In what sense did Christ die for all sinners?

[Christforums]

A good distinction to observe.

Would anyone claim that Jesus takes our “chastisement” in our place? (The wrath due for our sins post-justification.) Is “chastisement” about JUSTICE or something else?

Could you imagine for example, if a General of Armies denied any accountability or responsibility for his troops? This role also extends down to our marriages, as the head of the marriage each man is accountable and responsible (see discourse of Paul on the head of the church the bride of Jesus).

Sanctification goes hand and hand w/ chastisement. To express there is no chastisement is to leave the sinner in a state of sin. Throughout the Psalms David for example continually asks G-d to search him through for inequity and he asks for chastisement. Eliminating chastisement is like sparing the rod and never disciplining our children. And discipline is again something ever soldier can understand.

 

[Christforums]

That's key. I recommend anyone who wants to hear the case made for this aspect of the atonement and on the idea of God's wrath falling on Christ take a look at the Martyn Lloyd-Jones website with all his sermons available on audio. Sermon #2100 is on this subject.

Another good reference is by Jonathan Edwards, his sermon, "In the hands of an angry G-d".

 

[DaveXR650]

I am uncomfortable taking it as FACT when God never EXPLICITLY states he DID do that. I am uncomfortable building on any foundation that must be inferred by reading between the lines rather than being clearly and explicitly stated.

He was bruised for our transgressions. He bore our sins. He purchased the church with his blood. It is explicit enough for a lot of Godly people. Not to mention the symbolism of the sacrificial system and the explanation of it by the writer of Hebrews.

I understand what you are saying in that when scripture says God can be just and the justifier it means that God was demonstrating the honor of his decrees and laws and showing how serious he is about upholding them. He is indeed doing that but my question is - even though the symbolic meaning is real, and the same with the value as an object lesson, is it sufficient as such, if there was no other actual thing accomplished in that? I mean, we are bought with a price, not with an object lesson. The meaning is one thing which we may or may not as people ever fully understand. The shedding of Christ's blood did something or did it only illustrate or show an aspect of God's values or nature.

 

[atpollard]

Not to mention the symbolism of the sacrificial system and the explanation of it by the writer of Hebrews.

I see that as working exactly the opposite. It is the PRIEST that performs the sacrifice in the OT. Certainly the PREIST kills the lamb. Certainly the lamb sheds its blood. Certainly the blood of the lamb washes away the sin of the sinner.

Does the PRIEST pour his WRATH upon the lamb? Is that really the emotional state of the PRIEST towards the animal? Does he twist the knife so the lamb suffers a little extra, because the PRIEST is really, really upset at that lamb … because of what its owner did?

Yet is that not exactly how PSA presents God’s wrath at the Lamb of God because of our sin?

As I said, I have no objection to anything that scripture claims the blood accomplished, I just call into question “transferred wrath” as the driving motivation.

 

[atpollard]

He was bruised for our transgressions. He bore our sins. He purchased the church with his blood. It is explicit enough for a lot of Godly people.

Including me.

 

[DaveXR650]

I see that as working exactly the opposite. It is the PRIEST that performs the sacrifice in the OT. Certainly the PREIST kills the lamb. Certainly the lamb sheds its blood. Certainly the blood of the lamb washes away the sin of the sinner.

Does the PRIEST pour his WRATH upon the lamb? Is that really the emotional state of the PRIEST towards the animal? Does he twist the knife so the lamb suffers a little extra, because the PRIEST is really, really upset at that lamb … because of what its owner did?

Yet is that not exactly how PSA presents God’s wrath at the Lamb of God because of our sin?

As I said, I have no objection to anything that scripture claims the blood accomplished, I just call into question “transferred wrath” as the driving motivation.

I know that in Hebrews, Jesus is portrayed as being the real high priest and offering himself (his own blood). Judgement was on the animal, and ultimately on Jesus. I don't personally believe, and I have writings from Edwards, that he didn't believe either, that God was actually feeling wrath toward or was angry with Jesus. If that specifically is what is bothering you then I would agree and you would be in agreement with guys like Edwards. Some Calvinists, like R.C Sproul, have written that God was actually angry to the point of hating Jesus when he was on the cross. I disagree with them in this.

The way I see it, God is not full of wrath like we are, as humans would be, stalking around with the idea that somebody is going to get hurt, and hurt bad. Rather, try to keep all God's attributes in mind at once. His holiness and sense of justice does indeed demand punishment for sin because he has officially announced sanctions and punishment for sin. Scripture shows God as wanting to hold off meting out this on us as much as he can according to his wisdom and nature. I mean, that is precisely why the Godhead devised this plan of redemption. Thus there is potentially wrath abiding on all of us but for those who repent it is averted. But the point here is, that while the wrath is averted and put aside and we don't come under it, there is an actual reason for that and it's because our sins were really washed away, covered, put on Christ, sent off on a scapegoat, removed as far as the East from the West and so on. And Jesus actually did this by actually bearing our sins in his own body on the cross. The fact, and it is a true fact, that this also illustrates God's righteous government, his hatred of sin, Christ's obedience to the Father, and an innocent one slain by wicked men, there is still the necessary fact of this actual and real shedding of blood, without which there is no remission.

But the reaction to sin is still wrath, if it is not taken care of by God's redemptive plan. Calvinists and non-Cals look upon the specifics differently but agree that for those who are not elect and do not participate in this plan of redemption, there is no further sacrifice for sin. (As an aside, that implies that sin must be sacrificed for in some way and those who claim God will just frankly just forgive sin without a blood sacrifice need to take that up with the Father, whether they be a modern theologian or not.) And, Calvinist theologians like Owen do agree that no matter what their views were on predestination, there is a special offense and a special calling down of God's wrath for those who know of a way of redemption through Christ and yet reject it.

I find it most helpful to just get out the book of Hebrews and read it several times.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

if you view Christ as suffering a prescribed amount of wrath and punishment for each and every sin committed by each man being discussed with nothing else going on as far as the propitiation for sin. In other words, a sin, atoned for is cancelled regardless of any other interaction between God and the man.

When the Name for Him being The Savior was mentioned, in Matthew 1:21, then Jesus' Mission is described as, "He shall save His people from their sins", with "His people" and "their sins", both being indicated as expressing them as being specific " people" = "His" and "sins" = "their".

When Jesus describes How He was going to accomplish the salvation of His people from their sins, He says, "I give My Life a Ransom for many", again defining a restriction in contrast to Him having given His Life a Ransom for every member of the human race, by stating that He was going to die for "many".

When Jesus spoke directly regarding the subject of who it was that He was to die for, Jesus said, "I give My Life for the sheep".

And what I would like to have asked Owen, respectfully, was how he dealt with the argument for limited atonement without going into hyper-Calvinism and also how would his argument mesh with his view of a real and universal offer of the gospel to everyone who hears it.

The Gospel is Commanded to be preached by Jesus Christ, in the form of, "Repent and believe the Gospel", meaning the Gospel Message that Jesus died, as the result of taking upon Himself the sin of individuals that caused His death, which are the sins the saved soul are Commanded to Repent of, then that Jesus was buried and buried their sins away, and where we know God Accepted Jesus' Payment for their sins, because He Raised Him from the dead.

The God Who Elected some to salvation, also Elected the Means by which He would use The Gospel Message preached, with The Holy Spirit making the Awareness of the Application of the salvation Jesus had Made Satisfaction for, in The New Birth, when that saved soul is Granted Repentance, to now take sides with God against themselves, and at the same time, God Gives that saved soul the Inward Means, by which God Gives them a Spiritual Ability when He Grants them Faith, to grasp hold of a Spirit Enabled understanding that when Jesus died, He died for them, specifically.

Hyper-Calvanism is an entirely disobedient refusal to preach the Gospel, and proves to be the evidence that any claims they may make concerning their belief in God being Sovereign are simply bogus, since they do not do what God Commands them to do and, in fact, their failure to obey God Command to preach the Gospel is also indicative of an actual hatred of the Gospel being demonstrated and expressed.

Jesus Commanded that The Gospel be preached, which always implies that since it was the sins of individuals which Brought about His death on the cross, that they must Repent of those sins, which they are Shown by The Holy Spirit that they were Guilty of, and have Offended God by breaking His Law, which were what Jesus died for.

I don't worry too much about what a man says and don't know how specific to the wording, "his view of a real and universal offer of the gospel to everyone who hears it", is, as far as whether that was something he would say just like that, but I know Jesus Commanded The Gospel to be preached Outwardly, Commanding all individual sinners to Repent and Believe Jesus died for their sins, to which The Holy Spirit Bears Witness to the ones God Gave Jesus to save. Then, while the rest are Commanded to Repent and Believe, they do not, because they love darkness rather than the Light, and God Leaves them right their where He Found them, i.e., in their sins.

So, the words, "offer of the Gospel", is not a concept that I see having anything to do with Jesus' Command to preach the Gospel, for sinners to Repent and Believe it.

The Gospel is a real and universal Command to all, which is either Used by The Holy Spirit by Enabling the lost soul to have ears to Hear that it is Intended for them, personally, when God Quickens them from the dead, by it, or allows the lost sinner to remain in their deaf and blind, Naturally Born Spiritually dead State.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Greetings in the Name of The Lord,, my brother.

This "putting all things under His foot" is part of the stratagem of God the Father to offer reconciliation to all mankind.

.
Well, I guess I sure can't find any connection to be made there in any regard.

The Lombardian formula, which almost all early Reformers held, stated/states that "Christ died sufficiently for all, but efficiently for the elect". This concept can also be found in the Second Head of Doctrine that came out of the Counsel of Dort, Article 3. It says, "The death of the Son of God is the only most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world."

I will also gladly leave these two efforts involving men reasoning with their minds which they clearly profess suffered the curse of the Fall of Adam, to be human attempts at philosophies, which are devoid of scripture references, for a very conpicuous reason, I believe.

This concept is an expression of the Reformed fathers that communicated that Christ did something for the elect, efficaciously, but also did something for the natural man (something that was sufficient).

O.K., but I sure don't buy into anything of that nature being actually taught in the Book.

New thread:

Limited Atonement #1: Whom the Father Elects, the Son Redeems, and the Holy Ghost Sanctifies.

Universal redemption, or, that Christ died for all men, cannot be a Gospel truth, because of the following arguments and reasons. 1. God the Father’s Election, God the Son’s Redemption, and God the Holy Ghost’s Sanctification, must all be of Equal Extent and Latitude; but universal redemption...

www.baptistboard.com

 

[DaveXR650]

I don't worry too much about what a man says and don't know how specific to the wording, "his view of a real and universal offer of the gospel to everyone who hears it", is, as far as whether that was something he would say just like that, but I know Jesus Commanded The Gospel to be preached Outwardly, Commanding all individual sinners to Repent and Believe Jesus died for their sins, to which The Holy Spirit Bears Witness to the ones God Gave Jesus to save. Then, while the rest are Commanded to Repent and Believe, they do not, because they love darkness rather than the Light, and God Leaves them right their where He Found them, i.e., in their sins.

It's hard to explain but what I'm meaning is the knowledge of God's sovereignty which is real, is clashing logically with the reality of man's responsibility, which is also real. This is why Owen said he had on authority of scripture a warrant to say to anyone that if they come to Christ by faith they will be saved. Be as strict a Calvinist as you wish but if you do not believe that statement really means what it says you have allowed speculative theology to intrude into the realm of our reality as creatures who live in real time.

So following that, when someone hears the gospel message, it is claimed by serious Calvinists like Owen that if they believe they will be saved and that includes literally anyone who does so. They also believed that only the elect would respond. But, the problem for us is, are we as humans really capable of truly holding both of those truths at the same time without having our belief of one at least in the back of our minds, intruding into our practical belief of the other.

I say no and therefore like J.C. Ryle I say to people "Christ died for you" and the offer of salvation is there for you in complete honesty. The truth of election and predestination - is it cast aside? Well if within the limitations of our human tendency to live in real time and within the limitations of the fact that whatever we do, if it is voluntary, is indeed done with the consent or as the result of our will - if you are modifying that truth in any way, even in the back of your mind, or instilling that, even as an afterthought, in the mind of a person you are talking to then yes. The truth of those things have no bearing on the free offer of the gospel message.

And to allow that aspect of theological truth to intrude into such discussions is a mistake in my opinion. That is why, more so than a person's theology, I look for those who treat the gospel as having an aspect of invitation and "offer" because that is what is is. It is a command, but a joyous command, like a final offer of pardon. That is why Edwards, with a deterministic theology, could preach "Christ has died, all is ready for you and all that is needed is your consent. And rejection of this is totally on you, not God".

 

[Van]

God set forth Christ's sacrifice of His life as providing the means of reconciliation accessible through faith in His name. This access through faith is for all people provided their hearts have not been hardened. Christ died as a ransom for all people to provides the means for all people to be saved, since God desires all people to be saved through faith, not compulsion.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

The Lombardian formula, which almost all early Reformers held, stated/states that "Christ died sufficiently for all, but efficiently for the elect". This concept can also be found in the Second Head of Doctrine that came out of the Counsel of Dort, Article 3. It says, "The death of the Son of God is the only most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world."

This concept is an expression of the Reformed fathers that communicated that Christ did something for the elect, efficaciously, but also did something for the natural man (something that was sufficient).

"Among those who generally accept the doctrine of a definite or limited atonement, it is often heard by way of explanation that "the atonement is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect." In fact this terminology may be found in some of the most respected Reformed theologians such as Hodge, Shedd, Buswell and others. While no Calvinist would deny the intrinsic sufficiency of Christ's death for the redemption of all men had God so designed and intended it, I find the use of such phraseology dubious.

"Maintaining the infinite intrinsic value of Christ's death is not the same as saying "He died sufficiently for all men and efficiently only for the elect." The latter seems to ascribe to Christ a purpose or intention to die in the place of all men, and to benefit all by the proper effects of His death as an atonement or propitiation. This inference is not supported by a scriptural view of the nature of the atonement or by the Calvinistic understanding of limited atonement. My purpose here is to show that this phraseology is ultimately meaningless and fails to adequately perceive the nature of the atonement. In the final analysis, it does not distinguish a definite atonement from a general or universal atonement.1​

"Why is the term "sufficient for all" used in discussing the atonement?"​

"It is with some interest that we look at some of the probable reasons why such language has become rather common in discussions of this matter. Primarily, the use of this terminology seems to be an attempt to soften the impact of the doctrine of limited atonement on the natural mind, for it is indeed no simple matter of understanding. Most people don't want a theological treatise as an explanation, they just want a simple answer (and in no more than three minutes, if you please). So we say, "His death was sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect." This may be brief and easy to remember, but accuracy and integrity have been sacrificed for the sake of brevity. Its use anticipates objections to the doctrine and pretends to diffuse those objections by declaring a universal application of the atonement. Rather than providing a real answer, however, it only deflects the potential objections and often leaves the questioner unsatisfied or at least scratching his head, wondering what it really means.

"This statement has been used by good solid Calvinists who have no intention of giving way on the doctrine of limited atonement, but that does not make it valid or advisable phraseology. There appear to be several underlying reasons why this statement has been used. I believe the following are representative of those reasons:​

• 1st. There is a fear (read: Satan influenced fear upon the weakness of man's carnal flesh) that God might be charged with injustice if an Atonement is 'not somehow provided for all'.​
• 2nd. A universal aspect of the Atonement is (SHORTSIGHTEDLY) 'perceived' (BY THE FLESH) as necessary for a bona fide 'offer of the Gospel' to all men.​
• 3rd. The Atonement must somehow be designed for the non-elect in order to render them inexcusable for their unbelief (by ignorant of the fact that their sin makes them inexcusable for unbelief).​
• 4th. Since Christ in His Person is Divine and Infinite, so must be His Work on the cross; therefore His death is Sufficient for all (simply as an exercise in wildly, rashly, guessing in an argument from silence fallacy).​

"Considered together there may be some semblance of rationale for the "sufficient for all" statement, (if you are cheap enough to being prone to being tricked by Satan, by such a cheap trick), but I hope to show that considered separately, the reasons are either invalid or the concern can be and should be answered another way. Let's take a look at these reasons individually."

"First, that there is a fear that God might be charged with injustice if an Atonement is not somehow provided for all.
Answer: Mercy extended to some but not all, is not to be perceived as injustice. As R. C. Sproul has suggested, all the potential acts of God may fall under two categories: Justice and non-justice. Under non-justice, however, we have the sub categories of injustice and Mercy.

"Mercy is not Justice, but it is certainly not injustice. God cannot be charged with injustice. We seem to think that if God doesn't treat everyone exactly the same, and provide Mercy to all alike, then He is unjust. This is simply false reasoning and a good example of the effect of the Fall on man's ability to think straight. It fails to stand up to either the Scriptures or logic.

con't:
​

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Fortunately for us, our role in the atonement is to observe and try to understand.

con't from post above: In what sense did Christ die for all sinners?

"Secondly, that a universal aspect of the Atonement is perceived as necessary for a bona fide offer of the Gospel to all men. Answer: The Truth of the Gospel is to be proclaimed to all men. For example, "All men are under Condemnation and Hell bound because of their sin. There is no escape apart from Faith in Christ.

"By the Grace of God, all who believe in Him are Forgiven and shall be saved. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved!" Now this Truth is not dependent on a universal aspect or universal intent to the Atonement. In fact, the extent of the Atonement and its Sufficiency or Efficiency have no direct bearing on the Message.

"According to J. I. Packer, "Preaching the Gospel is not a matter of telling people that God has set His Love on each of them and Christ has died to save each of them. The Knowledge of being the Object of God's Eternal Love and Christ's Redeeming death belongs to the individual's Assurance . . . which is to be inferred from the fact that one has believed, not proposed as the reason one should believe."2

"Or, as John Owen has said, "There are none called by the Gospel even once to enquire after the Purpose and Intention of God concerning the Particular Object of the death of Christ, everyone being fully Assured that His death shall be Profitable to them that believe in Him and Obey Him."3 The preacher's task is to explain man's need of Christ, His Sufficiency to save, and His offer of Himself as Savior to all who truly turn to Him. If you are proclaiming a Gospel Message that demands a universal provision in the Atonement, you are not proclaiming the Gospel of the Scriptures.

"Thirdly, that the Atonement must somehow be designed for the non-elect in order to render them inexcusable for their unbelief. Answer: If Christ did not provide an Atonement Sufficient for all without exception, wouldn't we still be to blame for our perishing? Wouldn't we still be forced to say, "We are without excuse?" Why must we think that it is the Provision of an Atonement that renders men inexcusable?

"The Apostle Paul never discusses Atonement in terms of rendering men inexcusable or as a basis for Condemnation! The Atonement is not designed to render men inexcusable, but rather it is designed to save some of those who already Stand before God without excuse. The Particularity of the Atonement needs no more apology than the Particular Nature of the Effectual Call or Unconditional Election.

"Can you imagine using the same phraseology with these Doctrines? -- "The Effectual Call is Sufficient for all but Efficient only for the Elect." Or, "God's Unconditional Election is Sufficient for all but Efficient only for the Elect." Here I think we see a little of the meaningless nature of such a statement.

"Fourthly, that since Christ in His Person is Divine and Infinite, so must be His Work on the cross; therefore His death is Sufficient for all. Answer: "It is a non sequitur to move from the Deity of the Sacrifice to the Sufficiency for every individual person. Such a conclusion assumes that the Deity can Perform nothing by measure."4

"In His feeding of the five thousand, Jesus multiplied the loaves by a Divine Act. Yet all the loaves in the world were not multiplied, only the ones He Handled and Blessed for the five thousand. Again, it was a Divine Act (and thus Infinite) that Raised Lazarus from the grave. Yet this was Limited to Lazarus. To say that the Raising of Lazarus was Sufficient for all but Efficient for Lazarus makes little sense if any. It is obvious that Christ had the Power to Raise whomever He Chose. The fact is He Chose to Raise only Lazarus, and His Divine Actions were Limited to that.

"Perhaps more to the point, Christ's Nature, being Divine and thus Infinite, does not increase the intensity or quantity of that which was laid on Him at the cross. However, His Nature does Enable Him to Bear whatever it might have been. Our sins are not infinite, and we are not infinite; it is Christ who is Infinite.

"Christ Bore the Penalty for the sins of a finite number of people. His Divine Nature Ensured that He would Successfully Bear the Eternal Wrath due to those sins, no matter how great or how many. His Atonement is Sufficient for all whom it was Intended. It is Sufficient for all whose sins were Laid on Him, no matter how many.

"The question is, Was Christ a Real Substitute for, and did He Bear the Punishment due to, all men or some? The Doctrine of Limited Atonement says some, the Elect, or else all would be saved. To say that His death was Sufficient for all, or that His Atonement was Sufficient for all, certainly implies otherwise.

"While our motive may be to help someone understand a particular Truth regarding the Doctrine of Atonement, I don't think the use of such language is the way to do it. If the above reasons for using this terminology are not valid, which I have attempted to show, then the term "sufficient for all" is unnecessary. In fact it is not only unnecessary but inappropriate. It is inappropriate because there is a tendency for error to be introduced by such language. If we use language that is theologically inaccurate, which is true of the case at hand, then we will soon find ourselves entertaining erroneous theological ideas in order to explain our dubious terminology.

"In this case, how does one explain the rational difference between an Atonement that is "Sufficient" for all men
and one that is "Efficient" for those who are saved?"

From: Sufficient for All?​

 

[DaveXR650]

"Or, as John Owen has said, "There are none called by the Gospel even once to enquire after the Purpose and Intention of God concerning the Particular Object of the death of Christ, everyone being fully Assured that His death shall be Profitable to them that believe in Him and Obey Him."

Like I said in the post above, if you can fully embrace the truth of both of Owen's statements at the same time then I have no problem with a belief in a limited atonement. Still, I'm not sure Owen was right in saying that one should not inquire into whether they are included in the death of Christ because I don't think there is any faulty logic in wanting to know if a pardon being announced includes you who are hearing it. Granted, that is an Arminian argument which Owen was aware of and so he had to refute it but I have to think it may indeed be a good argument.

Regarding the atonement itself, the sufficient for all, efficient for only some has an additional reason for it's use than what was listed below this statement:

"This statement has been used by good solid Calvinists who have no intention of giving way on the doctrine of limited atonement, but that does not make it valid or advisable phraseology. There appear to be several underlying reasons why this statement has been used. I believe the following are representative of those reasons:

This is because within the discussion of how the atonement is limited, and how exactly Christ bore our sins, a couple of things must be discussed. One, is what happened at the cross namely this: that Christ was punished a specific amount, acceptable to God, for each and every specific sin, committed by each elect person and not one bit more? Or, was Christ slain, and did his blood offer superabundant propitiation that because of the infinite worth of Christ could if it were possible, redeem everyone in 1000 worlds plus ours. Looked at in that sense, their statement would be correct and like you said, they were committed limited atonement Calvinists (or at least particular redemption Calvinists). The difference, if you are a serious Calvinist, in that case would be that God does not sovereignly work faith in everyone.

If you are not a committed Calvinist, and depending upon your views of how our free will works, how "foreknowledge" works with God's sovereignty one can go further. For instance, some would say that the blood of Christ is applied in time, as Christ acts as a high priest and applies the blood when we are saved. And the Holy Spirit effectively calls (or irresistibly calls) those who will be saved for a Calvinist; or calls by the word and the Holy Spirit's conviction or persuading, for more moderate Calvinists and Arminians, or in the case of those of a more free will persuasion, that this is provided and you have the ability and choice to avail yourself of this and thus you will be saved or perish according to your decision.

I bring that up because you have to keep in mind that if you look at historical Calvinist theologians speaking on this it is very doubtful that a "limited atonement" indeed was considered an essential part of Calvinism. It's doubtful that Calvin believed it. It most certainly was not unanimous.

And thus the classic argument used by Owen to defeat the Arminians depends upon putting forth the view of the atonement as Christ suffering a specific punishment for each and every individual sin and once that was done no more or less could ever be done as far as the sins covered or for those unfortunate enough, not covered. (And, not using his specific view does not negate penal substitution as some are inclined to think.)

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

It's hard to explain but what I'm meaning is the knowledge of God's sovereignty which is real, is clashing logically with the reality of man's responsibility, which is also real.

"Man is Responsible for his actions, notwithstanding the fact that God has Decreed All that Comes to Pass, for at least three reasons:

"1. God's Decree Concerning Sin is Not Causative but Permissive, Directive, Preventive, and Determinative.

"God Decreed that sin should come in the world, for reasons that are fully Known only to Him, but He Decreed that it should come by man's own free choice.

"God does not compel man to sin, but He allows it.

"Man, and not God, is the Efficient Cause of sin;
and for that reason man is Responsible.

"Before passing it needs to be remarked that no objections can be brought against the statement that God Decreed that sin should come into the world that cannot be brought against God's Actual Permission of sin, unless the objector takes the position that God was powerless to prevent the entrance of sin.

"This would be a denial of God's Omnipotence and Sovereignty, and would render the objector unworthy of consideration here.

"God's Omnipotence and Sovereignty teaches us that whatever God Permits He Permits because He Wills to do so.

"And since God is Immutable, His Will has ever been the same.

"What He Wills at any time He has Willed from all Eternity.

"Therefore, His Will Equals His Purpose
and His Purpose Equals His Decree.

2. The Law of God and Not His Decree
Fixes Man's Duty and Responsibility.

The Law of God is man's guide and standard.

"This is God's Revealed Will.

"God's Decree is His Secret Will.

"Man has nothing to do with this except to know and acknowledge the facts concerning it.

"The Secret Things belong unto Jehovah, our God;
but Things that are Revealed belong unto us and to our children forever, that we may do all the Words of this Law" (Deut. 29:29).

"3. The Motive Back of Man's Sinning Makes Him Responsible.

"Why does man sin?
"Is it ever because he wants to do the Will of God?

"Nay, never so.

"Why did men crucify Christ?

"Was it because they believed that God
had Sent Him to die as a sin-bearer?

"No. It was because they hated Him.

"They crucified Him through wicked motives.

"It is thus that man always sins.
"Sin proceeds from man's love of darkness (John 3:19).

From: HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY by T.P. Simmons.

But, the problem for us is, are we as humans really capable of truly holding both of those truths at the same time without having our belief of one at least in the back of our minds, intruding into our practical belief of the other.

I say no and therefore like J.C. Ryle I say to people "Christ died for you" and the offer of salvation is there for you in complete honesty.

The Message, for the sake of honestly,
is "Jesus died for sinners like yourself".

I've seen you write for years and every opportunity that presents itself regarding God's Sovereignty and man's Human Responsibility, I see you teaching straight forward Armenian thinking like that, trying to say that we can tell everyone, "Christ died for you", when that is simply not true.

If you profess to be Calvinist?, I'm not sure, but I do know that you always tell Calvinists that they aren't worth a Nickle as a Calvinist, unless everything they teach is strictly, pure Armenianism.

Well if within the limitations of our human tendency to live in real time and within the limitations of the fact that whatever we do, if it is voluntary, is indeed done with the consent or as the result of our will - if you are modifying that truth in any way, even in the back of your mind, or instilling that, even as an afterthought, in the mind of a person you are talking to then yes.

I don't know what you're saying in a lot of these attempts that I know you're trying to explain something you believe.

When you say, "if it is voluntary, is indeed done with the consent or as the result of our will", what are you talking about there? Are you saying that you believe lost souls have a voluntary ability to consent with their will, to be saved?

The truth of those things have no bearing on the free offer of the gospel message.

Again, this wording of "the free offer of the Gospel" makes it sound like you believe there is some teaching in the Bible where someone is supposed to give lost sinners, "the free offer of the Gospel".

I look for those who treat the gospel as having an aspect of invitation and "offer" because that is what is is.

Where do you get that at that "that is what it is", when you know,
that when Jesus "invites" sinners to "Come unto Me", that it refers to those who Come to Christ Aright, who come as sinners, to a Full, Suitable, Able, and Willing Savior; venture their souls upon Him, and Trust in Him for Righteousness, Eternal Life, and Salvation, which they are encouraged to do, by this kind invitation; which shows His Willingness to Save, and His Readiness to Give Relief to distressed minds.

However, it is clear that the persons invited, are not "all" the individuals of mankind, but with this restriction, in the verse,
"all ye that labor, and are heavy laden";

"meaning, not these who are laboring in the service of sin and Satan, are laden with iniquity, and insensible of sin: these are not weary of sin, nor burdened with their sin; nor do they want or desire any rest for their souls;

"but Jesus' Invitation to "Come unto Me", is to those who He says that He is talking about: those who are groaning, being burdened with the guilt of sin upon their consciences, and are pressed down with the unsupportable yoke of the law, and the load of human traditions; and have been laboring till they are weary, in order to obtain Peace of conscience, and Rest for their souls, by the observance of these things, but in vain, not finding relief or Salvation in them.

"Jesus Invitation, there, was specifically to these who are encouraged to Come to Him, lay down their burdens at His Feet, look to, and lay hold by Faith on His Person, Blood, Righteousness, and Sacrifice; when they should enjoy that True Spiritual Consolation, which could never be attained to by the works of the law."

From: Matthew 11 Gill's Exposition

It is a command, but a joyous command, like a final offer of pardon.

An Easy Believism "offer of pardon"?

Jesus' Command is to the lost sinner to Repent and Believe the Gospel, not "offering" the dead soul a "gift" if they'd care to bother not going to Hell, WHEN THERE IS NO ACKNOWLEGDEMENT OR AWARENESS BY THE LOST SINNER WHERE THEY ARE COMPELLED TO VIEW THE REALITY OF SIN IN THEIR LIFE, FOR WHICH THEY WOULD THEN NEED A SAVIOR.

That is why Edwards, with a deterministic theology, could preach "Christ has died, all is ready for you and all that is needed is your consent.

In error and just old fashion heresy.

 

[DaveXR650]

I don't know what you're saying in a lot of these attempts that I know you're trying to explain something you believe.

I know. That's my fault not yours. I appreciate you taking the time to try to read it anyway.

What I'm trying to say is that Calvinists like Owen did say that there is a real "offer" of salvation that goes with the gospel message. They were able to say this with sincerity while at the same time believing that the atonement was particular in nature and limited to the elect. Those who believe that among Calvinists include Owen, most of the other Puritans, the Marrow men, Spurgeon and Bonar to name a few. In addition, there are whole books written by 5 point Calvinists on the "free offer" in which they show how, theologically, both concepts can be true at the same time.

To those, who believe both the free offer of salvation and a limited atonement I have no problem with, although I do not believe myself that the atonement was limited in any sense in which it shut out someone at that time.

There is another group of 5 point Calvinists who believe that the atonement functionally shut out the non-elect in such a way that from that time on there is functionally no way such people could possibly be saved. When Owen said that he had it on authority of scripture that anyone who comes to Christ will be saved I think he meant "anyone".

This opens a logical door to two possibilities if you agree with Owen. One is that he means that only the elect will actually come to Christ because only the elect will hear the call and be given faith and God's sovereignty being what it is there can never be the obvious problem of someone coming to Christ whom he did not atone for. In other words, the hearing, and the coming are integrated within the mind of God's sovereignty.

The other possibility is that those who Christ did not atone for are truly shut out and there is nothing that even could as a possibility be done for them and thus they have no right to perceive Owen's statement as a true "invitation" to come to Christ. It is not a sincere or real invitation because there is no possibility that they could be saved even if they did come. In fact, the truth here, if you are honest, is that calls to come to Christ or to repent and believe the gospel are not addressed to everyone because the non elect have not had their sins covered at the death of Christ.

Now, look at what you said above: Next post below.

 

[DaveXR650]

Where do you get that at that "that is what it is", when you know,
that when Jesus "invites" sinners to "Come unto Me", that it refers to those who Come to Christ Aright, who come as sinners, to a Full, Suitable, Able, and Willing Savior; venture their souls upon Him, and Trust in Him for Righteousness, Eternal Life, and Salvation, which they are encouraged to do, by this kind invitation; which shows His Willingness to Save, and His Readiness to Give Relief to distressed minds.

However, it is clear that the persons invited, are not "all" the individuals of mankind, but with this restriction, in the verse,
"all ye that labor, and are heavy laden";

"meaning, not these who are laboring in the service of sin and Satan, are laden with iniquity, and insensible of sin: these are not weary of sin, nor burdened with their sin; nor do they want or desire any rest for their souls;

"but Jesus' Invitation to "Come unto Me", is to those who He says that He is talking about: those who are groaning, being burdened with the guilt of sin upon their consciences, and are pressed down with the unsupportable yoke of the law, and the load of human traditions; and have been laboring till they are weary, in order to obtain Peace of conscience, and Rest for their souls, by the observance of these things, but in vain, not finding relief or Salvation in them.

"Jesus Invitation, there, was specifically to these who are encouraged to Come to Him, lay down their burdens at His Feet, look to, and lay hold by Faith on His Person, Blood, Righteousness, and Sacrifice; when they should enjoy that True Spiritual Consolation, which could never be attained to by the works of the law."

Following up on the above post. I agree with this 100%. But notice something very important here. There is nothing in your own quote here that puts any kind of limit on who can come because of the extent of the atonement. All you are saying here is that to come you must be aware that you need to come! And I agree. The only requirement to come to Christ is to see your need and desire to come, both of which are probably gifts.

In conclusion, it may well be a shortcoming on my part, and the part of everyone who does not believe in a "limited" atonement, but the simple fact is that you can see in every theologian's writings an awkward wrestling with the logic of trying to deal with a situation where people have been "dealt out" so to speak of the atoning work of Christ and then we stumble around trying to explain away the obvious fact of that the real root reason is and can be only that God did not include them in the atonement.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

wanting to know if a pardon being announced includes you who are hearing it.

Natural man hates God and don't have the conviction that they have anything they need to be concerned about, like sin; not until they are Enlighted to God's Existence and are Dealt with The Holy Spirit, Who wound then Convict them of having Broken God's Law, where they then have been made cognizant of their actual need to have to be Pardoned of that very sin that they are not called to consider, by whatever you are talking about, as far as "pardon being announced" (like when?)

