This point of Calvinism is based on the understanding that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross doesn’t just potentially save people, it actually saves them. The word often used to describe Christ’s atonement for us is that it was “efficacious,” meaning it accomplished exactly what God intended it to accomplish. Calvinists can present an impressive biblical argument that Christ’s atonement does indeed save us. Because they prefer to emphasize what God is intending to do—and actually doing—in the act of atonement, Calvinists sometimes prefer to describe this belief as particular redemption or definite atonement. But they’re quite clear about the implications of this belief: everyone Christ died for is saved; only the elect will be saved; therefore, Christ died only for the elect, only for those God has already chosen to save. This is why the traditional name for this belief is limited atonement; the atonement is limited—in this understanding—to the elect, to those God has chosen to save.
Non-Calvinists are quick to point out some serious weaknesses in this belief, however. The conclusion that Christ died only for a select group, and not for everyone, may seem perfectly logical and even unavoidable to Calvinists, but we never see it articulated in Scripture at all. That seems strange. Not only that, but this belief seems to directly contradict passages in Scripture that say Jesus did in fact die as the atonement for all. Here are just a few examples:
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29)
That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe. (1 Tim 4:10)
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)
There are many, many other passages we could list as well, from a wide range of Scripture.
Because this belief seems to so fly in the face of clear scriptural evidence to the contrary, many Calvinists have rejected this point, and refer to themselves as “four-point Calvinists.” But more consistent, five-point Calvinists have an effective challenge for their four-point brothers and sisters: Why would Christ die for those he never intended to save? What conceivable purpose would he have in doing this? And for anyone rejecting this belief, they can ask: So, does the atonement of Christ not actually accomplish what it’s intended to accomplish? Does it just potentially save people and not actually save them? Calvinists can argue that this is actually limiting the atonement of Christ! Both sides can effectively challenge each other as to whether their views are consistently sound biblically and theologically. It’s hard to find all of the elements of either position in Scripture.
So, how do we square this circle? Amazingly, this presents no conundrum at all for the universal restorationist. We don’t have to dance around what we see clearly in Scripture, or somehow introduce ideas we don’t find there. We can simply believe everything we see Scripture teaching about this, and follow the Word of God where it leads us: yes, God does desire to save everyone; yes, Christ’s atonement does actually save those for whom he died; yes, Christ did die for everyone and make atonement for the whole world; so, yes—as we see in Scripture—God will reconcile and restore everyone he has created. Christian universalists actually do believe Christ died specifically for the elect—we just believe that ultimately we’re all the elect, he chose to save everyone! So, his atonement is particular, definite, and completely unlimited! Once again, we can embrace the strengths of both sides of this debate without being bound to the weaknesses of either Calvinism or Arminianism.
From (bonus) chapter fourteen, “Calvinism, Arminianism, and Universalism” in Until the Last One’s Found: An Introduction to Universal Reconciliation and Restoration by Curt Parton.
Calvinism, Arminianism and Universalism
Divine Sovereignty and Human Free Will: Comparing 3 Views
Universalism and Unconditional Election
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.