While I believe that Gill has much to offer concerning understanding the doctrines of grace – I believe he is wrong on this point. It seems that he too has a tendency to sometimes simply follow the party line when it comes to theology.
While I agree with those who point out that “all” does not always mean “all” – the doctrine of the atonement is a place where it means exactly that IMO.
Christ did indeed die for the sins of the elect. But He also died for those He would pass by as well.
All of us here are elect. I would hope that we all could at least agree on that. As such – Christ died for our sins some 2000 years ago.
Even so – we were all enemies of God until justified through faith.
“Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior.”
“And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.”
“Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.”
“And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled.”
“As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:”
“There is none that understands, there is none that seeks after God.”
“They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.”
“God is angry with the wicked every day.“
I received justification when I was 13 years of age. Paul was perhaps around 30 when he was saved. The thief on the cross was likely lost up until the very day he died. Ted Bundy was 42 when he was saved. Chuck Colson was 41 years old when he was justified before God. Many have received Christ at over 100 years of age on their deathbed.
All of us are part of the “elect” of God for whom Christ died. And yet we were as lost and as alienated from God as Adolf Hitler and Judas Iscariot up until the day we were saved by grace through faith.
Who is to say that a person could remain an enemy of God and a "child of wrath" for 13 or 100 years and not for eternity?
The life of every believer stands as a stark testimony of the illogical assumptions of those who teach a limited atonement.
God “reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” 2 cor. 5:18-21
People who believe in the doctrines of grace need to reject limited atonement. Christ died for the sins of the world and everyone in the world will still remain an enemy of God and under His wrath until the day they are justified through faith. That day may never come in this life and therefore they will remain God’s enemy throughout eternity in spite of Christ dying for their sins.
John Gill is a fine theologian. But then so was John Calvin.
I’m with Calvin on this one. If this means to some that John Calvin and I can't be called Calvinists- so be it. Calvin and I will gladly accept that. Calvin didn't follow anyone but the Lord and neither do I.
I like John Gill, I have used his commentary quite extensively, and have found only a very times, where I disagree with him.
John Gill has in fact been accused of "Hyper-Calvinism".
But I still like him none-the-less.
First off, let me very LOUD and Clear, Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God did pay the penalty for sin. His atonement, was indeed "unlimited" in its offer, but it is certainly "limited" as to whom it is effectual.
Many people here
want desperately to over emphasize that Christ's death on the cross was all mankind. And it certainly was. But...
What does the word ransom mean?
"The root word is luo {loo'-o} translated in other places as to loose 27, break 5, destroy 2, dissolve 2, put off 1, melt 1, break up 1, break down It speaks of loosing any person (or thing) tied or fastened down ie- a) bandages of the feet, or the shoes,
It certainly refers to loosing one bound, i.e. to unbind, release from bonds, set free
one bound with chains (a prisoner), discharge from prison, to let go.
A ransom is
the price paid for the redemption and deliverance of someone who has been taken hostage.
The Greek word used in our text is ANTILUTRON... AV - ransom it is the only time this form of the word is used in the NT. 1) the price for redeeming, price paid for slaves, captives In this case it refers to the price paid to liberate many from misery and the penalty of their sins.
It is a very emphatic word ... it means "a corresponding price" not just
a price being paid, but
the appropriate price was paid.
It conveys that a
just price was exacted... there was not an unfairly high price paid for things he did not receive... it has happened to you- you have paid a price for something and when you have got home you have discovered that what the box or advertisement promised was more glamorous than the thing actually purchased. Christ’s payment was not of such a nature! It was appropriate."
Source
So...ask yourself this, what did Christ "ransom" us from?
Now some people will something along this line:
""the Bible plainly teaches that Christ’s death and His work of redemption was not only sufficient for the entire world, but that He actually died for the sins of all the world." They will back their position with this verse from 1 John 2:2 - "
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." ...as well as John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (And leave it there as if this settles the argument)."
Source
And the author also provides this answer:
"It is not quite apparent to me why the text of John 3:16 should be an argument against limited atonement. The passage does not say Jesus died for everyone, but only that the Father gave his Son for
ALL THOSE WHO WOULD BELIEVE. It says, "
WHOEVER BELIEVES in
HIM shall not perish but have eternal life." Right? Don't we all believe this? That is why the consistent biblical Calvinists, when presenting the gospel to unbelievers, simply teach that Christ died for
"all who would believe", which is actually closer to the meaning of this text than the erroneous position that He died for all in a general kind of way, and yet for no individual in particular. Instead, we believe that the benefits of the atonement will apply only to who will be believers, so he did not die for any person who would remain steadfast in their unbelief. So I would argue that John 3:16 actually supports the definite atonement position better than the indefinite position. They are reading into the text that Christ's death only potentially will save someone if they believe without the help and grace of the cross to do so. So in actuality, Christ died for no one in particular this scheme. His affection was only cast forth in a general impersonal kind of way rather then actually coming for His people who He set his affection on from eternity."
