Particular Atonement and the Defeat of Sin

"To take away sin being the end of redemption, to make the work sure, Christ Himself was made sin, imputatively, not inherently. All the sins of those for whom He died met on Him. He and they were so incorporated, as not to be separated by death. Sin could not die, unless Christ died; Christ could not die without being made sin. Nor could He die, but sin must die with Him. Whole Christ, both head and members universally, were all crucified together, and they all rose together, all excepting sin, and that be left in His grave. And let us remember it is there." -Elisha Coles, "A Practical Discourse of God's Sovereignty" (punctuation and grammar modernized) 

The Father Certifies the Son's Atoning Work

"Between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. And He went and took the scroll from the right hand of Him who was seated on the throne. And when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song, saying, 'Worthy are You to take the scroll and to open its seals, for You were slain, and by Your blood You ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and You have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on earth'" (Revelation 5:6-10). 

The passage above is one of the most beautiful in the New Testament. It parallels a similar scene in Daniel 7:9-14. I think that both passages describe the same event, Daniel prophetically in advance and John by vision after the event: the entry of Jesus into the heavenly throne room after His ascension. He receives His commission from the hand of the Father, a diploma, if you will. The Father acknowledges the Son's successful completion of the work of redemption, and rewards Him with the glory of a church, consisting of men from every culture, just as the Father had promised Him in Psalm 2:6-8: "As for Me, I have set My King on Zion, My holy hill. I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to Me, 'You are My Son; today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will make the nations Your heritage, and the ends of the earth Your possession.'" Compare this promise to the declaration of Jesus in the Great Commission: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:18-20).

While there are many things that we can take out of this series of verses, my intent now is to turn from Who achieved it, to for whom He achieved it. 

Look again at Revelation 5, especially verse 9: "by Your blood You ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation." The common view of the redemptive work of Jesus is that He performed it for every person in the world throughout history. That is the view of Arminianism. That is, the Arminian reads John's words as, "by Your blood You ransomed all people for God." However, that isn't what the verse says. It says, "people from every tribe, etc." The difference is the assumption of a universal atonement in the Arminian version, but a particularization to certain men in John's actual words. 

This passage teaches the doctrine of particular atonement, also sometimes called definite or limited atonement, usually associated with the Calvinist system of doctrine. It does not permit the universal atonement advocated by the Arminian system.

Jesus on the Cross Knew His Sheep

"God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: 'The Lord knows those who are His,' and, 'Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity'" (II Timothy 2:19).

The Apostle Paul makes the statement above to his pastoral apprentice Timothy. He seems to be quoting something, but we don't know the origin of the quote. However, we can certainly find equivalent statements of Paul's statement, "The Lord knows those who are His." In fact, Jesus Himself made the same point: "I am the good shepherd. I know My own and My own know Me" (John 10:14). Jesus also declared that He knew who is not His sheep: "You [Jewish leaders] do not believe because you are not among My sheep" (John 10:26). 

Jesus also understood the significance of being one of His sheep:"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand" (John 10:27-29). The sheep of Jesus are those that He would later redeem on the cross, a redemption which would be effectual and irreversible (compare John 6:37-39). 

The image I like is another one used in Scripture, Jesus as the bridegroom, and the church, i. e., all of His sheep together, as the bride. In that patriarchal society, fathers chose the spouses for their children. Arranged marriages were the norm. As His Father, God the Father had chosen a bride for His Son, and Jesus, as the dutiful Son, could neither reject that bride for another nor fail to bring His marriage to fulfillment. Yet, the Arminian wants us to believe that Jesus did not know His bride. In fact, the Arminian would have us believe that there was no guarantee that there would be a bride. Rather, the Groom was to be blindfolded, to share His favors with any stranger. He was to give His divine love to even the prostitute (Proverbs 5:1-20). 

But no, Paul tells us. the Lord knows those who are His. he knows His bride, and that she is no seductress.

Jesus, His bride, and Particular Atonement

 In the story of the sheep and goats, Jesus told of the division of the redeemed, whom He calls the sheep, from the wicked, whom He calls the goats. In the judgment, the king, i. e., Jesus, says to the redeemed, "Come, you who are blessed by My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" (Matthew 25:34, emphasis added). This verse has great significance in the issue of the intention of the atonement. 

So, what is prepared? The kingdom, i. e., of God. For whom is it prepared? For the sheep, i. e., the redeemed. And when was it prepared? Before the foundation of the world. Each of these assertions by Jesus refutes the claims of the Arminian. The Arminian claims that predestination applies to the consequences of belief. That is, he says that God has predestined sanctification and glorification for whoever believes. No, Jesus says, He has predestined the very kingdom itself, which includes those things, as well as the faith by which they are applied. Every benefit purchased by Jesus on the cross has been prepared for those for whom He died. For whom? Jesus did not go to the cross not knowing for whom He would die. It was to be His sheep, not the goats (see also John 10:3-4, 26-27, and 17:2-3, 6). And when was that determination made? Before the foundation of the world. God did not wait upon the decisions of men to determine what Jesus would do on Calvary and for whom, and with what results.

This is no isolated teaching of Jesus. Paul tells us the same truths in Ephesians 1:3-13. What was predestined? "Every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" (verse 3). Predestined when? "Before the foundation of the world" (verse 4). Paul spoke in exactly the same words as Jesus! For whom? "For us" (verses 3, 4, 5), and "we" (verse 4). Who is "we"? The saints who are in Ephesus" (verse 1). Paul was not writing to people in general; rather, he was writing specifically and explicitly to Christians. The Arminian must ignore the grammar of the passage in order to make these verses apply to any hypothetical person without exception.

We can see here only that the atonement of Jesus was particular, that is, intended for particular people, the Church (Ephesians 5:25). The Arminian would have us believe that Jesus must wait until the Judgment to see who was saved by His blood, if anyone. No, Jesus knew His bride when He ascended to the cross, because the Father had told Him her name before the foundation of the world. Jesus then spent the next millennia, from the creation to the crucifixion, loving her in His heart, and longing for the day to arrive when He would purchase her redemption. No man could do that for a stranger, some hypothetical women whom he is yet to meet. But that is the marriage plan of the Arminian. No, Jesus loved her before she even existed. And as a Jewish father of the First Century would, God the Father had arranged His Son's marriage and prepared His bride for her wedding day.

Hebrews on the Atonement

A question over which I often quarrel with both cultists and fellow Christians is, For whom did Jesus die? And it is an important question. If, as the Arminian says, Jesus died for everyone, even for those in Hell, then there is something more than His blood necessary for salvation. The blood of Jesus is insufficient. If, on the other hand, Jesus died effectually for a certain number, then He is sufficient, i. e., He has provided everything necessary for my salvation, and I have a secure basis for my assurance of salvation.

I want to consider here a verse not usually mentioned in atonement debates, Hebrews 2:16: "Surely it is not angels that He helps, but He helps the offspring of Abraham." The author of the epistle presents us here with two classes of sentient beings, angels and those humans who are the seed of Abraham. This is not meant to imply that there are no other classes of sentient beings, namely men who are not the seed of Abraham. Rather, it merely means that those other classes are not under consideration here.

OK, so we have the writer's assertion that angels were not the objects of the atonement of the cross. We can understand that. In contrast, the objects of the atonement are those men who are the seed, or offspring, of Abraham. Standing alone, that phrase is not very meaningful to the modern man. However, we have not been left unable to determine its meaning: "Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham" (Galatians 3:7). So then, it is men of true faith whom Scripture called the offspring of Abraham. Why? Because of the example of justification by faith alone that he provided.

So, returning to Hebrews, we can substitute the definition for the phrase in the original verse: "Surely it is not angels that He helps, but He helps those justified by faith like Abraham." And that sentence cannot be taken to mean what the Arminian means by atonement. It is a specific group for whom Jesus shed His blood effectually, even as He promised (John 6:39). Not a drop is lost in failure.

Because of Particular Atonement, No Charge Can be Laid Against the Elect

"Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us."
- Romans 8:33-34

The Christian should find great comfort in these verses. There is no one who can maintain a charge against God's elect. Why? Because he has been justified, and Christ Jesus intercedes for him before the throne of the Father. However, it is bad news for the reprobate, because there is no theanthropic Mediator in heaven for him.

These two verses provide a simple description of the doctrine of particular atonement. The believer has a mediator, while the unbeliever does not. The believer can take encouragement from the mediation of Jesus, but the unbeliever cannot.

"This purpose proceeding from everlasting love towards the elect, has from the beginning of the world to this day been powerfully accomplished, and will henceforward still continue to be accomplished, notwithstanding all the ineffectual opposition of the gates of hell, so that the elect in due time may be gathered together into one, and that there never may be wanting a church composed of believers, the foundation of which is laid in the blood of Christ, which may steadfastly love, and faithfully serve Him as their Savior, who as a bridegroom for His bride, laid down His life for them upon the cross, and which may celebrate His praises here and through all eternity" (Canons of Dordt, Head  II, Article 9).

