A few late-night reflections on objections to particular redemption

A few thoughts on objections to particular redemption based on my own personal experience sharing it with people in real life.

I've been sinking myself into the study of particular redemption, also known as definite atonement or limited atonement.

Anyway, I plan on writing more on particular redemption in the future, but for now, I'd like to respond to a few objections I've heard from persons in real life. This is not a comprehensive list of all of the objections to particular redemption, just thoughts on a few I've heard from people in my circles. There are many good resources on combating objections to the historic reformed faith. This may not be one of those. I've simply found that writing my own thoughts down has helped me learn more than I ever had before.‍

Objection #1 "You're limiting Christ's work on the cross!"‍

I find this argument misleading, because contrary to the characterization of those who reject the doctrine of particular redemption we, the reformed, do not "limit" Christ's atonement or dumb down the glory of it. This may stem from the term "limited atonement" being used to describe the Calvinistic belief in Christ's work, however, I find no better explanation of this than a quote from Spurgeon's sermon on this doctrine:

"We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made a satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, “No, certainly not.” We ask them the next question—Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer “No.” They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say “No; Christ has died that any man may be saved if”— and then follow certain conditions of salvation. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as to infallibly secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ’s death; we say, “No, my dear sir, it is you that do it.” We say Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ’s death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it."1

In other words, Arminians say atonement only makes salvation possible. In doing so, the efficacy of our Lord's blood is greatly limited. Unlike the false Arminian understanding of the atonement, Christ's atonement did not partly fail; it totally succeeded. Jesus never fails, His grace actually does something, and isn't restrained by how often sinful man decides to go along with it. There will be no empty seats in heaven, and God will bring every sinner for whom the atonement was intended to repentance.

"But you believe Christ only died for a few, tiny remnant people!"

‍Unlike this characterization I have heard from a friend, "Both the Canons of Dort and the Second Helvetic Confession reject that conclusion on the basis of Scripture passages that say heaven will house a great multitude of redeemed people that no man can number, from every kindred, tribe, tongue, and nation (Rev. 7:9-17).13"2

The doctrine of particular redemption is beautiful. The Good Shepherd lays down His life for His sheep, those for Whom He dies are His sheep, and He knows His sheep and His sheep know Him. There is a strong covenantal framework here, demonstrating the intimacy of the Good Shepherd's love for His sheep. While the proponent of unlimited atonement may say all of this is compatible in their view, it is my contention (and I will show in a future blog) that this understanding of God's covenantal love with His people is bolstered by the doctrine of particular redemption. In John 10:15, Christ we see one of my favorite pictures in Scripture, the Shepherd laying down His life for the sheep. I'm convinced an argument can be made from this concept for particular redemption.

Christ's a shepherd for a particular unconditionally elected group of sheep

I was recently diving into some of John Gill's writings. I love his work on particular redemption, he answered an objection to the Calvinist exegesis of this verse and I think it's a great response. The Arminian may say “In this verse Christ is not said to have died only for his sheep, therefore nothing is in contradiction to unlimited atonement. While Christ did indeed die for his sheep, as the verse teaches, this is not to the exclusion of the non-sheep.”

Negative inference fallacy

The issue, according to Gill (and I agree.) is this; John 10:15 does not teach, like the Arminian exegesis, a mere propositional truth that Christ died for X group persons, not to the exclusion of Y. Rather, this verse teaches that the character of those for whom Christ laid down his life are indeed his sheep. Christ is said to know them, and they are said to know him, hear his voice, and follow him. He gives them eternal life, and they shall never perish. This is simply false for every individual of mankind. The Arminian thinking here is analogous to the Roman claiming that while we are justified by faith, as Paul teaches, we are not justified by faith "only" because no verse says that. John Gill gives another scathing reductio:

"it might be urged with equal strength, that men may love other women besides their own wives, in the same manner they love them, because it is not said, husbands love your wives only, as it may that Christ loved others, and gave himself for others, besides his church; because it is not said, he loved his church only and gave himself for his church only. But, though this restrictive word is note expressed, it is evidently implied; for, if Christ laid down his life, and gave himself for every individual man, these peculiar and discriminating
characters would be utterly unnecessary."3

Member of the Society of Evangelical Arminians, David Allen writes: "True, the claim that Jesus laid down his life for his sheep does not logically demand that he died only for the elect…"4 While I have responded to this assertion via a reduction to absurdity, there are a few analogies which also show the absurdity of it. Here's one:

Irishman #1: "How are you doing?"
Irishman #2: "I've been better off."

How is Irishman #2? Probably not very good. How can you know this? Because it's common for people to say "I'm okay" under any circumstance, however, if he can't say this to Irishman #1, he must not be doing very well. What does this prove? It proves that the backstory of something changes the meaning completely, and it most definitely is this same way with particular language in the New Testament. When Christ speaks of laying down His life for His sheep, we can't rip this language out from its Old Testament woollyback context.

Far from limiting the work of an infinite Savior, the doctrine of particular redemption adds value to our understanding of our Lord's work. Once I discovered this value, new meaning was added to verses in the New Testament that I've heard a million times in church. “She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” (Matthew 1:21). This is further buttressed with the concept of the Trinitarian harmony in the atonement. As Dordt teaches, we should not stress what Christ did not accomplish in the atonement, rather we should edify believers in the instruction of the way in which the Father, Son, and Spirit worked to save a particular people in salvific history. In the future, I will write more on this, as well as how particular redemption is helpful pastorally and homiletically.

Objection #2 The appeal to texts which, prima facie, seem to contradict particular redemption.

1 Timothy 2:3-7

First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time. For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying) as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

The main objection here is formed from verse 4. Surely, a God who desires all men, that is to say, all individuals everywhere at all times to be saved would necessitate that Christ's atonement was indeed for all persons? Unfortunately for the objector, contextually in 1 Timothy we see Paul confronting an exclusivism heresy. In chapter 1 verse 4, we read "nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith." Paul's opponent is appealing to genealogies to limit salvation to a certain group of people and dangerously limiting God's salvific purposes from those with sinful backgrounds (See 3:9).

One of the advantages of the people group interpretation is that it focuses on a major theme in Pauline theology, the inclusion of Gentiles as God's people. A theme that is undoubtedly all throughout the Pauline writings. Furthermore, it can be shown that this is not special pleading, as this is something many non-reformed exegetes have pointed out. I. Howard Marshall, an Arminian, writes on this verse: "The context shows that the inclusion of Gentiles alongside Jews in salvation is the primary issue here."5 Gordon Fee, member of the Society of Evangelical Arminians makes a few similar notes on this verse: "This latter phrase in particular would seem to suggest some form of Jewish exclusivism as lying at the heart of the problem."6 And "The concern [in 1 Timothy 2:3–4] is simply with the universal scope of the gospel over against some form of heretical exclusivism and narrowness."7

For this verse, Paul reminds the readers of this pastoral epistle of a fundamental gospel truth, namely, that God's desire for persons salvation extends to all kinds of persons, both Jews and Gentiles.

As the well-known William Mounce says, "the universality of salvation [is] the dominant theme”8

As a quick note, "to come to the knowledge of the truth" is simply another description of the message of salvation. (2 Tim. 2:25; 3:7; cf. Titus 1:1)

Also, for those who cite the next two verses, particularly verse 6, this interpretation should also be held on to, especially in light of the fact that in the following verse, 7, where Paul specifically emphasizes his mission to the Gentiles.

1 John 2:2

and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

When working through this text with our non-reformed brothers and sisters as a Calvinist, the first thing I would want to do is shed light on the context of the word for world, and how kosmos has several meanings. "Sometimes it refers to the entire elect world, meaning both the Jews and Gentiles; sometimes it refers to the public who surrounded Christ, especially the Jews; sometimes it refers to all kinds of people, such as kings and subjects; sometimes it refers to humankind under the righteous judgment of God or to the kingdom of evil forces, both angelic and human, as related to the earth; sometimes it refers to creation, or to the earth itself, or in the classical sense, to an orderly universe; and sometimes it simply refers to a great number of people."9 This is where I would appeal to the classical reformed exegesis of the kosmos in this atonement text as an argument for ethnic universalism, similar to how we interpret the 1 Timothy passages. Those for whom Christ died are spread among all nations. Contextually, however, I would appeal to how John is writing to believers who are dealing with false teachers that are claiming such a spirituality that they do not commit sin (verses 1:6-10) even though they clearly break God's commandments as taught in chapter two. In chapter 4 verse 5 we read “They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them” As D.A. Carson paraphrases, John here responds to these false prophets by saying "it was not for the sake of, say, the Jews only or, now, of some group, gnostic or otherwise, that sets itself up as intrinsically superior. Far from it. It was not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world."10
One of the most interesting points in my study on this is how close the parallel is in language with John 11:50-52. Matthew Harmon's work on this is truly exceptional, here is an image from one of his essays.11

In summary, the Geneva commentary notes: "For men of all sorts, of all ages, and all places, so that this benefit being not to the Jews only, of whom he speaks as appears in (1 John 2:7) but also to other nations."

While I'd like to write a post about particular redemption in church history, here is a quote from Bede (673-735) on this very text:

In his humanity Christ pleads for our sins before the Father, but in his divinity he has propitiated them for us with the Father. Furthermore, he has not done this only for those who were alive at the time of his death, but also for the whole church which is scattered over the full compass of the world, and it will be valid for everyone, from the very first among the elect until the last one who will be born at the end of time. This verse is therefore a rebuke to the Donatists, who thought that the true church was to be found only in Africa. The Lord pleads for the sins of the whole world, because the church which he has bought with his blood exists in every corner of the globe.

In regards to these types of texts in general, namely the "whole world" type texts, Harmon says "The repeated insistence that Christ’s death is not merely for the Jewish people but extends to all people without distinction is a glorious truth. Jesus is not merely the Jewish Messiah, but ultimately the “Savior of the world” (John 4:42). Because of this, the gospel can be freely and indiscriminately offered to all in the confidence that those whom the Father has given to the Son are taken from Jew and Gentile alike, and that the Father will draw them to Christ." I'll write a more in-depth exegesis of this verse in the future.

Practical/pastoral objections

"How can you preach the gospel if Christ didn't die for all?"

A few things here. Firstly, the content of the gospel is not telling people that Christ died for them. There is no instance in the preaching of the book of Acts, for example, where during the preaching of the gospel it is said "Christ died for X individual" Secondly, on Calvinism, the atonement guarantees the success of evangelism. The number of people saved during an evangelism outreach is not determined by the person's free autonomous choice (I know if my salvation was dependent on this I would be damned forever.) Christ's people will be infallibly saved through the means of evangelism that God has ordained. The Father Son and Holy Spirit have worked perfectly to bring about this work in the elect, and it will be played out in time. The elect will be gathered by the second Adam, and this affirmation makes the Calvinist confident in evangelism.

When thinking of particular redemption one should not think of a man trying to repent of His sin only to be turned away because Christ says "Sorry, I didn't die for you." Rather, they should see Jesus as He says "Him that comes to me I will not cast away" (John 6:37.) In other words, "we offer Christ in all his personal glory and with all his saving benefits to everyone who will believe. We make no distinctions. We do not try to discern who the elect are. We do not look for evidences of God’s calling. That is the historic difference between biblical Reformed theology and Hyper-Calvinism. We indiscriminately preach to everyone: “Receive Christ, and your sins will be covered. Receive Christ, and your condemnation will be removed. Therefore, on the basis of this definite atonement we preach Christ to the world. We offer Christ freely to all. We say, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). We say, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to Christ and drink. Whoever believes in him ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water’” (see John 7:37–38). And we say, “God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16)."12

To conclude this obnoxious melting-pot of note taking, I would like to quote from Thomas Ascot. "Just as the high priest under the old covenant wore the names of the twelve tribes of Israel on his breastplate when he performed his sacrificial service, so our great High Priest under the new covenant had the names of His people inscribed on His heart as He offered up Himself as a sacrifice for their sins."

1. Spurgeon, C. H. (1998). Vol. 4: Spurgeon's Sermons: Volume 4, Sermon No. 181, Particular Redemption.

2. Joel Beeke, Living For God's Glory: An Introduction to Calvinism, 214.

3. Gill, The Cause of God and Truth, Chapter 3, Part 2, Section 2.

4. David L. Allen, The Extent of the Atonement, A Historical and Critical Review, 703.

5. Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 420, 427. In his comment on 1 Timothy 2:4, Marshall says, “the emphasis on ‘all’ is presumably directed at the false teaching in some way” (425).

6. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 67.

7. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 64.

8. William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, WBC (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 78.

9. Joel Beeke, Living For God's Glory: An Introduction to Calvinism, 118.

10. Carson, Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God, 76.

11. Matthew S. Harmon's essay in From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective, "Definite Atonement in the Synoptics and Johannine literature", 624

12. John Piper's essay in From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective, "My Glory I Will Not Give to Another, preaching the fullness of definite atonement to the glory of God", 1415.

‍