Gallons of ink have been spilled trying
to answer and explain the significance of the cross of Jesus Christ. The cross
and the empty tomb according to the Christian faith are the crux of the Biblical
narration. Furthermore, anyone who is intellectually honest cannot deny that the
crucifixion of a Nazarene Carpenter approximately 2,000 years ago was tantamount
to the human race. It did in fact alter history as we know it.
This
paper presupposes the reader’s acceptance of the penal-substitution theory and
moves to investigate another question. Almost if not all evangelicals hold
firmly to the necessity of a vicarious sacrifice for salvation. However, they
do not all agree upon for whom the sacrifice was made. Some would argue it was
for a specific people, others would assert it was for the entire human race. In
the Universal atonement division (probably the most popular), Christians affirm
that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, which would include every human
being ever born from the beginning of human history. In the other division, Limited
Atonement (the position of this writer), Christians would assert that Jesus
died specifically and only for the sins of God’s elect. So which one is it? And
does it really matter? Richard Phillips posed the question best when he asked,
“did he [Jesus] come to make men redeemable, or did he come effectually and
infallibly to redeem?”[1]
It
is important to consider a few different issues in order come to a careful and responsible
conclusion concerning this matter. This paper will address the Scriptural basis
for each view, and will attempt to show why Limited Atonement proves to be the
most Biblically consistent doctrine and also the most God-glorifying.
Firstly,
it would be irresponsible not to consider the Old Testament in thinking through
this matter. The Passover and the Day of Atonement prove to be helpful. Exodus
12 records the historical Passover narrative the night before the Pharaoh of
Egypt released the Israelites from slavery. Pharaoh had withstood nine plagues
from the Lord and refused to let the Israelites go. On that night, Moses
commanded the Jews to slaughter a lamb and smear its blood on the doorposts,
and “When the LORD goes through the land to strike down the Egyptians, he will
see the blood on the top and sides of the doorframe and will pass over that
doorway, and he will not permit the destroyer to enter your house and strike
you down.”[2]
The blood of the lamb was spilled specifically for the people of each house. It
covered those people perfectly. However, it did not possess any potential
saving power for Egyptians or others who did not put the blood on their door.
The people who were saved from death were the ones that the blood was
covering—a perfect atoning work.
A
second Old Testament event is just as clear—the Day of Atonement. On that day,
the High Priest would enter the Holy of Holies wearing his priestly garments.
The Ephod included an onyx stone on each shoulder engraved with the twelve
tribes of Israel, signifying that the High Priest was making sacrifice and
interceding specifically for those people.
He shall then
slaughter the goat for the sin offering for the people and take its blood
behind the curtain and do with it as he did with the bull’s blood: He shall
sprinkle it on the atonement cover and in front of it. In this way he will make
atonement for the Most Holy Place because of the uncleanness and rebellion of
the Israelites, whatever their sins have been.[3]
During the High Priest’s duties, he was
acting in behalf of his people and no one else. There is a direct tie between
these Old Testament passages and the New Covenant that God instates through
Christ.
Lastly,
consider the Old Testament prophecies. Isaiah spoke of a Servant who would bear
the sins of His people.
By oppression and
judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered
that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression
of my people?... Yet it was the will
of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an
offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the
will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. Out of the anguish of his soul he
shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my
servant, make many to be accounted
righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.(Emphasis
added)[4]
It is apparent that Isaiah’s prophecy
speaks of a coming Servant who will accomplish His purpose without fail. What
is that purpose? To cover the sins of his people. Who are “His people”? The
ones whose sins are covered; hence, a perfect atoning work is the result.
Additionally,
the New Testament gives explicit references regarding Christ’s purpose and
work. “She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save
his people from their sins.”[5]
According to Matthew, Christ’s purpose is to save his people from their sins.
The beloved disciple, John, recorded Jesus’ discourse before his crucifixion.
“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep… I
am the good shepherd. I know My own and My own know me, just as the Father
knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.”[6]
Jesus is clearly laying down His life for His sheep. Now, it is easy to say
that all mankind are God’s sheep, because doesn’t Isaiah the prophet say all we
like sheep have gone astray? But Jesus Himself would disagree. In fact, He told
the Pharisees, “but you do not believe because you are not among My sheep.”[7]
The non-elect do not believe and do not appear to be included in the number of
those for whom Christ laid down His life.
