This page is best viewed in
Internet Explorer 4.0 or higher and Netscape 4.0 or higher.
The Death Christ Died
A Case for Unlimited Atonement
Chapter 5 - Problems With a Limited View of the
Atonement
© by Robert P. Lightner, Th. D
[From the book, "The Death Christ Died, A Case
for the Unlimited Atonement" originally published by Regular Baptist Press. This
resource is now available once again from Kregel Publications; ISBN: 0825431557; (October
1998). Posted with permission from Dr. Lightner.]
The previous discussion has revealed some of the difficulties which must be faced in
the acceptance of an unlimited view of the atonement. Solutions were suggested for these
problems consistent with the whole of Scripture and its teaching of the atonement. It will
now be well to seek answers for some of the problems which exist for the limited view.
Some of the thoughts to be expressed here have been anticipated earlier. But it will be
well not only to list the problems but also to see ramifications of these and to seek
answers from the limited redemptionists themselves.
I. The Universal Passages
The answers of limited redemptionists to this problem have been presented earlier and
will not be repeated here. However, a summary statement may be helpful at this point: a
limitation is placed upon every use of such words as "all,"
"whosoever" and "world" when used in salvation passages or passages
related to the atonement. The limitation is a prescribed one-it is always to the elect
that these words refer.
In the year 1823 a dialogue between one who believed in limited atonement and one who
did not was published in the Utica Christian Repository. Aspasio represents the limited
view and Paulinus the unlimited view. Aspasio has just enumerated the various usages for
the word "world" in Scripture. Though the reply of Paulinus is lengthy, it will
be quoted here since it answers so well the limited redemptionists in this regard.
"I am willing to grant, for the sake of giving your objection all possible force,
that these words are used in the various senses you mention. Not, however, that I believe
the word 'world' is ever used for God's people as distinguished from others. What then, is
the force of your objection? It is plainly this, that because these words are sometimes
used in a limited sense, they may be so used in the texts I have quoted, and that you are
at liberty to put this construction upon them if you please. But where will this principle
lead us? Let us apply it to a few cases. The word God is sometimes used to signify
a civil ruler; therefore, according to this principle of interpretation, it may be so
understood in any given text. 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,'
may mean, In the beginning a civil leader created the heavens and the earth. The word everlasting
is sometimes used to signify a limited duration; therefore, it may be so understood in any
given text; and, 'These shall go away into everlasting punishment,' may mean, These shall
go away into a punishment of limited duration. And when the saints are promised
everlasting life, it may mean a life of limited duration. And when Christ is styled the
'Mighty God, the Everlasting Father,' it may mean, the mighty civil ruler, the Father of a
limited duration. The word salvation is sometimes used to signify deliverance from
a temporary calamity therefore, it may be so understood in any given text, and there may
be no salvation but deliverance from temporal calamities. The word resurrection is
sometimes used to signify regeneration; therefore it may be so understood in any given
text, and there may be not resurrection foretold in the Scripture but regeneration. The
word baptism is sometimes used to signify sufferings; therefore, it may be so
understood in any given text; and the command to the apostles to go out and baptize all
nations may mean that they [109] should go and inflict sufferings upon all nations. A
principle of interpretation which leads into such absurdities cannot be admitted as a
correct rule of interpreting the Word of God. Under the operation of such a rule, the
Bible would become, as some pretend it is, a book by which anything can be supported, and
nothing proved. Every part of it would become 'vague and ambiguous in its meaning.' '' 1
Rather than allowing each individual context to determine the meaning of universal
terms such as "all," "world," "whosoever," "every
man," etc., strict Calvinists approach the Bible with a theological conviction which
restricts every single occurrence of universal terms in a salvation context. No
explanation is given why the same words are understood in a restricted sense in salvation
passages and not in others. Why does not "world" mean "world of the
elect" when it is used in relation to Satan's ministry (John 12:31; 14:30)? Or in
Christ's high priestly pray (John 17), a prayer which some insist teaches limited
atonement how is it that "world" no longer means "world of the elect"?
Seemingly, the only explanation to be given for these arbitrary and inconsistent meanings
is to be found in the strict Calvinist's insistence that Christ did not die for all men.
Being convinced of that, the limited redemptionist proceeds to defend his position by
narrowing the meaning of words wherever the normal and literal meaning would contradict
his premise.
II. Natural Benefits from the Cross
It seems somewhat contradictory to admit, as limited redemptionists do,". . . that
important natural benefits accrue the whole human race from the death of Christ, and that
these benefits the unbelieving, the impenitent, and the reprobate also share,"2
and at the same time to deny that Christ's substitution provided the basis of salvation
for the nonelect. Why are some benefits extended to all men and others only to the elect?
[110] Where in the Word of God are the benefits of Christ's death divided into natural and
spiritual in such a way that the non-elect involuntarily share in the one and are not
allowed benefit voluntarily from the other? Hodge stated the limited view this way:
"Christ did literally and absolutely die for men in the sense of securing for all a
lengthened respite and many temporal benefits, moral as well as physical."3
Attempting to clarify the question of the extent of the atonement, another limited
redemptionist put it this way: "The question is not whether many benefits short of
justification and salvation accrue to men from the death of Christ. The unbelieving and
reprobate in this world enjoy numerous benefits that flow from the fact that Christ died
and rose again."4
Since the same death provided both temporal and spirit benefits, how can it be said
that the nonelect share in the temporal but have no relationship whatsoever to the
spiritual? Does not the definite relationship between common grace5 and the
atonement link the nonelect to Christ's death? The very admission of limited
redemptionists that some benefits extend to the nonelect means they make the design of God
twofold, applying some benefits directly to the elect and others indirectly to the
nonelect. Thus, there is inconsistency in the limited view when some of Calvary's
achievements are made to extend to all men while others are restricted to the elect.
Consistency would restrict all the benefits to the ones for whom Christ died; and since in
the limited concept Christ died only for the elect, it is illogical to include the
nonelect in any sense. If they are included at all, they must be included in it all since
it was one sacrifice in which all the effects are grounded. Also, the Bible nowhere makes
the distinction which strict Calvinists insist upon.
III. The Love of God
[111] The Bible pictures love as part of the very nature of God. He must not strive to
love! He is love (1 John 4:8). Limited redemptionists must not only restrict and limit the
universal phrases such as "all" and "world"; they must also do the
same with the word "love" since it frequently occurs with those words
(i.e.John3:16).
The problem is in no way lessened by assigning kinds of love to God (A certain kind t
the nonelect and another kind to the elect) as Hodge does.6 Nor is it solved by
saying ". . . Scripture does not teach. . . that God loves all men equally." 7
Moderate Calvinists agree that the believer is the special object of God's love. They
understand the "much more" abundance of the Father's care and concern for His
own. This, however, is not the issue. The crux of the matter is, "Does God love all
men or does He not?" God's love for the entire world not only is the dear teaching of
the New Testament (i.e., John 3:16) but is also the emphatic revelation of the Old
Testament. When explaining the choice of the Israelites as a nation, in which there were
many rebels, God said, "The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you,
because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: But
because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto
your fathers . . ." (Deut. 7:7 8). Again, in a context dealing with idolatry and
apostasy on the part of the nation, God reminded, "When Israel was a child then I
loved him, and called my son out of Egypt" (Hosea 11:1). Surely the love of God here
expressed to the entire nation can in no sense be restricted to the elect of the nation,
for God was not addressing the believing Israelites only but the whole nation in both
instances, and He stated clearly that He loved all of them.
