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.

"In Christ's death and conquest over death at the cross, the very back of evil is broken. We might think of it very simply in terms of a chess game in which two players are fighting it out with each other and the game reaches a point at which one of the players pulls back from the table and says, 'It's over.' The other player says, 'No it's not. I still potentially have a number of moves to make.' And the first player says, 'It doesn't matter what you do because every single move you make will end in the same conclusion' The game is locked up. And so it was at the cross. This game has been locked up. the outcome cannot be changed. What we are seeing now are the last futile moves of the enemy. Not one of which is going to change the outcome that happened at Calvary. . . . Christianity is only about this kind of Christ. Christ reigning supreme and unchallenged and unchallengeable over all of life's enemies. We do not have any other message than this." - David Wells (Transcribed from his message, "The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World)


If you haven't had a chance to read or listen to David Wells, please do so. He is very articulate and has a gift for seeing where our culture is headed. In the middle of it all, he seeks to make known the ultimate supremacy of Christ.

I See the Crowd in Pilate's Hall
by Horatius Bonar, 1856

I see the crowd in Pilate's hall,
their furious cries I hear;
their shouts of "Crucify!" appall,
their curses fill mine ear.
And of that shouting multitude
I feel that I am one,
and in that din of voices rude
I recognize my own.

I see the scourgers rend the flesh
of God's belovèd Son;
and as they smite I feel afresh
that I of them am one.
Around the Cross the throng I see
that mock the Sufferer's groan,
yet still my voice it seems to be,
as if I mocked alone.

'Twas I that shed that sacred Blood,
I nailed him to the Tree,
I crucified the Christ of God,
I joined the mockery.
Yet not the less that Blood avails
to cleanse me from sin,
and not the less that Cross prevails
to give me peace within.

Twentieth Century Summary By Malcolm Muggerdige

We look back upon history and what do we see? Empires rising and falling, revolutions and counter-revolutions, wealth accumulated and wealth dispersed. Shakespeare has spoken of the rise of great ones that ebb and flow with the moon.

I look back upon my own fellow countrymen, once upon a time dominating a quarter of the world, most of them convinced in the words of what is still a popular song, that the God who made them mighty will make them mightier yet. I’ve heard a crazed cracked Austrian that announced to the world a reich that would last a thousand years. I’ve seen an Italian clown that said he was going to stop and restart the calendar with his own ascension to power. I met a murderous Georgian brigand in the Kremlin, proclaimed by the intellectual elite of the world as wiser than Solomon, more humane than Marcus Aureleus, more enlightened than the Shoka.

I have seen America wealthier, and in terms of military weaponry more powerful than the rest of the world put together, so had the American people so desired, they could have outdone a Caesar or an Alexander in the range and scale of their conquest. All in one lifetime! All in one lifetime! Gone! Gone with the wind. England part of a tiny island off the coast of Europe threatened with dismemberment and even bankruptcy.

Hitler and Mussolini dead and remembered only in infamy. Stalin a forbidden name in the regime he helped found and dominated for some three decades. America haunted by fears of running out of those precious fluids that keeps her motorways running and the smog settling. With troubled memories, and painful memories, of a disasterous campaign in Vietnam, and the victory of the Don Quixotes of the media as they charged the windmills of Watergate.

All in one lifetime! All in one lifetime! Gone! Gone with the wind.

Behind the debris of these solemn supermen and self-styled Imperial diplomatists stands the gigantic figure of one person because of whom, by whom, in whom, and through whom alone mankind may still have hope. The person of Jesus Christ. The more I look at the saviors of men, the more beautiful the Lamb of God looks to me.

—Malcolm Muggeridge, Former Editor of Punch Magazine, and a former BBC Anchor

Implications of the Experiment on Beauty

In the last couple of weeks, an article that appeared in The Washington Post has been causing quite a stir both on the streets of Washington D.C. and in the blogosphere. Almost every blog that I regularly visit had the article linked with some comments. For those who have not had a chance to read the article, I highly recommend it. It is not only a fascinating experiment, but extremely well written.

The article takes the reader through an experiment that the newspaper conducted in a Washington D.C. subway. They wanted to know if, when confronted with beauty in an out of the ordinary place, people would recognize and appreciate that beauty. They arranged for violinist virtuoso Joshua Bell to play incognito in the subway during the morning rush. The results are fascinating.

For some reason, this article touched my emotions. I was mad, sad, happy, appreciative of Bell’s talents, and a host of other emotions all rolled into one. I am still not certain why it touched me in that way, but I have some ideas.

I found several theological implications in the piece that may have elicited my emotional response. I just want to discuss one and let you read the rest. The article describes person after person walking by, not noticing or paying any attention to the music. Until the camera catches a small child trying to stop as his mother pulls him toward the exit. The author says that the children always tried to stop, but the adults never let them. Children recognize beauty. Joshua Bell is a fantastic violinist, but his art is nowhere close to that of God. How often do I go through a day without noticing the beauty around me that God has created?

John Piper on Joy

I heard Piper say this in one of his sermons on Romans:

"The enjoyment of God, above all else, is the deepest way that God's glory is reflected back to him. The enjoyment of God terminates on God alone and is not performed as a means to anything else. It is the deepest reverberation in the heart of man of the value of God's glory."

I thought I would post this bit of satire by Steve Turner. Ravi Zacharias often quotes it when talking about the pitfalls of relativism.

"Creed"

by Steve Turner

We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin
We believe everything is OK
as long as you don't hurt anyone,
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.

We believe in sex before, during, and after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy is OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo.

We believe that everything is getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.

We believe there's something in
horoscopes, UFO's and bent spoons;
Jesus was a good man
just like Buddha, Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher
although we think His good morals were bad.

We believe that all religions are basically the same--
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of
creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.

We believe that after death comes the Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens they say nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied,
then it's compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan.

We believe in Masters and Johnson.
What's selected is average.
What's average is normal.
What's normal is good.

We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors
and the Russians would be sure to follow.

We believe that man is essentially good.
It's only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.

We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth.

We believe in the rejection of creeds,
and the flowering of individual thought.

"Chance" a post-script

If chance be the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky,
and when you hear

State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!

It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker.