While the doctrine of definite (or limited) atonement is thoroughly supported by Scripture, there are certain passages that proponents of universal atonement (e.g., Arminians) frequently cite as challenges to this doctrine.
Below are some of the most commonly raised passages and how they are answered within a Reformed framework.
John 3:16
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.”
Arminian Argument: “The world” indicates that God’s love and Christ’s atonement extend to every individual without exception.
Reformed Response:
- The term “world” (Greek: kosmos) in John’s Gospel often refers to humanity in general or people from all nations, not every individual. It emphasizes the universal scope of salvation, extending beyond Israel, rather than implying universal atonement.
- The text highlights the necessity of faith for salvation (“whoever believes”), consistent with the Reformed view that only the elect come to saving faith by God’s sovereign grace.
- God’s love for the “world” demonstrates His saving intention toward a multitude of people from every tribe, tongue, and nation (Revelation 5:9), rather than every individual universally.
1 Timothy 2:4-6
“God… desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth… Christ Jesus… gave Himself as a ransom for all.”
Arminian Argument: If God desires all to be saved and Christ gave Himself as a ransom for all, the atonement must be universal.
Reformed Response:
- Contextual Definition of “All”: In 1 Timothy 2:1-2, Paul instructs prayers for “all people,” including kings and those in high positions. The context suggests “all” refers to all kinds of people, not every individual. Paul emphasizes the inclusivity of salvation across societal and ethnic boundaries, not universality.
- God’s Sovereign Will: God’s “desire” for all to be saved reflects His moral will (that righteousness should be pursued by all), not His sovereign will (His unchangeable decree to save the elect). God’s sovereign will is always accomplished (Isaiah 46:10; Ephesians 1:11).
- “Ransom for All”: The term “all” here is best understood as all without distinction (Jews and Gentiles), not all without exception. This aligns with the context of the Gospel’s universality.
2 Peter 3:9
“The Lord is… not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.”
Arminian Argument: This verse clearly teaches that God does not want anyone to perish, implying universal atonement.
Reformed Response:
- Audience: Peter is writing to believers (2 Peter 1:1). The “any” and “all” in this context refer to God’s elect, not humanity universally. God is patient, ensuring that every one of His chosen people comes to repentance before Christ’s return.
- Harmonizing with Election: If God’s desire were to save all people without exception, His will would be thwarted whenever someone perishes—a contradiction of His sovereignty. Instead, this verse reflects God’s saving purpose for His people.
1 John 2:2
“He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”
Arminian Argument: The phrase “the whole world” suggests Christ’s atonement was for every individual, not just the elect.
Reformed Response:
- Global Scope: John contrasts the Jewish context of the Gospel (“our sins”) with its worldwide scope (“the whole world”). The term emphasizes that Christ’s atonement is not limited to one ethnic group but is available to people of all nations.
- Effectual Atonement: If “whole world” meant every individual, the text would suggest universal salvation (since propitiation involves the removal of wrath). Instead, this refers to the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice for all while being effectual only for the elect.
Hebrews 2:9
“But we see Him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.”
Arminian Argument: If Jesus “tasted death for everyone,” this must mean His atonement was for all individuals.
Reformed Response:
- Contextual Audience: The author of Hebrews consistently focuses on Christ’s work for the “many sons” He is bringing to glory (Hebrews 2:10) and the “descendants of Abraham” (Hebrews 2:16). The “everyone” here refers to all those united to Christ—His people.
- Purpose of Christ’s Death: If “everyone” meant all individuals, the text would contradict the clear teaching of Hebrews that Christ’s atonement effectively secures salvation for those sanctified by His work (Hebrews 10:14).
2 Corinthians 5:19
“In Christ God was reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them.”
Arminian Argument: If God is reconciling “the world” to Himself, this implies universal atonement.
Reformed Response:
- Corporate Reconciliation: The “world” refers to the scope of reconciliation, encompassing people from every nation and background. This aligns with Paul’s mission to the Gentiles and the inclusivity of the Gospel.
- Effectual Reconciliation: The verse specifies that God is not counting trespasses against those reconciled, indicating actual salvation. This cannot refer to all individuals, as unbelievers remain under condemnation.
Summary
Passages that seem to challenge definite atonement are best understood within their immediate context and the broader framework of Scripture. They often emphasize the universal scope of the Gospel, not the universal efficacy of Christ’s atonement. Scripture consistently teaches that Christ’s death fully secures salvation for His elect, perfectly accomplishing God’s redemptive plan.
As John Owen famously argued:
- Christ died for all the sins of all people (universal salvation), or
- Christ died for all the sins of some people (definite atonement), or
- Christ died for some sins of all people (inadequate atonement).
Only definite atonement harmonizes with God’s sovereignty, justice, and grace.
Leave a comment