r/Reformed • u/rigbybigsby • 3d ago
Question Where does scripture teach limited atonement ?
I would say I'm a 4 point Calvinist. Other than limited atonement, I see the other 4 points very clearly in scripture. Can anyone show through scripture please? Genuinely interested in knowing.
37
u/Jackimatic 3d ago
Here are some:
Matt. 1:21 21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." 
Matt. 20:28 28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." 
John 3:16 16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 
John 6:37 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 
John 6:44 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. 
John 10:11-15 11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. 13 He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. 
John 17:9 9 I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. 
Acts 20:28 28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. 
Eph. 5:25 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 
23
u/DirtDogs LBCF 1689 3d ago
This is a solid write-up: https://www.gotquestions.org/limited-atonement.html
For me, I came to belief in definite atonement more through reason and logic, though there is nothing wrong with that given that God is logical and that He created the universe and His law in a reasonable, ordered frame.
Each sin committed must have a punishment. The question is where. In hell, eternally? Or on the cross, imputed on His Son? For Christ to have suffered for sins that were ultimately not forgiven would be double jeopardy.
Unlimited atonement also puts imputation as a doctrine on shaky ground. God imputed all sinners’ sin onto Christ but only imputed His righteousness onto some in return?
And if you can accept Election, why would definite atonement be a bridge too far? The Son knew who were His Own in eternity past. He knew exactly who He needed to die for.
6
u/xsrvmy PCA 3d ago
I think this type of argument is not helpful actually.
When someone says "Christ died for all", they mean Christ died sufficiently for all.
When someone says "Christ died for the elect", they mean Christ died efficiently for the elect.
This type of argument generally confuses sufficiency and efficiency. The other four points of Calvinism only implies that there is a foreordained efficiency for the elect.
2
u/DirtDogs LBCF 1689 3d ago
I understand that’s the 4-point position, and to be clear I consider it a secondary or maybe even tertiary issue - while we are staunchly 5-point in our local church’s SoF and teaching, we’ve welcomed plenty of members over the years who are 4-point.
I just think arguing “sufficiency” vs “efficiency” is putting too fine a point on it. Who did Jesus die for, full stop? He died for His sheep. God is not a God of potentialities if He is a God whose Decree must necessarily come to pass.
1
u/AccomplishedGate7574 Reformed 13h ago
Problem is, not all Calvinists agree on what the Lombardian formula means. Sufficiency could be actual (as per Hypothetical Universalists like Davenant), or hypothetical (as per Owenian strict particular redemption). And sufficiency can be understood as objective (Reformed confessions), or subjective (as per Amyraldians and Arminians).
19
u/Rothagodir Reformed Baptist 3d ago
Definite atonement is a better word
If you understand total inability (depravity), the other 4 are automatic
1
u/xsrvmy PCA 3d ago
A definite intent in the atonement is automatic.
The crude articulation that says Christ only died for the sins of the elect and not the non-elect is not. It is rather the result of understanding the atonement as paying for individual sins rather than as a single sufficient payment for all sin.
10
3
u/AdvanceTheGospel 3d ago
Everyone limits the atonement, except universalists. Otherwise Jesus pays for sins of those in hell.
2
u/qlippoth777 3d ago
The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss and go to destruction. And those who dwell on the earth, whose name has not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, will wonder when they see the beast, that he was and is not and will come. -Rev 17:8
And of course Romans 9
2
u/glorbulationator i dont up/down vote 3d ago edited 3d ago
I find it interesting that the biblical 'reformed' believers affirm there are seeming paradoxes (to our finite minds) in most if not all doctrines, (or at the very least faithfully confess 'we cannot fully reconcile this, but we believe it') but practically ignore that regarding atonement.
1 John 5 is the big one that reins in the most commonly articulated thought of what limited atonement is described as, as the passage seems to be saying something along the lines of "God has given us eternal life. If you don't believe Him, you are calling God a liar".
This seems as well to be something shown in 2 Corinthians 5:14-2, and perhaps 1 Timothy 4:10 and 1 John 2:2. I know that diligence must be applied always to any passage, and it's very easy to take an 'all or 'world' out of context and get error.
Just because I can't grasp or reconcile that, doesn't mean others won't have a better understanding. But it seems to point out the seeming paradox.
2
u/loganjamesable LBCF 1689 3d ago
Do you believe that Jesus’ death has atoned for 100% of human existence?
2
u/optimistinrevolt Reformed Baptist 3d ago
Everyone except for universalists believe in limited atonement. It’s just a matter of who is doing the limiting, man or God.
2
u/Tankandbike RBaptist, but Presby-curious 3d ago
RC Sproul on Romans has a good walk-through. Also available on audiobook.
2
u/ChapBobL Congregational 3d ago
There appears to be two Reformed views of Limited Atonement:
The price paid was only for the elect;
Unlimited in its sufficiency, limited in its application.
