Daily Archives: January 1, 2014

How Did Jefferson Know?

5 Pt. Salt

Thomas Jefferson by Rembrandt Peale 1800

[More on Government and Politics ]

John F. Kennedy once held a dinner in the White House for a group of the brightest minds in the nation at that time. He made this statement:

This is perhaps the assembly of the most intelligence ever to
gather at one time in the White House with the exception of
when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.

Especially read the last quote from 1802….

“When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.”

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

“It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world. ”

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they…

View original post 187 more words

Top 50 Biblioblogs – December 2013 quarter

The 100 Top Christian Blogs

About this list of the 100 Top Christian Blogs:

To make this list of top Christian blogs, I gathered and inspected about 500 Christian blogs and ranked them using a variety of factors. Some of the blogs I inspected are listed below the list of the 100 Top Christians blogs.

I will update this list occasionally, so if you want your blog to be considered for future ranking, and your blog is not listed below the list of 100 Top Christian blogs, please include a link to your blog in the comment section. Thanks!

Below is an explanation of how I went about ranking these 100 Top Christian Blogs.

Read More: http://www.tillhecomes.org/100-top-christian-blogs/

Essential Apologetics PowerPoint Series Free

In partnership with The PowerPoint Apologist, Apologetics 315 presents a series of 12 Free PowerPoint presentations, covering 12 essential topics in apologetics.
These are free to download, modify, and use for your own apologetics presentations. (However, please retain the final two slides featuring the PowerPoint Apologist and Apologetics 315 resources.)

Here are all of the PowerPoint files in one place:
  1. “Why Apologetics?” – PPT | Slideshare
  2. “Why Believe Anything?” – PPT | Slideshare
  3. “Why God?—part 1: A First Cause” – PPT | Slideshare
  4. “Why God?—part 2: An Intelligent Cause” – PPT | Slideshare
  5. “Why God?—part 3: A Moral Cause” – PPT | Slideshare
  6. “Why Scripture?—A Defense of the New Testament” – PPT | Slideshare
  7. “Why Jesus?—The Historical Jesus” – PPT | Slideshare
  8. “Why Jesus?—The Resurrection of Jesus” – PPT | Slideshare
  9. “Why Jesus?—The God-Man Jesus” – PPT | Slideshare
  10. “Why Christianity?—In An Evil World” – PPT | Slideshare
  11. “Why Christianity?—In A Pluralistic World” – PPT | Slideshare
  12. “Why Christianity?—In My World” – PPT | Slideshare
PPT = PowerPoint File
Slideshare = Online Slideshare Presentation

R.C. Sproul’s Commentary on John—Free eBook

During the month of January, Reformation Trust is giving away the eBook edition of R.C. Sproul’s commentary on the Gospel of John.

In John, the second volume in the St. Andrew’s Expositional Commentary series, Dr. Sproul deals with major themes in his easily understandable style. This introduction to the Gospel of John is packed with insights and exhortations that will draw the reader closer to the Savior and encourage him or her to a greater depth of love and devotion to Him.


Obama Christmas, minus church, deemed ‘unusual’

Noticeably absent from the first family’s Christmas season celebrations, say White House watchers: A trip to church.

The  New York Times reported that President Obama and his family celebrated a  “low-key Christmas” on vacation in Hawaii, minus the church service.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/30/obama-christmas-minus-church-deemed-unusual/

The Present of “His Presence” – “Emmanuel” — God is with us!

By Pastor Larry DeBruyn
The mystery which has been hidden from the past ages and generations… has now been manifested to His saints, to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.(Colossians 1:26-27, NASB)

Among evangelicals there’s a lot of chatter and publicity about seeking “the manifest presence of God.” For example, some musicians, singers and worship leaders boldly claim that their music can escort listeners “through the door of worship, right into the heart and presence of God.”[1]  Christian worshippers are classified as “inner court, outer court, or holy of holies Christians, each one needing a certain period of time to come into the manifest presence of God.”[2]  So it becomes incumbent upon the worship team to lead congregants into the divine dimension.

Other evangelicals talk about “practicing the presence,” perhaps by employing mood music, cultivating solitude and silence, or practicing other spiritual disciplines to experience it. Often spelled with an upper case “P,” masses of evangelical Christians are desiring to experience a divine presence in which Jesus might speak to them in an exciting new way. In his newly published book, “Another Jesus” Calling: How False Christs Are Entering the Church Through Contemplative Prayer,[3]  Warren Smith points out that, in her best-selling evangelical book Jesus Calling (Thomas Nelson, 2004 ),[4]  Sarah Young uses “The word ‘Presence’… more that 365 times….” He notes further that, “the term [Presence] is also commonly used in New Age/New Spirituality.”[5]  In light of all the talk going on about contemplating or experiencing God’s presence, biblical Christians ought to know something of what Scripture teaches about God’s presence so that His Word can inform us regarding seeking after God’s presence, whether the experience(s) of it ought to be embraced or shunned, whether they are authentic or synthetic, or worse, demonic.

BP’s most-read stories of 2013

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP) — In a year filled with headlines about healthcare, national debt, same-sex marriage and a slew of international challenges, a story about a hip-hop artist was the most-read article of 2013 on Baptist Press’ website.

Google Analytics, which tracks web traffic, also showed a story posted in March about Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty and his Christian faith, and another article on the controversy that followed Exodus International’s decision to close its doors after decades of helping people overcome homosexual behavior, made the Top 10.

The following Top 10 list for 2013 includes a brief description with each headline.

Miscellaneous Bible Questions: What Is the Golden Rule?


The “Golden Rule” is the name given by Bible translators to a principle Jesus taught in His Sermon on the Mount. That is to say, the actual words “golden rule” are not found in Scripture, just as the words “sermon on the mount” are also not found. These titles were later added by Bible translation teams when describing different passages of Scripture in order to make Bible study a little easier. The phrase “Golden Rule” began to be ascribed to this passage of Scripture during the 16–17th centuries, as it was already a popular saying at that time. This is important to note because when talking about the Golden Rule, Christians sometimes unknowingly and incorrectly ascribe it to Jesus’ actual words.

What we call the Golden Rule refers to Matthew 7:12: “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” Jesus knew the human heart and its selfishness. In fact, in the preceding verse, He describes human beings as “you who are evil.” This is important to grasp because, as He continues to say in v. 16, human beings still know how to give good gifts to their children even though they are evil and selfish by nature. This verse leads into the Golden Rule which says to actively pursue and treat others as we would like to be treated in all things.

The English Standard Version translates it well: “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” By ending the “rule” with the “Law and the Prophets,” Jesus has condensed the entire Old Testament into this principle. This was something the Jews of Jesus’ day would have known by their knowledge of the Old Testament Scriptures, as Moses wrote: “Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD” (Leviticus 19:18). Again, we see even here the implication that people are naturally self-lovers due to sin (Jeremiah 17:19), so it gave the audience a place to start in how they should treat others: how they want to be treated.

As good as the Golden Rule is in its command to treat others, it also reminds us how selfish we really are! Jesus’ audience could relate to this command (as the Jews of Moses’ day could) because people universally demand respect, love, and appreciation whether they deserve it or not. Jesus knew this and used it to show how His people should treat others: how they themselves wanted to be loved, respected, and appreciated. This rule to treat others with such high regard is also the second in the greatest of commandments, followed only by the command to love God Himself (Matthew 22:39).

What is interesting to note about this tenet of the Christian Scriptures is that no other mainline religious or philosophical system is its equal. The biblical Golden Rule is not the “ethic of reciprocity” that is so commonly espoused by non-Christian moralists. Frequently, liberal critics, and/or secular humanists attempt to explain the golden rule as a common ethic shared by all religions. This is not the case. When Jesus gave this command in Matthew 7:12, it was radically different from all other forms of it—except for the Jewish Torah—used up to that time or since. The difference is subtle, but very important. The biblical Golden Rule is a positive command to show active love, as opposed its negative, passive counterparts. A quick survey of Eastern religions and philosophies will expose this common inversion, some of which have been described as the “silver rule” due to its inverted command:

•     Confucianism: “Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you” Analects 15:23.

•     Hindusim: “This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you” Mahabharata 5:1517.

•     Buddhism: “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.” Udana-Varga 5:18

The Golden Rule as stated by Jesus is radically different in that it is an active, positive command to do good to others, as opposed to the negative, restraining commands to not hurt others. The command to love is what separates the Christian ethic from every other system’s ethic. In fact, the Bible is so radical in its command to actively love that Christians are told to love even their enemies, something unheard of in other religions (Matthew 5:43–44; cf. Exodus 23:4–5).

Obeying the Christian ethic and imperative to love others is a mark of a true Christian (John 13:35). In fact, Christians cannot even claim to love God if they don’t actively love other people as well because, “If someone says, ‘I love God’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen” (1 John 4:20). The Golden Rule encapsulates this idea and is unique to the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.[1]


[1] Got Questions Ministries. (2010). Got Questions? Bible Questions Answered. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

Questions about Creation: What Is the Day-Age Theory?


Although Moses wrote the book of Genesis approximately thirty-four hundred years ago, it has been in just the last couple of centuries that serious debate over the nature and date of creation has developed. Consequently, there are now a number of theories relative to the creation account and one of them is called the Day-Age theory. Basically, this is a belief that the “days” spoken of in the first chapter of Genesis are sequential periods and not literal 24-hour days. Each day, therefore is thought to represent a much longer, albeit undefined, period of time, such as a million or more years. Essentially, it is an attempt to harmonize Scripture with theistic evolution.

Science has never disproved one word of the Bible. Nevertheless, in the last century and a half the scientific community has done a remarkable job of indoctrinating us with their worldview, one that is very much opposed to the truth of Scripture. However, the truth is that the Bible is the supreme truth and it should be the standard by which scientific theory should be evaluated, not vice-versa. At the very core of most of these contrived theories is an attempt to remove God from the equation. And one of the unfortunate consequences of questioning the historicity of Genesis is that the floodgates burst open for man to question every part of God’s Word that does not agree with our limited intellectual abilities. However, everything Scripture teaches about sin and death requires a literal interpretation of the first three chapters of Genesis. That being said, let’s review some of the arguments made by the proponents of the Day-Age theory.

Adherents of this theory often point out that the word used for “day” in Hebrew, yom, sometimes refers to a period of time that is more than a literal twenty-four hour day. One scriptural passage in particular often looked upon in support of this theory is 2 Peter 3:8 where it says “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.” However, as with all biblical interpretation, one must look at the context of the entire passage. In 2 Peter 3:3–10 we see that Peter is talking about scoffers in the last days as they question the second coming of Christ. This passage simply reminds us that God stands outside of time and we should not doubt the occurrence of a future biblical event simply because it seems to be taking a long time from our limited human perspective. Accordingly, 2 Peter 3:8 has nothing to do with the length of the creation week, nor was it meant to turn “day” into a mathematical formula.

Each day in the first chapter of Genesis is described as having an evening and a morning. Indeed, these two words—evening and morning—are used extensively in the Old Testament and each time they refer to normal days. Moreover, outside Genesis yom is used with a number hundreds of times—i.e., “one day” and each time it means an ordinary day. If Moses wanted to convey a longer period of time he could have used either olam or qedem, in place of yom.

Another reason given for a metaphorical “day” as postulated by this theory is that with the sun not being made until day four, how could there have been ordinary days (i.e. day and night) before this? However, the sun is not needed for a day and night. What is needed is light and a rotating Earth. The “evening and morning” indicates a rotating Earth, and as far as light is concerned, recall that God’s very first command was “Let there be light” and there was light (Genesis 1:3). Separating the light from the darkness was the very first thing our Creator did. Also, remember that in Revelation 21:23 we see that the New Jerusalem “does not need the sun or moon to shine on it” as the “glory of God” will provide the “light.” At the beginning of creation, God’s radiant light would have certainly been sufficient until the luminaries were created three days later.

Additionally, if the “days” of Genesis are really long periods of time such as millions or billions of years, then God’s Word is completely undermined at its very foundation as we would then have disease, suffering and death before the fall of man, even though Scripture clearly indicates that “sin entered the world through one man (Adam), and death through sin” (Romans 5:12). Thus, it is clear that there was no death prior to Adam’s act of disobedience in the Garden of Eden. If this theory were true, it would nullify the doctrine of the fall of mankind into sin. Furthermore, it would also render void the doctrine of the Atonement, for if there was no “fall” why would we need a Redeemer?

Martin Luther once said: “But, if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are … since God is speaking, it is not fitting for you wantonly to turn His Word in the direction you wish it to go.” Instead of looking to science to tell us what God really meant, all we really need to do is study Scripture, daily and eagerly, just like the Bereans (Acts 17:11), as all of it was inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16), and all of it is true (Psalm 119:160).

Christ Himself spoke of the importance of believing in Moses’ writings (John 5:45–47). And in Exodus 20:11, this is what Moses had to say: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.”[1]

[1] Got Questions Ministries. (2010). Got Questions? Bible Questions Answered. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

Questions about the Holy Spirit: What Is the Gift of Encouragement?


The gift of encouragement or exhortation is found in Paul’s list of gifts in Romans 12:7–8. The word translated “encourage” or “exhortation” is the Greek word paracletos”, or “paraclete” which basically means “to call to one’s side.”

Paracletos” can have several meanings, including exhort, urge, encourage, and comfort. All of these make up the gift of encouragement. For example, Paul often urged and exhorted his readers to act on something he wrote. A good example is Romans 12:1–2, where Paul urges the Romans to present their bodies to God as living sacrifices. By doing this, they would know and understand God’s will.

Interestingly, when Jesus spoke to His disciples in the upper room, He spoke of the Holy Spirit, as “Helper,” or “Comforter” (John 14:16, 26, 15:26), which is why the Holy Spirit is referred to as the Paraclete. The ministry of the Holy Spirit was important to Jesus and to us. A person with the gift of encouragement can use this gift in both a public and a private setting. It can be seen in counseling, discipleship, mentoring and preaching. The body of Christ is built up in faith as a result the ministry of those with the gift of encouragement.

The gift of encouragement differs from the gift of teaching in that it focuses on the practical aspects of the Bible. Whereas one with the gift of teaching focuses on meaning and content of the word, along with accuracy and application, one with the gift of encouragement focuses on the practical application of the Word. He or she can relate to others, both in groups and individually, by understanding their needs and sympathizing with them. This person can help another person move from pessimism to optimism.

Probably the best example of one with the gift of encouragement is Barnabas who is described as “the son of encouragement” (Acts 4:36). We see Barnabas in Acts 13:43 encouraging the believers to continue in the grace of God. In Acts 15:36–41, Paul and Barnabas had a disagreement over John Mark’s involvement in their ministry. John Mark had deserted them in Pamphylia. Barnabas was desirous of taking him with them, but Paul was not. While we do not know the exact words spoken, it seems very likely that Barnabas believed John Mark had potential in ministry and he encouraged Paul to give him a second chance. Paul and Barnabas separated, John Mark going with Barnabas, but we see later that John Mark proved himself faithful, no doubt through Barnabas and his gift of encouragement (2 Timothy 4:11). This is the result of the gift of encouragement; others are helped and become more effective for Christ.[1]

[1] Got Questions Ministries. (2010). Got Questions? Bible Questions Answered. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

36 Signs The Media Is Lying To You About How Radiation From Fukushima Is Affecting The West Coast

The west coast of the United States is being absolutely fried by radiation from the Fukushima nuclear disaster, and the mainstream media is not telling us the truth about this. What you are about to see is a collection of evidence that is quite startling. Taken collectively, this body of evidence shows that nuclear radiation from Fukushima is affecting sea life in the Pacific Ocean and animal life along the west coast of North America in some extraordinary ways. But the mainstream media continues to insist that we don’t have a thing to worry about. The mainstream media continues to insist that radiation levels in the Pacific and along the west coast are perfectly safe. Are they lying to us? Evaluate the evidence compiled below and come to your own conclusions…

#1 Independent researchers have measured alarmingly high levels of radiation on the beaches of the west coast. For example, the video posted below was taken on December 23rd, 2013 at Pacifica State Beach. As you can see in this video, radiation levels near the water are up to five times higher than normal background (Read More…)

How Will The Economy Improve In 2014 If Almost Everyone Has Less Money To Spend?

