1 John 2:2 and the Limited Atonement Position

by Pastor Michael A. Miller

Foundation Baptist Church of Calgary

Last year I embarked on a study of I John 2:2. I had spoken with a dear church member who had
been taught the limited or particular atonement position. This church member explained to me
that “world” when used in the NT often doesn‟t mean every member of the human race. So I
dove into a study of 1 John 2:2 and went more in depth on the issue than I ever had.

Even if you‟re predisposed against the general atonement position, I hope you‟ll weigh the
evidence and see what conclusion best reflects the biblical data. I have attempted to be fair in
my presentation and kind in my tone.

1 John 2:2—A Watershed Passage

Here‟s how 1 John 2:2, a verse commonly used to defend the unlimited atonement position,
reads: “and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of
the whole world” (NASB).

Let‟s break it down phrase by phrase in the Greek. Next to the Greek is my attempt at
translation.

kai. auvto.j i`lasmo,j evstin—"and He Himself is being the propitiation/expiation"

The only other NT use of the word hilasmos is found in 1 John 4:10—"...He loved us and
sent His Son [as] the propitiation of our sins." There‟s some debate as to whether
hilasmos includes the idea of propitiation (satisfying God‟s wrath) or simply expiation
(removing the guilt).

Here‟s how some Greek lexicons define hilasmos:

 Friberg: "means of forgiveness, way of reconciling"
 Lou-Nida: "the means of forgiveness, expiation"
 Thayer: "the means of appeasing, a propitiation"
 Gingrich: "expiation, sin offering"

Here‟s how a few commentator‟s view hilasmos:

 Daniel Akin views it as placating God‟s wrath (propitiation).
 I. Howard Marshall believes hilasmos includes both expiation and propitiation.
 D. Edmond Hiebert sees both expiation and propitiation in it. He also describes it
as: “…the means whereby sins are covered or remitted and the offense
1
removed.”

There are two cognate words of hilasmos used in the NT:

1) ilasthrion (noun)
cf. Rom. 3:25—"...God displayed [Christ] publicly as a propitiation in His
blood through faith."
cf. Heb. 9:5—"the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat"
2) ilaskomai (verb)
cf. Luke 18:13—"God be merciful to me, the sinner."
cf. Heb. 2:17—"to make propitiation for the sins of the people"

Whether i`lasmo,j includes the ideas of both expiation and propitiation is not the end of
the world since other passages clearly teach that God is angry with sinners (Ps. 5:5). We

1
D. Edmond Hiebert, The Epistles of John (Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press), 75.

-1-
 are not dependent on 1 John 2:2 for our understanding of God‟s wrath with sinners. We
know He is. The question at hand is how many sinners have been provided for by the
sacrifice of Christ.

peri. tw/n a`martiw/n h`mw/n—"for our sins"

John reminds us that Christ was provided for the sins of believers.

ouv peri. tw/n h`mete,rwn de. mo,non—"and not for ours only"

Christ died not only for believers, but also for…

avlla. kai. peri. o[lou tou/ ko,smou—"but also for the whole word"

Here in 1 John 2:2 and similar passages, Reformed theologians interpret “the world” as
the elect scattered throughout the world, not every member of the human race. This
interpretation follows the teaching of Calvin who limited “the world” and “all” in some
passages which would otherwise have contradicted his interpretation of the extent of the
atonement. Calvin states: "Therefore under the word 'all' he does not include the
reprobate, but refers to all who would believe, all those who were scattered through
various regions of the earth."

The excellent Bible teacher John MacArthur takes the same position in his exposition of 1
John 2:2: "This [world] is a generic term, referring not to every single individual, but to
mankind in general. Christ actually paid the penalty only for those who would repent and
believe....Since much of the world will be eternally condemned to hell to pay for their own
sins, they could not have been paid for by Christ (cf. Matt. 7:13-14). The passages which
speak of Christ's dying for the whole world must be understood to refer to mankind in
general (as in Titus 2:11). World indicates the sphere, the beings toward whom God
seeks reconciliation and has provided propitiation. God has mitigated His wrath on
sinners temporarily by letting them live and enjoy earthly life. In that sense, Christ has
provided a brief, temporal propitiation for the whole world. But He actually satisfied fully
the wrath of God eternally only for the elect who believe. Christ's death in and of itself
had unlimited and infinite value because He is Holy God. Thus, His sacrifice was
sufficient to pay for all the sins of all whom God brings to faith. But the actual satisfaction
and atonement was made only for those who believe (cf. John 10:11, 15: 17:9, 20; Acts
2
20:28; Rom. 8:32, 37; Eph. 5:25). The pardon for sin is offered to the whole world, but
received only by those who believe (cf. 4:9, 14; John 5:24). There is no other way to be
3
reconciled to God."

