atonement - limited or universal - thesis john r k nieminen mdiv
DESCRIPTION
The thesis upholds the Universal scope of the Atonement of Christ as opposed to the Five Point Calvinist (TULIP) teaching of Atonement limited in its scope only to the Elect. John Owen's "riddle" or "Owen's classic argument for particular redemption" (as Gary D. Long puts it in his book "Definite Atonement") is refuted. Also otherwise John Owen's and his followers teachings are refuted.TRANSCRIPT
ATONEMENT
LIMITED
OR UNIVERSAL
John R. K. Nieminen
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Purpose of This Research The purpose of this research is to study whether the Lutheran doctrines of General Justification and God's will
that there would be Universal Salvation, OR Calvinistic
doctrines of Limited Atonement and God's will to save only
the Elect, are Scriptural.
Importance and History of the Problem
It is our contention that in the matter of assurance of
one's salvation nothing less than a universal scope of the
atonement of Christ will suffice to comfort a sinner's
conscience terrified by God's holy law. It avails very
little for such an individual to seek assurance of his
Election and consequently of salvation from within himself or
from God's hidden counsel, which are the only alternatives
that Calvinists, if they follow their theology to what seems
to us its natural conclusion, have left. And because both
they and we admit that God's hidden counsel is unsearchable
to us all, therefore what is left in practice for them is
somehow of themselves to find the assurance that they are
God's Elect.1
1This is also what they teach. In The Canons of the Synod of
Dort, Art.XII. it says: "The elect...attain the assurance of this their eternal and unchangeable election, not by inquisitively prying into the secret and deep things of God, but by observing in themselves...the infallible fruits of election..such as a true faith in Christ, filial fear, a godly sorrow for sin, a hungering
and thirsting after righteousness, etc." Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, l977), 3:583-84.
2
It very little avails for a Calvinist to look to the
Cross of Christ, for after all, maybe it wasn't for him at
all.
But if we were to ask a Calvinist how can he believe,
because he can not be certain of his election, he, of course,
would reply, that if one can believe in Christ and has the
proper signs showing he is a Christian these are the evidence
and manifestation that he is one of the Elect of God foreor-
dained to salvation.2 But here they put a cart before the
horse, for how is it possible for someone to believe
something which might not exists for him in the first place?
Faith requires an object which it believes, if an object
does not exist for faith, obviously faith into it can not
exist either. Therefore the Election of God can not serve as
an object for the creation of faith in a hearer, because
there is nothing there in the Word of God to ascertain
existence of election for an individual if we, as the
Calvinists do, take the election apart from any such absolute
2"The faith which the gospel requires involves a number of
acts in a specific order: first, believing that we can not save ourselves, but that God has provided a Saviour, Jesus Christ; then, resting on Christ for salvation, according to the gospel invitation and promise; finally, inferring from the fact that God has enabled us to do this that Christ died for us individually." John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, with an introduction by J. I. Packer (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1985), 30. This teaching is further elaborated on in the book pp. 202-204. See also footnote 1 above.
3
statement or promise of salvation3 in the Scripture which can
be equally true to each and every individual. And the only
such absolute is a statement of universal grace in Christ, or
a promise of God of eternal life in Christ (through faith in
Him) on the basis of His atoning work for all. There can be
no doubt but that in order for faith to be created, the
absolute that Christ died for all, and therefore also surely
"for me," is certainly needed. Only when that absolute
redemption is there can one through faith in Christ be
certain of his election in Christ for salvation.4 It is
3E.g. that Christ "is the propitiation for the sins of the
whole world," or that "He died for all," or that "God was in Christ and reconciled the world unto Himself." These are universal statements which can serve as an object for faith, for they exclude no one, except according to Calvinistic interpretations.
4As can be seen from the footnote #2 Calvinists propose a
logical order in which an individual would be led to a certainty of him having been elected by God for salvation. We see several problems, tensions and impracticalities with this order. First, it is quite evident that in the step number one they would, and would have to, preach unlimited atonement of Christ, and then only after, when an individual on the basis of that proclamation had believed, would they tell him that, after all, atonement is limited; but see, you believe, therefore you are an elect of God. Besides being hypocritical, that kind of order is, and can be, only academic. There would be no way in a real life to control
this order seeing that services are public events. One who does not yet believe could hear prematurely that maybe it's not for him - maybe Christ didn't die for him, and this surely would be a stumbling block far greater than Christ Himself. Obviously also faith if it was earlier enkindled by the proclamation of universal atonement would be in jeopardy especially in a time of trial. Judging from some of their own writings, it seems that the five-point Calvinists have in an increasing manner themselves realized the truth of this. Long writes in his Substitutionary Atonement, (Sterling, VA: Grace Abounding Ministries Inc., 1977), p. 42, "Although this writer believes in the free offer of the Gospel, he has become concerned with the manner in which present day five-
4
rather then that there will follow proper fruits and 'signs'
of one's Christianity, not to confirm election, for the
election is in Christ5, but to manifest that faith is
genuine.6
If one can not trust that Christ died for all, and
therefore also for him, he is doomed to disbelief, at least
to great struggles, and constant examination of himself
whether his faith is really genuine or not, instead of
"looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith".7
The Holy Bible which we believe to be infallible Word
of God (like as Calvinists themselves also confess), teaches,
at least on the basis of casual reading, that God desires all
people to be saved8, that Christ died for all people, that He
redeemed the whole world9, and that those who perish do
perish because they resisted God's saving will.10
point Calvinists are using dubious language, especially with reference to the revealed and secret will of God, to establish a warrant for the free offer of the Gospel to all mankind universally."
5"...He [God the Father] hath chosen us in Him (i.e. in
Christ) before the foundation of the world." Eph. 4:1.
6James 2:14-26.
7Heb. 12:2.
81 Tim. 2:4, 2 Pet.2:1, Matt. 23:37, Luke 13:34, 19:41-44,
John 3:14-17 etc.
9E.g. Rom. 5:10, 2 Cor. 5:14, 2 John 2:2, John 1:16, 29, 3:14-
17 and 1 Tim. 2:4.
10E.g. Acts 7:51, 13:46, Luke 7:30, Matt. 25:41-46. We do not
say, nor does the Scripture, that those who are saved are saved
5
It is therefore necessary that it be studied in some
detail as to whether the Word of God indeed teaches limited
or universal scope of the atonement of Christ, whether God
desires all to be saved or not, and further more, what does
the Bible say as to why some are not saved. In this paper
this first question, being the main issue for this paper, is
studied in depth, the second through one [only] pertinent
passage, and the third question is covered only where context
requires its treatment.
The question under this study is decisively important
from the Lutheran perspective as we hold the doctrine of
General Justification (which, of course, is also the basis
for Subjective Justification) to be THE KEY DOCTRINE in the
Scriptures, and affirm God's desire to save all people.
These two things have and have had an all pervasive implica-
tions to the formulation of all other doctrines and practice
of our church.
Lutheran reformers in their day had a good foresight
and included Article XI "God's Eternal Foreknowledge and
Election" in to the Formula of Concord, even though "No
because they did not resist God's saving will, or that there was some other merit whatsoever to their credit which decided the matter of salvation to their advantage, but that is it solely by God's grace alone that one is saved. However, neither anywhere in the Scripture does it teach that those who are damned are damned because God did not want to save them. It will not do to quote Romans chapter nine here, for it has to be understood in its proper context. For further reading here we recommend article by Theodore Graebner "Predestination and Human Responsibility" in Concordia Theological Monthly, Vol. VI, July 1935, 164-171.
6
public dissention" had developed among the confessors,
because they thought: "lest at some future date offensive
dissention concerning it might be introduced into the
church"11 They considered the difficult nature of the
doctrine and desired to elaborate on it for our benefit, and
well so for the Predestination Controversy rocked the
Lutheran boat in the late 1800's and lasted a long time.
This our topic borders the predestination issue and might
well become a controverted issue in the future in the
Lutheran camp. The doctrine of General Justification is at
stake.
To be sure, the doctrine of Objective Justification as
such has been studied before at length and also brought to
bear against the teaching of the Limited-Atonement, but not
from the perspective this study will take. Indeed we have
not seen anything written in English12 on this subject under
the proposed study which had extensively and in detail taken
11The Book of Concord, ed.Theodore Tappert (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1959), Formula of Concord, Epitome, Art. XI, 494.1.
12There is an extensive article written by Dr. Francis Pieper
in German on this subject: Geraten Lutheraner angesichts der Schriftstellen, welche von der Praedestination handeln, in Verlegenheit? This article is found in Lehre und Wehre, 44(yr.): 65-166. "This article considers all the arguments employed by the Reformed for changing the universal statements of Scripture into particular ones and shows that all the passages adduced by the Confession of Faith [Westminster Confession of Faith?] for a
gratia particularis do not prove it." The quote is from Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics (St.Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1951), 3:28, footnote 56.
7
into account for example Calvinistic definitions of the words
"all", "world" or "for many".13 Calvinistic definitions of
these words have largely gone unchallenged, Lutheran
dogmaticians in general having been satisfied in approaching
the question from the perspective of our general understand-
ing of the doctrines of justification often merely stating
that "It is a must" that "the world" means "the world" i.e.
"all people".14
In this age of mergers and dialogues it is important
that we would take seriously where those with whom we
dialogue are at and meet them where they are in order to lead
them also see where we are at, else all our Scripture
13This void has been recognized also by limited
redemptionists, "... the writer (Gary D. Long) is persuaded that most unlimited redemptionists have not examined the subject with care or with scriptural objectivity and are, for the most part, either ignorant or ignore the context of the Scripture and the teachings of the great reformation divines concerning this doctrine. For example, there is a noticeable lack among the writings of unlimited redemptionists of any attempt to prove their contention that "world" in the disputed passages always means "world," namely, all mankind without exception. This meaning is invariably assumed by them when they comment concerning the extent of the atonement." This quote is from Gary D. Long, Definite Atonement (n.p.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1976), 32. Even though the quote was more specifically directed against
the four-point Calvinists, and Arminians, yet, to us it seems that it fairly well applies also to the Lutheran camp.
14Robert Preus, Justification as Taught by Post-Reformation
Lutheran Theologians (Fort Wayne: Concordia Lutheran Seminary Press, 1982), 3; Kurt Marquart, Justification-Objective and Subjective: A Translation..., (Fort Wayne: Concordia Theological Seminary Press, 1982), 16-21. The best, even though concise, treatment by a Lutheran theologian that we have found is in Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics (St.Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1951), 2:21-28.
8
references and evidence from the Word are likely to fall on
deaf ears.
The fact that LCA (Lutheran Church in America), especially
an ALC (American Lutheran Church) and so also in all
likelihood the new merger of these: ELCA (Evangelical
Lutheran Church in America) in the United States, and ELCIC
(Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada) have had intercom-
munion with Reformed Churches also calls for examinations,
also on the basis of official confessions, of theological
differences (and of similarities where they exist) between
Lutheran and Reformed (Calvinistic) traditions. When the
above church bodies dialogued they were, it seems, only
seeking common ground and either ignored their theological
differences or were indifferent of their past confessions.
In their joint publications: "An Invitation to Action" there
is a "Joint Statement on Justification" in which no
theological differences were stated.15
15An Invitation to Action, James E. Andrews and Joseph A.
Burgess (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 9-13. Lutherans even stated Lutherans and Reformed to be "one in their confessional testimony on justification by grace through faith,"
and, indeed to have "found basic unanimity on this article beginning with Calvin's Institutes and the WC [Westminster Confession] through the first two Lutheran-Reformed dialogues and the Leuenberg Agreement a decade ago." p. 111. It seems to us that these Lutherans either were ignorant, or ignored, the serious implications which the teaching of the limited extent of the atonement, espoused by the Institutes and the said confession, has to the doctrine of justification by faith. If the implications, some of which has been mentioned and some of which will be covered below, were understood and taken seriously they could not have made the statement stated above.
9
All of the above considerations make this study
imperative.
The Definition of the Scope of the Problem
Who teach Limited Atonement
There are outstanding Calvinistic theologians, both
past and present16, of different Calvinistic church denomina-
tions17, who teach that God desires to save only His Elect,
16John Calvin, John Murray, John Owen, Charles Hodge, Loraine
Boettner, Gary North, Daune Edward Spencer, Henry Charles Beeching, Thomas Jackson Crawford, Frederick William Dillistone, John Knox etc.
17E.g. such Reformed, Presbyterian or (Particular) Baptist
bodies like: Christian Reformed Church, Presbyterian Church in America, Bible Presbyterian Church, Orthodox Presbyterian Church
,
The Presbyterian Church in Canada, Protestant Reformed Church in America, Free Reformed Churches of North America, Reformed Baptist Church, The American Baptist Convention
, The Southern Baptist
Convention, The National Baptist Convention
, etc. This informa-
tion is found from Arthur C. Piepcorn, Profiles in Belief (San Francisco: Harper Row Publishers 1978), 2:334-337, and from F. E. Mayer, The Religious Bodies of America (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1956), pp. 261, 269-273. Not all Reformed bodies teach Limited Atonement, but only those so-called "Five-Point Calvinists." Sometimes they term their teaching as "Historic or Traditional Calvinism," considering
themselves followers of Calvin's teaching. "Within the past few years there has been a revival in historic Calvinistic preaching, teaching and evangelism. Although this revival is small in numbers, it is virtually world-wide in scope, especially in the British Isles and North America. In the United States certain denominations and fellowships, seminaries and publications are currently leading the way in a return to the five points of Calvinism or, as they are often referred to, the doctrines of grace. Examples are the Orthodox Presbyterian and Presbyterian Church of America denominations and Reformed Baptist Fellowships; Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia and
10
sent Christ to redeemed only the Elect and not all people
(viz. Limited Atonement18), predestinating others to
damnation (viz. double predestination).19
Distinctions in theological approaches
It would be very simplistic and insufficient to say
that the differences between the Calvinistic and Lutheran
theological systems are limited to those described under "The
Purpose of This Research" (p. 1). Rather, those and other
differences that do exist, result from what we see as
Calvinists' rational approach to interpretation of the
Scriptures20 dictated with the parameter of "Sovereignty of
Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, MS; The Banner of Truth Trust publications of London (distributed through Puritan Publications in Carlisle, PA., and Puritan-Reformed Book Service in Wilmington, DE.) Presbytarian and Reformed Publishing Company, Nutley, N.J., Sword and Trowel, a monthly publication published in Clinton, MI, and KEY, a monthly magazine of Bible word studies published by the Word of Grace, in San Antonio, TX." This quotation was taken from Gary D. Long, Substitutionary Atonement, 3-4. In Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, there was "Still Waters Revival Books" bookstore in operation until 1987. The owner now operates a publishing company and specializes in reprinting of old Calvinistic theological works.
18Also called "Particular Redemption", "Particular Atonement",
"Definite Atonement." Some other terms also which would not imply to anyone that atonement was limited in its efficacy have been suggested. Terms like "Efficacious Atonement", and even "Definite Extent of the Intent of the Atonement" Robert Nicole, The Biblical Language Concerning the Atonement, (Mount Olive, MS: Mount Olive Presbyterian Church Library, Cassette, 1977).
19These points of the Calvinistic doctrine become clear as we
progress into the study itself.
20E.g. Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 1:25-34, and
11
God",21 whereas Lutheran's have prided themselves with the
Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) principle of approach to
interpretation, that is they have desired to be careful not
to add, impose, or bring along anything to the Scripture from
without, no matter how illogical Biblical teachings may seem
to the human mind, but let the Word settle doctrinal issues,
with reason serving only a ministerial and not magisterial
function.22 Thus there is a totally different approach to
theology between the two camps which then results in
different theological systems as well.
As in any system, if you remove one piece from it the
whole thing might collapse. So in this study if we can show
what we now perceive as an unscripturalness of Calvinistic
propositions with respect of the scope of the atonement we
hopefully can make at least some of them rethink their
position not only with respect of the extent of the redeeming
3:322-324.
21Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, Ed. John T.
McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 2, III, 21-24; Calvin: Theological
Treatises, trans. by J. K. S. Reid. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954), 179-180. John Murray, Redemption - Accomplished and Applied (Phillipburg, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.), 9-18.
22Even though the sovereignty of God is accepted it is
recognized that God, in His sovereignty, decided not to work in His majestic power through the means of grace i.e. the Word and the Sacraments, but that His will can be resisted when He works through those means. Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 1:196-199. Theodore G. Tappert, ed., The Book of Concord, Solid Declaration, Art. II, 520.5-527.28.
12
work of Christ, but also of their whole approach to
interpretation of the Scriptures.
It is very evident from the above that we approach our
study with some bias, which, though, is not any presupposed
idea, but the result of previous study. However, we seek to
accomplish this study examining Calvinists' evidence for
the limited extent of the atonement objectively.
Calvinism - Arminianism - Lutheranism
It is important for us to note that since 1610 all
writings of Calvinists in defence of the Limited Atonement
and related doctrines of grace were written against the
Arminian, not Lutheran, theological system, and that there
are not any such writings prior to that date, except, of
course, those written mainly against the Roman Catholic
doctrines (for example Calvin's Institutes of Christian
Religion).
The first controversy then to include the scope of the
atonement took place within the Calvinistic tradition where
what is known as Arminianism arose. James Arminius (1560-
1609), who was synergistic, summed up his theological views
in five points23 in their 'Remonstrance'
24 in 1610 rejecting
23 The five points of Arminianism may be briefly stated as
follows: 1) God from all eternity predestinated to eternal life those of whom He foresaw that they would remain steadfast in faith unto their end. 2) Christ died for all mankind, not simply for the elect. 3) Man must be regenerated by the Holy Spirit. 4) Man may resist divine grace. 5) Man may fall from divine grace.
13
five Calvinistic propositions. One of the points, the Second
Article, affirmed universal scope of the atonement of Christ:
Universal Atonement.--Christ, the Saviour of the world, died for all men and for every man, and his grace is extended to all. His atoning sacrifice is in and of itself sufficient for the redemption of the whole world, and is intended for all by God the Father. But its inherent sufficiency does not necessarily imply its actual efficiency. The grace of God may be resisted,
and only those who accept it by faith are actually saved. He who is lost, is lost by his own guilt (John 3:16; 1 John 2:2)
The Synod of Dort (1618-1619) found the five points
abominable, because the key teaching of the Calvinistic
tradition on which their entire system rests, namely
sovereignty of God25 was, to their view, challenged, and they
countered Arminianism by seeking to affirm what has come to
be called the Five Points of Calvinism26 , found in the
Source: The Concordia Cyclopedia (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1927), s.v. "Arminianism." (The item number one implies synergism, but most importantly, their doctrine of conversion is very expressly synergistic. See, for example, Rienk Bouke Kuiper, For whom did Christ die? A study of the divine design of the atonement, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 72-73, 76.)
24Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, l977), 1, 516-519.
25This starting point and its implications to Calvinistic
theology is examined in Chapter II. Lutherans affirm sovereignty of God, but it does not lead us to make such conclusions in our theology as it makes Calvinists to do in theirs.
26The five points of Calvinism can be briefly stated as
follows: 1) Total depravity, 2) Unconditional election, 3) Limited atonement, 4) Irresistible grace, 5) Perseverance of saints. See, for example, Daune Edward Spencer, T.U.L.I.P. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1985), or Steele & Thomas, Five Points of Calvinism (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1984).
14
Canons of Dort,27 where the "Second Head of Doctrine" reads
as follows:
Of the Death of Christ. [Limited Atonement.] --
According to the sovereign counsel of God, the saving efficacy of the atoning death of Christ extends to all the elect [and to them only], so as to bring them infallibly to salvation. But, intrinsically, the sacrifice and satisfaction of Christ is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole
world. . . Moreover the promise of the Gospel is, that
whosoever believeth in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have everlasting 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 whom God out of His good pleasure sends the gospel.
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 or insuf-ficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves. . . .
this was the sovereign counsel. . . will and
purpose of God. . . that the quickening and saving
efficacy of the. . . death of his Son should extend to
all the elect, . . . it was the will of God, that
Christ. . . should effectually redeem. . . all those,
and those only, who were from eternity chosen to
salvation. . . their Saviour laid down his life for
them upon the cross. . . .
This seems a little bit vague. They affirm the
"intrinsic" value of the atonement to have been "infinite...
abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole
world," and yet on the other hand there seem to be affirma-
27Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 1:519-523 and 3: 581-597.
15
tions that Christ died only for the elect. This ambiguity is
further aggravated by the fact that "The First Head of
Doctrine--of Divine predestination" talks about God's "decree
of reprobation", and how God decreed only the elect "to
redemption in Christ", and how God gave only the elect "to
Christ to be saved by him."
