In what sense did Christ die for all sinners?

[Paleouss]

Greetings and blessings to all my brothers from all denominations. I hope your week has started out well. I first would like to apologize for the length of this post. I concluded that shortening it would limit its full effect and understanding.

As we all know, there is a common debate within theology regarding “for whom did Christ die?” This debate usually revolves around the atoning blood of Christ. Those on one side say that Chist died for the sins of all men, everywhere. While on the other side, it is said that Christ died for only the sins of the elect.

Within this post I would like to present a logical argument for the fact that one purpose of the death of Christ was to die for the sins of all men, everywhere. This logical argument revolves around two points. (This is not an augment for Universalism)

1. The Incarnation, death, and resurrection of God the Son was for multiple purposes.
2. One of those purposes was the work of the Son of God to put all things under His foot (1Cor 15:24-28, Heb 2:8, 1John 3:8, Phil 2:10, 1Pet 3:22).

To properly understand the extent of the decree of God the Father to put all things under the foot of the Son of God. The power and extent of sin must be properly expressed. When sin corrupts, its effects are systemic in nature, that is, the corruption of sin is not localized but infects and corrupts the entire system (1Cor 5:6, Gen 6:12, Rom 8:21). Sin not only spread and corrupted Adam (Rom 5:14), but it corrupted all mankind (Rom 5:12), even all the earth (Rom 8:20-21). Thus it can be seen that the power of sin is systemic in nature. It, the power of sin, is a conceptual whole and cannot be piecemealed by a theological postulation that asserts localized conquering only. Thus, it will be shown below that to conquer the power of sin, which is part of the "works of the devil" (1John 3:8), the power of sin must be totally eradicated, holistically.

1. Sin is systemic in nature.
2. There is a world (W) that consists of parts (a), (b), (c), and (d).
3. (a)dam is corrupted.
4. Therefore (W), (b), (c), and (d) are corrupted also, for sin is systemic in nature.
5. If the power of sin is said to be conquered in (b) but not (a), (c), or (d),
6. then the power of sin has not been conquered in (W), which consists of (a), (b), (c) and (d).
7. Therefore the power and effects of sin have not been conquered.

As can be seen above, if the effects of sin’s power is conquered in (b) only, but not (a), (c), or (d), then the power of sin has not been totally conquered in the the world (W), for its effects still remain in (a), (c), and (d). To say that the power of sin is conquered and properly put under the foot of the Son of God, it must be logically articulated that the power of sin has no more grip, dominion or necessity upon God’s creation. Since (a), (c), and (d) are still affected when one claims only (b) has been conquered, then the power of sin has not been truly conquered. As long as sin affects anything at all in (W), which consists of (a), (b), (c) and (d), the power of sin has not actually been conquered.

• To properly say the power of sin in world (W) is conquered, then there can be no more power of sin and its grip in world (W), which include (a), (b), (c) and (d).

The notion that God conquers the holistic power of sin in a selective piecemeal way only, i.e., saying only the power of the sins of the elect are conquered, is an incomplete theological conquering of sin. An error that logically leaves the power of sin and its effects unchecked.

1. If the power of sin has dominion over world (W), which include (a), (b), (c) and (d).
2. And God’s actions make it that the power of sin no longer has dominion over (b) but still has dominion over (a), (c) and (d).
3. Then God has not conquered the power of sin, for its power still has dominion over (a), (c) and (d)

As can be seen above, what has been done by God in the limited conquering scenario is for (b) to be released from sin’s dominion over (b). However, God has not conquered the power of sin itself if this is only the case, sin still has its dominion, as it were, because the power of sin still grips (a), (c) and (d). The power of sin still remains as the quintessential representation of that which stands against God and His authority. But we are told in the Bible that at the final intended end of this world, there will be no dominion that stands against God’s authority. Therefore, the complete eradication of the dominion of sin is required to properly and logically represent the truth that the Son of God will put all things under His foot (1Cor 15:24-28, Heb 2:8, 1John 3:8, Phil 2:10, 1Pet 3:22).

This can be likened unto two kingdoms, one of holiness and righteousness and one of wickedness and evil. If the kingdom of holiness and righteousness were to conquer a portion of the kingdom of wickedness and evil and bring it into its holy and righteous dominion. It could not be properly said that the holy kingdom has “put all things under its foot” or say that “there is none that opposes us for we have conquered all that there is”. The wicked kingdom still has power over that which is still within its dominion and therefore still stands against the holy kingdom.

Any theological conclusion that the power of sin has only been selectively conquered, leaving the power of sin to still have its dominion, is not congruent with the Scripture or biblical reasoning that says the Son of God will put all things under His foot. It therefore follows that one purpose of the Son of God in the Incarnation was to conquer the power and grip of sin on all mankind so that all things are put under His foot.

Keep seeking God's truth as if it were hidden treasure (Prov 2)

 

[Piper 2]

TLDR.

 

[DaveXR650]

I guess the debate centers around who Christ died for because of the prominence of the Calvinist/Arminian debate. Yet it seems like the earliest Christians had a much more vivid view of this as being more of a cosmic battle between good and evil than we have now. You can tell because a lot of discussion on the atonement was about Christ being the victor and the variations of the idea of a ransom being paid, some even said to Satan.

Are your ideas coming from a certain viewpoint or just your own thoughts on the subject?

 

[JesusFan]

I guess the debate centers around who Christ died for because of the prominence of the Calvinist/Arminian debate. Yet it seems like the earliest Christians had a much more vivid view of this as being more of a cosmic battle between good and evil than we have now. You can tell because a lot of discussion on the atonement was about Christ being the victor and the variations of the idea of a ransom being paid, some even said to Satan.

Are your ideas coming from a certain viewpoint or just your own thoughts on the subject?

Yes, due to the view of the atonement as being Christ was victor motif, but the primary view of the Apostles seem to be Penal substitutionary one, as Jesus was the very lamb of God that took upon Himself the sins of His own Flock, saved Jews and Gentiles to be united into one body now, the Church

 

[Martin Marprelate]

1. Sin is systemic in nature.
2. There is a world (W) that consists of parts (a), (b), (c), and (d).
3. (a)dam is corrupted.
4. Therefore (W), (b), (c), and (d) are corrupted also, for sin is systemic in nature.
5. If the power of sin is said to be conquered in (b) but not (a), (c), or (d),
6. then the power of sin has not been conquered in (W), which consists of (a), (b), (c) and (d).
7. Therefore the power and effects of sin have not been conquered.

Before I comment on your post, would you please tell us what (b), (c) and (d) represent? I understood (w) and (a), but not the others.
I may be being very short-sighted, but I can't see where you explain this.

 

[atpollard]

Before I comment on your post, would you please tell us what (b), (c) and (d) represent? I understood (w) and (a), but not the others.
I may be being very short-sighted, but I can't see where you explain this.

He did not explain them. I think they (a, b, c, & d) were generic place holders. I think his only point with them is that for ATONEMENT to remove sin from the WORLD, it must remove sin from all parts of the world … it cannot remove sin from one part (whatever and however you define it) but leave another part still in sin and claim to have removed SIN from the WORLD.

I am not sure I agree, but I think that was his core point. Put another way, he seems to advocate that any limitation on the atonement negates the Biblical Claims of what the atonement accomplished … all sin was removed from all aspects of the World. [Which makes my murdered brother problematic in his theological model.]

 

[37818]

Mark 10:14-15, . . . But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Allow the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

John 3:3, . . . Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. . . .

 

[JesusFan]

He did not explain them. I think they (a, b, c, & d) were generic place holders. I think his only point with them is that for ATONEMENT to remove sin from the WORLD, it must remove sin from all parts of the world … it cannot remove sin from one part (whatever and however you define it) but leave another part still in sin and claim to have removed SIN from the WORLD.

I am not sure I agree, but I think that was his core point. Put another way, he seems to advocate that any limitation on the atonement negates the Biblical Claims of what the atonement accomplished … all sin was removed from all aspects of the World. [Which makes my murdered brother problematic in his theological model.]

All except Universalists though limit the extent of the Atonement of the Cross to some degree

 

[atpollard]

All except Universalists though limit the extent of the Atonement of the Cross to some degree

I have reread it several times, and I think this is the “core” of his argument …

Thus it can be seen that the power of sin is systemic in nature. It, the power of sin, is a conceptual whole and cannot be piecemealed by a theological postulation that asserts localized conquering only. Thus, it will be shown below that to conquer the power of sin, which is part of the "works of the devil" (1John 3:8), the power of sin must be totally eradicated, holistically.

So I suspect he is not advocating for the Cross as “UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT” but as something closer to a sweeping “PREVENIENT GRACE” … something with the POWER to undo all sin.

I admit that I cannot follow the implications of where he intends to go with it, but it makes me as nervous as a long-tail cat in a room full of Rocking Chairs. I think his premise could easily slip into “sinless perfectionism” or a “Heaven on earth” (we can save the world) mentality. However, I am not even 100% certain that I have correctly “divided” his wall of text.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I have reread it several times, and I think this is the “core” of his argument …


So I suspect he is not advocating for the Cross as “UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT” but as something closer to a sweeping “PREVENIENT GRACE” … something with the POWER to undo all sin.

I admit that I cannot follow the implications of where he intends to go with it, but it makes me as nervous as a long-tail cat in a room full of Rocking Chairs. I think his premise could easily slip into “sinless perfectionism” or a “Heaven on earth” (we can save the world) mentality. However, I am not even 100% certain that I have correctly “divided” his wall of text.

 

[kyredneck]

the atoning blood of Christ

"The Atonement eliminated Adam's curse for the entire race and all are now born innocent until they themselves 'sin after the likeness of Adam`s transgression'; explains 'innocent until guilty' for children".

Scroll around- Babies In Hell 2

See also Babies In Hell? (1)

 

[Paleouss]

Before I comment on your post, would you please tell us what (b), (c) and (d) represent?

Greetings Martin. Peace to you brother.

(b), (c), and (d) are just place holders that represent the totality of (W). They represent all mankind.

Hope this helps.

 

[Paleouss]

He did not explain them. I think they (a, b, c, & d) were generic place holders. I think his only point with them is that for ATONEMENT to remove sin from the WORLD, it must remove sin from all parts of the world …

Greetings to you atpollard. Peace to you and your family.

Yes, regarding your quote above. I might add, to make clear I am not asserting Universalism (that all are saved). I am asserting that (A) Christ came for multiple purposes. For example, (1) Christ came to "efficiently" die for the elect, and (2) Christ came to "sufficiently" die for all mankind, (3) and Christ came to "put all things under His foot" (1Cor 15:24-28, Heb 2:8, 1John 3:8, Phil 2:10, 1Pet 3:22), (4) etc.

it cannot remove sin from one part (whatever and however you define it) but leave another part still in sin and claim to have removed SIN from the WORLD.

Yes. Like the example of the two kingdoms I presented in the first post as an example.

I am not sure I agree, but I think that was his core point. Put another way, he seems to advocate that any limitation on the atonement negates the Biblical Claims of what the atonement accomplished

No, this is not what I intended. Although I can see how a High Calvinist might suggest this is what is suggested. For the Calvinist, this assertion of mine would be supporting Unlimited Atonement and Particular Election. For others, it would be supporting the Lombardian Formula of "sufficient" and "efficient".

I think his premise could easily slip into “sinless perfectionism” or a “Heaven on earth” (we can save the world) mentality.

I hope it doesn't slip into this.

Thank you for your thoughts. I'll try to expand in other posts.

Peace to you brother.

 

[Paleouss]

So I suspect he is not advocating for the Cross as “UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT” but as something closer to a sweeping “PREVENIENT GRACE” … something with the POWER to undo all sin

Greetings again atpollard. Thank you again for commenting and critiquing what I had written.

I haven't thought of it that way. That is, like a "prevenient grace". I suppose that analogy could be used. Also, I think the last part is more on point with one exception. That exception being, the power to undo the "power" of all sin. The key term being the "power of all sin". This distinction between just "all sin" seems to distinguish it from saying that all are saved. So the "power of all sin" has been put under the foot of the Son of God. So now the law of faith only reigns.

We know that one of the purposes of the Incarnation was to put "all enemies under his foot" (1Cor 15:25). And the verse before it, 1 Cor 15:24, lists those "enemies" as "all rule", "all authority" AND... "power" (1Cor 15:24). So "power" is to be put under the foot of God the Son. So what is this "power"?

We know that one of those "enemies", or more accurately "powers", that is to be put under the foot of God the Son is death. For "The last enemy [that] will be destroyed [is] death" (1Cor 15:26).

This conquering is for all mankind and all their sin, everywhere. It is the conquering of the "power" of sin.

I admit that I cannot follow the implications of where he intends to go with it, but it makes me as nervous as a long-tail cat in a room full of Rocking Chairs.

Blessed are those that keep and protect God's word. Blessed are you atpollard.


Keep seeking God's truth as if it were hidden treasure (Prov 2)

 

[Paleouss]

Are your ideas coming from a certain viewpoint or just your own thoughts on the subject?

Greetings Dave. Always good to have a conversation with you.

Well, I suppose everyone's ideas come from their particular point of view. However, more to what you mean...the overall assertion seems to be more from my studies than any theologian in particular. Although I dare not take credit for any ideas (unless they are errors).

I'm impressed you reached back into the archives of your mind and pulled out what you wrote... "Yet it seems like the earliest Christians had a much more vivid view of this as being more of a cosmic battle between good and evil than we have now. You can tell because a lot of discussion on the atonement was about Christ being the victor"

So coming from a more Lombardian formula, in what way is the atonement "sufficient"? Some would seem to contend that sufficient means more like a hypothetical "potential". And, it would seem, to some degree that is true. But in what way does the blood of Christ actually go beyond a hypothetical for all mankind?

We know that the blood of Christ goes beyond "sufficient" for those that believe (the elect) and into the "efficient". In this way, being efficient, the blood of Christ does something for the saints that is more than just a hypothetical potential.

But how does the "sufficient" go beyond the hypothetical potential? Not that it goes so far as to be efficient. But how does Christ's blood actually accomplish something beyond just a hypothetical for the unbelieving?

What I have presented is an assertion of how one purpose of the blood of Christ was intended, and has been accomplished, to go beyond the hypothetical potential for all mankind. That is, the "power" of all sin was to be put under the foot of the Son of God so that all might be offered to come to Him through faith and belief. The law of faith now reigns.

With the "power" of sin put under the Son of God's foot, the slavery to sin might be broken if one only believes and has faith. But not all will. In fact, narrow is the gate and few there be that enter it. Sad...but true.

So to sum it up, that power of sin itself, the power of all sin everywhere, must be totally (logically) eradicated so that "all things" are put under the foot of the Son of God.

Keep seeking God's truth

 

[JesusFan]

"The Atonement eliminated Adam's curse for the entire race and all are now born innocent until they themselves 'sin after the likeness of Adam`s transgression'; explains 'innocent until guilty' for children".

Scroll around- Babies In Hell 2

See also Babies In Hell? (1)

That would be the heresy of Pelagianism

 

[Paleouss]

Greetings again to all in this thread. Thank you for sharpening me and correcting me when you think it is needed.

I thought, to help shed light on the OP, I might zoom out and provide an overall structure to the assertion that one of the purposes of the Incarnation was to destroy the power of sin.


(Rom 8:3 NKJV) 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God [did] by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh,

So according to Rom 8:3, what the "law could not do" means that the law was part of God's stratagem to do something. But it was never intended to be the only tool. So what the law could not do, God sent His Son to do. So what was His Son sent to do that the law could not? He was sent to "condemn sin" (Rom 8:3). But didn't the law condemn sin?

