Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this media
Alpha and Omega Ministries presents the Dividing Line radio broadcast. The Apostle Peter commanded all Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us, yet to give this answer with gentleness and reverence.
The Dividing Line is brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries, Calvary Press Publishers, the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, and Bethany House Publishers. Your host is Dr. James White, Director of Alpha and Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.
If you'd like to talk with Dr. White, call now by dialing 1 -888-TALK -960. That's 1 -888-TALK -960. And now with today's topic, here is James White.
Something tells me a few of you might want to get on the phone lines today, because I have a feeling our topic today might just be a little challenging to some, but I hope it's useful to everyone, especially everyone who believes and loves the Word of God.
My name is James White. I'll be with you until 2 o 'clock this afternoon, right before the Bible Answer Man comes on the air, and we'll be talking about what the Scriptures say today about the Atonement of Christ.
And I hope you will listen with an open mind, and more importantly, even with an open Bible, to what the Word of God has to say. Now, just for your information, we are working on future programs. I have contacted some individuals.
Unfortunately, so far, I'm having trouble getting some individuals who would really like to come on the air and have a direct one-on-one debate about important issues. I've contacted some individuals about the King James Only controversy.
I have given them particular verses where I believe we have some things we could discuss as to whether these verses were what were originally written by the inspired authors of Scripture. And so far, I haven't heard back from them.
We've invited a Roman Catholic apologist to come on to discuss my book, Mary, Another Redeemer. And we haven't gotten any bites on that either. I was talking to one of Jehovah's Witnesses just last evening, and we've invited him to do a written debate on our webpage, and then interact in our IRC chat channel, and then do the radio program all on what the Jehovah's Witnesses teach on salvation.
And we haven't gotten any final word on that back either. So we're working on trying to get individuals who would really present, I think, some fascinating topics for us, going back and forth. Hearing the individuals presenting these beliefs directly, I think, is extreme to people.
It's one thing for me to sit here and tell you, well, the Jehovah's Witnesses believe this, that, or the other thing. Well, the Mormons believe this, that, or the other thing. But it's something else to hear someone presenting that information directly, and then having that type of interaction that goes back and forth.
So we're working on putting those together. But next week, I know I will be joined by Bill Webster. Bill Webster is the author of The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, and the Matthew 16 Controversy.
Bill Webster is a tremendous researcher, a gifted speaker. He and I do a lot of work together in dealing with the subject of Roman Catholicism, and the claims of Roman Catholicism. And Bill will be my special guest next week, so you'll want to make sure to tune in for that program, and maybe invite some friends to tune in as well.
Charles Haddon Spurgeon said the following words, You know, there was a time when I called myself, and this is me speaking, not Charles Spurgeon, I called myself a four-point Calvinist. There are a lot of people who use that term, and almost all the time, the one point of the five that they reject is the terrible, horrible L. Limited atonement.
There is just something about the term that just doesn't sound right. How can Christ's atonement be limited? And that is exactly what I said until I began to seriously think about the whole issue. It is my experience that most of those who reject the specific or limited atonement of Christ do not really believe in the complete sovereignty of God, or the total depravity of man, or the unconditional election of God.
Most objections that are lodged against the doctrine are actually objections to one of the preceding points, not against limited atonement itself. The break in my thinking came from reading Edwin Palmer's book, The Five Points of Calvinism.
In doing a radio program a number of years ago on the truth of God's electing grace, I was challenged by a caller in regards to the death of Christ. Why would Christ die for the whole world if God did not intend to save everyone, the caller had asked.
I looked at my co-host, and my co-host looked at me, and I made a mental note to do more study on that particular question. I grabbed Palmer's book as soon as I returned home and began to read the chapter on the atoning work of Christ.
I became a full five-pointer upon reading the section, and I quote, The question that needs a precise answer is this, did he or didn't he? Did Christ actually make a substitutionary sacrifice for sins or didn't he?
If he did, then it was not for all the world, for then all the world would be saved, end quote. I was faced with a decision if I maintained a universal atonement, that is, if I said that Christ died substitutionarily in the place of every single man and woman in all the world, then I was forced to either say that one, everyone will be saved, or two, the death of Christ is insufficient to save without additional works.
