Untitled Sermon (46)

As I had promised last week, this week’s sermon will be a combination of teaching and preaching but will ultimately fall more heavily on the teaching side of things.

The topic that we’re going to be looking at today pertains to the atonement of Christ.

Namely, for whom did Christ Jesus die?

You see by the end of this sermon that what I believe Scripture to teach is that Christ died not for the whole world, but instead, Christ died for those whom the Father gave the Son in eternity past.

To say that another way, Christ died for the sins of all those who would, by God’s Sovereign drawing, come to Christ for redemption, and nobody else.

The Scripture I’d like to look at this morning is with our primary focus being on verse 28.

With all of that in mind, lets read our text and go before the Lord in prayer.

As we begin to make this journey together this morning, I want to begin with a word of caution concerning how we should address this topic with those who may disagree with our views, as well as another caveat about the terminology we use.

We have been called by God to be as one in Christ Jesus, and this includes our interactions with those whom we have disagreements that do not enter into the realm of heresy.

Because of our calling for unity in the Gospel through Christ, we must be gracious with those who may disagree, yet that does not mean that we forego the conversation or even set aside our fellowship together.

Instead, it means that we encourage, challenge and lift one another up to a deeper knowledge of the Biblical truths that we encounter so that we may be edified in Christ our King.

As we move onto the terminology caveat, I’d like to preface the conversation by saying that I really don’t care for the term “limited atonement.”

In essence, what it sounds like is that the extent of the sins that can be forgiven by Christ only goes so far.

After that, the person is left without hope or without options of forgiveness.

That is in no way the intended purpose of the term.

Because of this, if I could rephrase the terminology, the phrase I would prefer to use would be that of purposed redemption.

I believe that term better addresses the issue at hand and clarifies what it is that we believe the Scriptures to be saying concerning the extent of the atonement, its implications and applications.

Before we get too far into the conversation over limited atonement, I think it would be beneficial for us to discuss what we mean when we discuss Biblical atonement.

The most common thought in our own modern culture concerning an idea of atonement is a form of reparation.

Another term or understanding which is common for many to believe is the idea of an amends being made after some form of wrong has been encountered from one party to another.

While there could be many aspects of that idea which would be encompassed in Biblical atonement, that definition fails to offer up a credible way in which the amends could be made.

For many, to correct a wrong is as simple as paying some monetary amount of compensation to right what was lost by the other party.

Yet in theology, there is no amount of money that can be paid to make reparation or amend the wrongs that were encountered by the injured party.

Instead, the only solution for correcting what was destroyed by man is a fix authored by God Himself, through Himself and for Himself.

No amount of being an indentured servant or good on our behalf can ever repair what was broken in the Garden.

Because of this, an atonement needed to be sent to right the wrongs with God, and that is where we find the idea of Christ being our atonement.

The one who on our behalf, makes the payment before the Lord to restore that broken relationship.

We find this whole theme in passages such as the one in which we are examining today.

“The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.”

This is Christ, the redeemer who redeems that broken relationship by the giving up of His righteous life on our behalf on the cross of Calvary, where the wrath of God that had been storing up since the fall of Adam was poured out upon Christ.

This atonement upon Calvary is not what makes our redemption possible but guarantees that all who call upon His name shall and will be made right before God.

Yet in its application, Christ did not die to redeem all of humanity but instead, those whom the Father had given Him as tells us.

With that in mind, what do we mean when we say that the atonement of Christ is limited or purposed?

The first portion of understanding that I would like to offer is that what we don’t mean, as I stated a second ago, is that there are only a specific number of sins that can be covered through the atonement of Christ.

I would just like to doubly emphasize this as it never fails that I always find myself having this discussion with someone over that term.

Instead, what is meant by the term limited is who Christ Jesus actually died for at Calvary.

As you begin to examine this verse, an idea of limitations begins to come to light.

Christ in this passage claims that He came to lay down His life as a ransom for many.

Let me ask you a question.

Why didn’t the Jesus say that He came to give His life as a ransom for all?

The short answer is that the Messiah knew that the atonement was not applicable to all of creation.

We can see this theme shining forth from passages such as which speaks of God choosing the elect in Christ before the foundation of the world.

That is merely one place in Scripture which addresses the issue and speaks of the atonements application in a corporal manner with the idea of predestination.

There are many other places which we could go for this defense as well but for the moment, we will set that off to the side.

Now many of you might be wondering why in the world we’re even looking at this today as many of you would probably affirm the very same position as myself.

The reason is that there are many out there who in several ways have distorted the Gospel by teaching an unbiblical understanding of the atonement, and we have to be on alert for when we see that stuff.

So, I don’t only want to teach on what I believe the Scripture to teach but also what the other side would claim and how we are to understand this in light of Scripture.

As we peruse throughout Church history, there appears an idea and an understanding concerning the atonement of Christ which in many ways contradicts other doctrines already established.

An example of this is to say that Christ died as atonement for the whole world.

A famous verse that many people love to go to for this idea is passages such as and .

Let’s look first at .

“He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”

On the surface, this verse appears to be expounding a universal atonement.

In fact, many who would hold to a universal atonement have looked at this verse to claim their position.

Now I am not talking about the Arminian version of universal atonement when I say this, we’ll get to this in a moment.

Instead what I am referencing here is the idea that in Adam, all men died through his fall as Paul tells us in Romans, and through Christ, all men now have redemption.

Not merely those who would repent of their sins but everyone at all times.

Each and every single person regardless of their belief upon Jesus has been ransomed through the atonement of Christ Jesus and will now spend eternity with God the Father.

They teach that at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what one has done, said or believed.

That because of Christ’ death on the Cross of Calvary, all men will be redeemed.

While that sounds great on the surface and men such as Rob Bell can make millions selling books like Love Wins, at the end of the day, that ideology falls short of understanding the atonement in light of the rest of Scripture.

They fail to account for the very words of Jesus who tells us in that, “They (speaking of the unredeemed) will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

They do not look to other Scriptures to prove what they are believing but instead look upon one attribute of God, namely His Love, and build off of it a doctrine which fails to accurately understand the atonement in light of all of Scripture.

Yet they are not the only ones who do this.

The Arminian who reads this passage actually fails to understand the doctrine of the atonement in light of the rest of Scripture as well.

In the Arminian understanding of this passage, the idea is that not only did Christ atone for those whom John was writing to.

He also made salvation possible for the whole world.

Salvation is sitting on the table and free for the taking for everyone, all they need to do is look upon Jesus.

They fail to take into consideration the depravity of man and humanity’s inability to look unto Jesus.

They also fail to take other passages into consideration on the issue.

If we parallel this passage, which on the surface clearly looks like a free offer of redemption, with Scriptures such as , we find what certainly appears to be a contradiction between the offer and the ability to receive that offer.

states “No man can come to me unless God the Father draws them unto me, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

If no man is able to come, yet the offer to come is sitting there, then something else must come into play here as well.

Could it be that God is drawing all men unto Himself as states?

I would argue the same way as John Gill on this passage that we cannot understand this as Jesus drawing a “concourse” of people to Himself.

For if we read it in this way, we actually find ourselves back to universalism, that idea that all of humanity will be redeemed in the death of Christ Jesus.

Back to an idea which states that all men everywhere are redeemed regardless of their repentance and faith upon the Gospel.

This is why we cannot understand as a drawing of all men.

Instead that verse must be understood to be Christ drawing the elect unto Himself.

This is where balance must come into our minds.

When we deal with these weighty issues, we must weigh them out both in light of what all of Scripture teaches on that one issue, as well as what other doctrines or ideas apply to it as well.

When we don’t do this, we develop and build a theology like much of what we see in most Churches today.

Not that they do not preach Christ crucified, but they instead would claim that salvation in Christ is offered fully available to all who would by their own libertarian free will, come to Him.

