41 - Calvinism vs. Arminianism, Part 3 - Limited Atonement

Well, welcome to the Striving for Eternity Academy's School of Systematic Theology. We are glad to have you with us. We welcome all the new students that we have this week. To be a student, actually, you could go down there and get yourself signed in, logged in, registered, whatever it is that we have you do.

I have no idea. But then you get a syllabus and one of those things. And you can follow along with us. What the syllabus will give you is all of the notes that we kind of go off of, along with things that fill in the blanks that you'll hear me go through and tell you what the blanks are.

In case, of course, I forget to fill them in and tell you what they are and then you got to guess. Well, it doesn't happen that often. I mean, it only happened once out of, what, 42 lessons? So that's not so bad.

All right. So we are continuing, though, in this lesson that we're at. We have been taking it a little bit slow because of the fact that this particular subject that we are dealing with has lots of controversy and has lots of misunderstanding.

Okay. Okay. So I'm being told that people are making fun of that I look like I've been in a tanning booth or was it golf? Okay. Yes. I was in Myrtle Beach. I don't play golf. I guess that's the thing to do there.

But there were about like a thousand bikers. They're there for, I guess, the last two weeks of May. The bikers come down. First, as I found out, the Harley guys come down for the first week and then the speed bikers the second week.

So lots of bikers. I actually, okay, this is embarrassing to admit, but I actually lost the rental car. Yes, I know. It was two aisles over from where I thought it was, but it was buried in a sea of motorcycles.

I'm talking like 50 to 75 motorcycles surrounded this thing. It was the only car actually in the whole row. You know, there's two lanes. There were all bikes except for my car surrounded by motorcycles.

You'd think that I should have been able to find it easy. It was the only car, but it was actually just buried in motorcycles. So no, I didn't play any golf and I don't, I'm not a beach person. So what did I go to Myrtle Beach for?

Because Hilton was kind enough to give me a free weekend down there for my wife and mine's 20th anniversary. That's why I was down there. I had no idea what to do down there. It was actually very nice.

We enjoyed it. Walked around, did some shopping, got a lot of seafood, made her happy. And a happy wife is a happy life. So I was very happy, but we went down there and enjoyed it. And so if I look like I'm suntanned, it's not really just because I burn.

I don't tan anyway. So that out of the way, if we can get the, get to the serious stuff, some people, but we are in book number two of four books in our systematic theology. And as we had said with this, that we are going through here, we are in section number three and just as way of a review, we are in lesson number eight.

And you say, well, gee, you've been in lesson number eight for three weeks now. Yes, that is because we're dealing with the topic of God's sovereignty and human responsibility. And it's hard to deal with some of the misunderstandings with this one term that people call Calvinism.

Now, this is sort of a misnomer because as you see there, I'm saying God's sovereignty and I'm equating that with Calvinism. And yet in reality, that's not really right, because the reality is, is that many people who would argue for a non-Calvinist position.

I say that because I actually don't know anyone that argues for an Arminian position really. But that being said, there's many that are either Calvinists or those that are not Calvinists. They don't want that title.

And then there's there's some who would say they're Arminian, but it's kind of rare. It's one of the things I do find interesting. But so it's kind of when people say, oh, you're Arminian, I usually find that someone who believes in Calvinism, that's kind of like the dead giveaway that they're Calvinist because they call other people Arminian.

OK, just a way of kind of just a way of identifying who the Calvinists are out there. But it's it's sort of this misnomer that when we talk God's sovereignty, that's the Calvinist position, human responsibility, that's the Arminian position.

So I'm saying that up front that I'm kind of giving that kind of loaded. But we're going to talk about God's sovereignty, human responsibility. We're going to eventually get to what it is that we here believe at Striving for Eternity and what I believe.

But we're trying to properly define some of the terms. Now, I know that I've been getting grief this week in an email exchange with one individual who was blasting me and chose to blast me, telling me how wrong I am in what I had said last week.

And what I said was I was defining the terms. I asked what I said that was an incorrect definition of the terms. And the person got really upset. And it was really interesting what he was trying to say was that I was putting God inside of time when my whole argument was that we are not putting God inside of time.

So it was like, how am I doing that? And he was trying to make the case. And I think this really started by something that was said on Facebook earlier. But oh, well. So let us do a quick review. I just want to be clear that what we're doing is going through.

We started by looking at what Calvinism is. Calvinism is if and if you've just tuned in and this is the first time you've ever tuned in, you really should go back to lesson one. But if you're really only interested in the Calvinism or Minyanism issue, OK, you got to at least go back two classes.

All right. To God's sovereignty, human responsibility, Calvinism or Minyanism part one, not part three. That's the place to start. But you really should go back to lesson one. Why? Because if you've been following with us, you know that I've been saying this is all rooted in a proper understanding of who God is in his nature and attributes.

When you understand those things, these things become clearer. I've often said that my understanding of this whole Calvinism or Minyanism debate is solved really in Genesis 1 .1. In the beginning, God, before there was time, there was God and God didn't observe and to learn things.

OK, so when we understand God's character, that he's eternal, we understand his character, that he's omniscient. Those two attributes alone really answer a lot of the debate that you hear people talk about.

They talk about God when it comes to this doctrine of salvation as if God is either in time having to make decisions based upon decisions we make or react to something we do as if he had to first observe us and learn from us before he could choose to do something.

Or they put God inside a time that he chose and therefore because of something that happened, then somehow that forces us to make a reaction in time. So essentially, we end up realizing that a lot of people have misunderstandings with this.

They'll sometimes say things like, well, God looked down the tunnels of time and he observed who would be saved and then he elected them. OK, God didn't have to observe us. He didn't have to learn from us.

He didn't learn anything, actually. He knows it all and we can't understand that kind of thinking. So let us start with really the linchpin, kind of, to the five points of Calvinism that we looked at and that is total depravity.

Now, this is the T in TULIP and so T, if you remember when we went through this, we said that there are five points known through an acronym TULIP and we're going through them. The first was total depravity and we looked at that and that was trying to make the point that we as human beings are influenced, controlled, enslaved by our sin nature.

That we are sinners, that we have broken God's law, that that affected every aspect of our soul. It affected our physical and our spiritual, our physical and our material. So what you end up with is a case that both our mind, our emotions and even our will is influenced, is affected by the sin nature.

Where that becomes important is, that is important because of the fact that when we look at it, we see that this is really what's going to base everything else in Calvinism, in the five points of Calvinism.

These points are based in an understanding that man cannot save himself. His will is affected. This is the reality of what we understand when we looked at the definition, when we looked at the doctrine of man and of sin, we saw this.

Total depravity shouldn't surprise us at this point. So if you're disagreeing with the view of total depravity, please go back to the previous lessons. We went from total depravity to unconditional election.

That is the U. Notice that starts with a U, unconditional, unconditional election. That's so smart, isn't it? It starts with a U. Yeah. So unconditional election is the next letter. Unconditional election is the fact that really the point of that, of unconditional election, it follows after the first.

The idea that we cannot save ourselves and that it is completely a work of God, not conditioned on anything that we do. So when it talks about God electing before the foundation of time, the emphasis there is on God doing the work before we had any say in it, before we were around.

It's not saying that God was working inside of time. It's saying that God is speaking to us in sort of in language that maybe we can understand. We can understand history. We can't understand eternality.

All right. We can't understand how God can be everything being the one eternal second to him. Everything's an eternal now. And we can't think that way. We can't understand that. And so he's using language for us to understand.

So essentially what he's doing for you and I is dumbing it down to our level. OK. And so he's explaining things in the language of time, not because it is chronological, but because he's trying to explain to us what we could not comprehend any other way.

So that being said, what I want to point out with that is the importance of understanding with this that this is now building upon this because this next one is probably the most controversial of all.

You'll sometimes hear people say they're a four point Calvinist, meaning they don't hold to one of the five points. And this next one is that point. Some, as John MacArthur says, he would used to call himself if he still does.

I don't know. A leaky four. In other words, he kind of holds to this fourth, this fifth one a little bit. What is it? The L stands, if you have your syllabus, limited atonement, limited atonement. Give you a chance to write that down.

