Dekker:

This leads us to a consideration of the relationship between universal divine love and the atonement of Christ. If God’s love in giving Christ is universal, is the atonement universal? Or is it limited? Before answering this question we must carefully understand the terms which it uses and the alternative which is poses.

Just what is the Reformed doctrine of limited atonement? As far as the average reader of this journal is concerned, the definition of Louis Berkhof may be considered representative. We quote from his Systematic Theology: "The question with which we are concerned at this point is not (a) whether the satisfaction rendered by Christ was in itself sufficient for the salvation of all men . . . (b) whether the saving benefits are actually applied to all men . . . (c) whether the bona fide offer of salvation is made to all that hear the gospel . . . nor (d) whether an of the fruits of the death of Christ accrue to the benefit of the non-elect. . . . On the other hand, the question does relate to the design of the atonement. Did the Father in sending Christ, and did Christ in coming into the world to make atonement for sin, do with the design or for the purpose of saving only the elect or all men? That is the question, and that only is the question. . . . If it had been His intention to save all men, this purpose could not have been frustrated by the unbelief of man" (pp. 393-395).

In order to evaluate Berkhof’s position, let us first consider the Biblical evidence which he cites. We quote his own statement: "Scripture repeatedly qualifies those for whom Christ laid down His life in such a way as to point to a very definite limitation. Those for whom He suffered and died are variously called ‘His sheep,’ John 10:11, 15, ‘His Church,’ Acts 20:28, Eph. 5:25-27, ‘His people,’ Matt. 1:21, and ‘the elect,’ Rom. 8:32-35" (p. 395). These passages do not adequately support Berkhof’s argument. In none of them is the predication regarding those for whom Christ died stated exhaustively or exclusively. They do affirm that Christ died for His shed, His Church, His people or the elect, but about the possibility that He may also have died for others these passages say nothing. Moreover, if the predications made are to be taken as limitations, consistent interpretation of similar passages results in absurdity. Then, for instance, Isaiah 58:8 teaches that Christ died only for Israel and Galatians 2:20 that He died only for Paul. It would appear that the passages used by Berkhof as proof of his position really beg the question. They are relevant to his argument only when they are first interpreted in the light of the doctrine which they are used to prove.

Scriptural evidence used by Berkhof is further brought into question by the fact that Scripture speaks also of the death of Christ as being "for every man" (Heb. 2:9), "for the whole world" (1 John 2:2), for "many" (Matt. 20:28) and "for all" (1 Tim. 2:6). To say the least, the proof texts used by Berkhof must be interpreted in connection with the foregoing. It may also be suggested that the Bible speak of the design or purpose of the atonement in differing senses, which we elucidate further below.

Harold Dekker, “God So Loved–All men!” Reformed Journal 12 (December 1962), 6.

No credit to Tony for the find.

Dekker:

In addition to Biblical data we should note what the Canons of Dort have to say. The question for Berkhof is the design of the atonement as such. To this detached question the Canons do not speak. They speak of the design of the atonement as far as its "saving efficacy" is concerned. The relevant statement (from II-8) is as follows: "For this was the sovereign counsel and most gracious will and purpose of God the Father that the quickening and saving efficacy of the most precious death of His Son should extend to the elect, for bestowing upon them alone the gift of justifying faith, thereby to bring them infallibly to salvation; that is, it was the will of God that Christ by the blood of the cross . . . should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation and language . . . all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation and given Him by the Father; that He should confer upon them faith, which, together with all the other saving gifts of the Holy Spirit, He purchased for them by His death.

"Limited atonement" as taught by the Canons is not precisely the same, it seems, as that taught by Berkhof. Dort did not deal with the design of the atonement in general, as Berkhof does. It dealt rather with the design of the atonement in specific connection with the efficacious application of saving grace. Contrary to the Arminians who taught that the atonement was intended to apply enabling grace to all men, Dort insisted that the atonement in no sense was intended to effectuate saving grace for all men. The key phrases in the above excerpt from the Canons are "saving efficacy," "justifying faith" and "effectually redeem." But Berkhof deals with the design of the atonement in a broader sense and it seems clear that the Canons of Dort do not demand adherence to the doctrine of limited atonement in exactly the way he sets forth.

