In what sense did Christ die for all sinners?

[Van]

It is rather silly to translate a Greek word into an English word or phrase, that then has to be explained using yet a third set of English words or phrases. Translating the Greek noun "hilastērion" (G2435) into "expiation" or "propitiation" or "mercy seat" or "sacrifice of atonement" are terrible translations. BGAD says the word means "means of expiation" but then the meaning of "expiation" must be explained. Again, according to BGAD, the idea is the "removal of the impediments to a relationship with God's self." Or in other words, Christ provides, through faith, the means of reconciliation. So why not leap-frog all these intermediate steps, and cut to the chase?

So lets look at Romans 3:25, as translated by the NASB, and then using an interpretative translation that attempts to cut to the chase.

Romans 3:25a NASB
whom God displayed publicly as a [fn]propitiation [fn]in His blood through faith.
_____________
Footnotes:
propitiation = a means of reconciliation between God and mankind by paying the penalty for sin.
in = Or by​

The "whom" refers to Jesus being set forth.
Displayed publicly refers Jesus being set forth both on the cross and in His gospel.
In His blood refers to our faith in Christ's sacrifice of His life on the cross providing the means of reconciliation
Propitiation refers to the place (Christ) where the means of reconciliation is set forth.

Interpretive Translation
God set forth Christ's sacrifice of His life as providing the means of reconciliation accessible through faith in His name.

 

[DaveXR650]

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.

I agree. I think the Calvinist understanding is that you have the working of God being such that you can't separate logically the atonement from the coming of the elect by faith. One is just as sure as the other, and one does not occur without the other. Personally, I am more satisfied with the idea that propitiation is provided for everyone and those who come by faith will benefit from it. The rest will be guilty of the greatest possible sin for a man - that of rejecting such a loving and costly provision of redemption. Ironically, that's what Owen himself said also regarding those who reject Christ.

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.

Again, the Calvinist argument is that the death of Christ actually did something, not just make it possible or open a door, or potentially save. They would say that if you don't understand that or teach it that way you open the door to the ideas that inevitably result. That being that you are now in a world where there is a possibility for you to be saved if you meet certain conditions or do this or that, depending upon the group doing the teaching. The Calvinist says God saves or he doesn't. He doesn't make it possible for you to save yourself.

I admit I myself keep leaning to a universal rather than a limited atonement. Maybe it's my upbringing and maybe I'm just wrong. I fully understand the Calvinist position and respect but I believe you can tell anyone that Christ died for them.

 

[JonC]

I agree. I think the Calvinist understanding is that you have the working of God being such that you can't separate logically the atonement from the coming of the elect by faith. One is just as sure as the other, and one does not occur without the other. Personally, I am more satisfied with the idea that propitiation is provided for everyone and those who come by faith will benefit from it. The rest will be guilty of the greatest possible sin for a man - that of rejecting such a loving and costly provision of redemption. Ironically, that's what Owen himself said also regarding those who reject Christ.

Again, the Calvinist argument is that the death of Christ actually did something, not just make it possible or open a door, or potentially save. They would say that if you don't understand that or teach it that way you open the door to the ideas that inevitably result. That being that you are now in a world where there is a possibility for you to be saved if you meet certain conditions or do this or that, depending upon the group doing the teaching. The Calvinist says God saves or he doesn't. He doesn't make it possible for you to save yourself.

I admit I myself keep leaning to a universal rather than a limited atonement. Maybe it's my upbringing and maybe I'm just wrong. I fully understand the Calvinist position and respect but I believe you can tell anyone that Christ died for them.

Good observations.

I would only suggest you consider this:

Both arguments are that Christ's death actually did something. The difference is in what Christ's death actually accomplished (theories of Atonement come into play here).

The Calvinist views Christ's death as accomplishing forgiveness for the sins of some. In contrast, I believe Christ's death accomplished something much greater - a reconciliation of the human race with God (a "Second Adam") through which individual men may be reconciled to God through Christ.

