For Whom Did Christ Die? - C.H. Spurgeon

I respect you Chris, and you have the free will to believe what you consider to be the truth.

Personally, I believe that Special Election is not a doctrine of grace but of disgrace. Just think this God of love, goodness and justice/equality is in the damning business. We do agree that the majority of people will end up in the Lake of Fire, don't we?

Respectfully,

Dr. Berrian

 

This says Christ offered atonement, shouldn't it necessarily follow that men could choose not to accept His offer?

I'm just trying to follow along... not making any claims to believe one way or the other...

 

Christ made payment that was sufficient for all sins. However the blood of Christ isnt a lifeless pool that splashes over everyone and everything.

Christ the High Priest makes intercession for all who ask Him too.

An example would be we stand accused of crime and are about to be sentenced to death. Christ offers to step in and represent us, and get an appeal process underway. We have to accept His services as our lawyer.

 

This is one good approach to lead hearers towards rejecting teachings that contradicts one's own. That is, touch the emotional aspect of the teaching of the other side, without elaborating its doctrinal basis, and then give the doctrinal basis of your belief, coupled with a better emotional argument. Such approach is quite effective to many listeners.

These statements, though true, is one-sided in its emotional part. Doctrinally, it is incomplete, most often leading to incorrect conclusions. It is true that before Christ died, there were those who were already in hell (bdw, hell is different from the lake of fire and the eternal judgment for unbelievers). However, these people were also given opportunity to be saved the way people after Christ were given the opportunity they received. People then may also believe or not upon the promised coming savior, the way people today may beliveve on the finished work of the same savior, Jesus Christ.

There is a difference in Christ having died for all men, and redeeming only those who put their faith in him. These two concepts do not contradict. Besides, as Adam's sin encompassed all men, so does Christ's death encompass all. Be it a thousand times more repulsive to many, but this is what the Scriputres teach.

 

In no way. In Romans 5, Adam's sin affects those who are "in Adam" just as Christ's death affects those who are "in Christ." You statement leads to a universalism not taught in Scripture. Christ's death was a propitiation, not a provision. In propitiation, he satisfied the just wrath of God against sin. He did not simply make possible a satisfaction.

 

Personally, it's comforting to know that Spurgeon does not preach under that form of divine inspiration that gave us the Bible.

 

Chris:
Christ died for every man.( Hebs.2:9). In fact, he died for those who lived before the new covenant.( Hebs.9:15-17). All men will be judged by the law of the dispensation under which they lived.( Romans 14:12, Mat.8:12,13).
Frank

 

Frank:
If Christ died for ALL men without exception, are you saying he died in vain since people are in hell -- even those that he died for? A rather horrid concept, don't you think?
My understanding is that there is only ONE WAY to be saved and that is by the free gift of grace, which is the SAME in ALL dispensations.

God, by his free choice, because it pleases him, before the foundation of the world, Regenerated the elect, they were justified by faith, believed, are being sanctified and will be glorified. To me it borders on obscene to say that the Atonement didn't atone and that people that Christ actually died FOR could end up in hell. How can that be? Based on what? On the "choice" of the fallen, depraved sinner? If that's the case then the "choice" of the individual becomes sovereign over the work of Christ on the cross. May that NEVER be!!!
James2

 

Christ's death did not accomplish the abolishment of the presence of sin did it?

Did Christ's death abolish the power of sin?

Did Christ's death abolish sin?

What did Christ's death do?

He established an unlimited well of grace that
whereby man might drink and be saved. But that
man must drink to recieve the efficacious blood
of Christ is the crux of the matter.

I do not deny election - but neither must I deny Free "Will" - though perhaps the term free agency might be more accurate; it tends to allow those who would legalize the grace of God to do so far more then if they must face the word Will.

I would rather err on the side of greater grace, power, omniscience, and love of God; then limit any of them by preaching election alone

 

I see nowhere in the Bible where it ways Christ died only for a few people rather than all people.

Granted only a few are chosen, but this is in direct contrast to the fact that many are called, not to mention that God is not willing that any should perish.

In addition, I find

"God so loved the WORLD..."
"Come to me ALL ye that are heavy-laden..."
"For my Father's will is that EVERYONE who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life..."

and on and on.

I appreciate the way Sularis stated it.

Something occured to me. Although Calvinists keep talking about the sovereignty of God, it appears they are afraid to let Him really be sovereign! To be sovereign is to be over and above everything in power and authority. And in will. God can do what He chooses to do. The fact that He chose to allow man freedom of choice and that God is powerful enough to accomodate that within His plan is something Calvinists seem to refuse to consider. They are trying to make the sovereignty of God something they can understand with our finite human wisdom instead of really allowing God to do what He said He has done!

Our freedom of choice is not going to hinder God's plan one iota for one millionth of a second. He always knew what we would choose. That didn't stop us from choosing, but He did know.

In other words, God's sovereignty is bigger than the Calvinists suspect.

There is something else I have noticed: the apologists for Calvinism seem to be willing to accuse others of blasphemy and ignorance in somewhat abrasive ways. Is this the character Christ is developing in them? I have been in email contact with one person who says it is because they get so frustrated with the rest of us. However I know we get just as frustrated with them, feeling even more angry at times that they seem so willing to walk away from people, or shut them out.

But salvation is not a theological issue! Christ chose fishermen and such for disciples, not the Pharisees and teachers of the law. Christ's message was simple and clear and it remains so to this day -- "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him."

It's pretty simple. It's an invitation to everyone in the world. Christ did not stop short of finishing His work. He finished paying the full debt of sin for all men for all time. It is not for our sins that we might go to hell. They have been fully atoned for ("Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrices day after day, first for his own sins and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.") Those who are condemned to hell are condemned for refusing to depend on/believe in Jesus Christ.

