WAS CHRIST'S ATONEMENT FOR ALL MEN?  

By T. P. Simmons

BAPTISTS STAND IN GREAT NEED OF A FRESH AND CAREFUL EXAMINA­TION OF THE ATONEMENT. I do not believe that the last word has been written on this question.

The words all men, as used in the title, mean, of course, all men without exception --every descendent of Adam. The burden of proof rests properly upon the one who contends that Christ died for all men in this sense rather than upon the one who denies it. It must be admitted by all honest and capable Bible students that the words "world" and "all" are not always used in the Bible in the absolute sense as compre­hending the totality of the human race. Quite truly and much to the point does J. M. Sanger say: "The so-called Scripture proofs of Universal Redemption depend up­on human assumption, not upon the simple Word. Thus, as regards ‘propitiation for the sins of the whole world,’ we are told that the word 'world' must mean every worldling. But why must it mean this? That is the unanswered question. The word 'world' means many different things in Holy Scriptures, on which see Cruden's Concord­ance. Connection alone is its true interpre­ter. To rule that it must mean this or that is but to indulge in rash and idle talk. So by the word 'all,' connection only can de­cide whether it means every one in the world, or every one in the church, or every one in a city, or every one in a room. More­over, it sometimes fails to individualize and denotes simply all manner of people. Yet whenever it is wanted to prove Universal Redemption, we are dogmatically inform­ed that it must mean every human being" (The Redeemed, p. 7).

Most Baptist theologians for over one hundred and fifty years have ignored these facts in advocating a general atonement. They have offered the usual proof texts with blind abandon and with the unwar­ranted assumption that there can be no question as to the scope of the key words. Thus they have approached the question in a prejudicial manner.

There is a historical reason for this characteristic approach. There came a time in the history of Baptists in England when the doctrine of a limited atonement was al­lowed to keep men from addressing "the in­vitation of the gospel to the unconverted." Of one of the leaders of that day it has been said: "He would declare, proclaim, an­nounce to men their sin and danger; but he would not call upon them to return to the Lord. That would be interfering with God's work!"--Cramp. This sentiment in “a time of general decline in religioun among Englishmen, which began with the Restoration" (Vedder), helped very materially to confirm and prolong among Baptists "a time of stillness--of slumber--of comparative inaction" (Cramp), with the result that "our churches were far more prosperous and numerous at the revolution in 1688, than at this period (1753), sixty years afterward" (Ivimey).

It was only proper that good men should deplore this paralysis and declension and seek for a remedy. But it is to be regret­ted that they turned in the wrong direction for the remedy. Instead of turning to the Word of God, they turned to a denial of truth. Robert Hall came forth to refer to the writings of John Gill as "a continent of mud." Gill, under the necessity of deal­ing a death-blow to Arminianism leaned backwards and, in his preaching, erred in abstaining “from personal addresses to sin­ners by inviting them to the Saviour^” (Cramp); yet in general his exposition of the Scriptures is eminently scholarly, cor­rect, and unsurpassed. It was a colossal mistake to seek relief by turning back in the direction of the mean and beggarly ele­ments of Arminianism. Yet this is just what the denomination did.

Others contributed to this counter deflec­tion, but none perhaps so much as Andrew Fuller; who came forth with his theory of “a general atonement sufficient for the sins of the race”  (Vedder), as opposed to Gill's "particular atonement for the elect only" (Vedder). The results were such that there has obtained since that day among Baptists a theological bias in favor of a general atonement. This bias is responsible for the present drift of Baptists toward arminianism.

As a result of this drift the average Bap­tist church and Baptist preacher, not only have ceased to believe in the Calvinism of the great Philadelphia Confession of Faith, but that of the New Hampshire Declaration also. There can be no doubt that this lat­ter declaration teaches eternal, uncondi­tional election. This is taught, not only in the article on "God's Purpose of Grace," but in the one on regeneration (Article VII), in that the new birth is represented as secur­ing “our voluntary obedience to the Gospel,” as also in the one on repentance and faith (Article VIII), in that it represents these as "inseparable graces wrought in our souls by the regenerating Spirit of God," and not as acts that proceed from the natural man inducing God to regenerate the individual.

