Jesus Was a Calvinist – John MacArthur, Part 5

(Please note, because of the depth of this doctrine, this will be a long post. To view the main thesis please scroll to the last paragraph.)

This is the fifth entry in the series ‘Jesus was a Calvinist’, in which I am examining how John MacArthur can make that statement with such certainty. Please see Part one, two, three, and four in order to properly understand this post. Today, in this fifth entry, we have reached the most controversial of all of the five points: the ‘L’ doctrine, which stands for Limited Atonement.

Linked with Perseverance
As I have stated before, the 5 points of Calvinism stand or fall together as one. That is, in order to be consistent, one must accept all 5 points of Calvinism, reject all 5 points of Calvinism, or drop themselves off into an irrational abyss of contradictory beliefs. (For example, if we believe that we cannot lose our salvation once we are regenerated, but that we can autonomously ‘choose’ to accept Christ to enter into this regeneration, then our doctrine becomes irrational and contradictory).

Therefore, even though the ‘L’ comes before the ‘P’, for me to properly present my argument for the ‘L’ we must assume that the ‘P’ is indeed true. I do not see this as a problem though, for most Christians do affirm the Bible’s clear teaching that once the Holy Spirit regenerates a heart and dwells within a mortal body, that there is no possible way to ‘fall from grace’ and thus forfeit the faith that at one time was valid. However, I do plan to deal with the ‘P’ specifically in a later post.

Misunderstood
Unfortunately, the doctrine of ‘Limited Atonement’ is largely misunderstood by those outside of Reformed theology. Those unfamiliar with the reformed teaching usually see ‘limited’ and are immediately swept away with emotional cries of ‘Jesus died for the whole world’. A flood of proof texts usually follows right in line, most notably being: John 1:29, John 3:16, 2 Peter 2:1, and 1 John 2:2 –none of which jeopardize the reformed view of the atonement in any way (if properly exegeted and/or defined). But because of this misunderstanding, I have no problem doing away with the term ‘Limited Atonement’ in favor of a more accurate label such as: ‘Definite Atonement’. For ‘definite’, in essence, is the heart of the reformed doctrine.

Understanding Both Positions
Before I jump into John 6, let me first give a brief overview of the two positions:

Those in Opposition to the Reformed Doctrine Say (General Redemptionists):

• Christ died to make the salvation of all men possible.
• What follows is that Christ died for the sins of Judas in the same way He died for the sins of the Apostle Peter. Thus, there is no particularity or specialty in the death of Christ.
  

• Essentially, the affirmation follows that Christ died for every sin except the sin of unbelief.

• Since Christ died for all men without exception in order to possibly save those who believe, if man's autonomous will does not voluntarily surrender to the call of the gospel and is thus joined with the blood of Christ, then Christ's atonement for them is wasted or in vain.

• Therefore, for those who end up in hell, there was a true and authentic redemption made for them just the same as for those who will end up in heaven.

The Reformed Position Says:

• Christ’s death had a specific purpose and a particular people in mind.

• Christ died for all the sins (even the sin of unbelief) of all who will ever believe (the elect).

• Thus, there is no synergism, no addition to Christ’s death necessary in order to bring about conversion/justification. Christ fully and completely takes away all the sin of all who will believe (the elect).

• Those who do not believe, those who are not part of the ‘given’, ‘drawn’, and ‘chosen’ spoken of in John 6, will in fact suffer punishment in hell for their unbelief, and thus cannot cry out “I have been crucified with Christ” while suffering in the eternal flame. That is, they will be punished for all of their sins, not just for the sin of unbelief.

That is a very brief overview that may not include all of the intricacies of each position, but it will give you a basic idea of where the two positions lie.

John 6
Looking once again to the words of our Lord Jesus, after we have affirmed that He taught the inability of man to come on his own (No man can come to Me), along with the unconditional basis on which the Father calls those to Himself (All that the Father gives Me will come to Me), can we affirm that Jesus in fact taught the third point of Calvinism: Definite Atonement? Let’s look at John 6:

35And Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. 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 the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.“And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Three Supports of Definite Atonement from John 6
First of all, John 6 shows us that only the ones who are given will be raised(v37), who are the same as those who believe (v40), which clearly tells us that Christ will not raise all men without exception. So then, since not all will be raised, then Christ did not ‘atone’ for the sins of all men –otherwise all would be raised (unless of course, we misunderstand what the words ‘atone’ and ‘propitiation’ mean). Thus, since there will be people who suffer eternal punishment (not all will be saved), then we can affirm that Christ did not atone for their sins.

