DID CHRIST DIE FOR THE CHEROKEE?
A Defense of the Doctrine of Limited Atonement
In the early part of the 1st century A.D. the Han Dynasty ruled over most of the territory of modern day China. The Maya peoples were thriving in the Yucatan Peninsula, and the Cherokee Indians were settling in the Appalachian mountains of what is now the United States of America. One could think of many examples of peoples all over the globe who lived about the time that Jesus was dying on the cross. This begs the question: Could these peoples say with the same certainty as the apostle Paul that Jesus “loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:20, ESV)? Did Christ give up his life for every member of the human race? Did he die for all men in the same way, or was there a special efficacious union between his death and his individual followers from which others are excluded? Did Christ die a substitutionary death for the Cherokee Indians of North America who were alive at the time of the crucifixion and resurrection, but who died centuries before the good news could reach them? If the nature of Christ’s atonement is substitution, then what was its extent? The real question of the atonement is: “on whose behalf did Christ offer himself as a sacrifice?”[1]
The atonement is the crowning jewel of Christian theology and one must be a careful student of the Bible to discover the answers to the questions concerning the accomplishment of Christ’s death. As J.M. Pendleton states it: “The death of Christ is the most important event that has ever taken place in the universe. His cross is invested with a moral grandeur to be seen nowhere else in the boundless empire of space.”[2] There are several factors that give credence to the reformed doctrine of limited or particular atonement. These include the witness of the Bible, the witness of history, the idea of covenant and the doctrine of divine election, and the doctrine of Christ’s high priestly work.
The Witness of the Bible
The author of Hebrews states that “when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come,then through the greater and more perfect tent . . . he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:11-12 ESV, emphasis added). For whom did Christ secure this eternal redemption? Again he states: “Therefore he [Christ] is a mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant” (Heb. 9:15 ESV, emphasis added). So, here in the book of Hebrews it is said that Christ actually secured eternal redemption and that it was for those who are called by God. The cross was for those in Israel who were called, having committed trespasses “under the first covenant,” and for the called of all the ages. In this passage is found both the nature and the extent of the atonement of Christ.[3] Jesus died for God’s elect.[4]
According to the scriptures, the nature of the atonement is one of redemption, reconciliation, propitiation, and substitution (Eph. 1:7; Rom. 5:11; 1 Jn. 4:10; 1 Pet. 3:18). An understanding of its extent is bound up in questions such as whom did Christ reconcile to God?, for whom did Christ propitiate the wrath of God?, and whom did he redeem?[5] Some claim that these terms mean that God so altered the world in Christ that all men are now “rendered savable,”[6] while others maintain that these terms are definite in nature with respect to a certain number of the human race, namely the elect.
With regard to the nature of redemption, it seems unreasonable to suggest that there is a redemption that does not actually redeem.[7] According to John Murray, redemption means that something was actually redeemed at the cross; it is not the case that Christ merely made redemption available, but that he actually redeemed.[8] Murray maintains:
“It is to beggar the concept of redemption as an effective securement of release by price…to construe it as anything less than the effectual accomplishment which secures the salvation of those who are its objects. Christ did not come to put men in a redeemable position but to redeem to himself a people.”[9]
Others, such as August Pfeiffer, hold the position, based on the same scriptural evidence, that “Jesus redeemed and made satisfaction for all men.”[10]
With regard to propitiation, Roger Nicole states, “God is actually appeased and he does not deal any further in terms of his righteous anger with those who are under the benefit of propitiation.”[11] Pfeiffer’s position seems to indicate that God’s anger toward sin is satisfied and turned away from all men equally. Pfeiffer makes no attempt to deny the efficacy of redemption or propitiation, but at the same time holds that it was not limited in scope. He is forced to say, then, that God has provided a perfect redemption and propitiation in Christ, but that he makes it contingent upon the response of people, so as to avoid the error of universalism.[12] However, as A. W. Pink argues, “To say that salvation turns upon the sinner’s own acceptance of Christ would be like offering a sum of money to a blind man upon the condition that he would see.”[13]
Murray argues that atonement something that has already happened upon the death of Christ as an offering for sin.[14] Murray says:
“In the atonement something was accomplished once for all, without any participation or contribution on our part. A work was perfected which antedates any and every recognition or response on the part of those who are its beneficiaries.”[15]
The same argument can be applied to the idea of substitution. Penal substitution is consistent only with a doctrine of definite atonement, because of its nature. It has been well said, “A substitute which does not substitute is not a substitution.”[16] Substitution implies that Christ has literally taken the place of the sinners, dying the death that was due them, and rendering them right with God. It is inconceivable to think that those who are rendered right with God based on the substitutionary death of Christ should still suffer the penalty of their sins.
