Particular Redemption vs. Universal Atonement

This is another hotly-debated topic among Christians from all backgrounds. Did Christ die only for those who would repent and believe, or did he die for all humans without exception?

Did Jesus come to save men, or just to make them saveable? And does this prevent the Gospel from being a call to all men everywhere?

Discuss!

I think if you say that Jesus died for the whole world, and thus bore the sins of the world (all without exception), you must conclude that all men will be saved, because God will not punish the same sin twice. Let me explain. If Jesus bore the wrath of ALL sins, then there is no wrath left for ANYONE, right? So God would be unjust if he punished the same sin again by condemning a person to hell (which is the eternal payment for sin, the bearing of the wrath of God for ever). So I think it is wrong to say that Jesus bore the sins of the whole world, because the Scriptures clearly teach that not all men will be saved.
On the other hand, Jesus' atonement is so perfect, so vast, that it COULD atone for all the sins of the world, if all men repented and believed, but that is not God's will. He has chosen instead to reveal the depth of his love and mercy by redeeming a people for his own possession, not because they somehow deserved to be redeemed, but because he loves them.
So, I conclude that Christ's atonement is limited. But, it is offered to all men. Just because not everyone will believe doesn't mean we sit back and say 'God will save his elect people, so we don't have to do anything.' That is totally un-Scriptural. Look at the Great Commission: "Go to all the ends of the earth, preaching the gospel to every creature…!" (paraphrased) So, no, we don't sit back in apathy, precisely because we don't know who God's elect are (humanly, that is impossible, to a certain extent). What an exciting thing to be the instrument God uses to bring a wretched sinner to Himself! Limiting the practical scope of the atonement does not stifle the gospel in any way.

We're in agreement, Sir Octo (I know! Mark down this date on the calendar!), though I want to clarify a couple of your semantics on behalf of pastor.

Pastor would say that the call and the atonement are universal, but the redemption is particular. Christ's atonement is enough for all men to repent and believe, but God has only particularly redeemed some, as you excellently stated.

Octo, you said what I could not find the right words to say. Great job! Does anyone on Memverse have any objections?

"And He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." - 1 John 2:2

This tells me that, yes, Jesus' death on the cross is enough to atone for the sins of the whole world. But since this atonement is only applied to those who repent and believe (Luke 13:5; Romans 10:9), His blood's full power is not always utilized.

Wait…so part of Jesus' sacrifice was in vain? He suffered unnecessarily for all those who will not believe? What about those people who were already in Hell? Did Jesus take the wrath of God on their behalf too?

I'm not certain about this, but I think I remember hearing someone say that in that verse (1 John 2:2), John is referring not to every single human being, but every tribe, language, people, and nation. In other words, Jesus didn't only die for the Jews, or only for those living in Palestine. He died for the sins of the whole world. His sacrifice was infinitely large enough that, were human being to repent and trust in His sacrifice, He wouldn't have to do any more than He already did.

But that doesn't mean that Christ literally took the wrath of God for every human who ever did and ever will live. Otherwise, He would have saved them all!

Norman Geisler once said, "Jesus didn't come to save men; He came to make them saveable." Is that what you believe? The angel Gabriel said that Jesus came to "save His people from their sins." Not that He "might save" them or "could potentially save them if they end up choosing Him." No, He did save His people by His sacrifice.

I think, just to reiterate, that this could all just be an issue of semantics:

Christ's atonement can be said to be for all men; however, His redemption could only be of the elect. Thus, universal atonement, but particular redemption.

Not one of those He redeemed can or will be lost; however, those who do not answer His general gospel call to repentance are condemned already (John 3:17) and are called children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3).

It seems like you are all in agreement, but are just using different terms to describe the same thing.

I guess you're right. I was just stuck on this one sentence of Dakota's: "His blood's full power is not always utilized." Would you say that that's accurate, Dad?

But doesn't the very term 'atonement' mean to take away punishment (in this instance, to take away the punishment for sin). So how could Christ's atonement be universal?
Just explain what you mean by universal atonement. I'm probably missing something.

BTW, I think what Dakota said was true, COS. I basically said the same thing in my first comment.

