In answer to the question about “what was accomplished on the cross?”, it seems that both camps would say “those who believe were saved”.

So it feels as if the debate around limited atonement is primarily about characterizing God’s nature and intentions; emphasizing either mercy or justice. At least, that’s the best I can ascertain so far.

In any case, I’ve started on Olson’s book, and he is making a strong point that much of what the Calvinists rail against is pelagianism or semi-pelagianism, and not Arminianism. http://examiningcalvinism.blogspot.com/2009/07/book-study-at-sea.html

“double jeopardy” is the notion that if Jesus suffered for their sins already, then God would be unjust to judge them and cause them to suffer on the basis of those same sins.

the questions primarily revolve around what was really accomplished at the cross. Did Jesus save anyone or merely allow for the possibility of salvation? What does “atonement” mean?

definitely take your time and stick with the bible regardless of what you conclude.

I strongly believe that:
1) Christ died as propitiation for sin
2) Christ’s sacrifice was great enough to cover ALL sin
3) Not everyone will be saved as a result of Christ’s sacrifice (thus, claim #2 will never be tested, and therefore claims #1 and #3 are sufficient)

As far as I can tell, neither camp would disagree with these beliefs, and the discussion over “limited atonement” is dealing with a completely different issue. So I am having a really hard time understanding what the point is, or why anyone would take a position on “limited atonment” (other than to assume that scriptures mean what they say)? MacArthur had some vague argument about “double jeapordy”, but I really don’t see the point (yet; I am trying). What are the practical implications of one theory versus another?

In this post, I was dealing narrowly with the claim made by Arminians that “Calvinists are sneaky”. I don’t really feel qualified yet to comment on all of the claims made by Arminians (or Calvinists, for that matter). I will be reading Olson’s “Arminian Theology” over the next two weeks, though, and should be able to post my thoughts about your question at that time.

For what it’s worth, I’m inclined to assume that Paul meant exactly what he said. I have seen people do gymnastics around verses like this, claiming, for example, that the word “world” in John chapter 3 really is greek secret code for “the elect”. I am deeply suspicious of such gymnastics.