This idea does not line up with Scripture in any way, especially in dealing with man’s total inability to come to Christ on his own.

The Calvinist understanding of this passage in my opinion is the view that should win over our understanding of this passage.

Spurgeon said this concerning “and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world. By which is meant, not only that Jesus Christ died for Gentiles as well as Jews, and for some of all nations, but that there is that in the atonement of Christ which might be sufficient for every creature under heaven if God had so chosen every creature. The limitation lies, not in the value of the atonement itself, but in the design and intention of the eternal God. God sent His Son to lay down His life for His sheep. We know that Christ redeemed us from among men, so that the redemption is particularly and specially for the elect; yet at the same time the price offered was so precious, the blood was so infinite in value, that if every man that ever lived had to be redeemed, Christ could have done it. It is this that makes us bold to preach the gospel to every creature, since we know there is no limit in the value of the atonement, though still we know that the design of it is for the chosen people of God alone.”

This is precisely how we should understand this passage of Scripture.

We know that Christ redeemed us from among men, so that the redemption is particularly and specially for the elect; yet at the same time the price offered was so precious, the blood was so infinite in value, that if every man that ever lived had to be redeemed Christ could have done it. It is this that makes us bold to preach the gospel to every creature, since we know there is no limit in the value of the atonement, though still we know that the design of it is for the chosen people of God alone.” This is precisely how we should understand this passage of Scripture. We should grab hold of this passage and read it very plainly, believe the truths that are expounded in the verse, rejoice over them, and weigh them out with other passages of Scripture. If for example, we read this passage in light of or , we must develop a sense of understanding about what is actually saying that confines how we are to interpret the passage.

We should grab hold of this passage and read it very plainly, believe the truths that are expounded in the verse, rejoice over them, and weigh them out with other passages of Scripture.

If for example, we read this passage in light of or , we must develop a sense of understanding about what is actually saying that confines how we are to interpret the passage.

The truth of the matter is this, sometimes certain words in Scripture do not mean what we read them to mean.

We laughed about this when I still lived on campus at seminary, but the truth is, all doesn’t always mean all.

Dr. Tomlinson, who was one of my favorite professors had said this one time in class in reference to everyone being in class on a certain day.

He told everyone to be there and clarified why he didn’t say that all of us should be there and it’s this, words have friends and their friends clarify for us what they should mean.

Word meanings and definition should always come from both its context and what that context tells us in light of other words surrounding them.

1 John using the word all does not always have to mean all.

Sometimes, all is in reference to a limited people.

As we move forward and look at , we see that many people place a direct emphasis on this passage as being the verse which proves unlimited atonement.

literally says this, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever shall believe upon Him, shall not perish but have everlasting life.”

While I would agree that this verse most assuredly speaks to the atonement of Christ, I would argue that the verse itself actually limits the atonement on its own.

The passage doesn’t say that God gave the Son so that all may be saved.

Instead, it limits the atonement of Christ to only those who would believe.

The whosoever in that passage speaks only of those who actually believe, and not everyone will believe.

This in itself limits the atonement to only those who believe.

Yet, in todays Church, the idea of “whosoever comes,” somehow means that anyone can come, and that Christ has paid the debt for all men, if they would just come to Him.

Yet as we already stated, ideas of theology must be paired up with the rest of Scripture to develop an understanding of the doctrine that were trying to develop.

We cannot pick and choose single verses to build theological doctrines out of without examining the idea in light of the rest of Scripture.

We can also examine the words in this verse and apply the same train of thought as we did with .

In the same way that the word “all” doesn’t mean all, verses that use the word world doesn’t always mean a literal world either.

In were commanded to be in the world but not of the world.

If both of those words mean the exact same thing, the verse would literally make no sense as you read it.

Yet when we read the verse, we understand that what is being said is that we as Christians must live in a fallen society until Christ calls us home, yet we are not to act like sin filled creatures because we’ve been redeemed.

