Over the years I have expressed my deepest concerns relating to a doctrine known as ‘Limited Atonement’. This 5 Point Calvinist theory claims that Jesus Christ did not die for all mankind but only for the elect. If Christ died for all mankind (they say) then no one should be in hell for whom Christ died, thus He didn’t die for all, He died only for those whom the Father had given Him. Believing that Christ died for all (they say) is universalism.

I disagree with these claims entirely. There is no Scriptural proof that the sacrificial offering of Jesus Christ on the cross automatically saves anyone. No one is saved by the cross of Christ alone since believers are saved by grace alone through faith (Ephesians 2: 8) so faith is the means by which we are saved and there is no Scriptural evidence that Jesus purchased our faith at the cross.

A person can argue that faith or salvation is a gift of God (ibid) and I wouldn’t disagree but there is no suggestion that faith or salvation (as a gift) is limited only to those whom God has predestined and chosen. For me, this claim is more systematic than Scriptural and retains some serious Biblical inconsistencies. For me, and for J. C. Ryle, the doctrine of Limited Atonement is inconsistent with the Bible and some theologians who propagate it are more systematic than the Bible they represent. Yet many proponents of the ‘Calvinist’ teaching actually reverse the truth by claiming that those who don’t believe in the 5 Point Calvinist interpretation of ‘Limited Atonement’ are the ones who are inconsistent. This is untrue. For me, and for many Christians, the New Testament is extremely clear that Christ died for all mankind and to deny that fact can be dangerous. The reason I say this is because a person is putting argumentation above Scripture, thus leaving room for any persuasive argument to be believed, even if it contradicts Scripture. Yet many 5 Point Calvinists claim that their beliefs are the pure teachings of Scripture and they wait patiently for others to catch up and be persuaded.

Obviously I’m not one of those who have been persuaded and if a doctrine cannot be consistently proven by all Scripture, I’m not obligated to believe it. So for me, I have reached an opposite conclusion to the 5 Points of Calvinism. For me, I am actually very uncertain if 5 Point Calvinism is even accurate to the teachings of the man it is named after. There are times when I find it very doubtful that Calvin ever taught the same version of limited atonement that modern 5 point Calvinists teach? I haven’t found the majority of 16th century reformers affirming it either.

For me, Calvinism (as it is nicknamed today) is little more than Owenism. By “Owenism” I am referring to puritan John Owen (1616-1683). A man who, in 1648 published a book called “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ”. In this book Owen affirms the doctrine of Limited Atonement in no uncertain terms. The book blends in perfectly with the doctrines affirmed in England during the times of the Westminster Confession of Faith. Like the Westminster Confession, Owens theology offers no salvation for the none elect, they are utterly doomed. Born to be damned and to enter hell for disbelief in a Saviour who did not die for them to begin with.

It is an awfully distasteful doctrine and one that should be spat out.

Having read Calvin, and studied many other 16th reformers, I have been (over the past few years) somewhat pleasantly surprised to learn of the 17th century man named Moses Amyraut (1596-1664) a French reformed theologian who noticed the inconsistencies of Calvinist theology and propagated moderations. Like Richard Baxter, John Bunyan and Richard Horne, the believer can be blessed by the challenges presented by Moses Amyraut who find themselves troubled when ‘Calvinists’ deny the exceedingly clear Biblical statements that Christ died for the sins of the whole world.

Amyraut challenged Calvinians and presented a view that is much more conceivable than Limited Atonement and taught that Christ did in fact die for the whole world but God in His foreknowledge knew those who would believe in Jesus Christ and elected them based upon that foreknowledge. This is entirely consistent with Romans 8: 29 “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son,”. Note that St Paul presents foreknowledge prior to predestination. Thus preserving the doctrine of unconditional election while not excluding anyone from receiving Christ.

For me, if Christ died only for the elect the great commission is null and void and the gospel should not be preached or offered to “every creature” (Mark 16: 15) and Acts 17: 30-31 makes no sense. Why would God command all men to repent (as Paul proclaimed in Athens) if man was incapable of doing so because he is not elect? Why would the great commission be offered to every creature if salvation was not available for every creature?

The logical conclusion is that salvation is offered to all because it is available for all and I am very pleased to know that reformed theology does not exclusively belong to the limited atoners. Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, Arminians, all fit into this broad theology labelled ‘Reformed’.

I remain convinced that if any person merely read the Bible for itself, without feeling pressured to read other books and listen to preachers rhetoric, no one would ever discover such a harsh and uncaring doctrine as Limited Atonement.