This is the third part in a series of articles examining the doctrines of grace and evangelism. In this article, I will seek to provide Biblical warrant for a definitive view of the atonement and then, in light of this truth, I will demonstrate how we are to preach the gospel.
The teaching of the atonement is one that remains cloaked in a shroud of confusion for most Christians. This is unfortunate considering that a proper understanding of the atonement lies at the heart of the faith. It is so central that a denial of it inevitably leads one away from the Christian faith altogether. While the notion of a blood offering for sin is present in many pagan religions, only Christianity teaches that one sacrifice is sufficient to expiate sin. As the writer of Hebrews says, "He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself (9:26b)." Though modern scoffers have attempted to attack the faith's authenticity by showing notions of atonement in various world religions, these have proved largely unsuccessful on the grounds that the similarity in Christian atonement and pagan atonement is weak at best. Islam requires the continual shedding of blood on their holy days through an act known as tatbir. Hinduism demands the ritualistic slaughtering of animals to appease Durga or any other deity from its pantheon of gods. Roman Catholicism makes a mockery of the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice by representing it through the blasphemy of the mass several times a year. Yet all these lack the singular, definitive nature of the Christian atonement. Satan may imitate the design of God but he may not replicate it exactly (2 Cor. 11:14).
Many students of the Bible errantly assume that the full-orbed teaching of atonement that God prescribes under the Levitical priesthood is the origination of such a practice. However, we must go back further to find the first blood offering for sin. In the Garden, after Adam and Eve had rebelled and fallen from their state of grace, God seeks them out and finds them (Gen. 3:8-9). Note, that God is the initiator of restoring the severed relationship. It is God who seeks his fallen creatures not the other way around. After rebuking the parents of the human race in verse 13 and pronouncing judgment in verses 16-19, God makes clothes for them by the shedding of blood (Gen. 3:21). God kills the first living things by providing the first sacrifice. Here we have a wonderful foreshadowing of the death of Christ, whom Paul says, "God put forward as a propitiation by his blood (Rmns. 3:25a)." But are we surprised at this that we find the precedent of blood offering established so early? Otherwise, how would Abel have known to offer his sacrifice, "the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions (Gen.4:4)"? The answer is because his parents told him and no doubt told him of the future, all-sufficient sacrifice they saw in the offering through the eyes of faith. But what of his brother Cain? Did they not tell him the same experience they had in the Garden? No doubt they did, and he being the eldest heard it first but his hearing was not united with faith. That is why for his offering the Lord had "no regard": it was not a blood offering done by faith (4:5). It is correct to say that the sacrifice Cain provided was not a blood offering and thus not acceptable. But it would be wrong for us to assume that Cain's offering would have been anymore acceptable had he sacrificed an animal and done it without faith. But precisely the reason Cain did not offer a blood offering was because he did believe nor heed the word which his parents had unquestionably spoken to him. His own poor choice in offering is reflective of his lack of faith and the two cannot be separated. For this reason, he is rejected by God and made a wanderer on the earth as demonstration of his reprobation. Thus, even before Jacob and Esau, God's sovereign choice of electing the younger over the elder is established.
As we move forward in redemptive history to the nation of Israel, the Levitical priesthood is marked by atonement. In the blood sacrifices of the nation Israel, the precedent of atonement requiring a blood sacrifice is clearly established. The correct understanding of blood as representing atonement for sin is behind the logic of the Lord's prohibition of eating blood: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life (Lev. 17:11)." Clearly, a blood sacrifice is demanded for sin. In the previous chapter, the Lord clearly outlines how this blood sacrifice is to be performed. Aaron is instructed to take two goats and one bull from the people of Israel to make atonement for sin (16:5). The bull is offered up as a burnt offering for Aaron and his household (16:6) and one of the goats is the offering given for the sins of the nation Israel (16:9). But what of the other goat? The other goat is sent into the wilderness of Azazel to bear the sins of the people (16:10). This goat is the scapegoat and is a reminder to the people of Israel that the sacrificial system is only a shadow and type of the ultimate fulfillment to come. It is a reminder that, as the writer of Hebrews says, "For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins (Heb. 10:4)." It is a reminder that only when an Israelite looks at the sacrifice and sees it as foreshadowing a future atonement and
believes the promise is there any forgiveness of sins. It is in faith that Aaron put his hands on the offering and thus, symbolically, put the sins of the people on it as well.
21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins. And he shall put them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who is in readiness. 22 The goat shall bear all their iniquities on itself to a remote area, and he shall let the goat go free in the wilderness. -Leviticus 16:21-22Let us note two principles about the sacrificial system as we are informed from our reading of these two verses.
1) It is offered for the sins of the people. Note what the text tells us: "And Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of
the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, and all their sins." It may seem too obvious to point out but the sacrifice was only offered for the Israelites. It was not offered for the Gentiles. How many Hivvites or Assyrians was a sacrifice offered on behalf? I dare say not a one! This is crucial to note because the same people who want to cry injustice when Calvinists limit the
scope and the intention of the atonement of the New Covenant will completely ignore the fact that it was limited in scope under the Old Administration as well. Let us note that God's intentionality in offering an atonement for sin is linked with his intentionality in choosing a people for himself. He does not choose all people who ever lived unto salvation but chooses some to save from all eternity (Eph. 1:4ff). In the same way, he does not offer up an atonement for all people who ever lived, but offers up an atonement for those whom he seeks to adopt into his family, thus wishing to remove every barrier in the way of this goal. This is the
specific focus of the atonement.
2) It is offered for all the iniquities of the people. Not one sin is precluded from this offering. "And Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it
all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and
all their transgressions, and
all their sins." Note the recurring emphasis that all of the sins of Israel are placed on this offering. Not one sin is omitted in the offering up of the animal. Aaron had in mind every sin of the people of Israel when he offered up the goat into the wilderness. And may we assume that every sin included the sin of unbelief? Of course we can, especially since we know that the sin of unbelief is the root of every other sin as Paul tells us (Rmns 14:23). And unbelief had been the dominant mark of the Israelites since being delivered from their bondage in Egypt and unbelief was what prevented many from entering the Promised Land and why they fell in the wilderness as the writer of Hebrews informs us (Heb. 3:19). The point to see here is that the atonement offered under the Old Covenant, which was only a shadow of the atonement to come, did not exclude the sin of unbelief, so why would the reality of the NT atonement be any different? Why would the atonement made by Christ be somehow less than the types and figures of the sacrifices of Israel? The answer is it would not and the only ones
limiting the atonement in the truest sense are Arminians who claim that Christ died for all but the atonement does not have the power to cover all sins (including the sin of unbelief). The atonement of Calvinistic theology does not diminish the work Christ accomplished on the cross, it simply comes into a more specific and definite view of it.
While these two principles of the atonement are established under the Levitical priesthood, the specificity of the atonement is given greater emphasis in the Messianic prophecy of Isaiah. In Isaiah 53, we are given startlingly accurate words of prediction regarding the death of Christ. In verses 4-6, the prophet tells us that "he was wounded for our transgressions" and "he was crushed for our iniquities" and that "the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all." Here, the Arminian will raise his hand and shout, "Aha! See! The Lord bears the iniquity of all. Christ dies for every single person!" But is that what the prophet Isaiah is saying? We have to remember who is speaking and to interpret words in their given context. This is especially true of universal terms. If I were to invite you over for dinner and once you arrived say, "All of us will be sitting in the dining room", to whom would I be referring? Would I be referring to Jack my neighbor or to the kids at the daycare down the street? Certainly not! Anyone who thought this way would be deemed preposterous! In the same way, we must understand the Biblical context when words like "all" are used. Who are the all? Well, they are precisely those who receive the benefits of the atonement-the true spiritual nation of Israel. This is unavoidable when we realize that the prophet says the "Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all (v.6)." If the all in view here is every single individual who has ever lived, then we would have universalism. The ones for whom Christ bears their iniquity are many who are accounted righteous (v.11). This is a clear reference to justification. Those whom Christ died for are infallibly those who are justified. God's forensic, judicial declaration of a sinner as not guily cannot be repealed. Thus, if the Arminian still wants to insist that Christ pays for the sins of all people who ever lived then, on the basis of Isaiah 53:11, he must become a universalist, because those whom Christ died for are accounted righteous. But since most Arminians are not willing to lapse this far into heresy (and we thank God), they will say that Christ died in the same manner for the sinners who were currently in Hell and for all those who would go to Hell after his death. This is nonsensical and makes a mockery of the atonement. God cannot demand two payments for sin and if Christ paid for the sins of all people equally, then no one would appear in Hell. Furthermore, the prophet's final words to close out the Suffering Servant chapter would make little sense, considering he views the recipients of Christ's atonement in contrast to the whole world and says, "yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors (53:12)."
