# What Is The Proper View Of Particular Redemption?



## Jared (Jun 23, 2008)

I have heard two views of particular redemption. 

The first is the view that Charles Spurgeon held. Where scripture says "all" or "the whole world" in regard to salvation, Spurgeon views this as only pertaining to the elect. 

John Piper holds a different view. He says that "all" really means all and that there is one sense in which Christ died for the whole world, but another sense in which Christ died in a special way for the sins of the elect. He explains this using the two wills in God.

I tend to feel that John Piper's view may be better when we are preaching the gospel. However, Spurgeon was one of the greatest evangelists who ever lived; so simply based on Spurgeon, one could not advance an argument, very far at least, to say that his view of particular redemption dampens evangelistic fervor. 

What are your thoughts on this? Is there any way that we can be sure that either interpretation is more correct? I am open to Spurgeon's view, I'm just not sure that I'm ready to go there. I would have to know for sure that this was the best way to interpret the scripture. 

However, I realize that there are some problems with Piper's view. The main problem that I see is 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.
1 John 2:2 NIV

If Christ is the atoning sacrifice (or propitiation) as it should read, then why isn't everyone saved? John is writing to Jewish believers and it would fit the context for them to interpret the whole world as gentiles who are elect but who are not yet saved.


----------



## Iconoclast (Jun 23, 2008)

Piper is wrong.Spurgeon is correct. of the two read Spurgeon if you are going to read outside of your bible.
John Murrays Redemption , Accomplished and Applied would be a short book well worth the read on this topic.


----------



## MW (Jun 23, 2008)

Iconoclast said:


> John Murrays Redemption , Accomplished and Applied would be a short book well worth the read on this topic.



 This book is must-reading for understanding the solid biblical basis for the doctrines of grace.


----------



## mvdm (Jun 23, 2008)

I'd also recommend Abraham Kuyper's "Particular Grace: A Defense of God's Sovereignty in Salvation". It is a complilation of weekly articles he wrote from 1879 to 1890 which devastate any notion of universal atonement. The book is published by the Reformed Free Publishing Association, Grandville, MI.


----------



## cih1355 (Jun 24, 2008)

Is Piper saying that Christ's atonement accomplished one thing for the elect, but something else for the non-elect? 

The Bible does not teach that Christ's atonement did one thing for the elect, but something else for the non-elect. Christ bore the curse of the law for us (Galatians 3:13). His death satisfied God's justice. Christ's death accomplished the same thing for all of those whom He died for.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 24, 2008)

Piper is trying to do justice to the universalizing verses in the Bible without surrendering the limited atonement. There is a long tradition of people reacting to this difficult doctrine, Piper being only one of the more contemporary scholars to try straddling the fence. Some react to what they see as the apparent unfairness of a definite atonement; others come at it from a more biblical theological perspective and want to do justice to the full witness of scripture which they see as including verses only awkwardly explained by a strictly limited atonement.

At the heart of the debate is the closely related question as to whether one is a "super high," "high," "moderate," or "low" Calvinist. Some fans of Gill do not consider "low" Calvinists to be Calvinists at all. On the other hand, "low" Calvinists typically label/libel upholders of a single aspect to the atonement as "hyper Calvinists." In any case, you can find defenders of both sides on the PB. However, the unilateral understanding would represent the majority on the PB (at least of those who post on the topic).

In the PB, there are a number of threads dealing with "double enders" "universal aspects to the atonement," and the like. You will find that Rev. Matthew Winzer is one of the more articulate spokespersons for the opposite side from Dr. Piper. Dr. Curt Daniel would be an example of someone who attempts to uphold the universal aspects to the atonement.

Whatever you do, don't proffer the old saw about "sufficient for the sins of the world; efficient for the sins of the elect." The checkered history of this line may be due to its power to cause otherwise calm ministers to become red-faced, sputtering with anger, and generally apoplectic.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Jun 24, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> Whatever you do, don't proffer the old saw about "sufficient for the sins of the world; efficient for the sins of the elect." The checkered history of this line may be due to its power to cause otherwise calm ministers to become red-faced, sputtering with anger, and generally apoplectic.





apoplectic? Here on the PB? Never.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 24, 2008)

Limited Atonement still sounds better to me.


----------



## Jared (Jun 24, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


> At the heart of the debate is the closely related question as to whether one is a "super high," "high," "moderate," or "low" Calvinist. Some fans of Gill do not consider "low" Calvinists to be Calvinists at all. On the other hand, "low" Calvinists typically label/libel upholders of a single aspect to the atonement as "hyper Calvinists." In any case, you can find defenders of both sides on the PB. However, the unilateral understanding would represent the majority on the PB (at least of those who post on the topic).



I am a seven-point (I would say Calvinist, but I am trying to stay away from that label) monergist. And I am a modified supralapsarian. I also believe in double predestination. So, where would I be in this scheme?


----------



## holyfool33 (Jun 24, 2008)

I favor Spurgon's view but in my church this brought out a rather long debate over "The two wills of God."


----------



## Jared (Jun 24, 2008)

holyfool33 said:


> I favor Spurgon's view but in my church this brought out a rather long debate over "The two wills of God."



But couldn't you still believe in the two wills in God even though their importance would be diminished?


----------



## MW (Jun 24, 2008)

Jared104 said:


> But couldn't you still believe in the *two wills in God* even though their importance would be diminished?



Two wills *in* God is preposterous, not to mention blasphemous. God has one will, Eph. 1:11, whereby He decrees all things that come to pass. There is also a connotative use of the word "will" in Scripture to refer to what God requires of man, e.g., 1 Thess. 4:3, but this is not His "will" in the volitional sense of the word.


----------



## Jared (Jun 24, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Jared104 said:
> 
> 
> > But couldn't you still believe in the *two wills in God* even though their importance would be diminished?
> ...



John Piper has an essay titled "Are There Two Wills In God?" and argues that there are. Are you saying that this is blasphemous?


----------



## MW (Jun 24, 2008)

Jared104 said:


> John Piper has an essay titled "Are There Two Wills In God?" and argues that there are. Are you saying that this is blasphemous?



Yes; besides the fact that he also effectively argues for a third will -- a conditional will for something to come to pass which is neither preceptive nor decretive but a mixture of both.


----------

