The Meaning of Limited Atonement: A Defense of the Title of my Book

One of the criticisms that has been leveled at my latest book A Boisterously Reformed Polemic Against Limited Atonement has been my choice of terminology. By daring to say that I have a problem with limited atonement, some take this to mean that I am denying the second head of Dort, or that I am out of step with Westminster, or engaging in click-bait tactics. One PCA elder even said that the title is sinful and divisive since it will, likely, unnecessarily disturb the peace of the church.

I will confess to wanting a title that arrests people’s attention, but I did not do so to the detriment of terminology, nor by causing injury to the doctrines of sovereign grace, nor by unnecessarily disturbing the peace.

The truth is that the term limited atonement has a well-understood, popular understanding. Exceedingly so. Conversely, it is thought, almost without fail, that if someone like myself says that Christ suffered and paid an objectively sufficient price for the sins of all men without exception, then I am denying limited atonement.

With the launch of the book, I have heard this many, many times.

So what I would like to do here is offer a defense of my title, and particularly, why it is appropriate, and even right, for Calvinists who affirm universal satisfaction, to take umbrage with the common and modern understanding of limited atonement.

First Point

Limited atonement is simply understood as:

A) Limited efficacy and application of Christ’s sacrificial death by the design of God for the elect alone.

Or,

B) Limited satisfaction and limited efficacy and application of Christ’s sacrificial death by the design of God for the elect alone.

All stripes of Calvinists do not dispute over (A), nor typically limit the definition to (A). Rather, in common parlance, limited atonement is understood as (B). The concepts are often wed together.

Now if one believes that limited atonement is both (B) and (C: Universal satisfaction and limited efficacy and application of Christ’s sacrificial death by the design of God for the elect alone) then I am being sloppy with my choice of terminology. But since most respond strongly to (C) as not being Reformed, or not in concert with Dort, or even Arminian, I think it is plain that (B) is the common modern understanding. 

Second Point

There’s a reason why most people respond strongly to (C): the phrase limited atonement has been largely captured by Owenian conceptions of limited atonement, such that people naturally contrast that supposedly monolithic understanding of limited atonement with Arminianism, all the while not realizing that various other respected Reformed views of particular redemption exist. Simply put, folks like myself are thought to be weirdos, or insane, or heretics masquerading under the cloak of Calvinism. This is far from the truth. Many advocates of limited atonement in the Owenian sense (B) are ignorant of the historical, in-house debates among Calvinists, and as a result have a very truncated understanding.

Evidence for Point Two

It’s easy to prove the point. All one has to do is poke around the internet to see how respected voices frame limited atonement. A cursory exploration will bear this out.

What we’ll see is that limited atonement is either framed directly as limited satisfaction (Christ suffered and paid an objective price for the sins of the elect alone [and sometimes in a quantitative sense]) or that God only intends to ultimately save the elect while also utilizing Owenian logic to establish the point. The previous italics are important. Because some people will define limited atonement more in line with (A) but then turn around and say that Christ suffered only for the sins of the elect; or they’ll argue just like a strict particularist, invoking Owen’s trilemma, they’ll restrict the universalistic texts, etc. Limited satisfaction rests on these kinds of arguments, so any consistent usage of them clearly signals how the person views the matter.

If there is conceptual, or terminological, or historical sloppiness at play, my contention is that it resides on the other foot. Many popular (and some academic) treatments of limited atonement fail to properly parse the matter and thereby engender confusion.

Let’s look at some examples.

Kevin DeYoung: Theological Primer: Limited Atonement

The article begins with a great quote from the classically moderate Calvinist Ursinus. We moderates begin to cheer since Ursinus teaches that Christ suffers for the sins of all men.¹ But then, after a couple paragraphs, confusion comes rumbling into view. DeYoung writes,

“If the atonement is not particularly and only for the sheep, then either we have universalism—Christ died in everyone’s place and therefore everyone is saved—or we have something less than full substitution. ‘We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ,’ Spurgeon observed, “because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved.’”