I knew that I was not willing to believe that Christ's death could not save outside of human actions, so I had to understand that Christ's death was made in behalf of God's elect, and that it does accomplish its intention, it does save those for whom it is made.
At this point, I realized that I had limited the atonement all along. In fact, if you do not believe in the reformed doctrine of limited atonement, you believe in a limited atonement anyway, did you know that?
How is that? Well, unless you're universalist, that is, unless you believe that everyone's going to be saved, then you believe that the atonement of Christ, if it is made for all men, is limited in its effect.
You believe that Christ can die in someone's place, and yet that person may still be lost for eternity. You limit the power and effect of the atonement, I limit the scope of the atonement, while saying that its power and its effect are unlimited.
One writer expressed it this way, this is Lorraine Bettner, he said, quote, let there be no misunderstanding at this point. The Arminian limits the atonement as certainly as does the Calvinist. The Calvinist limits the extent of it in that he says it does not apply to all persons, while the Arminian limits the power of it, for he says that in itself it does not actually save anybody.
The Calvinist limits it quantitatively, but not qualitatively. The Arminian limits it qualitatively, but not quantitatively. For the Calvinist, it is like a narrow bridge that goes all the way across the stream.
For the Arminian, it is like a great wide bridge that goes only halfway across. As a matter of fact, the Arminian places more severe limitations on the work of Christ than does the Calvinist, end quote.
Therefore, we are not talking about presenting some terrible limitation on the work of Christ when we speak of limited atonement. In fact, we are actually presenting a far greater view of the work of Christ on Calvary when we say that Christ's death actually accomplishes something in reality, rather than only in theory.
The atonement, we believe, was a real, actual, substitutionary one, not a possible theoretical one that is dependent for its efficacy upon the actions of man. And as one who often shares the gospel with people involved in false religious systems, I will say that the biblical doctrine of the atonement of Christ is a powerful truth that is the only message that has real impact in dealing with the many heretical teachings about Christ that are present in our world today.
Jesus Christ died on behalf of those that the Father had from eternity decreed to save. There is absolute unity between the Father and the Son in saving God's people. The Father decrees their salvation, the Son dies in their place, and the Spirit sanctifies them and conforms them to the image of Christ.
This is the consistent testimony of Scripture. Well, what was the intention of the Father and the Son in the atonement? Why did Christ come to die? Did he come simply to make salvation possible, or did he come to actually obtain eternal redemption?
Let's consider some passages from Scripture in answer to this question. For example, in Luke chapter 19, verse 10, we read,. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost. Now, here the Lord Jesus himself speaks of the reason for his own coming.
He came to seek and to save the lost. Now, very few have a problem with his seeking. Many have a problem with the idea that he actually accomplished all of his mission. Jesus, however, made it clear that he came to actually save the lost.
He did this by his death. When Paul wrote to Timothy, he said,. Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance. Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the worst. Paul asserts the purpose of Christ's coming to the world was to actually save sinners.
Nothing in Paul's words leads us to the conclusion that is so popular today that Christ's death simply makes salvation a possibility rather than a reality. Christ came to save. So, did he? And how did he?
Was it not by his death? Well, most certainly it was. The atoning death of Christ provides forgiveness of sins for all those for whom it is made. That is why Christ came. Now, think for a moment about another very related and very important issue, and that's Christ's intercessory work.
In Hebrews chapter 7, verses 24 through 26, we read,. But because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore, he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.
The New Testament closely connects the work of Christ as our high priest and intercessor with his death upon the cross. In this passage from Hebrews, we are told that the Lord Jesus, since he lives forever, has an unchangeable or a permanent priesthood.
He is not like the old priest who passed away. He is a perfect priest because he remains forever. Because of this, he is able to save completely or to the uttermost those who come to God through him. Why?
Because he always lives to make intercession for them. Now, before considering the relationship of the death of Christ to his intercession, I wish to emphasize the fact the Bible says that Christ is able to save men completely.
He is not limited simply to a secondary role as the great assister who makes it possible for man to save himself. Those who draw near to God through Christ will find full and complete salvation in him.
Furthermore, we must remember that Christ intercedes for those who draw near to God. I feel that it is obvious that Christ is not interceding for those who are not approaching God through him. Christ's intercession is in behalf of the people of God.
