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.
Though I understand your concerns and it is wise to protect the words and phrases it is also important to restore them back if they been abused, etc. It is also unwise to assert only incomplete truths. IMO this is what you, RonD, and others are mistakenly doing.

First, you are asserting only the positive side of the Cross. By denying Jesus died for all in a “general way,” you embrace that He died only for the elect. As you know I also agree that Jesus died effectually only for the already elect—this is not under contention. However, when Calvary took place Jesus also sealed the fate for the already condemned (John 3:18). There is no other way of salvation (John 14:6). In addition, Jesus is LORD over ALL and this lordship was sealed by way of the Cross (Phil 2:5-11). This is one way Jesus died for “all” in a general way.

Second, you assert the misuse of the word for. Indeed, some do misuse it to their own shame, however the way you assert it is not necessarily the way I, the author of the original quote in question, meant it—which you have already acknowledged.

Joined to this though you made the assertion that: But my objection has always been in the "language" used in this thread,.. and But I think it is essential that we protect the biblical terminology used in regard to Christ's atonement, and then you assert, There may be crumbs which fall from the master's table… RonD asserts, Sure, God knew that crumbs would fall from the table but this is a bi-product of the atonement and not some teleological end.

What is profound here is on the one hand you assert that you are “protecting the biblical terminology” and you then distort the actual scripture itself? May we call this crumby exegesis rolleyes2 This Gentile woman exhibited saving faith. Saving grace is being exhibited here not mere common grace (please note the references to LORD and Master in the text; Matt 15:27, Mark 7:26, etc.). This is not some mere “bi-product of the atonement!” What is happening here is the woman reveals a tenacious faith even as a Gentile (v. 28). Jesus explicitly commends this faith. While Jesus may have granted common grace to a “Christian” in the healing of her daughter, the crumbs refer to the saving faith of this Gentile woman… May all of us Gentiles eat of these crumbs which are not the mere “common grace” that you asserted! Read the Baker N.T. Commentary for a complete exegesis.

Lastly, “common grace” may not be looked at as distinct from the Cross. This is yet another way Christ died for the non-elect. Murray made this exceptionally clear saying in Redemption Accomplished and Applied,

The unbelieving and reprobate in this world enjoy numerous benefits that flow from the fact that Christ died and rose again. The mediatorial dominion of Christ is universal. Christ is head over all things and is given all authority in heaven and earth. It is within the mediatorial dominion that all the blessings which men enjoy are dispensed. But this dominion Christ exercises on the basis and as the reward of his finished work of redemption... (Phil 2:8-9). Consequentially, since all benefits and blessings are within the realm of Christ's dominion and since this dominion rests upon his finished work of atonement, the benefits innumerable which are enjoyed by all men indiscriminately are related to the death of Christ and may be said to accrue from it in one way or another. If they flow thus flow from the death they were intended thus to flow. It is proper, therefore, to say that the enjoyment of certain benefits, even by the non-elect and reprobate, falls within the design of the death of Christ.
In denying Christ died for all men in a “general way” you do away with the actual fact of the source of “common grace.” If common grace is not sourced at Calvary pray tell where is its source, etc.?

All of you have a Merry Christmas—we are off to see relatives and thus will be unavailable to defend this post further, but hopefully the light will turn on for someone… hello

Reformed and Always Reforming,