I listened to that broadcast and I did not hear anything that was contrary to the LCMS statement of faith (Book of Concord, 1580). Lutherans most certainly uphold unconditional election and gracious perseverence (not once saved always saved). Lutherans reject double predestination and limited atonement (insufficiency) but I did not hear those doctrines being taught in the broadcast.
Two questions,
1) How was the atonement insufficient?
2) What else does Scripture teach besides specific atonement?
I read an article on The Highway that taught that the atonement was sufficient only for the elect (specific atonement?) and, thus, insufficient for the non-elect. I believe that the atonement is supersufficient to cover all sins of all sinners. In fact, in the mediatorial union, the atonement is infinitely sufficient to cover infinite offense against a Holy God.
I noticed two problems with your answer. First, no scripture. Second, no purpose. When you speak of sufficiency we must ask what was the purpose of the atonement. It was sufficient to achieve it's purpose.
Sufficient SUFFI'CIENT, a. [L. sufficiens.] Enough; equal to the end proposed; adequate to wants; competent; as provision sufficient for the family; water sufficient for the voyage; an army sufficient to defend the country. 1. Qualified; competent; possessing adequate talents or accomplishments; as a man sufficient for an office. 2. Fit; able; of competent power or ability.
I believe it was sufficient to save the elect, that being the purpose of Christ's death; a vicarious sacrifice. Scripture upholds this view.
As averagefellar said rightly, one must consider the "purpose" (design) of the atonement; i.e., whether it was to atone for all the sins of all men, or it was to atone for all the sins of the elect. As to the "sufficiency" of the atonement, we must distinguish between the inherent sufficiency (quality) of it, in that IF it had been designed to atone for all men, then it would have. In other words, the atonement was infinitely sufficient in and of itself. However, its design/purpose was to atone only for the elect. So, it was sufficient to accomplish its intended purpose. However, it was not sufficient in that it actually atoned for all the sins of all men indiscriminately.
The key here is in the nature of the atonement; i.e., it was vicarious and substitutionary. Thus whoever's sins it was intended to atone for, it succeeded in doing so. In other words, the atonement accomplished exactly what it was intended to do; to reconcile, propitiate, pay the ransom and to be a perfect sacrifice. Therefore it is limited only in its efficiency; to secure the redemption of the elect. Otherwise, it would be limited in its sufficiency; i.e., it would not have accomplished redemption but rather it would have only made redemption possible . . . when something else was added to it.
That's my understanding of the arminian/pelagian/wesleyan position of the atonement.......it was sufficient for salvability for all but inefficient for actual salvation for any. This denies a vicarious sacrifice.
But, what about humans who die and go to Hell? Is God punishing their sin twice? If Christ paid for it, how can they suffer for it again?
Are sinners able to pay off their sins by suffering in hell?
averagefellar,
Quote
I noticed two problems with your answer. First, no scripture. Second, no purpose.
John 1:29; 3:16,17; 4:42; 6:42; 12:47
pilgrim,
Quote
As to the "sufficiency" of the atonement, we must distinguish between the inherent sufficiency (quality) of it, in that IF it had been designed to atone for all men, then it would have.
Why do you believe that it didn't? Men are in hell, not because their sins were not atoned for, but because the atonement of Christ has not been imputed to them.
Quote
In other words, the atonement accomplished exactly what it was intended to do; to reconcile, propitiate, pay the ransom and to be a perfect sacrifice.
The atonement did accomplish all that. It would not be a perfect sacrifice if it were not sufficient for all.
Quote
Therefore it is limited only in its efficiency; to secure the redemption of the elect. Otherwise, it would be limited in its sufficiency; i.e., it would not have accomplished redemption but rather it would have only made redemption possible . . . when something else was added to it.
Something else is added. The Holy Spirit works faith in the elect. But that does not mean that the atonement is not perfect and sufficient for all.
Quote
Were you referring to Jim Ellis' article here: Sufficient for All?
How about some meaningful exegesis? I believe that KOSMOS has several contextual meanings. It is different even among those proof texts you offered.
