Divisive Doctrines - Limited Atonement (Part 1)

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 ministry.

My name is Mike Abendroth. One time I got junk mail and it was to Mike Haferhorf.

So there you have it, Mike Haferhorf. My first name, Michael, does not have an A in it. And I think my mother was watching, so the story goes, a movie, and there was a

French director named Michel or Michael or Mikel, and she said, oh, that looks neat, and did not put an

A in my first name. So everyone called me Michael or Mike when

I was growing up. And then I got older, kind of self -conscious teenager, junior high.

My last name's Abendroth, and the teacher would say, well, we're going to go through the roll and I'm going to try to pronounce your name, and I'm not good at names, so correct me if I'm wrong,

Michelle Abernathy. And all my friends would laugh. So I started putting the

A in the name, and so many documents have the A in the name. But then after college,

I thought it was kind of cool, because then, you know, it was different.

So it had the cool look, so now it just is what it is. So sometimes maybe if I'm a guest speaker someplace,

I have to say, you know, Mike, because if it's M -I -C -H -E -L, maybe they'll think it's a woman guest speaker preaching the

Word of God, which they probably wouldn't want. Maybe society would. Maybe I'll try to go speak at Union Seminary under the guise of Michelle, Michelle Abendroth.

How about that? That'd be good. Well, we have lots of things on tap today, and one of the things on tap today is my phone is ringing, and we don't want the phone to ring, so I just had to make sure that was turned off.

We have an IBS class, Institute for Biblical Studies. I'm teaching the class on the

Christian home, what's a Christian home look like, so you can pull that up, and we'd love to have you come, even though the class is half over.

Stephen J. Nichols will be in town for the Bible conference series on church history.

Stephen J. Nichols is going to talk about the Reformation, about Machen, Calvin, authority of Scripture, understanding biblical concepts in light of Reformation, church history, characters, and so that's

April 1st and March 30th, bbcchurch .org. And then lastly, I haven't talked about my new book much lately.

I finished a third one, shopping for a publisher, working on maybe four and five as time goes on.

But this book here, a day one book, The Sovereignty and Supremacy of King Jesus, Bowing to the

Gracious Despot, and this is a book that talks about Jesus as king. If you think of a king today, you don't understand what a king was like back in those

Bible days. And if you don't understand what a biblical king was like, you won't understand to the full effect who

Jesus is. And if it says on the back by Steve Lawson, I wholeheartedly endorse this book and strongly encourage you to carefully read its message.

You will find this book to be an invaluable resource. Do you know how much money that cost me to get that endorsement from Steve Lawson?

So here's what we're going to do. I have a book in my hand, and if you write to me at info at nocompromiseradio .com,

if you write to me and you with all honesty and sincerity say to me on the email,

I've listened to every No Compromise radio show, please send me the free book.

The first person that writes to me credibly that I, and you say

I've listened to every show, I'll give you the book. How's that? So see, God's grace may be free and unmerited, but my mercy is not.

So Sovereignty and Supremacy of King Jesus, if you don't want to take all the time to listen to 700 shows, then you can go to Amazon or CBD and order one of the books.

I think you'll be encouraged. I really think you do, and I hardly make any money off of them, so it's easy for me to promote.

We don't want to be one of the radio shows that's always begging for money. Matter of fact, I don't think we've ever asked for any money on No Compromise Radio Ministry, and frankly, we've never gotten any.

We have received money. Actually when our email was down, I got several emails from people saying we'd like to give money.

Where do we send it? And I wasn't responding because I didn't get the emails. And so if people want to give money, then they figure out a way.

I mean, consider, everyone knows, who is a thinking person, that radio costs money, that television costs money, that websites cost money, that data storage costs money.

Everyone knows that, don't they? And don't they know that there's an end of the year and accounting and an update and can we afford to keep doing this?

Everyone knows that. So why on earth do ministries get on the air from Hank Hanegraaff to a lot of other people and just beg, beg, beg, beg, beg?

Now if your name is Beg, then you can say, my name is Alistair Begg.

But I hope Alistair Begg doesn't beg for money. Beg begging begs the question now, doesn't it?

So why beg for money? I just don't understand when people do that. I don't understand when pastors beg for money in light of 2

Corinthians 8 and 9. And I don't understand why pastors hold some

Old Testament Israelite tithe over people's head in Malachi 3, and I just don't get it.

