The following principles should be carefully remembered and put into practice in all of our thinking and discussion of this vital subject. First of all, the doctrine of the atonement is a subject known only by special revelation. We do not learn about this truth any place except in the Bible. We are not looking to philosophy, psychology, science, sentiment, etc., to teach us the meaning of the death of Christ. We are looking to the Scriptures alone. No human mind could dream up the doctrine of atonement by the blood of Christ. This great truth is 'foolishness' to the carnal mind.

Secondly, a right understanding and application by faith of the glorious truth of the atonement will make you see, (1) the nature and depth of the sin out of which you have been redeemed, and (2) the amazing love and power of God that accomplished your salvation. As we look at the sufferings of Christ on the cross and understand what he really accomplished on that horrible instrument of shame, we will be led to adoring worship and praise.

Thirdly, I want it clearly understood that sincere Christians disagree about the biblical meaning of the nature and purpose of the atonement. Some godly believers think Christ died and 'redeemed' all men without exception. In their view, Christ died for Judas in exactly the same way that he died for Peter. Judas did not perish because his sins were not paid for but only because he was unwilling to claim by faith the redemption Christ had provided for him and all other men. We had a special speaker in my first pastorate who declared, "The worst drunk and immoral person in the gutter tonight is just as redeemed as you and I. He need only be willing to claim his redemption and he will be saved. Whether he believes or does not, he is still redeemed by the atonement of Christ." This view is called universal or unlimited atonement.

Other Christians, and I am in this second group, believe that Christ died for the sheep (cf. John 10:11), that is, those given to him by the Father (cf. 17:2, 6, 9), in a way that he did not die for the goats. We believe that Christ died and paid Peter's debt in a way that he did not die and pay the debt of Judas. We believe that Judas, and every other lost sinner will suffer in hell for their sins. If Christ died for Judas in the same sense that he died for Peter, then Judas would also have been saved.

We keep repeating that the heart of the issue is this: Did Christ on the cross actually redeem and make certain the salvation of some sinners, or did his death merely make it possible for all men without exception to be saved if they would contribute faith with their free wills as their essential part in salvation? Is the only real and vital difference between Peter and Judas the 'willingness' of Peter and the 'unwillingness' of Judas? Is the hymn correct, or incorrect, when it says:

Dear dying Lamb, Thy precious blood

Shall never lose its power,

Till all the ransomed Church of God

Be saved to sin no more.

The hymn writer clearly saw 'being saved,' or coming to faith in Christ, as a sure and certain result of 'being redeemed,' or having Christ die in your place. He saw the power of the blood of Christ as truly a redeeming power. The blood did not make all men redeemable, but that precious blood actually made salvation sure, not for all men, but for "the ransomed Church of God." The writer of that hymn could not conceive that some of those who had been ransomed (redeemed) by the blood of Christ could ever perish because of their unwillingness to claim the redemption supposedly 'provided' for them and all others. All of the ransomed people of God will be brought to believe and saved.

Fourthly, let's be absolutely certain we understand what we are, and are not, saying. In no sense whatever are we even remotely implying that there are some poor sinners who sincerely want to be saved but God refuses to save them because Christ did not die for them. Every sinner in the whole wide world who comes to Christ will be received and accepted. Revelation 22:17 means exactly what it says:

And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

The problem is not with "whosoever will," the problem is that all men, without exception, are "whosoever will-nots." None are willing to come until God opens their hearts and brings them. We believe and fervently preach the words of our blessed Lord in John 6:37:

…him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out."

Can anything be more true and certain than these words guaranteeing that every sinner without exception who comes to Christ will be saved? We preach that. However, we do not do what most preachers do and begin in the middle of the verse. We also preach the first half of the verse. The first part tells precisely why the second part is true. All who come to Christ will be received because they, and they alone, are the elect for whom Christ died:

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me, AND [it is just as true] him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

The "coming ones" and the "given ones" are one and the same people. All who come will be saved, and all who have been given by the Father and redeemed by the Son will come.

We should add that it is a wicked lie that even suggests we believe that some sinners go into heaven kicking and screaming. They do not want to go but since they are elect and Christ died for them, God throws them into heaven against their will. This is utter nonsense. We covered this when we covered the doctrine of election. We insist that the most willingly thing any sinner ever did was to freely repent and believe the gospel. The question is never, "Must we repent and believe," but rather, "Why do some sinners repent and believe and other sinners refuse to do so," and the only correct answer is not "Because of their free will," but the biblical answer is because of the sovereign purpose of God in the death of Christ.

I. The NECESSITY of the atonement-Why Did Christ Have To Die?

Once God decided to save sinners, there was but one way of bringing about this purpose which would be in harmony with God's own character, the law of God, the nature of sin, and the needs of man; and this one way was the substitutionary blood atonement of the Incarnate Son of God. The unregenerate man cannot believe the gospel simply because he cannot see the real need of an atonement. He does not believe that he is a helpless depraved sinner that cannot save himself. The primary reason for this blindness and ignorance lies in the sinner's wrong view of the character of God and his holy and righteous demands revealed in his Law. As long as God is viewed as nothing but love, we will miss seeing his absolute holiness, perfect righteousness, and unflinching justice. The necessity of these attributes being satisfied by an atoning sacrifice will be ridiculed as pagan and inhumane.

II. The NATURE of the atonement-Exactly What Did Christ Accomplish By His Atoning Death On The Cross?

The Necessity of the atonement answers the question, "Why?" The Nature of the atonement answers the question, "What?" It is over the what that Christians disagree.

The chart on page 12 contrasts the theological views of the two main groups and the Scripture verses that each group uses. It is easy to see how differently both groups view the nature of the atonement. One group sees real atonement, or an actual payment that forever removes sin, as only a possibility until the sinner does his part with his free will and makes the atonement effective. In this view the sinner's faith is 'his part' in salvation. The other group sees the atonement of Christ as a real atonement that, in and of itself, removes forever the sin of all those for whom the atonement was made. This view sees the death of Christ as not merely making salvation possible for all men but actually guaranteeing that all those for whom Christ died will be saved. It is also clear that the two views are miles apart. It might be well to review the central differences between the two. Remember that both groups believe that the atonement was absolutely essential and that it is only through the atonement of Christ that any sinner can be saved.

Study the chart on page 12 carefully and see the radical difference in the (1) intention of God in the atonement, (2) the actual success of the atonement, (3) the power of God and man to make the plan of salvation work, and (4) the real character, or nature of the atonement.

The first thing we must remember is that salvation is the work of a triune God. When we say, "The Lord saved me," we do not mean the Lord Jesus Christ saved us. We mean that the Lord God the Father saved us in electing grace; the Lord God the Son saved us by his atoning death; and the Lord God the Holy Spirit saved us by regenerating us and enabling us to savingly believe. We owe just as much to the Father and the Holy Spirit as we do to the blessed Lord Jesus, and our worship and praise should reflect our debt and gratitude to the Father and to the Holy Spirit for their work.

Not only is it true that each Person in the trinity has a distinct and necessary part to play in our salvation, it is just as true that the work of each Person will be successful. Success is guaranteed because all three persons in the Godhead work together toward the same goal. All those chosen by the Father were redeemed by the Son, and all those redeemed are brought by the Holy Spirit to believe the gospel. This is why the whole plan of salvation will succeed and accomplish everything God intended in executing that plan. Neither he who planned and brought about the death of Christ, nor they for whom that atoning death was intended, will ever be disappointed.

The Real Question: It is essential that we clearly understand the real point of difference, as it concerns the atonement, between those who believe in free grace and those who believe in free will. The question is NOT, "For how many people did Christ die?" No, the real question is, "Did the death of Christ, in and of itself, secure, for certain, the salvation of some people, or did his death merely make it possible for all men to be saved by an act of their 'free will?' In other words, we are not discussing "how many" people Christ died for, but rather "What did Christ accomplish" by his death on the cross! What inevitably had to follow because of Christ's atoning sacrificial death? Put another way, the question is, "What is the one single ingredient that makes God's plan of salvation by grace through faith to work in one person, who believes in Christ and is saved, and not another, who rejects Christ and is lost?"

There is one sense in which it is impossible to limit the death of the Son of God. Our Lord suffered as the infinite Son of God. That is why he could suffer an eternal hell in a moment of time. It is also the reason that his death can avail for many poor sinners. Christ's death is not limited in its power in any way at all. If God had purposed to save all men without exception, Christ would not have suffered one more ounce of wrath. If only one person had been chosen to be saved our Lord would not have suffered any less. The whole point involves the purpose of the Father in putting his Son on the cross. Exactly what did the Father hope to accomplish? Was it merely to give sinners a 'second chance' to succeed where Adam failed, or was the atonement a carefully planned method of saving his elect? Here is the answer of free will religion to this vital question.

Answer of Free Will Theology - Christ died and paid the penalty for every man's sins, thereby providing, or making possible, salvation in the same way, and to the same degree, for every man without exception. Jesus died and paid for the sins of Judas in the identical same sense that he paid for Peter's sins. All men are equally redeemed but they must personally be willing to accept their redemption before it is effectual. An individual's redemption depends solely on his willingness to accept or reject the atonement. Either way every man is redeemed (meaning potentially redeemed) because Christ died and paid for all the sins of all men. Peter was actually saved only because he was willing to accept the atonement that Christ had 'provided' for all men. Judas was just as redeemed as Peter but the only reason Judas was not saved was that he was not willing to accept the redemption that Christ had provided. The one and only difference between Peter and Judas was Peter's willingness to accept what Christ had done.


The gospel according to this view of free will is, "Christ died for you. Your sins have already been paid for by the Son of God. It is no longer the 'sin' question since that was settled at the cross. It is now the 'Son' question. All your sins are paid for and the only sin that will send you to hell is rejecting the redemption Christ provided for you."

In this view, all men are 'redeemed' by the death of Christ. The individual need only 'claim by faith' his redemption. You need only be willing to 'let Christ save you.' It is Christ's intention and desire to save all men but none-the-less many will still perish. Christ can only save those who cooperate with their free will. The gospel of free will must always go back to man and his so-called free will as the ultimate cause of the success or failure of God's plan of salvation. It must make the assurance that Christ died for 'me personally' to be the foundation of assurance. This is totally different than the gospel message in the Scriptures.

It is obvious that this view has no real redemption but merely a potential, or hypothetical, redemption. Man, by his willingness, not the power of Christ's sufferings, is the one determining factor in every conversion. Let us note the different answer that the religion of free grace gives to the question, "Did the death of Christ, in and of itself, secure, for certain, the salvation of some people, or did his death merely make it possible for all men to be saved by an act of their free will?" Did the atoning death of Christ actually redeem us or did it merely make us redeemable if we would do our part and be willing to cooperate.

Answer of Free Grace Theology: Although the death of Christ is of infinite value, and could save ten thousand worlds of sinners, God's intention, or purpose, in putting his Son on the cross must be measured by its accomplishments. The redemption of Christ in and of itself actually redeems and assures the salvation of specific people, or all those given to Christ by the Father (cf. John 10:11, 14-16; 6:37). It does not make all men potentially redeemable IF they will do their part by being willing to be saved. Christ's death is not just provisional in its nature but rather it actually secures salvation for all of its objects.

The gospel, according to this view, is 'Christ died for sinners.' (See J.I. Packer's article on page 7.) He saves every sinner that comes to him and every sinner that the Father has given to Christ will come him. That promise of salvation includes sinners as bad as you and me.

In this view, Christ actually bought a people for himself out of every tribe and tongue. Christ's desire 'to seek,' and his success 'to save,' are fully realized because his intention and accomplishments involve the same people. He saves all without exception that he seeks. He does not seek all and save some.

III. The problem with terminology. Limited atonement sounds very narrow as compared to unlimited atonement. It leads to misconception and meaningless controversy. We insist that all Christians believe in limited atonement. The fact there is a hell proves that statement. Everyone believes that the ultimate benefits of the atonement are limited to those who believe in Christ. The lost man does not share in the benefits of the death of Christ. The real question is NOT "Is the atonement limited," as I just said, the fact that people are in hell answers that question, but rather the question is, "WHO does the limiting, God or man?" Does God's sovereign grace and purpose dictate the ultimate success or failure of the redemptive work of Christ or does the 'sovereign' and fickle will of man decide whether God's intentions and purposes will be realized?

I repeat, all Christians limit the death of Christ! The question is does God's grace or man's will do the limiting. Those who teach free will believe that man's will limits the success of God's great plan of redemption. God then has an unlimited purpose-to redeem all men, but a limited power-He can only truly redeem those who make themselves willing. We who believe free or sovereign grace hold the exact opposite. We are convinced that God has a limited purpose-to redeem his people, and an unlimited power-to secure their consent and make them willing "in the day of his power" Psalm 110:3.

It is not the limited aspect, but the particular aspect that the Bible emphasizes. Christ died for specific people and actually secured a complete salvation for each one of those for whom he died. He did not die for an undefined group, that is, for everyone in general but no one in particular, and then hope that some of that general group would be willing to give him a chance. Isaiah says, "He shall see His seed." As our Lord died on the cross, he knew for whom he was dying and also knew they would be saved. It is not 'how many' but 'what is the nature of His sufferings?'