Even though some limited redemptionists do not like to hear other Calvinists say,
". . . God is good and benevolent to [112] all the children of men but . . . He loves
only the elect,"8 the fact still remains that this is the only conclusion
one can come to who believes in limited atonement. If all the references t love in the
redemption passages refer to the elect, obviously God did not have the same love for the
nonelect. Kuiper admits this to be the teaching of Scripture very candidly: ". . . It
tells us that His love for the elect differs qualitatively from His love for others."9
An even more dogmatic observation comes from one determined to hold to limited
atonement. "To tell the Christ-rejector that God loves him is to cauterise his
conscience, as well as to afford him a sense of security in his sins. The fact is that the
love of God is a truth for the saints only, and to present it to the enemies of God is to
take the children's bread and cast it to the dogs."10 Pink proceeds to
defend this ridiculous statement by quoting dozens of verses of Scripture which speak of
the wrath of God upon sinners. Of course God hates sin and will pour out His divine wrath
upon sinners who reject His Son, and the unlimited redemptionist does not deny that. The
fact is it is just such darkened, doomed, ungodly enemies and sinners upon whom God
showers His grace (Rom. 5:8-10). The fact that God despises sin and will eternally punish
sinner does not mean He does not love them. He demonstrated His eternal love at Calvary
for Adam's race on whom the wrath of God was abiding. Nothing could be farther from the
truth than to say God does not love sinners unless it would be to say He loves only a
certain kind of sinner-an elect one. The testimony of Scripture is so abundantly opposed
to such a fanciful and absurd view that to cite passages to the contrary would border on
the ridiculous.
This attempt to assign limits arbitrarily to the degree and extent of God's love is
without basis in Scripture. One wonders whether this might not also be done to the other
divine attributes. Would limited redemptionists want to restrict any or all of the [113]
other perfections of God to the elect only? If not, why not? There is not a thread of
evidence which would lead one to confine any of the other attributes to just one segment
of the human race. For example, who could ever conceive of God's exercising His holiness,
righteousness, justice, omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence in relation only to the
elect? Why then may His complete and perfect love be so restricted? The fact is, it may
not be restricted; at least it may not on scriptural grounds. To some strict Calvinists
the fact that Scripture does not support their view does not seem to matter so long as
Calvinists have held it in the past. Pink, for example, writes: "That God loves
everybody is, we may say, quite a modern belief. The writings of the
church-fathers, the Reformers or the Puritans will (we believe) be searched in vain for
any such concept." 11 This observation is very general and may or may not
be true, but it is not patent to the issue.
An attribute of God is not merely a characteristic of God which simply is attached to
His person. God's attributes-all of them-are perfections of His being. They are part of
His very nature. Therefore, those who would thus confine the love of God to the elect are
guilty not only of arbitrarily restricting God s love, but also of placing limitations
upon the very nature of God. Just because a man cannot fathom how God could love His
enemies and those whom He knew would never receive His Son is no reason for saying God's
love is a truth for saints only. If God must wait until men are saints before He can love
them, nobody would be loved by God until he is saved simply because nobody is a saint
until that time.
Viewing the attempt of limited redemptionists from these scriptural perspectives makes
their arguments appear very absurd and farfetched. The uniform testimony of Scripture is
diametrically opposed to such restrictions of the love of our sovereign God. According to
the Bible, Christ came to reveal the Father in all of His fulness to the entire world.
"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of
the Father, he hath declared him" (John 1:18). Christ is here [114] seen as the great
and final Revealer of the Father to men The Son exposed the Father to the world. And He
made Him known fully and to the entire world, not just to the elect. He was the "true
Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world" (John 1:9), the Revealer
of God to all men (John 1:18) and the "Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the
world" (John 1:29).
It seems that limited redemptionists are determined, at any cost, to force Scripture
into their mold. This is done by them with regard to the love of God by taking for granted
that which they seek to prove. They begin by arguing that it was a special love to the
elect which induced Christ to die. But what of this premise? Granted that the death of
Christ was a revelation and demonstration of the greatest love ever shown; yet, does this
prove it was only for the elect?
IV. The Universal Offer of the Gospel
William Cunningham labels the scriptural command to preach the gospel to all "by
far the most important and plausible of the scriptural arguments in support . . ."12
of unlimited atonement. He admits that some Calvinists such as John Gill denied that the
Scriptures taught a universal offer of the gospel. For our part, Gill and others, such as
some of the English Baptists, carried the limited atonement view to its logical
conclusion. If Christ died only for the elect, then why take that message to the nonelect?
An even more sobering question would be, "Why does God invite all men if Christ did
not provide for all?" It is His invitation which is universal and man merely
takes it to men.
Dr. James Richards, a Calvinist who rejected limited atonement, stated the problem
clearly: "We argue it from the indefinite tender of salvation made to all men where
the Gospel comes. To us, no maxim appears more certain than that a salvation offered
implies a salvation provided; for God will not [115] tantalize his creatures by
tendering them with that which is not in his hand to bestow." 13
Limited redemptionists recognize this inconsistency in their view. Thomas J. Crawford,
who is considered an outstanding adherent to the limited view and who is thought to have
produced one of the greatest works in its defense, said: "That there great difficulty
in the way of harmonizing the general invitations of the Gospel on the one hand with the
special reference of the atonement to those who shall eventually be partakers of its
benefits on the other hand-it would be altogether fruitless to disguise."14
Crawford attempts to solve the problem by saying that these two things-limited
redemption and the universal offer of the Gospel-are not within man's ability to
reconcile. This he says true because the one (he does not say which one) exceeds the power
of our faculties to understand it. He then proceeds to offer some suggestions to avert the
difficulty. First, there is some benefit in the cross for all and the gospel
invitation conveys nothing more than this. Second, the same Scripture which invites
all to salvation also has a special reference to the elect. Third, the command of
God to preach the universal gospel is an expression of His desire and delight but is not
declarative of His fixed purpose and determination. Fourth, the limited view is in
no more difficulty than the Arminian view since some are lost to whom the message is
preached.15
Hodge also admits the problem. "There is unquestionably difficulty in the
neighborhood, but it will require some discrimination to determine exactly the point upon
which the difficulty presses.'' 16 His attempt fails to satisfy the demands of
Scripture, however. He acknowledges that even though it could be demonstrated that the
atonement was universal, our right to offer it to all does not rest upon that but upon the
Great Commission. Hodge, too, finds refuge in the sovereignty of God [116] for his answer.
He insists that it is man's duty to repent and believe whether he can, or will, or not.
Hodge's final attempt to reconcile the problem is his observation that those who believe
in election and who reject limited atonement have the same problem as those who believe in
limited atonement.17
This final attempt of Hodge to alleviate the limited redemptionist's difficulty by
assigning the same difficulty to unlimited redemptionists is not valid. First, it is not
valid as an answer to the problem because it is merely an attempt to avoid the
contradiction by finding others with a similar problem. It sounds like the
"misery-loves-company" idea. Second, it is not valid since the unlimited
redemptionist simply does not have the problem Hodge assigns to him. The proclamation of
the universal message of the gospel which includes an unlimited view of the atonement is
entirely separate from God's electing purposes. Election is God's business, and we are not
told to preach election unto all men; we are told to preach Christ and Him crucified to
everyone. Therefore, the moderate Calvinist can sincerely believe in sovereign election,
obey the divine injunction, and yet preach that Christ died for all men without any
inconsistency whatsoever either in his own mind or in his message. The command to preach
the gospel to all men is always associated with Christ's death for all and not with God's
election of some .
Kuiper follows suit in acknowledging the seriousness of this problem with limited
redemption: ''It cannot be denied that the Calvinist here faces a paradox. Significantly,
he has no interest in denying the paradox, if only the term paradox be given its proper
content."18 Kuiper also resorts to the sovereignty of God and admits that
since both the particular design of the atonement and the universal offer of the gospel
are taught in Scripture, all man can do is find refuge in Romans 11:33. The final appeal
which Kuiper makes centers in the content of the gospel or good news which we are to
proclaim. Says Kuiper, we must tell men that Christ died for the ungodly (Rom. 5:6), that
God makes a bona fide offer to men and that He will not [117] refuse any who come to Him.19
In other words, according to this point of view, the gospel is not to be personalized but
presented in more general terms. And this is precisely the way it must be in the strict
Calvinistic approach. The only ones who can ever be really sure that Christ died for them
are the believers. This, of course, runs counter to the New Testament emphasis upon the
command to take the gospel, which has at its very heart death of Christ, to all men; and
it also removes the personal element which is necessary for salvation. Where is there room
for any stress upon the individual's lost condition and hope of salvation in Christ if one
is never sure that Christ died for each and every person? Beyond dispute, the Bible makes
the responsibility to carry the message of the gospel and to receive an individual matter.
