Who did Jesus die for?

John 17:6-11 (The high priestly prayer of Jesus)
"I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you. For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them. And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one."

------------------------------------------------------------

On page 13 of the most recent edition of Christianity Today, there is a short blurb detailing recent commotion at SouthWestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Ft. Worth, Texas. Apparently the school is potentially facing some hard economic times (aren't we all) and the result may be some professor lay-offs. Sources have reported that the SWBTS president, Paige Patterson, is considering that his first targets (if layoffs occur) should be the Calvinist professors on staff. It is claimed that he even made comments to this affect at a staff meeting with the faculty.

To address these allegations, President Patterson gave a recent interview and explained that he was hoping that there would be no economic difficulties forcing him to fire anyone. He then stated that he would never hide behind a screen of financial hardship if he felt that a professor should be fired because of a specific belief. Finally he mused, "I will say that SouthWestern will not build a school in the future around anyone who could not look anybody in the world in the eyes and say 'Christ died for your sins.'"

Of course, this statement amounts to a rejection of the theological doctrine of Limited Atonement (hereafter LA). LA is a prime tenet of Reformed belief. It is the idea that Christ's atonement for sin on the cross is effective only for those chosen by God for salvation before the world began. While his death was hypothetically sufficient for all men, it was efficacious for only the elect.

The problem with rejecting LA, as President Patterson seems to have done, is that you identify yourself as an universalist. LA is not only a belief for the Calvinist, it is a doctrine that all orthodox Christians must hold to, unless they think everyone is going to heaven. If Christ died for the sins of everyone in the world, then no one can go to hell, because no one is guilty before God. The penal subtitutionary death of Jesus provides a pleasing offering for sin to God that erases the debt owed God to all whom it applies. For example, if you were in massive credit card debt, and you were headed to debtors prison because of this debt, when I came along and freely paid your debt - you are free of that debt and prison is no longer in your future. You could dislike me, wish I had not done that for you, or even try to go on to prison anyway because you are some kind of wacko. Regardless, your debt is cleared, the prison will not take you in, and you are free-like it or not.

The real debate...

John 15:16 (Jesus speaking to his disciples)
"You did not chose me, but I chose you..."

Acts 13:48 (Early church conversions)
"And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed."

If Jesus paid the debt of every person then they are all free to go and hell is not in their future. We know that is not the case (Matthew 7:13-14). Therefore, if Jesus did not atone for all people's sin - who did he die for? The answer is the elect. (2 Timothy 2:10) The question is not really who gets the benefits of the cross, we should all agree it is the elect alone. Rather, the question is how do the elect become the elect?

It is this point at which the Reformed and non-Reformed disagree. The Reformed view is that God sovereignly chose a portion of mankind to be saved, not due to anything in them but out of his love, mercy, and grace alone. These chosen people are the elect. They are then brought to faith and regeneration as a necessary effect of their being called by God for his glory. (They chose God, because God chose them) The non-Reformed position argues that the elect are known as the elect because God chose them before time based upon his trans-temporal foreknowledge that they would choose him when their moment of decision came. (God chose them because they would chose God)

It appears that President Patterson may be confused. I do not think he would argue for universalism that sends everyone to heaven, yet he is clearly rejecting the idea of LA. Maybe he simply disagrees with Reformed soteriology and he is trying to paint the Calvinist view as unloving since we can't tell everyone (in their eyes) that Jesus died for THEIR sins. I hope that is not the case. I believe that the Reformed/ non-Reformed debate is an in-house discussion on the "how" not the "what' of salvation and that we should be able to co-exist as brothers who disagree on what election is while confirming that we all hold to the teaching of LA and not universalism.

How to say it then...

How then, as a parting thought, can a Reformed believer talk about Christ's atonement to the unregenerate. I would simply suggest changing the statement from "Christ died for your sins" to "Christ died for sin." It is subtle and doesn't really destroy the gospel message, yet it retains good theology and avoids any mistaken thinking. Following the statement about atonement for sin (writ large, not individual) an explanation of how the person can benefit from Christ's work on the cross and how his blood can be applied to their particular sins thru trust and faith would clear up the whole issue.

This is not an issue of "those mean-spirited, arrogant, and cliquish Calvinists." Rather it is an important theological question about who gets the justification of God by way of Christ's penal substitutionary atonement on that hill in Jerusalem. If Jesus did die for all men's sin (as President Patterson suggested) then universalism is true and we are all going to heaven. Since Scripture does not teach that doctrine, I must hold to the Word. Clearly it is the elect of God and the elect alone who will be gathered into heaven. (Mark 13:26-27)

These facts do not mean that we should ignore a lost world or walk around giving detailed theological explanations to unbelievers, rather it is by simple presentations of the gospel of grace and the love of God, demonstrated on the cross, that we can tell the world about the Savior who died for sin and who can save them from their sin IF they trust him as Lord.