Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Limited Atonement, Universalism and why I disagree with both.
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 05. 2019
- Does 2 Corinthians 5:14-15 teach Limited Atonement? Does it teach Universalism?
Does 1 John 2:2 present a challenge to Limited Atonement?
Disclaimer - This is not a comprehensive discussion of these topics but I have gathered some questions I have been sent about a few specific passages of scripture dealing with limited atonement (the L in the Calvinist TULIP) and universalism (the idea that all people will be saved).
I expect many of my brethren who are Calvinists to disagree with a lot of what I say in this video. You are more than welcome to share your disagreement in the comments and I appreciate you doing so in a manner representing our common faith in Christ.
If you love this ministry and want to help me continue to produce free content teaching people to think biblically about everything then click here. biblethinker.org/index.php/do...
If you want one of the new BibleThinker coffee mugs they are avaiable here (be sure to read the info at that link for instructions on shipping discounts and how to ship outside the continental US). www.zockollpottery.com/produc...
I thought this live stream was gonna be dope. I wasn’t disappointed.
Whaddo You Meme?? What does Vocab think about this video? I know he is a Calvinist but Inreally wish he wasnt and hope he would give this video a listen
You not wrong! Mike lucidly explained intent and application in a way I’ve never heard before.
What is your view on calvinism
If you ever see this comment, how’s your twin brother doing? I’ll be praying for him.
Everything Mike does is dope.
As a Reformed Baptist, I desire for Arminians to produce solid exegetical work on varying theological topics, not just topics on how to diet, or to live your best life now. Thank you Brother Winger for digging into the text and inspiring others to do the same. Although we disagree on various topics, I respect your desire to stay grounded in God's word. Love you brother!
Well said, brother.
Fantastic comment.
I just want to make the statement that all of those who are not Calvinist are not automatically Armenians. Mike isn't. I'm not. I'm think both ends of the spectrum aren't biblical.
Unabashed jab at my boy Ruslan. Truce.
He's preaching the Gospe! truth to my children's generation and speaking about what they are living. Appreciate that God's glory is everlasting.
I find it hard to disagree especially when we look at the Bible and see no basis for these niche views
Mike, it's too bad we're separated by an entire country. I'd like to go the taco truck with ya sometime. 🌮
I'll look you up in the Kingdom.
I hear the food is going to be awesome!
-Brad
There are godly, Christian theologians on both sides of these five points, some agreeing and some disagreeing with them. But we are to remain humble and tolerant of those within Christianity who don't agree with us on the issues of non-essentials (Rom. 14:1-12). The essentials of the faith (the deity of Christ, the Trinity, the virgin birth, justification by faith alone, Jesus' physical resurrection, etc.) are not listed in these five points. Therefore, Christians are free to affirm or deny these teachings and still remain within the Christian faith.
Harrison Brincku amen!
Harrison Brincku
I adhere to the Trinity, but you think it’s a make or break theology? So oneness Pentecostal‘s or seven day Adventist Should be spoken against? Just curious thank you for your feedback
@@fisherstrong6 it is make or break, oneness is unbiblical therefore it's a graven image created by man, or basically idolatry
@harrison brincku the young theologian sharing truth as usual!
It does not matter as to salvation, but Calvinism can interfere with things like ministry and prayer. If God ordained everything, what we do does not really matter. It is also a system that makes God responsible for sin and takes accountability away from people, which some of us think is scripturally wrong.
I really appreciate that your videos produce healthy comments and understanding despite differences. Other channels I view, the comments become rude towards opposite view points. I think your approach and demeanor sets that positive tone.
I agree! I know, I'm late.
"For God was in Christ NOT COUNTING OUR SINS AGAINST US, but RECONCILING THE WORLD TO HIMSELF." - 2 Cor. 5:19
The victorious gospel.
Bro is single-handedly convincing me not to be a calvinist.
How does one find a non-Calvinist church? Do they typically fall into a particular denomination? Presumably many are baptist, from what I have gathered? Thanks for any pointers! Calvinism has really mucked up the waters of the gospel for me and I’m wanting to understand it in a less complicated, more accessible way? God bless!
"Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous." - Rom. 5:18-19
All denominations have what I call "problem texts". This one is a doozy for those who believe in annihilation or eternal torment.
"Just as in Adam all die, so also in the Anointed all will be given life."
@greenweasle11
What translation are you using?? All of mine say “in Christ”
@@bigburton24 Christ is the annointed, Christ is a title, meaning the annointed one. Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ
Amen brother
Mike is just so graceful in how he deals with any topic... wow... inspired
Yes, he is uniquely capable of dealing with difficult topics in a way that is compassionate and yet firm.
This video was sooooo helpful and God glorifying. I just stumbled across your channel and I’m in agreement with you on this. I’ve always struggled with limited atonement and this is more biblical. Thank you so very much.
Thanks Mike...lately Calvinists seem to be the dominant voices in this area. Bless you for providing a solid Biblical/Christian response.
I've only watched a couple of Mike's videos, and have not really got into the comments, but what I have heard him say clearly is that the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism is a family discussion. All that I have seen have certainly been coming from an Arminian perspective, but nowhere has he said that Calvinists are not Christians. You may have been making the comment humorously, in which case I apologize, other wise - we are all brothers and sisters in Christ here.
@@rankinepiper For clarification, I'm neither Arminian nor Calvinist...both views are in error. Provisionalism has been the historic Baptist position. I'm not saying Calvinists aren't believers, but the theology is flawed and needs to corrected.
It has become trendy in SBC circles, but
@KTTGHMTJWYCBLAC
Then the same can be said for you
"That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should GLADLY [exomologeo] confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." - Phil. 2:10
exomologeó
(a) I consent fully, agree out and out, (b) I confess, admit, acknowledge (cf. the early Hellenistic sense of the middle: I acknowledge a debt), (c) I give thanks, praise.
Hi bro Mike! Excellent quality both in sound and picture.
You're doing a awesome work in the Lord's vineyard. I have been immensely blessed by your ministry. Thanks for the exposition of God's eternal word.
You are a faithful servant of Christ. God bless you and your household.
Love from Denmark ❤❤❤
Leighton Flowers in live chat supporting Mike Winger. Mike Winger mentions James White in appreciation. * Leigton Flowers leaves live chat *
Ouch, feels bad Leighton.
Leighton just had to pee.
Snorted! But flowers loves people so it wouldn’t happen still funny XD
It would seem that Christian Universalism provides the most straightforward interpretation of 2 Cor 5:14.
1. Christ's death resulted in the death of all (2 Cor 5:14)
2. If we have died with Christ, we will live with Him (Rom 6:3-9)
3. Confessing Jesus' Lordship is still a necessity for salvation (Rom 10:9-10)
4. In the end, everyone will confess Jesus as Lord (Phil 2:9-11)
5. In conclusion, we can affirm that God is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe. (1Tim 4:9-11, John 4:42, 1John 4:14)
That’s definitely not the case. 1 Corinthians said that he died for all, and that all people died. However Romans is talking about a different kind of death. A spiritual death. A death of the flesh. About us being a new creation in Christ. 2 Corinthians speaks of the ability for all to have a death like spoke of in Romans. But not all have died in Christ. Only those in Christ are a new creation and experience the death of themselves. 2 Corinthians isn’t speaking of dying to oneself and desires. Romans says those baptized into Christ are baptized into his death. Not everyone is baptized into Christ. So Romans isn’t in the same context as 2 Corinthians, so this is a leap in logic in universalism.
As for the Phillipians verse, it’s definitely more Christological than soterieological. The implication of that it, it’s not talking about salvation at all. The context is talking about how Jesus humbled himself, but now he is given authority over everything and everyone. Everyone will recognize his authority. That’s the Lordship spoken of. Authority. But just because they will recognize his authority does not mean that they will be making a confession of repentance and conversion. It will be a submission to authority. Even in Job we see that the spirit going against God was under his authority. Demons themselves are under Gods authority, and they do not have salvation. They recognized him as Lord and someone with authority. Jesus had to tell them to stop saying who he was. They’re event saved. Therefore the Philippians passage is not about salvation. And that fits better with the passage Paul is clearly quoting from Isaiah. Romans is soteriological, meaning it’s a different context. So no. Universalism isn’t the obvious interpretation, nor the most straightforward. It seems to ignore context of these passages. And it misses a larger picture made from the Bible and misses the mark in interpreting other passages
@@gospelfreak5828 Thank you for your thoughtful response. What follows are some of my initial thoughts to what you said. While I will primarily point out the things I disagree with, I feel quite confident that you and I have much more in common than we realize. I hope that what follows comes across in a loving and God-honoring way. God bless!
1.) I agree that one must trust in Jesus in order to actively receive and experience the benefits of Christ’s work (cf especially 2 Cor 5.20). With that said, I’d like to point out that the death spoken of in 2 Cor 5.14 is in relation to the “flesh” (2 Cor 5.16), new creation (2 Cor 5.17), world-wide reconciliation (2 Cor 5.19), and becoming the "righteousness of God" (2 Cor 5.21). Again, yes we must receive this reconciliation (2 Cor 5.20) but this doesn't change the reality that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (2 Cor 5.19). The “all” whom Christ died (ἀπέθανεν) for are the same "all" who truly died (ἀπέθανον) (2 Cor 5.14).
2.) While I agree that Philippians 2.11 has a Christological focus, if taken in the wider context of Scripture, it has massive implications for soteriology. For example, the context of Isaiah 45.23 (quoted by Phil 2.11) is world-wide salvation. In the prior verse (Isa 45.22) God says, “Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth.” What's more, though demons do at times indicate their awareness of Jesus being Lord, they are never said to "confess" (ἐξομολογέω) that He is Lord. This is significant because the NT states that if you confess (ὁμολογέω) with your mouth that Jesus is Lord you will be saved (Rom 10.9-10) and that confessing (ὁμολογέω) that Jesus is the Son of God results in abiding with God (1 John 4.15 cf 1 John 2.23). This is amazing in light of the promise that every tongue will confess (ἐξομολογέω) that Jesus Christ is Lord (Phil 2.11).
A word study on ἐξομολογέω shows that it is never explicitly associated with disinterested or forced confession/worship either in the OT (LXX) or NT. For example, ἐξομολογέω is connected with giving thanks in the following OT verses (LXX): Ps 9.2; 17.50; 29.5, 13; 32.2; 34.18; 42.4; 44.18; 55.11; 56.10; 66.4; 66.6; 70.22; 73.19; 74.2; 85.12; 87.11; 91.2; 96.12; 98.3; 99.4; 107.4; 121.4; 137.1, 4; 138.14; 141.8; 144.10; Dan 3.89-90. The following verses show ἐξομολογέω in connection with giving praise: OT (LXX): 2 Sam 22.50; 2 Chron 30.22; Ps 104.1; 105.1, 47; 106.1, 8, 15, 21, 31; 110.1; 117.1, 21, 28, 29; 118.7, 62; 135.1-3, 26; Jer 40.11; Dan 2.23; Dan 3.25; Dan 4.37 NT: Mt 11.25; Lk 10.21; Ro 15.9-11. ἐξομολογέω is connected with genuine confession of sin: NT Matt 3.6; Mark 1.5; Acts 19.18. ἐξομολογέω is connected with genuine agreement: NT Luke 22.6. Again, these verses show that confession is much more than mere acknowledgement.
This world-wide act of bowing and confessing Jesus as Lord is done “in the name of Jesus,” (ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ) (Phil 2.10 cf Acts 3.6; 4.10; 10.48 for 'in the name of Jesus'). Many English translations recognize this ASV, ABPE, D-RB, EMPH, ERV, GNT, LSV, SLT, WEY, YLT. What's more, if we look at the NT idea of bowing (κάμπτω) we find it is in connection with devout worship (Rom 11.4; Eph 3.14) which makes sense in light of the fact that this confession will be done "to the glory of God the Father" (Phil 2.11).
I'm sure there is much more we both have to say on this topic. If you think it would be helpful, we could have a more in-depth conversation via phone.
God bless,
-Corey
@@gospelfreak5828it's very hard to tell what point it is that you're trying to make.
I thought there was a verse that says you can't confess Jesus is Lord without the having the holy spirit ... and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.
But I guess someone like you would find some theological jargon to explain that away to.... Maybe they were just given the holy spirit for a half an hour to confess before they were sent away to be condemned to Hell.🤠😅
@@Tommythecat007 Jesus says in scripture himself that not everyone who calls him Lord will be saved. Also, Luke 13 is very clear. Jesus makes it clear that not everyone will be saved. The only valid interpretation of Luke 13 is that not everyone is saved. That passage is the biggest reason I reject universalism, and I believe the Bible is consistent in its teaching.
2 Corinthians 5 clearly is clearly speaking of Christs death so we can all be made alive. But not everyone will, according to Luke 13 and other passages. It’s speaking of a universal reach to all people to be covered in his death. But that death cannot actually happen until one receives salvation. It’s not about application, but about the reach it can have.