It must be admitted that these are honest efforts to solve very perplexing problem
faced by the limited redemption view. It must also be acknowledged that the attempts have
not in any lessened the difficulty. The one who believes in sovereign election and an
unlimited atonement has no problem as a believer and as a proclaimer of the universal and
sovereign offer of God's saving grace. Neither does he have a problem in personalizing the
need of each man to accept that grace. He knows the nonelect will not be saved, and he
knows that the elect will in God's time. The difficulty which the limited redemptionist
faces is removed for the one who believes in unlimited redemption because he is free to
announce that Christ actually did die for all men, quite to the contrary if one knows that
some to whom he speaks are without any provision whatsoever and have no part in the
sufficiency of Christ's death. ". . . It is no longer a question in his mind of
whether they will accept or reject; it becomes rather a question of truthfulness in
the declaration f the message."20
W. Lindsay Alexander stated the issue clearly regarding the point under discussion;
"On this supposition the general invitations and promises of the gospel are without
an adequate basis, [118] and seem like a mere mockery, an offer, in short, of what has not
been provided. It will not do to say, in reply to this, that a these invitations are
actually given we are entitled on the authority of God's word to urge them and justified
in accepting them; for this is mere evasion.''21
A question might be introduced at this point. "Why is the universal gospel message
incumbent upon the children of God? According to 2 Corinthians 5:18, 19, it is not because
of election or even because of a supposed covenant of redemption but solely because of the
universal reconciliation which God wrought in Christ at the cross. Never is the ambassador
of Christ told to inform people of their election in Christ or lack of it. Rather he is
told to announce the good news that Christ died, was buried and arose again for sinners.
The discussion of this inconsistency in the limited view may best be concluded with
Chafer's piercing remark: "To say, at one time, that Christ did not die for the
nonelect and, at another time, that His death is the ground on which salvation is offered
to all men, is perilously near contradiction."22
V. The Covenant of Grace
Berkhof, a limited redemptionist and a covenant theologian, defines the covenant of
grace as ". . . that gracious agreement between the offended God and the offending
but elect sinner, in which God promises salvation through faith in Christ, and the sinner
accepts this believingly, promising a life of faith and obedience."23
Reformed theologians argue for at least two covenants - the one described above and also a
covenant of works which existed between God and Adam, promising him life for obedience and
death for disobedience, which, incidentally, would result in salvation by works. The
covenant of grace was necessitated because of the failure of the covenant of works. Some
other reformed theologians argue for still another covenant which they designate as the
covenant of redemption This was made, [119] they say, between the Father and the Son in
eternity past and deals with the relation of each to the plan of redemption. The covenant
of redemption becomes the foundation of the covenant of grace for those who accept it.
For our present purposes we are concerned only with the covenant of grace and the
relation of limited redemption to it. It is no secret that among those who adhere to
reformed and covenant theology (these are almost without exception limited redemptionists)
the unifying purpose of Scripture is the salvation of the elect; and this is based upon
the covenant of grace, which covenant God is supposedly to have made with the guaranteeing
their salvation.24 Thus one can easily see why covenant theologians are usually
adherents of limited redemption. They would be very inconsistent in their overall theology
viewpoint if they were not. Contrariwise, it seems equally as inconsistent for one who
does not have the covenant of grace as the unifying purpose of Scripture, but adheres to a
dispensational scheme of theology, to believe in limited atonement.
That the covenant of grace is basic to the limited view can be easily demonstrated.
John Owen's first two arguments against the universality of the atonement are based on his
understanding of the covenant. Of this covenant and its relation to the atonement he says:
"Neither can any effects thereof be extended beyond the compass of this covenant; but
now this covenant was not made universally with all, but particularly only with some, and
therefore those alone were intended in the benefits of the death of Christ." 25
The one who subscribes to this covenant of grace and makes it the modus operandi of all
God's work will naturally believe in the limited atonement by directing all of God's work
on the cross to the elect with whom He made the covenant and by which He brings it to
fulfillment.
Because he accepted the covenant of redemption as essentially equivalent to the
covenant of grace, A. A. Hodge speaks thus [119] of its relation to limited redemption:
"Christ died in execution of the terms of an eternal Covenant of Redemption formed
between the Father and the Son.... If he died in pursuance of a mutual understanding
between himself and the Father, if he shall see of the travail of his soul and be
satisfied, and if every one that the Father gave him in that covenant shall be saved, then
surely those who are not saved are not those for whom he died."26
Hear the words of another limited redemptionist as he relates the covenant idea to
limited atonement: "The particularistic view of the design of the atonement
harmonizes perfectly with the Scriptural teaching of the covenant of redemption. From
eternity the persons of the Holy Trinity planned the salvation of a multitude whom no man
can number. An essential element in that plan was the giving by the Father to the Son of
all who ultimately would be saved."27
Crawford is equally as clear in his discussion: ''. . . The Son of God received a
certain charge or commission from His Father which He solemnly engaged and
undertook to execute; and further, that the end contemplated in this arrangement was not
merely the announcement of spiritual blessings but the attainment of them, in
behalf of all such as should eventually believe in Christ. 28
John Gill also associates the covenant-of-grace idea with limited atonement and does so
to such a degree that he virtually rules out total depravity. Speaking of the ones
involved in the covenant and thus the ones for whom Christ is said to have died he said,
"The objects of redemption are the sons of God.... Now these sons, or children of
God, are a peculiar number of men. They are those who are given to Christ by God, for Him
to redeem. They are the seed promised to Him in the covenant, that He should see and
enjoy, and to whom He stands in the relation of the everlasting Father. These are those on
whose account He became incarnate, took 'part of the same flesh and blood.' And these are
the many sons whom He brings [121] to glory (Heb. 2:10, 13, 14). Now these are not all men
(that is, every man), they are not 'the children of the flesh' or such as are never born
again for they are not the children of God."29
If this be the case, how is it that elect people can be born in sin? Since the
"sons of God" are the people of the covenant whom Christ died, He must have died
for sons, not for sins. Furthermore, why did He need to die if the members of covenant
were already His sons?
Without producing any further evidence for this necessary relation between the covenant
of grace and limited atonement, it will be concluded that such a vital link does exist.
The covenant of grace is not merely an auxiliary of limited atonement; is an integral part
of it. Therefore, in reply to our original inquiry, we must answer that the limited view
of the atonement based squarely on the idea of the covenant of grace and has no real
theological basis without it.
The question is, "How scriptural is this covenant-of-grace idea?" It must be
admitted immediately that none of the covenants of the covenant system are stated as such
in Scripture. While this in itself does not make them antibiblical, it ought to keep one
cautious about developing an entire system of theology upon them as covenant theology
does.
When one rejects the covenant-of-grace idea as it is presented by covenant theologians,
it does not follow that he questions whether or not God will save the elect. There can be
no doubt in this regard. God will bring His purposes to fruition. The question is,
"Did the Father and the Son make in eternity past such a covenant with each other and
with the elect which limited the redemptive work of Christ to the elect only?"
Covenant theologians labor long and hard to gather scriptural support for such a
covenant. The simple fact is there is no Scripture which states the covenant of grace
concisely. Evidence is usually presented from Genesis 3:15 30 or from the idea
that God always acts on a plan or from passages such as [122] Isaiah 53:6, 7; John 10:15,
17; Luke 22:29.31 These passages simply do not state the covenant of grace or its supposed
conditions. The entire covenant system is a deduction and not an induction from Scripture.
Even if such and agreement between God and the elect did exist, whether explicitly stated
in Scripture or not, it would not follow that this would become the one and only purpose
of God in Christ. God must be allowed to exercise His sovereignty in many ways to bring
glory to Himself. Covenant theology tends to put God in a soteriological straight-jacket
by restricting Him to the redemptive program as the only and all inclusive means of
bringing glory to Himself. In so doing, there is a rejection of the varying rules of life
and economies under which man lived and God progressively revealed Himself and His will.
It is not our intention here to engage in an extended refutation of covenant theology.
Suffice it to say that the most serious weakness of the system is the way in which the
Biblical and unconditional covenants (i.e., Abrahamic, Gen. 12; Palestinian, Deut. 28-30;
Davidic, 2 Sam. 7; New, Jer. 31-33) are subjected to the covenant of grace and thus
stripped of their literalness and real significance for the people with whom they were
made.32
The system of covenant theology is not to be found in the historic creeds of the
church, nor was it proclaimed until after the Reformation. The Scriptures are simply
forced into the covenant [123] mold by its adherents. If the idea that God made a covenant
before the foundations of the world promising to send His Son die for the elect only is
not clearly taught in Scripture, then it is altogether possible that its necessary
concomitant-limited atonement-is not taught there either.
