From RBS Tabletalk, the blog of Reformed Baptist Seminary.

——————————-

This series of blog entries is not an exposition and defense of the reformed doctrine of particular redemption. Rather it is written with the assumption that most of those who frequent this blog site embrace this doctrine. My focus in these entries will be upon the practical implications of particular redemption. If anyone who reads these entries desires a thorough defense of the doctrine they can contact me and I can provide them with a series of lectures that I gave on this subject for the Marrow curriculum of Reformed Baptist Seminary or you may read other very helpful works which address this subject such John Murray’s Redemption Accomplished and Applied. However, though not an extended defense of the doctrine, I do think it wise for me to carefully define what I mean by particular redemption before going any further.

What the Doctrine of Particular Redemption Does Not Address

Let me begin with some negatives. First, the issue addressed by the doctrine of particular redemption, as I understand it, is not whether the atonement is sufficient for all men. With exceptions, many theologians who have held to this doctrine have not questioned, but affirmed, the infinite worth and sufficiency of the atonement made by Christ. I personally affirm that His atonement is of sufficient value to atone for the sins of every man, woman, boy or girl who has ever lived and, indeed, to atone for a thousand worlds, if God had so intended it. This is readily seen when we understand and acknowledge the deity of the one who was sacrificed. Our Lord’s human nature was inseparably joined to His infinite divine nature, therefore, conveying to that atonement infinite worth and value.

Second, the issue addressed is not whether the atonement is perfectly suited to the need of all men. Those who hold to the doctrine of particular redemption do not deny but affirm that the atoning death of Christ and the benefits flowing out of that death are perfectly suited to the exact need of every member of the human race. The death of Christ is a death that secures pardon and acceptance with God and all of the benefits of salvation from sin. This is exactly what all men need. Therefore the atoning death of Christ is perfectly suited to the exact need of every human being.

Third, the issue addressed by the doctrine of particular redemption is not whether Christ and the saving benefits of his death are freely and sincerely offered to all men. Though there are some who deny the free and sincere offer of Christ and the benefits of his death to all who hear the gospel, one could argue that the mainstream of those holding to this teaching have always affirmed that Christ and the benefits of His death can and ought to be proclaimed to all and freely offered to all.

Fourth, the issue addressed by particular redemption is not whether or not all who embrace Christ as their Savior and Lord will be saved. The doctrine of particular redemption by no means denies, but strongly affirms, that all and any of the human race who put their trust in Christ will be saved. None who come to Christ in repentance and faith will be turned away or find Christ’s death insufficient for them. So the opposing doctrine of a general atonement does not extend the actual reception of the benefits of the atonement to one person more than the doctrine of a particular atonement. In other words, a man may hold to a general atonement but that doesn’t change the fact that only those who trust in Christ receive the saving benefits of that atonement. We who preach a particular atonement don’t deny that. The difference, in the language of A.A. Hodge, is that, “We believe that Christ died with the intention of saving all those whom He actually does save by His death. They hold that the large majority of those whose salvation Christ designed to effect by His death finally perish.”1

What the Doctrine of Particular Redemption Does Address

Positively, what is the issue addressed by this doctrine? The issue addressed can be summarized by the simple question, “For whom did Christ die?” For whom did Christ specifically die? For whom did God send His Son into the world to make an atonement for their sins? And the answer of the doctrine of particular redemption is that God the Father did not send the Son into the world with the intention or effect of making atonement for all men. He sent Him with the specific intention and effect of atoning for the sins of His elect. So the doctrine of particular redemption rightly understood does not deny but strongly affirms those universal implications of Christ’s death mentioned earlier. But, on the other hand, the doctrine of particular redemption asserts that there are also certain important ways in which the atonement does not apply to all men. There are basically in two inter-related ways.

First, the death of Christ is particular as to its intention. God, from eternity, did not purpose or plan to save all men and consequently He did not send Christ with the purpose of redeeming all men. In the eternal council of redemption the elect were given to Christ and he came with the commission to redeem all that the Father had given to him. When Christ gave himself up to death on the cross He did not do so with the intention of saving all men. Nor did He do so with the indiscriminate intention of only making it hypothetically possible for all men to be saved. No, according to the doctrine of particular redemption, Christ died on the cross with the definite specific intention of redeeming and, thereby, securing the salvation of the elect.

Then related to that, secondly, the death of Christ is particular as to its saving effect. In other words, having died with the specific intention of redeeming the elect only; the elect only are redeemed by His death. The death of Christ is only effectual to the redemption of the elect. It is particular as to its intention and particular as to its saving effect. So this is the issue. For whom did Christ die? And we include in the word “die” all the richness of the significance that is given to that death in the Bible. For whom did Christ satisfy the penalty of the law for their sins? On whose behalf did He endure and propitiate the wrath of God? Whom did He redeem from sin by His blood? Whom did He reconcile to God in the body of His death? In whose place did He act as a substitute? Did he die as much for Judas as for John? Did He die as much for Esau as for Jacob? Did He die as much for souls who were already in hell as for spirits made perfect in heaven? That’s the question. That’s the issue addressed by the doctrine of particular redemption. And the answer given by this doctrine is that Christ died for all those God purposed in eternity to save. In other words, he died specifically for the elect.

Once again, my purpose in these articles is not to defend this doctrine. My purpose is to open up some of the very important implications of this doctrine. Why is it important and what practical ramifications does it have? We’ll answer this question in Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4 of our study.

Jeffery Smith

Pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church, Coconut Creek, Florida

Professor of Reformed Baptist Seminary, Easley, South Carolina

1.  A.A. Hodge, I believe I originally took this quote from Outlines of Theology. I do not presently have that book in my possession to confirm or to give the page number.