DEBATE: The Reformed Doctrine of Atonement is Biblical and Important | James White vs. Jason Breda

Debate Moderator’s Introduction and Conference Instructions

Good afternoon. I'd like to introduce myself. My name is Doug Wilson, and I'll be the moderator of today's debate. Actually, in all honesty, my name is Chris Arnzen. I'm the host of Iron Sharpens Iron Radio.

It really doesn't matter who I am. I'm here to introduce our debaters today. But before I do that, I just want to thank everyone for being here, for supporting this conference, especially those of you who have been here all three days.

We're so blessed to have heard the word of God preached to us. And we're blessed now to have these two gentlemen who are going to engage in scholastic debate, theological debate. And we are going to be very respectful of them as they do that.

One of the things I want to ask you, as the audience, to please refrain from both positive and negative affirmations during their speech. They have a limited amount of time. And anything that you say or sounds that you might make, even a hearty, hey, man, is really not appropriate because it's taking away from their time.

At the end of their opening statements, you'll have an opportunity for applause. And then after the first set of rebuttals, or after the only set of rebuttals, we will have a break. During that break, you're going to have an opportunity to ask questions.

We'll have someone with pieces of paper for you to write your questions down. Those questions will be given to me. And during the question and answer period, I will be reading them from this stage. I believe that's all that we have in the way of information that you need to know.

So I will ask that we begin with a word of prayer. Our Father and our God, we are thankful that we have this opportunity to come together today and to hear your word discussed. And Lord, we know that your word is the very lamp unto our feet and light unto our path.

Your word is fixed forever in the heavens. Your word is truth. Jesus said that we are sanctified by the truth and the word is the truth. So I pray that both of these men would, within the power that you have given them and by the spirit that resides within them, that they would come and seek to give clarity to the truth.

And where they disagree, I pray that you would give us clarity in being able to discern the truth. We pray, God, that your Holy Spirit would be here among us. This is not just a scholastic debate, Lord.

This is a debate over the very issues of the atonement. And so, God, I pray that you'd be merciful as we seek to come to right conclusions about this very important and foundational discussion. And I pray all this, Lord, in the name of Jesus Christ and for his sake, amen.

We have two debaters today and I want to introduce them and we will begin with Dr. James White. Dr. James White is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries. He is professor of church history and apologetics at Grace Bible Theological Seminary and has taught Greek, Hebrew, systematic theology, textual criticism, church history, and various topics in the field of apologetics for numerous other schools.

He has authored or contributed to more than 24 books, including The King James Only Controversy, The Forgotten Trinity, The Potter's Freedom, The God Who Justifies, and What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Quran.

He is an accomplished debater, having engaged in more than 185 moderated public debates as of today with leading proponents of Roman Catholicism, Islam, Jehovah Witnesses, and Mormonism, as well as critics such as Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, and John Shelby Spong.

Before travel restrictions, James debated in such locations as London, Sydney, as well as mosques in Toronto and South Africa. He is a pastor and elder of Apologia Church in Arizona. He's been married to Kelly for more than 40 years.

He has two children and five living grandchildren. Welcome, Dr. James White. On the other side of the stage, we have Jason Brita, an ACBC certified biblical counselor. He is a devoted husband, father, and steadfast follower of Christ with a passion for serving others and nurturing spiritual growth with over 20 years of experience in Christian ministry.

In addition to his commitment to counseling, Jason serves as a director at Christian Healthcare Ministries and is the founder of Living Christian, a YouTube ministry, where he encourages believers to deepen their understanding of the word and empowers them to be good Bereans.

Jason is a devoted family man, cherishing his role as a husband to his beloved wife, Chelsea, and father to their five children. Jason remains steadfast in his commitment to serving the Lord and his people, embodying the principles of love, compassion, and truth by God's grace and for his glory.

Please welcome Jason. The proposition today, the reformed doctrine of atonement is biblical and important. Both debaters will have a 20-minute opening statement followed by a 15-minute rebuttal. After that, we will take our break.