Here we see that substitution and satisfaction are restricted to the elect alone. Owen’s logic is plainly adopted; limited atonement is understood as (B). And (C) is nowhere to be found (other than highlighting a quote by Ursinus who elsewhere clearly disagrees with (B), as well as Owen’s trilemma)².

Tim Challies: The “L” in TULIP

“Christ took only the sins of the elect upon Himself on the cross, providing a full and effectual (fully adequate) atonement for their sins. He did not provide only the potential for atonement, but actually provided the effectual atonement. His death secured everything necessary for salvation and this includes faith, which the Spirit graciously applies to the lives of the elect. Though Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient for the entire human race, it is only imputed (or given) to the elect and hence the atonement is not limited in its power, but in its extent. The reason for this limited or particular nature of the atonement is that were Christ to sacrifice and die for someone and then that person did not choose to be saved, it would make Christ’s work a failure.”

Here we see that limited atonement is viewed as limited satisfaction. He does gesture towards sufficiency, but the sufficiency is confounded upon the rocks of Owenian logic. It’s all mixed together. This is quite common. A strict limitation of atonement will be asserted followed by some kind of talk of sufficiency, though often without any description of what kind of sufficiency.

Greg Bahnsen: Limited Atonement

“It should also be noted that the doctrine of particular redemption is necessary to the orthodox view of Christ’s substitutionary atonement; the only alternatives to it are universal salvation or salvation by works (both are unbiblical). If Christ atoned for the sins of all men then all men will be saved, for a righteous God cannot condemn a man twice; if the man’s sins have been atoned, he cannot be sent to Hell on the basis of them.”

Limited atonement is understood as limited satisfaction, and it is bolstered by classic Owenian logic.

John Murray: Redemption Accomplished and Applied

This classic little volume frames the extent of the atonement question simply as:

“The question of the extent of the atonement is simply: for whom did Christ make atonement? In even simpler language it is: for whom did Christ die?”³

After arguing in a way that comports nicely with an Owenian view, he writes,

“This doctrine has been called the doctrine of limited atonement. This may or may not be a good or fair denomination. But it is not the term used that is important; it is that which it denotes.” (Emphasis mine)

Joel Beeke: Defending Definite Atonement

He begins by saying:

“The major objections to limited atonement are based on textual and practical considerations. The textual objections include the following:”

Following on the heels of this statement comes the usual Owenian (or strict particularist) handling of concepts and texts like John 3:16; as if limited atonement requires one to adopt these strategies to avoid Arminian conclusions!

R. C. Sproul: What is definite atonement?

Sproul will often adopt, as in this clip, a statement revolving around (A), but will then defend the matter in terms of strict substitution, arguing against the universalistic texts as if only an Arminian would view them as propounding universal satisfaction. He specifically praises the Owenian conception.

Douglas Wilson: Jesus Doesn’t Fail: Douglas Wilson on Atonement.

Wilson’s opening definition fits nicely with (A), but then, as you go through the conversation, it becomes obvious that limited atonement means (B). Go to the 10 minute mark and note how he directly utilizes Owen’s trilemma and similar penal substitutionary ideas.

James White

Do I really need to highlight how he advances (B)? It should be plain that he famously argues in line with strict particularism.

John MacArthur: The Doctrine of Actual Atonement (Part 1):

“But let’s start with some simple things. If I ask the average Christian ‘For whom did Christ die?’, the traditional answer would be, ‘Everybody. Everybody. Christ died for the whole world, He died for all sinners.’ And most people then in the church believe – and I’m sure many people outside the true church, many people associated with Christianity believe – that on the cross, Jesus paid the debt of sin for everyone because He loves everyone and He wants everyone to be saved. That’s pretty much the common evangelical view. Jesus died for everybody. He paid the price for the sins of everybody. And all we have to do is tell sinners that He loves them so much that He paid the price and He wants them to be saved, and all they have to do is respond.

