Beyond the Walls with Jeremy Thomas
Jeremy approaches Bible teaching with a passion for getting the basic doctrines explained so that the individual can understand them and then apply them to circumstances in their life. These basic and important lessons are nestled in a framework of history and progression of revelation from the Bible so the whole of Scripture can be applied to your physical and spiritual life.
Beyond the Walls with Jeremy Thomas
NT Framework - Who Did Christ Die For?
What if the cross didn’t automatically save a preselected few, but fully satisfied God’s justice so He could freely justify anyone who believes? We take a hard look at atonement, election, and faith by tracing the biblical storyline and reading key texts on their own terms.
More information about Beyond the Walls, including additional resources can be found at www.beyondthewalls-ministry.com
This series included graphics to illustrate what is being taught, if you would like to watch the teachings you can do so on Rumble (https://rumble.com/user/SpokaneBibleChurch) or on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLtV_KhFVZ_waBcnuywiRKIyEcDkiujRqP).
Jeremy Thomas is the pastor at Spokane Bible Church in Spokane, Washington and a professor at Chafer Theological Seminary. He has been teaching the Bible for over 20 years, always seeking to present its truths in a clear and understandable manner.
Welcome to Beyond the Walls with Jeremy Thomas and our series on the New Testament framework. Today, the full lesson from Jeremy Thomas. Here's a hint of what's to come.
SPEAKER_01:This God, the one who only loves the elect and does not love every individual, the one who only sent his son to die for the elect and not for every individual, seems different from the God of the Bible as you read the whole spectrum of what it seems like God is like.
SPEAKER_00:It's not your faith that saves you, it's God. So what is the role of faith in salvation? Are we able to believe? Or does God force belief upon us? Were we saved before we were even born, before anyone was even created? Or is there something else going on where we have to have some aspect of involvement? And if we are involved, to what extent? When would our involvement in salvation become a work? And when would it be just acceptance? And you see, by even trying to explain this, it's confusing. I don't have the words to describe what's happening. Thankfully, I don't have to. God has laid this out in his Bible to clarify what belief is, what faith is, and how he calls and draws, what he's trying to do, and in fact, his loving us before we loved him. There are so many things at work in salvation. And what we need to be clear is what is the work of God and what is the portion, if any, that we need to do in faith. In salvation. I've done a poor job of trying to set this episode up for you. And maybe that's the point. My understanding is limited. Therefore, let's go listen as Jeremy opens up what God says on this topic. Because what God says is clear and it is the absolute truth.
SPEAKER_01:I can get this to pull up. But what we did was basically I kind of took you back into some of the history, uh, especially from the Reformation on to our own day, uh, especially as it related to Arminianism, Calvinism, and what I mentioned was free grace. And the reason I brought up three is because historically, most people think only in terms of two. By the way, I misspelled Arminianism there. I see that now, so excuse me. I do know how to spell it. Um it's named after Jacobus Arminius. But anyway, most people in our day think only in terms of two particular points of view. You're either Arminian or you're Calvinist. And what I tried to portray by showing some of the historical background and bringing us was both, you know, what not only what they believe, these various views. Um, as I'm just kind of putting up here, here's the Calvinism has an acronym tulip, so most people are familiar with that. Um, but I wanted to point out that these aren't really the only two views. There are other views, and I mentioned one that came out this year called Lotus. They named it after another flower, and uh that helps people remember. But they're really addressing uh salvation, um, issues about man and his fallness, and trying to explain various points about man's depravity, what about election, what about the extent of the atonement, what about God's grace, how does that work? And then the issue of either perseverance or security or loss of salvation. Those are basically the three kinds of views. Um, I didn't want to say and make sure I'm very clear, I'm not saying that I agree with everything on the lotus. I'm just saying that there are alternatives. You don't have to be Calvinist Arminian. Those are logical systems that have been set up in the 17th century, so that have tended all the way to our own day. Um, but people other people have held to different ideas, and so I just wanted to let you know that in fact there are other ways to think about these ideas. Um, everybody, for example, believes in election. Uh, it's not that some people believe it, like Calvinists, and other people don't. Um, it's just like, what do you believe about? What is it? How are you defining it? One of the problems, like, for example, with that particular doctrine is that we have these things called elections. And what do we do at elections? We select a certain person to serve in an office. Um, and so it's very natural for people in the English-speaking world to think that what this means is God selects certain people to be saved, and other people He does not select to be saved. And that's just that's that's part of the problem of the English language with these words. Uh the Greek Orthodox Church, which did not have a Latin version, like the Western Church, Roman Catholicism translated into Latin very early, and a lot of the words like predestination and election are derived from Latin words, not from Greek words. And so what ends up happening is we we get the we get the Latin influence on these words, and not the Greek. Like for just for example, the Greek word for election is eclecte. It comes from two words that mean to call out. It doesn't mean to select, it means to call out. So it has very different etymology than what we might think. And so this has an influence. But anyway, I took you through these so you could see these ideas, and then what I want to do today is I want to focus on the atonement because we're talking about the death of the king, right? So we want to ask the question about for whom did Christ die? Or who did God the Father intend that the Son die for? That's probably the most accurate question. So to do that, let's talk about two at least two views, just mention and look specifically at limited atonement. I'm not saying I endorse limited atonement. What I'm doing is I'm exposing you to what they mean, what they are saying, uh, some attendant beliefs that go along with limited atonement, and then also I'll make some critiques of these, uh, this position. So, limited atonement is the Calvinists' view, and it states that God the Father's intention for his son's death was to die only for the elect. That is, a subset of the human race. He did not die for each and every individual, he died for the elect individuals, whom he chose for salvation from before the foundation of the world. The unlimited atonement, which is uh technically the Arminian view, is that God the Father's intention for his son's death was to die for each and every individual without distinction. Okay. So those are basically the two views. Uh the lotus one's a little slightly different, but not too different, not really that different from the unlimited atonement position. So I didn't want to bring it up. Um let's go into limited atonement and talk about this. This is also known as particular or definite redemption. And the reason they don't like limited atonement, even though it's the L in tulip, and you have to, you can't to keep the flower going, you kind of have to call it limited atonement. You can't call it two pip or two dip. Um that would mess everything up. But they want to be clear that we're not saying that what Jesus did on the cross, his work, is you know, limited in its value or limited in its power to save. They don't want to say that. So, but they it it can come across that way. You know, you you could come across that they're saying, you're saying that Jesus' death was limited and it could only save the elect. It couldn't save more than the elect. So it's limited in its value. And they're not saying that. Okay, they they believe that Christ's death is sufficient to save every human who ever lived. Okay, but they would say that's not God's, that was never God's intent, and Christ did not die for those people. Okay, so again, I just want to accurately represent them, and I think that that does. So by limited, what they mean is that the atonement is limited in its scope of intent. It's only for a subset of the human race, that is, God who, from before the foundation of the world, elected a certain group of people to be saved, and did not choose to save any others. So by his death on the cross, then, Christ removes the guilt of that limited number of people whom God loves with a special love, namely the elect. Now, I want to go through some of the supporting passages or passages they use, and I'll take you to these. So have your Bible ready. We're gonna go to Matthew 1, 21. And as we do this, I'll give their interpretation, and then I will give you basically a counterview or interpretation of the passage. There's a lot going on here, a lot more than some verses. Okay. This is not all about just a few verses. There's a lot in their theology that is going on as well that begins all the way back in Genesis. So probably don't have time for all that, but if you want to know about all that, you can take my dispensationalism course and I'll talk all about it, and it'll explain a lot of things. But um, Matthew 1, 21, which reads, She will bear a son. Let's talk about the virgin conception and birth, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins. They will say, see, note that it says his people. He's not going to save all people, he's just gonna save his people, his people are quote unquote the elect. So why did Jesus come? He came to save the elect. How would we, or how would I respond to this? Well, I would respond to this first of all by saying that his people in the context are the Jewish people. It is Israel that is in view by his people, not the elect. That is the elect of both Jews and Gentiles, as they would say. But rather, he came to save his people, Israel. Now, why would I say this? Why would I limit it to Israel? Well, if you turn to Matthew 10, verse 5, in the early part of his ministry, you'll notice that he says something related directly to this idea that he only came for Israel. And you say, well, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. He came to save all people. No, that's incorrect sequentially. It's correct theologically, it's incorrect sequentially. What do I mean? I mean that he came with the intent and his mission to restore Israel to her kingdom. But in the plan of God, it is of course known that Israel would reject this offer of their kingdom and their king. And as a historical consequence, he would open the floodgates of salvation to Gentiles. So we have to understand there's this plan that has a sequential outworking. And it starts with him coming for Israel and his deliverance and salvation of Israel from Gentile powers and a restoration of their kingdom to the rejection and consequent, of course, what he does on the cross is for all people. So, Matthew 10, 5, these twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them, saying, Do not go in the way of the Gentiles. Do not what? Don't go to any Gentiles. He says, Do not enter any city of the Samaritans, but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as you preach, or as you go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. And then the demonstrations that the kingdom is at hand are the healings and so forth, the demonstrated kingdom conditions coming on earth, which would remove sickness, you know, people would be resurrected, and so forth and so on. In other words, mainly you can see here the mission of Christ, as well as John the Baptist and the twelve, was to go only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, so that they may have an opportunity to respond positively to their Messiah, accept him as their king, in which case, theoretically, the kingdom would come. But of course, we know that didn't happen. In fact, this chapter, chapter 11 and chapter 12, describe what we call the informal rejection of the king, where they reject him and commit the quote-unquote unpardonable sin. So, at any rate, Matthew 1.21, even though it does say he came to die for his people or to save his people, that people in that context is Israel. It's not, quote unquote, this idea of the elect, which is brought in. By the way, just as an aside, but not too much of an aside, is Israel God's elect nation? Yes. Are there believers and unbelievers in Israel? Are the believers and unbelievers a part of elect Israel? Yes. So just because you are a member of Israel doesn't mean you're elect unto salvation. You're elect as a nation for a specific covenant purpose to play in the plan of God. You're playing a certain role in the plan of God. That's what they were elect to, not to salvation. Otherwise, every Jew would have been saved. And that's not true because the Old Testament talks about the remnant and the non-remnant, right? The remnant was the believing element in Israel, the non-remnant was the unbelieving element. Okay, so Matthew 1.21. Now they'll turn also to John 6.37. And uh I was taught Greek by a five-point Calvinist named S. Lewis Johnson, who had been at Dallas Theological Seminary long, long, many, many, many years ago. Um he's gone on to be with the Lord now. Um he's a very good Greek Greek teacher. I loved sitting under S. Lewis Johnson and listening to him. At the time, I was four-point Calvinist, just so you know. So it's not like I'm un I'm unfamiliar with these positions. Um I held them for several years. But this was one of his central passages that he used. John 6, 37. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and the one who comes to me I will certainly not cast out. So they'd say, well, see, this is the idea that the Father gives a certain number of people to the Son, and those are, quote unquote, the elect. Right? For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. This is the will of him who sent me, that all of all that he's given me, there it is, they would say, the elect again, I lose nothing but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in him will have eternal life, and I myself will raise him up on the last day. And they might also read verse 44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day. How do we answer this? Uh verse 44. No one can come, see? Uh nobody who's not elect is going to come. Only those the Father draws, and the Father draws only the elect. This is the way that they explain this passage. Um what's the counterview to this? Well, verse 40. Who are the ones in verse 40 who the Father gives the Son? Everyone who beholds the Son and believes. Now, this word beholds, we don't use behold in English. I've been trying to, I want to get a hold to the NASB translators and say, hey, can you stop putting that in the translation? Nobody stands at the door and says, Behold, I am home. But this word, this word means to give sustained attention to something. To give sustained attention to something. So when it says everyone who gives sustained attention to the sun, that means they're contemplating the sun. They're considering the son and his offer of salvation. And then believes, of course, in him will have eternal life. So those are the ones who the Father gives the Son. They're the ones who behold the Son and believe in Him. As John 6 45 says, this one usually gets left out of the out of the discussion when Calvinists speak. It is written in the prophets, and they shall all be taught of God. Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. Everyone who has what? Heard. How does faith come? By hearing. That's what he's talking about, right? Everyone who hears and learns, I mean, you do have to learn things as an unbeliever. Can you learn anything as an unbeliever? Well, sure you can. You can sit there and learn, you know, what Jesus Christ did for you on the cross and how he rose again. This is not that complicated. There are propositions that people make all the time. It's a propositional statement, it can be understood. He died, he rose. And that can be explained a little bit further, but the point is you can hear that message, you can learn the meaning of that message, and as it says, those are the ones who come to him. See, a person does have to give sustained attention to it. They have to contemplate it, they have to consider it. And as they do that, what does it say? These come to him. These are the ones that the Father's drawing as they're hearing, as they're hearing, okay, giving attention to it. He's drawing them. And they come. Someone who doesn't give it any attention, they're not going to come. They're not going to believe. They're writing you off, right? They're not going to pay attention. So this does not have anything to do with, you know, certain people are elect and other ones aren't, or anything like that. It's the one who beholds the Son, those who hear, those who learn. Those are the ones who come, those are the ones the Father gives the Son. And once they've been given to the Son, they'll never be cast out. They'll be raised up at the last day. That's eternal security. You have eternal security and you'll be receiving a resurrection body. John 6.35, just to fill things out a little bit. John 6.35, Jesus said to them, I am the bread of life. He who comes to me, there's the word comes again, will not hunger, and he who believes in me will never thirst. So you can see those are being used in parallel. Those who come to him are the ones who are believing in him. Right? Comes and believes are parallel. Ideas in the passage. Alright, let's go over to John 10, 15. Spend a lot of time in John. Key word for John is, of course, what? What's the key word of the whole gospel of John?
SPEAKER_03:I don't know.
SPEAKER_01:Believe. That's why I give key words to every book, and that's definitely the key word of John. It's an easy one. John 10, 15 and 26. This is a story about the sheep. So you're probably familiar with this. John 10, 25. He's speaking to Pharisees, and he says in verse 25, he's answering them. He says, I told you and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name, these testify me. But you do not believe because you are not of my sheep. My sheep, they hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. And the Calvinist says, Well, see, this is the elect. Now, first of all, he's speaking to the Jews, right? It says that in verse 24. The Jews gathered around him. Now, wait a minute, I thought the Jews were elect. You all just told me three minutes ago they were elect. Yeah, as a nation, exactly. See? But some of them, he just said in verse 25, don't believe. So you can be of the elect nation of Israel and not believe. So election didn't have anything to do with salvation there. Had to do with purpose for a nation, right? God's covenant purpose for that nation. So you don't believe, you're not of my sheep. Verse 27, my sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. And I give eternal life to them, to my sheep, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My father who has given to me them to me is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one.
unknown:Okay.
SPEAKER_01:So they would say, Well, the sheep are the elect, okay, and he came for his sheep only. He didn't come for the whole world. And he only laid down his life for the sheep. Where did it say that? I lay down my life for them. Is that in 1015? Yeah, 1015. I didn't read 1015, so backing up a little bit. Um let's let's back up and get more of the context. Let's go to uh 11. I'm sorry, 1011. 1011. Jesus said, I'm the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays his life down for who? The sheep. They say, see, that's a limited number of people. It's not everyone. He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, he who is not the owner of the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he's a hired hand. He's not concerned about the sheep. He says, But I'm the good shepherd, and I know my own, and my own know me. Even as the Father knows me and I know the Father, I lay down my life for the sheep. So again, the Calvinist says, See, he only lays his life down for the elect. That's what they say here. But then he says in verse 16, I have other sheep which are not of this fold, which I must bring them also. And they will hear my voice, and they will become one flock with one shepherd. For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life so that I might take it up again. So the death and the resurrection. Now, um, who are these other sheep who he's going to bring in? What's that? Other people who believe, but they're going to be believing Gentiles. Because what is coming up in the story of the Bible? Okay, first of all, you've got most of the Old Testament is dealing with Israel, starting in Genesis 12. God's dealing with this covenant nation that he made promises to. Then he comes in the Gospels after John the Baptist prepares the way. He's offering the kingdom to Israel, right? And they're for the most part rejecting, although he calls out his followers, the disciples, and who became apostles. But they're mostly rejecting. And we know they reject. I mean, we'll have Barabbas. We don't want this Jesus. Crucify him, crucify, right? We know all that. So, in the midst of all this, what's happening? Because of their rejection, there's going to be this door that opens to the Gentiles. And that's what this is talking about. I have other sheep who are not of this fold. That is not of the fold of Israel. Other sheep who are going to come in and be a part of the church, right? Because you go by Israel in the Old Testament, starting on the day of Pentecost, something new begins called the church. And that's what he's talking about. He's preparing them for understanding that there's going to be a new group of people that are going to believe, Jew and Gentile in one body. In the Old Testament, Israel, right? Now, could here's here's a here's a good question, right? Most of the people in the Old Testament, would you agree that were saved in the Old Testament were Jews? Yes or no? Would you agree with this statement? There are Gentiles in the Old Testament that get saved. Yeah, there's not many, but we read stories of them. People like Ruth, people like Rahab, people like the Phoenicians in the book of Jonah, or the Ninevehes in the same book. Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, uh, the queen of Sheba, more than likely, who came to hear the wisdom of Solomon, possibly Nebuchadnezzar on his deathbed in Daniel 4, possibly. So Gentiles were getting saved, but you see, predominantly it was Israel, as far as salvation is concerned. I mean, they weren't supposed to go out to the other nations. Jonah didn't want to. Nasty Ninevehes just rained fire on them, you know. Kill these people, these dogs. Um, but God wanted to save them, and he was doing that through Israel. Israel was to be a light to all nations. They failed in their uh mission to accomplish that. So at this point in the story in John 10 here, you know, Israel's about to go on the back burner, so to speak, and God's gonna begin to build a new thing through Christ called the church, right? Starting on the day of Pentecost. So those are the other sheep not of this fold. They're those who are gonna believe. Because Jesus said, I told you, you don't believe, you know. So, but there's gonna be those who do come along and do believe. So it's not the elect versus the non-elect, it's Jewish believers in Israel on the focus. And now we're gonna have Jewish and Gentile believers in the future, but predominantly, by the way, predominantly who now? Now that we're in the church, is it predominantly Jews who make up the church or is it predominantly Gentile? Predominantly Gentiles. Now, let's just take a nice moment here and go over to Romans chapter 11. Because Romans 11, and most many people say, well, Romans 9, 10, 11, I mean, you that's election. Uh no, this is God's dispensational dealings with humanity, with Israel, focus, now a Gentile focus in the church. And he explains all this at this at the end.
