From Roger E. Olson, Against Calvinism
During one of my class sessions with Calvinist speakers, a leader of the local Reformed University Fellowship (RUF) asked my students, “How many of you believe Christ died for everyone?” I knew he meant “for everyone in the same way—to suffer the punishment for their sins.” Every student’s hand shot up. “Then you have to believe everyone is saved; you have to be a universalist. How many of you are universalists?” All hands went down except one or two. “You see,” the speaker said, “If Christ already suffered everyone’s punishment for sins, including the sin of unbelief, then nobody can go to hell because it would be unjust for God to punish the same sin twice.”
The speaker was bringing out one of high Calvinism’s favorite “hooks” to get young people to consider including in their soteriology the “L” of TULIP—limited atonement. And if anyone does accept “L,” Calvinists argue, they have to accept the rest of the system. After all, if all people are not going to be saved, then Christ died only for some—those he came to save. Who would they be? The unconditionally elected by God. Why would they be unconditionally elected by God? Because they are totally depraved and have no other hope than God’s election of them and Christ’s death for them. And how will God bring those for whom Christ died to benefit from his death on their behalf? By irresistibly drawing them to himself. How could anyone elected and drawn by God, whose sins are already paid for, ever be lost? It’s impossible.
Clever. But does it work? Is limited atonement, which most Calvinists prefer to call “particular redemption,” biblical? Is it consistent with the love of God shown in Jesus Christ and expressed in the New Testament many times in many ways (e.g., John 3:16)? Did Calvin believe in it? Did anyone in Christian history believe in it before Calvin’s scholastic followers? Is it perhaps more a deduction from the T, the U, the I, and the P than a truth of revelation? Do high Calvinists actually embrace it because it is scriptural, or do they embrace it because logic requires it and they think Scripture allows it? Does rejection of limited atonement require universalism as a “good and necessary consequence,” as the speaker claimed? These and other questions will be considered here in some detail.
My conclusion will be that limited atonement is another one of high Calvinism’s Achilles’ heels. It cannot be supported by Scripture or the Great Tradition of Christian belief (outside of scholastic Calvinism after Calvin). It contradicts the love of God, making God not only partial but hateful (toward the nonelect). Its rejection does not logically require universalism, and those who hold it do believe it because (they think) logic requires it and Scripture allows it, not because any clear portion of Scripture teaches it.
Another conclusion here will be that the T, U, I, and P of TULIP do require the L and that Calvinists who claim to be “four pointers” and reject the L are being inconsistent. Ironically, there I stand in agreement with all high Calvinists of the TULIP variety! I will also argue that belief in limited atonement, particular redemption, makes it impossible reasonably to make a well-meant offer of the gospel of salvation to everyone indiscriminately. Ironically, there too I stand in agreement with hyper-Calvinists!
Finally, the Calvinist speaker to my class aimed his last typical Calvinist argument at me and those students who agree that the atonement cannot be limited. “You may not know it, but you also limit the atonement. In fact, you limit it more than Calvinists do. It is actually you Arminians [and he meant to include all who say Christ died for everyone] who believe in limited atonement.” That got the students’ attention! I had heard it before and already knew where he was going with this. “You limit the atonement by robbing it of power to actually save anyone; for you, Christ’s death on the cross only provided an opportunity for people to save themselves. We Calvinists believe the atonement actually secured salvation for the elect.”
Here, as then, I will object to this attempt to turn the tables. I do not agree that non-Calvinists limit the atonement. This frequently heard complaint simply doesn’t hold water because even Calvin did not believe the atonement saved anyone until certain conditions are met—namely, repentance and faith. Even if these are gifts of God to the elect, that means the atonement no more “saved” people than Arminians (and other non-Calvinists) believe.
CALVINISM’S DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT
So far as I have been able to ascertain, all true Calvinists (as opposed to some revisionist Reformed theologians) embrace the so-called “penal substitution theory” of the atonement. Of course, they do not think it is “just a theory.” With many non-Calvinists (such as Wesley) they regard it as the teaching of the Bible about Christ’s saving death on the cross. According to this doctrine, Jesus’ death was primarily a substitutionary sacrifice offered to God by Jesus (i.e., to the Father by the Son) as the “propitiation” for sins. “Propitiation” means appeasement. In this view, the cross event is seen as Christ’s appeasement of God’s wrath. He suffered the punishment for the sins of those whom God intended to save from their deserved condemnation to hell. Calvin puts it in a nutshell:
This is our acquittal: the guilt that held us liable for punishment has been transferred to the head of the Son of God (Isaiah 53:12). We must, above all, remember this substitution, lest we tremble and remain anxious throughout life—as if God’s righteous vengeance, which the Son of God has taken upon himself, still hung over us.
Calvin, and most Calvinists, believed that Christ’s death accomplished more (e.g., the “transmutation” or transformation of our sinful nature and fulfillment of God’s law in our place),3 but the crucial achievement of Christ on the cross was the suffering of our punishment.
Other theories of the atonement have arisen in Christian history, and some of them find echoes in Calvin’s theology. For example, the so-called “Christus Victor” view of Christ’s saving death is popular especially since the publication of Swedish theologian Gustaf Aulén’s classic book on the atonement, Christus Victor. Calvin nods toward this image of the atoning death of Christ, that it conquered Satan and liberated sinners from bondage,5 but his main focus is on Christ’s satisfaction of God’s justice by suffering the punishment deserved by sinners so that God can righteously forgive them. Contrary to many critics of this penal substitution theory, it does not rest on a view of God as bloodthirsty or as a child abuser! Calvin rightly underscores love as God’s motive in sending his Son to die for sinners.
Almost without exception high Calvinists since Calvin have held firmly to this view of the atonement and its achievement on behalf of God and sinners. They do not reject other dimensions of the atonement, but this one is central and crucial to the whole Calvinist soteriology. Many non-Calvinists agree. But the issue at stake here is whether Christ died in this way for all people or only for some—the elect. No Calvinist denies the sufficiency of Christ’s death in terms of value to save the whole human race. What some have come to deny is that Christ actually suffered the deserved punishment for all people—something clearly taught by the Greek church fathers and most medieval theologians and even Luther. Classical, high Calvinism has come to believe and teach that God only intended the cross to be the propitiation for some people and not for others; Christ did not suffer for everyone (at least not in the same way, Piper would like to add) but only for those whom God has chosen to save.
This is the doctrine of “limited atonement,” or what some Calvinists prefer to call “definite” or “particular” or “efficient” atonement. Boettner states the doctrine well: “While the value of the atonement was sufficient to save all mankind, it was efficient to save only the elect.” Lest anyone misunderstand and think this means God intended it for everyone, but it only effectuates the salvation of those who receive it with faith (the view of most non-Calvinist evangelicals), Boettner says the nonelect were excluded from its work by God: “It was not, then, a general and indiscriminate love of which all men are equally the objects [that sent Jesus to the cross], but a peculiar, mysterious, infinite love for the elect, which caused God to send His Son into the world to suffer and die,” and he died only for them.8 Like many Calvinists, Boettner claims that “certain benefits” of the cross extend to all people in general, but these are merely “temporal blessings” and not anything salvific.
Non-Calvinists look at statements such as these and tremble. This would be, indeed, a “peculiar love” that excludes some of the very creatures God made in his own image and likeness from any hope of salvation. Moreover, these “temporal blessings,” alleged to flow to the nonelect from the cross, are hardly worth mentioning. As I pointed out in the previous chapter, they amount to a little bit of heaven to go to hell in!
Steele and Thomas, authors of The Five Points of Calvinism, define and describe limited atonement, which they prefer to call particular redemption, this way:
Historical or mainline Calvinism has consistently maintained that Christ’s redeeming work was definite in design and accomplishment—that it was intended to render complete satisfaction for certain specified sinners and that it actually secured salvation for these individuals and for no one else. The salvation which Christ earned for His people includes everything involved in bringing them into a right relationship with God, including the gifts of faith and repentance.
Like Boettner, these theologians aver that Christ’s atonement was not limited in value but only in design. And they claim that Arminians (and other non-Calvinists) also limit the atonement in the manner mentioned above.
Steele and Thomas claim support for limited atonement in biblical passages such as John 10:11, 14–18 and Romans 5:12, 17–19. However, even a cursory glance at these passages reveals they do not limit the atonement but only say it is for and applied to God’s people. They do not deny that it is for others as well.
What about the “all” and “world” passages such as 1 John 2:2: “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world”? Steele and Thomas explain these thus:
One reason for the use of these expressions was to correct the false notion that salvation was for the Jews alone.… These expressions are intended to show that Christ died for all men without distinction (i.e., He died for Jews and Gentiles alike) but they are not intended to indicate that Christ died for all men without exception (i.e., He did not die for the purpose of saving each and every last sinner).
One crucial question that arises in response to these claims is the distinction between the value of Christ’s atoning death and its design and purpose. Apparently, Boettner and Steele and Thomas (and other Calvinists I will quote) believe that Christ’s death on the cross was a sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. What, then, do they mean by saying that Christ did not die for all people? If it was a sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, including everyone, and had value enough for everyone, how is it not a contradiction to then say that Christ did not die for everyone?
Apparently, what at least some Calvinists mean is that Christ’s death was great enough in scope and value for God to forgive everyone because of it, but God did not intend it for anyone but the elect. But why would God cause Jesus to suffer a punishment sufficient in scope for sins God intended not to forgive? And if his death was a sufficient punishment for all, then doesn’t that imply he bore everyone’s punishment? And if that’s so, then even if God intended it only for the elect, the charge that universal atonement would require that everyone be saved (because sins cannot be punished twice) comes back to haunt Calvinists themselves.
There is something terribly confused at the heart of the typical Calvinist claims about this doctrine.
This confusion becomes especially intense when Calvinist pastor-theologian Edwin Palmer ridicules the universal atonement view: “To them [he means specifically Arminians but this could apply to other non-Calvinists] the atonement is like a universal grab-bag: there is a package for everyone, but only some will grab a package.… some of His [Christ’s] blood was wasted: it was spilled.” But wouldn’t this be true of any doctrine of the atonement that says it was a “sufficient sacrifice” for the whole world and that says its value is infinite? It would seem that advocates of limited atonement should say that Christ’s death was not sufficient for the whole world and did not have infinite value if they are going to accuse believers in universal atonement of believing some of Christ’s blood was wasted (because not everyone benefits from it).
Doesn’t their claim about its sufficiency and value amount to the same thing even if they go on to say God designed and intended it only for the elect? It seems so.
Palmer takes the same approach as Steele and Thomas with regard to the universal passages, including John 3:16–17: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” According to Palmer, “In this passage ‘world’ does not mean every single person … but … people from every tribe and nation.” About the passages that say Christ died for “all” he says, “All is not all.”
Palmer calls the fact that Christ died only for the elect and yet God “freely and sincerely offers salvation to everyone” a “fundamental mystery.” As I will show, however, critics of the Calvinist view argue this is not a mystery but a contradiction—a distinction R. C. Sproul delineates (and he rejects contradictions in theology). How can a Calvinist preacher of the gospel, let alone God, say to any congregation or other assembly, “God loves you and Jesus died for you so that you may be saved if you repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,” without adding the caveat, “if you are one of God’s elect”? He or she can’t do it with a clear conscience.
Sproul, a Calvinist particularly strong on limited atonement, calls the doctrine “Christ’s purposeful atonement.” This is, of course, a bit disingenuous insofar as it is intended to express what is distinct in the Calvinist view, because, of course, all Christians believe Christ’s atonement was “purposeful.” Right up front, at the beginning of his exposition of this doctrine, Sproul misrepresents and even caricatures non-Calvinist views. In order to support his belief in limited atonement, Sproul quotes Calvinist evangelical theologian J. I. Packer, who wrote: “The difference between them [Calvinist and Arminian views of the atonement] is not primarily one of emphasis, but of content. One proclaims a God who saves; the other speaks of a God who enables man to save himself.”
This is perhaps the most vicious calumny against non-Calvinists. No Arminian or other informed evangelical Christian believes in self salvation. Sproul explains Packer’s accusation by saying that for the Calvinist, Christ is a “real Savior,” whereas for the Arminian, Christ is only a “potential Savior.” I have demonstrated the falseness of this interpretation of Arminian theology in my Arminian Theology. I will explain below why it is wrong.
Sproul continues by throwing another tired accusation against Arminian theology and any theology of universal atonement (e.g., Lutheran). “If Christ really, objectively satisfied the demands of God’s justice for everyone, then everyone will be saved.” Here Sproul is relying heavily on the theology of Puritan theologian John Owen (1616–1683), who was one of the early defenders of the theological novelty of limited atonement. According to Owen and Sproul, universal atonement, the belief that Christ bore the punishment for every person, necessarily leads to the universalism of salvation. After all, Owen argued, and Sproul echoes him, how can the same sin, including unbelief, be punished twice by a just God?
One has to wonder whether Sproul has never heard the obvious answer to this or if he is simply choosing to ignore it (see my answer later in this chapter). Suffice it for now to say simply that this argument is so easily turned aside that it makes one wonder why anyone takes it seriously. Then there is the problem I mentioned earlier: If Christ’s death was a sufficient satisfaction for the whole world’s sins, how is that different from Christ actually suffering the punishment for everyone? There really is no difference; the former includes the latter!
Sproul takes on the classical text of universal atonement (2 Peter 3:9) but ignores the equally important universal passages, 1 Timothy 2:5–6 and 1 John 2:2. According to him and many others who adhere to limited atonement, 2 Peter 3:9 should be interpreted as referring to “will of disposition,” which is different from his “decretive will.” In other words, this verse does not express what God decrees to be the case but what God wishes could be the case.
Whereas that might be a possible interpretation of 2 Peter 3:9 (though I doubt it), one cannot interpret 1 Timothy 2:5–6 in this manner, nor many other universal passages where Christ is said to give his life for “all” or “the world” or “everyone.” Sproul also suggests that in 2 Peter 3:9, “any” refers to God’s elect. Again, as forced as this interpretation is, it might conceivably be possible. However, it is not possible as an interpretation for the other “all” texts, including 1 Timothy 2:5–6.
Evangelical statesman Vernon Grounds (1914–2010), longtime president of Denver Seminary and author of many books of theology, mentions the following universal passages about Christ’s atonement: John 1:29; Roman 5:17–21; 11:32; 1 Timothy 2:6; Hebrews 2:9; and 1 John 2:2 (in addition, of course, to 2 Peter 3:9). Then he says of the view espoused by Sproul and other five-point Calvinists: “It takes an exegetical ingenuity which is something other than a learned virtuosity to evacuate these texts of their obvious meaning: it takes an exegetical ingenuity verging on sophistry to deny their explicit universality.” This observation is perhaps why Calvinists such as John Piper have so emphasized the idea that Christ died for all but not in the same way. I doubt that would satisfy Grounds or any other critic of limited atonement. It only raises more questions about God’s love, sincerity, and goodness as well as about the value of “temporal blessings” provided by the atonement for the nonelect when they would be better off never born.
John Piper strongly defends limited atonement while at the same time arguing that there is a certain universality in it as well. This is his way, so it seems, of resolving the dilemma posed by the “all” passages in the face of belief in particular redemption and of solving the problem of how the believer in it can preach that Christ died for everyone in his or her audience. Piper’s doctrine of the purpose of the atonement is interesting because it goes beyond the usual penal substitution theory into something like the governmental theory. The governmental theory is usually thought to be the typical Arminian doctrine of the atonement, although neither Arminius nor Wesley taught it.
According to the governmental view, Christ did not suffer the exact punishment deserved by every human being but an equivalent punishment to that. This was formulated by early Arminian thinker Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) to resolve the problem of how the atonement could be universal and yet not everyone be saved. (Like many Arminians, I think there’s an easier answer to that problem than developing a new theory of how Christ’s death satisfied the wrath of God.) According to Grotius and others who hold this view, the main purpose of the atonement was to uphold God’s moral government of the universe in the face of two realities: (1) our sinfulness, and (2) God’s forgiveness of our sinfulness. How can God be the righteous, moral governor of the universe and wink at sin by forgiving sinners? He can’t be. So God resolves that inner dilemma by sending Christ to suffer a punishment exactly like the one sinners deserve—but not their punishment (which Grotius believed would be unjust and would result in all of them being saved). This upholds God’s righteousness when he forgives sinners.
Piper does not reject the penal substitution view in favor of the moral government theory, but he does underscore the moral government motif. He asks: “Why did God bruise [i.e., kill] his Son and bring him to grief?” and then answers: “to save sinners, and at the same time to magnify the worth of his glory.” By laying “our sin on Jesus and abandoning him to the shame and slaughter of the cross,” “God averted his own wrath.”24 Piper also makes clear that the cross is primarily a vindication of the righteousness of God for forgiving sinners. Many, if not most, Arminians and other non-Calvinist evangelical Christians can give a hearty amen to that. The only problems are (1) when Piper goes on to say, as he occasionally does in sermons, that Jesus died “for God,” and (2) that the saving benefit of his death was intended only for the elect. Romans 5:8 clearly and unequivocally states Christ died “for sinners,” and many verses already cited, including especially 1 John 2:2, say his death was an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world.
Piper preaches that Christ died such a death only for some—the elect. For them and them only it actually secured justification by God. It did not just make it possible; it actually accomplished it. That is why, he argues, if Christ died for everyone, all would be justified and there could be no hell. So how does he explain verses such as 1 John 2:2? “The ‘whole world’ refers to the children of God scattered throughout the whole world.” But he also claims that “we do not deny that all men are the intended beneficiaries of the cross in some sense”26 and that Christ died for every person but not in the same way. “There are many Scriptures which say that the death of Christ was designed for the salvation of God’s people, not for every individual.” Then he cites John 10:15; 17:6, 9, 19; 11:51–52; and Revelation 5:9.
True, these verses mention Christ’s death for “his sheep” and “for those whom the Father draws to the Son.” Yet, not a single verse explicitly limits his death to these people. That Christ died for them [viz., Christians] by no means requires that he died only for them. Critic David Allen rightly points out that “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 those categories.” To say he died for others in a different way, not suffering the punishment for them but only providing some vague temporal blessings, is hardly satisfying. What good would those be unless Christ also opened up the possibility of their salvation?
Overall, the high Calvinistic doctrine of limited atonement is confusing at best and blatantly self-contradictory and unscriptural at worst.
Roger E. Olson, Against Calvinism
Next is an in-depth look at Irresistible Grace...
