More Examples Of Extrabiblical, Pre-Reformation Support For Eternal Security

In the ninth century, Rabanus Maurus wrote:

May The Lamb That Was Slain Receive The Reward Of His Suffering

"The Moravians were not the only missionaries inspired by Revelation 5, but probably the Moravians gave expression to the beauty of the missionary implications of this text better than anybody. And in the middle of the eighteenth century, they would get on their ships in North Germany to disappear forever out of their families' lives to peoples they had no idea whether they'd eat them or not, and as the ships pulled out from shore, they would lift their hands and say, 'May the Lamb that was slain receive the reward of his suffering.' That comes straight out of Revelation 5:9. 'May the Lamb that was slain, in my ministry, receive the reward of his suffering. He was slain for them, and I'm going to go be the means by which he gets his reward for his suffering.' I cannot imagine a vision of life more precious than that. I mean, if you could wake up every morning and preach to yourself, 'I am the instrument in the hands of the grace of God by which the Lamb slain will receive the reward of his suffering.'" (John Piper, at 27:20 in the video here)

The Hope Cherished By The Nations

"And it is in Him, too, we already see the concluding expression of the prophecy fulfilled: 'In His name shall the nations hope.' [Isaiah 11:10, Romans 15:12] And by this fulfillment, which no one can deny, men are encouraged to believe in that which is most impudently denied. For who could have hoped for that which even those who do not yet believe in Christ now see fulfilled among us, and which is so undeniable that they can but gnash their teeth and pine away? Who, I say, could have hoped that the nations would hope in the name of Christ, when He was arrested, bound, scourged, mocked, crucified, when even the disciples themselves had lost the hope which they had begun to have in Him? The hope which was then entertained scarcely by the one thief on the cross, is now cherished by nations everywhere on the earth, who are marked with the sign of the cross on which He died that they may not die eternally." (Augustine, The City Of God, 20:30)

If The Type Gives Confidence

"The angel feared the blood [Exodus 12:23]; for he knew of what it was a Type; he shuddered, thinking on the Lord's death; therefore he did not touch the door-posts. Moses said, Smear, and they smeared, and were confident. And you, having the Blood of the Lamb Himself, are ye not confident?" (John Chrysostom, Homilies On Hebrews, 27:1)

Heaven's Logic In Romans 8:32

The point of Romans 8:32 is that this love of God for his one and only Son was like a massive, Mount Everest obstacle standing between God and our salvation. Here was an obstacle almost insurmountable: Could God - would God - overcome his cherishing, admiring, treasuring, white-hot, infinite, affectionate bond with his Son and hand him over to be lied about and betrayed and denied and abandoned and mocked and flogged and beaten and spit on and nailed to a cross and pierced with a sword, like an animal being butchered and hung up on a rack?...

Would he really do that? If he would, then we could know with full certainty that whatever goal he was pursuing on the other side of that obstacle could never fail. There could be no greater obstacle. So whatever he was pursuing is as good as done….

Therefore, in Paul's a fortiori argument, God has done the hardest thing to give us everlasting happiness. He did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all. What does this guarantee? Paul puts it in the form of a rhetorical question (that means a question he expects us to immediately answer correctly): "how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?"…

I said that when I was twenty-three, this logic of heaven penetrated so deeply into my soul that it changed the way I think about everything - and that the change was full of hope….

I live my life every day by the promises of God. I owe every one of them to the logic of Romans 8:32….

Behind every one of those battles is the logic of heaven: "I did not spare my own Son; therefore, my promise to you cannot fail. I will help you. Go. Do what I have called you to do."

(John Piper, Why I Love The Apostle Paul [Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2019], 186-89)

Did Jesus die for the damned?

From a Facebook exchange:

Davenant cites Zanchi saying:

"It is not false that Christ died for all men: for the passion of Christ is offered to all in the Gospel. But he died effectually for the elect alone, because indeed they only are made partakers of the efficacy of the passion of Christ."

Hays 

How is the passion of Christ offered to all in the Gospel unless all hear the Gospel?

Jorge

I don’t think that is the point of the quote (not the main one at least), but that when the gospel is offered at earshot, it is truly offered irrespective of election.

Hays 

Perhaps, but that still wouldn't mean Christ died for all men.

Jorge 

If the offer is real and objective, then he did. Even in a sense.

Hays 

Well, the offer of the Gospel is conditional. If you repent of your sin and believe in Christ, you will be saved. Which doesn't entail universal atonement.

Jorge 

What is being offered is there is nothing to give for some?

Hays 

Again, it's conditional. Christ died for those who respond to the offer.

Jorge 

Sure, it is conditional and all that, but what is he offering to those who don’t respond positively?

Hays 

It's not a promise to those who don't respond. The offer is contingent on a receptive response.

Jorge

So, there is no offer until the hearer responds positively?

Hays 

No, it has nothing to do with chronology. It's not like there's some leftover atonement for sin for those who refuse the offer. Christ never died to atone for the sins of those who refuse the offer.

Jorge

That is an affirmation. But I keep asking, what is being offered to those who will reject?

Hays 

It's not an offer to those who reject it but to those who accept it.

Jorge

So, what is it for those who reject it?

Hays 

It's a promise provided that the offer is accepted.

Jorge

So, it is an offer. You previously said it wasn’t.

Hays 

No, it's a qualified offer. Why is that distinction so difficult to grasp? In one sense you could say those who reject it are promised nothing. Or you could say they are counterfactually promised something (if they were to accept it).

Jorge 

So, if some reject it, do they reject nothing?

Hays 

i) There's nothing in reserve for those who refuse to comply with the terms of the offer.

ii) You keep ignoring the qualified nature of the offer–as if it's either simply a promise or simply not a promise.

iii) The problem is looking for a shortcut formula to reconcile particularist passages of Scripture with universal sounding passages. It's a facile solution that doesn't work.

What's required is to exegete the more universal sounding passages to show that they are in fact consistent with the particularist passages.

Terry

The problem you have in seeing what is being said is your categories. You are falling into the error of thinking in terms of quantity rather than quality. Pecuniary rather than penal. Christ death was not a commercial transaction with the Father...so much suffering for so many sins plural.

Hays 

i) To begin with, you're making ignorant assumptions about my position. I don't take the position that Christ died for x number of sins, but that he died for x number of sinners. 

ii) In addition, "died for" is shorthand for "died with the intention of saving." Jesus didn't die with the intention of saving those who will never be saved.

Christ the plague-bearer

I'd like to expand on the plague metaphor in Isa 53, which this post accentuates:

http://www.therecapitulator.com/leviticus-leprosy-and-lent-in-the-light-of-the-corona-virus-crisis-part-4/

Metaphors, including theological metaphors, are so familiar that they often bounce right off of us. We don't take the time to visualize the metaphor. Yet metaphors can function as compact picturesque stories, and with regard to theological metaphors it is useful to step into the world of the metaphor and look around. Appreciate the surroundings. That's a way to deepen our appreciation of the metaphor and what it represents. 

Plague and pestilence were real horrors in the ancient world. That's what lends potency and sting to Isaiah's use of the image. He depicts Messiah as the vicarious plague-bearer. 

There are different ways we can imaginatively develop this metaphor. For instance, you might imagine a healer who can touch a plague victim and transfer the pathogen from the victim to himself. Once inside himself, the pathogen is destroyed by the healer's supernatural immune system.

Or you might imagine a virulent, highly contagious plague for which there's no natural resistance, much less immunity. It threatenes to wipe out the entire human race.

But there's one human being with a beneficial genetic mutation. If infected, it triggers his immune system. He develops antibodies that destroy the pathogen. And transfusions of his blood heal the sick and dying. 

Infection makes him sick. He suffers from the same painful debilitating symptoms. But his body is able to counterattack and create an antidote.

One way of telling the story is that his antibodies can be replicated and multiplied. Another way of telling the story is that after his blood cures a patient, transfusions of their blood cure patients. 

Although this is figurative, I once read about an Eskimo woman who was a healer. Not a witchdoctor. She was Christian. It's possible that her healing ability derived from pagan ancestors, but if so, it was co-oped and sanctified in her use. 

She could't raise the dead, restore the blind, or instantly heal broken bodies. But she could absorb pain. She should extract pain and take it into herself, where it would dissipate. 

Although I wouldn't swear by it, this was reported by an anthropologist who lived with villagers for a year. Based on firsthand observation. Turner, Edith. The Hands Feel It (Northern Illinois U. Press 1996).

The point is that when we think about vicarious atonement and penal substitution, one illustration is a plague-bearer. Jesus transfers the plague to himself. He extracts the plague, absorbs the plague, and destroys the plague in himself. 

A related illustration: we are cleansed by his blood transfusion. He transfers to us his antibodies.

It's important not to press the metaphor and confuse the metaphor with the reality which it was meant to illustrate. But abstractions have limitations, too. Scripture often uses disease figuratively. So it's instructive to mentally explore that.  

Christ became infected to cure us

http://www.therecapitulator.com/leviticus-leprosy-and-lent-in-the-light-of-the-corona-virus-crisis-part-4/

Can salvation be lost?

In response to a Facebook question:

Salvation can't be lost because:

i) It's not a matter of chance who will or won't be saved. The Father made that decision (election). Salvation is too important to be left to chance.

ii) The Son atoned for the sins of those on whose behalf he died. The Son didn't die for them in vain. He went on a mission to save them. He didn't come up short. He got exactly what he died for. He got exactly what he went for (John 17).

iii) The Spirit renews and preserves the saints. 

iv) The Father, Son, and Spirit complete the work they began. They don't leave the job half-finished.

v) Put another way, sinners were lost before they were saved. So they can't be lost again. What's the point of saving the lost if they end up right where they began? If it comes full circle, why not leave them where God found them? 

Easter Resources 2020

I've been posting a collection of Easter resources each year for about a decade:

2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019

There's an archive of our posts with the Easter label here. And you can search for posts with other labels by replacing the word Easter in the URL with another phrase (Resurrection, Empty Tomb, Cross, etc.). Keep clicking on Older Posts at the bottom of the screen to see more posts.

We've written some e-books that address Easter issues. See the e-books section of the sidebar to the right.

A few years ago, I posted a collection of articles on skeptical myths about the church fathers. Many of those articles address Easter issues.

Here are some examples of posts we've written on Easter subjects over the years:

Miracles On Video
Easter Prophecy Fulfillment
Resurrection Evidence Outside The New Testament
Early Non-Extant Documents On The Resurrection
Evidence For The Empty Tomb
Early Affirmation Of The Empty Tomb From Gentile Non-Christians
Jesus' Burial And Empty Tomb Outside The Gospels And Acts
Evidence For The Shroud Of Turin
Fifty Agreements Among The Resurrection Accounts
The Consistencies Among The Resurrection Accounts In 1 Corinthians 15, The Gospels, And Acts
The Restrained Nature Of The Resurrection Accounts
The Contrast Between The Prominence Of Female Witnesses In Luke And Their Lack Of Prominence In Acts
Alleged Errors And Contradictions In The Resurrection Accounts
Harmonizing The Resurrection Accounts
The Context In Which The Gospels Were Composed
How Early The Synoptics And Acts Were Written
The Authorship Of Matthew
The Authorship Of Mark
The Authorship Of Luke And Acts
The Authorship Of John
The Authorship Of The Pauline Letters (see the comments section)
The Historicity Of Acts
Easter Material Corroborated In The Letters Of Peter
Why It's Significant That The Earliest Sources Don't Narrate The Resurrection Appearance To James
Evidence That Saul Of Tarsus Saw Jesus Risen From The Dead
The Spiritual Body Of 1 Corinthians 15
Why Didn't The Risen Jesus Appear To More And Different People?
Why Doesn't Jesus Appear To Everybody?
Matthew 27:52-53
How The Apostles Died
How To Make A Case For The Resurrection
Independent, Converging Lines Of Evidence For Jesus' Resurrection
What If Alleged Miracles, Like Jesus' Resurrection, Were Caused By A Currently Unknown Natural Process?
Miracles In The Modern World
Reviews Of Debates On Jesus' Resurrection

