Chapter Three
Limited Atonement

A Brief Definition of Limited Atonement

       Perhaps the most maligned, yet least understood doctrine of Calvinism is limited atonement.⁽¹⁾ Simply defined, this doctrine states that since God the Father chose of His own pleasure and will those who would be saved, the Son, who came only to do the will of His Father, gave His life as a ransom for these individuals and for none others. In other words, the cross had the very specific design of providing atonement for God's elect, thereby reconciling them to divine favor, but it accomplished nothing in regards to those not chosen for salvation.
       The doctrine of limited atonement is rejected by modern Lutherans, as well as by Dispensationalists and others who attempt to identify themselves as "moderate Calvinists." Of course, to the Arminian, who believes that God does not sovereignly and eternally elect individuals to salvation, thereby reprobating the rest to eternal damnation, the teaching that Christ did not die for all men without exception is highly objectionable and will often elicit such responses as the following:

       First, the doctrine of limited atonement is logically contradictory to the clear teaching of passage after passage of Scripture.... Secondly, it is theologically repugnant, for it misunderstands the nature of God and of man.... Third, it is philosophically deficient, for the very existence of reason, or the ability to know, shows that man is capable of choice. Some doctrine of human freedom is essential to any meaningful theory of human responsibility [emphasis in original].⁽²⁾

       It is a common Arminian claim that John Calvin himself did not hold to the doctrine of limited atonement, for he did not devote as much time to it as he did to predestination, election, reprobation, and the other so-called distinctives of his system. For example, Donald M. Lake wrote, "What is important... is the fact that the issue of limited atonement does not appear in Calvin, but belongs to second generation Calvinists.... [I]t must be emphasized that the question of the extent of Christ's redemptive grace had received no real examination by Calvin. For him the question is rather: does God save all men? That is a question of election, not of the atonement. This fact is all the more surprising, since Calvin is one of the Church's greatest exegetical theologians."⁽³⁾ Lake's observation is only partially correct. It is true that Calvin did not specifically address this issue at any great length in his writings. However, this is likely because he did not see the need to do so. If God sovereignly distinguished between those who would be saved and those who would not be saved, why would He then send His Son into the world to die in the place of and purchase the salvation of those who would never be saved?⁽⁴⁾ In his monumental treatise on limited atonement entitled The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, the great Puritan theologian John Owen wrote, "...[H]ow strange it seems that Christ should be the Saviour of them who are never saved, to whom He never gives grace to believe, for whom He denies to intercede."⁽⁵⁾ Reformed theologian Loraine Boettner likewise stated, "That a man's accomplishments oftentimes do not measure up to his expectations is due to his lack of foresight or to his lack of ability to accomplish what he purposes. But even a man does not expect what he knows will not be accomplished.... They do but deceive themselves who, admitting God's foreknowledge, say that Christ died for all men; for what is that but to attribute folly to Him whose ways are perfect? To represent God as earnestly striving to do what He knows He will not do is to represent Him as acting foolishly."⁽⁶⁾
       J.I. Packer was correct in pointing out that the "five points of Calvinism" are so closely connected to one another that to deny even one of them is to deny all five.⁽⁷⁾ Consequently, there really is no such thing as a "four-point Calvinist," for when carefully questioned, it will be discovered that he, either knowingly or unknowingly, rejects the other points by redefining them out of existence. If Christ's death was for all men without exception, then all men must have the opportunity to be saved. Since all men are not ultimately saved, they must have chosen to reject God's invitation. This is simply Arminianism in a rather thin disguise, for it denies the total depravity and inability of men, God's unconditional election of men, the effectual calling of the Spirit, and, if consistent, the certainty of the final perseverance of the elect.
       Belief in a universal atonement also requires a rejection of the omniscience and omnipotence of God. Firstly, He could not have really known who would eventually be saved if He anticipated and thus provided for the salvation of all, and secondly, He lacked the power to actually save all for whom Christ died. Thus, the entire system of Calvinism, and indeed the most essential doctrines of the Christian faith, can be said to stand or fall upon the doctrine of limited atonement.

The Effects of Presupposition on Biblical Interpretation

       There are a number of biblical texts that suggest that Christ died for all mankind, and an unprejudiced exegesis would take these texts at their face value.... Are there grounds for believing that, were it not for the prior acceptance of the theory of election... we should interpret the statements of universal atonement literally?⁽⁸⁾

