Whosoever Will

The issue of the extent of the atonement looms large in Baptist history. At the cradle of Baptist origins in the early seventeenth century, it was the line of demarcation. “General Baptists,” the earliest Baptists, believed the nature of Christ’s satisfaction for sin on the cross extended to every human being. Thus the atonement was universal in scope. “Particular Baptists,” for the most part, believed that Christ only suffered for the sins of the elect. The theological and popular term used to describe this latter position is “limited atonement.”

This chapter will examine several questions. The key question is whether Scripture teaches limited atonement. Several related questions follow. Have there been and are there today Calvinists who reject limited atonement? Must one hold to limited atonement to be a good Calvinist? What are the implications of limited atonement for evangelism, missions, and preaching?

The goals of this essay are to be firm but fair, simple but substantive, biblical but not bombastic, and to avoid an unbecoming pride of ignorance as well as an arrogant elitism. All the options need to be on the table, and all of them must be rightly represented before beginning to discern which viewpoint is true biblically. Often in discussions of Calvinism, people use the same vocabulary but define the terms differently. Confusion often reigns over the terminology itself. Consequently, defining the terms used in this chapter is necessary. The following are brief definitions of the terms:

Atonement, in modern usage, refers to the expiatory and propitiatory act of Christ on the cross whereby satisfaction for sin was accomplished. One must be careful to distinguish between the intent, extent, and application of the atonement.

Extent of the atonement answers the question “For whom did Christ die?” or “For whose sins was Christ punished?” There are only two options: for the elect alone (limited atonement) or for all of humanity (universal atonement). The second option may be further divided into (a) Dualists (Christ has an unequal will to save all through the death of Christ) and (b) Arminians and non-Calvinists (Christ has an equal will to save all through the death of Christ).

According to limited atonement, Christ only bore the punishment due for the sins of the elect alone.¹ Consequently, no one else can or will receive the saving benefits of His death. This term will be used as a synonym for “definite atonement,” “particular redemption,”² and “strict particularism.”

According to universal atonement, Christ bore the punishment due for the sins of all humanity.

Dualism refers to the view that Christ bore the punishment due for the sins of all humanity, but not for all equally; that is, He did not do so with the same intent, design, or purpose. Most Calvinists who reject (or do not espouse) limited atonement in the Owenic sense are dualists.³

Particularism, when used in a strict sense (which is the sense I will use it in this chapter), is a synonym for limited atonement or particular redemption.

A particularist is someone who holds to particularism, that is, the position of limited atonement.

In limited imputation, the sins of the elect only were substituted for, atoned for, or imputed to Christ on the cross.

In unlimited imputation, the sins of all of humanity were substituted for, atoned for, or imputed to Christ on the cross.

Infinite or universal sufficiency, when used by strict particularists, means that the death of Christ could have been sufficient or able to atone for all the sins of the world if God had intended for it to do so. However, since they think God did not intend for the death of Christ to satisfy for all, but only for the elect, it is not actually sufficient or able to save any others. When used by Dualists and non-Calvinists, the term means that the death of Christ is of such a nature that it can actually save all men. It is, in fact (not hypothetically), a satisfaction for the sins of all humanity. Therefore, if any people perish, it is not for lack of an atonement for their sins.⁴ The fault lies totally within themselves.

According to limited sufficiency, the death of Christ only satisfied for the sins of the elect alone. Thus it is limited in its capacity to save only those for whom He suffered.

Intrinsic sufficiency speaks to the atonement’s internal or infinite abstract ability to save all men (if God so intended), in such a way that it has no direct reference to the actual extent of the atonement.

Extrinsic Sufficiency speaks to the atonement’s actual infinite ability to save all and every human, and this because God, indeed, wills it to be so, such that Christ, in fact, made a satisfaction for all humankind. In other words, the sufficiency enables the unlimited satisfaction to be truly adaptable to all humanity. All living people are in a saveable state because there is blood sufficiently shed for them (Heb 9:22).

Three major areas comprise the subject of the atonement: intent, extent, and application. The intent of the atonement, since it relates to the differing perspectives on election, answers the question, What was Christ’s saving purpose in providing an atonement? Did He equally or unequally desire the salvation of every human? Then, consequently, does His intent necessarily have a bearing upon the extent of His satisfaction? A crucial passage in this connection is found in 2 Cor 5:19: “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself” (KJV). God’s plan in the atonement was to provide a punishment and a satisfaction for sin as a basis for salvation for all humanity and to secure the salvation of all who believe in Christ.⁵ High-Calvinists⁶ believe in limited atonement and thus interpret the word world here to mean the elect⁷ and not all humanity. They argue that God’s limited saving intent necessarily requires that Christ provided a satisfaction only for the elect⁸ and thus to secure salvation only for the elect. Moderate-Calvinists⁹, that is, those who reject a strictly limited atonement, believe God’s saving design in the atonement was dualistic: (1) He sent Christ for the salvation of all humanity so that His death paid the penalty for their sins, and (2) Christ died with the special purpose of ultimately securing the salvation of the elect. The classic Arminian and non-Calvinist view of the intent of the atonement is that Christ died equally for all men to make salvation possible for all who believe, as well as to secure the salvation of those who do believe (the elect).¹⁰

The extent of the atonement answers the question, For whose sins was Christ punished? There are two possible answers. First, Christ died for the sins of all humanity, either with equal intent (He died for the sins of all as He equally intends their salvation), or with unequal intent (He died for the sins of all but especially intends to save the elect). Second, Christ died for the sins of the elect only (strict particularism) as He only intends their salvation.¹¹ All Arminians, moderate-Calvinists, and non-Calvinists believe that Jesus died for the sins of all humanity.

The application of the atonement answers the question, When is the atonement applied to the sinner? This question has three possible answers: (1) It is applied in the eternal decree of God. Many hyper-Calvinists hold this view. (2) It is applied at the cross to all the elect at the time of Jesus’ death. Some hyper-Calvinists and some high-Calvinists hold this position, which is called “justification at the cross.” (3) It is applied at the moment the sinner exercises faith in Christ. Most high-Calvinists, all moderate-Calvinists, all Arminians, and all non-Calvinists hold this view, which is the biblical view. The ultimate cause of the application is also in dispute since Calvinists want to argue that those who believe in libertarian free will ground the decisive cause of salvation in man’s will rather than in God’s will.

These three subjects concerning the atonement (intent, extent, and application) cannot and should not be divorced from one another. The focus in this chapter is primarily on the question of the extent of the atonement.

At the outset it is vital to say a word about the popular formula Peter Lombard first explicitly articulated in his Sentences:¹² Jesus’ death is sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect. The debate over the nature of this sufficiency is the key debate in the extent question. Calvinists often state that “the debate is not over the sufficiency of the atonement; all agree the atonement was sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.” The debate is very much about sufficiency. The high-Calvinist position on the atonement entails that Christ’s death is only sufficient to save the elect. The non-elect are not savable because Jesus did not die for their sins. Jesus’ sufficiency in the strictly limited atonement position is what is called an intrinsic sufficiency (or a bare sufficiency).¹³ The idea is that if God had intended for all the world to be saved, then Jesus’ death could have been¹⁴ sufficient for all (as it has enough intrinsic merit), but that is not what God intended. The moderate-Calvinist and non-Calvinist position interprets the term “sufficient” to mean Christ actually made satisfaction for the sins of all humanity. Thus, Jesus’ death is “extrinsically” or “universally” sufficient in capacity to save all people. Understanding Lombard’s formula is fraught with confusion today since those on both sides of the post-Reformation debate have used it to articulate and defend their position, often without the speaker specifying in what sense he is using the term. Whenever the formula is used, the question must always be asked: what is meant by the term “sufficient”?

This essay is going to argue the case for unlimited atonement (an unlimited imputation of sin to Christ) and against limited atonement (a limited imputation of sin to Christ) without ever quoting a single Arminian or non-Calvinist. The best arguments against limited atonement come from Calvinist writers.¹⁵ Five areas will be surveyed in answering the question whether the atonement of Christ is limited or unlimited: historical, biblical, logical, theological, and practical.

Historical Considerations

What two things do all these men—John Calvin, Heinrich Bullinger, Thomas Cranmer, Richard Baxter, John Preston, John Bunyan, John Howe, Zacharias Ursinus, David Paraeus, Stephen Charnock, Edward Polhill, Isaac Watts, Jonathan Edwards, David Brainard, Thomas Chalmers, Philip Doddridge, Ralph Wardlaw, Charles Hodge, Robert Dabney, W. G. T. Shedd, J. C. Ryle, A. H. Strong—have in common? All were Calvinists, and all did not teach limited atonement.¹⁶ Such a claim often shocks Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike.

What two things do these names all have in common: John Davenant, Matthias Martinius, Samuel Ward, Thomas Goad, Joseph Hall, Ludwig Crocius, and Johann Heinrich Alsted? All were Calvinists, and all were delegates at Dort who rejected limited atonement. What two things do these names have in common: Edmund Calamy, Henry Scudder, John Arrowsmith, Lazarus Seaman, Richard Vines, Stephen Marshall, and Robert Harris? All were Calvinists, and all were Westminster Divines who rejected limited atonement. All of the above men also affirmed a form of universal atonement.

The issue of the extent of the atonement looms large in Reformation history. It was the single most debated issue at Dort. The final committee modified the language of Dort and deliberately left it ambiguous in order to accommodate those high-Calvinists who believed in limited atonement (strict particularism) and those like John Davenant and others from the British and Bremen delegations who rejected strict particularism and believed Jesus’ death paid the penalty of the sins of all humanity.¹⁷

In considering the historical data on this question, one should be aware of three things. First, there has been and is significant debate over beliefs concerning the extent of the atonement in Calvinistic history. The same honesty used with interpreting the biblical and systematic data needs to be used with reading the historical data. Baptists need to be aware of the many Calvinistic stalwarts within the Baptist denomination, including Southern Baptists, who held to a form of universal atonement and rejected limited atonement.

Second, Baptists, whether Calvinistic or not, need to be more historically self-aware concerning the extent of the diversity on the point. The primary sources must be consulted. There is a great deal of ignorance in this area. Many contemporary authors from a Calvinistic perspective write as if Calvinists historically propounded only one view on this subject. Since it is unlikely that these authors are unaware of the diversity within their own tradition on the subject of the extent of the atonement, one wonders why only the strict limited position is presented and argued. A cursory glance at many of the blog sites hosted by Calvinists reveals the same lacuna and the need to listen honestly to historical theology. The only way to do this is to read the primary sources carefully.

Third, one needs to see the novelty of the Owenic view of limited atonement in church history. It has always been the minority view among Christians ¹⁸ even after the Reformation. This unpopular status does not in and of itself make it incorrect, but too many Calvinists operate under the assumption that a strictly limited atonement is and has been the only position within Calvinism.¹⁹ It is not, nor has it ever been.

The first person in church history who explicitly held belief in limited atonement was Gottschalk of Orbais (AD 804–869).²⁰ Contrary to what some Calvinists think, Augustine did not hold the view of limited atonement.²¹ On the other hand, Gottschalk stated that “Christ was not crucified and put to death for the redemption of the whole world, that is, not for the salvation and redemption of all mankind, but only for those who are saved.”²² Three French councils condemned both Gottschalk and his views.

Turning to the Reformation period, Martin Luther clearly held a form of unlimited atonement: “Christ has taken away not only the sins of some men but your sins and those of the whole world. The offering was for the sins of the whole world, even though the whole world does not believe.”²³ In another place Luther argued poignantly concerning John 1:29:

You may say: “Who knows whether Christ also bore my sin? I have no doubt that He bore the sin of St. Peter, St. Paul, and other saints; these were pious people.” . . . Don’t you hear what St. John says in our text: “This is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world”? And you cannot deny that you are also a part of this world, for you were born of man and woman. You are not a cow or a pig. It follows that your sins must be included, as well as the sins of St. Peter or St. Paul. . . . Don’t you hear? There is nothing missing from the Lamb. He bears all the sins of the world from its inception; this implies that He also bears yours, and offers you grace.²⁴

John Calvin likewise held to a form of universal atonement. Consider the following:

To bear the sins means to free those who have sinned from their guilt by his satisfaction. He says many meaning all, as in Rom. 5:15. It is of course certain that not all enjoy the fruits of Christ’s death, but this happens because their unbelief hinders them. That question is not dealt with here because the apostle is not discussing how few or how many benefit from the death of Christ, but means simply that He died for others, not for Himself. He therefore contrasts the many to the one.²⁵

Paul makes grace common to all men, not because it in fact extends to all, but because it is offered to all. Although Christ suffered for the sins of the world, and is offered by the goodness of God without distinction to all men, yet not all receive Him.²⁶

Such is also the significance of the term “world,” which He had used before. For although there is nothing in the world deserving of God’s favour, He nevertheless shows He is favourable to the whole world when He calls all without exception to the faith in Christ, which is indeed an entry into life.²⁷

We must make every effort to draw everybody to the knowledge of the gospel. For when we see people going to hell who have been created in the image of God and redeemed by the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, that must indeed stir us to do our duty and instruct them and treat them with all gentleness and kindness as we try to bear fruit this way.²⁸

It is, as I have already said, that, seeing that men are created in the image of God and that their souls have been redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ, we must try in every way available to us to draw them to the knowledge of the gospel.²⁹

In Calvin’s last will and testament, he clearly affirmed a form of universal atonement:

I testify and declare that as a suppliant I humbly implore of him to grant me to be so washed and purified by the blood of that sovereign Redeemer, shed for the sins of the human race, that I may be permitted to stand before his tribunal in the image of the Redeemer himself.³⁰

Calvin’s discussion in both his commentary and his sermon on the use of “all” in Isa 53:6 (“All we like sheep have gone astray . . . and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” KJV) clearly makes no distinction in usage. “All” like sheep strayed, and on the Servant was laid the sin of us “all.” All without exception had sinned, and the sin of all without exception had been laid on the suffering Servant. Calvin further says: “By adding the term ‘each one,’ he [the author of Isaiah] descends from a universal statement, in which he included all, to a particular, that each person may consider in his own mind whether it be so . . . he adds this word ‘all’ to exclude all exceptions . . . even to the last individual . . . all men are included, without any exception.”³¹ Calvin goes on to say that “many” means “all” in Isa 53:12.

With respect to Calvin’s view of the extent of the atonement, Rouwendal’s conclusion in a recent article is striking:

If Calvin taught particular atonement, he would not have used the language [for universal atonement] Clifford has gathered in great number. Thus, the universal propositions in Calvin’s works do prove negatively that he did not subscribe to particular atonement, but they do not prove positively that he subscribed to universal atonement. These propositions can be used to falsify the conclusion that Calvin was a particularist, but are not sufficient to prove him a universalist.³²

Note carefully that Rouwendal himself has concluded that the evidence shows Calvin did not subscribe to limited atonement. Note also he does not say Calvin did not subscribe to universal atonement; rather he says Calvin’s “universal propositions” in his writings “do not prove positively that he subscribed to universal atonement.” Frankly, given the clear evidence that Calvin did, indeed, subscribe to a form of universal atonement, Rouwendal’s demurral is unnecessary.

Two years after his death, Calvin’s biblical universalism was reflected in the Second Helvetic Confession (1566).³³ The last of the great Reformation confessions, it was drawn up by Calvin’s friend Heinrich Bullinger (1504–75),³⁴ Zwingli’s successor at Zurich.

Another important reformation document affirming universal atonement is the Heidelberg Catechism (1593). Question 37 says:

What do you confess when you say that He [Christ] suffered? Answer: During all the time He lived on earth, but especially at the end, Christ bore in body and soul the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race. Thus, by His suffering, as the only atoning sacrifice, He has redeemed our body and soul from everlasting damnation, and obtained for us the grace of God, righteousness, and eternal life.

Zacharias Ursinus (1534–1583), in his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, said:

Question: If Christ made a satisfaction for all, then all ought to be saved. But all are not saved. Therefore he did not make a perfect satisfaction.

Answer: Christ satisfied for all, as it respects the sufficiency of the satisfaction which he hath made, but not as it respects the application thereof.³⁵

According to Rouwendal, Beza’s criticism of the Lombardian formula launched a new stage in the development of the doctrine of limited atonement. Up until his day, Calvin and all the Reformers had accepted the Lombardian formula. Following Beza, other Reformers began to accept Beza’s critical approach. Bucanus, who was professor at Lausanne from 1591 to 1603, wrote that Christ’s death

“could have been” (instead of “was”) a ransom for the sins of all people. Piscator went even further and called the classic formula of the distinction “contradictory.” Others, like Ames and Abbot, were also critical. The trend of restricting the atonement to the elect in every respect began with Beza. It is of great importance to acknowledge that this trend did not begin until 1588, twenty-four years after Calvin had died.³⁶

The early English Reformers all held to universal atonement. For example, Thomas Cranmer clearly affirmed universal atonement in the following quotation:

This is the honour and glory of this our high priest, wherein he admitteth neither partner nor successor. For by his own oblation he satisfied his Father for all men’s sins, and reconciled mankind unto his grace and favour. And whosoever deprive him of his honour, and go about to take it to themselves, they be very antichrists, and most arrogant blasphemers against God and against his Son Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent.³⁷

In 1571, the Anglican Church adopted the doctrinal statement known as the Thirty-Nine Articles. Article 31 of the Thirty-Nine Articles states: “The offering of Christ once made is the perfect redemption, propitiation and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is no other satisfaction for sin, but that alone.”³⁸

The Westminster Assembly was held from 1643 to 1649 in London. It is sometimes believed that all those who were members of the Westminster Assembly held to limited atonement (strict particularism). They did not. For example, listen to Henry Scudder (1585–1652):

It must be granted, that Christ gave himself a ransom for all. This ransom may be called general, and for all, in some sense: but how? namely, in respect of the common nature of man, which he took, and of the common cause of mankind, which he undertook; and in itself it was of sufficient price to redeem all men; and because applicable to all, without exception, by the preaching and ministry of the gospel. And it was so intended by Christ, that the plaster should be as large as the sore, and that there should be no defect in the remedy, that is, in the price, or sacrifice of himself offered upon the cross, by which man should be saved, but that all men, and each particular man, might in that respect become salvable by Christ.³⁹

In the broader context of this quotation, Scudder discusses the fact that the death of Christ was for all men. He denies the argument that all people will be saved because Christ ransomed all humankind. Scudder does not deny this by rejecting the premise that Christ ransomed all humankind;⁴⁰ rather, he argues that the new covenant of grace is conditional: only those who believe will obtain salvation.⁴¹ Further, in granting that Christ died for the sins of every individual person, he bases that truth on Christ’s common humanity. This view is classical Christology in accord with Heb 2:5–14. The sufficiency of which Scudder speaks is an extrinsic sufficiency whereby Christ bore the sin of all humanity. Scudder grounds God’s universal offer upon the fact of that extrinsic sufficiency. He further associates God’s “general and common love to mankind” with Christ’s death for all mankind.⁴² All men are “salvable” (an archaic word meaning “savable”) by virtue of what Christ did on the cross. None are left without a remedy for their sin. Therefore, those who hear the gospel and perish have only themselves to blame.⁴³ One will also notice that Scudder does not use “world” to connote the elect in his scriptural references and allusions.

Another important Westminster Divine was Edmund Calamy (1600–1666). He said:

I am far from universal redemption in the Arminian sense; but that that I hold is in the sense of our divines in the Synod of Dort, that Christ did pay a price for all,—absolute intention for the elect, conditional intention for the reprobate in case they do believe,—that all men should be salvabiles, non obstante lapsu Adami . . . that Jesus Christ did not only die sufficiently for all, but God did intend, in giving of Christ, and Christ in giving Himself, did intend to put all men in a state of salvation in case they do believe.⁴⁴

I argue from John 3:16, in which words a ground of God’s intention of giving Christ, God’s love to the world, a philanthropy the world of elect and reprobate, and not of elect only; it cannot be meant of the elect, because of that “whosoever believeth.”. . . If the covenant of grace is to be preached to all, then Christ redeemed, in some sense, all—both elect and reprobate.⁴⁵

One should observe several salient points in these quotations. First, Calamy says that he holds to a form of universal redemption that is distinct from the Arminian view. Second, he sees his view expressed by some at the Synod of Dort. Third, he speaks of an intentional sufficiency, (conditional for the non-elect; absolute for the elect) such that Christ did actually pay a price for all. This objective price paid for all renders all men savable, but they must believe to obtain the benefit. Notice that Calamy uses John 3:16 as a proof of his view, and he argues that “world” cannot mean “the elect only” in that passage. He also argues that a universal proclamation presupposes a form of universal atonement.

In his Chain of Principles, Arrowsmith interpreted John 3:16 to refer to “the undeserving world of mankind,” not to the “elect world,” just as Calamy did.⁴⁶ Many at Westminster did not affirm limited atonement (strict particularism).⁴⁷

Several of the Puritans likewise held a form of universal atonement. For example, Richard Baxter’s position can be summed up, according to Curt Daniel, in the following sentence: “Christ therefore died for all, but not for all equally, or with the same intent, design or purpose.”⁴⁸ John Bunyan declared that

Christ died for all . . . for if those that perish in the days of the gospel, shall have, at least their damnation heightened, because they have neglected and refused to receive the gospel, it must need be that the gospel was with all faithfulness to be tendered unto them; the which it could not be, unless the death of Christ did extend itself unto them; John 3:16. Heb. 2:3. For the offer of the gospel cannot with God’s allowance, be offered any further than the death of Jesus Christ doth go; because if that be taken away, there is indeed no gospel, nor grace to be extended.⁴⁹

Turning our attention to America, no one would demure at the claim that Jonathan Edwards was its greatest eighteenth-century theologian. He seldom discussed the subject of the extent of the atonement in his voluminous writings. When he did, he clearly held a form of universalism: “From these things it will inevitably follow, that however Christ in some sense may be said to die for all, and to redeem⁵⁰ all visible Christians, yea, the whole world, by his death; yet there must be something particular in the design of his death, with respect to such as he intended should actually be saved thereby.”⁵¹ One can see that Edwards is advocating a form of dualism on the extent of the atonement. Christ may be said to die for all, in that he redeemed all, but there is still something particular in His work in the case of the elect, such that he purposes that they alone should obtain the benefit through faith. Redemption applied is limited but not redemption accomplished. Redemption accomplished is unlimited.

