4 Things That Might Hinder You from Embracing Definite Atonement

Thank you, Scott, for taking time to explain your position carefully and charitably. As a five point Calvinist, I have long believed that Christ’s atonement had a purpose beyond the salvation of the elect. I think John 17:2 indicates that Christ’s death earned authority over “all flesh” which enabled Him to secure eternal life for those whom the Father gave to him. (the elect)

But I fail to see how Christ’s death securing the bodily resurrection of all men can be equated with either shedding His blood for the salvation of all men (unlimited atonement), or dying for the sins of His people (definite atonement). Bodily resurrection is not salvation. It seems to me that your position, when all is said and done, is really a five point, definite atonement position. I must be missing something here.

As to Calvin, I believe we should interpret his position from the unambiguous statements, not the ambiguous ones. Just like we must in interpreting Scripture. Calvin’s comments on I John 2:2 are clear. The ambiguous statements can be explained in different directions. Unless Calvin waffled in his position on the atonement (which some contend), we ought to take the clear statements as his true position, and interpret the unclear ones in that light. In my limited reading of Calvin, I find a man who was amazingly definite about his views from an early time in his life. He continued to refine and expand throughout his lifetime (note the several editions of his Institutes), but was unusually consistent in his doctrine. At least that’s the way it seems to me.

Thank you for the discussion as well.

First, regarding Calvin, it is not that his universal statements are ambiguous and his definite ones not, but rather it is that he made both unambiguous universal and unambiguous definite statements that made his total position on atonement ambiguous (at least from the perspective of many scholars today).

Now as an aside to this point, I agree when you say:

I believe we should interpret his position from the unambiguous statements, not the ambiguous ones. Just like we must in interpreting Scripture.

However, regarding your last part on Scripture, my contention with the definite atonement view is that they do not read the many (and there are many) universal scriptures as universal, which to me and other universal advocates are unambiguously stated. They instead approach the “all” and the “world” passages already having concluded definite atonement, and then from my perspective do exegetical gymnastics (i.e., eisegesis) to try to make those passages not be a universal statement to fit their concept of what they expect the extent of atonement to be, limited to the elect. But my view on that is nothing new to the argument between universal and definite atonement views, as a large part of the battle ground between the views is over interpretation of the “universal” passages. I side with the straightforward, universal reading of those passages.

Second, regarding my particular view, I would contend that “bodily resurrection is [part of] salvation.” The bodily resurrection is a necessary aspect to what it means for God to save anyone. Without it, there would be no salvation of any of humanity. But also, it is the salvific portion of atonement that God intends to apply to all people based on Christ’s death. It is the universal part of the atoning work. So to answer your question:

But I fail to see how Christ’s death securing the bodily resurrection of all men can be equated with either shedding His blood for the salvation of all men (unlimited atonement), or dying for the sins of His people (definite atonement).

You probably fail to see it because it does not fit what you have come to believe about atonement. That is understandable. Perhaps to clarify and maybe help you see my view, I’ll restate it similarly to how you stated your failure to see:

Christ’s death on the cross for all people as a penal substitute for their sins is what allows God to righteously free all people from His penalty of sin, physical death, by a resurrection from that death (a definite, universal/unlimited atonement for the penalty of sin). Christ’s shedding of blood on the cross provides what is needed to wash clean all who come to the cross, believing in God’s work through Christ and thus receiving God’s righteousness, which cleansing and righteousness frees all believers from God’s wrath, second death, by not casting them into the lake of fire and instead giving them eternal life (a definite, particular/limited atonement of the uncleanness and unholiness of sin).

That’s how I view the atoning work. With both a universal and a non-universal salvific aspect connected to it. I think you can see that it is not “a five point, definite atonement position,” but I would contend it is a more scriptural understanding of atonement than the standard definite atonement position, and one that still fits with the standard view of election for those holding such a definite atonement position. It requires a shift in thought to the universal salvific aspect included in the atonement, but still allows holding that God elected to cleanse by His blood only those He chose, keeping the particular aspect. (It also leaves open the debate about election itself, the how God chooses, so it fits multiple views of election; but it disassociates the extent of the atonement work from that debate.)

