00:00
00:00
00:01
Transcript
1/0
Well, we are this month of October
taking the five Sunday evenings to get together and to consider
the reformed doctrines of grace. We introduced kind of the history
of that in our first session together, and so we're advancing
through now. And tonight we arrive at the
consideration of the doctrine of limited atonement. Now, this
morning I made kind of an offhand reference to that. And you might
have caught it that I called it the black sheep among these
five doctrines. That's a phrase I actually borrowed
from a book by Richard Phillips entitled What's So Amazing About
the Doctrines of Grace? A book I would recommend along
with a couple of others I've recommended already for you in
this study. If you ever later say, I wish I could remember
that book, just call me, send me an email. I encourage always
for you to read increase your understanding from men who have
dealt with these deep and profound truths. But in this book, What's
So Amazing About the Doctrines of Grace? Chapter 4 is entitled,
What's So Amazing About Limited Atonement? And this is how he
begins that chapter. Every family has a black sheep.
It is that brother or uncle or cousin who has to be acknowledged
as a family member, but who is, frankly, a bit embarrassing.
As we consider the family of letters that make up the reformed
acrostic tulip, allow me to introduce the black sheep, L, limited atonement. He goes on to say, as is always
the case with black sheep, it's hard for us to deny L its place
in the family. After all, without the L, the
acrostic no longer spells our beloved Dutch flower. But there
are always those who insist the black sheep doesn't really belong.
There must have been a mistake. The babies must have been switched
at the hospital or the FedEx driver must have delivered the
wrong package. Maybe you've never considered
or even thought enough about the doctrine of limited atonement
to call it a black sheep. but i think most of you have
if u discuss these sorts of things in the history of uh... doctrines
of grace at all you've probably met someone who claims to be
a four-point calvinist and if you've heard that phrase case
you didn't know which of the five points they resist it's
always this one it's the doctrine of limited atonement Now let's
remind ourselves just for a quick review what these five doctrines
are and how they do in fact spell tulip if you take the first letter.
We already looked at T, which is total inability or total depravity. We looked already at U, unconditional
election or the doctrine of predestination. Tonight we'll consider limited
atonement, also referred to as particular redemption. Next week,
I, irresistible grace or the effectual call and then finally
P, the perseverance of the saints or the preservation of the saints. Now to restate something that's
critical and will become all the more critical as you advance
and so tonight it's very critical. These don't exist, none of them
exist or can they be adequately defended in isolation? They stand or fall together,
both in Scripture and in our reasoning of these things. To
deny one is to deny the others. They cannot exist, at least not
logically or biblically defensively, unless they exist together. And
we've seen that biblical logic play out already, a little bit
at least, in the first two weeks because we saw first that the
Bible teaches that all men are totally unable and unwilling
in their natural state to respond to God's grace. That's the effect
of the fall that has affected all men and women equally. They are born sinners. They are enemies of God and they
have absolutely no interest in the things of God or the things
of Christ. And so thus, without divine intervention, the divine
intervention of a saving grace, the entire human race would face
a justifiable eternity in hell, suffering under the wrath of
God. Now, we can see that lots of places in Scripture, but we'll
just pick one for review, Romans chapter 3. Verse 10, Paul writes,
as it is written, none is righteous, no, not one. No one understands. No one seeks for God. All have turned aside. Together
they've become worthless. No one does good, not even one. There is no fear of God before
their eyes. Now that's the declaration of
the total depravity or total inability of fallen man. now it doesn't mean total depravity
that we're all as bad as we can be but it does mean that we are
so bad that we never could be nor would we ever desire to be
inclined toward God and to respond positively to any offer of grace
that he might extend to us we are in short dead and that's
what Ephesians chapter 2 says we were dead before Christ in
trespasses and sins now because that is true because the Bible
says it is true the only hope for life must rest in God's hands
and we know that he would be totally just and absolutely right
in doing nothing he could just leave all sinful men to their
fate but that's not his reaction that's not what he has chosen
to do instead motivated by love He moves. He moves in grace and
calls from among all of those unworthy, calls to Himself a
people to be His own. God makes a choice. And when
He makes that choice, it's called unconditional election. It's called election because
it's a choice. There's a choosing in it. And
biblically, that's what Scripture calls it. And it's called unconditional,
well, because it has to be. Because if there were any conditions
that God might apply to any human that he might choose, no human
could meet those conditions. No human could or would desire
to meet any conditions that God might attach before he actually
makes a choice. So because of the doctrine of
total inability, the election of God must be unconditional. But more than that, the Bible
says it is that. There's nothing in us that would ever move God
to choose us, any of us. Yet he does it anyway. So Ephesians,
again, chapter 1, where the Apostle Paul digs so deeply into these
profound truths, he said, Now here it is. Even as he chose
us in him, that's in Christ, and he did it before the foundation
of the world. He chose us so that we would
be holy and blameless before Him. He did this in love and moving
onward from His choice, He predestined us for adoption to Himself as
sons through Jesus Christ. He did it according to the purpose
of His own will. He did it to the praise of His
glorious grace. And He has blessed us with all
of this in the Beloved, that is, in Christ. Now that's the
sovereign, unconditional election of God. He was moved by His own
love. There was no consideration of
our fallen state. In fact, the choice was made
before we ever existed, before the very foundation of the world
itself, so that we who are elect would in fact be holy and blameless
through the work of Christ And all of that is in accord with
His will and only as it functions that way does His glorious grace
receive the praise that it is due. So we could say this of
those two. To deny election is simply to
deny scripture. It's just there. And to imagine
a conditional election is to deny the doctrine of total inability. And if you deny man's fallen
state, his hopeless condition, well then, you'd have to deny
Scripture. And I just want you to see the
circular reasoning of that that requires these two exist, not
just because Scripture says so, but having said so, mere reason
demands it. Well, that brings us here. It
brings us to tonight. And here's a way to get us started.
