All Sermons

Doctrines of Grace Part 3 - Limited Atonement By David Calderwood

It's fair to say, I think, that all genuine Christians agree
that the death of Christ is at the heart of Christianity.
And I think as all Christians also agree that the purpose of Jesus' death
is inseparably linked with the notion of sin.
But when it comes to questions more specific,
any agreement quickly vanishes.
Questions like the one we're going to deal with this morning.
For whom did Christ die?
And behind that question, there's the notion of,
well, what was Christ's precise purpose and intent as he died?
Who did he have in mind as he died that sacrificial, substitutionary death?
Those are the two key issues, I think,
behind the third in this series on the doctrines of grace
and the L in the mnemonic, TULIP.
So we've had total depravity or total inability,
unconditional election, and now limited,
or better still, I think, particular atonement or redemption.
The two issues are these, to focus them.
The question we've got to ask and answer is,
what is God's design or intention in Christ's death?
Was God's intent that Jesus' death would make salvation possible?
And then who would that salvation be impossible would be for?
Was that salvation made possible for everyone in general?
Or was the intent that Christ's death was for a specific group of people?
And then what was the result of Christ's death is the second issue.
That is, did Christ's death actually achieve anything specific and definite for individuals?
Or, as I've said, did his death just make salvation possible for individuals,
which then they had to respond and do something else,
which we would probably call faith?
Here's a multiple question to try and get you thinking about the death of Christ this morning,
what it achieved and for whom.
And again, these three options, a multiple choice question.
Three options, see which one you think's the right one.
Option A, that Christ died for all people,
and so therefore all people ultimately will be saved,
which means therefore that hell will be empty.
And there are some who call themselves Christians who actually believe that.
It's called universalism and it's the result of thinking that God could not be truly loving,
could not be truly sovereign, if he saves only some and sends everyone else to hell.
Option B, that Christ died to make it possible for everyone to be saved,
but does not directly save anyone.
And that Christ's work on the cross becomes effective only
if a person chooses to respond with their own faith,
embracing and accepting what Christ's death has made possible for them.
And that option B follows the teaching of the guy that we mentioned a couple of weeks ago,
Arminius, who then followed the teaching of a guy well before that called Pelagius.
But bringing it into your own backyard,
that is what most Evangelical Christians would believe today,
or small variations of that.
And might I add that they do so by looking at lots of verses of scripture,
so I'm not trying to set up a strong argument here.
They would look at lots of scriptures in the New Testament
where it seems to suggest that Christ died for all, or the whole world.
It's not a strong argument.
Option C then, Christ died only for a particular group of people, the elect,
and that by his death he actually and definitely and particularly saves them.
Now, the third option obviously is what the doctrines of grace teach.
And it's the official position of this church,
although I hasten to add that I honestly don't know really
how many people would willingly and gladly and wholeheartedly embrace that.
I suspect there'd be quite a few here this morning
who would find that position rather difficult.
And that's okay at this point in time.
As I've said in other weeks, I don't want to beg you to hear God's word on it,
and I'm endeavouring to set out God's word in a balanced way,
as I try to do each week, for you to consider, and if necessary reconsider.
Option A is very easily knocked out,
because Jesus himself said that there will be people in hell.
God's judgment is real.
We might like to say that hell will be empty,
and who wouldn't like to be able to say that?
But we cannot, at least cannot, say that without cutting across all of scripture,
and particularly the words of Christ.
And so what you see quickly when you look at universalism
is that it's actually more based on human reason or human preference
than it is on anything in the scriptures.
So option A can be knocked out reasonably quickly and reasonably easily.
I'm obviously convinced that option C is correct.
So let me focus the issues once again as we move to present a defence of that option C.
The doctrine of limited atonement teaches that
the death of Christ was not designed or intended
for each and every person in the human race,
but was designed very specifically for God's elect,
for God's elect only,
and hence the particular nature of the atonement.
And then following that, that the result of his death
is that all for whom he died, i.e. the elect,
were actually and definitely saved.
