Limited atonement-is it biblical?

Theology
21

I have never been able to accept Limited Atonement. I love the writings of Arthur W. Pink but came to realize he taught Limited Atonement, and I had great conflict due to this. I will explain why: John 3:16 says “For God so loved THE WORLD, that He gave His only begotten Son, that WHOSOSEVER believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life”.

The Bible also says that God is not willing that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance. Now—The Lord KNOWS that not ALL will come to Him—but I do not believe that means that not ALL were invited in the first place.

2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 says: “They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness”.

This verse clearly teaches that these people REFUSED the “love of the truth”–so I believe that this is clearly teaching that they could have RECEIVED IT if they so decided. The one argument that Calvinists use is “if someone’s sins were paid for how could they wind up in hell?” In other words, if Jesus died for ALL, then ALL must be saved. No—I don’t believe that to be true at all.

Someone could pay for a ticket for you to go to Italy for free. If you know the offer stands but you refuse it, you simply don’t go. You lose out. The fair HAS BEEN PAID, but the OFFER HAS BEEN REFUSED.

And I believe THIS is what will make hell SO excrutiating. The people there WILL KNOW that they COULD HAVE ACCEPTED salvation, but did not. All of the wrath that was poured on the Son on the cross, because it has been REFUSED, will return on the head of the one who refused it. I believe that is what makes hell HELL. You CHOSE hell by REFUSING Heaven. You choose WRATH by REFUSING to accept the PAYMENT for it.

22

Just one question. So the whole world is actually saved IN Messiah.

J.

23

I appreciate you digging into the Greek and pulling in Wallace and the exegetical commentary. I actually agree completely with your grammatical point! Syntactically, ἐχαρίσθη (‘it has been granted’) governs both articular infinitives (to pisteuein and to paschein). They are parallel, coordinate objects. You’re spot on there.

Where we differ isn’t on the grammar, but on the theological definition of what it means for something to be ‘granted’ (charizomai).

The verb charizomai means to extend favor or give graciously. Paul is telling the Philippian church that God has graciously favored them with two immense honors: the privilege of believing in Christ, and the privilege of suffering for Him. Acknowledging that faith is a gracious gift from God doesn’t automatically prove the Calvinist concept of irresistible, individual pre-selection.

If ‘granted to believe’ means God sovereignly, unconditionally causes specific individuals to believe (and deprives others of the ability), then to be consistent, “granted to suffer” must mean God irresistibly forces those exact individuals to suffer. But we know suffering involves human agents, circumstances, and real choice. Why define “granted” as deterministic causation for faith, but as gracious privilege/opportunity for suffering?

I don’t deny that faith is a gift! Without God’s grace, initiating through the Gospel, the Spirit’s conviction, and giving us the capacity to respond, no one could believe. Faith is entirely granted by grace. But receiving a granted privilege requires a response. God grants the light, the truth, and the power to believe, but the person must still exercise that faith.

So yes, both believing and suffering are coordinate gifts of God’s grace. But “granted by grace” does not equal “unconditionally forced onto the elect.” Paul’s point is to elevate their present suffering to the same sacred status as their faith, assuring them that both are under God’s gracious care.

Shalom to you and yours,
Peter

24

You asked me this question; I’m pretty sure @Fish153 is going to answer the same way. I’m just trying to figure out how you do not see this. Is “the whole world is actually saved IN Messiah?” No, those who are saved are saved by the Messiah in them. The whole world can accept; sadly, few will. But all have the chance, or hell would be unjust.
Peter

25

And by this you mean Free will, correct Peter?

|Matt. 1:21|τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ|σώσει|His people|

|John 17:9|ὧν δέδωκάς μοι|ἐρωτῶ|The given ones|

|Isa. 53:8|λαοῦ μου|ἤχθη|My people|

|Acts 20:28|τὴν ἐκκλησίαν|περιεποιήσατο|The church|

|Rev. 5:9|ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς|ἠγόρασας|The redeemed|

|John 6:37–39|πᾶν ὃ δέδωκεν|ἀναστήσω|The given|

|Rom. 8:32–34|ἡμῶν|παρέδωκεν / ἐντυγχάνει|The elect|

|John 15:13|τῶν φίλων|θῇ|His friends|

|Titus 2:14|λαὸν περιούσιον|λυτρώσηται|His treasured people|

One of the most common objections raised against definite atonement is that Isaiah 53 teaches Christ died for every individual without exception because verse 6 declares, “All we like sheep have gone astray… and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.” At first glance, this appears compelling, but it fails to account for the literary flow of the chapter, the grammar of the Hebrew text, and the Servant’s actual accomplishment. The issue is not whether the word “all” means all. The issue is identifying who the “all” refers to within Isaiah’s own argument. Scripture must define its own terms.

The Hebrew pronoun כֻּלָּנוּ (kullānû, “all of us”) in Isaiah 53:6 is a first-person plural pronoun referring to the covenant community represented by the speakers in the prophecy. The verse does not identify that group as every individual who has ever lived. Rather, the identity of the speakers unfolds throughout the Servant Songs and reaches its climax in Isaiah 53. Like any pronoun, כֻּלָּנוּ derives its meaning from its antecedent and context, not from theological assumptions imported into the text. It is therefore a serious hermeneutical error to assume that “all” automatically means every human being without exception.

