SuperHyperCalvinisticexpyaladoh! Part Tree Zee Finale

Welcome to Don Fortner, part three. Pr. Fortner's sermon "If Christ Died for All" is what I am addressing here. He concocts 14 points as to why he believes universal atonement to be blasphemy. Pr. Fortner, sadly, works off a strict paradigm of Hyper (or High) Calvinism vs. freewillism. There is no middle ground for him and there are no other options it seems. His complaints are more properly directed at synergistic theologies; Pelagianism in particular. But they don't allow for, nor even address, the proper and most biblical theology of objective monergism via Word and Sacrament, universal atonement, and univeral grace of Confessional Lutheranism. Pr. Fortner has boxed all theology regarding the atonement into a forced choice ala John Owen.

It's no secret that I was a staunch Calvinist for many years. I actually have an old blog defending limited atonement. Here it is:

He Did It Perfectly

And the first two offerings in this series are here:

Part One

Part Deux

The doctrine of universal atonement is blasphemous because:

10. Teaching a universal atonement separates the priestly office and work of Christ, declaring that Christ sacrificed himself for and died in the place of a people for whom he refused to pray (John 17:9, 20).

Here is another common Calvinistic argument, that Christ refuses to pray for the world. The problem with this argument is that it is based on poor exegesis and application of the text in St. John's Gospel. The High Priestly Prayer in St. John 17 is a prayer specifically for the apostles first (Jn 17:9), and then those who will believe second (Jn 17:20).

The Calvinist then proceeds to read a presupposition into the text. Namely, that only the elect ever believe and no one else. John 17:9 is specifically speaking about the apostles. So in that case, Christ isn't even praying for all the elect, but only the apostles.

In the second case, He says He is praying for all those who would believe in His Name. Sure, if you extrapolate a Calvinist paradigm and theology onto Scripture you could interpret St. John 17:20 that way, but it's not necessary to do so.

Thirdly, nowhere does the text ever say that Christ refuses to pray for others. Nowhere. It is simply a prayer, that in this instance, was geared towards the apostles and future believers specifically. The Calvinist reads way too much into this passage.

So does Christ ever pray for those who are unsaved and do not believe? Yes, I think He does on the cross.

St. Luke 23:34: And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

Here is an example of Christ praying for the people who had Him crucified. The Calvinist now has to opine that all those persons were elect. That's a huge assumption and stretch of the text here.

Pr. Fortner's 10th point is weak at best.

11. Teaching a universal atonement makes the cross of Christ a miscarriage and asserts that he shall never see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied (Isaiah 53:10-11).

This is another major stretch of the text based on an assumption. What bothers me the most is that Pr. Fortner inadvertently blasphemes the cross of Christ, calling it a miscarriage. He calls it an abortion. Such language should make a man tremble in fear.



Pr. Don Fortner

But again this is a weak assertion. Pr. Fortner assumes that Christ's death is a failure if anyone for whom He died perishes and Christ isn't satisfied with it if that is so.

This is not the case, however, for all the elect will be saved either way. Of course Christ is satisfied with His offering. Likewise, a universal atonement puts the guilt solely on man for rejecting Christ.

12. Teaching a universal atonement gives sinners no reason to look to, trust, and hope in Christ.

This is probably Pr. Fortner's weakest argument so far. It makes no sense whatsoever and in reality the reverse is truer than his assertion.

Francis Pieper, noted Lutheran theologian has said:


Francis Pieper

It is clear that both the Calvinistic and the synergistic attempt at solution changes the Scriptural concept of saving grace as ‘gratuitus Dei favor propter Christum’ into ‘gratia infusa.’ Whoever denies the universal gracious disposition of God proclaimed in the Gospel must necessarily direct those who seek grace to the effects of grace in man, that is, to the ‘gratia infusa.’ Synergists do this from the outset by asserting that conversion and salvation do not depend alone on God’s grace in Christ, but also on the better human conduct. Thus all who would be wiser than Scripture and would answer the question: ‘Cur alii prae aliss?’ in this life, land in the Roman camp, in work righteousness…….. p. 51f.

Next, justification by faith presupposes the ‘gratia universalis.’ Unless the terrified sinner knows that Christ has fully reconciled all men to God and offers the forgiveness of sins in the Gospel to all men without distinction, he will not seek the forgiveness of his sins in the Gospel; he will base the forgiveness of his sins on the “infused grace” (gratia infusa) after the fashion of Rome. p. 508.

Pieper's point is that the Calvinistic doctrine of limited atonement causes the sinner to look inside himself for assurance of salvation and not outside of himself to the Christ on the cross. Why is this so? Precisely because Christ has only died for specific persons in that scheme.

13. Teaching a universal atonement offers believers no reason to love, obey, and glorify Christ.

Just when you thought things couldn't get any sillier, Pr. Fortner asserts this whopper. I don't know what else to say here other than this is complete skubalon (NT Greek word for 'dung'...but the actual word is much stronger than that...you know, like 'crap' or something).

Contrary to Pr. Fortner's baseless assertion, a universal atonement combined with the one-sided monergistic grace given to us in Word and Sacrament, that is for everyone, by the way, actually gives us the greatest reasons possible to love, obey, and glorify Christ.

1. It puts Christ's work extra nos, or outside of us.

2. It excludes anything we do to earn or merit it.

3. It gives us massive assurance, knowing that Christ did indeed die for us and we can trust Him fully to save us.

Those are about the best reasons to trust, love, and obey Christ that there are; especially in light of knowing that it does not depend on you.

14. Above all else, teaching a universal atonement declares that Jesus Christ is a failure, a weak, frustrated, defeated failure, rather than the sovereign, effectual Savior of his people!

This is another poorly argued point that once again rests on Calvinistic presuppositions. The Calvinist surmises that if anyone ends up in hell for whom Christ died, that means Christ was a failure.

This is nonsense. Silly shenanigans at their finest.

This ties back into #11. A universal atonement actually makes man culpable for his rejection of Christ, thereby putting all the blame for condemnation on man, not God and his nebulous decree (in Calvinism) to reprobate most of humanity by either active working or passing over.

This argument reminds me a lot of the foolish lynchpin of postmillennialism: "We're optimistic and you're pessimistic. Don't you want to have an optimistic eschatology?"

It sort of sounds like that. You know "Our Christ doesn't fail and yours does." Completely not true at all, for all the elect will be saved. Yet, we allow for the biblical doctrine of universal grace, which makes justification by faith crucial, which according to Pieper, is called into question in the Calvinist scheme.

Ultimately Pr. Fortner's scheme robs the believer of assurance and forces us to look inwardly. Of course, looking inwardly is a fool's errand, for we can never be sanctified enough. This side of glory, we will never be perfected in love or in works.

We *must* look solely to Christ and His work for us, knowing that He has given Himself to us on the cross and gives Himself to us objectively in Word and Sacrament. And we must know that He has given Himself for us and not only for a select few. The only theological camp that can affirm all of these things is Confessional Lutheranism. I don't say that in a snarky or snide manner; much less a prideful one. I say it because it's true.

Praise to You, O Christ.