Canaletto, Warwick Castle East Front 1752
http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/06/birthday-partybad.html
Limited atonement is also known as particular redemption according to the Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 72). The view is Jesus’ death secured salvation for only a limited number of persons, which are the elect. This is contrasted with the idea that the atoning work is intended for all of humanity, as in unlimited atonement. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 72). The understanding with limited atonement is that since not all are elected and saved, God did not have Christ die for all. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 72). Walter A. Elwell describes this as maintaining Christ’s atoning work was sufficient for all, but only efficient for the elect. Elwell (1996: 99). Erickson writes that most Calvinists reason that the purpose of Christ’s coming was not to make salvation possible for all persons, but to provide salvation for the elect. Erickson (1994: 826).
Erickson provides the view that Biblical verses stating that Christ died for the world and for all men must be understood in context. Romans 8: 32, which states God gave his Son for us all, is in the context of 8: 28, where those called according to his purposes are predestined. Erickson (1994: 833). Also in the context of John 3: 16, it states that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but will have everlasting life. Erickson (1994: 833). A person trusts as God guides him/her to believe and this does not mean that one can believe in the gospel by human means. Erickson notes that verses such as 1 John 2: 2 cannot be ignored where Christ is noted as giving himself for the sins of those in Christ and for the sins of the whole world. Erickson (1994: 834). He provides the view that limited atonement is sufficient to cover the sins of the nonelect, but Christ did not die for them. The idea being that salvation is entirely based on the choice of God and not on an Arminian perspective that in part God has foreknowledge of who will believe with faith and merit. Erickson (1994: 835).
In a sense, Christ universally died for all and his atoning work is sufficient for all, but it is limited in application, and therefore I hold to a form of limited atonement.
Elwell mentions that even with a Calvinistic view of limited atonement, with Christ’s work there is room for all human beings to be saved if they come in. Elwell (1996: 99). I can grant this idea although persons cannot come to Christ on their own, and God must make the choice to regenerate a person. However, the elect at least are restorable by God. This could be stated as human openness, but absolutely not in the sense of a human being with libertarian freedom deciding whether or not to follow Christ, which is often incorrectly taught within evangelical theology. It must be understood that the openness/potential to salvation is insufficient to be saved and that God must by his choice alone regenerate and guide a person to have openness in salvation. This would be a proper understanding of human openness to salvation. It is possible that only the elect are restorable and have a potential openness to salvation, which God exploits to save a person. However, my view is that likely all persons are restorable and have a potential openness to salvation, and God uses this human aspect to regenerate a person, and that God simply and rightly only prefers to save some. I must make it clear that when I mention the concepts of a person being restorable or having openness to God, I am not approaching this from a libertarian free will, or Arminian perspective. The potential restorability or openness of a human being does not change the fact that each person rejects God via a corrupt nature and sinful choices and is unworthy of the Kingdom of God having no merit in order to please God.
The potentiality of human beings to freely believe, if God chooses to regenerate and guide a person to salvation takes philosophical hard determinism out of the process. Human beings would not be forced or coerced to believe, but would be regenerated by God and freely believe in this irresistible, persuasive process with soft determinism/compatibilism.
In philosophical terms this makes God the primary cause of the human action and the human being the secondary cause. Make no mistake, the person’s free acceptance of the gospel truth is not a human work of salvation in any theological sense, as there is no human merit whatsoever in New Testament salvation. It states in Ephesians 2 :8-10, one is saved in grace through faith, and good works should be a result of that process. God does not force or coerce human belief, but guides one to freely believe.
ELWELL, WALTER A. (1996) ‘Atonement, Extent of the’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI and CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.
