Adam Osborne dot net My Bible Studies

July 22, 2026

Atonement

Filed under: Old and New Testament — Adam Osborne @ 7:49 am

What does “atonement” mean?

In its simplest sense:

Atonement is God’s provision through which sin is dealt with so that sinful people can be reconciled to a holy God.

The atonement is centered on the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ on the cross.

The English word

The English word atonement is often explained as:

at-one-ment

While that’s not its linguistic origin, it is a helpful illustration.

The idea is: People who were separated from God because of sin are brought back into fellowship with Him.

The Old Testament background

To understand the New Testament, we must first understand the Old Testament.

After Adam sinned:

  • sin entered the world,
  • fellowship with God was broken,
  • death became the penalty.

Throughout the Old Testament, God taught Israel that sin required a sacrifice.

Leviticus 17:11 says:

“For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls…”

Blood represented life. The innocent animal died in place of the guilty sinner.

But…those sacrifices never permanently removed sin.

Hebrews 10:4 says: “It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.”

They pointed forward to Christ.

The Day of Atonement

One of the greatest pictures of Christ is found in Leviticus 16. Once each year, on the Day of Atonement:

The high priest offered sacrifices for the nation.

Two goats were used.

Goat #1

Was sacrificed. Its blood was taken into the Holy of Holies. This pictured satisfaction for sin.

Goat #2 (the scapegoat)

The priest laid his hands on it. The sins of Israel were symbolically placed upon it.

The goat was sent into the wilderness. This pictured sin being removed.

Both goats together point to Christ.

Jesus fulfilled the Day of Atonement

Jesus became:

  • our High Priest,
  • our sacrifice,
  • our scapegoat.

Hebrews says Christ entered the heavenly sanctuary once for all by His own blood, securing eternal redemption:

Hebrews 9:11–12 (ESV) But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) 12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

What did Christ accomplish?

The New Testament uses several beautiful words to describe the atonement.

1. Sacrifice

Christ died in our place. Isaiah 53 “He was pierced for our transgressions…”

2. Substitution

Jesus bore the penalty we deserved.

2 Corinthians 5:21 “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us…” This is called substitutionary atonement.

3. Propitiation

This is one of the richest biblical words.

Romans 3:25 (ESV) whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

1 John 2:2 (ESV) He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

Propitiation means God’s righteous wrath against sin is satisfied.

Not because God overlooked sin…but because Christ bore the judgment.

4. Redemption

This means to purchase someone’s freedom. Imagine a slave being bought out of slavery.

Christ redeemed us from slavery to sin.

Ephesians 1:7 “In Him we have redemption through His blood…”

5. Reconciliation

Because of the cross, enemies become friends.

Romans 5:10 “We were reconciled to God through the death of His Son.”

6. Forgiveness

Our sins are removed. Psalm 103 says as far as the east is from the west.

Is atonement the same as salvation?

Not exactly. Think of it this way.

The atonement is what Christ accomplished.

Salvation is the application of Christ’s work to individual believers.

Where Reformed and Traditional Baptists disagree

Neither group disagrees about what the atonement is. They disagree about for whom Christ made it.

Traditional Baptist

Christ died for every human being. His death is sufficient for everyone. Only believers receive its benefits.

Common verses:

  • John 3:16
  • 1 Timothy 2:4–6
  • 1 John 2:2
  • 2 Peter 3:9

Reformed Baptist

Christ’s death is sufficient for all. But its saving purpose was specifically for the elect. Christ actually purchased salvation for those the Father had given Him.

Common verses:

  • John 10:11
  • Matthew 1:21
  • Ephesians 5:25

This is often called Definite Atonement or Particular Redemption.

What all Baptists agree on

Regardless of these differences, both Reformed and Traditional Baptists affirm that Christ’s atoning work is:

  • Perfect.
  • Complete.
  • Sufficient.
  • Necessary.
  • The only basis of salvation.
  • Received by grace through faith.

A good definition

Atonement is the saving work of Jesus Christ by which, through His sinless life, sacrificial death, and bodily resurrection, He satisfied God’s justice, paid the penalty for sin, and made reconciliation with God possible for all who believe in Him.

I think both Reformed and Traditional Baptists could affirm that statement. They would differ, however, on the intent and extent of Christ’s atoning work—whether it was designed specifically for the elect or for all humanity with its benefits applied only to believers.

