Remonstrating against a Reduced Scope of the Atonement, and Countering the Garbled Charge of Non–High Calvinist Christians Following a False God: a Response to Jeff Crippen

J. D. Gallé | Wednesday, 6 Octorber 2021

Preamble

        The following article originated as a comment I penned (or typed, if one must be pedantic) on Tuesday, 28 September 2021, and submitted for publication on an online blog entitled Unholy Charade (UC) on the same date.[1] As nearly eight days have elapsed since and my comment has yet to appear on the UC website, it is reasonable to suppose that my post has been relegated to the electronic dustbin by the host or moderator(s) of the aforesaid blog. Accordingly, being a resourceful and resilient Remonstrant, rather than allowing my thoughts to for ever disappear into the aether, I have opted to post them here.

        Apart from the addition of endnotes, I have made only a few modifications to my original, unacknowledged post in the article below, most of which are corrections (few though they may be). Headings have been added to enhance readability.

Remonstrating against a Reduced Scope of the Atonement, and Countering the Garbled Charge of Non–High Calvinist Christians Following a False God: a Response to Jeff Crippen

[I]t is a false statement to insist that Christ died for your abuser. Christ died for His people, for His elect (see John 17 for instance). […] The god who loves the wicked as much as he loves his children, the god who died on the cross for the unrepentant, habitually and characteristically oppressor of widows and orphans, is in the fact the false god [sic]. (Jeff Crippen, ‘This Is a Very Damaging Teaching That Abusers Love’ [par. 4; emphases added][2])

‘For whom did Christ die?’ Differentiating two articulations of the extent of the atonement

        The point I would like to specifically address here is what appears to be a frank denial of the doctrine of universal atonement: the view that Christ died for all persons without exception. I am aware that, from your strict/high Calvinistic confessional stance, affirmation of the teaching variously referred to as definite atonement, particular atonement, particular redemption, and limited atonement, the view that Christ died in a salvational sense for the elect alone (i.e. those who are finally saved), is taken for granted, and am unsurprised that you should reassert your belief in this doctrine on occasion. To be forthright, theologically, I personally am an Arminian/Remonstrant, and consequently believe universal atonement to be well-founded scripturally. It is not my aim to argue the point here.

Is a Christ who died for all a false god? A slapdash assertion countered

        That said, what troubles me is that, when broaching a topic as vital, and yes, even controversial (if only in Protestant quarters[3]), as the extent (or scope) of the atonement (i.e. ‘For whom did Christ die?’), a statement as careless and unnuanced as ‘the god who died on the cross for the unrepentant, […] is in the fact the false god [sic]’ should be made. To all appearances, this assertion alienates the vast majority of believers throughout the past two thousand years for taking scriptures such as John 3.16, 2 Corinthians 5.14–15, 1 Timothy 2.6, and 1 John 2.2 at face value, and makes them out to be idolaters (unwitting or otherwise) for holding what you believe to be a spurious understanding of scripture, namely the view that Christ died for all persons without exception, elect and non-elect alike.[4] For, even if the doctrine of particular atonement is correct (a point which I do not concede), and it could be shown that a strict Calvinistic luminary such as John Owen has reasonably demonstrated that ‘all’ and ‘world’ should be taken in a restricted sense in the aforementioned texts (which I also deny), you stack the deck so as to make out a deity who should die for all persons without exception a false god.

The scriptures affirm universal atonement and the damnation of the finally obdurate

        I do believe Christ died for all, yes, because I believe the scriptures affirm this, and I believe that this may be (and has been) demonstrated exegetically.[5] But I believe the scriptures also affirm that those who refuse to respond positively to the Good News, namely those who do not turn/change their thoughts and works and give their allegiance to Jesus Christ as King, shall perish and never enter the kingdom of God. The work of Christ on the cross, in the case of the unfaithful and recalcitrant, does not become efficacious (i.e. the redeeming work of Christ is not applied), because they refuse to bow their knee to him in their hearts and lives, having not trust or faith in God (which pleases him [Hebrews 11.6]), but presumption alone.

        In summary, the procurement of salvation via the sacrificial and substitutionary death of Christ on the cross and its application are distinct; the former does not necessitate the latter.[6]

The enmity of God against evildoers established; the possibility of reprobation considered

        As for the wicked and abusers, I heartily concur that, according to the scriptures, God does indeed loathe and despise them (e.g. Psalm 5.5). There is a sense in which I can understand how abuse survivors/targets/victims might come to find the doctrine of universal atonement offensive or even implausible simply by considering the utter degeneracy and malevolence with which they have had to endure and contend.

        I do know this: God stands against these oppressors and evil human beings. Judicial hardening can and will result for the treacherous, the boastful, the arrogant, and enslavers. I believe it is possible for God to cut off abominably wicked sinners in this life and not afford them any further grace to turn and be saved, leaving them in their blindness, for he is within his rights to do so. God shall not be mocked.

The special relationship between God the Father and those united to his Son

        Lastly, I should say that there is also no doubt in my mind that God loves his children, those who are in Christ Jesus, those born from above by the power of the Holy Spirit, more than the generality of humankind who are now estranged from him. Those who are incorporated, or united, into Christ, namely those who have submitted to the conditions of the proclamation of the Good News (e.g. Mark 1.15; John 3.16; Acts 2.38), are persons for whom God has a unique, familial affection. Having been united to Christ, the God and Father of the Lord Jesus is now rightfully their Father. And, for those loving God, Jesus Christ has become their eldest brother (e.g. Romans 8.28; Hebrews 2.11–12). These are adopted as children, sons and daughters of God.

