The Sufficiency of Scripture and Modern Psychology

By Robert E. Hempy Jr.

Mr. Hempy received his B. A. degree from the University of Minnesota, and Th.M. degree from Talbot Theological Seminary. He is a public school teacher in Los Angeles and has taught at the seminary level.

What do we mean when we say that Scripture is sufficient? Do we believe that the Word of God alone is sufficient to equip the believer to handle all the problems and exigencies of life? The Bible internally testifies that it is (2 Timothy 3:16–17; 2 Peter 1:3–11). What are the practical implications of this?

Historically, as a matter of orthodoxy, Protestant Christianity has held the position that Scripture is verbal-plenarily inspired, inerrant, authoritative, and sufficient.

The very words of Scripture are inspired of God and inerrant, referring to verbal inspiration (Matthew 4:4; 5:18). Inerrancy extends to every portion of Scripture, referring to plenary inspiration (2 Timothy 3:16). The Scriptures bear the very stamp of God as the ultimate Author—they are authoritative. While the teaching of the Bible may be foolishness to the unbeliever, the Holy Spirit convinces the believer that this is God's Word, not just the product of the human wisdom of man (cp. 1 Thessalonians 2:13).

Concerning the authority of Scripture, Peter compares his experience of witnessing the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1–8; Mark 9:2–8; Luke 9:28–38; John 1:14) to the written Word of God. He calls God’s Word “the prophetic word [made] more sure” 2 Peter 1:16–19).

In other words, although being an eyewitness to the precursory revelation of the coming of Christ's Kingdom, as revealed in the Transfiguration, the written Word of God gives us a better seat in the stands so to speak. He goes on to teach that we

do well to pay attention [to it] as a lamp shining in a dark place (a figure for the recesses of our sinful self) until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts (a figure for the indwelling of the character of Christ) (2 Peter 1:19).

In effect, Peter says that the Word of God is sufficient. Paul also tells us that “all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16–17).

What does the word “every” mean? A paraphrase of 2 Peter 1:3–4 explains:

His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. For by His own glory and excellence, He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, in order that by them you might become partakers of the divine nature, having previously (by initial salvation faith in Christ) escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.

However, the Bible testifies that the Word of God alone is sufficient to equip the believer for “every good work,” and that “His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness” through “His precious and magnificent promises.” What are the practical implications of this? Is the evangelical church modeling this truth through its philosophy and practice of ministry today?

Have you been to a Christian bookstore lately? Are you confused by the seemingly endless number of new Christian books written to help the believer handle his problems? Who are the best-selling Christian authors today? What is the content of their books? Is their education and training in theology, or so-called Christian psychology? Have the authors designed these books to lead the believer into the Word of God as the adequate and sufficient solution to life's problems?

When we tune-in local Christian radio stations, what is the content of the programming during prime time—the drive time to and from work? What is the content of the advertisements that support Christian radio? Do you notice an increasing number of talk shows hosted by Christian psychologists supplanting substantive expository preaching and Bible teaching?

Do you come from a dysfunctional home? Did someone abuse you as a child? Are you divorced or widowed? Do you have painful “repressed” childhood memories? Have you abused drugs? Are you addicted to sex? Are you a “co-dependent,” or an adult child of an alcoholic? Do you suffer from chronic depression? Do you have flashback experiences of painful memories? Do you suffer from low self-esteem? If you listen to Christian talk radio or visit the local Christian bookstore, you will find they offer “solutions” to all of these problems.

What is the solution? Do we need to engage in therapy with a Christian psychotherapist? Do we need to “work through our issues?” If you have abused alcohol or drugs, do you have an incurable disease that now can be controlled through a life-long commitment to a “12 Step” program? What does the Word of God say?

The psychotherapist tells us that if we have experienced any of the serious problems of life mentioned above, he has some good news and some bad news for us. The bad news is that we have an incurable disease, but the good news is that we may control our incurable disease by a lifetime commitment to psychotherapy, or a 12 Step program.

How many kinds of problems are there in life? According to popular Christian psychological theory, we can classify life's problems into three categories: biological, spiritual, and psychological. If you have a biological problem, you need to see a medical doctor. If you have a spiritual problem, you should seek counsel from your pastor, who should point you to the appropriate biblical solution. But, if you have a psychological problem, you need to see a “professional,” a Christian psychotherapist who can integrate principles of the “science” of psychology with principles of Scripture to provide a solution for psychological problems.

However, is this so? Does the Bible teach this dichotomy—that psychological and spiritual problems are two separate, but often related categories? On the other hand, are all non-organic problems spiritual problems? Scripture suggests that all non-organic problems are spiritual problems and that biological problems may be caused by spiritual problems. Moreover, the Word of God is sufficient to handle every problem of life, according to the content of 2 Peter 1:3–11 and 2 Timothy 3:16–17.

The evangelical church sees many people come to Christ from backgrounds of substance abuse, divorce, child abuse, and other painful experiences. We do not want to minimize the pain and heartache of people's past experiences. Yet, the Word of God teaches that we are a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17) and that we possess all spiritual blessings at the point of faith in Christ (Ephesians 1:3). Furthermore, all things work together for good, we are eternally secure in Him, are as good as glorified the moment we place our trust in Christ (Romans 8:28–29), and we are complete in Christ (Colossians 2:10).

The world of Christian psychology far too often prescribes a lifetime of psychotherapy, or submission to a 12-Step program to gain freedom from the bondage of our past. Dr. Martin Bobgan calls this the psychological way. In contrast, for the believer, the Word of God prescribes freedom from the bondage of sin and the past through presenting our bodies as instruments of righteousness (Romans 6:13). Bobgan calls this the spiritual way. The Bible teaches that we experience freedom from bondage through a lifetime of renewing our minds through the study and application of God's Word.

In two primary passages of the New Testament (Ephesians 4:22–24; Romans 5–8 and 12:1–2), Paul teaches the believer a three-part prescription for spiritual health. If followed, this approach makes 99% of the so-called self-help, Christian marriage enrichment, and pop psychology books found in the bookstores unnecessary. Why? Because the Word of God is adequate for all things that pertain to life and godliness and equips us for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16–17; 2 Peter 1:3–11).

The three-part prescription is as follows:

1. Step One of God's program is to recognize that the provision of salvation through faith alone in Christ alone has fractured the power of the sin nature to rule our lives. Prior to faith in Christ, we were slaves to sin. Now that we are no longer slaves to sin, we can choose not to sin. We are to lay aside our old sinful patterns, therefore, by conscious, daily moment-by-moment decisions. Paul calls this laying aside the old self.
2. Step Two of God's program is to acknowledge that the Word of God is sufficient to equip us for every good work. Thus, we need to engage in a life-long discipline of renewing our minds through the daily intake and application of God's Word. For the believer who has had past experiences that hinder his Christian walk, this life-long process is the biblical response replacing a life-long submission to psychotherapy and self-help books. Many of current books, and the psychologists who write them, provide a “solution” which is 180 degrees contrary to Scripture. The psychological way is seldom the spiritual way, but a new kind of bondage.
3. Step Three of God's program is to make a conscious, daily, even moment-by-moment decision to live out the principles of Scripture. As the Word of God begins to transform us from the inside out, renewing our minds, and as the pain of the past subsides, we make conscious moment-by-moment decisions to live a godly life.

Paul calls this three-fold process laying aside the old self, being renewed in the spirit of the mind, and putting on the new self (Ephesians 4:22–24).

The great truths of the New Testament epistles form the backbone of information needed to equip the believer to live a victorious Christian life. The principles of Ephesians 4:22–24 are expanded upon in detail in Romans 5–8; cp. Romans 12:1–2. Peter summarizes the same principles in 2 Peter 1:3–11, which may be the greatest concise passage on the sufficiency of Scripture.

The view expressed in this article is contrary to the practice of far too many evangelical Christian churches. Many evangelicals say they believe in the sufficiency of Scripture, but their practice denies that claim. The contents of Christian bookstores and the move toward pop psychology are a practical denial of the utter sufficiency of Scripture. William Kirk Kilpatrick, Dave Hunt, Martin Bobgan, and others describe this as a seduction. They maintain that the infiltration of the “psychological way” is seducing the Church—the Body of Christ. They see the lives of Christians being neutralized by this seduction. We must never forget that Satan operates as an “angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14).

Kilpatrick, Hunt, Bobgan and others, such as William Playfair, have provided extensive documentation and citation of empirical research to demonstrate that not only is much of so-called Christian psychology unbiblical, it is also unscientific. The portion of psychology that studies human behavior is highly theoretical and subjective. It is not scientific and it is not science. It is a false religion that competes with Christianity in the spirit of 2 Corinthians 11:3, where Paul expresses his concern that Satan may lead believers astray from the purity of simple devotion to Christ.

Does the plethora of self-help and pop psychology books found in Christian bookstores bewilder you? Most of these merely put a Christian label on faulty and unbiblical secular psychological theory and seek to “integrate” it with Scripture. Do the Christian psychologists on the talk radio and TV shows confuse you? If so, please observe the following bibliography of sources that provide the biblical view of Christian counseling. I highly recommend these books for your reading.

Bibliography

• Bobgan, Martin and Deidre. 12 Steps to Destruction. Santa Barbara, CA: Eastgate Publishers, 1991.
• ________. Against Biblical Counseling: For the Bible. Santa Barbara, CA: Eastgate Publishers, 1994.
• ________. Competent to Minister: The Biblical Care of Souls. Santa Barbara: Eastgate Publishers, 1996.
• ________. Four Temperaments, Astrology & Personality Testing. Santa Barbara, CA: Eastgate Publishers, 1992.
• ________. Hypnosis and the Christian. Santa Barbara, CA: Eastgate Publishers, 1984.
• ________. Prophets of Psychoheresy I. Santa Barbara, CA: Eastgate Publishers, 1989.
• ________. Prophets of Psychoheresy 2. Santa Barbara, CA: Eastgate Publishers, 1990.
• ________. Psychoheresy: The Psychological Seduction of Christianity. Santa Barbara, CA: Eastgate Publishers, 1985.
• ________. The Psychological Way/ The Spiritual Way. Minneapolis: Bethany Book House, 1979.
• Hunt, Dave & T. A. McMahon. The Seduction of Christianity. Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1985.
• Hunt, Dave. Beyond Seduction. Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1987.
• Kilpatrick, William Kirk. Psychological Seduction. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1983.
• MacArthur, John F. Our Sufficiency in Christ. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1991.
• Owen, Jim. Christian Psychology's War on God's Word. Santa Barbara, CA: Eastgate Publishing, 1993.
• Playfair, William L., M.D. The Useful Lie. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1991.
• Torrey, E. Fuller, M.D. Freudian Fraud. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1992.
• Wood, Garth. The Myth of Neurosis. New York: Harper & Row, 1986.

The Holy Spirit’s Intercessory Ministry

By Curtis Mitchell, Th.M., Th.D.

Chafer Theological Seminary

Mitchell earned his B.A. at Biola University, B.D. at Talbot School of Theology, Th.M. at Western Seminary, and Th.D. at Grace Theological Seminary. He taught for nearly 25 years at Biola University and is now Professor of Biblical Studies at Chafer Theological Seminary. NB: Dallas Theological Seminary granted permission to print Dr. Mitchell’s article, which one may also find in Bibliotheca Sacra, “The Holy Spirit’s Intercessory Ministry” (vol. 139, #555; July 1982; 230–240).

Of all the chapters in the Book of Romans, none has been more cherished by God’s people than chapter 8. Yet, of the many wonderful promises we find in the chapter, perhaps none is less understood and appreciated than the promise of the Spirit’s help in relation to believers’ praying.

Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God (Romans 8:26–27).

No serious textual problems exist in the passage, but exegetical difficulties abound. The problems begin with the first word “likewise” (hosautos). It is a rather common adverb of comparison used quite frequently by Paul when he desires to show a close connection with the context.

Scholars hold three views on the relationship of these verses to the context. Most feel that “likewise” refers to the broad context in verses 19–25 (on “groaning”). [1] Others tie “likewise” in with the broader context of the Spirit’s ministry begun back in verse 14. [2] Some consider such attempts to tie the passage into the broad context as “rather fanciful.” [3]

They prefer to view the connection with the immediate context: as hope supports believers during suffering and enables them to wait patiently (8:25), so (῾Ωσαύτως) the Spirit helps them in their weakness.4 Strange as it may seem, the contextual considerations have little or no bearing on the actual interpretation of the verses themselves.

The Need for the Spirit’s Intercession

The obvious fact of the passage is the blessed assurance that “the Spirit helps our weakness.” [5] Indeed, a primary ministry of the Spirit in this present era is to be a “Helper” (παράκλητος, John 16:7). Paul uses “helps” (συναντιλαμβάνεται), a rich word, to convey the idea of help. It pictures a man struggling with a heavy load beyond his ability to carry it alone. [6] Fortunately another person comes along and agrees to take hold of one end of the load. So instead of the man having to carry the burden himself, it is now shared and the two men carry the load that was too much for the one man alone.

The Holy Spirit does not take over Christians’ responsibilities and give them automatic deliverance without effort on their part. That would certainly not be envisioned in the word “helps.” Paul does not teach a doctrine of passivity here. Clearly the Holy Spirit did not come to do His work and the believers’ too; rather, He came to help them with theirs. [7] The personal involvement of the Holy Spirit in helping is seen not only by the use of the articulated noun “the Spirit” (τὸ πνεῦμα), but also by the middle voice of the verb “helps.” The Holy Spirit is personally involved in helping the saints. The present tense of this same verb indicates that this blessed Holy Spirit is always ready to come to their aid and assistance. [8]

The Holy Spirit helps “our weakness” (τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ ἡμῶν). The word “weakness” occurs many times in the New Testament. The word is rarely used of purely physical weakness, but is frequently used in a comprehensive sense of human frailty in general. [9] The vast majority understand “weakness” in this passage as man’s fundamental ineptness as a result of the Fall. [10] Evidently the “weakness” has no moral connotations. No rebuke is suggested toward saints who have “weakness.” Even Christ in His incarnate state was said to be “beset with weakness.” Most certainly the Lord God could well have been pleased to deliver saints completely from all effects of the Fall at the moment of regeneration, but obviously He has ordained otherwise. [11] Against such a backdrop He can evidently best display His power and bring greater glory to Himself. [12]

Paul next takes up a special manifestation of this “weakness.” The way it shows itself in saints most acutely and perhaps most frequently is in the realm of prayer. Paul states, “for we do not know how to pray as we should.” The word “for” (γὰρ) introduces an explanation and proof of the believers’ great weakness, and in addition it states the reason for the Spirit’s help. The nature of that weakness with regard to prayer is in the realm of knowledge. Clearly the main verb of the sentence is “know,” preceded by the negative “not”: “we do not know” (οὐκ οἴδαμεν). As part of their human weakness, Christians are ignorant in the matter of prayer. Some try to have this ignorance refer only to special prayer emergencies of one sort or another. [13] Such a contention, however, cannot be sustained by the language. The expression is not, “we often do not know,” but simply, “we do not know.” In view of the continuing imperfection of even the best Christians, would it not be rather strange if it did not affect them in the matter of their knowledge with regard to prayer? Unless they are praying in exact concurrence with the clearly revealed will of God as set forth in Scripture, they simply do not know. Even when praying in exact conformity to Scripture, it is because God has revealed the matter, not because of Christians’ knowledge. All praying by all Christians insofar as it is their praying remains under the “not knowing,” set forth in verse 26. [14]

Amazingly Paul includes himself in this “not knowingness.” The first person plural “we know” includes the great apostle. An editorial “we” is not indicated, because of the manner in which Paul consistently uses the first person plural in the chapter. Was not Paul filled with the Spirit? Did not Paul have the mind of Christ? Was not Paul a spiritual man? Was not Paul mightily used of God in missionary endeavor? Was not Paul ardent in his love for souls? Yet Paul says “we” really do not know what to pray. Hendriksen has rightly observed, “with the exception of the prayers of Jesus Christ, is there anything in the line of prayer more thought-filled, fervent and sublime than the Apostle’s prayer recorded in Eph. 3:14–19?” [15] Yet Paul says, “We do not know how to pray as we ought.”

But what precisely is the nature of this prayer ignorance? Paul addresses himself to this in the words, “what we should pray for as we ought” (τὸ γὰρ τί προσευξώμεθα καθὸ δεῖ). The article τὸ [which one does not see in the English translations], makes the entire clause the object of “we do not know.” [16] Some difference of opinion exists as to whether the aorist subjunctive followed by the indirect question “what we should pray” should be taken as “what to pray” or “what to pray for.” Is Paul referring to the content of prayer, or the object of prayer? Since the object (what to pray for) determines the content (what to pray), the meaning of both is much the same, and the whole question is quite moot. Christians have a general sense of need at times, but they are often not clear on what particular thing they need. So they do not know “what to pray for,” or “what to pray.” Paul’s ignorance regarding his “thorn” (2 Corinthians 12:7) is a case in point. Yet the answer he received shows that God most certainly did know, and the answer God gave Paul on that occasion “shows for what he [Paul] should have prayed.” [17]

But Paul continues by adding the words “as we should” (καθὸ δεῖ). Most concur that “as we should” is to be taken with “what to pray,” rather than with “we do not know.” The latter construction is possible but somewhat forced. [18] The adverb “as” does not refer to one’s manner of praying, but rather to the correspondence between the prayer and what is really needed. [19] Paul himself confessed that he did “not know which to choose” (Philippians 1:22). Broadly speaking, Christians often do know (or so they think) for what they are to pray (e.g., the perfecting of the saints, the glory of God), but they do not know what to pray according to the need of the moment. They may know these ultimate ends, which are common to all prayers, but they may be ignorant as to what is necessary at each crisis in order to attain that desired end. [20]

Augustine was a notoriously wicked man prior to his conversion. His mother Monica, a Christian, was heavily burdened for her wayward son. Hearing that he was leaving home and planning to live in Italy, she prayed earnestly that God would not allow Augustine to go there, because she feared he would fall into deeper sin. But though she prayed sincerely, she really did not know what to pray as she ought because, as it turned out, Augustine did indeed move to Italy, but was gloriously converted there. [21] Monica knew the ultimate end she desired (the conversion of her son), but she was ignorant of what was necessary in the immediate crisis (her son’s move to Italy) to attain that ultimate desired end.

Christians are imperfect, immature, and insufficient. Paul obviously felt that the removal of the thorn would make him a more powerful witness for Christ, but he simply did not know what to pray (for) as he ought! One theologian spoke of this “not knowingness”: “But … even the most sincere, most heroic, most powerful prayers … do not but serve to make clear how little the man of prayer is able to escape from himself … .” [22]

The Nature of the Spirit’s Intercession

The help the Spirit gives in coming to the believers’ aid (συναντιλαμβάνεται) is now clarified. Though Christians pray ignorantly, the Spirit “intercedes” (ὑπερεντυγχάνει) for them. This Greek word, a double compound of the verb ἐντυγχάνω (entugchano), occurs only here in the New Testament. Robertson refers to it as “a picturesque word of rescue.” [23] The root means “to happen along.” The preposition ἐν accents the idea of “on”; thus ἐντυγχάνω means “to happen on.” The preposition, “on” (ὑπερ), emphasizes that the one who “happens on” believers, also acts “on behalf of” them. As a true “advocate,” the Spirit finds them in their weakness, takes their part, and speaks on their behalf. [24]

Thus believers have two intercessors: Christ, who intercedes in heaven at the right hand of the Father, and the Holy Spirit, who intercedes while resident within believers. Christ prays that the merits of His redemptive work may be fully applied to His own, while the Holy Spirit prays that their unrealized needs may be met. [25]

Some would argue that the Holy Spirit’s intercession is involved only in “extreme situations of perplexity” such as is demonstrated by Jesus’ cry, “What shall I say” (John 12:27)? [26] However, as already indicated, the sons of God are ever in a state of weakness, and thus they are always, consciously or unconsciously, ignorant of what to pray in a given situation. Perhaps at times they stumble on the right things to say in their prayers in spite of their ignorance. It may well

be true that at such times their prayers do not need to be “counteracted by the Holy Spirit.” [27] However, in the vast majority of instances, they “do not know how to pray” as they should, and at such times they have the assurance that the Holy Spirit intercedes for them.

But precisely how does the Holy Spirit intercede? Does He do so directly or indirectly? Does He cry out to the Father on behalf of believers, or does He intercede indirectly by “stirring up in our hearts those desires that we ought to entertain”? [28] In support of indirect intercession, some argue that He pleads in believers’ prayers and thus raises them to higher and holier desires. The “groanings too deep for words” are attributed to saints, which the Spirit then uses in making His intercession for them. [29]

Various reasons are given in support of indirect intercession. Most recognize that a strictly literal rendering of the words indicates the Spirit’s direct intercession, but it is argued on theological grounds that “God can’t groan.” [30] But in the words of Hendriksen, “exegetical accuracy is as important as doctrinal purity. Both are needed.” [31] God is not devoid of emotion. If God loves, grieves, and rejoices, why is it inconceivable that He groans. Appeal is made to Galatians 4:6, “and because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying Abba! Father!” Some argue that God cannot be the Father of the Holy Spirit, and hence the crying is that of the saints through the Holy Spirit, not the Spirit’s crying. It is also argued that this same indirect intercession is true in Romans 8:26–27. [32] However, a distinct difference exists between Galatians 4:6 and Romans 8:26–27. [33] In the Romans passage, Paul uses the emphatic form “the Spirit Himself” (αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα). Then in order to make the meaning even less ambiguous, he continues in verse 27 by saying that “he who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is.” The mind of the Spirit, not the mind of believers, is searched by God.

Also Paul has already discussed the groanings of the saints in verse 23. It seems unlikely that he would return to this subject again in verse 26. Finally, the same word, “makes intercession” (ἐντυγχάνει) that refers to the Spirit’s intercession in verse 27 is used in verse 34 of Christ’s intercession at the right hand of the Father. Does not Christ intercede directly for believers? How then can one contend that the word is used of indirect intercession in verse 27, but of direct intercession in verse 34? [34] Therefore exegetically the natural sense of the language indicates that the Spirit residing within Christians is said to intercede directly for them. His praying is complementary to their sincere but ignorant praying and is necessary to its efficacy. [35]

But why not then permit the Holy Spirit to do all the praying? Why pray at all? (The same type of objection is often voiced with reference to divine sovereignty. If God is sovereign, why pray?) Several facts may be pointed out in response: (a) A Christian needs to pray as part of God’s divinely ordained sanctifying process. (b) The Holy Spirit prays only in the hearts of those who pray. If the believer does not pray, the Spirit does not intercede. (c) God has commanded His people to pray, and in His sovereignty He has conditioned many of His actions on human asking. [36]

Now the Spirit’s intercession is said to be with “groanings too deep for words” (στεναγμοῖς ἀλαλήτοις). The use of the instrumental case indicates that it is by this means that the Holy Spirit intercedes. Are these groanings audible or inaudible? Are they related to the “tongues” (γλῶσσα) spoken of in Acts and in 1 Corinthians?

Many commentators do not discuss these questions. Obviously those who equate these “groanings” with “tongues” contend that they are audible. [37] But others do not equate the two phenomena and yet feel that they are audible sighs or groans. They contend that because of the pain and anguish of soul, expressions not formulated into words arise from the hearts of believers as an audible evidence of the believers’ inadequacy. The Spirit then takes these expressions of grief enabling them to take the form of prayer that will be understood by God the Father. [38]

However, as already noted, the language indicates that believers in their fallen state are ever in the condition of weakness, and therefore every prayer needs the Spirit’s intercessory groanings. Is it not self-evident that believers usually do not audibly groan while praying? Yet Paul says that the intercessory groanings always accompany genuine Christian praying. This would seem to suggest that the groanings are inaudible. They are wrought by the Holy Spirit deep within the Christian’s heart to be searched out by the one who knows the mind of the Spirit. [39]


The context is also suggestive in determining the nature of these groans. The intercessory “groanings” of the Spirit (v. 26) are usually recognized as the consummation of a triad of groanings beginning with the groanings (συστενάζω) of creation (v. 22), and followed by the groanings (στενάζω) of Christians (v. 23). Schneider refers to this sequence of groanings as a “crescendo” and a “triple sighing.” [40] Obviously in Paul’s mind the three groanings are related. In each case Paul selects a variation of the verb στένω in describing the three groanings, [41] and each time he describes the verbal action of these groanings with the present tense. [42]

The nature of the first two groanings (creation’s and Christian’s) may thus shed light on the nature of the third groaning (the Spirit’s). Are the groanings of fallen creation audible? Obviously not! At least such groaning is not audible to human ears. Likewise the groans of the redeemed human spirit are inaudible to human ears. Since the three groanings are related, as most contend, and since the first two are inaudible to human ears, does it not argue rather convincingly that the groanings of the Spirit are likewise inaudible to human ears? It seems that, barring strong exegetical evidence to the contrary, these groanings of the Spirit may be assumed to be inaudible.

Also Paul speaks of the Spirit’s groanings as “unutterable.” And this has led to a continuing dispute as to whether this noun should be translated “unuttered” or “unutterable.” Most contend that the word should be translated “unutterable.” It is usually argued that these groanings are so deep, so profound, so moving, that they defy expression. [43] Cranfield is of the opinion that while the word itself could be translated either way, verse 27 suggests that “unuttered” is more likely since “the Spirit’s groanings are not spoken, because they do not need to be since God knows the Spirit’s intention without being expressed.” [44] Actually, if these groans are inaudible to human ears and are clearly understood by the Father (v. 27), it would seem to make little difference whether they were “unuttered” or “unutterable.” Humans would not hear them in either case!

Käsemann, however, insists that Paul is not dealing with the problem of prayer in general, but is “speaking with reference to certain practices in congregational life which are open to misunderstanding…. What is at issue is the praying in tongues of 1 Cor 14:15.” [45] Therefore Käsemann (and others from as early as Chrysostom and Origen) are quite sure it refers to the “praying in tongues” (προσεύχωμαι γλώσσῃ) of 1 Corinthians 14:14–15. However, as Cranfield has pointed out, neither Käsemann nor others who have tried to equate the unutterable groanings with ecstatic utterances of glossolalia have presented exegetical evidence in support of their view. [46]

Several factors make it clear that the unutterable (or unuttered) groanings of verse 26 cannot be equated with praying in tongues. To begin with, as already demonstrated, these groanings are inaudible to human ears; and yet that certainly was not true of praying in tongues. Next, Paul makes it emphatically clear that it is the Spirit Himself who intercedes with groanings, whereas he makes it just as clear that when a person prayed in tongues it was the believer’s own human spirit praying (τὸ πνεῦμα μου προσεύχεται). The difference between the two phenomena seems obvious.

The Efficacy of the Spirit’s Intercession

The Spirit’s groanings may be inaudible and perhaps even unuttered; and yet they are clearly known and understood by the Father. The Father is identified as “He who searches the hearts.” [47] This title demonstrates the Father’s complete competence to comprehend the Spirit’s groanings. Obviously, if He can search the inscrutable human heart, He is perfectly capable of comprehending the intercessory groanings of His own divine Spirit. [48] The important concept is that the Father, who is fully qualified, perceives completely “what the mind of the Spirit is.” Here “mind,” used only in Romans 8, carries the idea of “aim, aspiration or striving.” [49] In short, God perceives the intent of the Spirit’s intercession that is hidden in those unuttered groans.

What God fully understands about the mind of the Spirit is next specified: “that He intercedes according to God” (ὅτι κατὰ θεὸν ἐντυγχάνει). Most English translations render “that” in the casual sense of “because.” [50] In fact, Käsemann labels this “the accepted view.” [51] Taking “that” this way makes the Spirit’s interceding in accord with divine will, the reason God the Father knows the Spirit’s mind. But such is not necessarily the situation. The Father knows all things, hence no reason for knowing the Spirit’s mind need be given. [52]

The “that” in this context is better taken in the explicative sense, and translated “that.” [53] Paul is explaining several wonderful facts concerning the Spirit’s mind (aim or intention) in His intercessory groanings. First, God knows that the Spirit’s groanings are in the nature of intercessions (ἐντυγχάνει). The object of the Holy Spirit’s groanings is to lay bare all the deep hidden needs of the saints before the Father. Second, the Father knows that they are intercessions for people who are special to Him. He knows that the Spirit intercedes “for the benefit of saints” (ὑπὲρ ἁγίων). Saints are those who have been set apart from the rest of humanity by God’s sovereign choice (Ephesians 1:3). For this reason the Holy Spirit’s intercession for them is of special interest to the Father. Third, He, by knowing the mind of the Spirit, realizes fully that His intercessions are ever “according to God” (κατὰ θεὸν). These words are emphatic by position and indicate the most significant information in the entire explanatory phrase introduced by “that.” [54] The words “according to God” are almost universally recognized as meaning “according to God’s will.” [55] This means that the Spirit’s intercessory groans always coincide completely with the Father’s will.

The fact that the Spirit’s intercessory groanings are in complete accord with the Father’s will is especially significant to Christians. Since the Spirit in His intercession is helping them in their inadequate praying, then their praying (complemented by the Spirit’s praying) is inevitably in harmony with the will of God. All prayer in harmony with the will of God will be answered (1 John 5:14–15). Barth accurately observes that God “makes Himself our advocate with Himself that He utters for us that ineffable groaning, so that He will surely hear what we ourselves could not have told Him, so that He will accept what He Himself has to offer.” [56]

Conclusion

Christians are inadequate when it comes to knowing what to pray. However, they are assured that they never pray alone! The indwelling Spirit helps them in a positive way with their problem of prayer-ignorance, by praying along with them. By supplementing their pitiful prayers, He brings them into complete harmony with the will of God. This takes place every time a Christian prays, even if He is unaware of the Spirit’s intercession.

However, much of what is commonly labeled prayer is not prayer at all. Simply getting out a prayer list and mechanically mouthing pious-sounding generalities absolutely devoid of earnestness or urgency is not prayer, according to the Bible. Simply reciting the Lord’s Prayer in a church service without mental or emotional involvement comes closer to being labeled vain repetitions than true prayer. [57] Such so-called prayer does not have the cooperative intercessory help of the Holy Spirit for the simple reason that it is not really Christian praying.

Hendriksen cites an example of the prayer phenomenon depicted in these verses. A pastor had become seriously ill, and his congregation held almost nightly prayer vigils for his recovery. But he continued to worsen and finally died. At the funeral his friend said, “Perhaps some of you are in danger of arriving at the conclusion that the heavenly Father does not hear prayer. He does indeed hear prayer, however. But in this particular case, two prayers were probably opposing each other. You were praying, ‘Oh God, spare his life, for we need him so badly,’ The Spirit’s unspoken prayer was, ‘Take him away, for the congregation is leaning altogether too heavily upon him and not upon thee,’ and the Father heard that prayer.” [58]

Prayer need not always be correctly formulated to be effective. Indeed, the most inarticulate desires which spring from the right motive have shape and value beyond anything that is present and definable to the believer’s consciousness. [59] All too often the intercessory activity of the Holy Spirit is never taken into account. [60]

The significance of praying is not so much the fact of Christians’ praying, but the assurance that it triggers the Holy Spirit’s intercessory praying. The value of prayer ultimately lies in His intercessory groanings, not the believers’ ignorant praying.

Notes

1. C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. 1977). 1:420; W. Hendriksen, Romans, 2 vols., New Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980), 1:273; Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980), 240.
2. Everett F. Harrison, “Romans,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 95; D. Martin Lloyd-Jones, Romans: The Final Perseverance of the Saints (8:17–39) (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975), 121; John Knox, “The Epistle to the Romans,” in The Interpreter’s Bible, ed. George Arthur Buttrick, 12 vols. (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1953), 9:552.
3. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961), 545.
4. Charles Hodge, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1950), 436; Lenski, Romans, 545; Henry C. Thiessen, “The Holy Spirit in the Epistle to the Romans,” (Th.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY, 1929). 100.
5. All Scripture quotations are from the NASB unless otherwise indicated.
6. Hendriksen, Romans, 275; Lenski, Romans, 545; Lloyd-Jones, Romans, 132; A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press. 1934), 573.
7. Thiessen, “The Holy Spirit,” 102; Lloyd-Jones, Romans, 133.
8. Lloyd-Jones, Romans, 133.
9. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, s.v. “ἀσθενεῖα” by Gustav Stahlin; 1:490–93.
10. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), 115; Donald Grey Barnhouse, God’s Heirs, Exposition of Bible Doctrines, vol. 7 (Romans 8:1–39) (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1963), 141; Lloyd-Jones, Romans, 123; F. A. Philippi, Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1879), 2:25.
11. Abraham Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit (1900: reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d.); 638.
12. Barnhouse, God’s Heirs; 142.
13. F. Tholuck. Cited by J. Lange and F. R. Fay, “The Epistle of Paul to the Romans.” Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, by John Peter Lange, 12 vols. (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960). 10:276; Käsemann, Romans, 239; Thiessen, “The Holy Spirit,” 104.
14. Cranfield, Romans, 422.
15. Hendriksen, Romans, 274; Lenski, Romans, 546.
16. E. H. Gifford, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (London: John Murray, 1886: reprint ed., Minneapolis: James Family Publishers, 1977); Lenski, Romans, 545; William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 5th ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902), 213.
17. Lenski, Romans, 546.
18. Cranfield, Romans, 421.
19. Gifford, Romans, 158: Cranfield, Romans, 421.
20. James Denney, “St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans,” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll, 5 vols (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1951), 2:651.
21. Alva McClain, Romans: The Gospel of God’s Grace (Chicago: Moody Press, 1973), 168.
22. Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans (London: Oxford University Press, 1933), 316.
23. Hendriksen, Romans, 275; A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 6 vols. (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931), 4:377.
24. Lenski, Romans, 546.
25. Hendriksen, Romans, 277; Kuyper, The Holy Spirit, 637.
26. F. Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1956), 321; The New Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), 1221.
27. Hendriksen, Romans, 278.
28. Henry Alford, The Greek Testament, 4 vols. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1958), 2:397; C. K. Barrett, Reading through Romans (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), 44; John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1948); 213; Harrison, “Romans,” 96; Knox, “Romans,” 523.
29. Lenski, Romans, 548.
30. Lloyd-Jones, Romans, 137; Lenski, Romans, 547.
31. Hendriksen, Romans, 276.
32. Lloyd-Jones, Romans, 137.
33. Cranfield, Romans, 423; Gifford, Romans, 158: Hendriksen, Romans, 275.
34. Hendriksen, Romans, 276; Kuyper, The Holy Spirit, 636–37.
35. Gifford, Romans, 158; Hendriksen, Romans, 276; Kuyper, The Holy Spirit, 638–39.
36. Hendriksen, Romans, 274.
37. Barrett, Romans, 44; Käsemann, Romans, 240; Knox, “Romans,” 523.
38. Barth, Romans, 317; Denney, “Romans,” 651; Philippi, Romans, 27; Robertson, Word Pictures, 377; Shedd, Romans, 261.
39. R. Haldane, Epistle to the Romans (New York: Robert Carter, 1847), 395; Kuyper, The Holy Spirit, 623; Lenski, Romans, 551; H. A. W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistle to the Romans (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1889), 331; F. Tholuck, Exposition of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Philadelphia: Sorin & Ball, 1844), 268; B. Weiss, A Commentary on the New Testament, 5 vols. (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1906), 3:78.
40. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, s.v. στενάζω by J. Schneider, 7:601.
41. Ibid., 600-601.
42. With creation’s groanings and the Christian’s groanings, the present tense of the verb is self-evident. However. Paul uses a noun στενάγμος in describing the Spirit’s groanings; yet even in this instance, the verbal action describing the groans is in the present tense: ὑπερεντυγχάνω.
43. Alford, The Greek Testament, 397; Lange, Romans, 277; Lenski, Romans, 547; Shedd, Romans, 261; Theissen, “The Holy Spirit,” 107.
44. Cranfield, Romans, 423; Hendriksen, Romans, 275; Lloyd-Jones, Romans, 135.
45. M. Black, Romans, New Century Bible (London: Marshall, Morgan, & Scott, 1973), 123; Godet, Romans, 321; Käsemann, Romans, 240; Knox, “Romans,” 523.
46. Cranfield, Romans, 423.
47. Ibid., 424; Käsemann, Romans, 242; Lenski, Romans, 548.
48. Cranfield, Romans, 424; Käsemann, Romans, 242.
49. Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon, 866.
50. AV; NASB; NIV; RSV; TEV; Williams; and others.
51. Käsemann, Romans, 242.Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 214.
52. Black, Romans, 124; Cranfield, Romans, 424; Gifford, Romans, 158; Hendriksen, Romans, 278; Lenski, Romans, 548; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 214.
53. Gifford, Romans, 158.
54. Cranfield, Romans, 424; Hendriksen, Romans, 278; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 214.
55. Karl Barth, A Shorter Commentary on Romans (London: Oxford University Press, 1959), 102.
56. See the author’s book, Praying Jesus’ Way (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1977), 119–29.
57. Hendriksen, Romans, 274.
58. Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 213.
59. Murray, Romans, 314.