The Limited Atonement of Arminianism

Arminians often accuse Calvinists of denying the atonement to some people by our biblical claim that it was particular. That is, we Calvinists follow the words of Jesus that He would die for those whom  the Father had given Him, His friends, His sheep (John 6:37-39, etc.), or, in the words of Paul, for His Church (Ephesians 5:25). Yes, we believe that the Groom had the right and responsibility to love His Bride, not strange women (Proverbs 5:15).

However, in denying that biblical truth, the Arminian replaces it with an assertion that the atonement was universal, but only partial. That is, Jesus didn't necessarily die to save anyone. Rather, He died merely to make salvation possible.

So, for what purpose did Jesus die: "She will bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21). Or, "He himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By His wounds you have been healed. For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls" (I Peter 2:24-25, cp. Isaiah 52:13-53:12). There are two things evident in these verses. First, that the blood of Jesus was intended to cleanse its objects from sins. And notice the pronouns that Peter uses, "our," "you," and "your." Those are particular pronouns, referring his comment to the audience of his epistle. Who was that? "To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with His blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to His great mercy, He has caused us to be born again" (I Peter 1:1-3). Peter was speaking to Christians, not to non-Christians. And second, notice that there is no conditionality in these verses. There is no hemming and hawing about what men must do to make the atonement effectual. In fact, the Apostle even says that it is God who causes us to be born again.

However, the Arminian reads those same verses and blanks out the parts that refute him

So, I will ask these questions of the Arminian. Jesus tells us of men who will "die in their sins" (John 8:21). Then He mentions those whose "sin remains" (John 9:41). If Jesus died for the sins of all men, then why do these men still have sin when they die? Then the Arminian is forced to answer, "because they don't respond in faith." Ah, there it is: the Arminian limited atonement! Jesus died somewhat for all men, but that atonement is insufficient, until the man adds his assent.

So, when the Arminian thinks that he is morally superior because the Calvinist says that Jesus fully and effectually redeemed particular people, he is really suppressing his tacit claim that the atonement of his version of Jesus is so limited that it cannot save anyone without a little help from sinful men.

I deny that the Arminian doctrine is moral at all, much less more so that is the doctrine of Calvinism.

Jesus and His Friends, a View of Particular Atonement

In John 15:13-14, that Apostle reports to us these words of Jesus: "Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. You are My friends if you do what I command you." The Lord tells us that the highest love is to die for one's friends, a description of what yet lay ahead of Him when He spoke those words. Was He contradicting what we are told elsewhere in Scripture? For example, in Romans 5:8, the Apostle Paul tells us, "God shows His love for us in that, while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." No, there is no contradiction. Paul tells us what we were before the application of Christ's atonement, while Jesus describes what we became after that application. We were enemies, but His blood turned us into friends. 

But the part I want to discuss is what Jesus says, that He would soon die on the cross, not for men in general, but for those who would thereby be turned into His friends. That is, those who remain His enemies do so because He did not die for them. 

To my mind, this is one of the biggest differences between Calvinism and Arminianism. Calvinism teaches - because Jesus taught - that the blood of Jesus is effectual. As He Himself also says, every man whom the Father gave Him to be redeemed would unfailingly be converted (John 6:39). In contrast, Arminianism claims that Jesus died equally for all men in general, so that salvation would be possible for everyone, but certain for no one. If that were so, then it would have been hypothetically possible for not a single person ever to have been saved. And even worse, it also means that the Arminian believes that Jesus died just as much for every person in Hell as He did for every person in Heaven. 

To my mind, that is a grotesque view of the atonement.

And I think these words of Jesus indicate that He never imagined such a thing either, but looked forward to all of the friends that He was gaining for each moment that He suffered on the cross, just as the Father promised Him in prehistory: "Out of the anguish of His soul He shall see and be satisfied; by His knowledge shall the righteous one, My servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and He shall bear their iniquities" (Isaiah 53:11).

Calvinism and the Gift of Faith

One of the fundamental differences between Arminianism and Calvinism is their view of faith. In Arminianism, Jesus died equally for every man in the world, making the offer of salvation, receipt of which is conditioned on a response of faith. In Calvinism, in contrast, Jesus died for a particular mass of men, exclusive of others, and His death provided for every grace required by those men, including the faith to receive that salvation.

So, to the one, faith is a condition on man's part, while, for the other, faith is a means purchased in the atonement, and given by God.

There are several places in Scripture in which faith is descried as given by God, such as Romans 12:3: "By the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned." And in Ephesians 2:8: "By grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God." And negatively in II Thessalonians 3:2: "Not all have faith." It is given to some, and not to others.

