What Is the Doctrine of Atonement? (Part 2) - Doctrine Matters with Kevin DeYoung

Summary

Doctrine Matters with Kevin DeYoung Episode: What Is the Doctrine of Atonement? (Part 2) Release Date: August 12, 2025

In the second installment of the series on the Doctrine of Atonement, Pastor and theologian Kevin DeYoung delves deeper into the multifaceted nature of the atonement, exploring its various theological dimensions and defending the doctrine of limited atonement within the framework of Reformed theology.

Recap and Continuation

Kevin begins by recapping the previous episode, emphasizing that while there are multiple theories of atonement, the penal substitutionary atonement stands out not merely as a theory but as the cornerstone that unifies other aspects of the Gospel. He cites John Stott to underscore that penal substitution is central to the “good news” because it encapsulates the heart of Christ’s redemptive work on the cross.

Key Aspects of Atonement

Kevin outlines several critical dimensions of the atonement:

Obedience and Conquest
- Obedience: Christ’s atonement fulfills the demands of God’s law, succeeding where Adam failed. This obedience is pivotal in satisfying the prescriptive aspects of the law.
- Conquest: Through His priestly work, Christ conquers evil, dismantling the dominion of the devil and reinforcing God’s sovereign reign over the world.
Reconciliation and Redemption
- Reconciliation: Drawing from William Tyndale, Kevin explains that atonement reconciles estranged parties, restoring the broken relationship between humanity and God.
- Redemption: This involves the “purchase back” of freedom, illustrating the liberation from sin’s bondage.
Sacrifice and Satisfaction
- Sacrifice: Christ is portrayed as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, highlighting His perfection and spotless nature.
- Satisfaction: Jesus satisfies both the prescriptive and penal requirements of God’s law through His sacrificial death.
Expiation and Propitiation
- Expiation: Refers to the removal of sin, akin to cleansing or purging our records.
- Propitiation: Kevin emphasizes this aspect, explaining that it involves God’s wrath being turned away or assuaged. He addresses misconceptions by distinguishing the biblical God’s wrath from pagan notions, highlighting that God’s wrath is just and not capricious.
“Propitiation is about turning away or assuaging the wrath of God.” (05:45)

The Nature of God’s Wrath

Kevin delineates three critical distinctions between the wrath of the biblical God and pagan gods:

Eternal and Immutable: Unlike the unpredictable and temperamental pagan deities, the biblical God’s wrath is consistent and unchanging.
Not Appeasable by Bribes: God is not calmed by external offerings but by His own sacrificial blood.
Out of Love, Not Hatred: Despite His anger towards sin, God’s actions, including sending His Son as a propitiation, are rooted in love rather than malice.

“The God of the Bible does not appease His wrath by a bribe but through His own blood.” (07:20)

Limited Atonement Explained

A significant portion of the episode is dedicated to elucidating the doctrine of limited atonement, one of the five points of Calvinism (collectively remembered by the acronym TULIP: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints).

Historical Context
- The Synod of Dort (1618-1619) addressed controversies between Reformed theologians and Arminians. Limited atonement emerged as a defining point of Reformed theology.
Definition and Clarifications
- Limited Atonement (also known as Particular Redemption or Definitive Atonement): Christ’s sacrificial death was intended to effectively redeem the elect—that is, those chosen by God from eternity.
- Biblical Support: Kevin references several scriptures to support this view:
  - John 6: “Jesus came to save those the Father had given him.” (12:30)
  - Matthew 1:21: “He will save his people from their sins.” (13:15)
  - Ephesians 1:4: “For those chosen in Christ.” (15:05)
“Limited atonement is not about limiting God’s mercy but clarifying that Jesus did not die for every individual indiscriminately.” (14:50)
Addressing Misconceptions
- Universalism vs. Particularity: Kevin argues that rejecting limited atonement either leads to universalism—where Christ’s death guarantees salvation for all—or to viewing the atonement as merely making salvation possible rather than being effectual.
- Effectiveness of the Atonement: Emphasizing Reformed theology, he asserts that Christ’s atoning work was fully intended and accomplished to secure the salvation of the elect.
“The nature of the atonement is that God saved us to the uttermost in the death of Christ, effectually redeeming His elect.” (20:10)

Understanding “The World” in Scripture

A pivotal discussion revolves around the term “world” as it appears in Scriptures like 1 John 4:10. Kevin explains that “world” (Greek: kosmos) often refers to “badness” or the fallen state rather than every individual without exception. When used in the sense of bigness, it implies diversity and expansiveness—encompassing various peoples and regions rather than every single person globally.

