----------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1994 by the Christian Research Institute.
----------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION LIMITATIONS:
This data file is the sole property of the Christian Research
Institute.  It may not be altered or edited in any way.  It may
be reproduced only in its entirety for circulation as "freeware,"
without charge.  All reproductions of this data file must contain
the copyright notice (i.e., "Copyright 1994 by the Christian
Research Institute").  This data file may not be used without the
permission of the Christian Research Institute for resale or the
enhancement of any other product sold.  This includes all of its
content with the exception of a few brief quotations not to
exceed more than 500 words.

If you desire to reproduce less than 500 words of this data file
for resale or the enhancement of any other product for resale,
please give the following source credit:  Copyright 1994 by the
Christian Research Institute, P.O. Box 500-TC, San Juan
Capistrano, CA 92693.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

"The Extent of the Atonement: Limited Atonement Versus Unlimited
Atonement" (an original ASCII file article by the Associate
Editor of the Christian Research Journal, Ron Rhodes.)
-------------

    The following discussion of limited atonement versus unlimited
atonement has been put together because many people have contacted
me for more information regarding what this debate is all about --
and why I (Ron Rhodes), in particular, hold to unlimited atonement.

    The following discussion is intended as a brief summary. Not
every argument for limited atonement has been listed; not every
argument for unlimited atonement has been listed. But the major
arguments for both positions are set forth in a brief fashion. I
also quote from advocates of both positions.

    Though I strongly believe in unlimited atonement, I have many
friends who believe in limited atonement. We do not divide over
this issue; neither should you.

    My position is known in theological circles as "4-point
Calvinism." As a backdrop, "5-point Calvinists" hold to T-U-L-I-P:

Total Depravity.

Unconditional Election.

Limited Atonement.

Irresistible Grace.

Perseverance of the Saints.

    As a 4-point Calvinist, I hold to all the above except limited
atonement.

    I point this out simply because it has been the habit of some
of the limited atonement persuasion to say that all who hold to
unlimited atonement are Arminian in their theology. This simply is
not so.


THE ISSUE DEFINED.

    Theologian Walter Elwell summarizes the debate over the extent
of the atonement this way: "Although there are variations as to the
basic ways in which this subject can be addressed, the choices boil
down to two: either the death of Jesus was intended to secure
salvation for a limited number or the death of Jesus was intended
to provide salvation for everyone. The first view is sometimes
called 'limited atonement' because God limited the effect of
Christ's death to a specific number of elect persons, or
'particular redemption' because redemption was for a particular
group of people. The second view is sometimes referred to as
'unlimited atonement' or 'general redemption' because God did not
limit Christ's redemptive death to the elect, but allowed it to be
for mankind in general." [Walter Elwell, "Atonement, Extent of
the," _Evangelical Dictionary of Theology_ (Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1984), 98.]


LIMITED ATONEMENT.

    DEFINITION: "A reference to the view that Christ's atoning
death was only for the elect." [Millard J. Erickson, _Concise
Dictionary of Christian Theology_ (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1987), 97.]

    Louis Berkhof says: "The Reformed position is that Christ died
for the purpose of actually and certainly saving the elect, and the
elect only. This is equivalent to saying that He died for the
purpose of saving only those to whom He actually applies the
benefits of His redemptive work." [L. Berkhof, _Systematic
Theology_ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 394.]


REPRESENTATIVE PASSAGES OFFERED IN SUPPORT OF LIMITED ATONEMENT.

    Matthew 1:21: "She will give birth to a son, and you are to
give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their
sins."

    Matthew 20:28: "...the Son of Man did not come to be served,
but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

    Matthew 26:28: "This is my blood of the covenant, which is
poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

    John 10:15: "...and I lay down my life for the sheep."

    Acts 20:28: "Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of
which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the
church of God, which he bought with his own blood."

    Ephesians 5:25: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ
loved the church and gave himself up for her."

    Hebrews 9:28: "So Christ was sacrificed once to take away the
sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear
sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him."

    John 15:13: "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay
down his life for his friends."


ARGUMENTS SET FORTH IN FAVOR OF LIMITED ATONEMENT.

    The Bible speaks of a limited extent of the atonement.

    The Bible says Christ died for a specific group of people --
"the church," "His people," "His sheep."

    Louis Berkhof says: "Scripture repeatedly qualifies those for
whom Christ laid down His life in such a way as to point to a very
definite limitation. Those for whom He suffered and died are
variously called 'His sheep,' John 10:11, 15, 'His Church,' Acts
20:28; Eph. 5:25-27, 'His people,' Matt. 1:21, and 'the elect,'
Rom. 8:32-35." [Berkhof, _Systematic Theology,_ 395.]

    Since the elect were chosen before the foundation of the world,
how can Christ honestly be said to have died for all men? Put
another way, how could Christ design that which by virtue of His
omniscience He knew would never come to pass?

    Reformed scholar Charles Hodge explains the problem this way:
"If God from eternity determined to save one portion of the human
race and not another, it seems to be a contradiction to say that
the plan of salvation had equal reference to both portions; that
the Father sent his Son to die for those whom He had predetermined
not to save, as truly as, and in the same sense that He gave Him up
for those whom He had chosen to make the heirs of salvation."
[Charles Hodge, _Systematic Theology_ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1952), vol. 2, 553.] The argument seems to be that "it would have
been a waste and a lack of foresight on the part of God to have
Christ die for those whom he had not chosen to salvation." [Millard
J. Erickson, _Christian Theology_ (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1985), 829.]

    It is argued that the nature of ransom is such that, "when paid
and accepted, it automatically frees those for whom it is intended.
No further obligation can be charged against them. Now, if the
death of Christ was a ransom for all alike, not just for the elect,
then it must be the case that all are set free by the work of the
Holy Spirit." [Erickson, _Christian Theology,_ 828; cf. Hodge,
2:553.]  Some advocates of limited atonement say that Christ is
defeated if He died for all men and all men aren't saved.