The terms limited versus unlimited sounds like one view is narrow and the other, unlimited, is magnanimous. We must remember that the so called "Five Points of Calvinism" have a negative slant only because they were negations (by the Synod of Dort) against the negations (by the followers of James Arminias) against the established truth of the Reformation. (See J. I. Packer's excellent introduction to The Death of Death in the Death of Christ on page 7.)

We could just as easily say effectual atonement versus ineffectual atonement or efficient atonement versus inefficient atonement. These opposite terms are far closer to the truth than limited and unlimited. Let the free will universalist honestly admit that he preaches an ineffectual and inefficient atonement simply because his whole atonement is only hypothetical. The atonement of free will religion can only be effective and actually atone for sin when man's free will allows it to do so. This makes salvation ultimately depend entirely on man for its success. In reality, this view is teaching that man's free will faith is the real redeeming factor in conversion. The mighty atonement of Christ is unable to accomplish God's earnest desire or purpose until the even mightier free will of man consents to allowing it to happen.

The choice is NOT simply between universal and particular atonement. The choice is between an atonement that actually atones and an atonement that is purely hypothetical and not a real atonement. If we are consistent and honest, the real difference is between particular atonement and universal salvation. Why are some men in hell paying the penalty of their sins if Christ has already paid the penalty for all of the sins of all men? What about those who were already in hell when Christ died? Surely the Father did not punish Christ for men like Ahab who were, at that very moment, in hell enduring the punishment for their sin.

We are not discussing the extent of the atonement in terms of 'how many.' We are discussing the nature of the atonement. It is not, "How many people did Christ die for?" The question is, "What did Christ actually accomplish in his death?" If people insist on talking about the extent of the atonement, then we must keep asking, "The extent in relationship to what?" If we mean the extent of atonement in relationship to God's sovereign purpose, then we will measure God's purpose in the atonement by what it actually accomplishes. The atonement of Christ will secure every thing that God intended it to accomplish. If you start at the other end and ask, "For whom was the atonement made," we will ask you, "Who will ultimately be saved?" In both cases the answer must be identical. If Christ died for all then all will be saved, and if only some sinners are saved it is because it was for them alone that Christ died.

We must see that the disagreement is over salvation as merely a possibility (in which case the atonement in only hypothetical) and salvation as a certainty (because the atonement is a real atonement). That is the heart of the difference.

C.H. Spurgeon was often accused of preaching a very 'narrow' atonement. His opponents said their atonement, or bridge to heaven, was as wide as the whole world and his was not. Spurgeon responded by saying, "I grant that my atonement, or bridge to heaven, is more narrow than yours. However, yours only goes half way across the chasm and mine goes all the way. In your scheme, the sinner's will must furnish the other half."

IV. Particular atonement is the historic doctrine of the church. Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Knox, and the great Confessions of Faith all teach limited atonement. Universal atonement is the new and novel doctrine when you look at all of church history. I am aware that neither creeds nor great leaders prove what the church must believe, but only what she has believed. However, creeds are like guard rails along the side of a highway. They must never be looked at as the road itself. The Bible alone is the road but the guard rails are a great asset in keeping you on the road. When anyone sees something that no one in the history of the church has ever seen, he better have a lot of very clear biblical proof. Nothing is true just because it is old or because it is found in a creed. However, we do have a right to be concerned with any 'new' truth that all of the great saints of God missed for nearly 2,000 years.

V. What does the Word of God itself say about the death of Christ? Here are some preliminary biblical facts:

ONE: Christ's death was voluntary therefore he has every right to totally control its results. In no sense whatever was God obligated to send Christ to die for sinners.

… I lay down my life… no man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself… John 10:17, 18

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son… John 3:16

Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God… Acts 2:23

Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; He hath put him to grief; when Thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin… Isaiah 53:10

God was the master of ceremonies at Calvary. This was the most carefully planned and executed event that ever took place. God was not compelled in any way to give his Son, nor was Christ under any constraint to come and die. If it was completely a voluntary act on the part of God, should he not be permitted, and expected, to (1) dispense its benefits as he sovereignly chooses, and (2) assure its success by the exercise of his power?

TWO: Christ's death was also vicarious therefore it must actually secure a real salvation for all for whom he died. Christ acted as a real and true substitute for his people. He actually collected the wages (death) which they earned, and all for whom he died will, yea must, collect the wages (righteousness) that he earned.

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 6:23.

In part two we will look at four words, ransom, substitute, reconciliation, and propitiation which all are a different shade of meaning to atonement. We will also see that the death of Christ is not only voluntary and vicarious, but also victorious.

In our first article we showed the difference between a belief in a universal and a particular atonement. A universal atonement is really only a 'hypothetical' atonement that does not actually atone or redeem anyone. We then started to give three essential facts about the atoning work of Christ on the cross. The cross work of Christ was (1) Voluntary, (2) Vicarious, and (3) Victorious. We covered the voluntary aspect of Christ's death and concluded that since the work of Christ was totally voluntary then God had every right to do as He chooses with the benefits of that work. In this second article we will look at the second 'V' and see that the atonement of Christ was vicarious.

TWO: Christ's death was also vicarious. The word vicarious means "acting on behalf of or as representing another," or "something performed or suffered by one person with the results accruing to the benefit or advantage of another." The key idea is representation in such a way that one party literally stands in the place of another and is actually treated as if they were the other person. The classic text is 2 Corinthians 5:21:

For He [The Father] made [treated Him as if He were a sinner] Him [the Son] who knew no sin to be sin [treated Him as our substitute] for us [guilty sinners], that we might become the righteousness of God [be treated as if we are as righteous as Christ] in Him.

If Christ actually stood in my place and bore my sin then I can never be punished for that sin. If Christ literally stands as a substitute in the place of any particular individual then that individual must be brought to salvation and be eternally saved. Substitutionary, or vicarious, atonement must actually secure a real salvation for all for whom Christ died or else it is not truly vicarious. If Christ acted as a real and true substitute for His people, then all of His people will be saved. If He actually collected the wages (death) which they earned, by their sin, the all for whom He died will, yea must, collect the wages (righteousness) that He earned in His obedient life and death.

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom. 6:23).

To say that Christ died a vicarious death in the place of all sinners but not all of those sinners will be saved is a contradiction in terms.

There are four primary words used in the NT Scriptures that show the true vicarious nature of the sufferings of Christ. When these four shades of meaning are put together, we see clearly that Christ's atonement was totally effectual in the salvation of all for whom that atonement was made. The biblical meaning of these four words, ransom, substitute, reconciliation, and propitiation must be bled of their true meaning before it is possible to believe in universal atonement. Let us examine these four words.

The first word is ransom or redeem. The Greek word is Lutron (loo-tron) and means "something to loose with." This word describes a person who is all "tied up in debt" and needs cash to get "free." The cash is the ransom price that sets him free. It redeems him from the bondage of debt. Once the cash is paid the debtor is set free. The same idea is set forth in our spiritual redemption. We were in the market place of sin because we had "sold ourselves under sin." Christ shed His blood as the ransom price to "set us free." The key truth in the word redeem is that freedom must follow the price being paid or there is no real ransom. When our Lord went into the market place of sin and paid the ransom price in His own blood to buy the freedom of sinners, He did not come out of the market place with His basket half-empty. He did not leave behind any for whom He had paid the ransom price. Christ did not pay the price and purchase sinners and then leave some of those sinners still in the market place of sin. "the Son of man came… to give his life a ransom for many" (Matt 20:28). The "many" that our Lord gave His life as a ransom for are the elect. All that He redeemed will be saved. "…ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold,…but with the precious blood of Christ" (1 Pet 1:18, 19). The blood of Christ did not make us merely redeemable but it actually redeemed us.

Once again we see how clearly universal atonement teaches that Christ's death merely made it possible for us to be redeemed, but our faith is the decisive factor that enables God to actually redeem us. In the end that means we redeem ourselves by our faith.

One of the key ideas in the word redeem is the idea of setting someone, or something, "free by buying it back with a redemption price." It is like a pawnshop where you buy back something you lost or pawned. In Scripture, we are bought out of the market place of sin by the redemption price of Christ's blood. There are four different Greek words that, when put together, give us a good picture of redemption. All four Greek words are translated "redeem" or "redemption" in our English Bibles. However, they are also sometimes translated with other English words.

1. The first word is found in Romans 3:24. It is apolutwsis (apolutron) and means "delivering." The same Greek word, given in italics, is used in the following verses: "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace…" (Eph. 1:7). Hebrews 11:35 translates the same word differently. "Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance…" These women could have been "redeemed," or delivered, but they were not willing to pay the redemption price which was to deny their faith in Christ. They choose death over redemption.

The root from which this word comes is lutron (Lutron) and is used as follows: "Even as 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 we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel…" (Luke 24:21). "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold…But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:…" (1 Pet. 1:18,19). This word means we are delivered from the wrath of God because we have been loosed from our sins and the punishment those sins deserve. The blood of Christ is always the ransom price that is paid to deliver, or redeem us. This is why the child of God can never "come into judgment." (See John 5:24).

2. The second Greek word is agorazw (agoradzo) and it means to "go to market" or "buy." Here are some texts that use this word. "Send them away, that they may go into the country round about, and into the villages, and buy themselves bread" (Mark 6:36). "For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body…" (1 Cor. 6:20). "And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation" (Rev. 5:9).

It is easy to see that the particular emphasis is going to the market and buying something by paying a price. When applied to the gospel it means that Christ went into the market place of sin, where we were slaves of sin, and He purchased our freedom with His own precious blood.

In Paul's day over fifty percent of the population of Rome was slaves. The largest markets by far were the slave markets. Men and women were stripped and examined the way horses and cows are examined at an auction and then sold and purchased by the highest bidder. Paul's readers would have clearly understood his meaning and use of this word. They would have realized that our Lord did not leave the market with His basket half full. He did not leave behind, still in their shackles, some for whom He had paid the ransom price.

The word redemption is one of the first words changed in any translation or paraphrase of the Scriptures. The Good News for Modern Man totally eliminates the words redeem and redemption from the New Testament. They also eliminate, as much as is possible, the word blood. They change redeem to "set free" and change blood to "His death." When Peter says we were "redeemed by His blood," it comes out "set free by His death."

Now I'm sure some are thinking, "But John, isn't that exactly what you have been telling us that the word means." It is true that redeem means to set free and to shed blood is to take life. However, there is one important ingredient missing in the meaning of each word when redemption becomes only "set free" and blood becomes only "His death." If I went down to the local jail and put sleeping powder into the jailer's coffee, I could, after he fell asleep, steal his keys and "set every prisoner free," but I surely have not "redeemed" them. This word means more than just to set free. It is setting free by paying a necessary ransom price. It is the blood offered to God as proof that a life had been laid in sacrifice on the altar that the liberal hates so vehemently. It is not just 'His death' that is vital, it is the kind of death that He died. Christ died under the just wrath of God as a substitute for guilty sinners. It was a vicarious death offered to God as a necessary price to appease His just wrath. This is Paul's whole argument in Galatians 3:13, 14.

We saw in our last article that the meaning of this word is also changed by evangelists. They speak of Christ "redeeming sinners" when they really mean that Christ made it possible for us to redeem ourselves through faith. If they were honest they would say, "Christ has made your redemption a possibility but not a certainty. Only you can finish the job with your faith." We covered this in our last issue.

3. The third Greek word is a very interesting word. It is periousios (per ee os see os) and means "to acquire, by purchase, something that is very special and valuable to you." The idea is to both buy and preserve something you dearly love. The word is translated in our English Bibles with the word peculiar.

We are losing the meanings of words in our society. I personally refuse to use the word gay to describe a homosexual. I have counseled many homosexuals in my ministry and have never yet met one that was 'gay' or truly happy. There is no group of people who need the love and affection and attempts by Christians to give them the gospel as much as the homosexual community. They hate themselves, they hate God, and they hate everyone else. They desperately need the gospel of sovereign love and grace.

Today the word peculiar means "odd" but originally it meant something entirely different. When I am teaching about this word I will often say to a lady, "Suppose your husband publicly said, 'My wife is the most peculiar women I have ever met.' How would you feel?" The lady usually says, "I would bop him on the head." I then add confusion by saying, "This word peculiar originally meant 'cows.'" Now the lady is ready to bop me on the head.

The word peculiar comes from the word pecus and literally means "cows." You have this word in the deed to your house. Your deed says you bought the house for the "pecuniary value of $150,000.00." The word "pecuniary" (pecus) means the real value as measured in dollars. Originally the pecuniary value of things was measured in terms of cows. The more cows, the more pecus value. If the husband who said his wife was the most peculiar women in the world was using the word in the biblical sense then he was saying, "My wife is the most precious possession that I have."

Christians are indeed the most peculiar things in all of the universe. They have been purchased at the greatest price possible. God Himself has purchased them to be His own personal possession. We can now see the true meaning of Titus 2:14: "Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works."

4. The fourth word is the same as the second word except it has an ek in front of it. The word ek means "out of" or exit. The word is used in the following passages: "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree…" (Gal. 3:13). "To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons" (Gal. 4:5).

This word does not just mean purchased at the market, but purchased out of the market. When you sell a house you put it on the market. If it does not sell in a given period you take it off the market for a while and then you may later put it back on the market. That little word ek means that we have been purchased in such a way that we can never again go back into the market place of sin. We are purchased out of the market forever. The two texts in Galatians mentioned above means that believers are forever out from under the law and its just curse. The law cannot condemn us. We have been purchased and forever put out of its reach.

I remember reading that a Van Gogh painting had been put up for auction and the highest bid was nine million dollars. The owner refused to sell since he had paid over eleven million for the painting. He waited a year and then put it back on the market. Sometimes a painting is either purchased by, or given to, the National Museum of Art. When this is done that particular painting can never again be put up for auction and sold. It is the 'peculiar possession' of our national museum to be enjoyed by the entire populace. Believers have been purchased by God and placed in His museum of grace. We can never again be put on the auction block in the market place of sin. The Church will reveal the power and beauty of His grace throughout all eternity. Paul says that believers are "His workmanship." We are living testimonies to the power of His love and grace.

Just as an artist takes a piece of blank canvas and uses various colors of paint to produce a masterpiece or 'work of art,' so God has taken pieces of useless junk that were ruined by sin and creates a spiritual work of art that will shine throughout eternity.

Often we read a verse and never stop to really look at what it is saying. For many years I read Romans 8:18 without seeing what it was really saying. Paul is not talking about the amazing glory that shall be revealed to us in eternity. That of course is true but is not his point in this text. Believers themselves are the glory of God! The text says "the glory that shall be revealed in us" not to us. Just as men and women walk through an art gallery and admire the amazing work of great artists, so the whole universe will admire the wisdom and power of God's grace as it is displayed in His people. What a tremendous thought! We should be living epistles now even as we shall be revealers of His glory in eternity.

A classic illustration of the truth of redemption is found in Hosea 3:1-3.

(1) Then said the LORD unto me, Go yet, love a woman beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress, according to the love of the LORD toward the children of Israel, who look to other gods, and love flagons of wine. (2) So I bought her to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and for an homer of barley, and an half homer of barley: (3) And I said unto her, Thou shalt abide for me many days; thou shalt not play the harlot, and thou shalt not be for another man: so will I also be for thee.

Hosea's wife, Gomer, was unfaithful to him. It is quite possible that his two sons were not really his own sons but had been fathered by a different man. Gomer leaves Hosea and openly practices prostitution. She is finally reduced to slavery and is on the auction block to be sold to the highest bidder. God tells Hosea to buy back his own former betrothed wife. Hosea is to love her, "as I have loved Israel." She is a picture of Israel's (and our) nakedness, sin, and unfaithfulness.

Gomer does not come back to Hosea as a slave, as she actually deserved, but as a wife who is dearly beloved. She does not come back to be hated and punished but to be "loved as I have loved Israel." That is grace.

I once heard of a preacher whose wife had become an alcoholic. She was a real embarrassment to him. One Sunday morning after his sermon the preacher was shaking hands with his congregation at the door. A taxicab pulled up and a drunken woman got out and lurched across the pavement. Just as she reached the place where the preacher was standing, she started to fall and the preacher reached out and caught her in his arms. Everyone waited to see what the preacher would do or say. While everyone was watching, he drew his wife to his chest and kissed her on her lips. She was his wife and he loved her.

That is exactly what God has done many times with every one of us. We have played the harlot and given our affections to false gods. We have been drunk with the allurements of the world. How many times could God have justly divorced us and said, "I am sick of your sin and rebellion? I am tired of your halfhearted love. I am done with you forever." Do not our hearts cry out, "Many times, times many." But our God will never divorce His people that He choose in Christ and bought with the blood of His Son. He graciously brings us back to Himself and opens the well springs of our hearts and we weep in confession of our sin and with faith believe in the sure hope of His grace.

Bible translation is a very difficult job. Especially in a culture that has no written language and a very limited vocabulary. I remember reading about a missionary in Africa trying to translate the word redemption into a particular tribal language. No one could understand what he was trying to teach.. He tried every way possible to explain the concept but got nowhere. Finally the oldest man in the tribe said, "You mean that Jesus died to take our necks out." The missionary asked what the man meant. The old man remembered the days of slave trading when men were literally caught and shackled with a steel ring around their necks and then tied with a chain to other men likewise shackled. As these helpless captives were being marched off to the ship to be taken to England and America to be sold as slaves, a village chief might see one of his people in the line. If he chose to do so, he could trade with the slave trader and give him some ivory for the slave's release. The slave trader would then unlock the chain ring around the poor man's neck and set him free. He would "take his neck out of the ring."

That is exactly what our Lord did for us. He took our necks out of the chain of sin. However, the chains that held us were stronger than any steel and could not be broken with any human means. It took nothing less than the blood atonement of the Lamb of God to break the shackles that held us. The Bible in that particular tribe stills says "Jesus died to take our necks out," and everyone knows what it means. I am sure no one could imagine the village chief paying the price for a slave and watching that slave nonetheless go on in his chains into slavery.

In the next issue we will look at the other three words—substitute, reconciliation, and propitiation—that round out the biblical view of the atoning work of Christ.

n previous articles we noted that there are four words in the New Testament Scriptures that describe the atoning work of Christ. We looked at the first word, redemption, in our last article. We now want to look at the other three words.

The second word is substitute, and the Greek is anti (an-tee) and means for, or instead of (cf. 1 Cor. 15:3; Luke 11:11; 1 Pet. 2:2225). All of these texts show that Christ suffered in our place as a substitute. Something happened to Him so that the same thing would not happen to us. That is the force of the statement "for us." Christ died "instead of" or "in the place of" His people. "Christ died for (instead of) us" (Rom. 5:8). This is what is meant when we speak of Christ's substitutionary death.

I remember my daughter coming home from high school all excited. She said, "We won! We won! We suffered a broken leg and got beat up very badly but we won." I looked at her and said, "I do not see a cast on your leg and your skirt is not even wrinkled. What is this we got beat up bit?" When she said, "We won!" she meant the high school football team had won the championship game. One player had indeed broken his leg and most of the players were badly battered. However, my daughter said, "We won" instead of "they won." She meant the football team represented her school and therefore they represented her. When they won she won and when they lost she lost. They did what they did as representatives of the school. That illustrates how Christ represented His people. When He conquered sin and death so did His people since He conquered those things in their place. Just as Adam, acting as our representative, plunged all that he represented, the whole human race, into sin and death, just so the Lord Jesus Christ, acting as the representative of a new race, the chosen of God, raised His people out of death and sin into life and righteousness.

If you are a football player sitting on the bench you do not feel the shoving and tackling taking place on the field. When the ball is snapped two large guards from the other team may smash into a tackle on your team, but you feel nothing at all. However, if the coach sends you into the game as a 'substitute' you will feel something the next time the ball is snapped. This illustrates what it means that Christ acted as our substitute. He literally took our place as a substitute in a duel with sin, death, and the law. He endured, on the cross, the wrath of God in our place. When He defeated sin and death, we also defeated sin and death because He was doing that for us as our substitute. When He fulfilled the law and died under its curse, we also met every claim of the law and endured its full wrath. Christ literally died instead of us. He alone did battle with sin, death, the grave, Satan himself, and the holy law of God. He defeated their full power as our substitute.

The third word is reconciliation. The Greek is katalosso (Kat-al-las-so) and means to make a difference (Rom. 5:10). The Roman and Greek money was 'profane' and could not be given as an offering in the temple. All secular money had to be 'reconciled,' or exchanged, into an acceptable form. It had to be exchanged into temple money. This is why the moneychangers were in the temple. Jesus was not angry with the moneychangers because they were in the temple but because they were crooks charging unfair rates.

The following text is important. It tells us exactly what it is that reconciles sinners to God. ". . . we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son…" (Rom. 5:10).

Question: What makes a child of God 'different' (so as to be 'reconciled') in God's sight? Is it free grace and the blood of Christ, or is it the free will of man and the man's faith? What is the one single real difference between Judas and Peter? Were they both equally 'redeemed' by the death of Christ but Judas was not 'reconciled' because he was not willing to claim, by faith, his redemption? Is Peter's faith the essential factor that reconciled him to God? You cannot have it both ways. The answer is either reconciliation by 'free will' or reconciliation by 'free grace.' I keep repeating how the biblical words that speak of the atonement must either be bled of their true meaning or we must accept particular redemption. You cannot have a true redemption and then have a 'hypothetical' reconciliation. Either both redemption and reconciliation are effective for all of those for whom the redemption was made or else both are only hypothetical possibilities totally dependent on man's free will for success.

We are indeed 'justified by faith.' We are not suggesting that faith is not absolutely essential in salvation. However, faith as the means by which salvation comes to a sinner and faith as the cause and foundation of salvation are two different things. The Bible never teaches that we are reconciled to God by faith as the ground. Faith cannot the ground of our reconciliation. The atoning death of Christ alone is what "makes the difference." Faith is the means, but even our faith is a gift of God. Faith is not the sinner's contribution, actually the one essential component, by which he is redeemed and reconciled. No, faith is part of the salvation gift purchased by Christ, and given to His elect through the preaching of the gospel and sanctification by the Holy Spirit. We were chosen to be given faith. "… God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" (2 Thess. 2:13). See also 1 Peter 1:2.

Examine the places where the word reconcile is used and you will find the above fact is an essential aspect of the biblical doctrine of Christ's atonement (Rom. 5:10, 11; 11:15; 2 Cor. 5:18, 19; Eph. 2:16; Col. 1:20-22).

The fourth word showing a specific aspect of the atonement is propitiation. This is the single most hated word in the whole Bible. Propitiation describes that priestly work of Christ by which He removed God's just anger and wrath against us by satisfying the holy character of God through the substitutionary sacrifice of Himself to God. Christ's propitiatory work secured, on righteous terms, our acceptance and reconciliation with God by enduring all of God's just wrath. See Rom. 3:25; Heb. 2:17; 9:5; 1 John 2:2; 4:10 for all of the places this word is used in the NT Scriptures.

The reason men hate this word is because they do not understand either the true nature of the sinner or the true character of God. Liberals do not believe man is totally depraved. They cannot imagine that man is so desperately helpless that he is literally "dead in trespasses and sin" (Eph. 2:1-3). Since liberals believe God is basically love, instead of holy, they ridicule any idea of an offering of blood being necessary to turn away His just wrath. Love does not need to be appeased or placated. The very idea is an insult to God. Of course, they are right, if God is nothing but love. We agree that love does not need to be pacified since it cannot get angry. But God is more than love; He is also holy, just, and righteous. The psalmist says, "God is angry with the wicked every day" (Psalm 7:11-13). The same psalmist also tells us why God is angry with the wicked. See Psalm 11:5-7.

So far we have seen that the death of Christ is both Voluntary and Vicarious. We now look at the third and final aspect of the atonement and see that it was Victorious.

THREE: The death of Christ was Victorious. Every man for whom Christ died will be saved. His death will secure everything that God intended. It is at this point that the real theological difference between the religion of free will and free grace comes to the surface. Notice that there is nothing 'hypothetical' about the following texts. (emphasis mine).

… he shall save his people from their sins …(Matt 1:21)

… the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep… I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep… other sheep I have… them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice… (John 10:11, 14–16)

These texts speak of Christ actually accomplishing something in His death. It is impossible to give the four words just covered (ransom, substitute, reconcile, and propitiate) their biblical meaning and still hold to universal atonement without also accepting universal salvation. We are forced to either give these words a hypothetical sense, and thus deny their biblical content, or else we must believe in universal salvation.

The universal atonement of free will theology teaches the following:

(1) A redemption that leaves men still not free or actually redeemed. They are merely redeemable and will actually be redeemed only if they are willing to contribute faith as their part of the deal.

(2) A reconciliation that leaves men still estranged from God and lost. Reconciliation is potentially possible for all sinners but it is not absolutely certain for any specific sinner unless the sinner "does his part" by being willing to believe.

(3) A propitiation that leaves men still under the wrath of God. The propitiatory sacrifice of Christ merely makes God "willing to be propitiated" but does not actually propitiate Him until the sinner furnishes the necessary faith.

(4) A substitutionary death that still makes the sinner himself help pay the debt for sin. Christ did not actually bear our sins on the cross as our substitute but He is "willing to do so if…"

In all four of the cases, Christ's death is not victorious until the sinner makes his contribution. In each case, the universal atonement view is forced to have two different meanings for the same word. When the four words for atonement are applied to a believer then the words are given their true biblical meaning. However, when the universalist, in his preaching, applies the identical words to the 'world' then the words must be totally emptied of their biblical content. The same words now become only "hypothetical possibilities." The nature of Christ's sufferings provide half of what is necessary to atone for sin and the sinner's faith provides the other half. I am glad that such a system is not my hope of heaven!

IV. Some clear implications. See the statements by Noel Smith on page 14.

V. Did you ever consider the atonement from Christ's point of view?

Isaiah 53 is the clearest and fullest description of the death of Christ in the entire Bible. It is amazing that this vivid portrayal of our Lord's sufferings on the cross is foretold in the OT Scriptures. Try to imagine how Christ felt as He experienced the things mentioned in this great chapter.

"Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. (Isa. 53:4, 5)." If Christ was truly "Stricken, smitten, and afflicted" by God in our place, and if He was literally "wounded, bruised and chastised" because our sins were actually laid on him, then does it not follow that we simply must ultimately "be healed?" Does not justice demand it?

Is it possible to have Christ actually experience, as a vicarious substitute, the things in Isaiah 53:4 and then make the things in verse 5 to be a mere possibility? This is exactly what a hypothetical atonement is proclaiming.

"All we like sheep have gone astray: we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all (Isa. 53:6)." Are the two alls in verse 6 inclusive of every man without exception, or does it mean the Father has lain the iniquity of "every sheep that has gone astray" upon the Shepherd? Who is the "we" and the "us" in this verse? If the first "all" includes you then the second "all" also includes you. If you are not a poor lost sinner that has gone astray and needs to be saved then you are not the object of the death designed to save only poor sinners.

"… for the transgression of my people was he stricken (Isa. 53:8)." Who are "My people" in this verse if the atonement is for everyone without exception? Does the term My people include the Egyptians and Canaanites? This verse demands a particular application of the sufferings of Christ.

Verse 10 – "Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand (Isa. 53:10)." This verse contains one of the most amazing statements in all of the Word of God. It "pleased the Lord" to put His only begotten Son to death for sinners. It was the Father who made His Son "an offering for sin."

Our Savior was never more pleasing to His Father than He was the very moment that He cried out, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" Paul tells us in Philippians 2:5–9 that the height of the obedience of Christ to His Father's will was the moment when He willingly laid down His life in death under the sword of justice. He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Our Lord knew His Father would turn His back the moment "He was made to be sin." God must turn His back on Christ the moment Christ wears the sin and guilt of His people. The Father turned His back on Christ because justice could not look on sin. God turned His back on His Son in order that He might turn His face towards us in righteous and holy love.

However, our blessed Substitute also knew that He would be raised from the dead! This was the height of His confidence in His Father's oath (cf. Acts 2:22-36). His obedience and faith were never more pleasing to His Father than at that very moment when He fully trusted His soul into the hands of His Father's eternal purposes.

This same verse also contains one of the clearest proofs of particular atonement. At the very moment that Christ was made to be sin and treated as if He were guilty, He was conscious of what was sure to follow as a result of His sufferings. The verse states "when," or at the exact time, His soul was being offered for sin that He would, at that very moment, "see his seed." The Church is His seed. When Christ was on the cross, He saw His sheep individually. He did not see an indefinable blob of humanity and hope that some of them would be "willing to let Him save them." He saw His seed being brought to glory! He saw the "many sons," the "sheep" given to Him by the Father being saved. He saw the elect receiving the benefits of His atoning work. Our Lord knew His work would not be in vain.

I believe this is what Hebrews means when it says, "who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame … (Heb. 12:2)". That joy was nothing less than seeing His sheep safe and sound in the fold and forever delivered from sin and guilt. That ought to make us shout with joy!

How would you answer if confronted with these questions?:

(1) Who are Christ's seed and when does He see them? Dare you say, "He saw the whole world as potentially saved if they could only somehow be persuaded to believe?" No, my friend, I think we both know better. We know that the text means that Christ saw the individual and specific people whom he was consciously representing.

(2) Did Christ know for sure that any one person would be saved because He was at that moment purchasing that sinner by a real atonement? Did He see individual people and know He was actually redeeming them for certain, or did He see His death as a universal possibility for an indefinable mass? Was He positive that I would be with Him in glory as a specific result of His propitiatory death, or did He see His death as only the down payment of my redemption, and hope that my 'free will' choice would finish the balance of payment that sealed the deal? I think any honest heart knows the only answer!

"He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities (Isa. 53:11)." The following two questions are obvious and must be answered from the words in this verse:

(1) Can Christ be 'satisfied' if His travail ends in futility? I have visited hospital rooms where a mother's "travail" had ended in the birth of a dead child. I assure you that there were no expressions of great joy in the room. There was deep sorrow and a great sense of loss. If our Savior looks into hell and sees those there for whom He travailed unto death itself, how can He possibly be "satisfied?" No, no, everyone for whom He travailed will be saved. As the hymn writer put it:

Till all the ransomed Church of God,

Be saved to sin no more.

(2) Who are the "many" that are certain of being justified simply because Christ bears their iniquity? It is impossible to separate the certainty of the "many's" justification from the stated reason for that certainty. "The many," all of them and only them, will surely be justified because Christ literally bare their iniquities in His own body. That is particular atonement. It is a real atonement and not merely a 'hypothetical' atonement! It is impossible to make these verses say, "Christ bore the sins of all men but He is only able to justify those who are willing to let Him."

Look at the logic of Romans 8:32, 33. "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect?" Not the Father, for "It is God [the Father] that justifies." Not the Son, for He will not condemn those for whom He died, and because He died for them, He also maketh intercession for them (cf. John 17:9). Isn't that clear?

"Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors (Isa. 53:12)." Carefully follow the logic and truth of this text and it is literally impossible to get universal atonement into either this verse or any other verse in the entire 53rd chapter of Isaiah. Christ receives a specific reward for His work, and that reward does not depend on the fickle capricious will of sinful man. Our Lord was identified with specific people in His death (they are "many"). He makes intercession for all those given to Him by the Father (cf. John 17:9). It is for these that He "poured out His soul unto death." All for whom He prays will be saved, and all for whom He prays and are saved are those for whom he died.

I know that people keep complaining that "election and particular atonement" is narrow and unfair. We would ask, "Unfair to whom?" To whom does God owe anything other than condemnation? How can He possibly be unfair to sinners who deserve nothing but wrath? Granted, He gives grace to some who do not deserve it, but the Holy Spirit has already stopped the mouth of all who would say that was unfair. See Matthew 20:10-16 and Romans 9:13-21.

My question to the objectors of sovereign grace and particular atonement is this: "Is God just and fair toward His only begotten Son? Will the Father fulfill every word and expectation of Isaiah 53 to the One who bore those pangs of death, or are those things promised to Christ only hypothetical possibilities dependent upon the fickle free will of sinners? Will God condemn the sinner after having punished Christ in the sinner's place? How would you feel if you were the Savior on the cross and you knew that you were being punished (1) for many sinners who were already in hell at that very moment, and (2) for many more who were certain to go there? Is God only "just and fair" to sinners and not to His Son?

