The following "Question" was asked by a member of the congregation at Grace Community Church in Panorama City, California, and "Answered" by their pastor, John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed from the tape, GC 70-15, titled "Bible Questions and Answers."  A copy of the tape can be obtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412 or by dialing toll free 1-800-55-GRACE.

Question

Could you please clarify the extent of the atonement, limited versus unlimited?

Answer

Well, I don’t know if I could clarify it, but I could take a sort of stab at it. People always ask this question about the extent of the atonement. What the question is, is basically this: did Jesus Christ die for the whole world or did He just die for the elect? Now, we believe in election because the Bible says that the elect were chosen before the foundation of the world--their names were written in the Lamb’s book of life at that time--and they were given to Christ as a love gift from the Father. That’s what election is. We were predestined to be adopted as children of God and all of that. So, we believe in election.

The question then comes, did Christ die only for the elect or did He die for the whole world? The debate circles around these thoughts: if Christ died for the whole world, then He died for people that He didn’t save and didn’t choose, and therefore you have a wasted effort on His part. In other words, you have Him (this is the philosophical approach to it) you have Him dying for people who were never supposed to be saved anyway, so why would He bother to die for them?

Now, in the first place, this is a whole lot of human reasoning and that’s what makes it so very difficult. Christ died. He died. God knew who His death would benefit, true? God not only knew who His death would benefit; He decided who His death would benefit. He decided who His death would benefit before He planned His death, because He wouldn’t have planned a death unless He had planned a redemption effected by that death. Is that ok, in the “ordis” (sp?) category, Ken? Ok? (he's the Theology professor). I mean, you don’t plan the means until you plan the end or the goal. So, from the very outset, God knew that the death of Jesus Christ would be applicable to the elect. Beyond that, I cannot go…except to say this, that there are some ways--and you can find certain verses that seem to apply the atonement to the elect only--to go beyond it in several ways, maybe two. One first of all; there are some ways in which the death of Christ applies to the non-elect and the unsaved, and that would be in what theologians through the years have called “common grace.” Are you familiar with that term? Grace that is common to all.

For example, in Acts 14, "... in the generations gone by, He permitted all the nations to go their own ways." He let them go their own ways, "yet He didn’t leave Himself without witness in that He did good and gave rain from heaven and fruitful season, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness." That’s what we call “common grace”: the rain falls on the just and the unjust.  Also, in 1 Timothy 4:10, it says, "God is the Savior of all men, especially of believers."  Now, what does "common grace" mean?  

One, there is the temporal aspect of it, it's really all temporal, but let's just divide it that way for a moment.  The first temporal aspect of it would be earthly blessing.  Somehow in the atonement of Christ, the wrath of God was mitigated so that He allows even the unregenerate to enjoy life.  Ok?  I mean, they can laugh, and they can smile, and they can enjoy the richness of life in creation, and love, and children, and whatever.  But secondly, "common grace" shows itself in a temporal way, in that God doesn't kill people, in other words, the very fact that a sinner takes another breath is grace--is it not?  Because he deserves to die.  

So somehow in the atonement there is found even a "common grace" which can be bestowed on an unregenerate, and that "common grace" will express itself in the blessings of human life and in human life itself.  But then there is another component, and this throws the mystery into the whole thing, and that is this: if a person goes to hell, they do not go to hell because Christ didn't die for them--they go to hell because they rejected His death.  Is that not true?  Now that's what makes the whole thing incomprehensible to me.  I was fine until I made that statement--right?  But that's honest.  There is an element in this whole atoning work that makes men culpable of sin, because "they believe not on Christ."  Jesus simply said, "you will die in your sins because you believe not on Me."  And, we are told to go into the whole world and preach the gospel "to all the elect"--is that right?  [No], "to every creature!"

So, the atonement, certainly in the purposes and plan of God in its efficacy (its effectiveness) was from the very beginning, planned for and limited to the elect, and yet there was something in it that satisfied the justice of God so that he could be gracious commonly to all sinners, and there is another component in the atonement that renders sinners guilty of rejecting it, and thus they are damned.  Now, if you understand all those components and just leave them there--you're ok.  And we have to let God resolve all that in His own perfect wisdom.  

Added to Bible Bulletin Board's "MacArthur’s Questions and Answers" by:

Tony Capoccia
Bible Bulletin Board
Box 119
Columbus, New Jersey, USA, 08022
Websites: www.biblebb.com and www.gospelgems.com
Email: tony@biblebb.com
Online since 1986