Only Paul [Satire]

What was the purpose and extent of the atonement?  Was it to merely make salvation possible for all and secure it for none?  Or was it to definitely secure salvation for Paul?  After setting aside man-centered thinking, it can be proven with certainty that Jesus died to effectually secure salvation for Paul of Tarsus, and for Paul alone.

First, take a look at Galatians 2:20. This is the most important verse in the Bible, because it explicitly states the extent of the atonement (bold mine):

“I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”

This verse indisputably proves that Jesus died only for Paul.

It’s worth noting that some liberal theologians have referenced other passages in vain philosophical attempts to apply the atonement to others for whom it was not intended. These heretics fail to make an important distinction.  Ambiguous verses should always be interpreted in the light of more explicit verses. Galatians 2:20 clearly limits the scope of the atonement to only Paul.  Other less clear passages should be interpreted accordingly.  If Galatians 2:20 was the only verse that declared the extent of the atonement, the heretics might have a point. By God’s providence, it is not. Let’s study some additional passages.

In Matthew 18:12 we learn that the shepherd purposed to save one sheep. In fact he abandoned 99 sheep to save the one (bold mine):

“What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off?“

The text is clear.  The shepherd found and saved only one sheep.  He left the 99 other sheep on the hills. By doing this the shepherd maximized his glory. Moreover, he increased the appreciation and adoration of Paul, whom was effectually retrieved. If other sheep had also been retrieved, it would have diluted the value of the shepherd’s act.

To make his point extra clear, Jesus repeats the account in Luke 15:4-6 (bold mine):

“Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.”

One again, we see the shepherd saving only one sheep. He leaves the reprobate sheep in open country, puts the one sheep on his shoulders, and goes home.

Theologian James White gives additional insight on the use of the word sheep (bold mine):

“The good Shepherd lays down His life in behalf of the sheep. Are all men the sheep of Christ? Certainly not…”

Before commenting on this quote, it is necessary to exegete White’s use of the term “sheep”. To the untrained mind, it appears that White is using the word “sheep” to refer to more than one person. That is not the case. In English the word “sheep” can be singular or it can be plural.  This is defined by the context in which the word is used.

Singular example:  Look! There is one sheep over there!
Plural example:  Look! There are a boat load of sheep over there! We must be in New Zealand!

Untrained and tradition entrenched readers do not often note this subtle distinction in the usage of the word “sheep”. Nor do the misguided plural atonement heretics who resort to man centered thinking over exegesis. White’s context is plain. When he uses the phrases “the sheep” and “the sheep of Christ”, he is referring to only one sheep. White does not use the term “boat load of sheep”, nor does he refer to New Zealand. He properly defines his context by singularly stating “the sheep” (which of course we know is Paul).

Enough with vain philosophy, let’s get back to God’s word and take a look at 1 Corinthians 9:24 (bold mine):

Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize.

Again, Paul himself writes that only he will get the prize.

Another critical passage is Acts 9:3-7 (The Damascus Road story). In it we see with clarity that Jesus chose only Paul: (bold mine)

Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. And falling to the ground he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?”….the men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.

This passage indicates that only Paul heard Jesus’ voice and saw the light from heaven. The travelers with Paul heard the voice but did not see the light. Clearly the light wasn’t intended for them because they were reprobate. Of course they would be, they were not Paul.

Philosophical Arguments Proving Atonement for Paul:
Philosophy is usually evil, however, it may be used sparingly when it is girded by God’s word.   There are three philosophical possibilities for the extent of the atonement:
1) The atonement was for everyone
2) The atonement was for no one.
3) The atonement was for Paul.

We know that #1 is false, that is universalism. We know that #2 is false because Paul was saved. Option #3 is all that is left. The atonement was for Paul.

Common objections to Atonement for Paul:

Q: What about the many passages that speak about “the world”? Isn’t the world more than Paul?

A: In light of the explicit statements of Gal 2:20 and 1 Cor 9:24, it is clear that the ambiguous passages that refer to “world” are more accurately translated as “the world of the one elect person whose name is Paul”. Remember, ambiguous passages should always be interpreted in the context of explicit ones.

Q: But doesn’t Romans 1:16 state salvation is for both Greek and Jew? How can this be the one person Paul?

A: Quit imposing your own biased interpretation on the word. Read scripture and let it speak for itself. Paul easily answers this objection in 1 Corinthians 9:20-21 “To the Jews I became like a Jew…To those not having the law I became like one not having the law…“ You see, Paul is both Jew and Greek. Romans 1:16 refers only to Paul.

Q: But what about Mark 10:45?  It says Jesus gave his life as a ransom for many.

A: Scholars are divided on the issue, but the most likely explanation is that Paul’s nickname was “Manny”.   The verse should be read as “ransom for Manny.”

Q: Okay, What about Mary, Jesus’ mother? She wasn’t Paul and yet the Bible says she was blessed.

A: What are you, some kind of closet Catholic? That line of reasoning always leads back to Rome.

Q: This whole system is not fair. If only Paul is saved, what about everyone else who perishes? This is a bum deal for everyone except Paul.

A: Paul anticipates your objection and addresses it in Romans 9:20 “Who are you oh man to talk back to God?.” In other words this may seem unfair from your man-centered view, but it is God’s sovereign choice to individually and effectually save Paul alone. This gives God more glory, and makes Paul’s salvation more valuable. Don’t talk back to God.

Q: I’m not talking back to God, I’m saying that your system unfairly distorts the character of God.

A: That’s because you’re depending on philosophy instead of scripture.  Besides, only one person usually wins the lottery too.  Do you complain about that? Sometimes no one wins the lottery and the jackpot grows even bigger. If everyone won the lottery it would dilute the value. For example if the jackpot was $1 million and 10 million people won it, they would each get only 10 cents. What a ripoff! The same principles apply to salvation. Paul hit the jackpot.

Q: But wasn’t it a waste of Jesus’ sacrifice to apply it only to Paul when it could have covered more?

A: Not at all, this was planned by divine decree before the creation of the world. Jesus blood was only intended for Paul, and it effectually secured Paul’s salvation. The atonement did not make salvation merely possible for Paul, it secured it.

Q: I don’t find this doctrine very motivating to preach the Gospel.

A: That is a straw man. Paul taught this doctrine, and he was very motivated. Besides, scripture commands us to preach the Gospel.

[Note: this post is an attempt at satire.  Any similarities to another theological system are entirely coincidental.  ;) This is also an updated version of a post I did a few years back.  You can find the original here.]

An Examination of James White’s Parable: The King and the Castle

In the book The Potters Freedom, Calvinist James White sets forth a parable called “The King and the Castle”.  The purpose of the parable is to explain why (in White’s view) the concept of  “Limited Atonement” does not impugn the character of God.  White contrasts his story with one written by non-Calvinist Norm Geisler.  A summary of Geisler’s parable can be found here: The Farmer, the Boys, and the Pond.

Here is a paraphrase of “The King and the Castle”:

The greatest king of all time leaves his castle to do good things.  When the king returns, he finds that his subjects have been robbing, murdering and raping his friends.  In addition, they have intentionally set fire to his castle, and if they do not quickly escape, they will all perish in the flames.

The rebels have no justification for their behavior.  The king has always been good to his subjects.  He has provided for them, and they have feasted at his table.

Despite the king’s graciousness, the rebels have sinned personally against the king, and have done it repeatedly.  They have a long track record of rebellion despite the king’s mercy.

Even though the fire in the castle is raging and the death of the rebels is certain, they continue to destroy everything that reminds them of the king and his authority.  They are gleeful with their wickedness.  They enjoy being disobedient and hateful.  They even encourage others to join the rebellion.

If the king attempts to save the rebels from the fire, they would certainly mock him.  They would refuse to come out, they would curse the king, they would throw debris in his face, and they would run back into the smoke and flames.  Given the opportunity, they would attempt to drag the king into the flames and kill him too.

By all rights, the king should have the castle surrounded and make sure that everyone inside dies.  The king instead shows love beyond all imagination by sending his only son into the fire to pull some of the rebels out of the flames.  The son dies in the fire after saving the rebels that he wanted to save.

Given the atrocious behavior of the rebels and their hatred, the king is completely justified in saving only some of the rebels.  He saves them by his free grace, and he has the right to choose whom he wants to save, and he has the right to allow others to justly die in the flames.   In reality they all deserve to die.(1)

White’s parable is reasonable if the rebels have genuine free will.  In fact it somewhat models the parable of  the “Vineyard Tenants”  given by Jesus in Matthew 21:33-45.  However, the parable becomes silly when interpreted through the lens of exhaustive determinism where all actions are preordained.  The parable only makes sense if the rebels could do something other than what they do.

But in White’s view, the rebels cannot do other than what they do.  He leaves this “little detail” out of the parable.  In reality, the rebels are burning down the castle because the king desires it.  The king has decreed that the rebels burn down his castle, and he has caused them to do it.  He has decreed that they mock him.  He has decreed that they kill his son.  The king’s actual complaint should be against his double-minded decrees.