Consider
furthermore Christ’s prayer on earth at the end of His earthly life recorded in
John 17. He prays only for the ones whom the Father has given Him. “I am
praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have
given me, for they are yours. All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am
glorified in them.”[8] Jesus
appears to have an explicit people in mind. He seems to be exercising a
specific love, an unbreakable love, not a hypothetical or conditional love.
Every
Evangelical will affirm that not everyone in the world will be in heaven.
Salvation is explicitly for those who are in Christ. But the question must be
asked, if everyone doesn’t go to heaven, and Christ died for everyone, did He
fail, or at least partially fail in His purpose? Did Jesus not complete what He
set out to do? Was some of His blood wasted? Or, another question is just as
important. How could Jesus, according to the writer of Hebrews, “endure the
cross, scorning its shame…”? The answer is obviously, “for the joy set before him.”[9]
But if there is no joy without assurance, and if Jesus’ blood was spilt
hypothetically for all and did not guarantee a redemption for any, how is there
any joy in the possibility of total failure? That seems to be some pretty risky
business—a serious divine gamble. A universal atonement would result in an
anxious, restless, whimsical Christ rather than a joyful, assured, obedient
Christ.
This
is where it is important to observe that both sides, Calvinists and Arminians, put
“limits” on the work of the atonement. According to the Limited Atonement view
(actual atonement), the atonement of Christ is a complete work and actually
covers the sins of people once for all. His blood was offered up only for the
elect, cleansed them perfectly, and did not miss a single person for whom it
was designated.[10] According
to Universal Atonement, Christ’s blood is spilled for all of humanity, but the
efficacy of that offering is conditional upon a personal choice of believing.
If he does not believe, he rejects the covering prescribed and faces God’s
wrath, but if he accepts the covering, He is now in Christ and no longer faces
condemnation. To clarify, a limited atonement puts a limit on the scope of
people redemption is accomplished, whereas a universal atonement puts a limit
on what was actually accomplished once for all because its effects remain
dependent upon the response of individuals.[11]
Charles Spurgeon used this illustration to explain. A limited atonement is like
a narrow bridge that completely covers the gap between two sides, God and man.
The bridge is only intended for God’s people to cross and will only be crossed
by them. Whereas a universal atonement is like a wide bridge that makes its way
half way across the gap. Everyone can climb their way to the edge, but must
make a decision of faith in order to make it to the other side.[12]
Now
this is where an element of serious inconsistency is found in the universal
view of the atonement. According to this reasoning, faith is not only a
condition for atonement, but it is one of the very grounds of atonement. R.C.
Sproul notes, “If the atonement is not efficacious apart from faith, then faith
must be necessary for the satisfaction of divine justice. Here faith becomes a
work with a vengeance because its presence or absence in a sinner determines
the efficacy of Christ’s work of satisfaction for this person.”[13]
However, most people who hold to an unlimited atonement would argue that faith
is not a work of satisfaction, just a necessary condition. But the question
still remains, is divine satisfaction effected without faith? If yes, then
there is no wrath left to be imposed on unrepentant sinners and all will be
saved. If no, then faith becomes an essential constituent for propitiation.
John Owen, a notable Puritan theologian once said:
First, if the full
debt of all be paid to the utmost extent of the obligation, how comes it to
pass that so many are shut up in prison to eternity, never freed from their
debts? Secondly, if the Lord, as a just creditor, ought to cancel all
obligations and surcease all suits against such as have their debts so paid,
whence is it that his wrath smokes against some to all eternity? Let none tell
me that it is because they walk not worthy of the benefit bestowed; for that
not walking worthy is part of the debt which is fully paid, for the debt so
paid is all our sins! Thirdly, is it even probable that God calls any to a
second payment, and requires satisfaction of them for whom, by his own acknowledgement,
Christ hath made that which is full and sufficient?[14]
The reader is now invited to think upon
Christ’s atoning work for a particular believer. Did Christ’s death satisfy all
the demands of God’s justice against this believer? If yes, then it is inferred
that it covered the sins of the believer’s preceding unbelief. Was that sin
paid for prior to this person’s belief? Or was Christ’s atonement not complete
until this person’s belief? Did Christ’s death cover his unbelief or not? If it
did, why doesn’t it cover the unbelief of unbelievers? Here is the unanswered
question.