"Christ died sufficiently for all, but efficiently for the elect".

A Triune Perspective ​

on The Limited (Definite) Atonement.​

Edwin Palmer (d. 1980) wrote a helpful book called The Five Points of Calvinism.

"This is a good resource for those who want a detailed yet readable and relatively brief explanation of the Doctrines of Grace. Here’s an edited summary of Palmer’s discussion of Limited (Definite) Atonement which he explains in a Trinitarian and Biblical way.

"The Doctrine of Limited Atonement is based on:

"1) The Father’s Election. Since the objects of the Father’s Saving Love are Particular, Definite, and Limited (Amos 3:2, Rom. 1:7, 8:29, 9:13, Col. 3:12, 1 Thess. 1:4, Jude 1) so are the objects of Christ’s death. Because God has Loved certain ones and not all, because He has Sovereignly and Immutably Determined that these Particular Ones Will be Saved, He Sent His Son to die for them, to Save them, and not all the world. Because there is a Definite Election, there is a Definite Atonement. Because there is a Particular Election, there is a Particular Atonement. God’s Electing Love and Christ’s Atonement go Hand in Hand and have the same people in View. There is Unity between the Work of the Father and the Son.

"2) The Son’s Atonement. The Bible teaches the death of Jesus in at least four different ways. When Christ died, 1) He Made a Substitutionary Sacrifice for sins (Heb. 9-10); 2) He Propitiated, that is, Appeased or Placated, the Righteous Wrath of God (Rom. 3:25; Heb. 2:17, 2 John 2:2; 4:10); 3) He Reconciled His people to God – that is, He Removed the Enmity between them and God (Rom. 5:10, 2 Cor. 5:20, etc.); and 4) He Redeemed them from the Curse of the Law (Gal. 3:13). …

The Nature of the Atonement – what did Christ actually do? – answers the question: For whom did Christ die? The noun (Atonement) defines its adjective (limited). If the Atonement does not actually Save, and does not really Remove God’s Curse from people, and does not actually Redeem them, then it indeed can be for all the world, even for those who are in Hell. But if the death of Jesus is what the Bible says it is – a Substitutionary Sacrifice for sins, an Actual and not a hypothetical Redemption, whereby the sinner is really Reconciled to God – then obviously, it cannot be for every man in the world. For then everybody would be Saved, and obviously they are not.

AND THE JUST GOD OF THE UNIVERSE DOESN'T EXACT OUT AND EXECUTE DOUBLE JEOPORDY AND RECEIVE DOUBLE PAYMENT FOR EACH OFFENCE OF THE NON-ELECT, BY HAVING PUNISHED THE PERFECT, HOLY, DIVINE, AND INFINITE JESUS, FOR THE EXACT SAME INDENTICAL SINS THAT THE SINNER WOULD CONTINUE BEING PUNISHED FOR THROUGHOUT ETERNITY IN THE LAKE OF FIRE.

THAT'S TWO EFFICIENCIES PAID FOR NOT ONE SUFFIECIENCY.

I find the man-made philosophy, "Christ died sufficiently for all, but efficiently for the elect", to be just some normal thinking people in their flesh trying to make up for their inability to Interpret and Reconcile some regular passages teaching on the subject, especially once some influential people to them get to those often un-Interpreted passages, first, and catch them unprepared, not having done their job, AND ONE LEFT OUT: THE SENTIMENTALITY OF MAN FEELING SORRY FOR THEMSELVES AND WANTING TO "OFFER" A "GIFT" TO EVERYONE AND BEING INFLUENCED BY SUPERNATURAL EVIL, NOT WANTING TO HURT ANYBODIES FEELINGS, SIMPLY PRETEND AND MAKE UP IN THEIR SIN-CURED HEADS, SOMETHING GOD DOES NOT KNOW, BELIEVE, OR TEACH IN HIS WORD ANYWHERE.

"3) The Spirit’s Indwelling. In 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, Paul notes (in line with Romans 6) that if Christians are dead to sin, then they are Made Alive in Christ. If they are Spiritually Buried with Christ, they Will Spiritually Rise with Him. Although Paul does not state it explicitly in this passage, we know from the rest of Scripture that this is possible only through the Holy Spirit’s Work. …There is an inexorable chain of events in 2 Corinthians 5:14-15: a) Christ died for all believers; therefore b) all believers die Spiritually in Christ; and c) they all Rise Again Spiritually in Christ. If (a) is stated, (b) and (c) must follow. …The Holy Spirit does not Apply the death of Christ to all people, leaving it in their hands ultimately as to whether or not they would be Saved. Rather, the Spirit Comes to those people whom the Father had Chosen and for whom the Son had died and He Causes them to die to sin and be Born Again.

"In summary, the Purpose of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit Coincide.
They strive Together for and Accomplish the Same Purpose: The Salvation of those whom the Father has Loved with a Special Everlasting Love.

Regarding the atonement itself, the sufficient for all, efficient for only some has an additional reason for it's use than what was listed below this statement:

The only 'reason' for it is that some man fell into the sin of stating a ridiculous error, thinking they knew a couple of fancy words that they could differentiate, as a failed reliance on their natural intellect.

When, God has always explained His Position on it, using the Scriptures, and He does NOT Receive Worship from the words of man, which are NOT Spirit and NOT Truth.

Or, was Christ slain, and did his blood offer superabundant propitiation that because of the infinite worth of Christ could if it were possible, redeem everyone in 1000 worlds plus ours.

"Fourthly, that since Christ in His Person is Divine and Infinite, so must be His Work on the cross; therefore His death is Sufficient for all. Answer: "It is a non sequitur to move from the Deity of the Sacrifice to the Sufficiency for every individual person. Such a conclusion assumes that the Deity can Perform nothing by measure."4

"In His feeding of the five thousand, Jesus multiplied the loaves by a Divine Act. Yet all the loaves in the world were not multiplied, only the ones He Handled and Blessed for the five thousand. Again, it was a Divine Act (and thus Infinite) that Raised Lazarus from the grave. Yet this was Limited to Lazarus. To say that the Raising of Lazarus was Sufficient for all but Efficient for Lazarus makes little sense if any. It is obvious that Christ had the Power to Raise whomever He Chose. The fact is He Chose to Raise only Lazarus, and His Divine Actions were Limited to that.

"Perhaps more to the point, Christ's Nature, being Divine and thus Infinite, does not increase the intensity or quantity of that which was laid on Him at the cross. However, His Nature does Enable Him to Bear whatever it might have been. Our sins are not infinite, and we are not infinite; it is Christ who is Infinite.

superabundant propitiation

Wonder what that big deal is all about?

Or, was Christ slain, and did his blood offer superabundant propitiation that because of the infinite worth of Christ could if it were possible, redeem everyone in 1000 worlds plus ours.

How dumb. Acting like there is an attempt there, to depict God as superabundant more Glorious than He Already has, by some silly cartoon idea, that's just one more Satan trick, serving to hid these things from the wise and prudent, is all.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

if you are a serious Calvinist, in that case would be that God does not sovereignly work faith in everyone.

God has been charged at times, by certain sinners expressing their sin Nature, "of Cruelty;
as if God were worse to His creatures than tigers to their young: than rat-catchers who stop up all holes,
and then hunt them with their dogs, etc. etc.

"Answer 1. This is charging God foolishly, seeing no Act of God can be a Means to Damn men.

"Men’s own acts are the cause of their Damnation; to wit, the fulfilling their own lusts.

"As Reprobation gives not such a Grace as infallibly to make them better,
so Reprobation works nothing in them by which they are made worse.

"2. ‘Tis a mere fallacy: as if the Decree of Non-Election was the Procuring Cause of man’s Damnation.

"Sin is the Cause of Damnation, but Reprobation is not the Cause of sin.

"David’s order to Solomon concerning Joab and Shimei was not the cause why either the one or the other
came to an untimely end; but it was treason against Solomon in Joab, and running from Jerusalem in Shimei,
which procured their deaths (see 1Ki 2:5,28,40,42).

"3. It is a false hypothesis to suppose that God, in the Decree of Reprobation,
doth by an Effectual Means Intend to Bring men to Damnation as in the Decree of Election to Bring others to Salvation: because Salvation is a Favour not due any, so God may Absolutely Give or Deny Salvation;

"but Damnation is a Punishment, so hath relation to a Fault. The Means to Salvation is the Gift of Free Grace,
but Damnation comes of man’s own voluntary sin, and is the fruit or wages of it.
“The wages of sin is death; but the Gift of God is Eternal Life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 6:23).

"It is God that fitted Peter for Salvation; but Judas fit himself for Damnation.

4. Should God Constrain the Creature to sin, and then Damn him for it,
He Delighteth in the Destruction of His Creature, contrary to Eze 13:23 and 23:11.

"God did not thrust Adam into his sin, as, after he had willingly sinned, God Thrust him out of Paradise.

"Man’s Punishment is from God as a Judge; but man’s Destruction is from himself as a sinner.

"Let it be repeated, and again repeated, that man’s sin came freely from himself."

BY HIS FREE WILL.

 

[DaveXR650]

Like I said in the post above, if you can fully embrace the truth of both of Owen's statements at the same time then I have no problem with a belief in a limited atonement. Still, I'm not sure Owen was right in saying that one should not inquire into whether they are included in the death of Christ because I don't think there is any faulty logic in wanting to know if a pardon being announced includes you who are hearing it. Granted, that is an Arminian argument which Owen was aware of and so he had to refute it but I have to think it may indeed be a good argument.

I hate to quote myself but Alan tends to go off and rant and I want to stay on topic. The doctrine of a limited atonement (particular is a better word here) is not what I am against. I have said in the quote and repeatedly, that what I notice is that Owen who wrote the best known defense of limited atonement firmly believed in a real offer of salvation to everyone who comes to Christ.

That is important to me because what I am against and what Owen did not do, is allow a theological belief in limited atonement to intrude into their preaching. If you can preach like Owen and Edwards did and still hold a view of particular redemption then I have no objection to your theology.

"Man’s Punishment is from God as a Judge; but man’s Destruction is from himself as a sinner.

This is your quote above, and if this is the only reason you give for a man being lost then again I have no problem with whatever theology you hold to. But understand this. If your theology leads you to conclude that the reason that men are lost is because when Christ died their sins were not laid on Christ because of the atonement being limited then you should not be allowed access to a pulpit and you are committing malpractice to those you are preaching to.

And the biggest symptom of such an error is that you ridicule or downplay the reality of a true "offer" of salvation, given freely to anyone who hears the gospel message. John Bunyan believed himself that a person hearing the gospel message needs to know that they are not excluded from this by the possibility of a limited atonement. And it was Bunyan of whom Owen said he would be willing to travel 50 miles to hear preach.

 

[DaveXR650]

How dumb. Acting like there is an attempt there, to depict God as superabundant more Glorious than He Already has, by some silly cartoon idea, that's just one more Satan trick, serving to hid these things from the wise and prudent, is all.

There must be sufficient efficacy in the blood of Christ, if God had so willed it, to have saved not only all in this world, but all in ten thousand worlds, had they transgressed their Maker's law. Once admit infinity into the matter, and limit is out of the question.

The above is from Spurgeon's sermon "In Defense of Calvinism" and can be found in the Spurgeon Archive website. I was wrong and I apologize. It was 10,000 worlds, not 1000 as I said above in the post. But of course that makes your response more idiotic by a factor of 10.