Is There a Double Payment?

Calvinists such as Boettner insist that "Christ died not for an unorderly mass, but for His people, His Bride, His Church." He argues elsewhere: "For God to have laid the sins of all men on Christ would mean that as regards the lost He would be punishing their sins twice, once in Christ, and then again in them."

It is impossible for Christ to have died for some sins and not for others. Christ had to die for sin itself, the sin which "by one man...entered into the world," and for the death that as a result "passed upon all men" (Rom. 5.12). He had to pay the penalty owed by all. Christ's payment for sin cannot be divided up in order to apply it to individuals. Nor is Christ's "it is finished!" automatically credited to anyone who does not acknowledge his guilt before God, repent, and accept Christ as his Savior.

As a result of Christ's death having paid the full penalty, no one will spend eternity in the Lake of Fire only because of his sins. The doom of those in hell was sealed by each of them rejecting Christ and the salvation He obtained and freely offers to all.

Even if double payment were charged, God could not be charged with injustice-it is the fault of the sinner to not accept the full payment Christ made on his behalf, to involve another payment.

2 PETER 2.1 SAYS CALVINISTS ARE UNSAVED

Some Calvinists seem to believe that Christ's death was potentially redemptive of the whole world, but that the limiting factor was put upon it by God himself. Thus Gunn argues, "The cross could save everyone if God had only intended it to do so." Even though at times Spurgeon defended unlimited atonement, he said in contradiction to unlimited atonement, "We...can never agree with those who would teach us that Christ's blood was shed in vain". He also said, there are "those who were in hell before the Savior died" who Jesus did not die for. The unsaved have not been resurrected yet, and the cross of salvation has a looking towards it from the past and a looking past at it after the cross. It truly is an eternal cross. No distinction is needed between whether it is a physical or supernatural cross when you see the spiritual reality of it.

The truth is He "tasted death for every man" (Heb. 2.9). "Of how much sorer punishment...shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?" (10.29) This is a "sin against the Holy Spirit" in this life and the life to come. We have a clear word here that His blood was shed even for those who despise it and tread underfoot the Son of God.

There will be those who go to destruction who have been bought by Christ who deny that Jesus bought everyone: "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction" (2 Pet. 2.1). This is speaking directly against Calvinists who reject Unlimited Atonement. Yes, false prophets condemned to hell were "bought" by Christ.

The Calvinist must either admit, given these verses, that one who was once saved lost his salvation through turning against Christ-or that one who "was sanctified" by Christ's blood and some whom "the Lord...bought" are not among the elect. Clearly, some for whom Christ's blood was shed will be lost. Thus the Calvinist has no basis for charging that believing that Christ's blood was shed for all leads inevitably to universalism, the teaching that all are saved.

PARTICULAR ATONEMENT?

Calvinists contend that "It makes no sense for Christ to offer atonement for those the Father does not entrust to Him for salvation." This is human reasoning without biblical support. Calvinists refer to "particular atonement"-the idea that the death of Christ had to be for a particular elect. Then Christ died for only particular sins-a belief that misunderstands the very nature of atonement. Christ did not die for individual sins only, but for sin itself-a penalty that had to be paid for anyone to be saved. But His paying the penalty for sin itself required paying for all sins and providing salvation for all mankind. He has freed all who willingly receive the salvation He offers.

"Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1.29); "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and offend in one point, he is guilty of all" (James 2.10).

THE WORLD IS EVERYONE

We are to "preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16.15). Paul preached to large audiences everywhere: "...to you is the word of this salvation sent" (Acts 13.26). "The lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world" (John 1.29). Even Calvin said regarding Is. 53.12, "on Him was laid the guilt of the whole world." "He bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors" (Is. 53.12). Calvin reiterated, concerning Mark 14.24, "This is the blood of the new testament, which is shed for many...The word many does not mean part of the world, but the whole human race." "This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many" (Mark 14.24). "He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2.2).

If Calvin contradicted himself at times preaching both limited atonement and unlimited atonement, then you need to do the same; but, how is it not a sin to contradict yourself?

