Limited atonement-is it biblical?

Theology
41

Arguments Against the Universality of Redemption
Book III presents 16 arguments against the general ransom theory and in favor of Particular Atonement. Here are the arguments as summarized by Dr. J. I. Packer (slightly edited by me):

From the fact that the new covenant, which Christ’s death ratified, is not made with all men (chapter 1).
From the fact that the gospel, which reveals faith in Christ to be the only way of salvation, is not published to all men (chapter 1).
From the dilemmas involved in asserting that the divine intention in Christ’s death was to redeem every man (chapter 2).
From the fact that Christ is said to die for one of the two classes (elect and reprobate) into which God divided men, and not for the other (chapter 2).
From the fact that Scripture nowhere asserts that Christ dies for all men, as such (chapter 2).
From the fact that Christ died as sponsor (surety) for those for whom He died (chapter 3).
From the fact that Christ is a mediator, and as such a priest, for those for whom He died (chapter 3).
From the fact that Christ’s death cleanses and sanctifies those for whom He died, whereas not all men and sanctified (chapter 3).
From the fact that faith (which is necessary for salvation) was procured by the death of Christ, whereas not all men have faith (chapter 4).
From the fact that the deliverance of Israel from Egypt is a type of Christ’s saving work (chapter 4).
The next five arguments form a group on their own. They have a common form and are all taken from the biblical terms in which Christ’s work is described.

(i). From the fact that Christ’s death wrought redemption (deliverance by payment) (chapter 5).
(ii). From the fact that Christ’s death effected reconciliation between God and men (chapter 6).
(iii). From the fact that Christ’s death made satisfaction for sins (chapter 7, 8, 9).
(iv). From the fact that Christ’s death merited salvation for men (chapter 10).
(v). From the fact that Christ died for men (chapter 10).
From particular texts: Gen. 3:15: Matt. 7:33; 11:25; John 10:11ff.; Rom. 8:32-34; Eph. 1:7; 2 Cor. 5:21; John 17:9; Eph. 5:25 (chapter 11).
These are great chapters, especially chapters XI-XV, which deal with important and essential benefits of Christ’s death in some detail as they retain to the subject of atonement. I’d like to take a quick look at a few of his arguments.

The New Covenant (Arg. I)
The Covenant of Grace, i.e., the New Covenant according to 1689 Federalism, is made only with the elect (see chapter 7 for more on Covenant Theology). If that is truly the case, then we have a problem with universal atonement. For more see chapter 7 on Jeremiah 31:31-34; chapter 17 here and here.

Owen’s basic argument is as follows:

The first argument may be taken from the nature of the covenant of grace, which was established, ratified, and confirmed in and by the death of Christ; that was the testament whereof he was the testator, which was ratified in his death, and whence his blood is called “The blood of the new testament,” Matt. 26:28. Neither can any effects thereof be extended beyond the compass of this covenant. But now this covenant was not made universally with all, but particularly only with some, and therefore those alone were intended in the benefits of the death of Christ.[46] (Book III, chapter 1)

The Two Classes of Men (Arg. IV)
Owen’s argument here is that since the Bible separates people into two categories, namely, believers and unbelievers, and various other designations of the groups, therefore, when Christ is said to die for one, it is implicit that He did not die for the other. In his own words:

If all mankind be, in and by the eternal purpose of God, distinguished into two sorts and conditions, severally and distinctly described and set forth in the Scripture, and Christ be peculiarly affirmed to die for one of these sorts, and nowhere for them of the other, then did he not die for all; for of the one sort he dies for all and every one, and of the other for no one at all.[47] (Book III, chapter 2)

John Owen: Death of Death in the Death of Christ - Christian Classics Ethereal Library.
J.

42

@Fish153

Excellent debate here on 1 John 2. 2.

J.

43

Johann----

I would remind you that when the Israelites left Egypt there was a “mixed multitude” that traveled with them.

The “mixed multitude” (ʿerev rav) in Exodus 12:38 refers to a diverse group of non-Israelites who accompanied the Israelites out of Egypt, including Egyptians, foreigners, and possibly slaves seeking freedom.

So, I have to disgree with you----the bronze serpent was raised for ALL that were present, including Egyptians, or WHOSOEVER exited Egypt with the Israelites. I believe that the bronze serpent does show the necessity of faith, but also shows that WHOEVER looked upon it would live and not die.

You ask for a scripture that explicitly says that Jesus died for ALL. I already shared one:

"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) I will add one more:

"Who will have ALL men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Who gave himself a ransom for ALL, to be testified in due time". (1 Tim. 2:4)

The problem is you won’t accept that “all men” means “all men”. You want to make “all men” only apply to a group of people Jesus died for, and when God says he wants that ALL MEN would come to salvation, He is only referring to those He has chosen to be saved. And as long as you have that argument NO scripture will satisfy you. But that’s OK–you firmly believe in the doctrine of Limited Atonement and choose to defend it. I don’t—but we are both Children of God and believing in Limited Atonement is not necessary for salvation.

1 Like
44

The bronze serpent provides no foundation for universal atonement. In Numbers 21:8, the Lord commands Moses, עֲשֵׂה לְךָ שָׂרָף (ʿăśēh lĕkā śārāp, “make for yourself a fiery serpent”), and promises, וְהָיָה כָּל־הַנְּשׁוּךְ וְרָאָה אֹתוֹ וָחָי (wehāyâ kāl-hannĕšûk wĕrāʾâ ʾōtô wāḥāy, “and it shall be that everyone who is bitten and looks at it shall live”). The verb וְרָאָה (wĕrāʾâ) is the Qal perfect of רָאָה (“to see”), and וָחָי (wāḥāy) is the Qal perfect of חָיָה (“to live”), expressing the certainty of the promised result. Yet this provision was never intended for every nation on earth. Even though the עֵרֶב רַב (ʿerev rav, “mixed multitude”) accompanied Israel out of Egypt (Exod. 12:38), the serpent was lifted up for the covenant community whom God had redeemed from Egypt, not for Pharaoh’s household or the nations that remained outside that covenant. The account therefore illustrates the efficacy of God’s appointed means for His covenant people, not the universal extent of redemption.

When our Lord appeals to this event in John 3:14–15, His emphasis is the necessity of faith, not the extent of the atonement. Jesus says, καθὼς Μωϋσῆς ὕψωσεν τὸν ὄφιν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, οὕτως ὑψωθῆναι δεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ἐν αὐτῷ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον. The infinitive ὑψωθῆναι is the aorist passive of ὑψόω, while πιστεύων is the present active participle of πιστεύω, describing the one who continually believes. The purpose clause introduced by ἵνα employs the present active subjunctive ἔχῃ, indicating the intended result that “everyone who believes” possesses eternal life. The grammar underscores that eternal life belongs to the believing one. The passage explains how life is received, not for whom Christ intended His propitiatory work.

Turning to 1 John 2:2, I do not dispute that the text reads, καὶ αὐτὸς ἱλασμός ἐστιν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, καὶ οὐ περὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου. The adjective ὅλος (“whole”) certainly modifies κόσμου, but adjectives do not determine the meaning of the nouns they modify. Ὅλος intensifies the noun, indicating the world in its entirety, whatever John intends by κόσμος in this context. The question is therefore not what ὅλος means, but what John means by κόσμος.

John does not use κόσμος with one fixed meaning. In John 1:10 it refers to the created order. In John 3:16 it refers to fallen humanity as the object of God’s love, though even there the saving benefit is restricted to πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων, “everyone believing.” In John 15:18–19, κόσμος denotes the world system in rebellion against God. Then, in 1 John 5:19, John writes, οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐσμέν, καὶ ὁ κόσμος ὅλος ἐν τῷ πονηρῷ κεῖται. The verb κεῖται, the present indicative of κεῖμαι, describes the world’s continuing state under the power of the evil one. Significantly, John deliberately distinguishes ἡμεῖς (“we”) from ὁ κόσμος ὅλος (“the whole world”). If κόσμος can exclude believers in 1 John 5:19, then it cannot simply be assumed that it means every individual without exception in 1 John 2:2. Context, not lexicons alone, determines meaning.

