<<As I see it, the difference is that it is theoretically possible to hold to the doctrine of JBFA and also hold to the wrong idea that Christ died for all and that the human will is undetermined and yet still be saved.>>
<<And concerning the person and work of Christ, what in fact has Mr. H denied?>>
<<What a blind fool! It can be easily understood that if one is wrong concerning the extent of the sacrifice, one is automatically wrong about the efficacy of the sacrifice, unless one professes that everyone will be saved since everyone (according to them) was represented by Christ. To the typical universal atonement advocate, Adam's work is greater than Christ's work. As in Adam all whom he represented die but, in Christ all whom he represented are not made alive.
Exactly, Carlos! Even a child can understand it! If the extent is wrong, then the efficacy must be wrong, unless someone doesn't believe that there are some in hell. There really can be only two possibilities when considering the proposition "Jesus Christ died for everyone without exception":
(1) Everyone without exception will go to heaven. In this case, the extent is wrong, but the efficacy is right. This is what the true universalists believe - that no one goes to hell. The universalists are actually more consistent than the Arminians! They believe that since Christ's blood actually atoned for everyone without exception, then everyone will go to heaven!
(2) Not everyone without exception will go to heaven. In this case, the extent is wrong, and the efficacy is wrong. This is what Arminians believe. If even one person goes to hell for whom Christ died, then Christ's work is not sufficient to save.
E-mails, Forums, and Letters