The Calvinist Solution: Two Kinds of Atonement

The Calvinist resolves this dilemma by claiming that Jesus did indeed die for everyone, yet in different ways for the elect and the non-elect. For the elect, Jesus purchased saving grace, granting them everything needed for salvation—including irresistible grace, regeneration, and the gifts of repentance and faith.

For the non-elect (those predestined to damnation), Jesus died only so that they might enjoy “common grace”—the temporal mercies and blessings that every person experiences during life. On this basis Calvinists such as Piper interpret Paul’s words that God “is the Savior of all men, especially of believers” (1 Timothy 4:10). According to Piper, Jesus saves all people from the immediate eternal punishment they deserve for as long as they live on earth, but He saves only the elect from eternal punishment after death (p. 14, para. 6).

I hardly think, however, that this makes Jesus much of a “Savior” to the non-elect. It would have been better for them never to have been born than to “enjoy” such a temporary “salvation.” The “common grace” God extends to those predestined to eternal damnation portrays Jesus more as a sadistic, deranged maniac than as a true Savior to them.

Thus the Calvinistic interpretation of 1 Timothy 4:10 is unnatural, forced, and far-fetched. A more natural reading is that, because Jesus died for all people, He is the Savior of all men, yet “especially of believers,” because they alone receive and enjoy the full benefits of the salvation He offers to everyone.

This interpretation harmonizes far better with Paul’s earlier words in the same letter: “God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:3–4, emphasis added).

In contrast to the Calvinistic claim that God offers His saving grace to only a select few, the apostle Paul declares that God offers His saving grace to everyone:

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age (Titus 2:11–12, emphasis added).

Piper’s Arguments Against Unlimited Atonement

Piper claims that the non-Calvinist view of Christ’s atonement is incompatible with the doctrines of total depravity and irresistible grace (p. 13, para. 5 through p. 14, para. 3). He is entirely correct—because those two doctrines themselves are erroneous. Piper argues that if Christ’s atonement purchased only the potential of salvation for sinners, then no one could ever be saved, because people would be left to overcome their total depravity by their own power and regenerate themselves apart from the irresistible grace purchased by Christ on the cross.

Since I have already shown the grave errors of the Calvinistic doctrines of Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace, there is little need to refute Piper’s flawed logic here. His reasoning rests on false premises. God does not save people by bestowing irresistible grace, and no one needs to overcome Calvinistic total depravity because no such total depravity exists. No one needs to regenerate himself, because regeneration does not precede faith. God regenerates those who believe, as Scripture plainly teaches.

Furthermore, to imply that non-Calvinists believe Christ’s atonement purchases only the potential of salvation is highly misleading. Christ’s atonement purchases for everyone what is necessary for salvation—forgiveness, regeneration, eternal life in heaven, and more. It does not, however, purchase the forcing of people against their wills to believe in Christ, for that is neither God’s desire nor His plan. God has given every person a free will because it is His will that each individual exercise the right to believe in Christ or to reject Him. If God wanted robots, He would have created robots. He did not. He wants a family that loves Him. Apart from freedom of the will, genuine love is impossible.

Jesus died for every person’s sins, yet that does not automatically mean everyone will be saved (as Piper erroneously claims would follow if Jesus atoned for everyone’s sins). Every individual must receive salvation by believing in the Lord Jesus. When people believe, what Christ accomplished for them becomes effectual in their lives. This is the only conclusion that does justice to Scripture, which both declares that Jesus died for everyone’s sins and affirms that not everyone will be saved.

The Clear Testimony of Scripture: Atonement for the Whole World

Is it true that God extends His saving grace only to a select group of unconditionally elected people? Not according to the apostle John, who taught that Jesus’ atonement was not limited to the saving of some but was accomplished on behalf of every person in the world:

And He Himself [Jesus] is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world (1 John 2:2, emphasis added).

The word propitiation means “the appeasement of wrath.” John plainly declares that Jesus appeased the wrath of God not only for our sins but also for the sins of the whole world. What could be clearer?

Regarding this verse that so obviously contradicts the Calvinistic idea of limited atonement, Piper attempts to persuade us that John must have meant something other than what he wrote. According to Piper, John meant only that Jesus appeased God’s wrath on behalf of his little group of local Christians and for the rest of the Christians scattered throughout the world (p. 15, para. 7). Thus, in Piper’s view, “the whole world” really means “the children of God scattered throughout the whole world” (p. 16, para. 4).

This is a forced and unnatural interpretation—a clear redefinition of terms. Are we really to believe that the Christians to whom John wrote thought Jesus had not atoned for the sins of all believers around the world, and that John wrote to correct their misunderstanding? Does Piper think his readers are that naïve? And why does Piper refuse to apply the same redefinition when John uses the phrase “whole world” later in the same epistle?

