Responding to Calvinist Arguments for Limited Atonement

all right today today we're doing some inside baseball if you know the term Christians debating amongst themselves about some of the doctrines about salvation soteriology we call it this is kind of a next level discussion about Calvinism but before I do anything else I recorded a quick intro that I would like to share with you today just for today's show [Music] [Applause] [Music] in honor of James White so this is actually a response to both sort of a response to dr. White's video where he responded to me he critiqued my video on limited atonement but I don't just want to do like a response to response because I feel like we just get so far away from the actual subject matter that it stops helping people and the whole goal here is to help people and assist people and add something fruitful to the conversation so let me say I'm taking advantage of his video as an opportunity to respond to what are actually some common Calvinist objections that frequently non Calvinists have never heard and certainly haven't responded to so I'm going to try to offer some thoughtful responses to these Calvinist objections I've put a an actual list of the things I'll respond to in the description in the video description and you guys can check those out I don't know if I'll have time for the Q&A today I'll announce later if I'll be taking questions and when I announce it then I'll take questions until then don't worry about adding your questions into the chat because there's a good chance we won't have time for that because there's a ton of stuff we're covering today so this is not just a response it's a chance to address some Calvinist objections to the idea that Jesus died for everyone that's the topic right did Jesus die for everyone the Calvinists - affirms limited atonement says no not really and those who don't affirm that would say yes he did die for everyone so I've put James White's video in the description and before I get into it I just want to say James why me and him actually got together and had lunch the other day a few weeks ago and we're best friends forever and that's just those are the facts and we had such a good time together that we went on a hike and after that I I decided you know to take him to Disneyland he was just begging me to go to Disneyland so we went to Disneyland together so I'm showing photos for those who are in the podcast of these things badly photoshopped fake photos and then we went skydiving just to kind of end off the day together there's us jumped out of a plane just skydiving together in the same pose as that first photo so anyways he and me and James - I actually did meet and we had a really friendly discussion and conversation we're not best friends but but my point here is this we need to treat this topic as brothers and sisters in Christ and if if you find that the moment Calvinism or not being a Calvinist comes up you're divisive with people that's a spiritual issue that you need to address in your relationship with God I can talk about this with my brothers and sisters and walk away totally disagreeing with no harm to our fellowship on this topic that's my opinion and I do I do live that out and I hope that we can try to live that out so here's another disclaimer before I get into the long video that will be today and that is I could be wrong I could be wrong on these topics and I'm open to the idea that I could be wrong and I'm in perhaps one day I'll make future content saying I've changed my mind on something I'm open to this idea I am convinced though and while I say it could be wrong I am convinced and it's not just like a completely uninformed convinced I try to hear the arguments from both sides and I am convinced that biblically this is really clear and so I want to present what I think is a very clear biblical case for the fact that Jesus died for everybody so James White's video it was not really so much just a response to me it wasn't exactly he didn't actually deal with most of the content in my video he brought up something he thought I didn't address and made that the focus of most of the video but I'm gonna deal with that issue called Trinitarian harmony in the atonement and he also addressed a bunch of stuff that I that I never taught and don't teach that stuff like in t riot or other people he's encountered have taught so it wasn't so much even though the title says it wasn't really about me that much but I'll use that as a launchpad to talk about these different issues and so I'm so here we go thanks for joining me my name is Mike winger this is the Tuesday livestream every Tuesday at 5 p.m. Pacific time I do this on youtube and it also goes out to podcast and it goes up later on you know God willing if we're able to get it up on the Facebook page and all that stuff too so let me lay out for you here's the overview several Calvinist objections here they are going to give you at least five maybe six Calvinist objections to limited atonement let me give you all the objections right now then I'm going to go back over them one it and slowly unpack those issues some will take longer than others but that's the plan for today so the first objection is called Trinitarian harmony in the atonement and if I could summarize what this is it's the idea that the Father elects and I want to say it like I'm a Calvinist here the father elects only certain people to be saved and then he sends the son to save just those people then the Holy Spirit only regenerates those same people so there's this cohesion in the plan and in the working together of the persons of the Trinity now if you're to say the son tries to save all people when the father has only chosen certain ones for salvation then you create a conflict in the Trinity where the sons trying to do something against the plan of the Father that is that is the basic idea of Trinitarian harmony in the atonement it's that if Jesus died for all people it threatens our theology of who God is okay so that's a pretty big objection we'll come to answering it later the second objection is that it's called the failure of the son objection it's the idea that if Jesus died for people for all people then he died for people who will end up in hell many of them so therefore Jesus failed at his task he's a failing Savior it's all deal without objection a third challenge would be the intercession issue and this is the idea that Jesus intercedes for whoever he died for you know he ever lives to intercede for us Hebrews speaks about this a lot he's living to intercede for who for the people he died for and whoever he intercedes for is going to be saved yet not everyone is saved therefore he does not intercede for everyone because they would all go to heaven right so therefore if he didn't doesn't intercede for everyone then he didn't die for everyone because there's a parallel between who he dies for and who he intercedes for so therefore Jesus didn't die for everyone that's the intercession argument then there's a group of false dilemmas a lot of several of them I was gonna do more but I can decide to narrow it down to this one from John Owen a famous famous dilemma or try lemon you might call and I'll just read to you this dilemma John Owen and I'll put it up on the screen I'll put it up again later sometimes it helps to hear things twice because it's these are weird ideas if you've never heard them before if you're not a Calvinist you're like wait what what what what what I mean this is a lot of stuff that just seems like it's coming out of nowhere and so it's good to hear it more than once so this is the this is John Owens dilemma or trilemma he says I may add this to limit to our Universalist God imposed his wrath do unto and Christ underwent the pains of Hell for either all the sins of all men that's the first option on your screen or all the sins of some men the second option or some of the sins of all men if the last if it's some of the sins of all men then have all men some sins to answer for and so shall no man be saved no I I didn't even tell you this I'm actually quoting John Owen from his book the death of death in the death of Christ this is the famous Calvinists work and as I read on he says if the second option if you pick the second option that is that is it which we affirm that the Calvinists that Christ died for all of the sins of some men that Christ in their stead and Rooms suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world if the first if you pick the first option why are not all freed from the punishment of their sins you will say because of their unbelief they will not believe but this unbelief is a sin is it not if not why should they be punished for it if it be then Christ underwent a punishment do it or not if so then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died if he does if he did not then he did not die for all their sins let them choose which part they will so this is like a dilemma where you're like if Jesus died for all the sins of all men then it's universalism everyone's gonna be saved if you deny universalism you have to say he did he basically died for all the sins of some men because unbelief is going to be included in this and I'll answer this later and then number five fifth thing I'll deal with is the double jeopardy issue this is the idea that that if I say Jesus died for everyone and yet people still suffer for their sins then I'm saying that there's double jeopardy or double payment for their sins let me read to you summary of this argument goes like this if Jesus died for all people then the sins of all people have been paid for there is no wrath left for them therefore to punish sin would be to punish it twice once in Christ and again upon the death of the unbeliever so there's someone you know suffering in the future in hell for his sin Jesus paid for so it's being paid for at the cross and in hell wait that doesn't make sense so that's the double jeopardy objection the conclusion is then Jesus didn't die for everybody now I don't agree with any of these but those are the objections and then finally at the end after this long video I will get to the part where I'm just going to say there are clear clear teachings in the scripture that refute the doctrine or the idea that Jesus died for only a certain group of people and not for all people and first John chapter 2 verse 2 was it was a major verse I used in my previous video James white actually responded directly to this verse and I'm gonna continue the conversation I think my position was misrepresented there and I want to bring clarity to that issue I don't think was done on purpose or maliciously but I think it was misrepresented and so we're gonna we're gonna get to there to the clear teaching passage where the extent of the atonement is directly addressed in Scripture and how I think the Calvinist interpretation doesn't undermine the power of this passage to proof unlimited atonement okay so that's that's that's just the summary that's just the intro here we go we're digging in and and yeah I do appreciate you guys joining with us I by the way I'm gonna say I don't intend to do this constant back and forth on these issues I have a lot of videos people make in response to me and I did pick one of one of them to respond to today with dr. James White's video but don't just for those who are watching don't expect me to respond to everybody's videos or to respond to whatever next response comes out I'll watch it because I highly respect James white and love him as a brother and I'll definitely consider everything he has to share but I don't I don't plan on taking my once a week major livestream and making it all response videos to the same issue further down the rabbit hole so to speak so I'm covering new issues and I think it's worth doing this time around alright Trinitarian in the Atonement this is the thing that I was told I did not address and because I didn't address it I had completely ignored the issue of limited atonement by the way James White's videos in the description my original video on limited atonement also in the description and a playlist of every video I have the deals with Calvinism in the description so here's how dr. white and other Calvinists they use this concept of Trinitarian harmony in the atonement the first objection that we'll handle and I'll spend more time on this one than the others they use it like a trump card it's like saying this issue of Trinitarian harmony it becomes this immovable theological reality so that discussion of verses like the ones I brought in my last video verses that seem to refute limited atonement that's a secondary issue because this primary issue Trump's those scattered verses and says nope we have this theological framework you cannot violate that's kind of how it functions and I'm gonna play some clips to show you what what I mean here's clips from dr. White's video where he explains the importance of Trinitarian harmony in the atonement it shows you how it's used why we should bother talking about it even though we have seemingly clear verses that refute limited atonement the only meaningful biblical way you can address the issue of the subject of the atonement is to see it as the act of the triune God and hence you must understand the father's role and purpose the son's role and purpose and the Spirit's role in purpose you must see the atonement not merely as one act separated from everything else but you must see how that act is a part of the specific intention of the triune God to glorify himself so that this is in other words this is like central you again you can use this to Trump the texts that I was using let me share another video this is actually in his video responding to me this is the only clip of my video he played was a part at the end of my video where I said I'm not dealing with Trinitarian harmony today because I think that the texts I've brought clearly refute the the idea of limited atonement and this was his response that was that was the whole point that is the whole point if you don't deal with that you're not dealing with the issue at least not as it's being presented by us so I'm not even handling the issue I'm ignoring it all right let me play one more one more clip to help get this point across and then you need to you need to hear what we're saying if y'all are gonna respond then you need to you need to hear what we're saying if you're gonna respond you need to hear what we're saying that's the idea so I'm in other words I did a video that sorry I'm still really small I did a video that that unpacked and handled the doctrine of limited atonement dealt with several objections and gave multiple scriptures to support that Christ died for everyone and the response from from a you know Calvinist thinker that we've got here who I respect and love says Mike you didn't even handle it you ignored the real issues so this is how Trinitarian harmony in the atonement is used like a trump card like hey you haven't even really addressed the major issues Mike you've just skipped over them and so now this is this is I think I think often the case where the are the Arminian or I'm not an Armenian by the way but the Armenian or the non Calvinists they will bring scripture that says ha this refutes that doctrine of Calvinism and the Calvinist says no no no no I'm gonna bring not not just scripture but a theological framework a theological principle that will trump your scripture I of course started my video the beginning of my video I'm gonna fight yeah I have a clip here notice what I said at the beginning of my video I said I think I have a good reason why this scripture actually Trump's your theological framework so try to track with this because if you understand this you understand some of the major differences between Calvinists and non Calvinists if you can understand where James White's coming from and where I'm coming from it seems that the majority of the reasons people offer for limited atonement to support this particular doctrine is philosophical reasoning it's not based upon here's what the Scripture teaches clearly about limited atonement it's rather here's what the Bible says about other issues and I think logically when we apply that to limited atonement we get the doctrine of limited atonement I'm not really planning on covering that kind of stuff today because I'll just say I think I can trump that logic or that philosophy by saying even if you feel your logic and theology is good if the Bible disagrees with you you should reconsider that that logic may be wrong about how you're applying one doctrinal truth to a different doctrinal question so this is kind of like an important point and this is one the reasons why I thought it'd be fruitful to do a response video because here I am bringing the scriptures and the responses that you ignored the real issues well let me deal with those issues now I've dealt with both I felt with these clearest teaching scriptures and now I'm gonna deal with Trinitarian harmony in the atonement so this might be a fruitful thing because we're talking we're on the same page put it that way so again now let's summarize this this this concept again for those who've never heard it you might need to hear it again the idea is the father only elects certain people to be saved right the son saves those people only he dies for them right he dies for only the people God elects then the Holy Spirit only regenerates the elect and then this is harmony in the atonement the conflict comes in according to this idea the conflict comes in if the son if Jesus tries to save all people well he's trying to save people the father didn't send him to save because the father only elected certain people and then you know Jesus then goes rogue Jesus is paying for people the father didn't want him to and so the solution is Jesus really didn't die for everybody he only died for the elect in order to preserve the the doctrine of who God is that harmony within the Trinity so yeah this is pretty big deal right cuz then we're saying if Jesus died for all people you're threatening the doctrine of who God is the theology of God's very character and nature now I have problems with this in principle in principle before we even get to texts that are used to support this doctrine I have problems with the very idea itself and I want to share some of those with you there's a lot of other issues people bring up that I'm not going to bring up I'm just gonna share things that I thought I felt we're compelling as challenges to Thea or Trinitarian harmony in the atonement number one one problem it deals it depends rather it depends on only a single intention of the their son and spirit in the atonement it depends on the idea that the father has a limited intention that Jesus will only die for the elect like that because that that's what we're assuming we're just we're assuming or I think it's being assumed because I don't think there's any passage in the scripture that says it in any clear sense and so if if I say the father only wants these elect people saved that seems to be the the crooks of the issue I got to prove that that's all the father once before I can say the son can't disagree with the father and that is something I think that is not established in the text of Scripture I think the father elects you know the son pays the spirit actualizes I would I would agree with that I would agree with that but I think that there's more information that we have in Scripture so we're not limited to that information I also think it's actually refuted by clear teaching passes in Scripture and I share these in my previous video but I'm gonna go into them again because I know most of you probably won't go and watch that other video right now so first John 2:2 this was one I really sat on and James white objected to this to my interpretation here I'll come to that towards the end of this video his objections but let me just put it out here to show you that I think that this clearly refutes Trinitarian harmony in the atonement as a as a fruitful Avenue you know and so first John 2:2 it says he's the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world Jesus dies not just for our sins but for the whole world and I will establish later as I did in my last video that whole world here most certainly includes at least some non-elect people that's that's my whole point on the whole world so he's a propitious just the Bible clearly says Jesus died for more than just believers he died for unbelievers in particular the the non-elect I'll explain that in more detail later in 1st Timothy 4 verse 10 and these are not new none of these passages are new Calvinists are like I knew you'd go there I knew you'd quote that mic well yes of course you did because these are the important these are the crucial passages I'm not surprised you knew I'd go there but I think that they still hold their ground even amongst in in the midst of the rebuttals that at least I'm aware of so first Timothy 4:10 for to this end we both we toil and strive because we have our hope set on the Living God who is the savior of all people especially of those who believe he's the savior of all especially of those who believe so there's a sense in which Jesus saves all he's the savior of all and in another sense especially of those who believe that this works with unlimited atonement but limited application that that works perfectly fine second