Moving

Hello.  I am moving my blog to a new address.  The move is due to the improved formatting available in the upgraded blogger software.  I am sure there is a way that I could have just switched formats, but I couldn't figure it out so I just started fresh.  The new site is http://66books-luke.blogspot.com

A Goal (I Don't Do Resolutions)

It has been awhile since I've posted anything here.  I guess that is mostly due to laziness as I do think about something I want to write from time to time, yet never seem to get it put on the blog.  Anyway, I am not posting to tell you of some fantastic goal I have to write more blog posts this year so I'm already off track.  So back to it!

I am actually writing to tell you about a reading goal I have for the year.  Last year was a down year for me as far as reading went.  I only read a handful of books though I was always thinking I should be reading more.  So this year I am setting out to read one book every other week.  That means with 52 weeks in the year, I'll be shooting for 26 books read by year's end.  I plan on posting the title and author of each book I read along with a very brief summary and my opinion on whether or not it was a good book and if I would recommend it.  I'm into my first book now and you should be hearing back from me within a couple of weeks.

An Interesting Night at the 7-11

I had an interesting experience at the 7-11 last night that I thought at least one or two of my four readers might find interesting. I swing by the 7-11 once in while on my way home from work and there is usually the same guy working. He seems to always be in a good mood and makes the customer feel special. He looks to be a bit of a hippie type. He has a medium-length beard and covers his long hair with one of those knitted beanie hats. I would put his age at 22-25. From the little bits of conversation I have had with him, I get the impression that he may be one of those quiet intellectuals. He is quite articulate and has a vocabulary that screams college educated.

Anyway, I was in last night and when I got to the counter he asked how it was going and responded that it was going good and asked how he was. Before he could answer I interrupted with a question. I apologized and asked him again how he was doing. He seemed out of character, a little down perhaps as he kept looking in the direction of some punk kids who appeared to be stuffing store items in their pants. It was at this moment that my suspicions of an intellect were confirmed. He said, “I feel a little like Camus’ interpretation of Sisyphus.” Okay. So at this point I am thinking, “Okay, I am familiar with who Albert Camus is and I think that Sisyphus is a mythological character, but I have no idea what he is saying.” The clerk then goes on to say, “If only I can avoid the crap going on around me and just focus on the task at hand, then (and here he actually quotes Camus) ‘The struggle itself...is enough to fill a man's heart.’” So I said, “Well, good luck in that my man,” and I left.

Well of course my curiosity was going strong when I got home so I googled “Camus and Sisyphus” and found out what he was talking about. It turned out to be pretty profound in my opinion. Sisyphus was a Greek mythological figure who was doomed to push a rock up a hill. Whenever he would get it to the top, it would roll back to the bottom and he would have to push it up again. This was repeated eternally. Camus compared the task to the menial jobs we hold. Here I quote from a Wikipedia article on the subject, (I know, I know, Wikipedia is not a good source)

“Camus presents Sisyphus's ceaseless and pointless toil as a metaphor for modern lives spent working at futile jobs in factories and offices. ‘The workman of today works every day in his life at the same tasks, and this fate is no less absurd. But it is tragic only at the rare moments when it becomes conscious.’
Camus is interested in Sisyphus' thoughts when marching down the mountain, to start anew. This is the tragic moment, when the hero becomes conscious of his wretched condition. He does not have hope, but he also figures out the truth and Sisyphus, just like the absurd man, keeps pushing. Camus argues that Sisyphus is truly happy precisely because the futility of his task is beyond doubt: the certainty of Sisyphus' fate frees him to recognize the absurdity of his plight and to carry out his actions with contented acceptance. With a nod to the similarly cursed Greek hero Oedipus, Camus concludes that ‘all is well,’ indeed, that ‘One must imagine Sisyphus happy.’”

Is that not perfect? As I reflect on it, there is no better description for that moment at that time. An interesting night at the 7-11 indeed.

The Extent of the Atonement: Application (Part 5 of 5)

My topic for this class was on the extent of the atonement. One way of phrasing my subject as a question would be to ask, “For whom did Christ die?” After much Bible study, prayer, and research I have come to the conclusion that the reformed or Calvinistic view know as limited atonement or particular redemption is taught in Scripture. This means that Christ’s death atoned not for the sins of every man, woman, and child, but instead only for the elect of God. His death ensured that all whom the Father gave to him were purchased and redeemed.

There are two primary life situations in which this answer can and should be applied. One of the key areas is evangelism. When one is doing evangelism, what ground do they have for preaching the gospel with hope that anyone will listen and be saved? A good understanding of limited atonement gives them that ground. Another is one’s personal assurance of their own salvation and the assurance that they will be kept to the end and never abandoned by the love of Christ. Why should believers think that they are going to be with the Lord for all of eternity? I will expound both of these situations now.

We are told to preach the gospel. We are to give a free offer to anyone who will listen. But at the same time we are told that the mind’s of all men are hostile to God and that they cannot submit to him (Rom. 8:7). The Bible also tells us that, “No one seeks God” and that “All have turned aside” (Rom. 3:11-12). This begs the question, “What sort of atonement can save people who are described in this way?” The proponent of a universal atonement has no real answer for the numerous passages of Scripture that paint the state of man as one in utter rebellion against God. An atonement that is particular actually secures the salvation of some of these rebellious men and women. They are regenerated because they were bought and secured by Christ’s death on the cross.

Those who hold that the atonement was universal in its extent often criticize Particular Redemption as a doctrine that hampers evangelism. Now I will be the first to admit that there have been some hyper-Calvinists who have taught that evangelism is unnecessary. However, those men have been rebuked and corrected time after time by Calvinists who see the absolute need for evangelism. In reality, it is the doctrine of Universal Atonement that should make evangelism disappear (Please note that I am not saying that it has done so, just that it should. It is a good thing that the doctrine is not carried to its logical conclusion). If a prospective convert hears the gospel and inquires about it, what assurance will he have that he can or will be saved? Instead shouldn’t he say, “Christ died for so many people, most of whom are in hell. What hope do I have that I should be saved?”

Instead, the doctrine of Particular redemption gives hope to both the missionary and the prospective convert. The missionary knows that Christ purchased men and women from every nation on earth (Rev. 5:9) and therefore he is assured that God’s work will be accomplished. He no longer feels as though the salvation of people relies on him, but rejoices in the fact that he can be used by God as a means to save those who Christ purchased. This takes the pressure off the missionary and places an enormous amount of confidence in God.

The same sort of confidence is available for the prospective convert. When the missionary says to him, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31), he can give the recipient of the gospel a real offer here. If this man or woman believes, he or she will absolutely be saved, because it indicates that Christ has paid the full price for him or her, resulting in their freedom from bondage.

This leads into the other major situation in which this doctrine applies. That situation is one’s assurance of their salvation. With the promise that God elected, Christ purchased, and the Holy Spirit regenerated and is sanctifying me, I can rest assured in the promises of God. I have believed in Jesus and know from the Scriptures that I had to have been born again in order to do that (John 3:3). The assurance offered to the elect is beautifully illustrated in Romans 8:31-33: “What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? What shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies.” In this passage, the “all things” certainly includes salvation, from its start to its finish (Rom. 8:26-30). So we can see that a great confidence is offered for those who believe. It is an absolute assurance that relies not on human ability, but on the faithfulness of God, who will hold fast to the promise that he will not reject any of those for whom Christ died.

A belief in Particular Redemption does lead to certain duties in the Christian walk. I think that the two primary duties have already been expounded in this paper. I must relax when telling others the gospel. The doctrine lets me rest assured that people’s salvation does not rest on my oratory skills. It is my duty to preach the gospel, but God is the only one who can make that person be born again.

The character of the Christian should one of great humility in light of this doctrine. He must realize that God has set his great love upon him in a way that he not done for much of the world. There was nothing good in him that made him do it, but it is indeed set upon him. Knowing that your salvation is kept by God because Christ has paid the whole price for your redemption can cause nothing by humility and thankfulness towards him.

The goals of the Christian who is attempting to live out this doctrine have also been covered already. I believe it should be the goal of every Christian to trust fully in the saving work of Christ and take that trust with them to whatever mission field they are a part of. The other goal is that the Christian should always strive to trust in the promises of God.

I hope that all of these things will become more of a part of my everyday life. I am often timid with nonbelievers and do sometimes feel like their eternal destiny lies with me and my witness. However, this doctrine should give me a sense of peace in that area. I hope and pray that this will be so. I also struggle from time to time with my assurance of salvation and so I will remember to focus on the promise of Christ that no one will be able to snatch me from the Father’s hand.


Work Cited

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2002.

The Extent of the Atonement: Apologetic (Part 4 of 5)

There was man who walked into the billing office of the local cable company and patiently took his place in line. After waiting for several minutes his turn arrived and he stepped up to the customer service window and was greeted by a smiling woman. “How can I help you today sir?” she asked. “I need to pay a bill.” he responded with noticeable enthusiasm in his voice. The woman began with her standard question for bill payers: “Can I get your name or account number?” “Oh” he replied, “I won’t be paying my bill today. I need to pay the bill of a friend.” The woman was not surprised. It was well known to everyone in the office that there was a man going around and paying the bills of many of the company’s customers. So she got the information from the man and finished the transaction. Later that day a downtrodden man called the same office to tell them that he was sorry, but that there was no way he could afford to pay his bill. He told them that he knew he was already a month late, but there was just no money. To his surprise, the person on the other end of the line informed him that there was no bill to be paid; someone had paid it on his behalf.

The analogy is obviously lacking in innumerable ways, but it what it does is present a picture of what the paying of another’s debt would look like. When our Savior went to the cross and atoned for sins he presented to the Father payment for all the sins of those for whom he died. What would happen if, in the story above, the person who answered the phone told the man “Well sir, while it does appear that someone has already paid this debt on your behalf, we are still going to need payment.”? That would be nonsensical to us because once the debt is paid, no more can be demanded of the debtor. The universal view of the atonement assumes just that. Those who hold it believe that Christ paid the price on the cross for every man woman and child, yet many of those people will still end up separated from the Father because of their sins. This paper will show some of the reasons why the view known as Particular Redemption is better supported by Scripture than a universal atonement.

In my previous papers on this topic I showed that the main difference between the two views is how each side understands the passages in Scripture that include language such as “all men” or that say that Christ died for “the world.” In those papers I also showed that the context of those passages allow for a more narrow view depending on the audience or on what the writer means when he uses the term “world.” For example, when John writes that, “God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him” (ESV John 3:17), he is using the term “world” not to indicate its bigness, but instead its badness (Carson, 17). The evidence for a universal atonement disappears quickly once these types of passages are placed in their proper contexts and within the Scripture as a whole.

The view that the atonement was universal in its scope does great damage to the concept of redemption. If those who hold to a universal atonement are correct, what sort of redemption did Jesus accomplish? It seems that there was really nothing at all accomplished. In his book, Putting Amazing Back into Grace, Michael Horton quotes a prominent scholar (Lewis Sperry Chafer) who holds the universal view saying just that: “Christ’s death does not save either actually or potentially; rather it makes all men saveable” (107). Horton goes on to argue that if this is truly the case, “there is no real ‘power in the blood.’ Rather, the power would seem to be in the will of the creature” (107).

A view that sees the redemption as particular in nature and scope is the only one that stands in agreement with the language used in the Bible. Words such as “atoned,” “redeemed,” and “propitiated” are used without apology in the scriptures when referring to the death of the Savior and what it accomplished. The Bible does not talk about people “possibly” being saved, but instead speaks of the work of God through Christ as final and accomplishing something very certainly. In the 53rd chapter of Isaiah we have one of the clearest prophecies regarding the sufferings that would come upon the messiah. In this great text we also see that there is indeed “power in the blood.” It reads, “Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities” (53:10-11). Notice that in the last section it is those who will be “accounted righteous” that have their iniquities borne by him.

One last area that I would like to examine briefly is the role of the Trinity in redemption. I have noticed that those who hold the view of particular redemption always cover this area. John Owen, a puritan who wrote what most adherents to this view hold as the end-all treatise on it, spent twenty pages covering the role of each member of the Trinity in redemption. I had some trouble understanding the reason for this until this simple statement from Horton: “Part of the problem we have in coming to this discussion is that we view Christ’s work as distinct, and, in fact, detached, from the work of the Father and Spirit. The heavenly Father has designed and is governing the plan of redemption. And Christ was sent by the Father to accomplish the Father’s purpose. So what was that purpose” (108)? I was doing exactly what Horton suggested. I was detaching the work of Christ from the Father and Spirit. When they are seen as one work the particularity is more apparent. So the Father elects, the Son redeems the elect, and the Spirit regenerates and sanctifies.

So it is clear from the whole of Scripture that the work of Christ was not something that merely made salvation possible. Instead it accomplished salvation for all those whom the Father elected. The bill was paid in full and there is nothing more that can condemn those for whom Christ paid the price. The story I opened with does not do justice to the price that was paid on that little hill outside of Jerusalem; it was so much more than the price of a cable bill. To say that the sacrifice of Christ may actually account for nothing (which is the case if it were possible that none might accept) is to do a grave injustice to the plan and mercy of the Father, the utterly self-giving work of the Son, and the continuing work and power of the Holy Spirit. I close with a quote from Charles Spurgeon that makes the difference between the universal and particular views better than I ever could:

"The Arminians say, 'Christ died for all men.' Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, 'No, certainly not.' We ask them the next question: Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer 'No.' They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say, 'No; Christ has died that any man may be saved if ?' and then follow certain conditions of salvation. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as infallibly to secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ's death; we say, 'No, my dear sir, it is you that do it.' We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ's death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it."

Bibliography:

Carson, D.A. The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2000.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2002.

Horton, Michael. Putting Amazing Back into Grace. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 2002.

Owen, John. The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2002.

Spurgeon, Charles. Monergism.com. “Definite Atonement.” http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Doctrines-of-Grace/Particular-Redemption/Limited-Atonement/.

The Extent of the Atonement: Systematic Theology (Part 3 of 5)

What is the extent of the atonement? I have shown in a previous paper that since the Protestant Reformation, there have been two basic answers to this question: (1) The first is known as the “universal atonement” theory and its adherents postulate that the atonement was made by Christ for every man, woman, and child. This position is generally held by those who are theologically Arminian although some Calvinists fall into this camp as well (Amyraldians). (2) The second theory is known as “limited atonement,” “definite atonement,” or “particular redemption.” Those who hold to this theory are generally reformed or Calvinistic in their theology and believe that the atonement of Christ, while having sufficient value for all mankind, is only effective for the elect of God. It is my understanding, based on the evidence I see in Scripture, that the Calvinistic or reformed view of “particular redemption” is the correct position. In this paper I will look systematically at the extent of the atonement as revealed in Scripture. I will show the passages used to defend both views and will show why I think the Calvinistic or reformed view stands out as the correct one.

Scriptures Used in Support of Universal Atonement

The Scripture passages that are used in support of a universal atonement fall generally into two categories. There are those passages that mention in some fashion Christ’s death as being for “the world” and those that refer to his death as being for “all.”

First, the “world” passages: In John 3:16-17, Jesus says, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him” (ESV). 1 John 2:2 reads, “[Christ] is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” In 2 Corinthians 5:19 Paul writes, “In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.”

Second, the “all” passages: Jesus says in John 12:32, “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” Paul writes in Romans 5:18, “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.” Again Paul, this time in his letter to Timothy writes, “This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all” (2:3-5). In Titus 2:11 we read, “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people.”

Scriptures Used in Support of Particular Redemption

Some of the passages used to support this view are those that seem to show a particularity of people for whom Christ died. John 10:11 reads: “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.” John 10:15 reiterates this with, “Just as the Father knows me and I know the father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.” In Ephesians 5:23 and Acts 20:28, we are told that Jesus gave his life for his body or for his church.

Other passages seem to teach that the death of Christ did not make a potential sacrifice for all men, but instead that Christ death was an effective sacrifice that secured redemption for many. In 1 Corinthians 5:7 Paul writes, “Cleanse out the old leaven that may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ our Passover Lamb, has been sacrificed.” The book of Hebrews is chalk full of references to the efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ. Here is one sample: “For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.”

I would now like to point out some things that believers on both sides of the debate will agree upon. I borrow this list from Wayne Grudem’s systematic theology. First, “not all will be saved” (597). The term “universal atonement” does not in any way imply that those who hold to it believe in the eventual salvation of all mankind. Those who believe that are known as “universalists” and that position falls outside the bounds of orthodox Christianity. Second, “A free offer of the gospel can rightly be made to every person ever born . . . ‘whoever will’ may come to Christ for salvation . . . This free offer of the gospel is extended in good faith to every person” (597). And third, “All agree that Christ’s death in itself . . . has infinite merit and is in itself sufficient to pay the penalty of the sins of as many or as few as the Father and the Son decreed” (597). The question is not in the sufficiency or merit of the atonement, but its intent.
Where I Stand

As I mentioned in the introduction, I believe that, regarding the extent of the atonement, the Scriptures teach the reformed or Calvinistic view. While there is a good deal of evidence for both sides, I hold firmly to the principle that Scripture interprets Scripture. This means that the evidence must somehow be reconcilable and that it should be Scripture that does the reconciling. In this final section, I will very briefly trace out two lines of Scriptural evidence that seem to me to validate the Calvinistic viewpoint over and against the Arminian.

The first line of evidence comes from the use of language that shows a particularity in the saving work of Jesus. It is evident from the Scripture passages quoted above that particular groups of people had their sins paid for on the cross of Christ. While there are certainly those passages that include “the world” or “all” in reference to Christ’s work, they always come with qualifications. “The world” never necessarily includes every individual and neither does “all.” Michael Horton points out a great example in his book Putting Amazing Back into Grace. In the book he writes about the 1984 Olympics, which were staged in Los Angeles. Horton says that he remembers hearing that “The world is at our doorstep” and feeling relieved that that did not mean every individual on earth (106-107).

While the terms “all” and “world” are easily synthesized with the Calvinistic position, it is not so easy to synthesize the particular language (especially the term, “elect.”) with a view that Christ actually died for all. There are some particular statements that do not necessarily exclude a wider audience. Reymond makes the point in his A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith that, “Aristotelian logic, which states that if all S is P, then it may be inferred that some S is P, but conversely, it cannot be inferred from the fact that some S is P that the remainder of S is not P” (673-674). However, as Reymond later points out, the term “elect” is special. It indicates a particular group for whom there was a particular purpose in the course of redemption. The semantic meaning of the term implies that there are some who are not elect. Therefore, if the Father chose (or elected) men and women, knowing that it was only them who would eventually be saved, then it would be an inconsistency for Jesus to try to save every individual. There would be disharmony within the Godhead.

The second and final line of evidence for the Calvinistic viewpoint that I will cover comes from the sacrificial nature of the atonement and its logical consequences. If Christ paid the price for all of the sins of all mankind, how is it that the Arminian can say that any man will be lost? If he did indeed die for the sins of all mankind, that would include the sin of unbelief which would bring us to the false doctrine of universalism. Yet if he died for his elect (as I believe the Scriptures show he did), then he will certainly cover all their sins and bring them effectually to God.

So while it is a complex issue and one that is emotionally charged on both sides, I do believe that the scriptural evidence points conclusively to the death of Christ being for a particular group of people. This group is called by many different names in the scriptures including “the elect,” “the church,” “the sheep,” and “true Israel.” It is actually a reassuring doctrine as it does not leave open to the believer the possibility that in the end, Christ’s death may have no meaning for him, but I’ll get to that in the application paper.



Bibliography

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1994.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2002.

Horton, Michael. Putting Amazing Back into Grace. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker, 2002.

Reymond, Robert L. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. 2nd ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998.

The Extent of the Atonement: Biblical Theology (part 2 of 5)

My subject matter deals with the extent of the atonement. It can be phrased as a question in this manner: For whom did Christ die? How one answers that question places him or her into one of two general categories of believers. The first category would include those who would answer, “for every man, woman, and child.” This view is known as universal (or unlimited) atonement. Those who hold to the other position would answer that while Christ’s death was sufficient to save every man, woman, and child, his death only atoned for the elect.

