 Limited Atonement John G. Reisinger
Editorial The following was written about thirty years ago. About fifteen years ago God started to teach me the Doctrines of Grace. A lawyer friend was learning them at the same time. We would sometimes stay up all night discussing texts of Scripture, books, and the arguments people were giving us against our 'new' doctrine. I distinctly remember how both of us balked at the doctrine of Limited Atonement. One of our favorite expressions was, "Limited Atonement is not at all necessary to Calvinistic theology." We were convinced it was only a 'logical necessity' to the system and not a doctrine that could be established exegetically. Of course, neither one of us had really studied the doctrine very carefully, we 'just knew' it was nothing but logical deduction. Since that time both of us have not only become convinced it is a biblical doctrine, we now agree with Dr. J. I. Packer when he calls Limited Atonement the "central affirmation of the gospel." My lawyer friend and I both had the same fear of 'logical necessity' without explicit Biblical evidence. Anyone who understands and believes Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Effectual Calling, and Perseverance will automatically see that Limited Atonement fits right into the picture. If a person will think about the doctrine, he will also see how neatly a particular and efficacious redemption rounds off the whole thing into a complete and airtight system. However, if he is as honest as Harold (my lawyer friend) and I tried to be, he may say, "I see the perfect logic of Limited Atonement, but I can't see where the Bible actually teaches it." We could also see many Bible texts that seemed to teach Universal Atonement. God forbid that anyone would ever accept Limited Atonement just because it is a logical part of a whole. I continually urge young preachers to never preach any doctrine that they cannot establish by valid exegesis of specific texts of Scripture. However, it is just as essential that we do not refuse to look at a doctrine just because it is logical. Do we expect the Bible to contain a whole system of truth that is illogical in its individual parts? Of course we don't. We expect to find God's truth to be like the links of a chain. Each truth is a distinct link, but is inseparably tied to the other links to form one chain or system of theology. I strongly suspect that the real problem with some of the men who reject Limited Atonement because it is "only a logical necessity" is not their inability to see it as a distinct link in the chain, but rather the fact that they don't even see the chain. These men aren't completely convinced that the other points of the Doctrines of Grace are really solid biblical facts. If this is the case, it is they who base most of their preaching on 'logical necessity'. They are positive that the Bible teaches Universal Atonement and are either unsure or afraid of the other points of doctrine. Thus, many of the statements, methods, and implications (to say nothing of the glaring omissions) of these men's ministries are not Biblical, but only 'logical necessities' deduced from their Arminian view of Universal Atonement. If a man is persuaded that the Bible teaches Total Depravity, he knows there must be an Unconditional Election if any man is to be saved. These two things can't possibly be separated. If the first is true, the second must of 'logical necessity' also be true. Should we, therefore, run from the doctrine of election just because it is absolutely necessary if depravity is true? Not at all. If we are really convinced that the Word of God teaches Total Depravity, we will diligently search out the Scriptures that mention election and choice. In short order, we will discover that the 'logical necessity' is also a clearly revealed Bible truth. It is true that it is both logically and essentially connected to Total Depravity, but it is just as true that it can be established in Scripture as a link by itself. The same thing is true of Effectual Calling. If sinners are dead and without spiritual life or power, electing love and a full atonement are not sufficient in themselves to actually bring the sinner to salvation. God the Holy Ghost must give them the ability and power to repent and believe. Again, I say, it is impossible to believe any one of these things without seeing how if one is true then they must all be true. Likewise, it is just as impossible to honestly study the Scripture without a preconceived bias and not see each of these truths clearly taught in specific texts of Scripture in their own right. Despite the fact I once firmly believed the opposite, I now believe the same thing applies to the doctrine of Limited Atonement. I meet a lot of 'four-point Calvinists' who, to use their expression, "can't get around John 3:16." Without realizing it, they seem to imply that this text definitely refutes Limited Atonement and the only reason anyone believes such a doctrine is that 'logical necessity' has invented a subtle and sophisticated way to "get around" (meaning 'explain away') this immovable roadblock. My first reaction is to sympathize with such people, especially when I remember that I once made the identical statements. However, experience leads me to believe that in most cases these four-point Calvinists don't need sympathy and tolerance. What they need is to be challenged to vindicate that they believe any of the Doctrines of Grace. This is not too hard to do if you are at all familiar with the members of their congregations. Most four-point Calvinist preachers produce five-point Arminian congregations. I have met very few preachers who rejected Limited Atonement and actually preached and taught Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, and Effectual Calling. Their view of Perseverance was not truly Calvinistic, but a combination of 'eternal security' and the 'carnal Christian' doctrine. Such preachers may pay lip service to the Doctrines of Grace and may affirm a belief in them in a creedal form, but if you talk to their deacons, elders, and Sunday school teachers you will discover that free will reigns supreme. The life and faith of the people is the real test of a preacher's theology. It is the grasp of truth by the man in the pew that really proves what a preacher believes and preaches. Paul's "living epistles" that could be "known and read of all men" surely didn't give a different doctrinal explanation for their faith than Paul's epistles written in ink. I do not find one believer in the New Testament saying, "I am glad that I realized I was a sinner and that I accepted Jesus as my Savior." How is it that men and women who for ten years have been under a four-point Calvinist's ministry testify in the above manner? Why do they not praise God the Father for His electing love? Why do they not praise the Holy Spirit for His regenerating power? I'll tell you why! They have listened to a lot of preaching that based its whole theology on John 3:16 ("the Gospel in a nutshell") and believed that Limited Atonement was only a 'logical necessity'. These preachers used a superficial interpretation of John 3:16 to 'get around' Romans 9, Isaiah 52, John 10, and the whole concept of the sovereign grace of God expressed in the five Doctrines of Grace. The man who sees nothing particular in the design of the Atonement can't see or preach Sovereign Election very clearly or strongly. How can he teach that God has 'chosen a people' unto Himself in special electing love and at the same time deny that He appointed Christ to act as the substitute for that specific and particular people? Will a man who rejects the belief that Christ, on the cross, acted as the Great Shepherd in a particular way for His own sheep be able to declare with clarity that there even is a specific and particular flock chosen by the Father and given to the Son? I have yet to meet the preacher who could successfully perform the mental gymnastics and verbal double talk necessary to believe and preach such opposite doctrines. In preaching, they start and finish with Universal Atonement as the foundation and are forced to build a superstructure without ever mentioning electing love. The Doctrine of Election is acknowledged to be in the Bible and, therefore, true, but since it is completely unrelated to the death of Christ on the cross (which was for all men), it is at best not very important and at worst a possible cause of great controversy. We are therefore admonished to 'simply preach Christ' and forget about sovereign election. However, let a man see that election by the Father is just as essential to salvation as atonement by the Son, and it becomes impossible to preach one without the other. If I am accused of preaching Limited Atonement only by first reading it into texts because of logical necessity, what shall be said of those who refuse to declare the truth of sovereign election and effectual calling because they think these doctrines logically conflict with universal atonement? And worse, they do this even while admitting that election and effectual calling are Bible truths. I think the words of Peter apply here, "We cannot refrain from telling what we have seen and heard." A man cannot really believe that salvation is of the Lord and also preach that salvation is entirely up to free will. He cannot have seen and felt that electing love by the Father and quickening in regeneration by the Holy Spirit was just as essential to his salvation and conversion as was the atoning death of Christ, without extolling and magnifying that work by the Father and the Holy Spirit. I personally have yet to meet the man, in either the pew or the pulpit, who gladly owned and testified that his personal salvation was the result of a special love by the Father and the irresistible power of the Holy Ghost who did not very shortly thereafter also see, believe, and preach that it was also a result of the particular purchase by the Blessed Redeemer. Having said all of the above, I must add that I totally reject the idea that it is essential to believe in Limited Atonement in order to be a true child of God. I believe such a view is far more dangerous to the gospel of grace than the Arminians. |