Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.
The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 3 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Historic Christianity vs Calvinism  /  Lecture 8: Debunking Limited Atonement  /  Discussion Questions
All Questions
Question 3
Piper highlights texts like “the shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” and John 17 (“the men you gave me”); how does Finny’s Galatians 2:20 rebuttal (“who loved me and gave himself for me”) expose a logical problem, and where do you see this same kind of “narrow wording = narrow scope” reasoning show up in your own Bible reading?
Another way to ask: How does “He loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:20) show a problem with using “for the sheep” or “the men you gave me” to mean Jesus only died for a small group? Where do you catch yourself thinking “narrow wording means narrow scope” when you read the Bible?

Direct Answer Finny’s Galatians 2:20 example shows the logical error: a verse can spotlight a particular group (“sheep,” “those you gave me,” or even “me”) without implying exclusion of everyone else. He argues Piper treats “Jesus died for X” as if it means “Jesus died for X only,” which is “terrible logic.”

Support from Transcript:

  • Finny notes Piper cites texts: “I lay down my life for the sheep,” John 17 (“the men thou gavest me”), and Revelation 5 (ransom “from every tribe…”).
  • Piper’s conclusion is that Jesus is “pretty clearly saying he’s dying for the elect.”
  • Finny counters with Galatians 2:20: “who loved me and gave Himself for me,” then jokes: “So you see that Jesus only died for Paul… It’s ridiculous.”
  • He explains the logic flaw: “Just because you say that Jesus died for Paul… does that imply that he didn’t die for a wider group? It doesn’t imply that at all.”
  • He uses a grocery analogy: “I bought some onions… [doesn’t mean] you didn’t also buy bread and lettuce.”
  • He agrees “sheep” can be understood corporately: “The sheep as whoever accepts it.”
Discussion Follow-ups Where have you personally read a “for us/for you/for many” passage and assumed it automatically excluded others without checking context?

Jumpstarter 3 of 10
Back Questions Next