For Whom Did Christ Die?

For Whom Did Christ Die?

I want to invite you to take out your Bibles and turn with me to John chapter 10. Hold your place at verse 11. We are going to be reading verses 11 to 21 just here in a moment. Theology was at one time considered to be the queen of the sciences.

In our modern context, theology is really not even considered to be a science by many people. If you were to go to the local universities and ask them where their theology departments were, it would probably not be in the science department.

It would probably be in the world religions department or maybe in the sociology department or something like that. You probably would not find it amongst biology and anthropology and all of the other sciences, whether they be hard or soft sciences.

You probably would not find theology there. And yet we know that the suffix O-L-O-G-Y goes on to theology the same way it does biology and anthropology and all the other ologies. And it was once considered to be the queen of the sciences because as we study science and we study geology, which is the study of the earth and rocks and soil and things like that, or we study cosmology, which is the study of the stars and the heavens and the world and universe around us, or we study anthropology, which is the study of man.

We recognize that there is one behind all of those things that is the God who created and sustains them all. Therefore to understand those things without understanding the God who created them is to only understand a piece of those realities.

And this is why, again, it was once considered to be the queen of the sciences because it was considered that if you didn't understand God, then you really didn't understand science. And if you did understand the God who created all things, it would better equip you to understand the world around you.

The Importance of Theology and Doctrinal Understanding

Last week we reminded everyone, or I reminded you all, that we have an unofficial motto here at Sovereign Grace Family Church, and our unofficial motto is Theology Matters. Theology Matters. The reason why theology matters is because theology is the study of God.

It's how we understand the God who made us and the God who we worship. And as I mentioned last week, you can know the stories of the Bible, but if you do not know the underlying theology of those stories, if you don't dive into what they mean, then you can come away with really any ideas about God that you want.

This is why Martin Luther said, some men take the Bible and make it into a wax nose. A wax nose is a nose that can be shaped into any form. And if you shaped a nose into a different shape every day, you'd have a different face every day because your nose is such a big part of what you look like in your face.

And he said, if you don't have a firm understanding of the theology of Scripture, if you don't have a firm understanding of God, then the Bible becomes a wax nose that can be formed any way you want. And we see this with the so many false religions and cults that say they believe the Bible, but they have taken that Bible and contorted it and changed it and twisted it to make it say what they want it to say.

And therefore, we continue to say theology matters. But theology, while it matters, is also something that divides. Years ago, I read a book. I think it was by Erwin Lutzer. I don't remember for sure.

Mike would probably know or maybe Andy could remember. But it was a book called Doctrine Divides. It was a little short book. I got it from Lifeway. And I remember seeing it on the shelf and I thought, that's an interesting title.

So I pulled it down and the author said, doctrine does divide. And that is true. But that is not a reason for abandoning it. Just because doctrine does create division doesn't mean that we run away from it or leave it out.

And so many churches have left out doctrine and theology because they're afraid of the divisions. Well, can I say today that I had a little fear and trepidation on this subject because I'm going to be preaching on what has to be one of the most divisive subjects in all of theology.

Limited Atonement and the Five Points of Calvinism

Today we are going to be looking at the doctrine sometimes referred to as limited atonement. Limited atonement is one of those five points of Calvinism that we as a church affirm. But we know is one of those affirmations that brings about the most division.

In fact, if you're familiar with the five points of Calvinism or the doctrines of grace, you'll know that some people call themselves four pointers. Because they say, I can affirm the first two and I can affirm the last two, which are total depravity and unconditional election.

And I can affirm irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints. And if you're unfamiliar with this, it makes the acrostic tulip. Total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and perseverance of the saints.

And it's that L that causes a lot of consternation. In fact, I call them Christmas Calvinists. Noel, Noel, Noel. And if that is you, if you leave today disagreeing on this, while I would think that you are wrong, I would certainly not say that you are not a member of the body of Christ.

This is an area where men, good men, godly men have disagreed. Because it deals with a very important and foundational theological subject. It deals with both the extent and the intention of the atonement.

And when we deal with the extent of the atonement and the intention of the atonement, that is a very sensitive topic. But all I ask for you today is to hear the word of the Lord. And if you find the arguments for this doctrine unconvincing, that you continue to believe God's word and just seek the Lord.

But I pray that God would at least bring us into unity on this if there is any division. Because while doctrine divides, we do want to walk together as closely as we can. So let's stand together and read John chapter 10, beginning at verse 11.

Now, this is not just about this, as I said last week, there's actually six doctrines in this that we're going to study. We looked at one last week, we're on to the second one this week. So we're going to read the whole thing just to get our context.

It says in verse 11, Jesus is speaking, I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees.

And the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he's a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me. Just as the Father knows me and I know the Father and I lay down my life for the sheep.

And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them in also and they will listen to my voice. And there will be one flock, one shepherd. For this reason the Father loves me because I lay down my life that I may take it up again.

No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father. There was again a division among the Jews because of these words.

Many of them said, he has a demon and is insane. Why listen to him? Others said, these are not the words of one who is oppressed by a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind? Father in heaven, we thank you for your word.

I pray now, Lord, that you would keep me from error. For Lord, I am a fallible man. I'm capable of preaching error. And I don't say this for mere repetition, Lord, as I do say this prayer every time I preach.

I pray it with a sincere heart, Lord. Keep me from error. For I know the danger, as your word says. Let not all presumed to be teachers, for teachers will be held to a stricter judgment. So Lord, we know the difference between the shepherd and the hireling.

Lord, may I be an under shepherd to the great and chief shepherd who is Jesus Christ. And shepherd your people with your word. And Lord, I pray. For the believer in the room, that they would be edified, encouraged, instructed.

Even if need be, rebuked and corrected by God's word. And for the unbeliever, that they would be confronted with the gospel promise. That they would turn from their sin. Turn from their unbelief. And trust in the Lord Jesus Christ.

And it is in his name we pray. Amen. When we come to John chapter 10, we find ourselves in what is known as the good shepherd discourse. Over the past several weeks, I have been walking through this discourse.

And making stops along the way and examining the theology in this discourse. As I said last week, I believe this is one of the most theologically rich sections in all of the gospels. Because Jesus, in this analogy, the analogy of the shepherd, explains to us the relationship between God and man.

The relationship between the Savior and the saved. The relationship between the shepherd and the sheep. He does so with an analogy. The analogy moves to theology. The analogy teaches us theology. And so, today as we continue to walk through this, we are going to be focusing our attention specifically on verse 11 and verse 15.

The Doctrine of Vicarious Atonement and Penal Substitution

You will remember maybe last week I said there are six doctrines that we are going to discuss. Last week we looked at the doctrine of vicarious atonement. He said, I lay down my life for the sheep. And we said, what does that mean?

That means he stands in as a substitute. He receives the punishment that the sheep deserve. He receives our just punishment. And he gives us his righteousness. We call that substitutionary atonement or penal substitutionary atonement.

God made him who knew no sin to become sin for us that we could become the righteousness of God in him. 2 Corinthians 5 and 21. And that is vicarious atonement. That was our focus for last week. If you were not here and you have questions about that doctrine, I would encourage you to go back and listen to that message.

I don't want to preach the whole thing again, though I would because it is the gospel and it is a beautiful truth. But today we are going to look at the doctrine of particular redemption in the weeks to come.

We may combine a few, but we're going to look at Gentile inclusion in the new covenant. That is also in this section. We're going to look at the death and resurrection of Christ along with the authority of Christ.

And then what's known as the doctrine of the antithesis, which is a little bit of what we're going to get into today. So we'll cross over some into the doctrine of the antithesis as we talk today about the subject of particular redemption.

The Particular Baptist Tradition and Its History

Now, some of you may not be familiar with the term particular redemption. Some of you may not be familiar with any of these terms at all. You may be a visitor with us this morning, and if so, we are glad to have you.

We're thankful that you're here. And everyone comes from different theological backgrounds and different traditions from which they have been brought up or spent their time in. Or some of you may have come and have no church tradition at all.

And I wanted to talk a little bit as we begin looking at this doctrine first about what tradition our church comes from. Every church has traditions, even churches that start as non-denominational, you know, Brother Jim's Corner Church, right?

