On the 11th of July 2016, William Lane Craig put out a response to a question which is the following:
If the atonement is "definite" or "limited" as Calvinists believe, it seems perverse of God to command us to offer the gospel indiscriminately, when most people couldn't even possibly be saved by it. On the other hand, one of the principal arguments against taking an universal atonement perspective is basically that, given penal substitution, it would either result in universalism to be true, or it would be unjust of God because the penalty of an unsaved person's sin would be borne both by Christ and by the person, which is double jeopardy. How do you address this objection?While it not my intention to deal with this question as such as it is a fair question to ask. But still there is a real issue that comes through and that is a misunderstanding of the biblical testimony to this doctrine and it's precise nature. It is not my intention to address this in any manner at this time as I will do such as we consider Craig's response. And that of cause is my intention.
Let us now come to Craig's conclusion in order to drive his point home:
Thus, salvation and the benefits of Christ’s death are available to everyone, even though Christ died only for some but not all persons. This would also make sense of the Reformed insistence that Christ’s death has the power and worth to save everybody. Once again, we see the astonishing power of the doctrine of middle knowledge to open up unexpected options theologically. Via middle knowledge, we could, if we wanted, combine a doctrine of limited atonement with the universal availability of salvation.
Now we come to the real issue that is at the heart of this answer by WLC. And this is unbiblical and anti-Refomational teaching of 'Molinism' to middle knowledge; a thing that is not even found in any of the Reformed teaching of the last 500 years since Martin Luther, John Calvin nor any other of the father's of the Reformation. We must then inquire as to where it finds its origin? The simple answer: Anti-reformational teaching of the Jesuits (a subset of Catholicism). Yes, that is correct. Molina the father of this teaching Middle knowledge or Molinism was a Catholic. And that should call some pause when a non Catholic (self professed Protestant) speaks of such a view as if it were biblically supported when in fact it is not.
Now when he says 'we could, if we wanted, combine a doctrine of limited atonement with the universal availability of salvation.' Apart from the fact that it is not his place as a philosopher to offer theological suggestions on what is to be accepted; it is not even any believers place, we simply accept that which God has told us. But let us note something in what he is trying to say. there is indeed a universal offer it is called the general call of the gospel (evangelism) . But that does not really play into the nature of the atonement, it is definite not because man accepts it but solely because God designed with that particular focus.
Let us now consider the arguments that led Craig to this point of offering up his philosophical nonsense and here is the first argument. He states:
Right off the bat he reveals his true intention in this matter and that is to evade the question and possibly mislead the person seeking an answer. The nature is the first question that must be considered: does it actually save anyone? Will it only offer up a potential basis, only becoming real upon man's activity? Such question are important and yet somehow not even considered. The extent of the atonement comes in only after the first one: Whom does it save? How many does it save? Another set of important questions that are ignored by Craig.The question of the extent of the atonement is one that I would rather avoid, as it seems so secondary an issue when it comes to the atonement. I want to focus on the really central questions raised by the doctrine of the atonement. Nevertheless, one can’t help running into this issue when one reads widely on the subject of the atonement, so I’ll share here some tentative thoughts on the matter.
It, seems to me, that he indicated a question that is vital when considering the atonement; and yet even at this point, it seem as though that is absent from the answer. He claims to have widely read on the issue; and yet, his ignorance is quite evidenced in this matter as well.
He goes onto state as 'tentative thoughts on the matter' the following statement:
Now we come to the first of his many scriptural references, and as we will note though-out this, a very important point. He has no ability at rightly understanding God's word. And that should cause some alarm. He claims that 'at face value' when since do we gain true understanding of any scripture on this basis! It is Paul who says 'Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.' Where in Craig's above statement, do we see this instruction being met? It is not.At face value, it seems incredible to think that Christ died only for the elect. You couldn’t get a much clearer repudiation of this view than I John 2.2: “he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” Reformed thinkers are forced into exegetical acrobatics in order to explain away the prima facie meaning of such scriptural statements.
Let us consider the words of this man, he states 'it seems incredible to think that Christ died for the elect' then he goes onto say 'You couldn’t get a much clearer repudiation of this view..' I would agree, that it is incredible from an unregenerate point of view. But again, our view point is irrelevant. It only matters what the word of God says. And it does not repudiate the teaching of the elect as it is at the heart of the bible. How do we understand the fact that nearly every letter of the Apostle Paul teaches this truth with unswerving and impeccable precision. And this cannot be overlooked or neglected in the slightest fashion.
Let us see just one (that is not from Paul); it is found in the first letter and first chapter of Peter, it read 'To those who are elect (chosen)... according to the foreknowledge (In love) of God the Father, in the sanctification (divine separation; not be conformed to the image of Christ) of the Spirit, for the obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood.' This is the basic patten that God establishes: God chooses a person in Christ, out of his great love and mercy, separated by the Spirit and unto the word of truth; and then is regenerated unto a saving faith in Christ. This, one again, must be the truth of the process of salvation.
He, then goes onto posit 1 John 2:2 to make his position more tenable. And yet, it is given devoid of any context and understanding. The subject of this whole section is not dealing with the nature or the extent of the atonement. But it is addressing the nature of Christ's high priest role. A cursory survey of the second section of the 1st chapter and the first section of the second chapter will bare this matter out; and a vitally in depth exegesis of it all will definitely substantiate this point too. A quick point: when does Christ 'advocate' or intercede before the Father for another person (a sinner) in Heaven or on earth? To answer this question is to get a proper view of the passage. Until then, the manner in which Craig is address it is inadequate.
And to say that 'reformed thinkers are forced into exegetical acrobats' is not a fair comment at all. It is disingenuous for this man has not made any attempt at exegeting this passage. And he won't as he is not an exegete.
Now we come to the second statement that he offers up:
No one is 're-interpreting' any passage; in fact, what is being done is that the Reformed exegete is interpreting a statement in light of its full statement and it full context. You do not start at verse 2 when it states in verse 5 of chapter 1 and goes on to verse 6 of chapter 2. That is the first important clue. The next clue that we need to see here is the personal terms through out: 'my little children' that is the believing one that Christ's 'blood... cleanses from all sin' and 'forgive us of all our sin and cleanses us of all unrighteousness' still personal in application.So what in the world would compel someone to re-interpret such passages in order to make them compatible with the view that Christ died only for the sins of the elect and not for the sins of every human being? The reason is a theological inference that forces one into such contrived exegesis. One is forced into this position by a theological argument that implies the limited extent of the atonement.
Let us ask a question, an advocate (a lawyer) of the courts is only representing a particular person is he/she not? That same advocate will not represent someone whom he was not appointed to do as such. In the same manner, Christ as an advocate will not represent people whom the father has not given to him nor appointed him as their representative. So we see that the context does not support either universal atonement not this hypothetical (non existent) atonement that Craig is advocating as a worthy contender. It is in the most simplest term: faulty.
Now let once more consider his question above: 'what in the world would compel someone to re-interpret such passages in order to make them compatible with the view that Christ died only for the sins of the elect and not for the sins of every human being? such an important question. But for the sake of this matter we will address it in two ways. First, it is Craig's philosophy and extra biblical traditions that force him to malign the bible in such an unforgiveable fashion. That is the main issue. Second, it is the bible as a whole that forces a reformed believer to interpret the whole bible consistently and come to the conclusion that Christ dies for the elect. Now let us consider what Paul says of Christ's atonement and whom it was for 'This is why I endure all things for the elect: so that they also may obtain salvation, which is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory.' Whom is that Paul suffered on behalf of? And then, whom is it that Christ atonement is effectual in saving? The context gives the answer to both as: the Elect.
Now we come to the third statement he offers up:
The argument is this: at the cross Christ by his death wins our actual redemption. For he satisfies the demands of God’s retributive justice, which had condemned us for our sins. The demands of justice having been met, there no longer remains any punishment for our sins to be exacted. Christ did not win for us merely potential redemption; rather he secured our actual redemption at the cross. Therefore, if Christ died for all people, everyone would be saved, which we know from Scripture to be false.
I think you’ll agree that this is a pretty powerful argument. Nevertheless, it remains an inference, and if it leads to a conclusion that flies in the face of scriptural teaching, then we need to question whether this is a sound inference. Rather than embrace universalism or limited atonement—both of which seem clearly unscriptural—we need to call this theological inference into question.Now we come to the next stage of his argument. Rejecting two propositions and positions out of hand. But upon what basis! He says it is on scriptural grounds; but it would appear that there is something more driving his conclusions than the testimony of the scriptures. And of course, scriptures have never been his foundation to the faith; it has always been philosophy.
