Well, we return this morning
now to this question that we've been wrestling with for a number
of weeks, the subject, for whom did Christ die? And I would simply
remind you that our approach has been that of a holistic approach,
seeking to address ourselves to this vital question, not by
coming to the individual texts, which are the areas where the
debate most frequently rages, but rather to set the death of
Christ in relationship to its own fixed biblical categories. And so we began with this outer
circle, a contemplation of the death of Christ in relationship
to the covenant of redemption, and we saw from the scriptures
that the work that Christ accomplished upon the cross must be viewed
as an expression of inter-Trinitarian commitments and arrangements
and that particularism lies at the heart of the covenant of
redemption in which a specific people were given to Christ and
Christ assumed the liabilities of that people and was promised
grace and sustenance and a reward as he fulfilled the responsibilities
connected with the salvation of that people. Then we looked
at the doctrine of the atonement in relationship to the biblical
doctrine of union with Christ, and of course this grows out
of the covenant redemption. Christ assumes the headship of
his people, they are in that sense even chosen in him before
the foundation of the world. And in all of his redemptive
activity, Christ acts in a peculiar relationship to his people. And so again, particularism is
at the heart and breathes through the very essence of the work
of Christ when viewed in the light of the doctrine of union
with Christ. And then we considered very briefly
the doctrine of the cross in its relationship to the priestly
functions of Christ. And those of you who were with
us Sunday mornings, have been receiving an extended and amplified
commentary and exposition of this concept. The main point
we sought to make was that the work of the cross was indeed
a bona fide priestly activity, and the priestly activity must
always be conceived of in the categories of oblation or sacrifice
and intercession. and there is a strict particularism
that again marks the activity of the priest. He acted on behalf
of a specific people to accomplish and to effect specific ends,
so that particularism The view that sees Christ's work as not
doing something or possibly accomplishing something for everyone in general,
and no one in particular, simply cannot stand in the light of
the death of Christ viewed in relationship to the categories
of the covenant of redemption, union with Christ, and his priestly
activity. Now we come to the inner circle
this morning, a consideration of the death of Christ in its
major biblical categories. And here I am greatly indebted
to and will follow very closely the outline given by Professor
Murray in his book, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, in
particular verses 24 through 78. verses 24 through 78 in Redemption
Accomplished and Applied. And as far as I'm concerned,
having read probably, without exaggeration, thousands of pages
on the subject of the atonement, trying to expose myself to the
classic literature on the subject, there is nothing which in so
short a compass brings together so much of a distillation of
biblical truth as do these pages. I know of nothing that is a finer
statement of the death of Christ considered in its major biblical
categories, and those categories of course being, as Professor
Murray points out, sacrifice, propitiation, reconciliation,
and redemption. Now the basic idea inherent in
the theology of those who deny definite or specific atonement
is that Christ's death was primarily the removal of obstacles in the
path of saving men. It did not actually secure the
salvation of any, it removed in one way or another, and there
you have divergence of theological opinion, you have the moral government
theory, the moral influence theory, you have within the framework
of what we would call legitimate orthodoxy, those who see a penal
satisfaction in the death of Christ, but not one that actually
secured the release of the guilty. so that there are these divergent
views within this spectrum, but when you seek for the common
denominator, those who deny definite atonement view the cross essentially
as that which removed obstacles in the salvation of men and rendered
all men salvable, but did not infallibly ensure the actual
salvation of any. Now the objections to this position
and the confirmation of the position we espouse comes, or do come,
the objections in the establishment along two lines. We object to
that other view because, number one, it does not do justice to
the biblical terms and their biblical meaning. which describe
the work of Christ upon the cross. The terms, and we're going to
look at them, sacrifice, propitiation, reconciliation and redemption
are biblical terms to which the Bible gives specific and definitive
meaning. Our thesis is that to view those
words, sacrifice, propitiation, reconciliation and redemption,
as merely making salvation possible, does not do justice to the words
themselves in their biblical setting. And then secondly, that
view does not do justice to the declaration of scripture that
in the death of Christ, as sacrifice, propitiation, reconciliation
and redemption, Christ actually secures salvation in all of its
dimensions. on behalf of those for whom it
was procured. In other words, not only do the
words themselves demand particularism, but what those words and their
biblical meaning, say, will issue from them. What issues from the
propitiation of Christ? What issues from the reconciliation
of Christ, the redemption, the sacrifice of Christ? Well, the
