John Piper on Limited Atonement

In reading through Bloodlines: Race, Cross and the Christian by John Piper (Crossway, 2011), I came across a section where Piper clearly explains his view of “limited atonement”. He says something to this effect elsewhere, I believe, but the section as found in this book is very helpful. I recommend Piper’s booklet length explanation of the five points of Calvinism as perhaps the best introduction to Reformed theology available for a layperson. His booklet was very instrumental in my conversion to a Reformed viewpoint.

Anyway, what follows is most of Piper’s explanation and defense of “limited atonement” from Bloodlines, his latest book:

————————————-

Hand in glove with the doctrine of our disabling depravity is the doc­trine of God’s effective purchase of his people on the cross. The reason it’s like hand and glove is that our inability because of sin calls for a kind of redemption that does more than offer us a forgiveness we don’t have the ability to receive. Rather, it calls for a redemption that effectively purchases not only our forgiveness but also our willingness to receive it. In other words, the unwilling glove of depravity calls for the insertion of a powerful hand of ability-giving redemption.

Sometimes this doctrine is called “limited atonement.” It’s not a helpful term. Better would be the terms definite atonement or particular redemption. The reason limited atonement isn’t helpful is that, in fact, the doctrine affirms more, not less, about Christ’s work in redemption than its rival view called “unlimited atonement.”

The view of unlimited atonement takes all the passages that say the death of Christ is “for us” (Rom. 5:8; 1 Thess. 5:10), or for his own “sheep” (John 10:11, 15), or for “the church” (Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25), or for “the children of God” (John 11:52), or for “those who are being sanctified” (Heb. 10:14) and makes them refer to all human beings. In this “unlimited atonement” view, the sentence “Christ died for you” means: Christ died for all sinners, so that if you will repent and believe in Christ, then the death of Jesus will become effective in your case and will take away your sins.

Now as far as it goes, this seems to me to be biblical teaching— salvation is offered to all because of Christ. But then this view denies something that I think the Bible teaches. It denies that Christ died for his church—his bride (Eph. 5:25)—in any way different from the way he died for unbelievers who never come to faith.

There is no dispute that Christ died to obtain great saving benefits for all who believe. Moreover, I have no dispute with saying that Christ died so that we might say to all persons everywhere without exception: “God gave his only begotten Son to die for sin so that if you believe on him you will have eternal life.”

The dispute rather is whether God intended for the death of Christ to obtain more than these two things—more than (1) saving benefits after faith, and (2) a bona fide offer of blood-bought salvation to every person on the planet. Specifically, did God intend for the death of Christ to obtain the free gift of faith (Eph. 2:8) and repentance (2 Tim. 2:25)? Did the blood of Jesus obtain not only the benefits that come after faith but also the gift of faith itself?

We want to be biblical. Does the unlimited atonement interpretation of any of the “universal” texts on the atonement necessarily contra­dict this more that I am affirming about God’s intention for the death of Christ—texts like John 1:29; 2 Corinthians 5:19; 1 Timothy 2:6; Hebrews 2:9; 2 Peter 2:1; and 1 John 2:1–2?

I don’t think so…

…The fact that God makes salvation possible for all through the blood of Christ does not contradict the view that God does more than that through the death of Christ. I don’t affirm that God does less but that he does more. He actually secures the salvation of his chosen people. He secures all the grace needed for their salvation, including the grace of regeneration and faith.

Paul says in Ephesians 5:25, “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” This was a particular redemption. Christ had his bride in view differently than he had all in view. He knew his bride, and he wanted his bride, and he bought his bride. Jesus says, “I lay down my life for the sheep” (John 10:15). He said, “I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you [Father] have given me, for they are yours” (John 17:9). He said, “And for their sake I consecrate myself [to die], that they also may be sanctified in truth” (John 17:19). In other words, Christ had a specific design in his death for the sake of his people—the cross would be sufficient for the salvation of the world, but efficient for his sheep, his bride.

And Paul carried through this understanding of Christ’s work when he said in Romans 8:32–33, “He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect?” God’s elect in verse 33 are the same as the “us all” in verse 32. This group, he says, will most surely receive “all things.” God will see to it. And the reason Paul gives is that Christ did not spare his own Son but gave him up “for us all.” That means that the giving of the Son guarantees all the blessings of the elect.

This does not limit the extent of what the atonement offers. The benefits of the atonement are offered to everyone. If you believe on Christ, they are all yours. But “the Lord knows those who are his” (2 Tim. 2:19). For them, for his bride, he is securing something that can­not fail—their faith and their justification and their glorification. Those for whom he died, in this fullest sense, will most certainly obtain all things—they will finally inherit the kingdom of God. His death is infal­libly effective for the elect.