Scott, yours is an interesting perspective, and demonstrates a lot of thought. I’m not sure that I can follow the reasoning that believes Christ’s death atoned universally to mitigate the penalty of physical death, but not for the penalty of spiritual death, which is as much the sentence for sin as is physical death. How can you separate these two aspects of the one sentence of death?

Regarding the “all” and “world” passages being taken at face value, there are too many other instances where these words do not communicate a universal meaning that have nothing to do with the extent of the atonement. (Luke 2:1 is just one of many examples.) To interpret the Bible correctly, we must let Scripture show us how particular words are used. It seems to me that those espousing universal atonement are the ones imposing a universal definition on these terms in order to satisfy their pre-conceived interpretation. In my experience, showing such people the numerous times these terms demand a limited meaning does little to dampen their “all always means all, and that’s all it means” mentality, substantial evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

I used to embrace universal redemption, and it was not my preconceived position that caused me to understand that a substantial number of “all” and “world” passages do not communicate a universal extent. It was my weekly exegetical pulpit preparation that forced me to re-visit my previous misconceptions.

We had some deaths in the family over the last couple of months and those, plus work duties made it so that I just have not had the time to get back and answer your questions. So let me do so now.

Regarding your question here:

I’m not sure that I can follow the reasoning that believes Christ’s death atoned universally to mitigate the penalty of physical death, but not for the penalty of spiritual death, which is as much the sentence for sin as is physical death. How can you separate these two aspects of the one sentence of death?

Here is how I answer that. First, I believe “spiritual death” is a phrase that has caused much theological confusion in the discussion of soteriology and the atonement in particular. When one really looks at the use of “death” in the OT, it is physical death that is the topic. When one looks at the other uses of the “death sentence formula” (as found in Genesis 2:17, “you shall surely die” [NKJV] ), it is a statement about physical death and is merely the statement of what is deemed the just sentencing for the particular infraction (whatever the consequence). So in Genesis 2:17, God is only stating that in the day they eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that day they are placing themselves under a death sentence (i.e. placing themselves under the legal penalty of physical death for their sins; God is guaranteeing they are going to die). This is the only aspect of the sentence of death at this point in the text of Scripture, one’s physical body will cease to be vital, cease being active and functioning in the realm of the living. This cessation of vital activity is death, specifically the first death.

Second, what we have theologically labeled as “spiritual death,” I prefer to call “relational rift” (to avoid what I believe is the wrong association of this issue with the legal penalty for sin, physical death). This rift is a natural consequence of the sin, not a legal penalty. Mankind naturally becomes separated from God relationally because at the time of sinning (1) mankind immediately became unlike Him, unrighteous (opposite of what God designed us to be per Gen 1:26), (2) mankind immediately evidenced an unbelief in Him, counting Him as untrustworthy and even unkind in “holding back” this knowledge from man (so we deem God as our enemy, and hide from [Gen 3:8] or attack him [Gen 3:12] ), and (3) mankind immediately became unclean, physically and spiritually (we are tainted by sin; something God did not want to become permanent by the eating of the tree of life, and so He expelled them [Gen 3:22] ). None of these things are a “judgment” on humanity, but rather natural consequences of their actions that result in relational issues with God.

However, because of these things—unrighteous, unbelieving, and unclean—God then is in a balance between His merciful long-suffering and His wrath (relational terms) toward humanity, and at what times He chooses to suffer no more, He ends mercy and unleashes wrath, enacting His justified legal penalty of physical death.