teaching of the Bible is that the actual salvation of a people
issues from them, not the salvability of all men in general, but the
actual salvation of specific men in particular. Well then,
with that general framework as an introduction, let's go back,
and very briefly, I have two major headings for our lecture
this morning. Consider the major biblical terms used to describe
the death of Christ, and then secondly, the declarations that
the death of Christ secures salvation in all of its dimensions on behalf
of those for whom it transpired. Alright, the major biblical terms
used to describe the death of Christ. And at this point I shall
be quoting profusely from Professor Murray. I hope I've whet your
appetite to master these pages. The first key word is the word
sacrifice. And now quoting from page 25
on to 24 on to page 25, Professor Murray states that it lies on
the surface of the New Testament that Christ's work is construed
as a sacrifice. And the only question is what
notion of sacrifice governs the pervasive use of the term sacrifice
as it is applied to the work of Christ. In other words, no
one can take his New Testament into his hands and debate the
statement that the work of Christ upon the cross is construed as
a sacrifice. That cannot be debated by anyone
who holds the New Testament in his hands. Now the question is,
what notion of sacrifice predominates? That the term sacrifice is extracted
from the Word of God, is found lying on the face of the Word
of God, is evident. Now the question is, what did
God mean when he used the term sacrifice to describe that which
Christ did upon the cross? In other words, what is the concept
of sacrifice? Well, Professor Murray's thesis
is this, and I believe it's a valid one. Steeped as these references
were in the language and ideas of the Old Testament, there is
but one direction in which to seek their interpretation of
the meaning and effect of sacrifice. What is the Old Testament idea
of sacrifice? If the New Testament usage drips
with Old Testament connotations, then it is it's essential, it
is incumbent upon the interpreter of this term used in the New
Testament to make sure that no category of thought emerges that
violates the broad fixed categories of the Old Testament connotation
of sacrifice. And breathing through the Old
Testament connotation of sacrifice, quoting from Professor Murray,
are the matters of sin and liability. Sin involves a certain liability,
a liability arising from the holiness of God on the one hand
and the gravity of sin is the contradiction of that holiness
on the other. The sacrifice was the divinely
instituted provision whereby the sin might be covered and
the liability to divine wrath and curse removed. The Old Testament
worshipper, when he brought his oblation to the altar, substituted
an animal victim in his place. In laying his hand upon the head
of the offering, there was transferred symbolically to the offering
the sin and liability of the offerer. This is the pivot on
which the transaction turned. The notion in essence was that
the sin of the offerer was imputed to the offering and the offering
bore as a result the death penalty. It was the substituted endurance
of the penalty or liability to sin. Now that's the heart of
the whole Old Testament concept of sacrifice. It goes all the
way through the many details of the ritual. And therefore,
when we come to the New Testament category of Christ's death considered
as sacrifice, we must view it in no different, no fundamentally
different category than that which is imposed upon us by the
Old Testament ritual which was a foreshadowing of the New Testament
and substantial reality. Now then, as we consider the
subject of the death of Christ as to its extent, for whom did
Christ die, considering it as sacrifice, What category of thought
is forced upon us? A general, indefinite atonement,
or a specific and effectual atonement? Well, it's obvious, if you have
any acquaintance with the Old Testament, what the answer is.
In the Old Testament, it is plain that the sacrifices were not
made in some general sense for all of mankind. They came within
the framework of God's particular love for His particular people,
Israel. and the priest acted on behalf
of that people in the annual day of atonement he acted for
himself and his family in the first offering and then secondly
he acted in the offering that was to be considered as applied
in its efficacy to the entire nation and when we turn to the
New Testament we find that that language is picked up and applied
directly to the death of Christ, considered as a sacrifice. For instance, Hebrews 10, speaking of Christ having assumed
a body, the incarnation being essential to his sacrifice, The
writer goes on to say in Hebrews 10.10, By which will we have
been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once
for all. And every priest indeed standeth
day by day ministering and offering oft times the same sacrifices,
the which can never take away sin, but he when he had offered
one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of
God. Notice, he did not offer one
sacrifice for sin in some generic, general sense, but he offered
four sins, particular sins is the thing for which he offered
himself. Henceforth, expecting till his enemies be made the
footstool of his feet, four by one offering, He hath perfected
forever them that are sanctified. Now in the language of the Old
Testament, the sanctification was not internal, moral, ethical
sanctification. The offering of the sacrifice
on the Day of Atonement brought about what we would call a forensic
sanctification. That is, the people of God were
no longer liable to divine wrath and displeasure for another year.
