“Limited” or “Unlimited”?

It’s a restless hungry feeling

That don’t mean no one no good

When ev’rything I’m a-sayin’

You can say it just as good

You’re right from your side

I’m right from mine

We’re both just one too many mornings

An’ a thousand miles behind – Bob Dylan: “One Too Many Mornings” (1964)

I admit this is a questionable way to begin this blog, but these lyrics have been running through my mind since Pastor Matt announced to the congregation a couple of weeks ago that he had asked me to write an opposition to his positive position on Calvinism. Counter to Dylan’s lyrics, I pray that this restless hungry feeling of mine as I begin this will do everyone good. Consider what a magnanimous gesture on Matt’s part his invitation is. For a Pastor to welcome another teacher – even one as close as I am blessed to be to Matt –is in my long experience unprecedented. My admiration and love for my longtime former student continue to increase.

“Hungry” because I’m always hungry to learn more about God through His Word, and “restless” because I am admittedly concerned that the tone I set in this study will be closely aligned to what Matt had in mind when he broached the idea to me. The last thing I would want is for something I say to be interpreted as even subtly unfair to Matt’s position. At the same time, I intend to build the strongest argument I can in the fewest words I can. Knowing Matt as well I do, I know he would not want it any other way.

Matt and I agree on almost everything biblical. We do not, however, agree on Calvinism. I wish I could present the other side of limited atonement without denigrating Calvinism, but that is not possible. In order to be honest and maintain my own integrity as a teacher of God’s Word, I must confess my respectful difference of opinion in this blog. Matt, as you surely have noted from his sermons, is a strong proponent of Calvinism and the Calvinistic construct of T.U.L.I.P. Again respectfully, I am not. Probably, I am what most would term a “4-point Calvinist,” indicating belief in four of the five letters, all but the “L” (for Limited Atonement). But I also have a problem with the “I,” so I might at best be described as a “3” or “3½ -point Calvinist.” In the context of this discussion I would simply say I am “Calvinistic,” but not a Calvinist.  I do believe in the “T” and the “U” and the “P,” although if I were explaining these points, I would not use the same wordage as Calvinists.

In my seminary classes, of which Pastors Matt and Paul have taken no less than five years’ worth, while I argue strongly for my studied views on theology, never do I insist upon agreement on all points by my students. I believe strongly that neither Pastors Matt and Paul nor myself – outside of the absolutes of the Christian faith, e.g., salvation by grace, Jesus Christ is Lord, etc. – are intractable in our beliefs. I think both would agree with me when I say, as I often do in my classes, that if you show me in Scripture where I am wrong, I will thank you and I will immediately change.

This friendly debate is certainly timely to our current study in 1 John. I think it is accurate to say that the writings of the apostle John are the foremost arena for the argument over Christ’s atonement, most prominently John 10 and 1 John 2. It is the apostle John also who most prominently uses the key word “world” (see below).

Some might surely be forgiven for asking, “Does it really matter: limited or unlimited? Either way you’re saved, right?” The answer is yes. I would suggest every Christian should be as knowledgeable as possible of Christ’s atonement. However, I doubt if anyone, no matter which side of the debate one decides to identify with, would argue that this question determines one’s salvation.

This is a sprawling, irresolvable debate: You’re right from your side/I’m right from mine/We’re both just one too many mornings An’ a thousand miles behind. This is the longest blog I have written to the church to date, but even ten such blogs would not cover all the material the question of limited or unlimited atonement entails. And yet I feel that this abbreviated discussion gets the major points across and enables each person to make his or her own judgment. I understand Pastor Brett will be teaching on this important subject in his class this week. Again, Pastor Matt deserves credit for encouraging us all to diligently study the Scripture.

I confess that sometimes I myself am simply turned off by this debate. In my opinion, there is much unfairness and lack of Christian civility on both sides. For example, Arminianism (see below), in my opinion is particularly frequently and unfairly maligned. For example, believing in unlimited atonement, as most Arminians do, does not have to imply, as it is often charged by most Calvinists, that you believe in universal salvation, the heretical doctrine that the atonement of Jesus Christ insures everyone, regardless of belief in Christ and Christian lifestyle, of eternal salvation. To say that Christ died for all the sins of mankind, as the New Testament Scriptures explicitly say (e.g., 1 John 2:2) does not have to mean that you are saying all mankind will be saved. The prevailing wisdom is if you are not a Calvinist then you are an Arminian. I want to make it quite clear that I reject that strongly. Likewise, rejecting limited atonement does not mean my belief in grace alone, Scripture alone, and Christ alone is diminished at all. These facts, I have found, are rarely mentioned in this debate.

I am not a 5-point Calvinist. Neither am I an Arminian, as the term is commonly defined. I would characterize myself as Bible-believing Christian who ceaselessly studies Scripture and tries hard to accept what my studies lead me to believe the Bible is teaching. In other words, let my theology come out of Scripture (i.e., exegesis), as opposed to impose (consciously or unconsciously) a theological position upon Scripture.  That is what I have tried to do here. Let me begin.

The debate between those who believe in limited atonement and those who believe in unlimited atonement should be carefully particularized before proceeding. This excerpt from an internet article (of which there are many) gives a concise and reasonable account of the two sides:

One of the most potentially divisive doctrinal debates in the history of the church centers around the opposing doctrines of salvation known as Calvinism and Arminianism. Calvinism is based on the theological beliefs and teaching of John Calvin (1509-1564), a leader in the Reformation, and Arminianism is based on the views of Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609). After studying under John Calvin’s son-in-law in Geneva, Jacobus Arminius started out as a strict Calvinist. Later, as a pastor in Amsterdam and professor at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, Arminius’ studies in the book of Romans led to doubts and rejection of many Calvinistic doctrines. In summary, Calvinism centers on the supreme sovereignty of God, predestination, the total depravity of man, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints. Arminianism emphasizes conditional election based on God’s foreknowledge, man’s free will through prevenient grace to cooperate with God in salvation, Christ’s universal atonement, resistible grace, and salvation that can potentially be lost.

I must pause to again make some important distinctions between these general descriptions of Arminianism and what I personally believe. I hope you are getting a sense of the complexity of this theological debate and the fundamental need to carefully define the many terms involved. To question Calvinism as I am doing, immediately characterizes me in most Calvinists’ minds as an Arminian. This, as I said above, is not true. What is true is that I reject perhaps 40% of the Calvinist theological construct of T.U.L.I.P. and around 50% of Arminian theology. Respectfully to both sides of the debate, I do not see where it must follow that rejecting part means rejecting the entire teaching.

Another qualification I feel I should make has to do with the terms “theological” and “exegetical.” Both words are important basic terms every Christian should know, especially the first. Theology is simply defined as the study or knowledge of God. Everyone, believer or not, has a theology; theology is what you know and think about God. I am, however, using the word in its secondary meaning in this blog to refer to a religious theory, a school of thought, or system of belief. Exegesis, the lesser known of the two words, is an explanation or interpretation of a specific text, in this case a biblical text, which involves the original languages. I think it is fair to say that theology is the more general; exegesis the more specific. Ideally, both disciplines should be observed by teachers and preachers. Pastors Matt and Paul have been thoroughly trained in both.

Maybe the easiest way to understand these differing doctrinal views is to compare the two positions side by side in a chart. I hope the following will be of benefit to you:

Calvinism & Arminianism Compared
God’s Sovereignty Calvinism – God’s sovereignty is unconditional, unlimited, and absolute. All things are predetermined by the good pleasure of God’s will. God foreknew because of his own planning. Arminianism – God has limited his control in correspondence with man’s freedom and response.

God’s decrees are associated with his foreknowledge of man’s response.
Man’s Depravity Calvinism – Because of the Fall, man is totally depraved and dead in

his sin. Man is unable to save himself and, therefore,

 Arminianism – Because of the Fall, man has inherited a corrupted, depraved nature. Through “prevenient grace,” God removed
God must initiate salvation. the guilt of Adam’s sin. Prevenient grace is defined as the preparatory work of the Holy Spirit, given to all, enabling a person to respond to God’s call of salvation.
Election Calvinism – Before the foundation of the world, God unconditionally chose some to be saved. Election has nothing to do with man’s future response. Arminianism – Election is based on God’s foreknowledge of those who would believe in him through faith. In other words, God elected those who would choose him of their own free will.

Conditional election is based on man’s response.
Christ’s Atonement Calvinism – Jesus Christ died to save only

those who were given to him (elected) by the Father in eternity past. Since Christ did not die for everyone, but only for the elect, his atonement is wholly successful.

 Arminianism – Christ died for everyone. The Savior’s atoning death provided the means of salvation for the entire human race. Christ’s atonement, however, is effective only for those who believe.
Grace Calvinism – While God extends his common grace to all mankind, it is not sufficient to save anyone. Only God’s irresistible grace can draw the elect to salvation and make a person willing to respond. This grace cannot be obstructed or resisted. Arminianism – Through the preparatory (prevenient) grace given to all by

the Holy Spirit, man is able to cooperate with God and respond in faith to salvation. Through prevenient grace, God removed the effects

of Adam’s sin. Because of “free will” men are also able to resist God’s grace.
Man’s Will Calvinism – All men are totally depraved, and this depravity extends to the entire person, including the will. Except for God’s irresistible grace, men are entirely incapable of responding to God on their own. Arminianism – Because prevenient grace is given to all men by the Holy Spirit, and this grace extends to the entire person, all people have free will.
Perseverance Calvinism – Believers will persevere in salvation because God will see to it that none will be lost.

Believers are secure in the faith because God will finish the work he began.

 Arminianism – By the exercise of free will, believers can turn away or fall away from grace and lose their salvation.

It’s important to note that all of the doctrinal points in both theological positions have a biblical foundation, which is why the debate has been so divisive throughout church history. Christian denominations disagree over which points are correct, rejecting all or some of either system of theology, leaving most believers with a mixed perspective. Because both Calvinism and Arminianism deal with concepts that go far beyond human comprehension, the debate is certain to continue as finite beings try to explain an infinitely mysterious God.

Simply stated, here is my view on Christ’s atonement:

                                    Universal Redemption or General Atonement

Christ’s redeeming work made it possible for everyone to be saved but did not actually secure the salvation of anyone. Although Christ died for all men and for every man, only those who believe on Him are saved. His death enabled God to pardon sinners on the condition that they believe, but it did not actually put away anyone’s sins. Christ’s redemption becomes effective only if man chooses to accept it.

And equally simply stated is the Calvinist’s interpretation, the view Pastor Matt generally prefers:

                                   Particular Redemption or Limited Atonement

Christ’s redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them. His death was a substitutionary endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of certain specified sinners. In addition to putting away the sins of His people, Christ’s redemption secured everything necessary for their salvation, including faith which unites them to Him. The gift of faith is infallibly applied by the Spirit to all for whom Christ died, therefore guaranteeing their salvation.

This comparison comes from John MacArthur’s website. Please understand that I love John MacArthur. In my blogs to the church I regularly quote from him. I think he is in every way a superb, Christ-honoring communicator of biblical truth. John MacArthur is a Calvinist. Here is an excerpt from his The MacArthur New Testament Commentary on 1 John 2:2:

The apostle’s words “and not ours only, but also for those of the whole world” have been understood by many to refer to an unlimited atonement, by which Christ provides a potential salvation for all people without exception. Logically, such an interpretation strips the work of Christ on the cross of any actual atonement for anyone specifically, and it provides only a potential satisfaction for God’s wrath. To be faithful to the truth revealed in Scripture, “the whole world” must be comprehended as a generic expression that refers to humanity throughout the earth, but not necessarily to every individual. “World” simply identifies the earthly realm of mankind to which God directed His reconciling love and provided propitiation (cf. John 1:29; 3:16; 6:51; 1 Timothy 2:5-6; Titus 2:11; Hebrews 2:9). The language of Scripture is strong and clear, stating that Christ’s death actually satisfies fully and eternally the demands of God’s wrath for those who believe (John 10:11, 15; 17:9, 20; Acts 20:28; Romans 8:32, 37; Ephesians 5:25). Though the Savior’s death intrinsically had infinite value, it was designed to actually (not potentially) secure the satisfaction for divine justice only on behalf of those who would believe.

With all respect due this fine man of God, I would like to humbly and at the same time confidently take issue with his commentary, centering on the writings of the apostle John and in particular 1 John 2:2 and John 3:16. These two verses, both sides of the argument would agree, directly deal with the heart of the matter. As I said previously, the subject of Christ’s atonement is an extensive subject covering a wide array of theological topics and related subtopics. Be that as it may, I believe I can concisely present the essence of my argument against the standard Calvinistic position by arguing but a few comments MacArthur has made. Initially, however, in an attempt to demonstrate that most conservative commentaries do not share MacArthur’s teaching as given above, I submit these excerpts from several of these commentaries (a commentary is a book in which qualified men– and some women [e.g., Karen Jobes] – make comments on a biblical book in order to help the reader to interpret it properly):

The key word “world” in the New Testament is predominantly the Greek word κόσμος (kos-mos). The apostle John uses κόσμος more than any writer in the New Testament. Of the 247 times the word is found in the New Testament, 89 are found in John (67) and 1 John (22) [figures taken from BibleWorks]. Overwhelmingly, John uses κόσμος to describe the created universe and human society. In spite of the insistence of Calvinists, not one of these usages can be exegetically proven to refer solely to the world of believers. Note this supporting paragraph from the esteemed Word Biblical Commentary on 1 John 2:15:

The term κόσμος (used here for the second time in 1 John; see 2:2) appears in the letters and Gospel of John with two basic meanings: [1] the created universe, or life on earth (cf. 3:17; 4:17; also John 1:10); and [2] human society, temporarily controlled by the power of evil, organized in opposition to God (cf. 5:19; 4:3-5, also John 16:11). It is the latter meaning which κόσμος carries in this verse and in vv. 16-17 (where the word occurs six times in all).

I believe it is noteworthy that the first use of κόσμος (1 John 2:2) and the second use (1 John 2:15) both occur in the same chapter, only 13 verses apart. With this reality in mind, it is hard to see a difference in meaning. I respectfully suggest this fact points to at least the possibility that the Calvinist position on v. 2 is derived more through theological assumption rather than exegetical reasoning.

Word Biblical Commentary adds another pertinent note: “There is, moreover, no conflict between the injunction here, “do not love the world,” and the statement in John 3:16 that God ‘loved the world.’ For even if the world of men has rejected God, that world remains the object of God’s love and salvific activity (cf. 2:2; 4:9, 14); and victory over the world’s opposition is in the end assured (2:17; cf. John 16:33).

The NICNT Commentary gives further reason to question MacArthur’s confidence in 1 John 2:2 with this comment: “With one of his typical afterthoughts John adds that the efficacy of this sacrifice is not confined to the sins of his particular group of readers. It reaches out to all mankind. The universal provision implies that all men have need of it.”

In light of all I have included in this blog thus far about and by John MacArthur and his loyalty to 5- point Calvinism, you may find it incredulous to read what I include next. Returning to John’s use of κόσμος (“world”) in John 3:16, here is MacArthur’s commentary; it is astonishing to see how it mirrors not the standard limited but the traditional unlimited atonement doctrine: “The point of Jesus’ coming was not to redeem Israel and condemn the Gentiles, ‘but that the world might be saved through Him.’ God’s gracious offer of salvation extended beyond Israel to all mankind.… Although God graciously has offered salvation through the work of Christ, that salvation is not appropriated except by penitent faith.” That certainly does not sound as if it was written by a prominent Calvinist.

At the seminary, I have been teaching the gospel of John now for 9 consecutive years, one to two chapters a year, and out of the more than 25 commentaries I own on John, the one I have found the most consistently thorough and accurate is the Baker Exegetical Commentary by Andreas J. Kostenberger (there are a number of excellent commentaries on John but in my view Craig S. Keener and D.A.  Carson would be close seconds). Here is Kostenberger’s take on John 3:16:

The phrase “everyone who believes” strikes a markedly universal note. Although looking at the bronze serpent in the wilderness restored life to the believing Israelites, there are no such ethnic restrictions on believing in Jesus. Everyone who believes will, “in Him” (Jesus) receive eternal life. God sent Jesus to save not just Israel, but the entire world (3:17). Its insistence on the universality of the of the Christian message marks John’s Gospel off from sects such as the Qumran community or the large number of mystery religions, all of which saw salvation limited to a select few. At the same time, however, John’s Gospel does not teach universalism.

Without comparing either Pastor Matt or myself to either MacArthur or Kostenberger, I cannot resist pointing out here that this is a clear example of how two highly capable and reliable Christian teachers of the Bible can be in disagreement over a passage.

Further supporting the view I am advocating (there’s a pun there) is Keener’s commentary. I would suggest his comments on 3:16 also apply in great part to chapters 10 and 17, perhaps the two chapters most strongly defended as proof of the legitimacy of particular or limited atonement by Calvinists:

Some streams of Jewish tradition do point out that God loves all humanity He created. Other text, however, indicate that, in the absolute sense, God loves no one except the one who abides with wisdom, or that Israel was the sole object of His love in the world. Most texts simply do not address God’s love for the disobedient. John, however, emphasizes not only God’s special love for the chosen community (e.g., 17:23), but for the world (cf. 1 John 2:2; 1 Tim 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9). The “world” in the Fourth Gospel is sometimes identical with “the Jews” (15:18-16:2), but refers to the Samaritans in the following narrative section (4:42). Jesus is a “light to the world” (8:12) may be Isaiah’s “light to the nations” (Isa 42:6; 49:6; cf. 60:3), so in Johannine theology God’s love for the “world” represents His love for all humanity.

Personal observation: It has always struck me that, all things considered, of the two positions limited or particular atonement does not present God as loving as universal atonement does. Does not “limited” imply some kind of limitation to His love, whereas universal does not? Just saying…

Carson, too, supports this universal approach. But unless I missed something in my research, he alone makes this point, which I consider especially significant concerning κόσμος:

All believers have been chosen out of the world (15:19); they are not something other than ‘world’ when the gospel first comes to them. They would not have become true believers apart from the love of God for the world. Even after the circle of believers is formed and the resurrection has taken place, these Christians are mandated to continue their witness, aided by the Spirit, in hopes of winning others from the world (15:26-27; 20:21). In other words, God maintains the same stance toward the world after the resurrection that He had before: He pronounces terrifying condemnation on the grounds of the world’s sin, while still loving the world so much that the gift He gave to the world, the gift of His Son, remains the world’s only hope.

Finally, I ask you to thoughtfully read the context. Read v. 16 and then read vv. 17-19. In MacArthur’s commentary on1 John 2:2 he used the term “logically”; does it seem logical or likely to you that John’s use of κόσμος in v. 16 would be different from his usage in the immediately following verses as Calvinists claim?

NAS John 3:16-19 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. 17 “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him. 18 “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 “And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil.