The sheer volume of biblical texts used to support either view makes this a task suited more for a book than a paper. Books written to defend either side seem to approach the biblical theology from a very wide context. For the purpose of this paper I will have to focus on some of the pillar texts used by both sides. Universal atonement advocates point to texts that they believe show Christ’s death as being for the “whole world,” or for “all of us.” The texts cited by those who hold to limited atonement point (they would say) to the atonement being only for the people of God, his sheep, or for the “many” as opposed to all. I will begin with four of the texts used to support universal atonement and will follow with four used to support limited atonement.

John 3:17
“For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.”

John 3:16 (which begins the section that includes our verse) begins with the conjunction, “for.” This indicates that the context extends back prior to the verse. The immediate context here goes all the way back to the start of the chapter where we read that a Pharisee named Nicodemus came to Jesus at night and began a conversation. Jesus seemingly turns the conversation on its head with a statement about being born again and eternal life. Jesus concludes this section with the words, “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life (3:14-15). Jesus here is making a veiled statement concerning the fact that he would be put to death and that that death would somehow enable those who believe to have eternal life. John 3:16 starts by referring back to this discourse.

The direct limits of this passage are verses sixteen through verse eighteen. In verse sixteen we read that, “God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” The argument here is that God loved the world so much that he gave his Son. This is a profound statement, especially this side of the cross. It is important to note John’s use of the word “world.” In reflecting on this passage D.A. Carson writes, “World in John does not so much refer to bigness as to badness. In John’s vocabulary, world is primarily the moral order in willful and culpable rebellion against God” (17). According to Carson, this means that our awe should not be focused on that God sent his Son to a big place, but that he sent him to such a wicked place.

In verses seventeen and eighteen we see what the mission of Jesus was, and an aspect of how it was to be accomplished. Verse seventeen assures the hearers that Jesus did not come into the world to condemn it and offers the good news that instead he came that the world might be saved. Here we see the worldwide implication of Christ’s mission. Verse eighteen gets a bit more individualistic in that it describes a condition that one must meet to avoid condemnation.

The overall message of the passage seems to be that eternal life has been made possible. It will come about through a work done by Jesus, which includes him being lifted up (which we know to mean crucified). The passage shows the deep love of God in that he would send his Son to a place as wicked as this and yet not to judge it, but to instead save it. We know from verses seventeen and eighteen that this saving work does not extend to each individual person, but to those who believe. That this is a passage declaring that “whosoever believes will not perish” is clear. Neither side of the debate at hand would deny the “whosoever will” declaration.

1 Timothy 2:3-6

“This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God , and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.”

1 Timothy was written by the apostle Paul sometime in the mid 60s to his dear friend and disciple in the faith, Timothy. It is a letter that is made up of deeply personal instruction to Timothy, although it is certain that the principles included in it were to be used by Timothy in his ministry (An Introduction to the New Testament). Many of these principles (taking into consideration the cultural differences) are directly applicable to today’s Christians.

The exegesis of this passage hinges on a couple of words/concepts. The first is the opening phrase, “This is good.” And the second is the word, “all,” which is used twice. I will look to both in that order.

The opening line points backward to the surrounding context and forces the reader to ask, “What is good?” For the answer to this, I look to the start of the chapter where Paul writes, “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgiving be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions.” The second half of that verse seems to be an elaboration on what he means by all people. Paul is exhorting Timothy to pray not just for the common people, but even those in positions of authority. His reasoning follows in the next verse: “that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.” So it seems that the “this” in verse three is referring to the ability to live a peaceful and godly life.

The “all people” in verse four and the “all” in verse six can mean one of two things. First, they may be referring to all types of people. This would find support in verse two where two specific groups are mentioned: “kings and all who are in high positions.” The reason for this exhortation then could be that if kings and others in positions of authority were to come to salvation, it would ensure that Christians would be allowed to live the quiet, godly life that Paul wishes for Christian. The other option is that “all people” means each and every living human being.

Any interpretation of this text must also come to grips with what Christ giving himself as a ransom means. If ransom is understood as a price paid that frees the one in bondage, then the “all” cannot possibly mean each and every individual or else we have a clear statement of universalism, which falls clearly outside the realm of orthodox Christianity.

