1 Timothy 1:15
Major Objections to this Doctrine
Pastor Albert N. Martin addresses major objections to the doctrine of definite atonement, categorizing them as textual, practical, and emotional. He systematically outlines common proof texts used against the doctrine (e.g., "world," "all," perishing for whom Christ died) and provides a bibliography of Reformed authors who offer thorough exegetical responses. Martin then tackles practical objections concerning evangelism and the glory of a limited atonement, emphasizing that the gospel is a free offer to all sinners and that God's glory is magnified in the salvation of a vast multitude. He concludes with an exhortation for believers to hold and handle this truth graciously, avoiding unkind rhetoric, and demonstrating its efficacy through zealous evangelism and holy living.
Primary Texts
Topics
Outline 10 sections · 64 min
- Review of the Doctrine of Definite Atonement's Context 0:02
- Categorization of Objections to Definite Atonement 4:27
- Textual Objections: "World," "All," and Perishing Saints 5:57
- Addressing Textual Objections and Recommended Resources 8:39
- Practical Objections: Evangelism and the Glory of Atonement 16:31
- Response to the Evangelism Objection 18:38
- Response to the Glory Objection 28:55
- Emotional Objections and Man-Centered Thinking 40:23
- Exhortation: Graciousness and Zeal in Handling Truth 44:49
- Exhortation: Engaging the Unconvinced with Wisdom and Prayer 58:03
Key Quotes
“whenever we extract any biblical doctrine from its biblical context, we weaken our defense and our presentation of that doctrine.”
“nothing short of a full-blown particularism, an atonement that efficaciously secures these things, does justice to those biblical categories.”
“I found that honesty and thoroughness were definitely on the side of reformed writers”
“I'm not about to throw over all these other categories that are so clearly taught and for which, as far as I'm concerned, there is absolutely no evasion apart from twisting the word of God.”
“The minute we begin to understand that the atonement was a work of vicarious penal satisfaction, rendered to God, you're going to end up with one of two things. You're going to hold to that. You're going to end up with full-blown universalism or true biblical particularism.”
“every man limits the atonement, either in its efficacy or in its extent, but limit it he must.”
“nay but O man who art thou to reply against God shall the thing made say to him that made it that's the whole creator creature relationship you talk like that man you've forgotten who you are”
“your life ought to be the constant monumental answer to the fallacy that says if you don't believe in particular redemption you can't have evangelistic fervor or passion or you can't preach a free gospel”
Applications
All listeners
- Be gracious in holding and handling the truth of definite atonement, avoiding unkind and unchristian rhetoric.
- Do not be more careful or fastidious in your language than God is; quote scripture like John 3:16 or 1 John 2:2 without feeling the need to qualify for extended periods.
- Demonstrate by unflagging zeal and persevering prayer your faith in the efficacy of Christ's work, manifesting godliness, growth in holiness, and zeal for the lost.
- Preach the gospel with vigor, offense, and majesty, without gimmicks or making it palatable to unregenerate men, confident that God will bring home His elect.
- Let your life and preaching be a living and unanswerable monument to the fallacy that definite atonement kills evangelism.
- Go after men with an urge to preach, fervency, and graciousness in all witnessing situations.
- If someone expresses worry about not being one of the elect, affirm the seriousness of that concern and direct them to repentance and faith as the way to know their election in Christ.
- Base your hope for sinners on the grace of God and the fact that you have no revelation that any specific person is not elect until they die impenitent.
- Do not discuss the issue of definite atonement as though it were to be determined by the disposition of a few proof texts.
- When engaging the unconvinced, seek to introduce them to broader theological categories (like the covenant of redemption) rather than debating isolated proof texts.
- When confronted with objections, listen, smile, and pray for grace to respond charitably, letting your 'outers' be right until your 'inners' catch up.
- Invite the unconvinced to pray together before discussing sacred matters, acknowledging God's greatness and seeking His guidance.
A full transcript is available on the tab. 84 paragraphs, roughly 64 minutes.
Review of the Doctrine of Definite Atonement's Context
Now, we return this morning to consider for the final time this burning question, for whom did Christ die? Now, just briefly to review, our approach to this subject has been to follow the suggestion given by Hugh Martin and many others, but I think probably in the most powerful language stated by Hugh Martin, namely to consider the question of the extent of the death of Christ or the question for whom did Christ die, not in isolation, but in intimate relationship with the other categories of truth within which that doctrine is presented to us in the Scriptures. And I repeat what Hugh Martin has said, at least it's a paraphrase of him, that whenever we extract any biblical doctrine from its biblical context, we weaken our defense and our presentation of that doctrine. And so we've tried to consider the death of Christ in relationship, first of all, to the covenant of redemption, and we saw that the death of Christ contemplated in the eternal Trinitarian councils is particularistic to the core, a people, a distinct people, a seed is given to Christ, or are given to Christ. And on their behalf, Christ agrees to be surety,
and the Father agrees to uphold and sustain the Son in the pursuit of all of the obligations that will be His as the surety of His people. So strict particularism is found laying, as it were, in the very womb of the atoning work of Christ in eternity in the covenant of redemption. Then we consider the doctrine of the cross, or the death of Christ, in the context of Christ's relationship to His people. And again, strict particularism is found here, that Christ becomes a true substitute, identifying Himself with His people, so that what happens to Him is said to happen to them.
When He dies, they die. When He is buried, they are buried. When He is raised, they are raised. And in the life of our Lord, that self-conscious awareness, as He expressed in John 17, that for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they may be sanctified through the truth.
And then the third, major category, was the death of Christ considered as a priestly function. And we noted, as we've been underscoring in the Sunday morning expositions as well, that Christ's work in accomplishing redemption was a bona fide priestly activity, and that priestly activity has at least two major categories, the work of oblation and intercession or presentation, both of which are inseparably identified in the Old Testament ritual, and in the New Testament accomplishment in the work of Christ. So strict particularism meets us again. No one, no one that I know, claiming to be an evangelical, even the Socinians, teach that Christ intercedes for all men indiscriminately. The intercession is particularistic if it is but another phase of His priestly work, that even if there were no explicit teaching concerning the particularism of the oblation, we would be forced by the whole drift of type being a foreshadowing of substantial reality to assume that that reality undergirded the work of Christ in His priestly functions. And then in our last lecture, we considered the nature of the work of Christ itself in its major biblical categories as sacrifice, propitiation, reconciliation, and redemption.
And I suggested, after giving you just specimen quotes from Murray, that nothing short of a full-blown particularism, an atonement that efficaciously secures these things, does justice to those biblical categories. Redemption is redemption, not potential redemption. Reconciliation is reconciliation. Propitiation is an actual turning away from the wrath of God for all those on whose behalf propitiation was made.
Categorization of Objections to Definite Atonement
Now, what I propose to do in this, final lecture, is to deal with the problems connected with this doctrine or the major objections to this doctrine. And all I want to do is to outline these objections and then to point you in the direction of those sources where these objections are dealt with very thoroughly, very honestly, at least that's my assessment, so that you will be able to trace these things out on your own. If I were to ask, actually do the work of answering the objections in a careful, exegetical manner, why we'd be at this thing for another series of I don't know how many lectures. All right, so the subject of our lecture this morning, having opened up the doctrine, that would be the first major category that has occupied us for six lectures, now in the seventh lecture, the major objections to this doctrine. And as I've tried to be sensitive, to these objections, both in discussing the matter with people, in reading literature, and in reading those who confront the objections, I believe it's accurate to say that the objections break down into three categories. Textual objections, practical objections, and emotional objections. Textual, practical, and emotional objections to the doctrine of definite atonement.
Textual Objections: "World," "All," and Perishing Saints
All right, first of all then, the textual objections, and when you've read all of the objections, when you've discussed with people who say, how can you believe that when it says that all of those objections can be ranged under three headings? So the textual objections have three major categories. All right, objections to the doctrine of definite atonement, textual objections, A, B, C, and then we'll look at practical objections, and then emotional objections. All right, under the first category, then, textual objections, the first category is text in which the word world is used to describe the objects of the death of Christ. John 1.29, behold the Lamb of God who beareth away the sins, or the sin of the world. First John 2.2, he is propitiation,
not for ours only, but also for the whole world. Then the second category of textual objection are the texts in which the word all or every are used to describe the objects of Christ's death. Second Corinthians 5.15, and that he died for all.
Romans 8.32, delivered him up for us all. First Timothy 4.6, who gave himself a ransom for all.
Hebrews 2.9, who tasted death for every man. And that just about exhausts the texts. And then you have the third category of textual objection, the text in which it is stated that some perish for whom Christ died.
Romans 14.15, shall I make the brother for whom Christ died perish because of my meat? Hebrews 10.29-31, people who've been sanctified by the blood of the covenant, but who've trampled it underfoot, and eventually are the recipients of divine wrath and anger.
And then 2 Peter 2.1, denying the only Lord and Master that bought them. Now I believe it's accurate to say, and this is not original with me, you'll find this basic classification in Burckhoff, and you'll find it in Burckhoff because he probably found it in Turretin, and you'll find it in most of the standard Reformed theologians who've written from Turretin. Downward.
Addressing Textual Objections and Recommended Resources
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 06, what shall we do about the doctrine of in the doctrine of definite atonement, as we've sought to expound it in these past lectures arranged under those three categories an? Well what is our answer to these objections? Yes? Dr. Yeah that was in first Timothy 2.4.
Dr. what. . . . What did I say?
Here, that's from like 4.6 Dr. Oh I'm sorry, yes, I'm sorry, Chapter Gary 2.4th through 6 is that whole passage in there.
Thank you, Thank you, all right here I'll get that changed. 1 Timothy 2. . . . who will all men to be saved and come to the knowledge auch of the truth the God living God. . . . . Oh yeah, that was in that timeline, wasn't I . . . . I've got a story in here, truth who gave and this is well pleasing and acceptable with god etc all right now these matters have been faced honestly and carefully by students of the word in fact one of the things that when i was coming out of the cocoon as it were of the the woolly headed thinking that had marked me for so many years in these areas and after oh some eight to ten years of wrestling with these things was coming to some definitive position or some definite position one of the things i noticed that there was a much greater honesty in reformed writers dealing with objections to that position than there was with arminian and semi-pelagian writers in dealing with the opposite position i found that honesty and thoroughness were definitely on the side
of reformed writers and it's also interesting to note that the materials for objection must be scanty because the same ones are being made today that were made way back in turin's day you read that and you think you are reading the writings of a man who was listening to something going on at one of the latest uh... uh... convocations of anti-reformed preachers in our day i mean there's just no new thing under the sun and these problems are dealt faced head-on and i believe in an honest and thoroughly exegetical way uh... most helpfully in the following writers and i want to give you now a little bibliography so you can trace out these if you can come upon a copy of the translation out of the latin into english of this section of turret and dealing with the atonement uh... this particular copy that i have in my hands is turret in on the atonement of christ
translated by james wilson turret in t u double r e double t i n one of the great successors of calvin great preacher great saint great philanthropist he had we would call him a great philanthropist we would call a very broad world in life view and a very sensitive heart this was uh... published by the board of publication of reformed protestant dutch church in new york in eighteen fifty nine alas this is but borrowed i wish it were my own but uh... turret in and pages one sixty one to one ninety three deal systematically with each of these categories of objection and then john gill in his body of divinity page four sixty seven through four seventy five john gill body of divinity four six seven through four seven five that would be uh... jay greens edition the uh... green
covered copy and then john owen on the death of death volume ten if you have the full uh... the reprint of the gould edition volume ten the one the banner has done page three sixteen through four twenty one owen volume ten three sixteen to four twenty one or if you have the original banner of truth the separate printing that had packers introduction that would be found on pages one eighty two to three oh nine all right and then john murray and redemption accomplished and applied pages seventy one to seventy five probably the most succinct treatment in short compass of some of these objections redemption accomplished and applied pages seventy one through seventy five and then arthur pink's book on the atonement done by baker a w pink the atonement pages two fifty three through two sixty six and then one of the most helpful little treatises gary long's newly published book definite atonement and he has three appendices and they are found on pages sixty seven to one oh seven
fifty pages of material sixty seven to one oh seven a detailed exposition of three of the most critical texts second Peter 2.1, 1 John 2.2, and 2 Corinthians 5.19.
Laid out very well, gives the various options. I found them very, very helpful.
So, in facing these textual objections, I suggest that you read as many of these treatments as you can possibly get your hands on, and I think you with me will be convinced that the matter is dealt with honestly. And in, oh, I would say 90% of the instances, a simple reference to context and to biblical words being interpreted biblically causes the objections to vanish. And Owen was, at one point, you can tell he's a little bit irritated when people come and say, you know, they have a word, they have a word, and they're going to press the whole issue on a word. And he says, in essence, well, look, man, get off your horse for a minute and let's ask ourselves, yes, we have a word, world, we have a world, everything. A word, every. But what do those words mean? And then Owen, in his very thorough way, for instance, with the word world, he just goes right through every usage in which it may have some kind of expanded reference to the redemptive work of Christ and just shows, or, I'm sorry, takes the phrase whole world and all its usages in the New Testament, I think there are eight usages, and he just shows that in none of those cases can it possibly mean every single individual.
The whole world has gone after him. And these usages and shows then why intrude that meaning in 1 John 2 too, when that very linguistic pattern has another meaning in every other context, that this is just being dishonest with biblical language. So I think you'll find those treatments helpful. All right?
So those are the textual objections and there are one or two passages I frankly confess that I'm not satisfied with any exegesis that I've read concerning them. The 1 Timothy 2 passage is one such passage. Gave himself a ransom for all in a context where he's speaking about God's benevolent design with reference to all classes of men, yes, but I'm not quite satisfied that that does full justice. But I'm willing to live with that problem.
Why? Because I see all these other categories that are so clear, I'm not about to try to undo all of those and overthrow all of those because I have unresolved textual problems. I have a problem with one or two verses and I don't think we need to be embarrassed about that. If there was someone sitting here who hated this doctrine and was ready to go for my juggler vein, I'd be vulnerable in telling him.
I'm not satisfied with the exegetical work that I've seen done on passage A, B, or C. But I'm not about to throw over all these other categories that are so clearly taught and for which, as far as I'm concerned, there is absolutely no evasion apart from twisting the word of God. All right? Now then, the practical objections.
Practical Objections: Evangelism and the Glory of Atonement
It seems to me that the practical objections can be reduced under two heads. All right? Practical objections. What are they?
Practical objection number one. How can you preach the gospel to all men without distinction if Christ has not died for every man? So it's the objection of how can you evangelize? You ever heard that objection?
Well, again, I know how real that is because the first time I ever began to think about it, about particularism, I was down in Augusta, Georgia in the summer of 1953.
Yes, summer of... No, summer of 54.
Halfway through my college, time in college, and someone gave me a Westminster Confession of Faith. And that's the first time I'd ever encountered particularism. And I was reading that and I said, man, here I am beating myself to death trying to win people to the Lord down here in the middle of the world. And I said, man, I'm not particularism.
I'm not particularism. I'm not particularism. I'm not particularism. I'm not particularism.
I'm not particularism. I'm not particularism. In this hot, economically deprived area holding Bible studies and preaching and beating myself to death to try to see some people want to Christ. If this is so, how in the world do I go out on the street tomorrow?
And I can remember. I remember wrestling with it, having no one to help me, and I finally shut the confession and I said, Lord, I just have to leave that for another time because I just don't know what to do. But I know your word says I've got to go preach the gospel to every creature so where I don't have light on those other things. I'm going to invade the light I've got on this thing. So I went about my business and put it on the shelf for a while. And it was very interesting when God began to deal with me again in the late fifties that I found that old confession and it opened up the whole thing afresh. That was one of my first real problems even before I understood the thing. And I'm sure all of you have wrestled with it and you meet others. Well, the great problem, how can you preach the gospel to all men without distinction? Well, what's our answer to that? Well, our basic answer is that preaching the gospel is not telling each individual that Christ died for him.
Response to the Evangelism Objection
There is no such example of gospel preaching in the book of the Acts. Though we are given very few apostolic sermons, we are given some. And there is not an instance in any record of apostolic proclamation of the gospel in which part of that gospel is the statement Christ died for you and for you. And for you and for you, therefore, you are warranted to come. No, rather, the apostolic preaching, whether group preaching, such as we have in Acts 13 or individual preaching, such as we have in Acts 16, includes a statement to the effect that forgiveness is offered to every sinner on the basis of the fact that Christ has made adequate provision for sinners and all who come to him will be welcome. For instance,
Acts 13 and verse 38, And the reason we are able to do this is because Christ died for you, for you, for you, for you. We have the same thing in Acts 16. When the man cries out, What must I do to be saved? They say to him, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved. They set before him Jesus Christ as an adequate and willing and able Savior who will do him all kinds of good if he believes, but do him no good if he does not believe. Now, those who would say, But if I did not believe, I would not be saved. But if I did not believe, I would not be saved.
But if I did not believe that Christ died for every man, I could not evangelize. We say, Well, then you have a problem the apostles apparently didn't have, and you better get it rectified and preach the apostolic gospel. And then we turn to church history and say, Well, apparently the greatest evangelist who got his own to the proclamation of the gospel in their generations did not have that problem. Who could say that Whitefield and Edwards and the Tennants and Nettleton and Brainerd and Carey and Spurgeon and a host of lesser lights were not evangelists after the gospel?
The purest order. Men who preached Christ freely, urgently, powerfully, pressing the claims of Christ upon the consciences of men. So then, the person who says, If I can't have an indiscriminate, indefinite, universal atonement, I can have no evangelistic message or passion. We say, Sir, the problem is one of your own creation. So you better deal with it before God. It is certainly not a problem in the scriptural concept. It is certainly not a problem in the scriptural concept of gospel preaching, nor in the historical perspective of what constituted gospel preaching. May I suggest for some parallel reading, of course, one of the most helpful treatises on this is Packer's Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, and then Shedd in his Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, 482 to 489. And then there's a book that Don Garlington has loaned to me. It's called
The Efficacy of the Atonement, and he has an excellent section on the free offers of the gospel being consistent with a strict particularism. And, of course, you have the classic treatment by Fuller called The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation. Now, there are some aspects of Fuller's teaching that I'm not quite sure I really understand, and if I do understand, or if what it is, is what some others who call the gospel worthy of criticize Fuller say it is, then I don't embrace. Now, Fuller, in seeking to rectify some of the errors of a hyper-Calvinism that had no free offers of the gospel, may have tampered a bit with what the gospel really is. I'm not prepared to pronounce with finality on that. But there is much scriptural, solid scriptural reasoning in Andrew Fuller's book called The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation. As some of you know, it was that treatise which broke the back of the hyper-Calvinism which resulted in the free offers of the gospel and the releasing of Carey to go to India, and everything that followed in that ministry.
I find that the statement in Timothy is perhaps the most helpful to me as far as having one text. If I were to say what one text is of great assistance to me in urging me to preach the gospel freely and in giving me confidence that I have every right to do so, it's 1 Timothy 1.15.
Now, with a text like that, what more do you need to preach a free, unfettered gospel? This saying is worthy of all acceptance. Christ Jesus has come into the world. The opening up of all the redemptive work accomplished in Christ, he came to save sinners and then to press upon men the acceptance of that Savior, the embracing of the offered salvation.
So that's the first, what I would call, practical objection. And of course, many others have dealt adequately with the whole problem. I think this is perhaps the easiest of the objections to answer. Yes.
What was the Acts passage in what was the first... Acts 13.38 and 39.
13. Yes. And what was the first author you read from? I'm sorry, Packer, Evangelism in the Sovereignty of God. And Bob and I were talking yesterday about... And Bob's book as an approach to this that was unique. I'd never read it before. It's called The Hypothetical Postponement of the Atonement. And very, very interesting points. Would you like me to just give it to you quickly? All right. It's this.
Okay. There you go. Now, his point is this. Christ came, died, excuse me, in the year 1830. We stand here in 19...
Let's just round it out in the year 2000. Now, his point was this. He said, just suppose, for the sake of argument and discussion, that Christ had postponed his actual work upon the cross till the end of human history, during which time all the promises of the Old Testament had added to them much of the clear light of the New Testament, that Christ actually became incarnate, and said, now I am among men with the promise that everyone who will trust in me, I will become his surety, and when everyone who is going to trust me, as a result of the Father's decree of election and the effectual work of the Spirit, when the full role of my elect is complete, at the end of that role being filled, I will actually lay down my life for all who have entrusted themselves to me to be their surety. Now, he said, is there any problem with Christ offering himself that way to people? Strict particularism, but absolute freedom, coming to every man. Say, will you have me to be your surety?
Will you have me to be your surety? Will you have me to be your surety? If you will, when everyone who will have me has embraced me, I will lay down my life specifically for that number, not one less, not one more. Now, Candler's point is, it does not materially alter the facts if he did that in the middle of history.
What did he do when he laid down his life? A surety for all who believed in him before his coming, and all who will believe. And therefore, in the proclamation of the gospel, we proclaim simply those same facts. Christ is a surety for all who will have him.
But he is surety for none who will not have him. And it's an interesting thought. I've never heard anyone open it up. We call it the hypothetical postponement of the work of Christ.
But we're seeking to emphasize, you see, this point that strict particularism and the free offers are not in collision with one another. Yes, Paul. I made a point to someone when we were discussing, asked him the question, did Christ have to die for those in the Old Testament who had already rejected him? Was it at least necessary for him to die for them?
So you have enough history passed there to draw the point out. Yes, good point, yes. Whether or not he did that. Yeah, and that's of course the point that Spurgeon asked, and Owen asked, did Jesus Christ die as much for the Sodomites as for Noah and...
It seems to me that, and we threw that out at people, the problem was that I had a different idea of what the atonement was than they did. They had some idea that the atonement was some big glob of infinite something, and you just draw upon that glob. It's not that my sins were put there. Strict substitution is not understood.
Exactly, exactly, Paul, that's a vital point. The minute we begin to understand that the atonement was a work of vicarious penal satisfaction, rendered to God, you're going to end up with one of two things. You're going to hold to that. You're going to end up with full-blown universalism or true biblical particularism.
Because if it was real substitution, then real payment was made for real sin of real sinners that secures real release. Absolutely. But as long as they've got these vague notions, something that Jesus did on the cross somehow or other forms the basis in some way or other by which we can cash in and get off the hook. Then there's very, very vague and indefinite views.
Response to the Glory Objection
It's a good point, Paul. All right, so there's the problem of the practical problem number one, the free offers of the gospel. I think it's the easiest of the problems to resolve. But practical problem number two is the question, how can the atonement be glorious if limited only to some?
And usually the people who ask that question or have that problem, the reason usually is they're thinking in terms of a little smattering. A few, although at any given point in history, the gate is narrow and few there be that find it. There is nothing in the scripture that describes the role of God's elect as some minuscule thing, some little remnant of a remnant. Every description is one that speaks of a vast multitude.
I beheld, John says, a great multitude whom no man could number out of every kindred. And tribe and tongue and nation. So then we say in answer to this question, how can the atonement be glorious if limited only to some or to a few? First of all, the Bible makes it plain that the role of God's elect is not a small role.
That the idea of scripture is not that a few are to be saved, but that a great multitude shall be saved. Our second answer is that in constricting or restricting the atonement to those who are only saved, this alone gives full credit to the efficacy and the glory of that atonement. As has been often said, every man limits the atonement, either in its efficacy or in its extent, but limit it he must. You have the illustration. Spurgeon, I believe, used it.
He said, some of you have an atonement that is like a big wide bridge. We're looking down now from the helicopter. All right? Here is the whole mass of humanity.
Here is the gulf that separates humanity from God. And that awful precipice is the lake of fire and everlasting destruction. How shall humanity get from here to the state of acceptance and glory? Well, Spurgeon's point is, the man who teaches and believes in universal redemption, he has a bridge as wide as humanity.
And he said, the one problem is, it stops short of the other bank. It assures that no one will pass from here to here. That the atonement does not secure the actual bringing of any sinner from here to there. It pays away if he will, you see, and then he must add the last plank.
Whereas Spurgeon says the atonement we believe the Bible teaches, and which we preach, is one that actually bridges. For. of humanity from the state of nature and condemnation into a state of grace and acceptation and as I was meditating upon this and said I think now if we look from a side elevation of this bridge that bridge is the cross and we're discussing for whom Christ died and say that that cross is rooted in this bank in the eternal covenant of redemption so that everything that happens upon that cross will be a transcription of the particularism of the efficacy of design in the eternal covenant of redemption and on the other side it is here in the efficacious and infallible application of all that was purchased on the behalf of those for whom it was purchased that's the cross that we preach that actually redeems looking backwards in terms of all of the framework of the eternal covenant of redemption that having accomplished
that work it secures the efficacious and infallible application of the benefits of that redemption and I think the third thing that we ought to say about this matter of how can it be glorious and I didn't know where else to put it but here I believe we're dealing when people make this objection with a false notion of deserved deliverance somehow God owes it to men to get them off the hook by sending his son to die for them whereas I don't believe we've begun to understand the truth of the cross until we would stand back in amazement if God should have chosen to save but one of the fallen race of Adam and the case of fallen angels is a constant monument that grace is not owed a whole race of angelic beings there's not one of them as far as scripture reveals who was the object of any kind of redemptive not a one so the idea that God was bound to save in order to reveal his mercy I simply cannot establish that on exegetical grounds I cannot establish it on exegetical grounds that God will reveal the full spectrum of his character to the moral universe yes God is God but the manner in which he will do it I wouldn't begin to presume
to say that the only manner in which he could do it was to rescue some of the fallen sons of Adam now having committed himself to rescue them I'm convinced I take the mainstream of historic biblical and reformed exegesis and theology that the atonement then was a necessity not hypothetically but really but that there should ever be an atonement and ever be a rescue is a matter of pure sovereign grace yes Bill isn't that the whole course of where he sets up this hypothetical hypothetical man yeah he's saying you're thinking in terms of justice rather than mercy yeah and justice doesn't enter into this category when God's dealing with ill deserving hell deserving wrath deserving creatures the word fairness and ought are wrong vocabulary get them out of your vocabulary alright I would refer you to Pink and his book on the atonement pages 241 to 245 and he has some very good materials in there alright then the third problem is the problem of the emotional
problem yes actually that's what you might say on this B here how can it be glorious from the biblical perspective do you believe that it actually he chose a remnant to make it more glorious and in fact the reverse is really true God is more glorified by a remnant than all were saved well we have to believe if God has chosen a course which will secure the maximum measure of his glory and the course is one in which there is a divine selectivity then certainly his glory is more manifested in that method of salvation than in any other but we only know that because that's what he's done we don't know it by some previous category that we have set up saying it must be this way if God is to be glorified you follow me yes but on a reasonable basis if you find yourself in heaven and you look and most of the people are in hell you would praise God that why are you the ones in heaven when he saves everyone there's no distinction between you it's a good thing he did but it wouldn't be the same comprehension that I was there in all yeah the fact that there's a divine yeah a divine differentiation will only augment the magnitude of grace but of course one of the problems you see
and this is where again I live with unresolved tensions here one of the problems I have that when I read the book of the revelation in particular I get the impression that the redeemed are numerically greater than even the lost and that lost men and sin are some little blot banished some never most part of God's universe and that that which predominates is the glorious church and the rest now some men having seen that same thing have come up with various theories all your post millennial latter day glory some have come up Warfield with his vision of a saved world others have come up with I think the ingenious theory again that all infants dying in infancy are saved if so you think of up until a hundred years ago the tremendous mortality rate if every infant dying in infancy and every unborn fetus well to me again that speculative theology to say how God will do this but it seems to me that the overriding impression particularly wherever you have any comparisons between the saved and the lost apart from the one that speaks of what's going on in any given generation at any given point in time the way is broad but the multitudes follow the way is narrow that you know leads unto life but when it's all done how you get those figures in every given generation and come up with what you seem to feel in the book of the revelation I don't know well just the whole overarching
