaching the work of Christ from the Father and Spirit. When they are seen as one work the particularity is more apparent. So the Father elects, the Son redeems the elect, and the Spirit regenerates and sanctifies.

So it is clear from the whole of Scripture that the work of Christ was not something that merely made salvation possible. Instead it accomplished salvation for all those whom the Father elected. The bill was paid in full and there is nothing more that can condemn those for whom Christ paid the price. The story I opened with does not do justice to the price that was paid on that little hill outside of Jerusalem; it was so much more than the price of a cable bill. To say that the sacrifice of Christ may actually account for nothing (which is the case if it were possible that none might accept) is to do a grave injustice to the plan and mercy of the Father, the utterly self-giving work of the Son, and the continuing work and power of the Holy Spirit. I close with a quote from Charles Spurgeon that makes the difference between the universal and particular views better than I ever could:

"The Arminians say, 'Christ died for all men.' Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, 'No, certainly not.' We ask them the next question: Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer 'No.' They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say, 'No; Christ has died that any man may be saved if ?' and then follow certain conditions of salvation. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as infallibly to secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ's death; we say, 'No, my dear sir, it is you that do it.' We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ's death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it."

Bibliography:

Carson, D.A. The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2000.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2002.

Horton, Michael. Putting Amazing Back into Grace. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 2002.

Owen, John. The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2002.

Spurgeon, Charles. Monergism.com. “Definite Atonement.” http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Doctrines-of-Grace/Particular-Redemption/Limited-Atonement/.