Did Christ die for all people? Yes, but not equally?

[theseed]

There is much debate, even in Calvinists circles (well there was from me ), about whether or not the sacrifice of Christ is for everybody, and even more whether or not he atones for everbody. The problem is not terminology. Those for universal atonment and limited atonment misunderstand words like atonement, reconcilation, sacrifice, propitation, and expiation. So I will clarify and settle the matter once and for all by showing that the "world" verses do mean everybody, but don't support limited atonement. I'm dong by best here, so please help me clarify if necessary.


1) Reconcilation is a change in relationship. Before Christ sacrifice, theier was a gulf that seperated the world from thier Maker. Now all or any may come to God as long as they go through this sacrifice. See Eastmon's definition. Because of this reconcialiation, men are no longer in the same deplorable state has the angels are, rather they are in a salvable state (Matthew Henry). So Christ dies to make the Gospel a reality, and when the Gospel became a reality, all men could be invited to be saved. Christ dies for all people in this way.


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=reconcilation

2 Corinthians 5 (YLT)
19 how that God was in Christ -- a world reconciling to Himself, not reckoning to them their trespasses; and having put in us the word of the reconciliation,


2) Sacrifice, propitation, satisfaction, and expiation all mean the same thing. This is where Christ shed his blood inorder to sastisfie God's wrath for sin. The sacrifice only takes effect if it is applied. Christ is a sacrifice is universally offered because the Gospel is universally offered. The NIV translations propitiation as "atoning sacrifice" which is accurate because that would be the same as "applicable sacrifice" See. #3

1 John 2 (YLT)
2 and he -- he is a propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world,


3)Atonement literally means "at one ment". This is the process where the sacrifice is applied so that God is able to accept those who are effectually called or regenerated. The problem arises when people misuse the word. The English langue allows verbs to be made into nouns and visa versa. So often, people use atonment as a noun to mean sacrifice.

According to Dabney, atonment is only found in one place in Scripture. It would seem that other versions mistranslate the greek here to "reconcilaton".

Romans 5 (KJV)
11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.


So am I right? Christ dies the make the Gospel possible. In that sense, Christ dies for all men, and his sacrifice is meant for all such as the Gospel is meant for all. Only it is applied to believers, it atones for the elect, so none is wasted. Spurgeon describes the sacrfice of Christ has a fresh water fountain avaible to all to drink. This is similar to the feeding of the 5000 where the bread just kept comming, and Chist saved what was left over (for his Apostels?)

1 Timothy 4
10 for for this we both labour and are reproached, because we hope on the living God, who is Saviour of all men -- especially of those believing.

 

[ksen]

I've always understood Christ's sacrifice as being sufficient for all, but efficient only for the Elect.

 

[blessedbe]

being new at this, and just learning the specifics of Calvinism...I'd have to say that what Ksen posted makes the most sense to me. Sufficient for all, but effecient only for the Elect.

If God so chose to save the whole world, then Christ's sacrifice would have been sufficient to cover those people as well, but obviously from scripture, not everyone is going to be saved.

It doesn't really make sense to say that Christ death on the cross was for EVERYONE'S sins, to me that's saying that everyone living, past present and future, had their sins forgiven when Christ died on the cross. And we all know that our sins are only forgiven when we ask Christ into our hearts and are regenerated.

That is my understanding of limited atonement.

 

[Reformationist]

So I will clarify and settle the matter once and for all by showing that the "world" verses do mean everybody, but don't support limited atonement.

Good luck. This is an issue that has been at the heart of understanding God since Christ came so I doubt you'll "settle the matter once and for all." Either way, maybe we can both gain a greater understanding of God.

1) Reconcilation is a change in relationship. Before Christ sacrifice, theier was a gulf that seperated the world from thier Maker.

While I don't disagree I would say this is a watered down version of the reality. Man's fall into sin was complete, in principle if not in degree, and his perspective of God was that of an enemy, not just that there was a gulf between him and his Maker.

Now all or any may come to God as long as they go through this sacrifice.

