On Limited Atonement: The Sufficient and Efficient Distinction

When the topic of limited atonement comes up there are a couple verses that are sure to be presented as a proof that limited atonement cannot possibly be true. 1 John 2:2 is one such verse, which says, “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

This passage seems to be the end of the discussion for many people. If this verse says Christ was the propitiation for the whole world, and Calvinist say that he is the propitiation for the elect only, then surely the doctrine is wrong, and scripture has the final authority. But before we make such hasty conclusions we must be aware that great students of the Bible like Augustine, Calvin, Edwards, Spurgeon, Whitfield and many others were aware of these verses, and did not see them as contrary to their understanding of limited atonement. So how do Calvinists understand their view in light of these verses?

Many point out that the term “whole world” in 1 John 2:2 actually refers to the elect in the “whole world,” and not everyone in the “whole world,” but this seldom satisfies the objector. So in order to take this objection from a slightly different angle, we will assume that the term “whole world” actually refers to every person in the world, in order to present a clearer understanding of limited atonement, because what is frequently missed is the nuanced understanding of the nature of limited atonement.

Is it possible for the Calvinist to say that “Jesus died for everyone in the world,” and then say that “Jesus did not die for the sins of everyone” without contradicting himself? Well, that all depends on what a contradiction entails, and since most of us have studied logic, we know that a contradiction means that something cannot be both A and non-A in the same sense and at the same time. For example, if a person points to water and says, “That is ice” and then says, “That is not ice” either the person has contradicted himself or something has changed. The first thing that could have changed would be time. If this person points to water and says that is ice, and two hours later says, that is not ice, there is no contradiction because time has changed and in fact it is no longer ice because it has melted. The second thing that could change is the sense in which the words are used. If a person says, “That is a bow,” and then says, “That is not a bow.” If the sense of the word “bow” means a device used to shoot arrows in the first use, and then in the second use the word “bow” means a type of knot you put in your shoelaces, then there is no contradiction.

The same applies to the statement. “Christ died for the whole world.” There are two senses in which the statement can be made. The first sense deals with the sufficiency of the payment that Christ made, and the second deals with the efficiency of the payment Christ paid on the cross.

Most Calvinist tend to believe that Christ’s death was sufficient to save the “whole world.” What this means is, if a greater number of people were to be saved then were foreknown, Christ would not have had to suffer more. So in the sufficient sense, Calvinists do say that Christ’s death is the payment for the sins of the whole world just as John 2:2 says.

But there is another sense in which Christ’s death is not the payment of sins for the entire world, and this is its efficiency. The suffering Christ endured is sufficient to be the payment for the sins of everyone, but in actuality His death does not pay for the sins of everyone since many will be paying for their sins themselves. And if Christ had paid for them on the cross and they later pay for them in hell, then the sins would have been paid for twice, and that is not justice. So in the effect, or the actuality of the atonement, Christ did not pay for the sins of the whole world.

So with these two senses the Calvinist can say, Jesus paid for the sins of the whole world, meaning the sufficiency, and also says, Jesus did not pay for the sins of the whole world, meaning in actuality.

Ultimately, it seems the Calvinist and the non-Calvinist can see this in Scripture when thinking about foreknowledge. Though both groups understand foreknowledge differently, they both agree that there is an elect group since before the foundations of the world. In fact, Revelation tells us that their names have been written in the lambs book of life since before any of us came to be, and when Jesus was on the cross He was not in the slightest bit confused about whom He was actually redeeming and who He was not. Nor is He holding out hope that any of the non-elect will actually be saved since He already knows that they will spend eternity in hell before He even creates them.

-Doug Eaton-