Yeah, we both said something similar:

I said, "His sacrifice was infinitely large enough that, were human being to repent and trust in His sacrifice, He wouldn't have to do any more than He already did,"

and you said, "Jesus' atonement is so perfect, so vast, that it COULD atone for all the sins of the world, if all men repented and believed, but that is not God's will."

But it just didn't sound right to me to say that Jesus' blood wasn't fully utilized.

@ Wretched Man: I agree with Octavius; I think we must have different definitions of universal atonement. Otherwise, I wouldn't have titled this topic "Particular Redemption vs. Universal Atonement," implying that universal atonement is the opposite of particular redemption.

I thought along those same lines, but Pastor, and the many he reads, seem to define atonement differently. He says that Christ died for all the world in a way that is different than how He died for His elect.

If you mean atonement to mean that He propitiated God's wrath, then it certainly can't mean that He did that for the whole world, or else hell would be double punishment (once on Christ, and a second time on them, but for the same sins). But if the atonement means that Christ died as the sacrifice for sin in general, making it possible for all men to hide themselves in Him when they believe on Him, then that would be congruent with similar Scriptures that indicate such.

However, redemption can only mean that for whomever He died to redeem from Satan's slavery to be His own eternal possession, these alone can be redeemed. There is no potential redemption. Christ knew who was elected in eternity past, and He has only redeemed them – and no one else.

If this still doesn't make sense, then good! It's one of the hardest concepts for us to grasp, because there's a natural tension between all and some and both. Just like the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, etc.

Ahhhh, that makes much more sense now. Seriously. I'm not just joking. I know, at first the meaning and implication of what you said were a little hard to grasp, but the more I have thought about it, the more clear it becomes. I agree, if you define atonement in the second way, not mine.
BTW, what is the hypostatic union?

2 Peter 2:1 says, "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction."
The Greek word "bought" is also translated "redeemed" as in Revelation 5:9, "And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;"

This seems to say that Christ paid the price even for those who deny him (unsaved). Any thoughts?

The hypostatic union is the doctrine of Christ's humanity and divinity, i.e. that He is 100% God and 100% man. :)

"For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect." - 1 Corinthians 1:17

The origin of this debate lies in the fear that if Christ really did die for everyone, and yet people are still going to hell, then it may appear to the world as if His death lacked full saving power. What we must realize, though, is that by complicating the death of Christ and saying it was only for a select few we end up causing the misconception we originally feared.

"For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect." - 1 Corinthians 1:17 The origin of this debate lies in the fear that if Christ really did die for everyone, and yet people are still going to hell, then it may appear to the world as if His death lacked full saving power. What we must realize, though, is that by complicating the death of Christ and saying it was only for a select few we end up causing the misconception we originally feared.

I agree. 100%. :) Exactly what I was thinking.

2 Peter 2:1 "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction."
Note that the verse says that they brought upon themselves "swift destruction". That probably refers to hell, right? If so, then they will be punished for their denial. If they are going to be punished, then Christ didn't take that punishment upon himself.

Bought refers to the fact that these false teachers arose from "among you", i.e., they gave every appearance of being saved, they were respected leaders among the church, but were never inwardly changed, which is why they deny Him. You could make the same argument concerning the word Master. Was He really their Master if they denied Him? No, that could not be. Did He really redeem them if they deny Him? No, that cannot be.

God's justice demands that sin be punished. And at the same time, God's justice demands that the same sin not be punished twice. Christ didn't take the punishment on the cross for those who would deny Him, because then God would punish their sins twice, once upon Christ and a second time when they themselves end up in hell because of their denial. We can't compromise God's justice by saying that he took the punishment for all people.
The atonement is universal (Christ has made it possible for all men to hide themselves in Himself for cleansing from sin), but the redemption is specific (only a certain people will be cleansed; this people is known only to God, which is why we still evangelize).

The 'swift destruction" in 1 Peter 2:1 does not necessarily mean hell. Since the verse says that the Lord 'bought them," it seems to me that these people were real believers at one time, but they have fallen away, getting themselves in huge trouble in this life, and losing the treasures they could otherwise have been storing up in heaven.

