The Saving Work of Christ
By Randy Seiver
The five points [of Calvinism], though separately stated, are really inseparable. They hang together; you cannot reject one without rejecting them all, at least in the sense in which, the Synod meant them. For to Calvinism, there is really only one point to be made in the field of soteriology [the doctrine of salvation]: the point that God saves sinners. God–the Triune Jehovah, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; three Persons working together in sovereign wisdom, power, and love to achieve the salvation of a chosen people, the Father electing, the Son fulfilling the Father’s will by redeeming, the Spirit executing the purpose of the Father and Son by renewing. Saves–does everything, first to last, that is involved in bringing man from death in sin to life in glory: plans, achieves, and communicates redemption, calls and keeps, justifies, sanctifies, glorifies. Sinners–men as God finds them, guilty, vile, helpless, powerless, unable to lift a finger to do God’s will or better their spiritual lot. God saves sinners–and the force of this confession may not be weakened by disrupting the unity of the work of the Trinity, or by dividing the achievement of salvation between God and man and making the decisive part man’s own, or by soft-pedalling the sinner’s inability so as to allow him to share the praise of his salvation with his Saviour. This is the one point of Calvinistic soteriology which the “five points” are concerned to establish and Arminianism in all its forms to deny: namely that sinners do not save themselves in any sense at all, but that salvation, first and last, whole and entire, past, present and future, is of the Lord, to whom be glory forever; amen.
James. I. Packer
Introductory Essay to, The Death of Death
by John Owen.
Introduction
Throughout Christian history there have been issues that have divided the people of God. Some of those issues concerned questions that had little impact on the integrity of the gospel or the practical life of the Church. Others have been issues of such grave importance that even a seemingly insignificant departure from Apostolic instruction has led to a radical departure from the biblical gospel.
One issue about which we cannot afford the slightest error is the design and extent of the redeeming work of Christ. Sadly, in many if not most of our modern, evangelical pulpits the biblical idea of substitution, in the sense that Jesus actually took the place of and bore God’s wrath for certain favored sinners so that he actually “sealed their pardon” on the cross, is never heard. In place of that message, well-meaning but misguided preachers feel constrained to inform their hearers indiscriminately that Jesus died for their sins on the cross. Now, if they will only open their hearts and let Jesus come in, God will save them. The sad tragedy is that such a message is not the biblical gospel. One will search the New Testament Scriptures in vain looking for such language in the proclamations of gospel preachers. Never is a crowd of sinners told “Jesus died for you.” Why should we forsake the biblical pattern for gospel preaching? Additionally, we never find them saying to anyone they need to open their hearts and let Jesus come in. Instead, these biblical evangelists told their hearers Jesus died for sinners. He actually took the place of and bore the penalty that was due to vile, guilty sinners who would believe and repent.
I have often heard the charge that Calvinists would rather fly across the country to debate an Arminian than to walk across the street to witness the gospel to the unconverted. Though I am sure there are some Calvinists, just as there are some Arminians, who are only theoretical and academic in their approach biblical truth, the great majority of Calvinists are, as they have been throughout Christian history, deeply concerned about spreading the gospel. Our overwhelming concern as we engage in this debate is to guard and preserve the purity of the gospel. It makes no difference whether we walk across the street or travel around the world to witness to the lost, the message we give them must be God’s message, not ours. If we should give the impression the sinner’s decision to receive Jesus Christ forms any part of the basis for his right standing before God, we have mutilated the gospel and changed it into another gospel that is not God’s good news at all.
There are several questions I intend to answer in this booklet that are crucial to our understanding of Christ’s redeeming work. It is not my purpose to provide an exhaustive treatment of this subject or of the biblical passages related to it. Instead, I want to focus the debate on the real issues that divide evangelical Christians on this subject. I hope once we have dismissed the “straw man” issue and considered a representative sample of the pertinent biblical texts on the real issue, we will be able to find some agreement on this subject. Ultimately, I believe there is one question that should indicate which view is most in keeping with the biblical message concerning Christ’s redeeming work. Which view, Arminianism, Amyraldianism, or Calvinism, is most accurately reflected in our title, “The Saving Work of Christ?”
The Real Issue
Perhaps you noticed we mentioned the design of the atonement before we mentioned its extent. That order was not unintentional. Too often the issues in this debate have been muddled because those involved asked the wrong questions. If we ask “For whom did Jesus die?” we are asking about the extent of His redemptive work. The problem with that question is that it too often leads to an imagined debate about the sufficiency of His redeeming work, i.e., was it sufficient for all or sufficient only for the elect. How often have we heard well-meaning, but horribly misguided preachers boldly assert they do not believe in “limited atonement;” they believe His death was sufficient for all sinners? Anyone who makes such a statement is either speaking out of profound ignorance or is deliberately twisting the issue for his own purposes. Here we are reminded of C. H. Spurgeon’s quip regarding how some in his day handled the debate over the nature of divine election. He wrote, “What a wonderful deal has been done by some men in burning figures of their own stuffing. . . How earnestly do they set themselves to confute what no one defends.”
The real issue we need to address is whether God intended Jesus’ death merely to provide the possibility of salvation for all sinners or infallibly to secure salvation for every sinner the Father gave to the Son before He created the world. Let me put the question another way. For years the church has sung, “On the cross He sealed my pardon, paid the debt, and set me free.” Were we right or wrong in singing those words? Remember, if He accomplished no more for believers than He accomplished for those who will finally perish in their sins, He did not truly seal our pardon on the cross.
Three Evangelical Views
There are three main evangelical views regarding the nature of Jesus’ death; the Arminian view, the Amyraldian view, and the Calvinistic view. These three groups view the death of Christ in radically different ways. Which of these do you think can most accurately speak of “the saving work of Christ?”
The Arminian View
The first is the Arminian view that Jesus’ death was intended to save all sinners but actually saves no one but believers.
That, accordingly, Jesus Christ the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” And in the First Epistle of John 2:2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”
The Amyraldian View
The second is the view of the “hypothetical universalists,”called Amyraldians, that Jesus’ death was universal in its scope in terms of its design which was to give all sinners the potential of salvation. According to this view, Jesus died equally for all sinners, yet ,His death did not, in itself, secure the salvation of anyone. It was not only sufficient for all but was intended for all. God has, however, limited its application to the elect. This view faces a logical problem. Those who hold this view believe God has decreed all that actually occurs. If it happens in time, it must have been planned in eternity. If God the Father has limited Christ’s redeeming work in its application to the elect only, that limited application must have been decreed before time began. That is, God designed it to actually redeem only the elect. Its design cannot be both limited and unlimited at the same time.
