by Rexford Semrad | Aug 11, 2017 | Book Reviews, Reformed Theology
part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6
Johnson, Jeffrey. He Died for Me: Limited Atonement & the Universal Gospel. Conway, AR: Free Grace Press, 2017. 201 pp.
Critical Evaluation (Continued)
An alternate solution
While I commend Johnson for defending the free and well-meant offer of the gospel, I am convinced that he is going about it the wrong way. The key to understanding the well-meant offer is not found by delving into the secret, decretive will of God and asking, “for whom did Christ die?” Rather, it is found in rightly upholding and believing the preceptive will of God.[1]
Quite simply, what God commands, He actually desires. When God commands all men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel, He actually wants all men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel. When Jesus Christ invites sinners to come to Him, He really desires that they come to Him. The rationalism of the Hyper-Calvinist declares that this cannot be so, because we cannot say that God wants what He has not decreed. But to defend God’s decretive will by denying His preceptive will is not biblical.
Allow me to illustrate. God commands all men to be faithful to their wives. So if a man came to us and asked, “Does God want me to cheat on my wife?” we would emphatically reply, “Of course not! He has commanded you not to commit adultery.” We would not say, “Let’s wait and see. If God has decreed that you will cheat on your wife, you will, and then we will know that He wanted you to.” The fact that God’s decree is His will cannot be allowed to negate the fact that God’s command is His will. The implications of the idea that God does not really desire what He commands can be devastating and we must never allow ourselves to be guilty of doing this.
So, in the very same way that I can tell every pregnant woman that God earnestly desires that she refrain from murdering her baby at Planned Parenthood, I can tell anyone and everyone that God sincerely desires that they repent of their sins and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ for the eternal welfare of their souls. We should not shrink back for a moment from the statement that God desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. But neither should we shrink back from the truth that God has by His decree determined that most will not do so. Perhaps in eternity God will give us some insight as to how these two truths coincide, but for now, it is our place to hold them both in tension, for both truths are revealed in the Word of God.[2]
I am not proposing two opposing wills in God. We must be careful not to speak of God as if He were schizophrenic. William Perkins explains:
There is but one will in God. Yet God does not equally will all things, but wills all things in divers respects. He does not will and nil the same thing. He wills the conversion of Jerusalem, in that he approves it as a good thing in itself. In that he commands it, and exhorts men to repent and believe and be converted. It is also good in that he gives them the outward means of their conversion. But, He does not will it in that he did not decree effectually to work their conversion. For God approves he may require many things which nevertheless for just causes known to himself, he will not do. [3]
Conclusion
Clearly, there are a number of points with which I am in disagreement with Johnson, and I cannot accept many of his arguments or his primary thesis. A more revealing title for the book would be He Died for the Reprobate. Yet I would not hesitate to recommend this book (with obvious qualifications) to anyone who already has a solid understanding of the doctrines of grace. While I do not think Johnson’s arguments against John Owen’s [4] view of particular redemption actually hold water, I still think it is good for them to be heard. Too many Calvinists today have never been exposed to anything but Owen’s view, and Johnson does a fantastic job of introducing his readers to viewpoints of other Reformed theologians.
I think many Calvinists who read this book will have a gut reaction to declare that Johnson is not really Reformed, that he is an Amyraldian or four-point Calvinist, and simply dismiss him out of hand. I strongly exhort anyone with this temptation to refrain from such conclusions! Just because Johnson rejects John Owen’s method of defending the doctrine of limited atonement does not mean he rejects the doctrine itself. He is not outside the Reformed tradition. A perusal of the original sources the he quotes for support will make this clear. Though they may not all support his thesis as much as he would like, he is not abusing them. Anyone still not convinced need only to read p. 402 in vol. 3 of Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics.
Johnson is a talented writer as well as a faithful minister of the Word of God. He Died for Me has been the catalyst that caused me to give more thought than ever before to the atonement we have in Christ Jesus, and for that I am forever in his debt.
[1] Deut. 29:29.
[2] For an excellent discussion of this point, see John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 8, Section 3.
[3] William Perkins, A Treatise of God’s Free Grace and Man’s Free Will, (2012, Puritan Publications) Kindle Edition.
[4] Johnson brings up Owen sixty times in this book. It is clear that one of his primary goals is to reject Owen’s view of the atonement.