In other words, Jesus actually got what he paid for.
Now, that's what limited atonement teaches.
Intent and result.
What I want to do now is move to the lines of argument
for particular or limited atonement.
And I use this term lines of argument quite carefully and consciously
because it's one of those places and times
when just lining up lots of verses
doesn't necessarily sway the argument absolutely.
Because there are, I have to be fair, there are verses that seem to say
that Jesus died for all, or the whole world.
So what we need to do is not just look at verses
but then step back and look at some other lines of argument
that I think add a compellingness to the overall conclusion,
which is what I want to do today.
See what you think about it.
You can obviously have the right to reject it all if you want to.
Just try and do it nicely when you tell me that afterwards.
First line of argument.
Bible verses which clearly limit or narrow,
and I put those two in inverted commas for a reason,
clearly limit or narrow the atoning work of Christ.
Now, some Christians suggest that limited or particular atonement
is simply the construct of theologians who've got out of control.
And gone way beyond anything that the Bible might reasonably allow them to say.
But when I look at John chapter 10, and I recognise my bias
in that I'm coming to it with a conviction of what it's saying being true,
when I look at John chapter 10, I think it's very clear
that Jesus speaks with narrowing or constricting or dividing language.
Let me try and show you very quickly what I mean by that.
In the first five, six verses, Jesus is talking the language of division.
There are those who belong in the sheep pen with the shepherd.
That's the Lord Jesus.
And those who do not.
All sorts of other things are said about them, but the division is clear.
Verse 11, Jesus says, I am the good shepherd.
The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.
Now, that's very particular language, isn't it?
He lays down his life for the sheep, his sheep.
Again, reinforcing the divide of verses 1 to 6, verses 14 and 15.
I am the good shepherd, Jesus says.
I know my sheep, and my sheep know me.
Just as the Father knows me, and I know the Father.
And I lay down my life for the sheep.
Again, particular language.
Jesus knows those for whom he will lay down his life
as distinctly, individually and particularly
as the Father knows Jesus.
And again, they are his sheep.
Verse 16, I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen.
I must bring them also.
They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.
That group for which he will lay down his life
will also include individuals from another pen.
Now clearly here, the contrast is between the Jewish pen,
the audience he's speaking to now,
and the Gentile pen, the rest of the world.
But clearly, it's not all the rest of the world.
It's individuals from the Gentile pen
who will be brought into one flock,
brought into one flock with one shepherd,
again in contrast with the background
of others who are not in the pen, or the flock, or under the shepherd.
Verse 26, now notice as we jump to verse 26
that we're going to another discussion on another day.
Verse 22 is the marker in the text for that.
Another discussion, another day, but same point.
Jesus tells the Jews something very, very particular.
He's in conflict again with the Jews.
Look at verse 26 and notice the order
in which Jesus says what he says.
So, they're asking for a sign from Jesus.
Jesus says, look, it's pointless.
You guys have already got all the evidence you need to believe.
The problem keeps you from belief.
Keeps you in unbelief.
He's not a lack of evidence.
And he says, verse 26,
you do not believe because you are not my sheep.
He's telling the Jews, he's speaking to them,
they do not believe, they do not listen to his voice
because they're not his sheep.
Now again, as I said, look at the order.
He does not say, you're not my sheep
because you do not believe.
He says, you do not believe because you're not my sheep.
In other words, being sheep
is prior to and separate from the belief.
And that all goes into the context of John chapter 10
that Jesus says he's laying down his life for his sheep.
This defined group of people
that were just defined prior to any actions of belief
on the individual.
And verse 27 through to verse 30 then.
Let me read it to you again.
My sheep listen to my voice.
I know them and they follow me.
I give them eternal life
and they shall never perish.
No one can snatch them out of my hand.
My Father, who has given them to me,
is greater than all.
No one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.
I and the Father are one.
Again, you see, Jesus affirms the particularity
of his intention in his forthcoming death.
That is, his intention is
to actually give eternal life
to the group of people
called his sheep
as a direct result of his forthcoming death.
