How Limited is Atonement?

Now that we've explained "Atonement," let's look at "Limited Atonement." Yes, it's a hot topic -- "hot" in the sense that it really draws fire. (Yes, that was a pun.) It is commonly misunderstood and even when it is understood properly, it is still largely the object of dislike (at best) of many Christians.

The problem arises in the term, "limited." Most Christians agree with this proposition: "Christ's death was sufficient to pay for the sins of all men, but efficient in paying for the sins of some men." To suggest that the atonement paid for all sin for all men for all time is simply to affirm Universalism, and very few who call themselves "Christians" can hold to that position very long. So both the "Limited Atonement" folks and their opponents agree on the sufficiency of Christ's atonement as well as the efficiency of Christ's atonement. The truth is, unfortunately, before we ever get to this agreement, the shooting has started and few realize that they are in agreement thus far.

Let's start with an easy agreement. Unless you are a Universalist -- everyone gets saved -- we are all in agreement that the Atonement, the "at-one-ment" is not unlimited. That is, if anyone goes to Hell, then there is a limit on the sin for which Christ's death atones. I think we can all agree on that. Unfortunately, that is not the contention of "Limited Atonement."

What is the contention of "Limited Atonement"? The idea is that when Christ died for us, He died with the intent of saving some. He intended, on the cross, to actually pay off the debt of "the elect". Now, we can debate "the elect" 'til the cows come home, but let's not go there right now. The question at hand isn't "the elect". The question is "What did Christ actually accomplish on the cross?" The pro-"Limited Atonement" folks say that He actually paid in full the sin debt of those who would be saved. The anti-"Limited Atonement" folks say that He potentially paid in full the sin debt of all mankind, but actual payment in any individual case is pending until the individual accepts the payment on his or her behalf.

What causes this difference of opinion? Well, if we're fair, we'd realize it's the Bible. You see, we find both positions in Scripture, clearly stated, explicit. We know, for instance, that there will be people who are judged for their sin, so it cannot be that all sin for all people for all time is paid for. Yet we also find too many passages that use terminology like "all" in the context of Christ's death and payment for sin. It appears that the Bible supports Limited and Unlimited Atonement.

The trick, then, is not to argue it, but to align it. You can't make sense of it by ignoring part. And simply redefining terms doesn't help, as is often the case ... from both sides. Some well-meaning Calvinists will tell you "'all' doesn't mean 'all'." What does that mean? On the other hand, those opposed to the idea will also hold to unlimited atonement ... with limits. Maybe they redefine "atonement" -- "Well, it was potential payment" -- or they redefine "unlimited" -- "It was not limited to anyone, but not everyone gets the benefit." Some will just turn a blind eye to one group of Scriptures or another to avoid the problem. But this doesn't solve the problem. What we need is a solution. What we need is a way to align the "all" of the atonement with the "few" of salvation.

This is likely a lengthy discussion, so I'll do it in two parts. The first part I will address here. Why not "unlimited atonement"? The second part I'll address tomorrow. What about the "all" passages? I'm addressing first the problem with unlimited atonement because if there is no problem with unlimited atonement, then there is no question in regards to the "all" passages.

Remember, now ... we've covered "atonement." It is a market term, mostly. It refers to payment of debt, of balancing the books. The word in English was actually an invention of William Tyndale. He recognized that English didn't have a word that encompassed "reconciliation" and "expiation" and "propitiation" and "forgiveness", so he coined "atonement" to factor in all these parts. In the New American Standard Bible, the word in its various forms only appears in the Old Testament. The New Testament carries words with individualized meaning, all playing into the idea of "atonement". It includes the concepts of sin covered, sin paid in full, a removal of debt and a return to a right standing. All of this is incorporated into the concept of "atonement".

Since "atonement" contains all these factors, if it is universal and "unlimited", we would all need to subscribe to Universalism. There are no sins not paid for. Now, I know the popular idea is that "the payment is in the bank and you need to draw it out before it is actually paid." This, however pleasant it sounds, places atonement as potential, not actual. And no matter how you decide to word it, if the factors that make up "atonement" -- reconciliation, expiation, propitiation, forgiveness -- are not actually applied, then it cannot be said that Christ atoned for all sin. You could say that He could atone for all sin (scope), but you can't put it in the past tense because it isn't done (effect). And if it isn't done, then He wasn't quite accurate when He said, "It is finished" or "Paid in full."

But there are other reasons by which we can know that the atonement is limited -- that not all sin is paid for. One of the easiest is Jesus's warning to the Pharisees. "Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven" (Matt. 12:31). Without even digging about or delving into what exactly that means (I do that here), we can say without any doubt that there is some sin that "shall not be forgiven." Therefore, it cannot be that all sin is forgiven, potentially or actually.

The other reason is found in the assurance from multiple Scriptures that there will be judgment and that there will be those found wanting. If atonement is unlimited, then God cannot judge sin that is paid for. That is unjust. And God is not unjust. The only sin that can be judged is the sin still pending payment. The only debt that can be collected is the debt still pending payment. Expiated sin is not pending. Sin atoned for is no longer "on the books". If there are those who will face judgment and found wanting, it cannot be true that all sin is paid for, else God is unjust.

Logic lends its own little hand here as well, clearly explained in John Owen's Triple Choice. There are a few possibilities with the atonement. Assuming the reality of atonement, it can cover:

1. All sin for all men.
2. Some sin for all men.
3. All sin for some men.

One of these is obviously problematic at the outset. If the atonement covers some sin for all men, then no men have all sin covered ... and no one is saved. We can eliminate #2 if the Bible accurately portrays anyone as "saved". That leaves us with two options. Either the atonement covers all sin for all men, or it covers all sin for some men. If it covers all sin for all men, then no one has sin needing to be covered. Of course, the popular response is that unbelief prevents this from happening. But if the sin of unbelief is what keeps all sin from being covered for all men, then it is a sin that is not covered, and the first option cannot be true, nor is unlimited atonement.

The only possible option, given Scripture and reason, is that the atonement covered all sin for some men. "Limited Atonement" would say that it actually covered all sin for some men (the elect). Regardless, Unlimited Atonement cannot be true. We would first have to redefine terms like "atonement" or "sin", or we would have to be Universalists.