The Extent of the View of the Atonement from Scripture

Personal reflections on the teaching of the extent of the atonement from Scripture from my friend Rob Martini -- Pastor of Emmanuel Community Church, Clackamas, Oregon

Introduction

 

     I memorized the book of 1 Timothy in 1994. There, I repeatedly reviewed, “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…” (1 Tim. 2:4). That verse piqued my interest and attention. It was as a magnet for me. I wanted to have a deep and thorough understanding of the atonement.
  

    I came to that verse having been well schooled in “unlimited atonement” from Dallas Theological Seminary, from which I graduated with honors in 1988 with a ThM degree. I accepted and believed the “unlimited atonement” position to be the true, scriptural teaching for many years. I considered 1 Tim. 2:4 as but just another verse supporting that point of view.
  

    Now, ten years later, having read and reread, after carefully examining the Scriptures dealing this topic, I can no longer hold that position with integrity. Mine is a reasoned and well-seasoned conviction based on the whole of Scripture that the “particular redemption” position (often called “limited atonement”) is the best explanation of the extent of the atonement. (This does not imply that my current understanding is faultless, however, and I seek to remain teachable before the Lord and His people.)
  

   While preaching through the book of Romans, I dealt as honestly and forthrightly as I could with the topics of predestination, election and the extent of the atonement. In response to one of these messages, another brother in Christ in our church handed me a copy of a paper he found on the Internet from another Dallas Seminary grad, The Reverend D.A. Waite, opposing “limited atonement,” titled, “Calvin’s Error of Limited Atonement.”[1]
 

     My purpose in this paper is two-fold: first, to articulate what I understand to be the scriptural teaching on the nature and extent of the atonement, and second, to respond to Dr. Waite’s article specifically, along with the verses typically used to support the “unlimited atonement” position.

I. My journey to date leading me to conclude that “particular redemption” is the best understanding of the extent of the atonement.
 

     For a very long time I have been deeply troubled and concerned that many of the difficulties I see in the modern western church stem from a narcissistic, me-first, man-centered approach to the Scriptures. At the core of my being I want God alone to be honored and glorified and exalted. So as I come to this issue, I want to look at it as much as possible from His point of view. I well realize that I am but human with built-in limitations: I do not have perfect understanding. I also realize that though Scripture is most certainly sufficient for life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3), it does not afford us an exhaustive view into the heart and mind of God. Nevertheless, I think God is glorified as I search the Scriptures diligently and wrestle with the resources allowed me (including the indwelling, illuminating Spirit and prayer) to discover and discern truth.

A. God’s purpose in the atonement: what did God seek to accomplish?

      The extent of the atonement is an intramural debate in the church between genuinely saved people. At some point in that debate, the discussion must focus on the nature of the atonement: what God sought to accomplish in the death of Jesus Christ. The “unlimited atonement” position argues that Christ died to make salvation possible. The “particular redemption” position argues that Christ died to make salvation actual. As I read Scripture, I understand it to teach that Christ’s death actually and effectually accomplished salvation for sinners. As Jesus died, He uttered with a loud voice, “It is finished” (Jn. 19:30). What was finished? Atonement was finished. This is the nature of the atonement: Jesus didn’t just make salvation a possibility; He made it a reality. For whom? For all whose whom the Father chose and predestined unto salvation from “before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4; cf Rom. 8:29-30).
      Consider the clear teaching of Scripture regarding God’s purpose in the atonement.[2]

“She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” (Mt. 1:21)

“For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.” (Lk. 19:10)
It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all. (1 Tim. 1:15)

…Christ Jesus, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds. (Tit. 2:13b-14)

He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? (Rom. 8:32)
  

    Jesus paid the penalty for sin. But if we say that He paid the penalty of sin ‘for everyone,’ then we are forced to conclude that there is no sin that remains between mankind and God. God would then be unjust to judge us for that for which Christ died. This line of reasoning logically and necessarily leads to the heretical doctrine of “universalism.” In careful response, those affirming “unlimited atonement” assert that Christ ‘suffered’ for all, but He didn’t ‘pay’ for the sins of all. No question that He suffered for all, but the Bible is more specific. He died “for us all” (Rom. 8:32). The key to understanding lies in the antecedent for the pronoun all.

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 Pet. 3:18)
 

     The Greek word, here translated “once for all” in 1 Pet. 3:18, is used as an adverb of time, referring not to ‘once for every person,’ but ‘once for all time.’ Christ died with focused intention at a definite point in time for a very definite group of people. What He set out to accomplish was very explicit.
 

     The Scriptures are even more detailed. They teach that Christ’s death actually accomplished reconciliation.

For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. (Rom. 5:10)
For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. (Eph. 2:14-16)
 

     Further, His death actually accomplished justification and redemption.
… being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus… (Rom. 3:24)

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. (Rom. 5:8-9)

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us… (Gal. 3:13a)

…and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.  (Heb. 9:12)
 

     This is not intended to be an exhaustive list of Scriptures by any means, but as I read passages such as these, I come to the inexorable conclusion that Jesus did much more that simply make salvation possible. From God’s point of view— One who is outside time—He made salvation actual (though it is applied to a particular individual in time simultaneously with faith).

B. God’s purpose in sending Christ
 

     Serious students of Scripture must deal with various principles of hermeneutics in the interpretation process. One principle in particular is of great value to us here: we interpret the less clear passages of Scripture in light of those that are more clear. As I look at Scripture, the Father’s purpose in sending the Son can’t get much more clear than what we find in John 10:

“I am the good shepherd; the Good Shepherd lays down His life for the sheep .…I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.” (Jn. 10:11, 14-15)

The Jews then gathered around Him, and were saying to Him, “How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father’s name, these testify of Me. But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand.” (Jn. 10:24-28)
      Then a few chapters later into John’s gospel, we find Jesus in the Garden, praying a most incredible prayer. As the Holy Spirit specially revealed the content of that prayer to John (since he and his brother and Peter were sleeping!), we’re privileged with a very clear insight into the nature of Christ’s work on the cross:
“I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You; for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came for from you, and they believed that You sent Me. I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours …” (Jn. 17:6-9)

“Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father, although the world has not known You, yet I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me; and I have made Your name known to them, and will make it known, so that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.” (Jn. 17:24-26)

    As I read these chapters in John, I am impelled to conclude that the clear teaching of Scripture is that Christ had a very specific purpose in mind as He came: He came to save “His sheep.” According to the Scripture cited above, the beneficiaries of Christ’s atonement are those specifically given to Him by the Father—i.e., a limited number of people.
 

     Numbers of other Scripture passages affirm this very same thing. Matthew recorded Jesus’ words where He affirmed His purpose being sent by the Father:
“…just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28)

The text doesn’t say that He came to ransom all, but many. Similarly, Paul wrote to the church in Ephesus,

…just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her… (Eph. 5:25)
He died, He “gave Himself up” for a limited group of people—here identified as “the church.” Similarly, speaking to the elders of the Ephesian church, he said,
Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God whichHe purchased with His own blood. (Acts 20:28)

Elsewhere, Jesus spoke of laying down His life for “His friends” (Jn. 15:13). A different image, but the same idea: Christ came to save specific individuals whom God the Father sovereignly chose to show mercy and kindness.
 

     Frankly, both positions are limited, but in two different senses. The position I prefer to call “particular redemption” limits the extent of the atonement; the “unlimited atonement” position limits the power of the atonement (i.e., making salvation possible, but not actual). Though I affirm Scripture teaches that the atonement is limited in its extent, it is not limited in its power or sufficiency. Christ would have had to give of Himself totally and completely to save just one sinner. It was sufficient to save one person…or the entire human race. His death was of infinite value. His love and mercy don’t need to extend to every single human being to be of infinite value, because the redemption of a multitude of sinners from eternal sin requires an infinitely valuable sacrifice. Those that hold to “unlimited atonement” (if they be consistent) actually decrease the value of Christ’s death—because from that position, Christ’s death didn’t actually save anyone. But the clear and forthright teaching of Scripture is that it did save. From God’s point of view outside time, it accomplished everything He and the Father purposed to accomplish. Just as the sin of Adam didn’t make judgment possible (but actual), so the death of Christ didn’t make salvation possible…but actual.
 

     I stand convinced that the Scriptures teach that Christ’s shed blood was sufficient for all but effective for those whom God chose (“foreloved,” “predestined,” “elected,” Rom. 8:29-30, 33), whose names were written in the Lamb’s Book of Life (Rev. 21:27) from “before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4).

II. My response to The Rev. D.A. Waite: “Calvin’s Error of Limited Atonement.”

 

     Dr. Waite’s paper has four divisions, I. “Limited Atonement” Defined, II. “Limited Atonement” Refuted by the Scriptures, III. “Limited Atonement” Refuted by the Bible’s Terms for Reception of Salvation, and IV. Theologians and Groups who Stand with the Bible for Today in Favor of an “Unlimited Atonement” and who Oppose the “Limited Atonement” Teaching. The fourth section largely articulates the position of Dr. Lewis S. Chafer, founder of Dallas Seminary, and Dr. John F. Walvoord, second president of Dallas Seminary. Wanting to keep the focus of the debate on the text of Scripture as much as possible, I will not here rebut the arguments and opinions of those men referenced by Dr. Waite in his article.

      In order to be clearly followed by other readers of this discussion, I’ll refer to the section/paragraph used by Dr. Waite in his article by stating the division with a Roman numeral, followed by the letters/numbers he uses.
  

    As part of the first section, defining “limited atonement,” he referred to those “who teach that Christ’s death was sufficient for the whole world, but efficient or effective only for those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior” (I.B., emphasis in original) as “mixed-up” Calvinists. That’s what I understand the Scriptures to teach. I note that the author does not make a distinction between “Calvinism” and “hyper-Calvinism.” Some of what Dr. Waite says those who hold to “limited atonement” believe are not true of all “Calvinists.” It appears to me that he largely (though not consistently) has “hyper-Calvinists” in his sights. Though beyond the scope of this paper, I think it will be well worth the reader’s time to understand the distinctions between “Calvinism” and “hyper-Calvinism” on this point.

II.A. Is. 53:5-6

But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.
 

    By his own lengthy discussion, Dr. Waite demonstrates that the antecedents for the pronouns “our” and “we” and “us” in this passage are not clear. And he’s correct: they are not clear. Hermeneutics 101…interpret that which is fuzzy by that which is not. So we turn back to the Scriptures I mentioned in my first section: definitive texts that are clearer.
 

     In regard to his discussion, however, he says the options for the antecedents are these three: “to the Jews only,” “to the elect only,” or “to all sinners of all ages.” He concludes that the last of these three is correct (II.A.2.c) without considering all the options. I think the best understanding is one he fails to mention: that those antecedents refer to believers in general.
  

    In II.A.2.c.1 he argues that “healed” in the text (Is. 53:5b) does “not necessarily [mean] saved or redeemed or justified.” But the immediate context implies that this healing is indeed salvific. Note the phrases in these two verses that describe the nature of this healing: “pierced through for our transgressions…crushed for our iniquities…caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.” The author appears to make an arbitrary distinction regarding this healing in order to attempt to prove his preconception without letting Scripture speak clearly.
  

    His use of 52:14 to define the pronouns as referring to all mankind is exegetically untenable. The two references he cites (II.A.2.c.2) compare Christ to any other man to show Christ’s person vis-à-vis other men. It’s an enormous logical leap to use this vague reference to say that it defines the word “us” to refer to all mankind. If anything, this passage supports the actual accomplishment of Christ in His death (rather than the potential) found in the “particular redemption” position.

II.B. Mt. 11:28

“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.”
 

    Dr. Waite builds a straw man here in his commentary. Speaking of Christ, he writes, “He did not in any way limit this invitation only to the ‘elect’!” (II.B.3) Indeed, Jesus did not! The gospel message is never to be limited in its preaching. We’re called to preach universally to all men. However, this kind of response to the gospel is limited. Only those empowered by the Spirit of God recognize they are spiritually “weary and heavy-laden” because of sin. Only those empowered by the Spirit of God seek to find “rest” in Christ. We have no knowledge whose names are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life. We are called to preach the gospel to every single person, trusting that by the means of preaching the gospel (being “the power of God unto salvation,” Rom. 1:16), God will draw whomsoever He pleases unto salvation.
  

    When in II.B.4 the author writes, “To fail to make such a provision to back up my invitation, would make me either a deceiver or an outright liar to those I invited,” he has forgotten his own wedding. Any bride sending out wedding invitations knows that not all invited will come. She doesn’t “make provision” for every single one to whom an invitation is sent, and she is not a ‘deceiver’ or a ‘liar’ for not doing so.
      This verse is most definitely not a crisp, definitive text that clarifies the extent of the atonement.

II.C. Jn. 1:29b

“Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!”
 

     Dr. Waite has correctly copied the definitions of the Greek verb, translated takes away, from the lexicon. Among those he lists, he includes the definitions “remove, destroy, kill” (II.C.1). He comments, “There is not one single sin that was omitted from the Lamb’s finished work on the cross” (II.C.2). Following his logical analysis, if the sins of the entire world are completely removed and destroyed, there is no basis for God’s condemnation…and we end up by consistent logic in universalism. 

He concludes this paragraph by asking, “Can a person whose sins have been completely ‘taken away’ by Christ, the Lamb of God end up in hell? The answer is, ‘yes, he can,’ if he refuses to ‘believe on’ and ‘receive’ the Lord Jesus Christ as his Savior.” Here, Dr. Waite is making logical nonsense. If sin has been removed (as he just defined the Greek word “takes away”), then God is unjust to judge sin. God has no just basis to judge sin. This verse actually supports the “particular atonement” position: by Christ’s death, the sins of people from all around the world (those whose names are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life) are effectually removed by Christ so that no condemnation surrounds them…a pronouncement of justification applied to them in time simultaneous with their faith.

II.D. Jn. 3:14

“As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up…”
 

     The author argues that his verse teaches an “unlimited provision” made available to the world of mankind lost in sin. There’s no disagreement that this picture from Num. 21 was a universal call to “look” and believe. But not all do…or did. Why is that? Was that because of God’s choice or man’s responsibility? Yes! Both are true. I may want to subsume one under the other, but in integrity before the totality of Scripture, I cannot. I must hold both alongside each other. All men without exception have a sin problem, and all men without exception who look to Jesus will indeed be saved. But this verse is not a clear teaching like Jn. 10 or Jn. 17 or Mt. 20:28 that inform us who those will be that will ‘look’ and be saved. As a matter of fact, this verse doesn’t speak to the extent of the atonement at all, let alone “refute limited atonement” as the author purports. It simply says that those who “look,” those who believe on Christ will be saved. We must not make more of an analogy like this than was intended.

II.E. Jn. 3:18

“He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”
 

     In his commentary, Dr. Waite writes, “In Jn. 3:18, however, the only sin that will ‘condemn’ a sinner, is the sin of ‘not believing’ in the Lord Jesus Christ” (II.E.2). I most certainly agree that judgment comes for refusing to trust Christ. But judgment comes for other reasons as well. More broadly, Scripture teaches us that judgment comes for rejecting the truth of God, for suppressing the truth of God as is and has been revealed in nature and in conscience (Rom. 1:18ff).
 

     His caricature of the “particular redemption” position is another straw man. Pushing the position to an idiotic extreme he ‘paraphrases’ Jesus, “Now listen here, my friends…Some of you are going to be taken care of when I die on the Cross, and some of you are not…I’m going to die for the sins of some of you, but for others of you, I am not going to die. And since I am not going to die for your sins…there is no use in believing on me, or receiving me, because I am not going to die for your sins!” How flippant. How grossly ridiculous. How desperately unscholarly. This ‘paraphrase’ captures absolutely nothing of the words of Jesus. This is what Jesus actually said,
“Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” (Jn. 8:24)

These words of Jesus look at faith and judgment from man’s point of view. I have the responsibility to trust the Savior. No argument there. But Jn. 3:18 gives us no clear definitive statement on the extent of the atonement. It cries out for a clearer verse to explain it.

II.F. Rom. 5:6

"For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly."
 

     I realize it was an editorial goof, but what’s written in Dr. Waite’s paper is this: “Romans 5:6 clearly interpreted as evidence for the ‘limited atonement’” …and I couldn’t agree more!
 

     The author writes, “It is clear, therefore, from this context, that the ‘we’ refer to ‘we’ as sinful human beings of Adam’s race—whether elect or non-elect” (II.F.2).  Again, he has failed to do his exegetical homework. Instead, he’s imported a preconception and imposed it on the text. The “we” refers to Paul and his audience, an audience whom he has identified in 1:6 as “the called of Jesus Christ.” That’s another way of referring to the “elect,” the redeemed ones, believers. These same ones for whom Christ died—the “we”—the same ones who are justified and saved from God’s wrath in the same paragraph (Rom. 5:9). Though not a ‘clear’ passage, rightly understood in its context, it does much more to support “particular redemption” than “unlimited atonement.”

II.G. 2 Cor. 5:19

…that 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.

      This is another not-so-clear verse: ‘world’ has no definite definition. I would be foolish to honestly argue this, but it would be within the denotative scope of the word to say that Christ reconciled the dirt and rocks and water to Himself. Of course, that’s absurd. No serious interpreter of Scripture would define “world” in that way in this context. But is it not forcing an interpretation here to say that the use of “world” in this context most certainly and definitively must mean “all people” without exception? My point is that it’s simply not clear. We need other passages that are more clear to elucidate verses like this.

II.H. 1 Tim. 2:5-6

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.
 

     What do we do with these two verses juxtaposed together: “ransom for all” (1 Tim. 2:6) and “ransom for many” (Mt. 20:28)? Sadly, Dr. Waite chooses not to address the tension. To conclude that “all” refers to all men without exception is one possible interpretation, but it is not the only possible interpretation. Nor is it the better interpretation. It is much easier to understand “all” in 1 Tim. 2 to refer to all types, all kinds, all men without distinction, than it is to redefine the word “many” in Mt. 20:28 that is a definite word of limitation.
 

     The word all is unmistakably used in different senses in Scripture. When Mark spoke of John the Baptist’s ministry, he noted,
And all the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins. (Mk. 1:5)

Did Mark mean every single resident in Jerusalem and the region of Judea? Clearly not. Yet he used the word all. Similarly, Luke wrote in response to the lame man healed by the apostles,

…they were all glorifying God for what had happened… (Acts 4:21b)
All…including the religious leaders? Clearly not. Jesus warned His men,

“…and you will be hated by all because of My name.” (Lk. 21:17)
Hated even by brothers and sisters in the Lord? Obviously not. Jesus said,

“And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.” (Jn. 12:32)
Is Jesus informing us of His purpose to redeem every person on the planet? No. This ‘unclear’ passage is elucidated by other clear passages, many of which have already been identified. The word all has a range of meaning. To say that Jesus “gave Himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim. 2:6) does not specifically identify those who benefit from His substitutionary sacrifice. Other texts are necessary to bring clarity to our understanding.

II.I. Heb. 2:9

But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.
 

     I deeply appreciate the fact that the word here translated “everyone” is clarified by Dr. Waite to be unclear. He’s right, the Greek word can be either masculine or neuter. Because it is fuzzy, taken at face value (again, pushed outside of an orthodox framework, but within a denotative, grammatical framework), we might (foolishly, of course) also include demons or Satan himself in that list of those for whom Christ ‘tasted death.’ Contextually, we know that this deals with people, but the extent is ill-defined from this verse alone. Here again, we need help from other passages that are clearer.

II.J. 2 Pet. 2:1

But 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.

      A few things need to be noted about this text. Jesus is here referred to as “the Master,” not “the Savior.” Second, these whom He “bought” are specifically “false prophets” from “among the people.” Third, no reference is made as to the payment or price with which these false prophets are “bought.” And fourth, whatever “bought” means, it does not refer to something possible but something actual.
  

    The word bought is key to understanding this verse. The Greek word is used 30 times in the New Testament. Twenty-four of those 30 times, it’s used in a non-redemptive sense (e.g., buying land, food, etc.). Apart from the verse in question, in the five other times the word is used, it is in a redemptive sense: bought means redeemed. In each of these 5 occurrences, the redemptive price is mentioned. (The “price” is found contextually in Rev. 13:8 for the two occurrences in Rev. 14:3 and 4.)
Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body. (1 Cor. 6:19-20)

You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. (1 Cor. 7:23)

“Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.” (Rev. 5:9)

In 2 Pet. 2:1, no ‘redemptive price’ or its equivalent is mentioned. If, then, the reference to being “bought” in 2 Pet. 2:1 is redemptive in nature, it is unique in its usage and context from other NT occurrences. If it is redemptive in nature, these false prophets lost their salvation when they became apostate. A full Arminian position is possible for this verse…but the doctrine of eternal security must be sacrificed due to the strength of the verb bought as a reality, and not just a possibility.

 

     Deuteronomy 32:5-6 offer a helpful parallel to understand 2 Pet. 2:1. There, in the Song of Moses, God’s leader of the Exodus wrote,
“They have acted corruptly toward Him, they are not His children, because of their defect; but are a perverse and crooked generation. Do you thus repay the Lord, O foolish and unwise people? Is not He your Father who has bought you? He has made you and established you.” (Deut. 32:5-6)
Here, Moses describes God as the Master, the Sovereign who “bought” the Israelites out of Egyptian slavery. As such He owned them. Yet, “they are not His children” (32:5). Nothing in the Deut. 32 context suggests that all those “bought” by the Lord were also redeemed. The 2 Pet. 2:1 passage appears as a strong parallel: Jesus is the Master (again, not the “Savior”), who has purchased slaves by nature of their creation by His sovereign hand (note the Deut. parallel, “He has made you…”), and as such commands their allegiance.
    Carefully considered, 2 Pet. 2:1 does not support the position espoused by “unlimited atonement.”

II.K. 1 Jn. 4:14

We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.
 

     Dr. Waite writes of our Lord, “He can be the personal ‘Savior’ in the real and in the practical sense of the term when the individual places his faith and trust in this Savior for himself” (II.K.2). I wholeheartedly affirm Dr. Waite on this point: the Bible does indeed teach that Jesus is the Savior of all those who place their faith in Him. But if that’s the case (and I believe it is), then Jesus cannot be the Savior of every man without exception in the world at the same time and in the same relationship. Such an argument blows apart all logical understandings. “World” here is not clearly defined.

II.L. 1 Jn. 2:2

…and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
  

    I agree with the author’s analysis that this verse teaches us that “God the Father…was propitiated in the death of His Son at the Cross. He was satisfied with the work of the Son!” (II.L.2). Further, “It is not something which is only ‘possible’ or ‘potentially’ true. It ‘is’ in reality and in fact, without any question or shadow of a doubt!” (II.L.3). If I didn’t know better, I’d think he’s starting to shift his position!
 

     The first clause in that verse is not tough to interpret, and those on both sides of the debate will likely show up at about the same spot: “our” refers to believers (II.L.4). Which believers? Those believers reading John’s letter. Again, this is unclear, and different possibilities stand up to be acknowledged, but I think the best way to understand the second part of the verse is to say that the atonement—propitiation made possible by Christ—extends beyond those who sit there reading John’s letter. Much like the faulty assumption of the Jews, salvation doesn’t belong to just me and you and Mr. Magoo. Salvation crosses cultural, political, linguistic, and ethnic borders. Sinners from around the globe benefit from the propitiation of Christ. 

Dr. Waite concludes, “God is satisfied that His Son has actually, and really, and literally paid for the sins of the whole world by His sacrifice on the Cross.…It merely means that the penalty has been paid” (II.L.5). If the penalty for the whole world (men without exception) has been paid, then there is no debt before God, no enmity, no separation. And we’re left with the logical and necessary conclusion (if we’re consistent) that God unjustly judges those whose sins are already forgiven. And I know Dr. Waite doesn’t hold that point of view. His position is untenable.

III.A. Jn. 1:12

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name…
 

     “There is not a hint in this verse that this invitation to sinners to become saints is limited only ‘to the elect’” (III.A.3). Dr. Waite has misunderstood or misrepresented the “particular redemption” position. We’re called to preach the gospel universally to all men. But he makes this erroneous conclusion: “We can make this universal offer, because Jesus Christ died for the sins of the whole world” (III.A.3). Universal preaching, yes, but not for the reason he cited…for the reason that God has ordained it and commanded it (Mk. 16:15; Rom. 10:15; 1 Cor. 9:16; 2 Tim. 4:2).

III.B. Jn. 3:16

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”
 

     In this, his third section, which he intended to be more of an apologetic for those already convinced of “unlimited atonement,” I admit I was thrilled when I read Dr. Waite’s admission that there is a range of meaning for the word world. And the meaning of that word in Jn. 3:16 is not crystal clear either. In light of the passages we’ve considered thus far, it appears best to interpret world in a general sense, referring to those who inhabit the world. Our understanding of the verse would flow in this manner: through Jesus Christ, God the Father has showered those who live on this globe with His love—not specifically in a redemptive sense (though it would certainly include that), but in a sustaining sense. We see it manifest itself in these ways: the ravages of the extent of sin are held back, life is sustained, hope is offered amid the most ominous foes of sin and death all mankind faces.
 

     More completely, all/anyone/everyone who believes in Him will be saved. The author writes, “We can therefore ask everyone in the whole world to ‘believe’ on the Lord Jesus Christ, and can honestly and sincerely invite them to receive this ‘everlasting life’ by faith…” (III.B.3). Actually, from a scriptural point of view, Dr. Waite doesn’t go far enough on this point. Not only can we “ask” people without exception to believe in Christ, but if we follow Paul’s example, we should “command” every man to repent (Acts 17:30, kjv). But it’s in the conclusion of his sentence that the author oversteps the confines of clear scriptural teaching: “…knowing that God did make provision for them by His Son’s death for their sins on the cross, and thus offers them a bona fide gift for the taking.” Indeed, the offer is genuine and real, and the choices mankind makes are genuine and real, but those who respond will be those whom the Father has elected from the foundation of the earth. They are limited by God’s sovereignty. Man is not sovereign. The gospel is about God; man is but a privileged secondary receiver.

III.C. Jn. 3:17

“For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.”
 

     “He had the entire ‘world’ in view!” (III.C.2). Same song, twelfth verse. There are by his own admission alternative ways to understand “world” (III.B.1). Because it’s not clear, we need to consult those verses that are.

Conclusion

      In our age of weak and shallow theology, “particular redemption” is an unpopular, minority position. Granted, at first glance, there appear to be two sets of verses regarding the extent of the atonement: on the one hand, those that limit those for whom Christ died, and on the other, those that broaden the extent of those for whom Christ’s death is made possible. But when those verses that are less clear are interpreted in light of those that are more clear, the “particular redemption” position is the better understanding regarding the extent of the atonement.

      When it comes to the practical doing of ministry, very little is different between those convinced of “particular redemption,” and those convinced of “unlimited atonement.”

• Both preach the gospel—a gospel that says that all men are sinners, standing in judgment before a holy God, and that by faith in Jesus Christ alone they will find salvation from the coming wrath of God.

• Both preach the gospel to all men and women, boys and girls without exception, as is commanded us by God in Scripture. Neither side knows who will believe or who will reject.

• But both know that those that do believe will be saved.

• The language used in witnessing will be slightly different. Those convinced of “particular redemption” will not use the phrase “Jesus died for you,” for we don’t have access to the Lamb’s Book of Life to know if that is indeed literally true. But we are most certainly free before the Lord to say that “Jesus died for sinners…if you will but put your faith in Christ alone you will be saved.”

• Motivation might be slightly different: those holding to “unlimited atonement” may be motivated from an understanding that Christ did in fact already die for those to whom he is preaching. Those holding to “particular redemption” are motivated to preach Christ and witness for Him out of obedience to Him and out of an eager desire to fulfill their privileged position as a child of the King to be part of establishing His rule here on earth to the same degree as it is in heaven.
 

     So why make a big deal about all this? First, because God is glorified when we take His Word seriously and honestly try to understand the totality of the revelation He’s given to us…even if two brothers in Christ come to separate conclusions (within the boundaries of orthodoxy). Second, because God be God. Scripture reveals Him to alone be the Sovereign One. He will show compassion on whom He will show compassion, and mercy on whom He will show mercy. Salvation is of the Lord from beginning to end…not man (which of course does not nullify man’s responsibility to believe).
 

     As I look at all the pieces of the puzzle, they best fit into a shape labeled “particular redemption.” There, God is highly exalted, and Scripture best reconciled.


Rob Martini
Pastor, Emmanuel Community Church, Clackamas, OR
June 30, 2004

[1] http://www.biblebelievers.net/Calvinism/kjcalvn4.htm
[2] The Scripture references used throughout this paper are from the nasb, 1995 update, unless otherwise noted. Words and phrases are not in the original text, but are highlighted for emphasis.