thing in other words when he sees the multitude of the redeemed it's that great multitude whom no man can number when there is the destruction of evil the great multitudes and myriads of the angels and apparently redeemed spirits rejoicing in the destruction of Babylon that great whore and then 10,000 times that's going on this is the yeah I say I wouldn't pronounce on it Paul that's why you know I say I believe there's certain impressions that I receive but I would never you know expound upon them or try to defend them yes that's right and with the former world how many people did he save in the in the time of the flood eight souls eight souls so the concept of a remnant very clearly and I don't know how to put all those things together it's one of those and for some reason how much is nature and how much is grace and how much a mixture I don't know but I've never been troubled with questions that to me God just hasn't given us answers so I say well that may be something freakish in me see maybe it's a weakness in my character
Emotional Objections and Man-Centered Thinking
that I don't press those things I hope it's not yeah John I was just going to say in the background I had a professor who actually had a doctor I don't remember how he could do all that he was studying for a month with his view on the economy the idea that it's for the elect you know it seems that they want they manipulate their views from their emotions or feelings because the reason that he gave after the entire lecture was that so that God would be able to give these reprobates an answer yeah I thought well why does he have to give them an answer yeah all right that was see I'd already spilled over into my third one there the emotional thing and it's this thing that God owes this salvation and God must get himself hooked you see God is somehow embarrassed if he did not give his son to die for men yeah that's very I think I don't think that's an unfair assessment at all John and it shows again the ultimate fruit of the man-centered thinking that when we look at the thing as scripture gives us warrant to look at it from God's standpoint and we can do that in terms of history we got the we've got the flood I mean man that's something you got to reckon with how many were saved eight and God did not make a provision for the whole thing that art couldn't fit them all if you multiply it I mean if you want to start you know taking analogies and people say well a bona fide offer
was made we say granted and we make a bona fide offer and we say all who will come in may and then what we say so there's there are real problems with that position John but if it strikes again man's emotions have been tainted by sin and that's why there is an emotional affinity for the doctrine of universal redemption but when you see what you give up to follow the dictates of emotion give up all the glorious truth concerning concerning the eternal covenant give up the whole doctrine of union with Christ give up the whole doctrine of the unity of his priestly function give up the whole doctrine of strict penal substitution and satisfaction well when you've given up all that to satisfy your emotions that's a terrible price to pay but thank God again all of us to some degree if Grace is operative in us there are points where we're better in our experience than we are in our theology and their men who's who do believe in strict substitution in their hearts it's just when they go to articulate it in their heads and in its implications that their emotions cloud their judgment and they get into problems yes bill and then those Corinthians we were doing a Bible study at the more we were meditating we almost got the feeling that the Bible study was very important. and I don't know another word and I don't mean to sound blasphemous
I'm trying to think of a I use the word sadistic but that is evil and I'm not trying to use that but it seems that God has taken our incredible delight you know the answer is a lot of times we say well why we say because we please God and here is like a whole chapter on what it means to please God it seems that our Father has taken a thrill in just confounding the wise that to him there is such absolute glory that he is taking the very Mark and has made that the glory it seems our Father is just glory in particular yes it does because it humbles it humbles man it puts man where he was at creation and where he ought to be by virtue of being the creature but where he refuses to be because of sin namely on his face acknowledging that he is but creature whose mind is in no position to judge what is right to judge what is fair and that's why Paul says nay but O man who art thou to reply against God shall the thing made say to him that made it that's the whole creator creature relationship you talk like that man you've forgotten who you are and even unfallen Adam was still man and even unfallen Adam was still man he was never to make his mind
Exhortation: Graciousness and Zeal in Handling Truth
the basis upon which he would judge the rightness or wrongness of the dealings of God the mind in that sense was not an arbiter of God's actions it was to be a receptor a humble receptor what God did was right because God is God well there is that first thing and the emotional one we've already touched on that we don't need to imagine that anymore and it is an emotional thing and realizing that then you've got to be careful and not unnecessarily provoke and let people know that you can sympathetically identify with them in that emotional problem the same way you have an emotional problem the first time you hear the doctrine of election you think well what about my unsaved loved ones if they're not chosen then all my prayers and all my efforts will come that's a very natural reaction and you've got to be sensitive to that you just can't act like well forget your emotional we've got to be able to realize man we've got to be able to realize we came down that road we remember when we were all torn up over those things and then how God brought our emotions subservient to truth and I trust continues to do so well let me give a couple concluding remarks all right that I hope will bring this to some practical resolution first of all a word of exhortation to you who are convinced of these truths and the word of exhortation is to be gracious in the holding and the handling of this truth
to be gracious in the holding and the handling of this truth don't engage in unkind and unchristian rhetoric what do I mean by that well I remember when I was struggling with these things I attended a conference a so-called sovereign grace conference and if I was ever to believe things in terms of how people handled them I'd be an Arminian to the rest of my days because there was a preacher who knew I was there and knew I was struggling with this very truth and you know what he did he stood up and took the occasion to mock the position which one of you men loves every woman on the block you love your wife don't you Christ loved his church he doesn't love every old harlot every old sinner and he began to mock the position it was tragic and if it wasn't for the truth of scripture having more weight with me than how people handled it I would have said man if it makes you act like that I want nothing to do with it that's terrible you see if these things are held graciously then they will not be they will be handled graciously if they are held in a spirit of pride and creature confidence they will be handled in the same way what hast thou that thou didst not receive even so father it seemed good in thy sight to reveal these things unto babes well let me urge each of you then
