On the atonement, part 6: universal atonement fails to actually accomplish redemption for anyone
Posted on Tuesday, March 31, 2009 under papers with the following tags: doctrine, faith, limited atonement, ordo salutis, salvation.In this series, I forward a considered case for a universal atonement, presenting what I find to be the most compelling arguments for it, defining what exactly it entails, and interacting with the most common and persuasive objections against it.
This is part 6 of 6, in which I consider and confute the objection that a universal atonement would not actually secure or guarantee salvation for anyone.
⇐ Continued from ‘On the atonement, part 5: universal salvation, or double payment’
The last objection I’ll interact with in this series is the one which tries to show that a universal atonement is really an impotent atonement. In the words of one correspondent, in a private email exchange, people such as myself
clearly cannot say that the satisfaction of Christ secures the salvation of all those for whom it was made [...] The atonement itself does not guarantee the salvation of those for whom it was made [...] All the satisfaction can do is make it possible for God then to choose whom to save and then to secure their salvation by some other means. Moreover, since there is no other satisfaction made to his justice, this other means (eg, irresistible grace) is simply an exercise of God’s sovereign will, not an act stemming from the justice of God (eg, to fulfill the obligation arising from the satisfaction of his justice).1
At first glance, this seems like a good objection. It certainly gave me pause for thought. But upon reflection, it begins to appear rather confused. I think there are at least three obvious difficulties with it:
I. Huh? And, so what?
Firstly, what does it mean to say that the atonement does not guarantee or secure the salvation of all those for whom it was made? These terms are ambiguous. I can, for instance, go to SkyCity Chartwell and secure tickets for myself to see a movie. This guarantees that I will have a seat if I show up and present my ticket. But it doesn’t guarantee that I will show up and present my ticket. So, with that analogy in mind (even if it is a rather pecuniary one), it doesn’t appear that the objection—as stated at least—gains much traction against the universal view, under which Christ purchased movie tickets for everyone, but only the elect bother to show up at the cinema.
In light of this, I think the objection needs to be rephrased. What actually seems to be at issue is whether or not the atonement is a sufficient cause of justification. Under the universal view, of course, it is only a necessary cause—it had to happen in order for anyone to be justified, because it provides the grounds for justification by providing satisfaction to God’s justice. But it does not itself effect that justification, since although the satisfaction was made on the cross, there are still other conditions which must be fulfilled in order for it to be applied to anyone. This seems to be what the particularist is objecting to—yet it’s hard to see why he considers it a problem. It looks rather like he is just begging the question again. There aren’t any clear reasons for rejecting the view that the atonement is a necessary-but-not-sufficient cause of justification—except that it it doesn’t fit into the framework of particular atonement.
II. The alternative is unscriptural…
Secondly, as I’ve covered already in this series, the view that the atonement is, in and of itself, the sufficient cause of justification is highly problematic. If it were the case that the atonement “secured” salvation for the elect in the sense which is apparently intended by this objection—namely, that it satisfied the demands of God’s justice against all the elect, and this satisfaction itself guarantees their salvation—then it follows inevitably that the elect are justified from the cross. Since God’s wrath toward all the elect was appeased in about 29 AD, no elect person after that time could be under his wrath. But we know from Scripture and from experience that, in fact, we are all “children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3) until we are made a “new creation” (2 Corinthians 5:17) by the rebirth in the Spirit. If the particularist is right in his objection, then he has some hard questions to answer regarding the purpose of the rebirth and the ordo salutis.
