{"id":19094,"date":"2016-01-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2016-01-20T06:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sugar-land-bible-church.local\/sermon\/soteriology-003\/"},"modified":"2023-04-04T15:33:17","modified_gmt":"2023-04-04T20:33:17","slug":"soteriology-003","status":"publish","type":"sermon","link":"https:\/\/slbc.org\/es\/sermon\/soteriology-003\/","title":{"rendered":"Soteriology 003"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","book":[68],"series_event":[459],"sermon_service_type":[473],"speaker":[6],"class_list":["post-19094","sermon","type-sermon","status-publish","hentry","book-isaiah","series_event-soteriology","sermon_service_type-sunday-school","speaker-dr-andy-woods","no-post-thumbnail"],"acf":{"sermon_title":"Soteriology 003","sermon_date":"20160120","sermon_month":"01","sermon_year":"2016","sermon_notes":20085,"sermon_slides":20086,"sermon_mp3":20087,"sermon_id":"120162053597","series_or_event":459,"service_type":[473],"speaker":6,"books_of_the_bible":68,"chapter_and_verse":"53:3-6","sermon_transcript":"Andy Woods\r\nSoteriology 003, Isaiah 53\r\nJanuary 20, 2016\r\n\r\nGood evening everybody; do you guys year me okay. You might want to take your Bible and turn to Isaiah 53, taking a look at verses 3-6 in just a minute. Welcome back to lesson 3 on soteriology. We looked at, in our first session, the definition of soteriology, which is the doctrine of salvation, and we also looked at the three tenses of salvation. And then last week we got into the very difficult subject of election versus free will.\r\n\r\nTonight we\u2019re looking at something called the atonement. And there\u2019s a lot of stuff under atonement so I don\u2019t think I\u2019ll be able to get through it all before I\u2019m supposed to stop talking around 8:00, so we may have to continue it on into next week. But what are we dealing here when we\u2019re talking about the doctrine of the atonement? We\u2019re going to look at the definition of the atonement. I\u2019ll share with you some false views of the atonement. I\u2019ll spend a little bit of time on the role of the blood, and then we look at the extent of the atonement; in other words, how extensive is it. And then we look at is the doctrine of the atonement final. And then we also take a look, I\u2019ll try to show you towards the end if time permits that the atonement is not something that just jumps off the page at us in the New Testament. It\u2019s a doctrine that\u2019s very well developed all the way through the Old Testament as early as Genesis 3. I\u2019ll try to show you a little bit about that.\r\n\r\nAnd then you might say well how does this relate to soteriology, the doctrine of salvation. Well, it is the means of salvation; that\u2019s why we cover it here. The atonement is the means of salvation, if there wasn\u2019t an atonement there wouldn\u2019t be salvation for any of us.\r\n\r\nSo let\u2019s go ahead and start off with a definition of atonement and the key word to understand when you talk about atonement is the word substitute. If you don\u2019t have the word substitute in your thinking you kind of miss the whole point. And many, many passages point this out to us but my favorite one, probably, is Isaiah 53:3-6, which is a prophecy of Jesus 700 years in advance. And notice \u201csubstitute\u201d in this. \u201cHe was despised,\u201d verse 3, \u201cand forsaken of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and like one from whom men hide their face, He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. [4] Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried; yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.\u201d Verse 5, \u201cBut He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed.\u201d\r\n\r\nSo you\u2019ll notice from the way I emphasized some of those words in that translation the whole issue here is substitute. He\u2019s wounded for our transgressions. He is bruised for our iniquity. The chastening that we should have experienced fell upon Him. It couldn\u2019t be clearer because Jesus died as our substitute. In other words, if you really want to think about it technically it should have been you, it should have been me hanging there on that cross, bearing the wrath of a holy God. But Jesus stepped into the line of fire and absorbed the wrath of God in our place. So the whole concept is substitution.\r\n\r\nAnd just a couple of illustrations that might help you, if watch movies like I do and there\u2019s movies about Secret Service men, Secret Service agents, and somebody famous is about to get shot, like the President or somebody, and the assassin shoots the bullet and the secret service agent in the movies jumps into the line of fire and takes the bullet for the President, which is what your job is if you\u2019re involved in the Secret Service. So that, sort of, if you can kind of picture that, that\u2019s sort of what Jesus did. The wrath of God was aimed at the human race, and Jesus essentially jumped into the line of fire and absorb that wrath in our place.\r\n\r\nAnother illustration that might help with this is, I think I\u2019ve used the example before of a situation where a bee was loose in a car, and this had to do with a Jr. High School trip that we were on, and the youth pastor was driving us somewhere, and we\u2019re in this car and this bee is loose and buzzing around and everybody is screaming (not me of course), but all the girls were screaming, and this particular youth pastor\u2026 you know, how many times can a bee sting? One time. He reaches out, he grabs the bee, holds it in his hand for a second, then he lets it go and he shows us all the bee sting in his hand, and the bee is harmless now, you don\u2019t have to worry about it, it can only sting once, I took the sting in your place. So there\u2019s the whole concept there of substitution. And that in essence is what the doctrine of the atonement is, it\u2019s really all about substitution.\r\n\r\nNow here are some false views of the atonement and I wrote down, or I jotted down on this slide the dates of these false views. We kind of take doctrines for granted because we\u2019re living in the 21st century and a lot of doctrine has been ironed out for us and passed down. We kind of live under the wrong assumption that these doctrines have always been crystal clear. But what you\u2019ll discover is the church really didn\u2019t get down to hammering this out until probably around 1100 A.D, so half of church history as we know it had transpired before the church really started to articulate and formulate a very clear teaching on atonement.