Is the U.S. consumer tapped out? If so, how in the world will the U.S. economy possibly improve in 2014? Most Americans know that the U.S. economy is heavily dependent on consumer spending. If average Americans are not out there spending money, the economy tends not to do very well. Unfortunately, retail sales during the holiday season appear to be quite disappointing and the middle class continues to deeply struggle. And for a whole bunch of reasons things are likely going to be even tougher in 2014. Families are going to have less money in their pockets to spend thanks to much higher health insurance premiums under Obamacare, a wide variety of tax increases, higher interest rates on debt, and cuts in government welfare programs. The short-lived bubble of false prosperity that we have been enjoying for the last couple of years is rapidly coming to an end, and 2014 certainly promises to be a very “interesting year”. (Read More….)

Zero Hedges Trends To Watch For In 2014

Trend #1: Central Planning intervention in stock and bond markets will continue, despite diminishing returns on Central State/Bank intervention

Trend #2: The omnipotence of the Federal Reserve will suffer a fatal erosion of confidence as recession voids Fed policy and pronouncements of “recovery”

Trend #3: The Mainstream Media (MSM) will continue to lose credibility as it parrots Central Planners’ perception management

Trend #4: The failure of what is effectively the “State religion,” Keynesianism, will leave policy makers in the Central State and Bank bereft of policy alternatives

Read More

Zero Hedges 2013 Greatest Hits: Presenting The Most Popular Posts Of The Past Year

The fifth anniversary of Zero Hedge is just around the corner, and so, for the fifth year in a row we continue our tradition of summarizing what you, our readers, found to be the most relevant, exciting, and actionable news of the year, determined objectively by the number of page views. Those eager for a brief stroll down memory lane of prior years can do so at their leisure, by going back in time to our top articles of 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. For everyone else, without further ado, these are the articles that readers found to be the most popular posts of the past 365 days.

Read More

David Henderson on “the self”

“Because God no longer occupies center stage, terms like self-love, self-expression, self-confidence, and self-fulfillment, none of which graces the pages fo the Scriptures, begin to dominate the church’s conversation. Meanwhile other “self” words straight from the Bible like self-surrender, self-sacrifice, self-denial, and self-control slip into disuse. Self, great big and smack dab in the middle, squeezes out the notions of a holy God, a fallen self, an undeserved gift of Grace in Jesus Christ, and a divine call on one’s whole life. When this happens, we may be preaching, we may be sharing faith, but what we are communicating (or this author would add, what we are living) is not genuine Christianity. In Christianity, the one place the self cannot be is at the center. That is the rightful place of God alone.”

-David Henderson as quoted by Paul David Tripp in A Quest for More

Mark McIntyre | January 1, 2014 at 5:42 am | URL: http://wp.me/p2vDNc-28h

David Henderson on the self

Questions about Theology: What Is Amyraldism?


Amyraldism is an off-shoot of Calvinistic theology (sometimes called “4-point Calvinism” or “moderate Calvinism”). It is named after its creator, Moses Amyraut, a 16th-century French theologian, who was influential in the development of the doctrine of “hypothetical redemption” or “hypothetical universalism.” This doctrine, in essence, softens the Calvinistic doctrine of limited atonement. In order to better understand Amyraldism, it might be beneficial to recap what Calvinism is.

Classic Calvinism centers on the so-called five points of Calvinism. It should be noted that Calvinism isn’t limited to just five points, nor was it the invention of John Calvin. Rather, Calvin put together his system of five points from the clear doctrines of Scripture. The five points of Calvinism were responses by the Dutch Reformed Church to Arminianism, another five-point system which was developed by Jacob Arminius (1560–1609), a Dutch theologian. The five points of Calvinism are summarized below:

1. Total Depravity—Man, in his fallen state, is completely incapable of doing any good that is acceptable to God.

2. Unconditional Election—As a result of man’s total depravity, he is unable (and unwilling) to come to God for salvation. Therefore, God must sovereignly choose those who will be saved. His decision to elect individuals for salvation is unconditional. It is not based on anything in man, but solely on God’s grace.

3. Limited Atonement—In order to save those whom God has unconditionally elected, atonement for their sin must be made. God the Father sends His Son, Jesus Christ, to atone for the sins of the elect and secure their pardon by His death on the cross.

4. Irresistible Grace—The Holy Spirit applies the finished work of salvation to the elect in “space and time” by irresistibly drawing them to faith and repentance. This saving call of the Holy Spirit (not to be confused with the general call to preach the gospel to all people) cannot be resisted and is referred to as an efficacious call.