Rexford Semrad has served as an administrator at Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary since 2015. He is married to his wife of 32 years, Marion, and has 8 children. He is a member of Grace Reformed Baptist Church of Owensboro, KY where he serves as a Deacon and a Gifted Brother. Among other things, Rex particularly enjoys theology, hot sauce and Church history.
by Rexford Semrad | Aug 10, 2017 | Book Reviews, Reformed Theology
part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5
Johnson, Jeffrey. He Died for Me: Limited Atonement & the Universal Gospel. Conway, AR: Free Grace Press, 2017. 201 pp.
Critical Evaluation (Continued)
A test case
It will be helpful, I think, to take a moment to apply Johnson’s ideas directly to one of the texts he believes supports his thesis, and see how it fits. 1 John 2:2 is the text we will examine, but we will include verse 1 for added context. “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.”
Notice first, John is offering comfort and encouragement to his little children, that if (and when) they sin, they have an Advocate (intercessor, mediator) with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. In order to strengthen this consolation further, John reminds them of one of the primary aspects of Christ’s advocacy on their behalf: He is the propitiation for their sins. What is more comforting when we have sinned than bringing to remembrance the truth that Jesus Christ Himself is the propitiation for our sins? The wrath of God for our sins has been turned away from us by the atoning sacrifice of His Son on our behalf.
John adds that Christ is not the propitiation for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world. Now, if Johnson is correct, what John is saying is that Christ has not only propitiated the wrath of God against the sins of His people, but has also turned the wrath of God away from everyone in the world. The manner in which He has turned away the wrath of God against the whole world is that He is an effectual propitiation only for the elect, but He is also a sufficient but ineffectual propitiation for the reprobate.
My question is this: how does the additional information that Christ has also sufficiently though ineffectually turned the wrath of God away from the reprobate bring any consolation to John’s dear little children? Johnson says, “The fact that it can be said to all that Christ ‘died for our sins’ gives the elect the inward assurance that the promise of forgiveness includes them” (114). But I beg to differ. I cannot fathom how believing that Christ died not only for the elect, but also ineffectually for the reprobate can bring inward assurance to the elect that forgiveness of sins includes them. How does the idea that Christ also died for those who still suffer eternally for their sins provide any comfort? No, the comfort of Christians is the sure and certain knowledge that they have come to Christ who has appeased the wrath of God in their behalf and in behalf of all who will ever come to Him, and He will never cast them away. [1]
Part 7
[1] For an interpretation that does bring comfort, see Calvin’s comments on this passage in part 3.
Rexford Semrad has served as an administrator at Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary since 2015. He is married to his wife of 32 years, Marion, and has 8 children. He is a member of Grace Reformed Baptist Church of Owensboro, KY where he serves as a Deacon and a Gifted Brother. Among other things, Rex particularly enjoys theology, hot sauce and Church history.
by Rexford Semrad | Aug 9, 2017 | Book Reviews, Reformed Theology
part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4
Johnson, Jeffrey. He Died for Me: Limited Atonement & the Universal Gospel. Conway, AR: Free Grace Press, 2017. 201 pp.
Critical Evaluation (Continued)
The well-meant offer of the gospel
Johnson spends eleven pages on what he calls The Theological Argument for Universal Sufficiency (133-143). While statements like, “And if we are commissioned to call all to repentance and faith in the gospel, then there must have been a sufficient provision made for all, or otherwise God is commanding reprobates to place their faith in an empty promise” (141) are not troubling if understood in the sense that Owen does (part 4), it becomes a problem when we realize that for Johnson, sufficient provision demands that Christ died for all. He asks, “…how can we truthfully call all people to [the] gospel of Christ if Christ did not die for all people?” (135).
First of all, I would argue that the idea that coextensive provision is necessary for a genuine, sincere offer is false. Roger Nicole illustrates this point: “For instance, advertisers who offer some objects on the pages of a newspaper do not feel that honesty in any way demands of them to have a stock coextensive with the circulation figures of the newspaper. Really, the only requisite for a sincere invitation is this—that if the conditions be fulfilled, that which is offered will actually be granted.”[1] In gospel proclamation we do not tell all men Christ died for them, but we urge all men to come to Christ with the sure and certain promise that every sinner who comes to Him in faith will find a perfect, sufficient and effectual Savior who will never cast him out.
Perhaps a more important point is that I do not believe Johnson’s solution actually solves his own problem. If we cannot truthfully call all people to the gospel of Christ if Christ did not die for all people, then how can we truthfully call all people to the gospel of Christ if Christ only died for all people in an organic manner, but His death is only ever made effectual in those who were already joined to him in federal union at the time of His death?