We will then come back and have 15-minute cross-examinations where one person will get to ask questions of the other person for 15 minutes. Finally, we will conclude with 10-minute closing statements at which time we will then open to our audience questions.

So that is all of our information that I believe we need to know. So I welcome our first debater, Dr. James White.

James White’s Opening Statement for Particular Redemption

Well, good afternoon.

It is great to be with you this afternoon. I am going to have to sort of whisper to you this afternoon. I hope that doesn't impact you too much. But the stuff that I've been fighting for seven or eight weeks decided to come back with a vengeance today.

So we will just deal with it as best we can. Our topic this afternoon is, I think, an extremely important one. There might be a few reformed folks out there that are hesitant to stand before an audience and affirm particular redemption or limited atonement.

I am not one of them. I believe, in my thesis statement for this debate, I believe that a consistent understanding of what Scripture teaches about the role of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in bringing about the self-glorification of the Trinity in the salvation of God's elect people requires and demands consistently an understanding that the atonement is in perfect harmony with the electing purpose of God the Father and the application of the Holy Spirit of God.

You cannot have the divine persons working at odds against one another. And so when we go to Scripture, we don't go to passages that are just in passing, making a reference here, reference there, that are not about salvation itself.

When we go to Scripture and ask what it teaches about God's purpose in salvation, about soteriology specifically, and about the impact and effect of the atonement, we see that the New Testament gives us a consistent testimony on these particular subjects.

We don't have a lot of time, so I want to just simply lay out for you the fact that one of the most important realities about the Christian doctrine of atonement in the New Testament is that Jesus, as our high priest, is both the one who is offered upon the cross as well as the one who then presents that offering before the Father.

As high priest, that's what the high priest did. Look at Leviticus chapter 16. On that Yom Kippurim, the day of atonements, he would take the blood of that sacrifice which had been offered, and he would go into the holy place, and he would sprinkle the mercy seat with that blood.

Those were all pictures of the coming work of Jesus Christ. And so what that means is we have to bring together and keep together the biblical teaching of what the high priest did. So it's not just the offering itself, but then the intercession, the fact that the Son appears in the presence of the Father in our place and intercedes for us.

What is he presenting? What is he doing? Is that some extra work beyond the cross? No, it is the presentation of that finished work, and that means we can look at what the New Testament teaches about intercession.

An intercession is very clearly made for a specific people for one real reason. It always works. Anyone for whom the Son intercedes will be saved. And therefore, that intercessory work as part of the work of the high priest once again shows the specificity of the work of atonement.

Let's look to the scriptures because my argument this evening is very much a scriptural argument. Turn with me to Romans chapter eight. You know Romans chapter eight, the golden chain of redemption that is found in verses 28 and following, and we know that for those who love God, all things work together for good for those who are called according to his purpose because those whom he foreknew, active verb, it's something God does.

It's not just taking in knowledge. He also predestined to become conformed to the image of his Son so that he would be the firstborn among many brothers, and those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

Why take the time to read this? Because it's the context of the legal court scene that is presented to us immediately thereafter, and it defines for us who the us in the verses that follow are. It's those who have been foreknown, predestined, called, justified, glorified.

These are the elect of God. These are the ones in the preceding verses that the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. This is a very specific group. Verse 31, what then shall we say to these things?

If God is for us, who is against us? Who can say these words? Can those who abide under the wrath of God today, can those who are in right now undergoing, suffering the punishment of their sins, this is before the final day, so we're talking about in a place called Hades, are those who are separated from God, are they able to say if God is for me, who can be against me?

Who is this us? He who indeed did not spare his own son, but delivered him over for us all. If you're going to believe in a general, nonspecific, impersonal atonement, you're gonna have a hard time explaining but delivered him over for us all, because that's specific.

That's speaking of a specific group. How will he not also with him graciously or freely give us all things? And then verse 33 identifies who we're talking about. Who will bring a charge against God's elect?

There is the us. It's God's elect. God is for God's elect. Who can be against God's elect? He who did not spare his own son, but delivered him over for God's elect. This is the message that's being presented to us.

Who will bring a charge against God's elect? Here is the courtroom scene. God the Father is the judge. God is the one who brings down the gavel and says righteous, just in my sight. Well, how can he do that?

We know that we are sinners. How can he do that? Well, because while God is the one who justifies, who is the one who condemns? Who brings the charge against God's elect? Who can possibly succeed in doing so?

Because Christ Jesus is he who died, yes, rather who was raised, who was at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. So here's the intercessor. Here's the one who intercedes for those who are being given, this charge is being brought against them.

It's Christ Jesus. And since he has died, then any penalty has been fulfilled in him. And he has been raised. He is at the right hand of God the Father. And he intercedes for us because of his finished work in our place.

Anybody who says Jesus died for me is borrowing reformed theology to say that. If you know anything about church history, there have been lots of theories about the atonement. You have the ransom theory and the recapitulation theory and the moral government theory and all these other things.

But if you actually say Jesus died for me, you're talking about substitutionary atonement. And if that's substitutionary, then it must be personal and it must correspond exactly with who the Father has elected unto salvation and those who the Spirit brings unto salvation.

There has to be perfect unity between Father, Son, and Spirit. And so we have this one who intercedes for us and as a result of the perfection of his work in our place, we then have the words, who will separate us from the love of Christ?

Will affliction or turmoil or persecution or famine or nakedness or peril or sword? Verse 37, all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through him who loved us. There is a specific redeeming, redemptive love that is seen in the courtroom scene that is the very foundation upon which the gospel itself stands.

So keeping that in mind, turn with me to the book of Hebrews. And in the book of Hebrews, we have chapter after chapter after chapter arguing for the supremacy of Christ. The main message of the book of Hebrews is there's nothing to go back to.

There's nothing to go back to even though the temple's still standing at this time. I think this was written before AD 70. There's nothing to go back to, why? Because everything was pointing to Christ.

And so he begins to talk about the priesthood of Christ. Verse 23 of chapter seven. After he has said, in verse 22, so much more, Jesus also has become the guarantee of a better covenant. And the former priests on the one hand existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing.

But Jesus, on the other hand, because he continues forever, holds his priesthood permanently without successor. The term refers to something that's not gonna be passed on to someone else. He holds his priesthood permanently.

Therefore, because of that, he is able, notice who has the ability, the power, the capacity. He is able to do what? To save completely, ponte less. It can be completely or forever. Obviously, both of them imply the other.

To save forever or completely those who draw near to God through him. This refers back to who was it under the old covenant when the offerings were being made. The people had to come into the presence of the Lord.

They became the congregation of the Lord. When those offerings were made, they weren't made for the Amorites. They weren't made for the Babylonians. They weren't made for the Egyptians. They were specific under the old covenant.

Therefore, he is able to save completely those who draw near to God through him, only him.

Why?

How does he have this capacity? How does he have this power? Since he always lives to make intercession for them. Now, the high priest made intercession, but he always had to do so with what? The blood of the sacrifice.

But what did we see in Romans chapter eight? And I believe Paul preached Hebrews in Hebrew and Luke wrote it in Greek. That answers pretty much all the questions for me as far as that is concerned. So I think this is the same theology, but it's all from the Holy Spirit anyways.

Since he always lives to make intercession for them. The work of intercession is specifically for a specific people and it results in their salvation. It results in their salvation. It does not provide a means.

It doesn't just simply make men savable. Notice the result is, he always lives to make intercession for them and that's the ground upon which he has the capacity and the power to save completely. That's the perfection of the work of our high priest.

And the author continues on, he then quotes from Jeremiah 31, the long section on the nature of the new covenant, that this is a new covenant that will result in what? It will result in their forgiveness of sins.

He will write his law upon their hearts. I will be their God, they will be my people. They will have forgiveness of sins. From the least to the greatest of them, they will know me. This is the new covenant and he is the mediator of that new covenant.

So who is in that new covenant? Then we have a continued discussion in chapter nine about the new covenant, verse 11, but when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, he entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, he entered the holy places once for all, temporal, one time, having obtained eternal redemption.