Peter 2:1 and notice the point of what I'm sharing with these three verses I'm giving you right now the point is you can't say Jesus couldn't possibly have died for everyone because it would mean he's in conflict with the Father like you can't use this logical construct when scripture clearly teaches he died for all people that would be my my case here so put away all way this is first Peter I need second Peter but false prophets also arose among the people just as there will be false teachers among you who will secretly bring in destructive heresies even denying the master who bought them bringing upon themselves Swift destruction so these people are people who in the future will not be saved they will have Swift destruction and they're denying the master who bought them so they were bought Jesus he his purchase was made on their behalf and yet they're not in the future going to be saved that that would be I think that a simple and valid interpretation of 2nd Peter 2:1 and there's other passages too but my point is saying that this concept that Jesus died for people who will not be saved that this causes conflict in the Trinity it doesn't undo the fact that scripture teaches that that's exactly what happened that Jesus died for people who aren't saved and so I don't think it's right to use this this trump card for that reason but let me give some other responses to Trinitarian harmony in the atonement I'm gonna spend a lot of time on this particular issue we'll spend less time on some of the other issues what else would would help would help refute my position here or to me but the Trinitarian harmony atonement what would help refute it it would be just this I only need the same complexity in the father's desires as there is in the work of Christ so that the father he has a genuine desire for all to be saved but we'll only save those who have faith in Jesus and that his that complexity is in the father's intentions I'm gonna send the son to pay for all that whoever believes in Him will be saved if that's in the Father's heart then there's no disunity there is no disharmony in the Trinity then the sons sacrifice it can be for all people but only applied to those who have faith the Holy Spirit can call all to come but only regenerate those who have faith that that means we have Trinitarian harmony in the atonement this seems really easy to overcome this seemingly huge objection it seems it seems to a my and it seems very easy to overcome so do I have scripture that supports this that shows the father has an intention that Jesus would die for all people or in his intention as desires that all would be saved you know and then the requirement is that they might have faith that they would have they would believe in Christ and I think we have this kind of support in Scripture so Romans 10 21 says but if Israel he says all day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people what's interesting about Romans 10 21 is that this actually has application in Romans to the people of Israel rejecting Jesus and rejecting his salvation and God's attitude and posture towards them as I'm holding out my hands to you which means a genuine offer now if limited atonement is true there is no genuine offer of salvation because Jesus didn't actually for those who are not elect because Jesus didn't actually die for them so there is no real offer no genuine offer and some Calvinists will say there isn't I don't follow the logic there it seems it seems irrational to say that there's a genuine offer of salvation when geez it didn't die for you like that's not genuine that's not a genuine offer but yet Romans 2 10 20 once implies that Jesus is offered genuinely but not received God's reaching his hand out but they're rejecting it another passage that is sometimes brought up in this in this debate is Ezekiel 33 11 speaking of God's attitude towards towards those that are and certainly some of these are non elect some of these people in Ezekiel 33 11 say to them as I live declares the Lord declares the Lord God I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked but that the wicked turn from his way and live turn back turn back from your evil ways for why will you die o house of Israel now many of those to whom Ezekiel wrote did not turn back which means that we would include them in those who if you were had a Calvinist mindset you're thinking they were well some Calvinist not all that they were predetermined ahead of time that they were gonna be rejecting God's will and yet here God's God's call and yet here God's like I want you to and I want you to turn back I desire for you to turn back please turn back he's appealing to their choice in this case another scripture that talks about God's intent is first Timothy chapter chapter 2 verses 1 through 6 and I'll share this and I'm also going to share with you a little bit of what the at least one Calvinist interpretation of this passage so that you can kind of hear both sides a little bit okay here it says first of all then I urge that supplications prayers intercessions and thanksgiving be made for all people for kings and all who are in high position that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life godly and dignified in every way this is good and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior who desires verse 4 all people who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth for there's one God and there is one mediator between God and men the man Christ Jesus who gave himself as a ransom for all which is the testimony given at the proper time so here we have what on this on the face of it looks like the father's desire his intent in the atonement is that all people would be saved he desires that and then we have Christ who gives himself for all so it would be probably the same all the same all in both tech and context here one Verte two verses apart rather the father wants all people saved Jesus gave himself a ransom for all for all people would be the same group as the one the father wants to be saved I would say that now this seems pretty simple um Christ died for everyone and God wants them all to be saved but he leaves it up to your will whether you will receive the gospel of Christ now that is not a Calvinist perspective that is that is my perspective that is my understanding of it and I think that this passage refutes limited limited atonement now there is a Calvinist response to this passage that I'm that I'm familiar with a Calvinist would say this isn't all people this is all kinds of people God doesn't want everyone saved he wants all types of people saved Jews Gentiles Romans barbarian Scythian slave free like there's all kinds of people he went saved and at first you're like I don't see any justification for this but they back up a little bit and this is why I read all the way from chapter 2 verse 1 and they say but look God wants supplications prayers intercessions and Thanksgivings who made for all people so here's all people the first time in the passage and all people here according to the Calvinist interpretation at least one Calvinist interpretation is all people represents kings and all who are in high positions and then so it's types of people God wants us to pray for all kinds of people including Kings including people who aren't Kings but even this fails because if we're gonna say the all that God wants saved are related to the all in verses 1 & 2 we have to recognize that we're not being told to pray for some of all people who were in high positions but all who were in high positions all so this isn't this is not a some of the people in the category of high positions this is everybody in that category so again we're not limiting things here to an elect group within a category of people like Kings but just everybody so we're praying for everybody is the idea and also he dies for everybody and God desires that everybody be saved I don't see any good other interpretation here let me give you one more passage about the intent the father's intent so to show that there is no disagreement here in the Trinity when it comes to this and I know I know this video is not gonna convince James why he James white heard all this from probably smarter guys than me and he's already thought it through and he has his opinions this video is for you guys just like his if he does a response it's not for me it's for you it's to help other people you know think this through and so I hope it's fruitful for that I'm second Peter 3:9 the Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness but is patient toward you not wishing that any should perish but that all should reach repentance now some would take this and read this into read into this the elect it's referring to the elect he doesn't want any of the elect to perish he doesn't want he wants all of the elect to reach repentance but for those who really care about just good verse by verse study practices you've got to feel some tension they're like you're you're adding to the text that's just not what it says I think you're just adding to the text when you say that this sounds a lot like Ezekiel to me Ezekiel weighs like I'll turn from a week away I don't want I don't take any delight in the death of the wicked I want you to turn and be saved and so here the same thing is what we're getting in this 2nd Peter passage 2nd Peter 3:9 I know there's other Calvinist responses to these things including every verse I brought up but I don't think they do the job and it would make this video really long if I try to encounter every objection on my path of explaining things so we have here what I've given you let me tell you what I told you so far that the father does have an intention that Jesus pay for all people because he desires all people to be saved and that it depends upon the application of that is to those who will actually have faith in Christ who will respond to the call that that seems to be the case right the atonement was intended to provide payment for all people but only be applied to those who believe that seems to be a very simple biblical understanding that seems consistent and these clear teaching passages support it in my opinion let's go to another objection to Trinitarian harmony in the atonement as an objection and it is that it assumes that if one thing is true another thing is true what do I mean it assumes that if God elects somebody that that necessitates Jesus only pays for those people and again that that isn't necessarily like you could easily you could easily believe an individual election that God individually elects all you know each person and Jesus pays for all people but like I don't see any reason why I can't believe both of those things and I mean give me a really