After the 2019 Easter Resources post linked above, Steve Hays linked an article on astronomical evidence for the date of the crucifixion. Here's something I wrote about Jesus' fulfillment of the first three Servant Songs in Isaiah. Steve presented an argument for penal substitution based on the events surrounding Jesus' death. I wrote a post addressing the common claim that the guards at the tomb, people touching Jesus' resurrection body, and other such details in the resurrection accounts were fabricated in an attempt to make the resurrection seem more credible. Steve linked a video of Darrell Bock and Gary Habermas discussing the evidence for the resurrection and its implications. He also posted some Good Friday artwork and music (here, here, here, here, and here). And he posted a satirical video about the regulative principle of worship and Easter. I wrote about the significance of prophecy fulfillment in the context of Easter. Steve responded to a skeptic of the resurrection. His response addresses Paul's view of the resurrection, the empty tomb, and a lot of other issues. I wrote about how the gospels are corroborated in the letters of Peter. The post addresses the crucifixion, the empty tomb, whether the author of the letters claims to have been a resurrection witness, and other issues related to Easter. Steve wrote about the appearance of Jesus to Paul on the road to Damascus, the nature of the appearance and the evidence for it. Later, he posted some excerpts from a book about the resurrection of the Servant in Isaiah 52-53. In another post, he addressed the light motif in scripture and how it relates to resurrection. He later discussed the passages in John 20 that refer to Jesus appearing to people after the door where they were had been locked. He also wrote about the implications of idealism for Jesus' death and resurrection. I made some suggestions about how we should argue for prophecy fulfillment, such as by using the Servant Songs to argue for fulfillment in the modern world. Steve linked an article by Gary Habermas on how Jewish scholars have viewed Jesus' resurrection. I wrote about some connections between Easter and Christmas in Isaiah's Servant Songs. Steve posted about a recent book by Lydia McGrew, and he commented on some issues related to Easter in the process. He then commented on John 20 and whether and how the resurrected Jesus walked through walls. He also linked a video by Michael Brown about Matthew 27:52-53. I expanded on the theme of light in the gospels, in connection with Jesus seeing himself as the light of Isaiah's Servant Songs. Steve addressed some alleged contradictions among the gospel accounts about the women who went to Jesus' tomb and, in another post, the women at the cross. I wrote about video evidence for miracles, which is relevant to disputes over the possibility of miracles and what evidence we have for them. The post discusses some of the principles involved in evaluating miracle claims and the significance of video evidence, and I provide links to some online videos of miracles. Steve quoted Lydia McGrew on the earliest evidence for the resurrection. He also quoted her on the subject of harmonizing the resurrection accounts.

Wrath and redemption

These are very confused objections to Calvinism:

https://www.facebook.com/jesse.morrell.1/posts/10157008212326765

1. The Bible is written in popular language, so Reformed theology often uses biblical language and imagery about God's wrath. Nothing wrong with that.

2. When, however, it comes to systematic and philosophical theology, greater precision is required. What does God's "wrath" stand for? Is that essentially an emotional state? Or is it a colorful, anthropomorphic way to express God's disapproval of sin?

Likewise, does the atonement pacify God's emotional state, or does it satisfy divine justice? Is it psychological or ethical? The literal attribute isn't anger but justice. 

3. The point is not that the atonement is anthropomorphic, but that scripture sometimes uses anthropomorphic descriptions to represent divine salvation and judgment. That understanding is hardly unique to Calvinism. Unless you think Yahweh is actually like the pagan gods of the ancient Near East and Greco-Roman mythology, with their recognizably humanoid psychological makeup, some adjustment is required. To take a comparison, Jesus isn't literally a pascal lamb, but his redemption action is symbolized by the pascal lamb. 

4. The atonement doesn't change God's mind. It's not as if there's a prior time when he's "literally angry with sinners," and a later time when he's pacified. If God is timeless, if God knows the future, then it's not as if he has to wait for the atonement to take effect to make up his mind. Indeed, if God planned the atonement, then there was never a time when that wasn't a factor in his view of the elect. 

So it's hypothetical. Absent the atonement, all sinners would face eschatological justice. The atonement doesn't change God's mind or attitude. Rather, it changes the outcome in the counterfactual sense that absent the atonement, there'd be a different outcome: universal damnation.

There's nothing contradictory about the Reformed position in this regard, if you allow a modicum of intelligence to influence your hermeneutics. Critics may disagree with that explanation, but if you're going to accuse of position of internal contradiction, then the question at issue is whether it's consistent on it is own grounds and not whether you reject the paradigm. 

Portal between two worlds

We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain (Heb 6:19).

In science fiction, there are two kinds of portals: portals from one time to another and portals from one place to another. The first concerns time travel from past to future or future to past while the second concerns multiverse travel from one parallel universe to another.

On a related note, The Magician's Nephew was the last book Lewis wrote in the Narnia series. It provides a backstory for Narnia. One particular example is how it provides a backstory for the magic wardrobe. The wardrobe is made of apple wood that originates in Narnia. The unstated principle is that the wardrobe is a portal between Narnia and our world because it exists in our world but it originates in Narnia. So it's connected to both worlds. 

These are fictional examples. Heb 6:19 illustrates the same basic principle, only this is factual. The souls of living Christians exist in this world, but are connected to heaven or the world to come by an anchor chain. Like a lifeline, where one end is wrapped around the waist of the Christian while Jesus is holding the other end from heaven and reeling it in. Jesus connects us to heaven and pulls us through because he came from heaven and returned to heaven. 

The Trinity in relief

There's a simple reason why the Trinity lies in the background of the OT but the foreground of the NT. That's because salvation is Trinitarian. The Atonement is Trinitarian. It unites the work of the Father, Son, and Spirit. The Son doesn't die for people at random. Rather, he consented to become Incarnate, become the Savior, on condition that his redemptive death would secure the salvation of all those the Father gave him (Jn 6,10,17). Likewise, the Father adopts and justifies the redeemed. So the Father and Son work in tandem. Likewise, the Spirit renews and preserves all those whom the Son redeems. So the Son and Spirit work in tandem. 

It was therefore inevitable that the Trinity would come into relief when the Atonement came into relief. The OT was preparatory, but when the Atonement is actually implemented, the three players will come to the fore. 

"In Christ"

1. "In Christ" is a Pauline catchphrase, but what does it mean? Commentators aren't very helpful. They say things like it means "in union" with Christ, but that just substitutes one spacial metaphor for another. Or they say it means "in the sphere" of Christ," which again, substitutes one spacial metaphor for another. They are paraphrasing the catchphrase rather than defining it.

2. Just considered as a spatial metaphor, the metaphor implies a point of contrast between inside and outside. These are mutually definable. What it means to be inside depends in part on what it means to be outside. Let's consider some generic associations for people in the ancient world:

i) It was dangerous to be outside at night. You could get hopelessly lost. You could be attacked by nocturnal predators (e.g. the Asiatic lion). They can see you but you can't see them. You could step on a venomous snake. Crime was higher at night (that's still the case). 

ii) You didn't want to get caught in a storm (e.g. Ecclesiastes 13). You seek shelter. 

iii) If an army invaded, you needed to take refuge inside a fortified city. You didn't want to be left outside the defensive walls. 

3. Let's consider biblical connotations of the inside/outside dichotomy:

i) Inside the garden of Eden, with the river, fruit trees, tame animals, and tree of life. Expulsion from Eden: an inhospitable wilderness. Thirst, mortality, vulnerability. 

ii) Safe inside Noah's ark, doomed to die in the flood if stranded outside the ark.

iii) Hell as outer darkness

iv) The new Jerusalem. The damned are barred from entering (Rev 21:27). 

ii) The parable of the wise and foolish virgins. The foolish virgins are shut out. Find themselves on the wrong side of the door. 

ii) The plagues of Egypt: 

• The plague of hail. Better dive for cover lest you be struck dead by hailstones. 

• Plague of darkness. Sunlight in Goshen, pitch black outside Goshen. 

• Plague of the firstborn. Israelites inside their huts, with blood on the door jam, are safe from the angel of death. Outside the angel of death strikes the firstborn Egyptians.

4. However, the point of contrast isn't merely negative, where to be inside simply shields you from what lies outside. What lies inside can be good. A home that contain food and drink, a bed, a fireplace, and companionship. 

Take Paul's adoptive metaphor (e.g. Eph 1:5). Consider an orphan who's adopted. Who suddenly has all the benefits of an "instant" family by virtue of his adoption. His condition instantly changes for the better by virtue of his relationship to his adoptive father (in the ancient world) or adoptive mother and father. 

Consider if the most popular student in school befriends a loner. He befriends a low-status student whom other students have shunned. He brings the classmate into his social circle. That instantly elevates the standing of the loner.  The friendship brings perks. He now has access to the same things. So long as he is with his popular benefactor, he can do the same things.The benefactor shares his good fortune with the unfortunate classmate. 

By the same token, to be "in Christ" is to enjoy all the blessings that flow from the atonement. Because the atonement is vicarious, the benefits are made available to the redeemed by means of their relationship with the Redeemer. 

