In what sense did Christ die for all sinners?

[Van]

There are NO Calvinists who see God as being Open Theism, as we all hold to God being all knowing just as the Bible describes him as being, including having Omniscience!

More denial of the obvious! God is not the author of sin according to Calvinism, thus did not cause our sin. This defines Open Theism.
But the whole subject is off topic, the hobby horse of the denial riders in the sky.

 

[Van]

"The Extent of the Atonement".

"God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either:

1. "All the sins of all men,

2. "All the sins of some men,

or 3. "Some of the sins of all men.
In which case it may be said:

SNIP

Utter Nonsense!!!!

Christ died as a ransom for all people, those to be saved and those never to be saved, 2 Peter 2:1. 1 Timothy 2:6.

Christ died for all people to provide the means of reconciliation for all people, those to be saved and those never to be saved.

Christ died for all people, which includes the church, those saved and those to be saved. Acts 20:28

The false premise of the above repetitively posted nonsense is if Christ died for a person, then that person must be saved. However this falsehood ignores that Christ died as a ransom for all, providing the means of reconciliation for all, but all do not receive the reconciliation. That is why, we, as ambassadors of Christ are to beg the lost, "Be reconciled to God."

 

[Silverhair]

That would be the heresy of Pelagianism

Perhaps you should rethink your understanding of Pelagius.
I have not had the chance to go through this web site but you may want to take a look at it

Pelagius and Augustine

Pelagius and Augustine By Danny Coleman Introduction Pelagius has been called "one of the most maligned figures in the h...

dannycolemanpelagius.blogspot.com

This is some of the opening comments

Pelagius has been called "one of the most maligned figures in the history of Christianity."1 Yet, the nature of Pelagius's differences with Augustine, Jerome and the 5th century Catholic Church, which ultimately earned him the title heresiarch, have often been misunderstood or mischaracterized.2 It is not unusual for "Pelagianism" to be reductively described as a teaching that salvation can be achieved by works rather than by grace3 and for Pelagius to be characterized as little more than a repackager of Stoicism into the Christian milieu.4 In actuality, Pelagius was, for his time, a very orthodox Christian theologian.5


It seems Pelagius was not the heretic he has been accused of being.

 

[atpollard]

Perhaps you should rethink your understanding of Pelagius.
I have not had the chance to go through this web site but you may want to take a look at it

Pelagius and Augustine

Pelagius and Augustine By Danny Coleman Introduction Pelagius has been called "one of the most maligned figures in the h...

dannycolemanpelagius.blogspot.com

This is some of the opening comments

Pelagius has been called "one of the most maligned figures in the history of Christianity."1 Yet, the nature of Pelagius's differences with Augustine, Jerome and the 5th century Catholic Church, which ultimately earned him the title heresiarch, have often been misunderstood or mischaracterized.2 It is not unusual for "Pelagianism" to be reductively described as a teaching that salvation can be achieved by works rather than by grace3 and for Pelagius to be characterized as little more than a repackager of Stoicism into the Christian milieu.4 In actuality, Pelagius was, for his time, a very orthodox Christian theologian.5


It seems Pelagius was not the heretic he has been accused of being.

While it is probably true that Pelagius has been unfairly ‘demonized’, it is still true that the term “Pelagianism” (fair or unfair) has come to represent a very specific contra-biblical belief in a works based salvation.

 

[Silverhair]

While it is probably true that Pelagius has been unfairly ‘demonized’, it is still true that the term “Pelagianism” (fair or unfair) has come to represent a very specific contra-biblical belief in a works based salvation.

I have not read the whole text but I have seen other articles that called that view of Pelagius into question.

Pelagianism has become the go to pejorative but I would suggest that it is time to put that one to bed.

 

[Silverhair]

"The Extent of the Atonement".

"God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either:

1. "All the sins of all men,

2. "All the sins of some men,

or 3. "Some of the sins of all men.
In which case it may be said:

a. "That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so none are saved.

b. "That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.

c. "But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?

"You will say, Because of unbelief; they will not believe.

"But this unbelief, is it a sin or is it not? If not, why should they be
unpunished for it?

"If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it or not.

"If he did, why must that hinder, more than theirther for which he died, from partaking of the fruit of his death?

"If he did not, then he did not die for all their sins."

John Owen.

(Lewis Sperry Chafer, “Systematic Theology”, Vol. III. P. 198., 1957, Dallas Seminary Press, Dallas, Texas)

While refusal to believe is indeed a sin, the reason it keeps one from salvation is not due to it being a sin, but because unbelief, by definition, precludes belief in Christ, without which no one can be saved (Hebrews 11:6).

While unstated, there is a premise both insidious and heretical that one must hold to make this argument without duplicity or cognitive dissonance: If one is seriously arguing that unbelief would not stop a person from being forgiven any more than any other sin, that is effectively saying that Christ’s death brings about salvation whether or not one believes.

Note that he [Owen] is not arguing that all for whom Christ died must eventually believe and be saved, no, he is saying they would be saved despite not believing!

 

[DaveXR650]

"God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either:

1. "All the sins of all men,

2. "All the sins of some men,

or 3. "Some of the sins of all men.

Yes, that's his classic argument against the "universalists" by which he was meaning Arminians in "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ". It is an insurmountable argument 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. If you think it works that way then the case is closed for limited atonement. If you believe any other possibility exists then the argument won't work.

If you believe for example that Christ died as a far exceeding sacrifice sufficient for the sins of all men in 1000 worlds in addition to ours if need be but the blood is applied when a person comes to Christ then Owen's argument is not valid. If you believe that when you are saved you are found to be "in Christ" and that is where your safety is because of Christ's sacrifice then likewise, Owen's argument won't work. If you believe that Christ's death was propitiation and expiation for all because of the exceeding value of Christ compared to us and now God could forgive us and still be just according to his own nature then Owen's argument won't work. It won't even work if you believe that simply "Christ has died" and because he knows everything and thus had in his mind those who would come to Christ and be saved it was in that sense limited to them.

I didn't know Chafer had used that in his theology book but it makes sense because Chafer I think was of the opinion that once a person was saved they could do anything, and not repent and still remain saved. I would love to have asked Chafer what he thought of Owen's insistence that one of the biggest fallacies was that a man could think he was born again while continuing in any known sin.

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.

 

[DaveXR650]

While refusal to believe is indeed a sin, the reason it keeps one from salvation is not due to it being a sin, but because unbelief, by definition, precludes belief in Christ, without which no one can be saved (Hebrews 11:6).

That's right, and I don't know how you can get around John 3:18.

that is effectively saying that Christ’s death brings about salvation whether or not one believes.

Note that he [Owen] is not arguing that all for whom Christ died must eventually believe and be saved, no, he is saying they would be saved despite not believing!

Yes I agree. And I know Owen did not believe that anyone would be saved without believing. I would love for someone to explain this as I personally think he made a debate mistake, in that he was requiring a very narrow view of penal substitution that I don't know is really essential. He assumed his Arminian adversaries had the exact same view, in which case he wins. But they didn't.

 

[atpollard]

I have not read the whole text but I have seen other articles that called that view of Pelagius into question.

Pelagianism has become the go to pejorative but I would suggest that it is time to put that one to bed.

I agree that the term is overused and often abused, but do you have a better term to describe the belief that rejects “original sin” and “total depravity/inability” and embraces the belief that human beings can choose to obey the LAW and obtain righteousness based on human merit?

 

[Silverhair]

Yes, that's his classic argument against the "universalists" by which he was meaning Arminians in "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ". It is an insurmountable argument 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. If you think it works that way then the case is closed for limited atonement. If you believe any other possibility exists then the argument won't work.

If you believe for example that Christ died as a far exceeding sacrifice sufficient for the sins of all men in 1000 worlds in addition to ours if need be but the blood is applied when a person comes to Christ then Owen's argument is not valid. If you believe that when you are saved you are found to be "in Christ" and that is where your safety is because of Christ's sacrifice then likewise, Owen's argument won't work. If you believe that Christ's death was propitiation and expiation for all because of the exceeding value of Christ compared to us and now God could forgive us and still be just according to his own nature then Owen's argument won't work. It won't even work if you believe that simply "Christ has died" and because he knows everything and thus had in his mind those who would come to Christ and be saved it was in that sense limited to them.

I didn't know Chafer had used that in his theology book but it makes sense because Chafer I think was of the opinion that once a person was saved they could do anything, and not repent and still remain saved. I would love to have asked Chafer what he thought of Owen's insistence that one of the biggest fallacies was that a man could think he was born again while continuing in any known sin.

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.

For "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" to be an insurmountable argument would require that the sin of unbelief also be covered. The result being that a persons unbelief would not be a barrier to their salvation.

I understand that was not Owen's intend but that is the logical outcome of his words.

 

[DaveXR650]

For "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" to be an insurmountable argument would require that the sin of unbelief also be covered. The result being that a persons unbelief would not be a barrier to their salvation.

He did. And that is Owen's argument. It's partly in Alan's quote he provided above. You have to remember that Owen was arguing with classical Arminians, who had the same view of the way the atonement worked as Owen and the Calvinists. (I know that is debatable but that I think was his assumption.) If you understand that you can understand his argument.

