Why Theology? :: Limited Atonement

Introduction to the Guest and the Topic of Limited Atonement

What is up guys, my name is KJ and this is Y Theology. Today we had a very special guest. His name is Pastor Jeremiah from Jonesburg, Arkansas. He came on board today to help me discuss the topic of limited atonement.

So when we come back, we'll be dealing with limited atonement. What is up guys, this is Y Theology. My name is KJ, short for Khalil Jones, and today I have a very special guest, Mr. Jeremiah, man, can you introduce yourself?

Yes, hello everybody, thanks for tuning in. My name is Jeremiah Nortier. I live in Jonesburg, Arkansas. I love my wife so much, she is my best friend and she is my lifelong partner. Her name is Allie Nortier.

We are looking forward to adopt, hopefully one day in the near future. So anybody listening in can keep us in prayer about that. And I serve at a new church plant in Jonesburg, Arkansas called 12 -5 Church.

So that actually comes from Romans 12, verse five, where it just articulates that even though we are many in the body, we are one in Christ. So that's just a brief introduction of myself, KJ.

I got you, how long have you been married, man?

Or don't tell my wife, it took me this long to think about it, but it's a little bit over five years now.

Okay.

That's good, that's pretty good, man. I made my wife to marry, it'd be two years this May, so.

Oh, yeah, well, I'll let you know. Once I figure out all the nuances to marriage, I'll tell you, I'll put you in about everything.

God bless you, man, God bless you. Now, how did you and your wife meet, man?

So that's a great question. And I'll tell you a little bit more than maybe she would want me to know, I'm just playing. But we met at the Baptist Collegiate Ministry.

Wow.

At ASU, and she was supposed to go to a Church of Christ organization, and to meet a guy, and she accidentally ended up at the BCM, the wrong place, where I met her, and she never went back to the other place.

That was God's providence.

And he literally brought her to you, huh?

Uh-huh, uh-huh.

Ministry, Seminary, and Influences

Now, how long have you been in ministry? How did God put you there, or what's the story behind that, man?

Yes, so in college, I was the typical student that could not make up my mind what I wanted my major to be in. And so it was around my junior year, I changed my major from business to computer science and all these things.

And I just found myself wanting to be in ministry to serve at the church, and I didn't know how it happened, but some godly accounts in my life talked about how communication is always gonna be vital in that.

So I majored in communication, and I started thinking about the future and how I wanted to go to seminary. And God was laying on my heart, the Master's Seminary in California, Southern Theological Seminary in Louisville, and I was just thinking, okay, I wanna go residentially to seminary.

And then in that time, I met my wife, Allie, in college, and I told her, hey, this is kind of my trajectory, I wanna go to seminary. And over time, I met a local pastor in Jonesboro, and he was like, hey, come on staff, we really would like a youth pastor.

And I said, well, I really want to do seminary first, then go into the ministry. And I loved this man's guidance in my life. He said, that's great, and we can work that out. He said, but let us come in and mold you just as through discipleship.

And he encouraged me to go ahead and just pursue the calling that I felt in God's life. And so I did ministry before seminary, and I was just captivated. I went through the good, the bad, and the ugly side of ministry, and I kept finding myself that this is exactly where God has me.

So hopefully seminary will happen one day in the future, but I'm a huge advocate of the church equipping the saints for these things, not having to simply send them off somewhere, even though I think there's some godly seminaries, but man, if you can get plugged into a local church, I really do think that's where it's at.

That seems kind of like the biblical model as well. You know, I think like Paul was telling Timothy, like, you know, he was raised up in the church, kind of like what you just said. But I know like a lot of churches, you know, it's not made to, I guess, good solid churches nowadays that can, you know, has resources to do so, so they do send them out.

Yeah.

I think you mentioned earlier about wanting to go to Masses Seminary, so I'm assuming John McArthur, I know this probably, but John McArthur is one of your greatest influences right now.

Yes, absolutely.

Who else do you kind of like?

Yeah, so there's been multiple figures in my life that I'm so thankful to the Lord for having just the technology and the means to get really good teaching. Like I love the name of your podcast, Why Theology?

