Some Practical Implications of the Doctrine of Particular Redemption, Part 2: Our View of Christ and the Triune God

Posted by jsmithebc on November 23, 2009
10 Comments

As we consider the practical implications of particular redemption, let’s consider first how it effects, or should affect, our concept of Christ and of the Triune God. First, it produces in the heart a proper conception of the divine majesty and power of Christ. The popular gospel of modern evangelicalism has conditioned the minds of men to think of the cross as a redemption which does less than redeem and of Christ as a Savior who does less than save, without necessarily intending to do so. In fact, the gospel of a general atonement depicts Christ as a pathetic, baffled, would-be Savior who is frustrated, in what He hoped to do in His death, by human unbelief. Salvation is no longer viewed as a work of free grace, because faith is no longer viewed as a gift from God flowing to us from Calvary. Instead, faith is the human help that Christ needs in order to save sinners. Rather than save anyone by His death, Christ in effect, only offered Himself up for election, and the cross becomes nothing more than an expression of impotent desire. J. I. Packer commenting on this very point in His introduction to John Owen’s work, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ writes,

When we come to preach the gospel, our false misconceptions make us say just the opposite of what we intend.  We want (rightly) to proclaim Christ as Savior; yet we end up saying that Christ, having made salvation possible, has left us to become our own saviors.  It comes about in this way.  We want to magnify the saving grace of God and the saving power of Christ.  So we declare that God’s redeeming love extends to every man, and that Christ has died to save every man, and we proclaim that the glory of divine mercy is to be measured by these facts.  And then, in order to avoid universalism, we have to depreciate all that we were previously extolling, and to explain that, after all, nothing that God and Christ has done can save us unless we add something to it; the decisive factor which actually saves us is our own believing.  What we say comes to this – that Christ saves us with our help; and what that means, when one thinks it out, is this – that we save ourselves with Christ’s help.  This is a hollow anti-climax.¹

So, you see, the preaching of a general atonement cheapens the cross, and it conveys the idea of a weak Savior whose death does not, after all, make certain the salvation of anyone. But the gospel of particular redemption gives a proper conception of the Divine majesty and power of Christ, and it declares that Christ’s death was not a failure. It was not a defeat. It is not the expression of a helpless wish. Christ’s death was victorious. It was an act of divine power by which God secured the salvation of His people. Christ accomplished on the cross exactly what he came to do and now He sits enthroned in glory. And by the power of the Holy Spirit, and through the preaching of the gospel, He effectually calls in His elect to the enjoyment of the salvation that He has already procured. The old gospel tells us that Jesus paid it all, and all to Him I owe. The cross saved, and the cross saves², it does not simply make it possible for men to save themselves. Its saving power does not depend on faith being added to it. Its saving power is such that faith flows from it. Only because of a particular definite atonement can any man sing with confidence the last verse of that old hymn, “There is a Fountain Filled with Blood.”³ The last verse goes like this, “Dear dying Lamb, Thy precious blood shall never lose its power/Till all the ransomed Church of God be saved to sin no more.”

Second, the doctrine of particular redemption magnifies the love of the triune God for His people. What, according to the Bible, is the highest manifestation of God’s love to sinners? Well the Bible is very clear, and I think all would agree, that the greatest act and manifestation of God’s love was the sending of His Son to die upon the cross. “In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” (1 Jn. 4:10). First John 3:16: “By this we know love, because He laid down his life for us”. Rom. 5:8, “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that, while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

So the Bible is very clear that the highest manifestation of God’s love to sinners is the death of Christ. But which understanding of that death, particular atonement or general atonement, truly magnifies the greatness of that love to the heart of the child of God? At first glance some might say the concept of a general atonement does, because it teaches that God’s greatest act of love was done on behalf of each and every man. But, in fact, if you take the time to reflect upon it, such a concept depreciates the love of God. How is that?  Well, it does so in at least two ways.

