When we think about what Christ accomplished on the cross we really have three options.
One option is that Jesus died in the place of every single person. This would, then, mean that either Christ failed in his intended plan (because some are in hell) or that every single person is actually saved (universalism).
The second option is that when Christ died on the cross he died to make every person savable. He doesn’t actually accomplish the salvation of anyone but he opens up the way for men to be saved by grace when they repent and believe the gospel.
The third option is that “Jesus died as a substitute to secure the salvation of particular people.” (Proof, 38) The blood of Christ was sufficient to save the soul of every person that has ever lived—but God’s plan for His blood was to purchase a particular people as the bride of Christ.
The doctrine of Limited atonement is just a terribly worded way of saying you believe the third option to be the most biblical. You believe that
…Christ’s propitation on the cross is unlimited in its sufficiency or value. In this sense Christ makes an atonement for the whole world. But the efficacy of the atonement does not apply to the whole world, nor does its ultimate design. (Sproul, 177)
So, if you believe that Christ, at least in some sense, did not die for the entire world what then of proclaiming the gospel? Can you plead with sinners and tell them to come to Christ if it is possible that “the efficacy of the atonement does not apply” to them?
John Newton’s Answer
It is without doubt that Newton would have embraced the third option above. That fact is indisputable when assessing the life of a young John Newton. One can see this in his sermon on The Lamb of God, the great Atonement. Here Newton answers the question directly and obviously sides with our third option.
Some have attempted to show that Newton softened in his later days and no longer taught limited atonement. While it is true that Newton became less rigid in nailing down minute arguments, it is untrue that he moved away from a belief in particular redemption. Even as late as 1794 Newton pointed the Hannah More to this particular sermon to explain his views on the subject.
So Newton clearly held to a belief in particular redemption. But what did he do with our question? Did he believe that one who held to limited atonement could still preach directly to sinners?
Absolutely. While going to great lengths to show that Christ died for “His sheep” he also says this:
“That there is an election of grace, we are plainly taught; yet it is not said, ‘Jesus Christ came into the world to save the elect’, but that ‘he came to save sinners,’ to ‘seek and to save them that are lost’” (Volume 4, 192)
And it was because of this that Newton would say that ministers have a grounds to preach the gospel to every man—and to even directly address his conscience and even command them to “apply to Jesus Christ for salvation”.
How?
But isn’t this inconsistent? How can Newton say that Christ died for particular people and then say that we must share the gospel indiscriminately? Isn’t that a dishonest offer?
Christ died for particular people. Share the gospel with everyone. To some these two things cannot fit together and so they’ve attempted to do work on one of the two parts to the equation.
Some will deny the first statement and say that Christ died to make men savable, therefore we share the gospel with every man so that some can be saved.
Some will deny the second statement and say that because Christ only died for particular people we have no warrant to address the unconverted, we should only preach the gospel and tell them of their estate and a way of escape, but we should not address them directly.
But Newton saw a desire to be too consistent as the problem. We should affirm both statements because Scripture does. As Newton said, “we need not wish to be more consistent than the inspired writers nor be afraid of speaking as they have spoken before us” (Volume 1, 179).
You can believe wholeheartedly in limited atonement (particular redemption) and still persuade sinners to come to Christ. If you see historical figures like Newton pleading with all sinners to come to Christ, you do not have warrant to believe that such a one did not believe in limited atonement (as here).
A belief in limited atonement does not make you unable to proclaim the gospel directly to every sinner. In fact if taken whole such a doctrine may actually give you more confidence in proclaiming—knowing that His sheep will indeed answer the gospel call.
Regardless of our view on the extent of the atonement, may we go and preach the life-changing gospel of Jesus into all the world.
—
Photo source: here
I definitely believe in limited atonement, but my argument for sharing the gospel is not as studied or eloquent as Newton’s. I would simply say that because we are not omniscient, as God is, we have no way of knowing who is elect and who is not, so share the gospel passionately with everything that moves, and let God sort out the rest.
Also, I think Jesus’ own words in the parable of the sower (Matt. 13) back up the idea of sowing the gospel seed indiscriminately and trusting God for His results. When Jesus explained the parable to the disciples, he didn’t chastise the farmer in the story for “wasting seeds” by sowing them in certain areas, He just explained why certain seeds did not come to fruition.
Great article! :0)
I’ll agree with Michelle by simply saying that it seems we are commissioned to proclaim the gospel to every individual we can. We’re certainly not prevented from it. We proclaim first out of simple obedience.
I would add that there is plenty of indication that God not only determines the outcomes, but he also determines the means. Scripture indicates that his normal means for bringing people to himself aside from the quickening of the Holy Spirit is to send his people who themselves have come to faith the same way. The proclamation of the gospel not only is effective in bringing the elect to Christ, but it is effective in sanctifying those who do the proclaiming. Additionally, using weak vessels to do foolish work to accomplish the miracle of salvation in the lives of some who hear reveals the work of God and glorifies him. So proclaiming the gospel is a win-win-win situation.
How would you then answer the (arminian?) question:
How can someone be judged for not believing in Christ (John 3:36), or rejecting (or trampling) Christ’s blood, if he were not covered or ‘in’ Christ’s blood (see Hebr.10:29)?
Thank you for the answer ?
Good question.
I don’t think those questions would cause an evangelical Calvinist like Newton (or Fuller) to stumble. In one sense even Calvin taught that Christ died for all men. He is (in his position) the Savior of all men. Newton believed it was a bit too mechanical to say that Christ shed x amount of blood for x amount of sinners. Instead he believed Christ died for all sinners–his blood sufficient to save all–his position as Savior of all mankind. But that blood would only be effectually shed for believers and the intention of the Lord was to die for His sheep. Those two aren’t necessarily incompatible.
And so men are able to be judged for not believing in Christ. Because they ought to believe in Him. And if they would believe in Him they’d be saved. Problem is, they won’t believe.
As far as Hebrews 10:29 I think that is talking about something a bit different. That’s more of a warning passage that is used as a means of salvation for believers. The author of Hebrews is essentially saying there–if you abandon Christ, if you trample his blood, then you’ve got nothing left. So, don’t abandon Christ. I don’t think it really is meant to answer this question.
When discussion limited atonement, it is always useful to remember what is limited,
the worth of Christ’s blood is infinite, and has to be, because of the infinite outrage of one tiny sin to an infinite God
What is limited is only the intent and application of the triune God’s salvation to us who are infinite enemies of an infinite God
Who really limits the atonement? in worth? or in intent?