Notes

        1. The article may be viewed by clicking on the following link: <https://unholycharade.com/2021/09/27/this-is-a-very-damaging-teaching-that-abusers-love/>. Readers are encouraged to read the article in its entirety.
        2. For the link to this article, see note 1 above.

        3. Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, for example, are two significant Christian traditions which recognise the universal extent of the atonement. For a survey of Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, strict Calvinistic, Wesleyan-Arminian, and evangelical universalist perspectives on the scope of the atonement, see Adam J. Johnson (ed.), Five Views on the Extent of the Atonement, Counterpoints: Bible and Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2019).

        4. In the original, instead of ‘namely the view that Christ died for all persons without exception, elect and non-elect alike’, I bungled my initial thought, stating the opposite of what I had intended(!): ‘namely that Christ did not die for any but the finally saved alone (i.e. the elect).’

        5. For biblical and theological defences of the universality of the atonement, see David L. Allen, ‘The Atonement: Limited or Universal?’, in idem and Steve W. Lemke (eds), Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-point Calvinism (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2010), pp. 61–108; David L. Allen, The Atonement: A Biblical, Theological, and Historical Study of the Cross of Christ (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2019), pp. 154–83; idem, ‘A Critique of Limited Atonement’, in David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke (eds), Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2022), pp. 71–127; John Goodwin, Redemption Redeemed: Wherein the Most Glorious Work of the Redemption of the World by Jesus Christ, Is Vindicated against the Encroachments of Later Times (1651; repr., London, UK: Thomas Tegg, 1840); I. Howard Marshall, ‘For All, for All My Saviour Died’, in Stanley E. Porter and Anthony R. Cross (eds), Semper Reformandum: Studies in Honour of Clark H. Pinnock (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 2003), pp. 322–46; Terry L. Miethe, ‘The Universal Power of the Atonement’, in Clark H. Pinnock (ed.), The Grace of God and the Will of Man (1989; repr., Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 1995), pp. 71–96; Roger E. Olson, Against Calvinism: Rescuing God’s Reputation from Radical Reformed Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2011), pp. 136–54; Grant R. Osborne, ‘General Atonement View’, in Andrew David Naselli and Mark A. Snoeberger (eds), Perspectives on the Extent of the Atonement: Three Views (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2015), pp. 81–127; Robert E. Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will: Contrasting Views of Salvation: Calvinism and Arminianism (Nashville, TN: Randall House, 2002), pp. 103–38; idem, ‘The Intent and Extent of Christ’s Atonement’, in Clark H. Pinnock and John D. Wagner (eds), Grace for All: The Arminian Dynamics of Salvation (Eugene, OR: Resource Publications, 2015), pp. 51–68; J. Matthew Pinson, 40 Questions about Arminianism, ed. Benjamin L. Merkle (Nashville, TN: Kregel Academic, 2022), pp. 119–28; Geoffrey D. Robinson, Saved by Grace through Faith or Saved by Decree? A Biblical and Theological Critique of Calvinist Soteriology (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2022), pp. 190–229.

        6. The last sentence in this paragraph is not in the original.

Addenda

Addendum A (17 Sept. 2022).  For readers who are yet unsure of the scripturalness of the doctrine of universal atonement, particularly those who may be presently adhering to a strict or high Calvinistic understanding of the extent of the atonement (whether knowingly or unknowingly), allow me to encourage you to consult the citations in note 5 (above).* Additionally, for articles and book excerpts relating to this matter, please refer to the ‘universal atonement’ tab under the heading ‘Name and subject docket’ on the right-hand sidebar of this web page.

Addendum B (21 Sept. 2022).  For two fairly recent, worthwhile online articles that argue for the universality of Christ’s atonement, over against theological approaches which seek to limit the number of human beings for whom Christ died salvationally to the elect alone, see the following links (the latter of which must be read only subsequent to the former):

• David L. Allen, ‘Yes, Jesus Did Die for [the Sins of] Everyone’ (sic) (9 Sept. 2019);
• idem, ‘Responding to My Responders’ (12 Sept. 2019).

Addendum C (2 Jan. 2023; 26 Mar. 2023).  See a Neo-Remonstrant’s ‘Idea lists’ on my Amazon profile page, particularly ‘Contra Calvinism’ and ‘Pro Arminianism / Remonstrantism’, in order to view and/or purchase literature countering Calvinistic theology and arguing in favour of Arminian theology (respectively)*:

• A Remonstrant’s Recommended Writings: or, a Neo-Remonstrant’s Idea Lists (Amazon)
• Contra Calvinism
  
• Pro Arminianism / Remonstrantism
  

Original content copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2021, 2022, 2023. All rights reserved.

* Unless otherwise indicated, I do not earn commissions (or favours, for that matter) for the purchase of books recommended or referenced on this website or via my Amazon Idea Lists. For further information, see my web page, ‘A Word on The Neo-Remonstrance Blog’.

Latest revisions: corrected a typographical error in preamble (13 Oct. 2021); added a comma in first par. of response; added one note, namely n. 5; converted what was formerly n. 5 to n. 6 (17–8 Nov. 2021); removed square brackets in n. 4 (23 Nov. 2021); corrected page number of one citation in n. 5 (1 Dec. 2021); altered one letter from lower to upper case in citation (31 Jan. 2022); slightly modified n. 3 (19 Feb. 2022); last sentence in one paragraph converted to a paragraph of its own (9 May 2022); added a paragraph break in one place (31 May 2022); added five citations to n. 5; omitted a term in n. 5 (3, 6 Nov. 2022); added one citation to n. 5 (16 Feb. 2023); updated web-page links for Addendum C (19 Nov. 2024).

Adam Clarke on the Universality of the Atonement

        He died for every human soul, for all who are partakers of the same nature which he has assumed; the merit and benefits of his death must necessarily extend to all mankind, because he has assumed that nature which is common to all. Nor could the merit of his death be limited to any particular part, nation, tribe, or individuals of the vast human family. It is not the nature of a particular nation, tribe, family, or individual, which he has assumed, but the nature of the whole human race; and “God has made of one blood all the nations, for to dwell on all the face of the earth,”[1] that all those might be redeemed with “one blood;” for he is the kinsman of the whole. The merit of his death must, therefore, extend to every man, unless we can find individuals or families that have not sprung from that stock of which he became incarnated. His death must be infinitely meritorious, and extend in its benefits to all who are partakers of the same nature, because he was God manifested in the flesh; and to contract or limit that merit, that it should apply only to a few, or even to any multitudes short of the whole human race, is one of those things which is impossible to God himself, because it involves a moral contradiction. He could no more limit the merit of that death, than he could limit his own eternity, or contract that love which induced him to undertake the redemption of a lost world.
        If the many, that is, all mankind, have died through the offence of one; certainly, the gift by grace, which abounds unto the many, by Christ Jesus, must have reference to every human being.[2] If the consequences of Christ’s incarnation and death extend only to a few, or a select number of mankind, which, though they may be considered many in themselves, are few in comparison of the whole human race, then the consequences of Adam’s sin have extended only to a few, or to the same select number: and if only many and not all have fallen, only that many had need of a Redeemer. For it is most evident that the same persons are referred to in both clauses of the verse. If the apostle had believed that the benefits of the death of Christ had extended only to a select number of mankind, he never could have used the language he has done here; though, in the first clause, he might have said, without any qualification of the term, “Through the offence of one, many are dead;” in the second clause, to be consistent with the doctrine of particular redemption,[3] he must have said, “The grace of God, and the gift by grace, hath abounded unto some. As, by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation; so, by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon some to justification. As, by one man’s disobedience, many were made sinners; so, by the obedience of one, shall some be made righteous.[4] As in Adam all die; so in Christ shall some be made alive.”[5] But neither the doctrine nor the thing ever entered the soul of this divinely inspired man.[6]

Adam Clarke, Christian Theology (repr., Salem, OH: Convention Book Store, 1967), pp. 117–8, emphases in original

Notes

        1. Acts 17.26.
        2. See Romans 5.17–19.
        3. The doctrine of particular redemption is sometimes referred to as limited atonement, particular atonement, or definite atonement. The essence of the teaching is that Christ died with the intention of securing spiritual and eschatological salvation for a portion of humankind, not the whole. According to this view, those for whom Christ died salvationally will inevitably become partakers of salvation; those for whom he did not, will not.
        4. Contra Romans 5.17–19, Berean Literal Bible (BLB): ‘For if, by the trespass of the one, death reigned through the one, how much more will those receiving the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ! So then, just as through one trespass, it is unto condemnation to all men, so also through one act of righteousness it is unto justification of life to all men. For as indeed through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the One, the many will be made righteous.’
        5. Contra 1 Corinthians 15.22 (BLB): ‘For as indeed in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.’
        6. Namely Paul the apostle.  —J. D. Gallé

Notes copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2019. All rights reserved.

David L. Allen on the Significance of the Scope of the Atonement and Properly Differentiating the Aspects of Christ’s Redemptive Work: the Intent, Extent, and Application Thereof

J. D. Gallé | Sunday, 5 May 2019

        ‘Traditional’ Southern Baptist David L. Allen has written extensively on the atonement.[1] Allen demonstrates the importance of carefully distinguishing between the intent, extent, and application of Christ’s sacrificial, substitutionary death on the cross.

        Allen takes the position of a universal/unlimited scope of the atonement with particular/limited application: the number for whom Christ procured salvation via his death and the actual salvation of persons are not necessarily co-extensive (a proposition which is anathema to high Calvinists). Universalism, the doctrine that all persons without exception will eventually be saved (via ante- or post-mortem acceptance and meeting the conditions of the gospel proclamation), is thereby denied.
        In contrast with strict/high Calvinists, Arminians, non-Calvinists, and moderate (i.e. Amyraldian, four-point) Calvinists alike affirm that the extent of the atonement encompasses the whole of humankind (universal/unlimited atonement). Without equivocation, then, according to this view, it may be said that Jesus Christ has died for all.

        Differences amongst Arminians and Amyraldians emerge, however, when the intent of the atonement is taken under consideration.

        As regards the application of the atonement, for those who have heard the proclamation of the good news, strict Calvinists and non-Calvinists agree that the benefits of Christ’s atonement are applied exclusively to those who respond in faith. High Calvinists are unique in their insistence that Christ did not die in a salvational sense for the non-elect (or ‘reprobate’); rather, they believe that the scope of the atonement is restricted to a portion of humankind, not humankind as a whole (particular/limited atonement).
         As regards the significance of the extent of the atonement, I personally am of the opinion that the query ‘For whom did Christ die?’ is worthy of serious consideration and should not be relegated to the heap of impractical, conjectural footnotes of theology (of which there surely are more than a few).[2]

Notes

        1. See David L. Allen, ‘The Atonement: Limited or Universal?’, in idem and Steve W. Lemke (eds), Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-point Calvinism (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2010), pp. 61–108; David L. Allen, The Extent of the Atonement: A Historical and Critical Review (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2016); idem, ‘Commentary on Article 3: The Atonement of Christ’, in David L. Allen, Eric Hankins, and Adam Hardwood (eds), Anyone Can Be Saved: A Defense of  “Traditional” Southern Baptist Soteriology (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2016), pp. 55–65; David L. Allen, The Atonement: A Biblical, Theological, and Historical Study of the Cross of Christ (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2019); and, most recently, idem, ‘A Critique of Limited Atonement’, in David. L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke (eds), Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2022), pp. 71–127.*

        2. See the final chapter, ‘Why Belief in Unlimited Atonement Matters’, in Allen, The Extent of the Atonement, pp. 765–91, for reasons explaining why this is so.

Copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2019, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2026. All rights reserved.

Addendum (6 Jan. 2023).  For blog articles written by the forenamed author wherein issues relating to Calvinistic soteriology are addressed, see the link to the following web page:

• https://drdavidlallen.com/category/calvinism/
  

* Unless otherwise indicated, I do not earn commissions (or favours, for that matter) for the purchase of books recommended or referenced on this website. For further information, see my web page, ‘A Word on The Neo-Remonstrance Blog’.


Latest revisions: converted a portion of par. 1 to n. 1; converted a portion of par. 3 to n. 2; altered the phrase ‘the number for whom Christ died’ to ‘the number for whom Christ procured salvation via his death’ in par. 1 (8 Sept. 2019); made technical alterations in nn. 1 and 2; added ‘inclusive of’ to par. 2 (28 Jul. 2021); slightly modified n. 2 (1 Aug. 2021); added italics in a few places, added to and expanded/revised text in a few places (4 Oct. 2021); added a hyphen to one term in par. 1 (29 Oct. 2021); assorted emendations made (2 Feb. 2022); added a paragraph break (11 Aug. 2022); added two citations to n. 1 (6 Jan. 2023); slightly modified title of article (11 Jan. 2026).

John C. Lennox on High Calvinism’s Misconstrual of the Extent of the Atonement

        It is a serious matter to deny the plain teaching of Scripture in the interests of maintaining a theological paradigm, or to try to get round it by special pleading that Christ’s death brings some kind of non-specific temporal benefit to all, or that God has different kinds of love for the elect and non-elect. To say to people, as some do, that Christ died for them in some vague unexplained sense, rather than telling them that Christ died for their sins and that they may be saved by trusting him, is not only insulting to the intelligence, it is insulting to the message of the cross.

John C. Lennox, Determined to Believe? The Sovereignty of God, Freedom, Faith, and Human Responsibility (Oxford, UK: Monarch Books, 2017 / Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2018), pp. 179–80

Copyright © John C. Lennox, 2017. All rights reserved.

In order to purchase a copy of Lennox’s Determined to Believe? (2017),* see the links to the following websites:

• Monarch Books (Lion Hudson)
  
• Zondervan (HarperCollins Christian Publishing)
  
• Christianbook
• Barnes & Noble
• Books-A-Million (BAM!)
  
• Amazon

* Unless otherwise indicated, I do not earn commissions (or favours, for that matter) for the purchase of books recommended or referenced on this website. For further information, see my web page, ‘A Word on The Neo-Remonstrance Blog’.

Robert P. Lightner on Limited Atonement and the Arbitrary Hermeneutic Employed by High Calvinists

        The question is, “Is it scripturally and logically sound always to restrict every usage of the words ‘all,’ ‘whosoever’ and ‘world’ when they occur in a salvation context?” This is precisely what the limited redemptionist[1] always does and must do. There may not be a single exception if the limited viewpoint is to stand. The basis for this restriction rests upon the fact that in some instances, which are unrelated to the work of Christ on the cross, the words are thus restricted. But is this a valid reason for always restricting them in salvation passages? We say “no,” and we say it emphatically. Chafer[2] has observed how strange some of these passages sound when translated as the limited redemptionist must interpret them. “ ‘God so loved the elect, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever [of the elect] believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.’ 2 Corinthians 5:19 would read: ‘God was in Christ, reconciling the elect unto Himself.’ Hebrews 2:9 would read: ‘He tasted death for every man of those who comprise the company of the elect.’ 1 John 2:2 would read: ‘He is the propitiation for our [the elect] sins: and not for our’s [sic][3] only, but also for the sins of those who comprise the world of elect people.’ John 1:29 would read: ‘Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the elect.’ ”[4]
        We might add two more: “For the Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost [of the elect]” (Luke 19:10) and “Christ died for the ungodly [of the elect]” (Rom. 5:6). In all honesty we must ask, “Why did not these writers say what they meant? If they meant elect people, why not say that since those who will never be saved are also lost and ungodly?”
        Strange words these are! The only way in which these expressions can be so interpreted is by forcing the Scripture into a strict Calvinistic mold. But the Scripture will not thus be browbeaten. Instead of Scripture referring to the elect as the “world,” which would be necessary to the limited viewpoint, it is emphatic in distinguishing the elect from the world. Is not this what Christ meant when He said, “I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you” (John 15:19)?[5, 6]
        Added to the impossibility of thus restricting the word “world” to the world of the elect (the Scripture seems clearly to distinguish the elect from the world), are the absurdities and self-contradictions of such an interpretation.
        Let us follow through with the limited view and interpretation of the word “world” in such a simple and familiar passage as John 3:16. If “world” means the elect only, then it would follow that he “of the elect” that believeth may be saved and he “of the elect” that believeth not is condemned (cf. John 3:18). This absurdity would contradict the most basic point of Calvinism, namely, that God has elected from eternity past certain individuals and that they alone will be saved. Whoever heard of elect people being damned, and yet that is precisely what the limited interpretation leads to in John 3:16-18 when the limited concept is followed through.[7, 8]
        The problem with the limited redemptionist is that, instead of accepting the testimony of Scripture of an atonement which was provisional for all and dependent for the bestowal of its benefits upon personal appropriation by faith, he insists that the mass of universal passages must be forced into agreement with the few limited ones.[9] (pp. 69–70, emphases in original)