It is true that Christ's sacrifice is the one and only means of reconciliation but it isn't achieved by us volitionally going through it. Our going through it is the response to God's causal action of regenerating us. Additionally, phrasing it as "all or any may come..." denies the depravity of mankind's unregenerate nature. The Bible's claim that none can come to the Son unless the Father draws them is not an issue of permission. It's an issue of ability. "Man by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto. - Westminster Confession of Faith (IX. 3) The Bible denies what you claim by telling us that one cannot, and will not, simply choose to go through the sacrifice, they must be compelled. And, those that are compelled WILL come. Working backwards it's easier to see God's limited design. If they come they were compelled to come. If they were compelled to come then it's because God compelled them. If they don't come then it's because they weren't compelled to come. If they weren't compelled to come then it's because God did not compel them.

Because of this reconcialiation, men are no longer in the same deplorable state has the angels are, rather they are in a salvable state (Matthew Henry).

I'm sorry seed but this idea of a "savable state" still seems at odds with the nature of God. Tell me, what is the use of God putting someone in a savable state but not saving them? It makes God irrational. That's like a false sense of hope but the only one who knows about it is God Himself. Who's He trying to fool, Himself? It's not as if He doesn't know who will and who won't be saved. What's the purpose of putting someone in a savable state if He doesn't save them?

So Christ dies to make the Gospel a reality, and when the Gospel became a reality, all men could be invited to be saved. Christ dies for all people in this way.

Again, this makes no sense. "Could be invited to be saved" is a condition set by God. I do not deny the infinite value of Christ's death but to say that God was not specific in the intent of Christ's death is to subject God's immutable plan to unnecessary speculation. God the Father sent God the Son to die and actually atone for the sins of all who would be saved. To imply that God the Father sent God the Son to die for all of humanity but only apply the benefits of His sacrifice to His elect is to make His sacrifice on behalf of all who would not be saved of no value. It's as if you believe Christ was 100% successful in atoning for the sins of the elect and 100% successful in merely putting the rest in a savable state. If that is true it begs the question, at least for me, was was God's reason for putting someone in a savable state if He wasn't going to save them?

2 Corinthians 5 (YLT)
19 how that God was in Christ -- a world reconciling to Himself, not reckoning to them their trespasses; and having put in us the word of the reconciliation,

Yanking verses out of context like this only sets you up for incorrect interpretation. the "world" is qualified in the previous verse:

2 Corinthians 5:18
Now all things are of God, who has reconciled US to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation,

Paul's address may be a universal address but his topic is not that of universal inclusion. Reconciliation is established exclusively for believers. In fact, it is through faith in the meritorious work of Christ that we are reconciled to God. If Christ accomplished the reconciliation of the entire world to God then all would be at peace with God. The result of reconciliation is inclusion in the covenent family of God. This is clearly not the case for the entirity of humanity but, rather, only for believers.

2) Sacrifice, propitation, satisfaction, and expiation all mean the same thing. This is where Christ shed his blood inorder to sastisfie God's wrath for sin.

Let's address this. First off, when speaking of the eternal and sovereign plan of God, manifested in the work of Christ to say that He does something "in order to" accomplish something else is synonymous with saying that His goal will be accomplished. If Christ shed His blood "in order to" satisfy God's wrath then His blood DOES satisfy God's wrath. The issue we must now face is to ask for what sin did His blood satisfy God's wrath. Was it all mankind, and if so, what is the effect of God's universal satisfaction, or, was it God's elect, i.e., true believers, and therefore it was completely effective in satisfying God's wrath against their sin.

The sacrifice only takes effect if it is applied.

I'm sorry seed but this is pure, unadulterated blasphemy. Let's look at the inverse of what you say above:

If the sacrifice is not applied it is ineffectual.

The obvious problem here is that you don't deny that the sacrifice was made, you just deny its efficacy in the case of all to whom it's NOT applied. IOW, you're contending that Christ was sacrificed for many people for whom it would have no effect. That is not the God of the Bible.

Christ is a sacrifice is universally offered because the Gospel is universally offered.