    If Christ died for all people, as unlimited atonement advocates
say, then God would be unfair in sending people to hell for their
own sins.

    It is argued that "no law court allows payment to be exacted
twice for the same crime, and God will not do that either."
[Elwell, 98.]

    Christ paid for the sins of the elect; the lost pay for their
own sins.

    Since Christ didn't pray for everyone in His High Priestly
prayer in John 17, but only for His own, Christ must not have died
for everyone.

    It is argued that since the intercession is limited in extent,
the atonement must be too. [Erickson, _Christian Theology,_ 828.]

    As Louis Berkhof puts it, "Why should He limit His intercessory
prayer, if He had actually paid the price for all?" [Berkhof,
_Systematic Theology,_ 395.]

    Some advocates of limited atonement have charged that unlimited
atonement tends toward universalism. [Elwell, 98.] Hence, unlimited
atonement cannot be the correct view.

    In the Middle Ages such scholars as Prosper of Aquitaine,
Thomas Bradwardine, and John Staupitz taught limited atonement. It
is claimed that even though John Calvin did not explicitly teach
the doctrine, it seems implicit in some of his writings. Calvin's
successors then made limited atonement explicit and included it in
Reformed confessions of faith like the Canons of Dort and the
Westminster Confession of Faith. [_See_ W. R. Godfrey, "Atonement,
Extent of," _New Dictionary of Theology_ (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1988), 57.]

    Though terms like "all," "world," and "whosoever" are used in
Scripture in reference to those for whom Christ died (e.g., John
3:16), the terms are to be understood in terms of the elect. In
other words:

    "All" refers to "all of the elect" or "all classes of men (Jew
and Gentile)."

    Louis Berkhof says "the word 'all' sometimes has a restricted
meaning in Scripture, denoting all of a particular class, 1 Cor.
15:22; Eph. 1:23, or all kinds of classes, Tit. 2:11." [L. Berkhof,
_Manual of Christian Doctrine_ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983),
218.]

    What does the Bible mean when it says Christ is the "Savior of
all men"? Charles Hodge answers: "What is meant is that He is our
Savior, the Savior of men rather than of angels, not of Jews
exclusively nor of the Gentiles only, not of the rich or of the
poor alone, not of the righteous only, but also of publicans and
sinners...." [Charles Hodge, _Systematic Theology,_ abridged ed.,
ed. Edward N. Gross (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 393.]

    "World" refers to "world of the elect" or to people without
distinction (Jews and Gentiles).

    Louis Berkhof says the unlimited atonement position is based
"on the unwarranted assumption that the word 'world'...means 'all
the individuals that constitute the human race.'....When it is used
of men, [the word] does not always include all men, John 7:4;
12:19; 14:22; 18:20; Rom. 11:12, 15." [Berkhof, _Systematic
Theology,_ 396.] Berkhof also says: "There are passages which teach
that Christ died for the world....In the passages referred to it
may simply serve to indicate that Christ died, not merely for the
Jews, but for people of all the nations of the world." [Berkhof,
_Manual of Christian Doctrine,_ 217.]

    In keeping with the above, the word "whosoever" is interpreted
to mean "whosoever of the elect."

    Such universal terms simply show that Jesus died for all men
without distinction (that is, all kinds of people, and people from
among both the Jews and Gentiles), not that Jesus died for all men
without exception (i.e., every lost sinner).


UNLIMITED ATONEMENT.

DEFINITION: "A reference to the doctrine that Christ's redemptive
death was for all persons." [Erickson, _Christian Theology,_ 176.]


REPRESENTATIVE PASSAGES OFFERED IN SUPPORT OF UNLIMITED ATONEMENT.

    (Note: To clarify my position on a few of these verses, I have
added some expositional text and quotations from various biblical
scholars.)

    Luke 19:10: "For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what
was lost." (The "lost" seems to refer to the entire world of lost
humanity, not just the lost elect.)

    John 1:29: "The next day John saw Jesus coming towards him and
said, 'Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the
world.'"

    What is the "world" here? Exegete B. F. Westcott says: "The
fundamental idea of _kosmos_ [world] in St. John is that of the sum
of created being which belongs to the sphere of human life as an
ordered whole, considered apart from God....the world comes to
represent humanity in its fallen state, alienated from its Maker."
[Westcott, _The Gospel According to St. John_ (London, 1882), 31f.]

    John Calvin says of this verse: "He uses the word sin in the
singular number for any kind of iniquity; as if he had said that
every kind of unrighteousness which alienates men from God is taken
away by Christ. And when he says the sin of the world, he extends
this favor indiscriminately to the whole human race." [Calvin,
_Commentary on John's Gospel_ (Grand Rapids, 1949), vol. I, 64.]

    Ryle similarly states: "Christ is...a Savior for all
mankind....He did not suffer for a few persons only, but for all
mankind....What Christ took away, and bore on the cross, was not
the sin of certain people only, but the whole accumulated mass of
all the sins of all the children of Adam....I hold as strongly as
anyone that Christ's death is profitable to none but the elect who
believe in His Name. But I dare not limit and pare down such
expressions as the one before us....I dare not confine the
intention of redemption to the saints alone. Christ is for every
man....The atonement was made for all the world, though it is
applied and enjoyed by none but believers." [Ryle, _Expository
Thoughts on the Gospels_ (Grand Rapids, 1900), vol. III, 61f.]

    John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and
only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have
eternal life."

    The Greek lexicons are unanimous that "world" here denotes
humankind, not the "world of the elect."

    John 3:16 cannot be divorced from verses 14-15, wherein Christ
alludes to Numbers 21 with its discussion of Moses setting up the
brazen serpent in the camp of Israel, so that if "any man" looked
to it, he experienced physical deliverance. In verse 15 Christ
applies the story spiritually when He says that "whosoever"
believes on the uplifted Son of Man shall experience spiritual
deliverance.

    John Calvin says: "He has employed the universal term
whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life,
and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the
import of the term world which He formerly used [God so loved the
world]; for though nothing will be found in the world that is
worthy of the favor of God, yet He shows Himself to be reconciled
to the whole world, when He invites all men without exception [not
merely 'without distinction'] to the faith of Christ, which is
nothing else than an entrance into life." [John Calvin, _Commentary
on John's Gospel,_ vol. I, 125.]

    John 4:42: "They said to the woman, 'We no longer believe just
because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we
know that this man really is the Savior of the world.'"

    It is certain that when the Samaritans called Jesus "the Savior
of the world," they were not thinking of the world of the elect.

    Likewise, when Jesus said, "I am the Light of the world" (John
8:12), He was not thinking of Himself as the Light of the world of
the elect. "The sun in the heavens shines on all men, though some,
in their folly, may choose to withdraw into dark caves to evade its
illuminating rays." [Norman Douty, _The Death of Christ_ (Irving,
TX: Williams & Watrous Publishing Co., 1978), 82.]

    When Jesus called His disciples "the light of the world" (Matt.
5:14), He did not mean they were the "light of the elect."

    Likewise, the "Savior of the world" in John 4:42 cannot be
limited to the elect.

    Acts 2:21: "And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will
be saved."

    Romans 5:6: "You see, at just the right time, when we were
still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly."

    2 Corinthians 5:14-15: "For Christ's love compels us, because
we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And
he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for
themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again."

    1 Timothy 2:3-4: "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who
wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."

    1 Timothy 2:5-6: "For there is one God and one mediator between
God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for
all men -- the testimony given in its proper time."

    1 Timothy 4:10: "We have put our hope in the living God, who is
the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe."

    Titus 2:11: "For the grace of God that brings salvation has
appeared to all men."

    Hebrews 2:9: "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower
than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he
suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death
for everyone."

    The word "everyone" is better translated "each."

    Henry Alford comments: "If it be asked, why _pantos_ (each)
rather than _panton_ (all), we may safely say that the singular
brings out, far more strongly than the plural word, the
applicability of Christ's death to each individual man." [Henry
Alford, _New Testament for English Readers_ (1868; Chicago, one
vol., ed. 1956).]

    2 Peter 3:9: "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as
some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting
anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

    1 John 2:2: "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not
only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." (Note the
distinction between "ours" and "the whole world.")

    1 John 4:14: "And we have seen and testify that the Father has
sent his Son to be the Savior of the world."


ARGUMENTS SET FORTH IN FAVOR OF UNLIMITED ATONEMENT.

THERE ARE CERTAIN SCRIPTURE PASSAGES THAT SEEM VERY DIFFICULT TO
FIT WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF LIMITED ATONEMENT. FOR EXAMPLE:

    Romans 5:6 says: "At just the right time, when we were still
powerless, Christ died for the ungodly." It doesn't make much sense
to read this as saying that Christ died for the ungodly of the
elect.

    Romans 5:18 says: "Consequently, just as the result of one
trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one
act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all
men."

    Regarding this verse, John Calvin says: "He makes this favor
common to all, because it is propoundable to all, and not because
it is in reality extended to all [i.e., in their experience]; for
though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is
offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do
not receive Him." [John Calvin, _Commentary on Romans_ (Grand
Rapids, 1949), 211.]

    Regarding the two occurrences of the phrase "all men," E. H.
Gifford comments: "The words all men [in v. 18] must have the same
extent in both clauses." [E.H. Gifford, _The Epistle of St. Paul to
the Romans_ (London, 1886), 119f.]

    1 John 2:2 says: "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and
not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." A
natural reading of this verse, without imposing theological
presuppositions on it, seems to support unlimited atonement.

    Isaiah 53:6 says: "We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each
of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the
iniquity of us all" (Isa. 53:6).

    This verse doesn't make sense unless it is read to say that the
same "all" that went astray is the "all" for whom the Lord died.

    "In the first of these statements, the general apostasy of men
is declared; in the second, the particular deviation of each one;
in the third, the atoning suffering of the Messiah, which is said
to be on behalf of all. As the first 'all' is true of all men (and
not just of the elect), we judge that the last 'all' relates to the
same company." [Douty, 73.]

    Theologian Millard Erickson comments: "This passage is
especially powerful from a logical standpoint. It is clear that the
extent of sin is universal; it is specified that every one of us
has sinned. It should also be noticed that the extent of what will
be laid on the suffering servant exactly parallels the extent of
sin. It is difficult to read this passage and not conclude that
just as everyone sins, everyone is also atoned for." [Erickson,
_Christian Theology,_ 830.]

    1 Timothy 4:10 says: "...we have put our hope in the living
God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who
believe."

    There is a clear distinction here between "all men" and "those
who believe."

    Erickson notes that "apparently the Savior has done something
for all persons, though it is less in degree than what he has done
for those who believe." [Erickson, _Christian Theology,_ 834.]

    In 2 Peter 2:1, it seems that Christ even paid the price of
redemption for false teachers who deny Him: "But there were also
false prophets among the people, just as there will be false
teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive
heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them --
bringing swift destruction on themselves." Millard Erickson notes
that "2 Peter 2:1 seems to point out most clearly that people for
whom Christ died may be lost....there is a distinction between
those for whom Christ died and those who are finally saved."
[Erickson, _Christian Theology,_ 831.]

    John 3:17 says: "For God did not send his Son into the world to
condemn the world, but to save the world through him."

    Regarding this verse John Calvin says: "God is unwilling that
we should be overwhelmed with everlasting destruction, because He
has appointed His Son to be the salvation of the world." [Cited in
Douty, 15.]

    Calvin also stated: "The word world is again repeated, that no
man may think himself wholly excluded, if he only keeps the road of
faith." [Calvin, _Commentary on John's Gospel,_ vol. I, 126.]


MANY PASSAGES INDICATE THAT THE GOSPEL IS TO BE UNIVERSALLY
PROCLAIMED, AND THIS SUPPORTS UNLIMITED ATONEMENT.

    Matthew 24:14: "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached
in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end
will come."

    Matthew 28:19: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit..."

    Acts 1:8: "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit
comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all
Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

    Acts 17:30: "In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now
he commands all people everywhere to repent."

    Titus 2:11: "For the grace of God that brings salvation has
appeared to all men."

    In view of such passages, it is legitimate to ask: "If Christ
died only for the elect, how can the offer of salvation be made to
all persons without some sort of insincerity, artificiality, or
dishonesty being involved? Is it not improper to offer salvation to
everyone if in fact Christ did not die to save everyone?"
[Erickson, _Christian Theology,_ 832.]

    "How can God authorize His servants to offer pardon to the
non-elect if Christ did not purchase it for them? This is a problem
that does not plague those who hold to General [Unlimited]
Redemption, for it is most reasonable to proclaim the Gospel to all
if Christ died for all." [Douty, 49.]

    Those who deny unlimited atonement cannot say to any sinner,
"Christ died for you." (After all, he may be one of the non-elect.)

    Reformed counselor Jay Adams comments: "As a reformed
Christian, the writer believes that counselors must not tell any
unsaved counselee that Christ died for him, for they cannot say
that. No man knows except Christ himself who are his elect for whom
he died." [Jay Adams, _Competent to Counsel_ (Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1970), 70.]

    Louis Berkhof, a defender of limited atonement, admits: "It
need not be denied that there is a real difficulty at this point."
[Cited in Erickson, _Christian Theology,_ 833-34.]

    Theologian Robert Lightner comments: "Belief in limited
atonement means that the good news of God's saving grace in Christ
cannot be personalized. Those who hold to such a position cannot
tell someone to whom they are witnessing that Christ died for him
because that one may, in fact, not be one for whom Christ died."
[Robert Lightner, "For Whom Did Christ Die?" _Walvoord: A Tribute,_
ed. Donald K. Campbell (Chicago: Moody Press, 1982), 166.]

    Such Christians believe the gospel must be presented in very
general terms, such as: "God loves sinners and Christ died for
sinners."

    "To believe that some are elect and some nonelect creates no
problem for the soulwinner provided he is free in his convictions
to declare that Christ died for each one to whom he speaks. He
knows that the nonelect will not accept the message. He knows also
that even an elect person may resist it to near the day of his
death. But if the preacher believes that any portion of his
audience is destitute of any basis of salvation, having no share in
the values of Christ's death, it is no longer a question in his
mind of whether they will accept or reject; it becomes rather a
question of truthfulness in the declaration of the message." [Lewis
Sperry Chafer, "For Whom Did Christ Die?" _Bibliotheca Sacra,_
Oct.-Dec. 1980, 316. ]

    2 Peter 3:9 says: "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise,
as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting
anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." How can this
be if Christ died only and exclusively for the elect? [Erickson,
_Christian Theology,_ 832.]

    Romans 5 indicates that through Adam's act of disobedience the
entire human race became the recipients of sin. And through one act
of obedience the last Adam made provision for the gracious gift of
righteousness for the entire human race. The disobedience of the
one was co-extensive with the obedience of the other.

    Scripture says that Christ died for "sinners" (1 Tim. 1:15;
Rom. 5:6-8). The word "sinner" nowhere is limited to the elect or
to the church. It is used exclusively in the Bible of lost
humanity. Scripture tells us that Christ died for sinners, not
penitent sinners, and for the ungodly, not for just some of them.


SEEMINGLY RESTRICTIVE REFERENCES CAN BE LOGICALLY FIT INTO AN
UNLIMITED SCENARIO MORE EASILY THAN UNIVERSAL REFERENCES MADE TO
FIT INTO A LIMITED ATONEMENT SCENARIO.

    "The problem that both groups face is the need to harmonize
passages that refer to limited redemption with passages that refer
to unlimited redemption. To the unlimited redemptionist the limited
redemption passages present no real difficulty. He believes that
they merely emphasize one aspect of a larger truth. Christ did die
for the elect, but He also died for the sins of the whole world.
However, the limited redemptionist is not able to deal with the
unlimited redemption passages as easily." [Chafer, 323.]

    The two sets of passages noted earlier -- one set seemingly in
support of limited atonement, the other in support of unlimited
atonement -- are not irreconcilable. As Elwell puts it, "It is true
that the benefits of Christ's death are referred to as belonging to
the elect, his sheep, his people, but it would have to be shown
that Christ died only for them. No one denies that Christ died for
them. It is only denied that Christ died exclusively for them."
[Elwell, 99.]

    Millard Erickson likewise says that "statements about Jesus
loving and dying for his church or his sheep need not be understood
as confining his special love and salvific death strictly to
them....It does not follow from a statement that Christ died for
his church, or for his sheep, that he did not die for anyone else,
unless, of course, the passage specifically states that it was only
for them that he died....Certainly if Christ died for the whole,
there is no problem in asserting that he died for a specific part
of the whole. To insist that those passages which focus on his
dying for his people require the understanding that he died only
for them and not for any others contradicts the universal passages.
We conclude that the hypothesis of universal atonement is able to
account for a larger segment of the biblical witness with less
distortion than is the hypothesis of limited atonement." [Elwell,
99.]

    Robert Lightner similarly argues: "The task of harmonizing
those various Scriptures poses a far greater problem for those who
hold to a limited atonement than it does to those who hold to an
unlimited position. Those who hold to an unlimited atonement
recognize that some Scriptures emphasize the fact that Christ died
for the elect, for the church, and for individual believers.
However, they point out that when those verses single out a
specific group they do not do so to the exclusion of any who are
outside that group since dozens of other passages include them. The
'limited' passages are just emphasizing one aspect of a larger
truth. In contrast, those who hold to a limited atonement have a
far more difficult time explaining away the 'unlimited' passages."
[Lightner, 166.]

    The fact is, the Scriptures do not always include all aspects
of a truth in any one passage. "If these texts are used in
isolation to 'prove' that Christ died only for the elect, then it
could be argued with equal logic from other isolated passages that
Christ died only for Israel (cf. John 11:51; Isa. 53:8), or that He
died only for the Apostle Paul (for Paul declares of Christ, 'Who
loved me, and gave himself for me,' Gal. 2:20). As well might one
contend that Christ restricted His prayers to Peter because of the
fact that He said to Peter, 'But I have prayed for thee' (Luke
22:32)." [Chafer, 323.]


LET US EXAMINE IN GREATER DETAIL SOME PASSAGES THAT SPEAK OF CHRIST
BEING THE SAVIOR OF THE ISRAELITES.

    Acts 13:23 says: "From this man's descendants God has brought
to Israel the Savior Jesus, as he promised."

    This verse indicates that Jesus was the proffered Savior to
Israel, not that every Israelite had placed faith in Christ and was
saved by the Savior.

    "What ground have we for thinking that all of these persons
received the salvation? None, whatever. Yet, plainly, it was put
within their reach." [Douty, 87.]

    In Matthew 1:21 we are told that Jesus "will save his people
from their sins."

    Throughout the Old Testament God speaks of the Israelites as
"My people."

    Seven times God tells the Pharaoh, "Let My people go" (Exod.
5:1; 7:16; 8:1, 20; 9:1, 13; 10:13).

    (I urge the reader to check a concordance to see for himself
that God continues to refer to the Israelites as "My people"
throughout the entire Old Testament.)

    The last occurrence is Zechariah 13:9: "They will call on my
name and I will answer them; I will say, 'They are my people,' and
they will say, 'The LORD is our God.'"

    Now, in Luke 1:68 Zacharias said: "Praise be to the Lord, the
God of Israel, because he has come and has redeemed his people."
Zacharias is using the phrase "his people" in the standard Old
Testament sense.

    In Matthew 1:21, when an angel told Joseph, "She will give
birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he
will save his people from their sins," the words "his people" seem
to be referring specifically to the people of Israel, not the
entire company of God's elect (which includes non- Israelites or
Gentiles). Yet, as Norman Douty asks, "Who believes that the Jewish
people have a monopoly on Christ's saving grace? All hold that it
goes beyond their confines to the Gentile world as well." [Douty,
132.]

    Likewise we read in John 11:50: "You do not realize that it is
better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole
nation [i.e., Israel] perish."

    In none of these passages do the advocates of limited atonement
insist that the Jewish people exclusively are the objects of God's
saving grace. Similarly, when Christ is said to have purchased the
church with His blood (Acts 20:28), we cannot limit Christ's
atoning work to the church alone.

    Galatians 2:20 declares that Christ loved Paul and gave Himself
for him ("The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son
of God, who loved me and gave himself for me"). But this does not
mean that Christ gave Himself only for Paul.

    To sum up, Christ did not give Himself in the atonement only
for Paul, or only for Israel, or only for the church, but for all
men.


UNIVERSAL TERMS LIKE "WORLD" SHOULD NOT BE RESTRICTED IN CONTEXTS
WHICH SPEAK OF THE ATONEMENT.

    It is true that words like "all" and "world" are sometimes used
in the Bible in a restricted sense. But context is always
determinative. Robert Lightner comments: "Those who always limit
the meaning of those terms in contexts that deal with salvation do
so on the basis of theological presuppositions, not on the basis of
the texts themselves." [Lightner, 165.]

    A word study of the word "world" -- particularly in the apostle
John's writings, where it is used 78 times -- indicates that the
world is God-hating, Christ-rejecting, and Satan-dominated. Yet
this is the world that Christ died for. Particularly in John's
writings, interpreting "world" as "world of the elect" seems a
great distortion of Scripture.

    Among the scholarly lexicons, encyclopedias, and dictionaries
that know nothing of the meaning "world of the elect" for the
biblical word "world" (_kosmos_) are:

Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.

Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament.

Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.

Souter's Pocket Lexicon of the New Testament.

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge.

Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.

The New Bible Dictionary.

Baker's Dictionary of Theology.

Arndt and Gingrich's A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.

    Walter Martin, founder of the Christian Research Institute,
observes: "John the Apostle tells us that Christ gave His life as
a propitiation for our sin (i.e., the elect), though not for ours
only but for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2)....[People]
cannot evade John's usage of 'whole' (Greek: _holos_). In the same
context the apostle quite cogently points out that 'the whole
(_holos_) world lies in wickedness' or, more properly, 'in the lap
of the wicked one' (1 John 5:19, literal translation). If we assume
that 'whole' applies only to the chosen or elect of God, then the
whole world does not 'lie in the lap of the wicked one.' This, of
course, all reject." [Walter Martin, _Essential Christianity_
(Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1980), 55. ]

    We must also ask, How can the Holy Spirit have a ministry to
the whole world in showing men their need of Jesus Christ (John
14-16) if the death of Christ does not make provision for the whole
world?

    John 16:8-11 says: "But I tell you the truth: It is for your
good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not
come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he
will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness
and judgment: in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me;
in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where
you can see me no longer; and in regard to judgment, because the
prince of this world now stands condemned."

    Notice in this passage that "the world" is clearly
distinguished from "you" and "your."

    Yet the Holy Spirit is said to bring conviction on the world.
And one of the things the Spirit convicts "the world" of is the sin
of not believing on Christ (v. 9).

    We are not to conclude that "the world" that is convicted of
unbelief is the world of the elect, are we? (If so, then Satan, the
"prince of this world" [v. 11, same context], must be the "prince
of the elect.")