Quote
Joh 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. (KJV)
Allow me to ask, "if Christ has atoned for ALL sins, for ALL mankind, by what sin are men yet convicted?"
Quote
Joh 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. (KJV)
Joh 4:42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world. (KJV)
Robertson's Word Pictures The Saviour of the world. (See Mat_1:21 for s"sei used of Jesus by the angel Gabriel. John applies the term swthr to Jesus again in 1Jo_4:14. Jesus had said to the woman that salvation is of the Jews (verse Joh_4:22). He clearly told the Samaritans during these two days that he was the Messiah as he had done to the woman (verse Joh_4:26) and explained that to mean Saviour of Samaritans as well as Jews. Sanday thinks that probably John puts this epithet of Saviour in the mouth of the Samaritans, but adds: "At the same time it is possible that such an epithet might be employed by them merely as synonymous with Messiah." But why "merely"? Was it not natural for these Samaritans who took Jesus as their "Saviour," Jew as he was, to enlarge the idea to the whole world? Bernard has this amazing statement on Joh_4:42: "That in the first century Messiah was given the title s"tˆr is not proven." The use of "saviour and god" for Ptolemy in the third century B.C. is well known. "The ample materials collected by Magie show that the full title of honour, Saviour of the world, with which St. John adorns the Master, was bestowed with sundry variations in the Greek expression on Julius Caesar, Augustus, Claudius, Vespasian, Titus, Trajan, Hadrian, and other Emperors in inscriptions in the Hellenistic East" (Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 364). Perhaps Bernard means that the Jews did not call Messiah Saviour. But what of it? The Romans so termed their emperors and the New Testament so calls Christ (Luk_2:11; Joh_4:42; Act_5:31; Act_3:23; Phi_3:20; Eph_5:23; Tit_1:4; Tit_2:13; Tit_3:6; 2Ti_1:10; 2Pe_1:1, 2Pe_1:11; 2Pe_2:20; 2Pe_3:2, 2Pe_3:18). All these are writings of the first century A.D. The Samaritan villagers rise to the conception that he was the Saviour of the world.
Emphasis mine
Clearly this is a meaning you did not employ.
Quote
Joh 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? (KJV)
You'll need to explain this one, please.
Quote
Joh 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. (KJV)
Your interpretation makes Christ a failure. If it was His intention to save the world, He has failed. If you mean to make salvable, you deny a vicarious sacrifice.
To which I may add this dilemma to our Universalists:
God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for,
1. either all the sins of all men, 2. or all the sins of some men, 3. or some sins of all men.
If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved; for if God entered into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight: “If the LORD should mark iniquities, who should stand?” Ps. cxxx. 2. We might all go to cast all that we have “to the moles and to the bats, to go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty,” Isa. ii. 20, 21.
If the Second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room Suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world.
If the first, why then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins?
You will say, “Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.”
But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not?
If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not.
If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death?
If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins. Let them choose which part they will.
Quote
Let it not be thought that the Arminian by his doctrine escapes limited atonement. The truth is that he professes a despicable doctrine of limited atonement. He professes an atonement that is tragically limited in its efficacy and power, an atonement that does not secure the salvation of any. He indeed eliminates from the atonement that which makes it supremely precious to the Christian heart. In B. B. Warfield’s words, ‘the substance of the atonement is evaporated, that it may be given a universal reference’. What we mean is, that unless we resort to the position of universal restoration for all mankind--a position against which the witness of Scripture is decisive--an interpretation of the atonement in universal terms must nullify its properly substitutive and redemptive character. We must take our choice between a limited extent and a limited efficacy, or rather between a limited atonement and an atonement without efficacy. It either infallibly saves the elect or it actually saves none." (Murray, The Reformed Faith and Modern Substitutes, in The Presbyterian Guardian, 1935).
Which is it, speratus.......do you deny universalism or the vicarious nature of Christs death?
