Now we return this morning to
consider for the final time this burning question, for whom did
Christ die? Now just briefly to review, our
approach to this subject has been to follow the suggestion
given by Hugh Martin and many others, but I think probably
in the most powerful language stated by Hugh Martin, namely,
to consider the question of the extent of the death of Christ,
or the question for whom did Christ die, not in isolation,
but in intimate relationship with the other categories of
truth within which that doctrine is presented to us in the scriptures.
And I repeat what Hugh Martin has said, at least it's a paraphrase
of him, that whenever we extract any biblical doctrine from its
biblical context, We weaken our defense in our presentation of
that doctrine. And so we've tried to consider
the death of Christ in relationship, first of all, to the covenant
of redemption. And we saw that the death of
Christ, contemplated in the eternal Trinitarian councils, is particularistic
to the core. A people, a distinct people,
a seed, is given to Christ, or are given to Christ. And on their
behalf, Christ agrees to be surety, and the Father agrees to uphold
and sustain the Son in the pursuit of all of the obligations that
will be His as the surety of His people. So strict particularism
is found laying, as it were, in the very womb of the atoning
work of Christ in eternity in the covenant of redemption. Then
we consider the doctrine of the cross. or the death of Christ
in the context of Christ's relationship to his people. And again, strict
particularism is found here, that Christ becomes a true substitute,
identifying himself with his people so that what happens to
him is said to happen to them. When he dies, they die. When
he is buried, they are buried. When he is raised, they are raised. And in the life of our Lord,
that self-conscious awareness, as he expressed in John 17, that
for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they may be sanctified through
the truth. The third major category was
the death of Christ considered as a priestly function. We noted,
as we have been underscoring in the Sunday morning expositions
as well, that Christ's work in accomplishing redemption was
a bona fide priestly activity And that priestly activity has
at least two major categories, the work of oblation and intercession
or presentation, both of which are inseparably identified in
the Old Testament ritual and in the New Testament accomplishment
in the work of Christ. So strict particularism meets
us again. No one, no one that I know, claiming
to be an evangelical, even the Socinians, teach that Christ
intercedes for all men indiscriminately. The intercession is particularistic.
If it is but another phase of his priestly work, then even
if there were no explicit teaching concerning the particularism
of the oblation, we would be forced by the whole drift of
type being a foreshadowing of substantial reality to assume
that that reality undergirded the work of Christ in his priestly
functions. And then in our last lecture,
we consider the nature of the work of Christ itself in its
major biblical categories as sacrifice, propitiation, reconciliation,
and redemption. And I suggested, after giving
you just specimen quotes from Murray, that nothing short of
a full-blown particularism and atonement that efficaciously
secures these things does justice to those biblical categories.
Redemption is redemption, not potential redemption. Reconciliation
is reconciliation. Propitiation is an actual turning
away from the wrath of God for all those on whose behalf propitiation
was made. Now, what I propose to do in
this final lecture is to deal with the problems connected with
this doctrine or the major objections to this doctrine, and all I want
to do is to outline these objections and then to point you in the
direction of those sources where these objections are dealt with
very thoroughly, very honestly, at least that's my assessment,
so that you will be able to trace these things out on your own.
If I were to actually do the work of answering the objections
in a careful, exegetical manner, why, we'd be at this thing for
another series of I don't know how many lectures. Alright, so
the subject of our lecture this morning, having opened up the
doctrine, that would be the first major category that has occupied
us for six lectures, now in the seventh lecture, the major objections
to this doctrine. And as I've tried to be sensitive
to these objections both in discussing the matter with people, in reading
literature, and in reading those who confront the objections,
I believe it's accurate to say that the objections break down
into three categories. Textual objections, practical
objections, and emotional objections. Textual, practical, and emotional
objections to the doctrine of definite atonement. Alright,
first of all then, the textual objections, and when you've read
all of the objections, when you've discussed with people who say,
how can you believe that when it says that all of those objections
can be ranged under three headings? So the textual objections have
three major categories. Objections to the doctrine of
definite atonement, textual objections A, B, C, and then we'll look
at practical objections and then emotional objections. Under the
first category, textual objections, the first category is text in
which the word world is used to describe the objects of the
death of Christ. John 1.29, Behold the Lamb of
God, who beareth away the sins, or the sin of the world. First John 2.2, He is propitiation,
not for ours only, but also for the whole world. Then the second
category of textual objection are the texts in which the word
all or every are used to describe the objects of Christ's death.
2 Corinthians 5.15, and that he died for all. Romans 8.32,
delivered him up for us all. 1 Timothy 4.6, who gave himself
a ransom for all. Hebrews 2.9, who tasted death
for every man. And that just about exhausts
the texts. And then you have the third category of textual
objection, the text in which it is stated that some perish
for whom Christ died. Romans 14, 15. Shall I make the
brother for whom Christ died perish because of my meat? Hebrews
10, 29 to 31. People who've been sanctified
by the blood of the covenant, but who've trampled it underfoot.
and eventually are the recipients of divine wrath and anger, and
then 2 Peter 2, 1, denying the only Lord and Master that bought
them. Now I believe it's accurate to
say, and this is not original with me, you'll find this basic
classification in Birkhoff, you'll find it in Birkhoff because he
probably found it in Turretin, And you'll find it in most of
the standard reform theologians who've written from Turretin
down that the textual objections to the doctrine of definite atonement,
as we've sought to expound it in these past lectures, are arranged
under those three categories. Well, what is our answer to these
objections? Yes? Yeah, that was question
number two, four. What? What did I say? Oh, I'm sorry, yes, I'm sorry,
2, 4 through 6, it's that whole passage in there. Thank you.