As for Philippians, which the above commenter addresses, he is not completely right about the word confess. In the Philippians passage it is not in the same form of any of its other usages in scripture. Of course, the core meaning of the word is still there. In some similar strong occurring forms of the verb used in other passages it does speak of praise. Matthew 11 is a good example. However, it is not universal. It is used of Judas agreeing to betray Jesus to the Pharisees (not an act of worship) and then declaring one’s sins to another in James 5. These are not confessions of salvation or speaking of the applying of salvation. One of them isn’t even an act of worship. So it actually can just mean speaking out something, like when we confess our sins. To confess to one another is to speak our sins to the other. Judas promised and agreed to the Pharisees conditions. So if Philippians is truly universal to all individuals and not just to all nations, it doesn’t matter. Confessing does not have to be interpreted as worship. It can just be a spoken word or agreement. That’s from studying the word exomologesen, the Greek word for confess in specifically Philippians. The confession spoken of in other passages about only being able to confess with the Spirit is an entirely different Greek verb. So you can’t use those verses together.
@@gospelfreak5828 it doesn't even use the word saved in the text not too sure where you got that from. It actually uses is the phrase enter the kingdom of heaven
In the context of this teaching, Jesus started off by saying that to enter the kingdom, our righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees. Then he goes on to elaborate what that means.
In this passage, he makes it clear that there will be those who call Him “Lord”, who have performed great things for Him, who think they have served Him well, but they’ve somehow missed the mark. He doesn’t know them - they are workers of evil.
The next bit elaborates further: that it is those who put into practice the words He has spoken, who are building their house on the rock.
Nowhere in this do we find a declaration that those who are sent away with rebuke, or washed away by the flood, can never be restored, healed, brought back from the dead, reconciled to their Father.
Super helpful as always! Thank you for taking the extra time to make this video great! It was worth it. Also, the audio sounds great! 👍🏻
Wow this actually helped me understand things a little better. I have been tempted into a limited atonement mindset but this helps with some of the questions I’ve had.
I think that the case for limited atonement (more accurately definite atonement) can be seen quite easily by this question. Is it a sin to reject Jesus as Lord and Savior?
If it's not a sin to reject Jesus as Lord and Savior, and Jesus' death on the cross paid for all of the sins of all people in the entire world, then on what basis does God have to send people to hell who reject Jesus? (Because Jesus' death paid for all of the sins of those people who rejected Jesus, and rejecting jesus wouldn't be a sin that needs atonement in this case).
If it is a sin to reject Jesus as Lord and Savior, and Jesus' death on the cross paid for the all of the sins of all people in the entire world, then on what basis does God have to send people to hell because Jesus' death paid for even the rejection of Jesus?
We know that it is a sin to reject Jesus, therefore Jesus' death on the cross paid ONLY for ALL people in ALL the world who repent and put their faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior. Jesus' death does not cover for the sin of rejecting Jesus.
Now the standard retort is that jesus's death POTENTIALLY pays for sins of all people, pending that person's acceptance of jesus. But if you fast forward in time, then at the end of time, Jesus' death would ACTUALLY have covered ONLY those people who believe in Jesus, and not those who do not believe in Jesus - which ends up leaving you with the same conclusion as the reformed position of who Christ's atonement is for. Therefore, saying that Jesus potentially pays for sins merely limits the TEMPORAL EFFICACY of the atonement, but in the end, it still provides COMPLETE ATONEMENT for ONLY those people who believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior.
As James White says, the issue really comes down to ELECTION, not LIMITED ATONEMENT. Notice that the reformed position of Limited atonement is often portrayed as Jesus dying only for "the elect". But Jesus' death merely shows that he died for the sins of ALL people who believe, and no more than that. Which shows that the issue is NOT a person's view of the atonement, rather the issue is WHO CAN BELIEVE. Specifically, whether man - apart from the holy spirit - can be drawn to jesus and accept him on his own. We can then shift the conversation to election. But the case for definite atonement is rock solid. And those denial of it leads to some very strange logical conundrums.
Son of Nun hey, why you quit dumping the same comment numerous times under every post? You’re filling up the comment section with garbage...stop it!
@@sonofnun1917 you said if it's not a sin to reject Jesus then on what basis does God have to send those people who don't accept him to hell? Those who reject Jesus live in sinful lives because they choose that he is not real. They take selfish actions and sinful actions and that is enough for hell. You say if it is sin to reject Jesus as Lord and savior and Jesus died for our sins then why would those who reject him go to hell? Jesus' sacrifice only goes into affect if we believe in him. A tribal man in south America today, living in sin, isnt going to heaven. Because even though jesus died for that man, that man must put his trust in Christ ad lord and savior for the sacrifice to have affect.
@cdr 777 ive heard the unpardonable sin is actually the deliberate refusal of the holy spirit in your life. If God is willing to forgive any sin then the sin that is unpardonable must be unpardonable not because God won't forgive you but rather the person committing the Sin chooses deliberately never to accept the apology or repent. He sees the Holy Spirit. he knows God is real and rejects him nonetheless, which is different from, let's say an atheist, who doesn't believe in God in the first place. that's a different type of rejection.
@@sonofnun1917 if you understood that you are not saved by accepting Jesus you are saved as the scripture explicitly states by His 'mercy,' because He has accepted you that is the whole point of the Cross.
Limited or definite atonement as you put it is complete nonsense because it's based on a false acceptance based on some sort of degree of belief by man.
God didn't send a proposition, he sent a saviour. The stupidity of the idea that somehow the proposition becomes a saviour based on the choice of man is nothing short of blasphemy 😵💫😟
We are asked to believe/hope and rejoice in the Salvation He has provided at the cross.... There is no contract or condition it was a gift.
You probably won't ever read this Mike but thank you so much for this video. I've been debating a universalist and I sent him this video. I'm so glad you decided to mention all 3 teachings of atonement. I read a book years ago by Bob George its titled Classic Christianity and it put all the puzzle pieces together for me. In your video I heard for the 1st time the use of the term universal atonement. This truly makes the good news the really good news!! Thanks so much.
You focus on the notion that a person has to accept / receive / trust in Christ. Sure. No one disputes that.
But none of these verses undermine the notion that eventually all people accept Christ and accept redemption. Universalism.
Thanks, Mike. Great video. The scriptures, clearly give reason for Universal Atonement. It's God's Sovereign choice to provide Grace for all people. He gave us free- will to accept or reject his gift of salvation. He didn't make us robots and doesn't elect some for salvation and everyone else for hell. Leighton Flowers does a great job of explaining Salvation theology.
@Jonathan Soko , Respectfully, I did listen to the whole video. I didn't say that there isn't an elect. All throughout the bible, God chose or elected certain individual Jews and his chosen people the Israelites according to his will and plan. Look at these verses: 1 Timothy 2:3-4; 4:10/ 1 John 2:2/ 1 Peter 3:9. These verses clearly state an Universal Atonement.
