God's Great Salvation by the Reverend Lewis DeBoer. Today we will be reading Chapter 9, the latter part. In the first part of Chapter 9, Reverend DeBoer shows that with regard to the atonement of Christ, Calvinists limit its extent, while Arminians limit its effectiveness. There are a set of texts that appear to teach a limited atonement, that Christ only died for his sheep, his people, the elect, whom God has given him. There are a set of texts that appear to teach a universal atonement, that Christ indeed died for all men. But there is a resolution of this apparent contradiction in the Scriptures by examining the way that Scripture uses universal terms such as all and all men, etc. First of all, there are texts that speak of Christ dying for his sheep rather than for all men, for the context makes it clear that his sheep are not all men. Christ is saying he is dying for his sheep and not for the goats. Secondly, there are a set of men referred to in the scriptures whom we call the elect that are given by the Father to the Son to redeem as His people. These scriptures seem to teach that Christ died for these men rather than for all men. Thirdly, there are some general texts that appear to teach a limited atonement. They teach that Christ only died for those who believe on Him, for His Church, in short, for the elect. Fourthly, There are texts that teach that the nature of the atonement was substitutionary. Fifthly, there is the high priestly prayer of Jesus Christ as he is preparing to go to the cross and offer himself up. For whom is Christ preparing to die? The prayer is for the elect. He dies only for them. And then finally, we are come to the third step in the Calvinist position. How are universal terms used in the scripture? This covers this part of the chapter. The Reverend DeBoer writes, Finally, we come to the third step of the Calvinist position. How are universal terms used in the scriptures? First of all, we need to consider how we use universal terms in our everyday speech. Let me give a few examples. A teenager is arguing with his parents, seeking permission to do something. He argues, but mom and dad, you are so old-fashioned. Everybody is doing it today. Everybody is a universal term. However, it can obviously not be taken in that sense. Parents in general are probably not doing it. Babies, toddlers, and young children are probably not doing it. Old people are probably not doing it. What the teenager really means is that a significant number of his peers are doing this, and he wants to do it as well. Everybody, another universal that you'll have to take with a grain of salt, understands what the teenager is really saying, but nonetheless a universal term has been used. Similarly, someone complains, every time I'm late I get all the traffic lights red. This statement contains two universals, every time and all. However, again, these cannot be taken literally. What the person really means is that frequently when he is late he gets a lot of red lights. But we all, another universal that can be questioned understands that. No one, a negative universal again open to question, really believes that every time that he is late, every single light is red without exception. We understand this kind of hyperbole is a figure of speech, as a manner of speaking, Take for example the common statement when two people are arguing, you do that all the time. Obviously the behavior complained about is not being done all the time, 24 hours a day and seven days a week. But that is what a literal interpretation of the universal all requires. The person is unlikely to be doing it when they are sleeping, eating, or at work. What is really meant is that when certain situations arise, this is what the person frequently does in response to those circumstances. The activity complained about probably takes up not all, but a fraction of a percent of the person's time. Everyone, another universal, understands how the term all is being used and the debate goes on without missing a heartbeat. That is how we use universals in our everyday speech. Secondly, we need to examine the scriptures to see if the biblical authors, if the Holy Spirit follows the pattern of everyday speech and uses universals in the same way that we do. When we examine the scriptures, we see that they clearly do so. Take for example the following sample text, Mark 1, 37. And when they had found him, they said unto him, All men seek for thee. Here the universal all men is used. Again, it cannot be taken in a universal sense. First of all, Most men in the world did not even know of the existence of Christ. They certainly could not seek whom they didn't even know of. Secondly, of those in Palestine who had heard Him, even all of them were not seeking Him. The Pharisees and the Sadducees were not seeking Him, and many others also rejected Him like His own people in Nazareth. What the verse is really saying is that all kinds of men from all over Israel were seeking Jesus. But these qualifiers are not explicitly stated in the text. We are expected to understand that the universal all men is to be interpreted in a restricted sense. John 3, 26. And they came unto John and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou bearest witness, behold he baptizeth, and all men come to him." Again, as in the above text, no one believes that this universal all men means that all men in the world, or even all men in Judea, were coming to Christ's baptism. It is again taken in the same restricted sense as the previous verse requires. John 12, 32 and 33. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This, he said, signifying what death he should die. This lifting up has to do with Christ's crucifixion. The question again is, does Christ's atoning death draw all men without exception to Him? The answer is obviously not. multitudes, the majority of mankind, then and throughout much of history, have never even heard of Christ, much less have knowledge of His atoning death. What the text means is not a universal all-man at all times, but that many men, not just Israelites, but from many nations and places and times, will be drawn to Christ because of His atoning death. Acts 2, 45, and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. The diaconate of the Church, at that time still run by the Apostles, was not distributing these gifts to all men. They were not going out to the Chinese or the Persians. They were not even going out to all the Israelites. they were simply being distributed to the needy among the Lord's people. The all man has to be restricted to all the needy members of the church in Jerusalem. Acts chapter 4 verse 21, So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them, because of the people. For all men glorified God for that which was done." This is in the aftermath of when Peter and John went to the temple to preach and Peter healed a lame man begging at the temple. They were arrested and charged with preaching in the forbidden name of Jesus of Nazareth. The text says that all men glorify God for this act of healing, but this is patently impossible. Almost all men in the world were ignorant of the fact of this healing, and even of those present and knowledgeable concerning this miracle, not all glorified God. Some, like the Pharisees and Sadducees present, tried to suppress this miracle. What the text really means is that of those men present in the temple to witness this miracle, many had glorified God. This is far from a literal interpretation of the universal all men. Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men, and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. Acts 19.19 Here again, the universal all men cannot mean all the men of the world. it does not even mean all the men of Ephesus, it merely means that a large crowd representing all the men of the city, young and old, rich and poor, from every quarter of the city, witness the burning of these books. Acts 22 15 For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. Here before the authorities in Jerusalem Paul is recounting the details of his conversation and his call to the ministry when Ananias told him that he would be God's witnesses to all men. Now obviously, Paul could not literally be God's witness to all men. It would be impossible for Paul to travel to every land and nation and personally witness to each individual. Paul would make extensive missionary journeys through parts of the Roman world and witness to many men in many places. However, even where he traveled, he could not only personally witness to a minority of those present. Again, the universal all men has to be interpreted in a very restricted sense. Paul witnessed extensively to all sorts of men from many nations throughout part of the Roman world. and that is how we have to interpret the all men in this text. 2nd Corinthians chapter 3 verse 2. Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men. Paul is defending his apostleship to the Corinthian church. He states that the proof of this apostleship is the fruit of his ministry such as the Corinthian Christian who once were godless, immoral pagans and are now transformed by God's Spirit into children of the living God. He states that this proof is known and read by all men. Again, the universal all has to be taken in an extremely restrictive sense. It means all men that meet the Corinthian Christians see the work of the Spirit in their lives, and note that this is the effect of the ministry of the Apostle Paul. the all men of that entire world becomes the all men of those who meet and get to know the Corinthian Christians. 2 Corinthians 9.13. Whilst by the experiment of this ministration they glorify God for your personal subjection unto the gospel of Christ and for your liberal distribution unto them and unto all men. Again, the diaconal gifts of the Corinthian Church were not directed to all men, but chiefly to the saints of Jerusalem and generally to the needy among God's people. It was limited to the saints and to the saints of those Christian churches in the Roman world of which they had knowledge and with which they had connections through the Apostle Paul. Rather than giving to all men, it was a very restrictive giving to the Saints in a small portion of the world. 2nd Timothy 3.9 But they shall proceed no further, for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was. As Paul is exhorting Timothy about the dangers of certain classes of false teachers, He states that the folly of these false teachers will be made manifest to all men. Again, this universal cannot be taken literally. Most men would not even know of these false teachers or their teachings. And some men would follow them and their pernicious ways. The universal all men becomes those men who are aware of these false teachers and have their eyes open to the truth. to see the folly of their ways. What it means is that when these men, these false teachers, make open shipwreck of their professed faith, it will be manifest to all the Lord's people what folly they are engaged in. The All-Man becomes all the Lord's people aware of the situation. 