Dr. MacArthur creates a contrast, but I‟m not convinced it‟s the contrast intended by the
apostle John. The apostle John‟s contrast is not between two different types of
propitiation—one for believers and one for the world. The unexpected contrast is that
Christ provided a propitiation for both believers and the world. The particular atonement
position fails to do justice to the word alla in 1 John 2:2, which seems to express a
contrast. If John was merely communicating that Christ died for believers as well as the
elect throughout all the earth who had yet to be saved, why would he use alla? In this
line of interpretation we would have to interpret the verse to say, “And He Himself is the
propitiation for the sins of us believers, and not for our sins only, but also for the sins of
all the elect scattered throughout the nations.” I‟m not sure why John would need to
make that point with a contrast.

2
Dr. MacArthur slips up here and uses “world” to refer to every sinful human being.
3
John MacArthur, The MacArthur Bible Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2005), 1952.

-2-
 Daniel Akin summarizes this hang-up well: "Although it is possible to say that 'the whole
world' is John's way of saying all the nations (but not intending every single person), and
that 'the propitiation for the sins of the whole world' is meant to stress the exclusivity of
Jesus' work (i.e., Jesus is the only propitiation for all alike), such a view does not provide
4
a satisfactory answer to John's 'not only for ours but also for….‟”

So then, what‟s the point of the contrast? Why would John stress the fact that Christ paid
the necessary price for every sinner to be forgiven? Hiebert explains: "It reminds
5
believers that they are not the exclusive objects of God's redemptive concern.” To the
adherents of particular atonement the thought of Christ dying for sinners who will never
be saved is disturbing. To me, it‟s comforting. It means that my lost aunts, uncles, and
cousins have a legitimate opportunity to be saved. And if they refuse to personalize
Christ‟s payment on their behalf, it‟s not because they couldn‟t be saved. Christ has
done His part.

In order to determine if the general atonement interpretation is correct, we need to

survey how kosmos (“world”) is used in the NT. I am obviously not including every use
of kosmos in the NT (over 150 occurrences), but hopefully I can cover a wide enough
sampling so I‟m not neglecting the most pertinent passages.

When “The World” Doesn‟t Mean Every Person on Earth

First, are there any uses of kosmoj where “the world” doesn't include every person in the world?
We find there are. Here are a few examples.
 John 12:19—The Pharisees said, "The whole world has gone after Christ." This appears
to be hyperbole—exaggeration for effect. As hyperbole it‟s not relevant to our discussion
since 1 John 2:2 is certainly not hyperbole.
 Rom. 11:15—Paul speaks of the reconciliation of the world. Obviously, not every person
in the world will be reconciled to God in the sense that they will abandon their hostility
toward Him.
 2 Cor. 5:19—“God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their
trespasses against them.” Here again “world” is used in a more general sense.
 Col. 1:6—The gospel was bearing fruit in all the world. This seems to be a geographical
use of the word and thus not as applicable to the discussion surrounding 1 John 2:2.

The usages in Romans 11:15 and 2 Cor. 5:19 indicate that kosmos doesn‟t always refer to every
single human being on earth. It can refer to the world‟s system (1 John 2:15), the earth itself, and
mankind in general. But we still need to determine if “mankind” is the typical nuance of kosmos in
the NT.

