|
Abstract
Table
of Contents
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
Part VI
|
Part II: The Crystallization of the
Theology of Grace
Chapter 8
Limited Atonement
The
concept of Limited Atonement is perhaps the one point of the
Five Points of Calvinism about which controversy among those
who otherwise hold firmly to the Calvinist position has had the
most serious consequences. It is argued that there are far too
many passages in Scripture that speak clearly of the universality
of the love of God to justify the view that the Atonement was
limited in its intention to a chosen few. And we cannot honestly
and sincerely present the Gospel to the world at large unless
we are convinced that God really desires the salvation of all
men equally.
Such
a verse as John 3:16, "God so loved the world that He gave
his only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him should not
perish," is surely without limitation in its implication.
And such passages as those which speak of Christ as the "Saviour
of the world" (John 4:42; 1 John 4:14), or "the Saviour
of all men" (1 Timothy 4:10), or as the one who gave Himself
to be "a propitiation for the sins of the whole world"
(1 John 2:2), or which affirm that He is "the bread of God
which comes down from heaven and gives life unto the world"
(John 6:33, 51), are so all-embracing as to defy the concept
of a sacrifice confined in its efficacy only to the elect of
God while the vast majority of men are passed by. Statements
like these, and there are many others, appear to prohibit placing
limitations upon the intrinsic worth of that sacrifice or upon
its intention in application.
Yet
there are reasons to believe that another interpretation is possible,
if not indeed more likely, both for these passages and others
of a similar nature. That the Lord Jesus Christ should die for
all, while only some avail themselves of his sacrifice, is surely
to make a provision far greater than is required. It constitutes
a kind of divine extravagance which seems inappropriate in view
of the appalling nature of the penalty paid in his own Person
by the Lord Jesus. In the nature of the case the Father must
have foreseen that the sacrifice of his Son would effectively
have only limited application. It would seem only appropriate
to make the payment limited accordingly: limited punishment to
balance limited crime. The Lord Jesus enunciated this principle
Himself when He said that the man whose offenses
 pg
1 of 26 
were
few was to receive few stripes, whereas the man whose offenses
were great was to receive many (Luke 12:47, 48). It is customary
to say that the Lord's sacrifice was sufficient for all,
but efficient only for those who avail themselves of it.
But to many people even this appears to be an evasion of the
problem, a mere play upon words.
However,
a careful reading of what Scripture does say about those for
whom Christ died reinforces the impression that He did actually
bear only the sins of his people, 'You shall call his name Jesus
for He shall save his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21).
"The good shepherd gives his life for his sheep" (John
10:11). Apparently, He did not give his life for the goats who
constitute the other class of mankind in the Day of Judgment
(Matthew 25:32, 33). "Christ loved the Church and gave Himself
for it" (Ephesians 5:25). Certainly the implications here
are clear enough; yet the argument is still essentially a negative
one. It might yet be true that He gave Himself for us, while
still dying for other men also.
But
it has to be admitted that the extent to which Scripture seems
to go out of its way to avoid inclusive statements when speaking
specifically of those for whom Christ died is certainly remarkable.
Writing to the Galatians, Paul is very specific when he says:
"He gave Himself for our sins that He might deliver
us" (1:4). And again in Galatians 3:13: "Being
made a curse for us," to the end that "we
might receive the adoption of sons" (4:5).
Similarly,
Peter wrote: "Who his own self bare our sins in his
own body on the tree" (1 Peter 2:24), a picture reflecting
Isaiah 53:5: "He was wounded for our transgressions,
bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our
peace was upon Him, and by his stripes we are healed."
To the Roman Christians Paul wrote: "He was delivered for
our offenses, and raised again for our justification"
(Romans 4:25).
In
writing to Titus, Paul said: "He gave Himself for us
that He might redeem us from all iniquity and purify unto
Himself a special people" (Titus 2:14). The writer of the
Epistle to the Hebrews said, "By Himself He purged our
sins" (Hebrews 1:3), "having obtained eternal redemption
for us" (Hebrews 9:12). And in 1 John 4:9: "In
this was manifest the love of God towards us because God
sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might
live through Him." Notice here that John does not say that
God sent his Son into the world that the world might live through
Him. And as John records the Lord's prayer in Gethsemane we read
the significant words, "I pray not for the world
but for those You gave Me" (John 17:9). Note also in Titus
2:14, quoted above, that the selective process had a well-defined
objective, not to redeem the world but to create a special people
(1 Peter 2:9 also) for a special purpose, who were to be kept
from the world, though not taken out of it (John 17:15). The
people of God are left in the world not in the hope of converting
it to Christ but (like salt) to preserve the world from total
pg.2
of 26
corruption
(Matthew 5:13), or like a small lamp to keep the world from being
enveloped in total darkness (Matthew 5:14).
Now
while the Lord said that the world as a whole "lies in the
wicked one" (1 John 5:19), He also revealed that the elect
of God, even before they came to Himself to be his sheep, did
not lie in the wicked one but already belonged to the Father.
Of these who were to be his true disciples, Jesus said to the
Father: "Yours they were, and You gave them to Me. . ."
(John 17:6). Such indeed is the implication also of John 8:47
addressed to those who the Lord well knew were not destined to
become his sheep: "You therefore hear not [God's words]
because you are not God's." By contrast in Acts 18:10 God
said to Paul when he went to Corinth, that most wanton of ancient
cities: "I am with you and no man shall set on you to hurt
thee for I have much people in this city." These
elect individuals though yet unsaved were nevertheless already
in the Father's possession, purchased in anticipation. Those
who were not in the Father's possession would not hear the Lord's
voice because they were not his sheep, and therefore they did
not come to Him for salvation. Conversion does not appear to
turn goats into sheep. It is only sheep of other folds that are
yet to be brought in as his possession (John 10:16). Ambrose
was surely right when he exclaimed, "If you die in unbelief,
Christ did not die for you." Christ died for no one in vain.
Would
it be proper to speak of the Lord's victory as a triumph if 80
percent of the people for whom He supposedly died repudiated
that sacrifice? Yet if Arminianism is true and the intent of
the Atonement was unlimited, it would follow that millions for
whom Christ died are lost and the salvation of God was enormously
overpaid. Since far more appear to be lost than are saved (Matthew
22:14), the greater part of the Lord's suffering for man's sins
was to no purpose. This is surely a poor semblance of triumph.
On
the other hand, if Christ died for all, then God is either unwilling
to apply that sufficiency, or He is unable to do so. If
He is unwilling, then what are we to do with many contrary statements
in Scripture which assure us that He takes no pleasure in the
death of the wicked? "Have I any pleasure that the wicked
should die? said the Lord God. . . . I have no pleasure
in the death of him who dies, saiys the Lord God" (Ezekiel
18:23, 32 and 33:11). If on the other hand He is unable, He is
clearly not sovereign in the midst of his own creation. If He
has some other plan, hidden from us at the present, which if
we did but know it would explain why his intention was limited,
then we may safely wait upon Him in the certainty that in due
course we shall see that the Judge of all the earth has after
all done what is right.
Now
the passages usually brought to the defense of the universalistic
view are all, as we shall see, capable of a different interpretation.
Meanwhile
pg.3
of 26
it may
be asked, Is there any passage of Scripture which can be taken
unequivocally to mean that God has deliberately undertaken not
to extend his saving grace to certain people who, if that grace
had been extended to them, would have responded affirmatively?
It appears that there is such a passage. Augustine (Enchiridion,
Chap. 103) has this observation: "The Lord was unwilling
to work miracles in the presence of some who, He said frankly,
would have repented if He had worked them." The passage
to which Augustine made reference is Matthew 11:20, 21, where
it is written: "Then began He to upbraid the cities wherein
most of his mighty works were done because they repented not:
Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty
works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon
they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes."
It is difficult to evaluate such a pregnant statement as this
without concluding that an immeasurable benefit was at one period
deliberately withheld from a group of people who would apparently
have gladly accepted it had it been offered to them. Yet we may
possibly have some light even on such a mystery as this from
other parts of Scripture.
