Grasping at Straws and Avoiding 1 John 4.14

[Nottheworld]

"The Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world" (1 John 4.14). The mistake White makes regarding this verse is to deny unlimited atonement ad hoc, and focus instead on passages that clearly refer to the blessings God has planned for the elect.

It is only to be expected that Paul and other inspired writers of Scripture would remind the redeemed that Christ died for them and that the Father delivered Christ to the cross for the sake of the elect. Such passages, however, do not in any way imply, much less declare, that Christ's death was only for them and not also for the sins of the whole world. If so, these passages would contradict the many other verses that declare in the plainest language that Christ did indeed die for all.

If the redeemed are grateful to Christ for dying for their sins proves that He died only for them, then the same reasoning would establish that Christ loved only Paul and died only for him, since Paul gratefully declares too, "I am crucified with Christ...the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" (Gal. 2.20).

The moral bankruptcy and fallacies in logic and lack of love in calvinism will burn in hell for all eternity.

[Nottheworld]

HIDING THE TRUTH

Calvinist pastor Thomas Boston, quoted by MacArthur, said in his sermon that was preached in Scotland on June 7, 1724 on the text 1 John 4.14, "...the Father sent the Son Jesus Christ in character...He is able to save the world ; since He was sent of God in that character [but not actual]...Jesus is the actual Savior of the elect only...but of the world Christ is the official Savior...by office [Office...official sense...all sinners may lay hold of what is actual for the elect only? What perverse double talk!] Believe Christ is your Savior by His Father's appointment [The non-elect are suppose to believe...lay hold of and receive what God has reserved for the elect alone? What mockery!] (emphasis in the original)."

Here we see very clearly the schizophrenia into which the "moderate" Calvinist inevitably falls in his effort to distance himself from those he calls "hyper-Calvinists." The latter frankly admit, being true to Calvinism, that Calvinism teaches that God doesn't love everyone, never intended everyone to be saved, and has predestined all but the elect to eternal torment. Under the cover of "moderate" verbiage, Thomas Boston tries to deny this obvious fact of Calvinism-as does MacArthur, who quotes him for support. Boston admits the Calvinism teaching that Christ is the "actual Savior of the elect only [and] died [B]only for them" as core calvinist doctrine. But to hide Calvin's denial of "Saviour of all men," and its clear contradiction of God's love as the Bible presents it, Boston perversely declares that Christ has "the character of Savior of the world," has this office and is therefore the "official Savior of all mankind." It is unexplained madness that Christ could be the official Savior of all and yet die for only the elect and never intend to save anyone else-this allows the Calvinist to pretend no such limit applies by the character [or, characture] of Christ. Are we really to believe osas arminians are the same as "moderate" calvinists in view of this double-talk by calvinists?

Many calvinists are deceived by such subterfuge. Boston urges everyone to receive Christ by faith and says its their own fault if they don't [even though they can't]. He feels guilty to say the truth in a forthright manner of what he really believes faith is a gift of God only given after God has sovereignly regenerated them. Is this not a clear case of someone not abiding in the minimal standard God has set for them which is their own conscience? Not admitting directly doesn't change the fact that this is the teaching of calvinism. Finally accepting this doctrine is flawed to the bone after the fact [of an assumed salvation] has been a point of deliverance for many calvinists who begin to examine themselves and realize for the first time deterministically they are not actually among the elect.

[Nottheworld]

Was Paul Preaching Limited Atonement?

Limited Atonement cannot be supported from the Bible without avoiding many passages and adopting special interpretations for many others. Calvinists' arguments about the blood of Christ being wasted if shed for many who would not believe are specious. Then God wasted His time and the time and effort of His prophets who called, without success, upon millions of Jews for centuries to repent. From the cross Christ cried, "Father, forgive them," concerning those who were crucifying and mocking Him. Was He wasting His breath, since many if not most of those taunting and crucifying Him would never repent and thus not be forgiven? And how could He ask His Father to forgive them except on the basis of His blood, shed for their sin? But if that was shed only for the elect, how could Christ sincerely ask forgiveness for any non-elect? Why is Jesus then wasting His blood according to Calvinists?

Paul declares, in evident agony of soul, "I say the truth in Christ,... I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart...for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh" (Rom. 9.1-3). He even wishes himself accursed of God if that would save the Jews. Surely, it is God's love for the lost that motivates Paul.

Yet Calvinism insists that God, who is love, has predestined billions to hell, while Paul, who surely is in touch with God, agonizes for their salvation! Is Paul more loving than God? Where does such love come from if not from God? Would it not be blasphemy for Paul to desire the salvation of those whom God does not desire to save? On the contrary, we are told that God desires "all men to be saved..."!

Rob Zins puts forth the argument,

You [may] raise some philosophical problems with the demand of God that all men everywhere should repent and believe and the corresponding will of God which has determined that only some will be given the ability to do so. This is a difficult issue to face. But it is no more difficult to face than all men being condemned by the sin of one man, Adam. It is no more difficult to face than the fact of sin, corruption, evil and all other forms of sin allowed to continue when God could end them all.
On the contrary, there is a huge difference between allowing men to sin and causing them to sin [and sending them to hell without recourse.] There is a vast difference between justly sentencing to eternal torment those who continue to defy God (rejecting the salvation He has graciously and lovingly provided for them) and in predestining them to the Lake of Fire without providing or offering any hope whatsoever.

Having given men the power of choice, God could end all evil only by destroying all men, or never having created them in the first place. Even "saved sinners" sometimes sin (1 John 1.9). But God is loving and longsuffering, calling upon all men to be repent, to turn to Him, and receive the salvation He offers. Even though all sin and are justly condemned, God has provided salvation and made it available to all who will believe. He cannot force it upon anyone, however, without destroying man as a moral agent capable of loving and being loved. Yet Calvinism unbiblically claims that God could save everyone but refuses to do so because it is His "good pleasure" to damn multitudes. He is either impotent or unwilling to do what he claims he can do. Either way, moral choice is disallowed! Without it, man is just an automaton.

Special prayers for believers ("I pray not for the world" John 17.9) does not nullify His desire to save all. If we were to use the approach of calvinists, we would say Jesus "I pray not for [the saved of] the world". Silly.

Our understanding about God Himself will determine how we interpret Scripture. So this explains how a Calvinist can alter God's Word so readily and fervently. Grace cannot be irresistible otherwise all would be saved by a god who if he could and claims he can then he should.