So mankind has a number of issues that need handling with respect to sin. I believe God handles each of these in different ways:

1. He solves the legal penalty, physical death, by paying the price of death on the cross for every human being as show of His great grace—this is a universal aspect of atonement—that will result in all people being raised from the dead. Note: this is the legal reconciliation of mankind, God propitiating His own righteous requirement of death for sin (1 Jn 2:2), something done for the whole world and to be proclaimed as such (2 Cor 5:18-19).
2. He solves the unbelief by bringing one to faith—this is a particular aspect. Note: this is the relational reconciliation of mankind, something each individual must come to through proclamation of what He did in #1 for them (2 Cor 5:20, Rom 10:17)
3. He solves the uncleanness in two ways:
   • Spiritual uncleanness only for those who come to faith—this is a particular aspect—and He does so by the cleansing application of the blood of the atonement on the believer’s behalf (Heb 9:14, 1 John 1:7, Rev 1:5, 7:14) and spiritual regeneration (Titus 3:5).
   • Physical uncleanness through death (elimination of the flesh corrupted by sin; Rom 6:6-7, 7:18) and/or (or in the case of rapture) the resurrection into an immortal body (1 Cor 15:42)
4. He solves the unrighteousness in two ways:
   • Presently, while still living in a sinful body, by accounting the believer righteous through the faith of #2 (Rom 4:5, et al.), a gift from Him (Rom 5:17).
   • Future, at the resurrection, by finishing the making of believers to be righteous (Rom 5:19), having then both a right spirit and a right body, all free from sin’s effects.

As you can see, numbers 2-4 all relate particularly to believers, because those not having those things corrected are still under God’s wrath, and when the legal penalty for sin is lifted by the resurrection, because they do not have part in the first (chief) resurrection, they will face that wrath eternally in the second death (Rev 20:6), the casting into the lake of fire (Rev 20:14, 21:8), which I believe is an immersion into the very presence of God, experiencing Him eternally as a consuming fire (Dt 4:24, Heb 12:29, 2 Thes 1:8-9 [I take the “from” in v.9 as an ablative of source, not separation: God is the source of the fire by His presence to judge them]; cf. Rev 14:10-11 where the torment by fire of those with the mark occurs “in the presence of the Lamb” forever; God is always present, but never more so than in eternity, when people are either immediately present with Him in glory or in flames).

Now about the use of “world” and “all.”

I have no issues with the fact that context can determine extent of those terms. However, equally true is the fact which particularists ignore is that “world,” unqualified, can refer to the whole of humanity (or, in most contexts, especially with John, the whole of unbelieving humanity), and in one context key to the atonement, it is even qualified with the word “whole” (1 Jn 2:2), which is often ignored or attempted to be explained way by particularists (because they cannot fit into their soteriological scheme the idea that this propitiation could have happened for the whole world.). Additionally, of the term “all,” it still is true that “all always means all, and that’s all it means,” but what one has to look at in context is all of what “set” to determine the meaning. That is, “all” will have in context the defining “set” of what it is being used to refer to quantify. So in Luke 3:15, “all” in context refers to “all people that had been listening to John the Baptist preach,” and Mark 1:37, “all” is “all people from the city where Christ healed the night before” (Mark 1:32-34). What I take issue with is that particularlists do not let the “all” be qualified as it states in some of the atonement contexts, but rather as they think it should be (again, to try to fit their soteriological scheme). If God explicitly says “all men” and contrasts that with believers, then He clearly means “all people” (1 Tim 4:10) are in some way to experience God as a Savior (in my view, saved from physical death by resurrection [#1 above] , hence why believers are especially saved [getting #2-4 above] ), something that is done so that “all men” in that salvation will “come unto the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4; though the unbeliever and believer will relate to that truth differently in eternity), and so God has given Christ as a “ransom for all” (1 Tim 2:6, in context, “all” is referring back to “all men,” who we are to be praying for [1 Tim 2:1] and who God desires saved from death and who He plans to insure learn the truth; whether they would like to know it or not, they will all bow [Rom 14:10-12; Phil 2:7-11 (this passage explicitly tying that fact to the work of paying the penalty of death on the cross)] ).

So I, like you, have come to my conclusions from reading Scripture. But I do so reading the passages that clearly do indicate a universal extent as such, not trying to avoid them, but embracing them as helping come to the understanding of what God means by how He is working His plan of salvation for humanity generally, and believers specifically.