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.

What is Wrong With this Biblical Exegesis?

What is wrong with this biblical exegesis? At 28:22 minutes into the video he says the following:

“There was never a female prophet with an ongoing prophetic ministry like Elijah and Elisha. No book in the Old Testament was written by a woman, nor was any portion of an Old Testament book written by a woman.”

How many books were written by Elijah, Elisha, or Samuel? I am not aware of any. Books were written about them, or their ministry; but the Bible doesn’t say that they themselves wrote any books. So how is that any different from prophetesses mentioned in the Bible, about whom things were written? How does that make the prophetesses any less special? How is that any different from Deborah, about whom things were written? He then continues:

“Now there were some women throughout the Old Testament that on occasion spoke for God.”

How many “occasions” did Samuel speak for God, and how is that different from Deborah? I don’t recall that the number of “occasions” were significantly different. How does that make Deborah’s ministry any less special than that of Samuel? I am struggling to see a difference. He continues:

“Miriam is called a prophetess, or one who speaks for God; but hers was a kind of a musical event, wasn’t it, back in Exodus chapter 15.”

How many times did Aaron speak for God? His wasn’t even “musical!” Yet the Bible puts both of them on a par with Moses in their prophetic ministry:

Micah 6:

4 For I brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of the house of servants; and I sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.

He then continues:

“Deborah was a judge, and judges for, and in the absence of a man, the Lord used Deborah to bring about his will on one occasion; …”

That is more than just bad exegesis; it is dishonest and hypocritical. First of all, there were no “absence of men;” there were thousands of them around; but none of them evidently were as good as Deborah. Secondly, Deborah’s ministry was not an “occasional” one; it was very much an ongoing ministry, to the end of her life no doubt. Then he continues:

“… but when it came to going to war with the enemies, she was not about to lead the troops, and so she chose a man, Barak, to lead the troops.”

Another dishonest exegesis. How many “troops” did Samuel “lead to battle”? None that I know of. When God wanted wars to be fought in the days of Samuel, he did it in the same way that Deborah did, by appointing others to go and do it. The story of Saul is well known. In fact, Deborah did something that Samuel did’t! She did actually lead an army to war, which Samuel didn’t. When Deborah appointed Barak to go to war, Barak felt so fearful and inadequate to the task that he told Deborah he wouldn't go unless she went with him! And she did!

Judges 4:

4 And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.

5 And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.

6 And she sent and called Barak the son of Abinoam out of Kedeshnaphtali, and said unto him, Hath not the Lord God of Israel commanded, saying, Go and draw toward mount Tabor, and take with thee ten thousand men of the children of Naphtali and of the children of Zebulun?

7 And I will draw unto thee to the river Kishon Sisera, the captain of Jabin's army, with his chariots and his multitude; and I will deliver him into thine hand.

8 And Barak said unto her, If thou wilt go with me, then I will go: but if thou wilt not go with me, then I will not go.

9 And she said, I will surely go with thee: notwithstanding the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honour; for the Lord shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. And Deborah arose, and went with Barak to Kedesh.

So John MacArthur has got all of that badly wrong, on just about every account. He then continues:

“Another woman is mentioned as one who spoke for God in 2 Kings 22 by the name of Huldah.”

So what about her? Did she have an “ongoing prophetic ministry,” or didn’t she? If kings, priests, and ministers knew enough about her to seek her out, to inquire of the Lord through her, I describe that as an “ongoing prophetic ministry”. He then continues:

“And then in the New Testament you have Anna in the temple when Jesus was taken there, to be dedicated in the temple, and she spoke a word from the Lord. But she was not a lifelong prophet.”

Nobody is “born” a prophet. They become prophets at some point in their lives; and after that, they remain so to the end of their lives—unless they lose the gift and privilege by some kind of transgression. Every true prophet is a “lifelong prophet”. The Bible describes Anna as a prophetess, period:

Luke 2:

36 And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity;

Once a prophet, always a prophet! You don’t become a prophet one minute, and then lose the privilege next. If she was a prophetess, then she remained one for the rest of her life. It was a lifelong privilege. He then continues:

“No woman ever had an ongoing prophetic role.”

Says John MacArthur, not the Bible! If there were prophets and prophetesses, then theirs were an “ongoing prophetic role”. Nobody becomes a prophet one minute, and loses it next. Some prophets were more vocal and public in their assignments, like Samuel and Deborah; while others were less so, which included both men and women. In the Old Testament, there were many prophets who did not have such a public role as others (e.g. 1 Samuel 10:5; 1 Kings 18:4, 13), and of whose names we are not aware, because they did not have such a public role to play as the others did. But that didn’t make them any less prophets. That equally applies to men as well as to women. He continues:

“But occasionally God used women to speak for him.”

Does that include Deborah and Huldah, one of whom was a lifelong prophet-judge, and the other a lifelong prophetess, with an “ongoing ministry”? Both unquestionably had an “ongoing ministry,” no doubts about it.