The decisive section of the chapter is not verse 6 but verses 11 and 12, where Isaiah explains the theological significance of the Servant’s work. Isaiah writes, “By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities.” The Hebrew verb יַצְדִּיק (yatsdiq) is the Hiphil imperfect of צָדַק (ṣādaq), meaning “to declare righteous” or “to justify.” This is forensic language drawn from the courtroom, not merely relational or experiential language. The Servant does not simply make justification possible. He actually justifies. Even more significant is the causal relationship introduced by the conjunction כִּי (“for”), which explains why the many are justified: “for He shall bear their iniquities.” The verb יִסְבֹּל (yisbōl, “He shall bear”) and the closely related verb נָשָׂא (nāśāʾ, “to bear, carry”) throughout the chapter are sacrificial terms associated with the removal of guilt. Isaiah therefore presents an inseparable connection between substitution and justification. Those whose sins the Servant bears are precisely those whom He justifies.

This grammatical relationship creates an insurmountable difficulty for the doctrine of universal atonement. If Christ substitutionally bore the sins of every individual without exception, then every individual should likewise be justified. Isaiah never introduces a third category in which sins are borne but justification ultimately fails. Such an idea must be imported into the text rather than derived from it. The Servant’s bearing of sin is effectual because it accomplishes precisely what Isaiah says it accomplishes: justification.

This conclusion is strengthened by Isaiah’s deliberate use of רַבִּים (rabbîm, “many”) in verses 11 and 12. The Servant “shall justify many,” and He “bore the sin of many.” Critics often argue that “many” can simply mean “all,” but this misses Isaiah’s point. The emphasis is not on contrasting many with a few but on identifying the beneficiaries of the Servant’s work. More importantly, Jesus consciously adopts Isaiah’s language. In Mark 10:45 He declares that “the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.” Likewise, at the institution of the Lord’s Supper He says, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28). Jesus is unmistakably interpreting His death through the lens of Isaiah 53, and He preserves Isaiah’s terminology rather than replacing it with language referring to every individual without exception.

Isaiah’s emphasis is not merely on provision but on accomplishment. Throughout the chapter, every verb describing the Servant’s work is effectual. He bears transgressions, carries sorrows, makes intercession, justifies many, and bears their iniquities. None of these verbs suggest possibility alone. They describe completed redemptive achievement. This is entirely consistent with the broader Old Testament sacrificial system, where the substitute actually bore the covenantal guilt of the worshiper. The Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16 provides an illuminating parallel. Aaron confessed the sins of Israel over the scapegoat, symbolically transferring those sins to the substitute, which then carried them away. The ritual did not symbolize a hypothetical removal of sin but an actual covenantal cleansing. Isaiah deliberately draws upon this sacrificial background when describing the Servant.

The New Testament repeatedly confirms this understanding. Jesus identifies Himself as the Good Shepherd who “lays down His life for the sheep” (John 10:11, 15). The object of His sacrificial death is specifically identified as His sheep. Even more striking is His explanation in John 10:26: “You do not believe because you are not among My sheep.” The grammar is significant. Jesus does not say that they are not His sheep because they refuse to believe. Rather, their unbelief demonstrates that they do not belong to the flock for whom He lays down His life. The identity of the sheep precedes their faith because they belong to the Father who gave them to the Son (John 10:29; 17:2).

…

26

The same particularity appears throughout the New Testament. Paul writes that “Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her” (Eph. 5:25). Luke records that God “purchased the church with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). Peter, directly quoting Isaiah 53, writes, “He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree” (1 Pet. 2:24). John sees the heavenly choir singing, “You were slain, and by Your blood You purchased people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Rev. 5:9). The Greek preposition ἐκ (“out of”) indicates selection from among the nations rather than every individual within them. These passages consistently define the objects of Christ’s atoning work as His people, His sheep, His church, His bride, and the redeemed gathered from every nation.

A further theological difficulty for universal atonement concerns the nature of substitution itself. Isaiah repeatedly describes the Servant as bearing the judicial penalty of others. If Christ truly endured the punishment due for every sin of every individual, then divine justice cannot require those same sins to be punished again in hell. God’s justice is not satisfied twice for the same offense. This has historically been called the “double payment” argument, articulated by theologians such as John Owen. Opponents often respond that unbelief alone condemns the sinner. Yet this simply raises another question: Did Christ bear the guilt of unbelief? If He did, unbelief has already been punished. If He did not, then it cannot be said that He bore every sin of every individual. Either answer creates a serious inconsistency for the universal atonement position.

Finally, the immediate context of Isaiah’s prophecy demonstrates that the Servant’s work is covenantal rather than merely universal in scope. The Servant does not simply create the possibility of salvation for an undefined humanity. He accomplishes redemption for the people given to Him by the Father, fulfilling the covenant promises made throughout Isaiah. The chapter reaches its climax not with an offer but with a triumph. The Servant sees the fruit of His suffering, is satisfied, justifies many, bears their iniquities, and receives His inheritance because He successfully completed the work entrusted to Him. Nothing in the chapter suggests uncertainty or the possibility of failure.

For these reasons, Isaiah 53 stands not as a proof of universal atonement but as one of the clearest Old Testament foundations for definite atonement. The Servant does not merely make salvation possible. He actually secures it. He bears the sins of His people, justifies those whose sins He bears, intercedes for them, and ultimately sees the full success of His redemptive mission. This is precisely the theology that Jesus, Peter, Paul, and the writer of Hebrews develop throughout the New Testament. Far from diminishing the glory of the cross, this doctrine magnifies it by declaring that Christ’s death truly accomplished what God intended: the complete and certain redemption of His people.

My rebuttal to D.A. Waite

J.

27

Owen.

