Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
Calvinist, James White, writes: “One of the first things any person honestly studying the Reformed faith comesto understand is that we believe that God ordains both the ends and the means. God has not only elected a people unto salvation but has chosen to use particular means to accomplish His purpose. Specifically, He uses the preaching of the gospel to bring His elect unto salvation. Since we do not know who the elect are, we are to preach the gospel to every creature, trusting that God will honor His truth as He sees fit in the salvation of His people.” (Debating Calvinism, p.321, emphasis mine)
Dave Hunt writes: “[James] White says, ‘Since we do not know who the elect are, we…preach the gospel to every creature.’ But he can’t tell ‘every creature’ that the gospel is for him!” (Debating Calvinism, p.334, emphasis mine)
Calvinists like to say that since they do not know who the elect are (i.e. the Calvinistically elect), they therefore preach the gospel to all men. Ok, then, if God is “making an appeal” to the lost, through them (the human messengers), then (1) it is an appeal to all of the lost, whether they are of the Calvinistically elect, or the Calvinistically non-elect, and (2) that appeal is one of reconciliation, which according to 5-Point Calvinism, would be a message of reconciliation toward most who have no Savior, and thus no means of reconciliation, otherwise making the “beg” of the “appeal” contradictory. In other words, “Be reconciled, those of you who have no Savior.” As an example, imagine if a particular college rejected your application, but also sent you a letter, begging you to complete your education at their university. That would seem to send a mixed signal. So, too, the appeal of 2nd Corinthians 5:20, together with a Limited Atonement, would send the same type of mixed signal. One cannot exclude people from the Atonement, and simultaneously beg for their reconciliation. It would make no sense. Only an Unlimited Atonement could make sense of the apostle’s appeal.
Calvinist, James White, writes: “Jesus does not seek to ‘woo’ them to a ‘freewill decision,’ nor does He strike up a lengthy invitation hymn and try to overcome their stubborn rejection of truth through an emotional appeal.” (Debating Calvinism, pp.121-122, emphasis mine)
Then why does Paul “beg” the lost?