The (assigned!) topic raises a question. Particular redemption receives enough hostile press already. So, is 9Marks overly scholastic in suggesting that the “What?” of the atonement (penal substitution) and the “For whom?” (particular redemption) are inextricably linked?
The 19th century Scottish theologian John McLeod Campbell believed so, and therefore in The Nature of the Atonement (1 st edition, 1856) sought to deconstruct and demolish the doctrine of penal substitution. He argued: “That cannot be the true conception of the nature of the atonement which implies that Christ died for an election from among men” (emphasis added).
Our interest here is not to rehearse every argument for particular redemption, but only this question: Assuming penal substitution lies at the heart of the atonement, what bearing does that have on its extent?
One passage will absorb our attention: 2 Corinthians 5:11–21. It is particularly significant because it employs universal language in relation to Christ’s death (“all” vv. 14, 15, and “world” v.19).
Echoing Aquinas, this universal language seems to presuppose an unlimited atonement . But Paul’s reasoning leads to a different conclusion, teaching us, incidentally, that true exposition must lay bare not only the words but the inner logic of the text.
Two dimensions of Paul’s reasoning are significant here:
I: The logic
To continue...read the full-length post originally published on this site.
