Latest / Reformed Thinking / Limited Atonement: The Definite and Effectual Redemption Accomplished by Christ

Transcript

Limited Atonement: The Definite and Effectual Redemption Accomplished by Christ · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Welcome to Reformed thinking. We are.
0:01
We are so glad you were joining us today.
0:03
If you are a curious learner, someone who loves theology, or
0:07
maybe you are prepping for a theological discussion and you
0:09
want to understand the historic Protestant faith, well, you were
0:12
in the right place. Today we are taking a deep dive
0:15
into the source material surrounding one of the most
0:17
critical theological questions ever asked by the church.
0:20
And that question is, for whom did Christ die?
0:23
To guide this deep dive, we have an exceptional stack of sources
0:27
in front of us. We are looking at excerpts from
0:29
2 texts. The 1st is limited atonement,
0:32
the definite and effectual redemption accomplished by
0:34
Christ. The second is the victory of the
0:37
Good Shepherd, a Reformed defense of definite atonement.
0:40
And let me tell you, as you listen to this, you're going to
0:43
find that the answer to that question fundamentally changes
0:45
how you view God, how you read your Bible, and how you
0:49
understand your own salvation. It is a phenomenal topic.
0:52
The specific mission of this deep dive is to investigate the
0:55
precise nature of the cross. Did the cross simply make
0:59
salvation a possibility for all people without securing the
1:02
salvation of any specific person?
1:04
Or did Christ, in offering Himself upon the cross, actually
1:08
secure the specific redemption of a definite people?
1:11
That is the dividing line we are looking at today.
1:14
We are looking at whether the cross was a hypothetical
1:16
provision that requires human assistance to work or an actual
1:19
victorious accomplishment that guarantees the salvation of
1:23
God's people. Right, let's unpack this right
1:24
from the start, because I know that when you as a listener hear
1:27
the phrase limited atonement, there's a very good chance you
1:30
feel a slight theological cringe.
1:32
That word limited trips people up constantly.
1:35
In our modern culture, we hate limits.
1:37
We want unlimited data plans, unlimited breadsticks, unlimited
1:40
options. So when we attach the word
1:42
limited to the cross of Jesus Christ, it immediately sounds
1:45
like a restriction on God's grace.
1:47
It sounds like a defect. But our sources are incredibly
1:50
clear that this is a vast misunderstanding of the historic
1:52
Reformed position. Is that right?
1:54
That is correct. The term limited atonement often
1:57
creates an immediate defense mechanism in the listener.
2:00
It sounds as though we are teaching that Christ's sacrifice
2:03
is deficient in worth or that there is not enough grace to go
2:05
around. It sounds like a bank account
2:07
that has run out of funds, but the doctrine teaches no such
2:10
thing. Because Christ is the eternal
2:12
Son of God, His sacrifice holds infinite dignity.
2:16
It possesses infinite sufficiency.
2:18
If God had so willed it, the worth of Christ's blood was more
2:22
than enough to save every single human being who has ever lived.
2:25
So it's not a shortage of grace at all.
2:27
Not at all. There is no lack of value in the
2:30
blood of the Son of God. He wouldn't have had to suffer
2:32
one second longer or shed one more drop of blood to save 10
2:36
billion more worlds if that was the divine intent.
2:38
The limitation we are discussing is not a limitation of value,
2:42
but a limitation of divine intention and design.
2:44
I see. So it is about the purpose of
2:46
the cross, not the strength of the cross.
2:48
Want to make sure we nail this down.
2:50
Our sources draw a very sharp contrast here between the non
2:54
reform view, often called the Armenian view, and the historic
2:56
reform perspective. The non reform view presents
3:00
what one of our texts calls a divine perhaps.
3:02
Can we explain that? Because to me the divine perhaps
3:06
sounds like treating the cross of Christ like a gift card.
3:09
It's like God loads up a gift card with infinite funds and
3:12
hands it out to humanity, but the gift card is totally useless
3:15
until the Sinner decides to scratch off the back, read the
3:18
Pi, and activate it with their own free will.
3:22
The gift card analogy is highly accurate for that perspective.
3:25
The divine perhaps suggests that Christ died to make men savable,
3:28
but not to actually save them. In that system, the cross
3:31
creates an opportunity. It is a hypothetical provision,
3:34
but it requires the Sinner to supply the final decisive
3:37
element, the act of faith, to make the cross effective.
3:40
In that view, the cross itself doesn't actually save anyone.
3:44
It simply clears the way so that a person can save themselves by
3:47
making the right choice. That puts a lot of weight on the
3:49
person, doesn't it? It does.
3:51
The reform of you, rooted in the historic confessions of faith
3:54
like the Westminster Confession, insist that Christ did not die
3:58
to make men savable. He died to save.
