Why limited atonement is indeed an unbiblical doctrine

The title of this article really speaks for itself. The goal of this article is to deal specifically with the doctrine of limited atonement as opposed to reform theology as a whole. Many bible believing Christians subscribe to reform theology. And many of it's teachings are indeed Biblical. Yet when a doctrine is in opposition to the scriptures, our loyalty must not be toward our friends and traditions. Our loyalty is to God and his Word.

What do we mean when we say un-biblical?
Here I refer back to my own confession of faith. The freedom baptist church confession of faith. article 4 C.
"C. The Bible is authoritative for all in what it says and interprets and the Christian is bound to every thing it specifically says to Christians and everything it implies; though the Christian is bound not to add to His divine revelation. The Scriptures must be judged only in light of the whole of scripture. The Bible can be understood using the historical-grammatical method of study in search of the “plain sense meaning”. With this, diligence, a godly desire to learn, and the illumination of the Holy Spirit, the Christian can eventually understand the complete direct meaning of the Bible. The centerpiece of the revelation of God is Christ Jesus.
John10:35, Habakkuk 2:2, Isaiah 28:9-10, 2Tim 2:15, 3:14-17, Matthew 15:9, Proverbs 30:5-6, Revelation 22:18-19, 1Corinthians 2:5-16, John 5:39"
The Bible is authoritative in it's meaning, in other words what the Bible directly and obviously says. The Bible may also teach something indirectly. Advocates of Limited atonement would argue that it is implied based on the clarity of other doctrines. However scriptures must be judged in light of the whole of scripture. As will be shown the Bible directly and plainly teaches that Jesus died for the sins of all mankind. So the meaning far outweighs the implication.
For instance lets ask the question "did Jesus die on the cross?" Now you could make the case that Jesus is alive and that Jesus is the lord God. That God could not die and that Jesus being sinless should not be allowed to die. Therefore it is implied that Jesus did not die on the cross. But when we have dozens if not hundreds of passages declaring that Christ died, then the implication of Christ not dying is void and the doctrine is completely non-biblical. Such is the case with limited atonement it builds a case of implications to try to overcome the direct plain meaning of the scripture.


how do we define this?
Calvinism is no longer strictly the teachings of John Calvin, at least as the term is commonly used in contemporary times. Normally it is a reference to the soteriology put forth by the synod of dordrecht(dort). Calvinism has splintered off into hundreds of directions and the TULIP or five points of Calvinism has been interpreted and reinterpreted dozens of times over. So there has been a lot of time wasted trying to figure what teachings are actually being debated. So here I provide a very basic definition of this doctrine and then I will go on to look at the commentary of the cannons of dordrecht for the proper interpretation of the doctrine.

"Limited atonement (or definite atonement or particular redemption) is a doctrine in Christian theology which is particularly associated with the Reformed tradition and is one of the five points of Calvinism. The doctrine states that Jesus Christ's substitutionary atonement on the cross is limited in scope to those who are predestined unto salvation and its primary benefits are not given to all of humanity but rather just believers." wikipedia


The canons of dordrecht
Article 8: The Saving Effectiveness of Christ's Death
"For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son's costly death should work itself out in all his chosen ones, in order that he might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation. In other words, it was God's will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father; that he should grant them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit's other saving gifts, he acquired for them by his death); that he should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins, both original and actual, whether committed before or after their coming to faith; that he should faithfully preserve them to the very end; and that he should finally present them to himself, a glorious people, without spot or wrinkle.:"

Rejection of the Errors
Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod rejects the errors of those
"VI
Who make use of the distinction between obtaining and applying in order to instill in the unwary and inexperienced the opinion that God, as far as he is concerned, wished to bestow equally upon all people the benefits which are gained by Christ's death; but that the distinction by which some rather than others come to share in the forgiveness of sins and eternal life depends on their own free choice (which applies itself to the grace offered indiscriminately) but does not depend on the unique gift of mercy which effectively works in them, so that they, rather than others, apply that grace to themselves."
One thing respectable about the design of this document is that it asserts both positive and the negatives of their doctrine and are very clear. In our days we either tell you the positive or the negative depending on our perspective. Now one must notice The intimate connections that this doctrine has with the doctrine of predestination. In fact it has been stated that the doctrine of limited atonement is not incompatible with arminian or free-will theology. Yet no major tradition supporting a synergist/free-will view has included this teaching.



The political nature of Five-point calvinism.
« Sin leading to death?
Temporary Faith is Real Faith »
The Synod of Dort and the Complexities of Being Reformed
January 31, 2008 by Steven Wedgeworth
"One of the first observations that needs to be made is that the theological dispute that lead up to the Synod of Dort occurred from inside the Reformed theological community. The Remonstrants would eventually argue for a clear departure from this tradition, but at the outset this was not the case. In other words, the debate was initially an intra-Reformed debate, not one between those inside and those outside of the tradition. Furthermore, there had been at least fourteen confessional documents composed prior to Dort, including the Tetrapolitan Confession, the 1st and 2nd Helvetic, the Scots Confession, the Belgic Confession, the 39 Articles, and the Heidelberg Catechism. The English and German delegates were as much concerned with maintaining their pre-existing standards as they were defending the specific writings of the Contra-Remonstrants. In fact the two parties in the Netherlands at that time are sometimes called the Arminians and the Gomarists, illustrating the regional particularity. King James I sent the British delegates to Dort with instructions to uphold the current faith of the Church of England.[4] David Pareus, writing from Heidelberg, also asked that no deviation from the Heidelberg catechism be made.[5] That there was an established and authoritative Reformed theological tradition prior to the Synod of Dort is obvious. Dort was not subscribed to by those outside of the Netherlands, though it was approved as sound doctrine by the various foreign delegates. This explains how it is that the German Reformed Church could continue with only the Heidelberg Catechism as a confessional document well into the 19th century."
So here essentially the nature of Calvinism is political in nature. Calvinist typically are strong believers in proselytizing other Christians into there system in a very militant fashion. Much like a political party they are concerned with bringing everyone over into their platform. The five points are a political platform. They are willing to sacrifice other doctrines if they can gather agreement to the base of the party. Eventually they would like to see agreement under the complete system. Though there are several different visions though as to what that vision is. Typically either one of the previous confessions or the westminster and 1687 London baptist confession.
The reformed tradition was not the center for a separation of church and state. Not only did the reformers wage actual war against the Roman Catholics. (not judging whether the entanglements were justified) But they also persecuted and slaughtered the anabaptist. The early reformers were very theocratic. They would rule their cities very strictly commonly referring back to the Old Testament but not always. While there are reformers who respect the separation of church and state such as many baptist and american presbyterians; The political nature of calvinism is one of top down authority. It is this empirical structure which forces a doctrine like limited atonement on the table.

Passages used to support limited atonement. (The following passages were used as proof text from www.monergism.com)
That God has the intention of redeeming a limited number
1chronicles 17:20-21
20O LORD, there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears.
21And what one nation in the earth is like thy people Israel, whom God went to redeem to be his own people, to make thee a name of greatness and terribleness, by driving out nations from before thy people whom thou hast redeemed out of Egypt?
Here is a classic example of isogesis. Using the language of war and Egypt testifies to the the fact that this discussion is referring back to the nation of Israel. Salvation in the context eschatological justification is not even in the context of the passage.

Matthew 22:14
14For many are called, but few are chosen.

The actions of calling and chosen are usually attributed to other persons of the trinity. So the topic is not in fact directly over the subject of atonement. This isolated verse is not regarding atonement. The passage (22:1-14) is concerned with the kingdom of heaven. It uses the parable of a wedding feast. The king's servants a bid to come and they reject it and are destroyed. The king then has his remaining servants go and find anyone they can and bring them to the feast "and gathered as many as they found" It is afterwords that the king finds a man without a wedding garment and cast him out. For many(every) are called and allowed at the wedding feast of those who have been atoned for. But few(who have made the decision to dress for the wedding) are chosen. So this passage if anything speaks to unlimited atonement.

1peter 2:8-9
8And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
Here again we notice that the act of atonement is still not directly addressed. This passage is used to stress the fact that people are chosen or "appointed" to go to Hell. However if you go to the Dr.'s office, you have to "set up" an appointment. However those who are appointed disbelief have been previously established as disobedient. (vrs. 7) Meanwhile those who are the holy nation were previously not making this a conditional title.
"10Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy." So it is unnecessary to believe that God had not provided all the opportunity to be saved.

Ezekiel 36
Now this passage is a bit large so you can read it for yourselves. But the jist of it is that God is prophesying about the mountains of Israel. This is concerning the Jewish people and the land. Later in the passage there is talk of the nation being born again. But it is quite frankly not the Christian church because Israel is under the Law of God and the Church is not under the law covenant, also the church is a mix of Jews and gentiles. (romans 7:1-5, Galatians 3:28)

"Jesus has the intention of offering himself up(atoning) for the sins of just a certain people."

Isaiah 53:10-11
10Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
As will be shown this chapter declared that God laid upon Christ "the iniquity of us all". Since all have iniquity all would be universal. Why is it a contradiction for christ to accomplish salvation for those who accept his offer?

matthew 1:21
21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
It never says that Jesus shall desire only to save "his people" without the offer given to the world. It says what most evangelicals who accept general atonement believe, that Jesus accomplished salvation in those who have faith in him. He doesn't accomplish salvation until people put faith in him.

John 6:35-40, 10:3-4,11 14,15,17
35And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
36But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
37All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Here is yet another passage which teaches predestination and therefore by argument must "limit" the atonement. Yet again, not directly addressing the issue. Two points must first be made. Number Those who belong to the father might be faithful Jews who have convert to be disciples of christ. Number two assuming predestination of salvation is true indeed true. Is universal atonement truly contradictory? The act of election is transcendent or "before the foundations of the earth". Mean while the cross of Christ was historical, emanent "for such a time is this. If God is operating on two differing planes and has use of three much less two persons; then wouldn't it make sense that what appears in only one real as paradox is not contradictory at all?

3To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
4And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
The sheep have a previously established relationship with the shepherd. I don't think sheep know the voice of the shepherd before they are acquainted.

11I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
Once again no contradiction with unlimited atonement.

14I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
15As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
The idea that God knows who he will save is taught by all evangelicals even the Wesleyans.
17Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

Acts 20:28
28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
It is good to note that reference her to "church of God" is referring to local congregations "over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers" and of course they have been purchased by christ. Still no contradiction.

Ephesians 5:25
25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
Now in ancient culture if the Son is obedient He will accept who the Father gives him for his marriage. In this case the father picked the faithful bride which is not an individual but "whosoever believeth". Yet this is prior to the subject of this verse. as we know the eschatological bride is indeed a concept about the united church of the future. So it does not address whether the current offer is universal.

Joh 17:1-2; 6-12; 20-21; 24-26;
1These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
5-point calvinists are going to try to use this passage out of context. this is easy for the reader 2 thousand years later. But Christ prayer is before the cross. "he should give eternal life" is a future proposition.

3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
4I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
so here Christ is hoping his disciples "might know thee" that christ has finished his work "on earth" This is not the stage for eternity instead it is in the context of the time and his current roster of disciples.

5And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
"and now" sticks to the context of the time before crucifixion.

6I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
"I have manifested thy name unto the men" indicates jesus actual earthly ministry.

7Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
8For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
Here again he is referring to jesus actually discipling the disciples.

9I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
So here the Calvinist will argue that christ is praying for the elect and he has limited the atonement. But no word on the atonement. Also the passage has clearly taught that christ was praying for his roster of disciples verses the faithless world that has not followed him.

10And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.
11And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
"these are in the world" yet the apostles are now in heaven. this is the context christ is referring to his disciples and is not limiting his atonement.

12While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
Is judas the one fellow who lost his salvation? Or is he the only faithless apostle.
The Bible teaches that their are many who follow christian religion and are not truly saved.(1john 2:18-19)

13And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.
14I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
"speak in the world" is this a reference to unlimited atonement? Regardless Christ is praying for his current disciples. this verse may extend to us but not referring to the subject of atonement.

15I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
16They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
"they are not of the world" current disciples.
17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
18As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
19And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
20Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
Here christ is showing the context again of his current disciples and extending it to those of us who are believers.

21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
They are not currently one yet look forward to it. This unity is referring to the future. Where we have the obvious implication of exclusive salvation. However Christ died at a time and place. His sacrifice was offered to us in a temporal way so that we would give an immanent response. 2Corinthians 6:2(For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)

24Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
25O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.
As christians 2000 years later we know more than this. But this was all the revelation the disciples at that time had.

26And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.
still no word on limited atonement.

Rom 8:34
34Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
no, word on limiting the atonement.

"Furthermore, the bible speaks of Christ's death as fully effective in securing justification ( Isa 53:11; Rom. 8:34), redemption and cleansing ( Eph 5:25-27; Tit 2:14), propitiation (that is, the complete satisfaction of the Father's wrath; 1 Jn 2:2; 4:10), and resurrection to new life ( 2Co 5:14-15)."
At this point one must ask if faith is a condition for anything in salvation. This leads us to a hyper calvinistic view called "eternal justification". This is the view that one is saved from all eternity. So evangelism is meaningless.
While Christ death accomplished all these things, salvation was conditioned to the believer. Those who are not believers are condemned to hell until they repent and place faith in Christ.

Passages in support of unlimited atonement.


