1. The Atonement and Its Extent1
Rev Neil M Ross
Two of the key points of the doctrine of salvation may be highlighted by these texts: “He shall save his people from their sins” (Mt 1:21), and, “Salvation belongeth unto the Lord” (Ps 3:8) (emphasis mine). Therefore the theological system which makes the atonement of Christ universal and the salvation of the sinner dependent on himself is one which dishonours God and deludes sinners. Such a system is Arminianism. It is diametrically opposed to Calvinism, which persistently proclaims that the atonement is for particular persons, not universal, and salvation to be by divine grace, not dependent on the sinner. In between the two systems of Arminianism and Calvinism, stands another: Amyraldianism, so named after Moise Amyraut (1596-1664), who became its early main proponent. Although today’s proponents of the system stoutly claim they are truly Calvinistic, they do have a foot in the Arminian camp in teaching that Christ died equally for all.
Amyraldianism (or Amyraldism, as some prefer to call it), is also referred to by other names, including Hypothetical, or Conditional, Universalism, Hypothetical Redemption, Moderate Calvinism, Modified Calvinism and Four-point Calvinism. Something of its complexity is indicated by the variety of labels attached to it, but it is principally an erroneous view of the atonement, especially of the extent of the atonement. It holds that the atonement is not limited or definite or particular, but universal, and in essence it teaches that Christ died to save all men although only the elect are saved.
Although the error dates back to the seventeenth century, it did not die out or become outdated. It continued into the nineteenth century, so that James MacGregor, a Free Church minister, said in 1870: “Amyraldism . . . has re-
1The first section of a paper given at the 2011 Theological Conference.
peatedly appeared in the bosom of the Reformed or Calvinistic Church; first in the French Reformed Church two hundred years ago, and more recently in the United Secession Church in Scotland”.2 Since MacGregor’s day, Amyraldianism has grown greatly in popularity. Today it is widely held and assertively promoted by such men as Alan Clifford and R T Kendall.
Although Calvinism is still retained in the more conservative sections of the Christian church in the United Kingdom, the sad, deplorable fact is that comparatively few in the visible Church at large espouse a limited atonement. In his lecture entitled, “The Scope of the Atonement”, Dr Roger Nicole (a Swiss-American professor of theology who died in 2010) says that those worldwide who hold a limited or definite atonement are really few. Not only does he list, as one would expect, the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, and Methodist Churches, as affirming and maintaining a universal atonement but also the majority of Congregationalists and Baptists, plus what he calls “downgraded Presbyterians”. “So people who maintain a doctrine of definite atonement”, he says, “are clearly a minority in the total body of people who claim the name of Christ and can be subsumed under the general title Christendom.”3
The term, ‘limited atonement’, we may remind ourselves, lies in the middle of the “Five Points of Calvinism” (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints). These five points do not constitute the whole system of Calvinism, of course; they simply are, as Dr James Packer says, “a series of denials of Arminian assertions”4 and summarise the response of the Synod of Dort to the five-point Remonstrance of Jacobus Arminius and his fellow Remonstrants. The doctrine of limited atonement, which is central to the Christian faith, is that Jesus Christ atoned for the sins of the elect by His substitutionary death on the cross, and that His atonement is limited only in this sense: that it was designed and intended for the elect alone.
The meaning of atonement. We note that the term atonement appears only once in the New Testament, in Romans 5:11. It is the translation of the Greek katallagē, which in other places is translated reconciliation. Atonement then is simply at-one-ment or reconciliation, but with the idea that reconciliation is on the basis of satisfaction having been rendered to the offended party – that is, to God. “The term satisfaction is the word used by the Reformers, and is in many ways preferable to the more common term [atonement],”
5The Free Presbyterian Magazine, vol 39, p 420.
writes Rev Donald Beaton. He also says that, although the word atonement “is not as comprehensive or descriptive as strict accuracy would demand, yet . . . as long as care is taken to use the term in a comprehensive sense, embracing all that Christ did to satisfy the demands of law and justice, in the place and on behalf of sinners, no injury to the truth will follow”.5
The atoning work of Christ was absolutely necessary because sin is an infinite evil. Donald Beaton says, “God is wronged by sin and robbed of His rights, and the Holy One owes it to Himself to vindicate His glory”.6 There is no substitute for the atonement. The most profound repentance, for example, could never be the ground of either the satisfaction of justice or the salvation of the sinner. The atonement of Christ is the essential ground of both.
The satisfaction rendered by Christ to divine justice was absolutely complete and perfect. “This perfection of the satisfaction of Christ is not due”, says Charles Hodge, “to His having suffered either in kind or in degree what the sinner would have been required to endure; but principally to the infinite dignity of His Person. He is not a mere man, but God and man in one person. His obedience and sufferings were therefore the obedience and sufferings of a divine Person.”7
A correct view of the atonement can therefore be based only on a right view of the person of Christ. “It should never be forgotten,” says Mr Beaton, “that there is a very intimate connection between the person and the work of Christ. It follows that a low view of His Person will naturally lead to a low and inadequate view of His atoning work.”8 Mr Beaton was at pains to make clear that, while Christ suffered in his human nature, it was a Divine Person who suffered. Charles Hodge observes: “The sacred writers do not hesitate to say that God purchased the Church with His own blood; and that the Lord of Glory was crucified. . . . It follows from this that the satisfaction of Christ has all the value which belongs to the eternal Son of God; and His righteousness, active as well as passive, is infinitely meritorious.”9
The extent of the atonement. On the question of the extent of the atonement, that is, For whom was the atonement designed and intended, and to whom is it applied? The Westminster Confession of Faith states: “They who are elected being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ . . . Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only” (3:6).
While the atonement is limited as to its intended beneficiaries, this is not
10Certain theologians of the Middle Ages.
to say that there is not enough in it for everyone. The old formula of the schoolmen10 was that Christ died sufficiently for all men and efficaciously for the elect. “This is misleading though accepted by Calvin and other orthodox divines,” says Donald Beaton, “as it ascribes or seems to ascribe an intention of Christ dying for all. . . . The later post-Reformation theologians stated it thus: ‘His death is sufficient for all but efficacious only for the elect’.”11
So those for whom the atonement was intended are those specified by Christ Himself: “I am come that they [my sheep] might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth His life for the sheep” (Jn 10:10,11). In other words, they are, as Christ said in His intercessory prayer, those whom the Father gave to Him out of the world (Jn 17:6). However, Amyraldianism teaches otherwise, as we hope to show later.