Few
theological questions can ignite a firestorm of controversy as easily as the
question concerning the divine intent of Christ’s cross-work. At the center of this issue is the query, for
whose sins did Christ die? This question
creates a trilemma; only three answers are possible. Christ’s death propitiated and satisfied for
either (1) some of the sins of all people, (2) all of the sins of some people,
or (3) all of the sins of all people. The Reformed perspective of the intent of
Christ’s death, that his death atoned for all of the sins of only some people,
is the correct view of the atonement.
Option one (1), which states that
Christ died for some of the sins of all people, is essentially the Roman
Catholic position. On this view,
Christ’s death propitiated the wrath of God against humanity’s guilt of
original sin. Postbaptismal sins,
however, must be atoned for through the efforts of the believer by means of
good works. This truncated view is utterly
foreign to a biblical theology of what Christ’s death accomplished. If option (1) is the case, then all people
have innumerable sins for which Christ did not die. Consequently, one is
not actually saved by Christ’s death, if option one is the case.
Option two (2),the historic Reformed
understanding of the atonement, holds that Christ died for all of the sins of
some people. These beneficiaries are
variously related to Christ as “his people” (Matt. 1:21), his “friends” (Jn.
15:13), his “body” (Eph. 5:23—26), his “Bride” (Rev. 19:7), his “church” (Acts
20:28), and his “sheep” for whom he lays down his life (Jn. 10:11, 15). In theological parlance, the term of choice
is the “elect” (Rom. 8:32—34). On this
view, option two, Christ’s death efficaciously accomplished the full redemption
of some people, namely the elect.
Option three (3) is that Christ died
for all of the sins of all people without exception. This view is held by Arminians and Amyraldians. However, if Christ’s death was
substitutionary and efficacious, and he died for all people, then it follows
that all people are redeemed and thus saved.
The teaching that all are saved is called universalism. Historic Christian orthodoxy precludes universalism
as a biblically faithful conclusion. The
attempt to avoid the charge of universalism is often made by maintaining that
while Christ died for all the sins of all men, a person’s unbelief is what
ultimately condemns him or her. It may
be asked, however, is not unbelief also a sin?
If unbelief is a sin, then Christ also died for that sin, since he died
for all sins, as presented by option three.
If, on the contrary, unbelief is not a sin, then it may be rightly asked
why God condemns a person for it? Hence,
if option three is maintained, and Christ’s death was efficacious, then
universalism is unavoidable.
The
foregoing has demonstrated that, despite the heated controversy that is often
invoked by the question of the intent of the atonement, two of the three horns
of this logical trilemma are pointedly unbiblical. If the choice is option one (1), then all are
condemned, which is unbiblical. If the
choice is option three (3), then unbelief would be included as a sin for which
Christ died, and thus universalism is the unavoidable conclusion. This is likewise unbiblical. Therefore, it
has been proved that only option two (2), which posits that Christ died for all
of the sins of only some people, the historic Reformed view, is the correct
view of the atonement. Hence, only
option two, the historic Reformed view of the atonement, offers theologically
self-conscious, critical-minded Christians a logically consistent perspective
of Christ’s atonement, one which also couches coherently within the broader
edifice of orthodox Christian theology.
My gratitude and indebtedness goes out to the brilliant Puritan divine John Owen for the crux of this argument.
My gratitude and indebtedness goes out to the brilliant Puritan divine John Owen for the crux of this argument.