White believes that everything we do is necessary and has been decreed by God.   He writes:

…God has wisely and perfectly decreed whatever comes to pass in the universe.  Nothing is outside his control, nothing is without purpose…This extends…to every aspect of human history, personal relationships, and most importantly, to the life of every man, woman, and child. (2)

White goes onto say that God ordains the “actions of men, even their choices.”   Given such a view, White’s parable is absurd.  If  White’s parable is to be consistent with his theology, the castle rebellion occurs by necessity and design of the king.  Yet White makes it sound as if the rebels have a choice in the matter (the Arminian view!).  White’s parable is inconsistent at this point.  His theology necessitates that the rebellion occurs only because of the king’s good pleasure.  The king has ordained the choices of the rebels.  The rebels are puppets following the king’s script.  They cannot do other than what they do.  They rape, murder, and burn at the king’s command.

The real problem with White’s parable is that his descriptions of the king are not reconciled with his deterministic assumptions about God.  White says the king is the greatest of all times.  But a great king doesn’t ordain for his subjects to burn down his own castle.  White says the king only does good things.  But a good king doesn’t blame his subjects for doing what he has coercively caused them to do.  White says the king is loving beyond all description.  But a loving king does what’s best for his subjects, particularly when he knows they are doing precisely what he intended for them to do.

White parable inadvertently shows the absurdity of Calvinism.  A righteous king would never decree that his subjects rebel, and then punish them for doing what he caused them to do.  Such a king is not righteous or loving, he is not the greatest of all times, and he isn’t good.  Such a king would be sadistic and capricious.

————————————–

(1) The parable can be found on pages 306-312 of “The Potter’s Freedom”.  There is also a you-tube video here where White describes his parable and criticizes Dr. Geisler’s view.

(2)The Potter’s Freedom, p 45

The Meaning of “World” in First John

The letter of First John makes several direct references to the universality of Jesus’ atonement.

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2 NIV – bold mine)

And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. -1 John 4:14

In these passages John states that Jesus atoned for the sins of the whole world, and  came to be Savior of the the world.  The Greek word for world is kosmos.  The English word “cosmos” is derived from this word.  Cosmos means the entire universe.

Calvinists sometimes assert that kosmos in the context of John’s letter is limite to “to elect individuals from all nations”. The problem is that this interpretation is applied inconsistently.  And it does not make sense in context of how John applies the word elsewhere in the letter.

For example, 1 John 5:19 states: We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.

In 1 John 5:19 “whole world” cannot refer to only the elect, because it is speaking of the present fallen world under the control of Satan. It is this same world that Jesus died for.

For the purpose of illustrating John’s consistent use of kosmos, here is every occurrence from First John. Note how often John makes reference to the present fallen world. There is no exegetical merit to change the meaning to “elect” in 1 John 2:2 and 1 John 4:14.

1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 2:15-17 Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.

1 John 3:1 How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him.

1 John 3:13 Do not be surprised, my brothers, if the world hates you.

1 John 4:1-3 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

1 John 4:4-5 You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them.

1 John 4:9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.

1 John 4:13-18 We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God. And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. [Notice how the Calvinist definition of world contradicts itself within this particular passage]

1 John 5:3-5 This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.

1 John 5:19 We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.

In summary, The terms “whole world” and “world” as used in First John apply to the entire world.  The same world that is under the control of Satan is the same world for which Jesus died.  The Calvinist interpretation is not viable.  The Arminian interpretation is consistent.  Jesus is Savior of the entire world.  His propitiation applies to the whole world.

 

Addressing a Boettner Quote About Limited Atonement

If you surf the Calvinist blogoshpere, you will have probably seen the following quote by Loraine Boettner. It it is frequently used to argue for Limited Atonement:

“Let there be no misunderstanding at this point. The Arminian limits the atonement as certainly as does the Calvinist. The Calvinist limits the extent of it in that he says it does not apply to all persons (although as has already been shown, he believes that it is efficacious for the salvation of the large proportion of the human race); while the Arminian limits the power of it, for he says that in itself it does not actually save anybody. The Calvinist limits it quantitatively, but not qualitatively; the Arminian limits it qualitatively, but not quantitatively. For the Calvinist it is like a narrow bridge which goes all the way across the stream; for the Arminian it is like a great wide bridge which goes only half-way across. As a matter of fact, the Arminian places more severe limitations on the work of Christ than does the Calvinist.” (1)

Boettner’s representation of Arminianism is demonstrably false. Let’s take a more detailed look at this quote.

“Let there be no misunderstanding at this point. The Arminian limits the atonement as certainly as does the Calvinist.“

The Calvinist limits the atonement by claiming that God only intends to save a few. No way of salvation is provided for the majority of humanity. The Calvinist believes that God does not care enough about the reprobate to provide a way for them to be saved. God cares only about himself. He does not save anyone out of love, but rather saves a few as a means of demonstrating his control and power. The reprobate are left without help and without hope. They were created to be damned. There is no scriptural support for this view, and it distorts the scriptural teaching that God does not want anyone to perish, but wants all to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).