\r\n\r\nAnd this is not just true with the doctrine of the atonement, it\u2019s true with a host of doctrines that we take for granted. And generally the way it works is a heretic would arise and start saying something perverse in the church somewhere and the church would have to react to that. They didn\u2019t have a formula down for reaction so they had to basically codify one. And that\u2019s basically how the Creed of Nicea came into existence. There\u2019s a clause in what\u2019s called the Nicene Creed, probably formulated about A.D. 25 it says: \u201cof Christ, begotten and not made.\u201d Now why did they say \u201cbegotten and not made\u201d? Because there was a heretic at that time named Arius, and Arius essentially taught basically what the Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses today teach. The Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses are just recycling, they don\u2019t know this but they\u2019re just recycling Arianism.\r\n\r\nBut Arias basically taught that Jesus was a created being and he even had a song, I won\u2019t sing it for you, I don\u2019t know how it went, but it was a chant he did where he said of Christ there was a time in which He was not. So the church said well, wait a minute, that doesn\u2019t sound right, we\u2019ve got to go to the Scripture. And so they started to understand, with greater clarity, that Jesus is eternally existent, which is the orthodox, leaf of orthodox Christianity and so they finally formulated it in the form of a creed as a reaction to Arianism.\r\n\r\nAnd so that sort of is what\u2019s going on with these doctrines throughout church history, including this doctrine of the atonement because what people started to do is they started to develop these ideas of why Christ died but they didn\u2019t really go far enough in terms of incorporating the concept of substitution.\r\n\r\nSo here are some false views. No on so-called Christian television you can hear some of these things, particularly the first one. The first one is called the ransom to Satan view. Now you know what a ransom is, like as in someone being kidnapped; someone is kidnapped and placed into bondage and the family is trying to get the victim free pays a ransom to the kidnapper and they\u2019re supposed to release the victim; sadly many times they don\u2019t release the victim once they get the money they kill the victim anyway. But the idea is you pay a ransom to release someone from bondage.\r\n\r\nSo the ransom to Satan view is Christ\u2019s death is a ransom paid to Satan for the claim that Satan had on man. Now that view is heretical because Christ\u2019s death was not paid as a ransom to the devil. Christ\u2019s death, if you want to call it a ransom it was a ransom paid to God the Father, because it satisfied God the Father\u2019s holiness which demands that sin be punished. So the ransom to Satan view misses that point.\r\n\r\nAnd then you have some other views, one of them is called the moral influence view. The moral influence view says Jesus\u2019 death is just an expression of divine love and we ought to look at that and that ought to exert upon us a moral influence of some kind to soften our hearts towards God. Now with all of these false views there\u2019s always a little bit of truth to it. I mean, it is true your heart should melt when you see what Jesus has done for you, but the fact of the matter is these views don\u2019t go far enough, because they don\u2019t really get into the subject of substitute. Jesus did not die simply to exert a positive moral influence on us; He died as our substitute, and if you don\u2019t have the concept of substitute in your understanding of the atonement you miss what the Bible is saying.\r\n\r\nA similar view is the moral example view, and the moral example view, and these are all points trying to answer the question \u201cwhy did Christ die?\u201d I\u2019ve already answered that for us, He died as our substitute, but people come up with these false views. The moral example view is Jesus\u2019 death is just there to inspire us to live a similar life of self-sacrifice. So they would say look at what Jesus did for us, look at how He gave of Himself; you know what, I should be a servant also because He\u2019s my example. Now you look at that and there\u2019s some truth to that because in Philippians 2 Paul, with Euodia and Syntyche fighting in Philippi, I call those two Odious and Syntouche, but you\u2019ve got these two carnal believers fighting with each other, and they\u2019re clearly believers because Philippians 4:3 says their names are written in the Lamb\u2019s book of life. [Philippians 4:2-3, I urge Euodia and I urge Syntyche to live in harmony in the Lord. [3] Indeed, true companion I ask you also to help these women who have shared my struggle in the cause of the gospel, together with Clement also and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.\u201d]\r\n\r\nBut they\u2019re in carnality, so Paul unfolds to them the kenosis of Christ; kenosis is just a Greek word that means the emptying of Christ, and he\u2019s trying to inspire them to be servants and quit fighting. So there is some truth to this idea that Jesus\u2019 death is an example for us to follow in terms of servant-hood, but that doesn\u2019t complete the picture. In fact, if that\u2019s your only understanding of why Christ died you miss the point of the atonement. He didn\u2019t just die as an example for us in terms of service, He died as our substitute.\r\n\r\nAnd then you have what\u2019s called the governmental view, and this view teaches that Jesus\u2019 death was just designed to promote respect for God\u2019s Law by showing us the serious nature of violating God\u2019s Law and also causing people, this is actually works, to work harder to keep God\u2019s Law. So people that teach the governmental view basically say you know, look at what Christ did, doesn\u2019t that show you how much God hates sin? And if God hates sin that much you should avoid sin in your life. Now again, there\u2019s a little ring of truth to it, you look at what Jesus did and the price He had to pay, it shows you how serious sin is and that should give us some incentive to stay away from sin in a certain sense. But again, that view does not capture completely what the Bible says.\r\n\r\nSee, all these views get you to about the 50 yard line but they never take you into the end zone. The end zone is the concept of substitution.\r\n\r\nAnd then the last view, I don\u2019t know how you could hold to this view unless you just reject the inerrancy and inspiration of the Bible, but this is what\u2019s called the accidental view, and basically they say Jesus was a great moral teacher. Now this is kind of personal with me because my mother was raised in a home where she was told this over and over again, Jesus is not God, he was just a good philosopher and a good moral teacher. And of course, the remedy to that is to read the Bible and seeing all of the claims that Jesus made to being deity. So Jesus was obviously a good moral teacher but he was so much more than that; He was the unique God-Man\r\n\r\nBut this view says Jesus was just a great moral teacher and fate accidentally ended his life. So circumstances beyond His control came upon Him and His life was snuffed out prematurely. That view doesn\u2019t fit the Bible at all, does it, because John 10:18 Jesus is very clear concerning His death, when He\u2019s talking about His soon death. He says, \u201cNo one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative, I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again.