“World” without question means the whole world in vv. 17-19; it means the same in v.16.

Given the importance of κόσμος in this discussion, I think it is in order to include a detailed study of the word. BDAG (Bauer, Danker, Ardnt, and Gingrich), recognized by most all Greek scholars as the leading Greek lexicon today, defines κόσμος this way:

      1. that which serves to beautify through decoration, adornment, adorning
      1. condition of orderliness, orderly arrangement, order
      1. the sum total of everything here and now, the world, the (orderly) universe,
      1. the sum total of all beings above the level of the animals, the world,
    1. planet earth as a place of inhabitation, the world
        1. generally: e.g., the light of this world (the sun), In rhetorical exaggeration, Abraham as heir of the world
    1. the world as the habitation of humanity
    1. earth, world in contrast to heaven
    1. the world outside in contrast to one’s home
      1. humanity in general, the world
      1. of all humanity, but especially of believers, as the object of God’s love
      1. the system of human existence in its many aspects, the world
      1. the world, and everything that belongs to it, appears as that which is hostile to God, i.e. lost in sin, wholly at odds w. anything divine, ruined and depraved.
    1. collective aspect of an entity, totality, sum total

Obviously, this lexical information is indeterminate, because the word covers so wide a range of nuances. Still, I think you’ll agree it is necessary and good to see the complete semantical range of the word. But I would like to call your attention to 6. b. above and the words “of all humanity, but especially of believers, as the object of God’s love.” I think that is a central point in our argument. I believe that description is at the heart of the debate over the atonement. Please don’t let the relatively minor position of this description (7) to influence your thinking here. It is not the purpose of lexicons to give theological opinion. Any opinion that may be discerned is secondary to the lexical meaning of the word. Yet I must call to your attention that the first verse BDAG lists as an example of this particular connotation is John 3:16, probably the most widely known verse in the entire Bible, a verse Calvinists claim does not mean the world of people at large, but a verse I would respectfully contend makes a cogent argument against the Calvinist teaching. God does love believers especially, but He also loves the world. Christ’s atonement is for believers especially, but it also is for anyone in the world. With that proposed thought in mind, one final look at 1 John 2:2:

NAS 1 John 2:2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

Drawing upon 37 years of studying and teaching biblical Greek and Hebrew on a seminary level, as well as my personal studies in systematic theology, which inevitably result from this academic activity, this now is the main, most direct argument I offer against MacArthur’s interpretation of 1 John 2:2. While I recognize all may not agree, I suggest that if I can show but one of MacArthur’s claims to be suspect, that should be sufficient to call into question the Calvinistic teaching on limited atonement in specific and Calvinism itself in general. My main, most direct argument centers on a single word in the verse. I end with it.

I think the word “whole” is key to understanding the meaning of v. 2. I respectfully suggest this single adjective seriously undermines MacArthur’s comment. Adjectives describe nouns (and other adjectives); the adjective “whole” is describing “world.” Why if, as Calvinists say, “world” here refers not to the world as we know it but rather generically in a vague way that waters down the universality of the atonement and seeks then to suggest otherwise, that in not being a direct reference to the world of humanity, meaning every person, this verse may be interpreted in a limited way, accommodating limited atonement. Listen again to MacArthur’s actual words: “To be faithful to the truth revealed in Scripture, ‘the whole world’ must be comprehended as a generic expression that refers to humanity throughout the earth, but not necessarily every individual.” If that actually were the case, would it not make more sense to leave out “whole”? Think if you applied this logic to John 3:16! This unorthodox approach to interpretation cannot help but undermine the confidence of the individual. Yet this is precisely what Calvinism does. I think that is playing games with what the text clearly says. I believe “whole” means whole, and that includes every individual. This same universality here is also the meaning in John 3:16. This solid exegetical approach produces assurance in the believer.

When I was first saved some 37 years ago I immediately became a hard-charging Calvinist. I thought it was wonderful having a clear theological picture of my salvation and my relationship with God. I learned the Bible through the Calvinistic perspective, even though I was a member of a Southern Baptist church with a Pastor who was decidedly not a Calvinist. Neither was he entirely an Arminian. He was Arminianistic, particularly in his view of election, but he did not believe in universal salvation. Please understand this note about my background is not a subtle condescension to Pastor Matt, implying that just as I did, in time he will learn the error of his ways. I would never suggest such a thing.

What changed me? A simple question that was once asked me about limited atonement: “Where does it say that?” Where in the N.T. does it clearly say that Christ’s atonement was limited to believers only? Show me where in the Bible it says exactly Christ died only for the elect. I do not believe there is such a verse. But I can show you where it unequivocally – word literally – says He died for everyone: John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2. That is no small point. That to me is the determinative factor of the entire matter.

None of the passages that Calvinists point to as proofs of their limited atonement position (e.g., Matthew 1:21; John 6:37-40; 10:15, 26; Ephesians 5:25-27; 1 John 2:2; 4:10-11) actually says that Christ died only for the elect. The passages Calvinists claim to support limited atonement are beautiful passages that proclaim to special blessings believers receive by grace. Believers indeed are special to God, but nowhere does the Bible say that this preferential God bestows on the church comes at the exclusion of unbelievers. To the Calvinists’ claims, I ask as the questioner asked me, “Where does it say that?”

Calvinism, in my humble, studied opinion, is reducible to a theological construct that is imposed upon Scripture. I think it is well-intentioned. I think it is meant to be God-honoring, and I think it is a teaching that can be convincingly argued from the Bible. I think it is a theological system that perhaps better than any other calls valid attention to God’s incomparable sovereignty and unspeakable grace. But I think ultimately it must be seen as a theological theory that cannot be proven, and not an exegetical conclusion that can be.

The question that cannot be answered satisfactorily in my view and is therefore the major problem with the 5-points of Calvinism is “where in the Bible does it say that?” Some of the 5 points are more supported by Scripture than others, but, again in my opinion, the Calvinistic conclusions in their T.U.L.I.P are theological not exegetical. Norman Geisler, an outspoken opponent of Calvinism says it well:

There is a logical fallacy in arguing that (1) because Christ died for believers (2) He did not also die for unbelievers. Saying that Christ died for the elect in some passages doesn’t rule out or restrict the other Scriptures which assert that His death was for the world. Simply put, the use of restrictive terms does not exclude the universal aspects of Christ’s death. We may conclude that there is absolutely no logical or scriptural reason to believe or teach that Christ died only for certain ones who were chosen and who were arbitrarily predestined for eternal salvation.

“Jesus at Calvary made everyone savable. He didn’t give everyone eternal life. But by His death on the cross He made that possible for all who simply believe in Him.” –Robert Wilkin

In my humble opinion, the atoning death of Jesus Christ was designed by God to include all mankind, whether or not all believe. For those who believe, the blood of Christ is redemptively applied and eternal salvation is secured. For those who do not believe, Christ’s death provides the benefits of common grace and removes any excuse for saying no to God.

You’re right from your side I’m right from mine

We’re both just one too many mornings An’ a thousand miles behind

With Pastor Matt’s sermons on John ringing in your ears, and now with this study as additional information to digest, I believe you would probably agree that good, convincing cases can be made for both sides of the efficacy of Christ’s atonement. I think you can also see that neither side is good or convincing enough to conclusively settle the question.

NAS John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.

NAS John 1:4-9 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. 6 There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came for a witness, that he might bear witness of the light, that all might believe through him. 8  He was not the light, but came that he might bear witness of the light. 9  There was the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.

ESV John 9:5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”

Light is universal. It is unlimited.

– Professor Thomas A. Rohm

[Pastor Matt’s sermon referred to in this blog http://www.barabbas.com/messages/sin-surety-service/ ]