Not having made it possible, he actually obtained it by his work. For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling those who have been defiled, sanctify for the cleansing of flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit, offered himself without blemish to God, please note the Trinitarian nature of the gospel there, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

This is why he is the mediator of a new covenant so that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the trespasses that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

This is the argumentation of the book of Hebrews. It goes on, I can't read all of it, the time is very, very short, but it goes on to say in verse 23, therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these, for Christ did not enter holy places made with hands, mere copies of the true ones, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God, what?

For us, who pair him own. Substitution, representation, for us. Nor was it that he would offer himself often as a high priest enters the holy places year by year with blood that is not his own, otherwise he would have needed to have suffered often since the foundation of the world, but now once at the consummation of the ages, he has been manifested to do what?

To put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. His sacrifice accomplishes the putting away of sin. And what's the result of this? Well, we see in chapter 10, instead of the ongoing repetitious sacrifices of the old covenant, every year the high priest going in and doing the same thing, we have the singular one sacrifice.

The old repetitive sacrifices reminded us of sin. The one sacrifice reminds us of the sin bearer who takes our sin away. The result then is, when you have the citation from the Old Testament, I have come to do your will, verse nine, he takes away the first, the first will in order to establish the second.

By this will, this second will, we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. We, keep seeing the we and the us in a specific group, the Trinitarian nature of these things, the harmony of the father and the son in his perfect work, and then the application by the spirit.

It is plainly presented to us over and over again. And then verse 12, but he having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies are put as a footstool for his feet, for by one offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

So let's make application. There's so many passages we can go to that talk about Christ's death for his people. When the angel announces that he will save his people from their sins, and Christ's death for the church, and people will come back and say, well, just because it's just for them doesn't mean it's for others.

The issue of the subject of the atonement must always be what does it accomplish? What does it accomplish? Because then we have a consistent answer of for whom has it been offered. And when we look at what the scriptures teach us on that subject, we have the electing grace of God the Father, the Son submitting himself to the will of the Father in behalf of his people, their sins are imputed to him, his righteousness is imputed to them.

That's how we have peace with God. This is one of the primary issues between us and Rome. Rome doesn't have a substitutionary atonement. The death of Christ merits grace from Rome's perspective, but there is no righteousness that is imputed to us that is a perfect righteousness.

And then at the time that the Father has determined, the Spirit comes and makes real in our experience by raising us from spiritual death, even though we're enemies of God, at that point in time, and everyone in here, probably everyone in here remembers when that was in your own experience, the Spirit of God raises us to spiritual life, and we come to understand what has been done for us long before we took our first breath.

Even when God the Father knew us intimately and knew what our sins would be, the mountain of them, they were placed upon Christ in our place. And so, Trinitarian harmony in the Gospel. The Father elects a specific people.

The Son dies in their place, bears their sins and His body upon the cross, makes available to them perfect salvation through their union with Him. And the Spirit, at that right time, comes and takes that rebel sinner, that person in rebellion against God, and because of what Christ has done for us in our place, raises us to spiritual life.

This is the testimony of the New Testament. This is the consistency of the teaching of the New Testament. It's glorious, and as the thesis says, the Reformed doctrine of the Atonement is true and important.

It's important because, since it's the work of the triune God, it precludes any boasting on our part whatsoever. Let he who boasts boast in the Lord. That's the truth of the Atonement. Thank you for your attention.

You may applaud now.

Thank you.

Jason Breda’s Opening Statement for Universal Atonement

All right. Now, Jason, you will have your 20-minute opening statement.

Martin Luther, when he nailed his 95 thesis to the church door in Wittenberg, Germany on October 31st, 1517, began his thesis with these words, out of love for the truth and the desire to elucidate it, which means to make clear, and this is the same reason why we are gathered here today as those who seek to know him and make him known.

I want to thank Doug Wilson for moderating this debate this day, and I want a special thank you to Jeffrey Rice, wherever he's at, for his hospitality and kindness. And welcome, brothers and sisters. It's good to be here with you, and I hope that you'll be edified by what we do.

