7/19/2015 Limited Atonement Pastor Josh Sheldon

The Meaning of Limited Atonement in the Doctrines of Grace

As I said earlier, we are going through a short series on what is called TULIP, T-U-L-I-P, the doctrines of grace. A few weeks ago, total depravity, the T. Last week, the U for unlimited, excuse me, unconditional election.

Next week, Lord willing, I would be irresistible grace, and followed by the P, which is the perseverance of the saints. This morning, the L, limited atonement, as we call it. The question for us this morning is really, can be summed up like this, what did Jesus accomplish on the cross?

Conley just read to you from the book of Titus, and in verse 14, it says, Jesus gave himself for us. It's speaking of his sacrifice. It's speaking of gave himself as a willing sacrifice, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

The Lamb of God who went to the cross of Calvary. That's what it means, gave himself. That's what Paul is referring us to. He gave himself for us, for a purpose, for a reason. God had intent behind this, that he might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for himself his own special people, zealous for good works.

What did Christ accomplish on the cross? Certainly, something. Certainly, something was done. Something happened. We need to speak this morning about what exactly that was. What got done? When Jesus said, it is finished, when he cried out that one word, what exactly was finished?

Questions like these have to do with one of, I would argue, probably the central theme of the entire Bible. I speak of atonement. The atonement that Jesus Christ made final at Golgotha. And I think this is the theme of redemptive history beginning at Genesis three and working all the way through our final salvation when Christ brings us home into himself.

It's atonement. Now, if it's the theme of the whole Bible, as I believe it is, if that is the case, our subject, atonement, it will not, indeed it cannot, be exhausted by a single sermon. But I wanna speak this morning about what Christ actually achieved on the cross.

What was the design of the cross? What was the intent of the cross? And did that design, did that intent actually come to pass? Are the things that God had in mind when the cross in eternity past was planted, did they actually happen?

Definite Atonement Versus the Arminian View

Limited atonement. No other of the five points of Calvinism, doctrines of grace as we call them, no other of these five points causes as much controversy as this one. And when you talk to people, have you ever talked to someone who claims to be a four or a four and a half point Calvinist?

Most of us have. Which one do they exclude to get from five to four? L. L. Now, I admit, a lot of people will stop listening to you when you get to the T, the very first one, total depravity, that we're all born depraved creatures with nothing in us to be commended unto God.

But there are those who accept the T and the U. And the I and the P. These are all good doctrines, but when they leave them out and they want to be somewhat of a Calvinist, somewhat reformed, it's the L that either gets left out completely or at best compromised.

None other has quite the controversy of this one. The issue is important. The issue of atonement is crucially important. Because as I said, I believe that atonement works through the pages of all Scripture.

And if we follow the course of redemptive history from Genesis to the end, this is what the Scripture's speaking of. This atonement, I'll define it in a little bit, Lord willing, atonement. An atonement anticipated by the saints of the Old Testament and accomplished by Christ in the new.

It speaks to the heart of the Bible. I would argue this speaks to the very nature of the gospel on which we stand. It's limited atonement. See, the word limited has such a negative cast to it as though God has somehow been caged up.

As if we could say God is limited and therefore He would be, which is not at all the case. Not at all what we're saying. But there's one side, the Arminian side, that argues that Christ's atoning death made salvation available, one might say possible, to all and to everyone.

Now, the Calvinist answers that Christ's death was meant for a particular people and is powerful and effective to save that people. We often say or hear it said that His death, His atoning sacrifice was sufficient for everyone but efficient for the elect.

In other words, there's enough power there for any and all but it's going to be applied. It's gonna be efficient, effective, just for the elect, the ones God intended. J .I. Packer puts the Arminian position this way, at least the implication of it.

He says Christ's death, for the Arminian, Christ's death did not ensure the salvation of anyone for it did not, excuse me, for it did not secure the gift of faith for anyone. What it did was rather to create a possibility of salvation for everyone if they believe.

Now, I'm a big fan of J .I. Packer and I think he says this very well and I know I kinda fumbled with my tongue a few times on that so I wanna say it again and Lord willing, I'll get the whole sentence out without any mistakes this time.

Christ's death did not ensure the salvation of anyone for it did not secure the gift of faith for anyone. What it did was rather to create a possibility of salvation for everyone if they believe. That's the unlimited atonement position, the Arminian position, if you will.

And the relationship to this subject of atonement and to whom it applies and the relationship of this to what we preached last week about unconditional election, I think you see that it makes them a bit hard to separate.

And I have to admit this sermon was very hard for me to prepare and one of the reasons is because I kept slipping away from preaching to you and teaching you about this idea of the limited atonement and slipping back to election.

They are so tightly interwoven. But I'll try to keep it to this in my references back to the other doctrine, the election. If someone is elect, they will certainly come to the Savior and by that, they will certainly be saved.

What I hope to eliminate this morning is doubt. Is doubt. Doubt in God. Have you any doubt that God accomplishes his purposes? I would wish to expunge that this morning. Have no doubt that God who is sovereign, that God who simply by the force of his will, if he wants something to be, it will certainly come to pass.

We can have no less a view of that sovereignty, that certainty, that power when we think of it in terms of atonement because atonement crescendos from the Old Testament to what? The cross of Jesus Christ and brethren, there's nothing in all history, there's nothing in all the universe more important than the cross of Jesus Christ and what it accomplished.

For us, for we of a reformed bent, the atonement Jesus won at Calvary was a definite atonement. I think Conley used the term a little bit ago, a particular redemption. And what do we mean by that? We mean nothing less than this, that God knew what he was doing, that God chose the individuals.

I'm back to election again, I won't stay here very long. Ephesians 1, 3, and 4, that God the Father chose us to be in him the son before the foundation of the world. Each person, each soul that would come to God and be before him and ever, we speak of salvation, we speak of heaven, we speak of eternal joy in the presence of the Lord.

Each one of those souls, individually, before the world was created, chosen by God. That's what we mean. Limited atonement, limited to them. Definite atonement, definitely going to be for them. Particular redemption, individual, personal, particular, to be redeemed with certainty.

The atonement Christ won at Calvary was a definite atonement. It was an achievement that had a determined purpose, meant for a determined people. God did not, in our estimate of what the Bible teaches, put his son on the cross, pour out his wrath at our sin on him, and then stand back and see who might come.

My prejudices here are clear. Now let me say that this sermon, though I will refute the Arminian at various points, it's not intended as a polemic against them. My goal is to tell you positively where we stand and why.

And the why, Lord willing, will be clearly seen in the scripture. It's atonement, it's atonement that we're speaking of. It's one of the few, maybe it's the only Anglo-Saxon-derived word in all our Bibles that has any theological significance at all.

It means at hyphen one hyphen ment. At one ment. It's the idea of bringing together two parties who are at enmity with each other. A lesser is brought into reconciliation with a superior, an offended superior.

So in the medieval sense of the word, which is where I believe it came from, you have a knight reconciled to an earl, or an earl reconciled to a duke, the duke to a prince, the prince to a king, and such like that.

The atonement does not work down the ladder of nobility, but up from the lesser to the greater. Atonement's the process by which this offended superior's wrath is satisfied. The offense is covered. They're brought together, they made one, they're at one ment again.

And the Hebrew word for this is kapar. So we get the name for the holiday, Yom Kippur, still celebrated in Judaism, the day of atonement. The word means to cover something. It's used in Genesis 6, 14, where Noah kapar the ark with gopher wood.

He covered it with gopher wood. The word is first used in our present sense, this idea of reconciliation between two parties at enmity with each other in Genesis 32, 20. That's when Jacob says he will appease, that is atone or cover.

He will appease Esau's anger with the present that goes before me. He's gotta atone for something, atone for the offense. We won't go back to Genesis where the warring between these two brothers began.

It's fairly familiar to all of us. He's going to atone for this with the present. The word is often well translated as a ransom paid to satisfy a claim to something. So we could even say here, Jacob will ransom himself from Esau's anger.

That'd be a pretty good use of the word atone or kapar. This is what happened in Isaiah 6 and Zechariah 3. In Isaiah 6, when Isaiah beheld God, he said, I am ruined, for I am a man of unclean lips. I dwell among a people that are the same as me.

He knew he's ruined. He says, I'm coming apart, a sinful man in the presence of holy God. Go way forward to Zechariah 3, and the Holy Spirit there shows us Joshua the high priest standing before God and he's dressed in what?

Filthy clothes and there's Satan accusing him. He's draped. The high priest is draped as it were in the people's sins. But for both, for Isaiah, for Zechariah, it was atonement that reconciled them to God.

