Theology Series 3: Atonement
Who did Christ’s death atone?
Upon reading Erickson’s explanation on Particular Atonement and Universal Atonement, I believe there is no true “one-shoe-fits-all”. Both stances have very compelling passages that support the backbone of its belief in the doctrine of atonement. The complexity of these topics cannot be placed in a closed box—God is astronomically intricate in his atoning work for us to simply categorize his work in a box. In doing this, we may lead ourselves towards a dangerous path of us constraining God’s redemption plan based on our own knowledge and preconceived notions. What exactly are these two types of atonements, and why does it matter? The bottom line of why this matters sets a believer towards the trajectory of comprehending just how beloved we really are to a God who did not need us.
Particular Atonement
Particular Atonement is the idea that Christ came to make salvation possible for those who are his elect. There are many passages that Erickson uses to elaborate on this party’s doctrinal stance. But I believe the backbone passage comes from John 10:11-27 where Jesus identifies who his sheep are. It is only his sheep that he gives his life for. One arguing statement I found intriguing that Erickson made to support this stance was, “Now if the death of Christ was a ransom for all alike, not just for the elect, then it must be the case that all are set free by the work of the Holy Spirit. Yet Scripture tells us that those who do not accept Christ are not redeemed from the curse of the law (Erickson, 2013, p756.)” This very statement gives insight as to how Universal Atonement is contradictory to the work of the Holy Spirit and assurance of our faith. How can Particular Atonement strive to keep the Holy Spirit’s work and our assurance of faith genuine if all were atoned for at Christ’s death, yet some are still cursed to eternal damnation?
Universal Atonement
In contrast, Universal Atonement is meant for the salvation of all people…not just the elect. Christ’s death on the cross was for all persons but the work of atonement is active when accepted by the person. Similar to Particular Atonement, there are many supporting passages in the text, but [in my opinion] the best supporting passage derives from 1 Timothy 2:6, “who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.” In this passage, Paul is emphatically making a point that Christ’s ransom was universal in God’s purpose. Yet, Erickson draws out a great argument against Particular Atonement—questioning, “If Christ died only for the elect, how can the offer of salvation be made to all persons without some sort of insincerity, artificiality, or dishonesty being involved? Is it not improper to offer salvation to everyone if in fact Christ did not die to save everyone (Erickson, 2013, p759)?” With the support that Erickson expounded on for his readers, I feel as if Universal Atonement steers away from the sovereignty of God. How can God be sovereign if atonement is universal and dependent on a person’s subjective choice?
Both parties heavily rely on the reality that Christ’s death was an atonement for humanity. Apart from Christ, there would be no salvation for all, or no salvation for the elect. Other than this reality, Universal and Particular Atonement are polar opposites in their views. It is like attempting to find common ground in today’s Republican and Democrat parties.
Sufficient For All, Efficient Only for the Elect
Both of the positions interpret the Bible very well; there is not one position that interprets its support passages most correctly. To pick a party means, in my opinion, that one must contradict Scripture, but we know that Scripture never contradicts itself. Instead of looking to see which passages contend over the other, I believe finding a good balance between the two is the best route one should take to avoid heresy. If we lean too far left or too far right, we just might fall into a place where we put too much of salvation on humanity (Universal); or humanity are robots to a God that’s already predetermined everything (Particular). I personally did not know how to make sense of how we could take a perspective that reads in between the lines of both parties until Erickson proposed a formula, “sufficient for all, efficient only for the elect (Erickson, 2013, p762).” In using the formula, we are not constraining God’s work of atonement to some manmade understanding. All passages used by Universal and Particular Atonement can be married together to support Erickson’s proposed formula. The most notable passage to tie together both positions comes from 1 Timothy 4:10, “For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.” Erickson excellently put into concise words the union of both positions, “the death of Jesus provided salvation for all people, but actually accomplished it for the elect” (Erickson, 2013, p762). In conclusion, there is no superior view of atonement—rather, there are two views that can be fit perfectly together to balance out Christ’s atoning work.
I believe God is sovereign in all that he does, including the prescription of salvation through Christ’s atoning work. It is neither the constraining of atonement through the views of Particular Atonement and Universal Atonement…but rather, it is in between the lines that we can arrive at an answer of who Christ died for. If both parties marry each other in its passages, we can come to a complimentary resolution to find that Christ ultimately died for the elect. As Erickson’s formula insinuates, it wasn’t necessarily that Christ died for everyone who would be born into the world, but that his atoning death was sufficient for everyone who would come to believe…that is, his elect.
It is indeed reassuring for my soul to place my faith in a God who knows me deeply and did not plainly send his Son to die in a general sense. To know that he has an infinite amount of attention to spare not just for the world, but for each individual in the likes of me—makes the story of the Gospel so much more captivating. For Jesus to die for a particular means that we are as much alone with him as if we were the only creation he’s ever created. Truly, we are his beloved.
CY