And thank you also to Dr. White for the opportunity to have this discussion. It's an honor, and I'm humbled to be given my understanding of the Atonement. At the end of the day, what we're here for is to glorify God.

Well, in the spirit of respectful discourse, I wish to ensure everyone here that this debate is not about questioning the sincerity of anyone's faith. We're here to examine a doctrine and its validity regarding it being a biblical position or not.

My goal is for the Bible to have the final word. Now, the title of this debate, the Reformed Doctrine of the Atonement, is biblical and important, I think is lightly an unfortunate title, because it does suggest that there is only one Reformed position of the Atonement, which is not true.

And it does then also present itself that the position that a Calvinist, Dr. White, is holding to, that be limited Atonement, is the correct position. And for someone like myself, a former Calvinist, holding to an unlimited Atonement is not biblical, nor important, or even a Reformed position at all.

However, did you know that scholars say that the first-generation Reformers held to a universal Atonement, and in fact, not just held to it, but rejected limited Atonement? Many respected theologians and historians, such as Richard Muller, affirm first-generation Reformers, such as Luther and Calvin, held to a universal Atonement.

Limited Atonement wasn't a part of any Reformer's theological framework until Theodore Beza, 23 years after Calvin died. And prior to Beza, most theologians, except for the exception of God's chalk, a ninth-century monk, supported universal Atonement.

And when God's chalk presented limited Atonement, it was rejected by three French councils. So I actually feel confident in telling you that the first-generation Reform doctrine of the Atonement is biblical and important, because it emphasized what the early church held onto, and even what the early Reformers held onto, which was unlimited Atonement.

I think it's insightful that the debate has continued to go on. One-fourth of the Council of Dort rejected limited Atonement. One-third of Westminster rejected limited Atonement. And I would admonish you to go into church history and catalog all of the Calvinists that have not held onto limited Atonement.

I think you'd be quite amazed how many there actually are. So why are we here debating the Atonement today? If the church held to a universal Atonement until the end of the 16th century, what weight is the limited Atonement position?

Well, several high Calvinistic theologians and writers like John Owen, Gary Long, and there's definitely others that support limited Atonement. They have influenced the theory of it using philosophy and theological concepts which seem to present some strong arguments, and I give it that.

Dr. White supports and echoes ideas that are in the works of such as the death of death and the death of Christ, and definite Atonement, and of course, there's others for consideration as well. The main reason I think that limited Atonement holds so strongly to men like Dr. White is the fact that it is the greatest theological position that supports Calvinism's highest theological position, and that is unconditional election.

All Calvinists agree on unconditional election, and I think limited Atonement is just the newest theological theory to support the greatest doctrine for Calvinism, which is election. Hence why I believe it has the credibility that it does.

I've got two main points. The first point is limited Atonement is logical, it's theological, but it's not biblical. Limited Atonement is a concept that aligns logically within the systematic of Calvinism, and while it holds significant in discussions, it's crucial to remember that any position, no matter how logical or theological it can be, needs to be discarded if it's not biblical.

Our shared goal should be to interpret the text and let the word of God be the ultimate authority, and what truly matters is drawing understanding from the scriptures, not imposing our own interpretations onto it.

Much of the arguments that support limited Atonement stem back to Owen's book, and he presents theological and logical arguments, but they're not biblical. Literally every argument that Owen brings up in his book starts with the general principle that determines the outcome of his presentation before he takes you to the scriptures to support it.

So Owen uses a deductive approach to interpretation, not an inductive approach, and a lot of eisegesis. A few primary examples are the Covenant of Redemption. This suggests that God the Father and the Son made an agreement before time began to elect where the Father committed to provide salvation only to the elect based on the Son's Atonement, and despite the fact that this doctrine has theological language, such as covenant and redemption, there's no direct mention of this language or this agreement in the scriptures.

Critics of Owen's work not only are non-Calvinists, but also Calvinists. Swiss reform theologian Karl Barth criticized Owen's theory, labeling it a Christian mythology. Owen also argued that a universal atonement would imply Christ's failure as a savior since he intends to save all, but not all are saved.