We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one (1 John 5:19, emphasis added; see also 1 John 4:14).

Was John saying that all the other Christians outside his little group were not of God and were lying in the power of Satan? The answer is obvious.

Piper further claims that John could not have meant Jesus appeased God’s wrath for the sins of the entire world, because “propitiated sins cannot be punished. Therefore if Christ is the propitiation for all the sins of every individual in the world, they cannot be punished, and must be saved” (p. 16, para. 6).

This reasoning is logical only to the Calvinistic mind, because only Calvinists believe that man plays no part in his salvation. Everyone else recognizes, as Scripture repeatedly teaches, that for any person to experience the benefits of the salvation Christ purchased on the cross, he must repent and believe. Christ’s atonement becomes effectual only when people meet His conditions.

We have already seen that Paul wrote to the Romans that the adoption as sons belonged to the Jews (Romans 9:4). Using Piper’s logic, we would have to conclude that because sonship belongs to every Jew, every Jew will become God’s child. Yet Paul makes it clear that every Jew must believe in Jesus in order actually to possess his rightful adoption as a son. This principle is so abundantly plain in Scripture that we must wonder why Piper even attempts to persuade us otherwise. Only those who have already accepted the Calvinistic doctrines of total depravity and irresistible grace can be convinced by Piper’s conclusion that Christ’s atonement was intended to save only some.

The Testimony of Jesus Himself

Consider the following verses from John’s Gospel, all of which prove that the benefits of Christ’s atonement were not limited to any supposed group of unconditionally elected people but were available to all who would believe. Except for the first quotation (from John the Baptist), the rest come from Jesus’ own lips:

The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29, emphasis added).

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him (John 3:16–17, emphasis added).

For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world (John 6:33, emphasis added).

I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread also which I shall give for the life of the world is My flesh (John 6:51, emphasis added).

I have come as light into the world, that everyone who believes in Me may not remain in darkness. And if anyone hears My sayings, and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world (John 12:46–47, emphasis added).

Jesus could not have made His message clearer: He gave His life for the world. Completely ignoring these passages, however, Piper isolates three texts from the Gospel of John in an attempt to prove that “the death of Christ was designed for the salvation of God’s people, not for every individual” (p. 15, para. 2).

Piper’s Selective Use of Scripture

Piper begins with John 10:15, in which Jesus says, “I lay down My life for the sheep.” Piper claims this verse proves that Jesus died only for those God predestined for salvation—the “sheep.” But are we to ignore or nullify the many verses just quoted from John’s Gospel and exalt this single statement? Or is it better to believe everything Jesus said and let Scripture interpret Scripture, arriving at a biblically balanced understanding?

Note that Jesus did not say in John 10:15 that He laid down His life exclusively for His sheep. Had He done so, He would have contradicted Himself in the other passages quoted above. In the text Piper cites, Jesus is simply emphasizing His love for His followers. If Jesus said to you, “I died for you,” would that prove He died for you and no one else? Obviously not.

Why, then, should we conclude, as Piper does (pp. 16–17), that when Scripture sometimes says Jesus gave His life as a ransom for many, or for the church, He died only for the elect and not for everyone? Consider Piper’s logic in the following quotation:

Similarly in Titus 2:14 Paul describes the purpose of Christ’s death like this: [Jesus] gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquities and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds. If Paul were an Arminian would he not have said, He gave himself to redeem all men from iniquity and purify all men for himself? (p. 17, para. 2)

Piper is again forcing his interpretation onto the text. Why could the “us” for whom Jesus gave Himself not simply be those who have repented and believed? Why must the “us” be limited to individuals whom God has pre-selected for salvation?

Once more Piper selects a verse that appears to support his Calvinistic view and ignores all others that would contradict it. Simply because Paul wrote in Titus 2:14 that Jesus gave Himself to “redeem us” rather than to “redeem all,” Piper concludes that Paul was a Calvinist who believed Jesus died only for the predestined. Applying the same flawed logic to Galatians 4:4–5 yields an absurd result:

But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons (emphasis added).

Paul says God sent His Son to redeem “those who were under the Law”—that is, all Jews and only Jews. Using Piper’s method of interpreting Titus 2:14, we would have to conclude that Jesus died only for the Jews. And if we adopt Piper’s earlier logic that “propitiated sins cannot be punished” (p. 16, para. 6), we would further conclude that since God sent His Son to redeem those under the Law, all who were under the Law must be redeemed—and therefore all Jews are saved! The glaring errors and inconsistencies of Piper’s interpretive method become plain.

Piper next lifts verses 6, 9, and 19 of John 17 from their context—passages from Jesus’ high- priestly prayer in which He prays that His church might be one so that the world will believe that God sent His Son (John 17:21). By isolating specific requests Jesus made for His followers, Piper tries to prove that Jesus did not die for the very world He prays would believe in Him!