4:01
He did not come to provide a potential rescue.
4:04
He came to secure an actual, definite redemption.
4:08
The Cross is not a frustrated attempt suspended on the
4:11
unstable will of fallen humanity.
4:13
That is a massive distinction. You're saying that in the non
4:16
reformed view, it is theoretically possible that
4:18
Jesus could have died on the cross, suffered the wrath of
4:20
God, and yet not a single human being would end up in heaven if
4:23
no one decided to activate that gift card.
4:26
Jesus could have been a savior without any saved people.
4:29
Precisely if the effectiveness of the cross relies entirely on
4:33
the autonomous free will of fallen human beings, then the
4:35
success of the cross is left entirely up to chance.
4:38
Heaven could be empty. But the authors of our sources
4:41
point to a classic historical formula that arose during the
4:44
Reformation and post Reformation periods to summarize the true
4:47
biblical position. And that phrase is sufficient
4:50
for all efficient for the elect. Let's stop and look at that
4:52
phrase. Sufficient for all, efficient
4:54
for the elect. It feels like that phrase does a
4:57
ton of heavy lifting in resolving this tension.
5:00
It does a tremendous amount of theological lifting.
5:03
That classic formula arose to protect 2 vital truths
5:07
simultaneously. First, it protects the infinite
5:10
value of the cross. The sacrifice is sufficient for
5:13
all. This means you can preach the
5:14
gospel to every creature on earth with absolute confidence.
5:18
You never have to wonder if there is enough value in the
5:20
blood of Christ to cover the sins of the person sitting in
5:23
front of you. There is.
5:24
The provision is infinite. That covers the first half of
5:27
the phrase. What about the second-half?
5:29
The phrase efficient for the elect protects the specific
5:32
intent of God's redemptive plan. It ensures that the cross
5:36
actually achieves its goal. It guarantees that the cross
5:39
works. It says that for the specific
5:40
people God chose from before the foundation of the world, the
5:43
cross is 100% effective in bringing them to faith, securing
5:47
their justification, and guaranteeing their
5:50
glorification. I'm going to push back a little
5:52
here because I think a listener I still feel that by saying it
5:55
is only efficient for the elect, we are somehow making the cross
5:58
smaller. But if I am reading these texts
6:01
correctly, when you define the doctrine this way, you realize
6:05
that limited atonement, or as the authors prefer to call it,
6:08
definite atonement or particular redemption, does not diminish
6:11
the cross at all. In a strange way, it actually
6:14
magnifies it. It absolutely magnifies it.
6:16
You have to realize that every theological system limits the
6:19
atonement in some way. There is no escaping A
6:23
limitation unless you are a universalist who believes every
6:26
single human being, regardless of faith or repentance, goes to
6:29
heaven. Assuming we reject universalism,
6:32
we have to admit a limitation. The non reform system limits the
6:35
efficacy of the atonement, saying it does not actually save
6:38
anyone without their help. So it's a wide bridge, but it
6:41
doesn't cross the whole gap. That is a great way to put it.
6:44
It makes the cross a very wide bridge, but a bridge that only
6:47
goes halfway across the chasm, requiring the center to jump the
6:50
rest of the way. The reform system limits the
6:53
extent of the atonement, saying it was intended for a specific
6:56
people. But it claims the atonement is a
6:59
bridge that goes all the way across the cross.
7:02
In Reformed, thinking is presented as a triumphant
7:05
accomplishment. When Jesus said it is finished
7:08
on the cross, he was not announcing the opening of a
7:11
possibility. He was declaring a successful
7:13
completed rescue mission. A completed rescue mission.
7:16
That framing changes everything. But logically, we cannot look at
7:20
this doctrine in a vacuum. The sources make it very clear
7:23
that the cohesive architecture of the Trinity's plan has to be
7:25
kept in mind. We have to look at the human
7:27
condition first. We have to understand the
7:29
biblical concept of total depravity before we can
7:32
understand why the cross has to be definite.
7:34
We absolutely must bring total depravity into the conversation
7:38
to see the whole picture. Total depravity is the biblical
7:41
teaching that humans after the fall of Adam are spiritually
7:44
dead. They are not simply weakened.
7:46
They are not morally sick waiting for a little bit of
7:48
medicine. To use a very stark analogy,
7:51
they are not drowning men who just need a life preserver
7:54
thrown to them so they can grab hold of it.
7:55
They are dead at the bottom of the ocean.
7:57
They require a resurrection, not just assistance.
8:01
That is the perfect analogy because you throw a life
8:03
preserver to a corpse. It just floats there.
