THE DOCTRINE
OF THE ATONEMENT
T.P. Simmons
The word "atonement"
occurs but once in the King James version of the New Testament. See Rom. 5:11.
Here it is a translation of "katallage." This Greek noun occurs in three other passages: once in Rom. 11:15, where it is
translated "reconciling"; once in 2 Cor. 5:18, where it is translated
"reconciliation"; and once in
the following verse, where it is again translated "reconciliation."
The Greek verb
"katallasso," corresponding to the noun "katallage," is
also found in 2 Cor. 5:18,19, and in Rom. 5: 10 and 1 Cor.
7:11. In each of these instances it is translated to mean "to
reconcile."
According to the use of the
Greek, the word "atonement" may be used of either the provision of
the objective basis of salvation, in which we have a potential atonement, or of the actual accomplishment of salvation, in which we have
an actual atonement in the application of the benefits of Christ's death and
the offering of His blood in the heavenly temple.
The Greek verb
"katallasso" is used in the former sense in 2 Cor. 5:19, where we read: "'God was in Christ reconciling the world unto
himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them." The meaning here is
that God was reconciling the world unto Himself by laying their trespasses on
Christ. The passage refers, then, to what was accomplished in the death of
Christ and not to what was accomplished through His preaching ministry.
It is in this sense that the
word "atonement" is ordinarily used in theological discussions, and
it is in this sense that we use it in this chapter.
I.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ATONEMENT
The atonement is the central
theme of Christianity. Everything that
precedes it looks forward to it, and everything that follows looks backward to
it. Its importance may be see reviewing the following facts.
1. IT IS THE DISTINGUISHING FEATURE OF CHRISTIANITY.
Christianity is the only
religion with an atonement. It is related that some years ago, when there was
held a Parliament of Religion at the World's Fair in Chicago, Joseph Cook, of
Boston, the chosen spokesman for Christianity, arose, after other religions had been presented, and said: "Here is Lady
Macbeth's hands, stained with the foul murder of King Duncan. See her as she
perambulates through the halls and corridors of her palatial home, stopping to
cry, 'Out damned spot! Out, I say! Will these hands ne'er be clean?" The
representative of Christianity turned to the advocates of other religions and
triumphantly challenged: "Can any of you who are so
anxious to propagate your religious systems offer any cleansing efficacy for
the sin and guilt of Lady Macbeth's crime?" They were speechless; for none
of them had an atonement to offer.
2.
IT VINDICATES THE HOLINESS AND JUSTICE OF GOD
There could be no true
holiness and justice in God if He allowed sin to go unpunished. Holiness
forbids such an encouragement of sin. Justice demands retribution.
Without the atonement the
salvation of believers would leave the law void, a dead letter. See Rom. 3:31
and Heb. 2:2.
4. IT MANIFESTS THE GREATNESS OF HIS LOVE
In no other way could God have
manifested greater love for His people than by giving His only begotten Son to
die in their stead. See John 3:16; 15:3; Rom. 5:8; 1 John 4:9.
5.
IT PROVES THE DIVINE AUTHORITY OF OLD TESTAMENT SACRIFICES
We see in Christ's atonement
the beautiful antitype of Old Testament sacrifices. And we see in these sacrifices
an effective method of pointing to the necessity of atonement
and such a picture of real atonement as would lead the spiritually enlightened
to press through the veil of shadow to the true light. The divine authority of
Old Testament sacrifices presents no difficulties to him who believes that
Christ's death was substitutionary. But those who wish to deny this latter fact
deny also that God instituted the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament.
6. IT
FURNISHES THE ACID TEST OF THE THEOLOGICAL SYSTEMS
By their attitude toward the
atonement, theological systems classify themselves as pagan or Christian. Their
position on the atonement also reflects their idea of the nature
of God, of His law, and of sin.
II.
THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT
1. FALSE VIEWS OF THE ATONEMENT
(1) The Governmental View.
This view holds that the
purpose of the atonement was to prevent God's pardoning of
sinners from encouraging sin. The salvation of sinners requires no bearing of
the penalty of their sins. Their turning from sin to God is enough to justify
God in saving them. But the pardoning of the guilty, without some exhibition of
God's hatred against sin and of His regard for His law, would license sin and
rob the law of any authority over the consciences of men.
(2) The Example View.
This view holds in common with
the governmental view that Christ's death was not substitutionary. It holds
that God did not need to be propitiated in behalf of the sinner;
that the only hindrance to the salvation of sinners lies in the sinner's
continued practice of sin. Reformation, therefore, is the adequate remedy, and
this can be effected by man's own will.
To encourage us in this Jesus died as a noble martyr, exemplifying an
unselfish devotion that chose death rather than the compromise of His duty to
God and man. We are saved, not by trusting Him as our sin-bearer,
but by trusting in God according to His example and thus devoting ourselves to
righteousness.
(3) The Moral-Influence View.
This view
holds in common with both the former that sin brings no guilt that must be
removed. It is not the guilt, but the practice of sin that hinders salvation.
Christ's death was only an exhibition of love to soften man's heart and lead
him to repentance. "Christ's sufferings were necessary, not in order to
remove an obstacle to the pardon of sinners which exists in the mind of God,
but in order to convince sinners that there exists no such
obstacle" (Strong).
(4) The
Gradually-Extirpated-Depravity View.
This view is defined by Strong
as follows:
"Christ took human nature
as it was in Adam, not before the fall but after the fall,-human nature,
therefore, with its inborn corruption and predisposition to moral evil; that notwithstanding
the possession of this tainted and depraved nature, Christ, through the power
of the Holy Spirit, or of His divine nature, not only kept His
human nature from manifesting itself in actual or personal sin, but gradually
purified it, through struggle and suffering, until in His death He completely
extirpated its original depravity, and reunited it with God. This subjective
purification of human nature in the person of Jesus constitutes His atonement,
and men are saved not by any objective propitiation, but only by becoming
through faith partakers of Christ's new humanity."
There are two other views of
the atonement that theologians commonly discuss under false or inadequate
theories of the atonement that we shall not give special treatment here. We
refer to the accident view and the commercial view. The former holds
that the death of Christ was an unforeseen accident and not anticipated by
Christ. This view is so manifestly absurd that it does not deserve here the
space that it would take to refute it. We do not give special treatment to the
commercial view of the atonement here because it embodies so much truth that it
will find consideration under the head of the correct view of atonement.
2.
THE CORRECT VIEW OF THE ATONEMENT
The view of the atonement that
we conceive of as being the correct one recognizes the element of truth in each
of the foregoing theories that have received special mention
and also combines what are usually termed the commercial and the ethical views;
but it goes farther than any of them.
(1) Truths Recognized in Other
Views.
A. A
Failure to Punish Sin Would Overthrow Divine Government.
This is the element of truth
in the government view. But this is only one of the many elements of truth
involved in the atonement. And a mere exhibition of God's hatred against sin
without the meeting out of a just penalty therefore does not fully secure and conserve the interests of divine government. Any
exhibition of divine hatred toward sin will act as a deterrent to sin, and thus
will tend to maintain government; but to the extent that such exhibition of
divine hatred falls short of the just penalty it fails to furnish such a
deterrent to sin as will fully honor divine government.
B. In
Christ's Death We Have An Inspiring Example.
It is an example of unselfish
devotion to God and to man. And saved people (not lost ones) are commanded to
follow this example. See Matt. 16:24; Rom. 8:17; 1 Pet. 2:21; 3:17,18; 4:1,2.
But that Christ did not die merely as a noble martyr is evident from His own attitude toward His death. If He died only as an
example, then He furnished a very poor example. Many a human martyr has gone to
the stake without a show of anguish. Yet the Lord Jesus Christ sweat as it were
great drops of blood in the garden. Many a martyr has enjoyed a vivid sense of
God's presence in the hours of death. But the Lord Jesus Christ was deserted of
the Father in His death. Contrast Christ's attitude toward
death with that of Paul.
C. In Christ's Death We Have
An Exhibition of God's Love.
See John 3:16; 15:13; Rom.
5:8; 1 John 4:9. And this exhibition should move men to repentance.
This is the element of truth in the moral-influence view of the atonement. But
that the atonement was more than a mere exhibition of love will be made
manifest as we proceed.
D. Through Christ's Death We
Are Made Partakers Of Christ's Life.
See 11 Cor. 4:11; 5:14-17;
12:9,10; Gal. 2:20; II Pet. 1:4. This is the element of truth in the
gradually-extirpated-depravity view of the atonement. But we attain this new
life in Christ in conjunction with faith in Him as our sin bearer. This the
view just mentioned denies.
(2) Other Truths Recognized.
The true view of the atonement
recognizes all the truths in other views, but it recognizes more. They err in
emphasizing one element of truth to the exclusion of others.
Other truths recognized by the
true view of the atonement are:
A. The Truth As To God's
Nature.
All of the false views to which
we have given special attention deny that there is in the nature of God any
hindrance whatsoever to the pardoning of sinners. The hindrance is supposed to
be all on the sinner's part. Christ's suffering was in no sense a satisfaction
of any subjective principle in the divine nature.
Thus these views logically
deny the holiness and justice of God. They picture God as being love only.
Retributive wrath against sin is no element of divine nature.
That these views are false in
respect to the view of divine nature furnished by them is
evident from Rom. 3:25,26. We are told here that God set forth Jesus Christ not
simply as a scenic exhibition of His hatred against sin to serve the exigencies
of His government; nor as an exemplar of unselfish devotions to duty; nor as a
mere manifestation of love through the suffering of the creator with the
creature; nor yet as the means of the subjective purification of human nature;
but as a covering for sin (through expiation) that His
justice might not be impugned in the justification of sinful men.
B. The Truth As To The Nature
Of The Law.
All of the
false views of the atonement to which we have given special treatment represent
the law of God as a purely arbitrary appointment that may be relaxed partially
or wholly at will instead of a revelation of the nature of God with no more
possibility of change in its demands than there is of change in the nature of
God. It demands an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. It demands that
every transgression and disobedience shall receive a just
recompense of reward. Heb. 2:2. The view of the atonement that is correct must
recognize this.
C. The Truth As To The Guilt
Of Sin.
These
false views that we are considering deny that sin involves us in objective
guilt that requires expiation. The following Scriptures teach that it does:
John 3:36; Rom. 1:18; 2:5,6, 3:19; 6:23; Gal. 3:10; Eph. 5:5,6; Col. 3:5,6;
Rev. 20:13.
D. The Truth as to the
Substitutionary Nature of the Atonement.
The following passages show
that the suffering of Christ was a substitute for the suffering that believers
would have undergone in Hell:
"Surely he hath borne our
griefs and carried our sorrows ... was
bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace
was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone
astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and Jehovah hath laid on him
the iniquity of us all" (Isa. 53:4-6). ". . . being justified freely
by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God set forth
to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness
because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forebearance of
God; for the showing, I say, of his righteousness at the present season: that
he might himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in
Jesus" (Rom. 3:24,25). Propitiation is a synonym of expiation, which means
"enduring the full penalty of a wrong or crime." Propitiation
appeases the lawgiver by satisfying the law in the rendering
of "a full legal equivalent for the wrong done."
". . . Christ died for
us. Much more then, being justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the
wrath of God through him" (Rom. 5:8,9).
"Who shall lay anything
to the charge of God's elect?" (Rom. 8:33). The implied answer is, No one.
And the implied reason is, because Christ has paid their sin debt by suffering
the penalty of the law in their stead.
"Christ
is the end of the law unto righteousness to every one that believeth"
(Rom. 10:4).
". . .our passover also
hath been sacrificed, even Christ" (1 Cor. 5:7).
"Him
who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the
righteousness of God in him" (2 Cor. 5:21). We become the righteousness of
God in Christ, not through any moral influence of the death of Christ upon us,
but by the imputation of righteousness to us through faith apart from works.
See Rom. 4:1-8.
". .
. Christ. . . gave himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God . . .
"Eph. 5:2).
". . . offered one
sacrifice for sins for ever . . ." (Heb. 10:12)"
"Because
Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he
might bring us to God . . . "(I Pet. 3:18).
E. The Truth as to the
Redeeming of Ransoming Features of the Atonement.
"The Son of man came not
to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for
many" (Matt. 20:28).
"But
of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who was made unto us wisdom from God, and
righteousness and sanctification, and redemption" (1 Cor. 1:30).
"Christ redeemed us from
the curse of the law, having become a curse for us" (Gal. 3:13).
"God sent forth his Son
. .
. that he might redeem them that were under the law" (Gal. 4:4,5).
" . . . in whom we have
redemption through his blood the forgiveness of our trespasses,
according to the riches of his grace" (Eph. 1:7).
". . .who gave himself a
ransom for all" (1 Tim. 2:6).
". . .who gave himself
for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity" (Titus 2:14).
". . . through his own
blood, entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal
redemption" (Heb. 9:12).
"Ye were redeemed . . .
with precious blood . . . even the
blood of Christ" (I Pet. 1:18,19).
". . . thou wast slain, and
didst redeem unto God with thy blood, men of every tribe, and tongue, and
people, and nation" (Rev. 5:9).
