The EXTENT of the Atonement - Part 1

If you haven’t already, make sure to give these a read: https://soteriology.substack.com/t/atonement. In this series we’ll be looking at the extent of the atonement.

The extent (or scope) makes sense once you see the intent and purpose of His death. Instead, what we have are people who start with the scope, assuming that it means “everyone without exception,” to redefine His intent and purpose. The bottom-line is that everyone (not counting the Universalists) limits the atonement.

Non-Reformed Soteriology says that we limit the atonement by not believing. Reformed Soteriology says that God limits the atonement. To put it another way: Calvinists limit the [extent] of the atonement (it covers only the Elect). Non-Calvinists limit the [power] of the atonement, saying it extends to the whole world but is not powerful enough to effectively save anyone. That’s the bottom-line.

“It’s the [intent] of the atonement that determines the [extent] of the atonement. What’s more, John 3:16 tells us something quite specific about what God [intended] in sending his Son.”^[1]

“…Christ did not die to make possible the salvation of all mankind, but to make certain the salvation of all that the Father had given to Him. Christ died not simply to make sin pardonable, but ‘to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.’ (Heb 9:26)” —A.W. Pink

The work of redemption is both particular and it is Trinitarian. The Father elects a particular people for Himself (Eph 1: 4, 5); Christ dies for all those the Father has given Him (John 17:9, 19). and the Spirit applies the effectual work of Christ on the same (John 3:8; 6:63). However, those (amyraldians) who reject particular redemption introduce a conflict between the Divine Persons. The Triune God becomes disjoined from one other in their saving intent. In this case the Father elects particular individuals, but the Son, on the other hand, dies for all, and the Spirit again seals those the Father elected. Such theology would have us believe that the Son works in disharmony with the other two Members of the Trinity. But Christ is not the author of confusion but rather (the bible declares) came to save all those given to him by the Father (John 6:37,63,65; 17:9; 19, 24)^[2]

The real issue was the design, or purpose, of God’s plan in laying upon His Son the burden of the Cross. Was it God’s purpose simply to make salvation possible for all but certain for none? Did God have to wait to see if any would respond to Christ to make His atonement efficient? Was it theoretically possible that Jesus would die “for all” yet never see the fruit of His travail and be satisfied?

Or was it God’s eternal purpose and design of the Cross to make salvation certain for His elect? Was there a special sense in which Christ died for His own, for the sheep the Father had given Him?

Here our understanding of the nature of God impacts strongly and decisively our understanding of the design and scope of the Atonement. —R.C. Sproul^[3]

“We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, ‘No, certainly not.’ We ask them the next question—Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer, ‘No.’ They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say, ‘No, Christ has died that any man may be saved if’—and then follow certain conditions of salvation. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as infallibly to secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limits Christ’s death; we say, ‘No, my dear sir, it is you that do it.’ We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it.” —Spurgeon

This is a good one by Francis Turretin. Give a full read here: https://www.monergism.com/extent-atonement

The mission and death of Christ are restricted to a limited number—to his people, his sheep, his friends, his Church, his body, and nowhere extended to all men severally and collectively. Thus, Christ “is called Jesus, because he shall save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). He is called the Savior of his body” (Ephesians 5:23). The good shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep (John 10:15), and “for his friends” (John 15:13). He is said “to die— that he might gather together in one, the children of God that were scattered abroad” (John 11:52). It is said that Christ “hath purchased the Church [or his flock] with his own blood” (Acts 20:28; Ephesians 5:26-27). If Christ died for every one of Adam's posterity, why should the Scriptures so often restrict the object of his death to a few? How could it, with propriety, be said absolutely that Christ is the Savior of his people and of his body, if he is the Savior of others also? How could it in the same way be said that he laid down his life for his sheep, for the sons of God, and for the Church, if, according to the will and purpose of God, he died for others also? Would this be a greater proof of his love and a firmer ground of consolation?

To this argument in general it is objected:

(1.) “That the Scripture, which in these passages appears to limit the atonement to a few, elsewhere extends it to all.” This objection is more specious than solid. The universality alluded to is not absolute, but limited, one which does not refer to all the individuals of the human family, but to individuals of all nations, as will be shown at large hereafter.

(2.) Another objection is, “that in the texts quoted above, the satisfaction is not considered separately, but in connection with its application which is limited, though the satisfaction separately considered is universal.” To this we reply, that the words and phrases which the Holy Spirit uses in the texts cited above—such as, “the Savior,” “to lay down life for one,” “to give himself for one,” etc., properly denote satisfaction, the procuring of salvation. And although they imply the application of the thing obtained, yet this does not weaken the force of the argument, because the atonement and its application are inseparably connected, and are of the same extent, which will be proved in the proper place.

(3.) Again, it is objected, that “Christ died absolutely for some and conditionally for others.” This, however, takes for granted what ought to be proved. It is altogether gratuitous to say that Christ in his death had a twofold intention: one conditional, which extended to all, the other absolute, which was limited to a few. The Scripture nowhere countenances such a distinction, it always represents the application of the atonement as conditional, but the making of it never. The nature of the thing does not, indeed, admit of such a distinction, for, according to the hypothesis of the objectors, there was no consideration of the elect in the decree according to which Christ died, and they admit that he died with the same purpose with which the decree was passed, for the execution must be agreeable to the plan. Christ and the Father must have precisely the same object in view by his death. They say that the elect were separated by a posterior decree, but if Christ was destined to die for all before the elect were separated from the reprobate, he must have died for the elect and the reprobate in the same way. God decreed all things by one simple act, though we have to conceive of the decree by parts: who, then, can believe that in one simple act, God had two intentions so diverse, not to say contrary, that in one manner Christ should die for all, and in another for some only? Nay, since Christ could not will to die absolutely for the elect, without involving, by the law of contraries, a will not to die for the reprobate, it is inconceivable how in one act he should will both to die for the reprobate, and not to die for them.

(4.) Another objection is, that “though these passages speak of the elect, yet they do not speak of them exclusively of all others, as, when Paul says that Christ was delivered for him, he does not exclude others.” To this I answer, that though those texts upon which I rely do not explicitly exclude all others, yet they contain, in their description of those for whom Christ died, certain circumstances which clearly exclude others. Though the blessing is promised to the seed of Abraham, without saying to the seed of Abraham alone, yet it is sufficiently clear that the blessing was strictly confined to Abraham's seed. The object of the passages quoted is to illustrate and magnify the love of Christ towards his sheep for whom he lays down his life, towards his Church and people for whom he delivered himself up to death. But how will this exalt the love of Christ towards them, if they have no prerogative, no claims in his death above the reprobate? Why should the immense love of Christ, who lays down his life and sheds his blood, be applied specially to the people of God? The example of Paul does not strengthen the objection, for the apostle does not speak of this as a blessing peculiar to himself, but as one common to himself and the other elect or believers, to whom he proposes himself as an example, that they might be able to say the same thing of themselves because they were in the same state.