VI. Christ's Active and Passive Obedience
Can it be said that Christ died only for the elect and at the same time that He
vicariously atoned for sin in His life and in His death? If this be true, and most limited
redemptionists say it is, a serious difficulty arises.
By active obedience is meant those sufferings which pertain to Christ's ministry while
on the cross. Murray explains it this way: "The real use and purpose of the formula
is to emphasize the two distinct aspects our Lord's vicarious obedience.... Christ's
obedience was vicarious in the bearing of the full judgment of God upon sin, and it was
vicarious in the full discharge of the demands of righteousness [italics mine]."33
Hodge's explanation of the active obedience or life sufferings of Christ will help us.
"He lived his whole life, from his birth to his death, as our representative, obeying
and suffering in our stead and for our sakes; and during this whole course all his
suffering was obedience and all his obedience was suffering."34
Whether or not Christ's life sufferings were atoning in the sense that His death
sufferings were is highly debatable if not antiscriptural. Since a brief refutation of the
substitutionary nature of Christ's life was presented earlier, our purpose here will be to
present what seems to be an obvious contradiction as this relates to the atonement. If
Christ's ministry prior to the cross is placed on the same level as His ministry on the
cross, there is an evident discrepancy. Surely no one would deny that during His life the
Savior ministered to more than the elect. The Scripture indicates that He ministered to
many who [124] never believed on Him. If He was man's representative, obeying and
suffering in our stead all through His life, how and in what sense can this aspect of His
ministry be said to be limited? And if it be argued that His life sufferings are to be
kept distinct from His death sufferings, then what happens to the entire argument for the
validity of an active and a passive obedience, and on what basis is such a distinction
made? Berkhof, an able exponent of the covenant system and of the vicarious nature of
Christ's life, stated the relationship between the active and passive obedience very
clearly: "It is customary to distinguish between the active and passive obedience of
Christ. But in discriminating between the two, it should be distinctly understood that they
cannot be separated. The two accompany each other at every point in the Saviour's
life. There is a constant interpretation of the two.... Christ's active and passive
obedience should be regarded as complementary parts of an organic whole [italics
mine]."35
If the active and passive aspects of Christ's obedience ca not be separated, if they
are complementary parts of a whole and if they are alike vicarious in nature, there seems
to be serious discrepancy and inconsistency with limited atonement. The problem is this,
"How is it possible to have a Christ Who lived a substitutionary life, which
obviously was not confined or limited to the elect, and at the same time have a Christ
whose substitutionary death was only for the elect?" Is it not contradictory to
believe in the unlimited vicarious nature of Christ's life and at the same time believe in
the limited vicarious nature of His death, since His life and death sufferings
"cannot be separated"?
VII. The Necessity of Faith for Salvation
This is the most serious problem with the limited view. Even though those who accept
the limited view pay lip service to the need for faith, the fact remains that if their
view of the design of the atonement is true, faith is meaningless and without purpose.
Owen is a good example of one who acknowledges the [125] necessity of faith and yet in the
final analysis removes it as a real condition of salvation. "If the fruits of the
death of Christ to be communicated unto us upon a condition, and that condition to be
among those fruits, and be itself to be absolutely communicated upon no condition, then
all the fruits of the death Christ are as absolutely procured for them for whom he died as
if no condition had been prescribed; for these things come all to one.... Faith, which is
this condition, is itself procured the death of Christ for them for whom he died, to be
freely bestowed on them, without the prescription of any such condition as on whose
fulfilling the collation of it should depend."36 This is a rather involved
statement which in essence declares at Christ procured the condition of faith for the
elect, thus moving every condition for salvation from them. One would wish for scriptural
support for such an observation. The truth the matter is there simply is no scriptural
support for the idea that Christ purchased faith for the elect, thus removing the
condition of salvation for them. The Bible insists everywhere that before ever man's sin
is put away he must believe on the name of the only begotten Son of God: ". . . And
that believing ye might have life through his name'' (John 20: 31). If faith does not
remain as a condition of salvation for men, then words have lost all their meaning.
Questions regarding the limited view may be stated in various ways. If the cross
applies its own benefits and is God's only saving instrumentality, what place does faith
have? When are man's sins forgiven-at the cross, thus before multitudes of men are ever
born, or when man believes and thus appropriates what Christ has done? Paul said
forgiveness comes to the individual when he believes; "Be it known unto you
therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of
sins: And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye
could not be justified by the law of Moses (Acts 13:38,39). This is the universal
testimony of Scripture. There is no exception; the cross is never said to apply its own
benefits. [126] Does not the strict limited view of the atonement also weaken the doctrine
of total depravity? If Christ's death secured the salvation of the elect and if it saves
and applies its own benefit how can the elect be said to be born totally depraved or
without any merit before God? In the limited view all the elect have a the merit of the
Savior by virtue of His death alone. "It is a plenteous redemption, full and
complete. Men are not merely brought into a state where they can be saved, but they al
actually saved by it. Through it, God is not merely made reconcilable to them, but the
redeemed are actually reconciled to God. Salvation is not conditionally obtained for them,
but absolutely."37 There seems to be a contradiction among the claims as
to what saves and when that salvation is a reality and the Apostle Peter's testimony:
"To him give all the prophet witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in
him shall receive remission of sins" (Acts 10:43).
Nothing is clearer in Scripture than that until men believe they are lost in the
broadest sense of that term. The elect are just as lost as the nonelect, until they
believe. In Ephesians 2:3, they are said to be ". . . by nature the children of
wrath, even as others." Thus, the work of Christ even for the elect is provisional
and dependent upon their acceptance of it by faith. Granted, this faith which the elect
must exercise is not a work or something which improves the work of Christ; yet they must
do the believing, and until they do, and unless they do, they are lost.
Men in their unregenerate state are not distinguished in the Bible. The elect and the
nonelect are both viewed as lost an in need of Christ. But those who restrict the death of
Christ to the elect are forced to make just such a distinction between lost sinners who
are elect and lost sinners who are not elect.
The basis for the limited view that Christ's death saves is found in those passages
which speak of His work as complete The unlimited redemptionists in no way deny these. We
cannot emphasize too strongly the fact of Scripture that Christ's death completely
satisfied the righteous demands of God and was a [127] complete substitution. What the
limited redemptionist fails to do is take into consideration that whole host of other
passages which show the necessity of individual appropriation of that finished work by
faith.
Crawford's statements in this connection will put the limited view clearly before us.
Speaking of the death of Christ he said: - "For while it provides a suitable and
sufficient remedy for all evils and miseries of our sinful state, it also obtains that
grace of the Holy Spirit by which this remedy is effectually applied to those who are made
partakers of its benefits. Thus, does it not only put them in a saveable position
or place salvation, as it were, within their reach but it secures salvation for them, and actually
'saves them to the uttermost.' "38
The point of conflict in the limited view becomes apparent when one observes what this
same writer in the same work has to say about the relation of faith to salvation. After
quoting many of the choice passages which show the absolute necessity of faith for the
appropriation of Calvary's accomplishments, he says -:". . . Invitations must be
complied with, promises must be relied on, and proffered blessings must be received by us,
in order that we may be personally benefited by them.... Food will not nourish us unless
we partake of it; a remedy will not cure unless we consent to have it applied; and no more
will Christ, with all His fulness of spiritual blessings, be to us personally of real
advantage, unless we receive and rest upon Him for salvvation."30 With
equal force the same writer again declares: "Faith in Christ is expressly declared in
Scripture to be the means by which we become partakers of His purchased blessings." 40
This insistence upon the fact that the cross saves and at the same time upon the
necessity of faith by limited redemptionists is not some isolated view; it is shared by
many.
Smeaton said of the nature of the atonement: ". . . The atonement, as a fact in
history, is as replete with saving results [128] and consequences, as the fall of
man...."41 Concerning the relation of faith to this he said, ". . .
It is the means by which redemption is appropriated.... Without it there is no relation to
Jesus, and the atonement would be offered in vain."42
Accepting these two facts-the cross saves and the necessity of faith-changes the design
of the atonement from an actual one which applies its own benefits to a provisional one
requiring faith for the appropriation of its results. There seems to be a glaring conflict
in saying on the one hand that the death o Christ "secures" and
"guarantees" the salvation of the elect and that it saves them and, on the other
hand, that faith is necessary to apply the benefits. The question is, "Was the
redemptive work of Christ actual apart from other considerations or was it potential,
requiring faith to apply its benefits?" This question concerns the divine design of
the atonement which we discussed earlier. It does not seem that limited redemptionists can
have it both ways. Either the atonement was provisional or it was not.
We have been arguing for the provisional nature of the atonement and thus against the
idea that the cross applies its own benefits and that it in itself "saves unto the
uttermost." The point of conflict boils down to this: If the divine design of the
atonement is what limited redemptionists say it is, then how can it be at the same time
provisional and "offered in vain" if men do not believe it? For the limited
redemptionists to say it is provisional militates against their dogmatic assertions
regarding its design or nature and places them in the position of the modified Calvinists
or unlimited redemptionists who have always argued for its provisional nature and
potential power toward the sinner.
The difficulty is not lessened, as the limited redemptionist supposes, by saying that
faith and the work of the Holy Spirit were included in the accomplishments of the cross.
The modified Calvinist also rejects the idea that faith comes apart from the Spirit's work
or that it adds one iota to the completed and vicarious [129] sacrifice of Christ. He does
stand on Biblical ground, however, when he insists on the necessity of the exercise of
that faith in order to appropriate the provisional work of Calvary. The point at issue is
not related to the absolute finality of the sacrifice of Christ nor to the totality of its
scope. The crux of the matter concerns the problem of whether or not the sacrifice was
provisional in nature. The simple fact of the admission of the necessity of
faith-regardless of the source of that faith makes the atonement provisional and potential
and not immediate and actual in the application of its benefits. The subject of the source
and nature of the faith which man places in Christ is a matter not directly related to the
discussion at hand.
This whole problem is complicated even more for the limited redemptionist when he
insists, as Owen does, that the sin of unbelief has no particular significance. In a
quotation which we used earlier 43 Owen said regarding unbelief: ". . . Is
it a sin or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ
underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder more than
their other sins for which he died, from partaking of the fruit of his death?"44
This logic militates against two of the most basic scriptural principles. First, it
removes the necessity for belief and all the importance from belief. Second, it postulates
the absurd idea that unbelief on the part of the unsaved is not a sin for which he should
be punished since Christ died for it.
If the sin of unbelief is to be viewed as all other sins and to be included as one for
which Christ removed all penalty, there does not seem to be any reason for faith.
Believing that Christ's death paid for the sin of the rejection of His person and work
means that for whomever He died there is salvation ether they believe or not. Since in the
strict Calvinistic scheme of things it is not a sin to disbelieve, it is legitimate to ask
why God demands faith and repentance of all men (Acts 17:30). Following this line of
reasoning, faith is altogether unnecessary, totally irrelevant and without any real
purpose; even if the elect do not believe, they will still be saved since Christ died for
[130] their unbelief. Nothing could be more contrary to the Scriptures than that.
To sum up the limited view regarding the relation of faith to salvation, it may be said
that it holds men are lost and destined to spend eternity apart from God because they were
born in sin, were not elect, hence not included in Christ's death. The Bible, on the other
hand, declares that men are lost because of their refusal to receive God's provision for
their sin. The issue is no longer a question of sin alone but the question of man's
relationship to the Son of God. In the limited view, the sin of unbelief cannot be charged
to the nonelect, for no salvation and no Savior have been provided for them. Thus, in the
limited view, the nonelect are not guilty of their rejection of Christ, for they have no
Christ to reject; whereas in the unlimited and, we believe, Biblical view men are guilty
before God and will be condemned on the basis of their rejection of Christ.
VIII. The Convicting Work of the Holy Spirit
Believing in limited redemption seems not only to remove the importance, if not the
necessity, of faith but also to raise a question as to the necessity and possibility of
any work of the Holy Spirit for the nonelect.
By necessity, if Christ died only for the elect, then the work of the Holy Spirit which
must find its origin and basis in that death must also be confined to the elect. This
means that the Holy Spirit has never had a ministry to the nonelect in the world either
before or since Christ's death. The Holy Spirit's work could not reach out beyond the
elect if the death of Christ did not have this universal scope since the Spirit's ministry
was procured in and through the cross. In other words, how could a part of the work of
Christ on the cross be universal if the whole of it was not? The difficulty in this
connection with the limited view is much the same as was discovered in the attempt. to
apply "natural" benefits from the cross to the nonelect while restricting the
"spiritual" benefits to the elect.
The problem really centers in the convicting work of the Holy Spirit since this is His
principal ministry toward the unsaved. [131] How can the Spirit be said to have a ministry
toward the entire world in showing all men their need of Christ if the death of Christ did
not reach to the entire world? Furthermore, what need is there for the convicting work of
the Spirit toward the elect if the cross applies its own benefits? It even seems
unnecessary for the Spirit to regenerate the elect at a point in time if the death of
Christ has already done it. On the one hand, why would the Spirit convict the elect of the
sin of rejecting Christ if Christ's death paid for their sin of unbelief? On the other
hand, how could the Spirit convict the nonelect if they have no relationship and therefore
no responsibility to Christ's death?
The interpretation to which limited redemptionists place upon John 16:8-11 is very
revealing of the dilemma they face in this regard. The passage delineates the threefold
work of the Holy Spirit in the world and reads as follows: "And when he is come, he
will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they
believe not on me; of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of
judgment, because the prince of this world is judged."
A normal reading of this passage leads one to understand that Christ was here informing
the disciples of a threefold ministry of the Holy Spirit to the entire world. This is
precisely how John Calvin understood the passage. "Under the term world are, I
think, included not only those who would be truly converted to Christ, but hypocrites and
reprobates.''45
Not all of Calvin's espoused followers share his view of this passage, though. For
example, Pink says: But, it may be said, is not the present mission of the Holy Spirit to
'convict the world of sin'? And we answer, It is not. The mission of the
Spirit is threefold: to glorify Christ, to vivify the elect, to edify the saints. John
16:8-11 does not describe the 'mission' of the Spirit, but sets forth the significance
of His presence here in the world. It treats not of His subjective works in
sinners, showing them their need of Christ, by searching their consciences and [132]
striking terror to their hearts; what we have there is entirely objective."40
Again, the same writer emphasizes his point: "We repeat John 16:8-11 makes no
reference to the mission of the Spirit of God in the world, for during this dispensation.
the Spirit has no mission and ministry worldward...."47
Another explains the word world used here as referring to the Jews of that day who
rejected Christ. "The world here spoken of as thus convinced, reproved, and
condemned of the Spirit primarily refers to the Jews, who in the times of this outpouring
of the Spirit would be convinced of their deep an aggravated sin in rejecting Jesus
Christ."48 Having thus limited the ministry of the Spirit to the world of
the Jews, Owen has second thoughts and admits, "But while this is primarily spoken of
the Jews, it is in the highest degree true of all who have heard the name of Christ. The
office of the Spirit is to convince them of sin in refusing to believe in an offered
Redeemer, and to reprove and condemn them for this state of apathy and unbelief."49
Serious questions are raised when a limited redemptionist concedes that the Spirit's
convicting ministry is upon all who have heard the name of Christ. This of course does not
make the ministry completely worldwide but at least it is sure to include at least some
for whom Christ did not die. How is this possible when the Spirit's work spoken of in this
context by our Lord was based squarely upon His death? This is true not only in the
general context of the Upper Room Discourse but it is also true in the immediate context
as well. The three indictments which the Spirit is said to level against the world are all
based for their very validity upon the finished work of Christ on the cross.
Buswell. who believes in limited atonement, acknowledges at it is the death of Christ
which ". . . furnishes the ethical [133] and logical ground for common grace....50
He then goes on to say, "In my opinion the convicting work of the Holy Spirit in the
world in general is a work upon the hearts of all men prior to either faith or
regeneration, a work wherein not only is the Gospel freely offered to all, but all are
brought to a point of enablement to such a degree that, if having been convicted, they
reject the grace of God thus offered to them, they are subject to the eternal wrath and
curse of God. . . "51
It is difficult to conceive of a God Who would through the death of His Son not only
make a universal offer of salvation to all men but who would also through the Holy Spirit
bring all men to see their need of Christ if His Son did not in the first place provide a
redemption for all.
