Gottschalk on Limited Atonement

“He who knows God’s work in Jesus Christ will undoubtedly admit without hesitation and joyfully state that the loving redeemer redeemed absolutely all Whom He redeemed from eternal death at such a price and that He gave them all eternal life. Let them deny this, if they want, who love the dregs more than the oil, the grape skins or seeds more than wine, chaff and weeds more than wheat, kids and goats more than sheep and lambs, because they perhaps come from them. But those who love God, who know that He is omnipotent and believe, know, and say that He has done whatever He willed in heaven and on earth, and in the sea and in all the deeps (Ps. 134:6), most firmly hold, state, and assert that no one among those who have been redeemed by the blood of Christ perishes eternally." 

Gottschalk of Orbais, ca. 850 A.D.

Refuting Arminian Objections to Limited Atonement (Part3)

Finally, we will take up the final major objection

Objection 4. Doesn't Christ have as much efficacy to save as to damn? (see Romans 5:17)

Answer 1. There is a difference between a necessary extension and a voluntary one. Adam's sin was extensive necessarily. But salvation by Christ is of free grace, wholly of God's pleasure, and therefore it is called the "free gift" (Romans 5:15).

2. Nowhere in Scripture is Christ compared to Adam in the extent of His object, but only in the efficacy of His obedience. All, and everyone, are not in Christ radically, as they were in Adam. All are not given to Christ; but "as many (says Christ) as Thou has given Me." As all the offspring of Adam fell by his sin, so all that are Christ's are saved by His death; as all that are in Adam die, so all that are in Christ are made alive (1Corinthians 15:22).

3. So that Paul would not be misunderstood, and the word "all" in Romans 5:18 be taken universally, he switches terms in the following verse, and replaces "all" with "many." "By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."

Objection 5. In Romans 14:15, it is said, "destroy not him for whom Christ died." And in 2 Peter 2:1, people are described as "denying the Lord that bought them."

Answer 1. Everlasting destruction cannot be intended by the word destroy in Romans 14:15, and the context shows this. Throughout chapter 14, Paul is exhorting the believing Romans not to condemn one another on account of things indifferent; nor to destroy the weak believer's peace of mind by doing anything (which although it might be indifferent, and not evil in itself) that might become a stumbling-block to him. Paul says, " I am persuaded that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him that esteemeth anything unclean, to him it is unclean. If thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not" (by your eating meat your brother considers unclean) the peace of mind of one of the weaklings of that flock "for which Christ died." Don't put a stumbling-block, or an occasion of falling in your weak brother's way (Romans 14:13-15). "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. Give none offense" (1 Corinthians 10:31,32). 1 Corinthians 8 basically asserts the same thing.

2. Those spoken of in 2 Peter 2:1, as "denying the Lord that bought them," are described by the apostle as, "false teachers" - hypocritical professors, tares among the wheat (Matthew 13:25,38). These people had not been bought and redeemed by Christ from eternal death; they had merely abstained from the pollutions of the world through a theoretical knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ (2 Peter 2:20). They made an outward profession of the gospel, through which outward morality they associated with the people of God and were taken into the church. They then secretly introduced damnable heresies into the church. Many followed them, and therefore the way of truth was evil spoken of. At some point, they were either exposed or simply returned back into the world. All this time they were "goats" and not "sheep;" ravening wolves, not gentle lambs. And as Peter closes the chapter concerning them, he says, "It is happened to them according to the true proverb. The dog is turned to its own vomit again, and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire" (2 Peter 2:1-3, 17-22).

3. Peter (2 Peter 2:1) does not appear to be speaking here of the purchase of the Redeemer's blood. The name or title, Lord (Greek, depotes), is not used anywhere in the New Testament in reference to Jesus, but only to the Father, as in Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; 2 Timothy 2:22; and especially in Jude 1:4. Here "the only Lord God" is distinguished from "our Lord Jesus Christ." And even if it could be proven to apply to Christ in the above text, it may be explained upon the principle that it is not uncommon with the writers of Scripture to speak of things not as they actually are, but according to the profession of the party referred to. For instance, (Matthew 13:12): "Whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance; but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath" in other words, that "which he seemeth to have," as it is explained in Luke 8:18. So apostates may said to be "twice dead," which would seem to imply that they had been spiritually alive, though in fact that was never the case, but merely what they professed to be.

4. Based upon this we can say that even if we grant the premises, it only follows that such as think themselves redeemed, or are thought so by others, may blaspheme and perish. This does not make all the world redeemed. This certainly cannot establish the doctrine of Universal Redemption.

Refuting Arminian Objections to Limted Atonement (Part 2)

Objection 3. In John 3:16, and in 1 John 2:2, it is said that God gave Christ for the "world," and for the sins of the "whole world;" which must be taken literally.

Answer 1. The word "world" is has various significations. A decree went out that "all the world should be taxed" (Luke 2:1), that is, the Roman empire and the countries which were subject to it. The faith of the church of Rome was "spoken of throughout the whole world" (Romans 1:8), that is, throughout all the churches, and among all the saints in the world. The Pharisees said of Christ, "Behold, the world is gone after Him" (John 12:19), by which we find that they meant the multitudes who went out of Jerusalem to meet Jesus, crying, "Hosanna" (John 12:12,13). The Pharisees themselves, who said this, hadn't gone after Christ. The whole world couldn't have gone, since they didn't and are part of the whole world. The same applies to John 3:16: "God so loved the world" cannot be understood of the world in a strict sense, since this would include birds, cows, chickens and trout, not to mention all inanimate objects, such as stones and quicksand pits. None of these can have everlasting life. Nor can it mean the world of men, but only as God is the Preserver of both man and beast (Psalms 31:6). There is God's love to creatures, His love to men, and His love to good men. God's love was the cause of His sending Christ, and the word "whosoever" (in the verse) restrains this love of God to some and not to others. It must therefore be properly God's love to good men - not those He found good, but those He made good.

2. There is a world of believers (Revelation 5:9). Just as manna was only for Israel, likewise Christ, the true manna, the Bread from Heaven, is only for the world of believers (John 6:33). Christ was believed on in the world of believers only (1 Timothy 3:16); the reconciled world (2 Corinthians 5:19): and "all men have not faith" (2 Thessalonians 3:2). There is also the world of unbelievers. "All the world wondered after the beast." And, "they worshipped the dragon" (Revelation 13:3, 4). "The whole world lieth in wickedness" (1J ohn 5:19). The believing world is a world in the world ("these are in the world," John 17:11); and they are taken and chosen out of the world. They are in the world, sojourning among its inhabitants as strangers and pilgrims. This is not their rest, their home. They are waiting for a better country (Hebrews 11:13-16). Those who are chosen out of the world and given to Christ, are clear from John 15:19: "If ye were of the world, the world would love its own; but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore, the world hateth you." John 17:6, 9 says, "I have manifested Thy Name unto the men which Thou gavest Me out of the world . . . I pray for them; I pray not for the world."

3. It may be granted that God has a "love" for all mankind. "We trust," says Paul, "in the living God, who is the Savior," i.e., the Preserver, "of all men, especially of those that believe" (1 Timothy 4:10). "The Lord is good to all, and His tender mercies are over all His works" (Psalms 145:9). "He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good; and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust" (Matthew 5:45). None of this implies eternal preservation, but only temporal providence and preservation. All that are redeemed are redeemed by Christ; but the elect only are given to Him; only they have, as the Puritans used to call it, an interest in Him. They alone are redeemed by Him. And only they will be glorified with Him.

4. The word "world" is sometimes used in Scripture for the Gentiles in contradistinction from the Jews. An example of this is 1 John 2:2. John wrote to the Jews, and ministered unto the circumcision (see Galatians 2:9), and he says to them, "Christ is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world," that is, not for the Jews only, but for the Gentiles also. The Jewish nation considered themselves as the peculiar people of God; and so they were, for to them "pertained the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises." And Christ was a Jew, "of whom concerning the flesh Christ came" (Romans 9:4, 5). The Jews were always taught that the Messiah applied exclusively to them. The Gentiles were utterly rejected. They were called "strangers," "uncircumcised," "common," "unclean," "dogs," etc. It was unlawful for a Jew to keep company or have any dealings with a Gentile (see Matthew 10:5; Mark 7:17; Acts 10:28, and Acts 11:3). The salvation of the Gentiles is in various parts of Scripture called a "mystery," a "hidden mystery;" the "mystery of Christ which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men ... that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs" (Ephesians 3:4-6; Colossians 1:27). But when this mystery was revealed and made fully known by Paul's mission, sent as he was by Christ to preach to the Gentiles (Acts 26:17,18), and when it was declared by the vision of the unclean beasts and the Lord's commission to Peter (Acts 10:9-15, 20), then the contentions of the circumcision ceased (Acts 11:2, 3). They found that "the middle wall of partition" between Jew and Gentile was "broken down." The Gentiles who had been "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise," were now "brought nigh by the blood of Christ." They glorified God saying, "Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life." Jesus Christ is not only the propitiation for the sins of us Jews, but for the Gentiles also (Ephesians 2:11-18).

5. The foregoing point is further proven by Romans 11:12, where the two words, "world" and "Gentiles," are both used as signifying one and the same thing. "If the fall of them (the Jews) be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fullness?" There was a considerable controversy among the Jewish rabbis whether, when the Messiah came, the Gentiles, the 'world' would benefit. Most of them thought that this was not the case. Simeon was a notable exception. He knew that Christ would be 'a light to lighten the Gentiles,' as well as 'the glory of His people of Israel.' Most of the rabbis "concluded that the most severe judgments and dreadful calamities would befall the Gentiles; yea, that they should be cast into hell, in the room of the Israelites" (John Gill).

Refuting Arminian Objections to Limited Atonement (Part 1)

Arminians have always had their objections to the Reformed doctrine of Limited Atonement - or as it is sometimes known - Particular Redemption. Essentially this doctrine tells us that Christ's death was an atonement paid particularly for the Elect alone. Whether or not Christ's death has any reference or effect upon those who are not elect is of little importance. He did not die for everyone equally in the same way. Scripture is plain that Christ died for His Church, for His sheep. Not everyone is a member of His Church; not everyone is a sheep. Christ told some of His listeners, to their faces, that they were not of His sheep. Arminians claim that we limit the power of the atonement by not letting it apply to all men equally. We say they limit it even more so by evacuating its efficacy. Calvinism says Christ died to save His people from their sins. Ariminianism says that Christ's death made salvation possible for all men. Nevermind the obvious problem that if Christ died for all men's sins equally, then no one should go to Hell, since salvation necessarily entails forgiveness of sins; but think of the more serious ramification of saying Christ died for what turns out to be a lost cause for millions of souls.

As I noted, Arminians have put forward objections to this doctrine. I intend to tackle the main ones, and give several answers to them from Scripture.

Objection 1. What everyone is bound to believe must be true, and it is the duty of all men to believe; therefore Christ must have died for all men.

Answer 1. OK, suppose we grant this position, wouldn't the doctrine of discriminating love be destroyed by this? What comfort would it be to a soul in distress or trial to believe that Christ died for him in the same way that He did for Judas and all the damned souls in hell?

2. The people to whom the Gospel has never come, they who have never heard of the death of Christ, are not going to believe that Christ died for them (missionary endeavor excepted, of course). What God reveals is true; but God has nowhere revealed that it was His intention that Judas would believe, or that all will believe. God made His covenant with Abraham's descendants. The Canaanites never heard the message of God's grace. They were, nonetheless, destroyed for their sins.

3. Not everyone has the Gospel preached to them. This is what I alluded to above in referring to the Canaanites. But more than that, many to whom it is preached only hear it with the outward ear. In other words, it makes no impression upon their souls unto salvation. They do not sense their state as sinners. They are not weary and heavy laden because of sin. The Gospel proclamation of redemption through Christ's blood is not a joyful sound to them. They don't think they need it. True repentance is the gift of free grace and faith is the gift of God. What is God's, as a gift to bestow, cannot be man's duty to perform as a condition of salvation. Those who are invited to look to Christ, to come to Him for salvation, Scripture describes as weary and heavy laden with sin, penitent, hungry and thirsty, etc. They are invited to come to and believe in Christ, and not all men (Matthew 11:28; Isa 55:1; Mark 2:17).

Objection 2. The words "all" and "every," often used in Scripture, must be taken universally.

Answer 1. The proper way to take "All" and "every" is not in the sense of a universal - for every man individually, in the commonly quoted scriptures. They are to be taken distributively, meaning "of all kinds or types," rather than "every individual." For instance, in Matthew 9:35, we are told that Christ went about healing every sickness and every disease among the people: that is, any and every kind of disease. Christ did not heal every single sick person in Judaea. Also in Colossians 1:28, where "every" is taken distributively three times, and so must be restricted to those to whom Paul preached.

2. "All" in 1 Timothy 2:4, cannot be taken for every man individually, since it is not the will of God that all men in this large sense should be saved: for it is His will that some men should be damned, and justly at that, for their sins and transgressions. Unto some men it will be said, "Depart, ye cursed, into everlasting fire." If God wills all men to be saved, then all men will be saved, for "He (God) doeth according to His will in the army of Heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth" (Daniel 4:35). God does not fail. He cannot be disappointed in His own will, for He works all things after the counsel of it. Then again in Hebrews 2:9, Jesus is said to "taste death for every [man];" which is in the very next verse restricted to "sons brought to glory." Hebrews 2:11 calls them "sanctified" ones. 1 Timothy 2:6 ("who gave Himself a ransom for all") is rendered in the parallel text Titus 2:14, "who gave Himself for us." Who are the people called "us" in this text? Are they not particularized as "redeemed from all iniquity, purified and made a peculiar people?" Christ gave Himself as a ranson for "all" who fit this description, and for none else. David said, "All men are liars." Take that word in the Arminian sense and you will have made David a liar for saying so.

How Christ Limits the Atonement 4

Today we will conclude, for the time being, our look at the nature and extent of the atonement. We must first hasten to reiterate that the two things, nature and extent, are intimately connected. As we have asserted and will further assert, the nature of the atonement defines its extent.

Answering the question “Who are the objects of Christ's atonement?” would have been much simpler had men been satisfied with the statements of Scripture and the ideas derived from these statements of Scripture. The atonement is simply coextensive, as far as its saving effects are concerned, with the number of true believers. This should have been the last word, and indeed would have been, were it not for men who, being driven less by religious convictions than by speculative tendencies, deemed it necessary to extend the atonement to all men alike. Rather than contenting themselves with the Scriptural revelation that the atonement was coextensive with it effects, they insisted that it be coextensive with the entire human race, and for each member equally.

This brings us full circle to something I said at the outset of our discussion, that the issue at stake when this subject is broached is that what is really being questioned is not the extent of the atonement, but rather its nature. One need only to look at the various universalist theories to see that this is, in fact, the case.

There are four basic categories of universalist theories.

A. The thorough-going theory of universal salvation; that is, the belief that in virtue of Christ's work, all men will ultimately be saved. The only good thing that can be said about this theory is that it carries its presuppositions through to their logical consequences. It affirms that the actual restoration attained by Christ is coextensive with the actual ruin of the race. It overlooks justice simply falls back on a fuzzy idea of Divine benevolence. Though it is completely and utterly unscriptural, it is at least self-consistent.

B. Arminianism is the second universalist theory. It is far less consistent than the above theory. Its trademark is the notion of universal grace. This affirms that the atonement made by Christ was coextensive with the whole of humanity, whether they believe it or not. By looking only at one side of the equation, they completely undermine the atonement as a valid fact. By holding that on God's side the remedy is as universal as the disease they lose in at the center what they gain in breadth. The atonement does not actually secure anything; it merely makes possible the salvation of man who, of his own free-will, chooses to believe. At bottom, it is tantamount to saying that the atonement made it possible for man to save himself.

C. The Amyraldist view of universal grace, while differing in some respects from the Arminian scheme, has the same fatal flaw at its center. This theory asserts that because of God's love to fallen men He appointed Christ as a mediator for every single individual human being – and that by this means all barriers on the side of Divine justice have been removed. Salvation is thus said to have been made possible, but it adds the condition which switches the application of it to God's sovereign will: it is for all if they believe. It should be obvious that this theory alters the nature of the atonement. It holds that Christ, by His own intention and the Father's purpose, died for everyone, that a salvation was purchased for everyone though not applied to everyone. Moreover, the atonement, though not actually securing redemption or faith - by causal connection, made it possible for God to bestow salvation on anyone He pleased and to form a new covenant of grace with humanity in general. Thus the atonement is not a transaction in its own nature, involving a covenant or substitution and securing its own application. Again, note that, like Arminianism, this theory falsely assumes that a limitation to the extent of the atonement is somehow a limitation to the power of God and the love of God.

D. Finally, there is a form of the universalist theory that is not the result of any philosophical speculation at all. It is little more that an uninformed and roundabout way of representing the universal call of the Gospel. Preachers of this theory (which is not even really a theory, as such) are content to say that Christ died for all men without ever working out the ramifications of such a statement. They never think through the logical consequences and all they really mean is that the invitation, when it is given by the preacher, is given to all alike. Many good men, under a confused impression, express themselves in this way without ever considering or investigating that their universal call must have a universal provision underlying it. They never ponder that, regarding the completeness of the atonement, it is necessary that the three involved parties (the Father, the Surety, and the man needing salvation) concur. There must be a consent of all the concerned parties. The sinner's exercise of faith must be seen as his approval of this method of salvation and his consent to it. This was signified in the Old Testament when the worshiper laid his hand on the head of the sacrifice demonstrating his consent to this form of expiation and confessing his sins onto the animal victim.

Proponents of this last form of universal atonement, generally assume that to believe in Christ is equivalent to believing that Christ died for us. These two are not the same thing. The first mental act is an apprehension of a sufficient Savior; the second is an inference from this. First of all, no one is called to believe that Christ died for him any more than he is required to believe that his sins are pardoned before he believes. Conversely, regarding the responsibility for rejecting the Gospel, the condemnation or punishment is due to the sinner's refusal to accept a sufficient Redeemer and accept this way of salvation. He rejects the idea and method of it, whereas faith is the acceptance and approval of it. The sinner concurs and signifies his concurrence by faith, demonstrating that he approves of this way of salvation and desires to be saved in no other way. Then all concerned parties are concurred.

Those who promote an indefinite atonement make the whole transaction complete without man's consent. I fail to see what conceivable advantage is gained by making the atonement wider that the number of those who approve of it and are willing to be saved by it.

These theories fall apart when we allow Christ to define the nature of the atonement, because the real question is its nature not its extent. Once the nature is defined, the question of the extent answers itself.

How Christ Limits the Atonement 3

Today we will look at the fifth title Christ affixes to the objects of redemption. We noted that first they are called the many, His sheep, His people, and the children of God scattered abroad.

Fifthly and finally, Christ calls them His friends, for whom He lays down His life (John 15:13). Clearly, the emphasis of this statement is the special love Christ has for His people, which here He calls friends.

The design for which He laid down His life is not mentioned here. But that had already been explained in the institution of the Lord's Supper. Christ's explanation of the Supper that His blood was to be shed for the remission of sins fully expresses the purpose and the effect of His atoning death. So when Christ wishes to teach His disciples mutual love, He appeals to His own example and points to the greatest proof that could be adduced of His love: His vicarious death.

Even without these considerations, it is clear that His death was in the stead of those He called His friends. Both the procuring of redemption and its application are stressed in this passage by the term friend and by the fact that He willingly lays down His life. This special love wins, finds, and rescues its object. 

How Christ Limits the Atonement 2

Today we pick up where we left off yesterday and will consider two more titles by which the objects of redemption are known. We noted previously that they are called the many and secondly, they are called His sheep.

Thirdly, Christ calls the objects of the atonement His people. This argues that they were already Christ's in the divine purpose. At His birth it was said, “Thou shalt call His name Jesus; for He shall save His people from their sins (Matthew 1:21).  If Jesus saves His people, then they were already His by divine gift. This puts a bullet in the brain of the Arminian proposal that the atonement would have been equally complete even if no one would have been saved. That is completely incompatible with this text because it clearly says that He was the Savior of His people.

The two common objections to this interpretation are that (a) His people may refer to the Jews; and, (b) that this refers to the application of redemption, not its purchase. Both objections are easily refuted. To the first, we reply that God's people are two-fold, first the Jews as the people He foreknew (Romans 11:2), secondly, the true people of God, who belong to those given to the Son (John 6:37). As far as the second objection goes, both the purchase and the application of the redemption were in God's purpose and intention.

Fourthly, the objects of redemption are called the children of God scattered abroad (John 11:52). This phrase occurs in connection with Caiaphas' unwitting prophecy and is John's inspired commentary on it. John calls the objects of redemption “the children of God scattered abroad,” because they truly were so in God's purpose, though not yet actually ransomed. John intimates that they were fore-appointed children of God, and therefore, in some sense worthy of being called such before Christ's death. In other words, these “children of God scattered abroad” were the objects of the vicarious sacrifice, and the atonement carried with it the certain outcome of their being united to Christ. The special reference of the atonement and its particular extent is put beyond all question by this passage.

How Christ Limits the Atonement 1

When considering the question of the extent of the atonement, it is important to state that most theories regarding it are quite out of bounds because they fail to see that the extent is defined by its nature.(Which is why we refuted objections to the doctrine of the atonement, thus defining its nature, before we took on this topic.) So the real question is regarding the nature of the atonement. The nature circumscribes its extent. It extends as far as its nature intends it to extend. Discussions on this subject are almost always carried on as if the extent of the atonement can be decided without reference to the nature of the atonement. But when we ponder the issue of the extent of the atonement, in other words, for whom did Christ die, by  Christ's own words, if they carry any weight with us at all, the verdict is quite decisive. Christ uses several expressions in speaking of whom His death is efficacious for and for whom are its effects. Let us adduce five of them here and comment briefly on each.

First, he calls them the many (Matthew 26:28; 20:28). If we study across the scope of Jesus' teaching, we will find that this expression, the many, is used by Him exclusively to refer to those who are His own, a people given to Him. The word many would not be enough to prove the limited extent of the atonement were it not also for the fact that they are described by marks which cannot be applied universally.

In the 17^th century, a dangerous theory was contrived (a fan favorite of the Arminians), which held that when Christ was said to have died for all, this was referring to what had been done to procure redemption, and when He was said to have died for many, or for the Church, it was describing the actual participation of redemption. That this theory is not only false, but also dangerous, can be seen by the fact that our Lord describes the actual offering of the ransom and not just its application.

Secondly, Christ calls the objects of His atonement, His sheep. (John 10:15) We could repeat many of the remarks made above here as well. They are referred to as His sheep already, because they were given to Him by divine decree, and are therefore known as His own. Without a connection between Christ and the objects of redemption, such as that which obtains between shepherd and sheep, or head and body, no atonement could have been made. The Covenant of Redemption demanded such a union.

The phrase my sheep implies two things:

1. There was no uncertainty whether He would have a flock. His death already had in view special objects of redemption with whom He was already bound by a covenant necessary for His work of redemption.
2. They are His purchased property; they are the fruit of His atonement. This truth negates the Arminian objection that our doctrine assumes that certain people were already Christ's sheep before He died. They were sheep in the Divine purpose, and in Christ's work, though not actually till the ransom was paid for them. Christ declares that He died for the sheep (John 10:26) and the context shows that this refers to the elect given to Him.

The special reference of the atonement to the elect as well as the natural implication that this vicarious sacrifice secures the conversion of those for whom it was offered is incontrovertibly asserted by the words, “Other sheep I have which are not of this fold: them also I must bring” (John 10:16). First they are called His sheep, then they are described as the objects of redemption, for whom He laid down His life, that is, for whom atonement was actually made, and lastly, they must be led - as sheep led by their shepherd.

Our next post will pick up this theme and look at the next two titles by which Christ refers to the objects of redemption.

Limited Atonement 5

Today we close out this 5 part series of posts on the doctrine of Limited Atonement. That doesn't mean, of course, that I have said everything there is to say on this subject, nor that I will not take it up again many more times in the future. But in closing out this series of posts, we have two more related questions to answer. The questions are as follows:

10. Does regeneration precede faith or is it God's response to our faith?

11. If faith isn't a gift of God, but is a self-generated act, do we not therefore have reason to boast in our salvation against our fellow man who was not smart enough to use his will to generate faith unto salvation?

10. Does regeneration precede faith or is it God's response to our faith?

It is extremely important that we answer this question properly. Despite what we might think at first glance, the answer to this question weighs heavily on the doctrine of the Atonement and its extent. The Arminian position it this: When, by the autonomous use of our free-will, we exercise faith in Christ, God responds to this faith by granting regeneration. Lest we go too far afield without clearly understanding our terms, Regeneration is synonymous with the new birth, being born again (John 3:3). The Reformed position is that God regenerates an elect sinner, whom He has chosen in Christ before the world began, and because of this regeneration, the elect sinner exercises faith in Christ unto salvation. His new birth as well as his saving faith are gracious gifts of God, hence he can say with the Apostle that salvation is by grace through faith.

John1:12-13 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

John 10:11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

James 1:18 Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

In all these passages we note something very important: The new birth does not depend upon human will. A person is either a sheep or not. God has marked out some people in the midst of fallen humanity. He has brought them to new birth; that is, He has regenerated them and given them to the Son. Jesus states in unmistakable terms that He lays down His life - not for goats - but for His sheep. Jesus, in His High Priestly prayer actually says, "I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours" (John 17:9). Jesus work of redemption has exclusive reference to the elect, that is, to those whom the Father has given to Christ.

Scripture teaches that God has chosen a specific number, the elect, whom He has given to the Son. Christ's death is for them and them alone. Christ died for a particular people and His death secured their salvation.

John 10:15-18 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father

John10:27-29 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.

Romans 5:8-10 But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.

Romans 8:32 He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?

Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Galatians3:13-14 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us - for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree."

Galatians 4:4-5 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.

1 John 4:9-10 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. 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.

Revelation1:4-6 John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from him who is and was and is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

Revelation 5:9-10 And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth."

In this relatively small sample of the Biblical evidence, Arminians make a massive grammatical mistake: They ignore the words like "me" and "us." They are limiting pronouns. When Paul or John says that Christ died for "us," they are tying Christ's redemptive and mediatorial work to their audience. Arminians ignore, and indeed, violate some of the most basic rules of grammar. Whenever we use word "us," we limit whatever is being spoken of to the person speaking and his audience. When I tell my wife, "I bought us a new microwave," I do not expect the neighbors to come over and use it. None of us do. That's how the word "us" works. The New Testament authors repeatedly tell us that Christ died for us, that He gave himself for us, that God sent His Son for us, that Christ is a propitiation for us. Where do they find warrant for such language? From Christ Himself, who says that He lays down His life for His sheep, which the Father gave Him, and He mediates in prayer exclusively for them, based on the Father's acceptance of His perfect sacrifice of Himself for them. I don’t know how it could be any plainer.

Having shown, therefore, that the Bible clearly teaches that God has a chosen people out of the mass of fallen humanity whom He has given to the Son, and for whom alone the Son has died and mediates, we are now in a position to answer our last question, nailing the coffin lid shut on the Arminian objections to Limited Atonement.

11. If faith isn't a gift of God, but is a self-generated act, do we not therefore have reason to boast in our salvation against our fellow man who was not smart enough to use his will to generate faith unto salvation?

The Bible makes it clear that God chose His elect and that Christ atoned for them not "because of works done by us in righteousness" (Titus 3:5). Neither was it for foreseen faith that God chose His elect. For Paul says, "When Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad - in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls - she was told, "The older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" (Rom. 9:10b-13). Jesus told His disciples, "You did not choose me, but I chose you" (John 15:16a). These statements seem to echo God's declarations to Israel, such as: "It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love on you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but it is because the LORD loves you and is keeping the oath that he that he swore to your fathers" (Deut. 7:7-8a). "You only have I known of all the families of the earth" (Amos 3:2a).

So let's clear the decks. There was no foreseen merit in anyone for which God elected him to salvation. Christ is the Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8). Election is not about who is better or worse than anyone else. It is all about God's mercy, which He was not obligated to show to anyone, let alone the multitude which no man could number (Rev. 7:9). If the doctrine of Election does not make you humble, then you haven't understood it aright. Limited Atonement is not an uncharitable doctrine, as Arminians like to think. Ephesians 5:25-27 tells us that Christ died for His Church. He did not die for the world. On the Arminian premise of a universal atonement, we would be forced to teach that men should love all women the same way they love their wives. That is sheer nonsense. Christ's love is not an indiscriminate love that is just cast out into the world to be caught by whomever is clever enough to use his own free-will.

We have already established, a couple of days ago, the blatant Biblical teaching that faith is a gift from God. Arminianism teaches that all men without exception have the free-will to use their will to believe in Christ unto salvation. That is why much of their evangelism is what Calvinist's call "moral suasion." So the question we have to answer is this: If a man believes savingly on Christ, what makes him different from the man who doesn't? If it is because of some inherent quality in the man himself, then we have a bigger problem than Arminianism, because Scripture plainly teaches that all men are sinners and that no one is righteous; no one is inherently good. So why does one man believe and another does not believe? The Arminian, when backed into the corner of his own making, has no alternative but to say that one used his will rightly and the other didn't. But, this is precisely what Scripture says cannot be.

Romans 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness." For to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.

1 Corinthians 4:7 For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?

By denying Limited Atonement, the Arminian has to assert that he does have something of which to boast. He has made himself to differ. If faith is a work, and salvation is by faith, then salvation is of works in direct contradiction to the Holy Spirit's declaration through the Apostle Paul in Ephesians 2. There is simply no way around that fact. Arminians frequently claim that Calvinists are arrogant. That proves nothing; all sinners are arrogant. But an arrogant Calvinist is a contradiction in terms. It's like a round square or a five-sided triangle. A "Calvinist" who is arrogant, is no real Calvinist at all. Because Calvinism places the entire transaction of salvation in God's hands, where Scripture says it belongs. Man contributes nothing, for he has nothing to contribute. Arminianism, on the other hand, places the entire outcome of man's final destiny into his own free-will. Arminianism makes free-will so crucial for man, that not even the Sovereign God of the universe can cross it. By insisting on a universal atonement, the Arminian arms man with the power to save or damn himself, with no respect to God's power or will. That seems to this writer like the epitome of arrogance.

One final observation should be made. Arminian complain about Limited Atonement, but their system places a greater limitation, indeed a destructive limitation, on the Atonement. Reformed theology says, with complete Scriptural warrant, that the Atonement is limited, by God's very design, to the elect for whom it is savingly efficacious. Arminianism, however, limits the very power of the Atonement. because in their view, it actually saves no one. Theoretically therefore, it is possible that no one would ever use his free-will and accept Christ, thus every single human being, without exception, would be damned in eternal hellfire. If the Atonement does not guarantee the salvation of anyone, then it guarantees nothing. This limitation destroys the Atonement. It makes Christ merely a martyr who dies for what He believed. How is the death of Christ a display of God's love (as per John 3:16), if it doesn't accomplish anything beyond showing that good people often suffer for what they believe?

Limited Atonement 4

Yesterday we tackled the question of expiation and we saw that Scripture uniformly asserts that Christ's death was expiatory, that is, it actually removed the sin and guilt of those for whom it was offered. Today we will address two more questions directly related to the previous ones. Namely:

8. Does propitiation mean that Christ really removes God's anger against sin, or merely make it possible?

9. Is faith a gift of God or is it a self-generated act?

Our answers to these two important questions weigh in heavily in how we answer the issue of the extent of the atonement. For, if Christ's death really removed God's wrath against the sins of all men without exception, then we must inquire about those who perish. In other words, If faith is a gift from God, why hasn't He given it to everyone? If faith is a self-generated act, and not a gift from God, what need have we of grace, mercy or atonement at all?

Let's address the first question.

8. Does propitiation mean that Christ really removes God's anger against sin, or merely make it possible?

Holy Scripture refers to Christ three times as a propitiation. The references are as follows:

Romans 3:25a (Christ Jesus), whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.

1 John 2:2a He is the propitiation for our sins

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.

The force of the Greek word, hilastherion, refers to the idea of an atoning sacrifice which pays for the guilt of the sin committed, thus removing the just wrath of God against the guilty sinner. If Christ by His death propitiated God and removed His wrath against our sins by satisfying what His justice demanded, - and this extends to all men without exception, and not to the elect alone, then we have a problem. What, in Heaven's name, is any sinner in Hell being punished for? Why is God still wrathful against their sins? If Christ's sacrifice isn't enough to remove His anger, what is? Here we see why Reformed Christians have always asserted that Arminianism is really nothing more that Save Yourself Pelagianism. If really doesn't matter where in the transaction you insert the necessity for human action. Once you put human works into the equation, man is his own savior. Period!

This leads us to the next question, which we have in fact actually address in part in a previous post.

9. Is faith a gift of God or is it a self-generated act?

The Arminian affirms, without flinching, and with a straight face I might add, that faith is a self-generated act. He reasons that if God were to grant anyone faith, then on the principle of fair play, He must grant it to everyone.

The Calvinist position here is quite simple. Charles Hodge says that Calvinism is merely the acknowledgment that God is sovereign in the realm of salvation in the same way that He is in the realm of creation. When we observe, under God's sovereign rule, that some men are born in possession of sight and others are born blind; that some men are born with full intellectual faculties and others are born mentally handicapped; that some men are born free and others born slaves; that some men are born in free nations and others are born under oppressive totalitarianism - in short, when we see God acting like God, disposing of His creatures as He see fit, why should we kick against the goads when we see God acting as sovereign King over men's salvation as well?

Two days ago we cited a lengthy portion of Ephesians 2. Saving this observation till now, I abstained from pointing out that verse 8 tells us that faith is not of our own doing, but it is actually a gift from God. If faith were a work, then salvation would be by works, the very thing Paul denies repeatedly. Philippians 1:29 tells us that it has been granted to us to believe. 2 Thessalonians 3:2 bluntly informs us, "Not all men have faith." And contrary to popular belief, Romans 12:3 does not say that all men have a measure of faith. The wording is "THE measure of faith," which plainly refers to the content of Christian doctrine, not saving faith.

Now let's pause a second and ask ourselves the following: If faith is a gift which not all men are given, what does Christ's death mean for these ungifted people? The answer is obvious: Nothing! That is because Christ's atonement was not for them. Those for who Christ died are given faith, by God as a gift.

John Owen argues this in a way which is absolutely inescapable. He asked the Arminian, "For whose sins did Christ die?" The Arminian answers, "For all the sins of all men." To this Owen replies, "Then why are not all men saved?" The Arminian says, "Because of their unbelief." And here Owen has them over a barrel. He asks, "Is this unbelief a sin or not?" If it is not a sin, then it should be no hindrance to any man's salvation. If it is a sin, it is still no hindrance because, on Arminian premises, Christ died for all sins. If He did die for all sins, then this sin of unbelief is already atoned for. So why should it be a damning sin more than any other sin? This is a dilemma from which the Arminian can never, ever escape.

Limited Atonement 3

Today we wish to continue our subject of the doctrine of Limited Atonement by asking and, God willing, answering two more questions that must be dealt with. The next set of questions is:

6. Did Jesus die for the men already in Hell before He was born?

7. Does expiation mean that Christ removes sin and guilt, or merely make it possible?

6. Did Jesus die for the men already in Hell before He was born?

At first blush, this may seem like an extremely crazy question to ask. However, the Arminian position regarding the atonement leaves us no option but to probe this issue. If, as Arminians insist, Christ died for each and every sinner alike, that is, for ALL men without exception, then He must've died for all the sinners who had been born, lived, died, and went to Hell before He was ever even born. To deny this premise, as asinine as it is, is to put the fatal bullet into the head of Arminianism. Christ either died for ALL men or not. If He indeed died for all men without exception, then He died for the people already in Hell before He was born. If an Arminian wishes to somehow deny this, then he has ceded the argument. Calvinism claims, Scripturally, that the atonement is limited in scope. We might add that Arminianism limits the atonement in power, which is a deadly limitation.

Back to our question. What is the sense in Jesus dying for the sins of men who are never going to have the opportunity to hear the Gospel and repent? Those in Hell are past the opportunity of receiving the Gospel. So can we say that Christ somehow died for their sins too? This notion is so absurd and blasphemous and injurious to the Gospel that it should pain the child of God to even consider it. If you are not prepared to say that Christ died for the sins of monsters like the antediluvians, Nimrod and Pharaoh, then you cannot claim that Christ died for all men without exception.

This raises a serious issue, namely, what does it mean to say that Christ died for anyone's sins? If Christ's death secured the forgiveness of these sins, or paid to remove the guilt, and therefore the penalty and punishment, then why is anyone in Hell? Even in our fallen, corrupt, sinful world our justice systems abhor the idea of double jeopardy, and we have laws in place to prevent it. If Christ took the punishment and paid the debt incurred by Nimrod's sins, then why is he burning in Hell today for those sins? If Christ satisfied God's justice, why should anyone go to Hell? There is no way around this. This naturally leads us right in to the next question.

7. Does expiation mean that Christ removes sin and guilt, or merely make it possible?

Arminians love to dabble in possibilities. Scripture does no such thing.

Matthew 1:21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.

Romans 11:27 And this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.

Colossians 2:13-14 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven all our trespasses, by cancelling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

Hebrews 9:26 For then he would have to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

These Scriptures, as well as a host of many more similar ones, tell us unequivocally that Christ's death was an expiatory sacrifice which removed the sin and guilt of those for whom it was offered. To an Arminian this might seem like a hair-splitting distinction, but it is actually a very crucial question. If Christ's death merely makes it possible for sin and guilt to be removed, what is the catalyst? In other words: If Christ death doesn't actually do it, what does? Hebrews 9:11-28 is a devastating critique of the Arminian notion of a possible expiation. If Christ's death did not actually remove someone's sins, then, as verse 26 says, he would have needed to die repeatedly. This is why goats, bulls and sheep were constantly being sacrificed: their blood did not actually remove sin and guilt. If Christ's death does remove sin and guilt, it removes it from either all men or some men. If it removes the sins of all men, then God is most unjust to send anyone to Hell for sins which are already paid for. If it removes all of the sins of some men, then those men will undoubtedly be saved.

