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.