But the one that I especially want to consider here is Philippians 1:29: "It has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in Him but also suffer for His sake." Faith is granted, not something created by men. That is why Jesus could say, "No one can come to Me unless it is granted him by the Father" (John 6:65). Contrary to the claims of the Arminian, no man grants his faith to Jesus. Rather, faith is granted to everyone for whom Jesus died.

For Whom Does Jesus Pray? Particular Atonement in the Words of Jesus

"When Jesus had spoken these words, He lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said, 'Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son that the Son may glorify You, since You have given Him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom You have given Him. And this is eternal life, that they know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. I glorified You on earth, having accomplished the work that You gave Me to do. And now, Father, glorify Me in Your own presence with the glory that I had with You before the world existed" (John 17:1-5).

I deal often with people who claim that Jesus loves every person in the world equally, and that He has done everything He can to save everyone, but He leaves it to our free will to reject Him. Those claims are humanistic nonsense and refuted by the words of Jesus Himself. 

We have here Jesus, speaking to His Father. About what? "The work that you gave Me to do." What was that work? "To give eternal life." To whom? "All whom You have given Me" (compare His words in John 6:37-39). So we see His own view of the work He came to do and for whom He was to do it. 

But He continues. 

"I have manifested Your name to the people whom You gave Me out of the world. Yours they were, and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. Now they know that everything that You have given Me is from You. For I have given them the words that You gave Me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from You; and they have believed that You sent Me. I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. All Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them. And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, which You have given Me, that they may be one, even as We are one. While I was with them, I kept them in Your name, which You have given Me. I have guarded them" (John 17:6-12a). He continues to refer to those whom the Father had given Him. Here he adds that that group of people already belonged to the Father, who then gave them to the Son to be redeemed. When did this occur? We know from other Scriptures, especially Ephesians 1:4, that this was before the foundation of the world. that is, in prehistory. And these same men He keeps secure, as the Father also does (compare John 10:28-29).

So, we have the words of Jesus Himself that He was not concerned about every person in the world. Rather, He was concerned about a particular group of people, those who had belonged to the Father, and whom the Father had given to Him to be redeemed. That group is not of the world, for whom Jesus did not pray. Therefore, we see the words of Jesus, rejecting the common assertions of the modern evangelical. He never loved all men in the world. He did not die for every man in the world. Furthermore, He explicitly states that His death would be effectual : "They have believed" (see also John 6:37). Therefore, not only has He done everything that He can, as the evangelical asserts, but He has done everything necessary for the salvation of those for whom it was intended.

Are His words limited to the Apostles, who were with Him at that time? "I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word" (verse 20). No, He prays for all Christians down through history, even to the time of His return.

My point here is to rescue the Gospel from the syrupy, man-centered drivel into which it has been perverted by modern American evangelicalism. It is a glorious thing, lifting up the mercy and love of Jesus, while casting down the pride and self-righteousness of men!

Particular Atonement Required by Reason

I think that the only doctrine in Scripture hated more than eternal conscience torment in Hell is particular atonement (also called definite atonement, or limited atonement), the belief that Jesus died for a particular group of people, for whom He fully achieved salvation. While this doctrine is often described as Pauline, it is also found in the direct teachings of Jesus. I don't see any way to avoid it in Scripture.

John Owen on Definite and Particular Atonement

One of my primary objections to Arminianism is what it makes of the atoning death of Jesus. He didn't die for anyone in particular, the Arminian claims, but rather for everyone in general, equally for the saint in heaven or the damned in Hell. In fact, according to the Arminian scheme, it was possible that no one would ever have been saved by the blood of Jesus.

I consider that to border on blasphemy. To claim that there was even a possibility in the purposes of God that He would have allowed the blood of His Son to fall ineffectual to the ground, is an aspersion on my God that deserves no consideration.

In describing the Arminian view, the Puritan divine John Owen said (Preface to The Death of Death in the Death of Christ): "It seems our blessed Redeemer's deep humiliation, in bearing the chastisement of our peace and the punishment of our transgressions, being made a curse and sin, deserted under wrath and the power of death - procuring redemption and the remission of sins through the effusion of His blood, offering Himself up a sacrifice to God to make reconciliation and purchase an atonement; His pursuing this undertaking with continued intercession in the holiest of holies, with all the benefits of His mediatorship - do no way procure either life and salvation or remission of sins; but only serve to declare that we are not, indeed, what His word affirms we are, viz., cursed, guilty, defiled, and only not actually cast into Hell."