And in case you're wondering about the sheep,
across the Bible, I don't even have to argue this,
that this group called my sheep are clearly equated with
the elect, or in other places, the bride of Christ, the church.
So friends, here's the point, I think, from John chapter 10,
as I read these verses quite plainly.
The Bible never speaks of Jesus
dying simply to make salvation possible
for anybody
who then are free to decide for themselves
whether they'll embrace the benefits of that death
or choose to reject it.
The Bible always speaks, as far as I can see,
about Christ dying actually to save,
actually to secure salvation,
actually to bring the benefit and privilege of eternal life
to an immediate reality
in the person for whom he died.
In other words,
I think this text says here in John chapter 10,
at least now I think it says reasonably clearly,
that Jesus got what he paid for.
He paid for what he got
and he got what he paid for.
Now, at this point I need to address the obvious objection.
Aren't there just as many verses that speak of Christ's death
as being for the world
and for all?
Well, the answer is yes,
yes, there's no question at all.
There are lots of verses in the New Testament
that use the word the world or all.
I should add there's very few that say
Christ died for all men.
You hear translations saying that
and they all accept, I think it's Romans chapter 5 verse 18,
the men has been added extra.
So it's all, not necessarily all people
as some translations actually interpret.
But nevertheless, there's lots of verses.
Now, what do we do with those?
Well, the response is this,
that when you look at those verses carefully in their context,
they do allow for a different interpretation
than what at first glance they appear to say.
So, for instance, sometimes all or the world
actually means all types of people
regardless of their social, political or economic circumstances.
Jesus' death is indiscriminate
in terms of the pedigree of the person he dies for.
And in that context it's usually emphasised that way
as a contrast to the narrow thinking of the Jews
that really wanted the work of Messiah
to be simply for the Jewish race.
But Jesus says no, it's never been like that
and takes them back to the prophets, Isaiah,
where it's not enough for Messiah
to be a saviour of the covenant people
but he will be a light for the Gentiles.
So there's how all is used sometimes.
Sometimes all or the world emphasises
that there's no limit to the power of Christ's death
to forgive sins.
Sometimes it emphasizes that there's no limit
to the free offer of the Gospel.
Whosoever.
Sometimes all and the world emphasize
the cosmic significance of Christ's death
in that he destroys Satan's kingdom
and reconciles the whole universe.
So, all I'm saying, and I don't have time to do
lots and lots of verses,
I'm going to take you to one verse
and I'll try and establish this and illustrate it
and see what you think about it.
But there's alternatives.
So we can't just look at the word all,
lift it out and draw a conclusion.
You have to look at it carefully in its context
and see what the argument is
and mostly that will help resolve the apparent difficulty.
Now, what I want you to do is turn with me
to 1 John 2.
And this is the verse that you would call
the king hit of arguments against limited atonement.
1 John chapter 2 verse 2.
Now, I'll just say, and if you're a response group leader,
don't die a thousand deaths when I say this,
but if the question I've written down the bottom
of the sermon outline is too hard or too boring
for your response group,
then you might want to come back
and just dig around a bit in 1 John chapter 2 verse 2.
But remember, your response group leader
hasn't been briefed on this,
so he is just a facilitator or she is just a facilitator
to control the arguments and the flow of speech.
So just remember that.
Don't expect too much of them.
Okay, 1 John chapter 2 verse 2 says this.
Speaking of Christ,
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins,
and not only for ours,
but also for the sins of the whole world.
Now that seems pretty obvious, doesn't it?
The distinction is very, very clear
because He actually distinguishes between
not just ours, but for the sins of the whole world.
That's why it's the king hit verse of
those who would argue against limited atonement.
Now, what are we going to say in response to it?
Well, I'm going to present a very detailed argument.
Now, the context, I think, suggests an alternative.
That is, the context suggests that John
isn't necessarily teaching what he appears to teach here.
Now, I have to concede that were there not
other lines of argument across the scripture,
this would be a very compelling verse.
