Often when Christians hear of Limited Atonement (L) they get confused and think you are speaking of not preaching the Gospel to everyone. They think of a limited call. Michael Spencer has engaged in debating between our blogs my position on “L” in the past two weeks. But for some reason in the midst of the debate he posted this. After quoting several verses he concludes, “John extends salvation to all. Universal offer. Christs death is for all people.” But Michael, those statements are not synonymous. Just because the offer of salvation is universal does not mean that Christ death is necessarily for all people. Romans chapter one even teaches that the general revelation of God’s creation and of man’s conscience is a universal call but is in no way salvific. In other words, Universal Call does not equal Universal Atonement. Even in believing that the Atonement was sufficient to save all, as most Calvinists believe including me, does not mean that the extent of the atonement was universal. To equate the two as equal or synonymous is damaging to the clarity and accuracy of the doctrine.
With that said, there is another common fallacy that because Calvinists believe in “L” they cannot and will not preach evangelistically to the lost. That erroneous view comes from a misunderstanding of the doctrine of “L” and a gross denial of church history.
Charles Hadden Spurgeon said, “A yet further charge against us is, that we dare not preach the gospel to the unregenerate, that, in fact, our theology is so narrow and cramped that we cannot preach to sinners. Gentlemen, if you dare to say this, I would take you to any library in the world where the old Puritan fathers are stored up, and I would let you take down any one volume and tell me if you ever rend more telling exhortations and addresses to sinners in any of your own books. Did not Bunyan plead with sinners, and whoever classed him with any but the Calvinists? Did not Charnock, Goodwin, and how we agonise for souls, and what were they but Calvinists? Did not Jonathan Edwards preach to sinners, and who more clear and explicit on these doctrinal matters. The works of our innumerable divines teem with passionate appeals to the unconverted. Oh, sirs, if I should begin the list, time should fail me. It is an indisputable fact that we have labored more than they all for the winning of souls. Was George Whitfield any the less seraphic? Did his eyes weep the fewer tears or his bowels move with the less compassion because he believed in God’s electing love and preached the sovereignty of the Most High? It is an unfounded calumny. Our souls are not stony; our bowels are not withdrawn from the compassion which we ought to feel for our fellow-men; we can hold all our views firmly, and yet can weep as Christ did over a Jerusalem which was certainly to be destroyed. Again, I must say, I am not defending certain brethren who have exaggerated Calvinism. I speak of Calvinism proper, not that which has run to seed, and outgrown its beauty and verdure. I speak of it as I find it in Calvin’s Institutes, and especially in his Expositions. I have read them carefully. I take not my views of Calvinism from common repute but from his books. Nor do I, in thus speaking, even vindicate Calvinism as if I cared for the name, but I mean that glorious system which teaches that salvation is of grace from first to last. And again, then, I say it is an utterly unfounded charge that we dare not preach to sinners.” [Spurgeon, C. H. -- Spurgeon's Sermons: Volume 7]
(“Calumny”, now that’s a good word.)
Tweet
Jason Robertson is a husband and a father and a pastor. He is dedicated to leading and equipping his the Church with God’s word and biblical theology for life ministry, using a combination of pastoral, church planting and evangelism experience. He holds a Master of Divinity from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He is experienced in church planting, evangelism, missions, and the training of pastors and Bible teachers.
Jason has been preaching the gospel since 1985, serving the first ten years of ministry as a Southern Baptist itinerant evangelist out of Milldale Baptist Church in Zachary, LA which ordained him in 1993. He has preached in hundreds of churches in over 30 States and 4 countries. He planted churches in Siberia, Russia in the summers of 1993 and 1994. He founded Murrieta Valley Church in California, which he planted in cooperation with the SBC NAMB in 2001. He also teaches ministry students at California Baptist University.
You can hear his sermons and read his manuscripts on sermonaudio.com. Just follow the link to "sermons" at the top of this page.
The universality of the Gospel call is in no way reduced by the reality of the Savior’s particular work for His sheep. Consider the following texts in their order:
John 10:14-16: 14 “I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, 15 even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. 16 “I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.”