Some may object that these verses are in the Old Testament and ask where the New Testament teaches that Christ died specifically for some men thus making certain their salvation? We need only look at John 10:11, Ephesians 5:25, and Hebrews 9:28.

The article on Romans 5:12–19 on page 11 covers this objection. If you do not have Haldane's commentary on Romans, buy it at once. His unfolding of these verses is worth ten times the price of the book. Basically Romans 5:12–19 shows that all men represented by Adam must have imputed to them the consequence of Adam's disobedience, and likewise all the men represented by Christ must have imputed to them the consequence of His obedience. As 'all' represented by Adam are made sinners, so 'all' represented by Christ are made righteous.

VI. Problems to overcome.

The main objection to the clear scriptural teaching of Particular Redemption from those who put "logic" in the place of the Scriptures. They reason like this: Premise A – "Christ died for sinners" (Rom. 5:8). Premise B – "All men are sinners" (Rom. 3:23). Logical conclusion: "Therefore Christ died for all men." Both premises A and B, by themselves, are true, but the conclusion is false because (1) it contradicts the clear teaching of other Scripture, and (2) the premises, although true in themselves, are not true in the context as set forth above.

Luke 19:10, "for the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost" contradicts this conclusion. Spurgeon has a great sermon on this text. He shows that Christ must save all, without exception, that He seeks. Christ does not effectually seek all and only manage to save some. No, no, He saves all that He seeks.

Matt 9:10-13 shows that (1) Christ did not come to save all men; (2) He does not call all men; and (3) all men are not acknowledged 'sinners' but some are (in their own minds) 'righteous' and therefore need no sacrifice. Look at what the text says:

And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners? But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

John 17:9 certainly contradicts the logic that attempts to establish universal atonement. "I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine." Why would Jesus die for men and then not pray for them? His work of intercession must be co-extensive with His atoning work on the cross. When Aaron went into the Holy place on the Day of Atonement He carried the names of the twelve tribes of Israel on his breastplate. The Philistines, Caananites, and Jebusites were not included among those for whom the blood was shed or among those for whom Aaron interceded in the Most Holy Place. He, like our Lord (John 17:9) prayed only for those for whom he offered the sacrifice.

VII. Some problems for universal redemption to solve.

Here are some clear texts of Scripture that can only be understood in 'particular' terms. I have yet to see an Arminian universalist even try to explain these texts.

(1) John 10:11, 15. Christ died for His sheep, not for His sheep and the goats. Compare John 17:9.

(2) Ephesians 5:25. Christ gave Himself for the church, not the church and those who perish.

(3) Romans 5:12-21. See the article All Equals Many but Many Does Not Equal All on page 11.

(4) Heb. 2:11-17. All the "sons" cannot mean all men without exception. "Abraham's seed" is a very particular people.

A second problem for the universalists is the successful travail of Christ. It "pleased the Lord to bruise him"—"he [the Father] put him to grief" (Isa. 53:10). Is God just as "loving, kind, and just" to His only begotten Son as He is to sinners? Is God honest and fair with sinners, but not with His Son? Will the Father give His Son all that He earned by His death?

A third problem is that Christ's office of Shepherd becomes a failure. Free will Arminianism would have us believe that some of those for whom Christ suffered and died will nonetheless still perish. If He 'loses' some of the sheep for whom He was made responsible then He fails in His job as the Shepherd. The following verses, as they respect Christ's work as the Shepherd of the sheep, would have to be rewritten if universal atonement were true.

I am the Good Shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep (John 10:11).

I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine (John 10:14).

That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none (John 18:9).

Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant (Heb. 14:20).

Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness; by whose stripes ye were healed. For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls (1 Pet 2:24, 25).

Another problem is that Christ's priestly work is a contradiction. He refuses to pray for the very people for whom He supposedly died. "I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine (John 17:9)". "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5)". Notice that this last text says "men" (specific men) and not "man" (mankind indiscriminately). The world has no mediator but the sheep have One whose mediatorial work never fails. Would Christ die for men and then not intercede for them?

The argument that convinced me that Christ could not have died for all men was Spurgeon's argument that there were already sinners in hell when Christ died. Can anyone honestly believe that the Father would punish Christ on the cross for men who were at that moment lost in hell? Who can believe that at the very moment Christ was suffering on the cross He could look into hell and see men there for whom he was being punished? Did the Father punish Christ for Ahab when Ahab was already in hell?

The very foundation of God's righteousness is destroyed by the doctrine of universal atonement. The ground of a believer's assurance is that God will not, yea, He cannot, punish sin twice. Yet free will universalism must hold that God punishes sin in Christ and then punishes the sinner in hell. The false idea that all sin is paid for except the sin of unbelief has been more than adequately answered by A.W. Pink and J.I. Packer (See Vol. 4, No. 8 and Vol. 4, No. 9 of Sound of Grace).

It does not seem to occur to the proponents of a universal atonement that the whole biblical plan of salvation is distorted by their system. In the Scriptures the Trinity works in total unison in the purposes of salvation. The Son redeems all of those chosen by the Father, and the Holy Spirit regenerates all of the chosen and redeemed ones. In universal atonement the Persons of the trinity work in different directions with varying degrees of success. At every turn the Holy Spirit cannot effect the gracious desires of the Father and the Son until the mighty free will of the sinner is willing to "give God a chance."

And finally, the foundation of assurance of salvation must either collapse or else be placed squarely on man's faith alone. If God did the same thing for Judas, and every other Christ-rejecter, that He did for Peter and the rest of the elect, how can we be sure that we will not eventually perish as Judas did? The religion of free will answers: "Because I am willing. I have faith! I used my free-will to accept God's offer of grace." Surely you can see that such a system makes faith, not Christ's death, to actually be the foundation of assurance and the only real difference between a lost man and a saved man. This is teaching that all men are truly "redeemed" by Christ's blood but it is the sinner's faith that makes the sole difference between him and those who perish. What happens when we doubt? Are we lost?

CONCLUSION: Read Exodus 28:6–12; 21–29.

Consider the Old Testament Day of Atonement. Aaron wore only the names of the twelve tribes of Israel on his shoulders and breast as he stood before God. The blood shed on the altar and then sprinkled on the mercy seat was not for the heathen nations but only for the nation of Israel. Just as the High Priest carried the names of the tribes on his shoulder and heart as he stood before God on the Day of Atonement, so our High Priest had our names on his shoulders and heart as He endured God's wrath, went into the tomb, and when He ascended into heaven. He breathes our individual names to the Father and pleads His merits on our behalf. He does this for every sinner that comes to Him! He turns no one away that comes! If I am such a sinner, in need of such a Redeemer, I dare believe He died for even me!