In what sense did Christ die for all sinners?

[JesusFan]

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.

We are assuming that the Trinity intended though that His death was atonement for all, not limited to just His own faithful Remnant

 

[JesusFan]

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

Think though that if one holds to doctrines of Grace in Soteriology, forced to conclude that the intent of the Cross was indeed a limited atonement. as Really purchased salvation to those intended to get saved, and not a potential for all to get saved

 

[JesusFan]

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.

The cross was where the demanded payment and receiving of the due wrath and judgement/condemnation die to us was paid for and atoned for by the death of Jesus

 

[Paleouss]

I do not believe that the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is correct

This is getting a little off the OP, but... I'm interested in your thoughts here.

(1) Christ's death is a substitutionary sacrifice that satisfies God's demands of "justice" regarding sin.

Could you tell me how you disagree with my statement above? I would ask that you critique exactly what I wrote and not any other presuppositions of what Penal Substitution theory is or is not.

Peace to you brother

 

[JesusFan]

This is getting a little off the OP, but... I'm interested in your thoughts here.

(1) Christ's death is a substitutionary sacrifice that satisfies God's demands of "justice" regarding sin.

Could you tell me how you disagree with my statement above? I would ask that you critique exactly what I wrote and not any other presuppositions of what Penal Substitution theory is or is not.

Peace to you brother

If its not he correct viewpoint, then you are gutting out of the bible Pauline Justification

 

[JesusFan]

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.

If its not he correct viewpoint, then you are gutting out of the bible Pauline Justification

 

[JesusFan]

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.

Jesus died in the stead and place of Indisual sinners, not for an entire group or a plan

 

[Silverhair]

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

It seems you are just giving the talking points of the opponents of Pelagius.

But since very little of his actual writings exist it is difficult to really say what he believed.

What we do know is that he opposed Augustine and the pagan views that he brought into the church. So in that respect he could not have been the heretic you claim him to be.

 

[Silverhair]

Jesus died in the stead and place of Indisual sinners, not for an entire group or a plan

Sure looks like He died for the "entire group"

1Jn 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;
1Jn 2:2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

or "plan".

1Ti 2:3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
1Ti 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Here we see both the plan and who it was for

Joh 3:17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

 

[Silverhair]

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"

What do you mean by "full free will salvation".

I know what free will is and I know what salvation is and both are found in scripture. Those that freely place their faith in Christ will be saved.

 

[Paleouss]

JesusFan. Great to hear from you. Hope you had a blessed weekend.

Think though that if one holds to doctrines of Grace in Soteriology, forced to conclude that the intent of the Cross was indeed a limited atonement. as Really purchased salvation to those intended to get saved, and not a potential for all to get saved

I have a couple of thoughts on how the Calvinist might reconcile the two groupings of scripture, that is those that suggest a Universal Atonement and a Particular Election. One is the distinction between the terms
"mercy" and "grace".

(1) Mercy is the cancelling of something that is deserved.
(2) Grace is the implementing of something that is not deserved.

Mercy is the term one can associate with the Universal nature of Christ's Incarnation, blood, death and resurrection. Mercy is one step in the stratagem 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 say, logically, that God does what is His good pleasure. Then what is said as being God's good pleasure must be logically consistent with God's nature and internally consistent with His nature (meaning it doesn't create what I call divine dissonance.). In other words, we can't have a theology that implies divine dissonance (because that theology would then be wrong in some way based on the Bible). That is the whole problem with the Supralapsarian model.

Mercy is the wish of God that none should perish (2Pet 3:9); Mercy is the goodness of God toward the suffering; Mercy is the sufficient for all (1Tim 2:6, 2Cor 5:14-16. 1Pet 3:18, John 1:29, 1John 2:2).

Mercy is derived from the Law, for the Law is the ground for justice and mercy (Mat 23:23). For there can be no ground for mercy that does not create divine dissonance, if not grounded in the Law. Mercy cannot be mercy if not for justice, and justice cannot be justice if not grounded in the eternally consistent and universal Law of God. Mercy springs forth from justice, it is part of justice and justice a part of it; for both are a reflection of the Law and ultimately of the attributes of the divine nature of God.

So to cut this short. For the Calvinist, the stratagem of God to have mercy on all mankind by conquering the power of sin and death and thereby canceling the law of sin over mankind and leaving the law of faith alone (thereby leaving none with any excuse). Is where the work on the cross actually does something for the unbelieving.


keep seeking God's truth.

 

[DaveXR650]

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.

Right. They believe that because salvation is all of God and God's overcoming grace will most certainly result in the elect coming by faith there is not a problem with the idea that the atonement was specifically concerning those who are elect and will infallibly be saved. What I meant was that the high Calvinists, like Owen, are differentiated from the hyper Calvinist in that although they agree that the atonement really and actually provides atonement for the elect, justification does not occur until the person comes by faith. The hyper Calvinist believes that the atonement was specific for the elect and that justification occurred either when Christ died or when the Godhead determined to do this. You see this in practical terms when you read their other writings. Owen for example, said that the gospel message is usually accompanied by an "invitation" and that people can be told for certain that if they come to Christ they will indeed be saved upon the authority of scripture. The hyper-Calvinist views the salvation experience as more of a person who is elect discovering that about themselves. My intention was to say that the high Calvinist has a solid view of limited atonement but believes that actual justification comes later, in time, and thus by time at least is separate from the atonement.

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.

I was using the words a Calvinist will use when discussing their view. I personally believe that faith is set opposite to works in scripture and there is no way around it. I can see logically how you could turn faith into a work but to accuse everyone who believes that faith is the "condition" for salvation as making faith a work is not only theologically wrong but they go directly against the Calvinist confessions which clearly state faith as the condition required on man's part.

And you are correct. People should read Calvin himself. He is clear and easier to read than many later Calvinists. His take on John 3:16 makes me wonder if many modern Calvinists would cut a corner off his Calvinist card.

 

[DaveXR650]

It seems you are just giving the talking points of the opponents of Pelagius.

But since very little of his actual writings exist it is difficult to really say what he believed.

Right. Pelagius was a heretic. Augustine was a pagan philosopher. Richard Baxter had justification and the atonement wrong. Arminius was wrong on regeneration. And all of them would have taken all us Baptists out and drowned us for rebaptizing someone already baptized in an authorized Reformed church.

 

[Paleouss]

What I meant was that the high Calvinists, like Owen, are differentiated from the hyper Calvinist in that although they agree that the atonement really and actually provides atonement for the elect, justification does not occur until the person comes by faith.

Gotcha. I see your point. Owen, it seems to me, is used quite a bit by the High Calvinist. Although you stated in another post to someone (I think), that Owen was directly providing an augment against Universalism (all saved). I've encountered many High Calvinist who invoke Owen regarding the topic of unlimited atonement.

Owen for example, said that the gospel message is usually accompanied by an "invitation" and that people can be told for certain that if they come to Christ they will indeed be saved upon the authority of scripture.

Good example.

I personally believe that faith is set opposite to works in scripture and there is no way around it.

I agree with this, totally.

I can see logically how you could turn faith into a work but to accuse everyone who believes that faith is the "condition" for salvation as making faith a work is not only theologically wrong but they go directly against the Calvinist confessions which clearly state faith as the condition required on man's part.

Same here.

Informative as usual.

Peace to you brother.

 

[JesusFan]

What do you mean by "full free will salvation".

I know what free will is and I know what salvation is and both are found in scripture. Those that freely place their faith in Christ will be saved.

The view that we as fallen sinners still have the capability and capacity within ourselves to will ourselves to receive Jesus as Lord. no need to have the Holy Spirit enabling or working with h us in any fashion to make that decision

 

[JesusFan]

JesusFan. Great to hear from you. Hope you had a blessed weekend.

I have a couple of thoughts on how the Calvinist might reconcile the two groupings of scripture, that is those that suggest a Universal Atonement and a Particular Election. One is the distinction between the terms
"mercy" and "grace".

(1) Mercy is the cancelling of something that is deserved.
(2) Grace is the implementing of something that is not deserved.

Mercy is the term one can associate with the Universal nature of Christ's Incarnation, blood, death and resurrection. Mercy is one step in the stratagem 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 say, logically, that God does what is His good pleasure. Then what is said as being God's good pleasure must be logically consistent with God's nature and internally consistent with His nature (meaning it doesn't create what I call divine dissonance.). In other words, we can't have a theology that implies divine dissonance (because that theology would then be wrong in some way based on the Bible). That is the whole problem with the Supralapsarian model.

Mercy is the wish of God that none should perish (2Pet 3:9); Mercy is the goodness of God toward the suffering; Mercy is the sufficient for all (1Tim 2:6, 2Cor 5:14-16. 1Pet 3:18, John 1:29, 1John 2:2).

Mercy is derived from the Law, for the Law is the ground for justice and mercy (Mat 23:23). For there can be no ground for mercy that does not create divine dissonance, if not grounded in the Law. Mercy cannot be mercy if not for justice, and justice cannot be justice if not grounded in the eternally consistent and universal Law of God. Mercy springs forth from justice, it is part of justice and justice a part of it; for both are a reflection of the Law and ultimately of the attributes of the divine nature of God.

So to cut this short. For the Calvinist, the stratagem of God to have mercy on all mankind by conquering the power of sin and death and thereby canceling the law of sin over mankind and leaving the law of faith alone (thereby leaving none with any excuse). Is where the work on the cross actually does something for the unbelieving.


keep seeking God's truth.

Thinks that one cannot hold to primary atonement model of Penal substitution to get to seeing it that way fully, but do think that the resurrection of Jesus bought even for the lost existing eternal basis

 

[JesusFan]

Right. They believe that because salvation is all of God and God's overcoming grace will most certainly result in the elect coming by faith there is not a problem with the idea that the atonement was specifically concerning those who are elect and will infallibly be saved. What I meant was that the high Calvinists, like Owen, are differentiated from the hyper Calvinist in that although they agree that the atonement really and actually provides atonement for the elect, justification does not occur until the person comes by faith. The hyper Calvinist believes that the atonement was specific for the elect and that justification occurred either when Christ died or when the Godhead determined to do this. You see this in practical terms when you read their other writings. Owen for example, said that the gospel message is usually accompanied by an "invitation" and that people can be told for certain that if they come to Christ they will indeed be saved upon the authority of scripture. The hyper-Calvinist views the salvation experience as more of a person who is elect discovering that about themselves. My intention was to say that the high Calvinist has a solid view of limited atonement but believes that actual justification comes later, in time, and thus by time at least is separate from the atonement.

I was using the words a Calvinist will use when discussing their view. I personally believe that faith is set opposite to works in scripture and there is no way around it. I can see logically how you could turn faith into a work but to accuse everyone who believes that faith is the "condition" for salvation as making faith a work is not only theologically wrong but they go directly against the Calvinist confessions which clearly state faith as the condition required on man's part.

And you are correct. People should read Calvin himself. He is clear and easier to read than many later Calvinists. His take on John 3:16 makes me wonder if many modern Calvinists would cut a corner off his Calvinist card.

Much of what we would term Calvinists was not Calvin only, much was added out and flershed out on His basic theological premises by those such as Beze

 

[Silverhair]

Right. Pelagius was a heretic. Augustine was a pagan philosopher. Richard Baxter had justification and the atonement wrong. Arminius was wrong on regeneration. And all of them would have taken all us Baptists out and drowned us for rebaptizing someone already baptized in an authorized Reformed church.

Actually after researching a bit about Pelagius it would seem he was victim of Augustine's mischaracterization. "To a large degree, "Pelagianism" was defined by its opponent Augustine. He was attacked by Augustine and his supporters, who had opposing views on grace, predestination and free will."
"Augustine certainly wanted Pelagius condemned as a heretic because they disagreed on theological matters. But, aside from Augustine’s (kind-of) friend Jerome, not many others thought Pelagius was a heretic. He was largely praised by fellow writers and theologians for his teachings and commitment to the Christian life while he was alive – something that angered Augustine to no end."

Augustine, as has been shown, do draw a number of his theological views from the pagan philosophies that he had been involved with.

Now as for Arminius, his views on regeneration were biblical. He taught that regeneration is the rebirth or a spiritual birth. Which is what we see in scripture.

Have not looked at Baxter so will not comment on him.

 

[Silverhair]

The view that we as fallen sinners still have the capability and capacity within ourselves to will ourselves to receive Jesus as Lord. no need to have the Holy Spirit enabling or working with h us in any fashion to make that decision

So, if I understand you correctly, no conviction of sin by Holy Spirit. If that is what you mean then that is not what biblical free will is.

Free will is the capacity for agents to choose between different possible courses of action (aka choosing “otherwise”). This does not require the person to be able to choose anything, nor does it require the absence of other influencing factors. It only requires the ability for a person confronted with a decision to be able to choose from among one or more possible options.
Biblical free will is closely linked to the concepts of moral responsibility, praise, guilt, sin, and other judgements which apply only to actions that are freely chosen.

 

[JonC]

We are assuming that the Trinity intended though that His death was atonement for all, not limited to just His own faithful Remnant

Assumptions and theology don't go together, but we all have them (presuppositions). Disagreements often arise when people do not share the same assumptions.

But here a lot of the disagreement is talking past one another and using non-agreed upon definitions (different presippositions).

For example, Calvinists focus on atoning for individual sinful acts/ thoughts. Others view sinful acts as manifestations of a deeper problem addressed by Christ, and these others don't always agree with what this deeper problem is.