He Will Save His People

Toronto Baptist Seminary

& Bible College

HE WILL SAVE HIS PEOPLE:

A CASE FOR PARTICULAR REDEMPTION

A Paper

presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Course

Systematic Theology II

by

J. Luis Dizon

April 2011

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 3

2. WHAT “LIMITED” ATONEMENT DOES NOT MEAN 4

3. DEMONSTRATING PARTICULAR REDEMPTION FROM SCRIPTURE 7

4. ANSWERING OBJECTIONS TO PARTICULAR REDEMPTION 12

5. CONCLUSION 20

APPENDIX: Charles Spurgeon on Particular Redemption 22

BIBLIOGRAPHY 24

2

INTRODUCTION

“For whom did Christ die?” asks John Murray in his famous work, Redemption Accomplished

and Applied.1 This is the question that is oft-debated among those who disagree on the extent of

the atonement. This is often seen as an issue between the two great theological traditions known

as Arminianism and Calvinism, yet the question of extent of the atonement is so contentious that

even among those who call themselves “Calvinists,” there are those who will affirm universal

atonement, thereby creating a kind of “Four-Point” or “Modified Calvinism.” Also, many

Christians who hold to universal atonement are quick to say that the Bible teaches that Jesus

“died for all” (1 Cor. 5:15). Yet when we reason through all the scriptural data concerning His

work and attempt to bring all this data together to form a coherent doctrine of the atonement, it

can be seen that the biblical view on this matter is more nuanced than it first appears.

The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate the doctrine of Particular Redemption

(commonly referred to as Limited Atonement) is in fact the biblical viewpoint. What this doctrine

simply states is that God has set out to redeem & purify for Himself “a special people” (Tit.

2:14, NKJV). Jesus came for His own people (i.e. the saints) in particular, since scripture teaches

that “He will save His people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21), and this will be argued for

throughout this essay, with objections to this doctrine being answered along the way.

1 John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1955), 59.

3

WHAT “LIMITED” ATONEMENT DOES NOT MEAN

The problem with making reference to the doctrine of a “Limited Atonement” is that there are

negative connotations attached to the word “Limited.” Also, such a term is prone to

misunderstanding, which is why it is oftentimes better to speak of a “Definite Atonement” or

“Particular Redemption.” For this reason, the latter terms will be employed throughout this

essay, as they avoid the mischaracterizations associated with the term “Limited Atonement”

Nevertheless, clarifications must be made as to what this doctrine means does not mean.

First of all, what this doctrine to not mean is that the power of Jesus’ atonement is

limited. Because Jesus is God, His redemptive work on the cross has infinite power and worth.

As Loraine Boettner puts it, “The value of the atonement depends upon, and is measured by, the

dignity of the person making it; and since Christ suffered as a Divine-human person the value of

His suffering was infinite.”2 Thus, if He had chosen to do so, Christ could apply the salvific

benefits of His redemptive work upon every individual who has ever lived. However, it is clear

that He has not done so; “It was limited only in the sense that it was intended for, and is applied

to particular persons; namely for those who are actually saved.”3

Note also in the above statement that it is not only the application of the atonement that is

limited, but also the intended recipients thereof. Many who deny Particular Redemption will

nonetheless admit that only those who believe in Jesus actually enjoy the redemption and

forgiveness of sins that He makes available by His work. However, these same people will also

argue that God made provision for everybody to be atoned for, even those upon whom the saving

benefits of Christ’s work are not applied. An alternate explanation that is held by a lesser number

of proponents of Universal Atonement is that the atonement actually is applied to every

2 Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, 10th ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1960),

150.3 Ibid.

4

individual, but that the atonement does not cover the sin of unbelief. Both of these views will be

addressed and refuted later in this essay.

What this doctrine also does not mean is that God does not love everybody in any sense. A

frequent accusation by Arminians that the Calvinistic view of Particular Redemption denies the

universality of God’s love. While it is true that some Calvinists (such as the late Arthur W. Pink)

went to the extreme of saying God does not love everybody, this view is not necessitated by

Particular Redemption. Scripture teaches that there is a general love that God extends to every

person on earth, both elect and non-elect. Scripture teaches that God “makes His sun rise on the

evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matt. 5:45), and is “kind to

the ungrateful and the evil” (Luke 6:35). There is, however, a distinction between this and the

kind of love God bestows upon His elect. Christ loves His Church the way a husband loves his

wife (cf. Eph. 5:25). Ironically, those who insist that God must love everybody the exact same

way He loves His elect would be repulsed at the idea of a man loving every single woman the

exact same way he loves his wife.

One final point about Particular Redemption (which is connected to the previous one) is

that it does not mean is that nonbelievers do not receive any kind of benefits from Christ’s work

on the cross whatsoever. In Murray’s words: “The unbelieving and reprobate in this world enjoy

numerous benefits that flow from the fact that Christ died and rose again.”4 He connects this with

the universal dominion of Christ’s mediatorship in that all the blessings that men enjoy are

attained through it. Elsewhere, he also writes that they indirectly benefit from the redemptive

work of Christ by way of the order, equity, benevolence and mercy that result from it. Since

believers are exhorted to “do good to everyone” (Gal. 6:10), nonbelievers receive indirect

4 John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, 61.

5

benefits from the Gospel in this manner.5 These benefits “are the expression of God’s kindness”6

towards the ungodly, showing His longsuffering towards them. However, these earthly blessings

are distinct from the salvation which only those who trust in Christ attain to.

5 John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol. 1 (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1976), 63.6 Ibid., 65.

6

DEMONSTRATING PARTICULAR REDEMPTION FROM SCRIPTURE

Having clarified misconceptions regarding the doctrine of Particular Redemption, we now

proceed to demonstrate how this doctrine is derived from the biblical data. First of all, it is worth

pointing out various passages which refer to God coming for a particular group. Scripture

teaches that Christ came to die “for us” (Rom. 5:8 and 1 Thess. 5:10), or for “his people” (Matt

1:21 and Luke 1:68, cf. Tit 2:14). While such passages by themselves do not settle the issue, they

do hint at the fact that God intends to apply the atonement upon specific individuals.

Another important piece of biblical evidence demonstrating Particular Redemption has to

do with Christ’s mediatorial work on behalf of His people. Now, scripture does refer to Christ as

a mediator between God and man in general (2 Tim. 2:5). This verse is to show the exclusivity of

Christ as the only way to the Father, as well as to point to the fact that all benefits that man

receives (including the non-salvific benefits that the non-elect enjoy) come through Him.

However, there are other places in scripture where Jesus narrows down His mediatorship to a

specific group of people. The most prominent example of this is Jesus’ high priestly prayer,

where He states that He manifests Himself specifically towards those whom the Father has given

Him out of the world (John 17:6), and that He prays not for the whole world but only for those

who are given Him by the Father (John 17:9).

Connected to this is Jesus’ function as a priest to His people. It is important to note that in

the OT sacrifices (which were a type that pointed forward to Jesus’ own work), the priest makes

propitiation for a specific group of people and not for the general mass of humanity. On the Day

of Atonement, the high priest kills a bull as a sin offering “for himself and for his house” (Lev.

16:6, 11). He then kills a goat as a sin offering “for the people” (Lev. 16:15), or “for all the

assembly of Israel” (Lev. 16:17). Note that nowhere in scripture is it said that the priestly

7

sacrifices were intended for everyone. In fact, even amongst the Israelites themselves there were

many whose sins were not propitiated because of their unbelief (so not even in this case does

“all” mean “all”). Now, Jesus’ finished work on the cross is infinitely greater than the OT

sacrifices, since He takes away the sin of the whole world (John 1:29). However, this is simply

meant to show that Jesus’ sacrifice is not meant just for the Jewish people, but for “a great

multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and

languages” (Rev. 7:9). Thus, this sacrifice is for all without distinction, but not all without

exception (a point that will be elaborated later on).

The upshot of this is that Jesus’ sacrifice perfects those for whom it is offered, since their

sins are totally and objectively covered. If Unlimited Atonement is true, then this cannot be the

case, but that Jesus’ sacrifice only makes provision for everybody’s salvation without actuating

anybody’s. This is precisely the view that is taken by proponents of Unlimited Atonement such

as Norman Geisler (whose writings will be used as the representative for the Unlimited

Atonement position throughout the rest of this essay). In his book, Chosen But Free, he states

that Christ’s death “made everyone savable [but] does not thereby mean everyone is saved. His

death on the cross made salvation possible for all people but not actual—it is not actual until we

receive it by faith.”7 Further on, he writes:

[I]t is not a question of securing the salvation of all (this is universalism) but of

providing salvation for all (as in moderate Calvinism [the term Geisler uses for his

own position] and moderate Arminianism), as opposed to extreme Calvinism, which

holds that Christ died to provide and to secure the salvation of only the elect.8

If Geisler thinks that Definite Atonement is an “extreme” position, then we would have to say

that the author of Hebrews was being extreme when He said that Jesus “is able to save

7 Norman Geisler, Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany

House, 2010), 75-76.8 Ibid., 255-256.

8

completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them”

(Heb. 7:25, NIV). In fact, the whole point of Hebrews (especially chapters 7-10) is to point out

that Christ’s atoning work perfects those for whom it is offered (as opposed to the OT sacrifices,

which did not really take away anybody’s sins but merely averted God’s punishment and allowed

Him to pass over them until Christ could come and take them away): “But as it is, He has

appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself” (Heb.

9:26). To quote James White from The Potter’s Freedom (a response to Geisler):

He is able to save. He has the ability to actually save human beings, deliver them

from the dominion and penalty of sin, and bring them into eternal glory. This ability

resides in Him, not in mere potentiality, but in reality. He is able to save to the

uttermost, forever, completely, without fail.9

This leads us to the famous trilemma that was formulated by John Owen The Death of Death in

the Death of Christ: “God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell

for, either all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men, or some sins of all men.” 10 If the

first option is true, then we end up with Universalism, since God can no longer demand

punishment for sin upon anybody. Some Arminians and Modified Calvinists have opted for the

third option, that Christ died for some sins of all men (although this view is by no means the

majority among them). More specifically, they would assert that Christ died to propitiate all sins

of all men except the sin of unbelief (presumably because this is tantamount to blaspheming the

Holy Spirit, which is the unforgivable sin). However, this view is not found at all in scripture.

Jesus specifically states that those who reject Him will die in their sins (John 8:24). It does not

say “sin” referring to one, but to many “sins.” This indicates that it is more than just the sin of

9 James R. White, The Potter's Freedom: A Defense of the Reformation and a Rebuttal of Norman Geisler's

Chosen But Free, New Revised Ed. (Calvary Press, 2009), 24010 John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal

Library), 3.

9

unbelief that is in view here. Besides, were we not all unbelievers prior to our conversion? If

Christ did not die for the sin of unbelief, then does that mean our past unbelief is still counted

against us? Owen put this argument to rest when he wrote:

If Christ died in the stead of all men, and made satisfaction for their sins, then he did

it for all their sins, or only for some of their sins. If for some only, who then can be

saved? If for all, why then are all not saved? They say it is because of their unbelief;

they will not believe, and therefore are not saved. That unbelief, is it a sin, or is it

not? If it be not, how can it be a cause of damnation? If it be, Christ died for it, or he

did not. If he did not, then he died not for all the sins of all men. If he did, why is this

an obstacle to their salvation? Is there any new shift to be invented for this? Or must

we be contented with the old, namely, because they do not believe? that is, Christ did

not die for their unbelief, or rather, did not by his death remove their unbelief,

because they would not believe, or because they would not themselves remove their

unbelief; or he died for their unbelief conditionally, that they were not unbelievers.11

Thus, this position defeats itself, and we are left with only the second option, that Christ died for

all the sins of some men. He completely removes all obstacles that prevent their salvation, thus

securing it for them (contra Geisler and other proponents of Unlimited Atonement).

One final piece of biblical evidence in support of Particular Redemption has to do with the

unity of purpose between the persons of the Trinity. This is where Particular Redemption

connects with two of the other points of Calvinism: Unconditional Election and Efficacious

Grace. Although it is outside the scope of this essay to address the other points of Calvinism, it

should suffice to say that Scripture teaches in many places that the Father has elected specific

individuals to be saved and draws them to the Son (cf. John 6:37-44, 65, 10:26-29 Rom. 9:15-23,

Eph. 1:4-6 and 1 Thess. 5:9-10, among other texts), and that that it is the Holy Spirit that comes

upon these same individuals to regenerate them and cause them to believe in Jesus (cf. Eze.

36:35-37, John 3:5-8 and 1 Cor. 12:3). It is clear that the election of the Father is not universal,

11 Ibid., 86-87.

10

neither is the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit universal (otherwise, everybody would be a

Christian!). So why then would the atoning work of the Son be universal? That would bring

disunity within the Being of God, which is unacceptable to any orthodox Trinitarian. In fact, it is

explicitly shown in 1 Thess. 5:9-10 that the Father’s election and Christ’s atonement are

inseparable, since the “us” who are predestined for salvation in this passage is the exact same

“us” that Christ dies for. If the Atonement was universal, this unity of purpose is jeopardized.

11

ANSWERING OBJECTIONS TO PARTICULAR REDEMPTION

Having provided the biblical evidence for Particular Redemption, attention must now be given to

the scriptural passages that are frequently used in support of Unlimited Atonement. First of all,

however, a note must be made regarding various passages that contain the words “all,”

“everyone” or “world,” because proponents of Unlimited Atonement always hastily cite these

passages (though few of them actually take the time to exegete the passages they are citing).

These passages often have qualifiers that negate the Arminian or Modified Calvinist

interpretation of them. As Murray notes:

We are not to think ... that the quotation of a few texts like these and several others

that might be quoted determines the question. From beginning to end the Bible uses

expressions that are universal in form but cannot be interpreted as meaning all men

distributively and inclusively. Such words ... do not always in Scripture mean every

member of the human race.12

A few examples are in order. First of all, in Luke 2:1, it is written: “In those days a decree went

out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered.” In this context, “all the

world” does not mean every individual on earth, but only those parts of the world which are

under the control of the Roman Empire. Another example is to be found when John the Baptist

was baptizing in the wilderness. Scripture states that “all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem

were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins”

(Mark 1:5, cf. Matt. 3:6). This obviously does not mean that every single individual in Judea and

Jerusalem went down. One final example is in John 12:19, where the Pharisees exclaim, “You

see that you are gaining nothing. Look, the world has gone after Him.” Geisler attempts to rebut

this passage by stating that the saying “was clearly hyperbole, used in a geographical (not

generic) sense,” and that it is irrelevant to other passages where he believes “all” is being used to

12 John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, 59.

12

speak of all humankind.13 But this is precisely the point that is being made; that many instances

of the use of “all” or “the world” are meant to be either hyperbolic or are used to refer to

geographic or ethnic (not individual) universality. To use a common distinction, scripture teaches

that Jesus’ death is for all without distinction, but not all without exception.

Lack of space prevents the citation of every single verse that Geisler and other proponents

of Unlimited Atonement use as prooftexts, so four of the most prominent passages will be probed

to demonstrate that they do not prove what they are being used for. Geisler may say that

“Extreme Calvinists have not offered any satisfactory alternative interpretations of these texts

that support unlimited atonement,”14 yet we will soon see that this is not the case.

First Prooftext: John 1:29

The next day he [that is, John the Baptist] saw Jesus coming toward him, and said,

“Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!”

As Geisler argues: “In light of the context and other uses of the word world in John’s gospel, it is

evident that the word world here does not mean “the church” or “the elect” but all fallen human

beings.”15 However, neither the context of the gospel nor John’s usage of world prove what

Geisler claims. It was already established earlier that world is used by John in what are obviously

non-universalistic contexts (cf. John 11:29).

Also, the fact that Jesus did not take away the sin of every individual is made clear

elsewhere in John. When Jesus is rebuking the Jewish leaders, for example, He tells them that

“unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins” (John 8:24). Later on, He comments

on the unbelief of the Pharisees, saying “Since you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains” (John 9:41).

13 Norman Geisler, Chosen But Free, 258.14 Ibid., 78.15 Ibid.

13

If their sins are not taken away, it is then clear that they are not encompassed by the use of world

in John 1:29, thereby refuting the universalistic misuse of this verse. Unbelievers are not counted

amongst those whose sins are taken away. D. A. Carson said it best in his commentary on John

when he said that “This Lamb of God takes away the sin of the world – that is, of all human

beings without distinction, though not... of all without exception.”16

Second Prooftext: 2 Corinthians 5:19

In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses

against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

With regards to this verse, Geisler comments that “this reconciliation of all did not guarantee the

salvation of all, but only their save-ability... their reconciliation by Christ makes their salvation

possible. They themselves, by faith, must make it actual.”17 He then cites the next verse, where

Paul says “We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.” The problem is that

Geisler has had to completely redefine the meaning of “reconciliation” in order to interpret the

verse in support of unlimited atonement. Reconciliation is defined as “Restoration of friendly

relationships and of peace where before there had been hostility and alienation.”18 This being the

definition, we can see that Geisler misses the point when he defines reconciliation in terms of

possibility or potentiality.