But His love leaves no one out. But many refuse it.

 

Is God indeed in the damning business ?
Did He tell Adam to disobey Him that He may be able to gleefully damn Adam's posterity ? Or did He in fairness tell Adam what the consequences of disobedience are.
Did Adam, despite the warning God gave him, obey the One who created him and gave him all he needed
or did he instead choose to believe another creature like himself ?
Is He unmerciful because He chose not to save all, or was He in fact being merciful by saving some who did not deserve salvation or mercy.
If the president of a country chooses to grant pardon to some of those in prison found by their peers in an open court of law to be guilty, is he obliged to pardon all in prison and abolish the law and its enforcement ?

 

The term "election" in itself is discriminating. The doctrine of election is obvious within the pages of Holy writ...this fact cannot be denied. It is an idea that in no way supports "all" in the capacity that the Arminian views it.

The harmony of the OT reveals that God's offer of salvation intended to reach His chosen people alone. Think in terms of the world as a whole. How far did the offer extend itself in early biblical times? Did the Egyptians (The people of Egypt) ever have an option? Scripture does not support this theory. In fact, it supports the opposite.

Deu 7:6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.
Deu 7:7 The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:
Deu 7:8 But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.
Deu 7:9 Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

The word *chosen* is also in scripture. It is also discriminating. There is no way to confuse the meaning. Saying someone is chosen immediately implies someone was rejected or "not chosen." Well, you may say, "God chose us because we chose Him....He saw us choosing Him!" I say, God does not react based upon His sinful creation; his sinful creation has nothing to offer. God reacts because He wills to react, on His decree alone, for His glory alone.

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Titus 3:6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

In HIM,
Scott Bushey

 

James:
No, The Bible says Jesus died for all men. Men choose to accept or reject salvation.( Jn.5:39).
God choose men to be elect IN CHRIST, not outside him.( Gal. 3:26,27, II Tim. 2:10, Eph.1:7-12, Rev.1:5). Men access the grace of God through faith.( Romans 5:1,2). The faith that justifies is a working active faith.( Hebrews 11:6, Romans 16:26,James 2:21).
Men who are lost are lost because they reject the salvation provided by the redemptive work of Christ (Eph. 2:8,9).They fail to be faithful to Christ once they have begun their walk with him.( Gal. 5:4, Rev.2:10).Gifts must be received and some are returned.
It is a horrible thought that men will not obey the gospel and instead receive the punishment of hell.( II Thes.1:6-9).
Frank

 

Frank:
Thanks for sharing those scriptures with me. I, of course, am familiar with all of them and as you know they have been debated over and over and I'm sure you have heard the responses.
Now, you didn't answer any of my questions. Are you saying that Christ died for ALL without exception? If so, what are people doing in hell, or didn't the atonement atone for ALL that he died for?
Also, are you saying that the GROUNDS of an invidivuals salvation is his "choice to accept" Christ? If so, doesn't that make man's choice sovereign over Christ's work on the Christ? If Christ died for ALL and people are in hell, that means Christ wanted to save ALL, but some men would not let him. I never could understand how anyone can hold that position, since God is Sovereign, not man.
Further, why do you suppose some accept Christ and others reject him? On what basis would that be?
You say people reject salvation by failing to be faithful to Christ. Are you saying that salvation depends on the individual being "faithful."? In other words they can lose salvation based on their works? Doesn't that contradic Paul's teaching about salvation being a free gift so men can't boast? It seems to me you are stating the works-salvation debate, but just in a little different way.
I would think that if man could lose their salvation -- THEY WOULD, because they can't save themselves.

[ April 26, 2002, 12:57 AM: Message edited by: JAMES2 ]

 

JAMES2 Obviously you decided to ignore me and focus on Frank

I will refer to your free gift. Why cant electionists see that gift giving is a 2 step process? First of all the gift must be purchased and paid for - Which Christ did with His death. But then the gift must be accepted. Have you never seen a spoiled child throw away a gift? Thats what mankind is!

Since the gift is something that changes us; it is impossible to give back; it cannot be lost.

Our salvation cannot be lost

 

Sularis:
Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore you. I guess I just didn't see your post. Anyway, we agree on the first step. The gift must be purchased. It's the second step us "electionists" as you refer to us as, have the problem with your analogy.

A gift does have to be "accepted." But since before anyone is regenerated and born again, they are "DEAD" in trespasses and sin. Did you ever see a DEAD person reach out and accept anything. Did Lazraus "accept" being raised from the dead? Or did he experience it?

Did the blind man "accept" his healing from Jesus, or did he experience it?

Here's where us electionists disagree with the arminians. A dead person doesn't jump out of the casket and "accept" anything. Why? Because they are DEAD!!!! But, thanks for sharing your thoughts with me.
James2

 

James2, Hello Brother I was reading your responses and just wanted to comment.

"A gift does have to be "accepted." But since before anyone is regenerated and born again, they are "DEAD" in trespasses and sin. Did you ever see a DEAD person reach out and accept anything. Did Lazraus "accept" being raised from the dead? Or did he experience it?"

"Here's where us electionists disagree with the arminians. A dead person doesn't jump out of the casket and "accept" anything. Why? Because they are DEAD!!!! But, thanks for sharing your thoughts with me."

I just wanted to make this point, if a dead man can't jump out of a casket to "accept" anything then he certainly can't REJECT anything either. why? because he is is dead! You ever see a dead man reject anything?

You can't say one without saying the other.