Now, upon what ground does Christ intercede before the Father? Does he stand before the Father and ask him to forget his holiness, to forget his justice, simply pass over the sins of men? That certainly would be a popular thing in our land today.
But of course, that's not what the Son does. The Son intercedes before the Father on the basis of his death. Christ's intercession is based upon the fact that he has died as the substitute for God's people.
And since he has borne their sins in his own body on the tree, 1 Peter 2 .24, he can present his offering before the Father in their place and intercede for them on this basis. The Son does not ask the Father to compromise his holiness or to simply pass over sin.
Christ took care of sin at Calvary. As we read in Hebrews 9, verses 11 through 12, quote,. When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation.
He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves, but he entered the most holy place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption, end quote. When Christ entered into the Holy of Holies, he did so by his own blood.
When he did this, we are told that he had obtained eternal redemption. This again is not a theoretical statement, but a statement of fact. Christ did not enter into the Holy of Holies to attempt to gain redemption for his people.
He entered in having already accomplished that. So what is he doing? Is his work of intercession another work alongside his sacrificial death? Is his death ineffective without this other work? No, Christ's intercession is not a second work outside of his death.
Rather, Christ is presenting before the Father his perfect and complete sacrifice. He is our high priest, and the sacrifice he offers in our place is the sacrifice of himself. He is our advocate. Christ's atoning death is clearly connected with his advocacy before the Father.
Therefore, we can see the truths. First, and think closely here, it is impossible that the Son would not intercede for everyone for whom he died. If Christ dies as their substitute, how could he not present his sacrifice in their stead before the Father?
Can we really believe that Christ would die for someone that he did not intend to save? Secondly, it is impossible that anyone for whom the Son did not die could receive Christ's intercession. If Christ did not die in behalf of a certain individual, how could Christ intercede for that individual, since he would have no grounds upon which to seek the Father's mercy?
And thirdly, it is impossible that anyone for whom the Son intercedes could be lost. Can we imagine the Son pleading before the Father, presenting his perfect atonement in behalf of an individual that he wishes to save, and the Father rejecting the Son's intercession?
The Father always hears the Son. That's what John 11, 42 says. Would he not hear the Son's pleas in behalf of all that the Son desires to save? Furthermore, if we believe that Christ can intercede for someone that the Father will not save, then we must believe either, first, that there is dissension in the Godhead, the Father desiring one thing and the Son another, or secondly, that the Father is incapable of doing what the Son desires him to do.
That, sadly, is probably the majority report amongst evangelicals today. Amongst evangelicals today, most people believe that the Son intercedes for all sorts of men that he wants to save and the Father wants to save, but both are incapable of overcoming the resistance of the creature.
That Christ does not act as high priest for all men is clearly seen in his high priestly prayer in John 17. The Lord clearly distinguishes between the world and those who are his throughout the prayer, and verse 9 makes our point very strongly, quote, I pray for them, Jesus says, I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours, end quote.
When Christ prays the Father, he does not pray for the world, but for those that have been given to him by the Father, John 6 .37. So, really, we get to the main issue. For whom did Christ die? Well, there are a number of scriptures that teach us that the scope of Christ's death was limited to the elect.
Well, here are a few of them. If you're driving, please do not attempt to look these up. Write them down and look at them later. Matthew 20, verse 28, just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.
The many for whom Christ died are the elect of God, just as Isaiah had said long before in that beautiful 53rd chapter of Isaiah, Isaiah 53 .11, by his knowledge, my righteous servant will justify many as he will bear their iniquities.
The Lord Jesus made it clear that his death was for his people when he spoke of the shepherd and the sheep in John chapter 10. Jesus says, I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.
Just as the Father knows me and I know the Father, I lay down my life for the sheep. Those are verses 11 and 15. The good shepherd lays down his life in behalf of the sheep. Are all men the sheep of Christ?
Certainly not, for most men do not know Christ, and Christ says that his sheep know him, John 10 .14. Further, Jesus specifically told the Jews who did not believe in him, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep, John 10 .26.
Note that in contrast to the idea that we believe and therefore make ourselves Christ's sheep, Jesus says that they do not believe because they are not his sheep. Whether one is of Christ's sheep is the Father's decision, John 6 .37 and 8 .47, not the sheep's.
Listen to these words from Ephesians chapter 5, verses 2 and then 25 through 27. Just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God, husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word and to present her to himself as a radiant church without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish but holy and blameless.
Christ gave himself in behalf of his church, his body, and that for the purpose of cleansing her and making her holy. If this was his intention for the church, why would he give himself for those who are not of the church?
Would he not wish to make these others holy as well? Yet if Christ died for all men, there are many, many who will remain impure for all eternity. Was Christ's death insufficient to cleanse them? Certainly not.
Did he have a different goal in mind in dying for them? No. His sacrificial death in behalf of his church results in her purification and this is what he intended for all those for whom he died. Romans chapter 8, verses 32 to 34 says, he who did not spare his own son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also along with him graciously give us all things?
Who will bring a charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus who died, more than that who was raised to life, is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.
The father gave the son in our place. Who is the our of this passage? The text says that it is those whom God has chosen, that is the elect of God. Again the necessary work of Christ, the right hand of the father, is presented in perfect harmony with the death of Christ.
Those for whom Christ died are those for whom he intercedes. And as this passage shows, if Christ intercedes for someone, who can possibly bring a charge against that person and hope to see them condemned?
So we see what we have seen before. Christ dies in someone's place, he intercedes for them, and they are infallibly saved. Christ's work is complete, Christ's work is perfect, he is the powerful savior, and he never fails to accomplish his purpose.
Jesus said in John 15, 13, greater love has no one than this that he lay down his life for his friends. Are all the friends of Christ? Do all own his name? Do all bow before him and accept him as Lord?
Do all do his commandments? Then not all are his friends. When Paul wrote to Titus in chapter two, he said, while we wait for the blessed hope, the glorious appearing of our great God and savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good, Titus 2, 13 through 14.
Both the substitutionary element of the cross, he gave himself for us, and the purpose of the cross to redeem us, to purify us, are forcefully presented by Paul to Titus. If it was the purpose of Christ to redeem and purify those for whom he died, can this possibly not take place?
Can the Lord Jesus fail to do what it was his intention to do, what he says he intends to do? In fact, I think one of the passages that has been most helpful to many is in Matthew 1, 21. It's a passage known to every child that's grown up in the church or watched a Christmas play or something.
She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. Why? Most of us know the answer to that. Because he will save his people from their sins. That's why he's called Jesus. Well, did he?
Listen to that phrase again. Because he will save his people from their sins. Well, I ask you to answer the very same question that I had to answer years ago. Did he? Does he save his people from their sins?
Or should the passage say, call his name Jesus because he will do his best? He will put forth 100 effort. He'll fail. Of course he'll fail because we have the autonomous will of man that is in control of all things.
But he's going to do a really good job. That's not what the passage says. His name is Jesus because he will save his people from their sins. Galatians 2 .20, Paul understood this truth. He said, I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.
And the life I live in the body I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me. This is the common confession of every true believer in Christ. We died with him our substitute, the one who loved us and gave himself on our behalf.
So we see then that the word teaches that Christ died for many, for his sheep, for the church, for the elect of God, for his friends, for a people zealous for good works, for his people, for each and every Christian.
But if you look at any passage today, if you write anyone down to look at, look at Hebrews chapter 10 and consider well what verses 10 through 14 communicate to us. Hebrews chapter 10 verses 10 through 14.
By this will we have been sanctified to the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.
But he, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until his enemies be made a footstool for his feet. For by one offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.
Especially verses 10 and 14. These are special passages. I think it's extremely important that we think about what this passage means, because there are so many false teachings out there about who Christ is and what Christ accomplishes.
In fact, when we discuss the issue of the Roman Catholic mass and what Roman Catholics teach about what takes place in the mass, that the mass is a propitiatory sacrifice, a re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary, the only biblical and meaningful way to respond to that assertion is to present a biblical doctrine of the atonement of Christ to contrast what the Bible says the atonement accomplishes with what Rome says the mass accomplishes.
And what fundamentally is the difference then? Verses 10 and 14 of chapter 10 of Hebrews. By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. In verse 14, for by one offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.
The work of Christ in the atonement is perfect and complete in and of itself. It actually accomplishes eternal redemption. It actually accomplishes the perfection, the salvation of those for whom it is made.
It is not an incomplete work that is only theoretical and makes it possible that if we sort of work the plan, connect the dots, fill in the blanks, add something of our own in that maybe somewhere down the line we might make it.
No. According to the scriptural teaching about the effect of the atonement, it results in that which God intends it to result in, the sanctification, the perfection, the redemption of those for whom it is made.
It is not a partial atonement. It is perfect. And because of that you can then compare it to all the false teachings that are out there. You can compare it to the mass where you can go to the mass a hundred thousand times in your life and still die impure and end up in purgatory.
Or in fact you could go a hundred thousand times in your life and still commit immortal sin before you die and end up in hell. That demonstrates that the mass is not the same sacrifice as the cross. That in and of itself.
But so few people today are willing to present it because of the objections. All those objections. We need to stand upon what the word of God states about the atoning work of Christ. What are those objections?
If you really believe this then it impacts how you preach. It impacts how you do evangelism. It has all sorts of ramifications for everything you do. Yeah you're exactly right. It does. You're exactly right.
It does. And there are many who will say oh no no no. Where you've really missed it here. Where you've really missed it is that Christ died for everyone and everyone's sins are atoned for except for unbelief.
See all you got to do is believe. That's the one sin that will separate you from eternal life is unbelief. All the rest of sin has been taken care of. It's a matter of belief or unbelief. Maybe that's what you think.
Maybe you have some other objections. I'd like to hear from you. 1 -888-TALK -960. 1 -888-TALK -960 is the number. I'd like to hear from you. We'll take your objections. We'll handle some of them. Let's look at the Bible together as we talk about the atonement of Christ here on The Dividing Line.
I called the article The Terrible Horrible L referring to the subject of limited atonement. And it is that subject that we are talking about today. And I find it interesting certainly of all the theological issues that can be addressed.
It is one that very few people have really thought through. There's a tremendous amount of emotional response to it but not a lot of biblical response that I've seen out there. But it's important. It's very important.
We talk about the cross of Christ. We talk about his atoning work. Well what does it accomplish? And really when we think about all the things that take our attention as Christians, I think about what's been happening recently in our nation.
And I'll admit I am tremendously disturbed, tremendously disgusted at our nation. At the fact that as long as you've got a full pocketbook, you got a good bank account, it doesn't matter what anybody does.
Hey just leave things alone. I'm disgusted about that. But when I think about the eternal scheme of things, when I think about eternity itself and in just a matter of decades, what happened in this decade will be old news and most people won't think a lot about it.
But I think about what's important on a grand eternal scale. Obviously such issues as the atoning work of Christ, redemption, sanctification, the intercessory work of Christ. Obviously those should be issues that take up my thoughts every day.
Those should be the things that make up the discussions and conversations of Christians on a regular basis. Indeed those are the most important things and that's what we're talking about today. And you can join us at 1 -888-TALK -960.
1 -888-TALK -960. Now you know when you bring up this issue in almost any context of the evangelical church today, instead of getting a theological discussion, you know what you normally get when you bring up the subject of limited atonement?
It sort of goes like this. That's sort of how it works. You know what I mean? You just get the feeling that you're treading on a little bit of thin ground and if you dare press it a little bit, you know what a lot of my friends have discovered when they press this issue with a lot of folks?
Instead of getting a theological response, it sort of goes somewhat like that and they find themselves experiencing the left boot of fellowship, shall we say, rather than the right hand of fellowship.
And so what we'd like to do today is maybe get some of these objections out and do it without the violence that frequently, unfortunately, goes along with theological discussion. I suppose we should say one thing.
It is nice to live in the modern age for this reason and that is that not too long ago, even in most what were considered civilized nations, if you had a disagreement on theology, we sort of joke about the machine gun or the rifle, but that's how people frequently ended theological discussions was with the stake or with the jail cell or the sword or something like that.
So it's nice that we have the freedom to discuss these things without too much concern about violence, even though I always do wonder about the fact that right before the program begins, we run the promo that mentions exactly where the radio station offices are for anyone who would like to know, which I find most interesting.
But anyways, 1 -888-TALK -960, 1 -888-TALK -960. I've presented the case. What do you think we'd like to hear from you? And we have our first caller. We'll talk with Dennis out in Phoenix. Dennis, it's nice to hear from you again.
Good to be talking to you again.
What's on your mind today? Well, I had a bunch of thoughts. I'll try to get them in fairly quickly. Something that's occurred to me for a long time now is the question, how can we be both chosen? And some references are Ephesians 1 -11, Colossians 3 -12, 1 Thessalonians 1 -4, 1 Peter 1 -2, and 1 Peter 2 -9, clearly chosen.
But how can we be both chosen and volunteers? I mean, if you think about World War II, maybe you get a draft notice. Maybe it was the last thing you wanted, but you're chosen. Or maybe you hear about Pearl Harbor being bombed, and you say, I've got to defend my country, and you run right out and sign up.
But you can't be both. It doesn't make any sense. Now the question is, if we all deserve to go to hell, why is it hard to accept the idea of God choosing to save only some of the undeserving?
Well, it's not difficult if you have a biblical view of grace. But unfortunately, in much of the preaching and proclamation today, the idea is that, well, God needs to be fair. Well, we need to be careful when we say that, because fairness for God would be for each one of us to get exactly what we deserve.
And exactly what we deserve is hell and death and destruction.
And what did Jesus not deserve? He did not deserve to die on the cross.
Exactly. I've likened it, and I don't know anybody who can answer this question anymore. I used this illustration a number of years ago. But I've likened it to death row here in Arizona. Now, I don't know how many people are on death row here now.
I suppose I need to call some place and find out. But let's say, around number, there's a hundred men on death row. Now, we know that in our system of law, the governor of this state has the power and authority to pardon anyone or all 100 of those people on death row.
That's what the governor can do. That's what our system of law gives to the governor as power. Now, if the governor were to pardon one person on death row, would we ever think that the other 99 people on death row would now have a legal basis upon which to say, well, I have to be pardoned now because that one person was.
Well, sadly, a lot of people in our culture who just don't think straight think, oh yeah, sure. Yeah, that's how it works. But that's not how it works. The governor didn't have to pardon the one. The others are still justly condemned, even if they do not receive a gracious pardon.
Well, in the same way, when we look at what the scriptures teach, all have sinned, all are deserving of death and hell. And so if God saved one person, that is mercy and grace undeserved. It is a tremendous act of condescension on his part.
And there is no basis for saying the others who did not receive that mercy are being treated in.
Any way, shape, or form unfairly. We sing amazing grace, but we're so into entitlement that, you know,.
Entitlement. There's a good term. Entitlement has entered into evangelical theology, indeed.
Another question, just to get this out real quick, is God the ultimate hard luck salesman? He can't convince people not to go to hell when they're free moral agents?
Well, it certainly would seem that if we view God as he is frequently viewed, and that is desperately attempting to do something that he's not doing a very good job at accomplishing, I don't know how we would avoid that.
And certainly we've all heard sermons based upon this idea of God desperately seeking to do something, and we just thwart him at every turn. And that's what causes a lot of us to read in our Bibles, and Daniel 4, and Isaiah, and all these places, it talks about God who does all things that he desires, and sits upon the throne of the universe, and things like that, and go, where's the disconnection here?
Certainly if God were attempting to do all sorts of things that he's failing at doing, a lot of us would have to say that, look, it looks like Michael Jordan is a greater success than God is on those, on that level.
He accomplishes pretty much what he wants to accomplish in the area he decides to accomplish it. And when we talk about God as Savior, what does that mean? When we describe Jesus as the Savior, what we're saying is he has the ability, he has the capacity to save.
Not simply to try to save, not simply to assist someone else to save themselves, but to actually save. And I'm afraid that if we were really to sit down with a lot of folks, and press the issue, and say, can Jesus Christ save any individual sinner without their addition of some sort of human work?
I'm afraid that many, the large majority, I would have to say today, who even trace themselves back to the Reformation, if they even knew what it was, would respond by saying, no, he would never violate us in that way.