In the
passages above in which "redeem" or one of its cognates appears we
have four Greek words or their cognates: "agorazo," meaning "to
acquire at the forum;" "exagorazo" to acquire out of the
forum;" "lutroo," "to loose by a price;" and
"apolutrosis," "a loosing away." The Greek words in the
passages where "ransom" appears are respectively "lutron,"
"a price," and "antilutron," "a corresponding price." The plain meaning of these passages, in the light
of the rest of the New Testament, especially Rom. 3:25,26, is that the death of
Christ was the price of our deliverance from sin's penalty. See further Rom. 8:
1,33,34; 10:4. Gal. 3:13 describes exactly how we are redeemed when it tells us
that we are redeemed from the curse of the law through Christ who became a
curse for us. He bore the curse we deserve. He paid the
penalty we owed. For that reason we go free.
Note that "ransom"
in 1 Tim. 2:6 means "a corresponding price." This means that the
price paid by Christ corresponded to the debt we owed. In other words Christ
suffered the exact equivalent of that which those for whom He died would have suffered in Hell. If the justice of God demanded that Christ
die in order that God might justify sinners, the same justice demanded that He
pay the full penalty owed by the sinners. Justice can forego all the penalty as
easily as it can forego the least part of it.
"For
God to take that as satisfaction which is not really such is to say that there
is no truth in anything. God may take a part for the whole; error for truth,
wrong for right . . . If every created
thing offered to God is worth just so much as God accepts it for, then the
blood of bulls and goats might take away sins, and Christ is dead in vain"
(Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:573-581; 3:188,189).
"God did not send Christ
forever into Hell; but He put on Christ punishment that was equivalent for
that. Although He did not give Christ to drink the actual Hell of believers,
yet He gave Him a quid pro quo--something that was equivalent thereunto, He
took the cup of Christ's agony, and He put in there, suffering, misery and anguish . . . that was the exact equivalent for all the
suffering, all the eternal tortures of every one that shall at last stand in
Heaven, bought with the blood of Christ" (Spurgeon, Sermons, Vol. 4, p.
217).
"The penalty paid by
Christ is strictly and literally equivalent to that which the sinner
would have borne, although it is not identical. The vicarious bearing of it
excludes the latter" (Shedd, Discourses and Essays, p. 307).
"Substitution excludes
identity of suffering; it does not exclude equivalence" (Strong,
Systematic Theology, p. 420).
Sometimes the opponents of the
redeeming and ransoming nature of Christ's death ask whom the price was paid
to. And they rather sarcastically remind us that some have been quick to say
that it was paid to the Devil. No, it was not paid to the Devil. It was not
paid to anybody as a commercial transaction. The price is the penalty demanded by the justice of God.
We adopt, therefore, as the
true view of the nature of the atonement, a view that combines the commercial
theory and the ethical theory as they are described by Strong. From the commercial
theory we accept the idea expressed in 1 Tim. 2:6--the paying
of a corresponding or equivalent price. And from the ethical theory we accept
the fact that it was not divine honor and majesty that demanded the atonement,
as the commercial view asserts, but the ethical principles of holiness and
justice in God.
"Between
the most orthodox creed of atonement by proper, real, and full satisfaction of
justice, and the frank and utter denial of atonement that offers any
satisfaction to law, there is absolutely no logical standing ground."
"Scripture without
hesitation and without explanation represents salvation by Christ
as a transaction analogous to the payment of debt, the ransom of a captive, the
redemption of a forfeited inheritance. From the beginning to the end of the
Bible there is no note of warning, no intimation that these comparisons may be
misleading. It is always assumed that they do plainly set forth Christ's work
of redemption.
"The outcry against the
theology that compares Christ's work to the payment of debt, the redemption of
a forfeited inheritance, the outcry against the use of any one of the abounding
scriptural allusions to financial transactions, is an outcry that betrays at
once disregard for Scripture and a misconception of Christ's perfect work of redemption" (Armour, Atonement and Law, pp.
128,137).
III.
THE ATONEMENT AND THE DEITY OF CHRIST
It is sometimes objected that
Christ could not have suffered in a few hours the equivalent
of the eternal suffering of the sinner in Hell. But this objection fails to
take into consideration the fact that Christ was divine and, therefore,
infinite in ability to suffer. He said that no man could take his life from
him; that he would lay it down of himself. Having the power, therefore, of
retaining His life at will, He did retain it through such intensity of
suffering that He drank the last dregs of Hell's poison for
all those to be saved through Him. What believing sinners would have suffered
extensively, because finite, Christ suffered intensively, because infinite. A
man with a constitution ten times as strong as that of the average man can
suffer in one second the equivalent of all that the average man can suffer in
ten. Correspondingly an infinite being can undergo any amount of suffering in
as brief time as it may please him to do it.
IV.
THE ATONEMENT AND THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST
While it was necessary that
Christ be divine in order to endure in a few hours the eternal
suffering due believing sinners, it was also necessary that He be human to
endure the equivalent of that which human beings are to endure in Hell. Human
suffering can be endured only in human nature.
It was also necessary that
Christ be organically one with man to make it perfectly proper
for God to accept His suffering as a substitute for that of man. We are held
responsible for the apostasy of Adam because we were organically one with Adam.
Angels did not participate in this responsibility. Neither were we involved in
the fall of angels. So it seems clear that it would not have been according to
divine philosophy for our responsibility to be placed upon Christ without His
becoming organically one with us.
V.
THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT
There are three theories as to
the extent of the atonement.
1.
THE THEORY OF A PARTIAL GENERAL ATONEMENT
The reference here is to the
notion that Christ paid the penalty for the Adamic sin for the whole race. This
idea is usually held in conjunction with the idea of a supposed
provisional basis for the salvation of all men, but its nature necessitates
that we treat it separately.
It is thought by some that
this theory is necessary to explain the salvation of those who die in infancy
and native idiocy. But we have shown a scriptural basis for the salvation of such without this theory. See chapter on Human
Responsibility.
John 1:29 is the principal
passage given as a basis for this theory. The singular form of "sin"
is emphasized as referring to the sin of Adam. But the argument is of no force,
because there are numerous other passages where the singular is used with reference to the personal sins of men is a collective
sense. See Rom. 3:20; 4:8; 6:1; Heb.
9:26.
This theory supposes that the
effect of Adam's sin upon the race is twofold: (1) imputation of guilt for the
overt act of Adam in partaking of the forbidden fruit, and
(2) corruption of nature. And it implies that guilt may be imputed apart from
corruption. This we flatly deny. We become guilty through Adam's natural
headship, from which we inherit a corrupt nature. We are under the penalty of
sin because we sinned in Adam, our nature being one with him. Rom. 5:12. If
guilt may be imputed without corruption, then the law demanded the death of
Christ, because He had a human nature; but the idea that He
died in any sense for Himself is utterly foreign to Scripture. He is everywhere
described and presented as having no guilt of His own, but as bearing the guilt
of others. If to Him was imputed guilt for the Adamic sin, as necessarily was
the case if this guilt is imputed to every descendant of Adam apart from
corruption, then He knew sin, but the Scripture says that He knew
no sin.