The Calvinistic View
The third view is the Calvinistic view that Jesus’ redeeming work is unlimited in its value, but particular in its design. It was designed actually to accomplish the salvation of God’s elect. In all these views there is a limitation. The first two view the work of Christ as limited in its effectiveness; it did not actually and objectively accomplish the salvation of anyone in particular. In regard to the second view, there was no objective accomplishment of propitiation, redemption, reconciliation, or justification. If we were to take either of the first two views, we could not speak of “the saving work of Christ,” since His sacrifice was offered equally for all. If it, in itself, did not accomplish the salvation of all for whom He died, it did not accomplish the salvation of any for whom He died.
In truth, there is no debate over the sufficiency of Jesus’ redeeming work. Both Arminians and Calvinists acknowledge its sufficiency. His death was more than enough to redeem every sinner who has lived, is living, or shall ever live. It possesses such value because of the dignity of the one who was crucified. If he chose to save every sinner who ever existed, He would need to do no more than He has done. If you have never done so, I strongly suggest you read “the Canons of Dort [Dordt]” in their entirety. After all, they are the official formulation of the five points of Calvinism. If you wish to argue against these points, it might be a good idea for you to discover what these points are. Let me quote for you Articles 3-7 of the Second Head of Doctrine, “The Death of Christ, and the Redemption of Men Thereby.”
Article 3. The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.
Article 4. This death is of such infinite value and dignity because the person who submitted to it was not only really man and perfectly holy, but also the only-begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit, which qualifications were necessary to constitute Him a Savior for us; and, moreover, because it was attended with a sense of the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin.
Article 5. Moreover, the promise of the gospel is that whosoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to all whom God out of His good pleasure sends the gospel.
Article 6. And, whereas many who are called by the gospel do not repent nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief, this is not owing to any defect of insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves.
Article 7. But as many as truly believe, and are delivered and saved from sin and destruction through the death of Christ, are indebted for this benefit solely to the grace of God given them in Christ from everlasting, and not to any merit of their own.
Can you imagine a stronger affirmation of the abundant sufficiency of Christ’s redeeming work? Surely, the most committed Arminian could never have stated the truth about the sufficiency of Christ’s death more forcefully.
It has been years since I read John Murray’s discussion of the extent of the atonement Though I have referred to other portions of his excellent book often over the years, I had not reread that particular chapter until now. I cannot recommend his cogent treatment of that subject highly enough. Concerning the issue at hand, he wrote concerning Christ’s redemptive work, "If we universalize the extent we limit the efficacy. If some of those for whom atonement was made and redemption wrought perish eternally, then the atonement is not itself efficacious. It is this alternative that the proponents of universal atonement must face. They have a “limited” atonement and limited in respect of that which impinges upon its essential character".
This was essentially what C. H. Spurgeon was saying in the following paragraph.
We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, ‘No, certainly not.’ We ask them the next question—Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? The answer ‘No.’ They are obliged to admit this if they are consistent. They say, ‘No, Christ died that any man may be saved if’—and then follow certain conditions of salvation. Now who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as infallibly to secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ’s death; we say, ‘No, my dear sir, it is you that do it.’ We say that Christ so died that he secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it.
Since all sides agree that Christ’s redeeming work is sufficient for all, we need to be more careful in setting the parameters of the debate. If a person should inquire about the extent of Jesus’ redeeming work, we must first ascertain whether he is asking about the extent of its sufficiency or the extent of its design and accomplishment. These are decidedly different questions with markedly differing answers.
Potential or Actual?
The first issue concerns whether Scripture speaks of the accomplishments of Jesus’ death as potential or as actual. Did Jesus make it possible for us to be saved or did He secure our salvation by His redemptive work?
The following are just a few of the many verses that speak about Jesus’ redemptive work on behalf of His people. Notice that these verses all represent His sacrificial death as an actual work of reconciliation, redemption, propitiation etc.
For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life (Romans 5:10).
And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled 22in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight (Colossians 1:20-21).
But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all [for all time], having obtained eternal redemption (Hebrews 9:11-12).
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit (1 Peter 3:18).
And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world (1 John 2:1b-2).
In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins (1 John 4:10).
Notice all these verses indicate it was His work on the cross, not the application of that work, that accomplished the salvation of His people. For example, the reconciliation about which Paul writes in Romans 5:10 is objective, not subjective in nature. That is, it occurred outside our experience, “when we were still enemies.”
Additionally, notice the words “potential” and “possible” are not even implied in any of these verses relative to the work of Christ. His work is represented as an actual accomplishment not a potential provision.
Redemption
The word redemption in the New Testament means to set free by the payment of a ransom. Are the non-elect now set free or will they ever be set free from sin, from guilt, from fear of death etc.? If not, in what sense did Jesus die to redeem them? Whether we view God’s decree to elect certain sinners to salvation as based on His foresight of their faith, or on His sovereign good pleasure, it is certain He only intended Christ’s redeeming work for those who would actually be set free.
Propitiation
The word propitiation means an appeasement or satisfaction of divine wrath. Did Jesus satisfy God’s wrath or will it ever be satisfied for those who will perish in their unbelief? If not, in what sense did Jesus make propitiation for them?
Reconciliation
Reconciliation means to restore to friendly relationship those who had been hostile toward one another. Will rebellious sinners who will perish under God’s sentence of death ever be brought into a friendly relationship with Him?
Justification
Justification is God’s declaration that sinners are righteous in His sight. Will He ever declare righteous those who will die in unbelief?
What About “Universal” Terms?
The third issue concerns the New Testament’s usage of such words as “world,” “every” and “all.” Should we continue to insist these terms always refer to everyone without exception, even if it means such a broadening of the scope of Jesus’ work diminishes the force of His accomplishments by that work? Lorraine Boettner wrote, “[For the Calvinist, the atonement] is like a narrow bridge that goes all the way across the stream; for the Arminian it is like a great wide bridge that only goes half way across.”
It should be obvious to any careful reader of the New Testament Scriptures that the words, “world,” “every” and “all,” do not always refer to every person without exception. Often they refer to all of a class or to men and women from the Gentile nations in contrast to members of the Nation of Israel. For example, The Apostle, in Romans 11:11-15, uses the word “world” to denote all who are not members of ethnic Israel. It would be difficult to disprove the contention that the word, as it is used in the New Testament Scriptures, never denotes every member of the human race. The faulty assumption that it must mean every member of the race equally has been the cause of a great deal of erroneous thinking about God’s saving activity.
Now suppose we give the word “world” that commonly held meaning in those verses where it occurs in relation to God’s redemptive activity. How will that affect our view of God’s redemptive plan and the redemptive activities of the Triune God in the accomplishment of that plan? For example, John 3:16 tell us “ . . . God loved the world in this way, that He gave His unique Son. . .” If we should understand “world” to mean every sinner without exception, how does that affect our view of God’s love? Are we to believe God not only loves every sinner but loves every sinner equally and in the same way? This becomes a bit difficult when the same Bible tells us God loved Jacob and hated Esau (see–Romans 9:13). Even if we should insist that He only “hated” Esau in comparison to His love for Jacob, we must still admit God did not love them equally. Did God love those who drowned in the great flood as much as he loved Noah and his family? If he did, that was a poor way to demonstrate it. Does he love those who are perishing in hell equally and in the same way as he loves those who are redeemed for eternity? Has he done His absolute best to save them, and have they by their obstinate rebellion frustrated His love and thwarted His purpose? If so, one would be forced to the conclusion that man, not God, is sovereign in the universe.
Consider another example. 1 John 2:1b-2 tells us we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous one, and He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world. If “whole world” means every sinner without exception, what meaning can we assign to the word propitiation? The classic definition of the biblical term propitiation is–a satisfaction or an appeasement of divine wrath. Now if John does not refer to propitiation as potential but as actual, and if that work was actually accomplished for every sinner in the world, then propitiation cannot be a satisfaction of appeasement of God’s wrath. Otherwise, the New Testament writers would present God as a capricious deity who demands satisfaction more than once for the same offenses. The Apostle Paul makes it clear that God’s wrath is coming on unbelievers because of their sins. He writes,
But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; 4neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. 5For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience (Ephesians 5:3-6).
If Jesus satisfied the Father’s wrath for every sinner, how is it that the Father’s wrath can again fall on those same sinners? Surely Agustus Toplady was on the mark when he wrote,
If Thou hast my discharge procured
And freely in my room endured
The whole of wrath divine,
Payment God cannot twice demand,
First at my bleeding Surety’s hand
And then again at mine.
Can you see how biblical terms can be robbed of their full meaning if we insist on giving unwarranted definitions to terms that seem universal in their scope?
The Results of Jesus’ Death
Finally, what, if anything, does the New Testament teach about the results of Jesus’ death for all for whom He died?
Death to Sin‘s Reign
2 Cor 5:14-15
In 2 Cor 5:14-15, the Apostle Paul makes it clear that all for whom Christ died, died in Him and with Him. He writes,
14For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; 15and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again.
The King James Version erroneously translated the second verb “to die” as though it had been an imperfect tense–“were dead“ rather than translating it as an aorist tense–“died.” From this mistranslation one might assume the Apostle was referring to the spiritual condition of all sinners because of their fall in Adam, i.e., “all were dead in trespasses and sins.” The New King James Version has corrected this mistranslation by rendering both verbs “died.” If one died for all, then all died.” The Apostle’s meaning was clearly that all for whom Jesus died, died with him to the reigning power of sin. It is for this reason the “all” for whom He died no longer go on living to please themselves; they now live to please Him who died for them and rose again.
If this interpretation of the passage is correct, it is impossible for us to understand the “all” in these verses to refer to all sinners without exception unless we are prepared to believe all sinners will ultimately die to the reigning power of sin.
In verse 32 he argues from the greater to the lesser. If God has given us the greatest gift possible, how can He not give us all the lesser gifts of grace Christ has purchased for us, including our final glorification. He writes, “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?” Everyone for whom Jesus gave His life will finally be saved.
Again, unless we are prepared to argue that every sinner will ultimately enjoy every spiritual gift Jesus purchased including glorification, we cannot, in light of Paul’s teaching here, reasonably insist Jesus died to redeem every sinner.
The two priestly functions of offering sacrifice and intercession are always taken together in the Scriptures. On the Day of Atonement, the function of the high priest was two-fold; he first offered the sacrifice in the outer court, and then he sprinkled the blood of the sacrifice on the mercy seat in God’s holy presence. The sacrificial offering in the outer court corresponds to Jesus’ once offering Himself as a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice and reconcile us to God. The act of blood sprinkling in the most holy place corresponds to His continual intercession for us at the Father’s right hand. It is significant that the high priest presented the blood of the sacrifice in the most holy place for no one other than those for whom he had offered the sacrifice in the outer court. These two acts were co-extensive. If we would learn for whom Jesus offered Himself on the cross, we need only discover for whom He makes intercession at the Father’s right hand. These two acts are also co-extensive. If He offered Himself as a sacrifice for all without exception, then He must intercede for all without exception. But, how do the Scriptures answer the question, “ For whom does Jesus, our Great High Priest, intercede?” In the passage we are examining, the answer is quite clear; all we need to do is discover to whom the word “us” refers in the passage. Only a person with an extreme bias could deny the word consistently refers to those whose glorification God decreed before the world began.
Consider two other verses bearing on this issue. First, in Jesus’ intercessory prayer recorded in John 17, we have irrefutable proof that Jesus only makes intercession for those the Father has given Him. This is what He said, “I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours” (John 17:9). At this point, He refers specifically to those who had already come to believe on Him, but later He includes all “those who shall believe on Him through their word” ( v. 20). His intercession is never said to be for anyone other than those who will ultimately come to faith in Him. The second verse refers to Jesus’ intercession as our High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. Because Jesus is an undying priest, the writer draws the conclusion, “Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost [completely] those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them”( Hebrews 7:25). Notice, “for them” does not refer to everyone without exception, but for “those who come to God by Him,” i.e., for believers.
