Definite Atonement: The Perfection of the Work of Christ

The atonement of Christ is one of the most important topics in Christian thought. This is because the work of the cross is the core message of Christianity. Put simply, if the church does not have the cross right, it will crumble into heresy and unbelief. When building a house, one of the most important stages of construction is the foundation. The house may be built beautifully and decorated better than any other building on the block, but if the foundation is bad, it will be useless and, eventually, demolished. This is true of Christianity today. Believers seem to be very infatuated with the minor details of church life: The preaching, the entertainment, the quality of youth group and other services offered. They even worry about theological issues such as who should be baptized, who should take communion, what kind of music is correct for the church, and a gamut of other concerns. But the average Christian’s knowledge of the cross of Christ is rudimentary and often biblically unsound. If believers today were to answer what the words atonement, propitiation, or reconciliation mean, they would be helpless to answer such a query.

Steven Gaston is a high school student that lives in Spotsylvania, VA. He was raised in a thoroughly Christian home and has been brought up with parents that are extremely involved in church. When asked to define these terms, he answered: “Atonement is the covering up of something that was someone else’s’” “Reconciliation is when you are forgiven and given a new beginning.” Steven did not know the definition of propitiation.

Such a loss of understanding on the subject of the atonement in our culture is lamentable. Not just in laymen circles, but among respected theologians the perception of the cross of Christ is almost completely unbiblical and focuses on minor texts on the atonement and, at times, is founded solely on traditions and ideas of men. Christians must regain a balanced and biblical view of the atonement. The view that Christ died for all men incompletely is inconsistent and based on questionable Biblical evidence whereas a strong adherence to a limited and complete atonement has great biblical support. In other words, Christ’s atonement was definite, or specific. It is complete and secure. A regaining of such a view is much needed in the church today.

The doctrine of universal atonement, the most common view in evangelicalism today, is unbiblical and is based on faulty arguments. This doctrine claims that Christ’s work on the cross was intended for all men who have ever lived, but it only made them savable; it didn’t actually secure salvation for anyone in particular. Alternative views are quickly rebuked as an insult on Christ and His work. To deny a universal atonement is, in most minds, on the border of apostasy. This belief is held because of a somewhat understandable but misled desire not to limit the atonement .What this argument does not realize, though, is that both the Arminian and the Calvinist limits the atonement. The Calvinist limits its extent; the Arminian limits its power. The only view that does not limit the atonement is universalism, which believes that all men everywhere will inevitably go to heaven. Thus the one who rejects Definite Atonement is left with only two other options. If one believes that Christ died for all men, as John Owen points out,

“Then one of these two things will necessarily follow: That God and Christ failed at their end proposed, and did not accomplish that which they intended, the death of Christ being not a fitly proportioned means for attaining that end…or else, that all men, all the posterity of Adam, must be saved, purged, sanctified and glorified” (47).

In other words, apart from definite atonement, one must limit the quality of the blood of Christ and assert that His atoning death wasn’t enough to save anybody in the long run, or else must embrace universalism; a standpoint that very few Arminians would accept.

The biblical data supporting universal atonement is lacking. One would think that if someone would go so far as to say that the blood of Christ was not effectual for those it was intended then there must be ample biblical data to support such a claim. In a search for substantial evidence for it, the unbiased student of scripture finds none. The Arminian view of atonement hinges on the definition of universal terms such as “all” or “world”. The universal atonement advocate asserts that passages that say Christ died for the “whole world” or “all men” inevitably mean that Christ died indiscriminately for all who have ever lived. One must wonder why anyone automatically comes to that conclusion, though, since the bible as well as every language in existence do not always mean universal things when they use such terms. These words are often used in scripture to mean men from every race or mankind in general. One theologian comments, “The words ‘world’ and ‘all’ are used in seven or eight senses in Scripture; and it is very rarely that ‘all’ means all persons, taken individually” (Spurgeon). One must assume that the several texts that refer to the atonement as universal are speaking of every man who has ever lived. The only sound way to interpret the meaning of such terms is to conform them to the context in which they were written. When one does that, the support for universal atonement loses its foundation. when someone accepts that “all” and “world” do not always mean everyone who ever lived, the rest of scripture’s account on the atonement forces one to believe in a definite atonement.

The universal atonement theory is even more inconsistent when it is applied to the Trinity’s work in saving sinners. This is an area not often realized by the Arminian. According to their theory, God the Father predestined a plan of salvation, Christ bore the penalty for all men (this is in accordance with modern Arminianism. Historical Arminianism did not hold this view), but the Holy Spirit only seals certain men (those who believe). This view of atonement puts the trinity at odds with each other. Contrary to such a teaching, Ephesians 1:3-14 teaches us that the Father chose a people, the Son redeemed that people and the Holy Spirit is sealing that same people. Michael Horton writes, “Our salvation, therefore, arises first of all out of the joint solidarity of the divine persons” (79). Definite atonement believes that salvation is dependent on the power and faithfulness of each member of the Godhead. Universal atonement simply can not have such security.

Adherents to universal atonement often shy away from the alternative view because they feel that if the salvation of those whom Christ died for are secure, then there will be no reason or fruit in evangelism. Thus many today see the orthodox view of a perfected redemption as the end of evangelism. Not only is this false, but definite atonement actually gives the evangelist hope. As Packer points out, “Far from making evangelism pointless, the sovereignty of God in grace is the one thing that prevents evangelism from being pointless” (116). The one who feels it is up to the sinner to decide to accept Christ’s atonement on his behalf is far more apt to become discouraged than the one who relies on the faithfulness of God. We must remember that God has ordained that His elect are to receive the benefits of the redemption wrought for them through the preaching of the gospel accompanied by the work of the Holy Spirit. As Paul, the greatest evangelist since Christ points out, “I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 2:10). Knowing that God has a people secured for salvation in the world is the motivation of evangelism.

Unlike the flaw- filled theory of universal atonement, the concept of the cross of Christ known as definite atonement is rich in biblical content and is philosophically reasonable. The Arminian view of atonement centers on one sentence statements throughout the New Testament that are not the primary texts concerning the atonement. The Calvinistic view is based on the primary texts and uses the knowledge of them to help interpret the secondary texts.

The Old Testament shows a shining example of a definite atonement. In the Levitical priesthood; the high priest was the intercessor of the Israeli people. It is striking to notice that redemption was not provided for the Hittites or the Philistines. In fact, every nation on earth was excluded from the Old Testament atonement except Israel. Thus we see that the entire sacrificial system before Christ was a limited atonement. The Calvinist asserts that while the Old Testament sacrifices were intended for national Israel, the New Testament sacrifice of Christ is intended for the spiritual Israel, all of God’s elect. The Arminian, however, asserts that the Old Testament sacrifice was for national Israel and the New Testament sacrifice is intended for every man who ever lived. The former appears to be more consistent in this area.

The New Testament gives so much evidence regarding the true nature of the cross that the conclusion is undeniable. The most compelling evidence in favor of definite atonement is the truth that the New Testament views the sacrifice of Christ as perfect and complete, needing nothing in addition to it. John Murray, in defending this doctrine, writes,

“A work was perfected which antedates any and every recognition or response from its beneficiaries. Any curtailing of this fact in the interest of what is supposed to be a more ethical interpretation or in the interest of interpreting the atonement in terms of the ethical effects it is calculated to produce in us is to eviscerate the truth of the atonement” (52).

This in fact is the entire argument of the book of Hebrews. We read,
“But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the Holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption…by this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, after offering one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified” (Hebrews 9:11, 12, 10:10-14).

The implication from this text is that in the Old Covenant the priests had to administer multiple sacrifices because they were unable to perfect anybody. Christ’s sacrifice, however, was a finished act. It secured salvation for all whom it mediated. This is shown forth undeniably as the text says that although the priests stand daily ministering, constantly working to atone for Israel’s sins, when Christ made His sacrifice He sat down at the right hand of God. His work is finished from that time onward, thus he does not need to minister daily. Grudem comments on the application of the perfection of the cross to our lives, “It assures us that there is no more penalty for sin left for us to pay. The penalty has entirely been paid by Christ, and we should have no remaining fear of condemnation or punishment” (578). The knowledge that the eternal destiny of God’s people is secure should invoke great comfort to the believer.

Christ secured the salvation of all of His people because he paid their sin debt as a substitute. The term propitiation is often used in the Bible. The word simply means the satisfaction of wrath. Christ was the substitute for a particular people, and the wrath of God is appeased on their behalf through the sacrifice of Christ. Thus Paul can conclude,

“He who did not spare His own son, but delivered Him over for (literally “in place of”) us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? Who will bring a charge to God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; Who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died” (Romans 8:32-34).

Although the penal substitution of Christ is accepted as the orthodox view in modern Christianity (Grudem 579), the stance is only given justice by those who have most strongly propagated it, those of the Reformation and Calvinists. Those who were substituted will never have to pay the penalty for their sin, though universal atonement advocates say otherwise. One can only wonder how the Arminian can believe that Christ paid the debt of men who will afterward pay for their sins again in Hell.

The universal atonement theory is utterly inconsistent and unbiblical. It is based on faulty reasoning and minor passages of scripture. Definite atonement, however, is based on biblical truth and the authority of God’s word above all else. The reader must not allow the trap of following the crowd or standing on long held traditions to get in the way of a sound understanding of the cross of Christ. May we struggle to build the foundation of our faith on solid ground, so that the structure of our faith will be unwavering, rooted deeply in the all- sufficient cross of Christ.




Works Cited
Grudem, Wayne. “Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine.” Zondervan
Publishing 1994. Print.
Horton, Michael. “God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology.” Baker Books Publishing
2006. Print
Murray, John. “Redemption Accomplished and Applied.” Eerdmans Publishing 1955. Print.
Owen, John. “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.” Banner of Truth 1967.
Print.
Packer, J. I. “Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God.” Intervarsity Press 2008. Print.
Spurgeon, Charles. “Particular Redemption.” Spurgeon.org. The Spurgeon Archive 1858.