That being said, verse 20 actually backfires on him because it shows that reconciliation

has not been accomplished for everyone, but only for those who are “in Christ” (2 Cor. 5:17).

Not only that, but note that verse 19 that those who have been reconciled do not have their sins

counted against them. Yet we know that the reprobate do have their sins counted against them

16 D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, PNTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), 151.17 Norman Geisler, Chosen But Free, 247-248.18 Walter A. Elwell, Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 2, J-Z (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), 1823.

14

because they die in their sins (John 8:24 and Rom. 6:23). Once again, it can be seen here that the

only way to properly understand this verse is to say that it refers everyone in the world without

distinction, not without exception.

Third Prooftext: 1 John 2:2

He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the

whole world.

In his Systematic Theology, Geisler attempts to argue against the geographical usage of the word

“world,” by calling it “untenable,” arguing that “one need only consult the generic (general,

unlimited) usage of kosmos in John’s writings to confirm that he speaks here of the fallen, sinful

world (cf. John 1:10-11; 3:19).”19 The fallacy with this argument is that it assumes that there is

such a thing as a “generic” use for John, when in fact it can have different meanings depending

on context (as seen in previous discussions regarding John 1:29 and 12:19). Furthermore, he

attempts to use 1 John 2:15-16 and 5:19 to argue his point, stating: “It goes far beyond the strain

of one’s credulity to somehow conclude that kosmos in 1 John 2 refers only to the elect; if that

interpretation is correct, only those whom God has chosen are under the power of the devil!”20

Of course, it’s only Geisler who is the one insisting that the word κοσμος must always

have the same meaning if the same author is using it. What he does not seem to have noticed is

that the very verses he cites contradict his thesis because κοσμος is not being used to refer to

every single individual on earth. Context determines the meaning of the words.

Also, it is quite glaring that Geisler does not spend any time defining what the term

propitiation (ιλασμος) means. It is defined as: “Turning away of anger by the offering of a

19 Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3 (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2005), 359.20 Ibid.

15

gift.”21 By this definition, we can infer that this propitiation does not extend to the reprobate

since scripture teaches that “the wrath of God remains on him” (John 3:36), and that His wrath

“is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men” (Rom. 1:18). In

fact, it is quite interesting to note that in all other references to propitiation (There are only four;

the other three are Rom. 3:25, Heb. 2:17 and 1 John 4:10), it is only believers who are mentioned

as receiving the benefits of the atonement.

Finally, in order to show the extent of κοσμος in 1 John 2:2, it is worth comparing this

verse with two parallel passages from elsewhere in the Johannine corpus—John 11:51-52 and

John 17:20. Here are the verses divided into three sections and placed side by side:

He is the propitiation for our sins, ...

He [the high priest] prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation ...

And for their sake I consecrate Myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth ...

... and not for ours only ...

... and not for the nation only ...

... I do not ask for these only, ...

... but also for the sins of the whole world.

... but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.

... but also for those who will believe in me through their word.

Here, it can be seen that the extent of κοσμος in this verse is co-extensive with all those who will

believe in Jesus and are scattered abroad (i.e. the Gentiles). As Gary D. Long points out in

Definite Atonement, the best way of understanding 1 John 2:2 is that κοσμος is being used in an

ethnological sense, that is, “out of the Gentiles as well as out of the Jews.”22 He points out that

the purpose behind this verse is to demonstrate that the Jews “no longer have a national

21 Walter A. Elwell, Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 2, J-Z, 1784.22 Gary D. Long, Definite Atonement, 3rd Ed. (Frederick, MD: New Covenant Media, 2006),115.

16

monopoly on the salvation of Jehovah.”23 He cites Isa. 49:6 to this effect, where it is written: “I

will also give You as a light to the Gentiles, that You should be My salvation to the ends of the

earth.” Since this perfectly explains the meaning of the verse, no further comment is needed.

Fourth Prooftext: 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.

Commenting on this passage, Geisler argues: “Peter speaks of Christ purchasing the redemption

of even those who are apostate. Since Calvinists believe those who are saved will never lose their

salvation, and since this passage speaks clearly of lost persons, then when it affirms Christ

‘bought’ these lost souls, it means the Atonement is not limited to the elect.”24 The problem with

this, however, is that Geisler is assuming that the verse is being used in a redemptive fashion. Of

course, it must be quickly noted that nothing in the immediate context (or anywhere else in 2

Peter, for that matter) that indicates that redemption is in view here. However, the argument that

the verse is speaking of redemption is centered around the usage of two words: “Master”

(δεσποτης) and “bought” (αγοραζω). Analyzing how these words are used here will determine

whether or not this verse proves what Unlimited Atonement proponents are trying to prove.

First must come an analysis of the usage of δεσποτης. Geisler makes the argument that the

word is being used with reference to Christ.25 To bolster his claim, he points to Jude 4 as a

parallel passage, where it states that ungodly men “pervert the grace of our God into sensuality

and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.” Given that Jude is written by a different

author, it is not entirely clear whether this is a parallel passage. This is further complicated by the

23 Ibid.24 Norman Geisler, Chosen But Free, 244.25 Ibid., 245.

17

fact that in other places (such as Acts 4:24), δεσποτης is used to refer to God the Father (a fact

that even Geisler admits). That being said, however, even if it is referring to Christ, that still does

not prove Unlimited Atonement. Long agrees that Christ is in view here, yet goes on to argue

that this does not lend weight to Unlimited atonement, “for it must be established whether

despotēs is can rightly refer in this verse, or any verse for that matter, to Christ as mediator.” 26

He then points out that the δεσποτης is used 30 times in the Bible (20 in the LXX translation of

the OT and 10 times in the NT), and never is it used to refer to God as mediator, unless this verse

is the exception. Geisler attempts to argue that it is being used as such in Jude 4 on the grounds

that “salvation” and “grace” are mentioned in the context. However, this argument fails because

the passage does not say that the salvation and grace are being extended towards the ungodly

men. Therefore, when δεσποτης is used of God, it is used to refer to His role as sovereign Lord,

rather than as mediator.

After this comes the analysis of the usage of αγοραζω. Regarding this word, Geisler

asserts that the word must be referring to Christ’s redemptive work in this verse because

otherwise, “why should they be lost unless they denied Christ’s redemptive work for them?”27

The answer is very simple if one reads the rest of 2 Pet. 2: the false teachers in question were

very immoral: they “follow their sensuality” (v.2), “indulge in the lust of defiling passion and

despise authority,” “blaspheme the glorious ones” (v.10), “count it pleasure to revel in the

daytime” (v.13), etc. A common mistake that proponents of Unlimited Atonement make is that

they assume that the reprobate cannot be condemned if Christ did not die for them, yet this is

refuted by scripture itself when it states that the wicked die because of the sins they commit.

26 Gary D. Long, Definite Atonement, 85.27 Norman Geisler, Chosen But Free, 246.

18

Furthermore Geisler asserts that “this word bought (agorazo) is almost always used

redemptively in the NT.”28 The problem with this is that he quotes the few instances where

αγοραζω is used redemptively, while ignoring the greater number of verses where it is not used

as such. One article on 2 Pet. 2:1 reveals the fallacy quite nicely when it states:

[I]n the thirty New Testament occurrences, where the Greek term agorazo is used,

only five texts are clearly and indisputably redemptive (2 Peter 2:1 being the lone

exception). Furthermore, in these five instances, there are seemingly three undeniable

contingencies or features that strengthen the redemptive contexts. Namely, a) the

purchase price or its equivalent is stated in the text (i.e., the blood, the Lamb; cf., 1

Cor. 6:20; 7:23; and Rev. 5:9), or the purchase price is implicit in the immediate

context (Rev. 14:3, 4); b) redemptive markers or language is used, and c) in every

case the context is restrictive to believers (cf. 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; 5:9; and 14:3, 4).

None of these features or contingencies are to be found in 2 Peter 2:1.29

Ironically, Geisler quotes the above mentioned passages in trying to prove that αγοραζω, while

failing to note that the word as used in 2 Pet. 2:1 does not contain the necessary markers which

indicate that αγοραζω is being used in a redemptive context. A better understanding of αγοραζω

is that it is used to refer to sovereign Creatorship. The word “bought” can in fact be used to refer

to ownership by virtue of Creation. It is used as such in the OT, as shown in Deut. 32:6: “Is not

He your father, who created [or "bought," as in the NASB] you, who made you and established

you?” Although “bought” in this verse is translated in the LXX by κταομαι rather than αγοραζω,

a word study of these two terms reveals that they are used interchangeably in both the OT and

the NT.30 This ties in quite well with the previous discussion of δεσποτης, which means that it

may be safely concluded that 2 Pet. 2:1 is referring to Christ’s sovereign Lordship over the false

teachers, rather than His attempting to redeem them.

28 Ibid.29 Simon Escobedo III, “2 Peter 2:1 and Universal Redemption,” Alpha and Omega Ministries,

http://vintage.aomin.org/2PE21.html (Accessed March 25, 2011).30 Gary D. Long, Definite Atonement, 93-94.

19

CONCLUSION

Commenting on Matt. 1:21, White makes two important observations regarding the giving of

Jesus name: “He is called Jesus because 1) He has a people, His people, and 2) He will save

them from their sins. He does not try to save them, seek long and hard to save them, but He

saves them. He saves them by making propitiation for their sins.”31 This is the essence of

Particular Redemption: Jesus’ work on the cross accomplished a real, objective atonement of all

of those for whom it is offered. Far from denigrating the Cross, this doctrine reveals its glory and

majesty by showing how Christ’s work is complete, with nothing more to be added to it.

This doctrine must be proclaimed and defended because of its importance in safeguarding a

proper biblical understanding of salvation as it is procured for us by the Lord Jesus. Writing over

a century ago, A. A. Hodge wrote that Unlimited Atonement “[is not] problematic because of

any danger with which—when considered as a finally position—it threatens orthodoxy,” but that

it is to be distrusted “because it is not a final position, but is the first step in the easy descent of

error.”32 With a faulty understanding of the Atonement will come a faulty understanding of other

areas of Soteriology, as well as of evangelism. This is not to say that every proponent of

Unlimited Atonement is in grave error, although as Long points out, “this is only because they do

not fully comprehend their own principles, and follow them out consistently.”33 Nevertheless, the

effects of a gradual descent from Monergism to Synergism can be clearly seen in the history of

Evangelicalism in the past 200 years, and it usually begins with a denial of one or more of the

doctrines of grace. B. B. Warfield said it best when he wrote: “The world should realize with

increased clearness that Evangelicalism stands or falls with Calvinism.”34

31 James R. White, The Potter's Freedom, 246.32 Quoted in Gary D. Long, Definite Atonement, 70-71.33 Ibid., 72.

20

In conclusion, the safeguarding of biblical truth is a good reason for pastors to be fearless

and unapologetic about preaching the doctrine of Particular Redemption from their pulpits. It

may not be a popular truth to discuss in many churches, but it is nonetheless necessary to do so.

Great preachers of the past such as Charles Haddon Spurgeon were not afraid to do so, and

neither should preachers today.

34 James Montgomery Boice and Philip Graham Ryken, The Doctrines of Grace: Rediscovering the Evangelical

Gospel (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2009), 17.

21

APPENDIX

Charles Spurgeon on Particular Redemption

It is no secret that the prince of preachers, Charles Spurgeon, was an ardent Calvinist. He was not

afraid to preach the doctrines of grace from the pulpit, and made it crystal clear to all who

listened to him where he stood on these issues. One the Sunday of February 28, 1858, he

delivered a sermon on Particular Redemption at the Music Hall in the Royal Surrey Gardens. An

excerpt from the end of that sermon is reproduced below, to show with what kind of zeal and

scriptural logic Spurgeon argued for this doctrine, as well as to encourage pastors who may feel

intimidated at the thought of preaching on this most controversial of topics:

Now, beloved, when you hear any one laughing or jeering at a limited atonement,

you may tell him this. General atonement is like a great wide bridge with only half an

arch; it does not go across the stream: it only professes to go half way; it does not

secure the salvation of anybody. Now, I had rather put my foot upon a bridge as

narrow as Hungerford, which went all the way across, than on a bridge that was as

wide as the world, if it did not go all the way across the stream. I am told it is my

duty to say that all men have been redeemed, and I am told that there is a Scriptural

warrant for it—"Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time."

Now, that looks like a very, very great argument indeed on the other side of the

question. For instance, look here. "The whole world is gone after Him." Did all the

world go after Christ? "Then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan."

Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem baptized in Jordan? "Ye are of God, little children,"

and "the whole world lieth in the wicked one." Does "the whole world" there mean

everybody? If so, how was it, then, that there were some who were "of God?" The

words "world" and "all" are used in seven or eight senses in Scripture; and it is very

rarely that "all" means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used

to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts—some Jews, some Gentiles,

some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile.

Leaving controversy, however, I will now answer a question. Tell me, then, sir,

whom did Christ die for? Will you answer me a question or two, and I will tell you

whether He died for you. Do you want a Saviour? Do you feel that you need a

22

Saviour? Are you this morning conscious of sin? Has the Holy Spirit taught you that

you are lost? Then Christ died for you and you will be saved. Are you this morning

conscious that you have no hope in the world but Christ? Do you feel that you of

yourself cannot offer an atonement that can satisfy God's justice? Have you given up

all confidence in yourselves? And can you say upon your bended knees, "Lord, save,

or I perish"? Christ died for you. If you are saying this morning, "I am as good as I

ought to be; I can get to Heaven by my own good works," then, remember, the

Scripture says of Jesus, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

So long as you are in that state I have no atonement to preach to you. But if this

morning you feel guilty, wretched, conscious of your guilt, and are ready to take

Christ to be your only Saviour, I can not only say to you that you may be saved, but

what is better still, that you will be saved. When you are stripped of everything, but

hope in Christ, when you are prepared to come empty-handed and take Christ to be

your all, and to be yourself nothing at all, then you may look up to Christ, and you

may say, "Thou dear, Thou bleeding Lamb of God! thy griefs were endured for me;

by thy stripes I am healed, and by thy sufferings I am pardoned." And then see what

peace of mind you will have; for if Christ has died for you, you cannot be lost. God

will not punish twice for one thing. If God punished Christ for your sin, He will

never punish you. "Payment, God's justice cannot demand, first, at the bleeding

surety's hand, and then again at mine." We can today, if we believe in Christ, march

to the very throne of God, stand there, and if it is said, "Art thou guilty?" we can say,

"Yes, guilty." But if the question is put, "What have you to say why you should not

be punished for your guilt?" We can answer, "Great God, Thy justice and Thy love

are both guarantees that Thou wilt not punish us for sin; for didst Thou not punish

Christ for sin for us? How canst Thou, then, be just—how canst Thou be God at all,

if Thou dost punish Christ the substitute, and then punish man himself afterwards?"

Your only question is, "Did Christ die for me?" And the only answer we can give is

—"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ came into the

world to save sinners." Can you write your name down among the sinners—not

among the complimentary sinners, but among those that feel it, bemoan it, lament it,

seek mercy on account of it? Are you a sinner? That felt, that known, that professed,

you are now invited to believe that Jesus Christ died for you, because you are a

sinner; and you are bidden to cast yourself upon this great immovable rock, and find

eternal security in the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.35

35 Charles H. Spurgeon, “Particular Redemption,” The Spurgeon Archive,

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0181.htm (Accessed March 23, 2011).

23

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boettner, Loraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. 10th ed. Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdmans, 1960.

Boice, James Montgomery and Philip Graham Ryken. The Doctrines of Grace: Rediscovering

the Evangelical Gospel. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2009.

Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. PNTC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991.

Elwell, Walter A. Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible. Vol. 2: J-Z. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989.

Escobedo III, Simon. “2 Peter 2:1 and Universal Redemption.” Alpha and Omega Ministries.

http://vintage.aomin.org/2PE21.html (Accessed March 25, 2011).

Geisler, Norman. Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election. 3rd ed. Minneapolis,

MN: Bethany House, 2010.

__________. Systematic Theology. Vol. 3. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2005.

Long, Gary D. Definite Atonement. 3rd Ed. Frederick, MD: New Covenant Media, 2006.

Murray, John. Redemption Accomplished and Applied. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1955.

__________. Collected Writings of John Murray. Vol. 1. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1976.

Owen, John. The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics

Ethereal Library.

Spurgeon, Charles H. “Particular Redemption.” The Spurgeon Archive.

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0181.htm (Accessed March 23, 2011).

White, James R. The Potter's Freedom: A Defense of the Reformation and a Rebuttal of Norman

Geisler's Chosen But Free. New Revised Ed. Calvary Press, 2009.

24