“Problem” Passages: Limited Atonement, Definite Atonement, Particular Redemption
Superficial vs. Plain Reading
Another reason this discussion often leads to frustration relates to methodology. Too often, universalists cite a number of proof texts containing the words “all” or “world” and consider the matter closed, declaring the particularist interpretation a violation of the “plain reading” of the text. Yet such an approach fails to take into account the context of these isolated texts along with the rest of the teaching of Scripture and thus demonstrates that what is often claimed to be the “plain reading” is nothing more than a superficial reading.
Uses of the Word “World”
1. The Created World/Universe
2. The Physical Earth
3. World System/Fallen Humanity in Rebellion against God Under the Dominion and Control of Satan
4. Unbelievers
5. Just a Large Group as opposed to Everyone in the World
6. The General Public (Related to 5)
7. Jews and Gentiles
8. Humanity in General (sometimes with an emphasis on mankind in general in the pitiful misery of their sin)
9. The Non-Elect (Related to 4 and 8)
10. The Elect (The Great Mass of Sinners in the World God sent His Son to save)
“All”
All of a Sub-Group
All without Distinction; Not All without Exception
All Can Be Limited
“Problem” Passages
B. B. Warfield says kosmos is used in John 3 not to suggest that the world is so big that it takes a great deal of love to embrace it all, but that the world is so bad that it takes a great kind of love to love it at all, and much more to love it as God loved it when He gave His Son for sinners in it.
Abraham Kuyper shows that the Greek word translated “for” (peri, not hyper) means “fitting for” or “with respect to.” Hence, the meaning of the Greek can be that Jesus is a propitiation just like we and the entire world need—or, just as Jesus is our propitiation, so the entire world needs that same propitiation.
However, it is worth noting that the Son is not the nearest antecedent to “Savior” in this passage; rather, it is God the Father, “the living God,” who is in focus here. This verse is speaking not about the atonement of Christ in particular but about God’s nature as a Savior. Paul is thus outlining two ways in which God’s saving nature is expressed. He is the Savior of all men in a temporal sense; that is, though all men have sinned against him, incurred guilt, and will pay for their sins in hell, God has not immediately visited his justice on them as he did with the fallen angels (cf. Rom. 3:25; 2 Pet. 2:4). Even the reprobate enjoy a temporary stay of execution and thus experience the joys of life in a world infused with the common grace of God (Matt. 5:44–45). Yet God’s saving nature is also expressed in a more profound way for those who are his own. He is the Savior of all men in a temporal sense but the Savior of the elect—that is, those who eventually come to saving faith—in an eternal sense.
First, in all but one instance in the New Testament (Jude 4), the word “Master” (Gk. despotēs) is used to indicate not the Son but the Father. Thus, Christ’s redeeming work on the cross is likely not in view here. Second, Long explains,
Of its thirty occurrences in the New Testament, agorazō is never used in a soteriological context (unless 2 Peter 2:1 is the exception) without the technical term “price” (timēs—a technical term for the blood of Christ) or its equivalent being stated or made explicit in the context (see 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; Rev. 5:9; 14:3, 4).
That is, it is very likely that Peter is using agorazō in a nonsoteriological sense. Third, Peter is clearly alluding to Deuteronomy 32:6, which says, “Do you thus repay the LORD, O foolish and unwise people? Is not He your Father who has bought you? He has made you and established you” (NASB). The language of “denying the Master who bought them” serves to identify the false teachers of Peter’s day with the false prophets of Israel. Fourth, it is likely that Peter is granting, for the sake of argument, the premise that the false teachers are true believers. In other words, as Schreiner says, “It appeared as if the Lord had purchased the false teachers with his blood [2 Pet. 2:1], though they actually did not truly belong to the Lord.” Peter is thus sarcastically saying, “These who claim to be redeemed deny by their deeds and their doctrine the Master whom they claim has bought them. They are no better than the false prophets of Israel.” Fifth, if taken to its logical conclusion, the universalist interpretation denies not only an efficacious redemption—which Scripture explicitly affirms (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14)—but also the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, that is, that one who is truly redeemed cannot be lost (John 10:27–30; Rom. 8:31–39; 1 John 2:19).