Definite Attainment does not mean that there’s a limit placed upon the value or the merit of the atonement of Jesus Christ. It’s traditional to say that the atoning work of Christ is sufficient for all. That is its meritorious value is sufficient to cover the sins of all people, and certainly anyone who puts their trust in Jesus Christ will receive the full measure of the benefits of that atonement.
And it also is important to understand that the Gospel is to be preached universally. A universal offer of the Gospel, is offered to all who are hear the preaching of it; but it’s not universally offered in the sense that it’s offered to anyone without any conditions. It’s offered to anyone who believes. It’s offered to anyone who repents, and obviously the merit of the atonement of Christ is given to all who believe and to all who repent of their sins.
Now one of the traditional ways of talking about this is to say that the atonement is sufficient for all but efficient for some. That is, not everyone actually receives the full benefits that are wrought by Christ’s saving work on the cross; namely, those who do not believe. There was a special and unique sense in which He died for His sheep, that He laid down His life for those to whom the Father had given Him. Now the problem that emerges from this technical point of theology in terms of God’s eternal decrees and His ultimate design and purpose for the atonement is often discussed in light of several passages in the New Testament. In II Peter 3:8 we read these words: “But beloved do not forget this one thing that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise as some count slackness, but is long-suffering toward us not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. ”
Note the idea that in some sense from all eternity God wills that only the elect will receive the benefits of the atonement, which is what definite atonement teaches. And here the text seems to suggest that God is not willing that any should perish but that obviously He’s willing the salvation of everybody. In dealing with this difficult text there are some ambiguities with it that have troubled many Biblical scholars and interpreters. The problems have to do with understanding precisely two different words in this text. The first is the word “willing” and the second is the word “any. ” Now let’s look at the first one. God is not willing that any should perish. Here is a specific reference to the will of God. And we know that in the New Testament there are two Greek words both of which can be translated in English by the word will. Unfortunately, each of these words is capable of several different nuances so when we’re asking specifically what kind of willing is in view, you can’t settle the question simply by looking up the Greek text and looking at your Greek lexicon to find out what is being used here. There are six or seven different ways in which the Bible speaks about God’s will or His willingness. For purposes of saving time, let me just look at the three most frequent ways in which the Bible speaks of the will of God.
The first way the bible speaks of the will of God is in terms of what we call the decretive will of God, or some people call it the sovereign efficacious will of God; others call it the ultimate will of God. And what we mean by this meaning for will or willingness has to do with that will of God by which God brings to pass sovereignly whatsoever He chooses to do. When God wills the world to come into existence, His willing of it makes it so. It is a sovereign decree that must needs come to pass. It can’t not come to pass, and it cannot be frustrated by any outside force. And that’s what we mean when we’re talking about the sovereign decree of will. Now let’s suppose that this text is using this meaning or nuance for the will of God. What would it mean that God is not willing that any should perish? If the any refers to any person, and if we translated it to mean that God decrees that no human being will perish, what would be the obvious conclusion? If God sovereignly decrees that no human person ever would perish then manifestly no human person would ever perish, and this text would then become the classical proof text for universalism. But again, the debate about the text is not between particularists and universalists; it’s between parties who both affirm particularism; namely, that not everybody is saved. And so then we look to other possible nuances to the word willing.
Now the second most frequent way in which the Bible speaks of the will of God is what we call the preceptive will of God. And a precept is a law or a command. And the preceptive will of God refers to the commands that God gives to people. The Ten Commandments would be an expression of the preceptive will of God. When God says “Thou shalt not have any other gods before Me, ” and so on, He’s setting forth His law. Now we cannot disobey the preceptive will of God with impunity, but we do have the power and the ability to break this law. So that there is a sense in which the preceptive will does not always come to pass, because people don’t always obey it. Now again, let’s apply this possible meaning to this text that God is not willing in the preceptive sense that any should perish, meaning He doesn’t allow or give His sanction or His moral permission on people when they perish. Now there’s a sense in which that’s true, because since He commands all people to come to Christ manifestly the failure to obey that command would be to violate His preceptive will. So I would say that that’s a possible interpretation of this text, and there are reputable theologians who assume this meaning of willingness to this particular verse. I personally think it’s somewhat awkward and just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to say you’re not allowed to perish, and I don’t think that’s in the context even. I think, with the context it even seems all the more awkward.