And what of reconciliation? The apostle Paul states, “In Christ God was reconcilingthe world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them” (2 Cor. 5:19 ESV). How is it that people are reconciled to God? It is through the substitutionary, propitiatory, redemptive death of Christ. It is true that in this same passage Paul implores his readers to “be reconciled to God,” but this is to be regarded in the same sense that the apostle elsewhere speaks of salvation in general. Reconciliation is something that God has done in Christ on behalf of the elect, but it still remains that it be played out in each of their lives in conversion. While it may be argued that the sinner has something to do with reconciliation before it actually occurs, this may not be said of redemption and propitiation. Redemption and propitiation are means by which sinners are reconciled to God.
It cannot be the case that reconciliation by propitiation and redemption has occurred on behalf of those who do not believe in Christ and who die in their sins. If God has truly not counted their trespasses against them, then he would be exacting double payment for their offense, one when Christ died as their substitute and another when they are punished in hell forever. Nowhere does the Bible teach that God should require a double payment for sins. God neither forgives sin apart from satisfaction, nor does he punish sin where satisfaction has been paid.[17] To say that those for whom Christ died still have to pay for sin by dying in hell is as errant as saying that the elect who are given to Christ do not enjoy the benefits of the atonement. One is as illogical as the other. God does not demand double payment for sin.[18]
In Romans 5, Paul compares Adam to Christ. Adam represents the human race: “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men,” and Christ re-represents the human race: “so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men” (Rom. 5:18, ESV). At first glance this passage might be said to give credence to the doctrine of universal salvation. Those who wish to have Christ dying for all men equally but who do not wish to fall into universalism interpret this verse as meaning that Christ has made salvation possible for “all men,” upon the condition that they should take advantage of what was done for them.[19] However, there is a better explanation. Verse 19 makes the meaning more obvious: “For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5:19, ESV). Adam represented one group of “many”, the whole human race, and Christ represented another group of “many,” the elect. It cannot be that Christ represented every member of the human race because he brought justification and life and righteous to all whom he represented, just as Adam brought judgment to all whom he represented. It is clear that Paul speaks of “actual justification,”[20] and if he means every member of the human race, then Paul teaches universalism. The context demands a limited or particular atonement.
John Murray points out the efficacious nature of the death of Christ on behalf of sinners by referring to passages that claim that those for whom Christ died also died in Christ, and that all those who died with Christ also were raised with him (Rom. 6:3-11; 2 Cor. 5:14,15; Eph. 2:4-7; Col. 3:3).[21] In 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, the apostle declares, “one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised,” (ESV). Here is seen the purpose and the effect of the atonement. Christ died so that people would live for him, and the effect of his death is the death of those who will in fact live for him. If the “all” mentioned by Paul here refers to each and every member of the human race, then it follows that each and every member of the human race has died in Christ and will forsake themselves and devote their lives to him.
To those in the reformed tradition, the Bible is clear that Jesus’ death had a special and particular reference to his people. Hebrews 13:12 declares that “Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood” (ESV, emphasis added). Here the relationship between the Old Testament sacrifice on the Yom Kippur and the atonement made by Christ is seen. The Day of Atonement sacrifice was for the people (Heb. 9:7), that is, the people of Israel with whom God had made a covenant. It was not for the people of the nations surrounding Israel. It had a definite reference to a specific group of people. So also, Christ offered himself as a sacrifice for God’s covenant people, i.e. the elect of all the ages.
Louis Berkhof notes that Caiaphas the high priest, speaking by the Holy Spirit, prophesies correctly that Jesus would die for the nation of Israel, and “not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad” (John 11:51-52, ESV).[22] The words of the high priest are consistent with the rest of the biblical witness concerning the extent of the work of Christ. Matthew 1:21 states that Jesus “will save his people from their sins" (ESV, emphasis added). Titus 2:14 says Christ “gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works” (ESV, emphasis added). Ephesians 2:16 says that Christ died in order that he “might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross. . .” (ESV emphasis added). Jesus said, “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” (Jn. 10:11, ESV, emphasis added). Jesus spoke about himself and his work in limited terms. To the Pharisees he said, “You do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand” (Jn. 10:26-30, ESV, emphasis added). Many other passages could be cited that speak of the atonement in limited or definite terms (John 17:1-11, 20, 24-26; John 10:14-18; John 15:18; Matthew 20:28; Matthew 26:28; Isaiah 53; Acts 20:28; Ephesians 5:25-27; Romans 8:32-34; Revelation 5:9).