in the holding and the handling of these truths to avoid unkind and unchristian rhetoric I would exhort you not to be more careful or fastidious in your language but to be more careful than God is don't feel that if every time you quote John 3.16 you've got to qualify for 20 minutes don't feel that if you quote 1 John 2.2 you've got to qualify for 30 minutes don't be more fastidious than God is and then to demonstrate by unflagging zeal and persevering prayer your faith in the efficacy of Christ's work you see here we come down to the real crunch if I believe what's been taught here that the cross of Christ has infallibly served secured the redemption of a people then my life ought to be a monumental testimony of that reality my godliness ought to manifest that he is what effectively and infallibly applying all that he purchased in his redemption and what did he purchase? a holy life he gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and purify to himself the peculiar people my life ought to be a monument to the efficacy of the atonement my growth in holiness my growth in grace my growth in conformity to Christ likewise my zeal for the lost
do I believe that he's secured the salvation of his people then I have every reason to pray that he bring in his elect and to proclaim the gospel not with gimmicks and all of these other things making the gospel more palatable to men in their unregeneracy but maintaining all the vigor all the offense all of the majesty of the full-arm biblical gospel pray and preach in the confidence that God will bring home his elect he'll make me even me the instrumentality by which Christ shall see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied in other words your life ought to be the constant monumental answer to the fallacy that says if you don't believe in particular redemption you can't have evangelistic fervor or passion or you can't preach a free gospel and I always have that before me I try to think of it as a gospel I think now if someone came to our church just once and they'd heard all these weird things they hear about us there ought to be one rumor that is laid to rest every single time if they only come once you know what that rumor ought to be? this doctrine kills evangelism my preaching ought to be a living and unanswerable monument to the fallacy of that objection that's true of you if and where and when you preach it ought to be true of all of your witnessing situations that you go after men with an urge to preach it ought to be true of all of your witnessing situations that you go after men with an urge to preach and a fervency
and a graciousness that forever puts to rest the objection this kills evangelism because and I can only say this brethren out of some degree I trust of experience these are the truths that are the very sheet anchor to sustain evangelistic concern and compassion I face every Sunday a man who has sat under my ministry almost every Lord's Day for going on to the 15th year and he's still unconverted and he's still unconverted and there are times in preaching when his need becomes so real to me that I've wept as I've preached and looked right at him as I've pleaded and what keeps me weeping and pleading it's the confidence that if he was included in all of this God's going to get his man God's going to get his man and he can sit under preaching for another 15 years and think he's impervious to the Archangel Michael himself and God will still get his man God will still get his man that's what gives you grace to keep pressing on and at the same time refusing to lower the standard if God's going to get his man he's going to get him on his terms you see the moment you begin to feel that somehow what I do will complete the efficacy of all that Christ did then you start pampering with the message and with the divine method Paul? it wouldn't be wrong in the context of this sometimes this does come up
just tell the person that that okay you know you don't believe now but God you if you're one of the elect you will believe God may have to burn your house and squash you and beat you he will get you and you're so scared to much I wouldn't say we shouldn't Paul again I think that'd be rare in exotic medicine I mean that'd be like a good shot of of Valium or something else you know I mean that's potent medicine but I believe there are times when sinners need potent medicine and you know and that maybe a wise physician of souls might on certain occasions use that I can remember my mother saying to me son when God gets hold of you thus and thus will be true and in her thinking it was a foregone conclusion and that bothered me because I thought man God's on my tail he ain't gonna let me go see he's gonna track me down he's gonna get me and it was it was a powerful deterrent on the one hand and so I wouldn't say that that you know I wouldn't make that a major ingredient of my witnessing to people the other side of that is if God when I meet a person I feel this way God's gonna get them and if God is not after them breaking them then they have the thought well maybe I'm not learning the right and that's the sense they could be worried about that and that's good if they're worried about that that's right because that could bring them to well I've got to start worrying about this well am I right
that's right and if he gets worked either way I think that's a good point when you hit them with that yeah because they've got to turn this around on you and it's got them they're the one that's got the problem yeah and if they're even thinking that way then at least they know salvation's in God's hands and then if someone comes to me and says boy pastor I'm worried I don't know whether I'm one of the elect I say man that's you better worry about that that's a matter of life and death well how can you know well there's only one way you can know come on let's take by the hand we're gonna go up now I'm gonna ask God to open up his role and look at you and say you can't do that I say but I know I'm one of his elect you do how'd you find out well the same way you can find out you read your election in Christ now you gotta get into Christ how do you get into it there's only two feet that'll carry you there repentance and faith and then you just go back to preaching the gospel to them that's a good point yes now someone had a hand here and then over here yes yeah okay good yes John when I was working in a factory in Scranton it was really a sort of a bad situation it was a kind of job where they tracked all the barrels in the city but there was this one fellow who was really harsh with me when I was witnessing him he would actually try to do things to make me look bad in front of the boss he would actually curse and swear and he was never going to bow his knee to Christ I was wondering if this motive was proper I would think actually when I was talking to this fellow in all his harshness he was the kind of guy
that you just want to run I used to think what a puppy he would be if a grave were to hit him yep oh yes yes I think that always to be our hope you see our hope for sinners should be based upon what we know the grace of God can do the fact that it has saved the chiefest of sinners and that we have absolutely no revelation concerning any man that he's not elect you see that to me is a great encouragement I have no revelation concerning any man that he is not elect until I see him die in his impenitence now I have suspicions that I've met some people who committed in our day that blasphemy against the spirit but I couldn't prove it you see so as we turn this thing around people say well why witness you don't know if a man's elect I turn around and say ah I have no revelation he isn't I have not one word and that's the same way with preaching to the sinner I've actually said sometimes when you do dialogue in preaching say ah but you sit there and say pastor suppose I'm not one of the elect I say show me a verse that says you aren't show me a verse that says you aren't when did God come down from heaven and say you were not elect I can give you a hundred verses that say you're welcome to come yes in fact we have verses to the other side that say he has died for sinners yes we have more positive absolutely and I think that positive way ought to fill our minds in our witness
