Mike Riccardi provides excellent insight in an article found the one that was hardest to swallow was the L in our beloved TULIP acronym: limited atonement—or perhaps better stated (though ruining the acronym): particular redemption, or definite atonement. To make a long story short, I eventually came to see that the doctrine was biblical. Both the intent and extent of the atonement was divinely ordained to infallibly secure the salvation of all those whom the Father had chosen from before the foundation of the world (John 6:39; 10:11, 14–15; Ac 20:28; Eph 5:25). Jesus’ death didn’t simply make salvation possible, and then leave the appropriation of the cross’s benefits to the sovereign will of the sinner. No, it actually purchased the salvation of God’s elect (1Pet 2:24; Rev 5:9).
Interestingly, one of my chief objections to the doctrine wasn’t so much on textual or exegetical grounds. It was that it contradicted the way I had always heard the Gospel preached in evangelism. All around me, I heard the Gospel preached as if it was merely: “Jesus died for you, so you should believe in Him.” Evangelism boiled down to telling people that Jesus died specifically for them, and that, if He loved them so much that He would die for them, the least they could do was live for Him.
That message that I heard so often never really told people why Jesus died for them—i.e., to satisfy the Father’s righteous wrath against my sin that otherwise condemned me to hell. It was always, “Jesus died for you,” rather than, “Jesus died for you.” It was as if the cross was only a demonstration of love, rather than love demonstrated by the payment of the debt my sin incurred through Christ’s substitutionary death and resurrection.
So my embrace of the doctrine of particular redemption caused me to re-evaluate whether it was right to evangelize by calling people to faith on the grounds of Christ’s death for them. My back-and-forth reasoning went something like this: “I mean, I don’t know who the elect are, and if Christ’s death atoned only for the sins of the elect, how could I call a particular person to faith on the basis that Jesus died for them? Then again, it is possible that this person I’m speaking to was chosen by the Father in eternity past, and so then it would be true that Jesus paid for their sins. Besides, there are common-grace benefits that Jesus’ death secured for the elect and non-elect alike. In that sense, it may be true to say that Jesus died for someone (common grace for the non-elect) without actually atoning for their sins (special grace for the elect).”As you can see, I was quite confused.
But eventually my continued study of the Scriptures led me to realize that the Apostles and disciples never called people to faith on the basis of the extent of the atonement. Rather, they announced Jesus’ death as the purchase of the forgiveness of sins for all who would believe, and His resurrection as the vindication of Jesus’ righteousness and proof of their message.
Some time later, I read J. I. Packer’s classic, Evangelism & the Sovereignty of God. On pages 65 to 69 (in my copy), he articulated the thoughts I couldn’t quite capture in my own words. He explained the relationship between the extent of the atonement and evangelism. I want to share that section with you, in the hopes that it will equip you to more effectively proclaim the Gospel in a way that is faithful to Scripture.
We must not present the saving work of Christ apart from His Person. Evangelistic preachers and personal workers have sometimes been known to make this mistake. In their concern to focus attention on the atoning death of Christ, as the sole sufficient ground on which sinners may be accepted with God, they have expounded the summons to saving faith in these terms: ‘Believe that Christ died for your sins.’ The effect of this exposition is to represent the saving work of Christ in the past, dissociated from His Person in the present, as the whole object of our trust. But it is not biblical thus to isolate the work from the Worker. Nowhere in the New Testament is the call to believe expressed in such terms. What the New Testament calls for is faith in (en) or into (eis) or upon (epi) Christ Himself—the placing of our trust in the living Saviour, who died for sins.
The object of saving faith is thus not, strictly speaking, the atonement, but the Lord Jesus Christ, who made atonement. We must not in presenting the gospel isolate the cross and its benefits from the Christ whose cross it was. For the persons to whom the benefits of Christ’s death belong are just those who trust His Person, and believe, not upon His saving death simply, but upon Him, the living Saviour. ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved,’ said Paul. ‘Come unto me… and I will give you rest,’ said our Lord.
