Session 4 Limited Atonement

Okay, it's my pleasure to introduce our next speaker, Elias Ayala.

Eli is a Christian apologist and a graduate of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary where he earned his

Master of Arts in Theological Studies and Master of Divinity. Growing up in a

Christian home, he always had a love for the scriptures and asking deep questions. However, in early years in college, he was challenged in his faith by a skeptical professor who caused him to doubt the biblical record.

In a quest for answers, he was drawn into research and discovered the field of apologetics where he was exposed to the many great writers of the

Christian faith as well as their answers to some of life's profound questions. Through his studies, he has come to realize the importance of always being ready to give a reason for the hope that is in us, 1

Peter 3, 15, and continues to encourage others to genuinely know and defend the

Christian faith. Eli lives on Long Island, New York with his wife and two children.

He is currently a middle and high school teacher at a Christian private school and a youth director at his local church as well as a team member, a new team member to the

Historical Bible Society. His areas of interest and study include the doctrine of creation, reform soteriology, and apologetic methodology.

Eli is also a traveling speaker and enjoys sharing with others how to defend the Christian faith in a way that is both effective and God -honoring.

So it's my pleasure to welcome Eli to our pulpit this afternoon. Sure, so it doesn't explode here.

Just a quick editing of that introduction. I actually have three kids now, so we have a newborn.

His name is Calvin. Surprise, surprise. And he has been very interesting and very busy.

As you guys would imagine, having kids is not, well, it's not boring. So I'm always being kept on my toes, but it is a glorious thing to be blessed with children.

My kids, I have a daughter who's five. I have a son who is two, and my youngest was born just in August.

So they're awesome, and they are truly a blessing. Well, just casting that aside for a moment, it is my first time actually being invited to speak somewhere on the topic of reform theology.

I usually talk about apologetics and doing things like that, but one of my great interests is to study this area specifically.

I had just recently been involved in some interactions online with folks over this topic, and so this has been an area of study that has been very, very important to me, especially coming from just a personal perspective, to understand the doctrines of grace and to understand how crummy you are, as Anthony, unfortunately

I wasn't here yesterday, but I'm sure he did an excellent job showing how crummy everyone is biblically.

This is very, very important because I think we live in a world today where we elevate man, and this is what draws a lot of people, not a lot of people, but it draws people to the reformed faith, is that they recognize that regardless of the differences within the reformed camp and the different things that we could argue about, there is a very, very great desire to keep

God at the center of all things. This world is not about you. It's about God.

God is the main character. You are the stage hand. You are important, and we're involved in that story, but it's about God, and so when we're focusing on soteriological issues, issues pertaining to salvation, we want to be able to look at these things from a biblical perspective and a theocentric perspective.

That is to say, from a perspective where God is the center of gravity. This is very, very important because the issue that comes up in these kinds of discussions, the issue of free will.

You ask someone, can you define for me free will, and what do they always start with? They start with human examples, you see, instead of starting with what that means for God.

We were made in the image of God. God is the original. We are the derivative, and so if we're going to understand

God's truth, we do not start with ourselves. We start with God as the original, and we trickle down in our theology to see how that applies to us.

That is very, very important, and sometimes we can run the risk of being very man -centered and self -centered in the way that we do our theology.

Well, maybe some of you guys are here because you like theology. People think these topics are interesting, and that's important that you like theology, and shame on you if you don't.

Everyone does theology. Not everyone does it well, and if you are a Christian, if you are a believer, if you've been redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ, you are called to be a theologian.

You don't have to have a PhD. You don't have to have a formal education, but all of us need to be engaging in theology because theology is what?

It's the study of God, and if I'm in relationship with God, if I'm in relationship with Jesus, I need to know what the

Bible has to say about that. That's hugely important. We can't just, you know, come from the perspective, well,

I just want Jesus, you know? You can keep all your theology, and then the question then that needs to be asked, which

Jesus are you talking about? Oh, well, Jesus, the Son of God. Oh, you mean the theological truth that Jesus is

God in flesh, John 1 .1, John 1 .14, Colossians 2 .3, and all over the New Testament? We cannot avoid doing theology, and so if we're going to engage in theology, we better be sure that we're doing it well, that we're doing it biblically, that we are faithful to the

Word of God, and we need to set aside. We need to learn to set aside our traditions because sometimes when we open up the

Bible, it's very easy to come across ideas that we don't like, and so what do we do? We impose upon the

Scripture concepts that are not themselves found in the Scripture so that we can mold and form and shape the

Word of God to fit our own fancies. We can't do that, and I think the topic of Reformed theology and the doctrines of grace in this specific area, this is done very often because when we present the doctrines of grace, what is often the case?

