where's the disagreement?

Calvinists and Arminians agree on several points (although one is often hard pressed to see that as the two sides engage each other) but don't be confused, the two views are not compatible and the differences matter. Continuing with 1Jn 2.2, the question arises, “When Christ died, did he actually pay the penalty only for the sins of those who would believe in him, or for the sins of every person who ever lived?”

For those holding to the general redemption view there is the problem of people who are eternally condemned to hell suffer the penalty for all of their own sins. The penalty for their sins could not have been fully taken by Christ, they are suffering in hell right? The response to this is often that people suffer in hell because of the sin of rejecting Christ, even though their other sins were paid for. I do not see that as a reasonable argument because some have never heard of him to be able to reject him and because texts such as Ro 5:6–8, 13–16 indicate that this suffer for personal sin.

On the side of particular redemption is the is the concept that our salvation is completely paid for by Christ. This is more than a potentiality, it is an actuality and one that is in eternal unity in the plans of God (Ro 8:28–30).

Arminians rightly understand passages that speak about “the world” mean that sinners generally will be saved and not that every individual will be saved. John 1:29 does not mean that Christ actually removes the sins of every single person in the world. In the same sense, 2 Cor. 5:19 does not mean that every person was reconciled to God; only that sinners generally were reconciled to God. Both sides agree that not all sinners will be saved or were reconciled but that these groups in general, not necessarily every person in them, were the objects of God’s redeeming work. Reworded, these texts mean that “God so loved sinners that he gave his only Son...” without implying that every sinner in the whole world will be saved.

So when we talk of Christ dying “for” the whole world we are referring to the free offer of the gospel made to all people. John 6:51 is Christ speaking of himself as the Bread that came down from heaven offered to people who if willing receive for themselves (c.f. John 6:33). Redeeming life is brought into the world but not every single person in the world will have that life. John 6:35, 50–51, Jesus came to bring life into the world but not that he actually paid the penalty for the sins of everyone who would ever live.

Christ is the atoning sacrifice now available for the sins of everyone in the world. "For the world" simply means “concerning” or “with respect to” the world. John is simply saying that Christ is the atoning sacrifice who is available to pay for the sins of anyone in the world. In the same way, Paul says that Christ “gave himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim. 2:6). We understand this to mean a ransom available for all people, without exception.

Heb. 2:9 refers to every one of Christ’s people, i.e., every one who is redeemed not everyone “in the whole world”. This is clear in the context of Heb 2.10-13. The same language is used in Heb 8:11 and 12:8. In both cases the “all” clearly means "all of God's people" rather than "all people". One of the common Arminian sound bites is "what part of all don't you get?" The response is, "I get it all in context. What about you?" :-)

Finally, while the verses that talk of Christ’s dying for his sheep, his church, or his people do not explicitly deny that Christ died for others as well, their reference to his death for his people strongly suggests a particular redemption.

The point is, I don't think Arminians and Calvinists are different in terms of the scope of Christ's work on the Cross. I think Arminians simple can't say the word, "limited". Frankly so do I which is why I like "particular" or as RC Sproul prefers, "definite atonement".

Technorati Tags: Calvinism