SECOND HEAD: ARTICLE 7. But as many as truly believe, and are delivered and saved from sin and destruction through the death of Christ, are indebted for this benefit solely to the grace of God given them in Christ from everlasting, and not to any merit of their own.
SECOND HEAD: ARTICLE 8. For this was the sovereign counsel and most gracious will and purpose of God the Father that the quickening and saving efficacy of the most precious death of His Son should extend to all the elect, for bestowing upon them alone the gift of justifying faith, thereby to bring them infallibly to salvation; that is, it was the will of God that Christ by the blood of the cross, whereby He confirmed the new covenant, should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation and given to Him by the Father; that He should confer upon them faith, which, together with all the other saving gifts of the Holy Spirit, He purchased for them by His death; should purge them from all sin, both original and actual, whether committed before or after believing; and having faithfully preserved them even to the end, should at last bring them, free from every spot and blemish, to the enjoyment of glory in His own presence forever.
SECOND HEAD: ARTICLE 9. This purpose, proceeding from everlasting love towards the elect, has from the beginning of the world to this day been powerfully accomplished, and will henceforeward still continue to be accomplished, notwithstanding all the ineffectual opposition of the gates of hell; so that the elect in due time may be gathered together into one, and that there never may be wanting a Church composed of believers, the foundation of which is laid in the blood of Christ; which may stedfastly love and faithfully serve Him as its Savior (who, as a bridegroom for his bride, laid down His life for them upon the cross); and which may celebrate His praises here and through all eternity.
Many seem to believe if they are going to proclaim the gospel they must tell every sinner Christ died for him. Additionally, they believe that if Jesus did not die to take away the sins of every individual, they cannot preach the gospel. This is very erroneous. The gospel declared that Christ died for the guilty and that the most guilty who believe shall be saved.. ‘It is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners,’ even the chief of sinners. The gospel does not tell every individual to whom we addressed it that Christ died for him. Instead, it simply tells him that if he believes, he will be saved. On this basis, we can proclaim the gospel to every sinner. It is only after a person has believed the gospel that he can know Christ died for him individually. Since the Bible reveals that whoever believes shall be saved, it is quite consistent to proclaim the gospel to all sinners and declare that they will be saved if they believe. If the most guilt person in the human race should believe, it is an absolute certainty that he would be saved. If anyone feels he cannot proclaim the gospel freely and has difficulty calling everyone to faith unless he can say, “Jesus died for every member of the human race,” he does not clearly understand what the gospel is. It is the good news that Christ died for the most guilty who believe, not that he died for every individual whether he should believe or not. To the truth that every person who believes shall be saved there is no exception. The only sins that will not find God’s forgiveness are those that belong to sinners who refuse to believe the gospel; if they believe, they will be saved. . . .
Some would have a problem calling sinners to believe in Christ if His redeeming work was not intended for every sinner. This is no different from the difficulty some experience when they feel restrained in calling on sinners indiscriminately to believe the gospel because they know God will never save those he has not chosen for eternal life. Here is where they go wrong. According to the commandment of the everlasting God, we are to make the gospel known to all nations for the obedience of faith. It is certain those whom God has not graciously chosen and for whom Christ did not die will never believe. These are secret things that belong to God alone. They will be made known at the proper time. . . .We are not to inquire first, either for ourselves or others, about the identity of the chosen ones or the redeemed before we determine to whom we should preach the gospel. We must preach it to all, assured that whoever believes it shall receive forgiveness. When we believe the gospel, we come to understand for ourselves that Christ bore our sins in his body on the tree. We learn that, from the beginning, God has chosen us to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.
The work of Christ is of unlimited value. The reason all are not saved by it has nothing to do with insufficient value but simply because it was not intended to redeem all. In itself it was valuable enough to take away all the sins of mankind, had that been God’s intention. If Christ’s sacrifice had not been sufficient for all, it would not have been sufficient for anyone. Every sinner who will be saved needed a redemptive act of unlimited value; no more could be required to redeem every individual. We proclaim the all-sufficiency of Christ’s redemptive work to all who hear the gospel. We invite all to rely on it for pardon and acceptance. We address them as freely as if we knew God had designed it for them from all eternity. All who rely on it in saving faith shall surely experience its power and unlimited value.
It is not faith in the promises of God or faith in Christ that justifies sinners before God, it is Christ who justifies, through faith. Faith does not form any part of the basis of our justification. It is not that Jesus did His part by dying, we do our part by believing, and these acts taken together turn God’s wrath away. No,
Jesus paid it all,
All to Him I owe;
Sin had left a crimson stain,
He washed it white as snow.
Boettner, Lorraine, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1963.
Haldane, Robert, The Epistle to the Romans, London: The Banner of Truth Trust, reprint 1966.
Murray, John, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1961.
Spurgeon, C. H. “How to Meet the Doctrine of Election,” Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 30.
_________Sermons on Sovereignty, Albany, OR. Ages Software, 1998.
The Five Articles of the Remonstrants, Article 2.
The Canons of Dordt, Second Head.
One issue about which we cannot afford the slightest error is the design and extent of the redeeming work of Christ. Sadly, in many if not most of our modern, evangelical pulpits the biblical idea of substitution, in the sense that Jesus actually took the place of and bore God’s wrath for certain favored sinners so that he actually “sealed their pardon” on the cross, is never heard. In place of that message, well-meaning but misguided preachers feel constrained to inform their hearers indiscriminately that Jesus died for their sins on the cross. Now, if they will only open their hearts and let Jesus come in, God will save them. The sad tragedy is that such a message is not the biblical gospel. One will search the New Testament Scriptures in vain looking for such language in the proclamations of gospel preachers. Never is a crowd of sinners told “Jesus died for you.” Why should we forsake the biblical pattern for gospel preaching? Additionally, we never find them saying to anyone they need to open their hearts and let Jesus come in. Instead, these biblical evangelists told their hearers Jesus died for sinners. He actually took the place of and bore the penalty that was due to vile, guilty sinners who would believe and repent.
I have often heard the charge that Calvinists would rather fly across the country to debate an Arminian than to walk across the street to witness the gospel to the unconverted. Though I am sure there are some Calvinists, just as there are some Arminians, who are only theoretical and academic in their approach biblical truth, the great majority of Calvinists are, as they have been throughout Christian history, deeply concerned about spreading the gospel. Our overwhelming concern as we engage in this debate is to guard and preserve the purity of the gospel. It makes no difference whether we walk across the street or travel around the world to witness to the lost, the message we give them must be God’s message, not ours. If we should give the impression the sinner’s decision to receive Jesus Christ forms any part of the basis for his right standing before God, we have mutilated the gospel and changed it into another gospel that is not God’s good news at all.
There are several questions I intend to answer in this booklet that are crucial to our understanding of Christ’s redeeming work. It is not my purpose to provide an exhaustive treatment of this subject or of the biblical passages related to it. Instead, I want to focus the debate on the real issues that divide evangelical Christians on this subject. I hope once we have dismissed the “straw man” issue and considered a representative sample of the pertinent biblical texts on the real issue, we will be able to find some agreement on this subject. Ultimately, I believe there is one question that should indicate which view is most in keeping with the biblical message concerning Christ’s redeeming work. Which view, Arminianism, Amyraldianism, or Calvinism, is most accurately reflected in our title, “The Saving Work of Christ?”
The Real Issue
Perhaps you noticed we mentioned the design of the atonement before we mentioned its extent. That order was not unintentional. Too often the issues in this debate have been muddled because those involved asked the wrong questions. If we ask “For whom did Jesus die?” we are asking about the extent of His redemptive work. The problem with that question is that it too often leads to an imagined debate about the sufficiency of His redeeming work, i.e., was it sufficient for all or sufficient only for the elect. How often have we heard well-meaning, but horribly misguided preachers boldly assert they do not believe in “limited atonement;” they believe His death was sufficient for all sinners? Anyone who makes such a statement is either speaking out of profound ignorance or is deliberately twisting the issue for his own purposes. Here we are reminded of C. H. Spurgeon’s quip regarding how some in his day handled the debate over the nature of divine election. He wrote, “What a wonderful deal has been done by some men in burning figures of their own stuffing. . . How earnestly do they set themselves to confute what no one defends.”
The real issue we need to address is whether God intended Jesus’ death merely to provide the possibility of salvation for all sinners or infallibly to secure salvation for every sinner the Father gave to the Son before He created the world. Let me put the question another way. For years the church has sung, “On the cross He sealed my pardon, paid the debt, and set me free.” Were we right or wrong in singing those words? Remember, if He accomplished no more for believers than He accomplished for those who will finally perish in their sins, He did not truly seal our pardon on the cross.
Three Evangelical Views
There are three main evangelical views regarding the nature of Jesus’ death; the Arminian view, the Amyraldian view, and the Calvinistic view. These three groups view the death of Christ in radically different ways. Which of these do you think can most accurately speak of “the saving work of Christ?”
The Arminian View
The first is the Arminian view that Jesus’ death was intended to save all sinners but actually saves no one but believers.
That, accordingly, Jesus Christ the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” And in the First Epistle of John 2:2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”
The Amyraldian View
The second is the view of the “hypothetical universalists,”called Amyraldians, that Jesus’ death was universal in its scope in terms of its design which was to give all sinners the potential of salvation. According to this view, Jesus died equally for all sinners, yet ,His death did not, in itself, secure the salvation of anyone. It was not only sufficient for all but was intended for all. God has, however, limited its application to the elect. This view faces a logical problem. Those who hold this view believe God has decreed all that actually occurs. If it happens in time, it must have been planned in eternity. If God the Father has limited Christ’s redeeming work in its application to the elect only, that limited application must have been decreed before time began. That is, God designed it to actually redeem only the elect. Its design cannot be both limited and unlimited at the same time.
The Calvinistic View
The third view is the Calvinistic view that Jesus’ redeeming work is unlimited in its value, but particular in its design. It was designed actually to accomplish the salvation of God’s elect. In all these views there is a limitation. The first two view the work of Christ as limited in its effectiveness; it did not actually and objectively accomplish the salvation of anyone in particular. In regard to the second view, there was no objective accomplishment of propitiation, redemption, reconciliation, or justification. If we were to take either of the first two views, we could not speak of “the saving work of Christ,” since His sacrifice was offered equally for all. If it, in itself, did not accomplish the salvation of all for whom He died, it did not accomplish the salvation of any for whom He died.
In truth, there is no debate over the sufficiency of Jesus’ redeeming work. Both Arminians and Calvinists acknowledge its sufficiency. His death was more than enough to redeem every sinner who has lived, is living, or shall ever live. It possesses such value because of the dignity of the one who was crucified. If he chose to save every sinner who ever existed, He would need to do no more than He has done. If you have never done so, I strongly suggest you read “the Canons of Dort [Dordt]” in their entirety. After all, they are the official formulation of the five points of Calvinism. If you wish to argue against these points, it might be a good idea for you to discover what these points are. Let me quote for you Articles 3-7 of the Second Head of Doctrine, “The Death of Christ, and the Redemption of Men Thereby.”
Article 3. The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.
Article 4. This death is of such infinite value and dignity because the person who submitted to it was not only really man and perfectly holy, but also the only-begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit, which qualifications were necessary to constitute Him a Savior for us; and, moreover, because it was attended with a sense of the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin.
Article 5. Moreover, the promise of the gospel is that whosoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to all whom God out of His good pleasure sends the gospel.
Article 6. And, whereas many who are called by the gospel do not repent nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief, this is not owing to any defect of insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves.
Article 7. But as many as truly believe, and are delivered and saved from sin and destruction through the death of Christ, are indebted for this benefit solely to the grace of God given them in Christ from everlasting, and not to any merit of their own.
Can you imagine a stronger affirmation of the abundant sufficiency of Christ’s redeeming work? Surely, the most committed Arminian could never have stated the truth about the sufficiency of Christ’s death more forcefully.
It has been years since I read John Murray’s discussion of the extent of the atonement Though I have referred to other portions of his excellent book often over the years, I had not reread that particular chapter until now. I cannot recommend his cogent treatment of that subject highly enough. Concerning the issue at hand, he wrote concerning Christ’s redemptive work, "If we universalize the extent we limit the efficacy. If some of those for whom atonement was made and redemption wrought perish eternally, then the atonement is not itself efficacious. It is this alternative that the proponents of universal atonement must face. They have a “limited” atonement and limited in respect of that which impinges upon its essential character".
