========================================================================
  EXTENT OF ATONEMENT
  by Charles W. Bronson
========================================================================

Bronson's theological examination of the extent of Christ's atonement,
addressing the question of whether Christ died for all people or only for the
elect, engaging with both Calvinist and Arminian perspectives.

  Chapters: 9

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  TABLE OF CONTENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. 00-Bronson-The Extent of the Atonement
    2. 01-Preliminary Considerations
    3. 02-The Extent of the Legal Penalty Required
    4. 03-God's Covenant Purpose in Christ
    5. 04-The Application of the Atonement
    6. 05-The Extent of the Atonement in Typology
    7. 06-Objections Considered
    8. 07-Conclusion
    9. 08- Bibliography

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 1: 00-BRONSON-THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT
========================================================================

The Extent of the Atonement by Charles W. Bronson

INTRODUCTION

"Full atonement—can it be?" A question, I imagine, that is as old as
Christianity That Christ died for sins is generally accepted. The question is,
whose sins? Not His, for He was as a Lamb without spot or blemish.

Bro. C.W. (Chuck) Bronson has authored a most interesting and enlightening book
on the central and perhaps the most important doctrine in the Bible, the
atonement. As a young Christian I pondered this question: If Christ’s death is
for my salvation and Christ died for all men, then why are all men not saved? A
clear understanding of the atonement is necessary to understand the great and
deep teachings of the Holy Scriptures. May God grant each reader the grace to
search the Scriptures and prove all things. An open mind and an open Bible will,
I believe, reveal that what Bro. Bronson has set forth herein is the true
teaching of God’s word. My thanks to Bro. Bronson for this timely message. —
R.R. McTaggart

(Bro. Mc Taggert has been an active member and deacon of Grace Baptist Church,
of which Bro. Bronson is presently pastor, for the past 12 years and has been
active in Christian service for l8 years.) BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Charles Wesley Bronson was born and reared in the tiny village of Muncie, Kansas
during the worst part of the depression. This was in the dust bowl and the
parched, cracked ground cried for rain from above. These were days when men
preached righteousness from God’s Holy Word. The author’s father was an old time
Baptist preacher and his sermons left an indelible impression on the author who
was hardly more than a baby. He seems to have caught some of the charisma that
rested on his father for he too, when he came of age. felt impelled to preach
the gospel of Gods’ grace. He has had wide and varied experiences in the
ministry and has held various pastorates including some 7 years as a missionary
to Korea. While there he learned to love the Korean people while in the service
of his country there during the Korean War. His only desire has been to preach
Christ crucified, saying "He must increase, but I must decrease." He feels
perhaps the message most needed today is the fact that the return of Jesus
Christ is imminent. The author is available for evangelistic service wherever
the Lord may lead and wants to share his message with the Lord’s people
everywhere.

Preface This work was undertaken while home on furlough from Korea and is the
result of long hours of study and research on the subject of the atonement.
While perhaps something more definitive on the subject is yet required I would
hope that it might provoke people to think more about the subject "For whom did
Jesus die?" It is to be expected that some will take exception to some
statements and some of my personal opinions on the subject. This will be no
doubt due, in part, to the controversial nature of the subject. However, I have
no de-sire for controversy with any person but only a desire for the
promulgation of truth. It is my earnest belief that the ancient Puritans came
perhaps closer to the truth on the subject of the atonement than any of our more
modern theologians have done. I believe God would have us return to the old
landmarks of the past, saying "this is the way, walk ye in it." Above all, may
all who read this book be made to catch something of that great love of Jesus
Christ, our Great Shepherd, who loved us so that He gave himself over to the
hands of His enemies and was obedient even unto death, the cruel death of the
cross.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 2: 01-PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
========================================================================

CHAPTER I "PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS" The problem of the extent of the
atonement may be summed up in the question "for whom did Christ die?" This is a
question over which many theological battles have been fought in times past,
although it does not seem to be a question which concerns modern theologians
particularly: A question over which the theologians have sorely vexed themselves
and each other concerns the extent of the atonement, whether it is available for
all men or only for certain particular, elect ones. 1 The above writer has
basically stated the problem of the extent of the atonement, but he seems to
imply in the words "certain particular, elect ones" that he understands the view
of the limited atonement to include only a relatively small number of persons.
If this is his meaning then it is erroneous, for the Bible speaks of an
innumerable company of the elect. For instance, see such Scripture references as
Revelation 7:9, Genesis 22:17, Genesis 15:5. It is common for opponents of the
limited atonement to erroneously assume that by the term "limited atonement" is
meant a limited number of a select few who will be saved. By limited, it is not
meant to indicate that a select few will be saved, but rather that the extent of
the atonement is limited to God’s elect, the number being known only by God
alone. In all actuality, when it is considered that many of the human race die
in infancy, it is to be hoped that the number of the saved may actually be
greater than the number of the wicked in hell.

C.H. Spurgeon, in his sermon on "Plenteous Redemption," says concerning the
number of the redeemed:

It is plenteous, when we consider the millions that have been redeemed. Think,
if ye can, how great that host who have already "washed their robes and made
them white in the blood of the Lamb," and then think how many now with weary
feet are plodding their way to Paradise, all of them redeemed. They all shall
sit down at the marriage supper of the Lamb. Is it not plenteous redemption,
when you reflect that it is a "multitude that no man can number" that will be
gathered in?2 The question of the extent of the atonement is most assuredly an
important one and just as relevant for our generation, at least, as in former
generations. Yet, we are told that we need no longer concern ourselves with the
question in these "enlightened" times: That controversy may now be passed by. It
is no longer possible to read the Bible and suppose that God relates himself
sympathetically with only a part of the race. All segregated passages of
Scripture formerly employed in support of such a view have now taken their place
in the progressive self-interpretation of God to men through Christ who is the
propitiation of the whole world. 3 In reply to this, we may say that God does
not change and that truth is absolute. The same doctrines of God’s Word that
were relevant to past generations of believers are as true today as in times
past and the question of the extent of the atonement is certainly valid today,
especially in view of the fact that the atonement is so misunderstood in some
circles. As concerning the object of Christ’s atonement, it is maintained by
Arminian theology that He died for all men without exception. Again, C.H.
Spurgeon says, The Arminian holds that Christ, when He died, did not die with an
intent to save any particular person; and they teach that Christ’s death does
not secure, beyond doubt, the salvation of any one man living. They believe that
Christ died to make the salvation of all men possible, or that by the doing of
something else, any man who pleases may attain unto eternal life; consequently,
they are obliged to hold that if man’s will would not give way and voluntarily
surrender to grace, then Christ’s atonement would be unavailing. They hold that
there was no particularity and speciality in the death of Christ. Christ died,
according to them, as much for Judas in Hell as for Peter who mounted to Heaven.
They believe that for those who are consigned to eternal fire, there was as true
and real a redemption made as for those who now stand before the throne of the
most High. 4

If there were no object in the death of Christ, it would seem that His death
would be pointless. For the sake of logic, it must be that Christ had some
ultimate purpose in His death, some plan, some Divine blueprint which He
intended to carry out. To assume otherwise is to make God the author of
confusion. If Christ had no object in His death, then the salvation of none is
certain and even God cannot know whether His plan of salvation shall succeed.
But it is objected that if Christ died not for all men, one cannot consistently
preach the gospel of God’s love and Christ’s death, that it would be dishonest
to affirm the universal offer of salvation and hold to the limited view.

Unless Christ died for all men, the message of God’s love and Christ’s death
must be given with tongue in cheek and with some reservation, because some may
hear who are really not to be numbered among those whom God loved and for whom
Christ died. 5 This objection is by no means a new thought, for it is a common
objection made by those who do not believe in the particular atonement. The
heart of this argument seems to be that belief in the limited atonement will
dampen evangelistic zeal. However, it should be quite the opposite. If we really
believe that God has an elect people, and that the death of Christ secures their
salvation, this belief, in a well-balanced mind, should increase one’s
confidence and zeal. It is for the purpose of recovering that which was lost
that we preach. It is for the purpose of seeking out the lost sheep for whom
Christ died that we proclaim the message of salvation. There is no inconsistency
here. In the case of many, including the noble Waldenses and Albigenses, as well
as Spurgeon and many others of great note, overflowing evangelistic zeal and a
stout belief in a limited atonement have dwelt side by side in the most glorious
harmony. In fact, belief in a limited atonement should make men more
evangelistic than belief in a general atonement, while keeping them back from
hurtful excesses. 6 Various theories have been propounded as concerning the
atonement. The main ones are:7 1. The Socinian Theory (the example view) 2. The
Bushnellian Theory (the moral-influence theory) 3. The Grotian Theory (the
governmental theory) 4. The Irvingian Theory (the gradually extirpated theory)
5. The Anselmic Theory (the commercial theory) 6. The Ethical Theory (advocated
by A.H. Strong) The Socinian theory is an outgrowth of Pelagianism and denies
the need of a propitiation for man. Since man is capable of reforming himself,
Christ’s death serves, not as a propitiation for sin, but as an inspiring
example for man to imitate. The Bushnellian theory likewise teaches that sin is
no barrier to salvation. Christ’s death was an exhibition of love to lead man to
repentance. It was intended to influence man to cause him to turn to God. The
Grotian theory teaches that God wished to show sinners that He does not
encourage sin. Man needs no sin-bearer in order to come to God. But Christ’s
death shows God’s hatred for sin. The Irvingian theory teaches that Christ took
on depraved human nature and by His divine nature gradually extirpated the
corruption within. By faith, men become partakers of Christ’s new humanity. 8
The Anselmic theory teaches that the death of Christ is a reparation paid to God
for the sins of mankind. Christ’s death constitutes a superabundant satisfaction
for human sin. 9 The Ethical theory teaches that sin must be punished and that
Christ’s atonement answers the ethical demand of the divine nature. Christ has a
relation to humanity by virtue of His two-fold nature and shared in the
responsibility and guilt of Adam’s sin.*

Concerning each of these theories mentioned, it may be said that each contains
an element of truth and at least two, the Anselmic theory and the Ethical
theory, are not too far from the truth. For example, the Socinian theory teaches
that the death of Christ is exemplary and that man should imitate this. This is
certainly true, and none would deny this it is to be supposed.