careful thought-out reason why I can't just affirm both of those things so there's it's an unnecessary correlation so what would help Trinitarian harmony automa it would be a passage in the Bible that clearly says that the father only wants Jesus to die for some people that would be that would be really helpful or a passage that says the Holy Spirit only calls certain people to come to Christ and other people he he has no no calling is presented from the hope from the holy spirit there's no beckoning there's no true gospel presentation to those people or a passage that says that Jesus he simply didn't die for certain people like I just need one verse that says like Jesus did not die for Judas right or Jesus didn't die for Caiaphas like that's all I need is one of those kinds of things or an exclusive statement that Jesus only died for certain people right Jesus died for for us and only us and nobody else you know that would be a pretty big deal in fact you wouldn't need this Trinitarian harmony in the atonement hold construct you wouldn't need it because the construct itself is one step removed from just a plain teaching in Scripture that Jesus only died for certain people and not others which we don't have any text that says that so let's go now that that's my in principle objections to Trinitarian harmony and atonement I want to go now to the the one passage that dr. white brought up and some other comments bring up to support Trinitarian harmony in the atonement so let's hear this case is gonna be dealing with Romans chapter eight is the passage we're gonna be looking at and this is what James white did in his video so this is it in a nutshell I wanted to just play a clip where he just summarizes but it yeah I couldn't find a new pit where it's like here's the argument in clarity you know start to finish boom here's the summary of it I just couldn't find a snippet like that and so I'll give you my summary this is my honest attempt to summarize it well so you can evaluate me tell me if I did it right but it's based on Romans 8 and it's called the golden chain of redemption and the idea is in Romans 8 verse 29 through 32 we're getting a a case for limited atonement based on Trinitarian harmony in the atonement here's how it goes let's first look at the verse and then I'll tell you how they use it Romans 8:29 29 200 there it is for those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his son in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and those whom he predestined he also called and those whom he called he also justified those whom he justified he also glorified now the idea here is that the person the people who were four known are the same exact group as those who were predestined called justified and glorified so that those words are used not only inclusively of those people but exclusively of those people you'll understand why that's important in a minute but so the people who are for no more predestined called justified and glorified so that verses 29 and 30 present present one group of people referring to the elect I think the elect of all time is how he would interpret this but none of this has to do in my opinion with the extent of the atonement so we know like saying okay so all those things are true but how does that say Jesus didn't die for the unsaved or those who end up rejecting him I mean not that you can even reject him if he didn't die for you what are you rejecting but but if you go down to verse 32 you you can try to bridge the gap between the four no predestined call justify glorified and then say yes and it's also those who Jesus died for exclusively so let me try to I'm trying to build this case as clearly as I can it's actually really hard to find a Calvinist at least for me I had a hard time finding a Calvinist who would summarize this Trinitarian harmony atonement from Romans 8 in a simple defensible way I had a hard time finding it usually it's really drawn-out and difficult to summarize it and it's important to summarize things I think so what we do is we go to verse 32 that verse 32 says he who did not spare his own son but gave him up for us all how will he not also with him graciously give us all things so now we're saying okay those who are for no predestined call justified glorified these same people are the ones whom Jesus died for because he gave up his son for us all so us all is predestined called that all that stuff there for now we can say Jesus died for the elect and for only the elect so we're going we're taking an inclusive statement Jesus died for us and we're making it exclusive and only us that's what this Trinitarian harmony argument requires it requires not just that he died for us he died for only us only those who were predestined called to the pit that day I I don't I don't agree from this from the start I I can grant a largely Calvinistic interpretation of this passage of romans 8 and i can say okay foreknown let's say foreknowledge and i'm not gonna get into foreknowledge I have a whole video on it in my Calvinists playlist that you guys can check out and it deals with this passage it deals with foreknowledge but let's suppose that I grant the Calvinist view of foreknowledge and we say for no means godlike chose you he loved you and elected you for known means he's relationally chose you for salvation let's say it does mean that does that therefore mean that everything else said about those who are foreknown cannot be said in any sense about those who are not chosen those who are not going to be saved and that's where I think it falls apart this is a negative inference fallacy and hosts some counts of role in their eyes when I say this but I think this is a legitimate challenge I could grant all of these things and just say okay it's not exclusive when it comes to the extent of the atonement the passage does not make it clear that Jesus died only for us all it doesn't say that and other passages do make it clear that Jesus did die for non elect people so I I don't have a case for this Trinitarian harmony in this passage I don't have at the exclusivity of Jesus's death only for a certain group of people because it's inclusively saying he gave him up for us and there's a there's again there's the passage 1st Timothy 4:10 I'll bring back in Jesus God is the savior of all people especially of those who believe so there's there's a sense in which a special sense in which Jesus is the savior of those who believe and that's what Romans 8 talking about doesn't mean he didn't also offer salvation to all people because of the inclusiveness of his atonement so I can affirm both senses I can affirm that he died for my sins specifically because I'm a Christian and oh yes he died for me but I can also affirm II died for those who reject him and we'll go back to 1st John 2:2 right he's a propitiation for our sins but not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world these are clear teaching passages what I'm doing with Romans 8 is I'm I'm drawing this sort of this affirmation of a truth I'm making that I'm saying therefore its exclusive not just an inclusive statement therefore exclusive Jesus only died for that for us and yet we have clear teaching passages that seem to dispute that so Romans 8 doesn't force it on us in other passages seem to refute it so there is debate on this passage I just don't see how it rules out the father's genuine desire for all to be saved but only saving those who fate have faith in Jesus the sons sacrifice being for all people would only apply to those who have faith in Jesus the holy spirit calling all to come while only regenerating those who have faith in Christ so Romans 8 though it says those who he predestined he also called and so they also will say in Romans 8 that pardon me that that Jesus because the in this golden chain of redemption as it's called I think just by Calvinists but the this this section it says you know losing me for new predestined he called okaywell called so God only calls those who were for known in predestined those are the only ones that are called and I would say I don't think that that is the point of the text I don't think it's making this clear exclusive statement I could say that those who are called and predestined are justified and glorified it doesn't mean that no one else is called but rather those who are called and predestined and cor known and all all of these things apply to all of the person who has the first couple in the list that would be the idea that was that's one interpretation possible right there that I think is legitimate so God does call the elect but he also seems to call everyone else many are called but few are chosen scripture says we're to go to preach the gospel to every creature every creature I mean this couldn't possibly be every kind of person but not every signal we're obviously told to preach the gospel to everyone which involves a promise you know that that Jesus died for you so that you could be forgiven if you were repent and believe yet the if you repent and believe isn't even true if Jesus didn't die for them so that's a serious problem with limited atonement that I think is often ignored by those who promoted in my opinion there's another challenge and this comes from dr. White's video he says that sin urges and by the way I'm not a synergist and I have a video on that in my Calvin's playlist but he says sinner just have Christ dying for all sorts of people who will never be justified and I think that Romans 8 doesn't limit who Christ died for is just about the benefits of those who are who are believing that this this fits the context of Romans throughout you have to have faith you have to believe it build this whole case the whole bookends around Romans 8 are you have to believe so that you can be in Christ so that you might have the benefits of Christ and yeah Jesus did die for people who won't be justified that I do agree that that is what I'm saying I just think that Scripture is also saying it let me give a another scripture here Romans 10 verse 10 it's the same book mm-hmm for with the heart one believes and is justified and with the mouth one confesses and is saved for the scripture says everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame for there is no distinction between Jew and Greek for the same Lord is Lord of all stowing his riches on all who call on him for everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved so yeah that in Romans the the emphasis of course is on our response to the genuine offer of the gospel that we would believe and we would call upon him that's consistent in the book of Romans I don't think Romans 8 can be used to try to sort of refute that genuine offer of the gospel in the genuine