Arguments Against the Universality of Redemption
Book III presents 16 arguments against the general ransom theory and in favor of Particular Atonement. Here are the arguments as summarized by Dr. J. I. Packer (slightly edited by me):

From the fact that the new covenant, which Christ’s death ratified, is not made with all men (chapter 1).
From the fact that the gospel, which reveals faith in Christ to be the only way of salvation, is not published to all men (chapter 1).
From the dilemmas involved in asserting that the divine intention in Christ’ death was to redeem every man (chapter 2).
From the fact that Christ is said to die for one of the two classes (elect and reprobate) into which God divided men, and not for the other (chapter 2).
From the fact that Scripture nowhere asserts that Christ dies for all men, as such (chapter 2).
From the fact that Christ died as sponsor (surety) for those for whom He died (chapter 3).
From the fact that Christ is a Mediator, and as such a priest, for those for whom He died (chapter 3).
From the fact that Christ’s death cleanses and sanctifies those for whom He died, whereas not all men and sanctified (chapter 3).
From the fact that faith (which is necessary for salvation) was procured by the death of Christ, whereas not all men have faith (chapter 4).
From the fact that the deliverance of Israel from Egypt is a type of Christ’s saving work (chapter 4).
The next five arguments form a group on their own. They have a common form and are all taken from the biblical terms in which Christ’s work is described.

(i). From the fact that Christ’s death wrought redemption (deliverance by payment) (chapter 5).
(ii). From the fact that Christ’s death effected reconciliation between God and men (chapter 6).
(iii). From the fact that Christ’s death made satisfaction for sins (chapter 7, 8, 9).
(iv). From the fact that Christ’s death merited salvation for men (chapter 10).
(v). From the fact that Christ died for men (chapter 10).
From particular texts: Gen. 3:15: Matt. 7:33; 11:25; John 10:11ff.; Rom. 8:32-34; Eph. 1:7; 2 Cor. 5:21; John 17:9; Eph. 5:25 (chapter 11).
These are great chapters, especially chapters XI-XV, which deal with important essential benefits of Christ’s death in some detail as they retain to the subject of atonement. I’d like to take a quick look at a few of his arguments.

The New Covenant (Arg. I)
The Covenant of Grace, i.e., the New Covenant according to 1689 Federalism, is made only with the elect (see chapter 7 for more on Covenant Theology). If that is truly the case, then we have a problem with universal atonement. For more see chapter 7 on Jeremiah 31:31-34; chapter 17 here and here.

Owen’s basic argument is as follows:

The first argument may be taken from the nature of the covenant of grace, which was established, ratified, and confirmed in and by the death of Christ; that was the testament whereof he was the testator, which was ratified in his death, and whence his blood is called “The blood of the new testament,” Matt. 26:28. Neither can any effects thereof be extended beyond the compass of this covenant. But now this covenant was not made universally with all, but particularly only with some, and therefore those alone were intended in the benefits of the death of Christ.[16] (Book III, chapter 1)…

28

The elect are designated also as:

those whom he “loves”…Rom. 9:13; whom he “knoweth,”…John 10:14, “I know my sheep;” 2 Tim. 2:19, “The Lord knoweth them that are his;” Rom. 8:29, “Whom he did foreknow;” chap. 11:2, “His people which he foreknew;” “I know you not,” Matt. 25:12: so John 13:18, “I speak not of you all; I know whom I have chosen.” Those that are appointed to life and glory, and those that are appointed to and fitted for destruction, — “elect” and “reprobate;” those that were “ordained to eternal life,” and those who “before were of old ordained to condemnation:” as Eph. 1:4, “He hath chosen us in him;” Acts 13:48, “Ordained to eternal life;” Rom. 8:30, “Whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” So, on the other side, 1 Thess. 5:9, “God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation;” Rom. 9:18–21, “He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel to honour, and another to dishonour?” Jude 4, “Ordained to this condemnation;” 2 Pet. 2:12, “Made to be taken and destroyed;” “Sheep and goats,” Matt. 25:32; John 10 passim. Those on whom he hath “mercy,” and those whom he “hardeneth,” Rom. 9:18. Those that are his “peculiar people” and “the children of promise,” that are “not of the world,” his “church;”[18] (Book III, chapter 2)

All these things are true only of the redeemed, the elect of God from all eternity. But this is not the only group which Scripture knows. On the other hand, Scripture designates the reprobates in the following words:

…in opposition to them, are “the world,” “not prayed for,” “not his people:” as Tit. 2:14; Gal. 4:28; John 15:19, 17:9; Col. 1:24; John 11:52; Heb. 2:10, 12, 13. Which distinction of men is everywhere ascribed to the purpose, will, and good pleasure of God: Prov. 16:4, “The Lord hath made all things for himself, even the wicked for the day of evil.” Matt. 11:25, 26, “I thank thee, O Father, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.” Rom. 9:11, 12, “The children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.” Verses 16, 17, “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.”[19] (Book III, chapter 2)

Furthermore, Christ is said to die for the first group, but not for the second. He laid His life for “his people” (Matt. 1:21), His own sheep (John 10:11, 14), His "church” (Eph. 5:25; Acts 20:28)…

29

To put it at length in the words of Dr. Owen:

