“So you could conclude that he didn’t actually die for anyone, he potentially died for everyone; in other words, he had sort of a potential atonement that the sinner activates by faith.”Jesus died for everyone, but if you don't accept His offer of Salvation, you don't go to heaven (ergo, you wasted your Salvation).
You were invited to the Party but you refused to go.
This is the kind of discussion that is not useful. Jesus’ admonishment to Peter about not worrying about what happens to John applies to this subject. It only matters that Jesus died for my sins, and that He has covered my inequity with His righteousness. Jesus told us and Peter, Paul and John reiterated that this salvation is available to anyone who believes in Jesus and follows his commandments.
Jesus also told us that the road to Perdition was wide and the path to salvation was narrow. This is the Gospel that needs to be preached. It is a Gospel of individual salvation and not a gospel of collective anything.
There is NO such thing as “Universal” atonement. That is in fact, false doctrine.
thx for the post.
not to denigrate MacArthur myself, God forgiven sinners though he and all of us certainly are, this man of God has certainly produced much fruit and i can’t argue with that.
but, i do like and adhere strictly to one theological principle in the article, illustrated by the following:
“...But I do not find so much as one passage in God’s inerrant Word which says Christ died ONLY for his sheep.”
—and here is a very important and humble approach to interpreting God’s Word i’ve also found very useful. if you can’t find a positive, unequivocal statement in the Bible supporting your or anyone’s theological statement about God, it’s best to reject a ‘limited’ interpretation and take the broader interpretation that is supported by the all such related statements in the Bible.
further more, if you can construct an unambiguous statement of your proposed theological position (as was done here) and can’t then find it stated in one or several unqualified statements in the Bible, you are might be wrong in your proposed summary statement and certainly shouldn’t promote your statement as the Word of God to others. even that ability (close reading) is of course an ability or gift of the Spirit requiring a degree experience and discernment all on it’s own.
Bookmark
The atonement must be available to all, whether they avail themselves of it or not, otherwise, God's command to all men everywhere to repent without providing the means to allow for it, makes God well, you can fill in the blanks.
The other reason is, that is there is sin somewhere in this universe that is unatoned for, then there is sin which still has power over people. By dying for ALL sin, then all sin is rendered powerless.
Also, just because Jesus paid for all sin, does not by default mean salvation is forced onto those who refuse to come to God.
Yes, no one can come to God except He calls and enlightens, but all throughout Scripture God tells us to choose. He made the sovereign choice to let us make the final decision. Otherwise His command to choose you this day whom to serve, is a mockery.
18“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”
He ignores the last half of John 3:16....”and whosoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life.”
He died for all of us and 3:16 makes it an open invitation. Not everyone will take him up on his offer but the invitation is open to all.
It’s why I’ll never embrace full on Calvinism but I’m not full on Arminianist either. I think the two camps need to include the notion the constancy of the presence of God that supercedes what is past, present and will be future. When they do, I think the gaps that divide both camps will be bridged. Christ says...I AM Last I AM first. It points to a nowness, a constancy of chronological as well as the locational omnipresence of the Godhead. What was past is still being written in the present, no matter what era an individual finds himself in. There were things ordained from the founding of the world, yet The Godhead is still yet present in that time, in this time, and in the time to come. That is why “Now is the accepted time for salvation.” Even when Abraham “was” as it relates to where we are in linear time presently, Christ is still Now(”I Am”)! Sure, there is a fixed time in our experiential perspective that God will pull the rug out from under everything including linear space time, for the final judgment, but we don’t exist in that nowness yet.(Yet Christ is already there now, either inscribing or blotting out names in his Book as he was already there from the founding of the world)
Scripture is true but we fight over various “predestination” sections because we don’t really study, not just the times we are in but “time” itself and how God molds time like so much plastic and he has done so, that souls might be saved and redeemed to him! He’ll shake the heavens and Earth, all of matter/space, and time to save souls and show his mighty glory! Alas we know from the Bible that many still won’t be found in the Book of Life.
(I was reading where Calvin had a man executed for disagreeing with his 5 points, and I thought why? I suppose he thought the man he had executed had ideas that Calvin saw was a threat to protestants at the time. Later the Methodists would split from Calvinism)
Charles Spurgeon’s sermon # 1516 is the best presentation about this subject.
https://www.thekingdomcollective.com/spurgeon/sermon/1516/
Simple and straightforward. After reading thus, there is no excuse for arguing for limited atonement.
The huge problems for hyper-Calvinists is their claim that if any point of TULIP us not true, then none of them can be true.
Sounds like MacArthur picks too fine a nit. He seems to be saying: “So if you have sinners who will go to hell, then it proves that there is limited atonement as not all folks will be saved but those of a fortunate number will be saved.” He’s trying to justify a rigid Calvinist approach and trying to shore up Calvinism’s weaker planks.
So, if men are blinded to the truth by the god of this world, does God hold them responsible for their blindness? Consider Saul of Tarsus who believed he was doing God's will by persecuting and killing Christians. He didn't come to the knowledge of the truth through men preaching the gospel to him. No, he was knocked off his horse, blinded and then a resurrected Jesus spoke to him. That's what it took to bring Paul to the light. I ask myself, "Why doesn't Jesus knock everyone off their horse, blind them and speak to them?"
Why does the Lord use extraordinary measures to reach some people but not others? I don't have an answer.
Christians are called to preach the gospel of truth and grace. That's it! - Shalom!