WHO DID JESUS DIE FOR? - by Steve Kneale

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------------

This author is completely unable to quote Scripture. He can quote a theologian, but not a single word of the Bible appears in his teaching. How can one teach about the Bible without quoting it?

His intent is to defend the Calvinistic teaching called Limited Atonement. His approach is to use logic (flawed) and not the Bible. 

For this reason we must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

We would further assert that this doctrine, like much of Calvinism, simply doesn't matter. Did Jesus atone only for the Elect? We don't need to know this to live a life of obedience, worship, holiness, service, or generosity. It's irrelevant knowledge, it's doctrinal hairsplitting to no purpose.

We will boldly state the Five Points of Calvinism do not matter.

We asked the author a couple of question, and he answered. We dealt with his answers in another post.

-------------------------

Of all the Five Points of Calvinism, none cause quite as much upset as Limited Atonement. It’s not the most helpfully named thing, which is aimed at saying the scope of the atonement is limited to the elect rather than all people in general, but it sounds like its saying its effects are limited which is why some prefer Particular Redemption or Definite Atonement. The doctrine is ultimately driving at the idea that Jesus died for particular people, as opposed to all people in general (particular redemption), and that the people Jesus intends to save are actually saved by his death on the cross (definite atonement) rather than just potentially saved by his death and then only actually saved upon their belief.

The issue concerning Limited Atonement is brought into sharp focus when we ask two simple questions: (1) did Jesus’ death actually pay for anybody’s sin; (Jesus' death had nothing to do with paying for sin. There is no verse anywhere in the Bible that tells us Jesus paid for sin. Jesus' death paid for us: 1Co. 6:20 you were bought at a price.) 

and, (2) did Jesus death actually save anyone? There are only three possible answers to these questions:

• Jesus’ death paid for everybody’s sin and therefore saves everyone
• Jesus’ death paid for nobody’s sin and therefore saves no one
• Jesus’ death paid for particular people’s sin and therefore saves those particular people

(The author is playing word games. He makes three statements with one stated conclusion for each, as if this is the only conclusion allowed. Thus he tilts the rhetorical table in his favor. 

As mentioned, Jesus did not pay for anyone's sin. His death was sacrificial, not financial. His blood is the effective agent of cleansing from sin: 

Re. 1:5b  To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood...  

Jesus' sacrifice was for the benefit of all men, though not all would receive Him:

Jn. 1:9-13 The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God — 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

1Jn. 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

Some Calvinists appeal to John 6:44 for Limited Atonement: 

Jn. 6:44 No-one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.

But: 

Jn. 12:32 But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.

The Lamb of God was most certainly offered for the sin of the world:

Jn. 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming towards him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 

His intent has always been to save the world:

Jn. 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

But it's conditional:

Jn. 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

He is not just the savior of the elect: 

Jn. 4:42 They said to the woman, “We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.”

Paul made the point that death came to all men because of Adam's sin:

Ro. 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned...

But Jesus' death is the counterpoint:

Ro. 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.

So the universal applicability of salvation does not speak to who will be saved. Mr. Kneale makes a Category Mistake. Thus there is no need for Limited Atonement. He therefore offers a solution for which there is no problem.)

Those who affirm option one fall for the heterodox doctrine of universalism. If Jesus has paid for everybody’s sin, God has nothing to hold against anybody; there is no further price to be paid and there is no condemnation for anybody. (The false equation leads to a false conclusion. Since Jesus' death didn't pay for sin it doesn't follow that everyone's sin is gone.)

History’s greatest wrong’uns are all heading straight for Heaven on such a view. But the fact is, Jesus did not speak about the ‘outer darkness’ on the basis that nobody is going there. Matthew 8:11-12 fairly clearly rules out any possibility that everyone is saved and there are many other bible passages that make the matter clear. Jesus death did not pay for everybody’s sin and evidently all are not saved.

Option 2 is not a great deal better. If Jesus death hasn’t paid for anybody’s sin then his death was ultimately pointless. He is a failed saviour who was unable to save any of his people. When he said ‘it is finished’ on the cross, he may as well have said ‘I am finished’. Fortunately, the Bible tells us clearly enough that Jesus’ death has actually redeemed a people. Revelation 5:9-10 says Jesus’ blood has actually ransomed people from every tribe, tongue and nation. 1 John 2:2 tells us that Jesus’ death has actually paid for the sins of the whole world. Unless we want to fall back onto option one and argue everybody is saved, ‘whole world’ cannot mean every single person in the world regardless of repentance or belief in Jesus, not least as John himself has ruled that out. John’s usual use of ‘world’ tends to mean something like ‘all kinds of people’, Jews and every kind of Gentile. Galatian 3:13 tells us Jesus’ death has categorically lifted the curse for some. There is no biblical ground for arguing that Jesus’ death has failed to pay for anyone’s sin.

This leaves us with option 3. Jesus’ death has paid for particular people’s sin and is applied only to those particular people. There are no other options. (Of course there are options. We do not accept the author's manipulative framing. 

Jesus' death was victory over the grave, which made a new and living way available [He. 10:20]. This availability is for all men. 

There isn't a single verse in the Bible that indicates what the author claims. There isn't a single verse that teaches Limited Atonement. Otherwise, he would have quoted it.)

Either Jesus death has paid for everyone – in which case there is no more sin anywhere to be paid for and all are saved – he has paid for nobody’s sin in which case his atonement has failed to achieve anything at all and everyone, everywhere remains condemned, or else he has only died for particular people and paid for their particular sin. There simply are no other options (He keeps claiming this.)

and, given universalism is evidently unbiblical and a counsel of despair is similarly unbiblical, we are left with only one possibility: Jesus only died for some. (By limiting the terms of the argument and processing the remainder, the author is able to arrive at his doctrine without referencing the Bible at all.)

But someone will no doubt argue that Jesus died for all, but his death is only applied to those who believe. The argument is usually framed as Jesus having atoned for sin, he has paid the price on their behalf, but they have rejected his gift. Their sin has been paid for on the cross and Jesus offers them the benefits of his atonement, but if they do not take it then they have rejected his free gift of grace. (Oh, so there is another option?)

The problem with this is highlighted by John Owen:

Why are not all free from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, ‘Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.’ But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not? If not, why would they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins? Let them choose which part they will.

In other words, if Jesus paid for all the sin of all men that must include their sin of unbelief. If he has died for all and paid for the sin of all in toto then all are necessarily saved. There is no sin counted against them anymore. (The author thinks he's being clever. So let's be clever ourselves. If Jesus' death was only for the sins of the elect, then the elect should just keep on sinning [He. 10:26]. Yes, we know that this is a bad idea, but ultimately this is the conclusion we must arrive at. 

There is no reason for anyone to stop sinning. The lost keep on sinning because there's no down side. They are not the elect so it doesn't matter. The elect, on the other hand, are irresistibly saved, so why should they stop sinning?

The logic is inescapable. Limited Atonement is unreasonable and unbiblical.)

On the other hand, If Jesus died for all, but did not die for their unbelief, given all of us are unbelievers by nature, Jesus hasn’t paid for all the sin of anybody. If unbelief is excluded, nobody’s unbelief is covered by Christ’s death, meaning his atonement has failed and all are condemned. If we want to say Jesus died for all people everywhere we have universalism; if we say he died for all except for unbelief, he hasn’t effectively paid for all sin for anybody. We also have to contend with there being no biblical grounds to argue Jesus saves all nor that he died for some sins of all and all sins for some.

There is only one other position open to us: Jesus died, and only ever intended to die, for the sin of the elect. (Name the Bible verse that tells us this, Mr. Kneale.)

He went to the cross knowing for whom he died, paying for the sins of those he was dying for in toto, and definitively ensuring their salvation – and only their salvation – at that point. In the end, Jesus either died for everybody, died for nobody, or he actually died for a particular people whom he was willing, able and then did effectively save. The Bible really only points in one direction on this question too. (Sigh. A Bible left unquoted. What a mess.)

Jesus died effectively for the elect and the elect alone.