III. …while the view being objected to is scriptural
Thirdly, on the other side of that coin, the view which the particularist is objecting to is manifestly biblical. Indeed, it is the Reformed view—so he seems to be contradicting himself. Notice how the objection is that, under the universal view, the satisfaction of Christ only makes it possible for God to choose whom to save, and that he then has to secure their salvation by some other means. Well, maybe this is stating the obvious, but…“other means” such as faith? If, in fact, we are “justified by faith” (Romans 5:1), then plainly it is impossible that we are justified by the atonement as the particularist seems to want to say—that is, that the atonement itself is the sufficient cause of our justification. This is why we aren’t justified from the cross—because justification is by faith. (Unless the particularist is suggesting that we are justified twice—and it’s very hard to see what that even means.) Certainly, the atonement is a necessary cause of justification, since it provides the very grounds for satisfying the demands of God’s justice against us. And certainly, even, the work of Christ (whether in the atonement or not) is a necessary cause of our faith also, since Jesus is both its founder and perfecter (Hebrews 12:2). But just as certainly, the particularist cannot turn around and say that what he means is that the atonement must be the sufficient cause of faith, and by this relationship is then also the sufficient cause of justification. Clearly it is not. The atonement does not, in and of itself, bring about faith. Once more, without emotion: the atonement is the grounds for faith and for justification. It is what makes them possible—but it isn’t what makes them actual. It is the indwelling of the Spirit which makes faith actual; and it is faith which makes justification actual.
So this final objection once again highlights why it is so unreasonable to treat the atonement as a simple pecuniary transaction, as the particularist view is wont to do. Rather than gaining any real traction against universal atonement, it tends rather to discredit itself—as has been the case with all the rest of the objections I’ve handled.
To conclude, then, I can find no good reason to believe that the atonement is limited in the sense which most Calvinists today seem to mean. Rather, it is the historical alternative which is both reasonable and scriptural: namely, that Christ, in his death, represented all mankind, satisfying the demands of the law before God, and so made salvation possible for everyone without distinction who might appeal to that atonement—though it is apprehended only by the elect, through faith.
- ↑ Quoted from an email to the Reformed Baptist Discussion List; for those with member access, see http://rblist.org/archive/msg56767.html.
Dominic – thanks so much for stopping by my blog. Your entire series has been refreshing. I’ve become a big fan.
Now if I had a REAL solution for the terminology – I’d have coined it and made my millions. “Objective” is still the word I cling to most. But that doesn’t communicate well without qualification. Hey – I know! Let’s not put anything before it at all – and just call it the “atonement” – the way Scripture does! Naw, that’ll never work.
Keep thinking and writing. You are helping many of us out here. As a former near-hyper-Calvinist (hence my HIGH-per Calvinism label) recovery is not easy. The obstacles are many. Friends in the dialog are most welcome.
Blessings brother.
I am happy to have found your site and ideas so readily and abundantly available to me! While I have not skimmed through your website as of yet, I am pleased with this one article.
I have one question, and it does apply to the subject of this article, though it could be treated in its own, and that is, Why is faith necessary for justification?
Since Christ represented all mankind by becoming sin, becoming a curse, and bearing the full cup of the wrath of God for sin, burying the flesh and the sin of man by sacrificing His body unto death, why isn’t this transaction not made for all men, and only to those who follow the example of Abraham and believe?
I have thought a little about this, and all that has come to my mind is this: faith is necessary only to make the actual atonement and the subsequent peace with God subjectively real and experienced by the sinner. Apart from the consent of faith, of course this reality couldn’t be experienced and enjoyed.
For example, if ten men committed a crime and were sentenced to prison for life, but all of them were told by the Sheriff that an innocent man has stepped forward to go to prison for them, they could not and would not walk out free men until they believed this.
So until we believe Christ has paid it all, we cannot and will not believe on the grounds of the truth, that we are free from the law and sin and death. In this way, I can see why faith is necessary for salvation (justification).
But, why, as universalism claims, won’t Christ’s atoning work cover all our sins and save us all from condemnation and death, since His transaction is sufficiently paid for it all? Why is our faith necessary for the eternal salvation of our souls?
Thanks for reading. I would love to hear what you think!
Hi Ken—good question. I’m not sure we are explicitly given an answer in Scripture, but let me make some comments:
1. It doesn’t appear that faith is logically necessary to salvation. That is, God could have made the mechanism of justification entirely objective, with no involvement on our part at all. He could have simply applied the atonement to everyone he chose, and declared them righteous, even if they never knew about it. There isn’t anything logically difficult with that view, as far as I can see.
2. Apropos (1), evidently faith is a teleological requirement rather than a logical one. That is, in God’s plan, faith has a certain indispensable purpose. It isn’t logically necessary to justification per se, but it is necessary to the kind of salvation that God wants. Faith, then, appears to be a stipulation based on God’s specific purposes in redemption.