Here's what I get. I get if you're faithful and you proclaim the Word and God chooses to amplify the ministry, the local church ministry, through books and radio,

TV, or anything else, then He'll do that. S. Lewis Johnson is right. Mueller is right.

We don't have to do that. And so at No Compromise Radio, I'm not asking for your money, and I'm additionally not saying that if you give your money to these beggars, stop giving the money to them and then give it to me.

I'm not asking for that either. We are paid through the year, and as we get money, we use it for things.

We have equipment, all kinds of other issues. Pete's Coffee. Just kidding. I've never used

No Compromise money to buy Pete's Coffee, and that's a fact. But why do people beg?

We all know that those ministries need money. And so I think if you don't get the money, maybe that's

God providentially showing you that you shouldn't be on that radio station.

That's what I think. So, so much for that No Compromise Radio. Back to the topic du jour.

Divisive truths. Now, last week we talked about divisive truths in general, and I gave an introduction about truth divides.

It divides truth from error. It divides God's Word from Satan's deception through his hypocritical lie speakers, that is, men, false teachers.

And so just because something's divisive doesn't mean it should be tabled. We don't say, oh, you know, that's too divisive.

We can't bring it up. I have people say that all the time about all kinds of topics. And then I would say to you,

I guess the Holy Spirit didn't know what he was talking about when he brought up the divisive doctrine of, for instance, unconditional election.

Why would he tell those poor Ephesians and those other churches who had received the circular letter of Ephesians?

Why would he talk about God is to be blessed, the

Father is to be blessed because he has chosen us? Why would he do that?

He predestined us in love. That's too divisive. The Spirit of God, he knew what he was doing when he moved men like Paul to write exactly what the

Spirit of God wanted to write to Paul. And Paul was writing through not some automaton dictation type of deal, but through his personality et cetera.

So today on No Compromise Radio, divisive truth number uno, limited atonement.

Limited atonement. We might as well stick the pig in the eye right to start.

Is that what that'd be, right? Are we able to eat pig in this dispensation, in this covenant, in this society?

I think so. You can get some pretty cheap spare ribs down the street, down the church there, and we could have yourself a grand old time with spare ribs.

And so probably my Messianic Jewish friends are saying, I don't think so, but I think Jesus declared all foods clean, didn't you?

Limited atonement. Limited atonement, people don't like the word, because Christ's death was a wonderful death.

It was of infinite value. It was such a great death that it could save billions, trillions,

Googleplex amount of people on this planet, and if there were people on other planets, which there are not, it would save them too.

There is no limit to the surpassing value of the atonement.

That's why when you say limited atonement, who are you to limit the atonement? It just doesn't sound good.

And so maybe we should call it particular redemption, that Jesus died for a particular group of people.

Or you could call it definite atonement, that Christ definitely died for the elect, those that the

Father had given him. And he, in contrast to an indefinite death, just dying to make people savable.

So, if you're thinking about the atonement today, you're saying, that's kind of divisive, I've never heard of that,

Jesus only dying for the elect, for God so loved the world. I would say to you that, first hear me out, because there are men better than me, better than I, I am better than other men,

I, me, direct object, indirect object, there are other men who are much better that have believed in limited atonement,

Spurgeons of the world and Calvins of the world and the MacArthur's and R .C. Sproul's of the world.

This is not a weird topic, although it's weird in evangelicalism today. In 1750, here in New England, I'm only an hour from Northampton where Jonathan Edwards was the pastor, and only an hour from Boston where we had other

Calvinistic pastors, Cotton Mather, etc. This was the prevailing doctrine in evangelical churches.

Now, certainly it was not prevailing in the Unitarian University churches, I mean, Universalist churches for unity, didn't

Todd Friel say that every church that has a UNI in it is not good? But what if it was a university

Bible church? What about that? Huh, Todd? What about that? Just kidding. I got a text the other day from someone,

I thought it was my friend's son -in -law in Texas. And I thought, why is he bugging me?

I just had a number, I didn't put in the person's name. And finally I said, hey Seth, you know,

I got your text, you know, quit bugging me kind of thing. And he said, it's not Seth, it's Todd, it's Todd Friel. So how'd you like to get text by Todd Friel?

