The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum "Christ died in a general way for all."?

J Edwards said
"Christ died in a general way for all. There are benefits for both believers and non-believers. There is common grace applied to all in the Crucifixion. A good example of this is the preaching of the Word of God (the Gospel, the death, burial, and resurrection) to the unsaved. The mere fact they even hear it is common grace, et. al....."

I am not sure if I agree with this statement. Im not sure if I would ever say "Christ died for all." I was taught that all my life, but totally disagree. I know you did not mean it in a soteriological way yet it seems that is the only way it can be meant. I agree that there is a common grace in preaching the gospel but that in no way means his death was "in a general way" for them. I remember the first time I heard someone, who was reformed, say Christ died for all was in an article by charles hodge called "whom Christ died."
I would be interested in the scripture used for this belief.
I am interested in others opinions. Thanks

What Edwards, I believe, was referring to was indeed "Common Grace." Here are some links that you may find edifying:

http://www.mbrem.com/calvinism/commongrace.htm

http://www.ldolphin.org/common.html

http://www.sounddoctrine.net/LIBRARY/Modern%20Day%20Reform%20Teaching/John%20Murray/Common_Grace.htm

http://www.bibleteacher.org/cg.htm

Thanks Ted. But I am aware that he was talking about common grace. And I also believe in common grace(Matt 5:45).
I am not sure we can apply this to the cross though. My question is, how did Christ die for every individual, even if it was in a general way.

Ted, the articles you posted on common grace do not answer or bring up my question. I read them and basically agree with all of them.

does anyone know where it says Christ died in a general way for all?

Without getting into allot of detail did Christ die for You? If yes, have your ethics changed to glorify God? If yes again, are they affecting "all" you come in contact with. If yes, then Christ died for "all" in a general way. We could ask further if the Gospel is heard by both the elect and non-elect, if yes, then Christ died for all at least in a general way, etc. When Christ died/rose again He secured the ONLY way of salvation. Thus, the non-elect have no other way to God--thus, Christ died for all, etc.

J_Edward

I agree with what you have written, but usually when someone says that Christ died for all in a general way, they use a verse like John 3:16 to back it up.

If I understand you correctly this is not the aspect you are talking about. John 3:16 as far as I can tell, is talking about an effectual kind of love that leads to salvation. So, I don't think John 3:16 can legitimately be used to support that argument.

Tom

Tom, I don't recall using John 3:16 as a defense of what I stated, but Christ still died for all in a general way.... Common grace is a theme both in the O.T. and the N.T. Do you or anyone else have any biblical defenses against Christ dieing for all men in a general way?

Joe,

I understand what you are trying to set forth, i.e., that from the atonement which Christ accomplished for "His own", there are residual benefits which flow from those to whom the benefits belong to the rest of mankind. However, I have to say that the phraseology is one that I think brings unnecessary confusion, if for no other reason than that the majority of churches hold to a universal atonement and use that same phrase to describe their heretical doctrine. I personally prefer to speak of common grace as being distinct from the atonement to avoid any possible misunderstanding of that blessed doctrine of Particular Redemption.

In His Grace,

Well so much for attempting to be brief, Common Grace is not the only issue as I alluded to earlier, but it still flows from the Cross (see Murray below) and thus IMO 'common grace cannot be looked at as being distinct from the atonement.' Another problem is that some individuals only look at the "positive aspects" of the term "general." Looking at the negative aspects, Christ did accomplish "something" for the non-elect on the Cross, and thus, ... Though the non-elect are "already condemned" (John 3:18) Christ sealed their judgment in His death/resurrection. He is LORD of ALL. EVERY knee will bow and the list goes on. Thus, Christ did die in a general way for ALL... For the elect He accomplished their salvation and for the non-elect He sealed their judgment. If we remove the fact that Christ did die to seal the judgment of the non-elect we remove a very valuable part of the Gospel IMO. Additionally, IMO it is difficult to separate common grace from the Cross, as Christ is LORD of all including common grace, etc.

As Murray states 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.

I agree with what pilgrim said but i admit i did not look at the "negative" things it accomplished for the non-elect.

Joe

I never said you did use John 3:16. I said that usually when I hear someone say that.
I also qualified what I was saying by telling you that I agreed with the way you said it.

Tom

Please consider the following passages of Scripture:

Romans 11:32 (NASB)
"For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all."

1 Corinthians 15:22 (NASB)
"For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive."

2 Corinthians 5:14-15 (NASB)
"For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf."

2 Thessalonians 3:18 (NASB)
"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all."

1 Timothy 2:5-6
"For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time."

Ted, thanks for the scripture. I would encourage you to look at all of those verses in context and in light of what all other scripture reveals. I would say that all of the scripture given, in context, does not affirm Christs death for all(every individual). I would love to see you exegete any one of them.

JE,

I would argue that all things work to the bad for those who hate God and are not called according to his purpose. These so called "blessings" are curses. God is good to the reprobate but since his goodness will accuse the reprobate on the last day, I see the goodness of God as curses for the reprobate.

Blessings,

Ron

I agree that there are covenant curses and blessings. The reprobate are cursed.

This is a cute one except that the reprobate IMO are called according to His purpose:

This is to equivocate over the word "purpose". The verse I referenced has to do with the purpose of blessing and glory. Moreover, in the context of this discussion, reprobates do not receive blessings or grace, just goodness. There is a difference that is profound. I'm delighted to see that you agree that God in his wisdom has ordained the reprobate to his final end.

Blessings,

Ron

Longsuffering is what I call it. While I think the reprobate receive benefits from God and the elect, they do so to their own destruction.


God bless,

william

Do you agree that reprobates receive common grace or are you using the term goodness instead of common grace (I prefer Murray on Common Grace, but...)? In addition, the reprobates are called to/for a purpose, and I do not think this should be lost in our evaluation of the matter at hand.

I don't particularly care for the term "common grace" in the context of reprobation, if for no other reason I don't think that God's favor rests upon reprobates. Yes indeedy!, God has a purpose for the reprobate, which is to his glory and the good of the elect.

Kindly,

Ron

OH, I do not think God's favor rests on them either. My understanding of Common Grace is more like the common earthly gifts (rain, wealth, etc.) that God gives the ungodly, not a favorable attitude of God toward them. Common grace is 'favors', not favor. God's attitude toward the reprobate is hatred (Psa 5:5). However as Murray states, "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."

Soli, in the words of Louis Gossett, Jr.'s character in the movie, An Officer and a Gentleman, "Where ya' been all your life? Listenin' to rock 'n roll music and bad mouthin' yer country?"

Get out yer spectacles (that's "glasses" for you young folks!) an' follow along wit' me:

In the 2Corinthians 5 verses, the Apostle is 'splainin' 'bout Christ's love for "all," having died (on the cross) for "all" "on their behalf." Now, you and I, bein' Calvinists, KNOW that the Apostle weren't talkin' 'bout some weak-kneed "offer" to all. And we know that the Apostle wasn't talkin' 'bout Jesus savin' EVERYONE, so . . . . . the Apostle MUST be talkin' about something -- in a general way -- that's come to "all" as a result of Christ's death on the cross. "Common grace," as you most graciously agreed with my earlier post!



Ditto for the 1Timothy 2 passage of scripture.

Furthermore, may I add another passage of Holy Scripture to the mix? Ephesians 4:7. Let's look at it in context . . . .

Ephesians 4:1-7 (ESV):
¹I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, ²with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, ³eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. ⁴There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call-- ⁵one Lord, one faith, one baptism, ⁶one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. ⁷But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ's gift. ⁸Therefore it says, "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men."

"Grace," my boy or -- if I may so boldly "exegete" -- "Common grace," was "given to each of us" through "Christ's gift" on the cross. Amen? (I say it for you, "Amen!")

Jestfully, yet respectfully, submitted with Christ's love (and seeking YOUR grace!),
Ted

Thanks Ted!
Its good to see we agree that these verses do not teach a general redemption. But I am not so sure they are talking about "common grace."
In 1 cor 5:14-15 the "all" is not referring to all mankind in a general way but all his people or sheep.

And like the 1599 Geneva Study bible says

The gifts given are to Christs body or the church.

I don't think so, Ted! To iterate my position, I do NOT think that it is proper to speak of Christ dying for all, due to the fact that in most every instance where the word for is used in the context of redemption, specifically in reference to the atonement, it has the connotation of "in behalf of", i.e., substitution. Scripture simply won't allow me to speak, therefore, of Christ's death having been for (in behalf of) all, i.e., in any way. Yes, there are residual benefits that flow from those who are recipients of that atonement, but there are none that come directly from it to the non-elect, IMHO. I think Ron made this point also.

Okay.... now on to the text of 2Cor 5:15:

2 Corinthians 5:14-15 (ASV) "For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that one died for all, therefore all died; and he died for all, that they that live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto him who for their sakes died and rose again."

First, the context of this passage is rightly seen in its overall context which is that Paul is not speaking of a relationship of Christ to all men but of Christ's relationship to His Church. Secondly, I would establish that the death of Christ, as described here, is undeniably one of "substitution" and not one merely of which expresses the love of God or any other such notion. The result of "one died" is that "all died"; because "A", therefore "B". There is a direct relationship between Christ's death and the "all died". Can it be said that those "all" (all without exception) for whom Christ died also died? Thirdly, there is also included a purpose in Christ's death which is that those for whom He died should no longer live unto themselves but unto Him. So likewise, can it be said that those for whom Christ died (all without exception) no longer live unto themselves but unto Him?

If one wishes to submit that the "all" used in this passage is indeed referring to every man, woman and child without exception, then one is forced to embrace Universalism; all men inclusively are saved. On the other hand, if one wishes to make the "for" to mean something other than substitutionary, then one is forced to embrace some form of synergism. In this case, Christ's death didn't actually secure anything other than the possibility of one being saved if they will do xxxxx.

Conclusion, the "all" in this passage is referring to the elect of God; the believers or those who will come to faith, in Christ. The atonement of Christ is not being dealt with in some general terms, but specifically with the end result that it brought about the death of all those for whom it was intended (efficient) and a new life which is focused upon living for the LORD Jesus Christ and not as it was beforehand; self-centered.

In His Grace,

I think we agree over our theology. I just don't think that "grace" is the happiest of terms.

Ron

Well said Pilgrim!

Please forgive me for misusing the 2Corinthians 5 passages to support "common grace."

As for what Jonathan Edwards wrote regarding "Christ died in a general way for all," I STILL think that he was referring to "common grace."

John Murray wrote:

Louis Berkoff wrote:

To emphasize, ". . . important natural benefits accrue to the whole human race from the death of Christ, and that in these benefits the unbelieving, the impenitent, and the reprobate also share. In every covenant transaction recorded in Scripture it appears that the covenant of grace carries with it not only spiritual but also material blessings, and those material blessings are generally of such a kind that they are naturally shared also by unbelievers."

Ted,

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.

In His Grace,

Pilgrim,

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,

Ron

Ron,

Thanks for the affirmation. Perhaps I can make my view even clearer by simply saying that when Christ hung on the cross, the names of all whom the Father gave Him and for whom he suffered were impressed upon His mind, heart and soul and none other. It was for them whom He came, it was for them that He lived a perfectly righteous life, it was for them that He suffered with agony beyond the ability of any human to comprehend and it was for them and to them that He sent His Spirit to apply all that He merited for them.

In His grace..... and a Blessed Christmas to you and your house as well!

Ron,

Very well said, and, no, I don't think Pilgrim is being picky either.

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased!

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 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,

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…

Amen and amen.

BTW, our church switched to the ESV and it says "pleased". I prefer "on whom his favor rests". "Pleased" seems to connote a quid pro quo, whereas "favor" seems more in line with unconditional election. Thoughts?

Christmas Blessings!

Ron

One aspect of the Cross is that it abated for a time God's judgement upon sin ( I cannot remember who said that, but it does make some sense).

For this reason-- the reprobate do enjoy a 'charisma', a 'gift' from what Christ accomplished on the Cross.

Christ died for God and God was satisfied with Christ's sacrifice.

The general call to repent and believe is made to all, yet only those who are Gods elect will respond. And if I expound on that theme, it will take us off track..

However scripture does show where God bestows grace ( using 'grace' loosely, in the sense of a 'gift'):

that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. (MAtt 5:45 NKJV)

So scripturally, we can see God bestowing common gifts enjoyed by both the regenrate and the unregenrate.. by the vessels of his glory, and the intstruments of his wrath, and bestowing it upon them collectively.

The original question though was; IS the work of the cross, a common gift for all to enjoy? The answer is no.

Only those who have been saved, who have been called, who have been redeemed will recieve any anjoyment from the work of Christ ( mans Chief end is to glorify God and ENJOY Him forever).. the work of the cross is foolishness to them that perish..

Pilgrim outside of the Holy City, sees the sign above the Celestial City gate "All ye who would enter in"-- as he crosses over the threshold, he looks back at the gate and the sign above it now reads: "many are called, but few are chosen"

( I may have misquoted Bunyon.. its late-- almost 3:00 am here, so If I did: MEA CULPA)

I probably didn't add anything to this thread-- perhaps I just felt a need to 'pontificate'. who knows.

Might I belabor the point one more time to possibly show where the regenerate and reprobate enjoy common grace from what Christ accomplished on the cross...? I realize that this might be a reversal from my previous post-- but upon further reflection, I need to make this retraction.

Zech 3:9
'For behold, the stone that I have set before Joshua; on one stone are seven eyes. Behold, I will engrave an inscription on it,' declares the LORD of hosts, 'and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day'

Isa 9:7
There will be no end to the increase of {His} government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness From then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this.

It appears that Christ coming and accomplishing what he did for us had some effects ( i.e. the lands sin-- is this the physical earth, or the region-- had its sin removed in one day.---- Of the increase of his Government.. even the reprobate are citizens of his Kingdom, and of his government. SO the benefits that fall to us from that moment on the cross, seem to be spilling over to them as well. )

Also -- just an idea.. and I could be off base, but again I am still reflecting on this-- it just occurred to me.

As Covenant theology believers--we believe the promise extends to us and our immiediate family members. IN fact, if our spouse is not a believer, they and our children are considered 'Holy' before the Lord.. Is not this also a form of 'common grace' which they share?

I also realize that even though they be viewed as Holy before the Lord, we still believe they need to come to a saving knowledge of the truth, or else sadly they too will perish, but while they are alive, they enjoy a benefit of what Christ did on the cross-- that work was for the elect-- but it seems to me that scripturally I have found enough scriptural references to 'begin' to say that: "the un-regenerated man enojoys some common benefit, and some common grace because of what Christ did for his Elect".

For someone who has been un-formally trained-- its just my 2 copper pennies worth is all.

To all,

It is amazing how reason and logic can run so afoul of scripture.
Common Grace has nothing in the least to do with the Cross of Christ's work on the Cross. The moment creation came into existance, common grace came into effect. It is what upholds this universe. We live and move and have our being from God. If He would at any moment remove Grace, we would die, strivel and return to the void, not just dust, but the void of precreation.

