On his website, Arminian Perspectives, Ben Henshaw has a questions page at which he answers questions about Arminianism and Calvinism that visitors to his site pose in the comment section of the page. Here is a question (edited for clarity) submitted by someone with the screen name Wanderson followed by Ben’s answer:
Question: Do you have or know any study about John 17 that gives a refutation of the passage’s use as support for unconditional election and limited atonement??? How do you usually respond to the arguments of Calvinists here?
Answer: John 17 is a terrible prooftext for Calvinists. The only way to get anything like unconditional election or limited atonement out of the passage is to entirely ignore context.
First, Jesus is speaking only of the apostles in verses 6-19. And even then, the language of verse 12 implies that Judas was among those who were given by the Father, and yet he perished.
Verse 20 broadens the prayer to all who will come to believe through the testimony of the apostles. Verses 21 and 23 broadens it further to “the world” and thereby kills any hope for the Calvinist in trying to limit Christ’s prayer or atonement to the elect alone.
As I said, it is a terrible prooftext. I find it strange that Calvinists even reference John 17 in support of Calvinism.
