Church: Reformed Baptist Church of Franconia | Text: Romans 8:32-34 | Date: July 25, 2021 | Speaker: Fred Zaspel

A Price for a People

Romans chapter 8. We are still in this broad section of our series of studies: the Bible doctrine of salvation. In this section, we’re dealing with redemption accomplished—how Christ accomplished redemption in His work. And what I’ve been trying to do is lead us through an understanding of the atoning work of the death of Christ progressively to give us a right understanding of it.

And we have seen that Christ died in the capacity of a substitute. He died in the place of sinners. What does that mean? Well, that means He bore the wrath of God in the place of sinners, satisfying the demands of divine justice. That’s the doctrine of propitiation. In doing so, He paid the ransom price that liberated us from our sins. That’s the doctrine of redemption. He has set us free from our sin and from the curse and from the law. Because He has redeemed us, we are justified by His blood, accepted before the court of heaven and declared righteous in Christ—the doctrine of justification, the great exchange.

Because we are justified in all of that that we have seen, we’re also further reconciled to God, made friends with God. We will see in time to come, under redemption applied, that that goes all the way to the doctrine of adoption. We’re reconciled to God, not just made friends, but made His children, as we sang this morning, making us God’s dear children.

Now, virtually all of what we’ve seen so far in exploring the atoning work of Christ, virtually all of it are truths that are agreed on throughout the evangelical world. We have lots of company, both today and historically. This is not Baptist truth; it’s not necessarily Reformed truth. This is Christian truth that we’ve been expounding.

Now I want to take it to a narrower subject today that is not universally agreed on among evangelicals, but it is a distinctive of our church, and that is the question of the extent of the atonement. For whom did Christ die? I’ll title the message, “A Price for a People.” This is not something only that the elders insist on in this church, but the entire congregation, by its affirmation of our confession of faith, the entire congregation insists on as well. And it is important for us from time to time at least to revisit the question. And I think this is the place in our studies where we can come to an understanding of the doctrine best. And I hope to show that this is not just some party-spirit kind of an endeavor, but it’s something that has real ramifications in Christian worship.

We’ll begin with Romans chapter 8. And I think I will take the time to read the entire passage beginning with verse 28 through the end:

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written, “For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to the slaughter.”

No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Let’s bow together for prayer. Our Father, what a treat it is to have Your word to us. Not only to have a Savior who has saved us, but to have a word from God telling us all about it so that we may rejoice in it and revel in it. We pray that You would enliven our hearts with a clear recognition of all that Christ has done for us. Give us a greater sense of the value of Christ. Give us a deeper sense of faith and trust and appreciation for all that He is and all that He is for us in His person and work. We pray in His name, amen.

The Death Of Christ Was The Saving Event

All right, if our study of the nature of the atonement so far has taught us anything at all, it has taught us that the death of Christ was the saving event. Now, that’s what I will be expounding for the rest of the message. You’ll want to get that. The death of Christ was the saving event. It was the act, the event that effected our rescue and brought us to God.

The death of Christ is what secured that. There on the cross, He took our place as our substitute. In our place, He satisfied the demands of divine justice, taking God’s wrath against us Himself, bearing our curse, thereby paying the redemption price, the ransom price that purchases our freedom. And there He secured once and for all our salvation. There’s a finality to the death of Christ.

Christ was sent; the Son was sent on a saving mission. He did the work and He Himself said, as we saw earlier, at the climax of it on the cross, “It is finished.” He was sent on a mission. He finished it. He finished it in His saving death. There was nothing left for Him to do to save us. This is why the great slogan of the Reformation is Solus Christus, Christ alone. Christ alone. He did all the work. And it’s precisely because it’s by Christ alone that it comes to us by grace alone. He has done all the work.

And this is summed up, for example, in Paul’s statement and famous remark in Galatians chapter 6: “God forbid that I should glory save in the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ.” That’s where the event happened. That was the act. That’s where the transaction was made and the exchange was made that secured our salvation. And all that is true because of what we have seen so far in this series—the nature of the atonement. It actually was a substitutionary death. He died in the place of His people. And because He died in their place, they are not punished. Because He bore the wrath of God, we do not bear the wrath of God. He paid the ransom price; we are liberated.

All of that that we have seen so far shows us that Jesus’ death was the act, the event that effected our rescue and brought us to God. And that’s a repeated emphasis in the New Testament. One passage that we’ll see more closely next week, John chapter 12, verse 32, Jesus says, “If I be lifted up” there, speaking of His death on the cross, “if I be lifted up, I’ll draw all peoples to myself,” not just Jews, but the world over. In context, speaking of the Greeks—men, women, the world over will come to Me because I died for them. We’ll see that in more detail next week.

Paul can say in Romans chapter 5 and verse 9, “We are justified by his blood.” That is because there the transaction was made, the exchange was complete, our sin was made His, His righteousness became ours. And it’s recorded in the books in just that way, as we saw in the doctrine of imputation.

One verse in this regard that I’ve always thought is just an outstanding verse to consider in this connection is Hebrews chapter 7 and verse 22, where the writer there tells us that Christ was our “surety.” That’s the King James translation. I like that translation. You know what a surety is? Somebody who cosigns the note, right? So in our modern translations, it’s the “guarantor.” A surety is one who cosigns the note and says, “I will pay the debt.” And so we are told then that Jesus, in going to the cross, said, “I will pay their debt. They won’t have to pay it because I’ll pay it for them.” And so, in other words there, redemption is secured for us. It is impossible for them ever to be lost because Jesus stood as their guarantee, their surety, paying the price in their place. In fact, Hebrews chapter 9 and verse 12 tells us very directly, He secured eternal redemption. He obtained eternal redemption in His death.

So again, the death of Christ is the act, the event that effected our rescue and brought us to God. Yes, He needed to be raised from the dead, and yes, it still needs to be applied to us each individually and experienced, but this was the saving event.

The Certain Success Of God’s Saving Purpose

Now, I want to look at something in this connection from the standpoint, first of all, of Romans chapter 8. It’s a familiar passage here in Romans 8:28 to 39 that we’ve just read. The apostle Paul is telling us of the certain success of God’s eternal purpose. In verses 28 to 30, we have this sweeping overview of God’s saving purpose from eternity to eternity. All things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.

How’s that work out? Well, it works out like this: He foreknew a people who He would save. Remember we saw that? And those are the ones He predestined. Remember, we saw that too. In time, He called them. We will see that later in our series. And those whom He called, He justified. We’ve seen some of that. We will see more of it in our series later. Those whom He foreknew, He predestined. Those He predestined, He called. Those He called, He justified. And those He justified, He glorified. And so we have this what’s often been referred to as this “golden chain,” these five links from eternity past to eternity future: the success, the certain success of God’s saving purpose. He decreed those who—He set His love on those whom He would save. He predestined the end. In time, He brought it about by calling them, justifying them, and glorifying them.

Now in verses 31 to 36, Paul just kind of elaborates on that with a series of what I like to call defiant questions. And there’s something of a defiant tone, and I want you to see it as we read through it again, verses 31 to 36, with all these questions that he asks:

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, and indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword?

And then he gives his final response, verses 37 to 39:

No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither… neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else—that is, nothing up, nothing down, nothing spiritual, nothing material, and in case there’s anything else to say, he gives this catch-all phrase—nor anything else in all of creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

So, the certain success of God’s saving purpose. Now there are two statements in particular in all of this that I want to highlight this morning that seem to be the linchpins of the argument.

First one is in verse 32: “He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?” Okay, it’s a long sentence, it’s a little complicated. Let’s make sure we get it. “He who did not spare his own Son.” There’s an echo there to Genesis 22—Abraham, Mount Moriah, offering up his son, and God says in response, “You’ve not spared your only son.” There’s an echo of that here. “He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all.” There’s our doctrine of substitution. He gave Him up for us all.

Now, I want you to follow the thinking here carefully. He argues here from the greater to the lesser. “He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?” You see the logic, the reasoning of it? If He gave His Son, that’s the greater, now let’s argue to the lesser. If He gave us His Son to die in our place, to pay the penalty of sin, do you think that there’s any possibility now that having given us that, He would withhold redemption? That He would withhold acceptance? That He would, in fact, inflict a penalty on us? Having given His Son to do that, would He withhold calling? Would He withhold justification? Would He withhold sanctification? Would He withhold glorification? Would He withhold anything?

He’s already given us His Son to take our place in bearing our sin. He gave Him up for us all. Implicit in that, necessarily entailed in that, is that He will then with His Son give us every saving blessing. We could say this another way: All for whom Christ died receive all of the saving benefits. Isn’t that what he’s saying? All for whom Christ died receive all of the saving benefits. This is the act, this is the event that effected our rescue and brought us to God. The fact that Christ died for them guarantees their acceptance, guarantees their glorification, guarantees that they will not perish in hell. How do we know that? Because Christ was given up for them and in their place.

So we have something here also of what we like to call the efficacy of the atonement. He secured something. It wasn’t just a—pardon the expression—it wasn’t just a holy crapshoot: “I’ll die and hopefully somebody will see their way to doing something to bring their way back.” But in His death for us all, He secured every saving benefit. All of them for whom Christ died receive all of the saving benefits of His death. He didn’t just provide for a salvation that some might opt into. His dying secured the saving blessing.

And we have the same thing in verse 34, only it’s stated another direction: “Who is to condemn?” All right, who can stand and bring a charge against me that says he must be condemned for his sin? Who is to condemn? Answer: “Christ Jesus is the one who died, more than that, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.” Again, follow the thinking here. He is saying simply that if Christ died—that is, died for us in our place—and God vindicated that in raising Him from the dead, and now He’s standing, in fact, at the right hand of the Father making intercession on the ground of His death that was given for us; if Christ died, who then possibly could condemn us? You see the reasoning here?

None for whom Christ died could ever possibly perish. None for whom Christ died could possibly be condemned. The very fact that Christ died for them is guarantee that they will not be condemned. That’s his direct statement. His death was the act, the event that effected their rescue. So none for whom Christ died can ever possibly be condemned. This is precisely why He died: to take their punishment for them. That’s the nature of His death. This is what’s often referred to as the law of double jeopardy. You can’t punish twice for the same crime. The substitute paid the price. Those for whom He was substitute then go free. And so it becomes a question of justice. Because Christ died in their place, Paul says, they have to go free. The penalty was paid in the person of their substitute. Again, Christ’s death was the act, the event that effected their rescue. He wasn’t just providing for a vague salvation out there that you might opt into if you saw your way to it. But in His death, He secured the salvation of His people. I don’t know any other way to read those two verses, 32 and verse 34.

The Extent Of The Atonement

Now, let’s back up and ask the question: Why? What is it about Christ’s death that renders His death so effective in saving us? And the answer, of course, is that He died genuinely as a substitute. He died in our place. So let me give you a few that we’ve looked at. In Matthew 20, verse 28, He gave His life a ransom instead of many. Or John 10, verse 11, “The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.” Galatians 3, verse 13, “He redeemed us from the curse of the law, having been made a curse for us.” 1 Peter chapter 2, verse 24, “He bore our sins in his body on the tree.” He took the punishment of our sins. 1 Peter 3, verse 18, “Christ suffered once for sins, the just in place of the unjust, that he might bring them to God.” Again, there’s this transaction that was made. The exchange is complete. At the cross, He secured the salvation of His people. He genuinely took their place and the punishment now cannot fall on them because He took the punishment for them.

So again, it’s a question of justice. In His death, Christ actually took our place and bore the penalty and the curse of our sins. And if He’s an actual substitute, then we must, we must be saved. Now that’s Paul’s reasoning here in verse 34. “Who is to condemn?” Can’t be condemned. Why? Because Christ died. That is, He died in my place. And if He died in my place, I can’t be condemned. That’s the simple reasoning. Justice demands my release. And again, Christ’s death is the act, it is the event that effected our rescue and brought us to God. On the cross, Christ endured the punishment due us, and because that punishment was borne by our substitute, we then are saved.

All right. That’s the broad ground of what we have to argue in this rather polemic message this morning, arguing our position here. This is one, this is a question that divides Christians. For whom did Christ die? This is not the first, but it is probably the most emotionally heated debate between Arminians and Calvinists. Calvinists, Reformed: Christ died to secure the salvation of His chosen people. And in fact, He did that in His death. He secured the salvation of His chosen people. Arminians, on the other hand: Christ died equally for all. And what Jesus did then in His death is provide a salvation made available for all men equally if the person will see his way to taking advantage of it.

So it’s the question of “limited atonement,” as it’s called, or “unlimited atonement.” That’s not the best way to say it. It’s the way it’s come to us because it fits in the TULIP, you know, the “L.” Probably not the best way to say it. There’s a psychological advantage to the Arminian when you say, “I believe in unlimited atonement.” Watch—it sounds so positive and nice. We’ve got to say we believe in “unlimited atonement.” That sounds terrible. I think better let’s say the Arminians believe in a general atonement; we believe in a particular atonement. But the language, the terminology, is not really the issue. You might say “definite atonement” versus “indefinite atonement.” There, I think the Calvinist has the advantage. I believe in a definite atonement. And dare the Arminian to say, “I believe in an indefinite atonement.”

Terminology is not the important point. This is a point that is just hotly debated between evangelicals on this question. It is very important to us here, and I think important for some basic Christian reasons that we’ll see. It’s important to understand here that the question is not: Was the death of Christ valuable enough to save everyone? Nobody debates that. Of course it was. The death of Christ, the infinite value of the infinite Son of God, has infinite value. And if God had chosen two more people to save, that would have been enough atonement to cover. If He had chosen a million more people, it would have been enough atonement to cover. That’s not the question here at all. And so we have the language that’s been familiar in the church for centuries, actually: Christ’s death was sufficient for all, but efficacious for His elect.

The question is, what did Christ intend to accomplish in His death? Was He dying to save His chosen people, or was He simply throwing out a net that He would save people if, if they did something? Christ died equally for all people. Now if you say that, it seems to me that you have to say all people will be saved. If His “dying for” means He took their place in judgment, then you’re left with that. But here’s the Arminian position then: Christ died equally for all. He died for Judas Iscariot in the same way that He died for you. There are people in hell today for whom Christ died. That’s the Arminian position.

Now, I hope you don’t think this is just hair-splitting for theologians who like the discussion. This is important because of the implications of it. Once you say that Christ died for all, and you acknowledge that there will be people who perish in hell, once you say Christ died for Judas Iscariot, you’ve changed the meaning of “dying for,” haven’t you? It didn’t actually secure anything. I want to argue, now who’s limiting the atonement?

Now there are deeper issues involved yet with regard to the Trinity itself because then you would have dissonance in the Trinity. An important doctrine universally believed by Christians is called the “inseparable operations of the Trinity.” Whatever one person in the Trinity does, all are involved in together. And in this view, the Arminian view, you would have God choosing and you have the Spirit applying all individually, but the Son making some wider net, and you have some dissonance in the Trinity not working together to the same end.

But our point here is that the most obvious problem is if you say that Christ died for all men without exception, and He died for people who are now in hell, you’ve changed the meaning of the atonement. Was His death really that of a substitute? Did He take the place or not? Did He satisfy the demands of divine justice or not? Did He pay the ransom price of our freedom or not? If He took our place, satisfied the demands of justice, paid the redemption price, then we must go free. Was He a surety? Did He guarantee or not? If He’s actually a surety, there are those for whom He was surety that must go free.

In other words then, was the death of Christ the saving event or not? What’s the determining factor that saves? Was it the death of Christ, or was it something that we do later that makes it effective? Does everything turn on the death of Christ, or does it turn on something we do later? On the Arminian view, Christ’s death was not itself the saving event after all, because it was done—whatever it was—was done for people who perish.

Now all sides agree, as I’ve already said, that Christ’s redemptive work must yet be applied to each of us individually. We must believe in order to be saved. But is our faith the critical move, or was that something secured for us in the death of Christ? Everywhere in the New Testament, the death of Christ is the saving act that secured our redemption and brought us to God. And if you say that you believe that Christ died as a substitute, and if you say that there will be people who perish in hell, then you must affirm also that Jesus died in the place of a particular people to secure their redemption.

Now I’m happy to acknowledge that Arminians are brothers. I don’t want you to misunderstand on that. We all want to say that. But I also want to argue that their view of the atonement damages the atonement and is inconsistent with what they themselves affirm. They will say that they believe in substitution, that Christ died in the place of sinners, bearing the wrath of God against their sin, propitiating God on their behalf, and then they will say that there are those in hell for whom Christ died. What does that do to the meaning of the atonement? So we’re left, I think, to limit either the scope of Christ’s death or the efficacy of it. Well, there’s the argument. There’s the polemics. There’s much more to it than that, but there’s in broad form the argument of it.

