Sunday School | Doctrine of Salvation - Limited Atonement

Today, we're talking about the L, which stands for limited atonement. And I will tell you as we begin, I'm gonna try to explain to you what the doctrine of limited atonement is because I think it's valuable to understand it. But I personally do not subscribe to this.

So when people describe themselves as a Calvinist, and I absolutely would take on the moniker of Calvinist, but people will either say that they're a five point Calvinist, or sometimes people will say they're a four point Calvinist. I am a four point Calvinist. And generally, maybe almost every time, if someone is a four point Calvinist, the one that they're dropping is the L.

So the question of the L, the question of limited atonement is: for whom did Christ die? Who did Jesus die for? And there's two ways you can look at this. One thing is you can say he died for his church. He died for his people. And that is absolutely an accurate statement. We would all affirm that Jesus died for the church, that Jesus died for his people, that Jesus died for the elect. All those statements are true.

But the question is: did he only die for his church? Did he only die for the elect? Or did he die for the whole world? We'll talk about the implications of both of those as we go through here.

I think the best way to think about this, and I think we have strong scriptural warrant to say that Jesus died for the whole world. I have absolutely no problem talking to an unbeliever and saying to them, "Jesus died for you"—and not having an asterisk in my mind about that.

The doctrine of limited atonement would focus on the fact that he died for his people. He died for the church. And there's strong biblical warrant that the New Testament says that, but I think it says more than that.

So we're gonna walk through and I'll show you why, ultimately, I reject limited atonement. I understand it, and I think I understand what's being advocated for there, and I'll tell you why I reject it before we're done here this hour. Jesus died for his church for sure. Let's start there. That's the bull's eye. But then I'll show you why I think we can draw a bigger circle than just that.

Listen to the language of Matthew 1:

"She will bring forth a son and you shall call his name Jesus for he will save his people from their sins." — Matthew 1:21

Do you hear the particularization of that? He will save his people from their sins. We would all affirm that, absolutely.

Or consider Matthew 20:28:

"Just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." — Matthew 20:28

Interesting. Doesn't say all, but for many. That's meaningful perhaps.

Or Matthew 26:28, where Jesus says:

"This is my blood of the new covenant which is shed for many for the remission of sins." — Matthew 26:28

You'll recognize the communion language there.

Or we can go to John 10. Listen again to the particularization of the language that Jesus uses here:

"I am the good shepherd and 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." — John 10:14

Still sitting under my sheep. Listen to this:

"I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also and they too will listen to my voice and there will be one flock and one shepherd." — John 10:16

Who are the other sheep? Gentiles. It's the Gentiles. The Mormons say it's the Mormons but that's not true. It is the Gentiles. But there's again a particularization of my sheep.

How about Acts 20:28:

"Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which he purchased with his own blood." — Acts 20:28

So what did Jesus purchase with his own blood according to that passage? The church. This is particularization.

The folks who teach limited atonement, they're not just making that up. There's lots of language in the New Testament of the particular focus of the atoning work of Christ on those who are the church, those who will believe, those who are the elect.

Or how about Romans 8:32:

"He who did not spare his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" — Romans 8:32

Now, you might be like, well, who's "us"? Is it humanity? Or is it like the church? Is it believers? Well, Paul's next statement kind of clarifies that. Because he says:

"Who shall bring a charge against God's elect?" — Romans 8:33

He's clearly subsetting it. Jesus was delivered up for us all. How shall they not freely with him give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies, who is he who condemns? It's Christ who died and furthermore who is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God who makes intercession for us. Us, we are the believers. We are the church.

Or listen to this, Ephesians five. What's Ephesians five about? Can you load it in your brain? That's coming, supposed to be specific. Here we go. Wives submit to your husbands. Yes. But also, husbands love your wives. Right? Listen to the husbands love your wives.

Husbands, love your wives just as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it. He gave himself for the church that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it, the church, to himself as a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and blameless. — Ephesians 5:25-27

Jesus loved the church. All of this language—I mean, again, limited time guys. Don't worry, calm down. We're coming somewhere else. But first, I want you to hear the center of this bull's eye. Here's Hebrews nine, verses 15 and 28.

And for this reason, he—that's Jesus—is the mediator of the new covenant by means of death for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance. So Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for him, he will appear a second time apart from sin for salvation. — Hebrews 9:15, 28

Now, there are times that the Bible will use the language of "many" that I really do think it refers to all because everybody is a lot of people. Right? But there are sometimes it seems to be subsetting.

Or, how about this? This is the specific language that John uses in Revelation five.

And they sang a new song saying, you are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals. For you were slain and you have redeemed us to God by your blood, out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation. — Revelation 5:9

Right? He's not saying you redeemed every tribe and tongue and people and nation, but you redeemed out of this tribe and that tribe and this tongue and this nation. Okay?

Now, we could stop at that, but I want you to think about this. What are the implications that Jesus died for the church, for his people, that he's pulling people out? What are some of the things that draw up in your mind or in your heart? That Jesus did this for a specific group of people.

Yeah. Harry? Predestination. Okay. The idea—so that's consistent with our framework that Jesus is doing something that he's planned to do. He's not making this up as he goes along. There was a plan. There was a purpose. That's accurate.

Fetz? I was just gonna say, it's purpose. It's not just willy-nilly action. It's laser focused, not a shotgun.

Laser focused. Not willy-nilly. Not just a shotgun blast. All of that is true, right? God has guaranteed to save those for whom he gave his life. It is going to happen. He's gonna bring about what he's gonna do, whatever it takes to bring about this particular end.

Now, it makes sense that if Jesus died on the cross genuinely paying for people's sin, that the people whose sins he paid for would be forgiven. Because it would be strange if he paid for everybody's sin and then only some people are saved. Well, then there's like this double payment. If Jesus paid off everybody's debt and then your mortgage lender is like, "Hey, cough it up." You could reasonably be like, "No, I'm not coughing it up because you've already been paid. You're not gonna get paid twice. You're paid once, you're not gonna get it twice." Right?

And I think the people that zero in on these passages—which are all true and all accurate—they're focusing on this notion that what Jesus paid for, what he purchased with his blood, was an absolute payment, and it really worked. And therefore there's nothing left. And therefore it must have been made on behalf of those who will believe.

Now, if you reject the notion that God is choosing who believes, then you're still left with this notion: Did he die for everybody or just die for those that are ultimately going to be paid for? Right? And it is a reasonable question, and it is a logical question. I think limited atonement is logically consistent with the rest of Tulip.

Nevertheless, I am specifically not advocating for that view this morning because there's a bunch of other scripture that I think requires us to take a broader view of this. So this is true. The center bull's eye is accurate, but something else is also accurate.

Having seen some of these very specific particular language, listen to how else the New Testament describes the death of Christ in much broader language. Take a look at John 1:29:

The next day, he saw Jesus coming to him and he said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." — John 1:29

That's broad, right? Or how about John 3:16, probably your best known passage of scripture:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. — John 3:16

Do you guys happen to know when John uses the word "the world," what is he referring to? What's the Greek there? The cosmos. Right? It is very broad, expansive language. Now, I think we assume that the sins that he was taking upon himself were the sins of human beings. Does that feel safe? I don't know if he died for the squirrels, but we do know he was not incarnated as a squirrel. But he is redeeming not just humanity, but he's redeeming the world. There's a breadth to this language.

Or how about this, John 6:51:

I am the living bread that came down out of heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is my flesh. — John 6:51

John is very comfortable with an extraordinarily broad use of language in describing the death of Christ. Not only that, but even more so than in his gospel, he does this in one of his epistles. First John 2:2:

He says that Jesus Christ is the atoning sacrifice for our sins. He's talking about the church. He's talking about believers. But he goes on from that and says, "And not only for ours, but also for the sins of the whole world." — 1 John 2:2

These are the passages that give me absolute confidence when I'm talking to somebody about Christ and I have no idea how could I possibly know if they're elect. I don't know. I don't need to know. It's not my job to know. But can I walk up to somebody and say that Jesus loves you and that he died for you? The answer is absolutely.

Paul's Testimony on the Atonement

Not only because of the things that John says, but listen to Paul. If I had to give you one book in the New Testament that makes me unable to affirm limited atonement, it would be Paul's letter to Timothy. Listen to his language here. First Timothy 2:3-6:

This is good and it pleases God our Savior who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ who gave himself as a ransom for all men. The testimony given in its proper time. — 1 Timothy 2:3-6

Does God want all men to be saved? He does. Is there one mediator? There is. Is he available? He is the only mediator that anybody has. He is the mediator for all men. Jesus gave himself as a ransom for all men.

Well, here he says it again, same book, First Timothy 4:9-10:

This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance. And for this we labor and strive that we have put our hope in the living God who is the Savior of all men and especially of those who believe. — 1 Timothy 4:9-10

If I could only have one passage to talk about limited atonement or what I would characterize as an unlimited atonement, this would be it. Because it embraces the reality that Jesus' death is offered to all. He is the only redeemer that the world has ever known. He's the only one remotely qualified to be an all-sufficient savior. And we can go up to anybody on the face of the earth and offer them the beauty and the sweetness of the gospel.