\u201d So you should never get the idea in your doctrine of Christ that somehow circumstances overwhelmed Christ and snuffed out His life prematurely, in fact, He was in control of everything right down to the end. In fact, remember what He said, I believe it\u2019s in Matthew 26, He says My Father could call down angels right now and shut the whole thing down if it wasn\u2019t the will of the Father for me to go to the cross. [Matthew 26:53, \u201cOr do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels?\u201d]\r\n\r\nAnd by the way, there are many times in the New Testament where Jesus is about to die but He miraculously escapes death because His time was not yet. There\u2019s a reference to that in John 8:59 After He claimed to be the great I am, which is a divine title it says, \u201cTherefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.\u201d See, he was about to die but He miraculously escaped death because His time was not yet. So there is no time in Christ\u2019s life where circumstances overwhelmed Him and pushed Him into an early grave. He died because He had the authority to lay His life down and to take it up again. So that last view would just be a view that doesn\u2019t really comport with wanting to submit to the authority of Scripture.\r\n\r\nBut I throw these at you just to show you that all of these views are interesting and they have a little ring of biblical truth to them (except for the last one), but they don\u2019t go far enough in their definition of the atonement because they do not incorporate the concept of substitution.\r\n\r\nSo the belief that we have concerning the atonement is (let me throw some big words at you) the vicarious penal substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ. What does vicarious mean? It means in the place of another. If someone is living vicariously through you, as we like to say, they\u2019re living in your place. So vicarious means substitute. So we have vicarious. The second word is penal, penal means punishment. The wrath of God that should have been borne by me was borne by Jesus Christ, atonement meaning substitute. So we believe in the vicarious penal substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ. And this is answering the fundamental question, why did Christ die?\r\n\r\nNow as you drive through Houston you\u2019ll notice that we, as Bible believers, are meeting a lot of times in storefronts and you drive down the street and you see these beautiful denominational buildings, stained glass windows, all paid for, beautiful seminaries, beautiful libraries, and you say well, why are we meeting in these store fronts, we\u2019ve got the truth and those denominations don\u2019t? What\u2019s going on here? And the answer to that is there was a theological war that took place, called the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy, and essentially what happened is the denominations, because they started to send their best and brightest off to Europe to get training, guess what happens when you sit under unbelievers for a long period of time? How do you come back? Basically an unbeliever with liberal ideas.\r\n\r\nAnd they started to get into the pulpits, this would be around the 1920\u2019s, and espouse these heretical ideas and there was a backlash and there was a war, literally, for the heart and soul of these denominations. We call these denominations the Seven Sisters, and during that time a famous sermon was preached by Harry Emerson Fosdick, a liberal, and he preached a sermon saying shall the fundamentalists win? And the answer to that is the fundamentalists did not win. In other words, people that think like we do lost control of those denominations and to whom the victor goes the spoils go, right? So we lost libraries, we lost seminaries, we lost buildings, and so to teach doctrine accurately we had to withdraw from those institutions and so we had to start our own independent type churches.\r\n\r\nAnd when you drive through very nice downtown areas and you see these beautiful buildings you have to understand that there\u2019s a history as to why things happened the way that they did; it\u2019s called the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy. And these mainline denominations started to deny what we call the fundamentals of the faith. Now today \u201cfundamentalist\u201d is a bad name; if you want to insult somebody you call them a fundamentalist, that\u2019s like using the \u201cf\u201d word, \u201cfundamentalist\u201d on somebody. And it\u2019s like an insult\u2026 oh, you\u2019re a fundamentalist! But a fundamentalist really is someone that just believes in the fundamentals of Christianity. If you understand it in context it\u2019s not an insult at all.\r\n\r\nEvery discipline has fundamentals, right? So when you get on an airplane I hope your pilot is a fundamentalist, believes in the fundamentals of flying, understands the compass, understands gas gauges and all that kind of stuff. So what happened is these mainline denominations started to deny the fundamentals of the faith, and one of the ones that they started to deny was the penal vicarious substitutionary atoning death of Jesus Christ.\r\n\r\nThey started to teach all these other views that I\u2019ve gone over, and the reaction against the liberals was a series of books that probably the key editor and writer was a guy named R. A. Torrey; Torrey was\u2026they named the Bible conferences at Biola University after R. A. Torrey. And he wrote, or edited, or authored I should say a collection of essays in response to the liberals called The Fundamentals of the Faith. And they basically said we, as fundamentalists, will not cooperate any longer with these mainline denominations when they deny certain things. If you deny the virgin birth we\u2019re not going to fellowship with you anymore; if you deny the deity of Christ, we\u2019re not going to fellowship with you anymore. You deny that Jesus is coming back in a body, we\u2019re not going to fellowship with you any more. If you deny the bodily resurrection of Christ we\u2019re not going to fellowship with you any more.