I
normally link through to the original page from whence I glean these
challenges, but unfortunately the original site is noted for its rudeness and
nastiness, I will therefore spare the reader. However, some of the
points raised below are good ones and deserve an honest answer. Others
are greatly flawed and deserve to be exposed. The original objections are
in black, with my comments (as ever) in red.
If Christ Did Not Die for All Men, Then...
FIRST OBJECTION: There never was a possibility that all could be saved and hope was limited only to some:
Assuming here that "all" means "all without exception" (for the word carries two meanings in the Bible) it is true to say that "There was never a possibility that all could be saved..."
This is because the Bible never teaches that there is a possibility
that all without exception could be saved. The non Calvinist
objector here does not see his way to providing any Scriptural
proof and this is largely because there is none to provide.
The obviousness of this fact is at once seen from the Old
Testament where the saving grace of God was largely limited to those of
the Jewish community. "You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities." (Amos 3:2) For
thousands of years, whole communities in the Gentile nations lived and
died in their sins without a missionary and therefore without the
possibility that they could be saved, unless God chose to send them a
man of His choice to preach the gospel to them. Even today, there still
places on
this earth totally void of a gospel witness - unreached tribes in
the deepest jungles who have never yet heard the good news.
The second part of the objection is that "...hope was limited only to some" but
even the objector himself (as Evangelical) limits the hope of being
saved to those who are prepared to actually come and receive Christ as
their Saviour. Otherwise, the sinner will remain "without Christ and ... having no hope" (Ephesians 2:12) Hope in the Bible has always been
limited to the some. This is exactly what the Calvinist in his
broader description as an Evangelical maintains - no hope outside
of Jesus Christ.
SECOND OBJECTION: Obviously some cannot avoid damnation:
Any man
who takes it upon himself to reject the gospel cannot avoid damnation.
This alone is the where any damnation lies - in the sinner's self
determination to love and cling to his sin. They will not come to Him
that they might have life (John 5:40) and therefore they bring
damnation upon their own heads, being the author of their own
destruction.
THIRD OBJECTION: We must feel the insincerity of inviting all to be saved:
There
is no insincerity at all in inviting all to be saved, something
which those who believe in Particular Redemption are wont to do: (See here and here). While we limit the intention
of the atonement to what it will be finally seen to deliver i.e. the
salvation of the elect , yet we do not limit in any way the intrinsic worth or merit of this atonement. We are happy therefore to run with the maxim that "Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect." saying with John Calvin: "This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools...I allow that what has been said is true..." It was this truth of the infinite worth of the atonement that enabled Spurgeon to say: "I know there are some
who think it necessary to their system of theology to limit the merit of the
blood of Jesus: if my theological system needed such limitation, I would cast it
to the winds. I cannot, I dare not, allow the thought to find lodging in my
mind, it seems so near akin to blasphemy." (Autobiography of Spurgeon) and yet have him also declare: "I may be called Antinomian or Calvinist for
preaching a limited atonement; but I had rather believe a limited atonement that
is efficacious for all men for whom it was intended, than an universal atonement
that is not efficacious for anybody, except the will of man be joined with it. "(4:121) The strength of the free-for-all invitation lies, not in the intention, but in the merit or worth
and so the Calvinist can go on evangelising bidding men to look and
live and rebuking and warning those who refuse to do so.
FOURTH OBJECTION: Unbelief is no longer a sin, especially for those who have no cross to believe on
The
sinner is being asked to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts
16:30-31) and the invitation that He extends to sinners. No man is
being asked to believe if he is elect, but he is being simply
asked to take the sinner's place and to apply for pardon in accordance
with the gospel promise which is for every creature. As McCheyne put it
well so long ago: "The question is not, 'Am I elect?' but rather, 'Am I one of the human race?'" (Sermon on Proverbs 8:4) A sinner may read the gospel invitation, especially as it is addressed to the "whosoever" (Romans
10:13) and conclude that such includes him in its scope. This is a wide
enough matter and so leaves the sinner without any justifiable feeling
of hopelessness.
FIFTH OBJECTION: It would be a sin for those for whom Christ did not die to believe
on Him, because they would be believing a lie, a false hope:
If the gospel invitation was
limited to the elct, then these words would be pertinent words, but the
free offer of the gospel (which is to be extended to every last sinner)
renders the objection null and void.
SIXTH OBJECTION: Those who preach the gospel to every creature SIN because they
preach good tidings to all men when in fact there aren't good tidings
for all men in the cross:
This
is an unjust charge. It is unjust because the gospel invitation is
based on two things [i] The worth of the merit of Christ's work which
is infinite and [ii] the commanded width of the invitation which is to
the whosoever, as
elucidated in the previous answer. This being so, it is no sin to
preach the gospel to every creature as commanded in Mark 16:15. No
living man has any right to conclude that Christ did not die for Him.
If he does so, it will not be in a Calvinistic induced despair, but
simply because he views it as another excuse to hold on to his sins.
SEVENTH OBJECTION: God would be insincere in commanding all men to repent, seeing if they did repent, they'd have no provision in the cross:
This
objection is erroneous again on two accounts. [i] It assumes that
repentance is required only to facilitate the reception of Christ. Even
if there was no salvation for anyone, we would still be required to
repent and forsake our rebellion against God. We would still
be
required to believe everything which God said. [ii] It assumes that you
have men repenting but coming to the Cross and God turning them away.
There is no record of anyone coming in repentance and faith to the
Cross and being turned away and Calvinists do not believe nor teach
that such
happens. This is the figment of an over zealous imagination on the part
of those who oppose the Doctrines of Grace (or to be more precise) what they perceive those same Doctrines to teach. Both repentance and faith are saving gifts from God and they
are given specifically to His elect so that they will come to the Cross
and be saved.
EIGHTH OBJECTION: Why does He say He's not willing that any should perish?
God's
unwillingness that any should perish stems from that part of His
character that is benevolent and loving etc., He is not a cruel despot,
taking delight in the sufferings of His creatures for the sheer fun of
hearing their screams and anguish. Yet He willingly allowed sin to
enter into the world and based salvation on the necessary reception of
Christ, when He might have easily avoided the first and thus rendered the second unnecessary. It is sufficient for
the sinner to read words like 2 Peter 3:9, look at the invitation of
the gospel and conclude that there is hope for him if he will but come
and believe etc.,
NINTH OBJECTION: All for whom He did not die come into the world with the irrevocable sentence of damnation upon them:
This is just the first objection rehashed. See the answer given there.
TENTH OBJECTION: Why should the Devil do anything, seeing God will hand over to him
the largest portion of humanity without his lifting a finger?
This
objection again lays undue emphasis and weight on God handing over the
largest portion of humanity (assuming that the largest portion of
humanity will be lost) to the Devil. The sinner effectively hands
himself over to the Devil by his constant sinning and rejecting of the
overtures of grace. The question also presupposes that if the Devil did
nothing then all men would run to the Cross and be saved. This ignores
the innate wickedness and depravity of the sinner's heart. The Bible
makes it clear that [i] all men will not be saved and that [ii] a
certain number will be converted through the preaching of the gospel.
Even non Calvinists (of the Old School Evangelicalism) believe
this. God had a purpose in creating the Devil in the first place -
creating him with the full knowledge that he would turn malignant and
create havoc in the world. Yet He wisely decided that this should be
the course. In a future day, we will fully understand the whys and the wherefores of these things.
END OF OBJECTIONS
My comments: It is hoped that this page will give you an insight into
the Calvinist mindset when it comes to the Redemption of Christ and
evangelism. Other helpful pages on this subject include:
* Seven reasons why Calvinists believe in evangelism
* Why bother?
* The words of Calvin the Soulwinner
* The deeds of Calvin the Soulwinner
* The stirring example of a great Calvinistic evangelist at work
* Hyper Calvinist cartoon attacking evangelism answered
* God's Command to evangelise the world (Article for Let The Bible Speak Quarterly)
* Discuss Cloud's allegation that Evangelising Calvinists are the exception rather than the rule
* John Ryland and William Carey - Who best represented the Calvinists?