nikolai_42
Well-known member
...not (necessarily) universalism - though that may be argued to be one of the logical outworkings of the belief - but that Christ died for every person who ever lived and ever will live.
The first thing is that it seems to me this view requires that Christ died only in hope. The idea that God looked into the future to see who would choose Him based on Christ and then decide to send Him because enough people would decide to follow by trusting in Christ - that doesn't look to me to line up with scripture. One might even then be tempted to ask (!) if God did so to maximize the numbers that would be saved or because certain specific people would be saved. Even if He is just trying to maximize numbers, what about those who might be saved if He DIDN'T maximize the numbers? Isn't maximizing numbers doing so at the expense of some certain individuals? I can't see a Sovereign God "running the numbers" to make a decision. But having to assume He might for the sake of argument, it still gets down (it seems) to Him choosing individuals (directly or indirectly).
The second thing - and where my main thought lies - is that Paul said this :
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
I Corinthians 1:17-18
He makes a plain declaration that those who are not in Christ do not accept - nor understand - the purpose of the cross. There is nothing in it that attracts them. There is nothing to it that draws them. There is nothing about it that gains their interested attention. At best, it gains their scorn. So when men say that Jesus is pleading with the whole world to be saved - that every single man is offered the gospel and has the ability to respond positively to it - they still have to admit one of two things :
1. Satan has blinded the eyes of them who don't believe and God is doing nothing about it - therefore, Satan's activity is the cause of their damnation. God either won't or can't remove the blinders but He still damns men for not believing whether it is their fault or not. So the argument that limited atonement gives unregenerate men an excuse for their sin misses the fact that the same is true on the other side.
2. But - one will say - that is just the limited atonement argument being foisted upon the universal position. If that is the case (and here is the rub) then can't the one who believes under the universal scheme say "I was smart enough to accept the cross" since Paul clearly says it is foolishness to those that are perishing? Remember...you can't use the argument that the Holy Spirit has to open the eyes of the blind since that then takes us back to admitting that point 1 is the real universal situation (blindness unless God opens the eyes).
Note, also, that in that first chapter of I Corinthians, Paul clearly says he didn't use "...the wisdom of words..." lest he undermine the cross (which, again, is foolishness to those who are lost). In other words, the ONLY thing that is going to open the eyes of the blind is the Spirit of God. The ONLY thing that is going to make the cross seem wise and beneficial is the Spirit of God. God is not saying "Will anyone listen?" to the very people of whom it is said they are blinded by Satan (2 Corinthians 4:4). And if He is, is He unaware of the natural blindness? Is He unaware of the fact that the cross necessarily appears foolish to all those who are perishing?
So when you get to the point where that blinded unbeliever has the blinders taken off, there can be no scriptural support for the idea that that individual is in any way responsible for being able to see. But once he does see, then you get to the issue of man's sinfulness. Whether he wants to remain in his sin or not. And while that is beyond the scope of this post, I would point out that it seems (at least) that for universal atonement to be true, every individual - at some point in life - would have to see the cross for what it is (i.e. have their blindness removed). I just don't see how that position can be (successfully) defended.
The first thing is that it seems to me this view requires that Christ died only in hope. The idea that God looked into the future to see who would choose Him based on Christ and then decide to send Him because enough people would decide to follow by trusting in Christ - that doesn't look to me to line up with scripture. One might even then be tempted to ask (!) if God did so to maximize the numbers that would be saved or because certain specific people would be saved. Even if He is just trying to maximize numbers, what about those who might be saved if He DIDN'T maximize the numbers? Isn't maximizing numbers doing so at the expense of some certain individuals? I can't see a Sovereign God "running the numbers" to make a decision. But having to assume He might for the sake of argument, it still gets down (it seems) to Him choosing individuals (directly or indirectly).
The second thing - and where my main thought lies - is that Paul said this :
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
I Corinthians 1:17-18
He makes a plain declaration that those who are not in Christ do not accept - nor understand - the purpose of the cross. There is nothing in it that attracts them. There is nothing to it that draws them. There is nothing about it that gains their interested attention. At best, it gains their scorn. So when men say that Jesus is pleading with the whole world to be saved - that every single man is offered the gospel and has the ability to respond positively to it - they still have to admit one of two things :
1. Satan has blinded the eyes of them who don't believe and God is doing nothing about it - therefore, Satan's activity is the cause of their damnation. God either won't or can't remove the blinders but He still damns men for not believing whether it is their fault or not. So the argument that limited atonement gives unregenerate men an excuse for their sin misses the fact that the same is true on the other side.
2. But - one will say - that is just the limited atonement argument being foisted upon the universal position. If that is the case (and here is the rub) then can't the one who believes under the universal scheme say "I was smart enough to accept the cross" since Paul clearly says it is foolishness to those that are perishing? Remember...you can't use the argument that the Holy Spirit has to open the eyes of the blind since that then takes us back to admitting that point 1 is the real universal situation (blindness unless God opens the eyes).
Note, also, that in that first chapter of I Corinthians, Paul clearly says he didn't use "...the wisdom of words..." lest he undermine the cross (which, again, is foolishness to those who are lost). In other words, the ONLY thing that is going to open the eyes of the blind is the Spirit of God. The ONLY thing that is going to make the cross seem wise and beneficial is the Spirit of God. God is not saying "Will anyone listen?" to the very people of whom it is said they are blinded by Satan (2 Corinthians 4:4). And if He is, is He unaware of the natural blindness? Is He unaware of the fact that the cross necessarily appears foolish to all those who are perishing?
So when you get to the point where that blinded unbeliever has the blinders taken off, there can be no scriptural support for the idea that that individual is in any way responsible for being able to see. But once he does see, then you get to the issue of man's sinfulness. Whether he wants to remain in his sin or not. And while that is beyond the scope of this post, I would point out that it seems (at least) that for universal atonement to be true, every individual - at some point in life - would have to see the cross for what it is (i.e. have their blindness removed). I just don't see how that position can be (successfully) defended.
