A Sanctuary for Biblical Logic

  This article aims to demonstrate how different views of Christ’s atonement logically affects our view of God’s omnipotence. There are two types of atonement that are commonly held: 1) universal, indefinite, or unlimited atonement, and 2) particular, definite, or limited atonement. The author used to believe the former view for several years while he was still attending an Arminian Charismatic church.   Universal atonement states: Christ died for all men without exception (i.e. universally) and paid for all their sins. It is an atonement unlimited in its intent (i.e. God intends to save all without exception including those who are already in the intermediate state or hell) and extent (i.e. God well-meaningly offering His salvific grace to all without exception upon the condition of man’s independent-free-will-activated faith or response to His grace or calling). Christ propitiates for the sins of all men without exception, removing the full curse of the wrath of God from...

  Will all of Israel be saved in the last days? Scripture is clear on this point, that all Israel shall be saved (Romans 11:26). However, the “all” is not without exception because they are not all Israel which are of Israel (Romans 9:6). Those who insist that “all”, “world”, or “any” must mean everyone head-to-head without exception, necessarily fall into the false doctrine of Jewish universalism. Romans 9:6 and 11:26 can be reconciled to mean: not all Israelites are eternally predestined as the elect of God, and God has promised that ALL the elect Israelites will be saved.   Contrary to what Amillennial replacement theology insists, “Israel” can only refer to the Church in the form of a nation, not the stateless New Testament Church. When God promised something to Israel, He really intends the nation of Israel as the immediate audience i.e., the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who will reap the blessings of the covenants that will be fulfilled according...

  John Calvin rejects the use of the common phrase “Sufficient for all, Efficient for the elect”, especially in interpreting 1 John 2:2. That phrase is commonly understood as Christ dying for everyone without exception including the reprobates in a certain sense, but in another sense the efficacy of, or the final benefit of the atonement is for the elect alone. If the phrase means that God has the power (sufficient for all) to save everyone without exception (universalism) hypothetically if He wants to, I have no objection but apparently this is not what many moderate Calvinists understand of the phrase. I concur with Jim Ellis who concludes: “To say that Christ's death on the cross provided an atonement sufficient for all is to specifically suggest that He has atoned for the sins of all men, which is essentially a universal atonement. This is a false conception and makes us, along with those who hold to a universal atonement, say the opposite of what we mean.” He, quoting J. I. Pa...

Providence is defined as that God’s sovereignty, pleasure, and omnipotent power to actively cause everything in this world to run by the means of nature (that can be empirically grasped and perceived by man) without His direct miraculous, supernatural intervention. [1] Providence, which follows upon the work of creation in the beginning, is divine power that keeps all things in existence and governs them, and the power of providence is directed by the counsel of providence, which is the wise plan of God decreeing that and how all things will glorify Him in the day of Jesus Christ. [2] Leaf and blade, rain and drought, fruitful and barren years, food and drink, health and sickness, riches and poverty, indeed, all things, come to us not by chance but by His fatherly hand. [3] Double Predestination is God’s decree of election and Reprobation. There are the single predestinarians who accepts the doctrine of election without reprobation because they throw logic out of the window. Since ...

Introduction The Arminians often reason from John 3:16 that if God loves the world (everyone without exception including the people who are already in hell), then the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination must be wrong. Many Calvinists today would agree with the Arminians that God indeed loves sinful humanity in general or everyone without exception including the people who are already in hell, however they also think eternal predestination is still true. Arminians often find that both statements contradict one another, and I agree with them. Not only it is an actual contradiction, but it is also an unbiblical view of God’s love. They would defend that it is a logical paradox i.e., “a situation where an assertion (or two or three assertions) is self-contradictory, or at least seems to be so; one way or the other the assertion cannot possibly be reconciled before the bar of human reason.” [1]   Many theologians have a habit of categorizing theological statements that are clearly c...