so that the very thing you said John you look at a man and say if he is a vessel of mercy my God is just see if he was there in Christ here there will be the efficacious the infallible and efficacious application of all the fruits of redemption God will take that proud foul mouth and spirit and God will make it like a lamb yes and I didn't stop Paul in 2nd Timothy he says I suffer for the gospel's sake and then he says the line down the word is inbound and in light of it I suffer for the elect I endure all things for the elect's sake that they may obtain salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory yeah good point now what do you do when you talk to the unconvinced I said be gracious in holding and handling this truth let me give you a little word of exhortation I gave it sometime earlier but I want to just repeat it now in closing do not discuss the issue as though it were to be determined by the disposition of a few proof texts this is where many people go wrong it's like discussing with a Jehovah's Witness and going back over John 1 1 and Romans 9 5 it is no good you're wasting your breath it just doesn't cut mustard so don't discuss this issue in terms of the few proof the few proof texts on one side or the other etc
Exhortation: Engaging the Unconvinced with Wisdom and Prayer
no if someone shows a real seriousness to wrestle with the issue seek to introduce them to these broader categories which most of which are far removed from specific proof texts in which you find all or every the world etc so you defuse the issue you see you defuse the issue the same way with the Jehovah's Witness who's already in debate on Jesus being the little God and all the rest and you just turn to him put your hand on his shoulder and say John I want to ask you a question from the depths of my heart it's a matter of tremendous concern to me do you know that your sins are pardoned and that if you died tonight you could face the judge of the universe without one claim against you now you defuse they're not talking about the big God and the little God and it was a God was God all the rest and you come right to the heart of the issue where now you can direct the conversation so the same way here someone comes up and says well I heard you people believe in limited atonement that Christ only died for a few people how can you believe that when the Bible says God so loved the world how can you believe that when he said sins of the whole world and after he's all done you listen you smile and you say Lord keep me gracious he doesn't see you gritting your teeth inside pray the Lord help you to be gracious on the outside until your inside catches up with the outside and there's nothing wrong with that that's ruling your own spirit that's not being a hypocrite
that's ruling your own spirit where you keep your outers right until your inners catch up and then you just say now my friend we really want to discuss this whole matter of the death of Christ well if so it's so sacred a matter I wouldn't dare discuss it without asking the help of God the spirit to give us some life could we pray together and ask the Lord to help us so then you pray and you say now Lord we acknowledge that we're dealing with greatness that sinners should even be thinking of the second person of the Godhead dying Lord what a mystery what a wonderful and glorious thing praise God for the reality of the cross if he's a true Christian you've already got his heart over on your side now because he can rejoice with you that all his salvation flows from the cross and you say now Lord guide us give us insight give us the teachable spirit Lord if you have things to teach me through my brother give me a heart to receive it if you have anything to teach my brother through me start with yourself see and maybe God has something to teach you through him see alright then you say now brother if you give me just a couple minutes I want to share with you what's been tremendously precious to me the fact that what Christ did on the cross for whoever he did it and whatever the fruits are was not something that just happened it happened by plan you believe that don't you and then you go into the John 6 passage and you start to introduce you may not use the terms the covenant of redemption start introducing these broader categories and the average person who comes to you all fired up over all and every in the world he's never had his head stretched
with even contemplating whether there were any such thing as a covenant of redemption well who knows what happens you see when his head and his heart begin to get stretched with that truth a lot of other things may start to fall into that enlarged head and heart very naturally so let me just urge you in that area unless we do disservice and it means brethren for the most part we've got to do the swallowing you see more often than not we're in foreign territory where people are saying things and propagating things that grind on us but if we have some better understanding it should produce more grace and we need to plead with God for the love that bears all things and man it's hard to bear with people prostituting and lambasting and caricaturing the things that are precious to you if I go to an evangelical ministers meeting who has to do 98% of the swallowing me not these other guys I mean they can go on propagating all their views and that's alright if I would open my mouth for two minutes I'm being divisive I'm being doctrinaire well it means I've got to have greater measures of grace and love to sit there and keep my mouth shut that's right that's what we've got to do yes yeah they asked if they they asked if they asked him if no they approached Whitfield concerning Wesley
and asked yeah and asked if they thought Wesley would be in heaven because of the deviant views that he held is this the incident oh I'm sorry no he didn't tell him about the Wesley apparently Wesley was expecting him to start throwing the fruit but he said the man kind of had killed the Wesley with potions and he said well you believe that man is sinful you know he said yeah sure and he goes well where does salvation come from it's just from the word and so he just goes through and he said well if man is sinful then where is faith in him is faith in him is true well there's there's oh that was Simeon yeah that was the yes alright ok yes yeah Charles Simeon that was the that was the incident Charles Simeon in Wesley and he said sir that is all my Calvinism yes that man is wholly dead and salvation is wholly of grace I was thinking of the incident where someone came to Whitfield and said it's it's not in the light of Wesley's deviant theology you believe you'll see him in heaven and he said no I don't believe I'll see him in heaven he'll be so near the throne of God that I'll be blinded by the light you see and there was a gracious answer that just shut the mouth of the adversary yeah
This transcript was generated by automated speech recognition and may contain errors. It is provided for study and reference only; the audio recording is the authoritative source.
Passages Expounded
Martin highlights this verse as a key text that provides confidence and warrant for preaching the gospel freely and without reservation to all.
Texts Expounded
Also Referenced
More from the archive
If this spoke to you, hear also…
-
-
Inviting Men to Christ
Isaiah 55:1-7
-
-
-
-