At the end of the day, all we have to ask is this: in Craig's thoughts what is the predominant authority; the word of God or man's opinion? And the answer we can gather is that time and time again, happens to man's theories, speculations and opinions. This is what happened when he was asked to chose between the creation position and science on the age of the earth.
And now on the atonement, he will not think through this issue biblically and contextually based on biblical exegesis rather it is upon what seem right in his eyes and in accords to his theories as well.
Now we come to the fifth statement that he offers up:
It seems to me that the questionable assumption of this argument is the presupposition that Christ’s death achieves our actual redemption rather than our potential redemption. True, Christ suffered what would have been the punishment for our sins, thereby meeting the demands of God’s justice. But that payment of our debt needs to be freely received by faith in order to accomplish our actual redemption. It is as if Christ has made a massive downpayment sufficient to pay for anyone’s sins, which we must then appropriate in order to become a beneficiary.
In fact, Reformed thinkers themselves recognize this truth in distinguishing between redemption as accomplished and as applied. They will say that our redemption was accomplished at the cross but that it is applied individually when persons are regenerated and place their faith in Christ. This distinction is vital because otherwise the elect would be born redeemed! They would never be unregenerate sinners but would be justified and saved from the instant of their conception. But Scripture teaches that we once were “children of wrath like the rest of mankind” (Ephesians 2.3), and many of us recall our pre-Christian days.
Right here we come face to face with the heart of the issue in terms of Craig's objection. We need to note the fact that what he posits in these words is what Paul would correctly identifies as being 'another gospel,' the one that is seen in the pages of the New Testament is one that has a power behind it that actually saves all whom confess faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. And this is of course, the sole work of the Spirit of God whom opens the elect of God to the truth of the Gospel and enables him to come to Christ in a repentant faith. And this is the very thing missing from what Craig states above. Not once again what he states:
It seems to me that the questionable assumption of this argument is the presupposition that Christ’s death achieves our actual redemption rather than our potential redemption.
It appears, to me, from reading such a statement that we behold here is that he is denouncing the reality of a true redemption as what the Reformers proclaim from the biblical text for what can only be described as potential in nature, and theoretical in application. In other words, what we are being told to accept on little biblical grounds is something that cannot and never will actually save a man. But let us note something important in this. There is indeed two aspects in salvation: (1) what Christ achieved and accomplished on the cross. (2) and the application of that reality to the believer as the Spirit wills.
But more importantly, we need to really establish the reality though we speak of them as separate points (and rightly so); however, it is in reality; something that is not completely correct. As the two things are intertwined and woven together. In other words, the application is a necessary thing that flows from the work that Christ accomplished upon the cross. And in this matter, the idea that because we take pains to make a distinction between what is 'accomplish' and what is 'applied' does not in any fashion indicate that it at any point a potential thing. As God from eternity has established both the means (the accomplishment) and the end (the application) and it is not something that leads to any potential point of view.
Now we come to the sixth statement that he offers up:
And it need to bared in mind: that every believer is saved in 3 senses: in the past 'you have been saved' that is from eternity and justification. In the present 'you are being saved' through the act of sanctification. In the future 'you will be saved' through being glorified. So the argument is not sound and is unbiblical. Still no place for this 'potential' business in this matter at all.
There is a real problem with this philosophical driven teaching. It is completely shipwrecking the faith and the Gospel. Let the full Gospel declare it's truth in its most glorious manner.
The seventh statement that he offers up is this one:
Firstly, God has made it clear that once you are in Christ; you are united to Him for the long hull. You belong to him by the mercy of God and the continuing work of the Spirit. To suggest that one can fall away and lose their salvation. Not only does it impugn God's character and the very act of salvation. But likewise does damage to the core point of the reformation that God is the sovereign Lord of all thing: creation and salvation alike. This point can be seen in all the writing of the reformation including Martin Luther's bondage of the will, chapter 5, sections 9-27.
