Is Limited Atonement Biblical?

My attention was drawn to the above video in which Sam Shamoun and Matt Slick debate the subject of whether the doctrine of Limited Atonement (one of the central tenets of Calvinism) is biblical or not? Matt slick takes the side of Limited Atonement, whereas Sam Shamoun takes the opposite side, of an unlimited or universal Atonement. It is a long video, about two hours long, and my intention is not to discuss its contents in detail; that would take too long. I will just briefly point out some salient highlights.

I take the side of Sam Shamoun in this debate, of a universal or unlimited Atonement; and I also think that Sam Shamoun for the most part does a good job of presenting his case biblically, and putting Matt Slick on the defensive. But he makes two theological and hermeneutical errors which weakens his position quite a bit. If he fixes those, he will be able defeat Matt Slick hands down. The first mistake he makes is that he assumes that the Atonement of Jesus Christ takes effect in the life of the believer on the basis of faith alone; whereas the biblical doctrine is faith coupled with repentance. The gospel of Jesus Christ is a gospel of repentance, not just faith alone. It is faith coupled with repentance (Matt. 4:17; Mark 1:14-15; 2:17; 6:12; Luke 5:32; 13:3; 15:7; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 17:30; 20:21; 26:20; Rom. 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9; Rev. 3:19). The greater significance of that becomes apparent as we continue.

The second mistake that he has made is that he has seriously erred in his interpretation of Colossians chapter 1. The significant portions of that chapter that he quotes from (given in context) and misunderstands is as follows (emphasis added):

Colossians 1:

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled

22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:

23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

The bit that he gets wrong is in verse 20, where it says, “by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven,” by which he understands to mean that Jesus’ Atonement covered the sins of all, in heaven and on earth, including Satan and his crew. But that is not what the scripture is saying. “Heaven” doesn’t include Satan and his crew! Satan and his crew aren’t in “heaven,” they are in hell! Jesus’ Atonement did not extend to the devils in hell. He also says that if the devils “believed” they would be saved. That is not correct either. The devils do believe!

James 2:

19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

But it doesn’t lead to their salvation. What they cannot do is to repent, which explains also why they cannot also be redeemed. Jesus’ Atonement did not extend to the devils in hell. Jesus came to atone for the sins of fallen humanity, on both sides of the veil, both those who had died before he was born, as well as those who came after. For “as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Cor. 15:22) The devils didn’t “die in Adam,” that they should be redeemed by the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Those are the two mistakes that Sam Shamoun makes. If he fixes those, he can defeat Matt Slick (and other Calvinists) hands down.

Matt Slick, on the other hand, makes the common Calvinistic error of assuming that the Atonement of Jesus Christ redeems mankind from their sins unconditionally, which is entirely unbiblical and false. Hence he concludes that if Jesus atoned for the sins of all men, then all men without exception should be (unconditionally) redeemed, which is not biblical. Nothing is taught more clearly in the Bible than that the Atonement of Jesus Christ saves mankind only on condition of faith and repentance, which is entirely man’s choice, and there is no “predestination,” as I have discussed in several previous posts in my blog.