We
know that Nineveh repented (Jonah 3:5 ff.), as the result of
Jonah's preaching, and yet its people were Gentiles and can hardly
be supposed to have partaken of the covenant which God had made
with Israel. We are not told that Nineveh was actually saved,
only that it was spared (Jonah 4:11). Its doom was merely postponed,
though its fate was sealed and in due course it was virtually
wiped from the face of the earth.
It
seems that Tyre and Sidon might have been spared also had they
witnessed the miracles which the Jews witnessed, and such a genuine
repentance by a community with its attendant postponement of
impending judgment has probably been more common throughout history
than we have recognized. Such sparing does not seem to mean salvation:
it signifies only a temporary reprieve as an expression of what
has been called the Common Grace of God.
Thus
such passages as 2 Peter 3:9 � "The Lord is not slack
concerning his promises as some men count slackness; but is long
suffering towards us, not willing that any should perish but
that all should come to repentance" � may signify that
God is indeed prepared to give man every possible chance of reprieve
in this life by delaying judgment whenever man shows concern
even though such concern is not divinely inspired and does not
produce saving faith. Such delays are as though God Himself shares
something of our concern for men who are lost even when He knows
they are not to be among the elect. Perhaps it is the children
involved who are his special concern, even as Jonah 4:11 seems
to imply: "And shall I not spare Nineveh, that great city
wherein are more than six-score thousand persons that cannot
discern between their right and their left hand, and much cattle?"
Such
sparing acts of God are expressions of a mercy which He commonly
pg.4
of 26
bestows
upon all men alike. As Matthew 5:45 tells us: "He makes
his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on
the just and on the unjust." In Acts 14:15-17 we find Paul
and Barnabas saying: "Sirs, why do you these things? We
also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that
you should turn from these vanities unto the living God who made
heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:
who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways.
Nevertheless He left not Himself without witness, in that He
did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons,
filling our hearts with food and gladness." So also in Psalm
145:9: "The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies
are over all his works."
Now
Augustine held that God, having from all eternity elected some
to everlasting life, had special reference to their salvation
only when He covenanted with the Son to make atonement. Subsequently
Lutherans and Calvinists agreed as to the worth of the Atonement
but came to differ as to its design. While Augustine and Calvin
maintained that it was designed only for the elect, Luther maintained
that it had equal reference to all mankind individually. Charles
Hodge observed that what Christ suffered would have been just
as necessary if only one human soul had been the object of redemption,
yet nothing more would have been required had every child of
Adam been redeemed. (1) It was Augustine who, with his characteristic
genius for abbreviated statement of truth, gave us the couplet
"sufficient for all, efficient for the elect only."
Following his insight many others have sought to give expression
to the same thought in different ways. It is possible to tabulate
these different modes of expression somewhat as follows by saying
that the Lord's sacrifice was
| potentially infinite |
but actually limited |
| unlimited in value |
but limited in intention |
| infinite in worth |
but finite in application |
| limitless as to its
capacity |
but limited in its effect |
| unlimited atonement |
but limited redemption |
Not
all these alternative expressions are precisely the same in implication.
There is virtually universal agreement as to the value of the
Lord's Atonement being infinite, but it makes a difference whether
we oppose to this the doctrine that it was limited in intention
or limited in effect. The difference lies in this, that while
God's intention may or may not have been limited, since this
is really the point at issue, the actual effect was indeed limited
by man's wide rejection of it � about which there cannot
be any disagreement. The crux of the matter then is summed up
in the question: "What was God's intention?"
1. Hodge, Charles, Systematic
Theology, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1973 reprint, vol. II,
p.545.
pg.5
of 26
The Calvinist position is that in the beginning the
Father and the Son entered into a covenant in which the Son undertook
to pay the price of ensuring that man's creation as a free moral
agent would not fail in its purpose of bringing glory to God,
while the Father would guarantee the effectiveness of the Son's
atoning sacrifice by exercising his Sovereign Grace to apply
the Atonement effectively to an appropriate number of individuals,
the elect. Thus his sacrifice would not be in vain. These elect
given by the Father to the Son would in due time without fail
be brought to a saving faith. The Lord would thus see the travail
of his soul and be satisfied (Isaiah 53:11), and his table would
be completely furnished with guests, in the words of Matthew
22:10. The elect were therefore chosen in Him from the very beginning.
The
Westminster Confession (III.6) makes this declaration:
They who
are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are
effectually called into faith in Christ by his Spirit working
in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by
his power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any others
redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified,
and saved, but the elect only.
It
will be apparent that the Reformers in the Calvinist tradition
were very positive in their assertion of Limited Atonement. Yet
they also recognized that because the Lord Jesus Christ was not
only man but God also, the worth of his sacrifice is accordingly
infinite and fully sufficient for the sins of all men. The formulators
of the Anglican Prayer Book demonstrated that they recognized
this by introducing into the communion service a prayer which
speaks of the Lord's sacrifice as "a full, perfect and sufficient
sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole
world." The real question at issue here is not, then, Was
his sacrifice sufficient for all? but rather, Was his sacrifice
actually intended for all? On this question, as we have seen,
there came to be a critical division of opinion, both sides appealling
to Scripture and believing themselves to be clearly guided by
it. Yet the issue probably cannot be settled simply by an appeal
to the Word of God: it must be settled rather by implications
from the Word of God, implications which are drawn from its statements
by the exercise of sanctified reason and which, although it may
not be possible to find precise proof texts, are nevertheless
in no way contradicted by other statements of Scripture, the
meaning of which is unequivocal.
Now
it must be admitted that there are a number of passages in the
New Testament, and a few in the Old, which appear to substantiate
the view that the Atonement was unlimited both in extent and
intent. It is on the basis of these passages that an increasing
number of evangelicals, beginning with Arminius, began to teach
that God must have covenanted with his Son to make an Atonement
not merely for the sins of the elect but also for all men
pg.6
of 26
indiscriminately.
Such passages do not mean that all men will be saved but that
all men could be saved if they would, that it was God's initial
intention that their salvation should be genuinely possible.
The Atonement made by the Lord Jesus Christ was sufficient for
all men (with which the Calvinists would agree wholeheartedly)
and was intended for all men if they should desire it (with which
Calvinists could not agree). Calvinists disagreed with this for
two reasons.
First
of all, the view that Christ's sacrifice was intended for all
would make much of that sacrifice pointless since so many do
not in fact avail themselves of it; the triumph of the cross
is fatally diminished if only a fragment of its original intention
is actually to be realized. If, on the contrary, Christ died
only for the sins of the elect of God and not for those that
are lost, the victory of the cross is total in terms of its intentions.
It is hard to believe Satan has been allowed largely to defeat
God's intentions. Christ did not die to make the salvation of
all men possible; He died to make the salvation of the elect
certain, and this will be demonstrated in due time. None of them
will be lost (John 6:39, 40 and 10:27�29). Such is the basis
of our assurance of eternal security. There was no limit to the
worth of his Atonement, but in God's intention there was to be
no waste either. The Lord did all that was necessary for the
salvation of an elect number whose response was guaranteed by
the Father. The original design was and will be entirely fulfilled.
The Lord's victory is complete. The completeness of this victory
is not dependent upon man's natural inclination to respond to
the offer of salvation but upon God's Sovereign Grace in conferring
upon the elect the necessary saving faith.
Secondly,
the view that Christ's sacrifice was intended for all could be
interpreted to mean that all men will automatically be saved
whether they believe or not, since all men indiscriminately would
already have had the penalty for their sins atoned for and would
not therefore be called upon to suffer any penalty themselves.