Even it develops traditions and has some traditions, right? And that's not a specific Brother Jim, I'm just saying any brother, whoever, you know. I know some Brother Jim's, I don't want them to think I'm talking about them.

But our church, several years ago, chose to enter into the tradition known as the Particular Baptist Church. Now, many of you are familiar with the Southern Baptist Convention or the Independent Baptist Church or the American Baptist Church.

All of those are different divisions of Baptist churches in America. The Southern Baptist, of course, being the largest. But if you go back into the history of Baptist churches, which arose in the 17th century in England, you will find two traditions arose similar in time.

One came first and the other came second, but they both came within a period of about three or four decades of one another. The first tradition that arose was known as the General Baptists. The General Baptists, if you've ever heard the name John Smith associated with Baptist history, that was the General Baptist movement.

And later, a different Baptist tradition arose and it would become known as the Particular Baptist tradition. And that's the tradition that we find ourselves as a church connected with. In fact, this morning we read from the 1646 London Confession of Faith.

Well, the 1646 London Confession of Faith is the first Baptist confession. It's actually the edited version. The first one was written in 1644. It was edited due to some pushback that it received. And so there were some edits made and the edited version is the 1646.

And that's the one that we hold to as a church. And that particular doctrine or that particular document is associated with the doctrine known as Particular Baptists. Now, what's the difference between Particular Baptists and General Baptists?

Is it that we believe in Jesus for salvation? No. General Baptists believe in Jesus for salvation. Is it because we believe in the atonement? No. We believe in the atonement. We believe that our salvation is confirmed in the work of Jesus Christ.

And it is because of his work that we have salvation. These are things that we would agree on. Is it because we disagree on baptism? No. In general, we believe that only believers should be baptized. Those who confess faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

And they should not be baptized until they profess faith. Those are things that we agree on between the General Baptists and the Particular Baptists. So what do we disagree on? We disagree on this question.

The Central Question: For Whom Did Christ Die?

For whom did Christ die? For whom did Christ die? The General Baptist would say that Jesus Christ died for all men in general. Now, they do not believe all men are saved. Very important. They are not universalists.

But they would say the extent of the atonement is universal. It was meant for everyone. It only applies to believers, but it was meant for everyone. That is the idea of the General Baptist. The Particular Baptist says that Jesus Christ died for his people.

Or, if you want to be more specifically Calvinistic in your language, Jesus Christ died for the elect. That is Particular Redemption. And would later be called Limited Atonement. Now, you can probably understand why Limited Atonement is immediately hated.

Because somebody says, what? You've limited what Christ has done. How dare you limit what Christ has done? Well, I want to say this from the outset. No one is attempting to limit what Christ has done.

But rather, we are asking the question, what was the intention of what he did? And what was the purpose? And what was the goal? Was the goal to make all men savable? Or was the goal to save some men? It's about intention.

Was the goal of Christ on the cross to provide salvation for everyone or to ensure salvation for the elect? That's the big difference. The General Baptist would say he makes provision of salvation for all and only those who believe get saved.

The Particular Baptist would say the intention was to save the elect. Now, we read our confession earlier. But I'm going to jump ahead about 10 weeks. Because we are in chapter 10 of the confession. And while I would never ask us to go out of order in our standard of worship reading chapter by chapter.

I am going to jump ahead this morning. And I want you to read with me chapter 21 of our confession. Look with me at chapter 21. You don't have to read it out loud like we do for our time of confession.

This is the article that established the 1646 as a Particular Baptist confession. It's one statement, one paragraph in the confession that says this is where we stand. And it says, Jesus Christ by his death did purchase salvation for the elect that God gave unto him.

These only have interest in him and fellowship with him for whom he makes intercession to his father in their behalf. And to them alone doth God by his spirit apply this redemption as also the free gift of eternal life is given to them and none else.

So, this is the position that we hold as a church. This is the Particular Baptist confession, which is now 400, almost 400 years old. And this is the position that we teach. And I'm going to seek to defend today from the scriptures.