This was essentially what C. H. Spurgeon was saying in the following paragraph.
We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, ‘No, certainly not.’ We ask them the next question—Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? The answer ‘No.’ They are obliged to admit this if they are consistent. They say, ‘No, Christ died that any man may be saved if’—and then follow certain conditions of salvation. Now who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as infallibly to secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ’s death; we say, ‘No, my dear sir, it is you that do it.’ We say that Christ so died that he secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it.
Since all sides agree that Christ’s redeeming work is sufficient for all, we need to be more careful in setting the parameters of the debate. If a person should inquire about the extent of Jesus’ redeeming work, we must first ascertain whether he is asking about the extent of its sufficiency or the extent of its design and accomplishment. These are decidedly different questions with markedly differing answers.
Pivotal Questions
The more important question is, What did Jesus accomplish for those for whom He died? There are four crucial issues we need to address that will enable us to answer this question correctly.Potential or Actual?
The first issue concerns whether Scripture speaks of the accomplishments of Jesus’ death as potential or as actual. Did Jesus make it possible for us to be saved or did He secure our salvation by His redemptive work?
The following are just a few of the many verses that speak about Jesus’ redemptive work on behalf of His people. Notice that these verses all represent His sacrificial death as an actual work of reconciliation, redemption, propitiation etc.
For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life (Romans 5:10).
And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled 22in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight (Colossians 1:20-21).
But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all [for all time], having obtained eternal redemption (Hebrews 9:11-12).
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit (1 Peter 3:18).
And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world (1 John 2:1b-2).
In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins (1 John 4:10).
Notice all these verses indicate it was His work on the cross, not the application of that work, that accomplished the salvation of His people. For example, the reconciliation about which Paul writes in Romans 5:10 is objective, not subjective in nature. That is, it occurred outside our experience, “when we were still enemies.”
Additionally, notice the words “potential” and “possible” are not even implied in any of these verses relative to the work of Christ. His work is represented as an actual accomplishment not a potential provision.
Definition of Terms
The second issue concerns the meanings of those terms that define the saving work of Christ, namely, redemption, propitiation, reconciliation, and justification. The Calvinist understands results of Jesus’ death as an objective accomplishment of these blessings. Consider these definitions and ask if Jesus truly accomplished these blessings for anyone but believers.Redemption
The word redemption in the New Testament means to set free by the payment of a ransom. Are the non-elect now set free or will they ever be set free from sin, from guilt, from fear of death etc.? If not, in what sense did Jesus die to redeem them? Whether we view God’s decree to elect certain sinners to salvation as based on His foresight of their faith, or on His sovereign good pleasure, it is certain He only intended Christ’s redeeming work for those who would actually be set free.
Propitiation
The word propitiation means an appeasement or satisfaction of divine wrath. Did Jesus satisfy God’s wrath or will it ever be satisfied for those who will perish in their unbelief? If not, in what sense did Jesus make propitiation for them?
Reconciliation
Reconciliation means to restore to friendly relationship those who had been hostile toward one another. Will rebellious sinners who will perish under God’s sentence of death ever be brought into a friendly relationship with Him?
Justification
Justification is God’s declaration that sinners are righteous in His sight. Will He ever declare righteous those who will die in unbelief?
What About “Universal” Terms?
The third issue concerns the New Testament’s usage of such words as “world,” “every” and “all.” Should we continue to insist these terms always refer to everyone without exception, even if it means such a broadening of the scope of Jesus’ work diminishes the force of His accomplishments by that work? Lorraine Boettner wrote, “[For the Calvinist, the atonement] is like a narrow bridge that goes all the way across the stream; for the Arminian it is like a great wide bridge that only goes half way across.”
It should be obvious to any careful reader of the New Testament Scriptures that the words, “world,” “every” and “all,” do not always refer to every person without exception. Often they refer to all of a class or to men and women from the Gentile nations in contrast to members of the Nation of Israel. For example, The Apostle, in Romans 11:11-15, uses the word “world” to denote all who are not members of ethnic Israel. It would be difficult to disprove the contention that the word, as it is used in the New Testament Scriptures, never denotes every member of the human race. The faulty assumption that it must mean every member of the race equally has been the cause of a great deal of erroneous thinking about God’s saving activity.
Now suppose we give the word “world” that commonly held meaning in those verses where it occurs in relation to God’s redemptive activity. How will that affect our view of God’s redemptive plan and the redemptive activities of the Triune God in the accomplishment of that plan? For example, John 3:16 tell us “ . . . God loved the world in this way, that He gave His unique Son. . .” If we should understand “world” to mean every sinner without exception, how does that affect our view of God’s love? Are we to believe God not only loves every sinner but loves every sinner equally and in the same way? This becomes a bit difficult when the same Bible tells us God loved Jacob and hated Esau (see–Romans 9:13). Even if we should insist that He only “hated” Esau in comparison to His love for Jacob, we must still admit God did not love them equally. Did God love those who drowned in the great flood as much as he loved Noah and his family? If he did, that was a poor way to demonstrate it. Does he love those who are perishing in hell equally and in the same way as he loves those who are redeemed for eternity? Has he done His absolute best to save them, and have they by their obstinate rebellion frustrated His love and thwarted His purpose? If so, one would be forced to the conclusion that man, not God, is sovereign in the universe.
Consider another example. 1 John 2:1b-2 tells us we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous one, and He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world. If “whole world” means every sinner without exception, what meaning can we assign to the word propitiation? The classic definition of the biblical term propitiation is–a satisfaction or an appeasement of divine wrath. Now if John does not refer to propitiation as potential but as actual, and if that work was actually accomplished for every sinner in the world, then propitiation cannot be a satisfaction of appeasement of God’s wrath. Otherwise, the New Testament writers would present God as a capricious deity who demands satisfaction more than once for the same offenses. The Apostle Paul makes it clear that God’s wrath is coming on unbelievers because of their sins. He writes,
But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; 4neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. 5For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience (Ephesians 5:3-6).
If Jesus satisfied the Father’s wrath for every sinner, how is it that the Father’s wrath can again fall on those same sinners? Surely Agustus Toplady was on the mark when he wrote,
If Thou hast my discharge procured
And freely in my room endured
The whole of wrath divine,
Payment God cannot twice demand,
First at my bleeding Surety’s hand
And then again at mine.