Imagine, if you would, a God who had intended by His own will
and His own compassion to choose from among sinful men, enemies
one and all, some for salvation, some to be the recipients of
His grace. How can this be? How could He
be both just in His disposition towards a sinner and merciful? In other words, how can a holy
God extend grace and forgiveness to sinners? How is such a thing
possible? We know He can't do it because
of any merit of their own. And we know He couldn't do it
without Himself being guilty of an offense. In other words,
He can't just choose to forgive. That would question His holiness.
It would be an injustice against His own righteousness. There's
only one resolution to this. Someone, someone else might pay
the price. Mercy could be paid to afford
the grace that God might give. And that's exactly what Scripture
teaches. And when Scripture teaches it
and we understand it, we understand it as a limited atonement. Now right away the name itself
can be confusing. Kind of like total depravity
doesn't mean we're all as bad as we can be. Limited atonement
doesn't mean it's limited in the way perhaps that some might
think. So let's see if we can get an
understanding of this profound truth and the significance of
it. Now we got a little bit of a
head start this morning. So if you were here this morning, you
got kind of an introduction to this as we were working through
John chapter 12 and that'll help you tonight. But I'm not going
to try to rely on that or depend on that. We're not going back
to that text. There's plenty of other places in Scripture
that we can go to make this make sense. Alright, so let's start
here. What is an atonement? And sometimes the other historical
reference to this doctrine helps. The other way we can refer to
this, not just limited atonement, but particular redemption. And that word redemption is one
that I find more generally is understood by Christians than
the idea of an atonement. They're both talking about the
same thing. To redeem something is to buy it back, to pay the
price, the transactional fee, to purchase something back. We've seen that in our second-hour
study just last month, in our study of Ruth, that picture of
a kinsman redeemer buying back what has been lost, in the death
of a head of a family. What's lost or what's at risk
is the loss of land and the loss of the name. And in that, inevitably,
the loss of God's glory. So redemption took place to buy
back the land, restore it to its name, its head, and also
defend the name by hopefully producing offspring that would
carry on all of that for the glory of God. So we're talking
about redemption, we're talking about buying something back,
but we're talking about atonement, and we'll come to that more clearly
in a minute, but just understand we're talking about the same
thing whether you call it atonement or redemption. Now I think three
questions will help us, they help me at least, to build an
understanding of this. Here are the three questions
that we want to talk about. Number one, what is being bought
back? Or what is being redeemed? Or let's grab that other word
who is being atoned for now let me just pause here atonement
atonement an unusual word but in the english that helps us
really to define it it means to be at one with to be made
at one at one atonement with god it's a sinner being restored
bought back brought back to a right relationship with god that's
what atonement means so first question what is being bought
back second question to whom is the price paid now this is
an important aspect and we'll take these one at a time but
there's jesus on the cross we know that we're talking about
atonement and redemption at the cross and he's paying the price
for something in the question we want to ask is who's getting
that to whom is the price paid? Third question, what was the
result of that transaction? What is the benefit of the price
having been paid to the person to whom it was paid? So we're
going to take those one at a time and in that I hope our minds
will explode and we'll begin to see what's so amazing about
this doctrine of limited atonement. So the first question, what is
being bought back? Ephesians chapter 1 again, we
just drill down on one verse and I think we get the answer
very directly, very clearly. Paul says, in Him, in Christ,
we have redemption. There's our word. We have redemption
through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses according to
the riches of His grace. So there's our word, redemption,
and that's speaking of the atonement, it's speaking of Christ, it's
speaking of the cross, and it says in Him we have redemption,
and the price being paid is the blood of Christ, the death of
Christ. Now, if redemption means to buy back, or more literally
we might even say to restore, to restore what has been lost,
then this idea of redemption by the blood of Christ is restoring
what sin cost us. Whatever we lost, by sin, redemption
restores that. Now, I know it's about sin because
it's right there, see it? In the forgiveness of our trespasses.
So, this idea of redemption is directly connected to alleviating,
forgiving the penalty or the price due to our sin. The debt that sin is owed has
to be satisfied. all right very basic now what
did sin cost us what what did sin cost us and we would say
it this way what was the price of sin to every sinner God answers
that most of us learned it sometime in our Christian life the wages
the price the cost of sin is what? it's death so what we lost
because of sin was Life. We lost life and sin instead
produced in us death. So what we're looking for in
a redemption is something that will buy back and restore what
we lost. What did we lose? Life. We need
something that can restore life to us, fallen, dead creatures. So our redemption is Christ buying
back our life. And in that, when he does that,
watch this, when he does that, we become his possession. And the Bible's clear, Acts chapter
20, verse 28. Paul's talking to the Ephesian
elders and he tells them, as leaders of the church, pay careful
attention to yourselves and to all the flock. in which the Holy
Spirit has made you overseers, be very careful to care for the
church of God because, look, He obtained it with His own blood.
The church, Christians, belong to Jesus. He bought them as a
possession for Himself. 1 Corinthians chapter 6, same
idea, verse 19. You are not your own. for you
were bought with a price. You don't belong to yourself,
you belong to the one who bought you. You are Christ's possession
and therefore you should glorify God in your life and in your
body because of who you belong to. That's the idea. So watch,
careful here, when you think about redemption, Christ isn't
buying you freedom so that you can go live however you want
to live. A lot of Christian traditions or preachments try to encourage
that. They try to motivate you that
way. Jesus has redeemed you to grant you the freedom to live
however you want to live. No, that's not what He did. What
He did was buy you back as His own, as a cherished possession,
so that you might live the way He would direct you to live in
a way that would bring glory to Him, whether in life or in
death. Okay, that's what it means to be bought back. And that's
what is being bought back. It's life being bought back from
death. It's you being bought for Him.
That's the answer. Now the second question. The
second question, to whom is the price paid? Christianity has
often gotten this wrong and it's a worthy endeavor to study the
history of Christianity as it regards the theories of the atonement. There are a lot of historic theories.
There's a progression to them. They all carry a little bit of
truth, but inevitably through God's providence and we would
say through continuing revelation, developed understanding by His
Spirit through His people in the church, we arrive at a more
sound perspective, a more biblical theory of the atonement. But
early theories, in fact the earliest days of Christianity, The church
fathers consistently taught that the price of redemption was being
paid to Satan. That's called the ransom to Satan
theory of the atonement. Satan has to be paid by Christ
in his death in order to buy back what belonged to him, was
enslaved to him, and therefore now belongs to Christ. Now there
was something that drove that kind of understanding and what
always drives, most always at least in the history of the church,
partial truth that inevitably might even become heresy. What's
always driving that is scripture. Scripture serves the foundation
and establishes the foundation for all manners of heresies if
it's not rightly understood and rightly applied. So here would
be the text that would be often cited by the ancient church fathers
regarding the ransom to Satan theory. It's what Jesus said
in Mark chapter 10 verse 45. Even the Son of Man came not
to be served but to serve. He came to give His life as a
ransom for many. Now that's a good interpretation
of the Greek word there, ransom. There's a ransom being paid which
almost always universally speaks of a hostage being held. We know
that language. There's something in bondage
and the price to release it is being paid. So given that and
understanding how we're trying to chase this out, let's present
this question. To what is the sinner held captive? We have Jesus' own words manifesting
the paying of a ransom, a price being paid, and so we've got
this idea of a bondage. Something's being held captive.
We're the ones who are being redeemed. We're the ones going
to benefit from life as His own possession. So to what were we
held captive? Do you follow me? That's the
question. To what was the sinner held captive? Well, the most
obvious answer is sin. We were held captive to our sin. Romans 6.16 certainly says that. Paul writes, Do you not know
that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves,
you are slaves of the one whom you obey? And here's the bottom
line. You're either a slave to sin
because you obey sin, and that leads to death, or you're a slave
to obedience, which is the cause and purpose of Christ, and that
leads to righteousness. So clearly, we might suggest
that the ransom is being paid to release the sinner from bondage
to sin. No one would question that statement
except at face value, it's foolish. Could you imagine God paying
sin? Christ paying sin? I mean, you
pay the ransom to the one to whom you're held bondage. If
the answer is sin, well, That just really doesn't make any
sense. It makes sense that we were held bondage to sin. It
doesn't make any sense that that's the answer to the question of
to whom is the price paid. It's not sin. And so then the
church father said, it must be Satan. It must be Satan. It doesn't make sense to pay
sin, but it would make sense to pay Satan. And so maybe there's
reasons to suggest the sinner is held captive by Satan. And
therefore, Satan has to be paid to release the sinner who's held
as a slave to Satan. Okay, so Colossians 1, verse
13 comes into view. There we read that Christ has
delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us
to the kingdom of His beloved Son, God there being the deliverer
through Christ, into the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom,
there's our word, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness
of sin. So there's a buying back, sin is in view, and bondage is
in view, and here it seems that we were in bondage, notice, to
the domain of darkness. We move from the kingdom of darkness
which is governed and led by who? Satan into the kingdom of
light and life which is governed and ruled by Christ. So it seems
reasonable, perhaps reasonable, to say the payment must be paid
to Satan who held us captive in his dark world. Could be true. Hebrews chapter
2 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he
himself likewise partook of the same things, Christ became flesh,
that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of
death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through
fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. And for the
early church, for the early church fathers, that sealed it. There
was a bondage to sin, but you can't pay sin. There was a bondage,
a slavery to the domain of darkness, and there is a ruler there. And
here, well clearly, redemption is in view, and the ruler is
destroyed, and those in bondage are delivered. So the slavery
was to Satan, they said. And any ransom paid has to be
paid to Satan. But is that really true? If you
look carefully, actually neither one of those texts teach that
the sinner is in bondage to Satan. First was the text in Colossians.
It teaches that the sinner is in bondage to the domain of darkness. And that would be much more clearly
defined as the reign of sin. Wherever sin reigns, darkness
rules. So, notice redemption brought
the forgiveness of sins, that text says. Sin was the issue. Again, sin is the picture of
redemption. It's a deliverance from sin and
any bondage there was to that sin and to its reign of darkness. That's what held the sinner captive,
sin, at least in that text. And the darkness that it creates,
not Satan. And in Hebrews chapter 2, There's
the destruction clearly of the one who has the power of death,
and that is Satan. Can't argue with that. He is
being destroyed, being judged, we saw this morning, even through
the cross of Christ. But the deliverance there doesn't
say the sinner is delivered from Satan. What's the sinner being
delivered from in that text? The fear of death. It is that
fear that held the sinner in slavery, that text says. Not
Satan. Satan wasn't holding the sinner
slavery and offering up a delivery only if the ransom was met. No.
Fear was holding the sinner in slavery. The fear of death. Satan
had the power to bring about that death. So neither of those
texts actually say that Satan was the captor and therefore
the right recipient of the ransom that Christ paid. So we're left,
I think, still with this question. To whom is the price paid? And
the answer is, biblically, the one to whom it is owed. You say,
thank you very much. Who is it owed to? Well, our
sins, our sinful nature, are an offense against a holy God. And the Bible is clear, our sins
have accumulated a penalty, a penalty of wrath upon wrath upon wrath. And it is right and sound that
any sinner aware of that would fear the penalty of death that
multiplied over promises not just a single death but an eternal
death because of the offense that that sin has been against
a holy God. It's God who established the
penalty of sin, not Satan. And the penalty was death. And
so then to be released from that penalty Well, that would be impossible. God can't just say, I changed
my mind. The wages of sin will no longer
be death. He can't just release a sinner
from the accumulated price of sin that each of us accumulated
before we came to Christ. But if the price is paid, if
the price is paid, then God could not anymore justly continue to
hold any sinner in contempt Not if the price is paid. So to whom
is the price paid? Answer, to whom it is owed. Jesus,
then, redeems the sinner by paying the price due, not to Satan,
but to God. Jesus on the cross is paying
God the ransom due, the accumulated, demanded price of the sins of
those who will believe. Now, you know the deliverance
of Israel, the story of the deliverance of Israel from bondage. What
a famous story. They make movies about that, right? The Ten Commandments
and the like. And it's a fitting example because
Pharaoh helps us to understand this. You see, Israel was in
bondage to Pharaoh. Pharaoh actually held the Jews
captive. And a price had to be exacted
for their release. But watch, God didn't pay a price
to Pharaoh. Read the story. There was no
ransom paid to Pharaoh because he wasn't due any ransom. All
he got was what he was due, which was the judgment of God. That's
what he was due. Pharaoh, you see, and the reality
of his bondage, holding captive Israel? He's really only a backdrop
to the story of redemption. The real story is the picture
that was the sacrificial lamb and the blood spread on the doorpost.
That's a picture of the price God requires, looking forward
even to the cross of Christ. And that price, having been paid,
allowed Israel to be released from its bondage. So understand,
God is the one to whom the price is paid. And the penalty is death. Alright, so here's what we have.
What is being bought back? We are. Life from death. Sinners restored to a relationship
with God. All of which had been lost because
of sin. And all the attending benefits
that come with that. That's what redemption is buying
back. To whom is the price paid? The
price is paid to God because the debt is owed to God. The
price was established by God. He established it as being death
and only He has the right to receive the price paid and the
price was paid in the death of Christ on the cross. So we have one more question
as we work through these three questions which really are helping
us to understand this doctrine. The last question is what is
the benefit of the price paid? Or said another way, what is
the result of the atonement? If this is Christ and redemption
and atonement and he's buying back life from death, paying
God what is due, what's the result of that? Let's hear that we need
to let the biblical argument unfold without any interruption
by our own minds to its inevitable and necessary conclusion. Follow
the logic please. If what is being bought back
is life from death, And if the price required is death, and
the death of Christ meets that price, and if the price was due
to God, and He accepts that price, paid by Christ in full, then
what will be the benefit of that amazing divine transaction between
the Father and the Son? The language in Scripture couldn't
be any clearer. And we need to let it say what
it says. Here's what it says. Just some select text. Hebrews
chapter 9. But when Christ, verse 11, appeared
as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through
the greater and more perfect tent, not made with hands, that
is not of this creation, He entered once for all into the holy places. Not by means of the blood of
goats and calves, but by means of His own blood. And here's
the result. Thus securing an eternal redemption. Christ's sacrifice, the price
paid, secured an eternal redemption. That's clear. Couldn't be clearer
than that incredible text in Hebrews. But again, it's in Ephesians
1. I tell you, Ephesians is so significant,
chapter 1 and chapter 2 especially. But notice how Paul says it here.