There was the passing over of sin. Now, picking up that language,
the writer to Hebrews says, this offering has perfected forever
them that are sanctified, that is, all on whose behalf it was
offered are regarded as having been perfected by that sacrifice. Now the outworking of the benefits
of that sacrifice and its perfect provisions brings in the application
of redemption, the ultimate regeneration and sanctification and glorification
of each of those for whom it was made. But that's not the
focus of concern in this particular passage. Here is a statement
of the absolute certainty of the efficacy of the atonement
of Christ viewed as a sacrifice. So the problem then with trying
to view the death of Christ as something that merely made salvation
possible for all and every, but for none specifically, is that
it simply will not do justice to the Old Testament category
of sacrifice, or I should say the biblical category of sacrifice,
dripping with Old Testament connotations and categories, and then specifically
said to be in a passage such as this, that which has perfected
forever those on whose behalf it was offered, described here
as the ones who are sanctified. Now the second great category
of biblical terminology used to describe the death of Christ
is that of propitiation. Now that the work of Christ upon
the cross is to be regarded as propitiation is clearly established
from at least four New Testament texts. They are Romans 3.25 which
speaks of propitiation through faith in his blood, Hebrews 2.17 to make propitiation. 1 John
2.2 and he is propitiation for our sins and 1 John 4.10 and
he is the propitiation for our sins. So you have those four
explicit references to the death of Christ or to the work of Christ
being described as propitiatory. Now, Professor Murray points
out, and rightly so, and I quote now from page 29 of Redemption
Accomplished and Applied, the frequency with which the concept
appears in the Old Testament in connection with the sacrificial
ritual, the fact that the New Testament applies the work of
Christ to the work of Christ that very term, which denoted
this concept in the Greek Old Testament, and the fact that
the New Testament regards the Levitical ritual as providing
the pattern for the sacrifice of Christ, lead to the conclusion
that this is a category in terms of which the sacrifice of Christ
is not only properly, but necessarily interpreted. In other words,
the idea of propitiation is so woven into the fabric of the
Old Testament ritual that it would be impossible to regard
that ritual as the pattern of the sacrifice of Christ if propitiation
did not occupy a similar place in the one great sacrifice offered. Professor Murray has established
the point that though we have the word propitiation used only
four times explicitly concerning the work of Christ in the New
Testament, the major word used to describe the work of sacrifice
or the ritual of sacrifice in the Old Testament when translating
from the Hebrew into the Greek in the Septuagint, it is this
word propitiation that is the predominant word describing the
sacrificial system of the Old Testament. And so Professor Murray's
reasoning, I believe, is a valid one. Knowing then that these
rituals were the foreshadowing of the reality, the fact that
the reality is called propitiation, we are warranted to allow that
whole propitiatory predominance to breathe through our understanding
of the New Testament fulfillment in our Lord Jesus Christ. Now
then, what is the primary idea behind or involved in propitiation? Now I quote again from Professor
Murray because he's more economic with words than I and under the
pressure of time I want to economize with words. What does propitiation
mean? In the Hebrew of the Old Testament
it is expressed by a word which means to cover. In connection
with this covering there are in particular three things to
be noted. Number one, It is in reference
to sin that the covering takes place. Two, the effect of this
covering is cleansing and forgiveness. Three, it is before the Lord
that both the covering and its effect take place. And then he
establishes that exegetically. This means that sin creates a
situation in relation to the Lord. a situation that makes
the covering necessary. It is this Godward reference
to both sin and the covering that must be fully appreciated. It may be said that sin, or perhaps
the person who has sinned, is covered before the sight of the
Lord. In the thought of the Old Testament there is but one construction
that we can place upon this provision of the sacrificial ritual. It
is sin that evokes the holy displeasure or wrath of God, and vengeance
is the reaction of the holiness of God to sin, and the covering
is that which provides for the removal of the divine displeasure
which the sin evokes. In other words, when God views
sin as the moral governor of the universe, it provokes holy
displeasure. The only way for that displeasure
to be removed is for the sin to be covered from his sight.
If the sin can be covered, the displeasure can be removed. And
it is the peculiar function of propitiation to focus upon the
reality of that removal. Therefore, for propitiation to
be made is for something to be done that turns away on a just
basis the righteous anger and wrath of God towards sin. It's to turn it away by covering. To propitiate, therefore, means
to placate, to pacify, to appease, to conciliate, and it is this
idea that is applied to the atonement accomplished by Christ. Propitiation
presupposes the wrath and displeasure of God, and the purpose of propitiation
is the removal of this displeasure. Very simply stated, the doctrine
of propitiation means that Christ propitiated the wrath of God
and rendered God propitious to His people. Now, if that's the
biblical concept of propitiation, and I'm confident that it is,
then we must reflect upon the question that we're wrestling
with. Does Christ work upon the cross contemplated as a propitiation merely make it possible that
God will be rendered propitious to people if they will do this
or that? Or did the bloodletting of the
Son of God actually cover the sins of a specific, defined group
of people so that God is now favorably disposed to them in
a just way? Now that's the question. Well,
my contention is that no biblical concept of propitiation can stop
short of the latter option. Propitiation does not mean the
possibility that God may turn away his displeasure, but that
God has actually turned away his displeasure. That something
has happened in the government of God, may I say it reverently,
that makes it impossible for God to be angry with those for
whom a propitiation has been made. So you see, it's not a
matter again of just picking up a text here that says all
or every or world or something else. No, no. We must wrestle
with the biblical categories within which the work of Christ
is described. And having wrestled with those
categories, ask the question, which Concept which understanding
of the effect of the death of Christ, the intent of the death
of Christ, its objects, which one does justice to the vigorous
biblical terminology. Sacrifice, propitiation, and
then of course we can do essentially the same with reconciliation
and redemption. That the death of Christ is considered
a reconciliation is clearly taught in such passages as Romans 5.10.
and 2 Corinthians 5.19-21. The Romans 5.10 passage I'm sure
familiar to many of us. If we were reconciled to God
by the death of his Son, how much more than being reconciled
shall we be saved by his life. The death of Christ is said to
effect a reconciliation. 2 Corinthians 5, God was in Christ
reconciling the world to himself not imputing to them their trespasses
and in what context did he do this? He hath made him who knew
no sin to be sin for us that we might be made the righteousness
of God in him. Now with most of us the word
reconciliation is a more familiar word. Reconciliation has the
connotation of people that are alienated, and the alienation
is overcome. A husband and a wife are not
on speaking terms, and someone goes as a third party and seeks
to get them reconciled. You seek to overcome, dispose
of, and remove whatever is the hindrance to their coming into
a face-to-face amicable relationship. Well, the primary concern of
the biblical doctrine of reconciliation as it relates to the death of
Christ is not the internal, ethical, moral influence of the death
of Christ overcoming the hostility of the sinner to God. Rather,
the emphasis is upon the death of Christ that did something
to overcome God's just hostility to the sinner. and professor
murray has a very very helpful and detailed case that runs on
for four or five pages to demonstrate that this is the precise meaning
of the word reconciliation in its biblical setting well then
you see we're back to where we've been right along we have to ask
ourselves the question then when the bible says christ by his
death reconciled us to god are we doing justice to the word
and to the language and grammar in which it occurs to say that
what that really means is Christ simply made reconciliation possible
if and then put a string of conditions does the scripture say that he
actually reconciled the world to himself in Christ whatever
that world is 2nd Corinthians 5 says he has reconciled it not
he made it possible for the world to be reconciled. God was in
Christ reconciling the world to himself. A reconciliation
has been effected. So we've got to wrestle with
that issue. And again, it will not do simply to parrot a few
verses in which world and all and every are used. If we're
wrestling with the question of the extent of God's intention
in the death of His Son, we've got to reckon with this third
major category within which the work of Christ is presented to
us. Sacrifice, propitiation, reconciliation. And then the fourth word is the
word redemption. Now again, that the work of Christ
is construed as a redemption is clearly taught in the New
Testament. You have such passages as Ephesians 1, 7, in whom we
have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins. I'm
sorry, in whom we have redemption, even the forgiveness of sins.
In the parallel passage, Colossians 1.14, in whom we have redemption
through His blood, which identifies the redeeming act with the bloodletting
of the Son of God. And then that vigorous language
of Peter, 1 Peter 1.18, knowing that ye were not redeemed with
corruptible things such as silver and gold, but with the precious
blood of Christ as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. Titus 2.14, who gave himself
for us, that he might redeem us. And here it is the giving,
in sacrificial language, that is the redemption. Alright then,
it can be clearly established that the work of Christ upon
the cross is construed as a redemption. Well then, we have to go to the
Bible and ask, what is the biblical concept of redemption. What are the biblical connotations
of redemption? And it's in this category that
the whole concept of ransom comes in. Ransom is a subheading of
redemption. You redeem something by the payment
of a price, which is the ransom. Hence our Lord speaks in Mark
10.45, of the fact that he did not come to serve, to be served,
but to serve and to give himself, sacrificial language, a ransom
for many. That is, he came to be a redeemer
who would secure release by the payment of a ransom. Now, without going in again to
all of the ramifications, we've got to ask the question, When
the Bible uses the term redemption, when we find it in the Old Testament,
when we find it in the New Testament, is it speaking of simply making
a potential release, or a possible release, or does the payment
of the price actually secure the release of that for which
the price was paid? Well, my contention is that there
is no way to do justice to the biblical concept of redemption
other than within the strictest kind of particularism. That if
Jesus Christ paid a price to secure the release of people,
those people shall be and must be released for whom the price
was paid. It was no mock ransom. It was
a ransom that actually secured the redemption of his people. So I hope this will open up a
vein of thought to you, and that's all I'm attempting to do this
morning. Not to be exhausted, we could take a whole morning
on each one of these terms and only scratch the surface. But
because they are the core terms, I hope that you see, if you're
having problems with this, the direction in which you've got
to do your investigation. It means some thorough word studies
of these four categories of biblical thought. Perhaps by way of illustrating
how helpful this is, when I was wrestling through the issue of
the sovereignty of God in salvation, the issue was not resolved until
I did a careful word study of four words, elect and its derivatives,
foreknow and its various first and second cousin words, and
then the word predestinate and then the word call and after
a thorough word study of those words as they're used in scripture
I went on record as saying if you ever hear that Pastor Albert
Martin no longer holds to the sovereignty of God in grace you'll
know that he's thrown out his Bible and much with it because
there is no way you can be honest with those words but to deal
with them in terms of their historic understanding or their understanding
within the framework of historic reformed or Calvinistic theology.
Those words simply will not be pressed into the mold of another
theological system. They just will not. The words
themselves so obviously mean what is confessed in terms of
what is called Calvinistic soteriology or Calvinistic, the concept of
the sovereignty of God in grace. Well, I suggest that we must
do the same thing. This was what was a tremendous
help to me when I was wrestling through this issue of the atonement
and for whom did Christ die. The more I studied these words,
The more I came to the conviction that the sacrifice was indeed
a sacrifice that was truly substitutionary. It was made on behalf of specific
people. He died for sin. and the propitiation
did turn away the wrath of God and in that sense secure blessings
for those on whose behalf it was made that the reconciliation
did actually reconcile a people to God and the redemption actually
secured the release of a people. so I would encourage you to pursue
this matter if you're having problems with this area of biblical
truth and theological thought and if you're already settled
then more deeply settle yourself by a contemplation of these words
and you can do no better than to begin with reading the section
in Professor Murray pages 24 to 78 and then I would encourage
you if you have Pink's work on the atonement He has some excellent
material, and on pages 158 to 266, Pink has some excellent
material that will also be helpful here. Pages 158, under the section,
The Atonement and Its Results, and then Owen volume 10, pages
87 to 108. Now then, the second thing I
want to touch on briefly is this. Not only does a contemplation
of the death of Christ in its biblical categories demand a
strict particularism, but secondly, the declaration that the death
of Christ secures salvation in all its dimensions on behalf
of those for whom it transpired. There are explicit statements
that the death of Christ secured, or if not secured, made certain
the realization of salvation in all its dimensions on behalf
of those for whom the death was undergone. And again, this is
biographical. I shall never forget when some
of these passages began to come home to my own heart with power
and I said to myself, well, you dummy, where you been all your
life? One of them is the passage we've been studying Sunday evenings.
