Not too long ago I was sitting at a coffee shop chatting with an old friend about my “calvinist” days. This friend was very arrogantly against Calvinism and everything it stood for. As I was asking questions about their faith journey in their different traditions to which they seemed to just “blindly stumble” upon. When it came to my tradition: Calvinism; the friend shot it down as an “irrational” way of viewing the gospel.
I had plenty of grievances with Calvinism to share, the one I do not share is that it is “irrational.” Some of the greatest minds who have ever lived were Calvinist even if they did not necessarily refer to themselves in that language, their theology pointed to this framework.
People like Timothy Keller, arguably one of the most influential modern day preachers and Christian authors of our time. Keller held paint christianity as a viable option in a world full of reason and skepticism. Keller helped make church planting strategic for the mission of changing culture at large by way of giving us an example in being a church in New York City who helped plant more churches throughout that city and cities to come.
People like Jonathan Edwards, the young preacher who played a major role in the First Great Awakening. The man went to Yale University at age 13, wrote his famous “Seventy Resolutions” as a teen for the most part.
Charles Spurgeon, a man who proudly identified as a Calvinist is commonly referred to as “The Prince of Preachers.” Spurgeon if there ever was one, was born to preach. He was that kid soaking up the word at a young age, diving into the library he had access to because he was different!
The idea that “you have to be stupid to be a Calvinist” is an arrogantly ignorant comment to make. In fact, it was the Calvinists in my church who were asking tough questions and giving real answers to those questions. You did not have to worry about the Calvinist preachers in the 2000’s giving short sermons that barely scratched the surface. No these guys would spend a whole hour on one verse, explaining the greek or hebrew. They were walking line by line, carefully dissecting every word on the page.
The Doctrine that Convinced Me
I was very resistant to Calvinism at first. It just seemed stupid. When you see a passage like For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life(John 3:16 NIV); how can you believe that God would only choose a few to be saved? He obviously according to the most famous passage in the world wanted everyone to be saved.
But as I continued to read the Scriptures and apply good reason to how things play out. There would be passages every now and then that really were hard to push away.
I remember an instance a couple years after my family had left our church I grew up in, where I came across my old Youth Pastor at a local bluegrass concert in town. He was with his family and friends and I was there because my dad has old taste in music. I go talk to my former Youth pastor though and I find myself telling him something along the lines of “yeah, I can see me becoming a Calvinist.”
I said it like “yeah, I was exposed to the disease and I’m started to have a runny nose so I’m sure I got it and its only a matter of time before it really hits.”
I’m not sure how much longer after, but I eventually did find myself reading the Scriptures and the doctrine that I uncovered in the Scriptures that opened the door for me was the doctrine of Limited Atonement.
What is ‘Limited Atonement’?
The doctrine of limited atonement is built on atonement theory. Atonement theory “is a theology of the cross, how it works and what it accomplishes”(The Blue Parakeet by Scott Mcknight). And for the Calvinists, their understanding of the atonement is in my mind the anchor that really holds down the rest of the doctrines.
There are a few different theories present in atonement theory. For the Calvinist though, they believe in the doctrine of limited atonement which means their “theology of the cross, how it works and what it accomplishes” is limited in it’s scope and effectiveness.
Before you hear that and quiver, Calvinists view the atonement as limited not based on a limited view of who God is and what he can accomplish but more so on what they believe he did in fact accomplish.
For many of us who grew up in the church, we believe that Jesus died for the whole world to be saved. Meaning that Jesus shed his blood, died on a cross with the intent to save the whole world yet the problem is that Jesus either failed(because you likely know plenty of people who are not saved and will not be saved by the time they die) or the payment for sin that he paid by his blood was only effective for a few.
The basic idea of the limited atonement is that Jesus died, not for the whole world but for His chosen people. Meaning, Jesus died for only the people who would be saved. Their debt has been paid for. The wrath of God against them for their sin, has been dealt with; thus they can enter the Kingdom of God because God has been fully satisfied on their behalf by the blood and work of Jesus.
Everyone else though, who were not chosen, were not paid for. Otherwise, if it had been, their payment would have been wasted which means Jesus’ blood would have been wasted on their behalf because they will not be saved.
This doctrine also falls in line with the idea of God being a just God. God would not be a just God if he punished both Jesus and those who would not be saved for the same crime. That would be what we call “double punishment.” So the cure of this doctrine is that Jesus paid the price for those whom God chose before the foundation of the world to be saved.
Now this is contrary to much of the way we evangelicals have probably been raised to view the atonement. Much of the way we have been trained to view the atonement is with a blind acceptance and not a questioning of the mechanics of it all.
But J.I. packer offers this description of the opposing view of Calvinism’s doctrine of limited Atonoment:
Christ’ death did not ensure salvation of anyone, for it did not secure the gift of faith to anyone; what it did was rather create a possibility of salvation for everyone if they believe.
What Packer is explaining here is that for those of us who are not Calvinists, and maybe by default land in a more ‘Arminian’ way of understanding salvation, we do not believe that Jesus’ death was actually saving anyone, rather it was more of an offering to save you if you wanted to be saved.