\r\n\r\nAnd one of the things they stood on was this vicarious penal substitutionary atoning death of Jesus Christ. That was one of the fundamentals of the faith that they fought for, and actually left the mainline denominations over. They could not sit in a church any more that would not aggressively teach the substitutionary atoning death of Christ, and instead settled for kind of a watered down version, reaching back to some of these other theories as the liberals were doing. So that\u2019s just a little bit of history of this doctrine; the atoning death of Jesus Christ is a big deal. It is the means by which we are saved. Had that not happened in history salvation would be an impossibility for any of us.\r\n\r\nNow the role of the blood. When you think about atonement you\u2019ve got to think about this: salvation is free to me, it\u2019s free to you. But it was not free to Jesus Christ, the Second Member of the Godhead. His blood had to have been spilled on our behalf, and so sometimes we talk so frequently about grace that we\u2019re so accustomed to grace and we\u2019re so accustomed to receiving something free from God that we have a tendency to forget the expense that was paid. The expense was paid by Christ to make it free to us. And that is the significance of the Lord\u2019s Table.\r\n\r\nThe Lord\u2019s Table, which Jesus commanded His church to celebrate consistently and regularly; at our church, at Sugar Land Bible Church we celebrate it once a month, but it\u2019s significance is you would have, as the elements being distributed, a tangible symbol of Christ\u2019s body and His blood. Now the body and blood at the Lord\u2019s table are memory devices, that\u2019s all they are, they\u2019re designed to assist memory. The bread reminds us of His body which was sacrificed on our behalf. The cup reminds us of His blood which was spilled on our behalf and it is to be a perpetual reminder to God\u2019s church that yes, salvation is free to everybody that will receive it by faith but it was not free to Jesus Christ, the Second Member of the Trinity. His, as Peter calls it in 1 Peter, His very expensive blood was spilt.\r\n\r\nSo the New Testament over and over again points to the blood of Jesus Christ, it says it over and over and over again. Just a few verses, Acts 20:28, you can jot these down and look all those verses up this week and just notice how frequently the blood of Christ is mentioned. Acts 20:28 says, \u201cBe on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among you which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased,\u201d in other words, bought, \u201cwith His own blood.\u201d Paul mentions the blood of Christ over and over again, Romans 5:9 would be an example, Romans 5:9, \u201cMuch more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.\u201d I\u2019ll let you look up those others, Ephesians 1:7, Ephesians 2:13, Colossians 1:20.\r\n\r\n[Ephesians 1:7, \u201cIn Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace.\u201d Ephesians 2:13, \u201cBut now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.\u201d Colossians 1:20, \u201cand through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.\u201d] The general epistles, now the general epistles are the letters that are not part of the 13 letters Paul wrote; Paul wrote 13 letters. We have other letters in our New Testament that we call the general letters and that would be basically Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, 1, 2, and 3 John. I think I covered them all, there\u2019s eight of them, and they\u2019re called the general letters because they are written by many different authors. So Peter wrote the Peter letters; John wrote the John letters. And they\u2019re called the general letters because unlike Paul\u2019s letters they\u2019re not aimed at a specific group. Like when Paul wrote Romans it\u2019s to the church at Rome. When he wrote Philippians it\u2019s to the church at Philippi. The general letters, as you study them are written more to a broader audience. James, for example, writes to the scattered believing Jews, not people in a specific geographical area. So that\u2019s why sometimes they\u2019re called the general letters, universal letters. Sometimes they\u2019re called the catholic letters, everybody gets nervous because they think that\u2019s the Catholic Church but \u201ccatholic\u201d just means universal.\r\n\r\nSo in the New Testament we have Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. We have the book of Acts, and the 13 letters Paul wrote, and then we have these 8 general letters, and then we have the book of Revelation. So Acts mentions the blood of Jesus Christ quite frequently, Paul\u2019s letters mention the blood of Jesus Christ quite frequently and so do the general letters.\r\n\r\nFor example, take a look at Hebrews 9, now we\u2019re into the general letters, Hebrews 9 and this one you\u2019ll recognize because I read it pretty much every Sunday when we do communion. Hebrews 9:22, it says, \u201c\u2026without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness\u201d of sin. See how the blood is mentioned. Backing up in the chapter, Hebrews 9:12, \u201cand not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all,\u201d and so forth. 1 Peter 1:2, you\u2019ll see that we have been sprinkled, metaphorically, \u201cwith His blood.\u201d 1 John 1:7.\r\n\r\n[Hebrews 9:22, \u201cAnd according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.\u201d Hebrews 9:12, \u201cand not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption .\u201d 1 Peter 1:2, \u201caccording to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.\u201d 1 John 1:7, \u201cbut if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.\u201d]\r\n\r\nAnd then, of course, the book of Revelation mentions the blood of Christ quite frequently. Revelation 1, and notice verse 5, it says, \u201cand from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins\u201d don\u2019t stop reading, \u201cby His blood.\u201d Revelation 5:9, the blood of Jesus Christ you\u2019ll see. It\u2019s talking about those that are saved, \u201cthey sang a new song, saying, \u2018Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood \u2026.\u201d] And by the way, how do we overcome? Through His blood. Revelation 12:11, it says, \u201cAnd they overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony,\u201d and so forth.\r\n\r\nIn other words, if the blood of Jesus Christ was never shed and positionally applied to us we would have zero standing before God. So salvation is free to us but very expensive to Jesus Christ, the Second Member of the Godhead. And of course, the Lord\u2019s Supper is a perpetual reminder of that. The Lord\u2019s Supper is not for the unbeliever; the Lord\u2019s Supper is to remind the believer the expense of what we have. So it\u2019s sort of sad that in Christianity today most people just kind of go through the Lord\u2019s Table as a ritual but it\u2019s not a ritual, it\u2019s something designed by God to contribute to worship, because if you understand the expense of what Jesus went through on our behalf, as we\u2019re visibly reminded through the bread and the cup, that should overwhelm our hearts with an attitude of gratitude. Right? That should create worship and praise amongst God\u2019s people. So it\u2019s hard to really talk about the atonement without mentioning the blood of Jesus Christ.