We are presenting the picture of a God that people do not like, a

God who is sovereign in His choice, a God who is so holy that the sinfulness of our own hearts are laid bare out in the open.

We don't like that. You see, I bet you if we had a fancy worship concert up here and a very, you know, inspiring speaker, you probably couldn't fit the people in the church here right now.

You know, I was talking to a friend and he was saying, hey, it's great that you guys are doing something like this, but you really, you know,

I don't mean to be offensive. This was a Christian, by the way. He says, I don't mean to be offensive. He says, but no one really cares about like that kind of theological stuff, and I was just like,

Lord, please hold me back. You see, this is the, I need the restraint because I am a black belt in karate movies, and he was about to get hurt, okay?

He was about to get hurt because the reality is how can a Christian say something like that?

Theology is the very foundation upon which we stand because it's the theological truths revealed to us in Scripture that our entire worldview, our entire faith is based upon, okay?

And so sometimes we need to understand why that's important. I want to begin with reading to you

Jeremiah chapter 9, verses 23 through 24. Jeremiah chapter 9, verses 23 through 24 has absolutely nothing to do with my topic, okay?

It has nothing to do with my limited atonement, which I'm going to define for you and explain to you in just a few moments.

If I'm shivering, it's not because I'm nervous. I am always speaking. I'm just cold.

How many people are cold? My fingers are about, she's like, hallelujah. Like, amen. There we go. I am freezing. I'm freezing.

I'm frozen, and I'm chosen. The frozen chosen. Look at that. It's all wrapped up together, okay?

So Jeremiah chapter 9, verse 23 through 24, and here's what it says.

Thus says the Lord, let not a wise man boast of his wisdom, and let not the mighty man boast of his might.

Let not a rich man boast of his riches, but let him who boasts, boast of this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the

Lord who exercises loving kindness, justice, and righteousness on the earth, for I delight in these things, declares the

Lord. You want to boast about something? Boast in the fact that you know and understand

God. That's theology. You want to boast about something?

That you know and understand God, intellectually, relationally. Because when we engage in theology and we grow in our learning and understanding, hopefully that's joined together with an intent of the heart to come to know our

Savior all the more accurately. And that is honoring to God. That is delightful to God.

And so keeping that in mind when we're talking about limited atonement and the attempt to understand rightly what the nature of the atonement of Christ is, this is our attempt to accurately know and understand who

God is and what He has done on our behalf. And once we recognize what He's done, and of course we were beginning to explore that the night before and what was just spoken to us today in regards to unconditional election, we begin to appreciate the great grace with which

God has saved us. We begin to appreciate the great lengths that God has gone through to exhibit

His love and His mercy towards us. And so to that end, I want to begin by speaking with you about limited atonement, which

I will not from this point call limited atonement, because most Calvinists who study these issues don't like the name anyway.

I'm going to refer to it as particular redemption. That's the term I like. So I might revert back and forth.

But limited atonement is a very controversial issue. As a matter of fact, those who flirt with Calvinism, you know,

I wasn't born into a church that was reformed. I didn't grow up in that context. I grew up in a

Pentecostal church. And so the theology is different there. And so when I began to study

Calvinism and the reformed faith and the doctrines of grace, I could jive with total depravity because, you know, let me look in the mirror.

I'd be like, yep, I'm depraved. That's the easiest one, right? Poor Anthony who was like, man, this is the foundation of everything else.

I got to make sure that I get this right. And listen, you know, I didn't tell him this, but perhaps I should. Just hold up a giant mirror and just be like, total depravity.

And they're like, praise God. That's right. Because when we look at ourselves, it's very easy to recognize that we do not measure up to God's perfect standard.

I'm a low -down, dirty sinner, and so are you. Okay? Now, when we understand that and we understand that we are sinners, that we are dead in our sin and trespasses,

Ephesians chapter 2, verse 1, we are separated from God. We are at enmity with God.

We begin to recognize that how on earth will we be saved? How can we be saved?

It's only, as Bruce mentioned, the sovereign electing work of God. I would never use my free will to choose

Jesus Christ if I was left to myself, a low -down, dirty sinner who is dead in his sin and trespasses, who the scripture says is unable to submit himself to the law of God.

I'm unable. And that's why it's God who needs to, so to speak, bend down and pluck me out of the graveyard.

The whole point of the doctrines of grace is to minimize man and to highlight the work of a sovereign

God. That's why we say, soli deo gloria, to God be the glory in salvation, because I contribute nothing except the sin that makes my salvation necessary.

This is a very, very hard truth for people to wrap their minds around, but this is what the scriptures teach.

And so if God must save the sinner, then God must perform the act that saves me, that sets me apart, that pays the consequences, the penalty for my sin.

And so that's what particular redemption or limited atonement really touches upon. Let me define my terms, okay?

Definitions are always very, very important, okay, because I can use this terminology and you might not be able to follow.

So here, when you study the doctrines of grace and you have people on board and say total depravity, okay, unconditional election, that's a little hard to swallow, but yeah,

I can see that I need God to save me. Limited atonement is sometimes the last point of the

TULIP acronym that people accept. And I think there's a good reason why it's the last one, because there are passages in scripture that seem to be contrary to that idea that only

Christ died for the elect. You know, you have verses like, for God to love the world, he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him will not perish, but have eternal life.

That is a huge, loving passage that we hold on to, and churches across the world will quote that passage, and it's true.

And you have verses where it speaks of Jesus being the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world. I understand what that sounds like, but those of you who are familiar with the importance and the depth with which we need to study the scriptures, things are not always as they seem upon a very surface reading of the text.

Very good principle to keep in mind when you're interpreting the scripture. I learned this from another

Christian apologist. He says when you read a portion of scripture, you need to stop. S -T -O -P.

Stop. S, situation. What's the situation? What's the context of this passage? T, type.

What type of literature am I reading? Is there a figure of speech being used here? What genre am I reading? O, who's the object?

Who's the audience? P, is what I'm reading prescriptive or descriptive?

Is the Bible commanding me to do something or is it merely describing something? We need to learn to dig deeper when we're interpreting scripture and not be satisfied with just quoting a passage without exploring the depths of what it means.

There's a difference between reading the scriptures and studying the scriptures, isn't there?

Very, very important. So what is particular redemption? Particular redemption is the teaching that Jesus did not pay for everyone's sins.

Instead, Jesus only bore the sins of the elect. Again, one of the other reasons why the

L within the tulip is often the last. That's the one that someone struggles with because we're presenting the mean

Jesus, the Jesus who just loves a few people and only saves them. It's always, you know, you're going to defend limited atonement.

I'm like, you know, everyone's going to hate me by the end of the, you know. So Jesus didn't die for everyone.

No, he didn't. Oh my goodness, you're such a terrible person, right? This is the hardest doctrine to defend because it already has a very emotional aspect to it, okay?

But we need to chug along because truth doesn't care about your emotions. No offense, all right? So particular redemption is called particular redemption because Jesus bore the sins of a particular group of people.

Now, what is the common caricature of the Calvinist? Oh, well, you guys believe that Jesus only died for a select few.

How many people have heard that before? You know, a select few. And I'm thinking, I'm like, select few?

I don't know about you, but when I read the Bible, the Bible says that he paid the penalty for people from every tribe and tongue, people from every nation, that when the apostle

John sees that great vision of the great multitude in the book of Revelation, what does he say? I see a multitude so vast that no man can number.

God can number them because he has an elect. God does not save an ambiguous group of whoever's.

You see, from the human perspective, the elect of God is a number so vast that no one can number them.

But from God's perspective, he knows your name because when Jesus Christ poured out his blood on behalf of sinners, he had you, if you are his elect, he had you specifically in mind.

God does not send Jesus Christ to make salvation possible. Jesus Christ is the savior.

He saves those whom he intends to save. And this is why it's important because this idea helps us to put into proper perspective that the

Jesus that we serve is a mighty and powerful and effective savior.

He does not fail ever. He does not. He cannot. This is related to the issue of, you know, people often come up with the, and this is not my topic for today, but, you know, can a

Christian lose their salvation? Sure. If Jesus could fail, that's right.

He could, that's right. You know, in John chapter 6, when he said, all that the father gives to me,

I will raise them up on the last day. What is the work of the father? Jesus says, the work of the father is this.

All that the father gives to me, I won't lose any of them. I'll raise them up on the last day.

And Jesus says, I always do the will of the father. Do you believe that Jesus could fail to do the will of the father? Well, no.

Well, what's the will of the father? That he lose none. So can Jesus lose one? No. You see how the logic works?

That's another thing I love about the doctrines of grace. They're so darn logical. And logic is a wonderful tool to cut through heresies, false teachings, and watery, marshmallow -y versions of the gospel.

Okay? So, particular redemption is called particular because Jesus bore the sins of a particular group of people, a group so vast and encompassing people from every tribe, tongue, and nation, a multitude for which no man can number.

Wow. That is an amazing, amazing truth. Calvinists don't believe that Jesus came and saved a select few.

Jesus came and saved a select multitude of sinners.

Now, what is the particular redemption at its core? At its core, as is all of the doctrines of grace, and I think if you look at all theological doctrines, at the core essence of particular redemption is the nature and essence of the triune

God. We don't really talk a lot about the trinity in American Christianity. Maybe some churches will focus more on some theological issues, but we need to understand that we serve a trinitarian

God. There is one God in all of existence, but this one God is very peculiar, and that His nature and essence is that of three persons,

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And they're all three equally God. The Father is

God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Yet, there is one God. We believe in one being who exists as three persons.

That is monotheism, trinitarian monotheism. And by the way, that doctrine has huge implications in all other areas of philosophy and theology, which we won't get into, which

I wish we did because I love those topics too, but we want to stay on topic, okay? The doctrine of particular redemption is through and through trinitarian, because the

Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit work in perfect unity, that the purpose of the

Father is accomplished by the Son and applied by the Holy Spirit.

And I think of the problem with many churches today, when they're preaching from the pulpit, they have a very imbalanced view of God.

They have a very imbalanced presentation of theology. But in reality, we need to understand that as Christians who have a

Christian worldview, everything that we believe about God, everything that is presented to us in Scripture is connected to something else.

If I would ask you to close your eyes and think of a belief you hold that is completely disconnected from other beliefs, you couldn't do it, because everything you believe is connected to other beliefs.

I did this with my students one. I want you to close your eyes and think of a cupcake, only a cupcake, nothing else.

And they're like, well, yeah, Mr. Ayala, cupcakes, I believe that cupcakes are delicious. And so I don't see how that's related to anything else.

It's like, what did you say again? Oh, I believe cupcakes are delicious. Can you say that again? I believe cupcakes are delicious.

Wow, that was really good English. You must believe in the validity of language, right?

Your belief about a cupcake is connected to your belief about language, because you need language to express your like for cupcakes.

And when you use language, what do you also presuppose? That there are people listening to you when you're speaking to me about how much you love cupcakes.

Every individual belief you have about anything is connected. It's the same thing with theology.

What you believe about God is going to affect what you believe about man, how God interacts with man and vice versa is going to affect what you believe about salvation and how all those things work.

And so we cannot be waffle -minded Christians. If you look at a waffle, I love waffles.

It's kind of a debate right now if waffles are pancakes. It depends, all right? I tend to burn pancakes and waffles, they, anyway.

Okay, so here's the thing about waffles. How many people have eaten waffles? Everyone raised their hand. That'd be a sin if you didn't.

That's the 11th commandment, thou shalt, okay. All right, so what do waffles have on the surface?

They have these individual squares, right? Now, I like to fill all the squares with syrup.

I'm a filler. My wife's a dipper. She puts the puddle of syrup and that's, she's a heretic.

We're trying to work on her. And I think our thinking can often be waffle -minded, segmented, compartmentalized.

And so we don't see the connection. If a square in the waffle represents a belief, it's separated from another square.

That is not Christian theology and that's definitely not the doctrines of grace because what I believe about man's depravity is necessarily and logically connected to what

I believe about the necessity of God having to elect us unto salvation, which is logically and by necessity related to the idea that in that whole process,

Jesus comes to accomplish a will that was in the Father and is now being worked out in the

Son. There is a beautiful consistency and it forces us to, when we think about the nature of the atonement, it forces us to think about all these other things and how they're connected and we begin to see the vast and beautiful tapestry that God has created in the wonderful, beautiful, logically consistent and biblical

Christian worldview. I don't know about you, but things that are consistent and logical are beautiful, especially when you're exploring and you're seeing and making those connections and you begin to see the divine purpose of God being slowly unfolded, not just in the scriptures, but in our own lives as we experience, as we experience salvation and a relationship and union with Christ.

And so the doctrine of particular redemption is through and through Trinitarian. It is grounded in God.

The purpose of the Father is consistent with the work of the Son and the Holy Spirit.

So if it is the desire of the Father to give a people to the Son and that he lose none, because the will of the

Father and the will of the Son works together, the Son will accomplish what the

Father desires. Because they have within the inter -Trinitarian relationship have made a covenant with each other.

This is oftentimes in theological discussion referred to as the eternal covenant, in which the triune

God from before the foundation of the world, the Father promised a particular, a particular people to the

Son. And the Spirit applies that work. And so all three members of the

Trinity participate in their work, not just salvation, by the way, all three persons of the

Trinity participate in other works as well in creation. Very, very important.

In theological terminology, we make a distinction between what we call the ontological Trinity and the economic

Trinity. Okay. Uh -oh, he's bringing out his seminary words. Someone quick, you know, you know, you spend all this money.

If their tear rolls down my cheek, cause I'm still paying back loans. You pay all this money and you learn all this stuff and you use the terminology and there's always someone like, oh, great.

It's like, no, wait a second, bro. All right. I'm paying back loans. You're going to sit here and listen to all of my cool, fancy vocabulary.

Okay. Well, here's the thing. My cool, fancy vocabulary actually has a very basic meaning.

All right. And we all have the capacity to learn vocabulary terms. So everyone say with me, ontological

Trinity, economic Trinity. Okay.

Very two important distinctions in how we understand the Trinity. When we speak of the ontological

Trinity, we have that word ontology. Now in philosophy, ontology deals with the nature and being of something.

Whereas the term economy has nothing to do with money. Okay. But the economy of the

Trinity deal with how the person's father, son, and Holy Spirit relate to one another and how they work.

Right. They have different tasks. The father does one thing, the son does another, the Holy Spirit does another, but they are unified in their purpose and in their plan.

Now within the economic Trinity, we're dealing with the father giving a people to the son and the son purchasing those people and the spirit sealing those people for the day of redemption.

There is a beautiful consistency there because God is triune.

Everything that we experience in salvation is being worked out by all three members of the

Trinity. And that the purpose and will of the father is not thwarted by the inability of the son to accomplish what the father wills.

They're in perfect unity. This is very, very important to understand. Now, when we use the terminology limited atonement, and I'm going to kind of go back to using limited atonement and show you that really it's not as controversial as one might think.

Every Christian limits the atonement. All of us. You know, it's not do you believe in limited atonement?

The real question is what kind of limited atonement do you believe in? I don't care if you're Pentecostal. I don't care if you're a

Presbyterian. I don't care if you're a Baptist or whatever. We all limit the atonement in some sense.

The real question is in what sense will you limit the atonement and is the sense in which you limit the atonement what is reflected in Scripture as to how we are to limit the atonement?

Okay, so those who believe that Jesus died for everyone who ever lived limit the power of the atonement because they do not believe it has the power to automatically save the ones whose sins are paid for.

Well, you have this terminology limited atonement versus universal atonement, right?

Universal atonement sounds so much cooler and it sounds so much more reverent to God. Well, Jesus died for everyone.

You Calvinists limit the work of the atonement. Well, wait a second. He really died for everyone?

He paid the penalty of sin for everyone? So, does everyone go to heaven?

Well, no. They have to believe. Oh, okay. That's weird. So, did Jesus pay for all the sins? Yes. All the sins of everyone who's ever lived.

Okay. Is not believing a sin? Well, of course. Did he pay for that one, too?

You see, if Jesus paid for the sin of unbelief, then the penalty that is accrued from the sin of unbelief is no longer a debt that needs to be paid.

And so, on that view, even unbelievers would have to go to heaven. Now, the universal atonement guy has to step back and now re -evaluate.

Well, that's not exactly what I mean. You see, on the universal atonement view,

Jesus dies for every single person and he fails to save many of those that he died for.

Now, look at the man -centeredness of it. Why does he fail? Is it because of something within Christ? Something within God?

Something within the Trinity? No. It's because you had the ability to thwart God's intention to save you.

Why? Because it's about your free will. God is a perfect gentleman. He knocks on the door of your heart, right?

Jesus, all of a sudden, is a British guy with him. Excuse me, you know. Hello, anybody home?

You know, it's the season. Jesus knocks on your door. Trick or treat, you know. No, that's not what the

Bible presents. Jesus is not like that. Notice what happens when we bring

God down to human standards. When we engage in these kinds of discussions from a man -centered perspective, then all sorts of wacky views come about.

Jesus lays his life down for the sheep. Jesus dies specifically for those that he was intended to come.

Now, Calvinists, us low -down dirty Calvinists, right? We limit the scope of the atonement.

Those who believe that Jesus died only for the elect limit the scope of the atonement because they believe that his sacrifice was so powerful that if he did die for everyone who had ever lived, everyone would be saved.

Now, here's your question. This is not an argument, okay? I just make you, you know, if you pick one option, you look like a loser, okay?

Ready? Okay. As a Christian, would you rather limit the power of the atonement or limit the scope of the atonement?

Which sort of limiting do you think honors God the most? Well, I'm gonna limit the power because we have to believe.

Yes, we have to believe. But remember, what you believe about belief, what you believe about faith, is connected to other portions of scripture which you can't ignore.

