Featured Can The Case Be Made That Christ Died For All?

Scroll.

He bought the whole field, but He particularly bought the treasure hidden in that field.

[add]

That's why I prefer 'Particular Redemption' over 'Limited Atonement'.

 

Im sorry but this is the problem with these discussions. There are just some that refuse to accept the difference between a reasonable argument and approving of what is said.

That said, saying that He loves the whole world is a clear indicator. Saying that He does not wish that any should perish is a clear indicator. He did not say that God is not willing that you should perish nor did he say that God is not willing that the elect should perish. He said any.

 

No no, he can be talking to "you" about the "any" without speaking only about the "you".

 

Ok break that down for me. Grammatically

 

The Arminian case I think would be that Christ has died on the cross, which we all agree on. They believe in a purpose of the atonement the same as Calvinists. But Calvinists tend to view the atonement in purer terms of what it did in that they teach that Christ died for the specific sins, to make atonement for them, and he really did accomplish that. If he made atonement then those sins are actually forgiven and the rest - believing, coming to Christ, repenting will happen but it will certainly happen because if has been decreed by a God who is sovereign over every minute detail. And of course if specific sins are atoned for then for sure the person who did them is forgiven. It must be so based on the specificity of the atonement.

But I think the Arminian views this more as Christ operating in his office of high priest. Christ died to expiate or propitiate sin. His bloods value is great enough to provide atonement for everyone who will ever live 10 times over but to actually get forgiveness of sin you must go to the priest. Christ not only administers this in his function as priest but he himself provided the sacrifice. Since Arminians and Calvinists for the most part believe that not everyone is actually saved at the time Christ died the Arminian position does not seem unreasonable that you have to come to Christ , all judgment is committed to him, and he functions as the sacrifice and the priest. In this sense Christ either died or he didn't. Since he did, and it is him you go to as priest, the problem of Christ dying for specific sins of specific people only is moot, because you must come to God through Christ. It's more of a real time thing that Christ does as people come to him and the emphasis is on coming to the Savior instead of realizing a specific transaction that is already accomplished in detail.

I don't know but it seems to me that a lot of good, reasonable people believe some variation of both things. (Arminian is shorthand for "Christ died for all" and Calvinist is of course for a specific atonement, and that's all I'm meaning by using those terms in the above.)

 

When the High Priest offered the sacrifice of Atonement did it atone for the whole world or did it atone for all who were the chosen Israel of God?

When Jesus, the Lamb of God and the great High Priest offered himself as a sacrifice of Atonement did he atone for the whole world or did he atone for all who were chosen children of God?

The sacrifices of the old covenant were foreshadows of the new covenant sacrifice of Christ Jesus. If the atonement in the old covenant was particular to Israel, then the atonement of the new covenant is particular to the chosen children of God.

 

That's a good point re the Atonement. I don't know if there is a good answer for that. I do know that in Leviticus 23:26-32 where it is describing the Day of Atonement it seems that the people had to be there, be involved in the sense of "afflicting their souls" and not doing any work. Anyone who did not participate in that manner would be cut off from the people. I don't have much knowledge in that area so maybe others could chime in who are more familiar with that system and how it would apply to Christianity. Good point.

 

It's because no one is applying the first rule of interpretation to the passage which is all about audience relevance, and everyone is assuming 'perish' refers to the eternal flame when it does not.

Philip Mauro (NOT a Preterist):

"ISRAEL'S LAST PROBATION

We have sought to impress upon our readers the fact that the destruction of Jerusalem, and the final breakup of the Jewish nation, was a matter of immense importance in the history of the world, as divinely viewed and written. We would now, in closing this chapter, call attention to the fact that God, in marvellous forbearance and goodness, did not execute His righteous judgment upon the nation at once, but gave them a final period of probation, which lasted just 40 years, from A.D. 30, when the Lord was crucified, to A.D. 70, when the city was destroyed and the nation exterminated.

The number 40 appears to be the measure of full probation. The Israelites were tested for 40 years in the wilderness at the beginning of their national career. That was under the Law. And at the end thereof, God gave them another probation of 40 years, under the Gospel. Other periods of full probation are found in the Scriptures, as when Moses left the people to themselves, while he was in the mountain 40 days. The first three kings of Israel (Saul, David and Solomon) reigned the full period of 40 years. And finally our Lord was tested for 40 days in the wilderness, with the wild beasts, and tempted of the devil....."

The audience of James and Cephas and John was of this 'probationary generation' [Revelation 2:21] during the 40 year 'overlap' period. 'Not wishing that any should perish' is synonymous with:

And with many other words he testified, and exhorted them, saying, Save yourselves from this crooked generation. Acts 2:40

20 But when ye see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that her desolation is at hand.
21 Then let them that are in Judaea flee unto the mountains; and let them that are in the midst of her depart out; and let not them that are in the country enter therein.
22 For these are days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all things be accomplished. Lu 21

4 Come forth, my people, out of her, that ye have no fellowship with her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues Rev 18

So, you see 'the perishing' of 2 Peter 3:9 is not about going to hell (though in all probability most that perished in this wrath of the temporal realm also perished eternally).

 

There is absolutely no Biblical basis without a general redemption being true for any not yet saved persons to believe Christ died in one's behalf or in one's place.

 

There is a promise that any one who comes to Christ will not be cast out. Even if limited or definite atonement is true, your only problem as an unsaved person is that you have not come to Christ. From a metaphysical or philosophical standpoint it may be valid to speculate that there are problems with the idea of being left out before time began in God's mind. But you do not have to have a pre promised general redemption before you can come. You are promised that if you come you will not be cast out. Nothing more is needed. God does not need to satisfy our philosophical musings to our satisfaction before you throw yourself on His mercy. In fact, I think a sinner who comes in that way is in danger and this is why the Calvinists make such a big deal of the Holy Spirit drawing people and quickening and so on. Because the way you do not want to come to Christ is with an attitude of evaluating God's set up and program and then deciding for Christ if the system fits your criteria. That almost guarantees a false convert.

 

The fact remains, some how those who came believe in Christ, believed Christ died for them prior to believing. Effectively being a general redemption, even if not professed as such. This is inescapable.

 

Yes. If you do come to Christ it is promised in the Bible that you will not be cast out. The staunchest champions of limited atonement like John Owen agree that coming to Christ is the evidence that you are elect and Christ died for you. I'm not sure I'm all in on limited atonement myself but what you are trying to do is make a fake argument that unless there is a blanket promise of the truth that Christ died for everyone then there is no true gospel. That simply is not true. There are arguments against a limited atonement but this is not a valid argument. For those that are against a limited atonement most go at it from one of two directions. Either they redefine atonement, or more commonly, they do not have the idea that God has predetermined all things in such a minute way as high Calvinists do.

 

I understand.
But what is the evidence that one typically by which believes Christ died for the one is believing prior to believing without having a general redemption? There is no such evidence.

Matthew 22:14, ". . . For many are called, but few are chosen. . . ."
Matthew 20:28, ". . . Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. . . ."

 

If a specific verse in scripture says that all that the Father gives to me will come to me. That describes election. And when it is followed by he who comes to me I will in no wise cast out - well it speaks for itself. If you believe in election then such a person has to be elect. If not, then Jesus would have had to say that he who comes to me, if he's elect, then I won't cast out. Otherwise I will cast out. Now if you want to say that well, he says that because he wasn't thinking of election at all, because it doesn't exist. OK. But then you have to figure out a way to explain the "all that the Father gives to me" part. That sounds an awful lot like election. You are attacking a weakness in Calvinism that is not weak.

Regarding the OP, in post no. 8 I tried to explain in a clumsy way how I think you indeed can make a case for a universal atonement. The Calvinist system, if it has a weakness, would be in whether God is meticulously sovereign in every detail. And if he is, then does he truly WANT everything to be as it is. Not that he allows it, while still being sovereign, but is the way everything is the exact way God wants it. I am having a problem believing that God truly, in his primary will and choice created millions of people with the primary purpose that they would burn in Hell. Most Calvinists I think believe that God gives men freedom and the ones saved, the elect, God intervened in their lives. The rest have nothing to blame God for but that he indeed has respected their free will. But that, I have found, is not universally agreed upon in Calvinism.

 

This is a prime example of why I think D James Kennedy was right. He was a staunch Calvinist. He taught and would even debate Calvinism in academic realms. Never lost a debate on the subject. But he staunchly warned the place for the discussion was purely in academia and no productive purpose in the church.

 

The problem lies in the fact that it side tracks and divides evangelism. Most newly converted Calvinists spend far more time trying to convert Non Calls than they spend trying to convert Sinners.