If you are in need of a solid, basic web site for your business, church, or organization, check out my web design services at 
Subscribe
The Extent of the Atonement & Free Offer of the Gospel
Posted by Brian Thornton on November 27, 2007
In preparation for a couple of things, including the upcoming adoption by our church (RCC) of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, I am currently reading an excellent exposition on that confession by Samuel Waldron. I would highly recommend it to anyone who would like to gain a thorough understanding of the historic Baptist faith.
In light of my post yesterday, I would like to quote a small portion of the Confession, and then a few comments from Samuel Waldron.
This is from section 8, Of Christ the Mediator, paragraph 5:
The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he through the eternal Spirit once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of God, procured reconciliation, and purchased an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven for all those whom the Father hath given unto him.
Following are some comments from Waldron on the extent of the atonement. He makes a statement that many who benefit from the death of Christ are not elect, and I would completely agree with that. He talks about how there are many benefits of common grace which flow out of Christ’s death. In his words, “many temporal benefits come to the non-elect as a result of Christ’s death.” He goes on to say that the proper question to ask is this: ‘In whose place did Christ substitute himself?’ – p.133
Ponder these statements from Waldron concerning the application and reach of Christ’s death:
If Christ actually substituted himself for me and bore the curse for my sins, how can I ever bear that curse? Will a just God punish the same sins twice? Did God in Christ actually redeem, reconcile and propitiate his anger against us on the cross? (Note Rev. 5:9; cf. 2 Cor. 5:14 with Rom. 6:5,8). – p.134
The context of the atonement demands particular redemption. The covenant is the context of Christ’s work. Christ’s blood is covenant blood. This is one of the most frequently stated truths of the New Testament (Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25; Eph. 2:12-13; Heb. 10:29; 13:20). All men are not in the covenant. Furthermore, the covenant is one which secures the salvation of those in it (Jer. 31:31-34). If the entire context of the atonement is covenantal, then its extent must be as wide as, but only as wide as, the covenant. This demands particular redemption. – p.134
Waldron also addresses the potential problem with respect to the free offer of the gospel to all mankind if particular redemption is true:
The idea has spread that particular redemption makes men deny the free offer [of the gospel]. This is false. Most people who believe in particular redemption also believe in the free offer. – p.135
The free offer of the gospel does not require us to tell men that Christ died for them. If the free offer of the gospel meant telling unconverted sinners, “Christ died for you,” then particular redemption would be inconsistent with the free offer. But nowhere in the Bible is the gospel proclaimed by telling unconverted sinners that Christ died for them. Never do the apostles do this in the book of Acts! Preaching the gospel is not, in the first place, proclaiming who Christ died for. The gospel is proclaiming Christ himself, as the sufficient Savior of sinners (Matt. 11:28-30; Acts 4:12; 5:28-31). – p.135
jeff novak said
This is just more sematical wresting of the scriptures. Jn 3:16 clearly declares that God so loved the WORLD (not just the world of the elect) that he GAVE (sent him to die for) his only begotten son.
Is 53:6…” the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all”
Is 53:10…”when thou shalt make his soul an offering for SIN” why doesn’t this simply mean all sin?
Why do we need to run 1st to creeds and confessions instead of the bible? Why can’t we take God at his word, especially interpreting the more obscure passages in light of the clearer and more direct verses (as the ones in my post yesterday)? Why is there this infernal dichotomy of only two tired theological constructs of calvinism and arminianism? Why is it we pick and choose among theologians to based on our pet doctrines? You should post a list of approved scholars so I won’t make the embarassing mistake of recommending Albert Barnes again because he doesn’t fit into your schemes of “original sin”. Why don’t you engage his material and show us that? Stop venerating the reformers as if discerning God’s word landed at a divine cul-de-sac and can’t move forward. I love John Piper but honestly, if Edwards were alive today I wonder if he would love him more than Christ.
jeff novak said
The free offer of the gospel does not require us to tell men that Christ died for them.
this quote seems like nonsense to me in light of the fact that Christians are commanded to preach the gospel to every creature and 1cor 15:1-4 CLEARLY defines the gospel as the fact that Jesus died for our sins according to the scriptures. Furthermore, Paul clearly states that this is what he delivered to the Corinthians (while in their UNSAVED STATE) so you can’t say Paul “was only talking to Christians,” for at that time NONE them were Christians.
