Jesus' death accomplished salvation for the non-elect

[Hammster]

Would you stop your shenanigans. Here is what you said in the OP -

"So, for those who agree that Christ's death accomplished salvation for the non-elect, did He take the punishment for their sins, or something else? And if something else, what was it?"

Therefore I asked what was the punishment for man's sins, who sentenced Jesus, and who carried out His punishment. If you don't know, than may I suggest that you just tell us, and not play your games.

And this is where the "or something else" comes in play.

 

[NorrinRadd]

I thought Hod's wrath was satisfied?

When Loki tricked him into killing Baldur?

 

[Hammster]

When Loki tricked him into killing Baldur?

Lol. I'll fix it.

 

[rogueapologist]

I do hope that was tongue-in-cheek. But I do see some who hold to this.

Yes, definitely tongue-in-cheek, at least from my point of view. I think it is a necessary conclusion if we follow PSA theory to it's logical ends.

 

[gmm4j]

What are they punished for? Hasn't Christ already vicariously atoned for their sins?

Do you think the elect, whose sins were atoned for on the cross, were still perishing and stood condemned after the cross and prior to belief?

 

[gmm4j]

I thought God's wrath was satisfied?

Do you think the elect, whose sins were atoned for on the cross, were still perishing and stood condemned after the cross and prior to belief?

 

[gmm4j]

Unbelief is a sin.

Okay?

Do you think the elect, whose sins were atoned for on the cross, were still perishing and stood condemned after the cross and prior to belief?

 

[Hammster]

Do you think the elect, whose sins were atoned for on the cross, were still perishing and stood condemned after the cross and prior to belief?

From an eternal perspective, or temporal?

 

[Hammster]

Do you think the elect, whose sins were atoned for on the cross, were still perishing and stood condemned after the cross and prior to belief?

Why not answer the question?

 

[gmm4j]

Why not answer the question?

It is my question to you.

Were you, or were you not, under God’s wrath when you were in unbelief, despite the fact that Christ died for his sins? Didn’t you stand under the condemnation of God when in unbelief (John 3:18), despite the fact that you were one of the elect for whom Christ died?

Feel free to answer from both an eternal and temporal perspective. The fact is if Christ can be the propitiation for the sins of all of the elect and yet they, when in unbelief, can stand condemned and be subjects of God’s wrath, then Christ's propitiatory sacrifice can be for more than the elect.

 

[Hammster]

It is my question to you.

Were you, or were you not, under God’s wrath when you were in unbelief, despite the fact that Christ died for his sins? Didn’t you stand under the condemnation of God when in unbelief (John 3:18), despite the fact that you were one of the elect for whom Christ died?

Feel free to answer from both an eternal and temporal perspective. The fact is if Christ can be the propitiation for the sins of all of the elect and yet they, when in unbelief, can stand condemned and be subjects of God’s wrath, then Christ's propitiatory sacrifice can be for more than the elect.

The elect are never condemned. That is unless you don't think that God is omniscient. He knows His sheep. Christ died for the sheep. Christ successfully came to seek and save the lost. It wasn't just a valiant attempt.

Now, care to answer the questions you quoted? Or just more deflection games?

 

[gmm4j]

The elect are never condemned.

If you are consistent, then there is no need for Christ or His cross.
If the elect are never condemned, then they never needed the cross.

 

[Hammster]

If you are consistent, then there is no need for Christ or His cross.
If the elect are never condemned, then they never needed the cross.

They aren't condemned BECAUSE of the cross. Pretty basic stuff.

 

[Redheadedstepchild]

Mod Hat

Thread has been cleaned. Stay on topic please.

 

[Arcoe]

And this is where the "or something else" comes in play.

You asked, "Did He take the punishment for their sins, or something else?"

What was the punishment He took?
What court pronounced this punishment on Him?
What judge passed this punishment on Him?

Or, I should ask, did Jesus take the punishment for sinners?

 

[travelah]

Wow, a thread title I can really get behind.

Paul says very clearly in Hebrews that Jesus tasted death for every man. This could not be the common death that we all experience but the 2nd death that Satan and the lost will experience in the lake of fire. This is the only way mankind could be saved. The broken law of God demands the death of the sinner. Christ satisfied this demand and John brings out the same idea when he says that Jesus is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. The word propitiation means to appease or expiate and draws imagery from the ancient day of atonement service where the blood was sprinkled on the mercy seat symbolizing that only Christ’s sacrifical blood could atone for the broken law housed in the ark of the covenant.

The verse in 1st John 2:2 by itself disproves the false idea that Jesus’ sacrificial death only atoned for the elect. And when taken with all the other verses that speak to Jesus being the savior of the world, it is inescapable that Jesus has in fact died for all men and brought salvation to the whole world.

I think you have a good post. The opening post in the thread is pursuing a line of thought that I do not see as a reasonable understanding of the opposing position. Granted, the term salvation is used regarding Christ's sacrifice but I think that is only from a mere ignorance of the importance of terminology (I am not stating that as a negative against the opponent presumed in the OP but as a common issue of understanding among many laypeople).
Christ's atonement was provisionary for all men yet efficacious only through faith. Further, the elect are those known of God as faithful in Christ. That is not securing salvation for the non-elect as you have well pointed out. I would like to believe the OP knows and understands this.

 

[bling]

So, for those who agree that Christ's death accomplished salvation for the non-elect, did He take the punishment for their sins, or something else? And if something else, what was it?

Excellent question!

This shows another fallacy to substitution atonement.

The problem is with the explanation for atonement for Christ did die for everyone including the non-elect.

Christ bore the full punishment of everyone’s sins, but not in replacement (substitution) of man, the guilty parties elect and non-elect still justly and fairly need to be punished (disciplined) if at all possible and Jesus has made it possible for everyone to be justly punished and live.

In other words: We need to be justly punished for our own transgressions.

If you just answer my simple questions we can work our way to an understanding about God’s and Christian’s suffering/punishment:

Are there something worse than a cruel bloody torturous death that you would go through? If so what?


Would you prefer to personally go through a torturous death than have your innocent child (assuming you have one) go through such a death because of your mistakes?


Did God suffer while Christ was on the cross? If so why?


How personally responsible do you feel Christ going through his torturous death on the cross? Do you feel like those in Acts 2:37 that had a death blow to their heart?

When you think about what you caused Christ to go through on the cross does it pain you like a mosquito bite or does it feel like the worst thing on earth that could happen to you? Why?

 

[travelah]

nt ... replied in wrong place

 

[travelah]

Would you share what denominational church group you think would most closely resemble the views you have articulated here?

 

[Clare73]

Wow, a thread title I can really get behind.

Paul says very clearly in Hebrews that Jesus tasted death for every man. This could not be the common death that we all experience but the 2nd death that Satan and the lost will experience in the lake of fire. This is the only way mankind could be saved. The broken law of God demands the death of the sinner. Christ satisfied this demand and John brings out the same idea when he says that Jesus is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. The word propitiation means to appease or expiate and draws imagery from the ancient day of atonement service where the blood was sprinkled on the mercy seat symbolizing that only Christ’s sacrifical blood could atone for the broken law housed in the ark of the covenant.

The verse in 1st John 2:2 by itself disproves the false idea that Jesus’ sacrificial death only atoned for the elect. And when taken with all the other verses that speak to Jesus being the savior of the world, it is inescapable that Jesus has in fact died for all men and brought salvation to the whole world.

Inescapable perhaps in 21st century English, but not in the context of the Jewish culture of the NT.

Words like all, every man, all men, the world, etc., in the context of their culture, meant "including the Gentiles," as distinct from just Israel whom he had only dealth with up to that point.
God had not dealt with all, every man, all men, the world, etc. since Abraham. They were distinct from all. . .the world, etc.

Therefore, these words in the NT do not always mean every individual person.
The truths presented in the rest of the NT indicate which meaning is intended, either "including the Gentiles" or "every individual person," or both.