Secondly, it is a matter of deduction that if all are dead in sin, and only God can draw us out of that sin through unconditional election, and that a select group (elect) will be given and drawn out of that sin, then Christ need only to atone for the sins of that select group. Although Christ’s blood is sufficient to cleanse every man without exception, it needs only to be shed for those whom the Father has given and drawn (which leads back to the first point: that all men would be raised if Christ shed His blood for the sins of all men).

Thirdly and most importantly, before we can understand the extent of Christ’s death, we must first understand the intent of His death. And John 6 spells out clearly for us what the intent of His death is: to save those given, those who are drawn, and those who believe. Please note how Jesus firmly says: “I should lose nothing”. That is, as the context we have previously examined affirms, those who are ‘given’ in verse 37, and who subsequently will be ‘drawn’ in verse 44, all of those without exception will be raised on the last day. There is nothing potential about this statement! Do you see how definite this is? It is fixed in eternity praise God!

Intent versus Extent
Now that John 6 has affirmed the intent of Christ’s death, that He will save those whom are given and drawn, then we can now take this knowledge to other passages to briefly examine the extent of His death.

“…just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” - Matt 20:28

If Christ gave Himself as a ransom for all men, then that ransom is paid. How will God then punish anyone for their sin? Do men get punished in hell for their sin, or only their unbelief?

“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep…I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd. Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.” - John 10:11 - 18

Who does Jesus lay down His life for? Any sheep that comes along? Or, could this be the same ‘given’ and ‘drawn’ He speaks of in John 6?

“Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You… I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them….I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word;” - John 17

Clearly, Jesus makes a distinction between the world and those who were given out of the world. Here we can see first-hand the intercession of Jesus to the Father. What does Christ base His intercession on? –His death. So then, His death being intercession, we have 3 options at this point:

1. Christ intercedes for all men, thus all men will be saved. (Universalism)
2. Christ intercedes for all men, but all men will not be saved because this intercession must be joined with cooperation of the creature (just like Catholicism). Thus, the Father rejects Christ’s intercession for these men (His death). That is, the Father refuses to fulfill Christ’s intercession.
3. Christ only intercedes for ‘those given out of the world’, thus Christ does not intercede (die) for all men.

Obviously the only consistent position is the third position, for not all men will be saved and there is no dissention in the Godhead over intercession. John 6 is crystal clear, the atonement is definite. Christ does not make salvation possible, He is the “Author and Finisher of our faith.” Christ made it clear on the cross: “It is finished”. There is nothing indefinite about the atonement, the teaching of ‘L’ is immutable, unchangeable, and unassailable. It is indeed...finished.

I close with Spurgeon:

"We are often told (I mean those of us who are commonly nicknamed by the title of Calvinists…that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, "No, certainly not." We ask them the next question—Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer "No." They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say, "No; Christ has died that any man may be saved if"—and then follow certain conditions of salvation. We say, then, we will go back to the old statement—Christ did not die so as beyond a doubt to secure the salvation of anybody, did He? You must say "No;" you are obliged to say so, for you believe that even after a man has been pardoned, he may yet fall from grace, and perish. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as to infallibly secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ's death; we say, "No, my dear sir, it is you that do it." We say Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ's death not only may be saved but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it.

Now, beloved, when you hear any one laughing or jeering at a limited atonement, you may tell him this. General atonement is like a great wide bridge with only half an arch; it does not go across the stream: it only professes to go half way; it does not secure the salvation of anybody. Now, I had rather put my foot upon a bridge as narrow as Hungerford, which went all the way across, than on a bridge that was as wide as the world, if it did not go all the way across the stream."

What will it be for you?
Did Christ actually accomplish anything in His death? Or did He die to make salvation possible, thus completely wiping out the notion that our salvation is fixed upon believing and regeneration? You cannot have both, for to do so would render your position inconsistent and frankly, incoherent. Either you believe all will be saved or you don’t. Either you believe that a true Christian can lose their salvation or you don’t. Either you believe that Christ died for all or you don’t.

Thus, we can affirm from John 6:
1)Without a Definite atonement there is no assurance that anyone will be saved in the end.
2)If this atonement is indeed definite, then without a limit to this atonement then there is no reason to believe that there will be anyone who goes to Hell.

It's as simple as that. The atonement is definite, and because it is definite, it must be limited.

Soli Deo Gloria! (SDG)