It's certainly not biblical. And I'll tell you one thing, I'll guarantee you, I can name one person right now for you, who's very glad that the Lord Jesus, quote-unquote, violated him. The name was Lazarus.
Lazarus? Come forth, if you choose to. Lazarus, can you hear me? Lazarus, can you raise yourself up from the dead, so by your free will you may respond to me? I don't know, Dennis, I can guarantee you one thing, though.
Coming up here in a few weeks, we will be out at the Easter pageant of the Mormon Church in Mesa. And I'm not sure, Dennis, if you've ever heard of the Easter pageant, but out in Mesa, the week before Easter, which this week, Easter falls on the first weekend in April, they present a pageant, a play, on the front lawn of the Mormon temple in Mesa.
And for the past 16 years, volunteers in this ministry have gone out there, and we've stood on the street corners, and we have sought to share the gospel with people. And of all the things that we share with people, of all the messages that we proclaim, the one that gets the most shocked responses, not only from the Mormons, but very often from Christians who are out there observing, is when we emphasize the sovereignty of God and the deadness of man in sin.
In fact, we pass out a tract amongst the Mormons, and in fact, we pass this out to anybody. We pass it out to evangelicals. It's called, No Man is Able. And it's based on Jesus' words in John chapter 6.
No man is able to come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. And we present that message. And I'm going to tell you something that's not popular. It is the best way to make sure that your ministry remains small.
Hopefully pure. And hopefully pure, exactly. But that's what we've been proclaiming to these folks for a long time, and there is no other message that's going to bring salvation than the true gospel.
Quickly, can I bounce off my version of the tulip acrostic? Sure. Okay, this is total inability due to depravity, unilateral election, limited aim of the atonement, invincible grace, and preservation of the saints, which I stole from Marcie Sproul.
Well, actually, in my book, God's Sovereign Grace, I came up with srucep, which really didn't sound anything like a tulip, but it was sovereignty of God, radical inability, unconditional election, specific atonement, efficient grace, and perseverance of the saints, or something like that.
It was close. But you've got to keep with the botanical connections there, because we're talking about the subject of the atonement today on The Dividing Line, and we'd like to hear from you at 1 -888-TALK -960, 1 -888-TALK -960.
And Mark has called that number. Hello, Mark, how are you doing?
Oh, pretty good. I had a question about some of the, I guess, maybe problem passages or whatever, whenever I try to talk to someone about this, I always hear, like, God loved the world, and 1 John 4, what, 14, world, and blah, blah, blah.
Well, you know, it's interesting. I mentioned at the start, and it's been my same experience that you've had, and that is, the vast majority of objections to the specific atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ are not objections to that.
They're objections, in reality, to the concept of unconditional election. Because when you really start digging down and start asking, well, what are you objecting to here? The objection is not to the idea that Christ's atonement actually saves the elect, but that there is an elect, the concept of unconditional election.
So, for example, when someone says, well, isn't he called Savior of the world? Well, yes, he is, but does it therefore follow that what a person is saying is that means that he is the potential Savior of the world?
If he's actually Savior of the world, then that either means you need to be a universalist, which means that every single individual is actually going to end up being saved, or you need to be a Reformed person that understands what the term world means in this context, and that is that Jesus Christ is the only Savior there is, and therefore can be called Savior of the world because of his unique status as the only Savior that can save.
But what is the person who is in the middle actually saying? What does Savior of the world mean if they actually believe that he dies in behalf of people who will not be saved? How does that make him a Savior?
Yeah, I don't think they're thinking about it. They're not thinking about what they're actually saying.
It's because we hear these things over and over again, so often they become traditional to us. They become a traditional understanding rather than a biblical understanding. We put these things together in our mind, and then instead of drawing our theology out of the scriptures, we just read that in so that we see that.
One of the passages that I like to share with folks, Mark, that I've found to be very useful when this issue comes up is Revelation chapter 5. And in Revelation chapter 5, you have the vision of God sitting upon his throne, and then you have the lamb coming forward.
And beginning in verse 6, it says, And I saw between the throne with the four living creatures and the elders a lamb standing as if having seven horns and seven eyes, which is the seven spirits of God sent out on all the earth.
He came and took the book out of the right hand of him who sat on the throne. When he had taken the book, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the lamb, each one holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.