Limited atonement as construed by Berkhof is apparently more a logical inference from the doctrine of election than a Biblically demonstrable doctrine. If any doctrine of limited atonement is allowed to stand as mere logical inference, without compelling Biblical evidence, it must be recognized that by equally logical inference from the doctrine of election one may hold that God loves not all men but only some, and that God’s sincere offer of the gospel is not for all but for a limited number. We must accept the paradoxes of Scripture wherever we find them, not merely where they suit our dogmatical predilections. 

Harold Dekker, “God So Loved–All men!” Reformed Journal 12 (December 1962), 6-7.

Credit to Tony for the find.

[notes below]

Lyford:

Now because the Scriptures speaking of redemption, purchased by Christ’s death, do sometimes express it in most large terms, as 1 Tim. 2:6, “Christ Jesus gave himself a ransom for all;” and so Heb. 2:9, that, “He by the grace of God should taste death for every man”: Here is “all” and “every many”; and that place 1 John 2:2, “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world.” Sometimes again, the Scripture speaks of redemption in a more limited manner, as that Christ laid down his life “for is friends,” John 15:13, for his his sheep, John 10:15, for his Church, Eph. 5:25, “Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it,” &c.

Distinction

Now that you have may have your senses exercised to discern good and evil, truth and error in this point, you must distinguish between the sufficiency and efficiency of Christ’s death; we do say, that Christ died sufficiently for all, but not effectually for all, for that would be an absurd manner of speech. But thus we say, that the death of Christ is that one only, and perfect sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for sins, in which God is well pleased with man, and by which God intended to save all that come unto him, and it is in itself of infinite value and price, abundantly sufficient to take away the sins of the whole world. And if any perish, It is not through the weakness and insufficiency of that sacrifice, but through their own unbelief, by man’s own default it proves ineffectual unto the salvation of man. This common sovereign medicine of souls made of Christ’s blood, must be embraced and applied, else it avails not. It is effectual only to them that believe.

How redemption
is universal

According to the first branch of this distinction, we teach that redemption by Christ’s death, is universal in three respects.

First, for the price and merit of it: In Christ’s sacrifice there is merit enough for all the sins that ever were, or shall be committed, yea, if there were ten thousand worlds to be redeemed, they needed no other price, no other satisfaction to please God, God is fully contented with this one of his Son. For it being the death of the eternal Son of God, it is of infinite value above all the souls, and above all the sins of the sons of men, it is an universal remedy.

Secondly, it is general and universal for the promise and offer of it, upon the all-sufficient, and merit of Christ’s death is grounded a universal promise of salvation, according to which all that believe I him do actually receive remission of sins, and life everlasting [Rom. 3:25.]. The promise of life in Christ’s death is universal to all men. The gospel is to be preached to every creature, so that there is no man living that may not lay hold on that offer, no man is forbidden to come in, and take of the water of life freely, that has a mind to it. Rev. 22:17, “Whosoever will, let him come and drink of the water of life freely.” You cannot wish a larger promise, nor an easier condition, “whosoever will let him come.” There is none excluded, but such as will not come in, nor acknowledge him, nor deny themselves, and their own righteousness, their carnal reason and sweet contentments for his sake. Why then do men cavil at the doctrine of redemption, as if it were not large enough? It is too straight and narrow to take in Episcopius, or Corvinus, or any of the Arminian subscribers? No. Do they know any man in the world, to whom the offer of salvation may not be freely and truly made? No, not one (the finally impenitent, and wilful condemners of Christ only excepted). Whose cause then do they so hotly plead? Let every one that is athirst, come, let everyone that is grieved with sin, come. Let everyone that longs for salvation, come, and she shall find rest to his soul. He shall find Christ to be his God and his mighty redeemer. He shall feel the virtue and efficacy of Christ’s death.