    Calvin says of this passage that "under the term world are, I
think, included not only those who would be truly converted to
Christ, but hypocrites and reprobate." [Calvin, _Commentary on
John's Gospel,_ vol. II, 138.]


THOUGH GOD IS COMPLETELY SOVEREIGN OVER ALL THINGS, THIS DOES NOT
MEAN HE BRINGS INTO REALITY EVERYTHING HE "DESIRES."

    Norman Douty offers this insight: "Consider the beginnings of
human history. God told our first parents to refrain from eating of
the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Did He want them to eat of
it, or did He not? Plainly, He did not want them to do so. Yet they
ate of it. Was He frustrated? Of course not. He was not frustrated
because, by His efficient grace, He could have induced them to
refrain. Yet He chose to withhold that grace and to permit the
fall. Nevertheless, the full responsibility for that sin belonged
to Adam and Eve, who had sufficient grace to refrain, but did not
use it." [Douty, 13. ]

    Consider Matthew 23:37: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill
the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed
to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under
her wings, but you were not willing." What Christ desired was not
what came about.

    Douty concludes: "As God could have induced our first parents
to refrain from eating of the tree, so He could have induced...the
resistant Jews of Christ's time to have received His gracious
ministry of salvation. But He did not choose to effect these
desirable ends. Yet this in no wise means that He wanted evil to
befall any. He merely allowed the violation of His desires in order
to carry out a hidden purpose He had in mind." [Douty, 14.]

    One further example relates to Jesus, who told some Jews in
John 5:34: "I say these things that you may be saved." But "saved"
they were not. Why? Because Christ added in verse 40, "You are
unwilling to come to Me, that you may have life." Here is a clear
case of "but ye would not," despite the clear offer of salvation.
"There are reasons which are based on the Scriptures why our
sovereign God might provide a redemption for all when He merely
purposed by decree to save some. He is justified in placing the
whole world in a particular relation to Himself so that the gospel
might be preached with all sincerity to all men, and so that on the
human side men might be without excuse, being judged, as they are,
for their rejection of that which is offered to them." [Chafer,
317.]


THAT ONE REJECTS LIMITED ATONEMENT DOES NOT IN ANY WAY MEAN THAT
ONE LESSENS OR DIMINISHES THE CLEAR SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE OF THE
SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD.

    Any who make such an allegation are simply uninformed.

    "Without the slightest inconsistency the unlimited
redemptionists may believe in an election according to sovereign
grace, that none but the elect will be saved, that all of the elect
will be saved, and that the elect are by divine enablement alone
called out of the state of spiritual death from which they are
impotent to take even one step in the direction of their own
salvation. The text, 'No man can come to me, except the Father
which hath sent me draw him' (John 6:44), is as much a part of the
one system of doctrine as it is of the other." [Chafer, 310-11.]

    Matthew 26:28 says, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is
poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." The reference to
"many" in Christ's words do not support limited atonement but
rather support unlimited atonement.

    One must keep in mind that earlier in Matthew Jesus had said
that few find eternal life (Matt. 7:14) and few are chosen (22:14).
But Christ did not say His blood was poured out for a few, but for
many.

    John Calvin thus declares of this verse: "By the word many He
means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race."
[_Calvin Commentaries_ (reprinted, Grand Rapids, 1949), Harmony of
Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. III, 214. ]

    This is the same meaning as in Romans 5:15: "For if the many
died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace
and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ,
overflow to the many!" Note that the "many" of verse 15 is clearly
defined in verse 18 as "all men": "...just as the result of one
trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one
act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all
men."

    Notice that in this verse Paul speaks of Adam's sin, and of the
resultant death coming upon all his descendants. But then the
apostle goes on to speak of the grace of God and of its resultant
gift (of life), abounding to the same company.

    I say, "to the same company," because "the many" in the second
clause of the verse is coextensive with "the many" in the first
clause.


ANSWERS TO THREE COMMON QUESTIONS.


IF CHRIST DIED FOR THOSE WHO GO TO HELL, WHAT BENEFIT HAVE THEY
FROM HIS DEATH?

    Answer: "We may as well ask, What good did the bitten
Israelites get from the brazen serpent to which they refused to
look? None, of course, but God got the glory of being a God
generous enough to provide for them." [Douty, 129.]

IF SATISFACTION HAS BEEN MADE FOR ALL, HOW CAN ANY GO TO HELL?

    Answer: "Though God has provided atonement for all, He has also
stipulated that none get the good of it, except through repentance
and faith. Deliverance from doom was not contingent on the
atonement itself but on the reception of it. Men can starve in the
presence of a free feast, if they refuse to partake of it." [Douty,
129.]

WHY WOULD GOD HAVE CHRIST DIE FOR THOSE WHOM HE, IN HIS
OMNISCIENCE, KNEW WOULD NEVER RECEIVE HIS PROVISION?

    Answer: "Why did God richly endow the angels who subsequently
sinned, when He knew they would not use His gifts to their
everlasting good? Why did He bestow valuable gifts on our first
parents, to be employed for their and our advantage, when He knew
they would not so employ them? Why did He send Noah to preach to
people He knew would not receive His message? And why did He send
the prophets to Israel, when He knew they would continue in their
apostasy? There is such a thing as the divine benevolence." [Douty,
130.]


REPLY TO SOME CRITICISMS MADE BY PROPONENTS OF LIMITED ATONEMENT.

    The charge that unlimited atonement leads to universalism is
special pleading. "Just because one believes that Christ died for
all does not mean all are saved. One must believe in Christ to be
saved, so the fact that Christ died for the world apparently does
not secure the salvation of all. Those who assert this are simply
wrong." [Elwell, 99.]