This is a clear passage which shows us that words can have metaphorical meanings.

One is referencing a literal world while the other word is referencing behaviour.

This should help us to develop an understanding of how it is that we should understand and interpret that passage of Scripture.

None of this is to say that the passage in should be understood in a metaphorical way though, in fact I would argue quite the opposite with this passage.

The word world in should be understood quite literally as “God so loved fallen humanity.”

That would be the literal understanding of this passage.

Yet this should not be taken to imply an unlimited atonement.

Instead, we should understand the passage as saying that all those who believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved, and the only ones who will believe are those who have been predestined unto adoption in Christ.

At the end of the day, when you walk through and examine each of these passages and begin to compare them to each other, you find that trying to maintain the unlimited atonement position actually places you into a position where you contradict other doctrines in Scripture.

Now, a fear of contradiction should never prevent us from holding to a doctrine if Scripture clearly teaches it.

The reason for that is there exists within Scripture divine paradox’s that we as finite humanity will never be able to understand and that is completely okay.

They are for the Lord to understand at this moment and not for us and that is okay.

Yet, contradiction which can be avoided should be avoided.

This is why we practice systematic theology.

We take all of Scripture and build our theology and doctrines on the basis of all that God has said.

We grab verses and try to understand them in light of other passages of Scripture.

That is how we wrestle through understanding the nature and character of Christ in every aspect.

With this in mind, what makes Limited Atonement the view which reflects Biblical truth over the rest of the passages which might lean towards unlimited atonement?

In my thoughts on this issue, the reason why the most Biblical understanding must be limited atonement is that in this view, we avoid contradiction.

We shouldn’t hold to this position because we think it sounds good or because it’s what is cool in this season of time.

Instead, we wrestle with understanding and prayerfully seek out God’s solution.

We read through Scripture and plead with God to use His Word in our hearts for what He promises to do in His Word.

We read Scripture to have our minds taught, corrected, reproofed and trained in righteousness.

This means that we must not only submit to the clear teachings of Scripture, but that we are commanded to seek out His truth and apply this in our own lives.

Because this is what we’re called to do, as you read through the words of Christ, the Gospels and the Epistles, what you find is a strong case for Limited Atonement.

In the very beginning of Matthew, you find this, “She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”

Notice how the Angel of the Lord who was talking to Joseph explicitly limits the atonement of Jesus to only His people.

The Angel did not tell Joseph that Jesus would offer salvation to all of humanity.

He did not claim that a mere offer would be made.

Instead, what the Angel told Joseph was a guarantee of a future salvation for a specific people.

Namely, those given to Jesus by God before the foundations of the world was ever in motion.

This group of people in Scripture is known as the elect, the bride of Christ.

The ones whom Christ would die to make a sure and vicarious atonement.

This is the biggest contrast between the two doctrines.

Unlimited Atonement believes that Christ made salvation possible for all men everywhere, regardless of God’s predetermined plan.

The Limited Atonement position would deny that Christ only made salvation possible.

Instead we would argue that He guarantees the salvation of a group of people.

The Limited Atonement position would deny that Christ’ death on the cross made available an offer of redemption without truly securing that redemption.

Not only did Christ make it possible, but He also guarantees our redemption by making His atonement specific to for the people whom it belonged.

This is why in , Jesus was not worried about those who would walk off from Him when He was teaching.

Scripture says in that He knew those who were truly His from the beginning.

He had no concern for those who were His disciples and yet wondered off because what He was saying was hard to hear.

All throughout the Gospel’s you see this hinting at a form of Limited Atonement.

When you move into Paul’s Epistles, you see this choosing of Gods own people in a clearer way.

Paul lays out God’s preordained plan of redemption in .

Those whom God Foreknew, He also Predestined.

We’ll stop there for just a second and examine that little section.

We would all affirm that God is Omniscience.

That God knows all things, past, present and future.

As the Omniscient Creator of all, wouldn’t we also agree that God knew everyone before He ever created them?

Yes!