It is argued that passages that state that Jesus died for his people need not be interpreted in a way that makes his death exclusive to his people. If Jesus did in fact die for the whole human race, then it would not be wrong to say that he died for the church as a part of the whole.[23] So those who maintain that the atonement was for each member of the human race without exception interpret these verses in just such a manner. It may be pointed out, however, that those who hold to a particular atonement may do the same with passages that suggest a universal atonement, with good, biblical exegesis. According to J. M. Pendleton, Christ died primarily for mankind as a whole, and only secondarily for the church as a part of the whole. That Christ died for the church is less important than that he died for the whole. That he died for individual sinners personally is simply “a joyous appropriation of the blessings of salvation.”[24] Pendleton’s position is untenable in that it depersonalizes the cross.[25]
The Witness of History
Perhaps the most classical expression of the doctrine of limited or definite atonement is found in the writings of John Owen. In his classic The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, Owen argues:
“God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men. If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved…If the second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world. If the first, why, then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, ‘Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.’ But this unbelief, is it a sin or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins. Let them choose which part they will…To affirm Christ to die for all men is the readiest way to prove that he died for no man.”[26]
It must be admitted that Owen’s reasoning is difficult to argue to the contrary. Christ either died to forgive all the sins of all for whom he died, or he did not. As Loraine Boettner aptly puts it, for the Calvinist, the atonement is a “narrow bridge” that extends all the way across a river, but for those who reject the reformed doctrine, the atonement is but a “wide bridge” that extends only half way across.[27] If the salvation of men is only half accomplished, then all are in trouble.
John Calvin, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, speaks of the special relationship connecting Christ’s death to his followers. Although Calvin never explicitly spells out a doctrine of limited atonement, he never speaks in a way that would lead the reader to suspect him of holding to a universal or general atonement. For example, Calvin says, “Christ enriches his people with everything necessary to the eternal salvation of their souls.”[28] And again, he holds that God is “the deliverer of the church by the hand of Christ.”[29] Calvin explicitly states, “God was enemy to every man, till by the death of Christ they were restored to his favor.”[30] Here Calvin speaks of the enemies of God, namely “men.” He clearly does not mean to say that all men have been restored to God. Calvin speaks of the church as being loved by God from before creation, and that this love is the basis for his sending Christ to restore them.[31] Calvin, in light of his doctrine of double predestination[32], does in fact teach a limited or particular atonement.
Another scholarly work is that of Charles Hodge:
“If it were just that all men should perish on account of their sin it was just to leave a portion of the race thus to perish, while the salvation of the other portion is a matter of unmerited favor…Christ did not die equally for all mankind, but that He gave Himself for his people and for their redemption.”[33]
Hodge maintains that particular redemption is the orthodox position on the atonement by labeling his own view the Augustinian doctrine. Says Hodge,
“Augustine, the follower and expounder of St. Paul, taught that God out of his mere good pleasure had elected some to everlasting life, and held that Christ came into the world to suffer and die for their salvation. He purchased them with his own precious blood.”[34]
From Augustine to Calvin, from Spurgeon to Edwards, history is replete with godly men who, in their own Spirit-led studies of the word of God, held the doctrine of particular redemption as the orthodox position on the atonement.
Objections to the Reformed Doctrine
The Reformed doctrine of definite atonement is rejected on many fronts, not the least of which is the small number of scripture passages that seem to speak of the atonement in universal terms. For example, Hebrews 2:9 states, “But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone” (ESV, emphasis added). It is said that this teaches a universal atonement, that Jesus “tasted death” for each and every member of the human race.[35]
From careful exegesis it may be seen that it is not necessary to find a universal atonement in this passage. First, the context demands only that the “everyone” of verse 9 refer to the “many sons” and the “children” in verses 10 and 13 (Heb. 2:10, 13, ESV). John Murray affirms:
“It is this that supplies us with the scope and reference of the ‘everyone’ for whom Christ tasted death. Christ did taste death for every son to be brought to glory and for all the children whom God had given him. But there is not the slightest warrant in this text to extend the reference of the vicarious death of Christ beyond those who are most expressly referred to in the context. This text shows how plausible off-hand quotation may be and yet how baseless in such an appeal in support of a doctrine of universal atonement.”[36]
According to Murray, Hebrews 2:9 must be interpreted in light of its immediate context.