Vance points out in John "world" couldn't possibly mean elect:

The world knew not Christ (1.10). The world hates Christ (7.7). The world works are evil (7.7). Unsaved Jews were of this world (8.23). Satan is the prince of this world (12.31; 14.30; 16.11). Christ's own are distinguished from the world (13.1; 14.19, 22). The world cannot receive the Holy Spirit (14.17). The world hates the disciples (15.18; 14.14) [and many more]....

In arguing for limited atonement, Sproul inadvertently proves that the world does not refer to the "elect"...: "He [Jesus] explicitly excludes the non-elect from his great high priestly prayer, 'do not pray for the world but for those whom you have given Me' (John 17.9)...." So not only does the world never denote the "elect," it is unequivocally demeaned and condemned by God.

In Christ's high priestly prayer, He specifically distinguishes between the world of mankind for whom He died and those who have believed on Him out of the world. This is not a prayer for the salvation of the former, but for unity among the latter.

SNEAKY AND IRRATIONAL

A favorite ploy of the Calvinist is to suggest that "world" does not mean "all people 'without exception.' but...'without distinction'...not [only] Jews, but also...Gentiles." This is the same tactic as changing "all people" into "all kinds of people"-an irrational idea born out of desperation. Such an idea is even more strained than to brazenly change "all people" or "world" into "elect." Under what circumstances would anyone understand "all" to mean all kinds?

A merchant advertises, "Giant Sale! All merchandise half price." Eager customers, however, discover that certain items are excluded from the sale. When they complain that the ad read all merchandise, the merchant says, "I did not mean all 'without exception,' but 'all without distinction.' All kinds of products are indeed on sale, but not every item of every kind." This would be misleading advertising, and customers would have a legitimate complaint. Yet the Calvinist insists that God uses this same kind of deception in offering salvation to "whosoever will."

If a shepherd said, "I'm selling all of my sheep," would anyone think he meant some of all kinds, i.e., some males, some females, some newborn lambs, etc.? If headlines read, "All males between the age of 20 and 45 are subject to military draft," who would imagine that it really meant some blacks, some whites, some from Illinois, some from Utah, etc.? Or if the announcement were made to a group of tourists stopping at an oasis near the Dead Sea in Israel that "Whoever is thirsty should get a drink now," would anyone imagine this meant some women, some men, some elderly among the thirsty, etc.?

Such a special meaning is nowhere found in all of Scripture. Yet Calvinism requires it for every one of the numerous statements concerning "all" and "world" and "whosoever," etc. that relates to the gospel throughout the entire Bible! Wouldn't' the Calvinist meaning be stated clearly at least once? Yet it never is!

WHAT ABOUT 1 JOHN 2.2?

Lacking references in the Bible that plainly say that Christ died only for the elect, Calvinists somehow have to change those that say He died for all. First John 2.2 clearly states that Christ is the "propitiation for our sins and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world." Surely "our" and "ours" must refer to the elect. Therefore "the whole world," being in contrast to the elect, can only refer to the unsaved and would prove that Christ's death is propitiatory for all mankind.

To acknowledge what this passage declares would be the end of Calvinism. But how can that conclusion be avoided? Piper writes, "The 'whole world' refers to the children of God scattered throughout the whole world." But isn't that what our and ours would refer to: everyone who is saved, no matter where or when they live-and isn't "whole world" placed in contrast to "our" and "ours"? White elaborates a bit further on this brazen eisegesis, which Calvinists have devised in order to rescue their Limited Atonement theory:

The Reformed understanding is that Jesus Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the all the Christians to which John was writing, and not only them, but for all Christians throughout the world, Jew and Gentile, at all times and in all places.

Surely, "if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father," refers to all Christians anywhere and at any time. Likewise, the "our" in "he is the propitiation for ours sins" must refer to all Christians, not just John's contemporaries. It certainly is a true statement for all believers in Christ every time, place, and culture. Furthermore, John's entire epistle, like all of the Bible of which it is a part, is addressed to all believers everywhere and in all ages. If the "our" thus refers to the redeemed, then "the whole world," being in contrast, could only represent those who are lost.

