Redemption accomplished and applied - Murray - IV - Chapter 4 and 5

Still taking a break once a week to join in with the Challies reading group.  Tim Challies hasn't made his post yet, but I'm sure he will sometime soon.

Required reading

Redemption Accomplished and Applied by John Murray (available from Amazon) - Read Chapter 4, 'The extent of the atonement', and Chapter 5, 'Conclusion'.

My summary
Most of today's reading is taken up with Chapter 4 which is an argument for limited atonement.

Murray firstly demonstrates that universalistic terms to describe Christ's death are not necessarily universal in scope.  'World' can represent the Gentile world contrasted with Israel, while 'all men' can be used in a restrictive sense to refer to all those who will be actually justified.

Then Murray argues that the very thought of redemption refers to those who are redeemed, not simply made redeemable: 'Did Christ come to make salvation of all men possible, to remove obstacles that stood in the way of salvation, and merely to make provision for salvation?  Or did he come to save his people?  Did he come to put all men in a salvable state?  Or did he come to secure the salvation of all those who are ordained to eternal life?  Did he come to make men redeemable?  Or did he come effectually and infallibly to redeem?'

Next Murray shows from Scripture that limited atonement is true using Romans 8:31-39 and 2 Corinthians 5:14.  Finally Murray debates whether those arguing for universal atonement can use 2 Corinthians 5:14-15 and 1 John 2:2 to support their case.

What grabbed me
As a full five point Calvinist, I thoroughly enjoyed the chapter.  My favourite line was this one: 'If we universalize the extent we limit the efficacy.  If some of those for whom atonement was made and redemption wrought perish eternally, then the atonement is not itself efficacious.'  Even if we didn't have the Biblical data, it makes no sense to say that Jesus paid for the sins of those who are then sent to hell to pay for their sins.  A just God would not demand that sin is paid for twice.  And we know our God is just.

Now it's your turn

Go over to http://www.challies.com/ and post your thoughts.