140 Calvinism vs. Arminianism 4: Limited Atonement

10 thoughts on “140 Calvinism vs. Arminianism 4: Limited Atonement”

• I’m coming at this from the viewpoint of a 60 year old lady just trying to understand who God and Jesus are and what my role as a believer is. There are great arguments on both sides, but what it boils down to for me (not being formally educated) is the way God showed his love for the WHOLE world is providing Jesus’ sacrifice as the only way to reconnect with God. It just makes more sense, and seems more prevalent in the bible, that Jesus was the sacrifice for all mankind, not ONLY the chosen. When I try to imagine a scenario where we are each predestined/chosen by God it does make me feel (on the surface anyway) “holier than thou” and “special.” And I lose all motivation to share the gospel message because it’s already done. On the other hand, if God offers salvation to any who hear the message I feel compelled to share with everyone and then let them make their own choice. That’s where Jesus’ parable of the seed comes in…you preach to everyone and some will embrace forever, some for a time, etc. The foreknowledge is because God, who knows every hair on our head, also knows who is going to end up choosing salvation…to those, the gift of grace is a guaranty…as long as they are obedient…and cannot be snatched away by any outside force. This puts the responsibility on the individual instead of the false security of OSAS. Very much enjoying you young whippersnappers.

  Reply

• 1. John 10 is not about salvation, although that is in the background. The foreground issue is leadership. In chapter 9 Jesus healed a blind man, and the Jewish leaders cast the blind man out of the temple. Chapter 10 is a continuation of the fallout of this casting out, and Jesus contrasts his leadership as one who will even give His life for his sheep, to the other leaders who are robbers. The sheep that God has granted to Jesus are beyond the cruel hands of other false leaders and they do not have authority to remove anyone from the hands of Jesus or of God. The passage is not about HOW they come to be sheep.

  The Jewish leaders believed that by denying someone’s access to the temple they were thereby expelling the person from receiving the future inheritance (which includes life in the age to come). Jesus is showing that they do not have this authority at all. The Father knows who the true sheep are, and they have all been assigned to Jesus, and not to them. They have no authority to remove anyone from the hand of God. That is the primary point, not atonement, or salvation.

  Jesus’ sheep are those who follow His voice, His authority, and do not regard as authoritative the voices of those religious leaders who are hirelings. The sheep are also not preselected from before creation because He says that there are two folds which will become one fold.

  2. Limited atonement depersonalizes every “you” verse in the Bible. “If you…this”, “If you that…”, “Because you…”, “You should…”, etc. If these only apply to those whom God forces to do these things by His willpower alone, then the “you” is really God anyway, and God’s request to people to do these things is shallow and even deceptive, a sham, because they can’t do what they are being asked to do. If a human did this on a frequent basis, let alone continually, we would consider them as objects of pity, scorn, mentally ill, or even criminal, depending on the situation. But the Calvinist’s god does this all the time, and there is never a time when he does not puppeteer us! He’s just a good enough puppeteer to make it look and feel like it is really us! No wonder so many people have rejected a god like this! It is not the God of the Bible.

  3. Calvinists want things both ways. If the Lord bought the teachers in 2 Peter 2, as Jacob pointed out, and they later turned to teaching falsehood, then they are still bought, unless God can un-elect someone whom He previously elected. Furthermore, if people will truly be “damaged because of their teaching and action” as Brandon stated in minute 40, but this is all according to God’s sovereign decree, then the false teachers are teaching falsely because God decreed for them to do so, and the warning is not a warning at all. Peter’s warning has no basis in reality. The false teachers are doing the will of God! And, if the listeners follow the false teachers, then this is because God also decreed for them to do so, so teaching falsely is really no big deal. We would have to say that God wants false teachers and God wants certain people to follow them. In fact, God has predestined that most people do so, and go to perdition, all to the glory of this Calvinistic god. The whole alarm in 2 Peter is a sham, and most of the Bible is a sham. You can’t have it both ways, with God decreeing every minutia, and at the same time telling people that they are wrong when they are merely following the exact minutia that this god has foreordained. Calvinists should be thanking the false teachers for teaching falsely because in doing so they are doing the decreed will of Calvin’s god. The same can be said for rapists, murders, and all other evils of men who should be thanked for doing this god’s will.

