Those of you who have read my “testimony” may have noticed that I described myself theologically as holding to “unlimited atonement (not universalism).” If you were to go there today, you would observe that my description has changed: I now regard myself – in fact, always have believed this, only in different terms – as one who believes in “Definite Atonement (limited in application, not extent).”

I came to this realization over the weekend while studying Rom 8:28-30 and listening to a sermon/lecture by S. Lewis Johnson on the subject. He observed that everyone – except for those who believe in universalism – believes in limited atonement. So-called Calvinists regard the atonement as limited by design while followers of Arminius (but not Arminius himself) believe the atonement is limited by its efficacy. Calvinists, while believing that the atonement is not limited in extent, state that it is limited in intent; this is God’s view on the matter. Arminians, however, believe that it is limited because man is able to thwart the ideal will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:3-4) and thus not all are saved; this is man’s view of it.

Johnson, who is (I assume) a fair representative of Reformed theology, uses the terms “definite atonement” and “particular redemption” to describe what used to be covered by the “L” in “TULIP,” i.e., “Limited atonement.” Surely this is a more accurate term and a more biblical idea. It is this – and nothing more or less – to which I have subscribed for decades: since I first began to understand the issue back in the 1970s, I have believed that the sacrifice – the atonement – of Christ was sufficient for all but that it was not applied to all. The idea of limited atonement – that Christ died only for the elect – was troubling since it raised issues concerning God’s justice and love.

It is tempting at this point to say that I am happy to see that the Reformed camp has begun to see the light and move more in my direction, that is, closer to the truth. Surely they are not far from the kingdom of God!

But that would not be fair: Dr Johnson’s lecture was given in 1981. I only listened to it for the first time this past weekend. My preconceived notions of – and the unfortunate choice of language by – the Reformed position undoubtedly caused me to misread many of the Reformed theologians I had studied in the past. Perhaps they failed to describe precisely what was meant by “limited atonement” or perhaps I simply tuned them out. I do not know. I do know, however, that I was usually defensive when reading the Reformed writings because of a general and usual sense of animus I detected toward those theological orientation was bent toward Dallas Theological Seminary. But that’s another post describing a state of affairs that I have yet to encounter in Reformed bloggers.

But, for whatever reasons, there it is: I adhere to definite atonement or particular redemption. That, in my understanding, means that the efficacy of the atonement is limited by its application. I do not think it possible that man’s choice causes that limitation – the Arminian position – but rather that it is God’s free choice of the (s)elect that limits it.

The blood would cover all but will not cover all. It is the eternal purpose of God.


2 Cor 1:13