Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Particular Redemption’

Duty of Gratitude for Divine Grace: Sovereignty of Grace: Particular Redemption- Book Seventh- Chapter 4- Section 2

Book Seventh

CHAPTER IV.

SECTION II.–PARTICULAR REDEMPTION.

THE SON OF GOD GAVE HIS LIFE TO REDEEM THOSE WHO WERE GIVEN TO HIM BY THE FATHER IN THE COVENANT OF GRACE.[66]

The Scriptures teach that the Son of God, in coming into the world and laying down his life, had the salvation of a peculiar people in view: “Thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.”[67] “The good Shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.”[68] “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church.”[69] The Scriptures also teach that the expectation of the Redeemer will be fully realized, and that not one of all whom the Father gave him will fail to be saved: “He shall see his seed. He shall see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied.”[70] “All that the Father giveth me, shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.” “And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.”[71] “Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am.”[72]

And finally, when all shall be congregated, he will say, “Behold, I, and the children which God has given me.”[73] In presenting to the Father all who had been given to him, in the covenant of grace, to be redeemed out of every kindred, tongue, nation, and people, the Saviour will have the full reward of his obedience unto death.

Redemption will not be universal in its consummation; for the redeemed will be out of every kindred, tongue, nation, and people;[74] and therefore cannot include all in any of these divisions of mankind. And redemption cannot have been universal in its purpose; otherwise the purpose will fail to be accomplished, and all, for which the work of redemption was undertaken will not be effected.

Besides God’s will of purpose, we have seen that he has a will of precept. According to the latter, he commands all men everywhere to repent; he requires all to believe in Jesus Christ; and it is his will that all men should honor the Son. To all who obey his will in these particulars, he gives the promise of eternal life. The precept and the promise are both included in the revealed will of God. It is the revealed will of God that the gospel should be preached to every creature, and that every creature who hears should believe, and that all who believe shall receive life everlasting. The revealed will is the rule of our faith, duty, and hope; and by it those who preach the gospel, and those who hear it, are authorised and bound to regulate every thought and action. In it, Christ is exhibited as the Saviour of the world;[75] the only name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved;[76] and sinners, without exception, are invited and commanded to believe in Christ. As the gospel is preached to all men without distinction, and all are called upon to come to Christ for life; and nothing but man’s rejection of the gospel prevents the extension of its blessing to all who hear it; it accords with the design of God’s revealed word, to speak of the offices and work of Christ, according to men’s obligations respecting them. It must be remembered, however, that the gospel promises its blessings to those only who obey it; and, as the promise, not the precept, is the proper measure of the benefits which it secures, its benefits are limited to particular persons, even when the limitation in its extent does not appear in the language employed. Christ is called the Saviour of the world,[77] the propitiation[78] for the sins of the whole world; and the free gift through him is said to come on all men unto justification of life.[79] These, and other like expressions of Scripture, represent the facts as they would be, on the supposition that all men did their duty. But notwithstanding these general expressions, the revealed will of God secures blessings only to the obedient, and is therefore narrower in its limit than the purpose or secret will of God, which not only provides all needed grace for the obedient, but also, for all the elect, the grace necessary to render them obedient.

The remarks which have been made may suffice to show that redemption is not universal, in any view which can properly be taken of it. It is particular in its consummation, and in its purpose; and it is equally so in the revelation of it, which is made in the gospel. The general terms “all men,” “the whole world,” &c. which the Scriptures employ in speaking of its extent, cannot be understood to secure its benefits to the impenitent and unbelieving. According to God’s secret will, or will of purpose, redemption is secured by the death of Christ to all the elect; according to his revealed will, it is secured to those only who believe.

The adaptedness of Christ’s death to serve as a ground for universal gospel invitations, constitutes it in the view of some persons a universal redemption. But no one can with propriety be said to be redeemed, who does not obtain deliverance, and who never will obtain it. Other persons who maintain the doctrine of particular redemption, distinguish between redemption and atonement, and because of the adaptedness referred to, consider the death of Christ an atonement for the sins of all men; or as an atonement for sin in the abstract. In Rom. v.11, the only place in the New Testament where the word atonement occurs, the Greek word for which it stands, is the same that is rendered reconciling–reconciliation, in other places.[80] The reconciliation is not between God and sin in the abstract, for such a reconciliation is impossible. It is a reconciliation of persons; and such a reconciliation as secures eternal salvation. “If, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God, by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.”[81] In Paul’s view, all those for whom Christ’s death made reconciliation or atonement, will certainly be saved; and therefore atonement cannot be universal, unless salvation be universal. It is possible to use the word atonement in such a sense, as to render the question respecting the extent of the atonement one of mere definition: but it is best to use the words of Scripture in the Scripture sense.

In reconciling the vicariousness of Christ’s death with the universal call of the gospel a difficulty arises, which may be stated thus:–

An unrestricted invitation to all who hear the gospel, to come to Christ for life, seems to imply that universal provision has been made in him; and in order to the making of universal provision, it appears necessary that he should have borne the sins of all men.

But the supposition that he bore the sins of the whole human race, is attended with much difficulty. Multitudes died in impenitence before he came into the world, and were suffering for their sins in the other world, while he was hanging on the cross. How could he be a substitute for these, and suffer the penalty for their sins, when they were suffering it in their own persons? And if he endured the penalty for the sins of all who have since died, or shall hereafter die in impenitence, how shall they be required to satisfy justice a second time by personal suffering?

For a solution of this difficulty, with which the minds of many have been much perplexed, it has been supposed that the amount of suffering necessary to make an atoning sacrifice, is not increased or lessened by the amount of the sin to be atoned for. This hypothesis is entitled to respect, not only because of the relief which it affords the mind, but also because it has recommended itself to the general acceptance of learned and pious men. Nevertheless, like every other hypothesis invented for the removal of difficulty, it should not be made an article of faith, until it has been proved.

In support of the hypothesis, it has been argued that since the wages of sin is death, Christ must have died for a single sin, and he needed only to die, in making atonement for the sins of the whole world.

This argument does not sustain the hypothesis, unless it be assumed that death is the same in every supposable case. But death may be an easy and joyful transition from this world to the world of bliss. Such was not the death of Christ. Death, as the wages of sin, includes more than the mere dissolution of the body: and Christ, in dying for sin, endured an amount of sorrow which was not necessary to mere natural death. In this suffering, the expiatory efficacy of his death chiefly consisted; and we dare not assume that the amount of it must be the same in every supposable case. The sufferings of Christ derive infinite value from his divine nature; but, being endured by his human nature, their amount could not be infinite; hence it is supposable that the amount might have been different in different circumstances. The inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah will, in the last day, be doomed to the second death, equally with the more guilty inhabitants of Chorazin and Bethsaida: but the anguish attendant will be more intolerable in one case than in the other. Analogy would seem to require, that Christ, suffering for the sins of the whole world, must endure more than if suffering for only one sin.

The advocates of the hypothesis urge, that the atonement is moral, and not commercial; and they object, that the notion of so much suffering for so much sin, degrades it into a mere commercial transaction. According to an illustration before given, if twenty men owe one hundred dollars, commercial justice is satisfied when each man has paid five dollars; but when twenty men have conspired to commit murder, moral justice, or rather distributive justice (for commercial justice is also moral), holds every man guilty of the deed, and as deserving of capital punishment as if he alone had committed the crime. On the same principle, it is maintained, moral justice does not divide the death of Christ into parts, accounting so much for each offence; but regards it as equally sufficient for many offences, as for one; and equally sufficient for the sins of the whole world, as for the sins of the elect.

