OK, so in our eighth session here, we're going to be talking about that article that hopefully all of you got to read from John Piper. And just generally speaking, the idea of limited atonement. I want to start by telling you about a funny experience I had years ago. This is probably 25 years ago where I was listening to someone, and the person said that they were a Christmas Calvinist. I'm like, what is a Christmas Calvinist? I'm racking my brain. Does that mean they go to church just on Christmas?
I thought, that doesn't sound right. And the answer was, Noel. And it took me a second, but I got it. I'm like, oh, Noel. You don't believe in the L of limited atonement. Get it? Noel. So the idea is that the L is the most take it or leave it among Calvinists. So in fact, a lot of people have made the case that they don't even think that Calvin himself believe in limited atonement. So there's an author named David Allen who's made that case.
Another person named Bruce Ware has made that case who's a very strong Calvinist. He's a professor of theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. And many prominent Calvinists over the centuries, Jonathan Edwards, others have not gone along with limited atonement because it seems to go against so many passages in the Bible. And it's such a hard doctrine to swallow that a lot of people, like I said, have gone against it. But as you just read last night, people like John Piper actively advocate the position.
So I'd like to hear from you a summary here of the argument that John Piper made there for his view on limited atonement. Often when I read things, I like to write out a summary. So if you have it, you can even read it. But how did Piper make his case for limited atonement? Well, what I got from it is that he said, obviously, not everyone is saved. So obviously, Everyone will be saved, yeah. So that's the most common argument that you'll hear.
A lot of people will kind of do this bait-and-switch deal where they'll walk into a room and they'll say, " How many people believe that Jesus died for all the sins of the whole world? " And they'll raise their hands. And they say, " Now how many of you believe that everyone is saved? " And of course, everyone's hands fall down, and he'll say, " Oh, you're a bunch of hypocrites. " Because if you believe that Jesus died for the sins of the world, God isn't going to punish those sins twice, is he?
He's not going to punish, like he punished it at Jesus, and now he's going to punish it again for people who go to hell. That's wrong. And so they make their case for limited atonement using that very common meme. How else? Stan? I know this teeth completely assumed irresistible grace and built his whole argument off of no free will. He sure did, didn't he? Yeah. Can you elaborate on that? It's a great point. Well, he assumes that if Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, then nobody could resist that.
And his last argument about either Christ died for some of the sins of all men or all the sins of some men. Excellent. Excellent. Yeah. He's saying that three couldn't be true. The last one couldn't be true because all men aren't saved. Therefore, Christ can't have died for them all. Absolutely. So I'm so glad you said that. That was a point that I'm really thankful that you saw.
Because consistent Calvinists, as is often the case, there's a general phenomenon that as time goes on, so like Calvin and some of those early people were not so sure about it. But as it turns out, like Theodore Beza and some of the later people, and certainly today, the John Pipers and R.C. Sprouls of the world, they're very strong Five Point Calvinists. And in a lot of ways, they're becoming more consistent with their system. And that argument precisely works because of irresistible grace.
And that's why a lot of people say, if you're a consistent Calvinist, you have to hold all five. You can't do the no l trick. You can't say that you're a Christmas Calvinist and drop the L because it just doesn't work. So excellent. What else? What else did we notice in that Piper article? There was an interesting line of arguments that he made where he cited a number of verses where the shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. Actually, you know what? I've got the article up here. Why don't I just show it?
Here we go. Yeah, I laid my life down for the sheep. In John 17, " I've manifested thy name to the men, thou gavest me out of the world. " Revelation 5, " Worthy art thou to take the scroll and open its seals, for thou was slain, and by thy blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. " So he cites those verses there. Particularly this one, I lay down my life for the sheep, and he's like, " Wow, Jesus here is just pretty clearly saying he's dying for the elect.
" So how do we understand that? There are a handful of passages that seem to say a similar idea. One of the best ways, anybody have an idea on rebutting that? Did you have one? I was just going to say that the sheep are like it's more of a corporate sense again. The sheep as whoever accepts it or whatever. Yeah, no, I agree with that. So the way that I think is a fun way to answer that argument that he makes, it's a very weak argument. And Paul says this in Galatians, he says, " I have been crucified with Christ.
It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. And the life which I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me. " Galatians 2:20. So you see that Jesus only died for Paul. Everyone see that? It's pretty clear. Pretty clear. It says that, that Jesus died for Paul. He gave Himself for Him, right? It's ridiculous, right? It's totally ridiculous. Just because you say that Jesus died for Paul or Jesus died, does that imply that he didn't die for a wider group?
It doesn't imply that at all. It's terrible logic. Just like you could say, oh, I went to the grocery store, and I bought some onions. Well, does that mean necessarily that you didn't also buy bread and lettuce? No, it doesn't mean that at all. And of course, it would make sense that there are going to be times in the Bible where it highlights that Jesus rescued the elect, the faithful. Calvinists love to jab over this. We did a quick attempt to summarize those arguments that Piper made there.
Calvinists love to jab at this. And J.I. Packer, who's a Calvinist who I showed his picture on the first day, he says it this way, " The difference between them, Calvinist and Arminian views of Atonement, is not primarily one of emphasis but of content. One proclaims a God who saves, the other speaks of a God who enables man to save himself. " And they do this again and again and again.
And it's just like, OK, if you don't believe this, then it's this man-centered, like you don't really believe in God as the source of their salvation. It's just like a total cheap shot. Very few Calvinists even understand prevenient grace. Many people haven't even heard the term. And then, as I mentioned, many Calvinists say that it's wrong for God to punish twice for sin. So if you believe that Jesus died for everyone, then everyone must be saved.
Okay, so these views are predicated on what's often called a commercial view of the Atonement. Unfortunately, we can't spend too much time about models of the Atonement. We just don't have time for that. But has anybody heard of the commercial view of the Atonement? So the commercial view basically says that there is a certain amount of suffering that Jesus suffered on the cross. He's not still on the cross. He didn't suffer infinitely on the cross.
There was a certain, if there were a way to quantitate pain, to measure pain in some way. Certain pain units he suffered on the cross. And in the commercial view of the Atonement, that number of pain units that he suffered is equal to the suffering that the elect should have had in hell. And so it's like almost like eggs cost $2. I'm going to pay you $2. And so Jesus suffers for this particular quantity of suffering, which is equal to the amount of suffering that all of the faithful should have had.
And so if you have that view, you better believe you believe in limited atonement. Because it's a very commercial. And by the way, that word commercial is a word that they use to describe it, not me. It's not like some hostile antagonistic term that's used. So if that's your view of atonement, this more mechanical, commercial view, then limited atonement is going to naturally fall into play. There's a helpful analogy here that Roger Olson gives, which I really like.
It's a true story from Jimmy Carter, who's president during the ' 70s. So Jimmy Carter gave this pronouncement to all of the people who dodged the Vietnam draft in the ' 60s. And so as it turns out, people dodged the draft and they went to Canada, they went to Mexico, they went all over the place because they didn't want to go fight in Vietnam. And Jimmy Carter said, " Hey, all of you people who dodged the draft, come back to the U.S., no prosecution, no problems, nobody's going to hassle you. All is well.
And a bunch of people did indeed come back to the U.S. Not everybody. Not everybody came back to the US. A bunch of people decided to stay in Canada or Mexico wherever they went to. And I think that's actually a very good analogy for the Atonement in the sense that there was an objective reality that worked for everybody. Every single person who dodged the draft could have come back to the U.S. and had absolutely no penalty imposed on them. Did all choose to apply that benefit to themselves? Obviously not, right?
Many people decided to stay back in those various countries there. And it's a lot like that with Jesus, that his death on the cross is efficacious. It provides for everybody, but not everyone chooses to apply it to themselves. So what we're going to look at now is, I think, a very helpful chart that we're going to draw it here. So the chart involves thinking about three dimensions of the Atonement. So the first is the intent of the Atonement. So what did God intend? Whom did God want to save?
The extent, who was actually paid for, and then the application, who actually benefits. So the intent, the extent, and the application. And we're just going to make a little table here. So intent, extent, extent, and then application. And I'm going to make three columns here. Four, two, three, four. We're going to fill in right now. And this one is the Calvinist answer. This one, we'll call it the historic answer, and then this one is the universalist. What is it meant by the term universalist?
Everyone is saved, yeah, universalist. Okay, so whom does God intend to save in the Calvinist system? Some or all? Some. Some, right? So that's easy. So that's unconditional election. That's bread and butter core Calvinism. So therefore, in the Atonement, particularly highlighted in the commercial view of Atonement, what is the extent? Who actually was paid for in that? Is it some or all? Some, again. And then even Calvinists would agree here. John Calvin would certainly agree that how is the Atonement applied?