Secondly, on this view of Craig's, it must be stressed that as he said before no one actually and truly can be saved. For the God that Craig promotes is not the one true God; but a figment of his philosophical imagination. Even if he does have some biblical terminology to add to it such as the Trinity. You either believe in everything the bible teaches in regards to whom God is or do not. And many of the approaches that Craig has been known for lead to one conclusion: a false god. And no matter how he dresses up his view it will only lead to an imposter.
Craig's god is the same god of the philosophers; the god that suits your opinion at one point which you can neglect when another opinion occurs. So if your opinion is at one point that 'I am a good person and would never hurt any one.' Then guess what you believe about God. And this applies to salvation as man can not save himself nor others at all; neither can God.
Let us now come to the eighth statement:
Let us spell out just how incorrect this idea is and how unbiblical it actually is! Notice there is no real interaction with the New Testament's testimony to the Old Covenant sacrificial nature. For example the whole book of Hebrews deals with this at an in-depth level; and does so by contrasting the Old Covenant and all its various weakness with the New Covenant and it one unique strength. And we can sum it up in one simple statement: The covenant and atonement as made in Christ's blood 'is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to Him, since He is always lives to make intercession for them.' So once again, no potential anything mention in the book of hebrews but a complete and full redemption based not on man's dependancy but alone in Christ's work. What was the reformations clarion call at this point?
It was the truth of 'Sola Christos' in Christ alone, and nothing to do with man in any way shape or form. to put it in a more demonstrable form it is 'Justification by grace through faith in Christ alone.' And that truth is compromised when you say that 'man has something to do with it' as Craig has been suggesting through his 'potential atonement' and to make this point clear we need to only ask: when does the atonement go from potential to actual? Before or after man does something. Clearly from what he says above it is after. So it becomes contingent upon man to make a real active atonement. But now it must be seen that this man is no exegete.
He goes onto make his potential atonement from citing three text which give no support to his false teaching. The first is Romans 3:23-25 which is speaking to the nature of the atonement with a special emphasis on Justification. Again, the text tells us that there is particularity about this act of atonement and justification; it is not merely 'potential' but an actual physical thing that took place on behalf of the Elect (Romans 8:28-30). But now there is another problem 'salvation is a gift of grace' to all whom it was made for. Very particular once again. For something to be a gift; it of necessity, proves that the item is a real offer and real item and not a mere theoretical possibility. Or as he says a mere 'potential' thing.
The second passage come two chapters later in 5: 18 and it once again does not support his potential theory. For notice what it does say: 'as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.” He does not seem to follow the logic of his argument to its end. If salvation is only 'potential' do we not need to make the opposing truth only a 'potential' in order to balance out this comparison. In other words, both the fact that we either sinners in Adam or Saints in Christ as a result of our union with either one, can only be a 'potential' thing and not realities. See the problem. This potential ideal really and fundamentally undercuts the need for salvation as it would be a nonsense thing. But it gets worse, for the conclusion of Romans 5:19-21 tells us that only 'the many' the elect are untied in Christ and not because of their own doing but solely because Christ.
The third passage that he uses Romans 6:2-3. Does not help his false teaching either. And what's more important is to not the gross misidentification and misrepresentation in his assumption. By claim that it is about the 'believers baptism. When it is not even dealing with this issue. The subject of Romans 6 and 7 is a parentheses to the already discussed issue of Romans 5:12-21. The believers union with Christ which is a much more fundamental issue dealing with fact of God choice in uniting us to Christ from all eternity (Ephesians 1, 2). But in each chapter it deal with this from different vantage point. Chapter 6 deals with from the doctrine of the New Man and his relationship to sin. The baptism being mentioned is not the water baptism but the baptism of the Spirit that Christ himself does to a believer at regeneration. The fact that verse 4 ends with these words 'newness of life' tells us something important; and that is Paul is dealing something far more fundamental to Christian living and the New Man which flows from our union with Christ which is some that God does not man.
That is to say, you as a person; as a believer do not become one through some activity you do such as baptism which identifies one as believer. But rather, you are one before that point based on what God has done for you in the person of Christ by punishing you sin and united you to him; and then by the work of spirit which is done in you through the act of regeneration and the continual act of sanctification. This is the truth of scripture it is God who does the work of saving you.