But given that, it's a verse that we have to put against
not only the context here, but other lines of argument,
then I think we can reasonably say
there's an alternative interpretation.
Let me try and just very briefly suggest what that might be.
So when we put it in the context,
and we have to go back to chapter 1 for that,
where John actually sets up what his letters are about,
John is bursting with excitement
about the eternal fellowship or salvation.
That's what he calls it in those early verses of chapter 1.
The eternal fellowship or salvation
that's now enjoyed by those who have come to know
and experience the word of life, as John calls it,
and that is Jesus.
So that excitement is tempered with the reality
that they're struggling with ongoing sin and failures.
So how does the Christian put those together in his life?
Well, John says rather than pretend we have no sin,
at the end of chapter 1,
John urges believers to take comfort in Christ.
So if you look at verse 1 of chapter 2,
he says, my dear children, so speaking to Christians,
my dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin.
In other words, the encouragement is still to struggle with your sin.
But if anybody does sin,
we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense,
an advocate, a legal term.
That is, Jesus Christ, the righteous one.
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins
and not only for ours, but also for the sins of the whole world.
So rather than pretend to have no sin,
John urges believers to take comfort in Christ,
totally confident that his propitiation,
that's the word in the Greek or in the NIV,
is the atoning sacrifice,
totally confident that his propitiation or atoning sacrifice
has dealt with all the sins of his people,
including present and future sins.
And that was perhaps the problem for these Christians.
They understood that Christ's death on the cross
dealt with sins in the past.
But John wants them to see that the propitiation is so perfect
that it also deals with sins that they have not yet committed,
sins in the present that they have committed
and sins in the future that they haven't yet committed.
So he urges them to look to Christ and take total confidence
that there will be no condemnation for them
because of the propitiation,
the atoning sacrificial death of Jesus.
And so speaking to Christians as my dear children,
John wants to emphasise that Jesus' propitiation
is not restricted to the immediate circles of disciples
who, going back to chapter 1,
are the ones who describe theirs who have actually seen
and heard and touched Jesus.
That must have been really exciting.
It must have marked them out in some way
because of human nature as somewhat special.
I think John's trying to say,
look, the propitiatory death of Christ is not limited to that group,
nor is it limited, as he continues in chapter 1,
to the wider circle of disciples,
those who were converted under the apostolic ministry.
Rather, chapter 2 now,
Jesus' propitiation for sin is equally real for all Christians.
Not just ours in the sense of
we have been with Jesus from the very start, or early peace,
but for any Christian regardless of nationality,
in any part of the world, in any period of history,
who likewise have come into union with Christ.
So John's argument, I think,
is about the scope of the propitiatory death of Jesus,
not about whether Jesus died for every individual
that has ever lived in our world.
Now, you may or may not be satisfied with that explanation,
but here's the point I want you to get out of it,
and you can go back and look at it again as much as you like.
Here's the point I want to make out of it,
that we cannot build this or reject this doctrine
simply by playing one verse off against another.
Verses themselves won't carry this argument.
It only divides Christians, and that's what's happened historically.
So we need to look at some lines of argument.
Secondly, we need to be careful to give
due consideration to the context.
That is, we need to work hard when we see these verses
and genuinely try and work out what the author was saying,
what the intent of John's writing was,
and other writings where we see them across the New Testament.
That's argument one.
The second line of argument then, let's move on.
Salvation verbs have specific achievements.
Now, there's three main word groups or salvation verbs.
The word group is built around redeem,
justify and propitiate.
Now, this line of argument is this,
that where these salvation verbs are used in Scripture,
the action is always definite
and particular in achieving salvation.
That is, where these verbs occur,
there's never a suggestion that they just make salvation possible.
Let me again try and illustrate that.
Turn with me to Romans chapter 3 verses 24 and 25.
Now, again, I'm going to have to try and do a complex argument here fairly quickly
and therefore it might just frustrate people,
but I'm going to have a go at it anyway.
Romans chapter 3 verse 24 and 25, Paul says this.
Well, actually start at verse 23.
Paul says,
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement.
