On why I disagree with Universal Atonement pt. 2

This blog will once again be as titled why I disagree with Universal Atonement. I will not give a verse that implies Christ died for His church, rather I will give a verse that is a strong point for the opposite side that says Christ died for all.

Hebrews 2:9
But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.


Crown Him the Lord of life,
Who triumphed o'er the grave.
Who rose victorious in the strife
For those He came to save.
His glories now we sing,
Who died and rose on high.
Who died eternal life to bring,
And lives that death may die.

He triumphed over the grave and rose victorious in the strife for those he came to save. "For those he came to save." These words seem to signal that the writer of this hymn believes that Christ had a design to really save a particular group of people by his death. He triumphed over the grave for those he came to save. It sounds like there are some he came to save, and that for these the grave is defeated and eternal life is given.

So my question is this: "For whom did Jesus taste death?" Ask 100 evangelical Christians in America that question and 95 will probably say, "Everybody." And there is something healthy about that answer—and something unhealthy. What's healthy about it is that it is not cliquish or elitist or sectarian. It has an eye on the world. It wants others to enjoy the forgiveness of sins that believers enjoy. It is not narrow and confined in its affections.

It tries to express the biblical truth that God so loved the world that he gave his only Son that whoever believes might not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16). It is healthy and right to believe that everyone who has faith—no matter what race or education or intelligence or social class or former religion—everyone who puts faith in Jesus Christ is justified and accepted with God on the basis of Jesus' shed blood. It's healthy and right to believe that no one can say, "I really want to be saved by believing Jesus, but I can't be because he did not die for me." No one can say that. There is no one who truly believes for whom Jesus did not taste death.
There are lots of reasons why this answer (that Jesus tasted death for everyone) is a sign of spiritual health. One of the most obvious reasons is right here in our text, Hebrews 2:9:
But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.

The answer that 95% of evangelicals would give is a healthy sign of desire to say what the Bible says.

But to say what the Bible says and to mean what the Bible means are not necessarily the same thing. Which is why I said that there is something unhealthy about answering the question, "For whom did Jesus taste death?" by simply saying "everybody." What's unhealthy about it is not, first, that it's wrong. What's unhealthy is that it stops short of asking what Jesus really accomplished when he died. It assumes that we all know what he accomplished and that this he accomplished for everybody in the same way. That is not healthy, because it is not true. My guess is that most of those 95% who say Jesus died for everybody would have a hard time explaining just what it is that the death of Jesus really, actually accomplished for everybody—especially what it accomplished for those who refuse to believe and go to hell.

In other words, it's unhealthy to say that Jesus tasted death for everyone and not to know what Jesus really accomplished by dying. Suppose you say to me, "I believe that Jesus died for everyone," and I respond, "Then why isn't everyone saved?" Your answer probably would be, "Because you have to receive the gift of salvation; you have to believe in Christ in order for his death to count for you." I agree, but then I say, "So you believe that Christ died for people who reject him and go to hell in the same way that he died for those who accept him and go to heaven?" You say, "Yes, the difference is the faith of those who go to heaven. Faith connects you with the benefits of the death of Jesus." Which would be a good arguement, and it really does sound lovely, and logical. However, keep reading, because I am going to share why it is not logical.

There are several problems here. I will only mention one. And I dwell on this because, if this is what you believe, then you are missing out on the depths of covenant love that God has for you in Christ by understanding it to be the same as the love he has for those who reject him. And you are, in one serious way, "neglecting your great salvation,". There is a greatness about being loved with Calvary love that you will never know if you believe that those in hell were loved and died-for the same way you were.

It would be as though a wife insisted that her husband loved and sacrificed for her no differently than he loves and sacrifices for all the women in the world. But in fact Paul, the apostle, says in
Ephesians 5:25–27: Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her; that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless.

That's what we(calvinist) mean when we say he died for the church, his bride. In other words there is a precious and unfathomable covenant love between Christ and his bride that moved him to die for her. The death of Jesus is for the bride of Christ in a different way than it is for those who perish.