       It cannot be denied that everyone, Arminian and Calvinist alike, invariably approaches the Scriptures with at least some degree of presupposition. However, this is not to say that presuppositions are, in and of themselves, necessarily wrong. Indeed, there is a vast difference between biblical presuppositions and unbiblical presuppositions. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity is one form of a biblical presupposition, despite the fact that it is nowhere explicitly defined in the Bible. Since the Christian knows from innumerable passages of Scripture that there is only one God, when presented with other passages which speak of three Persons who each bear the name and exhibit the characteristics of Deity, he will attempt to interpret them in light of his presuppositional belief in one God. This is not an incorrect hermeneutical method, and is, in fact, responsible for the formation of many orthodox tenets of the Christian faith.
       On the other hand, one example of an unbiblical presupposition is the assumption that, as true Man, our Lord could have committed sin. Such an erroneous idea arises from the presupposition that true humanness necessarily includes a propensity for sin. It may be granted that the Bible itself never explicitly states that Christ could not have sinned. It does, however, clearly state that God is entirely incapable of sin. Thus, when operating from the biblical presupposition that Christ was both God and Man, we must conclude that, as such, He was incapable of sin. Consequently, those passages that would seem to indicate otherwise must be interpreted in such a manner as to do justice to the presupposition.
       Howard Marshall was quite correct in pointing out in the above quote that the presuppositions which Calvinists bring to the Scriptures greatly influence their interpretation thereof. However, Arminians do the very same thing, though their presuppositions are obviously quite different from those of the Calvinist. This is why members of both theological camps will often use the very same verses or passages of Scripture against each other. What needs to be done is not to decry presuppositions as such, but to determine which is more correct in view of the overall theme of the Bible, and to interpret any troublesome passages in that light.

Alleged Proof Texts for Universal Atonement

       Arminians invariably have a literal stockpile of "proof texts," most often completely removed from their proper context, to which they will appeal in defense of the alleged universality of the atonement. For example, John 3:16, perhaps one of the most quoted salvific texts, tells us that "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son." In John 6:33, Christ described Himself as "he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world." In 1 John 2:2, we read that Christ "is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." The Apostle Paul is also claimed to have had in mind a universal application of Christ's redemptive work when he wrote that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself" (2 Corinthians 5:19). The Arminian will invariably go on and on quoting such passages as these to prove that the extent of the atonement was unlimited.
       It is a basic tenet of biblical hermenuetics that Scripture is to be used to interpret Scripture, and this within the context of the culture in which it was written. It is fallacious to attempt to impose modern cultural ideas, terminology, or sociological trends onto the biblical text. Such an approach to reading the Bible can often result in passages being so twisted and distorted by the unbiblical presuppositions of the reader that virtually all of their original intent is lost.
       When we use the Bible as its own interpreter, the word world can be best defined as those whom God chose and loved "out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation" (Revelation 5:9). It is helpful to remember that, with the exception of the books written by Luke, the New Testament, like the Old, was the product of Hebrew authorship. The Jews as a whole had an exaggerated view of their role as God's chosen people, and believed that only those of Hebrew descent could ever experience God's favor. As a result, Gentiles were looked upon with great disdain and hatred.
       This attitude was so much a part of Jewish culture in the days of the Apostles and the early Church that many of the Jewish converts to Christianity had difficulty accepting the fact that God had "also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life" (Acts 11:18). Even the Apostle Peter was forced to change his way of thinking in this area when God sent him to the home of Cornelius, a Roman centurion, to baptize him and his household into the faith (Acts 10). Consequently, it was necessary to educate the Jewish believers that God's will was that both Jews and Gentiles alike would become members of one Body, and that ethnic origins were no longer a valid reason for excluding any man from fellowship among God's people. This was the theme of Paul's letter to the Gentile congregation at Ephesus:

       Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: but now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby (Ephesians 2:11-16).

       Indeed, there is nothing in the Scriptures, when read in this light, that would suggest that God loved and extended His mercy to every person of every tribe, language, and nation, for if such was the case, He certainly would have decreed that all would be saved. Instead, God has proven that He "is no respector of persons" but accepts "in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness" (Acts 10:34-35). He does not condemn anyone on the basis of ethnicity, but wills "that all [both Jew and Gentile] should come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9).

Does "World" Always Mean Every Man?

