Redemption, by definition, would be actual redemption, an actual substitutionary payment for sins. Therefore, a redemption that is "universal in its effects" would mean that everyones sins have been actually paid for (not possibly paid for, or potentially paid for). If everyone's sins are actually paid for, the result is universal salvation. According to Scripture, Christ's work produces actually redemption and salvation, not conditional, potential redemption and salvation. Christ "gave himself to us to redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar (chosen) people, zealous of good works" (Titus 2:14)? "He entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking ... his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9:12), so "...that we might be made the righteousness of God in him" (2 Corinthians 5:21). Has this been accomplished for every single person on the planet? Who did Christ "secure an eternal redemption" for?jlay wrote:[PL, I'm curious as to why you don't think redemption (the cross) can be universal in its effects, yet salvation conditional and exclusive.
The terms "all", "everyone", and "whole world" are rarely universal in scope. This isn't only the case in Scripture, but in common everyday usage, ie. "The whole world mourned the loss of Princess Diana". (Not really). In the Hebrews passage, the term "man" is not there in the Greek. A better translation of this passage is "tasted death for all" or even "tasted death for any". Neither, particularly the second, demands a universal application.jlay wrote:[The Bible teaches universal redemption in its statement that Jesus Christ, "by the grace of God, tasted death for every man," and that He "gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." (Hebrews 2:9; 1 Timothy 2:5-6)
In 1 Timothy 2, we get a glimpse of what many of the "all" passages refers to. Paul is defending his ministry to the Gentiles (see 1 Timothy 2:7-8). These passages refer to all types of men (not just Jews), not all men in particular.
1 John 2:2 is the most popular passage challenging Particular Redemption. I first would disagree with your interpretation here. "He is the propitiation for our [Jews] sins and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world [all types of men]." I think this interpretation has more biblical basis. Compare with this passage out of John's gospel, with an almost identical construction:jlay wrote:[Again, "He is the propitiation for our [the church's] sins and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." (1 John 2:2)
“He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.” (John 11:51-52)
The heart of John’s Epistles concerns the Judaist heresy. Over and over again, he warns that “No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.” (1 John 2:23). It also appears as if he was writing to Jewish Christians in particular, those who had been “anointed by the Holy One” (1 John 2:20) and knew the truth (1 John 2:21). John was writing to those who had the “old commandment … from the beginning” (1 John 2:7), most likely referring to Jewish converts (the Gentiles did not have the old commandment from the beginning).
So when John tells us that Christ “is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only”, he is using the pronoun “ours” to refer to Jewish Christians. Those who push this passage to favor unlimited atonement must assume that “ours” and “the whole world” consists of a dividing line between Christians and non-Christians, and that is a huge assumption.
The phrase “the world”, as I suggested above, is used to describe all types os men, not "all men without exception". For example, if “the world” in 2 Corinthians 5:19 were meant to refer to every single individual on planet earth, we are stuck with universal salvation.
Secondly, I would point out that 1 John 2:2 itself only gives us two options, Calvinism or Universalism. We are clearly told that Christ is the propitiation for sins, not the "possible" propitiation or the "potential" propitiation. If He is the actually propitiation for sins, then he is so for either "the whole world without distinction" (Calvinism), or "the whole world without exception" (Universalism).
No problem here, except you and I would clearly disagree on the source of our faith. The ability to believe itself is a gift of God, and clearly He does not give it to everyone. In fact, one of the most objective proofs of limited atonement is that not all people get to hear the gospel.jlay wrote:[Contrast that with: "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son."
I disagree. Salvation is a matter of Christ's personal decision regarding us.jlay wrote:["Yet salvation is a matter of one's personal decision regarding Christ."