2nd Timothy 4.16 At my first answer, no man stood with me. but all men forsake me. I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge." Again, in this passage, the universal all men has to be interpreted in a very restrictive sense. First of all, the vast majority of all men in the world had no connection with the Apostle Paul, and so could not in any real sense forsake him. Secondly, many of those who knew Paul, Luke the physician, Timothy and Titus, many others mentioned in his letters, and the majority of the saints in the churches that he founded never forsook Paul, but remained faithful to him. Actually, what apparently occurred is that many of the professing believers in Ephesus, when the persecution of the gospel commenced, fell away and forsook Paul. Again, the universal All-Man has to be interpreted in a very restrictive sense. Titus 2.11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men. Finally here also we have to argue that the grace of God has not appeared to all men in the world. Most men in history never even heard the gospel. Of those who do, many reject it, and only a remnant according to the election of grace receive the gospel, receive the grace to believe it. However, this grace, once restricted to the Jewish nation, has now gone forth to men of all nations. So the general all men become some men from every tribe and tongue and nation in the earth." 1 Corinthians 12, 7-11. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. For to one is given the spirit of the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge by the same spirit, to another faith by the same spirit, to another the gifts of healing by the same spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another diverse kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues, But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will." Again, in this passage, the universal phrase, every man, becomes every true believer, every man who has truly been regenerated and filled with the Holy Spirit. It cannot and does not mean every man without distinction in the whole world. Now I have given all these examples, culled from the use of the phrase all men in the New Testament, to hammer home the point that frequently and consistently universals are used in the scriptures when they clearly are not intended to be interpreted in a universal sense. Many more examples using other universal terms and including the Old Testament could be added to the above. take the universal term all the world. It is used by Luke to introduce his account of the birth of Christ when he says, there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. It is clear that Augustus decree did not encompass the Chinese and the Persians and indeed most of the nations of the world. Instead it was restricted to those nations that were part of the Roman Empire. Again, the universal all the world has to be interpreted in the restrictive sense of the Roman world. This is simply how many, in fact most, universals have to be treated as they are used in scripture. With this in mind, let us now review again some of the texts containing universals that appear to teach a universal or unlimited atonement. 1 Timothy 2.6 who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. If Christ really had ransomed all men, if he had paid the penalty of their sins and ransomed them from the wrath and justice of God, then why are they still bound in hell? What the text is actually teaching is that Christ ransomed not just Jews, but all men. in the sense of men from every tongue and tribe and nation on the earth. Paul was constantly defending his apostleship to the Gentiles and affirming that God's salvation had now gone out from Israel to all men throughout the world. 1st Timothy 4.10 For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach because we trust in the living God who is the Savior of all men, especially those that believe. Obviously, God is not the Savior of all men, for then all men would be saved, and that would be universalism, which both Calvinists and Arminians reject as unscriptural. However, all men that are saved are saved by God, so in that sense He is the Savior of all men. and He is the Savior of all men in the sense that He saves men from every tribe and nation and tongue on the face of the earth. But this does not mean that He is the Savior of all men in the world or that He sent His Son to die for all men, particularly as Paul adds the qualifier, specially of those that believe. 1 John 4.14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. If the world is interpreted in a universal sense to mean the world and all its inhabitants, then that raises the same objection as the above verse. It would mean universalism. The Greek word for world is kosmos, referring to the entire creation. When men fell into sin, God could have destroyed the entire creation. Rather, he has determined to redeem it. And there will be the new heavens and the new earth. God will redeem the entire created order and many of its inhabitants. However, there is nothing in this verse that requires a belief in a universal atonement. Rather, it teaches that through the atoning work of Christ, the entire created order will be redeemed. And the use of the definite article teaches that whatever of the created order and its inhabitants are redeemed, it is through Jesus Christ and Him alone. He is the Savior, the only Savior of the world. 