What is the Doctrine of Limited Atonement?

 

The above is the 12^th in the series of 16 short video clips from RC Sproul that I have been commenting on in my blog. It is titled, “What is the doctrine of Limited Atonement?” which is one of the central tenets of Calvinism, and forms part of the acronym TULIP which defines, or summarises the theology of Calvinism. It is about three and a half minutes long, and its transcript is as follows:

“One of the things that I am engaged in as a member of a presbytery is that we frequently have to give examinations for men who are being presented to be ordained into the ministry, and inevitably the question is asked about what is called Limited Atonement, or Definite Atonement, or whatever; one of the so-called five points of Calvinism; and inevitably and invariably the answer will be this: That the work of Christ on the cross, the Atonement of Jesus, is sufficient for all, but efficient only for some; that is, it brings the effect of redemption only to some, but it is sufficient to cover the sins of all the world. And I always have to say to the students, I said look, what you have just articulated is not the Reformed view, every Arminian believes that; every Arminian believes that the cross of Christ is sufficient, the merit of Jesus is sufficient to save every last person on the earth; but only those who believe and avail themselves of it are in fact saved. And every Calvinist would agree that the merit of Jesus is sufficient to cover all of the sins of every human being on this planet; but only those who are believers actually receive the benefit of that work of Jesus; so where do we differ?”

There isn’t any difference as he has expressed it. Either his thinking is not clear, or else he is not articulating it very well. He continues:

“Well, the whole issue here has to do with the design of the Atonement; what was God’s purpose in sending Christ to the cross?”

Then he is not articulating it very well, or his thinking on the subject is not clear or logical. How does one of the above two expressions support that idea, and the other one doesn’t? I don’t see a logical difference. If there is a difference, he is not expressing it very well. He continues:

“And again, here it was, was it to save everybody? Well, if God sovereignly decided to save everybody in the world, and to have Jesus atone for everybody’s sins in the whole world, and on the basis of that Atonement, save everybody, then what would happen? Everybody would be saved, there is no doubt about that. But again Arminianism, along with Calvinism, both reject universalism; they are both particularists; they both believe that only some people will be saved, and not all; and so again the question comes back, What was God’s intent? In the final analysis? The Arminian is saying, God’s intent or design in the cross was to make salvation possible to everybody, and to leave it up to the people whether they avail themselves of it or not; whereas the Reformed view is that God’s design from all eternity in the Atonement was to provide salvation for the elect, so that God is not just working with possibilities; he has an eternal design that he brings to pass. And it is effectual, it works. Every person for whom Jesus died, receives the benefit of that.”

I have already discussed that subject in response to one of his earlier video clips (#9 in the series), titled “What is the doctrine of Unconditional Election?” therefore no further comment is required. He continues:

“The other problem with that is, as John Owen so brilliantly points out in his book, The Death of Death, …”

I had previously discussed John Owen’s theology and book in an earlier blog post as well, which can be seen here. He continues:

“… the Arminian has the problem of Christ only dying for some sins, it doesn’t really atone for all sins, because the sin of unbelief can’t really be incorporated there; because if a person doesn’t believe in the cross and in Christ, then they don’t receive the benefit of the Atonement, so that sin must not have been atoned for… ”

Wrong! All sins are atoned for (including “unbelief”), but repentance is required to make it effectual. “Unbelief,” like all other sins, can also be repented of, and thus be forgiven. His argument is based on the false presupposition that all sins atoned for must be absolved unconditionally, which is not biblical. Sins atoned for can only be remitted on condition of genuine repentance, which he wants to gloss over and turn a blind eye to. He continues:

“… or if it was, then you have an even worse problem; you have God providing an Atonement for sin, where the sins are removed, the guilt is paid for; and then, a form of double jeopardy, he punishes that person, who has already had his sins paid for. I mean, what about that? That creates a huge problem.”

No problem at all! See above. That argument is based on the false presupposition that sins atoned for must be unconditionally redeemed, which is not biblical, and is entirely heretical and false. Sins atoned for can only be remitted on condition of genuine repentance, meaning to turn away from sin, and “bring forth fruit worthy of repentance” (Matt. 3:8; Luke 3:8). And “repentance” is man’s responsibility, not God’s. It means turning away from sin, and keeping the commandments of God. It is something that man does by his own freewill and choice. It is not something that is imposed on him by some divine act of “predestination” and immutable decree, as in the heresy of Calvinism.