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:
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.
* 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).