That's that second, so we've got the redemption word,
sacrifice of atonement, that's the propitiation word there.
God presented him as a propitiation through faith in his blood.
He did this to demonstrate his justice and so on and so forth.
So you've got the three words mentioned there.
You've got redemption, justification or justify,
and propitiate or propitiation.
Context.
Paul's spelling out the wonder of the gospel
in that God has provided an alternative
to overcome the problem of sin and rebellion
that's so deeply embedded in every single person
that God has had no alternative
but to pronounce total condemnation on every living person.
That's the argument of chapter 1 to 3, verse 20.
So people are sinful, so sinful,
there's just no way they can actually please God
under their own efforts, their own energies,
and therefore they're under God's wrath.
But verse 21, now our righteousness from God,
apart from the law, has been made known.
In other words, God's taken the initiative
to provide an alternative for salvation.
Because God's determination is to have a great community
of people who are in relationship with him.
He had planned that from the beginning of creation.
And that has now become a reality in spite of sin,
go back to verse 24 now,
God's plan has now become a reality.
He has now got a great community of people
who are his people.
How does he do that?
Through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
Now, look at verse 25.
How was that redemption achieved?
Redemption was achieved because God presented Christ
as the propitiation or sacrifice of atonement.
Now, the idea of propitiation is to turn aside somebody's wrath.
So somebody's offended and rightly, righteously angry.
That's what God is, overseeing.
And so redemption is achieved by God sending Jesus
to propitiate his wrath.
And so what we're being told there
is that Jesus' death took God's anger and justice
due to sin upon himself.
And so turned it away from the sinner.
Now, that's propitiate.
The background of the word redeem is the slave market.
It describes a slave who is released on payment
of a fixed price or ransom.
And so therefore, if it's money that is a fixed price,
the money is a substitute which secures release for the slave.
And so what we're being told here
is that Christ's death is a substitutionary transaction
with a definite outcome, verse 24,
which is that the individual for whom Christ dies is justified.
Now, the word justification, the word justify,
has a legal background
and has to do with God's attitude and God's action
in response to what Christ does in his sacrificial death.
So put it all together. This is how it works.
With the penalty of sin paid
and God's wrath averted in the death,
the propitiatory death of Jesus,
God actually changes both his attitude
and view of the person for whom Jesus died.
And that goes to the full extent of changing their legal status before God.
No longer viewed as an enemy under condemnation,
God now treats the sinner, using the old catch cry,
just as if I'd never sinned.
And it's a guaranteed legal transaction, signed and sealed.
The payment's been made,
the goods for which the payment was made has been released,
the circumstance has now changed legally and forever.
Redemption, propitiation, justification.
So, these three words together show that Christ got exactly what he paid for.
And when you think about it,
the transaction is only valid as a complete process.
And when that process is applied to particular individuals
in a real and effective way,
what kind of redemption would it be
if it is left ultimately to the slave to decide whether he wants to be
released or not?
What kind of propitiation is it if the sinner is still under God's wrath
until they decide to do something about it themselves?
What would that say about the effectiveness of Christ's death and what he achieved?
How can it be a legally effective binding transaction
unless it's completed and the person ransomed
actually enjoys the privileges of new status and relationship with God?
Do you see how the line of argument works?
That the particularity and the preciseness of the salvation verbs
pushes to see a definiteness, a particularity,
in the achievement of Christ's death.
That is, he actually saves those for whom he dies.
The third line of argument, and a bit briefer,
is the sovereignty of God in Trinity.
And that takes us back to John chapter 10.
In several statements in John chapter 10,
Jesus is absolutely clear that he and his Father are working as a team
in one plan of salvation,
the outcome of which will be one flock, one shepherd,
distinct from all others who are not his sheep.
And that argument is so clearly understood by his audience
that in some of those verses there
they conclude he's an absolute fruitcake.
He's a loonie, two sandwiches short of a picnic.
So they obviously understood what he was saying,
they just didn't like it.