While it is certainly true that there are false teachers who were never truly saved, this verse and others indicate that there are also false teachers who have believed and will be in heaven, "yet so as through fire" (1 Cor. 3:15).

Ah, yes, this has been one way to interpret 1 Peter 2:1. However, as is being discussed in the "Can you lose your salvation?" Forum, the rest of Scripture does not support your conclusion.

What seems to be a better way to handle this admittedly difficult verse is to see that Peter is only acknowledging the fact that these false teachers professed being saved (though they never were, as demonstrated by their heretical teachings), and, thus, with that in mind, by their profession, he was referring to them as "bought." But they were always false converts.

Sound weak? There's a couple other similar examples of this type of phraseology in Hebrews 6 and 10.

In Hebrews 6:4-6, where it describes the impossibility of those "who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame," we find similarities.

While many in the "yes-you-can-lose-your-salvation" camp love to use this passage for their support, they find themselves in trouble when they also have to admit then that once a person supposedly loses their salvation, it is impossible for them to ever be saved again. However, a proper rendering, in accordance with many other Scriptures, sees this as describing the profession of a false convert and an apostate – someone who seemed to be a Christian in every way, but "fell away."

In Hebrews 10:26-29, another favorite "lose-your-salvation" passage, it says: "For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?"

Here, we see that the false convert/apostate "tramples" Jesus and counts common His blood "by which he was sanctified" (yet being a false convert, he wasn't actually sanctified, but by his profession, it is still said of him) and insults the Holy Spirit.

It is not uncommon for us today, who do not have the power to accurately charge someone with false conversion, to refer to everyone around us at church who profess Christ with all the same qualifiers that are to be rightly bestowed upon Christians.

And that is what is being done in the Peter and Hebrews passages. There will be NO false teachers in heaven, unless they repent of their heresies and truly come to Christ.

I agree with WM, there is no way 2 Peter 2:1 can refer to saved people that will not be going to hell. If they DENY the Lord as well as bring in heresies (and as someone in the Freewill/Predestination thread stated heretics go to hell), these false teachers are headed for hell. However, perhaps some of them might have been called by the Lord later, before their death, but as the verse says, at this point they are headed for swift destruction.

…but on the other hand how could they be going to Hell since the Lord "bought" them?

Leave it to you to pick out the trickiest phrase in the whole chapter. ;)

This is what John Gill had to say on the subject:

and even denying the Lord that bought them; not the Lord Jesus Christ, but God the Father; for the word is not here used, which always is where Christ is spoken of as the Lord, but and which is expressive of the power which masters have over their servants, and which God has over all mankind; and wherever this word is elsewhere used, it is spoken of God the Father, whenever applied to a divine person, as in Luke 2:29 and especially this appears to be the sense, from the parallel text in Jude 1:4 where the Lord God denied by those men is manifestly distinguished from our Lord Jesus Christ, and by whom these persons are said to be bought: the meaning is not that they were redeemed by the blood of Christ, for Christ is not intended; and besides, whenever redemption by Christ is spoken of, the price is usually mentioned, or some circumstance or another which fully determines the sense; see Acts 20:28 whereas here is not the least hint of anything of this kind: add to this, that such who are redeemed by Christ are the elect of God only, the people of Christ, his sheep and friends, and church, and who are never left to deny him so as to perish eternally; for could such be lost, or deceive, or be deceived finally and totally by damnable heresies, and bring on themselves swift destruction, Christ's purchase would be in vain, and the ransom price be paid for nought; but the word "bought" regards temporal mercies and deliverance, which these men enjoyed, and is used as an aggravation of their sin in denying the Lord; both by words, delivering out such tenets as are derogatory to the glory of the divine perfections, and which deny one or other of them, and of his purposes, providence, promises, and truths; and by works, turning the doctrine of the grace of God into lasciviousness, being disobedient and reprobate to every good work; that they should act this part against the Lord who had made them, and upheld them in their beings and took care of them in his providence, and had followed them with goodness and mercy all the days of their lives; just as Moses aggravates the ingratitude of the Jews in Deuteronomy 32:6 from whence this phrase is borrowed, and to which it manifestly refers: "do ye thus requite the Lord, O foolish people and unwise! is not he thy Father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?" nor is this the only place the apostle refers to in this chapter, see 2 Peter 2:12 compared with Deuteronomy 32:5 and it is to be observed, that the persons he writes to were Jews, who were called the people the Lord had redeemed and purchased, Exodus 15:13 and so were the first false teachers that rose up among them.