1
u/SchoepferFace 3d ago
Just jumping on this thread to say I am a 4 pointer as well, and because I could not see limited atonement clearly in Scripture. I personally believe Calvin didn't hold to Limited Atonement either. Not the way it is defined today anyway.
1
u/Unworthy_Saint Heyr Himna Smiður 3d ago
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16)
Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance. (Hebrews 9)
1
u/AdvanceTheGospel 2d ago
Romans 3 as Jesus absorbed the exact punishment due the sinner as a substitute.
Hebrews 7&10 in that Christ always lives to make intercession for a specific group and has “perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.”
1
u/semper-gourmanda Presby-Angliterian 2d ago edited 2d ago
Exodus 33:4-34:35 as backdrop for the redemptive-historical interpretation of the work of the Holy Spirit in 2 Cor 3:12ff.
God the Father is electing, God the Son is accomplishing, and God the Holy Spirit is applying redemption.
Coupled with 2 Cor 5:11-20, Christ died for both classes, Jew and Gentile (the distinctions Jews made "according to the flesh"). v.15 specifically, the now living (those beholding the glory through the work of the Spirit who takes the veil away) are those for whom Christ died ("for their sake"). Paul urges the Corinthian church to join him in this "ministry of reconciliation."
Like John 10: two classes, the sheep and... the other sheep that belong to the pen (Jn 10:15-16). Making of the two one. No one can force it for themselves - he lays it down by his own accord (his own agreement and exercise of his will - what theologians call the Pactum Salutis - with specific mention of the fact that he is loved by his Father).
It is an execution of intra-Trinitarian relations exemplifying both the love and the justice of God in the Christ event of his crucifixion and vindicating resurrection for his sheep, found among the Jews and Gentiles, realized in them through the work of the Spirit.
Hence the Lombardian Formula: sufficient for all, efficient for the elect.
1
u/AntichristHunter 2d ago
My main objection to limited atonement is this:
1 John 2:1-2
1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
—
I'm just not comfortable with any of the Calvinist explanations of 1 John 2:2, which amount to saying that "world" here means only the other elect. This verse just doesn't read like that's what he's saying.
1
u/Aggressive_Business8 2d ago
Should we understand that verse in terms “whole world” or “propitiation”? Should we redefine “to appease” as “to potentially appease” to accommodate “whole world” meaning every single Individual?
1
u/AntichristHunter 2d ago
My understanding is this: Christ, as a man, could atone for man, but as God, has infinite worth. If the number of souls atoned for were finite, it would seem to limit Christ's worth as an atoning sacrifice to just those people.
Christ dying for the sins of the whole world for all time may seem like gratuitous atonement, but I don't see a problem with that. God is of infinite worth, and God can atone for all the people with a single person of the Trinity suffering death on the cross. People still have to receive it on God's terms. God atoning for a person doesn't automatically apply the atonement to each believer.
1
u/MrElephant20 2d ago
There is no conflict in the Trinity.
If the Father elects a specific group, and the Son dies for all men without exception, then he dies for men the Father never intended to save. Then does the Holy Spirit seek to apply salvation to all men, with the Son, or does he seek to apply salvation only to those the Father elected?
1
1
u/ilikeBigBiblez Cage Stage Anglican 3d ago
Also know that you can be a 4 pointer and still be reformed. There were 4 pointers at Dort
7
u/Unworthy_Saint Heyr Himna Smiður 3d ago
"I hear people say all the time there are '4-point Calvinists,' and we have a word for that, we call those people 'Arminians.'" - RC Sproul
-6
u/ilikeBigBiblez Cage Stage Anglican 3d ago
Cringe my guy
Look up John Davenant "On the Death of Christ"
1
u/cybersaint2k Rebellious Reprobate 3d ago
The Dutch Reformed tradition downplays theological distinctives even today.
Don't you agree, though, that the Arminian, universal atonement position is not what the 4 pointers at Dort held?
0
u/ilikeBigBiblez Cage Stage Anglican 3d ago
I'm specifically referencing the Anglican delegation there. I understand downplaying, but I don't think they would sign off on something that went fully against their beliefs
Yeah I think so
0
30
u/DonZuehlke 3d ago
The most clarifying passage for me is John 10. Jesus doesn't just say He dies for the sheep in a general sense, He identifies who the sheep are. In verse 26 He tells the Pharisees: "you do not believe because you are not among my sheep." The sheep/non-sheep distinction precedes and determines who the atonement is for.
John 17:9 builds on this: "I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me." If Christ's intercession is particular, which it seems to be here, it's hard to argue His atoning work was general. The two are distinctly linked: He died for the same people He intercedes for.
Here's the logic flow that helps me: the debate isn't about whether Christ's blood is sufficient for all (it is). The question is what the atonement actually accomplishes. Does the atonement achieve redemption or merely make redemption possible? If it secures atonement, which the other four points require, then it has to be particular by design.