For Whom did Christ die?

[JDS]

Jesys christ died for his sheep jn 10:


11I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
15As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

He died for his church eph 5:


25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

The context of John 10 will not permit 2 things:
1) it will not permit the sheep to be anyone but Israel
2) It will not permit the Good Shepherd's dying for his sheep to be limited to them only.

(Ro 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.)

...and if one would like to throw a third thing in there, it will not permit the words of the Good Shepherd to be in the past tense.

The credentials as the Messiah of Israel had not been settled in the minds of Israel at this point but many sheep, that belonged to his Father, had been given to him because the Father said he would give him all that would come to him. His sheep was still mingled among the entire flock but they knew his voice and would not follow the voice of the hireling shepherd that would most surely come. (by some other way besides the door). The sheep that did not come to him and does not know his voice will follow that false shepherd one day.
It is written: Zec 11:17 Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock! the sword [shall be] upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened.

Isn't that what Jesus said about the hireling shepherd in Jn 10?
Joh 10:12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.

Just in case someone would think his sheep were all in one Israelite flock, and that his atonement is limited, he said this in the future tense: Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, [and] one shepherd.

The only conclusion one can honestly make is
1) God will give to Jesus Christ all who will come to him
2) The word must be rightly divided by history, prophecy, context, and revelation but never by systematic theologies, preconceptions, or free unconstrained redefinitions of words that violates the texts.

Therefore, the correct answer is that Jesus Christ died to give all men life but by it's very nature as a gift, it must be received willingly by men when it is offered (No one could receive it unless it was offered). When it is received, it is a possession of the recipient.

He that hath the son hath life....

To as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.

Ro 8:10 And if Christ [be] in you, the body [is] dead because of sin; but the Spirit [is] life because of righteousness.

Ac 5:32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and [so is] also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

Pretty simple really!

 

[Wizzer]

but to say "He died for the sins of His people" which is taken from scripture , cannot logically mean He died for the sins of all people , especially seeing as the sin against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven ....which sin His people can never commit . the real question is what did Christ purpose - and what did He achieve ?

I would suggest that you have a number of other presuppositions at play here, which prohibit you from seeing the logic in my 1st post. You will need to recognize these and lay them all on the table if you truly want to think objectively. So what does the following verse say?

"Behold, The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" [John 1:29]

 

[cygnusx1]

I would suggest that you have a number of other presuppositions at play here, which prohibit you from seeing the logic in my 1st post. You will need to recognize these and lay them all on the table if you truly want to think objectively. So what does the following verse say?

"Behold, The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" [John 1:29]

Oh I see the logic of your first post alright , it was based upon the presupposition that the Universal doesn't deny the particular , the problem is , it is based upon a presupposition ;

The only sins that are removed and not charged or chargeable are the sins of God's people , all other men's sins are laid at their feet at the judgment and require judgement/justice ...... Christ bought a people with His blood , not all are bought.

"Definite atonement provides a sure ground for the assurance of faith. There can be no doubt that those for whom Christ died will perish. His death has saved us. We can never be lost. An indefinite atonement cannot give believers this assurance, as not all for whom Christ died will be saved. God's elect can never be condemned because the Saviour has died in our place, "Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is risen, who is even at the right hand of God for us, who also makes intercession for us." (Romans 8:33-34).

 

[Wizzer]

I would suggest that you have a number of other presuppositions at play here, which prohibit you from seeing the logic in my 1st post. You will need to recognize these and lay them all on the table if you truly want to think objectively. So what does the following verse say?

"Behold, The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" [John 1:29]

cygnusx1, I noticed that you didn't even attempt to address the question I posed above. I must take it then that you are not at all interested in trying to think objectively. That's ok, I have seen this kind of behavior before.

 

[cygnusx1]

cygnusx1, I noticed that you didn't even attempt to address the question I posed above. I must take it then that you are not at all interested in trying to think objectively. That's ok, I have seen this kind of behavior before.

taken into consideration the extremes in the God ordained DIVISION between Jew and Gentile ; all who are not Jews are Gentiles , no exceptions , it seems obvious that John a Jew would emphasize as do the other Apostles Christ's atonement beyond the confines of the Jews , John’s target audience are Jews and Jewish proselytes, this being a powerful message that God intends to save "the world" .. .. not everyone , but both Jew and Gentile , who have had their sin removed , you think my answer that many have to answer and pay for their own sin is no answer to the 'universalist indefinite atonement' which doesn't save , well what do you require , a book ... I'll see what can be done , but time for me is short .

 

[Rajni]

mmmm , "World" (Gk . Kosmos) doesn't mean everybody ;

here's an example ;

'Kosmos' is used of believers only: John 1:29; 3:16, 17; 6:33; 12:47; 1 Corinthians 4:9; 2 Corinthians 5:19. We leave our readers to turn to these passages, asking them to note, carefully, exactly what is said and predicated of 'the world' in each place.


here's a further example , this one blows apart the theory world=all ;



'Kosmos' is used of humanity minus believers: John 15:18; Romans 3:6 'If the world hate you, ye know that it hated Me before it hated you.' Believers do not 'hate' Christ, so that 'the world' here must signify the world of unbelievers in contrast from believers who love Christ. 'God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world.' Here is another passage where 'the world' cannot mean 'you, me, and everybody,' for believers will not be 'judged' by God, see John 5:24. So that here, too, it must be the world of unbelievers which is in view.


Biblical texts that teach Christ died for the "world" or for "all" do not contradict definite redemption. By the word "world", the Bible often draws attention not to human demography, but the sinfulness of mankind. Christ died for a sinful world. B. B. Warfield comments on the meaning "world" in John 3:16, "It is not here a term of extension so much as a term of intensity. Its primary connotation is ethical, and the point of its employment is not to suggest that the world is so big that it takes a great deal of love to embrace it all, but that the world is so bad that it takes a great kind of love to love it at all, and much more to love it as God has loved it when he gave his Son for it." (The Saviour of the World, Banner of Truth Trust, 1991, p. 120-121). John also wrote of Christ, "he himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world." (1 John 2:2). John draws attention to the ethical meaning of world in 2:15-17 of this letter. But in the text quoted, the apostle wanted to show that Christ did not die for a privileged minority among the people of God, but for a whole world of lost sinners. This does not necessarily mean that he died for all human beings inclusively. But that Christ was the propitiation for the whole world extensively - for all peoples in this fallen world. Those who hold to limited atonement should glory in such statements rather than be embarrassed by them. This is our message, "And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Saviour of the world." (1 John 4:14).

http://exiledpreacher.blogspot.com/2007/10/ten-things-on-limited-atonement.html

I no longer believe in limited atonement.


.

 

[cygnusx1]

I no longer believe in limited atonement.


.

???

so ........ either you believe everyone will be saved , or you believe that the atonement IS LIMITED by human will.

 

[Wizzer]

???

so ........ either you believe everyone will be saved , or you believe that the atonement IS LIMITED by human will.

Perhaps she believes as I do. I believe that the atonement is unlimited in scope: no individual is necessarily excluded by God, but individuals do exclude themselves. As Paul put it,

"...God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them...therefore we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us, we beg you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God...He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" [2 Cor. 5:19,21]

Notice that the last verse speaks of potential "...that we might become...". The passage as a whole speaks of the combined and cooperative efforts involved in the process of reconciliation: God was (and is) through Christ (and the Spirit) reconciling the world to Himself, God is continuing to work through His ambassadors, and we (individually) must be reconciled to God. So I see three parties involved here: God, ambassadors, and those needing to be reconciled (who are also being pleaded with). So then, it does appear (at least in this passage) that we, the recipients of this pleading, are the ultimate limiting factor in our own reconciliation.

 

[cygnusx1]

Perhaps she believes as I do. I believe that the atonement is unlimited in scope: no individual is necessarily excluded by God, but individuals do exclude themselves. As Paul put it,

"...God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them...therefore we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us, we beg you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God...He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" [2 Cor. 5:19,21]

well so far at least we can agree that God was in Christ reconciling the "world" (Kosmos) to Himself , so that is a done deal , God is through His Son reconciled to this 'world' not counting THEIR trespasses against them !

But we know from other scriptures that God does and God will count men's trespasses against them in this life and at the Judgment seat.

Romans 1

[16] For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
[17] For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
[19] Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
[20] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
[21] Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
[22] Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Notice that the last verse speaks of potential "...that we might become...". The passage as a whole speaks of the combined and cooperative efforts involved in the process of reconciliation: God was (and is) through Christ (and the Spirit) reconciling the world to Himself, God is continuing to work through His ambassadors, and we (individually) must be reconciled to God. So I see three parties involved here: God, ambassadors, and those needing to be reconciled (who are also being pleaded with). So then, it does appear (at least in this passage) that we, the recipients of this pleading, are the ultimate limiting factor in our own reconciliation.

I haven't much time just now , sufficient to say , the word "might" as used in scripture is more forceful than used today , it amounts to a certain will , a definite chain of events ;

In Romans 8:29 we are told, "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren."

there was no possibility that the Saviour would not be the Firstborn amongst many brethren , therefore , "that he might" signifies IN ORDER THAT , rather than 'maybe he will.

the same goes for "that we might" ...... Of course I agree that men need to be reconciled to God , and seeing as faith and repentance are Gifts of God's Rich Grace , and that all that the Father gives to Christ SHALL come to Christ , we have every encouragement to evangelise and see the reconcilation realised , it has already been accomplished , through faith it is realised .
Heb.11

[1] Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.


as far as God excluding men , I take the work of Christ as a whole , especially His Office as High Priest .

The Office of High Priest being to interceed for the people according to the Will of God . This intercession is as wide as extensive and defined as the atonement for which intercession is made ; Christ prayed for His people , and for those who would yet believe upon Him , He testified that He did NOT pray for "the WORLD" but for the elect , the Church , for those given to Him , then He with His intercesssion in mind , died for everyone He had prayed for. To dismiss this is to open up a division in the will of Christ , and the will of the Father .

Time for my sleep.

farewell !

 

[A New Dawn]

Being a Christmas Calvinist (as the good doctor puts it), I selected the first choice.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

Hit the poll and explain your vote.

The options are John Owen's "triple choice."

The problem with Owen's triple choice is seen in the following question and answer:

At what point are a person's sins actually forgiven?

Answer: when they believe.


That means the atonement was not applied to a person's sins until that person believed.

And that means the atonement was judicial and not pecuniary. Future sins are forgiven on the basis of the cross. Future sins (including unbelief) were not already forgiven at the cross.

Then flip to the other side of the pancake:
If the atonement was applied to a person's sins at the time of the cross, then that means that person would not - could not - bear God's wrath at any point in their lifetime. Even when an unbeliever. That is because all their sins were already forgiven. But this runs counter to the Scripture, which says all unbelievers bear the wrath of God - even elect unbelievers.

Owen's argument actually encourages hyper-Calvinism, because Hyper-Calvinists use the same argument to support their position.


LDG

 

[RussT]

I voted a); however, I would phrase it differently: Christ died for the sins of the whole world, and those who repent, turn to God, and perform deeds in accordance with their repentance have their sins forgiven.

In Christ,
Russ

 

[cygnusx1]

The options are John Owen's "triple choice."

The problem with Owen's triple choice is seen in the following question and answer:

At what point are a person's sins actually forgiven?

Answer: when they believe.


That means the atonement was not applied to a person's sins until that person believed.

And that means the atonement was judicial and not pecuniary. Future sins are forgiven on the basis of the cross. Future sins (including unbelief) were not already forgiven at the cross.

Then flip to the other side of the pancake:
If the atonement was applied to a person's sins at the time of the cross, then that means that person would not - could not - bear God's wrath at any point in their lifetime. Even when an unbeliever. That is because all their sins were already forgiven. But this runs counter to the Scripture, which says all unbelievers bear the wrath of God - even elect unbelievers.

Owen's argument actually encourages hyper-Calvinism, because Hyper-Calvinists use the same argument to support their position.


LDG

Interesting post , at least someone is deeply thinking it through , I don't agree with your conclusions though

It seems to me , your objections can be equally rallied against Justification for similar reasons , but I don't suppose you would give that up !

 

[cygnusx1]

If the atoning work of Christ is substitutionary it must be limited to those whom Christ actually redeems.

in Matthew 20:28, "...the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many." The Greek word translated "for" in this verse means "instead of."

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

Interesting post , at least someone is deeply thinking it through , I don't agree with your conclusions though

It seems to me , your objections can be equally rallied against Justification for similar reasons , but I don't suppose you would give that up !

While an elect person remains in unbelief, they are not justified. When an elect person believes, they are justified by grace through faith. When a person is justified is also when the atonement is applied to them.

The atonement was accomplished at the cross. But the atonement was not applied at the cross.

What is the result once justification is dislocated from being applied at a specific time in the elect person's life?

The accomplished and the applied are collapsed into one.

If an elect person's sins were forgiven at the cross, then that means the elect person was also justified at the cross. Its the view of some Hypers, while most others hold eternal justification. Hypers minimizes faith into simply an acknowledgement that one is a member of the elect. The view also ignores the fact that God's wrath rests on the unbelieving elect. To overcome that objection, election is elevated as the highest logical priority.

But once election is elevated over all other soteriological issues, then then internal logic leads one rapidly to eternal justification. If the atonement can be collapsed into accomplished/applied, then being chosen by God becomes virtually synonymous with being justified by God. So in eternity past, when God chose a person (elected them), he also justified them. That is eternal justification, a Hyper-Calvinist position.

Owen wasn't a Hyper-Calvinist, but because of the argument's ambiguity between accomplished and applied, Hypers have used his argument quite often.

The upshot of all this is that Owen's argument is certainly not the slam dunk that many limited atonement advocates think it is. In fact many Reformers - during and after Owen - have addressed the argument and shown that it was not a good argument to use to prove limited atonement.

LDG

 

[MrSnow]

I pose my question again:

Who will be raised from the dead, and why?

 

[nobdysfool]

I pose my question again:

Quit trying to be so "clever", and just say what you mean.

 

[MrSnow]

Quit trying to be so "clever", and just say what you mean.

I was hoping someone would answer the question. That's why I asked it.

 

[nobdysfool]

I was hoping someone would answer the question. That's why I asked it.

Quit playing games, and state what your question is, in plain words. This isn't a poetry workshop. It's a discussion forum for Soteriology.

 

[Rajni]

???

so ........ either you believe everyone will be saved , or you believe that the atonement IS LIMITED by human will.

I don't believe we feeble humans limit anything God chooses to do. "Free" will isn't really free.

I believe everyone will ultimately be saved. Like I said, God is the Savior of all men, especially (not 'exclusively') of believers.



.