Before it was so easy to say, "It's obvious unlimited atonement is true because it says Jesus died for all." Now, not so easy. Now, they are forced to admit that they plop the Bible on their Procustean bed and either stretch it in places or lop it off at the legs in places, depending on what makes it fit their predetermined (!) notions of what God must be like.
For example, we read this from Robert:
Logically there are only three possibilities regarding the “all verses” in the bible: (1) all never means all; (2) all always means all; or (3) all sometimes means all and sometimes does not mean all. We can easily dismiss possibility (1) as no one suggests that. We can also easily dismiss possibility (2) as we can all present verses where all does not mean all. That leaves only possibility (3) that sometimes all means all and sometimes all does not mean all in the bible verses. I believe careful consideration of the texts and contexts will show where all means all and where all does not mean all. The determinist will also grant that possibility (3) is the correct one. Their problem is that when they come to soteriological passages, where all in fact means all, because of their system and not proper interpretation of the biblical texts, they will argue that in those soteriological passages all does not mean all. So for the committed determinist it always comes down to allegiance to an erroneous system over proper interpretation of clear biblical texts. And if someone makes this move, there really is not much chance of dissuading them of their false interpretation. So due to their allegiance to the false deterministic system, they will then have to argue that in fact Jesus does not love all the children of the world. And that He does not want to save them all nor did He want to provide a provision of salvation for them all through the cross. And if they are candid about what they truly believe they have to claim that in fact Jesus planned from eternity to reprobate/damn most of the children of the world. If they wrote the song in accordance with their false theology it would be “Jesus hates most of the children of the world and he reprobated them before they were born for his ‘glory””.Perhaps Robert can help out his pals like Victor Reppert who says things like:
"You see, every time I get into an exegetical argument about Calvinism I usually end up saying "All means all," and the Calvinist says "well, it means from all groups, not all persons." To people like us, Calvinists are saying "OK you signed onto following Jesus and you think He loves everybody. But read the fine print."
Oh, by the way, Robert lauded Reppert's defenses and understanding of Arminianism.
Anyway...so, my post demonstrated that Arminians can't appeal to the "But it says Jesus died for all" arguments anymore, Robert saw that, and tries to recover what's left for his fellow Arminians.
Now, notice that no "careful examination of the texts" is made. It is simply asserted that "all means all in the salvation texts, even though it may not elsewhere.
But, can an examination of the text demonstrate this? If so, let's see it.
Actually, what is really being said, as is clear above, is this:
"I have an allegiance to a specific system of what it means to say "God is love" and that must mean that Jesus would die for all men to give 'em a shot at heaven, because if he didn't, that would be unloving.
Now, can this view be exegeted from the text of Scripture? If so, let's see it.
I don't think so, though. Why not? Well, actually, the above a priori tradition is actually based on another a priori tradition that cannot be exegeted from Scripture. It looks like this:
"Well [say that pushing a lot of air out of your mouth and with a perplexed look on your face], it wouldn't be loving because, well, you know, God has to give everyone an equal shot and allow all to libertarianly choose him, 'cause that's real love. If a 'decision to accept Christ' is free, then God knows the sinner really loves God and wants to be in heaven."
Can this conception of libertarianism be exegeted from Scripture? No, it can't. Moreover, if the Arminian appeals to texts that say "God loves all" and they mean "God soterically loves all," why do they think that? It can't be because "all means all." That would be to massively beg the question. No, it's because this is an assumption they have.
So, the Arminian who takes the bait in my "all doesn't always mean all" post is forced to claim that context can determine the extent of "all" passages.
He must then (a) demonstrate that the context of soteric passages means all, but he does this by (b) resorting to raw emotion (we can't be robots, if you love something set it free, if it comes back it was meant to be, whoopee!) and extra biblical philosophical assumptions unable to be proved from Scripture.
Now, the Arminian may think that these assumptions brought to the text are true. That's fine. It's a free country. But, they should stop pretending that they have exegeted things like unlimited atonement from Scripture. They should do the honest thing and admit that they have certain philosophical assumptions, and so, with Wesley, they say, "I don't know what the text means, but I know it can mean that [where "that" means "Calvinism"].
As for me, I'm actually glad God determined that I would love him. Left to my own devices, I'd actually love my sin more than Him.
A world where God and fallen man have libertarian freedom, and man is totally depraved, is a world where God and fallen man are never reconciled. And if, per impossible, they could be reconciled, that world provides no guarantee that they will remain reconciled.
Just like Islam provides no eternal assurance, so does a world with libertarian free will for God and man. Funny how libertarianism ends at the same place as the hard-core conjunction of determinism and voluntarism presented in Islam.