Let's look at it now, not for directives to husbands, but in
terms of exposition of solid theological perspective. Ephesians
5 and verse 24. Verse 25, husbands, love your wives even as, and
here is this wonderful statement, love your wives even as Christ
also loved the church. There was an entity called
the church that was the object of Christ's love. And the love
then led him to his self-giving, and gave himself up for it. So here is a specific people,
the church, for whom Christ gives himself, gave himself up for
it. And then you have these Hina,
clauses of purpose. One of the first things you learn
in first year Greek. Hina. In order that, it's a statement
of intention. Christ loved. Christ gave. In order that, He might what?
Make all men salvable? Put all men in a salvable state
so that preachers then would not have to proclaim the gospel
with tongue in cheek and have a bona fide offer of the... No, no, no, no. Look at what
He says. He loved and gave that. he might sanctify it, having
cleansed it by the washing of water with the word, in order
that, another henna clause of purpose, that he might present
the church to himself, a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle
or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish.
Here then the death of Christ which was the fruit of his love,
had as its specific intent that those for whom he died should
be sanctified and ultimately presented to himself. Now if
someone argues and says, well that was an inner purpose of
the death of Christ, but there was a broader and a more extensive
purpose, oh yes he loved the church and gave himself for it
that he might sanctify and present it but the verse does not say
that he did not love nor give himself for anyone else well
you see there are many problems with taking that tact not the
least of which is you don't build theology upon the silences of
scripture especially when it's in a context of particularism. He's urging husbands to love
their own wives, to have a distinct and peculiar love to those that
they have taken to themselves in the strict particularism of
marriage. Marriage is a very particular
relationship, at least I hope yours is, and I'm sure your wife
hopes yours is if you're married. that there is a very particular
relationship. And he says, Husbands, you are
defined as the great pattern of this loving particularism,
Jesus Christ. So if we destroy the particularism,
we undercut much of the pressure of the apostles' teaching. Plus
the fact, this simply will not stand on exegetical feet because
What Christ did is said at every point to be a sacrifice, propitiation,
reconciliation and redemption. And if you're going to have it
to be that here, you can't say, well then his death was something
other than sacrifice, propitiation, reconciliation and redemption
for these other people. Where does the Bible describe
what he did in lesser categories? You see? If you're going to split
it up and say, well, yes, he did these particular things to
secure those particular ends for those particular people.
So you have strict particularism. Well, where in the Bible does
it say that his death then was something other than sacrifice
for those for whom he died? Where was it something less than
propitiation? Where was it something less than
reconciliation? In what way was it something
less than redemption? Well then, you see, you're left
without any exegetical materials. The Bible simply doesn't do that.
It always describes the death in those categories. And those
vis-a-vigorous categories as surely as they demand particularism
or strict universalism. And that's where you'll go. The
minute you take these terms seriously, you'll either end up a particularist
or a universalist. Yeah, you will. Now thank God
there are many that live with a blessed inconsistency that
don't end up universalist, but neither can they open up the
glory of what these terms mean. They just can't do it. And in
failing to do it, you undercut the confidence that is the rightful
portion of the people of God. I mean, when someone can say
he loved me and gave himself for me, if Judas can say that
in hell and have it be just as honest, what comfort is that
for me? Can Judas say in hell he loved me and gave himself
for me? Well, according to the doctrine of general redemption,
yes. Judas has every right in hell
to say he loved me and gave himself for me. So what comfort is it
to me to say that? But to know that he loved me
when there was nothing more lovable in me than in Judas when he could
have said his love upon Judas but he chose to love me and in
that covenant redemption included me and gave me to his son included
me and when the Lord Jesus went through his priestly act of sacrifice
I was upon his breastplate my name was inscribed upon his hands
you see the glory of Galatians 2.20 the son of God who loved
me and gave himself for me as part of that church that he loved
and for whom he gave himself in death. While you have other
passages such as Titus 2.14, let me give you that as just
another example. Titus 2.14, the apostle is urging
in this passage to the godliness that is the inseparable attendant
of grace The grace of God hath appeared, verse 11, bringing
salvation to all men, instructing us to the intent that denying
ungodliness and worldly lusts we should live soberly, righteously,
and godly, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the
glory of our great God and Savior. And what's the rationale behind
all of this? Who gave himself for us. There's
sacrificial language in order that. Here's another one of those
clauses of purpose. who gave himself for us, the
people of God, that he might redeem us from all iniquity and
purify unto himself a people for his own possession, zealous
of good works. What was the intention of his
death? Not to render all men indiscriminately salvable. but actually to redeem a people
and purify them and bring them into the state where they would
be zealous of good works. Here again you see the death
of Christ is viewed as that which secures salvation in all of its
dimensions on behalf of those for whom the sacrifice was made. And then what I think is one
of the classic passages is Romans 8.32 where the apostle argues
from the greater to the lesser and says that whoever has been
the object of the greater act of God will certainly be the
recipient of the lesser gifts and lesser acts of God. Romans
8 and verse 32. Having announced God's eternal
purpose with reference to his own in verses 29 to 30, what
shall we say then to these things? If God is for us, who is against
us? He that spared not His own Son,
but delivered Him up for us all, and as reference to the cross,
how shall He not also with Him freely give us all things? If God has so loved us as to
make us the objects of the giving of His own dear Son, having given
His Son to accomplish whatever He was to accomplish, shall He
not, having given Him really give us all other things, and
he brings into the closest proximity, you see, a person being the object
of the giving of Christ, and being the recipient of every
grace necessary to land him safe in glory. Who is against us? If God before us, that is, if
God is committed, not just to making all men indiscriminately
salvable, but actually securing the salvation of his people.
Called in the next verse, who shall lay anything to the charge
of gods he led. Called in the previous verses,
those whom he foreknew. The death of Christ here is set
in the strictest context of particularism and the point that we're making
now is the death of Christ is inseparably joined to every blessing
necessary to bring those for whom it occurred safe to glory.
He that spared not his son, how shall he not with him freely
give us all things? So if all men are the objects of the greatest
gift, then certainly they'll be the recipients of the lesser
gifts. Well, there you're back with universalism again. Yes,
John? Then that would include, in a very definite way, that
without church history, the truth has to be there with the church.
And that goes against these ideas of rediscovered truths and Darby
and all the rest. Oh yes, yes. One of the wonderful
corollaries that certainly, as one of the old writers said,
whatever has been essential for the life of the people of God
and important, the Holy Spirit has been promised to lead the
people of God into an understanding of that truth. And therefore,
anything that comes along late in time, and is anything more
than a further refinement of, or a more precise articulation
of the historic faith, it's a violation of Jude. We are to contend earnestly
for the faith once for all delivered to the saints. And Jude can say
that. At that point in redemptive history,
it is once for all delivered, as the canon was drawing to a
close. you know, to come along late in time and to say, well,
here's some essential, not some further refinement, because there's
always that further refinement as we grow up into Christ and
God gives teachers for the perfecting of the saints, etc. So that's
a good corollary, yes. Well, do you see the point I'm
trying to make? I don't want to labor it with a lot of passages, but
these are broad categories, and I say again, and this is the
only point at which I've been as pervasively biographical,
when I was wrestling through this issue, I found these two
things that I've shared with you this morning to be of tremendous
help to me. And then when I wrestled through
these passages, particularly Ephesians 5 and Titus 2, and
then Matthew 1, though it doesn't mention the cross, just the fact
that thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his
people. Those were the things that pushed
me over the hill, and then about that time I found out there was
someone named John Owen, and I began to read Owen. And I shall
never forget my delight when I came to that section in Owen,
Volume 10, where he's dealing with the death of death and the
death of Christ. And lo and behold, he built the backbone of one
section of his argument on the very passages that God had used
to push me over the hill. Well that just, as it were, broke
my legs after I got over the hill and I knew there was no
way back. And it was a tremendous help to me. And again, it helped
because it defused then a few verses where all or every or
each or world are used. And there's a sense in which
I could care less now about those passages that on the surface
of things may cause some people trouble. I'm not at all embarrassed
about them because I see that the death of Christ viewed in
this particularistic perspective is buttressed on every hand by
everything from the covenant of redemption, the whole inter-trinitarian
arrangement, all the way on the other hand to every category
within which it is described, sacrifice, redemption, reconciliation,
the certainty of its accomplishments, so that there's a sense in which
I could care less that there's a few verses that prove embarrassing
to some people. And until someone is prepared
to unravel this whole mass of biblical and exegetical and theological
material and say that we've just completely misconstrued the whole
shoot match Then I'm unshaken by someone who comes up and says,
I turned the tables on him and said, I refuse to discuss that
with you until first of all we can sit down and talk together
about the death of Christ viewed in its inseparable Biblical categories. Sir, before we look at 1 Timothy
chapter 4, or before we look at 2 Peter 3.9, will you please
discuss with me your understanding of the covenant of redemption?
And the average person who comes putting 2 Timothy 3.9, and they
always do it by saying, how do you explain this? When anyone
comes saying, how do you explain? I know they're not looking for
light. How do you explain this? I've heard that so many times.
Well, I just say now, sir, let's discuss together the covenant
of redemption. Well, the average person who comes pointing to
2 Peter 3.9 will look at you and say, covenant of what? And then you just proceed lovingly
because we're to be wise as serpents, harmless as doves, gentle to
all men, apt to teach in meekness, instructing those that oppose
themselves. We just ask the question, sir, Do you believe that whatever
Christ did, for whomever he did it, that he did it in obedience
to the Father? Did Jesus Christ just somewhere
along the line get a nice idea that he ought to die for sinners?
No, no, no, no, no. He was sent to the Father. Good,
alright, we're agreed. Now why did the Father send him?
Well, I don't know. Well, did Jesus tell us? Well,
I'm not sure. Well, he did. Sir, will you please
read John 6? And then you let him begin to
read. I came down from heaven not to do mine own will. You
buy that? Oh yes, in the garden he prayed not my will. Good,
alright. And what was the will of God? Let Jesus tell us. And this is the will of him that
sent me that of all that he hath given me. Now what's it sound
like to you? Jesus was conscious of a people
that were what? Given to him. Now when were they
given to him? Now immediately you're making him think of the
death of Christ in the larger categories of what we call for
theological purposes the covenant of redemption. I'm just giving
you a little idea how to do this. Then you turn to John 17. When
Jesus died, how many followers did he have? Didn't have very
many, did he? No, the great multitudes went by and weren't following.
Jesus must have died with a broken heart. What do you think? Yeah,
he sure did. Well, let's see how he died.
And we turn to John 17. And we just have him read. You
have him read from his own Bible. Jesus lifted up his eyes and
said, Father, I thank thee. You've given me authority over
all flesh that I should give eternal life to as many as thou
hast given me. He says, Lord, I succeeded. How
do you explain that? Throw it back on him. You open
up that verse to me, sir. Expound it to me now. Tell me
what it means. You throw it back upon him. Throw it back upon
him with his own Bible open before his eyes. Don't use terminology
that brings up all kinds of psych. Just open up the scriptures to
him. Say, now you read that to me. Well, it sounds there like
Jesus knew that there was a specific people. that he had come to save
and that he knew he had infallibly saved them I have glorified beyond
the earth having finished the work you gave me to do well if
the father had sent him to get everybody saved he was a miserable
failure because he didn't do that and you just begin to let
the scriptures speak for themselves you see and then you do this
with the other categories you turn into Ephesians 1 Where does
Paul trace the redemption of the people? In Christ. When were
they in Christ? Before the foundation of the
world. Well, how in the world can anybody get in Christ before
nobody was even created? Now, how do you figure that out?
Throw it back at him and say, how do you figure that out? You
believe the Bible? Sure. What does that mean? Chosen
in him before the foundation of the world. get him thinking. You see, the average person who
has problems with the concept of definite atonement has those
problems because he's never considered these broader categories which
lie beneath it and beyond it and outside of it and permeate
it. You see, that's the problem.
There's this atomistic view of the scriptures, the verse here,
verse here, and we must then seek to help people to begin
to think in this holistic, biblical way. So, since the view of general
atonement is symptomatic and not causal, only a quack treats
symptoms. Good doctors treat causes. And
the cause of the shoddy views on the extent of the atonement
is the ignorance and shoddy views on the larger categories that
we've tried to lay before you. So I hope you've not only been
buttressed by these studies, but that you see a method of
helping people and that's our desire just as our dear friend
who may not understand the biblical teaching on the extent of the
atonement he may have a clearer view of some area of scripture
and as we seek to help him let's be open to receive his help in
the area where he's gone further in his understanding you know
it's quite possible that men who are woolly in their thinking
on the extent of the atonement are much sharper in their thinking
in some other areas So we don't set ourselves up as the Lord
over them, but simply to share some good thing God has given
to us with the attitude that we are perfectly willing to receive
some good thing that God may have revealed to our brother.
And in that way, the body of Christ makes edification of itself
by speaking the truth in love.