A Defense of Limited Atonement

Cory Byrum
Aug 26, 2017 · 6 min read
Graphic created by author

This article was originally posted here on the Reformed Outlook.


“All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.“ — John 6:37 KJV

Throughout Church History, the Church has been divided on the subject of Christ’s atoning work on the cross, and rightly so; It is a weighty matter wherein godly men have disagreed sharply for centuries. However, I do feel that we can come to a definitive stance on the disagreement between Calvinists and Arminians (or any non-Calvinist) because God has revealed his mysterious will through His Word for the discernable to gain insight (Cf. Ephesians 1:9; 17–18).

As Christians, our sole source of authority in matters of doctrine must be from scripture alone, and from there I will draw all of my arguments from.
My premise for this article will be a defense for the view that Christ died and effectually paid for the sins of His elect people, and will consist of three parts: The efficacy of Christ’s atonement, in view of the Covenant of Redemption, and briefly I will address Free Will. This article will then end with a few questions for those that reject Limited Atonement. This article will also assume a biblical doctrine of unconditional election.


The Efficacy of Christ’s Atonement.

In discussing Christ’s atonement we must admit that His death on the cross accomplished something. His death had to have an effect on His people, so the question at hand is what His death accomplished.

The first view is that Jesus died for all, effectively saving every sinner past present and future. This is called universalism and was condemned as heresy throughout Church History. Another option is that Christ died for all, and His death restored every sinner from their fallen nature, allowing anyone to reach out in faith for salvation. This is the classic view held by Arminians and many non-Calvinists.This position does not hold weight under further examination, and was also rightly condemned by the Synod of Dordrecht. The final view of Christ’s atonement is the historic Reformed view. This states that Christ died for a selected group of people, and effectively purchased their salvation with His blood and righteousness.

“Therefore will I divide Him a portion with the great, and He shall divide the spoil with the strong; because He hath poured out His soul unto death: and He was numbered with the transgressors and He bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.” — Isaiah 53:12 KJV

“…Who was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification. Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:” — Romans 4:25; 5:1 KJV

So we see that the Christ has brought about peace with God the Father for those whom His death is applied to. We cannot say that those who will spend eternity in Hell have, or have had, peace with God. Jesus’ death effectively brought about the salvation for those to whom it is applied. Looking at the biblical language tied to the atonement with the benefits one receives through faith, it is impossible to say that these benefits are given to everyone. Christ’s atonement is so inseparable with the benefits it brings about, that we are forced to understand that for those Christ died for will absolutely receive these benefits.

“In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace;” — Ephesians 1:7 KJV

Christ’s Atonement In View of The Covenant of Redemption.

“Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness; in hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;” — Titus 1:1–2 KJV

Here is a good definition for the Covenant of Redemption (Pactum Salutis) so that we are on the same page as I discuss Christ’s atonement in view of this intratrinitarian covenant:

“In Reformed theology, the pactum salutis has been defined as a pretemporal, intratrinitarian agreement between the Father and Son in which the Father promises to redeem an elect people. In turn the Son volunteers to earn the salvation of his people by becoming incarnate…by acting as surety of the covenant of grace for and as mediator of the covenant of grace to the elect. In his active and passive obedience, Christ fulfills the conditions of the pactum salutis…ratifying the Father’s promise, because of which the Father rewards the Son’s obedience with the salvation of the elect. And because of this the Holy Spirit applies the Son’s work to his people through the means of grace.” David Van Drunen & Scott Clark; Covenant, Justification and Pastoral Ministry, p. 168

Christ has been given a people to redeem by the Father (see passages such as Psalm 110, Hebrews 7, and John 17), so to say that Christ died for all men, those that the Father gave Him and those He did not, would create conflict within the Trinity. The clearer explanation of Christ’s atonement is seen through His office as High Priest. We gain our understanding of words like “atonement” and “high priest” through the Law of God, specifically in Leviticus. In the Old Covenant, the High Priest would go before the people of Israel and offer an atoning sacrifice as a sign for what the Christ would do. We know from Hebrews 7 that Jesus is the fulfillment of this office. He is our eternal High Priest who will never die( Heb. 7 22–24). His death perfectly accomplished redemption from sins for His people once and for all (Eph. 1:7), and He is before the throne of God interceding for His people (Rom. 8:34).

To say that Christ died for all men, giving them the chance to respond for salvation, is a gross misunderstanding of Christ’s atonement that is foreign to the scriptures and must be rejected; we must affirm the view of Christ’s covenantal atonement for His people.

Addressing Man’s Free Will.

[Note: I will briefly address Free will in this section. Caleb, one of our other contributors here at The Reformed Outlook, wrote a piece on Free Will a few months back, and you can read that here if you wish to have more information than I will go into in this article.]

When discussing Christ’s atonement, we must talk about the free will of man. When God created Adam and Eve, He did not create them perfect but created them with what I will call a neutral will (one that can either obey God’s law or disobey). Adam, and all of his posterity, perished spiritually when Adam transgressed the Covenant of Works. In this, we all have inherited a sinful nature, wherein our capacity to obey God has been forfeited. We can only do that which we desire. It is not until the Spirit of God regenerates (See Ezek. 36:25–27; John 3:1–21; Titus3:3–5) a sinful man that we are restored back to our first parents’ estate, but we are empowered and sustained by the Holy Spirit so that we cannot fall from grace.


Questions For The Cautious.

I would like to leave the end of this article with a couple of open-ended questions for you to consider if you do not hold to the doctrine of Limited Atonement.


“As far as east is distant from the west, so far hath He from us removed, in His love, all our iniquity.” — Psalm 103:12 SMV

)
Cory Byrum

Written by

Presbyterian blogger, artist, and food lover. Husband to Emily, father to Calvin.

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade