Just "WHO" does Christ save?

[DaChaser1]

Yes it can. Jesus' death on the cross was on infinite value therefore sufficient for all. Would you disagree so far? The death of Christ was intended to save believers. Would you disagree with that? Intention doesn't limit sufficiency.

The death of jesus on the Cross was unlimited in value, died and paid for all, its just applicable to the elect of God, those whom were foreknwon and determined by him to be receiving its benefits!

As a 4 pointer on the DoG, what confuses me is how the '5 pointers" bethren look at the atonement...

was Jesus death JUST sufficient/made for the elect ONLY, that he did not die for all sinners or that he died for All sins, just would be applicable "on behalk of" the elect?

 

[AresMan]

The death of jesus on the Cross was unlimited in value, died and paid for all, its just applicable to the elect of God, those whom were foreknwon and determined by him to be receiving its benefits!

As a 4 pointer on the DoG, what confuses me is how the '5 pointers" bethren look at the atonement...

was Jesus death JUST sufficient/made for the elect ONLY, that he did not die for all sinners or that he died for All sins, just would be applicable "on behalk of" the elect?

It depends on whether you believe it was penal or pecuniary. Either way, it also depends on God's intent for the atonement. If you believe that God's intention with the atonement was to save every individual, then God failed. If you say that the atonement is universal, but doesn't save universally, then what exactly does atonement mean?

I know a strong supralapsarian 5-pointer who argues that the atonement was pecuniary and against John Owen's penal view. However, he still believes that the atonement was particular in its intent and application, just not in the "form" of its "payment."

Some could argue that the effects of the atonement on the non-elect include that they are given a "new body" for the resurrection unto death, that is acceptable.

 

[HankD]

I am not saying some translators do not translate it that way. I said there is nothing in the Greek to support it. The Greek word "hamartia" is neutral and there is nothing in the text to modify the word to make it plural. If it said "He himself bore all of our" or "He himself bore our many" then it would be plural, but there is nothing in the text to support a plural translation except personal choice. If it is made plural there then what ever rule is used to do so has to be used in every other place including John. However if the passage in John is singular, and it is, then the same rule has to be used in Peter and that means it should be singular.

OK I see what you mean.

I personally believe both singular and plural are individually true in their given context.

Koine Greek has subtle differences in nuance from 21st century English concerning gender and number.

Jesus takes away the "sin" (singular) of the world speaking of the collective sin (as a singular entity) of the world.

And then 2 Peter 2:24 as plural because it speaks of the personal "sins" as addressed to each of us.

I know you probably disagree, but what else is new brother?

HankD

 

[freeatlast]

OK I see what you mean.

I personally believe both singular and plural are individually true in their given context.

Jesus takes away the "sin" (singular) of the world speaking of the collective sin (singular) of the world.

And then 2 Peter 2:24 as plural because it speaks of the personal "sins" as addressed to each of us.

I know you probably disagree, but what else is new brother?

HankD

You are correct I do not agree, but let me explain why. To say that Jesus took away sins on an individual bases means no individual has any sin. To say that He took away sin means that no sin remains in the world that can condemn an individual unless the individual decides they are not interested in accepting the payment. I believe that the Lord made a distinction in His word for that reason and it is important to translate it as written, singular not plural.
Once we are saved we simply fall under the payment for sin regardless of how many or what kind.

 

[DaChaser1]

It depends on whether you believe it was penal or pecuniary. Either way, it also depends on God's intent for the atonement. If you believe that God's intention with the atonement was to save every individual, then God failed. If you say that the atonement is universal, but doesn't save universally, then what exactly does atonement mean?

I know a strong supralapsarian 5-pointer who argues that the atonement was pecuniary and against John Owen's penal view. However, he still believes that the atonement was particular in its intent and application, just not in the "form" of its "payment."

Some could argue that the effects of the atonement on the non-elect include that they are given a "new body" for the resurrection unto death, that is acceptable.

I would tend to see it as being that the Cross provided for "general " benefits, such as granting resurrection unto saved/lost alike, and that the whole Creation would be retored back one day by the Lord...

Specfic benefit of eternal life in Christ reserved unto JUST the Elect of God!

Why do some hold that Jesus died JUST for the sins of the Elect, why would it be wrong to view it as His death was sufficient to indeed pay for sin debt of all, but ONLY the elect would have it applied by God and crediting their behalf?

 

[glfredrick]

:BangHead:

Didnt Christ die to atone for the sin of unbelief?

No. Christ died to atone for the sin of separation from God. There is a difference, for in separation one can reconcile the Scriptures, for belief one "ends up" a Pelagian after much other dancing around.

 

[DaChaser1]

No. Christ died to atone for the sin of separation from God. There is a difference, for in separation one can reconcile the Scriptures, for belief one "ends up" a Pelagian after much other dancing around.

Our sin natures and sins commited seperate us from Holy God...

jesus died in order to secure that we would be reconciled back to God, as he would provide appeasement/satisfaction of the wrath of God towards sinners?

 

[glfredrick]

Our sin natures and sins commited seperate us from Holy God...

jesus died in order to secure that we would be reconciled back to God, as he would provide appeasement/satisfaction of the wrath of God towards sinners?

Turn your first statement around and say "we are born separated from God, thus we have sin natures and commit sins against Holy God" and you will be on the right track.

Jesus atonement secured for the elect EVERYTHING required to reconcile the elect to God, including removing the separation barrier (lack of God) that halts us from coming to God on our own.

