Further reflections on Total Depravity and Limited Atonement

In my first blog I raised my objections to the two Calvinist doctrines of Total Depravity and Limited Atonement. If we are to find the doctrine of Total Depravity in the Bible then we should expect to find it in Genesis 3 in the record of the fall of Man. Conversely this is not the case. Total Depravity was not a curse of the fall. I also considered other Scripture including Ephesians 2:1-2 and examined the NT use of the phrase `death` in relation to sin. I believe the evidence points towards the phrase `death` referring to God`s judgement of sin and not a state of being totally depraved. 

However, there are many other passages of Scripture that pertain to this issue and so I want to expound some of them here. The first passage under consideration in this blog will be Genesis 6:5

"The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

Calvinists make much of the latter part of the verse that says that every intention of the heart of man was continually evil. They contend that this is evidence of the Total Depravity of Man. And I do not disagree that for these people living in the time of Noah that they were totally depraved. The Bible is unambiguous in its judgement upon this generation of mankind. They were evil. So much so that in verse 6 God is sorry for creating mankind! But, can we take Genesis 6:5 to mean that every generation of mankind from the fall to the present day is equally as wicked? I do not think the Bible is making such a categorical statement here. 

If Genesis 6:5 were true of every generation then how was it that Abel was able to offer a sacrifice acceptable to God? (Genesis 4:4) How was Enoch able to walk with God and be taken by God so that he did not die? (Genesis 5:24) And how did Noah find favour with God to be chosen to construct the Ark? (Genesis 6:8-9) Unlike Abram who was chosen by God for no other reason than God`s divine election (Genesis 12:1), Genesis 6 says that Noah was blameless in his time (v.9). God could have destroyed everyone of Noah`s generation, including Noah and then made a second Adam. But God did not. God commanded Noah to build an Ark and to preserve two of every kind of animal. God made a covenant with Noah (v.18) because He showed mercy towards Noah and by God`s grace preserved Noah and his family. 

Genesis 6:12-13 is also crucial to understanding the extraordinary degree of evil that was on the earth at that time. 

"And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth."

Verse 12 specifically says that Man had corrupted his way on the earth. Corruption is a deviation, a degeneration of something that is good. Noah`s generation had (past tense) corrupted their way. The past tense use of the phrase `corrupted their way` indicates that the corruption was a conscious act of defiance and rebellion against God. It was a process that had reached its climax in chapter 6. Verse 13 supports this interpretation as God says the earth was `filled with violence`. `Filled` means that violence had reached its peak and Man`s nature had become irreversibly depraved. There was no opportunity to repent because Man had become so corrupt. 

Is this interpretation that the Flood was an act of judgement against a particular generation for their depravity and not a universal statement of mankind`s condition supported else where in the Bible? I believe the answer is yes.

"Yet they did not listen to their judges, for they whored after other gods and bowed down to them. They soon turned aside from the way in which their fathers had walked, who had obeyed the commandments of the Lord, and they did not do so." Judges 2:17

Much like Noah`s generation, the generation of Israel spoken of here in Judges 2:17 were a disobedient and wicked generation who had turned aside to idols. The verse shows that there was a clear break from the ways of their fathers, who, by contrast, had obeyed the commandments of the Lord. How could the fathers of this wicked generation have obeyed the Lord if all generations of mankind, everywhere and at all times were totally depraved and were morally and spiritually incapable of obeying God? They could not. Conversely, the Bible records specific generations who were more wicked and depraved than others. 

Another key text given by Calvinists to support the doctrine of Total Depravity is Jeremiah 17:9:

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" 

 Again at face value this verse seems to provide a cast iron support for the doctrine of Total Depravity as it speaks of the heart as being `deceitful above all things` and `desperately sick`. Once more, I affirm that this verse is true. Absolutely true. But does this verse alone prove the doctrine of Total Depravity? In order to answer that question we must put the verse into the context of chapter 17.

Verse 5 says cursed is the man who trusts in man and whose heart turns away from the Lord.

"Thus says the Lord:“Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength, whose heart turns away from the Lord."

A curse remains upon the man who turns his heart away from the Lord. But how can we turn away from the Lord if our natural inclination from birth is set against the Lord in the first place?

Verse 7 says blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord. 

“Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord, whose trust is the Lord." 