Scripture teaches that God loves the world and that Jesus died for all (John 3:16, 1 Tim 2:5-6). Jesus’ sacrifice genuinely provided the means for all to be saved (1 John 2:2). Scripture teaches that God does not show favoritism (Romans 2:9-11) Jesus did not die selfishly, rather, he did so willingly and for all (Isaiah 5:6-7). Jesus’ death demonstrated his unfathomable love for all of sinful humanity (Romans 5). Jesus’ sacrifice was for everyone (Heb 2:9). His love is genuine for all. His sacrifice is applied to those who accept it in faith (John 1:12-13). All are provided for and those who believe are saved (Acts 16:31, John 3:16).

“The Calvinist limits the extent of it in that he says it does not apply to all persons (although as has already been shown, he believes that it is efficacious for the salvation of the large proportion of the human race);“

It is true that the Calvinist limits the extent of the atonement. However, in Calvinism salvation is not “efficacious for the salvation of the large proportion of the human race”. Rather, only a few will be saved. The large proportion of the human race is deliberately left helpless by God. Most of humanity has been damned from all eternity and for all eternity(2), and Calvinists claim this demonstrates God’s love. Boettner also contradicts a point from earlier in his essay where he argues that the wider the atonement, the less valuable it is. “The things we have to choose between are an atonement of high value, or an atonement of wide extension. The two cannot go together.” (B.B. Warfield). Thus in Calvinism if Jesus death was for the large proportion of the human race, then it was also of less value.

Arminians see no conflict here. Scripture clearly teaches that Jesus’ death was of both high value and universal extension. Who are we to talk back to God? :)

“while the Arminian limits the power of it, for he says that in itself it does not actually save anybody.“

Bottner treats Jesus death as an act of power rather than an act of love. God did not send his son to show how powerful he was, rather, he sent his son because of his love for the world. By misunderstanding the nature and application of God’s power, Boettner misunderstands the nature of God’s love. It is false that Arminians believe that the atonement “does not actually save anybody”. We believe Jesus died for all and saves everyone who believes in him. Since God has exhaustive knowledge, he also knew that his sacrifice would be effectual for those who would believe in him.

“The Calvinist limits it quantitatively, but not qualitatively; the Arminian limits it qualitatively, but not quantitatively.”

The atonement is universal in scope and provisional in application. Jesus death on the cross atoned for all sin, but only those who repent will benefit(3). To be forgiven there is a requirement of repentance. Without repentance there can be no forgiveness of sins (Acts 3:19). The Calvinist divorces the atonement from the Biblical teaching that Jesus doesn’t save us unless we believe.

“For the Calvinist it is like a narrow bridge which goes all the way across the stream; for the Arminian it is like a great wide bridge which goes only half-way across.”

This is perhaps the silliest accusation made by Boettner. No one believes in a bridge that goes halfway across. The narrow bridge analogy much better describes the Arminian view of atonement than it does the Calvinist view. In Arminianism, Jesus Christ is the bridge. He beckons all to cross. Those who believe in him are the ones who cross the bridge and benefit. For a bridge to be of benefit one must cross it. A bridge is provisionally useful. Not everyone crosses a bridge, but anyone can. This is the Arminian understanding of the atonement. In Calvinism the reprobate are dead and have no way to cross the bridge, and yet are still commanded to do so. The “elect” do not cross the bridge either. They are somehow irresistibly dragged across. The Calvinist view of the atonement is more akin to an invisible and random wormhole that teleports a few lucky ones to the other side.

As a matter of fact, the Arminian places more severe limitations on the work of Christ than does the Calvinist.

Bottner does not explain what the “severe limitations” are that Arminians place on the atonement. Arminians believe that anyone can be saved, and that those who believe will be saved. The atonement is universal in scope, and provisional in application. This is the scriptural teaching of atonement.

1 Limited Atonement by Loraine Boettner.
2 This is a paraphrase of a quote from The Five points of Calvinism by George Bryson. “You will be saved or damned for all eternity because you were saved or damned from all eternity.”
3 See the Provisional Atonement series on the Arminian Perspectives blog for a detailed treatment of this subject.

John Goodwin’s "Redemption Redeemed" Online!

The Society of Evangelical Arminians has obtained a PDF of “Redemption Redeemed” by John Goodwin. It can be found here.

From the website:

John Goodwin’s Redemption Redeemed may be the best defense of Arminianism ever written. Published in 1651 by the Arminian Puritan John Goodwin (1593-1665), it is written in seventeenth century English with a Puritan writing style, which can make for challenging reading. But it contains tremendous biblical exegesis. The patient reader will be rewarded with a powerful, classic, comprehensive, biblical defense of five point Reformation Arminian theology.

