Introduction

Introduction to the Series: The Extent of the Atonement

0:02 As I've intimated, I'm working on a series of lectures dealing with the whole subject of Scripture, and we'll be using the Westminster Confession of Faith, the first chapter, as our guideline. And I'm trying to give a day, a study day, a week, to the preparation of the series of lectures, and they're a few weeks away yet from being in the kind of form where I feel some degree of satisfaction or will feel that I'm doing justice to the great doctrine of Scripture, which is fundamental to all else. And as I sought to know how best to fill these Saturday mornings with a series that would be helpful in the area of theological studies, in some aspect of systematic theology, I was drawn to believe that perhaps dealing with the subject of the atoning work of Christ, and in a more definitive sense, the biblical teachings, concerning the extent of the atonement, would be helpful. Some of you will remember back some months ago, I brought a lecture on definite atonement, particular redemption in the Sunday school class, in which you got just the distilled essence of a lot of biblical and theological truth, and I ran through it at breakneck speed, and probably very little was absorbed.

1:22 Well, I'm going back over that lecture and breaking it down and expanding and simplifying and illustrating, and so forth. For the next few weeks, the subject matter before us for this second hour will be the matter of the atonement of Christ, considered particularly with reference to its extent. Now, the terms definite atonement, particular redemption, or the less accurate term limited atonement are used synonymously and will be in the course of this lecture.

The Centrality of Christ's Atoning Work

1:54 Now, no one who believes and understands the biblical teaching relative to the salvation of sinners would debate... or question the following statement.

2:04 Central to the salvation of guilty sinners is the work of atonement wrought by Jesus Christ in dying upon the accursed tree.

2:15 So strategic is the work associated with Christ's death upon that tree that the proclamation of the facts of that death are synonymous with the gospel. Remember what Paul does in Romans 1.16 and in 1 Corinthians 1.8, in Romans 1.16 we read, I am not ashamed of the gospel, or as some of the manuscripts have it, the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth. So the gospel is the power of God to salvation. In 1 Corinthians 1.18 Paul says, The word of the cross to us who are saved is the power of God.

2:58 So you have gospel and the word or the message, the message of the cross used as synonyms. So we go back then to my opening statement which I said, no one who believes the Bible to be the word of God and has any understanding of its message would debate. Central to the salvation of guilty sinners is the work of atonement wrought by Jesus Christ in dying upon the accursed tree. Now if this truth is at the heart of the gospel, any fundamental misconceptions relative...

3:32 any fundamental misconceptions relative to its nature or to its efficacy cannot but produce unholy fruits all the way out to the farthest limits of Christian thought and practice.

3:47 Now that sentence has been worked out carefully. I want to give it to you again. You don't need to take it verbatim, but I hope you catch the force of it. If this truth, the truth of Christ crucified, is at the heart of the gospel, any fundamental misconceptions, exceptions relative to its nature and efficacy cannot but produce unholy fruits all the way out to the farthest limits of Christian thought and practice.

Defining the Issue: For Whom Did Christ Die?

4:18 In other words, if your foundation is out of plumb, everything you build upon it right up to the capstone on your chimney is going to be out of plumb. And if the gospel is foundational, the gospel, synonymous with the word of the cross, if there is misconception relative to its nature and efficacy, unholy fruits from that misconception will dog our steps to the farthest limits of Christian thought and practice. It is a proven fact of theological discussion and thought that few issues, if any, are more crucial in bringing into the sharpest focus one's real sentiments with reference to the atonement, the atonement of Christ, than does the question, for whom did Christ die? In other words, if you want to go right to the nerve centers of one's understanding of what transpired upon the cross, the quickest way to do so is to approach the whole doctrine of the cross with the question, for whom was the work of that cross intended? For whom did Christ die? Now, then, as we approach this subject, what I want to do this morning, and this is probably all I'll have time to do, is to give a general introduction composed of two subheadings.

5:46 Number one, under general introduction, I want to state clearly the issue before us, and then secondly, I wish to articulate the proper approach to the subject. First of all, then, I want to state clearly the issue. When did Christ die? When did Christ die?

6:05 When did Christ die? When did Christ die? When did Christ die? When are we discussing the issue, limited atonement, definite atonement, particular redemption, what are we discussing?