So whose heart is deceitful? Both or only one? Which man receives the curse and which the blessing? It is the man who puts his trust in man and in his flesh, who has turned away from the Lord, whose heart is deceitful and desperately sick. How could it be a universal truth if the Lord God Himself pronounces blessing to the man who puts his trust in the Lord? No man could receive that blessing if the doctrine of Total Depravity was true and it would make God duplicitous - God does not intend to bestow blessings because He knows Man cannot trust in Him because of the depraved nature of his being. But He offers the blessings nevertheless to give false hope to the people of Judah. Believing that we can earn our salvation, believing that our self-righteousness is the same as that of God`s Holy righteousness and perfection, and believing our plan is better than God`s plan is the deceitfulness of the heart. Jeremiah 17:1-4 provides yet more context for how to interpret verse 9. Jeremiah was speaking of Judah`s sin (v.1). This sin is described as idolatry (v.2). Judah had forsaken their covenant with God and placed their trust and hope not in their covenant God but in idols and material prosperity (v. 3).

So I do not believe these texts support Total Depravity once understood within their rightful context.

Regarding Limited Atonement, I said in my first blog that Calvinists make inferences from texts not specifically about the nature of the atonement and then read those inferences into key texts in support of limited atonement by way of eisegesis. I looked particularly at John 3:16-18 in support of unlimited atonement (though not universalism) and 1 John 2:1-2. I want to address an OT passage here in this blog that Calvinists use frequently in defense of Limited Atonement.

"But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities;upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way, and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all." Isaiah 53:5-6

Calvinists interpret the `our`, `us` and `we` plural pronouns to mean God`s elect. Therefore Jesus, whom this prophecy from Isaiah is speaking of, did not die for the sins of the world but only for the elect. In one respect this is true as Isaiah was prophesying about the coming of Israel`s messiah. Jesus` people were the Jews. Jesus became the Good Shepherd (John 10:11) to His people Israel. The Shepherd metaphor was used in the OT to speak of God (Psalm 23) in His relationship to Israel. Thus God`s sheep in its original context meant Israel. This is the first problem with using this passage to teach limited atonement, namely God`s elect as spoken of here is Israel and not the Church. Moreover, Israel since the time of Christ to the present day as a whole has not embraced their messiah and so they are not saved (Romans 11:11, 15, 25). This then means that Jesus` atonement is not yet effective for Israel - Jesus` death has not yet accomplished what it set out to achieve. This is a major part of the doctrine of Limited Atonement that Jesus` sacrifice does not just theoretically save all but rather definitely saves the elect. Yet Jesus` sacrifice has not yet definitely saved Israel. Now a potential Calvinist objection to my last statement may be, "but one day they will as Paul foretold in Romans 11:25. Their hardening is only partial, not permanent." This is true and I am not disputing this Biblical truth. Rather my point is that using the plural pronouns `our`, `us` and `we` to teach the exclusivity of Jesus` atonement for only the elect, must account for the fact that Isaiah`s original audience was Israel and not the Church. Thus the nature of election must first be defined before we can use Isaiah 53:5-6 to teach Limited Atonement. The nature of election in the NT is another point of contention between Calvinism and Arminianism, which I do not want to get into here.

Furthermore, the appropriation of Jesus` sacrifice personally using the pronouns `mine` or `ours` is a natural result of salvation, as Jesus becomes our Passover lamb. But that does not mean the atonement is withheld from those who potentially might believe. John 1:11-13 says:

"He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."

John says in chapter 1 of his gospel that all who receive Jesus and believe in His name are given the right to become children of God (v.12). "To all" is an inclusive term. All who receive Jesus and believe in Him become children of God: become part of God`s elect. We enter into covenant relationship with God through faith in Jesus Christ. Now verse 13 teaches that this cannot happen without God, for we are not born again by the will of man but of God. This cannot be overlooked or dismissed. When I speak of the ability of Man to respond to the Gospel or saving faith in Christ I do not mean to imply that this is done without the regenerative power of God. Nevertheless, is John 1:13 teaching regeneration before faith? Or is it teaching that one cannot trust in one`s heritage, blood line and chosen status by race, as the Pharisees so often did when debating Jesus? The Pharisees claimed they were children of Abraham (John 8:39) and placed their trust in their status as Jews as God`s chosen people, but Jesus rebuked them telling them they were children of their father the Devil for not believing in Him and doing the works that Abraham did (John 8:44). Abraham was made righteous before the covenant of circumcision was even given to him by faith (Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:11). John 1:11 would seem to suggest this is the case as well. Verse 11 says Jesus came to His own people (Israel) but that they did not receive Him. John is teaching that one can become a child of God through faith and that any confidence placed in the flesh (of birth right, circumcision, heritage etc.) is misplaced and unable to save.

