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".