Thank you. All right? Here, I'll get that changed.
1 Timothy 2, who will have all men to be saved and come to the
knowledge of the truth, who gave him this is well-pleasing and
acceptable with God, etc. All right? These matters have
been faced honestly and carefully by students of the word. In fact,
one of the things that when I was coming out of the cocoon, as
it were, of the woolly-headed thinking that had marked me for
so many years in these areas, and after some eight to ten years
of wrestling with these things, was coming to some definitive
position or some definite position, one of the things I noticed was
that there was a much greater honesty in Reformed writers dealing
with objections to that position than there was with Arminian
and Semi-Pelagian writers in dealing with the opposite position.
I found that honesty and thoroughness were definitely on the side of
Reformed writers. And it's also interesting to
note that the materials for objection must be scanty because the same
ones are being made today that were made way back in Turretin's
day. You read Turretin, who wrote in the 1600s, and you think you
are reading the writings of a man who was listening to something
going on at one of the latest convocations of anti-reformed
preachers in our day. I mean, there's just no new thing
under the sun. And these problems are faced head-on, and I believe
in an honest and thoroughly exegetical way, most helpfully in the following
writers, and I want to give you now a little bibliography so
you can trace out these matters. If you can come upon a copy of
the translation out of the Latin into English of this section
of Turretin dealing with the Atonement, this particular copy
that I have in my hands is Turretin on the Atonement of Christ translated
by James Wilson. Turretin, T-U-R-R-E-T-T-I-N,
one of the great successors of Calvin, great preacher, great
saint, great philanthropist. He had what we would call a very
broad world and life view and a very sensitive heart. This
was published by the Board of Publication of Reformed Protestant
Dutch Church in New York in 1859. Alas, this is but borrowed, I
wish it were my own. But Turretin and pages 161-193
deal systematically with each of these categories of objection. And then John Gill in his Body
of Divinity, page 467-475. John Gill, Body of Divinity,
467-475. That would be Jay Green's edition,
the green-covered copy. And then John Owen, On the Death
of Death, Volume 10, if you have the full reprint of the Gould
edition, Volume 10, the one the banner has done, page 316 through
421. Owen, Volume 10, 316-421, or
if you have the original Banner of Truth, the separate printing
that had Packer's introduction, that would be found on pages
182-309. Alright, and then John Murray in Redemption Accomplished
and Applied, pages 71-75, probably the most succinct treatment and
short compass of some of these objections. Redemption Accomplished
and Applied, pages 71-75. And then Arthur Pink's book on
the Atonement, done by Baker, A. W. Pink, The Atonement, pages
253 through 266. And then one of the most helpful
little treatises, Gary Long's newly published book, Definite
Atonement, and he has three appendices. and they are found on pages 67
to 107, fifty pages of material. 67 to 107, a detailed exposition
of three of the most critical texts, 2 Peter 2.1, 1 John 2.2,
and 2 Corinthians 5.19, laid out very well, gives the various
options. I found them very, very helpful.
So, in facing these textual objections, I suggest that you read as many
of these treatments as you can possibly get your hands on, and
I think you with me will be convinced that the matter is dealt with
honestly, and in, oh, I would say 90% of the instances, a simple
reference to context and to biblical words being interpreted biblically
causes the objections to vanish. And Owen, at one point, you can
tell he's a little bit irritated when people come and say, you
know, they have a word, they have a word, and they're going
to press the whole issue on a word. And he says, in essence, well,
look, man, get off your horse for a minute and let's ask ourselves,
yes, we have a word, world, we have a world, a word, every,
but what do those words mean? And then Owen, in his very thorough
way, for instance, with the word world, He just goes right through
every usage in which it may have some kind of expanded reference
to the redemptive work of Christ and just shows, or I'm sorry,
takes the phrase whole world and all its usages in the New
Testament, I think there are eight usages, and he just shows
that in none of those cases can it possibly mean every single
individual. The whole world has gone after
him, these usages, and shows then why intrude that meaning
in 1 John 2.2. when that very linguistic pattern
has another meaning in every other context. That this is just
being dishonest with biblical language. So I think you'll find
those treatments helpful. Alright? So those are the textual
objections and there are one or two passages I frankly confess
that I'm not satisfied with any exegesis that I've read concerning
them. The first Timothy 2 passage is one such passage. gave himself
a ransom for all in a context where he's speaking about God's
benevolent design with reference to all classes of men, yes, but
I'm not quite satisfied that that does full justice, but I'm
willing to live with that problem. Why? Because I see all these
other categories that are so clear, I'm not about to try to
undo all of those and overthrow all of those because I have an
unresolved textual problem with one or two verses. And I don't
think we need to be embarrassed about that. If there was someone
sitting here who hated this doctrine and was ready to go for my juggler
vein, I'd be vulnerable in telling him. I'm not satisfied with the
exegetical work that I've seen done on passage A, B, or C. I'm
not about to throw over all these other categories that are so
clearly taught, and for which, as far as I'm concerned, There
is absolutely no evasion apart from twisting the word of God.
Now then, the practical objections. It seems to me that the practical
objections can be reduced under two heads. Practical objections. What are they? Practical objection
number one. How can you preach the gospel
to all men without distinction if Christ has not died for every
man? So it's the objection of how
can you evangelize? Ever heard that objection? Well
again, I know how real that is because the first time I ever
began to think about particularism, I was down in Augusta, Georgia
in the summer of 1953. Yes, summer of, no, summer of
54. Halfway through my college, time
in college, and someone gave me a Westminster Confession of
Faith. And that's the first time I'd ever encountered particularism.
And I was reading that and I said, man, here I am beating myself
to death trying to win people to the Lord down here in this
hot, economically deprived area holding Bible studies and preaching
and beating myself to death. to try to see some people, wonder
Christ, if this is so hollow in the world, do I go out on
the street tomorrow? And I can remember. I remember wrestling
with it, having no one to help me, and I finally shut the confession,
and I said, Lord, I just have to leave that for another time,
because I just don't know what to do. But I know your word says
I've got to go preach the gospel to every creature, so where I
don't have light on those other things, I'm going to invade the
light I've got on this thing, so I went about my business and
put it on the shelf for a while. and it was very interesting when
God began to deal with me again in the late fifties that I found
that old confession and it opened up the whole thing afresh that
was one of my first real problems even before I understood the
thing and I'm sure all of you have wrestled with it and you
meet others well the great problem how can you preach the gospel
to all men without distinction? well what's our answer to that?
well our basic answer is that preaching the gospel is not telling
each individual that Christ died for him. There is no such example
of gospel preaching in the book of the Acts. Though we are given
very few apostolic sermons, we are given some. And there is
not an instance in any record of apostolic proclamation of
the gospel in which part of that gospel is the statement, Christ
died for you and for you and for you and for you, therefore
you are warranted to come. No. Rather, the apostolic preaching,
whether group preaching, such as we have in Acts 13, or individual
preaching, such as we have in Acts 16, includes a statement
to the effect that forgiveness is offered to every sinner on
the basis of the fact that Christ has made adequate provision for
sinners and all who come to Him will be welcomed. For instance,
Acts 13 And verse 38, Be it known unto you therefore, brethren,
that through this man is proclaimed unto you remission of sins, and
by him every one that believeth is justified from all things
from which he could not be justified by the law of Moses. They preach
that in Christ is forgiveness, and if you get into him by faith,
all is well. And they did not find any necessity
to say, and the reason we're able to do this is because Christ
died for you, for you, for you, for you. We have the same thing
in Acts 16. When the man cries out, what
must I do to be saved? They say to him, believe on the
Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. They set before him
Jesus Christ as an adequate and willing and able Savior who will
do him all kinds of good if he believes, but do him no good.
if he does not believe. Now, those who would say, but
if I did not believe that Christ died for every man, I could not
evangelize. We say, well, then you have a
problem the apostles apparently didn't have, and you better get
it rectified and preach the apostolic gospel. And then we turn to church
history and say, well, apparently the greatest evangelist who got
his own to the proclamation of the gospel in their generations
did not have that problem. Who could say that Whitefield
and Edwards and the Tennents and Nettleton and Brainerd and
Carey and Spurgeon and a host of lesser lights were not evangelists
after the purest order? Men who preached Christ freely,
urgently, powerfully, pressing the claims of Christ upon the
consciences of men. So then, the person who says,
if I can't have an indiscriminate, indefinite, universal atonement,
I can have no evangelistic message or passion, we say, sir, the
problem is one of your own creation. So you better deal with it before
God. It is certainly not a problem in the scriptural concept of
gospel preaching, nor in the historical perspective of what
constituted gospel preaching. May I suggest for some parallel
reading, of course, one of the most helpful treatises on this
is Packer's Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, and then
Shedd in his Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, Shedd, Dogmatic Theology,
Volume 2, 482-489. And then there's a book that
Don Garlington has loaned to me that's very helpful by Candlish,
called The Extent and Efficacy of the Atonement, and he has
an excellent section on the free offers of the gospel being consistent
with a strict particularism. And of course you have the classic
treatment by Fuller called The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation,
now there are some aspects of Fuller's teaching that I'm not
quite sure I really understand, and if I do understand, or if
what it is is what some others who criticize Fuller say it is,
then I don't embrace. Fuller, in seeking to rectify
some of the errors of a hyper-Calvinism that had no free offers of the
gospel, may have tampered a bit with what the gospel really is.
I'm not prepared to pronounce with finality on that. But there
is much solid scriptural reasoning in Andrew Fuller's book called
The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation. As some of you know, it was that
treatise which broke the back of the hyper-Calvinism which
resulted in the releasing of Carey to go to India and everything
that followed in that ministry. I find that the statement in
Timothy is perhaps the most helpful to me as far as having one text. If I were to say what one text
is of great assistance to me in urging me to preach the gospel
freely and in giving me confidence that I have every right to do
so. It's 1 Timothy 1.15. Faithful
is the saying and worthy of all acceptation that Christ Jesus
came into the world to save sinners. Now with a text like that, what
more do you need to preach a free unfettered gospel? This saying
is worthy of all acceptance. Christ Jesus has come into the
world, the opening up of all the redemptive work accomplished
in Christ. He came to save sinners and then
to press upon men the acceptance of that Savior, the embracing
of the offered salvation. So that's the first, what I would
call practical objection, and of course many others have dealt
adequately with the whole problem. I think this is perhaps the easiest
of the objections to answer. Yes? What was the Acts passage? Acts 13, 38 and 39. And what
was the first author you recommended? I'm sorry, Packer, Evangelism
in the Sovereignty of God. And Bob and I were talking yesterday
about Candlish has an approach to this that was unique. I'd
never read it before. He called the hypothetical postponement
of the atonement. And a very, very interesting
point. Would you like me to give it
to you quickly? All right. It's this. OK, there you go. Now, his point is this. Christ
came died in the year A.D. 30. We stand here in 19, let's
just round it out, in the year 2000. His point was this. He said, just suppose, for the
sake of argument and discussion, that Christ had postponed his
actual work upon the cross till the end of human history, during
which time all the promises of the Old Testament had added to
them much of the clear light of the New Testament, that Christ
actually became incarnate. and said, now I am among men
with the promise that everyone who will trust in me, I will
become his surety, and when everyone who is going to trust me as a
result of the Father's decree of election and the effectual
work of the Spirit, when the full role of my elect is complete,
at the end of that role being filled, I will actually lay down
my life for all who have entrusted themselves to me to be their
surety. Now, he said, is there any problem with Christ offering
himself that way to people? Strict particularism, but absolute
truth. Come to every man and say, will
you have me to be your surety? Will you have me to be your surety?