The ninth statement he offers up is the following one:
It is our position that Craig's potential atonement theory and the universal atonement theory are just different ways to say the same thing that Christ's work is not powerful enough to actual save anyone. The two views just end up at the same position from different angles. One says, that it makes 'all men' saveable but does not actually save anyone in and of itself until you do something. And the other says, that Christ can not save even one man on his own but only in 'potential' sense but it only become a real thing when we do something. But in both neither actually has the power to save in the first place. What passage if any can we see the 'potential' nature of Christ work? None. Not even those Romans passages.
The final statement that we need to consider is this one:
He wants to shoehorn 'middle knowledge' or Molinism into the picture based on what, nothing. The bible does not teach such falsehood. Every passage he may point to contextually disproves his contention. And it gets worse, this whole thing is not a reformed (reformational) doctrine but a counter reformed (reformational). Dreamed up by a sect of Catholicism. Let us finally put to rest that it is a demonic and spiritually darkened idea based on man idea apart from Christianity. Scriptures are clear that this ideal is not to be taken up as a reformational view. It is truly a compromise of the scriptures of the one true God. So now let us come to his points.
The first is this: 'if we take election to be primarily corporate, then it is up to us whether we want to be part of that corporate body which is the object of Christ’s redemption. Christ died only for the elect, but anyone can be part of the elect by repentant faith.' While this idea has taken storm in many circles; it is not biblically founded. Roman 9 makes it clear that election is individual in nature unto salvation; and at that, it is a true redemption in Christ.
All we can know from Craig's words is that in his view salvation is not actual on Christ's part, on the Father part but is only actual at the point that man act in some manner. So the real issue must be seen that it a potential atonement in its full disclosure. If there is no actual salvation on God's part then it is never going to be actual regardless. Let us also note another interest statement that Craig makes. He states 'Christ died only for the elect, but anyone can be part of the elect by repentant faith.' He cannot escape the biblical position that Christ died for the elect. The bible is clear on that point. But notice the word game and the twisting of the scriptural truth. He says anyone can be of the elect. What does he even mean? It is not clear. But the reality you are a dead, enslaved sinner unable to do anything to become of the elect. God choses the person; not the other way around we have no say in any of it.
The second is this: 'we could adopt a middle knowledge perspective, holding that God knew who would freely receive God’s grace and be saved, and so He sent Christ to die for them alone but not for those persons who He knew would freely reject Him. If someone who remains unrepentant were to place his faith in Christ, then God would have included him in Christ’s atoning death.' No, we could not adopt such a view for it leads to an even greater problem. All God would see is some like Paul who in pre-conversion was hostile towards the Faith. And that is common to all people. Psalms 14 and Isaiah 49 forever settles the issue. Where God himself said what he sees when he looks upon the whole humanity from above: He sees continual sin and no change. It is also presumptuous for man to posit an idea about how God works in salvation without biblical witness to do any such thing.
Now notice the very contradictory assumption being put forth: 'if someone who remains unrepentant were to place his faith in Christ.' This statement show us that there is something eschewed in his understanding of the matter. From this, we need to see that it probably means that 'faith' and 'repentance' are natural to man. When the bible says that they are gifts from God to man. And you cannot have either one without the other. If you have the gift of faith; it because you have repented of your sin. And you have repented of sin; it naturally follows that you have or are presently coming to faith.
But more importantly, we need to really establish the reality though we speak of them as separate points (and rightly so); however, it is in reality; something that is not completely correct. As the two things are intertwined and woven together. In other words, the application is a necessary thing that flows from the work that Christ accomplished upon the cross. And in this matter, the idea that because we take pains to make a distinction between what is 'accomplish' and what is 'applied' does not in any fashion indicate that it at any point a potential thing. As God from eternity has established both the means (the accomplishment) and the end (the application) and it is not something that leads to any potential point of view.