I am not sure that this would be called "universal atonement" as opposed to "limited atonement" because I deny Calvin's view of the atonement (simply saying "universal atonement" would be misleading because not all experience the forgiveness of sins).

 

[DaveXR650]

The Calvinist views Christ's death as accomplishing forgiveness for the sins of some.

Some Calvinists really do leave it as Christ's death saving the elect and what happens in time is nothing more than the elect discovering that they are indeed elect. Most Calvinists, even high Calvinists like Owen, also believe that Christ's death truly atoned for the sins of the elect. However; they do believe that in time, the elect will and must actually receive Christ by faith in order to be saved. Since this is all of God they do not recognize speculative questions about what it means if someone whose sins are not atoned for wants to receive Christ or what happens if someone whose sins were part of the atonement doesn't receive Christ. If it is God himself at work here questions like that are meaningless.

What I have trouble with is that I find that high Calvinists also engage in such speculation. For instance when Owen discusses the heinousness of rejecting the offer of salvation, or writes whole books on the danger of apostacy, or tells us that continuing in one sin will result in damnation. What I think he is doing is preaching to people in real time, who may or may not understand the precise meaning of the of the background theology. At any rate, because we do live bound by time as humans, it is proper and natural for us to understand this as Christ dying for us and having the ability to forgive sins. We become aware of this and chose to come to Christ. It may well be that we who do this are elect, have only acted by the direction of the Holy Spirit and completely according to God's sovereign providence, and had our sins taken care of when Christ died. But the fact is still that we do this, and we do this at a certain time, and our conscious, rational will is involved when we come to Christ.

I tend to believe that Christ either died or he didn't and it was at a certain point in time. There have been Calvinists who said it's alright to say "Christ has died" and now you may be forgiven if you come. They were being intentionally careful not to say to people who might not come that Christ had died for their sins. Others went further, like J.C. Ryle and flat out said to tell people Christ died for their sins. One of the arguments for universal atonement is that a person must believe that it applies to him or else he can't really come to Christ by faith. Owen would say that you don't need to know that - because it is promised to you that if you come, Christ will receive you and forgive you. Your coming is the best way to know you are elect. When you really read these Puritan high Calvinists you realize the the practical difference comes down to whether there is a real "offer" of salvation for anyone who comes to Christ. If you have that, I am satisfied with your stance. I have huge esteem for Owen, Edwards and the Calvinist Puritans. But personally, I think it is far easier to view the atonement as in no way in itself limiting anyone from being saved, and thus I admit that logically I could be charged with saying it ensures no one is for sure saved, at least logically. That is why the extent of the atonement will never be resolved until we are in Heaven. In Revelation there is mention of a period of silence lasting about 30 minutes. I am told that that is when all the theologians are correcting and rewriting their theologies.

 

[atpollard]

Good observations.

I would only suggest you consider this:

Both arguments are that Christ's death actually did something. The difference is in what Christ's death actually accomplished (theories of Atonement come into play here).

The Calvinist views Christ's death as accomplishing forgiveness for the sins of some. In contrast, I believe Christ's death accomplished something much greater - a reconciliation of the human race with God (a "Second Adam") through which individual men may be reconciled to God through Christ.

I am not sure that this would be called "universal atonement" as opposed to "limited atonement" because I deny Calvin's view of the atonement (simply saying "universal atonement" would be misleading because not all experience the forgiveness of sins).

In what sense is mankind “reconciled” to God where Jesus’ reconciliation creates the forgiveness of NO INDIVIDUAL, but a path for ANY INDIVIDUAL to potentially “experience the forgiveness of sins”. Does this not make the “reconciliation“ more hypothetical than actual?

[It just seems an odd definition of ‘reconciliation’.]

To place it in more WORLDLY terms, it seems like writing a treaty that two nation at war have not agreed to accept, and claiming that the TREATY means they are now at PEACE, because there exists a possibility for them to be reconciled.

 

[Paleouss]

I agree. I think the Calvinist understanding is that you have the working of God being such that you can't separate logically the atonement from the coming of the elect by faith.

Good morning Dave. Gone for a couple of days to take care of life issues. . If I haven't said it before, I like your responses. Most I agree with, but the ones I might not agree...you appear fair and open.

Regarding your quote above, at least from my experience, High Calvinist more frequently don't separate logically the atonement from the coming of the elect by faith. However, I have met moderate Calvinists who do separate them.

The original source of this difference, from my estimation, is the Supralapsarian model (Beza, Scotus, etc). With the Supra, the elect are the first intent of God's decree for creation. If it is the case that the elect are in fact the first intent of creation (they are not), then it clearly follows logically that the Atonement has one purpose and one purpose only (for the elect). But to many verses have to be ignored or to much gymnastics of logic have to be employed to verses for me.

So the whole problem stems from its conception, imo. That is, the error of starting with the Supralapsarian model and the elect being the first intent of creation.

Personally, I am more satisfied with the idea that propitiation is provided for everyone and those who come by faith will benefit from it.

I as well.

The rest will be guilty of the greatest possible sin for a man - that of rejecting such a loving and costly provision of redemption.

Amen, brother

The Calvinist says God saves or he doesn't. He doesn't make it possible for you to save yourself.

The way you wrote this, Amen! However, many take this notion of, does not "make it possible for you to save yourself" to mean that mankind does not have a "part" of faith. Here, I like how John Calvin formulates his commentary to Ephesians 2:8-10.

John Calvin starts by saying,

“And here we must advert to a very common error in the interpretation of this passage. Many persons restrict the word gift to faith alone. But Paul is only repeating in other words the former sentiment. His meaning is, not that faith is the gift of God, but that salvation is given to us by God, or, that we obtain it by the gift of God.” -- John Calvin Commentaries, Eph 2:8-9 (underline mine)

Here, most every High Calvinist I present this Calvin quote to are shocked. They don't understand, I suppose, that it is Beza who first conceived of the Supralapsarian model (not Calvin). Calvin even goes on to say...

Calvin writes, "First, he asserts, that the salvation of the Ephesians was entirely the work, the gracious work of God. But then they had obtained this grace by faith. On one side, we must look at God; and, on the other, at man. - John Calvin Commentaries, Eph 2:8-9 (underline mine)

Calvin then goes on to formulate what this "faith" is like (that is man's part) that doesn't make it 'boasting'.

"When, on the part of man, the act of receiving salvation is made to consist in faith alone, all other means, on which men are accustomed to rely, are discarded. Faith, then, brings a man empty to God," -- John Calvin Commentaries, Eph 2:8-9 (underline mine)

In other area of John Calvin's writings he says,

“Faith is like an empty, open hand stretched out towards God, with nothing to offer and everything to receive.” – John Calvin

Calvin therefore thinks that when a man comes with nothing but faith then man comes before God “empty”. Empty of what? Empty of boasting or commendation. So to John Calvin, man coming with faith is not a works based salvation. It is an error to think that faith is works, at least if one follows Calvin.

This formulation of Calvin's really resonates with me. Scripture tells us that one must submit to God (Jam 4:7) and deny yourself (Luke 9:23), be humbled (Isa 66:2), be lowly of spirit (Pro 16:19, Pro 29:23), be contrite of heart (Psa 51:17,Psa 34:18), and not puffed up (Hab 2:4). Then there are verses like "The haters of the LORD would pretend submission to Him, But their fate would endure forever." (Psa 81:15) AND "God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble" (1Pet 5:5)

All these words that are presented as our proper approach to God emphasize an ‘emptiness’ of pride and boasting.

I believe you can tell anyone that Christ died for them.

Amen!

Peace to you brother

 

[Paleouss]

Greetings JonC. Thank you for providing your thoughts and wisdom to this thread.

The problem many have is they allow their "theology" to shape Scripture rather than allowing Scripture to form their belief.

