Some Evidence Showing John MacArthur’s Progression Toward His Current View on the Atonement

In the quoted material below, John MacArthur speaks on his view on Limited Atonement at a question and answer session given in 1990. The source of this information can be found at https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/70-11/bible-questions-and-answers-part-39.

“There has been, through the years, a debate about the atonement. And the debate basically is did Jesus Christ die for everyone? In that sense, His atonement was unlimited. In other words, He died to pay the penalty for sin for the whole world. And then the gift of salvation is generally offered to the world.

The second viewpoint is that Jesus Christ died only for the elect, that it is more logical to assume that if only the elect are saved, that Jesus died only for the elect. Otherwise, Jesus died for people who He knew would never be saved, and what’s the point of that?

So, this particular debate rages hot at this particular time in history. There are some who believe in a total redemption, that is that Jesus Christ provided a full redemption for all human beings. And there are some who believe in what is called a particular redemption, that He died providing redemption particularly – that is only or specifically – for the elect.

I find, in my own mind and my own study of Scripture, a strong case for a general atonement, for a universal atonement, for an all-encompassing provision, for Jesus dying as the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only, but the sins of the whole world, tying it in particularly with John chapter 3, “God so loved” – what? – “the world” – not the elect – “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”

It seems to me that the giving of the Son was in response to the loving of the world, and that the propitiation which Christ was was [sic] sufficient for the sins of all the world.

And so, I would say that I believe – and I think this is maybe one way to understand it – I believe that the atonement of Christ was sufficient for the world but is efficient for those who believe. I believe in, I guess, what you could call a limited and unlimited atonement. It is unlimited in the sense that it was sufficient to cover the sins of the whole world; it is limited in that it is applied only to those who believe. And I don’t like to get pushed beyond that. But I don’t like to just take the title of believing in a limited atonement or particular redemption that Jesus died only for the elect, because I think that has some exegetical problems. I think you have problems explaining certain passages of Scripture.”

My Thoughts: The first time I heard this, I could immediately tell that he had some more thinking to do. This, of course, is the process that all serious-minded readers of Scripture are engaged in. Glancing over his statement, an informed listener will recognize that he gets his terminology messed up. He actually affirms limited when he that “the atonement of Christ was sufficient for the world but is efficient for those who believe.” He claims universal atonement (aka general atonement) but this Arminian understanding of the atonement holds that Jesus died for all people such that anyone might respond to the gospel and be saved. This view denies the efficiency of Christ’s atonement, and so MacArthur should reject it. He does, of course, but his confusion muddies the water for those who were listening to this at that time. Beyond this, also notice that he states that he doesn’t “like to just take the title of believing in a limited atonement or particular redemption that Jesus died only for the elect, because I think that has some exegetical problems.” His confusion becomes even clearer with this statement. Limited atonement (aka. particular redemption or definite atonement) must not have exegetical problems since his words, apart from his confusion, affirm that he holds this position. The next quote, coming 15 years later, demonstrates his increased clarity.

The following quote will show MacArthur’s growing understanding of the Calvinistic teaching known as the Limited Atonement (aka. Particular Redemption and Definite Atonement). This quote is taken from his commentary on 2 Peter & Jude (The John MacArthur New Testament Commentary, Chicago: Moody, 2005, p.74).

“Clearly, salvation is solely from God (cf. Ps. 3:8; Jonah 2:9)—He must give light, life, sight, understanding, repentance, and faith (John 1:12–13; 1 Cor. 1:30; Eph. 2:8–9). Salvation comes to the sinner from God, by His will and power. Since that is true, and based on the doctrine of sovereign election (1 Peter 1:1–3; 2 Peter 1:3; cf. Rom. 8:26–30; 9:14–22; Eph. 1:3–6), God determined the extent of the atonement.

For whom did Christ die? He died for all who would believe because they were chosen, called, justified, and granted repentance and faith by the Father. The atonement is limited to those who believe, who are the elect of God. Any believer who does not believe in universal salvation knows Christ’s atonement is limited (cf. Matt. 7:13; 8:12; 10:28; 22:13; 25:46; Mark 9:43, 49; John 3:17–18; 8:24; 2 Thess. 1:7–9). Anyone who rejects the notion that the whole human race will be saved believes necessarily in a limited atonement—either limited by the sinner who is sovereign, or by God who is sovereign.

One should forget the idea of an unlimited atonement. If he asserts that sinners have the power to limit its application, then the atonement by its nature is limited in actual power and effectiveness. With that understanding, it is less than a real atonement and is, in fact, merely potential and restricted by the volitions of fallen human beings. But in truth, only God can set the atonement’s limits, which extend to every believing sinner without distinction.

Adherents to the unlimited view must affirm that Christ actually atoned for no one in particular but potentially for everyone without exception. Whatever He did on the cross was not a full and complete payment for sin, because sinners for whom He died are still damned. Hell is full of people whose sins were paid for by Christ—sin paid for, yet punished forever.

Of course, such thinking is completely unacceptable. God limits the atonement to the elect, for whom it was not a potential but an actual and real satisfaction for sin. God provided the sacrifice in His Son, which actually paid for the sins of all who would ever believe, the ones chosen by Him for salvation (cf. Matt. 1:21; John 10:11, 27–28; Eph. 5:25–26).”

MacArthur’s background is in the typical blended theology of quasi-Arminianism and quasi-Calvinism of many evangelical churches. This sort of theological blend ultimately downplays God’s sovereignty while exalting the sovereignty of people. In his first quote, MacArthur seemed to not yet recognize this crucial point. In this quote 15 years later, he immediately starts with this very same point. He says, “Salvation comes to the sinner from God,” so “God determined the extent of the atonement.” This is limited atonement, the very position that he undermined in his confusion in his earlier statement. Despite what he had previously said, he now says, “One should forget the idea of an unlimited atonement.” He goes on to demonstrate a proper understanding of the position of those who affirm unlimited atonement, the same understanding which I gave in my comments from the previous discussion.