Can you see how biblical terms can be robbed of their full meaning if we insist on giving unwarranted definitions to terms that seem universal in their scope?
The Results of Jesus’ Death
Finally, what, if anything, does the New Testament teach about the results of Jesus’ death for all for whom He died?
Death to Sin‘s Reign
2 Cor 5:14-15
In 2 Cor 5:14-15, the Apostle Paul makes it clear that all for whom Christ died, died in Him and with Him. He writes,
14For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; 15and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again.
The King James Version erroneously translated the second verb “to die” as though it had been an imperfect tense–“were dead“ rather than translating it as an aorist tense–“died.” From this mistranslation one might assume the Apostle was referring to the spiritual condition of all sinners because of their fall in Adam, i.e., “all were dead in trespasses and sins.” The New King James Version has corrected this mistranslation by rendering both verbs “died.” If one died for all, then all died.” The Apostle’s meaning was clearly that all for whom Jesus died, died with him to the reigning power of sin. It is for this reason the “all” for whom He died no longer go on living to please themselves; they now live to please Him who died for them and rose again.
If this interpretation of the passage is correct, it is impossible for us to understand the “all” in these verses to refer to all sinners without exception unless we are prepared to believe all sinners will ultimately die to the reigning power of sin.
Final Glorification
Romans 8:32
In Romans 8:32, the Apostle Paul argues that to all for whom Jesus died, God will grant all the other gifts of His grace. His argument in the larger context (beginning in chapter five of this Epistle) is if God has declared believers righteous in His sight, He is certain to bring them to glory. In the immediately preceding context, he has demonstrated this point based on God’s sovereign purpose that always comes to pass. He has argued that since God has predestined the believer’s final glorification, it is certain to occur.Romans 8:32
In verse 32 he argues from the greater to the lesser. If God has given us the greatest gift possible, how can He not give us all the lesser gifts of grace Christ has purchased for us, including our final glorification. He writes, “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?” Everyone for whom Jesus gave His life will finally be saved.
Again, unless we are prepared to argue that every sinner will ultimately enjoy every spiritual gift Jesus purchased including glorification, we cannot, in light of Paul’s teaching here, reasonably insist Jesus died to redeem every sinner.
Jesus’ Intercession
Romans 8:34
Throughout the passage beginning in Romans 8:28, the Apostle has referred to the God’s work of salvation for believers. He has consistently referred to believers as “us,” “we,” “us all,” etc. In verse 34 he tells us Christ intercedes for us. He writes,“Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.” Notice the words “it is” are in italics and have been supplied by the translators. Another and perhaps better way of understanding this verse is to take it as an interrogative statement. In which case we would supply the word, “shall” in place of “it is..” We would then read the verse as follows: “Who is he who condemns? Shall Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us?” The Apostle is not suggesting that none will wish to condemn us as believers. Certainly the avowed enemies of our souls would delight in doing so. His meaning is that no one will be able successfully to condemn believers in God’s presence. Indeed, the only one who has a right to condemn us is the Lord, Christ. Shall He condemn us; He who died for us, is risen for us, who is at God’s right hand for us, and who is making intercession for us? The answer is obvious. It is unthinkable that He who gave His life for us and now, based on the sacrificial offering, pleads our cause from His honored position at the Father’s right hand would seek to demonstrate our guilt.Romans 8:34
The two priestly functions of offering sacrifice and intercession are always taken together in the Scriptures. On the Day of Atonement, the function of the high priest was two-fold; he first offered the sacrifice in the outer court, and then he sprinkled the blood of the sacrifice on the mercy seat in God’s holy presence. The sacrificial offering in the outer court corresponds to Jesus’ once offering Himself as a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice and reconcile us to God. The act of blood sprinkling in the most holy place corresponds to His continual intercession for us at the Father’s right hand. It is significant that the high priest presented the blood of the sacrifice in the most holy place for no one other than those for whom he had offered the sacrifice in the outer court. These two acts were co-extensive. If we would learn for whom Jesus offered Himself on the cross, we need only discover for whom He makes intercession at the Father’s right hand. These two acts are also co-extensive. If He offered Himself as a sacrifice for all without exception, then He must intercede for all without exception. But, how do the Scriptures answer the question, “ For whom does Jesus, our Great High Priest, intercede?” In the passage we are examining, the answer is quite clear; all we need to do is discover to whom the word “us” refers in the passage. Only a person with an extreme bias could deny the word consistently refers to those whose glorification God decreed before the world began.
Consider two other verses bearing on this issue. First, in Jesus’ intercessory prayer recorded in John 17, we have irrefutable proof that Jesus only makes intercession for those the Father has given Him. This is what He said, “I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours” (John 17:9). At this point, He refers specifically to those who had already come to believe on Him, but later He includes all “those who shall believe on Him through their word” ( v. 20). His intercession is never said to be for anyone other than those who will ultimately come to faith in Him. The second verse refers to Jesus’ intercession as our High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. Because Jesus is an undying priest, the writer draws the conclusion, “Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost [completely] those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them”( Hebrews 7:25). Notice, “for them” does not refer to everyone without exception, but for “those who come to God by Him,” i.e., for believers.
The True Emphasis of This Doctrine
Notice the true emphasis of this doctrine is not on the limitation of Christ’s redeeming work to the elect, but on the effectual accomplishments of that work for the elect. To state the matter another way, our concern is not to focus on those for whom Jesus did not die, but on His saving work for those for whom He died. Perhaps it will prove helpful to illustrate this point by citing the remainder of the original formulation of this doctrine in the Canons of Dort.SECOND HEAD: ARTICLE 7. But as many as truly believe, and are delivered and saved from sin and destruction through the death of Christ, are indebted for this benefit solely to the grace of God given them in Christ from everlasting, and not to any merit of their own.