2.
THE THEORY OF A GENERAL ATONEMENT
(1) The Theory Stated.
The theory of a general atonement is that Christ died for every
son of Adam-for one as much as for another,* removing the legal impediments out
of the way of the salvation of all men and mankind, it objectively possible for
every hearer of the gospel to be saved. Strong says: "The Scriptures represent
the atonement as having been made for all men, and as
sufficient for the salvation of all. Not the atonement therefore is limited but
the application of the atonement." Again: "The atonement of Christ
has made objective provision for the salvation of all, by renewing from the
divine mind every obstacle to the pardon and restoration of sinners, except
their wilful opposition to God and refusal to turn to Him." Andrew Fuller
says that if the atonement
________
*Some may object to this representation.
But this statement is proved true of their theory when they
state that the death of Christ made the salvation of all possible; that it
removed every legal obstacle from the way of salvation of all men. If He did
this for all, what more did He do for any? If He removed every legal obstacle
from the way of salvation of all, then He satisfied the law of them. He did not
do more than this for anybody.
And when the advocates of a
general atonement try to escape the implications of their position, they only
contradict themselves. For instance, the great J. R. Graves says that Christ
"did not pay the debt each sinner owes to divine law, else each one will
be saved; for the law cannot, in justice, demand payment again of tire
sinner;" and yet he says that Christ, by His death,
"removed all legal and governmental obstructions" from the way of the
salvation of all. If Christ did not pay the debt of each sinner, then He did
not remove the legal obstructions to the salvation of each sinner. To affirm
one and deny the other is to utter a flat contradiction, or else language has
no meaning.
There are but two consistent
positions on the extent of the atonement. One is the straight Arminian view,
which is that Christ died for sin, "but only in the sense that it makes it
consistent for God to offer salvation to men on the ground of evangelical
obedience, and not of perfect legal obedience" (Boyce, Abstract of
Systematic Theology, p. 310). The other is the position
advocated in this book. Those who try to take a stand between the two involve
themselves in a contradiction, do what they will to avoid it.
________
is viewed merely as "to
what it is in itself sufficient for, and declared in the gospel to be adapted
to . . . it was for sinners as sinners;" but that with "respect to
the purpose of the Father in giving His Son to die and to the design of Christ
in laying down His life, it was for the elect only."
This theory of the atonement
is sometimes summed up by the saying that the atonement was sufficient for all,
but efficient for the elect only, or as some would prefer, for those who
believe. Or to put it another way, it is often said that Christ is the Saviour
of all men provisionally and especially or effectually of believers.
Others have imagined that the
sacrifice on Calvary was for all, but that the offering of Christ's blood in
Heaven was for the elect only.
All of these statements amount
to the same thing-a general atonement with a limited application
or design. This we believe and hope to prove is a contradiction of terms,
contrary to reason, repugnant to, the nature of God, and not according to a
consistent interpretation of Scripture.
(2) The Theory Disproved.
A. This theory provides no
real satisfaction of God's justice, or it involves God in the injustice of
punishing those for whom justice has been satisfied. Here is a dilemma, and
each advocate of a general atonement may choose which horn he chooses to hang
on. One of these propositions must be true.
The former proposition is
probably the one that most advocates of a general atonement are logically
forced to accept. No doubt most of them would subscribe to the declaration that
if there had been but one sinner to save it would have been necessary for
Christ to have suffered exactly and identically what He did suffer. Boyce says: "What Christ needed to do for one man, would
have been sufficient for all" (Abstract of Theology, p. 314). Strong says:
"Christ would not need suffer more, if all were to be saved"
(Systematic Theology, p. 422).
This notion as to Christ's
suffering is altogether inconsistent with justice. A thousand
sinners in Hell, all deserving the same degree of punishment, will suffer a
thousand times as much as any one of them will suffer individually. It will
take that to satisfy justice. Now will justice be satisfied in Christ for the
entire thousand if Christ suffers only as much as one sinner would suffer? In
other words, does justice demand one thing of sinners themselves and another of
Christ as their substitute? This is exactly what the theory
of a general atonement involves.
The theory of a general
atonement no more satisfies justice than the governmental theory. In Christ's
death we have, according to the theory of a general atonement, only a scenic
display of God's wrath against sin; then God at will applies the benefits of this to whom He will. In other words, in view of what
Christ did, God relaxes strict justice and saves a countless multitude of
sinners, who deserved Hell and for whom justice has not been actually satisfied.
So instead of Christ's death affording God the means of being just and yet of
saving believing sinners, it enables Him to relax His justice.
The only way of escape from
this latter proposition is to consider the repentance and faith and obedience
of those who are saved as making up what is lacking in Christ's death.
Arminians may say this (yet some of them do not view repentance, faith and
obedience as being meritorious in salvation), but others cannot without surrendering their belief in salvation as being wholly of
God's grace.
Some may attempt to escape the
dilemma set forth in the first paragraph under this heading by affirming that
Christ actually suffered for the sins of all men, and that the lost in Hell
will suffer for only the sin of continued unbelief. Several things might be said in refutation of this idea. (1) It leaves the heathen
that have not heard the gospel nothing to suffer for in Hell, for no man can be
justly charged for not believing in one he has never heard of Rom. 10:14. That
God will not charge those who never hear the gospel with the sin of unbelief is
plain from Rom. 2:12, which informs us that God will not by the law judge those
who never hear the law. He will judge them only by the
light of their own conscience. Rom. 2:14,15. One must sin against light before
he can be justly punished for disobedience. Hence if none are to suffer in Hell
for any sin except the sin of continued unbelief, those who never hear the
gospel will have nothing to suffer for. John A. Broadus says very properly, in
commenting on Matt. 11: 22- "The heathen will not be condemned for
rejecting Christ if they have had no opportunity to know of
him; but only for disregarding their own conscience (Rom. 2:14-16), the light
of external nature (Rom. 1:20), and any true religious ideas which may in
whatever way have reached them" (An American Commentary on the New
Testament). (2) Every believer was from the time of hearing the gospel to the
time of accepting it guilty of the sin of unbelief. This
sin of unbelief, of course, had to be atoned for the same as any other sin. So
Christ suffered for the sin of unbelief for those who are saved. Now, if He
died for all, for one as much as for another, which is necessary if salvation
was to be made possible for all, then He died for the sin of unbelief for all
men. This leaves any that go to Hell with no sins at all to suffer for. If
Christ did not die for the sin of unbelief for all guilty
of that sin, then He did not die sufficiently for the salvation of all. (3) The
Bible clearly teaches that the lost in Hell will suffer for all their sins.
Rom. 2:5,6; 11 Cor. 5:10; Eph. 5:5,6; 11 Pet. 2:9-13; A. S. V.; Rev. 20:13.
B. This theory is futile, in
that it is not necessary as a basis for any scriptural fact, duty,
or result, or as proof of any revealed truth.
(a) It cannot be argued that
God was under obligation to provide redemption for all men without exception,
for such an argument would exclude grace from the atonement. Grace means not
only unmerited favor, but also favor that is not owed. Grace
and obligation are mutually exclusive. Furthermore, if God was obligated to
provide redemption for every son of Adam, He would be obligated likewise to
give to each one the ability to receive that redemption by faith. This God has
not done, as we have shown in the previous chapter on election.*
"Redemption,
as well as creation, must also be a purely sovereign determination of the
divine will. This is required by the necessities of the case, as well as
plainly declared in Scripture. No doctrine of redemption that in any way casts
________
*Throughout this chapter we
assume the truth of unconditional election as set forth in the preceding
chapter. We would not waste time trying to prove the truth as to a limited
atonement to an Arminian.
the slightest shadow over the
high mountain of Divine Sovereignty can be tolerated for a moment. All
theologies that in any manner teach or imply there was any obligation upon God
to do this or that for fallen, rebellious subjects of law, are unscriptural,
unreasonable, if not blasphemous" (Armour, Atonement and Law, p. 20).
(b) Furthermore it was not
necessary for God to provide a general atonement to make men responsible for
rejecting Christ. Men reject Christ not because of a lack of
atonement for them, but because they love darkness rather than light (John
3:19), because they will not have Him to reign over them (Luke 19:14).
(c) Nor was it necessary that
Christ die for the whole Adamic race in order to make God's general call
sincere. It is the notion of some that God's general call requires men to believe that Christ died for them. This is not true.
The twenty-eight chapters of Acts, "though replete with information about
apostolic dealing with souls, record no precedent whatever for that now popular
address to the unconverted- Christ died for you" (Sanger, The Redeemed).
"All men are called on in Scripture to believe the gospel, but there is no
instance in Scripture in which men are called upon to
believe that Christ died for them" (Carson, The Doctrine of the Atonement
and Other Treatises, P. 146).
The following illustration
from "The Blood of Jesus," by William Reid, p. 37, also shows the
compatibility of a limited atonement and the general invitations of the gospel. After describing passengers boarding a train at
Aberdeen Station of the North-Eastern Railway, he says:
"Nor did I see any one
refusing to enter because the car provided for only a limited number to proceed
by that train. There might be eighty thousand inhabitants in and around the city, but still there was not one who talked of it
as absurd to provide accommodations for only about twenty persons, for
practically it was found to be sufficient.
"God, in His infinite
wisdom, has made provision of a similar kind for our lost world.
He has provided a train of grace to carry as many of its inhabitants to Heaven,
the great metropolis of the universe, as are willing to avail themselves of the
gracious provisions.
Suppose God had waited until
the end before sending Christ to die, (as He could have
done just as easily as He waited four thousand years after sin entered the
world before sending Christ), and had then sent Him to die for all that had
believed. It would then have been manifest that a limited atonement offers no
hindrance to the salvation of any man that does not already exist because of
the perversity of man's nature. Surely it is clear to every thinking person
that the occurrence of Christ's death two thousand years
ago does not change the case; for He died for all who shall ever believe, these
having been known to God from eternity as fully as they shall be in the end.
We have intimated that God is
as much under obligation to remove man's spiritual inability
to come to Christ as He is to provide an atonement for Him. In other words,
man's perversity of nature makes his salvation as impossible from a human
standpoint as does the absence of an atonement.
But some may take exception to
this by saying that whereas man's perversity of nature
creates a moral impossibility, the lack of atonement furnishes a natural
impossibility. We reply that this is correct; but the moral impossibility is
primary and is absolute. Therefore the natural impossibility can furnish no added
hindrance.
(d) Neither is a general
atonement necessary to the manifestation of God's love. The provision
of an ineffective atonement would reveal nothing but a blind, futile love. Is
this the kind of love God's love is? Nay, verily, God's love is intelligent,
purposeful, sovereign, effective. God's redemptive love is wholly grounded
within Himself, and does not proceed at all because the objects of it are
lovely, nor because they deserve anything good at His hands. Therefore, it is
wholly subject to His sovereign will (Deut. 10:15; Rom.
9:13). It is His immanent, peculiar, gracious delight in bestowing His favor
upon chosen objects.
(e) Finally a universal
atonement is not necessary for the maintenance of evangelistic zeal and a
missionary spirit. It is freely admitted that there have been those
who held to a limited atonement whose evangelistic zeal was far from what it
should have been. However the fault was not in that doctrine, but in their
failure to see and believe other truths. In the case of many, including the
noble Waldenses and Albigenses, as well as Spurgeon and many others of great
note, overflowing evangelistic zeal and a stout belief in a limited atonement
have dwelt side by side in the most glorious harmony. In
fact, belief in a limited atonement, for reasons that we can not here take
space to discus, should make men more evangelistic than belief in a general
atonement, while keeping them back from hurtful excesses.
3.
THE THEORY OF A LIMITED ATONEMENT
(1) The Theory Stated.
The theory of a limited
atonement holds that Christ died for the elect and for the elect only; that the
value and design or application, the sufficiency and the efficiency of it are the same; that Christ in no sense whatsoever died
for any that shall perish in Hell. To this we give our happy and unqualified
endorsement.
(2) The Theory Proved.
"All those for whom
Christ gave His life a ransom are either ransomed by it, or they are not, that
all are not ransomed or redeemed from sin, the law, Satan, and the second death
is evident . . . Now, if some for whom Christ gave His life a ransom, are not ransomed then that shocking absurdity . . . follows . . .
namely, that Christ is dead in vain, or that so far He gave His life a ransom
in vain; wherefore it will be rightly concluded that He did not give His life a
ransom for every individual man" (John Gill, The Cause of God and Truth,
p. 98).
"The
so-called Scripture proofs of Universal Redemption depend upon human
assumption, not upon the simple Word; Thus, as regards 'propitiation for the
sins of the whole world', we are told that the 'world' must mean every
worldling. But why must it mean this? That is the unanswered question. The word
world means many different things in Holy Scripture, on which see Crudens
Concordance. Connection alone is its true interpreter. To
rule that it must mean this or that is but to indulge in rash and idle
talk" (Sanger, The Redeemed, p. 7).