Secondly, there is in this verse evidence of a larger context that is less specific to atonement, and more specific to the idea expressed in Psalm 8. God’s purpose for man, namely that of dominion over all things, was fulfilled in Christ who “tasted death” in order to accomplish the vision of the Psalmist.[37] Where Calvin saw substitution meant by use of the preposition uJper,[38] William Lane takes the phrase uJper panto" to mean “on behalf of everyone”.[39] The meaning of the prepositional phrase here could be either one, and the context of Psalm 8 does not rule out substitution, but it does take the emphasis off of atonement and makes it a more general statement about Christ fulfilling for the human race what God had intended for them since creation. Either Murray’s or Lane’s interpretation fits the context of Hebrews 2:9 better than the idea of universal atonement.
And then there is 1 John 2:2: “He [Jesus] is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (ESV, emphasis added). This verse is used as certain evidence against the doctrine of limited atonement.[40] It is said that this verse not only proves that the atonement not only had some reference to the whole human race, but that it was actually a propitiation for the sins of each and every person on earth. While August Pfeiffer mocks those of the reformed faith for relying to heavily on logic and reason in their theology,[41] he still must use reason to avoid universalism. It is a huge logical jump to claim that Jesus actually propitiated the wrath of God, that because of Christ God no longer counts people’s sins against them, and that the sacrifice was for the sins of every person, and at the same time claim that it does not result in universal salvation for every person. Here indeed is a doctrine that must be logically deduced from one’s own hermeneutic.
Much has been said regarding this passage in response to the idea that John means universal propitiation for all sins. Louis Berkhof points out that the term “world” (kosmos) means different things in different passages (Lk 2.1; Jn 1.10; Acts 11.28; 19.27; 24.5; Rom 1.8; Col 1.6), and that even in reference to men it does not always mean all men, i.e. each and every member of the human race (Jn 7.4; 12.19; 14.22; 18.20; Rom 11.12, 15).[42] Gary Long mentions that kosmos is never used universally in a salvation context outside of John, and that John himself uses the term in a way that cannot possibly mean every person (1 Jn 5.19).[43]
John Murray cites three reasons why John might use universal language in his letter to the church. According to Murray, John’s reasons are as follows. 1) The scope of Jesus’ atonement was not just John’s immediate community, but to every nation, 2) that everyone in the world needs propitiation. The sacrifice of Jesus is the only way for all peoples and 3) the propitiation of Jesus is ongoing in its effects to the whole world, to the end.[44] With regard to the universal language employed by the apostle John in his writings (Jn. 1:29; 3:16; I Jn. 2:2, etc.), Long cites B. B. Warfield’s doctrine of “eschatological universalism.”[45] According to Warfield, Jesus came to save the world, and at the end of the age the entire world will in fact be saved, that is, the entire world at that time.[46] A better explanation of John’s universalism is what Long refers to as an “ethnological interpretation.”[47] John uses world just as Paul does in Romans 11:11-15, that is, relatively; Jesus came to secure the salvation of his people from every nation of the earth (see Rev. 5:9). This is what A. W. Pink calls “relative universality” in John.[48] According to Kuiper, it is the Calvinist who is most capable of being an “ardent universalist” in the biblical sense. He above all can be deeply committed to “scriptural universalism.”[49] All of the previous arguments are sufficient to prove that it is not necessary to find universal atonement in John’s first epistle.
