Was Anyone Saved at the Cross?
By James White
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, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being
anything but saved. ---Charles Haddon Spurgeon
There was a time when I called myself a
"four-point Calvinist." There are a lot of people who use that term,
and, almost all the time, the one point of the five that they reject is the
terrible, horrible, "L". Limited atonement. There is just something
about the term that doesn't sound right. How can Christ's atonement be limited?
And that is exactly what I said until I began to seriously think about the
whole issue. It is my experience that most of those who reject the specific, or
limited atonement of Christ, do not *really* believe in the complete
sovereignty of God, or the total depravity of man, or the unconditional
election of God. Most objections that are lodged against the doctrine are
actually objections to one of the preceding points, not against limited
atonement itself. The "break" in my thinking came from reading Edwin
Palmer's book, The Five Points of Calvinism. [Edwin H. Palmer, The
Five Points of Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980) pp. 41-55.]
In doing a radio program on the truth of God's electing grace, I was challenged
by a caller in regards to the death of Christ. "Why would Christ die for
the whole world if God did not intend to save everyone?" I looked at my
co-host, and he looked at me, and I made a mental note to do more study into
that particular question. I grabbed Palmer's book as soon as I returned home,
and began to read the chapter on the atoning work of Christ.
I became a full "five-pointer"
upon reading the following section:
The
question that needs a precise answer is this: Did He or didn't He? Did Christ
actually make a substitutionary sacrifice for sins or didn't He? If He did,
then it was not for all the world, for then all the world would be saved.
(Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism, p. 47.)
I was faced with a decision. If I maintained
a "universal" atonement, that is, if I said that Christ died
substitutionarily in the place of every single man and woman in all the world,
then I was forced to either say that 1) everyone will be saved, or 2) the death
of Christ is insufficient to save without additional works. I knew that I was
not willing to believe that Christ's death could not save outside of human
actions. So I had to understand that Christ's death was made in behalf of God's
elect, and that it does accomplish its intention, it does save
those for whom it is made. At this point I realized that I had
"limited" the atonement all along. In fact, if you do not believe in
the Reformed doctrine of "limited atonement," you believe in a
limited atonement anyway! How so? Unless you are a universalist (that is,
unless you believe that everyone will be saved), then you believe that the
atonement of Christ, if it is made for all men, is limited in its effect. You
believe that Christ can die in someone's place and yet that person may still be
lost for eternity. You limit the power and effect of the
atonement. I limit the scope of the atonement, while saying that its
power and effect is unlimited! One writer expressed it well when he said,
Let
there be no misunderstanding at this point. The Arminian limits the atonement
as certainly as does the Calvinist. The Calvinist limits the extent of it in
that he says it does not apply to all persons...while the Arminian limits the
power of it, for he says that in itself it does not actually save anybody. The
Calvinist limits it quantitatively, but not qualitatively; the Arminian limits it
qualitatively, but not quantitatively. For the Calvinist it is like a narrow
bridge that goes all the way across the stream; for the Arminian it is like a
great wide bridge that goes only half-way across. As a matter of fact, the
Arminian places more severe limitations on the work of Christ than does the
Calvinist. (Lorraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination
(Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1932)
p. 153.)
Therefore, we are not talking about presenting
some terrible limitation on the work of Christ when we speak of "limited
atonement." In fact, we are actually presenting a far greater view
of the work of Christ on Calvary when we say that Christ's death actually accomplishes
something in reality rather than only in theory. The
atonement, we believe, was a real, actual, substitutionary one, not a possible,
theoretical one that is dependent for its efficacy upon the actions of man.
And, as one who often shares the gospel with people involved in false religious
systems, I will say that the biblical doctrine of the atonement of
Christ is a powerful truth that is the only message that has real impact
in dealing with the many heretical teachings about Christ that are present in
our world today. Jesus Christ died in behalf of those that the Father had, from
eternity, decreed to save. There is absolute unity between the Father and the
Son in saving God's people. The Father decrees their salvation, the Son dies in
their place, and the Spirit sanctifies them and conforms them to the image of
Christ. This is the consistent testimony of Scripture.
The Intention of the
Atonement
Why did Christ come to die? Did He come
simply to make salvation possible, or did He come to actually obtain
eternal redemption (Hebrews 9:12)? Let's consider some passages from
Scripture in answer to this question.
For
the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost (Luke 19:10).
Here the Lord Jesus Himself speaks of the
reason for His coming. He came to seek and to save the lost. Few have
a problem with His seeking; many have a problem with the idea that He actually
accomplished all of His mission. Jesus, however, made it clear that He
came to actually save the lost. He did this by His death.
Here
is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into
the world to save sinners---of whom I am the worst (1 Timothy 1:15).
Paul asserts that the purpose of Christ's
coming into the world was to actually save sinners. Nothing in Paul's
words leads us to the conclusion that is so popular today---that Christ's death
simply makes salvation a possibility rather than a reality. Christ came
to save. So, did He? And how did He? Was it not by His death? Most certainly.
The atoning death of Christ provides forgiveness of sins for all those for whom
it is made. That is why Christ came.
Christ's
Intercessory Work
But
because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is
able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always
lives to intercede for them (Hebrews 7:24-26).
The New Testament closely connects the work
of Christ as our High Priest and intercessor with His death upon the cross. In
this passage from Hebrews, we are told that the Lord Jesus, since He lives
forever, has an unchangeable or permanent priesthood. He is not like the old
priests who passed away, but is a perfect priest, because He remains forever.
Because of this He is able to save completely those who come to God
through Him. Why? Because He always lives to make intercession for them.
Now, before considering the relationship of
the death of Christ to His intercession, I wish to emphasize the fact that the
Bible says that Christ is able to save men completely. He is not limited
simply to a secondary role as the great Assistor who makes it possible for man
to save himself. Those who draw near to God through Christ will find full and
complete salvation in Him. Furthermore, we must remember that Christ intercedes
for those who draw near to God. I feel that it is obvious that Christ is
not interceding for those who are not approaching God through Him. Christ's
intercession is in behalf of the people of God. We shall see how important this
is in a moment.
Upon what ground does Christ intercede
before the Father? Does He stand before the Father and ask Him to forget His
holiness, forget His justice, and simply pass over the sins of men? Of course
not. The Son intercedes before the Father on the basis of His death. Christ's
intercession is based upon the fact that He has died as the substitute for
God's people, and, since He has borne their sins in His body on the tree (1
Peter 2:24), He can present His offering before the Father in their place, and
intercede for them on this basis. The Son does not ask the Father to compromise
His holiness, or to simply pass over sin. Christ took care of sin at Calvary.
As we read in Hebrews 9:11-12:
When
Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went
through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is
to say, not a part of this creation. He did not enter by means of the blood of
goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own
blood, having obtained eternal redemption.
When Christ entered into the Holy of Holies,
He did so "by his own blood." When He did this, we are told that He
had "obtained eternal redemption." This again is not a theoretical
statement, but a statement of fact. Christ did not enter into the Holy of
Holies to attempt to gain redemption for His people! He entered in
having already accomplished that. So what is He doing? Is His work of
intercession another work alongside His sacrificial death? Is His death
ineffective without this "other" work? Christ's intercession is not a
second work outside of His death. Rather, Christ is presenting before the
Father His perfect and complete sacrifice. He is our High Priest, and the
sacrifice He offers in our place is the sacrifice of Himself. He is our
Advocate, as John said:
My
dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody
does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense---Jesus Christ,
the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for
ours but also for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:1-2. [This passage is often used to deny
the specific atonement of Christ; yet, when the parallel passage in John
11:51-52 is consulted, it is clear that John means the "world" to be
taken in the same sense that is explained for us in Revelation 5:9-11, where
Christ's death purchases for God men "from every tribe and language and
people and nation," that is, from all the world.]
Christ's atoning death is clearly connected
with His advocacy before the Father. Therefore, we can see the following
truths:
1) It is impossible that the Son would not
intercede for everyone for whom He died. If Christ dies as their Substitute,
how could He not present His sacrifice in their stead before the Father? Can we
really believe that Christ would die for someone that He did not intend to
save?
2) It is impossible that anyone for whom the
Son did not die could receive Christ's intercession. If Christ did not
die in behalf of a certain individual, how could Christ intercede for that individual,
since He would have no grounds upon which to seek the Father's mercy?
