The Gospel and Particular Redemption

[JM]

Can the Gospel be preached without the mentioning of particular redemption/limited atonement?

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Can the Gospel be preached without the mentioning of particular redemption/limited atonement?

Yes. John 3:16 sums it up.

 

[JM]

Yes. John 3:16 sums it up.

I don't believe you can avoid particular redemption. If you offer an interpretation of John 3.16 you find it is limited to 'whosoever' and whosoever begs the question so you must look at other scriptures for the answer. The Bible doesn't tell us that Christ 'died for his sheep and goats' but that He died for "His sheep." This again limits the atonement.

Brother, I know you are a die hard Calvinist, I made those remarks for someone who may stumble upon this thread.

jm

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I don't believe you can avoid particular redemption. If you offer an interpretation of John 3.16 you find it is limited to 'whosoever' and whosoever begs the question so you must look at other scriptures for the answer. The Bible doesn't tell us that Christ 'died for his sheep and goats' but that He died for "His sheep." This again limits the atonement.

Brother, I know you are a die hard Calvinist, I made those remarks for someone who may stumble upon this thread.

jm

Some are given the ability for deeper analysis into the topic. Others are just given the grace to know that believing in Christ = salvation.

 

[JM]

I'm not sure we can or should reduce the Gospel.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I'm not sure we can or should reduce the Gospel.

I don't think we do.

 

[JM]

I don't think we do.

If you know the Gospel and you believe the Gospel includes particular redemption...if you left it out, wouldn't that be a reduction example of the Gospel?

I'm not asking if someone can be saved by hearing a bad presentation of the Gospel, not at all, but if we believe in particular redemption and we believe it is biblical...shouldn't we proclaim the fulness of the Gospel?

I listen to a minster who mentions it every sermon. The Bible is about Christ and when you mention Christ's death you cannot miss the work of the cross.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I've heard a lot of good sermons that presented the gospel that didn't spell out particular redemption. I've also heard many good ones that did. All of the sermons presented the gospel.

 

[twin1954]

Yes. John 3:16 sums it up.

John 3:16 isn't the Gospel in a nut shell any more than Rom.10:13 is. The Gospel is proclaiming the accomplishments of Christ who saved sinners. You cannot preach the Gospel without proclaiming what Christ did and who He did it for.

Does that mean that you must proclaim particular redemption in a clear doctrinal way? Not at all but if the true Gospel is preached particular redemption will not be a problem for a sinner who trusts Christ's accomplishments as his only hope.

Because I am loathe to compromise the truth of God I cannot preach the Gospel without particular redemption. It is what makes the Gospel good news. There is no good news in a gospel that doesn't preach the accomplished redemption of Christ alone which actually saved sinners. How you preach an accomplished redemption without particular redemption is beyond me.

 

[AmericanSamurai]

The problem is that most Preachers out there preach an Arminian view of the Gospel, ie. 'making a decision' for Jesus.

 

[JM]

The problem is that most Preachers out there preach an Arminian view of the Gospel, ie. 'making a decision' for Jesus.

Good point. We are use to the Arminian presentation, taking the bits and pieces of the Gospel they use to represent the Gospel...

 

[JM]

I made a post in the soteriology forum and I'm convinced more than ever that limited atonement must be preached. All of the sophistry aside any view that does not preach limited, penal, substitutionary atonement must leave man to carry the guilt and punishment for their sin. One poster admitted that God had done all he can do for us...that it is now up to us.

Without the preaching of limited, penal , substitutionary atonement mankind must seek to access the grace of God by works.

j

 

[JM]

Oh, and don't think I fail to recognize the state church and others have flipped flopped on the atonement, I can't account for every division in the church. You will note that when believers had the Bible, when scriptural exegesis was done, and when the atonement was considered deeply limited atonement was proclaimed.

jm

 

[twin1954]

Oh, and don't think I fail to recognize the state church and others have flipped flopped on the atonement, I can't account for every division in the church. You will note that when believers had the Bible, when scriptural exegesis was done, and when the atonement was considered deeply limited atonement was proclaimed.

jm

Can you preach the accomplished redemption in Christ without preaching it as a particular redemption? No you can't.

If it is an accomplished redemption then it necessarily follows that it must be complete and finished. If that is true then it also follows that it must be for a particular people, a set number that He has redeemed. Any thing less than an accomplished redemption is not an actual redemption. Anything less than an accomplished redemption is not Good News to a sinner.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Can the Gospel be preached without the mentioning of particular redemption/limited atonement?

This is a good question JM. One I have thought about quite a bit. Not to nitpick, but there is a difference between can and should. The Gospel can be preached without mention of LA/PR but I do not think it should for the simple reason that the difference is an impersonal Gospel and a personal Gospel. Now the reason I say it can, is because in evangelizing and preaching we do not know whom God has elected and whom He has not. However, those preaching an impersonal generalized atonement, are also keeping it simple, which I believe, in the context of preaching in a Church for years, where God's people meet, is a shame, if not a robbery of the riches of the Word of God on the glorious doctrine of salvation. One of the most beautiful things I came to realize about PR is because it's substitutional nature, I can confidently joyfully humbly say; "Christ died for me!" It doesn't get any better than that.

 

[twin1954]

This is a good question JM. One I have thought about quite a bit. Not to nitpick, but there is a difference between can and should. The Gospel can be preached without mention of LA/PR but I do not think it should for the simple reason that the difference is an impersonal Gospel and a personal Gospel. Now the reason I say it can, is because in evangelizing and preaching we do not know whom God has elected and whom He has not. However, those preaching an impersonal generalized atonement, are also keeping it simple, which I believe, in the context of preaching in a Church for years, where God's people meet, is a shame, if not a robbery of the riches of the Word of God on the glorious doctrine of salvation. One of the most beautiful things I came to realize about PR is because it's substitutional nature, I can confidently joyfully humbly say; "Christ died for me!" It doesn't get any better than that.

I understand that you can preach the Gospel without mentioning particular redemption, unless you preach a universal redemption which isn't the Gospel, but you cannot preach the Gospel without preaching an accomplished redemption. You must proclaim that Christ died and accomplished redemption for a particular people called sinners, ungodly and God haters. He didn't die for the righteous or the whole He died for sinners. That is particular redemption in a nut shell.

 

[hedrick]

I would think the main controversy would be predestination, not definite atonement. I don't see how anyone would find anything odd about hearing that Jesus died for sinners, or even that Jesus died for his people. I wouldn't think that accepting a definite atonement would result in any unusual wording. Indeed I wonder whether people who think they reject definite atonement actually speak of Christ's death as setting up a possibility for salvation.

My impression is that limited atonement is controversial only because people think it says something it doesn't. Dordt never says that God intentionally avoided atoning for some people. As far as I can tell, it just means that atonement is something that actually does something, rather than setting up a possibility. I don't think most people actually think that Jesus died to set up a possibility. The controversy is really with election.

 

[twin1954]

"A sinner is a sacred thing for God hath made him so." I forget who wrote those words in a hymn.

 

[twin1954]

I would think the main controversy would be predestination, not definite atonement. I don't see how anyone would find anything odd about hearing that Jesus died for sinners, or even that Jesus died for his people. I wouldn't think that accepting a definite atonement would result in any unusual wording. Indeed I wonder whether people who think they reject definite atonement actually speak of Christ's death as setting up a possibility for salvation.

My impression is that limited atonement is controversial only because people think it says something it doesn't. Dordt never says that God intentionally avoided atoning for some people. As far as I can tell, it just means that atonement is something that actually does something, rather than setting up a possibility. I don't think most people actually think that Jesus died to set up a possibility. The controversy is really with election.

If that is the case then why is the sticking point with those who claim to be 4 point Calvinists almost always particular redemption?

 

[hedrick]

If that is the case then why is the sticking point with those who claim to be 4 point Calvinists almost always particular redemption?

I think people misunderstand the term. To me it makes sense even for Arminians.

Suppose someone was about to die to save a number of people, but couldn't get to everyone in danger. He would quite reasonably say "i'm dying for A, B and C", not meaning any ill will towards X, Y and X who he couldn't reach, but just as a matter of fact.

Paul's explanation of the atonement in Rom 6 says that Christ's takes on our sin and abolishes it through his death. But he takes it on because we are united with him in faith. I don't see how that could happen with someone who doesn't have faith. I don't see anything peculiarly Reformed in that, though I do think Rom 6 is the basis for Calvin's treatment of the atonement.

Maybe the context in which the original argument came up, which was arguments over TULIP, effectively poisoned the idea for many. I think for many the term is attached to double predestination, implying that Christ's death was specifically intended to exclude certain people. As far as I can tell, Dordt doesn't say that.

You might be able to make a case that Christ's *death* was unlimited, but it is only atoning if you have faith. After all, the doctrine is definite atonement, not definite death. I'm not terribly interested in putting it that way though. Normally when people speak of Jesus' death, it's a shorthand for the atonement, I think. Just looking at it as a bare event doesn't seem all that useful.

The Bible does seem to see cosmic implications to the atonement. It defeats Satan. If you look at things in terms of a cosmic battle, then the focus moves away from its effects on individuals. But to me definite atonement is really only about the implications for individuals. I wouldn't think it would involve a rejection of other themes.