It is a principle of law in the civilized world that a man cannot
be held accountable for a debt which has already been paid by
someone else on his behalf and to the full satisfaction of the
offended party. But this is precisely what unlimited atonement
would involve. For if the Lord Jesus Christ paid the penalty
for the sins of every man in particular to the satisfaction of
the Father, then every man in particular, regardless of his attitude
towards that payment and whether he believes or does not believe,
is ipso facto rid of his debt. In the eyes of the law
he is absolved. It cannot be demanded of him that he also by
punishment hereafter pay the debt a second time. He cannot be
accused of owing anything. The only reason for such an accusation
by a court would be ignorance of the fact that the debt has already
been paid � or deliberate deception by the accuser. In the
final Judgment no such contingencies could ever arise because
the Judge is the Lord Himself, the same who has already paid
our
pg.7
of 26
debt
(Romans 8:34). Although it has not hitherto been used as a theological
term, one might say that there can be no double jeopardy. A penalty
cannot legally be demanded twice.
Let
us state this principle once again. No man can be held accountable
for a debt that has already been paid for on his behalf to the
satisfaction of the offended party. But a double jeopardy,
a duplication of indebtedness, is indeed involved if the non-elect
are to be punished for sins for which the Lord Jesus Christ has
already endured punishment. And this is what un-limited
atonement means if interpreted in the universalistic sense that
Christ died for the sins of all men. It follows therefore that
if the unsaved are to be punished, the Lord cannot also have
been punished substitutionally on their account.
Now
it is not logically possible that the Lord might have died for
the non-elect or might not have died for the non-elect as though
it were a "potential" dying only, the issue to be settled
by subsequent events. He either did die for the non-elect or
He did not. If He did, the deed is done whether it is applied
or not applied. If it is not applied and men are to be punished,
we have a double liability involved. If it is to be applied,
then all men are saved automatically. If, on the other hand,
the Lord Jesus Christ did not die for all men individually, then
it cannot be done now. It is too late. The body of Jesus Christ
was offered only once (Hebrews 10:10).
It
is thus consistent for us to define our faith simply by use of
the term Limited Atonement. We should not at the same
time attempt to emphasize it by saying what it is not. We should
rather stay close to Scripture, which makes it so very clear
that the Lord died for the sins of his people, of the sheep.
We are not told more than this. There are passages of Scripture
which seem to say more than this, but as we shall see they may
not really be doing so. Most of the expressions which have been
set forth should probably be used with great care on this account,
since they could be an invitation to a serious error. Logically
they may be convincing enough, but scripturally they may go beyond
the truth. We can safely say only that the Lord's sacrifice had
limited efficacy in so far as it has had limited application.
Whether
it is intended or not by those who adopt the thesis in their
preaching that "Christ died for the sins of all men,"
the logical consequence is a simple Universalism � "all
men will be saved." And Universalism makes preaching the
Gospel almost pointless, for the most that can be hoped is that
a few individuals will respond in thankfulness as the one leper
who was healed did (Luke 17:15-17). Such a sense of thankfulness
will certainly be beneficial, but in terms of destiny it will
make no difference. The other nine lepers are assured that they
are free to do precisely what they like without fear of judgment
to come or personal consequence from their action. It
pg.8
of 26
would
be better not to preach such a Gospel as this. It is only because
we are not logical so much of the time that we are saved from
such ill effects.
It
is thus clear that the Lord can have died only for those who
have been predestined not to have to suffer the penalty
of their own sins. Since this does not apply to any but the elect
and since we cannot know beforehand who is elect and who is not,
we cannot tell, when we are face-to-face with an individual,
whether that individual is chosen to respond or will be permitted
to refuse, and it is clearly improper to say, "Christ died
for you." Indeed this form of statement is nowhere to be
found in any of the sermons recorded in Scripture (Acts 2:14
ff.; 3:12�26; 4:8�12; 5:29�32; 7:2�53; 10:34�43:
13:16�41; 17:22�32; 22:1�21), and does not correctly
represent the Gospel. We can safely say to a man only something
like, "This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation,
that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" (1
Timothy 1:15); or "God has made Him who knew no sin to be
a sin-offering for us that we might be made the righteousness
of God in Him"
(2 Cornthians 5:21). It would not even be correct to paraphrase
this last passage by replacing the words "for us" with
the words "for you," and the words "that we might
be" with the words "that you might be." Yet I
have heard it done. This cannot be said by one man to another
truthfully because we do not have God's knowledge of which men
are elect. We can only quote Scripture faithfully and leave the
results to God.
In the Canons of Dort (III-lV.9)
we are told that, in the Gospel, Christ is offered. But in III-IV.14
we are told that salvation is not offered, it is conferred. The
Gospel is offered but salvation is not. It seems appropriate
to quote this Article in full.
Faith
is therefore to be considered as the gift of God, not on account
of its being offered by God to man, to be accepted or rejected
at his pleasure, but because it is in reality conferred upon
him, breathed and infused into him; not even because God bestows
the power or ability to believe and then expects that man should
by the exercise of his own free will consent to the terms of
salvation and actually believe in Christ, but because He who
works in man both to will and to work, and indeed all things
in all, produces both the will to believe and the act of believing
also.
Now
this apparent conflict that in preaching the Gospel we offer
Christ, while salvation is not offered but conferred, seems to
be resolved (as Hoeksema observes) by noting that the Latin of
Article 9 indicates that "offering" Christ means presenting
or showing Him. (2) In short, there is no question of
saying Christ died for you, but only of declaring that Christ
died as a sacrifice for sin. Preaching the Gospel is not to be
equated with giving an invitation but with making a declaration.
The elect will hear this declaration
2. See G. C. Berkouwer, Studies
in Dogmatics Divine Election, translated by Hugo Bekker,
Grand Rapids, Eerdman's, 1958, p.222.
pg.9
of 26
as an
invitation; to the non-elect it will come as a judgment which
leaves them without excuse.
Meanwhile,
true preaching of the Gospel is something done under divine compulsion.
When Paul says, "Necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me,
if I preach not the Gospel" (1 Corinthians 9:16), he uses a very
forceful word in the original Greek ( )
when he speaks of necessity. One
might properly have translated it "absolute compulsion." When
God thus determines that the Gospel shall be preached, it is only because
He has also predetermined that it shall bear fruit (for life or death)
as He foreordains. The "tool" is his Word, the agent is his
servant, the results are in his own hands.
That
the Atonement itself is limited in its effect is not disputed
by either Calvinists or Arminians. What is in dispute is the
intent, not the extent, of the Atonement. And on
this dispute hinges an important consideration. For if God's
intention was limited, we do not know why He was pleased to limit
it and are apt to suppose on the basis of human reason alone
that the love of God is also limited, and this we find disturbing.
This
issue regarding the extent of God's love was a truly basic point
of disagreement between Arminius and the strict Calvinists of
his day. It is not desirable to enter here into the clash of
personalities at the time which undoubtedly contributed to the
hardening of battle lines between the two parties, Calvinists
and Arminians. Suffice it to say that Limited Atonement became
an issue because it led to the belief in certain quarters that
if the sacrifice of Christ was intended only for a select minority
of the human race, the majority of men were being predestinated
to eternal punishment unfairly; and God emerged as a despotic
sovereign whose indifference to the fate of the non-elect seemed
to stand in clear violation of a number of passages of Scripture
which speak of his love for mankind as a whole. How could God
so love the world that He would allow his only begotten Son to
sacrifice Himself for it and then limit that sacrifice to a few
while He predestinated the many to reprobation? *
* We are here in the presence
of a very difficult question The two sides to this question have
customarily been treated under the terms Supralapsarianism
and Infralapsarianism. Supralapsarianism means that before
the Fall, and indeed before the creation of man, God predestined
man to SIN. Infralapsarianism means that after man fell, God
predestined him to reprobation. It seems to be largely a matter
of timing, but the problem is more serious.
Did
God decide that man should fall and, thereby, Himself become
the author of sin, or did He merely on the basis of foreknowledge
determine that, having fallen, man was destined to reprobation?
Did He, in short, ordain sin before man fell or ordain
only reprobation after man fell? The first is evidence
of absolute sovereignty, the latter of complete foreknowledge.
The first is more an act of sovereignty than justice, the latter
of justice than sovereignty. Sovereignty is challenged in the
latter because it means that man was not predetermined
by God to fall of his own free will. Since the fact that man
was not predetermined to fall but indeed did fall appears to
defeat the purposes of God, it seems that man rather than God
is sovereign in this matter. For if God were sovereign in this
matter, the reasoning goes, He would not have allowed it. Is
God more just than sovereign in this case? (cont'd.
. . . )
pg.10
of 26
(*cont'd) In Supralapsarianism, the Fall and
sin are ordained means to the fulfillment of God's purposes;
in Infralapsariansim, the Fall and sin are merely permitted factors
in the fulfillment of his purpose.
The
issue seems to boil down to this. Did God create a situation
in which his sovereignty had to be surrendered in allowing man
to decide for himself, or is God the author of sin? There cannot
be two sovereign wills. If in this matter, man is truly free
to decide whether to obey or not, then all else hinges on man's
decision, not God's. If God is determined to have his will obeyed,
did He not then authorize Adam to disobey � in which case
did Adam really disobey at all?
When
the Lord was speaking to the disciples, He said, "I go to
prepare a place for you" (John 14:2). By contrast when men
are condemned in the Judgment they are sent to a place that was
not prepared for them. In Matthew 25:41 the Lord said to these
men, "Depart from Me, you cursed into everlasting fire,
prepared for the devil and his angels " These two antithetical
statements, antithetical in so far as the destiny of the blessed
was prepared for them but the destiny of the cursed was not prepared
for them, may afford some grounds for arguing against Supralapsarianism.
If men are predestined to be saved, one might expect a corresponding
place of destiny to be prepared. That the place of destiny of
the non-elect was not prepared for them, "but for the devil
and his angels," that at least for man such a destiny was
not foreordained. Whatever may be the order of events relative
to the devil and his angels, and whether they were predestined
to fall before they were created, we have no clear intimation
from Scripture and the idea seems repugnant. But the place of
punishment for the non-elect is statedly a kind of emergency,
make-do arrangement, serving a purpose which it was not originally
designed to serve.
Jesus
Christ, it was argued, is revealed in Scripture as having died
for all men, the saved and the unsaved alike. The difference
between the saved and the unsaved as to their destiny was not
the result of a narrow atonement which passed the unsaved by
but a broad atonement which they themselves neglected to make
use of. It was intended for them but it was never appropriated.
The fault lay with them, and not with the Saviour. Those who
reasoned in this way held that to view the situation in any other
light was really to make God the author of unbelief and reprobation.
Arminius
at first seems to have held the Calvinist position of Beza, whom
he greatly admired but whose theology he finally found unacceptable.
Beza's position was that if God elected some men to salvation,
He must automatically have elected others to reprobation. This
is not a logical deduction, however, for it can be argued with
equal force that man elects himself to reprobation by freely
choosing to neglect the salvation which is offered to him. For
the majority of men, the many who are not chosen (Matthew 20:16),
it is not necessary for God to act determinatively. He needs
only to permit them to have their own way. He respects their
freedom of choice and passes them by. The choice is made freely
in that it truly represents fallen man's natural inclination.
For
all his acuity of reasoning, Beza never seems to have been able
to recognize that Election to Salvation for a few whose wills
have been set free from within is perfectly compatible with granting
to the rest of mankind freedom to go their own way. Double Predestination
is not necessary. Calvin in his younger days committed himself
to Double Predestination by
pg.11
of 26
saying:
"Many professing a desire to defend the Deity from an invidious
charge admit the doctrine of election but deny that anyone is
reprobated. This they do ignorantly and childishly since there
can be no election without its opposite, reprobation" (Institutes,
III.xxiii.1). Curiously he sought to reinforce this dismal doctrine
by a reference to Matthew 15:13: "Every plant which my heavenly
Father has not planted shall be rooted up." Calvin then
comments that the Lord's hearers are here "plainly told
that all whom the heavenly Father has not been pleased to plant
in his garden are doomed and devoted to destruction."
Far
from demonstrating Double Predestination, which would require,
by analogy, that the Father would not only root up these reprobate
weeds, but had also been responsible for planting them in the
first place, this passage of Scripture says precisely the opposite:
they were not planted by the Father at all. But as already noted,
Calvin seems to have softened his views on this issue in his
later years.
Beza
succeeded to Calvin's mantle of authority when the latter died
and seems to have hardened his position on this issue, becoming
himself perhaps the most ultra-Calvinist of the time. He insisted
that the reprobate were as predestinated to be lost as the elect
were to be saved: that they were not merely permitted to go their
own way, but were willed of God in this direction. To Beza it
seemed inevitable that if God predestined them to be lost, He
clearly did not covenant with his Son to die for them. This latter
deduction seemed to be common sense and it appears that Arminius
accepted it at first, and embraced the corollary of a Limited
Atonement. But in due course for reasons which we do not need
to consider here, Arminius came to feel uncomfortable about certain
implications of Limited Atonement, namely, that God's love is
not universal unless the intention of the Atonement was universal.
God's love would appear to be limited by the intention of the
Atonement since the Atonement was in the final analysis the real
demonstration of the scope of God's love (1 John 3:16). If we
know that He loved us because He gave Himself for us, must we
not assume that He did not love the rest of mankind if He did
not give Himself for them?
When
we say that reactions against Beza's persistence in holding to
Double Predestination had the effect of hardening his position,
we are in effect saying that Beza's mind and powers of logical
analysis became separated from all feeling. Unlike Calvin, who
softened his position later, recognizing that our finite minds
can drive us to extremes, Beza did not pause in his pursuit of
logic. Both Calvin and Luther did, recognizing that human logic
may break down and that mind needs to be monitored by heart.
Arminius went to the other extreme and allowed his heart to warp
his powers of logic, so that in the end he found himself convinced
by his own heart to adopt a position regarding man's capacity
of response to the love of God which was logically inconsistent
and yet which he attempted to defend by logical
pg.12
of 26
means.
He agreed wholeheartedly that man's salvation is wholly of God
and that man contributes nothing by way of good works towards
it. When asked, "Why does one man respond to the love of
God but not another?" he replied, "Because that man
has grace enough to do so, while the other man has not."
"Whence
comes this grace?"
Arminius
replied, "From God."
"Then
why does not God give that grace to the other man?"
Arminius
replied, "He does, but the other man refuses it."
And
here is the crux of the matter. For it is necessary to assume
either that the one man has an element of goodness which the
other does not (which Arminius denied), or that God's love does
not extend to both men equally (which Arminius also denied).
His theology gradually became inconsistent and logically indefensible.
Once
the set of his mind began to be freed from the compulsion of
Beza's logic, Arminius appears to have become increasingly aware
that there are a number of passages of Scripture favouring the
broader view of God's love to all men. But Romans 9:13 ("Jacob
have I loved, but Esau have I hated") faced him with the
fact that God did not love all men equally. In the end he resolved
this problem to his own satisfaction in a way that is rather
interesting. He recognized that the majority of men do not accept
the salvation of God, but this did not seem to him to require
the assumption that prior to their rejection God did not love
them. He resolved the question of Jacob and Esau by suggesting
that Jacob represented all who believe and accept God's salvation
and Esau all who reject God's salvation. The love of God is extended
towards all those therefore who have not actually rejected his
salvation. Once an individual has irrevocably rejected the love
of God, the love of God is no longer extended towards him and,
by contrast with Jacob, that man stands in the position of Esau.
But if God loves all men prior to their rejection of his salvation,
then must He not have prospectively provided a sufficient Atonement
for all men in order that the offer of salvation may be made
to them sincerely? And thus there arose within the Reformation
movement a growing body of evangelical believers (for Arminius
had many secret supporters) who rejected the concept of Limited
Atonement and favoured its antithesis, the concept of the universality
of God's love for the world and the provisional Universality
of the Atonement.
The
fact that man is saved purely by the grace of God and apart from
any works of his own was not really being questioned. For these
dissenting minds, the part which man plays involves only a willingness
to accept, a spirit of non-resistance. But neither Arminius nor
any of those who have followed in the Arminian tradition have
ever really been able to resolve the problem of how it is that
some men resist the love of God and some do not. Yet Arminius
held firmly to the view that until the resistance is final, the
pg.13
of 26
love
of God reaches out to them still. Scriptural support for the
universality of God's love and, as a corollary the unlimited
intent of the Atonement, is based upon a number of passages of
Scripture which must now be examined carefully.