Oh, speaking of names and celebrities and all that kind of stuff,

I'm just joking about the celebrity. But people that you would know because God has gifted them. Phil Johnson, Carl Truman, and James White are flying in to Boston in late

April, and we're going to sit down and have a no -compromise video production where I will be the host, asking them a variety of questions, all kinds of questions about the

Lord, devotion to Him, imputation, evangelism, downgrade controversy, elephant room,

James McDonald, T .D. Jakes, et al. So you're going to really like that show.

But limited atonement, the question is really, did Jesus' death actually accomplish the salvation of anyone, those that the

Father had given Him, or did it remove all obstacles for salvation of all men so that people were savable?

Lewis Berry Chafer said, Christ's death does not save either actually or potentially, rather it makes all men savable.

And so that would be unlimited atonement, and I disagree with that. Did Christ bear our sins as substitute?

Limited atonement. Or did He merely die to make salvation possible? Unlimited atonement.

And so the issue is not sufficiency, His death was sufficient. Both limited and unlimited atonement people agree with that.

Did Christ die for everyone? Unlimited atonement. Did Christ die for just the elect? Limited atonement.

Both agree that Christ's death was sufficient for all. All who believed could come.

Both camps believe, both four -pointers and five -pointers, that Christ's death was effectual for only the elect.

Both believe that. Both believe, both limited and unlimited, four -pointers and five -pointers, people that believe

Christ died for each and every person who was ever born, and Christ died just for the elect. They both believe that the only one's going to heaven, that the application of the death of Christ was only to the elect, because four -pointers and five -pointers are not universalist.

Unless you're a universal redemption, meaning that Jesus died for every person, therefore every person goes to heaven, unless you believe that, you believe that Jesus' death was sufficient for all and efficient for those who believe.

But that's not the real issue when it comes to limited or unlimited atonement, definite or indefinite redemption, particular or inparticular redemption.

That's not the issue. The issue is intention. Okay? Let me repeat that again on No Compromise Radio. The issue is intention.

Was the intention of Christ to die for all, some, or none?

What was the intention? The limited atonement, people would say, just for those whom the Father had given

Him. The unlimited atonement, Jesus died for everybody, people would say, Jesus '—the intention of Jesus was to die for every person.

That's the issue. Sufficient for all, yes, both agree. Efficient for just the elect, both agree.

But the intention is where the rub comes. So Christ's death is of infinite worth, and it could redeem angels if God said these angels needed redeeming.

It was a wonderful, great death. But the issue is whose punishment did

Christ bear? Whose punishment did He bear? And you have really three options that I've alluded to just a minute ago.

Christ died to save all men without distinction, so it didn't matter what kind of distinction—Jew,

Gentile, male, female, old, young—He died for every person, inclusively.

And so if He really died for those people, that would be universalism. That's option one. Option two,

Christ died to save no one in particular. That is the Arminian view. He died to save no one in particular.

That is to say, He procured potential salvation. He died to make people savable.

He died to remove all obstacles, and then they have to decide. They have to make a decision.

They have to trust Christ. So that's Arminianism. That's option two. Or option three—as

I lose my voice—option three, Christ died to save a certain number, the elect, those whom the

Father had given Him. And this death, therefore, as Calvin would say, would be a positive and effectual salvation.

The purpose of the atonement, Setan said, did God intend to save all men or did

He not? If He did not intend to save all men without exception, but only the elect, then the work of Christ on the cross is a glorious success,

John 6 .37. If on the other hand, it was God's intention to save the entire world, then the atonement of Christ has been a great failure, for vast numbers of mankind have not been saved.

So we believe in No Compromise Radio, as well as Bethlehem Bible Church, that Christ came to save all those the

Father had given Him, in the covenant of peace, the covenant of redemption, the Father, Son, and the Spirit, the

Father giving the Son some to die for. He could have given them all to die for. Nobody deserved it, so certainly we believe in grace, so no one deserved it.

That would have been an option, like the angels. No plan of redemption. God would have been just and holy and righteous.

No plan. Die for no one. God could have said, go die for everyone. He could have done that.

Grace can give to anyone it wants, and so, like in Matthew 20, do whatever

He wants with those that are His, or He could have said, go die for these some.

So we're going to look at some reasons why I think particular redemption or definite atonement is the biblical pattern.

Now, immediately you're jumping and you're saying, desires all men to be saved, for God so loved the world.