For God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes will have eternal life.

Amen. And who believes? Well, it's the person who has faith, of course.

Ah, but who's the person who has faith? Yeah, it's the person who's been granted it.

Philippians 1 .29, it has been granted to you to believe. Or Ephesians 2 .8,

for by grace you've been saved through faith and that not of your own. It is a gift of God.

You see, every time we try to, whether explicitly or implicitly, intentionally or unintentionally, try to take some credit for ourselves, the scripture quietly corrects you.

Well, we have to believe. Yeah, that's right. That's a gift. Well, we have to repent. Oh yeah, that's right. Repentance is a gift, too.

Second Timothy 2 .25. Repentance is granted. That's why you can never boast in seeing the wisdom of the gospel and decided to repent in and of yourself.

That's why you cannot boast to say that I believe and he didn't because I saw the truth of the gospel and he didn't.

There is no boasting. That's why salvation is unto the glory of God alone.

So, will you limit the power of the atonement or will you limit the scope? When we're speaking of limited atonement, we then ask two very important questions and these two questions are not very difficult to think about.

I mean, they're quite simple, although we can dive into some deep theological weeds here. First question, did

Christ die for everyone who has ever lived or did Christ die only for the elect? Now, I know for those who do not hold to limited atonement,

I know the verses that pop in your head. He's the propitiation for our sins and not our sins only but for the sins of the whole world.

He's the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the whole world, okay? And those are good verses and valid objections to limited atonement that should be asked.

I'm not saying they shouldn't, but once we dig deeper into what the scripture says, you will find, hopefully, you will find that the doctrine of limited atonement answers them thoroughly and in a way that is biblically consistent and that's what we're concerned with.

The scriptures are our standard, not our traditions, not our emotional connections to particular doctrines and that goes for us

Calvinists as well. If someone were to stand up here and say, I disagree with limited atonement and here are the biblical reasons and I had no response to it and it was clear in the text there,

I would be obligated under the authority of scripture to submit to that teaching in as much as it accurately reflects the

Word of God, right? Because we're not married to reformed theology, we're married to truth.

We're married to the embodiment of truth, Jesus Christ himself, who is revealed in scripture and scripture is our standard.

It just so happens to be that I believe that that scriptural standard teaches particular redemption, okay?

And so that's why we come and we talk about these things and we defend them, okay? Very important.

Now, where is particular redemption found in scripture, okay? Well, let me say right off the bat, to my knowledge,

I don't believe that it's found in any one particular scripture. You don't just read one scripture and say, ah, look, the entire doctrine of particular redemption, right?

Our theology is systematic in various ways. Systematic theology is a very, very important field of study and if I can use a definition that I like was used in a

Wayne Grudem systematic theology, that big monstrosity you've probably seen in your pastor's office, right?

You're like, you know, I really believe everyone should own a systematic theology and then you go into your pastor's office and have a cup of coffee and you see on a shelf this giant thing that looks like a book and you're like, my goodness, you become a

Catholic all of a sudden. Systematic theology is very important and Wayne Grudem defines it very accurately,

I think. He says that systematic theology is any study that asks the question, how does the whole

Bible speak to us today on any given topic? And what I like about his definition is what does the whole

Bible have to say? Because the whole gives a context to the parts.

It's systematic. They're connected, okay? And so when we're trying to defend the doctrine of particular redemption from scripture, we're not looking for, you know, knockdown verses here and there.

We want to see what the scripture says in its entirety and to see the consistency with this doctrine and that doctrine and how it fits together.

How does the will of the Father connect with how the Son accomplishes it? How does the Spirit connect with what the

Son has done and what the Father desires? Our theology is systematic. It's logical. It's consistent, okay?

We need to look up many places, different concepts that are taught that kind of hint us to this doctrine and I think there's some more explicit passages as well, okay?

First, we need to understand what the Bible says about sin. Remember, particular redemption. We're talking about atonement.

What is Jesus atoning for? Sin. We need to understand what sin is. It's not when you make a mistake, you know?

You ever see those, you know, we got the cool youngish pastor with the kind of like the microphone.

He's like, listen, we all make mistakes out there, you know? But God, it's like, listen, you little heretic, it's not a mistake, okay?

Sin is intentional. It is a breaking of God's law. The Bible says sin is lawlessness. Stop saying it's a mistake.

You knew what you were doing. I don't want people to get pregnant. I got pregnant.

It's a mistake. No, that's what happens when you do what you do. It's intentional. But you see, sin brings about shame and we don't like to admit it, right?