Now, how this reconciliation can possibly be reconciled with universal redemption, I am no way able to discern; for if reconciliation be the proper effect of the death of Christ, as is confessed by all, then if he died for all, I ask how cometh it to pass, — First, That God is not reconciled to all? as he is not, for his wrath abideth on some, John 3:36, and reconciliation is the aversion of wrath. Secondly, That all are not reconciled to God? as they are not, for “by nature all are the children of wrath,” Eph. 2:3; and some all their lives do nothing but “treasure up wrath against the day of wrath,” Rom. 2:5. Thirdly, How, then, can it be that reconciliation should be wrought between God and all men, and yet neither God reconciled to all nor all reconciled to God? Fourthly, If God be reconciled to all, when doth he begin to be unreconciled towards them that perish? by what alteration is it? in his will or nature? Fifthly, If all be reconciled by the death of Christ, when do they begin to be unreconciled who perish, being born children of wrath? Sixthly, Seeing that reconciliation on the part of God consists in the turning away of his wrath and not imputing of iniquity, 2 Cor. 5:18, 19, which is justification, rendering us blessed, Rom. 4:6–8, why, if God be reconciled to all, are not all justified and made blessed through a non-imputation of their sin? They who have found out a redemption where none are redeemed, and a reconciliation where none are reconciled, can easily answer these and such other questions; which to do I leave them to their leisure, and in the meantime conclude this part of our argument. That reconciliation which is the renewing of lost friendship, the slaying of enmity, the making up of peace, the appeasing of God, and turning away of his wrath, attended with a non-imputation of iniquities; and, on our part, conversion to God by faith and repentance; — this, I say, being that reconciliation which is the effect of the death and blood of Christ, it cannot be asserted in reference to any, nor Christ said to die for any other, but only those concerning whom all the properties of it, and acts wherein it doth consist, may be truly affirmed; which, whether they may be of all men or not, let all men judge.[23] (Book III, chapter 6)…

30

Dr. Owen in his own words:

The very phrases of “dying for us,” “bearing our sins,” being our “surety,” and the like, whereby the death of Christ for us is expressed, will not stand with the payment of a ransom for all. To die for another is, in Scripture, to die in that other’s stead, that he might go free; as Judah besought his brother Joseph to accept of him for a bondman instead of Benjamin, that he might be set at liberty, Gen. 44:33, and that to make good the engagement wherein he stood bound to his father to be a surety for him. He that is surety for another (as Christ was for us, Heb. 7:22), is to undergo the danger, that the other may be delivered…And this plainly is the meaning of that phrase, “Christ died for us;” that is, in the undergoing of death there was a subrogation of his person in the room and stead of ours…But concerning the word ἀντί, which also is used, there is no doubt, nor can any exception be made; it always signifieth a commutation and change, whether it be applied to things or persons: so Luke 11:11, Ὄφις ἀντὶ ἰχθύος, “A serpent instead of a fish;” so Matt. 5:38, Ὀφθαλμὸς ἀντὶ ὀφθαλμοῦ “An eye for an eye;” so Heb. 12:16; — and for persons, Archelaus is said to reign ἀντὶ Ἡρώδου τοῦ πατρός, “instead of his father,” Matt. 2:22. Now, this word is used of the death of our Saviour, Matt. 20:28, “The Son of man came δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὑτοῦ λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν,” — which words are repeated again, Mark 10:45, — that is, to give his life a ransom in the stead of the lives of many. So that, plainly, Christ dying for us, as a surety, Heb. 7:22, and thereby and therein “bearing our sins in his own body,” 1 Pet. 2:24, being made a curse for us, was an undergoing of death, punishment, curse, wrath, not only for our good, but directly in our stead; a commutation and subrogation of his person in the room and place of ours being allowed, and of God accepted.[26] (Book III, chapter 10)

If these things are true, how can it be said that Christ died in the stead of all men without exception? Why would God lay the sins of those whom He knew certainly to be damned upon Christ, to make Him their Mediator and representative Who fails to achieve His work? Did Christ die in the stead of those who were long damned or not?..

31

John 10
Owen points in particular to John 10:11, 15, 16, 27, 28 and says that this is a “clear place, which of itself is sufficient to evert the general ransom”[28] (Book III, chapter 11). First things first, only a particular people are among the sheep of Christ, and not everyone without exception. Second, some are explicitly said to not be sheep (John 10:26). Third, Christ is said to die for His sheep (John 10:11, 15). Fourth, the sheep are said to be known by Christ and they follow Him (John 10:27) and to whom Christ gives eternal life (John 10:28), which cannot be taken away from them (John 10:29).

Some will object that this place does not say that He died only for His sheep and that is true, but the point which they try to prove thereby is false. People are divided into two groups, namely, the sheep and the non-sheep (goats). These two groups are diametrically opposed to each other with different natures and different masters. There is no need to say that He lays down His life only for the sheep when the context makes those two different groups obvious. That which is said of the sheep is not true of the non-sheep. Notice that the death of Christ for His sheep leads to their eternal salvation, which is not true of everyone without exception, but it is absolutely true of the sheep.

In his own words:

That Christ so says that he laid down his life for his sheep, that plainly he excludes all others; for, — First, He lays down his life for them as sheep. Now, that which belongs to them as such belongs only to such. If he lays down his life for sheep, as sheep, certainly be doth it not for goats, and wolves, and dogs. Secondly, He lays down his life as a shepherd, verse 11; therefore, for them as the sheep. What hath the shepherd to do with the wolves, unless it be to destroy them? Thirdly, Dividing all into sheep and others, verse 26, he saith he lays down his life for his sheep; which is all one as if he had said he did it for them only. Fourthly, He describes them for whom he died by this, “My Father gave them me,” verse 29; as also chap. 17:6, “Thine they were, and thou gavest them me:” which are not all; for “all that the Father giveth him shall come to him,” chap. 6:37, and he “giveth unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish,” chap. 10: 28. Let but the sheep of Christ keep close to this evidence, and all the world shall never deprive them of their inheritance. Farther to confirm this place, add Matt. 20:28; John 11:52.[28] (Book III, chapter 11)

Romans 8:32-34
32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? 33 Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised— who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.

This is a vital passage in Owen’s entire book, dealt with several times on which he later says:

…I desire the reader to peruse that one place, Rom. 8:32–34; and I make no doubt but that he will, if not infected with the leaven of the error opposed, conclude with me, that if there be any comfort, any consolation, any assurance, any rest, any peace, any joy, any refreshment, any exultation of spirit, to be obtained here below, it is all to be had in the blood of Jesus long since shed, and his intercession still continued; as both are united and appropriated to the elect of God, by the precious effects and fruits of them both drawn to believe and preserved in believing, to the obtaining of an immortal crown of glory, that shall not fade away.[29] (Book IV, chapter 7)

World
It is simply false to claim that whenever the word "world” is used that it speaks of all of humanity without exception. In fact, Owen finds several senses of the word in both testaments, which I have put into a list:

For the created world:
The whole fabric of heaven and earth (Job 34:13; Acts 17:24; Eph. 1:4);
Heaven distinguished from the earth (Ps. 90:2);
The habitable earth (Ps. 24:1; Matt. 13:38; John 1:9; 3:17, 19; 6:14; 1Tim. 1:15; 6:7).
For the world contained:
Universally for all and everyone (Rom. 3:6, 19; 5:12);
Indefinitely for men, without restriction (John 7:4; Isa. 13:11);
Many (Matt. 13:7; John 4:42; 12:19; 16: 8; 17:21; 1Cor. 4:9; Rev. 13:3);
Comparatively, for a great part of the world (Rom. 1:8; 10:18; Matt. 24:14; 26:13);
Restrictively, for the inhabitants of the Roman world (Luke 2:1);
Men distinguished in their qualifications:
God’s people (Ps. 22:27 KJV; John 3:16; 6:33, 51; Rom. 4:13; 11:12, 15; 2Cor. 5:19; Col. 1:6; 1John 2:2);
The wicked (Isa. 13:11; John 7:7; 14:17, 22; 15:19; 17:25; 1Cor. 6:2; 11:32; Heb. 11:38; 2Pet. 2:5; 1John 5:19; Rev. 13:3).
For the corrupted world:
Gal. 1:4; 6:14; Eph. 2:2; James 1:27; 4:4; 1John 2:15–17; 1Cor. 1:20, 21; 3:18, 19; 7:31, 33; Col. 2:8; 2Tim. 4:10; Rom. 12:2.
For the worldly condition of men and things:
Luke 16:8; John 18:36; 1John 4:5 “and very many other places.”
For the accursed world under Satan:
John 7:7; 14:30; 16:11, 33; 1Cor. 2:12; 2Cor. 4:4; Eph. 6:12 KJV.
Extra: “All nations”:
Rom. 1:5; Rev. 18:3, 23; Ps. 118:10; 1Chron. 14:17; Jer. 27:7.
It is even true that the same word can mean different things even in the same verse or passage. This is what Owen calls an ἀντανάκλασις [antanaklasis], which is the repetition of the same word, but with a different meaning. He gives several examples to this effect (Matt. 8:22; John 1:10, 11; 3:6). Romans 9:6 may also be added to the list.

The best interpreter of the word “world” is the context. We cannot simply apriori define the word, without looking at the context and what Scripture says…

32

All, Everyone
According to Owen the word “all” does mean all without exception, but this is not its only use. In fact, this is not even the most used sense. I will simply quote Owen at length here:

That it is sometimes taken in the first sense, for all collectively, is granted, and I need not prove it, they whom we oppose affirming that this is the only sense of the word, — though I dare boldly say it is not once in ten times so to be understood in the usage of it through the whole book of God; but that it is commonly, and indeed properly, used in the latter sense, for some of all sorts, concerning whatsoever it is affirmed, a few instances, for many that might be urged, will make it clear. Thus, then, ye have it, John 12:32, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all unto me.” That we translate it “all men,” as in other places (for though I know the sense may be the same, yet the word men being not in the original, but only πάντας), I cannot approve. But who, I pray, are these all? Are they all and every one? Then are all and every one drawn to Christ, made believers, and truly converted, and shall be certainly saved; for those that come unto him by his and his Father’s drawing, “he will in no wise cast out,” John 6:37. All, then, can here be no other than many, some of all sorts, no sort excluded, according as the word is interpreted in Rev. 5:9, “Thou hast redeemed us out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.” These are the all he draws to him: which exposition of this phrase is with me of more value and esteem than a thousand glosses of the sons of men. So also, Luke 11:42, where our translators have made the word to signify immediately and properly (for translators are to keep close to the propriety and native signification of every word) what we assert to be the right interpretation of it; for they render πᾶν λάχανον (which ῥητῶς is “every herb”), “all manner of herbs,” taking the word (as it must be) distributively, for herbs of all sorts, and not for any individual herb, which the Pharisees did not, could not tithe. And in the very same sense is the word used again, Luke 18:12, “I give tithes of all that I possess;” where it cannot signify every individual thing, as is apparent. Most evident, also, is this restrained signification of the word, Acts 2:17, “I will pour out of my Spirit, ἐπὶ πᾶσαν σάρκα·” which, whether it compriseth every man or no, let every man judge, and not rather men of several and sundry sorts. The same course of interpretation as formerly is followed by our translators, Acts 10:12, rendering πάντα τὰ τετράποδα, (literally, “all beasts or four-footed creatures,”) “all manner of beasts,” or beasts of sundry several sorts. In the same sense also must it be understood, Rom. 14:2, “One believeth that he may eat all things;” that is, what he pleaseth of things to be eaten of. See, moreover, 1 Cor. 1:5. Yea, in that very chapter where men so eagerly contend that the word all is to be taken for all and every one (though fruitlessly and falsely, as shall be demonstrated), — namely, 1 Tim. 2:4, where it is said that “God will have all men to be saved,” — in that very chapter confessedly the word is to be expounded according to the sense we give, namely, verse 8, “I will, therefore, that men pray ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ·” which, that it cannot signify every individual place in heaven, earth, and hell, is of all confessed, and needeth no proof; no more than when our Saviour is said to cure πᾶσαν νόσον, as Matt. 9:35, there is need to prove that he did not cure every disease of every man, but only all sorts of diseases.[34] (Book IV, chapter 1)

The word “all” is most of the time not used to denote everyone without exception. This is evident in places like John 12:32 (compare John 6:37-44); Luke 2:1; 11:42 (“every”); 18:12; Acts 2:17; 10:12; Romans 14:2; 1 Corinthians 1:5; 1 Timothy 2:8; Matthew 9:35. Add to those also the following passages: Jeremiah 13:19 (comp. Jer 39:9-10); Matthew 2:3-4; 3:5; 5:11 (literally "all evil”); Mark 1:5; Luke 3:21; John 4:29; 8:2; Acts 10:39; 17:21; 21:28; 22:15; 26:4; 1 Corinthians 6:12. In all of these places and more, the better understanding of the expression is that it refers to all kinds of things (men, herbs, etc.), or all without distinction instead of all without exception. It is just too simplistic to take these expressions to be speaking of humanity without exception.

1 Timothy 2:4-6 speaks of all sorts of men, and specifically the elect of God. The passage does not speak of God’s will of desire, but God’s will of decree (see Book IV, chapter 4, see also here). The "all” and “every” in 2 Peter 3:9 is limited by the “you” (in the KJV "us-ward”), who are the elect and the beloved of the epistle (see Book IV, chapter 4, see also here). See also his comments on Hebrews 2:9 (see also here) and on 2 Corinthians 5:14-15 (see also here) in chapter 4…

33

Conclusion
John Owen makes a biblically and logically tight case for what is commonly but unfortunately called Limited Atonement. He extensively uses Scripture and Scriptural concepts to argue his case, which makes the case all the more convincing. Adding to the final and primary authority of Scripture, his good use of "sanctified” common sense and logic against universal atonement and for definite redemption. This work, while extensive and verbose, is truly a blessing and a very good case not only for Particular Redemption, but on the whole question of the accomplishment and application of redemption. Owen spent 7 years writing and researching for this book, and it is still the foremost defense of particular redemption. No learned theologian may dismiss “Limited Atonement” without first giving Owen a hearing.

Μόνῳ σοφῷ Θεῷ, διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. Ἀμήν.

Please bookmark this and read it thoroughly before responding. It will save us from repeating arguments that have already been addressed.

J.

1 Like
34

Johann----

You shared a lot. I have read John Owen and think he is a distinguished and great Puritan writer. But I just cannot agree with Limited Atonement. You may have listed this as one of your arguments that some use against Limited Atonement. But it says it all for me:

“He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world”.* (1 John 2:2).

I agree with this whole-heartedly:

1 John 2:2 teaches that Jesus Christ is the atoning sacrifice not only for believers’ sins but also for the sins of the whole world, meaning His sacrifice is sufficient for all humanity, though effective for those who believe.

I believe John is showing clearly that Jesus definitely died for ALL people. Everyone in the world has the offer extended to them. But John is also (through his wording) acknowledging that not ALL will RECEIVE it. BELIEVERS do—but a lot of the world will REJECT it.

I know that this next verse is referring to the unbelief of Israel towards God, but I also think that it raises a valid point: Is Limited Atonement LIMITING the God of Israel:

“Yea, they turned back and tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel” (Psalm 78:41)

God is INFINITE. What makes more sense? That Jesus would die for SOME or that He would die for ALL? I still believe fully that when Peter says that the Lord “is not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance” that it is clearly stating that the offer of salvation is open to ALL men. But God knows that not ALL will receive Him. When we go back to that verse in 2 Thessalonians we see that God “blinds them” AFTER they refuse to “love the truth that they might be saved”. They made their choice, so now God hardens them completely.

35

Purpose
The Savior’s purpose was to be a Savior. Not a potential Savior, but an actual Savior. That is the meaning of Jesus, namely—Yahweh saves! In fact, in Matthew 1:21, the angel explains the Savior’s name saying, "you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” The Lord described His mission when He said that “the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost” (Luke 19:10; Matt. 18:11 KJV). Paul, the Lord’s Apostle, makes a similar statement, saying:

1Tim. 1:15 The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.

Well, did He or did He not accomplish that which the Father and He Himself intended? Did He, or will He save the lost and those whom He came to seek or not? Will He save His people or will He not? Had He a people in mind when He offered Himself on the cross or not? Our Lord is not a potential Savior, but an infallible and actual Savior, by virtue of His worth and Father’s will for Him. It was the purpose of the Trinity in the atonement to save, redeem, free people from their sins.

In Hebrews 2:14-15, we read that Christ through His incarnation and self-giving “destroy[ed] the one who has the power of death” and thereby “deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.” Does Christ try to deliver all people without exception, or does He actually deliver His people from the power of Satan and sin (cf. Rom. 6-7)? The passage begins with “Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood”. We have to ask ourselves, which “children” are that, and we will find our answer in the previous verse. ‘And again, “I will put my trust in him.” And again, “Behold, I and the children God has given me.”‘ These are citations from Psalm 18:2 and Isaiah 8:17. The children are in other words, the elect, all those whom the Father gave to the Son. It is for their sake that He partook of flesh so as to deliver them. Will He or will He not deliver all those for whom He died and whom He intended to deliver?