Naturally more could be said and more Scripture`s given. There is not space to thematically exegete every passage of the Bible relating to these doctrines. But I have tried to focus, as I did in my first blog, on the key texts that Calvinists use to support their doctrines and provide reason and I hope evidence why that is not the case. 

Why I am not a Calvinist...or an Arminian.

"I agree with Packer and Johnston that Arminianism contains un-Christian elements in it and that their view of the relationship between faith and regeneration is fundamentally un-Christian. Is this error so egregious that it is fatal to salvation? People often ask if I believe Arminians are Christians? I usually answer, “Yes, barely.” They are Christians by what we call a felicitous inconsistency." R.C. Sproul

"Here’s my rule of thumb: the more responsible a person is to shape the thoughts of others about God, the less Arminianism should be tolerated. Therefore church members should not be excommunicated for this view but elders and pastors and seminary and college teachers should be expected to hold the more fully biblical view of grace." John Piper

"And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else." Charles Spurgeon

Calvinism clearly has no qualms about expressing itself in relation to Arminianism. Clearly from Old and New Calvinists alike Arminianism is held as heretical at worst and inconsistent Christianity at best. Despite Calvinists reluctance to say Arminians are unsaved, their contempt for Arminianism is plain to see. Such strong pronouncements against Arminianism and rejection of it as an orthodox strand of reformed Christianity, not to mention the synonym made between Calvinism and the very Gospel itself, must require sound exegesis of Scripture and the full weight of Biblical data to support it; otherwise Calvinism is in danger of teaching doctrines of men and making the word of God void (Matthew 15:1-9).

Now before I explain why I am not a Calvinist I want to say a little about why I am not an Arminian. There are two guiding principles that I use for this: the first I call the 1 Corinthians 3:7 principle. In chapter 3 of 1 Corinthians Paul admonishes the church at Corinth for being "merely human" (v.4) in their factionalism against one another. Some claimed they were followers of Paul while others said they were followers of Apollos (v.4). Paul corrects their misguided partisanship by teaching them that ultimately it is God who gives growth to the believer (v.7). I see this same kind of factionalism in the Church today between Calvinists and Arminians and so therefore want to avoid labeling myself one or the other. My faith is in Christ and not in Arminius or Calvin.

The second principle is far more of a pragmatic nature. If I labeled myself one or the other, then I open myself to criticism of some of the more inconsistent elements of that soteriology. Both Calvinists and Arminians find fault with each other`s theology and the truth is that we can all be inconsistent at times in our beliefs. That is not to say I think they are equally true or untrue, just that I don`t want to have to defend things that I don`t necessarily believe in or agree with just because it is found in the general consensus of that particular system of theology. For example some Arminians believe God`s predestination of the elect was based on foreknowledge of those who would believe, while others believe it is a corporate election in Christ as the Head of the Church. Differences within the soteriology of Arminianism exist and therefore to label myself an Arminian could potentially be misleading, depending on what people believe and therefore understand about Arminianism.

I want to focus now on what I believe to be the fundamental misjudgements of Calvinism. To fully and definitively critique all of Calvinism`s 5 Points (TULIP) would take too long for one blog. Therefore I want to concentrate on what I think are the most important areas of divergence from the Bible.

Total Depravity:

This may come as a shock to many Calvinists as this is the cornerstone of Calvinism`s doctrines of Grace, but I do not believe it is entirely Biblical. By Total Depravity, Calvinists assert that Man (humanity) is unable to respond to the Gospel because of sin and therefore unable to come to a saving faith in Jesus without the effectual calling and irresistible grace of God to regenerate the unbeliever. Our natural inclination is only evil and therefore due to the Fall we cannot truly seek God. Calvinists affirm that Man can seek God but from wrong motives and ultimately are incapable of saving faith:

"When we speak of man's depravity we mean man's natural condition apart from any grace exerted by God to restrain or transform man. There is no doubt that man could perform more evil acts toward his fellow man than he does. But if he is restrained from performing more evil acts by motives that are not owing to his glad submission to God, then even his "virtue" is evil in the sight of God...
It is a myth that man in his natural state is genuinely seeking God. Men do seek God. But they do not seek him for who he is. They seek him in a pinch as one who might preserve them from death or enhance their worldly enjoyments." John Piper