3. This purpose appears to be to glorify a covenant people. God does not want to merely forensically justify sinners so as to save them from hell. He wants to forensically justify them as the grounds and starting point for then sanctifying and glorifying them. As you correctly point out, the subjective apprehension of this justification in the sinner is a necessary condition for further sanctification.
4. In line with (3), faith itself is a return to the proper order of things. This is the way man was designed to be—in a relationship of trust with God, where he is epistemically grounded on God. That relationship was destroyed in the fall, but is restored by faith. Sanctification would be impossible without that foundation. I would say that faith, itself, is a form of sanctification in that respect.
Hope this helps,
regards,
Bnonn
I think Dominic is right. What we have to remember is that God’s intention in saving us or his goal is not just justification. This is a mistake Arminians tend to make. Rom. 8:30 says he predestined to glorify us; to conform us to Christ’s image. This is to live solely unto God. God isn’t as much interested in justifying us so that we can escape Hell but continue to live as we want as he is in saving us so that we can begin to really live; and true life is to know and love God.
Thus faith must be the condition or means of justification because as soon as one has a proper view of himself and God, faith is the only possible response. We cast ourselves on God completely. I think this supports Dominic’s last two points.
I tend to shy away from thinking about God’s works as if he had more than one way of doing things. Since he is perfect, he will and thus can only do the perfect thing, so he saved through faith because there is no other option. This, I am sure, will be debated and I am not being dogmatic, but sometimes the “of all possible worlds” form of thinking seems to be a little presumptuous to me. But I would love to hear other peoples’ take on it.
I actually misunderstood the meaning of your term “universal atonement” and understood you to be talking about the part of the unbiblical doctrine of universal reconciliation. Now, as I have read more of the series, I get what you mean. Sorry about that.
Both of you are right, and honestly, how refreshing it is to hear such knowledge pouring forth in a concise and systematic way. Probably being less disciplined as yourselves, and not yet so trained in the Word of God, I tend to be more visual and conceptual (or right-brained) in my thinking. So I appreciate what I see is a clear impression of your careful use of terms and phrases in explaining truth.
I agree God intends not only on a partial salvation, such as mere justification and peace now, but a full salvation, increasing in knowledge and love unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ (i.e. Christ-likeness), consummating in glorification. And without faith this “growth in grace” would be impossible, since justification is the ground for sanctification.
What I was touching on, however, was why, in the end, faith is necessary for Christ’s atonement to apply to all men in the day every unbeliever stands before the great white throne. If Christ represented man as a transgressor of the holy law of God, and as a substitute He suffered the wrath of God for sin, will any man suffer the same, though a representative paid the penalty of sin and died in his stead?
I know the answer is yes because Scripture is clear that all who are not written in the Lamb’s book of life will be cast into the lake of fire and suffer the second death. But if Christ represented every man, since every man is a transgressor and under condemnation, and He put those things away, burying them in His death, why do many stand outside of this universal propitiation to be judged at the last day?
In other words, why doesn’t the atonement cover all peoples apart from faith, since Christ’s death and resurrection is exclusive to no one in its representativeness?
Perhaps there is a more specific boundary or limit to the atonement. It seems to me that unless a person’s spirit is washed by regeneration and the renewal of the holy Spirit while there is life in his body, his spirit will remain unclean because of sin when his body dies, and eventually when his body is raised, the same sin which still remains and the unclean spirit that was not washed will again defile the second body, thereby making any salvation impossible, and the only appropriate response of a holy God is to consume such in fire and brimstone. Maybe this is it’s logical explanation? I don’t know. Does any of this even make sense? Both of your thoughts are appreciated.
Hi Ken,
I don’t think that I really disagree with what you are saying for the most part. I am not sure I would explain it quite like you did in your last paragraph. Let me comment, though, on your statement in your fourth paragraph where you seem to use the reasoning that if Christ was representing all men on the cross why aren’t all saved. Of course this is the classic Universalist’s mistake because it assumes that his work is automatically applied to all at the same time. I think Dominic addressed this to some extent in his article and would suggest rereading it again.
My quick answer would be found in Romans 5 where Paul explains Federal Headship by showing the correlation between becoming sinners in Adam and becoming righteous in Christ. One thing I had to struggle with before coming to the view that Dominic writes about is when did I get “in Christ” or how does Federal Headship work.
I was initially taught that we (the elect) were in Christ while he was on the cross so when he died, I died. Thus, conversion is merely me finding out about the fact that my sins were already forgiven in Christ. The problem with this is I didn’t exist when Christ died, so I couldn’t be a sinner, let alone a justified sinner when I didn’t exist. I wasn’t justified until I was united to Christ at conversion by the Holy Spirit. Rom 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me. Notice that Paul understands that that some were in Christ before him because they were saved before he was.
Now let’s think about how this works in the first Adam. When did I become a sinner? When Adam sinned? No, I didn’t exist then. I became a sinner when I recieved his life at conception. So when did I become righteous? When I recieved Christ’s life at conversion. Both at the time of Adam’s and of Christ’s work it was set in stone that I would become a sinner and justified, yet it didn’t happen until I was joined to them.
The reason I think this applies somewhat to your post is that we have to understand that Christ’s death gave the potential for God to justify sinners but by itself does not accomplish justification. I am pretty sure Dominic addresses this in his article. In this way double jeapordy doesn’t enter into the equation because no one sins but the elect are forgiven because they are the only ones enabled to partake of Christ by faith.
Charles Hodge has a quote that I find helpful if you understand what he is saying. “If the nonelect should believe, he would be saved and if the elect does not believe he will be lost”. Some have a hard time with this because it is somewhat theoretical but he is merely pointing out that Christ’s death is of no value until the means of justification is applied in faith. Hope this helps and doesn’t confuse, if it confuses I will refrain from posting. Thanks
Hi Ken—as Nathan says, I do deal with this question several times during the course of the study. Look in particular at parts 1 and 5. But his explanation is a good one also.
Regards,
Bnonn
Well that’s interesting.
While I do believe the Christian died at the time of his regeneration, which is what you’re saying, I do not refrain from believing the death which the Christian dies indeed occurred before he was ever born.
Because it is the death Christ died in time two thousand years ago that we participate in now when we die two thousand years later in our baptism (not referring here to water baptism). It is Christ’s death which makes our death substantial and powerful. Our death is not our own. “We died with Him” seemed to be a favorite expression of Paul’s. Were we “in Christ” when He died? No, we weren’t, for like you said, we didn’t exist. But did we die with Christ? Yes, and that’s not just to say He died and sometime later we died, but there is an inextricable reality of oneness when a Christian is suddenly baptized into Christ and into His death.
In conclusion, the Christian dies a death, which happens when any sinner repents, but the death he dies is Christ’s death, which happened on the cross. If I read you right, Nathan, you would agree with this. I don’t feel filling up this webpage with more posting would suit its purpose, but if you would like to discuss these things any further you may ask Dominic for my email.
I haven’t ever heard of Federal Headship or Forensic Imputation till now, for which I thank God for Dominic and this part of the website. I believe John MacArthur takes a similar position. He has taught me much of what I know about Biblical doctrine, but he doesn’t use these terms on a normal basis, so they were unknown to me.
I agree with your arguments. I think the challenge for me is to find arguments or an explanation of the atonement and Federal Headship that touches a different part of the mind. Anyways, Grace and peace to you both.
Hi Ken,
If you are saying that the death we die is the participation of the death of Christ two thousand years ago, I have no problem with tisi. But like you said also, it doesn’t happen until we are saved in time so it didn’t happen when Christ died, it happens when we participate in it. I think we are saying the same thing but it seems almost like you are trying to say two different things at once. At least this is what it sounds like; please let me know where I am missing your point.
“We died with him” might mean that in the mind of God we are as good as “dead” but we don’t die until the Spirit does his job in us. All this might be symantics but as long as we don’t fall into the trap of eternal and cross justification, then it is OK.
I don’t mind getting your email address if Dominic wants to send it to me, if you would like to discuss this some more.
thanks, Nathan