the dividing line

There is no such thing as a Christian who does not believe that the doctrine of limited atonement is a Divine truth. Notice the distinction: it is not said that belief in limited atonement is necessary for salvation, for that statement would bring with it, the implication that there is something other than Grace that saves a person. No, it is by grace alone, through faith alone that a wretched sinner is made perfect in the sight of Holy God. This is lovely and true, and should not be neglected by the mind in this treatise on the nature of salvation. With that said, it can be assumed that at no point should anyone think anything higher of the belief in the limitedness of Christ’s passion for the saving of His elect as but a necessary inclusion in the renewing of the mind that occurs when God decides to save a soul. The awareness of this reality is embedded into the intellect simultaneously with the enlightening--salvation--of the human vessel. God does the work of making the mind new in Christ. He makes truths such as Limited Atonement, intrude and invade the intellect so as to bring about humility and obedience--characteristics that are true for every Christian. As the famous theologian, J. I. Packer, penned it, “Calvinism [and by default, the doctrine of Limited Atonement] is the natural theology written on the heart of the new man in Christ.”1
The theologian, Augustine, was one of the Early Church’s first advocates for Calvinism, and was actually the individual that reformers like Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Owen looked to for insight apropos the sovereignty of God. Augustine had opponents though, the greatest of which were two men named Pelagius and Cassian. Pelagius claimed that every human being is capable of living as sinless a life as Jesus’ because man is born into the same moral state that Adam thrived in before the Fall. Both he and Cassian taught that everyone is able to save himself from the wrath of God by believing on the Gospel, independent of God’s will. Augustine was quick to put to death these antichrist’s beliefs, and did so with an authority that silenced all the defenders of Pelagianism, as well as making it known throughout the Church, that those individuals were heretics that would be damned if they did not repent. Unfortunately (or ‘fortunately’ because of God’s good purposes), because of Satan’s determination to pollute truth by any means, there arose an even more threatening sect of believers who followed the teachings of one Cassian.
James Arminius was a disciple of Cassian’s writings. After his death, his faithful seminary students compiled a five point protest against the Belgic confession of Faith and the Heidelberg Catechism. After these protesters submitted their objections, the States-General of Holland thought it necessary to not only dismiss the Arminian’s five points, but to compose five rebuttals that directly corresponded to the Arminians. This was decided by a synod that convened at Dort over the matter. The Synod of Dort consisted of 129 delegates, who, after seven months of 154 sessions, finally agreed upon a set of statements that they thought would be sufficient to label Arminianism as a heresy once and for all.
The key point that Arminian’s deny is one that defines what actually happened at the Cross, in regards to the salvation of souls. This point defines for whom, and with what level of specific intentionality the Messiah died. Arminianism affirms that Christ died for sinners, but denies that He only died for some as opposed to all. Calvinism claims the opposite to be true. There are many ramifications that are spurred from the denial of Actual Atonement, the majority of which redefine God in the mind of the individual, three of which will be explored here. Redefining God is the error that every religion besides Christianity commits, and the cult of Arminianism commits the same fatal error.
There are different aspects to the intentionality of the atonement, one aspect though, is what Christ’s intention was in dying on the Cross. “The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.”2 While Arminian’s would agree with this passage, they would disagree with Calvinists on the point that Christ only died for the sins of a select few. Since Arminians disagree with his idea, and would rather affirm that Christ died for every sin ever committed, it follows then, that God is either a liar, a failure, or that every human and angelic being will be saved from the Torments deserved by a life of sin.
The Bible is God’s written Word, and everything that is written in it is true. What happens then, when an Arminian reads Revelation 14, which is one of the most vivid descriptions of the Torments of Hell? Someone who truly denies the Actual Atonement would have to assume that that passage is a lie, because if Christ died for every sin, there is no sin to be punished in Hell.
For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me3. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day4. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him5.

An Arminian would have to admit that God is a failure in light of the Biblical text. Jesus came to do the will of The Father, and the will of The Father is that sinners would be saved by the death of His son. If Christ died for the specific purpose of actually saving everyone, then there would be none in Hell, and no damnation for anyone but Jesus (because He is the Divine Exchange). But since it is clear in the objective truth of scripture, that there will be people who enter Hell, Jesus must have fallen short in obtaining what He apparaently purposed to do: to save every sinner form Hell. That is why Christ died: to save sinners; but if He died to save all, and did not save some of those sinners whom He died for, and those whom He did not save will burn in Hell, then Christ is most to be pitied because of His inadequacy to fulfill His mission. Ultimately, if God is inadequate, He is no God at all, and the Arminian is deceiving himself.
And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name6.”
If someone who denies Actual Atonement, can’t find it in Himself to admit that Jesus is a failure in light of their beliefs, it might be easier for them to conclude that He is a liar. There are many passages like the one above, that describe what Hell will be like, and what the experience of those damned to it entails. If someone believes that Christ died for everyone, they must conclude that He was trying to deceive everyone who has ever read those descriptions of Hell into thinking that that specific reality would never actually materialize: that “Hell” was just a sort of scare tactic used by Christ, for whatever purpose when He was inspiring the writers of the Bible. Again, just as with ascribing insufficiency to God, to attribute Him with deceit, would also create a non-deity in one’s mind.
C. Sproul and John MacArthur were once asked in a Q&A session,7 whether or not Arminians could be saved, and their response was “Of course an Arminian can be saved.” They used the argument that ‘simply because someone doesn’t have all their theology down exactly, that that doesn’t negate their salvation.’ That the man who died next to Jesus was never introduced to doctrines such as Calvinism or Arminianism before he died, and so one can expect that anyone else is going to be a carnivore of a theologian at the point of his salvation. A response to this claim would be what J. I. Packer has written, that “Calvinism is the natural theology written on the heart of the new man in Christ.” Essentially, what Packer is saying is that Christians are Calvinists, and it follows to say that Christians believe that Limited Atonement is true.
Actual Atonement is a doctrine that separates sheep from goats, even if those goats are the most sheepish looking goats there ever were. There are many who claim to be four point Calvinists, and by definition, deny the intentionality of Christ’s Atonement, and they will die in their sins for such a grievous matter. In the end, it simply comes down to what Jesus has to say about the business, namely that “[He] is the Good Shepherd. The Good Shepherd lays down His life for the sheep… I am the Good Shepherd. I know my own, and my own know me… and I lay down my life for the sheep.” Jesus taught Actual Atonement, and when He did, “There was again a division among the Jews because of these words. Many of them said, ‘He has a demon, and is insane; why listen to Him? Others said, ‘These are not the words of one who is oppressed by a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?’” Truth, and the belief or denial of it, divides and separates God’s Own from all others.