Now if that is true, then on the cross Jesus accomplished a potential salvation, not an actual one.”

As with many in the Reformed camp, various terms will be used to describe limited atonement. MacArthur here uses actual atonement, but he elsewhere lumps the concept in with limited atonement as an expression of (B) with the usual Owenian logic and argumentation, as well as the all-too-common simple bifurcation between Owenian atonement and Arminianism. Since the examples are numerous and surely well accepted, I trust the reader doesn’t need me to highlight other statements to round out the evidence.

Loraine Boettner: Limited Atonement:

“The question which we are to discuss under the subject of “Limited Atonement” is, Did Christ offer up Himself a sacrifice for the whole human race, for every individual without distinction or exception; or did His death have special reference to the elect? In other words, was the sacrifice of Christ merely intended to make the salvation of all men possible, or was it intended to render certain the salvation of those who had been given to Him by the Father? Arminians hold that Christ died for all men alike, while Calvinists hold that in the intention and secret plan of God Christ died for the elect only, and that His death had only an incidental reference to others in so far as they are partakers of common grace.”

Notice the confusion of the opening words. The extent of satisfaction is set in opposition to the question “did [Christ’s] death have a special reference to the elect?” Christ dying for all is then couched in terms of Arminianism, such that Christ’s dying for all is naturally understood as a lack of any possible particularity, as per the view of (C). He then intimates that Calvinists (in the Owenian sense) are the only the kids on the block, since he describes the death of Christ (under the rubric of Calvinism) as only having an incidental reference to others, via common grace.

Banner of Truth: The Inconsistency of Four-Point Calvinism

Let me be clear. My view is not four-point Calvinism. But in the mind of this author, it would seem that (C) is so terribly naughty and wrong-headed it deserves to have one of its pedals torn off.

However, since the author has apparently had Charles Hodge thrown his way, he interacts with him, saying,

“At this point the four-point Calvinist may cry foul and charge that these arguments misrepresent his view. He doesn’t hold to the Arminian view of the atonement; he merely insists that Christ died for all. By this he may simply be expounding the view, held by Charles Hodge and others, that there is ‘a sense in which it is scriptural to say that Christ died for all men.’ Hodge points out, ‘To die for one is to die for his benefit. As Christ’s death has benefited the whole world, prolonged the probation of men, secured for them innumerable blessings, provided a righteousness sufficient and suitable for all, it may be said that he died for all.’ Yet, cautions Hodge, “this is very different from saying that he died equally for all men, or that his death had no other reference to those who are saved than it had to those who are lost.” (Charles Hodge, 1 & 2 Corinthians [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1994], p. 149. Italics his.)

Whether or not Hodge’s view is correct, it’s at least thoroughly Calvinistic; it asserts that Christ did not die in the place of all. So long as our four-point friends believe this, they aren’t four-point Calvinists after all, for, as Hodge says a page later, “all this is perfectly consistent with the great scriptural truth that Christ came into the world to save his people, that his death renders certain the salvation of all those whom the Father hath given him, and therefore that he died not only for them but in their place, and on the condition that they should never die.” (emphasis mine)

Everyone should be groaning. Charles Hodge very clearly holds to (C) throughout his writing⁴, yet here we have someone turning the affirmation that “Christ did not die equally for all” into what the author wants him to say, namely, that “Christ did not die in the place of all”—as a counter to universal satisfaction.

For the author, limited atonement operates on an Owenian axis. And when someone like Hodge says something different than Owen, he converts it. What he should have said is: Whether or not Hodge’s view is correct, it’s at least thoroughly Calvinistic; it asserts that Christ did not die with the same intent for all.”

So, yes, Hodge is quite Calvinistic—and much closer to Calvin than Owen was to Calvin.

Conclusion

I’ve only supplied eleven examples. Many more could be given.