And that same idea is affirmed in multiple places throughout Scripture,
an important aspect of the argument for a particular atonement,
a particular redemption.
And here's how it works, you see.
Since the Father, as we saw last week in his secret will,
elected a great number to be saved,
and since he sent Jesus into the world to secure their salvation,
it then is inconceivable
that Jesus' death would somehow or other still leave it all up for grabs.
That somehow or other Christ would leave any aspect of the Father's plan to chance
by simply making salvation possible
and leaving it to people to decide whether they want to do the rest by their own faith,
if that's what they so choose.
So my point is this,
that these sort of things stand or fall together
and sadly, in lots of Evangelical circles,
they've all fallen together.
At least there's a consistency there,
because I think the doctrine of total inability or total depravity of people
and the doctrine of unconditional election
demands the next step of particular atonement.
The logic is simple I think, albeit overwhelming logic,
and I can understand why some people then just knock it all out.
But I think the logic is reasonably simple.
If a person is dead in their sins,
unable and unwilling to do anything to help themselves,
then the only hope of being saved
is if God acts lovingly and in grace to mark some out for salvation because of His love and mercy.
Now having done that, if we subscribe to that,
then is the person after that any more likely to respond?
No, the person is still dead.
So we need the next step of God actually taking the initiative to actually save them.
And that's precisely what I believe Scripture urges us all to believe.
The point is that not only does God plan or intend or design
that a great company of people will be saved,
He also plans how that will be achieved
in definite, particular, individual terms in real history.
And then He acts to make that plan a reality in the life of those chosen.
Friends, as usual I say quite openly to you there's lots more that could be said
and perhaps lots more that should have been said this morning.
But let me just conclude by asking, does it matter practically?
And the answer is yes, I believe it matters incredibly.
See, once again this stuff is all enormously beneficial on the issue of assurance.
It seems to me that if you know anything of your sinful heart
and realize that at one time you're dead is a doornail in terms of relationship with God,
then as Jeremy was saying at the start,
surely your confidence can't possibly be in something that you've done,
albeit recognizing that Jesus has perhaps done most of it,
but your confidence couldn't be to trust yourself to even do a little bit, could you?
Our confidence, surely the Scripture keeps saying to us,
is to be in what Christ has done for us to save us,
not at any point in what we might do to finish off what Jesus has started.
And that in turn will mean that the Father and Jesus are worthy of all our praise.
So could we reasonably, to take us back to where Jeremy started us this morning,
could we reasonably give ourselves some praise for ensuring that Christ's death was not wasted?
That just doesn't seem right, does it, when we talk about the sovereign Lord Jesus Christ.
How arrogant would that be?
I think it's to contradict Jesus' words from the cross when he cried out in agony,
just in the midst of this substitutionary death,
it is finished.
We're actually saying, well, nice idea but not quite,
because while we appreciate all you've done to help us, Jesus,
we still really need to respond, to seal the deal.
It's a bit like if I advertise something through the paper and somebody rings up and says,
look, yeah, I'm going to buy that chair for me, I'll be there and I'll give you a thousand dollars for it,
I'll be there in two hours. I say, no, no, no, no, it doesn't work like that.
It'll be the first person who has the money on the table, that will seal the deal.
I've been stung too many times by people promising to be there and they never show up.
The deal is, the first person paid for what they get, get what they pay for.
So friends, if we sort of think that somehow or other the work of Christ makes it possible for us to be saved,
and then we actually have to bring home the deal as it were,
clinch the deal by adding faith to it,
then I would say that that argument that's far more limitations on the atoning death of Christ
than ever those who have held to the doctrines of grace would suggest.
Let's pray.
Lord, help us to understand your word, help us to have ears to hear your word.
Help us, Lord, to be able to consider and reconsider.
Perhaps, Lord, views have been held for a long time.
Help us, Lord, to have this discussion in the light of your words,
as Jeremy urged us, with compassion and sensitivity and respect,
so that together we might understand truly what your word is teaching us,
and thereby, Lord, understand properly what we have to praise you for.
In Jesus' name I pray. Amen.