Another passage commonly cited against the doctrine of limited atonement is 2 Peter 2:1: “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction” (ESV, emphasis added). It is said that the atonement must have been universal in extent because here it is said that Christ “bought” false teachers whose end is destruction.[50] As Robert Lightner puts it: “Christ paid the ransom price even for those who deny him.”[51]
In response, Long argues that Peter is referencing the song of Moses (Deut. 32.6), rather than teaching that Christ paid a ransom price for these false teachers. He maintains that Christ, in his sovereignty, acquired these false teachers as a part of his church to show his glory in condemning them, making mention of the purpose Peter cites in verses 4 and 9 of the same chapter.[52] Pink would agree, claiming that this verse presents no problem to his view of limited atonement. There is a difference between buying and redeeming. There is buying like you buy a field, and then there is buying in the relational sense, redeeming, which is more personal. This verse simply says that Christ bought everyone in the same sense that a man might buy or acquire a field.[53] A more plausible interpretation, however, is that of R. B. Kuiper. Kuiper maintains that Peter speaks of the false teachers in relation to how they presented themselves to the church. They presented themselves as redeemed teachers and this is how Peter refers to them, even though he goes on to explain their actual end.[54] This seems to best account for the manner in which Peter is speaking. Murray points out that it is not taught in the Bible that those for whom Christ made died should perish; actually just the opposite is true (Jn. 6:38-39).[55]
Yet another verse that may be wielded against the reformed view is 1 Timothy 4:10: “For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe” (ESV, emphasis added). It may be said that God is the “savior of all people” by those who argue for universal atonement, but what do they do with the last phrase—“especially those who believe?” Kuiper interprets this verse in the sense that God is the savior, i.e. preserver of all men. For Kuiper, God is a lover of all men, even the non-elect, providing them with common grace. This grace was also purchased in the atonement. But even though God loves all men everywhere as his creatures, he loves and saves the elect in a special way. Therefore, it can be said that God is both savior of all men, but especially to those who believe.[56] Millard Erickson agrees and says that Christ died in some way for both believers and non-believers.[57] Charles Hodge maintains both to be true, that in one sense Christ died for all, yet in another he died only for the elect.[58] While the term “limited atonement” may not capture the whole of the work of Christ, despite its inadequacies, unless one is ready to believe in universalism, one cannot have an unlimited atonement. According to John Murray, those who hold to a general atonement have a limited atonement with respect to its very character; general atonement is a cheapening of the work of Christ.[59]
The Idea of Covenant and the Doctrine of Divine Election
It is clear from scripture Christ died “in execution of a covenant in which his people were promised to him as his reward.”[60] Christ fulfilled his part of the covenant God was making with mankind in that “he rendered the obedience required of all, and suffered the penalty which all had incurred.”[61] This covenant is spelled out in Jeremiah 31:31-34 which is also referenced by the author of Hebrews (Heb. 8:8-13). It is, for Charles Hodge, the nature of this covenant that determines the nature and extent of the atonement.[62] Election and Covenant are seen as being closely related. Christ’s redeeming work was definite in both its intent and its extent. It’s purpose and result was to make total satisfaction for a select group of sinners whom God chose out of the world, and to actually make certain the salvation of those individuals to the exclusion of the non-elect. “Redemption, therefore, was designed to bring to pass God’s purpose of election.”[63] If there was a covenant between the Father and the Son with reference to the elect, then it follows that Christ’s death be for the elect. It is not necessary to apply it any further. If it were unjust to have Christ die for only the elect, would not also be unjust for God to elect in the first place? Hodge points out that the doctrine of limited atonement was never rejected until the doctrine of sovereign election was rejected. Hodge states it this way:
“The one doctrine necessarily involves the other. If God from eternity determined to save one portion of the human race and not another, it seems to be a contradiction to say that the plan of salvation had equal reference to both portions; that the Father sent his Son to die for those whom He had predetermined not to save, as truly as, and in the same sense that He gave Him up for those whom He had chosen to make the heirs of salvation.”[64]
For Hodge, these two doctrines go hand in hand.