“When the Bible speaks of the world, it often means all kinds of people or regions, not necessarily every single person.” (17:35)

Defense of the Doctrine

Kevin passionately defends limited atonement by highlighting its biblical foundation and theological necessity. He argues that without this doctrine, one either endorses universalism or diminishes the effectiveness of Christ’s sacrifice. Highlighting thinkers like Spurgeon and J.I. Packer, he underscores the historical and theological robustness of the doctrine.

“If the atonement is not particularly and only for the sheep, then either we have universalism... or we are limiting the effectiveness of the atonement.” (19:40)

Conclusion

Kevin wraps up by reaffirming the importance of understanding and defending the doctrine of limited atonement. He emphasizes that accurate theological beliefs magnify the Gospel’s power and glory, ensuring that Christians are grounded in scriptural truth.

Final Thoughts

In this episode, Kevin DeYoung provides a comprehensive exploration of the Doctrine of Atonement, intricately weaving biblical exegesis with theological exposition. His defense of limited atonement is both passionate and scholarly, aiming to equip believers with a deeper understanding of one of Christianity’s foundational doctrines. Whether one agrees or disagrees, Kevin’s articulate presentation fosters thoughtful engagement with complex theological concepts.

For more in-depth exploration of theological doctrines, subscribe to Doctrine Matters and consider Kevin DeYoung’s Daily Doctrine for a year-long systematic theology journey.

Transcript

Kevin DeYoung (0:04)