However, there is much error in most of these theories, for the Socinian theory
denies the need of an atonement and in essence denies the innate depravity of
man by affirming that he can reform himself. Likewise, the Bushnellian and
Grotian theories minimize sin and emphasize that man can turn to God whenever he
will, apart from any mediator or atonement for sin. The Irvingian theory is
nothing short of blasphemous, for it teaches that Jesus took on himself depraved
human nature, whereas the Bible affirms that He was without sin, "a lamb without
spot or blemish." The Anselmic theory has been criticized on the ground that it
"commercializes" the atonement. Perhaps it can be said that it is closer to the
truth than the other theories. The ethical theory seems to come short in that it
seems to make Christ responsible for Adam’s sin by virtue of His humanity and
for that reason, and to that extent, it seems to be in error. Christ assumed the
responsibility of the sins of His people on the cross, but this was of choice,
not of necessity.

Simmons, in considering the extent of the atonement, gives three main theories:

1. The theory of a partial general atonement. 2. The theory of a general
atonement. 3. The theory of a limited atonement. The partial general theory
teaches that Christ paid the penalty for the Adamic sin for the whole race. This
is based on John 1:29, "Behold the lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the
world." The general atonement teaches that Christ died for every person who ever
lived or who will ever live. Simmons includes in this category those who teach
the sufficiency-efficiency theory. 10 In the following pages the limited
atonement theory shall be considered as the correct view. Briefly defined, by
limited atonement is meant that Christ died for the elect only, with the object
of securing their eternal salvation. This is summed up in the following
statement: The atonement means that perfect satisfaction given to the law and
justice of God by the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ, on behalf of elect
sinners of mankind, on account of which they are delivered from condemnation. 11
The word "satisfaction" explains, perhaps, more nearly than the word atonement
what Christ has accomplished for the sinner on the cross. He satisfied the
holiness of God, the justice of God, the claims of the law through His
sufferings and death on the cross. As pertaining to this, A.H. Strong says: The
fundamental attribute of God is holiness, and holiness is not self-communicating
love, but self-affirming righteousness. Holiness limits and conditions love, for
love can will happiness only as happiness results from or consists with
righteousness, that is, with conformity to God.

He further says that "happiness is connected with righteousness, unhappiness or
suffering is attached to sin. Christ condemns sin by visiting upon it the
penalty of suffering. He endures the reaction of God’s holiness against sin
which constitutes that penalty."12 To restate this, Man is guilty of sin, of
disobedience to the law and having offended against the most High, a penalty is
inflicted upon him, the penalty of death. Christ, at the same time our Judge and
our Substitute, submits Himself to the penalty in our stead, thereby satisfying
the just requirement of the law. 13

Mankind have offended against the law and justice of God. The fact of man’s sin
cannot be denied. And that sin is an offence against the almighty moral Governor
. . . cannot be questioned. That God, being offended, requires to be satisfied
is also supposed. It is farther supposed, in our definition of the doctrine that
the requisite satisfaction is given by a substitute, not by the offenders
themselves. 14

It should further be noted that this satisfaction is penal in nature; the
"amount of suffering must be proportionate to the offence."15 That can only be
properly called a satisfaction which is suited to the majesty of God and is
equivalent to the sin of man. 16 In other words, the atonement of Christ really
atones, it is a satisfaction for the sins of the believer in every sense of the
word. Could every believer fully realize this and apprehend it, he would be able
to realize that God has completely and forever obliterated and covered his sins.
And could he but realize what it has cost Christ to reconcile him to God, sin
would appear to be so heinous in his eyes that he would not wish to have any
part in the thing that sent his Saviour to the cross.

Symington gives us several words which are used in the Scriptures to describe
the various facets of the atonement. They are as follows:17

1. Atonement 2. Reconciliation 3. Redemption 4. Propitiation He also gives us
the following theological terms which are not used in Scripture:

1. Satisfaction 2. Substitution 3. Expiation The word atonement is used only
once in the authorized version of the New Testament: "We also joy in God through
our Lord Jesus Christ by whom we have now received the atonement." (Romans 5:11)
Here the word "katallage" is used but in this case it has the meaning of
atonement, rather than reconciliation. The Greek verb katallasso carries with it
the meaning to "lay down something" as a payment. Aristotle says that the word
means "to exchange equivalent values."18 The Hebrew equivalent of katallage is
kaphar. This is usually translated as atonement in the KJV and is used 78 times
in the Old Testament. 19 The word "kaphar" means to cover or to draw over and
has the theological meaning of expiation. This word is used in connection with
the mercy seat, which was the cover or lid of the ark in the tabernacle. 20 The
word reconciliation is used to translate the word katallage in two passages in
the New Testament. It is connected with atonement, for, before reconciliation
can be effected, an atonement must be made.

Redemption means to set free and is used to translate the Greek word
"apolutrosis." In order to redeem, a ransom, (lutron) must be paid. Under Hebrew
law, a slave could be set free at the end of 6 years of servitude by paying a
ransom. 21 Jesus said that He would give His life as a ransom for many. (Mark
10:45) For the uses of the words "apolutrosis" and "lutrosin" see Luke 21:28 and
Hebrews 9:12. The word propitiation means to turn away anger by appeasement,
supposing, of course, that the other party has been offended. It is a
translation of the Greek words "hilasterion" and "hilasmos." Hilasterion means
mercy seat. It can also mean atoning victim. 22 The words satisfaction,
substitution and expiation, as has been noted, are not used in Scripture, but
are theological terms used to denote different aspects of the atonement.
Satisfaction has been discussed. The terms substitution and expiation are used
to denote Christ’s taking the place of the sinner and annulling his guilt by His
gracious interposition. 23 Robert P. Lightner sets forth ten problems of the
limited atonement. These ten are, briefly, as follows:24 1. The universal
passages 2. Natural benefits from the cross 3. The love of God 4. The universal
offer of the gospel 5. The covenant of grace 6. Christ’s active and passive
obedience 7. The necessity of faith for salvation 8. The convicting work of the
Holy Spirit 9. Adam and Christ 10 The resurrection of the wicked dead While some
of these objections may be worthy of consideration, the aforementioned writer
seems to find difficulties where there are none. As an example, he puts forth
the puerile argument that the resurrection of the wicked dead necessitates a
general atonement. He says, It must be admitted that even the non-elect were
included in the Savior’s death since it is on the basis of His death that they
shall one day be resurrected to live a conscious existence forever. But in the
limited atonement concept, the non-elect are not included in Christ’s death. If
they are not, then how is it that the source of power for their future
resurrection is to be found in Christ’s defeat of death by His own death and
resurrection? There is no other alternative; the basis of the future
resurrection and judgment of all unsaved men finds its source squarely in the
death and resurrection of Christ. 25 The argument is foolish. Christ’s atonement
is meant to atone, to redeem, to reconcile. Here we have an atonement that does
not atone, a redemption that does not redeem, a reconciliation that does not
reconcile. Christ must suffer for the wicked that they might be raised so that
they may suffer throughout all eternity. Further, he speaks of the resurrection
of the wicked as though it were a resurrection to life, when in all reality it
is a resurrection unto eternal death and is no life at all but a dreary,
endless, futile existence in eternal blackness and despair. The central error is
that this kind of reasoning makes it all entirely dependent upon the will of
man. If man does not so will, according to this kind of thinking, the Saviour’s
atonement shall have no result of any kind whatsoever and God has no assurance
whether His plan of salvation shall succeed or not; perhaps the Saviour’s death
shall be in vain. 26 However, the Bible assures us that God has an eternal
purpose and that purpose must be accomplished. "He shall see of the travail of
his soul and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant
justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities." (Isaiah 53:11)

Notes 1 William Owen Carver. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 324 2
C.H. Spurgeon, Sermons On Sovereignty, pp. 103, 104 3 Carver. Ibid. 4 Spurgeon,
Op. Cit., p. 82 5 Robert P. Lightner, The Death Christ Died, p. 15 6 T.P.
Simmons, A Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine, pp. 258-259 7 A.H. Strong,
Systematic Theology, pp. 728-766 8 Simmons, op. cit., pp. 243-244 9 Vergilius
Ferm, An Encyclopedia of Religion, p. 689 * For ethical theory see A.H. Strong,
Systematic Theology, pp. 751-752 10 Simmons. op. cit.. p. 252-259 11 Williams
Symington, On the Atonement and Intercession of Jesus Christ, p. 7 12 A.H.
Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 985 13 Strong, Ibid 14 Symington, op. cit.. p.
7. 8 15 Wm. G. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, vol. 2, p. 423 16 Stephen Charnock,
Christ Our Passover, p. 119 17 Symington, op. cit., p. 11-14 18 John Talmadge
Bergen, Atonement and The Atonement, pp. 108

19 Ibid.

20 Symington, loc. cit.

21 Bergen. op. cit.. p. 16 22 James Strong. Dictionary of the Greek Testament
(The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible), p. 37 23 Symington, loc. cit.

