How Can Christ's Work Atone for More than One Person?

After all, if Jesus was a single person, and only died and rose again once, shouldn't his saving work only be vicariously transferable to one other single person, if justice is to be maintained?

No, says Herman Bavinck--

When the Socinians say that . . . Christ could make satisfaction only for one person and not for many, inasmuch as he only bore the punishment of sin once, this reasoning is based on the same quantitative calculation as the 'acceptation' of Duns Scotus and the 'superabundance' of Aquinas.

For though the sin that entered the world through Adam manifests itself in an incalculable series of sinful thoughts, words, and deeds, and though the wrath of God is felt individually by every guilty member of the human race, it is and remains the one indivisible law that has been violated, the one indivisible wrath of God that has been ignited against the sin of the whole human race, the one indivisible righteousness of God that has been offended by sin, the one unchangeable eternal God who has been affronted by sin.

The punishment of Christ, therefore, is also one: one that balances in intensity and quality the sin and guilt of the whole human race. . . . That punishment, after all, was laid on him who was not an individual on a level with other individuals but the second Adam head of the human race, both Son of Man and Son of God.

--Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 3:402
Dane Ortlund

Stott: Substitution is Not a “Theory of the Atonement”

John Stott”s The Cross of Christ is one of those books every Christian should read. While there are a few points here and there that I wouldn’t agree with (e.g., impassibility), the book as a whole is a masterful treatise on the glories of the cross.
In chapter 7 Stott looks at the four principal New Testament images of salvation, taken from the shrine (propitiation), the market (redemption), the court of law (justification) and the home (reconciliation). This beautiful chapter on “The Salvation of Sinners” ends with a masterful summary of the four images (198-99).

First, each highlights a different aspect of our human need. Propitiation underscores the wrath of God upon us, redemption our captivity to sin, justification our guilt, and reconciliation our enmity against God and alienation from him. These metaphors do not flatter us. They expose the magnitude of our need.
Second, all four images emphasize that the saving initiative was taken by God in his love. It is he who has propitiated his own wrath, redeemed us from our miserable bondage, declared us righteous in his sight and reconciled us to himself.

Stott shows that texts like 1 John 4:10; Luke 1:68; Rom. 8:33; and 2 Cor. 5:18 teach this precious truth.

Third, all four images plainly teach that God’s saving work was achieved through the bloodshedding, that is, the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ.

Again, Stott reminds us of the most important texts that make this point: Rom. 3:25; Eph. 1:7; Rom. 5:9; Eph. 2:13; Col. 1:20.
The chapter concludes with a much needed paragraph for our day. Everyone who marginalizes penal substitution by calling it a “theory,” everyone who minimizes this doctrine by making it just one aspect of the atonement, everyone who shies away from this teaching in a misguided effort to rescue the love of God, everyone who undermines this essential truth by refusing to declare it confidently in plain, unambiguous terms, should pay careful attention to this concluding paragraph:

So substitution is not a “theory of the atonement.” Nor is it even an additional image to take its place as an option alongside the others. It is rather the essence of each image and the heart of the atonement itself. None of the four images could stand without it. I am not of course saying that it is necessary to understand, let alone articulate, a substitutionary atonement before one can be saved. Yet the responsibility of Christian teachers, preachers and other witnesses is to seek grace to expound it with clarity and conviction. For the better people understand the glory of the divine substitution, the easier it will be for them to trust in the Substitute.

Kevin DeYoung

The Logic of Substitutionary Atonement

Since all have committed cosmic treason against a holy God, how can anyone be a substitute for the punishment you deserve? In other words, how can Jesus die in your place?
I enjoyed reading Carol Ruvolo’s helpful explanation to my children this morning at the breakfast table. This is found in an appendix to her book A Believer’s Guide to Spiritual Fitness:

“Since Jesus is God, He is perfectly righteous and holy. God’s perfect righteousness and holiness demand that sin be punished (Ezekiel 18:4), and Jesus’ perfect righteousness and holiness qualified Him to bear the punishment for the sins of those who will be saved (Romans 6:23). Jesus is the only person who never committed a sin; therefore, the punishment He bore when He died on the cross could be accepted by God as satisfaction of His justice in regard to the sins of others.
If someone you love commits a crime and is sentenced to die, you may offer to die in his place. However, if you have also committed crimes worthy of death, your death cannot satisfy the law’s demands for your crimes and your loved one’s. You can only die in his place if you are innocent of any wrongdoing.
Since Jesus lived a perfect life, God’s justice could be satisfied by allowing Him to die for the sins of those who will be saved. Because God is perfectly righteous and holy, He could not act in love at the expense of justice. By sending Jesus to die, God demonstrated His love by acting to satisfy His own justice (Romans 3:26).”
 Ligonier

A Primer on Limited (or Definite) Atonement

Last week Doug Wilson linked to a piece by Randy Alcorn, who suggested that the logic of limited atonement is appealing but the exegetical basis for it is lacking. Doug offered a brief response, with valid points about Christ securing actual salvation and not possible salvation, but asserts that post-millenialism is the real solution. I don’t see how the post-mill scheme helps much exegetically, but that’s not the point of this post.
Let me mention a couple of things that I found helpful when I began exploring this issue several years ago.
In his classic The Death of Death in the Death of Christ John Owen explained the dilemma of those who deny definite atonement:

The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:

1. All the sins of all men.
2. All the sins of some men, or
3. Some of the sins of all men.

In which case it may be said:

1. That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
2. That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
3. But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?

You answer, “Because of unbelief.”
I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!

