This got longer than I meant for it to, oh well . . .
First, I hold to universal atonement. Here are a few verses to support my position (all quotations ESV):
- Matt. 20:26b-28, But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.
Now, this passage says that Christ gave His life as a ransom for "many." The Calvinist would contend this is a clear reference to Christ not dying for all. There are two strong problems with this statement, one of which flatly contradicts, and comes close to disproving, the Calvinist position, and the other simply negates the claim of support. The word behind "many" is
polus. It is true that this word can mean many, but:
- hoi polloi in secular Gk. means the most, the majority. But in the LXX it often represents the Heb. rabbim, which tends to mean "all." Hence while the Gk. use drew a distinction between a majority as a contrasted with a minority, Heb. use is capable of inclusive meaning, denoting the many individuals forming a totality. (NIDNT)
This word, if it does not mean all, means "most" or "the majority." This is a direct contradiction of Calvinist thought, for it would mean that the elect are the majority! If, on the other hand, we take this as we should to mean "all", then the verse, again, presents no difficulties and once again supports the position I am advocating.
- Rom. 6:9-11, We know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
Let's pull out a few specific things. First, notice that it says that the death of Christ was to sin. It was not to “sins.” This is consistent with one we are told in 2 Cor. 5:21, that God made Christ sin itself, that His wrath might be poured out against it for us. Therefore, while it is true that Jesus paid the price for our sins, it is also true that Jesus paid the price for Sin.
Secondly, note the phrase “once for all.” What does “all” in this passage refer to? The word is an adjective usedas a substantive. For those of you who are not English majors (or don't read Greek), if an adjective is used as a substanstival, it is functioning as a noun. For example, “The
Good, the
Bad, and the
Ugly”, or “Out with the
old, and in with the
new.” Now, when dealing with a substantive, we have to ask ourselves what it is referring to. In our two examples, the Good, Bad, and Ugly might refer to people. In our second example, it just refers to “stuff”, and thus, “Out with the old stuff, in with the new stuff.” How do you know what a substantival adjective refers to? Context. What about in this passage? “Christ died for all.” Either “all” refers to “all people” or to “all sin.” Either rendering is acceptable. The former rendering supports both Unlimited Atonement and Universal Atonement, whereas the second rendering supports only Universal Atonement. Regardless, both renderings reject Limited Atonement. It may be argued that “all” refers to “all sin” as it relates to the elect, but it is extremely obvious that the idea is not found in
this particular verse. You have to have the previous notion that only the sins of the elect are paid for in order to get that here!
- 2 Cor 5:14-15, For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.
Here, we find “all” being used again as a substantive. Here, it most definitely refers to “all people.” It may be argued that “all” refers to “all the elect”, but we can reject this on two grounds. First, the idea is not found in this passage, but it has to be imported as an understanding taught from elsewhere. Secondly, Paul then says, “he died for all (people) that
those who might live might no longer live for themselves.” This second group clearly refers to the elect, for the only people who live are those who will be raised with Christ (Mark 8:35-37, John 11:25-26). So, we can paraphrase the passage this way: “Christ died for all so that the elect can live for Him.”
- 1 Tim. 2:5-6, For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.
Yet again, we have “all” which must either refer to “all people” or “all the elect.” The second rendering cannot be valid as Paul is contrasting the God and Mankind. Notice that Paul did
not say, “there is one mediator between God and the elect.” He said there is one mediator between God and
anthropous, or men (plural). “All”, then, calls back to
anthropous, not “the elect” which is found no where in this passage,
- 1 John 2:22, He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
Of course, no discussion about the atonement would be complete with a reference to 1 John 2:2. Needless to say, every Calvinist has had to deal with this verse, so there are a myriad of answers to the “problem” it proposes. I have no interest in proving the Calvinist wrong with this verse. I simply assert that
the verse means what it says it means. Christ is the propitiation for the sins of Christians, and not only for Christians, but for the whole world. Now, what is especially interesting is that word “propitiation.” As we know, that is a “sacrifice of atonement.” God's wrath against sin was propitiated, and not only the sins of Christians, but the sins of
the whole world. You see, I have this on my side: the plain rendering. If a person were to start with this verse, they would come to the conclusion that Christ not only died for all, but His death had the same effect for all.
Look at it this way. John is saved and Bob is not. How can we say that Christ's death was the propitiation for John's sins, and therefore God's wrath against John's sins has been appeased, but Christ's death was also the propitiation for Bob's sins, and yet God's wrath has not been appeased against Bob's sins?
Now, I don't expect this to change anyone's mind. Again, clarity, not consensus. However, I am arguing that this position is exegetically sound and
it takes the plain meaning of the texts. Unless a passage can be presented that says, “Christ died only for the elect,” I do not believe the position should be imported into these passages that clearly imply the opposite.
One more thing regarding the atonement before we move on. I am, again, forced to reject Unlimited Atonement for the same reasons the Calvinists hold to it, and, in fact, these reasons support Universal Atonement. If I may quote Puritan Lad's
Calvinism vs. Arminianism thread:
Puritan Lad wrote:1.) If Christ made full payment for every person's sins, then no one could ever go to Hell. If so, then what kind of “payment” are we left with?
2.) If Christ work on the cross was intended to save every single person, then His work is a failure. His work did not accomplish what He intended.
3.) If Christ intended to save every single person, than He came to do His own will, not the will of the Father who elected those who would be saved.
As Greg Bahnsen writes, “Isaiah prophesied that Christ would "see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied"; yet if Christ went to the cross with the intention of saving every individual, he certainly has been defeated and cannot be satisfied. But our Lord is not defeated; all power has been given to him in heaven and earth. His sufferings do accomplish what he intends, for the salvation he provides is not abstract and universal, it is particular and personal.”
Now, I reject the first and third problems entirely, because I do not hold that Atonement leads to justification (see the end of this post). However, the second argument is almost flawless. Almost. I do not hold that Christ's work on the cross was to
save everyone, but to make atonement for all sin. Now, Christ's work cannot be a failure, and if He did not accomplish exactly what He intended, then it was, in fact, a failure. Therefore, it is wrong for the Arminian to say that Christ's death was sufficient for all, because that neglects the basic truth that some whom Christ wanted to save were not saved. He failed in these cases.
However, if we say that Christ's plan was to atone for all sin, then Christ's death was not a failure. It did exactly as He intended! In short, the Calvinist is right against the Arminian that Christ's work cannot be a failure in any way at all. There can be no ineffectual sacrifice without there also being a failure!
Now, if the atonement is universal, then what of the elect? I hold to a form of unconditional that would be rejected by both the Calvinist and the Arminian. I have already laid out a good bit of my views in
the thread on predestination. Therefore, I'll keep my remarks brief here.
I hold that election is of individuals. Corporate election is something of a copout. However, it is also obvious that “the elect” refers to a group. We know that God chose the elect in accordance with His foreknowledge, as is often pointed out, and as Puritan noted is proved by 1 Pet. 1:2. It is unfruitful to discuss, at this point, what “in accordance with His foreknowledge” means, because then we just start citing stock arguments. Besides, I reject both the Calvinist and Arminian ideas, anyway, so the arguments would profit little!
For me, the most important passage on election is Eph. 1:4, which says, “as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.” This passage, along with Romans 11:5 and Romans 16:3, are the only passages that tell us HOW God elects. Every other passage that mentions election simply says that God does it, or it talks about the Elect. But this passage says that we are chosen “in Christ.”
Now, it is obvious that all those Elect refers only to the saved (2 Thess. 2:13). Therefore, all those who are “in Him” are “the Elect.” However, if this is true, we cannot say that a person was ever “elected to be in Christ,” because this would be the same as saying, that a person was “elected to be elect.” In fact, I challenge anyone to show me a single place in Scripture where we are said to be elected
to be in Christ. Again, we find we are elected in Christ.
What does that mean, “elected in Christ”? “In Christ” refers to location or position. If I said, “I was chosen in the house,” or “He was chosen in the field,” we would not think that I was chosen to be in the house or chosen to be in the field. The implication is that, while in the house, I was chosen, or while in the field, he was chosen. Thus, we see that God looks at those “in Christ” and He chooses them. Which ones does He choose? ALL of them!
If I may explain by way of analogy, imagine you want to get a game of some sort together. You tell everyone, “anyone who wants to play, come to the field.” A group of people show up, and you then begin to choose who will be on your team. You choose everyone. This well pictures God's decree of election. God invites all “to the field” (Matt. 22:14 [again, notice
many is from
polus], Luke 24:46-47, John 1:7, John 1:12), but only those who believe actually “come to the field” (that is, are reborn into Christ).
You see, the central assumption here is that to be “in Christ”, one must be chosen to be in Christ. And yet, such is never taught in Scripture. What we are taught is that to be “in Christ”, one must be born again, as per John 3 (c.f. 2 Cor. 5:17, Rom. 6:3, Eph. 2:10). This is, in the end, what it means to be “born again.” The first man is born “in Adam,” but the second man is born “in Christ.”
I say this doctrine is unconditional election because our election is conditioned on absolutely nothing! God chooses everyone in Christ. This is significantly different from the Arminian understanding that implies that, if you have faith, then God chooses you to be in Christ. It makes Rom. 8:29-30 refer to faith that God foreknew rather than people. But, again, we see that those who believe in Christ are born again in Christ, and that God looks at all those in Christ and chooses them for salvation.
The Calvinist, of course, disagrees. As I said in my previous discussion of the matter, he confuses predestination with election, making them precisely the same thing. In fact, it is of interest that in Puritan's thread, he thoroughly mixes the doctrines. Predestination, though, is distinct from election. God predestines the elect for certain things, namely, to adoption, to an inheritance, and to glorification. For the Calvinist, there can be no such distinction, and thus, the doctrine is both wrong and heretical.
This naturally leads to the third point I want to bring up, which relates to the Calvinist understanding of Total Depravity. It is objected that mankind cannot choose to believe in God, and therefore, a man must be chosen to believe. We see, then, that the doctrines of election and predestination are not actually Scriptural so much as they are logical outflows of a certain understanding of Depravity. I reject this claim, as would, of course, every Arminian. However, I also reject the claim by Arminians that men can come to God on their own. It is true that no one can come to the Father except through Jesus (John 14:6), but it is also true that no one can come to Jesus unless he is drawn to Him (John 6:44). It is ludicrous to think that fallen man will seek God of his own accord, and in fact, the Bible expressly states otherwise in Romans 3:11, for “no one seeks God.” Is this then proof that God must choose who will believe in Him? This is hardly the case. It simply means that fallen man, left to himself, seeks only evil. This was beautifully demonstrated between the time of Adam and Noah. Man's propensity to fall away from God is shown clearly through Israel. But this is why God issues to call to all. All men are drawn, so much as they hear the Gospel (Rom. 10:1). In fact, to prove the Calvinist wrong in his assertion that no one seeks God in the absolute sense, we can bring up Cornelius' story in Acts 10:1-8. Here is an unregenerate man who “feared God.” He was seeking the truth! So if Cornelius was genuinely seeking God, what does this say about the passage at hand? It simply means that man, left to himself, does not seek God.
Now, it is charged that unregenerate man is dead in his sins based on Eph. 2:1. It is then asserted that, just as a dead man cannot respond, neither can the man dead in sins respond to Christ's calling. Therefore, regeneration must precede the response. Those whom God elects He regenerates, and they come then to belief (thus, irresistible grace).
This position is easily discounted. It is simply incorrect to say that a dead man cannot respond. First, the word dead does NOT mean “inability.” This is an assumption drawn from an argument by analogy. A physically dead man is unable to respond, so therefore, a spiritually dead man must be unable to respond. However, in Eph. 2:1, Paul is not making an argument by analogy. He is stating a categorical fact. In truth, the word “dead” means “separated from.” In physical death, we find the body separated from physical life. In spiritual death, we find a man separated from God. There is no inability implied here except that which the reader chooses read into it. We can, in fact, demonstrate that a dead man responds in many ways. To quote a friend of mine:
Justin Kirksey wrote:If one tries to speak or communicate with a corpse, they will not respond because they are incapable. If one asks the corpse if it would like to be resurrected, it would not be able to respond. The question then becomes, is this analogous to spiritual death? Is the spirit dead in the same way the body is? If it is then your belief about inability would certainly be correct, because the spirit would be powerless to respond to an invitation from God, and would in fact need to be resurrected first in order to respond. I would respond that from the facts we know about the dead human spirit, spiritual death is NOT analogous to physical death. Let's examine the facts.
1. While the physically dead body is inanimate and incapable of action, the dead spirit is capable of action. The spiritually dead commit sin, reject God, and go astray, etc…
2. While the physically dead body is unresponsive to stimuli, the spiritually dead body is not. We note that the spiritually dead will experience torment of hell and even experience joy in their sins for a season.
With these two observations we see that spiritual death does not result in inanimation or in unresponsiveness.
If the spiritually dead person is responsive, then there is no reason to assume that he is incapable of responding to the gospel. In fact, I submit that no where in Scripture do we find the doctrine that regeneration precedes faith, but in fact, just the opposite! Titus 3:5 says, “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.” (NASB) God saves us by regeneration, but we are told in Eph. 2:8-10 that we are saved by grace, and that grace comes through faith. Therefore, it must be that regeneration comes through faith. Even if you assume that the “gift” in Eph 2 is both grace and faith, it still must follow that regeneration is through faith. Now, you can say that God gives us the faith, and through that faith, God applies the grace of regeneration, but you STILL cannot say that God regenerates us so that we might believe. That is simply contrary to Scripture. And I reject that position, anyway, because it more probable—the plain meaning of the text—that the “gift” is grace, not both grace and faith. In the end, we are told that whoever receives Christ, they become sons of God (John 1:12). This is written in the gospel of John, which is directed to unbelievers (John 20:30-31). The plain meaning is that reception of Christ, through faith, results in the reception of the gift of grace, that is, regeneration, justification, adoption, etc.
I would like to conclude my remarks by asking the question, “What gets a person to heaven or condemns a person to hell?” Bearing in mind that I believe that all sin is atoned for, that the elect will be saved, that God elects those in Christ, and to be in Christ one must believe to be born again, it should follow that it is belief alone that results in salvation. This is in line with two major scriptures that simply cannot be reconciled with the Calvinism. First we have the classic John 3:16. God demonstrated His love for the world (all people, including the non-elect) by giving His Son, that
whoever believes will live. A Calvinist must read this to say that God demonstrated His love for the elect by sending His Son for them that when He chooses them they may believe in Him and live. That is simply contrary to what the text says.
The next text is Rev. 20:11-15. As the ESV renders it:
- Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire
Notice that a person's sins are never mentioned in this passage. What is a man condemned for? Is it his sin? By God, I say no. A person is condemned for not being found in the Book of Life. This means that he is dead in his sins. You see, he is not condemned for his sins, but for his death—that is, for his lack of life. Atonement does not mean the granting of life. It means that the wrath against sin is removed. To say it means any more is to go beyond the text! But we are given life when we are born again, which happens when we believe in Christ. It is then that we overcome the world, and our names are not blotted from the Book of Life.
You see, Calvinism teaches that God arbitrarily chooses some for salvation and others for damnation. It teaches that man has no choice in the matter except to choose what God has chosen for him. Calvinism denies that salvation is by faith alone, for it teaches that salvation comes by asking for, and receiving, forgiveness for sins. Perseverance must follow, and where there is no perseverance, there is no salvation. Calvinism slanders God, for it attributes to Him the awful sin of man's rejection, and it denies His truly free gift of grace to all who believe. The Calvinist must teach a salvation of repentance, or good works, because you have been chosen to be saved. Therefore, that salvation is evidenced by the good works for which you were created, as per Eph. 2:10. Thus, it is not belief alone that is the basis for salvation, but it is the belief in a personal election. In Calvinism, I know I am saved because my works prove it. I know I am saved because I love the brethren. As Spurgeon said, Calvinism, for the Calvinist anyway, is the Gospel. However, the Gospel it teaches is far from the Gospel I have presented in this post. The Gospel I have presented is that all sin has been paid for, and that to live, one must only believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. If one does this, he is born into Christ, and God chooses Him for salvation.
Is Calvinism a heresy? Yes. It is a doctrine that will send millions to hell, just as indulgences did in the Middle Ages.
I can demonstrate this final claim in this way: what happens to a person who trusts Christ alone to save hi, just because He said He would, totally apart from commitment to His Lordship, apart from repentance, and apart from the genuineness of faith? If the answer is that he is not saved, then you have denied the Gospel, and what you are proclaiming is a false gospel. We should consider our teachings carefully, as per Gal. 1:8-9 and James 3:1.
God bless
edit: I went back and edited the post to include the Calvinist reasoning behind Universal Atonement. I had forgotten about it