This being so, one thing becomes clear straight away: namely, that the question about the extent of the atonement, which is being much agitated in some quarters, has no bearing on the content of the evangelistic message at this particular point. … I am not at present asking you whether you think it is true to say that Christ died in order to save every single human being, past, present, and future, or not. Nor am I inviting you to make up your mind on this question, if you have not done so already. All I want to say here is that even if you think the above assertion is true, your presentation of Christ in evangelism ought not to differ from that of the man who thinks it false.
What I mean is this. It is obvious that if a preacher thought that the statement, ‘Christ died for every one of you,’ made to any congregation, would be unverifiable, and probably not true, he would take care not to make it in his gospel preaching. You do not find such statements in the sermons of, for instance, George Whitefield or Charles Spurgeon. But now, my point is that, even if a man thinks that this statement would be true if he made it, it is not a thing that he ever needs to say, or ever has reason to say, when preaching the gospel. For preaching the gospel, as we have just seen, means [calling] sinners to come to Jesus Christ, the living Saviour, who, by virtue of His atoning death, is able to forgive and save all those who put their trust in Him. What has to be said about the cross when preaching the gospel is simply that Christ’s death is the ground on which Christ’s forgiveness is given. And this is all that has to be said. The question of the designed extent of the atonement does not come into the story at all.
The fact is that the New Testament never calls on any man to repent on the ground that Christ died specifically and particularly for him. The basis on which the New Testament invites sinners to put faith in Christ is simply that they need Him, and that He offers Himself to them, and that those who receive Him are promised all the benefits that His death secured for His people. What is universal and all-inclusive in the New Testament is the invitation to faith, and the promise of salvation to all who believe. […]
The gospel is not, ‘believe that Christ died for everybody’s sins, and therefore for yours,’ any more than it is, ‘believe that Christ died only for certain people’s sins, and so perhaps not for yours.’ The gospel is, ‘believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, who died for sins, and now offers you Himself as your Saviour.’ This is the message which we are to take to the world. We have no business to ask them to put faith in any view of the extent of the atonement; our job is to point them to the living Christ, and summon them to trust in Him.
J. I. Packer, Evangelism & the Sovereignty of God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1961), 65–69.
Hello John you said
“Jesus’ death didn’t simply make salvation possible, and then leave the appropriation of the cross’s benefits to the sovereign will of the sinner.” If God made salvation possible to all, but let a choice to for the sinner to received the gift or reject it, would God be any less sovereign?
Russ, You ask, “If God made salvation possible to all, but let a choice to for the sinner to received the gift or reject it, would God be any less sovereign?”
If God left it in the hands of sinners to receive or reject the gift of salvation, no one would be saved because no one would receive the gift. This is because of man’s fallen nature which is not neutral but very much hostile to God. See this short video here: http://effectualgrace.com/2011/08/31/paul-washer-divine-election-explained/
Doesn’t Prevenient Grace free the sinner up to make the choice one way or the other?
John 6:44: “No man can come unto me, unless the Father who hath sent me, draw him…”
John 12:32: “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.”
Titus 2:11: “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.”
Russ,
No it does not. It is not a scriptural concept at all.
John 6:44 – You quote half the verse, the rest of the verse teaches us that the one drawn is raised up to eternal life. It is what we call effectual grace.
John 12:32 – in context is speaking of God drawing Jews and Gentiles by means of the cross – all without distinction, not all without exception. Not all are drawn to it – it is either a stumbling block or folly to everyone except for the called. See here: http://effectualgrace.com/2010/11/26/understanding-john-1232/
Titus 2:11 – Also does not teach a prevenient grace that frees a sinner up to be able to make a choice one way or the other. That, once again, is reading into the text something that is not there.
John you said
“No it does not. It is not a scriptural concept at all.
John 6:44 – You quote half the verse, the rest of the verse teaches us that the one drawn is raised up to eternal life. It is what we call effectual grace.”
“John 12:32 – in context is speaking of God drawing Jews and Gentiles by means of the cross – all without distinction, not all without exception. Not all are drawn to it – it is either a stumbling block or folly to everyone except for the called. See here: http://effectualgrace.com/2010/11/26/understanding-john-1232/”
In reference to John 6:44 as an example of particular irresistible “drawing”, I refer to John 12:32 to demonstrate that the drawing of John 6:44 cannot be a reference to regeneration. The reason that this can’t be in reference to regeneration is that Jesus states in Jn. 12:32 that he will “draw all men” to himself. The same Greek word is used here (helkó) as in Jn. 6:44. The problem is that if Jesus was speaking of irresistible regeneration in John 6:44, then his statement in Jn. 12:32 would lead to the conclusion that Christ will irresistibly regenerate all men. This would be a plain case of universalism (the teaching that all will be saved), a teaching that both of us reject. Do you recognize this problem?