When Adam and Eve failed in the garden, they didn't make a mistake. When they failed in the garden, what happened? They became ashamed.

And in their own human efforts, they covered themselves with fig leaves, right?

Now, it's interesting. Let's explore what the Bible says about the nature of sin. Sin is transgression, it's rebellion, and it's a defiance of God's law.

And the law of God specifically reflects the holy nature of God since it also represents his righteousness.

You can look at the Ten Commandments as a good representation of what is reflected in the nature of God. Sin is also legal.

This is very important. Sin is a legal problem. When we sin, we acquire debt, okay?

That's very, very important. The Bible does call sin sin. It does. But the

Bible also calls sin debt. We all know the Lord's Prayer, depending on what gospel you're reading or a translation you're reading, right?

Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our sins as we forgive those who have sinned against us.

But then you read in another gospel where it's the same prayer and sin is called what? Forgive us our debts.

Sin is a debt. When we sin, we acquire debt. What do we owe?

Your life. Because in Romans 6 .23, it says, for the wages of sin is death.

And you see the inklings of this in seed form even there in the garden. So that when Adam and Eve covered their shame with the fig leaves, what happens when

God deals with Adam and Eve and deals with the serpent in the garden? The Bible says that God made for them what?

Coverings made of animal skins. So here's a question.

Here's a question. The wages of sin is death and man covers up their shame with fig leaves and God covers up their shame with animal skins.

Now, let's think of this real quick. Where did

God get the animal skins? Did he snap his cosmic finger and behold a wonderful fur coat for Adam and Eve?

No. An animal died so that the skins can be made and cover up the shame of Adam.

For the wages of sin is death. This is very important, especially when we recognize what is the prerequisite for going to heaven.

We've asked the question, who deserves heaven more? Yeah, who deserves heaven more?

Mother Teresa or Adolf Hitler? Everyone's like, well, clearly Mother Teresa. You heretic.

I'm kidding. I'm kidding. The reason why I joke around about that is because when you say

Mother Teresa deserves heaven more than Adolf Hitler, the faulty and unbiblical and heretical presupposition is that because she did more acts of kindness that she deserves heaven more than someone as evil as Adolf Hitler.

That's false. The correct answer is both of them deserve hell because the Bible says all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and the wages of sin is death and so that logically follows that both of them deserve death.

You see, the reason why we think that's unreasonable is because we categorize one sin as, well,

I didn't do that and so I don't deserve that kind of punishment. Well, that's because we're sinners and that's because we're unbiblical a lot of times.

But when you read the Bible, you will understand that you are saved by grace through faith, not by any work, right?

But to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned to him as righteousness,

Romans 4 -5. We don't get to heaven for being good. People who are in heaven are sinners saved by grace.

The wages of sin is death. The consequences are eternal. We see this in scripture clearly.

Revelation 14 -11 speaks about the eternality of the damned, okay? And so the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day and night, okay?

You sin against an eternal God, the consequences are eternal. And because sin is a legal problem, we need to look on how

Jesus pays for our sin from a legal perspective because he is our substitute. He bore our sins in his body on the cross, 1

Peter 2 -24. But because he lived a perfect life, Jesus was born under the law,

Galatians 4 -4, but because he lived a perfect life and was without sin, 1 Peter 2 -22, he was the perfect sacrifice that could bear our sins because he was fully

God and fully man and he was able to pay the penalty of our sin. And the amazing and beautiful thing is that the

God -man who was nailed to the cross said some very, very interesting, beautiful, and legal words on the cross.

When Jesus was nailed to the cross, what were the last words he said? Yeah, some people are just like, you know, forget it.

People mixed up. He's like, well, which was the last word, you know? He said, it is finished. And it's very interesting when you look at this phrase, it is finished.

In the Greek, it's actually just one word, tetelestai. And the word tetelestai has been found on the bottom of ancient legal documents, tax documents.

It literally means to pay in full. Jesus paid in full the penalty of debt.

Now, let me tell you something. If Jesus died for every single person who's ever lived, why isn't everyone's debt fully paid for?

Well, they have to believe. Well, we're back to our question again. Is not believing a sin? Well, yeah. Well, did

Jesus pay for that sin? Yeah, he paid for all. Well, then there's no debt. Everyone goes to heaven.

See the problem? Because Jesus' payment was a legal payment to God the

Father, when it's applied to the sinner, it cancels the sinner's certificate of debt.

Now, this is a very, very important passage, okay? This is huge. If everything

I've said so far is just like a 10 -foot talk right over your head, you're like, oh, what was he talking about there? I want you to pay attention to this, okay?