The Ministry of the Holy Spirit In Old Testament Believers

By Clifford Rapp, Jr. [1]

Chafer Theological Seminary

Clifford Rapp earned his B.A. degree from Biola University; and a Th.M. degree in Old Testament Literature and Exegesis from Dallas Theological Seminary. He is a professor of Old Testament and general biblical studies at Chafer Theological Seminary. Cliff also pastors Orange Coast Free Methodist Church, Costa Mesa, California.

Introduction

In John 14:17 Jesus says of the Holy Spirit, He dwells with you and will be in you. This saying indicates a change in the ministry of the Spirit in the life of believers, but what is the nature of the change? I will limit consideration in this paper to the consideration of four ministries of the Spirit that are spoken of in the New Testament, but not specifically mentioned in the Old: the ministries of regeneration, indwelling, sealing and baptizing.

One can argue that because the Old Testament does not use terms for the regenerating, indwelling, sealing, and baptizing ministries of the Spirit that all of these ministries are part of the new relationship of the Spirit to the believer that began at Pentecost. [2] However, an argument from silence is a weak argument to begin with, but a careful look at scripture reveals several passages in which the Bible does have something to say about these ministries in the Old Testament.

I would like to look individually at each of the four ministries of the Spirit under consideration to try to determine whether or not they were a part of the experience of Old Testament saints.

The Ministry of Regeneration

Ryrie defines regeneration as “that act of God which imparts eternal life.” [3]

Were Old Testament saints regenerated? Some have argued on the basis of the experience of saints such as Nicodemus and Saul of Tarsus, who excelled in Judaism, but were not regenerated, that regeneration was not available under Judaism. That only with the beginning of the church age is regeneration available. [4] This argument leads to the conclusion that since Old Testament saints were not regenerated, they did not pass “from an unsaved to a saved state.” [5] This in turns leads to the conclusion that since the Old Testament saints had a lesser spiritual experience then they must have had a lesser form of evil with which to contend. [6]

Chafer attributes a form of renewal less than full regeneration to Old Testament saints, but admits “there is no definite doctrinal teaching relative to the extent and character of that renewal.” [7] What kind of an intermediate state could there be between being spiritually dead and being born again, regenerated by the Spirit? The Old Testament does not use the term regeneration, but the entire Bible says nothing of semi-alive, “renewed” believers.

Others have argued from the conversation of the Lord Jesus with Nicodemus that since Old Testament saints were a part of the kingdom that they must have been born again. Aldrich expresses the argument this way,

It is assumed that regeneration is common to every dispensation. Some have questioned this, but the matter is settled beyond dispute by the Word of God.“ Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). It is clear that the Old Testament saints were in the kingdom of God (cf. Luke 13:28–29); therefore, they must have experienced the new birth. In addition, the doctrine of total depravity demands the new birth in every age since the fall. [8]

Additionally it could be pointed out that the highs of Old Testament spirituality expressed in the Psalms and other devotional passages can only be accounted for by the existence of born again believers.

A clear indication of regeneration in Old Testament saints is found in Jeremiah 24:7, I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the LORD. They will be my people, and I will be their God, for they will return to me with all their heart. These words are spoken of the Jews who would return from the Babylonian captivity. The time that God would give them “a heart to know Him” is upon their return from the 70 year captivity. This return began under the decree from Cyrus, king of Persia, in 538 B.C. As certainly as God fulfilled His word in bringing them back to Judah, He also regenerated them.

The Ministry of Indwelling

Walvoord states that the ministry of indwelling “is the abiding presence of the Spirit … ” [9] Chafer writes,

The present age is distinguished as a period of the indwelling Spirit, whose presence provides every resource for the realization of a God-honoring daily life…the indwelling Spirit is now an unlimited Resource who sustains in every aspect of human life…each one without exception has received the Spirit and each one is therefore confronted with the necessity, if he would fulfill the divine ideal, of living his life in the enabling power of the Spirit …  [10]

The matter of the permanent indwelling of the Spirit being exclusive to the church age is bolstered by the statement of John 14:17 that the Spirit will be “in you” (ἐν ὑμιν). This is seemingly a distinct expression of indwelling. It is future to the end of Christ’s earthly life, since it was spoken on the night of His betrayal. It is contrasted with the current ministry of the Spirit in the apostles, “He remains with you” (παρ῎ ὑμιν).

Is Christ’s statement in John 14:17 really a clear statement of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? Other ministries of the Spirit take place “in” the lives of believers. How can the ministry of regeneration take place anywhere other than “in you”? The sealing of the Holy Spirit takes place in the hearts of believers (2 Corinthians 1:22, ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν). Christ’s statement is most likely not an exclusive reference to the indwelling ministry of the Spirit, but to the expanded ministry of the Spirit in the church age.

Does Christ’s statement, “he remains with you” (παρ’ ὑμῖν μένει), exclude the concept of indwelling? An examination of the Greek usage of the preposition para will show that it not only does not exclude the idea of indwelling, but that it conveys that very sense when used with terms involving dwelling or lodging. [11] Six verses after this statement John uses similar language to describe the relationship of the Father and the Son to the obedient believer (μονὴν παρ᾿ αὐτῶ ποιησόμεθα, John 14:23). [12] Usually this is translated as we will make our abode with him [13] or we will make our home with him. [14] Certainly John is not intending us to think that the Father and the Son are nearby, but external to us because he uses the preposition (with, παρά).

Additionally, the vocabulary used in the Old Testament for the Spirit’s work in people’s lives unmistakably indicates inward activity, not some nearby, external operation.

When the Old Testament does speak of the Spirit’s coming on Old Testament saints for the purpose of empowerment, it uses verbs which clearly speak of coming within them: e.g., “entering into” (bo’, Ezek. 2:2; 3:24), “overpowering” (tsalah, Judges 14:6, 19; 15:14; 1 Samuel 10:10; 11:6), “clothing” (labash, Judges 6:34; 1 Chronicles 12:18; 2 Chronicles 24:20), “being filled” (male’, Exodus 31:3; 35:31), and “falling upon” (naphal, Ezek. 11:5). None indicate the idea of simply being near or in the vicinity of. [15]

Further I might note that Ryrie cites John 14:16 as proof of the permanence of the Spirit’s indwelling of Church age believers. [16] There the Holy Spirit is promised to be with you (μεθ῎ ὑμων) for ever. If with you (μεθ῎ ὑμων) includes the concept of indwelling, it seems rather arbitrary to say that with you (παρ῎ ὑμιν) cannot include the same concept, especially when used with a verb of dwelling. The contrast in the statement he remains with you and will be in you is not a statement simply about indwelling, but about the greater ministry of the Spirit in the church.

The Bible definitely states that the Holy Spirit did indwell believers prior to the crucifixion. Matthew 10:20 declares that the Holy Spirit will speak in the apostles (ἐν ὑμιν) the same expression used in John 14:17, He will be in you). Joseph (Genesis 41:38), Joshua (Numbers 27:18), David (1 Samuel 16:12–13), and Daniel (Daniel 4:8, 5:11–14, 6:3) all had the Spirit in them. To dismiss these examples as being a temporary and limited indwelling of the Spirit is not sound exegesis. There is no statement in scripture that the Spirit departed from any of these men.

It is true that David prays that the Lord will not take His Holy Spirit away (Psalm 51:11). It is also stated that the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul (1 Samuel 16:14). In a similar situation the scripture says of Samson, the Lord departed from him (Judges 16:20). In evaluating these expressions, it is helpful to note that in the Old Testament some believers had the Spirit come on them for a specific, short term task, while others had the Spirit in them for an extended time. Among those who were empowered by the Spirit for a specific, short term task were Othniel (Judges 3:10), Gideon (Judges 6:34), Jephthah (Judges 11:29), Samson (Judges 13:25; 14:6, 19; 15:14), Bezaleel and Aholiab (Exodus 31:1–6), Azariah (2 Chronicles 15:1–7), Jahaziel (2 Chronicles 20:1, 22–23), Zechariah (2 Chronicles 24:20), and Amassai (1 Chronicles 12:18). Those who experienced a longer term ministry of the Spirit are Moses and the 70 elders (Numbers 11:17), Joshua (Numbers 27:18), Saul (1 Samuel 16:14 by implication), David (1 Samuel 16:13), Elijah and Elisha (2 Kings 2:9, 15).

By distinguishing these two different types of experiences we can find parallels with New Testament experiences. For example, Peter is said to be filled with the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:4 to preach on Pentecost and then again in Acts 4:8 in making defense before the Sanhedrin. This intermittent filling of Peter to empower him for specific tasks reminds us of Samson, who was filled on four different occasions to win victories. No one thinks that Peter lost the indwelling of the Spirit in between his fillings. As Chafer writes, “The Holy Spirit is received but once and He never departs; but there are many fillings as need for them arise.” [17] There is no biblical evidence that Samson lost the indwelling of the Spirit in between his special empowerments by the Spirit.