Will you have me to be your surety? If you will. When everyone who
will have me has embraced me, I will lay down my life specifically
for that number, not one less, not one more. Now Candler's point
is, it does not materially alter the facts if he did that in the
middle of history. What did he do when he laid down
his life? Assurity for all who believed
in him before his coming and all who will believe in him after
his coming. And therefore in the proclamation
of the gospel we proclaim simply those same facts. Christ is assurity
for all who will have him. But he is surety for none who
will not have him. And it's an interesting thought.
I've never heard anyone open it up. We call it the hypothetical
postponement of the work of Christ. But we're seeking to emphasize,
you see, this point that strict particularism and the free office
are not in collision with one another. Yes, Paul. I made a
point to someone when we were discussing, asked him the question,
did Christ have to die for those in the Old Testament who had
already rejected him? Was it at least necessary for
him to die for them? So you have enough history passed there to
draw the point out. Yes, good point, yes. And that's of course the point
that Spurgeon asked, Owen asked, did Jesus Christ die as much
for the Sodomites as for Noah and It seems to me that, as we
drew that out with people, the problem was that I had a different
idea of what the atonement to me is. They had some idea that
the atonement was some big glob of infinite something, and you
just draw upon that glob. It's not that my sins were put
there. Strict substitution is not understood.
Exactly. Exactly, Paul. That's a vital
point. The minute we begin to understand that the atonement
was a work of vicarious penal satisfaction rendered to God,
you're going to end up with one of two things. If you're going
to hold to that, you're going to end up with full-blown universalism
or true biblical particularism. Because if it was real substitution,
then real payment was made for real sin of real sinners that
secures real release. Absolutely. But as long as they
got these vague notions, something that Jesus did on the cross somehow
or other forms the basis in some way or other by which we can
cash in and get off the hook. Then there's very, very vague
and indefinite views. It's a good point, Paul. All
right, so there's the problem of the practical problem number
one, the free offers of the gospel. I think it's the easiest of the
problems to resolve. But practical problem number
two is the question, how can the atonement be glorious if
limited only to some? And usually the people who ask
that question or have that problem, the reason usually is they're
thinking in terms of a little smattering, a few. Although,
at any given point in history, the gate is narrow and few there
be that find it, there is nothing in the scripture that describes
the role of God's elect as some minuscule thing, some little
remnant of a remnant. Every description is one that
speaks of a vast multitude. I beheld, John says, a great
multitude, whom no man could number, out of every kindred
and tribe and tongue. and nation. So then we say, in
answer to this question, how can the atonement be glorious
if limited only to some or to a few? First of all, the Bible
makes it plain that the role of God's elect is not a small
role, that the idea of scripture is not that a few are to be saved,
but that a great multitude shall be saved. Our second answer is
that in constricting or restricting the atonement to those who are
only saved, this alone gives full credit to the efficacy and
the glory of that atonement. As has been often said, every
man limits the atonement, either in its efficacy or in its extent,
but limit it he must. You have the illustration, Spurgeon
I believe used it, he said, some of you have an atonement that
is like a big wide bridge. We're looking down now from the
helicopter. Here is the whole mass of humanity. Here is the gulf that separates
humanity from God, and that awful precipice is the lake of fire
and everlasting destruction. How shall humanity get from here
to the state of acceptance and glory? Well, Spurgeon's point
is, the man who teaches and believes in universal redemption, he has
a bridge as wide as humanity. But he said the one problem is,
it stops short of the other bank. It assures that no one will pass
from here to here. That the atonement does not secure
the actual bringing of any sinner from here to there. It paves
a way, if he will, You see? And then he must add the last
plank. Whereas Spurgeon says, no, the atonement we believe
the Bible teaches and which we preach is one that actually bridges
for a specific segment of humanity from the state of nature and
condemnation into a state of grace and acceptation. And as I was meditating upon
this, Now if we look from a side elevation of this bridge, if
that bridge is the cross, and we're discussing for whom Christ
died, we say that that cross is rooted in this bank, in the
eternal covenant of redemption, so that everything that happens
upon that cross will be a transcription of the particularism of the efficacy
of design in the eternal covenant of redemption and on the other
side it is here in the efficacious and infallible application of all that was purchased on
the behalf of those for whom it was purchased. That's the
cross that we preach, that actually redeems, looking backwards, in
terms of all of the framework of the eternal covenant of redemption,
that having accomplished that work, it secures the efficacious
and infallible application of the benefits of that redemption. And I think a third thing that
we ought to say about this matter of how can it be glorious And
I didn't know where else to put it but here. I believe we're
dealing when people make this objection with a false notion
of deserved deliverance. Somehow God owes it to men to
get them off the hook by sending his son to die for them. Whereas
I don't believe we've begun to understand the truth of the cross
until we would stand back in amazement if God should have
chosen to save but one of the fallen race of Adam. And the
case of fallen angels is a constant monument that grace is not owed. The whole race of angelic beings,
there's not one of them, as far as scripture reveals, who was
the object of any kind of redemptive rescue, there's not a one. So
the idea that God was bound to save in order to reveal his mercy,
I simply cannot establish that on exegetical grounds. I cannot
establish it on exegetical grounds. That God will reveal the full
spectrum of this character to the moral universe, yes, God
is God. But the manner in which he will
do it, I wouldn't begin to presume to say that the only manner in
which he could do it was to rescue some of the fallen sons of Adam. Now having committed himself
to rescue them, I'm convinced, I take the mainstream of historic
biblical and reformed exegesis and theology, that the atonement
then was a necessity. Not hypothetically, but really.
But that there should ever be an atonement and ever be a rescue
is a matter of pure sovereignty. where he sets up this hypothetical
man, and he's saying, you're thinking in terms of justice
rather than mercy. Yeah, and justice doesn't enter
into this category. When God's dealing with ill-deserving,
hell-deserving, wrath-deserving creatures, the words fairness
and ought are wrong vocabulary. Get them out of your vocabulary. I would refer you to Pink and
his book on the Atonement, pages 241 to 245, and he has some very good materials in there. Alright, then the third problem
is the problem of the emotional. Do you believe that actually
he chose a remnant to make it more glorious, and in fact the
reverse is really true, that God is more glorified by a remnant
saved than if all were saved? We have to believe that if God
has chosen a course which will secure the maximum measure of
his glory, and the course is one in which there is a divine
selectivity, then certainly his glory is more manifested. in
that method of salvation than in any other. But we only know
that because that's what he's done. We don't know it by some
previous category that we have set up saying it must be this
way if God is to be glorified. You follow me? Yes, but on a
reasonable basis, if you find yourself in heaven and you look
and most of the people are in hell. You would praise God and
wonder, are you the one in heaven? Where did he save everyone? There's
no distinction between you. I mean, it's nice, it's a good
thing he did, but it wouldn't be the same comprehension that
I was spared and all these people were lost. The fact that there's
a divine, yeah, a divine differentiation will only augment the magnitude
of grace. But of course, one of the problems
you see, and this is where again I live with unresolved tensions
here, One of the problems I have is that when I read the book
of the Revelation in particular, I get the impression that the
redeemed are numerically greater than even the lost, and that
lost men and sin are some little blot banished to some nethermost
part of God's universe, and that that which predominates is the
glorious Church and the rest. Now some men, having seen that
same thing, have come up with various theories, all your post-millennial
latter-day glory, some have come up, Warfield with his vision
of a saved world, others have come up with, I think, the ingenious
theory again, that all infants dying in infancy are saved, if
so, you think of up until a hundred years ago, the tremendous mortality
rate, if every infant dying in infancy and every unborn fetus,
well, to me again, that's speculative theology. to say how God will
do this, but it seems to me that the overriding impression, particularly
wherever you have any comparisons between the saved and the lost,
apart from the one that speaks of what's going on in any given
generation, at any given point in time, the way is broad, the
multitudes follow, the way is narrow, that leads on to life,
but when it's all done, how you get those figures in every given
generation and come up with what you seem to feel in the book
of the Revelation, I don't know. Well, no, just the whole overarching
thing. In other words, when he sees
the multitude of the redeemed, it's that great multitude whom
no man can number. When there is the destruction
of evil, the great multitudes and myriads of the angels and
apparently redeemed spirits rejoicing in the destruction of Babylon,
that great whore, I wouldn't pronounce on it, Paul, that's
why I say I believe there are certain impressions that I receive,
but I would never expound upon them or try to defend them. Yes. That's right, and with the former
world, how many people did he save? in the time of the flood. Eight souls. Eight souls. So the concept of a remnant,
very clearly. And I don't know how to put all
those things together. It's one of those, and for some reason, how
much is nature, and how much is grace, and how much a mixture,
I don't know. But I've never been troubled with questions
that to me, God just hasn't given us answers. So I say, well, that may be something freakish
in me. Maybe it's a weakness in my character that I don't
press those things. I hope it's not. Yeah. John.
I was just going to say the background. I had a professor who actually
had a doctorate. I don't know how he could do
all that study and come up with this view on the economy. But
the idea that it's sufficient for all these patients for the
elect, you know, it seems that They initiate their abuse from
their emotions or feelings because the reason that he gave after
the entire lecture was so that God would be able to give these
reprobates an answer. I thought, why does he have to
give them an answer? I had already spilled over into
my third one there, the emotional thing, and it's this thing that
God owes this salvation and God must get himself off the hook.