Piper reasons that "Propitiated sins cannot be punished...Therefore it is very unlikely that 1 John 2.2 teaches that Jesus is the propitiation of ever person in the world..." This argument does not work for two reasons: 1) Christ had to pay the penalty for all sin for even one person to be saved; and 2) the benefits of Christ's death do not come automatically, but only to those who believe and receive Him. Were this not the case, then the elect, for whom the Calvinist says Christ did die, would be saved without believing and before they were born. But this is contrary to the gospel of salvation to be regenerated without believing; hence, we can say Calvinists have not been born-again, because they refuse to believe to be saved by grace through faith. No reasonable person would conclude a person is saved before being born, for everyone is born into sin.

The same nonsense is followed by John Owen who reasons that if Christ is really the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, then unbelief would not keep anyone out of heaven, because unbelief, being a sin, would have been propitiated as well.

But propitiation does not occur when one believes in Christ. It must already have been accomplished on the Cross. Faith is the means of appropriating the benefits of Christ's sacrifice-a sacrifice that even the Calvinist acknowledges was sufficient value to pay for the sins of all mankind. Either the elect were always saved and never needed to believe on Christ (a clear denial of the gospel), or there was a time when the propitiation of Christ made on the Cross became effective for them through faith. John is simply saying with Paul that Christ "is the Saviour of all men, specially those that believe" (1 Tim. 4.10).

Every Christian, by very definition, has been saved through faith in Christ, and His blood is the propitiation for their sins. This fact is so elementary and essential that one could hardly be a Christian without knowing it. It is therefore absurd to suggest that John is revealing something of importance by declaring that the blood of Christ avails not only for the people alive in his day but for all Christians in all ages. If this is what the Holy Spirit through John intended, why wasn't it stated clearly? Would the Holy Spirit use "world" to convey the meaning "all Christians in all times everywhere"? Hardly.

GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD

"God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son" (John 3.16). "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter" (John 14.16). Many people can recite the first of these two passages from memory, but they cannot recite the second. Actually both these passages are equally valuable. God bestows two gifts: in John 3.16 He is said to give us the Son; in John 14.16 He is said to give us the Holy Spirit. God grants His Son to sinners, and the Holy Spirit to all those who believe in His Son. He gives His Son to the world that they may be saved through Him; He gives the Holy Spirit to the believers that they may have the power to overcome. All things done in the Son are objective truths; all things accomplished in me by the Holy Spirit are subjective truths. Accordingly, all that is done in Christ is objective; all that is done in me by the Holy Spirit is subjective.

EXPOSING LIMITED ATONEMENT DESTROYS CALVINISM

"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2.2). There is no more perfect parallel passage to 1 John 2.2 than 1 Tim. 4.10, "...the Savior of all men [the whole world], specially those that believe" [the redeemed to whom John writes]. According to High Priest Caiaphas (John 11.49-52), one man died for the whole nation. Surely, he meant the people of Israel, the whole nation, a fact that contradicts Calvinism's Limited Atonement. His blood redeems "out of" every tribe and tongue, tongue, people and nation (Rev. 5.9-10). But, 1 John 2.2 does not say "from" or "out of" the whole world; he clearly says simply, "the whole world."

In 1 John 3.1 we have the phrase, "...the world knoweth us not." Surely "us" refers to the redeemed; "world" is in contrast to them and cannot possibly mean some other group of Christians. In 3.13 we find, "Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you." In 4.5-6, "They are of the world...we are of God." Scripture defines its terms. The epistle maintains the same definition of "the world". Again, 1 John 5.19 declares, "We are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness." Are we to believe the Calvinists are saved when they say "the world" are saved?

The world of mankind at large is in contrast to the body of believers. One cannot claim that "world" in 1 John 2.2 is an exception and has a different meaning from every where else in the epistle.

We can only conclude with the utmost confidence that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, and therefore His death was not a propitiatory for the elect only but the sins of all mankind. John says exactly that: "the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world" (1 John 4.14).

Does that mean all are automatically saved by Christ's death? No. The good news of the gospel is "the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth..." (Rom. 1.16).

Clearly, without special definitions of words and much Scriptural twisting, the doctrine of Limited Atonement crumbles, and with it the rest of Calvinism.

What is God's judgment upon the Calvinist? "There were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction" (2 Pet. 2.1). To deny Jesus paid the price to purchase anyone anywhere at all as we are all sinners, is to bring swift destruction on you.