3) It is impossible that anyone for whom the
Son intercedes could be lost. Can we imagine the Son pleading before the
Father, presenting His perfect atonement in behalf of an individual that He
wishes to save, and the Father rejecting the Son's intercession? The Father
always hears the Son (John 11:42). Would He not hear the Son's pleas in behalf
of all that the Son desires to save? Furthermore, if we believe that Christ can
intercede for someone that the Father will not save, then we must believe
either 1) that there is dissension in the Godhead, the Father desiring one
thing, the Son another, or 2) that the Father is incapable of doing what
the Son desires Him to do. Both positions are utterly impossible.
That Christ does not act as High Priest for
all men is clearly seen in His "High Priestly Prayer" in John 17. The
Lord clearly distinguishes between the "world" and those who are His
throughout the prayer, and verse 9 makes our point very strongly:
I
pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me,
for they are yours.
When Christ prays to the Father, He does not
pray for the "world" but for those that have been given to Him by the
Father (John 6:37).
For Whom Did Christ Die?
There are a number of Scriptures that teach
us that the scope of Christ's death was limited to the elect. Here are a
few of them:
Just
as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life
as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28).
The "many" for whom Christ died
are the elect of God, just as Isaiah had said long before,
By
his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their
iniquities. (Isaiah 53:11)
The Lord Jesus made it clear that His death
was for His people when He spoke of the Shepherd and the sheep:
I
am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the
sheep....just as the Father knows me and I know the Father---and I lay down my
life for the sheep (John 10:11, 15).
The good Shepherd lays down His life in
behalf of the sheep. Are all men the sheep of Christ? Certainly not, for most
men do not know Christ, and Christ says that His sheep know Him (John 10:14).
Further, Jesus specifically told the Jews who did not believe in Him, "but
you do not believe because you are not my sheep" (John 10:26). Note that
in contrast with the idea that we believe and therefore make ourselves Christ's
sheep, Jesus says that they do not believe because they are not His sheep!
Whether one is of Christ's sheep is the Father's decision (John 6:37, 8:47),
not the sheep's!
...just
as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and
sacrifice to God....husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church
and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with
water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church,
without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless
(Ephesians 5:2, 25-27).
Christ gave Himself in behalf of His Church,
His Body, and that for the purpose of cleansing her and making her holy. If
this was His intention for the Church, why would He give Himself for those who
are not of the Church? Would He not wish to make these "others" holy
as well? Yet, if Christ died for all men, there are many, many who will remain
impure for all eternity. Was Christ's death insufficient to cleanse them?
Certainly not. Did He have a different goal in mind in dying for them? [I am
not here denying that the death of Christ had effects for all men,
indeed, for all of creation. I believe that His death is indeed part of the
"summing up of all things" in Christ. But, we are speaking here
solely with the salvific effect of the substitutionary atonement of
Christ. One might say that Christ's death has an effect upon those for
whom it was not intended as an atoning sacrifice.] No, His sacrificial death in
behalf of His Church results in her purification, and this is what He intended
for all for whom He died.
He
who did not spare His own Son, but gave him up for us all---how will he not
also, along with him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring a charge
against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that
condemns? Christ Jesus, who died---more than that, who was raised to life---is
at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us (Romans 8:32-34).
The Father gave the Son in our place. Who is
the "our" of this passage? The text says that it is "those whom
God has chosen," that is, the elect of God. Again, the intercessory work
of Christ at the right hand of the Father is presented in perfect harmony with
the death of Christ---those for whom Christ died are those for whom He
intercedes. And, as this passage shows, if Christ intercedes for someone, who
can possibly bring a charge against that person and hope to see them condemned?
So we see what we have seen before: Christ dies in someone's place, He
intercedes for them, and they are infallibly saved. Christ's work is complete
and perfect. He is the powerful Savior, and He never fails to accomplish
His purpose.
Greater
love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends (John
15:13).
Are all the friends of Christ? Do all own
His name? Do all bow before Him and accept Him as Lord? Do all do His
commandments (John 15:14)? Then not all are His friends.
While
we wait for the blessed hope---the glorious appearing of our great God and
Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness
and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is
good (Titus 2:13-14).
Both the substitutionary element of the
cross (gave himself for us) and the purpose thereof (to redeem us...to
purify) are forcefully presented to Titus. If it was the purpose of Christ to
redeem and purify those for whom He died, can this possibly not take
place?
She
will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he
will save his people from their sins (Matthew 1:21).
Christ will save His people
from their sins. I ask what Edwin Palmer asked me before: Well, did He? Did He
save His people, or did He not?
I
have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.
The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me
and gave himself for me (Galatians 2:20).
This is the common confession of every true
believer in Christ. We died with Him, our Substitute, the one who loved us and
gave Himself in our behalf.
We have seen, then, that the Word teaches
that Christ died for many, for His sheep, for the Church, for the elect of God,
for His friends, for a people zealous for good works, for His people, for each
and every Christian.
Perfected and Sanctified
One could quite obviously fill entire
volumes with a study of the atonement of Christ. [The reader is strongly
encouraged to make the effort to read completely a work that stands as a
classic in the field: John Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ
from Banner of Truth, for a full discussion of the issues surrounding the
atonement of Christ.] It is not our purpose to do so here. Instead, we shall
close our brief survey of Scripture with these words from Hebrews 10:10-14:
And
by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus
Christ once for all. Day after day every priest stands and performs his
religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifice, which can never
take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for
sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his
enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect
forever those who are being made holy.
While we have seen many logical reasons for
believing in limited atonement, and we have seen many references to Christ's
death in behalf of His people, this one passage, above all others, to me, makes
the doctrine a must. Listen closely to what we are told. First, what is
the effect of the one time sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ? What does
verse 10 tell us? "We have been made holy," or, another translation
would be, "We have been sanctified." The Greek language uses the
perfect tense here, indicating a past, and completed, action. The death of
Christ actually makes us holy. Do we believe this? Did the death of
Christ actually sanctify those for whom it was made? Or did it simply make it
possible for them to become holy? Again, these are questions that cannot be
easily dismissed. The writer goes on to describe how this priest, Jesus, sat
down at the right hand of God, unlike the old priests who had to keep
performing sacrifices over and over and over again. His work, on the contrary,
is perfect and complete. He can rest, for by His one sacrifice He has made
perfect those who are experiencing the sanctifying work of the Spirit in
their lives. He made them perfect, complete. The term refers to a completion, a
finishing. Again, do we believe that Christ's death does this? And, if we see
the plain teaching of Scripture, are we willing to alter our beliefs, and our
methods of proclaiming the gospel, to fit the truth?
What of Faith?
One common belief needs to be addressed in
passing. Many who believe in a "universal" or non-specific atonement,
assert that while Christ died for all, His atonement is only effective for
those who believe. We shall discuss the fact that faith itself is the gift of
God, given only to the elect of God, in the next chapter. But for now, we defer
to the great Puritan writer, John Owen, in answering this question:
To
which I may add this dilemma to our Universalists:---God imposed his wrath due
unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of all
men, or all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men. If the last, some
sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man
be saved; for if God enter into judgment with us, though it were with all
mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight: "If the LORD should mark iniquities, who should stand?" Ps. cxxx. 3....If the
second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room
suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world. If the first, why,
then are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say,
"Because of their unbelief; they will not believe." But this
unbelief, is it a sin, or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If
it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why
must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from
partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then he did not die for all
their sins. Let them choose which part they will. (John Owen, The Death of
Death in the Death of Christ, (London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1985) pp.
61-62.)
Conclusion
Some object to the doctrine of limited
atonement on very pragmatic grounds. "The doctrine destroys evangelism,
because you cannot tell people that Christ died for them, because you don't
know!" Yet, we ask, is there an advantage in presenting to men an
atonement that is theoretical, a Savior whose work is incomplete, and a gospel
that is but a possibility? What kind of proclamation will God honor with His
Spirit: one that is tailored to seek "success," or one that is bound
to the truth of the Word of God? When the Apostles preached the Gospel, they
did not say, "Christ died for all men everywhere, and it is up to you to
make His work effective." They taught that Christ died for sinners, and
that it was the duty of every man to repent and believe. They knew that only
God's grace could bring about repentance and faith in the human heart. And far
from that being a *hindrance* to their evangelistic work, it was the power
behind it! They proclaimed a *powerful* Savior, whose work is all sufficient,
and who saves men totally and completely! They knew that God was about bringing
men to Himself, and, since He is the sovereign of the universe, there is no
power on earth that will stay His hand! Now there is a solid basis for
evangelism! And what could be more of a comfort to the heart that is racked
with guilt than to know that Christ has died for sinners, and that His work is
not just theoretical, but is real?
The Church needs to challenge the world again
with the daring proclamation of a gospel that is offensive---offensive because
it speaks of God saving those whom He will, offensive because it proclaims a
sovereign Savior who redeems His people.
©
1991, James R. White.