It was a special love for his covenant people that motivated Christ to die, not some generic sense of benevolence to every sinner on earth. It is a mistake and a contradiction to say that God’s love for those whom he has not chosen was what caused Christ to die on the cross. The doctrine of universal atonement is not consistent with the doctrine of divine election. This is true whether one believes in a conditional or unconditional election. Christ not only made salvation possible, he made salvation sure and efficacious.[65] It is a contradiction to say that God sent Jesus to die for those whom he had already determined not to save.[66]
Christ as High Priest
Another significant factor in determining the extent of the atonement is the High Priestly work of Christ, in comparison to the work of the High Priest in the Old Testament. According to Charles Hodge:
“The unity of the priestly office rendered the functions of the priesthood inseparable. The high-priest interceded for all those for whom he offered sacrifice. The one service did not extend beyond the other. He bore upon his breast the names of the twelve tribes. He represented them in drawing near to God. He offered sacrifices for their sins on the great day of atonement, and for them he interceded, and for no others. The sacrifice and the intercession went together. What was true of the Aaronic priests, is true of Christ. The former, we are told, were the types of the latter. Christ’s functions as priest are in like manner united. He intercedes for all for whom He offered Himself as a sacrifice. He himself, however, says expressly, ‘I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me.’ (John xvii. 9.) Him the Father heareth always, and, therefore, He cannot be assumed to intercede for those who do not actually receive the benefits of his redemption.”[67]
The atonement of Christ falls under the category of his priesthood. Christ worked as a “merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people” (Heb. 2:17 ESV). Therefore his work cannot be general and indefinite, because priesthood “prerequires personal relation.”[68] It does not follow that those for whom Christ served as a high priest should perish, and as Kuiper argues, Christ’s atonement cannot apply to more than to those for whom he effectually prayed.[69] If in fact Jesus did not pray for the world, but only for those who were given to him by the father (Jn. 17), then it follows that his sacrificial work not exceed his intercessory work.
Conclusion
So, in answering the question of the extent of the atonement, one must consider what is taught from a study of the Biblical evidence, the witness of Spirit-filled theologians throughout history, the idea of covenant redemption and the doctrine of divine election, and the doctrine of Christ’s high priestly work. These together are sufficient to prove that Christ’s death was definite in nature and in scope. Christ died for the sins of his covenant people, namely the elect. Again Charles Hodge is worthy of quoting:
“When Christ said, ‘I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me,’ He meant men of all ages, classes, and conditions, and not every individual man. When God predicted that upon the advent of the Messiah He would pour out his Spirit upon all flesh, all that was foretold was a general elusion of the Holy Ghost. And when it is said that all men shall see (experience) the salvation of God, it does not mean that all men individually, but that a vast multitude of all classes shall be saved. The same remark applies to the use of the term world. It means men, mankind, as a race or order of beings. No one hesitates to call the Lord Jesus the ‘Salvator hominum.’ He is so hailed and so worshipped wherever his name is known. But no one means by this that He actually saves all mankind. What is meant is that He is our Saviour, the Saviour of men, not of angels, not of Jews exclusively, nor yet of the Gentiles only, not of the rich, or of the poor alone, not of the righteous only, but also of publicans and sinners. He is the Saviour of all men who come unto Him. Thus when He is called the Lamb of God that bears the sin of the world, all that is meant is that He bears the sins of men; He came as a sin-offering bearing not his own, but the sins of others.”[70]
So did Christ die for the Cherokee Indians of North America? No and yes. It is not feasible that Christ would have died for the sins of those who were alive at the time of his death but who were never given an opportunity to hear the good news. Yet, at the same time it may be said that, in light of the ethnological universalism taught in the bible, Christ did in fact die for the Cherokee. It is doubtless that there will be Cherokee Indians, as well as men and women from every nation of the earth included in the countless multitude in heaven, whose song is forever “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Rev. 5:9 ESV).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Berkhof, Louis. The History of Christian Doctrines. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1949.
Berkhof, Louis. Vicarious Atonement Through Christ. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1936.
Boettner, Loraine. Studies in Theology. The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1974.
Boettner, Loraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1951.
Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews, in The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.
Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews. Translated by John Owen. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1948.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Translation of: Institutio Christianae religionis.; Reprint, with new introd. Originally published: Edinburgh : Calvin Translation Society, 1845-1846. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA. 1997.
Campbell, John M. The Nature of the Atonement. London: MacMillan and Company. 1886.
Chafer, Lewis Sperry. SystematicTheology. 8 volumes. Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press. 1948.
Culpepper, Robert H. Interpreting the Atonement. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1966.
Edwards, Jonathan. The Satisfaction for Sin, in The Works of Jonathan Edwards. Christian Classics Ethereal Library at Calvin College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/works2.xi.v.html.
Edwards, Jonathan. The Works of President Edwards. 4 volumes. New York: Jonathan Leavitt and John F. Trow, Boston: Crocker and Brewster. 1863.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 2d edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. 1998.
Gill, John. Body of Divinity. Atlanta: Turner Lassetter. 1965.