2 Peter 2.1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false prophets among you. who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." The Arminian understanding of this verse is that even reprobate false teachers that deny Jesus Christ are his blood-bought purchase, and that he died for them also, as we shall see that interpretation does not fit the text at all. The Greek word that is uniformly used for Jesus Christ as our Lord is Kyrios. However, these false teachers do not have Jesus as their Lord. They refuse to submit to him, and in fact they are denying him. So Peter does not use the word Kyrios here, but the word despotis, from which we get the English word despot. It means an absolute ruler. Similarly, the word that is used uniformly in the Greek New Testament to signify the purchase or redemption of Christ's people is not used here. Instead, another word is used, agorazo. It means to purchase, acquire, own. What this text is saying is that these false teachers deny the absolute, almighty, Creator God who owns them. it teaches the same truth as Paul is expounding in Romans 1. There Paul teaches that although the knowledge of God as creator is so clearly manifest as to leave men without excuse, they suppress the truth in unrighteousness and worship and serve the creature more than the creator. Peter is saying the same things concerning false teachers. 2nd Corinthians 5 18 and 19. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation, to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them, and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." Again in this text We note that the term world cannot be interpreted in a universal sense. If the entire world, including all its inhabitants, were reconciled to God, then there would be no one in hell. For it would be absurd to state that the legions of persons in hell, under the eternal wrath of God, consigned to that place where the fire is not quenched, and where the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, are reconciled to God. Similarly, if their trespasses are not imputed to them, then how can they be expiating those trespasses for an eternity in hell? The word reconciliation committed to the Apostle Paul is the Gospel, and only those who believe the Gospel are reconciled to God in Jesus Christ. And that is why Paul states earlier in the verse, God who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ. Here Paul accurately states that it is only us, that is Paul and his fellow believers, such as those that he is writing to, are truly reconciled to God in Christ. The restrictive us denies the universal and demands that the phrase the world not be interpreted in a universal sense. 1 John 2, 1 and 2. My little children, these things I write unto you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. and he himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world. To expound the text, I quote from Gary Long. He states, the term propitiation, helosmos, means satisfaction, appeasement. Theologically, propitiation means that God's wrath against sin demanded by his justice, is satisfied on account of the death of Christ for sinners. I note again there is a real problem with the Arminian concept of a universal atonement, a universal reconciliation, and a universal propitiation. If Christ has actually provided a propitiation for all men, if God's wrath against them is actually appeased, and an actual satisfaction has been made to God's justice, then why are legions of men in hell? Ultimately, Arminians have an atonement that doesn't atone, a reconciliation that doesn't reconcile, and a propitiation that doesn't really propitiate. This limits and demeans the work of Christ far more than the Calvinists limiting the atonement to the elect. continuing to quote from Gary Long. There are four primary references in the New Testament where the word propitiation is used. Romans 3.25, Hebrews 2.17, 1st John 2.2, and 4.10. Three of the four references clearly teach that propitiation is strictly limited to a definite people, the elect of God. Romans 3.25 states that God set forth Christ a propitiation through faith in his blood. From this reference it may be observed that if Christ is a propitiation through faith, he cannot be a propitiation to those who never have faith, and all men have not faith. Second Thessalonians 3.2. Again, scary law, Hebrews 2.17 states that Christ was made a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation, should be translated propitiation, for the sins of the people. In context, the people are identified as the children which God hath given Christ. The seed of Abraham, verse 16. There Paul teaches that they which are of faith the same are the children of Abraham. And, if ye be Christ, then are ye Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise. Clearly if the people for whom a propitiation is made are the seed of Abraham, they are those of faith who are in Christ. They are not all men, but the redeemed, the elect. If John 4.10 reveals the motivating cause of propitiation, Herein is love, not that we love God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. The propitiation is restricted here to the definite pronouns we, us, and our, that is, to believers, God's elect. What we see then in these four verses is that three of them teach a definite or limited propitiation. They teach a propitiation that is