Sunday, June 22, 2014

The General

I found him in the Presidents’ Hall––a pathetic, sniffling heap. I was shocked. I had never seen this great man in a state of anything other than perfect composure. Yet there he was, sitting in the Founder’s Chair––a desperate, tactical move.

He hoped that we wouldn’t want to get it bloody.

How he had gotten past the guards was beyond me, since he had been stripped of all his credentials. He must have relied on the sheer aura of his personality and the tremendous reputation he held with his former position.

But none of that mattered now:

“Get off that chair.”

“No.”

Negotiations were concluded. His stubbornness surprised me: he of all people should have known that this chair was just one of many replicas we had stored in a back-closet; the real one was hidden away in a safe place. Maybe he was hoping I didn’t know. I moved closer. My SIG P229 usually served me well in these types of situations, but by chance some dignitaries were meeting in a nearby room and, well … I pulled out my mid-sized blade.

For all his faults, he took death like a man. I tried to kill him with one clean blow, but, like I said, it was a mid-sized blade and I ended up using more like three or four by the time I was done.

Deep breath––I would just have to get used to this kind of stuff. I caught the eye of the head of staff on my way out and nodded in the direction of the corpse. This room wasn’t open to the public for another two hours, and they were skilled––if they hurried they could get the blood off the carpet before it dried and replace the now cut-up chair. I headed to the shower. My three-piece suit would go into the incinerator––I had only been following orders, of course, but it was always good to be careful … you never knew when things like this could come back to bite you.

Such was politics.



“Done.”

It was not a question, it was a statement––one word, brimming with confidence that the order had been carried out to perfection; that all loose ends had been wrapped up.

“Yes sir.”

“Funny, I didn’t hear a shot.”

“Yes I used my blade. There were some ... gentlemen of note around, and I thought it best…”

“The body?”

That was a question. “It will be fixed up and given an honorable burial at his manor, sir.”

“Good, good. I do so hate to see these things happen, but my father…” His voice trailed off with just a touch of shakiness. Presently he regained his composure: “You know what this means, of course?”

“Yes sir, of course. How could I not?”
   
“Of course,” he smiled. “Your inauguration service will start tomorrow at nine. Prepare your speech––and please, make it a good one, will you? Rockson’s speech last week would have put a raging elephant on Red Bull to sleep, and you know I can’t be caught snoozing on live television.”

It was my turn to smile. So like his father––all passion, less tact. He would need someone like me to clean up after him and smooth over the rough edges and hurt feelings. It was sad, but true: politics was just as much about social etiquette as it was about actually leading a country.

He was the third of his kind––the Potentates, they were called, the great military kings who now ruled the country ever since we the people had elected to do away with the politically weak Presidents of the past. They say dictators spawn from the sea of crisis, and I suppose that might be as true of our country as any other. The First Potentate had done well for all that was on his plate, but toward the end of his life he began falling out of favor with the people as a rising political star from another party began to campaign––the father of the man now sitting across the desk from me. They had expected an ugly confrontation here in the capital, but then the First Potentate fell in the Battle of ’75, his security detail having been compromised. Some suspected (and still do suspect) foul play.

The Second Potentate (this man’s father) had been one of those rare leadership geniuses that only come along every couple centuries or so: Successfully navigating the civil war that erupted after the death of the First Potentate, he unified the states once again and brought peace and prosperity to the country. Surprisingly, he maintained control and kept his approval ratings at record highs throughout his entire life, only just recently having passed away of natural causes at the age of seventy.

And there is great promise in his son, now Third Potentate, having just recently won the national election over several political rivals by a landslide victory. I can only hope that, with him, if things continue as they have, we might once again become the world superpower that…

“Ben … Ben,” ... “I don’t think you’ve heard a word I’ve said. Are you sure you’re okay?”

“Hmmm? … yeah. Sorry … I was just…”

“Thinking.”

I nodded.

“Yes, you seem to have been doing a lot of that these days.”



General.

Yup, just General. Not Arch-General, not Head of National Defense or anything. Just General.

But that’s because General means something.

It means everything. As of that morning, I was head of the Army, the Navy, the Air-force … you name it; I was in command of it. It didn’t get any higher than where I was (well, except for the Potentate, of course. He still retained the title “Commander-in-Chief” from the days of the Presidents).

That reminded me, I needed to get back to him––he looked like he had wanted to say something right before I left. I refilled my glass and returned to the table.

I know, I know: “General” doesn’t sound that exciting––like a “Secret Service Agent” or “Espionage Intelligence Operator.” But trust me, I run into just as much drama and intrigue as those guys, and then some. Oh sure, we still have our CIA, FBI, Secret Service, and so forth, but they tend to work outside the country. For inside … uh, research, you might say, well … I’ve had more than my share of experience.

…As had my predecessor.

“You know, Ben, I must tell you I am quite impressed with how you’ve handled this somewhat awkward situation so far.” I set my drink down. My reception had run its course––the greetings had been made, the courses had been served, and the cabinet heads had given words of affirmation and departed. It was only me and the most powerful man in the country. We were by ourselves, and he looked like he wanted to talk.

Ah well. All in a day’s (or rather night’s) work. It was already eleven-thirty.

“It’s not every week you play hit-man one day, assassinate a man, then turn around the next day and play politician by giving a speech to the entire nation,” he continued. “You’ve done quite well.”

“All under your command sir,” I reminded him.

“Yes, yes, I know that. Still, I am impressed, and may I say ‘thank you’ for keeping your speech short and sweet? I drank four cups of coffee in preparation, just in case.”

I raised my eyebrows. He didn’t drink coffee.

“I’m not sure whether to be offended or not––no wonder you’re still wired, sir.” A pause. “So how has the public handled the news of our late General’s death?”

“Oh, you know, they raised some fuss, but that’s only to be expected. It’ll all smooth over.”

Right. Smooth over. I was sure of that. Just like everything else that had been smoothed over recently––his own brother’s execution, his marriage to a questionable celebrity from Egypt (of all places), and just this past week the impeachment and deportation of Senator Priest, long-time Speaker of the House––yet recently incriminated in the ADONI Scandal.

Yeah. It would all smooth over.

“Nickelson’s been advised of the changes he will be required to make, has he not?”

“Yes sir. They take effect tomorrow.”

“Good, good.” Another pause. “Have I told you about my new lumber contract in the Middle-East? The best quality imaginable. I expect it to bring almost instant benefits to our National Capita. By July, they should almost be paying us to take their lumber.”

Lumber? Why was he always talking about lumber? Seriously, for a statesman of his rank … Sigh.

“Yes sir, you did.”

He had a way of beating around the bush, working up towards speaking about a topic, but when he couldn’t make a smooth transition, sometimes he just jumped right in:

“Funny he should go the way he did.” He looked sideways at me. “What with all the times he’s given the axe to someone else.” He drummed his fingers on the table. “My father never would have said so, of course, but he was quite the hit man, you know.”

I knew. I probably knew more than he thought I did––being a politician, well … it was my job to know.

He tipped his chair back and rested his feet on the one long-vacated by his wife. “In many ways, I think Dad was actually a bit afraid of the old chap.”

I watched him closely for signs of emotion, since he was still a little raw after his father’s death, but none were apparent. Of course his dad had been afraid of the General, though! Who hadn’t? With a track record like his, any politician who’d been around Capitol Hill a few times knew better than to toy with him.

It felt odd to talk about the man whom only last night I had, well, murdered, I guess, if you want to be blunt, but I said nothing. One never knew what one might glean from another’s musings, and in this business, information was always valuable.

I could play dumb.

“You know he was my cousin, don’t you?”

 “Your cousin?”

 “Surprised?” His eyes lit up.

“Maybe just a little. He’s so much older than you––or me, for that matter. How?”

“Dad’s sister. She had him and two other boys. You’d recognize his brother––Gold Medalist at the Sedan Army Finals of ’98.”

“What, Mr. ‘Wild Gazelle’?!? Are you kidding me? That was his older brother?”

“Younger. He was taken out during the Civil War. Apparently separated himself from his squad after picking up a hot lead. After a while his boys started getting his signals, but by the time they found him, it was too late. There wasn’t much left of him.”

He leaned in.

“It was his speed that killed him. They say he actually tracked down Baron One’s personal Field Unit. He wanted to avoid radar detection, so he stepped out of his own AUV (stupid, I know) and started chasing their squad on foot, relying on his quickness to keep up. I guess he thought he’d get a bead on them and call in Air Support. Anyways, long-story-short, Baron One himself spotted him and blew him to pieces with a machine gun.”

“I’m sure the General was pretty cut up about that. As I recall, the bond between him and his brothers was very strong.” I paused just long enough for effect; then crinkled my eyebrows, making the connection. “Wasn’t … the, um, wasn’t the General involved in the Argon Settlement Treaty incident after the war where the Baron was unexpectedly killed?”

“More than you think. Dad was going to grant the Baron amnesty in spite of State Secretary Johnson and others’ warnings against it. I guess Dad felt the Baron was loyal and committed to the country, but would follow the leader that seemed to have the greatest right to the Potentatency until it was clear who was in power––much like many other faithful generals throughout history who have ended up fighting for the losing side. He saw no reason to punish the Baron’s loyalty to the old regime.

“Well the General felt otherwise, and he acted quickly––found the Baron alone one day, taking a break from the proceedings, and shot him point blank. Didn’t run, didn’t try to hide it, or anything, just killed him outright. Dad was furious, of course. Tried to get the General on all kinds of charges, but the General wasn’t stupid. He pulled out incriminating espionage papers from the Baron’s jacket and claimed protection under the National Security Exception Clause by stating that since the Baron was caught in the act of Treasonous Espionage, his death was technically to be listed as a war casualty––thus the killer was unable to be convicted or tried, of course. He had to have fabricated and planted the papers on the Baron somehow, but Dad was never able to pin him down on it. The whole matter went all hush-hush, of course.”

I shifted in my chair. “Surely there was something: fingerprint evidence, security camera footage, a witness … something.”

“Nothing.”

“So, out of the patriotic loyalty of his heart, he shot the Baron, huh? But you think there was more to it.”

“Obviously. That ‘more to it’ definitely involved his dead brother. He wanted revenge.” He sighed. “I think that’s when Dad first began to be wary of him. Until then, I think he had just sort of assumed that God…

––Oh yeah, I forgot to mention: The Potentate was a Christian––just like his dad had been. I know: big surprise, right? As if there’s been a single Potentate or President since this country’s founding who hasn’t claimed to be a Christian: I mean, let’s face it––you wouldn’t get very far up the ladder in this business without at least going to church somewhere.

Which is fine. I think it’s great that they’re Christians––I’m one myself. It’s just that, well…

It’s just that Christians and politics don’t seem to mix. Call me jaded, but why does it seem like every famous person who’s ever stood up big for God and made a public display of being a Christian has gotten wrapped up in a big scandal?

…especially a sexual one.

Is it that hard to stay pure when you’re placed in such a visible position? Does the devil specially focus his destructive energies on you when you become famous or something? I don’t know. I try to be open. I don’t want to become hardened. But…

…well, take this guy’s father, for instance. Always big about God. Gave powerful speeches over live broadcast that stirred people’s hearts spiritually. But…

He liked women. Plural. Not woman. Women. And, well I’ll just say, not all his boys have the same mommy. And of course things like that are concealed from the media and the public as much as possible, but…

And then there was the incident with this guy’s mom. That was something else. I believe they referred to that in-house as the…

…“‘Almost Scandal of ’87’, I think was when the General began to get even more of a hold on my dad, since he got in on one of his biggest secrets.” He was still going. I shook the thoughts out of my head and returned to the present, glad he hadn’t noticed my metal wanderings. I needed something to say quickly to uphold my end of the conversation:

“What makes you say that?”

Now that he had my attention, he reached for another chocolate and started from the beginning.

“Agent Alpha did our best work overseas. You may or may not know who he really was,” (I did) “since his work was of the utmost confidentiality. He was the reason for so many things––the reason International Enemy-Number-One Danny Marino was brought to justice; the reason Afghanistan woke up one day to realize their entire nuclear weapons program had been wiped out; the reason the Whitehouse Intelligence Leak of ’82 never actually happened, and so much more.

“Tragedy came, as it inevitably does. I’m not sure exactly how it happened, but Agent Alpha mistakenly got assigned to an old mission––one in which the lid had already came off; the cover had already been blown, you might say. Of course, it was vital that everything be kept top secret: Alpha had about a million and one people who wouldn’t have minded the honor of finishing him off. Well, one lucky person got to do just that. When Alpha left for Bulgaria, his location was public info and he didn’t even know it. He didn’t stand a chance.

“Dad felt so bad, he married Alpha’s widow: my mom. But that’s where the General came in. He claimed Dad had been having an affair with Mom even before Alpha’s death. Whether or not the General’s claim was true, it was a story Dad wasn’t willing to risk getting out––he begged the General to keep it quiet. And the General did. But it was another leverage point for the General.”

I wondered if my dining companion was either in the dark or in denial: Fact was, bit traces found on government computers indicated a correspondence between the Second Potentate and our General, revealing they had carefully and delicately conspired to take out Agent Alpha. Of course, only a handful of higher-ups knew this, and all but one (my source) had taken it to the grave with them as far as I know, but the facts still remained.

He looked at me. “You’ve been quiet for a while––what’s on your mind?”

I ran my fingers through my hair. “Well,” I sighed. “I think you’re a little generous towards your father.”

He raised an eyebrow, daring me to go on.

I did. “I think we both know your dad wasn’t the saint that he was portrayed as a lot by the media. I’ll be frank, sir: he wasn’t careful when it came to the way he handled women, and it got out. You can only cover up so much.”

I looked him in the eye. “And what’s more, sir, I’m afraid I’m starting to see that in you too. I’ve been watching you. I can see the way you act, and I can tell you’re headed down a dangerous road. Look at me––I want to tell you something as an older man to a younger man: ‘Don’t go down that road. It’s not worth it. You always get caught.’”

He didn’t say anything. “I’m serious, sir. If there’s one thing I’ve learned in the political rat-race, it’s that the dirty stuff always leaks out.”

After returning my level gaze, he leaned back in his chair again, folded his hands behind his head, and looked up at the ceiling. “Well thanks, Ben. I glad to see you’ve got my best interests at heart.” He chuckled. “But that’s not what we were talking about, was it? We were talking about the General.”

“Right.”

“Back to the subject at hand, class.” He was jovial now. “Dad finally had the sense to relieve him of his position. We should have known that wouldn’t work. Can anybody tell me what happened?”

I raised my hand.

“Ben.”

“I believe he murdered his replacement.”

“That is correct. Have a mint.”

Whatever.

“And he had the perfect timing too. Right before the War on Homeland Terror. The General quickly assumed his old role again and had the army whipped into shape before Dad even had time to catch his breath. I think he always had the soldiers’ loyalty.”

I glanced up at the clock on the wall: One-thirty. I needed to be wrapping things up.

“Well, I suppose he would have had to have retained their loyalty for him to be able to accomplish all that he did. He was a man who left quite a legacy.”

“Yes, yes, that’s true,” he mused, then chuckled. “Yeah, I guess it would have been pretty hard to have gotten away with murdering Abe if he hadn’t had a lot of backing from the people.”

Oh. He was bringing that one up. Another touchy situation.

“Course it helped that Abe had for all practical purposes compromised the security of the Pentagon’s InterFile System. I don’t know what had gotten into him. He was always the weird one in our family. Anyways, he threated to leak just about everything––and of course we couldn’t have that. He put Dad in quite the awkward position. Should have seen it coming though: the General solved it all by just knifing up Abe––I know, quite gruesome. But poor Dad was heartbroken. I think he had always hoped he could find some way to resolve things with my oldest brother, but you know, sometimes life just…” His voice trailed off.

It was quiet for a very long time. I put my head in my hands and rubbed my eyes. As much as he seemed to enjoy reminiscing over all the dirty, scandalous details of my predecessor’s life, I didn’t. Why couldn’t we have a major political leader who actually behaved for once? Who actually kept his life clean? I was tired of this conversation.

Actually, I was just tired, period. Especially since it was pushing two.

I raised my head.

“Well, sir, as much as I’d love to stay here and chat all night, I’d better get back to the wife.” I grinned: “If I don’t show up soon she might think I’ve become the next assassination scandal.” Raising my empty glass, I continued. “Here’s to our late General. May his cruelty and brutishness be forgotten as quickly as the buds of spring forget the ice of winter past.”

He shook himself out of his thoughts and clicked his glass with mine: “And here’s to our new General.” He had a mischievous smile. “May he ever be as brave, clever, and bold as his most recent colleague.”

We clinked glasses again.



“I’ll walk you out.”

He’d walk me out. Like the White House was a little country cottage or something. We passed through the great halls in silence.

It was dark outside. And quiet. Strangely quiet for the capital. He stopped walking and breathed heavily, gazing up at the cool night sky. I knew our conversation wasn’t quite finished.

“I know what you’re thinking, Ben.”

“You’re thinking about what a mess the General was. You’re thinking about what a mess my father was.” He turned around to face me.

“And right now, you’re thinking about what a mess I’m apparently turning out to be. And you’re starting to lose faith, aren’t you?”

What could I say? He had me.

“But you know Ben, for all his glaring sins, the General … was used for good. Countless times it was his unfaltering voice that spurred his soldiers on in the heat of battle when all hope seemed lost; countless times it was his wit and intelligence that kept my dad from making a foolish executive decision; countless times it was his loyalty to the government that gave our people the inspiration to fight for their country; the example they needed to follow; the passion to give all they had.”

“God used him, Ben. Do you remember when Dad sponsored that big international Nuclear Power Summit in Seattle?”

I did. He would have been just old enough to remember it too. His dad had invited foreign dignitaries from all over the world, hoping to awe them with our country’s military potency. And he had succeeded.

“A performance never before or since rivaled,” I affirmed.

“Yes, but a tragedy nonetheless. The tens of thousands in Seattle who died in the following months from the radiation leaks stand in silent witness of the cost of my father’s pride. The choices of a national leader have national consequences, and God judged our nation for my dad’s arrogance. And what’s more, the General knew it.” He paused. “You know, Ben. You were there.”

I couldn’t deny it. I had been there. Though only a teenager, I had been watching the Congressional meeting that day. I remembered hearing the Second Potentate propose the plan, outline the proceedings and suggest the diplomats to be invited. And then the General had stood up. He hadn’t minced words:

“Sir, with all due respect, you know this is wrong. Everyone here knows this is against God’s will.”

After an awkward silence, a few Congressional leaders had tactfully smoothed things over, but I still vividly remembered the Second Potentate’s face.

It was a shocked face. A beaten face. A face that knew the General had spoken the truth.

I sighed. “Yes. I do know. I was there.”

“The General spoke words of life to my father, even though he was a mess. He spoke God’s words. And even though my father too was a mess, God also used him many, many times to speak truth into the hearts of people. He used him to convict the public of their sin and cry out for repentance. God used him.”

He stopped.

“And you know what, Ben? I can’t help but feel, even with all my faults and problems, and even with all my weaknesses, that God will use me too. That God will use me to speak to His people––perhaps even long after I am dead.”

I turned and looked at him. His tall, stately silhouette was standing straighter than ever. And I knew he was right.

“He will, Solomon. He will.”

He nodded; then turned and strode majestically back into the White House.

I headed home to my wife.


Disclaimer: This is the story of Joab the General, told mainly in the form of a conversation between King Solomon and his General, Benaiah son of Jehoiada. In this modernized version, I assign extra-biblical words, thoughts, and motivations to biblical characters. I have no real point I am trying to bring out other than the simple fact that God uses messed-up people. For the real facts, see 2 Samuel 2-3, 8, 10-12, 14, 18-20, 23-24; 1 Kings 1-2, 11; and 1 Chronicles 2, 4, 11, 18-21, 26-27.

Monday, June 2, 2014

Inefficient Love - Part 3

Note: I wrote this piece after reading some Calvinist authors on the subject of Christ's atonement. I wrote it more as a way for me to study the issue than to present it to others. As a result, many of the arguments are not original with me (although some are), but rather more of a compilation of my building a defense as to why I believe Christ suffered for the sins of both the elect and non-elect alike. Although I am "heavy" against limited atonement adherents in this piece, I do try to be honest about where I assume things about the Bible from my own, non-Calvinist, theology.


Logical Arguments
For me, if anything should be clear from the biblical text, it is that Christ died for everyone.

If anything should make sense, that should.

Not only is that interpretation in harmony with how we naturally understand God’s love (for if Christ truly, without pretense, wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth--see 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Timothy 2:4--why would he not back it up with His actions: why would He not make it possible for all men to be saved?).

Not only is it essential to our natural understanding of the gospel (for if we are to preach the gospel to all men, why wouldn’t we assume that it is applicable to all men?)

But it is by far the most obvious rendering of the text when theological assumptions are set aside.

And that is the point that I’ve been trying to make this entire time. As I said at the beginning: I think that at least some Calvinists would not hold to the doctrine of limited atonement if they didn’t have to.