This drift toward Arminianism has open­ed the door for the second great historical apostasy. The first apostasy began in the second century. It produced first, the Catholic Hierarchy. Next it produced the divided hierarchy--Greek and Roman Catholicism. Following this came Protestantism and then the hundreds of man-made organizations that have sprung up to produce this age of consummate confusion in Christendom. Through all this apostasy God preserved New Testament churches. They are known today as Bap­tist churches. This second great apostasy began about the beginning of this century. Among Baptists its chief characteristics are modernisn, arminianism, and unionism. Arminianism opened the door for both modernism and unionism.

The time has come for a right-about-face among Baptists with regard to Arminianism. And it will never come with the teaching of a general atonement. Unconditional elec­tion and a particular or limited atonement, historically, as shown above, logically stand and fall together. No group of peo­ple will continue to hold to one without the other.

I maintain that Andrew Fuller did not find the scriptural solution for the lethargy of the eighteenth century. A denial of a limited atonement is not necessary in order to promote evangelism. One needs only to see that God saves only those accountable adults that believe; that one must hear the gos­pel in order to believe; that God is pleased "through the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe" (I Cor. 1-21); and that He commands us to preach the gospel to all men (Mark 16:15); beseeching them to be reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:20), and calling upon them to repent and be­lieve the gospel (Acts 17:30; Mark 1: 15). There is absolutely nothing in the doctrine of a limited atonement that militates in the least against these facts, nor anything that encourages or justifies any man in refus­ing or failing to address the invitations of the gospel to the unconverted.

What do some of our leading theologians mean when they say that "the atonement of Christ was for all men" (Mullins); that "Christ's atoning death made it compatible with the divine justice that all should be saved if they would accept it on that ground" (Broadus); that "the atonement... is sufficient...for each one of the num­berless sins of every sinful man on earth in all time" (Sawtelle); that "the ransom was paid for all" (Harvey); that "in its sufficiency the atonement of Christ is uni­versal" (Bancroft); that "the atonement of Christ has made objective provisions for the salvation of all, by removing from the di­vine mind every obstacle to the pardon and restoration of sinners, except their wilful opposition to God and refusal to turn to Him" (Strong)? Do they mean that Christ made a real and proper substitution for the whole race (2 Cor. 5:14); dying in their room and stead (Rom. 5:6); paying the price (ransom) of their deliverance (Matt. 20:28); tak­ing away their sin (John 1:29); making propitiation (involving expiation), thus satisfying the justice of God for them (Rom. 3:25,26; Heb. 2:17); taking upon Him their guilt and paying their penalty (Isa. 53:6; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 3:18); becoming a curse in their stead (Gal. 3:13); making a just re­compense for their every transgression and disobedience (Heb. 2:2); perfecting them forever by the one offering (Heb. 10:14); putting an end to the power of the law to condemn them (Rom 10:4; 8:33.34); cover­ing all their sin so that God would not im­pute it to them (Rom. 4:7,8; 2 Cor. 5:19)?

Do they mean that Christ did this for every son of Adam? If they do not, then they can not say with any logical force that His death was sufficient for the salvation of the race. If they say that He did all of this for all, they have no ground left for the condemnation of any. If God's justice was satisfied for all, then justice demands that all go free. Does man's turning to God in repentance and faith add anything to the value of Christ's death? Can a man's faith make of Christ's death something that it was not? If not, then the fact that one man believes and another disbelieves does not explain why the death of Christ is effec­tive for the one and not effective for the other; if His death was sufficient for the sal­vation of all. Since a man that is dead (Rom. 5:12; Col. 2:13), can not please God as long as he is in the natural state (Rom. 8:7,8), can not turn from sin to Christ except as God gives him the ability (Jer. 13:23; John 6:65), and God must, therefore, turn him by His regenerating power, as He does in the case of all that believe; the continuance of a man in sin does not explain why he does not profit from the atonement, if the atone­ment was made for him. If God had laid the sins of the race on Christ, then He would owe it to Christ to save all the race; and His purpose in saving men would de­mand that He give them repentance and faith, as He most surely does in the ease of all that come to Christ. Any man that believes in a universal atonement should be consistent and believe in universal sal­vation. The only way he can avoid this is to bid adieu to logic.