SECOND HEAD: ARTICLE 8. For this was the sovereign counsel and most gracious will and purpose of God the Father that the quickening and saving efficacy of the most precious death of His Son should extend to all the elect, for bestowing upon them alone the gift of justifying faith, thereby to bring them infallibly to salvation; that is, it was the will of God that Christ by the blood of the cross, whereby He confirmed the new covenant, should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation and given to Him by the Father; that He should confer upon them faith, which, together with all the other saving gifts of the Holy Spirit, He purchased for them by His death; should purge them from all sin, both original and actual, whether committed before or after believing; and having faithfully preserved them even to the end, should at last bring them, free from every spot and blemish, to the enjoyment of glory in His own presence forever.
SECOND HEAD: ARTICLE 9. This purpose, proceeding from everlasting love towards the elect, has from the beginning of the world to this day been powerfully accomplished, and will henceforeward still continue to be accomplished, notwithstanding all the ineffectual opposition of the gates of hell; so that the elect in due time may be gathered together into one, and that there never may be wanting a Church composed of believers, the foundation of which is laid in the blood of Christ; which may stedfastly love and faithfully serve Him as its Savior (who, as a bridegroom for his bride, laid down His life for them upon the cross); and which may celebrate His praises here and through all eternity.
Preaching the Saving Work of Christ
If Jesus’ redeeming work was not intended to secure the salvation of every sinner, how can we preach the gospel freely to all without exception. To answer this question, I have paraphrased a passage from Robert Haldane’s commentary on Romans. These were his comments on Romans chapter five.Many seem to believe if they are going to proclaim the gospel they must tell every sinner Christ died for him. Additionally, they believe that if Jesus did not die to take away the sins of every individual, they cannot preach the gospel. This is very erroneous. The gospel declared that Christ died for the guilty and that the most guilty who believe shall be saved.. ‘It is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners,’ even the chief of sinners. The gospel does not tell every individual to whom we addressed it that Christ died for him. Instead, it simply tells him that if he believes, he will be saved. On this basis, we can proclaim the gospel to every sinner. It is only after a person has believed the gospel that he can know Christ died for him individually. Since the Bible reveals that whoever believes shall be saved, it is quite consistent to proclaim the gospel to all sinners and declare that they will be saved if they believe. If the most guilt person in the human race should believe, it is an absolute certainty that he would be saved. If anyone feels he cannot proclaim the gospel freely and has difficulty calling everyone to faith unless he can say, “Jesus died for every member of the human race,” he does not clearly understand what the gospel is. It is the good news that Christ died for the most guilty who believe, not that he died for every individual whether he should believe or not. To the truth that every person who believes shall be saved there is no exception. The only sins that will not find God’s forgiveness are those that belong to sinners who refuse to believe the gospel; if they believe, they will be saved. . . .
Some would have a problem calling sinners to believe in Christ if His redeeming work was not intended for every sinner. This is no different from the difficulty some experience when they feel restrained in calling on sinners indiscriminately to believe the gospel because they know God will never save those he has not chosen for eternal life. Here is where they go wrong. According to the commandment of the everlasting God, we are to make the gospel known to all nations for the obedience of faith. It is certain those whom God has not graciously chosen and for whom Christ did not die will never believe. These are secret things that belong to God alone. They will be made known at the proper time. . . .We are not to inquire first, either for ourselves or others, about the identity of the chosen ones or the redeemed before we determine to whom we should preach the gospel. We must preach it to all, assured that whoever believes it shall receive forgiveness. When we believe the gospel, we come to understand for ourselves that Christ bore our sins in his body on the tree. We learn that, from the beginning, God has chosen us to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.
The work of Christ is of unlimited value. The reason all are not saved by it has nothing to do with insufficient value but simply because it was not intended to redeem all. In itself it was valuable enough to take away all the sins of mankind, had that been God’s intention. If Christ’s sacrifice had not been sufficient for all, it would not have been sufficient for anyone. Every sinner who will be saved needed a redemptive act of unlimited value; no more could be required to redeem every individual. We proclaim the all-sufficiency of Christ’s redemptive work to all who hear the gospel. We invite all to rely on it for pardon and acceptance. We address them as freely as if we knew God had designed it for them from all eternity. All who rely on it in saving faith shall surely experience its power and unlimited value.
Conclusion
The only reasonable conclusion one can draw from this inquiry is that the death of Christ was intended not merely to provide the possibility of salvation for sinners, but to effectually accomplish salvation for those God has chosen. As should be clear, no true Calvinist questions the abundant sufficiency of Christ’s redeeming work. The only issue dividing evangelicals is whether his death was intended to save all, to make all savable, or effectively to secure the salvation of a multitude no man can number. Since, as I have shown, his death guaranteed freedom from the reigning power of sin, effectual intercession and final glorification for all for whom He died, we can arrive at only one conclusion. God intended Jesus’ death effectively to secure these spiritual blessings for all those, but only for those, who believe the gospel.It is not faith in the promises of God or faith in Christ that justifies sinners before God, it is Christ who justifies, through faith. Faith does not form any part of the basis of our justification. It is not that Jesus did His part by dying, we do our part by believing, and these acts taken together turn God’s wrath away. No,
Jesus paid it all,
All to Him I owe;
Sin had left a crimson stain,
He washed it white as snow.
Works Cited
Boettner, Lorraine, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1963.
Haldane, Robert, The Epistle to the Romans, London: The Banner of Truth Trust, reprint 1966.
Murray, John, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1961.
Spurgeon, C. H. “How to Meet the Doctrine of Election,” Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 30.
_________Sermons on Sovereignty, Albany, OR. Ages Software, 1998.
The Five Articles of the Remonstrants, Article 2.
The Canons of Dordt, Second Head.
Additional Works For Further Study
Hodge, A.A., Outlines of Theology, London: The Banner of Truth Trust, reprint, 1972.
Long, Gary D, Definite Atonement, Rochester, NY: Backus Book Publishers, 1977.
Owen, John, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, London: The Banner of Truth Trust, reprint 1973. (Don’t skip J. I. Packer’s Introductory Essay to this classic).
Packer, James I., Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1961.
Pink, Arthur W., The Sovereignty of God, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, reprint 1994.
Seiver, Randy,“Arrows Astray,” unpublished typescript, www.gracedocs.blogspot.com.
__________,“Burning Straw Dummies,” One can find this unpublished work at www.gospeloutreach.net/straw_dummies.html. et al.
Steele, David N., and Thomas, Curtis C., The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, Documented. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1967.
posted by Grace Writer @ 2:49 PM
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home