A Brief Objection to Limited Atonement

           Of the five points of Calvinism, Limited or Definite Atonement strikes me as the most incompatible with the Scriptures.  Though Calvinists have Scripture passages they believe support the doctrine, I find there is more Scripture to clearly oppose it.  I would like to briefly outline what I believe is the correct position on the doctrine of the atonement.  First, let us look at the other side:

Calvinists’ View

            When Jesus was offered as a sacrifice for sins, he had specific sinners in mind, namely the elect.  God purposed beforehand to save a certain group of people and sent Jesus to die for those people.  He had a definite purpose for the death of Christ.  God did not accept the death of Jesus as a general covering or substitution for every sinner, but for a particular group of sinners, those he had predestined to salvation.  In John 10:11-16, 26-29  Jesus speaks of laying down his life for the sheep.  God had given him certain people, the sheep, and they are the definite object for his work on the cross.  Also Ephesians 5:25 reveals that “Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it.”  The goats and the non-church are not mentioned here as the object of Christ death.  Jesus speaks of a propitiation for a limited, definite group of people – his people (Matt 1:21.)

My Objections

            2 Peter 2:1, “But there are false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”  We find here a group of false teachers, preaching a different gospel, denying Christ, headed for destruction.  Yet even these people are the object of redemption, though they rejected it.  I believe that this verse reveals the extent of the sacrifice of Christ.  He died and bought even false teachers, who, despite this sacrifice, reject Christ and receive condemnation.  These teacher were unsaved, headed for hell and leading others with them, yet they are among those that Christ died for.

            Another verse that makes Definite Atonement objectionable is 1 John 2:1-2, “My little children, these things I write unto you, that ye sin not.  And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our’s only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”  Christians have an advocate in heaven, Jesus Christ, who intercedes for us.  This intercession and removal of sins is made possible because of the covering that Christ’s death provided.  But though Christians have an advocate, the whole world has a covering.  The Bible clearly states that Christ death afforded a covering for not just the sins of the elect, but also the sins of the unsaved, the whole world.  The world does not have an advocate but they do have an opportunity, a way of salvation, a means of removing sin – the death of Christ.  This verse seems to emphatically indicate that the whole world, every sinner, was the object of the atonement.

            This doctrine of unlimited or general atonement often leads to the accusation of universal salvation.  Since Christ covered all the sins of the world then why do they not go to heaven?  A simple answer is that the atonement was provided for them, intended for them, but was not applied to them.  The non-elect have no high priest, no advocate, and no intercessor.  Christ offered a gift, paid for by his blood, but they rejected it.  Thus the death of Christ was sufficient for all, intended for all, but only applied to those who repent and believe.  Let us take this message to the whole world:  “Christ died for every one of you: repent of your sins, and call upon the name of the Lord and you will be saved.”

What is Fundamentalism?

In response to several people's question I offer below my definition of fundamentalism (in which I include myself, but only by this definition.) 

This is a short article so if you disagree please ask for clarification before assuming error. I welcome the chance to defend and possibly alter my views here. I have not included footnotes in the body but I have included a short bibliography at the end that provides the source of my views.   

Definition:
Fundamentalism is a 20th-century militant anti-modern/liberal orthodox Christian movement.  This definition is drawn from the history of the movement, from it's inception in the early part of the 20th-century until the present. Though many fundamentalists also hold other beliefs such as King James Only or believer's baptism, I do not include those beliefs here, for that would exclude men such as John R. Rice (not KJV Only) and J. Gresham Machen (Presbyterian), both recognized leaders of fundamentalism.

Below is a more detailed explanation of the terms used above:

  I. The Enemy: Liberalism To understand fundamentalism one must first understand its opponent: theological liberalism or modernism. The core of liberalism is it's reliance on experience over doctrine. Thus the liberal will maintain that the Bible is not necessarily true doctrine but merely information about people's experience with God. A liberal will appeal to the individual experience of a Christian as the basis of authority. The power of liberalism comes from its use of Christian language with a new definition. Since they reject the objective truth and rely on experience, then words such as 'salvation,' 'Christ,' and 'resurrection' are not taken from the Bible but redefined in a subjective or modern sense. This new definition is formed using modern principles of criticism, science, and philosophy. Thus liberalism is an experience-based theology, that rejects the inerrancy of Scripture in favor of subject personal relationships and modern scientific methods.  Though some would define it differently, to do so would reject the writings and arguments of the vast majority of fundamentalists over the past century.

II. Historical Setting To understand fundamentalism is to place it in its proper context, namely 20th-century America. Some would trace its beginnings to the twelve-volume set of essays entitled The Fundamentals published between 1910 and 1915. However, despite it's name, the authors of these writings were not all fundamentalists. Several of the authors held to shallow views of Scripture and would later strongly oppose fundamentalists and ally themselves with liberals and moderates.  The Fundamentals should be considered the prequel to fundamentalism, before the movement was forged in later battle.
      Fundamentalism's anti-modernist nature necessitates that there exist modernism for it to oppose.   Thus before the late 1800s and early 1900s fundamentalism could not exist because liberalism did not exist, at least not as a movement or theology. To attempt to find fundamentalism in the centuries prior is impossible, though you may find individual aspects of it, such as doctrinal purity or separatism. Only when Christianity was mixed with modern methods of science, history, and theology would there be a need for a group to oppose it. This is the movement we call fundamentalism.

II. Doctrinal Orthodoxy The most basic aspect of fundamentalism is its adherence to the inerrancy of Scripture. This can be defined as a belief in the inspiration of the Scriptures by God that completely rules out any possible error in the transmission, so that what the writers penned on paper was completely true: doctrinally, historically, and scientifically. This view is not a strictly fundamentalist view, as other conservative denomination and groups have also ascribed to it, but it is an essential part of its doctrine. Along with the inspiration of Scripture, fundamentalist hold to four other doctrines, collectively entitled "The Five Fundamentals of the Faith:"
1) Inerrancy of Scriptures
2) Virgin Birth
3) Christ's Substitutionary Atonement
4) Christ's Bodily Resurrection
5) The Second Coming of Christ
While many individual would hold more than these, no fundamentalist could hold less. For instance, dispensationalism would later become a hallmark of fundamentalism, but was rejected by J. Gresham Machen, leader of Presbyterian Fundamentalism, and Williams Jennings Bryan, who fought evolution in the Scopes Monkey Trial.
The guiding principle in fundamentalist thought is that the inerrant Bible is foundational to knowledge, and that modernism, with its accompanying ideas of subjectivism, Darwinism and higher criticism, is to be rejected.

III. Militant Stance Militant is defined as "vigorously active and aggressive, especially in support of a cause." This is what separates fundamentalism from conservative moderates. While a moderate may believe in the fundamentals of the faith, they decline to actively defend them. When modernism was gaining power in American religion, the group of conservatives that rose to oppose them were labeled fundamentalists. Fundamentalism is defined by its open defense of pure doctrine.

IV. Separatism The final mark of fundamentalism is its willingness to separate from liberalism. This is a more difficult trait to identify in the movement. Since fundamentalism is also defined by militancy it is necessary for it to engage in battle for truth, and during this battle, or upon victory, the fundamentalist remains. However, failure to defeat liberalism will drive a fundamentalist to separate.  This was evidenced in various leaders of the movement: Machen left Princeton and founded Westminster Theological Seminary, J. Frank Norris left (or was kicked out) of the Southern Baptist Convention, John R. Rice separated from the Southern Baptist Convention and then later from Billy Graham when he associated with liberals. While these men did not categorize these groups as liberal, they believed that they were tolerant of such, and thus separated to defend doctrinal purity.

Bibliography:
Marsden, George. Fundamentalism and American Culture.
Dorrien, Gary. The Making of American Liberal Theology: Idealism, Realism, Modernity.
Longfield, Bradley. The Presbyterian Controversy: Fundamentalism, Modernists, and Moderates. Lyon, Matthew. Separatism and Gender: The Unique Contributions of John R. Rice to Fundamentalism.