Under the heading “Universal Redemption,” Edwards wrote:

UNIVERSAL REDEMPTION. In some sense, redemption is universal of all mankind: all mankind now have an opportunity to be saved otherwise than they would have had if Christ had not died. A door of mercy is in some sort opened for them. This is one benefit actually consequent on Christ’s death; but the benefits that are actually consequent on Christ’s death and are obtained by Christ’s death, doubtless Christ intended to obtain by his death. It was one thing he aimed at by his death; or which is the same thing, he died to obtain it, as it was one end of his death.⁵²

Likewise Edwards wrote,

Christ’s incarnation, his labors and sufferings, his resurrection, etc., were for the salvation of such as are not elected, in Scripture language, in the same sense as the means of grace are for their salvation; in the same sense as the instruction, counsels, warnings and invitations that are given them, are for their salvation.⁵³

From these quotations of Baxter, Bunyan, and Edwards, one can see they clearly did not hold to limited atonement in the Owenic sense of the term.

The historical evidence on the extent of the atonement can be summarized in four statements. First, nearly all⁵⁴ of the earliest reformers, including Calvin,⁵⁵ held a form of universal atonement. Second, limited atonement as a doctrinal position of Calvinists developed in the second and third generations of reformers, beginning primarily with Beza. Third, the Synod of Dort debated the issue extensively, and the final language of Dort was deliberately left ambiguous on the subject so as to allow those among the delegates who rejected strict particularism and held a form of universal atonement to sign the final document. Fourth, the Westminster Assembly consisted of a minority of delegates who rejected limited atonement (strict particularism) and affirmed a form of universalism, as did several of the Puritans in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, including Jonathan Edwards.

The controversy that occurred within the second and third generations of Reformed theologians did not involve the rejection of limited atonement but the introduction of limited atonement. In fact, chronologically, after the introduction of limited atonement, Calvinism slowly began to open the door to the rejection of the free gospel offer.⁵⁶ When the free offer was finally and explicitly rejected, hyper-Calvinism was born.⁵⁷

Why talk about history and quote so many men? Truth cannot be determined by counting noses. I disagree significantly with these men in other areas of their Calvinism, not to mention their views on baptism and ecclesiology; but these disagreements do not negate the truth and significance of what they, as influential historic Calvinists, are admitting and affirming on the subject of the extent⁵⁸ of the atonement. Much has been written on the extent of the atonement in recent years, and much of it relies on modern secondary sources. There is a great deal of ignorance about the views of the early church, the perspectives of the early Reformers, and the diverse opinions on the subject within the Puritan movement.⁵⁹ Generally speaking, modern Calvinists have only three categories: the Calvinist position (or five-point Calvinism), which they equate with strict particularism; Amyraldism, which is often filtered through unreliable secondary sources; and Arminianism. This classification is far too simplistic.⁶⁰

Attention will now focus on the biblical data. Ultimately, the question of the extent of the atonement must be settled by appeal to Scripture. Exegesis must precede systematic theology as well as historical theology.

Exegetical Considerations

Three key sets of texts in the New Testament affirm unlimited atonement: the “all” texts, the “world” texts, and the “many” texts. Other texts state Jesus died for His “church,” His “sheep,” and His “friends.” How are we to reconcile these two sets of texts? The high-Calvinist interprets the universal texts in light of the limited texts. Non-Calvinists and moderate-Calvinists interpret the limited texts as a subset of the universal texts.

Some Calvinists argue that biblical authors such as John or Paul believed in limited atonement because they made statements affirming Christ died for the Church, even though biblical writers do not say that Christ died only for the Church or that He did not die for the non-elect. Calvinists usually exegete the relevant portions of Scripture in that manner. For example, John Owen denied the death of Jesus has any reference to the non-elect. According to Owen, the death of Christ is in absolutely no sense for them and is in no sense an expression of God’s love to them.⁶¹ When Owen said the use of the word kosmos in John 3:16–17 must designate “they whom he intended to save, and none else, or he faileth of his purpose,”⁶² it is clear his theology precedes and determines his exegesis. His argument proceeds in this fashion: since “world” is used elsewhere in senses other than “all humanity,” it cannot be used in that sense in John 3:16. He also argued the same for the use of the word “all.” Since “all” sometimes means “all of some sorts” or “some of all sorts,” it can never mean, according to Owen, that all humanity includes each and every person. The logical fallacy of such an approach is evident.

Owen asserted that “we deny that by a supply of the word elect into the text any absurdity or untruth will justly follow. . . . So that the sense is, ‘God so loved his elect throughout the world, that he gave his Son with this intention, that by him believers might be saved.’ ”⁶³ I submit that this does, indeed, inject both absurdity and untruth! For Owen, “world” in John 3:16–17 cannot mean each and every person because by his preconceived theology only the elect are “loved” in this way (note the circular argument here). Owen read his conclusion into his reasons for the conclusion and preempts any alternative, as Neil Chambers has noted in his thesis on Owen.⁶⁴ Owen continued his argument that the use of “world” in John 3:17 is a statement of God’s intention and hence must refer only to the elect. The same is true of 3:16. Again, Owen read his conclusion into his reasons to prove his conclusion. If Owen is correct that “world” means “elect,” when John 3:16 says “whosoever believes shall not perish,” the possibility is left open that some of the elect might perish. For Owen, the atonement is only actually sufficient for those for whom it is efficient. Owen’s arguments are not linguistic or exegetical but a priori theological arguments. He has committed the fallacy of begging the question.

With respect to the use of kosmos in the Gospel of John, Carson pointed out the word characteristically means human beings in rebellion against God.⁶⁵ In John’s prologue kosmos means apostate humanity in rebellion against God. In John 1:29, the sins of the “world” are what must be atoned for.⁶⁶ In 3:16, the world is spoken of as being loved and condemned, and then some are saved out of it. The latter two outcomes occur because of either belief or unbelief according to 3:18. John 3:19 is consistent with 3:18.

No linguistic, exegetical, or theological grounds exist for reducing the meaning of “world” to “the elect.” In fact, in John 17:6, the elect are defined over against the world. Owen made John 3:16 read, “God so loved those he chose out of the world,” which changes the sense of the verse into the opposite of its intended meaning. To make the meaning of “world” here “the elect” is to commit a logical and linguistic mistake of confusing categories.⁶⁷

Calvinists who follow Owen on John 3:16 distort John’s purpose and thus sever “one’s own participation in the continuation of the task of Jesus to save the world in the mission of the apostles from a conviction of love for the lost per se, a conviction grounded in God’s love for them.”⁶⁸ This distortion has immense repercussions for evangelism and preaching! When Letham says, concerning God’s intent in the atonement in John 3:16: “neither the term ‘world’ nor the passage as a whole is reflecting on the question before us,” he is dead wrong.⁶⁹ Dabney, a moderate-Calvinist, displays the right view when he said, “There is, perhaps, no Scripture which gives so thorough and comprehensive an explanation of the design and results of Christ’s sacrifice, as John 3:16–19.”⁷⁰

In his comments on John 3:16 in Indiscriminate Proposals of Mercy, Dabney said that, according to high-Calvinists, when “God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son,” “the world” must mean only “the elect.” Dabney finds several problems with this inference. If “the world” in v. 16 means “the elect,” then the clear implication is that some of the elect may fail to believe and thus perish.⁷¹ To be consistent, we must carry the same sense of the word “world” throughout the passage. In v. 19, “the world,” into which the light has come, receives condemnation, and thus cannot be a reference to the elect but must be taken in the wider sense of humanity. The logical connection between v. 17 and v. 18 shows that “the world” of v. 17 is inclusive of “him that believes” eventually and “him that believes not” of v. 18. If the offer of Christ’s sacrifice is in no sense a genuine offer of salvation to that part of the world which “believes not,” it is difficult to see how their choosing to reject the offer can become the just ground of their condemnation as is expressly stated in v. 19. Dabney poses this question: “Are gospel-rejectors finally condemned for this, that they were so unfortunately perspicacious as not to be affected by a fictitious and unreal manifestation? [something that was never offered for them in the first place?] It is noticeable that Calvin is too sagacious an expositor to commit himself to this kind of extreme exegesis.”⁷²

Dabney asks, “How shall we escape from this dilemma?” Looking at the high-Calvinist interpretation, “if it were a question of the decree of salvation for the elect only, from which every logical mind is compelled to draw the doctrine of particular redemption, the argument would be impregnable.” Yet as Dabney pointed out, this approach would make Jesus contradict his own exposition of his statement. The solution, then, must be in a different direction. The phrase “so loved the world” was not designed to refer to the decree of election but to an offer based on love that stops short of the purpose or decree of God to save. Christ’s death on the cross as proclaimed in the gospel is a sincere offer of salvation to all sinners. Dabney correctly noted that those who will not believe (the non-elect) will perish notwithstanding the offer of salvation to them. When the death of Christ becomes the occasion (not cause) of deeper condemnation to those who refuse to believe, it is only because these voluntarily reject God’s offer of salvation in Christ.⁷³

J. C. Ryle concurred and said with respect to John 3:16:

I am quite familiar with the objections commonly brought against the theory I have just propounded. I find no weight in them, and am not careful to answer them. Those who confine God’s love exclusively to the elect appear to me to take a narrow and contracted view of God’s character and attributes. They refuse to God that attribute of compassion with which even an earthly father can regard a profligate son, and can offer to him pardon, even though his compassion is despised and his offers refused. I have long come to the conclusion that men may be more systematic in their statements than the Bible, and may be led into grave error by idolatrous veneration of a system.⁷⁴

Furthermore, Ryle remarked as he spoke on the subject of election: “We know not who are God’s Elect, and whom he means to call and convert. Our duty is to invite all. To every unconverted soul without exception, we ought to say, ‘God loves you, and Christ has died for you.’ ”⁷⁵

In his commentary on John 3:16, Calvin said:

And He has used a general term, both to invite indiscriminately all to share in life and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the significance of the term “world” which he had used before. . . . He nevertheless shows He is favourable to the whole world when He calls all without exception to the faith of Christ, which is indeed an entry into life.⁷⁶

Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice for the salvation of the “whole world” and therefore invites all “indiscriminately” to share in God’s favor. In commenting on John 3:16, Calvin equates “world” with the terms “indiscriminately all” and “all without exception.” Note carefully how Calvin contrasts the few who believe with the rest of the world; he does not say “all who believe,” as is common among Calvinist writers on this verse, but “all without exception.” Some may think that Calvin and others taught that Christ only suffered for the sins of the elect because they interpret the “world” in 1 John 2:2 as limited to the church, following Augustine. However, Jerome Zanchi and Jacob Kimedoncius interpret the passage the same way, and yet Richard Muller acknowledges that these two men held a form of universal redemption, just like Heinrich Bullinger (who took an unlimited reading of 1 John 2:2). While there may be agreement in principle among classical Calvinists on universal redemption, there may be practical differences in terms of their exegesis of certain specific passages.

The strength of any theological position is only as great as the exegetical basis upon which it is built. Limited atonement (strict particularism) is built on a faulty exegetical foundation. Those who affirm limited atonement usually affirm God’s love for all humanity and God’s desire to save all humanity (in His revealed will, though not in His secret will). However, they deny that Jesus died for the sins of all humanity. Any teaching that says God does not love all humanity,⁷⁷ God has no intent or desire to save all humanity, or Jesus did not die for the sins of all humanity, is contrary to Scripture and should be rejected.⁷⁸

Theological Considerations

Probably the key theological argument to support limited atonement is the double payment argument, famously propounded by Owen,⁷⁹ which basically says that justice does not allow the same sin to be punished twice. This argument faces several problems. First, it is not found in Scripture. Second, it confuses a pecuniary (commercial) debt and penal satisfaction for sin. Third, the elect are still under the wrath of God until they believe (Eph 2:4). Fourth, it negates the principle of grace in the application of the atonement—nobody is owed the application.