24 Robert P. Lightner, op. cit., pp. 107-148 25 Lightner, op. cit., p. 145 26
Ralph Wardlaw, Systematic Theology. vol. II, p. 431 Return to the Home Page
Return to the Main Highway Table of Contents Table of Contents | Chapter II
Chapter II Table of Contents Return to the Atonement Archives

Resources


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 3: 02-THE EXTENT OF THE LEGAL PENALTY REQUIRED
========================================================================

CHAPTER II "THE EXTENT OF THE LEGAL PENALTY REQUIRED" In order to have a proper
conception of the atonement, it is essential that clear and correct views of the
origin and nature of the law, both natural and moral be held. Faulty conceptions
of the atonement fail to take into consideration the fact that God cannot
dispense with His law. 1 The law cannot show mercy: "He that despised Moses’ law
died without mercy under two or three witnesses." (Hebrews 10:28) Law demands a
penalty for disobedience and this law must be honored. Sin, in its essence, is
"the transgression of revealed law" and "law to moral beings is the will of God
in commandment."2 To transgress God’s law is to go contrary to His revealed will
and, in reality, is disobedience to God Himself. Sin is an affront to God’s
holiness and for God to ignore sin without satisfaction of the law would mean
that His holiness is flexible. In other words, this would make God to be
something less than absolutely perfect. Whether in the case of the redeemed in
Heaven or the wicked in Hell, God’s broken law must be vindicated. The atonement
is the vindication of the law by God’s Son on behalf of God’s people. In every
case of sin, we find that a just penalty must be meted out by Divine justice. Of
moral creatures who have violated the law we may categorize as follows:

1. The fallen angels 2. The impenitent wicked 3. Redeemed mankind

Chronologically speaking, the first instance we have of rebellion against God’s
will is the fallen angels. We do not know the exact nature of God’s revealed law
to them, but apparently they were in a state of conditional holiness dependent
upon their subjection to God. We find that their sin took the form of self-will
and rebellion against God’s prescribed sphere for their lives, for we read that
"they kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation." (Jude 1:6)
The penalty which shall be meted out is eternal judgment and a subsequent
committal to the lake of fire and brimstone. (Jude 1:6, Revelation 20:10;
Revelation 20:14) At present they are reserved unto judgment, but apparently
with more or less degrees of imprisonment. There is no atonement or mitigation
of penalty in the case of fallen angels. The Scriptural account of the
transgression of man and God’s law or commandment to man in his original state
is given in Genesis 2:16; Genesis 3:1-7. We find that the sin of Adam was a
deliberate transgression against the revealed commandment of God, a wilful
disobedience of God’s law. The penalty for this sin had been previously declared
in anticipation of this disobedient act, "in the day that thou eatest thereof
thou shalt surely die." (Genesis 2:17) In this Adam was not deceived, for he
knew even as he sinned what the penalty would be. (1 Timothy 2:14) The penalty,
being death, was applicable, not only to Adam, but to all his posterity, for we
read "in Adam all die." (1 Corinthians 15:22) This death is not merely the
penalty of physical death, but has a much deeper implication of spiritual death
and all that it involves. The ultimate consequence is the second death, which
involves judgment and eternal damnation. (Revelation 20:12-15) The extent of the
penalty in the case of the finally impenitent and those who die in an
unregenerate state is eternal death. This is not annihilation but interminable
anguish and suffering in Hell. Of the state of those in Hell we read, "the smoke
of their torment ascendeth up for ever and for ever; and they have no rest day
or night (Revelation 14:11) Jesus described the state of the wicked dead as a
state in which there is "weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew
8:12; Matthew 13:42) In Isaiah we read, "And they shall go forth and look upon
the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall
not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring
unto all flesh." (Isaiah 66:24) In the case of redeemed mankind, they are
equally guilty of having transgressed God’s law, "for all have sinned." (Romans
3:23) "Now we know that what things-so ever the law saith, it saith to them who
are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may become
guilty before God." (Romans 3:19) This includes Jews, Gentiles, Barbarians,
savages and all mankind. (Romans 3:9) But even in the case of the redeemed, God
does not dispense with His law. The law must be satisfied. This has been
accomplished for the believer by the atonement. Christ suffered in His own
person for the believer the penalty prescribed by the law, death. Was this death
merely physical and did it merely involve physical sufferings? When one
considers Gethsemane and Jesus’ anguish of soul, the awful utterances of Jesus
on the cross when He cried "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" and the
darkness that settled upon the scene of the crucifixion, it must be that more
than physical suffering was involved. Herein is a great mystery. Who can know
the depth of sorrow and suffering which Christ underwent? We are told that he
"bare our sins in his own body on the tree" but we are not told, nor can we
fathom, the excruciating torment which he underwent when burdened with our sins.

All the mysteries of nature and providence are but as riddles of childhood
compared with the problem of the atonement. You are not saved because you can
explain the atonement but because you believe it. 3 In the atonement, Christ did
something for the redeemed that only Deity could accomplish. "Vicarious
atonement cannot be made by a creature."4 In Psalms 49:7-8 we read, "None of
them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him: (For
the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth forever.)" In the
atonement, it was God putting Himself in the creature’s place and dying for his
sins. This is "the greatest and strangest mercy that can be conceived of."5 God
Himself, the Sovereign and the Judge, put Himself in our place on the tree and
died for us. As God, He could not dispense with the legal penalty required by
the law; as our compassionate Saviour He would not condemn us to the flames of
eternal punishment: as our Redeemer, He became our Substitute, our Surety, and
suffered in His own person the legal penalty demanded by the law, which had its
origin in His holy nature. 6 Thus, He demonstrated to the universe "the
exactness and inviolability of the law" and His inexpressible love for the
objects of redemption. 7

There is a division among theologians concerning the extent of the sufferings of
Christ, whether or not His sufferings were an exact equivalent of the sufferings
which would have been inflicted upon the elect for their sins or whether the
very merit in Christ’s atonement makes ample provision for the sins of all."8
Likewise, Strong affirms that "Christ would not need suffer more if all were to
be saved."9 Pink, however, believes that the sufficiency of the atonement is not
wider than the design of the atonement. 10 Shedd indicates that the question is
not the value of Christ’s atonement, but the question of the personal
application of the atonement to individuals by the Holy Spirit. In other words,
extension is really intention. 11

Wardlaw, while finding fault with the Arminians for making salvation dependent
upon the will of man, disagrees with those who hold to the exact equivalency
theory because they make a demand of precise, legal compensation. He objects on
the ground that the atonement of Christ is infinite because of His divinity.
Wardlaw further objects to the exact-equivalency view on the ground that
"salvation to any but the elect becomes a natural impossibility"12 Taking these
objections into consideration, it seems that he is saying that Christ being
infinite, His atonement is infinite and therefore is sufficient for all men. In
this respect he seems to lean toward those who hold to the general atonement
though he objects to Arminianism. Spurgeon definitely held to the
exact-equivalency theory. He says:

Recollect that Christ had to suffer an equivalent for all the hells of all His
redeemed. I can never express that thought better than by using those
oft-repeated words: it seemed as if Hell were put into His cup; He seized it,
and, "At one tremendous draught of love, He drank damnation dry." So that there
was nothing left of all the pangs and miseries of Hell for His people ever to
endure. I say not that He suffered the same, but He did endure an equivalent for
all this, and gave God the satisfaction for all the sins of all His people, and
consequently gave Him an equivalent for all their punishment. 13 As concerning
the infinity of Christ’s atonement, Spurgeon held to this as well as Wardlaw:

If, then, you and I had sinned but once, nothing but an atonement infinite in
value could ever have washed away the sin and made satisfaction . . . One sin
can ruin a soul forever; it is not in the power of the human mind to grasp the
infinity of evil that slumbereth in the bowels of one solitary sin. There is a
very infinity of guilt couched in one transgression against the majesty of
heaven. 14

Yet, as has been observed, he believed firmly that the atonement was an
equivalent offered to God for the sins of His people. Again, he says:

We do not believe that Christ made any effectual atonement for those who are
forever damned; we dare not think that the blood of Christ was ever shed with
the intention of saving those whom God foreknew never could be saved, and some
of whom were even in Hell when Christ, according to some men’s account, died to
save them. 15

However, he firmly believed that Christ’s atonement was fully sufficient for all
who believed, or would believe in Him:

Oh! who shall measure the heights of the Saviour’s all sufficiency? First, tell
how high is sin, and, then, remember that as Noah’s flood prevailed over the
tops of earth’s mountains, so the flood of Christ’s redemption prevails over the
tips of the mountains of our sins. 16 The atonement is of such magnitude that
even angels, we are told, have a desire to inquire into these things. (1 Peter
1:12) Perhaps the apostle here has reference to the angels which overshadowed
the mercy seat in the tabernacle, for their gaze was downward towards the
mercy-seat where the blood of the sacrifice was applied once a year on the great
day of atonement. (Hebrews 9:5) In summary, we may say that the law demanded
strict justice and was inflexible. God’s holiness demands that the broken law be
vindicated. The atonement of Christ was made on behalf of the elect and the
blood of Christ was shed only for those whom God intended to save. Yet it is not
inconsistent to invite sinners to Christ for it is our responsibility to do so
and sinners have a responsibility to believe the gospel. Further, since the
atonement is infinite and all-sufficient, all who come to the Saviour may be
saved and He is able to save to the "uttermost" all who do come. The atonement
is infinite in nature and an exact equivalent of the penalty required for the
sins of the elect and satisfies the demands of the law. The atonement secures
the object for which it was intended, the salvation of all the elect. The intent
of the atonement and the extent are equal.

Notes 1 John M. Armour, Atonement and Law, p. 128

2 Ibid. p. 61 3 Joseph Parker, Preaching Through The Bible, vol. 28, p. 16 4
William Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, vol. II, p. 378

5 Ibid, p. 387 6 Armour, op. cit., p. 27

7 Ibid. p. 132 8 quoted by T.P. Simmons, A Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine,
p. 254

9 Ibid.

10 Arthur W. Pink, The Satisfaction Of Christ, p. 260 11 Shedd, op. cit., p. 464
12 Ralph Wardlaw, Systematic Theology, p. 433 13 C.H. Spurgeon, Sermons on
Sovereignty, p. 89 14 Spurgeon, Ibid., pp. 83-85 15 Spurgeon, loc. cit.

16 loc. cit.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 4: 03-GOD'S COVENANT PURPOSE IN CHRIST
========================================================================

CHAPTER III "GOD’S COVENANT PURPOSE IN CHRIST" Does God have an eternal purpose
which He intends to fulfill? To whom does this extend? Does it extend to all men
in all ages without exception, or does it pertain only to His elect? Who are His
covenant people? These are questions which arise in considering the extent of
intention of God’s covenant purpose.

Robert P. Lightner, who espouses the unlimited atonement view, goes so far as to
infer that the covenant of grace is extra-Scriptural. He says: The question is,
"How Scriptural is this covenant-of-grace idea?" It must be admitted immediately
that none of the covenants of the covenant system are stated as such in
Scripture. White this in itself does not make them antibiblical, it ought to
make one cautious about developing an entire system of theology upon them as
covenant theology does. If the idea that God made a covenant before the
foundations of the world promising to send His Son to die for the elect only is
not clearly taught in Scripture, then it is altogether possible that its
necessary concomitant — limited atonement — is not taught there either. 1 The
above quoted writer is inconsistent in that he seemingly holds to the doctrine
of election and yet denies the limited atonement. In order for one to be
consistent, he must hold all five points of Calvinism. Spurgeon says:

Some by putting the strain upon their judgments may manage to hold two or three
points and not the rest, but sound logic I take it requires a man to hold the
whole or reject the whole; the doctrines stand like soldiers in a square,
presenting on every side a line of defense which is hazardous to attack, but
easy to maintain. 2

God does most assuredly have an eternal purpose with respect to the people of
God. In Ephesians 1:9-10 we read, "having made known unto us the mystery of his
will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself; that in
the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all
things in Christ, both which are in Heaven, and which are on earth; even in
him." Comparing this with John 11:52, we read that Caiaphas "being high priest
that year, prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; and not for that
nation only, but that he should gather together in one the children of God that
were scattered abroad." Herein we have God’s covenant purpose: to gather
together in one all of God’s elect. This is accomplished through the atonement
of Christ. The term "covenant" is a Scriptural term, for we find in Hebrews
12:24 that Jesus is "the mediator of the new covenant." This word is also
translated as testament in at least 16 places in the New Testament. The term
"new testament" is used at least six places in the Authorized Version of the New
Testament. It is sometimes called a better covenant in the book of Hebrews. In
this particular sense, it is used to contrast it with the old covenant, which
was under the law. The word testament or covenant carries with it the meaning of
a contract or a will. The first covenant was dedicated by blood. (Hebrews
9:18-22) The blood of this covenant was that of calves and goats. The new
covenant was ratified by the blood of Jesus Christ: "This is my blood of the new
testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matthew 26:28)
The new covenant is based upon promises. (Hebrews 8:6) He promises His people,
"I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and iniquities will
I remember no more." (Hebrews 8:12) We find in Galatians 3:16 that these
promises, upon which the new covenant is based, were made to Abraham and his
seed. This has reference to Christ and His people: "If ye be Christ’s, then are
ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Galatians 3:29) This
covenant was actually made in eternity. (Ephesians 1:4. Isaiah 42:6) The
conditions were that Christ should die for the elect and accomplish the work
which God had sent Him to do. (John 17:4, Psalms 40:7; Psalms 40:8, Hebrews
10:9) Hodge says,

Christ died in execution of the terms of an eternal Covenant of Redemption
formed between the Father and Son. The conditions assumed by Christ on his part
were that he should, in living and dying, by action and suffering, fulfill all
the legal obligations of his people. The conditions promised by the Father were
that Christ should "see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied."3 The
people to whom this covenant belong are referred to in Scripture as the "elect,"
his "sheep," his "church," the "children of God," "heirs," "sons," his "flock"
and other such terms. In most emphatic terms we are told that "the good shepherd
giveth his life for the sheep." (John 10:11) To His enemies, Jesus said, "Ye
believe not because ye are not of my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know
them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall
never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which
gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my
Father’s hand." (John 10:26-29) In the above quoted verses, we find that some
were not of Christ’s sheep. It is for the sheep that the Shepherd dies. It is
the sheep that were given unto Christ by the father. It is the sheep that He
keeps, and to them He gives eternal life. It is for the sheep that the blood of
the eternal covenant was shed:

Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that
great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make
you perfect in every good work to do his will. (Hebrews 13:20-21) In the 17th
chapter of John, we read "Thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he
should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is life
eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou
has sent." (John 17:2-3) It is clear to be seen, from a study of the Scriptures
given, that God gave to Christ a people, His sheep, and that Christ contracted
to come and make atonement for them and give to them eternal life. They cannot
perish nor apostatize. They follow Christ, they know Him and they believe on
Him. He shed His blood for them and made vicarious atonement for them. He keeps
them in the name of the Father and none of them are lost. (John 17:12) It is
abundantly clear from Scripture that God has a covenant people and that God’s
eternal purpose was to save them. His purpose cannot fail, for He is God. The
people who are included in the Covenant of Redemption are, as has been
previously indicated, a vast multitude. They are in multitude as the stars of
heaven or the sands of the sea. In this number we include all of the redeemed of
all ages and of all nations. Included in this number are multitudes of those who
died in infancy. In past ages, whatever the percentage may now be, nearly
one-half of the human race died in childhood. When it is considered that nearly
one-half of the human race die in early years, it is easy to see what a vast
accession must be daily and hourly making to the blessed population of heaven. 4

Included in this covenant are the saved of what we may call Old Testament times,
that is, from the time of Adam until the time of Christ. For these Christ’s
atonement had a "retrospective efficacy." Also included are the saved from the
time of Christ on down until the time when the last one of His elect shall be
saved. 5

How many unnumbered millions of God’s covenant people there must be! In Isaiah
we read, "For the transgression of my people was he stricken. Yet it pleased the
Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an
offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the
pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of
his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant
justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities." (Isaiah 53:8-11) In these
verses we are told plainly the extent of the intention of God’s covenant
purpose, the nature of the atonement, the people for whom it was made, the.
infallibility of his purpose and the reason the atonement was made, i.e., the
transgressions and iniquities of God’s people. We also see Christ’s triumph and
resurrection. By way of summary, we may say that the Scriptures teach that there
is a Covenant of Grace, or redemption, that this was made in eternity by the
Father and the Son, that promises were made to the covenant people, that Christ
came to carry out that purpose and make atonement for His people, that the
covenant pertains to His sheep, or elect, and none other, and that God’s
infallible purpose cannot fail. In this covenant, God’s people are being
gathered into one: "There shall be one fold and one shepherd." (John 10:16) Day
by day, God is saving His people, seeking out His sheep, adding to the church
and carrying them home to glory. In this we can see something of His covenant
purpose in Christ.

It must be reiterated that the covenant of grace does not include all mankind,
but only God’s covenant people. The extension of the atonement, as to its
objects, is no wider than its intention in the covenant of grace. As concerning
this fact, Symington affirms that: The blood of Christ was not shed by accident,
it was not poured out at random or on a venture. No: he laid down his life by
covenant. The terms of the covenant must therefore define the designed extent of
the objects of his death. If all mankind are included in the covenant,-if the
Surety of the covenant, as is admitted, are only a given specified number of the
human family, then must the atonement of the Mediator be restricted to them.
There seems no evading this inference. To give the designed objects of the
Saviour’s atonement a greater extension than the covenant of grace is to nullify
its character as the stipulated condition of the covenant, and to render
nugatory and unavailing the consolatory address by which the heart of many an
awkward sinner has been soothed, ’Behold the blood of the covenant.’6 To suppose
that God intended to save all men is contradictory, for if this were His
intention, and since all men are not saved, it follows that He was unable to
carry out His purpose. "Since the work of God is always efficient, those for
whom atonement was made and those who are actually saved must be the same
people."7

Notes 1 Robert P. Lightner, The Death Christ Died, pp. 121-123 2 C.H. Spurgeon,
Sermons on Sovereignty, pp. 23, 24 3 A.A. Hodge, The Atonement, p. 406 4
Spurgeon, op. cit., p. 18 5 George Smeaton, The Doctrine of the Atonement as
Taught By Christ Himself, p.

6 William, Symington. On The Atonement And Intercession of Jesus Christ, pp.
257-258 7 Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, p. 155


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 5: 04-THE APPLICATION OF THE ATONEMENT
========================================================================

CHAPTER IV "THE APPLICATION OF THE ATONEMENT"

I. Christ As High Priest As Mediator of the new covenant, and as the antitype of
the high priest under the Mosaic dispensation, the ministry of Christ has two
aspects. As our suffering Substitute, He made atonement for the sins of all the
elect while on earth. As High Priest, He is engaged in the ministry of
intercession on behalf of His people. We read in Romans 8:32-34:

He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he
not with him freely give us all things? Who shall lay anything to the charge of
God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ
that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of
God, who also maketh intercession for us. In Romans 4:25 we find that Christ
"was delivered for our offenses, and was raised for our justification." We find,
in considering the above verses, that they concern the elect. The elect cannot
be condemned, no charge or accusation can be brought against them before God.
This state of blessedness is due to the fact that Christ died for them and rose
again from the dead on their behalf. Further, He is at the right hand of God
making intercession for them. Christopher Ness says, The benefits of Christ’s
death and resurrection are of equal extent in their objects; but the benefit of
Christ’s resurrection is not extended to all alike. 1 In the prayer of Christ,
recorded in the 17th chapter of John, we find that Christ makes intercession for
His elect. He does not make intercession for any other. Not only does He make
intercession for present believers, but also for those who shall believe through
their testimony. In John 17:9; John 17:20 we read:

I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me;
for they are thine.

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also who shall believe through
their word.

Again, Ness says: The benefit of Christ’s death and intercession are of equal
extent in their objects; but Christ intercedeth not for all. Christ’s
intercession is "not for the world" at large, but only for those whom His Father
hath given Him; and reason confirms this, for if Christ interceded for Judas,
Pilate, etc., then had He a repulse, and was not always heard of the Father,
contrary to John 11:42. 2 The priestly function of Christ in Heaven is to apply
the benefits of the atonement to those for whom it was made on earth. 3 It may
be seen by studying the duties of the high priest under Levitical law that the
function of the high priest, was to kill the sacrificial victim, which was for
the people, and bring its blood within the veil (within the tabernacle) and
sprinkle it upon the mercy seat and in front of the mercy seat. (See Leviticus
16:11; Leviticus 16:15) First, atonement must be made; then the blood must be
applied. The antitype of this is Christ Himself. 4 First, He made atonement for
His people; then He entered Heaven itself to appear on their behalf. By his own
blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption
for us . . . For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands,
which are the figures of the time; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the
presence of God for us. (Hebrews 9:12; Hebrews 9:24) When He ascended, He
entered Heaven and sat down at the right hand of the Father. By His intercessory
work He applies the benefits of the atonement. He does this on behalf of the
elect. For this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of
death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first
testament, they who are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
(Hebrews 9:15) Those for whom He made atonement on earth are the ones for whom
He makes intercession in Heaven:

Again, Christ is a High Priest, and the two parts of His priestly office,
oblation and presentation, cannot be separated: and they which have a part in
the former have part in the latter also. For the presentation doth necessarily
imply the oblation, and gives a perpetual force thereto in the sight of God.
(Hebrews 9:12) Christ must intercede on the behalf of those whom He hath
reconciled to God by His death; and His intercession is a personal presenting of
Himself to His Father on behalf of those whom He personated on the cross. We
cannot say that there be some for whom Christ offered Himself upon the earth but
doth not intercede for in heaven; this would make Christ but a half-priest to
some, and therefore not a faithful High Priest, contrary to sundry Scriptures. 5
As High Priest, Jesus Christ is the Advocate of believers. An advocate, of
course, is one who pleads the cause of another. It is a legal term. This implies
that those for whom he pleads have sinned. It is not for unbelievers, but for
sinning saints that Christ is Advocate:

Advocacy is that work of Jesus Christ for sinning believers which He carries on
with the Father whereby, because of the eternal efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice,
He restores them to fellowship. 6

We read in 1 John 2:1, "My little children, these things write I unto you that
ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus
Christ the righteous." It is on the basis of His righteousness, His sinless life
on earth and the righteousness which He imputes to His people (believers) as a
result of His atonement, that He can represent them. Symington says, "The father
is the representative of the godhead, and the Son the representative of those
who are to be redeemed. He is on this account called the Mediator and Surety of
the covenant." 7 As concerning the connection of the atonement of Christ with
his resurrection and intercession Symington again says that: The death and
resurrection of the Saviour bear a close relation to each other. In whatever
character he died, in the same character he rose from the dead. If he laid down
his life as Head of the church, and Surety of his people, and Mediator of the
covenant, in the same capacities did he take it up again. The persons interested
in the one event and in the other are the same . .. He died for none for whose
sake he did not rise. 8

John Owen lists three divisions of the work of Christ in redemption, the
incarnation of Christ, His oblation (in offering Himself up to God for us), and
His intercession for those from whom He made atonement. He says: His
intercession (is) for all and every one of those for whom he gave himself for an
oblation. He did not suffer for them, and then refuse to intercede for them; he
did not do the greater, and omit the less. 9 But Mullins says that "the
atonement of Christ was for all men. His relation to mankind . . . involves the
consequence that he died for all."10 But he admits that "all men do not share
equally in the benefits of the atonement of Christ. Those who remain in unbelief
are not saved." 11

It is strange that Christ should die for all men and yet not be able to apply
the benefits of His redemptive work to them. This, again, makes the application
of the atonement dependent upon the creature’s will. However, that which Christ
purchased had to be applied to those for whom it was purchased. Nothing is
contingent upon the creature. 12 II. The Office Of The Holy Spirit In purchasing
for the elect eternal redemption, Christ also secured for them the gift of the
Holy Spirit. The Spirit applies the virtues of the atonement to the elect. "He
communicates life, light, love, faith, repentance and perseverance in
obedience."13 It is through the work of the Holy Spirit that the elect are
brought to saving faith and repentance. Christ promised to communicate His
spirit to believers. (Acts 1:8) A careful study of various Scriptures having to
do with the work of the Holy Spirit cannot fail to be rewarding. All of the
spiritual blessings and benefits possessed by believers are communicated by the
Holy Spirit.

He is the Author of the new birth. (Jno. 3:5) He quickens or gives life to
believers. (Jno. 6:33, Ephesians 2:5) He indwells the believer and makes his
body His habitation. (Romans 8:9; Romans 8:1-39:1 Corinthians 3:17) He seals the
believer and is the earnest of his inheritance. (Ephesians 2:13-14; Ephesians
2:1-22:2 Corinthians 1:22) He leads believers and gives them the assurance of
salvation. (Romans 8:14; Romans 8:16) He communicates to them His blessings and
makes their lives to be fruitful. (Galatians 5:22-23) He gives them access to
the Father and makes intercession for them. (Ephesians 2:18, Jno. 14:26, Romans
8:26) He enables them to pray and gives to them spiritual gifts. (Jude 1:20,
Hebrews 2:4) It is the Holy Spirit who shall raise their bodies in the
resurrection. (Romans 8:11) The Holy Spirit is not received by human effort.
(Galatians 3:2)

Calvin says, "The Holy Spirit is the bond by which Christ efficaciously unites
us to Himself."14 In Ephesians 1:3 we find that God has blessed the elect with
all manner of spiritual blessings in Christ. These are not communicated to the
non-elect, but to those who were chosen in Him before the foundation of the
world. (Ephesians 1:4) It is the Holy Spirit who communicates to the believer
these benefits which were purchased for him by Christ’s atonement. Jesus says,

I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more
abundantly. I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the
sheep. (Jno. 10:10-11) The Holy Spirit directs the work of reaching sinners with
the gospel. He empowers His workers, directs them, forbids them from going to
certain localities and gives power to the preaching of the gospel. (Acts 1:8;
Acts 8:29; Acts 16:7, Romans 1:16) The present ministry and mission of the Holy
Spirit is inseparable from the atonement. 15 He uses His workers to gather the
elect. (John 11:52; John 11:1-57:2 Timothy 2:10) He enables the elect to believe
on Christ and regenerates them. (Matthew 16:17,Titus 3:5-6)

Hodge says that Christ designed to accomplish by His death the salvation of His
own people, those who were given unto Him by the Father. To secure that end he
designed to purchase for them, and then efficaciously to communicate to them,
faith and repentance and all the fruits of the Spirit. 16

Arminian theology, however, teaches that man must "cooperate" with the Spirit
and that the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit depends for its efficacy on
the will of man. 17

Man, it is taught, is free and responsible. Although sinful, he knows that sin
is foreign to his original nature. "To such the Spirit gives His influence,
whether used or not, to help man to decide against sin and submit to God. The
Spirit strives but man must receive." 18 This kind of teaching is based on a
false conception of original sin. The Bible represents man as depraved, dead in
trespasses and sins and utterly unable to perceive spiritual things. (Ephesians
2:5; Ephesians 2:1-22:1 Corinthians 2:14) The Holy Spirit must communicate faith
to the sinner, illuminate him and regenerate him. 19 These are gifts of the
Spirit:

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the
Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. Of
his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of
firstfruits of his creatures. (James 1:17-18) The actual application of the
benefits of the atonement by the Holy Spirit is limited in its extent to the
elect. If application were made to all men without exception, then it must
follow that all men would be saved. However, the Bible teaches us that the elect
obtain salvation and the rest of humanity are blessed by Satan. (Romans 11:7;
Romans 11:1-36:2 Corinthians 4:3; 2 Corinthians 4:4) This does not, in any wise,
lessen the responsibility of God’s people to witness, preach the gospel,
evangelize and carry on missionary work. Nor does it relieve the wicked of
responsibility in rejecting the message. It does, however, provide encouragement
to know that God does not change and that He is able to put into effect that
which He has purposed. The Christian is to maintain a spirit of compassion for
the lost, to pray for their salvation and make every effort to reach them with
the gospel. It is perfectly consistent to mourn for those who reject Christ, all
the while knowing that God’s purpose cannot fail. What if some do not believe?
Shall their unbelief make the faith of God ineffectual? (Romans 3:3) God’s
eternal purpose shall stand.

Notes 1 Christopher Ness, An Antidote Against Arminianism, p. 54

2 Ibid, p. 55 3 Arthur W. Pink, The Satisfaction of Christ, p. 133 4 Pink,
Ibid., p. 135

5 Ibid, p. 387 6 C.I. Scofield, The New Scofield Reference Bible, p. 1, 343 (1)
7 William Symington, On The Atonement And Intercession Of Jesus Christ, p. 257

8 Ibid, p. 260 9 John Owen, The Works Of, vol. X, pp. 174-176.

10 E.Y. Mullins, The Christian Religion In Its Doctrinal Expression, p. 336

11 Ibid.

12 Pink, loc. cit.

13 C.H. Spurgeon, Sermons on Sovereignty, p. 89 14 quoted by Pink op. cit. p.
146 15 Pink, op. cit., p. 147 16 A.A. Hodge, The Atonement, p. 415 17 Ernest S.
Williams, Systematic Theology, p. 232

18 Ibid.

19 See Acts 16:14. Also see Acts 13:48; those ordained to eternal life believe.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 6: 05-THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT IN TYPOLOGY
========================================================================

CHAPTER V "THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT IN TYPOLOGY"

Sacrifices The Old Testament sacrifices, when seen as a whole, form a complete
picture and point to Christ and His work. The picture is now completed, and so
true to the original that, when compared with the reality in the Person and work
of the Lord Jesus Christ, we can have no difficulty in recognizing it. 1 From
the earliest recorded history of man in the Bible, we have a record of sacrifice
for sin.

Even in Genesis an altar burns; even there blood begins to mean some moral
mystery. 2 Concerning the antiquity of sacrifices, Symington says that the
practice goes back into remote history. The practice of offering sacrifices to
God existed in the remotest ages of the world. The infliction of death on a
living creature, in the way of religious worship, did not originate, as many
suppose, with the Jews. When the Israelites entered the holy land, they found
its aboriginal inhabitants addicted to the practice. Certain forms of it being
expressly denounced in the law of Moses, is positive proof of its existence
prior to the promulgation of that extraordinary document. In the records of
heathen nations also . . . traces of it are to be found; and the sacred history
. . . contains abundant proof of the antiquity of sacrifices. 3 The fundamental
idea, of course, in the sacrifices, was that of substitution. Also implied
therein was atonement, redemption, vicarious punishment and forgiveness. 4 It
must be acknowledged that all sacrifices were not expiatory. "Some were
impetratory . . Others were eucharistical, and others again were expiatory, or
designed to obtain the forgiveness of sins of which the offerer acknowledged
himself guilty." 5

There was no actual power in the sacrifices of themselves to take away sin and
guilt. They were symbolical of "the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the
world." (Jno. 1:29) "It is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats would
take away sins." (Hebrews 10:4)

Under the economy of the Old Testament there were four distinct kinds of
sacrifices: 1) The burnt offering, 2) The sin offering, 3) The trespass
offering, and 4) The peace offering. All sacrifices were of one of two kinds:
either on the ground of communion with God (burnt, and peace offerings) or
intended to restore communion that had been disrupted by sin (sin and trespass
offerings). The sin offering was the most important of all offerings and could
be either public or private. 6 The Jews were aware of the fact that the types
and sacrifices of the Old Testament pointed to the Messiah. They were cognizant
of the fact that the basic idea in the sacrifices was substitution. 7 According
to Rabbinical teaching, "the offerer, as it were, puts away his sins from
himself and transfers them upon the living animal; as often as any one sins with
his soul . . . he puts away his sin from himself and places it upon the head of
the sacrifice and it is an atonement for him" 8 In private sacrifice, the
following prayer was made by the person offering the sacrifice:

I entreat, O Jehovah: I have sinned, I have done perversely, I have rebelled, I
have committed (naming the sin, etc.); but I return in repentance and let this
be for my atonement. 9

It is interesting to note that non-Israelites were not allowed to bring any
sacrifice with the exception of the burnt offering. 10

All of the sacrifices commanded under the law had to do with those under the old
covenant. Those under the law were obligated to observe these commandments:

Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basins; and half of the blood he
sprinkled on the altar. And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the
audience of the people; and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do,
and be obedient. And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and
said, Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you
concerning all these words. (Exodus 24:6-8)

There were special provisions for Gentile proselytes. Those who joined
themselves to God’s people were given special privileges and responsibilities
not accorded other foreigners. 11 Uncircumcised foreigners, however, were not
allowed in the temple or sanctuary. (Acts 21:28-29)

It would appear that foreigners who joined themselves to Jehovah and His worship
were treated not unkindly by Israelites. A case in point is Ruth, who was a
Moabitess, but left the land of her nativity and became the great-grandmother of
David. (Ruth 2:11-12)

It must be recognized that all who performed the ceremonies or rituals commanded
by the Mosaic law were not sincere worshippers. But those who sincerely repented
of their sins and offered the sacrifices in faith were saved. 12 (See Psalms
32:1-2) In his note on Leviticus 1:4. Scofield comments: The laying on of the
offerer’s hand signified acceptance and identification of himself with his
offering. In figure it answers to the Christian’s faith accepting and
identifying himself with Christ. The believer is justified by faith and his
faith is reckoned for righteousness because his faith identifies him with
Christ, who died as his sin offering. 13

Under the Old Testament dispensation, sincere believers were saved by faith in
the promise of the coming Messiah and exercised faith in Him through the blood
of the sacrifices. Salvation was limited to those who did so, obviously.

Further, it is obvious that of the various Gentile nations, only a small
proportion of the multitudes identified themselves with the worship of Israel.
There was no salvation outside of Israel. (Jno. 4:22)

Finally, the sacrifices for sin were made only for those who offered them,
either as individuals or as a corporate nation. For those who placed their faith
in the promises of the coming Messiah and died in the faith Christ made
atonement. However, it cannot be supposed that Christ died for the unbelieving
who were already in Hell prior to His coming, having perished in their sins. THE
PASSOVER In the Passover we can see very clearly that God placed a distinction
between the Israelites and the Egyptians. Possibly some provision was made for
the mixed multitude that followed Israel out of Egypt. The blood of the Passover
lamb was applied to the door posts of the houses of the Israelites and possibly
the mixed multitudes found refuge in their houses. However, no provision was
made for the nation of Egypt

I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the
first-born in the land of Egypt. . . And the blood shall be to you for a token
upon the houses where ye are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you,
and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of
Egypt.

If the Passover is a type of the atonement (and it is, 1 Corinthians 5:7) then
certainly it is obvious that in its typology the atonement is limited in both
its nature and application. THE ARK The Ark which Noah built is also "a type of
Christ as the refuge of His people from judgment."14 In the Ark eight persons
were saved from the deluge and the rest of the world that then was perished. (1
Peter 3:20) The Noahic flood, according to the Holy Scriptures, covered the face
of the whole earth. 15 It is conceivable that the population of the antediluvian
world was much more extensive than is commonly thought. According to the
findings of archeology, their civilization was highly developed. 16 The ark
itself was fully as large as modern ocean-going vessels, having a deck area of
about 95, 700 square feet, a volume of 1, 396, 000 cubic feet and a gross
tonnage of 13, 960 tons. 17 As to its typical connection with the atonement, the
gopher wood of which it was made probably represents death, in that it was made
from trees that were cut down. It was prophesied that Christ should be "cut off"
out of the land of the living. (Isaiah 53:8, Daniel 9:26. Also, see Jer. l0:3)18
The pitch used in the ark provided a double covering, keeping out the waters of
judgement and the Hebrew word for pitch has an etymological connection with the
word for atonement. 19 Perhaps the pitch was obtained from the gopher tree
itself. 20 In considering the extent of the atonement in connection with the
ark, the number of persons saved was limited. The design of the ark was limited,
grand vessel that it was, for it is inconceivable that it was ever intended that
it should ever carry the entire population of that world to safety. The Day of
Atonement The Day of Atonement was an annual event when the high priest offered
sacrifices for himself and the sins of the people. The high priest could only
enter into the holiest of holies on this day. The penalty for doing otherwise
was death. It was a most solemn and holy occasion and involved elaborate ritual
as concerning the high priest’s vestments and the sacrifices to be offered. Of
particular importance were the two goats, one of which was offered as a sin
offering and the other was the scapegoat. The blood of the sin offering was
brought within the veil of the inner sanctuary and sprinkled upon the mercy seat
and before the mercy seat. It is repeated again and again that this sin offering
and its shed blood was for the sins and transgressions of Israel. Concerning
this Pink observes that Aaron did not make any atonement for the sins of the
Midianites and Ammonites. 21

After the sin offering was slain and the blood sprinkled upon the mercy seat,
the live goat was brought forth. The high priest placed both of his hands on the
head of the live goat and confessed all of the sins of the children of Israel.
The goat was sent away into the wilderness by the hand of a "fit man" and turned
loose. Plainly, the goat typically bore their sins away and removed them from
the people. We are expressly told that the scapegoat bore the sins of Israel. We
read in Isaiah 53:4, concerning Christ, "Surely he hath borne our griefs and
carried our sorrows." In Psalms 103:12 we find that "as far as the east is from
the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us." The atonement of
Christ is effectual, it effectually removes sin from God’s people.