    God makes the provision of salvation for all men, but it is
conditioned by faith. Thus, salvation becomes actual only for the
elect, although it is potential and available to all. "Our
inheriting eternal life involves two separate factors: an objective
factor (Christ's provision of salvation) and a subjective factor
(our acceptance of that salvation)." [Erickson, _Christian
Theology,_ 832.]

    Moderate Calvinists distinguish between the provisional
benefits of Christ's death and the appropriation of those benefits
by the elect.

    Although the provision of atonement is unlimited, yet the
application of it is limited. [Cf. A. H. Strong, _Systematic
Theology_ (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, 1979), 771f.]

    In his book _The Death Christ Died,_ Robert Lightner explains:
"[Moderate Calvinists] believe the cross does not apply its own
benefits but that God has conditioned His full and free salvation
upon personal faith in order to appropriate its accomplishments to
the individual. This faith which men must exercise is not a work
whereby man contributes his part to his salvation, nor does faith,
in the moderate Calvinist view, improve in any way the final and
complete sacrifice of Calvary. It is simply the method of applying
Calvary's benefits which the sovereign God has deigned to use in
His all-wise plan of salvation." [Robert Lightner, _The Death
Christ Died_ (Schaumburg, IL: _Regular Baptist,_ 1978), 56.]

    God is not unfair in condemning those who reject the offer of
salvation. He is not exacting judgment twice. "Because the
nonbeliever refuses to accept the death of Christ as his own, the
benefits of Christ's death are not applied to him. He is lost, not
because Christ did not die for him, but because he refuses God's
offer of forgiveness." [Elwell, 99.]

    The electing purpose of God is not complete until the elect are
in glory. Since this is true, and since the cross provides
salvation dependent on faith for its reception, and since the cross
does not secure salvation apart from that faith, there is no
contradiction with God's sovereignty.


UNLIMITED ATONEMENT HAS BEEN HELD BY A MAJORITY OF SCHOLARS
THROUGHOUT CHURCH HISTORY.

    Millard Erickson points out that unlimited atonement has been
"held by the vast majority of theologians, reformers, evangelists,
and fathers from the beginning of the church until the present day,
including virtually all the writers before the Reformation, with
the possible exception of Augustine. Among the Reformers the
doctrine is found in Luther, Melanchthon, Bullinger, Latimer,
Cranmer, Coverdale, and even Calvin in some of his
commentaries....Is it likely that the overwhelming majority of
Christians could have so misread the leading of the Holy Spirit on
such an important point?" [Erickson, _Christian Theology,_ 835.]

    Robert Lightner addresses Calvin's position on the issue:
"Those who subscribe to a limited atonement generally argue that
that is the position espoused by Calvin. But it is highly debatable
that he did, in fact, hold that view....Whereas some scholars have
attempted to show that there is harmony between Calvin and later
orthodox Calvinism, others have argued that contemporary Calvinism
has veered significantly from Calvin's teaching, including his
teaching on the extent of the atonement." [Lightner, 159. ] (The
reader will recall that a number of Calvin's citations in this
paper show him favorable to unlimited atonement.)


QUOTATIONS FROM THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS.

    Clement of Alexandria (150-220): "Christ freely
brings...salvation to the whole human race." [Paedagogus, ch. 11.
Quoted by Davenant, _The Death of Christ_ (Vol. II of _On the
Colossians,_ ed. Allport (London, 1832), 319.]

    Eusebius (260-340): "It was needful that the Lamb of God should
be offered for the other lambs whose nature He assumed, even for
the whole human race." [_Demonstratio Evangelica,_ ch. 10, Preface.
Quoted in Davenant, 374.]

    Athanasius (293-373): "Christ the Son of God, having assumed a
body like ours, because we were all exposed to death [which takes
in more than the elect], gave Himself up to death for us all as a
sacrifice to His Father." [_On the Incarnation of the Word,_ 42.
Quoted in Davenant, 410.]

    Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386): "Do not wonder if the whole world
was ransomed, for He was not a mere man, but the only-begotten Son
of God." [Catacheses, 13.2. Quoted by Smeaton, _The Apostles'
Doctrine of the Atonement_ (Edinburgh, 1870; Grand Rapids, 1957),
498.]

    Gregory of Nazianzen (324-389): "The sacrifice of Christ is an
imperishable expiation of the whole world." [Oratorio 2 in _Pasch.,
i.e., Passover._ Quoted by Davenant, 374.]

    Basil (330-379): "But one thing was found that was equivalent
to all men....the holy and precious blood of our Lord Jesus Christ,
which He poured out for us all." [On Ps. 49:7, 8, sec. 4. Quoted by
Smeaton, 499.]

    Ambrose (340-407): "Christ suffered for all, rose again for
all. But if anyone does not believe in Christ, he deprives himself
of that general benefit." [On Ps. 118, Sermon 8. Quoted by
Davenant, 411.] He also said, "Christ came for the salvation of
all, and undertook the redemption of all, inasmuch as He brought a
remedy by which all might escape, although there are many who...are
unwilling to be healed." [On Ps. 118, Sermon 8. Quoted by Davenant,
425f.]

    Augustine (354-430): Though Augustine is often cited as
supporting limited atonement, there are also clear statements in
Augustine's writings that are supportive of unlimited atonement.
For example: "The Redeemer came and gave the price, shed His blood,
and bought the world. Do you ask what He bought? See what He gave,
and find what He bought. The blood of Christ is the price: what is
of so great worth? What, but the whole world? What, but all
nations?" [Quoted in Smeaton, 505.] He also stated, "The blood of
Christ was shed for the remission of all sins." [Quoted in
Davenant, 410.]

    Cyril of Alexandria (376-444): "The death of one flesh is
sufficient for the ransom of the whole human race, for it belonged
to the Logos, begotten of God the Father." [_Oratorio de Recta
Fide,_ no. 2, sec. 7. Smeaton, 502.]