First of all it depreciates the love of God because it teaches, in effect, that God loves each and every man enough to have Christ die for them but He loves none enough to make salvation certain for them.  In other words, the theory of a general atonement tells me that God’s highest expression of love in the giving up of His Son goes no further than making salvation possible for all men, but not certain for anyone. That’s as far as God’s love goes and no further, because the death of Christ is the highest expression of God’s love. Furthermore, if Christ died in the same way for each and every man who has ever lived and that death is the highest expression of God’s love that also tells me that, while loving each and every man enough to send Christ to die for them, God does not love many of those men enough to send the gospel to them to acquaint them with what Christ has done. Instead many for whom Christ died never hear the gospel. Now I know that someone may come back, and say, “But that’s the church’s fault not God’s fault.” But that’s not 100% accurate. I’m not denying the church’s responsibility to take the gospel to all nations, but the fact is there were parts of the world that were not even known to Christians until hundreds of years after Christ died. So the advocate of general atonement is telling me that God’s highest expression of love was the giving of His Son but that with respect to those who lived in America, for instance, before it was discovered by Christians, God loved all of those people enough to send Christ to die for them, but not enough to send them the gospel to tell them about it. So do you see what I’m saying? The doctrine of a general atonement depreciates the highest expression of God’s love in the giving of His Son by teaching, in effect, that that love goes no further than making salvation possible for all men, but not certain for anyone. In fact, it doesn’t even make it possible for all men, because many for whom Christ died never had the gospel sent to them. So according to the theory of a general atonement God’s greatest act of love wasn’t all that great. It didn’t really do all that much for those who are the objects of that love.

Second, and most importantly, the theory of a general atonement depreciates the love of God by teaching, in effect, that God’s love for His people is no different and no greater than his love for the damned in hell. Think about it! The Bible is clear that God’s highest expression of love was the giving up of His Son to the cross. Most, if not all, who hold to a general atonement, would agree that that’s what the Bible teaches. Well, if that’s so, and it is, and if God gave up His Son equally, and in the same way for each and every man, then that means that God’s love for His people, for believers, is no different and no greater than His love for unbelievers or even for the damned in hell.  In fact, it means, therefore, that throughout the endless ages of eternity God will have no greater love for the saints in heaven than He has for the multitudes in hell. For they all were the objects of God’s highest expression of love.

Now if that’s so, what comfort is it to me as a Christian to say as the Apostle Paul did, with a sense of wonder and amazement, in Gal. 2:20, “The Son of God loved me and gave Himself for me”. What comfort is that to me as a Christian?  Why should that be any great cause of wonder and amazement, if Christ loved Judas and gave Himself up for him in just the same way? So which understanding of the atonement truly magnifies the love of God for His people?  A gospel of general atonement, which says that God’s love for His people is no different and no greater than His love for each and every man, even the damned in hell, or the gospel of particular atonement which says, that while God has a common love for all men, in that He does good to them and causes the rain to fall and the sun to shine on the just and upon the unjust, and in that he sincerely offers Christ to them in the gospel,  yet God’s highest expression of love, His peculiar redeeming love in the giving up of His Son, is a love that has exclusive reference to His people. Or which is the same, to those who believe! Which concept truly magnifies the love of God to His people and which concept cheapens and depreciates it?

The answer should be obvious. General atonement depreciates and cheapens God’s love while it’s the gospel of particular atonement that reveals to me as a Christian the depth of God’s love for me. There is no more stunning message of the love of God to us, than the message of particular redemption. To know that Jesus died literally for me; that His atonement was not just a vague general “something” that was done for everyone in general but for none in particular but that I was on His heart from eternity; and I was on His heart when He suffered and bled and died upon Calvary’s cross. That, my dear friends, is a shattering revelation that brings the soul down low before the cross in wonder and awe and inflames our hearts with love to Him like nothing else can; that love for Him which is the mainspring of every other grace and of sacrificial service to His name. Christ Jesus was not potentially a substitute for all, but for none in reality. He was literally a real substitute for me.  He really and literally stood in my place and bore the guilt of my sins and endured the wrath that I deserve. As a husband is to love His wife with a peculiar and special love that He has for none other, so also, the Bible says, “Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her”. Christ is not like the sweet-talking ladies man who tells all the girls the same thing. No, the redeeming love of Christ is reserved for His bride, the church, and for every individual member of it.