Those Calvinists who have interpreted the Canons of
Dort, or Calvinism in general, have the following to say:
The atonement of Christ had been intrinsically enough to
redeem the whole world had God so decreed, but He didn't;
instead He decreed it only for the elect.28 It seems to us,
28John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, 183-
185. Rienk Bouke Kuiper, For whom did Christ die? A study of the
divine design of the atonement, 79-84. Kuiper (pp. 80-81) quotes Berkhof: "The Schoolmen were accustomed to saying that Christ died sufficiently for all men, but efficaciously for the elect. This language was adopted by some orthodox theologians and even by Calvin. But after the extent of the atonement had been made the object of special study, Reformed theologians generally refused to state the truth in that form, because it was apt to give the impression that Christ in dying intended that all men should share in the proper effects of His atoning death. They prefer to say that the death of Christ viewed objectively and apart from His design and purpose, was inherently sufficient for all, though efficacious only for the elect." Here Kuiper also talks about the "common grace," as distinguished from the "saving grave." This is some new
development in Calvinistic formulations which teaches that all men benefited in some measure, excepting salvation, of the atonement of Christ. This mode of speaking is then also used by some Calvinist theologians to water down universal expressions of Scripture concerning the extent of the atonement. So also Kuiper. He says of 1 Tim. 4:10, which talks of God as being "the Saviour of all men:" "That is, the Preserver, of all men, that for the present He takes an attitude of benevolence. . . toward all men. . ." This then means "certain blessings" that God gives to non-elect, such as rain, sunshine, natural talents etc. To interpret 1 Tim. 4:10 in such a way does not demand our serious considera-tion, for it is evident to all, how such an interpretation is just
16
however, that the language of the Canons of Dort is capable
of quite orthodox Lutheran interpretation as far as the
extent of the atonement is concerned i.e. what has been said
there concerning that doctrine can be made to fit with what
we teach concerning the election and how only those who
believe can personally benefit from Christ's perfect and
universal atonement.29 However, the important point is, no
matter how this particular confession is interpreted, the
fact that not only Calvin but also most of those churches who
adhere to the Canons of Dort and their theologians in general
do teach a limited scope of the atonement as we shall later
see.30 And then there, of course, are other confessions like
another human made delusion, for the word __________ translated "Saviour," can not be defended, for this word is not capable of the translation "preserver."
29For a brief overview concerning the Lutheran (Lutheran
Church--Missouri Synod) view of the doctrines see Lutheran Cyclopedia, Ed. Erwin L. Lueker (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1954) under the following headings: "Predestination", pp. 839-841; "Thirteen Theses", pp. 1057-1058; "Conversion", pp. 258-260. For a dogmatic presentation of the doctrine of predestination see Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 3:473-505, and for the doctrine of Universal Grace see his volume 2, 21-28, and generally about the teachings concerning the Saving Grace of God volume 2, 3-54.
Of interest and further insight would also be to read about the Predestination Controversy in the Lutheran Church: Moving Frontiers: Readings in the History of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, ed. Carl S. Meyer (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1964), 267-278. 'Moderate Calvinists' interpret these articles of the extent of the atonement in a universal sense. It therefore seems to be, at least to some extent, a matter of semantics and definition of terms.
30The Synod of Dort (1618-1619) where theologians of the
Calvinistic tradition assembled from all over the Europe adopted
17
the "Westminster Confession of Faith" which is more explicit
and says for example: "To all those for whom Christ hath
purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectual apply
and communicate the same. . . ." "The Lord Jesus. . .
purchased. . . reconciliation. . . for all those whom the
Father hath given unto him." "the Mediator should. . .
purchase a peculiar people. . . ." "Redemption is certainly
applied, and effectually communicated, to all those for whom
Christ hath purchased it; who are in time by the Holy Ghost
enabled to believe in Christ according to the gospel."31
The above quotation provided only some examples from
this confessional book which is hailed as "the best
symbolical statement of the Calvinistic system of
doctrine."32
the Belgic Confession (see: Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 3:383-436 and 1:502-507) and Heidelberg Catechism (see 3:307-355) in which two documents one can not find any teaching of the limited or universal atonement, but only redemption and salvation "for us." Maybe this is the mode of speech they employed in order to avoid a premature exposure of the teaching of the limited atonement to inquirers contrary to the order of exposure of things (see footnote 2). It might well be that they mean by the "for us" only those who believe, the elect, whereas when Lutherans use that expression the emphasis is on the personal faith (Subjective
Justification): "I believe this was also for me." "The universal redemption is not only for some good Old or New Testament saints, but also for me." The Canons of Dort, The Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism are confessions of the Reformed Church in America, besides of different splinter groups, and of other Calvinistic bodies both in Europe and North America. (Schaff, 3:581).
31Westminster Confession of Faith (Inverness, Scotland: F. P.
Publications, 1983), pp. 49, 50, 146, 157 respectively.
32Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 1:506.
18
The Lutheran doctrine of predestination is different
from both the Arminian and Calvinistic schemes, but we do
teach absolute and particular election to salvation.
On the extent of the atonement we affirm its universal
scope as the Arminians do, but we do not see it as "only the
salvability of sinners", but as the actual redemption of all
people by Christ.
We hold to the doctrine of total depravity (conversion,
then, as the whole salvation, being sola gratia - by grace
alone33), and of perseverance of the saints (excepting
"temporal christians"), but at the same time hold (what is
irreconcilable to human reason in view of the other doctrines
which we hold, but which we believe is taught in the
Scripture) that grace is resistible.34
Lutherans are not concerned how unreasonable their
theological system may be as long as it is derived from the
Word. We do not bring doctrines to their logical conclusion,
because that would implicate supremacy of human reason over
Also Formula Consensus Helvetica teaches limited atonement: "For these alone, the elect, He (Christ) subjected Himself to
dire death,...these alone He reconciled to God,..." Quote in Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 2:25 footnote 50.
33Unlike Arminians Lutherans do not teach man's co-operation
in conversion (synergism). Synergistic teaching of Arminians was a great offence to Calvinists, and rightly so, for the Scripture does not teach synergism.
34Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 1:317.
19
and against God's Word. What may be irreconcilable in human
judgement, faith reconciles, faith which is grounded in
Scripture--"if God says it, that settles it." It is this
same faith which receives salvation through Christ. Here we
come to the third Lutheran Reformation principle, sola fide--
by faith alone, by faith which is God given through His Word.
Overview of the Organization of this Paper and Methodological Procedure Employed
In Chapter II we, first, seek to understand the
presuppositions which have led to Calvinistic theological
system and have implications to the issue at hand, then
present an overview of the Calvinistic view of the doctrines
of grace35, and lastly examine, both positively and
negatively, primarily their teaching concerning the extent of
the atonement, and secondarily of God's saving will in a more
detailed way.
In Chapter III we set forth Lutheran presuppositions,
or the Lutheran starting point for doing theology, and then
our teaching concerning the doctrines of grace and finally
concentrate on the teaching of the Scripture and, where
deemed helpful, of our confessions and theologians,
concerning the scope of the atonement and of God's saving
will against the background of Calvinistic presuppositions,
35Election, Atonement, Conversion, Justification, and
Perseverance.
20
teaching and interpretation of Scripture concerning the same.
We end our paper with conclusions.
In this study, besides the examination of the great
difference in Calvinistic and Lutheran presuppositions which
lead to respective theological systems, the two key issues
seem to be, one; the right definition of the words "all",
"world", and "for many" especially in the passages that deal
with the extent of the atonement (i.e. "Whom was it for?"),
but also in those where the extent of God's saving will (i.e.
"Whom does God desire to save?"36) is dealt with. Calvinists
in such passages tend to limit the meaning of "all" to "all
kinds of people (high or low)", and the word "world" to "all
kinds of nations/people", especially in the sense of "other
than Jew", and "for many" to "for the Elect";37 second; There is
another class of passages which imply universal scope of the atonement,38 but which passages
the Calvinists likewise interpret to fit their views. These passages need to be looked at as
well. Finally; How can such passages of the Scripture be understood which seem to imply a
36Study of the extent of the atonement in this paper, titled
"Atonement: Limited or Universal," will receive the main emphasis, the extent of God's Saving Will receiving some attention only because it is seen to be so closely related with the former, for
if one were able to show God's saving will to be limited only to the elect, he could then somewhat more plausibly argue also for the limited extent of the atonement.
37Westminster Confession of Faith, pp. 46, 49, 50, 146, 147,
157, 295, 324, and 325; G. I. Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964), 79; Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 3:587 (The Canons of the Synod of Dort, Second Head of Doctrine, Art.VIII).
38E.g. 2 Pet. 2:1.
21
limited scope of the atonement (e.g. "...the good shepherd lays down his life for the
sheep." John 10:11 i.e. not for the wolves. "Greater love has no man than this, that a man
lay down his life for his friends." John 15:13 i.e. not for his enemies) and which type of
passages advocates of the Limited-Atonement quote in support of their view.39 In this
study then we will approach the question from the perspective
which the above considerations provide. This will include
word studies, it seems, both independent and contextual of
the words "all", "world", and "for many".
We are aware that Calvinists to a great extent, in
order to defend their view of the atonement, use also some
other approaches to exonerate their teaching. One such
approach is to come to the question from the perspective of
covenant theology.40 Examination of this particular approach
is beyond the scope of this paper. Other approaches include
Christ's priestly office which involves His intercession for
His own,41 and the doctrine of Trinity
42 (interpenetration and
unity of will).43 These approaches we will cover briefly.
39Westminster Confession of Faith, p. 50 footnote q.
40Hugh Martin, The Atonement: In Its Relations to the
Covenant, the Priesthood, and the Intercession of Our Lord
(Edinburgh: Knox Press, 1976).
41William Symington, On the Atonement and Intercession of
Christ (New York: Carter, 1839).
42John Owen, A Brief Declaration and Vindication of the
Doctrine of the Trinity (Glasgow: Printed by Napier and Khull for R. Hutchison and J. Steel Co., 1798).
43Also books that deal with the subject in general often
devote some chapters to defend limited atonement also from the perspective that these different approaches provide.
22
However, in the main we approach the question from the
perspectives laid out above, for if we can find that the
Scripture establishes in a clear language universal scope of
the atonement of Christ, then we conclude, without hesita-
tion, that also their treatment of the atonement through
other approaches, whatever, must be flawed, because the
doctrine of the unity of Scripture44 does not allow divergent
conclusions based on the same evidence (the Word of God) no
matter what approach of study is employed, as long as the
method of study acknowledges infallibility of the Scriptures,
and uses solid hermeneutical principles.
As the Calvinists in question in general hold to the
inerrancy of the Scriptures, their method of interpretation
of the same, especially as far as the rather prevalent method
wherewith Calvinists derive the meanings for the words
"world" and "all" in the atonement passages, need careful
investigation.
Passages in Controversy concerning the Extent of the Atonement
45
Passages where the word "world" expresses the extent
In all of these passages the Greek word for
44Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 1:307-342.
45Because some ninety-nine per cent of the passages used and
implicated in the discussion of this topic, both by limited and universal redemptionists, are from the New Testament, those are the passages covered also in this presentation.
23
"world" is
"Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin
of the world." John 1:29. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the world, to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." John 3:16-17.
"Now we believe,...and know that this is indeed
the Christ, the Saviour of the world." John 4:42. "For the bread of God is He which cometh down from
heaven, and giveth life unto the world." John 6:33. "...the bread that I will give is my flesh, which
I will give for the life of the world." John 6:51. "...I came not to judge the world, but to save the
world." John 12:47.
"...casting away of them [be] the reconciling of the world,..." Rom. 11:15.
"God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto
Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them..." 2 Cor. 5:19.
"And He [Christ] is the propitiation for our sins,
and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world." 1 John 2:2.
"...God sent His only begotten Son into the world,
that we might live through Him. Herein is love, not
that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins....And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son [to be] the Saviour of the world." 1 John 4:9,10,14.
Passages where the word "all" expresses the extent
In all of these passages the Greek word for "all" is
24
"And I (Jesus), if I be lifted up form the earth, will draw all unto me." John 12:32.
"...by one man sin entered into the world, and
death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned [Greek: "inasmuch as all sinned" ] . . . but not as the offence, so also [is] the free [gift]. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as [it was] by one that sinned, [so is] the gift: for the judgement [was] by one to condemnation, but the free gift is [of] many offenses unto justification . . . . Therefore as by the offence of one [judgement came] upon all men to condemnation even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous . . . . as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." Rom. 5:12,15-16,18-19,21.
"...that if one died for all, then were all dead: and [that] He died for all, that they which live
should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again." 2 Cor. 5:14, 15.
"And having made peace through the blood of His
cross by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself, by Him, whether things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in mind by wicked works, yet now hath He reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy and unblamable and unreprovable in His sight, if you continue in the faith..." Col. 1:20-23.
"...God our Saviour who will have all men to be
saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus who gave himself a ransom for all ,..." 1 Tim. 2:4-6.
"...we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour
of all men, specially of those that believe." 1 Tim. 4:10.
"For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath
25
appeared to all men,..." Titus 2:11. Passages which express the extent in general terms
"...Christ died for the ungodly." Rom. 5:6. "...while we were yet sinners, Christ died for
us.... ....when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son,..." Rom. 5:8,10.
"...God sent forth His Son...made under the law,
to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." Gal. 4:4,5.
"Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, [even]
the law of commandments...for to make in Himself of twain [of Jews and Gentiles] one new man, [so] making peace, and that He might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby." Eph. 2:16.
"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners..." 1 Tim.1:15.
"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the
just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God,..." 1 Pet. 3:18.
Passages where other universal expressions are used "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower
than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour, that He by the grace of God should taste death for every man.... ....to make
reconciliation for the sins of the people." Heb.2:9, 17b.
"But there were false prophets also among the
people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon
themselves swift destruction." 2 Pet. 2:1
26
CHAPTER II
CALVINISTIC VIEW OF THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT 1
"Amyraldianism", known also as "Salmurianism", which teaches "modified Cavinism", or "Four Point Calvinism" which has dropped one point of Calvinism, namely that of "Limited Atonement", and teaches "Indefinite Atonement," is not covered here. Let it only be said that they, unlike Lutherans, teach the atonement to have only rendered the world "salvable," but not saved (being actually saved on a condition of faith). This view of theirs, just as that
27
of "particularists," likely results from their failure to see that the atonement and salvation are in Christ. For some other brief information and views concerning modified Calvinism see Gary D. Long, Substitutionary Atonement; a Study of Three Key Problem Passages on the Extent of the Atonement (Sterling, VA: Grace Abounding Printers, 1977), 1-7. A detailed dogmatic work of Four Point Cavinists is written, for example, by Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology 8 vols. (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948).
View of Atonement and Sovereignty of God
The concept of the sovereignty of God permeates the
whole theological system of Calvinism. God being a
sovereign, almighty God, nothing can hinder Him from bringing
about what He desires to accomplish, but whatever He wills
that He will also unfailingly perform. Both good and evil
has to serve His will. This being so we can judge from the
results what His will was and is.47
46By Calvinism here is meant that theological system
which is seen to have started with Calvin, expounded in his comprehensive two volume Institutes of the Christian Religion, affirmed by the Synod of Dort (1618-1619), and known as the "Five Points of Calvinism" (one of which affirms limited scope or extent of the atonement of Christ, i.e. that Christ died only for the elect of God--this teaching of "Limited Atonement" is known also as "Particular Redemption," or "Particular Atonement" and "Definite Atonement."
47Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, Ed. John T.
McNeill, trans. by Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1960), 2, Art. III, 21-24; Calvin: Theological Treatises, trans. by J. K. S. Reid (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954), 179-180; John Murray, Redemption--Accomplished and Applied (Phillipburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.), 9-18; John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1985), 2-15; Gary D. Long, Substitutionary Atonement; a Study of Three Key Problem Passages on the Extent of the Atonement, 3, footnote 3. These references could have been multiplied, for any book that deals with the subject from the Calvinistic perspective is careful to begin their treatment of the matter from the sovereign will of
28
God and implications that they see it to have.
28
Calvinists distinguish between the revealed (voluntas
signi) and hidden will (voluntas beneplaciti) of God. The
former is to be interpreted according to the latter. Chamier
writes,
Though God wills the salvation of all men according to His voluntas signi, or His conditioned will, or His non-efficacious will, nevertheless He does not will the
salvation of all according to His voluntas beneplaciti, or His absolute will, or His efficacious will.
48
Application of the Sovereign Will of God to
the Doctrine of Atonement Here an application of God's voluntas beneplaciti, or
His absolute will, or His efficacious will is made.49
If all people of all times had and would come to faith
and therefore be saved, then we could judge that God indeed
48Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics (St.Louis: Concordia
Publishing House, 1951), 2:28. Pieper quotes Chamier in footnote 56. Piper indicates that his source for this quote is Chamier's Panstrat. 3.7.6.
49It seems that there is no consistency in the Calvinist camp
concerning this view, in that many Calvinists want to interpret, as we shall later see, the passages which have traditionally been seen to express God's will to save all, in a sense that would limit also His expressed or revealed saving will to the elect. It
seems to us that there would be no need of this endeavour if Chamier's view were accepted (though we do not say that it is acceptable), for he could, according to his view of things, say, that even though God in the Scripture has expressed His desire that all were saved, in His hidden will He does not desire it. Possibly Calvinists have realized, at least to a degree, the futility of such basing of doctrine on the hidden will of God, and have attempted to sound Scriptural. But, yet the fact remains, as we shall see, that they are not free of their presuppositions and that therefore the hidden will of God will yet steer their judgment as to how individual passages are to be interpreted.
29
desires all people to be saved; but if some did or do not
believe and therefore are damned, then we realize that God
never desired to save those particular people, and therefore
did not and does not desire all to be saved. For if He did,
then, as truly as God is sovereign, almighty God, whose will
is efficacious and unfailing, all had gotten and would get
saved as well; but now that all did not, we truly know that
God never desired or willed their salvation.50
On the basis of the hidden sovereign will of God which
is all permeating, and the idea that from the results we can
determine what that will was, Calvin and Calvinists make
also, for example, the following conclusions: God willed the
fall of Adam and Eve, and predestined some to salvation and
some to perdition.51 This will preceded the Creation.
If from the Scripture then we find passages which speak
of God's will to save all, those passages are, by
Calvinists, interpreted and harmonized by voluntas
beneplaciti to fit those passages which seem to express or
imply that God does not desire all to be saved - which
50Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2:982-987
(3.4.15-17); Calvin: Theological Treatises, 179-180.
51This predestination issue again is one for which most
Calvinists say they have support in God's revealed will, and desire to base their case on the Scriptures, whether they everytime express it or not. See e.g. Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2:955-958 (3.23.7); Calvin: Theological Treatises, 179. Other references found in footnote 1 also make this point.
30
passages they find mainly in Chapter nine of the Epistle of
Paul to the Romans.52 On the basis of these principles then
Calvinists complete their theological system.
Calvinistic Doctrines of Grace
We will cover briefly Calvinistic doctrines of
grace53 which allows us then focus on their teaching of
Limited Atonement and see it in its proper perspective and
relationship to the other doctrines. 1) Total depravity.
Every and each human being is, because of the Fall, totally
depraved. In this his fallen state he does not worship true
God, but sins against Him and is in a state of spiritual
blindness. 2) Unconditional election. God, before the
foundation of the world, in His counsel hidden from us,
predestined some people to salvation and some to damnation.54
52Calvin for example deals with Ezek. 33:11 where God says:
"As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live..." Calvin says that God does not really want every wicked one to repent, for else they would, but that this passage is really only for the comfort of those to whom God gives the grace of repentance. Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2:982-983 (3.24.15).
53These are what are called the "Five Points of Calvinism"
conveniently abreviated as T.U.L.I.P.: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of saints. For further reading on these areas see, for example, William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, three vols., reprint of 1888 ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1969).
54This is known as "double-predestination."
31
This choosing was not based on anything in man. 3) Limited
atonement. God decided before the foundation of the world to
send a Saviour to redeem and save those, and only those
people, whom He before had chosen to salvation, namely the
elect. 4) Irresistible grace. God will see to it that He
will in time bring the elect to faith in Christ. 5)
Perseverance. God will make sure that the elect do not fall
away from faith in time, but will preserve them in faith.
It is important to keep in mind here that Calvinists in
general do not see any other options to be available in
interpretation of the Scriptures, but that one is forced to
teach either limited atonement, universal salvation, that
Christ did not redeem anyone, or synergism.55 The second one
is seen through experience not to be true - for not all
people have believed. The third option is senseless and
against Scripture. The fourth option they abhor, because of
their doctrine of total depravity. Therefore only the first
option can stand. This view is a result of their teaching
that redemption includes purchasing also of "faith and
sactification", that the redemption and its application can
not be separated.56
55Gary D. Long, Substitutionary Atonement; a Study of Three
Key Problem Passages on the Extent of the Atonement, 3-4. They make this conclusion because they do not know, it seems, any other alternatives to exist, except that Arminian synergism which they abhor.
56John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, 184;
Gary D. Long, Substitutionary Atonement; a Study of Three Key
32
General Objections Against Universal Atonement
Redemption and its Application
A distinction is made between internal sufficiency
of the atonement of Christ and external intention or purpose
of the Father and Christ as to who should benefit from the
atoning death of Christ. Only those encompassed by this
external intention would and could actually be saved, that is
the elect. In itself, it is affirmed, the death of Christ
would be sufficient "to have been made a price" for the
redemption of the whole world, only God did not intend its
benefits to be, but limited efficaciousness of the atonement
to the elect, to whom Christ purchased not only redemption,
but also "faith and sanctification".57 By these Calvinists
want to emphasize that there is nothing lacking in the
Problem Passages on the Extent of the atonement, pp. i-iii.
