1

R edeem er Bible Church

Unreserved Accountability to Christ. Undeserved Acceptance from Christ.

The Doctrines of Grace, Part Three:

Limited Atonement
Selected Scriptures

Introduction
So far in this sermon series, we have addressed the first two points of the
Doctrines of Grace; namely, total depravity and unconditional election. You should
know (if you don’t already) that these phrases are not original to me. They belong to an
acronym whose origin is unknown, but nevertheless is meant to encapsulate the
teaching of the five points of Calvinism. The acronym is known as TULIP.

The “T” and the “U” stand for total depravity and unconditional election
respectively. Today we move into the “L” in TULIP—limited atonement.

Now very simply, the doctrine of limited atonement teaches that Jesus died on
the cross for believers only.

I should add that it is perhaps this teaching of the five points of Calvinism that is
the most controversial of the bunch—even more controversial than the doctrine of
election. In fact, there are many who would claim to be four-point Calvinists, agreeing
with eighty percent of the teaching of the Canons of Dordt, but rejecting this notion that
Jesus died on the cross for the sins of his people alone.

Now perhaps the way I’ve expressed the doctrine to you just now doesn’t seem
all that controversial. I wouldn’t doubt that even most of you would find nothing at all
objectionable about the statement that Jesus died on the cross for believers only. “After
all,” you say “he didn’t die in place of unbelievers!”

Others of you are ready to object as soon as the words “limited” and “atonement”
come together in any meaningful way, because you believe that when Jesus died on the
cross he died for everyone; that he died for every member of the human family without
exception. “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” (John 3:16). “And
He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the
whole world” (1 John 2:2).

The atonement cannot be limited if God loved the world. The atonement cannot
be limited if Jesus is the propitiation not for our sins only, but also for those of the whole
world. The atonement is for all humanity.

The Doctrines of Grace, Part 3: Limited Atonement © 2005 by R W Glenn

 2

Now there is a sense in which a true Calvinist would not disagree with you. To
refer to the atonement as limited, when it is somehow clearly intended by God to
embrace the world is a poor choice of words, to say the least. In fact, the phrase is
never even used by the framers of the Canons of Dordt.

Do you remember that just a moment ago I said that the acronym TULIP was
invented by some unknown person or persons as a mnemonic device for recalling the
Canons of Dordt? Well, I think that the “L” in TULIP stinks—not what “L” stands for, not
what the church taught in response to the Arminian grievances—but I think it stinks as a
way of encapsulating what the Bible teaches, and, therefore, what the canon teaches
regarding the atonement.

And I’m not the only one who thinks so. For this reason several Reformed
scholars have suggested two more accurate summary phrases for the third point of
Calvinism: “definite atonement” or “particular redemption.”

Part of the reason for this, no doubt, is that the words “definite” and “particular”
are used by the authors of the Canons themselves. Listen: “Before the foundation of
the world, by sheer grace, according to the free good pleasure of his will, he chose in
Christ to salvation a definite number of particular people out of the entire human race,
which had fallen by its own fault from its original innocence into sin and ruin.”1

The idea is that Jesus’ death on the cross actually saved this definite number of
particular people out of the entire human race—no more and no less.

Still, this may not satisfy; for there are those who would object to the idea that
Jesus died only for a definite number of particular people out of the entire human race.
More than that, either “particular redemption” or “definite atonement” totally messes up
the acronym. What on earth is a TUDIP or a TUPIP? I have no idea.

The point is that when someone hears another Christian say that the atonement
is limited, and even if words like “definite” or “particular” are substituted, he or she
begins almost immediately moves to conclude some things that true Calvinists do not
believe and have never asserted.

First of all, every true Calvinist teaches that everyone who believes in the Lord
Jesus Christ will be saved. This is plainly asserted in more than one place in the
Canons of Dordt. Here’s one: “[I]t is the promise of the gospel that whoever believes in
Christ crucified shall not perish but have eternal life.”2

Second and related to the first, every true Calvinist teaches that the gospel offer
should be given to all people indiscriminately: “This promise, together with the
command to repent and believe, ought to be announced and declared without

1
Canons of Dordt, 1.7.
2
Ibid., 2.5.

The Doctrines of Grace, Part 3: Limited Atonement © 2005 by R W Glenn

 3

differentiation or discrimination to all nations and people, to whom God in his good
pleasure sends the gospel.”3

Third, every true Calvinist teaches that the atonement is infinitely valuable in
such a way that were every human being without exception to be saved, Jesus would
have to do nothing more to secure their salvation. Almost immediately in their
discussion of Christ’s death, the framers of the Canons of Dordt point out that Jesus’
death “is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the
whole world.”4

So then, what’s the problem? Is all we have here a simple misunderstanding?

Well, that would be nice, wouldn’t it? The answer is yes and no.

Some of you may have no problem believing that Jesus died on the cross for
believers only. If that’s all limited atonement means, that’s fine with you—you just don’t
want it to mean something patently unbiblical, like, the gospel offer is not given freely to
“whosoever will” (as the King James says). You don’t want it to mean that if the Lord
were to have saved every member of the human family, Jesus would have had to
accomplish more than he has already accomplished.

But others of you may still have a problem with the idea that Jesus died on the
cross for believers only because you have a hard time seeing how all that we’ve said
can be true simultaneously. How can the gospel offer be free and genuine if Christ
hasn’t died for everyone? How can it be true that whoever believes in the Lord Jesus
will be saved, if Jesus only died for a definite number of particular people? How can
you not limit the value of the atonement when you restrict its efficacy to believers only?

Well, if you have these questions, you are not alone. The Remonstrant
Arminians made precisely the same argument. Their conclusion was that these
teachings were irreconcilable, utterly incompatible. Therefore they framed their
objection to the church like this: “Jesus Christ the Savior of the world, died for all men
and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross,
redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness
of sins except the believer.”5 And it is to this specific claim that the church crafted its
orthodox rejoinder.

Now on the face of it, perhaps this doesn’t sound much different from what the
Calvinists were saying. In reality, however, the Arminian and Calvinist doctrines are
mutually exclusive. Let me explain.

In the first part of this article, the Remonstrants say that Christ died for all men
and for every man so that he obtained for them all redemption and the forgiveness of
sins. In other words, Christ’s death actually obtained the redemption and forgiveness of
every single human being.

3
Ibid.
4
Ibid., 2.3.
5
Remonstrant Article 2.

The Doctrines of Grace, Part 3: Limited Atonement © 2005 by R W Glenn

 4

I’m sure you can see the problem with this. If Christ has obtained redemption
and the forgiveness of sins for all men and every man; that is, for every singly human
being, then every single human being has been redeemed and forgiven of their sins.
This is called universalism. And it is patently false.

Of course, Arminians don’t believe this, which is why they qualify the statement
that Jesus actually obtained the forgiveness and redemption of every single human
being with this: “no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer.” In
other words, forgiveness and redemption has been obtained for every single person in
the world but only believers will experience it.

Think of it in terms of an analogy about the purchase of a new wardrobe.

The Arminian says, “I have bought each and every one of you a new wardrobe
and placed your name on it. It’s yours, but you cannot enjoy it until you come to claim
it.”

Now then, getting back to the purchase of the atonement we’ll make it even more
vivid. The Arminian says, “I have bought you redemption and the forgiveness of sins
and placed your name on it, Adolph Hitler. You have been redeemed and forgiven by
Jesus Christ, but you can’t enjoy your redemption and forgiveness until you come to
claim it by faith.”

Now I hope it is apparent what is happening here. Although the Arminian says
that Jesus actually obtained the redemption and forgiveness of every single human
being, since every single human being’s redemption is contingent upon their faith,
Jesus’ death only provides for the potential redemption and forgiveness of every single
human being.

Here’s what I mean. Go back to the wardrobe analogy.

Even though our Arminian brother purchased and denominated wardrobes for
every single human being, no one actually receives their wardrobe by the purchase
itself. They receive their wardrobe by claiming the purchase. Therefore the purchase of
the wardrobe itself only makes receiving the wardrobe a possibility for humanity.

The same is true with respect to Christ’s purchase of redemption and

forgiveness. In the Arminian scheme no one is actually forgiven and redeemed by
Christ’s work itself; rather, Christ’s work only makes forgiveness and redemption a
possibility.

So the reason why the framers of the Canons of Dordt were so serious about
addressing this article in particular is that it goes to the very heart of the gospel—the
meaning of Jesus Christ and him crucified.

The Doctrines of Grace, Part 3: Limited Atonement © 2005 by R W Glenn

 5

Can it be sustained biblically that Jesus’ death only made forgiveness and
redemption possible, or does the Bible teach that Jesus’ death on the cross actually
purchased redemption and forgiveness?

Actual Atonement
Let’s begin first with expiation. The word expiation refers to the removal of sin by
a sacrifice. The Bible teaches that Jesus’ death actually, not potentially took away sin
cf. Hebrews 10:10-12: “By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the
body of Jesus Christ once for all. Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time
after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered
one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD.”

Unlike the blood of bulls and goats, which can never take away sins (Hebrews
10:4), Jesus' blood does take away sins—once for all time by his sacrifice on the cross.
It has removed actual sins from actual people.

Second, we have propitiation. Propitiation refers to the turning away of God’s

wrath by a sacrifice designed to absorb it. Jesus’ death actually and not potentially
turned away God’s wrath from people and absorbed that wrath in place of them cf.
Romans 3:25-26: “…whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood
through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance
of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of
His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the
one who has faith in Jesus.”

This passage is particularly instructive because it shows that Jesus’ death

represented God’s justice for sins previously committed. He was saving up his wrath for
specific sins, and by Jesus’ death he actually turned away God’s wrath for these sins.

Third is reconciliation. When Jesus died on the cross he actually reconciled men
to God and God to men. You’re in Romans; turn ahead to 5:10 and read it with me:
“For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son,
much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.”

To be reconciled to someone means to reestablish proper friendly interpersonal

relations after these have been disrupted or broken.6 As a result of our fall into sin,
mankind became irretrievably irreconcilable with God. This passage teaches us that the
death of his son, the Lord Jesus, actually reconciled men to God.

Fourth is redemption. The idea of redemption is metaphorical language from

ancient slavery. In order to be set free from one’s enslavement, a ransom had to be
paid. Once this ransom was paid the slave was said to be redeemed from slavery.

One of the effects of the fall into sin was our enslavement to it. Jesus’ death
actually redeems sinners from the slave market of sin and sets them free to live a life of
righteousness. Turn ahead to 1 Peter 1:18-19: “…knowing that you were not redeemed

6
katalla,ssw

The Doctrines of Grace, Part 3: Limited Atonement © 2005 by R W Glenn

 6

with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your
forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood
of Christ.”

Jesus’ blood redeemed us from sin. It purchased redemption. And if it actually

purchased redemption, then it did not merely make it possible. “His work did not make
us redeemable; it redeemed us.”7

This is perhaps one of the gravest things about the error of the Arminians.
Remember, Arminian theologies espouse a theory of the atonement that looks at Jesus’
work itself as not bringing about in people the redemption it has obtained. The
wardrobe has been purchased, but the purchase is meaningless for humanity unless
human beings claim it.

Now the reason I say that the idea of the atonement as redemption is that the
price paid for salvation was not made with perishable things like silver or gold;
instead, it was made with precious blood, the blood of Christ. If the Arminian notion
of the atonement is correct, and the spilling of Jesus’ precious blood did not itself
redeem people, then the Father wasted his infinitely valuable commodity.

If wardrobes have been purchased for every single human being, but the
purchase does not guarantee that people will wear them, then there remains the
possibility that no one would choose to claim them. And if no one were to claim the
wardrobes, then the money to purchase them would have been spent in vain.

The same is true for the atonement. Christ would have spilt his blood for
everlasting wardrobes never claimed. In such cases, he would have suffered and died
and so paid the ultimate price for nothing.

Fifth, we have the forgiveness of sins. Turn to Ephesians 1:7: “In Him we have
redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the
riches of His grace.”

Now although you can’t have expiation, propitiation, reconciliation, and

redemption without reference to the actual sins of actual people, perhaps nothing
makes clearer the need for the actual sins of actual people than does the forgiveness of
sins. Jesus’ death forgives sins, specific sins. It is not potential forgiveness, but actual
forgiveness; for forgiveness virtually by definition is actual. Potential forgiveness of sins
is no forgiveness at all.

And in addition to expiation, propitiation, reconciliation, redemption, and the

forgiveness of sins, the Bible teaches that Christ’s death also effects many other
blessings of salvation. Regeneration is by Jesus’ blood (this is the promise of the new
covenant in Jesus’ blood cf. Jeremiah 31:31-34; Luke 22:20). Justification is by Jesus’
blood (Romans 5:9). Sanctification is by Jesus’ blood (Hebrews 13:12). Glorification is

7
William Edgar, Truth in All Its Glory: Commending the Reformed Faith (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R
Publishing, 2004), 169, italics added.

The Doctrines of Grace, Part 3: Limited Atonement © 2005 by R W Glenn

 7

by Jesus’ blood (John 6:39). And like those we’ve looked at more closely, these
blessings are not potential, but actual.

Now the Arminian might object, saying that he believes that all these things are
actual. After all, doesn’t the second article of the Remonstrants say that Jesus “died for
all men and every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross,
redemption and the forgiveness of sins”? Doesn’t this say that Jesus’ death actually
obtained all these blessings?

Yes, it does. But the problem is that it also says that Jesus’ death obtained this
for all men without exception. And if Jesus’ death actually brings about all these
blessings, then we would have to say that all of this is true of every single human being
without exception.

If the Remonstrants were right that the Bible teaches that Jesus obtained these
things for every single person who has ever lived, then every single person who has
ever lived has had their sins removed, the wrath of God appeased, has been reconciled
to God, redeemed from his sin, and completely forgiven. He has also been born again,
justified, and sanctified and is on his way to glory. For this is what the death of Christ
effects.

To this the Arminian responds with, “Yes, but no one actually enjoys these
blessings except the believer.” But as we have seen, if this is the case, then Jesus’
death is no longer efficacious; instead, it merely makes these blessings possible for
people. If their qualification is true, then Jesus’ death itself doesn’t actually expiate,
propitiate, reconcile, redeem, forgive, justify, sanctify, regenerate, and glorify anyone.

You simply can’t have it both ways. You can’t reasonably conclude that on the
one hand Jesus’ death itself genuinely and actually obtains redemption and the
forgiveness of sins for every single human being and on the other that only believers
may enjoy what Christ purchased.

If you say Christ died for all without exception, you have universalism. If you say
Christ died for all without exception, but only believers enjoy the benefits of his death for
all people, then you have a hypothetical or potential atonement.

The evils of universalism are obvious. And no Arminian would affirm it.

And yet, the evils of a potential atonement are no less severe. With a potential
atonement we are left with no good reason to believe that Jesus did not die in vain. In
fact, some popular preachers will say as much. They will say that when Jesus died, he
didn’t know whether anyone would believe in him. He could only hope that his death
would not be for nothing. The result is, as one writer has said, that “[t]hey are left with a
Christ who tried to save everybody but actually saved nobody.”8

8
R C Sproul, Chosen by God (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1986), 207.

The Doctrines of Grace, Part 3: Limited Atonement © 2005 by R W Glenn

 8

So then, what does this all mean? Well, strange as it may seem, our Arminian
brethren will affirm two propositions with us: (1) Christ’s death actually obtains
redemption and the forgiveness of sins; and (2) some, but not all people are actually
saved.

From here, we say that if Christ’s death actually saves people from their sins,
and if some, but not all people are saved, then it follows that Christ died only to save
some people from their sins.

This, of course, is the conclusion that they are not willing to draw. They want to
say that Christ died to save all people from their sins, which we’ve already seen they
cannot consistently affirm unless all people are actually saved. They also want to say
only believers enjoy the benefits of Christ’s death for all mankind, which as we’ve also
seen, they cannot consistently affirm without necessarily rejecting their proposal that
Christ’s death actually obtains salvation.

The fact of the matter is that there is no other legitimate inference to draw. If
Christ’s death actually saves people from their sins, and if some, but not all people are
saved, then Christ died only to save some people from their sins. There is no other
alternative.9 There is no other alternative logically (if we are going to embrace both
propositions). And there is no other alternative biblically, which, of course, is
determinative.

Definite Atonement
The Bible is clear that the atonement was made for a definite number of
particular individuals from among all the peoples of the earth. Turn with me in your
Bibles to John 6:35-40; 17:1-11, 20, 24-26:

John 6:35: Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to
Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. 36But I said to you
that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. 37All that the Father gives Me will
come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. 38For I
have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent
Me. 39This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose
nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40For this is the will of My Father, that
everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I
Myself will raise him up on the last day."
John 17:1: Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven,
He said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify
You, 2even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have
given Him, He may give eternal life. 3This is eternal life, that they may know You,
the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. 4I glorified You on the
earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do. 5Now,
Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You
before the world was. 6I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave
Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have

9
Well, actually, there is. There is the alternative theory that Christ died for some of the sins of some
men. But I hesitate to develop this because it is something that neither the Arminian nor the Calvinist
would approve.

The Doctrines of Grace, Part 3: Limited Atonement © 2005 by R W Glenn

 9

kept Your word. 7Now they have come to know that everything You have given
Me is from You; 8for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they
received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed
that You sent Me. 9I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of
those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours; 10and all things that are Mine
are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them. 11I am no
longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You.
Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that
they may be one even as We are.”
John 17:20: "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also
who believe in Me through their word.”
John 17:24: "Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me,
be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me,
for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. 25O righteous Father,
although the world has not known You, yet I have known You; and these have
known that You sent Me; 26and I have made Your name known to them, and will
make it known, so that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in
them."

Jesus does what he does not for everyone, but for those whom the Father gives
him. Now look back to 10:11-16, 24-29:

John 10:11: "I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His
life for the sheep. 12He who is a hired hand, and not a shepherd, who is not the
owner of the sheep, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and flees, and
the wolf snatches them and scatters them. 13He flees because he is a hired hand
and is not concerned about the sheep. 14I am the good shepherd, and I know My
own and My own know Me, 15even as the Father knows Me and I know the
Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. 16I have other sheep, which are not
of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will
become one flock with one shepherd.”
John 10:24: The Jews then gathered around Him, and were saying to
Him, "How long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us
plainly." 25Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe; the works
that I do in My Father's name, these testify of Me. 26But you do not believe
because you are not of My sheep. 27My sheep hear My voice, and I know them,
and they follow Me; 28and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish;
and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29My Father, who has given them to
Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's
hand.”

Verse 11 says that Jesus lays down his life for his sheep. Now left to itself this
utterance does not necessarily imply that Jesus lays down his life for his sheep and no
others. But the utterance is not left to itself.

Look again at verses 26-29: But you do not believe because you are not of
My sheep. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I
give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them
out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no
one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. Sheep are the ones who are
given eternal life.

The Doctrines of Grace, Part 3: Limited Atonement © 2005 by R W Glenn

 10

And perhaps most significant is to note that sheep are sheep before they believe.
Notice again verse 16: I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring
them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one
shepherd. In other words, Jesus does not simply have sheep from the fold of Israel,
but he has sheep from among the rest of the peoples of the world. Caiaphas will say
later “that Jesus was going to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but in order
that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered
abroad” (John 11:51-52).

The point here is that there are people who are marked out as sheep before they
respond to Jesus’ voice, and it is these for whom he lays down his life. In verse 26, he
says essentially the same thing: You do not believe because you are not of my
sheep. He does not say, “You are not my sheep because you do not believe,” but the
reverse: You do not believe because you are not of my sheep.

All that the Father gives to Jesus will come to Jesus. And Jesus’ sheep are
those who have been marked out as his from before the foundation of the world.
Moreover, his sheep are those for whom he lays down his life, his sheep are those who
follow him, his sheep are those to whom he gives eternal life, and his sheep are those
who can never be snatched from his hand. All of these things characterize the people
for whom Jesus died. His sheep are not simply those for whom Jesus died, they are all
the things Jesus says they are. If you eliminate any of these aspects, they can no
longer be considered sheep.

What this means is that we cannot separate Jesus’ dying for his sheep from the
effects his dying has on his sheep. Jesus doesn’t die for his sheep without also
securing his sheep’s abundant life and eternal destiny. So unless every person enjoys
the abundant and resurrection life, then Jesus’ death is restricted to his sheep and no
others. You can’t separate his death from what it accomplishes.

Take Ephesians 5:25-27 as an example.

25”
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and
gave Himself up for her, 26so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by
the washing of water with the word, 27that He might present to Himself the church
in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be
holy and blameless.”

It is impossible that Christ would have died for people who were not sanctified,
holy and without blemish. It cannot be said that Christ loved and gave himself for those
who fail to attain this goal. If this were true, you would have to conclude that every
single human being has been delivered by Christ’s death for sanctification that he might
present them blameless to himself—an absurdity.

Well, this is what makes passages like John 10 exclusive to the church. His
purposes cannot be frustrated. If the Father’s will was that Christ would lose nothing
that the Father gave him, but raise it up on the Last Day, then the failure of certain

The Doctrines of Grace, Part 3: Limited Atonement © 2005 by R W Glenn

 11

persons for whom Christ died to make it safe to the Last Day would mean Jesus’ failure
to do his Father’s will. If we universalize the “gave himself for,” we have to universalize
the effect as well.

Indeed, whenever Scripture speaks about the people for whom Christ died, it
always says that these people have died with Christ and risen with him to walk in
newness of life. Yet we all know that this is not true of humanity. Victory over sin is
only for those for whom he died.

But if this is true, and Christ did not die for the sins of all men without exception,
how are we to understand the passages that seem to teach that he did? How are we to
understand the passages that speak of Christ dying for “all” and God sending giving his
only begotten son to the “world”?

Objection 1: The Bible Says That Christ Died for “All” and “the World”
Well, the first thing we need to say is that the actual and definite nature of the
atonement that is indisputable from Scripture needs to be kept in the back of our minds
as we approach our study of such passages. In other words, whatever conclusion we
draw from such texts (which are in the minority) ought to be tempered by our conclusion
from the texts we have seen so far (and even in our lesson on unconditional election).

I am, of course, not advocating our engagement in exegetical gymnastics in

order to get these texts to say things they don’t; I am talking about engaging in careful
and Christian exegesis. Like any responsible exegete, we are allowing the context to
determine the meanings of words, phrases, sentences, and paragraphs. And like any
responsible exegete who believes the entire Bible to be God’s word, we are using the
clear passages to exclude certain meanings—meanings that end up overturning the
clear teaching of Scripture.

I am not saying “all” doesn’t mean “all” (I hate that phrase). I am not saying that
“world” doesn’t mean “world.” What I am saying is that words like “all” and “world,” and
words like “words” and “like” have a range of meanings. And which meaning of world or
all is operative in a particular utterance depends entirely upon the context.

With that in mind, I want to handle one passage with you this morning that uses
the words “all” and “world” in order to give you an idea as to how to handle such texts
responsibly.

Take 2 Corinthians 5:14, for example: “For the love of Christ controls us, having
concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died.”

One died for all, therefore all died. We need to ask two questions: (1)
One died for all of whom?; and (2) Who are the all that have therefore died?”

Well in this context, it is clear that the all for whom Christ died have also died
themselves. In fact, because he died for them, they died. One died for all, therefore
all died. So the all for whom Christ died have died themselves.

The Doctrines of Grace, Part 3: Limited Atonement © 2005 by R W Glenn

 12

What does this mean? Well, we need not guess; Paul clarifies in verse 15: and
he died for all—all of whom? The all of verse 14. He died for all, who, as a result of
his death for them, died themselves. This, of course, implies that there is a sense in
which they were alive before Christ died for them, right? I mean, if Christ died for all,
and they therefore died, then they must have been alive some time prior to their deaths.

Now then, in what sense were they alive before Christ died for them? The
answer is found in verse 15: he died for all so that they who live might no longer
live for themselves. There it is. Before he died for them, they were alive. How? They
lived for themselves. He died for them so that they might no longer live for
themselves. And in order for them no longer to live for themselves, they had to have
been living for themselves for some time.

So then, in what sense did Christ’s death for them result in their own deaths?
Well, let’s plug in what we’ve learned from verse 15 into verse 14: He died for all who
were living for themselves, therefore all who were living for themselves died to self-
centered living. I’ll say that again: He died for all who were living for themselves,
therefore all who were living for themselves died to self-centered living.

Now then, if all who were living for themselves died to living for themselves,
could this possibly be referring to the entire human race without exception? If it were,
then we would see the entire human race no longer living for themselves, but for him
who died and rose again on their behalf. But we don’t. Why? Well, verse 14 tells us
why—Christ must not have died for all of them. For if he had died for all them, all of
them would have died. Christ died for all, therefore all died. Period. He has died for
them and the result is that they too have died.

Clearly, every human being is not the referent of the all of verses 14-15. The all
is limited by its context—Christ died for those who have died to themselves and who live
for him. In fact, this verse goes further than that and says that Christ’s death for people
brings about a certain result—they die. His death brings about their deaths. And unless
a person is dead to themselves, then Christ has not died for them.

What does it mean, then, in verse 19 when Paul says that God was in Christ
reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them?
Notice what it says. His reconciliation of the world to himself entails something quite
specific; namely, not counting their trespasses against them. Now then, let me ask
you this: what’s another way of saying that God was not counting the world’s
trespasses against them? That’s right, that they were forgiven by God.

Let’s read the verse again: God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself,
forgiving their sins. Now then, let me ask you this. If God has forgiven the world’s sins,
if he is not counting each and every person’s trespasses against them, how will
everyone do at the judgment? Everyone will do fine, because everyone has been
pardoned.

Clearly, this is problematic; for there will certainly be those who do not pass
through the fires of judgment. God will count some people’s trespasses against them,

The Doctrines of Grace, Part 3: Limited Atonement © 2005 by R W Glenn

 13

and they will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord
and the glory of his power.

So then, what does it mean that God was in Christ reconciling the world to
himself through Christ?

Well, think of it in terms of the Genesis flood, which 1 & 2 Peter make clear is
emblematic of our salvation.

Now even though only eight people and only two of every animal were spared
God’s wrath in the flood, would you say that the flood reconciled the world to himself?
Of course, you would; for if the Lord had not intervened with his salvation, all the world
would have perished from the enormity of the violence that characterized mankind:
“Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with
violence….Then God said to Noah, ‘The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the
earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them
with the earth’” (Genesis 6:11, 13).

And even though the Lord said that his intention was to blot out man whom he
had created from the face of the earth (Genesis 6:7), he spared eight persons,
demonstrating that he was interested in the reconciliation of the world to himself. Man
was not blotted out from the face of the earth. 10

The same idea is operative here in 2 Corinthians 5. God is in Christ reconciling

the world to himself through the reconciliation of those who are in Christ, those who
have had their trespasses not counted against them. God does not need to save every
single human being without exception in order to be reconciling the world to himself. By
saving some members of the human family through union with Christ, he demonstrates
his interest in reconciling humankind to himself.

Of course, there are several other passages that seem to deny that Jesus died
for his people alone, but time limits us from addressing them all. I hasten to add that
God’s providence has led us to address the extent of the atonement during the Sunday
school hour at which time I will address all the passages at issue. My point in citing 2
Corinthians 5 is simply to show that the context will make clear what each author means
by referring to Christ’s death for all or the world.

Still, even if it is true that the passages that refer to Jesus’ death for the world or
for all are clarified and limited by their context, perhaps it is unclear to you how a free
offer of the gospel can be possible on the basis of an atonement for a definite number of
particular people from the fallen human race. In other words, how can we preach the
gospel to all people if Christ has not died for all of them?

10
That 2 Peter 2:5 says that God “did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah” does not
contradict this idea. In 2 Peter, the emphasis is on God’s judgment. The reality is that because God
preserved Noah, humanity was spared. God did not scrap the human race and begin again; rather, he
spared the human race, by sparing eight representatives. Thus there is a sense in the flood in which the
world was not spared and a sense in which it was spared just as there is a sense in salvation in which the
world is not saved and a sense in which it is.

The Doctrines of Grace, Part 3: Limited Atonement © 2005 by R W Glenn

 14

Objection 2: Limited Atonement Restricts the Freeness of the Gospel Offer

The issue of the freeness of the offer of the gospel is, I would argue, the
strongest factor that contributes to people rejecting the notion that Jesus’ died on the
cross for his people only. In virtually every conversation I’ve had with a person who
claims to reject limited atonement, this issue has been paramount. In fact, it is the
reason why they move to cite those passages that use the words “all” and “world.”

But in their zeal to protect the very biblical—I emphasize—very biblical teaching
of the free offer of the gospel, they allow their own logic to countermand what the Bible
clearly teaches regarding the extent and power of the atonement.

Another complicating factor in the area of the freeness of the offer of the gospel
is that so-called Calvinists use the doctrine of a definite atonement to undermine the
preaching of the gospel to all men indiscriminately. This ends up as a kind of proof for
the Arminian notion that Calvinism must be inimical to the offer of salvation extending to
whosoever will. The reality is that Calvin himself and the framers of the Canons of
Dordt were wholeheartedly committed to preaching the gospel to every single human
being; for this is what the Bible clearly demands.

Well, then, how shall we answer the question, “How can we preach the gospel to
all people if Christ has not in fact died for all of them?”

First, the Bible teaches both that Jesus died actually for the sins of his people
only and that the gospel is offered sincerely to all men.

In the same book that records Paul saying, “God is now declaring to all men
everywhere that they should repent” we read that “the Lord opened [Lydia’s] heart to
respond to the things spoken by Paul” (Acts 17:30; 16:14).

What we learn from Scripture is that there are two kinds of willing in God: God’s
will of decree and God’s will of precept. God’s secret will and God’s stated will.

Sometimes these two aspects of God’s will appear antithetical to one another.
The classic example is with the murder of Jesus Christ. Listen to Acts 4:27-28: “For
truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom
You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of
Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.”

Now in this prayer of the early church, we read very clearly that everything that
happened to Jesus at the hands of Herod, Pilate, the Romans, and the Jews happened
according to what the sovereign Lord predestined to occur. Now then, how would we
describe the behavior of Herod, Pilate, the Romans, and the Jews? The answer is
obvious: big time sin. They violated God’s will of command left and right—they
condemned an innocent man to death. On the one hand, God commands men not to
act unjustly, and on the other had predestines their unjust act in the murder of his Son.

The Doctrines of Grace, Part 3: Limited Atonement © 2005 by R W Glenn

 15

Matthew 23:37 is another example of the decretive or secret will of God bumping
up against his will of command or desire. Listen: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the
prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your
children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were
unwilling.” Here Christ is willing something that the Father has not secretly willed.

And I know this because of what Jesus says earlier in Matthew’s gospel: “All
things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except
the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the
Son wills to reveal Him” (Matthew 11:27). So which is it? Does Jesus will to gather to
himself all the people of Israel or not?

Well, the answer is that this is the wrong question. We are in the presence of an
astonishing mystery. For Scripture teaches that God expresses an ardent desire for the
fulfillment of certain things which he has not decreed in his inscrutable counsel to come
to pass. What a mystery! The point is that we should never entertain any prejudice
against the idea that God desires or has pleasure in the accomplishment of what he
secretly wills not to happen.

Unconditional election and limited atonement do not restrict the freeness of the
gospel offer. Listen again to what Jesus says:

Matthew 11:25-30: “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that
You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed
them to infants. 26Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. 27All
things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son
except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone
to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. 28Come to Me, all who are weary and
heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. 29Take My yoke upon you and learn from
Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR
SOULS. 30For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."

So don’t be anxious in the face of this mystery. If the Bible doesn’t have a
problem with the tension that exists between these truths, neither should you. And put
positively, if Jesus himself could call all the weary to come to him knowing that only the
ones to whom he had chosen to reveal the truth would come to him, then so can you.

No one can ultimately explain how it is possible for Jesus to have died only for
the elect and yet the gospel offer to every man to be a sincere expression of the
Father’s will. But this much I do know—that if I conclude that Jesus died actually for the
sins of every man, I have erred, and at the same time if I conclude that the free offer of
the gospel is a sham, I have also erred.

So don’t ever think that a definite atonement restricts the free offer of the gospel.
In fact, unless the atonement is definite, unless it is effective, we have absolutely no
warrant to call all men to the Savior. An atonement that merely provides the possibility
or opportunity of salvation does not supply the proper basis for the gospel offer. As one
writer has correctly said, “It is not the opportunity of salvation that is offered; it is

The Doctrines of Grace, Part 3: Limited Atonement © 2005 by R W Glenn

 16

salvation. And it is salvation because Christ is offered and Christ does not invite us to
mere opportunity but to himself.”11

Conclusion: No Security apart from a Definite Atonement

So if you come to Christ, if you have come to Christ you can know for certain that
you will receive all the blessings of the atonement.

It does not depend on the strength or weakness of your faith. In fact, it does not
ultimately depend on your faith at all. It is more certain than the rising and the setting of
the sun. It is more certain than death and taxes. Yes, even more certain than death; for
Christ could come back during our lifetimes such that we would never have tasted
death.

The certainty of the forgiveness and redemption you enjoy is as certain as

the certainty of God himself. Jesus did in fact, in actuality, certainly and infallibly
purchase your specific redemption. Rest in his work for you! It has
accomplished exactly what the Lord set it out to accomplish.

This is why it is so important that we believe what the Bible says about the
effectiveness, the power of the atonement. If we were to believe in the Arminian
notion of a hypothetical atonement, how could we ever be sure that it ever
actually accomplished all it needs to accomplish for us to be saved?

If you say, “Your faith is what makes it effective,” I respond with, “What faith?” In
my sin, I am utterly incapable of turning to the Savior in repentance and faith (don’t
forget total depravity). If we are truly dead and in bondage to sin, a potential or
conditional or hypothetical atonement not only may have ended in failure, but it would
have ended in dismal failure, because we are incapable of exercising the faith that we
supposedly need in order for his death to be effective for us. The Arminian position
leaves us with no reason to believe that Jesus did not die in vain. As we heard earlier,
we are “left with a Christ who tried to save everybody but actually saved nobody.”12

So then, Christ died for his people alone. His death itself actually secured our
pardon. It actually secured the expiation of our sin. It actually absorbed and turned
away of God’s wrath from us. It actually reconciled us to God. It actually redeemed us
from every lawless deed. It actually brought the forgiveness of sins.

So the question really is this: Who really limits the atonement, the Arminian or the
Calvinist? Well, both. The Arminian limits the atonement in that it does not actually
save anyone. The Calvinist limits the atonement in that it actually saves some—indeed,
many.

I love what Charles Spurgeon says in this regard. And it’s with this we’ll close:

11
John Murray, Collected Writings (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1976), 1.83.
12
Sproul, Chosen by God, 207.

The Doctrines of Grace, Part 3: Limited Atonement © 2005 by R W Glenn

 17

Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that
Christ did not die so as infallibly to secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your
pardon, when you say we limit Christ’s death; we say, “No, my dear sir, it is you
that do it.” We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a
multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be
saved, but are saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being
anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We
will never renounce ours for the sake of it.13

Redeemer Bible Church

16205 Highway 7
Minnetonka, MN 55345
Office: 952.935.2425
Fax: 952.938.8299
info@redeemerbiblechurch.com
www.redeemerbiblechurch.com
www.solidfoodmedia.com

13
Charles H Spurgeon, quoted in Packer, “Introductory Essay,” 14, quoted in Steele and Thomas,
The Five Points of Calvinism (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 1965), 40.

The Doctrines of Grace, Part 3: Limited Atonement © 2005 by R W Glenn