\r\n\r\nAnother issue in this whole subject of the atonement is the extent of it. How wide is the atonement. And what you\u2019ll discover within orthodox evangelical Christianity is there\u2019s basically two views on this. The first view, which I think is wrong and I\u2019ll tell you why I think it\u2019s wrong in a second, it\u2019s called limited atonement. Limited atonement is the view that Christ died only for the elect. We went over election versus free will last time, so the five point Calvinist will basically tell you that Christ died only for the elect, He did not die for the entire world. And if you\u2019re familiar with five point Calvinism what it is, is it\u2019s more of a philosophy read into the Bible than a theology taken out of the Bible. And they go by this, an acronym, T-U-L-I-P. T stands for total depravity; the U stands for Unconditional election; the L stands for limited atonement, the I stands for irresistible grace, and the P stands for perseverance of the saints.\r\n\r\nAnd I used to look at those anacronyms and say yeah, I agree with a lot of that, total depravity, uncondonital election, I never agreed with \u201cL\u201d, I\u2019ll show you why in a second, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints, so I used to call myself a four-point Calvinist and I went down to a three-point Calvinist, and so forth. And then I started to figure out what those words actually meant when these terms were coined. And I started to say I don\u2019t believe any of those things the way they define them.\r\n\r\nTotal depravity, what a very strong five point Calvinist means by total depravity is not only are we sinful but we don\u2019t even have an ability to believe. Even when the Spirit of God convicts you, you can\u2019t believe you\u2019re so depraved. And so that\u2019s where their doctrine of regeneration precedes faith comes in; they say God gives you the gift of faith, He regenerates you first so you can believe. Now I don\u2019t believe that because regeneration is the result of faith and they\u2019re making it the cause of faith. There\u2019s no clear verse in the Bible that teaches regeneration precedes faith.\r\n\r\nUnconditional election, I\u2019m a lot more open to, we went over that last time. The \u201cL\u201d let\u2019s put that aside just for a second, Limited atonement, we\u2019ll talk about it. Irresistible grace basically means that God, if you\u2019re elect He draws you to Himself and you really have no choice in it. So they override all of the passages that we went over last time that not only teach election but also free will. You just kind of wake up one day and you\u2019re a believer.\r\n\r\nAnd then perseverance of the saints, I used to think that what they mean by that is eternal security, which as I\u2019ll be showing you later on in the course, I think eternal security, \u201conce saved, always saved\u201d is an accurate doctrine. But that\u2019s really not what they man by perseverance of the saints. What they mean by that is if you are one of the elect, because your salvation was caused by God, then you will always overcome in good works\u2026 always! And so if you\u2019re not overcoming in good works, guess what? Maybe you were never one of the elect. And it opens the door to massive lack of assurance of salvation. And people today struggle under this doctrine because they really wonder if they\u2019re Christians or not because they sinned last week, or this week, or today, and they say wow, if I\u2019m really saved I should be overcoming in good works. I had a good day on Monday but I slipped up on Tuesday, so maybe I\u2019m not one of the elect. And so there\u2019s almost no assurance of salvation in their teaching. But I\u2019ll make more reference to Calvinism as we go through it.\r\n\r\nBut the one that they\u2019re most vulnerable on, biblically, I believe is the \u201cL\u201d because essentially what they believe is Christ only died for the elect, He did not die for the entire world. Now these people are not dumb-dumbs, okay, there are verses, when you look at them at first glance, that make it look like Jesus only died for the elect. So probably one of their more popular verses that they like to use is John 10:15. [John 10:15, \u201ceven as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.\u201d]\r\n\r\nBy the way, this is why I don\u2019t spend a lot of time promoting the teachings of John MacArthur in this church. If anything I try to warn you about some of the teachings of John MacArthur, even though I do think John MacArthur has said some good things, but you have to understand that John MacArthur is coming at the Bible through a five point Calvinist lens. When you listen to John MacArthur what you have to understand is you\u2019re not getting the Bible; you\u2019re getting the Bible through a lens. It\u2019s kind of like news, right? You know when someone is giving you a news from a conservative angle or a liberal angle, they\u2019re giving it to you through a filter. And some of these very aggressive Calvinists, like John MacArthur, others, John Piper, very popular, that I could name, are giving you the Bible through a specific lens. I\u2019m not saying don\u2019t listen to these people ever, I\u2019m just saying please have some discernment when you listen to them and when you listen to me or anybody for that matter.\r\n\r\nSo they do have verses that they go to support this limited atonement doctrine. John 10:15 is sort of a favorite, Jesus says, towards the end of the verse, \u201cI lay down My life for the sheep.\u201d [John 10:15, \u201ceven as the Father knows Me and I know the Father, and I lay down my life for the sheep.\u201d] So they look at that and they say there it is, He didn\u2019t die for everybody, He only died for the elect. They like to use Matthew 20:28 which says Jesus died for the many. Not everybody, but the many is how they think. [Matthew 20:28, \u201cjust as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.\u201d] Not everybody, but the many is how they think.\r\n\r\nThey like to use a verse that we just quoted a little earlier, Acts 20:28 where it says Jesus purchased the church with His blood. He didn\u2019t die for everybody they say, He just died for the elect. He died only for the church. They like to use Ephesians 5:25 which says Jesus laid down His life for the church. [Ephesians 5:25, \u201cHusbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her.