In
a universal atonement view, faith ultimately becomes a necessary ground for a
complete atonement. R.C. Sproul clarifies, “If faith is necessary to the
atonement, then Christ’s work was indeed a mere potentiality. In itself it
saves no one. It merely makes salvation possible.” Moreover, he explains,
“Theoretically we must ask the obvious question, what would have happened to
the work of Christ if nobody believed it? That had to be a theoretical
possibility. In this case Christ would have died in vain. He would have been a
potential Savior of all but an actual Savior of none.”[15]
So it must be asked, is Jesus the
Savior? Or is He merely a potential, hypothetical Savior? Did He actually save
people? Or did He make them redeemable? J. I. Packer asserts that the view of a
universal atonement “so far from magnifying the love and grace of God dishonors
both it and Him, for it reduces God’s love to an impotent wish and turns the
whole economy of ‘saving’ grace, so called… into a monumental divine failure…
so far from magnifying the merit and worth of Christ’s death, it cheapens it,
for it makes Christ die in vain.”[16]
Think
through now the Trinity and each Person’s work in the salvation of sinners.
According to Ephesians chapter one, The Father chooses the elect in Christ
before the foundation of the world. He does not choose everyone. Otherwise one
would conclude that everyone will be saved. The Holy Spirit regenerates and
sanctifies only the elect. He does not dwell in the hearts of unbelievers.
Therefore, if the Father chooses only the elect, and the Spirit works
exclusively and effectually in the lives of believers, how is it that the Son
died for all of humanity? Here is yet another element of discontinuity.
Embracing a universal atonement would set the Trinity at odds with one another.
And if that inference does not absolutely obliterate the unity of the Godhead,
it would at least imply some sort of hierarchal tension between the Persons.
This simply cannot be. God’s Word does not allow for it.
The
last portion of the paper will now address some “problem texts” to the Actual
Atonement theory. It would not take long if one set out to read the New
Testament that he would come across a verse that seems to explicitly refer to
God’s loving the world, or Christ dying for all. So what is one to do with
these? They cannot simply be ignored.
John
3:16 is commonly referred to prove Christ’s dying for all humanity. “For God so
loved the world that He gave His only
Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.”[17]
(Emphasis Added) Duane Edward Spencer rightly notes, “Much of what we think
about the atoning work of Christ will be tempered by what we understand the
simple word ‘world’ to mean.”[18]
The gospel of John itself contains seven (if not eight) different usages of the
word “world.” Hence, context is absolutely key to determine what the author is
trying to communicate. For example, later in the gospel of John, the Pharisees
are recorded saying, “Behold! The world is gone after Him!”[19]
It is quite certain in this instance that the whole of humanity had not gone
after Jesus. The speakers themselves refused to do so. So why does it read, “For God so loved
the world…”? To understand that question, it is important to read the preceding
verses. Jesus is conversing with Nicodemus, a Jewish leader, over how one is
able to see the Kingdom of God. After telling Nicodemus that one must be born
again in order to inherit the Kingdom, He explains further in verses fourteen
and fifteen. “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the
Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.”[20]
These two verses refer explicitly to Jewish people. When the Israelites were
smitten with poisonous snakes in the desert for their rebellion, the Lord
commanded Moses to lift up a bronze serpent in order that the Jews could gaze
upon the snake and be healed. The Jews at this time in history believed they
were the chosen people God (which they were), but also that they were the only
ones God planned to redeem. Hence, Jesus’ statement to Nicodemus is not that He
is going to die for the sins of every person, but it is a Divine announcement that
God’s salvific gaze is shifting from explicitly Jews to peoples of all races
and regions of the world!
The
same rule can be applied to 1 John 2:2 which states “He [Jesus] is the
propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the
whole world.”[21] The beloved
disciple is communicating the same point in his first epistle as he did in his
gospel. Jesus didn’t just die for Jews! He died for humans out of every tribe
and nation but not every tribe and nation as a whole.
1
Timothy 2:3-4 is yet another verse that seems to insist on a universal
atonement. Paul writes that God “desires all people to be saved and to come to
the knowledge of the truth.” This “all” must be observed in context of the rest
of the letter. Going back to the first of the chapter, Paul urges Timothy to
pray “for all people” like the “kings and all who are in high positions.”[22]
This “all” is speaking of an all kinds of people. Therefore we conclude that
God does not discriminate upon ethnicity, power, or intellectual ability, but
He gives sight to those whom He wills. That is what’s so amazing about His
perfect unmerited grace! God does not look down and see worthy vessels of
favor, but He loves in spite of faithlessness.