Hill, Charles E. and James, Frank A. III, eds. The Glory of the Atonement. Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press. 2004.
Hodge, Archibald A. The Atonement. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication. 1867.
Hodge, Charles C. Systematic Theology. Vol 2. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1952.
Hodge, Charles C. Systematic theology. Originally published 1872. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA. 1997.
Hodge, Charles C. The Orthodox Doctrine Regarding the Extent of the Atonement Vindicated. Edinburgh: R. Groombridge and Sons, 1846.
Kuiper, R.B. For Whom Did Christ Die? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959.
Lane, William L. Word Biblical Commentary, Hebrews. Vol. 47a. Dallas, TX: Word Books Publisher. 1991.
Lightner, Robert P. The Death Christ Died: A Case for Unlimited Atonement. Des Plaines, Illinois: Regular Baptist Press, 1967
Lillback, Peter A., Editor. The Practical Calvinist: An Introduction to the Presbyterian and Reformed Heritage. Granies House, Fearn, Ross-shire, Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications. 2002.
Long, Gary D. Definite Atonement. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company. 1977.
Morris, Leon. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.
Murray, John. Redemption Accomplished and Applied. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.
Nicole, Roger. The Case for Definite Atonement, in Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society. X, No. 4. 1967.
Owen, John. An Exposition of Hebrews. Vol. 4. Evansville, Indiana: Sovereign Grace Publishers. 1960.
Owen, John. The Works of John Owen. Vol. 10. Ed by William H. Goold. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2000.
Owen, John. The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1963.
Pendleton, J. M. The Atonement of Christ. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1885.
Pfeiffer, August. Anti-Calvinism. Columbus, Ohio: Printing House of the Joint Synod of Ohio. 1881.
Pink, Arthur W. The Atonement. Swengel, PA: Reiner Publications.
Steele, David N., Thomas, Curtis C., Quinn, S. Lance. The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented. 2d edition. P & R Publishing. Phillpsburg, New Jersey. 2004.
Warfield, B.B. The Plan of Salvation. The Works of B.B. Warfield. http://www.mbrem.com/calvinism/pos4.htm
Wiley, H. Orton. Christian Theology. Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill, 1958. Vol 2.
[1] John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), p. 62.
[2] J.M. Pendleton, The Atonement of Christ (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1885), p.86.
[3] William L. Lane, Word Biblical Commentary, Hebrews. Vol. 47a (Dallas, TX: Word Books Publisher, 1991), 241.
[4] John Owen, An Exposition of Hebrews, Vol. 4 (Evansville, Indiana: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1960), pp. 326-327.
[5] John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), p. 62.
[6] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology. 8 vols. (Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), vol. III, p. 91.
[7] Gary D. Long, Definite Atonement (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1977), p. 28.
[8] Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, p. 63.
[9] Ibid.
[10] August Pfeiffer, Anti-Calvinism (Columbus, Ohio: Printing House of the Joint Synod of Ohio, 1881), p. 107.
[11] Roger Nicole, The Case for Definite Atonement, in Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society, X, no. 4, 1967, p. 210.
[12] Pfeiffer, Anti-Calvinism, p. 107.
[13] A.W. Pink, The Atonement (Swengel, PA: Reiner Publications), p. 245.
[14] Murray, Redemption Accomplished, p. 62.
[15] Ibid, p. 52.
[16] Gary D. Long, Definite Atonement (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1977), pp. 30-33.
[17] A.W. Pink, The Atonement (Swengel, PA: Reiner Publications), p. 249.
[18] Jonathan Edwards, The Satisfaction for Sin, in The Works of Jonathan Edwards (Christian Classics Ethereal Library at Calvin College), http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/works2.xi.v.html.
[19] Robert H. Culpepper, Interpreting the Atonement, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966), p. 126.
[20] Murray, Redemption Accomplished, p. 60.
[21] Ibid, pp. 69-70.
[22] Louis Berkhof, Vicarious Atonement Through Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1936), p. 161.
[23] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2d edition (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), p. 849.
[24] J. M. Pendleton, The Atonement of Christ (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1885), p. 103.
[25] Charles Hodge, The Orthodox Doctrine Regarding the Extent of the Atonement Vindicated (Edinburgh: John Johnstone, Hunter Square, London: R. Groombridge and Sons, 1846), p. 63.
[26] John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1963), pp. 61-62.
[27] Laraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publications, 1963), p. 153.