  Reply

  • Kevin,

    Regarding your first point on John 10. To suggest that John 10 is primarily about leadership and not about salvation is to create a false dichotomy in the text. The text may be about false teachers, but it only addresses false teachers in the larger context of what it means to be sheep, and how Christ relates to his sheep. Frankly, to argue that the text is not dealing with salvific subjects is just silly. Here in this beautiful passage we see Jesus present the gospel in beautiful, pastoral imagery while simultaneously dealing a blow to false teachers. We find two of his great “I am” statements here – and both have to do with salvation: he is the door, by which all must enter if they are to be saved, and he is the good shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep.

    While Jesus certainly asserts his authority over the sheep and against false teachers in this passage, the idea that this is all he means to address here – as you put it, that his authority “is the primary point, not atonement, or salvation,” – is hermeneutical back pedaling to avoid the very point that Jesus is trying to make – why is he the greater authority? BECAUSE he is the good shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep. It is entirely about atonement and salvation. I find efficacious foreknowledge here, atonement here, and perseverance here, among other things: “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.”

    Regarding your second point, you have it precisely backwards. Limited Atonement is in fact the only personal view of the atonement there is. An unlimited atonement that saves no one effectively, and is done for no one in particular but for every one in general, while it sounds nice (to our innate humanism) is by definition impersonal. Limited Atonement posits a salvation that is not hypothetical, but actual; not general, but specific; not impersonal, but personal. He died for YOU, not for humanity. His death SAVED you, it did not merely make it possible for you to rise up, and save yourself by the exercise of self-generated faith. Arminianism will never be able to escape from the accusation that it suggests universalism on the one hand, or a hypothetical salvation on the other hand. As has been said, the atonement is always limited – the Arminian limits its effect, the Calvinist limits its application.

    Furthermore, you seem concerned that God would ask people to do something they cannot do. Perhaps this alarms you because you deny Total Depravity. But if you had a biblical view of man’s depravity, you would not be so alarmed when God says things like, “pursue…holiness without which no one will see the Lord,” or “be holy, as I am holy.” These things are not possible – yet God demands them from us. He asks us to do what we cannot do on our own (“Those who are in the flesh cannot please God”) so that we are humbled by our need of him, and so that he receives every bit of glory for our salvation. Grace does not mean the expectations are lower, but that God acts to raise us up to meet them in Christ. We are called to “work out our salvation with fear and trembling,” yet we know it is “God who is at work in you both to will and to word according to his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13-14). To be acquainted with a wholistic view of the Christian faith is to be acquainted with mystery. God is not a puppeteer, he is a Savior, he gives life to those who are dead in their sin and frees those who are enslaved to it.

    Regarding your third point – wherein, sadly, you digress into illogical rambling, straw men nonsense and philosophical accusation that have been thoroughly dealt with by Calvinists for years:

    That false teachers are said to be “bought” is here a plain example of speaking in pretense; Peter addressed them as they addressed themselves: claiming to be among the redeemed. Matthew Poole articulates this point well: “This is spoken not only of their pretenses, that they should profess themselves redeemed by Christ, but in the style of the visible church, which should judge them to be so until they declared the contrary by their wicked actions.” This is Peter’s language throughout: he uses their own claims to emphasize and increase the weight of the judgment upon them. These men were no more “redeemed” then the Israelites who came with Joshua out of Egypt but died in the wilderness for their unbelief.

    Take this quote from Simon Kistemaker, taken from his work on II Peter in Crossway’s “Biblical-Theological Introduction to the New Testament” p. 479.

    “What makes these false teachers particularly worthy of God’s judgment is not only this list of depraved practices, but the fact that they were once part of the people of God. Peter makes it clear that, like the false prophets of the Old Testament, these false teachers “arose among the people” (2:1), were guilty of “denying the Master who bought them” (2:1), shared a “feast” (likely the Lord’s Supper) with the people (2:13), and at one point seemed to have “escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,” but now “are again entangled in them and overcome” (2:20). In short, these false teachers are apostates; they were once part of the covenant community but have fallen away and proved to be unbelievers. Thus, their judgment is even more severe than it would have been…(2:21).”

    In I John this category of people is confirmed when he writes, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us” (2:19). What’s more, it explains why Peter makes this remark in II Peter 1:10, “Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election,” – not because their salvation is dependent upon them, but because their ability to persevere is what demonstrates the validity of their faith (Phil. 1:6, 2:12-13).

    The Arminian claim that God purchases all men, redeeming all from their sin leads either to the heresy of universalism, or the heterodoxy of men going to hell with their sins paid for – utter nonsense, and nowhere defensible by Scripture, for we know men are judged for their sins in the second death (Rev. 20:13).

    If time would permit, I would enter into addressing your apparent accusations of fatalism and determinism. But since these straw men accusations are everywhere addressed by Calvinistic scholars, I leave you with two charges: first, that you demonstrate a clear lack of understanding as it regards Calvinistic, Reformed, and Covenantal theology. If you are to enter into fruitful dialogue with your opponent, it is best that you understand his own system of thought. If Calvinism were truly fatalistic as you suggest, it is likely that it would have been dealt a fatal blow long ago. But it has not – because it is not.

    Second, I find it ironic that what you twist to justify your accusations of fatalism and determinism are the same things Scripture articulates for our benefit – namely that God in his sovereignty brings both the sun and the rain, the good and the bad, and is Lord over all things. Evil finds root in the heart of men, and serves no good end. God permits evil, and does so for a good and glorious end. Therein is the difference. For the Arminian, sin and evil and suffering are just the results of God “loving” men by allowing them to exercise their own free will. For the Calvinist, we see God letting men exercise their depraved wills in such a way where he is no less sovereign and good, but is able to use all these evils for good, to those that love him. As Job said, “shall we receive good from the Lord and not evil also?” How comforting it is to know that God is sovereign over all things (not deterministic) and therefore I know that everything that happens is a part of his plan to work towards a greater and more glorious end. In short, there is purpose and meaning in suffering for the Calvinist. For the Arminian, suffering and evil become the meaningless consequences of a god that looks more like the god of deists. The crucifixion itself was an act whereby God’s sovereignty made use of great evils and injustices in order to bring about the salvation of his people. My God permits evil for his glory, the God you are describing permits it because the free will of men demands it.

    Reply

• 1. John 10 is most definitely about salvation, to read this in the context of anything other than salvation is importing a meaning into the text that was not there to begin with. Let’s let Jesus give us the meaning of John 10.

  The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.

  I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

  Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”
  John 10:10‭-‬11‭, ‬25‭-‬30 ESV

  2. Your argument is a pure strawman, Calvinists emphatically stress the importance of personal responsibility for sin. God does not force anyone to do anything, everyone acts according to their nature. The reprobate acts according to his rebellious, sinful nature, and the believer acts according to the new, redeemed nature given by the Holy Spirit.

  3. Peters warning is a reality because we are to make our salvation sure by working it out with fear and trembling. That is the whole point of James’ epistle. Faith without works is dead. “Faith” apart from works is not real faith. The apostasy warnings in Hebrews 6 and 2 Peter 2 are real warnings because people who appear to be Christians on every front, and partake in all the benefits of being a Christian, can and do leave the Church. We then say this about those who left, to quote John

  They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.
  1 John 2:19 ESV

  Why don’t you try to prove the positive claim of General Atonement correct instead of building straw men about Limited Atonement?

  Reply

• I am unsure as to how there can be a misunderstanding of John 10. To say that this text does not reveal how we become children of God is to go directly against the text. We are brought into the fold by the calling and drawing of God on our lives. Limited may not be the choicest of words to describe the atonement. Instead, I find it more beneficial to refer to it as Redeeming Atonement or Definite Atonement, since by these terms we see the truth of the plan of salvation. Contextually speaking, John 10 comes on the back end of John 6, following not too long after Jesus says that the Father gives those whom He would give to the Son and that surely they will be saved by His drawing them unto Himself and they shall never be lost. God knows, God predestines, God draws, God seals.

  Consider the idea for a moment that it was God’s intention to save all. If this is how we are to interpret Scripture, knowing fully that God’s will is never thwarted (Job 42:2), then we must affirm and maintain the doctrine of universalism. However, if we are to say that the Lord’s intent was not to save all, then we have just limited the atonement. The doctrine of limited atonement stated as limited carries with it the presupposition of some measure of limitations, so in one sense (at least in terms of the fact that very few evangelicals are Universalists) we all set limitations drawn from the Bible in regards to the atonement. The one who maintains the doctrine of unlimited atonement is foolish in his understanding of the gospel, since by this affirmation of unlimited atonement he also affirms that Jesus is not the only Way (Jn. 14).

  As I have stated in a previous comment, we must be careful when we say this so as not to commit heresy, but we know that God’s sovereignty never diminishes or negates the responsibility of man. Notice I did not say His sovereignty never supersedes the responsibility of man. To state it in the denial of the superseding of His supremacy over our responsibility is ultimately to state that God is the Author of sin since man is not responsible and to state that God is not the Author of our redemption since His sovereignty does not overrule our power, thus making redemption to be an act of man, which we know it is not (Rom. 3:20). The supremacy of Christ never negates the responsibility of man. In stating it this way, we affirm that while Colossians 1 is true that all things are by God and from God and through God, we certainly do not deny the innate desire to sin found in the flesh of man (James 1), but that there is nothing that takes God by surprise (1 Jn. 3:20) and that there is nothing that thwarts His plan (Job 42:2).
  To what end do we share the gospel? If God has predestined those whom He shall save before the very foundation of the world (Eph. 1), then why must we preach? First, because we are commanded to share the gospel (Matt. 28). Second, because we have the privilege of preaching Christ and Him crucified (Rom. 15:20), and because we have full assurance that God will save those whom He chooses (Rom. 8).

  Think of it in this way: If I, a preacher of the gospel of Christ, go out and preach the gospel in hopes that people will choose Christ as a response to my preaching, knowing that those who hear my preaching are fallen people inclined only to sin (Rom. 6) and that my preaching carries no weight in the mechanics and power of my words but only in the fact that it is the Word of truth (Ja. 1), why should I preach? If a fallen man preaches to fallen people using fallen mechanics and trusting in his own fallen power in the hopes that fallen people would choose God over their sin, then he should have no hope! But in the event that the preacher is promised that those whom God has chosen before the foundation of the world WILL come to Him by the drawing of His voice, then the preacher has full assurance that His preaching shall never go out in vain. Some shall be called by the Lord and some shall be passed over, as unto the glory of God in the display of His justice.

  The glory of God in the display of His justice is by no means a license to sin! Consider the words of Paul in Romans 6:1. We are not antinomian in our thinking, nor do we deny the justice of God that rolls down like waters upon the one who would commit treason against God. Man is lured and enticed to sin, since his flesh is bound to sin. Only by the grace of God may a man be saved and given a heart after God’s own heart to be ever conformed to His image by the working of the Holy Spirit (Ezek. 36; Rom. 8; Eph. 1). It pleases the God of all eternity that He should destroy those who would sin against Him, while it also pleases the very same God to give unmerited, undeserved grace to those whom He would choose.

  For the sake of fairness, we deny that God’s grace redeems those whom He chooses, stating that it is not fair that God would save only some. If this is the case, then it must also be true that it is unfair of God to allow any to perish. Simply, the doctrine of limited (redeeming/guaranteed/definite) atonement states that God did not merely make redeemable all persons, but that in full assurance and according to His will, He made in a guaranteed fashion those whom He predestined to be redeemed. We are redeemed by the preaching of the word of truth (Rom. 1) and are made to be brought into the fold (Jn. 10) by the grace of God and not by the works of man (Eph. 2).

  Though there is much more to be said on the topic, we should leave it at this: God, in a guaranteed fashion and in a manner of absolute and unwavering certainty, set out in perfect accordance to His fair and just and gracious will to save those whom He predestined to save before the age of all eternity, giving to some the unmerited gift of grace according to His wise counsel (Eph. 1) and passing over others to turn them over to their own sins (Rom. 1) and thus displaying His sovereignty by way of justice upon the heads of the reprobate who commit treason against the God of all Holiness.

  I am praying for you and for any who would hear or participate in this podcast and strand of comments. May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ!

  Reply

• Response to responses:
  Mark, you state “He died for YOU, not for humanity.” I can point to passages which state he died and rose for me personally, AND the world (Jn. 3:16, etc.). As a Calvinist who reads Scripture through Calvinism, it is you who do not have a single passage that says he died personally for you or anyone else particularly because you first have to show that you are predestined and elected. What verse is there that says that you, Mark, Stuart, or Trevor, were personally predestined and elected? Not one. You have to witness to people as if you are not a Calvinist, and then convert them to Calvinism after they believe. That is how cults operate. Bait and switch. Fraudulent.

  As Calvinists, you twist the Scriptures to destruction. You throw out the context and often the very words so you can read things into your framework. A perfect example is what you have done with John 10 and 2 Peter 2:1. You have a serious problem accepting the authority of Scripture. Your authority is the Calvinistic framework.

  Who was Jesus speaking to in John 10? Who was His target audience? Was it the general public? Was He teaching the people about salvation? NO. Read things in context. As I stated before, John 10 is a continuation of John 9. In John 9:40-10:1 we read, “And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also? Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber….” The passage specifically says Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees. Is He giving them the plan of salvation? NO. He is pointing out the error of their ways, contrasting with His ways.

  Jesus continues the whole chapter as a dialog with the Pharisees. In Jn. 10:6-7 we read, “This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them. Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep….” At this point in time, the Pharisees, and not even the disciples of Jesus, understood that Jesus had to die, so nobody, not even the disciples, would have made a salvational connection with what Jesus was saying about giving His life for the sheep.

  Another error you guys have is in John 10:26. You are reading the verse backwards. It says in the KJV “But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.” The word “because” in the Greek is “oti”, Strongs 1309, which literally means “that”, or “so that”. Phrase 1, “ye believe not” is the CAUSE of phrase 2, “ye are not of my sheep”. You like the word “because” so you can reverse the phrases. But this word “because” in that kind of reversed reading should be the Greek word “kathoti”, Strongs 2530, which would then give the reading you want. In the same context, in verse 38 Jesus said, “… though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.” Jesus is putting the refusal to believe squarely on them, not on them being predestined to not believe. But you won’t accept context. You only accept Calvinism. Sad. You are as blind as the Pharisees.

  You accuse me of not understanding Calvinism. But I do understand, and it is refuted by Scriptures. I grew up reading the Bible through and through, and when I later read some of these books I knew that it did not match Scriptures, but is refuted instead. Calvinists have to learn Calvinism outside of Scripture and then layer it on as an overlay. That is dead wrong. The Scriptures are written in a Jewish context. Nobody in the Old Testament was a Calvinist, not even by some other label. Did Jesus, John or Paul or anyone else preach Calvinism? No. Calvinism is a doctrine that arose in a totally foreign context centuries and a continent removed from when and where the Scriptures were given. It is a philosophy that belongs in the trash heap of the cults. It is you who lives in denial of Calvinism’s contradictions with Scripture, and in denial of Calvinism’s internal contradictions. You even change Peter’s writings about the false teachers to mean that “Peter addressed them as they addressed themselves…”. No. You are deceiving yourself. Here is a link where you can read this verse in any version you want: http://biblehub.com/2_peter/2-1.htm Which version says what you claim? Not one! Here is a link to the interlinear version so you can see the original: http://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_peter/2-1.htm

  Stuart: You asked, “Why don’t you try to prove the positive claim of General Atonement correct instead of building straw men about Limited Atonement?” That’s easy. Here are just a few:
  John 3:16 “or God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

  John 4:42 “And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour OF THE WORLD.”

  Hebrews 2:9 “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for EVERY man.”

  1 John 4:15 “WHOSOEVER shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.”

  1 John 5:1 “WHOSOEVER believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and EVERY ONE that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.”

  1 John 5:13 “I write these things to YOU who believe in the name of the Son of God, that YOU may know that YOU have eternal life.” ESV

  Do I need to list more? It is not me who has to change the simple meaning of what the Scripture meant when it was written. It is you who are changing Scripture to make it fit into a pagan philosophy that arose centuries later.

  The term “straw man” is a favorite of Calvinists, and is used by several who replied to my post. It only indicates that they don’t like the logical conclusion of the opponent, and they are attempting to belittle the opponent, not that the opponent is wrong.

  Trevor – You state, “We are redeemed by the preaching of the word of truth (Rom. 1)”. Please respect the Scriptures. Romans 1 does not mention redemption. Verse 16 refutes the Calvinist claim. “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to EVERY ONE that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.”

  You are also making the error of switching to another gospel. You say, “To what end do we share the gospel? If God has predestined…” and “God’s grace redeems those whom He chooses..” and other such statements. Your “gospel” is predestination and election, and only secondarily the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. The Calvinisitic doctrine is not “good news”. Here are my Scriptures for you:

  Gal. 1:8-9 “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach ANY OTHER GOSPEL unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach ANY OTHER GOSPEL unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”

  1 Cor. 15:1-4 “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the GOSPEL which I preached unto you, which also YOU have received, and wherein YOU stand; BY WHICH also YOU are saved, if YOU keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless YOU have BELIEVED in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:”

  Another problem I see from reading the responses is that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what Jesus did that is part of the confusion. It is again related to misreading Scripture through another lens, that of satisfaction or penal substitution. But Jesus said, “for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins” Mat. 26:28 ASV. The word “unto” in Greek is “eis”, which is “unto” or “into”. Jesus, and God His Father, instituted a blood covenant, and those who come under His covenant are released from their sin by abiding in Him and under His covenantal terms. The atonement is covenantal, not a mere transaction by which to pay off for wrongs done by others.

  The Calvinistic view of atonement has God paying God so God can forgive a debt that God has paid to Himself. Something is seriously wrong with this line of thinking.

  The bottom line of the whole discussion really comes to this: What is your final authority – the Scriptures in their original context and meaning, or the Scriptures as reinterpreted through Calvinism? That is the real conclusion of the whole matter. I am sure I don’t have everything right, but my intent is to follow Scripture according to its original context and meaning. I care nothing about so-called “orthodoxy”, which is a theological box that is propped up by men who do not regard Scripture as the final authority.

  Reply

  • Kevin,

    This argument obviously needs to be distilled, or else we’re going to end up writing novels back and forth. The essence of the disagreement is really quite simple:

    What was the intention of the atonement?

    We both agree that not everyone ends up in Heaven, and that those who end up in Heaven are there soley because they are covered in the blood of Christ, as per His perfect sacrifice for them.

    So both of us limit the atonement at some point, or all men would end up in Heaven.

    Does God limit the atonement in His perfect wisdom?
    Or does man limit the atonement in his finite wisdom?

    The implications of God limiting the atonement are that God intends the atonement only for those who will be saved.

    The implications of man limiting the atonement are that man has the capacity and ability to refuse the will of God.

    Unless we’re universalists, it is one of those two options.

    Thank you, Soli Deo Gloria

    Reply

• Stuart, the answer to your questions are in the Bible, not in Calvinistic literature:
  For example, 2 Corinthians 5:19 “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.”

  Obviously, the “us” are the believers and “the world” is everyone else.

  Reply

• Kevin, your citation actually undercuts your point if provided with proper context. The asterisk will signify me talking.

  All this is from God,

  *Salvation belongs to the Lord (Jonah 2:9) amen!

  who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation;

  *This is the point that the later point will expand upon

  that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

  *Would we then take “us” and expand it to mean the entire world? It was plain from the sentence above that He is reconciling us. How can “us” also mean “the world” except in that we are a greater catagory, as in people from every tribe, tongue, and nation. This preserves the meaning of us while also applying to the world. You can’t favor one over another.

  Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us.

  *This is further explaining the prior passage. We are to spread the Gospel to all nations, as per the great commission. It’s because of the prior truth that we are ambassadors for Christ. If the prior sentence were to be applied to every single person, every single person would be ambassador, which would be nonsense.

  We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

  *If Paul just stated that all are reconciled, why would he here plead for these people to be reconciled?

  For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
  2 Corinthians 5:18‭-‬21 ESV

  * It is for our sake (the Church, the elect) he made…etc. not for the sake of every single person.

  And I take exception to the idea that you think every Calvinist has the framework first, then reads the Bible through that. I read the Bible and found the doctrines of grace contained therein, it was later I discovered it was called Calvinism. Please don’t apply blanket statements to every single person you disagree with in this regard, it’s not charitable.

  Thank you,
  Soli Deo Gloria.

  Reply

  • Stuart, “Reconcil-ING” is a present participle active, which refers to an action that is currently taking place or which takes place repeatedly.

    If I understand you correctly, you are reading it as if it says “reconciled”, a past action that has finished. No, the reconciliation of the world continues. Reconciliation is what God offers to the whole world, not to some few whom He predestined to election.

    “Us” who have been reconciled are contrasted with the rest of the world who have not been reconciled because they have either not heard or they have rejected. You asked, “If Paul just stated that all are reconciled, why would he here plead for these people to be reconciled?” My question is, where did Paul state that ALL people have been reconciled? Paul is simply pointing out that reconciliation is available, and therefore we should spread this good news to the whole world.

    Your use of 2 Cor. 5:18 in an attempt to try to make “us” be “the Church, the elect” ignores the context of verse 17 which says “if ANYONE is in Christ…” Paul is speaking about “anyone”, not “the elect”. Yes, God has elected those who are in Christ, but in your framework the election happened before, not when they believed. The “elect” of your theology can’t be “anyone” today.

    The manner in which you have to find a way to work around the plain, simple meaning is evidence that you are reading it through a foreign framework, whether you realize it or not.

    Reply