57"...Son should offer a sacrifice of infinite worth, value,
and dignity, sufficient in itself for the redeeming of all and every man, if it had pleased the Lord to employ it to that
purpose....This is its own true internal perfection and
sufficiency. That it should be applied unto any, made a price for them, and become benificial to them, acccording to the worth that is in it, is external to it, doth not arise from it, but merely depends upon the intention and will of God." And this "intention and will" of God is limited to the elect only. John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, 183-185. Long writes, "Christ did not die for any upon condition, if they do believe, but He died for all God's elect that they will believe and believing have eternal life." Gary D. Long,
Substitutionary Atonement; a Study of Three Key Problem Passages on the Extent of the Atonement, 13, footnote 12. (Emphasis here is ours).
33
efficacy of the atonement, but that only it is intended to
and for the elect, for whom Christ intrinsically with the
atonement secured also faith. This theological opinion then
looms very heavy in their interpretation of individual
passages and definitely has its foundation in their
understanding of what the necessary implications of the
sovereignty of God are.
Did Christ die for those already in hell?
Calvinists obviously say, no. Christ did not die for
those already in hell.
But now Christ did not intend to satisfy for the sins of all and every man for innumerable souls were in hell, under the punishment and weight of their own
sins; from whence there is no redemption before, nor actually then when our Savior made Himself an oblation for sin. Now, shall we suppose that Christ would make Himself an offering for their sins whom He knew to be past recovery...Shall we think that the blood of the covenant was cast away upon them for whom our Savior intended no good at all?... (to say), that Christ died for them, and His death would have been available to them if they had believed...is in my judgement, of no force at all; for, First, For the most part they never heard of any such condition. Secondly, Christ at His death knew full well that they had not fulfilled the condition [to believe - if some suppose there is such a condition], and were actually cut off from any
possibility ever to do so, so that any intention to do them good by his death must needs be vain and frustrate; which must not be assigned to the Son of God.
58
However, they do admit that Christ offered Himself for
58Ibid., pp. 135-136.
34
those who were in heaven at the time of His suffering.59
Atonement and the Doctrine of Trinity
It is very evident that there is unity of purpose in
the Godhead--One person does not desire, intend or will but
in harmony with the other two Persons.60 The idea of the
Universal atonement is seen to disrupt the unity of Godhead
in that if the atonement, a work of the Second Person, is
universal, then also the work of conversion by the Third
Person, the Holy Spirit, should likewise be universal, and
consequently universal salvation should ensue, the Holy
Spirit applying salvation through faith in it to as many as
were redeemed, that is, to all people of all times. But
since we know that not all have, nor do, believe we must
conclude that one of the premises must be faulty. Because
the Holy Spirit would apply the salvation to as many as were
redeemed, and not all do believe, we must conclude that the
redemption was not universal, and consequently God the Father
never willed the salvation of all people.
This understanding of the unity of will of the Godhead
makes redemption and salvation inseparable, even more, it
makes salvation intrinsic to atonement as we saw above.
59Ibid., 136.
60Ibid., 51-66, 136.
35
Atonement and High Priestly Office of Christ
It was Christ's priestly office under which He
atoned for our sins (for the sins of the elect). The
intercessory prayer likewise is a part of His priestly
office. Therefore the extent of both is to be the same. We
see from John 17 (Christ's High Priestly Prayer) how He prays
"not for the world, but for them which Thou hast given me..."
(John 17:9). Since He prays only for "them," who are the
elect, therefore it was likewise only for them that He died--
if He died for all, He would pray for all likewise.
Another aspect of the High Pristly office of Christ is
that "a high priest must make offering to God for a people,"
and
the offering of the high priest must be for sins. This Christ did "once, when he offered up himself" (Heb. 7:27), and "bare our sins in His own body on the tree" (1 Pet. 2:24). Note that His offering was not for "sin" in the abstract and impersonal, but for "sins." His offering was for actual and individual sins--for those of the people for whom He died.
61
A Unique New Testament Covenant Context
The difference between the Old and New Testaments
(Covenants). Whereas the Old Covenant was established
between Israel and God, the New Covenant includes people from
all nations. The Jews had a very hard time realizing that
also some of those from other nations were redeemed by
61Gary D. Long, Definite Atonement (n.p.: Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Co., 1976), 29.
36
Christ.62 This explains the use of the word "world" also in
the passages which talk about the scope of the atonement the
writers desiring to make it clear that the elect are not only
of the Jews, but of all nations, the elect for whom Christ
died.63 Therefore the word "world" is to be understood in a
sense of "also of/for other than Jews" (as long as one of
the elect is meant), hence "the world of elect", or even "the
church".64
Calvinistic Interpretations of the Passages Traditionally Seen to Teach Universal Extent of the Atonement
General Introduction
Equivocality of the word "world"
Owen desires to show, in general terms, in
accordance to Calvinistic system, how the word "world" here
must mean the "elect."
Various meanings for the word "world" ( ),
which is "so exceedingly equivocal" are considered. Because
the word can mean:
the whole fabric of heaven and earth, with all things
62E.g. Peter other Jews and Cornelius, a Roman centurion, Acts
10 (pay attention especially also to verses 45-48). See also Acts 11:1-19. John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, pp. 186, 187, 189, 190.
63Ibid., 186-187.
64William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 479-480.
37
in them contained;65 the world contained, especially men
in the world; and that either,--First, universally for
all and every one,66 Secondly, Indefinitely for men,
without restriction or enlargement; Thirdly,
Exegetically, for many, which is the most usual
acceptation of the word;67 Fourthly, Comparatively, for
a great part of the world; Fifthly, Restrictively, for
the inhabitants of the Roman empire (Luke 2:1);
Sixthly, for men distinguished in their several
qualifications , as: For the good, God's people...;68
and For the evil, wicked, rejected men of the world.
For the world corrupted...; For a terrene[?] world
ly estate or condition of men or things; For the
world accursed; and in divers other significations . .
. .69
Owen70 then sets to show that in none of the passages
65Thus for example in John 3: 17,19.
66As in Rom. 3:6,19; 5:12.
67E.g. in John 4:42.
68E.g. in John 3:16; 6:33,51; 2 Cor. 5:19; 1 John 2:2.
69John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, pp.
192, 193. All the Scripture references in the quote are Owen's.
70And this is not anything unique. Most, if not all,
Calvinists have followed in his footsteps and use his method in order to show limited extent of the atonement, and deem his book, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ to represent "doctrinal exactness," and state further,
38
which Arminians have interpreted in a universalistic sense
can the word "world" be taken in a sense of "all people."
These argumentations are recorded below where individual
passages are discussed.
Equivocality of words in general
Owen also desires to show that this kind of many
facetedness of meaning of words is not limited to the words
"world" or "all."
So Matthew 8:22, "Let the dead bury their dead;"--dead
in the first place denoting them that are spiritually dead in sin; in the next, those that are naturally dead by dissolution of soul and body....So,...John 3:6, "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Spirit in the first place is the almighty Spirit of God; in the latter, a spiritual life of grace received from Him.
71
How this kind of change in meaning takes place also
with the word "world" Owen attempts to show from John 1:10,
"He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the
It is safe to say that no comparable exposition of the work of
redemption . . . has ever been done since Owen published his in 1684. None has been needed . . . . Owen's interpretation of the texts is sure; his power of theological construction is superb; nothing that needs discussing is omitted, and no arguments for or against his position have been used since
his day which he has not himself noted and dealt with . . . . Nobody has a right to dismiss the doctrine of the limitedness of the atonement as a monstrosity of Calvinistic logic until he has refuted Owen's proof that it is part of the uniform biblical presentation of redemption, clearly taught in plain text after plain text. And nobody has done that yet.
J. I. Packer, Introduction to Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.
71John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, 193-
194.
39
world knew Him not."
He that should force the same signification upon the"world" in that triple mention of it would be an egregious glosser: for in the first, it plainly signifieth some part of the habitable earth, and is taken subjective , in the second, the whole frame of heaven and earth, and is taken subjective , and in the third, for some men living in the earth,--namely, unbelievers, who may be said to be the world adjunctive.
72
Definition of the word "all"
The word "all" as for example in 1 Tim. 2:4, 6
simply means "all sorts of men" i.e. whether high or low,
rich or poor etc., as long as they are of the elect.
Sometimes "all" means "all believers".73
Anthropomorphites and definition of words
A great danger is seen,if we take literally the words
like "world" and "all." This would lead to:
the cursed madness of the Anthropomorphites,--assigning
a human body,
form and shape,
unto God, who
hath none; and
the alike
cursed figment
72Ibid., 194.
73William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 480.
40
of
transubstantiat
ion,
overthrowing
the body of
Christ, who
hath one; with
divers other
most pernicious
errors.74
Owen appeals us to use context, rules of interpreta-
tion, mind the circumstances and scope of the place, and
notice the different use of the same words in different
places of Scripture.75
Individual Passages Considered
The following sections where individual passages are
considered are somewhat hard to distinguish from the above
where general arguments against the universality of the
atonement was discussed for for the most of the time you do
not find individual passages considered on their own, but
passages of the same type (i.e. those containing the same key
words, like "world" or "all") are grouped together and
74John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, 191.
75Ibid.
41
considered collectively starting explanation with a passage
which seems to lend itself best for their refutation with
some reference also to others. What makes it more difficult
yet, is that passages which contain those key words, but have
nothing to do with the atonement, let alone with the extent
of the atonement, are drawn into discussion so as to show how
the words "world" and "all" in them are used in a limited
sense, thus resulting again in refutation in and with general
terms (against the background of their general understanding
of the doctrines of grace) of particular passages which talk
about the atonement in universal terms.
We shall here follow the Calvinists' own way of
presenting their case. Therefore we will sometimes cover one
passage at a time, sometimes a group of passages. And as we
shall notice they do not here, for the most part and by most
authors, engage in serious exegesis, but talk in generalit-
ies, and even when an individual passage is under
investigation it is, indeed, their general understanding of
the work of Christ, and of course of election, that in the
final analysis determine how the key words, and consequently
the passages themselves, are to be interpreted. Because of
these reasons, we do not see it necessary even to try to
cover all passages individually (which, indeed could be next
to impossible to do because they have not done it), but
endevour to cover all the basic arguments and such as they
consider the strongest for their case.
42
Passages of general nature
The following passages: Rom. 5:6,8,10 and 1 Pet. 3:18
where those for whom Christ died are termed as: "ungodly",
"sinners", "enemies", or "unjust", will not be considered
separately. It will suffice to say concerning them that they
are dismissed in that the elect were "ungodly", "sinners",
etc., until that God called them out of the world.76
Passages containing the word "world" considered
To John Owen the word "world" is ambiguous,
therefore the Arminians' argument:77 "The whole world
contains all and every man in the world; Christ died for the
whole world: therefore He died for each and every man", can
not stand, because it is faulty, in that the word "world" in
the first proposition is taken for "the world containing";
in the second for "the world contained." Only if it is
affirmed that the word "world" here means "the world
containing" and that Christ died for "the world containing"
can the argument stand. But then the conclusion is
senseless.78 No one can prove that the word "world" always
in the Scripture means all and every man, whether past,
76Ibid., 277.
77Based on John 3:16; 6:51; 1 John 2:2.
78John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, 205-
206.
43
present or future,79 therefore no one can attach any strength
to arguments from that word.
In the passage, "For God sent not His Son into the
world, to condemn the world, but that the world through Him
might be saved." (John 3:16-17)
...by the world in the first, is necessarily to be
understood that part of the habitable world wherein our
Savior conversed; in the second, all men in the world,
as some suppose (so also there is a truth in it, for
our Savior came not to condemn all men in the world:
for, first, condemnation of any was not the prime aim
of his coming; secondly, he came to save his own
people, and so not to condemn all); in the third, God's
elect, they whom he intended to save, and none else, or
he faileth of his purpose, and the endeavour of Christ
is insufficient for the accomplishment of that
whereunto it is designed.80
The following passages, for example, prove to
Calvinists how the meaning of the word "world" is to be
restricted: "The world knew Him not," (John 1:10) for surely
believers knew Him; "That all the world should be taxed,"
(Luke 2:1) for only those in the Roman Empire, and possibly
79Ibid., 215.
80Ibid., 194. This is a very typical argumentation in the
book.
44
not even all of them, were to be taxed; "I speak to the world
those things which I have heard of Him," (John 8:26) for He
did not address the whole world only those people who lived
where He went about; "Behold the whole world is gone after
Him," (John 12:19) For not the whole world, but only a
multitude from the world went after Him, etc.81
Also Long, with other Calvinists, desires to make the
word "world" suspect. He informs us that the word is used by
John in his epistles 23 times, of which 22 occur in his first
epistle. And then he says that only twice can the word mean
"mankind generically," namely in 1 John 2:2, and in 4:14,
which both passages address the extent of the atonement.
But, because exactly the same expression, which is found from
1 John 2:2, "the whole world" is used also in 1 John 5:19,
"the whole world lieth in wickedness (in the wicked one),"
Long asks,
Can this be true of the believer who is in Christ? Let the reader judge. If the term "whole world" in 1 John 2:2 means all mankind generically, it is an exceptional usage in the epistle... Therefore, it is the writer's contention that the burden of proof rests upon those who interpret "whole world" generically to establish that the term means all mankind in any
redemptive sense, let alone 1 John 2:2. In the writer's research he has not found any writer who holds to an indefinite atonement attempting to do this; rather the term is always said to mean, in "normal and unbiased approach," the whole world, meaning all mankind, both the elect and non-elect.
82
81Ibid., 194-195.
82Gary D. Long, Substitutionary Atonement, 16.
45
Warfield's view of the correct interpretation of 1 John
2:2 is a view termed "eschatological universalism."
According to this view John's reference made by "the whole
world" is to the future world that is saved at the second
coming of Christ. Warfield writes:
He (Christ) came into the world...that He might
save the world, and He actually saves the world. Where the expositors have gone astray is in not perceiving that this salvation of the world was not conceived by John--any more than the salvation of the individual--as accomplishing itself all at once. Jesus came to save the world, and the world will through Him be saved; at the end of the day He will have a saved world to present to His Father. John...is speaking from the point of view of this completed work. From that point of view He is the Savior of the world....He (John) is a universalist; he teaches the salvation of the whole world. But he is not an "each and every" universalist: he is an "eschatological" universalist.
83
Long agrees with Warfield, "there will be a future
world in which all the sins of that world will be taken
away," but this, however, is only one aspect which he
includes into his "ethnological" view.84 This view sees John
to have written his first epistle to the Jews dispersed among
the Gentiles and used the term "the whole world" and "world"
to mean the elect among the Gentiles in general as
distinguished from the elect among Israel. In support of the
first premise he quotes Pink who sees in John's epistle e.g.
the following "convincing reasons" in support of this
83John E. Meeter, ed., Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin
B. Waarfield (Nutley, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1970-1973), 1:176-177.
84Gary D. Long, Substitutionary Atonement, 25.
46
assumption: "an old commandment which you had from the
beginning" in 2:7 must have been addressed to Jewish
believers, of whom only it was true, for the Gentile
believers had not "an old commandment", and "the beginning"
is said to refer to "the beginning of the public
manifestation of Christ." Therefore, the "fathers" in "I
write unto you, fathers, because ye have known Him from the
beginning" (2:13), must refer to Jewish believers. The same
argument is made of, "They (antichrists) went out from us..."
(2:19), for the antichrists,
were all Jews, for during the first century none but a Jew posed as the Messiah. Therefore, when John says "He is the propitiation for our sins," he can only mean for the sins of Jewish believers.
85
And naturally enough with "for the sins of the whole world"
is then meant, that Christ is the propitiation also for the
sins of the Gentile elect. And, sure enough, Long wants to
pull his "strictly parallel passage"86 of John 11:51,52 to
defend his interpretation. We do not reproduce that passage
here, only may the reader check how "parallel" that passage
is, not with Long's interpretation of 2:2 (with which it
naturally agrees), but with the text itself.
"God was in Christ reconciling the world unto
85Arthur W. Pink, The Atonement (Venice, Florida: Chapel
Library, n.d.), 13-14.
86Gary D. Long, Substitutionary Atonement, 28.
47
Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them..." 2 Cor. 5:19
Here again Calvinists, concerning the extent of the
meaning of the word "world," bring their cliche87 "Does it
include all mankind absolutely without exception... or...
some of mankind relatively without distiction" to the fore,
as if the latter was Scripturally a real, viable,
possibility. Long defends his view of the limited extent of
the atonement from "the phrase which immediately follows,"
namely, "not imputing their (the world's) trespasses unto
them."
The point should be obvious. The phrase "not imputing their trespasses unto them" definitely means that the "world" (whoever they are) has not its (their) sins imputed to them; otherwise none would or could be
condemned by God for their sins. Then, does this not require that "world" must be interpreted restrictively in this verse?
It can not escape one's attention that Long's argument
is here based on the Calvinistic understanding of how the
atonement and its application are inseparable. If that
premise were true, then there would be something to his
argument, but as we will discuss in the Chapter III, that
premise is faulty and consequently conclusions based on it
are fallacious.
Passages containing the word "all" considered
87For example, Ibid., 16, 35, 36.
48
"...that if one died for all, then were all dead: and [that] He died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again." (2 Cor. 5:14,15)
The Bible teaches that "All for whom Christ died, also
died in Christ. All who died in Christ rose again in
Christ". To die is to die to sin, and to rise with Him is to
rise to a life of new obedience. "The inference is
inevitable that those for whom Christ died are those and
those only who die to sin and live to righteousness." And
because it is plain that not all people thus live for Christ,
neither can we then say that "Christ died for all men." This
being so and the death of Christ constituting the atonement
"the conclusion is apparent--the death of Christ in its
specific character as atonement was for those and those only
who are in due time partakers of that new life..."88
We can not take "those who live" to be different from
the "all" for whom Christ died, for this "would bring us into
conflict with...Romans 6:5,8." "Romans 6:4-8 must be applied
to 2 Corinthians 5:14,15. Hence... 'those who live' must
have the same extent as those embraced in... 'He died for
all'." Thus Murray sees this passage to teach limited, not
unlimited atonement.
88John Murray, The Atonement (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Co.), p.69-72. He advances the following Scripture to prove his point: Rom. 6:4,5,8, 9; Col. 3:3.
49
"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that He by the grace of God should taste death for every man.... ...to make reconciliation for the sins of the people." Heb.2:9, 17b
On the first part of the passage i.e. on verse nine no
Calvinistic interpretation was found. The verse seventeen
they cover, if they do, where they talk of Christ's
priesthood. This aspect of the passage is already covered
elsewhere in this paper therefore we do not duplicate that
here.
Special case of 2 Peter 2:1
"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even
denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon
themselves swift destruction." 2 Pet. 2:1
This is the only passage in the New Testament where it
is explicitly stated that Christ bought also them who
eventually will perish, therefore, understandably, much
interpretation goes into explaining it in order to
accommodate it into the Calvinistic system.
Long desires, from the words "the Lord"
and "bought" to show how the Lord, actually,
did not buy them in a redemptive sense, or to that matter,
buy them in any sense of the word at all. First, says he,
is used,
ten times in the New Testament. But never does it refer to the Father or to the Son as a mediator unless
50
2 Pet. 2:1 be the exception. And if this be the case, the burden of proof rests upon those who wish to make it the exception, does it not?... It is completely ignored that is never used as a redemptive title for anyone,...
89
Long makes his second point out of the word
Concerning this second Greek word and the issue whether or not is to be understood redemptively or non-redemptively, the following points should be
made. First, in the Greek Septuagint and its related noun forms are used some twenty times to translate three Hebrew words ( and ); yet it is never used to translate the two great redemptive words--those translated "redeem" ( and "ransom" or "purchase" ( ). Second, of its thirty occurrences in the New Testament, is never used in a salvation context (unless 2 Pet. 2:1 is the exception) without the technical term "price" ( --a technical term for the blood of Christ) or its equivalent being stated or made explicit in the context (see 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; Rev. 5:9; 14:3-4). Third, in each of the latter five references the context clearly restricts the extent of (regardless of what it
means) to believers--never to non-believers. Fourth, a word study of , in both the Greek Old and New Testaments, reveals that the word itself does not include the payment price. When it is translated with a meaning "to buy," whether in a salvation or non-salvation context, a payment price is always stated or made explicit by the context. Fifth, in contexts where no payment price is stated or implied, may often be better translated as "acquire" or "obtain." Sixth, is never used in Scripture in a hypothetical sense unless 2 Pet. 2:1 be the exception. Rather it is always used in a context where the buying or acquiring actually takes place.
90
Long dismisses, on the basis of his own study, as
weaker, other Calvinists' "Christian charity" view of 2 Pet.
2:1. According to this view Peter wrote the way he did, out
of the Christian charity, on the basis of the false teachers'
89Gary D. Long, Substitutionary Atonement, p. 50.
90Ibid., 51-52.
51
outward profession, "not that in reality this redemption is
true of the false teachers."91 Likewise Long prefers his own
view over the non-soteriological "temporal deliverance" view,
(although it, just as the Christian charity view, can, given
certain conditions, be compatible with his own view) held by
some other five-point Calvinists, who say that
Peter is speaking of the false teachers, not in respect to the reality of eternal redemption but that, by their professing to be believers... they are temporally (physically) delivered from the pollutions of the world.
92
Long's own view regarding the correct interpretation of
the passage is termed "the sovereign creation" view. This,
obviously, is likewise a non-soteriological interpretation of
the passage. It sees the text as "referring to the creation
of the false teachers by Christ their sovereign Lord." Long
cites "four significant points that support this view."