        Rather than allowing each individual context to determine the meaning of universal terms such as “all,” “world,” “whosoever,” “every man,” etc., strict Calvinists approach the Bible with a theological conviction which restricts every single occurrence of universal terms in a salvation context. No explanation is given why the same words are understood in a restricted sense in salvation passages and not in others. Why does not “world” mean “world of the elect” when it is used in relation to Satan’s ministry (John 12:31; 14:30)? Or in Christ’s high priestly prayer (John 17), a prayer which some insist teaches limited atonement, how is it that “world” no longer means “world of the elect”? Seemingly, the only explanation to be given for these arbitrary and inconsistent meanings is to be found in the strict Calvinistic insistence that Christ did not die for all men. Being convinced of that, the limited redemptionist proceeds to defend his position by narrowing the meaning of words wherever the normal and literal meaning would contradict his premise. (p. 109)

 

Robert P. Lightner, The Death Christ Died: A Case for Unlimited Atonement, 1st edn (Des Plaines, IL: Regular Baptist Press, 1967)[10, 11] 

Copyright © Regular Baptist Press, 1967. All rights reserved.

In order to purchase Lightner’s The Death Christ Died (1998),* see the links to the following websites:

• Christianbook
• Barnes & Noble
• Books-A-Million (BAM!)
  
• Amazon

Notes

        1. Lightner uses the label ‘limited redemptionist(s)’ to refer to persons who subscribe to the doctrine of limited (or ‘definite’) atonement. Limited atonement is a theological view held by strict or high Calvinists which understands Christ’s death to be intended in a salvational sense for a limited portion of humankind (i.e. those persons unconditionally elected to salvation prior to the creation of the world). This concept is contrary to the doctrine of unlimited/universal atonement: the view that Christ died for all persons without exception.
        2. Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871–1952), classical dispensationalist.
        3. The text should rather read ‘ours’ (first-person possessive pronoun), not ‘our’s’.
        4. Lightner cites Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 1950), 3.203–4.
        5. The full scriptural text reads as follows: ‘“If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you”’ (Jn 15.19, NKJV).
        6. Lightner evidently understands Jesus’ words in John 15.19 as referring to election to salvation. However, a better understanding of this text is that vocational (rather than salvational) election is in view. If that is the case, it matters little whether the election to service of the apostles is conditional or unconditional in nature, as personal salvation is not at issue. See Jack W. Cottrell, ‘Responses to Bruce A. Ware’, in Chad Owen Brand (ed.), Perspectives on Election: Five Views (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2006), pp. 59–60.
        7. These last two sentences read with greater precision with the modifier ‘unconditionally’ affixed alongside the term ‘elected’. For example, ‘This absurdity would contradict the most basic point of Calvinism, namely, that God has unconditionally elected from eternity past certain individuals and that they alone will be saved. Whoever heard of unconditionally elected people being damned? And yet that is precisely what the limited interpretation leads to in John 3:16–18 when the limited concept is followed through.’
        8. In this paragraph Lightner echoes Methodist Richard Watson’s sentiments regarding the concept of limited atonement being imposed on the various universalistic texts in Scripture. See Richard Watson, Theological Institutes: Or, a View of the Evidences, Doctrines, Morals, and Institutions of Christianity (New York, NY: Lane & Scott, 1850), 2.289–93. (For a sample of this writing, see ‘Richard Watson on John 3.16–18 and the Impossibility of a Limited Atonement’, <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com/2015/05/richard-watson-on-john-31618-and.html>.
        9. See Matthew 1.21; John 10.15; Acts 20.28; Galatians 3.13; Ephesians 5.25. For those zealous to restrict the scope of the atonement, Galatians 2.20 may be taken as limiting the salvational intent of Christ’s death on the cross to the apostle Paul alone.
        10. The first edition of Lightner’s The Death Christ Died (cited above) has long been out of print. See instead Robert P. Lightner, The Death Christ Died: A Biblical Case for Unlimited Atonement, 2nd edn (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1998).
        11. Lest I should be accused of misrepresentation, it should be noted that Lightner is not an Arminian, but a ‘moderate’ (i.e. four-point) Calvinist: he rejects conditional election to salvation and the resistibility of divine grace in conversion. That said, his work is useful for illustrating the exegetical folly of the various high Calvinistic attempts to limit the extent of Christ’s sacrificial death to a portion of humankind.  —J. D. Gallé

Notes copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2022. All rights reserved.

Addendum (24 Sept. 2022).  Robert Paul Lightner (1931–2018) died on Friday, 3 August 2018, aged eighty-seven.

• The Dallas Morning News (obituary)
  
• Voice | Dallas Theological Seminary
  

* Unless otherwise indicated, I do not earn commissions (or favours, for that matter) for the purchase of books recommended or referenced on this website. For further information, see my web page, ‘A Word on The Neo-Remonstrance Blog’.