Well, just like in the case of Jimmy Carter, will people apply the benefit of that verdict by moving back to the U.S.? People apply the benefit of the cross by repenting and believing. That's how you appropriate, that's how you gain the benefits of the cross. So it is applied to, is it some or all? Some, right? So this is easy. Okay, now, in the historic understanding of Christianity, what is God's intent? Whom is God trying to save? Some or all? All. All, right?
And we're going to look at those verses in a little bit. And what is the extent of the benefits on the cross? Some or all. All. I heard different answers there. What do you think? We'll look at some verses in a little bit here. But what do you think? It's actually all. And I think it's a very clear case that it's all. But to whom is this applied? Some or all? Some. Some, right? But now, if you're a universalist, what do you think the answer is here? All of them, right?
OK, so the intent is for all, the extent is for all, and the application is for all. So this is a very helpful table that can help you understand how historic Christianity fits in relation to these two extreme views, the two ditches, so to speak, on either side, the Calvinist view of limited atonement, and the universalist view of universal salvation. So we need to look at how Scripture speaks to this. And I'm just going to show you a bunch of texts that answer this question.
Particularly, my focus here is going to be on the extent of the Atonement. So we're going to really drill in on this. And then afterwards, we're going to look at the intent. We're going to start by looking at the extent of the Atonement. So key questions about the extent of the Atonement. Isaiah 53:6, " All we like sheep have gone astray. We have turned everyone to his own way. And the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
" And if I were to write down the references here, because it's a great list that I put together. So the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all, right? That's pretty clear. Now, what Calvinists try to do, and I will tell you right now, is they'll say of all the elect. And so they put in very consistently in their commentaries, the ESV Study Bible does this as well. They'll say, " Yeah, it says all, " but it means all of the elect. And I'll show you how to rebut that in a little bit. John 1:29.
The next day, John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, " Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. " So that's a pretty strong verse. " Takes away the sin of the world. " So there are some very famous Calvinist authors who have argued that both this verse and John 3:16, where it says, " For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
" They've argued here that when God says world, you should substitute the world of the elect. Now, I mean, to me, it's just like, I want to scream when I hear someone say that, like, seriously. But there are many, many, many authors who have tried to argue and have gone to great pains to make the case that the world here is the world of the elect. I think it's insanity, but that just goes to show if you want to really prove something to what extent you'll go. 1 Corinthians 8:9 to 11.
" But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. For if anyone sees you who acknowledge eating in an idols temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? And because of your knowledge, shall the weak brother perish for whom Christ died. " Roger Olson pointed this out. It's a great verse that almost nobody includes in their lists on the extent of the Atonement. The specific details aren't so important for us here.
It deals with eating meat in an idol temple and causing people to stumble. But did you notice here that Paul is saying that if this weak brother perishes, it's a person for whom Christ died. So this is really interesting because there's actually, you'll see there's two places in the New Testament where it clearly describes, and there's another one that's even better, people who are not saved for whom Christ died. 2 Corinthians 5:19, " God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.
" Again, I think it's very clear here that it's talking about the whole world. Colossians 1, " For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross. " I mean, in Colossians, the dimensions, the Atonement, they feel cosmic. They feel of the kind of proportions that just shatters all thinking.
And again, if you want to try to limit it down to saying all things to himself by him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, and restrict that to the saved or the elect. I think that's insane, but people can do what they want there. 1 Timothy 2, " Therefore, I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, and intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence.
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all. That's what I'm looking for here, extent here. Ransom for all to be testified in due time. 1 Timothy 4:10. To this end, we both labor and suffer reproach because we trust in the living God who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.
This is a really interesting one. So, Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. So this is the one, there's this and one in 1 John that causes the most amount of consternation for Calvinists because there's like two audiences in view here, right? All men, especially of those who believe. There's an author named Picirilli who says this, " That He, Jesus is the Savior of all men, speaks of provision or extent. That He is Savior, especially of believers, speaks of application.
" So I love this one here because it really nicely breaks out these two rows that we've written down here. There is a sense in which the extent that Jesus has died for all. But who is it efficacious for? Who is it applied to? Those who believe. Okay, I think we've got one more page, Hebrews 2:9. " But we see Jesus who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that he, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone. " So might taste death for everyone.
And again, many Calvinists would say everyone in the church or something like that, but the context just doesn't work there. To me, that's just bad exegesis, that's putting your own opinions in. Okay, this is one that I love. But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them and bring on themselves swift destruction.
So, if there was ever a passage that was talking about non-Christians, this is it. False prophets, false teachers, bringing in destructive heresies. 2 Peter is about how these people are going to be doomed on the last day. But did you notice this little clause here, even denying the Lord who bought them? Wow. I mean, like this should be just like a slam dunk. Totally clear. This is an obvious place where you can see that Jesus is buying and dying for the sins of the non-elect.
And then 1 John 2:2, " And he himself is the propitiation of our sins. " This is the New King James. I don't love that translation, but we'll go with it. And not for ours only, but also for the whole world. And Calvinists say here that this is the ours only is for the Jews, but for the whole world is non-Jews, because they're trying to make this all not Jewish Christians, and then the whole world is like Gentile Christians.
But when you look at this, particularly in relation to everything else, I think you've got to strain pretty hard to make this all work. So I think Scripture is abundantly clear, particularly when you look at that 2nd Peter verse, that 1 Timothy 4 here, that the extent of the Atonement is for all.
Now, I don't need to belabor to all of you why this is only applied to some, because I know you're all convinced about that already, that we have to have repentance and faith in order to have Jesus ' death be applied to us. But I want to spend our last few minutes here talking about how, even more tragically, Calvinists have to reinterpret these verses. So now let's talk about the intent. So you can see here when we lay it all out, that the intent and extent here are the same in both.
So Calvinist, God intends to save some, and so therefore Jesus dies for some. In the historic Christian faith, God intends to save all, so Jesus dies for all. So these are basically the same, and we could have collapsed that into one. The intent and the extent are coterminous. They're the same basic group here. So now you're in a real pickle if you're a Calvinist, because if you're saying that the extent of salvation is only for some, well now you've also got to say that God intends only to save some.
And there's a whole bunch of verses which we're going to look at now that seem to say that God wants to save all. So we read this yesterday, I think it was yesterday, Ezekiel 18, " For why should you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies, " says the Lord God. Therefore, turn and live. So this is a passage that God is pleading and telling the wicked... There's no reason for you to die. I don't want you to die. I have no pleasure in this.
Come, repent, come back, I'm gonna save you. So that's a great example of God's intent. 1 Timothy 2 should be one to four, this is 1 to 16, that's a typo. " Therefore, I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be for all men, for kings and who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of truth.
" I mentioned that the Calvinists will say like all Christian men or something like that to be safe. But contextually, does that work? No, why not? Someone say why this just seems like it's a reference to all humans. Yeah, she's talking about kings and all authority in verse two. I mean, even verse one, I exhort, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men.
I mean, really, are we saying that we're not supposed to, Paul is saying like, " Don't pray for those non-Christians, just pray for all Christians. " It's crazy, right? That doesn't fit. And so you have that repetition of all men from verse 1 to verse 4. I think by far the most natural reading of this is that it's generally all people, all men. And that's what I think that's how I know that's how people read that for centuries before Calvin. I found this one the other day.
I was reading through, and this is one that's not in the Calvinist Arminian debate books, but I read this and I thought like, wow, this is actually a pretty good one. So it's a novel contribution I'm making to the field. Matthew 18:14, " Even so, it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish. " I read that and I thought, wow, I can see why people miss this because it's like talking about children and people don't read this it's normally about.
But I thought about it and I said, " Wait a minute, that one of these little ones should perish. " It's down to saying, " I don't want even one child here to perish. " So I think this is a pretty interesting verse to throw into the mix about how God is saying that He wants children, and obviously when they grow up to be adults, to not perish.
2 Peter 3:9, " The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is long-suffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. " So R.C. Sproul famously says, " Long-suffering towards us. " He's got a book where he describes this, and he says, " Therefore that all is us. " So God desires that we should come to repentance. And he's saying, " This does not apply to non-Christians. " Don't be confused. So he's very big on that.
And so, I pity someone who has to take this position where they're taking all these verses and trying to narrow the focus down and reinterpret verses that are about the general benevolence of the Father, of the Creator, and make them so narrow. So there's two basic, like I said, answers is that people try to make this about God's desire to save the elect. Some people say, and there's different Calvinists give different answers here.
And so some people will say, with all those previous verses, they'll say, " Okay, that's about the elect, " and a lot of Calvinists go down that path. Some will say, " Okay, it's so obvious here with false prophets being died for, with not just us, but those who believe. " That passage in the whole world, and especially for those all who believe in 1 Timothy 4.
Then they assert that God has two wills, and they'll say, " Okay, well, John Piper has a funny expression where he talks about how emotionally complex God is and how on the one hand he wants to save everybody, but he can't because he wants to manifest his wrath there. " I mean, I don't even know if that's a worse solution or a better solution than the first one where you try to make everything about saving the elect.
But the basic picture is one where you picture is an analogy that I read once where someone says, " Okay, this is the picture of what you should have for God, " is that there's like ten people that are taken, there's a picture of God as a king, and the king is standing in front of a court of his people. And he takes 10 people and puts them in front of everybody, and he says, " Number one and number eight, you're going to be saved. " And then everybody else, you're going to get hanged tomorrow.
And that's how I'm going to show my glory to my people. And you know most of us, we hear that and we think like, what kind of king shows his glory off in that way? But Piper appeals to that, that God wants to show his wrath, and he's intent on showing his wrath. And interestingly, I think I actually put it here. Yeah, I put the quote here. " Yet I also affirm that God has chosen before the foundation of the world, those whom He will save from sin.
Since not all people are saved, we must choose whether we believe with the Arminians that God's will to save all is restrained by His commitment to ultimate human self-determination. " Kind of a little bit of a jab there, or whether we believe with the Reformed that God's will to save all people is restrained by His commitment to the glorification of the full range of His perfections in exalting His sovereign grace. Okay, so he uses this really highfalutin language, right?
God is restrained by His commitment to the glorification of the full range of His perfections by exalting His sovereign grace. Notice what reference, notice the verses? I told you, they're in love with these passages, right? Ephesians 1 and Romans 9. Now you go back and read them the way that we read them properly and context historically, and you realize it's totally taking these out of context and abusing them. But he would say that God has these two wills. And on the one hand, he wants to save them.
But on the other hand, he wants to pour out wrath on people to show out his glory in that sovereign way. And so that's how Piper resolves those two in a slightly different attack there. So both horrible, both miserable. I would hate to be in either position. Either way, the Calvinists make a fatal error by asserting that Jesus did not die for all. And I told you that story, didn't I?
On Monday that I was in a class a couple weeks ago with one of the, I kid you not, one of the top ten Calvinist historians in the world. He was a committed five-point Calvinist. And he said, " I will not preach to a group of people and say, " Jesus died for you. I just won't. " Because he didn't feel that was honest. He felt like that was contradicting his views of limited atonement.
So by certainly that Jesus did not die for all and somehow claiming that God does not want all to be saved, they create an unbiblical and unloving God that drives people away from the Father. And from the very beginning, from the very beginning in Genesis until today, Satan's tactic has been to question the character of God. Is God really who you think he is? Does he really want your best? That's basically what the snake serpent says in Genesis chapter 2 and 3.
And it's the same old playbook, again, that is being replayed. But now it's coming from inside the church, all of these character attacks on God. OK, so here's our last homework assignment, since tomorrow is our last day. I think this should be a pretty interesting one. So are we going to be able to email out those links I sent? OK, so you're going to get an email this morning, and I want you to read the Schleitheim confession. How many people have read it? OK, so it looks like about a third. Read it again.
You're at Sattler College. It was written by Michael Sattler, so you should read it. It's short. It'll only take you probably, I don't know, 15 or so minutes. The translation that the link that you're going to get is from John Howard Yoder. I think it's by far the best translation of the Schleitheim confession. As it turns out, Calvin married an Anabaptist widow. So her name is Idelette. And so, because he married an Anabaptist, he actually knows the Anabaptist positions very well.
And he wrote a rebuttal to Schleitheim, which nobody reads and nobody studies, because people just in reform seminaries don't really care about this, but I've read it and I think it's a fascinating piece. And so what I want you to do is to read Calvin's rebuttal of Schleitheim, but just do the introduction in Article 1. It's kind of a long piece. And so it should take you to read the intro in Article 1, probably 30 or 40 minutes to read that. So the whole thing should take about an hour. Read it slowly.
Unfortunately, the translation is an old translation. And like I said, people just are not that interested in this particular document that he wrote. And so I think it was translated in the 1700s or 1800s. And it feels old. So it'll take you some work to read it. But try to understand his arguments there that he makes against the Anabaptist. And like I said, he knows the Anabaptist, right? He's married to a widow, and he knows their position extremely well.
But I want you to understand how he forms an argument in favor of infant baptism. So Article I of Schleitheim is where they repudiate infant baptism and Calvin, of course, is in favor of it. And we'll talk about that tomorrow. So it'll be a good exercise for everyone to do that.