The experiences of those Old Testament saints who had an extended empowerment by the Spirit are more closely akin to the gifting ministry of the Spirit than to the indwelling ministry. Ryrie defines a spiritual gift as “a God given ability for service.” [18] Walvoord writes that the coming of the Spirit on these Old Testament saints was, “a sovereign gift usually associated with a special call to service, and it had in view enablement for a specific task.” [19] The similarity to spiritual gifts is so close that Walvoord actually used the term “gift” to describe it in the preceding quotation. Not all spiritual gifts were the permanent possession of the persons to whom they were given. This seems to be the case with the apostle Paul’s gift of healing. On various occasions he was able to heal people (Acts 19:11–12; 28:8) and on other occasions he was not able to heal people (Philippians 2:26–27; 1 Timothy 5:23). The gift of healing was present in Paul’s early ministry, but seems not to have been present in his later ministry. No one would suggest that the withdrawal of Paul’s gift of healing indicates that the Spirit did not permanently indwell him. So why should one read such an idea into the interpretation of the experience of Old Testament saints? If Saul lost the gift of administration and David was concerned that the gift might be withdrawn from him does this not speak to the issue of indwelling?

Finally in considering the indwelling ministry of the Spirit in Old Testament believers, one must raise the question, “how can regeneration be sustained without the continual indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit?” It seems impossible to conceive of God imparting the divine nature through regeneration and then abandoning the person whom He has regenerated. As Ryrie states of the New Testament believer,

The Spirit cannot leave a believer without throwing that believer back into a lost, unsaved condition. Disindwelling has to mean loss of salvation, and loss of salvation must include disindwelling. The security of the believer and the permanent indwelling of the Spirit are inseparable doctrines. [20]

Chafer offers a similar opinion, “The indwelling, being a feature of salvation and secured by saving faith, is common to all regenerate persons alike. The Holy Spirit is received but once and He never departs.” [21] The new life consists of the impartation of the Spirit and cannot exist apart from the Spirit’s presence. The Old Testament believers must have been indwelt by the Spirit, if they were regenerate.

The Ministry of Sealing

Enns writes,

The principal [sic] idea of sealing is that of ownership. The believer is sealed with the Spirit to identify the believer as belonging to God. Branding cattle would be a parallel; the rancher puts his brand on the steer as a sign that the steer belongs to him. God has put His seal, the Holy Spirit, within the believer to verify that the believer belongs to Him. Second Corinthians 1:22 indicates that the Holy Spirit Himself is the seal … Moreover, the sealing is permanent--with a view to the believer’s ultimate glorification (Eph. 4:30). Hence, the sealing not only emphasizes ownership but also security. The Holy Spirit verifies that the believer permanently belongs to God [emphasis in the original]. [22]

The Old Testament does not speak of believers being sealed for the day of redemption. However, all the features of sealing are spoken of in the Old Testament. Who can miss the matter of God’s ownership of Israel (Leviticus 26:12; Deuteronomy 26:17–19, etc.) and of individual believers (1 Kings 19:18; Psalm 1:6; Nahum 1:7, cp. 2 Timothy 2:19)? The indwelling Holy Spirit is the seal (2 Corinthians 1:22) and it has been demonstrated that the Old Testament saints were indwelt by the Spirit. As to the matter of the security of the believer, the saints of former dispensations were regenerated and indwelt and, therefore, must be as secure as those regenerated and indwelt today.

The Ministry of Baptizing

Enns defines the baptizing work of the Spirit as “that work whereby the Spirit places the believer into union with Christ and into union with other believers in the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13).” [23]

When we come to the baptizing ministry of the Spirit there is unshakable evidence that this ministry did not begin until the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. John the Baptist spoke of it as a future ministry (Matthew 3:11). At the end of His forty day post-resurrection ministry the Lord Jesus still spoke of it as something future and very near (Acts 1:5). The “before many days” time frame that the Lord Jesus speaks of in Acts 1:5 for the baptism of the Holy Spirit leads to the conclusion that it took place in Acts 2 with the pouring out of the Spirit on Pentecost. This conclusion is supported by the only other specific mention of the baptism of the Spirit in the Book of Acts. In Acts 11:16 Peter calls the gift of the Spirit given to Cornelius a fulfillment of John the Baptist’s prophecy about the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In the following verse he declares that it was the same thing that happened to the apostles. So the baptism of the apostles by the Spirit must have occurred between Acts 1 and Acts 10 when Cornelius received the baptism of the Spirit. The most likely occasion for this to have happened is on Pentecost in Acts 2.

The Old Testament believers were not baptized into the body of Christ, but they had a similar concept. Israel was conceived of as God’s son, His first-born son (Exodus 4:22; Hosea 11:1). Individual Israelites were sons of God by virtue of their membership in the first-born son, Israel (Deuteronomy 14:1, 2). Year by year they confessed this unity during the Passover celebration by declaring that the Lord had brought them (not their forefathers) out of Egypt (Exodus 13:8, 9, 14, 15). On any other occasion that a parent was asked by his son about the “meaning of the testimonies, and the statutes and the ordinances which the Lord … commanded” they were to refer to their (not their forefathers’) slavery in Egypt and God’s deliverance of them (not their forefathers) according to Deuteronomy 6:20–25. The history of Israel, God’s first-born, was the personal history of each Israelite just like the history of Christ becomes the personal history of each believer, baptized into Christ.

We have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life (Romans 6:4).

Conclusion

It has been demonstrated that the change in the Spirit’s ministries for church age believers does not involve regeneration, indwelling, or sealing. Both the Spirit’s ministries of regeneration and of indwelling are specifically mentioned in the Old Testament. The ministry of sealing was present by implication. Of the four ministries of the Spirit that have been considered the one specific ministry that is exclusive to the church is that of baptizing.

Notes

1. This article has been undertaken in honor of Paul E. Best, a friend and colleague at Chafer Theological Seminary, who entered into his eternal abode on July 7, 1996.
2. Systematic Theology, by Lewis S. Chafer (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), p. 73.
3. The Holy Spirit, by Charles C. Ryrie (Chicago: Moody Press, 1965), p. 64.
4. Chafer, p.73.
5. Ibid.
6. Chafer, p.83, “It is evident that His [Christ’s] purpose was to assign a new and hitherto unexperienced character to evil as it appears in this age.”
7. Ibid., p.73.
8. Bibliotheca Sacra, Volume 114, Number 455, July-September, 1957, “The Transitional Problem in Acts,” by Roy L. Aldrich.
9. The Holy Spirit, by John F. Walvoord (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1954), p. 155.
10. Chafer, p. 123.
11. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, by F. Blass and A. Debrunner, translated and edited by Robert W. Funk (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1961), section 238, p. 124.
12. John 14:23.
13. KJV and NASB.
14. NKJV, NIV, RSV, and NRSV.
15. The Holy Spirit in the Old Testament, by Leon J. Wood (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), pp. 86–87.
16. Ryrie, The Holy Spirit, p. 43.
17. Chafer, p. 124.
18. Balancing the Christian Life, by Charles C. Ryrie (Chicago: Moody Press, 69), p. 94.
19. The Holy Spirit, Walvoord, p. 72.
20. Basic Theology, by Charles C. Ryrie (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1986), p. 356.
21. Chafer, p. 124.
22. The Moody Handbook of Theology, by Paul Enns (Chicago: Moody Press, 1989), p. 269.
23. Enns, p. 266.

The Extent of the Atonement: Limited Atonement Versus Unlimited Atonement (Part Two)

By Ron Rhodes, Th.D.

Ron Rhodes received his Th.M. and Th.D. degrees from Dallas Theological Seminary. Dr. Rhodes is the executive director of Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries—a discipleship ministry that helps Christians become biblically literate. A free bimonthly newsletter is available. We invite you to write: P.O. Box 80087, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688.

In Part One of this series, I set forth a number of verses and arguments in favor of the doctrine of unlimited atonement and against the doctrine of limited atonement. In this concluding installment, I shall provide further biblical arguments in favor of unlimited atonement.

A Case Study: The Savior of the Israelites

As a basic principle of biblical interpretation, it is critical to recognize that the Scriptures do not always include all aspects of a truth in any one passage. Consider the fact that Christ is called the Savior of the Israelites in a number of verses. If it is legitimate for particular redemptionists to cite certain verses in isolation to “prove” that Christ died only for the elect, then it could be argued with equal logic from other isolated passages that Christ died only for Israel (cf. John 11:51; Isaiah 53:8), or that He died only for the apostle Paul (for Paul declared that Christ “loved me, and gave himself for me”— Galatians 2:20, emphasis added). [1]

Related to this, it is highly revealing that Matthew 1:21 says that Jesus “will save his people from their sins.” Throughout the Old Testament God speaks of the Israelites as “My people.” For example, seven times God tells the Pharaoh, “Let My people go” (Exodus 5:1; 7:16; 8:1, 20; 9:1, 13; 10:13). (I urge the reader to check a concordance to verify that God continues to refer to the Israelites as “My people” throughout the entire Old Testament.) The last occurrence is Zechariah 13:9, where God affirms: “They will call on my name and I will answer them; I will say, ‘They are my people,’ and they will say, ‘The LORD is our God.’”

Now, in Luke 1:68 Zechariah said in regard to Jesus, “Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel, because he has come and has redeemed his people” (emphasis added). Zechariah here uses the phrase “his people” in the standard Old Testament sense of “Israelites.”

In Matthew 1:21, when an angel told Joseph, “She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins,” the words “his people” are referring specifically to the people of Israel, not the entire company of God’s elect (which includes non-Israelites or Gentiles). Yet, as Norman Douty asks, “Who believes that the Jewish people have a monopoly on Christ’s saving grace? All hold that it goes beyond their confines to the Gentile world as well.” [2]

All of this is simply to say that, in like manner, when Christ is said to have purchased the church with His blood (Acts 20:28), we cannot limit Christ’s atoning work to the church alone. Simply because a particular verse only mentions God’s salvation to one group does not mean that God’s salvation is to be restricted to only that group.

Properly Understanding “Universal” Terms

In the previous article I discussed the particular redemptionist position that while terms such as “all,” “world,” and “whosoever” are used in Scripture in reference to those for whom Christ died (e.g., John 3:16), these words are to be understood in terms of the elect. In other words, “all” is said to refer to “all of the elect” or “all classes of men” (Jew and Gentile). Similarly, the word “world” is said to refer to the “world of the elect” or to people without distinction (Jews and Gentiles).

Contrary to this position, universal terms such as “world” should not be restricted in contexts that speak of the atonement. It is true that words like “all” and “world” are sometimes used in Scripture in a restricted sense (e.g., Luke 2:1 olkoumene, not kosmos). But context is always the determining factor in how these words should be understood. Theologian Robert Lightner correctly observes, “Those who always limit the meaning of those terms in contexts that deal with salvation do so on the basis of theological presuppositions, not on the basis of the texts themselves.” [3]

The scholarly lexicons, encyclopedias, and dictionaries that know nothing of the meaning “world of the elect” for the biblical word “world” (kosmos) include:

• Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.
• Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.
• Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament.
• Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.
• Souter’s Pocket Lexicon of the New Testament.
• The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge.
• Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible.
• The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.
• The New Bible Dictionary.
• Baker’s Dictionary of Theology.
• Arndt and Gingrich’s A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.