I agree that the sacrifice of Christ is universally offered. However, we must also acknowledge that the offer alone isn't sufficient to bring us to faith. That's clear from the fact that so many people hear the offer and continually reject it. It must be accompanied by the inward call of God. Tell me, how useful would it be for you to go into a room full of comatose people and say, "Hey, I've got ice cream. Free to anyone who comes and gets it?" The offer of redemption, by itself, is received in just the same way by those who have not FIRST been regenerated by the sovereign call of God.

The NIV translations propitiation as "atoning sacrifice" which is accurate because that would be the same as "applicable sacrifice" See. #3

1 John 2 (YLT)
2 and he -- he is a propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world,


3)Atonement literally means "at one ment". This is the process where the sacrifice is applied so that God is able to accept those who are effectually called or regenerated. The problem arises when people misuse the word. The English langue allows verbs to be made into nouns and visa versa. So often, people use atonment as a noun to mean sacrifice.

According to Dabney, atonment is only found in one place in Scripture. It would seem that other versions mistranslate the greek here to "reconcilaton".

Romans 5 (KJV)
11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

seed, even you acknowledge that the atonement is the application of the work of Christ so how can you continue to say that this is a universal issue? Clearly the atonement isn't universally applied. I believe your mistake is in saying that the goal of Christ's sacrifice was to put mankind in a "savable state" rather than to acknowledge that His sacrifice is efficient in reconciling God's elect to Himself. If all God did by sending His Son was put us in a "savable state" then none of us would be saved. Salvation is neither the product of our cooperation, i.e., accepting His sacrifice as valid for our life, nor is it the product of chance. It is the result of God's divine, monergistic and sovereign work of sending His Son to die for the sins of His elect and applying it to them, thereby reconciling them to Himself.

So am I right? Christ dies the make the Gospel possible. In that sense, Christ dies for all men, and his sacrifice is meant for all such as the Gospel is meant for all. Only it is applied to believers, it atones for the elect, so none is wasted.

I encourage you to acknowledge that the "possibility" of salvation is only a possibility for those who God effectually calls and then it will always be an actuality. For those that God does not inwardly call through the regeneration of their hearts, salvation is never a "possibility."

Spurgeon describes the sacrfice of Christ has a fresh water fountain avaible to all to drink. This is similar to the feeding of the 5000 where the bread just kept comming, and Chist saved what was left over (for his Apostels?)

I'd have to see the context of Spurgeon's statement but I would say that He was referencing the fact that the Gospel, in some form or another, is made visible to all of humanity but, here again, we must acknowledge that it is NOT the availability of the drink that inclines our hearts to God. It is His inward, efficacious, regenerative call that leads us to water and makes us, not only able to drink, but want to drink from its depths.

1 Timothy 4
10 for for this we both labour and are reproached, because we hope on the living God, who is Saviour of all men -- especially of those believing.

Once again you have erroneously applied a passage to prove your point. Oddly enough, the title of this thread is applicable as a refutation of your understanding of this passage. God is the Savior of all men, but not in the same sense. "Especially," malista in the Greek, means "especially, chiefly, most of all, above all." This passage is differentiating between the general call to repentence and salvation and the efficaciouis work of God in saving those who believe through His inward call, which regenerates them from death unto life.

God bless

 

[theseed]

It's an issue of ability. "Man by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto. - Westminster Confession of Faith (IX. 3)

Yes, total depravity is the only reason I am Calvninists. Even if I was not, I would still in intellectually honesty have to accept limited atonement or particular redeption. Otherwise, you have God sending people to hell that had thier sins paid for--that would make God more evil than all the evil in the universe.

what is the use of God putting someone in a savable state but not saving them? It makes God irrational. That's like a false sense of hope but the only one who knows about it is God Himself. Who's He trying to fool, Himself? It's not as if He doesn't know who will and who won't be saved. What's the purpose of putting someone in a savable state if He doesn't save them?

The domons or the fallen angels are not in a salvable state. God has no plan or means to save them, however, he does have offer a way to save men, and in that sense we are in a salvable state. That is, God could save us if he wanted to by applying the Sacrifice of Christ. Since there is no means or method of salvation for the fallen angels, they remain damned and without hope.