First, that this view gives to the words and
their "proper significance," as covered above. Second,
that Peter "intentionally alludes to the phrase "thy father
that hath bought thee" in Deuteronomy 32:6, which words are
immediately followed by "hath He not made thee, and
established thee?"
The three Hebrew words translated "bought," "made" and "established" are significant in the sovereign creation view for, in the Hebrew, they mean, in context, "to acquire," "to make" or "to constitute" and "to
91Ibid., 55-57.
92Ibid., 58.
52
establish" a nation. The meaning of the Greek Septuagint translation of these three words is "acquire," "make" and "establish" ("create"-- this is Codex Alexandrinus' translation for "establish"--Greek ) Although the Greek word translated "bought" or "acquire" in Deut. 32:6 is and a word study of these two terms reveals that they are closely related and used interchangably in both the Old and New Testaments.
93
Therefore Long feels that "a strong case can be
established... to substantiate that Peter's allusion to
Deuteronomy 32:6" is to make that passage and his, parallel,
in that, just as he "bought (acquired)" the covenant nation
Israel ("including 'His children' as well as the 'spot' among
them which was 'a perverse and crooked generation' ") from
Egypt, "made and established them to be a covenant people,"
just so "Christ... acquired the false teachers in order to
make them a part of the covenant nation of God in the flesh
because He had created them... for the purpose of bringing
glory to Himself through their foreordainment unto
condemnation."94
Long's case in its totality largely rests on the
following argument:
The fact that in Peter's use of Deuteronomy 32:6
he refers only to "bought," the first of the three words in the phrase "bought, make and establish," is explained by the manner in which New Testament writers commonly allude to Old Testament references without directly quoting them. Peter, therefore, only refers to the first word, "bought," using it as a summary for all three words to stress the idea of creating and
93Ibid., 61.
94Ibid., 61-63.
53
acquiring Israel as a covenant nation as the context of Deuteronomy 32 teaches.
95
Third, Long feels his sovereign creation view to be
supported by the context in both 2 Pet. 2 (especially the
verse 12) and Jude 4-19.
A fourth and final reason is that "it is illogical to
say that Christ died... for those foreordained unto
destruction."96
The Extent of God's Saving Will
We will not here meet with anything terribly new. Same
kinds of arguments, based on the same premises as was the
case on the above sections, are found here. Therefore, we
see no need to greatly expand on this section, but briefly
cover the main passages referred to, by Calvinists and
others, under this head.
"...God our Savior, who will have all men to be
saved, and to come unto the knowledge of truth. For
there is one God, and one mediator between God and men
the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all
to be testified in due time." 1 Tim. 2:3b-6.
First, Calvinists divide God's will into "His will
intending, and His will commanding, or rather,... (1) For His
purpose, what He will do; (2) For His approbation of what we
95Ibid., 61-62.
96Ibid., 63.
54
do, with His command thereof."97 Owen then takes this
premise granted, and urges his opponents to choose according
to which will, of the two, God here wills. Owen is inclined
to see the will of God here in the second sense, but explains
it in both senses so as to have its effectual application
only to the elect. In the first case, he says, if it is
according to
voluntate signi, with His will commanding, requiring, approving, then the sense of the words is this: "God commandeth all men to use the means whereby they may obtain the end, or salvation,...and so it is the same with that of the apostle in another place, "God commandeth all men everywhere to repent." Now if this be the way whereby God willeth the salvation of all here mentioned, then certainly those all can
possibly be no more than to whom He granteth and revealeth the means of grace,...
Secondly, If the will of God be taken for His
efficacious will, the will of His purpose and good pleasure,... then certainly it must be fulfilled, and all those saved whom he would have saved... therefore, if these all here be all and every one... then one of these two things must of necessity follow: either that God faileth His purpose and intention, or else that all men universally shall be saved.
98
Now, since neither of the two alternatives is not, or
can not, be true, therefore, Owen says we are forced to
realize that the "all men" mentioned in the passage must mean
"some or many of all sorts, that is, all sorts of men," in
other words "all men without distinction," but not "all men
without exception." And he feels that the context, where the
97John Owen, Death of Death in the Death of Christ, pp. 232-
233.
98Ibid., 232.
55
apostle urges that, "supplications, prayers, intercessions,
and giving of thanks, be made for all men, for kings, and for
all that are in authority..." supports his view, the apostle
himself showing that,
by all men he understandeth men of all sorts, ranks, conditions, and orders, by distributing those all into several kinds, expressly mentioning some of them, as
"kings and all in authority." Not unlike that expression we have in Jeremiah 29:1,2, "Nebuchadnezzar carried away all the people captive to Babylon,... the king, and the queen, and the eunuchs, the princes..., the carpenters, and the smiths,..." where all the people is interpreted to be some of all sorts, by a distribution of them into the several orders, classes, and conditions whereof they were.
99
Some Passages Calvinists Say Imply Limited Atonement
Here we need only summarize their case, for all
these passages are of the same nature, and at least on the
surface would seem to indicate limited extent of the
atonement. These are the passages which state that,
Christ gave Himself for His people (Matt.1:21), for His friends (John 15:13), for His sheep (John 10:15), for His church (Eph. 5:23-26; Acts 20:28)
100
and thus not for those who are not His people, or are
His enemies, or wolves, or are not part of the Church,
respectively. This is another Calvinists' argument for the
definite redemption, and the last one covered in this paper.
99Ibid., 234.
100
Gary D. Long, Definite Atonement, 33; R. B. Kuiper, For Whom Did Christ Died? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 64.
56
There is no need to expand on this their contention for it
is simple enough for the above brief statement to cover its
essence.
CHAPTER III LUTHERAN VIEW OF THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT Atonement & the Love of God and Revelation vs. Sovereignty of God
Before we begin, it must be said from the outset that
we have no pleasure in the unscriptural Arminian system of
theology. Being synergistic, it does not afford comfort to a
sinner regardless of their doctrine of universal atonement.
For wherever something remains to be done on man's part in
the matter of salvation before its complete, one can, at the
57
most, hope to be saved, but as to certainty of one's
salvation, it is nowhere to be found if it does not rest
solely on Christ. Furthermore, Calvinists are indeed
justified in their criticism of Arminian system of theology
in saying that they teach redemption which does not redeem,
atonement which does not atone etc. for those statements are
true in view of Arminian synergism. However, there is no
need, nor is it correct, to counter Arminian heresy with
another one in the terms of limited or definite atonement, or
as it is also called, particular redemption. This provides
sufficient "prologue" for the Lutheran position.
The starting point in the Lutheran theology is not, as
is the case in Calvinism, however true it is in itself, the
sovereignty of God. And how, indeed, could or should it be
the beginning point for any healthy theology, for who can
tell what the sovereignty of God means for us? Can not God,
in His sovereignty, limit the scope of His activity? Could
He possibly have (as some Calvinists indeed say He could
have) saved us by some other means, but through Christ?
Could He have answered Jesus' petition, "Abba, Father, all
things are possible unto Thee; take away this cup from
me;..." (Mark. 14:36) in the affirmative? Even Jesus' prayer
seems to imply that He could have. But He did not! He
surely, in His sovereignty, limited His sovereignty.101
He
101Or, maybe we should say that His righteousness limited His
sovereignty, His righteousness demanding that a due penalty and
58
did not do what He, theoretically at least, could have done.
Not even at the expense of His Son's suffering and death.
Also He allowed Lazarus to die, Job to suffer, Israel be
defeated. His Ark stolen, Judas perish etc. Which all things
again He could, in His sovereignty, have prevented. But
again there were many other attributes to God, for example,
His righteousness and love, which dictated otherwise. God is
not all sovereignty, even though He is all-sovereign. One
can not emphasize sovereignty of God at the expense of other
attributes of God. The Bible nowhere says that God in His
sovereignty sent Jesus to redeem the elect, but that God in
His love toward the world sent His Son.
punishment should be executed on the fallen mankind, and then deciding to execute it in a substitu- tionary sufferer, Jesus Christ. And also we could say that His love toward the fallen humanity limited, or at least guided, His sovereignty.
56
The important distinction is to be made between what
God wills and what He allows. God does not intrinsically
will the death of a wicked, but allows it if he does not
repent and believe.102
Calvinists say that we can judge from results what the
Lord's sovereign will was. We think not. When His Son
suffered, was the very suffering itself intrinsically God's
will? We think not, for else we could accuse God for being a
sadist, which thought is surely abominable, nay, even more, a
sheer blasphemy. Was it not because of the fruit of His
suffering -- especially the redemption of the fallen mankind
-- why it all happened through God's love, "For God so loved
the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that..."103,
and righteousness,
...For all sinned and came short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus whom God hath set forth [as] a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness...104
What about the election? Was it God's will
intrinsically that most should perish? We think not, for
again we could accuse God for being a sadist. Was it not
because of the fruit of the election--the salvation of the
elect--His desire to save at least the elect! Certainly so.
102Ezek. 18:1-32; 33:7-19.
103
John 3:16.
104
Rom. 3:23-25a.
57
The Bible, God's Word, even with the words, "God is
Love,"105
leaves us no other alternative to entertain, for
those words describe, not God's inclination toward some (the
elect), but His very nature, and His nature, being the nature
of His Being, must apply to all in an equal manner. Now,
obviously there is this other side to God, namely His
righteousness. However, these two sides of His nature, love
and righteousness, can not exclude each other nor be in any
tension, but it is loving to be righteous, and it is
righteous to love. Those people then, who spurn His love in
Christ fall under His righteous judgement.106 These things
we can find from the Word, but as to implications of His
sovereignty, or His hidden will, those things we can not find
from the Word, but can only comfort ourselves in knowing that
His sovereignty or hidden will can not betray the nature of
His Being. There might be some seeming contradictions
between God's hidden will and the will revealed in the Word,
1051 John 4:8.
106
This is the Lutheran distinction between the antecedent, or first, will (voluntas antecedens, voluntas prima) and the
consequent, or second, will (voluntas consequens, voluntas secunda) of God. According to the former God desires in earnest to save all men through faith in Christ, and according to the latter condemn all who refuse to believe in Christ. This distinction is based for example on John 3:14-21. Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 2:36-38. From the Old Testament also we know that God delivered all Israelites from Egypt, but yet destroyed those who did not trust in Him. Accordingly the apostle in the New Testament warns us not to tempt God or Christ, or fall away from grace. (1 Cor. 10:1-12; Gal. 5:4).
58
but that is all they are, seeming contradictions.
Therefore we can see that we are not able to tell what
God's sovereignty can mean to us. We can not simplistically
judge it from the results.107 Does it have to mean that the
Atonement had to be limited in its extent? We think not.
Does it have to mean that the Atonement had to be universal
in its extent? We think not. We can not tell. We can not
tell what God's sovereignty has to mean.108 What then can we
know? Only that which God has been pleased to reveal to us
in His Word; further we can not, and dare not go. Else we
walk on a sea of doubts, on a swamp of human opinions.
God could in His sovereignty have provided the world
with the universal atonement, but save only those, the elect,
in whose heart He works faith in it. And this is indeed what
we believe the Word teaches, not only clearly, but also
extensively.
Therefore the heart and core of the revelation of God
in the Scripture, namely the revelation and manifestation of
God Himself, and His love, in and through His Son Jesus
107
There are many events that have taken place in the Biblical history which the Scripture says God was not an author of. Matter in fact, nothing sinful can be attributed to God, yet sin was, and is, rampant in the world. To take just one example, false prophets preached though God had not sent them (Ezek. 13).
108
Nor should we study it in vacuum, i.e. without taking into account other attributes of God. And in the New Testament, with regard of the atonement, it surely talks more about the love and righteousness of God than of His sovereignty.
59
Christ toward the fallen world (and not the sovereignty of
God), has to be, not only the beginning point, but all
permeating teaching of all who desire to be Biblical.109
Calvinists also include God's love as the prime
motivation of God to provide the atonement. One Calvinist
author even states, that "the free love of God in Jesus
Christ is the starting point for Calvin's doctrine of the
atonement."110
However, when we look closer to that love of
God, we soon find, that it is "the free, sovereign,
distinguishing love of God,"111 that the Calvinists mean.
Peterson explains himself right before the above quote: "One
must go all the way back to the eternal counsels of the
triune God to reach the primary source of Calvin's doctrine
of Christ's work." Therefore, God's love to Calvinists is
that which made Him predestine the elect to salvation. For
them John 3:16 reads: "For God so loved the elect...," and we
109John 14:8,9; 1 John 4:10.
110
Robert A. Peterson, Calvin's Doctrine of the Atonement
(Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1983), 1. He dismisses Christology and the doctrine of sin as Calvin's starting point for his theology, and does not even mention (not at least directly) that sovereignty of God would be his starting point.
111
Gary D. Long, Definite Atonement (Nutley: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1976), 8. Also see John Murray, The Atonement (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., -), p. 10. We quote: "The purpose to redeem is of the free and sovereign exercise of His love."
60
could continue, "and hated the others, that..."112 The fact
that John, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,
did not write thus is dismissed by their sophistry.113
It is a total heresy and also unreasonable and against
all reason to distinguish between the revealed (voluntas
signi) and hidden will (voluntas beneplaciti) of God in such
a way as to make them contradictory to each other in any
point as some Calvinists surely do, namely those who say that
"the former is to be interpreted according to the latter."114
If that indeed were the case then we could not trust in
anything in the Word, but should always wonder if God's
hidden will is different than His will, no matter what
subject it concerns, revealed in the Scriptures.115
Lutherans do desire to harken to the commanding
exhortation which the Father spoke concerning Jesus Christ:
112Gary North, 75 Bible Questions (Tyler, Texas: Spurgeon
Press, 1984), pp. 17, 18.
113
By "sophistry" this writer means that Calvinistic disposition which does not take the text of Scripture as it is
written, but inserts into, adds, changes and manipulates it, with a show of being Scriptural, according to their human reason so as to make it agree with their preconceived ideas of what the Scripture must mean.
114
See p. 27.
115
And in the Scripture Christ has revealed the Father's will, "This is the will of Him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son and believeth on Him may have everlasting life..." (John 6:40).
61
"This is my beloved Son: Hear Him."116 And then to Jesus'
words to His apostles: "He that heareth you, heareth Me; and
he that despiseth you despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me
despiseth Him who sent Me."117 Thus the written Word of God
becomes the ultimate and the only authority for doctrine and,
consequently, of practice.118
It is our contention that orthodoxy is not secured by
imposing some preconceived ideas, human reason, or some
logical reductions (even if they were from Biblical state-
ments) on the Scripture, but indeed by hearing the Word on
its own merits, whether conclusions then are seemingly
contradictory or not, for, after all, as is the case with the
Cross so also it is with the theology of the Cross, as it is
written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will
bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."119
The
only way to remain on 'track' is to adhere to the Word just
as we have it written without any of our import into it. If
this were not the case how could Christ, one time after
another, have said with authority: "It has been written." If
the plain text had and would not suffice, it had been for
116Luke 9:35.
117
Luke 10:16.
118
The Book of Concord, ed. Theodore Tappert (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Introduction, 505.9.
119
1 Cor. 1:19.
62
Christ, and would be for us, a total futility to quote
Scripture. If the true understanding of any given text could
be derived only after much imposition of our thoughts and
insertion of our words into it, which insertions supposedly
are dictated by some other passages of Scripture, the proper
meaning of which one again would need to derive from some
other text or texts, and so forth, who could then anymore say
what the Bible teaches!? And also, if the above procedure
would need to be followed, then to derive any meaning, real
or unreal, out of the Scripture at all, one would have to be
a well educated theologian, but to ordinary people the Bible
would remain totally senseless book, with no reading value.
Thus we would be back to the dark ages when the church
claimed that it only can interpret the Scripture. But one of
the key tenets of the Reformation120 was that the Word is
open to every individual alike so that they can come to know
the truth by plain reading of it, by adhering to the plain
text thereof.121
Neither will it do for us to connect parallel passages,
120
Sola Scriptura, by Scripture alone.
121
But at least some of our great Calvinistic theologians esteem such an approach childish. When Arminians took the word "world" (e.g. in John 3:16) to mean "world", they were called "poor pretenders" who "are indeed very children" to the right understanding of the word and then consequently also of the Word, where the word is contained. John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1985), 205. Subsequently John Owen reinterprets the word "world," and ends up with the meaning "elect" for that word; p. 213.
63
or compare Scripture with Scripture, at random, the way the
Calvinists tend to do,122 but there needs to be the same
subject matter, or at least very much related issues, in all
passages that we want to bring to bear in formulating any
doctrine. More could, and maybe should, be said here, but
let this now suffice.123
Lutheran theology is then developed from the centre,
who is the Christ, out, so that all doctrines have their
connection to Him, who indeed is called "The Word of God" in
122For example Gary D. Long in his book Substitutionary
Atonement; a Study of Three Key Problem Passages on the Extent of the Atonement (Sterling, VA: Grace Abounding Printers, 1977), 32-33, makes a distinction between "soteric" and "cosmic" reconciliations (the former meaning the reconciliation of the
elect through Christ, the latter the reconciliation of the non-rational creation through Christ), and writes, Soteric or saving reconciliation has special reference to
reconciling mankind in their lost estate (see Rom. 5:8-11; Eph. 2:13-18; 2 Cor. 5:18-20; Col. 1:21-23), not with reconciliation in its cosmic or world-wide non-rational creation aspect which includes the compulsive submission of all enemies of Christ and the removal of the curse upon the whole creation (see Col. 1:20; Rom. 8:18-23; 1 Cor. 15:24-25).
If one only examines the passages referred to, he can find under the same head (here reconciliation) a mixing together of
passages which address the atonement or reconciliation with those where "all enemies" will be put "under His feet." When this kind of a treatment of Scripture then generally serves as a basis on which, or a premise from which they do their exegesis, no wonder what conclusions are arrived at.
123
For further reading see Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1950), 1:3-359 for sections on "The Nature and Character of Theology", and "Holy Scripture." Also Jacob A. O. Preus, It is Written, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971).
64
the Scriptures.124
Other Calvinistic General Objections Answered
Redemption and its Application
Calvinist's view that application of the redemption and
the redemption itself are intrinsic and therefore inseparable
is not true. When the Abolition of slavery125
was declared
in America it did not end the slavery overnight for various
reasons, one of which surely was that slaves did not quite
believe it, or did not know how to use their freedom, and
some desired to remain slaves for the rest of their lives,
even if they knew they were free by the virtue of the
declaration.126
Likewise it can be with Christ's atoning
death and its declaration as far as non-elect, and the elect
until that they believe, are concerned. For it is only in
God's design of salvation of the elect that the atonement and
its application are intrinsic and therefore inseparable.
This, however, does not mean that salvation is intrinsic to
the atonement or redemption and therefore must follow for
124John 1:1-14; Rev. 19:13.
125
Redemption here was done by the change of law.
126
We realize that this illustration is not, nor any illustration indeed can be, parallel to what God did in Christ, but it serves only as an illustration of the point we desire to make, which point obviously, to have any validity, is to be based on Scripture and not on any illustration.
65
everyone redeemed, but as said, they are that only as far as
God's design of salvation of the elect is concerned.
Calvinists say that redemption which is not applied is no
redemption at all, whereas they should say, that design of
salvation which is not executed is no salvation at all. But
God's design of salvation of the elect, which we find from
the Scriptures, includes both, redemption in Christ which
actually redeems and its application to the elect in
imparting them faith in it through the Gospel by the Holy
Spirit. Both are actions of God.
There is a grave problem with the Calvinistic
presupposition described above, because, by implication, it
does away with faith.127
This is not seen by Calvinists to
be the case, but the following "For whom did Christ die?"
will make it evident for all, that it is so.
"For Whom did Christ die?"
"For Whom did Christ die?", is John Owen's riddle which
Calvinists are fond of quoting in their books128 and verbal
127
That Calvinist theology, where it is consistent, because of its denial of the universal redemption, does away also with the means of grace which create faith, is conclusively shown in Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 3:118-122.
128
"...it is needful to restate Owen's classic argument for particular redemption. It has been over three hundred years since it was penned, and it is the writer's firm opinion that, to date, no one has been able to refute it scripturally. It is seriously doubted that any shall ever refute it unless the Scripture be rewritten. Owen wrote:..." Gary D. Long, Definite Atonement, 33-34.
66
presentations:
The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son
underwent punishment for, either: 1. All the sins of all men. 2. All the sins of some men, or 3. Some of the sins of all men. In which case it may be said:
a. That if the last be true, all men have some
sins to answer for, and so none are saved. b. That if the second be true, then Christ, in
their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
c. But if the first be the case, why are not all
men free from the punishment due unto their sins? You answer, Because of unbelief. I ask, Is this
unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If
He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!
129
Our reply: Here Owen will become a victim of his own
logic and sophistry: We say: If the second be true, then
according to his own reply to the first case, the elect need
not believe, for Christ answered also for that sin of the
elect, for He "in their stead suffered for all the sins of
all the elect in the whole world," so therefore why should
129John Owen, Death of Death in the Death of Christ, 137 This
has then by the proponents, besides having been profusely quoted in their books and lectures, been printed separately, in an edited format, on little sheets of paper for handy distribution. It is in this external format that we have quoted the text. This same presupposition elaborated on here, which is one of the key premises of Calvinists, is reiterated time after another in Owen's own book (e.g. pp. 227-228) and obviously also in those of other Calvinists.
67
the sin of unbelief "hinder them more than their other sins
for which He died?" For "If He did not, He did not die for
all their sins!" If his refutation of the universalists'
position holds true, then likewise this our refutation of the
particularists' position must meet with acceptance for it was
based squarely on the same premise for precisely the same
reasons. Calvinists might desire to exclaim, "Of course they
are to have faith!" This would put them, at least, into
partial agreement with us. But this position is not where
Owen's logic, if systematically followed, leads.
The above is an example of the kind of material one
finds from Calvinists' books.130
When they say that "how
could rejection of Christ, in other words, unbelief, be the
only condemning sin?" they are ignoring the Scripture which
specifically states that to be the only condemning sin,
"...but he that believeth not is condemned already, because
he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of
God." (John 3:18) "If ye believe not that I am (he), ye
shall die in your sins."(John 8:24) "And ye will not come to
me, that ye might have life." (John 5:40) "This is the will
of Him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son and
130So also Warfield, "...if it [unbelief] is sin, is it not
like other sins, covered by the death of Christ?... surely it would be very odd if the sin of rejection of Redeemer were the only condemning sin,..." John E. Meeter, ed., Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1970-1973), 1:172.
68
believeth in Him may have everlasting life..." (John 6:40)
Did Christ die for those already in hell?
It is apparent, as also the Calvinists themselves must
admit, that if it so be that Christ died for those who
eventually will end up in hell, then by the same token, He
likewise died for those who were there before His suffering.
And this for the very same reason why He died for all those
also who ultimately will perish. This reason then must be,
which also has been suggested by others, (and which reason
rises from the Scriptures, and not, as is the case with
Calvinists - from human reason), God's faithfulness and
righteousness,
For what if some did not believe? Shall their
unbelief make the faith [i.e. faithfulness] of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That Thou mightest be justified in Thy sayings, and mightest overcome when Thou art judged. (Rom. 3:3,4)
This passage is spoken in the context of the rejection
of Israel as a special status nation,131
therefore someone
might object of taking these words to apply to people in
general. However, may it be carefully noted, that the
apostle here does not set forth some special case with regard
to Israel, but a general principle of God's justice
131This is: If they, or any individual in that nation, believe
not in Christ, they are condemned as any other man.
69
applicable also to Israel.132
Note also carefully wherein God can be found justified:
"in Thy sayings." And, for us, His "sayings" are recorded in
the Scripture. Therefore when the Word says that, Christ
died for all; That Christ is the propitiation for the sins of
the whole world; How God in Christ reconciled the whole world
unto Himself, and so forth, these are sayings of God wherein
He will be found justified. No condemned can accuse or judge
God and say that the redemption was not for them, for God has
spoken of it in universal terms. Calvinists object and say
that God had no compelling need whatsoever as far as His
justice goes to provide redemption for any, and therefore
those who were not redeemed have nothing wherewith to accuse
God of injustice even though they were left out. Now, this
sounds plausible for the human reason, but God has indicated
otherwise in His Word wherefrom we can find that He has
provided universal redemption. We ask, who has the greater
understanding of what God's justice demands, Calvinists or
God Himself?
Atonement and Doctrine of Trinity
The Calvinistic unity-of-Trinity scheme does not stand.
There surely is unity of will in the Godhead, but that does
132This "as it is written" quote of the apostle's comes from
Psalm 51:4 where it also, indeed, is a general principle of God's justice.
70
not result in the doctrine of particular redemption. Why
could not God, in unity of the will of the Persons, have
desired to 1) Save all in Christ, and therefore 2) Redeem all
in Christ, and 3) Seriously offer the salvation to all in
Christ, and finally 4) Allow His design of salvation to be
resisted when He works, not in His majesty, but through the
means of the Word and Sacraments to accomplish his desire to
save all? When this approach is taken we do not need to
twist the Scripture, add, insert or impose on it anything our
own, but can take it as it is written.
Someone might say, Why does the Lord overcome the
resistance of the elect when He works through the means, but
not the resistance of others. To this we may only respond
with Luther:
...Thus, He does not 'will the death of a sinner,'
that is, in His Word; but He wills it by that will inscrutable. But in the present case, we are to
consider His Word only, and to leave that will inscrutable; seeing that, it is by His Word, and not by that will inscrutable, that we are to be guided; for who can direct himself according to a will inscrutable and incomprehensible? It is enough to know only, that there is in God a certain will inscrutable: but what, why, and how far that will wills, it is not lawful to inquire, to wish to know, to be concerned about, or to reach unto--it is only to be feared and adored!
Therefore it is rightly said, 'if God does not desire our death, it is to be laid to the charge of our own will, if we perish:' this, I say, is right, if you speak of God PREACHED. For He desires that all men should be saved, seeing that, He comes unto all by the word of salvation, and it is the fault of the will which does not receive Him: as He saith. (Matt. 23:37) "How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not!" But WHY that Majesty
71
does not take away or change this fault of the will IN ALL, seeing that, it is not in the power of man to do it; or why He lays that to the charge of the will, which the man cannot avoid, it becomes us not to inquire, and though you should inquire much, yet you will never find out: as Paul saith, (Rom. 9:20,) "Who art thou that repliest against God!"
133
Atonement and High Priestly Office of Christ
Christ's High Priestly Office, in a special way, at
least as far as certain aspects of it are concerned, pertains
only to His people namely to those who are in Him. As we saw
above, only those who believe in Him, are, through that
faith, in Him. Even those of the elect who, as yet, do not
believe in Him, are not in Him. But are "enemies of God,"
"sinners," and "ungodly", in a word, such as need yet be
called out of the world. (For example Rom. 5:6,8,10) It is
true that Christ prayed "for them also who shall believe on
me through their word," (John 17:20) but there the reference
was to the future when they would believe in Him, and nothing
is prayed for them as pertaining to this present time, this
is clear from "who shall believe," together with the purpose
clause of the prayer, which is connected immediately to it,
namely, "that they all may be one." They can not be one with
believers until such a time when they believe. Thus we see
that Christ's high priestly prayer has to do only with those
who do presently believe, and therefore does not cover even
133Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, tr. Henry Cole
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977 reprint), 173.
72
the elect until that they believe. This, of course, is not
to say that Christ, in His priestly office, had not at times
included even unbelievers as objects of for whom He offered
prayers to God.134
It is the Father who does the calling. He calls people
to become partakers of His grace in Christ: "All whom the
Father giveth me shall come to me..." (John 6:37); "...they
shall all be taught of God. Every man therefore that hath
heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me." (John
6:45) (Note: Not only heard, but also learned)
"...he that believeth not God hath made Him a
liar, because he believeth not the record that God gave of His Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son." (1 John 5:10b,11)
Therefore, when the Bible speaks of "His people" in the
New Testament it always means those who presently believe.135
And it is for them that He intercedes in terms of
intercessio specialis as found example in John 17. In
134For example in Luke 23:34. But distinction is made by old
theologians between intercessio generalis and intercessio
specialis, which concern unbelievers and believers, respectively. Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 2:382.
135
For example in Acts 18:10 when Jesus says to Paul, "Be not afraid, but speak, . . . for I am with thee, and not man shall set on thee to hurt thee, for I have much people in this city," He did not with those "people" whom He had in that city mean all the elect that resided there, but only those who believed in Him. It is clear that those who are of the elect, but do not yet believe, are not at all useful to Christ, but are feared by His people, just as Saul was until he believed.
73
Hebrews 7:25 it says, "Wherefore He is able also to save them
to the uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever
liveth to make intercession for them." Whom is He able to
save? "Them... that come unto God by Him." This can happen
only in faith, for no one can come unto God by Him except by
faith. "But without faith it is impossible to please God,
for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and..."
(Heb. 11:6) And it is then "for them" who have come to Him,
that "He ever liveth to make intercession."
Calvinists make much of Christ, according to His High
Priestly office, dying for "sins," and not for "sin" of the
people,136 whereas the truth of the matter is that both,
Christ dying for "sin," and for "sins" are affirmed in the
Scripture. One example of Christ dying for "sin," is well
known, "Behold, the Lamb of God who taketh (or, beareth) away
the sin ( ) of the world." (John 1:29)
Thus the Calvinists' arguments from the High Priestly
office of Christ do not stand.
All of the above general objections of Calvinists,
which are the most important ones they have to offer, against
the doctrine of universal extent of the atonement, are
nothing but unscriptural human logic and sophistry. If we
were to answer all the objections against the universal
136For example, Gary D. Long, Definite Atonement, 29.
74
atonement which their human reason, which has a show of being
Scriptural, sets forth, we would fail of both time and paper.
Only let the reader himself be aware of this type of
material their pages are flooded with and we are saved of the
trouble of refuting all the obvious intellectual, academic,
rational Calvinistic heresies. It is only a lip service they
pay to the authority of the Scriptures, for if they would,
but read, as it is written, they would see it to themselves,
that, for one thing, Christ died even for them. And thereby
be delivered from such a self examination that they engage
themselves with, so as to see if there are certain, right
"vibrations"137
there, which would allow them to judge
themselves to be of the elect and thereby have certainty of
salvation. That certainty, though, cannot but falter having
been based on something in man be it ever so precious and
indispensable as faith is, yet it can not serve as the basis
of the certainty of one's salvation. For faith in itself is
nothing, but only the gift which it receives, which gift has
its foundation, not on man, but on God and His work in
Christ. Faith saves, not because it in itself is something,
137See Chapter I, pp. 1, 2. Also one of their theologians said
in his recent lecture: "The foundation of our whole salvation is eroded if Peter has Christ die for him, and Judas has Christ die for him, and Judas finally wounds up in hell. How can we be sure we won't?... We can not look at a man in hell and ever be sure that we are not going to wound up there unless we look into ourselves and find something there that the fellow who went to hell didn't have." (Emphasis is ours.)
75
but because of what it receives. And it is then this gift
that changes man's life.
Lutheran understanding of the doctrines of grace
The doctrines of grace in the Lutheran Church are then
as follows:138
1) Justification. Justification of a sinner before God
has two aspects to it. These are called Objective (or,
General) Justification,139 and Subjective (or, Personal)
Justification. The Objective Justification concerns all,
every and each individual of all times and is the very fruit
of the saving work of Christ whereby all people were
reconciled with God, whereby the sins of the whole world were
no longer imputed to them, but were, in other words, forgiven
in Christ. Forgiven, because all our sins, indeed the sins of
the whole world, were on Him on the Cross and for the sake of
which He died.140 We do believe in atonement which atones,
138For further reading on these areas, see Francis Pieper's
three volume Christian Dogmatics.
139
For further reading see, George Stoeckhardt, "General Justification," Concordia Theological Quarterly, 42 (April, 1978): 139-144; Theodore Mueller, "Justification: Basic Linguistic Aspects and the Art of Communicating It," Concordia Theological Quarterly, 46 (January, 1982): 21-38; E. W. A. Koehler, "Objective Justification," Concordia Theological Monthly, 16 (April, 1945), 217-235.
140
John 3:16-17; 4:42; 6:33, 51; 12:32; 2 Cor. 5:14, 15,19; 1 Tim. 1:15; 2:4-6,10; Titus 2:11; 1 John 2:2; 4:9,10,14 and the like passages.
76
in redemption which redeems, in reconciliation which
reconciles and in propitiation which propitiates, only it all
is in Christ as the Scripture teaches.141
Each and every individual can then have this
forgiveness which is in Christ as soon as he, as well,
through faith, is in Him.142 The Bible, then, teaches that
only the believers are in Him. Therefore, and as is very
plain from the Scriptures, it is by faith in Christ, and by
faith alone (sola fide), that we are in Him and receive the
forgiveness of our sins. This, for convenience's sake,
Lutherans call "Subjective Justification."
This faith of an individual, which appropriates Christ,
141
For example Ephesians chapter one: "God... who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings... in Christ" (v.3); "...He hath made us accepted in the Beloved. In whom we have redemption..." (v.6, 7) "all things in Christ..." (v.10) "In whom we have
obtained inheritance..." (v.11) "...who trusted in Christ..." (v.12) "In whom ye also trusted...in whom also... ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise,..." (v.13) It is also very telling that the Epistle started with "to the faithful in Christ Jesus:" (v.1) The redemption is in Christ; therefore only those who are in Him have redemption. The whole world, even though
redeemed in Christ, do not have the redemption but only those who through faith are in Him, in Him in whom the redemption is.
142
Paul writes to Timothy: "Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sake, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory." 2 Tim. 2:10 And in John 3:16 the matter is made very plain: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." The same truth is also in the previous verse: "That whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life." The eternal life, the salvation, the atonement, the redemption, which is in Christ can be had by believing in Him. It is true that it is God's work in its totality to impart faith, but this fact ought not make us do away with faith which is indispensable to salvation.
77
and with Him all that we have in Him, is not a work and does
not add anything to the redeeming work of Christ, but merely
personally receives the forgiveness which Christ earned,
bought and merited for all so that it can have it.
It was God the Father who in His great love sent Jesus
on earth to redeem us.
2) Nature of man. All men, in an equal measure, since
the Fall, are under sin, totally depraved, spiritually dead,
and enemies of God. No man therefore is able to approach
God, but have an inclination only to evil. Man is not even
able to "decide" to believe in Jesus Christ and thereby be
saved, but only if God gives it to him.
3) Conversion. Because of this corrupted state that
every man is in, God has to do the whole work of converting
people from sin, darkness and spiritual death into
righteousness, light and spiritual life which things for us
are in Christ. This God's work is sola gratia, by grace
alone, and this work God does through the Word by the Holy
Spirit.
4) Particular Election. God has elected, pre-
destinated, in His own counsel, hidden from us, before the
foundation of the world, a certain number of people to
salvation in Christ. These elect are known to God alone and
He will see to it that they will in time be converted, i.e.
come to believe in Christ.
God did not, in His choosing the elect, base His
78
election on any goodness or worthiness in the elect, not even
"in view of faith," or "in view of perseverance of faith to
the end," but actually the election is a cause of faith in
the elect which God will work through His Word.143
We should not try to pry into the hidden counsel of the
election of God, "and even if you should you could never
find out", as to whether we are elected or not, but we are to
seek our election in Christ in whom salvation is promised by
God to all and every one who believes.
5) Preservation. God will preserve all believers
(excluding the "temporal christians"144) in faith unto life
everlasting.
There is a logical tension145 in Lutheran theology,
which we are of no mind to hide: If there is a universal
redemption and God desires all people to be saved, and
salvation is by grace alone, why, then, does universal
salvation not result? We do not know. We only affirm what
we see the Scripture to affirm and silence our reason which
can not know God or His hidden counsel.146 It is not proper
143
Lutheran Cyclopedia, Ed. Erwin L. Lueker (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1954), "Thirteen Theses," 1057-1058, (see especially thesis 10, and 11).
144
Matt. 13:20-22.
145
"Crux theologorum," Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 1, 32-33.
146
This hidden counsel of God, or as Luther called it, "inscrutable will of God," does not, unlike Calvinists, make us change His written Word, and His revealed will made manifest therein, to agree with what we consider that that inscrutable will
79
for us to try to determine what His hidden counsel must be,
and end with conclusions that militate against His Word.
When the Word has such tensions which we can not reconcile
without perverting the Word, we let them stand.
General comments with respect to Calvinistic method of
Interpretation with our Illustration The Calvinists restrict or change the meaning of
words from general to particular, and from expressed to
something else of their choice, as they see fit to manipulate
the text according to their own ends.
We shall attempt to show, that if the Calvinist method
were the proper method of interpretation, how any and every
word in the Scripture can be redefined according to our
pleasure, if indeed it so were that we needed not to adhere
to the text and meaning of words as we find them written, nor
to the context, to which, no matter how much lip service
Calvinists pay, they pay no due attention, but, as said
before, in the final analysis it is their general under-
standing of the doctrines of grace which ultimately determine
their interpretation and not words or context of any given
passage (as we saw in Chapter II, and will see further in
this Chapter), not counting some exception.
We shall now illustrate what we perceive to be the
must be.
80
Calvinistic method of interpretation. Our imaginary premise
is that because Christ supposedly died only for some, then
likewise, only some are sinful human beings, others are
righteous and therefore need no saviour. We do this "study",
however else, but by using the Scripture to which everybody
who wants to have any clout of orthodoxy appeals:
The word "world" in the Scriptures does not always mean
the whole world i.e. "the world containing" and "the world
contained", but sometimes much less, indeed very much less.
Like in John 12:19 "Behold, the world is gone after Him...",
when actually only a great multitude of one small nation had
gone after Christ.147 Or in Rev. 13:3, "All the world
wondered after the beast," but of which "world" Owen says,
"which, whether it be affirmed of the whole universality of
individuals in the world, let all judge."148 We could just
multiply these examples, but these are so evident to any who
has read the Bible, that we need not say a word more. Then
it says in Rom. 3:19, "Now we know that what things soever
the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law, that
every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become
guilty before God." Now it is evident that not all and every
147John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, 195.
148
Ibid. Obviously Owen was a child of his age and could not realize the development of and in the technology of communication equipment and consequent world wide mass media coverage through TV, radio etc. Now it is a rather easy thing for the whole world to "behold" anything anywhere in the world.
81
man is under the law. This also Paul himself acknowledges in
Rom. 2:12, "For as many as have sinned without law...", it is
obvious that if some have sinned without the law they have
nothing to do with the law, nor then can they be under it.
Also, we know that Christians are not "guilty before God,"
for Christ has taken away their guilt in dying in their
stead, and because of their guilt. Of this we see that
Christians are exempt and consequently not to be included
with the word "world" here. Therefore, the "all the world"
does not actually, nor indeed can it, mean each and every
individual in the world of all time. This we can realize
also from the fact that Paul said: "that every mouth may be
stopped", for those who have died long ago do not even have
mouths any longer, their bodies having rotted and become dust
again, this is so evident to all people that we need say
nothing further touching it. Therefore what Paul really is
saying is this: "Now we know that what things soever the law
saith, it saith to those people who now live or will live and
are under the law, that their mouths may be stopped, and all
those people of the world may become guilty before God."
This being so we must likewise understand that the word
"none", and "no, not one" in Rom. 3:10-11 where it reads:
"There is none righteous, no, not one. There is none that
understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.",
actually means: "Of those who are not righteous, there is
none righteous, no, not one. Of them there is none that
82
understandeth or seeketh after God."149
This is clear for we
just earlier proved how these are to be understood from Rom.
3:19 which is in this same context, for Paul surely wouldn't
contradict himself. But if we were to seek proof from
somewhere else, we can find it from the lips of our dear
Saviour himself who said: "I am not come to call the
righteous, but sinners to repentance", or, that "They that be
whole need not a physician, but they that are sick." We can
from these proofs, and we surely could multiply them in
abundance, see that only some are sinners, but some are
righteous who need not a Saviour, but are on their way to
heaven. That is why the apostle said: "And after this I saw
a great multitude which no one could number..." See, if
there were only those sinners in heaven, anybody could number
them..." Therefore when we read in Rom. 3:23, "For all have
sinned...", it needs to be understood, it being in that same
context and chapter we dealt with above, as "For all of those
who are sinners have sinned...", but this being so obvious
from the preceding verses, as we showed, the apostle needed
not say it again for by now everyone reading these lines
would know what the meaning has to be...
149This is exactly how Owen, and all traditional Calvinists,
deal with the words "all" and "world." See his book The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, 185-197, 205-209 Thus in the passages which express universal atonement the word "world" means to him "the world of elect," (see e.g. pp. 209, 213) and "all", "all sorts of" p.224.
83
May this suffice to show Calvinistic exegesis.
Surprisingly so, they believe in the total depravity of all
and every individual of all time.150 How, with their method
of interpretation they ever arrived to it is to us a mystery.
The only obvious answer must be that they surely are not
consistent in how, in different passages, they arrive to
their definitions of the words "all" and "world", but let
their premises largely dictate what those words must here and
there mean, and then find means to prove it, even if some
violence is made to the Word. One thing that we have
established, and will further underline, is that context, not
counting some exceptions, surely is not something they take
into account in determining what the words mean.
Miscellaneous Calvinistic Objections met
Redefinition of Words
Owen's attempt151 to defend his redefinition of the word
"world" by Matt. 8:22, "Let dead bury their dead," and by
John 3:6, "That which is born of the spirit is spirit,"
wherefrom he shows that some other words also (here "dead"
and "spirit") assume variant meanings in the same sentence,
150Long writes, "It ['world'] is used of all mankind
universally in a context of sin and judgment, but never in a salvation context." Gary D. Long, Substitutionary atonement, 15.
151
See Chapter II, p. 38.
84
is futile. For it is so evident from the passages themselves
whereof these sentences form a part that they should so be
understood. The father of the man who came to Jesus had
died, and he asks permission from Jesus to go and bury his
father and only then follow Him. This Jesus denies from him
with the words above, which indicate that his father was
spiritually dead, and therefore let other spiritually "dead
bury their dead." This does not make the word "dead"
equivocal anymore than the word "world" is made ambiguous by
its use in different contexts which implicate the exact
meaning of the word in its setting, which meaning need not be
imported into a sentence from without, but is found from
within. The same applies to the second passage, where the
first "spirit" is, obviously enough, the "Spirit of God," and
in the second instance, the God-given spiritual life in man.