Johnson’s perceived need to tell all men that Christ died for them is not shared by many of his fellow Moderate Calvinists. In his notes on Edward Fisher’s The Marrow of Modern Divinity, Thomas Boston is careful to explain that when Fisher says “Christ is dead for you” he does not mean “Christ died for you.” “Christ is dead for you” means that Christ is available to you, that if you turn to Him in faith you will most assuredly find a sufficient and effectual Savior.[2] He also makes this explicit statement, “Our Lord Jesus Christ died not for, nor took upon him the sins of, all and every individual man, but he died for, and took upon him the sins of, all the elect, (John 10:15, 15:13, Acts 20:28, Eph 5:25, Titus 2:14), and no other doctrine is here taught by our author touching the extent of the death of Christ.”[3]
Andrew Fuller urged preachers to take no regard to the secret things of God, such as particular redemption, when freely offering the gospel:
There is no contradiction between this peculiarity of design in the death of Christ, and a universal obligation on those who hear the gospel to believe in him, or a universal invitation being addressed to them. If God, through the death of his Son, have promised salvation to all who comply with the gospel; and if there be no natural impossibility as to a compliance, nor any obstruction but that which arises from aversion of heart; exhortations and invitations to believe and be saved are consistent; and our duty, as preachers of the gospel, is to administer them, without any more regard to particular redemption than to election; both being secret things, which belong to the Lord our God, and which, however they be a rule to him, are none to us. If that which sinners are called upon to believe respected the particular design of Christ to save them, it would then be inconsistent; but they are neither exhorted nor invited to believe any thing but what is revealed, and what will prove true, whether they believe it or not. He that believeth in Jesus Christ must believe in him as he is revealed in the gospel, and that is as the Saviour of sinners. It is only as a sinner, exposed to the righteous displeasure of God, that he must approach him.[4]
When Johnson asks, “[I]f Christ’s death is not sufficient for the salvation of all people, then on what basis does God promise to forgive all people?” (136), he is making a mistake. God nowhere promises to forgive all people! God promises to forgive all who come to Christ and trust in Him alone for their eternal salvation. Even if we take our cue from John 3:16, this is plain to see. For God loved the mass of wicked fallen sinners so much that He sent His only begotten Son, so that every single one of those wicked sinners who trusts in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life. What makes this a genuine, bona fide offer that does not “push the dishonesty onto God” (137), is not that Christ died for all men in some manner that is only effectual for some of them, but that it is a promise that has never and shall never fail! Every sinner who comes to Christ will be saved, and we have no need to delve into the secret will of God to make that declaration, or to call men to Christ in honesty and sincerity.
Part 6
[1] Roger Nicole, “The Case for Definite Atonement,” Evangelical Theological Society Bulletin (Fall 1967), 207. Cited in Joel Beeke, Living for God’s Glory: An introduction to Calvinism (Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust, 2008), 96.
[2] Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity (Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2009), 153.
[3] Ibid., 122.
[4] Andrew Fuller, The Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation, in The Works of Andrew Fuller (East Peoria, IL: Versa Press, 1841; reprint, Carlisle: Banner of Truth Trust, 2007), 171.
Rexford Semrad has served as an administrator at Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary since 2015. He is married to his wife of 32 years, Marion, and has 8 children. He is a member of Grace Reformed Baptist Church of Owensboro, KY where he serves as a Deacon and a Gifted Brother. Among other things, Rex particularly enjoys theology, hot sauce and Church history.
by Rexford Semrad | Aug 8, 2017 | Book Reviews, Reformed Theology
part 1, part 2, part 3
Johnson, Jeffrey. He Died for Me: Limited Atonement & the Universal Gospel. Conway, AR: Free Grace Press, 2017. 201 pp.
Critical Evaluation (Continued)
Owen forgot about election?
Two of Johnson’s statements are particularly well suited to make the jaws of his readers drop to the floor: “However, there is something Owen did not consider. In fact, it is a crucial element that changes everything. Owen failed to factor in the one gift that God has given His people that was not procured by the death of Christ—election” (172), and then, “Though Owen was right when he said faith was procured by the death of Christ, he did not consider that the cross did not procure election, which is the reason that the saving benefits of the cross, including faith, are only efficaciously applied to the elect in time” (176). But once I got past the shock of someone accusing John Owen of failing to consider election in his arguments for why the atonement of Christ is only effectual for the elect, I gave the idea a great deal of thought. But I came to the opposite conclusion.