Nonetheless, they do, and they present arguments against unlimited atonement that in my opinion ask questions of the Bible from theology rather than asking questions of theology from the Bible (Not that I don’t sometimes as well!).

Objection: If we are to interpret Christ’s death as applying to all the sins of the entire human race, that is, if Christ paid the full penalty for the sins of every human being to walk the face of this planet as verses such as 1 John 2:2 indicate, than aren’t we affirming universalism?

Answer: Quite simply, no. This question assumes its own theology, namely the system of "high" Calvinism which holds that, if Christ paid for your sins, you are, for all practical purposes, automatically ushered into heaven.

In other words, this question is often asked of the non-Calvinist as a lead-in for the Calvinist to espouse more Calvinist theology. The non-Calvinist hasn’t a clue as to why universal atonement and universalism would be connected until the Calvinist helpfully connects the dots for him, which usually goes something like this:

If Christ died for all sins, including the sin of unbelief, than the “fact” that Christ’s death was “effective” (Calvinist theology) means that all who don’t believe will still end up in heaven because Christ’s atonement was not “potential” but “actual” (Calvinist theology).

Note that my primary goal here is not to dispute whether or not those doctrines are correct but to highlight that this way of arguing starts from a theological premise and logically works its way out to make a conclusion about a biblical text, rather than starting from the biblical text and logically working its way out to form a theological conclusion.

Isn't this the definition of eisegesis?

For the non-Calvinist, there is no reason to assume that a universal atonement automatically implies universalism. Why? Because one must believe in Christ to be saved (non-Calvinist theology). Not all whose sins are paid for will choose to enter heaven (non-Calvinist theology). Some will stubbornly insist on paying for their own sins.

But this leads into the next objection…

Objection: But when Christ saves someone, that salvation is “actual”, not “potential.” A “potential” salvation would make a mockery of Christ’s death on the cross.

Answer: No. Whether you think it makes a mockery of Christ or glorifies Him all the more is your opinion, but Christ’s salvation is potential in that it must be received in order to be realized, like all free gifts (non-Calvinist theology). We are saved by grace through our faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). A man may be seated and provided with the most gorgeous feast that can be crafted, but he has to eat it in order to receive the benefits. This in no way makes a mockery of the one who provided the feast.

As John 3:14-15 analogizes, just as the salvation the bronze snake offered to the stricken Israelites was not effected in their bodies until they looked upon it, so too the salvation offered by Christ on the cross is not effected in us until we look to Him.

Again, using another Old Testament analogy, the blood of the Passover lamb only becomes efficacious when applied to the door post.

Objection: But if the atonement is unlimited, than that means there are and will be people who will pay a debt which has already been paid by Christ! How can a just God allow this? What just judge would require a criminal to serve a sentence that has already been paid?

Answer: Simply this: Just as God was just in allowing the stricken Israelites to suffer when salvation was already provided to them through the bronze serpent, so too He is righteous and just in allowing those in hell, whose sins have already been paid, to suffer (non-Calvinist theology).

True, a just judge will not require a criminal to serve a sentence that has already been paid, but a just judge will allow that criminal to stubbornly reject a bond offer and serve his own time if he so wishes.

If there is any fault to be found, if there is any lack of justice, it’s on us; on our own stubbornness, not on Him.

And this is exactly what makes hell so futile! It’s exactly what makes us so foolish for our stiff-necked refusal to accept a debt that has already been paid on our behalf!

Objection: Perhaps it’s fair to those in hell, but it’s not fair to Jesus to have to pay for sins that will be paid again by those in hell.

Answer: His entire death on the cross wasn’t fair.

Objection: But if Christ’s death is potential, than where is our security? If He does not actually save us but only offers salvation, how can we be assured that we will receive it?

Answer: If God gives you anything, rest assured you will receive it!

Our God is a God of covenants and promises.

Deuteronomy 7:9 | Know that Yahweh your God is God, the faithful God who keeps His gracious covenant loyalty for a thousand generations with those who love Him and keep His commands.

Titus 1:1-2 | Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness, in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began.

God never fails to come through with His promises (Joshua 21:45). As believers, we can say along with Paul:

1 Timothy 1:12b | I know the One I have believed in and am persuaded that He is able to guard what has been entrusted to me until that day.

Objection: But that means that ultimately, whether or not I end up in heaven or hell depends on me as a frail human rather than on God.

Answer: Yes it does (non-Calvinist theology). God has done His part. Have you? Will you?

Conclusion
I conclude: the clear, unmistakable biblical witness is that Christ died for each and every individual, in every time and in every place.

Without exception.

I would hold my Calvinist friends to account for missing part of this truth.

Furthermore, I conclude that without the help of a previously assumed theological system, this doctrine would not be found through a simple reading of the text.

What I just said was important. It’s my main point.

Let me rephrase it in the form of a question: If you were a new convert, who didn’t understand anything about Calvinism, would you personally come to the conclusion of limited atonement on your own from simply reading your Bible?

I’m not saying that theology is bad. I’m not saying that it can’t help us understand the Bible better. I’m not saying that we don’t need to harmonize scriptural texts sometimes.

I’m not saying that I don’t harmonize texts. I’m not saying that the most obvious interpretation of a text is always the correct one.

I’m not even saying that as a non-Calvinist, I don’t have my own presuppositions and theological systems––I do. And I’ve tried to be honest about where I do presuppose things.

But I am saying that from all appearances, the doctrine of limited atonement does not come from a simple reading of the text, but from theology.

And this opens the way for some major problems:

  1. First, what does this say about the ability of God to communicate? God invented language! And yet could it be true that even the great, the almighty God, who created the World by the Word of His power, even this God needs the help of the Calvinist structure to fully explain Himself on this issue? Even the most creative Being to ever live cannot put into words as simple an idea as a restricted atonement without the help of Edwards, Sproul, Piper, and the like, to help explain what He “really meant” on something so central to the gospel as the atonement?
  2. Second, what does this say about the clarity of Scripture? Do we dare let a new convert simply read the New Testament on his own? By himself? He might get the wrong idea! What if, heaven forbid, the simple nature and clarity of the texts on the atonement seduces him into drawing the wrong conclusions? Can we trust only the Bible? Quick, hit him with the Institutes!

Sorry. Like I said, my goal is not to offend, so I digress.

But, no matter how good, no matter how impressive, no matter how scholarly…

…If your theological system leads you to deny something that, without it, is in the Bible…

Than you need a new theology. Or at least an update. We cannot let a large, intricate theology trump a simple biblical truth. Even if doesn’t make sense with the rest of our theology. The simple biblical truth always comes first.

Always.

Perhaps John Calvin himself realized this when, towards the end of his life, he stated:

Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and in the goodness of God is offered unto all men without distinction, His blood being shed not for a part of the world only, but for the whole human race; for although in the world nothing is found worthy of the favor of God, yet he holds out the propitiation to the whole world, since without exception he summons all to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than the door unto hope.

Does this quote prove Calvin himself did not believe in the doctrine of limited atonement? I don’t know.

And I’m not going argue the point.

But maybe, just maybe, he came face to face with a biblical truth that, explained away as his brilliant mind and theology could…

…could not be trumped in its simplicity.

The Inefficient God
I would like to ask the question: How could it be that some of the sharpest, most brilliant theologians could miss something which seems to be so obviously in Scripture? How can we read over that many texts? How can we not see what is presented to us over and over and over again, in multiple ways?

But then I remember that I am not one to be throwing stones.

I tend to miss things too. I tend to miss major themes of the Bible––like God’s violence. I tend to shy away from Bible passages that speak of the elect, of God’s chosen people.

Why?

Because our theology blinds us. Because we unconsciously elevate our theology over and above Scripture itself: If it doesn’t fit in with our theology, than Scripture must not say it!

Calvinism, I think, struggles with this problem much more than other theological systems. It’s so easy to put your trust in Calvinism. It’s big; it’s strong; it has all the answers; it could never be wrong, right?

Wrong.

I feel that at the heart of the Calvinist resistance to universal atonement is an unwillingness to let God be anything other than our human view of a mighty, worldly conqueror.

And so of course God wouldn’t pay for the sins of somebody who’s already going to pay for them! Of course God wouldn’t offer a beautiful gift, prepared with care…

…only to have it spurned, trampled in the mud, and shoved back in His face.

That would be inefficient! That would be weak! God would get taken advantage of, and we can’t let that happen!

We can’t let people take advantage of God!

The word love is so misused today. It’s misused to mean tolerance of sin. It’s misused to describe a fleeting feeling. It’s misused to describe sexual promiscuity.

And so in reaction, we have hardened love. We’ve made it rough. It doesn’t tolerate unrighteousness. It is love, yes, but it is a qualified love, a restricted love.

Inadvertently, we harden God’s love in the process.

We forget that God’s love has a soft side. That God is also a lamb––a slain lamb at that. We forget that God opens His heart to His creation and allows them to wrench it. Yes, wrench it. He allows Himself to be, dare I say…

Vulnerable?

No, He wouldn’t let Himself be vulnerable! Not God!

And so we start to fashion a picture in our minds of a God who is hard. Who is heartless. Who is an efficient machine and nothing more.

Mark Driscoll states that he refuses to worship a God He could beat up. I think Calvinism goes one step further. It refuses even to worship a God who would allow us to beat Him up.

But the fact is, I think God does allow us to beat Him up. God does allow us to play with His heartstrings.

God does allow us to reject Him.

Amazing.

What must anyone, and I’m not only speaking to Calvinists here, do when the Bible seems at odds with one’s theology? Change the Bible to fit one’s theology? Or change one’s theology to fit the Bible?

I trust the answer is obvious.

But wouldn’t that make things not make sense? Wouldn’t that mean that our theological systems can’t explain everything about God? Wouldn’t that make us confused without our system?

Yes, but it is better to be confused with only the Bible than to be confidently wrong with a theological system.

But doesn’t Calvinism logically require limited atonement in order to make coherent sense?

It would seem to. Charles Hodge affirms this:

If God from eternity determined to save one portion of the human race and not another, it seems to be a contradiction to say that the plan of salvation had equal reference to both portions; that the Father sent His Son to die in the same sense for the elect and the nonelect. The doctrine of election and the extent of the atonement are inseparably united. If you hold to one, you must hold to the other; if you deny one, then you must deny the other.

The question then becomes:

If a necessary component of a theological system comes into conflict with the biblical witness, is the Bible suspect, or is the theological system suspect?

Again, I trust we know the answer. And I trust we know what we need to do.

But wouldn’t changing that system be inefficient?

Yes, but then…

So is God.

Inefficient Love - Part 2

Note: I wrote this piece after reading some Calvinist authors on the subject of Christ's atonement. I wrote it more as a way for me to study the issue than to present it to others. As a result, many of the arguments are not original with me (although some are), but rather more of a compilation of my building a defense as to why I believe Christ suffered for the sins of both the elect and non-elect alike. Although I am "heavy" against limited atonement adherents in this piece, I do try to be honest about where I assume things about the Bible from my own, non-Calvinist, theology.


Mounting evidence
Earlier, I quoted the most famous verse in the Bible, John 3:16, but we would not do this passage justice without remembering the two verses that come directly before it:

John 3:14-15 | Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in Him will have eternal life.

The reference is to the story of the bronze snake that served as a type of Christ in Numbers 21. The parallels:

  • The entire Israelite community had sinned and needed saving, just as the entire world has sinned and needs saving.
  • There was no indication that Moses did not intercede for all the people, just as there is no indication that Jesus does not intercede for all humanity.
  • The bronze snake was mounted on a pole, just as Jesus was mounted on a tree.
  • The bronze snake was available to all the Israelites, just as Jesus’s death is available to all people (non-Calvinist theology).
  • And perhaps the most compelling parallel: The snake’s being on the pole did not automatically heal the Israelites––they had to look at the bronze snake to recover and be healed. In the same way, Jesus’ death on the cross does not automatically heal us. We must make a response to receive His salvation (non-Calvinist theology). It is there, but it is not effective until we receive it.

Again, other passages witness to the universal atonement of Christ:

Romans 5:6 | For while we were still helpless, at the appointed moment, Christ died for the ungodly.

Note the distinction between the "we" and the "ungodly". Who are the "we"? Who is Paul talking to here? Those Jews and Gentiles who have believed (see Rom. 4:25-5:1; c.f. 3:22). Yet Paul does not say "Christ died for us" (though he easily could have--and in fact does in verse 8), but he says "Christ died for the ungodly."

Who are the ungodly? Everyone (Rom. 3:9-18). Everyone was ungodly at some point in their lives, yet Christ died for the ungodly. The passage does not say Christ died for some of the ungodly, or the ungodly elect, but simply that He died for the ungodly.

Luke 19:10 | For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost.

Again, scripture teaches that we all are lost. The analogy is clear. This verse does not say that Jesus came to seek some of what was lost, or part of what was lost, but simply what was lost.

Romans 10:13 | For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Revelation 22:17 | Both the Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" Anyone who hears should say, "Come!" And the one who is thirsty should come. Whoever desires should take the living water as a gift.

As Samual Telloyan notes, “The word ‘whosoever’ [whoever/anyone/everyone] is used at least 110 times in the New Testament and always with the unrestricted meaning.”

Universal Parallels
I admire Calvinists for the fact that they are often the first to point out the universal extent and effect of sin on the human race. Everyone, and they mean everyone, is a sinner.

No exceptions.

Psalm 143:2b | … for no one alive is righteous in Your sight.

Romans 3:12 | All have turned away; all alike have become useless. There is no one who does what is good, not even one.

Isaiah 53:6 | We all went astray like sheep; we all have turned to our own way.

The word “all” simply means “all”.

A Calvinist would be indignant if I took the phrase “no one alive” in Psalm 143 to infer that only those alive in David’s day were sinners, and no one else is. Similarly, if I took the world “all” used in the other two passages (or any other ones, for that matter) and interpreted them to mean anything other than “every human being who ever lived,” I would most certainly be accused of avoiding the force of the text––of wriggling and squirming to get away from what the text clearly says.