Several prominent Calvinists did not employ the Double Payment Argument. Zacharius Ursinus, in his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, said:

Objection. 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 unjust to men.

Answer. 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).⁸⁰

John Davenant, signatory of the Canons of Dort, also wrote criticizing the double payment argument:

I answer, That this would indeed be most unjust, if we ourselves had paid this price to God, or if our Surety, Jesus Christ, had so offered to God his blood as a satisfactory price, that without any other intervening condition, all men should be immediately absolved through the offering of the oblation made by him; or, finally, if God himself had covenanted with Christ when he died, that he would give faith to every individual, and all those other things which regard the infallible application of this sacrifice which was offered up for the human race. But since God himself of his own accord provided that this price should be paid to himself, it was in his own power to annex conditions, which being performed, this death should be advantageous to any man, not being performed it should not profit any man. Therefore no injustice is done to those persons who are punished by God after the ransom was accepted for the sins of the human race, because they offered nothing to God as a satisfaction for their sins, nor performed that condition, without the performance of which God willed not that this satisfactory price should benefit any individual. Nor, moreover, ought this to be thought an injustice to Christ the Mediator. For he so was willing to die for all, and to pay to the Father the price of redemption for all, that at the same time he willed not that every individual in any way whatsoever, but that all, as soon as they believed in him, should be absolved from the guilt of their sins.

We will illustrate all these things by a similitude; Suppose that a number of men were cast into prison by a certain King on account of a great debt, or that they were condemned to suffer death for high treason; but that the King himself procured that his own Son should discharge this debt to the last farthing; or should substitute himself as guilty in the room of those traitors, and should suffer the punishment due to them all, this condition being at the same time promulgated both by the King and his Son, That none should be absolved or liberated except those only who should acknowledge the King’s Son for their Lord and serve him: These things being so determined, I enquire, if those who persist in disobedience and rebellion against the King’s Son should not be delivered, would any charge of injustice be incurred, because after this ransom had been paid, their own debts should be exacted from many, or after the punishment endured by the Son, these rebels should nevertheless be punished? By no means; because the payment of the just price, and the enduring of the punishment was ordained to procure remission for every one under the condition of obedience, and not otherwise.⁸¹

Other Calvinists have been critical of the double payment argument, including Edward Polhill, R. L. Dabney, A. A. Hodge, Charles Hodge, W. G. T. Shedd, and Curt Daniel.⁸² Though Christ died sufficiently for all people, the promise of deliverance is conditional. One must repent and believe in order to benefit unto salvation. The gospel not only sincerely promises life to the unbelieving elect and unbelieving non-elect on the condition of faith, but it also sincerely threatens them both with hell if they do not believe, despite the fact that Christ suffered sufficiently for their sins.⁸³ The double payment argument entails that the non-elect cannot, with any consistency, receive genuine offers of salvation by God through the preaching of the gospel. It also entails that the unbelieving elect (those who will be saved but are yet unsaved) are not receiving sincere threats from God by means of the preaching of the gospel. God would be making counterfeit offers to the non-elect (they cannot be saved anyway according to strict Calvinism), and God would be making counterfeit threats of perishing to the unbelieving elect since there is no longer any legal grounds for their remaining under condemnation. Their “debt” is literally paid,⁸⁴ including their unbelief. They now have a right to be saved.

Another argument in favor of limited atonement is the triple choice argument of John Owen. This argument was built on the double payment argument. Owen’s famous “Treble Choice” argument claims that Christ died for all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men, or some of the sins of all men. He then argued that if Christ’s death for all men’s sins were correct, then why are not all men saved? Also, if Christ’s death for some of all men’s sins were correct, then no man will be saved, for there would remain some sins still on the books. Hence, only that Christ died for all the sins of only the elect can be true.⁸⁵ This argument sounds like impeccable logic, but it is flawed on several levels. First, Scripture never says that a man goes to hell because no atonement was provided for him. Rather, some men perish, and their punishment is compounded because they rejected the atonement made for them. Second, some men are said to perish because they did not believe when they heard the gospel. Third, Christ died for all men, but He does not apply salvation to all men. The limitation was not in the provision of His death, but in the application.⁸⁶ Fourth, the argument quantifies the imputation of sin to Christ, as if there is a commercial ratio between all the sins of those He represents and the one indivisible and infinitely meritorious divine sacrifice.

Alan Clifford took Owen to task over the triple choice argument with some additional objections. He cited Owen’s argument that if one follows the thinking of universal atonement, what is one to do with unbelief? According to Owen, if unbelief is not a sin, how can people be punished for it? If it is a sin, then Christ either underwent punishment for it, or He did not. If He did, then how can unbelief hinder them any more than their other sins for which Christ died? If Christ did not die for the sin of unbelief, then He did not die for all sins. Clifford responds: “For all its apparent cogency, this compelling argument raises some important problems. It is clear that unbelievers are guilty of rejecting nothing if Christ was not given for them; unbelief surely involves the rejection of a definite provision of grace. It also makes nonsense of the means of grace, depriving general exhortations to believe of all significance.”⁸⁷

Clifford continues his logical assault on Owen’s position by noting that, in Owen’s view, the cross not only deals with the guilt of the believer’s preconversion unbelief, it is also causally related to the removal of that unbelief. But what of the problem of Christians who continue to be plagued with unbelief in their Christian life? For Clifford, Owen’s argument applies as much to supposed believers as it does to unbelievers. The consequences are problematic,

for if partial unbelief in a Christian hinders him from enjoying the fullness of those blessings Christ has died to purchase for him, this is no different in principle from saying that total unbelief in a non-Christian hinders him from “partaking of the fruit” Christ’s death makes available for him too. . . . Unlike Owen, the Reformers had little difficulty in establishing the basis of human guilt. While guilt is undoubtedly defined in terms of transgressing the law, a very significant component of it arises from ungrateful neglect of the gospel remedy. But on Owen’s account, if the atonement relates only to the sins of the elect, then it is doubtful justice to condemn anyone for rejecting what was never applicable to them.⁸⁸

Clifford went on to point out that Owen’s

acceptance of the “free offer” of the gospel is embarrassed by his strict commercialist position. He does indeed assert that the gospel is to be preached to “every creature” because “the way of salvation which it declares is wide enough for all to walk in.” But how can this be if the atonement is really only sufficient for the elect? Calvin and his colleagues had no difficulty in speaking like this, but Owen cannot consistently do so. Not surprisingly, Gill and his fellow hypercalvinists employed the very kind of commercialism espoused by Owen, but did so to deny the validity of universal offers of grace.⁸⁹

Finally, Chambers offered this salient critique of Owen’s position:

What needs to be seen is that Owen’s argument defeats itself by proving too much. If, in Owen’s terms, Christ died for all the sins of some people, the elect, then he must also have died for their unbelief, where “died for” is understood to mean having paid the penalty for all their sins at Calvary. If this is the case, then why are the elect not saved at Calvary? If Owen replies that it is because the benefits of Christ’s death are not yet applied to them, then I would ask what it means for those benefits not to be applied to them? Surely it means that they are unbelieving, and therefore cannot be spoken of as saved. But they cannot be punished for that unbelief, as its penalty has been paid and God, as Owen assures us, will not exact a second penalty for the one offense. If then, even in their unbelief, there is no debt against them, no penalty to be paid, surely they can be described as saved, and saved at Calvary. That being the case, the gospel is reduced to nothing more than a matter of informing the saved of their saved condition.

These last two conclusions are positions that Owen would deny, for he is committed to the necessity and integrity of the universal gospel call and the indissoluble bond between faith and salvation. There is then a real tension in Owen’s position brought about by a number of factors. The first is what might be called polemical reductionism in his consideration of “unbelief” here, for unbelief is not just an offense like any other, it is also a state, which must be dealt with not only by forgiveness but by regeneration. Owen recognizes this in relating the cross to the causal removal of unbelief as a state, but unbelief regarded as a sin and unbelief as a state bear a different relation to the cross. Sin bears a direct relation to the cross, which is the enduring of the penalty for sin; the change of state an indirect relation, dependent upon preaching and regeneration by the Spirit. To acknowledge that reality Owen would have to say that Christ died for all the sin, including the unbelief, of those who believe, and for none of the sins of those who won’t believe.⁹⁰

John Owen falsely understood redemption to involve literal payment to God so that the atonement itself secures its own application. This model is the controlling one in his book The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. He has distorted and thus contradicted Scripture in his effort to defend a strictly limited atonement.

In drawing this section on theological considerations to a close, let us juxtapose comments by D. A. Carson and John Calvin. Carson wrote:

I argue, then, that both Arminians and Calvinists should rightly affirm that Christ died for all, in the sense that Christ’s death was sufficient for all and that Scripture portrays God as inviting, commanding, and desiring the salvation of all, out of love. . . . Further, all Christians ought also to confess that, in a slightly different sense, Christ Jesus, in the intent of God, died effectively for the elect alone, in line with the way the Bible speaks of God’s special selecting love for the elect. . . . This approach, I contend, must surely come as a relief to young preachers in the Reformed tradition who hunger to preach the Gospel effectively but who do not know how far they can go in saying things such as “God loves you” to unbelievers. When I have preached or lectured in Reformed circles, I have often been asked the question, “Do you feel free to tell unbelievers that God loves them? . . . From what I have already said, it is obvious that I have no hesitation in answering this question from young Reformed preachers affirmatively: Of course I tell the unconverted God loves them.⁹¹

This quote from Carson is telling for many reasons. Notice he states that Christ’s death “for all” is “in the sense that Christ’s death was sufficient for all.” Here Carson’s meaning is dependent upon his usage of the word “sufficient.” Upon first blush, one might assume that Carson believes Christ’s death satisfied the sins of every human being. In this case, he would be using the word “sufficient” to mean “extrinsic sufficiency,” or in the classic sense. That Carson also says “Arminians” should rightly affirm this fact bolsters this possible reading. Arminians would, indeed, affirm it in the sense of an unlimited imputation of sin to Christ. But note Carson says “both Arminians and Calvinists should rightly affirm” it. No high-Calvinist would ever affirm “extrinsic sufficiency” because they believe the death of Christ only satisfied the sins of the elect. Thus, by his use of the term “sufficient,” Carson may mean “intrinsic sufficiency.” All Calvinists and non-Calvinists can affirm the statement “Christ’s death was sufficient for all,” where “sufficient” is understood to mean Christ’s infinite dignity and where the value of His death is capable of satisfying God for the sins of all unbelievers. The problem is that moderate-Calvinists and all non-Calvinists understand the term sufficient to mean not only that Christ’s death could have satisfied God for the sins of all unbelievers had that been God’s intention but that His death in fact did satisfy God for the sins of all humanity. Carson probably rejects, along with all high-Calvinists, this meaning of sufficiency. For them Christ’s death was intended only for the elect, and that intention also limits the imputation of sin to Christ (or the extent of His sufferings as well). Carson’s intended meaning here is ambiguous since his statement can have a number of different interpretations,⁹² and his ambiguity may be deliberate.

Moreover, do Carson’s words “effectively” and “alone” mean that “Christ’s death only results in the salvation of the elect”? If so, then no moderate-Calvinist or non-Calvinist would disagree with the statement. Everyone agrees that the atonement applies only to the elect. This reading is potentially bolstered by Carson’s argument that “all Christians” (which includes non-Calvinists) should be able to affirm this statement. However, if this interpretation is his meaning, it is something of a tautology. Carson’s words could be read as meaning that Jesus died especially for the elect alone, where “alone” is explained in the immediately following clause: “in line with the way the Bible speaks of God’s special love for the elect.” On this interpretation the death of Jesus had a dualistic design: Christ died in one sense for the sins of all people but in a special sense for the elect alone. Here again Carson is correct that all Christians can affirm this claim when the following implicit assumptions in his statements are made explicit. First, by his statement that Jesus “died for the elect alone” in line with “God’s special selecting love for the elect,” Carson means that the nature of the love God has for the elect differs from that which He has for the non-elect. This difference becomes exhibited in God’s “selection” of the elect to be the recipients of Christ’s atoning death in a way that is not true for the non-elect. That is, God’s love for His children must in some way differ from His love for those who are not His children. Second, Christ’s death for the non-elect brings them common grace. Assuming one leaves the meaning of “select” ambiguous, all non-Calvinists can affirm these statements in so far as they go. For moderate-Calvinists and non-Calvinists, however, his statements do not go far enough since Carson does not specify for whose sins Christ suffered.

The following interpretation of Carson’s words is also possible. If he means to say that Christ actually died for the sins of the elect only and not for the sins of the non-elect, then logically Christ’s death cannot be “sufficient” for the non-elect so that it is able to be applied to them. This limited sin-bearing is the position of all high-Calvinists, and it is the crux of limited atonement (strict particularism).⁹³ Notice he encourages young Reformed preachers to tell “unbelievers” that God loves them, but he is silent on the subject of telling unbelievers that Christ died for them in the sense that His death satisfied God for the penalty for their sins. His theology may prohibit it. If this interpretation is Carson’s intended meaning, then his statement that “all Christians” should be able to affirm this interpretation is erroneous. No moderate-Calvinist or non-Calvinist believes that the death of Christ provided only common grace benefits for the non-elect.

The second interpretation may be Carson’s intended meaning. But if so, he is leaving much too much to be read between the lines. Did Jesus’ death on the cross satisfy for the sins of all humanity? Carson’s paragraph ultimately does not answer the question in any explicit way, but if he actually sides with high-Calvinism, Carson must answer “no.” With respect to the intent and extent of the atonement, high-Calvinists believe the following: God loves all people (but not equally), God desires the salvation of all people, but Jesus only satisfied the sins of the elect and none others. Moderate-Calvinists and all non-Calvinists believe the following: God loves all people, God desires the salvation of all people, and Christ died for all people in the sense that His death satisfied for the sins of all people.⁹⁴

Now listen to John Calvin on John 3:16:

And indeed our Lord Jesus was offered to all the world. For it is not speaking of three or four when it says: “God so loved the world, that He spared not His only Son.” But yet we must notice what the Evangelist adds in this passage: “That whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but obtain eternal life.” Our Lord Jesus suffered for all⁹⁵ and there is neither great nor small who is not inexcusable today, for we can obtain salvation in Him.⁹⁶ Unbelievers who turn away from Him and who deprive themselves of Him by their malice are today doubly culpable, for how will they excuse their ingratitude in not receiving the blessing in which they could share by faith.⁹⁷

First, Calvin asserts that Jesus was “offered” to all the world. Non-Calvinists, moderate-Calvinists, and high-Calvinists all agree that God has a “universal saving will”⁹⁸ in that He desires the salvation of all people in His revealed will. But this salvation of all people is not all that Calvin affirms. Notice that he also said Jesus “suffered for all.” The word “all” here cannot mean the elect only since the quotation of John 3:16 flanks it with the word “whosoever” and the statement that no one is inexcusable (“for we can obtain salvation in Him”), and is followed by the statement that “unbelievers who turn away from Him . . . are doubly culpable” and fail to receive “the blessing in which they could share by faith.” Here Calvin clearly equates the “all” with “all unbelievers” and says explicitly “Jesus suffered for all.” Because of these clear statements, those who reject Christ are “doubly culpable.” Why? They are rejecting the death of Christ on their behalf, which could provide them salvation if they were to believe. Unlike Carson, Calvin has no qualms explicitly stating that “Jesus suffered for all.” Calvin does not employ the famous double payment argument as do high-Calvinists since Owen, asserting instead that unbelievers are “doubly culpable” for their rejection of this “blessing” made available in Christ “in which they could share by faith.” Calvin never used the double payment argument because he did not believe Scripture taught a limitation in the sin-bearing or the extent of Christ’s death.

Logical Considerations

Logically, one argument for a strictly limited atonement goes like this: Christ died “for His sheep,” for “His Church,” and for “His friends.” These categories of people are limited; thus, this argument is proof of limited atonement. Not so fast! Dabney correctly noted that statements such as Christ died for “the church” or “His sheep” do not prove a strictly limited atonement because to argue such invokes the negative inference fallacy: “the proof of a proposition does not disprove its converse.”⁹⁹ One cannot infer a negative (Christ did not die for group A) from a bare positive statement (Christ did die for group B), any more than one can infer that Christ only died for Paul because Gal 2:20 says that Christ died for Paul. Additionally, if I frequently repeat that I love my wife, it may be, hypothetically speaking, that I only love my wife, but it does not follow with deductive certainty. This is the same kind of logical mistake that Owen makes numerous times in his The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, and it is a logical fallacy constantly made by high-Calvinists with regard to the extent of the atonement.¹⁰⁰ Consequently, the fact that many verses speak of Christ dying for His “sheep,” His “church” or “His friends” does not prove that He did not die for others not subsumed in these categories.

There is no statement in Scripture that says Jesus died only for the sins of the elect. Those who hold to limited atonement commit the negative inference fallacy when they infer from certain restricted statements in Scripture concerning the death of Christ that He died only for the sins of those so mentioned. High-Calvinists fail to address adequately the many verses in the New Testament that affirm universal atonement.

Practical Considerations

We are now prepared to turn to issues of a practical nature. Adherence to limited atonement negatively impacts seven areas of practical theology.

1. The Problem of the Diminishing of God’s Universal Saving Will

High-Calvinists have trouble defending God’s universal saving will from the platform of limited atonement. The basic issue involves the question that if Christ did not die for the non-elect, how can this circumstance be reconciled with passages of Scripture such as John 17:21,23; 1 Tim 2:4; and 2 Pet 3:9,¹⁰¹ which affirm that God desires the salvation of all people? Moderate-Calvinists and non-Calvinists have no trouble here since they affirm Christ did, indeed, die for the sins of all people, and hence God can make “the well-meant offer” to all. Note carefully the point here is not just our making the offer of salvation to all by means of our preaching but that God Himself makes the offer to all through us (2 Cor 5:20). How could He do so with integrity if Christ did not die for the sins of all people? Polhill wrote about this question:

1. I argue from the will of God. God’s will of salvation as the fontal cause thereof, and Christ’s death, as the meritorious cause thereof, are of equal latitude. God’s will of salvation doth not extend beyond Christ’s death, for then he should intend to save some extra Christum. Neither doth Christ’s death extend beyond God’s will of salvation, for then he should die for some whom God would upon no terms save; but these two are exactly co-extensive. Hence it is observable, that when the apostle speaks of Christ’s love to the church, he speaks also of the giving himself for it, (Eph. v. 25), and when he saith God will have all men to be saved, (1 Tim. ii. 4), he saith withal, Christ gave himself a ransom for all, (v. 6). Therefore, there cannot be a truer measure of the extent of Christ’s death, than God’s will of salvation, out of which the same did issue; so far forth as that will of salvation extends to all men, so far forth the death of Christ doth extend to all men. Now then, how far doth God will the salvation of all? Surely thus far, that if they believe they shall be saved. No divine can deny it, especially seeing Christ himself hath laid it down so positively, “This is the will of him that sent me, saith he, that every one which seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting life,” (John vi. 40). Wherefore, if God will the salvation of all men thus far, that if they believe they shall be saved; then Christ died for all men thus far, that if they believe they shall be saved.¹⁰²

Without belief in the universal saving will of God and a universal extent in Christ’s sin-bearing, there can be no well-meant offer of the salvation from God to the non-elect who hear the gospel call. Central to hyper-Calvinism is its rejection of the doctrine that God desires the salvation of all men¹⁰³ and they have accused their high-Calvinist brothers of inconsistency and/or irrationality.¹⁰⁴ The rise of Calvinism in the evangelical world has historically carried on its coattails a rise of hyper-Calvinism as well.¹⁰⁵ It’s crucial to note that no Calvinist ever moves from moderate-Calvinism directly to hyper-Calvinism. One must first be committed to limited atonement, and from there one would make the logical leap into the rejection of well-meant gospel offers. Hyper-Calvinism cannot exist without a belief in limited atonement.

2. Problems for Evangelism

Some Calvinists today are engaged in evangelism for the simple reason that they do not know who the elect are, in addition to Christ’s missionary commands.¹⁰⁶ While we do not know who the unbelieving elect are, this motive for evangelism is insufficient. Evangelism must occur because God wills all men to be saved according to His revealed will. We are also to express and display God’s saving love¹⁰⁷ for humanity in the way we command all men to repent, in our preaching of the gospel, in our compassionate invitations, and in our indiscriminate offerings of Christ to all. Christ’s own heart and ministry, in this respect, are our pattern. We are to point the lost to the sufficiency of Christ to save them.¹⁰⁸ In addition to Christ’s express evangelistic commands and God’s will that all be saved, Christ’s actual sufficiency to save all men should also form a basis for our evangelism. Knowledge of God’s revealed will should drive our evangelism, not our ignorance of His secret will. Our missionary activity should be a way of conforming ourselves to the heart of God’s own missionary interests.

In his book The Gospel and Personal Evangelism, Mark Dever suggested three motives for evangelism: obedience to Scripture, a love for the lost, and a love for God.¹⁰⁹ I agree completely, but Dever fails to mention two other critical motives: Christ’s death for all men, and God’s universal saving will. Unless I have missed it, his book never mentions these two as motives for evangelism. Of course, Dever cannot affirm Christ’s death for the sins of all men because he holds to limited atonement. His theology prohibits it. I assume he would agree with God’s universal saving will, though he nowhere explicitly states it in his book, as far as I can tell.

Owenic Calvinists inadvertently undermine the well-meant gospel offer. Christians must evangelize because God wills all men to be saved and has made atonement for all men, thus removing the legal barriers that necessitate their condemnation. Arguably a high-Calvinist cannot look a congregation in the eyes or even a single unbelieving sinner in the eye and say, “Christ died for your sins.” Furthermore, when high-Calvinists say, “Christ died for sinners,” the term “sinners” becomes a code word for “the elect only.”¹¹⁰ To be consistent with their own theology, they have to say the deliberately vague statement “Christ died for sinners.” Since Christ did not die for the sins of the non-elect and since they do not know who the elect are, it is simply impossible in a preaching or witnessing situation to say to all directly “Christ died for you.”¹¹¹ I do not see how this untenable position can do anything but undermine one’s evangelistic zeal since the actual “saveability” of the listeners may secretly be in question.

Nathan Finn criticized Jerry Vines for stating, “When a Calvinist is a soul-winner, it is in spite of his theology.”¹¹² Interestingly, Curt Daniel, a moderate-Calvinist, pointed out that John Bunyan, a Calvinist who held to universal atonement, contended that few will be saved through the Particularist Gospel and that those who will, are saved in spite of the distinctive element, not because of it.¹¹³

3. Problems for Preaching

Anything that operates to undermine the centrality, universality, and necessity of preaching is wrong. Anything that makes preachers hesitant to make the bold proclamation¹¹⁴ of the gospel to all people is wrong. Thinking that Christ only suffered for some will deeply affect preaching. Preachers do not know who the elect are so they must preach to all as if Christ’s death is applicable to them even though they know and believe all are not capable of salvation. This stance seems to make preachers operate on the basis of something they know to be untrue and creates a problematic context for preaching in the pulpit.

Rather, because Christ did, in fact, die for the sins of all, God Himself is offering salvation to all, and the preacher can preach the bold proclamation of salvation to all, offering Christ’s benefits to every single person (2 Cor 5:18–21). John Bunyan maintained that the gospel is to be preached to all because the purpose for Christ’s death extended to all.¹¹⁵ Curt Daniel pointed out how Calvin warned “that if one limits the ‘all’ of the atonement, then one limits the revealed salvific will of God, which necessarily infringes on the preaching of the gospel and diminishes the ‘hope of salvation’ of those to whom the Gospel is preached.”¹¹⁶

Writing on limited atonement, Waldron makes this comment: “The free offer of the gospel does not require us to tell men that Christ died for them.” He also explains that “this way of preaching is utterly without biblical precedent,” that “if the free offer of the gospel meant telling unconverted sinners, ‘Christ died for you,’ then particular redemption would be inconsistent with the free offer,” and that “nowhere in the Bible is the gospel proclaimed by telling unconverted sinners that Christ died for them.”¹¹⁷ This last statement is remarkable. Such bold assertions are squarely contradicted in numerous places in the New Testament. For example, consider Paul’s statement of the gospel he preached in 1 Cor 15:3 (NKJV): “For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins.” Note that Paul is telling the Corinthians what he preached to them before they were saved! He preached to them “Christ died for their sins.” Waldron’s statement is also contradicted by Acts 3:26 (NKJV): “To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.” Peter is telling his unbelieving audience that God sent Jesus to bless each and every one of them and to turn every one of them from their iniquities. This message is equivalent to Peter’s saying that Christ died for you. How could Jesus save every one of them (which is what blessing and turning away from iniquity involves) if He did not actually die for the sins of all of them? Certainly “each one” of the Jews whom Peter addressed must have included some who were non-elect! As if these verses were not enough, what will Waldron do with Luke 22:20–21? “Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you. But behold, the hand of My betrayer is with Me on the table.’ ” Here Jesus clearly states His blood was shed for Judas.¹¹⁸ Arguing that Judas was not at the table at this time offers no remedy since the text clearly states that he was. Calvin himself explicitly says Judas was at the table in numerous places in his own writings.¹¹⁹ If Jesus shed His blood for Judas, then His death was not restricted to the elect alone, for Judas was not among the elect. The free and well-meant offer of the gospel for all people necessarily presupposes that Christ died for the sins of all men in some sense.¹²⁰

J. C. Ryle said it well:

I will give place to no one in maintaining that Jesus loves all mankind, came into the world for all, died for all, provided redemption sufficient for all, calls on all, invites all, commands all to repent and believe; and ought to be offered to all—freely, fully, unreservedly, directly, unconditionally—without money and without price. If I did not hold this, I dare not get into a pulpit, and I should not understand how to preach the Gospel.

But while I hold all this, I maintain firmly that Jesus does special work for those who believe, which He does not do for others. He quickens them by His Spirit, calls them by His grace, washes them in His blood—justifies them, sanctifies them, keeps them, leads them, and continually intercedes for them—that they may not fall. If I did not believe all this, I should be a very miserable, unhappy Christian.¹²¹

These words reflect my sentiments exactly. People are not damned for lack of a sufficient substitutionary sacrifice but for their sins and lack of faith. A man cannot be punished for rejecting what was never meant for him in the first place. Limited atonement negatively affects preaching because it prohibits the preacher from preaching, “Christ died for your sins!” so that the despairing hearers may be assured that God is not only willing but also prepared to save them.

4. Problems Concerning the Giving of Altar Calls

At a Michigan pastors’ conference in November 2008, a Southern Baptist Convention seminary professor spoke on the subject “The Cross and Evangelistic Confidence.” The point of his message emphasized that a pastor need not and, in fact, should not extend an evangelistic altar call. He contended the evangelistic altar call is not biblical and also argued that extending an evangelistic altar call is tantamount to attempting to manipulate the sovereignty of God. Alan Streett has debunked both these claims in a monograph.¹²² Streett, who serves as the W. A. Criswell Professor of Preaching at The Criswell College in Dallas, Texas, and is a Southern Baptist, wrote his doctoral dissertation on this subject. He demonstrated conclusively that an altar call is historically substantiated, biblically affirmed, and theologically validated. Incidentally, Streett is a moderate-Calvinist. Streett’s volume has an appendix where he directly appeals to his Reformed brothers not to reject the use of the altar call.¹²³ I might also add that in personal conversation with Dr. Louis Drummond before his home going, Drummond told me that during his research in England for his definitive biography on Charles Spurgeon, he found eyewitness accounts of Spurgeon’s occasional use of the altar call after his preaching in the recently unsealed vault containing the archives of the Downgrade Controversy. These accounts, of course, debunk a common myth among Calvinists that Spurgeon never gave an altar call.

Many Calvinists reject the altar call precisely because of their commitment to limited atonement. Although anecdotal in nature, observations confirm that virtually all Calvinists who speak or write against altar calls happen to be high-Calvinists.

5. Problems When Calvinism Is Equated with the Gospel

In spite of Spurgeon’s famous quote,¹²⁴ Calvinism is not the gospel. As Greg Welty said in speaking “bluntly” (Welty’s word) to his fellow Calvinists, such a statement is “both misleading and unhelpful,” and if taken at face value, would “draw the circle of fellowship more narrowly than Christ Himself has drawn it.”¹²⁵ Calvinism is not the sine qua non of the gospel. Some modern Calvinists posit a necessary link between penal substitution and definite atonement so that they tend to equate Calvinism with the gospel message. For them, penal substitution equals limited atonement, and, therefore, limited atonement becomes a necessary component of the gospel. That the Reformers who recaptured the penal substitutionary aspect of Christ’s death did not hold to limited atonement is interesting. The argument that the rejection of limited atonement entails the need to deny penal substitution ultimately rests on a confusion between commercial debt and penal debt, as has already been pointed out. Such thinking may reduce the gospel message to a message about how God wants to gather the elect instead of God’s sincere desire to save all who hear the message. When Calvinism is equated with the gospel, some Calvinists become militant so that any attack on their system is equivalent to an attack on the gospel.

6. Problems When Non-Calvinist Churches Interview a Calvinist Potential Pastor or Staff Member

One of the growing problems in the Southern Baptist Convention, which seems to correlate with an increase in the number of young seminary graduates who are Calvinistic in their soteriology, concerns the interview process between churches and pastoral/staff candidates. The vast majority of Southern Baptist churches are not Calvinistic. When these churches interview potential pastors and staff who are Calvinistic, problems surface unless both parties are crystal clear about their beliefs and unless both parties ask and answer questions pointedly and not with vagueness. Most of the evidence for this problem is anecdotal in nature, but I am personally aware of numerous examples. Not a few churches in the Southern Baptist Convention have actually divided over this issue.

Oftentimes a pastor search committee is not theologically astute enough to ask the kinds of questions to determine what a potential pastor believes about Calvinism and particularly the extent of the atonement. Let me illustrate with a hypothetical case. Suppose the candidate is asked the following question: “Do you believe Christ died for the world?” The questioner understands the word “world” to refer to all people without exception. The questioner also intends “died for” to mean “died for the sins of” the world. High-Calvinists believe Christ died for humanity in the sense that His death brings them common grace but not that Christ died for the sins of the world. No high-Calvinist can say, “Christ died for the sins of the world” unless they understand the word “world” to mean the elect. But this view is precisely how most high-Calvinists understand the word “world” in passages like John 3:16; they interpret it to mean the world of the elect only and not every person individually. So, in our hypothetical case, when the candidate is asked the question, “Do you believe Christ died for the world,” he can answer “yes” to that question by his definition of “world” and “died for.” The problem here is twofold. First, the committee’s question is asked without their awareness of the theological nuances involved in the meaning of “world” and “died for.” Although this is regrettable, it is understandable. Second, if the candidate answers “yes” to the question, then he is answering the question according to his definitions of the words “world” and “died for,” not according to the intended meaning of the question by the committee. If the candidate answers the question in the affirmative and if he knows the committee means by their question to inquire whether Jesus actually died for the sins of all men, then a breach of integrity has occurred. The candidate has made the decision to capitalize on the ambiguity of the question. It is incumbent on the Calvinist candidate to answer the question according to the meaning of the questioner and not according to what he himself can nuance the words to mean as if in a theological discussion with fellow Calvinists. If the candidate is called to the church as a pastor or staff member and later begins to preach or teach limited atonement, problems result. Even when church search committees do not ask questions concerning a candidate’s views on Calvinism, wisdom would seem to dictate that the candidate should be upfront with the committee about these issues. It is incumbent on both search committees and candidates that they be forthright with each other about exactly what each believes. Love for the church and the desire not to divide a church ought to spur committees and candidates, whether Calvinist or not.

7. Problems When Being Truly Southern Baptist Is Equated with Being a Calvinist

While this problem does not pertain to the atonement per se, it is about Calvinism in general and illustrates a growing problem in the Southern Baptist Convention. When Tom Ascol publishes Tom Nettles’s article in the Founders Journal, titled “Why Your Next Pastor Should Be a Calvinist,” the publication of this article, coupled with the posting of the statement of purpose on the Founders Ministries Web site, makes it obvious that the agenda of the Founders movement in the Southern Baptist Convention is to move the SBC toward high-Calvinism.¹²⁶ Read carefully Ascol’s own comments about Nettles’s article:

The theme of the latest Founders Journal (Winter, 2008) is “the other resurgence.” It contains articles by Tom Nettles and Christian George, representing the “old guard” of the reformation efforts within the SBC and the rising generation who is similarly committed to those efforts. Dr. Nettles needs no introduction to most of the readers of this blog. His teaching and writing ministries have been blessed of God to call many back to our biblical and historical roots as Southern Baptists. His book, By His Grace and For His Glory (recently revised, updated and republished by Founders Press) has never even been seriously engaged, much less refuted by those who lament the resurgence of the doctrines of grace among Baptists over the last 25 years. It is a classic work. Tom’s article in this issue of the Founders Journal is entitled, “Why Your Next Pastor Should Be a Calvinist.” I highly recommend it.¹²⁷

First, note the phrase “the other resurgence.” This phrase is, of course, a reference to the resurgence of Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention. Second, Ascol speaks of Nettles’s “teaching and writing ministries” being “blessed of God to call many back to our biblical and historical roots as Southern Baptists” [emphasis added]. Ascol’s reference to our “biblical” roots implies that those who do not affirm Calvinism are “unbiblical.” When he speaks of our “historical” roots, Ascol is distorting the historical record of Southern Baptists with respect to Calvinism. He is prejudicing the Charleston tributary over against the Sandy Creek tributary. Richard Land poignantly said concerning Southern Baptist history and Calvinism: “Ever since the First Great Awakening, the Separate Baptist Sandy Creek Tradition has been our melody, with Charleston and other traditions providing harmony.”¹²⁸ Founders Ministries has chiefly erred in assigning the melody to the Charleston tradition in Southern Baptist life. Third, I cannot imagine using such a title as “Why Your Next Pastor Should Be a Calvinist,” much less arguing the topic in print. A church’s next pastor should be the man God leads that church to call, Calvinist or not. Imagine the outcry if some group of non-Calvinists should publish an article titled, “Why Your Next Pastor Should Not Be a Calvinist.” Of course, Ascol is well within his rights to direct the Founders Ministries and to publish such an article in his journal. These rights are not in question. What is in question is whether such an article constitutes evidence that he has an agenda to press for a resurgence of Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention and whether such an agenda is a problem for the Southern Baptist Convention. In my judgment the evidence clearly indicates both are true.