This idea of us maybe wanted to be saved goes directly against the early Calvinist’ doctrine of total depravity though. The doctrine of total depravity teaches us that our hearts, minds, souls are so corrupted, that if Jesus’ death was a mere offering that we could either accept or reject, we would 110% of the time reject it because of the brokenness inside of us desiring anything but the good Christ has to offer.
This is why John Owen challenges this unlimited view of the atonement As R.C. Sproul quotes in his book ‘What is Reformed Theology’:
First, if the full debt of all be paid to the utmost extent of the obligation, how comes it to pass that so many are shut up in prison to eternity, never freed from their debts? Secondly, if the Lord, as a just creditor, ought to cancel all obligations and surcease all suits against such as have their debts so paid, whence is it that his wrath smokes against some to all eternity? Let none tell me that it is because they walk not worthy of the benefit bestowed; for that not walking worthy so part of the debt which is fully paid, for the debt so paid is all our sins. Thirdly, is it probable that God calls any to a second payment, and requires satisfaction of them for whom, by his own acknowledgment, Christ hath made that which is full and sufficient?”
Because when Jesus died we hear our savior say “it is finished”(John19:30 ESV) we can rest assured according to the Calvinist that our faith, our salvation is guaranteed to us(God’s elect). What this does it is gives us the assurance of our salvation that God finished the work he sought out to do.
All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”(John 6:37-40 ESV)
These words from Jesus were the words that had me leap over to the side of the Calvinist. My belief that God is a just judge means that I do not believe he would make Jesus and the guilty party pay for the same crime. Either Jesus died for all which means he wiped out the chance anyone would go to hell because the punishment for their sins has been satisfied by the death of Jesus; or Jesus only died for those whom would be saved.
Those who would be saved are God’s elect. God the Father “chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will”(Ephesians 1:4-5 ESV). And those whom the Father has given to the Son will be the sons. They will not be cast into hell, they will not be charged for the crimes they have committed all because Jesus took on what they owed of God’s divine wrath and satisfied it on their behalf.
A Limiting View of the Cross
All that I just described about the atoning work of Jesus makes complete sense to me. I believe any rationale person seriously committed to the Scriptures can understand why a Calvinist believes what they believe. My point of issue with their understanding of the cross has less to do with whether it is right or wrong; and more so to do with the limits of what they believe the cross actually accomplished.
I agree, Jesus death dealt with the wrath of God on our behalf. I also believe the cross did more than just satisfy an angry God. And when we view the cross and Jesus’ work as only that of a sacrifice to an angry God, we completely miss out on the life changing effects of what the God who is Love does at the cross.
God is More than Angry
I know that much of the “reformed resurgence” that happened especially in the late 90’s to early 2000’s was a response to the ever growing seeker sensitive “emerging” church model that was gaining steam. With so much talk from preachers in Hawaiian shirts(Rick Warren) that preached messages that were more like a dad telling you “you can have a better life with Jesus.” The young, restless, and reformed crowd came in with guns blazing pushing back on this idea of Jesus being a “loving God in the sky” who comes across more as a pushover than a God to be worshipped. In fact, one of my earliest memories of Mark Driscoll was him teaching on Jesus in Revelation riding in on a white horse with a tattoo on his thigh entering into battle. Driscoll sought to recapture the wrath of God in his sermons.
The Calvinists helped recapture an image of Jesus that was coming to handle business. He was not flip floppy or a pushover. He was confident in accomplishing the work that the Father sent him out to do. This image of Jesus is one that can stand up against the wrath of God on our behalf and take it all. He is a God worthy to be worshipped.
The problem is, I believe many of the Calvinists went to another extreme. Suddenly saying “God is love” was dangerous. It sounded too much like the words of the culture. I noticed this first hand when the song “Child of Love” was being debated as either biblical or not and the case for it being not was because it should say “child of God” not “child of love”.
Both Can Be True
The cross did in fact, atone for our sins. But it did so much more and it is okay to believe that God accomplished more on the cross than just satisfy his anger.
Scot McKnight in his book ‘the Blue Parakeet’ gives us three theories of the atonement: recapitulation(“he became what we are so we could become what he is”), the ransom theory also known as “Christus Victor”(Jesus came to liberate us from “the forces of sin, systemic evil and Satan”), and then the satisfaction theory(“God is satisfied himself and he is satisfied with Christ and therefore he is satisfied with us in Christ. This means we are justified.”).
McKnight acknowledges all of these theories as pieces to the whole to what God was doing at the cross and rebukes pitting them against each other. Instead McKnight offers the solution of approaching the Bible with more of a, as he calls it, “King and His Kingdom Story” approach.
When we approach the atonement in this way we gain a bigger picture of what God was actually accomplishing at the cross and it pushes back against our limited ways of explaining the cross.
How Do We Approach the Atonement?