John’s own Gospel provides an illuminating parallel. In John 11:51–52, Caiaphas unknowingly prophesies that Jesus would die οὐχ ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἔθνους μόνον, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα καὶ τὰ τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ τὰ διεσκορπισμένα συναγάγῃ εἰς ἕν. The verb συναγάγῃ is the aorist active subjunctive of συνάγω, while τὰ διεσκορπισμένα is the perfect passive participle of διασκορπίζω, functioning substantivally as “the scattered children.” The construction οὐ…μόνον…ἀλλὰ καί in 1 John 2:2 closely parallels the expansion found here. In both passages, the scope widens beyond Israel or John’s immediate audience, but the object remains those whom God gathers from among the nations. John is emphasizing the worldwide reach of Christ’s saving work, not teaching that every individual without exception has been propitiated.

The greater difficulty for the universal atonement position is the noun ἱλασμός itself. John does not write that Christ made propitiation possible. He writes, αὐτὸς ἱλασμός ἐστιν, “He Himself is the propitiation.” Neither ἱλασμός nor its cognate ἱλαστήριον denotes the mere possibility of satisfying divine wrath. The term refers to an accomplished propitiatory sacrifice that actually turns away God’s righteous anger. Romans 3:25 explicitly connects the benefits of Christ’s propitiatory work with faith (διὰ τῆς πίστεως). If Christ has already propitiated God’s wrath for every individual without exception, then on what judicial basis does wrath remain upon the unbeliever?

John himself answers that question in John 3:36: ὁ ἀπειθῶν τῷ υἱῷ οὐκ ὄψεται ζωήν, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ μένει ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν. The participle ἀπειθῶν describes the one who persists in unbelief, while μένει, the present active indicative of μένω, declares that God’s wrath continues to abide upon that person. A wrath that has been truly propitiated cannot simultaneously remain. John’s theology therefore requires us to understand ἱλασμός as an effective satisfaction of divine justice, not merely the provision of a hypothetical possibility.

This is why I hesitate to build the doctrine of universal atonement upon either 1 John 2:2 or 1 Timothy 2:4–6. When John’s own use of κόσμος, the forensic force of ἱλασμός, the parallel syntax of John 11:51–52, the immediate context of 1 Timothy 2, and the broader testimony of Scripture are allowed to interpret one another, neither passage requires the conclusion that Christ propitiated the sins of every individual who has ever lived. Rather, both passages proclaim the glorious truth that Christ’s saving work is not confined to Israel or to one particular people, but extends to all whom God gathers from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation.

Blessings brother.

J.

45

One of the most common assumptions made in discussions about the extent of the atonement is that whenever the Bible uses the word “world” (Greek: κόσμος, kosmos), it must refer to every individual who has ever lived. That assumption, however, cannot be sustained by careful exegesis. Like many Greek words, κόσμος possesses a semantic range, and its meaning is determined by the literary and historical context, not by the lexicon alone. Even within John’s own writings, the word is used in several distinct ways. No reputable Greek lexicon defines κόσμος as “every individual without exception” in every occurrence. The interpreter must therefore ask not, “What can kosmos mean?” but rather, “What does John mean by kosmos in this particular context?”

One common use of κόσμος is to denote the created universe or the created order. John opens his Gospel by writing, ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἦν (“He was in the world,” John 1:10). Here the reference is plainly to the created realm into which the eternal Word entered. Likewise, when Scripture speaks of someone being born “into the world,” the emphasis is on entering the created human order rather than identifying every individual who exists. In these contexts, κόσμος refers to creation itself, not specifically to mankind.

At other times, κόσμος refers to humanity in general as the object of God’s love or Christ’s mission. John 3:16 is the classic example: οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον (“For God so loved the world”). Here kosmos certainly includes fallen humanity, yet the verse itself immediately limits the saving benefit to πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων (“everyone believing”). The object of God’s love is the world, but the recipients of eternal life are believers. Thus, even where kosmos refers broadly to humanity, the context still distinguishes between the universal proclamation of the gospel and the particular application of salvation.

John also uses κόσμος to emphasize the inclusion of all nations rather than Israel alone. When the Samaritans confess that Jesus is ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου (“the Savior of the world,” John 4:42), they are declaring that He is not merely Israel’s Messiah but the Savior for Jew and Gentile alike. Likewise, the Pharisees exclaim in John 12:19, “Look, the world has gone after Him.” No reader understands this literally to mean every person on earth had become Christ’s disciple. The statement is obvious hyperbole, describing the widespread popularity of Jesus among the crowds. Context alone prevents a woodenly literal interpretation.

Perhaps John’s most frequent use of κόσμος is to describe the fallen world system that stands in rebellion against God. Jesus says, “If the world hates you…” (John 15:18), and again, “You are not of the world” (John 15:19). Clearly, κόσμος here does not refer to every individual, because believers are explicitly distinguished from “the world.” Rather, it denotes the organized system of unbelief and rebellion opposed to Christ. John develops this same theme in 1 John 2:15–17 when he commands, “Do not love the world.” He is certainly not forbidding Christians from loving other people. Instead, he is warning against loving the sinful values and desires that characterize the fallen order.

Closely related is John’s use of κόσμος to describe the realm of unbelievers. First John 5:19 provides one of the clearest examples: οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐσμέν, καὶ ὁ κόσμος ὅλος ἐν τῷ πονηρῷ κεῖται (“We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one”). Notice John’s deliberate contrast. “We” refers to believers, while “the whole world” refers to those outside the believing community. If believers are explicitly excluded from “the whole world” in this verse, then κόσμος cannot always mean every individual without exception. John’s own usage demonstrates that the meaning of the word changes according to its context.

The Upper Room Discourse reinforces this observation repeatedly. Jesus tells His disciples that “the world cannot receive” the Holy Spirit (John 14:17), asks why He will reveal Himself “to us and not to the world” (John 14:22), declares that “the world hates” His followers (John 15:18), says that believers are “not of the world” (John 15:19), and prays, “I am not praying for the world, but for those whom You have given Me” (John 17:9). In each of these passages, κόσμος excludes Christ’s disciples and refers instead to unbelieving humanity organized in opposition to God. These texts alone are sufficient to demonstrate that kosmos cannot simply be defined as every human being in every context.

John’s Gospel also provides an important interpretive parallel for 1 John 2:2. In John 11:51–52, Caiaphas unknowingly prophesies that Jesus would die οὐχ ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἔθνους μόνον, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα καὶ τὰ τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ τὰ διεσκορπισμένα συναγάγῃ εἰς ἕν (“not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad”). Here the scope expands beyond Israel, but the object remains definite: the children of God scattered among the nations. This Johannine pattern is significant when interpreting 1 John 2:2, where John likewise says, “not for ours only, but also for the whole world.” Rather than assuming that “the whole world” means every individual who has ever lived, the interpreter must consider John’s own pattern of expanding the scope from Israel or the immediate audience to God’s people throughout the nations.

The standard Greek lexicons fully support this contextual approach. BDAG lists multiple senses for κόσμος, including the orderly universe, the earth, humanity, the world system opposed to God, and the inhabitants of the world. Louw and Nida distinguish between the universe, the inhabited earth, human society, and the unbelieving world. Thayer likewise recognizes several meanings, while LSJ traces the classical sense of the word to “order” or “arrangement.” None of these authorities argues that κόσμος always signifies every individual without exception.

J.

46

Johann—

You post these so quickly that I am prone to think these are not your words—but that you are cutting and pasting from an article. If I’m wrong forgive me—but if you are you should give credit to the one you are quoting from. I do believe though that the word “world” means the entire world—and all people. I cannot be dissuaded from that. I believe Jesus died for ALL men and cannot believe differently. God bless you though my brother!

1 Like
47

Brother, I did mention earlier that it would be helpful for you to read the article on The Death of Death in the Death of Christ by John Owen before responding here, didn’t I?

As the article explains…

Dr. John Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of Christ is widely regarded, even by many Calvinist scholars, as the classic and most comprehensive defense of Particular (Definite) Redemption. Owen was thoroughly acquainted with the arguments for universal atonement and engaged them directly. He did not argue against strawmen or caricatures, but carefully interacted with the best arguments of the opposing position and sought to answer them from Scripture.

Owen’s well-known “trilemma” is often discussed because it is a concise summary of his case, but it is only one argument among many. His defense of Particular Redemption is built upon a cumulative biblical case, not a single philosophical argument.

I’d encourage you to go back and carefully read the article I linked before continuing this discussion. I think you’ll find that many of the objections you’ve raised are addressed there in detail, along with the biblical reasoning behind Owen’s conclusions.

I am being edified, tremendously so, and pray you would too! The link I have provided is condensed, easy to read, and freely available to all.

Shalom.

J.

48

Well, you have been busy. Thank you for providing such a detailed, well-structured, and exegetically grounded case. Your breakdown of Isaiah 53, specifically the forensic weight of yatsdiq (יַצְדִּיק, ‘to justify’) linked with yisbōl (יִסְבֹּλ, ‘he shall bear’), along with John Owen’s classic distinction between ‘all without exception’ and ‘all without distinction’ (pantas / kullānû), represents the absolute gold standard of the Definite Atonement position."

Where the disagreement ultimately hinges isn’t on whether Christ’s death is powerful, but on how Scripture balances divine election with the scope of divine love and human accountability.

While Reformed Federalism interprets passages like 1 Timothy 2:4–6 “who desires all people to be saved” as referring to “all kinds of people” (kings, subjects, Jews, Gentiles), I would argue that forcing pantas to mean only classes of people weakens the explicit, universal language used throughout the Pastoral Epistles. Such as 1 Timothy 4:10,

" For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe."

As I have been trying to explain, I and opponents of Owen’s “double payment” argument contend that Christ’s atonement is sufficient for all, but efficient only for those who believe. In this view, the cross provides an unlimited, universal remedy, but the condition of faith, John 3:16–18, determines its actual application to the individual. Under this framework, rejecting the remedy leaves the sinner under judgment not because Christ’s sacrifice was insufficient, but because the offered pardon was refused.

At its root, this debate rests on two different starting assumptions. The Particularist Premise: Designates the cross primarily as a transaction that guarantees the immediate, effectual justification of a pre-determined elect.

The Universalist/Provisionist Premise: Designates the cross primarily as a provision of divine grace that makes salvation legitimately available to every image-bearer, contingent upon faith."

Ultimately, this is one of the most enduring debates in church history, and between us, because both sides are trying to honor Scripture. One aims to safeguard the absolute efficacy of Christ’s work on the cross, and the other aims to uphold the genuine, universal offer of the Gospel to every person.

@Johann, your position is coherent, deeply rooted in Owen’s classic federal theology, and clearly well-researched. While we may emphasize different facets of how divine sovereignty and human responsibility intersect at the cross, I respect the seriousness with which you approach the Word. Let’s agree to rest in the glorious truth we both hold dear. Christ’s sacrifice is the sole foundation of our salvation, and to Him alone be the glory (Soli Deo Gloria).
Peter

1 Like
49

Salvation is not universal, not everyone will be saved29

1Ch 17:20-21 There is none like you, O LORD, and there is no God besides you, according to all that we have heard with
our ears. 21 And who is like your people Israel, the one nation on earth whom God went to redeem to be his people,
making for yourself a name for great and awesome things, in driving out nations before your people whom you redeemed
from Egypt?

Isa 53:10-11 Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for
guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. 11 Out of the
anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be
accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.

Mt 1:21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.

Mt 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.
30

Jn 6:37-40 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

38 For I have
come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me,
that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father,
that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

Jn 10:3-4 To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.
4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice.

Jn 10:11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

Acts 20:28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care
for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.

Eph 5:25-27 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,
26 that he might sanctify
her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in
splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

Heb 9:15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal
inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.

29 See further God is sovereign over the reprobate, God gives the reprobate blind eyes, deaf ears and hardened hearts
30 The Greek word for ‘chosen’ is ἐκλεκτοί, the plural of ἐκλεκτός (G1588) which is also used in Col 3:12, 1 Pet 1:1, Rev 17:14.

J.