The Use of Kosmos by NT Writers (not including the apostle John)

 Rom. 3:19—Here Paul reminds his readers that all the world is accountable to God. Is
Paul saying only the elect from every nation are accountable to God or every individual is
accountable to God? Every individual.
 1 Cor. 1:21—The world did not know God through wisdom.
 1 Cor. 2:12—The spirit of the world is contrasted with the Spirit from God.
 1 Cor. 3:19—The wisdom of the world is folly with God.
 1 Cor. 5:10—We don‟t separate from the immoral of this world.
 1 Cor. 6:2—The saints will judge the world.
 1 Cor. 11:32—Paul teaches that believers are not condemned along with this world. Are
only certain people in certain nations condemned? No, every unbeliever is condemned.
 Gal. 6:14—Paul asserts that the world had been crucified to him.

4
Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, vol. 38 of The New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen
(Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001), 85.
5
Hiebert, 76.

-3-
  Heb. 11:7—By faith Noah condemned the world.
 Heb. 11:38—The world was not worthy of the heroes of the faith.
 1 Peter 5:9—Suffering is being experienced by our brethren throughout the world. This
seems to be a geographical reference again.
 2 Peter 2:5—Christ brought a flood on the world of the ungodly.

After surveying the usage of kosmos by the NT writers (not including John yet) we would be hasty
to say that “the elect” or “mankind” is the normal meaning of kosmos. Again, kosmos can be
used in a way which does not include every single individual in the human race, but so far I don‟t
think we could assert it‟s the normative usage.

Let‟s narrow our focus to examine how the apostle John uses “the world” in his gospel.

John‟s Use of Kosmos in His Gospel

 John 1:10—The world did not know Christ.
 John 1:29—John the Baptist proclaimed that Christ was the Lamb of God who takes
away the sins of the world. This may be an instance where John does not include every
unbeliever but instead refers to mankind in general.
 John 3:19—The light has come into the world but humanity loved the darkness.
 John 7:7—Christ said, "The world hates Me" (the world also hates believers—John
15:18).
 John 8:26—Christ declared to the world what He heard from the Father.
 John 12:31—Christ said, "Now is the judgment of this world."
 John 14:17—Christ taught that the world cannot receive the Spirit of truth because it
doesn't know Him. Is it only the elect who don‟t receive the Spirit of Christ or all
unbelievers? All unbelievers.
 John 14:19—Christ predicted that in a little while the world would not see Him, but His
disciples would.
 John 14:30—Christ warned His disciples that the ruler of the world was coming.
 John 15:19—Christ said He chose us out of the world. Here it seems that “world” means
“unbelievers.”
 John 16:8—The Holy Spirit would convict the world of sin. Here is another generic use of
“the world.”
 John 17:6—The Father gave the Son men from out of the world.
 John 17:9—Christ indicated He was not praying for the world but for the ones the Father
gave Him. Reformed scholar Robert Reymond, a proponent of the particular atonement
view, attempts to use John 17:9 as evidence that Christ didn‟t die for every person.
Reymond argues: “Since Jesus expressly declared that his intercessory work is
conducted not in behalf of the world but for the elect…consistency of purpose demands
that his sacrificial work would be conducted in behalf of the same group for whom he
6
carries out his intercessory work.” However, this logic seems to weaken, not enhance
Reymond‟s argument. Here‟s why. The ones the Father gave Christ were the elect
disciples. Who then is the world in this passage? Unbelievers, not the elect. In a verse
that Reymond employs to argue against a general atonement, we find that kosmos
means exactly what he wouldn‟t want it to in 1 John 2:2. By Reymond‟s own
unintentional definition, “the world” in John 17:9 refers to unbelievers not the elect.
 John 17:25—Christ reminded His disciples that the world doesn't know God. Is Christ
saying only some unbelievers don't know God or that all unbelievers don't know Him?
Clearly all unbelievers.

To summarize, John‟s normal meaning for “the world” in His gospel is not “the elect scattered
through the nations.” Consequently, his use of “the world” in his gospel actually favors the

6
Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson
Publishers, 1998), 677.

-4-
general atonement position. Walter Elwell summarizes my point well: “A study of the word
„world‟—especially in John, where it is used seventy-eight times—shows that the world is God-
7
hating, Christ-rejecting, and Satan-dominated.” Do we want to assert that only the yet-to-be-
saved-elect from all nations are the only people constituting the sum of those who hate God,
rebel against Him, and go their own way? The world is the whole of unredeemed humanity in its
opposition to God.