    Prosper (a friend and disciple of Augustine who died in 463):
"As far as relates to the magnitude and virtue of the price, and to
the one cause of the human race, the blood of Christ is the
redemption of the whole world: but those who pass through this life
without the faith of Christ, and the sacrament of regeneration, do
not partake of the redemption." [_Answer to Vincentius._ Davenant,
321f.] He also said, "The Savior is most rightly said to have been
crucified for the redemption of the whole world." [_Reply to
Capitula Gallorum,_ no. 9, Davenant, 425.] He then said, "Although
the blood of Christ be the ransom of the whole world, yet they are
excluded from its benefit, who, being delighted with their
captivity, are unwilling to be redeemed by it." [_Reply to Capitula
Gallorum,_ no. 9, Davenant, 425.]


QUOTATIONS FROM THE REFORMERS OF THE 16TH CENTURY.

    Martin Luther (1483-1546): "Christ is not cruel exactor, but a
forgiver of the sins of the whole world....He hath given Himself
for our sins, and with one oblation hath put away the sins of the
whole world....Christ hath taken away the sins, not of certain men
only, but also of thee, yea, of the whole world...Not only my sins
and thine, but also the sins of the whole world...take hold upon
Christ." [Martin Luther, _Commentary on Galatians;_ quoted by
Morison, _The Extent of the Atonement_ (Glasgow, 1882), 121f.,
125.]

    Philip Melanchton (1497-1560): "It is necessary to know that
the Gospel is a universal promise, that is, that reconciliation is
offered and promised to all mankind. It is necessary to hold that
this promise is universal, in opposition to any dangerous
imaginations on predestination, lest we should reason this promise
pertains to a few others and ourselves. But we declare that the
promise of the Gospel is universal. And to this are brought those
universal expressions which are used constantly in the Scriptures."
[Melancthon, _Common-places._ Davenant, 337.]

    Other people involved to some degree in the Reformation who
held to unlimited atonement include: Hugh Latimer, Myles Coverdale,
Thomas Cranmer, Wolfgang Musculus, Henry Bullinger, Benedict
Aretius, Thomas Becon, Jerome Zanchius, David Paraeus, and, as
noted earlier, John Calvin. [For documentation on all this, _see_
Norman F. Douty, _The Death of Christ_ (Irving, TX: Williams &
Watrous Publishing Co., 1978), 139-41.]


QUOTATIONS FROM OTHER LUMINARIES FROM RECENT CHURCH HISTORY.

    Philip Schaff: "His saving grace flows and overflows to all and
for all, on the simple condition of faith....If, by the grace of
God, I could convert a single skeptic to a child-like faith in Him
who lived and died for me and for all, I would feel that I had not
lived in vain." [Cited by Douty, 160.]

    B. F. Westcott: "Potentially, the work of Christ extends to the
whole world." And "the love of God is without limit on His part,
but to appropriate the blessing of love, man must fulfill the
necessary condition of faith." [B. F. Westcott, _The Gospel
According to St. John_ (London, 1882), 21, 55, 56.]

    A. T. Robertson: [The word "world" in John 3:16 -- "For God so
loved the world" -- means] "the whole cosmos of men, including the
Gentiles, the whole human race," and adds that "this universal
aspect of God's love appears also in II Cor. 5:19; Rom. 5:8." [A.T.
Robertson, _Word Pictures in the New Testament_ (New York, 1930),
vol. 5, 50.]

    MY CONCLUSION: In this brief outline, we have looked at both
sides of the debate regarding the extent of the atonement. I
believe that when one considers all the scriptural evidence
collectively, the correct view is unlimited atonement.

               -- Ron Rhodes (Internet Address: RonRhodes@aol.com).

-------------

End of document, CRV0001A.TXT (original CRI file name),
"The Extent of the Atonement: Limited Atonement Versus Unlimited
Atonement"
release A, September 5, 1994
R. Poll, CRI

(A special note of thanks to Bob and Pat Hunter for their help in
the preparation of this ASCII file for BBS circulation.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The Christian Research Journal is published quarterly by the
Christian Research Institute (CRI) -- founded in 1960 by the late
Dr. Walter R. Martin.  While CRI is concerned with and involved
in the general defense of the faith, our area of research
specialization is limited to elements within the modern religious
scene that compete with, assault, or undermine biblical
Christianity.  These include cults (that is, groups which deny
essential Christian doctrines such as the deity of Christ and the
Trinity); the occult, much of which has become focused in the
contemporary New Age movement; the major world religions; and
aberrant Christian teachings (that is, teachings which compromise
or confuse essential biblical truth).

Regular features of the Journal include "Newswatch," witnessing
tips and book reviews.

CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL RATES: (subject to change)

                              One Year     Two Years

U.S. Residents               [ ] 20.00     [ ] 37.00

Canadian (U.S. funds)        [ ] 24.00     [ ] 44.00

Other Foreign (U.S. funds)   [ ] 36.00     [ ] 66.00


Please make checks payable to CRI

To place a credit card order by phone, call us toll-free at:
                  (800) 2-JOURNAL


To subscribe to the Christian Research Journal, please print this
coupon, fill in the necessary information and mail it with your
payment to:

    CRI, P.O. Box 500-TC, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92693-0500

[ ] Yes!  I want to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal.

Name:    ___________________________________________________

Address: ___________________________________________________

Address: ___________________________________________________

City, State, ZIP: __________________________________________

Country: _______________ Phone: ____________________________




YOURS FOR THE ASKING

Did you know that CRI has a wealth of information on various
topics that is yours for the asking?  In fact, a free
subscription to the Christian Research Newsletter is yours if you
contact CRI and ask for one saying that you found out about the
offer from this computer text file.  We offer a wide variety of
articles and fact sheets free of charge.  Write us today for
information on these or other topics.  Our first-rate research
staff will do everything possible to help you.

Christian Research Institute
P.O. Box 500-TC
San Juan Capistrano, CA  92693

(714) 855-9926

---------------
End of file.

