Now what I wish to do is very briefly to give a little historical background to the nature and subject matter of the class this morning.
As those who frequent this place know, the method employed in this class period is generally not that of straight lecture, but rather open and free discussion with an open Bible before us.
This morning the format of the class will be that of a straight lecture, and not only will it be a straight lecture, it's going to be a rather heavy lecture.
And on a heavy morning, with heavy air, and some of you still having some of the sleep heavy upon your heads, this is not going to be a very easy task for me or for you.
But there is necessity laid upon us, and so we must conduct ourselves accordingly.
Now the necessity is rooted in these very simple facts.
Over the course of the years I have never preached a series of topical sermons on the so-called five points of Calvinism, the acrostic tulip.
And the reasons for that are many and I'll not go into them.
However, in various conferences in other places I have been asked over the course of years to address myself to various of these five points.
And it so happens that I've been asked in a number of occasions to address myself to total depravity, unconditional election, efficacious grace, and the perseverance and preservation of the saints.
Now those conference tapes have come back to us, and Roger wanted to feature them in the new catalog, and I concurred in that judgment.
However, I had never been asked to address myself to the subject of particular redemption or, if you're taking the acrostic tulip, limited atonement.
And we did not want to put out the four tapes and have people conclude that we did not hold as a biblical truth that the design of the atoning work of Jesus Christ was limited, and that its effect was efficacious.
And so I agreed to bring a lecture on this subject prior to the publication of the new catalog.
And for several weeks now I have given a number of days of preparation to this subject matter.
And because it is a vast subject, a very intricate and profound subject, I can only be suggestive in the broad lines of biblical truth that I set before you.
And because everything must be included in a one-hour tape, of course there will be no opportunity for questions.
However, please retain your questions if you can do so, and then God willing we'll entertain them next week.
Now if you want a preaching treatment of this subject, I would suggest that you obtain the tape by Dr. John DeWitt on limited atonement given at the family conference several years ago.
I just listened to it again the other day when I was turning over my garden, borrowed my wife's tape recorder or tape player, and found it much to my edification.
And that's a good model of how this doctrine is eminently preachable.
But I'm not preaching this morning, I'm taking the place of a teacher, of an instructor, and this doctrine is not only eminently preachable, it is profoundly and necessarily teachable as well.
Now then as we begin our study this morning, the first thing I wish to do is to state clearly the issue that is before us.
You will forgive me if I make constant reference to my notes, again for the sake of visitors this is not my normal way of teaching, but the necessity is laid upon me again to stick very closely to what I've already written down so that we'll be sure to cover all of the material.
First of all then, what is the issue before us? When discussing limited atonement or definite atonement or the term I prefer, particular redemption, what are we discussing?
Well, let me answer that question by a few negatives first of all.
We are not discussing, one, whether the work of Christ was sufficient to save all humanity or only some of humanity.
Most Bible students and theologians do not question that the death of the divine human person of Jesus Christ the Lord is of infinite worth.
And could save not only all of existing humanity, but of unborn humanities were God to create them.
So the issue in point is not the inherent sufficiency in the atoning work of Jesus Christ.
Secondly, it is not a question of whether or not the benefits of the death of Christ are actually applied to all men or not.
Now some people are strict universalists. They believe that just as surely as Adam's sin extended to every last member of the human race,
so the redemption of Jesus Christ will actually redeem every last member of the human race and some even feel the devil and his angels also.
But our discussion is with those who are evangelical, who believe that the death of Christ was substitutionary in nature
and that its benefits are appropriated only by some of the human race.
So we're not discussing the inherent sufficiency of the death of Christ.
We're not discussing whether or not the death of Christ will actually be applied to all men or not. On that we are agreed.
Thirdly, we are not discussing whether a true or bona fide offer of salvation is made to all men or not.
Though some have denied this, the mainstream of reformed or Calvinistic thought has always confessed without any reservation
that Christ can and ought to be proclaimed to all men without discrimination and that all men ought to be summoned to repentance and to faith.
Fourthly, we are not discussing whether or not there are any fruits which accrue to those who are not the elect of God on the basis of the death of Christ.
It is evident that certain benefits accrue to all men that fall short of redemptive benefits.
Well, if we're not discussing those four things, what precisely are we discussing when we talk about particular redemption?
Well, this is what we are discussing. It is a question of whether or not the Father, in sending Christ into the world,
sent him to make an atonement for all men indiscriminately and distributively,
or whether he sent him to make an atonement for his elect seed particularly and exclusively.
To state the question more simply, for whom did Christ die?
Did he die as much for Judas as for the Apostle John?
Did he die as much for Jacob as for Esau?
When he hung upon the cross, was he hanging there as much for the souls who were already in hell as for the spirits of just men made perfect?
This is the issue that we're discussing when we come to the subject of the extent of the atoning death of Jesus Christ.
To quote Professor Murray in his excellent treatment of this subject in his book, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, page 62,
the question is, on whose behalf did Christ offer himself a sacrifice?
On whose behalf did he propitiate the wrath of God?
Whom did he reconcile to God in the body of his flesh through death?
Whom did he redeem from the curse of the law, from the guilt and power of sin, and from the enthralling law,
from the guilt and power of sin, and from the bondage of Satan?