Perhaps
the strongest verse that seemingly debunks the Limited Atonement argument is
recorded in 2 Peter 2:1. Peter is giving a stern warning against “false
teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even
denying the Master who bought them.”[23]
This seems to be the nail in the coffin for Limited Atonement. However, Richard
Phillips gives a helpful explanation. “The weight of biblical testimony should
not be revised by this one verse; rather we should understand the ambiguous
verse in terms of the whole testimony of Scripture. Here, it seems that Peter
is referring to what the false teachers claimed for themselves, rather than
what was actually the case.”[24]
This is quite agreeable. There are to this day plenty of unregenerate people on
this earth who claim that Christ’s blood was shed for them. Just because someone
claims that Jesus died for them does not make them a Biblical teacher, much
less a genuine Christian.
So
what’s the point? Does embracing a limited atonement really edify or enrich the
Christian’s experiential life at all? Indeed, at first glance it seems to be a
bunch of abstract, tedious, theological nuances. But it is so much more than
that. Again, to quote Phillips, “if we grasp how personal in its application
and how efficacious in its effects is the cross of Christ, we will find solid
ground for our assurance of salvation. There can be no assurance if the
ultimate cause of our redemption is found in ourselves.” Moreover he writes,
“It is when you realize that even your faith is the outworking of Christ’s
saving death for you, by the electing will of the Father, as applied by the
Spirit, that you know the solid ground on which your salvation stands.”[25]
God saves sinners. Salvation does not fail because God does not fail! Salvation
belongs to the Lord! That is good news! There is great hope, joy, comfort, and
assurance in that!
In
final application, a limited atonement ought to powerfully influence a
Christian’s devotion to the Lord. There are many people who have died for
principles. Socrates for example, took the cup of hemlock for the principle of
tacit consent. There are also people who have died for a cause, and they are to
be admired. Nathan Hale, an American patriot, uttered undoubtedly one of the
most inspiring quotes when he said, “I only regret that I have one life to lose
for my country.” This bravery is certainly stimulating and wonderfully
romantic. Logically, embracing a universal atonement would put Christ in this
category. However, there is a category of those who have died that rises to the
superlative degree—far above the rest.
[1]
Richard Phillips, What’s so Great About
the Doctrines of Grace? (Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing,
2008), 55.
[3] Lev. 16:15
(NIV) New International Version.
[4] Is. 53:8,
10-11 (ESV) English Standard Version.
[5] Matt. 1:21
(ESV).
[6] Jn. 10:11,
14, 15 (ESV).
[7] Jn. 10:26
(NIV).
[8] Jn. 17:9-10
(ESV).
[9] Heb. 12:2
(ESV).
[10] David
Steele, Curtis Thomas, and Lance Quinn,
The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented
(Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Co.), 40.
[11] Shai Linne,
interview by Johnny Antle, March 23, 2014.
[12] Charles
Spurgeon, “Particular Redemption,” The Spurgeon Archive, http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0181.htm
(April 20, 2014.)
[13] R. C.
Sproul, Grace Unknown (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997), 165.
[14] John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ
(Falkirk: T. Johnston, 1799), 161.
[15] R.C.
Sproul, Grace Unknown (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997), 167.
[16] J.I.
Packer, “Introductory Essay,” in John Owen, The
Death of Death in the Death of Christ: A Treatise in Which the Whole
Controversy about Universal Redemption is Fully Discussed (1852; reprint,
London: Banner of Truth, 1959), 4.
[17] Jn. 3:16
(ESV)
[18] Duane
Edward Spencer, TULIP: The Five Points of
Calvinism in the Light of Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1979),
35.
[19] Jn. 12:19
(NIV).
[20] Jn. 3:14-15
(ESV).
[21] 1 Jn. 2:2
(ESV).
[22] 1 Tim. 2
(ESV).
[23] 2 Pet. 2:1
(ESV).
[24] Richard
Phillips, What’s so Great About the
Doctrines of Grace? (Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2008),
60.
[25] Richard
Phillips, What’s so Great About the
Doctrines of Grace? (Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2008),
65.
[26] Jn. 15:13
(ESV).
No comments:
Post a Comment