On 'Limited Atonement' And 'Particular Redemption'

Doing some catching up during this holy weekend and I just came across an EXCELLENT video that attempts to tackle the 'controversy' over 'Limited Atonement' or 'Particular Redemption' once and for all.

It might be helpful to read the brief description that accompanies the video on YouTube first to help set the stage a bit.

Through lyrical theology, Shai Linne presents biblical truth that explains the doctrine of Actual Atonement (Particular Redemption), which is probably the most controversial of the doctrines of grace and most difficult to accept by many believers.

Scriptural Support:
Matthew 26:28, John 10:11, Matthew 25:32-33, John 17:9, Acts 20:28, Ephesians 5:25-27, Isaiah 53:12

The renowned 19th century British preacher and evangelist Charles H. Spurgeon had these words to say about the atonement (from his sermon, "The Mission of the Son of Man"):

Now, some people love the doctrine of 'universal atonement' because they say it is so beautiful. It is a lovely idea that 'Christ should have died for all men'; it commends itself, they say, to the instincts of humanity; there is something in it full of joy and beauty.

I admit there is; but beauty may be often associated with falsehood.

There is much which I might well admire in the theory of 'universal redemption' but let me just tell you what this supposition necessarily involves. If Christ on His cross intended to save every man, then He intended to save those who were damned before He died; because if this doctrine (that He died for all men) is true, He died for some that were in hell before He came into this world, for doubtless there were myriads there that had been cast away.

Once again, if it were Christ's intention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed! For we have His own evidence that there is a lake that burns with fire and brimstone, and into that pit must be cast some of the very people, who according to that theory, were bought with His blood!

To think that my Savior died for men in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to imagine. That He was the substitute for the sons of men, and that God having first punished the substitute, punished these same men again, seems to me to conflict with any idea of justice.

That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards, some of those very men should be punished for the same sins which Christ had already atoned for, seems to me, to be the most marvelous monstrosity that ever could have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, aye, to the god of the Thugs, or the most diabolical heathen demons!

God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise.

The death of Christ is the foundation of the Christian's hope. But those believing in a general redemption cannot possibly fully enjoy that blessed hope in Christ. They claim to believe in a redeemer who is not completely successful in redeeming the lost; an atonement that falls short of achieving its purpose; thus believing that the death of Christ must be joined with freewill in order to save. Fortunately, Jesus is a Redeemer who does deliver His people from sin; not just tries to deliver His people with the possibility of losing some of them. His grace is thoroughly efficacious in saving the elect, for whom He died. And one elected by the grace of God is bound to come to Him, for it would be then natural for him to do so.

Now, let's take a look at and a listen to the video by Shai Linne.

The comments that sealed it for me?

So, if we can agree that the election of the Father is not 'universal', and that the regeneration of the Holy Spirit is not 'universal', then why would the atonement of the Son be 'universal', especially when we're talking about a Triune God? That would put the Persons of the Trinity completely at odds with one another, right?

I hope you all can appreciate that I just had to try to take us deeper into God's Word, especially on a day like today, and even if that means forcing us to face some un-Biblical entrenched pet positions of ours.

And if all of that still has you resisting the truth, then please prayerfully consider this point that was made in the above video presentation.

"If saving everybody was why Christ came in history, with so many in Hell, we'd have to say He failed miserably..."

You don't believe the Lord and Savior is a 'failure', do you?

Neither do I.

Share|