 

[Silverhair]

He did. And that is Owen's argument. It's partly in Alan's quote he provided above. You have to remember that Owen was arguing with classical Arminians, who had the same view of the way the atonement worked as Owen and the Calvinists. (I know that is debatable but that I think was his assumption.) If you understand that you can understand his argument.

I was giving Owen the benefit of the doubt re unbelief not being a barrier to salvation. That view is not biblical so I am surprised that he could or would come to that conclusion even considering his calvinist views.

If as you say Owen and calvinists had the same view as the classical arminians then he would not have been arguing with them.

Unbelief, being a sin, is the ultimate sin. When you deny who Christ is then you will not be saved.

 

[Paleouss]

"The Extent of the Atonement".

"God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either:

1. "All the sins of all men,

2. "All the sins of some men,

or 3. "Some of the sins of all men.
In which case it may be said:

Greetings Alan Dal Gross. Peace and blessing to you, my brother.

Although what I am about to say will not go deep enough to convince anyone. John Owen makes a conceptual error in this argument, imo. He confounds the multiple purposes of the Incarnation, death and resurrection into only one purpose. I'll try and explain what I mean.

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).

John Owen then conflates the two and ends up with a false premise. And of course with all logic, building a house an inch of square at its base ends up being a foot of square at its top. Where he starts "off square" is his presupposition that the Incarnation, death, blood, and resurrection was for only one purpose. Then says that that one purpose was either for this or that (of course it's a little more detailed than that).

So this is where my OP comes into play. the Bible appears to tell us that within the stratagem of God, the Incarnation, death, blood and resurrection... God had multiple purposes. One of those purposes was to secure the elect , those that would believe (however you want to formulate "faith" and "belief").

Another 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). Some of those things He was putting under His foot was the "power" (1Cor 15:24) of (a) death (1Cor 15:26) and (b) sin (Rom 8:3, 1John 3:8). This "putting all things under His foot" is part of the stratagem of God the Father to offer reconciliation to all mankind.

Keep seeking Gods truth as if it were hidden teasure

 

[DaveXR650]

I was giving Owen the benefit of the doubt re unbelief not being a barrier to salvation. That view is not biblical so I am surprised that he could or would come to that conclusion even considering his calvinist views.

Owen's argument was hypothetical. He was debating "universalists" by which he mean Arminians. And he was really debating, as in trying to trash the other side and win the argument. Like I said, if you view the atonement as each individual sin either being on your account or put to Christ's account and that alone determining your standing before God then the argument is over and the strict Calvinists have won. That is the point he was making and at that level he was exactly right.

To take on Owen requires that you view the atonement a little differently, at least in the application of it. It could be hypothetical, in that the benefits of Christ's death are not "applied" until the person has faith or is born again, or you could add enough of a governmental view of the atonement to where more emphasis is on the fact that since the atoning death of Christ, God can now forgive and pardon and still be viewed as just as his nature would demand.

I'm not saying that you have to get rid of penal substitutionary atonement, but by Owen's own argument, he was viewing it as literally taking each sin and transferring it to Christ, thus leaving no recourse as far as the person's guilt. If the sin was transferred then even God could not put it to your account again. If not then you are guilty no matter how much God wanted to forgive you. That's why the best argument against Owen is that his understanding is mechanical and it makes the atonement too much of a mechanical thing that was done.

I see as I'm writing this @Paleouss posted above and I'll read what he says.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

1 John 2:2 NASB
and He Himself is the means of reconciliation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole of humanity.

This version reflects the footnoted meaning of propitiation, deletes the added clarification in italics, and corrects the translation from world to humanity for clarity.

My copy of the NASB is the 1995 one, but it footnotes 'satisfaction' as an alternative meaning of 'propitiation.' Certainly 'means of reconciliation' is a wretched translation. God is propitiated - that is, His wrath is turned away - by the suffering and death of Christ. The mistranslation of 'humanity' instead of world is an obfuscation rather that a clarification.

are quite different.

Note that scripture says Christ provides the means of reconciliation, rather than Christ reconciled anyone.

The two Greek words for 'propitiation' (hilasmos) and 'reconciliation' (katalage) are quite different. Due to the propitiation of God's righteous anger against sin by the Lord Jesus, reconciliation between man and God is now possible (2 Cor. 5:18-21), but the two words are not at all the same.

Only when a lost person is transferred spiritually into Christ is the person reconciled, made "at one" with God. So Christ's death did not make anyone "at one" with God, but when a lost person is transferred into Christ, that is when they are made "at one" with God

This is just a misunderstanding of Colossians 1:13, where we are described as being transferred or 'translated' into 'the kingdom of the Son of His love.' We are united to Christ by faith.

 

[Van]

My copy of the NASB is the 1995 one, but it footnotes 'satisfaction' as an alternative meaning of 'propitiation.' Certainly 'means of reconciliation' is a wretched translation. God is propitiated - that is, His wrath is turned away - by the suffering and death of Christ. The mistranslation of 'humanity' instead of world is an obfuscation rather that a clarification.

The two Greek words for 'propitiation' (hilasmos) and 'reconciliation' (katalage) are quite different. Due to the propitiation of God's righteous anger against sin by the Lord Jesus, reconciliation between man and God is now possible (2 Cor. 5:18-21), but the two words are not at all the same.

This is just a misunderstanding of Colossians 1:13, where we are described as being transferred or 'translated' into 'the kingdom of the Son of His love.' We are united to Christ by faith.

Propitiation does not mean propitiated. Propitiation is footnoted as "means of reconciliation" in the NASB and it is a great translation choice.
If Christ had propitiated the whole of humanity, Universalism would be true, but it is of course false, just as the suggested meaning is false.

Martin is the one claiming propitiation means propitiated, not me!

When and if God credits our faith as righteousness, He then transfers us spiritually into Christ's spiritual body, where we undergo the washing of regeneration (making us spiritually alive rather than spiritually dead).

Martin continues to deny the means of the lost, being in the realm of darkness in Adam, becoming "in Christ" is God's action to spiritually relocate the person's human spirit. We are in Christ by God's doing.

 

[DaveXR650]

Martin is the one claiming propitiation means propitiated, not me!

I don't see how it could be otherwise. It's the same root word.

But that aside, as it relates to the thread, I do agree that there are many different aspects of the atonement. But without propitiation, as in removing the wrath of God against sin and the sinners who do it, you simply do not have a complete picture of the atonement. An idea that the atonement demonstrated Jesus's submission to the Father even as he was a victim of wicked men, or an idea that God was demonstrating to the world what he thought of sin - while there is some truth in these things, as the explanation of the atonement they are insufficient.

Fortunately for us, our role in the atonement is to observe and try to understand. It was done for us and it probably is sufficient for those who come to Christ to understand that through him their sins can be forgiven. Whole books are written on the atonement but if you want to know what aspect is most important look at the Lord's supper and see what aspect is being commemorated. There is nothing about Christ as victor, or about being a public example of God's justice, or even anything about the resurrection. It's his broken body and shed blood for us. If you get that right you are probably OK.

 

[Van]

I don't see how it could be otherwise. It's the same root word.

If Christ has propitiated the whole of humanity, rather than being the means of reconciliation, Universalism is being taught.
Not to put too fine a point on it, one is a noun, referring to Christ as the means of reconciliation as the Lamb of God, and one is a verb referring to the completed act of turning God's wrath from every sinner. It is nonsense. And everyone knows it.

NASB footnotes on "propitiation."
1) Romans 3:25, "a means of reconciliation between God and mankind by paying the penalty for sin."
2) 1 John 2:2, "means of reconciliation with God by atoning for sins, or sin offering.

 

[JonC]

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 fofoot.

Amen. This is the absolute conclusion of Scripture. The problem many have is they allow their "theology" to shape Scripture rather than allowing Scripture to form their belief.

It is because Christ died for the sins of all men that those who remain in their sins, who remain under the powers of sin, are condemned for their rejection of the Light (obviously one cannot reject what was never offered).

 

[JonC]

I don't see how it could be otherwise. It's the same root word.

But that aside, as it relates to the thread, I do agree that there are many different aspects of the atonement. But without propitiation, as in removing the wrath of God against sin and the sinners who do it, you simply do not have a complete picture of the atonement. An idea that the atonement demonstrated Jesus's submission to the Father even as he was a victim of wicked men, or an idea that God was demonstrating to the world what he thought of sin - while there is some truth in these things, as the explanation of the atonement they are insufficient.

Fortunately for us, our role in the atonement is to observe and try to understand. It was done for us and it probably is sufficient for those who come to Christ to understand that through him their sins can be forgiven. Whole books are written on the atonement but if you want to know what aspect is most important look at the Lord's supper and see what aspect is being commemorated. There is nothing about Christ as victor, or about being a public example of God's justice, or even anything about the resurrection. It's his broken body and shed blood for us. If you get that right you are probably OK.

If I say drug x is the cure for cancer this does not mean everybody is cured of cancer simply because the drug exists, made avaliable to all, or is the cure for everyone's cancer. That said, "cure" and "cured" have the same root word.

Scripture states that Jesus is the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world. Scripture does not say that all men have experienced this forgiveness, or that all men have had their sins propitiated. The fact that Jesus died for the sins of all does not mean that all sins are forgiven.