Regarding the "all" that for some of you means "all" for some it means a particular 'all".
Scripturally, in speaking about salvation one must align it with what we are being saved from.
Christ's work was to overcome the fall of Adam.
The Scriptures, is quite clear, that this is in fact, what He accomplished. If all men received the judgement of Adam, Death, then Christ must restore that fallen condition. If Adam was universal in its effect, then Christ's work must also be universal in its effect.
The universe itself suffered the effects of Death, so therefore the uinverse is also redeemed.
That is precisely what Scripture affirms clearly with the following:
II Cor 5:14-19; Col 1:15-20; Eph 1:10, John 5:28-29; Rom 5:14-19; I Cor 15:20-22; John 12:32.

Christ's work on the Cross is a universal redemption. Someone stated that it cannot be universal because we know that not all are saved. This is a result of an incorrect supposition being put on scripture to prove something else. The salvation of man, individually, is clearly not universal. The universal redemption of Christ provided the means whereby man could again enter into a union with God. A union that Adam had before the fall. Again, the two must align or you will be buried in confusion. All of mankind was saved from DEATH. The texts above clearly point this out. Adam died, Christ gives LIFE. So much so, that all men will recieve immortality, eternal life. This is born out in Acts 24:15; as well as Acts 23:6, though not as clear. Also Rev 20:11-15.

I surely don't want to misunderstand what you are intending to say in this quote, so let me ask you directly: Are you positing that ALL (i.e., every man, woman and child that has, does and every will walk the face of this earth) are going to be saved? i.e., you deny the biblical doctrine of eternal punishment and hold to universal redemption?

In His Grace,

Pilgrim,


I thought that I quite clearly stated the difference as is done in scripture. The answer to your first question is, NO.
However, Christ's redemption is universal. The salvation of individual man is not. There is a vast difference. Unless of course, you believe that some men did not fall under the judgement of Adam.
That also, since you mentioned the doctrine of eternal punishment, would not be possible if only some are redeemed. Your understanding is that some are redeemed, thus only some are saved.
If that be true, then hell does not even exist. That was the whole purpose of Christ coming in the first place. To correct the fall and save His own creation from annhilation.

Scripture speaks of Christ “actually” accomplishing redemption for His “church,” for the “sheep”, etc. and not “goats” etc. It is limited in design, not power. If Christ accomplished the redemption of ALL mankind (without exception), none could ever be lost, as ALL sin (including that of “unbelief”) would already be forgiven….

Please read these articles on Limited Atonement for a more in-depth view of Scripture on the topic, as the view you are asserting has been condemned by the Church for centuries....

Respectfully, I am sure Pilgrim and others will reply to the rest of the errors in your post.

J Edwards,


You assert without any texts. What specific texts would refute the texts that I showed in an earlier post? Actually redemption was for the world, for the universe, the physical world as well, which mankind is a part of.

You believe none could be lost because you hold to a view that is not scriptural, that redemption of mankind is the same as the salvation of man. You would need show as well, based on the texts given already, that some men never died, never fell under the judgement of Adam in order to make them stand.

Also, Christ did not accomplish forgiveness of mankind. He provided atonement for mankind. Atonement is not, does not mean forgiveness. He removed the penalty of sins, so that those in Christ can be forgiven, thus not be condemned. He brought Life, overcame the fall.

Limited atonement is a calvinistic innovation. It is not the least scriptural. As far as history is concernced, you should get your facts straight. Universal redemption has never been condemned by the Church. What was condemned is Universal salvation of man. There is a vast difference.
Actually, what was not accepted as well is limited atonement amoung other things much later by Patriarch Jeremiah in the late 16th century.

The articles I gave you are full of Scripture. Scripture repeatedly qualifies those for whom Christ laid down His life in such a way as to point to a very definite limitation. Those for whom He suffered and died are variously called 'His sheep,' John 10:11, 15, 'His Church,' Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25-27, 'His people,' Matt. 1:21, and 'the elect,' Rom. 8:32-35.

Please offer some Scriptural support for your assertion??? Please “exegete” ONE Scripture (any ONE) that supports unlimited atonement???

I guess it needs to be determined what I meant by the phase “the” Church. (NOTE: I did not say “a” church like the RCC, or like that of the Arminians, but “the” Church, referring to one that believes in correct doctrine—i.e. not those apostate in doctrine.).

Hmmm…. did Patriarch Jeremiah live before Augustine? Of course, we could go back to the Apostle Paul who to my knowledge (1) taught Church doctrine (2) taught limited atonement (Rom 9).

Please give us (a) a dictionary or systematic theology reference, and (b) a definition to what you mean by (1) Universal redemption, and (2) Universal salvation??? TMU many use these terms as follows: Universal Redemption, meaning a bringing of Adam and his race back again to the probationary state in which Adam was when he sinned and Universal Salvation (perhaps first expounded by Origen) holds that all entities are subject to eventual salvation. Both are unbiblical.

J Edwards,


These are all referencing the purpose of the redemptive work of Christ. Again, one must go back to the beginning. The Creation and fall and result. Adam was created good, he was neither mortal nor immortal. He lived a life in communion with God. He was created in God's image in the Likeness of Him. Man in this Image is free, communal, and distinctive. God created man a free moral agent. One who could love and obey Him freely, without compulsion, force, or any other restriction. We also know that from the beginning we were predestined to be conformed to His Image. That is what Adam was in the process of doing when he sinned.
He sinned thus plunging man and the universe into death and corruption. The judgement against Adam was death. Death thus reigns for all mankind. We inherit this judgement. Adam also died instantly. Because he now exhibited the results of death, thus sin, the communion he had with God was also lost. There was nothing inherently wrong with His walk with God. It was that it was no longer possible. Man was now on a trek of annihilation. Physical death, is the separation of body and soul. Man was not created to be mortal but immortal. If man is dead, and no longer able to commune with God, his created purpose, upon his physical death, would be eternally separated from God. We know this as well from the fact that God evicted Adam from the Garden so that he did not have access to the Tree of Life which, if he partook of it now, would guarantee that annihilation. Eternally in a death state and void God's creation.

Christ was the answer as He had promised Adam right from the beginning. Christ would overcome the judgement of Adam for all of mankind. For the universe. It is all part of God's creation which fell under the judgement of Adam.

Christ overcame death so that mankind could be freed from the bondage of death and sin. The death of Adam was reversed, Christ brought Life to the universe. That was the primary work of Christ. This was done in order that God might once again have communion with man. The world was reconciled to God by Christ's victory on the Cross. He put the universe in a right relationship, He (God) justified the universe through through Christ's work.

So far we have spoken of redemption. Now man is able to again walk with God. God redeems mankind so that He is able to call ALL men to himself. Every man must answer to God's call. There is no passivity here. One must either accept Christ or reject Him. There is no gray area. When we accept Him by faith we enter into His Kingdom through baptism which is repentance and the forgiveness of sins. This forgiveness was made possible only because of Christ's atonement on the cross. A secondary gift for those who would accept Him. Sin was not eradicated, man's sinful nature was not done away with, we still live in a sinful environment, and thus to stay in communion, we must seek forgiveness of our sins. Sin still separates us from God as it did Adam. We chose whether we will love and obey willingly or reject Him freely. As long as we remain IN Christ there is no condemnation IN Christ. Those that believe not have already been condemned.
The rest of the NT is about remaining faithful, running the course, enduring to the end.
If we fail, we will fall under condemnation as well. The atonement removed the penalty of those sins, but only if we seek forgiveness.

No place in scripture will you find any limitation on the redemptive work of Christ. Never does it say that He came to save some of the lost. He came to save the lost. Does that mean only some or all? If some, then some are not lost. He also came to save sinners to repentance. For you there would of necessity be some who are not sinners.

He redeemed mankind so that all men could be called to repentance. It never says that some will be called to repentance. He also states that He desires that all be saved. For this reason He redeemed all men, otherwise God is lying to us for He really only came to save some and really only desires that some be saved.