Hello and welcome to Doctrine Matters, a weekly podcast exploring the rich theology of the Christian faith. Each week we want to take hold of one aspect of our faith and try to understand theological concepts that sometimes have been debated, controversial, or maybe just hard to understand. And hopefully we can look at them in a way that is clear, concise and accessible. The goal is that believers would be encouraged and edified and that God would be glorified so we can love him more, know him more, enjoy him forever. I'm Kevin DeYoung, your host and teacher, and this is Doctrine Matters. We continue this week on Doctrine Matters. Thinking about the Atonement there's so much more we could say about the atonement. Last time went through various theories of the atonement and ended by talking about penal substitutionary atonement, which John Stott helpfully says is not just a theory. That word can make it sound like it's an idea that people have come up with to try to test drive the atonement. But really it is the heart of what makes the good news good news. And it is that aspect of the atonement that holds all the others together. There's lots of things we can say that the atonement is about obedience and conquest, that is obedience to the Father, obedience to all of the commands, fulfilling all the prescriptive demands of the law, succeeding in obedience where the first Adam failed. And then it's also about conquest, that is victory over the devil and over his dominion. That this world is under the control of God. Now that's always been true in his essential reign. But in his priestly work, the vanquishing of evil powers has taken place. We can talk about reconciliation. Atonement, as William Tyndale coined the term, is at one ment. It's how estranged parties are reconciled and then redemption. So you can hear the different metaphors that some of them are relational metaphors, were reconciled when we were enemies to God. Or an economic term, redemption, the purchasing back of our freedom or cultic meaning, not cults, but having to do with worship and the the rituals of the tabernacle in the temple. So we can think of Christ's atonement on the cross as both a sacrifice. The Lamb of God takes away the sin of the world, that perfect spotless lamb without blemish and a satisfaction to satisfy the prescriptive and the penal requirements of God's law. And then two other terms, an expiation that is to remove think about expunging the dirt from ourselves, from our record. It's an Expiation and then a propitiation. This is the one that liberal theologians have had a hard time with. But it's absolutely essential and it's there in the Bible. And I think the ESV gets it right when it translates this Helosmos word group as propitiation. So you see that language in the ESV in several places that God gave Christ as a propitiation for our sins. I often tell my congregation the easiest way to think of that term is propitiation is how God becomes pro us that propitiation is about turning away or assuaging the wrath of God. This is why liberal scholars have had a hard time with it. But it's there in the Bible. God is angry with sin and angry with sinners. Now it's important to realize that the wrath of the biblical God is not the same as some peeved God of the pagans. Think about at least three ways it's different. Number one, the God of the Bible is eternal and immutable, never losing his temper. He doesn't fly off the handle. He doesn't judge his creatures capriciously. That's what you see in the Greco Roman story so often is the gods and goddesses are easily peeved and moved. They have superpowers, but they're just as capricious as human beings. A second difference, the God of the Bible is not appeased by a bribe, but by his own blood. So this is not a bribe we're going to buy off the angry God, but Acts 20:28 by his own blood he gave as a gift out of love, sent his Son. And then the third difference, the God of the Bible, though angry with sin and with sinners, nevertheless sent His Son to be our propitiation out of love. So the death of Christ, this is really important, did not make God love us. Okay, God really doesn't like us. Jesus comes. All right, now I guess I like you. No. The electing love of God planned for the once for all sacrifice of Jesus. Think of 1 John 4:10 in this is love. Not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Now, one other aspect of the atonement that we do need to mention at least briefly though there's so much we could say about it, and that is the doctrine of a limited atonement. If you've heard of the five points of Calvinism before, often given with the acronym tulip, total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints. It's that l limited atonement that people often get hung up on. Now, the TULIP acronym, as far as we can tell, isn't much more than maybe 100 years old, but the five points do come from the Synod of Dwart in 1618 and 19, and they put forward five heads of doctrine. Now, they never meant to say, this is everything you need to know about Calvinism. Sometimes Calvinism or Reformed theology gets truncated to just be this narrow band of soteriological emphases. Now, it's very, very important. But there's so much more to reform theology. But the Arminians. So those followers of Jacobus Arminius, he had passed away by the time of the Synod of Dort, but his followers were arguing for a different conception of Reformed theology that looked at contingency shot all the way through the plan of redemption. So in response to the Arminians, now, don't say Armenians, those are people from Armenia. They didn't do anything to make the Reformed theologians mad. In the Netherlands, the Arminians with an I are opposed at the Synod of Dort. And the Reformed put forward these five heads of doctrine and the second head of doctrine. So actually the tulip doesn't correspond with the same order from Dort, but the second head of doctrine at Dort has to do with this most contested of their points, what we call limited atonement. This doctrine teaches that Christ effectively redeems from every people. And here's the language from the Synod of Dort. Quote only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation. Now, the death of Christ was sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world. So there's nothing lacking in Christ's death, but God willed that it should effectively redeem those and only those who were chosen from eternity and given to Christ by the Father. We call it limited atonement. But