Justice, through the law, rightly conquers the sinner and puts the sinner under the foot of God. But the power and effects of sin have not been conquered by justice, only the sinner has been put under the foot of God the Son through the law. The power of sin and its effects goes unchecked, for sin brings death and justice ensures death; sin brings alienation and justice seals that alienation; justice in some ways even works in accordance with the outcomes to which sin aspires (1Cor 15:56), i.e., the condemnation and penalty placed upon mankind. As the Scriptures say, "the strength of sin is the law" (1Cor 15:56).

God’s decree to give the written law was “because of transgressions” (Gal 3:19). These transgressions ran rampant, causing alienation and bringing death (Rom 5:14) and were left unchecked because “sin is the transgression of the law” (1John 3:4) but “where no law is, [there is] no transgression” (Rom 5:14 KJV), and “sin is not imputed when there is no law” (Rom 5:13).

The salvo of God’s laws to declare the battle lines and to put all things under His feet, starts with the law that confines and defines transgression, through the “knowledge of sin” (Rom 3:20, Rom 7:7); it spotlights sin, so in the light the “offense might abound” (Rom 5:20); therefore being a “tutor” (Gal 3:24), a guide toward the object of this world’s purposeful end, which is the Son of God.

The law therefore condemns the sinner so that “all the world may become guilty before God” (Rom 3:19, Gal 3:11). This is a step in the reconciliation between God and mankind. But where the law was strong accounting for the sinner, the law is weak in accounting for sin. But within God's stratagem, where the law is weak to account for the power of sin, God sent “His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin” (Rom 8:3), and by the decree of the Incarnation, through His blood and resurrection, He conquered sin in the flesh (Rom 8:3) where the law could not (Rom 8:3).

In this sense, Christ is the completion of the law. The final nail in the stratagem to "destroy the works of the devil" (1John 3:8). In which John says is one reason why the "Son of God was manifested".

Peace to your brothers

 

[JesusFan]

Greetings Dave. Always good to have a conversation with you.

Well, I suppose everyone's ideas come from their particular point of view. However, more to what you mean...the overall assertion seems to be more from my studies than any theologian in particular. Although I dare not take credit for any ideas (unless they are errors).

I'm impressed you reached back into the archives of your mind and pulled out what you wrote... "Yet it seems like the earliest Christians had a much more vivid view of this as being more of a cosmic battle between good and evil than we have now. You can tell because a lot of discussion on the atonement was about Christ being the victor"

So coming from a more Lombardian formula, in what way is the atonement "sufficient"? Some would seem to contend that sufficient means more like a hypothetical "potential". And, it would seem, to some degree that is true. But in what way does the blood of Christ actually go beyond a hypothetical for all mankind?

We know that the blood of Christ goes beyond "sufficient" for those that believe (the elect) and into the "efficient". In this way, being efficient, the blood of Christ does something for the saints that is more than just a hypothetical potential.

But how does the "sufficient" go beyond the hypothetical potential? Not that it goes so far as to be efficient. But how does Christ's blood actually accomplish something beyond just a hypothetical for the unbelieving?

What I have presented is an assertion of how one purpose of the blood of Christ was intended, and has been accomplished, to go beyond the hypothetical potential for all mankind. That is, the "power" of all sin was to be put under the foot of the Son of God so that all might be offered to come to Him through faith and belief. The law of faith now reigns.

With the "power" of sin put under the Son of God's foot, the slavery to sin might be broken if one only believes and has faith. But not all will. In fact, narrow is the gate and few there be that enter it. Sad...but true.

So to sum it up, that power of sin itself, the power of all sin everywhere, must be totally (logically) eradicated so that "all things" are put under the foot of the Son of God.

Keep seeking God's truth

Think 2 extremes to avoid on this subject matter would be Pelagianism, such as seemed to be expounded by a Charles Finney, and Unuversalism, as seemed to be the end result of theology of Karl barth

 

[Paleouss]

TLDR.

My apologies Piper.

 

[Paleouss]

Pelagianism

Hello JesusFan. Thank you for your critique. Much appreciated

I agree...and I do not intent this.

and Unuversalism

I also agree.. and I do not intend this either.


Peace brother