rotestants have long held that the interpretation of the Scriptures must be governed by the Scriptures themselves. If Scripture thoroughly equips the man of God for every good work (2 Tim.3:17), then it most certainly equips him for the work of interpreting Scripture. The reason of man may not provide an interpretive framework by which we may approach the Biblical text. This view of Scripture as the only sure measure of truth has been preciously guarded by faithful Protestants since the Reformation.
Unfortunately, many Protestants have abandoned this principle and sound doctrine has suffered as a result. Approaching the Word of God from the standpoint of carnal reason, importing from outside the text meanings to its words and clauses, has tainted the doctrine of salvation more than it has any other doctrine. Specifically, there are many who teach that Christ's work on the cross secured merely the possibility of salvation for each and every individual. The clear teaching of Scripture is to the contrary, that Christ wrought sure—not merely possible — salvation for everyone for whom He died, and that He died for many, not everyone.
The doctrine that the work of Christ alone is sufficient for the salvation of men is offensive to the carnal mind. Carnal reason desires some credit for salvation, usually suggesting that salvation is wrought by Christ and a sinner's decision for Christ. Christ alone is unreasonable to the proud carnal mind, which desires to claim some autonomy — and thereby some credit — for itself.
One passage that is improperly handled in order that it might serve as a prooftext for a "universal" view of the atonement is 2 Cor. 5:14-15 — For the love of Christ constrains us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again. Rather than reading this passage responsibly by looking at its context, many have asserted that the "all" for whom Christ died refers to each and every person. But the context shows that it refers to all believers. The pronoun "we" appears a great number of times in the verses which precede these, and they clearly refer to Christians ("we walk by faith" (v. 7), "we are confident" (v. 8), "we make it our aim . . . to be well pleasing to Him" (v. 9, etc.). The scope of the word "all" is thus established in v. 10: "We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ . . . " We may now return to verse 14 and interpret it contextually: For the love of Christ constrains us [Christians], because we [Christians] judge thus: that of one died for all [of us Christians], then all [of us Christians] died [to the flesh]. The comment "to the flesh" is derived from the discussion which follows this verse. 2 Corinthians 5:14 does not teach that Christ died for each and every person. It is an instruction for Christians that Christ's work on the cross provided for their obedience.
2 Peter 3:9 is another verse often taken out of context as a prooftext for a universal atonement: The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. The use of "all" in the emphasized clause allegedly confounds a particularistic view of the atonement. But like 2 Cor. 5:14, we are to understand the term "all" according to its context. Here its scope is set by the remark "longsuffering toward us." Thus here the term "all" means "all of us Christians." This construction is confirmed by the broader context of the passage.
Thus far we have discussed those supposedly universalistic passages which employ the term "all". There is another class of verses that are falsely thought to be prooftexts for a universal atonement. These involve the term "world," and import the false rendering of "world" as "every individual in the world." But if the Scriptures in their entirety, and not carnal reason, are to guide our understanding of particular passages, then such renderings are inadmissible.
John 3:16 is the most famous of these. For God so loved the world . . . is said to mean For God so loved every individual, and the only support offered for this interpretation is a loud question-begging assertion that "world means world." This simply will not do in view of the many ways "world" is used in the New Testament. We see "world" strictly referring to the Roman territories in Luke 2:1 and Rom. 1:8, to Hellenistic regions in Acts 19:27, and more restrictively, to a large number of people from one small nation, Israel, in Jn. 8:34 and 12:19. The word is also to be understood in places as exclusive of Christians (1 Jn. 5:19, Jn. 1:10, etc.). Returning to Jn. 3:16-17, we may ask the universalist whether every individual in the world who ever lived is saved. This aberrant construction is forced by his insistence upon rendering "world" as every human being: "For God did not send his son into the world to condemn [every human being], but that [every human being] through Him might be saved" (cf. Jn. 4:42, 12:47). This interpretation is incompatible with what is revealed elsewhere about the certain condemnation of many sinners.
A slightly different emphasis is to be understood in 1 Jn. 1:2, another alleged proof for a universal atonement. Here John teaches that Christ came not only for the Jews, but more expansively, to Gentiles as well. (A parallel passage is found in Jn. 11:51-52.) The context shows that John is assuring Christians the blood of Christ cleanses them from their sin. The universalistic interpretation undermines John's words of assurance — for what solace do we find in the blood of Christ if it did not secure the forgiveness of the many for whom it was shed?