It
is appropriate to start with 1 Timothy 2:1-6 because the statement
is both sweeping and apparently unequivocal. In order to establish
a context it is desirable to quote the whole six verses, which
in the King James Version read as follows:
I exhort
therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions,
and giving of thanks, be made for all men: for kings and for
all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable
life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable
in the sight of 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 to be testified in due time.
We
are, therefore, exhorted to pray for all men. And yet we know
from John 17:9 that the Lord Jesus Christ Himself deliberately
refrained from praying for all men, "I pray for them [the
chosen few]: I pray not for the world but for them You have given
Me." It is of course perfectly true that the Lord Jesus
knew who were to be the sheep of his flock even before they became
part of his inner circle of disciples, and He also knew the spiritual
battle which lay ahead for them all. It might therefore be argued
that He prayed for them specifically, and not for the world,
for this very reason. But are we being called upon to engage
our prayer life on behalf of all men indiscriminately? Would
this not so dilute our prayers as to be meaningless and ineffective?
To pray for everyone is really to pray for nobody.
It
seems more likely that the phrase "for all men" should be translated
more selectively to read "for all sorts of men." Such
a translation is perfectly consonant with the original Greek, for the
word all frequently has the less inclusive meaning of "all
kinds of," or "all manner of." The simple form pas ( )
is translated "all manner of" in the following places, all of
which provide a more precise definition of its meaning:
| Matthew 4:23 |
--"all manner
of disease" |
| Matthew 5:11 |
--"all manner
of evil" |
| Matthew 10:1 |
--"all manner
of sickness" |
| Luke 11:42 |
--"all manner
of herbs" |
| Acts 10:12 |
--"all manner
of four-footed beasts" |
| Romans 7:8 |
--"all manner
of concupiscence" |
| 1 Peter 1:15 |
--"all manner
of conversation" |
| Revelation 21:19 |
--"all manner
of precious stone" |
pg.14
of 26
If Mark 3:28 is compared with Matthew
12:31, which has reference to the same occasion, it will be observed
that the all of Mark appears in Matthew as all manner
of, though in both the same Greek word is used. Either translation
is therefore perfectly legitimate,
The
point scarcely needs labouring. Every lexicon of New Testament
Greek and of Classical Greek agrees upon the validity of the
expanded translation. Thayer*, for example, gives a number of references
by way of illustration and adds this comment: "So especially
with nouns designating virtues or vices, customs, characters,
conditions, etc." On numerous occasions it greatly illuminates
the text to convert the simple "all" (whether of things
or men) into "all kinds of" or some such alternative.
No special pleading is involved. For example, Mark 11:32 tells
us that "all men counted that John was a prophet" but
obviously only people aware of what was going on could have been
intended. In John 8:2 we are told that "all people came
to Him" but we know the Pharisees did not do so. In both
cases it would be more appropriate to say "all kinds of"
people.
In
Romans 5:18 Paul wrote: "Therefore, as by the offense of
one judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the
righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification
of life." As it stands we might be forced to conclude that
every man is condemned in Adam but every man is justified in
Christ: every man, without exception. All are lost, all are saved.
Both these all need to be understood in the same way to
justify the sentence structure. Since only some men come "unto
justification of life" we are driven to conclude that what
Paul intended by his words was not that all men are both condemned
and justified but rather that, as all kinds of men have suffered
the penalty of Adam's disobedience, so all kinds of men have
benefited from the rewards of Christ's obedience.
Romans
14:2 tells us how one man "believes that he may eat all
things" whereas another eats only herbs. The obvious intention
of the passage is that some men allow themselves meat as well
as herbs whereas others avoid meat. But a subservience to a strictly
inclusive interpretation of the word all would require
us to assume that the first individual would eat absolutely anything,
an unreasonable assumption.
In
writing to Titus (2:11) Paul declares that "the grace of
God that brings salvation has appeared to all men." It is
almost certain that this would more appropriately be rendered
"to all sorts of men." Calvin wrote on this passage
as follows: "The apostle simply means that there is no people
and no rank in the world that is excluded from salvation, because
God wishes that the Gospel should be proclaimed to all without
exception. The present discourse relates to classes of men, and
not to individual persons." (3) It is important
to remember that in Paul's time slaves had no status whatever. They were not even counted as
* Thayer, J. H., English-Greek
Lexicon of the New Testament, Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark,
1901.
3. Calvin: The Pastoral Epistles, p. 55.
pg.15
of 26
persons. There may have
been new Christians to whom it had scarcely occurred that the
Gospel was also to be preached to slaves.
Thus
in 1 Timothy 6:10, while it is doubtful if the love of money
could be the root of all evil � such as blindness due to
accident in childhood � it certainly is the root of all kinds
of evil. And in John 12:32, unless we assume that the Universalists
are right, it is more reasonable to read the text: "I, if
I be lifted up from the earth, will draw * all kinds of men
unto Me."
When
John 1:7 tells us that John the Baptist was sent as a witness
to the Light which is Christ, in order that all men might believe,
we are surely nearer to an understanding of what this means if
we read it as "that all sorts of men might believe,"
the "all sorts and conditions of men" of the Anglican
Prayer Book. The principle may very well be reflected in
the familiar promise made to Abraham in Genesis 12:3 that in
him "should all the families of the earth be blessed."
Augustine
in his Enchiridion (Chap. 103) wrote about such passages
as these. He said:
We are
to understand by "all men" the human race in all its
varieties of rank and circumstance � kings, subjects; noble,
plebeian, high, low, learned and unlearned; the sound in body,
the feeble, the clever, the dull, the foolish, the rich, the
poor; and those of moderate circumstances, males, females, infants
[note!], boys, youth; young, middle-aged and old men: of every
tongue, of every nation, of all arts, of all professions, with
all the innumerable differences of will and consciousness, and
whatever else there is that makes a distinction among men.
Perhaps
we still need to be reminded of this. Some men we think too good
or too high; and perhaps if we did but understand sufficiently,
we might include imbeciles whom we now tend to neglect in this
respect. And precisely what did the Lord act upon when He healed
lunatics?
* The word draw in
this passage is a strong one. According to Moulton and Milligan
(Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament), the Greek term
helko or helkuo has almost the sense of dragging
by force. It is used of hauling bricks, of towing, of dragging
along, and even in connection with impressing people as labourers.
Thayer (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Edinburgh,
T. & T. Clark, 1901) says it is used of dragging people,
as when Paul is dragged into the market place (Acts 16 19) or
out of the Temple (Acts 21: 30). John uses it in 18:10 of drawing
a sword, and in 21:6 and 11 of failure and then success in dragging
a net. James 2:6 uses it in the sense of dragging the poor before
a judge. In the Septuagint the use follows very much along the
same lines. Obviously there is something here much stronger than
the mere attractiveness of a sweet personality, and it is significant
that even in John l2:32 the same word is employed "I, if
I be lifted up, will draw all men unto Me."
The
mere presentation of the drama of Calvary, no matter how effectively
or appealingly it is made, will not be enough to attract men,
contrary to popular sentiment, there is a real sense in which
sinners are not attracted to the cross but dragged to it. Such
is the deadness of the human spirit.
pg.16
of 26
So we may quite safely translate 1
Timothy 2:1 as an exhortation not to pray for all men indiscriminately,
but rather that we should remember to pray for all sorts of people,
not discriminating against any merely by reason of their station
in life or any other distinguishing mark. In verse 2 Paul reinforces
this alternative by saying that we should include kings and all
in authority over us, a surprising exhortation, for at the time
of writing Nero was the Emperor and an almost wholly corrupt
hierarchy derived their authority from him.
If
this much is allowed, then verse 4 becomes less all inclusive
and more probable, when it tells us that God our Saviour "will
have men of all sorts to be saved and come unto a knowledge of
the truth."