God does not really love mankind. God is not really love. He loves only some and is willing to let the rest of His creation to become annihilated, including the physical universe. You then will have a problem with His second coming and the establishment of a New Heaven and New Earth. This one has already been redeemed, just needs purification.

I might also add this question? Do you believe in the Incarnation of Christ?

by scriptural definition, the Church is Christ. So I would assume that He believes in correct doctrine. However, that Church is ontological, is an organic entity and has a concrete reality to it. In other words, man is not a spiritual being and exists in this world. The Church cannot be apostate ever. Man, as members of Christ's body can become apostate, as history has very aptly shown.

Not unless Augustine lived in the 16th century. Yes, Paul not only taught it, but gave it as an instrument of Christ via the Holy Spirit. However, limited atonement was never one of them but you can try to show that he did.
Roman 9 has absolutely nothing but universal redemption. So much so, that not only Jews but the Gospel is also going to be for the Gentiles. It does not say some Gentiles.

Vs 30-33 the way of salvation is faith, has always been faith in the OT and the NT. To everyone who believes. Chapter 10:4 reemphasizes this again. You will find no limited redemption or atonement in scripture.

What was he then? Did the 2nd man Adam become like the 1st man Adam—neither mortal or immortal?

But, you said above that ADAM was neither?

You have yet to “exegete” a SINGLE Scripture to prove this assertion. Just because you say it does not make it true??? Please show me from the Scripture and its proper interpretation???

So, you do NOT believe in the Perseverance of the Saints???

If they are already redeemed, then why do they need to repent?

So, now you out rightly deny the Scripture again: 1 John 4:8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.

So many errors, so little time. Someone else I am sure will jump in and identify so many others. What kind of Church do you attend (name, denomination, website) or do you not attend Church at all?

J Edwards,

No, not like he was created, but like he fell. Christ is the only one who is able to give Life again. Man could never redeem himself. In order to do so, he would need to live a perfect sinless life. That is the whole issue of why Christ did it for us. That all we need to do is accept this Work by faith. Christ did it all for us.

Precisely. that was the work that man was to fulfill and accomplish as King and Priest of God's creation. That man would share in the Divine, be conformed to God, for us it has become conformed to Christ, who is the perfect Image of the Father. Man would have attained immortality as his reward. Since the first Adam failied, Christ accomplished this for mankind with His redemption through the Incarnation.

I have already given you 10 texts that attest to the universal redemption by Christ. But...
Let's repeat to clarify: II Cor 5:14-19. vs 14 IF One died for all, then all died. To not be universal, there must be some who have not died. vs 15 He died for all so that we could live IN Him. Christ died for all, gave life to all, in order that we (believers) could live IN Him. In Him is our salvation.
Then dropping down to vs 19 Christ was reconciling the world to Himself. Not imputing their tresspasses or sins against them. Universal atonement. Then vs 20 shows that man must be reconciled to God. Man does this by accepting His Redemptive work by faith, repents, is baptised which is partly, the forgiveness of sins.

Also, I Cor 15:20-22: These texts really need no exegesis. Quite plainly this says In Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. Universal redemption and immortality. Adam was the father of mortality and earthly life, Christ is the father of immortality and spiritual life.

Again, Romans 5:14-19 is saying the very same thing again. Here is it even more emphatic and shows the correlation of Christ's work which resulted in the justification of life. The free gift came to all men. Never does it ever even imply that it is partial, or selective, or limited or anything but universal.
To show that the universe itself was redeemed, Eph 1:10. Col 1: 15-20
All men will be called or drawn: John 12:32.
In addition: John 5:28-29, Acts 23:6 and Acts 24:15 clearly state that ALL shall be raised. Believers and unbelievers. ALL DEAD SHALL BE RAISED. You would of necessity need to show that either not all will be raised, or that only some died therefore all dead will be raised.

Very probable not the same way you do. Under your view, Adam could not have ever sinned.

They were redeemed for the purpose of Union with Christ. To enter into Union with Christ, repentance is a mandated requirement. Or, redemption is not the salvation of individual man.

I can see why you have trouble understanding. That was a satirical remark based on your view of redemption. God loved mankind. Why would He not. He created us for a very specific purpose. That purpose was lost in the fall. Redemption was necessary, so that mankind could once again be in Union with Christ. Freely in Uniion with Christ as was Adam.

The only one that counts. It is Christ's established Church here on earth, the one He instituted. The Church of One Faith, One Baptism, One Lord, The Apostolic Church embodied in the Orthodox Church today.

Welcome to the boards.

Redeem
REDEE'M, v.t. [L. redimo; red, re, and emo, to obtain or purchase.]
1. To purchase back; to ransom; to liberate or rescue from captivity or bondage, or from any obligation or liability to suffer or to be forfeited, by paying an equivalent; as, to redeem prisoners or captured goods; to redeem a pledge.
2. To repurchase what has been sold; to regain possession of a thing alienated, by repaying the value of it to the possessor.
3. To rescue; to recover; to deliver from.
4. To compensate; to make amends for.
5. To free by making atonement.
6. To pay the penalty of.
7. To save.
8. To perform what has been promised; to make good by performance. He has redeemed his pledge or promise.
9. In law, to recall an estate, or to obtain the right to re-enter upon a mortgaged estate by paying to the mortgagee his principal, interest, and expenses or costs.
10. In theology, to rescue and deliver from the bondage of sin and the penalties of God's violated law, by obedience and suffering in the place of the sinner, or by doing and suffering that which is accepted in lieu of the sinner's obedience.
11. In commerce, to purchase or pay the value in specie, of any promissory note, bill or other evidence of debt, given by the state, by a company or corporation, or by an individual. The credit of a state, a banking company or individuals, is good when they can redeem all their stock, notes or bills, at par.

Salvation
SALVA'TION, n. [L. salvo, to save.]
1. The act of saving; preservation from destruction, danger or great calamity.
2. Appropriately in theology, the redemption of man from the bondage of sin and liability to eternal death, and the conferring on him everlasting happiness. This is the great salvation.
3. Deliverance from enemies; victory. Exo 14.
4. Remission of sins, or saving graces. Luke 19.
5. The author of man's salvation. Psa 27.


According to the definition above, you do not believe Christ actually redeemed or saved anybody. 7. To save. Christs death only made salvation possible. It actually secured the salvation of none, only making all men salvable. The early church dismissed this at the Council of Orange. The church has historically upheld Total Depravity, even after Christs death. Your last sentence shows you uphold some form of pelagian soteriology, which is heresy.


I think you are either a universalist or confused. 6. To pay the penalty of. According to your definition of redemption Christs death could not have been a vicarious sacrifice for sin. Mans reward? For what work? Surely you don't uphold a synergistic salvation.


As shown already, your definitions of redeemed, atonement, and redemption are inaccurate. So allow me to ask a question. Was the death of Christ a vicarious sacrifice for sin?


Did Gods first plan fail? What would that say of Gods omnipotence? I have heard this belief offered at bible college. I couldn't believe God would fail.


That sure explains it. If your pastor teaches the same things you are espousing here, you need to find a new church.

Could you tell me how many different contextual meanings for world and all there are in those passages you offered? More than one and almost none are all absolutely. In fact, most alls and worlds and everybody's aren't universally inclusive. I am going to post some scriptures that show a limited scope of atonement.


The real starting point for understanding Christs death is what its purpose was. That purpose could not fail.


