VICARIOUS ATONEMENT (12)
Addendum

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I. Theological expressions of what is presented above include the doctrines commonly called "limited atonement", "particular redemption", and "definite atonement".

1. "Limited atonement" is the doctrine that the atoning death of Christ was vicarious for a limited number of people, identified in Scriptures as "many".

-- The opposing doctrine is "unlimited atonement" (and/or "universal atonement"), which posits that Christ died for all without exception (as do Arminians).

1) Arminians often claim, "We do not in any way limit the atoning work of Jesus Christ." Actually, both Holy Scriptures and Arminians preach limited atonement, but with different limitations:

i) Holy Scriptures limit the extent of the atonement, but not its result. That is, Scriptures teach the atonement was limited to the elect, and that it forever secured the salvation of everyone for whom it was made.

ii) Arminians, on the other hand, limit the result of the atonement, but not its extent. That is, Arminians teach Christ died to atone for everyone – including those already in Hades (as in Luke 16:19ff), but secured the salvation of no one.

2) We may illustrate these differences by imagining a bridge of salvation from earth to heaven across the abyss of hell, built by the atoning work and righteousness of Jesus Christ.

i) Holy Scriptures declare this bridge is limited in its width, but not in its length. It is wide enough to accommodate only those who will believe in Christ, but it stretches all the way across the abyss to glory, and guarantees the salvation of all who traverse it.

ii) Arminians, on the other hand, declare this bridge is limited in its length, but not in its width. It is wide enough for all humanity, but it does not reach all the way to glory, and must be completed by those who would traverse it.

2. "Particular redemption" is the doctrine that the atoning death of Christ was vicarious for a particular people, and that through it they were certainly redeemed.

-- The opposing doctrine is "general redemption", which posits that Christ died for all in general, not for a particular people. Arminians may admit that Scriptures teach Christ died for a particular people, but that this fact does not exclude others from the benefits of His death. For example, the fact that Christ died for His sheep (John 10:11) does not negate their belief that He died also for those who are not His sheep.

3. "Definite atonement" is the doctrine that the death of Christ most certainly secured atonement for all for whom He died.

-- The opposing doctrine is "indefinite atonement", which posits that the substitutionary death of Christ did not secure atonement for those in whose place He died, but merely made them atonable, and that their atonement is therefore conditioned upon their belief in Christ's saving work.

II. Proponents of general or unlimited atonement, as opposed to limited atonement, may be divided into two sorts of universalists.

1. First are consistent or real universalists, who aver Christ's atonement for everyone is a real atonement that will result in all eventually being saved.

2. Second are inconsistent or hypothetical universalists (e.g., Pelagians and Arminians), who aver Christ's atonement for everyone is but a hypothetical or conditional atonement that will not result in all being saved.

i. With regard to consistent or real universalism, it should be observed that this doctrine is contrary to the Scriptural truth that not all men will eventually be saved, and that many will be condemned to eternal punishment (Matthew 7:13).

ii. With regard to hypothetical universalism, it should be observed that in the work of salvation Christ did nothing hypothetically. When He shouted in victory in His dying breath, "It is finished!" (John 19:30), He meant exactly what He declared.

iii. With regard to conditional universalism, it should be observed that the work of salvation is in no way conditioned upon men, but rather upon Christ alone. If it were conditioned upon men to make Christ's work of salvation efficacious, none would be saved. Christ declares that no man of his own volition, apart from divine enablement, is capable of either being willing or able to believe in Him for salvation (John 5:40; 6:44, 65).

iv. Hypothetical and conditional universalists will nevertheless object upon their claim that "The shed blood of Christ is sufficient for all, but efficient only for some."

1) But in so saying, they must admit that if the blood of Christ is efficient for only some, then it is of necessity inefficient for the rest.

2) And in admitting that the blood of Christ is inefficient for some, they must admit also that the portion of Christ's blood that is inefficient is therefore worthless.

3) For example, according to their view, the shed blood of Christ was worthless for all who were already in Hades when He died (e.g., the "rich man" of Luke 16:22ff, and Judas Iscariot in Matthew 27:5 / Acts 1:25), and will prove to be worthless for countless millions others.

v. Anyone who counts even a single drop of Christ's blood to be worthless, and not as a precious thing resulting in redemption (as in 1 Peter 1:18f), may as well count it also as an unholy common thing worthy only of being poured out upon the ground and trampled underfoot in a manner that insults the God of grace.

-- All such persons should heed the warning of Hebrews 10:29: "Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified [or so he may claim] a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?"

III. Arminians may express their belief in the "substitutionary death of Christ", but they do not mean what is here taught regarding the "substitutionary atonement of Christ". (Pelagians, such as Campbellites, outright deny the latter doctrine.)

1. They deny that Christ died as the substitute for God's elect alone, averring instead that He died in the place and stead of every member of mankind without exception.

2. They deny that Christ actually obtained atonement for all whom He died, averring instead that He only obtained the possibility for atonement for all who make it effectual through their own "freewill" or some work of righteousness.

3. They thereby impugn the justice of God, averring that He in justice punished the sins of every man in the death of Christ, but will nevertheless punish for their sins those who die in unbelief, even though Christ already was punished for those sins, and thereby unjustly punishes the same sins twice.

How blessed indeed are all who sing these words of A.M. Toplady:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~