I am so glad that Jesus told us otherwise: "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and whoever comes to Me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will but the will of Him who sent Me. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I should lose nothing of all that He has given Me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in Him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day" (John 6:37-40). Jesus refers back to the intra-Trinitarian covenant in prehistory, in which the Father gave Him a people, a particular people, to be redeemed. And that covenant was effectual, providing us with the confidence that the blood of Jesus cannot fail to save everyone for whom He shed it. 

This doctrine, unlike that of the Arminian, shows us that it is impossible that even one drop of the blood of Jesus could fall to the ground in failure.

Where Did the Righteous Go Upon Death Before Jesus?

This is an issue that has come up in several conversations recently. People keep asserting that they, i. e., Old Testament saints, went to someplace called "Abraham's Bosom," a phrase that occurs nowhere in the Old Testament, and only once in the New. You may recall that Jesus tells the story (Luke 16:19-31) of Lazarus and the Rich Man (traditionally nicknamed "Dives"). Dives went to Hell, but Lazarus went to Abraham's Bosom. The burden of proof is on those who want to claim that it is not an epithet for Heaven. So far, I have been given lots of insistence, but zero evidence.

Behind this evangelical version of Limbo is an assumption that the atonement in Jesus's blood could not have applied before it occurred in history. Why not? Don't we do anything analogous? When I sit down to eat at a restaurant, I receive my meal in expectation of the money I will pay for it after I eat it. A person gets to move into an apartment in the expectation of the rent he will pay later, not that he has already paid! That is the significance of the Revelation 13:8: "All who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain." The elect are written in the book of life in anticipation of the blood that will be shed for our redemption.

There is the answer to the question of the spiritual status of the godly down through history before the physical appearing of Jesus in Bethlehem. We were chosen, with the expectation of the blood atonement that would be applied at a later historical point (John 6:39). Therefore, the Old Testament saints were saved in no way different from us in the New Testament era (Acts 15:11). Why, then, should those saints require a different spiritual home from that which we will enjoy? There is no reason for such an assertion.

We also have more-explicit information on the subject. Most people know the story of Elijah, who was transported away without ever undergoing physical death. Where did he go? The text tells us: "As they [i. e., Elijah and Elisha] still went on and talked, behold, chariots of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven."

There is no Limbo. There is no Limbo-substitute called "Abraham's Bosom." There are, and have only ever been, Heaven and Hell.

Thank God for Unconditional Election!

You will commonly hear someone claim that God has given us "free will," whatever that means, and will not, therefore, make anyone love Him. What you will never hear is any Scripture cited to maintain that series of propositions, because they are the premises of humanism, not biblical Christianity.

Instead, we see the Bible make assertions such as this one (Psalm 119:49): "Remember Your word to Your servant, in which You have made me hope." "Made me hope" certainly sounds like plain speech for overcoming the author's "free will." And furthermore, it is an expression of thankfulness for that act.

Why might that be?

Someone who knows God and the Scriptures knows that "the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick" (Jeremiah 17:9). The significance of that is that "none is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God" (Romans 3:10-11). Here is the problem with the humanistic concept of free will. "Free" doesn't mean "able to do anything possible." Rather, it means "free to act according to its nature." Since the heart is naturally wicked, it is free to commit wickedness. Since spiritual good is contrary to its nature, the unregenerate heart can no more freely choose to do it than it can freely choose to fly. 

That is what makes the Psalmist glad of God's sovereign grace. While God could have left him in unbelief, with the spiritual consequences thereof (John 3:18), He chose, instead, to change the hearts of His people. He chose to change our wicked hearts into hearts capable of good (Deuteronomy 30:6, Ezekiel 36:26-27). Then He bends our will to obedience and good works (Philippians 2:13).

The argument between Calvinists and Arminians over free will is not really over whether anyone can or cannot be saved by free will. Really, considering what the Bible says about the heart, the debate is between the Calvinistic view that salvation is certain for the elect, and the Arminian view which logically requires that salvation is impossible for anyone!

Jesus on the Doctrines of Grace

When discussing the so-called Five Points of Calvinism, people tend to focus on the writings of Paul. that is hardly surprising, since he develops those doctrines much more than any other biblical author. however, he does not have exclusive claim on them.

Sometimes we forget that Jesus Himself taught about the doctrines of grace.

"'What must we do, to be doing the works of God?' Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.' So they said to Him, 'Then what sign do You do, that we may see and believe You? What work do you perform? Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, "He gave them bread from heaven to eat."' Jesus then said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.' They said to Him, 'Sir, give us this bread always.'"
- John 6:28-34

Here we see effectual calling, an aspect of irresistible grace. It is not the will of men to believe. Rather, it is something that God causes us to do. That's why Paul says, "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" (Romans 9:16).