God bless,

william

Averagefellar,


By your long examples of what redemption means is precisely what Christ did in fact accomplish. There is absolutely no possibility involved at all. He saved everyone from death and destruction. In fact, as I pointed out, His universe, His creation. It was done to overcome the fall. You apparently have some other definition of the fall if Christ did not overcome the fall. The fall needed to be corrected in order for man to have Union or communion with Christ (God). this Union, the salvation of man is what man was created to do. It did not need correction. It did need a lot of additional gifts which were provided for by Christ to strengthen the believer in His communion with God. But Christ did not accomplish that for which man was created, His Union with Him. The Early Church never dismissed this view. The Council of Orange, actually the Second Council of Orange in 529 is a western local council not an ecumenical council. It was expressly the refutation of Pelagius by Augustine and the fact that man did not inherit any sin from Adam. Man did not need God's grace. Christ was just a good man, lived a sinless life, was a good example, thus any man could follow suit. The Early Church, as a Church, shied away from Augustine for the reason that much of what he stated was put to strongly just to make a point against Pelagius. The Church has never upheld the concept of total depravity. That is a western view and became, as did most of the other Augustinian views the bedrock of Catholicism and the reformers.
I don't think you clearly understand just what Pelagianism actually consists of. The Church has condemned Pelagianism. But not all of what he believed, nor wrote is Pelagianism, just as with all the other heretics. J Edwards thinks that the Church also condemned universalism. It did, but Universalism as any false teaching has part truth within it. What was condemned was the universal salvation of man, not the redemptive portion. Most false teachings have some element of Truth in them.

Again, you also do not really understand Universalism. I would say you are the one confused.
It actually freed mankind from two deaths. From the judgemeent of Adam and the consequences our our sins, which is spiritual death. So therefore, His death was surely a vicarious sacrifice, we don't necessarily need to suffer death IF we believe and IF we endure.

The salvation of man is absolutely synergistic. Surprised that you even know and use the word correctly. It also cannot be any other way. If Christ also did this for man, then Christ must be held accountable to God, not man. Christ would be judged rather than the Judge at the Judgement seat. Adam would never have sinned in the first place. Adam, as a human being, is no different in essence from us, unless you believe so. I'm making a pure assumption that you believe he is as we are. God, in effect would be overruling the creation and purpose of man in that creation. Adam's walk with God was not the problem. The fact he sinned, thus making it impossible for any kind of union, communion or for man to fulfill his created purpose. Where in the Bible do you arrive at the fact that Christ accomplished man's intended created purpose?

I just pointed that out to you. However, what does this even have to do with whether Christ's work was universal or particular? However, if Adam's judgement of death was not overcome first and foremost, the vicarious sacrifice for sin would be null and void in eternity. We would have forgiveness in this life, but not even enjoy an eternity with Christ. Your emphasis is on sin only. Sin is not man's foremost problem. Death, physcial death is primary. It is what kept man separted from God, thus spiritual death as well. Christ corrected the first by overcoming it. His death also atoned for our sins by paying the penalty of those sins, which is eternal spritual death.
But that penalty was paid for all men. Not just a few. That some will not avail themselves of it, is man's free choice, created in God's image with a will. That will is what Adam used to reject God, same as man can do today, since we all have been freed from the bondage of Adams Judgement, Physcial death, and from our sins, our spiritual death, if we so chose. That is why those that do not believe have already been condemned. It is the believing which uncondemns us. John 3:18. John 3:16 also is opposed to your view. It is universal He came to save the world, not condemn it. Man condemns himself in his rejection of His saviour.

How could this even be considered God failing. He succeeded in such a way that He saved the world, He recreated the world through Christ. He put the world back into the correct relationship so man could do what His sovereign plan started in the beginning. God, in creating man with a free will, that is independent of God's will. Part of that Image in which we are created. Another part of man's essence is that he is a communal being. Ah, just as God is, and why we were created. God did not want robots that He manipulated, that He controlled, that He forced to love and obey Him. He risked His entire Divine plan on the fact that man was created with a will. A will that could in fact reject his creator. What happened? Man rejected his creator.
Where is scripture do we find that man's essence changed. That the purpose of man is changed? Why did God now want to overrule His sovereign plan and His purpose of creating man. Why must He now manipulate man, control man, lock man into an existance where man is not free to choose.
From your view, as I pointed out to J Edwards, your God cannot be a God of love. He is particular and even though He desires all men to be saved,. He actually does not save all, only some. Not only that but you seriously think that God somehow along the way changed His sovereign plan, which up to now, you have failed to show anywhere in scripture that it might be so.

Obviously, you believe that there are several ways to Christ. My pastor, teacher is none other than Christ. He is the Head of that Church. He has governed, protected, and preserved that Body from the Beginning. It is, after all, His Body. It is His Truth imparted to the Apostles and has been imparted to believers ever since. Why in the world would I ever depart from the One True Faith, the One True Church, Christ.


Absolutely none. They stand as written and meant.
None of your underlined phrases restrict atonement. The first one is the same as that of Romans 5:15-16. Adams death was the result of one sin, Christ redemption covers many sins. The many does not refer to individuals.

Matt 1:21 - is referencing the salvation of man. Those that will accept Him by faith. It is those that He will save from their sins. How, because by repentance they enter into Union with Christ. This is possible only because of the atonement which is still universal. This does not restrict the effect of the atonement.

John 10: 14-15 He is addressing those who will choose Him. It is not referencing the atonement directly, only that there will be some who will choose Christ. God will call all men. The Holy Spirit will be poured out upon all men. Joel 2:28, Acts 2:16ff.

Titus 1:1 is very specifically referencing those that believe and become God's elect. Those that the Holy Spirit will empower to be conformed to the Image of His Dear Son. Romans 8:29. Phil 3:21

I don't see any restriction or even the mention of atonement in these verses.

Quite correct. It has not failed. So why do you believe in a limited work of Christ? Why do you believe God changes, in that He changed His plan is midstream somewhere, which you have failed to show.

The IF creates an inconsistency. Did Christ save all humans or not?


Then by what sin are men yet condemned?


Sarcasm noted. I'll ask you to cease. I took Soteriology101 at a pelagian-credo college. I understand your heresy.


I don't. I totally believe Jesus saved all He intended to. Your lack of contextual analysis noted also. Here are a couple of links to help you see your error,

Owen on John 3:16

Engelsma on John 3:16

Boettner on Limited Atonement

Dabney on the Nature of the Atonement


I'll ask you to support that claim by quoting me.


God bless,

william

Hey sojourner, let me help you out with the scriptures you graciously commented on. And it does seem that you need help.

On 2 Cor. 5:14-19 you said "To not be universal, there must be some who have not died." Correctamundo my friend. The "all" in verse 14 refers to all of us who died in Christ and now live in him. So obviously not all have died.

In 1 Cor 15:20-22 paul is clearly talking about BELIEVERS solidarity with adam (the first man) and Christ (the last man). In verse 20 paul mentions the firstfruits and is showing that because Christ, our representative, was the first to rise from the dead (acts 26:23) and it is now possible for the resurrection of believers. In verse 21 For as by a man (adam) came death, by a man(christ) has come also the resurrection of the dead. The resurrection of believers. In verse 22 it would be safe to say all (everyone) died in adam but the "all" paul uses is strictly all believers. Compare this to Rom 5:17-19.

In Rom 5:14-19 i would again encourage you to look at the context and who paul is speaking to. In this context paul is comparing adams disobedience with Christs obedience to God. As we see "Therefore" in verse 12 we know that this comparison relates to the preceding text about the benefits that come to those who put their faith in Chirst. And as i said before although it would be safe to say that death came to all men "all human beings", paul is using this in the limited sense to all who are in Christ. He had in mind those who were effected by adams sin and were ultimmately redeemed by Christ as we can see in verse 10 "when we were Gods enemies."

Eph. 1:10 does not teach a universal redemption, but Christs reign over all things.

In john 12:32 the "all" that is used here is used in a different way then we have seen earlier. The "all" refers to "all kinds of", not all without distinction; see 1 tim 6:10 where the same greek word is translated "all kinds of".