8:05
The corpse has no ability to reach out, grab the ring, and
8:08
pull itself to safety. So if humanity is truly dead in
8:11
sin, as Paul says in Ephesians chapter 2, and hostile to God,
8:15
then a potential atonement that relies on a dead person making a
8:18
good spiritual choice is no salvation at all.
8:21
Dead people do not make choices. That is the crux of the issue.
8:25
If salvation requires the dead Sinner to make the first move,
8:28
or even a cooperative move, no one will ever be saved.
8:32
Salvation must originate entirely with God from beginning
8:35
to end, and our texts bring up a theological concept called the
8:39
pactum salutis, which is Latin for the covenant of redemption.
8:43
This concept explains how the Godhead operates in perfect
8:46
harmony to achieve this resurrection of dead sinners.
8:48
OK, let's translate pactum salutis for the listener.
8:51
I like to think of it almost like an ultimate eternal
8:54
boardroom meeting before time began.
8:56
Can you walk us through what happens in that eternal covenant
8:59
among the members of the Trinity?
9:00
The pactum salutis is the eternal agreement between the
9:02
Persons of the Trinity. The Westminster Confession,
9:05
specifically chapter 3 on the Decree and chapter 8 on the
9:08
Mediator, outlines this clearly. In eternity past, before the
9:12
universe was even spoken into existence, the Father Alexis
9:16
specific people unto salvation. He writes their names in the
9:19
Book of Life. The Son, acting as the mediator,
9:22
agrees to step into history, take on human flesh, and redeem
9:26
those precise people. He agrees to pay the specific
9:29
debt for the names in that book. And the Spirit's role.
9:31
The Holy Spirit agrees to enter into the timeline of history and
9:35
irresistibly apply that redemption to those very same
9:39
individuals, bringing them to faith, giving them new hearts
9:42
and keeping them until the end. So we see this incredible,
9:45
airtight Trinitarian unity. The Father acts as the architect
9:49
drafting the blueprint of who will be saved.
9:51
The Son is the executor who volunteers to pay the precise
9:54
cost to build it. And the Spirit is the contractor
9:57
who actually goes into the world to complete the work in the
10:00
hearts of those people. They never step on each other's
10:02
toes. But what happens to that unity
10:04
if we adopt A view that Christ died for every single person
10:07
without exception? Because I want to ask a
10:09
clarifying question here on behalf of the listener.
10:13
If the Son pays the price for everyone, but the Father only
10:15
elected some, and the Spirit only regenerates some, doesn't
10:18
that create a major contradiction?
10:20
It creates a massive theological contradiction.
10:23
It introduces what we might call a divine schism.
10:26
You end up with a disjointed Trinity.
10:29
If the Son died for the entire human race without exception,
10:32
his redemptive intent is far wider than the Father's electing
10:35
intent and the Spirit's regenerating intent.
10:38
You have the portions of the Godhead working at cross
10:40
purposes. The Son is trying to save people
10:42
the Father did not choose, and the Spirit will not call.
10:45
Sounds like a chaotic view of God.
10:47
It presents a fractured God. The Reformed faith rejects any
10:51
such division within the Trinity.
10:52
God is 1. His purpose is singular and
10:55
harmonious. The scope of the Father's
10:57
election is the precise scope of the Son's atonement, which is
11:00
the precise scope of the Spirit's application.
11:03
They are entirely unified in their love and their saving
11:05
action. That structural consistency is
11:08
incredibly satisfying to the logical mind.
11:11
It presents a God who is entirely in control and entirely
11:14
unified. But if I'm playing the skeptic,
11:16
I'm thinking, OK, that is a really neat philosophical
11:19
framework. It makes sense in a textbook,
11:22
but is it actually in the Bible? We need to look at the text of
11:25
Scripture itself. One of our sources places a
11:27
heavy focus on the Gospel of John chapter 10.
11:29
This is the famous passage about the Good Shepherd, specifically
11:32
verses 11 through 15. Jesus says I am the Good
11:34
Shepherd. The Good Shepherd lays down his
11:36
life for the sheep. The linguistic details in John
11:39
10 are highly instructive here. In the original Greek, when
11:42
Jesus says he lays down his life for the sheep, we find the
11:45
preposition hyper. This translates to on behalf of
11:49
or in place of. It is the language of
11:51
substitution. When used in a sacrificial
11:53
context, this word indicates a clear penal substitution.
11:57
Jesus is acting in the place of his flock.
11:59
He's not making a vague gesture of love toward humanity in
12:02
general. He is stepping into the specific
12:04
judgement that his specific flock deserved.
12:07
Let me stop you there because people might say, well, maybe
12:10
sheep is just a metaphor for everybody, but the authorial
12:13
word choice in John is very deliberate, isn't it?