You see, it is the doctrine of particular redemption that magnifies the love of Christ, and indeed the love of the Triune God for His people.  And why is this important? It is love for God and for Christ that is the mainspring of every other spiritual grace. It is the mainspring of the entire Christian life, and it’s only to the degree that I as a Christian understand the love that Christ has toward me, that I will be constrained; to the degree I ought, by love to him to serve Him and to live to His glory. In our next installment (Part 3), we’ll consider how this doctrine should encourage us in the work of evangelism and missions.

Jeffery Smith,
Pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church, Coconut Creek, Florida,
Professor for Reformed Baptist Seminary, Easley, SC

1. James I. Packer, A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1990), 137. [↩]
2. Ibid., 138. [↩]
3. Ibid., 138. [↩]

Operation Infinite Justice

Posted by deangonzales on August 29, 2008
2 Comments

If you’re like most Americans, you’ve probably been following America’s fight against terrorism very closely.  You’ve probably been hoping that very soon Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network will be brought to justice.  And it was probably that desire for justice that prompted the Bush administration initially to suggest as a description for America’s war against terrorism the phrase Operation Infinite Justice.  Especially catchy was the term, “infinite.”  That term suggested a strong confidence that justice would fully and finally be carried out.  It suggested that not one “evil-doer” (as President Bush referred to the terrorist) would escape.

Now you and I know that there is really only one infinite justice that will be meted out. Only God Himself will fully and finally exact justice against sin and evil. And it was wise of President Bush to change the description to Operation Enduring Freedom (a much more modest proposal!). When we think of infinite justice we don’t think of the war in Afghanistan or Iraq, we think of the “Day of Judgment” and “the Lake of Fire.” But I’d like to remind us that we don’t have to look off into the future in order to see a display of infinite justice. Actually, God’s “Operation Infinite Justice” was displayed 2000 years ago.

Why Did God Become Man?

In the eleventh century, a Christian theologian named Anselm wrote a theological treatise entitled Cur Deus Homo? (“Why Did God Become a Man?”). In the centuries preceding Anselm, the Church had already settled the question of Christ’s identity. Her conclusion was that the Lord Jesus Christ was both fully God and fully man. Anselm wholeheartedly embraced this doctrine. But he wanted to probe deeper. He wanted to know why the pre-incarnate Son of God became a man. And as he sought to answer that question, he concluded that there was an intimate connection between Christ’s incarnation and His redemptive work upon the cross. In other words, Anselm concluded that the Son of God took upon Himself true humanity in order that he might give his life as a sacrifice for sins. As Jesus Himself had said, “The Son of Man [came] to give His life a ransom for many” (Mk. 10:45). Thus, God became man in order to die on the cross. But that’s not where Anselm stopped.  He probed deeper into the relationship between Christ’s incarnation and the atonement. He asked “Was it necessary for the Son of God to die on the cross? And if it was necessary, why?”

Those are weighty questions! Have you ever asked yourself those questions? To pose the question from another angle: was there another way that God could have saved sinners? Could there have been a totally different plan of salvation without a cross? What Christianity would be like without the cross? What if all the symbols of the cross were removed from all the churches, and Bibles, and Christian art? What if we removed from our Bibles all the words that related to the cross, like sacrifice and atonement and Lamb of God and crucifixion? Would there even be Christianity without the cross?