"But that's the Old Testament," some unlearned reader of the Word might say. Unfortunately, it is still the sad state of affairs within evangelicalism that some might still use this as their rebuttal, as if the Old Testament were not inspired, holy Writ. The widespread damage of the system of dispensationalism has done much to further this thinking. However, we who heed Paul's words to Timothy that "all scripture is breathed out by God", know better (2 Tim. 3:16). But what of the New Testament? What do we find the writers of the NT saying of the scope of the atonement? Is such a particular view of the atonement advocated by them? We shall find it is.
Even from the opening of the first synoptic gospel, the intentionality of the atonement is established. One of our most beloved Christmas verses contains this focus: "She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins (Mtthew 1:21)." Was Jesus a Perfect Savior? Did he fulfill this promise made concerning him? Did this Scripture come to pass? If Christ died for all, but all are not saved from their sins as the Arminian wants to assert, then the answer is no. However, this verse clearly says for whom Christ came for
particularly. "He will save
his people from their sins" demonstrates that those whom Christ came to save are the one whom God the Father had united to him in eternity past (Eph. 1:4-5). Christ is a Perfect Savior and he does fulfill the meaning behind his name because he saves his people from their sins (i.e. the elect).
Both Matthew and Mark's gospel record an instance where the mother of James and John comes to Jesus and entreats him to promise her that her sons will be able to sit at his right and left hand. These parallel passages mainly focus on the teaching of servant leadership but both of them conclude with a reference to the atonement: "Even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many (Mtthew 20:28; Mrk 10:24)." These words are an eerily accurate echo of Isaiah's words spoken nearly seven hundred years earlier. Christ did not come to be served but "to give his life as a ransom (atonement) for many (the scope)." The aim of the atonement could not be any clearer in these words: Christ died to ensure the buying back of the many.
As we continue our survey of the gospels, we find ourselves examining the words of the disciple "whom Jesus loved (Jhn. 13:23; and interestingly enough, this is another case of God's discriminating and distinguishing love)." Surely John, of all the disciples, the one who was closest to Jesus, would know for whom it was his Master came to die. We find this is precisely the case. In John chapter 10, the passage which ends with Jesus' emphatic statement that "I and the Father are one" (10:30), John records Jesus' teaching on his purpose of redemption. In verse 11, Jesus' perfunctory statement clearly addresses the matter and informs even the most unattentive reader for whom he dies.
11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. -John 10:11After these words spoken by our Lord Jesus, can there be any doubt on the focus of the atonement? Verse 3 says that the sheep are those whom Jesus calls out by name. Verse 4 tells us that the sheep are those who know the Shepherd's voice and follow him. How many of the reprobate does Jesus call out by name? How many of the reprobate know Jesus' voice and follow him? Only those whom God has chosen before the foundation of the world, at their appointed time, receive the effectual, inward call of Christ and believe. These are the same people for whom Jesus died (10:11).
Later in John's gospel, the particularity of the atonement is mentioned again. On the night of Jesus' arrest, he prays a lengthy prayer to his Father in what has come to be known as the High Priestly Prayer. These are precious words that are recorded in none of the gospels save this one Johannine passage. As we would expect on the night in which Jesus was going to make atonement for sin, the Savior's prayer has the work of redemption in mind. Let us pay close attention to his words.
6 I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. 7 Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you. 8 For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. 9 I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. -John 17:6-9"The people whom you gave me out of the world" refers to the ones God the Father elected in eternity past (Eph. 1:4ff) as similar phraseology exists in John chapter 6. Notice that Jesus explicitly states in verse 9: "I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours." Jesus specifies for whom he is praying. Then, he specifies again by clarifying for whom he is not praying. If a parent is speaking to two of his four children, he might try to emphasize whom he is addressing with similar words. "I am talking to you, John and Mary. I am not talking to Jack and Amy but to you." Thus, we should infer that Jesus is trying to make a similar sort of emphasis. It is not the
world for whom Jesus prays but for those
whom the Father gave him. What does Jesus pray for these people? Four things: their preservation (v. 11), their sanctification (v.17), their unity (v.22), and their glorification (v.24). These are not gifts that are available to the reprobate but to the elect only and they are gifts that Christ purchased on the cross. If the Arminian wants to make the atonement a broad, generalized, vague atonement that only makes
possible salvation but never actualy
purchases it, then he has no solid answer to whether or not what Jesus prays for here was answered. However, the Calvinist can with full confidence declare the efficacious nature of the atonement, that it accomplished what it meant to accomplish, that Jesus' High Priestly prayer was answered.