restricted to believers, to God's elect. They do not teach a universal propitiation that applies to all men. And as previously noted, such a propitiation cannot be a real propitiation at all, since it applies to those who will spend all eternity under the unappeased wrath of God, expiating sins for which no real satisfaction has been made to God's justice. Then we have a fourth verse, the one quoted above that we are expounding, that appears to teach a universal propitiation. How can we reconcile the teaching of these four verses so that they all teach the same doctrine? There are three different ways that Calvinists have used to interpret 1 John 2.2. so as to reconcile it with the other three verses and with the rest of scripture. The first is what is termed geographic universalism. John is writing to believers in Asia Minor, to believers in the Roman province of Asia. He tells these believers that Christ has made a propitiation for their sins, but not for their sins alone, but for the sins of all believers in the rest of the world. The second interpretation is the eschatological interpretation. This states that not only the believers that John is writing to are propitiated by Christ, but that Christ's propitiation redeems the whole world, the entire cosmos, so that a redeemed creation, a new heavens and a new earth populated by a redeemed humanity are the fruits of Christ's propitiation. And finally, there is the ethnological interpretation. This states that John, as a Jewish believer, is stating that Christ made a propitiation not only for Jewish believers, but for believers from every tongue and tribe and nation in the whole world. This would make the text teach the same truth that John sets forth in a parallel text, John 11, 51 and 52. And this spake he not of himself, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation, and not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad." Here the high priest Caiaphas, under inspiration, states who Jesus would die for. First, he would die for the Jewish nation. He would die for believers among the Old Testament covenant people of God. And then secondly, he would die for the Gentile believers scattered abroad in every nation of the world. The ethnological interpretation is the interpretation held by most Calvinists. Again, it must be emphasized that according to the analogy of Scripture, Most universal terms not only do not need to be taken universally, but should not be taken universally. They need to be qualified. And the above three interpretations provide qualifications that bring this text into harmonization with the rest of scripture. Finally, the weakness and inconsistency of the Arminian position needs to be noted. In the general text, that use universal words or phrases, Arminians do not demand that they be taken literally. They are quite content to accept the fact that they need to be taken as figures of speech and qualify or restricted in their interpretation. However, when it comes to texts concerning the extent of the Atonement, they insist that these universal terms be taken literally. This is, of course, a great inconsistency. This gives them the burden of proof to demonstrate, logically and from scripture usage, that these texts should be treated differently. I have never seen Arminians accept this burden of proof or demonstrate why these verses are different. Secondly, the Arminian interpretation of these texts puts them in direct opposition to those that teach a limited atonement and to many other scriptures that support the logically consistent Calvinist view of salvation. This again places on them the burden to reconcile this conflict and make all scriptures speak with one voice. This I have never seen done. As stated above, the typical Arminian response of quoting the texts that appear to teach an unlimited atonement and denouncing those who disagree with them is a very weak and inadequate response. It will never convince any Calvinist to adopt their position. Ultimately, we have to decide how we are going to limit the atonement. A universal, effectual atonement would require a belief in universal salvation, a doctrine that both sides reject. Ultimately, we have to decide, how do the scriptures limit the atonement? We either have to limit its extent to those who are ultimately saved, to believers, to the elect, or we have to limit its efficacy. We have to say that by itself it really does not provide a real atonement for anyone, or redeem any person for whom it was made, as legions of men in hell can testify if the Arminian scheme is true. Do the scriptures set forth Christ's atonement as hypothetical, as insufficient to accomplish its purpose by itself, and as needing additional input from unregenerate men in order to be effective? Or does the Bible teach that Christ has redeemed his people? Does it teach that he has done it all? That he has really atoned for all their sins and really purchased their redemption by his suffering and death? Did Christ really mean it when he exclaimed on the cross, it is finished? Or was the work of redemption not really finished? Was it left up to sinful, unregenerate men to complete the work of redemption by their free will decisions? These are the choices before us, and Calvinists have made their decision. They believe that according to the Scriptures, Christ has made a full and real atonement for all his sheep, and not one of them will be lost. They believe that salvation is of the Lord, and of the Lord alone.