provision that God is given it just doesn't make sense the problem is not God didn't God didn't call you or God didn't provide for you the problem is you didn't believe that that would be the problem in Romans but they have not all obeyed the gospel for Isaiah says Lord who has believed what he's heard from us so faith comes from hearing and hearing through the word of Christ but I ask have that not heard indeed they have and so yeah we have the main issue with the golden chain of redemption in Romans 8 it is it pushes the text past its intention it assumes sort of second level meanings implications that are not clear in the text itself and that seemed to be refuted by other passages of Scripture so let me see I'm just looking at my notes here I I do this give me a long video and I I always make notes and then think about skipping section so let me just look at my notes and decide if I should read this whole next section here yeah I guess I need to so related to Trinitarian harmony why this ways and on the issue of the atonement is its meaning to show that Jesus's mission was to only do what he did for the benefit of those who were foreign-owned called justified and glorified excluding the extent of Christ's work to the sin of those outside the group of four known you know call justified all that but the passage doesn't say that it never speaks to the topic of refusing or you know denying that Christ offered for other people who reject him so again that's the negative inference fallacy it's that's I think that's a clear negative food for its policy that makes a lot of sense to me doctor ye you know your video you call this a canard the negative inference fallacy it just called it a canard but it I'll just say I am convinced that it is the case and I think a lot of other people are as well so maybe you guys could explain how that's not a canard rather than just saying it is I say that respectfully as a brother so in reference to verse 32 Romans yeah no no no I'm gonna move forward ok so finally as we move off the topic of Trinitarian harmony in the atonement which I was asked to address and I was told that nobody addresses this by the way I was told the David Allen in particular it was said that he ignores this and doesn't address it but he in both of his books on the atonement he addresses Trinitarian harmony in atonement specifically by name he deals with both of them I think in his book the atonement that book he addresses it in greater detail than in the other one at least in a specific section identifying for this topic Trinitarian harmony so it's dealt with in detail and and he gives a list of objections to it that are things worth thinking about but if theäôve Trinitarian harmony in atonement is important and we did see that Jesus died for all people I think we could flip this whole idea of Trinitarian harmony on its head I could say hey if Jesus clearly liked first John 2:2 dies for all people including the UH non-elect well then it must be the father's intention for Jesus to do so because there won't be disunity in the Trinity so you could use this argument against the colonist to be of limited atonement just as easily as someone might try to use it against my view ok the second objection now moving on number 2 and now we're gonna move a lot quicker the second objection is this idea that Jesus failed Jesus failed if he was trying to save all people because not all people actually get saved so if Jesus and died and was dying for all and not all end up saved he's a failure and to this I say I understand the power of this because obviously it is blasphemous to say that Christ is a failure so it's powerful in that it appeals to my piety my sense of love for Christ and the glory of God but I feel it's a powerless you know a powerless challenge to the idea of universal extent of Christ's atonement because what if the goal of Jesus what if his goal was I want to die for all so that anybody who believes in Me will be saved well now Jesus hasn't failed and yet that's exactly what we're saying this is what this is the doctrine we're actually saying we're not saying Jesus tried and failed to save rather we're saying Jesus paid for all that those who believed would receive the benefits of his offering and of his sacrifice and it seems so simple and so biblical let me take you to a passage you guys you probably had never heard this verse before it's really gonna probably blow you away it's in the Gospel of John chapter 3 verse 16 it says God so loved the world that He gave His only Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life in this passage it seems to be saying God send his son to die for everyone so that those who believe would be saved well this is this is this is a success the son has succeeded he died for all that those who believed would be saved that would be my understanding of the passage and we'll deal with the concept of world a little bit later in this video so this idea that the son failed if the if limited atonement is not true then the son failed that seems to just be a non-starter it just doesn't get off the ground in my opinion it misrepresents the position of non Calvinists actually all right number three third objection told you have a pastor there is an equation or a connection of intercession with atonement and it's it's a it's a little bit complicated if you haven't heard it before so I'm going to try and break it down as simply as I can but let me let me play some clips where dr. white talks about this issue the idea in short is that whoever Jesus intercedes for is the one is the same as the people he died for and everyone he intercedes for will be saved and therefore every when he died four will be saved and therefore whoever isn't saved he doesn't intercede for and he didn't die for it that's kind of the idea let me play a clip from him but I don't remember you saying anything about intercession and connecting a tongue with intersection intercession at all III may have missed it but I think it's vitally important and and until you deal with that I that we're never gonna get anywhere because I don't think you're really dealing with Paul's theology at that point okay I'm gonna play another clip also regarding this in a second but let me first let me first respond a little bit of that the concern is that I didn't mention intercession in my video and that my points are therefore basically irrelevant as a result and this is something that I I understand here this is what it's showing me okay Calvinists Anonymous we're talking right past each other here's me a list of scriptures that seem to clearly refute limited atonement here's the colonists yeah nothing you said matters Mike because you didn't deal with intercession and you didn't deal with Trinitarian harmony in the atonement so nothing you said matters so we're taking right past each other so this video I'm talking right to you guys this is the idea so let me play the next clip and we'll see does this intercession thing really refute the idea that Jesus died for all people the person who promotes this universal atonement concept must of necessity unless your Universalist reject the idea that the audience for whom the son intercedes is the same audience for which he dies but it's right here in Paul we have to reject the idea that the audience for whom Jesus intercedes is the same as the audience for whom Jesus died is that right do I have to like is that is that really logically required in my view or can I just say that Jesus intercedes for all who come to God through him which is available to all but only applied to those who believe that like the atonement the intercession of Christ is made available to everybody but it's only applied to those who believe which makes my theology really logically tight I think it makes a lot of sense in Romans 8 its speaking of those who have received Christ not not necessarily those for whom Christ exclusively paid for right Romans 8 when you get to Rome because he connects the intercession with Hebrews in Romans 8 in James White's video in Romans 8 it's speaking about those who are in Christ right we've show we're all we're all lost in sin in Romans one two and three that is by faith that will be saved in Romans four or five we deal with the sin nature and the flesh and all that Romans six seven and how well we're dead and then and then were made new in Christ and were married to a new - to him as his bride and then Romans eight it's about the benefits of those who are in Christ those who are in Christ that's the idea not just the benefits of those for whom Jesus died but those who are in Christ who have received the things for which Jesus did the things Jesus did so yeah his point though when you get to this concept of intercession is that Jesus he dies for just certain people and on and and and because whoever he dies for he also intercedes for and whoever he died intercedes for is automatically gonna be saved therefore you either have universalism and everyone's in heaven or you have limited atonement and there's no other option and this I think is a false dilemma I think that limited atonement is is being forced on us through a bad reading of Scripture so we're gonna we're gonna look at the details of intercession and I'm gonna share with you guys some refutations that I think are really valid and I think they do directly answer the issue of intercession now let me quote to you a little bit of what James White said on the topic of intercession I'm gonna put up the scripture he quoted Hebrews 7:25 Hebrews 7:25 consequently he's able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him since he always lives to make intercession for them now it's worth noting that he says that the the synergist which I'm not but I am NOT a Calvinist would would always focus on who draw near to God through him and he kind of derided the idea and maybe other colonists would follow his his lead here that we would focus on this concept in this verse and I would just say it seems really strange to me to be bothered that I'd focus on a caveat in the texture about who Jesus is able to save those who draw near to God through him since he always lives to make intercession for them that the them intercedes for is those who draw near to God that's consistent with my theology but James White's perspective here in the Calvinist perspective seems to be that rather than Jesus interceding for whoever draws near it's a whoever thing he's there standing in her seat and whoever draws near he's interceding for them rather it's he intercedes for a select group of people who he died for and they're all going to be saved unless unless you're gonna say Christ failed in some sense or he's interceding for people in hell and things like that so here's how James White said it he says when you look at this text in any fair manner I'm quoting him now from 55 minutes and 40 seconds into his video he says when you look at this text in any fair manner its focus is on the capacity and power of Jesus the text is functioning to demonstrate to Jewish Christians that there's nothing to go back to it's all been fulfilled in him its focuses on the mediators capacity and then he goes on and basically says to bring everyone to God who comes through him now I can kind of agree with all of that I don't see any issue with a green with all of it right there except when he says he goes on to say God God can't do anything apart from man's cooperation that in my view and in the limited atonement view I'm saying Jesus here he is he's interceding but it won't work unless man cooperates and that God can't it's a key word can't save unless we come to God through him and I'd say it's not about can't it's just about what God once God could save us he could just zap us all into salvation if he chose choose chooses to do but he doesn't he says no it's my choice you better have faith this is my condition I'm putting on you it's fully in the power of God to give us this condition of faith and it doesn't have to do with limiting God's power limiting God's ability limiting Christ's sacrifice or his intercession in some sort of with some sort of weakness it's a condition that God has placed upon salvation it's consistent through Scripture you have to have faith that's the requirement and that's consistent throughout the book of Hebrews as well so James White's complaint against the the non Calvinists here is that we're saying something like yeah Jesus did all that but I have to come to God through him and that's a complaint but Hebrews 7:25 the very versi brought up that's what it says ok those who draw near to God through him and you can't fault me for just looking at the text and highlighting what is what it is what it's saying right there in the text I don't think there's any way to really fault for that so when I say that the intercession of Christ requires salvation if he's interceding for you I think I'm just getting the idea wrong on what intercession is in the book of Hebrews or in the text of Scripture let me give you an example that I think really drives this home and it's from Ephesians chapter two in the Calvinist perspective that dr. white promotes here Jesus is interceding and therefore it guarantees the current salvation of everyone right now salvation of everyone for whom he's interceding and his intercession is not an open intercession for whoever comes to him exactly it's rather no no no the intercessions based upon who he died for select grupe died for select group he intercedes for those people they cannot have any sort of judgment any wrath upon them they and they will be saved and they couldn't possibly not be saved that's the view well that would require that from the time of the Cross from the time Jesus died for them and started interceding that they were then saved and there was no wrath for them but Jesus's intercession doesn't benefit you from the moment he begins doing it but from the moment you believe this is what Ephesians chapter 2 says and you were dead in your trespasses in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked following the course of this world following the principle of the power of the air the Spirit which is now at work in the sons of disobedience among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh carrying out the desires of the body and the mind and we're by nature children of Wrath like the rest of mankind clearly people who were at the time Paul's writing to the Ephesians that now they're saved at that moment they're saved now they're in Christ crisis interceding for them and they're safe now but they were not saved well there was a year ago or 10 years ago they were not saved at that time they were under God's wrath so this breaks the theological construct of intercession that I think Calvinism is forcing on us here it says hey Jesus had died risen and was already interceding for them but there were still children of Wrath they were still dead in their trespasses and Ephesians vs. chapter 2 verse 11 and 12 or 11 through 13 really it pushes this even further and says therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh called the uncircumcision about what is called a circumcision which is made in the flesh by hands remember that you were at the time separated from Christ you were separated from Christ alienated from the Commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants having no hope and without God in the world there's that term the world again but now in Christ Jesus you who were once far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ so the blood of Christ is the thing that brought them near but it didn't bring them near when Jesus died and began interceding it brought them near when they believed as you read in Ephesians 2 right by faith or by grace you have been saved through faith and this the gift of God and all that so we've got this clear refutation right the presence of the intercessor in heaven is not effective until faith is present in the person he draws he's interceding and as soon as you draw near to God through him now you experience the benefits so we have the extant verses the application consistently presented in the scripture that's it seems a really strong refutation to this intercession objection so Hebrews is written about people who believe in Christ not the elect of all time and all that kind of thing that rather it's like hey you're believing in Jesus right now so he's interceding for you right now and anybody who believes in him guess what he's everliving to intercede for those who draw near to God through him that's the idea Jesus isn't interceding for the elect of all time that's not the concept and like the sort of timeless eternal thing he will do it forever but that's not the focus in Hebrews it's it's rather he's he's alive right now so draw near to God through him he's interceding for you whoever draws near to God through him so there you go now number four let's take the fourth objection and this is about false and dilemmas and this goes back to John Owen this is considered a pretty powerful objection and I'm gonna put this one back on the screen and like I said I probably won't get to your guys questions today only because of how long the livestream is going to go I don't want to have a three-hour video so so yeah this is the this is the objection you know John Owens objection gives us three options he says did Jesus die for all the sins of all men all the sins of some man some of the sins of all man so let's hear it again because again for those who haven't heard this before it's like that's kind of weird trying to wrap your head around it so you have to pick one of these options and this is a legitimate set of options I don't see another option in there he died for I know I'm gonna say he died for all the sins of all men number one and John Owens gonna try to present a case and James white echoes some of John Owens stuff and so do many Calvinists and so let's respond to that let me read to you again from John Owens own writings in his book the death of death in the death of Christ page 61 I may add this to limit to our Universalists and by this he means those who think Jesus died for everyone not Universalist in them in the more modern since we use the term God imposed his wrath do unto and Christ underwent the pains of Hell for either all the sins of all men or all the sins of some men or some of the sins of all men there's our three choices if the last some of the sins of all men then we have all men some sins to answer for it so know me shall be saved so I'm gonna agree with him some the sins of all men option 3 let's take that off the table he didn't die for just certain sins there that's definitely false so it's gonna be between 1 and 2 if the second that is which we affirm the Calvinist that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world if the first why are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins uh-huh so you can't keep punishing people if they've been there since been paid for you will say because of their unbelief they won't believe which I would say that but this unbelief it is is it not a sin it is a sin if not why should they be punished for it if it be then Christ underwent the punishment do it or not if so then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died if he did not then he did not die for all their sins let them choose which part they will so the basic idea is if I say that God died for all the sins of all men then your Christ then then Christ has already paid for including unbelief for everybody's sins and therefore it's got to be universalism he paid for everybody so that there can be no wrath for those for whom those who sins have been paid for that's the basic idea and therefore they go boatman God only died for some people option 2 it's sort of logically forced upon us notice this is not forced upon us through the text of Scripture that clearly teaches something about these issues it's forced upon us by this trilemma through a logical construct that I think has some flaws so let's try to answer this there is a difference between the extant and the application as I've said many times now and this trilemma assumes that whatever the extant is the application is that's that's where the trial limit falls apart it's assuming that if Jesus died for someone then his death for them is applied to them immediately and fully and regardless of whether they believe or not that's his whole thing about belief but the Bible indicates that there are some for whom Christ died that are not saved I mean first John 2:2 and first Timothy and I these various passages we've already brought up so I would now let me talk a little bit I'm saying before I move forward I'm saying the Bible refutes this idea it refutes it the logic must be flawed because the clear teaching of Scripture disagrees with the conclusion of the logic Jesus did die for people who will not be saved no something must be wrong with the logic that would be my contention let's talk about unbelief though unbelief like all sin it's it's paid for by Jesus on the cross but it's not forgiven until we receive Christ right the extent of the atonement he paid for even your unbelief but you don't receive the benefits until you trust in Christ this means I mean if you take John Owens perspective it seems to say that Jesus forgives you he when he pays for your sin you're forgiven even if you're still in a state of unbelief this means