God is somehow embarrassed if he did not give his son to die
for men. I don't think that's an unfair
assessment at all, John. And it shows again the ultimate
fruit of the man-centered thinking. That when we look at the thing
as scripture gives us warrant to look at it from God's standpoint,
and we can do that in terms of history. We've got the flood. Man, that's
something you've got to reckon with. How many were saved? Eight. And God did not make a
provision for the whole thing. That ark couldn't have fit them
all if you multiplied it. I mean, if you want to start,
you know, taking analogies, and people say, well, a bona fide
offer was made. We say, granted. And we make
a bona fide offer. And we say, all who will come
in, may. Ain't that what we say? So there are real problems with
that position, John, but it strikes again. Man's emotions have been
tainted by sin and that's why there is an emotional affinity
for the doctrine of universal redemption. But when you see
what you give up, to follow the dictates of emotion. Give up
all the glorious truth concerning the eternal covenant. Give up
the whole doctrine of union with Christ. Give up the whole doctrine
of the unity of his priestly function. Give up the whole doctrine
of strict penal substitution and satisfaction. When you've
given up all that to satisfy your emotions, that's a terrible
price to pay. But thank God again, all of us
to some degree, If grace is operative in us, there are points where
we're better in our experience than we are in our theology.
And there are men who do believe in strict substitution in their
hearts. It's just when they go to articulate it in their heads
and in its implications that their emotions cloud their judgment
and they get into problems. It seems that in 1 Corinthians,
we were doing the Bible study, and the more we were meditating
on it, the more we almost got the feeling, and I don't know
another word, and I don't mean to sound blasphemous, I'm trying
to think of a, I use the word sadistic, but that is evil, and
I'm not trying to use that, but it seems that God has taken our
incredible delight, you know, the answer is A lot of times
we say, well, why? He said, because he pleased God.
And here, a whole chapter on what it means to please God,
it seems that our Father has taken a thrill in just confounding
the lies. That to Him there is such absolute
glory that He's taken the very first mark. and has made that the glory. It seems our Father is just glory
in particular. Yes, it does because it humbles
man. It puts man where he was at creation
and where he ought to be by virtue of being the creature but where
he refuses to be because of sin. namely on his face acknowledging
that he is but creature whose mind is in no position to judge
what is right to judge what is fair and that's why Paul says,
Nay, but all men who art thou to reply against God shall the
thing made say to him that made it that's the whole creator-creature
relationship you talk like that man, you've forgotten who you
are and even unfallen Adam was still man And he was never to
make his mind the basis upon which he would judge the rightness
or wrongness of the dealings of God. The mind, in that sense,
was not an arbiter of God's actions. It was to be a receptor, a humble
receptor. What God did was right because
God is God. Well, there is that third thing
then, the emotional one. We've already touched on that.
We don't need to enlarge on that anymore. And it is an emotional
thing. And realizing that, then you've
got to be careful. And not unnecessarily provoke. And let people know
that you can sympathetically identify with them in that emotional
problem. The same way you have an emotional
problem the first time you hear the doctrine of election. You
think, well, what about my unsaved loved ones? If they're not chosen,
then all my prayers and all my efforts will cut. That's a very
natural reaction. And you've got to be sensitive
to that. You just can't act like, wow, forget your emotions. We've
got to be able to realize, man, we came down that road. We remember
when we were all torn up over those things and then how God
brought our emotions subservient to truth. And I trust continues
to do so. Well, let me give a couple concluding
remarks that I hope will bring this to some practical resolution.
First of all, a word of exhortation to you who are convinced of these
truths. And the word of exhortation is to be gracious in the holding
and the handling of this truth. To be gracious in the holding
and the handling of this truth. Don't engage in unkind and unchristian
rhetoric. What do I mean by that? Well,
I remember when I was struggling with these things, I attended
a conference, a so-called Sovereign Grace Conference. And if I was
ever to believe things in terms of how people handled them, I'd
be an Arminian to the rest of my days. Because there was a
preacher who knew I was there and knew I was struggling with
this very truth. And you know what he did? He
stood up and took the occasion to mock the position. Ha ha! Which one of you men loves every
woman on the block? You love your wife, don't you?
Christ loved his church. He didn't love every old harlot,
every old sinner. And he began to mock the position.
It was tragic. And if it wasn't for the truth
of Scripture having more weight with me than how people handled
it, I would have said, man, if it makes you act like that, I
want nothing to do with it. It was terrible. You see, if
these things are held graciously, then they will be handled graciously. If they are held in a spirit
of pride and creature confidence, they will be handled in the same
way. What hast thou that thou didst not receive? Even so, Father,
it seemed good in thy sight to reveal these things unto babes.
Well, let me urge each of you then, in the holding and the
handling of these truths, to avoid unkind and unchristian
rhetoric. I would exhort you not to be
more careful or fastidious in your language than God is. Don't
feel that if every time you quote John 3.16 you've got to qualify
for 20 minutes. Don't feel that if you quote
1 John 2.2 you've got to qualify for 30 minutes. Don't be more
fastidious than God is. and then to demonstrate by unflagging
zeal and persevering prayer your faith in the efficacy of Christ's
work. You see, here we come down to
the real crunch. If I believe what's been taught
here, that the cross of Christ has infallibly secured the redemption
of a people, then my life ought to be a monumental testimony
of that reality. My godliness ought to manifest
that he is what? Effectively and infallibly applying
all that he purchased in his redemption. And what did he purchase?
A holy life. He gave himself for us to redeem
us from all iniquity and purify to himself a peculiar people.
My life ought to be a monument to the efficacy of the atonement.
my growth in holiness, my growth in faith, my growth in conformity
to Christ. Likewise, my zeal for the lost,
do I believe that he has secured the salvation of his people.
