What do the Scriptures teach about the extent of the atonement?

[H]

I would like to put forth 5 questions and then begin to answer them:

1. What did the Old Testament teach about the extent of the atonement?
2. What did the Lord Jesus Christ teach about the extent of the atonement in the Gospels ?
3. What did the Apostles teach about the extent of the atonement in the Book of Acts ?
4. What did the Apostle Paul teach about the extent of the atonement in his epistles ?
5. What did the writers of the rest of the New Testament teach about the extent of the atonement?

1. What did the Old Testament teach about the extent of the atonement?

There is not a whole lot of material about the extent of the atonement in the OT. As a matter of fact, the only passage that comes to mind is Isaiah 53. But before discussing that passage, I would like to say a few words about the concept of atonement in the OT.
 
According to the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L. Jr., and Waltke, B. K., eds.), the Hebrew word that is translated "to make atonement" in the KJV means "to atone by offering a substitute." "The verb is always used in connection with the removal of sin or defilement, except for Gen. 32:20; Prov. 16:14; and Isa. 28:18 where the related meaning of "appease by a gift" may be observed."  In the OT, when atonement was made for someone, their sin was forgiven and/or their defilement was cleansed.  For example, in Lev. 4:20 it says "and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them" and in Lev. 4:26 it says "and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him."  Further examples can be found in Lev. 4:31, 35; 5:10, 13, 16, 18; 6:7. I am not aware of a single instance in the OT where atonement was made for someone whose sin was not forgiven or whose defilement was not cleansed.  There is, however, an interesting passage where God Himself says that the iniquity of certain individuals would never be atoned for, 1 Samuel 3:14.  ("And therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be purged with sacrifice nor offering for ever.").  The Hebrew word that is translated "shall ... be purged" in this passage is the same verb that is translated "shall make an atonement" in Leviticus.  Why would God say that the iniquity of the house of Eli would not be atoned for for ever if He was (supposedly) planning on sending the Lord Jesus Christ to atone for that iniquity (according to the doctrine of "unlimited atonement")?  In conclusion, an "atonement" that does not result in the forgiveness of the sins and/or the cleansing of the defilement of the person(s) on whose behalf the atonement is made is a concept that is not found in the OT (to the best of my knowledge).

Now let's take a look at Isaiah 53. Isaiah 53:5-6 says:  "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."  These verses clearly teach that the Messiah would be "wounded for our transgressions, ... bruised for our iniquities" and that the LORD would lay on Him "the iniquity of us all." Who does the "our" and "us all" refer to? It seems clear from the context that they refer to God's people, believers (note especially the phrases "our peace" and "we are healed", which indicates that they have received peace from God and have been healed by Him, which would not apply to unbelievers). This interpretation is confirmed by the last part of verse 8, which clearly states: "for the transgression of my people was he stricken." It is further confirmed by the last part of verse 11, which states that the Messiah would "justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities."  (in other words, He will bear the iniquities of the many that He will justify, the elect).  Thus Isaiah 53 clearly teaches that the Messiah would be "wounded ... bruised ... stricken" for the "transgressions" and "iniquities" of God's people (believers, the elect).  

I cannot recall any passage in the OT which clearly teaches that the Messiah would be "wounded ... bruised ... stricken" for the "transgressions" and "iniquities" of the entire human race. If Tom or anyone else knows of such a passage, please point it out to me.  I would appreciate it if those who respond to this post would kindly confine themselves to discussing the OT passages on the atonement.  Please refrain from mentioning or discussing Calvin or Calvinism on this thread (I would suggest the "Calvin and Calvinism" thread for that). Thanks! And may the Lord bless alll of you!

H   

[jesusfreak]

I cannot recall any passage in the OT which clearly teaches that the Messiah would be "wounded ... bruised ... stricken" for the "transgressions" and "iniquities" of the entire human race. If Tom or anyone else knows of such a passage, please point it out to me.  I would appreciate it if those who respond to this post would kindly confine themselves to discussing the OT passages on the atonement.  

Quick question - Do you intend this to mean the set of all Man following (in terms of the time period of their existence) Jesus? Or "the entire Human race" meaning every Man to ever exist?

--
lucas

[H]

Quick question - Do you intend this to mean the set of all Man following (in terms of the time period of their existence) Jesus? Or "the entire Human race" meaning every Man to ever exist?