Yet this is exactly what a Calvinist must do when presented with the biblical texts that speak of the universal extent of the atonement. They must try to avoid the text.

They have to. Otherwise their theological system is broken.

Observe these verses that draw the clear parallel between the universality of both the extent of man’s sin and the extent of Christ’s atonement:

Isaiah 53:6 | We all went astray like sheep; we all have turned to our own way; and the Lord has punished Him for the iniquity of us all.

Romans 5:15 | But the gift is not like the trespass. For if by the one man’s trespass the many died, how much more have the grace of God and the gift overflowed to the many by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ.

Romans 11:32 | For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.

(Note: It is important to recognize this objection: In the Romans passages, Paul is speaking to Jews and Gentiles who have believed. Thus when Paul uses the word "all" in Romans 3:22b-23, he is referring to all the Jews and Gentiles who have believed: "...God’s righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ, to all who believe, since there is no distinction. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." However, before we restrict the extent of total depravity here, we must remember that Paul has built his argument for the total depravity of all who believe based upon the indisputable truth of one fact: everyone without exception is totally depraved, see Romans 3:9-18. In the same way, Christ's death for "all who believe" need not be restricted solely to them, if, in fact, Christ died for everyone without exception.)

2 Corinthians 5:14-15 | For Christ’s love compels us, since we have reached this conclusion: If One died for all, then all died. And He died for all so that those who live should no longer live for themselves, but for the One who died for them and was raised.

2 Corinthians 5:19 | That is, in Christ, God was reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed the message of reconciliation to us.

Here, a clear distinction is made between the “world” and “us”, the “us” undoubtedly referring to the Christians Paul is speaking to. But if there is a distinction, than that must mean that the “world” God is reconciling to Himself is something other than the elect.

Matthew 11:28 | Come to Me, all of you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.

We all bear the weight and burden of sin. We all are weary and burdened, before we come to Christ. Christ’s unrestricted invitation is open to all who are weary and burdened (which is everyone).

The parallels seem far too clear to be dismissed. If one wishes to affirm the universal extent of man’s sin which imposes itself on the world, than it seems that one must also accept the universal extent of the atonement. There simply does not seem to be any other way around it. No amount of theological or eisegetical acrobatics can divorce the two, for they were not meant to be divorced.

Thomas Jenkyn notes: “No passage of Scripture can be adduced which limits the atonement to the sins of the elect. Whenever the death of Christ is mentioned in connection with sin, it is always with sin universally and as a whole.”

But this parallel leads to an interesting paradox.

Calvinism practically starts with the doctrine of total depravity. It is usually the first point put forth by proponents of Calvinism. Why? First, it is clearly biblical (which is the reason, I hope to say, that Arminians believe it as well); second, the other points of the tulip logically build on its foundation.

Now here’s the problem: The doctrine of total depravity, which affirms that the extent of sin is universal, uses verses just like the ones I’ve been presenting in defense of an unlimited atonement to build it foundation.

Just like the verses I’ve been presenting, the doctrine of total depravity is built upon verses that affirm that all men sin, that the world is evil, and that no one is righteous.

If I'm not mistaken, sometimes these verses are the exact same verses, as I've tried to show.

Which leads to the question: If one’s theology leads one to deny verses virtually identical to the very verses on which it is built, then why not just deny the foundation? Why not just save yourself the trouble and deny Calvinism in the first place? Put in other words, to carry out Calvinism to its full conclusion (limited atonement), I believe is to undercut its very foundation (total depravity).

Three More Verses
One of the most compelling verses indicating that Christ indeed died for those who will go on to spurn Him for eternity comes from Peter’s second letter, where he warns against false prophets. It goes without saying that these prophets will meet God’s swift retribution.

2 Peter 2:1 | But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, and will bring swift destruction on themselves.

To illustrate the power of this verse, I'll try to repeat it in the way Calvinism seems to understand it:

2 Peter 2:1 | But there were also false prophets [who were still elect] among the people, just as there will be false teachers [who are elect] among you [the elect]. They [the elect] will secretly bring in destructive heresies [willfully, even though they are elect], even denying the Master who bought them [which forces them to be elect], and will bring swift destruction on themselves [even though they are the elect].

Millard Erickson writes: “2 Peter 2:1 seems to point out most clearly that people for whom Christ died may be lost…there is a distinction between those for whom Christ died and those who are finally saved.”

The point is clear. These false teachers are not Christians. They deny the Master, not their Master. Yet that Master bought them.

One might object that the false teachers are simply elect persons who are currently unconverted but will become converted at some point in their lives before they die, but the question naturally arises: What of the swift destruction they bring upon themselves?

On the other hand, an unlimited view allows its holder to avoid performing on this verse what one theologian has dubbed “avalanche dodging”.

The avalanches keep coming:

1 Timothy 4:10 | In fact, we labor and strive for this, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of everyone, especially of those who believe.

One can almost imagine a conversation Paul is having with Timothy in this verse:

Paul: The living God is the Savior!
Timothy: Yes, but the Savior of whom?
Paul: The Savior of everyone!
Timothy: Ok, but wait, when you say “everyone”, do you really mean “everyone”, or do you just mean “every one of those who believe”?
Paul: I really mean everyone! But especially every one of those who believe!

This humorous conversation illustrates the frustration I often feel with adherents of limited atonement. Time and time again, they want to restrict or qualify its extent, and time and time again, the response is: No, everyone! Everyone everyone!

(Note: Some explain this verse by stating that Christ died for the non-elect in the sense of making it possible for them to receive common grace, but died "especially" for the elect in the sense of allowing them entrance to heaven. But this seems to butcher the word "savior". By definition, a savior gives what is needed, not just nice things. The non-elect do not need common grace; they need their sins forgiven. This is not to say they deserve it, but that they need it. Christ, as the Savior of all, gives what is needed: redemption).

There is not one who is not invited. All are freely given the gift.

The last verse that I will present comes from none other than the apostle John, the one Jesus loved, who understood perhaps more than anybody else the deep, deep love of Jesus Christ.

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

I simply ask: Could John have possibly made himself any clearer?

We understand what the word “propitiation” means. We understand that as our “propitiation”, Jesus paid the full price for our sins. This verse clearly and unequivocally states, in no uncertain terms, that Jesus paid the full price, not only for the sins of Christians, but also for the sins of everyone else. There is not a single person anywhere, who ever lived, for whom Christ did not pay the full price for their sins.

Some say that the phrase "whole world" means "whole world of the elect". But John consistently (19 out of 23 times) uses kosmos (world) throughout 1 John as that which is in contrast to the church. The church is not to love “the world” (1 John 2:15-17), the world does not recognize Jesus nor His disciples (3:1), hates disciples (3:13), has the spirit of the antichrist (4:3-4), and is overcome by disciples (5:4-5). One is hard pressed to see how “world” here could mean “elect of all nations”.

Additionally, note the words of Walter Martin (Christian Research Institute):

“John the Apostle tells us that Christ gave His life as a propitiation for our sin (i.e., the elect), though not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2) … [We] cannot evade John's usage of [the word] ‘whole’ [holos]. In the same context the apostle quite cogently points out that ‘the whole [holos] world lies in wickedness’ or, more properly, ‘in the lap of the wicked one’ (1 John 5:19, literal translation). If we assume that ‘whole’ applies only to the chosen or elect of God, then the whole world does not ‘lie in the lap of the wicked one.’ This, of course, all reject.”

It is hard to object to this verse in any exegetical way. Thus, it seems to me, objections that come are logical; objections which already presuppose their own conclusion.

But taking Scripture alone, at its word, is a different matter. A Calvinist may be able to state why this verse does not fit in with his theological system…

…but he cannot explain why it is there.

And that’s why theological systems can be dangerous.

Inefficient Love - Part 1

Note: I wrote this piece after reading some Calvinist authors on the subject of Christ's atonement. I wrote it more as a way for me to study the issue than to present it to others. As a result, many of the arguments are not original with me (although some are), but rather more of a compilation of my building a defense as to why I believe Christ suffered for the sins of both the elect and non-elect alike. Although I am "heavy" against limited atonement adherents in this piece, I do try to be honest about where I assume things about the Bible from my own, non-Calvinist, theology.

Theology is a wonderful thing.

After all, it is the study of God Himself. It reveals His character. It helps us when we read the Bible. Systematic theology can even be a good thing. It’s good to organize your beliefs in a rational way. It’s good to examine what the whole Bible has to say about a particular subject. It’s good to build a rational system of Who God is and how He works.

But theology can also be dangerous.

Why? As our theological system gets bigger and better, it becomes harder and harder to make it all consistent. It’s harder for us to adjust our theology when we come across Bible verses that don’t seem to fit with how our theology says we should understand God. If we’re not careful, we can began fitting the Bible into our systematic theology rather than fitting our systematic theology into the Bible. J. C. Ryle verbalizes this danger: "I have long come to the conclusion that men may be more systematic in their statements than the Bible, and may be led into grave error by idolatrous veneration of a system."

This is one of my greatest concerns with the theological system many call Calvinism. It’s big. It’s complex. It’s impressive. It’s respectable. Many theologians––the best theologians––have added not a small amount of bricks and materials to its large structure.

But it’s only that. A structure. Nothing more. In spite of the claims of the likes of Charles Spurgeon, Calvinism simply is not the gospel. Calvinism is not the Bible. The gospel is the gospel. The Bible is the Bible. Calvinism is a system of theology. It’s not infallible.

And I believe it gets things wrong.

Like Limited Atonement
I mean no disrespect to my Calvinist (for the purpose of brevity, my use of the term Calvinist or Calvinism will be used exclusively to refer to 5-point “high” Calvinists as opposed to “fewer-point” Calvinists) brothers and sisters, but to me, the doctrine of limited atonement exemplifies what happens when we let our system of theology dictate how we understand Bible passages rather than allowing those same Bible passages to dictate our theology.

I am convinced that at least some Calvinists would not hold to the doctrine of limited atonement if they didn’t have to.

But they do. Their theological system requires that they do (I do admire the desire of those called 4-point “moderate” Calvinists to drop this one point if I do not admire their consistency).

But rather than holding what I see as the most natural way to read the Bible when it comes to the subject of Christ’s atonement for sinners, those who adhere to the five Doctrines of Grace (as the five points of Calvinism are also called) seem to be required to prioritize an unnatural reading of a subset of texts over and above texts that I am convinced speak otherwise.

In the process, an interesting “switch” of conventional roles takes place.

Let me explain.

You see, usually (I’m generalizing, I know) the non-Calvinist is the one encouraged to put aside all his presuppositions about God (like love and goodness), which are sagely chalked up to his sinful nature; to abandon any logic that might get in the way of simply accepting “what the Bible says”. It is not uncommon at all to hear someone admit that he is Calvinist not because his logic or his natural ideas about God led him to that position, but because he felt he simply had to submit before the “overwhelming evidence” of the biblical texts.

But on this particular doctrine, I believe it is the non-Calvinists who are bringing the pressing weight of scriptural texts that seem to so clearly espouse unlimited atonement against those of the Calvinist persuasion, and it is the Calvinists who are resisting––and for what reason?

Logic. Presuppositions. It doesn’t make logical sense to them. It doesn’t fit with what they’ve already assumed about God from the other doctrines of Calvinism. When presented with biblical texts that seem to say in almost every way possible that Christ died for the sins of every single human being (save Himself) to walk the face of this earth, their response always essentially boils down to this: To understand this verse or that verse in its natural sense is incorrect because it doesn’t fit in with “theology”. It doesn’t fit in with what they’ve already assumed about God.

And I feel that’s a double standard.

Limited Atonement Verses
It is my least desire to offend in any way my Calvinist friends, but it seems to me that the Calvinistic defense on this issue is one more of honing in on a small subset of texts and ignoring the rest than one of looking at the entire biblical witness.

To build their basic defense from Scripture, Calvinists generally present the following verses, of which I will display a few that are representative of the group. The reason they use these verses is because these verses all speak of Christ’s death as being applied to a specific subset of the human population:

Matthew 1:21 | She will give birth to a son, and you are to name Him Jesus, because He will save His people from their sins.

Matthew 20:28 | Just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life–a ransom for many.

John 10:15 | …as the Father knows Me, and I know the Father. I lay down My life for the sheep.

Ephesians 5:25 | Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.

Hebrews 9:28 | So Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

John 15:13 | Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.

(See also: Isaiah 53:8,12; Matthew 26:28; Acts 20:28; John 10:11; Romans 8:32-35; Revelation 5:9)

As we see, different words are used to describe those for whom Christ died––like His people, the many, the sheep, the church, and His friends––the point being that Christ is spoken of as dying for these certain people, indicating His atonement work must have been limited.

(A short note: any idea that the use of the word “many” in these passages limits the extent of the atonement should be put to rest by the fact that in context, the word “many” is used in contrast with the word “few”. The Greek and Hebrew words for “many” mean “many as opposed to few”, not “many as opposed to all”. In other words, Christ did not die for the few, but for the many. John Calvin himself notes, “By the word ‘many’ He means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race.”)

Every time these verses are presented I feel like I’m missing something. I feel like I don’t get it.

Because of course Jesus died for His people! Of course Jesus died for the church! Of course Jesus died for the sheep! Of course Jesus died for His friends––He died for everyone! It naturally follows that if Jesus died for everyone, than he certainly would have died for His people, the church, His sheep, His friends, etc.

But the Calvinist expects one to read these verses differently. One is expected to read them as saying: “Christ died for the [enter subgroup of human race here] to the exclusion of everyone else in the world”.

But nobody assumes that.

Nobody [without a presupposition implanted by the Calvinist system] approaches a text and says, “Well, because Christ did this for these people, I guess He never did that for anybody else.”

Pardon me if I offend, but that is absurd! Yet we call it theology. Let’s see what happens when we apply that logic in other areas:

  • If you were to state that Jesus loves you, than I must necessarily assume that Jesus does not love me.
  • If I were to assert that 7 is an odd number, than you must necessarily assume that no other numbers can be odd.
  • We would need to believe that Christ died only for Israel, since John 11:51 states “that Jesus was going to die for the Jewish nation” and Isaiah 53:8 states that “He [Jesus] was struck because of my people [Israel]'s rebellion.”
  • We would need to believe that Jesus only died for the apostle Paul, who writes of Jesus as the one “who loved me, and gave himself for me” (Galatians 2:20).
  • We must believe that Christ restricted His prayers to Peter, since Luke 22:32 says, “But I have prayed for you, Simon.”