Consider Nettles’s comments in his chapter “A Historical View of the Doctrinal Importance of Calvinism Among Baptists” in the book Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue. He concluded with a statement that any effort to seek the repression or elimination of Calvinism within the SBC would be “a theological tragedy and historical suicide.”¹²⁹ I certainly agree. In the next sentence Nettles introduced a lengthy quotation by P. H. Mell with the following remark: “In fact, one could argue along with P. H. Mell that exactly the opposite should be the case.”¹³⁰ What exactly did Mell say to elicit such a comment from Nettles? The first portion of Nettles’s quotation of Mell reads as follows:

In conclusion, it becomes a serious and practical question—whether we should not make these doctrines [the Doctrines of Grace] the basis of all our pulpit ministrations. If this be, indeed, the gospel system, sustained by such arguments, and attested by such effects, every minister should be imbued with its spirit, and furnished with its panoply; it is not necessary, indeed, that we should present its truth, always in the form of dogmatic or polemic theology—though even these should not be entirely neglected, if our people are not, as yet, thoroughly indoctrinated.¹³¹

Nettles continues Mell’s quotation that outlines “the fundamental truths” of the “doctrines of grace.” Curiously, Mell mentions total depravity and perseverance of the saints, but he says nothing specific concerning unconditional election, limited atonement, and irresistible grace. Mell is clearly advocating that these doctrines of Calvinism should be the “basis of all our pulpit ministrations.” He calls the doctrines of grace “the gospel system” and indicates “our people” should be “thoroughly indoctrinated” in them. One could indeed argue, as Nettles said, for Mell’s point, but the point is one should not argue this point. There are wide chasms between “could” and “would” and “should.” I get the distinct impression that Nettles would indeed like to argue this and that he has semantically done so by means of Mell’s quotation.

Jeff Noblit concluded “The Rise of Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention: Reason for Rejoicing” with these words: “I am convinced that the rise of Spirit-filled, evangelistic Calvinism is an essential agent to the revival and reformation needed in order to build strong true churches and bring God the glory He deserves.”¹³² Look at that sentence carefully. Noblit is convinced that Calvinism is an essential agent needed for the revival and reformation of the church in order to build true churches. Is Calvinism essential to the revival we need? Will our churches only be true churches when they are permeated with Calvinistic theology? Such statements and their implications are problematic.

In conclusion, regarding Calvinism and the SBC, attempting to run all Calvinists out of Dodge will not bring us together in the SBC. Attempting to return us as a convention to the so-called “Founders” theology of Calvinism will also not bring us together. If we are to come together, we must do so as Baptists, not as Calvinists and non-Calvinists. We must unite around Baptist distinctives, which are the only glue that can hold us together: a biblical Baptist theology wedded to a Great Commission Resurgence of evangelism and missions. It is any and every Baptist’s right to be persuaded that Calvinism reflects the teaching of Scripture. Being a Calvinist should not be a convention crime. Calvinists have and should always be free to have a place at the SBC table. Any church that feels God’s leading to call a Calvinist pastor should do so without hesitation. On the other hand, Calvinism should not be a convention cause either. When Calvinists, individually or as organized groups, seek to make it a cause with the intention of moving the SBC toward Calvinism, then we have and will continue to have a problem. Let us debate the theology of Calvinism and let the chips fall where they may, but let us refrain from attempting to Calvinize or de-Calvinize the SBC. The majority of Baptists have always been, to use Dr. Leo Garrett’s term, “Calminians.”

Conclusion

I have attempted to demonstrate the following: (1) Historically, neither Calvin nor the first generation of reformers held the doctrine of limited atonement. From the inception of the Reformation until the present, numerous Calvinists have rejected it, and furthermore, it represents a departure from the historic Christian consensus that Jesus suffered for the sins of all humanity. (2) Biblically, the doctrine of limited atonement simply does not reflect the teaching of Scripture. (3) Theologically and logically, limited atonement is flawed and indefensible. (4) Practically, limited atonement creates serious problems for God’s universal saving will; it provides an insufficient ground for evangelism by undercutting the well-meant gospel offer; it undermines the bold proclamation of the gospel in preaching; and it contributes to a rejection of valid methods of evangelism such as the use of evangelistic altar calls.

I cannot help but remember the words of the venerable retired distinguished professor of New Testament at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dr. Jack McGorman, in his inimitable style and accent: “The doctrine of limited atonement truncates the gospel by sawing off the arms of the cross too close to the stake.”¹³³ Should the Southern Baptist Convention move toward “five-point” Calvinism? Such a move would be, in my opinion, not a helpful one.¹³⁴

NOTES

1. While all Calvinists who believe in “definite atonement” believe in a kind of limited imputation of sin to Christ, the majority of them reject “equivalentism”; that is, they do not hold to a quid pro quo (tit for tat) theory of expiation, as if there is a quantum of suffering in Christ that corresponds exactly to the number of sins of those He represents. I am not equating “strict particularism” with “equivalentism.” T. Nettles is an example of one who holds the equivalentist view (see his By His Grace and for His Glory [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986], 305–16).

2. There is variety within the group of people who describe themselves by this label. Dagg wrote: “Other persons who maintain the doctrine of particular redemption, distinguish between redemption and atonement, and because of the adaptedness referred to, consider the death of Christ an atonement for the sins of all men; or as an atonement for sin in the abstract.” J. L. Dagg, Manual of Theology (Harrisonburg, VA: Gano Books, 1990), 326. Notice that Dagg is affirming there are two particular redemption positions within Calvinism, something which is seldom recognized. Notice also that one of these positions within Calvinism affirms that Christ died for the sins of all men. It is remarkable that when Andrew Fuller modified his views as a result of his interaction with General Baptist Dan Taylor, he explicitly says that he agreed with him on “the universal extent of Christ’s death” (The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller, with a Memoir of His Life by the Rev. Andrew Gunton Fuller [ed. A. G. Fuller; rev. ed. J. Belcher; vol. 2; Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1988 (1845)], 550). Moreover, in Fuller’s treatment of substitution in his Six Letters to Dr. Ryland, he seeks to answer the question of “The persons for whom Christ was a substitute; whether the elect only, or mankind in general.” He argues that Christ substituted for mankind in general, but he maintained this in conjunction with his belief that Christ did such with an effectual purpose to save only the elect (Works, 2:706–09). The later Fuller seems to fit Dagg’s second type of particular redemptionist.

3. “Owenic” refers to John Owen’s classic treatment of the limited atonement position in his The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (Cornwall, England: Diggory Press, 2007).

4. C. Hodge (concurring with the Synod of Dort) makes this point in his Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 2:556–57. The Puritan S. Charnock also powerfully argues the point in “The Acceptableness of Christ’s Death,” in The Works of Stephen Charnock (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1985), 4:563–64.

5. See G. Shultz’s treatment of 2 Cor 5:18–21 in “A Biblical and Theological Defense of a Multi-Intentioned View of the Extent of the Atonement” (Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2008), 125–31. Schultz, a moderate-Calvinist, has an excellent recent article on the extent of the atonement, which is a summary of his dissertation. (G. Schultz, “God’s Purposes in the Atonement for the Nonelect,” Bibliotheca Sacra 165, no. 658 [April-June 2008]: 145–63.) His article identifies the many biblical purposes for the atonement for the non-elect, including “payment of the penalty for all of the sins of every person who has ever lived” (147).

6. The term “high-Calvinist” is equivalent to “five-point Calvinist.”

7. Here the elect usually refers to the believing elect.

8. Not all Calvinists say that Christ’s death only provided for the salvation of the elect since they differ among themselves over the meaning of the sufficiency of Christ’s death.

9. These are sometimes called “four-point Calvinists,” but the label is imprecise.

10. I am referring here to the classical Arminian position that does not necessarily deny the security of the believer. Modern Arminians deny the security of the believer.

11. Most in this group do admit, however, that Christ’s death results in common grace flowing to all. The important point here is sin bearing. They do not admit an unlimited imputation of sin to Christ.

12. The formulaic section has recently been translated as follows: “He offered himself on the altar of the cross not to the devil, but to the triune God, and he did so for all with regard to the sufficiency of the price, but only for the elect with regard to its efficacy, because he brought about salvation only for the predestined.” P. Lombard, The Sentences–Book 3: On the Incarnation of the Word (trans. G. Silano; Mediaeval Sources in Translation 45; Canada: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 2008), 86. The concept, however, is at least as old as Ambrose (AD 338–397). See his Exposition of the Holy Gospel According to Saint Luke (trans. T. Tomkinson; Etna: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1998), 201–2. He wrote, “Although Christ suffered for all, yet He suffered for us particularly, because He suffered for the Church.”

13. The “intrinsic” or “bare sufficiency” view is discussed and refuted in the writings of several Calvinists, including J. Davenant, An Exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians: With a Dissertation on the Death of Christ (2 vols.; London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co., 1831), 401–04; J. Ussher, “An Answer to Some Exceptions,” in The Whole Works of the Most Rev. James Ussher (Dublin: Hodges, Smith, and Co., 1864), 12:561–71; E. Polhill, “The Divine Will Considered in Its Eternal Decrees,” in The Works of Edward Polhill (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1998), 164; and N. Hardy, The First General Epistle of St. John the Apostle (Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1865), 140–41.

14. John Owen was conscious of the fact that he and others were revising the formula of the “schoolmen,” and prefers to put it in hypothetical terms: “the blood of Christ was sufficient to have been made a price for all” [emphasis mine]. See The Works of John Owen (ed. W. H. Goold; New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1852), 10:296. Richard Baxter calls Owen’s revision of the Lombardian Formula a “new futile evasion” and refutes his position in Universal Redemption of Mankind by the Lord Jesus Christ (London: Printed for John Salusbury at the Rising Sun in Cornhill, 1694), 343–45. This revision is also briefly discussed in W. Cunningham, Historical Theology (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1994), 2:332.

15. I would like to thank Tony Byrne for his research and writing assistance. Some of the material used in this chapter was originally posted on his blog site TheologicalMeditations.blogspot.com. Tony is a moderate-Calvinist and a former student of mine at The Criswell College. He has far outdistanced his professor on the subject of the extent of the atonement. His Web site has scores of in-context quotations from Calvinists on a host of subjects ranging from God’s love, God’s universal saving will, common grace, the well-meant gospel offer, to the extent of the atonement. Tony has greatly helped to sharpen my own thinking on this subject.

16. The point here is that they did not teach “limited atonement” in the sense of a limited imputation of sin to Christ, as Owen taught, and as most modern “five-point” Calvinists think. Rather, they held to a form of universal atonement.

17. See W. Godfrey, “Tensions Within International Calvinism: The Debate on the Atonement at the Synod of Dort, 1618–1619” (Ph.D. diss., Stanford University, 1974), 252–69; and R. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 1:76–77. Muller even says that the same confessional compromises on the language of the extent of the atonement occurred at Westminster so as to allow both views.