\u201d]\r\n\r\nSo that\u2019s what you call limited atonement. Now you say well, does it really matter what you believe about this? A five point Calvinist, like for example Jay Adams, okay, Jay Adams is a five point Calvinist, he\u2019s written some wonderful books on counseling, and his key book is Competent to Counsel. And it\u2019s a wonderful book on why you can counsel based on the authority of the Word of God. But what you also must understand about Jay Adams is he is a five point Calvinist, eschatologically he\u2019s a Preterist also, he believes most of the book of Revelation already happened in A.D. 70. So Jay Adams has actually said this, when he evangelizes an unbeliever he does not say to the unbeliever Jesus died for you. Now why would he say that? Because he\u2019s not really sure if that unbeliever he\u2019s evangelizing is one of the elect. So you can\u2019t go up to an unbeliever and say Jesus died for you if you are an adherent to limited atonement. Do you follow.\r\n\r\nAnd I just bring that up because I\u2019m trying to show you why this stuff matters. It matters in terms of how you share the gospel. So what we believe at Sugar Land Bible Church is not limited atonement, we believe in unlimited atonement: Jesus died for the world. And John\u2019s Gospel is just massive on this subject. In fact, I don\u2019t even have time to read through all of those verses John gives but John, one of his points is the gospel is for the entire world.\r\n\r\nJohn 1:29, notice that, this is what John the Baptist said when He saw Jesus coming, \u201cThe next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, \u2018Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the\u2026\u201d elect? NO, \u201cworld.\u201d You all know John 3:16, \u201cFor God so loved the world, that he gave His only begotten Son\u2026.\u201d Look up sometime John 4:42, John 6:51, John 12:32, John 12:47.\r\n\r\n[John 4:42 \u201cand they were saying to the woman, \u2018It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves and know that this One is indeed the Savior of the world.\u2019\u201d\r\nJohn 6:51, \u201cI am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.\u2019\u201d\r\nJohn 12:32, \u201cAnd I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.\u201d\r\nJohn 12:47, \u201cIf anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. \u201c]\r\n\r\nNow Paul, in his preaching is unlimited atonement, notice Acts 17:30, it says, \u201cTherefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent.\u201d Don\u2019t worry about repent right now, (I mean worry about it in your personal life) but we\u2019ll be explaining what repent means. It\u2019s a synonym for believe because the word means change of mind. But notice who is supposed to repent or change their mind? \u2026\u201call people everywhere,\u201d not just the elect.\r\n\r\nPaul\u2019s epistles are filled with this doctrine of unlimited atonement, 2 Corinthians 5:19, 1 Timothy 2:4, 1 Timothy 2:6. To me, I have underlined what I think are the strongest unlimited atonement passages. Take a look at 1 Timothy 4:10, it says, \u201cFor it is for this we labor and we strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.\u201d See that, yeah, He\u2019s the Savior of believers but He\u2019s also the Savior of all men. That to me is very hard to get away from in terms of a good argument for unlimited atonement. Titus 2:11 says almost the same thing. [2 Corinthians 5:19, \u201cnamely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.\u201d 1 Timothy 2:4, \u201cwho desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.\u201d 1 Timothy 2:6, \u201cwho gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time. Titus 2:11, \u201cFor the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men.\u201d]\r\n\r\nGetting into the general letters you might want to take a look at Hebrews 2:9, towards the end of the verses, of Jesus it says, \u201cso that by the grace of God He might taste death for every man.\u201d That\u2019s a very strong unlimited atonement passage. [Hebrews 2:9, \u201cBut we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely Jesus, because of the suffering of death and crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.\u201d] Probably the strongest unlimited atonement passage in the whole Bible would be 1 John 2:2, that\u2019s why I have it underlined. John says, 1 John 2:2, \u201cand He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.\u201d So he doesn\u2019t just say \u201cworld,\u201d as he says over and over again in his gospel, he adds an adjective in front of the word \u201cworld.\u201d He says there, \u201cthe whole world.\u201d\r\n\r\nI also like to use 2 Peter 2:1 for unlimited atonement because there\u2019s a very strong argument that the false teachers that Peter is rebuking here in chapter 2 are unbelievers. He says things like \u201cdarkness is reserved for them forever.\u201d [2 Peter 2:17, \u201cThese are springs without water and mists driven by a storm, for whom the black darkness has been reserved.\u201d] But then he says of these false teachers, 2 Peter 2:1, \u201cBut false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies,\u201d watch this, \u201ceven denying the Master who bought them,\u201d so if these folks are unbelievers, chapter 2, these false teachers, notice that Christ\u2019s death bought them also. So a very, very strong unlimited atonement passage.\r\n\r\nSo how, then, do limited atonement people explain away all those verses? Their trump card is John 12:19, they LOVE John 12:19. What does John 12:19 says? John 12:19 says, \u201cSo the Pharisees said to one another, \u2018You see that you are not doing any good; look, the world,\u201d same Greek word, cosmos, that\u2019s been in all these other passages, \u201cthe world has gone after Him.\u2019\u201d Now obviously in the triumphal entry, which is what John 12 is about, the whole world wasn\u2019t there, it\u2019s just making a point that Jesus was popular.\r\n\r\nSo they say look, when John uses the word \u201cworld\u201d he doesn\u2019t mean everybody, it\u2019s just an expression to mean a limited group. Now that is an exegetical error that\u2019s very common amongst theologians. Let me give you a fancy word for it, called illegitimate totality transfer. It\u2019s an exegetical fallacy. Illegitimate totality transfer occurs when you examine what a word means in a different context, a totally different context, and then you transport that meaning into another context, whether the context supports that other meaning or not.\r\n\r\nLet me give you an example. Take, for example, the word \u201capple.\u201d How many meanings of the word \u201capple\u201d are there? Well, I could be talking about a piece of fruit; if I\u2019m giving a computer lecture I could be talking about a computer. If we\u2019re talking about a city, the Big Apple, I could be talking about New York. If I\u2019m talking about the pupil of your eye I could say the apple of one\u2019s eye. See, it\u2019s the same word \u201capple\u201d but I just generated four meanings to the word. So when I see the word \u201capple\u201d when I\u2019m reading something how do I know which meaning to supply to that word? What tells me? Context, what are the three rules of real estate, location, location, location. What are the three rules of Bible study interpretation: context, context, context because words mean things in the context that they\u2019re found in.\r\n\r\nNow James Barr, who developed this phrase \u201cillegitimate totality transfer\u201d who wrote a book called The Semantics of Biblical Language, was basically saying that very thing. He was saying you cannot take the same word that\u2019s used in a different context and read the meaning of that word into your present context when the present context doesn\u2019t support the meaning of that word. That is what James Barr called \u201cillegitimate totality transfer,\u201d because words have multiple meanings and words mean different things based on the context that they\u2019re used in.\r\n\r\nThe word \u201crun,\u201d did I go on a run before I came to class? Is my car engine running? If I\u2019m a lady do I have a run in my stockings? I mean, think of all the different meanings of the word \u201crun.\u201d Well, if you see the word \u201crun\u201d how do you know what meaning to supply? The context tells you. So how does this relate to the unlimited versus limited atonement debate? They find the word \u201cworld\u201d in some totally different context where the context shrinks the meaning of the word. They then develop that meaning and read it into every use of the word world in the whole Bible. And you have to watch theologians very carefully because they do this quite frequently; when they want to prove a point they\u2019ll go outside the context, the same word, and read that meaning into their present context and when you see that happening you automatically say that\u2019s illegitimate totality transfer, it\u2019s exegetical hermeneutical error because words mean things based on their context.\r\n\r\nSo nobody disputes that John 12:19 means \u201cworld\u201d in a limited sense in John 12:19. That\u2019s not what it means in John 3:16; that\u2019s not what it means in John 1:29, and so this is sort of how this game is played. I\u2019m just trying to show you how people actually justify this doctrine of limited atonement. [John 3:16, \u201cFor God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.\u201d John 1:29, \u201cThe next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, \u2018Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!\u201d]\r\n\r\nNow in all of these passages we went through supporting limited atonement, Jesus died for the church, He laid down His life for the sheep, did you ever hear the word \u201conly\u201d in any of those verses? Yes, He died for the sheep, but it doesn\u2019t say He only died for the sheep. Now if those verses said \u201conly\u201d or \u201calone\u201d or \u201cby itself\u201d then there might be some kind of argument for limited atonement. But because a term of exclusivity is not used we have to put all kinds of verses together. One verse says He died for the sheep. Another verse says He died for the world. There\u2019s no contradiction there. Yes, He died for the sheep one verse says, but He also died for the world, another verse says. There\u2019s not conflict there unless these limited atonement verses said the word \u201calone\u201d or \u201conly\u201d which they do not say that.\r\n\r\nSo these sorts of verses, Matthew 20:28, John 10:15; Acts 20:28; Ephesians 5:25, these are what we would call non-exclusive verses. They\u2019re just making a statement of what something Christ\u2019s death did accomplish but they\u2019re not saying that\u2019s all Christ\u2019s death accomplished. The Bible makes statements constantly that are non-exclusive.\r\n\r\nFor example, one gospel writer says in the tomb of Christ there was an angel. Another gospel writer says in the tomb of Christ there were two angels. And people say look, there\u2019s a contradiction, one gospel says an angel, another gospel writer says there were two angels. Well there is no contradiction because when the gospel writer says there was an angel in Christ\u2019s tomb he\u2019s not saying there was one and only one angel, one angel period. He doesn\u2019t say that. There\u2019s just two angels and one gospel writer focuses on one of them, what he\u2019s saying, he doesn\u2019t say he was the only one there, and the other gospel writer kind of broadens the picture a little bit and focuses on two angels. But because the statement about the first angel is a non-exclusive statement it doesn\u2019t contradict the other gospel writer that says there were two angels.\r\n\r\nIf the first gospel writer says there was only one angel then there would be a contradiction but the gospel writer never says that. It\u2019s the same type of thought process when you think about this issue of limited versus unlimited atonement. It\u2019s like you\u2019ve got two kids and you say, about one of your kids, I really love this kid over here. Now when a parent says that they\u2019re not saying I love this kid and only this kid at the exclusion of the other kid. Right! They\u2019re just making a statement that I love this kid, they never intended it to mean I don\u2019t love the other one. And we understand that basically is how language functions and you have to sort of apply this thinking to statements in the Bible that at first glance seem contradictory. They are not contradictory. The concept of unlimited atonement does not contradict those earlier passages that we went through indicating that Christ laid down His life for the sheep. I hope I\u2019m making some kind of sense up here.\r\n\r\nSo what is our view on the atonement of Christ? We believe that it is unlimited which basically means the whole world is savable. Every human being on planet earth that\u2019s ever lived, that\u2019s alive today and will be ever live is savable because of what Christ did. Now, as I\u2019ll be showing you under the one condition of salvation later on in the course, they are not actually saved until they believe, but they are savable.\r\n\r\nIf I was to say that everybody on planet earth is saved that would be heresy, because I would be teaching universalism, which as I\u2019ll be showing you is a wrong doctrine. So I\u2019m not saying every person on planet earth is saved. What I\u2019m saying is because of the unlimited atonement of Jesus Christ every human being is savable, because Christ\u2019s blood was spilled for everybody on planet earth.