Look also at john 6:44, if the "all" here refers to every individual then it would be logical to say that every individual will come to Jesus and will rise on the last day. That obviously is not the case

John 5:28-29 does teach that everyone will be raised but like the WCF says, not all will be raised to honour. WCF 32.3 "The bodies of the unjust shall, by the power of Christ, be raised to dishonour: the bodies of the just, by His Spirit, unto honour; and be made conformable to His own glorious body."

The same goes for Acts 23:6 and Acts 24:15. We do not deny a resurection.

I would urge you to look at context. It would be safe to say that salvation comes by giving away everything that i own, if i ignored context.

averagefellar,

He saved every single human being who ever lived from death and corruption. The salvation of individual man is man's walk with God. If you can show that God was actually doing the walk of Adam then your view would prevail. This also makes God the author of sin then, and also the author of your sin today. If you cannot control yourself and your choices of whom you will serve, then God becomes the active agent of man. Why would man be judged on what God does and not himself.
I would say you have a monster of a contradiction to iron out.

The very same one of Adam. Sin separates us from God. If we permit sin to rule, to overrule the spirit, then we become faithless, and sin will separate us, unless we seek forgiveness.

Then you should understand Pelagianism much better than you apparently do.

None of their views can be traced to the Apostles. They all begin with the novelty of the Reformation. A novelty that has exploded into so many views it is very difficult to keep up. Yet, the Church, has for 2000 years believed, taught and practiced the Gospel of Christ as given from the beginning. The reformation is still going strong after almost 500 years. It is very hard for me to imagine that God gave us a Gospel that constantly changes from believer to believer. I think there is some serious error on your methodology.


here it is....
By scriptural definition, Christ is the Church. I gave you that definition and you want me to change churches like protestants do. Find a new way to Christ. One that is more palatable, one to suit ones liking. That can only be the outcome of your remark based on scripture and the historical result of each man for himself who each has special powers and revelation that they can actually interpret from only a partial Truth. Amazing what logic, reason, and literary criticism can do. Not only that, but totally ignore the admonition of Scripture that man is not his own interpreter.

I'm sorry, universalism is heresy.


Show me where I err. I'm sorry. Your quote you provided from me says nothing of my believing in two ways to God. I think your stay here will be short if you continue to misrepresent calvinism and lie about our words.


I'm going to prve this wrong and the next time you post it, I'll simply call it a false report.

"We confess the election to life and the predestination of the wicked to damnation." Council of Valence, Mansi, 15:4

"He fulfills what he wills, properly using even evil things as if the very best to the damnation of those whom he has justly predestined to punishment." Augustine, Enchridion 26 {100} (FC 3:454; PL 40.279)

"Predestination is twofold: either of the elect to rest or of the reprobate to death" Isidore of Seville, Sententiarium Libri tres 2.6 (PL 83.606)

"It belongs to God's justice that he divides, and to his power that he divides according to his will" Ambrose, Letter 20 (FC 26:108)

"Paul is here attributing to the Holy Spirit what he earlier attributed to all three persons. Because they are of one nature and power, the Three do what the One does. There is only one God, whose grace is distributed to individuals as he wishes, not according to the merits of any particular person but for the upbuilding of his church. All those things which the world wants to imitate but cannot, because it is carnal, may be seen in the church, which is the house of God, where they are granted by the gift and instruction of the Holy Spirit." Ambrosiaster; Paul's Epistles (CSEL 81.135)

"Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognize the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. >From him also our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. From him kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, "Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven." All these, therefore, were highly honored, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." Clement of Rome, First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, 32 (ANF1 I, p. 13)


God bless,

william

Soli Deo Gloria,


Well, then you created a problem and a massive contradictionl. Vs 15 makes a separation from the all to the particular. So, now what do you do. Not all of your "who died in Christ" must still choose Christ. Some obviously do not. Also, a much bigger contradiction... how do you account that unbelievers will be raised in the last day, if Christ did not give them life. Do you just ignore that fact? You have God destroying part of His creation, at that, His highest created being, man.
Furthermore, can you show historically that the Holy Spirit actually preserved this teaching through the ages. That we actually had believers from Christ to the 16th century. Personally, I don't ever recall this teaching in my protestant days. This must be one of those very personal beliefs, not universal, like salvation was supposed to be. See Jude 3.


Really, so there are some people who are actually still living from the time of creation. We know Adam was not one of them. It is not the solidarity of believers but the solidarity of mankind, creation actually. You still have the problem of unbelievers who will be resurrected.
Actually, I would really call you universalist in your view here. All men die, unless you can show as I just pointed out that some never die because not all have been effected by Adam. Only future believers are effected by your view. You have all die, thus all will be saved individually, that is what was condemned by the Church long ago.
Vs, 23 separates something, believers, I would say, from the all. Unless you ignore that little phrase, "who are Christ's". Or is this phrase been eliminated from your text?

Your very words belie what you are attempting to prove. You state, "He had in mind those who were effe4cted by adams sin and were ultimately redeemd by Christ." That can only mean one thing, there were many who were not effected by Adams sin. Thus Christ did not need to redeem them. Really, "it would be safe to say that death came to all men ""all human beings"". My such a reality statement. You really think that there may be a possibility that some have not?
You use vs 10. This verse very clearly makes the separation as well. From universal redemption to those who are saved by His life. Life meaning resurrection. All men were reconciled in order that they may live IN Him. We do that by our choice. This is the Union of God with man. His created purpose.

It actually teaches much more than that. He gathered all things and recreated them. He saved His universe. Mankind and the physical world. The only way you can wiggle out, it to show that He only saved some of the physical world as well. Then, if so, what part(s)?

The context is different, but John 3:14 the context is the same. Here all those present could see the snake, and they needed to look upon the snake in order to be saved. Just by putting the snake up did not save all, but all did see or were drawn. Peoples actually here means both Jew and Gentile.

Well, that is a way to possibly solve your contradiction, but now, how does Christ raise all the dead, when He did not die for all to give life to all. Does He come again to die again for them. Or is this some extra miraculous event that is not really discribed in the Bible?
I might also, ask, if this be so, could He not have done this for the believers as well. Why die in the first place?
Also, why even raise them. Obviously, they are not saved. Must God somehow rub it in to them, raise them just to show them why they were not chosen as you probably would put it?

If you read Paul in I Cor 15:12ff. The resurrection is tied to Christ. It affects all of mankind. That is because His redemption was universal. Life to all that we, believers, might live IN Him.

I would strongly suggest it in your case. Not only the verse the the entirity of the Bible and its total message for mankind. Obviously you have ignored context. Because Christianity is precisely that. Giving up our all to be all in Christ. We give up our wills, so that they align with the will of the Father. Just as Christ did in the Garden of Gethsemene. It is also obvious that you do not need to do as the Rich Young Ruler.

I think you had better recheck the person who taught you this stuff. Clearly it is not following scripture even in the clear reading of it. You're trying to prove a supposition and must redefine terms, words, and ignore or explain away created contradictions.
However, if you can show somewhere through History that this teaching is visible and can be shown from the beginning to current history, you might have it right.

I agree that we should look at scripture in its entirety. In the OT on the day of atonement the sacrifice was made on behalf of Israel only. That was a type or foreshadowed the ultimate sacrifice,Christ, which was also for his chosen people. It is quite clear that you do not understand most biblical doctrines. You mentioned total depravity which i think is a good one to start with. Here is what i posted on another topic. You will see that in our unconverted state we are not redeemed or free to put our trust in Christ which is against our very nature.

"-Paul says we are "dead" Eph 2:1-3.

-Paul also says there is no one who searches after God or even does anything good. Rom 3:10-12

-Paul says were at enmity with God and cannot please him Rom 8:7-8

-Jesus even says we refuse to come to him. Jn 5:40

-Jesus says we are children of the devil and it is OUR will to do what he desires. John 8:44

How then can we be saved?