       Lest the foregoing information be dismissed as "personal interpretation," let us examine the usage of the Greek word kosmos (world) in other contexts to determine if universality is always, or even often, the necessary interpretation.
       In John 1:10, the Apostle stated that though "the world was made by him [Christ]... the world knew him not." In John 12:19, the Pharisees observed that "the world is gone after him." In 1 John 5:19, the Apostle wrote that "the whole world lieth in wickedness." Finally, in Revelation 12:9, the Devil is described as he "which deceiveth the whole world." These verses were all written by the same man who wrote John 3:16, and yet, if the usage of kosmos is here given the same meaning which Arminians insist must be applied there, they would be rendered meaningless. Clearly, there were those who did in fact acknowledge the true identity of Christ. Nathaniel, the disciple, recognized Him as "the Son of God... [and] the King of Israel" (John 1:49). Peter's great confession was that He was "the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16). To this list may be added the Magi (Matthew 2:2), John the Baptist (John 1:29), Elizabeth (Luke 1:43), Simeon (Luke 2:30), Anna (Luke 2:38), as well as all professing believers, including Arminians, since that time. The Pharisees' statement that "the world is gone after him" also cannot possibly be understood universally, since they themselves, as well as Israel in general, utterly rejected Jesus as their Messiah. In fact, Jesus Himself condemned them by declaring, "[Y]e will not come to me, that ye might have life" (John 5:40). Finally, John's words that "the whole world lieth in wickedness" and that Satan "deceiveth the whole world" cannot mean everyone on the planet since Christians have turned "from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God" (Acts 26:18) and are thus "are not ignorant of his devices" (2 Corinthians 2:11).
       Likewise, the usage of all or all men in Scripture can be shown to be limited by the context in which these words appear. For example, Christ warned His followers in Matthew 10:22 that "all men" would hate them on account of His Name. Matthew 21:26 states that "all hold John as a prophet." In John 11:48, the Sanhedrin reasoned that if Jesus were allowed to continue performing miracles, "all men" would believe in Him, leaving the Jewish temple and their own religious status vulnerable to Roman desecration. Again, if taken in the Arminian sense of "all men without exception," these verses would be meaningless. The disciples were not in fact hated by all men without exception, for there were many who gladly received their message and joined their ranks (Acts 2:41). In fact, in Acts 2:47, the disciples are described as "having favour with all the people." If nothing else, Christ's early followers were not hated by their own fellow believers. Clearly, then, the "all men" of whom Christ spoke were a specific group of people — namely, those who would not repent and believe. All men without exception did not hold John as a prophet, for, by their own admission, the chief priests and the Jewish elders did not (Matthew 21:25). Finally, the Sanhedrin did not fear that all men without exception would believe in Christ, for they certainly did not intend to, nor did they entertain the possibility that the Romans would either.

Calvinism and the Common Call of the Gospel

       Having thus established that kosmos does not always, and, in fact, rarely means "all men on the planet," and that "all men" does not always refer to "all men without exception," the Arminian is forced to admit that the Calvinist position in regards to the atoning work of Christ is at least a possibility, if not completely consistent with the Scriptures. However, for the sake of argument, let us now examine the verses most frequently quoted in favor of God's alleged universal saving will, beginning with the following:

       Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest (Matthew 11:28).

         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 the water of life freely (Revelation 22:17).

       It is difficult to understand just how the Arminian can appeal to such verses as these to support the doctrine of an unlimited atonement, for the audience to which the invitations are given is clearly restricted to those "that labour and are heavy laden" and to "him that is athirst." These can only be those who have experienced the heavy burden in their hearts of their own sins and have thus thirsted for the righteousness of Christ. Indeed, as Jesus Himself stated, "They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick" (Matthew 9:12). It was for this reason that He did not "come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (Matthew 9:13).
       The Arminian labors under the false assumption that men everywhere are desperately seeking God, and need only to be presented with the "good news" that God loves them and "has a wonderful plan for their lives." However, according to the Bible, this simply is not the case at all. For example, in John 3:19, we find God's condemnation of the men of the world because they "loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." In Paul's diatribe against the entire human race in Romans 3:10-18, he wrote not only that "there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God" (verse 11), but that "there is no fear of God before their eyes" (verse 18). This observation prompted him to later write, "For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God" (Romans 8:6-8).
       The Pharisees and the teachers of the Law were not then included in Christ's invitation simply because they did not view themselves as needy of salvation, and therefore were neither "heavy laden" nor "athirst" (cf. Luke 18:9-14). Thus, His accusation against them was justified: "And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life" (John 5:40). Since we read in Romans 8:6 that "to be spiritually minded [led by the Spirit] is life and peace," we can only conclude that Christ's offer of eternal life and spiritual rest applied only to those whom the Holy Spirit had effectually prepared to respond favorably to Him — the elect (John 10:25-27).

Paul's Comparison of Adam and Christ

       Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.... But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many....
       Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous (Romans 5:12, 15, 18-19).

       Arminians will point to this passage and argue that since effect of Adam's fall was universal, the effect of Christ's atoning death must also be universal. For example, Donald Lake wrote, "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."⁽⁹⁾ The reader should notice that Lake's paraphrase of Romans 5:18 is, in reality, a perversion of the actual text, inserting the phrases "led to" and "leads to" where they were not originally used. Perhaps Lake was aware of what most Arminians have missed in their interpretation of this passage — Adam's fall did not potentially condemn his descendants, but actually plunged the entire human race into sin and estrangement from God. To make a direct and unqualified parallel between the damning effects of Adam's fall and the propitiating effects of Christ's sacrifice would result in the teaching that all men are actually saved since, like condemnation, justification refers to an actual legal pronouncement, not merely a possibility. In the words of John Gill, "A judge, when he either acquits or condemns, he does not offer the sentence of justification or condemnation, but pronounces either: So God, when He justifies, He does not offer justification to men, but pronounces them righteous, through the righteousness of His Son; and when Christ procured justification, it was not an offer of it, but the blessing thereof."⁽¹⁰⁾
       It is apparent therefore that Paul was here merely comparing Adam and Christ as the representative heads of their respective families — two groups that are nevertheless clearly distinguished from one another. Just as sin was imputed to the physical posterity of Adam, so was righteousness imputed to the spiritual posterity of Christ. In other words, verse eighteen is merely stating that "all men" who are in Christ are justified, just as all who are "in Adam" are condemned (1 Corinthians 15:22). The Arminian insistence upon absolute equality between the two groups, and a common identity, utterly destroys the contrast which Paul intended to make. To the Calvinist, however, who realizes that "the gift" is "not as the offence," this passage does not create any such difficulty.

Does God Will That Every Man Be Saved?

       For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:3-4).

       It cannot be disputed that coming to "the knowledge of the truth" is inseperable from salvation.⁽¹¹⁾ The question can be raised, however, as to whether or not "the knowledge of the truth" is the means by which salvation is attained or is the result of salvation. The truth does indeed set men free, as Christ promised in John 8:32, but does Scripture necessarily teach that the knowledge thereof is the catalyst which sets its power into motion? In other words, does the Bible indicate that the truth is effective in and of itself apart from a sovereign work of God in the human heart?
       In John 14:6, Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." In other words, to come to "the knowledge of the truth" is to receive spiritual enlightment regarding one's spiritual condition and to recognize Jesus Christ alone as the solution to what is an exclusively spiritual problem. Keeping in mind that 1 Corinthians 2:14 restricts such spiritual knowledge to those to whom the Spirit of God has come in regenerating power, it is the bold assertion of the Calvinist that only those actually purchased and redeemed by Christ are able to, and ultimately will, recognize Him as Savior and Lord.
       It is significant that Paul did not describe God as desiring that all men first come to the knowledge of the truth and then be saved, which is how the average Arminian would interpret 1 Timothy 2:3-4, but he instead reversed the order, placing a knowledge of the truth subsequent to actual salvation. The Lord Jesus Himself did this same thing in John 8:31 by making discipleship a previous condition to being set free by the knowledge of the truth.
       In Matthew 11:25-26, we also read the following: "At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight." Here we learn from the Savior's own lips that God has deliberately restricted a knowledge of "these things" (the identity and work of His Son) to only a few — those who have become as "a little child" by adoption into God's family (Mark 10:15). This is entirely consistent with the Calvinist's claim that only those whom God the Father has sovereignly elected, for whom the Son has effectively died, and whom the Spirit has irresistibly drawn will ever believe. The internal sentence structure of the verse notwithstanding, the Arminian insistence based on 1 Timothy 2:3-4 that God's salvific will is universal in scope, simply cannot stand in light of Matthew 11:25, especially when it is cross-referenced to 1 Corinthians 1:26. If God indeed wills that all men know His Son and thus be saved, then He certainly would not have purposefully withheld such vital information from the vast majority of men throughout history, as He clearly has done (Matthew 7:14).
       The Arminian interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:3-4 also cannot be true without reducing God to a schizophrenic deity whose actions do not correspond to his own will. According to the Scriptures, however, there exists no such discrepancy between what God wills and what God actually does.⁽¹²⁾ For example, in Job 23:13, we read that God does exactly "what his soul desireth." In Isaiah 14:24, God said of Himself, "Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand." Thus, we see the effectual nature of God's will in general. However, the same may be said of His will in relation to mankind. In Daniel 4:35, the exiled Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar testified that God "doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth," and according to Proverbs 16:4, Acts 13:22, Revelation 17:17, and other similar passages, the actions of both the godly and the ungodly are orchestrated by God's hand to fulfill His will. On numerous occasions, Paul declared himself to be "an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God" (2 Corinthians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; 2 Timothy 1:1), and he readily acknowledged that his sufferings, as well as that of all believers, were a result of God's will (Philippians 2:29) — a fact later confirmed by Peter when he wrote of "them that suffer according to the will of God" (1 Peter 4:19). Finally, in Ephesians 1:11, we are told that God "worketh all things after the counsel of his own will." There is no indication given in this verse, or anywhere else in the Bible, that would suggest that "all things" may be interpreted so as to exclude salvation, for this too is made a reality in the lives of His elect according to His "good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13).
       John Gill wrote regarding 1 Timothy 2:4:

       ...[T]he salvation which God here wills that all men should enjoy, is not a mere possibility of salvation for all, nor putting all men into a salvable state, nor an offer of salvation to all, nor a proposal of sufficient means of it to all in His Word; but a real, certain, and actual salvation, which He has determined they shall have, has provided and secured in the covenant of His grace, sent His Son into this world to effect, which is fully effected by Him.⁽¹³⁾

       So, then, who are the "all men" of whom the Apostle speaks in this verse? The answer is apparent from its context: "I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty" (1 Timothy 2:1-2). Clearly, "all men" is to be understood as all kinds of men — God does not restrict salvation to those of either a lowly or a lofty estate, but has extended His grace to men of every station of life.