ATONEMENT – Summarize it with five biblical words:

  1. Substitution — Christ died instead of us.
  2. Propitiation — Christ satisfied God’s righteous wrath.
  3. Redemption — Christ paid the price to set sinners free.
  4. Reconciliation — Christ brought sinners back to God.
  5. Forgiveness — Christ removed the guilt of sin.

Those five concepts together capture the heart of the biblical doctrine of the atonement and provide a balanced framework that Christians across Baptist traditions have historically affirmed.

Contact Adam
07/22/26

July 18, 2026

Remonstrants – 1610 document

Filed under: Old and New Testament — Tags: , , , , , , , , — Adam Osborne @ 8:50 am

Who were the Remonstrants?

The Remonstrants were followers of the Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609). After Arminius died, about 44 of his supporters presented a document called the Remonstrance to the government of the Netherlands in 1610. Because they submitted this “remonstrance” (a formal protest or petition), they became known as Remonstrants.

Their goal was not to leave the Reformed churches, but to reform them by challenging certain teachings about predestination and salvation.

Why were they important?

At the time, the Dutch Reformed Church was strongly Calvinistic.

The Remonstrants believed that some Calvinist teachings had gone beyond what Scripture taught. Their views created such controversy that an international church council was called:

  • 1610 – The Five Articles of Remonstrance were published.
  • 1611 – Calvinists answered with the Counter-Remonstrance.
  • 1618–1619 – The Synod of Dort met to settle the dispute.
  • The Synod rejected the Remonstrants’ teachings and removed many of their ministers from office.

The Five Articles of Remonstrance

These became the classic summary of early Arminian theology.

1. Conditional Election

God chooses people for salvation based on His foreknowledge of who will believe.

Remonstrants:

God elects believers.

Calvinists:

God elects people before they believe.

2. Universal Atonement

Christ died for everyone.

His death is sufficient for all people, although only believers receive its benefits.

Remonstrants:

Christ died for every person.

Calvinists (Dort):

Christ’s death was intended specifically to save the elect (often called definite or particular atonement).

3. Human Inability

This surprises many people.

The Remonstrants did not believe people could save themselves.

They agreed that:

  • mankind is fallen
  • salvation begins with God’s grace
  • no one can come to Christ apart from God’s gracious work

Where they differed was that they believed God’s grace can be resisted.

4. Resistible Grace

God genuinely calls people to salvation.

However, people can resist or reject His grace.

Calvinists responded that God’s saving grace is effectual—it certainly brings the elect to faith.

5. Perseverance

Originally, the Remonstrants were cautious.

They said Scripture should be studied further regarding whether a true believer could finally fall away.

Later Remonstrant theologians generally concluded that a believer could fall from grace.

How did Calvinists respond?

The Synod of Dort answered each Remonstrant article point by point.

Although the acronym TULIP was created centuries later, it summarizes Dort’s responses:

RemonstrantsCanons of Dort
Conditional electionUnconditional election
Universal atonementDefinite (particular) atonement
Grace can be resistedIrresistible (effectual) grace
Election based on foreseen faithElection based solely on God’s sovereign purpose
Believers may fall awayPerseverance of the saints

Notice something interesting:

TULIP was a response to the Remonstrants—not the other way around.

Were the Remonstrants Pelagians?

No.

This is an important distinction, especially since we’ve discussed Pelagianism before.

The Remonstrants believed:

  • humanity is fallen
  • sinners cannot save themselves
  • God’s grace is absolutely necessary
  • salvation comes only through Christ

Pelagius taught that people could obey God without special grace.

The Remonstrants rejected that idea completely.

Calvinists often accused them of leaning toward Semi-Pelagianism, but the Remonstrants themselves denied that charge and insisted that grace is necessary for every step toward salvation. Historians generally distinguish classical Arminianism from Pelagianism.

Where would many Southern Baptists fit?

Many Traditional Southern Baptists today would agree with the Remonstrants on several points:

  • ✔ Christ died for everyone.
  • ✔ People have genuine freedom to accept or reject the gospel.
  • ✔ God’s grace is necessary before anyone can believe.
  • ✔ Election is not understood as an unconditional choice of particular individuals apart from faith.

However, many Traditional Baptists would not agree with the later Remonstrant position that a true believer can lose salvation. Most hold to eternal security (“once saved, always saved”), distinguishing them from classical Arminianism on that point.

Why the Remonstrants still matter

Nearly every modern discussion of Calvinism vs. Arminianism traces back to this debate.

The sequence is:

  1. Jacobus Arminius raises questions about certain Calvinist doctrines.
  2. The Remonstrants publish the Five Articles (1610).
  3. The Synod of Dort responds (1618–1619).
  4. The Canons of Dort later become popularly summarized as TULIP.

So, whenever someone today discusses unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, or perseverance of the saints, they are often revisiting issues first formally debated between the Remonstrants and the Counter-Remonstrants in the early 1600s.

Contact Adam
07/18/26

John 3:16 Conference – 2008 and 2013

Filed under: Old and New Testament — Tags: , , , , , , , — Adam Osborne @ 7:56 am

What was the John 3:16 Conference?

The John 3:16 Conference was a theological conference held in 2008 (with a follow-up conference in 2013) to examine and critique five-point Calvinism (TULIP) from a conservative, non-Calvinist Southern Baptist perspective. It was never intended to argue against Calvinists as fellow Christians, but rather to discuss important doctrinal differences within the SBC.

The conferences were organized primarily through the leadership of Jerry Vines, pastor emeritus of First Baptist Church of Jacksonville, Florida.

Sponsors included

Several well-known Baptist institutions supported the original conference, including:

  • Jerry Vines Ministries
  • New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary
  • Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
  • Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary
  • Luther Rice Seminary
  • Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Why was it called “John 3:16”?

The organizers intentionally chose John 3:16 because they believed it expresses the universal offer of salvation:

“For God so loved the world…that whoever believes in Him should not perish…”

Their concern was that some expressions of Calvinism (particularly Limited Atonement) were difficult to reconcile with the straightforward reading of this verse.

Jerry Vines emphasized that:

  • God loves the whole world.
  • Christ died for the sins of the whole world.
  • The invitation to salvation is genuinely offered to every person.

The Five Major Topics

The conference largely followed the five points of TULIP.

1. Total Depravity

The speakers generally affirmed that humanity is deeply fallen and incapable of saving itself.

However, they rejected the Calvinist conclusion that people are unable even to respond to God’s gracious call.

Instead, they argued:

  • God initiates salvation.
  • The Holy Spirit convicts.
  • People still retain the God-given ability to respond in faith.

2. Unconditional Election

The conference rejected the Calvinist idea that God chose certain individuals for salvation apart from any response of faith.

Instead they emphasized:

  • Election is consistent with God’s foreknowledge.
  • God’s desire is that all be saved.
  • Salvation is genuinely available to everyone.

3. Limited Atonement

One of the strongest presentations came from David Allen.

His basic argument was:

Christ died sufficiently for everyone and intentionally provided salvation for the whole world.

Allen even pointed out that several respected Calvinists throughout history rejected Limited Atonement.

4. Irresistible Grace

The speakers argued that:

  • The Holy Spirit powerfully draws people.
  • Yet people may resist God’s gracious call.

They believed Scripture repeatedly portrays people rejecting God’s invitations.

5. Perseverance of the Saints

This was handled somewhat differently.

Most speakers still affirmed eternal security, which is common among Southern Baptists.

The disagreement was not over whether believers are secure, but over how salvation occurs.

Major Speakers

Some of the best-known participants included:

  • Jerry Vines
  • David L. Allen
  • Steve Gaines
  • Eric Hankins
  • Adam Harwood
  • Emir Caner
  • Richard Land
  • Johnny Hunt

Many of these names are familiar because they have written extensively on the debate over Calvinism in the SBC.

The 2013 Conference

The second conference shifted away from simply walking through TULIP.

Instead it addressed questions such as:

  • For whose sins did Christ die?
  • Does faith precede regeneration?
  • Who are the elect?
  • What did early Southern Baptists believe?
  • Is the sinner’s prayer biblical?

The Book that Came From It

The conference papers were expanded into an influential book:

Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism, edited by David L. Allen and Steve Lemke.

This book became one of the primary scholarly responses to Calvinism from a Traditional Southern Baptist perspective.

Why it Matters

Historically, the John 3:16 Conference became one of the defining moments in the modern discussion over Calvinism in the Southern Baptist Convention. It gave voice to pastors and theologians who believed the SBC had always included both Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic traditions, and who wanted to defend a theology emphasizing:

  • Christ died for all people.
  • Salvation is genuinely offered to everyone.
  • Faith precedes regeneration.
  • Human responsibility and God’s sovereignty are both taught in Scripture.

Contact Adam
07/18/26

John Smyth – 1570-1612

Filed under: Old and New Testament — Tags: , , , , — Adam Osborne @ 7:43 am

John Smyth (c. 1570–1612), the English Separatist who is widely regarded as one of the founders of the Baptist movement. 

Who was John Smyth?

John Smyth was an English clergyman educated at Christ’s College, Cambridge. He was originally ordained as a minister in the Church of England but gradually became convinced that many of its practices were not biblical. 

His spiritual journey went through several stages:

  1. Anglican priest
  2. Puritan reformer
  3. English Separatist
  4. Founder of one of the earliest Baptist congregations

He was constantly willing to change his beliefs if he became convinced Scripture taught something different.

Why did he leave the Church of England?

Like many Puritans, Smyth believed the Church of England had retained too many Roman Catholic traditions.

Eventually he concluded that reform from within was impossible.

He became a Separatist, believing that true churches should consist only of genuine believers rather than the entire population of England.

This belief made him a target of persecution.

Flight to Holland

Around 1607–1608, Smyth and his congregation fled to Amsterdam in the Netherlands, where there was greater religious freedom.

Amsterdam became a gathering place for many religious refugees during this period.

It was there that Smyth began studying the Bible even more intensely.

His biggest theological discovery: Believer’s Baptism

Smyth became convinced that:

  • baptism should only be administered to those who personally believe in Christ.
  • infants should not be baptized.
  • the New Testament pattern was a church composed of believers.

This became one of the defining Baptist distinctives.

The famous “self-baptism”

One of the most unusual events in church history occurred in 1609.

Smyth believed:

  • his infant baptism was invalid.
  • no properly baptized church existed from which he could receive believer’s baptism.

So…

He baptized himself.

Then he baptized the members of his congregation.

Because of this, critics nicknamed him the “Se-Baptist” (“self-Baptist”). 

Did he continue believing this?

Interestingly…

No.

After further study, Smyth concluded that he had been wrong to baptize himself.

He sought admission into the Mennonite church in Amsterdam because he believed they had preserved biblical believer’s baptism.

Many of his own followers thought he had gone too far.

This led to a split.

Thomas Helwys separates from Smyth

One of Smyth’s closest associates was Thomas Helwys.

Helwys disagreed with Smyth’s attempt to join the Mennonites.

Instead, Helwys led a group back to England around 1611–1612 and established what is generally regarded as the first permanent Baptist church on English soil. 

His theology

One point you’ll probably find interesting, based on our earlier discussions about Calvinism and Traditional Baptists:

John Smyth eventually rejected Calvinistic predestination.

His later theology became much closer to what we would now call Arminian theology.

He believed:

  • Christ died for everyone.
  • Salvation is genuinely offered to all.
  • People must respond in faith.
  • Believers can reject God’s grace.

These churches became known as the General Baptists because they believed Christ’s atonement was for all people generally. 

Influence on Baptists

Nearly every Baptist today traces some part of their historical roots to Smyth and Helwys, although not all Baptists agree on exactly how direct that connection is.

His lasting contributions include:

  • believer’s baptism
  • regenerate church membership
  • congregational church government
  • local church independence
  • religious liberty
  • separation of church and state

How would a Traditional Southern Baptist view Smyth?

  • ✔ believer’s baptism
  • ✔ salvation by faith
  • ✔ local church autonomy
  • ✔ religious liberty
  • ✔ rejection of a state church

One important historical clarification

A common misconception is that John Smyth founded the Baptist denomination.

A more accurate statement is:

  • Smyth was one of the principal founders of the English Baptist movement.
  • The Baptist movement developed through the combined influence of Smyth, Thomas Helwys, later General Baptists, and the Particular Baptists who emerged a few decades later.
  • Baptists themselves disagree over whether their roots should be traced primarily to Smyth, to earlier Anabaptists, or more broadly to New Testament churches. 

Contact Adam
07/18/26

July 10, 2026

Supersessionism

Filed under: Bible Studies,New Testament,Old and New Testament — Adam Osborne @ 5:23 am

A summary of what one protestant “Traditional” Christian (non-Calvinistic / non-Reformed Theology) said about Supersessionism.