For the Arminian who thinks I have purposefully neglected his oft-cited and decontextualized verse, let me dispel this notion by saying I am full aware of the misuse of John 3:16 to try and overturn limited atonement. Just as the Arians tried to trouble the early church with John 14:28, so there has been in our day those who have tried to eisegete John 3:16 to disprove Calvinism. While neither time nor space would permit a full-blown exegesis of John 3, it is sufficient to say that John 3:16 stands as it is with not the slightest threat of debunking Calvinism. Arminians' use of John 3:16 is a classic example of one of the most common pitfalls of interpretation. They try to take John 3:16 and make it speak on the atonement, an issue which is clearly not being addressed by our Lord in that passage. The Arminian will no doubt cry over and over (as if repetition will make his point rather than exegesis), "For God so loved the WORLD..."; however, the Calvinist gladly acknowledges this is true in one sense. God does have a general, kind disposition towards all of his creation and this was reflected in his sending his son into the creative order. Just by having Jesus come to our sin-fallen, wretched world is an act of condescension on the part of the eternal Son of God and an act of kindness by the Father. However, this is not love in a redemptive or salvific kind of way. There is no mention of the blood offering nor the propitiation in John 3:16. Arminians read this back into the verse but it simply not there. To put it bluntly, John 3:16 is not dealing with the atonement. Ironically, the verse maintains a particular focus as it says, "that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life (3:16b)." The "whoever" is not in the Greek but is an English transliteration to encompass "all the believing ones", which is in the Greek. Thus, a proper translation of this verse could also read: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that all the believing ones should not perish but have eternal life." Thus, God loves the world and sends his Son into it
so that the believing ones would receive eternal life. Who are the believing ones? The believing ones are those who come to Christ and those who come to Christ are the ones that the Father had given him: the elect (see Jhn 6:37ff). Christ is sent into the world then and the whole world receives the common grace of his coming into the world, because of God's purpose of giving the elect eternal life. This notion that the world receives the common grace of God only as a byproduct of God's love for his elect is consistent with Historic Calvinism and with Jesus' parable of the wheat and weeds (Mtthw 13:24-30). So it is true that in a sense God loves all of his creation, just as it was true for the Arians who were harassing the early church that in a sense the Father is greater than Christ (Jhn 14:28). The question is just: in what sense? For the Arians, they were taking this verse out of its context and trying to make it contradict the entirety of John's teaching on the nature of Christ. They failed to recognize that, in its context, Jesus was speaking of his return to the Father and by stating that the Father was greater, he was merely referring to the humiliation and condescension he had to undergo to assume the office of Mediator. In the same way, Arminians try to make John 3:16 teach a universal atonement when really it is only referring to God's general goodwill or kind disposition to all of his creation as we have seen.
Though I have not presented an exhaustive defense of the doctrine of limited atonement, the passages we have already examined are adequate to make a clear case for it. Other cases for this doctrine can be seen in passages like 1 Peter 2:24 which says, "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed." Peter's epistle was written towards the elect, so with that in view, this statement becomes a clear case of Christ specifically bearing the sins of His chosen people. Acts 20:28 declares that the church was obtained by the blood of Christ. Again, it is imperative to note the specific, accomplishing nature of the atonement that is witnessed to by every NT writer. These passages amongst several others indicate that the apostles saw Christ's death not as making salvation a possibility but as actually accomplishing it.