But I wanted to be clear as we get started. This is the distinction that we hold to as Particular Baptist. Some would call us Calvinistic Baptist and that's fine. Some would call us Reformed Baptist. That's a relatively recent historical use of the term.

But we'll take it. If somebody wants to apply it, we're not going to push back. But I like the term Particular Baptist because this keeps us in the line of tradition with our historic Baptist ancestors.

And it applies to this particular doctrine. Now, as we said that, let us go back and look at our text for today. Because all I've done so far is tell you what we're going to learn, not why we should believe it.

The Good Shepherd and His Sheep

So, let's go back and look again at verse 11. Jesus says, I am the good shepherd. You remember the context of this passage is that Jesus is interacting with the false teachers. This is right after he had given the blind man sight and that man was taken before the Pharisee leaders.

And the Pharisee leaders kicked him out. They excommunicated him because he affirmed Jesus. And this man now has come to Jesus. Jesus said, do you believe in the Son of Man? He said, if you tell me who he is, I'll believe in him.

Jesus said, the one who speaks to you, am he? And the man fell down and worshipped Jesus. And Jesus said, in regard to his blindness, he said that he was blessed. And that those who were blind were the ones who weren't seeing him as Messiah.

They were the ones who really weren't able to see the truth. And the Pharisee says, are you talking about us? Are you saying we're blind? And Jesus said, well, if you were blind, you'd have an excuse.

But the problem is you say you see. You say you can see. You're the teachers. You're the guys who are out here telling everybody what to believe. And because of that, you're actually fallen under a greater condemnation.

And then he goes into what we call the good shepherd discourse. The first part of it we've studied in weeks past where he talks about himself as the door. He says, I'm the door of the sheep. If anyone goes in and out through me, he will find pasture, making himself the way.

He says, I am the way of the sheep. Anyone else who tries to go another way is going to try to hop the fence or go over the wall. They are thieves and robbers. There's one way, and that is through the Lord Jesus Christ.

By the way, that establishes at least the simple principle of particularity. There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. There is no other way other than the Lord Jesus Christ.

Salvation comes in no other religion, no other form of spirituality, no other form of good works. Nothing can save you except faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. He is the only way, the only truth, and the only life.

And those who reject him have rejected the only one who can save. And so we find ourselves then after the first portion that it says the people were confused. They didn't understand what he was saying.

They didn't get it. So Jesus says, I am the good shepherd. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. Now right there, he tells us, one, his own identity. I am the one who is coming to do the work of being the shepherd and providing a sacrifice.

And the sacrifice is myself. I am the good shepherd, and I lay down my life. And we're going to look in the weeks ahead at the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ as his atoning work, as well as the fact of his authority where he says, I lay down my life, and I take it up again.

Which provides a little bit, and just to give you a preview for maybe a two weeks out sermon, provides a little bit of a Trinitarian conundrum. Because there are certain verses that say God raised Jesus.

There are certain verses where Jesus says, I'll raise, you know, I'll raise it up again. And there are certain verses that talk about the Spirit raising Christ. And what's the answer? It's a Trinitarian work.

You don't divide the work of God in that way to say, well, one did it and one didn't. No, the Bible makes it clear that it's all a Trinitarian work. But Jesus is not uninvolved. If I lay down my life, I take it up again.

So we'll see more about that in the weeks to come. But he says, I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life. It's a voluntary work. He's laying down his life. He's sacrificing himself.

But for whom is he sacrificing himself? In this passage, there is no other conclusion to come to that he has specifically addressed one group. And that group is his sheep. That is who he lays down his life for.

Now, before we go into any other verses, before we talk about anything else the Bible has to say about the extent or intention of the atonement, we have to stop at this verse and we have to ask the question, who is in view here?

The ones who are in view here are the sheep. That's who he's laying down his life for. It is not in general, I'm going to lay my life down for everybody. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

And again, in verse 15, we see the same thing again. Just as the Father knows me and I know the Father, and I lay down my life for the sheep. So the question that arises then, well, does he also lay down his life for the goats?

Okay, good. Thank you. I don't mind a response every once in a while. But that is the question, right? Because this verse doesn't talk about the goats. Now, we know there are other passages which address the goats.

