In the Cross, Did God Reconcile ALL Or Just The saved Peoples?

[JesusFan]

Does God not hold the curse of the fall/Law against anyone any more due to the atoning death of Christ on the Cross, basically we all got a clean slate with God, no longer His emernies...

OR

Did that apply JUST to those who would make up the redeemed of the Lord, that others still are NOT reconciled back with God via the Cross?

 

[Luke2427]

Does God not hold the curse of the fall/Law against anyone any more due to the atoning death of Christ on the Cross, basically we all got a clean slate with God, no longer His emernies...

OR

Did that apply JUST to those who would make up the redeemed of the Lord, that others still are NOT reconciled back with God via the Cross?

If he reconciled all, Rob Bell is right.

 

[JesusFan]

If he reconciled all, Rob Bell is right.

isn't that though the position some in the Arminian camp here have posted?
that when God reconciled all people back to Himself thru the Cross, since Jesus died for ALL people...

He "leveled" the playing field, so to speak? that is why Previlent grace is seen as being to be used by God to give ALL an equal chance to be saved?

 

[Luke2427]

isn't that though the position some in the Arminian camp here have posted?
that when God reconciled all people back to Himself thru the Cross, since Jesus died for ALL people...

He "leveled" the playing field, so to speak? that is why Previlent grace is seen as being to be used by God to give ALL an equal chance to be saved?

Who knows what they believe?

Particularly these people who have no theology and debate those who do- who knows?

They believe whatever suits them, I suppose.

They believe man is a totally depraved people who do not understand the Gospel who have good in them whereby they choose wisely.

They believe in eternal security whereby they cannot choose to return to a life of rebellion against God all the while they are totally free to do whatever they want.

They believe FREE WILL is the reason God created the universe!

They believe Jesus died for every sin that has ever been committed by a any human, yet most humans are going to hell because they are sinners.

Who KNOWS what these people believe?

You might as well try to nail jello to a wall.

 

[David Lamb]

The puritan, John Owen points out in His book, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, that only three positions are possible regarding the extent of the atonement:

(a) Jesus died for all the sins of all people,
(b) Jesus died for all the sins of some people,
(c) Jesus died for some sins of all people.

Now, if position (c) is correct, then all are still in their sins. If position (a) is correct, then why are all not saved? If the answer is because of unbelief, we ask: Is not unbelief a sin for which Christ died to atone (Jn.17.9)? If Christ died for the sin of unbelief for all people, then why are people punished for the sin of unbelief? The only consistent position is (b), for it satisfies both reason and experience.
​

In Life by His Death, an abridgment by John Appleby of Owen's classic, Death of Death, we read:

If the death of Christ actually obtains redemption, cleansing, purification, bearing away sins, reconciliation, eternal life, and citizenship in a kingdom, then He must have died only for those who do get those things. It is not true that all men have those things, as is very clear! The salvation of all men therefore cannot have been the purpose of the death of Christ.
​

I find that helpful, and I hope you do too.

 

[Luke2427]

The puritan, John Owen points out in His book, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, that only three positions are possible regarding the extent of the atonement:

(a) Jesus died for all the sins of all people,
(b) Jesus died for all the sins of some people,
(c) Jesus died for some sins of all people.

Now, if position (c) is correct, then all are still in their sins. If position (a) is correct, then why are all not saved? If the answer is because of unbelief, we ask: Is not unbelief a sin for which Christ died to atone (Jn.17.9)? If Christ died for the sin of unbelief for all people, then why are people punished for the sin of unbelief? The only consistent position is (b), for it satisfies both reason and experience.
​

In Life by His Death, an abridgment by John Appleby of Owen's classic, Death of Death, we read:

If the death of Christ actually obtains redemption, cleansing, purification, bearing away sins, reconciliation, eternal life, and citizenship in a kingdom, then He must have died only for those who do get those things. It is not true that all men have those things, as is very clear! The salvation of all men therefore cannot have been the purpose of the death of Christ.
​

I find that helpful, and I hope you do too.

It is helpful- thanks.

 

[savedbymercy]

All for whom Christ died, He reconciled them unto God by His death, even while they are being enemies ! Rom 5:10

10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

And all those who are reconciled [objectively] by Christ death, shall be saved [subjectively] by His Life, that is His resurrected Life.

This is a Truth many have failed to grasp. All for whom Christ died shall be saved [subjectively] by His Life, that means they shall be converted unto Him..

And since we know all people without exception will not be subjectively saved, then that proves all people without exception were objectively reconciled by the death of Christ, which means He did not die for all people without exception. Faith is not a conditioned to be objectively reconciled, since that has happened while being enemies by nature.

 

[asterisktom]

The puritan, John Owen points out in His book, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, that only three positions are possible regarding the extent of the atonement:

(a) Jesus died for all the sins of all people,
(b) Jesus died for all the sins of some people,
(c) Jesus died for some sins of all people.

Now, if position (c) is correct, then all are still in their sins. If position (a) is correct, then why are all not saved? If the answer is because of unbelief, we ask: Is not unbelief a sin for which Christ died to atone (Jn.17.9)? If Christ died for the sin of unbelief for all people, then why are people punished for the sin of unbelief? The only consistent position is (b), for it satisfies both reason and experience.
​

In Life by His Death, an abridgment by John Appleby of Owen's classic, Death of Death, we read:

If the death of Christ actually obtains redemption, cleansing, purification, bearing away sins, reconciliation, eternal life, and citizenship in a kingdom, then He must have died only for those who do get those things. It is not true that all men have those things, as is very clear! The salvation of all men therefore cannot have been the purpose of the death of Christ.
​

I find that helpful, and I hope you do too.

It was this very argument of Owen's, his Trilemma (as the writer I read put it), that was the final push that turned me to Reformed theology. There is no getting around it.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The puritan, John Owen points out in His book, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, that only three positions are possible regarding the extent of the atonement:

(a) Jesus died for all the sins of all people,
(b) Jesus died for all the sins of some people,
(c) Jesus died for some sins of all people.

Now, if position (c) is correct, then all are still in their sins. If position (a) is correct, then why are all not saved? If the answer is because of unbelief, we ask: Is not unbelief a sin for which Christ died to atone (Jn.17.9)? If Christ died for the sin of unbelief for all people, then why are people punished for the sin of unbelief? The only consistent position is (b), for it satisfies both reason and experience.
​

In Life by His Death, an abridgment by John Appleby of Owen's classic, Death of Death, we read:

If the death of Christ actually obtains redemption, cleansing, purification, bearing away sins, reconciliation, eternal life, and citizenship in a kingdom, then He must have died only for those who do get those things. It is not true that all men have those things, as is very clear! The salvation of all men therefore cannot have been the purpose of the death of Christ.
​

I find that helpful, and I hope you do too.

David....Ive been wanting to read this Owen book for 6 months now but feared its too much for a new to the faith Christian. Would you recommend it?

 

[percho]

All for whom Christ died, He reconciled them unto God by His death, even while they are being enemies ! Rom 5:10

10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

And all those who are reconciled [objectively] by Christ death, shall be saved [subjectively] by His Life, that is His resurrected Life.

This is a Truth many have failed to grasp. All for whom Christ died shall be saved [subjectively] by His Life, that means they shall be converted unto Him..

And since we know all people without exception will not be subjectively saved, then that proves all people without exception were objectively reconciled by the death of Christ, which means He did not die for all people without exception. Faith is not a conditioned to be objectively reconciled, since that has happened while being enemies by nature.

Is the shall be saved/converted relative to his appearing and kingdom to judge the quick and the dead, therefore the resurrection.

What I am asking is being saved by his life equal to being resurrected to life as he was and is it still future?

 

[Dr. Bob]

When Jesus actually atones for sin, it is a DONE DEAL. Between Him and the Father and WE get the benefit!! We are reconciled to the Father thru the atonement.

Thanks for the Owen's quotation. Those who hold some universalist position (aka Bell) or a man-centric (no atonement or reconciliation until "I" do something) have no answer.

 

[Iconoclast]

When Jesus actually atones for sin, it is a DONE DEAL. Between Him and the Father and WE get the benefit!! We are reconciled to the Father thru the atonement.

Thanks for the Owen's quotation. Those who hold some universalist position (aka Bell) or a man-centric (no atonement or reconciliation until "I" do something) have no answer.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:
If any person goes to hell, they were not reconciled.

 

[JesusFan]

When Jesus actually atones for sin, it is a DONE DEAL. Between Him and the Father and WE get the benefit!! We are reconciled to the Father thru the atonement.

Thanks for the Owen's quotation. Those who hold some universalist position (aka Bell) or a man-centric (no atonement or reconciliation until "I" do something) have no answer.

Do Arminians hold though that in the Cross, God did reconcile whole world, and that made it possible for all to be saved IF they so chose to be saved by God?

 

[Tom Butler]

I have always looked to II Corinthians 5:19 for help.

To wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself. not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed to us the ministry of reconciliation.

If Paul had stopped after "reconciling the world unto himself," then we could have a nice discussion over the meaning of "world." Some could argue that "world" meant all without exception, and make a case for unlimited atonement.

But Paul didn't stop there. God had not imputed this "world's" trespasses to them. This is an identifiable group. This is a group to whom God had not imputed their trespasses. Their sins would not be charged to them. God and this group have been reconciled. Any enmity between them has been erased.

This truth presents a problem for some. It makes it impossible to argue that in this passage, "world" means all without exception, since all without exception will have been reconciled to God.

The alternative view is that "world" refers to all without exemption; that is, all who are reconciled; that is, the elect; that is (per John Owen), all for whom Christ died.

This view is further strengthened in 5:18.

All things are of God, who has reconciled US to himself in Christ Jesus.....

 

[percho]

I have always looked to II Corinthians 5:19 for help.

If Paul had stopped after "reconciling the world unto himself," then we could have a nice discussion over the meaning of "world." Some could argue that "world" meant all without exception, and make a case for unlimited atonement.

But Paul didn't stop there. God had not imputed this "world's" trespasses to them. This is an identifiable group. This is a group to whom God had not imputed their trespasses. Their sins would not be charged to them. God and this group have been reconciled. Any enmity between them has been erased.

This truth presents a problem for some. It makes it impossible to argue that in this passage, "world" means all without exception, since all without exception will have been reconciled to God.

The alternative view is that "world" refers to all without exemption; that is, all who are reconciled; that is, the elect; that is (per John Owen), all for whom Christ died.

This view is further strengthened in 5:18.

Does reconcile imply to have known then separated then come together again? In this context how strong are the words, "to have known"?
Was being foreknown a prerequisite to reconciliation?

 

[Tom Butler]

Does reconcile imply to have known then separated then come together again? In this context how strong are the words, "to have known"?

I'm not sure I understand the questions.

Was being foreknown a prerequisite to reconciliation?

Yes, but the correct definition of foreknown is critical here. Foreknow does not mean foresee.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Luke2427, you responded to Jesus fan with this...

Who knows what they believe?

They do. They get their convictions from the scriptures

Particularly these people who have no theology and debate those who do- who knows?

No theology?? Who are these "no theology" people you speak of ??? They are rich in theology.

They believe whatever suits them, I suppose.

Ummm....no, they get their theology strait from the scriptures.

They believe man is a totally depraved people who do not understand the Gospel who have good in them whereby they choose wisely.

Scripture: "There is none that doeth good, no not one"

We are all wretches who need a savior. That is why people choose Christ.

They believe in eternal security whereby they cannot choose to return to a life of rebellion against God all the while they are totally free to do whatever they want.

Thats because God does not have puppets dangling from a string, nor does He have robots, as calvinism seems to promote.

They believe FREE WILL is the reason God created the universe!

Nonsense. God created the universe because He wanted one. And He gave His people free will because He didnt want to have puppets and robots. He wanted people with free will.

They believe Jesus died for every sin that has ever been committed by a any human, yet most humans are going to hell because they are sinners.

No...people go to hell because they choose to, by refusing Christ.

Who KNOWS what these people believe?

You sure dont.

You might as well try to nail jello to a wall.

That wont do it.

Take them seriously and you will be surprised at how helpful they will be in helping you to undersand.


__________________

 

[savedbymercy]

percho:

Is the shall be saved/converted relative to his appearing and kingdom to judge the quick and the dead, therefore the resurrection.

Well Yes, thats included, because thats future salvation, however the shall be saved by His life means the converting work of the Spirit, the New Birth from Regenration, thats called a Saving according to His Mercy Titus 3:5

5Not 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;

 

[percho]

percho:



Well Yes, thats included, because thats future salvation, however the shall be saved by His life means the converting work of the Spirit, the New Birth from Regenration, thats called a Saving according to His Mercy Titus 3:5

5Not 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;

How is something renewed to you if you never had it in the first place?

The other day you listed this verse in a post. I will try to find the post for context. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

Why would the Father have to give Jesus the promise of the Holy Spirit? Could this be construed as a renewal? Does not the water baptism of Jesus by John in the Jordan not show Jesus receiving the Spirit in the form of a dove after his resurrection with a declaration of him being the Son of God?

 

[percho]

I'm not sure I understand the questions.



Yes, but the correct definition of foreknown is critical here. Foreknow does not mean foresee.

Doesn't there have to have been a previous relationship for two to be reconciled?

In other words to whom God through Christ is being reconciled, God had to have known them before and had been separated from them and was now being reconciled to them.

Did foreknow, I believe means to have known before.

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called (Those being reconciled) according to [his] purpose. For whom he did foreknow,(And are now being reconciled) he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.