 

[HankD]

You are correct I do not agree, but let me explain why. To say that Jesus took away sins on an individual bases means no individual has any sin. To say that He took away sin means that no sin remains in the world that can condemn an individual unless the individual decides they are not interested in accepting the payment. I believe that the Lord made a distinction in His word for that reason and it is important to translate it as written, singular not plural.
Once we are saved we simply fall under the payment for sin regardless of how many or what kind.

FWIW:

1 Peter 2:24 is written specifically to believers so its not every individual but individual believers. For them He bares their sins (plural) in His body.

Also it is not only "sin" or "sins" but what He did/does with them.

He "bare" our sins "anaphero" used of the offering of sacrifices for sins (pl) upon an altar - (Friberg Greek Lexicon, UBS Greek Dictionary, Louw-Nida)

Hebrews 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.​

Hebrews 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.​

He "taketh away" the sin of the world "airo" To lift up e.g. as lifting up an anchor allowing the boat to release from the dock (same references as above).

Christ death provides a way for the entire world to be released from sin (OK, don't stop here and call me a universalist, keep reading).

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.​

A model of these two distinct things (To bare, to release) IMO is the account of the brazen serpent:​

John 3
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.​

Numbers 21
8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.​

All the world has been bitten by that old serpent the devil and put under the death sentence passed upon Adam and his progeny.​

Christ's death provided God's way of release (propitiation) for all the world from death's grip but justification (life) only for those who believe.​

HankD​

 

[freeatlast]

FWIW:

1 Peter 2:24 is written specifically to believers so its not every individual but individual believers. For them He bares their sins (plural) in His body.

Also it is not only "sin" or "sins" but what He did/does with them.

He "bare" our sins "anaphero" used of the offering of sacrifices for sins (pl) upon an altar - (Friberg Greek Lexicon, UBS Greek Dictionary, Louw-Nida)

Hebrews 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.​

Hebrews 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.​

He "taketh away" the sin of the world "airo" To lift up e.g. as lifting up an anchor allowing the boat to release from the dock (same references as above).

Christ death provides a way for the entire world to be released from sin (OK, don't stop here and call me a universalist, keep reading).

John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.​

A model of these two distinct things (To bare, to release) IMO is the account of the brazen serpent:​

John 3
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.​

Numbers 21
8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.​

All the world has been bitten by that old serpent the devil and put under the death sentence passed upon Adam and his progeny.​

Christ's death provided God's way of release (propitiation) for all the world from death's grip but justification (life) only for those who believe.​

HankD​

The problem is the Greek text does not bare that out. There is no reason to use the plural based on the text.

 

[HankD]

The problem is the Greek text does not bare that out. There is no reason to use the plural based on the text.

Well, I don't know what else to say then as the grammar of the original language is at the top of the list of understanding what the text is saying.

I don't know of an English translation that uses "sin" rather than "sins" in 1 Peter 2:24.

I won't mind hearing of one.

HankD

 

[Amy.G]

Regarding the OP
WHO does Christ save?

1 Timothy 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Regarding the OP
WHO does Christ save?

1 Timothy 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

Im not far behind you then!:smilewinkgrin:

 

[DaChaser1]

Well, I don't know what else to say then as the grammar of the original language is at the top of the list of understanding what the text is saying.

I don't know of an English translation that uses "sin" rather than "sins" in 1 Peter 2:24.

I won't mind hearing of one.

HankD

Contex/Syntex/Grammar in the Greek text determines meaning, so would say that you have it right, and once again Fal has it wrong!

Has to learn to allow the Bible speak for itself, NOT what we think it should mean, based upon our preconceived theology!

 

[DaChaser1]

Turn your first statement around and say "we are born separated from God, thus we have sin natures and commit sins against Holy God" and you will be on the right track.

Jesus atonement secured for the elect EVERYTHING required to reconcile the elect to God, including removing the separation barrier (lack of God) that halts us from coming to God on our own.

So how would the classic/traditional Arminianist view this seperation/sin nature conditrion of man as contrasted to Calvinists?

 

[MB]

Just "WHO" does Christ save?
The truth is the willing who so evers.
MB

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Just "WHO" does Christ save?
The truth is the willing who so evers.
MB

I dont recall being willing & Im extremely serious about that. In that he saved me irrespective of it all has opened my mind, heart & soul to an even superior love....that I'm not entitled to....how great is this God!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

No. Christ died to atone for the sin of separation from God. There is a difference, for in separation one can reconcile the Scriptures, for belief one "ends up" a Pelagian after much other dancing around.

HUH!?! Isnt separation from God & the sin of non belief the same?

 

[glfredrick]

I dont recall being willing & Im extremely serious about that. In that he saved me irrespective of it all has opened my mind, heart & soul to an even superior love....that I'm not entitled to....how great is this God!

I'm in the same camp. I came "kicking and struggling" and hated God enough to have become first an agnostic and then an atheist.

But, it was child's play for God to cause me to change my mind when He decided that it was time. Took Him all of 10 minutes... :jesus:

 

[glfredrick]

HUH!?! Isnt separation from God & the sin of non belief the same?

Not technically, for we must otherwise define "belief" which has two possible definitions -- one a belief from God and the other a belief from anthropos.

Those who merely believe from anthropos cannot know God unless or until God Himself removes the barrier of separation that keeps us from Him.