Who did Christ die for?

[Allan]

If Christ tasted death for everyone, does that mean that everyone receives eternal life?
Everyone dies, the saved and the unsaved, so what does it mean to say Christ tasted death for everyone since everyone dies?

No Amy. The Propitiation which has been made is applied or given through faith as states the scripture in Rom 3:24-26.

Otherwise you are correct in that everyone would be saved (receive eternal life) and belief or unbelief would not matter in then slightest. They would have already been justified in CHrist through His death.

I wrote this early today:

Christ has made atonement for everyone but not all will recieve the propitiation (atonement) which is GIVEN through faith as scripture states. Therefore, though He has tasted death on behalf of all, the acceptance of it through faith is salvation, but rejection of it is damnation. Why? Because Christ already made the atonement for their sin debt, but to refuse now it makes them personally accountable for their own sin debt and thus eternally condemned because they can never make good the balance on their own merits

Here is another place I elaborated just yesterday:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1110466&postcount=9

So what you have is basically this:

It is Universal in that it fulfilled the requirments of the Law for the Sacrifice of Atonement. (the Law condemns all and so the Atonement is to be made FOR all as well)

But Specific in that was to redeem those of or through faith whom God foreknew. (Grace frees us from condemnation through faith) Rom 3:24-26, Rom 8:1, Eph 2:8-9

Thus All men are justly condemned or aquitted by what they will do with the Propitiaition Christ made for us all.

 

[Jarthur001]

Jarthur:

My question to you is; What does the Bible say?



Without filtering an answer through Pink's Calvinistic trappings of logic and reason; according to the plain sense of these verses, who did Christ die for?


LM

I have address this before Lou. Read the full chapter and maybe you will see my point. We do not read a newspaper in this way. Yet so many want to pull a verse here and there out of context to prove a point. But when you read the whole chapter intact, this idea falls to the side.

1 John 2 is about knowing God.

In Chapter 1 we see 3 false claims of knowing God.

In chapter 2 it starts with "My little children" telling us this is addressing the saints.

2:2 says He is the propitiation.

I was about to give the meaning of the word. But rather then me, I will ask you.

What does propitiation mean to you? Not just atonement, please give details of the word in how it relates to God the Father, God the Son, and the believer. Also, how does this compare with the mercy seat and also in Hebrews 9 compare with "throne of grace". I'll give you a day or two, and if there is no reply, I will give my own, so that we can go forward.

 

[Jarthur001]

How about this one James:

Did He have any love for them at all? :laugh:

This is what I'm asking.

Does God love them and then stop?
or
Does God ever love them?

 

[Jarthur001]

Amy, you are arguing against the Bible on this one. However, it should also be noted that if we actually understood everything God did we would be His equals! We are not. We are His creation.

JArthur, you asked if God still loved people who were condemned. I think that it is easy to think of hate as the opposite of love, but it is not. Both are a form of caring. The opposite of that caring, though, is to not care, or to ignore. The opposite of loving is to not care at all.

Are you willing to postulate that God does not care at all, and ignores, those who are condemned?

This is what I'm asking.

When God does this found in Rev 14.....

14And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.

15And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.

16And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped.

17And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle.

18And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe.

19And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God.

20And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.

BTW..this is people the Bible is talking about God slashing as it were with a sharp sickle.


So..anyway...what would you call this love that He is showing to non believers as it compares to those going to Heaven?

 

[David Lamb]

God is true and every man is a liar.

deleted - thought better of it!

 

[Jarthur001]

One more word picture I like to use about this time when this subject comes up. I give it now because I have a long day ahead of me, and may not make it back on tonight.

If God "cares" for all of mankind as some have said, in the same way He cares for the church will not God forgive all of mankind at the last moment?

Think with me if you will about the J Edwards message.."Sinners in the hands of a angry God". With this view placed at the last judgement we see the sinners standing before God. Then we see God open the doors of Hell. And God points to Hell and crys out to His angels, cast them in to this place. At that moment, as the sinners see the smoke, and feel the heat of the fire, as they smell the flesh burning below, as they now know that there is a God and there is a real Hell, and as they see others being dropped into the fire, no longer do they think there is no God, no longer do they mock Him, they cry out...OK OK....God I believe you now. Please do not send me to Hell. You are God..and you are the only God. I was wrong...you are right. Please..do not send me to Hell. I will worship you forever...PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

Will God save them?