12:16
Jesus doesn't say he lays down his life for the wolves or the
12:20
goats. He does not.
12:22
The author of the Gospel of John deliberately uses the word
12:24
probaton, which means sheep, rather than the word cosmos,
12:28
which means world. In the specific passage, Jesus
12:31
says he knows his own and his own know him, and he lays down
12:34
his life for the sheep. The implication is staggering.
12:38
When you read further down in the same chapter, Jesus is
12:41
speaking to a group of unbelieving religious leaders,
12:44
the Pharisees, and he says to them in verse 26, You do not
12:47
believe because you are not among my sheep.
12:49
Notice the order there. That is fascinating.
12:51
Yes, He does not say you are not my sheep because you do not
12:54
believe. He says you do not believe
12:55
because you are not among my sheep.
12:57
Being a sheep precedes believing.
12:59
The flock was given to the Son by the Father before they ever
13:02
had a chance to believe. The sacrifice is restricted to
13:05
those specific sheep who will eventually hear His voice and
13:08
follow Him. That order is jarring if you're
13:11
used to the modern American evangelical presentation.
13:13
We usually think of it as I choose to believe, therefore I
13:16
become a sheep. But Jesus says you are a sheep,
13:19
therefore you will inevitably believe.
13:22
And the sources list other examples of this kind of
13:24
covenantal specific language throughout Scripture.
13:27
It isn't just one verse In John in acts #20 Paul is talking to
13:30
the Ephesian elders, and he tells them to care for the
13:32
Church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.
13:35
In Ephesians chapter 5, Paul says Christ loved the church and
13:38
gave himself up for her that he might sanctify her.
13:40
In Matthew chapter 1, the Angel tells Joseph that Jesus will
13:43
save his people from their sins. It is always directed at a
13:46
specific blood bought community, the bride, the church, the
13:50
sheep, his people. If we look at the overarching
13:52
biblical narrative, we have to consider Christ's role as our
13:56
high priest. The New Testament book of
13:58
Hebrews makes a massive point of this under the Old Covenant.
14:01
In the Old Testament, the High priest did not represent
14:05
humanity in the abstract. When the High Priest went into
14:08
the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement, he wore a
14:10
breastpiece, and on that breastpiece were 12 distinct
14:14
precious stones. Those stones represented the 12
14:18
tribes of Israel. They had specific names engraved
14:21
on them. So he went in as a
14:23
representative for a specific group.
14:25
Absolutely. He represented a specific
14:26
covenant community when he offered the blood.
14:29
Christ is the fulfillment of that priestly ministry.
14:32
When he goes to the cross, he is acting as the great high Priest.
14:35
His sacrifice is a priestly offering made for the specific
14:38
people the Father gave him, bearing their specific names on
14:41
his heart. Oh, that Old Testament imagery
14:44
just makes it click. The priest wasn't offering blood
14:47
for the Egyptians or the Babylonians.
14:49
He was offering it for Israel, which perfectly explains John
14:52
17. This is the great high priestly
14:54
prayer. Our sources highlight how Jesus
14:56
prays in John 17 right before he goes to the Garden of Gethsemane
14:59
and then to the cross, and he says something that is almost
15:03
scandalous if you hold to a universal atonement.
15:06
He explicitly states I am praying for them.
15:09
I'm not praying for the world, but for those whom you have
15:12
given me, for they are yours. That verse is breathtaking when
15:15
you consider the context. Jesus is on the threshold of the
15:18
cross. He is hours away from offering
15:20
his life as a sacrifice and he explicitly says I am not praying
15:24
for the world. In theological terms, Christ's
15:27
oblation, which means his sacrifice, and his intercession,
15:30
which means his prayer for his people, cannot be separated.
15:32
The priest intercedes for the exact same people he offers the
15:35
sacrifice for. It makes no sense to separate
15:38
them. It defies biblical logic to
15:40
suggest that Jesus died for every person in the world, yet
15:43
explicitly refused to pray for every person in the world
15:46
moments before his death. If he loved the whole world
15:49
enough to bear their eternal punishment, why would he
15:52
withhold a simple prayer for them?
15:54
The answer is that his intercession and his atonement
15:57
have the exact same boundaries. He dies for the precise group.
16:01
He prays for I. Want to transition here to the
16:03
legal side of things? Because this is where the logic
16:05
of definite atonement becomes inescapable.
16:08
Let's talk about the theological necessity of this doctrine,
16:11
focusing on penal substitution and divine justice.
16:14
We use the phrase penal substitution a lot.
16:16
Let's break that down for the listener.
16:17
Penal refers to penalty or punishment.
16:19
Substitution means standing the place of another.
16:21
What does true penal substitution actually entail?
16:24
At the cross? True.
16:25
Penal substitution means that Christ actually bore the Guild
16:28
and endured the specific curse of the law in the place of
16:31
sinners. He did not endure hypothetical
16:33
punishment. He did not just suffer to show
16:36
God's displeasure with sin in general.
16:38
Our sins were imputed to Him. Imputation is an accounting
16:42
term. It means our specific sins were
16:44
legally credited to His account, and on the cross.
16:47
He suffered the precise infinite wrath of God that those specific
16:51
sins deserved. He paid the debt fully.
16:53
The Ledger was cleared. So if he paid the debt fully, we
16:56
run into a major logical wall if we hold to a universal
17:00
atonement. In theology this is off called
17:02
the double jeopardy argument. I want you to explain that logic
17:04
for us because once you hear this, you can't unhear it.
17:07
It completely changes how you view God's justice.
17:10
This argument goes back to theologians like John Owen, and
17:13
it is a matter of logical and theological necessity regarding
17:16
God's justice. Think of a courtroom.
17:18
If a judge demands a fine for a crime, and a substitute steps in
17:22
and pays that fine in full, the judge cannot then go to the
17:26
original criminal and demand the fine be paid again.
17:28
That would be unjust. Now apply that to the cross.
17:31
If Christ bore the sins of every single individual in the history
17:35
of the world in the exact same way, then every individual must
17:39
go to heaven. Why?
17:40
Because the penalty is fully paid.
17:42
Wait, let me make sure I'm following.
17:43
You are saying that if Jesus paid for the sins of a guy named
17:46
Bob, and Bob rejects Jesus and goes to hell, God is punishing
17:49
Bob for sins that Jesus already paid for.
17:51
That is the exact dilemma. If God accepts the payment of
17:55
Christ for the sins of Bob at the cross, God cannot justly
17:58
demand payment again from Bob in hell.
18:00
To demand payment twice for the same debt, once from Christ at
18:03
the cross and once from the Sinner in hell, is a violation
18:06
of justice is double jeopardy. Therefore, affirming universal
18:09
substitution leads to one of two conclusions.
18:12
What are the 2 conclusions? Either you must embrace
18:15
universalism, meaning everyone goes to heaven because all debts
18:18
are paid, which scripture clearly denies, or you must
18:21
conclude that the cross failed to actually secure release for
18:25
those it was intended for. You must conclude that Jesus
18:28
paid the debt, but the payment wasn't enough to actually keep
18:31
the person out of hell. And the Reformed view says a
18:33
hard no to both of those conclusions.
18:35
It says the cross was a complete success.
18:37
It was paid only for the elect, and therefore it absolutely
18:41
guarantees their release. No double jeopardy.
18:43
Christ pays for the sheep and the sheep go free, and we see
18:47
this scriptural proof of accomplishment.
18:49
The Old Testament to look at Isaiah 53, one of the clearest
18:51
prophecies of the cross. It says the suffering Servant
18:54
bore the sin of many and makes them accounted righteous.
18:57
The text does not say He provides a way for them to be
18:59
righteous. His bearing of their sin
19:02
actually results in their justification.
19:04
We see the same accomplished reality in the book of Hebrews.
19:07
Hebrews chapters 9 and 10 highlight the phrase securing an
19:10
eternal redemption. Notice the grammar there.
19:13
He secured it. It points to a finalized
19:16
objective efficacy. He did not secure a hypothetical
19:20
rescue. He obtained eternal redemption.
19:23
And we see this link directly to the Westminster Confession
19:25
Chapter 11, which deals with justification.
19:28
How does justification tie into this?
19:30
Justification is a legal declaration by God.
19:32
It is an act of free grace guaranteed to the elect
19:35
specifically because their debt was completely wiped out by the
19:37
mediator. The cross does not make God
19:39
reconcilable. It actually reconciles.
19:41
It doesn't make God not willing to forgive, it actually secures
19:44
the forgiveness. OK, I know what you the listener
19:46
are thinking right now. I can hear you yelling at your
19:49
device. You are thinking this sounds
19:50
logically tight. The courtroom analogy makes
19:52
sense. But what about the Bible verses
19:54
that say Jesus died for the whole world?
19:56
Have you guys never read John 3.16?
19:58
We have to tackle the common objections.
20:00
But let's look at the world text.
20:01
We are talking about verses like John 3.1 Stan God so loved the
20:04
world and 1st John 2.2 which says.
20:07
He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but
20:10
also for the sins of the whole world.
20:12
How do the authors of our sources break this down without
20:14
just ignoring the word world? It is the most common pushback,
20:18
and it requires careful biblical interpretation in Scripture.
20:22
The word world, which is cosmos in Greek, does not always mean
20:26
every single individual head for head.
20:28
We have to consider the historical and cultural context
20:30
of the 1st century. In that era, the overwhelming
20:33
Jewish expectation was that the Messiah was coming exclusively
20:36
for the ethnic nation of Israel. The Jews believed salvation was
20:39
for them and the Gentiles. The rest of the world were fuel
20:42
for the fires of hell. The stunning revelation of the
20:45
New Testament, the mystery that shocked the early church, was
20:48
that God's saving purpose extended beyond Israel to the
20:51
nations. So when a Jewish writer like
20:53
John uses the word world, he is pushing back against Jewish
20:57
exclusivity. He isn't giving a mathematical
20:59
formula about every single human being.
21:01
Correct. When John says God loved the
21:03
world, he is pointing out that God loves humanity in its fallen
21:06
condition across all nations, tribes and ethnicities.
21:09
He is saving a global people, not just a localized Jewish
21:13
people. The word world is used to show
21:15
the vast global scope of God's grace.
21:17
It means Jews and Gentiles alike.
21:20
To read a 21st century democratic individualistic
21:23
definition of world into a 1st century Jewish text is
21:26
anachronistic. That makes a lot of sense when
21:28
you remember the cultural shock it was for Jewish believers to
21:31
accept Gentiles into the church. You read the book of Acts and
21:34
they are absolutely blown away that God is saving Romans and
21:36
Greeks. What about the all people texts?
21:38
For example, First Timothy 2.4 says God desires all people to
21:41
be saved. If he desires all people to be
21:43
saved, how can we say he only elected some?
21:46
Again, context is paramount. Look at the verses immediately
21:49
proceeding First Timothy 2.4. Paul has just instructed the
21:53
church to pray for kings and those in high positions.
21:55
His point is that God's salvation is not confined to
21:58
peasants or to the poor. God saves all classes or kinds
22:01
of people. Rulers, subjects, Jews,
22:03
Gentiles, rich, poor. The word all frequently refers
22:07
to all categories of people without distinction rather than
22:10
every individual without exception.
22:12
If a teacher says all the school is here, they don't mean every
22:15
human being on the planet. They mean representatives of the
22:17
student body. Furthermore, Reformed theology
22:20
clarifies a vital distinction between God's revealed will and
22:23
His secret will. Let's explain that distinction
22:26
because I think it helps clear up a lot of confusion.
22:28
What is the revealed will versus the secret will?
22:31
God's revealed will is what He commands us to do.
22:34
He commands all people everywhere to repent.
22:36
He desires obedience. He takes no pleasure in the
22:39
death of the wicked. That is His revealed will.
22:41
But His secret will, his eternal decree.
22:43
The blueprint we talked about in the Pactum Salutis is to
22:46
effectually save the elect. God commands Pharaoh to let his
22:49
people go. That is the revealed will.
22:52
But God also secretly decrees that he will harden Pharaoh's
22:55
heart to display his glory. Both are true.
22:58
God can command universal repentance while eternally
23:01
decreeing a definite atonement. I have to stop you there and
23:04
play devil's advocate because we cannot ignore the elephant in
23:07
the room. If God has the ability to save
23:09
everyone but only chooses to save some and only provides an
23:13
atonement for some, a lot of listeners are going to say that
23:16
it's fundamentally unfair. How do the authors reconcile
23:19
this doctrine with a just and loving God?
23:21
Our sources flip that premise entirely.
23:23
The objection of fairness assumes that fallen humans
23:26
somehow deserve a chance at starvation.
23:28
It assumes that God owes us a life preserver.
23:30
But Scripture teaches that no one deserves salvation.
23:33
Every human has willingly rebelled.
23:35
All deserve condemnation if fairness is truly what we want.
23:39
Fairness means every single person goes to hell because that
23:43
is what absolute justice demands for treason against an infinite
23:46
Creator. So the premise of the question
23:48
is flawed. We are asking for fairness when
23:51
we should be terrified of fairness.
23:52
Spot on. The true mystery is not why God
23:55
does not save everyone. The true mystery is that God
23:57
saves anyone at all. If a governor has 100 inmates on
24:00
death row who are all demonstrably guilty, and he
24:03
chooses to pardon 10 of them, no one can accuse him of injustice
24:06
toward the 90. The 90 he received justice.
24:09
The 10 received mercy. No one receives injustice.
24:12
This doctrine strips away human pride and magnifies sheer,
24:15
unmerited mercy. God is never unjust to punish
24:18
the guilty, and He is under no obligation to extend redeeming
24:21
grace to rebels. It is not a matter of fairness,
24:24
it is a matter of astonishing grace.
24:27
Let's tackle one more major objection, and this is a
24:29
practical one regarding evangelism.
24:31
I hear this all the time. People say if you believe in
24:34
definite atonement, it kills missionary zeal.
24:37
If Christ only died for the elect and their salvation is
24:40
guaranteed, why bother preaching the gospel to everyone?
24:44
Why go overseas? Why hand out tracks?
24:47
The sources argue the exact opposite definite.
24:49
Atonement is actually the greatest guarantee of successful
24:53
evangelism. Think about it logically.
24:56
If the cross simply made salvation possible, you could
24:59
preach your heart out, go to the hardest places on earth, and
25:02
potentially no one would ever respond.
25:03
Why? Because dead sinners cannot
25:05
choose God if it relies on their free will, your preaching might
25:09
be a total failure. Because you're preaching to a
25:11
graveyard. Right, but because Christ has
25:13
definitively purchased a specific people, the preacher
25:16
can proclaim the gospel with absolute certainty that it will
25:19
succeed. The Holy Spirit will use the
25:22
preaching of the Word to awaken the very sheep Christ died for.
25:25
Do you have a biblical example of that kind of encouragement?
25:28
We do. The sources cite the apostle
25:30
Paul in the city of Corinth from the book of Acts chapter 18.
25:33
Paul is in Corinth, a wicked, Pagan, hostile city.
25:38
He's facing opposition and is likely afraid.
25:40
Jesus appears to him in a vision and tells him to keep preaching
25:43
and not be silent. And what is the reason Jesus
25:46
gives? He does not say keep preaching
25:48
Paul because they have free will and might make a good choice.
25:51
He says keep preaching, for I have many in this city who are
25:54
my people. Wow, God already had a people
25:57
there, Yes. They were elect, but they hadn't
25:59
heard the gospel yet. That promise guaranteed the
26:01
success of Paul's evangelism. The sheep are out there, and
26:05
when they hear the gospel, they will recognize the shepherd's
26:08
voice. We preach indiscriminately to
26:10
everyone because we don't know who the sheep are, but we know
26:13
our preaching will not be in vain.
26:15
That is a phenomenal transition into our final major area.
26:19
Theology is meant to be lived, not just debated in an ivory
26:22
tower. Let's look at law, gospel
26:24
dynamics, and pastoral application.
26:26
How does this doctrine expose the specific idols of our modern
26:30
culture? The Law gospel dynamic is
26:32
crucial here. The law always exposes our sin,
26:34
and in this context it exposes the specific modern sin of human
26:38
autonomy. We live in an age that worships
26:41
free will. We celebrate the self-made man.
26:44
We love the prideful idea that human choice is the final
26:47
arbiter of our destiny. We want to be the captains of
26:49
our own souls. Definite atonement shatters this
26:53
idol. It really cuts down human pride.
26:55
It does. It tells us that our will was
26:57
entirely bound by sin, and that we contributed absolutely
27:01
nothing to our salvation except the sin that made it necessary.
27:04
It forces us to admit our complete helplessness.
27:07
It destroys human boasting. It really does, and our sources
27:10
are quite critical of pragmatism and the seeker sensitive
27:13
movements we see in many modern churches today.
27:15
Those movements tend to soften the gospel to make it more
27:17
palatable to modern sensibilities.
27:19
They want to avoid offending the idol of autonomy.
27:21
They do. They often treat the cross as a
27:23
vague tool for self improvement, a generic display of divine
27:26
empathy, or Jesus as a life coach who is just trying to help
27:30
you reach your full potential. But treating the cross that way
27:33
robs it of its glory. The cross is a bloody penal
27:36
substitution where the infinite wrath of Almighty God was poured
27:39
out on His own Son to secure a covenant people.
27:43
When we soften that to avoid offending people, we lose the
27:45
very mechanism of our rescue. We swap out a savior for a
27:48
helper. Yes, we exchange a victorious
27:51
king who conquered death for a defeated Savior who was standing
27:53
outside the door wringing his hands, waiting for our
27:56
permission to act. Definite atonement restores the
27:59
majesty and the sovereignty of God to the center of our
28:02
worship. So how does this doctrine change
28:04
our daily lives? Let's talk about the third use
28:06
of the law. Before we talk about the third
28:09
use, let's give the listener a quick refresher on the 1st 2,
28:11
just so we don't leave anyone behind.
28:13
If the first use of the law is to restrain societal evil like a
28:16
muzzle on a dog, and the second use is a mirror to show us our
28:20
sin and drive us to Christ, the third use is essentially the
28:24
guidebook for the saved believer, right?
28:26
It shows us how to live. How do the sources connect that
28:29
to the definite atonement? The third use of the law directs
28:32
the believer toward grateful obedience.