The question therefore is, ''Since the Spirit's work was based on Christ s work, on
what basis could the Holy Spirit bring conviction to men who were beyond the scope of
Christ's death? Another troublesome question is presented in this regard. Owen and other
limited redemptionists admit that the sin of which Holy Spirit is here said to convince or
give demonstrable proof of is the sin of unbelief in Christ.52 Does it not
appear strange that the Holy Spirit would bring such conviction to those who could not
reject Christ since, if the limited point of view be allowed, He did not do anything for
them which they could reject. No one can reject something which was never even intended
for him nor extended to him in the first place.
Now concerning the extent of this promised convicting ministry of the Spirit, there can
be no doubt but that it is worldwide. This is true for a number of reasons beyond the fact
that the word cosmos, "world," is used by the Lord.
Christ was dealing with discouraged and defeated disciples because of the prospect of
His imminent death. He had just commissioned them to be witnesses after His departure, in
a world that would be hostile and antagonistic to them and the One they were to preach
(John 15:18-25). It was because of their own [134] inadequacies and the world's antagonism
that the Savior promised them the Spirit's aid. They were not going to be left alone as
orphans; the Holy Spirit would be their Comforter (John 1@:26-16:6). Since they were to
bear testimony to all men and not just the elect, and since they would be enabled to do
this by the Holy Spirit, His ministry would then also be to all men.
The threefold indictment of the Spirit upon the world does not mean the world would
thus receive the Christ of whom the Spirit was bearing testimony. That is not implied in
the word "convince." What is involved, though, is rebuke which brings conviction
or acknowledgment of what has been done. The Spirit of God had done this work before (Gen.
6:3), but now after the Son's departure He was to perform a more intensive work because of
the Savior's absence. He was to give demonstrable proof to all men of the facts about sin
because they do not believe, about righteousness because the only righteous One has been
crucified and raised from the dead, and about judgment because the prince of the world was
judged, thus assuring the future judgment of all his followers.
The present ministry of the Spirit in the world is the answer of the Lord's petition to
the Father: "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on
me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in
thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent
me .... that the world may know that thou has sent me, and hast loved them, as thou
hast loved me [italics mine]" (John 17:20-23). In accordance with the Savior's
request, it is the third person of the Godhead who uses the believer's dedicated life and
the Word of God to bring the world to an acknowledgment that the Son was sent by the
Father Who loved them. Of course, they do not all believe, but they are all without
excuse.
Another difficulty in the limited redemption concept becomes apparent in this
connection. The necessity for this universal convicting ministry of the Spirit in common
grace lies in the spiritual blindness which Satan brings upon men. That blindness which is
part of man's total inability is not true only [135] of the elect. It is true of all men,
and therefore the Spirit's ministry must be coextensive with Satan's imposed blindness.
Then, too, one wonders about the nature of this spiritual blindness. Paul declared,
". . . The god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest
the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto
them" (2 Cor. 4:4). If Christ did not die for the nonelect, of what are they blinded?
It cannot be that they are blinded of Christ's death for them and their need for faith if
Christ never died for them. They cannot be blinded in their unbelief because they have
nothing to believe or to disbelieve since they have no relationship to Christ's death!
The difficulty of explaining such a passage is removed when it is acknowledged that
spiritual darkness has come upon all men, making it impossible for them to understand or
believe that Christ died for them. The Holy Spirit works through various means to bring
blinded sinners to the realization of their need and Christ's provision. This He does for
all men even though many resist and refuse His work (Gen. 6:3; Prov. 1:24-26; Isa. 63:10;
Acts 7:51).
IX. Adam and Christ
According to Romans 5:12, it was by one man, and all men in him, that sin and death
entered the world: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by
sin; and death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." It seems clear from
this text that Adam was not only the federal head of the entire human race but that he was
also the natural head; and thus when he committed the sin, the whole race being
represented by him and being seminally in him, committed the sin also. Therefore Paul
could say, "for all have sinned," meaning by it that all sinned at a point in
time in the past, namely, when Adam sinned.
Further evidence for the actual participation of all mankind in the sin, and therefore
the universal diffusion of the result of that sin, follows in Romans 5:13, 14: "(For
until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over [136] them that had not sinned
after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to
come." Physical death reigned as a tyrant over men from Adam to Moses even though law
had not yet been codified in that period and even though men did not reenact the same sin
that Adam had committed. Since death did not exist before Adam's transgression but was a
result and punishment for his sin, and yet since men died after Adam who had not sinned in
exactly the same way, it can only follow that those who thus died did so because the were
participants in Adam's sin and therefore recipients of his subsequent punishment.
There need be no doubt about the fact that Adam was a type of Christ since he is called
"the figure of him that was to come" (Rom. 5:14). Adam was such a figure or type
because, as he became through his one act of disobedience the cause of death to his
descendants, so Christ became through His one act of obedience the dispenser of
righteousness and the cause of eternal life to as many as receive Him in faith (Rom.
5:17).
While the apostle's chief concern in Romans 5:12-19 is to show how a single act of one
affects many, he nevertheless reveals a likeness as well as several contrasts between Adam
and Christ. "The likeness consists in this: one man is the source of sin,
death, condemnation - one man the source of righteousness and life. Again, one
act is the evil source - one act the good source." 53
The first difference between the first and last Adam is to be found in the phrase,
"But not as the offence, so also is the free gift" (Rom. 5:15). Adam's
"offense" brought sin and death to himself as well as to the entire human race
of which he was the natural and representative head. In direct contrast, Christ's
"free gift," or more literally "gracious gift," was not for Himself at
all but exclusively for others.
There is another difference indicated in the same verse in the words "much
more." The thought is that Christ's one act is more certain of having its effect upon
"the many" than [137] Adam's one act had upon the same group. Surely there is a
greater abundance of grace and life in Christ than there was death in Adam; yet Paul does
not seem to be emphasizing either a contrast of quality between life and death or a
contrast quantity - a greater amount of life than of death. It is rather a higher
degree of certainty which the apostle wishes to stress. Hodge has correctly said the words
"much more" do ". . . not express a higher degree of efficacy, but of
evidence of certainty: . If one thing has happened, much more certainly may the other be
relied upon.' "54 Another Greek exegete adds a fitting word: "The
apostle is not at all concerned to demonstrate that there is more grace in Christ than
there was death in Adam. What he wishes to prove is that if a slight cause could bring
sentence of death on all mankind, this same mankind will experience in its entirety the
salutary effect of a much more powerful cause."55
The Romans 5 passage relates to the extent of the atonement, especially in verses
15-19. Though the definite article does not appear in the English translation, it is
present in the Greek text before the word "many" in both instances in verse 15.
Therefore, it should read "the many" thus referring to the same group the case
of Adam and Christ.
By this phrase, '"the many," Paul is speaking of the entire human race just
as much as if he had said "all." The definite article which appears before the
word "many" proves this. No doubt the reason for his choice of "the
many" instead of "all" was to provide a better contrast to the
"one" from which the sin went forth and the "one" from which the grace
went forth. The term "all" would be more opposed to the word "some'' than
it would to "one."
Needless to say, this passage creates serious problems for the one believing in limited
atonement. Paul's emphasis is clearly that to the totality of the race was grace extended
through one man, Jesus Christ. Nothing could be more contradictory to the limited view
than that.
[138] Godet, a Greek exegete and theologian, put it this way: "What the apostle
here compares is not as some have thought, the abundance of the effects, but rather the degree
of extension belonging to the two works; for the emphasis is on the term the many,
of the two sides of the parallel; and this degree of extension he measures very logically
according to the degree of abundance in the factors - a degree indicated on the one side
by the subordinate clause of the first proposition; through the offence of one, on
the other by the subject of the second; the grace of God, and the gift through this
grace of one man. From the contrast between these factors it is easy to arrive at this
conclusion. If from the first factor, so insignificant in a way - the offence of
one!-there could go forth an action which spread over the whole multitude of mankind, will
not the conclusion hold a fortiori that from the two factors acting on the opposite
side, so powerful and rich as they are, there must result an action, the extension
of which shall not be less than that of the first factor, and shall consequently also
reach the whole of that multitude."56
If "the many" associated with Adam are "the many" unto whom
Christ's grace abounded, does this not mean the whole human race will be saved? The answer
is an emphatic no! The apostle argues strongly here for the necessity of faith on the part
of each of "the many" to whom Christ's grace abounds in order that the grace may
be appropriated.