Walter Martin, founder of the Christian Research Institute, correctly observed:

John the Apostle tells us that Christ gave His life as a propitiation for our sin (i.e., the elect), though not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2)…. [People] cannot evade John’s usage of “whole” (Greek: holos). In the same context the apostle quite cogently points out that “the whole [holos] world lies in wickedness” or, more properly, “in the lap of the wicked one” (1 John 5:19, literal translation). If we assume that “whole” applies only to the chosen or elect of God, then the “whole world” does not “lie in the lap of the wicked one.” This, of course, all reject. [4]

We must also ask, How can the Holy Spirit have a ministry to the whole world in showing men their need of Jesus Christ (John 14–16) if the death of Christ does not make provision for the whole world? In John 16:8–11 Jesus said:

But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned (emphasis added).

Notice in this passage that “the world” is clearly distinguished from “you.” Yet the Holy Spirit is said to bring conviction on the world. And one of the things the Spirit convicts “the world” of is the sin of not believing on Christ (v. 9).

Are we to conclude that “the world” that is convicted of unbelief is the world of the elect? If so, then Satan, the “prince of this world” (v. 11, same context), must be the “prince of the elect.” No wonder John Calvin says of this passage, “Under the term world are, I think, included not only those who would be truly converted to Christ, but hypocrites and reprobate.” [5]

The “Many” Versus the “All”

In Matthew 26:28 Jesus said, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” The reference to “many” in Christ’s words do not support limited atonement but rather support unlimited atonement. One must keep in mind that earlier in Matthew’s Gospel Jesus had said that few find eternal life (Matt. 7:14) and few are chosen (22:14). But Christ did not say His blood was poured out for a few, but for many. John Calvin thus declares of this verse, “By the word many He means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race.” [6]

This is the same meaning as in Romans 5:15: “For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!” It is critical to note that the “many” of verse 15 is clearly defined in verse 18 as “all men”: “Just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.”

Notice also that in verse 15 Paul speaks of Adam’s sin, and of the resultant death that comes upon all his descendants. But then the apostle goes on to speak of the grace of God and its resultant gift of life abounding to the same company. This is clear from the fact that “the many” in the second clause of the verse is coextensive with “the many” in the first clause.

Is God’s “Desire” Frustrated?

It is sometimes argued that if God made the provision of salvation for all human beings, but not all human beings are saved, then God’s “desire” is frustrated. However, it is important to understand that though God is completely sovereign over all things, this does not mean He necessarily brings into reality everything He “desires.” Norman Douty offers this keen insight:

Consider the beginnings of human history. God told our first parents to refrain from eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Did He want them to eat of it, or did He not? Plainly, He did not want them to do so. Yet they ate of it. Was He frustrated? Of course not. He was not frustrated because, by His efficient grace, He could have induced them to refrain. Yet He chose to withhold that grace and to permit the Fall. Nevertheless, the full responsibility for that sin belonged to Adam and Eve, who had sufficient grace to refrain, but did not use it. [7]

Consider also Matthew 23:37, where Christ said: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.” What Christ desired was not what came about.

Hence, Douty is correct in concluding:

As God could have induced our first parents to refrain from eating of the tree, so He could have induced … the resistant Jews of Christ’s time to have received His gracious ministry of salvation. But He did not choose to effect these desirable ends. Yet this in no wise means that He wanted evil to befall any. He merely allowed the violation of His desires in order to carry out a hidden purpose He had in mind. [8]

One further example relates to Jesus, who told some hard-hearted Jews in John 5:34, “I say these things that you may be saved.” But “saved” they were not. Why? Because Christ added in verse 40, “You are unwilling to come to Me, that you may have life.” Here is a clear case of “but ye would not,” despite the clear offer of salvation.

Now, I must be careful to emphasize that simply because one rejects limited atonement does not in any way mean that one lessens or diminishes the clear scriptural doctrine of the sovereignty of God in regard to election. Any who make such an allegation are simply uninformed. As Lewis Sperry Chafer put it,

Without the slightest inconsistency the unlimited redemptionists may believe in an election according to sovereign grace, that none but the elect will be saved, that all of the elect will be saved, and that the elect are by divine enablement alone called out of the state of spiritual death from which they are impotent to take even one step in the direction of their own salvation. The text, “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him” (John 6:44), is as much a part of the one system of doctrine as it is of the other. [9]

Answers to Three Common Objections

There are three objections that are often raised in opposition to the doctrine of unlimited atonement. But they are easily answered.

1. Objection: If Christ died for those who go to hell, what benefit have they from His death?

Answer: We could just as well ask, What good did the bitten Israelites obtain from the brazen serpent to which they refused to look (Num. 21:8–9)? None, of course, but nevertheless God received the glory for being a God generous enough to make provision for them. [10]

2. Objection: If satisfaction has been made for all, how can any go to hell?

Answer: God has provided atonement for all, but He has stipulated that this atonement becomes effective only for those who exercise faith in Jesus Christ. Deliverance from doom depends not on the atonement alone, but on the reception of it. It is a fact that human beings can starve in the presence of a free feast, if they refuse to partake of it. [11]

3. Objection: Why would God have Christ die for those whom He, in His omniscience, knew would never receive His provision?

Answer: We could just as easily ask a similar question in regard to numerous other events in Scripture. For example, Why did God send Noah to preach to his contemporaries if he knew they would not listen (2 Peter 2:5)? Why did God send the prophets to preach to the rebellious Israelites, knowing that on many of those occasions they would refuse to listen? The fact is, God made a provision for all people because He is a benevolent God.

Answering the Charge of Universalism

Limited redemptionists sometimes charge that unlimited atonement leads to Universalism. But this is special pleading. Just because one believes Christ died for all does not mean all are saved. One must believe in Christ to be saved. Hence, the fact that Christ died for the world does not secure the salvation of all. [12]

Salvation becomes actual only for the elect, although it is potential and available to all. “Our inheriting eternal life involves two separate factors: an objective factor (Christ’s provision of salvation) and a subjective factor (our acceptance of that salvation).” [13]

One must distinguish between the provisional benefits of Christ’s death and the appropriation of those benefits by the elect. Although the provision of atonement is unlimited, yet the application of it is limited. [14] In his book The Death Christ Died, Robert Lightner rightly explains that:

The cross does not apply its own benefits but that God has conditioned His full and free salvation upon personal faith in order to appropriate its accomplishments to the individual. This faith which men must exercise is not a work whereby man contributes his part to his salvation, nor does faith … improve in any way the final and complete sacrifice of Calvary. It is simply the method of applying Calvary’s benefits which the sovereign God has deigned to use in His all-wise plan of salvation. [15]

God is not unfair in condemning those who reject the offer of salvation. He is not exacting judgment twice. Because the nonbeliever refuses to accept the death of Christ as his own, the benefits of Christ’s death are not applied to him. He is lost, not because Christ did not die for him, but because he refuses God’s offer of forgiveness. [16]

The electing purpose of God is not complete until the elect are in glory. Since this is true—and since the cross provides salvation dependent on faith for its reception, and since the cross does not secure salvation apart from that faith—there is no contradiction here with God’s sovereignty.

A Survey of Church History

It is significant that unlimited atonement has been held by a majority of scholars throughout church history. Indeed, theologian Millard Erickson points out that unlimited atonement has been held by the vast majority of theologians, reformers, evangelists, and fathers from the beginning of the church until the present day, including virtually all the writers before the Reformation, with the possible exception of Augustine. Among the Reformers the doctrine is found in Luther, Melanchthon, Bullinger, Latimer, Cranmer, Coverdale, and even Calvin in some of his commentaries… Is it likely that the overwhelming majority of Christians could have so misread the leading of the Holy Spirit on such an important point? [17]

Because John Calvin has been so often cited on this issue in favor of limited atonement, Lightner is careful to point out that “it is highly debatable that he did, in fact, hold that view…. Whereas some scholars have attempted to show that there is harmony between Calvin and later orthodox Calvinism, others have argued that contemporary Calvinism has veered significantly from Calvin’s teaching, including his teaching on the extent of the atonement.” [18] (The reader will recall that a number of Calvin’s citations in this article show him favorable to unlimited atonement.)

Quotations from the Early Church Fathers

Following is a representative sampling of quotations from the early church Fathers in support of the doctrine of unlimited atonement:

• Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 150-220) said that “Christ freely brings… salvation to the whole human race.” [19]
• Eusebius (A.D. 260-340) said that “it was needful that the Lamb of God should be offered for the other lambs whose nature He assumed, even for the whole human race.” [20] Athanasius (A.D. 293-373) said that “Christ the Son of God, having assumed a body like ours, because we were all exposed to death [which takes in more than the elect], gave Himself up to death for us all as a sacrifice to His Father.” [21]
• Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 315-386) said, “Do not wonder if the whole world was ransomed, for He was not a mere man, but the only-begotten Son of God.” [22]
• Gregory of Nazianzen (A.D. 324-389) said that “the sacrifice of Christ is an imperishable expiation of the whole world.” [23]
• Basil (A.D. 330-379) said, “But one thing was found that was equivalent to all men … the holy and precious blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which He poured out for us all.” [24]
• Ambrose (A.D. 340-407) said that “Christ suffered for all, rose again for all. But if anyone does not believe in Christ, he deprives himself of that general benefit.” [25] Ambrose also said, “Christ came for the salvation of all, and undertook the redemption of all, inasmuch as He brought a remedy by which all might escape, although there are many who … are unwilling to be healed.” [26]
• Augustine (A.D. 354-430). Though Augustine is often cited as supporting limited atonement, there are also clear statements in Augustine’s writings that are supportive of unlimited atonement. For example, Augustine once said: “The Redeemer came and gave the price, shed His blood, and bought the world. Do you ask what He bought? See what He gave, and find what He bought. The blood of Christ is the price: what is of so great worth? What, but the whole world? What, but all nations?” [27] Augustine also stated, “The blood of Christ was shed for the remission of all sins.” [28]
• Cyril of Alexandria (A.D. 376-444) said that “the death of one flesh is sufficient for the ransom of the whole human race, for it belonged to the Logos, begotten of God the Father.” [29]
• Prosper (a friend and disciple of Augustine who died in A.D. 463) said that “as far as relates to the magnitude and virtue of the price, and to the one cause of the human race, the blood of Christ is the redemption of the whole world: but those who pass through this life without the faith of Christ, and the sacrament of regeneration, do not partake of the redemption.” [30] Prosper also said, “The Savior is most rightly said to have been crucified for the redemption of the whole world.” [31] He then said, “Although the blood of Christ be the ransom of the whole world, yet they are excluded from its benefit, who, being delighted with their captivity, are unwilling to be redeemed by it.” [32]

Quotations from the Reformers of the 16th Century

Further support for unlimited atonement is found in the following sampling of quotations from the Reformers of the 16th century:

• Martin Luther (A.D. 1483-1546) said that “Christ is not a cruel exactor, but a forgiver of the sins of the whole world…. He hath given Himself for our sins, and with one oblation hath put away the sins of the whole world…. Christ hath taken away the sins, not of certain men only, but also of thee, yea, of the whole world…. Not only my sins and thine, but also the sins of the whole world … take hold upon Christ.” [33]
• Philip Melanchthon (A.D. 1497-1560) said, “It is necessary to know that the Gospel is a universal promise, that is, that reconciliation is offered and promised to all mankind. It is necessary to hold that this promise is universal, in opposition to any dangerous imaginations on predestination, lest we should reason this promise pertains to a few others and ourselves. But we declare that the promise of the Gospel is universal. And to this are brought those universal expressions which are used constantly in the Scriptures.” [34]
• Other luminaries involved to some degree in the Reformation who held to unlimited atonement include Hugh Latimer, Myles Coverdale, Thomas Cranmer, Wolfgang Musculus, Henry Bullinger, Benedict Aretius, Thomas Becon, Jerome Zanchius, and David Paraeus. [35]

Quotations from Other Luminaries from Recent Church History

Still further support for the doctrine of unlimited atonement is found in the following quotations from recent luminaries in church history:

• Church historian Philip Schaff said, “His saving grace flows and overflows to all and for all, on the simple condition of faith…. If, by the grace of God, I could convert a single skeptic to a child-like faith in Him who lived and died for me and for all, I would feel that I had not lived in vain.” [36]
• Bible expositor B. F. Westcott said, “Potentially, the work of Christ extends to the whole world.” Moreover, “the love of God is without limit on His part, but to appropriate the blessing of love, man must fulfill the necessary condition of faith.” [37]
• Bible expositor A. T. Robertson said that the word “world” in John 3:16— “For God so loved the world”— means “the whole cosmos of men, including the Gentiles, the whole human race,” and adds that “this universal aspect of God’s love appears also in II Cor. 5:19; Rom. 5:8.” [38]

I’m Convinced  (In Conclusion)

In this brief two-part series, we have looked at both sides of the debate regarding the extent of the atonement. It is my conclusion that when one considers all the scriptural evidence collectively, the only possible correct view is that of unlimited atonement. Indeed, it is the only position that makes complete sense of all the “limited” and “unlimited” verses taken as a whole.