In whose stead and on whose behalf was he obedient unto death, even the death of the cross?
These are precisely the questions that have to be asked and frankly faced if the matter of the extent of the atonement is to be placed in proper focus.
Now that's the issue before us.
For whom did Christ shed his blood?
Whom did he redeem?
Whom did he reconcile to God?
On whose behalf did he affect a redemption?
Now having stated what the issue is, negatively and positively,
let me say just a word in the second place about the method by which we approach this subject.
How shall we approach the subject?
And I want to say a word about attitude and then about method.
What should our attitude be in approaching this subject?
Dabney, the great Southern Presbyterian theologian of a bygone day, said concerning this very subject,
the question of the extent of the atonement, as it has been awkwardly called,
is one of the most difficult in the whole range of Calvinistic theology.
The man who should profess to see no force in the objections to our views would only betray the shallowness of his mind and knowledge.
And therefore it behooves us to approach this subject with great humility,
recognizing that some of the choices servants of God have held to a differing view,
not the least of which was Richard Baxter, that great preacher of Kidderminster,
the author of the reformed pastor, the saint's everlasting rest,
and there have been a host of godly, knowledgeable, saintly, theologically sensitive men who have held to a differing position,
and therefore it becomes us to approach this subject, first of all with a spirit of deepest humility,
without any sense of throwing down one or two texts and feeling that we've won the day,
as though the difficulties with the position are really very, very slight or not to be accounted with any serious consideration.
But on the other hand, our attitude must not only be one of humility, it must be one of the Berean spirit,
calling no man master, be he John Calvin or Richard Baxter, be he John Owen or be he Mr. Whitby, who took the opposite position.
We must come with the spirit of willingness to receive the word and to search these things out to see whether they are so.
So much then for the attitude with which we approach the subject.
Now what about our method? What is the proper method to approach a subject of this nature?
Well, let me state it negatively, then positively.
Since those who hold to an unlimited atonement and those who hold to a limited atonement both profess to base their position upon the Scriptures,
it will not do to begin this discussion by pitting the broad texts against the more limited texts.
For instance, in discussing the whole matter of the person of Christ with the Jehovah's Witnesses,
it does not do to start by quoting from John 10,
I and my Father are one, because he will very promptly turn up a text which says the Father is greater than I from the same chapter.
So you have his text and your text, and then you go to it.
No, you see, you will never be able to make any headway in the discussion of the person of Christ by pitting one against the other
the texts which deal with a form of subordination of the Son to the Father,
and the texts which deal with the equality of divine essence.
You must back off and view the nature of Christ's person in broader biblical categories.
And therefore I should like to assert this morning that the proper method in approaching this subject
is not to come to specific texts which say Christ died for his sheep or Christ died for all,
but rather to set the death of Christ in its broader biblical context.
Everyone who believes the Bible believes to some degree that the death of Christ was not an isolated event.
He did not simply appear to do something by dying.
In fact, one of the texts most often pressed into the service of unlimited or undefined atonement is John 3.16.
But notice the emphasis in John 3.16.
For God, obviously the Father, so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son,
indicating that the presence of the Son as divine gift and savior is distinctly and inseparably related to the giving of the Father.
And there are numerous texts which underscore this same principle.
John chapter 17 is a whole chapter that reflects this dimension of thought.
Therefore, we must back off from the specific text dealing with a broad or more limited dimension of the death of Christ
and ask ourselves in what broader circles of biblical concern is the death of Jesus Christ presented to us.
And in his excellent treatment on the subject of the atonement,
Hugh Martin, in a book that's been reprinted by Mac Publishers along with a treatise by A. A. Hodge on the atonement,
says on this precise point,
It is surely extremely injudicious, unwise, and impolitic for defenders of the faith to discuss any scriptural doctrine,
and particularly to profess to do so fully and exhaustively,
outside of any greater category to which the doctrine properly and natively belongs.
For by doing so they place it in a position of unnecessary danger and assign to themselves a greater difficulty in defending it than scripture assigns to them.
They rob it of the illustration and they rob it of the protection which the higher category affords.
And he's simply saying in more academic language what I'm trying to assert,
that the death of Jesus Christ does not come to us in isolation.
And therefore, as I seek to set before you the biblical materials indicating a definite and therefore limited design in the atoning work of Jesus Christ,
I wish to do so by means of the visual help of a target.
The bull's eye has a cross set in it, and also a number four, outside of it concentric circle, three, another, two, and one.
And I would like to suggest that the scriptures set the death of Christ before us in this relationship to these other biblical categories.
And we shall see in the course of our study that the outer ring on the target, number one,
is the biblical doctrine of the covenant of redemption.
The next ring in, number two, is the nature of Christ's relationship to those whom he came to save.
Number three is the work of Christ as a priest.
And number four is the precise nature of what he accomplished upon the cross.
May you notice that I have arrows going from the center circle, the bull's eye, all the way out to circle number one,
and arrows going from circle number one into the bull's eye,
indicating that everything that Christ did when he hung up on the cross stood in vital relationship to his work as a priest,
to his relationship to his people, and to the covenant of redemption.
Conversely, everything that happened on the cross has its origin in the covenant of redemption,
the relationship of Christ to his people, his work as a high priest,
and therefore the precise nature of the work that he accomplished upon the cross.