SPEAKER_03:So Romans 11, let's go to verse 20, we'll just start in verse 28.
SPEAKER_01:Well, let's start in 25, otherwise we don't have enough context. 25. Paul says, I don't want you to be, uh, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery, so that you will not be wise in your own estimation. And here it is, here's the mystery. A partial hardening has happened to Israel. That happened based on the cross and their crucifixion of him, right? A partial hardening has happened to the nation until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. So this partial hardening is only temporary, right? Once the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, verse 26 says, All Israel will be saved. And then he quotes from Is this Jeremiah? Pull up my glasses. The deliverer will come from Zion, he will remove ungodliness from Jacob. This is my covenant with them when I take away their sins. God's going to take Israel's sins away as a nation and restore them, right? He then says, verse 28, from the standpoint of the gospel, they, that's Israel, they are enemies for your sake. That's for Gentiles. But from the standpoint of God's choice, Israel's beloved for the sake of the fathers. It's Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, right? Who God made the covenants with. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. I mean, is God ever going to go back on his promises to Israel that he made in the covenant? No, absolutely not. God's own character is at stake in this. He says, For just as you were once disobedient to God, you Gentiles, but now you've been shown mercy because of their, that's Israel's disobedience, so these also now have been disobedient, that's Israel, that because of the mercy shown to you, they may also now be shown mercy in the future, right? For God has shut up all in disobedience, so that he may show mercy to all. Who's all? Well, all Jews, all Gentiles. See in the Old Testament, Gentiles disobedient. Now, but now being shown mercy. But Israel now disobedient, but in the future, God show mercy. Why? So God be merciful to all. So you see, Romans 9, 10, 11, and this is really just these last verses are really just summarizing everything he said in chapters 9 and 10 and 11. But they're showing God's how he dealt with Israel and how he's dealt with Gentiles. And that's everybody, because a Jew is a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with Jacob being the key. Okay. And a Gentile is a non Jew. It's that simple. Okay. So this deals with everybody. Let's go to another. Verse that they use that's John 15 13. John 15 13. This is in the upper room discourse, right? The upper room discourse. This is the discourse, I would say, is the first discourse given to the church. Whereas his last discourse to Israel is the all of it discourse, Matthew 24 and 25. So his last words to Israel are Matthew 24 and 25. His first words to the church are John 13 through 17. In the midst of that, in John 15, he says to his disciples, This is my commandment that you love one another just as I have loved you. That, by the way, becomes the cornerstone for the church. How will they know us if we don't love one another, right? Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends. And the Calvinist says, Well, see, he only lays down his life for his friends, those of the elect. He doesn't lay down his life for the whole world or for all people without distinction. I say, Well, what about the next verse? It says, You're my friends if you do what I command you. So is salvation by following his commandments? Is that what we're supposed to believe? No. They were already his friends. Now, did he lay his life down for those who believed in him? Well, yeah, of course he did. Does that mean that he didn't lay his life down for other people who didn't believe in him? No. There's a principle of first subset of seconds, okay? And this is a common way that we all speak. I may say to my wife, I love you.
SPEAKER_03:Does that mean I don't love anybody else? No.
SPEAKER_01:Now maybe I don't love anybody else the way that I love her. And that's okay. Husbands are to love their wife in a specific way. But is it okay for God to love those who believe in him in a certain way? And then to love others? Yeah, okay. We'll talk more about this principle this week and and next week about his his love. Because the Calvinists, as we're going to see, says that he only loves the elect. He does not love. In fact, he hates the non-elect. Okay. So this is one of their attendant beliefs. Ephesians 5.25. Oh, and by the way, Romans 5.8 says he laid down his life for his enemies. I forgot to say that. That's kind of important. He didn't just lay his life down for those who believe, that is his friends. He also laid down his life for us while we were yet enemies. Romans 5.8. So let's make sure we get all the verses in there. Ephesians 5.25, in the passage of husbands and wives, but really it's about Christ and the church, right? Ephesians 5.25. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave himself up for who? Her, which is who? The church. So see, they say, see, he only gave himself up for the church, that is the elect, that is the one people of God. In the Old Testament, it was Israel. In the New Testament, it's the church. And the churches in the Old Testament, that's Israel. It's the same thing, they say. And the church now is the new Israel or spiritual Israel or something like that. It's the way this conversation always goes. There's no distinction between Israel and the church. They're all just one people of God. The elect. See, that controls everything in their thinking. And he gave himself only up for the church. That's the elect. Shut case, right? No, once again, first subset of second. Just because it says in one passage that he loves the church and gave himself up for the church does not mean that he didn't love people outside the church and give himself up for them. It doesn't mean that. It doesn't say he only gave himself up for the for the church, does it? It's just specifying. I may say I love you, but doesn't mean I don't love other people in the world. Hopefully I don't limit my love to just you. Hopefully I love all people. Right? Okay, Acts 20, 28. He purchased the church with his blood. He didn't, they would say he did not purchase or pay for the sins of the whole world. Y'all are turning there, so we'll go. Okay. Great. Y'all are so well trained. I mean, in the Bible, you just you know I want to take you wherever that we need to go. So you're going. Be on guard for yourselves, Paul says to the Ephesian elders, and for all the flock among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers to shepherd the church of God which he purchased with his own blood. Again, sure, he did purchase the church. Nobody's disputing that, right? But it doesn't say he only paid the purchase price for the church. There are other passages we'll have to look at next week when we go to unlimited atonement, right? And we won't go to this Romans 8.32, they would say all refers to all Christians, not all people. I would essentially agree with that in context, it is talking only about Christians. But again, a truth spoken to a subset does not mean the truth does not apply to a larger group than the subset in other passages. So that's just not the way language works. Some of the attendant beliefs, okay? These are some of the things that go along with Calvinism and limited atonement. Christ does not love everyone, he only loves the elect. Let's turn to Amos chapter 3, verse 2. It's just before Obadiah, but Obadiah's only one chapter, so you probably won't see that one. Uh you know, I always make a joke, you know, about the 12 little guys. They call them the minor prophets. I never called them. I don't think they should be called minor because of I don't think they were minor. They definitely weren't minors. Um but they were just known, I just call them the twelve. Because there's twelve of them. So Amos chapter three, verse two. Here's a passage they quote to say that he only loves Israel. You only have I loved. You look at the little note in the margin, known, Yada, like uh a word of close, intimate knowledge. You only have I known among all the families of the earth. Um where's the passage that says Jacob I loved, Esau I hated? Isn't that somewhere close by? Say again. I I missed it again. I don't have good hearing. Oh, well, yeah, yeah. Okay, it's in Romans, but yeah, Romans is quoting something old to Jacob, I loved, Esau I hated. That's another one that falls into this type of oh, I've got it right there, Romans 9 13. Sorry. Hello. Um Christ does not love everyone. See, it says Jacob, I love, which is Israel. Esau I hated. Um what do we do with this? Do you remember Jesus in the gospel? He says, he'll say, if you do not hate your mother, hate your brothers, hate your sisters, and follow me, you know, you're no you're not my disciple. You remember those passages? How many of you hate your mom? How many of you hate your dad? How many of you hate your brothers and sisters? Why don't you? Because we're commanded to love them elsewhere, right? What does it mean then you have to hate your mother, your father, your brother, your sister, whatever, else you can't be his disciple? It just means you have to put in first. It doesn't mean you actually should go hate them. Um this is this is a a way of speaking in comparison to all others. You know, that's the point. Um now, when it says Jacob I loved Esau, I hated in Romans 9 13. What is God saying? Does he saying he really hates Esau like an emotional way that we might think of hate? No. This is a word of covenant love. There are three actually three Hebrew words for love. One is like boy meets girl. Like, hey, I love you. No, you don't, idiot. Um there's the idea that boy wants to marry girl. It's more serious. And then there's marital love, what we call covenant love. And that's the Hebrew word that's used when it says Jacob, I love. It's a covenant love. It means God has a covenant with Israel and Israel only. When it says it hates Esau, it doesn't mean he hates them like emotionally, it means he did not have a covenant with them. In respect to all other women, I do hate all of you. I only love my wife because I only have a covenant with her. That's what it means. It doesn't mean I emotionally hate you. It just means I don't have a marital contract with you. That's only with her. So that's it doesn't mean that God doesn't love other people, that you can't use verses that way. Um, so but they would hold to this idea that Christ and God, of course, doesn't they love everyone. You say, well, what about John 3.16? For God's love of the world. We're gonna get there, okay? We'll get there. We're gonna get there. But here's Edwin Palmer in the five points of Calvinism. Because God has loved certain ones and not all. These aren't my words, these are five-point Calvinist words. Because he has sovereignly and immutably determined that these particular ones will be saved, he sent his son to die for them, to save them, and not all the world. Because there is a definite election, there is a definite atonement. So I'm not misrepresenting them. This, these are their positions. Okay, and you'll see that they are the definite atonement is tied directly to the definite election idea and their thinking. It's a logical system for them. He also said limited atonement is based on unconditional election. What's unconditional election? Before the foundation of the world, God selected certain individuals for salvation, and none of the others at all were selected for salvation, but rather they were either selected for eternal damnation from before the creation of the world, or they were simply passed over. These are their ideas. Another attendant belief. But rather what they say it means is elect people from every tribe, tongue, and nation. So let's go to John 3.16. Most people, even out in the world, might know this one, right? Because it's at the foot. They got it at every football game. I used to. Is it still illegal to do that? I don't know.
SPEAKER_03:John 3.16.