Let me also ask you; how would you define prevenient grace?
You wrote also:
“Titus 2:11 – Also does not teach a prevenient grace that frees a sinner up to be able to make a choice one way or the other. That, once again, is reading into the text something that is not there.”
Can you give me some more explanation as to how it doesn’t teach this?
Russ, In the article I referred to I explain that the contexts between John 6 and John 12 are completely different – http://effectualgrace.com/2010/11/26/understanding-john-1232/
You show no familiarity with what I wrote there in what you have written above.
Titus 2:11 is a wonderful text but says nothing about prevenient grace that brings a hostile sinner’s heart into some neutral condition allowing a person to make a choice either way. Neither this text nor any other in the Bible teaches that.
John,
I regards to the above link, you said in that post
“Even today we use the words “all” or “every” in many different ways. When a teacher in a classroom of people asks, “Are we all here?” or “is everyone listening?” we understand he is not talking about every one of the 6 billion plus folk on the planet, but all the students who have signed up for the class. Context determines the proper interpretation or meaning of words. When the word “all” is used, it is used within a context. “
I’m in agreement with you. Can you give me an example for the use of the word “all” in the English that would mean some from every tribe tongue nation?
Another question building on the last; can you show me in the Greek that a word for “all” means some from every tribe, tongue, nation? I not asking for opinion, but from a lexicon, and/or the Greek, can you demonstrate such a definition?
Next you wrote:
““So if understanding the context plays such a major role in getting the correct interpretation, exactly what was the context in John 12? Well it is a very different setting than the one we find in John 6. In John 12, Greeks were coming to Jesus and believing in Him.
John 12:20-22 – Now there were some Greeks among those who were going up to worship at the feast; these then came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida of Galilee, and began to ask him, saying, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.” Philip came and told Andrew; Andrew and Philip came and told Jesus.
Dr. James White, in his book the Potter’s Freedom (p. 163), describes the background as follows: “John 12 narrates the final events of Jesus’ public ministry. After this particular incident, the Lord will go into a period of private ministry to His disciples right before He goes to the cross. The final words of Jesus’ public teachings are prompted by the arrival of Greeks who are seeking Jesus. This important turn of events prompts the teaching that follows. Jesus is now being sought by non-Jews, Gentiles. It is when Jesus is informed of this that He says, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.” This then is the context which leads us to Jesus’ words in verse 32:
John 12:27-33 “Now My soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, ‘Father, save Me from this hour ‘? But for this purpose I came to this hour. “Father, glorify Your name.” Then a voice came out of heaven: “I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.” So the crowd of people who stood by and heard it were saying that it had thundered; others were saying, “An angel has spoken to Him.” Jesus answered and said, “This voice has not come for My sake, but for your sakes. “Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.” But He was saying this to indicate the kind of death by which He was to die.
I believe that in its context the “all men” refers to Jews and Gentiles, not to every individual person on earth. Through His work on the cross, Jesus will draw all kinds of men, all kinds of people to Himself, including those from outside of the covenant community of Israel. We must bear in mind that this would have been an extremely radical thought to the Jews who were hearing Him say these words.””
I don’t have a problem with what you said of John 12:20-22, nor with your statement that this includes the Greeks in “all men”. The part I have issue with is your conclusion that when Jesus says “all men” he means only “all without distinction” or “all kinds of people”. This is a conclusion you have read into the passage based on the necessities of your theology. There is no exegetical justification for reading “all men” as “some men” from among “all men” in this passage. To say that the presence of Greeks in vss. 20-22 necessitates that Jn. 12:32 must be understood in a restrictive sense is a huge leap in logic, and a conclusion which the un-biased reader of Scripture would likely never come to on his or her own. Here’s a breakdown of your argument:
1) Jesus says he will draw “all men” to himself (Jn. 12:32).
