THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ATONEMENT
Now that we have reflected on the design of the atonement, its perfection, uniqueness, and timelessness, we now turn our attention towards its effectiveness. In this area we have two questions - the first related to eligibility, and the second to application. The first is: For whom is the atonement effective…..all people, or just God’s elect people? The second question relates to the application of the atonement….is this done by God or by man’s decision to place faith in Jesus?

On the first question, we have great historical debate in the church, due to the number of passages which can be brought to bear on each interpretation. We have several verses supporting the general redemption or unlimited atonement view. These include John 1:29, John 3:16, John 6:51, 2 Cor. 5:19, 1 John 2:2, 1 Tim. 2:6, Heb. 2:9. In these texts, we have the offer of the gospel being offered to all people. Probably the most well-known verse in use for the general atonement view is 2 Peter 3:9. This verse has been used extensively, but as we review the context, it is clear the Apostle Peter is speaking to believers, because of the phrase “The Lord is long-suffering to us” where “us” clearly restricts the later clause, indicating that the audience is believers.

In the limited atonement view, there are several verses of Scripture which clearly show a limited group exists, and/or Jesus’ awareness of a specific group of people whom the Father has given Him. These verses are John 10:10, 10:15, Acts 20:28, Rom. 8:33, Ephesians 5:25, John 6:37-39, 17:9, 17:20, and Rom. 5:8. R.C. Sproul concludes:

“In this case, the text must refer to the will of God in the decretive sense. God decrees that none of His elect shall perish. As a result, the goal of election is assured. All the elect come to repentance. All of the elect come to faith. All of the elect are saved. None of the elect perish. This is indeed the very purpose of election, and this purpose is not frustrated.” (Page 171).

It seems from the texts that the limited atonement view is more compelling, since it is clear that with many texts confirming the existence of hell, and others that some are destined to perish (John 17:12, Phil. 3:19), that some will not be saved. It seems that since some people will be in hell, not all will be saved, the general atonement position is untenable. Christ’s death has infinite merit, and can cover as many people as will come to salvation.

The second question is more difficult, and involves the application of salvation to the believer, and the sufficiency of the atonement. The Arminian view holds that the atonement by itself is not complete without the believer’s decision to place faith in Jesus. The Reformed view holds that this view is in error, since it places the condition of faith on top of Christ’s death on the cross. R.C.Sproul writes:

“If faith is a condition for God’s justice to be satisfied, then the atonement, in itself, is not sufficient to satisfy the demand’s of God’s justice……If faith is necessary to the atonement, then Christ’s work was a mere potentiality. In itself it saves no one. It merely makes salvation possible”. (Page 166-167)

John Owen deals with this directly in his treatise on the atonement:

“First, if the full debt of all be paid to the utmost extent of the obligation, how comes it to pass that so many are shut up in prison to eternity, never freed from their debts? Secondly, if the Lord, as a just creditor, ought to cancel all obligations and surcease all suits against such as have their debts so paid, whence is it that His wrath smokes against some to all eternity? Let none tell me that it is because they walk not worthy of the benefit bestowed; for that not walking worthy is part of the debt which is fully paid, for (as it is in the third inference) the debt so paid is all our sins. Thirdly, is it probable that God calls any to a second payment, and requires satisfaction of them for whom, by His own acknowledgment, Christ hath made that which is full and sufficient?” (The Death of Death Page 161).

These differences between Reformed and Arminian positions come down to deeper differences in the purposes of God, since both sides have quite a bit to agree on, and significant Biblical support, especially that not all people will be saved. Grudem adds:

“both sides must also say that there is something else that God deems more important than saving everyone.”