Latest revisions: 4 April 2016 (one typographical error corrected in par. 7; emendations made to nn. 1, 6, 7, and 8); 1 May 2016 (one typographical error corrected in par. 7); 18 September 2016 (minor emendations made to n. 11); 1 November 2016 (punctuational alteration made in n. 11); 10 January 2017 (altered one term in n. 8); 29 January 2017 (made a minor punctuational alteration in n. 7); 19 February 2018 (assorted emendations made to notes); 28 February 2018 (minor editorial revisions); 22 May 2019 (revision to n. 11); emended one word in n. 1 (26 Jan. 2022).

Arminianism, Universal Atonement, and Universal Salvation

J. D. Gallé | Sunday, 23 August 2015

        In this article I will seek to demonstrate that, when properly understood, the Arminian belief in universal atonement does not logically necessitate the realisation of universal salvation. I will argue that the reason why the latter need not follow from the former lies in God’s free and sovereign decision to save sinful human beings conditionally.

The universality of atonement and the conditionality of salvation 

        A basic tenet of Arminianism is that salvation is genuinely conditional in nature. Consequently, individual election to salvation is understood as conditional as well.[1] The logical corollary to conditional salvation is unlimited/universal atonement: Christ died for all persons without exception. Arminians affirm that God the Father sent Jesus Christ as a sin offering into the world in order to procure salvation universally for all humankind. However, in the economy of redemption, God has decreed that salvation be applied only to particular individuals, namely believers. In other words, whereas the procurement of salvation is universal in nature, its application is particular. The conditionality of salvation is made evident in this: God has determined to actually save only those who place their faith in the blood of Christ for the remission of their sins.

The potentiality of universal salvation 

        The benefits of Christ’s propitiatory/expiatory death on the cross may be received or appropriated by all, but neither a positive or negative response to the good news is divinely determined or guaranteed. In the present age, persons may accept or reject the saving work of Jesus Christ. Whilst salvation has been objectively achieved for all, it must be subjectively applied. The potential for universal salvation exists, but its actualisation is by no means a foregone conclusion. God requires that persons respond to the gospel of Christ by meeting the gracious conditions of salvation as set forth in his Word. Salvation is a gift that must be received. Arminians deny the inevitability of universal salvation because Christ did not die with the aim of infallibly (or unconditionally) securing the salvation of all persons irrespective of the human response to the good news.[2, 3]

The condition of those outside Christ 

        Put another way, the non-Calvinist’s logic is fairly straightforward: whilst God desires that all persons become reconciled to him by responding to the gospel in repentance and faith in his Son Jesus Christ, unbelievers remain in a state of condemnation and estrangement from God. So long as persons remain unrepentant and unbelieving, they are left in an unsaved condition, under the wrath of God for their personal sins. For those who reject Christ, Jesus’ redemptive work on the cross does not benefit them. Unbelievers have not been united to Christ or into his death by baptism, nor have their sins been cancelled or remitted. They are dead in their trespasses and sins, dead to God, and without the Holy Spirit. If one should die in this unrepentant, unbelieving state, he or she will be irreversibly condemned in the age to come when the Lord Jesus Christ returns to judge the living and the dead.[4]

Conclusion 

        In upholding the universal scope of Christ’s sacrifice for sin and the particularity of salvation, Arminianism serves as a kind of via media between Calvinism and universalism. When salvation is understood as conditional in nature, there is little difficulty in holding an unlimited/universal atonement in tandem with a limited or particular application of Christ’s sin-cancelling death on the cross. Whilst the forgiveness of sins is restricted to believers only, the truth of universal atonement is in no way negated. The procurement of salvation is not restricted, only its application. All are called to respond positively to the good news because the good news is intended by God to be received by all. Christ died for the salvation of all; therefore, all may potentially be saved.
        The only problem we are left with is the tragedy of any rejecting Christ and his propitiatory/expiatory sacrifice for sins. Apart from the sin of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit,[5] all manner of sins may be forgiven humans. The reason why all are not saved is because all do not turn from their sins and receive the remission of their sins through faith in the cross of Christ. All sins may be cleansed, but not apart from faith in the blood of Jesus. In the end, the difficulty we are left to grapple with is the pervasiveness of human obstinacy and depravity,[6] not any want of a universal atonement for sin.[7]

Notes

        1. Arminians deny that God has unconditionally elected or unconditionally damned any human being, thus negating the high Calvinistic doctrine of double predestination.

        2. The salvation of all persons without exception could only be infallibly ensured via exhaustive divine foreordination. If God decreed that all persons without exception should respond positively to the good news and have the benefits of Christ’s redemptive work applied to them, all would invariably be saved. Whilst foundational with respect to strict Calvinism as a brand of theological determinism, the doctrine of exhaustive foreordination is foreign to Arminianism and all forms of free-will theism (e.g. Eastern Orthodoxy, open theism).

        3. Furthermore, the human response itself is not secured. Arminians of all stripes deny that Christ in some way purchased ‘the gifts’ of repentance and faith for specific individuals via his death on the cross. If repentance and faith are in fact divine gifts bestowed on some and withheld from others (as claimed by Calvinists), the sole reason why any person should ever fail to turn from his or her sins and savingly believe on Christ is because God did not see it fit to unconditionally elect him or her to salvation via his eternal decree. Differing views on human depravity and prevenient grace notwithstanding, at the fundamental level free-will theists understand repentance and faith to be the individual human’s free, non-meritorious response to the good news of Jesus Christ for the reception of the divine gift of salvation.
        4. For the purposes of the present discussion, whether the resurrection of judgement/condemnation (see John 5.29) entails endless conscious punishment or culminates in the final annihilation of the unrighteous is a moot point.
        5. See Matthew 12.22–32; Mark 3.22–30; Luke 12.10.
        6. See John 3.19–20; Romans 3.9–18.
        7. Contrary to the high Calvinistic doctrine of limited (or definite) atonement. Strict Calvinists deny that Christ died in a saving sense for all persons without exception.

Copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2015, 2016. All rights reserved.


Latest revisions: 12 November 2015 (n. 1 slightly altered); 21 November 2015 (a few alterations made); 2 April 2016 (n. 1 modified and one note added); 7 July 2016 (two words emended); 18 September 2016 (first, fourth, fifth, and sixth paragraphs slightly emended; nn. 1, 2, and 7 slightly emended); 2 October 2016 (minor emendations); 17 February 2018 (six colons converted to full stops).

Christ Died for All: Respond!

J. D. Gallé | Sunday, 31 May 2015

        Strict Calvinists often argue that, if Christ died for all persons without exception (universal atonement), all would invariably be saved (universal salvation). Since the Scriptures portray two disparate destinies of humans, it is reasoned, universal atonement cannot be true.

Salvational conditionality

        Our response is simple: if the New Testament authors view salvation as genuinely conditional in nature, universal atonement does not inevitably lead to the actualisation of universal salvation. The possibility remains that some (if not many) will perish because God has not chosen who will come to a salvational knowledge in Jesus Christ. In other words, there is no election to (or unto) belief. All are to be urgently called to repent and believe in Christ for salvation because Christ has died for all. All have sinned and all likewise need a saviour, but only those who respond positively to the gospel will be saved. The gracious character of redemption is in no way compromised by affirming its conditional nature.

Christ’s redemptive work: appropriation and application

        In Christ God has acted on behalf of the salvation of all humanity. Christ has taken the judgement of God due to sinners upon himself as the representative and substitute for sinful humankind. He bore the curse for us on the tree. By his blood there is redemption and forgiveness of sins, and by his blood believers are declared righteous. Through the death of the Son those who were once the enemies of God are reconciled to the Father. Those who are in Christ are made new creations by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the powerful working of God. Christ has died and risen again; he will never die again. Jesus is now Lord over all. Those who trust in him will not perish but inherit eternal life. They will share in the resurrection life of Jesus by being raised immortal by him on the last day. The kingdom of heaven will be theirs. 

        All may potentially be saved, for Jesus has procured redemption for the whole world via his sacrificial death at Golgotha. Nevertheless, according to the sovereign decree of God, the benefits of Jesus’ sacrificial death are actually applied only to those who cling to the Son as their only hope for obtaining salvation and the mercy of God.

Conclusion

        God has sent Christ to save his wayward creation from the wrath that is to come. Jesus came to deliver those who believe on him from the power and penalty of sin. The message of this good news is to be proclaimed to the ends of the earth until the King returns in glory with his angels at the end of the age to judge the living and the dead. Until the day of his visitation (i.e. the parousia), all are called to repentance towards God and faith towards Jesus Christ.

For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised. (2 Cor. 5.14–15, ESV)

        The only question that remains is this: who will respond to the call?

Copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2021. All rights reserved.

Latest revisions: minor emendations made to paragraphs four and five (2 Jul. 2016); omitted two words in par. 2 (15 Apr. 2017); converted one colon to a full stop; altered headings ‘The conditionality of salvation’ to ‘Salvational conditionality’, and ‘The benefits of Christ’ to ‘Christ’s redemptive work: appropriation and application’ (21 Feb. 2018); altered one letter from upper case to lower case (14 Nov. 2019); added emphases in par. 1 moved heading for one paragraph to another; added one word in par. 1; altered one word in par. 2 (10 Dec. 2021).

Richard Watson on John 3.16–18 and the Impossibility of a Limited Atonement

        “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish.” Now, if the world here means the elect world, or the elect not yet called out of it, then it is affirmed that “whosoever,” of this elect body, believeth should not perish; which plainly implies, that some of the elect might not believe, and therefore perish, contrary to their doctrine.[1] This absurd consequence is still clearer from the verses which immediately follow. John iii, 17, 18, “For God sent not his Son into the world, to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already.” Now here we must take the term “world,” either extensively[2] for all mankind or limitedly[3] for the elect. If the former, then all men “through him may be saved,” but only through faith: he therefore, of this world that believeth may be saved; but he of this world that believeth not is condemned already. The sense here is plain and consistent; but if, on the other hand, we take “the world” to mean the elect only, then he of this elect world that “believeth not is condemned;” so that the restricted interpretation necessarily supposes, that elect persons may remain in unbelief, and be lost. The same absurdity will follow from a like interpretation of the general commission. Either “all the world” and “every creature,” mean every man, or the elect only. If the former, it follows, that he of this “world,” any individual among those included in the phase, “every creature,” who believes, “shall be saved,” or, not believing, “shall be damned:”[4] if the latter, then he of the elect, any individual of the elect, who believes, “shall be saved,” and any individual of the elect who believes not, “shall be damned.” Similar absurdities might be brought out from other passages; but if these are candidly weighed, it will abundantly appear, that texts so plain and explicit cannot be turned into such consequences by any true method of interpretation, and that they must, therefore, be taken in their obvious sense, which unequivocally expresses the universality of the atonement.[5]

Richard Watson, Theological Institutes: Or, a View of the Evidences, Doctrines, Morals, and Institutions of Christianity, 2 vols. (New York, NY: Lane & Scott, 1850), 2.291–2, emphases in original