When the seraph went to the altar and took out a coal and touched his lips, he says, this has taken away your sin. He's atoned for your sin. In Zechariah 3, when God commands that the filthy rags be taken off Joshua the high priest and the clean ones be put on, his sins have been atoned for, been reconciled to God.

That's atonement. Reconciliation of two parties by satisfying the superior's anger at an offense by the lesser. A covering of the offense. Now of course in the biblical context, the offender is who? The offender is man.

The offended party, obviously the superior, the greater, is God. Man, the offender, born in iniquity and sin and giving in to that sin nature and sinning with it, offending our holy God. And so we have this between us.

We have this barrier between us beginning in Genesis chapter two when Adam and Eve fell into the first sin. From the moment of the first sin, man has been unable to walk in intimacy with God. Ephesians 2, 3 saying, what we're born by nature, children of wrath.

Sin offended and sin offends God. Now even the gold used in the tabernacle was so impure in God's sight compared to his holiness, even the gold had to be atoned for before it could be used in his service.

I mean think about that. If gold or brass or whatever inert material was being used, if that, no matter how pure it might be, would be an offense to God, how much more we, how much more we, born dead in trespass and sin, born by nature children of wrath, the gold, a piece of metal, had to be atoned for.

What about us? What about man who willingly offends God every day? The thoughts of our heart being on evil continually. Atonement, covering, lays over our sin. Without atonement, without it, the breach between the two parties remains.

Without atonement, there's no basis for the superior, the agreed party to be reconciled to the offender. Absent atonement, there is no way for man to stand before God. Without atonement, you cannot stand before God.

That's why it's so important. Sin remains, without this, exposed like the sores of a leper. And as important as atonement is, this covering, it by itself doesn't really even complete the picture. Not for us.

For a piece of gold used in the tabernacle, it's enough. When the blood was on it, sprinkled on it, the blood of the sacrifice, it was atoned for before God. It was ready for use. But for us, for people, for sinful men and women and children, there's another step, and it's crucial.

You see, and that's forgiveness. Atonement doesn't just stand by itself. If atonement is the covering of sin, then what it does is to make forgiveness possible. In Leviticus, the first book describing in detail how this atonement is to be sought and how it is to be granted, it's welded to forgiveness.

You can't separate the two. There's many, many verses we could go to. I'm just gonna read two, both from Leviticus 4. I want you to see this idea that atonement and forgiveness necessarily have to go together, or that the one has to precede the other might be a better way to say it.

Leviticus 4, verse 20 says, and he, speaking of the penitent worshiper coming to the temple, he shall do with the bull as he did with the bull as a sin offering. Thus he shall do with it. So the priest shall make atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.

Verse 26 of the same chapter. And he shall burn all his fat on the altar like the fat of the sacrifice of the peace offering. So the priest shall make atonement for him, covering his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.

Many, many more we could go to with this same marriage of these two concepts, these two words. I think the point is made. Atonement is the process ordained by God by which the sin against him is covered.

It's atonement that makes forgiveness possible. And notice it's the repentant sinner who brings the atoning sacrifice. It's the priest who accepts it on God's behalf, and it is the Lord who forgives the sin that is there confessed.

There's no other way to be reconciled with God than this. People might think of many ways to expiate their guilt, but only this one is ordained by God. Only by atonement can there be peace between the two parties, God and man.

Only by atonement can there be an avenue for forgiveness. This flows through and permeates the whole of our Bibles. You find it in Moses. You find it in the historical books. You find it in the Psalms, in Proverbs, in the prophets.

Obviously, in Jesus' words, in the epistles by Paul, John, Peter, others. It's not the New Testament only, or excuse me, not the Old Testament only. Jesus Christ at Calvary on the cross, he made atonement.

Not an atonement like they had in olden days, as we're told in Hebrews 10, 11, and every priest stand ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. Only Jesus, the Lamb of God, could finally take away sin by a perfect, obedient, and complete sacrifice of himself.

Only he could bring an end to this parade of bulls and goats destined to die for sins that they hadn't committed. He is what the prophets hoped for. He is what the temple rites were intended to make the people yearn for.

The one who could, the only one who would, Daniel 9, 24 tells us, atone once and for all for all the people's iniquity. Only Jesus could declare the endless line of bulls and goats to be finished. Only he can make true, final atonement.

Christ's Atoning Work in the Gospels and Epistles

Now, the word itself isn't found in the New Testament, but it's everywhere in the mind of it's author. Jesus said, the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life a ransom for many.

What's behind that but atonement, but a covering of sin? John 10, 11, I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives his life for the sheep. A little bit later, he said, therefore the Father loves me because I lay down my life that I may take it again.

This speaks of nothing but the atonement that he's anticipating at Calvary. In the epistles, Romans 5, 6, for when we were still without strength in due time, Christ died for the ungodly. Galatians 2, 21, I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me.

Romans 5, 8, God demonstrates his own love toward us and that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5, 10, for if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

One more. Now all things are of God who has reconciled us to himself through Jesus Christ and has given us the ministry of reconciliation. All of these have one and the same foundation, atonement, a covering over of sin.

Christ gave himself in our stead. He ransomed us. He provided the means of forgiveness. He reconciled the two parties previously at war with each other, or us with God, we could say. He atoned for our sins by suffering on the cross for our, not his, for our sins.

Where the animals were slaughtered, he was crucified. Where the penitent worshiper placed his actual hands on the head of an actual animal, confessing the sins that the beast would bear on his behalf, we reach out to Jesus by faith.

We reach out to Jesus in the spirit, relying on him to have paid our penalty, paving the way to God the Father for forgiveness. Both we today and they of old have this in common. It is faith that matters.

Without faith, it is impossible to please God. Neither we nor they are actually saved by faith. Faith apprehends what God has done, either through the blood of bulls and goats in the old dispensation or through Jesus' blood in the new.

Faith takes God at his word and places full reliance on his promises, but we need to be clear, it is Jesus Christ who saves. It is the cross where salvation was secured. It is at Calvary where atonement was made.

We apprehend these by faith. We trust these truths by faith. Faith is a gift of God. It's Christ and he alone who saves. It's Christ and he alone who made atonement. It is only by and through him that the Father will forgive sin and be reconciled to us.

So that's atonement. That's the covering of sin that reconciles the two parties. And this has only been the briefest sketch of a vast subject, but with that term established, the idea of atonement as the covering that reconciles the two parties or makes that reconciliation possible is a better way to say it.

With that established, the $64 question, for whom then did Christ die? For whom did Christ die? What we call limited atonement, particular redemption, definite redemption, and definite atonement. We're getting at the same question.

Who did God the Father place in Christ? His death on the cross is universally understood in the church, the true church, as an atoning death. But for whom? To what purpose? There's really two basic answers.

I say basic because there's many, many nuances. But at the core, the question of Christ's death comes down to whether he died for all or did he die for a specific, determined people? Was it an unlimited atonement freely given to anyone who will but exercise their faith and accept what he did?

Or was it meant for a certain people and is effectually, by God, through his Spirit, applied to them? For whom did Christ die? It is not esoteric or just academic. It goes to the heart of the gospel. Christ, when he suffered for our sins, he actually procured an actual salvation of an actual people.

He didn't just suffer and then, after his resurrection and ascension, sit down next to the Father and wait to see what might happen. He accomplished that for which he was sent. He made salvation certain for those whom God the Father had chosen to be in his Son.

I said at the beginning, if you come away with anything this morning, the definition I gave you, this long definition I gave you of what atonement means, this covering of sin, Lord willing, that will stay with you and you'll see the importance of it.

But certainty, certainty. Do you struggle knowing whether God has indeed saved you? If you made a profession with your mouth of Jesus Christ, have you felt your spirit stirred and you can't tell the difference between whether that's an emotional stirring that you had and I just got excited for you and I just got excited for a moment?

Or was it really, truly God by his Spirit, by hearing the Word, by reading his Word, actually saving me? I do not believe for a moment that God saved a people and left them wondering if they're saved.

Didn't give us a fear of timidity, but a sound mind in the Spirit. He didn't give us his Bible so we can look and wonder, well, am I going to hell or heaven? He gave us a scripture so we can look and know, we can read it and be sure of what God has said, what he has promised, what he's committed himself to.

Terribly important question for us. Conley read to you from Exodus 28 a little bit earlier. I had him read that because of what it says about the definiteness of this atonement that Christ made. When he said, it is finished, what did he have in mind?

We know from Hebrews that Jesus Christ is our great eternal high priest. There are no more human high priests, those priests who had to go into the holiest place first to atone for their own sin, and then for the sins of the people.

Christ, only the latter, because he had no sin of his own to atone for. Conley read to you from Exodus 28. I want you to recall that the high priest, when he went into this holy place once a year to atone for the sins of Israel, he wore that breastplate that was given to us in such detail, and that breastplate had 12 stones set into it.

Each stone had inscribed on it the name of one of the tribes of Israel. I think this is terribly important. He did not represent to God when he went in to atone for their sins, when he represented the people to God, he didn't go in there for the Philistines, for the Egyptians, or the Amorites, or the Moabites, or any of the other ites, except for the Israelites, the ones that he was bearing on that breastplate.

That same chapter said he wore them over his heart. The symbolism is clear. We're not reading between the lines to see that if Jesus is the ultimate eternal, the final high priest, that he's doing the same.

He's carrying the sins of his people. Think back to the Old Testament again, the goat, the one on whose head the sins were pronounced and confessed, and then he was released into the wilderness, the scapegoat.

I mean, those confessed sins were those of a specific people. The priest then didn't confess the sins of the Moabites who fed their children to, I forgot the name of the God, the one where they burned their children in the fire.

That wasn't confessed, it was confessing the sins of that people whom he represented and wore on his breastplate when he went in. The whole atonement of the high priest was specific in design. How much more Jesus Christ, God's only son?

Consider the work of Jesus Christ. For whom did he die? For whom did he atone? Was it for everyone or was it for the elect? If for everyone, if it was for everyone, then we need to conclude that the high priesthood changed in a most significant way.

Not just the elect, not just that Jesus Christ was without sin and didn't have to atone for himself before he went in. More than that changed, not just that he is the eternal high priest and not gonna be replaced by a successor when he dies.

More than that has changed, the whole symbolism of it has changed, if that's the case. Consider these. Matthew 121. She will bring forth a son and you shall call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.

There's the angel of the Lord telling Mary about the son she would bear. And note that he does not say he will save people from their sins, as though people generally were in view. He says he will save his people from their sins.

Which at the very least can be thought of as a definite known quantity. This is the will of the father who sent me, said Jesus. That of all he has given me, I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.

And Jesus speaks here of the will of his father. It is this, that Jesus will lose not a single person who the father has placed in his care, but will raise them all up. Notice something here. When Jesus said all, he used the singular.

All, obviously, is a body of people. But the use of the singular to describe them implies that it is one known and certain and specific people. And secondly, Jesus didn't say raise them up. He said raise it up.

Raise up it, this body, this known quantity. He will raise it up. It's all singular, just like all. And it refers to the same people, a single people known by God and given to his son. I could go on, but I'd fall into proof texting, which isn't preaching.

And I fear that I'm leaning uncomfortably close to just lecturing you about this. I apologize for that, if that be the case. I just want to point out one more verse that I think is important on this idea of for whom did Christ die?

And how he gained this confidence. Did he die for me? Did the son of man give himself for me, for my sins? Can I be sure? Or do I leave this place wondering if God's gonna smite me dead and I join the son of perdition?

First Peter 3 .18. Peter clearly thinking of the atoning death of Jesus Christ says, for Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that it might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but made alive by the Spirit.

God had a purpose in the death of his son. Not some nebulous idea that he had, but a certain and determined goal which he meant for our salvation and his own glory. He was put to death that he might bring us to God.

If we look at the verses, especially in Ephesians about God before the foundation of the world, placing his people in his son, the very grammar of it makes it inconceivable if not impossible to mean that later after the death of his son, God then retroactively put someone in him.

I resist going into too much detail on that and take that grammar apart for you because it would take too long, but it can't work that way. The language doesn't allow for it. This placement of the people in the son was before the son was incarnated, not after his death.

Jesus gave himself for us that he might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for himself his own special people, zealous for good works. Here's the purpose of Christ's atoning death. Is it even possible that his purposes were not and will not be met?

I ask, if Christ died for everyone, indiscriminately everyone, why wasn't everyone saved? Why won't everyone be saved? Well, wasn't Judas part of everyone? Wasn't Balaam part of everyone? I mean, he was one of everyone, but he was one of everyone when Joshua's army wiped those people out and killed them.

Judas, Balaam, they were both sons of perdition and condemned. I've never met anyone who denies this. Can we then say that Christ died for them or any of the other many people we have in the scripture and Ananias and Sapphira who died because of their grotesque sin against the nascent children of God?

Well, that's Simon of Magus. I heard one paraphrase when Peter said, your money perish with you. Well, what Peter actually said was, go to hell with your money. Did Christ die for him? Is it possible?

I say no. The atonement of our Savior actually achieved what was intended by it, the salvation of the souls intended by that atonement. Jesus says to one of the churches in Revelation, that he overcomes our right, the Father's name on him.

It's definite, it's particular, it's personal. For those who think the atonement is unlimited, that it's available to everyone, if only those people would exercise their faith and believe, we say that a salvation that's based on me, on my response, on any effort in me, no matter how slight that effort might be, is a salvation that is not certain or secure.

Second Peter 3 .9, often cited to prove the unlimited nature of the atonement, actually proves the other. It actually supports the case I'm trying to make. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some count slackness, but is long-suffering toward us, emphasis mine, long-suffering toward us, not willing that any of us, added by me, any of us should perish, but that all of us should come to repentance.

And so we speak of God's will here, God's not willing. We need to distinguish between what we mean by God's will, is it his preceptive will? What is, what's he commanded to us in black and white in the scripture?

Thou shalt do this, thou shalt not do that. Is it his dispositional will? That those things that he's disposed towards, what gives him pleasure, what gives him anger? Something like Ezekiel 18 .32, or 32 .11, I have no pleasure.

I'm not disposed to be pleased, we could say, in the death of the wicked. What we have here in this verse from Peter, is God's decreative will, what God has decreed in his secret will, that aspect of his purposes, covered by Deuteronomy 29 .29, the secret things belong to the Lord our God.

Peter speaks of the elect, of those purposed, ordained and predestined and certain to come to the predetermined and decreed end that God has in mind for them. Repentance, faith, salvation. That's why he's long suffering with us.

He has willed that not one of us should perish. He has so arranged and so determined and so providentially controlled everything, so that those intended by Christ's atonement will without failure, not one left behind, come to Christ Jesus.

Because his son's death was meant for them. The value, as R .C. Sproul says it, the value or the merit of the atonement is not what is limited. The intent, limited sounds like such a pejorative word. The intent was certain.

The intent had purpose. We could put this so many ways, but we're trying to make the same point. That God had a design, had an intent, had a plan as we sometimes call it. And was that to make salvation possible?

But with the possibility that what his son suffered might not be effective? Or did Jesus Christ's atonement actually secure an actual salvation for an actual people? Something we can rely on. People object that we've closed the door of the kingdom of God.

And I say, no. No one can do that. Jesus spoke of Pharisees who, by their interminable list of man-made rules, are able only to make men sons of hell. And we don't do that either. I offer no set of rules and laws by which you must be saved, but a savior by whom alone you can be saved.

Are we edging ever so close to the Jehovah's Witnesses, 144 ,000? No, we do not have fellowship with such arrogant blasphemy that pretends to know what the scripture nowhere reveals. No, we don't do that.

Jesus said to any and all who would listen, repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. So we with the apostles cry out to you, all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved. You shall be saved if you call on the name of the Lord.

The name of the Lord is Jesus. If with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength you call out his name, means everything he stands for, he as the only way to God by his atoning death, the scripture promises you will be saved.

Can we be accused that the definite nature of the atonement makes our church we for and no more? No, I deny that charge. Anyone who claims faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and shows in deed and in word a valid testimony of him is as welcome here as anyone else.

Some will say, I cannot know if I'm elect. You said it's God's secret decree, so I can't know it. I cannot be confident. And I say, no, that's not what I meant. Don't take that conclusion. That's not what limited atonement means.

God's secret decree is the who of salvation. Not the how. The how of salvation is answered by this. Repentance towards God and faith in Jesus Christ. And this I proclaim to you freely. It's the who that's not revealed to us.

Can you know? Can you be confident? Can you be secure in Christ? You can if you believe that Jesus Christ just made it possible for you to exercise your faith and your strength, your wherewithal, and come to him.

No, you can't be secure. You're gonna be neurotic. You're not gonna know if God's gonna smite you and send you to hell on any given moment. But not because that's true of God. Because you're believing something untrue of the scripture.

Can I know if I'm elect? Jesus said in John chapter 10, verses 24 to 30. Let me read all these verses to you. We'll close with this, a few comments. Jesus answered the Pharisees, I told you, told you that he is the Christ.

I told you and you do not believe. The works that I do in my father's name, they bear witness of me. But you do not believe because you are not of my sheep. As I said to you. Listen carefully to these next words that our savior spoke.