50

Johann----

I don’t think Peter or I have said that Salvation is Universal—that everyone will be saved. The argument has been that Jesus’ death on the cross is for ALL, and that ALL can avail themselves of the gift of eternal life if they will receive it.

To use the same example I used in an earlier post. Someone can completely pay for a trip for me to Italy—ALL expenses paid. They have SPENT the money. They are offering me a FREE trip if I claim it and receive it. But I can CHOOSE to REFUSE it. I would be crazy to do so—but many are also crazy in REFUSING salvation offered to them. Jesus has PAID the price for them on the cross. Salvation IS available to them----but as 2 Thessalonians says “they REFUSE to love the truth so that they might be saved”.

To state that because we claim Jesus died for ALL, then we are claiming ALL will be saved is not true. Again, what makes Hell so excruciating is the knowledge that you COULD HAVE gone to Heaven. If people wind up in hell because they weren’t chosen for Heaven where is the true judgment and suffering? They are in Hell because they REFUSED the offer of Heaven. And you can only be offered Heaven if a way has been made for you to go there. Therefore, Jesus must have died for ALL men----but many refuse the offer of eternal life and choose wrath instead.

2 Likes
51

Did God Create You for HELL? What Romans 9 Really Says

Romans 11 Is a Warning Christians Keep Ignoring

J.

52

The Romans 9 Debate Is Wrong

Romans 9 is one of the most debated chapters in the Bible — election, predestination, free will, Pharaoh, vessels of wrath, and vessels of mercy. But what if the Romans 9 debate is asking the wrong question? In this video, I trace Paul’s argument through the Old Testament to uncover what Romans 9 is really saying.

J.

1 Like
53

i recently posted the verse that most stands out to him…lol. :slight_smile:

54

Are you a Patreon member @TCC?

J.

55

This one issue right here was the turning point for me out of the reformed camp. I say pastor Macarthur and Spurgeon both argue from the fallacy either/or. Ryrie (a 4 pointer) did not have an issue with the either or and even though holds to a form of Calvinism, as a theological doctor could see the avoidance of either/or. Blessings.

56

I agree that you are not arguing for universalism. However, I think your analogy assumes something the Scriptures never say, namely that Christ’s atonement merely made salvation possible for everyone equally.

Throughout Scripture, redemption is always covenantal. God does not simply provide a potential redemption. He redeems His people.

Under the Old Covenant, the sacrifices were never offered indiscriminately for Egypt, Philistia, or Assyria. The Day of Atonement was made for God’s covenant people, Israel (Leviticus 16:15–22, 29–34; Leviticus 17:11). The Passover lamb was slain for God’s covenant people who were redeemed from Egypt (Exodus 12:3–13; Exodus 6:6–7). God repeatedly says, “I will take you to be My people, and I will be your God” (Exodus 6:7; Deuteronomy 7:6–8). Redemption and covenant always go together.

The prophets anticipated the same covenant pattern. Isaiah writes that the Servant would “justify many” because “He shall bear their iniquities” (Isaiah 53:11–12). Notice the order. He bears the sins of those He actually justifies. Isaiah does not separate the atonement from its saving effect.

The New Testament continues this covenant language.

Jesus announced, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood” (Luke 22:20; cf. Jeremiah 31:31–34). His blood establishes the New Covenant, and Jeremiah explicitly says every member of that covenant will know the Lord and have their sins forgiven. There is no covenant member whose sins remain unforgiven.

The angel declared before Christ’s birth, “He will save His people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). Jesus said, “I lay down My life for the sheep” (John 10:11, 15), and distinguishes them from those who are not His sheep (John 10:26–29).

Paul says that “Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her” to sanctify and present her holy (Ephesians 5:25–27). Likewise, the church was “purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). Peter writes that believers were “redeemed…with the precious blood of Christ” (1 Peter 1:18–20). Redemption is not merely made possible. It is accomplished.

Hebrews is even stronger. Christ entered the heavenly sanctuary “having obtained eternal redemption” (Hebrews 9:12). He did not obtain the possibility of redemption. He obtained redemption itself. By one offering “He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified” (Hebrews 10:14).