Notes

1. Lewis Sperry Chafer, “For Whom Did Christ Die?” Bibliotheca Sacra, Oct.-Dec. 1980, p. 323.
2. Norman Douty, The Death of Christ (Irving, TX: Williams & Watrous Publishing Co., 1978), p. 132.
3. Robert Lightner, “For Whom Did Christ Die?” Walvoord: A Tribute, ed. Donald K. Campbell (Chicago: Moody Press, 1982), p. 165.
4. Walter Martin, Essential Christianity (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1980), p. 55.
5. John Calvin, Commentary on John’s Gospel (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1949), vol. 2, p. 138.
6. John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries (reprinted, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1949); Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. 3, p. 214.
7. Douty, p. 13.
8. Ibid., p. 14.
9. Chafer, p. 310-11.
10. Douty, p. 129.
11. Ibid., p. 129.
12. Walter Elwell, “Atonement, Extent of the,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), p. 99.
13. Millard J. Erickson, Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), p. 832.
14. Cf. A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, 1979), pp. 771–72.
15. Robert Lightner, The Death Christ Died (Schaumburg, IL: Regular Baptist Press, 1978), p. 56.
16. Elwell, p. 99.
17. Erickson, p. 835.
18. Lightner, The Death Christ Died, p. 159.
19. Paedagogus, ch. 11; quoted by J. Davenant, The Death of Christ, vol. 2 of On the Colossians, ed. Allport (London, 1832), p. 319.
20. Demonstratio Evangelica, ch. 10, preface; in ibid., p. 374.
21. On the Incarnation of the Word, p. 42; in ibid., p. 374.
22. Catacheses, 13:2; quoted by Smeaton, The Apostles’ Doctrine of the Atonement (Edinburgh, 1870; Grand Rapids, 1957), p. 498.
23. Oratoria 2 in Pasch., i.e., Passover; quoted by Davenant, p. 374.
24. On Ps. 49:7, 8, sec. 4; quoted by Smeaton, p. 499.
25. On Ps. 118, Sermon 8; quoted by Davenant, p. 411.
26. On Ps. 118, Sermon 8; in ibid., p. 425.
27. Quoted in Smeaton, p. 505.
28. Quoted in Davenant, p. 410.
29. Oratorio de Recta Fide, no. 2, sec. 7; cited in Smeaton, p. 502.
30. Answer to Vincentius; in Davenant, p. 321f.
31. Reply to Capitula Gallorum, no. 9, in ibid., p. 425.
32. Reply to Capitula Gallorum, no. 9, in ibid.
33. Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians; quoted by Morison, The Extent of the Atonement (Glasgow, 1882), pp. 121f., 125.
34. Melanchthon, Common-places; in Davenant, p. 337.
35. For documentation, see Douty, pp. 139–41.
36. Cited by Douty, p. 160.
37. B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John (London, 1882), pp. 21, 55, 56.
38. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (New York, 1930), vol. 5, p. 50.

The Extent of the Atonement: Limited Atonement Versus Unlimited Atonement (Part One)

By Ron Rhodes, Th.D.

Chafer Theological Seminary

Ron Rhodes received his Th.M. and Th.D. degrees from Dallas Theological Seminary. Dr. Rhodes is the executive director of Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries—a discipleship ministry that helps Christians become biblically literate. A free bimonthly newsletter is available. We invite you to write: P.O. Box 80087, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688.

Among the more controversial issues related to the doctrine of the atonement is the question, For whom did Christ die?

There are two theological camps regarding issue. One camp argues that Jesus’ death was intended to secure salvation for a limited number of people. This view is typically called “limited atonement” because God is said to have limited the effect of Christ’s death to a specific number of elect persons. This view is also called “particular redemption” because advocates of this view believe redemption was provided only for a particular group of people (i.e., the elect). The second camp (my view) holds to what is called “unlimited atonement” or “general redemption.” This camp argues that God did not limit Christ’s redemptive death to the elect, but allowed it to be for humankind in general. [1] In this view, Christ’s death made the provision of salvation for all humanity, but salvation becomes effective only for those who exercise faith in Christ. Salvation becomes effective only for God’s elect.

In this article, we will first survey the evidence for both views. We will then set forth detailed argumentation in favor of unlimited atonement, which the author believes to be the biblical position.

The Case for Limited Atonement

Limited atonement is “the view that Christ’s atoning death was only for the elect.” [2] Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof explains it this way: “The Reformed position is that Christ died for the purpose of actually and certainly saving the elect, and the elect only. This is equivalent to saying that He died for the purpose of saving only those to whom He actually applies the benefits of His redemptive work.” [3]

Verses Offered in Support of Limited Atonement

Following are some of the key verses Berkhof and others cite in favor of limited atonement. I’ve italicized the relevant portions of each verse:

• Matthew 1:21: “She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”
• Matthew 20:28: “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
• Matthew 26:28: “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”
• John 10:15: “I lay down my life for the sheep.”
• Acts 20:28: “Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.”
• Ephesians 5:25: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.”
• Hebrews 9:28: “So Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.”
• John 15:13: “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”

Upon first reading, verses such as these seem to support the idea that Christ died on the cross not for all people but for a particular group of people—His “people,” the “many,” the “church of God,” His “sheep,” His “friends.” Many Reformed theologians believe the doctrine of unlimited atonement is utterly disproven by such verses.

Arguments Offered in Support of Limited Atonement

Proponents of limited atonement, such as late Reformed scholars Louis Berkhof and Charles Hodge, set forth a number of arguments which they believe conclusively proves the truth of the doctrine. Following are eight of the more notable arguments:

1. The Bible says Christ died for a specific group of people—the “church,” His “people,” His “sheep.” Berkhof argues, “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.” [4]
2. Since the elect were chosen before the foundation of the world, Reformed scholars ask how Christ could honestly be said to have died for all human beings? Put another way, how could Christ design something which by virtue of His omniscience He knew would never come to pass? It doesn’t make sense, they say. Hodge clarifies this line of argument by suggesting that “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.” [5] In other words, “it would have been a waste and a lack of foresight on the part of God to have Christ die for those whom he had not chosen to salvation.” [6]
3. Some advocates of limited atonement say Christ is defeated if He died for all men and all men aren’t saved.
4. Some advocates of limited atonement say that if Christ died for all people, then God would be unfair in sending people to hell for their own sins. It is argued that “no law court allows payment to be exacted twice for the same crime, and God will not do that either.” [7] Christ paid for the sins of the elect; the lost pay for their own sins.
5. Since Christ didn’t pray for everyone in His High Priestly prayer in John 17, but only prayed for His own, Christ must not have died for everyone. It is argued that since the intercession is limited in extent, the atonement must be too. [8] As Berkhof puts it, “Why should He limit His intercessory prayer, if He had actually paid the price for all?” [9]
6. Some advocates of limited atonement have charged that unlimited atonement tends toward universalism. [10] Hence, unlimited atonement cannot be the correct view.
7. In the Middle Ages such scholars as Prosper of Aquitaine, Thomas Bradwardine, and John Staupitz taught limited atonement. It is claimed that even though John Calvin did not explicitly teach the doctrine, it seems implicit in some of his writings. Calvin’s successors then made limited atonement explicit and included it in Reformed confessions of faith such as the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession of Faith. [11]
8. Though terms such as “all,” “world,” and “whosoever” are used in Scripture in reference to those for whom Christ died (e.g., John 3:16), these words are to be understood in terms of the elect. In other words, “all” refers to “all of the elect” or “all classes of men” (Jew and Gentile). Berkhof says “the word ‘all’ sometimes has a restricted meaning in Scripture, denoting all of a particular class, 1 Cor. 15:22; Eph. 1:23, or all kinds of classes, Tit. 2:11.” [12]

Similarly, the word “world” is said to refer to the “world of the elect” or to people without distinction (Jews and Gentiles). Berkhof says the doctrine of unlimited atonement is based

on the unwarranted assumption that the word ‘world’ … means ‘all the individuals that constitute the human race.’ …. When it is used of men, [the word] does not always include all men, John 7:4; 12:19; 14:22; 18:20; Rom. 11:12, 15.” [13]

He argues that “there are passages which teach that Christ died for the world …. In the passages referred to it may simply serve to indicate that Christ died, not merely for the Jews, but for people of all the nations of the world.” [14] In keeping with the above, the word “whosoever” is interpreted to mean “whosoever of the elect.”

Based on arguments such as those above, Reformed scholars believe that Christ died only for the elect.

The Case for Unlimited Atonement

In noted contrast to the doctrine of limited atonement, unlimited atonement is “the doctrine that Christ’s redemptive death was for all persons.” [15] Christ did not die just for the elect but for the non-elect as well.

Scriptural Arguments Offered  in Support of Unlimited Atonement

There are numerous verses that support the doctrine of unlimited atonement. In what follows, I shall list some of these verses and add some expositional commentary along the way (my own comments, as well as comments from well-known exegetes). Again, I’ve italicized the relevant words in each verse.

Luke 19:10—Jesus Saves the “Lost”

In Luke 19:10 we read, “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost.” The “lost” in this verse refers to the collective whole of lost humanity, [16] not just to the lost elect. This is the most natural understanding of this verse.

John 1:29—Jesus Takes Away the Sin “of the World”

In John 1:29 we read, “The next day John saw Jesus coming towards him and said, ‘Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.’” What is the “world” here? Exegete B. F. Westcott tells us that the fundamental idea of kosmos (world) in John’s Gospel is that which “belongs to the sphere of human life as an ordered whole, considered apart from God …. the world comes to represent humanity in its fallen state, alienated from its Maker.” [17]

Reformer John Calvin says of this verse, “He uses the word sin in the singular number for any kind of iniquity; as if he had said that every kind of unrighteousness which alienates men from God is taken away by Christ. And when he says the sin of the world, he extends this favor indiscriminately to the whole human race.” [18] Though Calvin is often cited in favor of limited atonement, here is a clear statement in which unlimited atonement is in view.

J. C. Ryle similarly states regarding this verse:

Christ is … a Savior for all mankind …. He did not suffer for a few persons only, but for all mankind…. What Christ took away, and bore on the cross, was not the sin of certain people only, but the whole accumulated mass of all the sins of all the children of Adam…. I hold as strongly as anyone that Christ’s death is profitable to none but the elect who believe in His Name. But I dare not limit and pare down such expressions as the one before us…. I dare not confine the intention of redemption to the saints alone. Christ is for every man … The atonement was made for all the world, though it is applied and enjoyed by none but believers. [19]

John 3:16—”Whoever” Believes in Jesus Is Saved

In John 3:16 we read, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” The Greek lexicons are unanimous that “world” here denotes humankind, not the “world of the elect.”