All right. Limited atonement is, as I said, limited atonement is perhaps the most misunderstood doctrine of the five. OK. Some take this doctrine to mean Christ's atoning work on the cross was performed only for the elect.

And that's your blank there. Only for the elect. That's the blank is elect. And therefore salvation cannot truly be offered to the non elect. Now, however, the confusion is in the difference between the offer, that's your next blank, the offer of salvation.

Meaning the gospel and the application, that's your next blank, application of salvation, which is the atonement for redemption. So there's two ways to understand this doctrine. Now, many people would hold.

This is why some people say they're a leaky four. It depends on how you are defining this terminology is where some people come down different. Some people will say that Calvinism properly understood is that limited atonement means that the work that Christ did on the cross was a work only for the elect.

Again, keeping in mind, God did not have to observe us. And this is where even Calvinists can fall into this, that God could choose to do something and not make an offer for everyone. Right. The reality is God didn't have to observe us to know who would believe and who wouldn't believe.

He knew it. So in a sense, in a very real sense, when Jesus Christ was on that cross being God, he knew absolutely who would receive eternal life and who this gift that he offered would be applied to.

In other words, he knew those who would be redeemed and he knew those who would not. So the idea there and where the issue becomes is trying to separate that the knowledge of God and saying, did he die?

In other words, when he died, was it only for those people that somehow his death, you know, he died, but it wasn't sufficient for all people. It was only sufficient for those that chose him or sorry, that those that that he chose.

Or was his death sufficient for every human being that ever lived, will live, you know, is living, but it wasn't applied to all. OK, that's the difference in understanding the offer of salvation, the gospel going out, versus the application of salvation regeneration.

OK, the Puritans used to refer to this as that Christ's death was sufficient for all, efficacious for few. OK, I would say that it's the offer, it is applicable to few is how I ended up saying it before I started reading Puritans.

The offer of salvation can be offered to all people. This is the reason why some people may have a misunderstanding. They say a Calvinist can't go out and share the gospel because a Calvinist doesn't believe that the gospel can be offered to unbelievers.

Now, I would say that someone that is not a Calvinist making that charge is having a misunderstanding of the Calvinist position. OK, the reality is most of the guys I know that are out there on the streets would call themselves Calvinists.

OK, and the thing is, is that they would go out on the streets and proclaim the gospel because, well, quite simply, we don't know who the elect are. I mean, wouldn't it be easy if God just like stamped a big E right on your forehead?

Boom, elect, you know, C, Christian or something. You just got to go, oh, hey, I see it. You're you're going to be a Christian. Let me share the gospel with you. I mean, wouldn't that make it easier? Don't waste time with those people that are retrobate anyway.

I mean, gee, that would be easy. That's not what God did. We go out and proclaim the gospel to all people. Now, does that mean all people are regenerate or going to be regenerate? No. Does that mean that all people are going to receive the gospel?

No. Does it mean that Christ's death wasn't enough? No. So the offer of salvation can be offered to all people. But if even one person is in hell, then the application was limited. That is your blank there was limited.

In other words, if you believe that there are people in hell. Then obviously the atoning work of Christ, the application of it was limited, period. The only way you get around that is being a universalist.

I mean, thinking that everybody is going to go to heaven. A friend of mine called me up this week because he actually met someone on the street working with a ministry that is a universalist and he defends it.

He actually believes that when Christ died, Christ died for all people. Therefore, all people go to heaven. Well, that would be an unlimited atonement. It's applied to everybody and everybody goes to heaven.

So the reality is, depending how you define it, every Christian. OK, can a universalist, this was the question I was asked, can a universalist go to heaven? Can a universalist be a Christian? I find it hard to believe.

I mean, maybe, but the reality is, is that, you know, we know there's people, Jesus said there'd be people that would suffer in hell, OK, that he would cast into the lake of fire. So I'm going to trust Jesus, OK, over some man's theory.

So the reality is, is that if there's one person in hell, then the atoning work of Christ was limited in some way. It's the in some way that we have to debate over. OK, limited atonement means that the application of the gospel was not applied to all people.

It is therefore not a universal atonement, meaning that all people will be saved. It deals with the application and not the offer. Atonement addresses the redemption work of Christ as it is applied to the individual as a payment for sin.

Now, we're going to look at a lot of scripture on this, but I want to make sure this is clear before we get to the verses, because so many people do struggle with this. Now, I'm saying that there are two general ways of that many seem to be interpreting this, and this is where I say labels are only as good as the people who agree on their definition.

OK, so there are those that hold. To Calvinism, limited atonement, meaning that the atoning work of Jesus Christ is limited at the cross, sufficient only for the elect. Now, I think where everyone kind of agrees is that the atoning work was limited to those it was applied to.

In other words, if Christ died for all and it was applied to all, then all go to heaven because it would be double jeopardy to send anyone to hell. If Christ paid it and then you send someone to the lake of fire for eternity, when it would be double jeopardy.

The way that I tend to think of this just in my limited way of thinking, because I don't have the mind of God, but I think of it as an offer. If I made you an offer, say I won the lotto or had a lot of money somehow, that would never happen, but I offered everybody that's listening to this class right now a check for one thousand dollars.

Now, many of you would kind of laugh at it and be like, that's not going to happen because I know that character, he doesn't have the money. So, you're not going to believe it, but what if someone actually gave me a couple million dollars and I decided to do that and I suddenly came into all this money?

Well, that offer could be a legitimate offer, but you can't go and say, you know what, I'm going to go put a down payment on a new car because Andrew offered me a thousand dollars. No, it's not yours.

Why? You didn't receive it. You never took possession of that check. You never took ownership of that, putting trust in that offer. You didn't trust the offer and the offer is not yours. You can't use it because you never put the trust in it and took the possession of it.

Now, someone who does in this fictitious scenario could then take that money and put down a down payment on a new car. Why? Because they trusted the offer, took possession of the offer and received the gift of that offer.

I know it's sort of a lame illustration, but it helps me to think of it that way is the fact that God can offer, but it doesn't mean it's applied. All right, so let's take a look at some verses and then that we have to deal with this.

Let's first look at the atoning work of Jesus Christ and see what that is all about. This is a second Corinthians chapter five, one of my favorite chapters in, I think, all of the Bible, although I say that with kind of a lot with many chapters.

But this is one of the ones I kind of like. All this is from God who, through Christ, reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation. That is, in Christ, God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

Verse 21, for our sake, he made him to be sin who knew no sin so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. I love that passage. So let's look at that. What it's saying is that God reconciles us to himself and actually gives you and I a ministry of reconciliation.

That's us going out and sharing the gospel, that in Christ, God was reconciling the world to himself. Now, what's the meaning of the world? Is this world limited? And this is where you get into the different definitions.

If you believe in the definition of limited atonement, meaning that it was limited at the cross only for the elect, then this world, this reconciling the world is a limited world. It means world where those that would hold to that position will argue that this means all people of the world.

OK, those who make a distinction that it is the offer is for all, but it is limited in its application, can see this as God reconciling the world, the whole world, that his death can go out, the message of his death can go out to the world.

And easily he's calling them to himself, but they're not taking possession of that. Now, do they take possession of that or does God take the possession of that? We're going to look at that actually next class when we look at irresistible grace.

So that I would actually argue irresistible grace should be before limited atonement, but in a logical ordering. But that said, so we have here that God does the reconciling. He gives us a message of reconciliation.

And that message is, verse 21, that he for our sake made that, you know, he became sin who knew no sin, that in him we might become the righteousness of God. That is the message that we go out and proclaim.

Let's look at one more in Titus chapter two. In Titus chapter two, we see here that it says, who gave himself for us to redeem the world, to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession, who are zealous for good works.

Now, who's doing all the work in this? When we look at this, who's the actor? God. God gives himself. He does the redeeming. It's all for him. OK, but notice he's saying that it's it's him doing it to purify a people of his own possession who are zealous for good works.

That's not everybody. Not everyone's in that camp. OK, 1 Peter 3, 18, for Christ also suffered once for once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit.

So here you see that Christ suffered once for sins, him being righteous. He suffered for the unrighteous that he might bring us to God. Who is it that brings us to God? Jesus brings us to God. OK, being put to death.