He speaks first of all in verse 15 of the last Adam's work as a grace-gift, which
surely implies that it must be received individually. Then, in verse 16 when he says,
". . . The free gift is of many offences unto justification," he does not use
the definite article with "many" as he did twice in verse 15.
"The accepters are not the totality of men condemned die; Paul does not
even say that they are necessarily numerous. His thought here is arrested by each
of them, whatever shall be their number."57
Thus there is on the side of grace a totally different position as compared with those
on the side of sin. Those [139] represented in the sin of Adam and its subsequent judgment
did not need to do any more to be condemned. Those who are said to be dead in verse 15 are
the same ones under judgment and condemnation in verse 16. But that same group, "the
many," must do something about the provision of Christ if they are to be justified.
Christ's one act in death made the grace abound to the entire race; it overflowed as the
contents of a container filled to overflowing. But it is man's personal reception of that
grace poured out at the cross which brings the justification to that part of "the
many" which believe.
According to verse 17, it was through Adam's one offence that death reigned but much
more those who receive the grace given by the last Adam shall reign in life through Him.
The emphasis is upon the necessity of receiving the grace. Lenski summarizes this
point very well: "The fact that the condemnatory verdict damned all men is beyond
question after considering v. 12-15. The fact that the justifying verdict does not
justify all men ought to be equally beyond question in view of v. 17 and of all that Paul
has said regarding justification by faith alone." 58
The verb in verse 17 translated "receive" signifies literally "the
receivers" or "accepters". The word from which this verb comes means
"to take," "to lay hold of" or "to receive." Here it
obviously refers to an act of faith or acceptance. Godet again comments: "Vv. 16 and
17 demonstrate the full reality and quickening efficacy of the personal application
which every believer makes of the justification obtained by Christ. Affirmed in ver. 16,
this individual efficacy is proved in ver. 17. One single agent, serving as the instrument
of a very weak cause, could bring about the death of so many individuals who had not personally
taken part in his act. Consequently, and much more certainly, will each of those
same individuals, by personally appropriating a force far superior in action to the
preceding, become thereby a possessor of life."59
[140] That all will not receive the extended grace procured for them by Christ seems
certain from the fact so clearly stated that they who do shall "reign in life by one,
Jesus Christ." Thus, not only does verse 15 support an atonement coextensive with the
fall, but verse 17 also implies that some for whom grace abounded will not receive it.
Nothing could be more certain from these verses than that all to whom the free gift of
righteousness and grace is extended are not receivers.
Other interesting differences of a more technical nature between the judgment and
condemnation of Adam's sin and the gracious gift of justification to life issuing from
Christ's death are found in verses 18 and 19. These differences or contrasts argue
strongly against any worldwide justification in this passage.
Verse 18 is the summation of the teaching in verses 12-17 "Therefore as by the
offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the
righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of
life" [italics mine] There are no verbs in the verse in the Greek text; translators
and commentators have inserted them. Evidence against any kind of universal justification
or even justification apart from faith is found in the word translated
"justification" at the close of the verse. In direct contrast to several other
words from verse 16 on, which have an ending which emphasizes the end result, this word
has an ending which stresses not result at all but action. Perhaps it would be clearer if
we took the word translated "judgment" in verse 18 as an example of the
contrast. This word with its suffix speaks of a resultant judgment upon al men through
Adam that is absolutely final and which will without any further activity on the part of
those involved result in condemnation. Yet in the same verse, when Paul speaks of the work
of Christ extending the gracious gift of justification unto life to "all men,"
he uses a suffix or ending on the word justification which does not imply absoluteness in
the sense that those thus involved, "all men," are automatically justified. No,
his ending has the sense of action but not the result of that action.
Robertson, in his advanced Greek grammar, says: "It is important to seed the
meaning not only of the root, but of this [141] formative suffix also when possible."
He further states that ma denotes result and sis means action.60
Lenski adds this clarifying statement in his exegesis of the verse: "The
difference in the terms is marked: not for all men asfor Christ, dikaioma, a
justifying verdict as the finished and permanent result, but dikaiosis, the action
of declaring righteous, the action that is repeated in every case in which 'the gift of
the righteousness is received' (v. 17) by faith. Adam's fall (result, paraptoma) =
for all men, katakrima, finished condemnation, a result, not merely katakrisis,
condemning action that occurs in a succession of cases; Christ's dikaioma, finished
result like Adam's paraptoma) = for all men, not also dikaioma, finished
result, but dikaiosis, justifying action that occurs in a succession of cases. 61
Further explanation of the two facts paralleled in verse 18 is given in verse 19.
"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one
shall many be made righteous" (Rom. 5:19). Here again we have the appearance
"the many" which occurred in verse 15 and which was substituted for "all
men" in verse 18. The significance of the verse in relation to the extent of the
atonement lies in the future "shall many be made righteous" as opposed to the
aorist "were made sinners." The aorist tense in Greek stresses point action in
the past. It would seem that if two aorists were necessary in verse 18, "judgment
came" and "the free gift came," two aorists would also appear in verse 19,
"many made sinners" and "many made righteous." This, however, is not
the case, and because it is not we have a good argument against worldwide justification to
parallel worldwide condemnation. Instead of two aorist tenses there is one aorist
signifying the finality of the past act of Adam whereby "the many" were
constituted sinners. In the case of Christ's act of obedience and its relation to
"the many," a future tense appears. The total number involved in Adam's
disobedience is not the same as those who shall be constituted righteous. As this entire
context and rest of Scripture shows, [142] faith is necessary for the individual
application of that procured righteousness. "This passage refers, as is proved by the
future will be made righteous, to the effectual application."62
The idea expressed here is that all along as men receive the abundance of grace and the
gift of righteousness, they shall be constituted righteous. "'The many' with
reference to whom the aorist is used are determined by that aorist, 'the many' with
reference to whom the future tense is used are limited by that tense. These tenses decide
the issue. Christ's obedience will never constitute an unbeliever who spurns this
vicarious obedience dikaios 'righteous,' declared so by the eternal Judge."63
It should be evident from this survey of Romans 5:12-19 that the contrast and
comparison of Adam and Christ in this passage lends no support to limited atonement.
Through Adam's one act of disobedience the entire human race became the recipients of sin,
and through one act of obedience the last Adam brought the gracious gift of righteousness
to the entire human race. The disobedience of the one was coextensive with the obedience
of the other. "The many" unto whom death came are "the many" unto whom
the gracious gift abounded through Christ. There is no clearer passage than this to teach
the imputation (putting over to one's account) of Adam's sin to the race and the sin of
the race to Christ.
Understandably, those who believe in limited atonement find it necessary to confine
"the many" unto whom grace abounded (v. 15) and the "all men'' unto whom
justification of life came (v. 18) to the elect. The limitation is placed only upon those
associated with Christ's work and not upon those associated with Adam's sin, even though
the two are parallel in the text.
Hodge, in defense of the strict Calvinistic and limited view cites the timeworn
arguments concerning the frequent limitation upon the words "all," etc., in
Scripture. He concludes from this and from the fact that even in the case of Adam's
transgression Christ was excepted, and therefore absolutely all did not die in [143] him,
that the work of Christ was not coextensive with the sin of Adam. 64
Murray brings the same one-sided limitations to the text seemingly to avoid
universalism or worldwide justification.65 It is certainly true that the Bible
does not teach that all men will eventually be saved either here or elsewhere. Within this
very text itself, as we have demonstrated in the previous pages, the necessity of faith is
clearly taught. There is no necessity to place limitations upon one side of the obvious
parallel in order to avoid universalism. That false doctrine is repudiated by the apostle
both here and elsewhere. He made it as clear as words could make it that, even though the
work of the last Adam reached to the same group as that reached by the sin of the first
Adam, there is a difference in how the effects of each reach men. Christ's work was a
gracious gift implying the need of reception; Adam's sin was not. Christ's gift of
righteousness must be received before it is applied to the individual; Adam's sin must
not. Christ's obedience shall constitute many righteous, as they believe. Adam's
disobedience constituted all men as sinners immediately at the time Adam sinned.
No greater confidence is needed for the proclaimer of the gospel to lost men than that
Christ, the last Adam (1 Cor. 15:22,45) finished a work through which salvation was
provided for every single member of the first Adam's condemned race.
X The Resurrection of the Wicked Dead
Another evidence that all men were involved in Christ's work on the cross relates to
the resurrection power which His death procured for the entire race. His victory over
death provides a basis for the future resurrection not only of the saved but also of the
unsaved.
Before Adam sinned, there was no death. As a punishment for sin, death entered the
universe in three forms. Man died spiritually; that is, his fellowship with God was
immediately [144] broken. Man also began to die physically in fulfillment of God's threat:
". . . In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Gen. 2:17).
One needs only to read God's obituary column in chapter 5 where the phrase "and he
died" occurs eight times for proof of physical death resulting from sin. Likewise,
man became the subject of spiritual death-eternal separation from God-unless the divine
provision of substitution for sin be accepted.
As the last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45), Christ defeated the power of death incurred by the
first Adam; and since the penalty of death extended to all men, Christ's victory over
death, proved by His own resurrection, must also be the basis for the future resurrection
of all men. That all men will be raised was clearly taught by Christ Himself. "Marvel
not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear
his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life;
and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation" (John 5:28, 29). It
is clear from the immediate context of these verses that the source of resurrection power
as well as the authority to execute judgment resides in the Son of Man as a gift from the
Father (John 5:19-27).
"The abrogating of death is no less than a repeal of the sentence that was given
in Eden, except for the abiding spiritual aspects of death; and is brought about not only
by a divine decree which determines its end, but by a universal resurrection or renewal of
all that physical death hath wrought. This reference to the cessation of the reign of
death, as presented in 1 Corinthians 15:26, is in connection with the end or final
resurrection-event which closes the whole program of resurrection which began with
Christ's resurrection and includes the resurrection of those that are Christ's at His
coming and includes, also, this, the end resurrection when the remaining dead will 'stand'
before the great white throne (Rev. 20:12)."66
Whatever view of last things one accepts, premillennial, postmillennial or amillennial,
the fact remains that all men will be raised. Neither is it of any consequence to the
present discussion [145] whether the church and Israel are raised at the same time or at
different times or whether there is a single general resurrection or a resurrection in
stages. All evangelicals must agree that all men will be raised from the dead in the
future.
The wicked dead are just as much a part of the resurrection program as are the
righteous dead. And both will be raised by the power of Christ's resurrection. This being
true, it must be admitted that even the nonelect were included in the Savior's death since
it is on the basis of His death that they shall one day be resurrected to live a conscious
existence forever.
But in the limited atonement concept, the nonelect are not included in Christ's death.
If they are not, then how is it that the source of power for their future resurrection is
to be found in Christ's defeat of death by His own death and resurrection? There is no
other alternative; the basis of the future resurrection and judgment of all unsaved men
finds its source squarely in the death and resurrection of Christ.
1 Johnathan Edwards and others, The Atonement (Boston: Congregational Board
of Publication, 1859), p. 581
2 Louis Berhhof, Systematic Theology (Grand rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing
Co., 1941), p. 438.
3 A. A. Hodge, The Atonement (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1953), p. 427.
4 John Murray, Redemption-Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1955), p. 71.
5 Common grace may be defined as the work of God in behalf of all men in His
general care for them. It is to be contrasted with efficacious grace which always
eventuates in salvation.
6 Hodge, op. cit., pp. 382,383.
7 R. B. Kuiper, For Whom Did Christ Die, (Grand Rapids: Wm. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1950), p. 68.
8 lbid .
9 Ibid .
10 Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God (Cleveland: Cleveland Bible Truth
Depot, 1930), p. 246.
11 Ibid
12 William Cunningham, Historical Theology (Swengel, Pennsylvania: Bible
Truth Depot, 1960), II, p. 344. 13 J James Richards, Lectures on Mental
Philosophy and Theology (New York: N. W. Dodd, 1846), p. 322. 14 Thomas J.
Crawford, The Doctrine of Holy Scripture Respecting the Atonement (Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1954), p. 510.
15 Ibid., pp. 510-513.
16 Hodge, op. cit., p. 418.
17 Ibid., pp. 418-423
18 Kuiper, op. cit., p. 86
19 Ibid., p. 94.
20 Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas: Dallas Seminary
Press, 1950), III, p. 195.
21 Ibid., citing W. Lindsay Alexander, A System of Biblical Theology,
II, p. 111
22 Chafer, op. cit., p. 194.
23 Berkhof, op. cit., p. 277.
24 For a full discussion of the rise, validity and objections to covenant
theology see John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Findlay, Ohio: Dunham
Publishing Company, 1959), pp. 89-91; and Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today
(Chigcago: Moody Press, 1965), pp. 177-191.
25 John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. Thomas Cloutt (London: J. C.
Dove, 1823), V, p. 325.
26 Hodge, op. cit., pp. 404-408.
27 Kuiper, op. cit., p. 65
28 Crawford, op. cit., p. 148.
29 John Gill, The Doctrine of Particular Redemption, p. 9.
30 Oswald T. Allis, "The Covenant Works," Basic Christian Doctrines,
ed. Carl. F. H. Henry (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1962), p. 97.
31 Hodge, op. cit., pp. 406, 407.
32 Those who adhere to the covenant system, quite frequently accuse the
dispensationalists, who reject their system, of teaching several ways of salvation. This
is simply not true of normative dispensationalism. Charles c. Ryrie has succinctly stated
the dispensationalist's viewpoint concerning the way of salvation: "The
dispensationalist's answer to the problem is this: The basis of salvation in every
age is the death of Christ; the requirement for salvation in every age is faith;
the object of faith in every age is God; the content of faith changes in the
various dispensations. It is this last point, of course which distinguishes
dispensationalism from covenant theology, but it is not a point to which the charge of
teaching two ways of salvation can be attached It simply recognizes the obvious fact of
progressive revelation. When Adam looked upon the coats of skins with which God had
clothed him and his wife, he did not see what the believer today sees looking back on the
cross of Calvary. And neither did other Old Testament saints see what we can see today
There have to be two sides to this matter-that which God sees from His side and that which
man sees from his." (Ryrie, op. cit., pp. 123,124).
33 Murray, op. cit., pp. 27, 28
34 Hodge, op. cit., p.250.
35 Berkhof, op. cit., pp. 180, 181.
36 Owen, op. cit., X, p. 450.
37 Gill, op. cit., p. 30.
38 Crawford, op. cit., pp. 121,122.
39 Ibid., p. 145
40 Ibid., p. 509.
41 George Smeaton, The Doctrine of the Atonement as Taught by Christ Himself
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1953), p. 366.
42 Ibid., pp. 396, 398.
43 See chapter 4
44 Owen, op. cit., X, p. 174
45 John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John (Grand
Rapids; Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1949), p. 138
46 Pink, op. cit., p. 92.
47 Ibid., p. 94.
48 John J. Owen, A Commentary on the Gospel of John (New York: Charles
Scribner & Co., 1886), p. 385
49 Ibid.
50 James Oliver Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1963), II, pp. 142,143.
51 Ibid., p.157.
52 Ibid., p. 386.
53 R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans
(Columbus: Wartburg Press, 1945), p. 367.
54 Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Philadelphia:
Alfred Martien, 1873), p. 257
55 F. Godet, Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans (New York:
Funk and Wagnalls, 1883), p. 216.
56 Ibid., p. 214.
57 Ibid., p. 222.
58 Lenski, op. cit., p. 374
59 Godet, op. cit., p. 374
60 A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of
Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), p. 151.
61 Lenski, op. cit., p. 379.
62 Godet. op. cit., p. 226
63 Lenski, op. cit., p. 383
64 Hodge, op. cit., p.268,269.
65 John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1959), I, pp. 191-206
66 Chafer, op. cit., II, p. 154.
Topical
Category:
email