From the mouth of none other than the Lord Jesus himself, we hear the following: "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing 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. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father...So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, 'How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.' Jesus answered them, 'I told you and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one." (John 10:11-18, 24-30)

Regarding our topic, Limited Atonement, this passage is definitive, clear, concise and argument-ending. No less than Jesus Christ Himself declares outright that some people are sheep and some are goats. He claims to die exclusively for the sheep and not for the goats. He even goes so far as to make two startling claims: (1) He asserts that His death is not for the goats with which He is arguing. (2) His followers are so because they are already sheep. They are not sheep because the follow Him. I read a statement recently to the effect that a baby cries because it is born; it is not born because it cries.

Furthermore, as noted above, Christ ever lives to intercede for us. An example of His intercession is His High Priestly prayer in John 17. In this prayer we note two important facts (a) Christ refuses to pray for the world and, (b) He prays only for His elect (John 17:9). Anyone who can read that and still insist that the scope of the atonement is universal, is incorrigibly precommitted to his own opinion and is lying through his teeth when he claims to care what Scripture says.

Limited Atonement 2

On the heels of yesterday's discussion, we will move on to address two more questions, the answer to which hang on our answer to the question of the extent of the Atonement.

4. If Jesus does His part and men do their part, do we not have a syncretistic method of salvation? How is this different from Roman Catholicism?
5. If regeneration and faith are gifts of God, and God is trying to save all men, why doesn't He give these gifts to everybody? Couldn't He regenerate all men if He wanted to?

4. If Jesus does His part and men do their part, do we not have a syncretistic method of salvation? How is this different from Roman Catholicism?
The Arminian position is always that God has done all that He can do for our salvation, and now it is up to us to do our part and seal the deal. There is no getting around the obvious implication of such a notion. If this be the case, the salvation is not purely an act of God: man has a large part to play then in his own salvation. Here's the problem with that idea: It isn't true! Scripture nowhere tells us that we have to do our part since God has done His. Scripture everywhere affirms that salvation, from start to finish, is purely an act of God.

For instance:
Jonah:2:9b Salvation belongs to the LORD!
John 15:5b Apart from me you can do nothing.
Philippians 1:6 And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.
Philippians 2:13 For it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

Nowhere in any of these passages is it said, or even remotely insinuated that God did His share of the work, now we have to do our share. By saying that He is the first and the last (Isa. 44:6), or Alpha and Omega (Rev. 22:13), God claims control over everything. This does not mean that the "middle" is left open for us, rather it implies that if God controls the beginning and the ending, then, most assuredly He controls everything else that occurs between these two points. So if Christ is the Author and Finisher of our faith (Heb. 12:2), that leaves no part of our salvation for us to contribute to. That's why it is called the gift of God.

There is, in fact, no way to water down man's so-called contribution without making man the key figure in the transaction. Billy Graham used to use the illustration of a man dying in the hospital. He is weak and emaciated. He is so tired and worn that he can't even lift up his head and open his mouth, so the doctor does this for him. He lifts the dying patient's head, pries open his mouth and pours in the wonder medicine which will save this man's life. But, and there's the rub, but the dying man must swallow it. He has to do his part or else all the medical acumen and doctor's skill of the physician will all be in vain. That is not how Scripture portrays lost men and women. They are not weak, tired or sick. They are dead. Corpses cannot drink medicine, nor can they raise their hands, let alone resurrect themselves from death. Yet a resurrection is what salvation is. It is a resurrection from the death of sins and trespasses.

The notion that man has to do his part is pure unadulterated Romanism. Arminians should take that under consideration before they start pontificating (pun intended) on the glories of their almighty free-will!

How does this relate to Limited Atonement? If salvation, from first to last, is entirely a sovereign work of God, without the slightest help, assistance, or contribution from the sinner, then only those whom God has actually intended to save will be saved, because salvation is His to dispense as He pleases.

5. If regeneration and faith are gifts of God, and God is trying to save all men, why doesn't He give these gifts to everybody? Couldn't He regenerate all men if He wanted to?

Yesterday we showed that God can save anyone He desires to save. Man's will presents no obstacle to the Almighty. If someone is not regenerated, and therefore saved, it is because God, for reasons of His own, has not willed to do so. As uncomfortable as some people might be with that assertion, Scripture leaves us no alternative. Arminians seem intent on getting God off the hook for things which He doesn't want off the hook.

Before we proceed, we should first make good on our assertion that regeneration and faith are gifts of God. It seems self-explanatory that if this be the case, then anyone who perishes does so because God has not willed to give them these gifts. There is no way to evade the force of that logic.

What saith the Scriptures:
John1:12-13 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
Acts 11:18 When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, "The to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life." (The force of this verse hangs on the word "also," implying that Jews had already been granted repentance.)
Romans 9:16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
1 Corinthians 4:7 For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?
Philippians 1:29 For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake.
James 1:18 Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

Again, a small sampling of the Biblical evidence demonstrates that regeneration, faith and repentance are gifts of God. Ephesians 2:4-8 tells us, "But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ - by grace you have been saved - and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not of your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."

All saving graces flow from the Atonement. This means the Atonement is limited, for Scripture teaches that Christ accomplished an objective redemption for the elect. Jesus by His sacrificial death guarantees the application of His redemption work to the elect. As High Priest He now actively intercedes for His people, applying to the elect the redemption He accomplished in His death. Heb. 7:25

Christ purchased all the spiritual graces for His people. Ephesians 1:3, Eph. 2:8
A. Regeneration: John 1:13
B. Faith: Eph 2:8
C. Repentance: Acts 5:31 Acts 11:13
D. Sanctification: Rom 6:1-14 Election guarantees sanctification. Those who were never sanctified were never united to Christ in His death and resurrection. End of story.

Romans 6:1-11; Gal.2:20; 6:14 Eph 2:5-6 tell us that due to our union with Christ, it can be said of us that when Christ died, rose and ascended to Heaven, we did so as well. To say that Christ died for all is to say that all died in Christ. Are we to tell unbelievers that they have been crucified with Christ? Can we tell them that they have been resurrected with Christ and that they have ascended with Christa and are now seated in the heavenly places with Christ? Scripture tells us that those for whom Christ did these things are to be viewed as in such a relegation to Him as their covenant Head that they were in Christ in these acts of His. If He did them for ALL men, without exception, then ALL men without exception are crucified with Christ. This is the madness which the Arminian system creates by trying to redefine the Atonement.

Limited Atonement 1

John 10:11-29 11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. 13 He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. 17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.”

19 There was again a division among the Jews because of these words. 20 Many of them said, “He has a demon, and is insane; why listen to him?” 21 Others said, “These are not the words of one who is oppressed by a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?”

22 At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23 and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the colonnade of Solomon. 24 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” 25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.

In defending the Reformed doctrine of Limited Atonement, or Particular Redemption we shall often venture into other theological issues. This is normal, and to be expected. If Scripture is a unified whole, as all Christians profess, then we should not be surprised to see an interconnectedness among its teachings.

We often compartmentalize our thinking in ways that are not warranted Scripturally. For instance, to say that Jesus is your Savior implies that you needed saving. To say that you needed saving implies that you were in some sort of danger, etc. To say you believe the Bible is the Word of God, implies that you believe that God has spoken authoritatively. It also implies that you reject other "revelations" which claim to be from God as well.

Logical implications are not always the ruling factors in our thinking, however. So many people who honestly believe that Christ atoned for their sin have never seen the unbreakable connection between this fact and the irrevocable nature of election. Thus, as I said, in treating Limited Atonement we will occasionally treat other related matters as well.

1. Could God have saved everyone without exception had He wanted to?

2. Does the death of Christ actually save anyone? Or does it merely make salvation possible?

3. If Jesus' death was for ALL men without exception, and God is trying to save all men, why aren't ALL men saved? Can we therefore say that God has failed?

How does Scripture answer these questions? Sadly, it is often simply assumed that much of Christian doctrine is simply speculation on the part of theologians and pastors. Nothing could be farther from the truth. That is not to say, of course, that some theologians and pastors aren't guilty of speculation. But it is important to realize that Scripture has much to say about a lot of subjects we simply take for granted as untouched or untreated.

1. Could God have saved everyone without exception had He wanted to?

Let me hasten to note that I am note asking just yet about the extent of the atonement. What we are driving at is this: Some men have already perished, and many more will still yet undoubtedly perish. If God wanted to, could He have saved these people? What immediately surfaces when we ponder this question is that God has to have some design or plan regarding all men, including those who, in fact, actually perish eternally. If He could not have done anything about the fact that they will perish, then His sovereignty is limited. Some Arminians are comfortable with that idea, though Scripture clearly abominates such a notion. The popular Arminian assertion that God has willingly limited His sovereignty or power so that men can exercise their free will is NOWHERE found in Scripture. In fact, many Scriptures blast that idea right out of the water.

Here are a few:

Exodus 15:18 The LORD will reign forever and ever.

Joshua 11:20 For it was the LORD's doing to harden their hearts that they should come against Israel in battle, in order that they should be devoted to destruction and should receive no mercy but be destroyed, just as the LORD commanded Moses.

1 Samuel 3:25b But they would not listen to the voice of their father for it was the will of the LORD to put them to death.

Psalm 115:3 Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases.

Psalm 135:6 Whatever the LORD pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps.

Proverbs 21:1 The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he wills.

Isaiah 40:13-15 Who has measured the Spirit of the LORD, or what man shows him counsel? Whom did he consult, and who made him understand? Who taught him the path of justice, and taught him knowledge, and showed him the way of understanding? Behold, the nations are like a drop from a bucket, and are accounted as the dust on the scales; behold, he takes up the coastlands like fine dust.

Isaiah 46:9b-10 For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times thing not yet done, saying, "My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.

Daniel 4:35 All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done."

Romans 9:18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

As I said, that was a small sampling of the Biblical evidence. Any student of Scripture knows that that list could easily be expanded tenfold.

2. Does the death of Christ actually save anyone? Or does it merely make salvation possible?

Ever since the days of the arch-heretic Arminius himself, his followers have been quite comfortable in affirming that Christ's death did nothing else than make salvation a possibility. Arminius and his original cohorts made no bones about asserting that Christ's death did not actually save anyone. Yet we, again, find Scripture stating the diametrical opposite:

Matthew 1:21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.

Romans 5:9-10 Since, therefore, we have been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life

Romans 8:24a For in this hope we were saved.

2 Timothy 1:9 Who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave un Christ before the ages began.

Titus 3:5 He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.

3. If Jesus' death was for ALL men without exception, and God is trying to save all men, why aren't ALL men saved? Can we therefore say that God has failed?

How does it not impugn God's honor to say that He can't accomplish that which He wants to accomplish? Why is this not considered open, bold-faced blasphemy? Arminians make such a big hoopla over man's supposed free will, but have you ever noticed that in the system of these champions of free-will, it is God who has no free-will? I doubt if I am alone in that observation. Scripture repeatedly insists on God's sovereignty and power over men's wills. Here are a few passages:

Joshua 11:20 For it was the LORD's doing to harden their hearts that they should come against Israel in battle, in order that they should be devoted to destruction and should receive no mercy but be destroyed, just as the LORD commanded Moses.

1 Samuel 3:25b But they would not listen to the voice of their father for it was the will of the LORD to put them to death.

Proverbs 21:1 The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he wills.

The implication, of course of Proverbs 21:1 is that if God can move the king's will at his own discretion, how much more the ordinary folk like you and me? A king is the most powerful human we can imagine, and yet God claims to be able to turn the king's will any way He wishes. If the king's will presents no challenge to God's power, how much less does yours or mine?

Moreover, what happens to saved sinners once they get to heaven? Will they still be able to sin? Arminians will, of course, say, "No." But think about this. Given the length of eternity, a lapse into sin would be almost inevitable if there were no safeguards on our created natures to preclude such an occurrence. All professing Christians, Arminians included, affirm that in Glory God will so renovate our natures so as to make sin impossible. I don't know about you, but I can't wait! But wait a second: If God can so exercise His power over our wills to renovate them in Glory, a point which even Arminians concede, where do they get off denying that God can control human wills now? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either God can or He cannot control human wills.

Now, looking back at our original three questions, we can see that the Scripture tells us that: (a) Some men have and will still yet perish. (b) Christ's death actually secures the salvation of those who are saved. (c) Since God controls men's wills and some men willfully die in their sins, then God has limited the efficacy, indeed the intent, of the atonement to the Elect, whom He has chosen to save out of the mass of fallen humanity.