Then I have every reason to pray that he bring in his elect, and
to proclaim the gospel, not with gimmicks and all of these other
things making the gospel more palatable to men in their unregeneracy,
but maintaining all the vigor, all the offense, all of the majesty
of the full-armed biblical gospel, pray and preach in the confidence
that God will bring home his elect. He'll make me, even me,
the instrumentality by which Christ shall see of the travail
of his soul and be satisfied. In other words, your life ought
to be the constant monumental answer to the fallacy that says,
if you don't believe in particular redemption, you can't have evangelistic
fervor or passion, or you can't preach a free gospel. And I always had that before
me. I tried to think, now if someone came to our church just
once and they heard all these weird things they hear about
us, there ought to be one rumor that is laid to rest every single
time that they only come once. You know what that rumor ought
to be? This doctrine kills evangelism. My preaching ought to be a living
and unanswerable monument to the fallacy of that objection.
That's true of you, if and where and when you preach. It ought
to be true of all of your witnessing situations, that you go after
men with an urgency and a fervency and a graciousness that forever
puts to rest the objection, this kills evangelists. Because, and
I can only say this brethren out of some degree I trust of
experience, these are the truths that are the very sheet anchor
to sustain evangelistic concern and compassion. I face every
Sunday a man who has sat under my ministry almost every Lord's
Day for going on to the 15th year, and he's still unconverted. And there are times in preaching
when his need comes so real to me that I've wept as I've preached
and looked right at him as I've pleaded. And what keeps me weeping
and pleading? It's the confidence that if he
was included in all of this, God's going to get his man. God's
going to get his man. He can sit on to preaching for
another 15 years and think he's impervious to the Archangel Michael
himself and God will still get his man. God will still get his
man. That's what gives you grace to
keep pressing on and at the same time refusing to lower the stand.
If God's going to get his man, he's going to get him on his
terms. You see, the moment you begin to feel that somehow what
I do will complete the efficacy of all that Christ did, then
you start tampering with the message and with the divine method.
Paul? Would it be wrong, in the context
of this, sometimes this does come up, to tell the person that,
okay, you don't believe now, but God, if you're one of them,
you will believe. God may have to... burn your
house and squash you and beat you, he will get you, and he'll
prepare you to watch him visit on you. I wouldn't say we shouldn't,
Paul. Again, I think that'd be rare
in exotic medicine. That'd be like a good shot of
Valium or something else. That's potent medicine. But I
believe there are times when sinners need potent medicine,
and that maybe a wise physician of souls might on certain occasions
use that. I can remember my mother saying
to me, son, when God gets hold of you, thus and thus will be
true. And in her thinking it was a
foregone conclusion. And that bothered me because
I thought, man, God's on my tail, he ain't gonna let me go. See? He's going to track me down.
He's going to get me. And it was. It was a powerful deterrent
on the one hand. So I wouldn't say that that,
you know, I wouldn't make that a major ingredient of my witnessing
to people. And if God is not active in breaking
them, then they have the thought, well maybe I'm not going to go
away. And that's the sense, they could be worried about that.
And that's good that they're worried about that. Because that
could bring them to the point, well I better start working on
this, well am I right? So either way, I think, they're
fast when you hit them with that. But they've got to turn this
around on you and discuss them. They're the one that's not the
problem. And if they're even thinking that way, then at least
they know salvation's in God's hands. And then if someone comes
to me and says, Boy Pastor, I'm worried. I don't know whether
I'm one of the elect. I say, Man, you better worry about that.
That's a matter of life and death. Well, how can you know? Well,
there's only one way you can know. Come on, let's take by the hand.
We're going to go up now and we're going to ask God to open up his role
and look at you and say, You can't do that. I say, But I know
I'm one of his elect. You do? How'd you find out? Well,
the same way you can find out. You read your election in Christ.
Now you've got to get into Christ. How do you get into it? There's
only two feet that will carry you there, repentance and faith.
And then you just go back to preaching the gospel to them.
That's a good point. Yes. Someone had a hand here
and then over here. Yes. I was going to say the same thing.
Yeah. OK. Good. Yes. John? When I was working
in the factory in Scranton, it was really a sort of a bad situation. It was the kind of job where
you tracked all the barrels into the city. But there was this
one fellow who was really harsh with me when I was witnessing
him. try to do things to make me look
bad in front of the boss. He would actually curse and swear
and he was never going to bow his knee to Christ. I was wondering
if this motive was proper. I would think actually when I
was talking to this fellow, in all his harshness, he was the
kind of guy that you just want to love him. I used to think
what a puppy he would be, if great were to be. Oh yes, yes,
I think that's always to be our hope. You see, our hope for sinners
should be based upon what we know the grace of God can do,
the fact that it can save the chiefest of sinners, and that
we have absolutely no revelation concerning any man that he's
not elect. You see, that to me is a great
encouragement. I have no revelation concerning
any man that he is not elect until I see him die in his impenitence. Now, I have suspicions that I've
met some people who committed in our day that blasphemy against
the Spirit, but I couldn't prove it. You see? So, as we turn this
thing around, people say, well, why witness? You don't know if
a man's elect. I turn around and say, ah, I have no revelation,
he isn't. I have not one word, and that's
the same way with preaching to the sinner. I've actually said
sometimes when you do dialogue in preaching, say, ah, but you
sit there and say, Pastor, suppose I'm not one of the elect. I say,
show me a verse that says you aren't. Show me a verse that
says you aren't. When did God come down from heaven
and say you were not elect? I can give you a hundred verses
that say you're welcome to come. Yes. The other side is that he
has said he died for sinners. Yes. We are more positive than
that. Absolutely. And I think that positive way
ought to fill our minds in our witness. So that the very thing
you said, John, you look at a man and say, if he is a vessel of
mercy, my God is just... See? If he was there in Christ,
here, there will be the efficacious, the infallible and efficacious
application of all the fruits of redemption. God will take
that proud, foul mouth and spirit, and God will make it like a lamb.