Now we come to the sixth statement that he offers up:
This question may seem like a fair one, but upon closer examination it falls apart since he is dealing with the view point of Philosophy and not from the biblical stand point. From his philosophical stand point, and from the human view point we cannot even begin to understand the mind and being of God. Nor can we begin to correctly understand the way that God operates in eternity and human history. If, Paul, writing only 20 year or so after the event of the crucifixion has no problem with the fact he was saved in one sense from all eternity (Galatians 1:15-16; 2:20); and yet at the very same time, that he was saved in time as well (1 Timothy 12-16). And if both cases are true of Paul and he accepted it as a reality; then why should we not accept it?But how can such a distinction make sense if Christ won our actual redemption at the cross? If I was actually redeemed in AD 30 (never mind that I didn’t exist then!), how can I not be redeemed at every moment that I do exist? The undeniable distinction between redemption accomplished and applied makes sense only if we say that Christ’s death wins our potential redemption and that that potential is actualized in individual lives through repentance and faith.
And it need to bared in mind: that every believer is saved in 3 senses: in the past 'you have been saved' that is from eternity and justification. In the present 'you are being saved' through the act of sanctification. In the future 'you will be saved' through being glorified. So the argument is not sound and is unbiblical. Still no place for this 'potential' business in this matter at all.
There is a real problem with this philosophical driven teaching. It is completely shipwrecking the faith and the Gospel. Let the full Gospel declare it's truth in its most glorious manner.
The seventh statement that he offers up is this one:
Now we enter into the heart of the problem. From Craig's perspective, and many arminians perspective there is a real problem with 'double jeopardy' argument. Unlike most arminians case which is some what based on a biblical position (albeit a flawed one); In Craig's position it goes further into mere speculation as to the mind of God. What is this argument? The basic point is that God won't punish the sins of a man twice. And at that, the believing man; once in Christ and a second time in himself if he falls away. But the argument is not even an issue at this point.I don’t see any problem of “double jeopardy” here. That is a convention of our human criminal justice system in the United States which cannot be automatically applied to God’s dealings with humanity. In any case, it is not as if the unrepentant person is being tried twice for the same crime. There is only one Judgement Day, and that is the only time a person is tried. If he has freely rejected the pardon Christ offers him, there is no one else to pay for his crimes.
Firstly, God has made it clear that once you are in Christ; you are united to Him for the long hull. You belong to him by the mercy of God and the continuing work of the Spirit. To suggest that one can fall away and lose their salvation. Not only does it impugn God's character and the very act of salvation. But likewise does damage to the core point of the reformation that God is the sovereign Lord of all thing: creation and salvation alike. This point can be seen in all the writing of the reformation including Martin Luther's bondage of the will, chapter 5, sections 9-27.
Secondly, on this view of Craig's, it must be stressed that as he said before no one actually and truly can be saved. For the God that Craig promotes is not the one true God; but a figment of his philosophical imagination. Even if he does have some biblical terminology to add to it such as the Trinity. You either believe in everything the bible teaches in regards to whom God is or do not. And many of the approaches that Craig has been known for lead to one conclusion: a false god. And no matter how he dresses up his view it will only lead to an imposter.
Craig's god is the same god of the philosophers; the god that suits your opinion at one point which you can neglect when another opinion occurs. So if your opinion is at one point that 'I am a good person and would never hurt any one.' Then guess what you believe about God. And this applies to salvation as man can not save himself nor others at all; neither can God.
Let us now come to the eighth statement:
Now we come to the heart of the issue. Let us note the flow of argument for a moment: in the Old testament, the sacrifices were not able to save unless man himself co-operated; therefore, in the New Testament nothing has changed. It is still potential on God's part until man co-opertes. But let me pose the same question that Craig does: Is this biblical? The answer is NO.Isn’t the view I suggest biblical? The Old Testament sacrifices availed for nothing unless they were conjoined with a contrite and repentant heart on the part of the person for whom they were offered. Similarly, Paul says, “since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith” (Romans 3. 23-25). Those who are not in Christ, who do not believe, have no redemption. That is not because Christ did not die for them. Paul compares Christ to Adam, commenting, “as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men” (Romans 5.18). This statement does not imply universalism, since the benefits of Christ’s death come only to those who have faith in him. So in Romans 6 Paul describes how the benefits of Christ’s death are individually appropriated through believer’s baptism, which epitomizes the conversion process: “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life” (Romans 6.3-4). Actual redemption takes place when an individual identifies with Christ through faith.
Let us spell out just how incorrect this idea is and how unbiblical it actually is! Notice there is no real interaction with the New Testament's testimony to the Old Covenant sacrificial nature. For example the whole book of Hebrews deals with this at an in-depth level; and does so by contrasting the Old Covenant and all its various weakness with the New Covenant and it one unique strength. And we can sum it up in one simple statement: The covenant and atonement as made in Christ's blood 'is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to Him, since He is always lives to make intercession for them.' So once again, no potential anything mention in the book of hebrews but a complete and full redemption based not on man's dependancy but alone in Christ's work. What was the reformations clarion call at this point?
It was the truth of 'Sola Christos' in Christ alone, and nothing to do with man in any way shape or form. to put it in a more demonstrable form it is 'Justification by grace through faith in Christ alone.' And that truth is compromised when you say that 'man has something to do with it' as Craig has been suggesting through his 'potential atonement' and to make this point clear we need to only ask: when does the atonement go from potential to actual? Before or after man does something. Clearly from what he says above it is after. So it becomes contingent upon man to make a real active atonement. But now it must be seen that this man is no exegete.
He goes onto make his potential atonement from citing three text which give no support to his false teaching. The first is Romans 3:23-25 which is speaking to the nature of the atonement with a special emphasis on Justification. Again, the text tells us that there is particularity about this act of atonement and justification; it is not merely 'potential' but an actual physical thing that took place on behalf of the Elect (Romans 8:28-30). But now there is another problem 'salvation is a gift of grace' to all whom it was made for. Very particular once again. For something to be a gift; it of necessity, proves that the item is a real offer and real item and not a mere theoretical possibility. Or as he says a mere 'potential' thing.
The second passage come two chapters later in 5: 18 and it once again does not support his potential theory. For notice what it does say: 'as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.” He does not seem to follow the logic of his argument to its end. If salvation is only 'potential' do we not need to make the opposing truth only a 'potential' in order to balance out this comparison. In other words, both the fact that we either sinners in Adam or Saints in Christ as a result of our union with either one, can only be a 'potential' thing and not realities. See the problem. This potential ideal really and fundamentally undercuts the need for salvation as it would be a nonsense thing. But it gets worse, for the conclusion of Romans 5:19-21 tells us that only 'the many' the elect are untied in Christ and not because of their own doing but solely because Christ.
The third passage that he uses Romans 6:2-3. Does not help his false teaching either. And what's more important is to not the gross misidentification and misrepresentation in his assumption. By claim that it is about the 'believers baptism. When it is not even dealing with this issue. The subject of Romans 6 and 7 is a parentheses to the already discussed issue of Romans 5:12-21. The believers union with Christ which is a much more fundamental issue dealing with fact of God choice in uniting us to Christ from all eternity (Ephesians 1, 2). But in each chapter it deal with this from different vantage point. Chapter 6 deals with from the doctrine of the New Man and his relationship to sin. The baptism being mentioned is not the water baptism but the baptism of the Spirit that Christ himself does to a believer at regeneration. The fact that verse 4 ends with these words 'newness of life' tells us something important; and that is Paul is dealing something far more fundamental to Christian living and the New Man which flows from our union with Christ which is some that God does not man.
That is to say, you as a person; as a believer do not become one through some activity you do such as baptism which identifies one as believer. But rather, you are one before that point based on what God has done for you in the person of Christ by punishing you sin and united you to him; and then by the work of spirit which is done in you through the act of regeneration and the continual act of sanctification. This is the truth of scripture it is God who does the work of saving you.
The ninth statement he offers up is the following one:
What false assumption would that be? Believing what the scripture teach regarding the atonement that it actually saves. No, silly us for taking the words of Hebrews at face value or even on an exegetical foundation. Evidently, there is some other source of authority that we must believe because the biblical testimony to Christ's saving work being one that actually has power to save is not good enough.So I think the theological inference made by advocates of limited atonement and by universalists alike is faulty because it is based on a false assumption.
It is our position that Craig's potential atonement theory and the universal atonement theory are just different ways to say the same thing that Christ's work is not powerful enough to actual save anyone. The two views just end up at the same position from different angles. One says, that it makes 'all men' saveable but does not actually save anyone in and of itself until you do something. And the other says, that Christ can not save even one man on his own but only in 'potential' sense but it only become a real thing when we do something. But in both neither actually has the power to save in the first place. What passage if any can we see the 'potential' nature of Christ work? None. Not even those Romans passages.