Now before Calvinists misunderstand me, I am not denying Man`s sinfulness or the effect of Original Sin on our ability to save ourselves. I do believe we are all sinners and cannot save ourselves (Romans 3:23, Isaiah 64:6). I am not disputing the sinfulness of Man. Sin is a reality and since the fall it has had fatal and tragic consequences for mankind. Where I cannot affirm the Calvinist doctrine of Total Depravity is in its assumptions and lack of exegetical evidence. Let us examine the Genesis account of the fall of Man:

"So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked." Genesis 3:6

"But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?”And he said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.” He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.” Then the LordGod said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”The Lord God said to the serpent,“Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field;on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring;he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” To the woman he said,“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” And to Adam he said,“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the treeof which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread,till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken;for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” Genesis 3:9-19

What were the curses God pronounced after Adam and Eve`s act of Original Sin?
1. God cursed the serpent to crawl on its belly, eat dust and be at enmity with the woman and her offspring (v.14,15).
2. God cursed the woman with pain in childbirth and to be ruled over by her husband (v. 16).
3. God cursed the ground (v. 17) so that it would bring forth thistles and thorns (v. 18)
4. God cursed Adam with hard work and eating food by the sweat of his face (v. 19) as well as physical death and decay (v.19)

Nowhere in Genesis 3 does it say God cursed Man with the moral or spiritual inability to respond to the Gospel. Total Depravity was not a curse of the fall. Many Christians speak of the `noetic effect` of sin upon Man`s nature. 

"The noetic effects of sin are the ways that sin negatively affects and undermines the human mind and intellect. Moroney argues that sin's noetic effects are most prominent in our knowledge of God (our "sense of divinity") and less prominent in other domains." theopedia.com

But does this `noetic effect` mean mankind is incapable of responding to the Gospel? It is true from Scripture that Man can harden his heart (2 Chronicles 36:12-13), become futile in his thinking (Romans 1:21) and sear his conscience (1 Timothy 4:12). But the Bible does not teach that mankind is unable from birth to respond to the Gospel. In the examples cited above, it is certain individuals and groups who through their ongoing sinfulness have brought about an inability to respond to the Gospel. This was a condition that they themselves created through their sinfulness not that they were born with. A heart cannot become hard if it was hard to begin with, a mind cannot become futile if it was always futile and a conscience cannot be seared if it was already seared. If this were not the case then the language used in the Bible to describe the effects of sin would be meaningless. This is the final stage of our rebellious heart attitude towards our Creator God, not the starting point. These then, if you will, are the `noetic effects` of sin.

It is at this point that I want to address the much emphasized passage from Ephesians 2:1-2. This passage is used frequently by Calvinists (as a proof text) for Total Depravity:

"And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—" 

Emphasis is placed on the expression "dead in the trespasses and sins". Dead people, Calvinists assert, by nature cannot respond to the Gospel. How can a dead man, figuratively speaking, respond to the Gospel? But dead people cannot commit sins either! Death is the cessation of life. So how is Ephesians 2:1-2 to be understood? How is death used in other places in the Bible? 

In the parable of the Prodigal Son Jesus tells the story of a young, impatient man who asks his father for his inheritance and leaves his father and his family in search of a life of pleasure and material satisfaction. The young man quickly squanders his money and has to resort to feeding pigs (an unclean practice among Jews). Having reached the depth of his depravity and despair, the young man comes to his senses and decides to return to his father to seek his forgiveness and work as one of his servants:

"But when he came to himself, he said, ‘How many of my father's hired servants have more than enough bread, but I perish here with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Treat me as one of your hired servants.” And he arose and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet. And bring the fattened calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate. For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to celebrate." Luke 15:17-24

In verse 24 the father describes his son as being dead - he was for all intents and purposes dead to the father after he disowned his family. But it is evident from the parable that the son had the ability to return to his father (who in this parable represents God). If then the son in Jesus` parable could return on his own accord (despite his sin) then this contradicts Calvinists teachings from Ephesians 2:1 to the contrary. But Scripture cannot contradict itself so therefore it is our interpretation of these passages which must be at fault. Romans 6:23 says that the wages of sin is death and James 1:15 says that when sin is fully grown it brings forth death. Both passages speak of death being the judgement of sin, not the spiritual state of sin. If death is the judgement of sin (which was part of God`s command to Adam and Eve, Genesis 2:17) then how can sinning be a state of death? Paul`s use of the phrase "dead in the trespasses and sins" refers then to the state of condemnation and judgement which mankind is under while living in sin. If we carry on sinning then the result will be death. When we sin we already stand guilty under the Law (James 2:10, Galatians 3:10). Just as Adam lived 930 years before he died, so too sinners do not die automatically when committing trespasses and sins. But death is the inevitable result, indeed it is the wages earned from sin - it is what is owed to the sinner. 