It
should also be noted that the words will have in this
passage represent the more determinative verb thelo in
the original, a verb which in many instances seems to be stronger
than the alternative verb boulomai, from which it seems
to be distinguished as representing intention rather than merely
desire. It is as though God our Saviour does not merely desire
that men from every class of society will come to acknowledge
the truth but actually intends them to do so. The Body
of Christ is to be made up in a truly representative way. Paul
did not say "not any noble are called" but "not
many" (1 Corinthians 1:26).
As
though to reinforce this, Paul is inspired to write that there
is only "one mediator between God and men" (verse 5):
not one mediator for the high-born and another for the commoner,
or one mediator for the free and another for the slave. Men of
all sorts stand equal in the sight of God and a single mediator,
the Lord Jesus Christ, can make any one of them acceptable before
God. And why? Because (verse 6) the same Lord Jesus gave Himself
a ransom on behalf of the elect, no matter what class of society
they come from.
We
do not seem to be required to read this as an expression of the
universality of God's love for all men indiscriminately. The
wording can be reasonably understood in much more particular
terms. But that such a translation is not found in modern versions
tells us no more than that where two alternatives have equal
validity the one chosen will almost certainly always be the one
which best reflects the current climate of theological opinion.
And that theological opinion today is undoubtedly universalistic
in this sense, both among liberal humanistically oriented expositors
and among evangelicals of Arminian persuasion. That God desires
or would have all men to be saved is most assuredly assumed by
virtually all modern translators. Yet I do not believe that this
really reflects the mind of God as revealed elsewhere in Scripture.
But
this does not mean that the opposite is true! As we have already
noted, Scripture makes it clear that God takes no delight in
the death of the wicked but would rather that men should turn
from their wickedness and
pg.17
of 26
live.
Nevertheless, God is a realist and knows that men will not turn
and live unless He turns them and to turn all men indiscriminately
is simply to render meaningless Adam's original endowment of
freedom of choice to good or to evil. Our problem is that we
tend to equate our own sentiment with the strong love of God.
As one older writer put it: "The love of God is without
mercy." Unlike human love, the love of God is without partiality.
Arminius was nearer to the truth than were some of his later
followers when he limited the love of God to those who have not
yet refused Him. We should remember Jehu, the son of Hanani,
who rebuked King Jehoshaphat for "loving" a man who
hated God (2 Chronicles 19:2).
In
2 Peter 3:9 we read: "The Lord is not slack concerning his
promise [i.e.,to return] as some men count slackness; but is
long-suffering towards us, not willing that any should perish,
but that all should come to repentance." Here, behind the
words not willing we have the less determinate Greek verb
boulomai; that is, "not being desirous that any should
perish." There is a beautiful consistency here with Ezekiel
18:23: "Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should
die? says the Lord God: and not that he should return from his
ways and live?" And verse 32 of this same passage reads:
"For I have no pleasure in the death of him who dies, says
the Lord God; wherefore repent ye and live." Thus God desires
that men would come to repentance, and delays the coming Judgment
not because He hopes for what He knows cannot be but because
He is reluctant to bring to pass that which must be. The love
of God and the pity of God are two different things.
Then
we meet with another factor of importance in understanding the
meaning of many passages which employ the verb rendered "to
save" or some derivative of it. In 1 Timothy 4:10 it is
written: "For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach,
because we trust in the living God who is the Saviour of all
men, especially of those that believe." The sentence structure
here seems to require that we attach to the word Saviour the
same implication for unbelievers as we do for them that believe.
We know that He is indeed the Saviour of the latter. Is He then
in the same sense also the Saviour of the former, of the "all
men" of the text? Or is it that the word Saviour does not
mean in this instance what it usually does in the context of
saving faith?
The
root verb here is sozo ( ),
the meaning of which is either "to save" in the evangelistic
sense or "to preserve" in the physical or physiological sense.
Both meanings are found in the King James Version. Thus in 2 Timothy 4:18
Paul speaks of his confidence that the Lord will preserve him unto his
heavenly kingdom. In 1 Timothy 2:15 Paul gives assurance that women will
be preserved in childbearing, for such seems to be rather clearly his
meaning. It is also quite possible that in 1 Timothy 4:16, the same alternative
ought to be understood: "Take heed to yourself, and to the doctrine;
continue in them: for in doing this you shalt both preserve thyself
pg.18
of 26
and
them that hear you." It does not seem likely that Paul would
commit to Timothy, who was already the Lord's child, the responsibility
of saving himself. We meet with a similar situation in all probability
in Mark 8:35 and 15:30 where the word preserve would possibly
be more appropriate, for at that time it was a far more dangerous
thing to stand for the Lord than it is in our society at the
moment, and many people did not preserve their lives on account
of their testimony. And perhaps this was Peter's intent when
he said, "Preserve yourselves from this untoward generation"
(Acts 2:40). James 5:20 may be another case in point: "Let
him know that he who turns the sinner [a brother in the Lord,
be it noted, from verse 19] from the error of his way shall preserve
a soul from death. . ." And so, too, perhaps in James 5:15.
Even
the Old Testament makes use of both renderings of this verb in
the Septuagint Greek translation, as for example in Psalm 36:6:
"O Lord, you preserve man and beast." It is clear that
God does preserve his creatures as long as He can as an expression
of his compassion as though like a merciful judge He postpones
the passing of judgment. As Psalm 145:8 and 9 tells us: "The
Lord is gracious and full of compassion; slow to anger and of
great mercy. The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies
are over all his works." This is one aspect of his exercise
of Common Grace. Perhaps Common Grace is an expression of God's
pity for man, rather than his love. God was merciful to �
Esau � but did not love him (Romans 9:13).
It
is for this reason that we, his children, are called upon to
pray for all men and to give thanks on their behalf unto God
and the Father. Ephesians 5:20 has not received an altogether
appropriate translation in either the King James Version or many
modern versions, for we can hardly be expected to give thanks
always for all things. Are we to give thanks, for example, for
our own defeats, for our silence when we ought to speak for the
Lord, for our own selfish enjoyments when we might instead have
blessed others by our giving? Are we to give thanks for the appalling
diseases that afflict innocent children in many parts of the
world? Are we to give thanks for the prison camps in Russia of
which Solzhenitsyn has written so eloquently? And what of a million
and one other evils that result from carelessness, or indifference,
or the sheer wickedness of men? The Christian is indeed counselled
to give thanks in everything (1 Thessalonians 5:18), but
surely not for everything.
If
we should take this to mean that we are to give thanks on account
of everything, the Greek of Ephesians 5:20 does not serve to
establish this recommendation, for the preposition huper
followed as it is here by the genitive does not mean "on
account of" but "on behalf of". The thought behind
this injunction is beautifully expressed in the Prayer of General
Thanksgiving in the Anglican Prayer Book which reads:
"Almighty and most merciful Father, we thine unworthy servants
do give Thee most humble
pg.19
of 26
and
hearty thanks for all thy goodness and loving kindness to us
and to all men. . . ." The word things in Ephesians
5:20 is an interpolation by the translators � the word men
would have been more appropriate. Certainly the words "on
behalf of all men" is the clear intention of 2 Corinthians
5:14 where precisely the same construction occurs. Yet curiously,
almost all modern translators have misunderstood the intent of
Ephesians 5:20 and presented it as a call to give thanks for
everything, improbable as such an injunction would be in a world
like ours.
Now there is a large group of passages which
employ the word world (Greek: kosmos  ).
It is widely agreed that this word often has the somewhat abstract meaning
of "the human race" or "human species," and that to
save the human species required only the saving of a sufficient number
of members, not the saving of every member. There are not a few passages
where such a key improves our understanding of the meaning.
It
has been suggested that there are at least four different meanings
to this word. It can mean (1) the natural order, (2) the arena
of human history, (3) a segment of society, and (4) the human
species. Let us examine these usages.
