Introduction

This morning I am going to take another look at the theme of limited atonement that leaps off the text we covered last week, Romans 8:32. Our discussion last week after the sermon raised an number of important issues which should be explored further. So I want to probe a little more on this theme using Paul's application/implication question, "What shall we then say in response to these things?"

We should do this because of the centrality of the cross to be preached. It is because of the power of the cross to be believed and proclaimed. It is because of the claim that this doctrine is more a matter of logic that biblical teaching. This is a false disjunction, a false either/or. It needs to be affirmed that limited atonement (rightly defined) is logical and it is biblical as part of the very fabric of Scripture. Some of the clearest passages are John 17:1-2, Hebrews 2:12-18; 9:12 and Romans 8:32. Perhaps this Romans passage is the most direct and powerful in its expression of limited atonement because of the use it makes of the a fortiori pattern of argument (a much more argument that reasons between some greater and lessor). Today we will consider 1A) the question at issue and 2A) the answer from Romans 8:32.

1A. The question at issue in limited atonement

The cross is central in preaching therefore it needs to be defined precisely and clearly. Here we will use the "not…but" method. A helpful example of doing this on this theme is Hodge in Atonement (pp. 355-364). Some of my work will be drawn from Hodge.

1B. What the question is not.

1) Sufficiency or value. The work of the cross was performed by the Word who was God in the beginning and who became flesh and thus became our sin offering (Jn 1:1-2, 14; Rom. 8:3; Heb. 9:12). It is therefore an atonement of infinite value. Thus the hymn expresses it: "Ye who think of sin but lightly nor suppose the evil great, here may view it nature rightly, here its guilt may estimate. Mark the sacrifice appointed, see who bears the awful load, tis the Word the Lord's anointed, Son of man and Son of God." This reminds us that we must look in more than one direction when we consider the atonement. We look at our sin and see it as an infinite violation of God's holiness and honor and we look at His sacrifice as infinite in its value.

The cross is sufficient to cover the chief of sinners. There is no need for Christ to suffer an iota more or a moment longer in order to secure, if God willed, the salvation of every person who ever lived. For perspective consider this hypothetical question: "what if a non-elect person were to believe the gospel, would he be saved?" Because of the promise to faith and because of the infinite value of the atonement, the answer must be "yes." Granted a non-elect person cannot believe given his determined rebellion against the truth. But if a non-elect person came to the cross with his sins, he would be forgiven.

The point of this hypothetical (that is contrary to fact) is to simply stress the infinite value and sufficiency of the work of Christ. That is not limited. Limited atonement affirms the infinite value of the atonement. So this is not the issue in the debate.

2) Actual application is not the issue. We can say that all views hold to limited atonement in this sense: that the application is limited to those who believe.

3) Availability (or offer). The atonement is objectively, certainly, and freely available to each and every sinner to whom it is offered upon condition of faith. It is offered to all; we are to spread the message far and wide saying, "whoever believes in Christ will receive the forgiveness of their sins." The offer of the gospel is not limited and limited atonement does not necessitate a limited offer just as unconditional election does not limit the offer. More can be said about how this is so but for now I want to affirm that those who believe in limited atonement do not deny the universal offer of the gospel; they do not see such a denial arising from the doctrine of limited atonement (though opponents make this charge repeatedly).

4) Elect versus Non-elect is not the issue.

The real question is not: "did Christ die for all men or only for the elect?" This is a true way of framing the question up to a point, it is true as far as it goes; it gets close to the heart of things.

The problem here is at least twofold: a) the true point of the dispute is not brought into focus with the fullness, accuracy, and precision necessary; maximal clarity is vital on such a central theme as the cross, and b) this way of framing things centers attention on the wrong thing (emphasis is on the wrong syllable, cf. syl-la-ble versus syl-la-ble). Focus is placed on the number of people chosen (a limited number versus an unlimited number). The debate is turned in this direction by those who hold to unlimited atonement. We need to identify this fact and shift attention away from a mere numerical focus.

Accordingly, the unlimited view places attention on passages using language of scope (or number) such as "all," or "world." Thus, if John 3:17 is cited, stress is placed on "the world": Jesus came to save the world. What is neglected is proper attention to what it means for Him to come to save the world. Note the different orientation if you stress "the world" versus placing stress on "to save."

2B. This brings us to what the question is.

In the history of reformed thought on this issue, there is no axe to grind for a limited scope or number as if there is something virtuous about the quantifier "some" and something tainted about the quantifier "all." The interest of reformed theology is strongly focussed on the nature and design of the cross. The driving concern is to do justice to what was accomplished and to honor the determined love of God that is supremely expressed in the delivering up of Christ to the cross.

Again note that the emphasis is not on the extent of the atonement. The extent or scope is an implication, a by-product that arises from the nature of the cross. The extent, though important, is a minor point in relation to the major issue of design and nature.

1) Nature. Did the cross secure (obtain, cf. Heb. 9:12) the salvation of each one for whom Christ died? The point is "did it render certain the eventual and actual salvation of those for whom Jesus shed His blood?" What is called limited atonement is the doctrine that says "yes" to these questions. Its nature is definite: Jesus obtained eternal redemption by His own blood (Heb. 9:12).

Those who hold to unlimited atonement answer with a "no" saying that on the cross Jesus did not secure the salvation of those for whom He died; He did not obtain eternal redemption. They are clear on this because they teach that many for whom He died will perish. In the unlimited view, what Jesus did on the cross is the same in essence or nature with regard to those who are saved and with regard to those who perish. What He did on the cross is common to all. This notion of commonness helps us see the watering down of the gospel of the cross that is present in the unlimited view. That being the case there was no actual atonement made; it must be a potential atonement.

This brings tension for those who hold unlimited atonement. They know something actually took place but they deny its actuality. Here is how a friend expressed it, "Yes, Jesus obtained something, He obtained a provision (combining actual and potential in a confusing way, which boils down to actually obtaining nothing more than a potentiality; we must press for clarity on this precious doctrine!).

So we have the difference of salvation "secured" by Christ on the cross versus "not secured" and the difference of an actual atonement versus a potential atonement.

Thus when passages like 1 Peter 2:24 are cited we have to think through how we read them: "He himself bore our sins in His body on the tree." I fail to see how we can take this in any other way than "He actually took our sins with Him there to deal with them once and for all." Think about what it means to bear sin? Are sins somehow laid on Christ? No, to bear the sin means to endure its punishment. This doctrine is extremely personal and definite: He endured our punishment there on the cross so that we will not be punished; He endured my punishment there on the cross so that I will not be punished.

To accent this point note that it was my punishment by God that was borne by Christ. He endured divine wrath. It was poured on my Savior for me, in my place, as my substitute. This is the marvelous doctrine called limited atonement, which is better called definite, personal, effectual, and actual atonement (perhaps we could find a word to preserve the L in the tulip acrostic like literal atonement emphasizing actual versus potential.). Thus everytime we talk about substitutionary atonement we talk about limited/literal/actual atonement.

2) Design (another angle-purpose). Did Christ intend to apply the saving benefits of the cross to each one for whom He died? There must be some design. Jesus was slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 5:9; 13:8). It was no accident. He came into the world on mission to do the Father's will. Was His design to actually purchase people for God by His blood to guarantee their release from the bondage of sin? In obtaining their redemption, did He intend to give them what He obtained for them? Asking these questions practically answers them.

A literal (limited/actual) atonement says "yes, the design was to apply the saving benefits of the work of Christ to everyone for whom He died so that none for whom He died would perish." On the unlimited view, the answer is "no, in the atonement God did not intend to apply the saving benefits of the work of Christ to everyone for whom He died; many for whom Christ died will not have the atonement applied to them."

Things are blurred when those of the potential view claim design by saying that God did intend to apply the cross to each for whom Jesus died on condition of faith. For clarity, our response is that the cross secured the gift of faith to each one for whom Jesus died; it secured that the condition of faith be met (cf. Jn. 12:32).

2A. The answer according to Romans 8:32

1B. Design

Here is a clear biblical basis for literal/limited atonement: in verse 32 reference is made to things not yet brought to realization. These things are matters of divine purpose and design that will ultimately be fulfilled in glorification and conformity to Christ. Now we ask, "did God intend to apply these benefits to all for whom Christ died?" Yes, as the context shows us. Consider two ways it does this.

1) The fact of purpose in Romans 8:32 locks us into the golden chain of Romans 8:29-30. God has a determined intention regarding those He foreloved (lovingly chose): by His power He has predetermined their conformity to Christ through calling, justification, and glorification. But on what basis can He call, justify, and glorify sinners? The basis is the cross; therefore, the cross must have the design of bringing calling, justification and glorification to realization (i.e. to application). God has this settled design; to fulfill it the cross is needed; the cross must therefore serve that end (purpose, and design).

2) The verse itself confirms this design. The power of reasoning from the greater to the lessor (the a fortiori argument) is built on the unbreakable tie of delivering up Christ to punishment (not being spared) and the giving of all things to those for whom He died. God's intention is to give all to all for whom Christ was delivered up. Surely "all things" must include the effectual call to faith.

2B. Nature

Did Jesus actually secure the salvation of particular people when He died? Was actual salvation rendered certain for all for whom Christ died? Yes, absolutely: All for whom He was delivered up will in fact receive all things, any other thought is inconceivable. The actual bestowal of all good things was rendered certain in the greatest conceivable expression of God's love delivering up Christ to the cross.

What shall we say in response? (comfort, clarity, worship)

1) Full comfort (with a basis versus religious feeling that has no foundation)

Our salvation has nothing to do with us. It is comforting to know that my salvation has nothing to do with me (though my need of salvation has everything to do with me, with my sinfulness).

This is not a salvation He starts and we finish. His "it is finished" is total. There is no point at which we introduce a contributing element to our salvation. Thus even our faith is His gift (the gift of His being lifted up, Jn. 12:32; this gift is part of the all things given to those for whom Christ died, Rom. 8:32).

