In past blog posts I’ve dealt with misunderstandings related to total depravity and unconditional election, in this post we come to the “L” in TULIP, Limited Atonement. The following treatment of four misunderstandings of limited atonement serve to illustrate why many, like myself, prefer a different name for this doctrine (like definite atonement or, my preference, particular redemption).
III. Misunderstandings related to Limited Atonement
(1) Only Calvinists limit the atonement.
The fact is that every evangelical somehow limits the atonement. Only the Universalist who believes that absolutely everyone will actually be saved by the death of Christ has a really unlimited atonement. Evangelicals with an atonement which is unlimited in extent limit the power or efficacy of that atonement to actually save those for whom Christ died. Calvinists limit the extent of the atonement. But both limit the atonement! This is why—by the way—I prefer to describe limited atonement as particular redemption.
(2) Calvinists limit the value of the atonement.
Actually, it is Arminians who do this! But it is certainly not Calvinists who limit the value of the atonement. Listen once more to the Canons of Dort:
SECOND HEAD: ARTICLE 3. The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.
The question debated between Arminians and Calvinists in regard to limited atonement is not, then, how much the atonement is worth or how valuable the redemption price paid by Christ is. The question is for whom was it paid and for whom was atonement made.
(3) Limited Atonement contradicts the free and well-meant offer of the gospel!
Arminians make this claim because they rightly conclude that limited atonement means that we Calvinists cannot tell everyone you meet that Christ died for them. If limited atonement is true, then Christ did not die for everyone, and we may not say that He did! This seems a serious issue for the one who assumes that sharing the gospel means telling people that Christ died for them.
The problem is that the offer of the gospel does not consist in anybody’s view of whom Christ died for, or statement about the extent of the atonement. The gospel offer is not ‘Christ died for you.’ You can find no such gospel offer in the preaching of the Apostles of Christ or in the Book of Acts. The offer of the gospel is simply the offer of Christ Himself as a sufficient Savior. It is not necessary to make assertions with regard to those for whom Christ died in the mystery of the divine will in order to offer Christ as a sufficient Savior for all men without exception. Paul’s declaration in Galatians 2:20 that Christ loved me and gave himself for me is not a statement of the gospel offer to all sinners, but a statement of glorious assurance of salvation for saved sinners.
(4) Limited atonement means that whosoever will may not come!
Once more the Canons of Dort contradict this slander:
FIRST HEAD: ARTICLE 2. but in this the love of God was manifested, that He “sent his one and only Son into the world, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (1 John 4:9, John 3:16).
The question, then, is not if “whosever will may come.” Of course, anyone may come. The question is who actually will come and what will make them come.
The 18th and 19th Misunderstandings of Calvinsim
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
