The doctrine of limited atonement is one of the five points found in John Calvin's teaching on eternal security. Among the teachers of limited atonement the phrase itself is one that they are trying hard to change. Today they prefer terms like "particular atonement" or "definite atonement". Though limited atonement states exactly what they believe they are uncomfortable with the impression it leaves. It reminds us of those liberal politicians who want to be called " progressive". After all the word progressive sounds a lot better than liberal.
Most Baptist, Presbyterians, and some others that teach their people the unscriptural doctrine of eternal security reject the doctrine of limited atonement. They like to call themselves four point Calvinist. The truth is though you cannot have a consistent theological view and remove the doctrine of limited atonement. Recently there has been a resurgence of the Reformed Theology which adamantly teaches all five points of Calvinism. The doctrine of limited atonement teaches that Jesus Christ only died for a certain group of people called the elect. That Jesus did not die for everyone or, the entire human race, but for only those who would be saved. Listen to what a limited atonement preacher said in a sermon. "If he had come to save everybody in the world then everybody would be saved. That just makes good sense. Either that or he is a failure. Take your choice. If he came here to redeem everybody, everybody would be redeemed. Either that or he his a failure. If he loved everybody, everybody would be saved. Either that or his love is not worth spit. Take your choice." From my limited experience with them that is the normal tone that comes from those who teach Calvinism. I don't know about you, but when I read or hear statements like that I immediately think of
John 3:16,
"For God so loved the world, that he gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life". Let's look then at why the doctrine of limited atonement is so dangerous.
First, it's dangerous because you have to add to the bible to make that doctrine fit. Anytime you have to change what the bible is plainly teaching, verse after verse after verse, you are in danger of changing the bible itself, or at least, you open it up to be handled in a corrupt way by others. The apostle Peter warned us about those who would
wrest the scriptures (2 Peter 3:16) The word wrest means to twist, wrench, torture or pervert. One must wonder if Peter was dealing with the deceptive seeds of thought that would come to be known as Calvinism centuries later. So, what do they do to
John 3:16? They wrest the word "
world" and twist it so that it doesn't mean world any more; it means the world of the elect. R.C. Sproul said, "The world for whom Christ died cannot mean the entire human family, it must refer to the universality of the elect, people from every tribe and nation
." But when you do that you also have to then say that God does not love the world he only loves the elect. Next then, whosoever means no longer whosoever but now it means the elect. So then the elect are the only ones in danger of perishing, but wait, they can never perish because they are they elect. So, the verse ends up meaning nothing at all. It becomes a torturous treatment of the text indeed. Again,
1 Timothy 2:3-6 "
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." All here, according to the limited atonement view, does not mean all it only means all the elect. He gave himself a ransom for all and once again you would have to wrest these scriptures in order to make all something different than what it means. In
Romans 3:23 the bible says
"For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Yet, those who teach all does not mean all, here say that it does means all. So, it means all when relating to those who have sinned but it does not mean all when it comes to those who can be saved? Talk about wresting the scriptures! There are verses that plainly state that salvation is for all because all of us need it. Look for example at
Galatians 3:22 "
But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe." Or how about
1 Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." Once a man said "all means all and that is all that all means."
2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." If none of the elect are going to perish why does the bible have to say that God is not willing that they should? And again in
1 John 2:2 "
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." I'm sure you are getting the point by now but, here again the whole world to them doesn't mean whole or entire. Here is how they do it. They say it does not mean every person in the world but every place in the world. To do that to this verse is to wrest it for sure. Let's look at one more example and it is found in
Acts 17:30 "
And the time of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:" Each time a verse like this is spoken of those who believe in limited atonement have to add, "all of the elect", to each of these text even though the context will not support it. That is
not the way to handled any biblical text.
Secondly, it's dangerous because you also change the character of God. Those who teach limited atonement end up ultimately saying that God does not love everyone, He only loves the elect. I'll refer you here back to the sermon above. Yet, the bible is also clear that God, the God of the Holy bible, loves everybody equally.
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world". In
Romans 5:8 Paul said
"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." This entire section shows that God loves not just the "good" people but he loves the unsaved in their most vile condition.
Matthew 5:44-45 "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." This teaches us that God requires that we love our enemies because he loves those who are wilfully his enemies. Jesus did not say Father forgive the elect that spit in my face he said
"Father forgive them for they know not what they do." The difference between the God of the bible and all the false gods in the world is that God is a loving God, who even loves sinners. The religious people in the days of Christ flesh were angry with him because he was a friend of publicans and sinners. They were amazed and appalled at the fact that Jesus would sit down and eat with them or even let sinners touch him
(Luke 7:41-50). This is the most heart breaking effect that this doctrine has in that it reduces the glory of our great God and makes Him out to be a God that only loves some people.
Thirdly, it throws a wet blanket on the much needed effort to evangelize the entire world. They reject that this is a true statement concerning the effect of the doctrine of limited atonement. For any one though, with an objective view, it should be clear that this indeed is what takes place. If Christ died only for the elect and they will be saved regardless to there will and weather or not believers obey their Lord and go, then why bother. It is a certainty that most of the immature will respond this way to our Lord's command to go and "
preach the gospel to every creature "( Mark 16:15). I say certain, because that is exactly what most believers are doing now - not sharing their faith. Those who teach that doctrine insist that they are more evangelistic than most. You may recall from William Shakespeare's play Hamlet the statement "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." The problem is, when you look at their motive for evangelism it becomes purely selfish. It no longer has, at its heart, a love for sinners who are dying and will spend an eternity in hell-fire. The concern for witnessing now revolves around the rewards that person will or will not receive.
Lastly, it makes the judgment of sinners the most unjust exercise in the whole universe. At the Great White Throne of judgment all the sinners who have ever lived on God's earth for all time will stand before him to be judged.
Revelation 20:11-15 "
And I saw a great white throne and him that sat on it from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works, And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and the were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whososever was not found in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." The limited atonement folks would have us believe that the holy and just God of the Bible will cast them into eternal fire even though Jesus did not die for them so that they could been saved. In fact, God would not allow them to be saved. They could not have been saved even if they wanted to be saved. I can here someone on that day say to God wait, "you are going to send me to hell for all eternity, yet, you never drew me, Jesus did not even die for me, you did not even love me, your created me only to send me into these flames and there was absolutely nothing I could have done about it, how is that fair and just?" It makes the whole great white throne appearance seem to be just a show and not a real judgment of how these sinners willfully rejected Jesus Christ as their personal Savior and Lord. The bible is clear on who's responsible for the sinners fate. It is the sinner themselves. In
John 8:24 Jesus said
"I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." Also,
John 3:36 "
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." Even
Romans 10:13 says
"Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Let me just say this in conclusion. If God could save anybody he sovereignly choose to then why not choose to save the entire world? If God gets the greater glory out of people being sovereignly saved why not save the majority in the world today and leave only a minority of people who are wicked and sinful. It's obvious that God's sovereign plan includes the willful response of his creation. "
Who art thou that repliest against God?"
( Rom 9:20)