The final statement that we need to consider is this one:
Now we come to the final statements which form his conclusion (of which we stated with) which we need to consider at length. He gives us two reason for his final rejection of the biblical truth of definite atonement/particular redemption. Before we come to those points we first must note the underline proposition that is driving this whole discussion; we note that it is his philosophical standpoint and not exegetical standpoint. That is a vitally important issue.But suppose you do think that Christ dies only for the elect. Does that imply that “most people couldn't even possibly be saved”? I don’t think so. There are two ways in which salvation could be universally accessible. First, if we take election to be primarily corporate, then it is up to us whether we want to be part of that corporate body which is the object of Christ’s redemption. Christ died only for the elect, but anyone can be part of the elect by repentant faith. Or, second, we could adopt a middle knowledge perspective, holding that God knew who would freely receive God’s grace and be saved, and so He sent Christ to die for them alone but not for those persons who He knew would freely reject Him. If someone who remains unrepentant were to place his faith in Christ, then God would have included him in Christ’s atoning death. Thus, salvation and the benefits of Christ’s death are available to everyone, even though Christ died only for some but not all persons. This would also make sense of the Reformed insistence that Christ’s death has the power and worth to save everybody. Once again, we see the astonishing power of the doctrine of middle knowledge to open up unexpected options theologically. Via middle knowledge, we could, if we wanted, combine a doctrine of limited atonement with the universal availability of salvation.
He wants to shoehorn 'middle knowledge' or Molinism into the picture based on what, nothing. The bible does not teach such falsehood. Every passage he may point to contextually disproves his contention. And it gets worse, this whole thing is not a reformed (reformational) doctrine but a counter reformed (reformational). Dreamed up by a sect of Catholicism. Let us finally put to rest that it is a demonic and spiritually darkened idea based on man idea apart from Christianity. Scriptures are clear that this ideal is not to be taken up as a reformational view. It is truly a compromise of the scriptures of the one true God. So now let us come to his points.
The first is this: 'if we take election to be primarily corporate, then it is up to us whether we want to be part of that corporate body which is the object of Christ’s redemption. Christ died only for the elect, but anyone can be part of the elect by repentant faith.' While this idea has taken storm in many circles; it is not biblically founded. Roman 9 makes it clear that election is individual in nature unto salvation; and at that, it is a true redemption in Christ.
All we can know from Craig's words is that in his view salvation is not actual on Christ's part, on the Father part but is only actual at the point that man act in some manner. So the real issue must be seen that it a potential atonement in its full disclosure. If there is no actual salvation on God's part then it is never going to be actual regardless. Let us also note another interest statement that Craig makes. He states 'Christ died only for the elect, but anyone can be part of the elect by repentant faith.' He cannot escape the biblical position that Christ died for the elect. The bible is clear on that point. But notice the word game and the twisting of the scriptural truth. He says anyone can be of the elect. What does he even mean? It is not clear. But the reality you are a dead, enslaved sinner unable to do anything to become of the elect. God choses the person; not the other way around we have no say in any of it.
The second is this: 'we could adopt a middle knowledge perspective, holding that God knew who would freely receive God’s grace and be saved, and so He sent Christ to die for them alone but not for those persons who He knew would freely reject Him. If someone who remains unrepentant were to place his faith in Christ, then God would have included him in Christ’s atoning death.' No, we could not adopt such a view for it leads to an even greater problem. All God would see is some like Paul who in pre-conversion was hostile towards the Faith. And that is common to all people. Psalms 14 and Isaiah 49 forever settles the issue. Where God himself said what he sees when he looks upon the whole humanity from above: He sees continual sin and no change. It is also presumptuous for man to posit an idea about how God works in salvation without biblical witness to do any such thing.
Now notice the very contradictory assumption being put forth: 'if someone who remains unrepentant were to place his faith in Christ.' This statement show us that there is something eschewed in his understanding of the matter. From this, we need to see that it probably means that 'faith' and 'repentance' are natural to man. When the bible says that they are gifts from God to man. And you cannot have either one without the other. If you have the gift of faith; it because you have repented of your sin. And you have repented of sin; it naturally follows that you have or are presently coming to faith.