Let‟s narrow the focus even more by surveying John‟s use of “the world” in 1 John. If kosmos
does in fact refer to the elect in 1 John 2:2, then we would expect some of his other uses of the
word in his letter to mean “elect” as well. So what do we find?

John‟s Use of Kosmos in 1 John

 1 John 2:15—John reminds us not to love the world, here meaning the way unbelievers
think and act in their submission to Satan and rebellion against God.
 1 John 3:1, 13—John reminds believers that the world doesn't know us and it hates us.
Clearly these references don't refer merely to the elect scattered throughout the nations.
This is unredeemed humanity hating God. These are unbelievers.
 1 John 4:5—John teaches that the world listens to false teachers.
 1 John 5:19—John indicates that the whole world is in the power of the evil one. Is this
simply the elect or every single unbeliever? Clearly every unbeliever. I believe this
serves as a key verse in our discussion since John uses the same words for “the whole
world” as he does in 2:2 (the precise phrase in 2:2 is o[lou tou/ ko,smou and the wording
of 5:19 is o` ko,smoj o[loj). He also uses this phrase in Rev. 12:9 where he describes
Satan as deceiving the whole world. Does Satan have every unbeliever deceived or just
the yet-to-be-saved-elect? Every unbeliever.

I conclude that the apostle John‟s use of “world” in 1 John clearly favors the universal provision of
atonement position.
8
In addition to 1 John 2:2 there are several other passages that are difficult to explain away. We
should quickly survey them. Someday I hope to do some detailed exegesis of these passages as
well.

Passages that Strongly Imply a General Atonement

 Isaiah 53:6—Isaiah beautifully explains that the Lord laid on Christ the iniquity of all of us.
What was the religious temperature of Israel when Isaiah wrote? Pretty poor. Thus I
don‟t think we can say that Isaiah 53 was written for only believing Israelites.
 1 Tim. 2:4—Paul asserts that God desires all people to be saved.
 1 Tim. 2:6—Paul goes on to explain that Christ gave Himself as a ransom on behalf of all.
The Reformed explanation that God merely wants all kinds of people (from all parts of the
earth) to be saved but not every person seems forced on the passage. Reformed scholar
Wayne Grudem explains the passage to mean that Christ made “a ransom available for
9
all people, without exception.” But isn‟t this what general atonement proponents are

7
W.A. Elwell, “Extent of the Atonement” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Book House, 1984), 99.
8
Are most adherents to the particular atonement position progressive dispensationalists or covenant
theologians? From my limited experience, I’d have to say that most would be Reformed Covenant
theologians who, in my opinion, interpret some parts of Scripture very questionably. For instance, Dr.
Reymond spends pages attempting to demonstrate that baptizing babies is not just permissible, but is the
best course of action. These types of positions make me skeptical of the interpretative perspective of many
particular atonement proponents. I am by no means implying that all particular atonement proponents are
poor exegetes, but it does concern me that so many defenders of the position are also Covenant theologians.
9
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 599.

-5-
 arguing for, that Christ made forgiveness available for all people by His death on their
behalf?
 1 Tim. 4:10—Paul refers to God as “the Savior of all people, especially of those who
believe.”
 Heb. 10:29—"How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has
trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the
covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?" How could
apostates be described as “sanctified” if Christ did not die for them?
 2 Peter 2:2—Peter‟s treatise on false teaching explains that false teachers “deny the
Master who bought them.” How could Christ buy these apostates (who are clearly not
elect) in any sense if His death made no provision for them?

Though some of these passages may not conclusively teach a universal atonement, the particular
atonement position requires too much explaining away of the natural reading of many of these
passages.