Rather than failing to consider the role of election that Johnson sees in making the atonement effectual to the elect, Owen could not fathom any sense in which there could be an atonement apart from election. Johnson may be comfortable with the idea that “In its relationship to Christ as Mediator the atonement is universal, but with reference to his work as his people’s Surety, his redemption is particular” (179, 180), but Owen never could be. Owen recognized first and foremost, that Christ’s sacrifice was the Mediator of the Covenant of Grace offering Himself up for those whom the Father had given Him. While His mediatorial sacrifice certainly had repercussions on the reprobate, there is no sense in which that sacrifice could be considered to be made “for them.”
For Johnson, (actual) universal sufficiency means that Christ died for all men. So in that sense he is correct when he states, “Owen could not embrace (actual) universal sufficiency because that which brings about the application of the atonement—saving faith—was effectually procured by the death of Christ” (117). But that was not Owen’s only argument against the idea of Christ dying for all men. It was not even his primary argument, as is evident: “it is denied that the blood of Christ was a sufficient price and ransom for all and every one, not because it was not sufficient, but because it was not a ransom.”[1] For Owen, all things associated with the death of Christ—ransom, satisfaction, reconciliation, redemption—could only be understood biblically if they were comprehended with direct reference to the elect. The Bible everywhere speaks of Christ’s death as substitution, satisfaction, reconciliation and redemption with regard to His chosen people, the church. But the Bible nowhere speaks of Christ as a sufficient but ineffectual Surety, Mediator or Savior for the non-elect. Scripture is equally silent regarding a sacrifice that is a sufficient but ineffectual ransom, a sufficient but ineffectual propitiation or a sufficient but ineffectual redemption. Johnson is correct when he asserts, “according to Owen, there cannot be two intentions for the death of Christ—one intention designed to save the elect and another intention designed to provide a way of salvation for the non-elect” (63, 64). Owen could not fathom a second intention designed to provide a way of salvation for the non-elect, because Scripture nowhere reveals such an idea.
Before moving on from the subject of John Owen, we must recognize that he did not altogether deny the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice to pay for the sins of all men. Johnson admits as much on page 119. But what is not found in Johnson’s book is the fact that Owen was actually in agreement that Christ’s sacrifice is sufficient and it does have implications for the indiscriminate publication of the gospel.
Now, this fulness and sufficiency of the merit of the death of Christ is a foundation unto two things:– First, The general publishing of the gospel unto “all nations,” with the right that it hath to be preached to “every creature,” Matt. xxviii. 19; Mark xvi. 15; because the way of salvation which it declares is wide enough for all to walk in. There is enough in the remedy it brings to light to heal all their diseases, to deliver them from all their evils. If there were a thousand worlds, the gospel of Christ might, upon this ground, be preached to them all, there being enough in Christ for the salvation of them all, if so be they will derive virtue from him by touching him in faith; the only way to draw refreshment from this fountain of salvation.[2]
And again,
Secondly, That the Scripture sets forth the death of Christ, to all whom the gospel is preached [unto], as an all-sufficient means for the bringing of sinners unto God, so as that whosoever believe it and come in unto him shall certainly be saved. Thirdly, What can be concluded hence, but that the death of Christ is of such infinite value as that it is able to save to the utmost every one to whom it is made known, if by true faith they obtain an interest therein and a right thereunto, we cannot perceive. This truth we have formerly confirmed by many testimonies of Scripture, and do conceive that this innate sufficiency of the death of Christ is the foundation of its promiscuous proposal to elect and reprobate.[3]
So, we find disagreement with Johnson, not in his insistence that Christ’s sacrifice must be sufficient for all if we are indiscriminately to preach the gospel to all men, but rather in his insistence that in order for Christ’s sacrifice to be sufficient for all men, it must have in some manner been offered for all men.
Part 5
[1] John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, in The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 10 (1850-1853, reprint, Carlisle: Banner of Truth Trust, 1967), 296.
[2] Owen, Works, vol. 10, 297.
[3] Ibid., 376.
Rexford Semrad has served as an administrator at Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary since 2015. He is married to his wife of 32 years, Marion, and has 8 children. He is a member of Grace Reformed Baptist Church of Owensboro, KY where he serves as a Deacon and a Gifted Brother. Among other things, Rex particularly enjoys theology, hot sauce and Church history.
by Rexford Semrad | Aug 7, 2017 | Book Reviews, Reformed Theology, Uncategorized
part 1, part 2
Johnson, Jeffrey. He Died for Me: Limited Atonement & the Universal Gospel. Conway, AR: Free Grace Press, 2017. 201 pp.
