If Christ died for every person, then in some respect it’s possible that all men can be saved. Yet, if it is possible for all unelected people to be saved, then how can unconditional election and irresistible grace be necessary for one’s salvation? And if those graces are not necessary for salvation, then how does such a theological system avoid spiraling downward to an Arminian notion of depravity and autonomous freedom, which would further lead to a view of foreknowledge that would undermine God’s utter independence or aseity? 

The aim of this installment is to shed light on why a non-Reformed view of the atonement subverts Christian orthodoxy as it relates to a divine intention to redeem by the undivided works of the Trinity. Stated positively, only limited atonement coheres with God’s intention to save. In what follows below, attention will be given to the theological implications of “four-point Calvinism” and anti-Calvinism in an effort to show why such non-Reformed views of the atonement are incompatible with the Christian church’s understanding of the triune God.

Christ’s High Priestly Prayer

Being a priest, Jesus prays for the efficacy of his atoning sacrifice. In doing so, the Savior prays for those given to him by his Father. Perhaps most striking is not that Christ prayed for those chosen in him but that he positively excludes from his prayer the rest of mankind, which he refers to as the world. (In passing we might note that “world” need not refer to every person God could save but can also refer to those he has sovereignly determined not to save.*)

“I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours.”

John 17:9

Had Scripture merely revealed that Jesus prayed that his atoning sacrifice and persevering grace would be applied to the elect, that of itself would not imply that he did not ever pray or desire that his shed blood would be applied to those who would not believe. However, the hypothetical possibility of the salvation of every person becomes theologically untenable when we consider that Jesus explicitly limits his prayer of efficacy to the elect alone. In other words, Jesus decidedly prayed that God’s saving grace not be extended to those not chosen in him.

Now, of course, those who reject limited atonement can counter with Jesus’ plea upon the cross that forgiveness be extended to those who mocked him and were instrumental in his crucifixion. (Luke 23:34) They can also point to the mandate of 1 Timothy 2:1-4, that we are to pray for all people without distinction. Of course, Calvinists have rejoinders to those sorts of objections to limited atonement. Perhaps the prayer in Luke’s gospel was fulfilled at Pentecost recorded in the second chapter of Luke’s Acts. Or perhaps the man, Christ Jesus, prayed as all humans are instructed in 1 Timothy 2:1-4 to pray, not only that Christians might flourish under biblical governance but that God might be pleased to save those who from our human perspective might be elect. Lastly, just maybe Paul is telling Timothy that we must pray for all kinds of people, such as those in authority over us, because God will save from all classes of people. Regardless of the correct interpretation, the takeaway is simply that exegetical interpretation is subject to theological commitment and theological commitment is largely shaped by exegesis.

It is safe to assume that the Calvinist-Arminian impasse won’t likely be resolved anytime soon given the human factor. Notwithstanding, the discussion and charitable debate may must ensue. In the spirit of the Ninth Commandment, we ought always to strive for a deeper and more critical understanding of opposing positions along with greater consistency with respect to our own theological systems. One way to approach such matters with intellectual integrity is to evaluate the downstream implications of opposing views in an effort to test which can successfully maintain Christian orthodoxy while maintaining its own position. (1 Corinthians 11:19)

The Atonement and God

From a Reformed perspective, limited atonement,** which is an adequate term that need’t be reworked for the implacable, is a crucial doctrine if we are to do justice to the orthodox doctrine of the inseparable operations of God and a divine intention to save.

One God, Will and Purpose in Salvation

God’s acts are necessarily undivided because Christ is one in being with the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. If all three persons of the Trinity are involved in every action of creation, providence and grace, then it follows that although God eternally exists as three distinct persons, there is an external unity in what God does. The unity of divine actions are a necessary consequence of God being a simple being who is not made up of parts. 

Although all God’s acts are indivisible, Scripture often attributes particular works to distinct divine persons and not to the one triune God. So, with respect to redemption: the Father chooses, the Son redeems, and the Spirit seals and sanctifies. Nonetheless, theologically we understand these particular acts of God as the Father saving his people in Christ by the Spirit. Accordingly, attributing particular divine acts to distinct persons needn’t puzzle us with thoughts of tritheism if we remain mindful that Scripture presents an ordering of the external works of God that are appropriate to the eternal personal relations of divine origin (unbegotten, begotten, and procession). So, with biblical fluidity, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself through the rebirth by the Holy Spirit. (John 3:8; 2 Corinthians 5:19) Similarly, it is by the the new birth the blood of Christ purifies the believer’s conscience of dead works in order to serve God because Christ through the eternal Spirit has offered Himself without blemish to God. (Hebrews 9:14)

Read More