6:12 If we were to use the Latin phrase, what is the status questionis? What is the real issue? What is the matter that is before our minds when we discuss the question, for whom did Christ die? Well, let me answer that question negatively and then positively.

Clarifying What the Debate is NOT About

6:32 We are not discussing, one, whether the work of Christ was sufficient to save all humanity or only some of humanity. That is not the question before us. Most theologians who believe the Bible do not question that the death of a divine human personage was of itself of infinite worth. There are very few responsible theologians and certainly very few responsible Reformed theologians who would in any way question the intrinsic worth of the death of Christ.

7:07 As being infinite. So we are not discussing whether the work of Christ was sufficient to save all humanity. Secondly, we are not discussing whether the benefits of the death of Christ are actually applied to all men or not. Now there are some real universalists, more and more of them, and I am disturbed to say there is even more and more universalism of a sort creeping into certain evangelical camps.

7:39 But we are not discussing whether the work of Christ was sufficient to save all humanity or only some of humanity. We are not concerned with those who believe that all men will ultimately be saved. We are discussing an issue debated by evangelicals who believe these two fundamental principles. The death of Christ was a substitution for sinners, and secondly, its benefits are applied only to some.

8:01 So we are discussing now not whether the benefits of Christ are actually applied to all men or not. We are discussing an issue peculiar to all men. We are discussing an issue peculiar to all men. We are discussing an issue peculiar to those who believe Christ's death was substitutionary, but only some men reap the benefits of that death.

8:19 Now thirdly, negative, we are not discussing whether a true or a bona fide offer of salvation is made to all men or not. Though there are some pranks who deny this, though there are some pranks who deny this, the mainstream of biblical and obviously of reformed thought is that Christ can and ought to be proclaimed to all, and freely offered to all. So we are not discussing whether or not we have a gospel for some men or only for a certain class of men. And fourthly, we are not discussing whether there are any fruits of the atonement which accrue to those who ultimately perish. There seem to be some clear indications in scripture that there are fruits of the atoning work of Christ that come to all men, some of which are short, of the actual forgiveness of sin and the inheritance of eternal life. Well, if those are not the things we are discussing, what then are we discussing in a positive way? Well, we are discussing this question.

The Positive Statement of the Issue: Indiscriminate vs. Particular Atonement

9:31 Did the Father, in sending Christ into the world, send him to make an atonement for all men indiscriminately and distributively? Now those are key words. When the Father sent the Son to die, did he send him to die for all men indiscriminately, with no particular regard to the individual men, and all men distributively? Or did he send him to make an atonement for his elect, particularly at his specific people, and exclusively for them and for no others? Now there is the question. Did the Father, in sending Christ into the world, send him to make an atonement for all men indiscriminately and distributively? Or did he send him to make an atonement for his elect particularly and exclusively?

10:42 To state it more simply, the question is, for whom did Christ die, putting into the word die all the richness of biblical significance? For whom did Christ become a penal satisfaction for sin? On whose behalf did he taste the wrath of God? Did he die as much for Judas as for John?

11:09 That's the question. Did he die as much for Jacob as for Esau? That's the question. Did he die as much for souls in hell as spirits made perfect in heaven? That's the question. And though people don't like to have it stated in that language, that is precisely the question. If he died for all men, in the language that we used earlier, indiscriminately and distributively, then he died as much for Jacob as for Esau, as much for Judas as for John. Professor Murray in his classic work on soteriology, which if you don't have, do anything to get it short of stealing.

11:58 Redemption accomplished and applied in addressing himself to the question, I quote, Professor Murray says, the question is on whose behalf did Christ offer himself a sacrifice? On whose behalf did he propitiate the wrath of God? Whom did he reconcile to God in the body of his flesh through death? Whom did he redeem from the curse of the law and from the guilt and power of sin and from the enthralling power and bondage of Satan?

12:26 In whose stead and on whose behalf was he obedient unto death, even the death of the cross? These are precisely the questions that have to be asked and frankly faced if the matter of the extent of the atonement is to be placed in proper focus. The very nature of Christ's mission and accomplishment is involved in this question. Did Christ come to make the salvation of all men possible? To remove obstacles that stood in the way of salvation? Or merely to make provision for salvation? Did he come to save his people? Or did he come to put all men in a salvable state? Did he come to secure the salvation of those who are redeemed to eternal life? Or did he come to make men redeemable? The doctrine of the atonement must be radically revised if as atonement it applies to those who finally perish as well as to those who are the heirs of everlasting life. This then is the question before us. I hope you have it.

The Attitudinal Approach: Caution, Humility, and Honesty

13:35 I've tried to approach it from a number of angles. This is precisely the issue that we shall be discussing in the next few weeks. Alright? Second part of introduction is how shall we approach such a subject? Having stated what the issue is, how shall we approach the subject? And I have two major sub-points. The attitudinal approach or what should our attitude be as we approach the subject and then secondly the methodological approach what should our method be? So use the shorter words attitude and method. If you want to feel real learned as you look at your notes you put attitudinal and methodological. Alright? Now what should our attitude be in approaching this subject? Dabney the great southern Presbyterian theologian of civil war days in taking up this question in his lectures on systematic theology said the following the question of the extent of the atonement as it has been awkwardly called is one of the most difficult in the whole range of Calvinistic theology.

14:48 The man who should profess to see no force in the objections to our views would only betray the shallowness of his mind and knowledge. And then he proceeds to give the three views in historic theological discussion among those that could be called evangelicals the semi-Pelagian view, the Wesleyan and then what is commonly called in our day the four point Calvinistic hypothetical universalism that goes back for its initial articulation to a French theologian Amiral and this is called Amiraldianism some have called it Baxterianism because it was one of the points that Richard Baxter held. Now the point that Dabney is making that I want to pick up is this Dabney is saying that the only proper attitude in approaching this subject is one of caution, humility and honesty in dealing with those of contrary opinion. The person who would profess to see no force in the objections to our views would only betray the shallowness of his mind and of his knowledge. Some of us feel when approaching this subject like we felt when we first began to consider the remote possibility that maybe Owen and Edwards and Baxter and the Westminster divines were wrong on baptism. Some of us can remember we had tremendous

16:18 emotional and psychological and spiritual trauma. We just could not bring ourselves to feel could these mighty giants be wrong especially when they were right on so much and were the instrument to lead us into the knowledge of so much that had been obscured for so long. Well in the very real sense when we come to articulate what we feel is the biblical answer to this question for whom did Christ die? Was it a death?

16:48 All men indiscriminately and distributively or was it a death exclusively and particularly for his sheep? There is that tremendous sense of drawing back because we realize on the other side of the question are good and godly and learned astute men of God and therefore it becomes us to approach the subject with caution, with humility and honesty in dealing with those of contrary opinion. In a wonderful old book of divinity I just wish it would be reprinted Hill's Lectures on Divinity he was a Church of Scotland man back in the 1800's when Hill comes to discuss the subject of the extent of the atonement he also gives a cautionary word that I think is very appropriate for our purposes any person who well he is first of all laid out the best of the universal redemptionist arguments and he says any person who examines with candor the arguments now stated will acknowledge that they have considerable weight I mention this because I do not know any lesson more becoming students of divinity than this not to despise the reasonings of those with whose opinion they do not entirely agree the longer they study theology or theological controversy with that sobriety and fairness of mind which is essential to the character of every inquirer after truth they will perceive the more

18:16 clearly how little acquainted with the weakness of the human understanding and with the intricacy of many of the points that have divided the Christian world are those who state their opinions in the petulant dogmatical manner often assumed by smatterers in knowledge as if they were not a shadow of reason but upon their own side he is saying essentially what Dabney does when anyone in a cavalier way simply quotes a few verses and seeks to dismiss the whole issue now more frequently this is done on the other side I have had people who do not have in comparison to an Owen they do not have that much theological learning if Owens whole body was full of it they do not have a pinky full say well I am not going to read Owens death of death and the rest as long as my bible says he is a propitiation for the whole world that is all it says in essence Owen did not know 1 John 2 was in the bible so he took the whole issue aside by quoting 4 texts now that is very very disruptive to one who has a sense of respect for the masters in Israel but you see the reverse can be true of us for remember just as much as John Owen stood on the side where we align ourselves as we seek to search the scriptures so a man like Baxter stood on the other side now he was no little diddy theologian Baxter had his head

19:44 screwed on right Baxter was proficient in the languages Baxter could read all the church fathers in the Latin he could quote them massive mind so you see it becomes a spirit of humility a spirit of sanctified diffidence and yet at the same time a spirit of determination in the language of our Lord to call no man master but to go wherever the hand of scripture leads us so I trust then in my handling of this subject there will be nothing of the cavalier and cocky attitude which would only reflect ignorance and disgrace and I trust if God is pleased to use our study to convince and firmly to ground you in this truth that it will never become the occasion of fuel to dishonor Christ by being used in an un-Christ like manner in discussion or in debate so the attitude then is not to be one of arrogance but one of caution humility and honesty now then in the second place under this matter of our approach not only attitude but now method and again I have a negative and a positive under method negatively we are not going to start in by exegeting specific

The Methodological Approach: Holistic vs. Atomistic

21:12 text of scripture one of the surest ways to end up at a dead end street when discussing this subject is to start setting one proof text against another and when you bring up the text he died for his sheep some of them will say yes but it says he gave himself for all when you bring up the text I lay down my life for my own they will say yes but he is propitiation for the whole world you see it is like trying to discuss with a Jehovah's witness the verses that point some to his deity and some to his divine nature and some to his human nature and every time you bring up John 10 where it says I and my father are one he will just go a few verses further and say yes but he says the father is greater than I and when you show in Matthew 11 where Jesus said no man knows the father but the son obvious statement of divine omniscience he will turn you to Matthew 24 to Mark 13 and say yes but the son doesn't know of the day of his return only the father knows and where do you get nowhere nowhere because you see those statements come to us in a larger biblical and theological context the context being the reality of the incarnation which constituted the person of Christ one person in two distinct natures

22:40 and until the poor benighted Russellite knows something of what was articulated at Chalcedon in terms of the one person in the two natures he will never be able to make sense out of his Bible and you will never be able to convince him well likewise when we come to the subject of the atonement and start taking specific texts which have in some cases an apparently definitive reference to the extent of the atonement others perhaps not if we start just pitting one text against another we end up nowhere and this is wrong to do because and now here is the positive statement how should we approach the subject as to method we are not going to come in the atomistic approach where we start looking at the fine details but we want to come with the holistic approach in which we seek to understand the doctrine of the atonement in its broader biblical categories now everyone who believes the Bible believes that in some way or another the cross of Jesus Christ or his death upon that cross was not an isolated event I have never met an evangelical who couldn't quote John 3.16 or who didn't believe what it said now what does John 3.16 do well it immediately ties together the work of Christ as sent with the purpose of the father as sender

24:09 for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son so immediately you see that simple text that is the byword of every evangelical indicates that the sent one and the mission of the sent one is inextricably bound up with something of the father's purpose as sender of course what is obvious in that text is obvious in so many other texts the whole of John 17 much of John chapter 6 but you see these portions of the word of God as it were form the pointer the index as to how we ought to approach this subject we ought not to approach the subject of the cross of Christ and in particular the intent of God with reference to that death for whom did Christ die without setting it in these broader circles of concern namely the father's purpose and design etc. now Hugh Martin who was one of the most perceptive and spiritual and I use that term in its highest proper sense of the Scottish divines of a bygone day in opening up the subject of the atonement says in his opening paragraphs the following it is surely now surely it is

25:38 extremely injudicious and impolitic that's just a synonym for injudicious unwise for defenders of the faith to discuss any scriptural doctrine and particularly to profess to do so fully and exhaustedly outside of any greater category to which the doctrine properly and natively belongs you got that it is injudicious and impolitic to take any doctrine and discuss it out of the greater category to which the doctrine properly belongs for by doing so they place it that is the doctrine they discuss in a position of unnecessary danger and assign to themselves a greater difficulty in defending it than scripture assigns to them they rob it of the illustration they rob it of the protection which the higher category affords they deprive it of the benefit of scriptural considerations in the light of which their defense might be comparably easy and would be found indeed presented to their hand and by the isolated position to which they consigned it they give advantage to the enemy which the abler and more acute of their number are not slow to seize you see what he's saying all of the truths of God that come to us in a scriptural relationship to other truths

27:07 not a relationship we impose upon them to protect them but they come to us in their own armor of protection he said it's unwise for us to take that truth out from under its armor and then to look at it and to examine it and try to defend it and so our approach for this study taking a clue from what has been given to us by Hugh Martin is going to be the holistic approach as opposed to the atomistic approach that is going to make an effort at viewing the doctrine of the atonement and in particular the extent of the atonement the question for whom did Christ die we're going to view it in its biblical relationships or in the heart of its biblical setting so that this matter of the target with the cross at the center will be a teaching device all the way through our study now let me illustrate how this works suppose a rational creature an angel who for some reason had never been exposed to a human being suddenly came to a part on earth sent by God where there was a dismembered finger of a human being that's all there was now he can pick up that finger and remember when angels appear they seem to be given temporary physical form and substance they can eat

