When people ask, and they often do, I always describe myself as Reformed in theology. It’s probably only been in the last ten years that I would use that term, due largely to the fact that I came to Christ in an Evangelical Covenant Church that walked a middle ground in many theological areas. I attended two institutions (Multnomah Bible College and Western Baptist Seminary) which were more Calvinistic than that church but less than I am today.

I never sought to become Reformed, and had no vested interests in doing so (in fact it raised more than a few eyebrows along the way). I simply moved that direction over a period of years of study and interaction and life experience. I recently led a group of men in a one year study of a systematic theology, and the volume I chose was Wayne Grudem’s. We’ve also studied Desiring God and, Lord willing, will be doing Passion for His Glory or The Legacy of Sovereign Joy within the near future. I love Edwards and Spurgeon. I sent my daughters to John McArthur’s Master’s college. While I don’t appreciate John’s anticharismatic posture, his commitment to the Scriptures and Reformed theology were some of the things that made me feel good about entrusting my daughters to that college. (BTW, I’m not Charismatic, but I think much good has come along with the bad, and when charismatic churches are biblically grounded they have a great deal to offer. One of my favorite fellowships is PDI, who call themselves “Reformed Charismatics.” C. J. Mahaney is a good friend.)

Having said all that, there’s one point on which my internal jury’s still out. When specifically asked if I’m a 5 point Calvinist, or if I have any reservations, I say I’m certain on 4 of the points and open but still uncertain on one of them.

I’m all there on particular atonement theologically and logically, but not biblically. Certainly I believe in the finished work of Christ in purchasing our redemption. And I believe he sought us out to be his bride. Logically, by analogy, one doesn’t go after the whole world in general, but one bride in particular. (Also logically, particular atonement pulls the final bit of the rug out from under us in thinking maybe we somehow deserved to be saved because we accepted the gift.) It doesn’t offend my sensibilities nor my passion for evangelism to think Christ might not have died for someone. I just find myself looking at passages like 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:6 and 2 Peter 2:1 and asking, what do they actually mean in their contexts? So far, all the logic, compelling though it be, hasn’t answered my hands-on questions about such Scriptures.

On this subject I’ve read Sproul, McArthur, and Grudem among others. John Piper’s message on Hebrews 2:9 was the most helpful. While I am still not fully convinced, it was a relief to hear him use terminology like “Christ did not die for the world in the same sense that he died for the church.”

I guess I keep looking for evidence for limited atonement on the level of that for the other four points. I can’t seem to see it. There is an absolute clarity to passages like Romans 3:10ff., John 10:27-30, Romans 9:15ff, Eph. 1:11, etc. They are irrefutable. But where are their equivalents on the matter of limited atonement? On every other point Reformed theologians can quote Scripture on the offensive, making a clear point that puts the burden of proof on the opposing position. But when it comes to limited atonement, I feel the biblical arsenal is lacking and the position seems far more defensive, lacking the bulk of clear evidence. I tend to think of the other points as being explicitly biblical, while limited atonement is more of a logical extrapolation of the other points, lacking their biblical specificity and clarity. Of course, every point has Scriptures that can be ushered against it. Someone can cite Hebrews 6:4-6, but the emphatic clarity of John 10 in particular, and the cumulative weight of dozens of other passages compels us to take another look at Heb 6 and some of the other passages. But where are the passages that teach limited atonement so powerfully that they force me to reinterpret passages like 1 John 2:2 and 2 Peter 2:1?

I can teach the other four points with complete confidence, but I don’t speak on LA, awaiting further enlightenment. As it now stands, I don’t bring the subject up, though when asked, I try to approach it carefully, presenting arguments on both sides, and acknowledging my uncertainty.

(Special note related to limited atonement: Are there other Calvinists who disagree with or are not convinced about limited atonement? Absolutely. One of them is Bruce Ware, who has written an excellent paper on the subject.)

Unlike some of my Reformed brothers, I can fully admire and favorably quote in many areas John Wesley, A. W. Tozer, C.S. Lewis and others outside the Reformed tradition. The writers who most shaped my thinking as a young Christian were Tozer, Lewis, and Schaeffer.

A Response to Randy

Dear Mr. Alcorn:

I read your answer to “What is Your Answer to Covenant/Reformed Theology?” I thought it was great. Your thoughts about Particular Redemption aroused my attention. I noticed that you have read great men of God as Piper and Sproul on the subject. Yet you are somewhat unsure about the fact that the Atonement of Christ is for a particular people ( the elect only ) is a biblical doctrine. I can understand that this doctrine could be difficult to accept. Notice I said accept not understand. I don’t understand it but I do accept it. The Holy Spirit is the One who must show us this truth. I don’t know why God allows some to see one thing and withhold it from others. It was quite awhile after I became a Christian before He illuminated me to this doctrine. Perhaps John Owen thoughts on Particular Redemption may be used by the Holy Spirit to show you this is biblical, not just logical or theological. Please let me know what are your thoughts are about the following.

FOR WHO DID CHRIST DIE? by John Owen

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

All the sins of all men.
All the sins of some men, or
Some of the sins of all men.

In which case it may be said:

That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
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. 

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!”

Randy’s answer:

You say, “I can understand that this doctrine could be difficult to accept. Notice I said accept not understand. I don’t understand it but I do accept it. The Holy Spirit is the One who must show us this truth.”

Even if limited atonement was difficult for me to believe, I would gladly accept it if I thought Scripture taught it. I believe in the doctrine of hell, which I would rather not accept, but I accept it wholeheartedly because Scripture teaches is. However, there is nothing repugnant to me about limited atonement. My objections to it are not at all based on the Arminian concerns about the unfairness of election. I believe in election. If I believed Scripture taught limited atonement, I would gladly embrace it. But all my friends who believe in limited atonement always argue for it logically, but not biblically. They site a few passages which in fact do NOT say “Christ died only for the elect,” then ignore or do interpretive injustice to passages such as 1 John 2:2 and 2 Peter 2:1, which are startlingly clear on the subject.

Remarkably, your letter did not cite a single passage of Scripture. The passage from John Owen is all about what seems logical to us as humans, but once again cites no Scripture. You say you hope the Holy Spirit will use the Owen passage to “show you this is biblical, not just logical or theological.” Yet, Owen’s logic is a classical case of logical and theological argumentation which does not present any biblical supporting evidence. Once again, logic and a particular systematic theology are not my authority. Scripture is my authority.

Actually, I would love to believe in limited atonement to have a completely logically consistent Reformed belief system. But once again, Calvinism isn’t my authority, the Bible is my authority. Bottom line, having looked at Scripture again and again, I simply cannot see how God could possibly have made himself more clear on the subject than He did in 1 John 2:2. If he wanted us to believe God died for the whole world, not just for the church, what would you have expected him to say different than what he said in 1 John 2:2?