2) This statement is likely a response to the presence of Greeks who are requesting to see Jesus (Jn. 12:20-22).
3) Therefore, when Jesus says “all men” he means “some men” from among “all men” (Jews and Gentiles).
It doesn’t take too much thinking to see that 3) does not follow from 1) and 2).
The Arminian position could be stated as follows,
1) Jesus says he will draw “all men” to himself.
2) This statement is likely a response to the presence of Greeks who are requesting to see Jesus (Jn. 12:20-22).
3) Therefore, since Jesus will draw “all [conceivable] men” to himself, he will surely draw Greeks as well as Jews.
Russ, Your comment is an article size and I dont have time to respond in like kind. Its seems you need basic instruction as to how Greek words are used. If you look at the word ‘all” in any Greek lexicon, you will see that it has a wide semantic range and its meaning is determined by its context. It can mean “everyone on the planet” but that is very rare. It can mean “all of a certain type” or “all kinds.” I know this video is about 15 minutes in length, but I think it would be helpful for you to take a look at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aLla5rHmpO4
John you said
“Russ, Your comment is an article size and I dont have time to respond in like kind. Its seems you need basic instruction as to how Greek words are used. If you look at the word ‘all” in any Greek lexicon, you will see that it has a wide semantic range and its meaning is determined by its context. It can mean “everyone on the planet” but that is very rare. It can mean “all of a certain type” or “all kinds.”
It not a matter of a Greek Lesson here, we already established agreement here that the world all doesn’t mean all, all the time.
My issue is with you logic in your arguement
1) Jesus says he will draw “all men” to himself (Jn. 12:32).
2) This statement is likely a response to the presence of Greeks who are requesting to see Jesus (Jn. 12:20-22).
3) Therefore, when Jesus says “all men” he means “some men” from among “all men” (Jews and Gentiles).
How does your 3) flow from your 1) and 2) considering what has already been stated?
We seem to be talking past each other. The reason I pointed you to the video was to establish how the Greek word “pas” is often used.
I believe John 12:32 the verse (because of its context) means “all kinds of men” – When Jesus is lifted up on the cross He will draw all kinds of men to Himself, both Jews and Gentiles.
Clearly, not all people everywhere are drawn to the cross as 1 Cor 1 makes very clear. It is either foolishness or a stumbling block to all except the called.
You’re right we seem to be talking past each other
you said:
“I believe John 12:32 the verse (because of its context) means “all kinds of men” – When Jesus is lifted up on the cross He will draw all kinds of men to Himself, both Jews and Gentiles.”
In light of your above statement, how does it fight with your below arguement? Do you not see how its a very large leap from point 2 to point 3? russ
1) Jesus says he will draw “all men” to himself (Jn. 12:32).
2) This statement is likely a response to the presence of Greeks who are requesting to see Jesus (Jn. 12:20-22).
3) Therefore, when Jesus says “all men” he means “some men” from among “all men” (Jews and Gentiles).
Russ,
Is point number 3 an actual quote of mine?
No its a deduction of your arguement….
Russ,
Why confuse the issue then? I believe the words “all men” refer to “all kinds of men” and have shown by the context as to why this is the case. I also pointed you to a video where a similar use is found.
If you are not willing to interact with what I am actually saying I do not believe further interchange is going to be in any way fruitful here on this blog.
No confusion John.. I asked you to demonstrate your big leap in logic concerning the texts involved, and you’ve been unwilling to demonstrate it.
Russ,
I’ve made no leap whatsoever. I have shown by the context of both John 6 and John 12 why the words mean what they do and apply that definition to the biblical text. You consistently refuse to interact with the exegesis.
I would ask you to kindly refrain from further comments here now as it is obviously pointless for any further interchange.
Packer wrote: “We have no business to ask them to put faith in any view of the extent of the atonement…”
Well, maybe not right at first, but I hope he would agree that if we care about their view of God’s character and design of salvation, it’s important to get that right. I think I get his point; I would just want to clarify that good soteriology is in fact important.
I agree that it’s a great article, though. I was originally going to comment at Mike’s page, but saw that comments were closed.
I have greatly appreciated many fine things I’ve read from you, John. Thanks!