In Him, in Christ, we have redemption through His blood. Now, everything
else is the benefit of that. Look at it. The forgiveness of
our trespasses according to the riches of His grace. He lavishes
it upon us in all wisdom and insight. He makes known to us
the mystery of His will according to His purpose which He set forth
in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time. He unites all things
in Him, things in heaven and things on the earth. These are
the benefits to the price paid by Christ to the Father. They're
incredible, immeasurable benefits. Absolute, certain, secured benefits
by the price paid. He goes on in chapter 1 verse
11. In Him, in His death, in His
redemption, we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined
according to the purpose of Him who works all things according
to the counsel of His will, so that we who were the first to
hope in Christ might be to the praise of His glory. In Him,
you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of
your salvation, and you believed in Him, you were sealed with
the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance
until we acquire possession of it. All to the praise of His
glory. So, what did we get? What is
the benefit? What does the price paid in full
to the Father, life from death, produce? Forgiveness, paid in
full. Grace afforded in its richest
measure, paid in full. by the sacrifice of Christ. A
uniting, a restoring of all things. We read that back in verse 10,
to unite all things, to bring everything back to its right
relationship. Things on earth and things in
heaven paid in full by Christ. And all of it sealed with the
arrival of the Holy Spirit, a guarantee of an inheritance yet to come
until we actually acquire it. And when that happens and it
will happen, all praise will be only to Christ. All glory
goes only to him. Why? Because he's the one that
paid the price. And he paid it in full. So that's
what redemption accomplishes. That's the benefit. That is arrived
by the atonement of Christ. The accomplishments are grand. because the price paid was infinitely,
infinitely sufficient. So those are three questions
to which the Bible speaks clearly. I was very selective in text,
not to select a peculiar text, but that I had so many texts
to select from. Question first, what's being
bought back? Secondly, to whom was the price paid? Thirdly,
what are the benefits? What does the atonement accomplish?
A sinner is what's being bought back from death to life. A sinner is having a broken relationship
with God restored. God alone was the offended party
as it regards our sin. God alone can be the recipient
of the price paid. God established the price. He
said it would be death. God accepts Christ's death on
our behalf as a substitute. And the benefits? The benefits
are life, forgiveness, and full restoration of a vital relationship
that sin had cost us all. Now all of that is to say this.
With that foundation, With the answers to those three questions,
let's go back in history. Let's go back to Holland. Let's
go back to the canons of Dort. And let's consider the definition
of limited atonement in that amazing document that if you
haven't already availed yourself of its treasure, you really should.
It's free online. Strong cup of coffee, a few hours,
and an expected hope of great and glorious revelation of the
work of God awaits you if you will spend some time with the
canons of Dort. We'll take just a couple of minutes
to consider the definition of limited atonement. God is not
only supremely merciful, but also supremely just. The justice
requires, as God has revealed in the word, that the sins we
have committed against his infinite majesty be punished with both
temporal and eternal punishments of soul as well as body. We cannot
escape these punishments unless satisfaction is given to God's
justice. Since, however, we ourselves
cannot give this satisfaction or deliver ourselves from God's
wrath, God, in boundless mercy, has given us a guarantee, as
a guarantee, His only begotten Son, who was made to be sin and
a curse for us in our place on the cross, in order that He might
give satisfaction for us. This death of God's Son is the
only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins. It
is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone
for the sins of the whole world. For it was the entirely free
plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that
the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his son's costly death should
work itself out in all the elect in order that God might grant
justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without
fail to salvation. In other words, it was God's
will that Christ, through the blood of the cross, by which
He confirmed the new covenant, should effectively redeem from
every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only
those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to Him
by the Father. And that Christ should grant
them faith, which, like the Holy Spirit's other saving gifts,
He acquired for them by His death. It was also God's will that Christ
should cleanse them by His blood from all their sins, both original
and actual, whether committed before or after their coming
to faith, that He should faithfully preserve them to the very end,
and that He should finally present them to Himself, a glorious people
without spot or wrinkle. That's what we mean when we say
we believe in the doctrine of the limited atonement. And I
hope you can see now in that definition in what sense the
atonement was limited. Because that expression, biblically
sound expression of the doctrine of atonement said two things
as it regards the notion of limited. First of all, it is not limited
in its sufficiency. This death of God's Son is the
only entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins. It
is of infinite value and worth, this is what Dort says, and it
is more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.
When we say limited atonement, we do not mean that should more
be saved or even other worlds need saving, that God would require
an additional penalty or a more magnified expression of death. No, one death for all. It was completely sufficient. It is not limited in its sufficiency. But it is limited in its efficiency. And Dort again says, it was the
entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the
Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his son's
costly death should work itself out in all the elect and only
the elect. The atonement The death of Christ
on the cross is sufficient for the whole world, but it is efficient
only for the elect, for the chosen from among all the unworthy to
be the recipients of the grace that that price afforded. So it's unlimited in its reach,
but limited in its effect. We said this morning, if we say
Christ died for all, and by that embrace an unlimited atonement
not only in its reach but also in its effect. Then what we are
effectively saying is that Christ's death is unlimited in its reach
and unlimited in its potential but entirely limited in any effect
because it is of none effect unless you or I make it effectual. If you say that and believe that
you deny the very language of an atonement. It's not an atonement
if it didn't do what it said it would do. It's not a redemption
if it didn't satisfy the demand. In the words of a respected Arminian
though, Bruce Demarest, that's exactly the way they approach
this understanding of Christ's death. Here's a small quote.
Scripture leads us to conclude that God loves all people He
created and that Christ died to provide salvation for all.
By divine intention, Christ's suffering and death are universal
in its provision. Now, because I've had some time
to unpack that, and we don't have the time for you to unpack
that, let me just tell you what he just said. Christ's death
only satisfied God's intention, but it didn't ensure salvation
for anybody. It's a universal atonement. It's an unlimited
atonement in its intention. But again, the Bible teaches
an actual atonement, not an intended atonement. The Bible teaches
an actual and full redemption for everyone that God intends.
But you can't imagine the atonement or the redemption was only a
hope, only a divine intention. And that's clear throughout the
Bible, that it's limited in its effect to those it was intended
to affect. For instance, Isaiah chapter
53 verse 8, By oppression and judgment he was taken away, and
as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the
land of the living, stricken for the transgressions of all
people? No. He was stricken for the transgressions
of his people. My people, declares the Lord.
And the New Testament makes the same declaration. Speaking of
Mary, she'll bear a son and you shall call his name Jesus and
he will save everybody from their sins. No, he'll save his people
from their sins. That was always God's intention.
God's intention was that Jesus would come and save his people,
his sheep, the chosen, the elect, not all people. Understand then,
and maybe this will be helpful, The doctrine of limited atonement
doesn't limit the atonement as it regards the work of Christ,
the sufficiency of the price paid, or its effect. It is limited
only as it regards those whom it will benefit. It is limited
to the elect. That's what limited means when
we speak of the atonement. it's a redemption we would then
say paid particularly and peculiarly for the chosen of God and then
that's why we get our other historical reference it was a particular
redemption specific redemption for a peculiar people the Armenian
doctrine which gains popularity increasingly and has always held
sway it seems in the Christian church The Arminian Doctrine
of Unlimited Atonement extends the benefits of the atonement
to everybody without any qualification other than their own exercise
of faith which they teach is inherent in them. But it limits
the atonement's effect. It limits its benefits because
there's no actual satisfaction or benefit in it other than honoring
God's intentions. The benefit is like a package
waiting to be opened by anyone. If no one opens it, then the
package carries nothing. There's nothing in the package. If you embrace the Arminian doctrine
of unlimited atonement, it necessarily produces this position. These
are my words. Christ died for all and everyone,
elect and reprobate. Most of them then, for whom Christ
died, are damned. Therefore, if God intended the
salvation of all, as the Arminians would demand, then he failed
miserably in his intention. If you believe in unlimited atonement
in the sense that it was the expressed intention of God to
save everybody, then He didn't do a very good job. Because no
Christian tradition suggests that the vast majority of people
even, certainly not all people, will be saved by the work of
Christ. If you embrace an unlimited atonement,
you're left with an impotent God who has to rely on the will
of man to effect any eternal redemption. And that's not the God of the
Bible. And that's not the atonement that Christ provided on the cross. But there is a universal aspect
to the death of Christ. The doctrines of grace, the reformed
doctrines of grace would affirm that. And so maybe I should give
that a hint or just shine a little bit of light on that. We would
say it this way. The death of Christ was not limited
in its effect only to the atonement. In other words, when Christ died,
it had far-reaching effects other than redemption. Christ's death
purchased a measure of grace that affords a holy God to exercise
patience and even to extend common grace to the whole world, to
the elect and the reprobate alike. God sends rain on the righteous
and the unrighteous. How could a holy God do that
except for some measure of grace afforded, and the only affording
of that grace was at the cross of Christ? But that's the universal
aspect of His death, but that does not mean atonement was universal. The atoning element of the death
of Christ is limited only to the elect. It simply means this. There's a lot more going on the
cross than most of the time we notice. And there's more going
on there than just the saving of his own. There is the affording
of the necessary grace that God might extend in patience and
in common grace to everybody. Otherwise, we'd all disappear
in a moment with our first breath under the righteous judgment
of God. So we think about the rain that falls on the righteous
and the unrighteous, and we say, how could God do that? And it's
only through Christ that He could do that. We think about an economy
that is sometimes bustling and sometimes not, but yet always
exists in which we move and work and have our provision. We think
about provision and blessing afforded to saint and sinner
alike. We think about health and healing
afforded to saint and sinner alike. We think about human potential
and we read about it and we imagine maybe we might have some of it.
We think about nature's potential. And to the degree that they are
not all simply burned up is simply and only the result of the measure
of grace afforded by the death of Christ on the cross. So let's
be clear, there are universal benefits to the death of Christ
But the only intended recipients of the atoning work of Christ,
the only ones who will receive and enjoy those benefits are
those that God elects. Now, in the time I have left,
and I hope this can kind of bring some things together, I want
to test this a little bit with a problem text. And there's a
lot of problem text, but this is the one I picked, and so that's
the one we get to test it with. And here's my subject. When all
means all. And we don't know what that means.
Alright? So think with me here. If you're
here this morning, we talked about when all doesn't mean all.
But what about when all does mean all and then we don't have
any idea what that means? And where I'm getting this is
1 Timothy chapter 2 verse 1. So follow along and I'll read
this. First of all then, I urge, Paul writing to Timothy, I urge
that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgiving
be made for all people. for kings and all who are in
high positions that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life godly
and dignified in every way this is good and it is pleasing in
the sight of God our Savior who desires all people to be saved
and to come to the knowledge of the truth for there is one
God and there is one mediator between God and men the man Christ
Jesus who gave himself and there we are is our subject ransom
for all which is the testimony given at the proper time Now,
without any unnecessary and unwarranted biblical gymnastics, let's just
take a straightforward reading of the text and see the problems
and see if there are any solutions to the problems. Paul is, first
of all, writing to Christians. It's important to know who the
recipients of these letters were. You need to know who the target
audience was. And the reason I say that is,
watch this carefully, he's not writing in the same way to all
people. He's only writing to some people.
and though some people are Christians but wait we get ahead of ourselves
the book is called Timothy and so if we look at the beginning
we would see that he's actually writing to Timothy Paul an apostle
of Christ Jesus by command of our God and Savior and of Christ
Jesus our hope to Timothy he's writing to Timothy So that means
if we read 1st Timothy, if it's limited to Timothy as the audience,
it's probably got a pretty narrow application to you and me. I
mean, it's a pretty narrow audience. It's just one guy. First century,
one guy to boot. A Jew beyond that. I mean, it's
pretty limited in any application we might apply. However, when
he's writing to Timothy in this letter, here's what Paul says.
I hope to come to you soon, but I'm writing these things to you
so that, if I don't get there right away, you may know how
one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of
the living God. It is a pillar and a buttress of truth." And
now the audience just expanded dramatically. It reached beyond
the first century. It reaches beyond Ephesus, where
Timothy is ministering. It reaches to every Christian
in every place at every time. And Paul is saying, here's what
this letter has instruction regarding. It has instruction regarding
how Christians ought to act. and how they ought to behave
if they're members of the Church of the Living God. So, we got
our audience? Our audience is Christians in
all places at all times who identify with the Church of the Living
God. Now, back to our text. Back to our text. What is it
that Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, is telling all Christians
to do? Well, first of all, he says, I urge that prayers be
made for all people. Prayers by some people, the church,
That's the audience being instructed. Prayers by some people, but not
prayers limited to some people. No, prayers extended to all people. That's clearly what he says.
Even the ones, watch this, even the ones you're least likely
to pray for, like kings who abuse you and governors who persecute
you, both of which was happening in the church of Ephesus when
Paul wrote this letter to Timothy. So he's saying to some people
that they ought to pray for who? All people. So all clearly means
all there. There's no reason or justification
for making it mean anything else. So these prayers made by some
people are on behalf of all people, and they are, verse 3, look what
verse 3 says, that's a good thing. And it pleases God when some
people, His people, pray for all people. It pleases God. It pleases Him. Watch. It pleases
Him because though some people are not praying all things for
all people, but no, though some people are praying some things
as it regards all people, and the primary thing is that they
be saved. That's what we're praying about.
That's what some people, God's people, are praying for all people.
And it's pleasing to God when we do this, when we pray that
they would be saved. We know that because it says
we pray for all people and it is consistent with the expressed
desire of God that all people would be saved by the gospel
of Jesus Christ, by the sacrifice of Christ. Alright, you with
me? That's when all means all. So let's test this. Because we're
going on the safe and sound interpretation of scripture that has us seeing
this dealing with all people and we're saying there that God
desires all people to be saved. You see that? Yet we all know
and would affirm that all people are not going to be saved. So
God isn't going to be successful in his intention to save the
world. He isn't going to have his desire met. So then, some would say, is it
possible, Steve, that you've read that wrong? And that all
doesn't really mean all? I suppose it's possible. At least
many Reformed expositors will insist that that's exactly the
case. It all doesn't mean all. It only means all of the elect. Now I'm not the sharpest knife
in the drawer, but I can't get there. I can't get there in my
understanding of the original text. I can't get there in this
English translation, which I find to be a faithful translation.
To me, it seems clear that all in this text means all. And God, then, isn't going to
have His desire. His will isn't going to be met,
at least not as it regards the saving of all, which this text
says He desires. But watch, my doctrine of limited
atonement has not been shaken at all. Not in the least, because
we've already stated with the Reformed doctrines of grace that
the death of Christ was sufficient for all, consistent with God's
desire. If it is truly God's intention
to save everybody, then the infinite worth of the sacrifice of Christ
will be sufficient for that. He won't have to do it again.
He will not have to kill his son over again if, in fact, he
does desire that everybody would be saved. And if that desire
were to be realized, there will not be required any other death. So it's not my doctrine of limited
atonement that's challenged here by the all. But my understanding
of who God is, is challenged. Because it leads me to ask this
question. Can an all-powerful God ever not get what he wants? Is His will ever thwarted? Can it be? Well, consider this
from Peter. The Lord, Peter says, is not
slow to fulfill His promise, as some count slowness. But God
is patient toward you. Why? Not wishing that any should
perish, but that all should reach repentance. There, Peter says
the same thing Paul says. The Lord's not willing, not wishing
that any should perish, but rather that all should reach repentance.
And I submit to you once again, all means all. So, let me ask
the question a different way. How can God wish for something
that isn't going to happen? It would seem best, perhaps,
like the Arminians to read these texts and limit the atonement
in defense of God's intentions. In other words, let's make the
atonement only a possible salvation for all, and that would be consistent
with God's desire, that would be consistent with God's will,
but let's not make it actually an atonement for anybody, and
that would get God off the hook. It wouldn't be His desire that
would now be troublesome, it would be those stubborn choosers.