"Jesus said to them, 'I am the bread of life; whoever comes to Me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in Me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to Me, and whoever comes to Me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will but the will of Him who sent Me. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I should lose nothing of all that He has given Me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in Him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.'

- John 6:35-40

This section shows particular atonement ("all that the Father gives me"), irresistible grace ("will come to Me"), and perseverance of the saints ("I will lose nothing").

"So the Jews grumbled about Him, because He said, 'I am the bread that came down from heaven.' They said, 'Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, "I have come down from heaven"?' Jesus answered them, 'Do not grumble among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.'"
- John 6:41-44

And here we see reprobation ("no one can come to Me unless the Father draws Him").

Thus, in this one passage, John 6:31-44, Jesus teaches irresistible grace, particular atonement, perseverance of the saints, and reprobation (though not one of the big five). And his assertion that the saved will be those whom the Father has given Him is a description of unconditional election. Twice! The only one not here is total depravity.

I cannot see any alternative to the probability that the failure to see the doctrines associated with Calvinism is no accident, but rather deliberate blindness, which Jesus also talks about: "Seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand" (Matthew 13:13).

Jesus Christ, Savior of the World!

"We have our hope set on the Living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially those who

believe."
- I Timothy 4:10

I come to this verse today because it is one of those trump verses claimed by Arminians. By "trump verse," I mean, not anything to do with Donald Trump, but as in cards, where a trump beats any other card played in the game. This is a trump verse because Arminians believe that citing it overcomes anything in Scripture that a Calvinist can cite regarding the particularity of the atonement.

If you have followed this blog (or by clicking on the "limited atonement" tag at the bottom of this post), then you know that I hold, along with my fellow orthodox Calvinists, that Jesus died effectually for the church, the elect of all ages (see, e. g., Eph. 5:25, Rev. 13:8). I emphatically deny that there will be or can be anyone in Hell for whom Christ died (by which I do not endorse universal salvation).

In contrast, Arminians hold to a universal intent for the atonement, i. e., that Jesus died on the cross for every human being equally. However, they deny that the atonement is necessarily effectual for anyone. In other words, they hold that it was hypothetically possible that not a single person would ever have been redeemed by the death of Christ. In addition, everyone in Hell was also equally included in the intention of the atonement. How can that be understood in any way other than as an assertion that the atonement, at least in the case of some, was insufficient and failed? Or that salvation is by Jesus plus something else? That is a denial of the Reformation principle of solus christus. Such a concept is repugnant to me.

The verse above is often cited in support of the Arminian view, because Paul describes Jesus as "the Savior of all people." However, I deny that it means "of all people in the same sense." To interpret it that way is an unwarranted and unbiblical leap of logic.

I have discussed this before, though not regarding this particular verse. Jesus is not here said to save all people, but rather to be the Savior of all people. That is, Jesus is the only savior to whom men can look to save us from sin and death. In other words, Paul is asserting nothing more than Peter did in Acts 4:12: "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under given among men by which we must be saved." Or as the Prophet said in Isaiah 45:22: "Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other." Jesus alone holds the office of Savior, whether one is in China, the United States, or anywhere else on the earth, or in any period of time!

When the application of the atonement is described in Scripture, it is by the verb "to save." For example, Matthew 1:21: "You shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins." Notice that Matthew doesn't say "might save" or "will offer salvation." That's because His atonement is effectual; it actually saves everyone for whom it was made. As I said above, there is not and never can be anyone in Hell for whom Christ died. That's why we have the last portion of Paul's assertion in the verse above: "especially those who believe." Why "especially"? Because for us, and for us alone, He holds, not just the office of Savior, but is the One who saves us!

Does God Love Everyone? If You are a Covenant-Breaker, You Need to Know!

"Every evil of theirs is in Gilgal; there I began to hate them. Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of My house. I will love them no more; all their princes are rebels."
- Hosea 9:15

If you haven't read the Book of Hosea, what you need to know is that he prophesied in the Northern Kingdom, shortly before the conquest by Assyria, and the final exile of her people. This was their final judgment for apostasy, an apostasy which included both the perversion of biblical worship and the erection of pagan idols. Gilgal, mentioned in the verse here, was one of the centers for pagan worship. 