First Mcknight says that we need to understand that God’s overall goal throughout the storyline of the Bible is for his Kingdom to be ushered in the new heaven and new earth. The overall plot of the story is one of God establishing His kingdom on earth as in heaven and redeeming people into the Kingdom, so that those who were once sinners can now be made saints. Those who were lost are now found. The reality of understanding this first piece is understanding that there is a point to all of this. God is not trying to just save a few and everyone and everything get tossed into the cosmic trashcan; rather God is actively redeeming the whole world(yes, there is a such thing as hell but that’s not the point).
The second piece of this puzzle Scot offers to us is that “humans resist God’s will, refuse allegiance to King Jesus, and jeopardize their location in God’s Kingdom.” The first piece understands the overall goal and vision God has for us. The second piece acknowledges the hole we are stuck in. In our resisting God’s will, we have become enslaved to not just human authorities, or sin, but also spiritual principalities and powers. We have way more against us than just the sins we commit. We do not just need saving from our sin. We need saving from the death that sin brings us, and from the spiritual principles and powers that are set up against us to keep us in bondage. McKnight says: “Our problem then is not simply failure to obey God but a complex set of ways we find to evade God’s will and resist God’s Spirit and rebel against the King Jesus. From this sin condition we need redemption.” Our sin condition is not just the idea that we sin(we fail to live holy, righteous lives), but rather that the whole characteristic of our lives are that of being in bondage to something greater than just the cuss words we toss out from time to time. Rather, our sin condition is bigger than just the personal sins we commit. Our sin condition encapsulates our sins we commit as well as the effects and how they play out into the world through the systems of injustice that we build as well as the ways we have teamed up or been victimized by the spiritual powers and principalities at work in our world today.
Our third piece is “the atonement itself is a death on the cross that was anticipated by millions of sacrifices in Israel’s history.” As we learn throughout specifically the Old testament when it comes to how do we atone for this sin condition we are in, we must atone for it through the same means of what it bring us: death. We kill death with death. Here is where we see Jesus’ atoning work on the cross not just be that he dies so that we can live but rather he dies, and brings back new life, reversing the curse. Where death was the curse for our sin condition. Resurrection is the blessing that Jesus now offers to us.
And the fourth piece to this puzzle is in simple terms that because of what Jesus does, new creation is unlocked. A new birth has been found and extended onto all those who believe. By way of what Jesus does he is healing us from all these damaging effects of our sin condition.
The final piece to this approach on the atonement is that the “atonement is about rescuing humans from one condition(sin) and relocating them in a new condition(the Kingdom of God).” McKnight also says “the new creation then is both personal/individual and corporate. New creation is as much about the body of Christ, the church in the world, as it is about you and me experiencing personal conversion.”
How Does this Affect Us?
When we take a step back from debating the limits of who Jesus died for, we can better understand that Jesus did not just die for our individual sins we have committed, but he has also redeemed us from powers beyond us.
Like Moses leading the people out of Egypt, Jesus has led us out of bondage to our sin condition. New life is possible because death has been defeated. The cross is an act of war.
I love the image of Jesus in the Revelation(19:13) of John where it shows Jesus going into battle with blood already on his robe. This depiction should make you question “how is he bloody if he has not entered the battle yet?” To which the answer is that he already won the battle. He did not have to take anyone’s else’s blood because he willingly gave his own. Thus, he is victorious before he even enters the battle.
When we take a step back and view what Jesus did at the cross was something more than saving us from a personal sin we committed, we can begin to understand the weight of what is actually been against us this entire time.
As the desert fathers and mothers pointed to; we have the world, the flesh, and the devil against us. And at the cross, Jesus conquered them all. He set us free from the systemic evils present in our society today. Whether that is the inherent racism/prejudice that much of our country was built on, or the corrupt ways our leaders rule over us laying burdens on us that we cannot carry. To Jesus also saving us from the shadow sides of ourselves whether that be: porn addiction, to alcoholism, to hypocrisy and gossip. The list could go on. And Jesus did not just stop there when it came to setting us from form our enslavers, rather he also dealt with the devil himself. Jesus set us free from the enemy who seeks to “kill, steal and destroy”(John 10:10).
The cross sets us free. So then we can indeed live free.
Rationale
I came to Calvinism because it made logical sense to me. It is not a stupid understanding of soteriology. Rather Calvinism can hold its own in a fight. It often does. But at a certain point, I had to remember the story I’m buying into as a Christian is one that does not always make sense. It is not always as black and white as I would like. And the atonement in its scope of who it affects is one that I do not believe Jesus cares as much about us debating over. Theology matters, soteriology matters; but when we miss the overall story of what God is doing because we are fixating on a small detail that Paul was not even as focused on then I think we have gotten trapped inside on our own minds and we need to repent and turn back to Jesus and what he actually has for us.
We keep arguing over who is saved; Jesus was busy saving. And he has called us to join into that work. To get out of our libraries, to get out of our own minds from time to time and join him in this work of redeeming what has been lost.
So, is Calvinism’s view of Limited Atonement wrong?
I have no idea. It makes sense, but I do believe God was accomplishing more at the cross than what this small piece of the atonement theory has to offer.
Leave a comment