Ibid
(Which here, this agrees completely with what John Gill said)
"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." -Acts 13:48 (KJV)
Who knows the number of people who turned out to here the preaching? And who knows the number which actually believed? But one thing is certain, those and only those "ordained to eternal life believed".
We also have to ask the question: "What sins did Christ die for?"
The usual answer would be for all sins. The sins of the entire world. (cf. 1 Jn. 2:2)
But there is a hole in this argument.
Did Jesus die for the sin of "unbelief"? If so, then why do people still die and go to hell?
The article I quoted from actually answers that question as well:
"At first glance I must admit that this appears to be a pretty good text to back up their argument but upon closer examination, it falls apart. The problem is that if the four-pointers read this verse the way they intend to then we must also conclude that the whole world's sins have already been atoned for (believers and unbelievers) and thus all will be saved (universalism). If Christ is a propitiation or atonement for all men's sins, paying for all sins ever committed, then why isn't everyone in the whole world saved???? So the verse actually proves to much. The verse simply means, (and there is no doubt this is what Paul meant), Christ did not die for every person without
exception but every person without
distinction. . All kinds of people everywhere, is what is meant. We see this elsewhere when the Scriptures say, Christ "purchased for God with [His] blood men
from every tribe and tongue and people and nation." (Revelation 5:9). Many will argue that He didn't die for our unbelief, which I believe I thoroughly discredited in my argument above. John is speaking, rather, of sins for people
throughout the whole world, not each and every person's sins. There are too many problems with saying that the text includes all men (believers and unbelievers) and, as I have shown, this leads to an unbiblical universalism. Saying Christ died for the sins of the whole world is similar in the use of language in many other passages in Scripture such as Mark 1:5 which says, "And
all the country of Judea was going out to him, and
all the people of Jerusalem."
If you think the "all in this passage means every single person without exception, you have missed the point, it means large numbers of people; all persons without distinction, but not all persons without exception.
Christ died for all of the sins of His elect, including their previous sin of unbelief. Belief in the Gospel does not make up for our previous sin of unbelief. Belief (faith) is the witness that God has already wrought grace in our hearts, the inevitable response to His work of regeneration in our souls. (
John 3:21) Christ clearly came to lay down His life for His sheep (John 10:11) and some people are not his sheep:
"...but you do not believe because you are not my sheep." (John 10:26) Jesus prayed for His own but he would not pray for those the Father had
NOT given him: "I pray for them.
I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours." Emphasis mine (John 17:9)."
Source
And I also add:
"If Christ died for every man then he did so conditionally or absolutely.
If absolutely then every man is saved whatever he does and thinks of God. He need never think of God , want God, care of how much he has offended God, he is going to heaven even if he dies in a drunken stupor having choked on his own vomit in a brothel with a blood stained knife in his hand and a warrant out for his arrest for drug dealing to 10 year olds... it matters not... he is going to heaven... for Christ has paid the price... there is nothing justify for him to do.
If conditionally we ask what is that condition?
You may say "faith in Christ"- but it is clear that no man can perform or conjure up "faith" in Christ... sinners are dead in trespasses and sins.. they can no more believe upon Christ than a dead man can believe that there is a way for him to be made alive again. Faith is "a gift of God"- "By grace are you saved through faith and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God."
Anyway is it a sin or is it not a sin to fail to believe in God... surely faithlessness is a sinful condition... if so why did the death of Christ not cover it? Surely Christ’s death if it was for all men’s sins covered the sin of not believing God.
If you say Salvation is provided for every man providing he will take it- you are asking for a greater thing than the one who would offer a blind man $1000 providing he can see it first.... or assuring a dead man that great rewards await him providing he can first raise himself from the dead.
So if he died for all without condition then all are saved! Or If he died for all upon the condition they believe.. none are saved, for the dead soul cannot believe of it’s self.
Therefore, we conclude, he died for some men absolutely and purchased a full and perfect salvation for them so all will be saved for whom he died! His death won for all of His people the graces of conversion of the will, repentance from sin, faith towards God... He purchased full and complete salvation for His people!"
Source
So which is the glorifying doctrine?
Unlimited atonement, or Limited Atonement?
Its actually funny that people use John 3:16 as an argument against "limited atonement".
Because while the offer is open to "whosoever will" is an established fact that not everybody is included in "whosoever will". And one may say that those who use Jn. 3:16 as an argument for unlimited atonement, they are actually making an argument for limited atonement.
God Bless
Till all are one.