Isaiah 50:2 (King James Version)
2Wherefore, when I came, was there no man? when I called, was there none to answer? Is my hand shortened at all, that it cannot redeem? or have I no power to deliver? behold, at my rebuke I dry up the sea, I make the rivers a wilderness: their fish stinketh, because there is no water, and dieth for thirst.
Here we see a proclamation by God That he indeed has full ability to provide salvation which would put together a case for unlimited atonement.

Isaiah 53:6 (King James Version)
6All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Here we see what will be a continuous pattern. a link between sin nature and atonement. Here we see all who have gone astray linked with all who Jehovah has laid the iniquity of on Christ.


John 1:7 (King James Version)
7The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
Here we see a purpose of universal atonement. This is in direct contradiction to dort. Calvinism teaches that it was only God's will to make salvation available to the elect. Yet here "all men" though him "might" believe. Here salvation is a conditional offer. Yet limited atonement is unconditional and not truly an offer either.


John 1:29 (King James Version)
29The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
Here we see a direct action described. The lamb of God "taketh away the sin of the world" this is very obvious spelling out unlimited atonement. Jesus forgiveness is being directly applied to the world.

John 3:16-17 (King James Version)
16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Within the most famous gospel verse we see a pattern that conforms to a worldwide sacrifice with a conditional offer of Salvation. Yet the next verse spells this out in a bolder way. "God sent not his Son into the world" indicates that we are speaking the complete world system, not simply that Christ incarnated in the world of believers. He was seen by unbelievers as well. In fact Jesus grew up in Galilee where few had faith in him. So as the same word will have the same meaning in the same sentence.(supposing the scriptures are not contradictory) The "world" which might be saved must therefore be universal.

John 6:51 (King James Version)
51I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
Here we see again the conditional offer of salvation "if any man eat of this bread" The he states that He will give his flesh "for the life of the world"
Which is symbolically speaking of universal atonement.

Acts 17:30-31 (King James Version)
30And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
Here we see a universal command of God for all men to repent. Also in context this passage is referring to humanity in general as it is to a gentile audience. but God show a desire for the world to change and the cross is an offering of assurance to the world. Yet what assurance would that be if it is only offered to a remnant?


Romans 3:22-24 (King James Version)
22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Here we see the Righteousness of God being offered "unto all" then it is imputed to those who believe, making a clear distinction. "For all have sinned", orthodox evangelical are in universal agreement that here that all means all. So why would it not carry the same meaning in the previous sentence when it says "unto all"?

Romans 5:18 (King James Version)
18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Here we see very obviously the doctrine of universal sinfulness being fused in with the atonement implying if not meaning universal atonement. One clever argument is that these are similar but not identical. all mankind is akin to all believers. however we see a verse that will shine the light on this claim.
Romans5:15 "But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many." Here salvation is referred to in particular, yet condemnation is referred to in particular as well. Making it an identical comparison.

Romans 11:32 (King James Version)
32For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
When thinking of "all" we do not see the saints unified by unbelief. Therefore this verse implies unlimited atonement. This verse also counteracts romans 9:15 "I will have mercy upon whom I have mercy."

1 Corinthians 15:22 (King James Version)
22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
Here we see a parallel comparison. As powerful as Adam's curse just as invasive is Christ blessing.

2 Corinthians 5:14-15, 19 (King James Version)
14For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:
15And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
19To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
In reference to the death of Christ. All were did; death is universal, so then atonement ought to be as well. "he died for all" If "they which live" is particular then it is extracted from a universal atonement of christ death for all mankind. finally Christ was "reconciling the world to himself" this gives us authority for a ministry of reconciliation. are we to try to reconcile all to christ or just the elect?

Colossians 1:20 (King James Version)
20And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
"reconcile all things to himself" is as universal a statement as you will find. also "things in oearth bears this point as well.

1 Timothy 2:1-6 (King James Version)
1I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
2For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
Now the context is obvious. We should pray for "all men" many universally all mankind. Keeping that context in mind. So in verse 4 when it says "will have all men to be saved", we know that indeed it is all mankind. We know that there is "one mediator between God and men" not just some men but all. As Jesus Christ is "a ransom for all".

1 Timothy 4:10-11 (King James Version)
10For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
11These things command and teach.
Jesus is the "Savior of all men" which is the wide angle compared to "especially those who believe" this implies that Jesus has a way of being recognized as savior to unbelievers. So He atoned for the sins of all mankind potentially and especially particularly saved believers. Notice verse 11< this implies that unlimited atonement is a bible doctrine which should be taught, which in the negative proves that limited atonement is an unbiblical doctrine which should not be taught.

1 Peter 3:18 (King James Version)
18For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
Who are the unjust? just believers? Perhaps Jesus died for the sins of all mankind.

2 Peter 3:9 (King James Version)
9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
God's will as previously shown is all to be saved and "repent" also God's Will is not for any to perish. If it were limited atonement then God would will that men perish.

1 John 2:2 (King James Version)
2And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
This has been a verse that is a thorn in the side of limited atonement advocates. They argue that John's letter is written to a particular audience and that John is saying not just his hearers but the whole world of Christians. 1John 1:4 declares
"4And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full." Is John only wanting some Christians to get this message or all Christians?
More important is the "whole world" really supposed to be the elect?
"1John 5:19And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness."
this does not describe those born again.

1 John 4:14 (King James Version)
14And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.
Here is an apostolic endorsement of the doctrine. Some still say "world of believers". But how does that mesh with 1John 2:15 where we are told to "love not the world"?


Is this universalism?
Universalism is the teaching that all people will eventually be saved. That no one will spend eternity in hell.( maybe the devil and his angels.)
If Jesus died for all then are not all saved? While some forms of reformed theology might conclude this given the strict nature of their beliefs in predestination. Most Christians well into the scholarly level, have no problem understanding a potentially universal atonement received by faith alone. In other words it is not necessarily a contradiction to believe in universal atonement alongside exclusive salvation.


How can anyone"s salvation be definite?
This is a problem posed often to fully fledged Arminians and wesleyan and pelagians. Because belief is a condition which can change. People will claim faith and then deny faith often in life. So perhaps if no one believed then God was incapable of saving anyone. However this doctrine only works in the case of those who believe that faith is a work which must be kept up in order attain salvation.


middle knowledge

Would jesus give mankind a chance? Many advocates of calvinism argue no because there is no such thing as chance. That God foreknows everything because he has designed it like a mechanistic clock. But is this necessarily true and does the Bible ever differ from this popular opinion?

The Bible speaks of God repenting in many situations. While we know that God does not actually himself change He does change what he is doing in interaction with others. (usually in the person of the Holy Spirit)
genesis 6:7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."
This changing not only brings up a case for free will but also sates that there is such a thing as possiblilities. because if God is alknowing then perhaps God knows there are alternatives and God knows then all the alternatives. Then God knows everything independently. God operates in a world of chance offering up people the chance of salvation. For more information see Randy Everest article on Middle knowledge before this article.


Can people make a morally positive decision?
In christian circles there is a poular christians song by a band called "caedmon's call"/ The lyric says it best "I'm so thankful that I'm incapable of doing any good on my own." calvinism argues that this is the universal truth. That man prior to regeneration is incapable of a sincerely positive decision.

Joshua 24:22 (King James Version)
22And Joshua said unto the people, Ye are witnesses against yourselves that ye have chosen you the LORD, to serve him. And they said, We are witnesses.
Here is a very interesting a definitive proof that people are capable of a positive decision. This is not a time where God is rewarding His people for Choosing Him. Instead it is an indictment upon them because they are not good by nature so they will not live up to their decision of obedience. The law is Holy,{romans 7:12} So they were making a holy choice to Follow Jehovah. Only they would not stay holy due to their depravity. So while human depravity cause us to be inclined towards sin and away from God it does not deterministicly bar us from any good choice.

Mark 5:34 (King James Version)
34And he said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague.
Here jesus claims the woman's faith has healed her. it is christ faith in the since that he was the object of it. However Christ makes the obvious claim that the faith was hers. Believers need the gospel to produce faith. Romans 10:17 "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
Once empowered by the gospel a person has the capability of a positive decision.
6But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)
7Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
8But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
God uses his gospel to overcome our depravity to be saved.
1:16For 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.


Waste of blood?
1 Peter 4:6"For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit."

Several Calvinists have asked me. "why would jesus waste his blood for nothing?" If he does not save them then why would jesus die on the cross for them?

While this is a clever argument it makes some distorted assumptions. God has always valued mankind and teaches us to do so.
James 3:8-9
8But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.
9Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.
God loves mankind because mankind is in his image.
Psalm 8:4-8 (King James Version)
4What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
5For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
6Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:
7All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field;
8The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.

More importantly God is love
1 John 4:7-9
7Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
8He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
9In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.



I have become very passionate about this doctrine. Because the only thing that has given me life is the love of God. His love in me through his son and the ability to love others as a result of this. God wants us to love our neighbor. but we could never be as loving as God. I know there are many devout christians who believe in this doctrine, I do not want believers to be seduced by the consistency of worldly wisdom and be robbed of the love of God.

In Christ,
Matt