Is "Limited Atonement" doctrine in Calvinism satanic heresy?

[Cassian]

So what, to you, is different in the outcomes between the hypothetical person who dies without the atonement at all, and the person with Christ having atoned but rejecting him? You have said that the atonement achieved life and sacrifice for sins for all people, so what does that look like for someone who rejects Christ?

First, no human being is without the atonement. It is a gift of Christ to the world of His love, grace and mercy.

The only question that needs to be asked now is what will you as a human being do with the gift and the universal call of God to every human being to be united with Him. If united He has promised eternal life with Him for an eternity.

For those in hell it may be worse then ending as a pile of dust. But then we are not God, He is the potter, you know, He created man free because that is the ONLY way one can return love. Those that choose to reject God the consequence is hell.

 

[Nick01]

Cassian, I'm not quite sure you've answered the question. You previously said the atonement bought life and sacrifice for sins for all people, in a way that is distinct from and in opposition to Arminian and Calvinist understandings of the atonement. By that I take it you believe the atonement is effective in those ways, at least to some extent, for all people rather than simply sufficient or theoretically available to all.

So, I'll ask the question again. Let's say there's a guy named Jimmy. Jimmy is a sinner in need of grace. Christ needs to die for him. So, what is the difference in terms of life and sacrifice for sins, or otherwise any other eternal outcome, for Jimmy if you compare a) before or without the atonement at all and b) with the atonement but Jimmy rejects Jesus as Lord?

 

[Skinski7]

Let's say there's a guy named Jimmy. Jimmy is a sinner in need of grace. Christ needs to die for him. So, what is the difference in terms of life and sacrifice for sins, or otherwise any other eternal outcome, for Jimmy if you compare a) before or without the atonement at all and b) with the atonement but Jimmy rejects Jesus as Lord?

Grace has appeared to Jimmy.

Tit 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
Tit 2:12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

Thus Jimmy has been given direction in the right way to go. It is up to Jimmy whether he will yield to what grace teaches (ie. repent and obey) or reject (refuse to repent and continue to disobey).

Jesus died for the purpose...

Tit 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

1. Redeem from all iniquity.
2. Purify the heart whereby one is zealous for righteousness.

The death of Christ presented a way to...

Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Heb 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Heb 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
Heb 9:18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
Heb 9:19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
Heb 9:20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

1. The death of Christ established the New Covenant as a reality.
2. One enters into the New Covenant via the blood of Jesus (enjoined into covenant by the blood).

The blood serves to purge the conscience of past sins whereby we can then serve God without a conscience defiled by guilt.

Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
2Pe 1:9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.

This cleansing by the blood is conditioned on repentance and faith, ie. approaching God in the correct manner.

Heb 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

We can approach God directly (veil has been torn down). There is no longer any need for the Old Covenant sacrificial system.

Heb 10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

There is a new and living way which is a reference to the heart as opposed to being rule regimentation. The New Covenant is purely internal, as opposed to external.

Heb 10:21 And having an high priest over the house of God;
Heb 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

We draw near with a true heart in full confidence and our hearts are purged of guilt, our consciousness of sin due to our previous rebellion is removed and thus we can now stand before God without shame.

So, what is the difference in terms of life and sacrifice for sins, or otherwise any other eternal outcome, for Jimmy if you compare a) before or without the atonement at all and b) with the atonement but Jimmy rejects Jesus as Lord?

(a) Without the death of Christ there would be no New Covenant and thus there would be no means via which the guilt associated with rebellion to God could be purged once and for all. Jimmy would never be able to stand before God due to being guilty of rebellion. The defilement that sin produces in the conscience could not be removed and thus there would ever remain a great divide between Jimmy and God, even if he would forsake his rebellion. A return to obedience cannot undo the guilt associated with past disobedience.

(b) If Jimmy rejects the means by which he may be redeemed and made pure then Jimmy simply remains dead in his sins. Redemption from sin itself is through the Spirit of life in Jesus Christ and to reject that and remain carnal in the service of sin is plain and simply death.



False views of the reasons why Jesus died on the cross serve to destroy and replace the means described above with notions that will not save anyone.

 

[Nick01]

Hi Skinski,

Thanks for the reply. There's not really anything you've posted that I disagree with, though perhaps I would myself would phrase a couple of things slightly differently, and a couple of things not directly related to the question of salvation/atonement I don't entirely agree with. But, substantively, no objection from me. It seems, though, what you have written doesn't quite align with what Cassian has been suggesting about the effect of the atonement on all people, so I'll wait for him to reply as well before commenting further.

 

[Skinski7]

Hi Skinski,

Thanks for the reply. There's not really anything you've posted that I disagree with, though perhaps I would myself would phrase a couple of things slightly differently, and a couple of things not directly related to the question of salvation/atonement I don't entirely agree with. But, substantively, no objection from me. It seems, though, what you have written doesn't quite align with what Cassian has been suggesting about the effect of the atonement on all people, so I'll wait for him to reply as well before commenting further.

I believe Cassian holds the Eastern Orthodox position, although he can correct me on this.

I am not associated with any institutional denomination. I try and stick to what the Bible actually states.

 

[Cassian]

Cassian, I'm not quite sure you've answered the question. You previously said the atonement bought life and sacrifice for sins for all people, in a way that is distinct from and in opposition to Arminian and Calvinist understandings of the atonement. By that I take it you believe the atonement is effective in those ways, at least to some extent, for all people rather than simply sufficient or theoretically available to all.

So, I'll ask the question again. Let's say there's a guy named Jimmy. Jimmy is a sinner in need of grace. Christ needs to die for him. So, what is the difference in terms of life and sacrifice for sins, or otherwise any other eternal outcome, for Jimmy if you compare a) before or without the atonement at all and b) with the atonement but Jimmy rejects Jesus as Lord?

Your example shows your misunderstanding between the atonement itself and the purpose of why Christ did it.

Whether Jimmy believes or not does not effect the Atonement in any way. Every human being whether they believe or not have access to what Christ did by His Incarnation, death and resurrection.

Let me say it this way as an alternative perspective. Because Christ atoned for sin and gave life to the world, Jimmy is now free to choose whether he will believe or not and either choice has consequences. Heaven or hell.

If Christ did not come and did not redeem the world, man, every human being would simply die and return to dust. We were all under the condemnation of death through Adam. The world would also continue to decay, and every living thing would eventually die.

 

[Nick01]

Every human being whether they believe or not have access to what Christ did by His Incarnation, death and resurrection.

Because Christ atoned for sin and gave life to the world, Jimmy is now free to choose whether he will believe or not and either choice has consequences. Heaven or hell.

So, again for clarities sake, by 'have access to what Christ did by his Incarnation, death and resurrection' you mean 'able to make a choice to have life/sacrifice of sins or not', is that correct?

Or if I can try to get to the heart of what you're saying in other words, Eternal life is not effective for all people simply because of the atonement, but it is available conditionally on the choice of people and is sufficient for all people. The atonement itself makes eternal life available for all, and makes available and 'accessible' for all people the choice required to access eternal life, but does not on its own effect that eternal life on all people.

Am I still with you? Have I missed anything?

 

[Cassian]

Hi Skinski,

Thanks for the reply. There's not really anything you've posted that I disagree with, though perhaps I would myself would phrase a couple of things slightly differently, and a couple of things not directly related to the question of salvation/atonement I don't entirely agree with. But, substantively, no objection from me. It seems, though, what you have written doesn't quite align with what Cassian has been suggesting about the effect of the atonement on all people, so I'll wait for him to reply as well before commenting further.

First, I am not addressing the effect or the how God uses the atonement. Skinski is addressing the effect.

The atonement is between God and Christ. Christ is recapitulating the world, or you can say He is re-creating the world. He is reversing the Condemnation of death due to Adam's sin and providing a means by which man in this life can dwell with God in his sinful condition, namely the forgiveness of sin.

Skinski is only covering the sin factor of the atonement. If Christ only performed a sacrifice for sin, we still would not have an eternal existence. By His resurrection, Christ raised our mortal nature to life, an eternal existence. We shall all be raised in the last day. Without the Incarnation and resurrection everything would be null and void, This is explained fully in I Cor 15. The entire chapter deals with the resurrection of Christ and what it accomplishes. It is explained concisely from vs 12-22.
It also aligns with II Cor 5:18-19, Col 1:20, and others.

In fact, without Christ's resurrection hell and heaven would not even need to exist, since there would be no one to occupy either place. Man would simply die, return to dust, Gen 3:19 permanently.

 

[Skinski7]

Your example shows your misunderstanding between the atonement itself and the purpose of why Christ did it.

Whether Jimmy believes or not does not effect the Atonement in any way. Every human being whether they believe or not have access to what Christ did by His Incarnation, death and resurrection.

Let me say it this way as an alternative perspective. Because Christ atoned for sin and gave life to the world, Jimmy is now free to choose whether he will believe or not and either choice has consequences. Heaven or hell.

If Christ did not come and did not redeem the world, man, every human being would simply die and return to dust. We were all under the condemnation of death through Adam. The world would also continue to decay, and every living thing would eventually die.

I would agree with this. Although I do often think semantics can get in the way as we often use different words to describe different things and it is always important to specify our definitions.

I would also add the importance of the purging of the conscience of sin.

 

[Skinski7]

First, I am not addressing the effect or the how God uses the atonement. Skinski is addressing the effect.

The atonement is between God and Christ. Christ is recapitulating the world, or you can say He is re-creating the world. He is reversing the Condemnation of death due to Adam's sin and providing a means by which man in this life can dwell with God in his sinful condition, namely the forgiveness of sin.

Skinski is only covering the sin factor of the atonement. If Christ only performed a sacrifice for sin, we still would not have an eternal existence. By His resurrection, Christ raised our mortal nature to life, an eternal existence. We shall all be raised in the last day. Without the Incarnation and resurrection everything would be null and void, This is explained fully in I Cor 15. The entire chapter deals with the resurrection of Christ and what it accomplishes. It is explained concisely from vs 12-22.
It also aligns with II Cor 5:18-19, Col 1:20, and others.

In fact, without Christ's resurrection hell and heaven would not even need to exist, since there would be no one to occupy either place. Man would simply die, return to dust, Gen 3:19 permanently.

Early Church writers put much more emphasis on the Resurrection of Jesus than His death and I think that is where recapitulation comes in.

Whether one understands what is written in Hebrews or not is really of no consequence if one approaches God in the correct manner (repentance and faith/ie. true heart) for the purging of the conscience will occur.

The Early Church did not have a systematic theology and their Bible was the Old Testament. If they were lucky they might have had access to a letter of Paul or Peter but in general all they preached was "repentance proven by deeds and a faith that works by love" all in the context of approaching God through Jesus Christ, and that it was through His resurrection that we have hope of our own resurrection.

Thanks for your post Cassian.

 

[Cassian]

So, again for clarities sake, by 'have access to what Christ did by his Incarnation, death and resurrection' you mean 'able to make a choice to have life/sacrifice of sins or not', is that correct?

Or if I can try to get to the heart of what you're saying in other words, Eternal life is not effective for all people simply because of the atonement, but it is available conditionally on the choice of people and is sufficient for all people. The atonement itself makes eternal life available for all, and makes available and 'accessible' for all people the choice required to access eternal life, but does not on its own effect that eternal life on all people.

Am I still with you? Have I missed anything?

Not exactly. My previous post might help some more.

You have added another term that in scripture has a very specific meaning- "eternal life". Salvation as used in scripture does not mean eternal life. Eternal life is specifically the eternal spiritual existence we will share with Christ.

It is completely different than salvation. Christ by His atoning work saved the world/mankind from death, sin and Satan. Man has no part to play in salvation. It is all of Christ.

The difference is shown is such texts as Rom 5:18, I Cor 15:22. This is speaking about the physical life though Christ's resurrection and Incarnation. This is also a gift, vs 15-17, It is an outright gift of His love, grace and mercy to man.

Eternal life is expressed in Rom 6:23. It is effected by faith. And this is essentially what Zinski is addressing. It is also a gift, but it has conditions, obligations to meet before we can inherit eternal life. It is dependent upon our faith.

 

[Skinski7]

Not exactly. My previous post might help some more.

You have added another term that in scripture has a very specific meaning- "eternal life". Salvation as used in scripture does not mean eternal life. Eternal life is specifically the eternal spiritual existence we will share with Christ.

Eternal life is the reward for those who endure to the end.

Rom 2:7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

It is completely different than salvation. Christ by His atoning work saved the world/mankind from death, sin and Satan. Man has no part to play in salvation. It is all of Christ.

I am not sure how you can claim that unless you are holding to a different definition or aspect of salvation. Perhaps it is semantics at work here.

The Bible is very clear that we have an integral part in our salvation and that part is "yielding" to God.

We are saved by grace THROUGH faith. It is the DOING/YIELDING (faith) as a response to the LEADING (grace) which produces TRANSFORMATION.

Grace and faith work together and produce an outcome, the outcome being a clean heart (protestants will misunderstand this because they will view DOING in the context of some specific amount of time and thus not understand what is at issue here which is simply the "yielded heart" and not having to do something for a specific time period).

We can see this dynamic illustrated by James...

Jas 1:21 Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.
Jas 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

James speaks of forsaking evil in order to receive the word within which is able to save the soul and then puts that in the context of DOING as opposed to hearing only.

The difference is shown is such texts as Rom 5:18, I Cor 15:22. This is speaking about the physical life though Christ's resurrection and Incarnation. This is also a gift, vs 15-17, It is an outright gift of His love, grace and mercy to man.

The "free gift" of Rom 5:18 is one of example. We are "made righteous" by the righteousness of one via ABIDING in the Spirit of life in that one (Rom 8:2-4) hence, the righteousness of the law is fulfilled IN us. In other words there is DOING involved.

1Cor 15:22 is indeed talking about the resurrection and of course that is "all of God" as you say and I can also rightly be called "salvation." Yet I think it is important to not dismiss the "salvation FROM sin" (Mat 1:21) from the context of salvation which includes "salvation FROM physical death."

Eternal life is expressed in Rom 6:23. It is effected by faith. And this is essentially what Zinski is addressing. It is also a gift, but it has conditions, obligations to meet before we can inherit eternal life. It is dependent upon our faith.

Salvation (from sin) has conditions (ie. repentance and faith) and the end road of salvation from sin is eternal life. Hence eternal life is THROUGH (abiding in) Jesus Christ.

 

[Nick01]

Not exactly. My previous post might help some more.

You have added another term that in scripture has a very specific meaning- "eternal life". Salvation as used in scripture does not mean eternal life. Eternal life is specifically the eternal spiritual existence we will share with Christ.

It is completely different than salvation. Christ by His atoning work saved the world/mankind from death, sin and Satan. Man has no part to play in salvation. It is all of Christ.

The difference is shown is such texts as Rom 5:18, I Cor 15:22. This is speaking about the physical life though Christ's resurrection and Incarnation. This is also a gift, vs 15-17, It is an outright gift of His love, grace and mercy to man.

Eternal life is expressed in Rom 6:23. It is effected by faith. And this is essentially what Zinski is addressing. It is also a gift, but it has conditions, obligations to meet before we can inherit eternal life. It is dependent upon our faith.

I'm not sure about what you mean by salvation not meaning eternal life. Certainly, they are not synonymous, but salvation includes eternal life, does it not? In John 3, in connection with Moses lifthing the snake, the lifting up of the son of man, of God so loving the world that he gave his only son, Jesus says the purpose was to bring eternal life. After saying this in John 3:16, he immediately contrasts condemnation with salvation, and then in verse 18 belief is equated with 'no condemnation', and is then contrasted with unbelief equates with condemnation. It seems, at least there, that a reversal of condemnation brought about by the atonement is equalled to eternal life.

So:

v. 14Son lifted up > v.15 so that everyone who believes will not die but have eternal life

v.16 God so loved the world>he gave his only son>that whoever believes will not perish but have eternal life

v.17 FOR God sent his Son NOT to condemn>but that the world through him might be saved

v.18 He that believes is not condemned > he that believes not is condemned already

v.36 He that believes has eternal life > he that believes not shall not see life, wrath abides on him

So I'm not quite sure I'm tracking with you, and I can't see anything in Romans 5 or 1 Cor 15 that overturns the reading of John 3 - eternal life seems to be inextricably caught up in salvation and no longer being under the condemnation of God.

You seem to be suggesting a salvation that is distinct from the salvation addressed in John 3. Are you saying that the atonement bought us the life that we live right now in 'the flesh'? Some sort of salvation from complete non-existance? Let me know if I'm off the scent of your views.

 

[Nick01]

First, I am not addressing the effect or the how God uses the atonement. Skinski is addressing the effect.

The atonement is between God and Christ. Christ is recapitulating the world, or you can say He is re-creating the world. He is reversing the Condemnation of death due to Adam's sin and providing a means by which man in this life can dwell with God in his sinful condition, namely the forgiveness of sin.

Skinski is only covering the sin factor of the atonement. If Christ only performed a sacrifice for sin, we still would not have an eternal existence. By His resurrection, Christ raised our mortal nature to life, an eternal existence. We shall all be raised in the last day. Without the Incarnation and resurrection everything would be null and void, This is explained fully in I Cor 15. The entire chapter deals with the resurrection of Christ and what it accomplishes. It is explained concisely from vs 12-22.
It also aligns with II Cor 5:18-19, Col 1:20, and others.

I agree with all this, and I think anyone with an Arminian or Calvinist (or for that matter, Universalist) view of the atonement would as well.

I would, however, like to point out that you ARE talking about the effect of the atonement when you talk about it's impact on the world ("re-creating"), because it goes beyond any simple transaction in the inner life of the Trinity, and instead goes to world effect.

In fact, without Christ's resurrection hell and heaven would not even need to exist, since there would be no one to occupy either place. Man would simply die, return to dust, Gen 3:19 permanently.

Ah, I think I see where the confusion lies now. So, you argue that the atonement secures the eternality of the soul? I.e., without the atonement, there is no eternal judgement or eternal life, and mankind simply ceases to exist at death. Is that correct?

 

[Cassian]

Skinski,

I am not sure how you can claim that unless you are holding to a different definition or aspect of salvation. Perhaps it is semantics at work here.

Partially. In scripture, the word salvation refers to what Christ did for us. Only in one instance, I believe, it is used to denote the entire plan of God which includes what Christ did and man's response.

Eternal life is the promise God offers to those that see and believe. If not for the reversal of the fall, which man could never do, the relationship with God is precluded by our condemnation of death through Adam.

The Bible is very clear that we have an integral part in our salvation and that part is "yielding" to God.
We are saved by grace THROUGH faith. It is the DOING/YIELDING (faith) as a response to the LEADING (grace) which produces TRANSFORMATION.
Grace and faith work together and produce an outcome, the outcome being a clean heart (protestants will misunderstand this because they will view DOING in the context of some specific amount of time and thus not understand what is at issue here which is simply the "yielded heart" and not having to do something for a specific time period).

that is all about the offer of eternal life.

The "free gift" of Rom 5:18 is one of example. We are "made righteous" by the righteousness of one via ABIDING in the Spirit of life in that one (Rom 8:2-4) hence, the righteousness of the law is fulfilled IN us. In other words there is DOING involved.

All men were made righteous. All men were put into a correct relationship with God, so that God can now call all men to repentance and man can respond.

1Cor 15:22 is indeed talking about the resurrection and of course that is "all of God" as you say and I can also rightly be called "salvation." Yet I think it is important to not dismiss the "salvation FROM sin" (Mat 1:21) from the context of salvation which includes "salvation FROM physical death."

That is precisely salvation. Salvation from death, the condemnation we inherited through Adam, our mortal nature. A nature Christ assumed in His Incarnation and defeated death by His resurrection thus all men now have life, immortality. Now God has a reason to call all men to repentance, as that was His whole purpose in creating man, to have an eternal union with man.

Salvation (from sin) has conditions (ie. repentance and faith) and the end road of salvation from sin is eternal life. Hence eternal life is THROUGH (abiding in) Jesus Christ.

precisely.

 

[Cassian]

Nick01,

I'm not sure about what you mean by salvation not meaning eternal life. Certainly, they are not synonymous, but salvation includes eternal life, does it not? In John 3, in connection with Moses lifthing the snake, the lifting up of the son of man, of God so loving the world that he gave his only son, Jesus says the purpose was to bring eternal life. After saying this in John 3:16, he immediately contrasts condemnation with salvation, and then in verse 18 belief is equated with 'no condemnation', and is then contrasted with unbelief equates with condemnation. It seems, at least there, that a reversal of condemnation brought about by the atonement is equalled to eternal life.

It can and scripture uses it that one once, I believe.
Yes, the purpose was to bring eternal life. To properly understand this one must go back to Genesis. God created man to be eternal and in union with Him. So, eternal life was to be our destiny but God also set Adam up with a condition. God did not what a creature that responded because He made him respond, but that man was to be made free, able to choose whether he would love and serve God or not.
When Adam sinned, the condemnation of that sin was death. We became mortal beings subject to decay, corruption and death. So was the world subjected to death. If God was ever going to have a relationship with man again, death and our resultant sin would have to be defeated. Man could not do this. Thus Christ, the second Adam reverses the fall of man, so that God and man could return to fulfill the created purpose of our existence.
We are not being saved to a relationship. We have all been saved from death and sin so that we might freely join with God in an eternal relationship. Now, there are negative consequences as well which is hell. Many Protestants have the idea that one is being saved from hell. One was saved from death so we can have union with God, God's intended purpose for man. Hell is a negative consequence of man's rejection of his offer of union.

So I'm not quite sure I'm tracking with you, and I can't see anything in Romans 5 or 1 Cor 15 that overturns the reading of John 3 - eternal life seems to be inextricably caught up in salvation and no longer being under the condemnation of God.

Christ's redemptive work makes John3:16 or eternal life possible. It also shows the negative consequence of our choice to believe or not believe.
Also, the condemnation is not of God, but of man himself. God simply gives out the virdict that man chose. Which is also why one is not being saved from hell, since it is man's free choice.

You seem to be suggesting a salvation that is distinct from the salvation addressed in John 3. Are you saying that the atonement bought us the life that we live right now in 'the flesh'? Some sort of salvation from complete non-existance? Let me know if I'm off the scent of your views.

The part of God so loved the world and sent His Son, is about Christ and what He did and why He is called the Savior of the world, John 4:42. The reason or purpose was so that all men could believe and thus not perish (hell).
The death we inherited was a return to non-existance, dust to dust, Gen 3:19 from whence we came. Physical death precluded any eternal exixtence.

 

[Cassian]

Nick01,

I agree with all this, and I think anyone with an Arminian or Calvinist (or for that matter, Universalist) view of the atonement would as well.
I would, however, like to point out that you ARE talking about the effect of the atonement when you talk about it's impact on the world ("re-creating"), because it goes beyond any simple transaction in the inner life of the Trinity, and instead goes to world effect.

If they actually understood it possibly. But Calvinism of any group, denies the whole atonement because they hold to a limited atonement which is impossible. The rest of their theology also denies the whole purpose of God interacting with man in an eternal relationship that is mutual.
Arminians, since they are essentially opposite of Calvinism may hold to some of it, but two false teachings that have become almost universal in Protestantism is Original Sin and Anselm's answer to Original Sin in the form of the Roman/English civil law concept, the satisfaction or forensic theory.

The Universalist take universal atonement and add universal eternal life eventually to all as well.

Ah, I think I see where the confusion lies now. So, you argue that the atonement secures the eternality of the soul? I.e., without the atonement, there is no eternal judgement or eternal life, and mankind simply ceases to exist at death. Is that correct?

yes. Eternality of the physical world and our souls. We will be raised both body and soul, and for those in Christ, glorified as well.

 

[pem]

Jesus said he died for everyone not for "the elect"

What say Ye?

No it is not Satanic - It is the Gospel of Grace . It is the heresy of arminian universal atonenment that comes from Satan :
The Arminian Heresy of Universal Atonement

 

[pem]

You have presented a false paradigm. The Bible does not teach either the Arminian or the Calvinist view points. They are both false and any debate engaged within such a context is merely in the confines of oppositions of science falsely so called and ought to be completely avoided.

One of the most effective means of deceiving people is via the use of a false dialectic consisting entirely within the framework of error. Error versus error always results in error.


Satan is not stupid. Foolish yes, not stupid.

Please explain your view that is neither arminian nor calvinist

 

[Cassian]

Please explain your view that is neither arminian nor calvinist

He lays it out very well in the OP. His responses through the post reiterate the OP in detail.