Ephesians 5:25-27 is a passage that cannot be ignored when discussing the atonement as it deals with both the purpose as well as the scope of the atonement. There we are told that Christ’s love is specific and is toward the church, which led Him to give Himself for her sake. This is the model which husbands are called up to follow. They are to be faithful to their wives and lead and love them like their Lord loved His church. This passage mentions explicitly the purpose of His self-giving, which is to “sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5:26-27). The purpose of His self-giving was the complete and eternal salvation of His church. Notice how the passage explicitly mentions that His church was the object of His atonement and the one who receives its benefits. Christ does not die for other “wives.” He is a faithful husband, and He has only one wife, and the reprobate are certainly not his “bride.” Therefore, at the least, the ends mentioned in this passage do not concern the reprobate but only the elect, even if we should say that Christ’s death was for all men without exception, which we will not. The church is the only object of His love and sacrifice in this passage. By mentioning the idea of a wife and a church, the passage makes explicit that the scope and effects mentioned are limited to His bride alone.

Titus 2:14 is to the same effect as the aforementioned passage. Christ had a purpose in His self-giving, which was “to redeem us from all lawlessness” and also “to purify for himself a people for his own possession”. The scope in this passage is likewise limited. He does not redeem all from lawlessness, although that was the purpose of His self-giving and certainly He can accomplish all that He desires. Furthermore, notice that Christ’s second purpose, which is mentioned in this passage, is that a specific people might be set apart for Him. He does not desire to have all people for His own possession, but He desires that “a [specific] people for his own possession”. This brings to mind the promises of Exodus 19:5-6, which are a reality under the New Covenant people of God (1Pet. 2:9).

After the two aforementioned passages, Owen asks:

Are all men of this church? Are all in that rank of men among whom Paul placeth himself and Titus? Are all purged, purified, sanctified, made glorious, brought nigh unto Christ? or doth Christ fail in his aim towards the greatest part of men? I dare not close with any of these.[9] (book II, chapter 3)
Owen.

Good to hear you have read his book @Fish153.

J.

36

§1 The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit
The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word; 1 by which also, and by the administration of baptism and the Lord’s supper, prayer, and other means appointed of God, it is increased and strengthened. 2
John 6:37, 44; Acts 11:21, 24; 13:48; 14:27; 15:9; 2 Cor. 4:13; Eph. 2:8; Phil. 1:29; 2 Thess. 2:13; 1 Peter 1:2[2]
Rom 4:11; 10:14, 17; Luke 17:5; Acts 20:32; 1 Peter 2:2
Faith is a grace that’s why the Confession specifically speaks about the grace of faith (Eph. 2:8-9). Our faith is a gift from God (chapter 11:1). This faith is said to be that whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls—it is the sole instrument of justification (chapter 11:2). Furthermore, this grace of faith…is the work of the Spirit of Christ (John 6:63; Ezek. 36:25-27). Faith is our response to the call of God, but it does not originate with us. It is granted to us by God and it is worked in us by the Holy Spirit through regeneration and the creation of the new man in Christ. It is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word (2 Thess. 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:23), i.e., by the preaching of the gospel coupled with the work of the Spirit of Christ. This faith is further strengthened by the means of grace. These are the gospel ordinances, baptism and the Lord’s Supper. But also prayer, Bible reading and study, the communion of the saints and other things prescribed and commended in the Word of truth. By these means, faith is not created, but it is increased and strengthened.

J.

37

1 John 2:2
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. 1 John 2:1-2 (ESV)

(For a better and more recent defense see here.)

The first word to examine is propitiation. Propitiation (ἱλασμός, G2434) means the appeasement of (divine wrath of) God. Thus it means the forgiveness of sins as seen for example in Rom 3:25, 1 Jn 4:10. If we take the “sins of the world world” to mean the sins of every single individual who has ever lived, then we have Universalism on our hands, which is not consistent with the whole testimony of the Bible. Second, we know from the Bible that we have to believe to be saved, we need to have faith to be redeemed (Rom 10:9-10; c.f. “Repentance and faith are necessary for salvation”).

There is a passage in the Gospel according to John that is very similar to 1 Jn 2:2 and I believe it will help us understand what 1 Jn 2:2 is talking about. The passage is Jn 11:51-52.

1 John 2:2 John 11:51-52
He is the propitiation for our sins, …he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation,
and not for ours only… and not for the nation only,
but also for the sins of the whole world… but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.

John, as a Jew apostle of Jesus was talking to fellow Jew believers and telling them that God not only has a special love for Israel, but also for people/nations outside of Israel. That, Jesus didn’t only die for His people according to the flesh, but also for those who were not Jews, which was shocking to the Jews. This is almost the same message of love that God has for people/nations other than Israel in Jn 3:16.

So, when we put 1 Jn 2:2 and Jn 11:51-52 together to understand 1 Jn 2:2 better, we see that the Apostle is using the word “the whole world” in 1 Jn 2:2 not as every individual who lives or has lived, but more as the “children of God who are scattered abroad.“ And those are the ones for whom Christ died, the Gentile elect and the Jew elect.
Owen

J.

38

Johann----

Thanks for the post. No—Christ did not fail. You did mention earlier that the Bible says that in Isaiah it says he will justify “many”. I would take the other side of the coin on this and say that it says “many” because not ALL will avail themselves of salvation. Jesus died for ALL but “many” will be made righteous because some will reject the salvation offered to them.

Again, it says in 2 Thessalonians that they refuse to "love the truth" THEREFORE God blinds them even more and the result is damnation. But they have to REJECT the offer first.

Another example is in John 3:18 where it talks about the serpent lifted up in the wilderness. The serpent was lifted up FOR ALL (anyone who would look upon it). But only those who chose to look upon the serpent were saved—the rest perished.

“And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:18)

"The Lord said to Moses, “Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live. So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they lived. (Numbers 21).

ANYONE who was bitten could look at the bronze serpent on the pole and live. But everyone HAD to look to live. They could choose NOT TO LOOK if they wanted. It would be incredibly stupid (but it is also incredibly stupid that people reject Jesus Christ, but they do!).

The bronze serpent wasn’t for SOME—it was for ALL. The word WHOSOEVER is key in John 3:16, and here in John 3:18 also.

1 Like
39

Brother, I think you’ve assumed the very point that needs to be proved.

Regarding Isaiah 53, you say “many” means Christ died for all, but only many accept it. The problem is that Isaiah never says that. He says, “My righteous Servant shall justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities” (Isa. 53:11). The conjunction כִּי (“for”) is causal. The many are justified because He bore their iniquities. Isaiah does not separate the bearing of sin from the justification that results. If Christ bore the sins of every individual in exactly the same substitutionary sense, then every individual should be justified. That is Isaiah’s own logic.

You also appealed to 2 Thessalonians. But that passage is about God’s judicial judgment on those who reject the truth. It is not a passage about the extent of the atonement. It cannot be used to prove that Christ substitutionally bore the sins of every individual. You’re importing a conclusion into a text that isn’t addressing that question.

The bronze serpent is another example of the same problem. Numbers 21 and John 3 teach how salvation is received, by faith. They do not answer for whom Christ intended to die. I gladly affirm that everyone who believes will be saved. Reformed theology has never denied that. But the extent of the atonement and the means by which its benefits are received are two different questions.

Notice something else. In Numbers 21, the bronze serpent was not raised for the Egyptians, Canaanites, or the surrounding nations. It was lifted up for the covenant people of Israel who had been bitten. Jesus uses the serpent as an analogy for the necessity of faith, not as a comprehensive explanation of the extent of the atonement. We must be careful not to make the illustration prove more than Jesus intended.

Finally, your position repeatedly says, “Christ died for all, but…” Scripture repeatedly says, “Christ died for His people” (Matt. 1:21), “for the sheep” (John 10:11, 15), “for the church” (Eph. 5:25), and Isaiah says He bore the sins of those He justifies (Isa. 53:11). Those are explicit statements. If you believe Christ died substitutionally for every individual without exception, then I would simply ask you to produce a text that explicitly says that. Not one that says God loves the world or commands all to repent, but one that actually says Christ bore the sins of every individual in the same substitutionary sense He bore the sins of His people.

That’s the question the texts themselves require us to answer. I’ll gladly accept the paradoxes you offer from Scripture.

Shalom brother.

J.

40

What are the threefold offices of Christ? What does it mean that Christ is the mediator of the New Covenant? What is Christ’s Active and Passive Obedience? Did Christ, by His death, atone for the sins of all mankind or only for His elect? What is ‘limited’ in ‘Limited Atonement’? What about passages used against Limited Atonement?

§1 It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus
It pleased God, 1 in His eternal purpose, 2 to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, his only begotten Son, according to the covenant made between them both, 3 to be the mediator between God and man; the prophet, priest, and king; head and saviour of the church, the heir of all things, and judge of the world; 4 unto whom he did from all eternity give a people to be his seed and to be by him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified. 5
Isa. 42:1; John 3:16[1]
1 Pet. 1:19-20
Ps. 110:4; Heb. 7:21-22; Isa. 42:1; 1 Pet. 2:4-6
1 Tim. 2:5; Acts 3:22; Heb. 5:5-6; Ps. 2:6; Luke 1:33; Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23; Heb. 1:2; Acts 17:31
Rom. 8:30; John 17:6; Isa. 53:10; Ps. 22:30; 1 Tim. 2:6; Isa. 55:4-5; 1 Cor. 1:30
The only begotten Son was from all eternity chosen and ordained (Isa. 42:1; 1 Pet. 1:19-20) to be the mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5). This means that having Christ to be the Savior of sinners and the Incarnation were not afterthoughts in God. God did not plan them after the Fall of man, but set them in motion after the Fall. This choosing and ordaining of Christ as mediator was according to the covenant made between them both, i.e., the Covenant of Redemption (see chapter 7:2). Even before sin and before the world was, the Lord Jesus was to be the Savior of His people. The Confession goes on to name the threefold offices of Christ as prophet, priest, and king. He is also the head and savior of the church (Col. 1:18; Acts 5:31). The heir of all things (Heb. 1:2), Who will inherit everything and believers are co-heirs with Him (Rom. 8:16-17). He is also the One Who will judge the living and the dead (Acts 10:42; 17:31; 2 Tim. 4:1). All these offices and functions were agreed upon by the Persons of the Trinity even before the foundation of the world. God from all eternity gave a people to be His seed and to be by Him in time redeemed (John 17:2, 6; Isa. 53:10) and given all the blessings of redemption. All these considerations make the Fall a necessity within God’s decree. For if there is no Fall, then it means that there is no sin and therefore, no need of a savior. But if Christ is said to be ordained as Savior even before the creation of the world, then this means that there will be sinners who will be saved by Him, which makes the Fall an important part of God’s plan.

J.