Chapter 5: A response to the final biblical argument for general redemption
Numerous texts testify that Christ died for a particular people, not the entire human race:
John 10:15: "I lay down my life for the sheep."
John 17:9: "I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me."
Matthew 1:21: "He will save His people from their sins."
Acts 20:28: "The church of God, which He obtained with His own blood."
Ephesians 5:25: "Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her."
Book IV, Chapter 5 Answer to the Final Argument from Scripture for Universal Redemption We now turn to the third and final argument drawn from Scripture, often cited by Arminians and others who promote the idea that Christ died for every single person in the world. This time, their appeal is not merely to the word all, but to passages that appear to teach that some people for whom Christ died nevertheless perish eternally, and that his blood is shed in vain for many.
They are eager to paint the atonement of Jesus as ineffective, using poetic language and dramatic flair to emphasize how little his death seems to accomplish—especially if many for whom he died are still lost. They even speak of bought, purged, and reconciled sinners who ultimately perish. According to this view, Christ's blood is both precious and powerless.
But dear reader, let me assure you—that blood is not so worthless in the eyes of the Father as to be poured out in vain, not even for one soul. Rather, it fully accomplishes the salvation of every single person for whom it was shed. And if we must defend this truth, we do so gladly, for it magnifies the glory of Christ our
Redeemer.
The Arminian Argument Their argument goes like this:
"If Christ died for those who perish, then he must have died for all people—because we agree he died for the saved. But since he also died for the lost (the reprobate), then Christ died for everyone."
Our Response We deny the second claim: that Christ died for those who perish—if we are speaking of his death as an intentional act of substitution and satisfaction, according to the will of the Father.
That is to say, we deny that Christ laid down his life with the intention of bearing the sins of those who are eternally lost.
Yes, his blood is sufficient in worth to save all, but it was never God's purpose that it should actually redeem any except the elect.
As Jesus himself declares, "I lay down my life for the sheep" (John 10:15)—not for the goats.
The Texts They Use To support their claim, they appeal to four main texts:
1. Romans 14:15
2. 1 Corinthians 8:11
3. 2 Peter 2:1
4. Hebrews 10:29
They believe these passages show that Christ died for some who ultimately perish. But as we shall demonstrate, none of these verses actually prove that Christ died for the reprobate in the saving sense.
In the following sections, we will examine each passage carefully and in context to show that the death of Christ is not in vain, nor does it fail in its purpose. We must resist every attempt to reduce the cross to a frustrated, ineffective gesture of goodwill. The blood of Jesus secures what it was meant to secure: the eternal salvation of those for whom it was shed.
Let us now turn to these texts one by one.
Christ Did Not Die in Vain: The Misuse of "Perishing" Passages Our opponents often appeal to a handful of verses that seem to suggest Christ died for those who perish. These texts are sometimes dressed in emotional language to argue that Christ's death was ineffectual for many. In this chapter, we begin to address these supposed proofs of a universal atonement, showing that none of them demonstrate what they claim.
1. Romans 14:15 – "Do not destroy the one for whom Christ died"
"But if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy the one for whom Christ died by what you eat."
At first glance, this might appear to suggest that someone for whom Christ died could be destroyed. But look closer.
Paul is writing to mature believers in Rome, urging them not to use their liberty in a way that would grieve or cause spiritual harm to their weaker brethren—namely, those who still struggle with matters of conscience, such as eating food that had been offered to idols.
These weaker Christians are called "brothers", because they profess faith, are members of the church, and should be treated as those for whom Christ died. That's the language Scripture uses to describe believers and church members—"saints," "brethren,"
"redeemed," etc.—and so they are to be esteemed as such by others, unless they openly depart from the truth.
But now, does this verse prove that Christ died for all reprobates, including those who never heard the gospel?
Certainly not.
Paul is warning against actions that lead others into sin, not making a theological assertion that Christ's atonement fails. When he says "destroy not the one for whom Christ died," he means: do not lead your fellow believer into ruin through your careless behavior. The warning is real, but it does not imply that the redeemed can finally perish. We are often exhorted not to do what in God's providence cannot ultimately happen, yet our actions may still be morally blameworthy and harmful.
Also, even if the warning were taken hypothetically, the destruction in view is moral ruin, not eternal damnation. Even then, it would prove nothing about universal redemption.
So what's the argument our opponents are trying to make? It's this:
"Because Paul warns believers not to destroy someone for whom Christ died, Christ must have died for all people, including the reprobate."
But this logic fails. It's as if someone said:
"Because a soldier failed to break Jesus' bones, even though he thrust a spear into his side, therefore bones cannot break."
The reality is: the warning is valid, the danger is real, and yet the elect are never finally lost. We may fail grievously, and others
may cause us to stumble. But God is faithful. The blood of Christ is not shed in vain.
2. 1 Corinthians 8:11 – "By your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died"
Here again, Paul is warning mature believers about how their behavior affects the weak. He says that through the misuse of their knowledge—eating food offered to idols in a way that emboldens others to sin—they may cause a weaker brother to fall.
Does this mean Christ died for people who end up in hell?
Let's take a closer look.
The word "perish" here refers to spiritual damage and moral danger, not necessarily eternal condemnation. Every sin is, by nature, worthy of death—but not every sin leads to final ruin. And those who are truly in Christ will never perish (John 10:28).
Moreover, the person described is called a "brother"—meaning a professing believer, someone in the visible church. We are to esteem such people as those for whom Christ died, because they walk in faith and confession. But does that mean every one of them is elect? No.
"They went out from us, because they were not of us." (1 John 2:19) So Paul, speaking pastorally, tells believers not to abuse their liberty in a way that might spiritually harm someone who appears
to be a brother, and whom they ought to treat as one.
This is not an argument for universal atonement. It's a call to loving responsibility within the body of Christ.
Again, what's the flawed argument of our opponents?
"Paul warns that a brother for whom Christ died may perish.
Therefore, Christ died for everyone, including the reprobate."
This is like saying:
"Because someone might stumble over a stone, every person in the world must walk the same road."
No. Paul is calling believers to love, not proposing a theology of atonement. He's saying: Treat every professing believer with such respect that you would not dare endanger their soul, even indirectly.
And yes, some may perish, eternally, who once walked as visible members of the church, and were to be treated accordingly. But that does not mean Christ's atonement fails, or that it was ever intended for those whom the Father never gave to the Son (John 17:9).
Did Christ Die for False Teachers?
A Closer Look at 2 Peter 2:1
"There will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction."
— 2 Peter 2:1
This verse is often raised as a chief proof of universal redemption.
Our opponents say, "See! These false teachers were 'bought' by Christ, and yet they perish. Therefore, Christ must have died for all, even the reprobate." But a closer look reveals the argument is far from solid. In fact, almost every point required to prove their case is uncertain, while the text, when properly understood, does not support universal redemption at all.
Let's walk through this carefully.
1. Is "the Lord" in this verse definitely Christ?
The Greek word used here is Despotes, meaning "Master" or "Sovereign." In the New Testament, this term is rarely, if ever, used of Christ in His mediatorial role. It is almost always used of God the Father, as in:
"Sovereign Lord (Despotes), now you are letting your servant depart in peace." – Luke 2:29
"Sovereign Lord (Despotes), who made the heaven and the earth…" – Acts 4:24
Christ is usually referred to as Kurios ("Lord"), not Despotes.
Even if this word were once applied to Christ elsewhere, that wouldn't prove it must be Christ here.
Moreover, in the rest of the chapter, Peter speaks exclusively of God's judgment, not Christ's atonement. There's no mention of His cross, blood, or priestly work. The focus is on God's sovereign rule and judgment against apostates.
2. Does "bought" mean redeemed by Christ's blood?
The Greek word for "bought" is agorazo, which in the New Testament can mean "redeem," but also simply to deliver or purchase in a general sense. In this passage, there is no mention of blood, atonement, sacrifice, or redemption, as we find in texts that clearly speak of Christ's saving work (e.g., 1 Cor. 6:20; Rev.
5:9).
What kind of "purchase," then, is meant here?
Peter gives us the answer in verse 20:
"For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ…"
These false teachers had escaped the world—not through spiritual rebirth, but by receiving a kind of outward knowledge of Christ.
They had been externally delivered from paganism or Judaism into a visible profession of Christianity. This is a temporal deliverance, not eternal redemption.
It's as if God had purchased them out of idolatry and ignorance into the visible church and gospel light. But they later denied Him—not necessarily by outright atheism, but by rejecting
His authority through their heresies and immoral lives.
So, the word "bought" here refers not to saving atonement, but to God's claim of ownership over them by virtue of their external profession and participation in the church.
3. Are these teachers said to be truly redeemed?
Not necessarily. Scripture often speaks of people according to their profession, not their inward reality. Those who visibly belong to the church are regularly called:
Saints – though some prove false (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 11:13) Redeemed – because they appear to be Brothers – by outward association (Rom. 14:10; 1 Cor. 8:11)
So when Peter says they "deny the Master who bought them," he is speaking according to their claim and standing within the church, not stating that they were truly and effectually redeemed.
It's like saying, "They denied the God who delivered them," because they once professed Him, received gospel light, and lived among the redeemed. Their sin is worsened by their proximity to truth, not because Christ actually shed His blood for them.
4. Would universal atonement even help the argument?
Ironically, even if the false teachers were truly redeemed, our opponents still face a problem.
How can the fact that Christ died for everyone make this sin especially heinous?
If all people are equally redeemed, how does that intensify the guilt of these false teachers in particular? It doesn't.
But if they were professing Christians, ministers even, claiming to be bought by Christ—that makes their apostasy more grievous. Their judgment is worse because they trampled not just truth, but truth they once claimed to love.
Summary of the Argument's Flaws To make this verse teach universal redemption, one would have to prove:
1. That "the Lord" refers specifically to Christ as Mediator – uncertain 2. That "bought" means atonement by His blood – unsupported
3. That the false teachers were truly redeemed – not stated, and contradicted by their destruction 4. That Christ's true redemption can fail and end in damnation – contradicts Scripture (e.g., John 10:28; Rev. 14:4)
5. That their sin is aggravated because Christ died for all – makes no sense if everyone is equally redeemed
Was Christ's Blood Shed for Those Who Perish?
A Closer Look at Hebrews 10:29
"How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?"
— Hebrews 10:29
This verse is often cited by those who argue for universal atonement, claiming that it speaks of someone who was sanctified by the blood of Christ and yet ultimately perishes.
"Surely," they say, "if this man was sanctified by Christ's blood, then Christ must have died for people who end up in hell."
But a careful reading of the passage, in context, shows that it teaches no such thing. The apostle is not teaching that Christ's atoning work can fail or that the elect can be lost. Rather, he is giving a severe warning against apostasy—falling away from an outward profession of the gospel—especially among those who once enjoyed its light and benefits.
Let's unpack what the passage actually says.
1. What Is the Aim of the Passage?
The entire epistle to the Hebrews is written to professing Jewish Christians who were tempted to abandon Christ and return to the old covenant. The apostle's aim here is to warn them of the terrible consequences of willfully rejecting Christ after having received knowledge of the truth (v. 26). This is not the ignorant or momentary sin of a struggling believer, but the deliberate and defiant turning away from the gospel.
To illustrate how serious this is, he compares it to willful rebellion under the old covenant, which led to death without mercy
(see Numbers 15:30–31). Then, by a "how much more" argument, he warns that those who reject Christ under the gospel commit a far worse sin, and will suffer far greater punishment.
So the point of the passage is to show the severity of apostasy—not the extent of the atonement.
2. What Does "Sanctified by the Blood of the Covenant" Mean?
This is the key phrase. Our opponents say it means the person was truly saved, but later lost. But Scripture is clear: those who are truly sanctified by Christ's blood—set apart in truth and cleansed inwardly—will never perish (John 10:28; Hebrews
10:14). So what does the phrase mean here?
There are two possible explanations—both consistent with the rest of Scripture and the Reformed understanding of redemption:
A. Sanctified By Profession, Not Regeneration In the visible church, all who profess faith in Christ are called holy, sanctified, redeemed, etc., even if their hearts remain unchanged. For example:
Paul calls the Corinthian believers "sanctified in Christ Jesus" (1 Cor. 1:2), even though some proved false.
In 1 Corinthians 7:14, unbelieving spouses are called "sanctified" by their connection to believing partners—not spiritually, but
relationally, outwardly.
Judas shared in gospel ministry and was treated as one of Christ's own, yet was "a devil" from the beginning (John 6:70).
So too here. The apostate had been part of the visible church, claimed Christ, received baptism (the sign of cleansing), and publicly identified with the new covenant. He was "sanctified" in that outward sense—but never inwardly changed.
B. "He" May Refer to Christ, Not the Apostate Some interpreters, including several in the Reformed tradition, have taken "by which he was sanctified" to refer not to the apostate, but to Christ Himself—as in He was set apart for His priestly work by the blood of the covenant. This would make the phrase a reference to Christ's own consecration as our Redeemer, aligning with Hebrews
9:12–14 and 10:10.
Even if one rejects this reading, the first explanation still stands: the apostate was outwardly sanctified, but never truly converted.
3. The Sin Described Is Especially Heinous—Why?
Because the apostate:
Trampled the Son of God underfoot – treated Christ with contempt Profaned the blood of the covenant – considered the gospel and its blessings worthless
Outraged the Spirit of grace – resisted the Holy Spirit who once convicted him These phrases describe someone who once stood near the gospel, claimed its benefits, and deliberately turned away.
But again, nothing here implies that Christ's atonement was truly applied to him. The warning is about how close someone can come to grace, and yet reject it to their ruin. It is a sobering word to hypocrites, not a denial of the effectiveness of Christ's death.
4. Why This Text Does Not Support Universal Redemption To say that this verse proves Christ died for all people, even those who perish, requires a string of unsupported assumptions:
1. That "sanctified" must mean saving union with Christ – not necessarily true 2. That Christ's blood was shed for this person as a true atonement
– not stated in the text 3. That true redemption can fail – denied throughout Scripture 4. That this proves Christ died for all humanity – a massive leap from one isolated example In contrast, the consistent testimony of Scripture is that Christ's blood perfectly secures salvation for those it was shed for (Heb.
10:14; John 17:2; Romans 8:32–34). It is never ineffectual, never wasted, and never trampled underfoot by those truly redeemed.
Hebrews 10:29 is a terrifying warning—not about Christ failing to save, but about sinners rejecting the only hope of salvation they've been shown. It calls us to persevere in faith, to treasure
Christ, and not to treat the gospel lightly.
This verse does not teach that Christ died for all without exception.
Rather, it warns that some, though outwardly sanctified, may still fall away—proving they were never truly His.
Did Christ Die for Apostates?
A Clear Reading of Hebrews 10:29
"How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?"
— Hebrews 10:29
This verse is frequently cited by those who argue that Jesus died for everyone without exception, including those who ultimately reject the gospel. They say, "Look! This man was 'sanctified by the blood of the covenant,' and yet he falls under judgment. So Christ must have died for all." But as we've seen repeatedly, a closer look reveals no such thing.
Let's walk carefully through the passage, and we'll see that it does not support universal redemption, nor does it suggest that those truly redeemed can finally fall away.
1. The Passage Speaks Only of Professing Believers The person being described was clearly someone who once professed faith in Christ, was part of the visible church, and walked for a time among the saints. He:
Received gospel knowledge Confessed Christ as the Son of God Was outwardly set apart by baptism and church membership
Was counted among the sanctified by other believers But this describes only a few, not "all people without exception." So even if this person had once been counted among the sanctified, it proves nothing about the atonement being universal. The example is far too limited in scope.
2. The Text Is a Warning, Not a Declaration of What Actually Happens The apostle is not saying that truly sanctified people can lose their salvation. He's using a warning, a hypothetical, to stir up vigilance and perseverance.
In verse 26, he says, "If we sin willfully…"—not because he expects true believers will do so, but to show how dangerous and serious apostasy is. The warning is meant to keep the church alert, just as Paul warned the sailors in Acts 27 that they would die if the ship's crew abandoned it—even though God had already promised safety.
Warnings like this are God's means of keeping His people secure.
Though the elect cannot fall away, these solemn threats are used by God to preserve them in the faith.
So this text describes what would happen if someone truly sanctified were to fall away—but God ensures that will never happen to His elect. This is a warning, not a declaration of possibility.
3. The Apostate Was a Professed Believer —Not a True One Those described here made a public confession of Christ. They were:
Baptized (baptism was sometimes called "enlightenment" or "sanctification" in the early church) Part of the visible church Considered, in the judgment of charity, to be saints and brothers
But none of this proves they were inwardly born again. Many who walk outwardly with the church are not truly united to Christ.
Think of Judas: called, chosen, a companion of Christ—and yet he was a devil from the start (John 6:70). So too, some walk among the sanctified but never belong to Christ in truth.
4. The Apostles Spoke of Church Members According to Their Profession
It was common for the apostles to refer to all church members as "sanctified" or "saints." They judged by what was visible—public faith and baptism.
So when the apostle speaks here of someone "sanctified by the blood of the covenant," he is speaking in the language of church fellowship. He describes the person not as he was inwardly, but as he was understood to be by the church.
This doesn't mean the man was ever truly cleansed by Christ's blood —it means he claimed to be, and was treated as such until his apostasy exposed him.
5. If the Text Meant True Sanctification and Real Apostasy, Grave Errors Would Follow If we take this verse to mean that someone truly sanctified and born again could still fall into eternal ruin, two serious errors would follow:
1. That sanctification and saving faith are not fruits of God's eternal election.
2. That believers can fall away and be finally lost.
These are the core teachings of Arminianism—not of the gospel. And even many who argue for universal redemption are not willing to take it this far.
6. The Word "Sanctified" Has Several Meanings Even the word "sanctified" in Scripture has a variety of uses. It can mean:
Truly and inwardly cleansed (as in Hebrews 10:14) Outwardly set apart, or consecrated to God (as in Leviticus 16:4)
Claimed as holy based on visible standing in the church Given the context, it's best to understand it here in this external sense. These people were visibly sanctified—set apart by baptism, by profession, and by participation in the covenant community. But they were never inwardly transformed.
Conclusion The warning in Hebrews 10:29 is serious and sobering. It teaches us:
That some people may look holy, and even share in gospel blessings, while still being unconverted.
That turning from the gospel after professing Christ is an act of deep contempt for His blood.
That such apostasy leads to terrifying judgment.
But it does not teach that Christ's atonement was ineffective. Nor does it prove that He died for all people without exception. This verse, rightly understood, is a call to hold fast to Christ, not a case for universal redemption.