The Necessity of the Cross

After carefully studying the Scriptures, Anselm concluded the answer was, ‘No!’ There could be no Christianity without the cross. Once God decided to save sinners, He had to save them by sacrificing His Son on the cross. Therefore, Jesus became a man and died upon the cross because that was the only way that sinners could be saved. Hebrews chapter two was one of the passages that led Anselm to that conclusion. In verse 10, we read, “For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings.” The key word is the one translated “fitting.” It means “appropriate” or “proper.” It was appropriate for God to make Christ as the author of our salvation perfect (complete) through suffering (the suffering of the cross). The word here doesn’t always have to mean necessity. But sometimes it does. For example, when Jesus commanded John the Baptist to baptize Him in the Jordan, He explained, “Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Jesus isn’t commanding John to baptize Him simply because it’s a nice or convenient or helpful thing to do. Rather Christ’s baptism is perfectly appropriate because the fulfillment of all righteousness depends upon it. So when the writer to the Hebrews tells us that it was appropriate for Christ to become the author of our salvation through suffering, he’s telling us the one and only appropriate way that God could save sinners.

If there’s any doubt in our mind, verse 17 clears it up: “Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.” The little phrase “He had to” translates a Greek word that often refers to a legal necessity. John chapter nineteen confirms this meaning of legal necessity. At the trial of Jesus of Nazareth, Pilate cannot find anything in Christ worthy of death. So he brings Christ before the Jews to ask what they wanted to do with Him. They all shout, “Crucify Him, crucify Him!” Then Pilate responds, “But I find no fault in Him” (19:6).  In other words, there is nothing in my Roman law book that would necessitate this man’s death. Now notice how the Jews answer: “We have a law, and according to our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God” (19:7). The Jews believed that Jesus had violated their law—and to violate their law made his death a legal necessity! In the same manner, it was a legal necessity, once God decided to save sinners, that he send His Son in the likeness of human flesh to be a merciful and faithful high priest and to offer His own life as a propitiation for sin. Propitiation is an offering that pacifies an angry God and that satisfies His justice. That’s what Jesus had to do if sinners were ever to be saved.

With these passages of Scripture in view, we can see how the cross of Jesus Christ underscores and highlights the infinite justice of God.  We tend to think of the cross mainly in terms of God’s love and His mercy and His grace.  But according to the Bible, the cross is a display of God’s Infinite Justice.

A Warning to the Sinner & Encouragement to the Saint

Some seem to think God’s love will move Him to overlook all human sin and ensure that everybody gets to heaven. But if God judged His beloved Son, why would He let the sinner slip into heaven without judging his sins? From heaven the Father looked down upon Calvary and His eyes fixed upon His only begotten Son—the same Son who always did those things that pleased His Father—the same Son who wholeheartedly loved His Father—the same Son whose heart was pure and innocent. Yet, as the Father looked upon His Son, He saw the transgressions of many! And when the Father’s pure eyes looked upon that evil, even the love He had for His Son could not stop the reflex of His justice. Down came His wrath, crashing upon the head of His dear Son!  Divine Justice must be satisfied. You say, “I don’t believe in justice.” No? Let someone steal your paycheck. Let someone burn your house down. Let someone brutally murder your spouse, or one of your children. As a being created in God’s image, you know in your heart of hearts that sin must be punished (Rom. 1:32). You know that the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23). Therefore, your only hope is to satisfy the justice of God, not with your own blood, but rather with the precious blood of Jesus Christ. Apart from the cross of Jesus Christ there is no salvation!

The display of God’s infinite justice on the cross ought to be a great encouragement to the child of God.  “How’s that?” you say. When Jesus died, He completely satisfied God’s justice. God is perfectly just. He doesn’t fudge. He does not shift according to whim. God’s justice is inflexible. And once sin has been judged—once the penalty has been paid—once satisfaction has been made, then “there is therefore now no more condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1). When Jesus was dying upon the cross, He cried out, “It is finished!” Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin (Heb. 10:18). Dear believer, it is finished!  Hallelujah!