Notes 1 Alfred Edersheim, The Temple, Its Ministry and Services. pp. 97-98 2
Joseph Parker, Preaching Through The Bible, vol. 1, p. 368 3 William Symington,
On The Atonement And Intercession Of Jesus Christ, p. 84 4 Edersheim, op. cit.
p. 81 5 Symington, op. cit., p. 90 6 Edersheim, op. cit., pp. 99-106 7 Ibid, pp.
96-98 8 Edersheim, op. cit., p. 92

9 Ibid, p. 88

10 Ibid, p. 100 11 Merrill. C. Tenney, Pictorial Bible Dictionary, p. 812.

12 Edersheim, op. cit. p. 102 13 C.I. Scofield, The New Scofield Reference
Bible, p. 127 (2) 14 Scofield. Ibid. p. 11 15 Tenney, op. cit., p. 284 16 Henry
Halley, Halley’s Bible Handbook, p. 12 17 Ernest S. Williams, Systematic
Theology, p. 232 18 F.E. Marsh, Why Did Christ Die, p. 66

19 Ibid, p. 48 20 F.W. Grant, Atonement In Type, Prophecy And Accomplishment, p.
30 21 Arthur W. Pink, The Satisfaction Of Christ, p. 277


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 7: 06-OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED
========================================================================

CHAPTER VI "OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED"

I. SCRIPTURES WHICH SEEM TO TEACH UNIVERSAL REDEMPTION

Universal redemptionists object to the doctrine of particular redemption on
several grounds. The main arguments seem to be based on Scriptures which seem to
teach universal redemption, passages which seem to indicate a possibility of
those perishing for whom Christ died and the indiscriminate offer of the gospel
to all. 1

It is objected that those who believe in the doctrine of the limited atonement
place a limitation on such words as "all," "whomsoever," and "world" when used
in passages related to the atonement. 2 It is true that some expositors have
sometimes distorted certain passages in order to make them fit their rigid
system of doctrine. 3 However, if the general tenor of Scripture teaches limited
atonement it is not necessary to defend Scripture against Scripture. Calvin, it
is said, was very fair-minded in expounding the Bible. For instance, he refused
to build an argument for the doctrine of the Trinity, even though the word for
God (elohim) is in the plural in the Hebrew in Genesis 1:1. Likewise, in dealing
with certain passages which might seem to be in disagreement with his system of
doctrine, he was very fair and gave the proper sense of the passage. 4 One
cannot help admiring such an attitude. Yet Lightner objects that "Calvin himself
says that all equals all kinds, all classes, taking some of each, but not all in
the sense of every individual."5 One passage cited as being misused by limited
redemptionists is 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, should taste death for every man. The main teaching of
this verse is not the extent of the atonement, but the humiliation and
subsequent exhaltation of Christ. The nature of His humiliation was suffering
and death. The nature of His death as set forth in this verse was
substitutionary. The word "man", it must be noted, is not in the original.
Literally, it reads "should taste death for every." The context shows that He
tasted death in order to bring "many sons" to glory. (verse 10) Those for whom
He experienced death will never experience the second death. (Revelation 20:6)
If Christ died in the stead of some men, and the, after all, they should perish,
this would mean that God required a double payment, first at the hand of the
Surety, and then at the hand of the sinner.

If Christ’s death is in reality a substitutionary, vicarious death, it saves all
for whom it was exercised and no other. If Christ really died in the place of
those who are saved, it follows that He died in the place only of those who are
saved. Christ could not bear the sins of men without actually saving them. 6

Barnes says the words "for every man" mean "for each and all?whether Jew or
Gentile, bond or free, high or low, elect or non-elect."7 He affirms that the
atonement was unlimited in its nature and design.

If the atonement was unlimited in its design, this means that God designed to
save all men by the atonement; if not, it means that God gave His Son in vain
for those whom He knew would never be saved. Either way, according to this view,
God was unable to accomplish that which He proposed to do. Unlimited
redemptionists being their preconceived system of doctrine to the Bible, find
some verses that seem to be favorable to their system, and try to make them to
militate against the rest of the whole teaching of Scripture. If some Calvinists
have been guilty of forcing a meaning into certain passages of Scripture never
intended, the Arminians are at least equally guilty.

Another verse said to be wrested by those who believe in limited atonement is
Titus 2:11, "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all
men."8 This verse can be read thusly: "The grace of God which brings salvation
to all men has been revealed."9 Barnes, a believer in the general atonement,
says "it means that the plan of salvation has been revealed to all classes of
men."10 He cannot say that it is revealed to all men without exception, for it
is certain that it has not been. Yet, he says that Christ died for all men
without exception and that the atonement was unlimited in its design and nature.
But, in his comments on John 3:18, Barnes notes that men are condemned for
unbelief, whether they hear the gospel or not. 11 Owen remarks that, according
to the Arminians, God makes an atonement and then mocks those for whom it was
made in that He condemns them for rejecting that of which they never heard. 12

It is commonly objected by Arminians that "the Lord is not willing that any
should perish."13 Usually this verse (2 Peter 3:9) is not quoted in its
entirety. Actually, this verse teaches that the Lord "is long-suffering to
usward, not willing that any should perish." Even though it be applied to all
men without exception, it teaches no more than God’s good will to all His
creatures and His long-suffering. One does not have to believe in unconditional
reprobation in order to believe in particular redemption. 14

Again, it is urged that God "is the Saviour of all men."15 (1 Timothy 4:10) In
what sense is He the Saviour of all men, seeing some perish? In a special sense
He is the Saviour of His people (Matthew 1:21), for He "saves His people from
their sins." In a limited sense He is the Saviour, or Deliverer of even the
non-elect, for He preserves them and delivers them in a temporal sense as long
as it shall please Him to continue to do. 16

It is also objected that 1 Timothy 2:6 teaches universal redemption: He "gave
himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." 17 Concerning this Owens
says that "the Scripture nowhere saith Christ died for all men, much less for
all and every man." He goes on to say,

It is true, Christ is said to give his life a ransom for all but nowhere for all
men. And because it is affirmed expressly in other places that he died for many,
for his church, for them that believe, for the children that God gave him, for
us, some of all sorts, though not expressly, yet clearly in terms equivalent,
Revelation 5:9-10, it must be clearly proved that where all is mentioned that it
cannot be taken for all believers, all his elect, his whole church, all the
children that God gave him, some of all sorts, before a universal affirmative
can be thence concluded. 18 The whole verse teaches that "there is one God, and
one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a
ransom for all, to be testified in due (its own) time." Christ is not a Mediator
for every man without exception. Owen states that: For whom Christ died, for
them he is a mediator, but he is not a mediator for all and everyone. 19 II. THE
POSSIBILITY OF THOSE PERISHING FOR WHOM CHRIST DIED.

It is claimed that certain passages which speak of the possibility of those
perishing for whom Christ died are not in harmony with the doctrine that Christ
died only for the elect. 20 The passages are as follows:

1. There shall be false teachers among you, who shall bring in damnable
heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them. (2 Peter 2:1)

2. But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably.
Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died. (1 Corinthians 8:11) 3. And
through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish for whom Christ died? (1
Corinthians 8:11)

Hodge says,

These passages are just like those constant warnings which are addressed in
Scripture to the elect, which are designed as means to carry out and secure that
perseverance in grace which is the end of election, and therefore are in no
sense inconsistent with its certainty. 21 However, some commentaries teach that
2 Peter 2:1 teaches the doctrine of universal redemption. 22

Even the ungodly were bought by His ’precious blood.’ It shall be their
bitterest self-reproach in hell, that, as far as Christ’s redemption was
concerned, they might have been saved. 23 That there shall be self-reproach in
Hell cannot be denied. That salvation is conditioned upon one’s believing on
Christ is certain and it is sure that all who believe may be saved. But it
almost approaches blasphemy to say that Christ shed His precious blood for some
and then, after all, they perished in Hell.

Finney, in his Lectures On Systematic Theology, says that the nature of the
atonement is not a literal payment of a debt. If it were, says he, a literal
payment of a debt, then all men would be saved as the universalists contend. 24
He goes on to say that the atonement of itself does not secure the salvation of
any one. 25 The argument of whether the atonement includes those mentioned in 2
Peter 2:1 revolves, then, around the nature of the atonement. If Christ bought
none by "a literal payment," then He did not buy the false teachers mentioned in
the verse under consideration. If He bought them, then they must be saved
regardless. Otherwise, the atonement must be different in nature than taught by
the Arminians. The Bible teaching is that the atonement is, in its nature, a
ransom, a redemption, and that those for whom atonement was made will come to
Christ and be saved. (Jno. 10:11, 16, 28-29, 6:3) III. THE INDISCRIMINATE OFFER
OF THE GOSPEL TO ALL

It is objected that since the gospel is offered to all men, it follows that the
atonement was made for all men. 26 Otherwise, the offer of salvation to all
would be an empty form if atonement was not made for all men without exception.
27 The fallacy in the above argument is that certain fundamental facts are
either ignored or misunderstood. For one thing, all men are commanded to repent
(Acts 17:30) to whom the gospel is preached and the promise is given that those
who repent and believe will be saved. This promise is to "as many as the Lord,
our God, shall call." (Acts 2:39) It does not follow, however, that God gives
enabling grace to all that hear the gospel, for it is evident that "he hath
mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth." (Romans 9:18) To argue
with God’s sovereignty is to find fault with God. (Romans 9:20)

God’s people are commanded to preach the gospel indiscriminately, that is, to
every creature, (Mark 16:15) but the power to know who are elect and who are not
is not given. Neither is there given any assurance that all who hear will be
saved, for few of those who hear are actually saved. "For many are called, but
few are chosen." (Matthew 22:14)

Somehow, God in His sovereignty has so wisely ordered the things of eternity
that the same persons for whom the atonement was made, in due time, hear the
gospel and respond to the call. Simmons distinguishes between an inward and an
outward call. 28 The inward call, of course, is effectual and a result of the
inward promptings of the Holy Spirit.

Notes 1 A.A. Hodge, The Atonement, p. 418 2 Robert P. Lightner, The Death Christ
Died, p. 107 3 C.H. Spurgeon, Commenting And Commentaries, p. 9

4 Ibid. p. 5 5 Lightner, op. cit., p. 66 6 Frank B. Beck, The Five Points of
Calvinism, pp. 32-33 7 Albert Barnes, Barne’s Notes On The New Testament, p.
1238 8 Lightner, op. cit., p. 67 9 Barnes, op., cit. p. 1196

10 Ibid.

11 Comm. in loc.

12 John Owen, The Death Of Death, p. 126 13 Lightner, loc. cit.

14 C.H. Spurgeon, Sermons On Sovereignty, p. 19 15 Lightner, loc. cit.

16 Thomas P. Simmons, A Systematic Study Of Bible Doctrine, p. 270 17 Lightner,
op. cit., p. 64 18 Owen, op. cit., p. 133-134

19 Ibid, p. 137 20 Hodge, op. cit., p. 427 21 Hodge, op. cit., p. 428 22 Henry
Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament, vol. 4, comm. in loc.