These ancient Israelites reflected a common pagan worldview, according to which deities come by the dozens, and there is no particular exclusivity in their worship. Missionaries have long run into this problem in India, where Hindus were happy to add Jesus to their god-shelves, but could not accept a devotion to Christ alone. However, Jehovah, the first God on the Israelite god-shelf, doesn't share that worldview, which is why He made the First Commandment (Ex. 20:3): "You shall have no other gods before me." He tells His covenant people, members of the visible church, that they had better not let Him see them serving other gods, whether literally or figuratively. And He sees everything! See Job 34:21.

What the Israelites refused to acknowledge, though it was told to them in their scriptures, is that God exercises exclusive claims (Isaiah 42:8, 48:11). When they, nevertheless, chose to spread their loyalties, not to Jehovah alone, but also to every carved deity that their pagan neighbors could name, He took action, exactly because He is a jealous, though spiritual, spouse.

Early in their history, God had led Moses to write (Ex.34:14), "You shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God." Jealousy is so much one of God's attributes that He even uses it as an epithet, a nickname! A little later, Moses wrote (Deut. 4:2, and quoted in Hebrews 12:29), "The LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God." And again (Deut. 6:15), "The LORD your God, who lives among you, is a jealous God. His anger will flare up against you, and He will wipe you from the face of the earth." And in the prophets (Nahum 1:2), "The LORD is a jealous and avenging God; the LORD is avenging and wrathful; the LORD takes vengeance on His adversaries and keeps wrath for His enemies."

Yet, the Israelites ignored His warnings and followed both a false version of biblical religion and the false pagan religions of their neighbors. And what does God say is His reaction, in the verse quoted at the top? Negatively, He says, "I will love them no more." And positively, He asserts, "I began to hate them." 

So, the answers to my questions in the title should be clear. Does God love everyone? No, He doesn't. Does God hate anyone? Yes, He does. And the last question to consider is one that I cannot answer: in which group are you?

The Promise of a Church in the Intra-Trinitarian Covenant

We are taught to pray by claiming the promises of God - and I consider that a good thing. In fact, I believe that is what is meant by John, when he tells us to pray according to God's will (I John 5:14). One of the things that amazes me about this is that Jesus followed the same principle.

In two places in Isaiah, the Father promises a people, a posterity, to the pre-incarnate Son. In Isaiah 42:6, He says, "I am the Lord; I have called you in righteousness; I will take You by the hand and keep You; I will give You as a covenant for the people, a light for the nations." The promise is even grander in Isaiah 49:6: "It is too light a thing that You should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the preserved of Israel; I will make You as a light for the nations, that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth." The first could refer just to the Jews, but the second expands the promise to the Gentiles, as well, to give a fuller glory to the Son.

The Son responds in Isaiah 8:18, "Behold, I and the children whom the LORD has given me are signs and portents in Israel from the LORD of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion." And again in Psalm 22:22: "I will tell of your name to my brothers." As the Father glorifies the Son with a posterity, so does the Son glorify the Father to that posterity. These last two verses are explicitly applied to the Son in Hebrews 2:12-13.

In the New Testament, we see Jesus claiming these promises of the Father in the Gospel of John. He refers to "those You have given me" in John 10:29: "My Father has given them to Me" [i. e., His "sheep"]. He makes similar remarks several times in John 17:4, 6, 9, 11-12, and 24. 

These verses describe what I have called the Intra-Trinitarian covenant. It is also called the covenant of redemption. There is more to that covenant than I describe here; I am merely describing one aspect of it. It is the basis of our salvation. The Father elected a church from all eternity, and gave it to the Son for redemption. I don't describe it here, but the Holy Spirit is also involved, undertaking to apply the redemption to the elect. This covenant, however, as much as we benefit from it, is not about us. it is about the glory that each Person of the Trinity gives to the others. I compare it to life insurance. Since it only pays upon the death of the party insured, he receives no benefit from it; rather, the benefits go to the beneficiaries, who are third parties to the contract. In the same way, the elect are the beneficiaries of the intra-Trinitarian covenant: we were not consulted, nor is it for our glory, but from it we receive redemption from our sins.

This covenant goes against two false doctrines. The first is that the love of God and the atonement of the cross are intended for everybody, but not necessarily effectual to anyone. The second is far more heinous, i. e., the doctrine of the Oneness pentecostals, who deny the Trinity, deny the person of the Father and the Holy Spirit. All three Persons of the Trinity are, and have always been, involved in our salvation. Without the Trinity, therefore, there can be no one saved.

This doctrine is described in the Westminster Confession of Faith (VIII:1): "It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, His only-begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and men, the prophet, priest, and king; the head and Savior of the Church, the heir or all things, and judge of the world; unto whom He did, from all eternity, give a people to be His seed, and to be by Him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified."