The third way in which the term willing is used Biblically with respect to God is what we call His will of disposition. And here this is one of those anthropomorphic expressions that talk about the emotions of God, what pleases God, what causes God to be delighted, and what causes God to grieve and that sort of thing. And we’re told elsewhere in Scripture, for example, that God does not delight in the death of the wicked. That is He doesn’t get some great personal thrill out of sending people to hell even though He wills to do it. Just as a judge in the court may, for the sake of maintaining justice, be required to send his own son to a life term in prison. He would do it because it was the right thing to do, but he would do it with tears. That is, he wasn’t getting any personal pleasure out of it other than the pleasure that justice was being maintained. And so in this case it would be a reflection of God’s disposition meaning, as He says as the Bible says elsewhere, that He takes no delight in the death of the wicked, here God is not willing in a dispositional sense that any should perish but that all would come to repentance. So those are the three basic ways in which this word willing can be used. And for me which of these is most appropriate will be determined by the reference to the second questionable word, the word “any. ”
If, in fact, Peter is talking about any as referring to all human beings in this world, then I would come to the conclusion that it could only mean the disposition or the dispositional will of God. But I don’t think that he is talking about any in this absolutely unrestricted sense. Any time we use the word any, we’re assuming some reference–any what? any of which group? Peter doesn’t say that God is not willing that any person perish. We had to supply that person as if it were tacitly understood. But is there any other possible reference to the any besides any human being? Well, obviously, there are other possibilities, not the least of which is a particular class. You have a class here of people and that word people makes up a distinctive class, and if I said any of that class I would mean any person. Or I could have another class, a class called Jews, and if I spoke of any of that class it would refer to anyone who is Jewish, or American, or whatever other group I would incorporate within that circle. I think, frankly that what Peter’s talking about here is that group that is mentioned frequently in his epistle by the designation elect. Certainly the Bible speaks frequently of the elect, and the elect make up a distinctive group, and the question is: is Peter here speaking about people? Is he speaking of the body of disciples of which Peter is a member? Or is he speaking of the whole number of the elect?
Jesus mentions that none of those whom the Father has given Him will perish and that they will all come to faith so that everybody in that group of those who are the elect are certainly going to be redeemed. Now again, Peter is not specific here about what group he’s referring to with the word any. But he’s not utterly silent. If we look back at the text and look at it carefully, we read this in verse 9 of chapter 3: “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise as some count slackness, but is long-suffering toward … ” whom? “… is long-suffering toward us. “ “He is long-suffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. ”
Now grammatically the immediate antecedent here of the word any is the word us, and I think it’s perfectly clear that what Peter is saying here is that God is not willing that any of us should perish, but that all of us should come to salvation. And we’re still not finished with the problem, are we? Because now we have to ask who’s the “us”? Now again in the broader context of his epistle the us, I don’t think he’s speaking of all mankind indiscriminately, but the us or the we is a reference to the believers, to those people to whom Peter is speaking, which are the believers in Jesus Christ. And so I don’t think that this text gets rid of the idea that God designed the atonement for a purpose which purpose by His design must needs come to pass. I don’t think we want to believe in a God who is a spectator of the drama of redemption, who sends a Christ to die on the cross and then stands there holding, crossing His finger hoping that someone will take advantage of it.
Our view of God is different from that. Our view is that the plan of redemption was an eternal plan of God, and which plan and which design was perfectly conceived and perfectly executed so that the will of God to save His people, in fact, is accomplished by the atoning work of Christ.
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to share a kind word.