Colossians 2 .14, having canceled. Everyone say canceled.

Is canceled future tense, present tense, or past tense?

That's right, okay? Experts in grammar, right? Canceled is past tense. Having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us, he has taken it.

What is it? The certificate of debt. He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Now, is it true that as believers we have died with Christ? When did we die with Christ?

Do we die with Christ the moment we believe? Or have we died with Christ the moment

Christ died? We have died with him when he died, and the promises and blessings that are earned by his sacrifice are later applied to us when we believe.

But if we have died with him, and in the death of Christ, he nailed the certificate of debt on the cross, how could it be said that he's died for everyone?

Every single person? We can say of everyone, your debt, your certificate of debt was nailed to the cross.

If the atheist hears that and says, great, I don't have to be a Christian because not being a Christian is a sin, but my debt is nailed to the cross, so let me just live how

I want, and then I'll get to heaven anyway because there's no debt. Well, no, no, you can't do that.

Well, why not? Are you saying I do have a debt? Well, yeah, you're debted, but Jesus paid for it.

You see the problem? It is the doctrine of limited atonement that allows you to consistently apply this text along with all the other texts as well.

Jesus, if Jesus legally paid for the debt of sin, then legally no sin could be held against the one whose debt has been paid.

Simple. If Jesus paid the debt in full, then it is paid, and the debt can no longer be held against the person.

Otherwise, it has not been paid. This is what Jesus did on the cross, and he legally paid for our sins and has canceled the certificate of debt,

Colossians 2 .14, and therefore if Jesus bore the sins of everyone who has ever lived, then he has paid the debt of everyone, and everyone's sins are canceled, paid in full, removed, and God could not then accept the payment of eternal punishment since the debt of sin is paid.

What is hell? Hell is where sinners pay for what they owe, and eternal sin, eternal damnation.

You are paying your debt for all of eternity, but if the certificate of debt has been canceled, how can you pay for something that has already been paid for?

It just doesn't make sense. Now, to wrap things up, how much time do

I have? I can talk like a beast. I'm so sorry. Are you guys still with me?

You guys tracking with me? How much time do I have left? Is there an estimate there?

Two or three minutes? Perfect. Now, I suppose later on we're going to have a Q &A, so if anyone thinks of objections to the doctrine of limited atonement, you could ask your questions, but I am full aware of the passages that come to mind.

Surely, Jesus died for everyone. You have John 3 .16. You have John 1 .29,

where it talks about Jesus being the lamb who takes away the sin of the world. We have 2 Peter 2 .1, where it talks about those who denied the master who bought them.

These are verses that we should talk about, and folks who affirm limited atonement should be able to respond to.

There's also the verse, and it's a very popular verse, that's usually used against limited atonement, and that is in reference to 1

John 2 .2, which speaks of Jesus being the propitiation for our sins, and not only our sins, but for the whole world.

We can answer those questions, and we have to be careful that the word all doesn't always mean all.

The word world doesn't always mean world, and when we do more than just read the surface reading of the Bible, we need to dig a little deeper and allow the context to speak for itself.

When the Bible says all of the people of Jerusalem went out to see John the Baptist, was Jerusalem empty?

Everyone went? No, of course not. Even in the Gospel of John, the word world is used in many different ways, and so we need to be careful.

We need to be cautious, even from the Reformed perspective. Just because that's true doesn't mean that the passage means what

I want it to mean. We need to grapple with the text, and in my opinion, from the

Reformed tradition, the Reformed tradition has done that masterfully, and in so doing has highlighted the strength, the power, the beauty, the consistency of the unified work of the

Father that is accomplished through the Son, and that is sealed and applied to the Spirit. I conclude with this.

Let the truth of God's word challenge your traditions, and be patient with those who have not come to the conclusions you have.

Reformed folks have a really bad reputation in many segments of the world for being pious jerks, and you know what?

They're jerks sometimes because they are passionate about the truths and the doctrines of grace, but let us not make the mistake of defending biblical truth unbiblically.

That's very, very important. Not being quick to divide over these issues, but lovingly showing correction and working and walking with people through the text of Scripture as we all grapple with God's word, and I think when we do that, as 1

Peter 3, verse 15 says, one of my favorite verses, set apart Christ as Lord in your heart, always being ready to give a reason for the hope that's in you, yet doing so with gentleness and respect.

That's not just for the atheist or the Jehovah's Witness. That also goes for the fellow Christian who has not come to the conclusions you have.

We need to work together with gentleness, respect, showing the love of Christ even in the midst of our differences.