--
lucas

A: "the entire Human race" = every Man to ever exist.

[jesusfreak]

Ok, my reason for that question will become evident later, but here is my quick input on this first question:

1. What did the Old Testament teach about the extent of the atonement?

Well, God had an electing grace for His people, and this "calling" required a response of faith/trust demonstrated through obedience.  Adherence to this kept the Israelites within God's covenantal blessing and showed the expectation of God that His people live in accordance to His holy character.
 
Now, in terms of atonement: the Old Testament clearly recognizes that offerings in themselves do not atone for sin, it is only through the grace of God.

--
lucas

Now with spellCheck!  

[H]

2. What did the Lord Jesus Christ teach about the extent of the atonement in the Gospels ?

Before looking at what the Lord Jesus Christ taught about the extent of the atonement in the Gospels, I would like to make a few preliminary remarks. First of all, Matthew 1:21 says: "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." Notice that it doesn't say that He will save the entire human race from their sins, but "HIS PEOPLE". This agrees with what we saw in Isaiah 53 in the previous section. I think it is helpful to keep in mind that the OT was the only Scripture that the Lord Jesus Christ and His disciples had during His time on earth. So if someone had asked Him "What do the Scriptures teach about the extent of the Atonement?", it seems to me that the only Scriptural answer He could have given would have been something like "Isaiah clearly teaches that the Messiah will suffer for the sins of God's people." If someone had further asked "Do the Scriptures teach that the Messiah will suffer for the sins of the entire human race?", the only Scriptural answer He could have given would have been "No."

In Matthew 7:23, Jesus said: "And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Notice that He did NOT say that He loved them and died for their sins, but since they did not accept Him as their Savior, they unfortunately had to go to hell. If Jesus loved these people and died for their sins, why will He say that He NEVER knew them? Sounds to me like He didn't love them and didn't die for their sins.

Another very interesting passage is Matthew 12:31-32: "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come."  Mark 3:29 and Luke 12:10 contain similar statements. If Jesus was supposedly going to die for ALL the sins of the entire human race, why did He very emphatically say that "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven"? Sounds to me like He was not planning on dying for that sin (or for those who commit it).

In John 10:11, the Lord Jesus Christ clearly and explicitly revealed the extent of His atonement.  He said: "I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep." He did it again in v. 15: "As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep." He was obviously not talking about literal sheep, but was referring to God's people, the elect, true believers. Note that He did NOT say that He would lay down (give) His life for "the sheep and the goats" or for "the entire human race."  He explicitly and clearly said that He would lay down (give) His life for "the sheep."  Period. In John 10:26, the Lord made it quite clear that not all are His sheep:  "But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you."  Notice that He did not say "you are not my sheep because you do not believe in me" but rather "ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep."  In Matthew 20:28 & 26:28 and Mark 10:45 & 14:24 He revealed that His sheep would be "many".  In these 4 verses, He talked of giving His life as a ransom and shedding His blood for the forgiveness of sins, and He NEVER used words like "all", "everyone" or "the entire human race", but always the word "many".  In Luke 22:19-20, He said that His body would be given and His blood would be shed for "you" (the disciples). In John 15:13, He said "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." In summary, the Lord Jesus Christ clearly taught that He would give His life for His many sheep (disciples, friends). He NEVER taught that He would give His life for the entire human race.  

[d3z]

I have a question, related to this point, and that is, why is the doctrine of limited atonement so important to reformists?  It is the one point where I've seen the most heated discussions.

Almost all Christians will agree that not all will be saved.  This is clear from the numerous contrasts in scripture, such as sheep and goats, heaven and hell, the redeemed and the lost, and so on.

The practical outworking of this, is that when the gospel is preached, not all will respond.  Why, then, do we spend so much effort debating and discussing the mechanics of the efficacy of Christ's blood for the lost.

I have a problem with refomed teaching (as well as so-called Armenian teaching) in that it makes absolute declarations about things that not only does the scripture not present in quite such clarity, it doesn't even present this issues as those of utmost importance.

Predestination/free-will: I think, more important than the philosophical discussion is what choices am I to make.  Whether it is illusion, or reality, I must still chose what I will do.  Scriptures speak much of wisdom.

Scope of atonement: regardless, we are called to share.  Whosoever will.  These two issues are very related to one another.