Was that one sentence or two?

I don't think John Gill knew about periods. He almost never uses them. ;D

I'd like to refer you to the topic: "Can we lose our salvation?", where we are discussing 2 Peter 2 also.

I think I will have to disagree with most of the people here and say that Christ took the punishment for every sin that ever has been, or ever will be commited by anyone. If people choose not to accept his substitution for their sins then they have to be punished for them. So yes, God would be punishing the same sin twice, but only because people would not accept the first payment.

Did he also die and take the punishment for the people who died and went to Hell before He came to earth, in Old Testament times? If so, why in the world did he take the punishment for the people who were already undergoing punishment in Hell?

If not, then how do you know He did still die for those who would be going to Hell? Why would He shed His precious blood in vain? The angel Gabriel said that Jesus came "to save His people from their sins." Not "might save" or "maybe if they choose Him save" or "make them saveable." No, He came to SAVE us. And He will save all that He has bought.

If the Father only chooses some before the foundation of the world, and the Spirit only regenerates some in time, why would we believe that the Son died for all on that cross? That would put the members of the Trinity completely at odds with one another!

Jesus came to save His bride, not the whole world, most of which would reject Him. Now He did offer to God an atonement infinitely large enough to cover the sins of the whole world. But He did not purchase redemption for anyone other than His Church, whom He has loved with a peculiar love since before the world began.

I don't want to seem like I'm jumping on this, and I don't mean to be harsh, but I think this is a very important issue.

Saying that God punishes the same sin twice is basically saying that God is not just (no just judge sends a criminal to jail twice for the exact same sin).
And if God isn't just, He isn't God.
Consider Romans 2:5 - "But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed."
First, Paul says God's judgment is righteous, so He's not going to punish the same sin twice; that's not just.
Second, the text says that the wrath of God is stored up for those with hard and impenitent hearts. If Jesus took the punishment of those sins, those with hard and impenitent hearts would be storing up wrath firstly for Jesus Christ, and then secondly for themselves. God knew, of course, the exact sins that they would commit, and so punished Christ for those sins. But then, because they have hard and impenitent hearts, the same punishment will be meted out to them on the day of wrath. That's what you believe. But the text says nothing about Christ having already taken the punishment of those with hard and impenitent hearts. The text says that they are storing up wrath for THEMSELVES.
The very next verse says "He will render to each one according to his works." It doesn't say "He will render first to Christ according to every man's works, and then to each one according to his own works."
Now of course, every fallen human deserves hell. The rendering each one of us deserves according to our works is hell. So how can anybody be brought into heaven without God compromising His justice? Simple (in God's mind)! A perfectly Righteous Sacrifice is punished for the sins of a certain number, chosen by God, unknown by man, and that certain number is imputed with the perfect righteousness of that Sacrifice. The two go hand in hand; they are inseparable. If Christ took the punishment, those He took the punishment for will get His righteousness. You can't have only one, or only the other. If Christ paid the price, those He paid the price for will receive His righteousness. But you said that Christ pays the price for everybody. So everybody should get Christ's righteousness. That obviously doesn't happen.
If our sin was imputed to Christ, Christ's righteousness will be imputed to us. You can't have one without the other.

So, what do you all think, Particular Redemption or Universal Atonment?

I say that particular redemption is what is taught in the Bible.

I can wait to see what insight other people have on this subject!
I have really had a hard time with this question: Do you think God loves “the world” or just the elect in the world (John 3:16)?

(I came across another question, a few years back, that went along with this subject but I can’t remember what the verse was that went with the question for some reason. :S)

I think that you meant "can't" instead of "can" :D

Yeah, that's right. :D

I CAN'T wait!!!!