The short answer is:

God is not finished with ethnic Israel.

That is one of the major themes of his interpretation of Romans 9–11, and it is one of the places where he intentionally differs from many covenant/Reformed interpretations.

Main Thesis

The author argues that:

Romans 9–11 is primarily about God’s faithfulness to His covenant promises to Israel.

Many Reformed commentators tend to read Romans 9 as primarily teaching individual election unto salvation.

The author says Paul’s larger question is different.

Paul is asking:

Has God’s Word failed because so many Jews rejected Christ?

Paul answers:

Absolutely not.

That answer governs all three chapters.

Romans 9

Paul begins with deep sorrow for Israel.

“I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart…” (Romans 9:2)

The author observes something important.

Paul isn’t writing an abstract theology of predestination.

He’s grieving over:

Israel.

The chapter is about:

God’s covenant people
God’s promises
God’s sovereign freedom to accomplish His redemptive purposes

The author argues that the election language here is often corporate and historical, not simply individual and eternal.

Romans 10

Paul then says:

“My heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved.”

Notice something.

Paul is praying for Israel’s salvation.

The author points out:

If Israel had been permanently rejected,

why would Paul pray this?

Romans 10 emphasizes:

Israel’s unbelief
Human responsibility
The necessity of faith
The universal offer of the gospel

Paul repeatedly says:

People are saved by believing in Christ.

That includes Jews.

That includes Gentiles.

Romans 11

This is where he believes the strongest evidence appears.

Paul begins:

“Has God rejected His people? By no means!”

The author says this verse should control everything that follows.

Paul’s answer is not:

“Yes, Israel has been replaced.”

It is:

“Absolutely not.”

The Olive Tree

Paul describes:

Natural branches (Israel)
Wild branches (Gentiles)

Some Jewish branches were broken off because of unbelief.

Gentiles were grafted in by faith.

Then Paul says:

“If they do not continue in unbelief, they will be grafted in again.”

The author understands this as referring to ethnic Israel.

Romans 11:25–26

This is probably the most important passage.

Paul writes:

“A partial hardening has come upon Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved…”

The author understands this to mean:

Israel’s hardening is:

✔ Partial

✔ Temporary

✔ Followed by a future salvation of Israel.

Romans 11:28–29

Paul continues:

“As regards the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but as regards election they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.”

The author places enormous importance on this passage.

He argues:

God’s covenant promises to Abraham,

Isaac, Jacob, and David have not been cancelled.

God keeps His promises.

Does the author teach two ways of salvation?

Absolutely not.

This is very important.

The author does not believe Jews are saved apart from Christ.

He believes:

Every person—

Jew or Gentile—

must come to Christ through faith.

Romans 10 makes that abundantly clear.

There is one gospel.

One Savior.

One way of salvation.

What future does the author expect?

He believes something like this:

At some point in God’s future plan, there will be:

a large-scale turning of ethnic Israel to Christ,
fulfilling Paul’s words in Romans 11,
demonstrating God’s faithfulness to His covenant promises.

This future restoration does not mean Israel earns salvation apart from faith.

Rather, it means God will graciously bring many Jewish people to faith in their Messiah.

Why the author rejects Supersessionism

He believes Supersessionism creates a problem.

If Israel has been permanently replaced,

what do we do with verses like:

“The gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.”

Or:

“Has God rejected His people? By no means!”

The author argues these statements should be taken at face value.

God remains faithful to Israel even after centuries of unbelief.

From his perspective:

Romans 11 is Paul’s answer to the question:

“Has God abandoned Israel?”

His answer is:

No.

Israel’s rejection is:

Temporary.

Partial.

Not final.

God’s covenant faithfulness guarantees a future restoration.

Strengths
He keeps Romans 9–11 together as one sustained argument rather than isolating chapter 9.
He takes Paul’s repeated references to ethnic Israel seriously.
He gives appropriate weight to the temporal language—”partial hardening,” “until,” and “grafted in again.”
He emphasizes God’s faithfulness to His covenant promises while maintaining that salvation is through Christ alone.
He argues that God has one plan of salvation through Jesus Christ for both Jews and Gentiles, while also maintaining that God’s covenant promises to ethnic Israel have not been revoked and that Romans 11 anticipates a future work of God among the Jewish people.

Contact Adam
07/10/26

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress