Atonement

Strong Calvinists assert that Christ died only for the sins of the elect, not for the whole world. Several verses are cited in defense of this view, including, but not limited to Matt. 1:21, John 10:15, John 17:9, Acts 20:28, 1 Cor. 15:3, Eph. 5:25. In all the above cited verses, there is an element of exclusivity to the extent of the atoning work of Christ: He died for our sins, Christ gave Himself for the church, He prayed for His own, etc.

Indeed, these verses indicate that Christ died for the elect. What is missing in the entire Bible, however, is any verse that explicitly teaches that Christ died only for the elect. The very opposite, in fact, is true. Scripture teaches that “God so loved the world,” and that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world” (Jn. 3:16; 1 Jn. 2:2; cf. 1 Jn. 5:19).

Another key passage cited by Strong Calvinists is Romans 5:15-19. Those who hold the limited atonement view point out that “the gift . . . abounded to many,” and that “by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.” A careful analysis of the passage, however, reveals unquestionably that Paul is using “many” in contrast to “one,” not in contrast to “all.” The word “many,” is actually used interchangeably with “all” and refers to the same group of people: the whole world. Further, a Strong Calvinist must admit that if Christ died only for some, then Adam’s sin only affected some, for that is the parallel that Scripture reveals in the text.

Finally, the Strong Calvinist can never genuinely tell someone that “Christ died for you.” Since, following the TULIP acronym, Christ died only for the elect and the elect are only known by their perseverance to the end, then it follows then no one can know with certainty this side of heaven that Christ died for him. Yet the Apostle Paul explicitly refers to a specific individual in the church at Rome “for whom Christ died” (Rom. 14:15). 

Overview of Various Positions

The Recapitulation theory teaches that Jesus perfectly recapitulated all the stages of human life, thus restoring man’s communion with God. While an incomplete view, this theory rightly asserts Christ’s sinless passage through all dimensions of human life.

The Ransom theory proposes that Christ paid a price to satan to purchase human beings from sin. While true that Christ died as a ransom for all (Mk. 10:45), the ransom was paid to God, not satan.

The Moral Example theory says that Christ’s death provided an inspirational example of faith and obedience. While 1 Peter 2:21 affirms this truth, 1 Peter 2:24 teaches that Christ also died to bear our sins in His body.

The Necessary Satisfaction theory is the forerunner to the Penal Substitution view. Both views affirm that Christ’s death satisfied the righteous anger of God toward sinful humanity. Further, both views assert an essentialist view of God and the necessity of the shed blood of the God-Man Christ Jesus. Penal Substitution captures the heart and soul of the atoning death of Christ.

The Moral Influence theory teaches that Christ’s death was a demonstration of God’s love for us (Rom. 5:8), but is a truncated view which does not properly take into account the need to satisfy the justice of God.

The Optional Satisfaction theory says that God could have freed man from sin without the death of Christ, but the Cross was nevertheless the most fitting way to redeem humanity. This theory correctly affirms the voluntary nature of Christ’s death (Jn. 10:18), but is a denial of divine essentialism.

The Governmental theory rightly affirms that the established rules of the Sovereign God must be enforced to deter further violation, but denies that Christ died as a penalty for man’s sins.

Finally, the Mystical theory proposes that God became man that man may become God. While true that Christ’s death did reconcile man to union with God, this theory neglects the penal aspects of the atonement. 

A Brief Defense of Penal Substitution

The Substitutionary theory of the atonement is presupposed by several important doctrines. First, the essential nature of God, including his infinite and immutable justice, demands that satisfaction be made for all offenses against His holy character. He cannot simply overlook sin. Second, the total depravity of man affirms that man has universally offended God’s holy character and is under the wrath of God (Rom. 3:23). Third, the Old Testament sacrificial system foreshadows a substitutionary atonement (Gen. 3:21; Ex. 12: 1-36; Lev. 16). Fourth, the New Testament affirms as much, teaching that Christ is our substitutionary Passover Lamb (Jn. 1:29; 1 Cor. 5:7). He was pierced for our transgression, crushed for our iniquities, punished so we could have peace with God, wounded that we may be healed, and laden with our sins that we may be freed from them (Is. 53:4-6; Luke 22:37; 1 Pet. 2:24; 3:18). Further, the New Testament clearly affirms Christ’s death as a propitiation for our sins (Rom. 3:25; Heb. 2:17; 1 Jn. 2:2, 4:10).

Two serious objections, however, are levied against the penal substitutionary view of the atonement. First, critics allege that it is unjust that one should be punished for the sins of another. But this overlooks that: 1) Christ was willing to suffer for the unjust; 2) Christ as God had the Divine prerogative to voluntarily pay for crimes committed against Him; 3) Christ paid for our sins but He was not charged with our crimes. His sacrifice was a voluntary substitution.  

Second, critics argue that universalism is the inevitable concomitant to the penal substitutionary theory. But this charge is unsubstantiated. Christ removed the imputed judicialguilt of all men so that all men are now reconcilable; but not all men are reconciled (Rom. 5:18-19; 2 Cor. 5:14-21). So while salvation has been objectively procured, it must still be subjectively applied.