"If law can yield at all,
if the universe created and uncreated can afford to have law in its higher
realms melt like wax, if God's love can in any respect be shown to violators of law at the expense of justice, if Christ having
done all and having suffered all He was raised up to do and to suffer, justice,
exact justice, pure and mere justice, did not permit, require, demand,
necessitate the deliverance of those whom he represented and whom He came to
redeem, then 'Christ died in vain,' then is the 'offence of the cross' taken
away, then 'the wages of sin' is not 'death,' then are we
all at sea as to the necessity for Christ's intervention, then we are ready to
disperse on voyages of discovery that we may find good reason for Christ's
coming into the world at all, and especially for His suffering in Gethsemane
and on the cross" (Armour, Atonement and Law, p. 129).
"Whenever
the Holy Scriptures speak of the sufficiency of redemption, they always place
in it the certain efficacy of redemption. The atonement of Christ is sufficient
because it is absolutely efficacious, and because it effects the salvation of
all for whom it was made. Its sufficiency lies not in affording men a
possibility of salvation, but in accomplishing their salvation with invincible
power. Hence the Word of God never represents the
sufficiency of the atonement as wider than the design of the atonement"
(Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John, 1945 edition, Vol. 3, p. 76). Would
that this last sentence could be emblazoned across the sky LET IT BE EMPHASIZED
AGAIN, IN THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST SUFFICIENCY EQUALS EFFICIENCY.
"Doubtless 'universal'
and 'redemption' [used here as a synonymous with 'atonement': in the sense of
'agorazo'], where the greatest part of men perish, are as irreconcilable as
'Roman' and 'Catholic'" (John Owen, as quoted approvingly by C. H.
Spurgeon, Sermons, Vol. 4, p. 220).
"Were the whole of
mankind equally loved of God and promiscuously redeemed by Christ, the song
which believers are directed to sing would hardly run in them admiring strains,
'To Him that hath loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and
hath made us kings and priests unto God,' etc., Rev. 1:5,6). A hymn of praise like this seems evidently to proceed on the
hypothesis of peculiar election on the part of God, and of a limited redemption
on the part of Christ which we find more explicitly declared (Rev. v. 9), where
we have a transcript of that song which the spirits of just men made perfect
are now singing before the throne and before the Lamb: 'Thou wast slain, and
hast redeemed us unto God by Thy blood out of every kindred
and tongue and people and nation.' Whence the elect are said to have been
redeemed from among men. (Rev. 14:4)" (Augustus M. Toplady, author of
"Rock of Ages," in preface to Absolute Predestination, by Zanchius).
"That Christ is our life,
and truth, and peace, and righteousness-our shepherd and advocate,
our sacrifice, and priest, who died for the salvation of all who should
believe, and rose again for their justification" (Article 7 of the Confession
of Faith adopted in 1120 by the Waldenses, the most outstanding group of
Baptist progenitors. See Jones' Church History, p. 322).
"The
doctrine of the atonement has been differently understood. The old churches
pretty uniformly held that it was particular; that is, that Christ died for the
elect only, and that in His stupendous suffering no respect was had to, nor any
provision made for, any others of Adam's ruined race" (Benedict, General
History of the Baptist Denomination, p. 456).
"If there is anything
plainly taught in the Scripture, it is that the sacrifice of Christ was made
for those only who shall eventually be saved by it (Alexander Carson, The
Doctrine of the Atonement and Other Treatises, p. 196).
"It
cannot be, that one soul for whom He (Christ) gave His life and spilled His
blood; whose sins He bore and whose curse He sustained, should ever finally
perish. For if that were the case, divine justice, after having exacted and
received satisfaction at the hand of the Surety, would make a demand on the
principal; in other words, would require double payment" (Booth, The Reign
of Grace, p. 235).
"Can a God of infinite
ethical perfection, who with His own hand laid the awful burden of the sinner's
guilt upon the adorable Surety, repudiate His own covenant engagements and
withhold from Him the reward purchased at the cost of His most precious blood?
To say so, is tantamount to an impeachment of the truth and justice of our covenant-keeping God" (Prof. Robert Watts,
Sovereignty of God, comprising articles of Pres. C. W. Northrup, published in
the Standard of Chicago, and those of Prof. Watts in reply, which latter
articles were written at the suggestion of T. T. Eaton and published in the
Western Recorder during Eaton's editorship).
"They
[certain 'divines'] believe that Judas was atoned for just as much as Peter;
they believe that the damned in Hell were as much the 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 afterward. 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 in a limited atonement that is efficacious for all men for
whom it was intended, than an universal atonement that is not efficacious,
except the will of man be joined with it" (Spurgeon, Sermons, Vol. 4, p. 218).
"I believe that election
elected the elect; that foreknowledge foreknew them; that they 'were ordained
to eternal life,' and 'foreordained to be conformed to the image of His Son;' that
redemption redeemed them; that regeneration regenerated them; that
sanctification sanctifies them; that justification justifies them; that
preservation preserves them; that providence provides for them, and so on to
glorification. Hence those to be glorified are those foreknown and redeemed. I
don't believe in a general redemption and a special glorification (J. B. Moody,
Sin, Salvation, and Service, p. 40).
"Here are the five points
of Calvinism: unconditional election or predestination, limited atonement or
particular redemption, total depravity necessitating prevenient grace,
effectual calling or irresistible grace, and preservation or perseverance of
the saints. And the writer does not hesitate to subscribe to all five points" (C. D. Cole, Definitions of Doctrines, Vol. 1, p.
131).
The author gives an
enthusiastic "Amen" to all of these. He is not ashamed to be found in
their company and in the company of many other eminent saints of God who have
held the same sentiments. He is willing to be found contending for the historic faith of Baptists, the faith of ancient churches; the
faith of the Waldenses, "those eminent and honored witnesses for the truth
during the long period when the church and the world were overrun with gross
error and immorality (Rice, God Sovereign and Man Free).
(a) It is the only theory that
makes the death of Christ truly substitutionary. If Christ died for one man as
much as for another, which He must have done if He made salvation possible to
all men, then He died for some that will suffer eternally in
Hell. His death, therefore, was not truly substitutionary.
(b) It is the only theory that
is compatible with the justice of God. God's justice demanded that Christ pay
the exact penalty of the sins of those who are saved. His justice also demands
that He save all whose penalty Christ paid. This is an axiomatic
proposition. It is also a scriptural proposition. What is the meaning of 1 John
1:9, in stating that God is "just to forgive our sins," if it does
not mean that the forgiveness of our sins is an act of justice toward Christ?
The theory of a limited atonement alone leaves any just reason for the
condemnation of unrepentant sinners. If a general atonement has been made, then
there is no justice in sending any sinner to hell. If it is
sufficient for all men, then it demands the acquittal of all. Since the
atonement was demanded as a satisfaction of God's justice, its efficiency must
equal its sufficiency. The same justice that demands that the penalty of sin be
paid, just as emphatically demands that the sinner be liberated when the
payment has been made. There is absolutely no ground either in Scripture or
reason for making a distinction between the atonement and
the application of it, or between atonement and redemption or reconciliation,
as to their extent or value. Atonement, redemption, and reconciliation all
apply to the objective basis of pardon, and they all alike apply to actual
pardon.
(c) It is
the only theory that gives to the death of Christ any argumentative value in
proving the security of the believer. The following statement will be
recognized, no doubt as a strong argument for the security of the believer by
all who believe that doctrine:
"Christ,
in His death on the cross, suffered for all the sins of every believer. If the
believer should go to Hell, he would suffer for the same sins that Christ
suffered for. Both the believer and Christ would then be paying for the same
sins, and God, in punishing two men for the sins of one, would be the most
unjust tyrant of the universe. Perish the thought! The judge of all the earth
must do right!"
But this argument has no force
if Christ died for all, for one as much as for another, which He must have done
if He made salvation possible for all, removing all legal obstacles out of the
way of their salvation. Moreover, according to this argument, and also
according to truth and logic, all those who affirm that Christ suffered the penalty of the law for every man make God "the most
unjust tyrant of the universe."
C. Arguments From Scripture.
(a) Isa.
53:11. In this passage, the prophet, in speaking of Christ's sacrifice, says
that God "shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall he
satisfied." We take this to mean that the just demands of God, the penalty
of the broken law, were satisfied in the death of Christ. But for whom? If for
every son of Adam, then God cannot in justice damn any of them. Satisfied
justice can demand nothing more. If the reader is minded to
argue that the lost in Hell will suffer, not for their sins in general, but
only for the sin of rejecting Christ, we refer him back to our discussion of
the theory of a general atonement under" (2) The Theory Disproved."
Furthermore this same passage
represents God as saying: "By his knowledge shall my
righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities." This
tells how Christ justifies men, that is, by bearing their iniquities. And note
that this justification is not made to depend on anything else. If Christ had
to bear men's iniquities to justify them, then it follows, as the night the
day, that those whose iniquities He bore must receive justification. By
accepting this satisfaction at the hands of Christ, God
puts Himself under obligation to Christ (not to the sinner) to communicate
justification to every one for whom satisfaction is made, which He does by
working repentance and faith in the heart.
(b) John 15:13. "Greater
love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for
his friends." If Christ laid down His life for every man without
exception, then He has the greatest love for every man; and, therefore, loves
those that perish in Hell as much as those He saves. Could Christ ever be
satisfied with some of the objects of His greatest love in Hell?
Moreover,
if it were true that Christ loves those that perish as much as He does those
that are saved, we should have to attribute our salvation to ourselves rather
than to the love of Christ.
(c) Rom. 8:32: "He that
spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall
he not with him also freely give us all things?" This passage argues that
God's greatest gift of His Son guarantees all lesser gifts. Hence it follows
that God delivered up His Son for none except those to whom He freely gives all
other spiritual blessings, that is, those who believe. See Eph. 1:3.
(d) Rom.
8:33,34. These verses tell us that no charge or condemnation can be brought
against the elect; that God will not charge them, for it is He who justifies;
and that Christ will not condemn, because He died for them. This passage would
be deprived of all logical force if Christ had died for any that He shall some
day condemn in judgment. Hence He died for none except those who escape judgment.
(e) 2 Cor. 5:14: "For the
love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that one died for all,
therefore all died." There is here the undeniable assertion that all for
whom Christ died, died representatively in Him. Hence death has no power over
them, and none of them will suffer it; but all will receive justification and
eternal life through faith. In commenting on the last three
words of this passage, A. T. Robertson says: "logical conclusion . . .,
the one died for all and so that all died when he died. ALL THE SPIRITUAL DEATH
POSSIBLE FOR THOSE FOR WHOM CHRIST DIED" (Caps ours-Word Pictures in the
New Testament). Do not fail to note the use of "all" in this passage.
(f) 2 Cor. 5:19: "God was
in Christ, reconciling (katalasso) the world unto himself, NOT IMPUTING THEIR
TRESPASSES UNTO THEM . . ." This tells what God was doing in the death of
Christ and it tells how He was doing it: He was reconciling men to Himself and
He was doing it by laying their trespasses on Christ and, therefore,
not imputing, reckoning, charging them to those for whom Christ died. Christ,
in His death, accomplished full objective reconciliation for the objects of His
death, which necessitates their being brought to experience subjective
reconciliation. The only right conclusion from this is that Christ died for
those and those only who eventually receive reconciliation. Note the use of the
word "world" in this passage.
(g) John 10:15; Acts 20:28;
Eph. 5:25. In these passages Christ is said to have purchased the church, to
have given Himself for it, to have laid down His life for the sheep. "I
know that universal terms are sometimes connected in the Scriptures with the
atonement; but if these are to be interpreted in their widest sense, why should
the sacred writers have employed the restrictive at all?
The universal terms . . . may be readily made to harmonize with the
restrictive, but no man can make the restrictive harmonize with the unlimited-
(Parks, The Five Points of Calvinism).
(3) Scriptures Explained
We take up here the passages
taken by some to teach a general atonement.
A. John 3:16; 1 John 2:2. In
both passages the word "world" is used in connection with the saving
work of Christ. One speaks of God as loving the "world," and the other speaks of Christ as being a propitiation for the sins of
the whole "world."
Against the interpretation
given of these passages by the advocates of a general atonement we reply:
(a) A love
that would cause God to give Christ to die for each individual man of Adam's race
would also cause Him to save all.* Why should God discriminate between men in
saving them if He loved all of them with the greatest of all love? See Rom
8:32.
(b) There
would be no real expression of love in sending a Saviour to die vainly for men.
What kind of love is it that performs an act that cannot really benefit? Would
there be any real love shown by a father in buying a beautiful picture for a
son that is totally blind?
(c) That
God does not love all men without exception is proved, as already stated, by
the declaration: "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" (Rom.
9:13). Did God love Pharaoh? (Rom. 10:17). Did He love the Amalekites? (Ex.
17:14). Did He love the Canaanites, whom He commanded to be extirpated without
mercy? (Deut. 18:3). Does He love the workers of iniquity? (Psa. 5:5). Does He
love the vessels or wrath fitted for
________
*Bear in mind that we are
writing in this chapter, as already remarked, for the benefit
of those who already believe in unconditional election.
________
destruction, whom He endures
with much long-suffering? (Rom. 9:22)" (Haldane, Atonement,
p. 113).