As far as the verses quoted by H.  These are good verses, but they do not make the points you claim they do.  One of these has been brought up before: a statement about part does not exclude the whole.  Another is that you cannot argue from what is not stated, or the negative of what is inferred is not implied.  The third is that the issue of what individuals are covered by the atonment and what sins are covered are independent.  In fact, this verse seems to indicate that these individuals will have their other sins forgiven, just not the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.

There is a teaching (I do not know the name of it), based on Matt 12:31-32 that teaches that Christ died for all sins, except for this specific blasphemy, which is equated to rejecting Christ as savior.  I don't think this is supported by other scriptures, or really even the context in Matt 12, but the doctrine is certainly compatible with single statement about this blasphemy.

As for limited atonment is that, although there are several verses that seem to me to clearly state the opposite, I have yet to see a verse that even suggests this doctrine.

[Kimberley Tobin]

Do any of us really believe that if it were left entirely up to us in our fallen condition, that we would choose life?!

This is the reason for the passion. I agree that trying to explain this to anyone who does not intuitively grasp it is generally a fruitless excercise.

Verne

Verne, I love you, I especially love your use of the english languange.  But PLEEEEEEEEEEEASE .  "trying to explain this to anyone who does not INTUITIVELY GRASP (emphasis mine) it is generally a fruitless exercise" ??

What I INTUITIVELY GRASP from the debate that is going back and forth, brings me back to my assembly days.  I know for those of you who are engaging in this debate it is interesting/thought provoking etc.  But FOR ME, it is what was done in the assembly and I am just not interested.

I really don't care whether there is a "limited atonement" or what not.  What I care about is treating others the way I want to be treated and learning how to LOVE, like my savior.  

The fruitless exercise is not because I don't "intuitively grasp" the argument (almost calling into question my intelligence), it is fruitless because I DON'T CARE!

[Oscar]

I have a question, related to this point, and that is, why is the doctrine of limited atonement so important to reformists?

It has to do with God's honor David. To argue that God intended to save the entire human race by the sacrifice of His Son, and that some, by their own choice in space and time are able to thwart His eternal counsel is to greatly dishonor God.

Do any of us really believe that if it were left entirely up to us in our fallen condition, that we would choose life?!

This is the reason for the passion. I agree that trying to explain this to anyone who does not intuitively grasp it is generally a fruitless excercise.
While it is clear that the gospel is to be offered to all, it is also clear that the only ones who respond will be the ones the Father draws. Scirpture is replete with this exact theme, your comment to the contrary notwithstanding. Just my two cents.
Verne

Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:  Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.
Matthew 13:47-48  
Verne

Verne,

Regarding arguments based on the concept of "God's honor".

What is actually being done in this argument is that the person making it decides what seems "dishonorable" to himself, and then argues on the basis of God feeling exactly the same way.

The argument that God "would not permit" carniverous activity before the fall is another argument of this type.

Actually, the argument is based on the feelings of the person making it.  Not on revealed truth about God.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

[delila]

Yah Kimberly!

And another thing, the assembly taught that we choose our own poison, that we are beggars and useless and would love to eat with pigs in our natural state.  Personally, I disagree.  ABSOLUTELY.
I survived.   I know many survivors who survived worse.   Why?  because we, as autonomous human beings and inborn intelligence (created that way, I guess) have also a will to live. A WILL to LIVE!  Get it?  That means, we want to survive, regardless of how we're treated, we adapt for survival like many of God's creatures.  

And how are we lovin' one another?  I too would like to see more talk about that.  A lot of what's on this cite is like reading other people's mail, head knowledge as George would say.  Untwist what he said and some of it makes a whole lot of sense.  So my question: How you lovin'?  

Delila

[moonflower2]

Yah Kimberly!

And another thing, the assembly taught that we choose our own poison, that we are beggars and useless and would love to eat with pigs in our natural state.  Personally, I disagree.  ABSOLUTELY.
I survived.   I know many survivors who survived worse.   Why?  because we, as autonomous human beings and inborn intelligence (created that way, I guess) have also a will to live. A WILL to LIVE!  Get it?  That means, we want to survive, regardless of how we're treated, we adapt for survival like many of God's creatures.  

And how are we lovin' one another?  I too would like to see more talk about that.  A lot of what's on this cite is like reading other people's mail, head knowledge as George would say.  Untwist what he said and some of it makes a whole lot of sense.  So my question: How you lovin'?  

Delila

Delila,
I'm not meaning in the least to support George's way of looking at things, but could he have meant that we as natural men would pick what in God's eyes is rubbish? The Bible even says that any good we do is as filthy rags. There are unsaved people who have lived lives as kind, loving and generous people, but won't be in heaven because they rejected the One who died for them.

I'm a survivor, too, but I wouldn't be if I hadn't believed that there was Someone who thought that I was worth something. I had a will to live, too, but I'd be eating with the pigs of society today, even the wealthy ones. But there are a lot of people who have lost their will to live, because they've been so beaten down.

It seems to me that the men on these boards love the Lord and His people. The points that they are arguing just bring out more scripture and help anyone else to think about what God's character is like and what He intends for man. Some of these points can be important in how someone views the life God wants us to live and how we look at other people. It's not necessarily just "head knowledge" for these men. I don't believe that it was just "head knowledge" for John Calvin, either, and he is the one whose ideas are being discussed here.  There are people who will argue things (how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?) and there is no reality of Christ in their life, but I don't think that includes the men on this board. Their lives aren't written on this board, just SOME of their thoughts.
 

[H]

What I INTUITIVELY GRASP from the debate that is going back and forth, brings me back to my assembly days.  I know for those of you who are engaging in this debate it is interesting/thought provoking etc.  But FOR ME, it is what was done in the assembly and I am just not interested.

I really don't care whether there is a "limited atonement" or what not.  What I care about is treating others the way I want to be treated and learning how to LOVE, like my savior.  

Dear Kimberley,

sorry to hear that this discussion reminds you of what was done in the assembly, that was certainly not my intention when I started this thread! I must confess I am somewhat puzzled by that, since the things that I have been posting are quite different from what George and his servants taught.  I am also somewhat disappointed that you don't care about this subject which I care so much about, but I didn't care either 20 years ago, so I understand, and I think just as highly of you as if you did care. Each of us is a unique individual with our own personal interests, and it just so happens that my main interest is currently the extent of the atonement, so that is what I want to write about. Maybe one of the reasons why I have a desire to write about this topic on the BB is that reading books by Calvinists played a major role in opening my eyes to the fact that GG wasn't the "super-enlightened" spiritual giant that he thought he was. Becoming convinced that the doctrine of "limited atonement" (or "particular redemption") is true was one of the main things that the Lord used to deliver me from GG's influence. And I originally started writing on this topic on the BB about a year ago in the hope that the Lord might use what I write to deliver others. Once I finally finish "getting it off my chest" I will probably start writing about something else. In the meantime, I hope you will humor me, or at least bear with me. I do completely agree with you (1000%!) that learning to LOVE is the most important thing by far!

Love in Christ,
H

[Kimberley Tobin]

H:

One of the problems with the BB is the "dryness" of the interaction.  One of the things I enjoyed when I came out of the assembly was a bible study at the church we found that allowed for this same kind of dialogue - more a question and answer session and not a dogmatic, my way is the right way, stupid, kind of attitude (not intimating that that is the attitude on this bb.)  

I think I shy away from debate/argument now because I'm in the baby stages of just trying to enjoy the renewed love of my savior.  Debating about the intricacies of this doctrine or that doctrine just doesn't interest me (and is what I think turns many non-believers away from the simplicity of the gospel.)  The simplicity of the gospel message is just that....simple.

It was the prideful attitude we held in the assembly, "we STUDIED the scriptures......" and look how far off we got.  I understand the nobel berean stuff.......I just need to keep it simple right now.

[delila]

Moonflower:

That's just it: I don't think we are pigs or that the people of the world are pigs.  I've stepped down considerably and humbled myself since leaving the assembly.  Jesus didn't dine with pigs did he?  Did he call them pigs or treat them like pigs?  Than how can I presume that 'they' are pigs?
Delila

[H]

3. What did the Apostles teach about the extent of the atonement in the Book of Acts ?

The short answer to this question is "Not much." It is an interesting fact that the Apostles never said "God loves you" or "Jesus died for your sins" or "Jesus died for the sins of the entire human race" in any of the sermons recorded in the Book of Acts. The Apostles preached Jesus as the Messiah (Christ) and Lord, crucified and resurrected, but they never explicitly said anything about whom He died for. They did explicitly say things like: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2:38) "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out ..." (Acts 3:19) "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." (Acts 16:31) They emphasized "repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." (Acts 20:21) The only verse in Acts that touches on the extent of the atonement is Acts 20:28, where Paul says to the elders of the church of Ephesus: "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." In this verse, Paul clearly taught that the Lord Jesus Christ purchased the Church of God with His blood. Nowhere in Acts does it say that He purchased the entire human race with His blood or died for the entire human race.

