Anti-Arminian argument, and quite a persuasive one I think

[steven-nemes]

What thoughts do you have, and what are possible Arminian responses? This is not my own argument; I've heard it before but never discussed it at length.

1. If Jesus died to atone for everyone's sin, then everyone would go to heaven.
2. Not everyone goes to heaven.
3. Therefore, Jesus did not die to atone for everyone's sin.


As regards the first premise, if Jesus died to atone for the sins of everyone everywhere, why doesn't everyone go to heaven? Well, presumably, they have to "receive" forgiveness by putting their faith in him. Those who do not put their faith in him, it seems, are not forgiven of their sins.

Let's say there is a person S who hears the gospel and refuses to put his faith in Christ. Is S committing a sin in rejecting the gospel? It seems so:

Acts 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.

Now I suppose a definition of sin would be failing to do what God commands, or doing what God commands that a person not do. Now, if God commands everyone everywhere to repent, then if a person refuses to do so, then that person is sinning. But that sin is covered by the death of Christ. So then everyone goes to heaven.

But clearly not everyone goes to heaven.

Therefore, Jesus' death did not atone for all the sins of mankind.

 

[smhbbag]

A smart Arminian who knows his position well will not disagree with any of that. But to him, it would be irrelevant. It would not hurt his position if you prove that Jesus did not actually atone for and secure any person's salvation. Arminians already believe that.

To him, Jesus' death is the means by which God makes men savable through a conditional promise. If one believes, then Christ's death becomes effective for them. But, a knowledgeable Arminian will see this one coming and not agree that Christ actually atoned for everyone, and will instead draw fine lines about what Christ's death really accomplished.

However, most Arminians have their heads in the sand regarding this, and will never bring themselves to denigrate Christ's sacrifice by saying it is not inherently effective for salvation. This is good! But confusing and contradictory to their other positions, and makes using this argument quite difficult.

For that reason, I prefer to stick to proving that Christ's death actually does save effectively and does not merely make men savable upon the condition of faith. This allows more scriptures to come in to play, and is just easier, In my humble opinion. In other words, you need to get full, complete, genuine understanding of Premise 1 before he will consider the argument relevant. And premise 1 is not something a smart Arminian will agree to.

 

[steven-nemes]

What, then, might a smart Arminian say regarding premise one? How do they view Jesus' death?

 

[smhbbag]

What, then, might a smart Arminian say regarding premise one? How do they view Jesus' death?

This is what makes these interactions with them so difficult. There are very, very, very few Arminians who would deny the first part of premise one (saying that Christ did not actually atone for everyone). They should say it. They must say it to be consistent. But they don't. Something about being a believer makes it difficult to utter those words. In all likelihood, the only ones who would admit it are those who have encountered your (sound) argument, and still want to remain Arminians, so they have to realize that consistency demands they deny that part of premise 1. This is a distinction that will be lost on the vast majority of Arminians you interact with.

Because of that, your argument can actually work well in real life with most folks.

Their view of the atonement is fraught with contradiction and difficult to define phrases and distinctions. When pressed, they can only stick to a few phrases like I mentioned. Christ's death "makes men savable," and is the means by which God can offer all men a conditional promise of salvation based on faith.

That last sentence sums up what most will be able to say about the atonement. They can't expound, because things get very hairy. If they say he actually atoned for all men, they're in trouble for the reasons your argument lays out. They can stick to language like "Christ died for all men," while that does not mean actual atonement, only in the sense that it enables faith to save them.

Reformed people can speak clearly about the atonement because there is a long list of things we can say the atonement did, and did not, do. For the well-schooled Arminian, he knows that his language and explanation is limited. How exactly does one explain that Christ's death is offered on someone's behalf, but it doesn't save them, while it does make them able to be saved if they believe? Those are distinctions that are incredibly difficult to speak at length about because, well, it just doesn't make any sense.

So, I guess I'm saying that a smart Arminian will intentionally leave his language on the atonement as vague as I mentioned in the first post. Christ died to make an offer of salvation genuine and possible for all men, while not atoning for all men. If they offer any more, and explain or define any more extensively, they will eventually get caught in contradiction, nonsensical statements, and fall prey to arguments like yours.

 

[Poimen]

What, then, might a smart Arminian say regarding premise one? How do they view Jesus' death?

Canons of Dordrecht: Rejection of Errors, Paragraph 3

That Christ by His satisfaction merited neither salvation itself for anyone, nor faith, whereby this satisfaction of Christ unto salvation is effectually appropriated; but that He merited for the Father only the authority or the perfect will to deal again with man, and to prescribe new conditions as He might desire, obedience to which, however, depended on the free will of man, so that it therefore might have come to pass that either none or all should fulfill these conditions.

Canons of Dordrecht: Rejection of Errors, Paragraph 6

God, as far as He is concerned, has been minded to apply to all equally the benefits gained by the death of Christ; but that, while some obtain the pardon of sin and eternal life, and others do not, this difference depends on their own free will, which joins itself to the grace that is offered without exception, and that it is not dependent on the special gift of mercy, which powerfully works in them, that they rather than others should appropriate unto themselves this grace.

 

[Confessor]

What, then, might a smart Arminian say regarding premise one? How do they view Jesus' death?

A very obstinate Molinist I know on Facebook would say that Jesus' atonement is effected for all, but people have to "apply" this effected salvation to themselves with their free will. Of course, this is contradicted by Scriptures and supported nowhere therein, but don't bother him with those.

Actually, that goes near the Roman view of atonement that Jesus builds up "merit" that has to be dispensed by the Roman priesthood. The only difference is that Arminians are dispensing it to themselves with their free will.

This is the only way to avoid the otherwise irrefutable nature of the argument for particular atonement -- by fleeing to Rome. I know John Owen especially formulates it well in his Death of Death. (That doesn't make it an easy read though. ) The argument is also replicated on my future church's webpage.

 

[larryjf]

I would just give them a copy of Owen's "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ"

 

[Hippo]

I find that Arminians get round this by replacing substitutionary attonement with the notion of prevenient grace. They do not accept the premise of Christ's death atoning for sins in the first place and claim this does not result in works rightiousness because of prevenient grace.

 

[steven-nemes]

Doesn't Galatians, for example, clearly teach substitutionary atonement when Paul says that Christ became the curse for us?