Once again, you offered nothing more than contradictory double talk. After reading everything you have posted on this Board, I must assume at this point that you are not one who is able to think logically nor biblically, IMHO. You are certainly entitled to your views, but some of them certainly don't harmonize with God's Word. Whether it is even prudent to reply to your answers I am not sure. But I'll briefly comment on the most important ones which display serious error, both in logic and in their contradiction of Scripture.
Quote
Pilgrim wrote: As to the "sufficiency" of the atonement, we must distinguish between the inherent sufficiency (quality) of it, in that IF it had been designed to atone for all men, then it would have.
Why do you believe that it didn't ? Men are in hell, not because their sins were not atoned for, but because the atonement of Christ has not been imputed to them.
I believe it didn't because Scripture states specifically that Christ came for His sheep; that He came to save His people from their sins; that He gave His life for all those whom the Father gave Him; etc... Secondly, the atonement was offered as a sacrifice to satisfy that which was owed God, which I clearly laid out in the biblical terms used in regard to the atonement:
Since these four areas which were in need of fulfillment were indeed accomplished by the Lord Christ, then God was and is 100% satisfied. Further, since the death of Christ was vicarious and substitutionary then those for whom He gave Himself cannot be liable to judgment, since their judgment was laid upon Christ. There simply is no legal grounds for God to condemn anyone for whom Christ died. Henry brought this issue to your attention as well.
Men are in hell because, 1) they are sinners by nature, having inherited the guilt of Adam's transgression (Original Sin), and 2) they have personally committed sins against God. It is inconceivable that had Christ atoned (been punished) for those who are in hell and all who will be cast into hell, that God could legally condemn them, since their sins would have been atoned for. If the debt is paid, it is paid. The debtor is released from the bond once owed. To believe that God would punish someone for whom everything has been legally satisfied is both insulting to Christ, and to introduce contradiction within the Godhead, and to God's character; making Him guilty of injustice.
Quote
Pilgrim wrote: Therefore it is limited only in its efficiency; to secure the redemption of the elect. Otherwise, it would be limited in its sufficiency; i.e., it would not have accomplished redemption but rather it would have only made redemption possible . . . when something else was added to it.
Something else is added. The Holy Spirit works faith in the elect. But that does not mean that the atonement is not perfect and sufficient for all.
So, Christ's atonement was totally sufficient, but it is also insufficient because faith is needed to make it sufficient? Did it ever occur to you that EVERYTHING that is needed for a sinner to be saved is found in Christ Jesus and in His vicarious substitutionary atonement? I say EVERYTHING necessary for a sinner to be saved was secured by the Lord Christ; regeneration, repentance, faith, justification, sanctification and glorification. Thus there is nothing that can prevent any for whom Christ died from being saved.... NOTHING! For once again, His death secured redemption for those whom the Father gave Him, who had been predestinated from eternity by God's immutable decree. The three persons of the Godhead are in perfect agreement and harmony in all things. And, it is no less true in regard to salvation. The Father elects/predestinates specific individuals to salvation; the Son atones for those whom the Father has elected/predestinated; and the Holy Spirit applies the merits of the Son's atonement to those whom the Father has elected/predestinated, that being calling, regenerating, sanctifying, preserving and glorifying them.
Faith does not save. For it is by grace that ye are saved through faith; i.e., faith is only the means by which a sinner apprehends that which actually saves; the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ and Him alone. Thus "Solus Christus"......... not Christ + faith, aka: semi-Pelagian/Arminian . . . synergism!
How about some meaningful exegesis? I believe that KOSMOS has several contextual meanings. It is different even among those proof texts you offered.
OK, let's consider John 3:16. The Adam's fall affected more than just mankind. The outer nature associated with the created universe was also totally corrupted by original sin. God could have destroyed all of His creation. But God continued to love the world whose underlying substance remained perfect. Instead, God gave His Son to save the created world corrupted by sin. And God ordained that,by the purchase of His Son, whosoever, of Adam's race, believes would receive eternal life.
Quote
Allow me to ask, "if Christ has atoned for ALL sins, for ALL mankind, by what sin are men yet convicted?
Sin not imputed to Christ. Romans 4:24.
Quote
You'll need to explain this one, please.
typo, John 6:51, I think.