The argument is not conclusive. It is not true, that the principle of distributive justice repels the notion of so much suffering for so much sin. Justice has its scales in government, as well as in commerce; and an essential part of its administration consists in the apportionment of penalties to crimes. It does not account the stealing of herbs from a neighbor’s garden, and the murder of a father, crimes of equal magnitude; and it does not weigh out to them equal penalties. The justice of God has a heavier penalty for Chorazin and Bethsaida, than for Sodom and Gomorrah. Everything of which we have knowledge in the divine administration, instead of exploding the notion of so much suffering for so much sin, tends rather to establish it. The objection that it is commercial, is not well founded. Though justice in government, and justice in commerce, may be distinguished from each other, it does not follow, that whatever may be affirmed of the one, must necessarily be denied of the other. Distributive justice is not that which determines the equality of value, in commodities which are exchanged for each other: but it does not therefore exclude all regard to magnitudes and proportions. In the language of Scripture, sins are debts[82], the blood of Christ is a price[83], and his people are bought.[84] This language is doubtless figurative: but the figures would not be appropriate, if commercial justice, to which the terms debt, price, bought, appertain, did not bear an analogy to the distributive justice which required the sacrifice of Christ.

In the case adduced for illustration, every accomplice in the murder is held guilty of the crime, because every one has the full intention of it. Justice, viewing the crime in the intention, accounts each one guilty, and requires the penalty to be inflicted on him. It does not admit that the punishment of one will be equivalent to the punishment of all: but, in this very case, employs its scales to give to every one his due, and apportions the amount of penalty inflicted, to the amount of crime.

This examination of the argument discovers, that it is not conclusive. If the atonement of Christ excludes all regard to the amount of sin to be expiated, the exclusion does not arise from the abstract principles of distributive justice, as distinguished from commercial, but from something peculiar in the great transaction. No transaction like it with which it may be compared, has ever occurred. The wisdom and justice of God have decided this single case, and have decided it right. Christ did endure just so much suffering, as would expiate he sins that were laid on him. What amount of suffering would have been necessary if he had expiated but one sin, is a question which, so far as we know, has never been decided in the court of heaven. When we confidently decide it, we are in danger of intruding into those things which do not belong to use. If the Holy Scriptures teach us nothing on the subject, we should not seek to be wise above what is written.

The Scriptures, so far as I know, contain no proof of the hypothesis. The best argument in its favor is drawn from Hebrews ix., in which it is taught that, if the sacrifices of the old dispensation had been efficacious, they would not have needed to be repeated. This seems to involve the principle, that an efficacious sacrifice for sin, when once made, will suffice for all sin, however it may be multiplies in all future time; and this principle, if established, establishes the hypothesis before us. But the clause “then would they not have ceased to be offered,” may be taken without an interrogative point following, and the argument of Paul will be, that the sacrifices of the Old Testament dispensation, if efficacious, would have continued to be offered from year to year, making atonement for the sins of each year as it passed, and would not have been superseded by another covenant, as the Lord had foretold by his prophet. So interpreted, the argument of Paul, instead of establishing the hypothesis, subverts it. But if the clause be read with the interrogative point, it may still be understood to refer to the remembrance from year to year continually of the same sins, that had once been atoned for. When the sins of one year had been atoned for, why should the very same sins be brought into remembrance the second, third, and fourth years, and the offering for them repeated, if the first offering had been efficacious? So understood, the apostle’s argument does not establish the principle involved in the hypothesis.

If, after a thorough examination of the hypothesis, we should, instead of making it an article of faith, be inclined to abandon it; and if the difficulty which it was invented to remove should perplex us; we may obtain relief, as we are compelled to do in other cases, by receiving the whole of God’s truth on his authority, even though the harmony of its parts is not apparent to our weak understandings. In this way, theological difficulties furnish an opportunity for the exercise of confidence in the divine veracity: and our state of mind is never better or safer than when, in simple faith, we take God at his word.

So far as we have the means of judging, the sufferings of Christ, when viewed apart from the purpose of God respecting them, were in themselves as well adapted to satisfy for the sins of Judas as on Peter. But we cannot affirm this of every act which Christ performed in his priestly office. His intercessions for Peter were particular and efficacious; and these, as a part of his priestly work, may be included with his sufferings, as constituting with them the perfect and acceptable offering which he, as the great High Priest, makes for his people. The atonement or reconciliation which results, must be as particular as the intercessions by which it is procured.

Some have maintained that, if the atonement of Christ is not general, no sinner can be under obligation to believe in Christ, until he is assured that he is one of the elect. This implies that no sinner is bound to believe what God says, unless he knows that God designs to save him. God declares that there is no salvation, except through Christ; and every sinner is bound to believe this truth. If it were revealed from heaven, that but one sinner, of all our fallen race, shall be saved by Christ, the obligation to believe that there is no salvation out of Christ, would remain the same. Every sinner, to whom the revelation would be made, would be bound to look to Christ as his only possible hope, and commit himself to that sovereign mercy by which some one of the justly condemned race would be saved. The abundant mercy of our God will not be confined to the salvation of a single sinner; but it will bring many sons to glory through the sufferings of Jesus, the Captain of our salvation. Yet every sinner, who trusts in Christ for salvation, is bound to commit himself, unreservedly, to the sovereign mercy of God. If he requires some previous assurance that he is in the number of the elect, he does not surrender himself to God, as a guilty sinner ought. The gospel brings every sinner prostrate at the feet of the Great Sovereign, hoping for mercy at his will, and in his way: and the gospel is perverted when any terms short of this are offered to the offender. With this universal call to absolute and unconditional surrender to God’s sovereignty, the doctrine of particular redemption exactly harmonizes.

[66] Eph. v. 25-27; Tit. ii. 14; John x. 11; Rev. i. 5, 6; Acts xx. 28; Heb. x. 14; Isaiah liii. 5, 11.

[67] Matt. i. 21.

[68] John x. 11.

[69] Eph. v. 25-27.

[70] Isaiah liii. 10, 11.

[71] John vi. 37, 39.

[72] John xvii. 24.

[73] Heb. ii. 13.

[74] Rev. v. 9.

[75] John iv. 42.

[76] Acts iv. 12.

[77] John iv. 42.

[78] 1 John ii. 2.

[79] Rom. v. 18.

[80] Rom. xi. 15; 2 Cor. v. 18, 19.

[81] Rom. v. 10.

[82] Matt. vi. 12.

[83] 1 Cor. vi. 20; 1 Pet i. 18.

[84] 1 Cor. vi. 20.

John L. Dagg- Manual of Theology

Advertisements

Free Ebook- Particular Redemption

January 1, 2016 3 comments

da3fd97dcf5de4b39dab5c4c12d6458f_f2447by Charles H. Spurgeon

Available in ePub, Kindle .mobi and .pdf formats

What did Christ’s redeeming work actually accomplish? Did our Lord Jesus have any particular individuals in mind when He went to the cross to give His life as an offering for sin? Particular Redemption answers these questions from Scripture.

Pages: 28.

Item code: pred.

Format: booklet

Source [Chapel Library]

Definitions of Doctrine-Volume 2-Part 2-Chapter 15-Whosoever Will

November 20, 2015 Leave a comment

CHAPTER 15-WHOSOEVER WILL

“Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely” (#Re 22:17).

There is virtue in fairness. We ought to be fair with everybody. I expect most people have at one time or other been the victim of unfairness. We are unfair with a person when we misrepresent him, and will not let him speak for himself. We are unfair with the Bible when we will not let it say what it does say. We must not make the Bible fit our opinions; we must make our opinions fit the Bible. The Bible can be misrepresented in at least two ways: by ignoring portions of it, and by misinterpreting texts that are not ignored. I believe the Bible is misrepresented in both ways. Verses are misrepresented by having the wrong meaning given them, and subjects are misrepresented when all the truth on the subject is not considered.

“Whosoever will” is a much misunderstood doctrine because all the truth is not brought into use in dealing with it. I heard a preacher once say that #Joh 5:40 does not say “Ye cannot come to me, but “that ye will not come.” Now, he was not guilty of misquoting a verse, but he was guilty of misrepresenting a subject, because he ignored #Joh 6:44 which does say that “No man can come unto me except the Father… draw him.” “Whosoever will” is made to teach that every man is able to come to Christ: whereas, the very opposite is the truth, for the literal rendering of #Joh 6:44 says, “No man can come to me except the Father which hath sent me draw him.”