Notes

        1. ‘[T]heir doctrine’, namely strict or high Calvinism’s doctrine of limited atonement. This teaching is commonly referred to as particular (or definite) atonement by its proponents. According to the doctrine of limited atonement, Christ died in a salvational sense exclusively for those God unconditionally elected for salvation prior to the creation of the world. High Calvinistic theology denies that the non-elect (or ‘reprobate’) were ever intended to be made partakers of Christ’s benefits. In simple terms, strict Calvinists deny that Christ died for all persons without exception because God never intended to save the non-elect.
        Limited atonement is closely linked to the doctrine of unconditional election to salvation. Calvinists believe that those who are not saved were unconditionally reprobated (i.e. foreordained to damnation) from eternity as a result of God’s inscrutable, eternal decree.
        2. That is, universally, inclusively.
        3. That is, exclusively, particularly.
        4. Mark 16.15–16 (see also Matt. 28.19–20; Lk. 24.46–47; Acts 1.8).
        5. In the quotation above, it should be evident that Watson seeks to refute a strict Calvinistic understanding of limited atonement by demonstrating its absurdity in the light of scriptural texts such as John 3.16–18 and Mark 16.15–16. The form of argumentation Watson utilises here is referred to as the argumentum ad absurdum (argument to absurdity) or reductio ad absurdum (reduction to absurdity).  —J. D. Gallé

Notes copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2015, 2016, 2018, 2021. All rights reserved.

Addendum (27 Sept. 2022; 29 Aug. 2023).  As from 2018, Lexham Press have published a non-facsimile reprint of Methodist Richard Watson’s significant, nineteenth-century work of systematic theology, Theological Institutes.* Watson’s Theological Institutes is the first systematic theology to have been written from a Wesleyan-Arminian perspective.

        My sole criticism of Lexham Press’ reprint is that, considering the retail price they are commanding for their printed edition, the two volumes ought to be hardbound in format rather than paperback. Nevertheless, in order to view or purchase the aforementioned two-volume set, see the links to the following websites:

• Lexham Press
  
• Books-A-Million (BAM!)
  
• Amazon
  

* Unless otherwise indicated, I do not earn commissions (or favours, for that matter) for the purchase of books recommended or referenced on this website. For further information, see my web page, ‘A Word on The Neo-Remonstrance Blog’.


Latest revisions: 16 November 2016 (added a comma in n. 1); 17 February 2018 (converted seven colons to full stops); 19 and 28 February 2018 (minor emendations); 22 May 2019 (slightly modified nn. 2 and 3); altered one word in first note (23 Jun. 2021); slightly altered scriptural abbreviations in n. 4 (19 Nov. 2021); altered one word in n. 1 (8 Dec. 2021).

I. Howard Marshall on Limited Atonement and Penal Substitution

        Despite such statements in classical documents as that Christ “made a full perfect and sufficient oblation for the sins of the whole world” (Book of Common Prayer), and the clear declaration of the New Testament that “Christ gave himself as a ransom for all people” (1 Tim. 2:6), there have been some attempts to tie the doctrine of penal substitution to a doctrine of limited or particular atonement; some scholars hold that penal substitution can be defended only on the basis that Christ acts as substitute only for those who are actually saved by his death rather than being a saviour who makes an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2) in accordance with the desire of God that all might be saved (John 3:16; 1 Tim. 2:4–6; 2 Pet. 3:9). Otherwise, it is argued, in the case of those who are not saved, God would have demanded the penalty twice, once from Christ and once from themselves when they suffer the penalty of disobedience. […][1]
        However this objection is without any force because it assumes a kind of mathematical equivalence between the death of Christ and the penalty due to sinners; there is nothing unjust about penalizing offenders who refuse to accept the offer of an amnesty. […] The doctrine of penal substitution is not part of a package which also contains as essential the concepts of particular election[2] and limited (or definite) atonement. “None need perish; all may live, for Christ has died” (Sanders, W. In The Methodist Hymnbook [London: Methodist Conference Office, 1933], No. 315). Sadly, however, it is not inevitable that all will respond positively when the gospel news is sounding.

I. Howard Marshall, Aspects of the Atonement: Cross and Resurrection in the Reconciling of God and Humanity (Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2007), pp. 62–3 n. 45[3]

Copyright © Divinity School of Chung Chi College, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2007. All rights reserved.

In order to purchase Marshall’s Aspects of the Atonement (2007),* see the links to the following websites:

• Paternoster (Authentic Media)
• Christianbook
• Barnes & Noble
• Books-A-Million (BAM!)
  
• Amazon

Notes

        1. ‘[T]he penalty of disobedience’ being the final punishment of the unrepentant, whether conceived of in terms of endless torment or final annihilation.
        2. That is, unconditional election to salvation. The corollary doctrine is unconditional reprobation. High Calvinistic theology maintains that God unconditionally chose which specific individuals would be saved and damned prior to the creation of the world. This doctrine is commonly referred to as double predestination.
        3. The pagination of the paperback edition (ISBN-13: 978-1-84227-549-8) of Aspects of the Atonement differs from the hardback edition (ISBN-13: 978-1-60657-024-1) . In the hardback edition the above quotation may be found on pp. 70–1.  —J. D. Gallé

Addendum.  Ian Howard Marshall (1934–2015) died on Saturday, 12 December 2015, aged eighty-one.

• Wikipedia

* Unless otherwise indicated, I do not earn commissions (or favours, for that matter) for the purchase of books recommended or referenced on this website. For further information, see my web page, ‘A Word on The Neo-Remonstrance Blog’.