(1) The natural order. In
a passage such as John 1:10, "the world was made by Him,"
it seems clear enough that the creation is intended. It would
not seem appropriate to consider this in the more confined sense
of either human society (which is after all man-made) or even
the human race, for the human race is fallen and not the race
that God made. As C. S. Lewis rightly said, when man sinned he
brought into being a human species which was not the species
which God created.* It seems that in this case the word world
means the natural order as a whole, for He was truly its
Creator (Colossiams 1:16).
But
in the same sentence (John 1:10) the words "the world knew
Him not" must have a more restricted meaning. In view here
is a segment of society at one particular point in time, the
people who were the Lord's contemporaries when He walked this
earth. Thus a single word in the original can have somewhat different
meanings depending upon the context, even in a single sentence.
When Acts 17:24 tells us that "[God] made the world and
all things therein," we seem clearly to have a reference
to the natural order at any period of time but in 2 Peter 3:4-7
we have a more restricted natural order, the old world, being
replaced by an equally restricted natural order, the world that
now exists.
(2)
The arena of human history. In a passage such as Matthew
4:8, "all the kingdoms of the world," the reference
is surely to the human scene, and would not include areas where
man does not or has not lived (for example, the polar region),
which are still nevertheless part of the "natural order."
Indeed in the parallel passage in Luke 4:5 the statement is expressed
slightly
*Lewis, C. S., The Problem
of Pain, New York, Macmillan, 1962, p.83, 85.
pg.20
of 26
differently
by employing the Greek word oikoumene, meaning "the
inhabited earth."
(3)
A segment of society. John 1:10, where we find the words,
"He was in the world," seems to have specific reference
to the particular society to which Christ came in a special sense
by being born as one of them. This was the world which did not
recognize Him. It was a world which ought to have recognized
Him because it was a segment of society which had received special
preparation to this end.
(4)
The human species. In John 3:16, 4:42, and in many other
places, the meaning seems clearly to be the human race as a species,
since it was to save this species from total self-destruction
and loss that Christ came and offered Himself as a sacrifice.
The suicidal nature of the human species has long been recognized
as one of its most distinguishing marks as a species, setting
it apart from all other animal species. Such is the effect of
sin that virtually everything natural man plans to do in isolation
or co-operatively with other men tends towards the destruction
of the species. In the light of eternity the creation of the
human species would have been a total tragedy but for the saving
work of the Lord Jesus Christ. God sent his Son that He might
save enough members of this species to preserve the species,
and in this sense to become the Saviour of the "world."
Thus
in seeking to understand the meaning of 1 Timothy 2:1�6 we
have to take into account all these factors: that the word all
has a number of shades of meaning which modify its universality;
that the words will have, applied to God or man, may mean
either intention or preference; that the word save often
has the sense of preserving rather than redeeming; that the preposition
for may mean either "on behalf of" or "on
account of"; and that the word world has often the
connotation of the human race as a whole, rather than every member
of it individually. None of these alternatives are in any way
exceptional or rare. They are commonly observed in both New Testament
and Classical Greek. There is no question of "tampering"
with the original. It is a matter of making an intelligent choice
among legitimate alternatives, and the guiding factor must be
the principle that Scripture is in harmony with itself, and alternatives
may not be allowed to create contradictions between single passages
and the rest of Scripture as a whole.
There
is a further class of passages which seem to belong together
and which may indeed be interpreted to signify a certain universalistic
aspect of the Lord's death which cannot be denied but which in
no way conflicts with the doctrine of Limited Atonement as formulated
by the Reformers. We may introduce this aspect of the problem
by reference to 2 Corinthians 5:14, 15. Here it is written: "For
the love of Christ constrains us; because we thus judge 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
pg.21
of 26
unto
Him which died for them. and rose again." Now, it seems
that there might be two possibilities here whereby this passage
may be understood in such a way as to be in harmony with the
rest of Scripture, for in harmony with the rest of Scripture
it must assuredly be when rightly understood.
The
first proposed solution is that one ought to be guided as to
the intention of the writer by the fact that the words are addressed
to believers (saints at Corinth) who are therefore the referents
of the "us" of the text, that is, the love of Christ
constrains us believers. Then the words, "we thus
judge that if one died for all," should be understood to
mean, "If one died for all of us, then we were all dead."
That such could very well be the intention seems to be borne
out by the words "that they who live, the saints which live,
should not henceforth live unto themselves." Being the beneficiaries
of his death by which we are now among the spiritually alive,
we therefore ought to follow his example in this, namely, that
we, like Him, should not live unto ourselves.
There
is another possibility. There are a number of passages which
speak in universalistic terms of the Lord's death as being for
(i.e., on behalf of) all men. Such is the case in 2 Corinthians
5:14. But even more specific is Hebrews 2:9 which reads: "He,
by the grace of God, should taste death for every man."
There is also 1 Corinthians 15:22: "As in Adam all die,
even so in Christ shall all be made alive." Now there is
little doubt that Adam experienced death in the sense of terminating
his physical life as a penalty for an act of disobedience in
eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. That
he need not have experienced physical death had he not disobeyed
has been the belief of the Christian Church since the days of
the Church Fathers, and was believed even before that by Jewish
commentators themselves. Roman Catholic theologians have also
officially held this view. Adam did not merely shorten his life
but actually by disobedience introduced physical death as something
new for the human race. Romans 5:12 puts it very precisely: "By
one man sin entered, and by sin death . . . and so death passed
upon all men." Or as 1 Corinthians 15:22 puts it: "In
Adam all [men] die."
We
are thus mortal creatures, as presently constituted, contrary
to what God originally made possible for us when He created Adam
and formed Eve. This defective condition of our bodies is the
result of our being conceived of corrupted seed. In the sight
of God we are defective in this respect, and while the fault
is not immediately our own, we come under judgment, the penalty
of which is that in the end we are all brought to a condition
of both spiritual death and physical death. God is just to pass
this judgment of death upon us, but just also in recognizing
that we are not personally guilty of the corruption which brings
us to physical death. In his justice, God took it upon Himself
to pay the price of this mortal defect for all men alike, universally
and individually. It is in this sense that the Lamb of God takes
pg.22
of 26
away
the sin of the world (John 1:29), that inheritable defect by
which all men are brought to the grave, having tasted death for
all men (Hebrews 2:9), so that as in Adam all die, in Christ
shall all be not merely resurrected but made alive (1 Corinthians
15:22), that is, put once for all beyond the power of physical
death. Perhaps it is in this sense that 2 Corinthians 5:14, 15
is to be understood.
There
would, then, be a truly universalistic aspect to the Lord's sacrifice,
not for men's sinful actions but for man's sinful condition,
that condition which renders man a mortal creature. In this aspect
of his Atonement there are no limitations placed upon it since
all men equally will be raised from the dead, freed forever from
this present physical defect, and will therefore face judgment
in bodies no longer subject to death. As Jesus assured his hearers:
"The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear
the voice of the Son of God...and shall come forth: they that
have done good, unto the resurrection of life, and they that
have done evil unto the resurrection of condemnation" (John
5:25, 29). The ransoming of all men's bodies from the grave is
one of the universal effects of the Lord's sacrifice, one real
sense in which He died for the world, that is, for all men indiscriminately.
There
is one other truly universalistic aspect of the Lord's Atonement
which is often overlooked. The Old Testament prescribes sacrifices
which are to be offered for all kinds of sins. One special type
of sin to be covered by sacrifice was sin done in ignorance.
Such sins were called trespasses and the appropriate offering
was a trespass-offering. Leviticus 5:15, 17, and 19 provide the
following instructions: "If a soul commit a trespass and
sin through ignorance . . . then he shall bring for his trespass
unto the Lord a ram without blemish . . . for a trespass-offering
. . . And if a soul sin. . . . though he know it not, yet
he is guilty and shall bear his iniquity. . . [The ram] is a
trespass-offering: he has certainly trespassed against the Lord."
Now
the Israelite would normally only make such an atonement if he
were notified somehow of the offense of which he was otherwise
unaware. In the larger context outside Israel's Covenant with
God, no such arrangement existed for men, yet men everywhere
and throughout all history have been guilty before God of offenses
of which they were unaware. This is not to deny the fact, of
course, that all men have also been guilty before God of offenses
of which they were fully aware � either accusing themselves
or excusing themselves accordingly, their conscience bearing
witness (Romans 2:14, 15). It is not these known offenses that
we speak of here but the unknown ones: in short, their trespasses.
What is to be done about these in the Judgment? Would it be just
for God to condemn men for sins committed unawares?
Well,
God is just indeed. As 2 Corinthians 5:19 assures us: "God
was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing
their trespasses
pg.23
of 26
unto
them." Thus the judgment of God is entirely fair. Among
the effects of sin are therefore two consequences for which in
fairness man could not appropriately be held responsible: the
defect of his body, and the fruits of that defect � sinful
actions which are committed without awareness. The first is covered
by the sacrifice of Christ when He took upon himself the sin
of the world, and the second when He took upon himself the world's
trespasses. And in these two areas of judgment God was satisfied
and man was reconciled. In both of these aspects of man's sinful
estate the Atonement appears to have unlimited application. It
is possible that not a few passages claimed by those who hold
an Arminian position have direct reference to these aspects.
Yet in the sense in which Calvin spoke of the Lord's sacrifice
as being a Limited Atonement, I do not think these two forms
pose any essential challenge to his theological position. Man
is still guilty for his deliberate sinful actions.
In
short, Limited Atonement is specifically in relation to our SINS,
the sinful acts of believers; Unlimited Atonement is in relation
to the SIN not only of the believers but of the whole human race
(John 1:29). Only if we keep these two words (SINS and SIN)*
distinct and separate can we reconcile those passages of Scripture
which clearly seem to imply Limited Atonement, such as that "the
good shepherd gives his life for the sheep" (John 10:11)
and not for the goats, with those which tell us unequivocally
that the Lamb gave Himself for the whole world (John 1:29). His
sacrifice was indeed sufficient for all but efficient
only for the elect, since otherwise we face the problems
of (1) over-compensation (which signifies faulty assessment of
the need) and (2) double jeopardy (which introduces a serious
legal dilemma).
Only
one passage remains to be considered. In 1 John 2:1, 2 it is
written: "My little children, these things write I unto
you, that you sin not. And if any man does sin, we have an advocate
with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and He is the propitiation
for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of
the whole world." This passage is admittedly a difficult
one for those who hold to a Limited Atonement. Yet it is impossible
to believe that there could be in Scripture a very general (though
quite specific) theme favouring Limited Atonement only to be
countered by a single passage unequivocally presenting precisely
the opposite view. I think we have to assume that there is a
meaning to this passage which will perfectly satisfy the original
Greek while harmonizing with the rest of Scripture. What, then,
can be done with these words by way of elucidation?
For
centuries, theologians have struggled with this passage and found
themselves baffled. It has often been suggested, following Augustine's
lead, that we have here an enunciation of the grand principle
that the sacrifice of Christ was efficient in intent for the
elect of God only, but sufficient in
*For a discussion of these two words,
see Arthur Custance, "The Compelling Logic of the Plan of Salvation",
Part
VII in Man in Adam and in
Christ, vol.3 of The Doorway Papers Series.
pg.24
of 26
extent
for the whole world. Or, to put it slightly differently, his
sacrifice was of limited intended application but unlimited in
intrinsic value. Its worth was sufficient to cover the sins of
all men, but it was not designed to do so; its design was limited
to the elect. Augustinians and Calvinists have not denied that
Christ died for all men. They have denied only that He died equally
for all men. In so far as all men will be made alive in Christ
and forgiven their sins of ignorance, thus far He died for all
men. In so far as He died for the sins of his people (Matthew
1:21) or for this sheep (John 10:15) or for his Church (Ephesians
5:25), thus far is his atoning sacrifice limited in its application.
In so far as all for whose sins He paid the penalty will come
in due time in faith to be redeemed, thus far his victory will
be complete. But He did not die for the culpable sins of any
individual who never avails himself of that sacrifice. Ambrose
said that if a man dies unconverted, Christ did not die for him.
Such is the usual method of handling this apparently contradictory
passage.
There
is, however, a remote possibility that John may have had a slightly
different thought in mind. John's Epistles in most modern versions
are placed among the Epistles directed initially towards Hebrew
Christians scattered abroad after the fall of Jerusalem. If it
is these Christians, rather than Gentile Christians, that John
originally had in mind as he penned these words, then the "ours
only" which is contrasted with "the whole world"
could conceivably be a reflection of the view held by Jews almost
universally at that time that there was a real bifurcation of
human society in this respect. The world was composed of two
classes of people: the Jews and the Gentiles. To the Jews, the
Jews were "we," the Gentiles were "they."
John
would then be saying to his Hebrew Christian readers, "Let
us remember that our advocate, the Lord Jesus Christ, is the
propitiation for our sins � but not for ours only, but also
for the sins of Gentile believers throughout the world."
In other words, because the reference to "our sins"
might be misunderstood as limited to Jewish believers, among
whom John included himself, John hastens to add, "And not
for ours only, but also the sins of the whole world," thereby
including all Gentile believers who enjoyed precisely the same
advocacy.*
A
rather similar parallel may be observed in 1 Peter 5:9, which
reads: "Resist [your adversary the devil] steadfastly in
the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished
in your brethren that are in the world." It could be that
the Jewish believers to whom Peter addressed his words had a
tendency to forget that they belonged to a larger fellowship
rooted in the
* Caiaphas' prophetic utterance
in John 11:52 seems to bear this out. He spoke of Jesus' dying
not for "that nation only" but also that He "should
gather together in one the children of God that were scattered
abroad."
pg.25
of 26
Gentile
world. Peter and John may both have desired to remind their brethren
of this, in order to strengthen the bonds of Christian unity.
Perhaps
the first solution, which is also by far the more commonly employed,
is really better. Yet it must be admitted that even this solution
has some element of begging the issue about it. But it is true
that the Atonement clearly was limited and is limited in its
application to all who are believers, though there are no such
limits to be placed upon its intrinsic worth. Did every man,
woman, and child lay claim to it, it would easily support those
claims. As 2 Samuel 18:3 indicates, a human king may have such
superior worth as to overweigh the deaths of ten thousand ordinary
men. How much greater in value must be the death of the very
Son of God?
It
is always difficult to change the thinking habits of a lifetime.
Many of the passages which we have examined in this chapter have
for so long been read with a universalistic colouring that it
will not be easy to re-orient to them, especially when most modern
versions continue to reinforce their broader meaning. That this
reinforcement may be unwarranted in the light of the rest of
Scripture does not make it any easier to re-orient oneself. If
scholars in their translations of these universalistic passages
had from the first been guided by Calvinistic presuppositions,
such verses would have struck us very differently, though still
faithfully reflecting the original.
In
summary, taking into account alternative renderings of the word
all and of the word world, and taking into account
an extended meaning of the word saved, the three words
which play a crucial part in almost every one of the passages
of Scripture which seem to challenge the concept of Limited Atonement,
it has to be said that these passages may very reasonably be
shown to be in harmony. The case against Limited Atonement is
not a strong one if these passages are removed from the controversy.
In
so treating these apparently contrary passages we may be accused
of bending Scripture to support the doctrine we favour. But we
may say in reply that our opponents, Arminian-oriented evangelicals,
must in like manner face the many passages that we can point
to which clearly oppose their position. For example, "You
have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you" (John 15:16),
or "No man can come unto Me, except it were given him of
my Father" (John 6:65). Have they ever seriously attempted
to re-translate these passages from the original Greek in such
a way as to show that there really is nothing exclusive about
God's Election? Indeed, do our opponents even try to find an
alternative rendering that by its very reasonableness would find
wide acceptance? It is difficult to imagine how passages such
as these can ever be made to mean anything less than that the
Father elects certain ones to be his sheep, and that these sheep
are the ones for whom the Shepherd has given his life � while
the rest are passed by, being allowed to go their own way.
pg.26
of 226
Copyright © 1988 Evelyn White. All rights
reserved
Previous Chapter Next
Chapter
|