Now it's obvious that in the 45 minutes that yet remain to me, I cannot give an exhaustive treatment of all four categories.
Conscious that this tape will go to people who are wrestling with the doctrine,
I wish to give them not only a finger pointing in the direction of the areas of concern, but a bibliography.
And so along the way I'll be mentioning books, their publishers, and specific page numbers,
not primarily for the benefit of you who are here this morning, but for the benefit of those who will receive this tape.
So if some of it seems a bit highfalutin in language and a little bit difficult to grasp,
remember I have a larger audience in mind in a very special way in the giving of this lecture this morning.
All right? We've stated what the issue is, negatively, positively.
We've stated what our method of approach should be with reference to attitude and also to the precise way of wrestling with the subject.
Now we come to point number three, the biblical evidence for the definite and therefore the limited design of the atonement of Jesus Christ.
Having suggested that a helpful teaching method is that of the target with the four concentric circles,
let us begin with circle number one at the outside, the death of Christ and the covenant of redemption.
Now is it right to think of the death of Christ divorced from the biblical doctrine of the covenant?
Well a text like Hebrews 13.30 ought to answer that question for every thoughtful Bible student.
In that text we read,
Now the God who brought again from the dead that great Shepherd of the sheep, speaking of the Lord Jesus,
through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect in everything, etc.
Here we have an explicit statement that the blood that was shed upon the cross bore an inseparable relationship to the everlasting covenant
and therefore there ought never to be a consideration of what he did in the shedding of his blood
while there is willful and perpetual ignorance of the nature of that covenant within which the blood was shed.
And so it is proper for us to think of the death of Christ in relationship to the covenant of redemption.
Now in order to give some broad overview of what we mean by the covenant of redemption,
which is not a biblical term as such but merely is helpful in expressing biblical concepts,
we need to start with this fundamental assertion.
The religion of the Bible is decidedly and pervasively Trinitarian.
There is one God revealed in three persons. The three are one and the one are three.
Now in the one God in three persons there is perfect unity of mind, of will, and of purpose in all of his works.
Therefore when we turn to the Bible for a doctrine of creation,
we find that there is one Creator, the true and the living God, creating with one design and one will.
But the Scriptures teach us that the Father created, the Son created, and the Spirit created.
And I will not pause to bring forth the proof.
If you have even a surface acquaintance with your Bible, you know that this assertion is well supported by the Scriptures.
Now let us ask the question.
When the one God created the one creation, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,
was there perfect unity of will, of design, and of purpose?
And you answer, of course.
You did not have the Father purposing to create one kind of world with certain dimensions and certain ingredients,
and the Son frustrating the purpose of the Father and in being the agent of creation,
effecting a different creation than that which the Father designed.
You say that is unthinkable, that there should be any kind of tension within the Godhead.
Well what is true of the physical creation is likewise true of the new and the spiritual creation.
For you'll remember from our studies in Ephesians 2 that redemption is likened unto the new creation.
And when the work of redemption is consummated, God will declare,
Behold, I make all things new.
And in this work of the new creation, as in the work of the original creation,
it is the one God who recreates in redemption, the one God who is Father, Son, and Spirit.
But the one God working with one design and one goal and one object to save one people
unto one ultimate end, the praise of the glory of his grace.
And therefore when we turn to such passages as Ephesians 1, we find a statement such as this.
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
who had blessed us with all spiritual blessings in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world,
that we should be holy and without blemish before him,
in love having predestinated us unto the adoption of sons through Jesus Christ unto himself,
according to the good pleasure of his will.
Now do you see in this text, if I may say it reverently, a division of labor?
It is the Father who chooses, but it is in Christ that they are chosen.
Furthermore, it is unto holiness and sonship that they are chosen,
which realities are actually conferred by the regenerating and indwelling ministry of the Holy Spirit.
If God is of one mind and will, we should expect then that the extent of the work of the Son
in procuring salvation will be as far but no further than the purpose of the Father in designing salvation.
And that the work of the Spirit in applying will be as extensive but no more extensive
than the purchase of the Son which was in perfect consonance with the purpose of the Father.
We're not left to the dictates of logic in this matter.
There is biblical evidence indicating that a specific people were given to the Son
and that for them he came to do whatever was necessary for their salvation.
And it is this intertrinitarian activity, if we may use the terms that are so human,
but we must use human terms, we're not angels,
it is this intertrinitarian compact that is called in Christian theology the covenant of redemption.
It has reference to the Father selecting the people, giving them to the Son,
the Son accepting all of the responsibilities for their salvation,
and the Spirit being committed to apply everything that the Son would purchase in fulfillment of the Father's purpose.
Now are these just the dictates of logic or are they thoughts that are forced upon us by the language of Holy Scripture?
Well look please at several texts in the book of John.
John chapter 5 and verse 30.
Here is what we would call the self-consciousness of the man Christ Jesus, the mediator of the new covenant.
I can of myself, John 5-30, do nothing, as I hear I judge and my judgment is righteous,
because I seek not mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
Now here our Lord is saying that he was self-consciously aware that his mission on earth
was nothing more or less than the accomplishment of the Father who sent him.
Now what was the will of the Father?