Those people are so stubborn that they won't choose God. Those
sinners, which of course would mean that God couldn't actually
sovereignly unconditionally choose any of those to be saved, And
the Armenians would say, well, of course not. He wouldn't do
that based on their inability because they would say man isn't
totally unable. In fact, he does have inherent
in him the necessary faith to choose God if he would, and God's
off the hook regardless of what God wants. It's not his fault.
It's people's fault. We could do that, but everything
we've done for 52 minutes is lost in the nature of the atonement. Or we could do what so many again
Reformed exegetes do. We could say again that all doesn't
mean all, but only all that God intended to save, only all the
elect. But you can't do that here. You
could do that in John 12. We did that this morning, but
we had textual support for that. We don't have any textual support
for changing this text or the 1st Timothy text to say all doesn't
mean all. And so God's will is our issue.
God's desire is our issue. Not the atonement. Meaning, when
all means all, and we don't know what it means, it usually means
you have a limited understanding of God. And we do. Even given all that He's told
us about Himself. So what does all that mean? Well,
simply stated, it means God has revealed to us in Scripture the
reality of more than one will. And we as human beings made in
His image are able to comprehend that, at least in some sense. Because, you see, I'm a father
of five, and I could honestly say without apology, and you
could test me and not find me lacking, that I have never, ever
been willing that any of my children should suffer pain. I would,
if appropriate, move in any way I could to act in their defense
should the threat of pain or suffering be imminent. I can
honestly say that. But I can also honestly say,
without apology, that I have a greater will than the will
to not see my children suffer. And I would, if appropriate,
even move to actually bring some pain and a measure of suffering
if it would advance the greater will. What is that? What is the will that I have
that is greater than the will I have that my children not suffer?
It's the will that I have that they mature. It's the will that
I have that they live trained and disciplined lives. And to
that end, well you can ask them, I used the rod. I was acting
against one aspect of my will. The will not to see them suffer.
Even as I acted in accord with another aspect of my will. The
more powerful aspect of my will. The will to see them grow into
vital men and women. Useful adults. So you see I understand
that I'm not willing that my children should suffer. And I
could write that and you could read it in a book later and believe
it's true. Yet I am willing to bring suffering
to my children. if it satisfies the greater desire. So you see, even we have two
wills, and right now you're thinking of countless examples in your
own life where you appear to have a battle of the wills. And
I can tell you, humanly, anthropologically, the greater will will always
win. You are not able to act contrary to your greatest desire.
It's not a human attribute. And so it is with God. It is
absolutely true that He's not willing that any should perish.
That's an honest expression of the character of God. Scripture
gives us no reason to question that. But there's a greater will. There is a more supreme desire.
And that is that He has a desire that He would, above all things,
be glorified. And God is most glorified in
the sacrifice of His Son to actually save those who God has chosen. And therefore, the lesser desire
must submit to the greater desire. And the greatest desire God has
is the desire for His own glory. The reality of those two wills
in God, theologians call these the revealed will of God and
the secret will of God. We can't know the secret will
of God like how He chooses what He chooses. or whom He chooses,
but we can know what He's told us. He's told us that He's not
willing that any should perish and He's told us that He chooses
only who He wills to save. Two wills in conflict resolved
only in the halls of heaven and in the mind of a perfectly just
and righteous God. Limited atonement. I feel like
we've rushed and only scratched the surface. But here's what
we believe. We believe the sacrifice of Christ
was wholly sufficient for any and all sinners. His infinite
worth and the infinite wrath He endured was adequate for any
who might benefit. Yet, it was an actual payment
for the actual sins of those who are chosen by God. It is
fully sufficient for them and potently efficient for them. redeeming them as a people of
His own possession. Also, the death of Christ provided
a measure of grace universally that expresses the patience of
God toward sinners, the compassion of God toward His creation. And finally, God is not willing
that any should perish. His desire for the saving of
the reprobate is submitted, however, to a greater desire the desire
for His own glory and the saving of those whom He has chosen as
His own. All sometimes means all. And that's the best I can
do to make sense of it all. Sinners, rebels, totally depraved,
unwilling and unable to respond to God, are chosen by God without
regard to their own worth, of which there is none, and only
with regard to His will. We call that the unconditional
election of the totally depraved unto salvation. The application
of this, the outworking of these truths Require an atonement that
actually saves those that he's chosen. Sufficient for all. But limited in its effect to
only those he intends it to affect. But there's more that has to
be worked out. All of this establishes the necessity of an additional
doctrine. The story is not complete. So next week, we'll consider
the doctrine of irresistible grace or the effectual call because
those sinners need to be awakened. You've been listening to Pastor
and Bible Teacher Steve Wilson of Grace Community Church in
Bowling Green, Kentucky. We trust you have been encouraged
and challenged by this message. If you would like to listen to
more of Pastor Wilson's messages or obtain more information on
the ministry of Grace Community Church, you can go to our website
at gccbg.com. That's gccbg.com or call 270-781-2595. Yeah.
Limited Atonement
Series Reformed Doctrines of Grace
| Sermon ID | 101817930106 |
| Duration | 1:05:26 |
| Date | |
| Category | Sunday - PM |
| Language | English |
Documents
Add a Comment
Comments
© Copyright
2026 SermonAudio.