In his
recent book on the atonement, David L. Allen does a very good job at refuting
many arguments in favour of Limited/Particular Atonement. This post will
present two such arguments: (1) his comments on Rom 8:32-34 and (2) the claim that,
if Jesus’ atonement was propitiatory, this necessitates
limited atonement.
Rom 8:32-34 reads as follows:
He who did not spare
His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him
freely give us all things? Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is
the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died,
yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes
for us. (NASB)
Some Calvinists use this as a “proof-text” for Particular/Limited Atonement. Writing in response
to this, David L. Allen, a critic of Reformed theology, provided the following
answer:
Some have attempted to use this text to
support limited atonement. Their argument is as follows. The “all” for whom
Christ died, according to this passage, are given “all things.” The non-elect are
not given all things; therefore, Christ did not die for them. This is a modus tollens argument
as distinguished from a modus ponens argument
with an a fortiori (greater to the
lesser) layer as well: (2) If Christ died for you (the greater thing), you will
be given “all things,” including all consequent gifts (lesser things). (2) Some—i.e.,
the non-elect—are not given the lesser things. (3) Therefore, Christ did not
die for some (the non-elect). If P (you are died for; the greater thing), then
Q (all things are given; the lesser things). Not Q (some are not given all
things); therefore not P. The argument has a valid modus tollens form, but it is an unsound argument:
All the died-for receive all things.
Some do not receive all things;
Therefore, they are not died-for.
Some do not receive all things;
Therefore, they are not died-for.
Here is the fallacy: The “us” (in “delivered
Him up for us all,” Rom 8:32) is being converted into “all for whom Christ
died,” when, contextually, the “us” refers to believers, not all for whom Christ
died.
This line of reasoning fails to recognize
that Paul is addressing believers and describing their status as believers in
relation to God’s blessings. It confuses what Paul says to believers and about
believers and extrapolates it into an abstraction concerning all the elect,
whether believing or unbelieving. But this merely begs the question concerning
the content of the atonement. The “all” in this passage refers to all
believers, as context makes clear. To conclude from Rom 8:32 that Christ died
only for believers and not for anyone else is to invoke the inference fallacy.
Paul is not speaking about all the elect qua elect, considered as an abstract
class (the as yet unborn elect and the living but unbelieving elect). Paul’s
point is that no condemnation accrues to believers for whom Christ died (the
greater gift) and that they will be given all things (the lesser gifts), not
that Christ did not die for all unbelievers. (David L Allen, The Atonement: A Biblical, Theological, and
Historical Study of the Cross of Christ [Nashville: B&H Academic, 2019],
92-94)
With respect
to the meaning of ιλασμος (“propitiation”) in texts such as 1 John 2:1-2, some Reformed apologist
(e.g., James R. White) have argued that this necessitates limited atonement, unless one wishes to be an
Universalist. As Allen notes, this is fallacious:
With respect to the word “propitiation” (Gk. hilasmos), it is important to note that
John uses the noun form of the word and states that Christ is the propitiation for our sins and for the sins of the whole
world. As scholars have demonstrated, “propitiation” includes “expiation.”
Advocates of limited atonement often make a serious mistake when they make an
invalid noun-to-verb conversion of the noun “propitiation.” Nouns and verbs are
distinct for a reason. Nouns speak to what a thing is or what it does. Verbs
speak to what a thing is doing or has done or shall do. Unlike verbs, nouns do
not have a tense. The result is to read “propitiation” as if it is speaking
about the atonement as both accomplished and
applied—or accomplished with intent to apply effectually only to the elect.
Christ is viewed as actually propitiating and forgiving, and reconciling those
for whom the propitiation was made. But this is emphatically not what the verse
says.
Once the illegitimate noun-to-verb transfer
is made, then syllogistic arguments follow. For example, if “world” means all
people, this would entail that all humanity’s sin has been propitiated and
expiated (as an accomplished action with resulting salvation, according to
limitarians); but given that it is not the case and that the sins of all
humanity have been expiated, “world,” therefore, cannot denote all humanity. In
other words:
1. If Christ has propitiated the wrath of God
for a man (hypothetically named “Smith), then that man cannot fail to be saved.
2. Christ has propitiated the wrath of God
for Smith.
3. Therefore, Smith cannot fail to be saved.
Or, to rephrase the syllogism into a Modus Tollens argument:
If Christ died for the whole world, then the
whole world will necessarily be saved.
It is not the case that the whole world is
saved;
Therefore, it is not the case that Christ
died for the whole world.
The syllogisms are formally valid but not
logically sound because the first premise works only on the noun-to-verb
conversion. However, the noun hilasmos (“propitiation”),
does not refer to an accomplished past-tense action but to function—i.e., how something is accomplished. “Propitiation” points
back to Christ’s sacrifice for sins as a
means for sinners to find forgiveness. The cross is the means whereby one may find forgiveness—via
an accomplished propitiation/expiation (noun) for sins, not to an already accomplished
application of the benefits of the atonement as subjective effect already
completed.
Consider 1 John 2:1 as a parallel example and
comparable in structure to 1 John 2:2. John says, “If anyone sins, we have an
Advocate.” Here, Advocate (Gk. paraklēton) is a noun, and the sense is,
if anyone seeks pardon for his sins, there is
an advocate for them. The sense is not that Christ has already advocated (past tense verb indicated
accomplished action) for them, but that He is
their “Advocate” or the Counselor to whom they may go to find help and
comfort. That is, if they confess their sin, He will advocate on their behalf.
John is describing Christ’s office and function as Advocate—what He will
accomplish with regard to those who confess their sins.
John’s point in 1 John 2:2 is that there is
an accomplished, objective atonement that provides an ongoing means for
subjective reconciliation to occur between a sinner and God when the sinner
comes to God through Christ by faith. Propitiation accomplished does not, and
cannot, ipso facto mean propitiation applied. Without repentance there can be
no advocacy applied (1 John 2:1), and without faith in Christ there can be no
propitiation applied. Christ’s death on the cross has made propitiation for the
sins of all people and is objectively available—conditionally as to its
efficacy to all who will come to God through Christ by faith. If any person
confesses his sin, he will find in Christ an Advocate, because Christ is “the
propitiation for our sins, and not or ours only but also for the whole world.” (Ibid.
160-62, italics in original)
Further Reading