The Doctrines of Grace in the Ninth Chapter of Romans

The doctrines of grace, commonly referred to according to the acronym TULIP (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints), are found all over Scripture, but there are certain passages which especially describe them in one place. One, of course, is the first chapter of Ephesians. Another is the one I consider here, the ninth chapter of Romans.

Let's begin with verse 6: "They are not all Israel who are descended from Israel." This is the theme that Paul develops in the rest of the chapter. As Paul continues in verse 7, "nor are they all children because they are descendants of Abraham, but 'in Isaac shall your descendants be called.'" He explains that statement in verse 8: "So, those who are the children of the flesh are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as descendants." Paul goes on to demonstrate this from the comparison of Jacob and Esau, the twin sons of Isaac. But I would also add what Genesis says about Ishmael. In Genesis 17:18-19, Abraham prays to God, "Oh that Ishmael might live before You!" Yet, God replies, "No." Not "maybe," not "let's hope so." Rather, His answer is a straightforward and unconditional refusal. That is a demonstration of reprobation, which is the flip side of election. Just as God chose some for salvation, He also chose others for condemnation. More of that to come.

Paul reminds us of Isaac's twin sons, Jacob and Esau (v. 10). Then he begins their story (verses 11-13): "though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of Him who calls— she was told, 'The older will serve the younger.' As it is written, 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.'" Before the twins were even born or had committed any personal sins, God had decreed in His sovereignty that Jacob would be preferred over Esau, the second-born over the firstborn, contrary to the custom, because He had already declared, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated" (quoted from Malachi 1:2-3). God explicitly states that His purpose was to demonstrate His sovereign election, to exclude any merit in either child (or, by extension, in any of us).

Among Americans, the nearly-universal reaction to that is, "But that's not fair!" The same response is made by a hypothetical audience in verse 14. In response, Paul quotes (v. 15, from Ex.33:19): "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion!" Note that He makes no effort to explain that it is fair. Rather, He claims that we are in rebellion even to ask the question! Verse 20, "Who are you, O man, to answer back to God?" As Creator, He rules over His creations! Verse 21, "Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" Here He addresses the two doctrines of unconditional election and reprobation together. They are actions consistent with His place as sovereign creator and sustainer of all things. He doesn't answer our concerns about fairness because those concerns are illegitimate expressions of rebellion!

He endures these "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" (v. 22) "in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory." He uses the one, the objects of His wrath, to provide a contrast to the objects of His mercy, that He may reveal Himself, both in His justice and His mercy. The doctrines of grace are all about Him, not us.

As a Gentile, I am especially blessed by God's sovereign grace, for those He has prepared for glory include "even us whom He has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles" (v. 24). As He prophesied in Hosea 2:23-24, "Those who were not My people I will call 'My people,' and her who was not beloved I will call 'beloved.' And in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not My people,' there they will be called 'sons of the living God.'" My ancestors are those described by Paul in Ephesians 2:11-22, who had no hope and were without God in our world, but now are fellow citizens with the saints. If it hadn't been for the sovereign grace of God, there is no human way that the Gospel would have entered my life, that I could be born again by the Holy Spirit.

And that is true of everyone who is reading this post. Whether you are nodding your head in agreement or purple-faced with rage, you could never have known Jesus Christ as savior without the truths of the doctrines of grace. Yes, even Arminians are saved by sovereign grace! 

Jehoshaphat and the Love of the Worldly

I have written before in opposition to the idea that God loves everybody, without discrimination, from Romans 9:13 and Psalm 5:5, or that we are commanded to do so, from Psalm 139:21. It is that latter theme which has come up in my own personal Bible study.

As I am reading through II Chronicles, I have reached the story of King Jehoshaphat of Judah. In chapter 18, he formed an alliance with the wicked King Ahab of Israel. In II Chronicles 19:2, we see the reaction of God to that alliance: "Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him and said to King Jehoshaphat, 'Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord? Because of this, wrath has gone out against you from the Lord.'"

That is a judgment that should send alarms through the souls of all the latitudinarian evangelicals in America. Not only are unequal relationships tolerated, but even promoted, with some blubbery admonition to "love ever'body"! Friendships with unbelievers, business and political alliances, even marriages, in violation of such Scriptures as II Corinthians 6:14-15 and Revelation 18:4.

Holiness takes thought, discernment, not sentiment. No doubt, someone reading this, is saying, "But the Bible says not to judge!" Really? My Bible contains John 7:24: "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment." And the story of Jehoshaphat demonstrates that God takes that standard very seriously!