Brian Thornton said
Why do we need to run 1st to creeds and confessions instead of the bible?
I don’t know who you are talking about here, but this is not what I have done. My theology was shaped as a result of doing a verse-by-verse study through the book of Romans, followed by a verse-by-verse study through the gospel of John. I was a synergist (one who believes man must cooperate with God to complete salvation) through and through for the majority of my Christian life. I proclaimed boldly how God looked down through the corridors of time to see who would accept his offer of salvation and those are the ones he chose. That is, until our church’s adult SS classes (I was a teacher) began going through the book of Romans, and then through John. I hardly even knew what a confession was back then (’03).
So, please don’t presume to know what I ran to first. For it was the word of God, and only His word, that I was reading and studying when I first saw the clear, unambiguous, God glorifying monergistic work of salvation that God alone works in the hearts of those he has graciously chosen to receive mercy.
I will be happy to go through your verses and address them one by one, but we must first deal with your wooden literal take on words such as “all”, “world” and “whole world”.
To get a better understanding of how you see these words in Scripture, please answer the following questions about these two verses. I will quote the verses and then ask the questions.
1. And all the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins. – Mark 1:5
2. So the Pharisees said to one another, “You see that you are not doing any good; look, the world has gone after Him.” – John 12:19
QUESTION: Was every single person in the country of Judea, and every single person in Jerusalem going to John the Baptist, confessing their sins, and being baptized?
QUESTION: When the pharisees were talking to each other, were they upset because they believed every single person in the whole world (which would include themselves) was going after Jesus?
I have more to say, but will wait until you have responded to these.
Thanks.
jeff novak said
whatever all means, it is more extensive than the SOME of a 5-point calvinist. You know, the bible does use figures of speech (eg “ends of the earth) etc. Hermanuetics teaches us to discern narrative passages slightly different than propositional theological statements-jeff
Brian Thornton said
Wait a minute!!! Before you were saying that “all” meant every single person. Why now the change?
Why does “all” in Mark not mean every single person, but the “all” in Romans does?
This is confusing, since there are no restrictive qualifiers in Mark when he says that “all” of Judea and Jerusalem were coming to be baptized, yet in Romans 5 (verses you quoted) we see the restrictive qualifier of “many” being used by Paul in describing who will be made righteous.
You restrict the “all” in Mark 1:5 to not mean everyone when there is no qualifier, and you take “all” to mean every single human being in Romans 5:18 when the very next verse has a restrictive qualifier to show that the “all” is actually “the many” who are made righteous.
That seems a tad inconsistent on your part.
jeff novak said
Well, if you are forcing me to pick one stance on the word all (instead of seeing that it only seemed like all to the pharisees) I guess I’d have to still say (in Geisler’s words)that in the bible, ALL means ALL. BTW, all encompasses many, but many does not encompass all-again maybe the many means only those who obeyed the gospel in faith.
jeff novak said
PS-
there’s no reason at all in Mk 1:5 that ALL doesnt mean exactly what it says: all the country of Judea and all the people in Jerusalem. Turn the tables here: are you saying all never means all? Does all only mean some all the time? Who gets to pick and choose when all means some and all means all?
jeff novak said
regarding post #3…
I should say that in post #1 I really had myself in mind more than you. You have kept to the scriptures with your replies and I do appreciate the integrity of doing so. I also want to encourage every Christian to investigate the historical creeds and confessions for their own individual merits in shaping a systematic theology and shaping the landscape of historical Christian orthodoxy. Keep one’s bible handy while doing so. My own church’s “creed” The Baptist Faith and Message sometimes seems to strain a little with its use of scripture references to support its positions.