Matthew, in his gospel, talks about at the end of the age, there's going to be a separation. And who's the separation? Sheep and the goats, right? The sheep are going to go into his barn. The goats are going to go into everlasting punishment.

In the world, there are only two types of people. No, honey. In the world, there are only two types of people. Sheep and goats. There are not hybrids. There are not halfway sheep or half-mutated goats.

But you are either Christ's sheep or you are not Christ's sheep, which would put you in the category of a goat. And I could step back from that and I could say from a theological perspective, you could also say there's two humanities.

There is the humanity that is in Adam and the humanity that is in Christ. Adam acted as our federal head, meaning he was representative. That's what the word federal means. If you think about our federal government, we have people that make decisions and they affect all of us.

If the president says we're going to war, if the Congress says we're going to war, guess what? You at war, right? Like, you didn't get to, you're like, well, I didn't vote for the war. Well, it was decided by your representatives.

When Adam acted in the garden, he was not acting only on his own behalf. But when Adam acted in the garden, he was acting on behalf of all humanity. And when he sinned in the garden, he brought a curse on the earth.

This is why the world itself battles against us in some respects. He brought a curse on the flesh. This is why we deal with sickness and disease and cancers and all kinds of other things. But also he brought in spiritual separation from God.

We call that the ultimate death is to be separated from God. And so when we are born, the natural sons and daughters of Adam, we are born in that state of deadness. In fact, Ephesians chapter 2 says what?

You were dead in your trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the prince of the power of the air. And you were by nature, what? Children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. That's the category that you are in.

But God, being rich in mercy, saved us. And it says by what? By grace have you been saved. Taken out of the kingdom of darkness and delivered into the kingdom of light. Now we have been made partakers of the divine promises.

And we have been made adopted sons of God through faith in Jesus Christ. And joint heirs of the promises of God through faith in Jesus Christ. We now are no longer this, but we are this. And we are now in fellowship with God where our fellowship was disturbed and broken because of sin.

John Owen's Logical Argument on Atonement

So the question that comes, the theological conundrum that arises is, okay, we know Christ died to secure salvation. But whose salvation is secured? In this verse it tells us the salvation is secured for the sheep.

Because he lays down his life for, on behalf of, in place of, the sheep. The sheep are in view. And this raises a logical question. And it's interesting because I was having a conversation just this week about the logical nature of this question.

And I brought with me a poem. It says it's a poem. I don't know if I would, it doesn't rhyme. So in my mind that's poetry. And I know that shows how limited I am in my poetic understanding. But this is from John Owen.

John Owen wrote a book called The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. And in The Death of Death, John Owen defends particular redemption on the basis of a very simple principle of logic. And that is this principle.

When Jesus died, he either died for all of the sins of all men, or he died for all of the sins of some men, or he died for some of the sins of all men. Now that sounds a little confusing so let me break it down as Owen would break it down.

He would say this. If Jesus died for all of the sins of all men, why does anyone go to hell? If Jesus' death applied the forgiving sacrifice and righteousness to every single person in the exact same way, then there would be absolute universalism.

In fact, there are universalists who make this argument. You may not know this, but there are people who call themselves Christian universalists. They actually deny eternal conscious torment, which is what Mike mentioned earlier.

They deny the punishment of hell. They say everyone is saved ultimately through the blood of Jesus. They use the universal passages, which talk about all and any and world. They use those passages to argue that Jesus died on behalf of all.

Jesus took the punishment of all and therefore all will ultimately be saved. I genuinely cannot come to that conclusion because I don't believe Scripture allows for that. I don't believe Scripture allows for universalism.

I will say this. It would be comforting at times to think that when we know of friends and family who are lost, who pass, there is a certain sense in which I understand how somebody could emotionally arrive at universalism.

Because, in fact, in October I've got to preach, or November I've got to preach in Winter Garden. They've asked me to preach on the doctrine of hell. That's the one sermon that I have between now and the end of the year that I am not looking forward to.

Because it's a hard topic. That is not something that anyone, I think, would or should enjoy preaching on. And I have to tell the story real quick. There's two pastors who were candidating at a church.