Well the Lord himself tells us in the next chapter, verse 38 and following.
For I am come down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
When the Father sent the Son, the Son was sent with a self-consciousness of the precise intent of his mission.
What was it?
And this is the will of him that sent me, that of all that which he hath given me,
I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.
Here the Son is conscious that a people was given to him,
and that for those people he had the tremendous responsibility of effecting everything necessary
to their final glorification at the resurrection.
I came down to do the will of my Father which has no lesser end in view than preserving and saving
and ultimately glorifying all that the Father gave to me.
And of course this self-consciousness is brought to its most thorough expression in the 17th chapter of John.
These things spake Jesus and lifted up his eyes to heaven and said,
Father, the hour is come, glorify thy Son, that thy Son may glorify thee,
even as thou gavest him a quality over all flesh, that to all whom thou hast given him.
Now notice, not he should offer, he should make possible, he should give eternal life.
And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send.
And then he goes on to pray for that people, and then he explicitly states,
I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me out of the world,
thine they were, and thou gavest them me.
You see the whole biblical concept, that the Father elects, but it is in Christ,
and the body of the elect are deposited, as it were, in the hands of Christ, in order that he might effect their salvation.
Now there is an excellent and more full discussion of this in greater detail in Birkhoff's Systematic Theology,
published by Erdmans, pages 262 to 271.
A profound discussion in Hugh Martin's work on the atonement previously referred to, pages 1 through 22.
And then there is an excellent discussion of this in Dabney's Lectures in Systematic Theology, published by Zondervan, pages 429 to 440.
And John Gill's Body of Divinity, pages 209 to 255.
Charles Spurgeon called the doctrine of the covenant of grace the marrow of divinity or theology.
Now what does your marrow do in your physical existence?
Well it produces your blood, and that which produces vigorous blood in the system of the children of God is to come to some understanding
that the death of their savior was death, effected within the framework of the covenant of redemption,
in which the Father committed himself to do certain things for the son,
and the son committed himself to do certain things on behalf of his elect people.
Now we don't have time, as I say, to go into these things and the clock is rushing by.
I'll even have to omit some of the things that are in my notes.
But now let's come to the second major category that has direct reference to the death of Jesus Christ.
And we must never discuss the death of Christ apart from this second circle moving from the outside in.
This is for the benefit of those who just have the tape and not the blackboard.
The second circle on the target that I am calling the death of Christ and the peculiar relationship he sustained to his people in that death.
When the coming of our Lord was announced by the angel to Joseph, it was announced in these words, Matthew 1 21.
She shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus.
For he it is that shall not offer salvation to all men,
not that shall make salvation possible for all or for some men.
Thou shalt call his name Jesus, for it is he that shall save his people from their sins.
Now this is the kind of vigorous statement that is terribly embarrassing to those who would say
that the death of Christ only made something possible for all men, but nothing certain for any man.
Here in this text we are led to understand that the Lord sustained a peculiar relationship to some group called his people.
Flowing out of the covenant of redemption and inseparably bound up in it is the biblical teaching of Christ's definite and well-defined relationship to those whom he came to save.
In Hebrews 7 22 he is called the surety of his people.
That is, he assumed all of the liabilities and debts and obligations of his people.
Furthermore, the Scriptures teach us that he stood as the federal representative of all his own.
Romans 5 verses 12 to 21, we have the picture of Adam and his unique relationship to the entire human race,
that when he sinned they all sinned in him.
There is a relationship of federal headship between Adam and all of mankind.
In the same way, Paul says, Adam was a figure of him who was to come,
and there is a people to whom Jesus Christ stands in this peculiar relationship of federal headship,
so that as in this relationship to Adam, men fall, all who sustain this relationship to Christ in him are redeemed and justified and made righteous.
1 Corinthians 15 22, and then verse 45 where Christ is called, the last Adam.
This is all to underscore a concept that is hated by men and, sad to say, often hated and distorted even by so-called Christian theologians,
that God has constituted his administration of the whole human race in terms of this federal representative relationship.
I quote now from one of the most excellent treatments on the whole subject of the atonement, A.W. Pink, published by Reiner,
originally published under the head of the Satisfaction of Christ, and he says this,
Christ was the surety of his people because he was their substitute. He acted on their behalf because he stood in their place.
The relationship of a substitute justifies the surety-ship, but what shall justify the substitution?
There is the hinge upon which everything turns, and we hardly concur with Hugh Martin when he says,
we can obtain no satisfaction on this point, no sufficient answer to this question,
and therefore no satisfactory conclusion to our whole line of investigation
till the doctrine of the everlasting covenant oneness between Christ and his people comes into view.
That is the grand underlying relationship.
And then he goes on to enlarge upon this, basing his assertions upon the Romans 5 passage, 2 Corinthians 5, and other similar portions,
and then I conclude by quoting from the bottom of page 61,
the relation between Christ and those who benefit from his atonement was therefore no vain, indefinite, haphazard relationship.
But it consisted of an actual covenant oneness, legal identity, vital union.
Surety-ship presupposes it. Strict substitution demands it. Real imputation proceeds upon it.
The penalty Christ endured could not otherwise have been inflicted.
They for whom satisfaction was made do by inevitable necessity share its benefits and receive what was purchased for them.