And also:

A revised, shortened edition has been produced, which mildly updates the language and provides excerpts concentrated on defending unlimited atonement from the much larger work made available here: Redemption Redeemed: A Puritan Defense of Unlimited Atonement

Thanks to John Wagner for all the hard work he has done to make these resources available.

The Farmer, the Boys, and the Pond

In his book “Chosen but Free“, Dr. Norman Geisler* gives a illustration that vividly explains the problem with the Calvinistic teaching of Limited Atonement. Here is a paraphrase of the story:

There was a farmer who owned a pond. He did not want anyone to go swimming in it. He built a fence around the pond and posted a sign that said: NO SWIMMING ALLOWED.

One day three boys came upon the pond. They saw the sign, but decided to go swimming anyway. They climbed the fence, and jumped into the pond. After jumping in, they realized that there was no way to get out. They began to drown.

The farmer came to the pond, and saw that the three boys were drowning. He said to the boys, “Didn’t you see the sign? You have broken the rules. But I am a kind and loving farmer, so I will let one of you out.” The farmer then proceeded to throw a rope to one of the boys, and pulled him to shore. Then the farmer folded his arms and watched the other two boys drown. (The End)

If you met this farmer, would you say that he is a kind and loving man? Or would you perhaps describe him as heartless?

In the story the farmer represents God. The boys are humanity. The way the farmer behaves is exactly the way that Calvinists describe the behavior of God in regards to humanity. He has thrown a rope only to one of us (the elect). The rest of us (the reprobate) are left to drown.

One one point (God’s justice) the Calvinists are right. None of us deserve to be saved. Yet on the second point (God’s love), they are terribly wrong. They paint a distorted image of God. Like the farmer, He could save all. Yet He has capriciously and arbitrarily determined to save only a few. Calvinists say this gives God glory.

In reality, the Bible teaches that God has provided a way for all to be saved. He loves all. He is not willing for anyone perish, but wants everyone to come to repentance. Jesus is the atoning sacrifice not for only our sins, but for the sins of the whole world. Some unfortunately reject the “rope” that God has provided in the person of Jesus Christ. Those who reject Jesus will perish. However, it is a travesty to lay their rejection at the feet of God who has provided a means for all to be saved.

*Dr Gesiler does not consider himself to be an Arminian. He attempts to split the middle between Arminianism and what he calls “extreme Calvinism”. He refers to himself as “Moderate Calvinist”. Nevertheless, he makes some excellent points against classical Calvinistic doctrine.

According to Scripture, Jesus Died For …

According to scripture, Jesus died for …

Us all (Isaiah 53:6)
His people (Matthew 1:21)
All who are weary (Matthew 11:28)
Many (Matthew 20:28)
His people (Luke 1:68)
All the people (Luke 2:10)
The lost (Luke 19:10)
All who receive him (John 1:12)
The world (John 1:29)
Everyone who believes (John 3:15)
The world (John 3:16)
The world (John 3:17)
Whoever believes (John 3:18)
Whoever believes (John 3:36)
The world (John 4:42)
Whoever hears and believes (John 5:24)
The world (John 6:33)
He who comes and believes (John 6:35)
He who believes (John 6:47)
The world (John 6:51)
The sheep (John 10:7)
The sheep (John 10:11)
The sheep (John 10:15)
My sheep (John 10:27)
He who believes (John 11:25)
The Jewish nation (John 11:51)
The scattered children of God (John 11:52)
His friends (John 15:13)
Everyone who calls on the Lord (Acts 2:21)
The Church of God (Acts 20:28)
The ungodly (Romans 5:6)
Sinners (Romans 5:8)
God’s enemies (Romans 5:10)
Many (Romans 5:15)
All Men (Romans 5:18)
Your brother (Romans 14:15)
The weak brother (1 Corinthians 8:11)
All (2 Corinthians 5:14)
All (2 Corintihans 5:15)
The world (2 Cor 5:19)
Paul (Galations 2:20)
The Church (Ephesians 5:25)
All men (1 Timothy 2:6)
All men, especially those who believe (1 Timothy 4:10)
All men (Titus 2:11)
Everyone (Hebrews 2:9)
Many people (Hebrews 9:28)
The unrighteous (1 Peter 3:18)
False prophets (2 Peter 2:1)
Us, and the whole world (1 John 2:2)
The world (1 John 4:14)

General Atonement

Truehope over at Thru Faith has a new post entitled: Atonement for All. He gives a great overview of General Atonement, and how it is biblical. Be sure to check it out.