that people are forgiven before they even come to faith in Christ before they were generated by the Holy Spirit that's what it would seem to imply if you're gonna hold this trilemma up and say that this is a true a true trilemma you have to pick one of these options and that one's not working because it's gonna mean that jesus paid for unbelief and therefore how could anyone be judged unbelief is forgiven because of the cross but it's not forgiven when the cross event takes place it's forgiven when one believes as already shared in the Ephesians passage Ephesians chapter 2 the Bible clearly refutes the idea that people were saved from the moment of the cross but rather they're saved by the cross at the moment of their belief and when they receive Christ because there's a difference between the extant and the application access to application comes through faith but the salvation is purchased purely by the work of Christ so the Bible seems to clearly refute this idea I I set aside John Nolan's trilemma for those reasons alright let's move move forward and look at number five double jeopardy or double payment as an objection to Christ dying for all people and I actually have a clip here from dr. white let me play that now and try to hear this objection and if your brains getting muddy because we haven't talking for a while pause go get a glass of water take a walk around the block and come back so you can really think this through because this is a common objection this stuff is is is considered a very strong objection to the idea that Jesus died for all people and so we want to be able to think it through his body upon the tree and if that's a universal salvation then you are still left with how in the world if that wrath due to that sin has already been fully paid in Christ that there can be the punishment of that sin upon any individual simply based upon their not quote-unquote accepting some and again that is a backwards understanding of what acceptance means the only person that was that that there was concern about acceptance in the sacrifice the Old Testament was not the people it was that was not offered them it was God accepting the sacrifice and God has accepted the sacrifice and so if that sacrifice has been made in behalf of every single individual then its argument accepted and that's done universalism or reformed theology the middle is not consistent there's actually a lot that was said they're not gonna respond to all of it let me quickly mention in passing the issue of acceptance it seems like that doesn't cover the whole story of the Old Testament I mean the people had to come in faith and they had to part participate not through their works but they had to participate in their in their will and look at God's attitude towards people who sacrifices are made on their behalf yet they have rebellious hearts still and they're still rejecting God and he's like I'll have no more of those sacrifices your hearts are wicked and so yeah the condition of the person actually does matter even in the Old Testament sacrifice but there's different kinds of acceptance God accepts the sacrifice in a different way than we accept the sacrifice there are very different kinds of acceptance that are going on there anyway moving on to the main focus of this double jeopardy or double payment argument basically we're saying look if Jesus paid for everyone or the Calvinist is saying then nobody can be justly under God's wrath anymore there just can't be people in hell who have their sins already paid for yet some people are in hell or will be in hell under the wrath of God forever therefore those people they weren't paid for and this this I think is a pretty powerful argument for people but I'm gonna try to explain some reasons why I think it's got problems all right let's let's start with my favorite passage tonight apparently Ephesians chapter 2 Jesus chapter 2 here's the idea if one cannot suffer for the consequences of sins once the sins have been paid for this is similar to the John Owen argument it's related to it really but if you can't suffer under God's wrath or under any consequence for sins which have already been paid for then how were the elect ever under wrath at any point in time after the cross this is a good question because in Ephesians two they were dead and they were they were yet elect so based on limited atonement their sins were paid for in the cross these people in Ephesians two they were paid for Jesus interceding for them there yet they were dead in trespasses and sins they were they were children of Wrath children of wrath I mean and when you when you go down further in the passage as I already read this so I'm just gonna summarize they were at that time separated from Christ alienated from the Commonwealth of Israel they had no hope and without God in the world Jesus had died for them was living to intercede for them and yet they were still under God's wrath it's still said he's still experiencing the separation caused by sin so the consequences of sin are still upon people whom Jesus died for after the cross this this this is double jeopardy then based on the construct that Oh that's double payment well then there it is it's in Ephesians two the Bible is clearly teaching that there is a double payment then and then you you have to simply suggest if your double payment argument's gonna play out that you're just saying the Bible's contradicting logic or or not logic but justice I don't see any way around this apparently though Jesus's work it's simply not applied until you believe and the mere work itself doesn't take your sin away until you apply it in faith your faith doesn't take your sin away it's the work of Christ that does but he won't do it until you believe now some would say well then how does this work I I mean is it double payment and I just say well I think that this is a bad logical construct trying to push a version of justice that is meant to simply push Calvinism on people and we need to let go of it because it disagrees with scripture now I'm going to say that in addition to that I can say well depends on your understanding of imputation of sin and there are a couple different ways to resolve this issue and you could say well Christ he died for all sin but that doesn't mean my sin was while he paid for my sin it doesn't mean that my sin was taken off of me on to Christ no I'm not that removed from me until I come to Christ there's these different ways of dealing with this and that maybe is a issue for another video I'm not sure what the best way to resolve it is but I think we have a few good options and that we should just go with what scripture clearly teaches here this double payment thing seems to fall short another illustration is this that a pardon once it's issued means that a person you know wouldn't be able to be accused of their sins any more or punished for their sins any more but you know even even in legal courts a pardon that's issued that is not accepted by the person who's been pardoned they reject that pardon they're gonna stay and suffer their sentence still there's actually legal precedents for that and so there's there's more going on here than our oversimplification of what we call double payment or double jeopardy I think that it fails in a legal sense it fails in that it's assuming too much about imputation and how this all takes place and it fails most of all with against the clear teaching of Scripture all right finally finally number six there are specific passages that teach that Jesus died for more than the elect and I covered a bunch of them in my video so I'm not and I've covered a few today so I'm not gonna go back over all of them but one in particular I want to bring out because this is one the dr. white responded to and I thought we could take the conversation to the next level and it might be fruitful for people and so I dealt with first John and I shared it with you guys earlier today but I'll put it on the screen that Jesus is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world and my contention is that phrase whole world includes people that are not elect that that's my contention and I was only focusing on the people that were alive at the time I wasn't focusing on people that were alive throughout all eternity I meant that from John's perspective in the first century the phrase whole world it did include people who had heard and rejected the gospel and we're currently under the power of the enemy and who were not part of these that they were not all part of a group you could call the elect and so that was my contention but here's what dr. white said about this so let's take a look at it unfortunately there were numerous assumptions made for example you had the Assumption made that the word world always means all of humankind and if you have really seriously dealt with reformed theology and with our interpretation of Scripture you know that we make a very strong argument that the default understanding there there will be contexts that will change this but that the default understanding when you're talking about all the world in the New Testament would be that is Jews and Gentiles the individualistic interpretation which would mean every human being and the hyper individualistic interpretation which would mean every human being who has ever lived including the amorite high priests and the Jebusites and and the Babylonian slaves and and so on and so forth that lived long before the time of Jesus that would not be the default assumption of any of the New Testament writers okay there's a few problems that I have with this and one is that um his summary of my position is not my position and I didn't say that in my video and I think I was clear in my video I did not say and this is not my position is it not what I'm putting forward that the word world cosmos it always means all of humankind I didn't say that and I didn't say it always means all of humankind throughout all eternity I didn't say that either in fact I didn't assume either of those things were true so let's try to get some clarity what I said was that world in 1st John 2:2 in that verse it does not only refer to the elect in fact I went one step further and I did make a beer claim that the word world it never refers to only the elect that's that's what I said in no place in scripture does the word world clearly refer to only the elect and that's what we need it to refer to if the whole word whole world in 1st John 2:2 if that phrase and I'll put the verse up again for you because I want you be able to think this through as you look at it if that phrase the whole world if it includes a single non elect person then limited atonement fails that's all I need for my theological point here if the phrase means one person who's not elect if that's in the whole world then limited atonement fails that's all that's needed in response to this James White suggested that the default understanding of the world was Jews and Gentiles and I find this a bit confusing because that doesn't do any good or any help really to the Calvinist position the Calvinist position doesn't need for the world to refer to Jews and Gentiles they need for it to only refer to the elect so it can be elect Jews and Gentiles it can be elect barbarians or elect just Gentiles but just the elect ones but it has to refer to only the elect because if that phrase has one non-elect person in it one limited atonement fails because he is the propitiation for at least one non elect person so limited so then atonement is not limited to only the elect now I dealt with two different Calvinists interpret and it's about 31 minutes in my original video in which is in the description about 31 minutes in I dealt with this passage and two different Calvinist interpretations so it's not like I was being I'm just I'm here defending myself awkwardly I wasn't ignorant and I didn't fail to deal with Calvinist interpretations on this passage and I didn't say what what he said I said and not I don't think it's not malicious look at this is life or we sometimes we don't hear each other in detail we don't hear the nuance we're putting on our sentences that's just what happens but let's go through a little bit and I'll build my case for why world as I did in my previous video why the word world in first John it refers to at least one non-elect person and I think that's very very clear and so here we are same word first John 3:1 see what kind of love the father has given to us that we should be called children of God and so we are the reason why the world the world does not know us is that it did not know him so here we are in first John 3:1 not very far after the part we just read it's the same book and James why suggested that we shouldn't be reading for Sean 3:1 to understand what first John 2:2 is saying when it uses the term world and I think that that is I don't I don't follow that I don't follow that I think that people read the whole letter and he expected them to do so at any rate we're gonna look at every several occurrences of the word world in first John and it doesn't exclusively mean the elect and therefore limited atonement fails so the world here though is people who who who don't know God and don't know Christ or don't know believers rather they don't know us and they don't know him they don't know Christ or God so first John 3:13 is another passage where world comes up in the same letter to find out what what he means by it do not be surprised by this that the world hates you well the world isn't talking exclusively about the elect it must include that I mean it's someone on elect people in there right even if it's not every person from all time it's certainly some people alive at the time who were not elect to say it's just the elect is forcing the passage to mean something that it just on the surface doesn't mean verse three of first John four says every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God this is a spirit of the Antichrist which you heard was coming and is now in the world already little children you are from God and have overcome them for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world they are from the world therefore they speak from the world and the world listens to them so the world is not just the the structure of ungodliness right it's in its individuals because the world's listening to them and the world here is people who are actually listening to the spirit of Antichrist so we're not speaking of just the elect here that there's no case for that the biggest passage in 1st John to read and that relates to this is in 1st John 5:19 because it not it only says the world but just like verse 2 of chapter 2 it says the whole world the whole world and it says here we know that we are from God and the whole world lies under the power of the Evil One now in this case first John 5:19 it seems to indicate that in John's mind in his letter he is writing saying that the phrase the whole world seems to imply everyone who is not currently following Jesus now that will include some elect and some non elect people but it seems very inclusive about everybody and this is just building you know our understanding of the word based upon the context we read and it seems very consistent there's more on this topic at one point James white suggests I'm trying to remember how he puts it he suggested that and he didn't say it clearly but it seemed implied that first John 2:2 the world could be a reference not to individuals but to simply like world structures or organizations and I don't think that interpretation helps us helps the limited Holman case but also he didn't God Christ didn't die for the sins of the structures and organizations and what sins are committed by people and so he died for the sins of the world and the parallel is he died for our sins and where people were not a structure and he died for the sins of the whole world 1st John 2:2 is clearly not referring to like a structure it's referring to people it doesn't have to be people of all-time could be referenced just to the people of the time that's fine but that would include someone who's not elect which would ruin limited atonement there's one other little phrase I wanted to get out there before I share my final thoughts and that is and I had a clip for it about I didn't I didn't load it up unfortunately in time so there is a a slogan I've heard several times and that is the idea that if you're saying Jesus is atonement is for everybody yet it's only applied when people believe you're saying something about Jesus's saving people requiring a secondary act of atonement a second act of atonement and this is again a powerful like rhetorical point weight Jesus have a second act of atonement no no it is finished man he did on the cross it's all done but we're talking about application not the accomplishment of what purchases us and ruin redeems us right we're talk about the application of it and here even the Communists would probably agree the application happens in their view when the Holy Spirit regenerates you and I mean I would agree with that but we have nuanced views on regeneration versus faith but um but it would happen when the spirit regenerates you well that's application you wouldn't consider regeneration a secondary act of atonement would you well neither neither would I so don't say that application is an act of atonement cuz that that's not even consistent with your own theology there you go that's my opinion so we're not gonna do Q 8 tonight because of the length of this video I'm sorry guys you feel free to hash out your disagreements in the comment section but let me share some final thoughts before closing one is this in in in James White's videos he's on two videos refuting me which is fine I'm not offended by that at all i watch them I'm interested in seeing them and doesn't bother me and I don't care if he does more but in both those videos he didn't deal with the actual text of Scripture I brought up didn't deal with the extra Jesus of those passages he used like kind of Trump Trump concepts and Trump texts to overrule and didn't actually handle those things so now I've dealt with his Trump concepts at least in his second video and I think those texts still stand on their own feet and hopefully we're not talking past each other I've tried to meet you know with the Calvinists talking points rather than the non Calvinists talking points I tried to meet you on your talking points my Calvinist friends and brothers and I don't think those Trump texts or Trump concepts work we need to be open to the text refuting limited atonement and if you think that makes your theology your theological grid work shift then you should let it shift I hope this really helps people we really need Brotherhood on this issue we need to be treating each other like we love each other and not breaking fellowship because of the topic of Calvinism and in my opinion this is not a device a dividing issue for us as Christians and I hope I'm covering in a way that encourages others to mimic a gracious and loving response to one another even if you firmly disagree and they may God give us wisdom even if I'm wrong on some of this it may he show it and he revealed it and then I'll make a video telling you how wrong I was but I am convinced that this stuff is accurate and I think it's pretty important so let me know if this you found this to be helpful I'm gonna continue covering some issues on the atonement in the in the coming future but it won't be at all related to Calvinism it is actually going to be related to the the essential elements of the atonement pino substitutionary atonement church history and modern rebellion against the doctrine of the atonement I'm putting it that way if people are like that's loaded language Mike and I'm using it on purpose because I do think it's accurately portraying what I see going on in in and amongst some people so I'm gonna cover all this stuff coming up pretty soon also in fact I did a video on the atonement recently or a podcast on a ELISA Childers podcast and you can go check her website out Lisa Childers calm and I did a thing on the atonement there's a second episode coming out on her podcast soon and I thought it was something that would be fruitful for people if you're interested so thank you so much hey if you love this ministry you're you know you're under no obligation but if you do want to support what I'm doing here you can there's a link in the video description for that or you could just go to Bible thinker org and there's you have the opportunity to support that way but again no obligation God is providing and I think we'll continue to provide as I continue to try to help people learn to think biblically about everything to have a real Christian worldview and to understand the truth and clarity of real Christianity so Lord bless you guys have a fantastic day and James White I love you my brother and thank you so much for going skydiving with me

Channel: Mike Winger

Views: 92,621

Rating: 4.8350072 out of 5

Keywords: Mike Winger James White, Calvinism, Trinitarian Harmony in the Atonement, THIA, John Owen, James White, Limited Atonement, did Jesus die for everyone, did Jesus die for all people, unlimited atonement, calvinism limited atonement, Mike Winger calvinism, double-payment, calvinism refuted, limited atonement refuted

Id: shpZMRhr4uM

Length: 86min 20sec (5180 seconds)

Published: Tue Jul 23 2019