Thirdly, redemption is general or universal, in respect of the means, sincerely calling all men unto fellowship with Christ, and of God’s grace in him (namely) the Word and sacraments [Acts 17:30, 1 Tim. 2:4.]. The manner of administration of this grace in the death of Christ is universal and complete, so that if there were a thousand worlds more to be saved, they needed no other gospel, no other sacraments, no other means to convert them, no new law to make them partakers of remission of sins by the death of Christ. And these are seen and known of all men, easy to be understood, preached, and published, not in a corner, but on the housetop, to all nations, “there sound is gone forth into all lands.” Our commission is, “Go into all the world, preach the gospel to every creature,” Mar. 16:16. “It is the power of God to salvation, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile,” Rom. 1:16. And it is also real and sincere, for in the gospel there is nothing false or dissembled: Whatsoever is offered or promised to men, the same shall be made good to them b God the author of the gospel. We offer salvation to all that will receive it, and it is sealed unto them that by the sacraments, and it shall be made good unto them that receive it in truth. We do not promise mercy and life to any that continue in their sins, that stand off from Christ, but to as many as receive him, they shall the sons of God. And our word is true, it shall be made good unto you. The Lord says not in vain to any man, “Come unto me and I will ease you,” yea, so full and sufficient is this calling and preaching of life by the gospel, that they which hear it, and obey it not, are Autokatakritos, self-condemned, they must condemn themselves for their own obstinacy and contempt. If they be not converted by he means, they will be forced to confess, “Thou Lord would have healed and gathered us, but we would not.”

William Lyford, The Plain Mans Senses Exercised (London: Printed for Richard Royton at the Angel in Ivie-lane, 1655), 259-262. [Some spelling modernized; some reformatting; marginal headers and references cited inline; and underlining mine.]

Credit to Tony for the find.

Read the rest of this entry »

Dekker:

A word should be said about Jesus’ prayer in John 17. Some correspondents⁵ have cited verse 9, where Jesus says, “I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me; for they are thine,” to prove that Christ loved only the elect and not the world. But does it? Whom did Jesus designate by the words "those whom thou hast given me"? The elect? This is forced exegesis. The entire context, beginning with verse 4, makes it clear that those to whom Jesus referred in verse 9 are those who had come to believe in Him at that time, the actual persons whom the Father had given to Jesus in His earthly ministry up to that point, the ones of whom He said in verse 9. that they had received and believed His words. This interpretation is also supported by verse 20, where Jesus says, “Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believe on me through their word.” Evidently right within the same prayer Jesus prayed not only for the limited number who were in view in verse 8, but also for the many who later would come through their word to share their faith.

What, then, did Jesus mean when He said, "I pray not for the world?" In the light of the foregoing, the explanation seems obvious. Surely Jesus did not mean that He did not love the world and under no circumstances would pray for it. We must observe that it was a certain prayer, with specific petitions, which He offered for those whom the Father had given Him, and which He declared He did not offer for the world. What were these specific petitions which He prayed? Chiefly that those who had come to believe in Him would be faithful, joyful, kept from the evil one, sanctified in the truth, and unified with those who would later come to believe through them. Would there have been any point in Jesus praying these things for the unconverted world? Certainly not. That He did not do so proves nothing about His disposition to the world, not even at that moment. He was simply praying in terms of the unique relationship which existed between Himself and His disciples, a relationship which the world did not share. Neither, therefore, could the world share in Jesus’ prayer for the development and fruition of this particular relationship. However, in verses 21 and 23, part of the same prayer, Jesus did indeed pray for the world, He prayed the very thing which was alone appropriate to the world. He prayed that the world might believe–the same world about which John 3:16 teaches us that God loved it with a redemptive love, nothing less than the world of all men. To use the high-priestly prayer of Christ in John 17 as an argument for limitation in divine redemptive love is, it seems to me, clearly to misuse it.

Harold Dekker, “God’s Love to Sinners–One or Two?,” Reformed Journal 13 (March 1963), 14-15. [Footnote value and content original, and underlining mine.]

Credit to Tony for the find.

______________________

⁵See Mr. Jack Arens’s letter in the January Reformed Journal and Rev. P. DeJong’s in this issue.