28:34
Because your union with Christ is already secured by his
28:37
definite atonement, you are entirely freed from trying to
28:40
earn your salvation. The debt is paid.
28:43
The verdict is in. Therefore, you do not obey the
28:46
law to get God to love you. You obey the law because God
28:49
already loves you and has purchased you.
28:51
You are empowered to pursue holiness out of overwhelming
28:53
gratitude. It changes the entire
28:55
motivation. Completely.
28:57
This contrasts sharply with the secular ethics of the modern
29:00
age. You obey not to get into the
29:03
sheepfold, but because the Good Shepherd has already brought you
29:06
in at the cost of his own life. It changes obedience from a
29:10
burden of fear into a labor of love.
29:12
I love that it changes obedience from a burden to a joy.
29:14
And what does this mean for the listeners Heart?
29:18
We all struggle with doubt. We all have days where we look
29:20
at our own sin and think, am I really saved?
29:23
What is the pastoral comfort of definite atonement for the weary
29:28
Doubting St. This provides the deepest
29:30
pastoral comfort imaginable. Think about the alternative.
29:33
If Christ died for a vague, generic world, you have no
29:36
specific assurance that He died for you personally.
29:38
He just made a provision. Your salvation would rest on the
29:40
instability of your own willpower, your own ability to
29:43
hold on to Him, your own ability to keep activating that gift
29:46
card. And if we are honest, our faith
29:48
is often weak. It is, but if He laid down His
29:51
life specifically for His sheep, and you hear His voice, your
29:55
salvation rests on the unchanging, eternal purpose of
29:58
God. He knew your name before the
30:00
foundation of the world. He paid for your specific sins
30:03
on the cross. Your hope is not grounded in the
30:06
strength of your grasp on Christ, but in the strength of
30:08
Christ's grasp on you. And He will never let a single
30:12
one of His bloodbot sheep be smashed from His hand.
30:15
That brings tremendous peace. I can actually rest.
30:18
I don't have to save myself. And our sources connect this
30:21
assurance directly to the visible word, the sacraments.
30:24
We have the preached word, but we also have the physical,
30:26
tangible word. Yes, the Lord's Supper is a
30:28
physical confirmation of this covenantal love.
30:31
When you receive the elements, you are receiving a tangible
30:34
promise that Christ's body was broken for you and His blood was
30:37
shed for the remission of your specific sins.
30:39
It seals the reality of definite atonement to your senses.
30:43
You can taste and see that the Lord is good.
30:45
It isn't just an abstract theory.
30:46
It is a covenant meal for a covenant people.
30:49
As we wrap up this deep dive, let's synthesize what we've
30:51
covered today. Viewing the cross as a definite
30:54
victorious ransom rather than a hypothetical provision
30:57
completely alters A believer's posture.
31:00
It moves us from self-reliance to awestruck gratitude.
31:04
It changes how we read the Bible, seeing God's specific
31:07
covenant love from Genesis to Revelation.
31:09
It changes how we view the Trinity, seeing a perfectly
31:12
unified Godhead. It changes how we understand
31:15
justice, recognizing that our dead is entirely cleared without
31:19
double jeopardy. And it changes how we rest in
31:22
our assurance, knowing that the Good Shepherd does not lose his
31:25
sheep. Before we close, I want to leave
31:27
you with a final thought to Mull over.
31:29
Building on the source material we just discussed regarding the
31:32
sacraments. Consider the physical elements
31:34
of the Lord's Supper, the bread and the cup.
31:36
Think about how they are administered in a church.
31:39
They are distributed to individuals 1 by 1.
31:41
The pastor or the elder looks you in the eye and says, the
31:44
body of Christ broken for you. That is a very personal moment.
31:48
It is. This physical, individualized
31:51
act at the communion table perfectly mirrors the
31:54
theological reality of definite atonement.
31:56
The elements aren't just thrown randomly into a crowd with the
31:59
hope that someone might catch them.
32:01
The pastor doesn't toss the bread into the air and say
32:03
whoever has enough free will to grab a piece, it's yours.
32:06
No, the elements are handed to specific people.
32:08
They seal a specific promise purchased for specific sheep.
32:12
The physical reality in your hands reflects the heavenly
32:15
decree in the mind of God. What a striking image to leave
32:18
on. The bread is handed to you just
32:21
as grace was secured for you. We want to thank you for joining
32:24
us on this rigorous theological deep dive.
32:27
We encourage you to continue investigating the vast wealth of
32:30
Reformed theology, Keep reading your Bible, and rest fully in
32:33
the finished work of the Good Shepherd.
32:36
Until next time, keep thinking Reformed.