And again, Professor Murray treats the subject very well in his chapter,
Union with Christ in Redemption Accomplished and Applied, published by Banner of Truth, pages 161 to 173.
Now, it's because of this truth, much of which I know has gone over the heads of some of you,
but I said forgive me because I have a larger constituency in mind this morning.
It is this concept that opens up passages like Romans 6.
Romans 6 actually asserts, in the case of a believer, that when Christ died, the believer died.
And that has reference not to something that happens in the lifetime of the believer alone.
It has reference to something that happened in the life history of the Son of God.
The apostle could say in Galatians 2, I have been crucified with Christ.
And then our studies in Ephesians 2 indicated this. We were quickened together with him.
Well, when was he quickened? He was quickened 2,000 years ago.
At the time Paul wrote that epistle, some years had passed.
Not 2000, but several years had passed, several decades of years.
But he says we were quickened with him.
And these passages, 2 Corinthians 5, if one died for all, all died.
Romans 6, Galatians chapter 2, Colossians chapter 3, he died.
None of these passages make sense apart from the biblical doctrine of the unique relationship
that Jesus Christ sustained to his people in all of his redemptive acts.
There is a sense in which, when he lived, we lived in him.
When he died, we died in him. Why?
Because he was the federal head of his people, he was the living head of his church, the body.
He took it into the grave with him, he brought it out of the grave with him.
And there's a sense in which the salvation of every individual believer
to the last sheep that will be brought into the fold is but the living outgrowth
of what was effected by virtue of the union of Christ with his people
and the union of his people with Jesus Christ.
Therefore it will not do to discuss the extent of the atonement
simply by spouting a few verses that have the word all and every.
I refuse to discuss this subject with anyone who will not, first of all, discuss with me
what was the relationship of Jesus Christ to the people on whose behalf he died.
And until we're prepared to discuss that issue with an open Bible,
it will not do to discuss the extent of the atonement.
All right? Come to circle number 3.
We've looked at the covenant of redemption in relationship to the death of Christ.
We've looked at the nature of Christ's relationship to his people.
Thirdly now, Christ's work as a priest, the death of Christ and his work as a priest.
There is an excellent discussion of this in some detail in Hugh Martin's book, pages 23 to 87,
in John Owen's Death of Death in the Death of Christ, chapters 7 and 8.
But now to simplify it, let me say this.
No one who reads his Bible, who believes his Bible, would question that what was done on the cross by Jesus Christ
was done as he fulfilled the rule of a high priest, not after the order of Aaron,
but after the order of Melchizedek, a priest without beginning of days nor end of life.
Now, because he fulfills his work upon the cross as a priest,
and the writer to the Hebrews enlarges upon this in Hebrews 5 and in Hebrews 7, 8 and 9,
we must gain some insight as to the nature of his work by studying the nature of the priesthood.
Now one element of the priesthood is clear throughout the entire Old Testament, and it is this.
That the priest who sacrificed and the priest who interceded was one and the same priest,
and the sacrifice had its efficacy both when the blood was poured and when the intercession was made.
And the effect of the intercession went no further than the intent of the sacrifice,
and the sacrifice had its efficacy secured by the intercession.
It was when the priest took the blood and brought it within the veil,
and spread it upon the mercy seat that there was the passing over of sin for another year.
In other words, in the function of a high priest, oblation, sacrifice, and intercession
are simply two aspects of the work of atonement.
You got it?
Now, if they are but two aspects of the one work of atonement,
we then must ask the question, for whom does Christ intercede?
And the Scriptures make it abundantly clear that Christ Jesus intercedes only for his own people.
And the word of God teaches that the intercession of Christ secures the salvation for all who come within its orbit.
Hebrews 7 25.
Wherefore he is able to say to the uttermost, that is, to salvation completed. Why?
Because he ever lives to make intercession for them.
If Christ once intercedes for a man, he's as good as glorified.
In Acts, John 17 is a beautiful commentary on that.
I pray not that you take them out of the world, but keep them from the evil.
I pray that those whom you have given me shall be with me to behold my glory.
Hebrews says by his intercession he perfects forever those that are sanctified.
Hebrews 9 and verse 24.
Now turning to the Old Testament, we see how the death of Christ and the intercession of Christ
are intimately joined with reference to their saving benefit.
The great chapter in the Old Testament on the death of Christ along with Psalm 22 is, of course, Isaiah 53.
Look carefully, please, at Isaiah 53.
Speaking of the death of Christ, verse 12.
Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoiled with the strong,
because he poured out his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors yet.
Now notice, he bare the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors.
Here the work of oblation and the work of intercession are drawn together in the closest proximity.
Keep that in mind as we turn to Romans chapter 8.
Here's the apostles' great declaration of Christian confidence.
Romans chapter 8, verse 31.
What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us?
He that spared not his own son, but delivered him up for us all,
us all determined by the context, how shall he not with him freely give us all things?
Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
Who is he that condemneth? Now notice, it is Christ that died,
yea rather that was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
And here the death, the resurrection, and the intercession are bound together as the basis of confidence that he shall never perish.
Now you see, if you make the death of Christ something that is intended for all men,
then it seems to me you have tremendous problems with this inseparable relationship of the death and the intercession.
Now finally, the death of Christ as it is defined in the scriptures.