many theologians prefer the names particular redemption or definitive atonement. And those are better in some ways. They speak to the plan of redemption as being particularly for the elect, or the atonement being a definitive, that is effectual atonement. Limited. Sounds like we have an interest in somehow making the atonement less than it could be. No, the doctrine is not to limit the mercy of God, but to make clear that Jesus did not die in the place as a substitutionary sacrifice in the place of every sinner, but definitively for his particular people. So John 6 says, Jesus came to save those the Father had given to Him. Now there's a Way certainly to say, behold the Lamb of God. John one that takes away the sins of the world. So you think about the world, and we'll come back to that term in a moment. There's a way to talk about that expansiveness of Christ's redemption. But John six tells us that he died for those the Father had given to him. Matthew 1:21, he died for what his people? John 15:13 died for his friends. Acts 20:28 says, he shed his blood for the church. Ephesians 5:25 says, for his bride. Ephesians 1:4 says, for those chosen in in Christ. So once you start having eyes to see it, you see this is all over the place that Jesus death was for a particular people, his people, his bride. Now what about this language then, of the world, Greek word, cosmos. What should we do? Because the Bible says that God so loved the world that Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. So we have to think about this word. Now, most often, world refers to badness instead of bigness. So the world is what's fallen, what's evil. But when it refers to bigness, world means everyone without distinction, not everyone without exception. Everyone without distinction. So male and female, Jew and Gentile, north, east, south and west, from every corner died for those. Those without distinction? Not everyone without exception, each and every person. So when 1 John 2:2 says, Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, it's a reference to all parts or all regions or all peoples of the world. The phrase is not used to mean every person on the planet, which is why Paul can say, Romans 1:8, your faith is proclaimed in all the world. Now, does Paul mean every living person on the planet has hear about your faith? No, he means that it has gone out far and wide. It's a reference to the bigness, to the expansiveness. Luke tells us a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. No one thinks that that meant every last person in China was going to be registered or indigenous peoples on the North American continent. No, it meant those people within the Roman Empire were to be registered. It was a decree that covered that world. So world can mean people everywhere or all kinds of people. It does not have to mean every person everywhere. This doctrine, limited atonement, particular redemption. It's worth defining and it's worth defending. It's not. You don't want to just put it off to the side. Certainly people disagree with this doctrine and love the Lord in our wonderful Christians, but we're never better off for misunderstanding the Bible or not believing everything the Bible says. And I'm trying to make the case that this is an eminently biblical doctrine and that it is to magnify the good news of the Gospel. Think about it this way. If the atonement is not particularly and only for the sheep, then either we have universalism, meaning Christ died in everyone's place and therefore everyone is saved. Because if that's what we mean, Christ died in the place of everyone. Well if he died as an effective substitutionary sacrifice, then that means everyone's sins are forgiven, everyone's redeemed, everyone's in heaven. Or we have to make the atonement something less then full substitution. Christ does not come to us merely saying I've done my part. I lay down my life because of my saving love for the whole world. Now if you would only believe and come to me, I can save you. Instead he says, I was pierced for your transgressions, I was crushed for your iniquities. I have purchased with my blood men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation. I myself bore your sins and in my body on the tree. The good shepherd therefore did not die indiscriminately for the goats he sustained the anger of God in body and soul, bore the curse and laid down his life for the sheep. This is the argument that Spurgeon makes and J.I. packer in his famous introductory essay to John Owens, the death of death and the death of Christ talk about whether the death of Christ saved men or merely made us saveable. Because either way, if you're not a universalist, meaning if you believe, as the Bible so clearly teaches, that there's heaven and hell and not everyone goes to heaven. So if you're not a universalist, then everyone has some kind of limited atonement. Either you're limiting who is receiving the benefits of the atonement, or you are limiting the effectiveness of the atonement. Because if Jesus died for every single person, then the atonement must be something other than a definitive effectual. In my place, condemned he stood kind of death. It must be a way of just removing an obstacle to make me saveable rather than saved. So either the extent of the atonement is limited, which I think is what the Bible teaches, or the nature of the atonement is limited. In Reformed theology has always said no, the nature of the atonement is that God saved us to the uttermost in the death of Christ, effectually redeeming his elect, applied in time upon faith, but secured infallibly the people and the sheep for his fold. So there's nothing lacking in the nature of Christ's atoning sacrifice. He accomplished everything he meant to accomplish, effectively and effectually, with intent and will, laying down his life for the sheep. Thanks again for joining us on Doctrine Matters. I'm your host, Kevin DeYoung. Our hope and prayer is that this has been helpful to you as you look at Scripture and try to understand the best of our theological tradition as Christians. Please consider subscribing to doctor Matters and if this has been encouraging, consider passing it on to others. If you'd like to learn more about this week's doctrine can ask your pastor for good resources or check out my year long mini systematic theology book called Daily Doctrine to available in print or audio from Crossway.org the Doctrine Matters podcast is produced by Crossway. To learn more, visit Crossway.org.