–pg. 136-138, Bloodlines: Race, Cross, and the Christian by John Piper (Crossway, 2011)

You can pick up a copy of this book at any of the following online retailers: Westminster Bookstore, Monergism Books, Christianbook.com, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or direct from Crossway.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Crossway Books for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

10 thoughts on “John Piper on Limited Atonement

  1. No, no, no, no, no

    It is simply astounding to me how anyone could believe this.

    I love ya Bob, but oh my goodness.

    “A forgiveness we don’t have the ability to receive” Why does he continually ask us to then? How does anyone anywhere on this planet that has access to a decent bible translation, believe this. l submit that no can pick up a bible and come up with this stuff, it must be taught to you.

    Jesus beckons “all” to come to Him, over and over and over. How many verses do I need to quote?

    The Precious Saviour beckons little ones “Come unto me”

    The calvinist puts his precious 3 year old to bed and says, “Honey I hope you are one of the pre-selects, because if not, your little body will be burning forever in a devil’s hell” This is simply not scriptural!

    Embrace Grace today and share the good news. Jesus died for all, He came to planet Earth to seek and to save that which was lost” which is all of us, it doesn’t say He came to look for the few that His Father had picked out ahead of time. Our God loves us so and is so very loving and patient with us, He doesn’t want anyone at all to perish, but for everyone to come to repentance, really, isn’t it great?

    It hurts my heart so for you to still be caught up in this Bob, I know you love the Lord, and I believe you are saved, but oh my, how you could have taken this detour, I haven’t a clue.

    1. Greg,

      We’ve gone back and forth on this here before. We’ll have to agree to disagree.

      Surely you don’t believe that Jesus died for all men in the same exact way. To believe that is to say that Jesus died for his bride (the church) in the same way he died for the non-bride and that makes a mess of Ephesians 5.

      We are all offered forgiveness and Jesus’ death blesses all and is the ground for a bona-fide gospel offer for all. I believe that and so does Piper in the section quoted above. Jesus’ death does more than that, however, it doesn’t merely make all men save-able, it actually saves those who will come to Him by faith. God knows who those people are, having chosen them from the foundation of the world. Jesus actually propitiates God’s wrath for his elect – the bride of Christ for whom He especially died.

    2. This “greg” posts all over the internet against Calvinism, with only a surface level understanding of this issues involved. This particular comment of his resembles trolling.

      1. We’ve had good interactions before, I’m not aware of his other posts, but he seems to be a sincere individual that I choose to interact with at times and let that interaction be a help to others reading our interactions.

        Thanks,

        Bob

  2. I have read the book, in fact the book was part of my motivation for my 5 part series “An Examination of Protestant/Evangelical Race Based-Special Interest Theology”. I found series theological deficiencies regarding race and spiritual properties and identification by Piper. But as to this, it is typical Reformed rationalism and not an argument founded in precise exegesis. And to Bob, the blog owner, I will be happy to argue the exegesis of Ephesians 5 with unlimited atonement as my view. I suspect you have accepted someone else’s exegesis and not done your own due diligence. Let me know.

      1. I’ve interacted with Alex on a number of sites, he may be “trolling” but I do believe he’s sincere and really believes what he is saying. At times he is a struggle to interact with but I prefer to allow interaction on my site if possible as it helps others to read over our shoulders and think through issues.

  3. I’m new to this blog guys, so go easy on me. I have some background in debating, though that and a nickel won’t buy you a cup of coffee (I show my age, don’t I?) I see so many non sequitur arguments in the debate over election. We all need to have a handle on what that is. There are many kinds of non sequiturs, but one of the more common is known as “denying the antecedent.” Those are arguments made in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise. It might, but it doesn’t have to. That said, I wonder why some conclude Jesus loves his sheep differently than he loves sinners at this point in God’s sovereign plan, which I see as His “rescue phase.” I’m a simple man. Why does Ephesians 5 have to be read to say anything more than this: “I know which of you will believe on me; I love you and I gave my life for you. I know which of you will not believe on me; I love you and I gave my life for you.” In both instances, God’s love motivated His sacrifice. You’re not saying God didn’t love those who will never believe, are you? Why do you conclude it is a different kind of love? Weren’t ALL OUR SINS nailed to the cross? Even John Calvin did not believe in limited atonement (a closely guarded secret).

Comments are closed.