Of all the letters in TULIP, “L” is perhaps the most controversial. “Limited atonement” is the way most describe what I prefer to call “definite redemption.” Unfortunately, the word “limited” conjures up an idea of a feeble god, unable to redeem all of mankind. In that line of thought, non-Calvinists accuse Calvinists of heresy – of believing in a God that is limited versus a God that is infinite.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Typically (as was true in my case) when one begins to study Calvinism, the “L” is always troubling. But does this “troubling” come from a reaction to error or from a reflex to something that opposes our preconceived notion? I believe many react against limited atonement because, for over 100 years now, American Christianity has been saturated with semi-pelagian theology. We have always been taught that when the Bible says that Jesus died for the world, “world” means every single individual who has ever lived or will ever live.
But does “world” always mean every individual, past, present, and future? Does “all” always mean every single person, or can we ask the question “all of what?”
To understand Bible truths we must practice one of the basic rules of biblical interpretation: never allow the implicit to overrule the explicit. What is inferred is to be harmonized with what is explicitly stated. Begin with what is clearly stated, and fit into it what is possibly implied. If something that you believe is implicit contradicts what is explicit, then forsake the implicit and hold to the explicit.
For example, the Bible teaches explicitly that Jesus is the only mediator between God and men (1Tim 2:5). Therefore, when Jesus told John, “behold thy mother” (John 19:27) was He implying that Mary was a co-redeemer? No. That would contradict the explicit teaching 1 Tim. 2:5.
Likewise, John 3:16 and other verses that imply a universal atonement (i.e., “world”, “all” must mean every individual) are to be harmonized with the explicit teaching of Definite Imputation or Definite Redemption. As I stated in my last post, Christ’s sacrifice did not make salvation possible for all, but definite for some.
Romans chapter 5 is a passage that clearly teaches a definite redemption. Notice the following verses:
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Rom 5:15 But not as the offense, so also is the free gift. For if through the offense of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
Rom 5:16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offenses unto justification.
Rom 5:17 For if by one man’s offense death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Rom 5:19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Regarding verse 12:
1. All have sinned. Does “all” mean “all”? Yes, except for Jesus. So “all” almost means every individual.
2. Why are all sinners? Because of one man – Adam.
Regarding verse 13-14
1. This looks like an objection, but it is a concession. There was no Mosaic Law before Moses, but there was still a Law of God, and that Law was transgressed in the Garden of Eden.
2. This is why everybody from Adam to Moses still died. Death is a consequence of sin. All that die do so because of sin. Even infants who “had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression” die because of sin.
Regarding verses 15-16
1. Why do some die who never sinned after the similitude of Adam? Because sin was definitely imputed to them through Adam.
2. The difference between Adam’s offense (sin) and Christ’s free gift (righteousness) is:
a. Adam’s sin is definitely imputed to all his natural seed.
b. Christ’s righteousness is definitely imputed to all His spiritual seed by grace.
Regarding verses 17-19
1. We have an excellent example of how the words “all men” and “many” can mean either “every single individual” or all of the saved or many saved.
2. Judgment is definite for all men (of Adam’s seed), therefore righteousness is definite for all men (of Christ’s seed). To take “all men” to always imply every single individual would be Universalism, and that would contradict the explicit teaching that many will suffer God’s eternal judgment.
3. Same with verse 19, many (Adam’s seed) were made sinners, and many (Christ’s seed) are made righteous.
Paul is emphasizing the definite nature of both imputed sin and imputed righteousness. Adam’s sin is definitely imputed to all; Christ’s righteousness is definitely imputed to some. The differences are in the conveyance of the imputation (one by nature, one by grace) and the effects of the imputation (one is death, one is life). But both are definite and not just possible.
This is a passage that explicitly teaches definite redemption.
I leave you, as I often do, with a quote from the Prince of Preachers. Spurgeon said:
Many divines say that Christ did something when he died that enabled God to be just, and yet the Justifier of the ungodly. What that something is they do not tell us. They believe in an atonement made for everybody; but then, their atonement is just this. They believe that Judas was atoned for just as much as Peter; they believe that the damned in hell were as much an object of Jesus Christ’s satisfaction as the saved in heaven; and though they do not say it in proper words, yet they must mean it, for it is a fair inference, that in the case of multitudes, Christ died in vain, for he died for them all, they say; and yet so ineffectual was his dying for them, that though he died for them they are damned afterwards. Now, such an atonement I despise — I reject it. I may be called Antinomian or Calvinist for preaching a limited atonement; but I had rather believe a limited atonement that is efficacious for all men for whom it was intended, than an universal atonement that is not efficacious for anybody, except the will of man be joined with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment