Against Limited Atonement

Why Jesus Died For Everyone

Introduction

    I am writing this as my discourse to Calvinist readers.  I have been in situations where being a member of church staff was limited to those who believed in all points of Calvinism.  It's unfortunate that we live in such an era.  Indeed, the Bible doesn't make this an argument for or against an elder or deacon in 1 Timothy 3, so why churches make this a big deal is confusing to me.  But here we are, so I'm writing my defense.

Limited Atonement is not Scriptural

    The passages often cited about Jesus dying for the elect are correct, but they do not say "only for" the elect.  This is something that is often inserted into the passages.  And it's sort of odd that most Calvinists don't realize they're doing it even as they are saying it.

     For example, John 3:16 God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that whoever believes in Him, etc.  It doesn't say God so loved just the elect.  And this sets up an argument: if God loved the world so much that He gave His only Son, apparently He doesn't love all the world, just the parts of the world that He died for, i.e. the elect.  It sets up the argument that God is hypocrite because He claims to love the world but then only died for the elect.

    Romans 1:32 says God has mercy on the disobedient.

    John 1:29 says God takes away the sins of the world.

    1 John 2:2 says Jesus died for the whole world.

    The problem is that sure, the passages that say "for the elect" are correct.  But they are included in "all."  For instance, John 10:15 says Jesus lays His life down for the sheep, but does not say "only" for His sheep.

    Revelation 5:9 says Jesus' blood redeemed people from every tribe and language and people and nation, but does not say "only the elect of every tribe and language...."

    John 10:11 doesn't say "the good shepherd lays down His life only for the sheep.

    God through Paul doesn't say in Acts 20:28 that God obtained only the church of God with His own blood.  Indeed, all who are saved are automatically part of the church.

    Ephesians 5:25 says God gave Himself up for her (the church) but not "only" for her.

    Galatians 3:13 says "Christ redeemed us ... by becoming a curse for us", not only us.

Universal Atonement is not Universalism

    Universalism says everyone will go to heaven.  Universal atonement just says Jesus died for all (which is scriptural).  Indeed, "four point" Calvinism was invented for those who don't hold limited atonement.  Universal atonement does not say all will go to heaven, nor that all will be saved.  It simply means salvation is freely available to all who will call on God, but it acknowledges that not all will do so.

    The type of Christ as bronze serpent (Numbers 21) says that everyone who looked on the serpent (doesn't say just Israelites) would be healed.  And Jesus clearly made reference to that in John 3:14, that He was the fulfillment of the bronze serpent type.

Limited Atonement Breaks Some Scriptures

    For instance, we don't see Paul or Peter preaching the Word to just the elect.  Neither did Jesus: "repent" (and no limit).  No one said, "and you will be saved if you are elect."  Even in Revelation 22:17 we see "Let the one who is thirsty come" etc.  How do we justify this if we over-emphasize this with other Scriptures?

It Breaks Original Intent

    We can see in the creation of Adam and Eve that it was God's intent to have a relationship with mankind, His creation.  They spent time with God and worked in the garden He planted.  If we are to use this argument against same sex marriage (i.e. Adam and Eve), how can we then not also use this example to point out that God wants all people to come to Him?

Positive Arguments to Universal Atonement

    Isaiah 45:22 says "Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth..." not "Turn to Me and be saved, elect from the ends of the earth."

    Isaiah 55:6 urges everyone hearing Isaiah to seek the Lord, not just the elect.

    Ezekiel 33:11 says that God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked repent and live.  It doesn't say "I take pleasure in the death of the wicked who are not elect."

    Matthew 11:28 says "come to Me, all of you who are weary and burdened," not "come to Me, all the elect who are weary and burdened."

    The first argument would from a Calvinist would be "well, God only gives faith to those who are elect."  And it is possible for God to give them faith, this is true.  But then if God always dispenses faith (i.e. the argument that even our faith is God's work in us) then why does God then tell us to have faith repeatedly in Scripture?  Why did Jesus chide the disciples for not having faith?  How can you chide someone for not doing something they were incapable of doing and something you did not provide them with the necessary elements to do?

Negative Arguments against Limited Atonement

    In Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology we see on page 2084 that Grudem is Calvinist and believes that there is a special call of the Holy Spirit to only the elect.  He uses some scriptures, however, that give me pause.  For example:

    Luke 14:23 "Go into the highways and hedges and compel them to come in...."  This verse actually sounds more like an argument against limited atonement, as God is saying be indiscriminate and go get them.  He doesn't say "only go get those who were called" but a general command to go compel everyone that can be found.

    Romans 1:7 is cited, "called to be saints."  Sure, with the priesthood of the believer, all are "saints."  But doesn't God call all?  It doesn't make any statement that could disprove general atonement.

    Romans 8:30 "those He foreknew, he also called ... he also justified," etc.  If God called all, that doesn't break this verse, for God foreknew some, and these were also called.

    Romans 11:29 "but to those who are called ... Christ the power of God."  Sure, only the saved would believe this.  But this by itself does not prove limited atonement.

    1 Corinthians 1:26 "not many wise ... mighty ... noble are called."  This doesn't break with general atonement: are many people mighty, wise, or noble in God's eyes?  Nope.

    Philippians 3:14 "I pursue as my goal the prize promised by God's heavenly call in Christ Jesus."  Paul is talking about himself.  And if God calls all in Jesus Christ (reconciling the world, 2 Cor. 5:19), this verse doesn't prove limited atonement.

    1 Thessalonians 2:12, "we ... implored each one of you to walk worthy of God who calls you into His own kingdom and glory."  This doesn't prove anything, and if anything it may actually prove that limited atonement doesn't work because God through Paul is urging people to walk worthy of their calling in God.

    2 Thessalonians 2:14 "He called you to this [sanctification] through our gospel so that you might obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ."  Romans 10:18 says the gospel went out to the ends of the world.  This doesn't prove limited atonement.

    2 Timothy 1:9 "He ... called us with a holy calling ... according to His own purpose and grace ... before time began."  That's very easy to explain.  If God's calling was since creation, due to the archetype of Adam and Even and God wanting to spend time with mankind, then it really was before time began.

    Hebrews 3:1 "holy brothers and companions in a heavenly calling...."  All who are saved partake in God's general call upon all mankind.

    2 Peter 1:10 "Therefore ... make every effort to confirm your calling and election...."  If it was irresistible grace and limited atonement, you wouldn't need to make any effort to confirm your calling or your election.  If you are saved, you were/are elect.  If you are saved, you were called, just like all of mankind.

    Wayne Grudem denies that God's general call can be sincere because of the inability of the sinner to obey.  I disagree.  God has the ability to call people whom He knows will never accept, because He knows the future.  However, this could not erase the verses that say Jesus died for the whole world.  If Jesus died for the whole world, all are called in the general sense.  Indeed, Grudem says there can be no insincerity in offering salvation to all (p. 2085), and I agree here.  Mankind cannot obey due to moral inability, not physical inability.  We are incapable of saving ourselves.  However, I also point out that it is by God's grace through faith.

    My conclusion about the level of Scriptural proof for both sides of the general vs limited atonement is that they are both equally plausible.

Arguments about Leadership

    The Bible does not say anything about elders or deacons (in 1 Timothy 3) needing to believe Calvinism.  And indeed, believe or nonbelief in Calvinism doesn't change anything about the necessary doctrine of salvation.  The Calvinist and non-Calvinist both witness to the lost.  The Calvinist and non-Calvinist both believe that salvation is by grace through faith (not works).  Both would take the same sinner through the same "Romans road" passages and tell them the same gospel message.

Arguments from the Nature of God

    Often it is implied by some Calvinists that God is a sort of "sky bully" that (using the Santa analogy) a naughty list (those damned to hell who can do nothing to change their fate) and a nice list (the elect).  But this is in conflict with 2 Peter 3:8-10.  It says God is not willing (decreeing) that any should perish.  So to explain election and salvation in ways that make God out to have a naughty list conflicts.

    I believe the nature of God is that God has a calling list, i.e. list of all human beings who ever existed or will exist.  Matthew 22:14 says many are invited but few are chosen.  I believe all are called.  The Holy Spirit convicts all mankind of sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:8).  God is standing, waiting for us to accept Him.  But not all will.  And this will demonstrate the love of God in that those who go to hell will have rejected God multiple times, for God is just. 

    I believe God has a "nice list," i.e. the elect that will be saved no matter what.  This is congruent with Scripture.  It is not the theology of election that I dispute.  Here are three facts that must coexist:

    God knows the future.  This much is certain.  The many prophecies He had people write down all came true.

    God also gave us free will.  We see this early even in Genesis 2 where God sees what Adam will name the animals.  You can't do that without free will.  So this is a given.

    The solution is that God is somehow sovereign enough to both allow us to have free will while also controlling situations as much as is needed in order to produce His will on earth.

    Indeed, the "little spiritual children" analogy is best.  To God, we are likely like little spiritual children.  We don't know what He knows.  We can't see everything.  We are limited in power.  So God wants to let us have free will but also wants to make sure we don't get into trouble.

    Grudem makes the point that 1 Timothy 2:4 is in passive, "would have all men to be saved," and says that this is part of a difference between God's revealed will and His secret will.  My problem with that explanation is that the verses on the existence of the elect, and this revealed in Scripture, means that this is not a secret will.  This argument is refuted.