(d) Finally, the word
"world," by no means, alludes to all men without exception in every
case in the Scripture, and, therefore, it remains to be proved that it means
this in these passages. "World" is used of unbelievers in distinction
from believers (John 7:7; 12:31; 14:17; 15:18,19; 16:20;
17:14; 1 Cor. 4:9; 11:32 Eph. 2:2; Heb. 11:7; 1 John 3:1; 3:13; 5:19). It is
used of Gentiles in distinction from the Jews (Rom. 11:12,15). It is used of
the generality of known people (John 12:19). We believe in the two passages
under consideration the word alludes not to all men without exception, but to
all men without distinction; that is, to men of all nations, tribes, and tongues (a cross-section of which we see in Rev. 7:9);
revealing that Christ did not die for the Jews alone, but for Gentiles also,
even to the uttermost parts of the earth.
The logical reason for the
employment of the word "world" in this sense is given by John Gill as follows: "It was a controversy agitated
among the Jewish doctors, whether when the Messiah came, the Gentiles, the
world, should have any benefit by him; the majority was exceeding large on the
negative of the question, and determined they should not . . . that the most
severe judgments and dreadful calamities would befall them; yea, that they
should be cast into Hell in the room of the Israelites.
This notion the Baptist, Christ, and His apostles oppose, and is the trite
reason of the use of this phrase in the Scriptures which speak of Christ's
redemption" (The Cause of God and Truth, p. 66).* "As a typical Jew,
Nicodemus thought God loved nobody but Jews, but our Lord told him that God so
loved the world (Gentile as well as Jew), that He gave His only begotten Son,
that whosoever (Gentile or Jew) believeth on Him should not
perish but have ever-
________
*Gill's fitness to speak on
this matter is cited by Cramp, as follows:
"In the diploma (from Marischal College,
Aberdeen, awarding the degree of Doctor of Divinity) special mention was made
of Dr. Gill's proficiency in sacred literature, in the Oriental languages, and
in Jewish antiquities... Dr. Gill was a profound scholar. He was familiar with the whole circle of
Jewish literature. None could compete
with him on this his own ground" (Baptist History, p. 508).
lasting life" (Cole,
Definitions of Doctrines, Vol. 1, p. 120). Note again the use of
"world" in 2 Cor. 5:19, where the "world" for whom Christ
died were potentially reconciled by His death and are not to have their
trespasses imputed to them. In other words, they must
receive the forgiveness He purchased for them.
B. 1 Tim. 2:6; Titus 2:11. The
word "all" appears in both of these passages. But this word is used
in the Scripture in a variety of senses. By no means is it always used in the
absolute. Note a few of its limited uses: (1) A great number (Matt. 3:5; 4:24; 14:35). (2) All kinds and classes (Matt. 23:47; Luke 2:10;
John 12:32; Acts 13:10; Rom. 1:29; 15:14. 2 Thess. 2:9; 1 Tim 6:10). (3) All
with manifest exceptions (Mark 11:30; Acts 2:46,47; 1 Cor. 6:18; 8:32; 9:22;
10:33; Titus 1:15). (4) All or every one of a certain class (Luke 3:21; Rom.
5:18-last part; 1 Cor. 8:2 compared with vs. 7 and 11; 15:22-last part; Col.
1:28). Thus we can easily see that the meaning of "pas" must be determined according to the context and according to
the teaching of Scripture in general. Therefore, in view of what has been said
about the unscriptural implications of the idea that Christ died for all men
without exception, we affirm that "pas" in the foregoing passages is
used in the second sense listed above, and that the meaning is men of
"every nation and of all tribes and peoples and
tongues," a cross section of which we find depicted in Rev. 7:9. The
"all" for which Christ died is exactly coterminous with the
"all" He draws to Him (John 12:31).* It is all without distinction
rather than all without exception.
________
*J. R. Graves, though teaching
that the death of Christ "removed all legal and governmental
obstruction" from the way of the salvation of all men, says:
"'Who gave himself a
ransom for all, to be testified in due time' (1 Tim. 2:6), should be interpreted by Christ's own words: 'Even the Son of man
came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom
for many.' (Matt. 20:28). And when Christ said, 'If I be lifted up, I will draw
all men unto me' (John 12:32), He certainly did not mean every sinner of Adam's
race; for it would be notoriously untrue; but He meant all conditions and races
of men, and, savingly, only all men given Him by the
Father" (The Seven Dispensations, P. 102).
________
"It is observed that
Christ is said, in ver. 6 (of 1 Tim. 2), to give Himself a ransom for all,
which is understood of all men in particular; but it should be observed also, that this ransom is 'antilutron huper panton,' a vicarious
ransom substituted in the room and stead of all whereby a full price was paid
for all, and a plenary satisfaction made for the sins of all which cannot be
true of every individual man for then no man could be justly condemned and
punished . . . It is better by 'all men' to understand some of all sorts . .
." (John Gill, Cause of God and Truth, p. 51).
C. Heb. 2:9. There is no word
here for "man" in the Greek. The expression is simply "all"
or "every one." Greek: "pas." And the context supplies the
explanation as to those included in this passage, viz., every son that He
brings to glory. Thus "all" is here used in the fourth sense listed
above, that is, all or every one of a certain class.
D. 1 Tim. 4:10. The mere
provision of salvation for all men does not make God their Saviour any more
than it saves them. This does not satisfy the meaning of savior if it is
applied to the salvation of the soul. The Greek is "soter," and this
word means "deliverer" and "preserver," as well as savior.
We are persuaded that this is its meaning here. God
delivers all men (so long as it pleases Him to do so) from dangers both seen
and unseen and preserves their lives. It is thus that He displays "the
riches of his goodness and forebearance and longsuffering" which should
lead men to repentance (Rom. 2:4). What God does for all men in general He does
in a special manner for believers.
E. 2 Pet. 2:1. The word in
this passage for lord is not "kurios," which is used either of God or
Christ; but it is "despotes," which is never used of Christ. Hence
the reference here is to God. Peter wrote especially to Jews. Doubtless, the
false teachers were Jews also. And Deut 82:6 explains how the Lord had bought
them. God is here said to have bought the whole Jewish
nation because He delivered them from Egypt.
F. 11 Pet. 3:9. This passage
does not mention the atonement, redemption, reconciliation or any such thing;
but because it says that God is "not willing that any should perish, but
that all should come to repentance," it is very naturally used by the advocates of a general atonement. But this passage
itself shows that the any and the all
are not the whole race of men. It is not an act of longsuffering mercy toward
the non-elect for God to withhold the return of Christ. Each day the non-elect
are adding to their eternal suffering by further despising the gospel (if they
have had it preached to them) and by adding to their store of sins. Moreover
every day the number of accountable sinners in the world
is increasing. Thus the withholding of Christ's return is but increasing the
final population of Hell. "All" is explained by the word
"usward." It is "all" the elect. God is waiting until, in
His sovereign providence and by His Spirit, they are brought to repentance and
faith.