Pilgrim said:

I thought I had made it clear that I do believe that there are "general benefits" which the reprobate and unregenerate share by virtue of the direct benefits given to the elect. I have no problem if one desires to call these residual benefits part of God's common grace. But my objection has always been in the "language" used in this thread, i.e., "Christ died for all in a general way"; insisting that such language most always connotes "in behalf of" (aka: substitution). So to iterate my objection: Yes, there are general/common benefits which flow to all mankind from Christ's death of a physical/material nature. But Christ's death was specifically designed and accomplished for the elect and them only. There may be crumbs which fall from the master's table. But they are not to be understood as being synonymous with the actual food that was served to someone else.

You can call me "picky" if you wish. But I think it is essential that we protect the biblical terminology used in regard to Christ's atonement, which was purposed and accomplished for all those whom the Father gave Him. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,


I don't think you're being picky at all. I believe your point is well taken and well stated. This issue has to do with the design and intent of the atonement. Sure, God knew that crumbs would fall from the table but this is a bi-product of the atonement and not some teleological end.

Blessed Christmas,