Then there are Bible passages that support the opposite of Total Depravity such as Deuteronomy 30:11-18 and Acts 17:29-31 (both of which were addressed to unregenerate people, the first to unregenerate Israel and the second to the unregenerate Athenians). Moses says to the people of Israel that the commands of God are not too hard for them to obey and Paul tells the Athenians to stop thinking of gods as things made from gold and metal and that God commands all people everywhere to repent. How can God give commands to obey Him if He knows the people cannot obey them? It would make no sense unless they still have a capacity to respond obediently. 

Therefore due to lack of support from Genesis 3, the nature of the noetic effect of sin and the overall testimony of Scripture to the contrary I do not agree with the doctrine of Total Depravity as taught in Calvinism.

Limited Atonement:

Limited Atonement (sometimes called definite atonement or particular redemption) is the next Calvinist doctrine I want to explain my grievances with. Limited Atonement is the contention that Jesus` death on the cross only efficaciously saved God`s elect. The cross only secured the redemption of God`s elect and does not have the power to save the reprobate for they are destined for God`s judgement. 

"In common parlance, however, it is a term used to describe the Calvinistic belief that Christ's atonement was fully effective to accomplish its design of redemption for all those for whom it was intended; but its intention was limited to the elect." monergism.com

Let us examine some of the texts that Calvinists use to support this doctrine. 

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day." John 6:44 

Here Calvinists emphasize the fact that it explicitly says no one can come to Jesus unless God first draws him. I recently attended a conference at which John Piper was speaking and he said a general principle to use when challenged by people criticizing your beliefs is to tell them "read the next verse". So lets apply Piper`s own principle then to the Calvinist argument; the following verse reads:

"It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me—" John 6:45 (emphasis mine)

Verse 45 would seem to contradict the exclusivity of the redemptive power of the cross. Jesus says quoting from the prophets that they will all be taught by God. So God certainly does intend for the salvation of as many people as possible. Again reading further down the chapter, Jesus qualifies his earlier statement regarding verse 44;

"But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” John 6:64-65 

Jesus here explains to the disciples that he knew some would not believe, in particular Judas Iscariot who would betray him. John`s editorial of Jesus` remarks show that Jesus had in mind Judas. Now there were others who did not believe and Jesus knew this as God, but Jesus does not say here that his death on the cross would only provide atonement for the elect. He was warning the disciples that they cannot expect everyone to believe and was preparing them for Judas` betrayal. 

"I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours." John 17:9

Again this verse is used to teach Limited Atonement as Jesus identifies a specific group in his prayer to the Father before His crucifixion. So once more lets put Piper`s principle to the test:

"While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled." John 17:12

Just a few verses later Jesus identifies this group as His 12 disciples. This is evident by his inclusion of the son of destruction referring to Judas Iscariot. Does this mean then that only the 11 original disciples were Jesus` elect whom He atoned for? Of course not. Strict literalism of that kind is ridiculous. But by their own logic to argue from a Calvinist position that Jesus` death on the cross was only intended to save the elect from this verse then the elect only consists of 11 disciples. Continuing in verse 20 Jesus then says;

“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word," John 17:20

So the elect is much broader than Jesus` original disciples, many more. However, it is interesting that Jesus says that future generations of disciples will believe through the word (testimony) of Jesus` apostles. The verse does not say that they were unable to respond to the Gospel without the irresistible grace of God; it says those who believed through the word of the apostles. The text implies that mankind is capable of responding to the Gospel.

Let us consider some more passages which Calvinists use to affirm Limited Atonement:

"and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Matthew 2:27-28

"For many are called, but few are chosen.” Matthew 22:14

In the first Matthew passage Jesus says He will give His life as a ransom for many. Many is not specified here and the word elect or predestined is not used. Therefore it is an inference which Calvinists use to conclude that Jesus` death was limited in its intention and not its atonement. The atonement of Jesus` death is limited for the Bible does not teach universalism. This is a charge frequently leveled at non-Calvinists that those who do not hold to their doctrine on Limited Atonement believe, even if inconsistently, in universalism. This however is not true nor warranted from the Biblical data. I believe the atonement of Christ`s sacrifice is limited in its effect (to believers) but I do not believe it was originally limited in its intent and purpose only to a special minority of people whom God elected to be recipients of His grace. 

