Arminian Today

A Jesus-Centered Arminian Blog

Biblical Arguments For And Against An Unlimited Atonement (Part 1)

When it comes to the doctrine of election, I believe the strength or weakness of the arguments for unconditional election lies in the doctrine of the atonement of Christ. If Jesus did in fact die for only the elect and this can be proved from the Scriptures than the argument is much stronger that election according to Calvinism is biblically true. However, if the opposite is true and the Scriptures can be shown to teach that the atonement is for all people than the doctrine of election as taught by Calvinist falls short of the biblical standard for sound doctrine.

This one doctrine – the doctrine of the atonement, is the basis for the arguments over conditional versus unconditional election. I want to examine the biblical arguments for and against an unlimited atonement because if the atonement is not unlimited than unconditional election must be true. The basis for the Arminian understanding of the atonement is fundamental to our view not only of God Himself and His nature but also to the gospel itself and its application to the believer.

Defining The Views Upfront
Essentially there are two main approaches to the atonement that we will examine. The first will be the arguments against the Arminian view and thus the biblical basis for the Calvinist understanding of the atonement of Christ. Then we will look at the Arminians basis for teaching an unlimited atonement. Lastly we will look at the Calvinist questions of the Arminians viewpoint with counter arguments from an Arminian view of the Calvinist critique.
The basic understanding of the atonement that we will study is essentially this:
Calvinism – John Calvin taught (although this is debated among Calvinist) that the atonement is limited in its application and thus Christ died only for the elect. Calvinist theologians such as Dr. Samuel Storms, Dr. John Piper, or Dr. Michael Horton all hold firmly to the teaching that Christ died for only the elect. However, this does not mean that the gospel should not be preached to all men since only God knows who the elect are. This is why Scripture often uses the word “world” or “all” when speaking of the atonement because while the death of Jesus is sufficient for all men, its application is only to the elect known and chosen by God Himself by His own wisdom and knowledge and only by His grace. The Scriptures clearly teach that Jesus died for the elect (see Isaiah 53:11-12; Matthew 1:21; John 6:37; 10:11; Acts 13:48; Romans 8:29-30; 9:18; 1 Corinthians 1:30-31; Ephesians 1:3-14; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Timothy 2:10; etc.). While there have been hyper-Calvinist such as John Gill who taught that evangelism was not necessary since God Himself will save the elect, many Calvinist such as Jonathan Edwards or Charles Spurgeon opposed such a view and taught that while the Bible teaches unconditional election and God does sovereignly save by His grace and power alone, nonetheless we are still called to preach the gospel to all nations (Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15; John 20:21; Acts 1:8; 2 Corinthians 5:18-21).
Arminianism – James Arminius taught that election was indeed a biblical doctrine but he simply rejected unconditional election. Arminius taught that Christ’s death on the cross provides salvation for all who would believe and repent (Acts 17:30). He saw clearly in the Scriptures that Jesus died for all men (Luke 19:10; John 3:16; 5:24-25; 20:31; Hebrews 2:9; 1 Peter 3:18; etc.) and he concluded that it was not God’s will for anyone to perish in their sins but to repent (2 Peter 3:9). While salvation is a gift from God and is not earned in any way (Ephesians 2:8-9), Arminius saw once man met the conditions for salvation, God had promised in His Word to save them (Acts 2:36-41). The elect are those foreknown by God (Romans 8:29-30; 1 Peter 1:1-2) and are saved by faith in Christ’s death and resurrection (Ephesians 1:3-14; Romans 10:9-13). Arminius read 1 Timothy 4:10 which says, “For this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe” (ESV). Therefore, Arminianism teaches that Christ died for all men and that the elect are those who meet the conditions that God has set forth in His Word. Arminianism does not teach works-salvation or that we co-operate with God for our salvation nor does this negate the sovereignty of God but enhances the goodness, grace, and love of God for humanity.
More To Come
So join me in our study of the atonement as we see how Christians differ over the doctrine and its application to sinful men. However, may both the Calvinist and the Arminian rejoice over the saving work of Christ and the fact that there is power in the cross. Salvation is clearly proclaimed in the Scriptures and while we might differ over those whom Christ died for, let us not neglect to tell all men that they must repent and be saved by the cross of Christ alone.

Written by The Seeking Disciple

04/11/2008 at 5:03 PM

14 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I go with option #2. I do, however, look forward to you sharing further.

    David H. Willis

    04/12/2008 at 10:30 PM

  2. I go with option #2. I do, however, look forward to you sharing further.

    David H. Willis

    04/12/2008 at 10:30 PM

  3. Dear brother,

    John Gill was not a Hyper-Calvinist, much has been written on the subject and I could recommend some great sources that delve into the topic in a fair and accurate manner.

    I am looking forward to your series on the topic and I will pray that the Spirit guide you in your endeavor.

    Praise be to God

    Mitch

    04/13/2008 at 12:43 AM

  4. Dear brother,John Gill was not a Hyper-Calvinist, much has been written on the subject and I could recommend some great sources that delve into the topic in a fair and accurate manner. I am looking forward to your series on the topic and I will pray that the Spirit guide you in your endeavor.Praise be to God

    Mitch

    04/13/2008 at 12:43 AM

  5. Iain Murray, in his book SPURGEON VS. HYPER-CALVINISM, argues on pages 125-32 that Gill was indeed a hyper-Calvinist and he cites several of his books and sermons to prove his point. While it is clear that near the end of Gill’s life the hyper-Calvinist movement was fading (thank God), it appears that Gill remained a hyper-Calvinist to his death.

    I am aware that others argue differently but without a doubt Gill was a five point Calvinist and he opposed preaching the gospel to all men. He strongly advocated predestination and unconditional election as not only biblical but THE gospel. Arminianism was not only branded heretical but Gill felt they possibly were not even saved because of their rejection of Calvinism.

    The Seeking Disciple

    04/13/2008 at 1:54 PM

  6. Iain Murray, in his book SPURGEON VS. HYPER-CALVINISM, argues on pages 125-32 that Gill was indeed a hyper-Calvinist and he cites several of his books and sermons to prove his point. While it is clear that near the end of Gill’s life the hyper-Calvinist movement was fading (thank God), it appears that Gill remained a hyper-Calvinist to his death.I am aware that others argue differently but without a doubt Gill was a five point Calvinist and he opposed preaching the gospel to all men. He strongly advocated predestination and unconditional election as not only biblical but THE gospel. Arminianism was not only branded heretical but Gill felt they possibly were not even saved because of their rejection of Calvinism.

    The Seeking Disciple

    04/13/2008 at 1:54 PM

  7. Dear brother,

    I pray that you are using more than one source to make such claims; I would also hope that you yourself have taken the time to look at the writings of Gill and evaluate the man in context and with his own words. Here is a quick link that clearly shows that Gill preached that the gospel call is to be preached to all men:

    ´The gospel is indeed ordered to be preached to every creature to whom it is sent and comes; but as yet, it has never been brought to all the individuals of human nature; there have been multitudes in all ages that have not heard it. And that there are universal offers of grace and salvation made to all men, I utterly deny; nay, I deny that they are made to any; no, not to God`s elect; grace and salvation are provided for them in the everlasting covenant, procured for them by Christ, published and revealed in the gospel, and applied by the Spirit .”

    link here is the complete article for your review.

    I have not read Murray’s book, but I have read Gill and would never say that he was a hyper-Calvinist. You are correct though that he was a strong 5 point Calvinist.

    Praise be to God

    Mitch

    04/14/2008 at 1:30 AM

  8. Dear brother,I pray that you are using more than one source to make such claims; I would also hope that you yourself have taken the time to look at the writings of Gill and evaluate the man in context and with his own words. Here is a quick link that clearly shows that Gill preached that the gospel call is to be preached to all men:´The gospel is indeed ordered to be preached to every creature to whom it is sent and comes; but as yet, it has never been brought to all the individuals of human nature; there have been multitudes in all ages that have not heard it. And that there are universal offers of grace and salvation made to all men, I utterly deny; nay, I deny that they are made to any; no, not to God`s elect; grace and salvation are provided for them in the everlasting covenant, procured for them by Christ, published and revealed in the gospel, and applied by the Spirit .”link here is the complete article for your review.I have not read Murray’s book, but I have read Gill and would never say that he was a hyper-Calvinist. You are correct though that he was a strong 5 point Calvinist. Praise be to God

    Mitch

    04/14/2008 at 1:30 AM

  9. I have not read Gill’s writings other than those online and only sections of those. I know that Spurgeon spoke highly of Gill since Gill was the pastor of Park Street Baptist Church before he was. Murray, in his book, says that while Gill was a hyper-Calvinist in that he opposed offering salvation to all who hear, he never based his ministry on the hyper-Calvinist views. Murray does feel that Spurgeon was too kind to Gill when Spurgeon was opposing hyper-Calvinism of his own day.

    Murray himself is a five point Calvinist.

    According to sources I have read on the internet (and you can’t always trust those), some feel Gill is wrongly accused (as you do) and then others feel Gill should be viewed as a hyper-Calvinist. I think the arguments go both ways. To his credit Murray does quote several of Gill’s sermons and books to make his point that Gill was a hyper-Calvinist.

    I do think the term hyper-Calvinist is often misused by some of my Arminian brethren when refering to Calvinism in general. I would say that many modern Calvinist are not hyper-Calvinist and yet to many Gill’s statements on Arminianism and the gospel call appear to be hyper-Calvinist. Perhaps it was the language of his day, the theology of his time, etc. but either way Gill (at times) has made statements that appear to oppose a gospel message to all.

    The Seeking Disciple

    04/14/2008 at 1:39 AM

  10. I have not read Gill’s writings other than those online and only sections of those. I know that Spurgeon spoke highly of Gill since Gill was the pastor of Park Street Baptist Church before he was. Murray, in his book, says that while Gill was a hyper-Calvinist in that he opposed offering salvation to all who hear, he never based his ministry on the hyper-Calvinist views. Murray does feel that Spurgeon was too kind to Gill when Spurgeon was opposing hyper-Calvinism of his own day.Murray himself is a five point Calvinist.According to sources I have read on the internet (and you can’t always trust those), some feel Gill is wrongly accused (as you do) and then others feel Gill should be viewed as a hyper-Calvinist. I think the arguments go both ways. To his credit Murray does quote several of Gill’s sermons and books to make his point that Gill was a hyper-Calvinist. I do think the term hyper-Calvinist is often misused by some of my Arminian brethren when refering to Calvinism in general. I would say that many modern Calvinist are not hyper-Calvinist and yet to many Gill’s statements on Arminianism and the gospel call appear to be hyper-Calvinist. Perhaps it was the language of his day, the theology of his time, etc. but either way Gill (at times) has made statements that appear to oppose a gospel message to all.

    The Seeking Disciple

    04/14/2008 at 1:39 AM

  11. We will disagree on this my brother, I think those quotes that are trotted out against Gill are usually taken out of context. In fact, the quote that I provided for you is sometimes used to say that Gill was a hyper, usually because the whole quote is not given, however in context you can clearly see that there is nothing hyper about what he said.

    I will look forward to your series on the topic and pray that the Spirit guide you.

    Praise be to God

    Mitch

    04/14/2008 at 2:19 AM

  12. We will disagree on this my brother, I think those quotes that are trotted out against Gill are usually taken out of context. In fact, the quote that I provided for you is sometimes used to say that Gill was a hyper, usually because the whole quote is not given, however in context you can clearly see that there is nothing hyper about what he said. I will look forward to your series on the topic and pray that the Spirit guide you.Praise be to God

    Mitch

    04/14/2008 at 2:19 AM

  13. Thank you for your kindness.

    The Seeking Disciple

    04/14/2008 at 2:21 AM

  14. Thank you for your kindness.

    The Seeking Disciple

    04/14/2008 at 2:21 AM


Comments are closed.