The text here is too ambiguous to come to a definitive interpretation upon which one would build a doctrine. Instead we must let Scripture interpret Scripture and I believe that Revelation 5:9 is a wonderful passage to look at in conjunction with this verse so I will withhold an interpretation here and look to that passage in due course.

1 John 2:2

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

It is uncertain as to whom John’s first letter was written. According to Carson and Moo, the best guess is that it was written to a group of churches somewhere in the region of Ephesus (677). The letter is most often characterized as a polemic work warning the followers of Christ about deceivers who were making their way into the ranks of the churches (678). So from this we can at least gather that the letter was written to believers. This would make sense of John’s touching and fatherly use of the term “little children” when he addressed his readers. It should also be mentioned that elsewhere, John is said to be an apostle to the Jews. In Galatians 2:9 Paul writes, “And when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, the gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.”

The interpretation of the passage turns on the meaning of three concepts: “propitiation,” “us,” and “the whole world.” According to Vine’s, the Greek word for propitiation, “signifies an expiation, a means whereby sin is covered and remitted” (224). So whoever receives this propitiation has had their sins covered and remitted.

The understanding of the word “us” when juxtaposed with “the whole world” comes back to John’s audience. Was he writing to Christians in general or to a more specific audience made up of mostly Jews. If he was writing to Christians in general, then that would tell us that he was saying, “The propitiation was not only for Christians, but for non-Christians as well.” However, if those in John’s audience were primarily Jewish, his meaning would be understood in this fashion: “The propitiation was not for we Jews only, but for Gentiles as well.” This is a tough question due to the uncertainty of John’s audience.

Because of the definition of propitiation as a being a definitive act whereby sins are covered and the impossibility that the sins of the whole world were effectively covered, I must come to the conclusion that in this passage, John is contrasting “us” and “the whole world” in a fashion that shows the universality of the offer of God’s grace to those who would believe. He is not here saying that every man, woman, and child’s sins have been remitted and covered.

2 Peter 2:1

“But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.”

The letter was written by the apostle Peter to “those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ” (1:1). The occasion for the letter is that there were false teachers who were making their way into the church and teaching a false knowledge. Peter encourages the readers to “Grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (3:18). “And because of this, while Peter’s overall purpose is the positive one of encouraging spiritual growth, the letter is dominated by negative descriptions of, and warnings about, false teachers” (An Introduction to the New Testament, 654).

The text at hand is a prime example of one of the warnings issued by Peter relating to the false teachers. The verse opens by referring to the false prophets who came among the Jews, which we read about throughout the Old Testament. Peter then says, that just like in those days, there will also be false teachers among these believers and they will bring heresies into the body of believers secretly. The word “secretly” implies that the heresies are brought about purposely by these false teachers. One such heresy that these teachers will bring in will be a denial of the “Master who bought them.”

What exactly is implied by the phrase, “the Master who bought them?” From the context here, it hard to determine a precise meaning. He could be saying that these men were formerly men of the church who had submitted themselves to Christ, thus making him their master. He could also be saying that Jesus has bought all men with his blood (in the atonement sense), and therefore whether or not they have submitted themselves to him, he is indeed their master. The third option that I see, and the one I favor here, is that by his death and resurrection (without the atonement coming into view), Christ became the master of every individual who has ever lived. This seems the best interpretation because of some other helpful passages in the New Testament.

In Ephesians 6:9, Paul writes, “Masters, do the same to [your slaves], and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours in heaven, and there is no partiality with him.” The slaves mentioned in that passage are not reported by Paul to be believers. Surely some of them were, but we can be just a sure that some were not. Paul here puts them all under the authority of the “Master,” no matter their standing with him.

The other passage that helps us to understand this phrase comes from Philippians 2:9-10: “Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.” From these two passages we can gather that no matter the extent of the atonement, Jesus is Lord of all.

Matthew 20:28

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

This passage is one that in a larger context (verses 20-28) deals with the servant nature of Jesus. He makes the astonishing statement that the great ones are those who are the servants and slaves, and this includes himself, who “came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

This passage includes the concept of ransom (which we also observed in 1 Timothy 2:6). It is always easier to draw meaning from a more unambiguous text. And while the concept of servanthood is not easy to understand, Jesus’ words regarding for whom his life will be given as a ransom are much more clear here than in other passages. That group of people here is clearly limited. “Many” necessarily negates the possibility that the ransom will be given for all.