Dilemmas for the Particular Atonement Position

Does the particular atonement position raise some dilemmas for its adherents? I believe it does.
 Particular atonement adherents propose that Christ‟s atonement could not have paid for
the sins of every human being since many people will go to hell “to pay for their sins.”
They ask: Could God really require a double-payment for sin (Christ‟s payment on the
cross and the sinner‟s payment in hell)? For instance, Dr. Grudem writes: “…Reformed
people argue that if Christ‟s death actually paid for the sins of every person who ever
lived, then there is no penalty left for anyone to pay, and it necessarily follows that all
people will be saved, without exception. For God could not condemn to eternal
punishment anyone whose sins are already paid for: that would be demanding double
10
payment, and it would therefore be unjust.” Basically Grudem is suggesting that the
general atonement view requires a double payment for sin and leads to universalism (the
heresy that all will be saved someday). MacArthur, in his comments on 1 John 2:2, also
follows this line of reasoning: “Since much of the world will be eternally condemned to
hell to pay for their own sins, they could not have been paid for by Christ (cf. Matt. 7:13-
11
14).” I respect the opinions of these scholars, but do the lost go to hell to “pay for their
sins”? Can a sinner ever “pay for his sin”? Suggesting that sinners can pay for their sins
in hell sounds more like purgatory. I may not be aware of all the pertinent passages on
this topic, but at this point I don‟t know of any Scripture which teaches that sinners pay for
their sins in hell. Otherwise, after their sins were paid for, they could get out of hell.
Unforgiven sinners aren't sent to hell to pay for their sins; rather, they go to hell as a
consequence for their sins. Therefore, no double payment is involved.

 On a related note, I disagree with Grudem‟s suggestion that a general atonement view
leads to universalism. I would suggest that provision for forgiveness (i.e. propitiation) and
the actual transaction of forgiveness are not identical. Imagine a dad who wants to pay
for his daughters to go to college. So he calls the Business Office of the college and
pays the school bill for both of his daughters. He tells his daughters, "I have made
provision for both of you to go to college. Everything is arranged. You just need to
accept my offer and go." So one daughter goes to college and enjoys the benefits of the
provision. The other daughter refuses and misses out on the benefits that were hers if
she had not rejected them. Now would we say this father was foolish to pay his
daughters‟ tuition? No, we would view him as a generous and kind man. He made the
provision but the one daughter rejected the provision. I know analogies invariably
breakdown when pressed too far, but I believe this analogy aptly communicates my basic
point. I‟m reminded of Jesus‟ rebuke of the unbelieving Jews in John 5:39, “But you are

10
Grudem, 594-595.
11
MacArthur, 1952.

-6-
 unwilling [qe,lete] to come to me so that you may have life.” God was willing, but they
weren‟t. Provision for forgiveness and the reception of forgiveness are two closely
related, yet distinct concepts. You can have one without the other. That is, you can have
a provision without forgiveness.

 A particular atonement viewpoint must effect how you witness. If a non-believer who I‟ll
call Bob asks a particular atonement adherent if Christ died for him, if he‟s honest with his
interpretation, he could give Bob no assurance that Christ died for him. Imagine a lost
relative asking you, “Did Christ die for my sins?” A consistent Reformed theologian must
respond, “I don‟t know. Believe in Christ and you‟ll find out that He did.” Otherwise he‟s
being intellectually dishonest with his interpretation.

 A particular atonement conviction must also affect the songs you allow your unbelieving
kids to sing. Carson, our four-year-old, loves singing "Jesus Loves Me." On Sunday
nights we often sing this song at church and you can hear Carson belting it out above the
crowd. Carson is not yet a believer from what I can tell. If I believed in particular
atonement, I could not let him sing this song because I don‟t know if Christ died for Him.
I might be giving my son a false assurance. The same is true for the children‟s song that
goes: "Jesus died for all the children, all the children of the world."

 If Christ died only for the elect, then it is now impossible for God to do anything
redemptive for most of humanity.

 If particular atonement is true, then the gospel is really not for every person on earth. It‟s
only for the elect. A Reformed theologian might object, “But the offer of the gospel is still
for all men. If they come to Christ, they will be saved.” But if Christ‟s provision was
intended only for the elect, then telling the non-elect to “repent and believe” is actually
quite cruel since it‟s impossible for them to be forgiven. And it is now impossible for them
to be forgiven if Christ didn‟t make provision for them to be forgiven. Universal
proclamation only makes sense if the gospel offer is truly for every person in the world.
Paul taught in Acts 17:30 that God commands all people everywhere to repent. If Christ
died only for the elect, then He‟s commanding folks to do what they never will be able to
do, even if He were to convict them of their sin. Imagine if I told my three-year-old son
Blake, “Blake, I know you‟re only three years old, but if you can dunk a basketball on a
ten-foot goal, then I‟ll buy you a new bike.” Obviously Blake can‟t dunk a basketball. It is
impossible. So is my offer really that kind? No, it‟s not. It‟s cruel. On a related note, if
only the elect can have their sins forgiven, then why in the Scriptural record does it
appear that God worked in the hearts of people who would never come to Him (e.g. the
apostates of Hebrews 6 who tasted of the heavenly gift; the Jews in Acts 7:54 who heard
Stephen‟s message and were “cut to the quick”)? Erickson summarizes this point
succinctly: "If Christ died only for the elect, how can the offer of salvation be made to all
12
persons without some sort of insincerity, artificiality, or dishonesty being involved?”

 Particular atonement, in my estimation, calls into question God's heart. If God really
takes no delight in the death of the wicked as Ezekiel asserts in 18:23 and 33:11, would
He sit back and completely ignore their plight?

 If “the world” in 1 John 2:2 only refers to the elect, then in John 3:16 we should interpret
the world as the elect as well. John would now be saying that God only loves the elect
with agape love. If God doesn't love every person in the world with agape love, how can
Jesus command us in Matthew 5:44 to love our enemies with agape love? Could it be
that we love our enemies with agape love but God the Father doesn‟t? Would Christ
command us to do something the Father won‟t? Christ didn‟t command us to love only

12
Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), 848.

-7-
 our enemies who are elect, He commanded us to love all our enemies. I conclude then,
that the natural reading of John 3:16 is correct. God loves all His enemies (not simply the
elect) and gave His one and only Son even for them. Wow. General atonement doesn‟t
diminish the glory of God. It actually magnifies His heart. The Father would give Christ
to die for people who would always hate Him. What kind of love is this! Again Erickson
hits the nail on the head: "…Jesus' statement that we are to love not only our friends
(those who love us) but also our enemies (those who do evil to us) would seem rather
13
empty if Jesus were here requiring of his disciples what is not true of God himself.”

 Some particular atonement advocates teach that God always carries out what He
desires. For instance, Dr. Grudem says that “those whom God planned to save [the
14
elect] are the same people for whom Christ also came to die….” Regarding 1 Timothy
2:4-6 Reymond asserts, “Nor is it likely that Paul means that God wishes or desires the
salvation of all men without exception, for surely what God desires to come to pass, he
15
would have decreed to come to pass.” This conclusion of his systematic theology falls
short on a couple fronts. First, if God always does what He desires, then we are
dangerously close to implying that God is the author of sin. Let me explain: If God
always carries out His desires (in other words, His desires and moral will equal His
sovereign plan), then He wanted Adam and Eve to rebel in the Garden, He wanted David
to fornicate with Bathsheeba and murder Uriah, and He wants the lost to perish eternally.
A better solution is to admit, while confessing a great degree of mystery, that God often
allows many things in His sovereign plan that are contrary to His desires. Second, the
biblical data doesn‟t seem to teach that God‟s sovereign plan and His desires always
match. For example, in Matthew 23:37 we find Christ moaning, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem,
who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted
[hvqe,lhsa] to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her
wings, but you were unwilling [hvqelh,sate].” Christ desired all of Jerusalem to run to Him
for safety, but they didn‟t desire it. So He didn‟t force His desire on them. His desire did
not equal His sovereign plan. Matthew 23:37 sheds light on another debated passage, 1
Timothy 2:4—“…[God] desires [qe,lei] all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge
of the truth.” Despite God‟s self-proclaimed desire for every person to be saved and not
perish, in His sovereign plan He allows the majority of mankind to plummet into a Christ-
less eternity. It is indeed hard to get our minds around this one. But is that really a bad
place to be on some issues?

Conclusion
My personal belief is that particular atonement adherents have to dismiss the natural reading of
far too many Scriptures for me to be satisfied with their position. On the other hand, general
atonement proponents don‟t have any passages to explain away, at least from what I‟ve seen.
Systematic theological conclusions which must consistently fall back on less common meanings
are suspect.

I can think of two cases where less common word meanings should be employed in our
translation or interpretation of a passage. First, when the context of a passage demands the less
common meaning. And second, when another Biblical passage contradicts the general
atonement view. But such is not the case.

