I had an epiphany yesterday. It happened like this. We were unable to attend worship, so we watched a video of John MacArthur at Grace to You. The sermon, chosen pretty randomly, was The Atonement: Real or Potential? While I already understood the issue pretty much as MacArthur presented it, he clarified my thinking considerably. In fact, a better defense of the doctrine of Limited Atonement I’ve never heard. (You can read the transcript, access streaming video and audio, or download the mp3 here.)
Unlimited Atonement is an absurd doctrine, which means it fits into Arminianism perfectly. But mixed with Calvinism — as in, “I’m a 4-point Calvinist” — it is doubly absurd. 4-point Calvinists are really Arminians, or at least they might as well be, because Unlimited Atonement kills grace just as surely as decisional regeneration does. And that is my point today.
The absurdity of Unlimited Atonement is this: Christ did not actually purchase for God with his blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God who will reign upon the earth (Revelation 5:9–10). He only made the purchase possible — made the down-payment, if you like. Then, he defaulted on most of those purchases and let them go to hell. The sins of everyone, including those in hell, have been fully propitiated. The wrath of God against them has been satisfied. Yet they are in hell, being punished with eternal torment for their sins.
If you affirm an Unlimited Atonement, ask yourself this question: what is the difference between those for whom Christ died, whose sins have been fully propitiated, and are therefore justified before God, and are in heaven, and those for whom Christ died, whose sins have been fully propitiated, and are therefore justified before God, who are in hell? The question is, of course, absurd, but it’s one all 4-pointers must answer. The answer must be in something they did; salvation is dependent upon the sinner’s response to Christ rather than Christ’s sacrifice on the sinner’s behalf — as MacArthur says, “they just weren’t clever enough, wise enough, emotionally moved enough, psychologically stimulated enough, to actualize that atonement.”
Which brings me to my epiphany: If you deny Limited Atonement, you haven’t simply made a silly theological blunder; you’ve interjected some act, some decision of man, into the act of saving. You’ve denied grace alone and Christ alone.
