The annals of literary history have cataloged no greater tragic irony than that central to the Christian faith—that life prevailed in the gruesome death of its namesake, Jesus Christ. Life through death has all the makings of a legendary tale yet only one book, finding its culmination in the salvific execution of its hero, has the authority to claim an atoning sacrifice as a decisive victory. This is no skillfully concocted fable; no playwright or poet could pen so perfect a climax. At the core of Christianity lies the redemptive work of Christ on the cross. The wrath of God was propitiated, the alienation was reconciled, and salvation was secured. The Atonement—God’s glory and humanity’s hope—in it resides the ubiquitous love of the Savior contrasted by the mystery of its apparent limited scope. For whom was atonement made? Some would have the effects of Christ’s death extend universally, hinging on hypothetical contingencies. However, as it will be shown, the range never ventures beyond God’s intended few, the elect. This is no indictment on the power and efficacy of the cross to save. It is in fact what gives it value.
The Doctrine of Particular Redemption or Limited Atonement
Much controversy surrounds any doctrine conceived to be strictly Calvinistic. While it would prove difficult to separate particular redemption or limited atonement from its position within the proverbial “five points,” the following is no attempt to recruit Calvinists nor is it an attempt to defend Calvinist ideology on the whole. There is only hope that frequent prejudices would subside in order to proceed with a humble examination of a doctrine that is dear to all orthodox Christians. Why the need for humble examination? It is becoming increasingly evident that the gospel as it is commonly preached has lost its center. There was a time when salvation was wrought of God to the glory of God, but this is no longer the trend in modern evangelicalism. The doctrine of particular redemption or limited atonement reclaims that center in reinstating God as the sole author of salvation.
The redemptive work of Christ amounts to much more than the adjectives given, yet the core of the controversy lies in these not-so-subtle nuances. As to the extent of the atonement, whether redemption was purchased for a particular few or an unlimited number is of great significance. Particular redemption insists that Christ’s death redeemed only those for whom Christ intended to save. The extent of the atonement was particular or limited in its scope. Of course everyone who stands opposed to Universalism ‘limits’ the atonement is some sense. This linguistic difficulty will be avoided by referring to the doctrine as particular redemption here forward. The other side of the coin is the doctrine of universal redemption. Opposed to narrowing the field of recipients, universal redemption claims that Christ’s death extends to all equally creating an opportunity for salvation for all who might believe. Yet in doing so, the atonement secured salvation for no one, relegating it to merely a hypothetic possibility. In other words, the cross does not redeem it only makes man redeemable.
The historical debate became a public spectacle soon after the Reformation began to sweep across Europe. An assembly formed in 1618 to discuss the difficult issue. The Synod of Dort gathered to renounce the tenets of Arminianism. The followers of Jacobus Arminius, a professor at the University of Leiden, had issued a document claiming, among other things, that Jesus had died for every human while only believers receive the benefit of his death. The Synod of Dort who affirmed five doctrines of their own condemned the five articles of the Arminian’s Remonstrance. The assembly’s conclusion is commonly given the acrostic T.U.L.I.P (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints). The statement regarding election and atonement reads, “Election is the immutable purpose of God whereby, before the foundation of the world, he chose, from among the entire human race, a certain number of people to be redeemed in Christ.”[1] The theological battle was continued in England in 1647. Puritans in the Church of England called the Westminster Assembly to issue the Westminster Confession of Faith. The statement, more thorough than Dort’s, has been “widely adopted by British and American Presbyterian bodies as well as by many Congregational and Baptist churches.”[2] It comments, “God did, from all eternity, decree to justify the elect; and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins and rise again for their justification.”[3] Modern Evangelicalism has come no closer to a consensus, centuries of debate has polarized the sides. In a time of entrenched dogmatic presuppositions it is necessary to take a fresh look to find for whom Scripture reports that Christ died.
…next week we’ll look at some scriptural support for the position.
>The Anthropologist
[1] Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Vol. 2 (New York, NY: Harper San Francisco, 1984), 179.
[2] Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001), 1271.
[3]Westminster Confession of Faith [internet]. Accessed from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/anonymous/westminster3.pdf. 29 November 2007.