Thus, Owen concluded, one of two options must be true, universalism or limited atonement, but both positions are wrong. You've heard Dr. White discuss the Trinitarian harmony argument, and Trinitarian harmony, as he mentioned, emphasizes the unity within the Trinity concerning redemption and how Christ's intercessory work only applies to the elect.

I do see this as a smokescreen to support limited atonement, and we all believe that there's harmony within the Trinity. I mean, I think we all at least agree on that, that there is no disunity within the Trinity, but my disagreement lies in the interpretation behind how White and Owen view God is working in redemption, how they're unified in redemption.

Owen, the originator of this Trinitarian harmony theory, uses Romans 8 .32 through 34 to support its findings. I acknowledge the fact that Dr. White follows a similar approach to Owen, for Dr. White said in a podcast, quote, if you have a universal atonement, you must have a universal intercession, because if God knew from eternity who was going to be saved and Jesus is interceding for all people, yet only the blood is applied to some, what is the purpose of that intercession for those who do not believe, end quote.

Now, I know we already went through it, but let's go through it together again. Verse 32 of chapter eight, he who indeed did not spare his own son but delivered him over for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?

Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies. Who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is he who died, yes, rather, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.

So which portion of this text that we just read displays the application of the atonement? I don't see it. Do you see a pre-temporal pact between the Trinity before time began? I don't. You must confess that this argument does involve the use of the negative inference fallacy, which is when someone draws a conclusion based on the absence of evidence.

There's no evidence for the Trinitarian harmony theory. Suggesting the application of the atonement is here where it is not explicitly stated is a misstep for any biblical scholar. And we cannot allow Old Testament typology to trump New Testament statements of Christ's atonement and all the passages that support a universal extent.

Charles Hodge, a Presbyterian theologian, rightly understood that the atonement unapplied saves no one. There needs to be an application. And there is a difference between the intent of the atonement the extent of the atonement and the application of the atonement.

And nowhere in scripture does it tell us that the atonement achieved equals the atonement applied. That concept is read into the Bible by those who adhere to limited atonement. My second point is that limited atonement is false because it misunderstands the biblical and the historical context of numerous passages and books of the Bible.

I have the time to draw out one example. There are these moments in the scriptures that I now refer to as the dividing line of redemptive history. And I admit this is gonna be pretty shocking for some of you because it was shocking for me as well.

Continuing though to look at Romans chapter 32 through 34, I wanna show you that the biggest reason why the Trinitarian harmony theory fails is because it overlooks the broader context of the entire book of Romans and the specific audience Paul is writing to in chapter eight.

Now, just back up, Paul's practice was to visit local synagogues and to preach to the Jews first. This is the pattern laid out and recorded in Acts nine times. In Romans, we see Paul repeat this phrase, to the Jew first and also to the Greek or the Gentiles.

The Roman church in this time transitioned from predominantly a Jewish church to a mainly Gentile church after the dispersion of the Jews in 41 through 53 AD. So when Paul wrote this, most scholars agreed in 57 to 59 AD is when he wrote it.

And so the church would actually be primarily Gentile with a minority of Jews coming back. Paul's letter to the Romans is much more than just a great theological book with gospel truths that we can glean from and apply.

It is actually a letter of reconciliation between the Jew and the Gentile believers. It's also a theme we see all throughout the New Testament. And it's really beautiful once you see this. And as I mentioned, there is a dividing line in the book to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Romans eight is not speaking to Jew and Gentile and every believer in general as the Trinitarian harmony would suggest. Paul is actually speaking directly to his Jewish audience here in chapter eight.

But not just chapter eight, actually from the chapter one all the way back. So not only, if this is true, not only does this go against the Trinitarian harmony theory, it actually goes against the golden chain of redemption and who the elect are.

So I tell you, this is massively big. Let me show you why and how. If you turn back to Romans chapter one, we see in verse 13 that there is an ambiguous antecedent. Chapter one, verse 13. It says, I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that often I have planned to come to you and have been prevented so far so that I may have some fruit among you also, even as among the rest of the Gentiles.