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.
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.