 

[menageriekeeper]

No, for the choice is quite clearly to be made in this lifetime. But how does this apply to the idea that salvation is offered to all?

 

[Isaiah40:28]

This is Helen's viewpoint which shows the error that continues to be perpetuated on this board by many.

Christ has made atonement for everyone but not all will recieve the propitiation (atonement) which is GIVEN through faith as scripture states. Therefore, though He has tasted death on behalf of all, the acceptance of it through faith is salvation, but rejection of it is damnation. Why? Because Christ already made the atonement for their sin debt, but to refuse now it makes them personally accountable for their own sin debt and thus eternally condemned because they can never make good the balance on their own merits

There is no way to get around this problem from a non-Calvinist viewpoint.
Christ making atonement for a sin debt, yet men still being held accountable for a sin debt.
If He made atonement for a sin debt, then the debt is paid.
THere is nothing men can still be held accountable for.
To say that Christ paid the debt and all men have to do is receive it and that if they don't they are punished eternally implies that their rejection is sin.
Unbelief and faithlessness are sins.
No matter how Helen and others may try to paint it, unbelief is the sin that man is condemned for and could not have been atoned for at Christ's death for the unbeliever.
And as I have asked time and time again, what is the purpose of paying a sin debt for a known unbeliever?
What does it accomplish for them?
It does not change their destiny.
It does not take away their sin of unbelief.

Someone please explain this in light of Jesus' admonishment in Matthew 7:6.

Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

How can Jesus in all truthfulness, offer His blood of redemption to all who trample it under their feet?
He knows with certainty who will trample and regard it as worthless, why should we believe that He purposed to throw His "pearls" to "pigs"?

Christ's death was sufficient for all, yet it was only necessary for His children. The precious blood of Jesus is indeed precious, not wasted on shedding it for unrepentant sinners. And I believe it does great dishonor to the work of Christ to suggest otherwise. His agony was terrible, the pain unimaginable and the forsakeness of God, hellish, how could we then believe that God caused Him to suffer and die for any who will despise Him for all eternity. May it never be!

 

[webdog]

Well, several have tried to convince me that Christ died for all those souls who will spend eternity in hell, but I just don't see it.
To me, that's like saying that if God knew no one would accept Christ as Savior, He would have died for their sins anyway.

Amy, I'm beginning to sense a turn in your theological thinking away from Scriptural truths to calvinistic, man made assumptions. I pray that you keep an open heart and mind to what the Bible says, and not filtered through what man's systematic theology says it must say. raying:

 

[webdog]

This is Helen's viewpoint which shows the error that continues to be perpetuated on this board by many.


There is no way to get around this problem from a non-Calvinist viewpoint.
Christ making atonement for a sin debt, yet men still being held accountable for a sin debt.
If He made atonement for a sin debt, then the debt is paid.
THere is nothing men can still be held accountable for.
To say that Christ paid the debt and all men have to do is receive it and that if they don't they are punished eternally implies that their rejection is sin.
Unbelief and faithlessness are sins.
No matter how Helen and others may try to paint it, unbelief is the sin that man is condemned for and could not have been atoned for at Christ's death for the unbeliever.
And as I have asked time and time again, what is the purpose of paying a sin debt for a known unbeliever?
What does it accomplish for them?
It does not change their destiny.
It does not take away their sin of unbelief.

Someone please explain this in light of Jesus' admonishment in Matthew 7:6.

How can Jesus in all truthfulness, offer His blood of redemption to all who trample it under their feet?
He knows with certainty who will trample and regard it as worthless, why should we believe that He purposed to throw His "pearls" to "pigs"?

Christ's death was sufficient for all, yet it was only necessary for His children. The precious blood of Jesus is indeed precious, not wasted on shedding it for unrepentant sinners. And I believe it does great dishonor to the work of Christ to suggest otherwise. His agony was terrible, the pain unimaginable and the forsakeness of God, hellish, how could we then believe that God caused Him to suffer and die for any who will despise Him for all eternity. May it never be!

I think it's been asked before...but in the OT, was all Israel's sins atoned for or not? Atonement is legal payment. Were all the Israelites, using your logic, saved?

 

[Helen]

Isaiah, if you are going to accuse me of something, please accuse me of what I actually posted. Thank you.

Amy, it seems you are not disputing what the Bible actually says, only how to understand it.

As you seek to understand, please do not claim the Bible does not know what it is talking about, or that the meaning of words need to be changed in order to fit your understanding!

 

[Amy.G]

Isaiah, if you are going to accuse me of something, please accuse me of what I actually posted. Thank you.

Amy, it seems you are not disputing what the Bible actually says, only how to understand it.

As you seek to understand, please do not claim the Bible does not know what it is talking about, or that the meaning of words need to be changed in order to fit your understanding!

When did I ever claim the Bible doesn't know what it's talking about??

Your last several posts to me seem to have a tone of anger or irritation. Maybe I'm being over sensitive. If so, I apologize.

 

[Amy.G]

Amy, I'm beginning to sense a turn in your theological thinking away from Scriptural truths to calvinistic, man made assumptions. I pray that you keep an open heart and mind to what the Bible says, and not filtered through what man's systematic theology says it must say. raying:

You sense correctly.

I have not read anything by Calvin though, or any other reformer. I am studying this out on my own.

 

[npetreley]

You sense correctly.

I have not read anything by Calvin though, or any other reformer. I am studying this out on my own.

I noticed the change, too. I also noticed that you are quoting scripture, not anyone's systematic theology. Praise God.

 

[Steven2006]

I have a couple of questions.

Say I am going give a gift to a friend and treat him to a ball game. Since I will be meeting him at the game, I leave the paid ticket at the counter for him to pick up. For whatever reason because of things going on with his day, he decides he won't go to the game and does not show up to pick up the ticket. Was the ticket still paid for? Up until that last moment wasn't it there for him to accept? Was it still not a gift from me, even though he did not act on receiving that gift?

 

[webdog]

You sense correctly.

I have not read anything by Calvin though, or any other reformer. I am studying this out on my own.

So, you are having no outside influence whatsoever? If that be the case, then the very Scriptures you are refuting using man's system would not be so.

Every reformer (whether old or new timer, as your self...believe me, I was like you a couple years ago) has some outside influene. To state otherwise is dishonest (as npet has done).

The Bible clearly does NOT teach TULIP. It teaches God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. Even though calvinists claim to hold to both, I do not believe it to be so. I'm sorry to hear that, Amy. I just pray that your sweet demeanor continues here on the BB, and you do not become caloused and bitter like many of the calvinists here.

 

[npetreley]

To state otherwise is dishonest (as npet has done).

So you're calling me a liar? Shame on you.

 

[Rippon]

WD , back to the pound for you .

 

[Amy.G]

So, you are having no outside influence whatsoever? If that be the case, then the very Scriptures you are refuting using man's system would not be so.

Every reformer (whether old or new timer, as your self...believe me, I was like you a couple years ago) has some outside influene. To state otherwise is dishonest (as npet has done).

The Bible clearly does NOT teach TULIP. It teaches God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. Even though calvinists claim to hold to both, I do not believe it to be so. I'm sorry to hear that, Amy. I just pray that your sweet demeanor continues here on the BB, and you do not become caloused and bitter like many of the calvinists here.

If there have been outside influences, I don't know what they are. I had never heard of Calvinism until I joined the BB. I didn't know such a theology existed. And I have fought it hard since I've been here and was very offfended by it. Idon't know when the change in my thinking started, but it did and now here I am.
I love all of you guys on the BB and if I EVER become caloused or bitter PLEASE smack me upside the head :laugh: because there is no excuse for such behavior and I do NOT want to be like that.

I think I will start a thread on this.

:1_grouphug: <------------all my BB friends!

 

[webdog]

So you're calling me a liar? Shame on you.

Dishonest may have been too harsh...but if one believes something long enough, they start thinking it's true. I believe this to be the case with calvinists...they claim to not ever having an outside influence, but I'm sure if they think back long and hard, they will come to a time when they have. If not, believers would become saved as calvinists, and this is just not the case.