Now we're coming from these larger outer circles, the broad framework within which the death of Christ is set before us in scripture,
to the death itself. And I should like to suggest two lines of thought this morning.
The basic idea of those who deny that Christ died exclusively for the elect of God
is that the death of Christ removed all the obstacles in the way of saving men.
It renders all mankind salvable, but it actually secures the salvation of none.
Now that is not a caricature I could quote to you from Hill's lectures in divinity,
in which he quotes profusely from Whitby, one of the most able defenders of the Arminian position,
and others in which he gives fair verbatim quotes that this is the teaching of classic Arminianism,
that the death of Christ did not actually secure the salvation of any particular individual, but it rendered all men salvable.
Now the objections to that position in the light of how the Bible defines the death of Christ are basically two.
Number one, that position will not do justice to the biblical words which describe what Christ actually did upon the cross.
What did he do upon the cross? The scripture describes his work in these terms.
He made a sacrifice. He made propitiation. He reconciled his people to God. He effected the redemption of his own.
He gave his life a ransom for many. He bore the curse of those on whose behalf he died.
He bore away the sins of the world.
Now the question is this. When we take those biblical words, sacrifice, propitiation, reconciliation,
redemption, ransom, bearing the curse, bearing away sin, and seek to define those concepts biblically,
do we come up with the notion that redemption is not actually release from bondage, but only making of that release possible?
We do injustice to the whole biblical concept of redemption.
It has its roots in the deliverance of the people of God out of Egypt,
which was not merely making possible their release from Egyptian bondage,
it was bringing them out of that bondage and into the place of God's appointment.
Likewise with propitiation. When God is rendered propitious,
his wrath is satisfied by the offering up of a sacrifice, and once satisfied, it is turned away.
A ransom always releases the one for whom the ransom was paid.
And therefore, the onus is upon anyone who says that Christ's death did not actually secure the salvation
of a defined group of people to show that that view will do justice to these biblical terms.
Now let me suggest again for those who wish to examine this in greater detail
an excellent treatment of these words in Pink's book on the atonement, pages 158 to 226,
Shedd's Dogmatic Theology, volume 2, pages 378 to 409,
John Owen, volume 10, pages 87 to 108.
First objection then, as we come to the inner circle, what is the precise nature of the work?
The Bible describes it as reconciliation. It describes it as having obtained eternal redemption for us,
not having made possible for somebody, but having obtained it for us, Hebrews chapter 9.
Well, we must leave that. The second objection is this.
Will this other concept do justice to the idea that the death of Christ
secures salvation in all its dimensions on behalf of those for whom the death occurred?
For instance, Hebrews, Ephesians 5, Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it
that He might make it redeemable, that He might make it perfectible.
That isn't what the scripture says. It says He gave Himself for the church that He might what?
Redeem that He might perfect and that He might present it to Himself, a glorious church.
The intent of His death with reference to those for whom He died
was nothing less than the completed salvation of every last one of them.
Titus chapter 2, who gave Himself that He might redeem us from all iniquity
and purify to Himself the peculiar people zealous of good works.
Titus 2 and verse 14, Isaiah 53 and verse 11,
He shall see of the travail of His soul and be satisfied by the knowledge of Himself.
Shall my righteous servant justify many? His satisfaction comes in this.
All for whom He travailed upon the cross shall be justified, and therein He is satisfied.
And so to deny that there is this limited intent of God in the atonement of Christ
is not only to do injustice to the biblical words that describe His work,
but to do injustice to the explicit terms which treat of the intent of that work.
Now against this broad background, and the clock is racing on, we're within 12 minutes of terminal point,
now the passages which speak of the definiteness of the atonement of Christ can rightly be understood and discussed.
When we now read that He laid down His life for the sheep, John 10, 11 through 13,
and in that very chapter said of certain people in His very presence,
Ye are not of my sheep, now we can see that it is proper to give weight to those texts
which speak in a definitive sense of the death of Jesus Christ.
It speaks of Him laying down His life for the children of God, John 11, 51 and 52,
dying for His church, Ephesians 5, Acts 20, 28, saving His people, Matthew 1, 28,
giving His life a ransom for many, Matthew 20, 28, seeing His seed, Isaiah 53, Psalm 22,
and we could multiply references which speak of this definite, this specific intent in the death of Jesus Christ.
Well, having tried to focus what the issue is negatively, positively, the method of our approach, attitude,
and the actual teaching method, having set forth the four lines of evidence in broad overview,
now in the fourth place, let me address myself to the major objections to the position presented.
And the major objections are basically to be found in two categories, textual objections and practical objections.
And the textual objections break down into three categories.
Number one, the text in which the word world is used to describe the objects of the death of Christ.
John 1, 29, Behold the Lamb of God who beareth away the sins of the world, the cosmos.
1 John 2, 2, He is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world.
The second textual objection focuses on those texts in which the word all is used to describe the objects of Christ's death.
2 Corinthians 5, 15, That He died for all. Romans 8, 32, Delivered Him up for us all.
Isaiah 53, 6, The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
1 Timothy 4, 6, Who gave Himself a ransom for all.
And then the third category of textual objections, the text in which it is stated that some seem to perish for whom Christ died.
