And one of the things that I'm
engaged in as a member of a presbytery is that we frequently have to
give examinations for men who are being presented to be ordained
into the ministry. And inevitably the question is
asked about what's called limited atonement or definite atonement
or whatever, one of the so-called five points of Calvinism, and
inevitably and invariably The answer will be this, that the
work of Christ on the cross, the atonement of Jesus, is sufficient
for all, but efficient only for some. That is, it brings the
effect of redemption only to some, but it's sufficient to
cover the sins of all the world. And I always have to say to the
students, I said, look, what you've just articulated is not
the Reformed view. Every Arminian believes that.
Every Arminian believes that the cross of Christ is sufficient,
the merit of Jesus is sufficient to save every last person on
the earth, but only those who believe and avail themselves
of it are in fact saved. And every Calvinist would agree
that the merit of Jesus is sufficient to cover all of the sins of every
human being on this planet. but only those who are believers
actually receive the benefit of that work of Jesus. So where
do we differ? Well, the whole issue here has
to do with the design of the atonement. What was God's purpose
in sending Christ to the cross? And again, here it was, was it
to save everybody? Well, if God sovereignly decided
to save everybody in the world and to have Jesus atone for everybody's
sins in the whole world, and on the basis of that atonement
save everybody, then what would happen? Everybody would be saved,
there's no doubt about that. But again, Arminianism, along
with Calvinism, Both Arminianism and Calvinism reject universalism.
They're both particularists. They both believe that only some
people will be saved and not all. And so again, the question
comes back, what was God's intent? In the final analysis, the Arminian
is saying God's intent or design in the cross was to make salvation
possible to everybody. and to leave it up to the people
whether they avail themselves of it or not, whereas the Reformed
view is that God's design from all eternity in the atonement
was to provide salvation for the elect, so that God is not
just working with possibilities, he has an eternal design that
he brings to pass, and it's effectual, it works. Every person for whom
Jesus died receives the benefit of that. The other problem with
that is, as John Owen so brilliantly points out in his book, The Death
of Death, the Arminian has the problem of Christ only dying
for some sins. He doesn't really atone for all
sins, because the sin of unbelief can't really be incorporated
there. Because if a person doesn't believe in the cross and in Christ,
then they don't receive the benefit of the atonement. So that sin
must not have been atoned for. Or if it was, then you have an
even worse problem. You have God providing an atonement
for sin where the sins are removed, the guilt is paid for, and then
in the form of double jeopardy, he punishes that person who's
already had his sins paid for. What about that? That creates
a huge problem.