In this series, I forward a considered case for a universal atonement, presenting what I find to be the most compelling arguments for it, defining what exactly it entails, and interacting with the most common and persuasive objections against it.
This is part 6 of 6, in which I consider and confute the objection that a universal atonement would not actually secure or guarantee salvation for anyone.
A clarification of my previous comments regarding the difference between the belief of a saved Christian, and the belief of an unsaved reprobate.
Was I mistaken about the purpose of regeneration? A response to Ben at Arminian Perspectives, defending my position and refuting his objections.
What is the purpose of regeneration, if God can direct the will of man in any direction he chooses? Why must God regenerate a sinner to create faith in him—could he not just control his will so that he believes? A question from Ben at Arminian Perspectives, answered.
This post is part of a correspondence with kiwi blogger Rhett Snell on Calvinism. In it, I respond to some questions he has about (I) the nature and extent of the atonement; (II) total depravity and the nature of faith; and (III) God’s sovereignty and relationship to sin.
Continued from part 1 « Now, it must be acknowledged that faith, in and of itself, is a very simple thing. It requires very little knowledge. For Paul says, Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being [...]