If a believer in the theory that Christ died for the whole race wishes to escape the logical implication of his theory and refuse to believe in universal salvation, then, to retain even a semblance of logic, he must deny that Christ offered a real atonement for anybody. He must deny that He made a real and proper substitu­tion. He must believe that the justice of God was not actually satisfied for anybody in the death of Christ. He can believe only that Christ did something that God may accept as satisfaction if He pleases or reject if it pleases Him to do that, in which case, justice ceases to be justice. "For God to take that as satisfaction which is not really such is to say that there is no truth in anything. God may take a part for the whole; error for truth, wrong for right . . . If every created thing offered to God is worth just so much as God accepts it for, then the blood of bulls and goats might take away sin, and Christ is dead in vain" (Hodge, Syst. Theol.)

Therefore, since the Scriptures teach that Christ made a real substitution and satisfied the justice of God, reason and logic can rest in no other conclusion than that He died for none except those to whom the benefits of His death are imparted in their deliverance from sin and death.

The utter inconsistency of a general atonement with the justice of God can best be realized, perhaps, by considering those who, like the rich man of Luke 16, were suffering in Hell, while Christ was suffer­ing on the cross. The theory of a general atonement has Christ bearing their sins the same as the sins of all other men. Thus at the same time God was punishing two men for the sins each man had committed: making Christ a substitute for men that were already suffering the torments of the damned! Was that necessary? If not, then it was not necessary that Christ make atonement for anybody that is not going to be saved.

Before we have finished we will give further attention to those passages thought by many to teach a general atonement. But before we do that let us note in detail the passages that prove that the atonement is limited.

Note the following:

1. John 15:13--"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." In the light of this passage, if Christ laid down His life for every man without exception, then He had the greatest love for each one--loved the ones that perish as much as the ones that receive eternal life. Christ could never be satisfied with some of the objects of His greatest love in Hell.

2. Romans 8:32--"He that spared not his own son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" This passage argues that God's greatest gift of His Son guarantees all lesser gifts. Hence it follows that God delivered up His Son for none except those to whom He freely gives all other spiritual blessings. See Eph. 1:3.

3. Romans 8:33,34--"Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth . . . It is Christ that died." . . . etc. Here the argument is that no charges can be placed against the elect because Christ died for them. This passage would be robbed of all logical force if Christ died for some that He some day will condemn in judgment.

4. 2 Cor. 5:14--" . . . if one died for all, then were all dead." There is here the un­deniable assertion that all for whom Christ died, died representatively in Him. Hence death has no power over them, and none of them will suffer it; but all will receive justification and eternal life through the faith that God works in their hearts. A. T. Robertson believed in a general atonement and he dodged discussion of election wher­ever he could. Yet he felt compelled to comment on this passage: "Logical con­clusion . . . the one died for all and so the all died when he died. ALL THE SPIRIT­UAL DEATH POSSIBLE FOR THOSE FOR WHOM CHRIST DIED" (Caps mine--Word Pictures). Note the use of the word "all" in this passage. We shall have occasion to refer back to it later.

5. 2 Cor. 5:19--"God was in Christ, re­conciling (katalasso) the world unto himself, NOT IMPUTING THEIR TRESPAS­SES UNTO THEM ..." This tells us what God was doing in the death of Christ and it tells how He was doing it. He was re­conciling men to Himself and He was do­ing it by laying their trespasses upon Christ and, therefore, not imputing, reckoning, charging them to those for whom Christ died. There is here but one proper conclu­sion and that is that the "world" (mark the word!) for which Christ died consists only of those men of all nations "to whom God will not impute sin" (Rom. 4:8).

We turn now for an examination of the passages relied upon by the advocates of a universally sufficient atonement:

1. Passages in which the word "world" is used: John 3:16; 1 John 2:2.

These passages must be interpreted, if interpreted right, in the light of the follow­ing facts:

(1). The Bible frequently uses the word in senses other than the absolute one. We find it used of the Roman Empire (Luke 2:1; Acts 17:6; 19:27; 24:5; Rom. 1:8; 10:18; Col. 1:6). By no stretch of the imagination can the scope of these passages be extend­ed beyond the Roman Empire. Thus the "world" here has no reference to vast areas of Europe and Asia outside the jurisdiction of Rome, where lived numerous teutonic and slavonic tribes, whose history is known to antedate the birth of Christ, as well as the Chinese, whose annals go back to 2627 B.C. Moreover it is used of the generali­ty of known people (John 12:19); of Gen­tiles in distinction from the Jews (Rom. 11:12,15); and of unbelievers in distinction from believers (John 7:7; 12:31; 14:17; 15:18; 16:20; 17:14; I Cor. 4:9; 11:32; Eph. 2:2; Heb. 11:7; I John 3:1; 3:13; 5:19).