And they both came in one week after the other and both preached from the same text. And they both preached on hell. And they chose one and not the other. And when they asked the guy, why did you choose me instead of the other guy?

We both preached the same message. And they said, yeah, but you preached it like you didn't want us to go. So, I always thought that was kind of funny. Some guys seem like they want you to go to hell.

They preach like hell's, you know, they get excited about it. No, hell's a hard topic. Hell's something we shouldn't take lightly. Universalists take it so lightly that they don't believe it. That's a problem.

That's a problem. But the next question, and this was Owen's argument, he says, Well, if Jesus died for all the sins of all men, no one goes to hell. So, why then do people go to hell? And the universalist, or I'm sorry, the general atonement person would say, Well, they go to hell because they don't believe.

What's the logical problem with that? Is unbelief sin or is it? Is unbelief a sin? So, did Jesus only die for some of their sins, just not their unbelief? So, if they go to hell because they don't believe, does Jesus' atonement not cover their unbelief?

And is that not sin? And therefore, are we not limiting the power of the atonement to not be able to cover their unbelief? Also, I've got to ask you a question, and this is something that just kind of popped into my mind.

It's always dangerous when you're preaching when something pops into your mind, so, Mike, get ready with the hook. Do you not ever struggle with unbelief? Do you believe Jesus' atonement covers your struggle?

I think about that when I think about the man who came to Jesus and said, I believe, help my unbelief, right? That's a prayer I pray fairly often, especially when I'm going through times of great difficulty and grief.

Lord, I believe, and I need help with my unbelief, because I know that's the one area I need to be sanctified in the most. If I believed more and believed better, I would be better. Lord, I believe, help my unbelief.

So the idea that Jesus died for some of the sins of all men is absolutely incomprehensible. That he only died for some of our sins, but not the sin of unbelief. So the logical conclusion of Owen, and I agree with this conclusion, is that Jesus died for all of the sins of some men.

Every single one, including our unbelief. Jesus died for all of my sins. But if I say Jesus died for all of the sins of some men, that sounds like I am now limiting the power of his atonement. I'm not.

It's not about limiting the power of his atonement. It's about understanding the intention of his atonement. Who did Christ intend to save? All men or believers? Is the scripture not clear that he came to save those who believe?

The Particularity of the Gospel and Logical Necessity

I wrote an article earlier this year entitled, Why I Think Everyone Should Believe in Limited Atonement. This is a doctrine I truly believe so much in, that I believe even non-Calvinists should affirm it.

Because I believe that a man who believes in the particularity of the gospel has to believe that all of the work of Christ is applied to the believer. Take out the word elect. If it helps you to just get rid of the Calvinistic language of elect, which is not Calvinistic.

It's biblical. But let's just say you don't like the word elect. You want to use the word believer. Jesus died for believers. Or Jesus died for his sheep. Because that's what this passage says. And I understand I've come to a logical conclusion.

But can I say this? One, I think that is not a bad thing in the sense that God is logical and God is righteous. It's not only a logical conclusion. It's a righteous conclusion. Here's why it's righteous.

And I'm going to use an analogy. And all analogies break down. And if you come to me later and you say that analogy just was not good for me, that's fine. All analogies break down, especially theological analogies.

But allow me to at least share this analogy because I think it's helpful. Imagine if I were to invite one of you to dinner. And while at dinner, I said that dinner is on me. And the check comes. And I pull out my credit card.

And I go to pay for the dinner. And you say, oh, no, Brother Foskey. I can't allow the man of God to pay for my dinner. I'm just kidding. No, no, no. I can't allow the preacher to pay for my dinner. I'm going to pay for my own dinner.

And I say, but I'm willing to pay for your dinner. And you say, no, no. I'm going to pay for my dinner. If the restaurant took both payments, the restaurant would be engaging in fraud. If I paid for your dinner, Mike, and you and I were together, and you paid for your dinner, and the restaurant took both payments for one dinner, then the restaurant would be engaged in a form of fraud.

If Christ paid the penalty for my sins, but I have to go to hell, then the penalty wasn't paid. Or God has taken a second payment for my transgressions. I think that's logical, reasonable, and more importantly, righteous.