[28] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Translated by Henry Beveridge (Translation of: Institutio Christianae religionis.; Reprint, with new introd. Originally published: Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845-1846. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA. 1997), 2.15.4, (emphasis added).
[29] Calvin, Institutes, 2.6.4, (emphasis added).
[30] Ibid, 2.16.2.
[31] Ibid, 2.16.4 (emphasis added).
[32] Ibid, 3.21.
[33] Charles C. Hodge, Systematic theology (Originally published 1872. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA, 1997), vol. 2, chp. 8.
[34] Charles C. Hodge, Systematic theology (Originally published 1872. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA, 1997), vol. 2, chp. 8.
[35] August Pfeiffer, Anti-Calvinism (Columbus, Ohio: Printing House of the Joint Synod of Ohio, 1881), pp. 113-118.
[36] John Murray, Redemption Accomplished, p. 61.
[37] William L. Lane, Word Biblical Commentary, Hebrews, Vol. 47a (Dallas, TX: Word Books Publisher, 1991), pp. 49-50.
[38] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews, Translated and edited by John Owen (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), p. 61.
[39] William L. Lane, Word Biblical Commentary, Hebrews, Volume 47a (Dallas, TX: Word Books Publisher, 1991), pp. 49-50.
[40] Pfeiffer, Anti-Calvinism, pp. 113-118.
[41] Pfeiffer, Anti-Calvinism, p. 2.
[42] Berkhof, Vicarious Atonement, p. 67.
[43] Long, Definite Atonement, p. 89
[44] Murray, Redemption Accomplished, pp. 72-73
[45] B.B. Warfield, The Plan of Salvation (http://www.mbrem.com/calvinism/pos4.htm). Warfield proclaims: “Calvinism is the guardian…of the universalism by which I am assured that he [Christ] is also the true and actual Savior of the world.”
[46] Long, Definite Atonement, p. 93.
[47] Ibid, p. 94.
[48] Pink, The Atonement, p. 263.
[49] R.B. Kuiper., For Whom Did Christ Die? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), p. 79.
[50] Pfeiffer, Anti-Calvinism, pp. 113-118.
[51] Robert P. Lightner, The Death Christ Died: A Case for Unlimited Atonement (Des Plaines, Illinois: Regular Baptist Press, 1967), p. 77.
[52] Long, Definite Atonement, pp. 76-77. Long notes that there is no ransom price mentioned here and that in almost every passage where ajgorazw is used in a salvation context a price for ransom is mentioned or implied. Long, referring back to Deuteronomy 32:6, believes that Peter quotes the Old Testament passage because of similar context, and substitutes ajgorazw for ktaomai (LXX). While the linguistic validity of Long’s argument has not been proven to this author, it is worth noting as a possible interpretation.
[53] Pink, The Atonement, p. 264.
[54] R. B. Kuiper, For Whom Did Christ Die? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), p. 38.
[55] Murray, Redemption Accomplished, p. 64.
[56] Kuiper, For Whom Did Christ Die?, p. 82.
[57] Erickson, Christian Theology, p. 846.
[58] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), p. 546.
[59] Murray, Redemption Accomplished, p. 64.
[60] Charles Hodge, The Orthodox Doctrine Regarding the Extent of the Atonement Vindicated (Edinburgh: John Johnstone, Hunter Square, London: R. Groombridge and Sons, 1846), p. 67.
[61] Hodge, Systematic Theology, p. 546.
[62] Charles C. Hodge, Systematic theology (Originally published 1872. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA, 1997), vol. 2, chp. 8.
[63] David N. Steele, Curtis C. Thomas, S. Lance Quinn, The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, and Documented. 2d edition (Phillpsburg, New Jersey: P & R Publishing, 2004) pp. 39-40.
[64] Charles C. Hodge, Systematic theology (Originally published 1872. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA, 1997), vol. 2, chp. 8.
[65] Charles Hodge, The Orthodox Doctrine Regarding the Extent of the Atonement Vindicated (Edinburgh: R. Groombridge and Sons, 1846), pp. 63-64.
[66] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), p. 548.
[67] Charles C. Hodge, Systematic theology (Originally published 1872. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA, 1997), vol. 2, chp. 8.
[70] Charles C. Hodge, Systematic theology (Originally published 1872. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA, 1997), vol. 2, chp. 8.
No comments:
Post a Comment