Now, I agree with God so loved the world, but I don't think that has anything to do with the atonement's intent.

Desires everyone to be saved, I think you're going to look at 2 Peter 3, verse 9, and find out everyone's not the right

Greek word. You say, yeah, you guys just do the whole Greek thing. You don't like something? You say it's

Greek. Well, that's not what I'm trying to do either, but NIV's translation of 2

Peter 3, verse 9 is a four -point translation. Did you know translators have a bias?

And so the NAS, four -point, NIV, four -point, et cetera. So let's look at some proofs in no particular order.

Maybe the first one's in good order, but I'm going to try to convince you that people who call themselves five -point

Calvinists, that is, they believe in limited atonement, the fifth point between a difference between a four -pointer and a five -pointer, is arguing on the atonement, the intent and the extent of the atonement.

I'm going to just try to tell you that I'm not teaching some kind of weird Romulan doctrine.

How about that? Number one, the reason why

I think particular redemption is right is that Scripture shows the limitation of Christ's death.

We are told explicitly Jesus died for the sheep, not the wolves, not the goats, but the sheep.

John 10, I am the good shepherd and I know my own and my own know me, even as the

Father knows me and I know the Father, and I lay down my life for the sheep.

Those are the ones that he laid down his life for. You say, well, that doesn't tell me much, chapter 10, verse 26 and following, but you do not believe me because you are not of my sheep.

My sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow me and I give eternal life to them and they will never perish and no one will snatch them out of my hand.

My Father who has given them to me is greater than all and no one is able to snatch them out of my hand.

Similarly, Titus 2, verse 14, who gave himself, speaking of Christ for us, to redeem us from every lawless deed and to purify for himself a people for his own possessions, zealous for good deeds.

You can go through the list and find out those for whom

Christ died. The many, Isaiah 53. The children of God, John 11.

Those given him by the Father, John 6 and John 17. His church, Acts 20,

Ephesians 5. And then implicitly you see this with many sons, Hebrews 2.

His brethren, Hebrews 2. The children, same chapter. The seed of Abraham, same chapter.

The people of God, same chapter. His friends, John 15. If the

Bible wanted you to grasp the concept that Jesus died for everyone, without distinction, why would these terms be used?

Secondly, on No Compromise Radio, why you should believe in limited atonement?

Because the Bible ties Christ's death with sanctification.

In other words, if Jesus died for you, the Bible teaches that he will sanctify you.

Now let's stop and think about that for a minute. There are some people, unbelievers, who aren't being sanctified.

And the unbelievers that don't go to heaven, that don't get saved and then go to heaven, they will die in an unsanctified state, having never been sanctified, in no way being sanctified, and they'll go to hell.

There are some people who will never be sanctified. So if Jesus died for each and every person, and the

Bible ties his death to sanctification, then why aren't all sanctified?

This yields the only conclusion possible, is that Jesus didn't die for everyone.

But those he died for, he sanctified. Ephesians 5, husbands love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave himself up for her.

That he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present to himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and blameless.

So my point is this, there is a tie between sanctification and Christ's death.

And if Christ died for you, thankfully, he'll sanctify you and eventually glorify you.

But what's happening with people who believe in unlimited atonement? They have a

God who dies for people, but then never sanctifies them. Let me give you another thing.

It's the same, well, I don't even know if I have enough time, I don't have enough time. So no Compromise Radio today, here's what we're doing.

No Star Trek illustrations, no Wrath of Khan. We have what?

We have a God who amazingly sent his son to die for us. I think both of us can agree with that, the four and five pointers.

If this is just an academic exercise, you've missed the point. That God would send his son to die for someone like you, for someone like me, a greater sinner than you.

That is an amazing thing. That is amazing love. How can it be that, oh my

God, he should die for me? Jesus is God, that he died for me, that is an amazing fact.

And so it should give us motivation, it should give us gratitude, it should give us thanksgiving, that God's son should die for us.

And so if this is just a theological exercise, then you've got it all wrong. But if it really goes back to understanding the mind of God so we can praise him and understand him and grow in the grace and knowledge of the

Lord Jesus Christ, then you're going the right way. That Jesus would die for us is an amazing truth.

And with that, we can have a distinction without separation, because I love my four -point friends, and we'll find out what's going on more in part two next week.

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.