Correlate the "alls"

As a quick recap, so far we've defined "atonement" as all the necessary components -- expiation and propitiation -- that provide reconciliation. That is, atonement means that one is "at one" with God. I also explained why it cannot be that all sins are covered under this term "atonement". So we need to address the "all" passages that seem to say that the atonement was unlimited.

What was paid for at the Cross? This is the key question. We find many passages that are "all" passages. Now, it's important that this be done carefully. Some of the "all" passages, properly understood, have a limit to the "all" in mind. This isn't contradictory. The term "all" is always limited to the set in question. "All of my family" would limit this "all" to "my family". "All of you" would limit this "all" to the set that is being addressed -- "you". In Heb. 10:10, for instance, we read, "By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." There it is. He offered His body "for all". However, verse 14 of the same chapter limits this "all". "For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified" (Heb. 10:14). So the "all" in mind here isn't "each and every person", but all of "those who are sanctified." We need to be aware, then, that sometimes "all" doesn't mean "each and every human being". We need to be aware of the "all" being referenced.

Another thing to be aware of is emphasis. What is the point? Is the "all" the point, or is there something else? A prime example would be a number of passages that include the phrase we see above: "once for all." The point here is not the "all", but the "once". A prime example of this is Heb. 7:26-27 -- "For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself." The point is not the scope of the sacrifice, but the singularity of it. This "all" isn't necessarily any more than "all that it covers" because the view is not "each and every person" but "once".

All well and good, but there are still more passages that state or imply "all" that aren't managed by their content.

For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf (2 Cor. 5:14-15).

For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time (1 Tim. 2:5-6).

For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit (1 Peter 3:18).

So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men (Rom. 5:18).

Two verses in particular are most often trotted out to prove without any doubt that "Limited Atonement" cannot be:

He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world (1 John 2:2).

False prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves (2 Peter 2:1).

There are certainly more, and we should list them as well:

But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all (Isa. 53:5-6).

"Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29).

God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:19).

We do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone (Heb. 2:9).

And we have beheld and bear witness that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world (1 John 4:14).

Now, let's take a look at this problem.

We've already seen that "Unlimited Atonement" is an oxymoron. If "atonement" means "at one with God", "Unlimited Atonement" means "everyone is at one with God". It necessitates Universalism. On the other hand, we have these passages that seem to speak of "unlimited atonement". What do we do with this? First, we do not delete them. Although some might be tempted to highlight them with that special black highlight pen, that's not the answer. The answer is careful analysis.

Some of these, as I said, don't fit the mold. They may look at first blush like universalist passages, but simple context fixes that problem. Some aren't so easily dismissed. Look at 1 John 2:2. Some are tempted to say, "It's about the elect", but John goes out of his way to shoot them down. "Not for ours only (the elect), but also for those of the whole world." However, if we think this through, John is either saying that all sins for all people for all time are "propitiated" and, therefore, all people are saved, or he has something else in mind despite the best efforts of the anti-Limited Atonement folks. So what is John saying? He is clearly speaking of "the whole world", but what he says here is not about what is accomplished, but about Christ. Here, let's shorten it to make it clear: "He Himself is the propitiation." Does that help? Think of the old West with the one-room schoolhouse and the single teacher. She was "the town teacher". That didn't mean that she taught everyone. It meant that if anyone was going to be taught, they had to go to her. John is saying that if any sin is going to be propitiated, it is going to happen through Christ alone. No one has any other means by which to gain the favor of God. Christ is the propitiation not of our sins only, but of the sins of the whole world. Nothing in the statement suggests that all sins are atoned for.

I would suggest that several of the favorite "all" passages fall in that category. Jesus is "the Savior of the world", which is to say He is the only available Savior the world has. He "takes away the sins of the world", which is to say that all sins in all the world that are taken away are taken away by Him. So we have this other category of "all" passages that indeed mean "all" but do not mean that atonement has actually occurred.

Still, what about that pesky 2 Peter passage? This one refers to "false prophets" and places their purchase ("the Master who bought them") in the past tense. This seems like we're up against it here. Might as well give up. Universalism, here we come. But wait ... maybe there is an alternative.

Satan is sometimes described in Scripture in terms of authority. He is called "the prince of the power of the air" (Eph. 2:2) and "the god of this world" (2 Cor. 4:4). He is obviously limited in his reign, but he has, nonetheless, God-given rights. He has the rights to the world. When Jesus was in the wilderness, he offered Him all the kingdoms of the world. But after Christ died and rose again, He said, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth" (Matt. 28:18). What happened?

A couple of the terms that Scripture uses to describe our salvation are along the lines of "redemption". They are "purchase" terms. They refer to "buying back". Could it be that Christ "bought the world"? Now, understand, purchasing the debt doesn't mean that the debt is paid. Imagine a mortgage on a house. It is very common for a mortgage company to buy a mortgage from another company. The homeowner doesn't suddenly find that his debt is paid. He simply owes a different creditor. Could it be that when Christ paid the price on the cross, He purchased all the mortgages? It sounds somewhat similar to the parable of the treasure in the field. Remember? The man sold all he had to buy the field because there was a treasure in it. He wanted the treasure; he bought the field.

This would make sense of 2 Peter 2:1. When it says that He was "the Master who bought them", it doesn't mean that their debt was paid, but that their debt was purchased. Indeed, in this sense Christ "taste death for everyone" (Heb. 2:9). This would largely expand the idea of what Christ accomplished on the cross. It would more fully explain the sufficiency of the sacrifice while keeping it distinct from the efficacy of the sacrifice. It would agree more fully with some of the "all" concepts without lapsing into Universalism. It actually maintains "Limited Atonement" while agreeing with a universal effect of the cross.

Maybe you don't like it. It makes utmost sense to me. But you let me know if you can come up with a different satisfying way to correlate the "all" passages with the certainty of judgment and Hell. Remember ... no fair redefining "atonement" for you anti-Limited Atonement folks or "all" for you pro-Limited Atonement folks. And no fair simply deleting the ones you don't like. I find this a satisfying correlation. What about you?