The second Matthew passage is taken from a parable Jesus tells while speaking to the Pharisees and chief priests. In the context of the parable it is clear that Jesus is rebuking the Pharisees and chief priests for their hardness of heart towards God. They were the original wedding guests who did not respond to the invitation of the king to attend the wedding of his son. The king in the parable is God and the son Jesus. Jesus is teaching that the Gospel will be shared with those deemed unworthy by the Pharisees. Therefore the intention of the invitation is to reach as many as possible, while those who are self-righteous and reject the free offer of grace by God will not enter heaven. Jesus says in verse 10 those who were invited were both good and bad. The Gospel is therefore to be preached to everyone, but only those who meet God`s condition will be granted eternal life, namely those who accept Jesus as their saviour. This conclusion is drawn from the proceeding verses:

"“But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment. And he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless. Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’" Matthew 22:11-13

Why was the wedding guest rejected? Because he was not wearing the correct garments. The wedding garments are a metaphor for Jesus` righteousness imputed to believers who have received God`s gift of salvation by faith.


Limited Atonement takes passages like those cited above and draws inferences from them inline with the internal logic of the other four Calvinist doctrines. It is my contention that Calvinists employ eisegesis when interpreting these passages. This is no where better seen than when they are confronted by passages that clearly teach the opposite. When presented with such passages they reinterpret them to fit their doctrine rather than properly exegete them.

"“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." John 3:16-18 (emphasis mine)

John 3:16 teaches without equivocation that the intention of the cross was to save the world. But Calvinists reinterpret `the world` to mean the elect in the world. This is not exegesis, this is eisegesis. Verse 18 also makes clear that God`s condemnation of the sinner is not based upon a predestining of them for His glory but because they refused to believe in the name of the only Son of God. As sinners we are all accountable for our sins. If we do not repent of them then we must be punished for them. This is where the limitation in the atonement comes in. Verse 18 unequivocally teaches against universalism but it does not entail that this means God predestines sinners to hell for His glory, while saving His grace for His elect. The reason for the sinner`s damnation is they bear the punishment for their sin as the Holy wrath of God remains upon them. The believer is justified by faith, their sins atoned for by Jesus` death on the cross. 

"But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." 1 John 2:1-2

1 John 2:2 contradicts the Calvinist doctrine of Limited Atonement by clearly teaching that Jesus is the propitiation of the sins of believers and unbelievers alike. Again, atonement is limited but not by design but by failure of repentance. Yet despite these clear verses against the doctrine, Calvinists take passages which are not explicitly about the nature of the atonement, draw inferences from them based on the internal logic of their soteriology and then read that back into these passages in the form of eisegesis. 

In light of these errors in exegesis and hermeneutics I do not hold to these two Calvinist doctrines. Much more could be said about the other doctrines of Grace that make up the acronym TULIP and indeed no rejection of Calvinism should be made without careful study and attention given to them. However, I chose these two doctrines to focus my blog on because these are the two that I have most difficulty with. Predestination and election are Biblical truths, they are not exclusive to Calvinism. Nor is grace, and nothing I have said diminishes the need of grace in salvation. No one can be saved without the grace of God for salvation is a gift, not something we earn (Romans 5:15-17, Romans 6:23, Ephesians 2:8). I believe because the Bible teaches that salvation is by faith - the righteous shall live by faith (Romans 1:17, Galatians 3:11). 

Calvinism`s intention to bring maximum glory to God is admirable and meritorious. Conversely, Calvinist theologians and preachers who criticize non-Calvinists as "semi-Pelagians", "heretics", "man-centred", "inconsistent" and/or "barely Christian" are highly offensive. They use theological labels to disparage and discredit those who don`t hold to their doctrines, while at the same time hold to non-Biblical concepts such as faith being a work, if regeneration does not proceed it. I certainly do not believe Calvinism is synonymous with the Gospel as Charles Spurgeon boldly proclaimed! 

I have tried not to stray into criticizing the philosophy of Calvinism as Calvinists often complain that any criticism of Calvinism may attack the philosophy but lacks Biblical support. There is much within the philosophy of Calvinism that I find offensive towards the character of God. But that is not the purpose of this blog.