It is critical to observe that John 3:16 cannot be divorced from the context that is set in verses 14 and 15, wherein Christ alludes to Numbers 21. In this passage Moses is seen setting up the brazen serpent in the camp of Israel, so that if “any man” looked to it, he experienced physical deliverance. In verse 15 Christ applies the story spiritually when He says that “whosoever” believes on the uplifted Son of Man shall experience spiritual deliverance.

John Calvin comments:

He has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term world which He formerly used [God so loved the world]; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet He shows Himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when He invites all men without exception [not merely ‘without distinction’] to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life. [20]

John 4:42—Jesus Is the Savior “of the World”

In John 4:42 we read, “They said to the woman, ‘We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.” It is quite certain that when the Samaritans called Jesus “the Savior of the world,” they were not thinking of the world of the elect. To read such a meaning into this text would be sheer eisegesis.

Likewise, when Jesus said, “I am the Light of the world” (John 8:12), He certainly was not thinking of Himself as the Light of the world of the elect. “The sun in the heavens shines on all men, though some, in their folly, may choose to withdraw into dark caves to evade its illuminating rays.” [21]

1 Timothy 4:10—Jesus Is the Savior “of all Men”

First Timothy 4:10 says, “We have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.” There is a clear distinction in this verse between “all men” and “those who believe.” Apparently the Savior has done something for all human beings, though it is less in degree than what He has done for those who believe. [22] In other words, Christ has made a provision of salvation for all men, though it only becomes effective for those who exercise faith in Christ.

Hebrews 2:9—Jesus Tasted Death “for Everyone”

Hebrews 2:9 says, “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.” The Greek word “everyone” (pantos) is better translated “each.” If it be asked, why use the word pantos (each) rather than panton (all), we reply that the singular brings out more emphatically the applicability of Christ’s death to each individual man. Christ tasted death for every single person.

Romans 5:6—Jesus Died “for the Ungodly”

Romans 5:6 says, “At just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly.” It doesn’t make much sense to read this as saying that Christ died for the ungodly among the elect. Rather the verse, read plainly, indicates that Christ died for all the ungodly of the earth.

Romans 5:18—Christ’s Death Made Salvation Available to “All Men”

Romans 5:18 tells us, “Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.” Regarding this verse, Calvin commented, “He makes this favor common to all, because it is propoundable to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all [i.e., in their experience]; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God’s benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive Him.” [23] This sounds very much like Calvin was teaching unlimited atonement in this statement.

Regarding the two occurrences of the phrase “all men” (“… just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men …”), impartial exegesis demands that the phrase must have the same extent in both clauses. [24] In other words, just as all men on the earth were brought to a state of condemnation through one sin (Adam’s), so salvation was made available for all men by Christ’s death on the cross (though the reception of this salvation depends upon exercising faith in Jesus).

1 John 2:2—Jesus Atoned for the Sins “of the Whole World”

First John 2:2 says, “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” A natural reading of this verse, without imposing theological presuppositions on it, supports unlimited atonement. In fact, a plain reading of this verse would seem to deal a knock-out punch to the limited atonement position. It simply would not make sense to interpret this verse as saying, “He is the atoning sacrifice for our [the elect] sins, and not only for ours [the elect] but also for the sins of the whole world [of the elect].”

Isaiah 53:6—The Iniquity “of us All” Was Laid on Jesus

Isaiah 53:6 says, “We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa. 53:6). This verse doesn’t make sense unless it is read to say that the same “all” that went astray is the “all” for whom the Lord died. “In the first of these statements, the general apostasy of men is declared; in the second, the particular deviation of each one; in the third, the atoning suffering of the Messiah, which is said to be on behalf of all. As the first ‘all’ is true of all men (and not just of the elect), we judge that the last ‘all’ relates to the same company.” [25]

Theologian Millard Erickson notes that “this passage is especially powerful from a logical standpoint. It is clear that the extent of sin is universal; it is specified that every one of us has sinned. It should also be noticed that the extent of what will be laid on the suffering servant exactly parallels the extent of sin. It is difficult to read this passage and not conclude that just as everyone sins, everyone is also atoned for.” [26]

2 Peter 2:1—Jesus Paid the Price Even for Those Who Deny Him

In 2 Peter 2:1, we are told that Christ even paid the price of redemption for false teachers who deny Him: “But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.” Erickson notes that “2 Peter 2:1 seems to point out most clearly that people for whom Christ died may be lost …. there is a distinction between those for whom Christ died and those who are finally saved.” [27]

John 3:17—Through Jesus Salvation Is Available to “the World”

John 3:17 says, “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” Commenting on this verse, Calvin said that “God is unwilling that we should be overwhelmed with everlasting destruction, because He has appointed His Son to be the salvation of the world.” [28] Calvin also stated, “The word world is again repeated, that no man may think himself wholly excluded, if he only keeps the road of faith.” [29] Clearly God has made the provision of salvation available to all human beings.

The Universal Proclamation of the Gospel

In keeping with the above verses, there are also many verses which indicate that the Gospel is to be universally proclaimed to all human beings. Such a universal proclamation would make sense only if the doctrine of unlimited atonement were true. Consider the following:

• Matthew 24:14 says, “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.”
• Matthew 28:19 says, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit …”
• In Acts 1:8 Jesus said, “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
• Acts 17:30 says, “In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.”
• Titus 2:11 says, “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.”
• In 2 Peter 3:9 we read, “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”

In view of such passages, it is legitimate to ask, If Christ died only for the elect, how can an offer of salvation be made to all persons without some sort of insincerity, artificiality, or dishonesty being involved in the process? Is it not improper to offer salvation to everyone if in fact Christ did not die to save everyone? [30] As Norman Douty puts it, “How can God authorize His servants to offer pardon to the non-elect if Christ did not purchase it for them? This is a problem that does not plague those who hold to General [Unlimited] Redemption, for it is most reasonable to proclaim the Gospel to all if Christ died for all.” [31]

The fact is, those who hold to limited atonement cannot say to any sinner with true conviction, “Christ died for you.” After all, he or she may be one of the non-elect. Reformed counselor Jay Adams is forthright in saying, “As a reformed Christian, the writer believes that counselors must not tell any unsaved counselee that Christ died for him, for they cannot say that. No man knows except Christ himself who are his elect for whom he died.” [32] Berkhof candidly admits, “It need not be denied that there is a real difficulty at this point.” [33]

In limited atonement, the preaching of the Gospel (the “good news”) cannot be personalized (i.e., Christ died “for you”). [34] Rather, those who hold to this view believe the gospel must be presented to people in very general terms, such as, “God loves sinners,” or “Christ died for sinners.”

As noted above, this is not a problem for those who hold to unlimited atonement. Lewis Sperry Chafer puts things into perspective for us:

To believe that some are elect and some nonelect creates no problem for the soulwinner provided he is free in his convictions to declare that Christ died for each one to whom he speaks. He knows that the nonelect will not accept the message. He knows also that even an elect person may resist it to near the day of his death. But if the preacher believes that any portion of his audience is destitute of any basis of salvation, having no share in the values of Christ’s death, it is no longer a question in his mind of whether they will accept or reject; it becomes rather a question of truthfulness in the declaration of the message. [35]

Putting the “Limited” and “Unlimited” Verses Together

How do we put the “limited” and “unlimited” verses together so that, taken as a whole, all the verses are interpreted in a harmonious way without contradicting each other? With Lewis Sperry Chafer, Robert Lightner, Norman Douty, and others, I believe that seemingly restrictive references can be logically fit into an unlimited scenario much more easily than universal references made to fit into a limited atonement scenario. Perhaps Chafer explains it best:

The problem that both groups face is the need to harmonize passages that refer to limited redemption with passages that refer to unlimited redemption. To the unlimited redemptionist the limited redemption passages present no real difficulty. He believes that they merely emphasize one aspect of a larger truth. Christ did die for the elect, but He also died for the sins of the whole world. However, the limited redemptionist is not able to deal with the unlimited redemption passages as easily. [36]

The two sets of passages—one seemingly in support of limited atonement, the other in support of unlimited atonement—are not irreconcilable. While it is true that the benefits of Christ’s death are referred to as belonging to God’s “sheep,” His “people,” and the like, it would have to be shown that Christ died only for them in order for limited atonement to be true. No one denies that Christ died for God’s “sheep” and His “people.” It is only denied that Christ died exclusively for them. [37] Certainly if Christ died for the whole of humanity, there is no logical problem in saying that he died for a specific part of the whole. [38]

Robert Lightner offers this excellent closing summary:

The task of harmonizing those various Scriptures poses a far greater problem for those who hold to a limited atonement than it does to those who hold to an unlimited position. Those who hold to an unlimited atonement recognize that some Scriptures emphasize the fact that Christ died for the elect, for the church, and for individual believers. However, they point out that when those verses single out a specific group they do not do so to the exclusion of any who are outside that group since dozens of other passages include them. The “limited” passages are just emphasizing one aspect of a larger truth. In contrast, those who hold to a limited atonement have a far more difficult time explaining away the “unlimited” passages. [39]

In Part Two of this article (in the next issue of CTS Journal), we will examine further evidences in support of unlimited atonement.

Notes

1. Walter Elwell, “Atonement, Extent of the,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), p. 98.
2. Millard J. Erickson, Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), p. 97.
3. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), p. 394.
4. Berkhoff, p. 395.
5. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), vol. 2, p. 553.
6. Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), p. 829.
7. Elwell, p. 98.
8. Erickson, Christian Theology, p. 828.
9. Berkhoff, p. 395.
10. See Elwell, p. 98.
11. See W. R. Godfrey, “Atonement, Extent of,” New Dictionary of Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), p. 57.
12. Louis Berkhof, Manual of Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), p. 218.
13. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 396.
14. Bekhof, Manual of Christian Doctrine, p. 217.
15. Erickson, Christian Theology, p. 176.
16. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, “Online Bible,” Online Bible Software, © 1995.
17. B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes (London: John Murray, 1902), p. 31f.
18. John Calvin, Commentary on John’s Gospel (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1949), vol. 1, p. 64.
19. J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels (New York: Robert Carter, n.d.), vol. 3, pp. 61–62.
20. Calvin, p. 125, insertions added.
21. Norman Douty, The Death of Christ (Irving, TX: Williams & Watrous Publishing Co., 1978), p. 82.
22. Erickson, Christian Theology, p. 834.
23. John Calvin, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1949), p. 211.
24. E. H. Gifford, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans (London, 1886), pp. 119–20.
25. Douty, p. 73.
26. Erickson, Christian Theology, p. 830.
27. Erickson, Christian Theology, p. 831.
28. Cited in Douty, p. 15.
29. Calvin, Commentary on John’s Gospel, vol. 1, p. 126.
30. Erickson, Christian Theology, p. 832.
31. Douty, p. 49.
32. Jay Adams, Competent to Counsel (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1970), p. 70.
33. Cited in Erickson, Christian Theology, pp. 833–34.
34. Robert Lightner, “For Whom Did Christ Die?” Walvoord: A Tribute, ed. Donald K. Campbell (Chicago: Moody Press, 1982), p. 166.
35. Lewis Sperry Chafer, “For Whom Did Christ Die?” Bibliotheca Sacra, Oct.-Dec. 1980, p. 316.
36. Chafer, p. 323.
37. Elwell, p. 99.
38. Erickson, Christian Theology, p. 832.
39. Lightner, p. 166.