Suffice it to say, modern discussions surrounding limited atonement often languish in reductionism; and as such, it is often assumed that (B) is the only viable view. It shouldn’t come as a surprise, therefore, that the masses of people in the pew likewise think that (B) is the only game in town. An Owenian conception of limited atonement is continually set against Arminianism. And since that conception of limited atonement is often presented as the view of limited atonement, it only follows that most will continue to think that anything else lands one in the land of Arminianism, if not directly, then tangentially.

As a result, I would say that since limited atonement is predominately understood to mean (B), and since (C) is thought absurd or unheard of by many, and since most advocates of limited atonement argue like Owen against the universalistic texts, and proudly proclaim Owen’s trilemma, and thereby view penal substitution as requiring a coextensive correspondence to those who will be saved, limited atonement, in the minds of most, means (B).

Therefore, when I, as a classically moderate Calvinist, try to break through this hard crust and argue for a better position, it proves well-nigh impossible since most write me off as crazy. For many, their confidence is so strong and certain, they often refuse to even look at the historical data, or dismiss it as cherry picking.

It is for these reasons that I chose to call my book A Boisterously Reformed Polemic Against Limited Atonement. Even if (B) is correct biblically, it doesn’t follow that (C) isn’t a viable view in the history of Reformed thought. Nor does it follow that there isn’t a lot of confusion surrounding the issue of limited atonement, and that modern proponents would do well to tighten their categories.

So, if my use of the phrase “limited atonement” is problematic, then how much more the lack of precision with my strict particularist brethren!

State of the Question

As for clarity, the key question in this debate is this: For whose sins did Christ suffer and pay an objectively sufficient price? The elect alone or all men without exception?

In the Reformed tradition, highly respected men have answered: all men. Saying this doesn’t at all commit one to Arminianism. Not only did views (B) and (C) sign on to Dort in good faith, but we would do well to remember that many decades earlier we had the following:

Thirty Nine Articles:

“The Offering of Christ once made in that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone…”

And yet again, this time from the Heidelberg Catechism,

Q. 37 What do you understand by the word “suffered”?

A. That all the time He lived on earth, but especially at the end of His life, He bore, in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race; in order that by His passion, as the only propitiatory sacrifice, He might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, and obtain for us the grace of God, righteousness, and eternal life.

These statements didn’t arise out of a vacuum. Many of the early Reformers were happy to affirm just such a thing as universal satisfaction.

So when it comes to this debate, the terminology can terminate rather simply on the choice of one word. Did Christ die only for the sins of the elect, or especially for the elect?

I cannot remember where I saw this chart, I think it came from Andrew Fuller, but it is a helpful technical expression of the differences.

I also have have an excellent taxonomy in my book in Appendix A. I would commend it to you.

1 “Q. 37 What do you understand by the word “suffered”? A. That all the time He lived on earth, but especially at the end of His life, He bore, in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race; in order that by His passion, as the only propitiatory sacrifice, He might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, and obtain for us the grace of God, righteousness, and eternal life.” Heidelberg Catechism.

2 “Obj. 2. All those ought to be received into favor for whose offences a sufficient satisfaction has been made. Christ has made a sufficient satisfaction for the offences of all men. Therefore all ought to be received into favor; and if this is not done, God is either unjust to men, or else there is something detracted from the merit of Christ.

Ans. The major is true, unless some condition is added to the satisfaction; as, that only those are saved through it, who apply it unto themselves by faith. But this condition is expressly added, where it is said, ‘God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.’ ( John 3 : 16.)” Zacharias Ursinus, The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, 4th ed., trans. G. W. Williard (Cincinnati, OH: Elm Street Printing Co., 1888), 107.

3He does go on to ask the question in different ways, but they largely amount to the same conclusion: Christ didn’t suffer for the sins of all men.

4See my book far a variety of quotes from Hodge that make this crystal clear. Or, if you like, just go his systematic and read his treatment of definite atonement.