28:35 and the rest as we see in the Old Testament this is a weird illustration but it's the only one I could come up with very very early this morning so I'll have to use it till I get a better one so he wants to understand what the finger is so he begins to dissect it and he knows that a finger is some kind of an appendage he's been told it was a finger of a human being he's never seen a human being doesn't know what a human form is but this is an appendage so he can by dissecting it discover that it has two main joints that it has so many main sinews it has a nail and all the rest and in a sense he understands something of what a finger is now if he's never seen a finger in relationship to four other or three others and a thumb on a human hand does he really know what a finger is well yes and no to the extent that he understands what a finger is isolated from the rest of the hand and the body he understands what a finger is but you see a finger is not a finger in the intention of God until it's seen in relationship to a hand which in turn is not a human hand unless it's seen in relationship to a forearm and an upper arm which in turn is really not seen until it's seen in its relationship to the trunk and you see the integrated whole you follow me so now if someone is out to describe what a finger is he may begin with describing all the details

30:01 down here but a better way is to describe it first of all in general terms in its relationship to the whole integrated human body as one functioning organic whole now basically as I said that's a crude illustration but I hope it will stick and some of the crudest ones I've used are the ones that come back to me years later so sometimes one must descend to being the fool for the sake of truth and the apostle said I speak as a fool I speak as a man while I'm speaking in terms that I trust will be helpful the doctrine the biblical teaching concerning the extent of the atoning work of Jesus Christ comes to us like a finger that is tied to the organic whole of the whole biblical doctrine of substitutionary sacrifice which does not come to us in isolation it comes to us as part and parcel of other major categories of biblical truth and therefore simply to lop it off and to take the text which say Christ died for this one or Christ died for that one without viewing it in its other organic relationships for these are not logical intellectual relationships they are living organic relationships we will never really understand what the atonement is and therefore we will not have an

31:29 accurate assessment of the specific details of the biblical doctrine of atonement alright so much then for our introduction the attitude not one of pompous proud and ignorant indifference to the weight of evidence on the other side of the question but one of I trust genuine humility and dependence upon God through the spirit to teach us and then as far as our approach we are not going to come with the atomistic approach but with the holistic approach now I think I have enough time this morning to give a broad outline of what we propose to do major in Roman numeral number two the biblical evidence for the definite design of the atonement of Jesus Christ or the biblical evidence for definite atonement the biblical evidence for particular redemption and I hope those two terms will supplant the term limited atonement which is shot through with all kinds of things that get people upset and what I would suggest is that we must approach the subject in keeping with what I have said is our method under the figure of this target now you will notice at the center of the target is a cross that has reference to what Jesus Christ did when dying

Outline of the Series: The Target Analogy

32:59 upon a Roman gibbet in space and time two thousand years ago now following the clue of Professor Murray's book that work which he did is called in the New Testament a work of sacrifice that is number one in that inner circle number two it is called a work of reconciliation I am sorry propitiation propitiation number two thirdly a work of reconciliation I am sure many of you can think of verses coming to your mind that David mentioned this and fourthly a work of redemption so when we draw to the center of that which was accomplished upon the cross we are viewing Jesus Christ effecting expiation by sacrifice we behold our Lord becoming propitiation for sin we behold him effecting reconciliation we behold him accomplishing redemption those are the four predominant vigorous terms used to describe what Jesus Christ did when he died upon the cross however the same scriptures which teach us

34:24 those truths teach us that the work that he accomplished upon the cross was but one phase of a larger work and namely it was the work of priests now I am not establishing these things exegetically yet we will come to that I am giving you the broad outline so you know where we are going and how we hope to get there and then we will get into the exegesis of specific passages if you want just generally to put this down of course you just put Hebrews whole sections of the book of Hebrews are given over to demonstrating that Jesus Christ accomplished salvation for men in fulfillment of his specific functions as a priest and therefore we must never disassociate what was done upon the cross in making expiation in becoming propitiation in effecting reconciliation in the accomplishment of redemption we must never never wrench it loose from the work of Jesus Christ as the great priest of his people now furthermore as we study our bibles we notice that what Christ accomplished as a priest on behalf of his people was also accomplished in the framework of a unique

35:51 relationship to salvation now you can fill it in you can just put relationship to the objects of salvation that would be an easier way to do it when we begin to ask the question why is it that what Jesus Christ did at a certain point in time approximately AD 33 why is it that what he did at a certain point in time has efficacy that goes all the way back to the garden of Eden and reaches all the way out into eternity and the answer of the scripture to that question is that he sustained a peculiar relationship to the objects of his salvation and apart from an understanding of that relationship we can never answer this question you can't sort out the biblical data I mean isn't it ridiculous to say even just 20 years no it was written five years after Christ died Paul can write to the Ephesians

37:20 and say you have he made alive with him to write to the Romans and say as he does in Romans 6 you died with him and then to complicate matters we read the lamb slain from before the foundation of the world what's all this language you see lamb slain is cross before the foundation of the world there is some kind of relationship that secures the salvation of his people and we must never view the cross apart from that relationship Christ never did his language is filled with it filled with it I lay down my life for the sheep the good shepherd gives his life for the sheep the announcement of his birth thou shalt call his name Jesus for he shall save his people he already has a people there is a relationship chosen in him all of this biblical language that tells us that the work of Christ upon the cross was a work accomplished in the framework of a previously established relationship to the objects of that salvation that he is effecting upon the cross and then the largest circle on the target is what we are calling in this class

38:47 we did in previous studies the covenant of redemption when we examine the biblical materials with reference to Christ's relationship to the objects of salvation we come across language that can only be collated and articulated in terms of something that comes out this way there was a covenant of redemption there was some kind of an inter-trinitarian arrangement is the language Mr. Fisher is using in this class the Lord Jesus was very conscious of people and responsibility committed to his charge to save them he was conscious that the Father had made specific commitments to him made certain promises to him and all that he does he does in fulfillment of that inter-trinitarian arrangement he would not divorce his work upon the cross from the framework of that covenant of redemption I'm just outlining this we're not giving the exegetical basis this morning that's not the purpose now what I want you to see and those of you that are off to the side and can't see the blackboard we'll leave this on here so you can copy it off is that we ought to have an arrow going from here into the center and from the center all the way out

40:15 now what do the arrows tell us they tell us that what happened here partakes of the relationship established in the outer circles so that the covenant of redemption Christ's peculiar relationship to the objects of salvation his work as a priest all impinge upon the nature and efficacy and fruits of that which he accomplished when he actually died and we are to learn from the arrow going in and out and going all the way out that everything that was accomplished here is in perfect consonance with the verses and terms of the other circles so as they bear down upon the nature of his work on the cross so that which was accomplished upon the cross reflects outward and brings into beautiful accomplishment beautiful illustration and support all of the truths that are set before us in the other doctrines so then if we discover as I trust we shall that the very nature of the work of Christ upon the cross is his definite design and that that definite design alone is consistent with his work as a priest consistent with the nature of his relationship

41:43 to the objects of salvation consistent with the terms of the covenant of redemption then you see it's not a matter of being shaken from our position because of the appearance and intent in the death of Christ one cannot dispose of the definite design in the death of Christ until he has either disposed or so altered beyond recognition that they are really something else everything taught about him as priest the nature of his relationship to his people and the terms of the covenant of redemption and I've learned the hard way that I will not discuss the question for whom did Christ die with anyone who is unwilling the context in which it comes to us in holy scripture I refuse to discuss it because it's just as foolish to discuss what a finger is when it's just a cut off appendage sitting there on a piece of oak you're really not discussing a human finger unless you're discussing it and analyzing it in relationship to the immediate context of the hand the larger context of an arm and the larger context yet of a whole functioning living organism of the human body and so this will be our approach to the subject and God willing in our next lecture we'll take up these matters and go through them

43:12 I would imagine I'd probably take us three or four lectures and then when we come to the end we'll actually grapple with some of the peculiar problems of about the four or five texts usually there are just four or five texts that are often held up as apparently in regard of the universalistic approach and we want to be honest and seek to see if there are exegetical alternatives that are true and valid linguistically and contextually and that fit the general and obviously overwhelming teaching of the word of God concerning the question for whom did Christ die