And they sang a new song, and listen to this song, saying, Worthy are you to take the book and to break its seals. For you were slain and purchased for God with your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.
You have made them to be a kingdom and priest to our God, and they will reign upon the earth. If you want to know what it means that Jesus is the Savior of the whole world, there it is. Men purchased with his blood from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.
Yeah. The burden of proof lies upon the person who wants to say, No, world means every single individual, Judas, Pilate, Herod included. No, when the Bible itself uses the terminology of men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation to explain to us what it means that he is the Savior of the world in that way.
Wow, that helps a lot. Alrighty. Thanks. Thanks for calling today. God bless. And now we go to Jerry in Phoenix. Hi, Jerry. Hi. How you doing?
Pretty good. Um, I just wanted to ask you about the scripture that says, If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto me.
That's John chapter 12. For those that are writing these down, I want to take a look at them. In specifically referring to the Lord Jesus's words, where right at the end of his public ministry, he talks about being lifted up and drawing all men to himself.
And so this is verse 32 specifically. And if I, and I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself. Again, in regards to the issue of the atonement, this is more of an objection to the idea of the unconditional election of God than it is to the idea that Christ dies specifically in behalf of the elect.
And that's normally what happens when these issues come up, is that our real objections to the idea of election end up surfacing not so much our objections to the idea that Christ's death actually accomplishes the perfection of those for whom it is made.
But in regards... Um, he's drawing, he's drawing all men unto him. He's not necessarily...
Well, if that's how a person understands the passage, I don't think in context that that's how the passage can be understood. And let me give you my reasons why. First of all, this idea of drawing has already appeared in the book of John.
And we have to start with the first reference and move from there. It first appears in John chapter six, when Jesus said, No man is able to come to me unless the father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.
So the object of the father's drawing to the son in John chapter six, when you read beginning of verse 35, are those the father gives to the sons. That's the first thing to keep in mind. Secondly, is the context of John 12.
Remember what has happened here. Jesus has entered in Jerusalem and beginning in verse 20, some Greeks, among those who were going up to worship the feast, came to Philip and asked to see Jesus. And so it is the coming of these non-Jews, the coming of these Gentiles, seeking after Jesus that causes this conversation to begin, or at least this teaching on the part of the Lord Jesus Christ.
And I would submit to you that first of all, the lifting up of verse 32 is the crucifixion. But that the phrase all men cannot be understood to mean that the crucifixion of Christ draws each individual person.
First of all, Paul clearly tells us, what is the cross to the unbelieving and the perishing? It's foolishness. It's an offense to them.
It sort of sounded like a sacrifice, but I don't know.
That's how a lot of people want to understand that, because that's normally how it is. I suggest to you that just as all men in John chapter six does not mean every single individual, because if it does, you have to end up being a universalist.
I would suggest to you that all men in verse 32 means all kinds of men, that is, Jews and Gentiles, that they are drawn by the Father, that the Father only draws those that he's given to the Son, those are the elect of God, and that's the only...
Is that something like many are called, but few are chosen?
Yes, that would fit in the exact same line as many are called and few are chosen.
Yeah, I think I understand a little of that point.
Well, great. Well, I appreciate you calling in today, Jerry. Okay, thank you. God bless. And that is a very important issue. I think all of our callers today, and I thank you for your calls, illustrated in the various and sundry things that were presented the exact same issue, and that is primarily if a person believes in the unconditional electing grace of God, that God is free to call men unto himself as he pleases, then the issue of the specific atoning work of Christ, really, that's easily understandable.
Most objections are not to the atoning work of Christ. Most objections are actually to the idea that God has an elect people. I would really encourage you, take the time to go back through and listen to the verses that we presented.
The material that I presented in the first half hour is drawn from my book called God's Sovereign Grace. That book is available from our ministry. You can listen to this program again, if you need to, on our website, www .aomin .org.
You can listen to the program, write down the references, look them up yourself. Don't let someone simply tell you, well, you know, you shouldn't think about things like that, or you're getting, quote unquote, too deep.
My friends, we're talking here about the difference between saying Jesus saves perfectly, and saying that he only saves theoretically. Think about it. Join us again next week. Thanks.