5. Perseverance of the Saints—Those whom God has elected, atoned for and efficaciously called are preserved in faith until the last day. They will never fall away because God has secured them with the seal of the Holy Spirit. The saints persevere because God preserves them.

As mentioned earlier, the particular point that Amyraldism takes issue with is the third point, limited atonement. Amyraldism replaces it with the concept of “hypothetical universalism,” which in essence asserts that Christ died for the sins of all people, but because God knew that not all would respond (due to man’s total depravity, to which Amyraldians do hold), He elected some to whom He would impart saving faith. By doing this, Amyraldism avoids some of the problems that limited atonement raises, while at the same time, preserves the doctrine of unconditional election.

This places Amyraldism somewhere between Calvinism and Arminianism when it comes to the extent of the atonement. Calvinism teaches that the extent of the atonement is limited to the elect only; Christ’s death on the cross makes salvation a reality for the elect. Arminianism teaches that the extent of the atonement is unlimited and available to all; Christ’s death on the cross makes salvation possible to all and man must exercise faith to make salvation actual. Amyraldism says that Christ died for all men, but God only applies this salvation to those whom He has chosen. This is very similar to a view that is circulating in some Calvinistic circles called unlimited/limited atonement.

However, in attempting to resolve some of the apparent problems that limited atonement presents—namely, the biblical passages that teach Christ died for all men (John 3:16; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 John 2:2 to name a few)—the Amyraldians create larger problems that require resolution. The same objection that can be applied to Arminianism regarding the extent of the atonement can also be applied to Amyraldism. If Christ died for all men as it says in 1 John 2:2, then we have a problem; namely, there are people in hell right now who have had their sins atoned for. The Arminian would respond by saying that they didn’t activate their salvation by believing in Christ, and the Amyraldian would respond by saying that God didn’t elect them. Yet, that does nothing to resolve the dilemma. Whether or not they responded in faith or God elected them, their sins have been atoned for and they should not be in hell! If Christ died for my sins, then my believing it or not believing it doesn’t make it any less true. If my sin debt has been paid, then I should go to heaven, not hell where I will pay for the same debt for eternity. In fact, Amyraldism makes things worse than Arminianism because it posits God passing over people for whom Christ died.

Without going into a detailed exegesis of 1 John 2:2, the apparent contradiction between what some think that verse means and the doctrine of limited atonement can be easily resolved by looking at the context of the verse. John writes:

“My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:1–2 ESV).

It is clear from the context that John is writing to a group of believers (“My little children”). John is telling his believing readers that a life of continual sin is incompatible with being a Christian. Yet if someone does sin, we have an Advocate who stands in our defense before the bar of God’s justice. He was the atoning sacrifice for our sin, but not ours only but also the whole world. In other words, the extent of Christ’s saving work isn’t only applicable to John’s readers, but is a message for the whole world! Christ not only died to save God’s remnant amongst the Jews, but His elect throughout the whole world. God’s elect people are chosen “from every nation, tribe, people and language” (Revelation 7:9). As Jesus said, “I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd” (John 10:16).

Another thing to note is that John says that Christ is the propitiation for our sins. In other words, Christ actually atoned for the sins of John and his readers; it is a statement of fact. John then applies this actual atonement not only for his readers, but the whole world. The Arminians say that the atonement didn’t actually save anyone, but makes all men savable. Yet that’s not what John is saying. He is referring to an actual atonement, not a potential atonement. It would be hermeneutically incorrect to go from an actual atonement to a potential atonement in the same sentence. On the other hand, as noted earlier, the Amyraldian claims that God actually atoned for the whole world, but only applies it to the elect, to which we would argue that God is sending people to hell whose sins have been atoned for.

In conclusion, Amyraldism seeks to modify some of the “harsh” conclusions of the Calvinist position, but as we have seen, it raises much more serious questions than it attempts to answer. The five points of Calvinism are links in a chain that put forth a strong biblical case that God is completely sovereign in salvation. The act of saving a people unto Himself is a testament to God’s grace and mercy and displays His glory in a unique way.[1]

[1] Got Questions Ministries. (2010). Got Questions? Bible Questions Answered. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.