Peter Basco You should study Calvinism more, I don’t know a single Calvinist theologian that believes we are robots
@@TheEnergydrinklover You might not call it that. But, according to Calvinism. Irresitable Grace, makes it impossible for someone to reject Christ. You don't have a choice to chose to reject him. The same with Total Depravity. Someone in their sinful and fallen state can't freely chose the gift of salvation. They have to be regenerated, before they can be saved, According to Calvinism. I've, studied the " T.U.L.I.P." of Calvinism.
Peter Basco I think that you’ll agree with me that none of us can save ourselves, we all need Jesus, but would that make us robots?
@@TheEnergydrinklover I totally agree, we can't save ourselves. When, i say Robots, I only refer to the Calvinist view of Grace for only the Elect. I think you would agree that we have Free Will in our daily activities in life. I think it's more man centered to believe, your predestined to be one of the elect, without any action on your part. While other people are predestined to hell and God is responsible for all the evil in people and the world and man isn't held accountable for his own action. Why do Calvinist evangelize to unbelievers as if Salvation is for everyone, which is being dishonest.
Sound quality is excellent - I have a good speaker plugged into my laptop as I'm visually impaired/hearing impaired/homebound and therefore rely heavily on audio playback and need clarity, particularly in speech. Comparing the audio quality of this video to others on CZcams - this is among the best - full, well-rounded, and clear. Thank you also for the content!!!
Lol! The teacher listening to the student! Congrats Mike! I knew you were going places! God is using you greatly brother.🤗
More like the student surpassing the teacher.
Thanks, Mike. You have made a complicated question much easier for me to understand.
Thanx Pastor Mike. I'm brand new to your ministry.
I am thoroughly blown away.
Numbers 6:24-26
May The Lord bless thee, and keep thee:
May The Lord make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
May The Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.
The mark of true/right teacher or preacher is humility grounded in the Scripture. This is what I see in Mike Winger. Thank you. Calvinist or non Calvinist, we are brothers in Christ.
Nicely done! A very good explanation that I could follow and understand. Thank you so much! Your videos are such a blessing to me. 😊
I like the new mic. Not only is the off-axis rejection better, I think, but the tone is full and rich.
Thanks Mike, I'm looking forward to Radio Free Geneva tomorrow 😁
and he did respond
@Shawn Cahill / preachiNshawn But by not watching, you missed Dr White's statement about 1 & 2 Corinthians being "jumbled".
"Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore EVERYTHING, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets." Acts 3:21
Mike called universalism a heretical position, therefore he calls God a heretic. All will see God's salvation! (Luke 3:6)
@joashscottofficial Okay, so I suppose God lied when He said no one would be abandoned forever (Lamentation 3:31)
Mike, I believe you are 100% right about limited atonement (though a strong biblical case could well be made for the other four points of TULIP). I think you should do some more research into Evangelical Universalism - you are not fully understanding or correctly articulating that position. Would love to see you get Robin Parry or Brad Jersek onto your show to present a through, researched, biblical presentation of the Universalist position.
Here’s a question for you, strip everything back to just three questions. Logically only one of these can be true:
1) God has the power to save everyone but will choose not to
2) God wants to save everyone but isn’t able to
3) God wants to save everybody and ultimately will.
That’s all your choices. It’s that simple, and don’t let a multitude of complex theological frameworks confuse things. From there, take your pick - but choose wisely as the position you take will affect everything else including your view of creation, God, people and needs to be consistent with scripture. Good luck
PS - love your YT channel by the way :)
@joashscottofficial okay so He will reject us forever, even though that's exactly what that verse says? This is an irreconcilable error with believing in eternal damnation and God is love at the same time
@joashscottofficial your "freewill" is nothing compared to God's love.
Without a doubt, this is the best teaching on Calvinism I have ever heard. Well done Mike, well done.
@@Isaac-wl6wu I think that’s the point 😂
😂😂🤣🤣
Excellent summation of the extent and application for the atonement, This distinction is vital for sound interpretation!
I’ve been thinking a lot about this since I heard a Christian Apologist, that admire very much, argue in favor of limited atonement. This video is a great help! Thanks so much!
John 7.19 I pray for them. I am not praying for the world,
but for those you have given me, for they are yours.
John 1:11-13
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Great explanation. Somehow I got sucked on the Calvinist rabbit hole. I’m happy I did because I learned a lot and it’s only as good to understand differently ologies, but I have friends that are caught up in the calvinist theology that they become very high minded and borderline on snobby.
While many calvinist can be snobby, I think it's still important to think through the issues apart from our emotional entanglement. I think that the case for limited atonement (more accurately definite atonement) can be seen quite easily by this question. Is it a sin to reject Jesus as Lord and Savior?
If it's not a sin to reject Jesus as Lord and Savior, and Jesus' death on the cross paid for all of the sins of all people in the entire world, then on what basis does God have to send people to hell who reject Jesus? (Because Jesus' death paid for all of the sins of those people who rejected Jesus, and rejecting jesus wouldn't be a sin that needs atonement in this case).
If it is a sin to reject Jesus as Lord and Savior, and Jesus' death on the cross paid for the all of the sins of all people in the entire world, then on what basis does God have to send people to hell because Jesus' death paid for even the rejection of Jesus?
We know that it is a sin to reject Jesus, therefore Jesus' death on the cross paid ONLY for ALL people in ALL the world who repent and put their faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior. Jesus' death does not cover for the sin of rejecting Jesus.
Now the standard retort is that jesus's death POTENTIALLY pays for sins of all people, pending that person's acceptance of jesus. But if you fast forward in time, then at the end of time, Jesus' death would ACTUALLY have covered ONLY those people who believe in Jesus, and not those who do not believe in Jesus - which ends up leaving you with the same conclusion as the reformed position of who Christ's atonement is for. Therefore, saying that Jesus potentially pays for sins merely limits the TEMPORAL EFFICACY of the atonement, but in the end, it still provides COMPLETE ATONEMENT for ONLY those people who believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior.
The issue really comes down to ELECTION, not LIMITED ATONEMENT. Notice that the reformed position of Limited atonement is often portrayed as Jesus dying only for "the elect". But Jesus' death merely shows that he died for the sins of ALL people who believe, and no more than that. Which shows that the issue is NOT a person's view of the atonement, rather the issue is WHO CAN BELIEVE. Specifically, whether man - apart from the holy spirit - can be drawn to jesus and accept him on his own. We can then shift the conversation to election. But the case for definite atonement is rock solid. And those denial of it leads to some very strange logical conundrums.
Son of Nun this is similar to work my friend says to me. Basically that people only come to Christ if God draws you near, then he cites passages of God hardening peoples hearts to affirm his position. As he sits back and crosses his arms with a smirk on his face as if it is case closed at that point LOL.
Son of Nun
Thank you for your feedback Though. Ill meditate on your points
@@sonofnun1917 If you are correct, then you have a problem with a verse like 2 Peter 2:1 - 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.
Here we have proof that people who the Lord bought still have the power to deny Jesus, teach damnable heresies and become false prophets...
So do you believe heretics and false prophets go to heaven? I mean Peter says Jesus bought them and Calvinists teach that Jesus's blood effectually saves everyone it is spilt for correct? Calvinists say it doesnt just make atonement available for a person but that it actually saves the person His blood was spilt for.
So how do you explain this verse where it clearly says that Jesus bought people who end up as false prophets and who deny Jesus?
I'm curious to see what mental gymnastics you will use, but I assume you will try to say that swift destruction does not mean hell, and so it is possible that, for Gods glory somehow, He will have some elect people teach damnable heresies and deny the Lord that bought them and have some elect become false prophets only to convert them later on through a swift destruction which is not eternal but temporal, as a way to show them the error of their ways and show how powerful God is in converting a false prophet to a saint? Sort of like Paul's Damascus road experience right, since He too used to deny the Lord that bought him before God forces Him to be a Christian? Lol.
Or maybe you will try to say the "them" in "bought them" is not referring to the false prophets, but instead is referring to "the people" who were mentioned in the begining of the verse?
As in "bought them (the people)" instead of "bought them (the false prophets)"? Lol.
@@ProtestantPerspective1517 I was also going to say Cage Stage. You listen to Wretched radio by any chance?
Thank you so much for the vid Mike!
It's always frustrating when there's 2 black-and-white camps and you're stuck in the middle saying both are kinda not right. I've been trying to find a way to express the same position you've voiced here. Thanks brother!
I’ve always had the same problem. The Calvinist camp labels you an Armenian if you don’t believe what they do, but Armenian never fully explain to my view either.
I think John 12 is another excellent passage for this discussion.
John 12:31 "Now is the time for judgment on this world...(32) But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."
At the cross, the whole world is judged (universal extent) and all people are drawn to Christ (again, universal extent).
John 12:48 "There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very world which I spoke will condemn him at the last day."
On Judgment Day, people will be condemned for rejecting Christ's words.
So, while the whole world is judged at the cross (universal extent), those who do not accept Christ will be condemned rather than saved (limited application).
not Calvinist, isn't it??
Mike Winger I really love the attitude with which you address these issues even though I most vehemently disagree on this issue. I would like to challenge you to, when you get a chance, if you haven't already, read one of the Reformed classics on this issue, such as Murray's Redemption.
Can you do a video about the Seventh Day Adventist Church?
Brother, thank you very much.
I had this doubt for so long, I watched debates about it (one of them was James White vs. Michael Brow) and I saw good reason to believe on both sides.
I was born a Christian and never doubted the faith, but since 2016-17 I can say that I really understood what to follow Christ realy means. and since then, Christ has become my greatest focus, my greatest goal, my greatest love.
but I still have problems with the flesh (that I am working on it) and the fact that certain temptations of this world are so difficult yet to resist made me think that maybe God did not want me, maybe I was not one of the elect. and this was driving me crazy.
THANK YOU
All have problems with the flesh. That’s why we have Christ
@@marthajohnson3250 God offers salvation to whosoever
I debated a Calvinist on this topic. I felt like his best argument was that the biblical terms used to describe the effects of the sacrifice of Christ (propitiation, ransom, purchase, atonement, reconcile, redemption, etc) are all ineffective until they are "activated" by the faith of the believer, under unlimited atonement.
He kept saying things like, "was Christ the propitiation or not?" "Did He satisfy God's wrath or not?"
I guess I view it as Christ purchasing the gift for us on the cross, and giving it to us when we have faith.
Practical Faith Kevin Thompson of Beyond the Fundamentals has provided a lot of biblical clarity on the atonement. Check out his CZcams site and just start going through the videos. I’ve learned a lot on the atonement, etc.
Great content Mike! (Audio and video quality are excellent!)
"For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself ALL things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross." Col. 1:19
Yes! According to Col 1, the same ALL that were created through Him are the same ALL that get reconciled through Him. No getting around the UR message in Col 1.
He covered this by continuing to read the chapter, did you watch yhe whole video?
@@rocketmanshawnHe covered it but I believe his conclusion is wrong.
If the extent of the atonement is universal (and I believe it is) and the will of God is that all should be saved (1Tim2v3-6) then all will be saved.
The error (not heresy) is that repentance and faith must occur in this lifetime but we are not told that. God is Love (not Love but) and and Love never fails as Paul clearly teaches us. Will not the eternal God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ follow us into Shrol/Hades (hell is not a word found in the bible) and lead captivity captive so that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. I believe he will and in this is abundant hope and Good News. The Lord bless you and keep you.
@@stephengorman1025 universalism sounds good, but in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Abraham states “besides all this, there is between us fixed a great chasm, so that no man may pass from one side to the other.” (Paraphrased) Seems like the separation between those in Heaven and Hell is fixed and will not be changed
@@majorcajun5524 Firstly, this is a parable teaching the religious leaders and indifferent wealthy the dangers of leading a selfish life. Success in this world is not a sign of God's approval and future blessing. We do not build our eschatology on a a single parable but consider the whole of Scripture and the New Testament.
Paul teaches that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow every tongue confess (willingly not reluctantly) that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God. He also tells us that is you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord you will be saved.
God will make Mankind in his image through the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus and this is Good News indeed
Romans 11v32-36 - Grace and Peace.
Good video Mike. I`m curious, you have a lot of books on your shelves behind you. Could you do a video with some Christian book recommendations? Would love to get your opinions of some great reads.
thanh you very much for your ministry Mike!!!
Hi Mike, I'm a new listener. I listened to this , and it makes sense, according to what I've read. And your explanation is quite clear. When I listened to White's "rebuttal", I was confused and my heart felt chaotic...and I'm disappointed in his mocking tone. He mentioned the word "synergists" more than a few times. I couldnt figure out why or what he was trying to get at.
His comments were off, so I couldnt ask.
Sometimes I wonder how God will deal with mankind throwing around all his knowledge...I always appreciate how you always admit when you say, "I dont know the answer..." ..shows humility.
Romans really speaks quite clearly.
I'm a Calvinist, and I like Mike Winger. He is such a nice and very smart guy! 😊
Exactly, I don't arrive to the same conclusions as Mike. However I do share His video whenever there's someone who isn't sure about limited attornment. I share this and a video of RC teaching limited atonement and let them wrestle with it from there.
Research Calvin. He was not someone to admire or follow ,God bless
@@johnnyjohnson1370 Doesn't mean he wasn't right about theology.