Quote
Your interpretation makes Christ a failure. If it was His intention to save the world, He has failed. If you mean to make salvable, you deny a vicarious sacrifice.
No, He saved the world by taking away the sins of the world. The atonement is a finished work whether the righteousness of Christ is ever imputed to the individual sinner or not.
Quote
Which is it, speratus.......do you deny universalism or the vicarious nature of Christs death?
I deny universalism. Three things are necessary for man's justification before God: The mercy of God (election), the grace of Christ (vicarious atonement), and faith given by the Holy Spirit (righteousness of Christ imputed to the sinner).
OK, let's consider John 3:16. The Adam's fall affected more than just mankind. The outer nature associated with the created universe was also totally corrupted by original sin. God could have destroyed all of His creation. But God continued to love the world whose underlying substance remained perfect. Instead, God gave His Son to save the created world corrupted by sin. And God ordained that,by the purchase of His Son, whosoever, of Adam's race, believes would receive eternal life.
Let me pull a sentence out.......
Quote
Instead, God gave His Son to save the created world corrupted by sin.
Then why is the whole world not saved?
Then you say.......
Quote
And God ordained that,by the purchase of His Son, whosoever, of Adam's race, believes would receive eternal life.
Wait. Your prior sentence said God sent Christ to save the "created world". But the above quote says "whosoever, of Adam's race, believes would receive eternal life". Which is it? Is the entire world saved or only those who believe?
Quote
Joh 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. (KJV)
John Gill which I will give for the life of the world; and which he did by the offering up of his body, and making his soul, or giving himself an offering, a propitiatory sacrifice for sin; which was done in the most free and voluntary manner, in the room and stead of his people, to procure eternal life for them, even for the whole world of his elect; whether among Jews or Gentiles; particularly the latter are here meant, in opposition to a notion of the Jews, that the world, or the Gentiles, would receive no benefit by the Messiah when he came; See Gill on Joh_3:16.
Again, I think you misuse KOSMOS.
Quote
No, He saved the world by taking away the sins of the world.
I'll ask once more, as others have also asked without answer.......
If Christ died for ALL sins of ALL people, by what sin are men yet condemned? Please answer this time.
averagefellar said: I'll ask once more, as others have also asked without answer.......
If Christ died for ALL sins of ALL people, by what sin are men yet condemned? Please answer this time.
William,
He did answer that question here: Previous reply and said,
Sin not imputed to Christ. Romans 4:24.
Our Lutheran friend consistently fails to distinguish between what Christ accomplished in the "Covenant of Redemption" and the merits of that atonement which are applied. (speratus: see the book, Redemption Accomplished and Applied by John Murray). As I have laboured to explain and show previously, the atonement is first an act which was performed to satisfy the justice of God, removing all aspects of the wrath and condemnation which rested upon man. Here, ALL was fulfilled and thus God no longer was at enmity with those for whom Christ died. Secondly, it is true, that Christ's sacrificial substitutionary death cannot save in and of itself; i.e., the benefits of that death must be applied individually to sinners in order that they may be saved. To accomplish that end, the means by which depraved sinners are joined to Christ, thus partaking of those benefits is the bestowal of a new nature from which faith flows which results in justification, sanctification, preservation/perseverance and ultimately, glorification.
The issue here, as most of us realize, is if the Son has fulfilled all the demands of the law, then God cannot prosecute those for whom that sacrifice was made. And so, if Christ atoned for ALL the sins of ALL men, then God is under obligation to save ALL men. There simply is no way around it. Either God must accept the Son's sacrifice and all that it accomplished or He must ignore it and be guilty of requiring satisfaction a second time, of which no man can provide, from sinners themselves.
An analogy might be seen where every individual is found to owe an infinite debt which no one could conceivably pay. But someone comes along and pays that debt in full for each and every one of those individuals, thus the one to whom the debt was owed can no longer hold anyone accountable to pay for the debt, since it has been paid. But according to speratus' view, the one who holds the bond not only accepts the payment of debt, he continues to hold many of the debtors accountable for payment. And they, unable to pay the debt are hauled into court and found delinquent in their failure to pay and are consequently thrown into prison. Thus the owner of the debt is therefore guilty of breach of contract. He received that was owed, but continues to demand payment of those whose debt has already been paid.
Adding the element of "faith" to the mix doesn't negate the "breach of contract" on God's part for not releasing ALL from their responsibility to pay the debt, since the contract was already fulfilled by another. The Scripture's teaching is that not only did Christ pay the debt, He also secured the infallible means by which the ones for whom the debt was paid will receive their release of obligation.
An analogy might be seen where every individual is found to owe an infinite debt which no one could conceivably pay. But someone comes along and pays that debt in full for each and every one of those individuals, thus the one to whom the debt was owed can no longer hold anyone accountable to pay for the debt, since it has been paid. But according to speratus' view, the one who holds the bond not only accepts the payment of debt, he continues to hold many of the debtors accountable for payment. And they, unable to pay the debt are hauled into court and found delinquent in their failure to pay and are consequently thrown into prison. Thus the owner of the debt is therefore guilty of breach of contract. He received that was owed, but continues to demand payment of those whose debt has already been paid.
But the unregenerate sinner does want Christ to pay his debt for him from the infinite treasury of His merit. Instead, he presents to the Judge his own works and merit in payment for the debt.
But the unregenerate sinner does want Christ to pay his debt for him from the infinite treasury of His merit. Instead, he presents to the Judge his own works and merit in payment for the debt.
I'm not sure how this negates specific atonement. However, if Christ paid for ALL sins of ALL people, said sinner would still have his debt paid. That being established, by what sin would this sinner still be condemned?
speratus said: But the unregenerate sinner does want Christ to pay his debt for him from the infinite treasury of His merit. Instead, he presents to the Judge his own works and merit in payment for the debt.
<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hairout.gif" alt="" /> The fact that unregenerate sinners want nothing to do with God nor have the ability to do so isn't relevant. What IS relevant is that the demands of God were totally satisfied; all the legal requirements, etc., were met in full by the Lord Christ (the incarnate Son of God). Thus any and all debt which the elect were held accountable for was paid. (Col 2:14; cf. Ps 103:12; Is 43:25; ) In short, the debt was paid in full and thus the account was and is closed. The Father has been satisfied. There is thus no obligation on those for whom Christ died to make good on the debt, for it doesn't exist.
The atonement of Christ was a FULL atonement, i.e., it not only satisfied all the demands of the law (passive obedience), but it also provides the perfect righteousness needed (active obedience). But that isn't all..... Christ's death also secured the the means by which those whom the Father gave Him to die for would apprehend the benefits of His death. Thus the sending of the Holy Spirit Who would apply the benefits to them, and create the means to that end, e.g., regeneration, the giving of repentance and faith, love for God and Christ, a hunger for the Word, a desire for holiness and perseverance in trials, etc. The Lord Christ's atonement was a full package; it satisfied all that was an offense to God, paid the debt in full, suffered the punishment due, provided a perfect righteousness needed, and guaranteed the means by which all that was accomplished by way of substitution would be apprehended by lost and helpless sinners; those for whom the Father gave Him, the elect.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
Did it ever occur to you that EVERYTHING that is needed for a sinner to be saved is found in Christ Jesus and in His vicarious substitutionary atonement? I say EVERYTHING necessary for a sinner to be saved was secured by the Lord Christ; regeneration, repentance, faith, justification, sanctification and glorification. Thus there is nothing that can prevent any for whom Christ died from being saved.... NOTHING! For once again, His death secured redemption for those whom the Father gave Him, who had been predestinated from eternity by God's immutable decree. The three persons of the Godhead are in perfect agreement and harmony in all things. And, it is no less true in regard to salvation. The Father elects/predestinates specific individuals to salvation; the Son atones for those whom the Father has elected/predestinated; and the Holy Spirit applies the merits of the Son's atonement to those whom the Father has elected/predestinated, that being calling, regenerating, sanctifying, preserving and glorifying them.
