Limited Atonement
Most of our readers will know that we are Calvinists and believe in limited atonement—that Christ did not die for all men but only for the elect. By limited atonement, however, we do not mean that the value or power of Christ’s death and blood are limited, but that He died for a definite number of people.
We believe in limited atonement because of the many passages of Scripture that teach that Christ did not die for all but for “many” (Isa. 53:11; Matt. 20:28; 26:28; Heb. 9:28), that is, for “His people” (Matt. 1:21), for His “sheep” (John 10:14-15, 26-28), and for “the church” (Acts 20:28).
Nor do we believe that the passages which speak of “all” or of “the world” in any way contradict those that speak of a definite number. The word of God cannot contradict itself. Such passages teach that Christ died for all men without distinction, not for all men without exception. In other words, they teach that Christ died for all kinds of men (I Tim. 2:4-6), for all who are in Him (I Cor. 15:22), or for the “world” of His own people, that is, for His elect from every nation (compare John 3:16 and John 17:9).
We also believe in limited atonement because it alone exalts Christ as a Saviour. The idea that Christ died for all men and that many are still not saved diminishes His saving work. That teaching implies that Christ did not do enough by His suffering and death for our salvation, and that something more is needed, usually a person’s freewill choice. If that were so, His blood would have been shed in vain for some and His death would have been ineffective for them. In that case, His death would not truly be a ransom, an atonement or a satisfaction for sin, nor would it bring reconciliation to God.
Indeed, if Christ died for all men and some are still not saved, and the difference lies in their freewill choice, then what ultimately matters in salvation is not Christ’s death but man’s will. Salvation would then depend not on Him but on us. God forbid that we should think such things about Christ’s death or about ourselves!
That Christ died for His elect people—those whom the Father has given Him—means that by His suffering and death He accomplished everything necessary for their salvation, and that nothing more is required. His death truly is atonement, reconciliation, full payment for sin, ransom and satisfaction. He actually saves completely those for whom He died.
Limited atonement teaches that Christ does not merely make salvation possible. He is a Prince and a Saviour—thanks be to God! Rev. Ron Hanko
The Salvation of All Israel (1)
“And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins” (Rom. 11:26-27).
Several of our readers have asked for an interpretation of the statement, “all Israel shall be saved.” One correspondent from the United States writes, “We wondered whether Paul meant that all the Jews were going to be saved. It seems to us that Paul is saying that God’s plan includes the eventual salvation of all the Jews, because He made a covenant with them and does not go back on His word. If there is another interpretation, perhaps by one of the Reformers, please let us know.”
This is not an easy question to answer, and interpretations have varied widely. As far as can be determined, the differences come down to two main views. Some understand the passage to refer to a future period, after “the fullness of the Gentiles is come in” (25), when God will deal especially with the Jews and bring them to conversion. This appears to be the view assumed in the question above. Others understand the passage as referring to God’s work throughout all history, so that all Israel is saved at the same time as the fullness of the Gentiles is brought in.
The difference, therefore, lies in the timing—whether this occurs in a future period yet to come, or throughout the entire New Testament dispensation.
Those who hold to a future fulfilment are themselves divided. Some say that the word “all” means exactly that—every Jew will be saved, head for head. Others recognise the difficulty of that view and interpret “all” more broadly, as referring to the nation as a whole, so that while not every individual Jew is saved, the nation as such is.
Those who understand the passage as being fulfilled throughout the New Testament dispensation are also divided. One view is that “all Israel” refers to the whole church of Christ, composed of both Jews and Gentiles. In this sense, the name “Israel” is applied to the entire people of God. This is the view adopted, for example, by John Calvin, who writes, “I extend the word Israel to all the people of God.”
Others maintain that “all Israel” refers specifically to Jews, but to their gathering together with the Gentiles throughout the entire New Testament dispensation.
It is this last view that I believe to be correct. It is also explained in detail in Herman Hoeksema’s book, God’s Eternal Good Pleasure.
Although there is not space here to give the full reasons for this position, and a fuller explanation will follow in a later issue, it is important to understand the passage in its proper context. That context is not only Romans 11, but the entire section of Romans 9-11.
In those chapters Paul addresses what is often called the “Jewish question”—how it is to be explained that the Jews, who throughout the Old Testament were the people of God, are no longer, as a nation, identified as such. This is clearly the issue raised at the beginning of Romans 9.
Now that Israel has rejected the Messiah and, as a nation, has been cast off, what can be said of God’s promises? Has the word of God failed (Rom. 9:6)?
The answer is emphatically no. At no point in the Old Testament were all the Jews saved. Only the children of the promise were saved, and that according to God’s eternal decree of election and reprobation. That is, only the elect of Israel were saved, while the greater part of the nation perished, for “they are not all Israel, which are of Israel” (Rom. 9:6).
This is the fundamental truth developed throughout these chapters. Further consideration of the matter will follow. Prof. Herman Hanko
Baptism for the Dead?
One of our readers asks, “Baptism for the dead—what does it mean?” The reference is to I Corinthians 15:29: “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?” This is the only passage in Scripture that refers to such a matter.
“Baptism for the dead” is a distinctive teaching of Mormonism (though not of the Reorganised Church of Latter Day Saints). Mormonism teaches that water baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation and allows its living members to be baptized as substitutes for those who died without knowledge of the “restored gospel.”
This teaching is erroneous, especially in that it makes salvation dependent on the water of baptism, thereby denying the saving power of the blood of Christ. Remove the idea that baptism is necessary for salvation and the entire practice of baptising for the dead collapses.
But what does I Corinthians 15:29 teach? Does it mean that, although baptism for the dead is not necessary for salvation, it is still a legitimate practice? And if so, why should it be done?
There are many proposed explanations of this passage—nearly thirty. Among them are:
1) Those who bathe the dead before burial (Beza)
2) Those who are baptized to obtain the pardon of mortal sins (Aquinas)
3) Those who are converted by reflecting on the death of the martyrs (Jonathan Edwards)
4) Those who are themselves dead in sins, with a view to their own resurrection (Chrysostom)
5) Those who are about to die and are baptized for their own consolation or for the edification of others (Calvin)
A common explanation is that Paul refers to a practice in Corinth in which a new convert was baptized in memory of a deceased member of the church. Others suggest that some in Corinth were baptized as substitutes for those who died unbaptized, similar to the Mormon practice. On this view, Paul neither approves nor condemns the practice, but simply argues that it would be meaningless if the dead are not raised.
This explanation, however, is unsatisfactory. It is difficult to believe that Paul would appeal to an unbiblical or even superstitious practice to support such a fundamental doctrine as the resurrection of the body. Nor is there reliable evidence of such a practice in the early church, except among heretical groups.
We therefore understand the baptism referred to as ordinary Christian baptism.
Paul is speaking of God’s work in continually adding new members to His church through baptism, replacing those who have died and gone to glory, so that the church on earth is never without members. In that sense, those who are baptized are baptized “for” or in the place of those who have died.
This explanation not only fits the language of the text, but also expresses a sound biblical truth—that God preserves and builds up His church in every age (Rom. 11:5).
We trust that He continues to do so today. Rev. Ron Hanko