God is limited by his own charactor, he can not simply pretend there is no sin, he must place his wrath in an object. For the elect, Christ was the object of wrath. The angels are offered no displacement for God's wrath, so they remain comdemned.

If that is true it begs the question, at least for me, was was God's reason for putting someone in a savable state if He wasn't going to save them?

After thinking about it just now, the sacrifice has 2 purposes. One is for the general calling of the Gospel to be made available to all men, and the other is to make the effectual calling possible. So as far as the Gospel goes, the death of Christ was general or universal for all. As far as redemption (atonement) goes, it was only for the elect.

Through reading verses like the one found in 1 Corinthians I realize that reconciliaiton is the Gospel, it is the message of reconilation. in 1 Tim 4.10 it says that Christ is the savior of the world. A better translations might be the world's savior. He is the world's hope, only hope, whether they accept it or not?

seed, even you acknowledge that the atonement is the application of the work of Christ so how can you continue to say that this is a universal issue? Clearly the atonement isn't universally applied. I believe your mistake is in saying that the goal of Christ's sacrifice was to put mankind in a "savable state" rather than to acknowledge that His sacrifice is efficient in reconciling God's elect to Himself. If all God did by sending His Son was put us in a "savable state" then none of us would be saved.
Salvation is neither the product of our cooperation, i.e., accepting His sacrifice as valid for our life, nor is it the product of chance. It is the result of God's divine, monergistic and sovereign work of sending His Son to die for the sins of His elect and applying it to them, thereby reconciling them to Himself.

I differentiate between atonement and reconcilation. Atonement is payment for sins, while reconcilaiton is a change in relationship. Without Christ sacrfice (in eternity past), we had no way to have our sins forgiven. We had not way to be justified. And unless we our justifified, we can't enter heaven and inherit eternal life. But when Christ died, all of this changed, we were reconciled into an oportunity to be saved or was put in a salvable state. We were reconciled from being hopeless to being offered hope.

Especially," malista in the Greek, means "especially, chiefly, most of all, above all." This passage is differentiating between the general call to repentence and salvation and the efficaciouis work of God in saving those who believe through His inward call, which regenerates them from death unto life.

I agree.

 

[theseed]

I've always understood Christ's sacrifice as being sufficient for all, but efficient only for the Elect.

This seems contradictory. Because if nothing is wasted, then wouldn't it only be sufficient for the elect? Can you elaborate?

Also, somebody tell me why the reformers prefered "satisfaction" over atonement.

 

[CCWoody]

Hi brother. I'll pour over the thread in the next few days, but I have an exercise for you:

What are all the verses in the Bible where the Lord is said to shed his blood to redeem?

I think you will find that there is not a single one which say the Lord shed his blood for everyone without exception, but only for a particular group of people.

For an answer to KSEN's statement, you need to consult the Canons of Dordt. It is not that long and KSEN's remark is either a direct quote or a paraphrase from there.

And, finally, the Reformers used "satisfaction" just like I use it: The Lord has provided a sweet satisfaction for my sin in the eyes of the LORD. I believe the use of this term has its origin in the OT as referring to the appeasment of the LORD's wrath upon the sin of man. Imagine the incense burning continually before the Mercy Seat, which is between the angels on the top of the Ark. This is symbolic. In Genesis 8:21, the LORD "smelled" the sweet savor of Noah's sacrifice and his wrath was satisfied. This is also symbolic.

Christ is the satisfication for us, and only us, for the wrath which the LORD will one day pour upon the earth. For the true meaning of these symbols, you need to look at Revelation and see that the blood sacrifice is even now before the LORD.

Rev 5:6 Then I behelde, and loe, in the middes of the throne, and of the foure beasts, and in the mids of the Elders, stoode a Labe as though he had bene killed,

Notice that what is before the LORD and the throne is what is presented to us as a Lamb standing as though he had been killed. This Lamb is about to take the book and open the seals. So, the wrath of God has been satisfied with this sacrifice, which is before the LORD. This same wrath is about to be unleashed on the world.

This, I think is why the Reformers liked the term satisfaction. This is why I like it. The LORD is satisfied with the sacrifice of Christ. It is enough. He will not pour out his wrath upon me because he has already poured out the wrath that I deserve upon Christ.

I think we Baptists today call it the Penal Substitution Atonement. By its very definition, it must be limited.

 

[theseed]

This, I think is why the Reformers liked the term satisfaction. This is why I like it. The LORD is satisfied with the sacrifice of Christ. It is enough. He will not pour out his wrath upon me because he has already poured out the wrath that I deserve upon Christ.

Yes, we don't need do to anything to satisfy God's wrath.

 

[theseed]

Canons of Dort? hmmm. I probably have them somewhere around here.


Oh, here they are. . . next to the Ark of The Covenant. Just let me blow the dust off

 

[cygnusx1]

Canons of Dort? hmmm. I probably have them somewhere around here.


Oh, here they are. . . next to the Ark of The Covenant. Just let me blow the dust off

 

[ksen]

And, finally, the Reformers used "satisfaction" just like I use it: The Lord has provided a sweet satisfaction for my sin in the eyes of the LORD. I believe the use of this term has its origin in the OT as referring to the appeasment of the LORD's wrath upon the sin of man. Imagine the incense burning continually before the Mercy Seat, which is between the angels on the top of the Ark. This is symbolic. In Genesis 8:21, the LORD "smelled" the sweet savor of Noah's sacrifice and his wrath was satisfied. This is also symbolic.

Christ is the satisfication for us, and only us, for the wrath which the LORD will one day pour upon the earth. For the true meaning of these symbols, you need to look at Revelation and see that the blood sacrifice is even now before the LORD.

Rev 5:6 Then I behelde, and loe, in the middes of the throne, and of the foure beasts, and in the mids of the Elders, stoode a Labe as though he had bene killed,

Notice that what is before the LORD and the throne is what is presented to us as a Lamb standing as though he had been killed. This Lamb is about to take the book and open the seals. So, the wrath of God has been satisfied with this sacrifice, which is before the LORD. This same wrath is about to be unleashed on the world.

This, I think is why the Reformers liked the term satisfaction. This is why I like it. The LORD is satisfied with the sacrifice of Christ. It is enough. He will not pour out his wrath upon me because he has already poured out the wrath that I deserve upon Christ.

I think we Baptists today call it the Penal Substitution Atonement. By its very definition, it must be limited.

"We Baptists?"

Anyway, I like the term "Propitiation." It carries the sense that God's wrath has been satisfied on our behalf. Do you know if the Reformers would have used "Propitiation" and "Satisfaction" interchangeably?

 

[ksen]

This seems contradictory. Because if nothing is wasted, then wouldn't it only be sufficient for the elect? Can you elaborate?

If God had decided in His mercy to Elect more souls to salvation Christ would not have had to suffer more, or to have shed more blood, or to have died a second time. What Christ did on Calvary was sufficient to wash away the sins of the world if God had intended it to.

Does that help?

 

[theseed]

If God had decided in His mercy to Elect more souls to salvation Christ would not have had to suffer more, or to have shed more blood, or to have died a second time. What Christ did on Calvary was sufficient to wash away the sins of the world if God had intended it to.

Does that help?

yes, that helps. Also, that seems fit with my view that Christ is only applied to the elect. It's like when Jesus fed the 5000 men, all he needed was a little bread. ''Little is much when God is in it".

 

[theseed]

Paul's address may be a universal address but his topic is not that of universal inclusion. Reconciliation is established exclusively for believers. In fact, it is through faith in the meritorious work of Christ that we are reconciled to God. If Christ accomplished the reconciliation of the entire world to God then all would be at peace with God. The result of reconciliation is inclusion in the covenent family of God. This is clearly not the case for the entirity of humanity but, rather, only for believers.

I wonder if The Bible speaks of more than one kind of reconciliation, one being a personal reconcilation, someone becomes a friend to God. And another, where the world (humanity) no longer remains in a hopeless state because salvation is offered in Christ--unlike the fallen angels who have no such hope.