2 Peter - Verse-by-Verse Biblical Exegesis

The Calvinist says the atonement is limited in its purpose, but unlimited in its power; the
Arminian says the atonement is unlimited in its purpose, but limited in its power. I was
taught in Reformed circles that the atonement is particular in its intention, and
redemptive in its effect. But I prefer the term definite atonement because “the atonement
is definite in its purposes and accomplishments, rather than indefinite - accomplishing
nothing in and of itself, but relying on man's free will to complete the act.
Perhaps even better, Reisinger calls the atonement which the Calvinist believes to be
effective - because it actually accomplishes the work of salvation. Let the Arminian be
the one to call it ineffective." (G. Long) The differences between these views has been
well documented over the centuries under imposing titles which pit the Divine
Sovereignty of God against the Free Will of Man. After reading thousands of pages in
dozens of books, I still have not been able to see any benefit in an unlimited atonement
based on man's free will. God is God, and He has the right to distribute the benefits of the
Cross as He sees fit. If He chooses (sovereign election) some out of the mass of humanity
which are dead in trespasses and sins, sends His Son to die on the Cross for them and
only them, and sends the Holy Spirit to apply that work on the Cross to them, why can't
we let Him be? Why does man have to get his depraved fingers into the act? Why does
man argue against the sovereignty of God and set up his "golden calf" of free will?
The answer is total depravity - but to be more specific, incredible arrogance. Mankind in
general is just like the false teachers in our verse; they contradict the sovereign Lord Who
has bought them. They are constantly trying to arrogate the finished work of redemption
to themselves. The proponent of unlimited atonement takes the finished work of Christ
("It is finished") and adds a stipulation to the end of it, demanding that he participate
before the issue is closed. That is colossal arrogance. "He tries to exalt the grace of God
by offering salvation to all men, but what he does is actually cheapen it by showing that it
didn't of itself accomplish anything" (J. Reisinger). "Unlimited atonement leaves God a
failure, leaves His Son divested of His glory, and leaves the Spirit of God embarrassed
when He reports back that: I did all that I could, but I just couldn't break that sinner's
heart." This is not the gospel of Christianity; it is humanistic, Greek philosophy.
Hebrews 9:12 says Christ as High Priest "entered the Most Holy place once for all by His
own blood, having obtained redemption." And now by the power of the Holy Spirit he is
applying that obtained redemption. He is not, as I have heard by someone in the past,
"throwing out lottery tickets for those who have positive volition to pick and choose."
This would make Hebrews 9:12 read "not yet having obtained redemption." If the
finished work of Christ is left contingent upon the will of man, then salvation is no more
"by grace," but it is "by faith." But scripture teaches that "salvation is by grace, through
the instrument of faith." Proponents of unlimited atonement teach an heresy that is mixed
with truth just like the false teachers in II Peter 2:1. They take the aforementioned verse
and read it back to you as "salvation by faith, through the instrument of grace." In other
words, they have reversed the order of events in the passage so that man gets there first
instead of God. That is arrogant blasphemy of the highest order!