Home > The Doctrines of Grace > The “Heretical” Nature of Limited Atonement

The “Heretical” Nature of Limited Atonement

By now, most of you in the SBTS blogosphere already know. Jerry Falwell, in a message to prospective Liberty University students, said,

“We are not into partcular love or limited atonement. As a matter of fact we consider it heresy.”

You can read brother Tom Ascol’s initial reporting of this here.

Now, setting aside the (what should be) obvious ridiculousness of such a statement for the moment, let us turn our attention seriously to the word “heresy.” What is the definition of heresy? Dictionary.com defines heresy as:

  1. opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, esp. of a church or religious system.
  2. the maintaining of such an opinion or doctrine.
  3. Roman Catholic Church. the willful and persistent rejection of any article of faith by a baptized member of the church.
  4. any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc.

So, according to Falwell, limited atonement is at variance with orthodox doctrine; in fact he believes it is strongly skewed from “established” beliefs. And as such (definition 2), anyone who maintains this doctrine is a heretic. Furthermore, if we were like Catholics, our Calvinistic brothers are willful and persistent heretics for their rejection of general atonement, and as such we must anathematize them.

Does anyone else feel as vastly uncomfortable as I do about this idea? I am actually in agreement Falwell on the first part of his unfortunate statement. I am not into limited atonement. I think limited atonement is wrong, since I do not believe there is biblical warrant for this position. That is to say that I think, at this point in my studies, that Scripture as a whole does not endorse this view. However, I do not believe that to hold such a position disqualifies one from falling under the term orthodox. It is not “a hill on which to die.”

Falwell actually fires his independent fundamental Baptist shotgun at not one, but two concepts, the other namely particular love. I am of the belief that this is an opinion or doctrine that should be held by every Christian. In fact, it is my belief that John 3:16 explicitly teaches this concept. For an explanation, see a post I wrote on this very subject exactly one year ago today here.

This coming week I would like to examine this claim as part of my ongoing studies in this area of theology. We will examine whether or not particular love and limited atonement are, in fact, heresy. For my previous posts on this doctrine, check the sidebar under The Doctrines of Grace. If you’re too lazy (wink), you can access the particular posts as follows. These four posts sought to define and unpack the doctrine as it is formulated, not to raise objections or show how it is “wrong.” When one understands a doctrine and how it is formulated, one is in a much better position to determine whether it is “heresy.”

Limited Atonement, Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

This coming week, join us and, I’m sure, the many other bloggers who will be unpacking Falwell’s statement with the tools of Scriptural archaeology.

  1. Grant Hall
    November 27, 2010 at 11:50 pm

    Limited Atonement denies Christ died for all men, this is ANOTHER Gospel, the bible itself curses all who hold to such a belief. They are heretics and God-haters no matter how much they honor God with their lips, their hearts are far from Him. Galatians tells us that no heretics will enter into the Kingdom of God, in other words, all heretics go to hell… No one who believes in Limited Atonement will ever enter into glory, they are heretics and thus anathama. Without repentance they remain lost.

  2. December 31, 2010 at 10:41 pm

    Mr. Hall, you have no biblical evidence for your position. Limited atonement is NOT the Gospel. The Gospel is that Christ died to save sinners, and if those sinners will repent and believe, they will be saved. Calvinists preach that the same as you and I do. The nuts and bolts of the atonement, as in limited vs general, is not a damnable thing. The Gospel offer is still limited in general atonement – only those who actually accept Jesus are saved. Whether you hold to limited or unlimited atonement, the result is the same: Jesus ONLY saves those who repent and believe.

    If, on the other hand, universalism was preached, then indeed there is a different Gospel and it is damnable.

    I’d encourage you to check yourself with Scripture before damning other believers unwarrantedly.

  1. April 19, 2007 at 5:56 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: