Do we all really believe in a 'limited atonement?'

[Forest]

John Hendryx, a Calvinist, made this argument:



The problem with this argument is that it appears to presume that atonement is equal to salvation. It ignores the fact that the demands of justice for one's sin may be fully satisfied without their being saved.

The conditions for being saved are:

(1) satisfaction of divine justice for your sin (atonement)
and
(2) authentic faith in Christ as Lord and Savior.

The error John makes is to assume that if the first condition has been met then a person will necessarily be saved. This ignores the demand of God for the second condition to likewise be met. Thus, it is possible for someone to have the first condition met without ever meeting the second condition and therefore not be saved.

Therefore, affirming unlimited atonement doesn't imply universalism.

Can you give me scriptural references for the second condition for salvation?

 

[Forest]

The atonement satisfies divine justice for the sins of all the world, yes. So, if someone doesn't go to heaven its not for lack of atonement, it is for a lack of faith. I have several versus that support this teaching if you are interested...

"They perish because the refused to accept the truth and so be saved." - Paul

So, yes, their rebellion in denying the gracious provision of God is all that prevents them from being reconciled. They die as enemies and thus suffer the due consequences for their rebellion.

We come to be in union with Christ through faith. When we accept the biblical teaching that forgiveness is provided to all who are 'in Christ,' this dilemma is reconciled. Unbelief is ONLY atoned for those 'in Christ.' When we are placed "in Him" through faith by the Spirit all our sin, including former unbelief, is forgiven. But those who continue in unbelief cannot benefit from the forgiveness that only found in Christ.

John 6:37-41, Christ died only for those that God gave him, which was not all mankind. All that he died will live with him in heaven without the loss of one.

 

[Forest]

The problem is some folks cannot accept synergy, even though it is repeatedly shown in scripture. The atonement is God's part, believeing is our part.

Paul shows this synergy.

1 Cor 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.

My grandfather was a farmer. He would get up every morning around 4 A.M. and go out and work his farm. He would come in after dark, eat, and then go straight to bed and do it all over again the next day. I even helped my grandfather a bit when I was a boy, and man, it was hard work.

Paul here compares himself and Apollos to farmers. Every farmer knows you must go and and work your farm. But every farmer knows that it is God that makes his crops grow. You can't sit back and let God grow your crops for you, you have to go out and plow the ground, plant your crops, water them, keep them from insects and vermin, etc... But only God makes the crops grow, no man has this power.

God has chosen to involve us in salvation. We have to accept the atonement made for us. And we have to go out and tell people the gospel. God doesn't need us, but this is how he has chosen to save the world.

God could have made my grandfather's crops grow all by themselves, but he didn't, he made my grandfather go out and work. And if he did go out and work hard, God blessed him with a good crop.

Christ died only for those that his Father gave him and all that he died for will live with him in heaven without the loss of one, John 6:37-41.

 

[Forest]

Monergism claims it is all God because he is the one who irresistibly draws one to faith and repentance and thus leaves nothing for which to credit to man. So, my question is about the non-elect. Do Calvinists believe the reprobates response is also monergistic given that the nature they received from God at birth likewise irresistibly draws them to rebellion? Or does God work synergistically with the non-elect?

We are all, both the elect and the non-elect, born into this world as natural beings, without any righteousness, and stay that way until God quickens his elect to a spiritual life, Eph 2:1-5.

 

[Forest]

Well Brother Quant, the bible states that sin brings forth death. If Adam and Eve had not sinned, would they still have died? I think that what caused this is that God drove them from the Garden, and the Tree of Life. If they had not sinned, wouldn't they still have had access to It? I believe this is what could have caused them to die the physical death; IOW, no access to the Tree of Life equates death. What do you think? This is pure conjecture on my part, and I could easily be wrong. I am not dogmatic about this.

Death is a seperation, and a lot of the scriptures use death as a seperation from God's fellowship, and not fisical death.

 

[Forest]

To use the word "atonement" is to play into the hand of the Calvinists. They combine the work of the cross, reconciliation provided for all mankind, with the work of salvation where God puts us "in Christ" where we "receive" the reconciliation. Still monoergism, but not upside down and backward monoergism.

All these charges of universalism stem from their doctrine that Christ died for only those to be saved, and therefore if He died for everybody, that is universalism. Fiddlesticks

Then how do you explain John 6:37-41?

 

[convicted1]

We are all, both the elect and the non-elect, born into this world as natural beings, without any righteousness, and stay that way until God quickens his elect to a spiritual life, Eph 2:1-5.

Oh no! Don't tell me you think that they are quickened(made alive), and then later saved and placed in Christ, do you?

 

[Iconoclast]

Iconolast,

I will only touch on a couple of minor points where I feel you are mistaken about Spurgeon, and attempt to address a larger mistake where I fear you have perhaps been misled to believe a false doctrine.

I do not really view Calvinism a topic worth much debate,
But your rebuttal of what I said about one of Spurgeon’s sermons simply does not hold up in the wash.

Well ...ACF.......it actually does hold up quite well. You are correct in that in that sermon he does make a comment about reconciling two friends.....
when you answered quantumfaith you said the two friends were free will and election
here is your quote to QF;

This is intersting to me precisely because Spurgeon later came to understand, and preach, that Free Will and Election were both in scripture.

He eloquenty spoke on this topic in sermon # 239 based on Romans 9

.

But in truth you have presented a lie here in an effort to push forward your apparent agenda. When you try this kind of falsehood...you should keep in mind that some of us have access to the actual sermons and can read with comprehension....here is what Spurgeon actually said;

Now, have I not answered these two questions honestly? I have
endeavored to give a scriptural reason for the dealings of God with man.
He saves man by grace, and if men perish they perish justly by their own
fault. “How,” says some one, “do you reconcile these two doctrines?” My
207
dear brethren, I never reconcile two friends, never. These two doctrines are
friends with one another; for they are both in God’s Word, and I shall not
attempt to reconcile them. If you show me that they are enemies, then I
will reconcile them.

In the sermon he speaks of God's free grace.....and that men dead in sin continue on that way and are judged for it...that is the two friends spoken of....not "free will"...I quoted from Spurgeons free will a slave which you ignored.
[QUOTESpurgeon’s sermon is to address the very controversy you are so enthralled with, so it should be of enough interest to you to merit a full study.
]

I am so enthralled with???? This statement is what gives away your agenda.
I welcomed you to the BB...and tried to answer your question....but evidently you were not looking for an answer ....but for a Controversy:thumbs:
We can do controversy if you like...but now I see where you are coming from.:thumbsup:

I recommend you read the entire sermon, and if you still think I am wrong about what he said, please do provide some explanation as to why you think so.

I have the sermon with me....I have two copies of The metropolitan tabernacle...I am somewhat familiar with Spurgeons sermons...so I know you were twisting it..either intentionally...or you lack reading comprehension skills...that you are attempting to project on me.

I say Spurgeon used clear, plain, and easy to understand English in this sermon, and said exactly what he meant to say, .

yes he does...so maybe you can re-read it and you will see this that you must have skipped over;

But it does not say anything about fitting men for destruction; they fitted
themselves. They did that: God had nothing to do with it. But when men
are saved, God fits them for that. All the glory to God in salvation; all the
blame to men in damnation.
If any of you want to know what I preach every day, and any stranger
should say, “Give me a summary of his doctrine,” say this, “He preaches
salvation all of grace, and damnation all of sin. He gives God all the glory
for every soul that is saved, but he won’t have it that God is to blame for
any man that is damned.” That teaching I cannot understand. My soul
revolts at the idea of a doctrine that lays the blood of man’s soul at God’s
door. I cannot conceive how any human mind, at least any Christian mind,
can hold any such blasphemy as that. I delight to preach this blessed truth
— salvation of God, from first to last — the Alpha and the Omega; but
when I come to preach damnation, I say, damnation of man, not of God;
and if you perish, at your own hands must your blood be required.

The sermon is a lengthy one, as are most of his, but the below snippet from that sermon contains enough of what he said about the doctrines both being in God’s word to make this of interest to many participating on this board

.
This is your true agenda.....nice try...but I am not buying what your selling

“Now, have I not answered these two questions honestly? I have endeavoured to give a scriptural reason for the dealings of God with man. He saves man by grace, and if men perish they perish justly by their own fault. "How," says someone, "do you reconcile these two doctrines?" My dear brethren, I never reconcile two friends, never. These two doctrines are friends with one another; for they are both in God's Word, and I shall not attempt to reconcile them.”
--- Second topic

The ability to choose doesn’t always fit very well within an extreme view of “predestination”, so you just label it “Self Will”, as if that somehow differs from “Free Will”.

The ability to choose something..does not address the question of mans will.

Again..you now speak of "extreme predestination"..what exactly is that?
Predestination is a biblical teaching...primarily dealing with the elect sheeps sanctification. All salvation is based upon God's eternal covenant.

The bible speaks of the ungodly as being self willed...but you will search in vain for the false philosophical concept of free will which is a myth.

Can’t have it both ways, or can’t understand it being both ways?

I do not have to ,it is your false presupposition that it exists.
I do not labor under this mis conception as you do.

You attempt to justify this by saying Adam was “on probation”, “untested”, and “under a works based covenant”.
I have a fine old Bible, and know why you did not provide a scriptural reference on this.

The whole genesis account of creation and the fall ,along with romans 5:12-21,1cor15... as well as the active obedience of Jesus explains it perfectly to those who have eyes to see,or would care to learn.


Then there is the line of your previous response that describes how you think God was dealing with Adam through a “works based covenant”, to which you do provide a scriptural reference, just to a passage that supports nothing of the kind.

Here is where I think you are presenting a false doctrine.

You said;

“God had been dealing with Adam in what is often described as a covenant of works...or a covenant of life....Hosea 6:7
Now in my old worn out KJV I can easily find Hosea 6:7 - “But they like men have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me.”

if it is so worn out ..try youngs literal:

7And they, as Adam, transgressed a covenant, There they dealt treacherously against me.

(NASB)


7 But like [a]Adam they have transgressed the covenant;
There they have dealt treacherously against Me



Hosea 6:7
(WYC)


7 But they as Adam brake the covenant; there they trespassed against me.
What Covenant would be in view here???

Pardon if I raise my voice, but beginning in Genesis, and straight through to the very last page of Revelation, SALVATION IS BY GOD’S GRACE, and NEVER BY ANY ACTION OF MAN.

The undeniable, unchangeable, Word of Almighty God, clearly states this TRUTH applied to Abraham, applied to Paul, and it applies to us.

[/QUOTE]
Yet you say Adam was under a “works based covenant”?

It seems you have waded into water much too deep, and in a sincere desire to “prove” something you have decided in your mind is true, you are confused into believing a very common, but dangerously false, doctrine.][/QUOTE]
One of us has waded into waters that are much to deep...and I know who it is:thumbs:
You totally missed what I said about the first Adam...and the last Adam.....and Jesus active obedience
re-read my other post.....We are saved by Jesus perfect works on our behalf...he keeps the law perfectly for.the elect sheep.
We are saved by grace ...through faith which is all a gift of God....but the perfect righteousness is provided for us by Jesus law keeping

[QUOTE4For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth][/QUOTE]

19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

If I have not misunderstood you, then what is even worse is you are now trying to teach this falsehood to others, via the very wide venue of the Internet.

Such a thing, is a product of man’s “Religion”, and this is one false doctrine which cannot withstand any honest study of the Holy Word of God.

There is no such thing as a “works based covenant”, and there NEVER has been.[/QUOTE]
You are mistaken......

The Covenant of Redemption is based on the work of the Son,[His law keeping, His cross work} the last Adam, the True Israel.....he came to DO the Fathers will. The Father accepts His work as perfect.

 

[Skandelon]

Can you give me scriptural references for the second condition for salvation?

Seriously? Are you denying that someone must believe in order to be saved?

 

[MB]

John 6:37-41, Christ died only for those that God gave him, which was not all mankind. All that he died will live with him in heaven without the loss of one.

I simply do not see what you claim Jn 6:37-41 says. Because the same man wrote;
Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
Are you claiming all men will be saved because all men are drawn?
MB

 

[ACF]

Iconoblast,

You welcmed me in words only.

Because I disagree with you, whether it be on doctrine, or the meaning of Spurgeon, is beside the point.

You called what I said "Lies" and "Falsehoods".

I said nothing to merit such an ugly response, it is just a tactic you choose to win arguments.

I am not angry at being called a liar, as it is not true.

However, if this is how you respond to another believer, I hate to think of the damage you would do behind a pulpit, and God forbid you ever go on a mission trip.

Rather than preaching the GOSPEL, you spend your time here earnestly defending a doctrine I am sure you believe, but in all truth should be of little interest to a mature Christian, as it is an irrelevant doctrine to anyone who is already saved.

The only purpose your combative "debating" serves is to bring back an old controversy that has split apart the Baptist church in centuries past, and is doing so again today.

You call me a liar, you label what I, and countless millions of other believing Christians, believe as a heresy.

You have no authority, place, or right to define how anyone other than your own "self" came to salvation.

I do not speak for you on this matter, but your actions do, and the words you use toward other Christians are damning words, from one end or the other.

Chist commanded we preach the Gospel, but rather than bringing new believers into the Body of Christ, you are working overtime to drive other, already believing Christians out of the Baptist Church.

I have been a Baptist more than half a century, I grew up in a very large SBC church, and prior to 2000, both sides of this old controvesy existed in harmony within the same Church, and it was only with the revisions of the BMOF that self righteous zelots were again to be heard thrashing those who disagreed with there precious Calvin.

I cannot speak for you, but I am indwelled by the Holy Ghost, having Blessed Assurance in my salvation.

You are so puffed up in pride over what you think you know that you dare to tell me how I came to know God.

You are just anogher pilgrim like me, no more, certainly no lesss, and you have no way to know how God has dealt with me.

God works in His own ways, and it is not your place to define them.

There are many Christian "beliefs", but there is but one Christian "Faith.

That LIVING Faith is a Gift of God.

If what John Calvin taught speaks to your heart, and brought you to God, then that is your truth.

It is not my truth.

Before you start impressing us alll with your vast knoweldge by damning me to Hell as a heritic, please consider two things.

You don't get to tell my testimony, I was there when it happened, and I ought to know.

Being prideful of knowledge is the oldest curse on Mankind, and you would do well to consider not only the facts of, but the nature of Adam's disobediance, and the result of the works of knowlege you do here.

 

[Luke2427]

Oh no! Don't tell me you think that they are quickened(made alive), and then later saved and placed in Christ, do you?

They have to be made alive so that they can receive the things of the Spirit of God. The strictly natural man cannnot receive the things of the Spirit. He cannot because he is dead spiritually. Once he is made alive spiritually by the Spirit he can receive the things of the Spirit, namely the Gospel, and be saved.

 

[Iconoclast]

ACF....Not totally sure why you go into this emotional rant, but you evidently have issues. Lets walk through this.
As I previously posted when you twisted Spurgeons words....You come in here with an agenda. Now it is coming out and you want to inflict it on me.
The problems you have with biblical teaching can be helped, but not if you are just set to resist. Lets see what is on your mind....
my responses are in red letters.

Iconoblast,
Really.....
You welcmed me in words only.
I saw you only posted 10 times ..so i offered a welcome...if you cannot accept that...it is your problem

Because I disagree with you, whether it be on doctrine, or the meaning of Spurgeon, is beside the point.
Okay...
You called what I said "Lies" and "Falsehoods".
your post was a mis-representation of the sermon...if it was deliberate that would be called a lie....if it was just mistaken understanding by you it would be a falsehood...in either case..I offered you correction by posting from the actual sermon......you should say...oh yes..i see I posted in error about the sermon .

I said nothing to merit such an ugly response, it is just a tactic you choose to win arguments.

correcting a falsehood is not an ugly response...and ugly response is you with an agenda being less the open and making emotionally unstable accusations.

I am not angry at being called a liar, as it is not true.

if it is not true and what you did was just mistaken ...okay...but that is between you and God.


However, if this is how you respond to another believer, I hate to think of the damage you would do behind a pulpit, and God forbid you ever go on a mission trip.

If you look at the posts you will see that I have correctly identified your agenda..I suspected it by your response....you remember...you said i am enthralled...

Rather than preaching the GOSPEL, you spend your time here earnestly defending a doctrine I am sure you believe,

That is your perspective which you are welcome to...people here profess to be believers...so I do not usually preach the gospel to believers.I address questions and offer bible truth, cut and paste good links quite often.
I do contend for the faith here on a DEBATE FORUM...yes..that is what it is for. You do not know me at all but It is looking as if you have stalked the board for awhile and you want to "go on the attack".
I try to help people who want help....you look as if you do not want help or biblical interaction, but keep in mind it was you that asked me twice for an answer...you said you found nothing to disagree with[maybe that made you unhappy as it seems as if you want to put down the grace of God.]
If someone wants help with the gospel ...I help.

but in all truth should be of little interest to a mature Christian, as it is an irrelevant doctrine to anyone who is already saved.

This is an ungodly perspective.The truth of God is of interest to all Christians.Many Christians want to make sure they are accurately speaking the truth of God. if it was not important truth God would not have inscripturated it....he would have sent us a tract,,instead of 66 books. sorry You do not share this view. Sorry you feel that way.You have posted this idea 2 times in 4 posts.

The only purpose your combative "debating" serves is to bring back an old controversy that has split apart the Baptist church in centuries past, and is doing so again today.

Again....you are coming at me, any any other cal making accusations .
Guess what my friend...I will answer your attack if that is what you desire.
I would rather help someone who desires help.I have been around long enough to know who wants help,and who wants to offer up sanctimonious garbage...There is no controversy.There is truth. some believe it, some do not understand it, some attack it.


You call me a liar, you label what I, and countless millions of other believing Christians, believe as a heresy.

pelagianism,and semi pelagianism is heresy...if you believe those ideas you need to repent of such falsehood. Paul in Galatians had no trouble identifying these ideas expressed by judiazers as another gospel and neither do I.

You have no authority, place, or right to define how anyone other than your own "self" came to salvation.

I did not claim any such authority...what are you talking about? what did i post that said this to you?


I do not speak for you on this matter, but your actions do, and the words you use toward other Christians are damning words, from one end or the other.

Again....post something I posted that says this ...to you

Chist commanded we preach the Gospel, but rather than bringing new believers into the Body of Christ, you are working overtime to drive other, already believing Christians out of the Baptist Church.

You do not know me or what I do.I speak everyday to multiple persons about the truth of the gospel. This accusation shows your agenda once again.I think your view is pathetically sad and short sighted.



I have been a Baptist more than half a century, I grew up in a very large SBC church, and prior to 2000, both sides of this old controvesy existed in harmony within the same Church, and it was only with the revisions of the BMOF that self righteous zelots were again to be heard thrashing those who disagreed with there precious Calvin.

Your perception of these brethren is what you are posting against me..your jaundiced eye and pride showing through.
I cannot speak for you, but I am indwelled by the Holy Ghost, having Blessed Assurance in my salvation.

You are so puffed up in pride over what you think you know that you dare to tell me how I came to know God.

Post where I said this.....pride?? or maybe I called you on your error,and you cannot respond to it...so it has to be pride on my part....oic
You are just anogher pilgrim like me, no more, certainly no lesss, and you have no way to know how God has dealt with me.

God works in His own ways, and it is not your place to define them.

There are many Christian "beliefs", but there is but one Christian "Faith.

That LIVING Faith is a Gift of God.

agreed

If what John Calvin taught speaks to your heart, and brought you to God, then that is your truth.

I believed in election and predestination before i ever heard of calvin.it is biblical....when i read Ephesians 1 I know what the truth of God is at its core,although obviously it has grown over time
All truth is God's truth,,,,it is not my truth or your truth


It is not my truth.

If God's truth is not your truth, then by your own mouth you need to be born from above . Otherwise you are saying that the historic faith of the church is a falsehood...so which is it? I cannot see your heart...but i see what you are posting so I would caution you not to let your emotions get the best of you here..and you end up denying the God of the bible.


Before you start impressing us alll with your vast knoweldge by damning me to Hell as a heritic, please consider two things.

This kind of wicked posting sets me off. I have not done any of what you say.
The fact that you cannot respond biblically after being "in church for years " is to your shame. I do not have to impress anyone with anything.
if you go to hell as a heretic , that is between you and God.
many religious professors will be sent to hell as goats MT 7:21-24
Again...I have not posted anything as you say.....repent


You don't get to tell my testimony, I was there when it happened, and I ought to know.
If God has saved you by His grace that is wonderful,as far as you being there and knowing,,,,that can be another story.


Being prideful of knowledge is the oldest curse on Mankind, and you would do well to consider not only the facts of, but the nature of Adam's disobediance, and the result of the works of knowlege you do here.

This objection is also vile. because I answer you on a question does not equate to being prideful.Only when you cannot answer you seek toshoot me and any others who might have learned something that you have not as being prideful.
Pride is not a good thing....by willful ignorance is not a gift of the Spirit either.
If you do not believe as i do ...fine ..offer scriptural correction. this emotionally unstable rant you may keep to yourself:thumbsup:

 

[convicted1]

They have to be made alive so that they can receive the things of the Spirit of God. The strictly natural man cannnot receive the things of the Spirit. He cannot because he is dead spiritually. Once he is made alive spiritually by the Spirit he can receive the things of the Spirit, namely the Gospel, and be saved.

So then there's spiritual life outside of Christ then? A man/woman is dead in sins, but alive spiritually to hear and receive?

 

[DaChaser1]

John Hendryx, a Calvinist, made this argument:



The problem with this argument is that it appears to presume that atonement is equal to salvation. It ignores the fact that the demands of justice for one's sin may be fully satisfied without their being saved.

The conditions for being saved are:

(1) satisfaction of divine justice for your sin (atonement)
and
(2) authentic faith in Christ as Lord and Savior.

The error John makes is to assume that if the first condition has been met then a person will necessarily be saved. This ignores the demand of God for the second condition to likewise be met. Thus, it is possible for someone to have the first condition met without ever meeting the second condition and therefore not be saved.

Therefore, affirming unlimited atonement doesn't imply universalism.

it would and does IF you mean that Jesus in actuality had actually died to pay/atone for sins of all sinners, and not just died so that all Might Potentially be able to receive its effectual work!

IF jesus actually did indeed died in the place of all sinners, that he really paid their sin debt in reality and they were reconciled back to God because of the Cross..

Would have either sinners in hell with atonement provided for them, or else they rejected Jesus, but still had sin debt paid in full!

That is where concept of Universalism creeps into the discussion!

 

[ACF]

Dachaser1,

Thank you for trying to get this thin back to what it should be, a rational discussion of differing theological views on election.

 

[JonC]

DaChaser1,
I do not understand the logic you’re presenting. Applying the logic to limited atonement: if Christ’s death paid the debt for the elect alone, then why do the elect need to believe as their debt is paid? Wouldn’t they already be saved apart from atonement?
The view Christ atoned for the sins of the world, and therefore paid the debt in full , does not necessarily mean that that salvation follows. It does mean, though, that those who wind up in hell are not there for violating the law, or for sins that they have committed. They perish because they have rejected Christ. Many who support universal atonement do so because it is supportive of the judgeship of Christ. Of course, many do support unlimited atonement because they believe in unlimited salvation.

 

[JonC]

Oh, and I have to comment on ACF’s analysis of Spurgeon (mostly because that sermon, along with “Choice Portions” is one of my favorites).

Spurgeon describes sovereign election and will of man to be concurrent biblical doctrines, parallel lines meeting in the eternity of God. Those who seek God do so because God has chosen them. He does not distinguish between atonement and redemption, so it would be an error to imply that he somehow changed course in the latter portion of his ministry. He does criticize those who only focus on the sovereignty of God as well as those who focus solely on the free will of man, but determines that this is not only necessary because of our finite understanding but that it is also a healthy irritation for the Church. But one thing is clear, when Spurgeon spoke of the will of man, it was not a “free-will” in terms of being apart from the sovereign will of God.

 

[preacher4truth]

DaChaser1,
They perish because they have rejected Christ. .

They're already condemned and in their sins, on the path that leads to eternal death prior to rejection of Christ, not because of. Escaping condemnation comes through knowing Christ and indicates ones former standing in condemnation prior to knowing Him.

 

[Skandelon]

"They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved." - Paul