-John 8:36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.

- like SemperReformanda said only if God draws us or enables us. Jn 6:44,65

- John 1:12-13 says But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, BUT OF GOD.

-Phil 2:13 for it is God who works in you to

Could you explain this universal redemption. I am sorry but i am still a bit confused. Does everyone end up with God in the end? Did Jesus do part of the work and we need to do the rest?

Soli Deo Gloria,

What is clear that I do not understand the interpretation that you place on them over and above that which was given to us by the Holy Spirit and Christ to the Apostles.

Yes, context is everything again. Don't pull this out and forget where he separates unbelievers from believers in the rest of the whole chapter. In fact, in light of your statement above, he includes Isreal as well. Christ broke down all walls between men and Himself. He did that in His redemptive work. All mankind.

He is answering the questions that are rasied by the hypothetical Judiazer he is addressing in the first 9 verses. Then He goes on to build the argument that it is not of our perfect righteousness which he just described as none, but the mercy of God saved us by Grace.
We do not need to fulfull the law perfectly because it is an impossibility, but Christ did so for us. We are saved by Grace through faith, not anything man can or could do. vs 27 summarizes what it has always been in OT and NT, the law of faith.

Yes, those who are not of God. If those who live by the spirit, those that chose to accept Christ, since with the redemption of man, all men are once again able to chose to walk with God. We must put the body to death and let the spirit rule. If we do so we walk in the light. If we chose not to so walk, then we are children of darkness. This choice is only possible because it was not limited to only some.

No, not necessarily. He is speaking to the Pharisees. They do not come willingly so that they may have life. They rejected the God of Isreal, now they are rejecting the Messiah. There is nothing here to show either side of redemption, except that Christ clearly implies choice. Cannot be decreed election either.

Precisely, it is our will that makes the difference between believer and unbeliver. If one is willing to believe, he is also willing to listen. Again, choice is spoken and implied. Choice is not even a possibility with limited redemption. Vs 51 is also a choice, not decreed election or limited redemption.

Yes, mankind has been set free. Free from the bondage of death and sin. Free as in the pre-Adamic state, that man can once again chose, as did Adam, to either love and obey God or chose to reject Him. Man cannot be responsible for that simple decision unless God redeemed all of mankind so they can be held accountable.

Yes, except that calling is specifically in Jesus selecting the Apostles, whom He already knew by His foreknowledge they would believe. Peter bears this out in the following verses. Better verses which are in context to what we are speaking about is: II Pet 3:9, Rom 2:4, Mark 2:17, parallel Matt 9:13, Acts 17:30, It seems that God calls sinners to repentance. Now, either only a few are sinners, or God is in fact calling all because He freed all from the Bondage of death and sin. Or, you have a different meaning of the word "all".

Yes, we could not even recieve Him nor believe Him except that He redeemed us. He redeemed all, so all could have that choice. A choice man will be held accountable for at the judgement. If this is not so, then either some men will not be judged, or man is not accountable and no one is judged. Some clear contradictins you are creating in attempting to skirt around universal redemption.

It is all God, no matter how you look at it. However, God will not impose His will on man. Man must permit God to become part of His life. He choses to believe and since all men have that choice, then all must have been redeemed.

Soli Deo Gloria,

No, we are not speaking of the universal salvation of individual man. We are talking about Christ correcting the fall. The fall of Adam, The judgement of Adam was Death. This death also resulted in spiritual separation or death. Christ overcome both for all men. Put man's nature back to the pre-Adamic state so that man could again chose life over death just as Adam did. Adam and we are not different creatures. He is a man, a human being created in the same essence as we are.

Mankind was restored in order that man could fulfill his rightful purpose of his creation. Part of that purpose was to be in communion with God. God gave man a free will to freely chose whether he would love and obey or reject. What comes after we become believers is this walk with God. It is our created purpose being fulfilled. That is why it is so incongruent to hear some of you say, Christ did it all. Man has no role in his salvation. Adam did, why not we. How are we different? You either make God change His sovereign plan or purpose of man's very existance.

Rather than give a discourse, if you have other questions, just ask.

Scripture please?


God bless,

william

So how long have you been a universalist?

Which Church do you attend?

Where is the exegesis of Scripture I asked for before?

averagefellar,

There is no explicit scripture that states man has a will. However, it is implicit in the language of the Bible that man choses, choses whom he will serve. Adam (Eve) chose to accept Satan's temptation. Man in God's Image is free, communal and distinctive.
Christ in His incarnation assumed man's human nature and redeemed all of it and joined it to himself.

The understanding of what and the how of this mystery was outlined by Maximus the Confessor in his arguments against Nestorius and his view that Christ had only one will - His divine.

This is how Maximus explains it, In Christ's human nature which is consubstantial with all men, God humanly wills, decrees and perfectly fulfills the salvation of all men, for no human being is untouched by His Incarnation, and nothing is detracted from His sovereignty as God if individual persons choose not to accept salvation. Human nature is mans essence which is the same for all men, but the personhood is the use of that will for good or evil. Christ, being truly consubstantial with all men, truly died for all men, and thus His atoning Passion, Death and Resurrection are in no way limited.

If not all men rise with the second Adam then not all die with the first Adam. Or, there would of necessity be some men who are not affected by the consubstantiality of Christ's human nature. Since they are not in Him through His Incarnation, they would of necessity not be in Adam either. Not being in Adam they would have no need of Christ. This is the denial of ancestral sin which was condemned as Pelagianism.

Here is the result of your understanding of redemption.
If Christ's human nature is efficacious in salvation only for a number of elected individuals, thenb it would appear that Christ's humanity, insofar as it is efficacious for those individuals, is united with them not naturally but only by the object of their wills, since His human nature itself is not united with them. This union only in object of will between God and man in Christ is Nestorianism, which also was condemned by the Church.

Thus it seems that the human nature of such elected individuals gives nothing to election and Christ's human nature certainly does not, as it only affects the elected individuals. Human nature either has no will, which is a kind of Apollinarianism or it is merely ineffectual in salvation. Thus Christ's two human will decisions of salvation in His temptations and in the Garden are illusory and this is Docetism, which was also condemned.

It seems you lack a clear distinction between person and nature, lack of understanding between natural will and the mode of willing of the person.

In the protestant argument between Calvinism and Arminian view, the Calvinists views the will of humanity as set in sin from birth of the individual. The individual is guilty of God's wrath from infancy. The Armenian view maintains that the human will is only weakened, not totally depraved, only individuals can freely choose, therefore individuals can experience guilt and wrath. Thus Calvinism puts the will exclusively in the nature of man, the Armenian exclusively in the person.

Thus the Calvinist has the problem of being supralapsarian and threatens the sovereignty of God in that God becomes the author of sin and sustains man's sinful nature after acceptance as a believer . Fortunately, most do not hold to this view and thus Calvinism has changed and has become infralapsarian to get around this dilemma but only in regard to Adam, not the believer.

J Edwards,

Have never been one. Only by your misunderstanding which is your problem.

I thought I already stated that as well, but you may have missed that as well or just misunderstand that too. Orthodox.

It is up above somewhere. I did all ten texts that I had previously given to you and all the explanations preceding your original request touched on those ten. So you have them twice since I have been conversing with you.

