The Error of Particular Redemption

"Now, you are aware that there are different theories of Redemption. All Christians hold that Christ died to redeem, but all Christians do not teach the same redemption. We differ as to the nature of atonement, and as to the design of redemption. For instance, the Arminian holds that Christ, when He died, did not die with an intent to save any particular person; and they teach that Christ's death does not in itself secure, beyond doubt, the salvation of any one man living. They believe that Christ died to make the salvation of all men possible, or that by the doing of something else, any man who pleases may attain unto eternal life; consequently, they are obliged to hold that if man's will would not give way and voluntarily surrender to grace, then Christ's atonement would be unavailing. They hold that there was no particularity and speciality in the death of Christ. Christ died, according to them, as much for Judas in Hell as for Peter who mounted to Heaven. They believe that for those who are consigned to eternal fire, there was a true and real a redemption made as for those who now stand before the throne of the Most High. Now, we believe no such thing. We hold that Christ, when He died, had an object in view, and that object will most assuredly, and beyond a doubt, be accomplished. We measure the design of Christ's death by the effect of it. If any one asks us, "What did Christ design to do by His death?" we answer that question by asking him another—"What has Christ done, or what will Christ do by His death?" For we declare that the measure of the effect of Christ's love, is the measure of the design of it. We cannot so belie our reason as to think that the intention of Almighty God could be frustrated, or that the design of so great a thing as the atonement, can by any way whatever, be missed of. We hold—we are not afraid to say that we believe—that Christ came into this world with the intention of saving "a multitude which no man can number;" and we believe that as the result of this, every person for whom He died must, beyond the shadow of a doubt, be cleansed from sin, and stand, washed in blood, before the Father's throne" -- C.H. Spurgeon

Particular atonement is nothing but limited atonement in the sense that Christ died only for the few elect and it is they who will be saved eventually.

Point 1:
11:32 For God has consigned all people to disobedience so that he may show mercy to them all. <sup>24 

Spurgeon conveniently says , 'all' does not mean 'all' always. This is true provided the text qualifies who it is talking about. But it also means that all does mean all sometimes. One such would be the sinfulness of man. Rom 3 states that ,"All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God".  It is the same thing Paul is stating here. All have sinned , God has given everyone over to sin. He has permitted sin to stain every human which is born, except Christ. Paul in this verse describes why God gave over all to sin. Why? So that he can have mercy on us all. 
Roman 9 starts with stating that God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy and romans 11 ends by stating that God will have mercy on all. 
If you agree the 'all' in "All have sinned" is really all humans, then it is not a big problem to believe in the same line of of thought that God shows mercy on them all. The 'all' who are given over to sin are the same 'all' who are shown mercy. Therefore it follows that God shows mercy to all as he has permitted sin to take over all. But those who do not resist  God's mercy are saved whereas those who resist it are damned.

Point 2:</sup>
 2:2 and hehimself is the atoning sacrifice ⁵  for our sins, and not only for our sins but also for the whole world.<sup>6  1 John 2:2
And he (kai auto). He himself in his own person, both priest and sacrifice ( Hebrews 9:14 ).The propitiation (ilasmo). Late substantive from ilaskomai ( Luke 18:13 ; Hebrews 2:17 ), in LXX, Philo, Plutarch, in N.T. only here and 1 John 4:10 . Christ himself is the means of propitiation for (peri concerning) our sins. See ilasthrion in Romans 3:15 . For the whole world (peri olou tou kosmou). It is possible to supply the ellipsis here of twn amartiwn (the sins of) as we have it in Hebrews 7:27 , but a simpler way is just to regard "the whole world" as a mass of sin ( Hebrews 5:19 ). At any rate, the propitiation by Christ provides for salvation for all ( Hebrews 2:9 ) if they will only be reconciled with God ( 2 Corinthians 5:19-21 ).

Point 3:
Here Spurgeon builds a straw man for arminianism by representing it as semi-pelagianism. 

"For instance, the Arminian holds that Christ, when He died, did not die with an intent to save any particular person; and they teach that Christ's death does not in itself secure, beyond doubt, the salvation of any one man living. They believe that Christ died to make the salvation of all men possible, or that by the doing of something else, any man who pleases may attain unto eternal life; consequently, they are obliged to hold that if man's will would not give way and voluntarily surrender to grace, then Christ's atonement would be unavailing."

Arminianism does not teach that "man can choose grace" or that "anyone who pleases may attain unto eternal life"
Arminianism teaches that it is by the preveniant grace of God that people respond to saving grace. Anyone who pleases cannot by himself come to Christ. Anyone can come to Christ only as a response to the work of the Holy Spirit in their life. Man cannot take the initiative. He can only respond to the work of the Holy Spirit who has prepared that man by prevenient grace to come to a saving knowledge of Christ.

Arminian theology is neither pelagian nor semi-pelagian</sup>

"Salvation, then, in the Pelagian perspective comes through obedience; we are justified on the basis of our merits, which we gain through our obedience to God. Augustine taught that salvation comes through divine grace. Our only claim on salvation is the promise of grace through Christ. Even our good works are dependent upon grace, and therefore are not meritorious.  This is the basis for the classic doctrine of total depravity.

It is quite clear that Arminians are not Pelagian, because Arminans affirm the doctrines of original sin and total depravity.   Human salvation is completely dependent upon God’s grace, without which we would be helpless.  While Arminians do hold that God’s prevenient grace provides fallen humanity with a measure of freedom so that we can respond to God, this freedom is not an inherent human quality.  Rather, it is a gift of grace, without which we would be helpless.

Semi-Pelagianism is a mediating position between Augustine and Pelagius which was  proposed later.  In Semi-Pelagianism, the initial step towards salvation is made by the unaided human free will.  In other words, the human person is capable of deciding to turn to Christ in faith, without any divine assistance.   After that initial step is made, the Semi-Pelagian position proposes, divine grace is then poured out for the “increase of faith.” Semi-Pelagianism was condemned at the Council of Orange in 529.

Again, any responsible account of Arminian soteriology will make it clear that Arminians are not Semi-Pelagian.  Arminians do not believe that human beings decide to exercise faith in Christ by an unaided act of the will.  On the contrary, they affirm that, without divine grace, the fallen human person is incapable of turning to God.  Prevenient grace frees the person so that such a response is possible.

What is distinctive about the Arminian position (as opposed to monergistic Reformed accounts) is that God’s grace is resistible, meaning that we can refuse his gracious offer of salvation.  However, that hardly means that our acceptance of that offer is some kind of Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian meritorious “work.” "

^{----- James Pedler ,} http://jamespedlar.wordpress.com/2012/05/10/why-arminian-theology-is-neither-pelagian-nor-semi-pelagian/

Therefore Spurgeon is wrong not only in his understanding of whom Christ died for but also in his understanding of arminian theology of salvation.

Point 4:
Christ's offer of salvation is an invitation to the 'new covenant'. A covenant has two parties and each have responsibilities. The Monergism of spurgeon makes the 'new covenant' a one sided affair where as the synergism of arminianism which affirms salvation by grace through faith correctly explains the bilateral nature of the covenant.

Point 5:
The question of spurgeon as to whom did Christ die to save can be answered in several ways.
"Christ died to save sinners. He was very explicit in this. "I have come to seek and save the lost(not just the elect). I have come not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance(not just the elect)."
 If Christ came to call sinners to repentance and salvation, who are the sinners? All are sinners and need Christ.

Point 6:
Though Christ died for all , all do not accept him and therefore all are not saved. Though Christ died for all, Christ saves only those profess faith in him. These professing faith is not a meritorious work and is itself a response to God's grace. Therefore Christ dying as a ransom for many is also true. But it does not mean he did not die for all. The Scriptures teach that he died for all and also for the many(effectually). But it never teaches that he did not die for some who are damned forever. So salvation is offered universally and it becomes effectual in those who do not reject the work of the holy spirit but by the prevenient grace of God receive it.

Therefore Particular redemption is not true nor biblical.

Controversy Clarified : The Ending of Mark's Gospel

The ending of Mark's Gospel has produced considerable controversy in the theological academia. Many scholars believe it ends with verse 8 of chapter 16.

Verse 9-20 is the controversial part
 "Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept. But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it. After these things he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country. And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them. Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover. So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs."

A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Bruce Metzger writes: “Clement of Alexandria and Origen [early third century] show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them.”1 The language and style of the Greek is clearly not Markan, and it is pretty evident that what the forger did was take sections of the endings of Matthew, Luke and John (marked respectively in red, blue, and purple above) and simply create a “proper” ending.(1)

According to Metzeger there are four endings to the Gospel of Mark , i.e. Mark 16; 9 -20.

(1) The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (א and B), from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (it ^k), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written A.D. 897 and A.D. 913). Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts which contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document.

(2) Several witnesses, including four uncial Greek manuscripts of the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries (L Ψ 099 0112), as well as Old Latin k, the margin of the Harelean Syriac, several Sahidic and Bohairic manuscripts, and not a few Ethiopic manuscripts, continue after verse 8 as follows (with trifling variations): "But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation." All of these witnesses except it ^k also continue with verses 9-20.

(3) The traditional ending of Mark, so familiar through the AV and other translations of the Textus Receptus, is present in the vast number of witnesses, including A C D K W XΔ Θ Π Ψ 099 0112 f ¹³ 28 33 al. The earliest patristic witnesses to part or all of the long ending are Irenaeus and the Diatessaron. It is not certain whether Justin Martyr was acquainted with the passage; in his Apology (i.45) he includes five words that occur, in a different sequence, in ver. 20. (του λογου του ισχυρου ον απο ιερουσαλημ οι αποστολοι αυτου εξελθοντες πανταχου εκηρυξαν).

(4) In the fourth century the traditional ending also circulated, according to testimony preserved by Jerome, in an expanded form, preserved today in one Greek manuscript. Codex Washingtonianus includes the following after ver. 14: "And they excused themselves, saying, 'This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits [or, does not allow what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal thy righteousness now — thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, 'The term of years of Satan's power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was delivered over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more, in order that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness which is in heaven.' " (2)

The View of the Church Fathers

Clement of Alexandria claims to have no knowledge about it. Irenaeus seems have accepted it as he had quoted from that passage. Eusebius and Jerome have knowledge about this variant ending but do not conisder it non-canonical.

“Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them” (Metzger, 2005, p.123)(1)

 "Eusebius and Jerome, well aware of such variation in the witnesses, discussed which form of text was to be preferred. It is noteworthy, however, that neither Father suggested that one form was canonical and the other was not. Furthermore, the perception that the canon was basically closed did not lead to a slavish fixing of the text of the canonical books. Thus, the category of 'canonical' appears to have been broad enough to include all variant readings (as well as variant renderings in early versions) that emerged during the course of the transmission of the New Testament documents while apostolic tradition was still a living entity, with an intermingling of written and oral forms of that tradition. Already in the second century, for example, the so-called long ending of Mark was known to Justin Martyr and to Tatian, who incorporated it into his Diatesseron. There seems to be good reason, therefore, to conclude that, though external and internal evidence is conclusive against the authenticity of the last twelve verses as coming from the same pen as the rest of the Gospel, the passage ought to be accepted as part of the canonical text of Mark." (3),(2)

What to make of the abrupt ending of Mark's Gospel?

"There are three possible explanations for Mark ending at 16:8: (1) The author intentionally ended the Gospel here in an open-ended fashion; (2) the Gospel was never finished; or (3) the last leaf of the ms was lost prior to copying. This first explanation is the most likely due to several factors, including (a) the probability that the Gospel was originally written on a scroll rather than a codex (only on a codex would the last leaf get lost prior to copying); (b) the unlikelihood of the ms not being completed; and (c) the literary power of ending the Gospel so abruptly that the readers are now drawn into the story itself. E. Best aptly states, “It is in keeping with other parts of his Gospel that Mark should not give an explicit account of a conclusion where this is already well known to his readers” (Mark, 73; note also his discussion of the ending of this Gospel on 132 and elsewhere). The readers must now ask themselves, “What will I do with Jesus? If I do not accept him in his suffering, I will not see him in his glory.”"(4)

John MacArthur wrote 

"The last word that Mark wrote was the word “afraid, fear.” That’s kind of a key. They were afraid. Not in the sense that they were afraid for their lives or they were afraid of being harmed or that they were in danger. This is the word phobeo from which we get phobia, which means an irrational experience. They’re literally experiencing bewilderment, amazement, astonishment, wonder. There are no human explanations. This thing ends in wonder.

I want you to follow with me a little bit. Let’s go back to chapter 1, you’re going to enjoy this brief review of Mark. Chapter 1 verse 22, “They were amazed at His teaching.” Verse 27, “They were all amazed, so that they debated among themselves.” He had just cast out a demon. Go to chapter 2 verse 12, “He healed the paralytic, and they were all amazed and were glorifying God saying, ‘We’ve never seen anything like this.’”

Go to chapter 4 and verse 41, “He calmed the storm and they became very much afraid and they said to one another, ‘Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey Him?’” Chapter 5 verse 15, “They came to Jesus and observed the man who had been demon-possessed sitting down clothed and in his right mind, the very man who had had the legion and they became frightened.” Chapter 5 verse 33, “He healed the woman with the issue of blood, and the woman fearing and trembling, aware of what had happened to her came and fell down before Him.” Verse 42, “Jesus raised the little girl from death and immediately, verse 42 says, they were completely astounded.” Chapter 6 verse 51, He got in a boat and stopped the storm, walked on the water and they were utterly astonished.

Go to chapter 9. This is Peter, James and John at the Transfiguration, and in verse 6, “They became terrified.” Go to verse 15, “Immediately when the entire crowd saw Him, they were amazed and began running up to greet Him.” Go to verse 32, “He had just spoken of His death and resurrection, they didn’t understand the statement and they were afraid.” Go to chapter 10, verse 24, “The disciples were amazed at His words.” Go to verse 32, “They were on the road going to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking on ahead of them, and they were amazed and those who followed were fearful.” Chapter 11, verse 18, “Jesus goes in and attacks the temple Tuesday of Passion Week, the chief priests, scribes heard it, began seeking how to destroy Him for they were afraid of Him, for the whole crowd was astonished at His teaching.”

Chapter 12, verse 17, when Jesus had escaped the confrontation with the Jewish leaders, chapter 12 and verse 17, “He wisely answers, ‘Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, to God the things that are God’s,’ and they were amazed at Him.” Chapter 15 verse 5, Jesus stands before Pilate and doesn’t say anything. “So Pilate was amazed.” Chapter 16, verse 5, “Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe…you read it…and they were amazed.”

Could I retitle this book, The Amazing Jesus? What else do you expect Mark to say to finish then that the women fled trembling, and astonishment gripped them and they said nothing to anyone for they were afraid?” This is absolutely consistent with how Mark ends everything. This is his pattern and this is the most amazing thing of all. He’s used this all the way along to punctuate absolutely everything. And he moves from one point of amazement to the next. So it ends where it ought to end. It’s not incomplete. It ends where he loves to end. It ends with amazement and wonder at the resurrection." (5)

CONCLUSION:

The ending of Mark as seen in the New Testament today has nothing new even if it was added later to give it an ending. It tells the same things that the other Gospel writers narrate. 

The controversy over the ending of Mark's gospel does nothing to change the message of the New Testament. 

In the best interest of the Church, we should take the attitude of the Church fathers and accept them as canonical even if it did not come from the pen of Mark. The Holy Spirit is under no constraint to use only Mark to end that Gospel. The Holy Spirit, the primary author can use anyone to do his job of completing it and sealing it so that no others can add to it at a later time which would have been much worse. We should remember that the ending of Mark's Gospel we have today was there even in the second century. Nothing has been added to it after that. The long ending was there even before the canon was formed. So by the time the canon was formed, the Church fathers included it even though it was not present in all manuscripts.

 Nobody knows what end God intended for Mark's Gospel. We can be sure it does not matter, as it adds nothing new to the message of Jesus. We can trust God to have given us the Bible, he wished us to have, with the long ending, even if was not from the pen of Mark himself. God is sovereign. 

References:
1. http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/the-strange-ending-of-the-gospel-of-mark-and-why-it-makes-all-the-difference/
2. http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html
3. Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), pp. 269-270.
4. NetBible: https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Mark+16
5. http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/41-85