1. WHOSOEVER WILL MAY COME TO CHRIST AND BE SAVED. Nobody is turned away in this day of grace. God is no respector of persons. God draws no color line: black or white or any other color may come to Christ and be saved. God draws no social line: rich or poor, bond or free, banker or bootblack, learned or ignorant, society queen or harlot of the brothel—any and all may come to Christ with the assurance that they will be received, “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (#Joh 6:37). This blessed truth has been amply demonstrated. Look at some who have come and found salvation:—the dying thief, the fallen woman of Sychar, the persecuting Saul of Tarsus, the hard-hearted jailor: Jno. B. Gough, a sot drunkard, Jerry McCauley the river pirate John Newton the slave trader, John Bunyan the swearing tinker, and others too numerous to mention. If any despairing sinner reads these lines, let me urge him to come to Jesus Christ—trust in Him—look to Him—depend upon Him-and he will surely be saved.

2. NO MAN CAN COME TO JESUS CHRIST OF HIMSELF; only those drawn by the Father come to Him. Here is a good place to distinguish between CAN and MAY. CAN speaks of ability; MAY means permission. If a young man should say to a girl friend; “CAN I walk home with you from church?,” If she knows her English she is apt to say, “Well, you look strong enough to walk that far.” But if he should say “MAY I walk home with you?” she would understand that he was asking her permission, and if she liked him she would say, “Yes, you may.” “And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely” (#Re 22:17) is an invitation to come to Christ and speaks of permission; “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day…And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father” (#Joh 6:44,65), speaks of ability and says no one is able to come to or believe on Christ without being drawn. This drawing by the Father is not external force, nor is the coming a physical approach. The drawing that brings men to Christ is an inward and gracious work of God in the soul, and the coming is the exercise of mind and heart in which a person takes the place of a sinner and puts his faith in Jesus Christ as Saviour. When Jesus said, “Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life” (#Joh 5:40), those to whom He spake were already in His physical presence. He was saying, “You will not trust me for salvation.” The clear implication is that had they trusted Him they would have received life. This verse speaks of responsibility to believe on Christ. Every man ought to come to Christ, for “he that believeth not shall be damned” (#Mr 16:16).

This brings us to a rather difficult question: Can there be responsibility where there is no ability? That depends upon the nature of the inability. If the inability is constitutional or created then there is no responsibility. Man, considered as a creature made in the image and likeness of God, has the ability to trust and love and obey His Maker. But inability caused by sin does not cancel responsibility. It is not because the sinner is a man that he cannot come to Christ for salvation: it is because he is a fallen man. He cannot come because of the state of his mind and heart—he does not have the disposition or will to come. It is not that he wants to come and can’t. The sinner is dead in trespasses and sins and must be made alive by the Holy Spirit before he can do anything to please God. “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (#Joh 3:3); “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God” (#Ro 8:7,8): “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” (#Eph 2:1-10).

Whosoever will implies the free agency of man. A free agent is one who acts of his own mind or accord without external force or compulsion from without. The unregenerate are free in rejecting Christ; nobody forces them to reject Him. And the regenerate freely come to Him, even though drawn to Him. In coming to Christ there is free expression of the new heart and sound mind—the new nature created by God in amazing grace. The ability to believe on Christ as Saviour is a grace given ability. This truth is acknowledged when we pray for the conversion of the lost. Repentance and faith are inseparable graces wrought in man by the Holy Spirit. Both are said to be the gift of God. “Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins” (#Ac 5:31); “When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life” (#Ac 11:18); “In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;” (#2Ti 2:25), “Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase” (#1Co 3:5-7).

3. ANOTHER PLAINLY REVEALED TRUTH OF SCRIPTURE IS THAT ALL THE FATHER GAVE TO THE SON WILL SURELY COME TO HIM. Christ says “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me” (#Joh 6:37). This makes their coming certain, and to say it is not certain is to dispute what incarnate Truth says. The veriest tyro in English knows that the verb SHALL in the third person denotes certainty. “But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint” (#Isa 40:31); “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him” (#Joh 3:36); “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd..And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand” (#Joh 10:16,28). And so our Lord says that all those given Him by the Father will surely come to Him. We cannot pry into the secrets of the eternal council to find out who were given, but they can be identified after they come to Christ. “Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God. For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake. And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost” (#1Th 1:4-6). And we can be sure that every one who comes was given to Christ. In praying to His Father He says, “As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him” (#Joh 17:2). Here we have universal dominion for a specific purpose. “I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word” (#Joh 17:6). I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine” (#Joh 17:9). And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled” (#Joh 17:11-12). Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;” (#Joh 17:20). These verses speak of some given by the Father to the Son “out of the world.” Here is limitation whether we like it or not. Christ gave His life for the sheep “I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep” (#Joh 10:11), and the sheep hear His voice and follow Him on a universal redemption. Let us ponder #Re 5:9,10: “And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of (ek) every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; and hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on (epi) the earth.”

PARTICULAR REDEMPTION

We will conclude this chapter by giving a lengthy quotation from Spurgeon on “Particular Redemption.” “Now, you are aware that there are different theories of redemption. All Christians hold that Christ died to redeem, but all Christians do not teach the same redemption. We differ as to the nature of atonement, and as to the design of redemption. For instance, the Arminian holds that Christ, when He died, did not die with an intent to save any particular person; …. that Christ’s death does not….secure the salvation of any man living….Christ died, according to them, as much for Judas in hell as for Peter who mounted to heaven. They believe that for those who are consigned to eternal fire, there was as true and real a redemption made as for those who now stand before the throne of the Most High. Now, we believe no such thing. We hold that Christ, when He died, had an object in view, and that object will, most assuredly and beyond doubt, be accomplished. We measure the design of Christ’s death by the effect of it… . We do not believe that Christ made any effectual atonement for those who are forever damned; we dare not think that the blood of Christ was ever shed with the intention of saving those whom God foreknew never could be saved, and some of whom were even in hell when Christ, …. died to save them…. We are often told…that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made 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.’ Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? …. We beg your pardon when you say we limit Christ’s death….it is you that do it. We say that Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it. I am told that it is my duty to say that all men have been redeemed, and I am told that there is a Scripture…for it ‘Who gave Himself a ransom for all to be testified in due time.’ Now, that looks like a very great argument indeed on the other side of the question. For instance, look here. ‘The whole world is gone after Him.’ Did all the world go after Christ? ‘Then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.’ Was all Judea or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordon? ‘Ye are of God, little children, and the whole world lieth in the wicked one.’ Does the whole world there mean everybody? The words world’ and all’ are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely that ‘all’ means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts—- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile” —Unquote.

Our heart can only say, “Amen” to these words from Spurgeon, than whom no greater preacher has lived since Paul. And we might add, that Spurgeon has done more to shape our theology than any other uninspired man.

The human race was lost in the mass when the first Adam sinned. “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous” (Rom. 5:19). Man was not redeemed in the mass, but as particular individuals. Nor are sinners regenerated in the mass, but as individuals one by one. Repentance and faith are not exercised by the masses, but as individuals one by one. And we say again, “whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.”

“Come, ye sinners, poor and needy, Weak and wounded, sick and sore;
Jesus ready stands to save you, Full of pity, love and power.

Come, ye thirsty, come and welcome, God’s free bounty glorify;
True belief and true repentance, Every grace that brings you nigh.

Come, ye weary, heavy-laden, Lost and ruined by the fall;
If you tarry till your’e better, You will never come at all.

Let not conscience make you linger, Nor of fitness fondly dream;
All the fitness He requireth Is to feel your need of Him”

—-J.Hart

C. D. Cole-Definitions of Doctrine-Volume 2-Part 2

Baptist Quotes and Articles

I wanted to let everyone know that in a few weeks this blog will begin to focus more on Reformed or Particular Baptist quotes, articles, and books. Right now I am reading through some of the earliest writers of the particular Baptist persuasion.

This does not mean that I am not going to quote Paedobaptist writers or refer you to their works, but seeing that this blog is aimed at Reformed Baptist doctrines, then I wanted to provide my readers with quotes, articles, and books that will show them what the earlier fathers of Baptist doctrines taught.

I hope you enjoy.

God bless,

Hershel Lee Harvell Jr.