Reformation Era Scholars who Moved Away from Limited Atonement

I thought some others might find this interesting:

The Appendix of The Life of John Goodwin (Thomas Jackson, 1872) has a list of some scholars (Reformation Era to the mid 1800s) who moved away from Limited Atonement to “enlarged views of Divine Philanthropy”. The author includes himself in the list, as well as Luther, Calvin (?!), and others. Very interestingly, a number of those listed were involved with the proceedings in Dort. (Goad, Davenport, Tilenus, Hales of Eton).

APPENDIX.

It is a fact, which is highly worthy of attention, that several of the greatest divines, who have adorned the different Protestant churches by their learning, talents, and virtue, were, in the early part of their lives, “straitened in their bowels” respecting the extent of CHRIST’S REDEMPTION, and as they advanced in years and knowledge, they entertained enlarged views of the Divine Philanthropy. The following are some of the examples of this kind which may be specified:

MELANCTHON

Luther’s friend and coadjutor, was at first Luther’s scholar, and drew from him his earliest religious opinions. But being a learned and dispassionate man, pursuing truth, he saw his errors and abandoned them; and espoused sentiments concerning the respectiveness of God’s decrees, widely different from those he had formerly held. [A circumstance which is very conveniently passed over in silence by Dr. Cox, his late English biographer.] — Pierce’s Divine Philanthropy Defended, p. 14, Edit. 1657.

LUTHER

Also went on long as he at first set out, with so little disguise, that whereas all parties had always pretended that they asserted the freedom of the will, he plainly spoke out, and said the will was not free, but enslaved. Yet, before he died, he is reported to have changed his mind on this and other kindred subjects : for though ho never owned that, yet Melancthon, who had been of the same opinions, did ; for which he was never blame by Luther. — Burnet on the Seventeenth Article.

ARMINIUS

Himself was education at Geneva, and in the early part of his life embraced those doctrines concerning predestination, which Calvin and Beza had taught in that city. Afterwards, however, when actually engaged in vindication of those doctrines, he was convinced that they were indefensible; and embraced the principles of those whose religious system extends the Divine benevolence and the merits of Jesus Christ to all mankind.— Mosheim’s Eccles. Hist. Vol. V. p. 440, Edit. 1806.

DANIEL TILENUS

Professor of Divinity at Sedan, a man not less acute in judgment, than versed in all kinds of learning, distinguished himself by decided hostility to the sentiments of Arminius. Convinced at length by the arguments of his opponents, he changed sides; and proved the genuineness of his conversion by submitting to share with the Remonstrants in those severe persecutions which were inflicted upon them by the Dutch Calvinists. — Brandt’s History of the Reformation, Vol. II. p. 137, Edit. 1721.

DR. THOMAS JACKSON

President of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, is thus characterized by the noted Prynne : “Dr. Jackson is a man of great abilities, and of a plausible, affable, courteous deportment. — Of late he hath been transported beyond himself with metaphysical contemplations. The University of Oxford grieves for his defection” [from the doctrine of absolute predestination] . — Anti-Arminianism, p. 270, Edit. 1630.

BISHOP ANDREWS

Is generally allowed to have been one of the most learned and pious men of the age in which he lived. Concerning him, Dr. Pierce observes, “That that inestimable bishop, in his most mature and ripest years, was very severe to those doctrines which are commonly called Calvinistical, is a thing so known, that I cannot think it will be denied.” — Divine Purity Defended, p. 125, Edit. 1657.

DR. CHRISTOPHER POTTER

Provost of Queen’s College, Oxford, who was esteemed by all who knew him, as a divine of an amiable disposition, and of great probity, industry, and learning, has given a pleasing account of his conversion from Calvinism to the Armiman tenets; and the piety and meekness of temper displayed in the narrative add weight to his judgment, and are honourable to the cause for which he pleads. — Collection of Tracts on Predestination, p. 225, Cambridge, 1719.

DR. THOMAS PIERCE

One of the ablest opponents of Calvinism that system has ever had, states concerning himself: “I was, in my childhood, of the opinions [concerning Election, Reprobation, &c.] Mr. Barlee doth now contend for. But, through the infinite mercy of God, I have obtained conversion: and being converted from the practice, as well as from the opinion, which I was of, I will, to my poor utmost, endeavour to confirm or convert my brethren.” — Divine Philanthropy Defended, p. 15.

THE EVER-MEMOBARLE HALES, OF ETON

Who was a Calvinist in his younger days, used frequently to say, that when he heard Episcopius argue in favour of General Redemption at the Synod of Dort, he “bade John Calvin good night.” — Hales’s Golden Remains, Preface.

MR. SAMUEL HOARD

Author of a very able work entitled, ” God’s Love to Mankind Manifested,” — a work which produced a considerable effect among the national clergy, in the early part of the seventeenth century, — says, ” I have sent you here my reasons which have moved me to change my opinion in some controversies, of late debated between the Remonstrants and their Opponents.” — See the tract itself, p. 1, Edit. 1G38. W1tiston’s Memoirs, Vol. I. p. 10, Edit. 1749.

DR. THOMAS GOAD

Was a person every way eminent, having the repute of a great and general scholar, exact critic and historian, a poet, orator, schoolman, and divine. He was a member of the Synod of Dort, and acquitted himself there with great applause, in opposition to the opinions of the Remonstrants. He at length saw cause to alter his judgment ; and, in defence of those principles ho had formerly opposed, wrote a very able work entitled, “A Disputation concerning the Necessity and Contingency of Events.”— Echard’s History of England, Vol. II. p. 122, Edit, 1718. Collection of Tracts on Predestination, Preface.

ARCHBISHOP USSHER

Who is generally acknowledged to have been one of the most learned men in Europe, in the early part of his life held the doctrines of strict Calvinism; but as he advanced in years, avowed his belief of General Redemption; and is said, before his death, to have expressed his dislike of the whole doctrine of Geneva. — Pierce’s Christian’s Rescue from the Grand Error of the Heathen, Appendix, Edit. 1G58. — Bird’s Fate and Destiny Inconsistent with Christianity, p. 74, Edit. 1726. — Parr’s Life of Ussher, Appendix, p. 61, Edit. 1G86. — Wordsworth’s Ecclesiastical Biography, Vol. V. p. 504, Edit. 1810.

DR. ROBERT SANDERSON

Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford, and afterwards Bishop of Lincoln, has given an interesting account of the progress of his mind, from the sublapsarian scheme, to the mild sentiments of Melancthon and Arminius. — Hammond‘s Pacific Discourse concerning God’s Grace and Decrees, p. 8, 1660.

MR. RICHARD BAXTER

At the commencement of his theological career, was eager in his attachment to the peculiar doctrines of Calvin. But when his judgment was more matured, though he still maintained the absolute Election of some men to Life Eternal, he contended strenuously for General Redemption, and for Universal Grace. — Baxter’s Catholick Theologie, Preface.

BISHOP DAVENANT

Appears to have undergone a change of sentiment similar to that of Baxter. For Archbishop Ussher “freely declared himself for the doctrine of General Redemption, and owned that he was the person who brought both Bishop Davenant and Dr. Preston to acknowledge it.” — Calamy’s Abridgment of Baxter’s Life and Times, p. 405, Edit. 1713.

DR. DANIEL WHITBY

Says, “They who have known my education, may remember that I was bred up seven years in the University, under men of the Calvinistical persuasion; and had once firmly entertained all their doctrines.” The zeal with which he afterwards opposed those doctrine’s, in his Commentary on the New Testament and in his Discourse concerning the Five Points, is universally known. — Whitby on the Five Points, Preface.

CALVIN

Himself, according to Dr. Watts, is entitled to a place among those divines whose attachment to the doctrines of limited mercy and partial redemption abated as they advanced in years. After noticing the difference between his sentiments as expressed in his Institutions and in his Commentaries, the Doctor says, ” It may be proper to observe, that the most rigid and narrow limitations of grace to men are to be found chiefly in his Institutions, which were written in his youth. But his Comments on Scripture were the labour of his riper years, and maturer judgment.”— Works, Vol. III. p. 472, Edit. 1800.

Sola Paul (satire)

In this post I would like to look at the extent of the atonement. By using proper exegesis of scripture it can be proven with certainty that Jesus died to effectually secure salvation for Paul of Tarsus. And for Paul alone.

First, let’s take a look at Galatians 2:20. This is the most important verse in the Bible, because it explicitly states the extent of the atonement (bold mine):

“I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.“

This verse is key. It indisputably proves that Jesus loved and gave himself only for Paul.

It’s worth noting that some theologians have used other passages in a vain attempt to apply the atonement to others for whom it was not intended. These heretics fail to make an important distinction. Ambiguous verses should always be interpreted in the light of more explicit verses. Galatians 2:20 very clearly limits the scope of the atonement to Paul, and Paul alone. Other less clear passages should be interpreted accordingly.

If Galatians 2:20 was the only verse that dealt with the extent of the atonement, the heretics might have a point. Fortunately it is not. Let’s take a look at some other clear passages:

In Matthew 18:12 we learn that the shepherd only wanted to save one sheep. In fact he abandoned 99 sheep to save the one (bold mine):

“What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off?“

This passage is so clear. It proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the shepherd found and saved only one sheep (Paul). The shepherd left the 99 other sheep on the hills. By doing this the shepherd maximized his glory. Moreover, he increased the appreciation and adoration of Paul, whom was effectually retrieved. If other sheep could have been retrieved, it would have diluted the value of the shepherd’s act.