So this is not everybody. So here again, we see that the suffering. How is this suffering? Is it that again, in the two views, if you're in the first camp, this suffering once for sins was only for the sins of the elect.

If you hold to the second view, then this suffering once for sins was the sins of the whole world offered to all legitimately, but not applied to all. OK, let's look at one more verse dealing with this atoning work of Jesus.

Romans 5, 8 to 10. But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, notice our current state, this is going back to total depravity now, that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

So this is Christ doing the work here. This is the atonement. Christ died for us. This is the act of his love for us. Verse nine, since therefore we have now been justified by his blood. So how does that justification come?

By his blood, by his work. Much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. So it's Jesus that does the saving. He's the one that does the work, saves us from the wrath of God. Verse 10, for if we, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God.

Notice that we were enemies of God and God reconciled us while we were in a state of being an enemy of God. We were reconciled by God, the death of his son. That was how we were reconciled, by the death of his son.

Much more now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. So what you see there in that, I hope, is that the work that regenerates us, the work that saves us, that atoning work is all Jesus Christ.

It's all God. He takes the full credit. We cannot atone for ourselves, period. End of discussion, end of story. We can't. That's what every other world religion is trying to do. And someone said this today that I thought was really interesting.

Even atheism. That's right. Even atheism is a trying to atone for their work. You know how they choose to do it? By trying to deny God altogether. Pretend he doesn't exist and say, I'm not accountable to him.

Therefore, I have nothing to atone for. Because if there is no God, there is no standard of morality. If there's no standard of morality, then I've done nothing wrong and there's nothing to atone. You see, even atheism is trying to atone for their works.

So what we have there is every world religion is in that camp. This is what makes Christianity unique, is that the reconciling work, the atoning work was done by Jesus Christ, by God Almighty. It's him who gets all the credit.

It's God who did all the work. It's God who gets all the honor, all the praise. Okay. It's God. He's the one who can make the offer. He's the one who did the work. He's the one who will reconcile. He brings people to himself.

Okay. Now, the limited work. That's the big question. I think the issue of the atonement really isn't a problem. I think most, all Christians understand that Christ died for them. That the atoning work of the cross.

I don't want to say that someone maybe that is mentally challenged may not understand it to the same level as maybe you and I can or others. But the reality is that I would think it'd be hard for them to understand that at some level, Christ died for me.

I broke God's law. Christ died for me. He paid the price. At some level, they can understand that in that simple term. But we understand that Christ was the propitiation. He paid the price of the wrath of God.

We saw that in some of the verses we looked at, that he's the one that had to reconcile us. The real issue comes in, is that it's limited. This atonement is not applied to everybody. It's limited in some fashion.

So let's look at the limit, the limited work of Jesus Christ. It says here, Matthew 1 .21, she shall bear a son and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins. Now, some discussion on this.

I tend to think that there is some discussion that people have here that Good Harmonics could explain, but there are two views on this. Who are his people? Is this referring to the Jewish people or is this referring to his children, those who will call upon his name?

An interesting discussion on our Facebook group this week was, are all human beings God's children or it is just those who believe upon him? Well, I think John 1 .12 makes it clear that it is just those who receive Christ have the right to be called the child of God.

That being said, we realize that there is this notion that we have to keep in mind that we have an Old Testament mindset of his people. Now, is his people just those who believe and are the believers or is it referring to Jewish people?

I think in the context of Matthew being written to Jewish people, being that he was writing about this awaiting king, this Messiah, and gives so many messianic prophecies, I think it is actually speaking to Jewish people.

I am not saying that as a Jew, I am saying that just because I think that is what fits the context. But what that does show is there was a limit to it. Now, does this mean that only Jewish people are saved?

No, because I don't think he was speaking there just in the context there. I think he is speaking to an Old Testament mindset and not in what we now have an understanding in our day and age 2 ,000 years after Christ.

We have so much more theology behind us. So I hope that is clear. I actually think hermeneutically that is speaking of the Jewish people. But the point is it still is showing a limitation. Let's continue in Matthew though from Matthew 20.

Even as the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for all. No, that is not what it says there. So it says for many. In other words, there are some that won't be, that he didn't give a ransom for.

Okay, I am being asked a quick question. So I am being asked, do I think all Jews will be saved? Well, I did at one time think that. No, I don't. That is clear from Romans 6, Romans 9. Not all Israel are Israel.

Not all Israel are the true Israel, the spiritual Israel. In other words, not all Israel will be his children. So, I do think that there is, with the passage in Matthew 1, I think there is, there could be good reason to argue that that is speaking of God's people and not Jewish people.

And not, and specifically I am arguing for not all Jewish people, but it would be the true Jewish people. Alright. So, Matthew 20 though, what we see there when we looked at it is that Christ did not die.

His death was for many, but not all. Okay, you are seeing again that limitation. Matthew 26, verse 28, for this is my blood, this is at the Lord's Supper, this is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for all.

Is that what it says? No, it says poured out for many, for the forgiveness of sins. You see there, it is limited. The forgiveness of sins is not being poured out on all people, it is limited. And so, we see here that limit.

It's not for all, it's for many. And actually, it's many people, but compared to the number of people that it's not applied to, it's actually few. Right? Broad is the road, narrow is the way to destruction, narrow is those that find the right, the true path.

Alright. So, I'm getting another question. Is salvation, and this is the advantage of listening live, you can ask the questions and get them answered right here. So, a question popped in, is salvation offered, not applied to all, or just the elect?

Well, I did say that I'm not going to give you my view until we're all done explaining the definitions. So, you're going to have to wait. Now, that would be really rude, wouldn't it? No, you've got to wait two more weeks, three more weeks, however long it takes for me to get there.

I do. My position is a position that I believe the salvation message is offered to all people. It's a legitimate offer to everyone, but it is not applied. One of the arguments that I would make for that is that the offer of Christ being Messiah, he said, that John the Baptist would have been Elijah had the Jews received him as the Messiah.

They did not, so John was not. Now, you say, but wait a minute, how could John be Elijah? Keeping in mind that God did not have to observe what the Jewish people were going to do to know what they were going to do.

This is the thing we have to keep remembering, it always goes back to the attributes of God. He knew it. He didn't have to observe it, okay? So, God can offer something to, he can offer himself to the Jewish people knowing with an absolute knowledge that they would reject him and therefore, he could bring John the Baptist, who is a type of Elijah, comes in the power and ministry of Elijah, but is not Elijah.

But Elijah will come. And God knows that because God knows everything. So God can offer, he can make, he could make this an offer that's sufficient for all people so that you and I can go out and offer the gospel to all people, but it is not applied to all people.

I hope that's really clear. So, someone is saying, offered to all, applied only to the elect, that would be correct in my view. Offered to all, applied only to the elect, because after all, how do you and I know who the elect are to offer the gospel to?

Now, that's us, the argument that some would make, if we're going to be fair, someone that holds to that earlier definition of limit atonement would argue that God is the one making the offer, and God wouldn't make this offer to everyone, he'd only make it to the elect.

Well, I think God makes the offer to all people, just like he made the offer to Israel, but they rejected him as Messiah. He knew that ahead of time. It didn't surprise him. Okay? I hope that's clear.

If not, you can ask more questions or email us. You can always email us at academyatstrivingforeterny .org. That's always something you can do. If you have any questions that we don't answer, in class.

But one last one is, no, we've got two more, Hebrews 9 .5, two of them in Hebrews, Hebrews 9, I said 9 .5, 9 .15, Hebrews 9 .15, therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant so that those who are called may receive the promise of eternal life, eternal inheritance, sorry.

Such a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgression committed under the first covenant. And notice the beginning, okay? So that those who are called may receive the promise, eternal inheritance.

Not everyone receives the promised eternal inheritance. Who does? The called. Who are the called? Those that are elect. Who are the elect? Based on a condition? No. That's what we looked at last class.

You see how this is limited based on the call. So I do want to say, this is a thing where we don't want to be too rigid in the sense to say, because I think in a real reality, you and I can't fully comprehend this issue of limited atonement.