# Unlimited Atonement implies Universal Salvation



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 11, 2008)

Now That The Frivolities are Over… L.A., Part 3 « Backwoods Presbyterian


----------



## Zenas (Jul 11, 2008)

It has to because of the logical operation of disjunction. 

If Christ died for all men, then either all men are then saved or Christ is a failure.
Christ is not a failure.
All men are saved. 

Any Arminian I have met will refuse to listen to this logic, and will refuse to give any answer. I only assume they will answer like the above. The alternative is:

If Christ died for all men, then either all men are then saved or Christ is a failure.
All men are not saved.
Christ is a failure.


----------



## Kim G (Jul 11, 2008)

Zenas said:


> If Christ died for all men, then either all men are then saved or Christ is a failure.
> All men are not saved.
> Christ is a failure.



The problem is not the logic (or lack thereof) of the Arminian. The problem is the dichotemy presented.

To Arminians, the sentence "If Christ died for all men, then 1)either all men are then saved or 2)Christ is a failure" presents a false dichotomy. Most of them won't interact with you on this logic because it makes no sense to them.

More accurately, they would say, "If Christ died for all men, then all men have the capability of accepting Christ." Once again, it boils down to whether Christ died to save men or render them savable.


----------



## Scott1 (Jul 11, 2008)

> More accurately, they would say, "If Christ died for all men, then all men have the capability of accepting Christ." Once again, it boils down to whether Christ died to save men or render them savable.



Yes. And add that man (not God) has the moral ability to make the final decision.


----------



## cih1355 (Jul 11, 2008)

Are there any people who believe that the penalty for sin is paid for twice- once when Christ died for our sins and again when some people go to hell? I was just curious because there are those who believe that Christ was actually punished for everyone's sins, but that some people will be punished for their sins in hell. The logical conclusion that is drawn from what they believe is that the punishment for sin is taken place twice.


----------



## R Harris (Jul 11, 2008)

Zenas said:


> It has to because of the logical operation of disjunction.
> 
> If Christ died for all men, then either all men are then saved or Christ is a failure.
> Christ is not a failure.
> ...



Owen in _The Death of Death_ basically put it this way: If Christ died for the sins of all men, then necessarily he also died for their sin of unbelief. Thus, the universal salvation, as the title for this thread states.

If he did not die for the sin of unbelief, then how can you set the point for what sins he did or did not die for?


----------



## Kim G (Jul 11, 2008)

cih1355 said:


> Are there any people who believe that the penalty for sin is paid for twice- once when Christ died for our sins and again when some people go to hell? I was just curious because there are those who believe that Christ was actually punished for everyone's sins, but that some people will be punished for their sins in hell. The logical conclusion that is drawn from what they believe is that the punishment for sin is taken place twice.



Yes, there are many people who believe this where I live, although they probably wouldn't put it that way. They believe that Christ paid for everyone's sins, but if you choose not to accept Christ's payment on your behalf, then you have to pay for them yourself forever in hell. So it wasn't that Christ didn't pay for them, but that you refused His payment.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 11, 2008)

Kim G said:


> cih1355 said:
> 
> 
> > Are there any people who believe that the penalty for sin is paid for twice- once when Christ died for our sins and again when some people go to hell? I was just curious because there are those who believe that Christ was actually punished for everyone's sins, but that some people will be punished for their sins in hell. The logical conclusion that is drawn from what they believe is that the punishment for sin is taken place twice.
> ...



Thanks Kim. You summed up the arminian error quite well. Good Job!!!


----------



## Confessor (Jul 11, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Kim G said:
> 
> 
> > cih1355 said:
> ...



I think there's a bit more to add, although most Arminians aren't usually conscious of this, as it sounds much more ridiculous when it is clearly articulated.

Since Arminians believe (along with Calvinists) that men are naturally born in a state of total depravity, they posit that prevenient, or preceding, grace counteracts the effects of sin upon all men's abilities to have saving faith, and that Jesus' death was an atonement for this. Thus, Arminians believe that Jesus' death on the cross atoned for everyone's sins to the point that everyone is born in a state of neutrality (which is philosophically impossible in terms of decision-making, but I digress), where man's volition can take over to reap the rest of Christ's atonement's benefits, or reject them and go to hell.


----------