Romans 14, 15, Shall the brother for whom Christ died perish because of thy meat.
Hebrews 10, 29 to 31, People who trample underfoot the blood of the covenant wherewith they were sanctified.
And 1 Peter 2, 1, Speaking of false teachers who deny the Lord that bought them.
Now basically, that's the full range of the textual objections.
When you have them in those three categories, you have them.
Now these matters have been faced honestly and carefully by students of the word,
and with 98% of them, when the matter of context and comparing Scripture with Scripture is reckoned with,
the apparent problems vanish into thin air.
For instance, the Romans 8, 32 text. Delivered Him up for us all.
Just read the context. It's one of the most particularistic passages in all the word of God.
And John Wesley showed his fanatic hatred of the doctrines of grace
when he dared to publish his sermon on universal redemption and use Romans 8, 32 as his text.
Whitefield could no longer be silent.
And though he had pleaded with Wesley, as this comes out in the biography by Dallimore,
pleaded with Wesley not to embroil him in this controversy.
And Whitefield was the reluctant one.
But when Wesley was stupid enough to try to base universal redemption on that text,
Whitefield felt that silence would be betrayal of the truth.
No, no. Most of these passages in which the word all are used,
a sensitivity to context and intent of the author clarifies the problem.
For those of you serious now about examining it, let me give you a brief bibliography.
John Gill's Body of Divinity, pages 467 to 475.
John Owen's Death of Death in the Death of Christ, volume 10, pages 316 to 421.
Or if you have the Banner of Truth separate printing, pages 182 to 309.
John Murray's Redemption Accomplished and Applied, pages 71 to 75.
And A.W. Pink's Work on the Atonement, pages 253 to 266.
Now may I say it is cavalier and spiritually irresponsible for anyone
simply to say, the Bible says all and that's what...
My friend, what are you going to do the next time the Jehovah's Witness comes to you and says,
Jesus said the Father is greater than I?
You forfeited the right to answer him unless you will do with reference to these verses
what you try to get the Jehovah's Witness to do with reference to those verses.
And then the second major category of objection is what I would call the practical objections.
Which means to me they fall into two categories.
The first one, how can you preach the Gospel to all men without...
...with the intention of saving all men.
Now we've all heard that objection.
If you can't come to a sinner and say Christ died for you, how can you call him to believe on Christ?
Well the answer to that question really I feel is relatively simple.
Now it may be my simplistic mind.
For you see the content of the Gospel is not telling people that Christ died for this specific sinner or that specific sinner.
There's not one instance recorded in the preaching of the book of Acts, private or public,
where the apostolic Gospel was Christ died for you individually.
I know one man was so upset with that, he's got his concordance in his Bible,
and a year later wrote me a letter and said, you were right.
You search it out.
The Gospel is this, God has sent his Son, and in Jesus Christ who lived and died and rose again,
there is an adequate salvation for the vilest of sinners, for every sinner who will come to him,
believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.
Now would anyone say that George Whitefield lacked either evangelistic passion or efficiency in preaching the Gospel?
Would anyone dare to make that accusation of Spurgeon, of Brainerd, of Carey, of Nettleton, of the tenants, of Jonathan Edwards?
Why, I wouldn't want to make that accusation, and yet these men to a man held tenaciously to the doctrine that I am expounding this morning.
No, no, there is no problem whatsoever in heralding Christ as a free and an offered and a willing Savior to all who repent and believe,
while at the same time holding there is a definite design in the atoning work of Christ.
Shed in his Dogmatic Theology Volume 2, pages 482 to 489, has an excellent treatment of this.
Dr. James Packer in his book, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, also treats this in a very helpful way.
But now the second practical objection, and this is the heart, I think, of the problem.
How can the atonement be glorious if it is only limited to some?
Perhaps the psychological, the emotional, and I may say, the spiritual problem that some have.
Well, the problem with that, as I see it, has three strands.
Number one, it's the false idea that Christ died only for a little, little remnant of people.
And that simply will not be supported by the Scriptures.
The Scriptures state that there will be a great multitude who no man can number out of every kindred, tribe, and tongue, and nation.
And the picture of the redeemed in heaven is always the picture of a multitude of the redeemed.
They shall come from north and south and east and west and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom.
And that's not some earthly semi-political kingdom. That's the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
I think the second strand of problem here is the false idea of who does the limiting.
They say it's a shame to limit the redemptive work of Christ to some and not to all my friends.
Listen, who does the limiting?
If you make the cross that which only makes something possible, have you not greatly limited the bloodletting of the Son of God?
And one Arminian theologian who saw the pressure of this argument said the atonement would be just as efficacious in glorifying the God if not one sinner ever appropriated it.
When the Son of God said, For their sakes I sanctify myself, I've come that they might have life, and to say that he might be satisfied when not one soul had life?
No, no, my friend. The Spurgeon so aptly said years ago, There are men who want an atonement that is a broad bridge from this shore to that shore.
And so they say Christ died for all, but the problem is the bridge only goes halfway across the chasm from hell to heaven.
And all the atonement does is to make salvation possible if men will complete the bridge by their own faith and by the exercise of their own free will or their own common grace, or whatever else you want to call it.
Whereas the teaching of the word of God is that Jesus Christ actually laid a bridge from hell to heaven, and when he said it is finished, he did not mean I've simply made a bridge halfway across.
If men will complete it, I've laid the bridge from hell to heaven, and by the sending of my Spirit I'll bring every sinner from hell to heaven for whom the bridge was laid.
That's the gospel. That's the gospel. And now I'm not teaching, I'm preaching. But that's the gospel.
The false idea of who does the limiting. A. W. Pink speaks to this very, very perceptively, page 244 of his excellent book.
Professor Murray, page 64 of his excellent treatment, does the same thing. John Bunyan has some excellent comments on this.
Oh, there's so many things I'd like to say, but I'm down to three minutes, three and a half minutes, and I must bring some concluding remarks.
First of all, a word of exhortation to the convinced. If you're convinced that this is the truth of the word of God, may I exhort you to be gracious in holding and handling this truth,
and do not display your ignorance by acting as though there are no problems with this particular facet of our belief.
Mr. Hill says, any person who examines with candor the arguments stated by those on the opposite side will acknowledge that they have considerable weight.
I mention this because I do not know any lesson more becoming students of divinity than this, not to despise the reasonings of those with whose opinions they do not entirely agree.
The longer they study theological controversy with that sobriety and fairness of mind which is essential to the character of every inquirer after truth,
they will perceive the more clearly how little acquainted they are with the weakness of human understanding and with the intricacy of many of the points that have divided the Christian world.
And so let me urge upon you moderation of spirit. Don't engage in unkind and unchristian rhetoric.
And may I exhort you, don't be more careful than God in your language. I don't feel I have to pause and qualify.
Every time I quote John 1.29, I believe Christ bore away the sins of the world, and I believe it exactly as John stated.
Now, if someone wants, because I quote that, to say, oh, there's a leaven of Arminianism, that's his problem, not mine.
And if I want to quote 1 John 2.2 without qualifying for ten minutes, I feel perfect liberty to do so.
It's the ignorant and unstable that will rest the Scriptures. That's their problem, not mine.
So don't be overly fastidious. Don't be pompous. Don't act as though the other position is only held by coups and unspiritual people.
You and I can't hold a candle to Richard Baxter. In many areas, we couldn't hold a match to John Wesley.
But though we would hold graciously to our position, let me urge you to hold tenaciously,
because the very glory of the atoning work of Christ is ultimately bound up in this position.
And historically, it can be demonstrated that it's a very short time and a very limited distance between an unlimited atonement and full-blown universalism and rationalism.
A very short distance, very little time. Now, to the unconvinced, to those of you sitting here this morning, to those of you listening to the tape,
may I exhort you along several lines. Number one, don't discuss this issue as though all is settled by a few proof texts of Scripture.
I'm as much aware as you of the presence of these all and every and world texts, and so was John Owen, and so was A.W. Pink, and so was John Calvin,
and so were the Divines at the Synod of Dort, and so were the Framers of the Westminster Assembly and the London Confession and the Savoy Confession and the Philadelphia Confession and the New Hampshire Confession.
Would we think that these men were ignorant of six verses with the word all and world?
Then don't you show your ignorance by simply spouting out the verses and think you've won the day.
I exhort you to be humble and to search out these other materials that I've simply suggested in the lecture.
I've not expounded them. I've simply pointed a finger in the direction of where I believe the answer truly lays,
and I plead with you to search out the biblical teaching of the covenant of redemption.
Search out the biblical teaching of the relationship of Christ to His people.
Search out the biblical teaching of the relationship of the oblation and intercession of Christ.
Search out the meaning of the words redemption, reconciliation, propitiation, sacrifice, ransom, curse-bearing, sin-bearing.
Search them out. Give yourself no rest until you've come to some definitive biblical conclusions and finally call no man master in these things.
I was years coming to this position because I refused to call any man master.
And I was aware that good and godly men held this position, so God gave me sense enough not to fight it.
I never publicly attacked this position. Never.
I had enough sense not to do what the president of a college recently did and said,
If the doctrine of limited atonement is true, then Christ is a cruel bully, something of that nature. Blasphemous statements.
At least academic honesty and humility will cause us to realize, as I've tried to get you to see this morning,
that those on the opposite position are not dopes and unspiritual men.
Likewise, those who hold this position are not the same either.
Call no man master, and I would say in closing by way of personal testimony that few things in the area of biblical theology,
systematic theology, have brought greater joy and delight and practical implications to my ministry, as has this glorious doctrine.
It is put into my bloodstream as a Christian and a preacher, elements that nothing else could ever put there.
For your own edification, I plead with you to search this out until by the grace of God you are settled,
that you've been honest with the materials of scripture.
Thank you for your patience, those of you sitting here this morning. I know this has been heavy.
It's pained me no end to just have to ride straight on to get through the notes.
But my wife will tell you I've been like a woman the week her babies do, all week.
This thing has just been on my heart night and day, and I feel I've come off the delivery table,
and now I can rest for a few minutes before getting back on there for the next hour. Let's pray.
O Lord, give to us the humility becoming imperfect sinners,
sinners who, though their eyes have been opened, still see through a glass darkly.
Bless the truth that we've considered this morning to the end that Jesus Christ may be praised in the glory of His redemptive work that actually redeems.
We ask in His name. Amen.