Furthermore, Soli Deo Gloria, used the same texts to give her interpretation and I again spelled it out. That makes three times. How many times does it take to understand?????? Do you actually need it again????

sojourner, first off im a guy. Understandable mistake. Nowhere in scripture does it teach that we can chose between good and evil. It is our nature to chose evil as i showed earlier. Unless you understand mans depravity, i personally will no long argue other biblical doctrines. You can garantee i will pray for you though. Maybe it would be best if you started another post on mans total depravity. Here are 2 short books you could read by aw pink.
http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Depravity/depravity.htm
http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Impotence/impotence.htm
Here is an article on this site about total depravity
http://www.the-highway.com/depravity_Boettner.html


BTW i am a supralapsarian. here is an article you could read defending it. http://www.5solas.org/media.php?id=553

No scripture. Then I'll dismiss your assertion of free-will as unbiblical philosophy.


God bless,

william

Soli Deo Gloria,

I do apologize regarding your name.
Now, regarding your comments, I understand Total Depravity. It totally denies the Incarnation of Christ in that He reconstituted man and His creation to overcome the fall. As I pointed out, the concept of limited redemption is alien to Scripture.

That you have chosen, using your free will, to believe as you do is up to you. I put my full Trust in Christ and His redeeming work that He did out of love to His creation, His entire creation. In reading just a bit regarding the view of supralapsarianism is close to being fatalistic as well, if it isn't.
In thinking about it, you have absolutely no assurance that you are even one of the elect, since you apparently do. I would be interested in how you can show from scripture that the verses typically used speaks to you in particular. I can see that it might be in theory or as a principle, but you cannot apply it personally. You can not know for a fact, until judgement if you are elect.
Also, if your God is a God of supralapsarianism, the creator of evil, sin as well as good, why make his creation suffer, for what purpose. If suffering, pain, disease, even death, an unnatural condition for man is simply to glorify Himself, then your God could hardly be love as his essence. Love is not an attribute but part of His essence. I would think you and others who accept this view have a lot of justification to make it fit Scripture.
You asked me to clarify universal redemption. You wondered if it meant universal salvation of man. Thinking on it now, why would it matter in your view. It is fatalistic. It matters not to man, he has absolutely nothing, no purpose in creation accept to be manipulated by God whereby some will be saved, whatever that really means and some lost, actaully all decreed to that positon.
However, so be it. You can comment if you will. It will not change my positoin. I will not give up the pearl of Great Price, Christ, lover of mankind.

Come to think about it, one last comment.
If I chose now to change my belief, is it I really or God manipulating me forcing me to do so. And if I did somehow change, which postion was correct for eternity. See the diabolical conundrum your view puts forth.
Again, it really does not matter what I believe, nor what you believe, it is fixed by decree before creation that I would so believe. Even if I wanted to believe Total Depravity it would be an impossibility for me to chose.

Free-will is alien to scripture.


I have no doubt of your desire to remain anti-biblical. Now I must ask your purpose here.


I see you also do not understand calvinism.


God bless,

william

averagefellar,

So you believe what,,,
There was no Incarnation?
Christ did not have a will, either human or divine?
Man is not created in God's Image?
Man is not unique among the created beasts?
If man does not have a will, then can you show from scripture that man is a robot just performing the whims of a God who yanks to and fro and has decreed every action you make from eternity as Soli Deo Gloria?
What is the purpose of man, that is all men, not just the saved? What is saved mean then?
What is the purpose of revelation? It serves no purpose if we as human beings have no personhood and really are none better than the beasts.
Why should I be outraged by wars, by the massive amount of killing of one human of another. It is all in the plan, decreed to be just so, Show me why this should not be fatalistic.
It is a form of pantheism which is the religious form of fatalism.
Me thinks it is a massive twisting of scripture
Just what do you believe?

I believe in the incarnation. I am a Christian.

I never stated anywhere that Christ did not have a will. Nor have I ever stated, anywhere, that man does not have a will. Man has a will. It is affected by his sinful nature and is not free.

I am definitely seeing a pattern of misrepresentation concerning what calvinism teaches. I think you might want to study up a bit so you can at least discuss the real thing.


God bless,

william

What also is apparent to me as I read this thread is there are two paradigms at work here.

If I believe God's salvation is open to anyone ( and in a universal way it is), and that the 'full number' of those who will accept salvation is yet to be determined ( i.e. man is still in control in some small modicum of who will be saved and who will not be saved because of his own free will).

If I believe the above, then Christs atonement is unlimited. It is unlimited in nature to extend to the last moment whomsoever will accept the call to repent and believe.

However if I believe that in eternity past God chose who would receive salvations gift and who would reject it, then the number is fixed, and unchangeable. The work on the cross could only be applied effectively to these 'elect of God'. The atonement is then Limited in nature, and can never have an effect on those who will reject God.

This thread will never resolve in the hearts and minds of those who reject Reformation thought, and accept Arminieistic interpretation of scripture.

that just my opinion of course.

averagefellar,


So, first of all Christ had no will. I believe He is in Scripture, NO?

So , if it be so, how is this text interpreted if man has no will... Matt16:24.
There are some 200 or so verses that use this terminology. The clear implication that man choses, man desires, man abides, man does many things. So you say it is something else besides man's will, namely a decree from eternity that is implied here.

I would be interested in who taught this in the first generation past the disciples. If this were true, then their direct disciples would surely proclaim it as Truth. I might have missed it, but apparently you didn't. How about 4th century.
St Augustine believed man had a will. You take his teaching of predestination and total depravity but not the idea man has a will. Why not. Was he wrong with that aspect of his view?


Matthew 24:13 "But he who endures to the end shall be saved." Which word am i misinterpreting here if a will is not implied. Does" he who" really mean God will force me to endure or just how do you interpret this if man has no will.

You are right, I do not understand Calvinism. but I also know that there are probably several hundred versions of it, so who has Calvinism right, let alone Scripture as once given to the Apostles.

sojourner, apology accepted.
It is obvious that you do not understand Gods sovereignty. God does have a sovereign plan and has decreed everything that will come to pass. But that does not eliminate human responsibility, especially since that is clearly shown in scripture. I know that i am a sinner who deserves Gods wrath. God has graciously chosen to save me from sin, not because of anything God has seen in me but because it was his good pleasure. When God looks at me he sees me as righteous because Christ propitiated the wrath of God. I know this because i have my faith in Christ and live my life in gratitude. I agree that we need to make our calling and election sure and examine and test ourselves to make sure we are in the faith. A few ways of knowing... This is love for God: to obey his commands. Preserverence is a great way to prove our faith genuine, along with suffering and trials. Love your brothers. Live in godliness.
To merely know everything about God will not do, for even the demons believe and they shudder.

I do not believe God is the author of sin, like you have stated, in that he does not tempt anyone to sin and in him is no darkness. james 1:13; 1 john 1:5
But he DID create evil and darkness in the way that it is said in Isaiah 45:7.

You said "Even if I wanted to believe Total Depravity it would be an impossibility for me to chose"
It would not be impossible for you to choose to believe in total depravity for i choose to do things all of the time. Though it would be imposible for you to choose to put your trust in Christ since that is against your nature. But dont worry, God can fix that by making you a new creature. I would recommend getting down on your knees and pleading for mercy.

Another great book i would recomend very highly for you to read is aw pinks book called the sovereinty of God. If you are at all interested in what i believe or what the bible teaches about Gods sovereignty then it would do you good to read at least a few chapters in this book.

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Sovereignty/sovereignty.htm

Yes, the apostles taught this in scripture. It is your faulty interpretation that is the problem. I gave some quotes from early writers upholding calvinism. However, I see no reason to believe everything, doctrinally, was settled prior to 200a.d., by matter of council. Scripture was finished, and we had the truth. However, definitions of the trinity, formation of a canon, and various other matters were still being dealt with. Your assertion that since nobody put forth calvinistic beliefs makes it false is itself a false claim. The claim that doctrine had to be settled by a specific date is also out of sync with church history.


Yes, Christ is in scripture. Yes, Christ had a will, as well as a nature.


God bless,

william