The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum For Whom Did Christ Die?

Who decides what is effective? Christ died for all sins, past, present, future, so that no-one can claim impunity against God.

Then you are a universalist according to what you have asserted here. But if salvation is the work of God upon the elect, then Christ died only for them, and His death was not effectual for the rest.

You can't have it both ways. Either salvation is an accomplished fact, effective for those it was intended for, or the blood of our Savior was mostly wasted, since the great majority of humankind is lost.

Who would be God if sin went unaccounted for?

I am sorry, but I haven't the foggiest what your answer is alluding to. If this is the way you talk to your students, how do they learn anything?

To other posters who are reading this, am I the only one that is getting frustrated with the way xyz answers others?

Tom

They are used to theological language. To put the question in simpler terms: Who would be God if people could sin and get away with it?

The answer, my friend, is blowing in the sky with diamonds.

::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::

Sorry, Tom, I couldn't resist attempting to try to answer you with as much meaning and logic as our alphabetically-inclined mutual acquaintance. You are absolutely right; without knowing his motivation, it seems clear that he has little interest in "hold[ing] firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it".

His fallback line, not only tossed about irrespective of context, is actually a complete non-sequitur, saying in effect, that since all sins have been paid for, everyone is guilty in God's sight. When one is reduced to that level of illogic it may indicate that further discourse will be unprofitable.

How strange that some of us here are more than familiar with "theological language" but who, nonetheless, are more than confused by your responses. At best they seem evasive if not outright "illogical", as Paul_S stated.

RE: "To put the question in simpler terms: Who would be God if people could sin and get away with it?" Now truthfully, are you really asking (rhetorically it is assumed), if sin was not dealt with judicially, who would be God? I can't imagine anyone being God if sin was and is dealt with judicially. Are you SURE you are wanting to know, "who would be God"? but perhaps you meant to ask, "who would God be if sin wasn't dealt with judicially?"

Regardless of this mess, the fact remains that God HAS indeed dealt with sin; i.e., no one gets away with sin(ning) without receiving just punishment for it. The biblical teaching is that ALL men are punished for both being sinners by nature and thus they are under God's wrath. And they are punished for any and all sins; secret and overt. However, how and when they are punished is the matter at hand:

1. True believers were punished for their sinfulness and actual sins at the cross since the Lord Christ was their substitute AND they are clothed in Christ's imputed righteousness at the moment they believe in Christ.

2. Unbelievers will be punished at the final Judgment according to their sinful nature and for every transgression of God's holy law.

Thus, if Christ died as a perfect substitute for ALL men without exception, then de facto, ALL men must and will be saved. For in Christ the full wrath of God was poured out upon Him in punishment thus satisfying the full demands of the law. Since Christ atoned for ALL sins for those whom He died for, there is nothing..... NOTHING to warrant further punishment; including unbelief, rejection of some pet doctrine, etc., etc. ad infinitum. The biblical teaching is that ALL those who are given faith and repentance WILL not only come to Christ for justification but they also are given the indwelling Spirit Who works sanctification in them unto final glorification. Christ's atonement made a FULL SATISFACTION, for salvation is by grace alone (Sola Gratia), in Christ alone (Solus Christus) through faith alone (Sola Fide)! <====== Note: theological terms.

In His grace,

There is if Christ's atonement is not accepted. To reject substitutionary propitiation is to put oneself under law, and all under law are condemned, except Christ.

1. IF there is an exception, as you seem to suggest, then Christ did NOT atone for ALL sins, which leaves the sinner with something that must be atoned for by some other means. The result is, of course, that salvation is impossible since even the slightest infraction of the law incurs eternal punishment.

2. As has been explained on several occasions here, Christ's atonement was SUBSTITUTIONARY and totally SUFFICIENT for those for whom He died. Put simply in non-theological terms, salvation from beginning to end was SECURED in full and infallibly so for those whom Christ died. ALL that is necessary for salvation; regeneration, justification, sanctification and glorification, is included in His vicarious, substitutionary atonement. When it is applied, the recipient infallibly repents and believes upon Christ and is preserved by grace to the end.

Christ put it quite simply when He said,

John 6:37-39 (ASV) "All that which the Father giveth me shall come unto me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I am come down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the will of him that sent me, that of all that which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day."

So, what part of this unassailable biblical truth do you not understand?

To propiate is to appease an offended party, to turn away wrath. If Christ's propitiation (turning away the wrath of God) was on behalf of the unrepentant, His propitiation is ineffective if the unrepentant still remain subject to God's wrath. That is, Christ's turning away of God's wrath toward the unrepentant does not actually turn away God's wrath toward the unrepentant. If Christ died for all sins, past, present, and future, then his death is ineffective if anyone is still subject to God's wrath. There must then be some other principle that is effective in salvation other than Christ's death, whether man's choice or something else. It's not a matter of who decides what is or is not effective; it's a matter of logic and scriptural teaching. So, please answer my questions:

You have previously stated that "Christ died for all sins, past, present, future." You have also stated that "to reject Christ's sacrifice is to commit the unforgivable sin, unrepentance." There is a pretty basic logical contradiction between these two statements.

Where do I seem to suggest an exception?

Seriously, are you really that incapable of handling basic communication skills? never mind lacking in common logic? I have to believe that you sit there at your computer laughing away at us for trying to deal with your silly and nonsensical responses.

However, I shall press on and answer your question with your very own reply given above:

Well? There you have your exception in your very own words...... do you recall typing that statement yesterday? "If Christ's atonement is not accepted.", you say; whatever that means.

Therefore, you obviously hold that Christ died for ALL sins; past, present and future . . . EXCEPT for the sin of "rejecting substitutionary propitiation". So, how does one atone for that one sin should the person repent and seek forgiveness since Christ's atonement didn't cover that one sin?

Now, sit back and take a deep breath and TRY to think about this before answering.

"If Christ's atonement is not accepted."

That is not a sin per se. It is ok provided that one has some other means of justification. It is disastrous because there is no other means than Christ's atonement.

And Jesus' sacrifice made sure that no-one can claim to have offended God and got away with it, otherwise God would not be sovereign. That is why Jesus' sacrifice is effective. God is satisfied, and what people do about it is their own business in that respect.