Jesus was the most controversial person who ever lived. Should it surprise us then that what He did for whom would create quite a stir through the centuries?
It sounds pretty simple enough--Jesus died on the cross for sinners. How can that be controversial? Well, in 1 Corinthians 1, we read that it caused a furor in the first century, because to the Jews the cross was a stumbling block, and to the Greeks it was downright silly and foolish. Even today, those who say they believe that Jesus died on the cross are not in agreement over such matters as why He had to die, what His death accomplished, and how His death fits into the whole scheme of salvation.
Jesus did what for whom? The "what" concerns the nature of the atonement. The "for whom" concerns the extent of the atonement. Those are the two vital pieces in understanding exactly what happened when Jesus died on a Roman cross some two thousand years ago. It really is hard to separate the two, because the nature of the atonement includes the extent of the atonement, and the extent of the atonement includes the nature of the atonement.
I will first tackle the "for whom" in this article. I often do things backwards. (Remember my Acute Birthday Dyslexia issue?) For whom did Jesus die?
How can that be controversial? The answer is simple enough, right? Most of us have heard all our lives that Jesus died for everyone. He died for all sinners, and that's everyone. Let's assume that is the case, and see if it he can stand under the scrutiny of Scripture and sound logic. Why logic, one might say?
The Bible is not illogical. It is above man's reason, but it is not irrational. The Trinity is one such example. Try to explain it, and you will lose your mind. Try to explain it away, and you will lose your soul. Such notable personalities today on the Christian circuit as T.D. Jakes and Phillips, Craig & Dean deny the Trinity. While we can not fully comprehend how three persons can be one in essence, it still is not anti-logic.
The Bible is much more than logical, but it is not illogical. Isaac Watts, who wrote many of our hymns, also wrote much on the use of logic in Scripture. Paul defends the doctrine of the resurrection by using step-by-step sound logic in 1 Corinthians 15. Apologetics is the interweaving of logic and Scripture.
For our purposes for now, let's just use the logic angle to examine if the statement that Jesus died for everyone is a logical deduction from Scripture. It has been said more than once that the difference between a plagiarist and a researcher is that a plagiarist borrows from one source, and a researcher borrows from more than one source. I try my best to be a researcher most of the time, but this time I will readily admit to being a plagiarist. I have taken liberties with John Owen's famous logical approach to the inquiry, "For whom did Jesus die?"
Let us look at it from one of four possible options:
1. Jesus died for all the sins of everyone.
2. Jesus died for some of the sins of everyone.
3. Jesus died for some of the sins of some.
4. Jesus died for all the sins of some.
Three of the above are Owen's own, and I have added one myself. I suppose we could add more, like Jesus died for no sins of no one, but if that is so, then nobody would be reading a blog like this in the first place. Much worse than that, there would be no need to read the Bible.
Let us take each of the four above possible answers one by one and see how each one squares with sound biblical logic.
If #2 or #3 is correct, then we have a huge problem immediately. If only some of our sins were atoned for on the cross, then Jesus' death was an exercise in futility. If 99.9% of our sins were atoned for, then that unforgiven .1% would qualify us for hell. We can easily dismiss with options #2 and #3.
We are left with options #1 and #4. The first option has that populist appeal, because it is the one that we are much more familiar with and what we have probably heard all of our lives. So let's take that option and see how it fares with consistent logic.
If we say that Jesus died for all sins of everyone, then we can ask the next question, "Are all people saved then?" To which most will respond, "Of course not. A person must believe or trust in Jesus to be saved." Logically, then, we can rightfully deduce that the sin of unbelief will send a person to hell.
But, how can that be, when we are told that Jesus died for ALL the sins of everyone. Does that not include the sin of unbelief? If it does not, then Jesus did not die for ALL the sins of everyone. He did not die for the sin of unbelief, which naturally leads us to accept the option that Jesus then died for some (or most, or nearly all) of the sins of everyone, which leads us nowhere except hell.
So, either if option #1 is true, which would have to mean that all people are going to heaven, which is the liberal doctrine of universalism (i.e., Jesus died for all the sins including unbelief of everyone, so no one goes to hell, and all go to heaven), or option #2 or option #3 is true, which would have to mean that all people are going to hell, because there are some sins that Jesus did not atone for and He can not forgive.
No matter how one frames it, or tries to redefine it, like saying, "Well, Jesus died for all the sins of everyone, but you have to believe to be saved," we are still left with a quagmire of gigantic illogical proportions that we can not avoid. We have to end up saying that Jesus died for all the sins except one, the sin of unbelief. So, grudgingly, we have to admit, maybe under our breath, that Jesus' death is limited in some sense of the word. It is limited in that He really did not die for ALL the sins of everyone.
It is further limited when we try to describe who fits the description of "everyone." Did Jesus die for the fallen angels? They are beings, although not human beings. They are sinful beings nonetheless. Nobody credible I know has proposed the idea that Jesus died for Satan and his demons. So we have limited the extent of Jesus' death, if we maintain option #1 is still the correct one, to people only, and it excludes fallen supernatural beings.
But it must be limited even more so. What about the people who were already in Hades when Jesus died on the cross? Did Jesus die for everyone who were already in Hades? Does that mean that those in Hades can be saved? Some do put forth the notion that there is a second chance after death, but Scripture and logic rail against such a fairy tale position. (Hebrews 9:27-28)
To carry it to its logical conclusions, if option #1 is true, then we have to conclude that:
1) Jesus' death was and is limited in that it did not cover all sin, i.e. the sin of unbelief.
2) Jesus' death was and is limited in that it does not include the fallen supernatural beings.
3) Jesus' death was and is limited in that it does not include all those who died prior to Christ's death on the cross. (So, if an unbelieving person in Egypt or Rome or Damascus or Jerusalem died five minutes or five seconds prior to Jesus' final breath on the cross, that person would not be included in the "everyone" for whom Jesus supposedly died.)
To be consistent, option #1 must be rephrased: Jesus died for all the sins except unbelief for everyone except for all the fallen supernatural beings and except for all the people who were already in Hades.
How illogical must we have to be in order to uphold an illogical option when there is a better one out there that is scriptural and logical at the same time?