As I grapple with soteriological questions and positions, this exchange between Mike and Dr. White is solid gold. Mike is my favourite Christian CZcamsr :)
Same here!
Wow 12:00 was amazing it proves what I just came to believe after 30 years as a Christian. 2 Corinthians 4:14 MIND BLOWN
Thank you so much Mike for clear explanation AND exegesis covering both limited atonement and universalism. So helpful!
Great teaching Mike. Keep on preaching the truth!
I'm interested in learning more about women's head coverings. A lot of preachers teach that out was cultural but I think that's a easy way out of the issue. Paul's letter in 1 Corinthians 11 teaches about head coverings. I'm interested in you dissecting the issue and is it biblical principal or cultural?
The mask is the new burka. We don’t need anymore coverings 😂
Good one!!Paul was VERY clear about it....nobody wants to talk about it👍
Please look up what Dr Michael Heiser says about head coverings. It's guaranteed not what you think. Lol.
Long hair was sexualized in Greco-Roman culture. Paul was referring to that for modesty.
Thanks for the video. I noticed that the 2 Corinthians passage seems to talk about about two aspects of reconciliation. When talking about the extent of the atonement it is God reconciling the world to himself. When talking about the application it is us who must reconcile ourselves to God. Reconciliation is a two way street. Salvation requires both.
Thanks Mike great insight.... 1 Cor. 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. Provision..... John 1:12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--. Application...... these text makes things very clear for me.
What does the next verse say? John 1:13 "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."
Amen! Excellent video of searching the Scripture to gain a better understanding of a difficult issue: the extent of the Atonement. Well done, Mike! God bless.
Great video. Solid teaching and spot on. Blessings. †
@Mike Winger
Mike, do you acknowledge the difference the reformed scholastics made between the "necessity of the consequent" and the "necessity of the consequence"? Voetius or Turrettini for example used that difference quite a lot in showing that there are different senses of necessity and that reformed theology is not at all to be linked with fatalism.
I like how Mike considers Calvinists (people who think God purposely made most people so they can fry for all eternity to bring him "glory") Christians but Universalists to be heretics because we dare to think that God truly loves (and saves) everyone.
Thank you so much for all the carefully thought through Biblical content and the wisdom you share them with 🤩🤩
A MIGHTY FORTRESS IS OUR GOD! .... wait sorry wrong channel. Still, appreciate the content pastor. ;)
Even though I feel like you swung and missed on this one, I'd like to say for the record that I appreciate your humility and your contributions here in cyberland.
That TULIP acronym is a gold standard for ‘intellectual’ minded and in my view, those who also ‘limit’ the ministry of the Holy Spirit (in their life & congregations - from an ex Calvinistic Christian.
"He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." 1 John 2:2
I agree 💯 % pastor Mike,, they are many teachings in the Bible that even had Jesus Preached to those who wouldn’t accept his teachings.
Glad you explained that. However, I understand both views. They are the same, yet one is explained in a deeperqay to bring it to a clear understanding, which you did nicely.
But, sharing the gospel is no accident, whether the hearer is chosen or not. The fact that one who will not come to Christ, yet hear the message of the Gospel, holds the the Truth high in that no one has an excuse.
We wont be accountable for sharing Christ with one who will never repent and come to faith.
His sacrifice covered ALL sin, but some will not believe. This also doesnt give us an excuse of not sharing the Gospel, which is what I got confused about when listening to John Piper once, but at the same time, during his sermon, I understood it. I got the just of what he was saying.
This "limited atonement I think is yes real, but we must be able to clearly explain what we actually mean by that, which was surfaced when I came to Christ.
I listened to a few messages by John Piper, wrote down some questions I had pertaining to his message, then went to scripture and answered my own questions, and believe it or not, I got saved right there. NOT, because I was like "oh my gosh, I'm calvanist", but because I was wrecked by the reality of who God is and why Chrsit had to suffer for the sin of ALL. In that realization, I came to faith in Christ and repented.
Which was to make Himself know as Lord of ALL, and the Savior of the world. Yet so that His glory would be radiated partly as we are able to see it throughout the world, He chose to show that by how good He is on behalf of "those who strayed", the elect. He chose to save the world, "called many, but few chosen".
And I am open for discussion. If i may be off on any point, please gently and genuinely help me too understand why. Thanks! Blessings.
Mike Winger you are one of the greatest Teachers of the Bible I've ever encountered. You like Dr. Geisler leave no stone unturned you present all arguments.
It sounds very much like Paul is taking the specific application of Christ to individual Christians in 2 Cor 5:18 and then making it into a universal application in 5:19, using the Jewish technique of restating the same thing in a slightly different way to expand and emphasize what was previously said. So, basically: God brought us into right relationship with Him through Christ; or the same way, God was bringing the whole world into right relationship with Him, not counting their debts against them, even giving us to the task to tell others about this right relationship with HIm.
The basic thought seems to be that God has made things right with the cosmos, we as Christians are right with God (because of Christ), and now we bring this message of reconciliation to others, so they too can be in right relationship with God.
This is some good analysis Mike. But I think from the universalist point of view, the point is that eventually all people will have that faith, and all will come to believe - all will be judged and learn righteousness, every knee shall bow, every tongue confess etc. No one can confess Jesus is Lord unless the Holy spirit enables them. Thus all "the many" will indeed be made righteous.
I respectfully disagree, true that all will bow their knees to Jesus God, but they knew Him and rejected Him.Even the devil believes Jesus is God's son but he will bow before Jesus one day
@@joyceburns2613 If I may have a chance to interest you in Universal Restoration, the word used for eternity in most hell passages is "aion". The word aion means age, not eternal or eternity.
This is best explanation and I heard James White teach on this. Tough subject. Early church fell into it I can see why.
The audio sounds great 👍🏻
"For God has bound EVERYONE over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them ALL." - Romans 11:32
Wonderful classic universal reconciliation text!
It doesn't mean he will save the whole world! Or all man. No one comes to me Christ Said, unless the Father draws them to me.
"32And I, when I am lifted up g from the earth, will draw [drag - same word] all people to myself.” 33He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die" - John 12
Wish you and Dr. White could get together for real time discussion. Talking at each other is less than helpful. There is a way that seems right unto man until he has to confront the other position. I will give you credit that you did not trash Dr. White like many of the Calvary Chapel have tended.
My brother is leaning toward universalism. Thanks for any and all information on it--although he makes it clear he's not interested in discussing it. Interesting that he was a limited atonement (Calvin) guy for most of his life.
Nicely explained Mike!
I enjoy learning from these video by Mike Winger.
Another informative video once again Mike.
I greatly appreciate your ministry.
Yes please do invite David Allen onto your show.
Thanks for this!
Very cool Pastor Mike! Do you have a video upcoming on sola fide? Really would like to see a deep dive view on faith alone.
One of these days! I am a sola fide and sola scriptura guy.
Thank GOD for GRACE !!!
We should all believe that God is just in condemning every single person on the planet who ever will exist to condemnation in hell but people hate calvinist when we say God chose not to condemn everybody but to choose some. They have a problem with GOD choosing some and not all.
Lemme preface my response with the fact that James White is probably my favorite apologist, and that I don't have any issues with Calvinists, I have issues with Calvinism. I also want to point out that just because I think Calvinism takes certain principles well past their logical conclusions, I don't necessarily think the principles themselves are wrong.
Calvinism holds to sola fide, so it is strictly by God's grace that one is saved. It goes so far to oppose pelagianism as to assert that one cannot even believe without grace, or at the very least, James White does. This means that God's choice in who to save is arbitrary. He picks them strictly because he wants to, not because they have merit, not because they trusted Him, and not for any other criteria. The issue is whether or not that is just.
This boils down to equitable application of punishment. Calvinism turns God into an inconsistent, unpredictable, unknowable entity. In Calvinism you cannot choose to accept God. God decides to give you faith for no reason. You also can't choose to reject God, because "that negates his sovereignty." So if he chooses you, you're going to be a good Christian and go to heaven, even if you want to be a transsexual, meth dealing, murderous prostitute. The end result is that while everyone deserves Hell, some people get preferential treatment just because God decided he liked what color their brain smells like, or some other equally meaningless reason.
As horrible as humans are, we see injustices quite clearly. When we are the ones that are performing the injustice the first thing we do is come up with a way to justify our behavior. This is because God is inherently just and we were made in His image. If even stupid, wicked humanity can recognize that justice isn't served through inequitable applications of punishment, then it is only by projecting our own evil perversions on God that we could possibly conclude that a just God would behave thusly. This is the extrabiblical argument for why I reject this aspect of Calvinist Doctrine. The biblical one was presented quite well in this video.
Love you, Mike!!
Hey Pastor Mike, have you read the book Beautiful Outlaw by any chance? I'd like to hear your opinion on it.
Clear and concise...thank you. Bible over philosophy always!
@Undivided
The Bible has good philosophy.
Indeed Bible over philosophy.-which is why Christian Universalism makes the most sense.
I have been immensely blessed by your videos! It has been a struggle to find non-Calvinist, heavily scriptural/textual content such as yours that isn't also mildly or strongly tied to the IFB movement, their KJV-only stance, and the undercurrent of animosity or outright hostility that seems fairly common. Thank you!!
Do you know of any likeminded pastors/churches/etc. in the Phoenix area? I'd love to have someone local I could reach out to as well.
@Infinite Adriannn for everything there is a season. 👍
Why no try a church that actually believes what the bible says rather than avoiding them? Arminianism is heresy. It is unbiblical and proven in almost every book of the bible.
Hello! Not sure if you'll see this or if you're still looking, but I might be able to help. I don't live in Phoenix, but I travel there frequently for work, and when I'm there a couple churches I like to frequent that match your criteria are:
1. Calvary Chapel East Valley, it's in Gilbert I believe, and they are a Calvary Chapel church, the "denomination" or organization that Mike also comes from.
2. Redeemer Bible Church, also in Gilbert. While I do believe they are Calvinist, they don't push it heavily at all. You'll enjoy the solid teaching there too.
35:41
They are assuming determinism into john 11. It's another negative inference fallacy. In the that verse I think it's saying the children abroad as in not just Israel but the gentiles as well. It's like they will use that view in 1 john 2 but not consider the context in both. Just a thought.❤
At 24:50, Pastor Mike mentions Romans 5:18-20:
"(18) (a) Therefore, AS one trespass led to condemnation for all men, (b) SO one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
(19) (a) For AS by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, (b) SO by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.
(20) Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."
I agree with Pastor Mike that this passage at first glance appears to be universalistic. But, unlike Pastor Mike, I believe the 2nd, 3rd & 4th glances, etc., reveal the same thing:
The universalism of Romans 5:18 is hard to deny.
Then, verse 19 says basically the same thing as verse 18, only it uses the word "many" instead of "all." The context of verse 19 (and verse15) shows that, here, "many" means "all."
Verse 20 then reinforces verses 18-19.
Back to verse 18. The nearest antecedent to Romans 5:18b is Romans 5:18a. Further, these two half-verses are powerfully linked by the words "AS" and "SO."
Based on all of the above, Romans 5:18-20 promises righteousness and justification (salvation) for everybody.
As for the possible qualifier "those who receive" in verse 17 that Pastor Mike referred to ...
(17) "For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through that one man Jesus Christ." ...
(A) Again, the nearest antecedent to Rom. 5:18b is Rom. 5:18a -- not Rom. 5:17. The "AS" and "SO" in verse 18 leave no doubt. Rom. 5:18a clearly applies to everybody.
(B) "Paul is comparing Adam to Christ. In verse 17, he refers to 'those who receive ["lambano" in Greek]' in a passive sense. Adam sinned, and as a result, all men have received (passively) the consequences of his action. The consequences of Christ's action must also be received in the same manner [passively], or Paul's whole argument [in Rom. 5:18-20] falls apart." -- Gerry Beauchemin, Hope Beyond Hell
(C) Romans 1:5, 5:11 & 8:15 reinforce that "lambano" is something that is done passively to believers, not something that we must do actively to qualify for something.
(D) The passive "those who receive ... grace ..." is arguably to contrast active obedience to the law. (The law is mentioned in verse 20.)
(E) Besides, a long list of other universalist texts reveal or strongly suggest that everybody will eventually meet ANY definition of "those who receive" (e.g. 1 Cor. 15:22,28, John 12:32, 17:2, Rom. 8:19-21, 11:32,36a, Rev. 5:13, 22:17c, Psalm 22:27,29, 65:2-3, 145:10a & the three "all knees shall bow and all tongues shall confess" verses, especially Isa. 45:22-25).
Isaiah 45:24 They will say of me, ‘In the Lord alone are deliverance and strength.’” All who have raged against him" will come to him and be put to shame.
ALL who have raged against will come to Him and be put to shame, not death but shame, as in they realized they were wrong and God is real and so is His love for His divine creation.
I read your entire post and I loved it, I feel like I'm a universalist but not a progressive Christian, I just believe all but the evil people like child traffickers will be saved. I find it hard to reconcile that God with all His Love and Might will send the common man and woman into the same place with people like hitler or cartel child sex traffickers. Those to me are the people who are going to hell and rightfully so.
@@daMillenialTrucker Thanks so much for taking the time to read my post, and for your encouraging reply. It means a lot.
Yes, Universal Salvation ≠ Progressive Christianity. In fact, yesterday I replied (posted) my thanks to Pastor Mike on his excellent "Stealing Jesus for LGBT ideology" video. The Universal Salvation book I plug the most often is "Heaven's Doors" by George Sarris. He's as evangelical as they come. My greatest fear is that Universal Salvation will be married to Progressive Christianity like what happened in the early 20th century.
One thought on the example you raised, where we differ a little: Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount that the unrighteous won't get out of prison (the lake of fire) until they pay the last penny (Matt. 5:26). Unlike the common man and woman, for Hitler and cartel child sex traffickers, that will be a very, very, very, very, very long time.
Mike I think Christian universalists believe everyone will eventually believe in Christ. So the question is can people come to Christ after death?
Exactly. Christian Universalism does not suggest a salvation experience for those rejecting Christ, but says that ultimately all will accept Christ. There is biblical support for that, but I find no persuasive biblical argument to insist that the redemptive process ends with the grave. Unlimited Atonement must logically lead to universal reconciliation. Ultimate Love is ultimately persuasive.
This was a great video. Thanks for breaking this down for us.
This was excellent!
I love this.
I made a short video where I read Mark 1:15 and my friend watched it and said that I sounded depressed. I told him that I wasn’t depressed, but holding back tears. So many people think that once they feel the love of God and believe, then they are saved. You also have to repent.
Huh what on earth then happened at the cross?
Mike - Even though we disagree on some issue, I really respect your willingness to tackle subjects in a respectful manner. With that said, I think that the case for limited atonement (more accurately definite atonement) can be seen quite easily by this question. Is it a sin to reject Jesus as Lord and Savior?
If it's not a sin to reject Jesus as Lord and Savior, and Jesus' death on the cross paid for all of the sins of all people in the entire world, then on what basis does God have to send people to hell who reject Jesus? (Because Jesus' death paid for all of the sins of those people who rejected Jesus, and rejecting jesus wouldn't be a sin that needs atonement in this case).
If it is a sin to reject Jesus as Lord and Savior, and Jesus' death on the cross paid for the all of the sins of all people in the entire world, then on what basis does God have to send people to hell because Jesus' death paid for even the rejection of Jesus?
We know that it is a sin to reject Jesus, therefore Jesus' death on the cross paid ONLY for ALL people in ALL the world who repent and put their faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior. Jesus' death does not cover for the sin of rejecting Jesus.
Now the standard retort is that jesus's death POTENTIALLY pays for sins of all people, pending that person's acceptance of jesus. But if you fast forward in time, then at the end of time, Jesus' death would ACTUALLY have covered ONLY those people who believe in Jesus, and not those who do not believe in Jesus - which ends up leaving you with the same conclusion as the reformed position of who Christ's atonement is for. Therefore, saying that Jesus potentially pays for sins merely limits the TEMPORAL EFFICACY of the atonement, but in the end, it still provides COMPLETE ATONEMENT for ONLY those people who believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior.
As James White says, the issue really comes down to ELECTION, not LIMITED ATONEMENT. Notice that the reformed position of Limited atonement is often portrayed as Jesus dying only for "the elect". But Jesus' death merely shows that he died for the sins of ALL people who believe, and no more than that. Which shows that the issue is NOT a person's view of the atonement, rather the issue is WHO CAN BELIEVE. Specifically, whether man - apart from the holy spirit - can be drawn to jesus and accept him on his own. We can then shift the conversation to election. But the case for definite atonement is rock solid. And those denial of it leads to some very strange logical conundrums.
Son of Nun except limited atonement totally contradicts the bible....so that kind of blows your whole theory to pieces.
@@jaygee2187 Logically and biblically, please support your conclusion. It's a simple question: Is the rejection of Jesus as Lord and Savior a sin that will send people to Hell? Biblically, the answer is Yes. Do you not think it's a sin? I'm not trying to be snarky. Seriously. How is it that Jesus paid for the sins of everyone, and yet the bible teaches that you will be sent to Hell if you don't accept christ? Seriously....how do you reconcile that?
Son of Nun first of all, we need to be sure of what the bible says. So why don’t you list all the bible verse that exclude certain people from having their sin paid for, verse that prove the definite exclusiveness of the atonement. When you’ve done that, I’ll list a few that show the INclusiveness of the atonement; that Christ died for all. There are 17 verses that come immediately to mind...but you go first.
@@jaygee2187 Matthew 13: 47-50: " “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was cast into the sea that caught all kinds of fish. 48 When it was full, they pulled it ashore, sat down, and put the good fish into containers and threw the bad away. 49 It will be this way at the end of the age. Angels will come and separate the evil from the righteous 50 and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
So we know that certain people are excluded from the kingdom of heaven because they will be thrown into the fiery furnace. So again my question remains unanswered. Does Jesus' death atone for the sins of all people who will be thrown into the fiery furnace? Let's not be snarky. I don't want to quarrel with you, I want to have a logical, rational discussion.
Son of Nun I’m not looking for a parable that you then add your own interpretation to to try and make it seem so speak of an exclusive atonement....I want serious, point blank, explicit passages that show an exclusive atonement.
I assure you, I will retort with explicit, point blank passages proving universal atonement. Now please, give me biblical proof of exclusive, limited atonement.
When you have it right it makes so much sense and God is glorified through Christ!
One way to look at it is similar to this analogy. I can make enough cookies for all of my children to have one each. However, it does not necessarily follow that they all have a cookie. They may refuse to have one outright, they may opt to wait until later, but get hit by a truck and die before they get around to having it, they may gradually warm up to the idea and take one, or they may hungrily jump at the chance and gladly take one right away. Therefore, the offer may be universal and the provision may be adequate for all, but that does not mean that all receive and accept what is offered.
Audio sounds great Mike! Thanks for your teachings
Christ's death was a sacrifice to whom? Was it not a sacrifice to God, who then called and justified those whom he foreordained to eternal life? Did Jesus die for Pharaoh? Synergism is not supported by the scripture.
Excellent explanation of the atonement
Mike the audio is greatly improved in clarity. If anything add a "pop" filter. It's a screen that should be an inch or two in front of the mic. Not that you were "popping" a lot, but there were some "pops" so ...
I'm extremely grateful for your insight! I have felt a heavy heart with Calvinism unknowingly, grew up a Mormon and have tried to get bible teaching from other sources RC Sproul and John Macarthur we're the two left standing in my study resources 😊 . Listening to you, I feel scripture makes sense. The uneasy feeling of contradiction left me puzzled and unsure but I feel your explanations are a huge breakthrough for me. A Profound Thanks to you💖
Great message and what I believe to be proper exegesis! Thank you! I completely agree! (Also, my last name is Wingerd. Super close to yours! Haha)
"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive;" - 1 Cor. 15:22