The same parable is presented in Luke 15:4-6 (bold mine):

“Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’“

One again, we see the shepherd saving only one sheep. He leaves the reprobate sheep in open country, puts the one sheep on his shoulders, and goes home.

Theologian James White gives additional insight on the use of the word sheep (bold mine):

“The good Shepherd lays down His life in behalf of the sheep. Are all men the sheep of Christ? Certainly not…”

Before commenting on this quote, it is necessary to exegete White’s use of the term “sheep”. To the non-educated it may appear that he is using the word “sheep” to refer to more than one person. This is not the case. In English the word “sheep” can be singular or it can be plural. Here are some examples:

Singular example: Look! there is one sheep over there!
Plural example: Look! There are a boat load of sheep over there! We must be in New Zealand!

Non-English scholars do not often note this subtle distinction in the usage of the word “sheep”. Nor do the misguided plural atonement heretics who resort to man centered thinking instead of exegesis. White’s context is plain. When he uses the phrases “the sheep” and “the sheep of Christ”, he is referring to only one sheep. Never once does White say “boat load of sheep”, nor does he refer to New Zealand. He says only “the sheep” (which of course we know is Paul).

Now let’s get back to God’s word. Another important passage to look at is Acts 9:3-7 (The Damascus Road story). In it we see with crystal clarity that Jesus chose only Paul: (bold mine)

Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. And falling to the ground he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?”….the men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.

This passage indicates that only Paul heard Jesus’ voice and saw a light from heaven. The men with Paul heard the voice but did not see the light. The light was not for them, it was only for Paul. This proves that Paul’s fellow travelers were reprobate. Of course they would be, they were not Paul.

Philosophical Arguments on the Atonement for Paul:
There are only three philosophical arguments to be considered.
1) The atonement was for everyone
2) The atonement was for no one.
3) The atonement was for Paul.

We know that 1 is false, that is universalism. We know that 2 is false because Paul was saved. Option 3 is all we have left. The atonement was for Paul.

Common objections to Atonement for Paul:

Q: What about the many passages that speak about “the world”? Isn’t the world more than Paul?

A: In light of the explicit context of Galatians 2:20, it is clear that the ambiguous passages that refer to “world” are more accurately translated as “the world of the one elect person whose name is Paul”. Remember, ambiguous passages should always be interpreted in the context of explicit ones.

Q: But doesn’t Romans 1:16 state salvation is for both Greek and Jew? How can this be the one person Paul?

A: Quit imposing your own biased interpretation on the word. Read scripture and let it speak for itself. Paul easily answers this objection in 1 Corinthians 9:20-21 “To the Jews I became like a Jew…To those not having the law I became like one not having the law…“ You see, Paul is both Jew and Greek. Romans 1:16 refers only to Paul.

Q: What about Mary, Jesus mother? She wasn’t Paul and yet the Bible says she was blessed.

A: What are you, some kind of closet Catholic? Your line of thinking always leads back to Rome.

Q: This whole system is not fair. If only Paul is saved, what about everyone else who perishes? This is a bum deal for everyone except Paul.

A: Paul anticipates your objection and addresses it in Romans 9:20 “Who are you oh man to talk back to God?.” In other words this may seem unfair from your fallen human view, but it is God’s sovereign choice to individually and effectually save Paul and Paul alone. This gives God more glory, and makes Paul’s salvation more valuable. Don’t talk back to God.

Q: I’m not talking back to God, I’m saying that your system distorts the character of God.

A: You have an odd concept of fairness. Only one person usually wins the lottery too, but you don’t complain about that do you? Sometimes no one wins the lottery and this makes the jackpot even bigger. If everyone won the lottery it wouldn’t do anyone any good. For example if the jackpot was $1 million and 10 billion people won it, they would each only get 0.01 cents. What a ripoff! The same concept applies to salvation for Paul. He hit the jackpot.

Q: But wasn’t it a waste of Jesus blood to apply it only to Paul when it could have covered more?

A: Not at all, this was planned by divine decree before the creation of the world. Jesus blood was only intended for Paul, and it effectually secured Paul’s salvation. The atonement did not make salvation merely possible for Paul, it secured it.

Q: I don’t find this doctrine very motivating to preach the Gospel.

A: That is a straw man. Paul believed this and was very motivated. Besides, scripture commands us to preach the Gospel.

In conclusion, the extent of the atonement is very clear. Jesus death was for Paul, and Paul alone. We all need to throw aside our traditional biases and read scripture in the context that it was intended. Case closed.