But we also know that though he is the Savior of all men, he is particularly, effectively, efficaciously the Savior of those who believe. There is a breadth to this, but of course there's a particularity to it as well. Both of these things are true, and in that passage Paul captures both.

Or you can look at this, Hebrews 2:9:

We see Jesus who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death so that by the grace of God, he might taste death for everyone. — Hebrews 2:9

There's a breadth to the work of Christ. It is certainly not the case that he only had so many drops of blood and he spread it as far as he could. His death is sufficient for all, and it will be efficient for those who believe.

Now, if any of those feel like there's still a breath and who knows what he means when John says "for the world," listen to this language here. This feels like a throat punch, in my humble opinion, against a strict understanding of a limit to the atonement. Just listen to the logic of this.

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you who will secretly introduce destructive heresies. — 2 Peter 2:1

Anybody here think false prophets are Christians? Does anybody here think that those who introduce destructive heresies are Christians? Okay, let's keep going.

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there also will be false teachers among you who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the master who—what's the next phrase?—bought them, bringing swift destruction on themselves. — 2 Peter 2:1

Who is the master? What did he do? He bought. Who did he buy? False prophets, false teachers, the introducers of destructive heresies. They denied him. And yet Peter has no problem including them among those that Christ purchased with his blood. You hear me?

And then, yes, finally:

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. — 1 John 2:2

The New Testament will affirm repeatedly that Jesus died for his church, that he died for his people. But it also, in multiple ways, is going to use language that is way broader than that. He died. He purchased the destructive heresy introducers. He died for the world. Okay?

So the ones that Jesus bought are able to walk away and go after destructive heresies. This is what Peter is saying. Yes, I will affirm that. The simple answer is yes. But it does not follow that they are ever saved. This is not teaching that you can walk away from your salvation. That might be true—I don't think it is true—but that's not what we're talking about today. That's going to be perseverance of the saints. We're going to get to there. We'll talk about whether you can lose your salvation or not later. But Peter is not addressing that. He is simply saying that Jesus purchased all sorts of wretched people that are not ultimately availing themselves of his mercy.

So ransom doesn't mean saved. Correct. Yes. So Kelly's saying ransom doesn't mean saved. Yes, I am telling you that 2 Peter 2:1 does not mean that they are saved. That's right. That's exactly what I'm telling you. Being purchased by his blood does not equal experiencing the new birth. Correct. That's right. That's exactly what I'm saying.

Scripture Above Systems

Now, let's actually stay there because I want you to feel the tension of that. There are some that would say, "Well, it should. If Jesus paid for it, then it's paid for and then you're done and you're saved." And that's reasonable. But that's not actually the way the New Testament talks.

So here's what I want you to try to shove into your head. I'm trying to drive a little wedge into your brain. So please excuse me as I do this. At the end of the day, beginning of the day, all day long, the Bible reigns supreme. Whatever God has chosen to reveal to us is what he wants us to know. I have a very, very, very high view of Scripture. I'm also grateful for systems. People have come along and they've taken this book and they've cut it and pasted it and they've organized things and said, "Let's put all these passages together and let's create an organized system." It's what we call systematic theology. I love systematic theology. I'm grateful that somebody smarter than me said, "Hey, let's organize this so we can kinda keep track of it in our heads." Right?

But whatever your system is—whether your system is charismatic, Calvinist, egalitarian, whatever—we got all these little groupings of theology that we organize to help things make sense to us. Your system is subordinate to Scripture, or at least it ought to be. The L of TULIP is consistent with my system of Calvinism. However, I think Scripture contradicts it. And so the system has to kneel for the supremacy of the Word.

And I say this to you in the hopes that you might consider: you know what? There are things that I believe that I'm comfortable with this whole framing, but the Scripture doesn't really fit into it. And whenever that happens, bend your system. Don't bend the Scriptures. Right? There may be something that feels logical and coherent and cohesive to you, but if it can't survive the scrutiny of the total revelation of God, then hit it with a hammer, dent it, and live with it. I am absolutely convinced of the T, and the U, and the I, and the P.

Not because I like its coherence, but because I think it is absolutely supported by Scripture. I am not convinced of the truthfulness of the L because of all the passages of Scripture we just looked at, and Bible reigns supreme. I have no problem with systematic theology, but systematic theology needs to surrender to biblical theology if there's ever a conflict. That's what I'm suggesting to you.