Therefore, with a sufficient, Scriptural case for limited atonement established, let us now turn to reflecting on how this should effect our evangelism. This, I think, should prove to be most interesting. While Total Depravity alters how we present the condition of man and Unconditional Election ensures that we rely on God's sovereign choice of individuals and not our own abilities, Limited Atonement dictates to whom we should direct the message of the gospel. With this in mind, let us turn to its application for evangelism. There are three ways in which we must preach the gospel with regards to the doctrine of Limited atonement:
1. We must preach the gospel with a corporate application and not an individualistic one. Far too often in the church's gospel presentations today, preachers make statements like, "Christ died for you to save you from your sins" or worse, "If you were the only person on earth, Christ still would have died for you." At times, the whole gospel is reduced to a "God has a plan for your life and loves you" statement! The gospel is the good news message about what God has accomplished in Christ to redeem sinners. However, in the wake of individualism, modern evangelicals want to make our gospel presentations centered around the individual. While it is not wrong to say "Christ died for you" in a gospel presentation, since in all gospel preaching you assume you are preaching to the elect, it is not necessary. None of the apostles ever preached the gospel this way. Instead, Peter called all those who were in the audience at Pentecost to repent and believe on Christ without ever taking the atoning work of Christ and applying it in an individualistic sort of way (Acts 2:37-39). If we keep the application of the gospel corporately focused, then we can spend more time calling for all men, everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30). For the focus of the gospel is not on individuals but on a corporate body, specifically the church (Acts 20:28). The gospel is directed toward a body of sinners rather than to individuals, as Paul told Timothy, "The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost (1 Tim. 1:15)." Thus, let us not venture to speak where the Bible is silent. For who knows if there had been one person in existence if Christ would have came or if God would have destroyed him like Sodom and Gommorah (Gen.19:24). To say that Christ would have come to die for one person wrongly assumes that the reason for Christ's coming to die was based on the intrinsic worth of sinners rather than the worth of the glory of God. We must not commit this error.
2. We must preach the gospel as having the capacity to save not as just making salvation possible.The gospel "is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek (Rmns 1:16)." One glaring weakness of most gospel presentations today is that preachers present a gospel that has no capacity to save anyone. How many times have we heard these statements, "God has done half the work, now he just expects you to do your half" or "God has done all he can to save you, now you must use your free will and come"? The fact is that most evangelicals today present a gospel that is partially done by God and partially done by man. God has already done all he can to save you and now he is trying to woo you to come to him and accept him of your own free will. This kind of presupposition inevitably comes out in preachers' presentations when they try to use their eloquence to "win people to the Lord." However, Paul says this is precisely what he did not do, "lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power (1 Cor. 1:17)." The nature of the atonement is already such that it has the capacity to effect a change in a sinner. If we preach the pure gospel, then Christ will draw his elect, because he has purchased for them everything necessary for their salvation: including the ability to come!
3. We must preach the gospel with the merits of Christ in view, not the response of sinners. The gospel itself is the presentation of Christ's work in his active obedience to his heavenly Father and his vicarious death on behalf of sinners on the cross. If we turn the gospel into a synergistic effort of man's will and God's wooing, we inevitably take the focus of what Christ has done on the cross. The response of sinners is not where we want to put our focus, for apart from Christ there is only one response: rejection and hatred for the gospel (Rmns 3:10, 8:7; 1 Cor. 1:18). As Stephen said of the perpetual response of all natural men: "You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you (Acts 7:51)." The positive response of some sinners is only guaranteed by the enabling work of the Father (Jhn 6:44) and this was a grace purchased by Christ on the cross as well. Thus, instead of focusing on dead men who cannot even dispose themselves to salvation (Eph. 2:1, Col. 2:13), we need to focus on Christ and his merits. Most people in today's postmodern culture do not even have the framework to grasp who Jesus is anyway--the Biblical Jesus that is. Therefore, it is vital that we preach the Person of Christ along with the work that he performed. These two are linked closely and cannot be separated. Christ's deity and divine nature are joined to the all-sufficient work that he performed on behalf of sinners. And Christ's humanity is joined to his actual suffering and death that he experienced as man's representative. This ought to be the primary subject of our gospel preaching and not impotent man! Only then will our gospel preaching really be God-centered.
Having examined the truth of the efficacious, particular view of the atonement then, let us preach the gospel knowing it has the capacity to save sinners. Let us remain Biblically faithful and keep the application of the gospel corporately focused and not individualistically focused. Let us make it our aim to exalt the merits of Christ and not the ability of man to come to Christ--for he has none. And let us preach the unadulterated Word so that in all things Christ may be shown excellent! Soli deo gloria!