SPEAKER_01:In the discourse with Nicodemus, Jesus says, uh, for who God so loved the world. Now they don't believe God loves everyone, right? Just the elect. So world can't mean everyone to them. So what they would say, world means is it means people from every tribe, tongue, and nation. Which that that expression is used in Romans 5, Revelation 5, 9, and 10. It's used other places. Um that when we all get to heaven, there'll be people from where? From every tribe, tongue, and nation. Um, they would say, well, that's what world means. World has a limited usage here. It refers only to people from every tribe, tongue, and nation. Not everyone in those tribes, tongues, and nations, just the elect people in those tribes, tongues, and nations. So that's what they say John 3.16 means. For God loves the world, that is, people, the elect people from every tribe, tongue, and nation. He gave his only begotten son just for those people in those tribes, tongues, and nations. Not all of them, see. That whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. Which that belief is essentially guaranteed if they're elect, right? Because the Holy Spirit's going to irresistibly regenerate them and give them saving faith. Give them saving faith. That's how they make sure every elect person ultimately is saved. The Holy Spirit irresistibly regenerates them and gives them faith. Another attendant belief, very common, I've read in everything, whether I was reading Bettner, Pink, Spurgeon, Palmer, Spruel, it didn't matter. MacArthur, John MacArthur, all these people, they all say basically that the cross automatically saves independent of faith. Okay? The cross automatically saves people independent of faith. This is an attendant belief of this system. Um another one, or here's one from here's a quote. Did Christ actually make a substitutionary sacrifice for sins, or didn't he? If he did, then it was not for all the world. For then all the world would be saved. Okay, this is the way they're thinking. Now, I you probably feel the pressure of this point. Like, well, that sounds right. Is that right? We're gonna work with this a little bit. Um, so their fourth attendant belief here, which is tied up in this statement, is that unlimited atonement, they say, leads inevitably to universalism, everybody being saved. This is their idea. They say you can't have an unlimited atonement because if you've got an unlimited atonement, he's the substitution for everybody's sins, and then everybody has to be saved. Well, all that means is the cross is automatically applied, see, to you or me, if he died for you or me. It's automatically applied if he died for you. And what that does, see, it takes faith out of the spotlight that it gets in the Bible, right? And it puts this focus, this spotlight on this elective idea, which is honestly, there's no more than about 15 passages that would even be brought in or discussed in the election debate. But we know there's several hundred that talk about belief. I've got 198 verses that I have charted out, I can send you the list. In the New Testament alone that talk about faith, emphasis, the need for a person to have faith. And no more than 15 to 20 for elections. So, but they put the spotlight on the election and they take it away from faith. But my question is which one takes the spotlight in the Bible? Well, obviously faith, right? That doesn't mean there's nothing like election. Again, we're not, we don't want to disregard this truth. We just want to understand what it means. That's all we're interested in. So that's a fourth attendant belief. Um, they think that if unlimited atonement Christ died for everybody, that would mean everybody is saved. Uh uh that's not true, but that's what they would say. Um, number five, they hold to what are called antimonies or paradoxes, things that seem to be contradictions in the Bible. And they would say they're unresolvable. We just have to accept them. Uh, this is the mysterious things of God. So things like God unconditionally elects only some people to salvation, but whosoever will has eternal life. Knowing that whosoever will is really just the elect. And those other people will never believe. Because why? Because the Holy Spirit's not going to give them faith. Now that it seems like a contradiction. Whosoever will, only the elect. Whosoever will, only the elect. You know, it seems like a contradiction. You know why it seems like a contradiction? Because it is a contradiction. They would say, but no, it's not a contradiction. This is some of the secret things of God. It's mysterious, it's in the councils of God, and flowery language like that. Um they're really worried about ultimately is God not being in control, man having the final say. So we'll talk more about that too. They're worried about man being the one who's really calling the shots and not God. Because they have a particular view of God's sovereignty, and well, we'll talk about that. So, criticisms, critiques. This God, the one who only loves the elect and does not love every individual, the one who only sent his son to die for the elect and not for every individual, seems different from the God of the Bible as you read the whole spectrum of what it seems like God is like in the Bible, as you just read it. The God of Calvinism seems different. Okay, God's sovereignty in Calvinism is too deterministic. It seems like this God that they believe in is a projection of finite man. What do I mean by that? I mean the level of control that he supposedly exerts seems like the only way we could think to do it. How could we, if you were God or I was God, how would we ensure certain people are saved and others are not? The only way we could do that is by selecting a group of people and giving them saving faith by means of the Holy Spirit to ensure that. That's a level of control that humans would have to employ to bring about guaranteed results. So it seems like their God is like a projection of finite man. He's just amplified humanity. It doesn't sound like the God of the Bible, though. It sounds like man amplified the God they talk about. Um, I think Isaiah said, I'm positive Isaiah said, his ways are not our way. He doesn't accomplish things the same way that we accomplish things. If I have to guarantee results at my workplace with 150 employees, I have to control all 150 employees. I mean, I have to control everything about them, don't I? Because that's the only way I can get the exact outcome that I'm wanting in my business. But God doesn't work like that. His ways are not our ways. See? He's different. He has other ways to work that we are not privy to. Um, this God seems to be de-personalized. You know, before the foundation of the world, he selected certain people who'd never even been born to be saved, and the other people who'd never been born to go where? To hell. This seems like a depersonalized view of God, doesn't it? Um, it doesn't sound like the God of Hosea. The God of Hosea is like, why do you die, O Israel? Why do you deny? Because you made us to deny. That's the logical Calvinist response of an Israeli. Why do you deny? Because you made us to deny. You determined us to deny. See? That doesn't that's not the God of the Bible. That's not the way the Bible reads. Look at the end of Romans 9. We want to make sure we worship the one true God, not a false God. Romans 9, verse 31. Israel, but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. They did not arrive at righteousness. Why didn't they arrive at righteousness? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, just as it is written, Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and whoever believes he who believes in him will not be disappointed. They had the opportunity to believe in him. What did Jesus say at the end of Matthew 23, 37? Jerusalem, Jerusalem, I wanted to gather you under my wings as a hen gathers their chicks, but you were not willing. You didn't want to. Did Jesus want to? Yes, he wanted to gather them. Did they want to? No. But wait a minute. I thought Jesus always got what he wanted. You know, the will of God, it always happens, right? Jesus was God, so the will of God always happens. No, the will of God doesn't always happen. This is a confused idea. Um, but all Calvinists will always say that God always gets his will done. No, he absolutely doesn't. In fact, we are told in Matthew chapter 6 that we should pray that his will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Aren't we? Aren't we supposed to pray that prayer? Well, if it's always done on earth, why do we need to pray for it? It's not is all this going on on earth right now, God's will? Is all this nastiness that's going on out there, is that God's will? Is that what God wants? The word just means want, will, desire. It's the Greek word thello. No. Does God desire all men to be saved? 1 Timothy 2, 4. Well, they've got to get around that one too, don't they? Because they say, well, if God always gets what he wants, God's will will always be done. Then if God wanted everybody to be saved, everybody'd be saved. But obviously they're not. So God's will then must be not to save everyone, they would say, but to only save people from all types of groups or groups. So this is a lot of talking around something to do what? To believe in a specific type of God that I think is more of a projection of finite humanity and how we might control outcomes. He holds, this God holds humans responsible for what they're unable to do. Because they're going to say, you know, a person who is an unbeliever can't believe. Instead, what has to happen, the Holy Spirit has to irresistibly regenerate them and give them faith. But why then are humans held responsible for not believing and have to spend eternity in the lake of fire for something they can't do? If I tell my son, go pick up that car right now, or you're out of the house. And you'll never come back to this family. You're out of the family because you can't pick up the car. Is that does that make sense that that would be something our God would do to people? Say, you have to believe, but you can't, and therefore you have to spend eternity in the lake of fire for not doing something you can't do. See, that doesn't make any sense. And they say, well, it's just a mystery, it's just an antimony, it's just a paradox. No, it's a lie. It's just a lie. I mean, you can cook it up however you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a lie. Um, God doesn't love all people, but the Bible, isn't the Bible, the Bible says God even loves animals. At the end of Jonah, uh, if God loves animals, how much more does he love people that he made in his image? So it's it's it just it just seems this God seems to conflict with the God of the Bible. Another criticism is man does not seem responsible in this point of view. Again, he's told to do what he can't do, and then he's held responsible for not doing it, and he has to pay a penalty in the lake of fire. That doesn't make any sense. Um third, evangelism seems unimportant in this view. I mean, if God irresistibly regenerates the elect, then why do we need to pray for workers to go into the harvest? Why do we need to obey the Great Commission? And why do we need to be ambassadors for Jesus Christ? If God has his elect from before all eternity past, and his Holy Spirit's going to irresistibly regenerate them and give them faith, why do we need to send missionaries out there? I'm not saying that they don't have people who do evangelism who believe this. I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying this makes evangelism seem unimportant in the grand scheme of things. What's really important is if you are the elect or not. Uh fourth point, history seems unimportant or downplayed in this point of view. Uh what do I mean? Well, I mean that he selected certain individuals from before history even began, right? And that means that what happens in history is really just a playing out of an already determined situation where there's really no human freedom. Now, does God know everything? We believe in the omniscience of God. God knows all things actual and possible, even the what-ifs of history, right? That's not a problem. But his knowledge is not causative. His knowledge is not causative. For example, does God know if you're going to pray this afternoon for someone in your family or something? Sure. He does. Did he cause you to pray then because he knew you were going to do it? No. These are different concepts. Causation is different from knowledge, they're not the same. So don't get these ideas confused, right? But history seems downplayed. It seems not that important. Okay, it appears that if Calvinism is true, it appears that what people are doing in history is just what they were programmed to do. Whenever I've argued with Calvinists, right, and they want to disagree and say I've got the wrong theology or whatever, I usually end up saying something like this. Well, then God determined that I would have this theology. I can't do anything about it. I mean, what am I supposed to do about it? So that I mean, that's where you end up. Well, this you see, that's obviously silly. Um, fifth attendant or criticism. Faith seems unimportant or downplayed. Kind of mentioned this, but the Bible speaks of the necessity of faith hundreds of times. John 5.24, Jesus said, He who believes in me has eternal life. 6.47, he who has believed in me has passed out of death and into life. Acts 16, 31. The Philippian jailer said what? Paul and Silas, what must, sirs, what must I do to be saved? And what did they say? Believe. They didn't say, you got to wait for the Holy Spirit to regenerate you so that you can have the right faith, and therefore you'll be saved. No, they said, hey, you got to believe. And it's an urgent thing, right? Ephesians 2, 8 and 9, for by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it's the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. What's the gift of God? Salvation. For by grace are you saved through faith. Through faith, through faith. Faith is just the means through which God saves. Faith doesn't save you. Nobody's ever been saved by faith. Nobody, ever. And nobody ever will be saved by faith. Faith doesn't save anybody. God is the only Savior. He is the rock, he is salvation, repeatedly through the Old Testament, repeatedly through the New Testament. It's always God who saves. Faith is the channel through which he saves. A person must have faith. It's instrumental, it's not causative. It's the instrument through which God saves. So when a person has faith, like Abraham says, Abraham believed. Didn't say the Holy Spirit gave Abraham faith.
SPEAKER_03:It says, Abraham believed.
SPEAKER_01:It says, Lydia believed. And then what happens? God credits them with perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ the moment they believe. Boom. But that gets downplayed. See, it's just an issue of did Christ die for you? Because if he did, the atonement automatically applies itself and you're saved. Six. It's misguided to say that if Christ's death was only a provision, then it's powerless because it saved no one. That's usually a criticism they make of other perspectives. No, um, Christ on the cross made a full payment to God, right? I mean, he said, it is what? It is finished. Is there any more payment to be made? No, he made the payment in full. Who did he pay? He paid. The Father. He made the penalty. He paid the penalty that we owed, right? And he paid it in full. This satisfied the Father. What happens then? Okay. Are people automatically saved because of that? No. In fact, nobody is automatically saved because of that. Nobody's automatically saved. God is automatically satisfied. That's what the scriptures teach. God was automatically satisfied. Now, what is it free God to do? Now that justice has been met, his justice has been met because Christ paid the penalty that God's justice demanded on the cross. Now God is free to justify anyone who believes. And that is non-that's non-meritorious believing or faith, right? Faith does not carry merit. So let's look at uh Romans 3, real quick, 21 to 26. I really think this is the most important passage in this whole discussion about the extent of the atonement.
SPEAKER_03:Romans 3, 21 and following.
SPEAKER_01:Paul says, Now, apart from the law, that's the Mosaic Law, the righteousness of God has been manifested. A righteousness which was witnessed by the law and the prophets, even the righteousness of God that comes through faith, right? Through faith in Jesus Christ. See, faith is instrumental. It's how the righteousness of God comes to us. It comes through that channel for all those who what? Believe. But there's no distinction. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. And I just got finished with that, Romans 1, 2 and 3. All Jews and Gentiles are condemned. Okay, so we all fall short of the glory of God. But faith is the way we access God's righteousness. Verse 24. Being justified as a gift, the justification is a free gift by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation, talking about the cross, right? As a propitiation or satisfaction in his blood through faith. This, that is the cross, was to demonstrate God's righteousness. Because in the forbearance of God, he passed over the sins previously committed. We're talking Old Testament there. For the demonstration, I say, of his righteousness at the present time on the cross, right? I mean, his righteousness was demonstrated at the cross. No compromise of God's righteousness, because all the penalty was laid on Christ, so that he would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. See, when the payment was made by Christ on the cross, it didn't save anyone. Because it's not manward. The cross is not manward first and foremost. It is first and foremost Godward and only secondarily manward. It's Godward in that it satisfies the righteousness and justice of God. And what does that do? That frees God to justify anybody on earth who has non-meritorious faith. So it's first about God. That's what the atonement's about. We wonder what the cross, what's going on on the cross. It's not about you and me, first and foremost. It's about the justice of God first and foremost. But that has to be satisfied. Once that's satisfied, then the second issue is okay, now, now that I am satisfied, the payment has been made for all the sin of the world. Now, any one of you who comes to me freely by faith, I can give my own righteousness to. That's good news. Right? That's good news. God is free. This didn't just happen for the elect. See, Jesus satisfied God's justice once and for all. Hebrews says it. Once and for all. Now, anyone who comes to him as verse 25 says, has faith, that's it. You're justified. Okay. 7. The claim that the cross automatically says fails to explain that reconciliation is a two-way street. It's not a one-way street. Look at 2 Corinthians 5 real quick. I also think this is the second most important passage on this whole topic. 2 Corinthians 5. See, the cross doesn't automatically reconcile the elect to God. No, reconciliation is a two-way street, just like in any relationship. It's a two-way street. I have to do my part, you have to do your part. It's not, I do it all for you. See? If I want to be reconciled to you and you're at odds with me, sorry, but it's up to you. As long as I'm good with you and I'm like, hey, I want to be friends, and you're saying no, I can't do anything about that. 2 Corinthians 5, 18. Now, all these things are from God who reconciled us to himself through Christ, that's us believers, and gave us the ministry of reconciliation. So he's given us a ministry, us believers, to go out to the world. Namely, verse 19, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself. Now, this is one way. God reconciled to the world through Christ, right? Not counting the world's trespasses against him anymore. And he has committed to us, believers, the word of reconciliation. In other words, he's given us a mission. Therefore, verse 20, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us. We beg you, that's unbelievers, right, on behalf of Christ, to be reconciled to God. That's it. See, it's a two-way street. God is reconciled to the world through Christ, but the world who remains in unbelief is not reconciled to God. So it's not true that the cross just automatically saves those for whom Christ died. It's a two-way street. The world has been reconciled to God, or I'm sorry, God has been reconciled to the world, but the world is still saying, I don't want to be reconciled to you. It's a two-way street. Lastly, the idea that they were unconditionally elect before the foundation of the world seems to indicate that these people were always redeemed and reconciled, and never sinners, reprobates, and children of the devil. And this doesn't align with scripture. In fact, they do say this. Pink said, Arthur Pink said this. He said that never in the Bible are unbelievers called reprobates. Or I should say the non-elect are never called sinners, reprobates, and children of the devil. Well, I'm sorry, but yes, you were. Before you believe, you are a child of the devil. You are a reprobate and you are a sinner. How do I know that? Because I made it up, because it sounds right, because it's logical? No. Because it says it in Ephesians chapter 2. That's why. Ephesians chapter 2 and other places. We go to Ephesians chapter 5. But Ephesians chapter 2 says, You were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air. You were walking according to Satan, it says, of the spirit that's now working in the sons of disobedience. So you were sons of disobedience, right? Among them we too formerly lived in the lust of our flesh, and indulging the desires of our flesh and the mind, we were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. That's everybody else, right? But God, being rich in mercy, because of his great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, he made us alive together with Christ. By grace you've been saved. Verse 8 tells us through faith. Okay, great. This is not that complicated, right? But just to close on this note, no, oh my goodness, boy. We better close on this note and have communion. Um you know, I warn you about this, and I'm putting a popular Bible teacher's name up here because you need to know that it's dangerous. The theological world is a minefield. And some of these people are really, really popular teachers. Here's one, John MacArthur, over in one of our favorite liberal states, California. Um this he says, this describes, he's talking about 1 Timothy 2, 6 through 8. This describes the result of Christ's substitutionary death for who? Does he believe in this limited atonement thing? Oh, yeah, absolutely. Which he did voluntarily, voluntarily he died, and reminds one of Christ's own statement in Matthew 20, 28 that he would be a ransom for many. I'll discuss this a little bit. The all, he says, is qualified by the many. So in in 1 Timothy 2 it says all. Well, over in Matthew 20, 28, it says many. Next week I'm going to take you to Romans 5, and you'll see that these are synonyms. All and many are synonyms. But he says, no, the many is the limited elect group. The all is qualified by the many. So all, who does God desire all to be saved? The elect. Well, my by golly. Well, I'm glad you you figured that your theology out there, and you could state this, um, but so wrongly. Not all will be ransomed, he says, through his death, though his death would be sufficient, but only the many who believe by the work of the Holy Spirit. See, the Holy Spirit is the one who gives faith in their view. He gives faith. You don't have to have faith because you can't have faith. You're a dead corpse, they'd say. So God has to make you alive by the Spirit and give you faith in the seed of regeneration. Faith, they say, is the gift of God, not salvation. Faith is the gift, they say. And for whom the actual atonement was made. See, only for the elect. But I mean, this statement, most Christians would probably read this and go, Oh, yeah, that's great. That is not great. That is not great at all. That is bad theology. Very poor, as we'll show next week. It's it's not good theology.
SPEAKER_00:Thank you for joining us on Beyond the Walls with Jeremy Thomas. If you would like to see the visuals that went along with today's sermon, you can find those on Rumble and on YouTube under Spokane Bible Church. That is where Jeremy is the pastor and teacher. We hope you found today's lesson productive and useful in growing closer to God and walking more obediently with Him. If you found this podcast to be useful and helpful, then please consider rating us in your favorite podcast app. And until next time, we hope you have a blessed and wonderful day.