Addressing the 1 Timothy 2 Passage

Gil, I was wondering about 1 Timothy 2:3-6. I was simply wondering if you're in a conversation, maybe even a debate with a Calvinist, what is their defense against that passage? I remember you reading it and I'm like, that seems pretty clear to me. How would they defend against that?

This is great. So Gil is asking the question: what if I was talking to somebody who is a Calvinist? And for all I know, there are people who believe in limited atonement in this room, and if so, that's great. I like it that we can disagree, right? You can think I'm misrepresenting the case—that's fine. You can say that out loud, we can process through that. We can always disagree, and we can all be friends, and we can do our best to understand it.

But generally, somebody who would look at 1 Timothy 2, let me reread it so people know which passage you're talking about.

This is good and pleases God our Savior who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. There's one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus who gave himself as a ransom for all men, the testimony given in his proper time. — 1 Timothy 2:3-6

Well, the first thing that's gonna jump off the page at you is this: does God get what he wants or doesn't he? Because if he wants all men to be saved, why aren't all men saved? You feel the weight of that? If God wants something to happen, is it not gonna happen?

What do you guys think about that? Does God get what he wants?

He has feelings and he'll be disappointed.

Kelly?

I don't have an answer to your question, but I do remember you teaching about God's wants being always right because there's no sin within him. So if he desires something, it's the right thing and it will happen. His wants happen, I thought. Am I misunderstanding?

Well, okay. No, that's good. So the fact that God wants all men to be saved—of course he does, right? For he is good, right? He takes no delight in the death of the wicked. But does God get what he wants? Let me ask you this. I don't know if you guys know 1 Thessalonians 4 says this:

It is God's will that you would avoid sexual immorality. — 1 Thessalonians 4

Does God get what he wants? Clearly not, right?

Free will.

Well, sort of. Free will—but okay. We are free to act according to our nature, right? So the Bible never affirms that people are free; it affirms that people are slaves to sin. But let me give you a different kind of framing for this.

God has his perfect will. When God says, "Let there be light," there is no argument. There's just light. The decree of God—he is able to say, "I want this and I will get it." But he is also obviously able to say, "I would like this to be true," and yet he permits things that contradict his will all the time. Every minute of your life has been lived in a world where things do not go according to God's perfect will. And yet, he remains sovereign.

So there are things that he wants that there will absolutely be no argument about, and there's the way that things ought to be, but that he allows enormous divergence from. And you see this all the time in your life. Your whole life is filled with things you'd like that are not wonderful and good and that please God, and yet he is content to work all things together, including some really terrible things, for the good of those who love him.

So he is sovereign and able to say, "This is what's gonna happen, there will be no argument." And he is sovereign and able to say, "Despite this crazy madness, I will still get to the ultimate end that I desire."

That's what I was gonna say. His will ultimately is achieved.

Yes. So when he says things like, "It's God's will that you would avoid sexual immorality," pretty clearly that's second circle, yes? That he wants all men to be saved—if you believe that is center circle, then you believe that all men will be saved, right? And I don't think very many of us do. And if you do, we could talk about that. Maybe we'll get to that when we get to our eschatology.

Universalism and the Meaning of "All"

So I'm still answering your question about universalism. Those who hold this view would say that God wants all men to be saved. Well, what does that mean? Clearly it's not going to happen. So maybe "all" doesn't mean what you think it means.

When they get down to "Jesus gave himself as a ransom for all men," there's a reasonable question: does "all" mean all? And the thing is, "all" doesn't always mean all. When Paul says in 1 Corinthians, "In Adam, all die; in Christ, all will be made alive," is that teaching universalism? We would say no. I think it means all who are in Christ will be made alive. There are different ways that any word can be conditioned.

They might argue that "all men" in "he gave himself as a ransom for all men" means all sorts of men—people from Australia, people from Africa, and people from Asia—not every particular individual. That might be the case they would make.

Biblical Theology, Systematic Theology, and Mystery

We have biblical theology, which is what God has specifically revealed—drawing straight from the text. We've got systematic theology, which is a human attempt to organize this and group things together in ways that are reasonable. But there's also stuff that he just hasn't revealed. He's told us everything we need. He's given us in his word everything we need for life and godliness. But it doesn't follow that he's dumped the truck of his omniscience to us. So there's plenty of stuff that I don't know why God does what he does, or how he does what he does. Mysteries remain.

John 3:16 and the Breadth and Particularity

David is observing that John 3:16 has both the broad and the particular.