I think this is frequently true. I, myself, must guard against it at all times.

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)

Amen


Peace to your brother

 

[JesusFan]

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.

he denied that Original Sin affected the human race, denied that we are born spiritual dead in Adam, denied affected by the Fall with a corrupted and sinners natures, denied that we need to have the working of the Holy Spirit upon and in us in order to get saved, that we can still by ourselves will ourselves to believe and get saved, pretty much a heretic

 

[JesusFan]

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.

again, NO Calvinists has God as Open Theism renders God as being

 

[JesusFan]

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."

So there are persons under eternal judgement and condemnation right now whom Jesus died to atone for and propagate their sins to the Father?

 

[JesusFan]

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.

Hard to put this to bed though, as He has both Calvinists and Non Calvinist labeling his theology as being heretical. as he is the patron saint for those holding to "full free will salvation"

 

[JesusFan]

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?

That very belief that you articulated well here would make the Cross of Christ merely an option to salvation, not the only means and way

 

[Paleouss]

I am not sure that this would be called "universal atonement" as opposed to "limited atonement" because I deny Calvin's view of the atonement (simply saying "universal atonement" would be misleading because not all experience the forgiveness of sins).

I think you just made the distinction between "Universalism" and "Universal Atonement". Or at least expressed the hesitation of the use of the term "Universal" associated with the term "Atonement" because one might think Universalism is meant by the use of the two together.

If the latter, I'm reminded for some reason of Terrance L. Tiessen's "Universally sufficient enabling grace".

Peace to you brother

 

[JesusFan]

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

The Cross provided for an secured blessings for both elect and unelected, but the spiritual blessings are afforded only to those chosen and elect in Christ by the Father

 

[JonC]

So there are persons under eternal judgement and condemnation right now whom Jesus died to atone for and propagate their sins to the Father?

I know you were speaking to Van, but you probably need to go more into your definition of "atone for" before that question can be answered.

If you mean the Catholic or Calvinistic understanding then the answer is obviously "no" because the Catholic view is centered on divine merit and Calvinists shifted that to divine judgment of individual sins (Catholics focus on Christ atoning for "original sin" while Calvinists focus on individual sinful acts).

But biblically, the answer is "yes" because Scripture does not present Jesus' death as applied forgiveness of individual sins.

I only mention this to prevent speaking past one another. If one answered "no" then they would be unbiblical
If one answered "yes" then, depending on definitions, one could be misunderstood.

 

[JesusFan]

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.

Cannot get rid though of penal substitution, as that seems to be the prominent way the Apostles themselves, especially Paul in Pauline Justification, viewed the atonementof Christ as being understood

 

[JesusFan]

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.

We are found in Christ due to election of God the father from Eternity past, as God had chosen to save in real time and history all those whom he intended the Cross of Christ to redeem

 

[JesusFan]

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.

many today want to get ride of this concept of Jesus bearing the wrath and judgement of God for our sakes, as they see this as being the Father "molesting: His own Son, and making Him a terrible example of a father figure, being a cosmic sadist

 

[JonC]

I think you just made the distinction between "Universalism" and "Universal Atonement". Or at least expressed the hesitation of the use of the term "Universal" associated with the term "Atonement" because one might think Universalism is meant by the use of the two together.

If the latter, I'm reminded for some reason of Terrance L. Tiessen's "Universally sufficient enabling grace".

Peace to you brother

Yes. This is how those who adhere to Calvinistic Atonement often misunderstand what is meant by "universal atonement". Definitions belong to those who hold, not oppose, the belief being defined.

I do not believe that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is correct, so much of the Limited vs Unlimited Atonement debate (a debate within historical Calvinism....which includes Arminianism) kinda misses the point IMHO.

 

[JesusFan]

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).

Lost sinners who were not elected out can still get a legit off from the gospel, and they do refuse that offer willingly, as prefer darkness to light. as God does not "force" them to accept Jesus as Lord