[Oscar]

2. What did the Lord Jesus Christ teach about the extent of the atonement in the Gospels ?

Before looking at what the Lord Jesus Christ taught about the extent of the atonement in the Gospels, I would like to make a few preliminary remarks. First of all, Matthew 1:21 says: "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." Notice that it doesn't say that He will save the entire human race from their sins, but "HIS PEOPLE". This agrees with what we saw in Isaiah 53 in the previous section. I think it is helpful to keep in mind that the OT was the only Scripture that the Lord Jesus Christ and His disciples had during His time on earth. So if someone had asked Him "What do the Scriptures teach about the extent of the Atonement?", it seems to me that the only Scriptural answer He could have given would have been something like "Isaiah clearly teaches that the Messiah will suffer for the sins of God's people." If someone had further asked "Do the Scriptures teach that the Messiah will suffer for the sins of the entire human race?", the only Scriptural answer He could have given would have been "No."

In Matthew 7:23, Jesus said: "And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Notice that He did NOT say that He loved them and died for their sins, but since they did not accept Him as their Savior, they unfortunately had to go to hell. If Jesus loved these people and died for their sins, why will He say that He NEVER knew them? Sounds to me like He didn't love them and didn't die for their sins.

Another very interesting passage is Matthew 12:31-32: "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come."  Mark 3:29 and Luke 12:10 contain similar statements. If Jesus was supposedly going to die for ALL the sins of the entire human race, why did He very emphatically say that "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven"? Sounds to me like He was not planning on dying for that sin (or for those who commit it).

In John 10:11, the Lord Jesus Christ clearly and explicitly revealed the extent of His atonement.  He said: "I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep." He did it again in v. 15: "As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep." He was obviously not talking about literal sheep, but was referring to God's people, the elect, true believers. Note that He did NOT say that He would lay down (give) His life for "the sheep and the goats" or for "the entire human race."  He explicitly and clearly said that He would lay down (give) His life for "the sheep."  Period. In John 10:26, the Lord made it quite clear that not all are His sheep:  "But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you."  Notice that He did not say "you are not my sheep because you do not believe in me" but rather "ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep."  In Matthew 20:28 & 26:28 and Mark 10:45 & 14:24 He revealed that His sheep would be "many".  In these 4 verses, He talked of giving His life as a ransom and shedding His blood for the forgiveness of sins, and He NEVER used words like "all", "everyone" or "the entire human race", but always the word "many".  In Luke 22:19-20, He said that His body would be given and His blood would be shed for "you" (the disciples). In John 15:13, He said "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." In summary, the Lord Jesus Christ clearly taught that He would give His life for His many sheep (disciples, friends). He NEVER taught that He would give His life for the entire human race.  

H,

In these examples, as well as in the post you made today, you frequently make a logical error.  I will illustrate by quoting one of your illustrations.

You said, "Acts 20:28, where Paul says to the elders of the church of Ephesus: "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." In this verse, Paul clearly taught that the Lord Jesus Christ purchased the Church of God with His blood. Nowhere in Acts does it say that He purchased the entire human race with His blood or died for the entire human race.
 
You are definitely correct in saying that the verse says that the Lord Jesus Christ purchased Church of God with His blood.

H, did you ever purchas a car with your own money?  If so, does it logically follow that you purchased nothing else with your own money?

Essentially, that is the argument you are making.  You are actually slipping in a hidden premise.

Premise 1. Jesus purchased the church with his blood.
Premise 2. Jesus purchased only the church with his blood.
Conclusion: Jesus blood was shed only for the Church

Since premise 2 is only your conlcusion restated in other words, you are committing the fallacy of petitio principii, or "begging the question'.

This type of argument could be used to conclude that Christ died only for the apostle Paul.  In Gal 2:20 Paul said, "...the Son of God, who loved me and delivered himself up for me."

Did Christ only love Paul?  Did Christ only die for Paul.  Nowhere in this verse does it say that Christ died for anyone else, or loved anyone else for that matter.

That conclusion is false, of course, since the logic is fallacious.

Just like yours.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux