question on Martin Luther

[Skala]

If it is impossible that Christ died for those who remain unsaved then why are unbelievers guilty of sin for not believing in Him? John 16:8,9 says: "And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me" and John 3:18 says: "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God." (ESV). How can a person be condemned for not believing in a Saviour who isn't his Saviour but only the Saviour of others?

Because unbelief is the fault of the rebellious, sinful heart. Thus it is still a crime against God. In other words, unbelief is the default position of all people, because of the fall. Nobody would believe without God granting faith as a gift. If he grants it to some, that doesn't mean the others are excused for their unbelief.

With respect to Romans 8:32 "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?" it's clear from the context that Paul is only talking of the elect here when he says "all" and therefore it can't be used to support your view that that Christ only died for the elect, becase Paul isn't addressing all whom Christ died for, but only the elect who are regenerated.

I'm not sure how you can conclude that, since he says "us all". Who is the "us"? It is Paul + the recipient of his letter, who he identifies as the elect, and saints. (Rom 1:6-7) So the context actually supports the exact opposite idea that you have presented, lol.

Again John 17 and Eph 5:25 refers only to the elect but it doesn't follow from these verses that the extent of the atonement only covers the elect and not also the non-elect.[/QUOTE]

It does follow from them, because those verses tell us about the end result of Christ's death. If the end result of Christ's death is the salvation of people, how can you conclude that Christ died for those who end up in hell?

 

[Edward65]

Because unbelief is the fault of the rebellious, sinful heart. Thus it is still a crime against God. In other words, unbelief is the default position of all people, because of the fall. Nobody would believe without God granting faith as a gift. If he grants it to some, that doesn't mean the others are excused for their unbelief.

If the end result of Christ's death is the salvation of people, how can you conclude that Christ died for those who end up in hell?

It doesn't follow that because believers receive all the benefits of Christ's atonement and are saved that Christ didn't also atone for the sins of unbelievers who don't share in those benefits. One can't argue from the fact that Christ brings about the salvation of the elect through faith in his redemption, that Christ's atonement is therefore limited only to them.

Also you didn't actually answer the question I posed about how unbelievers can be charged with sin for not believing in Christ if Christ wasn't sent to save also them. The verses I quoted show that not believing in Christ is a sin, but how can it be a sin not to believe in Christ if indeed as you say Christ wasn't sent to save them, but was only sent to save the elect? That doesn't make any sense. It only makes sense to charge someone with sin for not believing in Christ if Christ is also their Saviour who atoned also for their sins. Otherwise it would be like accusing someone for a non-existant crime. It would be saying to an unbeliever that Christ wasn't sent to save and atone for them, but nevertheless they're going to be punished for not believing that He is their Saviour.

 

[Skala]

It doesn't follow that because believers receive all the benefits of Christ's atonement and are saved that Christ didn't also atone for the sins of unbelievers who don't share in those benefits.

If follow from the effectual nature of the way His death is described in the Bible. It never speaks of his death as merely making salvation possible, but actually the cause of salvation.

Also you didn't actually answer the question I posed about how unbelievers can be charged with sin for not believing in Christ if Christ wasn't sent to save also them.

I thought I did answer it. I said because their unbelief flows from the rebellious, fallen heart. Just because grace wasn't offered to them does not mean that they are not guilty for the sin of unbelief. For example, if two criminals are on death row, if the governor pardons one of them, it does not automatically mean that the other criminal is no longer guilty for the crimes he commit.

The verses I quoted show that not believing in Christ is a sin,

If unbelief is a sin, and Christ satisfied God's wrath for all the sins of all people, there is nothing left but universalism.

 

[Edward65]

If follow from the effectual nature of the way His death is described in the Bible. It never speaks of his death as merely making salvation possible, but actually the cause of salvation.

I thought I did answer it. I said because their unbelief flows from the rebellious, fallen heart. Just because grace wasn't offered to them does not mean that they are not guilty for the sin of unbelief. For example, if two criminals are on death row, if the governor pardons one of them, it does not automatically mean that the other criminal is no longer guilty for the crimes he commit.

If unbelief is a sin, and Christ satisfied God's wrath for all the sins of all people, there is nothing left but universalism.

I don't agree that the Bible always talks of Christ's atonement in terms of its actuality in the salvation of the elect. It also talks of its potentiality in the salvation of everyone, although of course I'm not suggesting that man has free-will and God hasn't predestined people to be saved or damned. I hold that He has. However what we're discussing is the extent of Christ's atonement, and I don't accept that the Bible teaches that it is confined only to the elect and doesn't have a universal aspect.

The simple fact that Christ told his disciples to preach the Gospel to everyone without discrimination, and that those who believed would be saved, shows that Christ's death applies to everyone, otherwise it wouldn't be appropriate to tell people that by believing in Christ as their Saviour they will be saved. If Christ's atonement applied only to the elect one would need to have some way of identifying who the elect were before telling them to be reconciled to God through His Son. Paul couldn't have implored all his hearers to be reconciled to God if Christ only died for the elect. So his message of reconciliation shows that Christ's atonement applies to everyone and is universal:

All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 2 Cor 5:18-21 ESV

Please note that Paul says that we "might" become the righteousness of God which disproves your contention that the Bible "never speaks of his death as merely making salvation possible"

Also the following verses teach universal atonement: "For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross". Col 1:19-20
　
With respect to the sinfulness of not believing in Christ, my point was that if Christ didn't actually atone for a particular person's sins because he wasn't one of the elect, then I don't see how that person can be guilty of sinning by not believing in Christ when in fact Christ isn't his Saviour. It would be like being charged for a non-existent crime.

If Christ isn't your Saviour because you're not one of the elect who's had his sins atoned for, what sin have you committed by not believing that Christ is your Saviour? That just reflects the truth. Christ isn't your Saviour if He hasn't atoned for your sins.

You say "if unbelief is a sin, and Christ satisfied God's wrath for all the sins of all people, there is nothing left but universalism". but like I said you have to distinguish between past and present unbelief. Christ's atonement applies to all the sins of everybody except the sin of present and future unbelief, because it's necessary to have faith in order to be saved. So present and future unbelief isn't atoned for, and that's why people are damned because they die in a state of unbelief. That's the one sin that damns people as Luther said. Every other sin is atoned for except the sin of persistent unbelief.
　
　
　

 

[hedrick]

Please note that Paul says that we "might" become the righteousness of God which disproves your contention that the Bible "never speaks of his death as merely making salvation possible"

Don't they teach about subjunctives anymore? "might" in this English construct does not indicate doubt. I also checked the Greek. I'm no expert, but the grammar that I checked gave several examples of do X in order that (ina) y might happen, and generally the subjunctive after "in order that" seemed to show contingency, not doubt. Indeed what I'm getting from the discussion I looked at is that "in order that" is always followed by subjunctive. I believe this is true in English as well.

This one is the heir. Let's kill him, in order that the inheritance might become ours. (Lk. 20:14)
This one came as a witness in order that he might testify concerning the light. (Jn. 1:7)

See http://vintage.aomin.org/StaplesGal2.html. While I'm not sure this web page is authoritative on all subjects, on this one it seems to be right. See the discussion on http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-archives/html4/1997-09/20589.html (and note that the people responding are all faculty in good institutions).

 

[hedrick]

On unbelief: First, in the NT, the word is /pistis/. This is both belief and faithfulness. Unbelief in the Bible is never purely intellectual doubt. It always has an implication of faithlessness. Also, Rom 2 says that people will be judged based on what they know. So I would say that rejection of God, as he has presented himself to a person, is sin.

 

[Edward65]

Don't they teach about subjunctives anymore? "might" in this English construct does not indicate doubt. I also checked the Greek. I'm no expert, but the grammar that I checked gave several examples of do X in order that (ina) y might happen, and generally the subjunctive after "in order that" seemed to show contingency, not doubt. Indeed what I'm getting from the discussion I looked at is that "in order that" is always followed by subjunctive. I believe this is true in English as well.

This one is the heir. Let's kill him, in order that the inheritance might become ours. (Lk. 20:14)
This one came as a witness in order that he might testify concerning the light. (Jn. 1:7)

See Alpha and Omega Ministries, The Christian Apologetics Ministry of James R. White. While I'm not sure this web page is authoritative on all subjects, on this one it seems to be right. See the discussion on BGreek: INA subjunctive in John 17:4 (and note that the people responding are all faculty in good institutions).

Ok I accept your correction on that but it doesn't detract from the fact that Paul implores everyone who hears or reads his words to be reconciled to God because God is reconciled to them. If Christ had only atoned for the elect then it would have been necessary for Paul to ascertain in some mysterious way who exactly the elect were before telling only them to be reconciled to God, because Christ had atoned exclusively for their sins and no one else's.

 

[Edward65]

On unbelief: First, in the NT, the word is /pistis/. This is both belief and faithfulness. Unbelief in the Bible is never purely intellectual doubt. It always has an implication of faithlessness. Also, Rom 2 says that people will be judged based on what they know. So I would say that rejection of God, as he has presented himself to a person, is sin.

Yes, as believing in Christ for one's salvation means not only believing with the mind but trusting with the heart, which then leads us to want to be faithful to the Gospel and live our lives in conformity to it, so unbelief entails the opposite. However with regards to your second point I don't agree with you if you're meaning that it's possible for those who aren't Christians to be saved.

 

[Edward65]

Limited atonement, if it were true, would be a doctrine of despair to someone who was suffering from pangs of conscience over past sin. It would be no consolation or comfort to be told that Christ had atoned for your sin but only if you were one of the elect. That would just add to the distress and make one even more despairing, because you'd have no way of knowing whether you were one of the elect. It would be a catch-22 situation. If a person is suffering from a lack of faith that God will be merciful to him and forgive him his sins, then to be told in that situation that if he has faith in Christ his sins will be forgiven because faith is the indicator that he is one of the elect, is a truly horrible thing to hear. It's precisely lack of faith that he's suffering from so to be told he will be forgiven but only on the condition that he has faith is a counsel of despair to him.

In contrast how comforting it is to hear that Christ has atoned for everyone's sins including one's own and that it is objectively true irrespective of whether you believe it or not. This is a counsel of comfort and consolation, which positively invites you to accept that your sins are definitely forgiven and you don't need first to ascertain whether you're one of the elect (which is impossible to do) before believing it.

From personal experience of having wrestled with despair I can vouch for the fact that limited atonement is a truly ghastly and distressing teaching which only invites despair.

 

[Edward65]

For the following reasons amongst others, Luther was right to hold that the Bible teaches universal atonement:

1. The Gospel can’t be preached indiscriminately to all if only a certain number of people have had their sins atoned for because the Gospel of forgiveness wouldn’t apply to everyone, yet Paul addressed all his readers and hearers when he said: Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. (2 Cor 5:20, ESV).
   
   
2. If a person hasn’t had his sins atoned for by Christ because he’s not one of the elect then it wouldn’t be a sin for him not to believe in Christ since Christ wouldn’t be his Saviour, yet the Bible says it is a sin not to believe in Him: And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; (John 16:8-9).
   
   
3. If Christ had atoned only for the sins of the elect then seeing that it’s impossible to know whether one is one of the elect without possessing the faith to believe this, the effect would be that those who are struggling with despair and lack of faith would lose all hope of forgiveness, yet the Bible says of Christ that: a bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not quench. (Matt 12:20).
   
   
4. The Bible actually states that all things are reconciled to God through the blood of the cross which means that everyone’s sins have been atoned for by Christ: For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. (Col 1:19-20).

So since the Bible teaches that Christ atoned for the sins of the whole world and not just for the sins of the elect, the doctrine of limited atonement is false.

 

[twin1954]

For the following reasons amongst others, Luther was right to hold that the Bible teaches universal atonement:

1. The Gospel can’t be preached indiscriminately to all if only a certain number of people have had their sins atoned for because the Gospel of forgiveness wouldn’t apply to everyone, yet Paul addressed all his readers and hearers when he said: Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. (2 Cor 5:20, ESV).
   
   
2. If a person hasn’t had his sins atoned for by Christ because he’s not one of the elect then it wouldn’t be a sin for him not to believe in Christ since Christ wouldn’t be his Saviour, yet the Bible says it is a sin not to believe in Him: And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; (John 16:8-9).
   
   
3. If Christ had atoned only for the sins of the elect then seeing that it’s impossible to know whether one is one of the elect without possessing the faith to believe this, the effect would be that those who are struggling with despair and lack of faith would lose all hope of forgiveness, yet the Bible says of Christ that: a bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not quench. (Matt 12:20).
   
   
4. The Bible actually states that all things are reconciled to God through the blood of the cross which means that everyone’s sins have been atoned for by Christ: For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. (Col 1:19-20).

So since the Bible teaches that Christ atoned for the sins of the whole world and not just for the sins of the elect, the doctrine of limited atonement is false.

Luther may have taught universal atonement but Christ certainly didn't.


I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
(Joh 10:11)


And then later in the same chapter speaking to the Jewish leaders He said this to them:
But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
(Joh 10:26-28)

 

[Edward65]

Luther may have taught universal atonement but Christ certainly didn't.


I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
(Joh 10:11)


And then later in the same chapter speaking to the Jewish leaders He said this to them:
But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
(Joh 10:26-28)

Christ most certainly did teach universal atonement. Christ said that the Holy Spirit will convict the world of sin because it doesn’t believe in Him (John 16:8-9), and as I argued above if Christ didn’t atone for unbelievers then it can’t be a sin for them not to believe in Him since He wouldn’t be their Saviour.

Also it doesn’t follow that because Christ gave His life for the sheep and that only the sheep believe that therefore Christ didn’t atone for unbelievers as well. The Bible teaches that Christ reconciled the entire world to God through His death as Col 1:19-20 says. Also John 3:16-18 teaches universal atonement:

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (ESV)

To argue as some do that "world" here doesn't mean everyone in the world is absurd. A person can only be condemned for not believing in Christ if indeed Christ is his Saviour. It's rejection of the truth that Christ is a person's Saviour that brings condemnation. If Christ wasn't a person's Saviour then he couldn't be condemned for not believing in Him

 

[Edward65]

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life”. (John 3:16, ESV)

The Calvinist who believes in limited atonement has to interpret “world” here to mean only the elect of the world and not everyone in the world, but if you substitute “the elect” for “the world” here it contradicts the Bible i.e: “For God so loved the elect, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life”. The point is the Bible teaches that all the elect will definitely believe and be saved, so it is contradictory to suggest that members of the elect could possibly not believe in Him. If John 3:16 intended to teach limited atonement it should have been worded differently, for example:. “For God so loved the elect (or the sheep) that he gave his only Son so that they would not perish but have eternal life”

The meaning therefore of John 3:16 is that God loved everyone in the world and atoned for their sins through Christ but only those who believe in Christ will be saved. i.e. “For God so loved the world (i.e. everyone in the world), that he gave his only Son, that whoever (i.e. in the world) believes in him should not perish but have eternal life”.

 

[twin1954]

Christ most certainly did teach universal atonement. Christ said that the Holy Spirit will convict the world of sin because it doesn’t believe in Him (John 16:8-9), and as I argued above if Christ didn’t atone for unbelievers then it can’t be a sin for them not to believe in Him since He wouldn’t be their Saviour.

Also it doesn’t follow that because Christ gave His life for the sheep and that only the sheep believe that therefore Christ didn’t atone for unbelievers as well. The Bible teaches that Christ reconciled the entire world to God through His death as Col 1:19-20 says. Also John 3:16-18 teaches universal atonement:

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (ESV)

To argue as some do that "world" here doesn't mean everyone in the world is absurd. A person can only be condemned for not believing in Christ if indeed Christ is his Saviour. It's rejection of the truth that Christ is a person's Saviour that brings condemnation. If Christ wasn't a person's Saviour then he couldn't be condemned for not believing in Him

First of all you must ignore what Christ said to come to the conclusion you have. Second, it is apparent that you haven't a clue as to what the Master was teaching concerning the Spirit and conviction in John 16.

As for John 3:16 you insert your theology as much or more than the Calvinist does. The simple fact is that John 3:16 isn't about who God loves but how much He loves. When the Lord to that Pharisee that God didn't just love Jews he understood what Christ was saying but you don't seem to. The Lord wasn't telling him that God loves everybody in the world He was telling him that God doesn't just love Jews.

You want to argue for universal atonement but you must understand that if universal atonement is true then Christ Jesus the Lord failed. More than that if universal atonement is true then His atoning blood means nothing, his love is pointless and His work has no effect unless and until man gives it power. That makes man his own savior not Christ. Universal atonement is not only unbiblical but another attempt by man to save himself.

 

[Edward65]

First of all you must ignore what Christ said to come to the conclusion you have. Second, it is apparent that you haven't a clue as to what the Master was teaching concerning the Spirit and conviction in John 16.

As for John 3:16 you insert your theology as much or more than the Calvinist does. The simple fact is that John 3:16 isn't about who God loves but how much He loves. When the Lord to that Pharisee that God didn't just love Jews he understood what Christ was saying but you don't seem to. The Lord wasn't telling him that God loves everybody in the world He was telling him that God doesn't just love Jews.

You want to argue for universal atonement but you must understand that if universal atonement is true then Christ Jesus the Lord failed. More than that if universal atonement is true then His atoning blood means nothing, his love is pointless and His work has no effect unless and until man gives it power. That makes man his own savior not Christ. Universal atonement is not only unbiblical but another attempt by man to save himself.

I haven’t ignored anything that Christ said. Just because Christ atoned for the sins of the elect and only His sheep are saved it doesn't follow that Christ didn’t also atone for the sins of unbelievers as well. The Bible teaches that Christ atoned for the sins of unbelievers as well as believers - for example: "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." 1 John 2:2.

People can only be held to account for rejecting Christ and being damned for not believing in Him if indeed Christ has atoned for their sins. If He didn’t atone for their sins, they couldn’t be damned for not believing in Him since He wouldn’t be their Saviour.

Also the assumption that those who believe in universal atonement must believe in human free will is completely erroneous. I reject free will as did Luther who wrote “The Bondage of the Will” in opposition to Erasmus. Also there are many 4-point Calvinists who believe in universal atonement as well as predestination to heaven and hell (as I do), so your argument that those who believe in universal atonement must also believe in human decision theology and self salvation isn’t true. See for instance the following website:

The Case for Unlimited Atonement (by Ron Rhodes)

 

[Edward65]

You want to argue for universal atonement but you must understand that if universal atonement is true then Christ Jesus the Lord failed. More than that if universal atonement is true then His atoning blood means nothing, his love is pointless and His work has no effect unless and until man gives it power. That makes man his own savior not Christ. Universal atonement is not only unbiblical but another attempt by man to save himself.

I just realised that I misunderstood in my last post what you were saying in your last paragraph. I mistakenly thought you were saying that all those who believe in universal atonement are believers in human decision making, whereas you meant that if one believes in universal atonement the logic of this means one must believe in human decision being the deciding factor in being saved. However I don’t accept this. God is mysterious and what appears illogical in human affairs isn’t so with God. To us humans it does seem somewhat illogical to elect to save only a certain number and at the same time devise means that can save everyone, and also to do so with a sincere and loving desire that all could be saved. But God isn’t like us and does things which to us are amazing. Why God doesn’t elect to save everyone given the fact that He desires to save everyone, and has sent Christ to atone for everyone’s sins, is impossible to understand or explain.

 

[hedrick]

Everything depends upon what "died for" means. It's perfectly rational to use it to refer only to those who are actually redeemed. However the Bible speaks of it in universal terms often enough that it makes sense to give it a universal meaning. The early Church, and the NT at times, saw it as a spiritual battle. Christ's death defeated Satan. He is no longer in control of humanity. But individuals still need faith, and not all have it. In such an understanding I think both Reformed and Arminian models are still available for individual response. So universal atonement doesn't imply decision theology.

I think the most consistent way to view universal atonement is that there is at least some eschatological element to it. That is, Christ's death definitively won the battle. But there's still mop-up needed, and that won't be complete until the End.

I would argue that the hard-core TULIP viewpoint concedes too much to decision theology. It allows the consequences of Christ's death to be formulated in terms limited to the immediate salvation of individuals. But that is only part of the NT perspective. Jesus saw Satan cast down. In the last supper he said he was establishing the new covenant. That not everyone is reached is important, and it's important to ask how God works in reaching them. But Christ's death established the Kingdom and the new covenant on which it is based, and that is in itself a victory.

 

[Edward65]

Everything depends upon what "died for" means. It's perfectly rational to use it to refer only to those who are actually redeemed. However the Bible speaks of it in universal terms often enough that it makes sense to give it a universal meaning. The early Church, and the NT at times, saw it as a spiritual battle. Christ's death defeated Satan. He is no longer in control of humanity. But individuals still need faith, and not all have it. In such an understanding I think both Reformed and Arminian models are still available for individual response. So universal atonement doesn't imply decision theology.

I think the most consistent way to view universal atonement is that there is at least some eschatological element to it. That is, Christ's death definitively won the battle. But there's still mop-up needed, and that won't be complete until the End.

I would argue that the hard-core TULIP viewpoint concedes too much to decision theology. It allows the consequences of Christ's death to be formulated in terms limited to the immediate salvation of individuals. But that is only part of the NT perspective. Jesus saw Satan cast down. In the last supper he said he was establishing the new covenant. That not everyone is reached is important, and it's important to ask how God works in reaching them. But Christ's death established the Kingdom and the new covenant on which it is based, and that is in itself a victory.

It may be more rational to limit Christ’s atonement to those who are saved but the problem with it, as you’ve pointed out, is that it’s not in accordance with the teaching of Scripture. Those who support limited atonement do so for philosophical reasons and then attempt to read this into Scripture when it doesn’t fit. They have to force those passages which speak of Christ atoning for the sins of everyone into a limited atonement mold with the result that the Gospel of universal forgiveness is destroyed. It’s important to maintain that Christ atoned for the sins of everyone in order that the true Gospel isn’t lost. If limited atonement were true then no one could without insincerity tell others that Christ is their Saviour and by believing and trusting in Him they will be saved. So it’s vital that the doctrine of limited atonement is opposed as false and destructive of the Gospel.

With regards to the broader aspects of Christ’s victory over sin and death Paul says that creation itself will be liberated from decay: “For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now”. (Romans 8:20-22, ESV), so I agree there’s a grand scheme of redemption in which man is only a part, but since man is the foremost creature it does centre on him as the apex.

 

[Don Maurer]

If unbelief is a sin, and Christ died for all sins, that means not even unbelief is left-over for God to be angry with.

If Christ died for all sins except the sin of unbelief, then nobody will be saved, because all Christians, before salvation, were unbelievers, and Christ didn't atone for that particular sin.

Logically, I cannot see an escape to this dilemma. And neither did John Owen. If you haven't, I urge you to read his book The Death of Death

I am nearly finished with "Death of Death." The beginning is a difficult read, but the later parts are much easier. At the beginning I had to struggle and read some parts repeatedly to get it. I think that book is the defining book on the issue. Most arguments for and against were answered by Owen all the way back in the 1600s.

One of the things that has occured to me in reading the book is the inconsistency of modern day people who believe in a universal atonement. Owen frequently quotes Hugo Grotius and his view on universal atonement. I was quite shocked to see Owen quote Grotius as saying that no one was saved by Christs death. Grotius said the only thing accomplished by Christs death is that the justice of God was satisfied. I struggle with the inconsistency of Grotius's statement. If the justice of God is satisfied, then why are not people saved? If the justice of God is satisfied, then are not men "justified?" Nevertheless, in the view of Grotius, when the justice of God was satisfied, then God offered salvation to all men, and saved them on the condition of a response or decision of faith.

The later parts of the book were much more exegetical. At times I was not sure if Owen espoused the "two wills" view of God in salvation, and at times he did not seem to be doing that. I thought the material on the use of the terms "pas" and "kosmos" in the NT was very interesting. I think that was at the beginning of unit 4 in the book.

The material in unit 3 on the high priestly ministry of Christ and its relationship to the atonement was also of great value. It is difficult for me to grasp the argument against Calvinism that Christ, took his blood to the altar in the heavenly sanctuary, placed his blood on the altar, and no one gets saved.

It seems to me that the book was so weighty, that any discussion of the subject of limited atonement will be either shallow, or simply repeat arguments Owen already dealt with in the book you mentioned.

 

[Edward65]

I am nearly finished with "Death of Death." The beginning is a difficult read, but the later parts are much easier. At the beginning I had to struggle and read some parts repeatedly to get it. I think that book is the defining book on the issue. Most arguments for and against were answered by Owen all the way back in the 1600s.

One of the things that has occured to me in reading the book is the inconsistency of modern day people who believe in a universal atonement. Owen frequently quotes Hugo Grotius and his view on universal atonement. I was quite shocked to see Owen quote Grotius as saying that no one was saved by Christs death. Grotius said the only thing accomplished by Christs death is that the justice of God was satisfied. I struggle with the inconsistency of Grotius's statement. If the justice of God is satisfied, then why are not people saved? If the justice of God is satisfied, then are not men "justified?" Nevertheless, in the view of Grotius, when the justice of God was satisfied, then God offered salvation to all men, and saved them on the condition of a response or decision of faith.

The later parts of the book were much more exegetical. At times I was not sure if Owen espoused the "two wills" view of God in salvation, and at times he did not seem to be doing that. I thought the material on the use of the terms "pas" and "kosmos" in the NT was very interesting. I think that was at the beginning of unit 4 in the book.

The material in unit 3 on the high priestly ministry of Christ and its relationship to the atonement was also of great value. It is difficult for me to grasp the argument against Calvinism that Christ, took his blood to the altar in the heavenly sanctuary, placed his blood on the altar, and no one gets saved.

It seems to me that the book was so weighty, that any discussion of the subject of limited atonement will be either shallow, or simply repeat arguments Owen already dealt with in the book you mentioned.

God is reconciled to the whole world through the death of His Son and it only remains for people to accept this through faith in order for them to be saved. Justification through faith alone, the touchstone of the Reformation, teaches that faith is necessary in order to be in receipt of the forgiveness won for us by Christ’s death on the cross.

You ask if the justice of God is satisfied then are not men justified? Yes objectively they are, but they also need to be subjectively justified through faith. This is what Paul argues for in 2 Cor 5:18-21: (All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. ESV). Everyone is forgiven but forgiveness needs to be accepted and believed in before it becomes a reality in a person’s life. This is done through faith. Justification is through faith.

It seems to me that Calvinists who believe that Christ atoned only for the elect miss out the importance of faith and just assume its presence as part and parcel of Christ’s atonement, and therefore in effect don’t believe in justification through faith, but justification through atonement. The Scriptures however teach a universal atonement and a personal appropriation of the forgiveness (which is available to everyone), through faith - e.g.:

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God". John 3:16-18, ESV

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Rom 3:21-26, ESV.