\r\n\r\nSo unlike Jay Adams, who doesn\u2019t tell unbelievers Christ died for you because he doesn\u2019t know if they\u2019re one of the elect or not, I do not do that. When I share the gospel, whether I understand the elect or not the elect, I couldn\u2019t understand it anyway, right? That\u2019s God\u2019s business. But I tell everybody when I share the gospel Jesus died for you! I do it with total confidence because of my understanding of the unlimited atonement of Jesus Christ.\r\n\r\nAnd I don\u2019t think I\u2019m going to have time to develop this but let me just give you something to chew on for next week. Jesus\u2019 death related to the atonement is final. There is nothing else to be added. The whole thing that He accomplished is completely finished. We know that for three reasons: Jesus, in His present session, at the Father\u2019s right hand, is always (I\u2019ll give you one exception in a minute) is always portrayed as seated. Colossians 3:1 He\u2019s seated; Hebrews 1:3 and those other verses He\u2019s seated. Revelation 3:21 He\u2019s seated. The one exception is in Acts 7:55 when Stephen, the first martyr of the church age, as his soul is entering heaven Jesus is portrayed as standing, I think out of honor to Stephen. But other than Acts 7:55 every time you see Jesus in His present session at the Father\u2019s right hand He is always seated.\r\n\r\n[Colossians 3:1, \u201cTherefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.\u201d Hebrews 1:3, \u201cAnd He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.\u201d Revelation 3:21, \u201cHe who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.\u201d Romans 8:34 says \u201cwho is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.\u201d Acts 7:55, \u201cBut being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.\u201d]\r\n\r\nKeep in mind a lot of these references come from the book of Hebrews. Hebrews means it was written to a Jewish audience. The Hebrews understood the tabernacle really well; the author of Hebrews makes a lot of references to the tabernacle. What piece of furniture is not in the tabernacle? There\u2019s no chair. Now why is that? Because under the old covenant the priest\u2019s job was never finished. That\u2019s the imagery, because once you offered one round of sacrifices on the day of atonement, a sacrifice on the day of atonement you had to do the whole thing next year, and the year after that, and the year after that. So under the Old Covenant there were perpetual sacrifices. That\u2019s why God looks at it and says I\u2019m not satisfied with this, because it never dealt with the sin question in totality and finality.\r\n\r\nAnd you\u2019re a Jewish Christian, you\u2019re reading the book of Hebrews and you get to Hebrews 1:3 and it says Jesus is sitting in His role as high priest after the order of Melchizedek. He\u2019s sitting. Now to a Jew that would just jump right off the page. Oh my goodness, that\u2019s different than anything I\u2019ve ever read about in the tabernacle. Now those of us that are Gentiles that come into Christianity and don\u2019t really know our Old Testament that well, that imagery just goes right over our heads, but it is highly significant that He\u2019s seated, meaning His work is finished.\r\n\r\nNumber 2, there is a Greek word \u201conce,\u201d Hebrews 9:12, Hebrews 9:26, Hebrews 10:10 used over and over again, the Greek word is hapax, one time. Christ\u2019s sacrificial death was one time. In Greek hapax means once. We have actually a phrase we use called hapax legomena, legomena means a word in Greek, so hapax legomena is a word used only one time. I\u2019m just trying to show you that hapax means once. And those are great verses to show your Roman Catholic friends because they believe that every time they take the mass Jesus is being re-crucified, if they understand what their church teaches.\r\n\r\n[Hebrews 9:12, \u201cand not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. Hebrews 9:26, \u201cOtherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.\u201d Hebrews 10:10, \u201cBy this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.\u201d]\r\n\r\nAnd the third reason we know Christ\u2019s death is completed is because of the final words He said on the cross, which is what? John 19:30, \u201cIt is finished!\u201d The Greek verb is teleio now when Jesus says \u201cIt is finished\u201d it\u2019s a translation of the perfect tense of that verb which is the Greek verb tetelestai, the perfect tense is a big deal in Greek because it means a one-time action in the past with ongoing results. Tetelestai means it is finished, there isn\u2019t anything else to add to it.\r\n\r\nNow this is the difference between religion and biblical Christianity. Religion, whether it\u2019s Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, any other world religion you want to talk about, says Jesus did about 90% but you need to pick up the slack and you do that by paying, praying and obeying. Now there\u2019s no assurance of salvation if you believe that because how do you know if you\u2019ve really picked up 10%, maybe you only did 8 \u00bd percent. So you go to your grave wondering if you\u2019ve done enough. In contrast, what we believe is Jesus did it ALL, it\u2019s 100% finished. How do I know it\u2019s 100% finished? Because He\u2019s seated, the word hapax, one time, is used, and His final words on the cross were tetelestai, meaning paid in full, teleio in the perfect tense. So we do not believe that Jesus did 90%; we don\u2019t believe Jesus bought lunch and we need to leave the tip. We believe He did everything.\r\n\r\nNow if that\u2019s true, that shapes how you share the gospel because the way you share the gospel with people is you share it with them in a way that communicates to them that it\u2019s all paid for. Most gospel tracts, it\u2019s very sad, they say this: You\u2019re saved by grace, not by works. And you keep reading the tract and they give you three or four works to do, you need to pray, you need to raise your hand, you need to walk an aisle, you need to confess. Why are we doing that to people when Jesus did it all? What we share with people is you have to receive what he has done for you because He did it all, it\u2019s all been paid for, as a free gift, and the only way to receive a free gift is by faith. Romans 4:4-5, \u201cBut to the one who does not work, but\u201d what? \u201cbelieves,\u201d that\u2019s what you focus on. Belief, because everything has been paid for. [Romans 4:4,\u201cNow to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.\u201d [5] But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.\u201d ]\r\n\r\nSo I realize we went through a lot today. Definition of atonement, false views of atonement, role of the blood, extent of the atonement and finality of the atonement and we\u2019ll pick this up next time.","series_sermon_number":""},"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t