Some
Calvinists interpret John 17:9 deductively to support limited atonement. “I pray for them. I am not praying for the
world but for those you have given me, because they are yours” (john 17:9).
The
context is Christ’s intercessory prayer for the apostles on the eve of his
crucifixion. The limitarian argument is simple: The extent of the intercession
delimits the extent of the atonement such that Jesus only died for those for
whom he prays. Or, to put it another way, for all for whom Christ died, he
effectually intercedes. Jesus intercedes only for the elect; therefore, he died
only for the sins of the elect. Since Jesus did not intercede for the world, he
did not die for the sins of the world. This argument has been rebutted by many,
including Calvinists.
First,
the text does not assert limited atonement. Second, in the text Jesus is
praying for his apostles specifically. Third, the context makes clear the
purpose and content of his prayer: unity.
The
limitarian argument is based in logic, not the actual context, and proceeds in
a modus tollens fashion (Modus tollens is a form of logical
argument stating: if a conditional statement is accepted [if p then q],
and the consequent does not hold true [not-q], then the negation of the
antecedent [not-p] can be inferred):
1.
If Christ died for a person, Christ will effectually pray for that person.
2.
Christ does not pray for some people.
3.
Therefore, Christ did not die for some people (those for whom he did not pray).
The
problems is with the first (major) premise. A logically invalid inference is
being drawn that cannot be sustained from Scripture. John 17:9 does not state
or even imply that Christ only prays for some people, much less that these
people for whom he prays are the “elect” according to Reformed theology. The
text does not state that Jesus died only for the sins of those for whom he
prays. Limitarians fall pray to two logical fallacies in their argument: (1)
the negative inference fallacy, and (2) the generalizing fallacy (namely,
election entails limited atonement). The mistake here is a collapsing of the
intercession of Christ into his expiation for sins. This merely begs the
question of the extent of the atonement.
The
ones who are “given” to Christ are the eleven apostles, according to the context.
Moreover, Christ prays for future believers in v. 21 and finally for the “world”
in v. 23. David Ponter pointed out how limitarians merely allege, assume, and
assert without any evidence the following when it comes to John 17:
1.
That this is a specific and effectual high priestly prayer on the part of
Jesus.
2.
That the “world” of v. 9 represents the world of the reprobate.
3.
That those “given” in v. 9 represent the totality of the elect.
4.
That the extent of the high priestly intercession delimits the scope of the
satisfaction.
5.
That the two parallel clauses in vv. 21 and 23 are systematically overlooked or
misread.
In
John 17 Jesus prayed for three groups: the disciples exclusively (v. 9); all
future believers (v. 21); and finally, unbelievers—that is, the “world” in
normal Johannine usage (v. 23). Jesus prayed for the world’s salvation, as
evidenced by the subjunctive mood in Greek: “that the world may believe” and “that
the world may know.” Jesus prayed for the unity of the apostles and all future
believers (or for all disciples as such) for the stated purpose: that the world
may believe and know that Jesus had been sent from the father. Rather than
supporting limited atonement, John 17 supports an unlimited atonement. Limited
atonement is neither asserted nor can it be validly deducted from John 17:9. (David
L. Allen, “A Critique of Limited Atonement,” in Calvinism: A Biblical and
Theological Critique, ed. David L. Allen and Steve M. Lemke [Nashville,
Tenn.: B&H Academic, 2022], 84-86)