Vampirism, original sin, and redemption

There's an interesting parallel between vampirism, original sin, and redemption. In vampire lore, vampires have a genealogical identity. They turn humans into vampires by biting them. Vampirism spreads from one vampire to the next. So there are family trees of vampires. 

In addition, a vampire killer doesn't have to destroy every vampire individually. If he can track down the master vampire and destroy him, all his descendants instantly revert to human. So he doesn't have to destroy any of the descendants. He can save them from the curse of vampirism at one stroke by destroying the master vampire.  

Of course, vampires are fictional characters, and they make no scientific sense. At best, they only make sense as creatures of the occult. But the parallels between vampirism and Christian theology are striking. 

Did Christ give up a weekend?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCu1bkfxdaA&t=4s

I agree with Craig that infernal suffering is finite in the sense that the damned experience it in finite increments. However, I don't agree that the suffering of the damned was compressed, and that's why Christ experienced. Guilt is qualitative, not quantitative, hence the atonement is qualitative, not quantitative.

Atonement by crucifixion

Historically, many Arminians reject penal substitution. They agree with Calvinists that if Jesus died to satisfy God's justice on behalf of the redeemed, then all the redeemed must be saved, since there's no judicial basis for them to suffer eschatological punishment. In addition, progressive theologians like Randal Rauser find the idea of penal substitution repugnant.

Proponents of penal substitution quote and exegete the standard prooftexts. And I think those carry the day.

There is, though, a neglected, but straightforward argument for penal substitution that doesn't rely on the standard prooftexts. Hidden in plain sight is Christ's voluntary death by crucifixion. 

It can't be seriously doubted that the Gospels (indeed, the NT generally) present the Crucifixion in vicarious, sacrificial terms. If, however, Jesus didn't die a penal substitutionary death, then why did he choose death by crucifixion? Why did he undergo a type of death that's emblematic of vicarious sacrifice? If penal substitution is false, why did he die a violent death at all? If penal substitution is false, why did he have to undergo any kind of death? Whatever the alternative to penal substitution, it doesn't require death, does it? Much less a death with vicarious, sacrificial connotations.

Perhaps opponents of penal substitution will attempt to drive a wedge between vicarious atonement and penal substitution. If so, in what respect is his voluntary vicarious death not punitive in character?

A last-ditch argument might be to claim that Jesus never intended to die by crucifixion; rather, he was overtaken by events. His death, or mode of death, was due to unforeseeable circumstances.

But in the Gospels, Jesus deliberately and repeatedly provokes the authorities, knowing full well that he is courting execution. Moreover, he eludes the lynch mobs. He eludes death by stoning. So Jesus is very single-minded about how he will die. 

Likewise, at his trial, he makes statements that are incriminating from the viewpoint of his accusers and judges. And he refuses to defend himself before Pilate. So, by process of elimination, he leaves the authorities with no other recourse. He systematically engineers his death by crucifixion.  

But if penal substitution is false, he was sending a very confusing message to onlookers. How else could the disciples be expected to interpret his death? 

Is damnation a process crime?

I'll comment on Craig:

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer/P30/limited-atonement

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.

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.

i) Open theists would say the same thing about how Craig interprets many passages of Scripture.

ii) The "acrobatics" metaphor is such a shopworn cliche. 

iii) I've discussed the usual Arminian prooftexts:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/06/arminian-prooftexts.html

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.

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.

It's interesting to see him concede that the Reformed position is a "pretty powerful argument". 

"Jesus gave up his weekend for our sins"

Jesus died for our sins. But he was only dead for 3 days. So what did he sacrifice? His weekend. Jesus gave up his weekend for our sins.

— Michael Shermer (@michaelshermer) June 6, 2017

From the great atheist theologian Michael Shermer. It's always a mistake when someone tries to be more clever than they are. The result is to expose how dumb they are. 

Shermer's quip is a category mistake. Jesus died to atone for the guilt of sin.* Guilt (culpability, blameworthiness) is a moral category, which makes it a qualitative rather than quantitative category. Duration is quantitative. The duration of his death is irrelevant to its atoning value. The principle isn't duration but substitution. 

*To be more precise, to atone for elect sinners.

The Atonement

A freebie:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/atonement/FB45E932C6907E1DCEE99E02BA84B16B