(2). More particularly do we have the limited use of the word, as already pointed out, in 2 Corinthians 5:19. That this passage al­ludes to what God was doing in indwelling Christ in His death is shown by the phrase "not imputing their trespasses unto them," and by the contrast made by Paul between what God was doing in Christ and what he and others were commissioned to do. (If our opponents assert that the passage re­fers to Christ's preaching ministry rather than to His death, they thereby surrender the universal scope of the word "world," and even its application to the whole Ro­man Empire; for Christ's preaching minis­try, including that of the apostles, brought actual reconciliation to only a very small remnant of the people then living in the Roman Empire.) Now, if it be admitted, as it generally is by advocates of a general atonement, that the passage has reference to what Christ did in His death, then only blind prejudice and slavery to a theory can keep any man from seeing that the “world” reconciled by Christ is that innumerable host out of all nations that receive reconciliation and, therefore, do not have their sins imputed to them.

(3). The Jews, through its use in the Talmud and other Jewish writings, were familiar with the limited use of the word "world," and believed that the Messiah's coming would benefit only the Jews and bring destruction to all Gentiles. This first fact made it easy for the Jews to un­derstand such use of the word as here con­tended for and explains why Jesus and the apostles could properly use it thus without explanation or fear of being misunder­stood. The second fact shows their reason for using it, that is, to contradict the Jew­ish idea that only Jews would benefit from Christ's coming. In the light of these facts the application of the word to peoples of all nations rather than to every individual is clear. The advocates of a general atonement want to interpret the word in the light of modern use rather than in the light of its use in the first century.

(4). The real nature of the atonement as a satisfaction of the justice of God. To make way for their theory, the advocates of a general atonement must tone down the justice of God and Christ's satisfaction of it. So they hold that that "propitiation" means that which renders God favorable and makes it possible for God to save men, but does not guarantee that He will. But I reply, how could a holy God become favorable and find it consistent with His nature to save men until the full penalty demanded by the law was met? And when that full penalty was met, how could a holy, covenant-keeping God fail to pardon those for whom it was meant? I challenge any advocate of a general atonement from the most ignorant person to the most eminent scholars of the world to answer these questions. "Can a God of infinite ethical perfection, who with His own hand laid the awful burden of the sinner's guilt upon the adorable Surety, repudiate His own covenant engagements and withhold from Him the reward pur­chased at the cost of His most precious blood? To say so, is tantamount to an im­peachment of the truth and justice of our covenant-keeping God" (Prof. Robert Watts, Belfast, Ireland, in one of a series of ar­ticles solicited by T. T. Eaton and publish­ed in the Western Recorder during Eaton's editorship).

(5). A love that would cause God to give His Son for the race would cause Him to save all. I challenge any believer in unconditional election to show any basis for God’s discrimination in saving men if He loved all of them enough to send Jesus to die for them.

(6). There would be no real expression of love in sending a Saviour to die vainly for men. What kind of love is it that per­forms an act that cannot benefit? Would there be any real love shown by a father in buying an expensive picture for a totally blind son?

(7). The Scripture states unequivocally that God does not love all men: "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" (Rom. 9:13). The advocates of a general atone­ment can wrestle with this passage from now on, but they will never be able to re­duce its meaning to less than the truth that GOD LOVED JACOB AND DID NOT LOVE ESAU.

2. Passages where the word "all" is used I Tim. 2:6; Titus 2:11.

These passages should be interpreted in the light of:

(1). The variety of uses of the word in the New Testament: A great number (Matt. 3:5; 4:24); all kinds and classes (Luke 2:10; Rom. 15:14; 2 Thess. 2:9; 1 Tim. 6:10); all with manifest exceptions (Mark 11:32; Acts 2:47; I Cor. 9:22; 10:33; Titus 1:15); all or every one of a certain class (Luke 3:21; 1 Cor. 8:1 compared with vs. 7; Col. 1:28).

(2). The use of the word in John 12:32: "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." Here Alvah Hovey, an advocate of a general atonement, is forced to admit that the drawing alluded to is "an effectual drawing, by means of which the servants of Satan are led to become the servants of Christ; not an attempt to draw men to him­self, which is resisted and rendered un­availing." It is interesting to note, then, how this writer seeks to avoid the evident meaning of "all" in this passage as refer­ring to all men without distinction, men out of all classes "all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues" (Rev. 7:9), by placing its fulfillment at some future time "when a great majority of the living will be sub­ject to Christ--so large a part, indeed, that it will seem as if all were his friends." See to what lengths good men will go to avoid the evident truth! But, let it be noted well, that this eminent Baptist theologian and commentator admits that here the word "all" does not refer to the race. He does this because he sees that every mem­ber of the race is not being drawn to Christ, but, when the word alludes to the ransomed, he can not see that all have not been ransomed!

(3). The use of the word in 2 Corinthians 5:14---" . . . if one died for all, then were all dead." This passage furnishes the key for the interpretation of all passages using "all" with reference to the atonement. The "all" for whom Christ died is the all who shall be reconciled through Him, the totali­ty of the redeemed.

(4). The real nature of the atonement as providing a ransom (antilutron), "a cor­responding price," a price corresponding to the debt we owed to the law, the price of our deliverance. "'Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time' (I Tim. 2:6), should be interpreted by Christ's own words: 'Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many' (Matt. 20:28) . . . He certainly did not mean every sinner of Adam's race; for it would be notoriously untrue; but he meant all conditions and races of men, and, savingly, only all men given him by the Father" (J. R. Graves, The Seven Dispen­sations, p. 102). "If law can yield to all, if the universe created and uncreated can af­ford to have law in its higher realms melt like wax, if God's love can in any respect be shown to violators of law at the expense of justice, if Christ having done all and having suffered all he was raised up to do and to suffer, justice, exact justice, pure and mere justice, did not permit, require, demand, necessitate the deliverance of those whom he represented and whom he came to redeem, then indeed, 'Christ died in vain,' then is the 'offense of the cross' taken away, then 'the wages of sin' is not 'death,' then we are all at sea as to the necessity for Christ's intervention, then we are ready to disperse on voyages of dis­covery that we may find good reason for Christ's coming into the world at all, and especially for his suffering in Gethsemane and on the cross" (John M. Armour, Atone­ment and Law, p. 129).

3.    Other passages: 1 Tim. 4:10; 2 Peter 2:1.

(1). 1 Timothy 4:10. The mere provision of possible salvation for men does not make God their Saviour any more than it saves them. This does not satisfy the meaning of the word "saviour" as applied to the soul. The Greek is soter, and this word means "deliverer" and "preserver," as well as saviour. This, no doubt, is the meaning here. God delivers and preserves all men, so long as it pleases Him to do so. What He does in a general and limited way for all men in general, He does in a special manner for believers.

(2). 2 Peter 2:1. The word for “Lord” in this passage is not kurios, which is used either of God or of Christ. It is despotes, which is never used of Christ. Hence the reference here is to God. Peter wrote especially to Jews. Doubtless the false teachers were Jews also. And Deut. 32:6; Psa. 74:2; Isa. 63:11 explain in what sense God bought the Jewish nation.

I have finished. Suffer a closing word. A general atonement is no atonement, it is but a miserable makeshift and a misnomer. It makes void God’s law, it destroys His justice, and impugns His faithfulness. It dishonors the Son of God by making His blood an unholy thing, no better than the blood of bulls and goats. It detracts from His glory and gives glory to man. It leaves no logical basis for the security of the believer, it promotes the arrogance of man in assuming that he can add to the atonement. It opens the door for unscriptural schemes to wrest professions of faith from men by human artifice bringing into our churches an uncircumcised throng that still speak the language of Ashdod and lust after the fleshpots of Egypt. It leads to laxity and apostasy, modernism and division. I implore all believers to turn away from it, especially Baptists. Turn back, my beloved brethren, to the former historical Baptist position, it will not kill your evangelistic spirit, as it did not kill that of Spurgeon and scores of other worthy men who have held it. A limited atonement and Biblical evangelism belong together. A limited atonement will keep men from unscriptural excesses in evange­lism, but it will not weaken their interest in the salvation of souls. God has com­mitted unto men the "word of reconcilia­tion" (2 Cor. 5:19). This is His preached Word, which He uses as the instrument of the Spirit in regeneration (l Cor. 1:21; Jas. 1:18; I Peter 1:23).