The Practical Value Of That Doctrine

Now, what’s the practical value of that doctrine? Why is it important to know and affirm? Well, one, in a more theological, even theoretical sense, we can say it’s important because on the Arminian view, it damages the nature of the atonement and it ruins what they affirm and all of that. But more practically, more devotionally, what difference does this doctrine make to us? And I’ll just mention two things here.

One is, this doctrine of particular redemption—Christ paying a price for a people—is essential to Christian assurance. I want you to look for that at 1 John 2. 1 John 2. Let’s just read verses one and two:

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

Now as you can imagine, the Arminians are convinced that they have the upper hand in this verse. There it says, “not ours only, but he’s propitiation for the sins of the whole world.” The Arminian view is here: here it’s stated plainly, Jesus died for the sins of every last person.

Two questions I want to ask about that. I’d love to spend more time with this, but it’s just two questions here to get on John’s focus here. Number one, does the phrase “whole world,” does that mean absolutely every individual in history who’s ever lived? Does it mean that? It could mean that, but does it have to? Well, it’s an open question, isn’t it? For example, in John chapter 12, after Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead, in chapter 11, the Jewish leaders are complaining, “Now that he’s raised Lazarus from the dead, the whole world’s gone after Jesus.” They clearly don’t mean every last person, do they? Or Paul can say in Colossians chapter one, “The gospel is bearing fruit in the whole world.” Point of fact, it’s not gone to the whole world yet. But broadly speaking, everywhere it’s gone, and that’s happening—it’s still getting to some places today. So it’s an open question. Does this “whole world” mean every last individual? Or might it have another meaning, like not just the Jews, but Gentiles as well? And not just here, but there as well? Well, let’s wait and see.

Second question I want to ask here: What is John’s point? This zeroes in for us. What is John’s point here? Verse 1: “I’m writing so that you won’t sin.” He has just dealt with that in the previous verses at the end of chapter 1. You can’t say that you’re pursuing sin while pursuing Christ. It doesn’t happen. “And I’m writing this so that you won’t sin.” Well now, at that point you might think, “Oh my, well, I’ve sinned. Can I claim to be in fellowship with God if I’ve sinned? He’s just said I can’t.” Well, what does he mean? How do you nuance that, John? “I’ve written this,” he says, “so that you won’t sin.” That’s verse 1. Verse 2, “but…” Verse 1, I’ve written this for this: to exhort to personal godliness. I’ve written it so that you don’t sin. Verse 2, “but if anyone does sin,” it’s over for you, Bob. No. “If anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world.”

So John here concedes the reality that Christians are going to sin. “If anyone does sin,” he concedes that reality. But what encouragement do we have in the event that we sin? That’s not the—sinner sinning is not the characteristic of a Christian. He’s just said that in previous verses. But what encouragement do I have if I do sin? It’s just this, he says: If anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He’s the propitiation for our sins. That is, when I sin, I need to be reminded I have an advocate. I have someone who has taken my place. He is the propitiation for my sins. He has satisfied divine wrath in my place, and He’s pleading that case before the throne just now. I can’t perish because of my sin, because Christ has taken my place and paid the propitiation, done the propitiating work.

Now, if we take here “whole world” to mean every last individual, what are you going to do with the word “propitiation”? Christ died for every last person who ever lived in the history of the world and He’s the propitiation for their sins, and yet they’re perishing in hell. Propitiation—you have on the Arminian view there a propitiation that doesn’t really propitiate after all. And he doesn’t say here he’s a potential propitiation for anybody who takes advantage of him. He says He is the propitiation for our sins. And if you say here that He has died for every last person, individual who’s ever lived, you ruin the meaning of the verse. It’s rendered meaningless.

