Calvinism started falling apart from me when really delving into the "L" (Limited Atonement):
1. Every man including the non-elect, is commanded to believe in the Gospel or be eternally damned.
2. The "Gospel" (as I had believed at the time) included Jesus dying for the sins of mankind.
3. "Limited Atonement" states that Jesus died only for the elect.
4. Those who are not elect are commanded by God to believe Jesus died for them individually when in essence, He did not.
5. In essence. those non-elect are not given a legitimate option to accept the "Gospel" so it would be unjust for them to be damned because the offer/command wasn't even genuine. In theory, the non-elect is being damned for not accepting God's lie to him.
Let's use Hitler (everyone's villain) as an example.
Calvinist view: Hitler is/will be in hell because of his sins, enduring God's wrath. Jesus could not have borne the punishment for his sins nor paid the price for his sins. If Jesus had done that, then both He AND Hitler suffered the payment for Hitler's sins. It would be unjust of God to punish Hitler because Jesus paid Hitler's punishment.
The other view: Hitler is/will be in hell damned for rejecting the Gospel that Jesus died for his sins. But suppose Jesus didn't die for Hitler. It would be unjust to punish Hitler for rejecting a Gospel that was never applied to him. In essence, if your name is "John" and you are commanded to obey the instructions of a confidential letter addressed to "Bob" or you will be jailed, how is it just to be imprisoned for not going along with a letter that was not addressed to nor meant for you to begin with?
IMHO, both positions point to God as being "unjust". But if we accept the "Gospel" that Jesus taught instead of the one Paul taught, there is a possibility we just might come to a different conclusion about God.