You quoted 2 Thessalonians 2:10, which says unbelievers perish because “they refused to love the truth.” Amen. But Paul immediately explains why believers are different: “God chose you from the beginning for salvation” (2 Thessalonians 2:13). Human responsibility is affirmed, yet God’s electing grace is the ultimate explanation.

Likewise, Romans 8 says those whom God foreknew He predestined, called, justified, and glorified (Romans 8:29–30). There are no losses in that chain.

Then Romans 9 explains why: God’s purpose in election stands “not because of works but because of Him who calls” (Romans 9:11), “it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy” (Romans 9:16), and “He has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills” (Romans 9:18).

Finally, consider the language of purchase. Christ redeemed a people (Titus 2:14), purchased the church (Acts 20:28), and in heaven the redeemed sing, “You were slain, and by Your blood You ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Revelation 5:9). Notice the wording. They are not merely made redeemable. They are actually ransomed for God.

So I would ask, if Christ literally paid the judicial penalty for every individual without exception, what justice is there in God demanding payment again from those same people in hell? Scripture consistently presents Christ’s death as actually accomplishing what it was designed to accomplish. He came to save His people (Matthew 1:21), to redeem those given to Him by the Father (John 6:37–39), to purchase His church (Acts 20:28), to establish the New Covenant (Luke 22:20; Jeremiah 31:31–34), and to obtain eternal redemption for His covenant people (Hebrews 9:12). That is why everyone for whom He died will certainly come to Him (John 6:37) and none of them will be lost (John 6:39).

Shalom.

J.

57

Johann----

I appreciate very much your detailed posts. I really do. I have to admit that my favorite chapter in the Bible, John 21, seems to reflect what you are saying. Jesus tells the (7) disciples in the boat to throw the net to the right hand side of the boat and they will catch fish.

They do and they make a very large catch. And “not one of them is lost”. The net does not tear as it did before in Luke. They count them and there are (153) fish. It doesn’t mention this in the text but they had to count them a second time because Thomas was very doubtful that 153 was correct at first. (just kidding). So, a teaching of “none being lost whom Jesus chooses” is in effect in these verses.

But I do have trouble accepting that God would only “elect” SOME and the rest will perish because He didn’t choose them. People who believe this are careful to point out that God did not CREATE people for hell. No–He simply doesn’t choose them for Heaven so they wind up in hell.
I can never “buy” that explanation. That doesn’t sound like a merciful God. Is that the same God that says “not one sparrow falls to the ground without your Father”? If God cares for EVERY SINGLE SPARROW does He not also care for EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON EARTH? Why wouldn’t Jesus die for ALL? That is why it is so hard for me to accept the doctrine you are espousing. I’m just being honest.

1 Like
58

Is YHWH unjust for people landing up in Hell?

J.

59

Amen! I have asked this question in different forms a few times now; Johann has never answered it. I believe the reason some will not answer this is because of the reality of the end result of this belief. If God simply elects you and me to go to Heaven, and Susy and Bill to go to hell, then there is no point of any of the Gospel. God is no longer a just God, but rather a fatalistic or deterministic being, or the author of evil.

Not just Johann, but others who share this view- not an attack, rather an observation- do some double talk trying to explain this concept. “Of course humans have free will; we choose things every day. However, God assigns it first. God controls the outcome, regardless of what we choose.” Huh?
Peter

2 Likes
60

Because it is viewed as a sovereignty issue, it would seem God too weak if some went to hell He did not intend. This approach has to have God control everything lest He not be sovereign. And this is the “supernatural” mindset that sees the deeper “not of this world” perspectives on God it is said we who don’t see that, don’t have.

Yet, assigning to God strength based on how much He controls things, to me, sounds like a far more temporal idea of man stapled onto God believing those who don’t see it that way don’t understand the spiritual. But it seems to come from a place of “earthy” mindedness: “If God can’t control everything, He is not sovereign.” That, to me, is the antipathy of advanced, mature, and spiritual considerations.

It is scary to realize that mankind can walk off into the sunset refusing to believe in God and it be a situation that occurs in real time, in real ways, and has eternal impact. But that seems to be so much of how clear scripture handles it. Blessings.

1 Like