Now again, the Arminians think they have the upper hand here. The whole world—wow, it’s got to mean the whole world. But you’ve got a much bigger problem with the word “propitiation.” How are you going to say He’s propitiation for those who have perished? Can’t be done. So rather than redefine “propitiation,” it’s much easier, I think, to restrict the meaning of “whole world.” It’s not just the Jews, it’s Gentiles everywhere. Every Christian everywhere can say this: When I sin, even though I ought not, even though John has written so that I won’t, if I sin, I have an advocate with the Father who’s made satisfaction for my sin in my place. And that’s the ground of my assurance. Now, if that propitiating work is spread out over people who ultimately perish, John’s assurance that he gives us is rendered meaningless. Do you see that? That our assurance is grounded in a particular redemption.

One other application here, and that is that this doctrine gets to the essence and the very heart of Christian worship. What I mean by that is that there’s an instinctive sense of individualism in Christian worship. God saved me. God chose me. Christ died for me. God called me. God will glorify me. He’s made me His child. There’s this instinctive sense of individualism in Christian worship, and the New Testament writers have the same. Let me give you just a few expressions of it in the New Testament. 1 John 3, verses one and two: “See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. Beloved, we are God’s children.” There’s a sense of individualism. Galatians 2, verse 20: “who loved me and gave himself for me.” Ephesians 5, verse 2: “Christ loved us and gave himself for us.” Ephesians 5, verse 25: “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” And then Revelation 1 in verse 5: “to him who loves us and washed us from our sins with his blood.”

I’ve often wondered how this doctrine of universal atonement could ever make sense in Christian worship. How do you do that? You do something nice for your wife, and she thanks you, she praises you for it. And your response is, “Oh, I do that for all the women. I’ve done it for everybody, in fact. Same thing. You know, it wasn’t just me. No, no, I did it for everybody.” How does that work in Christian worship? “Thank You, Lord, for doing for me the very same thing in Your death that You did for Judas Iscariot.” Every Christian intuitively recognizes that at the heart of our worship, there’s a sense of individual rescue. We don’t pray, “Thank You, Christ, for dying for me, just like You did everyone else, even those who perish.”

When we pray and when we praise, we acknowledge that we are sinners deserving of wrath, that we’ve been rescued by the blood of Christ. What made the change between me and anyone who perishes? What made the change? It’s that Christ died in my place, bore the curse of my sin, satisfied the demands of divine justice, and secured my redemption.

And I want you to see that the very same thing will be true in heaven. Look at Revelation chapter 5. This is that marvelous passage—chapter 4: God seated on the throne, exalted in glory, and all of creation bowing before Him, singing His glory. Chapter 5: we have the Sovereign on the throne with a scroll in His hand, His purpose for redemption and for judgment, world history. Who’s going to carry it out? And the question is, who’s worthy to carry it? And we can’t find anyone. And then someone says, “Look, there’s a… there’s a Lion.” And they look and there’s a Lamb as it has been slain. And all of heaven then begins to rejoice.

And look at verse 9. What do they sing? “By your blood you ransomed us for God from…” The Greek preposition there is very expressive. “By your blood you’ve ransomed people for God out from every tribe and language and people and nation.” That is selective redemption by the blood of Christ. What distinguishes the saved from the lost is the blood of Christ. He died to save us.

And that’s the note of praise in the choirs of heaven, if we can put it that way. And when in heaven we join the chorus to sing, there will be no stanza in the hymn that says, “Well, I’m glad Jesus did His part, and I’m glad that I saw fit to do mine.” I suspect that every one of us will want to sing like we’ve never sung it before: “Jesus sought me when a stranger, wandering from the fold of God; He, to rescue me from danger, interposed His precious blood.” That’s what they’re singing here in verse 9.

And this is why Paul can say in Galatians chapter 6, verse 14, “God forbid that I glory in anything else but the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ.” And I think we would do well to be a little more consistent with our—what’s called Calvinism—this doctrine of particular redemption. I think we would do well to reflect it more in our worship. It’s often been put on a popular level: “Jesus had me on His mind when He was on the cross.” That’s not going too far at all, is it? He had a people that were given Him by the Father. He came to save them. On the cross, He took their place, satisfied the demands of justice, and bore their curse, liberating them and bringing them to God.

This is… it’s too bad this is a doctrine that divides, but it is a doctrine we should not be unclear about. We should see that our salvation turns on the death of Christ. We have a Redeemer who stood in our place and secured our redemption. Amen. Let’s pray. Our Father.