So my question would be: Why can‟t “world” or “all” mean every single person in the world in
these atonement passages? These are the more normative usages of these words. Plus, is
there any passage of Scripture which teaches that Christ died only for the elect? There‟s no
debate that Christ died for the elect. Scripture makes this so wonderfully clear (John 10:11; Acts

13
Erickson, 848-849.
14
Grudem, 595.
15
Reymond, 692.

-8-
20:28). No sound theologian denies that believers hold a special place in the heart of God. And I
rejoice in this! However, the truth that Christ made provision for the elect to be saved does not
rule out the possibility that He also made provision for all individuals of the human race.

For instance, if I assert that this past year I visited every member of Foundation Baptist Church,
does this mean that I did not visit any of our sporadic attenders? If I visit every member I may still
visit every attender. The members may even hold a special place in my heart, but the limited
statement does not exclude the possibility of a broader application.

So we‟re back to the question: Do any Scriptures state that Christ did not die for every person in
the human race? The answer is no. The Spirit easily could have made this statement
somewhere in Scripture—“Christ died only for His sheep.” In the absence of any kind of direct
statement, Reformed theologians should at least qualify their theory of particular atonement by
indicating it‟s merely a logical deduction of systematic theology, not a strictly biblical theology
statement. An advantage of the general atonement position is that it has explicit biblical support
and doesn‟t require a systematic theological conclusion. By this I mean the Scripture says,
“Christ is the propitiation for the world” whereas it never says, “Christ is the propitiation for only
the elect.”

This brings up an important point: the particular atonement position is demanded by the logic of
Reformed theology. Dr. Grudem explains that “„limited atonement‟ is necessarily part of a
Reformed viewpoint because it logically follows from the overall sovereignty of God in the entire
16
work of redemption….” In response I‟ll say that first of all, logical necessities of systematic
theology systems sometimes cause me great concern. Does Scripture demand this conclusion or
does logic demand this conclusion? Second, I‟m not convinced that believing in the sovereignty
of God in salvation necessitates a belief in particular atonement. I understand election to be
God‟s choice of me for salvation, not because of any anticipated response on my part, but
because of His grace. I laud God‟s sovereignty in salvation, but this doesn‟t demand a belief in
particular atonement. For instance, Akin makes an intriguing statement about Martin Luther:
"Luther (John, 237) certainly held to a view of universal atonement: 'It is certain that you are a
part of the world. Do not let your hearts deceive you by saying: „The Lord died for Peter and
Paul; He rendered satisfaction for them, not for me.‟ Therefore let everyone who has sinned be
summoned here, for He was made the expiation for the sins of the whole world and bore the sins
17
of the whole world.'” You can hold to unconditional election and an unlimited atonement.

In writing this paper to help some folks in our church, my goal is not to slam the adherents of
particular atonement or Reformed theologians. Some of my friends are of this theological
persuasion. But I am concerned that this position may not reflect the biblical data accurately.

No doubt I‟ve made some mistakes and missed some points. Please know that these oversights
were not intentional and will be corrected if I am made aware of the pertinent Scriptures. I am
open to constructive suggestions.

Whether you agree or disagree with my conclusion, we can rejoice that we know that we were
bought by Christ, we were chosen before the foundation of the world, and we are dependent on
Christ to keep us faithful to Him till the end. I am not suggesting that we become man-centered.
May it never be! God deserves all the glory for our salvation. But on the flip side, man deserves
the discredit for his damnation. God made provision for the salvation of every lost person. So
when they reject, they can blame no one but themselves. A general atonement view gives man
all the “credit” for his damnation.

16
Grudem, 596.
17
Akin, footnote on 84.

-9-
And a general atonement still gives God glory for His saving power. Robert Candlish celebrates
the power of Christ‟s death: "He is the propitiation for all sinners and for all sins. No sin, no
18
sinner, is at any time beyond the reach of that great atonement.”

The great Charles Wesley wrote: "The world He suffered to redeem, for all He hath atonement
made; For those that will not come to Him the ransom of His life was paid."

Whatever your theological persuasion, let‟s get the good news of Christ to the world for the good
of our fellow man and for the glory of the only One worthy of our praise!

18
Robert S. Candlish, The First Epistle of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d.), 75.

- 10 -