Here's the problem with saying Christ died for all the same way he died for his bride. If Christ died for the sins of those who are finally lost, the same way he died for the sins of those who are finally saved, then what are the lost being punished for? Were their sins covered and canceled by the blood of Jesus or not? We Christians say, "Christ died for our sins" (1 Corinthians 15:3). And we mean that his death paid the debt those sins created. His death removed the wrath of God from me. His death lifted the curse of the law from me. His death purchased heaven for me. It really accomplished those things!

But what would it mean to say of an unbeliever in hell that Christ died for his sins? Would we mean that the debt for his sins was paid? If so, why is he paying again in hell? Would we mean that the wrath of God was removed? If so, why is the wrath of God being poured out on him in punishment for sins? Would we mean that the curse of the law was lifted? If so, why is he bearing his curse in the lake of fire?

One possible answer is this: one might say that the only reason people go to hell is because of the sin of rejecting Jesus, not because of all the other sins of their life. But that is not true. The Bible teaches that the wrath of God is coming on the world, not just because of its rejection of Jesus, but because of its many sins that are not forgiven. For example, in Colossians 3:5–6, Paul refers to "immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed," and then says, "On account of these things the wrath of God will come." So people who reject Jesus really will be punished for their specific sins, not just for rejecting Jesus.

So, I go back to the problem: in what sense did Christ taste death for their sins? If they are still guilty for their sins and still suffer punishment for their sins, what happened on the cross for their sins? Perhaps someone would use an analogy. You might say, Christ purchased their ticket to heaven, and offered it to them freely, but they refused to take it, and that is why they went to hell. And you would be partly right: Christ does offer his forgiveness freely to all, and any who receives it as the treasure it is will be saved by the death of Jesus. But the problem with the analogy is that the purchase of the ticket to heaven is, in reality, the canceling of sins. But what we have seen is that those who refuse the ticket are punished for their sins, not just for refusing the ticket. And so what meaning does it have to say that their sins were canceled? Their sins are going to bring them to destruction and keep them from heaven; so their sins were not really canceled in the cross, and therefore the ticket was not purchased.

The ticket for heaven which Jesus obtained for me by his blood is the wiping out of all my sins, covering them, bearing them in his own body, so that they can never bring me to ruin—can never be brought up against me again—never. That's what happened when he died for me. Hebrews 10:14 says, "By one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified." Perfected before God for all time, by the offering his life! That's what it means that he died for me. Hebrews 9:28 says, "Christ also [was] offered once to bear the sins of many." He bore my sins. He really bore them (See Isaiah 53:4–6.) He really suffered for them. They cannot and they will not fall on my head in judgment.

If you say to me, then, that at the cross Christ only accomplished for me what he accomplished for those who will suffer hell for their sins, then you strip the death of Jesus of its actual effective accomplishment on my behalf, and leave me with what?—an atonement that has lost its precious assuring power that my sins were really covered and the curse was really lifted and the wrath of God was really removed. That's a high price to pay in order to say that Christ tasted death for everyone in the same way.

I don't think that the Bible commands us or, in fact, lets us say that Christ died for everybody in the same way. And the context of Hebrews 2:9 is a good place to show that the death of Christ had a special design or aim for God's chosen people that it did not have for others.
What Does "Everyone" Mean?

At the end of verse 9 the writer says, "By the grace of God [Christ] tasted death for everyone." The question here is whether "everyone" refers to every human without distinction, or whether it refers to everyone within a certain group. As Tim and I say at Hall meeting "Is everyone present?" We don't mean everyone in the world. We mean everyone in the group I have in mind. What is the group that the writer has in mind: all of humanity without any distinction, or some other group?

Let's let him answer as we trace his thought in the next verses. Verse 10 is the support for verse 9: Christ tasted death for everyone "for it was fitting for him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings." In other words, immediately after saying that by the grace of God Christ tasted death for everyone, the writer explains that God's design in this suffering of Christ was to "bring many sons to glory." So verses 9 and 10 go together like this: Christ tasted death for everyone, because it seemed fitting to God that the way to lead his children to glory was through the suffering and death of Christ.

This means that the "everyone" of verse 9 probably refers to every one of the sons being led to glory in verse 10. In other words the design of God—the aim and purpose of God—in sending Christ to die was particularly to lead his children from sin and death and hell to glory. He had a special eye to his own elect children. It's exactly what the gospel of John says in 11:52—that Jesus would die to "gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad." These "children of God" that Christ died to gather are the "sons" that God is leading to glory through the death of Christ in Hebrews 2:10.

You can see this in the next verses too. Verses 11 and 12:
For both He who sanctifies [i.e., Christ] and those who are sanctified [the sons he is leading to glory] are all from one Father; for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying [in Psalm 22:22], "I will proclaim Thy name to my brethren, in the midst of the congregation I will sing Thy praise." In other words the sons that God is leading to glory through the death of Christ are now called Christ's brothers. It was for every one of these that Christ tasted death.
Verse 13 goes on now to call them, not only brothers, but in another sense children of Christ:
And again, "I will put my trust in Him" [Christ's own confession of faith in his Father along with his brothers]. And again, "Behold, I and the Children God has given Me."

Notice, the sons that are being led to glory through the death of Christ are now called children that God has given to Christ. They don't just become children by choosing Christ. God sets his favor on them and brings them to Christ—gives them to Christ. And for every one of these he tastes death and leads them to glory. This is exactly the way Jesus spoke of his own disciples in the prayer of John 17:6: "I manifested Thy name to the men whom Thou gavest Me out of the world; Thine they were, and Thou gavest them to Me." So the picture we have is a chosen people that the Father freely and graciously gives to the Son as his children.

Then notice how verses 14–15 connect the aim of Christ's incarnation and death with this chosen group of children: Since then the children share in flesh and blood [in other words, since those whom the Father gave to the Son have a human nature], He Himself likewise also partook of the same [human nature], that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil; and might deliver those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives [namely, every one of those children and brothers that God had given him to lead to glory by his death].

So here the reason given for the incarnation and the death of Jesus (in verse 14) is that the "children" share in flesh and blood. That's the reason Christ took on flesh and blood. And the "children," according to verse 13, are not humans in general, but children God has given to Jesus. And so the whole design and aim of the incarnation and death of Jesus was to lead the sons, the brothers, the children, whom God gave to Jesus, to glory.

I am not the least bit interested in withholding the infinite value of the death of Jesus from anyone. Let it be known and heard very clearly: God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son so that whoever believes on him, whoever believes in him—should not perish but have eternal life. Christ died so that whoever believes might not perish but live.

And when you believe as you ought to believe, you will discover that your belief—like all other spiritual blessings—was purchased by the death of Christ. The sin of unbelief was covered by the blood in your case, and therefore the power of God's mercy was released through the cross to subdue your rebellion and bring you to the Son. You did not make the cross effective in your life by faith. The cross became effective in your life by purchasing your faith.

So glory in this, Christian. Glory that your sins really were covered when Jesus tasted death for you. Glory that your guilt really was removed when Jesus tasted death for you. Glory that the curse of the law really was lifted and that the wrath of God really was removed, and that the precious faith that unites you to all this treasure in Christ was a gift purchased by the blood of Christ.

Christ tasted death for everyone who has faith. Because the faith of everyone who believes was purchased by the death of Christ.

Again...there will be atleast 2 more.

Lates

On why I disagree with universal atonement

It is my firm opinion that the doctrine of universal redemption is unscriptural and destructive of the gospel. I am also sure that there are many who have zero interest on the matter. These are the people who see no need for doctrinal exactness and have no time for theological issues which show up divisions between so called "Evangelicals". Many will read the title of this blog and find it so shocking they they will refuse to read this blog at all. But it is hoped that this blog will find itself some readers of a different spirit. There are signs today of a new upsurge of interest in the theology of the bible: a new readiness to test traditions, to search the Scriptures and to think through the faith. It is to those who share this readiness that this blog is offered, in the belief that it will help us in one of the most urgent tasks facing Evangelical Christendom today--the recovery of the gospel.

My last remark may cause the raising of some eyebrows, but it seems to be warranted by the facts.

There is no doubt that Christianity today is in a state of perplexity and unsettlement. In such matters as the practice of evangelism, the teaching of holiness, the building up of local church life, the pastor's dealing with souls and the exercise of discipline, are and of equally widespread dissatisfaction with things as they are and of equally widespread uncertainty as to the road ahead. This is a comples phenomenon, to which many factors have contributed; but , if we go to the root of the matter we shall find that these perplexities are all ultimately due to our having lost our grip on the biblical gospel. Without realizing it, we have during the past century traded that gospel for a substitute product which, though it looks similar enough in points of detail, is as a whole a totally different thing. Hence our troubles; for the substitute product does not answer the ends for which the authentic gospel has in past days proved itself so mighty. The new gospel conspicuously fails to produce deep reverence, deep repentance, deep humility, a spirit of worship and a concern for the church. Why? I would suggest that the reason lies in its own character and content. It fails to make men God-centered in their thoughts and God-fearing in their hearts because this is not primarily what it is trying to do.

One way of stating the difference between it and the old gospel is to say that is is too exclusively concerned to be "helpful" to man--to bring peace, comfort, happiness, satisfaction--and too little concerned to glorify God. (Read that twice if you need to.) The old gospel was "helpful" too--more so, indeed, than is the new--but(so to speak) incidentally, for its first concern was always to give glory to God. It was essentially a proclamation of Divine sovereignty in mercy and judgment, a summons to bow down and worship the mighty Lord on whom man depends for all good, both in nature and in grace, It's center of reference was unambiguously(ahem...point for word usage =) ) God. But in the new gospel the center of reference is man. This is just to say that the old gospel was religious in a way that the new gospel is not. Whereas the chief aim of the old was to worship God, the concern of the new seems limited to making them feel better. The subject of the old gospel was God and His ways with men; the subject of the new is man and the help God gives him. There is a world of difference. The whole perspective and emphasis of gospel preaching has changed.

From this change of interest has sprung a change of content, for the new gospel has in effect reformulated the biblical message in the supposed interest of "helpfulness". Accordingly, the themes of man's natural inability to believe, of God's free election being the ultimate cause of salvation, and of Christ dying specifically for His sheep are not preached. These doctrines, it would be said are not "helpful"; they would drive sinners to despair, by suggesting to them that it is not in their own power to be saved through Christ. (the possibility that such despair might be beneficial is not considered, it is taken for granted that it cannot be, because it is so shattering to our self-esteem) (again you may need to read that twice) However this may be the result of these omissions is that part of the biblical gospel is now preached as if it were the whole of that gospel; and a half-truth masquerading as the whole truth becomes a complete untruth. And so we appeal to men as if they all had the ability to receive Christ at any time; we speak of Gis redeeming work as if He had done no more by dying on the cross than make it possible for us to save ourselves by believing; we speak of God;s love as if it were no more than a general willingness to receive any who will turn and trust; and we depict the Father and the Son, not as sovereignly active in drawing sinners to themselves, but as waiting in quite impotence "at the door of our hearts" as we say, for us to let him in.

It is undeniable that this is how we preach; perhaps this is what we really believe. But it needs to be said with emphasis that this set of twisted half-truths is something other than the biblical gospel. The bible is against us when we preach in this way; and the fact that such preaching has become almost standard practice among us only shows how urgent it is that we should review this matter. To recover the old, authentic, biblical gospel, and to bring our preaching and teaching and practice back into line with it, is perhaps our most present need.

I'm certain that many who might read this would think that all I'm doing is trying to defend limited atonement--which is one of the five points of Calvinism, and assume that in speaking of recovering the gospel I just mean that I just want everyone to be a Calvinist.

These are worth considering so I will very briefly address them. Defending limited atonement as if this was all a reformed Christian who wanted to expound the heart of the gospel could every really want to do! And in consideration of wanting everyone to become Calvinist as if I had no interest beyond recruiting for a party and as if becoming a Calvinist was the last stage of theological depravity, ad had nothing to do with the gospel at all. It has to be understood that there is a drastic difference in people being able to choose and God doing the choosing. One proclaims a God who saves; the other speaks of a God who enables man to save himself. One view presents three great acts of the Trinity for the recovering of lost mankind--election by the Father, redemption by the Son, calling by the Spirit--as directed towards the same persons, ad as securing their salvation infallibly. The other view and any other view gives each act a different reference the objects of redemption being all mankind, of calling, those who hear the gospel and of election, those hearers who respond, and denies that any man's salvation is secured by any of them. One makes salvation depend on the work of God the other on a work of man man's own contribution to salvation; one gives all glory of saving believers to God, the other divides the praise between God, who, so to speak, built the machinery of salvation, and man, who by believing operates it. Where the free-willers say "i owe my election to my faith" the Calvinist say ''I owe my faith to my election"