This is comforting regarding our loved ones, family and friends who go their own way with an outward peace and even a cocky assurance about their lives but who have no interest in Christ. Our comfort is to know that if Jesus died for them, they will believe the gospel and give themselves up to God to be His forever. We have a duty to witness as we are able but the outcome for them is in the Lord's hands and, thankfully, not in our hands or their hands. We wait upon His blessing using the full means. We have hope because our hope is in God not in man. We have hope because everyone for whom Christ died will receive Him; everyone for whom Jesus died will be saved.

This is the true comfort of providence. Where is the comfort of Romans 8:28 if we think that many for whom Jesus died shall in fact perish in their sins.

Take hope, you who take refuge in Christ. He chose you with distinguishing love before the foundation of the world not according to anything in you but according to His purpose, grace and love given to you in Christ. He predestined you, called you, justified you. It is His intention to glorify you. How so? It is based on the fact that He did not spare His own Son but delivered Him up for you to give you all things. None shall ever be confounded who on him their hope have built!

2) Clarity (served in a number of ways)

a) First, we know where to place the accent text by text. Thus, when we read that the Lamb of God "takes away the sin of the world" (Jn. 1:29) we accent the taking away; we wish only to due justice to the saving power of the Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world to purchase people for God (Rev. 5:9; 13:8; Heb. 9:12).

b) Second, we have clarity on God's love. God's love is distorted when it is proclaimed that Jesus died for all but many may perish. God's love for us is not a half way love; it is not a love that does all it can and then leaves us to ourselves to do the rest. Think of this wonder: God's love for us is such that He saves us from ourselves. He does it all. God's redemptive love is particular and effectual.

c) Third, we have clarity regarding accomplishment/application. This text helps us put the accomplishment of the past in perspective with the application that unfolds over time. They are inseparably tied together. Application in our lives by the preaching of the word and the work of the Holy Spirit is the outflow and gift of what Christ obtained. Jesus intercedes on the basis of what He accomplished. As great high priest, His atonement and His intercession are one; He now petitions the application of all that He accomplished on the cross. The application was designed and intended in His death. Salvation was secured when He died. None for whom He died will perish. His intercessory prayer will be answered. He will build His church. His word will not return void. All who have been given to Him will come to Him, they will believe because His death secured the gift of faith bestowed by God's efficacious call.

d) Clarity in our witness. We live in a context where the truth of limited-literal-actual atonement is neglected, held inconsistently, or opposed and where God's love is distorted by the accent placed on man's free will. Mind you, this is free will exercised by slaves in their very slavery! There is great inconsistency including a proclaimed but odd triumph of the cross where people for whom Christ died perish. The inconsistency of these things is glossed over by repetition and presumption. It is preached far and wide. We must do all that we can to counter this. Preaching limited atonement with clarity is our duty and it fulfills a God-ordained means.

Clarity here is important because the cross is the foundation of true assurance versus a vain confidence. This doctrine, within the context of all the doctrines of grace, causes people to examine themselves in a penetrating way: am I truly trusting in Christ alone or do I trust in Him plus something I do- some act of will, decision, acceptance, faith-am I trusting in myself plus Christ. The search light is turned on here by the literal atonement, by its particularism, and by its definiteness that cuts away all human contribution to salvation.

How do you testify to the assurance you have of salvation? You may say "I gave my heart to God" or "I accepted Christ." But do you trust in the fact that you gave or you accepted? A way to test if you trust in yourself is to wrestle with limited atonement and its gift of faith. I am not saying that a person must clearly embrace limited atonement to be a Christian. But I am saying that this doctrine raises the extremely important question: do I trust in Christ alone or do I trust in Christ plus something I have done. Opposing this doctrine of the literal, actual, and efficacious work of Christ may be done because you trust in something you have done independently of Christ. If you trust in something you have done-your walking an isle, your acceptance, your decision, your faith, or your good works, then you are perishing in your sins. Acknowledge His work alone.

We need to get this message out. Limited/literal/effectual atonement is part of the fabric of the gospel that is to be shouted from the housetops. The challenge this brings, the debate, the controversy is understandable given human nature and our desire to contribute something to our salvation. This is not a side point; it is at the very core of the good news.

We proclaim an accomplished work, a definite work where all was accomplished and the salvation secured is one that does not depend on us in any way whatever. That it does not depend on us in any way, shape or form is what makes limited/literal/actual atonement good news. May the Lord enable us to embrace these things firmly and clearly.

May we have clarity and boldness in our witness. May the Lord be pleased to use us. May we be about His service witnessing of these things to family and friends. This is the duty of Christian witness and gospel proclamation. We do our duty knowing that Jesus will build His church for He purchased her with His own blood and determines to give her all things.

3) Worship

I am sure that all will agree that proper worship ought to be maximal. In worship we ascribe all honor, glory and power to the bleeding Lamb.

We ought to exalt His saving work. This brings us personally to His feet in worship and praise saying "you redeemed us to God by your blood." We did not help the work along. We are totally blessed by the power of your efficacious love. Thus we sing, "Tune your harps anew ye seraphs, join to the sing the glorious theme; all on earth and all in heaven, join to praise Emmanual's name: Alleluia, Alleluia, Glory to the bleeding Lamb, glory to the bleeding Lamb."