These passages do not present a difficulty for the one holding to an unlimited atonement. We rejoice that Christ died for these subgroups in the knowledge that they represent the larger group of people we believe Christ died for: the entire world.

Unlimited Atonement Verses

There are many verses in the Bible that affirm that Christ died for all people. I will try to state and expound on the majority of them.

John 1:29 | The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Here is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world [kosmou]!”

John 3:16-17 | For God loved the world [kosmon] in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that whosoever [pas] believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world [kosmon] that He might condemn the world [kosmon], but that the world [kosmos] might be saved through Him.

This most famous passage in the Bible asserts God’s whole-hearted desire––that the world be saved through His Son Jesus Christ! It is God's clear, undeniable desire that none should perish but that all should come to salvation (2 Peter 3:9, 1 Timothy 2:4, Ezekiel 18:23, 33:11). Note how an advocate of limited atonement seems to read this passage:

John 3:16-17 | For God loved [all the elect in] the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that whosoever [of those who are elect] believes in Him will not perish [even though they couldn't because they are elect] but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world [of the elect] that He might condemn the world [of the elect], but that [those who are already elect in] the world might be saved through Him.

There are other verses:

John 6:51 | I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread he will live forever. The bread that I will give for the life of the world [kosmou] is My flesh.

1 Timothy 2:3-6 | This is good, and it pleases God our Savior, who wants everyone [pantas anthropous] to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and humanity, Christ Jesus, Himself human, who gave Himself—a ransom for all [panton], a testimony at the proper time.

Titus 2:11 | For the grace of God has appeared with salvation for all [pasin] people.

Hebrews 2:9 | But we do see Jesus—made lower than the angels for a short time so that by God’s grace He might taste death for everyone [pantos]—crowned with glory and honor because of His suffering in death.

1 John 4:14 | And we have seen and we testify that the Father has sent His Son as the world’s [kosmou] Savior.

John 4:42 | And they told the woman, “We no longer believe because of what you said, for we have heard for ourselves and know that this really is the Savior of the world [kosmou].

Against the weight of these passages, what can an advocate of limited atonement say? I would like to remind us of a general logical principle:

No matter how many verses say that Christ died for some subset or part of the whole human race, all it takes is one verse that states that Christ died for the entire human race to reach the conclusion of universal atonement.

Allow me to give a mathematical example:

Imagine I said to you: “Multiples of 3 are integers.” That’s a true statement. Now imagine that I repeated that statement twenty more times.

Imagine then that I told you just once: “Multiples of any whole number are integers”.

Based on the statements that I gave, which is more logical:

  1. To assume that since I told you far more often that “multiples of 3 are integers”, therefore only multiples of 3 can be integers to the exclusion of all other multiples of a whole number?
  2. Or to assume that even though I only told you once, my statement that “multiples of any whole number are integers” proves true without the slightest contradiction to the twenty times I told you that multiples of 3 are integers?

The second is undeniably more logical. That’s what I mean when I say it only takes one verse describing universal atonement to prove it true for all cases.

And there are far more verses than just one!

So what is the Calvinist to say? How is he to retain his belief under the force of these passages?

The major way someone who holds to limited atonement avoids the meaning of these passages is to suggest that the words “all”, “everyone”, and “world” do not really mean “all”, “everyone”, and “world”. So, for example, they will use passages such as the following to make the point:

(I quote the versions which most clearly bring out their point):

Luke 2:1-3 (NKJV) | And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world [oikoumenen] should be registered. This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. So all [pantes] went to be registered, everyone [hekastos] to his own city.

John 12:19 (NIV) | So the Pharisees said to one another, “See, this is getting us nowhere. Look how the whole world [kosmos] has gone after him!

The point? The phrases “all the world”, “world”, “all’, and “everyone” are used to refer to a group of people that clearly does not make up the entirety of the human race.

Therefore, it is surmised, we cannot use words like that anywhere to refer to the whole human race.

I feel this is weak. Why?

  1. First, to argue like this is to completely ignore context. It is blindingly obvious from the context of Luke 2 and John 12, and other passages like it, that these words do not have a universal scope. Caesar Augustus was not governor of the entire human race. He could not force everyone who ever lived to do what he said, so when this passage speaks of everyone, it is obvious that it refers to everyone within the scope of his jurisdiction. But on the other hand, God does not have a limit to His jurisdiction. If he wants to save the entire world, then He most certainly can. Furthermore, the phrase “whole world” used by the Pharisees in John 12 was an expression of exasperation, not precise definition. Yet while there is context in these verses, there is no context in any of the unlimited atonement verses that gives the slightest hint of any restrictions or qualifications on the extent of the words “world”, “all”, and “everyone”.
  2. Secondly, this argument takes the natural way to understand the use of these words in passages like Luke 2 and John 12 and attempts to force that understanding into words in verses whose natural context would indicate that these universal-sounding words include every single human being. Robert Lightner states my own frustrations succinctly: “Those who always limit the meaning of those terms [all, world, etc.] in contexts that deal with salvation do so on the basis of theological presuppositions, not on the basis of the texts themselves.”
  3. Thirdly, the root word for world, kosmos, (which isn’t even used in the Luke 2 passage, by the way––oikoumenen is), as it is used in John identifies the world as “God-hating, Christ-rejecting, and Satan-dominated. Yet this is the world that Christ died for. Particularly in John's writings, interpreting ‘world’ as ‘world of the elect’ seems a great distortion of Scripture” (Ron Rhodes). Says B. F. Westcott, “The fundamental idea of kosmos in St. John is that of the sum of created being which belongs to the sphere of human life as an ordered whole, considered apart from God....the world comes to represent humanity in its fallen state, alienated from its Maker.”
  4. Fouthly, to say that the Greek word pas does not always mean everyone who ever lived is true. According to Strong’s Concordance, pas “means ‘all’ in the sense of ‘each (every) part that applies.’” But this does not mean that pas never applies to a universal context. When I state that all natural numbers are positive, you naturally assume I mean every single natural number that exists, even though our word “all” can be used to indicate a limited context (for example, I could be speaking in a class where we were only examining the prime numbers one day, and then my use of the word “all” would naturally be restricted to prime numbers). All that to say, just as with the word pas, we naturally understand the English word “all” to refer to as broad a spectrum as context will allow––and there is no grammatical context in these unlimited atonement verses that indicates any restriction should be made on the atonement’s extent.
  5. Finally, as is always the case in biblical hermeneutics, it is never good practice to take a few isolated verses in a peculiar context and to use them to interpret many general verses in a general context, and I feel this is exactly what Calvinists are doing here.

In short, these unlimited atonement verses are able to stand on their own two feet.

Nonetheless, clear as they may be, these verses are not the only passages in the Bible that speak of Christ’s unlimited atonement.

For the one who chooses not to accept these verses, the journey is only beginning.