To What Extent?

A friend of mine wrote, "Jesus bought the whole world’s debt. There are too many verses that state this. Buying the ticket does not automatically put a person inside the gates of Disneyland. A person must use the ticket. A person must believe the ticket is good in order to use the ticket." I don't think this is in any way a revolutionary view. It's probably the most common perception about the Atonement. "Jesus paid the price for all sin. Now you have to claim it." That's the most common view, I think. It's just that ... well ... with all due respect to my friend and the majority of Christians who hold this view, it makes no sense to me.

First, the basics of the Atonement. Humans are sinners, indebted to God. We cannot pay that debt. God's justice demands payment. So the Son of God took on human form, lived a sinless life, and paid the debt on our behalf. Clear enough. Not particularly complex. That's the essence of the Atonement. But the question is to what extent does that Atonement reach?

Well, that should be pretty easy, right? I mean, we have clear Scripture on it. We know that John the Baptist said of Jesus, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). At the famous story of the woman at the well, after meeting Jesus for themselves, the people told her, "Now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world" (John 4:42). Paul assures us that Christ "died for all" (2 Cor 5:15). He wrote Timothy that Christ "gave himself as a ransom for all" (1 Tim 2:6) and that He "is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe" (1 Tim 4:10). Now, we might be able to do some pretty little dancing around "To whom was 'all' referring?", but John leaves little question when he writes "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2). There you have it. Dance around that.

There you have it -- insurmountable biblical proof. In fact, why would you want to surmount it? It's in the Bible! Well, there are actually a couple of answers for that.

One is the problem of Scripture. While that is indeed a plethora (sorry ... I just like that word and had to work it into a sentence at some point) of verses that make the point that the Atonement encompasses all sin ... there is also a pile of passages that deny it. We know, for instance, that God told Joseph that Jesus would "save His people from their sins" (Matt 1:21). Why the limitation? Jesus said, "I lay down My life for the sheep" (John 10:15). Remember, that whole discussion of "sheep" dealt with " I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved" (John 10:9) and "I am the good shepherd. I know My own and My own know Me" (John 10:14). He says (to our everlasting benefit) "I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to My voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd" (John 10:16). So the concept of the "sheep" and "flock" is a limited concept. Paul said that "Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her" (Eph 5:25). Hebrews says that He is coming a second time "to bring salvation to those who are waiting for Him" (Heb 9:28). And, bottom line, we know that not all will be saved. There is absolutely no doubt about that. So how do we correlate the all-inclusive language about the Atonement above with this limited language?

Another problem is the problem of logic. The well-known English puritan, John Owen, wrote a famous piece entitled "For Whom did Christ Die?". He lays out the logical problem there. Christ died for one of three logical possibilities: 1) All sins of all men, 2) All sins of some men, or 3) Some sins of all men. If the third case is true, then all men are still in some sin and no one is saved. If the first case is true then all men are saved, right? "Oh, no," you would answer, "they are not saved because of their unbelief." So ... Christ died for all sins of all men except for the sin of unbelief?

Beyond Owen's logic is the problem of the justice of God in all this. If all sin is paid for, then God's justice is satisfied. No further punishment is possible. Any further punishment would be unjust. The example is often offered of a prisoner on death row being pardoned by the governor. The warden goes into his cell and tells him, "You're free! You've been pardoned! You can go." But if the prisoner doesn't believe him, he's still not free. He's still in the cell. He's still in prison. Here's where the example falls down. If the warden, then, based on the prisoner's refusal to believe, executes the man, the warden is now guilty of killing an innocent man. It's called "murder". He was pardoned by the governor and there was no lawful reason to put him to death. If Christ died for the sin of all mankind and all sin is paid for, then God has no just cause to hold anyone responsible for their sin. It would be double payment. He would be guilty of punishing people who have no crimes on their rap sheet. It doesn't matter if the payment is accepted. The payment was made.

The question is a sticky one, and I'm not offering any answers here. What I said at the beginning is that the view that all sin has been paid for makes no sense to me. I've tried to explain my difficulty. I've done my research. When those who argue for unlimited atonement are asked, "How can a just God send people to hell who have been forgiven?" they simply answer, "He doesn't." Apparently they hold that all sin but unbelief is covered. And it should be stated that there is far more agreement than disagreement here. We all agree, for instance, that the blood of Christ was sufficient for all, but efficient for some. Unless you're arguing for Universalism, we're all clear on that. I do know, also, that there are some answers out there. For instance, when Paul told Timothy that Jesus was "the Savior of all men", that's not so tough to figure out. Jesus is the only Savior available to all men. That doesn't mandate that He saves all men. (That's why He is especially the Savior of those who believe.) So there are some ways to correlate the two.

So I leave you with the question to ponder. Did the Atonement actually pay for all the sin of all men? Or did it pay for all sin except unbelief? Or did Christ's death, though sufficient to pay for all sin, ultimately only cover the sin of the elect? How would you correlate the passages that limit the atonement with the passages that don't? Welcome to my sticky questions.