The doctrine of limited atonement is fundamentally based on the penal substitution theory, which posits that Christ died as a substitute for sinners, bearing the punishment they deserved. Therefore, if one were to reject the penal substitution theory, it would inevitably weaken or undermine the doctrine of limited atonement, as the two concepts are intricately linked. Without the framework of penal substitution, the justification for limited atonement loses its foundational support.
Many Christians have adopted the substitution doctrine of atonement without thoroughly examining its implications or reflecting deeply on its meaning. They hold the belief that humanity is in debt to the justice of God, a concept that emphasizes the seriousness of sin and its consequences. In their perspective, God's mercy shines through as He offered a monumental solution to this dilemma. His son, Jesus, out of profound love and compassion, willingly took on the punishment that was rightfully deserved by mankind. In this selfless act, Jesus effectively settled our debt to divine justice, providing a path toward redemption and reconciliation with God.
The prevalent interpretation of atonement often diverges from biblical teachings. While it is clear that Jesus offered his life as a profound sacrifice for our forgiveness, the notion that he "paid" for our sins is a misunderstanding that has crept into Christian theology. This perspective frames the atonement in economic terms, suggesting that it is acceptable for an innocent individual to bear the punishment for the sins of others, which raises significant moral questions. Furthermore, the substitution theory proposes that our sin debt has been settled as if it were a transaction, whereas the Scriptures emphasize that our sins are not merely paid for but genuinely forgiven, highlighting a deeper, more relational aspect of redemption.
Is the atonement limited to the elect? Most certainly. But not for the reason that Calvin suggested.