We gotta understand that theology is just simply studying God. Everybody has a conviction about who God is, whether He exists or not. So everybody's a theologian, to put a shameless plug for R .C. Sproul's book,.

Everyone's a theologian.

And so he was another major influence in my life. So McArthur really drilled in home for me that the scripture is preeminent and the walk of a Christian, that's the final authority. Jesus had sanctified them in your truth, your word is truth.

So McArthur really taught that as Christians, we live and breathe the word of God, that's how we have relationship. And so R .C. Sproul, he not only taught that, but he opened up just a huge door into church history and just showing me how Christ has been building his church for 2000 years.

And I love that. I love the rich doctrine and history of the church through R .C. And then another major figure in my life that God has used is Dr. James White. He kind of had the best of both worlds in my mind.

He would use the scripture as an apologetic tool. And he was also well equipped with church history. And it's like, I got to see those used together to contend for the faith and to give a defense for the hope that lies within us.

And then I started seeing other guys ministries that were just super influential in my life, like Todd Friel, his wretched radio ministry and wretched TV. I fell in love with his heart for sharing the gospel evangelistically.

And he would record those episodes. And I found myself not only being sanctified, like understanding these truths more and more, but just seeing how he is fulfilling the great commission. Like he's actually going out preaching the gospel, making disciples.

And so guys like Todd Friel and Ray Comfort, I got to see a hands-on experience of sharing the gospel. So there's a lot more men, but those are probably the ones that come to the forefront of my mind who've just been super influential in my life.

That's amazing, man. I know you just mentioned R .C. Sproul. We're actually gonna be talking about a subject that R .C. Sproul kind of delved into a lot, you know, when he was alive. And so today's subject at hand is limited atonement.

Defining TULIP and the Meaning of Limited Atonement

Now, before we get canceled, I guess let's kind of take a step back before we even define limited atonement. What do we mean when we say that? Cause I know this is kind of associated with TULU, but what is TULU kind of, I guess, you want to give us kind of brief history about?

Yes.

So this is where like me and like R .C. Sproul and James Watt have helped me understand that church history is important when defining terminology. Now, obviously the scripture, the terms that the scripture uses, that is the one we should be most familiar with, but we're all bound to use the vernacular of our own context, our own day and time.

And probably one of the best examples of this is the word Trinity. You know, guys like me and you, men that believe in the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, we understand we believe the Trinity and yet we don't see that term.

So church history can tell us how these terms developed. And no matter what terms we use like limited atonement or the whole acrostic of TULIP and what that entails, we must say, okay, what does that mean?

And what does the Bible teach? And the Bible teaches that, well then praise God, right? We embrace that doctrine, you know what I mean? So it's guys like James Watt that really made me think, okay, I'm gonna test all things and hold fast to that which is good.

So really I've heard just people saying, well, that word, that term is not found in the Bible, but we should look past that and say, well, what does the Bible teach? And what does that term from church history mean?

So I just wanted to kind of set that up to say that limited atonement falls within that acrostic for TULIP, right? Now, a lot of people may be familiar with this, maybe not, but TULIP is an acrostic. Like it stands for something, right?

And so TULIP are essentially the five points of Calvinism. And when you say, you know, I've had conversations with people and they're like, Calvin who? Like there's totally no context at all. And I totally empathize with that because at one point in time, I was right there where they're at currently.

So what really helps is understanding church history. And so these five points of Calvinism were written as a defense against the five articles of the remonstrance. Now, this is important to understand because the church was pretty well unified on who God is according to the scripture and who man is according to the scripture.

But you had men like Jacob Arminius and kind of some of his followers that they came up with five articles to say, well, we disagree with some of these key doctrines that the church has been teaching.

And so TULIP was written as a defense or a response to these five articles of the remonstrance. And so something I wanna say real quick, KJ, is that when something is written as a defense, you don't always have the leisure of presenting something in a clear, positive fashion.

So these five points were written as a defense and if history could re rewrite itself, I think a lot of advocates for Calvinism would really rewrite this acrostic with more precise terminology because something like the term limited Tom, it carries some baggage to it.

You know what I mean? So, like I said, I think if we understand church history, we understand that TULIP was written as a defense, it can kind of clear up some of the misconceptions that are attached to it, you know?

And kind of like what you just said too, this acronym kind of is describing how God is sovereign. And we kind of see throughout the scriptures, you kind of mentioned as well, like Jacob Arminian, or Arminius, if you go back to like Augustine or some people call him Augustine, you know, he had his disputes with Pelagian, I think, and kind of like that old, it kind of stemmed it, right?

It's kind of started there in church history. And that was like early 300s AD, I think. So it's kind of been going on for a little minute. The life of them, I guess the great majority of church history, they've always held to like, kind of, you know, these doctrines in a sense.

I mean, I've been kind of spoken as a TULIP, but they've always kind of held on to God is sovereign, even in the midst of salvation.

So, yeah.

I guess my next question, man, is now that we kind of like, I guess define, you know, TULIP, you know, a T is total depravity, the U is unconditional election, and that L that we're talking about today is limited atonement.

Now I've done a whole series about this, but I want to kind of focus on this one particular, because a lot of stuff we didn't unpack, but how would you define, I guess, limited atonement?

Yeah, I think that just very briefly, limited atonement carries some baggage to it, but really what it's getting at is that Jesus is the perfect savior to all that the father has given him. So kind of as another setup, going back to the acrostic TULIP, this was kind of a joke that James White had said a while back.

He said, but if the acrostic could have been rewritten differently, it would have been STULIP, right beginning with an S, which would be for the sovereignty of God. And so everything else in the acrostic would flow from the sovereignty of God.

So that's where church history didn't really have the advantage of rightly qualifying these five doctrines of grace, because we see God's hand graciously, mercifully, working out a plan of redemption for a people that do not deserve God's grace, yet out of his love and compassion, he is regenerating a people to be a bride for the son, and the Holy Spirit is not only regenerating them, but sealing them to the day of redemption.

So that's one, the five points of Calvinism are seen as the doctrines of grace. We really try to help explain people that God is sovereign, he's working out a plan of redemption, and we are saved by his grace, nothing that we bring to the table by our own human works.

So that's where the U kind of falls, we're really focusing on the U of, or the L for limited atonement, but that has to be within a context of God's sovereignty. So I think that kind of helps us get the ball rolling that the L is limited in its scope, but not necessarily in its effect.

So I actually prefer a different term when we're talking about limited atonement, particular redemption is probably how I would begin to explain to people what we're actually talking about, that Jesus is once again, the perfect savior for a particular group of people that the father has chosen by his grace and his mercy, according to his decrees, if you will.

And Jesus is the perfect savior to redeem that particular group of people. His atonement is definite for them, very specific for them. So not only is particular redemption a good, probably a better phrase, but also definite atonement.

So do you see how really pulling back the curtains, looking at church history and trying to look at more passages of scripture, we understand that limited atonement might carry some baggage with it. Like, oh, is God limited where he can't do something?

It's like, man, we're talking about Jesus being the perfect savior for all that the father has given you.

Scriptural Support for Particular Redemption

Now, are there any like verses in the Bible to kind of support the definition?

Yes, so there's a ton of them. One of the questions that you sent me beforehand, I liked it because it was, did Jesus believe in limited atonement? And I started thinking about that and I'm thinking, well, absolutely, yes.

But for just a second, I was thinking, there are a lot of Christians that really put more emphasis on the red-lettered portions of the Bible, red-letter Christians, maybe people have heard. You know, they think that there's more, it's more special if Jesus said it rather than the apostle Paul.

And I know guys like me and you, we see right through that. But since all scripture is God-breathed, well, we got to look to the whole counsel of God, all of scripture to build a doctrine, right? So we see the value in not only the red letters, what Jesus said, but also what the apostle Paul said, what the rest of the Old Testament said.

So we kind of, we really come to the scripture as a systematic whole on some of these things. You know what I mean? So I guess, first of all, if I really, you know, we try to unpack what limited atonement means or particular redemption, Jesus in John chapter six, he said this in verses 37 through 40, all that the father gives me will come to me and whoever comes to me, I will never cast out.

For I've come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.

For this is the will of my father, that everyone who looks on the son and believes in him should have eternal life. And I will raise him up on the last day. So we see here, Jesus is going to save perfectly to the uttermost all that the father is giving to him.

So when I'm talking with people and we might get, we might bring up some of the controversial passages, and trying to understand the atonement, like John 3, 16, 1 John 2, 2. And I'm saying, look, what Jesus is saying is that it's the father's will, it's the sovereign triune God's will that is going to be accomplished.

And so it's not that Jesus is not able to save more people or something like that, no, but his work of atonement is very specific to all that the father has given to him. So I think that helps have a right perspective on what we're talking about.

Is it limited atonement for the elect? Yes, but it's really more of an emphasis about Jesus being the perfect savior.

What do you think?

That's a pretty good definition too. I know as well, I think it's in John 10, where Jesus says, I lay my life down for my sheep. And like the illustration that I love kind of using, it's like, imagine like, like a modernized idea, it's like imagining you was going to your school, like your children's school.

And like, you went into the classroom and you say, hey, I don't know your children's name, but let's say your children's name, like John, Mary. So hey, John and Mary, come on, let's go, I'm taking you out.

The other kids in the classroom wouldn't look at you because you're not your parent, but like John and Mary, if you're like their father, they will look at you because they know your voice. And they're your children.

Well, in the same way, doing that context back in the day when Jesus says, I know my sheep, my sheep know me. I lay my life down for my sheep. If Jesus, like a shepherd, wouldn't go to like the fence or whatever, and he called out his sheep, the rest of the sheep wouldn't move because they don't know that shepherd.

But the shepherd, you know, I guess a sheep that know that shepherd's voice, they would directly come to him because he's a shepherd of that flock. Well, in the same way, like you just said, Christ, he lays his life down for a definite or a particular group of people, which is like the world.

Yeah, and that's perfect. Because when he says, my sheep hear my voice, there's an intimate relationship going on. So that's like you said in John 10, 27, 28, saying my sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow me.

I give them eternal life and they will never perish and no one will snatch them out of my hand. So like you're saying, he lays his life down for his sheep, a very specific group of people. And he's the perfect high priest mediator, intercessor for those people.

So that's how we're kind of building this doctrine. The atonement is a substitution atonement. Jesus actually paid the penalty of sin on the behalf of a very particular group of people. So when we're talking about, you know, what did Jesus specifically said, maybe before we get into what the apostle Paul said or Isaiah 53, he goes into a high priestly prayer.

A lot of us are familiar with in John 17. And he says this and we can't miss it because a lot of times people wanna look at the word world, cosmos, and then instantly assume that it means every single person to ever exist without exception.

And you and I know that we gotta always let context develop our understanding of what the scripture is teaching us. And we gotta be familiar with the Greek and the Hebrew words of what words can mean and what they don't mean.

And context always shows us what that is. And so to me, it's inescapable of what Jesus is saying in relation to all that the father has given to him and the contrast of what the world looks like. So in John 17, Jesus says, I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world.

Yours they were and you gave them to me and have kept your word. I am praying for them and I am not praying for the world, but for those whom you have given me for they are yours. And so once again, you notice how Jesus is not praying for the world, but for those whom the father has given him out of the world, right?

So once again, he's a perfect mediator. He's a perfect intercessor. He's the paraclete or the advocate for the people of God. You know what I mean?

That's perfect, man. That's perfect. Something that I guess is kind of helps us like kind of with this, you know, I guess I don't wanna say you call it an argument, but kind of like help, I guess, kind of define it even better is like a doctrine, you know, theology known as substitutionary atonement, that Christ was a substitute for our sin.

And so like, if that is true or since that is true, that means that all my past, present, and future sins have been wiped away. And so for those who truly profess in Christ, they won't end up in hell.

But like, if there are people in heaven right now and there are people in hell, then we know there's no way in the world Christ could have died for every single body. That's kind of another way you can look at it as well.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

And I think you just put your finger on, I guess a hard question for people on the other side of this issue that hold to a universal atonement. I think a hard question is that they have to answer is did Jesus die for every sin, including unbelief?

Well, you know, for those of us that are reformed and believe, I would say, consistently with penal substitutionary atonement, we can say, yes, he actually died for the sin of unbelief for all the elect.

And if you do not affirm that and deny that, then I think you have trouble harmonizing passages out of Colossians 2, 13 in particular, and then 1 John 1, 7, that says by the blood of Jesus, he accomplished salvation for all who believe and he completely forgives all sin.

So you see how that's gonna be, I'll tell you what, I can actually pull up Colossians 2, 13 because it's all inclusive. And you who were dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all of our trespasses.

And so the idea is, well, is it all of them or is it all of them except our unbelief? And that's where we would, I think, be consistent and say, yeah, well, Jesus's death even covered the sin of unbelief for the elect.

So I think that is something that we all gotta wrestle with is is Jesus, his atonement, is it truly a substitute? Did it cover all the sin? If it did, then that's where we understand salvation. We don't bring any of our works, not even our good decision-making or our wisdom to the table.

Jesus is the one that accomplished all that.

Sovereign Election, Total Depravity, and the Problem of Reprobation

I guess we could look at it because this is probably another issue that might arise out of this kind of what we discussed. And I guess some Christians may think of, I guess in this sense that yes, indeed, Christ does have elect, but these are elect are the ones that God looked throughout the quarters of time and see that they would make a decision.

And Christ, then therefore Christ chose that person. And now, those are the ones Christ died for. First, it's kind of been a sovereign election of God.

Yeah, so I do think that is a good point to raise. And it kind of, once again, we're talking about particular redemption in the context of God being sovereign. So I do think before people can really appreciate and understand the depths of the doctrines of grace, you really got to have that foundation of the sovereign God of the scripture.

And when we talk about Jesus being a perfect savior, I really want to emphasize that that is exactly what we're talking about. And so I wanted to shift real quick to the Apostle Paul, if that's okay with that.

Because I wanted to read something out of Romans chapter eight. I believe it's around, okay. So verse 34, where we read, Christ Jesus is the one who died. And more than that, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.

And so when we see that Jesus is the perfect savior, his substitutionary death is not only applied to all those who believe, but even his resurrection is crucial for him being a perfect interceder and savior, because we also get the benefits of his resurrection.

We too will receive resurrected bodies fit for eternity one day. And so when Paul says, not only did he die, but more than that, he was raised, he indeed intercedes for us. Paul is not talking about a generic us, all of mankind, but at the very beginning of Romans chapter eight, he says that there is no longer any condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

So he's talking about Christians there. The benefit of his substitutionary death and his resurrection life are for us as believers. And once again, it goes back to that motif we're talking about, is Jesus is the perfect high priest.

He not only intercedes for us, but he is also the sacrificial, he's the sacrifice for us. So he is both the sacrificial lamb and he is the high priest. That's why he sat down at the right hand of the father.

He offered his life up, which was totally perfect. And then he wasn't like the old priests, the priests of the Old Testament, where they would have to leave the temple, get other sacrifices year after year after year.

He gave his life as a perfect sacrifice. And then he sat down as the perfect high priest on our behalf. So my big point was his death and his resurrection are perfectly applied for the elect of God, for those of us that have experienced God's grace.

I think about this too. I guess, before I say this next topic, we're probably gonna, I'm gonna, I guess, move us, I guess shift our direction a little bit to something that's very controversial, but before I do that, I just wanna make sure that we're all in agreement, I guess, the acronym we're dealing with, again, talking about the doctors of grace, which means the number one, God is sovereign, but not only is God sovereign, he's sovereign in his electing of people to be saved.

So the first letter is T, which means total depravity. Romans three, no one is good, not even one. Why is that? When we look back in the garden, when Adam sinned, he was our federal head. And so when he sinned, the whole world went into damnation or into sin.

Psalms 51 verse five says, David, he says, I was born a sinner from the moment my mother conceived me. So the moment that David's mother was pregnant with him, he was already a sinner. Not because he sinned, but because he was born a sinner.

That's why he sinned. And that's why the world around us is like in sin or it's like broken. And so humans right now, they're totally incapable of picking God or choosing God or apart from his, you know, God's electing grace.

So in that context, that's kind of what we're dealing with. And so let's pick up a conditional election. It's not that God picks us based on something that he foresaw in us throughout time. He, therefore he acts, but rather because of the tea that mankind is totally incapable of doing good or picking God himself.

He chooses us not because of anything and that's because of his favor. But here's my question. We know these things, but like, how do we kind of deal with, if what we're teaching is true, that God is sovereign and that he, you know, he died for a particular group of people.

Does that mean that God, he has predestined song for salvation and sovereign damnation? How are you gonna deal with that?

Compatibilism, Divine Decrees, and Human Responsibility

Yeah, well, I'm glad you went back to the S and kind of the joke of Stulip because everything really does flow from God being sovereign and kind of like what you touched on with total depravity. One of the key things for me is inability.

When we read in John 6, 44, no man can come to me unless the father who sent me draws him, right? And so the natural man, we cannot choose God. Like we are not, we don't have the power or the ability.

That's where Paul says that all these things we cannot understand unless the spirit works within us. So I liked how you went back to a deeper issue with who man is. We don't naturally seek God, but in light of that, God is sovereign.

And I do think this, I think this is where the rub really, I think this is where it all goes back to, is God free to create history? Literally his story in such a way where he's in control. He has appointed purposes for every person.

Is he free to choose a people to lavish his grace and his mercy upon? Or is he also free to have a purpose for unregenerate man who actually chooses to sin to let them die in their sin so that his justice and his wrath and his holiness are put on display?

I think we're getting back to a key fundamental question. Is God free and allowed to be sovereign over his creation? So within that, I loved your last podcast with Creston because y 'all talked about God's eternal decrees, right?

Especially the way the 1689 lays it out. And I've had these conversations with a few different people. And I think one of the most staggering passages in all of scripture is Isaiah 46, right? You're probably very familiar, KJ, with where I'm going with this because when I read this for the first time, I thought, you know what?

It seems like all of creation is unfolding the way that God is declaring the end from the beginning. Everything has a purpose in God's created order. So this passage says, remember the former things of old for I am God and there is no other.

I am God and there is none like me declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times, things not yet done saying my counsel shall stand and I will accomplish all my purpose. Calling a bird of prey from the East and a man of my counsel from a far country.

I have spoken and I will bring it to pass. I have purposed and I will do it. So this is a good passage for us to really grapple with. I think there's other clear passages in the Bible as well but what we're seeing is that God is the one declaring all of history and how it's taking place and it has a purpose because God is the one speaking it into existence.

So when we start thinking about particular redemption, I would say that yes, God in of himself, I think the way that Ephesians one kind of paints this picture is you have the Trinitarian counsel of God, God the Father, Son, Holy Spirit and they are almost conversing about what a created world will look like and what will take place, the end from the beginning.

And I know you referenced in one of your episodes or maybe we talked about it but R .C. Sproul in Chosen by God did a really good job of painting this picture that the way that God has determined to intercede with his grace and his mercy, his compassion and love for his elect is categorically different than how God has ordained the non-elect or how some theologians have said the reprobate.

He does not intercede in their life the same way. We wanna avoid a heresy called equal ultimacy. For the elect, we see that God is demonstrating grace, mercy and love. And by on the flip side, God is decreeing whatsoever comes to pass but within that decree, God is not forcing evil men or good men to act against their nature to make them evil.

God's decree is simply declaring what's going to come about, the end from the beginning. And so when we see that playing out from a human perspective within space and time, we see the unregenerate man choosing to do sin according to their innermost hearts and desire.

So we see a compatibility here. Yes, God is sovereign. He has a purpose in all things that happen in his creation. And yet we see man being accountable for his desires and his choices. So does that kind of help paint the picture of how it really does go back to is God sovereign over his creation?

Does the pottery, does the clay have any right to look to the creator and the molder and say, hey, you can't do something. Well, the overwhelming testimony of scripture says, no, God is God and we are man.

So we don't have any standing before God to tell him that he can or cannot do something. So I really think it's how we also define what free will means. I believe man is free to choose according to what he wants to do.