18. But not necessarily among Reformed Christians after the Reformation period.

19. Richard Muller has begun to inform the church about the historical diversity within the Reformed camp. Consult his lectures at Mid-America Reformed Seminary in November 2008, titled “Revising the Predestination Paradigm: An Alternative to Supralapsarianism, Infralapsarianism and Hypothetical Universalism.” He considers the following to be “hypothetical universalists” of the non-Amyraldian variety: Musculus, Zanchi, Ursinus, Kimedoncius, Bullinger, Twisse, Ussher, Davenant (and others in the British delegation to Dort), Calamy, Seaman, Vines, Harris, Marshall, Arrowsmith (the latter six were Westminster Divines), Preston, and Bunyan.

20. G. M. Thomas, The Extent of the Atonement: A Dilemma for Reformed Theology from Calvin to the Consensus (1536–1675) (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997), 5.

21. C. Daniel, “Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill” (Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh, 1983), 497–500. It is clear that Augustine thought that Jesus redeemed Judas. See Augustine, Exposition of Psalm LXIX, Section 27 (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, 8:309). Moreover, Prosper of Aquitaine is historically viewed as the normative interpreter of Augustine (not Gottschalk), and he very clearly held to universal redemption. See his Defense of St. Augustine (trans. P. De Letter; New York: Newman Press, 1963), 149–51, 159–60, 164.

22. Quoted in J. Davenant, An Exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians: With a Dissertation on the Death of Christ (2 vols.; London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co., 1831), 334. [The 2005 Banner of Truth reprint of Davenant’s commentary omits the Dissertation on the Death of Christ.] Davenant contrasts Gottschalk’s “novelty of doctrines” with scores of quotes from early church fathers, including Augustine and Prosper. See also Daniel, “Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill,” 503.

23. M. Luther, Lectures on Galatians—1535 Chapters 1–4, in Luther’s Works (trans. and ed. J. Pelikan; St. Louis: Concordia, 1963), 26:38.

24. M. Luther, Sermons on the Gospel of St. John Chapters 1–4, in Luther’s Works (trans. and ed. J. Pelikan; St. Louis: Concordia, 1957), 22:169.

25. J. Calvin, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews and the First and Second Epistles of St. Peter (ed. D. W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance; trans. W. B. Johnston; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), 131.

26. J. Calvin, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians (ed. D. W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance; trans. R. Mackenzie; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), 117–18.

27. J. Calvin, The Gospel According to St. John 1–10 (ed. D. W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance; trans. T. H. L. Parker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961), 74.

28. For J. Calvin’s treatment of Acts 7:51, see his “Sermon 41,” in Sermons on Acts 1–7 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2008), 587–88.

29. J. Calvin, Sermons on Acts1–7, 593.

30. J. Calvin, Letters of John Calvin (ed. and trans. J. Bonnet; New York, 1858, repr. [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1972]), 4:365–69; See also Beza’s Life of Calvin in Calvin’s Tracts and Treatises (ed. T. F. Torrance; trans. H. Beveridge; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958), 1:cxiii–cxxvii.

31. J. Calvin, Sermons on Isaiah, 66, 70, 78–79. See the chapter in this volume by K. Kennedy on Calvin’s view of the extent of the atonement.

32. P. L. Rouwendal, “Calvin’s Forgotten Classical Position on the Extent of the Atonement: About Sufficiency, Efficiency, and Anachronism,” Westminster Theological Journal 70 (2008): 328.

33. See A. Cochrane, ed., Reformed Confessions of the Sixteenth Century (London: SCM Press, 1966), 220–22, 242, 246.

34. R. Muller acknowledges that Bullinger (like Musculus, Zanchi, and Ursinus) taught a form of “non-speculative hypothetical universalism.” See Muller’s review of J. Moore’s English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology in Calvin Theological Journal 43 (2008): 149–50. One can also find a Calvinistic form of universal redemption in the writings of Rudolf Gwalther, Bullinger’s student and successor. See A Hundred Threescore and Fifteen Homilies or Sermons upon the Acts of the Apostles (trans. J. Bridges; imprinted Henrie Denham, dwelling in Pater noster rowe, at the signe of the Starre, 1572), 108; 751–52. Gwalther married Regula Zwingli, the daughter of the Reformer.

35. Z. Ursinus, The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism (trans. G.W. Willard; Phillipsburg: P&R, 1994), 215. Again, see Muller’s article in Calvin Theological Journal in the preceding footnote. He agrees with J. Davenant’s historiography on Ursinus.

36. Rouwendal, “Calvin’s Forgotten Classical Position on the Extent of the Atonement,” 320.

37. T. Cranmer, The Works of Thomas Cranmer (Cambridge: University Press, 1844), 1:346 [emphasis mine].

38. P. Schaff, The Evangelical Protestant Creeds, with Translations, vol. 3 in Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1966), 507. I have updated the old English spellings to modern English.

39. H. Scudder, The Christian’s Daily Walk in Security and Peace (Glasgow: William Collins, 1826), 279–82.

40. Like those who accept the “double payment” argument. See discussion below.

41. This was also how Ursinus handled the issue. See The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, 215.

42. This is also true of Charnock. See S. Charnock, “A Discourse of the Subjects of the Lord’s Supper,” in The Complete Works of Stephen Charnock (Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1865), 4:464. Amyraut also frequently made this connection. See L. Proctor, “The Theology of Moise Amyraut Considered as a Reaction Against Seventeenth-Century Calvinism” (Ph.D. diss., University of Leeds, 1952), 200–259.

43. C. Hodge makes all of these points. See his Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 2:556–57.

44. A. F. Mitchell and J. P. Struthers, eds. Minutes of the Sessions of the Westminster Assembly of Divines (Edinburgh: W. Blackwood and Sons, 1874), 152.

45. Ibid., 154. This is similar to J. Edward's language which will be seen below.

46. J. Arrowsmith, Armilla Catechetica: A Chain of Principles; or an Orderly Concatenation of Theological Aphorism and Exercitations; Wherein, the Chief Heads of Christian Religion Are Asserted and Improved (Cambridge: Printed by John Field, Printer to the University, 1659), 182. Mitchell and Struthers say that Gataker, Caryl, Burroughs, and Strong concurred with this interpretation of John 3:16. See Minutes, lvii.

47. Mitchell and Struthers, Minutes, liv–lxi. P. Schaff also mentions the name of Thomas Gataker in his analysis of the Westminster Confession. See The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 1:770.

48. Daniel, “Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill,” 531; See also R. Baxter, Catholicke Theologie (London, Printed by Robert White, for Nevill Simmons at the Princes Arms in St. Paul’s Church-yard, 1675), II:53. Baxter appeals to Twisse’s universal interpretation of John 3:16 in Universal Redemption, 287–88. One may consult J. I. Packer’s recently printed doctoral dissertation at Oxford on Baxter for an overview of his redemption theology. See The Redemption and Restoration of Man in the Thought of Richard Baxter (Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 2003), 183–208.

49. J. Bunyan, Reprobation Asserted, in Works of John Bunyan (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977), 2:348. See also “The Jerusalem Sinner Saved, or, Good News for the Vilest of Men,” in The Whole Works of John Bunyan (London: Blackie and Son, 1862), 1:90. Here Bunyan makes the “bold proclamation” to unbelievers, and says the Son “died for thee.”

50. It is crucial to note Edwards’s universal use of the term “redeemed” here, which is like Calamy’s above. While some high-Calvinists do say that “Christ died for all” in the sense of purchasing common grace for even the non-elect, they are careful not to say that Christ “redeemed” any of the non-elect, since this involves paying their ransom price.

51. J. Edwards, “On the Freedom of the Will” in The Works of Jonathan Edwards (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1979), 1:88. This is not to claim that Edwards saw no sense of particularity in the design or intent of Christ’s death, but only that he did not see any limitation in the extent of Christ’s suffering on behalf of the whole world.

52. J. Edwards [1743], “Book of Minutes on the Arminian Controversy” Gazeteer Notebook, in Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, vol. 37, Documents on the Trinity, Grace and Faith (Jonathan Edwards Center at Yale University, 2008), 10–11.

53. J. Edwards [1743], Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, vol. 27, “Controversies” Notebook (Jonathan Edwards Center at Yale University, 2008), part III.

54. There is still some question about the views of Martin Bucer, but J. C. Ryle says his same view of "love" and the "world" in John 3:16 is in Bucer. See J.C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gosples (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 3:158.

55. D. Ponter hosts the Web site www.CalvinandCalvinism.com (see the index page), which contains the largest collection of quotations in print from John Calvin’s works on the subject of the extent of the atonement. By carefully posting them in context, Ponter has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that John Calvin himself did not hold to limited atonement (strict particularism).

56. In fact, there were already some extreme delegates to the Synod of Dort from Gelderland and Friesland who rejected indiscriminate gospel offers. See Godfrey, Tensions, 210; and Thomas, Extent of the Atonement, 149.

57. See Daniel, “Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill,” 514. It is not as though hyper-Calvinists were against preaching to all (contrary to popular opinion). Rather, they were against the idea that God is “offering” Christ to all and that preachers should indiscriminately do the same (Daniel, Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill, 448–49; and I. Murray, Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching [Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 2000], 89).

58. Note that the extent of the atonement here is to be distinguished from what Calvinists say about Christ’s intent in the atonement and the nature of its application.

59. For Howe's moderate views, see David P. Field, Rigide Calvinisme in a Softer Dresse: The Moderate Presbyterianism of John Howe (1630-1705) (Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 2004)>

60. Regarding the first and second categories, Muller has observed that the Ursinus, Bullinger, Musculus, Davenant, Ussher, and Preston trajectory is distinct from the Saumur model, even though all of them held to a form of “hypothetical universalism” (see R. Muller, review of English Hypothetical Universalism: John Preston and the Softening of Reformed Theology, by J. Moore, Calvin Theological Journal 43 [2008], 149–50). Further, in his Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 1:76–80, Muller states that the Amyraldian view is compatible with Dort and the Westminster Confession. According to Muller, then, there are at least three branches within the Calvinistic position, and the current discussions surrounding the extent of the atonement rarely recognize this fact.

61. J. Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, in The Works of John Owen (ed. W. H. Goold; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1993), 10:219. “The fountain and cause of God’s sending Christ is his eternal love to his elect, and to them alone.” (Owen, Death of Death, 231. See also 324.)

62. Ibid., 306.

63. Ibid., 326.

64. N. Chambers, “A Critical Examination of John Owen’s Argument for Limited Atonement in ‘The Death of Death in the Death of Christ’ ” (master’s thesis, Reformed Theological Seminary, 1998), 122. This thesis can be obtained at www.Tren.com.

65. D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Leicester, England: InterVarsity/Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 123.

66. In one instance where Charnock cites this text, he references Amyraut’s understanding of it (S. Charnock, “A Discourse of Christ Our Passover,” in The Works of Stephen Charnock [Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1985], 4:507).

67. See the excellent discussion in Chambers’ “Critical Examination,” 116–25. See also E. Hulse, “John 3:16 and Hyper-Calvinism,” Reformation Today 135 (September/October 1993): 30: “We note well that John 3:16 does not say, for God so loved the elect. The Holy Spirit did not write the text that way. Are we to understand that ‘the world’ here means both Jews and Gentiles? The word ‘world’ must be interpreted in the way it is used throughout the Gospel, namely, all people without exception not all people without distinction.”