Nobody in this room made a baby and left the Lord of creation gasping in shock!

He knew it all in eternity past.

So as the passage says, those whom God foreknew, He also predestined.

This does not mean that since God knew everyone, He also predestined everyone unto the image of Christ Jesus.

For if that was the case, what we mentioned earlier that Jesus had said about some going to hell would be pointless and a blatant contradiction.

Instead, what we find here in this passage ties back to what we also seen earlier is that words have friends and those friends determine their meaning.

Therefore, those whom God foreknew would be the elect bride of Christ.

Those who would be redeemed through the atoning work of Christ at Calvary.

The elect has been predestined unto eternal life through the Atonement of Christ.

This falls back to that quote from Spurgeon about the design and the intention of the Atonement by God Himself.

This alone should be more than enough for us to grab hold of limited atonement or purposed redemption and attest to its validity.

Yet the argument from the other side is that this makes God unjust or unfair.

That God not offering redemption to all men is somehow not fair in the whole picture of redemption.

The problem with this idea though is that none of this is truly fair.

I didn’t physically sin in Adam, yet through his sinful disobedience to God, I have received Adams punishment.

My wife did not sin in the garden physically and yet every time she has had a child, there has been anguish and pain.

On top of all of this, none of us in here would truly ask for God to be fair.

For if God was being fair, He would have never have sent Christ to redeem anyone.

The most wicked thing to happen in all of human history was that God in the person of Jesus, took on flesh and suffered for our sake!

That is the most unfair thing to ever happen.

God would have been perfectly just to plunge all of fallen humanity into hell for all of eternity.

That is what is truly fair.

When God destroyed every human on this earth apart from Noah and His family, that was more fair than what we deserve.

Yet God showed grace and spared a few.

I would also add that there is nothing unfair about God choosing to show mercy to some and not to others.

Paul would tell us the very same thing.

Look at .

“I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”

(Emphasize)

20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”

Who are you, O man, to answer back to God?

None of us ever have the right to question God on this issue.

I know that sounds blunt and said without understanding of a persons emotion, but this is the Word of God we’re talking about here, not merely my opinion.

This is here to put us back into our created order and place.

Simply because we don’t like something or see it as being unfair, doesn’t mean that the problem is with God.

Instead, it means that the problem is ours and we must once again use Scripture to rebuke and correct our own hearts.

Now we’ve covered a lot of ground and you might be thinking, what does this have to do with me Cory.

How does this apply to my everyday life?

Let me make this simple and easy for all of us to understand.

God has decreed for a people to be redeemed through Christ Jesus.

He has guaranteed the salvation to this specific group known as the elect and they are scattered all throughout the world.

We know that there are those whom God has promised to bring unto Himself through the atonement of Christ right here in our backyard.

We don’t have to guess.

We don’t have to wonder if we spend our whole lives here witnessing for Christ and lived this life in vain.

We are free to boldly proclaim the death, burial and resurrection of Christ to this whole town and know, that there are some here have had their sins paid for through Christ Jesus.

They are merely waiting for us to proclaim the Gospel.

More than that, we should have boldness to stand firm upon God’s Word with no need to be creative in how we share the Gospel.

For those who are Christ’ will be drawn to Him by the Father.

Those who have had their salvation made secure through Christ will come, they are in no need of manipulation on our ends.

This is the most freeing aspect of proclaiming Christ to a lost and dying world knowing that the atonement of Christ was specific.

My responsibility, your responsibility is to make Him known through the preaching of Christ’ work, God accepts them on the basis of the atonement already purchased in Christ Jesus.

Yet that is not all!

When we begin to apply this our own hearts, we can see the atonement of Christ as a narrow bridge crossing over this great chasm between us and God that goes all the way across because Christ truly secured that bridge.

We don’t need to feel as though the bridge is a mile wide and only goes half way across.

It goes the whole span of the abyss and safely takes us to the other side, where we will spend an eternity with our beloved redeemer, Christ Jesus.