Neither of the texts, therefore, prove nothing in the matter
of the extent of the atonement with regard of the use of the
words "world" and "all."
Limited Expression does not Necessarily Exclude General One
It must also be clear that a narrower expression does
not exclude a wider one. In the Scripture it is affirmed
that Christ died for the sins of the whole world, this is the
widest expression. Then the Word also tells that Christ died
85
for the Church, and Paul says that Christ died "for me,"152
or more often "for us." Those narrower truths do not exclude
the fact which is amply evident from elsewhere, as we shall
see, that He died also for all and every man of all times.
Anthropomorphites and Definition of Words
The fact that we ascribe to the words "world" and
"all" their unique meanings, and do not accept Calvinistic
innovations which make them change the meanings of the words
"all" and "world" to "all sorts of" and "the world of elect,"
respectively, (and for which they have no Scriptural or even
other justifiable support whatsoever), does not make us
become anthropomorphites,153 but rather Scriptural who pay
attention to the grammar and words with context in the Word.
The anthropomorphites err simply because they fail to
acknowledge the different types of speech,154 and
anthropomorphism, employed by Biblical writers.
Arguments from Words
If we can not, as Owen holds,155
"attach any strength
152"Who loved me, and gave himself for me." Gal. 2:20.
153
I.e. heretics who attribute to God the Father an actual body and human emotions because of the use of anthropomorphism as a Scriptural mode of speech by which the possession of human limbs and organs is ascribed to God.
154
Especially such as figurative, and poetic types.
155
See Chapter II, p. 36.
86
to arguments" from the word "world" because it supposedly,
according to him, is "so equivocal," nor can we then, indeed,
attach any strength to arguments from most of the words in
the Scripture for they all can, by using Calvinistic methods
of hermeneutics (as outlined in this paper), be shown to be
ever so equivocal as the words like "world" and "all" are.
Therefore, we need to dismiss, not only Calvinistic
conclusions, but also most of their findings. This we have
and will further prove in this paper.
The following passage, for example, proves to
Calvinists how the meaning of the word "world" is to be
restricted: "The world knew Him not," (John 1:10) for surely
the believers knew Him.156 To this we reply: The world,
indeed, knew Him not, for the context just preceding says:
"He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the
world knew Him not." Now, the first "world" means, not some
specific locality on earth, but "world" in contrast to how He
"in the beginning was with God," and that obviously not in
the world, but in heaven. The second "world" means the God
created entity in which we live. And finally the third
"world" means the world as a whole regardless of whether
there are some believers there or not, the point and the
whole irony being, that even though He had made the world,
yet that world knew not its Creator on the basis of it having
156See Chapter II, p. 38, 39, 42.
87
been made by Him. This is what the words in the text tell to
anyone not conditioned by Calvinistic sophistry which amounts
to perversion of God's Word. If only they would read as is
written considering what the writer has desired to convey
with the very words he is employing, and many souls would be
freed from doubts and resulting agony they constantly, if
they follow Calvinistic logic, have to go through in trying
to find certainty from themselves that Christ died for them.
Another Calvinists' argument for limitation of the
meaning of the word "world" is from John 8:26, "I (Christ)
speak to the world those things which I have heard of Him,"
for, they say, He did not address the whole world only those
people who lived where He went about.157 Here again the
Calvinists miss the essence of Jesus' words. Jesus indeed
addressed the world, that is, mankind as a whole, even if all
individuals in it did not audibly hear His words. We use the
language in the same way. For example, when a chief of armed
forces commands his generals he is said to command the armed
forces, even though he is commanding only his generals, and
we would be correct in using the language that way, and would
also so convey the truth, for those generals represent the
whole of the armed forces.
Likewise, though in a different sense, people who heard Jesus
also represented the world as a whole. And from Jesus'
157See Chapter II, p. 43.
88
perspective it was the world as an entity that He addressed.
And besides, His words have come even to us. Therefore, not
only in one, but in two senses He addressed the world.
Next we will look into 2 Cor. 5:14,15 of which the
Calvinists have this to say: The Bible teaches that "All for
whom Christ died, also died in Christ. All who died in
Christ rose again in Christ". To die is to die to sin, and
to rise with Him is to rise to a life of new obedience. "The
inference is inevitable that those for whom Christ died are
those and those only who die to sin and live to righteous-
ness." And because it is plain that not all people thus live
for Christ, neither can we then say that "Christ died for all
men." This being so and the death of Christ constituting the
atonement "the conclusion is apparent -- the death of Christ
in its specific character as atonement was for those and
those only who are in due time partakers of that new
life..."158 However, the truth is that the Bible does teach
in this passage that Christ "died for all" and consequently
"were all dead." This "all" means "all," that is both
believers and unbelievers, all people of all times. And why
"He died for all" was "that they who live should not
henceforth live unto themselves, but to Him who died for them
and rose again." The "they who live" refers to those who are
158John Murray, The Atonement, 69-72. He advances the
following Scripture to prove his point: Rom. 6:4,5,8,9; Col. 3:3.
89
presently spiritually alive, for it is only then that a man
is able to live "unto Him." That is also why the same
apostle elsewhere calls people who as yet do not believe in
Christ as "dead."159 This interpretation does not bring us
into conflict with Romans 6:1-14 where the apostle talks
about the sacrament of the Holy Baptism and its implications.
General comments with respect to Lutheran method of interpretation with illustrations
First, some general comments as to words and their
definitions. Each and every word has its intrinsic meaning
which most often is only one basic meaning. When
dictionaries in defining the meaning of a word gives
different meanings for one word it actually is only telling
how that one meaning may express itself in different
contexts.160 Greek and Hebrew lexicons, if one does not know
159E.g. Eph. 2:1,5.
160
See for example, the word "little". Funk & Wagnalls' Standard Desk Dictionary gives following definitions: 1. Small, or smaller compared to others, in physical size: a little house. 2. Not long; short; brief: a little time; a little distance away. 3. Small or relatively small in quantity or degree: little wealth; little probability. 4. Having small force or effectiveness; weak: a little effort. 5. Not having great influence, power or
significance; minor; trivial. 6. Narrow or limited in viewpoint; petty: little minds. However, in every instance the word "little" had a meaning of "little." In their illustrations the word always meant "little", only the word which it modified implied, not that it didn't mean little, but in what sense it was little, i.e. a context implied that sense. Of course there are many words that have more than one basic, independent, meaning, very different from each other. Then the
90
how to use them in not knowing, in the first place, how they
were prepared, can cause considerable harm. They were
prepared very much the same way as ordinary English
dictionaries. They paid attention to the context in each
place where any given word occurred and then listed on the
basis of those contexts what kind of different meanings a
word with its context acquired. This, of course, does not
mean that the word on its own has all those meanings, but
only its basic meaning (like as we noted on a word "little"
in footnote #58 above). Therefore, when we come to words
"world" and "all", they mean just that "world" and "all" in
every case, which is simple enough. If we read in some place
for example Christ addressing a crowd and saying to them,
"... unless you repent, likewise you will all perish", we can
not say that one meaning of the word "all" then is "all of
those listening to Christ at that particular time in that
particular place", and next time in text when we meet the
word we'd wonder if it there, or elsewhere, has that
particular meaning. That would be ridiculous to say the
least. Yet this is exactly what Calvinists did and do when
they 'define' words like "world" and "all" (See chapter II).
But "all" means "all" that is, at least the widest possible
first step is, on the basis of the context, to determine which of those basic meanings apply, and then, as above, to see, again on the basis of the context, in which sense it is such and such. This whole procedure, obviously, applies more specifically to nouns and adjectives.
91
inclusion of particular things, ideas or persons talked about
in context, unless that particular context force us to
restrict its meaning. The word "all" had the value "all" also
in the above passage, even if those "all" in the text, being
possibly restricted by the context in the same sentence, had
not meant "all people of all times." (But to that matter
those Jesus' words just above concern you and me as well, and
have concerned all people of all times, and will to the end
of age, but even if they had not, our point stands). The
same applies, of course, also to the word "world". To
illustrate let us first take the word "house", because it is
easier for us to grasp with our senses. If we read "he came
into the house", and then notice from the text that he
actually went into the living room. Do we then say the word
"house" here means "a living room", and conclude that thus
the word "house" can also elsewhere mean "a living room."
And when we then read later that "the house burned up", do we
then say, that what is actually meant here is that "the
living room burned up." That is unthinkable and utter
ignorance as to how language is used, and what words mean.
To continue the illustration. What if the text had continued
"and he sat on the couch." Do we say, that from the context
we then realize that the word "house" may here mean "a
couch", and consequently if "the house burned up" it means
"the couch burned up?" Or, if in the same text later we'd
92
find the words, "...and she entered the house." Would we
say, that what actually is meant is that "she sat on the
couch?" We think not, but judging from how Calvinists use
and interpret Scripture just in that fashion, as we saw in
Chapter II, they could here also answer these questions
affirmatively.
Owen should use for himself his appeal to those who
teach universal atonement, namely, to use context, rules of
interpretation, mind the circumstances and scope of the
place. Or, maybe he does in his own mind, only a manner of
treatment of a text, outlined just above in our illustration,
constitutes for him a good use of context, rules of
interpretation etc. It seems that his understanding and use
of the final point of his appeal in his own interpretation,
namely, "notice the different use of the same words in
different places of Scripture," leads him totally astray as
we have seen and also showed with the above illustration.
Anyone who reads his book The Death of Death in the Death of
Christ will see the truth of that our statement for himself.
Scriptural Definition of the word "world"
The word, "world" (In Greek ) in the
Scripture161 means "world" (which word is the word for
161In the New Testament the word is used 185 times. By John
105 times (in his Gospel 78 times, in 1 John 23 times and 4 times in 2 John and Revelation.), by Paul 47 times, and by other writers 33 times.
93
"world" found in all of the passages which address the scope
of the atonement and have the word "world" in them) in the
following various senses162
, context judging in which sense
it is to be taken, or if there should be some special case
like idiomatic expression:163 1. the world as the sum total
of everything here and now, the (orderly) universe. 2. the
world as the sum total of all beings above the level of the
animals 4. the world as the earth, the planet upon which we
live 5. in some instances, like in Rom. 11:12, 15, pagan
world (from the Jewish perspective), i.e. other than a Jew
6. the world as the habitation of mankind 7. earth, the
world in contrast to heaven 8. the world as mankind 9. the
world as the scene of earthly joys, possessions, cares and
162Walter, Bauer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
and Other Early Christian Literature. Translated and adapted by W.F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 445-447 Besides the meanings listed on this page Bauer gives also the following: "of all mankind, but especially of believers, as the object of God's love" and gives the following Scripture references, John 3:16,17c; 6:33,51; 12:47. Surely the word in those passages mean "all mankind," but we do not think the addition: "but especially of believers", is needed. This will be further discussed below.
163
Like one in John 12:19 "Behold, the world is gone after Him..." Here, the form of idiom seems to be hyperbole--i.e. exaggeration. We use many idiomatic expressions ourselves especially when we want to emphasize something. If someone has a lot of money we could say for example "you have enough money to buy the whole world." Obviously enough that couldn't be literally true. Likewise the Pharisees wanted to emphasize the proportionately huge following that Jesus had by using that expression, which fact surely can not limit the meaning of the word elsewhere where we meet it even though Calvinists would like to make us believe so (see p. 43).
94
suffering; and finally 10. the world, and everything that
belongs to it, appears as that which is hostile to God (and
to His own - to believers) i.e. lost in sin, wholly at odds
with anything divine, ruined and depraved.
Scriptural Definition of the word "all"
The word in Greek is in every instance , the
basic meaning164
of which is "all, every, any," and its other
definitions, (which, you may recall, are derived from the
context), are, as given in Bauer,165 the following: (There
are two main entries, each of which has several subsections)
I. every, each, any. Under this entry are: 1. every kind of,
all sorts of;166 2. Every, any and every, just any, any at
164James H. Strong, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance (Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985 reprint), p. 56 in the Greek Dictionary section.
165
Walter Bauer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 631-632.
166
One example given is in Matt. 23:27 _______________ ______________________ and here translated "they are full of all kinds of uncleanness." However the words "kinds of" are not in the Greek, but are supplied by the translator due to his interpretation of what the passage should, to his view, be
conveying to us. To our view the supplied words do not belong to the text, not even by implication, for is it not true, that, indeed, "all" uncleanness dwells in each and every individual who is of the world seeing there is a total depravity of human nature. The King James version does not have the supplied words. Another example is from Matt. 4:23 ___________________ _______________. Here Jesus is said to have been "healing every disease and every sickness among the people. Some versions (even the KJV) adds to the text interpretive words of "all manner of...," which is not justified by the Greek text. To add those words into the text changes its meaning, for it is a different thing if Jesus healed "every sickness and illness" among those
95
all; 3. full, greatest, all; 4. all, the whole; 5. all
men, every one; 6. the whole, all; 7. all; 8. every one
who, whoever. II. everyone without exception. 1. All,
everyone; 2. all things, everything; 3. all (of them) (in
contrast to a part) 4. the universe.
As can be seen from the above, there is nothing there
in the language to justify Calvinistic definitions.
Lutheran interpretation of the passages traditionally
seen to teach universal extent of the atonement of Christ General Introduction Paul begins the Epistle to the Romans first with
praising the Gospel of Christ, and saying it to be "the power
of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth (Rom. 1:16).
Then the apostle shows how all, both heathen and Jews, are
under God's condemnation (and this he sums up in Rom. 3:9).
The heathen are thus because they "hold the truth in
unrighteousness" (Rom. 1:18) not being obedient to the
natural revelation of God in and through nature, and most
importantly in their conscience. And Jews in not being
obedient to God's law (Romans 2). From the context (Rom. 3:1-
8) we can see that when the apostle in Rom. 3:9 says "What
then? Are we better?", he by the word "we" means "Jews", and
people referred to in the text, or if He healed only "all manner of sickness and illness." In the first case every one there present was healed, whereas this is not necessarily true of the latter case.
96
being himself also a Jew, he includes himself also (that is
why he said "we"). And he continues "No, in no wise: for we
have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all
under sin; as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not
one...", and he proceeds with a description of what the
sinful "flesh," of which all are partakers since the Fall, is
like. And thus he puts the whole world under sin, and
continues with a description of the way of salvation for all,
and begins then also to distinguish between believers and
unbelievers. "Now we know that what things soever the law
saith, it saith to them who are under the law, that every
mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty
before God." (3:19) Heathen, even though they are "without
law", are surely "under the law", just as criminals, even
though they like to live as if they were without the law, and
might not even know all the laws they have broken, are
nevertheless "under" the law of the land, as citizens of the
same, and if caught will be punished according to that law.
Elsewhere the apostle has made it clear that only believers
are not under the law, for Christ "has redeemed them from
under the law."
Because "by the law is the knowledge of sin" (3:20),
and that universally, therefore by the law "no flesh shall be
justified" (3:20) in God's sight. Then the apostle explains
from where the righteousness of God, the justification of a
sinner before God, does come, and that for all. This he
97
makes very clear, both from the preceding and succeeding
text where all, that is Jews and Gentiles, are included.167
Sinners, that is, all people, if they desire to be
saved, need to have perfect righteousness before God, but
being just that, sinners, they do not have it of their own.
Therefore, that righteousness needs to come from without.
This is "the righteousness of God, through faithfulness of
Jesus Christ [ ] upon all them
that believe" (Rom. 3:22). We translated as
"faithfulness" as we have the same word in Rom. 3:3
only in a different grammatical form, and
where it must mean, judging from the context, "faithfulness"
of God. Seeing that "through faith of Jesus Christ" would
not seem to make very good sense, and that the word is
capable of a translation "faithfulness," we opted for that
alternative. The "faithfulness" of (genitive) Jesus Christ
then obviously refers to Jesus' faithfulness to God's will to
save us all, both by dying in our stead and by fulfilling the
law of God for us. Rom. 3:22 tells us plainly that those
then who believe it, without any distinction, do receive this
"righteousness of God," "for all sinned [ ] and
came [ ] short of the glory of God." They all,
167Paul is here indeed talking with respect of both Jews and
Gentiles, as we showed above, and also in Rom. 3:29 he still affirms "Is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also..." This becomes clearer yet as he continues.
98
both Jews and Gentiles "sinned" (aorist), they sinned in Adam
representatively, as also Calvinists themselves maintain, and
therefore "came" (aorist) "short of the glory [ ] of
God." This means "dignity, glory, honour, praise
and worship"168
When God created man He created him in His
own image, then obviously man did not "fall short of the
glory of God," but he had dignity, honour, and praised and
worshipped God as God, which is a dignifying and honorable
thing indeed. But when he "sinned" he lost this "glory of
God," that is, came short of it. These are now "justified
freely" (literally: "justified giftually," or "as a gift"
).
Against the above background it will become easier for
us to look into other passages which talk of the atonement in
universal terms.
Passages Where the Word "World" Expresses the Extent
"Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." (John 1:29)
There is no reason, whatsoever, contextual
169 or
168Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, p. 24 in the dictionary
section.
169
And as we saw above, it is the context, and the context alone, that can: (1) define which meaning (if there are more than one intrinsic meaning) of a word is applicable in a given context; (2) limit the scope of a word to be less or more (if possible) than what its intrinsic sense is; or (3) tell in what sense the word is what its intrinsic meaning expresses.
99
otherwise, to take the word "world" here in any other sense
than "mankind." If the elect were meant, is the Holy Spirit
so ignorant as not then be able to use that word? Or, to say
instead "sin of those who believe in Him", but no, He uses
the word "world", and we certainly, by God's grace, know what
that word means, even if Satan with the whole world would
like to deprive us from its true meaning. There is
absolutely nothing in the context to limit the extent of the
word "world," therefore its simple meaning, as "all people,
the whole of mankind," as justified by the language, is to be
understood.
For God so170
loved the world, that He gave His
only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth171 in Him
should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God
sent not His Son into the world, to condemn the world,
but that the world through Him might be saved." (John
3:16-17)
When one reads this text without letting his
presuppositions dictate what the word "world" must mean, no
great problems are encountered. In the first instance we
realize that "mankind" in general is meant. But even if we
should take mankind together with rest of creation we would
170"For God so..." is actually "For God in this way...," or "in
this manner...," (________) "loved the world, that He gave... "
171
(____________________________= "all the ones believing").
100
not terribly err, for in Romans (8:19-22) it talks how "the
whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain" and is
waiting and expecting its own delivery "from the bondage of
corruption."
The second "world" is either "the world as the earth,
the planet upon which we live," or "the world as the
habitation of mankind," which amounts practically to the same
thing.172
The third "world" means, "the whole of mankind." It
means the same in the fourth instance. There certainly is
nothing in the context, not to speak in the text itself,
which would justify a meaning of "the elect," for the word
"world" in this, or to that matter in any, text of the
Scripture.
We may note that the text did not say "that the world
through Him will be saved." But "that the world through Him
might be saved." The (might be saved) is
aorist, subjunctive, passive, and is here aptly translated.
"Might" indicates a real, and true possibility for the world
now to be saved. This possibility obviously could not exist
if Christ had not died, and thereby atoned, for all, but only
for some. What makes this real possibility an actuality for
172Here Owen wanted to limit the "world" to certain locality on
earth. Even though it is true that Christ lived on certain locality or was born in a stable in Bethlehem, that is not the import the Scripture has here, but "world" in contrast to "heaven" from where he came.
101
any individual is the God created faith which is
indispensable in appropriating this salvation, for "he that
believeth not is condemned already,..." and "he that
believeth on Him is not condemned." These words in John 3:18
also show that unbelievers were included to that world for
which the Father sent His Son and which through Him might be
saved. For the condemning reason is unbelief, not lack of
redemption, or lack in God's will to save.173
The same interpretation applies to:
Now we believe,...and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world." (John 4:42)
The Samaritans expected a Saviour, just as the Jews
did, but they did not expect a Saviour of the Jews alone
(which had left them outside), but of the "world" and after
hearing Christ talk they recognized Him as the One, "the
Saviour of the world". Any talk of "the world of elect" is a
totally human machination in these passages, there being not
a shred of evidence anywhere in the context, grammar, plain
words, or otherwise, that these passages would, or even
could, mean any such thing.
The passages: "For the bread of God is He which cometh
down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world." (John
6:33), and "...the bread that I will give is my flesh, which
173That some for whom Christ died might yet ultimately perish
is implicated also in the following passages, Rom. 14:15 and 1 Cor. 8:11.
102
I will give for the life of the world" (John 6:51) can be
understood as follows: if Christ had not come, God would have
destroyed the world, or at least the mankind, long ago. In
fact, Adam and Eve, already, had fallen under His righteous
wrath against sin. Therefore, when Christ came, nay, even
the anticipation of His coming, was "for the life of the
world." It goes without saying that there is in Christ that
rather special meaning of eternal life for all believers, but
even the world benefited by His coming in that certain sense
mentioned above.
"...I came not to judge the world, but to save the world" (John 12:47)
Judging the world was not the reason, or any reason for
His coming, for He could have judged the world from heaven,
but that He came down from heaven, He came "to save the
world", that is the whole of mankind. The fact that people
rejected and that most do reject that salvation is none of
His fault. Of this we will discuss more below, where the
matter of the extent of God's saving will comes up.
"...casting away of them [be] the reconciling of the world,..." (Rom. 11:15)
The word translated as "casting away,"
can also be translated as "loss" and "rejection"174
The
context makes it clear that the apostle Paul is here talking
174Walter Bauer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature, 89.
103
about how that the Jews, through their unbelief,175 lost
their special status of exclusive claim to Yahweh to whom now
all nations ( ) have been reconciled before God
in Christ. The apostle uses the word "nations" that is
"Gentiles" several times here in the context so as to
distinguish the Jews and their lot from them and theirs,
therefore when he in verse 15 uses the word "world," its
meaning is that of all others, but Jews. It is not possible
to ascribe to it the meaning which the Calvinists give to it,
namely "the elect."
Often when the apostle Paul says, for example,
something to the effect that "Christ saved us", or "redeemed
us", he means with the word "us," people in general. This is
clear also from;
God...reconciled us to Himself by Jesus
Christ...To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them... (2 Cor. 5:18-19).
The word "world" here, naturally, by the definition, means
"the whole of mankind", to say the least. Obviously, as said
before, this "not imputing their trespasses unto them" (which
imply forgiveness, for where sins are not "imputed" there
they are, in other words, forgiven) is in Christ, and
therefore an individual will personally have it only when
175Rom. 11:20. It is also rather obvious that God wanted to
include all nations (______________), not only the Jews, under the reconciling work of the Lord Jesus Christ.
104
through faith they, too, are in Christ.
"And He (Christ) is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world." (1 John 2:2)
To say that "the whole world" here means "the elect of
the whole world", is not only tasteless, but outright
perversion of the clear Scripture.
It is certainly true that the Jews, even some apostles
(like Peter) had hard time in fully realizing that the Gospel
was as much to the Gentiles as to the Jews, or rather, that
it was to the Gentiles at all.176 Owen holds this to have
been the reason for John using the expression "of the whole
world" in the above text to make a point for the Jews that
"realize that this is for the elect of the whole world, and
not only for the elect in Israel."177 But the fact is that
this problem was limited to the early stages of the spread of
the Christianity (up until about A.D. 42) as we can attest
from the Acts of the Apostles, where after the Herod's
persecution of the church (Acts Chapter 12) we do not hear
anything of this problem, but Gentiles were accepted as a
natural part of the church. By the time John wrote his First
Epistle somewhere between 80-110 A.D.178
, when the Gentiles
176E.g. Peter, other Jews, and Cornelius, a Roman centurion,
Acts 10 (pay attention especially also to verses 45-48). See also Acts 11:1-19.
177
See Chapter II, p. 36.
178
See for example Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction
105
already formed a great majority of Christians, this was a
dead issue. Therefore, it should have been clear to all,
even without that historical argument, that when John wrote,
"And He (Christ) is the propitiation for our sins, and not
for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world,"
the natural understanding of the word "world" should be
taken. We are to leave the Biblical text as it stands
without using any Owenistic sophistry, for we need not doubt
God's clear Word as it is written and make it a suspect in
its clear form.179
The arguments that Long put forward180 to defend
Calvinistic definition of the word "world," can not stand.
First, we grant that the word in a great majority of cases
out of 23 where John uses the word in his epistles refer to
the world in a sense of "the scene of earthly pleasures and
cares," or "the world of lusts and passions; the sinful
world" in which the people of the world are implicated.
However, this observation should lead to another kind of
conclusion than that of Long's, even and especially when we
(Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1970), 883-884. Guthrie himself suggests date between 90-95 A.D. and quotes E. F. Scott who ascribes date for the Epistle to the beginning of the second century, and T. Henshaw who favors date around 80 A.D.
179
Errors happen when people who do not understand a text as it stands begin to "wrest" them. Owen's sophistry, in our opinion, is one of the worst type of "wresting" of clear text of Scripture.
180
See Chapter II, p. 43.
106
use 1 John 5:19, where the expression "the whole world," like
as in John 2:2, is found, with John 2:2. This only
underlines the universalists' position, for it, together with
the frequency that the word "world" is used of "the sinful
world" by John, leads us rather to conclude that Christ died
for that "whole world" which "lieth in wickedness." If Long,
as he has expressed, now wants to exclude, on the basis of
John 5:19, believers from that "world" in this particular
context, we do not argue with him, for then the point that
the apostle here in this text made becomes all the more
plain, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours
only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world."
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father
sent the Son [to be] the Saviour of the world." (1 John 4:14)
Here again, if we were to judge by the use of John of
the word "world" what the intended sense of the word is here,
we would be compelled to take it in a sense of "a sinful
world," which of course at least included, if not consisted
of sinners. As we have shown before, at least also those of
the elect who did not, or do not, presently believe, are
included in that "world," being as yet, enemies of God etc.
Whether we here, in this passage, should exclude even those
of the elect who do presently believe, is debatable. But the
contention that the word "world" here would include only the
elect is a sheer illusion, which cannot be supported by any
107
sound exegesis. Long's findings lead, not to his, but to our
conclusion.
Any talk of 1 John 2:2 as referring to "eschatological
universalism" is a pure fantasy. That idea is clearly brought
from outside to the text, for not only that verse, but the
whole context which talks about the forgiveness of sins
(preceding context) and of keeping His commandments
(succeeding context), has nothing to do directly with any
future world. John does not even use a future tense, but
present "He is the propitiation... for the
whole world."
As far as Long's "ethnological universalism" in this
passage goes, because he stated that eschatological
universalism is an aspect of his ethnological universalism,
we can, on the basis of our refutation of eschatological
universalism (above), conclude that at least that aspect of
his idea of ethnological universalism is faulty. But it can
be shown that it does not even otherwise have much
credibility. If we go again back to John's use of the word
"world" we can state, with Long's argument, that since John
uses the word 21 times out of the 23 times that he uses the
word in his epistles in a sense other than "the elect," the
burden of proof rests on the one who would in 1 John 2:2 or
in 1 John 4:14 interpret that word to mean "elect." Or, does
Long accept his attempted refutation of the generic
108
interpretation of the word in those passages, but does not
accept our refutation on the precisely same premise of his
argument for the word's definition as "the elect among
Gentiles," which is even more unnatural, and surely forced,
rendering of the word.
Long's argument (where he quotes Pink) of John having
written his first epistle to the Jews dispersed among the
Gentiles is groundless. First, by the late first century or
early second when John wrote his epistle, the Gentiles were
so integrated into the New Testament Church, and indeed were
a clear majority, that it had been unjustifiable, needless,
unnatural, without reason, and perceivably undue limitation
of audience had John had only Jews in mind in writing his
epistle.
To say that "from the beginning" in 1 John 2:7 refers
to the same "beginning" which we have in 1 John 1:1 can not
plausibly be defended. Rather one should see the reference
in 1 John 1:1 to be, not to the beginning of Jesus' public
ministry (as Long would have it refer to), but to the same
beginning which we have both in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1.
Besides, it was not in the beginning, but in the end of
Jesus' ministry that Jesus gave that "old commandment,"181
which is the same as the "new commandment" John gives here,
namely a commandment for us to love one another. If Long's
181John 15:12ff.
109
argument were valid then he should, according to the same
logic, also say, that the devil sinned only from the
beginning of Jesus' ministry.182
There is no reason to say that "the beginning" in 1
John 1:1 or 1 John 3:8 has to be the same as it is in 1 John
2:7. We can not just randomly pull words together like that
and say, without appropriate attention to a context in which
these words occur, that they must refer to the same thing or
event because they are same words. No one uses any language
in that manner, nor is it understood in such a fashion even
by Calvinists in their everyday speech, else one could not
even communicate effectively. "The beginning" in 1 John 2:7
with a great likelihood, being the best alternative of all,
refers to the time when each reader first believed. Without
doubt the early Christians, as they spread the Gospel, also
made sure they delivered the Christ's command for Christians
to love one another to their hearers, especially seeing their
mutual plight under the persecution.
Also it is groundless to say that with the "fathers,"
in the Chapter 2 of John's first epistle, is meant "Jewish
believers," for it was only the Jewish religious leaders who
likely were referred to by the term "fathers,"183
but seeing,
one, that there were very few of those who became Christians,
1821 John 3:8.
183
For example, Acts 22:1.
110
and, two, when they did, they were not probably called
"fathers" anymore.184
(Obviously, the term "fathers" was in
the New Testament extensively used of the Old Testament
patriarchs, but even Long would probably not suggest that
John wrote to them.) The context seems to direct us to a
conclusion that John is here using a some kind of metaphor,
or figurative language, for a question, as to whom does he in
this same context refer to by the "young men," and the
"little children," presents itself. The only obvious
answer185
excludes the term "fathers" from referring to the
Jews exclusively.
As to the "antichrists," they did not in the New
Testament sense so much refer to false Messiahs as such, but
rather to false prophets and teachers, who "deny that Jesus
is the Christ," or do not confess, that "Jesus Christ is come
in the flesh."186 And these there were both from the
Gentiles and Jews. Some went out "from us," that is from
among believers, not necessarily from among the Jews as such.
The Father indeed "sent the Son to be the Saviour of
the world," and that is why there is no other Mediator
184Matt. 23:9.
185
We take the reference here to be to Christians of varying maturity, and so figuratively from the "little children" to the "fathers."
186
1 John 2:22-23; 4:1-3.
111
between God and men, but Christ Jesus.187
The fact why God allows, though does not will, the
greater part of the mankind to insist on their own way which
leads to destruction is not a subject for us to ponder.
Passages Where the Word "All" Expresses the Extent
In all of these passages the Greek word for "all" is
, unless otherwise noted.
"And I [Jesus], if I be lifted up form the earth, will draw all men unto me." (John 12:32)
This does not imply universal salvation, but is, it
seems, to be used with "It is written in the prophets, And
they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that
hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me."
(John 6:45) Note, not only "heard," but also "learned."
"...by one man sin entered into the world, and
death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for
that all have sinned [Greek: "inasmuch as all sinned"
] ...but not as the
offence, so also [is] the free [gift]. For if through
the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of
God, and the gift by grace by one man, Jesus Christ,
hath abounded unto many. And not as [it was] by one
that sinned, [so is] the gift: for the judgement [was]
187E.g. 1 Tim. 2:5; Acts 4:12.
112
by one to condemnation, but the free gift is [of] many
offenses unto justification.... ....Therefore as by the
offence of one [judgement came] upon all men to
condemnation even so by the righteousness of one [the
free gift came] upon all men unto justification of
life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made
sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made
righteous...." Rom. 5:12,15-16,18-19
Here contrast is made between what was lost by the
whole mankind (the posterity of Adam) in Adam through his
sin, and what was gained for that same mankind through
obedience of One, Jesus Christ. The text is sufficiently
clear on this. It is clear, that by one man, namely by Adam,
sin and its consequence, death, entered the world-- not only
all humanity, but even the whole of creation "was subjected
to corruption." Also in this text the fact that all Adam's
posterity "sinned" in him is brought forth: "inasmuch as all
sinned." That indeed is what Greek says, and not "all have
sinned," even though it also is true as such, yet that is not
the message which is here put across, but rather that, as
said before, what on the one hand was lost for all in one
man's sin, and on the other hand, what was gained for all by
another man's obedience. And the idea is that more was
gained by Jesus' obedience, than lost by Adam's sin, which
fact is indicated by such statements and words as "not as the
113
offence, so also is the free gift," and then by such words as
"much more," "abounded," the "free gift" is magnified over
the offence. By one offence came condemnation, but "the gift
is of many offenses unto justification." The use of the word
"many" ("many be dead", "abounded unto many") equally and
simultaneously in a same clause on both sides of the fence
shows, it seems, that it can, at least here, be equated with
"all," or possibly translation is to be "the men will be
constituted sinners/righteous altogether," which seems to be
a valid the translation of those sections of the text. For
we already know that "all" were dead, or that "death passed
upon all men" from the earlier part of the text.
The fact that the text does not speak anything about
faith seems to make it clear that it is here talking about
the Objective Justification which has to do with all people.
"...that if one died for all, then were all dead:
and [that] He died for all, that they which live should
not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which
died for them, and rose again." (2 Cor. 5:14, 15)
Here on the first part of the text the apostle is
having his reference to the Objective Justification: Because
Christ died for all people, then (in Christ, because He was
the One who died under the curse and condemnation of the sins
of all people) all are dead. "And [that] He died for all,
114
that they which live [that is those who are spiritually
alive--those who are not, could not live, but for themselves]
should not henceforth live unto themselves..."
Murray's statements188 concerning this passage are
flawed. He made a statement, that "All for whom Christ died,
also died in Christ. All who died in Christ rose again in
Christ." His contention is that the "all," in the above
quote from him, can refer only to the elect, for only the
elect can rise to a life of new obedience. However, he has
to concede that even the elect do not rise up to the "new
obedience" until that they believe, and thereby his argument
is defeated. The first part of his statement is true, but
only one must, according to the Scripture, include all people
into that "all" for whom Christ died, whereas only those who
presently believe to the second part. This does not,
contrary to Murray's contention, "bring us into conflict with
Romans 6:4-8," where the apostle, having sanctification in
view, is addressing those who do believe and has his
reference to the Holy Baptism, whereas in 2 Cor. 5:14 he with
the words, "...one died for all," has his reference to
Objective Justification.189
188
See Chapter II, pp. 46-47.
189
One can not simply take passages and make them parallel if they merely have some common words in them, but also the subject matter, audience, purpose etc., are to be taken into consideration.
115
"And having made peace through the blood of His
cross by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself, by Him, whether things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in mind by wicked works, yet now hath He reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy and unblamable and unreprovable in His sight, if you continue in the faith..." Col. 1:20-23
Here Christ is not talked of as having reconciled only
all people, but even "all things," both "in earth and in
heaven."
"...God our Saviour who will have all men to be
saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus who gave himself a ransom for all ,..." I Tim. 2:4-6
The first sentence of the text will be dealt with below
when the extent of God's saving will will be discussed. It
is provided here only for the context.
The text clearly contrasts "God" and "men," which is
clear indication, besides the plain text, that "men" is here
meant in a universal sense of "all people."190 "There is one
God," there are "men," and as all men are sinful, a mediator
between the two parties is needed, and He is "the man Christ
Jesus." And He can be a mediator, because He satisfied God's
righteous judgment against sin of all people in that He "gave
Himself a ransom for all..." What more need be said?
190Here English, as is the case in Greek, uses "men" in a sense
of "mankind," including both males and females.
116
"...we trust in the living God, who is the
Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe." (I Tim. 4:10)
Also here Calvinists cannot say, "the 'all men' here
means 'all sorts of men' as also elsewhere," for there is
nothing in the context to support such a contention. The
only reasonable way is to take the text as it is written,
"all men" meaning just that "each and every man." If God had
wanted to say "all sorts of men," or "elect" He had said it
plainly, but now He said plainly something else, namely that
He "is the Saviour of all men," in that all are redeemed.
Christ saved one as well as another by His death. But only
those who believe have this salvation in being through faith
in Him, therefore He is the Saviour "specially of those that
believe."
"For the grace of God that bringeth salvation
hath appeared to all men,..." (Titus 2:11)
The grace of God has appeared to all men in the
preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ wherefrom we can
ascertain that He died for all.
"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower
than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour, that He by the grace of God should taste death for every man ( ) .... ...to make reconciliation for the sins of the people." Heb.2:9,17b
117
Here again we have the same truth, that of Christ dying
for every man, expressed. And there certainly is nothing
whatsoever in the context to limit the extent of for whom He
tasted death to anything less than "for every man." Should
that possibly be a reason why Calvinists have left the
passage without treatment?
Another important point here is that the priesthood of
Christ, it seems, at least in its aspect of reconciliation,
needs to be seen as covering "every man" (Heb. 2:9), not just
the elect.191
Special case of 2 Peter 2:1
A good article, in terms of effectively refuting Long's
thesis stated in Chapter II concerning 2 Peter 2:1, is
already in print authored by Andrew D. Chang,192 therefore we
191Cf. 2 Cor. 5:19, "God was in Christ reconciling the world
unto Himself,..."
192
Andrew D. Chang, "Second Peter 2:1 and the Extent of the Atonement," in Bibliotheca Sacra, January-March 1985, pp. 52-63. Though we agree with his refutation of Long's arguments, we might not completely agree with Chang's "Spiritual redemption" view, in
that it, too, might fail to realize that there is actual forgiveness in Christ, except and unless that when he contends, with the quote from Chafer, that "Christ's death of itself forgives no sinner," subjective and not objective forgiveness is meant. In any case the Calvinists' error in not distinguishing between the redemption and salvation, which is the same as the distinction between the redemption and its application is not committed here. However, the language which Chafer, quoted approvingly by Chang (pp. 59-60), uses in saying that Christ's work of redemption "renders all men [only] salvable," but does not provide the actual salvation (even though this work of redemption was essential, foundational and indispensable in being a cause for
118
do not see it necessary to reproduce it here either in the
terms of very lengthy quotes or by duplication of study, but
only state the main findings and refutations found in it, and
expand where deemed needful.
First, the Christian Charity view. This view which
supposes that Peter, out of Christian charity, on the basis
of the false teachers' external confession of Christ, wrote,
that the Lord "bought" the false teachers, "is a novel
interpretation, and the text gives no support to this
view."193
Chang is correct in his statement. One, how could
Peter, who wrote that the false teachers were "denying the
Lord," have believed, out of Christian charity or otherwise,
their confession of Christ, for these two things are mutually
exclusive, for to confess Christ is surely opposite to
denying the Him. Two, how could Peter have entertained a
Calvinistic view of the atonement, take the false teachers'
external confession of Christ seriously (out of Christian
love), and then state that these false teachers "bring upon
themselves swift destruction," for these three elements are
incompatible, again, in being mutually exclusive, which fact
is readily evident to the discerning reader. Besides, how
the application by God of this redemption to the elect to follow which then results in actual salvation) can be misunderstood to mean that man has still to contribute something so that his actual salvation can actually take place, which, though, does not seem to be what Chafer or Chang meant.
193
Ibid., 60.
119
can Long write, that given certain conditions, the Christian
Charity view is compatible with his Sovereign Creation view,
for there is no meeting point between the two views for, for
one thing, the former is soteriological whereas the latter is
not. The only touching point is that they both are
endeavoring to force the passage into a Calvinistic mold to
which it, to use a mild expression, ill fits.
Second, as to the Temporal Deliverance view, according
to which the false teachers, because of their confession of
Christ, are externally delivered from "the pollutions of the
world," we can reiterate what we said above about the
compatibility of confessing and denying the Lord. Also,
again, the text gives no evidence of the false teachers'
confession of Christ.
The Temporal Deliverance view, even though
nonsoteriologial, does not, against Long's contention, have
any compatibility with the Sovereign Creation view any more
than the Christian Charity view, as one can observe from
below, seeing their premises and defence depend on different
arguments. The only touching point again being that they
both, with the Christian Charity view, seek to defend
Calvinistic limited atonement theology.194
Sovereign Creation view. This is the view which Long
194Possibly Long was reluctant to dismiss them altogether in
order to have a safety net, if his view fails, as it does, to convince any discerning reader.
120
seeks to defend. Chang finds weaknesses in Long's word
studies. First, he positively shows how the word
(Master),
is employed 10 times in the New Testament, 5 of
which are used of men. Four of these are clearly used in the sense of slave owner, or lord in contrast to slave (1 Tim. 6:1-2; Tit. 2:9; 1 Pet. 2:18)... nuance
of slave owner is also present in 2 Tim. 2:21, at least in a metaphorical sense. ...The word (despot, lord) is used of God the Father three times. In Luke 2:29... Acts 4:24... Rev. 6:10. ...The word is also used of Christ... Jude 4. This construction seems to fit nicely into the Granville Sharp rule, thus it can be taken that and are referring to the same person [that is to Christ].
195
Although Long correctly shows that the word
is never used of Christ as the mediator, yet that discovery
does not make the passage to support Calvinists' limited
atonement scheme, for here in 1 Pet. 2:1 the use of the word
puts emphasis "on the redemption as a change of
ownership."196
Chang writes that the word is used 31
times in the New Testament.
Twenty-five times it is used in the sense of
commercial purchases and five times it is used in a soteriological sense (1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; Rev. 5:9; 14:3-4). One interesting observation is that when the object of purchase is nonhuman, the word is always used in the nonsoteriological sense (Matt.
195Ibid., p. 53.
196
Ibid., 54. Here Chang is quoting from Howard Marshall, "The Development of the Concept of Redemption," in Reconciliation and Hope, ed. Robert Banks (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 159.
121
13:44; 21:12; Mark 6:36; Luke 9:13; John 6:5; 1 Cor. 7:30; Rev. 13:17; 18:11; etc.). When the object is a human being, it is always used in the soteriological sense.
197
Chang concludes by stating that then the word
also in 2 Pet. 2:1 is "to be taken in the soteriological
sense because the object of purchase is obviously human
beings."
Long's argument that wherever the word is
used redemptively the purchase price is always either stated
explicitly or made clear in the context is not correct, for
in Rev. 14:3-4 the word is used twice and in the verse 4
reference is made to "the Lamb," which no one can deny, is
Christ's soteriological title. And even if someone thought
this to prove but little, Chang's statement, "If one out of
six uses of a word proves that its use is different, it is
legitimate to establish another category," stands.