How God is the "Saviour of All Men"

       For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe (1 Timothy 4:10).

       In dealing with this verse, it is important to once again remind ourselves not to impose modern cultural thought or language upon the biblical text, but rather to attempt to understand it through the eyes of its original readers. To modern evangelical Christians, the title of Savior has very definite connotations of either God or Christ as the spiritual source of eternal life. However, in the Hebrew culture, from which the Christian Church arose, this meaning was not at all times stressed. The Hebrew word yasha (to save or deliver) literally means "to open wide" or "to make safe,"⁽¹⁴⁾ and was used when speaking of the preservation of physical life. The following Old Testament passages are given here as examples of this usage:

       And David spake unto the LORD the words of this song in the day that the LORD had delivered him out of the hand of all his enemies, and out of the hand of Saul: And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; the God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence (2 Samuel 22:1-3).

         In that day shall there be an altar to the LORD in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the LORD. And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry out unto the LORD because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them (Isaiah 19:19-20).

       Men such as Moses, Joshua, Samson, David, and others, were thus saviors in this sense because of their heroic deeds in behalf of Israel. Ultimately, however, Yahweh was viewed by the Israelites as the only Savior (Isaiah 43:11), particularly in light of their deliverance from Egyptian bondage, which prompted the Psalmist to speak of "God their saviour" (Psalm 106:21). The primarily temporal meaning behind this specific usage of yasha is undeniable, particularly when this verse is read in context with the statement "they believed not his word" only a few verses later (verse 24). Such would completely discount any underlying reference to spiritual regeneration.
       This concept of Yahweh as the Preserver and Deliverer of mankind can also be found in the New Testament with the Greek word sotaire, albeit with the often added implication that "he shall save his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21). In Hebrews 1:3, Christ is described as "upholding all things by the word of his power." In his Mars Hill discourse, the Apostle Paul informed his audience that it was in God that "we live, and move, and have our being" (Acts 17:28). Even Jesus Himself testified that His Father "maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust" (Matthew 5:45). Such an idea has traditionally been known in Reformed circles as common grace, or divine kindness.⁽¹⁵⁾ Louis Berkhof described this doctrine as follows: "This is a grace which is communal, does not pardon nor purify human nature, and does not effect the salvation of sinners. It curbs the destructive power of sin, maintains in a measure the moral order of the universe, thus making an orderly life possible, distributes in varying degrees gifts and talents among men, promotes the development of science and art, and showers untold blessing upon the children of men."⁽¹⁶⁾ In this way, God is indeed the "Saviour [Preserver or Sustainer] of all men," though His paternal care is obviously more focused upon those whom He has rescued from eternal damnation (particular grace). Even W.E. Vine, who himself was an Arminian, listed this as one of the possible meanings of sotaire in his widely used Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, specifically using 1 Timothy 4:10 as one example.⁽¹⁷⁾
       It has been suggested by some scholars that the Greek word malista, which is usually translated specially as in 1 Timothy 4:10, may have the alternate meaning of namely.⁽¹⁸⁾ If this is true, it provides yet another reason to reject the Arminian interpretation of this verse as a proclamation of God's universal saving will, for the verse would then tell us that God "is the Saviour of all men, namely those that believe." Either way, "all men" must refer to men out of all nations or men of every station in life, rather than all men in general. The alternative is that all men are actually saved by God's grace, which experience itself tells us is not the case.

Is Salvation Available to All Men?

       For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men.... (Titus 2:11)

       The same interpretation of "all men" as all kinds, or classes, of men must again be applied to this verse, for "all men without exception" would not fit the context. First of all, Paul opened this epistle to Titus by referring to himself as "Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledgment of the truth which is after godliness" (Titus 1:1). We have already sufficiently established that when speaking of "God's elect," the authors of Scripture had in mind specific individuals whom God has sovereignly chosen for salvation. Furthermore, as we have seen, "acknowledgment of the truth" is possible only for these individuals, since they alone, by the indwelling Holy Spirit, are able to comprehend the truth. Consequently, there can be no doubt that in writing to Titus, Paul had in mind a very clear distinction between the elect and the reprobate.
       If salvation, as used in Titus 2:11, is to be understood as the gift of eternal life, as indeed it should be in light of Titus 1:2, then the interpretation of "all men" in the Arminian sense must again be rejected because it is described in this verse as what the grace of God actually, not potentially, brings. This thought is continued in verse fourteen and later in Titus 3:4-7, and may also be cross-referenced to 2 Timothy 1:9-10: "[God] hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, but is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel."
       Clearly, then, the appearance of "the kindness and love of God our Saviour" (Titus 3:4) resulted in the salvation of those to whom it appeared. Again, no mere offer is here described, but rather a definite and completed act of divine mercy. If this is to be applied to all men without exception, then all men without exception have therefore been "justified by his grace" and have been "made heirs according to the hope of eternal life" (Titus 3:7), which, of course, very few Arminians would accept.

Did Christ Die For False Prophets?

       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 (2 Peter 2:1).

       At face value, the above is perhaps one of the most difficult to reconcile with the doctrine of limited atonement, and is therefore a favorite proof text of Arminian universality. However, this difficulty exists only in the English translation, and disappears quickly when the passage is examined in the original language.
       First of all, it should be noted that this verse makes no reference to either Christ or the redemption of the cross. The Greek title despotais (sovereign or lord) which appears here, is applied exclusively to the Father in such passages as Luke 2:29 and Acts 4:24. Since despotais indicates "absolute and unlimited authority,"⁽¹⁹⁾ it is never used in reference to Christ, who, as the begotten Son of God, is in subjection to the Father.⁽²⁰⁾
       It might be helpful to note that Peter was an apostle to the Jews, and therefore his epistles should be read from the Jewish perspective. Again, the Hebrew understanding of God as "Savior" primarily referred to His mighty acts of deliverance in behalf of Israel's physical well-being. As such, He "redeemed" them from slavery in Egypt and took them as His own people. On a more intimate level, Israel is even referred to many times in the Old Testament as the spouse of the Lord God (Ezekiel 16), and reference is often made to the bride price which was paid for her. In either case, God's "purchase" of Israel signified that she was His possession and therefore was obligated to obey and to worship Him. For example, we read in Deuteronomy 32:6, "Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?"
       Since it is obvious that the Father did not shed His blood on Calvary, in what way, then, did He "buy" the false prophets? Peter's predominantly Jewish audience would have immediately recognized the parallel being drawn between unfaithful Israel and the false teachers of the Church. Though they were "married" to Yahweh, the Israelites repeatedly turned their backs on Him and committed spiritual adultery by worshipping the idols of the nations around them. Likewise, the false teachers in the New Testament Church made a public profession of faith in and allegiance to God through Christ, and yet they had turned "from the holy commandment delivered unto them" (2 Peter 2:21). Thus, to "deny" God was to apostatize into idolatry and to demonstrate the reprobation of one's heart: "They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate" (Titus 1:16).
       Again, the question must be asked, Why would the Father send the Son to die for the sins of those whom He had no intention of saving? Just as was the case in Deuteronomy 13:1-5, the infiltration of false prophets into the Church was ordained by God to test the faithfulness of His people. Like Judas, these "ravening wolves" in "sheep's clothing" (Matthew 7:15) will "honor [God] with their lips" (Matthew 15:8) and even perform "many wonderful works" (Matthew 7:22), but they are motivated by satanic influence and unregenerate hearts.
       As we have seen, Scripture teaches that God "foreknew" (had personal intimacy with) those whom He had elected for eternal life, and yet Christ's clear declaration to these men will be that He never knew them (Matthew 7:23). Thus, they had not possessed salvation at one time through faith in the redemption of the cross, and then had turned away from it. They simply were never saved to begin with. Peter specifically stated that their "judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not" (2 Peter 2:3). The Greek text here literally reads, "the judgment of old is not idle" (to krima ekpalai ouk argei). This is an obvious reference to a pretemporal reprobation to damnation, the outworkings of which Peter saw as currently manifest. This thought is also clear in Peter's first epistle, when he wrote of the disobedience of some "whereunto also they were appointed" (1 Peter 2:8), and in Jude 4 when Scripture speaks of "certain men... who were before of old ordained to this condemnation." These men, by deceiving others, willingly fulfill their role in God's plan, and thus are deserving of their ultimate fate. As "servants of corruption" (2 Peter 2:19), they certainly have never been given the grace to repent and believe, and therefore for them the "mist of darkness is reserved for ever" (verse 17). Since there is no indication that either Christ or the Apostles ever prayed for such men as these, and no command is given for us to do so, it would be absurd to suggest that the redemption of the cross equally applies to false prophets and heretics as to the elect.

All Men Were Not Redeemed By Christ

       Though the above thesis does not deal with every biblical passage or verse that has ever been cited in support of the Arminian doctrine of an unlimited atonement, such should be sufficient to prove false the allegations that Calvinists approach the salvation texts with unbiblical presuppositions and misinterpret them accordingly. To the contrary, there are many Scriptures that, when read without an Arminian bias, clearly indicate that Christ's death was in behalf of a specific group of people. For example, Jesus saved "his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21), while those who are not His people are left to die in their sins (John 8:24). He came "to give his life a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:28; March 10:45) — "a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues" (Revelation 7:9) — but he did not die for all men who ever lived or will live on the earth. He gave "his life for the sheep" (John 10:11), but He rejects the "goats" (Matthew 25:41) who are "not of [His] sheep" (John 10:26). "Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it" (Ephesians 5:25-27), and "he hath purchased [it] with his own blood" (Acts 20:28). It is therefore "his people," "the sheep," and "the church" for whom Christ prayed in John 17:6-10, and for none others:

       I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

       Furthermore, in Luke 19:10 we read, "For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost." Such was the Incarnation twofold in its purpose: Christ came to seek and to save. The seeking cannot be divorced from the saving as if the one act could be accomplished and the other left undone. Even more specifically, we must understand that Christ came to ransom, or to make atonement for, His "sheep" by the shedding of His blood. Now, the concept of ransom is very explicitly described in Scripture as the actual acquiring of that which was sought and paid for. The Greek word lutron also carries the meaning of "a loosing," with reference to a former state of debt, bondage, etc.⁽²¹⁾ For example, in Exodus 21:30, if a man's bull killed another man, he was required to pay a ransom price to purchase back his innocence, thereby "loosing" himself from bloodguiltiness. In Leviticus 25:24, the Israelites were commanded to "ransom" the land, thereby "loosing" it from its former owner, and in Leviticus 19:20, this same concept of acquiring and "loosing" is applied to the ransom of slaves.
       This last illustration is most significant in light of the ransom provided for the elect by Christ. If the elect are truly purchased "with the precious blood of Christ" (1 Peter 1:19), then they have actually become the "purchased possession" (Ephesians 1:14) of Christ and are therefore distinguished from the world as His "peculiar people" (1 Peter 2:9). Hence, they no longer belong to themselves, but as the slaves of Christ, they must relinquish all things, including their own wills, unto His service (1 Corinthians 6:19-20; 2 Corinthians 5:15). Simply stated, a slave has no right to choose whether or not he will serve in the capacity for which he was purchased. Furthermore, those whom Christ purchased have been "loosed" from their former state of bondage to sin and death, and have been granted the blessings of eternal life instead. To limit this gift to those who accept it is to say that the blood of Christ acted merely as a downpayment which merely guaranteed that all men would have the opportunity to be saved rather than that some would actually be saved.
       The concept of atonement is also very definite in the Scriptures. Under the Levitical system of the Old Covenant, the barrier between God and man was represented by the thick veil which hung in the temple between the Holy of Holies and the outer court. Every year on the Day of Atonement, the high priest entered the Holy of Holies to make a symbolic atonement for the people with the blood of a lamb "without blemish" (Exodus 12:5). Under the New Covenant, however, Christ, who was both the High Priest and the sacrificial Lamb, entered the heavenly Temple of which the earthly temple was but a type and shadow, and forever tore in two the veil of sin separating the elect from God's presence (Luke 23:45):

       And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins (Matthew 26:26-27).

         Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.... And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.... [B]ut now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 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 (Hebrews 9:12, 15, 26-28).

The Work of Christ Was Completed on the Cross

       In light of the Scriptures discussed above, it is the firm conviction of the Calvinist that the Atonement was a reality, not merely a wishful thought. In the Reformed system, God's redemptive plan was brought to completion, the sins of His chosen ones were actually remitted, and the Body of Christ (the Church) was literally purchased with His blood. However, to the Arminian, who insists on a democratic view of salvation in which sinful man has ultimate veto power over the decrees of Almighty God, this cannot be true:

       Christ's death on behalf of the race evidentally did not automatically secure for anyone an actual reconciled relationship with God, but made it possible for people to enter into such a relationship by faith [emphasis added].⁽²²⁾

         The atonement is that aspect of the work of Christ, particularly his death, that makes possible the restoration of fellowship between God and humankind....
       God's plan, the scheme of redemption, was to offer salvation through the very life and death of his Only Begotten One [emphasis added].⁽²³⁾

       This insistence on a potential redemption simply cannot be supported from Scripture. In addition to Ephesians 2:5, which tells us that God "hath quickened us together with Christ" when "we were dead in sins," we also have the Apostle's testimony in Colossians 1:21-22: "And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight." Arminians would, of course, argue that God "quickened" and "reconciled" us at the moment we "exercised faith" in Christ. The Apostle Paul, however, clearly stated in Galatians 2:20 that he had been "crucified with Christ," and that, just as the whole race died with Adam, so all of the elect were made alive through Christ's death and resurrection. In other words, not only was our redemption purchased on the cross nearly two thousand years ago, but our Advocate immediately took His place before the great heavenly Bar to secure our pardon. The elect, "not yet born, neither having done any good or evil," were released from the prison of eternal condemnation, "that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that called" (Romans 9:11).
       This doctrine of a completed, pre-birth salvation, which utterly demolishes the Arminian emphasis on human autonomy and personal salvific choice, can also be seen clearly in Hebrews 10:11-14: "And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices which can never take away sins: but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." The phrase "hath perfected for ever" is in the aorist tense, signifying past completed action, not continuing action in the present. The question now facing the Arminian is whether Christ succeeded or failed in His mission to save sinners. There is absolutely no room for mere possibilities here; either He accomplished the work for which He was sent into the world by the Father, or He did not.⁽²⁴⁾ If He work was completed, then Arminianism is false; if His work was not completed, then Christ was an imposter and those who follow Him "are of all men most miserable" (1 Corinthians 15:19). Fortunately, such a dilemma does not face the Calvinist who reads the Bible as a whole, for no clearer declaration of Christ's completed mission could be hoped for than His own final words on Calvary: "It is finished" (John 19:30).
       The following words of Charles Haddon Spurgeon are conclusive:

       We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not. 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 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.⁽²⁵⁾

Endnotes

1. The terms particular redemption or definite atonement would perhaps better illustrate the doctrine than limited atonement. The latter tends to a misunderstanding that Calvinism teaches an atonement which is somehow limited in its power to save rather than limited in its extent, while the former two more precisely describe an atonement which, though indeed limited in extent, is nevertheless quite definite in what it was intended to accomplish and in what it actually did accomplish for particular individuals. However, since the Calvinistic system is commonly represented by the acronym T-U-L-I-P — limited atonement, of course, being represented by the L — the latter term will be utilized throughout this book.

2. Miethe, "Universal Power," page 92.

3. Donald M. Lake, essay: "He Died For All: The Universal Dimensions of the Atonement," in Clark H. Pinnock (editor), Grace Unlimited (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1975), page 33.

4. There are, however, passages in Calvin's writings from which the doctrine of limited atonement may be inferred. For example, regarding the subject of election, he wrote: "The covenant of life is not preached equally to all.... This diversity displays the unsearchable depth of the divine judgment, and is without doubt subordinate to God's purpose of eternal election. But... it is plainly owing to the mere pleasure of God that salvation is spontaneously offered to some, while others have no access to it...." (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Chapter XXI:1). Without a doubt, Calvin recognized that the Gospel message was the simple preaching of the cross (1 Corinthians 2:2), and yet he clearly believed that this message was not applicable to all men. Lake is left, then, to explain just what Calvin here referred to if not to a limited atonement.

5. Owen, Death of Death, page 79.

6. Loraine Boettner, Studies in Theology (Nutley, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1980), page 317.

7. Packer, "Introductory Essay," page 6.

8. I. Howard Marshall, essay: "Universal Atonement and Grace in the Pastoral Epistles," Grace of God/Will of Man, pages 52-53.

9. Lake, "He Died For All," page 78.

10. Gill, Cause of God, page 37.

11. It is evident that Scripture makes a clear distinction between saving knowledge and mere intellectual assent. For example, in James 2:19 we read that "the devils also believe, and tremble."

12. Oddly enough, John Wesley himself criticized the notion that God and His will could be separated, stating that the latter could not be considered apart from what we know about God Himself: "It seems then, that the whole difficulty arises from considering God's will as distinct from God: otherwise it vanishes away. For none can doubt but God is the cause of the law of God. But the will of God is God himself. It is God considered as willing thus or thus" ("The Origin, Nature, Property, and Use of the Law," Works of Wesley, Volume V, pages 440-441). Granted, Wesley made the above statement with God's mercy and love in mind. In other words, God's will could never be anything but merciful and loving. However, we also know from Scripture that God is omnipotent. Using Wesley's logic, may we not then say that God's will itself is nothing less than all-powerful and thus efficacious?

13. Gill, Cause of God, page 49.

14. Strong, Hebrew Dictionary, page 53.

15. John Calvin, Harmony of the Evangelists (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1993), Volume I, page 307; Institutes, Book III, Chapter XXIV:17.

16. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, page 434.

17. Vine, Expository Dictionary, page 1004.

18. T.C. Skeat, essay: "Especially the Parchments: A Note on 2 Timothy 4:13," Journal of Theological Studies, ns 30 (1979), pages 173-177.

19. James Strong, A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek New Testament (Maclean, Virginia: MacDonald Publishing Company, n.d.), page 36.

20. Some of the newer translations, such as the New International Version, render Jude 4 so as to imply that both despotais and kurios are applicable to Christ (i.e. "Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord"). Both the older and newer King James Version, however, differ from these by making a clear distinction in this verse between the Father and the Son: "the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." The discrepancy between these renditions arises from a slight variation in the different manuscripts. In the Textus Receptus, which is the basis of the KJV and the NKJV, we find the definite article ton (the) inserted after the conjunction kai (and), while in the Nestle-Aland text from which most of the modern versions were translated, this article is absent. The former of the two is likely the more accurate, particularly since it better reflects the economic subordinational theology of the New Testament.

21. Vine, Expository Dictionary, page 929.

22. Pinnock, "From Augustine," page 23.

23. Miethe, "Universal Power," page 72.

24. John Owen's illustration may be helpful here:

       God imposed His wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men. If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved.... If the second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world. If the first, why, then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, "Because of their unbelief; they will not believe." But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died from partaking of the fruit of His death? If He did not, then did He not die for all of their sins (Death of Death, pages 61-62).

25. Spurgeon, quoted by Packer, "Introductory Essay," page 14.