In other words, it is impossible to reconcile the proposition “Christ paid the punishment for all the sins of all people” with the idea that “Some people will pay the punishment for their sin in hell.”
Secondly, Lorraine Boettner showed in The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination that both Calvinists and Arminians “limit” the atonement.

The Calvinist limits the extent of [the atonement] in that he says it does not apply to all persons . . . ; while the Arminian limits the power of it, for he says that in itself it does not actually save anybody.
The Calvinist limits it quantitatively, but not qualitatively; the Arminian limits it qualitatively, but not quantitatively.
For the Calvinist it is like a narrow bridge which goes all the way across the stream; for the Arminian it is like a great wide bridge which goes only half-way across.

I think these are valid arguments.
But it was John Piper who helped me see the issue from another angle. In effect, Piper argues that Calvinists essentially affirm the biblical truth that Arminians insist upon. But the Calvinist affirms something some more—something biblical that Arminians deny.
If you want to think this through, then I’d encourage you to read the following carefully. I’ve added some headings and italics to help process the argument a bit.

What Arminians Believe
Arminians take all the passages which say the death of Christ is “for us” (Romans 5:8; 1 Thessalonians 5:10) or for “his own sheep” (John 10:11, 15) or for “the church” (Ephesians 5:25; Acts 20:28) or for “the children of God” (John 11:52) or for “those who are being sanctified” (Hebrews 10:14) and say that the meaning is that God designs and intends the atonement for all people in the same way, but that God applies it as effective and saving only for those who believe and become part of “us” and “the sheep” and “the church” and “the children of God.”
In this view, then, 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 acceptable teaching.
What Arminians Deny
But then Arminians deny something that I think the Bible teaches.
They deny that the texts about Christ’s dying for “us” or “his sheep” or his “church” or “the children of God” were intended by God to obtain something more for his people than the benefits they get after they believe.
They deny, specifically, that the death of Christ was not only intended by God to obtain benefits for people after they believe (which is true), but even more, Christ’s death was intended by God to obtain the very willingness to believe.
In other words, the divine grace that it takes to overcome our hardness of heart and become a believer was also obtained by the blood of Jesus.
Where Arminians and Calvinists Agree
There is no dispute that Christ died to obtain great saving benefits for all who believe.
Moreover, there is no dispute 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 may have eternal life.”
Where Arminians and Calvinists Disagree
The dispute is whether God intended for the death of Christ to obtain more than these two things: (1) saving benefits after faith, and (2) a bona fide invitation that can be made to any person to believe on Christ for salvation.
Clarifying Questions
Specifically, did God intend for the death of Christ to obtain the free gift of faith (Ephesians 2:8) and repentance (2 Timothy 2:25)?
Did the blood of Jesus obtain both the benefits after faith, and the benefit of faith itself?
Here’s the Rub
Does the historic Arminian 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: 1 Timothy 2:6; 1 John 2:1-2; Hebrews 2:9; 2 Corinthians 5:19; John 1:29; 2 Peter 2:1.)
I don’t think so. Arminians historically are just as eager as Calvinists to avoid saying that these texts teach “universal salvation.” So they do not teach that the death of Christ “for all” saves all. Rather, they say, in the words of Millard Erickson, “God intended the atonement to make salvation possible for all persons. Christ died for all persons, but this atoning death becomes effective only when accepted by the individual.” Erickson then says, “This is the view of all Arminians” (Christian Theology, p. 829, emphasis added).
What has come clearer to me as I have pondered these things is that Arminians do not say that in the death of Christ God intends to effectively save all for whom Christ died. They only say that God intends to make possible the salvation of all for whom Christ died. But this interpretation of these “universal” texts does not contradict the Calvinist assertion that God does intend to obtain the grace of faith and repentance for a definite group by the death of Christ.
Arminians may deny this assertion, but they cannot deny it on the basis of their interpretation of the “universal” texts of the atonement. That interpretation simply affirms that all may have salvation if they believe. Calvinists do not dispute that. They only go beyond it.
Here’s the rub: if he did this “more,” he didn’t do it for everyone. So at this level the atonement becomes “limited.” And this is what Arminians stumble over: is there anything that God would do to get some unbelievers saved that he would not do for all? This “limitation” implies a choice on God’s part to save some and not all.

A word about the comments before anyone responds. Let’s dialogue respectfully. Before critiques are offered—for or against limited atonement—let’s make sure we have an attitude of faith seeking understanding.
Justin Taylor

The Good news is Good because the Bad News is so Bad

Thanks to Gordon Cheng for this excellent quote from John Stott’s The Cross of Christ (p. 109):

It must even be said that our evangelical emphasis on the atonement is dangerous if we come to it too quickly. We learn to appreciate the access to God which Christ has won for us only after we have first seen God’s inaccessibility to sinners. We can cry ‘Hallelujah’ with authenticity only after we have first cried ‘Woe is me, for I am lost’.

Gordon comments:

Translated into English from the English, Stott is saying,

“Preach the cross as much as you like. But it is just a piece of stupidity in a distant historical context unless we understand why it is there. It’s as ridiculous as taking a pill the doctor offers, without understanding that I’m sick—no, really sick.”

Until I understand that I am a sinner, that God really hates me for it, and that I really am going to the place where the fire burns without being extinguished and the worm does not die, I can’t begin understand the love he showed me when his Son died in my place for my sins, bearing the full weight of his Father’s wrath against me.

Amen. The good news is good because the bad news is so bad. Let us rejoice in the former because we feel and recognize the latter.
Justin Taylor