Jesus' death accomplished salvation for the non-elect

[Hammster]

A member suggested that I start a thread on this as to not derail another. He said he'd participate if I did. So here goes.

His definition of the non-elect was this:

"They are the ones who trod under foot the son of God and count the blood of the covenant as an unholy thing. They turned their backs on Christ and salvation and are lost forever.

Christ died for them too! Seing that he is the savior of the world!"

My follow up question was "In what way did He die for them? What did His death accomplish for them?"

He responded with "Salvation. How does one refuse a gift that was never really offered?"

Wanting to further probe the idea that Christ accomplished salvation for the non-elect, I followed with "Did He take the punishment for their sins? Or something else?"

And this is where the suggestion to start another thread came in.

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?

 

[AndOne]

Is he a universalist?

 

[Hammster]

Is he a universalist?

No, but I'm under the impression that it has to be an offer.

 

[Hammster]

I'm just going by that actual dialog.

 

[Epoisses]

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?

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.

 

[gmm4j]

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?

The vicarious atonement does not have to mean that He was only acting on the behalf of those who receive His salvation. There is a qualifier.

The vicarious atonement is appropriated by faith. This is also true for the Calvinist. Unless it is thought faith is not needed? Those who receive the direct benefit of Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice only do so by faith.

He did take their punishment, however, if they refuse to receive what He has done for them, then they are deserving of an even more severe punishment.

Jesus could have stood in your place and bore your sin, and paid the price for your sin, but if you don’t believe it you will sit in your prison cell for eternity.

 

[rogueapologist]

A member suggested that I start a thread on this as to not derail another. He said he'd participate if I did. So here goes.

His definition of the non-elect was this:

"They are the ones who trod under foot the son of God and count the blood of the covenant as an unholy thing. They turned their backs on Christ and salvation and are lost forever.

Christ died for them too! Seing that he is the savior of the world!"

My follow up question was "In what way did He die for them? What did His death accomplish for them?"

He responded with "Salvation. How does one refuse a gift that was never really offered?"

Wanting to further probe the idea that Christ accomplished salvation for the non-elect, I followed with "Did He take the punishment for their sins? Or something else?"

And this is where the suggestion to start another thread came in.

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?

In the cross, Christ has conquered the powers of sin and death to which all humanity was bound. In his Incarnation, Christ has united Godself to humanity, and in his death and resurrection, Christ has united humanity to Godself. Christ has tasted death for all humankind that all humankind might find reconciliation with and become like God. To this the Scriptures and the historic Church testify overwhelmingly.

 

[Arcoe]

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?

What do you consider the punishment for people's sins?

What court and judge sentenced Jesus for this punishment?

Who carried out this punishment?

 

[rogueapologist]

A member suggested that I start a thread on this as to not derail another. He said he'd participate if I did. So here goes.

His definition of the non-elect was this:

"They are the ones who trod under foot the son of God and count the blood of the covenant as an unholy thing. They turned their backs on Christ and salvation and are lost forever.

Christ died for them too! Seing that he is the savior of the world!"

My follow up question was "In what way did He die for them? What did His death accomplish for them?"

He responded with "Salvation. How does one refuse a gift that was never really offered?"

Wanting to further probe the idea that Christ accomplished salvation for the non-elect, I followed with "Did He take the punishment for their sins? Or something else?"

And this is where the suggestion to start another thread came in.

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?

And to be clear, the cross is not "punishment". God is not a angry pagan deity whose bloodlust needs to be sated (although a good portion of Christianity sees God this way). Rather, the Incarnation of God reveals that God has offered mercy and forgiveness without reserve to all humanity, not because Christ is divinely killed and God is convinced to do these things, but rather because the very forgiveness of God is the impetus for the Incarnation in the first place. God desires for humanity to be reconciled to God, so in Christ God becomes us that we might become God.

 

[Hammster]

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.

So what is the purpose of hell?

 

[Hammster]

The vicarious atonement does not have to mean that He was only acting on the behalf of those who receive His salvation. There is a qualifier.

The vicarious atonement is appropriated by faith. This is also true for the Calvinist. Unless it is thought faith is not needed? Those who receive the direct benefit of Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice only do so by faith.

He did take their punishment, however, if they refuse to receive what He has done for them, then they are deserving of an even more severe punishment.

Jesus could have stood in your place and bore your sin, and paid the price for your sin, but if you don’t believe it you will sit in your prison cell for eternity.

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

 

[Hammster]

What do you consider the punishment for people's sins?

What court and judge sentenced Jesus for this punishment?

Who carried out this punishment?

You can either answer the question or move along. No hijacking allowed.

 

[gmm4j]

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

Unbelief.

Yes, just like He atoned for the sins of the elect who were perishing prior to belief. Unless you don't think the elect prior to faith really stand condemned?

 

[Epoisses]

So what is the purpose of hell?

The lake of fire is prepared for the Devil and his angels. There is no atonement for them.

The lost will share there fate because they have rejected the salvation that was purchased for them by the blood of Christ.

 

[astein]

God is The Judge.

Ephesians 6:12

 

[Arcoe]

You can either answer the question or move along. No hijacking allowed.

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.

 

[rogueapologist]

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.

The answer, of course, is that the punishment for man's sins is the self-flagellation of God (and has been from all eternity). Furthermore, we must conclude that God sentenced Christ and carried out the dirty deed. And why did this happen? Purely because God has eternally desired that the same should happen, given that God has set in motion the whole of history to culminate in this bloody triumph of divine sado-masochism.

 

[Arcoe]

The answer, of course, is that the punishment for man's sins is the self-flagellation of God (and has been from all eternity). Furthermore, we must conclude that God sentenced Christ and carried out the dirty deed. And why did this happen? Purely because God has eternally desired that the same should happen, given that God has set in motion the whole of history to culminate in this bloody triumph of divine sado-masochism.

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

 

[Hammster]

The lake of fire is prepared for the Devil and his angels. There is no atonement for them.

The lost will share there fate because they have rejected the salvation that was purchased for them by the blood of Christ.

I thought God's wrath was satisfied?

 

[Hammster]

Unbelief.

Yes, just like He atoned for the sins of the elect who were perishing prior to belief. Unless you don't think the elect prior to faith really stand condemned?

Unbelief is a sin.