I endure all things for the elect's sake that they may obtain salvation
which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. Now, what do you do when you
talk to the unconvinced? I said, be gracious in holding
and handling this truth. Let me give you a little word
of exhortation. I gave it some time earlier, but I want to just
repeat it now in closing. Do not discuss the issue as though
it were to be determined by the disposition of a few proof texts.
This is where many people go wrong. It's like discussing with
a Jehovah's Witness and going back over John 1.1 and Romans
9.5. It is no good. You're wasting
your breath. It just doesn't cut mustard.
So don't discuss this issue in terms of the few proof texts
on one side or the other, etc. No. If someone shows a real seriousness
to wrestle with the issue, seek to introduce them to these broader
categories, most of which are far removed from specific proof
texts in which you find all or every, the world, etc. So you defuse the issue, you
see? You defuse the issue. The same
way with the Jehovah's Witnesses who are all ready to debate on
Jesus being the little God and all the rest, and you just turn
to him, put your hand on his shoulder and say, I want to ask
you a question from the depths of my heart. It's a matter of
tremendous concern to me. Do you know that your sins are
pardoned and that if you died tonight you could face the judge
of the universe without one claim against you? Now you've defused
it, you're not talking about the big God and the little God
and the was a God, was God, all the rest. You've come right to
the heart of the issue where now you can direct the conversation.
So the same way here, someone comes out and says, well, I heard
you people believe in limited atonement, that Christ only died
for a few people. How can you believe that when
the Bible says God so loved the world? How can you believe that
when he said sins of the whole world? And after he's all done,
you listen, you smile and you say, Lord, keep me gracious.
He doesn't see you gritting your teeth inside. Pray the Lord help
you to be gracious on the outside until your inside catches up
with the outside. And there's nothing wrong with
that. That's ruling your own spirit. That's not being a hypocrite.
That's ruling your own spirit. Where you keep your outers right
until your inners catch up. And then you just say, now my
friend, do you really want to discuss this whole matter of
the death of Christ? Well if so, It's so sacred a
matter I wouldn't dare discuss it without asking the help of
God the Spirit to give us some light. Could we pray together
and ask the Lord to help us? So then you pray. And you say,
now Lord, we acknowledge that we're dealing with greatness.
That sinners should even be thinking of the second person of the Godhead
dying. Lord, what a mystery. What a wonderful and glorious
thing. Praise God for the reality of the cross. If he's a true
Christian, you've already got his heart over on your side now.
Because he can rejoice with you that all his salvation flows
from the cross. Then you say, now Lord, guide
us. Give us insight. Give us a teachable spirit. Lord,
if you have things to teach me through my brother, give me a
heart to receive it. If you have anything to teach
my brother through me, start with yourself. See? And maybe
God has something to teach you through him. See? Alright. Then
you say, now brother, if you give me just a couple minutes,
I want to share with you what's been tremendously precious to
me. The fact that what Christ did on the cross, for whoever
he did it, and whatever the fruits are, was not something that just
happened. It happened by plan. You believe
that, don't you? And then you go into the John
6 passage and you start to introduce, you may not use the terms, the
covenant of redemption. Start introducing these broader
categories and the average person who comes to you all fired up
over all and every in the world, he's never had his head stretched
with even contemplating whether there were any such thing as
a covenant of redemption. Well, who knows what happens,
you see, when his head and his heart begin to get stretched
with that truth, A lot of other things may start to fall into
that enlarged head and heart very naturally. So let me just
urge you in that area, unless we do disservice, and it means,
brethren, for the most part, we've got to do the swallowing.
You see, more often than not, we are in foreign territory,
where people are saying things and propagating things that grind
on us. But if we have some better understanding,
it should produce more grace. And we need to plead with God
for the love that bears all things. And man, it's hard to bear with
people prostituting and lambasting and caricaturing the things that
are precious to you. I go to an evangelical ministers
meeting. Who has to do 98% of the swallowing? Me. Not these other guys. I mean, they can go on propagating
all their views and that's alright. If I would open my mouth for
two minutes, I'm being divisive. I'm being doctrinaire. Well,
it means I've got to have greater measures of grace and love to
sit there and keep my mouth shut. That's right, that's what we've
got to do, yes. They asked him if, no, they approached Whitfield
concerning Wesley. and asked if they thought Wesley
would be in heaven because of the deviant views that he held.
Is this the incident? Oh, I'm sorry. No, he retorted
for so much. Somehow he was with Wesley. Apparently
Wesley was expecting a distractor in the first place. But he said
the man kind of repelled Wesley's emotions. And he said, well,
do you believe that man is sinful? And Wesley said, yeah, sure.
And it was well worth salvation coming from the Lord. And so
he just goes through it. And he said, well, if man is
being sinful, then Oh, that was Simeon. Yes, that
was Charles Simeon. That was the incident between
Charles Simeon and Wesley. And he said, sir, that is all
my Calvinism. Yes, that man is wholly dead
and salvation is wholly of grace. I was thinking of the incident
where someone came to Whitefield and said, in the light of Wesley's
deviant theology, you believe We'll see him in heaven." And
he said, no, I don't believe I'll see him in heaven. He'll
be so near the throne of God that I'll be blinded by the light.
You see? And there was a gracious answer
that just shut the mouth of the adversary.