2 Timothy 2:8-10: 8 Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descendant of David, according to my gospel, 9 for which I suffer hardship even to imprisonment as a criminal; but the word of God is not imprisoned. 10 For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory.
For the Apostle Paul, the reality of particular redemption even strengthened him in his suffering for the Gospel ministry. While he didn’t know who the elect were (as he proclaimed the Gospel), he did comprehend that his labors were ultimately being expended for the sake of Christ’s chosen sheep; thus Paul suffered for preaching the Gospel to all men – for he preached to all men indescriminately. But he ultimately comprehended that his suffering for the Gospel was ultimately on behalf of those whom God had chosen from before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:3-6), who would be redeemed by the blood of Christ (Ephesians 1:7) and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise (Ephesians 1:13-14).
Should anyone think, for even a second, that the Good Shepherd’s particular redemption of His sheep should in some way restrict our proclamation of the Gospel (whether Arminian or Hypercalvinist) – then they are fabricating fiction – no matter who they blame that fiction on.
P.S. – Because of these wonderful truths, I am all the more confounded by posts like this one:
http://www.boarsheadtavern.com/archives/2006/03/29/17039785.html
I would like to publicly challenge the purveyors of General Atonement to show us one, just one, evangelistic plea in Scripture where people are told to believe Christ died for them in particular.
A. There isn’t one.
B. To say that infers that they have to believe in General Atonement to be saved. How is this different than saying they have to believe in limited atonement to be saved?
C. Believing Christ died for you lies in the domain of assurance, not evangelism or teaching theology.
D. The real reason this is done is that it is assumed without benefit of argument that a person needs to have some assurance that Christ died for them to underwrite their faith in Christ (and I would add that in my experience those that push for this always come back to this very thing, so I have to wonder if they aren’t persons who have had “assurance issues” personally in their own lives at one time). This is patently false for a number of reasons. For the Arminian this is false, because, on an Arminian theory of the will, some, all, or nobody at all might believe anyway. For the Calvinist, this is false, because the elect will be brought to faith through the faithful preaching of the gospel anyway. Only God knows the percentages, but the success rate is always 100 percent.
You are confounded that Lutherans do not believe in Limited Atonement?
Pastor Beasley: That is Josh Strodbeck. Please follow the link. Are you surprised Lutherans, following Luther, don’t buy the “L?”
The link didn’t actually work for me. Very possibly user error. But concerning Luther and other early reformers, it is true that they did not reform the Universal Atonement errors of the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, T.Beza was the basically the first early reformer to tackle this issue and rescue it from the Christendom mindset of Rome. By the way, that is one of the ironic things about the opponents of Calvinism, they beat up on John Calvin who still basically believed in the Roman Catholic/Semi-Pelagian version of Universal Atonement that Arminians would affirm as well. Of course some believe that he was able to get this doctrine reformed prior to his death, but nevertheless, it was not clearly defined until Beza. This issue is of course why I am not Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian, or Weslyian, though we have many other things in common with my brothers… primarily sola fide.
Are you planning to update your article to reflect the fact that you’ve innacurately attributed Josh’s words to Michael?
And hey! I got a different CAPTCHA word this time, and my comment was saved! Cool!
No need to approve this comment, though you can if you want to. I just wanted to let you know that the technical issue appears to have been resolved.
Greetings nny243 & Michael Spencer –
I did follow the link and I did already read the article before posting the link from BHT. I posted your article in view of many of the comments that have been supplied concerning the atonement over there at the tavern. Let me underscore and even add to Jason’s point by saying that what T. Beza sought to recover for his day needs to be recovered again in our own day – to some extent. In a very personal way I have encountered a great deal of controversy over this issue – particularly from those who would affirm this idea: “Limited Atonement is the greatest doctrinal obstacle to Gospel preaching and Christian theology ever devised this side of meritorious good works.” What I presented in my post, not by way of church history or by the fallible theologians from the past, but by God’s infallible Word was the wonderful truth of Paul’s perseverance in the Gospel ministry in view of Christ’s chosen sheep – His sheep for whom He died.
Men, I am convinced that what Beza clarified in his day, needs to be recovered once again in the church today. I do believe that the church must reclaim such Christ centered motivation in the Gospel ministry for the glory of God. The Savior’s sacrifice for His chosen bride is a precious truth that we must handle with great care. The atonement discussions of late have concerned me greatly. By expressing concern here, let no-one assume that I am doubting their salvation – please. My concern stems from the centrality of Christ’s glory, my own need for soundness of doctrine and life, as well as those who participate in these blogs. In all of our discussion about the atonement we can be sure that by grounding our dialogue in Holy Writ, with the Spirit’s leading, we can be assured that these posts will be profitable.
Jason,
I returned for a visit today, and noted something you wrote:
“There is another common fallicy [sic] that because Calvinists believe in “L” they cannot and will not preach evangelistically to the lost. That erroneous view comes from a misunderstanding of the doctrine of “L” and a gross denial of church history.”
On the whole, I agree with this statement. Calvin, Edwards, Spurgeon, Carey, Asahel Nettleton, and Packer are excellent representatives of evangelistic Calvinists. I agree that for every Calvinist I know, “L” does not stand in the way of evangelism. I do not believe that Calvinistic Baptists fit the caricature of non-evangelistic, any more than Southern Baptists who are not Calvinistic. If my Calvinist friends are non-evangelistic, it is NOT because of their theology. And I believe that this is the rule rather than the exception.
Yet, for clarity’s sake, I might humbly suggest that the caricature may also be painted in part from church history, at least the writings of Calvinists within the history of the church.
This is not merely an assertion on my part. Even Roger Nicole expressed angst over those “very strong Calvinists” who denied the universal call of the gospel.
Nicole even provided a sampling of these men: Joseph Hussey (1660–1726), John Gill (1697–1771), John Brine (1703–1765), Klaas Schilder (1890–1952) and Herman Hoeksema (1886–1925). He concludes that “the work of evangelism and of missions within that frame of reference is painfully constricted. If there is one comfort in the presence of such a phenomenon it is that people of that ilk usually fail to reproduce themselves and therefore they do not threaten for a very long time the integrity of the gospel.” [Roger Nicole, "Covenant, Universal Call, and Definite Atonement," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38 (1995): 407]
Now, some here may decry the listing of Gill in this category. Dr. George in his treatment of Gill in *Theologians of the Baptist Tradition* finds fault with such an inclusion of Gill as a hyper-Calvinist. Nevertheless, Dr. George concedes that “we cannot quite exonerate Gill of all responsibility in the fostering of an atmosphere in which the forthright promulgation of the missionary mandate of the church was seen to be a threat to, rather than an extension of, the gospel of grace.” (pp. 27-29)
Granted, most who caricature Calvinists as non-evangelistic have never heard of, much less read, Brine, Schilder, or Hussey. Rather, the caricature is based, as you have rightly highlighted, primarily upon a misunderstanding of “L.” But, keeping the argument well-rounded, church history does call one to consider those who took “L” to a place of limiting the gospel call to the elect only.
I believe that we would do well to focus on the universal call of the gospel. It is common ground for those who are Calvinists and those who are not, in the same spirit of Whitefield and Wesley during the First Great Awakening.
One final note: I beg you not to mention LSU in the near future! George Mason must now be my hope.
P.S. Michael –
One more word of encouragement – Do know that I did not “blame [you] for writing” the article by Josh Strodbeck. Because you posted it without qualification, and because of much of the dialogue that has gone one at BHT over the atonement, I chose to supply the BHT link just as it was. My encouragement to you Michael, Joshua, nny243 or anyone is to consider the need to dialogue over the Word over this precious and important doctrine.
MJBeasley wrote: “My encouragement to you Michael, Joshua, nny243 or anyone is to consider the need to dialogue over the Word over this precious and important doctrine.”
If only those who will come to Christ are the elect, which is what I believe, why is this discussion so important? I mean, this is what, something like the twentieth post on the subject? What is lost if I believe that Christ’s death was sufficent for all, but efficient for some. Is it really worth all this ink (or should I say pixels)? Is my four point Calvinism such a threat that it demands this much attention? I’m not saying we ought not discuss or care about doctrine (I’m heading that comment one off at the pass), but this is a bit ridiculous. Salvation by faith, the Trinity, Deity of Christ…these are vital. Extent of the atonement? Not in the same class.
sled dog –
I very much appreciate the comments and your question – others will comment I know, but I wanted you to know that I will be disappearing for the evening. Lord willing, I will offer a response to you by the morning. Have a great evening…
Sled, if you believe that Christ’s death was sufficient for all, but efficient for some then nothing is lost. We give you a hearty Amen! But if you think we talk about it too much there may be several reasons:
1. You are confident and satisfied in your biblical knowledge and convictions. Again, AMEN.
2. You are weary of the topic. It happens. Go jog around the block or something.
3. You think that there is nothing more to learn about the subject. That is exhaustion setting in, it will pass.
4. You forget you aren’t the only one reading this series of post, and you forget that some are reading about this issue for the first time. Don’t be selfish or impatient. When speaking of the doctrines of Scripture we never use the “beating a dead horse” analogy. I am sure you wouldn’t either.
5. You feel that the subject is not important, especially not as important as other doctrines. Was there an opening in the Trinity? Where did you get the authority to degrade doctrines and exalt others? Surely you realize that a proper understanding of every doctrines enhances one’s understanding of all other doctrines. For example, we have discussed substitutionary atonement, perseverance, evangelism, Theology Proper, Soteriology, humility, hermenuetic principles, love, grace, faith, and I can go on.
(*insert friendly punch in the arm* =you know, the kind that hurts*)There now, are you feeling better?
This just keeps getting better and better…especially the use of “calumny” which I had to look up (this is true with many of Spurgeon’s words). Here’s what I found:
1. A false statement maliciously made to injure another’s reputation.
2. The utterance of maliciously false statements; slander.
Thanks, Jason, for bearing with my “limited” vocabulary!
John Gill (1697–1771).
The reason folks take issue with this is that Gill rejected the offers vocabulary when it was said that grace is offered to all. Gill’s language is very precise. Gill believed that grace is bestowed, not “offered” in the preaching of the gospel. This bestowal was by the working of the Holy Spirit. Those that read him here as rejecting the offer of the gospel are reading him as if he denied the universal preaching of the gospel as if that is the offer of the gospel. Salvation is a gift from God given to whom He will give it. The preacher’s job is to direct men to Christ, not offer them salvation as such. Gill found such language to be sloppy and inaccurate.
However, Gill very clearly preached and wrote that the gospel is to be preached to all men everywhere indiscriminately. In his debate with Wesley he very clearly said that the preacher is order to “preach the gospel to every creature to whom it is sent and comes.” If that meant there are “universal offers of grace and salvation made to all men” he denied this, for grace and salvation come to men by way of God alone are are provided for them in an everlasting covenant.
Now, Gill did, unfortunately, in theory deny that the non-elect were not obligated to evangelical obedience, because they were not being judged for disobeying the duty to believe, but rather for their sins. He wrote, “If only an external revelation is made, the faith required is to an assent unto it, and a reception of it; and such who do not attend to the evidence it brings with it, or eject and despise it, shall be damned.” He calls this “historical faith,” not “evangeical faith,” and he made distinctions between legal repentance and evangelical repentance as a result.
However, at the same time, he identified the minister’s preaching, John the Baptist’s ministry, Christ’s teaching, and the Apostolic message as a call to evangelical faith and repentance, not merely historical faith and legal repentance. He refers here to their overall work, not merely the inward call. So, the preacher’s job was evangelical, not legal, and he was to preach to all persons indiscriminately, because he had no way of knowing whether his listeners were elect, ergo, he had no way to know if they were being called to evangelical faith and repentance or legal repentance and historical faith.
In short, he is a classic example of a thinking man who was too precise with his language, because he pressed it into service in ways that others could not understand him and sometimes too far for his own good.
Gene, I am glad that you cleared up the mischaracterizations of John Gill. I was planning to do a post on that subject, because John Gill position has not been accurately portrayed. In fact, concerning his theory about judgement due to rejecting the cross, I agree. Notice the words of John 3:18, the unbeliever is condemned already. The cross doesn’t condemn, the cross saves (John 3:17). For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world but to save the elect. All men are already condemned based on original and actual sin and rejection of general revelation through Creation and conscience.
Again thanks. May there be a revival of studying John Gill!
Jason, whom do you believe mischaracterized Gill, Dr. George or Dr. Nicole? No need to respond, for that was more rhetorical in nature (there’s a grin on my face).
The “Gill Debate” is interesting. He was certainly prolific in his writing, and as such open to much more critique. He was no doubt the preeminent Baptist theologian of his time, and we have much to learn from him.
However, I have yet to read an authoritative study of Gill that did not concede that Gill’s system was influential in the hyper-Calvinism in the 19th century (perhaps you might suggest one for my further study). Some scholars, like Nicole, conclude that Gill was a hyper-Calvinist himself. Others, like George and Nettles, suggest that Gill’s followers over-stretched his teaching.
Either way, I would recommend a revival of studying Gill through a critical lens, as we should all that we read (including the rambling that I have done on this blog).
Thanks again for the interaction. It’s been fun.
I wanted to thank our brother pastor Robertson for raising this important question in his post: “Can Calvinists Preach to the Lost?” It is this question of Gospel motivation that is one of the most debated subjects of them all, and I would encourage more discussion on this matter. In all my time in pastoral ministry, I have found that the subjects of the doctrines of grace, and especially of limited atonement, have been the sources of greatest controversy. There are many churches in America that are undergoing various contentions and even splits over some of these issues, but the subject of the atonement is typically on center stage. Three months ago I conversed with a pastor who was actually being sued by disgruntled congregants over these issues. Their main argument was against this pastor’s stand on the atonement – however, he wasn’t the one who soap boxed the issue, rather it was a majority of his members that did, knowing what he believed about the matter – he believed in limited atonement! This man and his family were forced to move on – lawsuit still pending! Lovely.
I mention this extreme case, not to say that this is normative, but to express concern (again) over the rising animosity over this issue in the modern church. Much of this animosity is being fostered by published books, literature and websites that advance confusion and hostility, rather than genuine biblical dialogue. This is why I quoted the statement: “Limited Atonement is the greatest doctrinal obstacle to Gospel preaching and Christian theology ever devised this side of meritorious good works.” Those who say such things, or who provide for their free advertisement, are not advancing a genuine biblical dialogue, but are only adding to a wildfire that is doing more to break down, rather than build up the body of Christ. Sadly, as the smoke of this firestorm rises, the beauty and glory of Christ’s unique love for His bride is often obscured and sometimes lost.
Sled Dog –
Obviously, if I thought that this discussion were not important then I would simply lay over and play dead and invite you to join me over at the Good Thoughts Blog. But in proposing this doctrine’s importance, I am not suggesting that this is a matter to break fellowship over; nor am I suggesting that unless people believe this detailed doctrine, that they cannot be saved, or that they are lesser Christians – This is not your point and I am sure that you would agree that such guilt-by-association arguments are often used by those who are only looking to vilify the advocates of limited atonement – so we can just dispense with such things.
Sled Dog, not having answered your question at this point, and being very short on time today, I am just going to send you an e-mail to see if I can dispatch to you a compilation of questions and responses that address the importance of the atonement discussion. But before this, I would offer you the following questions, for your consideration, as they do relate to the intent and extent of Christ’s atonement:
* What was the original intent of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross? Was this intent principally redemptive in nature, or was there a higher intent?
* We know that God’s oaths and promises are immutable (Hebrews 6:9-20). This being true, how shall we view John 12:32 in view of Revelation 5:9 (along with other texts)?
* Do the Scriptures communicate an atonement that is absolutely universal? If not, do they emphasize its limitation or extensiveness?
* What are some of the practical implications regarding Christ’s sacrifice for His chosen bride – especially for husbands via Ephesians 1:3-14 & 5:22-33?
The Puritan Richard Rogers who, when criticized for being too precise, responded, “Sir, I serve a precise God.”