"Limited Atonement" (part 2)

Welcome to No Compromise Radio, a ministry coming to you from Bethlehem Bible Church in West Boylston.

No Compromise Radio is a program dedicated to the ongoing proclamation of Jesus Christ. Based on the theme in Galatians 2 verse 5, where the

Apostle Paul said, But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.

In short, if you like smooth, watered -down words to make you simply feel good, this show isn't for you.

By purpose, we are first biblical, but we can also be controversial. Stay tuned for the next 25 minutes as we're called by the divine trumpet to summon the troops for the honor and glory of her

King. Here's our host, Pastor Mike Abendroth. Welcome to No Compromise Radio, a ministry.

We are at Bethlehem Bible Church, and I am with Steve Cooley.

We are the Ben and Jerry's of theologies. Ben and Jerry's. Ben and Jerry, yeah. Is it good to eat food that's run by a manufacturing company, that's run by a bunch of liberals?

That's another week, I think. Another topic. I think that's another topic. Yeah. Could you please pass me that Starbucks coffee? The answer is, if you really like the product, it's okay to drink it or eat it.

But if you don't, then boycott it all the way. Do not touch. Do not eat. I was talking to Wes Jamison last night.

He said there's a homeschool group in Florida, and they're saying it's ungodly to eat regular bread, and you have to get your own wheat, organic wheat, grind it yourself and eat it.

Otherwise, it's a sin against the body. Well, I guess we should all live on farms, then.

I think that's Ezekiel 4 .7 or 4 .9 bread, whatever that's called. Yeah. I like my

Ezekiel saw the wheel bread, so. Ezekiel saw the wheel way up in the middle of the sky.

I could just hear the choir sing that right now. People are like, what kind of song is that? Who sings

Ezekiel's wheel anymore? I don't think they do. I think it's a

Barney theme song, torqued a little bit with some Christian ease. I'm not even going there.

All right. What we're talking about today in our series on Calvinism, we don't worship John Calvin.

We don't really care what Calvin said. It's a term used theologically, so you can just not have to explain everything all the time.

People just say Calvinism. Well, let's expand that a little bit. We'll call it the doctrines of grace, total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints.

Maybe not the best terms, but it's convenient because the acronym is TULIP. That's why when you go to lots of churches and you see up underneath the pulpit flowers tulips you'll see at certain conferences.

And sometimes you'll see daisies. Yeah. And give us the thing that's funny, but it's trite, but quite funny.

Because TULIP stands for, we've already run over that, but it just talks about the sovereignty of God and salvation.

And it says, if God loved you once, he'll love you forever. In the daisy of Arminianism, you take off one petal at a time.

He loves me. He loves me not. It's still funny. He loves me. He loves me not. It's still funny. That's like when people talk about the

Hittites and the Jebusites and then you say the electrolytes and the cellulites. It's always funny. It always elicits a laugh.

At least from us. Limited atonement. Christ's death was of an infinite value, worthy and excellent enough to save every person who was ever born times a billion.

But is everyone going to heaven? Did God send the Son to rescue some, all, none?

That's the question that we're asking. And so we are saying that the atonement is limited by God's intention.

We are saying that Jesus redeemed only a particular people. We are saying that his death on Calvary is only applied to the ones that the

Father has chosen, the Spirit has drawn. And so we're trying to say today that in heaven, in Revelation chapter 5, when they sang a new song, worthy are you to take the book and to break its seals.

For you, Jesus, were slain and purchased for God with your blood, men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.

We are saying that he saved all kinds of different people. But the text does not say worthy are you,

O Lord, for you saved every person from every tribe and from every tongue.

People are going to be praising God because Jesus accomplished salvation. It was accomplished and it was applied and Jesus didn't lose one.

What if Jesus would have died for Judas and Judas didn't make it? Would they still sing that song? I don't think so.

But this is such a raging controversy and I really sometimes don't even get it.

If you know the Old Testament, this would not confuse you. But if you go on the Internet, and I don't really advise it, but even

YouTube, there are videos, Calvinism is a heresy, beware Calvinists.

And they will talk nonstop about God's love, free will, things like what they won't talk about is the

Bible. Because that's a difficult topic to handle if you're trying to prove something that's not biblical.

Well, Jesus is a gentleman and he would never do anything that a gentleman wouldn't do. He would never cleanse the temple or anything like that, throw the money changers out.

The Bible states clearly, with definite language, Jesus obtains eternal redemption at Calvary, Hebrews 9, verse 12.

It is not a death that makes things possible and you fill in the rest. You aren't filling in the rest except with sin, therefore

God has to override that. I think of the text that says, He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross.

He had to do that, because we can't offer anything good, and if you have a problem with limited atonement, you really have a problem with unconditional election, and if you have a problem with unconditional election, you really have a problem with the depravity of man.

Steve said well last week that you can't separate Christ's death from how he prays and for whom he prays.

Is that right? To whom he prays? For whom? For whom he prays. Yeah. So you can't do that.

I think about the Spirit of God. The Spirit makes intercession for us. He prays for the elect alone.

And so today we want to talk a little bit more about limited atonement and the fallacy of unlimited atonement.

What about double jeopardy, Steve? Let's talk a little bit about that when it comes to the atonement. Tell us what -

I'll take limited atonement for $2 ,000. That's double jeopardy. You have to say it fast.

We both have to say it. So tell me about double jeopardy and penalties that are demanded twice.

Yeah, well, and that's what double jeopardy is. The idea, you know, in U .S. constitutional law that if you're found innocent of a crime, you can't be retried for the same crime.

That's double jeopardy. And so with application to theology, this would be the idea that Christ died for your sin and yet you're an unbeliever.

And so you go to hell and that sin that Christ paid for, you now suffer for.

He suffered for it on the cross. He suffered the full wrath of God for it, for those three hours on the cross.

And yet somehow an Arminian would say, you're going to suffer for that same suffering that Jesus, you're going to suffer the same suffering that Jesus went through, only yours is going to be eternal.

Excellent. How about this, Steve? You ever consider this? If we believe that Jesus died for each and every person that's ever born, unlimited, why do we limit the

Lord's table? Why don't we say, do you know, we're not going to limit the Lord's table anymore to believers because if Jesus died for you, you should be able to come to the table.

Absolutely. Because you're going to heaven. So you might as well remember his death too. It just doesn't maybe have the same emotional impact for you, but you're going to enjoy the same benefit.

Listen to what Custance said, Arthur Custance. Would it be proper to speak of the

Lord's victory as a triumph if 80 % of the people for whom he supposedly died repudiated that sacrifice?

Since far more appear to be lost than are saved, the greater part of the Lord's suffering for man's sins was to no purpose.

This would surely be a poor and weak triumph. Yeah, I mean, the whole idea, again, of Jesus dying to no effect or, you know, to only potential effect.

You know, I mean, Jesus died on the cross, and then he just kind of crossed his fingers, as it were, hoping that people after him would come to faith, not knowing what would happen.

Chaplain to Oliver Cromwell, John Owen, he wrote a great book called The Death of Death and the

Death of Christ. He said, the Son underwent punishment for, one, the sins of all men, two, the sins of some men, or three, some of the sins of all men.

In which case it may be said, A, that if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so none are saved.

B, that if the second be true, then Christ in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect of the whole world, and this is the truth.

C, but if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?

Now, I like this, Steve. You answer, because of unbelief. I ask, is this unbelief a sin, or is it not?

If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or he did not. If he did, why must that hinder them more than the other sins for which he died?

If he did not, he did not die for all their sins. And you know, what typically happens in response to this is it gets caricatured.

I said it correctly. That's pretty good. I'm impressed with myself. Okay, I'm done. But here's what they say.

They say, well, then how can you go to people and tell them Christ died for them when maybe he didn't?

You know, how can you go to them and tell them that they should believe when maybe Christ didn't even die for them?

What if they're not one of the elect? Don't you have to know if they're one of the elect? Because if they're not, why would you preach them the gospel when they never have a chance to be saved?

How would you answer that, Pastor Mike? Happy birthday to you. It is difficult when it comes to, if the appeal to sinners is general, if it is valid, if it is proper, but we know

Christ's death is limited, we run into a sticky wicket. And I would say it's a difficult thing, and Dabney even has a long chapter in his systematic theology on that very issue.

I'm not saying there's no problems with it. It is difficult. How can the appeal be valid?

You believe and repent, and you will be saved if Jesus didn't die for them. Here's what

I would say just briefly. A, we're told Jesus only died for the elect, and B, we're told, repent and believe, and if you repent and believe, you certainly will come to faith.

You will be saved. And so I'm not going to say the Scripture is disingenuous, because I think it's more of an attack on God than it is, how do

I figure it out logically? Every doctrine has its problems. So here's my question,

Steve, to the person who asked me that. Since every text, every doctrine seemingly has some problems, for instance, the

Trinity, do we look—and let's think about the Trinity, because then it'll make it easier for this one—do we look at the problem text in light of the clear text, or do we look at the clear text in light of the problem text?

With every other doctrine, including you, my Arminian friend, if you've got a problem with the deity of Christ and the humanity of Christ, you will look at the problem text in light of the clear text.

You will say, you know what, this is a problem, I don't know how to get around it, but I do know for sure these other texts speak to the deity and humanity of Christ.

Why do you do the opposite here? People say, well, I think I found a verse where Jesus died for everybody,

I'll interpret all the other particular Atonement verses in light of that one. Why do people do that?

Answer? Because it helps their cause. Right. I mean, if there are dozens, and there are, in the

New Testament, I've never even counted all the scriptures that one way or another refer to particular redemption in the

New and Old Testament, and then if you have maybe a handful of verses, three or four, really, that are difficult at all with regard to this issue, why would you then overturn all the clear ones?

And the answer is, you wouldn't unless you had an ax to grind, unless you had a horse in the race.

Any other metaphors I can butcher here? Well, you could mix metaphors, because the Bible does that. You know why? Here's a better question.

If someone says to me, how can it be valid for the Gospel call to be open to all people if Jesus only died for the elect?

Well, I have another question. If Christ died for all mankind, the way you think he does, a congregation out there, listeners maybe, why has the

Gospel not been preached to all? The Holy Spirit even restricted the direction of the

Apostles. Don't you think he would have sent out everyone to every place?

I know we're supposed to go to every place, but there's a restriction. There's some people who have never, ever, ever, ever, ever heard.

What do we do with that? And so the problem becomes very sticky. You know what I think of, Steve? Remember that cornerback?

Maybe he was a safety for the Oakland Raiders. Oh, yeah, Tatum. Wasn't it? Well, Tatum was the guy who put the hurt on people.

Oh, no, I know. You mean Haynes. Yes, Lester Haynes. Haynes. Haynes, yes.

And he had all that stick them on. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, it must have taken him, I don't know if he ever got that stuff off.

He's probably still stuck to something or other. This is a sticky doctrine. We agree with that, but what we want to say is this.

Is Christ's death able to save sinners? The answer is yes. Did Jesus limit the ones for whom he died?

Did the Father choose everyone and the Son dies for everyone? No. The Father chose some. The Spirit died for the some.

Steve, what do we do with someone who says, but for God so loved the world? What do we do with the passages that talk about the world?

Well, we agree with that. I think there are a number of things. You know, with John 3, I think there are a number of issues.

The first is, you know, if you look back a little further in the chapter where Jesus is talking to Nicodemus, and that's the context for the whole, you know, for God so loved the world.

We forget that. Is that he just got through explaining the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit and saving people and the mystery of being born again, and he said, you must be born again.

Otherwise, why didn't he just say to Nicodemus, don't worry about it, pal. You're all good. Or why didn't he say, you know what,

Nicodemus, of your own free will, I want you to choose me. He didn't say any of those things. And in fact, if we have a right understanding of John 3 .16,

we would see that really there are some issues with the translation. It really is kind of a carryover from the

King James, and maybe some people had a little bit of an ax to grind when they did that translation.

For God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten Son, that those believing in him should not perish.

There's no kind of call in that verse. Those believing in him, if you're one of those who's believing in him, you will not perish.

Here's what I'd like to say. If you look at the word world in the Bible, and you say it's used everywhere in the

Bible with the same meaning, that meaning would be each and every person who's ever been born, then you don't know your

Bible very well, because there are verses in the Bible that talk about the world, meaning the planet, like, save the world, the entire universe, mankind, the non -Jews.

You have to look at the context. And so even in John 3 .16, I believe it's not the elect, as Pink would say,

I believe it's for God so loved humankind. He loved humans, and he sent his Son into the world to die for humans.

It's a general statement about the love of God. But there's so many, I would say, you know, it's funny, because John 3 .16,

probably the most well -known verse in the Bible, and probably the least understood. For example, here's just one little factoid that most people don't know.

There's a perfectly good Greek word for whosoever. And you know, everybody says, well, whosoever will, you know, and whoever believes, that word is not in John 3 .16

in the Greek. It's not there. Well, I'd look at Romans chapter 10. It's not there. Whoever calls upon the name of the

Lord shall be saved. All who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. When we think of the word world, don't just default to each and every person.

You ought to say to yourself, sometimes it's the body of the elect of God. Sometimes it's the world system in evil opposition to God.

Sometimes it's sinners of all ranks and races and kinds and tribes and tongues. For God so loved the world, he loved humankind.

It would be a bad love if he loved each and every person in the world, and they still went to hell. That'd be a bad love.

What kind of love language is that? It would be terrible language. In 1 John, when the same author uses world, he frequently uses it, as you said, to speak of the world system.

It tells us not to love this world. Well, what does that mean? Not to love everybody in the world? You know, okay, just be separate, live out on an island, some kind of Ted Kaczynski thing.

I haven't heard that name for a while. I've been called the Unabomber, but I haven't been called Ted Kaczynski. Think about John 4 and the myopia that the

Jews had when it came to their salvation. Myopia means? They were just nearsighted.

They couldn't see the big picture. They couldn't see the picture that God was going to save Gentiles, and that had always been his purpose, to save Gentiles, even though there was an elect nation.

And here we have, right after John 3, John 4, the woman at the well, the Samaritan woman, the sinful Samaritan woman, and she runs back and she tells those men back at her village,

I've just found the Messiah of the world. She didn't mean he's going to save every person.

She meant not just Jews only. And John says the same thing in 1 John 2, my little children.

People use this all the time as an anti -limited atonement set of verses. I'm writing these things that you may not sin.

If anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous. And he himself is the propitiation of our sins, and for not ours only, but also those of the whole world.

He died for more than just Jews. He died for Gentiles and Greeks and people in Madagascar.

There's all kinds of implications to that, but I will say this, if you want to take that verse and make it for unlimited atonement, you're going to push it to universalism, because if Jesus is the propitiation for the world's sins, the

Father cannot hold one sin against them because otherwise the Father would be unjust. Right, because you need to understand what the word propitiation means.

It means he satisfied the wrath, he satiated the wrath. You know, God is at war with the wicked every day, and Christ resolved that war.

He reconciled us. So if he satisfied the wrath, if he propitiated the wrath of God for every single person, well, if God's no longer angry with them, why would he send them to hell?

And the answer is, he wouldn't. So you either, in 1 John 2 .2, you either wind up at universalism, or you wind up in a particular redemption mode, and there's no other choice.

Behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world. Was John the Baptist really thinking each and every person's sins are going to be taken away?

Did he really somehow think with his reading of the Old Testament that God didn't have a peculiar, distinguishing, special love for his people alone?

Yes, God loves as a creator everyone, but he loves people as a creator and gives them rain and sun and intimacy and food and all those things, but it's different than having someone be his bride and dwell with him in his holy heaven forever.

I do believe John was right. He takes away the sin of the world. And that is, he takes away the sin of each and every person.

You can't default to that or you're going to go to universalism. And so one of the hermeneutical things in life you have to just employ as you study the

Bible is, what are the implications of me taking this word that can be translated eight different ways in John's writings, used 112 times,

I better be careful. Did John mean this? Behold the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.

All the world's systems sin. Takes away the sin of the world, you know, the ecosystem, the original antichrist.

Yeah. Yeah. Tell me about this one now, Steve, because we're wrapping up this time. We don't want to go to part three.

The other objection that comes up is not just for the word world, but the word all.

What about the word all that, you know, he is the savior of all men, 1

Timothy 2? All means all, and that's all all means. Well, again, you know,

I think you wind up with a similar situation. If you understand all to mean literally all, every man, woman, and child ever born or alive on the planet, then you wind up at universalism again.

If you really did that, if you really died for the sins of all, then you're right back to where you were.

And in context there, in addition to what Steve said, 1 Timothy 2, the context is clear. If you look at chapter 2, verse 1, pastors, elders pray for all kinds of people.

What kind of people would those be, verse 2? Those kind of people who are in authority and they're leading you.

And by the way, you should know, by the way, he says to this people, Timothy, in particular

Timothy, you tell the people at Ephesus, that Jesus actually saves some of those kind of people.

He saves some of those kind of people. He's the ransomer of those kind of people, and when you see the word all, it can either be inclusive or it can be relative.

It can be all manner of, all sorts of, all kinds of, or it can be all inclusive.

And Steve, I think it might shock people out there to know that Bible translations have theological bias.

I am shocked and appalled in equal measure, may I say. Yes, absolutely, because theologians, and those are the people who translate the

Bible, are not some kind of neutral party to these things. In fact, you know, we just had some folks over for dinner the other night, and they said of the

NIV, which in many cases is fine, but I said, you know, here's my little homework for you.

Go home and look at Hebrews 11 .11. And, you know, the word...

By faith, sir? By faith to Abraham? Yeah, the word Abraham is in the NIV, and it's nowhere, it's not in any other translation because it's not in the

Greek language. So for whatever reason, he introduced that word there, and so they come with an agenda of some kind.

Well, I could just say to you who are listening, Mark 1 .5, and all the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem, and they were being baptized by him in the

Jordan River, confessing their sins. It's hyperbole. Well, if you think everyone was going, you've got a problem, because the

Pharisees didn't go. The Pharisees and the lawyers, Luke 7 says, rejected God's purpose for themselves, not been baptized by John.

So they didn't all go. All kinds did, all manner, it seemed like they all went, and so when you say

Jesus died for all, I say that's true. He died for all kinds and all different types of people, but he did not die for Hitler, Judas, who else?

Jezebel? Goliath? Well, yeah, anybody who, you know, and I mean, some of these things we don't really know, but we can,

I mean, I think it's a fairly safe guess that Joseph Stalin is not in heaven, Pol Pot is not in heaven, and why not?

Because Jesus did not die for their sins, and therefore they were never drawn by the Father. They were never called by him.

All these things flow together. Well, sometimes people will read

Isaiah chapter 53, and they'll say the us's and the all's, but they don't really think through it quite properly enough, because the us's and the all's are couched and protected by, he died for us all.

What does that mean? Us all? Is that not y 'all, like in the South? No, he died for us, all of us.

That's right. So we've been talking about limited atonement, and here's the real issue. Here's the sticky wicket. Is God in charge of salvation, or are you?

Are you the one who's going to say, I'll let God save me, Jesus did it all, and I'll kind of stamp the ticket?

We believe that God's in heaven, and he does whatever he wants. Steve, you've got ten seconds to wrap it up. Well, and these doctrines all flow together, and if you study the

New Testament closely, if you read it carefully, you will come to no other conclusion. No Compromise Radio.

See you tomorrow. No Compromise Radio with Pastor Mike Abendroth is a production of Bethlehem Bible Church in West Boylston.

Bethlehem Bible Church is a Bible -teaching church firmly committed to unleashing the life -transforming power of God's Word through verse -by -verse exposition of the sacred text.

Please come and join us. Our service times are Sunday morning at 1015 and in the evening at 6. We're right on Route 110 in West Boylston.

You can check us out online at bbchurch .org or by phone at 508 -835 -3400.

The thoughts and opinions expressed on No Compromise Radio do not necessarily reflect those of WVNE, its staff or management.