Long says that the word is never used in
the Scripture where the purchase does not actually take
place. This we do not even desire to counter--it is
Lutherans who teach that the purchase has taken and actually
did take place, but there is a difference between the
Lutheran and Calvinistic understanding of what implications
this has. For even though Calvinists, too, hold that the
purchase did actually take place, they limit its scope to the
elect. This they do, as we have stated before, because of
197Ibid., 55.
122
their failure to distinguish between the atonement and its
application. But just as they would say that even those of
the elect who do not, as yet, believe, were purchased by
Christ, we, too, say the same, but concerning all people.
The fact that "the two great redemptive words
and are not translated with the word
in Septuagint carries very little weight, for those
words have better Greek equivalents than . Yet,
this does not undermine the meaning which does
have, and its use in the New Testament as shown above. The
fact that the reference in each case here in these passages,
(and in many of the New Testament passages in general where
redemption, salvation and sanctification are addressed), is
to believers, is rather natural, for each and every epistle
is, if the addressee is mentioned, written to the church, "to
saints and faithful in Christ Jesus."198
Therefore, not a
number of times that any given word occurs in any given
context in the whole of the Scripture, but the text itself
and the very words used in them, are to be the decisive
factor in determining what the text says. This point should
be quite obvious.199 Therefore, where the text touches, for
198Or some other phrase which carries the same implication.
199
If the former premise were used as a general rule in communications a disaster would result. (Think of a pharmacist who receives prescriptions from a doctor. Should he fill every prescription with the medication the doctor has prescribed most often. Or think about a soldier who most of the time in war
123
example, unbelievers, even if it were just once, we are to
take the text as it is written.200
Long's argument, that Peter, in this passage
"intentionally alludes" to Deuteronomy 32:6, and his
consequent redefinition in 1 Pet. 2:1 of the word "bought" to
"made," or "created," which words occur in the immediate
context of Deut. 32:6, is totally novel. He made his
argument on the basis that the word "bought" occurs in both.
How such a weak connection can serve as a basis for saying
that Peter "alluded" to that passage, not to speak of the
consequent redefinition, by Long, on such a basis, of the
word "bought," this Long did not show in his presentation.
Also Long uses other wider context of Deut. 32:6, which talks
or implies covenant of God with Israel, in order to say that
God made a covenant, according to the flesh, with even those
false teachers of 2 Peter. Chang writes concerning these
Long's arguments,
[Long's] argument is without any ground. Any
student of the Bible who has compared 2 Peter 2:1 with
exercises uses harmless ammunition, should he then when and if a
real war should start do the same? Etc.).
200
Word studies are used mainly only to help us understand, by the use of context, the meaning of words the meaning of which is obscure and not sufficiently established due, mainly, to their rare occurrence. But none of the words covered in this paper fall into that category, for their meanings are rather well established. The apostle Paul also writes, "For we write none other things unto you, than what ye read or acknowledge [perceive]..." 2 Cor. 1:13.
124
Deuteronomy 32:6 seriously wonders how one gets the idea that Peter here was alluding to Deuteronomy 32:6. The Nestle-Aland Greek text (25th ed.) indicates all allusions to and quotations from the Old Testament, but it does not include any Old Testament passage in reference to 2 Pet. 2:1. The United Bible Societies Greek text (3 ed.) also makes no mention of this in its apparatus. The writer has consulted more than a dozen commentaries, but he could find none that makes mention of this supposed allusion. Any argument based on such a dubious ground carries no weight. Moreover, it is
doubtful whether the Bible gives any support to the idea that God made a covenant with the wicked one like those mentioned in 2 Peter 2:1 and made them a privileged people in the flesh.
201
The above argument of Long's is the very heart of the
Sovereign Creation view, receiving even its name from this
supposed Old Testament allusion.202
The Extent of God's Saving Will
"...God our Saviour, who will ( ) have all men ( ) to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men ( ), the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all ( ), to be testified in due time." 1 Tim. 2:3b-6
Before dealing with the text as such we note that the
Greek word , here translated "men," means, as
"men" did in English, human beings in general.
First, as to the division of God's will into "his will
intending," and "his will commanding," we have earlier in
201Chang, Second Peter 2:1 and the Extent of the Atonement, 58.
202
For, Long says the Hebrew word translated in Deut. 32:6 as "made," is capable also of translation, "created."
125
this paper203 dealt with that and feel have sufficiently
shown uselessness, and fallaciousness of that distinction
especially as far God's revealed will in the Word is
concerned, therefore we proceed to show other weaknesses in
Calvinistic interpretation of this passage.
The word , here translated "wills," can
better be translated as "wishes to have, desires,"204 which
word better shows what we have here in this passage conveyed
to us, namely God's desire to save all. But obviously He
saves people only through Christ, through faith in Him.
Those who resist this ordination of God, even though God
would not like them to, but desires them to be saved, will
perish. When the use of this word is studied in the
Scriptures, where it is used some 47 times,205
one can notice
that this what is willed or desired does not necessarily come
to pass, but shows only a desire of mind or heart toward
something, not the absolute will of God, which can not be
resisted.206 Therefore, Owen's premise which gave only the
two alternatives, is faulty, for the passage here addresses
203
Pp. 55-60. There these wills were called the hidden will and the revealed will of God, respectively.
204
Walter Bauer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 354.
205
Twenty-four times the word is used of God's (i.e. of any persons in the Trinity) will or desire.
206
Another example is in Matthew 9:13, "I will (desire) to have mercy and not sacrifice,..." However, we know that, nevertheless, the Jews offered sacrifices to God, but did not show mercy toward
126
neither what He will absolutely do, nor what we are to do,
but what He desires that would happen.
Thus we are not forced to limit the scope of the "all
men," whom God desires to save, but can affirm the apostle to
mean "all men without exception." Nor does the context force
on us any such thing as Owen sets forth, for the context,
the text just preceding our text, is as follows:
V. 1 "I exhort therefore, that, first of all,
supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for [ = for, on behalf of] all men,
V. 2 for [ ] kings, and for [this "for" is not in Greek] all that are in authority [actually: and all that are in high position], that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
V. 3 for this is good and acceptable in the sight of
God our Saviour."
There are two different elements to the apostle's
exhortation, one, the "first of all," or literally "firstly,"
( ), which is stated in the verse one, and which
is "for all men." The second one is introduced with the
second "for" and forms the verse two. The special purpose of
prayer for those in government is mentioned in that same
verse: "That we may lead peaceable life etc.," whereas the
purpose of the prayer "for all men" (including those in
authority) is found in verses three to six, namely that they
could "be saved and come unto the knowledge of truth, for
there is one God and one mediator between God and men,...
their neighbor, even though God desired them to.
127
Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all."
Owen's reference to Jeremiah 29:1,2 is totally invalid,
for he has perverted the text there to read, "Nebuchadnezzar
carried away all the people captive to Babylon,... the king,
and the queen, and the eunuchs, etc.," to fit his ends. The
actual translation is: "...all the people whom (
) Nebuchadnezzar had carried away from
Jerusalem to Babylon after Jeconiah, the king, went out, and
the queen, and the eunuchs, and etc." This word "whom,"
which the text has, makes a difference. Among those
particular "all the people whom," there happened to be people
of different ranks. However, this obviously is not to lead
into any kind of redefinition of the word "all" to always
mean people of different ranks in terms of, "all without
distinction", here nor elsewhere.
The above probably was the most important passage
which showed God's universal desire to save all people,
therefore we feel that there is no need to cover other
passages of the same nature. And by now the reader is, we
trust, quite familiar with what we have called "Calvinistic
or Owenistic sophistry," so as to enable him to see through
it, and thereby dissolve that sophistry as it manifests
itself in their interpretation of other passages. We can
here only conclude, that wherever the Scripture uses the
128
words "all," or "world" we can, unless the immediate context
clearly defines the meaning to be something less, take them
to mean "each and every one," and "all people" respectively.
Reply To The Arguments From The Passages Which Supposedly
Imply Limited Extent Of The Atonement
These are the passages which state that, Christ
gave Himself for His "people" (Matt.1:21), for His "friends"
(John 15:13), for His "sheep" (John 10:11,15), for His
"church" (Eph. 5:23-26; Acts 20:28)207 and thus not
supposedly for those who are not His people, or are His
enemies, or wolves, or are not part of the Church.
Matthew 1:21 relates to us some of the words
(concerning Mary) of an angel who appeared to Joseph in a
dream: "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call
His name Jesus: for he shall save His people from their
sins."
Now this is exactly what we said earlier in this
paper208
. He indeed saves only His people, that is those who
are in Him through faith, for only those are His people.
It is only these that salvation belongs to, even though
redemption was for all men. Of others He says, "Ye are of
207Gary D. Long, Definite Atonement, p. 33.
208
Pages 76, 102, 114.
129
your father the devil,..."209 But then we need also to
remember Jesus' words to Saul as regarding the work that
Christ gave him to do,
To open their (i.e. Jews' and Gentiles') eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins,... by faith in me.
210
Therefore we can readily see that this passage creates
no tension with regard to universal redemption.
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay
down his life for his friends. (John 15:13)
This passage does not, any more than other passages
which talk of Christ dying for anything less than the whole
world (for example Paul saying: "He died for me."), limit the
wider extent of His atoning death. In other words, a
narrower expression, unless it has some exclusive claim, for
example, "I died only for you, my friends," can not be used
to defend limited atonement.
Jesus in this passage addresses only His disciples,
that therefore accounts for those expressions of limited
extent. But nowhere does Christ exclude the possibility of
anyone becoming His friend, as the apostle says, "...when we
were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His
Son." (Rom. 5:10)
209John 8:44.
210
Acts 26:18.
130
Very much the same argumentation applies for John
10:11,15, where Jesus says that He lays down His life "for
the sheep." In addition to what was said above about a
narrower expression not excluding the wider, we need to pay
attention to the context here in order to see what made
Christ here use that particular narrower expression. In this
we need not look from far, for the context (especially verses
10-13) shows how Christ is comparing what "the thief," or
"the hireling" does with what He does. Whereas the thief
comes not, "but to steal, and to kill, and to destroy," He,
as the Good Shepherd, lays down His life "for the sheep";
whereas a hireling, "because he is an hireling, and careth
not for the sheep," when he seeth the wolf coming, "leaveth
the sheep, and fleeth," the Good Shepherd lays down His life
"for the sheep." Thus Christ distinguishes "the Good
Shepherd" from both "the thief," and "the hireling." This is
the main, if not the only, point of this parable of our Lord.
In the passages where Christ is said to have died for
His church (e.g. Eph. 5:23-26; Acts 20:28) there, again, is
no exclusive statement there to say that He died "only for
the Church." Therefore we uphold also to other passages
where He is said to have died "for the world," or "for all,"
or "for every man." This creates no tensions, but the view
of limited redemptionists do in abundance, for they cannot
accommodate universal redemption passages into their system
131
without doing violence to the Scriptures as we have seen, but
we can accommodate, with natural understanding of the text,
also the passages of seemingly limited extent into our
system. To quote the Calvinists, we say, "Let the reader
judge for himself," what the truth is.
132
CONCLUSION
In weighing the evidence of this study one can come
to certain conclusions concerning, at least the five-point,
Calvinistic theology.
It is an inescapable conclusion that the Calvinistic
theology of limited atonement is conditioned by rational
presuppositions.211 An attempt is then made by them to
defend these presuppositions. And in being unable to defend
them by way of any other method, a rational interpretation of
the Scriptures ensues.
211The Calvinistic tendency to begin, or condition, their
theology with rational presuppositions in general, and in the case of limited atonement in particular, is not a new finding. When they, in Christology, teach about the communication of attributes, there very heavily looms their axiom, "finite is not capable of infinite." It is then according to this principle that they interpret the passages that deal with a communion of natures or communication of attributes between Christ's human and divine nature. When they, with regard to the means of grace, determine whether God uses those means to create faith, the premise, "Since regeneration is effected by divine omnipotence, there is in
regeneration 'no place for the use of means'." This leads them, in interpretation of Scripture, to pervert the passages which teach that God uses those means in regeneration, to read "without or alongside of the means of grace." And in the matter of the real presence of the Lord's body and blood in the Sacrament of the Altar, their notion that "always only a visible and local presence may be ascribed to the human nature of Christ," leads them, in their interpretation of the Scripture, to say that in the word of the Lord, "This is my body," "This is my blood," the word "is" actually means "signify." Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1953), 3:322-324.
The main rational Calvinistic presupposition that comes
to bear in the matter of atonement, as we have shown, is
133
their contention that we can judge from results what God's
sovereign will is. This in turn leads them to interpret the
passages which plainly and clearly teach universal atonement
so as to arrive to an understanding of them in a sense
compatible with their above premise which requires that the
atonement be understood in a limited sense, because all
people, obviously, are not saved. We feel we have shown,
with a detailed study of the pertinent passages, how
Calvinistic forced redefinitions of the words such as "all,"
and "world," to mean "all sorts of people; some of all
sorts," and "the world of elect; other than a Jew; some of
all nations," respectively, are just human machinations
brought about by Calvinistic sophistry, based on their above
premise, and cannot be based on the context, whether
immediate or wider, where those words occur.
If indeed we were to redefine the meaning of words and
understand the Word in the Calvinistic fashion, why should
such redefinitions be limited to the above words in that
particular context where they has to do with the extent of
the atonement, and not as well, for example, where the
Scripture teaches universal corruption of human race,
stating, for example, that "all have sinned." If we were to
read Scriptures without knowing that we are to remain in a
simple understanding of the words and context where they
occur, how could we ever develop (that is, state) any dogma,
for one could doubt any word whether it means what its
134
definition expresses.
Where we can give credit to Calvinists is that they
oppose Arminian synergism, which ought to be opposed.
Unfortunately they do it with the method which, if carried
out consistently, would destroy the comfort of the Gospel,
the means of grace, and the integrity of the Scriptures:
comfort of the Gospel, seeing no one can find comfort in the
external word of the Gospel because he can not know if it is
for him; soul searching which such a Calvinist has
constantly to pursue can lead only to despair if they fully
understand what they are to seek for, namely, certainty from
themselves that they are God's elect, of which no external
word exits; the means of grace, because there is no use of
the revealed Gospel of Christ, whether in the Scriptures or
in the Sacraments, of which one can not tell if it is for
him; the integrity of the Scriptures, because their method
of interpretation undermines the credibility of the
Scriptures in not allowing us to take the words in their
proper sense.
Another Calvinist invented notion, which has great
implications on their understanding of the atonement of
Christ and make them favour limited scope of it, is the
intrinsic relationship of redemption and salvation, which,
however, is nowhere to be found in the Scriptures. We grant,
that for the elect, according to God's design of their
salvation, calling by the Gospel, justification and
135
glorification (Rom. 8:29,30) follow their redemption, but
this truth lends no support to their notion that for whom one
(redemption) is true, for him also the other (salvation) has
to be true. We have also noted how this their scheme does
away with faith against so many passages of the Scripture to
the contrary. For they hold that if Christ died for all
sins, then He died also for the sin of unbelief; Therefore,
they say, the sin of unbelief can not hinder people from
attaining salvation any more than their other sins do, but
because not all are saved, therefore Christ did not die for
all. However, in this their reasoning they fail to realize
that the same reasoning must hold good as well for the elect,
for whom only they say Christ died, thus it would follow that
the elect need not believe. This obviously flies on the face
of the Scriptures, which testify that in order to be saved
one is to receive salvation, completed by Christ, by faith,
which is not work, but a God imparted gift through the Gospel
of Jesus Christ.
Passages of Scripture, such as those where Christ is
said to have died for the Church, for Christians, for the
sheep or for His friends, and to which passages Calvinists
also make their appeal for the limited extent of the
atonement, were also here shown to create no tensions, when
rightly understood, with universal redemption.
Also this study has shown that some other approaches
employed by Calvinists to defend their limited atonement
136
scheme, such as Christ's high priestly office, the doctrine
of Trinity, or the unique New Testament situation where, for
the first time, the Word of God was freely preached also to
the Gentiles, do not stand a closer examination.
In addition, it has here been demonstrated that
Calvinists in their definition of the words "all" and "world"
are not consistent to their own method of deriving meanings
to those words. In the passages which deal with the
universal redemption they want to limit the scope of those
words to include only the elect, but in the passages which
teach the universal corruption they take those same words in
their proper universal sense.
In summary then, this study has shown both Calvinist
presuppositions and their interpretation of specific passages
concerning the extent of the atonement to be flawed,
unscriptural and therefore unfounded.
Suggestions for Further Study
Nature of the atonement of Christ and the extent of the
atonement.
Calvinists found it objectionable to think that Christ
had had even the sins of those who had already perished on
Him on the Cross.
Christ having the very sins of all people on Him when
He died on the Cross is indeed the way of speaking that we,
together with the most of the Protestant community as a
137
whole, have used. However, we wonder, if that corresponds
with the Scriptural way of speaking. The only passage in the
Scripture which uses such a language, that we can think of,
is that of Isaiah 53, and there especially the 53:6, "...and
the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all." However,
the Hebrew word which has here been
translated as "hath laid on" is actually only an
interpretation of what the actual word means, namely, "hath
made meet."212
Also the preposition which means "in
Him," was translated "on Him." Taking, then, these
corrections into account, the passage reads as follows: "the
Lord hath made meet (together) in Him the iniquity of us
all." Now if we did consider, that Christ, instead of having
all the specific sins of all people of all time on Him,
simply died under the full curse of the law "once for all,"
especially seeing that general sinfulness of human beings,
not merely individual sins alone, as such, renders us evil,
we would, all the more, be able to refute the Calvinistic
view of intrinsicality of salvation to redemption, besides
providing further understanding of Christ's atoning work.
When together with this we consider the fact that we can not
say, that Christ suffered and died a little bit less for this
person, and a little bit more for this one, the reason being
212Other applicable meanings the word has are, fall (upon),
encounter, interpose. The New Brown - Driver - Briggs - Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody: Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1979), 803.
138
that the one was a little bit less sinful, and the other a
little bit more sinful, respectively. But we have to say
that even if there had been only one sinner in the whole
world, Christ, to redeem him, should have suffered just as
much as He suffered for all. Likewise every sinner, to be
saved, needs just the same "amount" of righteousness before
God, namely that of Christ's perfect righteousness. Now, if
these things be so, then the question as to whom Christ died,
for all or for some only, as well as the question, for whom
did Christ fulfill all righteousness, for all or only for
some,213
become irrelevant there being in Christ a full
standard forgiveness and righteousness for every sinner that
comes to Him in faith. Also Isa. 53:4,5,8,11,12 should be
closely checked with regard to this nature of atonement.
The Old Testament scapegoat figure (Lev. 16:20ff.) of
Christ would also need to be examined, as well as different
sin offerings such as those in Chapters 4-7 of Leviticus.
These seem to indicate atonement/forgiveness of specific
sins, but even so, do these "shadows of the things to come,"
necessarily mean that the real thing, Christ crucified, need
to follow their pattern in every detail? Therefore it seems
imperative that the New Testament teaching concerning the
matter be examined. But this we then leave for others to
study.
213This likely corresponding to cover the same people for whom
He died.
139
Further we suggest, that a study of relationship of
Christ to His people be investigated in terms of its possible
implications, if any, to the extent of the atonement.214
This ties very closely to the following (and therefore should
be covered with it): Covenant of Redemption approach:
implications to the extent of the atonement. (On what premise
is the Calvinistic presupposition of existence of such a
covenant based? Is it Scriptural?) This is supposedly
eternal covenant from eternity, based on Heb. 13:20,
"...through the blood of the everlasting covenant
(testament). But is this covenant eternal only to forward,
and not backward, for Christ said, "This cup is the New
testament in my blood..." (1 Cor. 11:25).
It could be helpful also to undertake a historical
study of both the development of the teaching of the limited
atonement, starting from John Calvin to the present day, and
teaching of the extent of the atonement (if any215) in the
214Gary D. Long, for example, in his, Definite Atonement
(Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1976), p. 21 interprets Scripture so as to enable him to say, that the elect only were in Christ when He died, and none other.
215
Most likely this can be developed only by inference from and by implications of, what the Early Church fathers taught concerning the atonement.
140
Early Church.216
Study of, "Why some are not saved?," regardless of
the universal atonement of Christ, could be of help. The
Calvinistic doctrine of reprobation should also, obviously,
in this context be covered. A more detailed study of the
extent of God's saving will could possibly be integrated here
as well, including the study of the passages like Ezek. 33; 2
Pet. 3:9; Matt. 23:37.
A study of God's love could be undertaken: Is there
in God some "special love" toward the elect? This is what
Calvinists say.217
Does the "for us," phrase in the atonement passages
mean Christians, the elect, or also people in general? A
detailed study in this area, even including the use and
understanding of the term by our theologians, could help
contribute to understanding of the extent of the atonement.
Implications of the teaching of the limited extent
216John Owen has appended to his Death of Death in the Death of
Christ (Carlisle, PS: Banner of Truth Trust, 1985 reprint), 310-312, "Some Few Testimonies of the Ancients," none of which prove what he wants to prove, namely limited extent of the atonement.
217
For example, Gary D. Long, Definite Atonement, 59; Kuiper, For Whom Did Christ Die?, 62-77.
141
of the atonement to the Sacraments, especially of the Holy
Baptism, should be investigated.