For God so loved the world that he gave his only son that whosoever believes could be saved, could not perish but have eternal life. — John 3:16

So you're right that John is giving us the idea of breadth and then specificity. And in John 3:16, that specificity is not "he gave his son so that everyone could be saved," but specifically those who believe. And that's exactly right. John is very consistent about this, and so is Paul: that at the end of the day, we have to exercise faith. There's breadth, there's specificity, and you're exactly right.

Now, the other passage you might have been looking forward to, maybe Romans 10: "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word. How can they believe unless someone hears? How can they hear unless someone preaches to them?" And your question about those who have never heard the gospel—I'm just not going to chase that today because that is pretty tangential and we've got enough stuff closer to the center. That might be better for another day.

The Importance of Context

Chris, you mentioned the importance of avoiding proof texting. You brought up the Timothy verse, and you're thinking of the Romans verses that a couple of people alluded to—those all have context.

Proof Texting and Contextual Study

And for instance, the Timothy verse, I could see a good proof text argument—not that it's right—but saying that's an encouragement to Timothy, not to lose hope, and maybe it's an emphatic way of expressing from Paul. And then the Romans verses, I would say all those are as particular way to the church, even though it's saying to all men, there's a good argument, I would say, if you read the context around it. In what's for, and since scripture is historical, those aren't just written in some nebulous way—they're written for a purpose. And that's one of the arguments we have to back up our faith, our Christianity through the whole of scripture. And so ignoring that—just picking out a verse and saying, "this is what it says"—I just think that there needs to be a little more investigation on what. Sure. Yeah.

Okay. So Chris is using a term called proof texting. And generally, proof texting is when someone is proof texting—it's to criticize what they're saying. So to proof text is to take a passage out of context and say, "See, this proves my point." And what Chris is advocating for is each one of these passages that we looked at—we would have a better opportunity to understand the true meaning of any particular verse if we weren't pulling it out of its context, but seeing it in its broader case. And that's sound exegesis. What you're advocating for is sound.

But I do think that criticism can be overplayed. And if we were to take the time to go look through it all—you said we can't do in a class like this and look at 20 passages in their context. We would just be crawling through this and we would never get there. Right?

And it's reasonable to assume that words mean things in a sentence, just like words mean things in a paragraph, just like words mean things in a chapter. So if you wanted to—and I would invite Chris and anybody else to go look at any one of these—if you feel like any one of these passages that we looked at and you're like, "Well, hang on a second. When Jesus says [blank] in John 6, or in 1 Timothy 2, or whatever it is, what's really going on there?" That instinct to be Berean and say, "I want to go diligently study the scriptures to see if what Tim said was true"—that is a good instinct. By all means, you can do that. But it doesn't follow from that that we can't ever look at one verse and draw meaning out of it.

So I think when we're doing systematic theology, what you're kind of advocating for is biblical theology—let's take the sweep of the argument within a biblical passage, and amen. I'm all for that. But a systematics approach, which is what we're doing, necessarily pulls from lots of different places. And it's a fair question to say, "Are we doing that in a way that's faithful, or are we cheating?" So I invite all of you, check me. See if any of this is shady in the way that I'm representing it. If the meaning that I'm suggesting doesn't really flow from a more thorough context of study, then that's completely fair to bust me on that. But bring receipts when you do. That'd be great.

Old Testament Saints and the Atonement

Okay. I saved this to the end because we used the word "church" and we are part of the post-death, burial, resurrection church, New Testament covenant kingdom people. But are you including the Old Testament—the Jewish church, the Old Testament saints, the believers from the Old Testament—in any of this? Or are there places where it crosses over?

So Joe's asking a question, and we gotta wrap it at this: Did Jesus die for Old Testament Jews who never knew his name? Is that a fair summary?

Yes, he did. They were saved by faith in what the Messiah would do, just as much as we are saved by faith in what the Messiah has done. Now, we have an enormous advantage that we look—so you can imagine: here's Jesus, here's the cross right here in human history. Everyone who lived before him that is saved was saved anticipating what he would do. It's a little bit like these people were saved on credit. The payment lay yet in the future. Everyone after him is saved on a debit card. The payment was already made and we're just drawing it down—except it's an infinite balance.

Right? So prior to him, they were saved by credit and anticipation of Jesus's atoning work. We are saved by debit, looking back to the atoning work that was already accomplished. But it's still—we're saved by faith in the work of Christ, whether we live before it happened or after it happened. All the same. He is the only savior, past, present, and future. There is no alternative.

Alright. So we're gonna stop it there. Next week we're gonna talk about irresistible grace. And that's gonna be the I.

And I will just give you a little quick teaser. It's irresistible grace. It's not coercive grace. It's irresistible grace. And those are very different things. We'll talk about that next week.

Alright. Thanks for coming.