Critical Evaluation (Continued)
Exegesis
An extremely disappointing aspect of He Died for Me was Johnson’s exegesis, or rather, the lack thereof. For instance, under the heading The Exegetical Argument for Universal Sufficiency, he states: “Though every proof text will be highly contested, such as 1 Timothy 2:4–6, Hebrews 2:9–10, and 1 John 2:2, I’m not sure how much closer the apostle Paul could have been in making a distinction between sufficiency and efficacy when he claimed that Christ “is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe” (1 Tim. 4:10)” (130). But he does not provide any exegesis for any of these passages.
Instead, Johnson makes the claim that the purpose for the illustration of the brass serpent was to explain how Christ can be the Savior of all people (129, 130), claims that high Calvinists must explain why such terms as all and world do not mean all people (130), and then states that they typically do so by building a case that restricts all and world to the elect (131). Then he moves on to John 3:15-21. After a short discussion of why he believes that world in John 3:16 cannot mean the elect alone, he comes to this conclusion: “Both those who hear and believe and those who hear and do not believe have one thing in common—they both heard the universal offer of the gospel. And if they both (believers and unbelievers) heard the offer, it strongly suggests that they both are included in the ‘world’ of the ‘whosoever.’”
Much stands against Johnson’s seemingly assumed interpretations of the four passages he listed. The limitation of the universal language in these passages is not something artificially imposed by high Calvinists. Louis Berkhof, whom Johnson repeatedly claims as a moderate Calvinist,[1] provides solid exegetical arguments for the limited nature of the universal language in each of them in his Systematic Theology. [2] And he does not do so by merely equating the world with the elect. And John Calvin, Johnson’s most quoted moderate Calvinist, would take issue with him on both 1 Timothy 4:10 and 1 John 2:2.
Calvin was far from regarding 1 Timothy 4:10 as proof of sufficiency for all men but efficacy only for the elect. He did not think the term Savior should be taken in the sense of eternal salvation:
To make this more clear, it ought to be understood that this is an argument drawn from the less to the greater; for the word soter is here a general term, and denotes one Who defends and preserves. He means that the kindness of God extends to all men. And if there is no man who does not feel the goodness of God towards him, and who is not a partaker of it, how much more shall it be experienced by the godly, who hope in him? [3]
And in reference to 1 John 2:2, Calvin explicitly denies that the Lombardian Formula is suitable to the passage, but declares, “under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world.” [4]
I do not know which surprised me more: that he included Hebrews 2:9-10 when the context so clearly indicates that the everyone for whom Christ tasted death was every one of His brethren, or the fact that he seemed to equate the whosoever of John 3:16 with the world of John 3:16. The phrase translated “whoever believes” is more literally rendered “every believing one” or “every believer” and therefore cannot be a reference to the reprobate as well as the elect or a reference to the world in general. The final exegetical issue that I will mention comes from another section of the book. First Corinthians 15:3, according to Johnson, “implies that Paul had no problem telling everyone that ‘Christ died for our sins” (113). Paul is not speaking to unbelievers in this passage, but rather to the church for whom Christ died. There is no reason to assume that Paul was here giving a direct quote of the words he used in preaching the gospel to unbelievers. The fact that there is not one example in any of the Gospels or the book of Acts of anyone telling unbelievers that Christ died for them strongly suggests that this is not the proper interpretation.
Continue to part 4.
[1] While I do not fully reject Johnson’s division of Calvinists into Hyper, High, Moderate, & Low, I’m not sure how helpful it really is, and it definitely seems as if his reasoning for declaring some to be Moderate is a bit arbitrary.
[2] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (1939; reprint, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 395-98.
[3] John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, vol. 21, Commentaries on The Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon (Edinburgh, Scotland: Calvin Translation Society; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2009), 112.
[4] John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, vol. 22, Commentaries on The Catholic Epistles (Edinburgh, Scotland: Calvin Translation Society; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009), 173.
Rexford Semrad has served as an administrator at Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary since 2015. He is married to his wife of 32 years, Marion, and has 8 children. He is a member of Grace Reformed Baptist Church of Owensboro, KY where he serves as a Deacon and a Gifted Brother. Among other things, Rex particularly enjoys theology, hot sauce and Church history.