Piper then quotes John 11:51–52, which records Caiaphas’s prophecy that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. Piper is truly searching for needles in a haystack. In the very same sentence that says Jesus should die to gather the children of God scattered abroad (which Piper claims proves Jesus did not die for everyone), we also read that Jesus should die for the nation of Israel. Piper consistently ignores the majority of Scriptures that contradict his doctrine and focuses only on those that seem to support it—even if that means ignoring the first half of a sentence and concentrating solely on the second half.

Scripture’s Overwhelming Witness That Jesus Died for All

Did Jesus die for everyone so that everyone might be saved? What does Scripture say? Consider the following:

All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him (Isaiah 53:6, emphasis added).

The same “all” who have gone astray like sheep are the same “all” whose iniquity fell upon Jesus. Calvinists readily endorse the first half of this verse as support for total depravity—“all are totally depraved.” Yet the Lord caused the iniquity of all those same people to fall on Jesus. Why does Piper not conclude from this verse that all will be saved, since the iniquity of all fell upon Jesus and “propitiated sins cannot be punished” (Piper, p. 16, para. 6)?

For God has shut up all in disobedience that He might show mercy to all (Romans 11:32, emphasis added).

The same “all” who are disobedient are the same “all” to whom God is showing saving mercy.

For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, that they who live should no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf (2 Corinthians 5:14–15, emphasis added).

Paul clearly states that Christ died for all; therefore he concludes that “all died.” Notice the flow of his logic. The foundation is the truth that Christ died for all. From this Paul concludes that “all died.” The proof that all had died spiritually is the fact that Christ died for all. There can be no mistaking Paul’s meaning: Christ died for all who were spiritually dead—which is everyone. Paul then declares Christ’s intention in dying for all: that they should repent and no longer live for themselves but for Him. Everyone should do this because Christ died for all, yet not all do.

For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony borne at the proper time (1 Timothy 2:5–6, emphasis added).

But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone (Hebrews 2:9, emphasis added).

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves (2 Peter 2:1, emphasis added).

This last verse proves that Jesus even paid for the sins of false teachers who will be condemned to hell. Jesus died for the sins of all people because God wants all people to be saved.

A Final Clarification and Piper’s Concluding Argument

Piper implies that non-Calvinists believe the cross was intended only to give all men the opportunity to save themselves (p. 17, para. 1). That is a very unfair accusation. No true Arminian believes such nonsense. No person can save himself. We can only respond to the gospel in faith, as God expects us to, using our God-given free wills under the influence of God’s drawing, in order to receive the salvation Christ purchased through His sufferings. That is a far cry from a person “saving himself.”

Piper saves his best argument for last—which is merely a variation of the argument he has used throughout the chapter. He correctly states that Arminians believe (1) Christ died for all the sins of all men, and (2) the reason not all men are saved is that they do not believe. He then asks his clincher question: “But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died?” (p. 18, para. 1). If the Arminian answers yes, then, according to Piper, everyone must be saved, because God would have nothing left to hold against anyone—not even their unbelief.

Certainly unbelief is one of the sins for which Jesus died. Yet what Piper again misses is the obvious biblical fact that what Jesus did for everyone becomes effectual in the lives of individuals only when they believe. This could not be clearer in Scripture.

God provided a way for every Israelite to escape His wrath in Egypt, yet the benefit of that salvation became effectual only for those individual Israelites who believed God and applied the blood of the lamb to their doorposts.

God parted the Red Sea for every Israelite, yet the benefit became effectual only when individual Israelites trusted God and walked across on dry land.

God provided manna for all the Israelites, yet the benefit became effectual only when individual Israelites believed God and gathered what they needed for the day.

Many such biblical examples could be cited, all of which foreshadowed the salvation Christ would make available to all people in the world—a salvation that can be enjoyed by everyone who believes.

Conclusion

In conclusion, God is not a monster who creates people in order to take pleasure in sending them to hell forever. Rather, He is a great Lover who yearns for all to be saved and who suffered horribly on the cross to make salvation possible for all. Praise the Lord! All glory to Him!

May I now ask every reader: Did you begin reading this booklet as a Calvinist? If so, do you still believe the doctrines of Calvinism? If you do, then you must be able to refute every bit of logic and Scripture I have used in this book by showing that what I have written contradicts Scripture and/or logic. After more than three decades since I wrote this booklet, I am still waiting for the very first such refutation from a Calvinist.

If you remain a Calvinist and are unable to refute what I have written, then you remain a Calvinist from some motivation other than obedience to Christ and His Word. Is it pride that prevents you from admitting you have been wrong? Or is it fear of what other Calvinists might think if you defect from their doctrinal system? If either is true, then I must ask an even more searching question: Is Jesus your Lord?