Limited Atonement - Objections To The Doctrine

Objections To The Doctrine

Limited atonement is contrasted with the view popularly termed hypothetical universalism or unlimited atonement, which is advocated by Arminian, Methodist, Lutheran, Messianic Jewish, and Roman Catholic theologians (among others) and which says Christ's work makes redemption possible for all but certain for none. (This doctrine should not be confused with concepts of universal reconciliation, in which God loves and saves his entire creation.) Though Lutherans and Catholics share a similar doctrine of the nature of the atonement with Calvinists, they differ on its extent, whereas Arminians and Methodists generally accept an alternate theory of the nature of the atonement such as the moral government theory. The elect in such models are all the people who choose to avail themselves of God's gracious offer of salvation through Christ, not a pre-determined group. Thus, these systems place a limit on the efficacy of the atonement rather than on its extent, like Calvinists.

Historically, the Arminian Remonstrants raised this doctrine as a point of debate over predestination in the Quinquarticular Controversy, and their position was ultimately condemned by Calvinists at the Synod of Dort in 1619. In spite of opposition, the doctrine of the universal extent of the atonement became and remains prevalent outside of Calvinist circles. Even some Calvinistic Christians identify themselves as Amyraldians or "four point Calvinists" and teach an unlimited atonement. In particular, Amyraldism teaches that God has provided Christ's atonement for all alike, but seeing that none would believe on his own, He elects those whom He will bring to faith in Christ, thereby preserving the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election.

Calvin himself did not clearly articulate an opinion on this doctrine, which is nonetheless usually associated with his name, but most modern Calvinists see it as a necessary consequence of his doctrines of election and the atonement.

Some have contended that the doctrine of particular redemption implies that Christ's sacrifice was insufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world, but Calvinists have universally rejected this notion, instead holding that the value of the atonement is infinite but that God intentionally withholds its efficacious availability only to the elect.