23 Jamieson, Fausset And Brown, Commentary On The Whole Bible, p. 149 24 Charles
G. Finney, Lectures On Systematic Theology, p. 281

25 Ibid.

26 Finney op. cit., p. 275 27 Hodge, op. cit., p. 418 28 Simmons, op. cit., p.
272


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 8: 07-CONCLUSION
========================================================================

CHAPTER VII "CONCLUSION" As has been indicated previously, the general teaching
of the entire body of Scripture, in type, prophecy and precept is favorable, to
say the least, to particular redemption. It is consistently taught by the
Apostles and by our Lord Himself. The entire fifty-third chapter of Isaiah very
definitely teaches that the atonement was made for God’s people only. A careful
study reveals that in the language of Isaiah fifty-three the atonement is
limited in its extent.

Biblical terms concerning the atonement and its object S are carefully worded by
the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:13) and the elect are described in such terms
as believers, sheep, the elect, us, many, etc.

Some of the greatest of soul winners have believed in particular redemption, as
well as the other doctrines of grace. Some of the holiest of God’s saints, such
as the Pun-tans, have believed in the limited atonement. Spurgeon, in his sermon
on "Misrepresentations Of True Calvinism Cleared Away," makes mention of such
names as Luther, Knox, Calvin, Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, Huss, Wickliffe,
Wishart, Bradford, M’Cheyne, Chalmers, Wardlaw, Livingstone, Haldane, Erskine,
Toplady, Gill, in his defense of true Calvinism. 1 No doubt the list of names
could be multiplied.

Spurgeon, in the aforementioned sermon, is speaking of Calvinism in general, but
this would also be an answer to those who misrepresent the doctrine of
particular redemption. He further says, A yet further charge against us is, that
we dare not preach the gospel to the unregenerate, that, in fact, our theology
is so narrow and cramped that we cannot preach to sinners. Gentlemen, if you
dare to say this, I would take you to any library in the world where the old
Puritan fathers are stored up, and I would let you take down any one volume and
tell me if you ever read more telling exhortations and addresses to sinners in
any of your own books. Did not Bunyan plead with sinners, and whoever classed
him with any but the Calvinists? Did not Jonathan Edwards preach to sinners, and
who more clear and explicit on these doctrinal matters? The works of our
innumerable divines teem with passionate appeals to the unconverted. Oh sirs, if
I should begin the list, time should fail me. It is an indisputable fact that we
have labored more than they all for the winning of souls. Was George Whitefield
any the less seraphic? Did his eyes weep the fewer tears or his bowels move with
the less compassion because he believed in God’s electing love and preached the
sovereignty of the Most High? It is an unfounded calumny. Our souls are not
stony; our bowels are not withdrawn from the compassion which we ought to feel
for our fellow-men; we can hold our views firmly, and yet can weep as Christ did
over a Jerusalem which was certainly to be destroyed. 2

Spurgeon himself was apostolic in his labors for the salvation of others. He
reached literally thousands and tens of thousands with the gospel and God
honored his labors by giving him much fruit. His printed sermons belted the
globe and it is said that his written works would fill a 12 foot shelf.
Preachers were taught in his college, missionaries were sent forth, orphans were
fed and widows clothed. 3 Yet he believed and preached the doctrine of the
limited atonement. To have compassion on the lost and to earnestly seek their
salvation is Christ-like. His servants, who have learned to weep over lost
sinners, learned this secret from the bosom of Christ Himself. For our Lord wept
over His enemies and prayed for those who put Him to open shame when on the
cross He prayed "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." (Luke
23:34) His great servant, Paul, had a Christ-like love and compassion for lost
sinners, for he said, "Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel
is, that they might be saved." (Romans 10:1) For Israel he had a continuous
burden and a Godly sorrow over their lost condition. (Romans 9:1-3) Yet, he knew
perfectly well that God’s Word was effectual and that God’s covenant purpose was
being carried out in the True Israel. (Romans 9:6-8) Our Lord Jesus Christ
Himself taught particular redemption, for He called the special objects of His
redemption many, His sheep, His friends, etc. 4 (Matthew 26:28, Jno. 10:15, Jno.
15:13) Yet He could weep over an impenitent Jerusalem. (Matthew 23:37) To
suppose that God’s eternal covenant purpose in Christ relieves either saint or
sinner from responsibility is erroneous. Hyper-calvinism is a deadly error and
it is this attitude which destroys evangelistic fervor, not the true doctrines
of God’s Word of election, predestination, grace and particular redemption. To
have lofty, exhalted views of the atonement, as it is taught in the Scriptures,
and to combine with this a passionate, fervent, zealous affection for lost souls
is Divine and approaches that love which resides in the bosom of our dear Lord
Himself from which the atonement had its source. The value, worth and dignity of
the ransom was infinite and immeasurable, fit for the accomplishing of any end
and the procuring of any good, for all and every one for whom it was intended,
had they been millions of men more than ever were created. 5

Perhaps in Heaven we shall understand something of the height, depth, breadth
and extent of Jesus’ love and the atonement which He made for His lost sheep
that He might redeem them to God by His own blood.

Notes 1 C.H. Spurgeon, Sermons On Sovereignty, p. 18-22 2 Spurgeon, Ibid, p. 19
3 J.B. Cranfill, Sermons And Life Sketch Of B.H. Carroll, p. 24-33 4 George
Smeaton, The Doctrine Of The Atonement As Taught By Christ Himself 5 John Owen,
The Death Of Death, p. 119.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 9: 08- BIBLIOGRAPHY
========================================================================

BIBLIOGRAPHY Alford, Henry, Alford’s Greek Testament, 4 vols., Chicago: Moody
Press, 1956.

Armour, John M., Atonement and Law, Chicago: The Bible Institute Coportage
Association, 1885, 207 pp.

Barnes, Albert, Barne’s Notes On the New Testament, Grand Rapids:

Kregel Publications, 1966 Beck, Frank B., The Five Points Of Calvinism, Ashland,
Ky: The Baptist Examiner, 70 pp.

Bergen John Talmadge, Atonement and The Atonement, N.Y.: Fleming H. Revell Co.,
1938, 25 pp.

Boettner, Loraine, The Reformed Doctrine Of Predestination, Philadelphia: The
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1965, 435 pp.

Charnock, Stephen, Christ Our Passover, Evansville, Ind: Sovereign Grace Book
Club, 1959, 303 pp.

Cranfill, J.B., Sermons and Life Sketch Of B.H. Carroll, Philadelphia: American
Baptist Publication, 1893, 466 pp.

Edersheim, Alfred, The Temple, Its Ministry and Services, Boston: A.I. Bradley &
Co., 1874, 364 pp.

Ferm Vergilius, An Encyclopedia Of Religion, N.Y.: The Philosophical Library,
1945, 844 pp.

Finney, Charles G., Lectures On Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1953, 619 pp.

Grant, F.W., Atonement In Type, Prophecy and Accomplishment, Swengle, Pa: Bible
Truth Depot, 1956, 218 pp.

Halley, Henry, Halley’s Bible Handbook, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Co.,
1961 Hodge, A.A., The Atonement, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Cc., 1953,
440 pp.

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary On The Whole Bible, Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing Co., 1961, 1591 pp.

Lightner, Robert P., The Death Christ Died, Des Planes, Ill: Regular Baptist
Press, 1967, 148 pp.

Marsh, F.E., Why Did Christ Die?, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Co., 199
pp.

Mullins, E.Y., The Christian Religion In Its Doctrinal Expression, Chicago: The
Judson Press, 1958, 514 pp.

Ness, Christopher, An Antidote Against Arminianism, Swengle, Pa: Bible Truth
Depot, 1946, 110 pp.

Orr, James, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1939, 5 vols.

Owen, John, The Works Of John Owen, London: The Banner Of Truth Trust, 1963, 16
vols.

Parker, Joseph, Preaching Through The Bible, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1959, 28 vols.

Pink, Arthur W., The Satisfaction Of Christ, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing
Co., 1955, 313 pp.

Scofield, C.l., The New Scofield Reference Bible, N.Y.: Oxford University Press,
1967, 192 pp.

Shedd, Wm. G.T., Dogmatic Theology, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Co.,
1894, 3 vols.

Simmons, Thomas Paul, A Systematic Study Of Bible Doctrine, Russell, Ky: The
Baptist Examiner, 1955, 503 pp.

Smeaton, George, The Doctrine Of the Atonement As Taught By Christ Himself,
Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Co., 1953, 502 pp.

Spurgeon, C.H., Commenting and Commentaries, London: Pass-more & Alabaster,
1887, 200 pp.

Spurgeon, C.H., Sermons On Sovereignty, Ashland, Ky: The Baptist Examiner Book
Shop, 1959, 256 pp.

Strong, A.H., Systematic Theology, Chicago: The Judson Press, 1959, 3 vols.

Strong, James, Exhaustive Concordance Of The Bible, Nashville: Abingdon Press,
1890, 1220 pp.

Symington, Wm., On The Atonement and Intercession Of Jesus Christ, Edinburgh:
William Whyte & Co., 1834, 423 pp.

Tenney, Merrill C., Pictorial Dictionary Of The Bible, Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing Co., 1963, 916 pp.

Wardlaw, Ralph, Systematic Theology, Edinburgh: Adam & Charles Black, 1857, 3
vols.

Williams, Ernest S., Systematic Theology, Springfield, Mo: Gospel Publishing
House, 1953, 3 vols.


========================================================================
Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/bronson-charles-w-extent-of-atonement/
========================================================================