Redemption according to Arminianism, secured for God a right to make this offer, BUT does not of itself ENSURE that anyone would ever accept it; for faith, being of mans own, is not a gift that comes to him from calvary. Christs death created an opportunity for the exercise of saving faith but that is all it did. Calvinist however define redemption as Christs actual substitutionary endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of certain specified sinners, through which God was reconciled to them, their liability to punishment was forever destroyed, and a title to eternal life was secured for them. In consequence of this, they now have in God's sight a right to the gift of faith, as the means of entry into the enjoyment of their inheritance.

Calvary in other words, not merely made possible salvation of those for whom Christ died; it ensured that they would be brought to faith and their salvation made actual. The Cross saves. When the Arminianist say " I could not have gained my salvation without Calvary" the Calvinist say "Christ gained my salvation for me at Calvary"

My salvation in the Arminianist view depends not on what Christ did for me, but on what I subsequently do for myself. Whether I call myself a Calvinist hardly matters, what matters is that I should understand the gospel biblically.

No If we believe this truth we will be lead to bow down before a sovereign Saviour who really saves, and to praise him for a redeeming death which made it certain that all for whom He died will come to glory. It cannot be over-emphasized that we have not seen the full meaning of the cross till we have seen it as the divines of Dort display it as the center of the gospel, flanked on the one hand by total inability and unconditional election, and on the other by irresistible grace and final preservation. For the full meaning of the Cross only appears when the atonement is defined in terms of these truths. Christ died to save a certain company of helpless sinners upon whom God had set His free saving love. Christs death ensured the calling and keeping--the present and final salvation--of all whose sins He bore. That is what Calvary meant, and means, The Cross saved; the Cross saves. This is the heart of true Evangelical faith; as Cowper Sang--

"Dear dying lamb, They precious blood
shall never lose it's power,
Till all the ransomed church of God be saved to sin no more"

You can rest assured this is only part one.

Lates

Grace is resistable...until it's not

Learn your doctrine from texts. It stands up better that way, and feeds the soul. For example, learn irresistible grace from texts. In this way you will see it does not mean grace cannot be resisted; it means that when God chooses he can and will overcome that resistance.

In Isaiah 57:17-19, for instance. God chastises his rebellious people by striking them and hiding his face: “Because of the iniquity of his unjust gain I was angry, I struck him; I hid my face and was angry” (v. 17).

But they did not respond with repentance. Rather, they kept backsliding. They resisted: “But he went on backsliding in the way of his own heart” (v. 17). So grace can be resisted. In fact, Stephen said to the Jewish leaders, “You always resist the Holy Spirit” (Acts 7:51).

What then does God do? Is he powerless to bring those who resist to repentance and wholeness? No. The next verse says, “I have seen his ways, but I will heal him; I will lead him and restore comfort to him and his mourners” (v. 18).

So, in the face of recalcitrant, grace-resisting backsliding, God says, “I will heal him.” He will “restore”—the word is “make whole or complete”. It is related to the word shalom, peace. That wholeness and peace is mentioned in the next verse which explains how God turns around a grace-resisting backslider.

He does it by “creating the fruit of the lips. ‘Peace, peace (shalom, shalom), to the far and to the near,’ says the LORD, and I will heal him” (v. 19). God creates what is not there. This is how we are saved. And this is how we are brought back from backsliding. The grace of God triumphs over our resistance by creating praise where it did not exist.

He brings shalom, shalom to the near and the far. Wholeness, wholeness to the near and the far. He does it by “restoring,” that is, replacing the disease of resistance with the soundness of submission.

The point of irresistible grace is not that we can’t resist. We can and we do. The point is that when God chooses, he overcomes our resistance and restores a submissive spirit. He creates. He says, “Let there be light!” He heals. He leads. He restores. He comforts.

Therefore we never boast that we have returned from backsliding. We fall on our faces before the Lord and with trembling joy thank him for his irresistible grace.

Heres to Mr. JP

Lates