Matthew 26:27-28

"And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

Here we have the tail end of what we call the Last Supper. Jesus directly states what the drink in the cup represents: it is the blood of the covenant. From other New Testament passages we know that this “covenant” is the new covenant, a pronouncement that would take a PhD dissertation to exegete properly. Briefly, the new covenant can be summed up in the words of the prophet Jeremiah: “ ‘Behold, the days are coming,’ declares the LORD, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. . . . This is the covenant that I will make. . . . I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God and they shall be my people’” (31:31-33).

At this point, some of the language from the earlier passages I have covered comes to mind, particularly that the remission of sins is called expiation and is done through the work of propitiation. It is clear here that there is a limited amount of people who will have their sins forgiven. Once again, “many” excludes the possibility that “all” are the recipients of this new covenant. So the argument of this passage is that Jesus blood will not be effectual for all people, but instead for “many.”

John 10:14-15

“I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.”

This, like so may of Jesus’ teachings, is a mind-boggling passage. In it he calls himself “the good shepherd.” He contrasts himself as the good shepherd, one who cares for his sheep, with the one who would abandon his sheep at the sight of a wolf. Jesus knows who are his sheep and his sheep know who he is. It is these who he will lay down his life for.

One of the most extraordinary things in this passage is that the relationship between Jesus and his sheep is compared to the relationship between Jesus and the Father. The very level of knowledge that is displayed in the intra-Trinitarian union of Jesus and the Father is used here to describe the level of knowledge that is displayed between Jesus and his sheep!

The question of who the sheep are that Jesus died for is answered later in the chapter. In verse 29 it is said that the sheep are those whom the Father has given to Jesus.

Revelation 5:9

"And they sang a new song, saying, ‘Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.”

This verse comes in the middle of a heavenly scene wherein the search is on for one who is worthy to open the scroll of God. At the beginning of the chapter we see that the author is quite worried that no one will be found who is worthy to open the scroll, which would mean that the purposes of God in redemption would not be carried out.

This passage focuses on the one who is worthy. The worthy one is the Lamb who had been slain and he steps forward and takes the scroll. This is when the four elders and the twenty-four elders fall down before the Lamb and sing the words contained in Revelation 5:9-10.

The passage being dealt with here is focused on the reason why the Lamb who was slain is worthy to open the scroll. The reason is clear: “for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people from every tribe and people and nation.” This Lamb effected the purposes of redemption and therefore he alone is worthy to open the scroll and its seals, thus beginning the final stage of God’s redemptive purposes.

The text is also quite clear on who was ransomed by the blood of the slain Lamb. We read that the blood “ransomed people from every tribe and people and nation.” So it is transparent here that the blood was not shed for each and every individual on earth, but for people every people group on earth.

This survey of some of the pillar texts used by those on both sides of the debate seems utterly inadequate in the larger scope of the issue at hand. The one conclusive thing that I found in doing the exegesis of these texts is that it is much easier to see a limitation than it is to prove universality. The word “all” and the phrase “the whole world” are so ambiguous and can have a vast number of limitations without stretching the text at all. On the contrary, the limiting passages leave no doubt that they are indeed limiting. There can of course be discussion within those limitations, but to argue that many includes all is to overlook the plain meaning of the words.

I tried to be as objective in the exegesis as I could be, but must admit that during the course of my research, which included reading entire treatises from both sides, I came to the solid conclusion that the effective nature of the atonement is indeed limited. If there were any presuppositions brought to the text, it was only after extensive biblical and theological research. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately for my time’s sake), I was not able to fully address the biblical theology behind each position. To do so would require many more pages than I have written here.





Bibliography

Carson, D.A. The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2000.

Carson, D.A. and Douglas Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2005.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2002.

Lightner, Robert P. The Death Christ Died: A Case for Unlimited Atonement. Schaumburg, Illinois: Regular Baptist Press, 1967.

Owen, John. The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2002.

Vine, W.E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. United Kingdom: Marshall, 1981.