Westminster Confession of Faith, 8-5. You should have it in your bulletin. We will be finishing a doctrine that we began two weeks ago. We had Pastor Ives last week, but we are going to be concluding this morning the doctrine of limited atonement, looking at some scripture passages. Christ's atonement certainly, and not merely potentially, satisfies the justice of God for all its intended beneficiaries. This is the doctrine of limited atonement. In Westminster Confession of Faith 8.5 it is taught, The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he, through the eternal spirit once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of his Father, and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven for all those whom the Father hath given unto him." Here the Westminster divines specify for us, those for whom Christ hath purchased everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven and those would be those whom the father hath given unto him. There is a similar expression in the larger catechism 59. As we pointed out last time, this is perhaps Calvinism's most offensive doctrine and most grating on evangelical ears. An evangelical might very well be willing to speculate with you about the doctrine of predestination, they might think of that as being something of a mental exercise, might even find it enjoyable. But as soon as you point out that Christ did not die for every individual on the planet, but only for the people that the Father has given unto him, you will find that people begin to take a great deal of offense. Many Calvinists do not embrace limited atonement. It is the now famed four point Calvinist. The one that is able to come along with election and perseverance but not able to come along on limited atonement. This is the most difficult perhaps of the five points of Calvinism. so we began last week something of a conversation between a Calvinist and an evangelical and I've tried to imagine it as it would be conversations as I've had them and you might have had yourself so here I'm not dealing with what you might call the Arminian theologian the Arminian theologian will have some of these things worked out in his mind here we're talking about Arminianism on a popular level and this is what we are addressing here and I think points fully adequate to answer the theologian as well but here we are going about it in a popular way so that it might be more useful for you. The conversation would begin with perhaps your evangelical friend noticing your guarded and qualified expressions. You're not willing to say in an apologetic encounter, in a witnessing encounter that Christ loves that person necessarily. So there's a guardedness about the way you're expressing yourself. You're willing to say that Christ died for his people. That Christ has died for all those that would call upon his name in faith. But they notice the limitation. Not willing to say Christ died for you. So there's a carefulness there and expression. And so eventually your friend asks you, what is it that you're getting at here? Why the reserve in the way that you express yourself? Why do you frown when I say Jesus loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life? What's wrong with you exactly? in your response candid and direct as Christ did not die for every individual on the planet he died for his people evangelical friend right away wants to make sure that he's clear about what you said and he says something like this I believe that Christ's sacrifice is great enough to atone for the sins of all men and you say well we agree The question here is not about a limitation on the value of Christ's sacrifice which is infinite and should God be pleased he could have applied it to every single human being and every single sin. The question here is what is the design or purpose of the atonement. R.C. Sproul in In his book, The 100 Essential Doctrines of Christianity, a really great introduction to the system of theology in bite size, very readable. It's hard to scroll. It's hard to go wrong. He's one of the best of our communicators in Reformed circles now. He likes the language of definite atonement and that's very helpful. we're not limiting its value we're saying that it is definitely applied to objects not indefinitely applied not knowing whether or not it will have any application at all to any particular people but definitely applied to a definite set of people so he likes the language of a definite or defined atonement the Calvinist position as you go on to explain to your friend is that the atonement was designed to redeem the elect and it does purchase exactly what it was intended to purchase so if Christ suffered on your behalf and for your redemption you are redeemed And that is a blessed thought. Now we'll get to this at the end. That ought not to be a disquieting thought, but the most comforting thought in all of the world. If Christ intends to redeem your soul, there is no power in heaven or on earth or under the earth that can resist or stop him. Not even you. And if you've come to understand something about your own sinfulness, there is no statement in the world that could be more comforting than that. and nothing more disquieting than the Arminian system, that you could thwart your own salvation. If you've come to understand yourself, nothing could put you in the greatest doubt and uncertainty concerning what will ultimately happen to your soul than to rest it upon your own doings, your own believing, your own repentance. the Calvinist at this point no doubt will want to go on the offensive and we started last time with some systematic theological considerations remember what we've already done in the confession of faith because everything that we've done up to this point has a bearing on it but these are just some samples you remember when we did the doctrine of God in chapter 2 we talked about God being omnipotent that he can do all of his holy will Is this not a denial of his omnipotence that he's trying to save man and then can't? This is the Arminian system. Christ has died for all. He wants to save everyone. He just can't. He can't overcome your objections. He can't overcome your resistance. It's much more like the resurrection of Lazarus When Lazarus heard in the grave the voice of the Creator, there was no discussion, no debate. Life was restored to his body and he came out of the grave. And so it is with us spiritually. When the voice of the Creator comes ringing through the universe, calling your soul out of death into life, you're called out of death into life. There's no discussion, no debate. You cannot resist his will. And should you resist his will, he will overcome all of your resistances. is the omnipotent God. Not only an omnipotent creator but omnipotent in his redemption and he cannot be resisted. We talked about the divine decree that God has ordained everything that comes to pass. And so isn't there a great tension to assert a doctrine of unlimited atonement? You would have this tension. God sends Christ to satisfy his justice on behalf of those that he's foreordained to wrath. That doesn't make very much sense. So he foreordains that Christ is going to come and satisfy justice on your behalf, knowing that he's already foreordained, that he's going to destroy your soul and not be satisfied. You see the tension there. Further, we talked about the satisfaction of Christ being a satisfaction to divine justice a payment rendered and so if Christ satisfies on somebody's behalf is not justice then satisfied? say the Arminian system is otherwise Christ is offered a satisfaction for your soul but justice may or may not be satisfied in your case you see how the whole system of theology begins to unravel at this point with this doctrine of unlimited atonement. You deny limited atonement, the rest of the system of theology begins to shake apart. We can talk about the application of salvation by the spirit. Would God send forth his son to atone for a person knowing that he would not send forth the spirit to apply that redemption? You see the tension. It doesn't make any sense in the system. But the Calvinist need not rest just on what we might call the good and necessary consequences of systematic theology. The Bible teaches very directly a limited atonement. Just some expressions. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. Not for all indiscriminately, but for the sheep. John 10 11. take heed therefore unto yourselves and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers to feed the church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood so here we have the church referred to as a flock and as an assembly which he hath purchased with his own blood so here we have the for whom Christ was purchasing redemption, he was purchasing the flock, he was purchasing the church for himself. And you also get many expressions, that is Acts 10.28, like this, so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many, Hebrews 9.28. So here we We've looked at the system of theology and some of the ways, this is just a sampling, you could go on and on and on and should you be inclined to go on and on and on and there's nothing wrong with that, a couple of places to look. Go to Hodges Systematic Theology, Volume 2 if memory serves, to the place on limited atonement. He'll go through the texts that assert it very directly and then he'll look at the problem texts After doing that and maybe Abrakels, the Christian's reasonable service. Abrakels is a Dutch theologian but very easy to follow and understand. So the Christian's reasonable service is a great systematic theology for the common person. He will go through the texts that assert limited atonement and then through the Arminian counter texts and he will go through those. When you think that you've done pretty well with those, go to Turriton. Turriton's discussion is Turriton, which means it's sophisticated. But the sophisticated language, once you've had some exposure, can actually be very helpful. So I wouldn't recommend starting there, but you might want to finish there if you're interested in this subject. Because all of the old scholastic distinctions, although not easy for the common person if you take some effort to master them can be very, very helpful in clarifying thoughts. At this point in the conversation the evangelical is going to turn to some text. that he thinks prove and support his position and so we've got if we're understanding the Bible rightly we ought not to have to do all sorts of gymnastics and contortions to explain these texts away rather we ought to be able to explain them quite readily based on their own merits if you understand set in their own context without tension or any sort of interpretive gymnastics. I mean, the texts ought to fall out pretty plainly if we've understood the Bible rightly. I've divided in your outline, we can't look at every text. It would just take a long time. Go to the systematic theologies for that. But instead, I looked at several, and there was three basic kinds of texts. And if you can learn to handle the kinds, whenever you come to a particular one, you'll have tools for working it out yourself. So we are going to look at the three different kinds. The first and perhaps most common are what I call the all objections, where the scripture speaks about the redemption of all or Christ dying for all. How are we going to handle these? Turn in your Bibles to Romans chapter 5. So your evangelical friend in right way wants some explanation on some texts. He says if you are right about this then I want some explanations about some texts which I think support my doctrine of an unlimited atonement. Romans 5.18 Therefore, as by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men, and here he understands every individual on the planet, unto justification of life. And he says, well, what do you do here? He says, all men, and he wants to understand it as every individual. The Calvinist response is this, and this is a very important principle in biblical interpretation at large. You must define all by its context. We are defining it, I think we have a large prejudice in our own hearts because as Americans we have a tendency to be individualists. and so when we hear all we want to hear every single individual in all fairness because we're Americans and we're egalitarians and everybody's got to be treated fairly so we come with a certain cultural predisposition to read the text in a certain way but if we're going to understand the Bible rightly we have to let context define the words and all is not defined the same way in every context And it doesn't necessarily mean every single individual. Now your evangelical right at that point is going to interrupt you. And he says you're twisting the scripture. All means all. I said well indeed it does. But it's defined or it takes on a specific character based on a context. The context in which you find it. And so you bring a challenge to him. Hold your place in Romans 5. But let's go back to Exodus chapter 9. As I've been doing the proofreading and pool synopsis, this struck me as a particularly good illustration of how all doesn't necessarily mean every single individual. Sometimes it can mean other things. Interestingly enough, almost nobody would mistake the teaching of Exodus 9. Nobody would make a mistake about this. Exodus 9.6, here you have the moraine or the disease that's put upon the cattle of Egypt, one of the ten plagues. And the Lord did that thing on the morrow and all the cattle of Egypt died. All. All the cattle of Egypt died. And so you look at your evangelical friend and you say, does this mean then every single head of cattle? every single individual one, all destroyed from Egypt. His principles of interpretation would require him to say yes, and now that you've pinched him, he might. But if he was simply reading through the chapter, he would never read it in that way. Why? You move on to verse 10. And they took ashes at the furnace and stood up before Pharaoh, this is a later plague, and Moses sprinkled it up toward the heaven, and it became a boil, breaking forth with blades upon man and upon beast. and you'll go on and continue to read throughout the plagues of the presence of beasts and the chariots of Pharaoh pursuing on horses, we got horses going here so we said that they were all destroyed but they're not all are destroyed there's two options of how you could understand this all sometimes all in scripture really just means a great many it's a way of emphasizing the fact that a lot died So sometimes all just means many. But also look at verse 3, it's also possible that every member of a limited class was intended. Look at verse 3, behold the hand of the Lord is upon thy cattle which is in the field. So it's possible that only the cattle of the field are being referred to here. So every member but of a limited class. were referred to perhaps if they heard the threatening and withdrew the cattle into holdings then God spared those that's a possibility but what we have to say here is that all doesn't necessarily mean every single individual it could be many or it could be every member of a limited class very important As I said, if you were just reading through Exodus chapter 9, almost nobody would make the mistake. Here, they would read through it, and all, the all of verse 6 would very easily and naturally be clarified by what follows, and nobody would make the mistake of saying, oh, I thought every single one in Egypt died, and then found myself greatly confused by the end of the chapter. It almost never happens. That's why I say all has to be interpreted by its context. and when there's not a whole lot riding on it theologically we find that people normally do interpret it right way see what I'm saying, we don't make the mistake so here we apply it to our text we come back to Romans chapter 5 and we say all cannot be every single individual in 5.18 it can't be it proves more than what the Arminian would want to prove if it's understood in that way which is that every single individual receives the gift of justification unto life. Which they don't believe either. You see the problem in 518, this is one of the great illustrations. If you take it as every single individual on the planet, you're saying every single individual since the coming of Christ has received the justification unto life. which means there's no damnation, there's no hell, there's no people that miss the boat and don't end up being saved. Also as we go on in context, so that's a theological consideration that they're going to draw back from, but also just look at it in its context. Let's just go on and read verse 19 and we'll find that Paul himself is going to define or further clarify what his own meaning is. Verse 18 And here let me gloss this phrase and you'll see how nicely it fits. I do believe that all in this context is equivalent to the many that are united to either Adam or Christ. The many that are united to. So let's read it in this way. Therefore, as by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men, that is, the many that are united to Adam, unto condemnation, Even so, by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men, the many that are united to Christ, unto justification of life. Now the Arminian is saying, wait a minute, wait a minute, I'm not sure I like what you're doing. Just read another verse, and you'll see it's the right way to understand it. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. See, Paul has now clarified what he intended by all. And if you read both the all and the many as the many united to either Adam or Christ, you see the perfect harmony of the passage. You see, let Paul interpret Paul's own mind. If you go on and read all of Romans, nobody would say that Paul here is saying that all men, every single individual receives that justification unto life. nobody can read the book of Romans and think that that's what Paul is saying so the broader context of Romans helps you define the all here and the immediate context helps you define both what all and many mean here let's look at another one your evangelical friend is saying now you've put me into a perfect confusion let's just try another text and see if we can work our way through it turn to 2nd Corinthians chapter 5 verse 14 halfway through because we thus judge that if one died for all then we're all dead and that he died for all that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves but unto him which died for them and rose again and they say here this is one of the most direct texts that proves an unlimited atonement it says here one died for all And then you say yes, but then you read the next clause and it immediately becomes problematic if you interpret that as every individual. Because Paul then goes on to say, then we're all dead. By that dead he means dead unto sin. And now you'd have to say every single individual is dead unto sin and then the next verse alive unto Christ and his righteousness. Every single individual. It proves too much. It proves a universalism, a universal salvation that not even the common Arminian wants to admit to. The all here is quickly defined as the all that were dead. Are all men dead unto sin and alive unto Christ's righteousness? No. So immediately Paul defines the members of the category of this all. So he's put out a category, all, what are the members that fill it? It's all of those that are dead, dead to sin. So he died for all. What all? For as many as would be united to him, dead to sin and alive to his righteousness. And we could go on a little bit further, look at verse 17, where all is further defined and clarified. Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature. See, it's the same thing. Dead to sin and alive to righteousness. If any man be in Christ, not every single individual, but if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature. Old things are passed away. Behold, all things are become new. All things. What all things? As many as are united to Christ. And again, you could roughly gloss it, as many as are united to Christ or the great many that are united to Christ you could read these alls just some other tools to well let me just say when you're going to define all and when you run into these passages just read the entire context and ask yourself the question how is the writer defining the all? Moses in Exodus 9 clearly wasn't defining it as every single individual. He was defining it in a different way. And so you've got to ask the question, how is the apostle defining it here? And so let's look at the entire context so that we don't make a mistake. Again, if you want to look at some more examples of this, Turritan goes through about every single one you'll find in the Bible. So does Abrakalon in much simpler language. Turreton runs through most everyone that you can imagine. So if you want to look at some more, that's a good place to go. There's a second category of objection and these are the what I call the world objections. Where it talks about Christ saving the world or coming to save the world or dying for the sins of the world, all of these sorts of things. How are we going to understand these texts? And you're not going to be able to face any evangelical until you're ready to face John 3.16. So let's look at John 3.16. John 3.16 for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life and now your evangelical friend is looking at you in complete triumph everybody knows and believes John 3.16 and he knows that you know it and believe it and so he thinks that he's now conquered and the Calvinist response to this is going to be very much as it was with all context is going to determine the precise definition of world what it means the world in John's context is really humanity and usually humanity considered a sinful so here what we have a reference to as the Calvinist would explain is God setting his electing love upon his people now here the world is a general description of mankind that he loves mankind and it's this great mystery of electing love that he loves mankind but that doesn't necessarily mean every single individual in it and we find that the redemption that's provided here is not for every single individual you don't even have to leave 316 before it's qualified and clarified He gave his only begotten son, to what end? That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. So not every single individual, not unbeliever and believer alike, but he sent his son and gave his only begotten son to what end? That the believer would be saved. so here first you have a general description of humanity the mystery of God's love he set his love on humanity and why would he do that? only because of himself not because of us the mystery of the divine love and God set his love upon man in such a way that he was pleased to redeem a portion out of mankind and he sent his son that the believer might be redeemed not every single individual We would point out here, and this is very important, that clearly in the text, the benefits of the gift of Christ do not come unto every single individual. Read on in verse 17. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved. So you've got more references to the world and the salvation of the world. But then immediately qualified and clarified. He that believeth on him is not condemned. But he that believeth not is condemned already. Because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. I want you to grab on to that principle that the gift the gift of the son has not come unto all men the benefits of that gift have not come to all men to every single individual and I would say that if the benefits of the gift of the son have not come to all men then it's a sound scripture principle that Christ has not been given to them he's a gift to humanity generally considered but when we consider the specifics to whom is he given as a gift when we become specific about it it is only the elect hold your place in John but look back at Romans chapter 8 verse 32 this is why I say that this is a sound principle if the benefits of the gift of Christ have not come to an individual that I say it's the teaching of scripture that Christ has not been given to that individual 8.32 this is Paul's reasoning he that spared not his own son but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Paul's reasoning is this. Will God the Father give the greater gift and then withhold the lesser? And the answer is no. Will Christ give the greatest gift of all to a person, Jesus Christ, and then withhold lesser gifts? No. You see the reasoning there. It would be very much like saying to a man, will you give your child your full inheritance, let's say a million dollars, and then withhold from him five? Are you going to give him the greater gift and then withhold from him the lesser? And the obvious answer to that is no, it doesn't make any sense. If he's not going to withhold his son from us, He's not going to withhold from us the lesser benefits. Now why is this so important? Will God give Christ to a man and then withhold the lesser gift of faith? Repentance. I would even say it could even be put more starkly than that. Will God give to a man Christ and then withhold Christ from the man by not also giving him faith? It's a contradiction and a manifest absurdity. I give you Christ and I don't give you Christ. Because we know that faith only comes from God. So will we give Christ to a man and then withhold from the man Christ's benefits? Faith, repentance, justification, all of these things. if you don't have faith and repentance and justification it's a sign that Christ was never given to you if he gives you that great gift he won't withhold from you any of the lesser gifts but all is freely given to us well we go on here and the evangelical wants to talk about another text so we go back to 2nd Corinthians chapter 5 now remember we've already had a clarification of the all in this text But your Arminian friend wants to talk about the world in this text. Chapter 5, verse 18. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation. to wit that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself not imputing their trespasses unto them and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation so here he talks about God giving Christ to us and that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself frankly my Arminian friend, this text is much more for us than it is for you. Again, it would prove too much. It would prove that every single individual was reconciled to God, which he doesn't want to say. The world here again means men or mankind. He was reconciling mankind in general to himself, but that doesn't necessarily mean every single individual. He is obviously reconciling to himself believers. Let's just read on and I think that you'll see this. Let's go back to verse 18 and let's just read through the passage and you'll see very quickly. Paul begins to particularize his description of the salvation and the reconciliation of the world. And all things are of God who has reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ. and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation, to wit that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them, and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us, we pray you in Christ's stead be reconciled to God, for he hath made him to be sin for us. who knew no sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him so here Paul is clearly limiting it by the end of the chapter to believers so first there is just a general description God is reconciling the world to himself in Jesus Christ and we can talk in that way as Calvinists the gospel is going out into all of the world and everywhere that gospel goes Christ is reconciling men to God It's fine to speak in that way. No Calvinist ought to stumble in that way, but it's a general description. If you ask the Calvinist or if you ask the Apostle Paul, who is actually reconciled? The believers. Here he speaks in terms of the church, for us. That we might be made the righteousness of God in him. And nobody supposed that the us there means every single individual. again the general principle is that context defines the term world and frequently in scripture usually it just means mankind and a lot of times in the new testament it's the great mystery that the gentiles are included as well it doesn't mean every single gentile but the world here we are in little palestine and gentiles are included all that massive humanity that the old testament simply called the goyim, the nations the world is now reconciled to Christ brought back as it were to a true gospel that had been lost to them since the days of Babel. One other class of objections this is a little bit more difficult to understand but your Arminian friend might point out passages where where it appears as if Christ is said to have redeemed more than are actually saved or that Christ redeemed some that are ultimately lost and so they'll say it looks like Christ died suffered and died for all men purchasing their redemption but that scripture seems to indicate that some of those are ultimately lost and as a Calvinist you'd say no you mean most of those are ultimately lost and you'd say oh yes of course that's what I mean But we have to deal with these texts. I know that can be a little bit of a brain twister but we look at the text and I think you'll know what we mean here. 2 Peter chapter 2. 2nd Peter chapter 2 beginning in verse 1. But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. So here you have the image of these false teachers, the Lord has bought them or as your Armenian friend will say he's purchased their redemption but ultimately they're lost or destroyed so isn't there an unlimited atonement? Christ purchased the redemption of everyone and then only a portion of those actually apprehend that so there's an unlimited atonement but some will be saved and some lost depending on their response to that atonement the Calvinist response would be something like this Here we have a clear allusion to Deuteronomy chapter 32. I could do this at greater length, but Peter will go on in chapter 2 to speak about spots. So it's clear that Peter has this passage in his mind and he's working his way through its implications. But keeping your place in 2 Peter 2, turn back to Deuteronomy 32. And I think in Deuteronomy 32, we learn what it means that God has said, or the Lord has said, to have bought them, as it were. And what I'll contend is, it doesn't mean that He purchased them savingly. Verse 5 of Deuteronomy 32, They have corrupted themselves. Their spot is not the spot of His children. They are a perverse and crooked generation. Do ye thus requite the Lord, O foolish people and unwise? Is not he thy father that hath bought thee? Hath he not made thee, and established thee? Here we have a clear intimation in Deuteronomy 32 that God purchased Israel, the visible church. but here we're not talking about the election of grace and eternal salvation we're talking about his purchase of his visible church you say well what do you mean by that? in this context here it talks about God purchasing Israel by creation and redemption out of Egypt so he bought the visible church in that way brought it out of Egypt purchased it it belongs to him Every single member in it belongs to him. But he hasn't given Christ for every member of them unto salvation. They all belong to him in the visible church. They're all his purchase. But that doesn't mean he's purchased eternal life for all of them. It's a different kind of buying altogether. look at the character of the purchase at the end of verse 6, hath he not made thee and established thee creation and redemption out of Egypt all of Israel belongs to the Lord in a visible covenant it's very much what we're so familiar with in the Ten Commandments I am the Lord thy God that hath brought thee out of Egypt out of the house of bondage I am your redeemer. I have purchased you as a visible church. But then you come to the New Testament and it says what? That God was not pleased with all of them. And you read that in Deuteronomy 32 as well because here he's talking about those that have corrupted themselves and are not his children. In the midst of bought Israel. You see that? well this gives us the interpretive key to 2 Peter chapter 2 you've got these false prophets and false teachers that are where? in the midst of the visible church they belong to God he has bought them or purchased them set them aside as it were for himself but that doesn't necessarily mean that he reckons them as his children according to the adoption of grace just as he didn't reckon all in Israel as his children in Deuteronomy 32. He said your spots are not the spots of my children. In other words, my children have their spots. Your spots identify you as not my children even though you're in the visible church and have been redeemed out of Egypt. See that? So the teachers purchased by the Lord and said in the church are not necessarily purchased as redeemed vessels but as common vessels that he can use, you remember this imagery in Romans 9-11 that not every vessel is a vessel unto honor not every vessel that's in God's house, not every one of us necessarily is a vessel that's been set in God's house unto his honor and glory some of us are vessels unto dishonor but that doesn't mean that we don't serve a function in his visible church and all of us can be said to have been bought by him purchased and placed in his visible households and this is what we have here we could also say your presence here he has a right to you he has purchased you as your creator and the fact that he's gathered you out of the world very much the same way as he gathered Israel out of Egypt as you go on as you compare the two texts and I would encourage you to do this you'll see that in 2nd Peter chapter 2 he's clearly got Deuteronomy 32 in his mind he frequently alludes to the language of it and so it's very helpful in its interpretation if I had to put this is a lot and this is one of the... I know that this is a lot and this is why I didn't want to try to handle all of the texts but rather to use some examples that they might be useful and if you were to carry away one principle away from this it's that words are defined by their context if you want to know how to define any particular word you have to go to its context in order to define it properly whether that be all or the world or anything else the more scripture you read the broader your context will become for the interpretation and right understanding of words sometimes the context will be very close as we saw Romans 5, 18 and 19, all and many See, context can be very close. Sometimes context can be far away. 2 Peter 2 and Deuteronomy 32. But the better skill you have in context, the context and frame of the whole, the better you will be at defining any one particular word when you find it. So just keep that in mind when you run into problems and maybe Your six-year-old says, Daddy, there it sounded like Christ was redeeming all of us, every single person in the world. Can you just read some verses around it and begin to work it out with him? How do we define world here? How is the apostle defining it? We don't want to put what we think it should mean on it. We want to ask the question, what is he actually saying? How is he using the word? If you can grasp that, it will not only make you more useful in apologetic encounters concerning limited atonement, it will just make you a better biblical interpreter altogether. Now why is this doctrine so important that we would spend two Sundays on it? First of all, as I mentioned earlier, you grab this strand You deny limited atonement, you start pulling on that strand, you'll find your whole system of theology completely unravel. A four point Calvinist, although in one sense I sympathize, because I think what the four point Calvinist is doing is they're saying, I see the four points in scripture, I see how the fifth point logically follows, but it seems as if scripture is denying it. So even though I live in this tension, I can only embrace the four of the five points, so I sympathize. but what you'll find is that none of the other four points will stand without it you grab it and you start pulling on it and all of the system of theology will begin to unravel even very fundamental God is no longer God over the things that he's made but rather the creation is the God that ultimately determines things of eternal consequence and God's just responding to us So it's not something, it seems like a small thing, limited or unlimited atonement, before you get to the end of it, if you work it out thoroughly, you've got a denial of the Christian religion. You say, pastor, is that warranted? Yes. It was a very short step from Arminianism to Socinianism. From a denial of the doctrines of grace and God's sovereignty in them, to denying the authority of scripture, and any doctrine that didn't seem reasonable to us to the point where you get sort of a deism where it doesn't look like the God of the Bible at all sort of a vague abstract metaphysical God that doesn't really have very much to do with us the denial of the Christian religion altogether but a couple of other things that are perhaps more important for us an unlimited atonement strangely enough devalues the atonement You remember how at first this was leveled against us because the Arminian says, well don't you believe that the atonement is of such value that it could redeem all men? You say, yes. But what you're saying, my Arminian friend, is that the atonement is of so little value that it actually satisfies the justice of God in very few of the cases for which it was intended. In other words, Christ came into the world and satisfied the justice of God for every single man, but the justice of God is actually satisfied in a very, very small remnant. It seems to treat Christ's satisfaction as being a very light thing. It may prevail for a man or it might not. In most cases it doesn't. And this is a great devaluing of the value of the atonement. The Calvinist doctrine is that the atonement, that precious blood that was spilled, buys and redeems everything that it was meant to buy and redeem. If Christ said, I give this as the price for him, then he is redeemed. And I give it as a price for her, she is redeemed. It's that value. It's that valuable. It does exactly what it's intended to do. I would also say that a doctrine of unlimited atonement robs God of his glory. You have a God, an impotent God in heaven who is trying to save all men, every single individual and frankly not doing a very good job. He's trying to save everyone and he's not succeeding in very many cases. Now here as we turn to the flip side and we talk about, well positively, why is limited atonement so important? We've seen why unlimited atonement is bad. Why is this so important? Well if the chief end of man and creation and redemption and birds and flowers and bees, if the chief end of all of these things is the glory of God, then the glory of God is to be preserved in our religion and in our doctrine of salvation. And here we have a God Again, limited time and is very much involved in this. When He intends to save a man, He does. And all the glory of the salvation belongs to Him. He's the only one that can do it. And He does it in every case where He intends it. And so you see a God that's greatly glorified in salvation. You see why the saints would praise His name and say, Salvation belongs to our God. It belongs to Him and when He intends it, He works it. and nobody can resist his will nobody can question and say why do you work in this way he does his good pleasure also as I was thinking about this and I alluded to it earlier this is the most comforting doctrine in the whole world not just by itself but when you move it into its entire system and the framework in which it sits If Christ has shed his blood for you, then you will be redeemed. The devil cannot thwart that. All of the temptations of the world can't thwart that. Your sinful heart cannot thwart that. If he shed his blood for you, he will have your soul as his trophy. And as I've struggled with my own sinfulness and my own inability, I don't know how the Arminian can live. if he believes, I've got to hold on to that atonement by my faith, and by my repentance, or else I'm going to fall out of it. How disquieting that would be. How disquieting it would be indeed. To turn the image of Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ in John chapter 6 says, All that the Father hath given to me, I will raise on the last day and I will not lose a single one. It's a picture of us sitting in his hand and he actually says no one can snatch them out of my hand. That means the devil can't and the world can't and you can't climb out. Because of the temptations of the devil or the world or the sinfulness of your own heart. To be in the hand of a mighty redeeming God that says you belong to me. And I'll not let you go. That's comforting. That's a salvation that's grounded in an infallible omnipotence. But how disquieting it would be to think, you know, at my whim I could jump out. And maybe later on I can jump back in. But I might fall out again, and then die. And that's it. How disquieting that would be. If you know your own sinful heart, you know for a certainty that that is your damnation. Because you know how quickly you have all of your days been running away from Jesus Christ. And how He has been apprehending you time and time again. I'll not let you go. The good work that I've started in you will be completed. I'll not let you be comfortable with that sin. I'll break your heart and I'll bring you back to repentance. That's a comforting thing. And it's a God glorifying them. We could even say some words about the great wisdom of God and that this salvation which is so glorifying to Him is so edifying to us. Let us pray.