# Sufficient but not efficient?



## Sovereign Grace (Apr 6, 2017)

I have heard, and this coming from reformed/particular Baptists, that Christ's death was for all(sufficient), but only applicable to the elect(efficient). Now, what do ye blokes say?


----------



## Ed Walsh (Apr 6, 2017)

convicted1 said:


> I have heard, and this coming from reformed/particular Baptists, that Christ's death was for all(sufficient), but only applicable to the elect(efficient). Now, what do ye blokes say?



Below are several quotes that I think are representative of the majority Reformed view. In short, Christ’s atonement is “sufficient” for all men in that His work on the cross was of infinite value, but it’s “extent” was limited to all the elect.

One application: The promiscuous preaching of the gospel would fail to be sincere if the preacher knew that the value of the atonement was only applicable to “some” men. Christ bids all to come because anyone who does come to Christ can be assured that the atonement is sufficient for him too. Thus the free offer of the gospel is truly sincere for all men.

I think this first quote is the best, but I added two more just to show that many are of the view I summarized above.

=============================​
*Dogmatic Theology*, William G. T. Shedd

The distinction between the “sufficiency” of the atonement and its “extent” in the sense of “intent” or effectual application is an old and well-established one. It is concisely expressed in the dictum that Christ died “sufficiently for all, but efficiently only for the elect.”136 The following extracts from Owen (Against Universal Redemption 4.1) illustrate it:

It was the purpose and intention of God that his Son should offer a sacrifice of infinite worth, value, and dignity, sufficient in itself for the redeeming of all and every man, if it had pleased the Lord to employ it for that purpose; yea, and of other worlds, also, if the Lord should freely make them and would redeem them. Sufficient we say, then, was the sacrifice of Christ for the redemption of the whole world and for the expiation of all the sins of all and every man in the world. This is its own true internal perfection and sufficiency; that it should be applied unto any, made a price for them, and become beneficial to them, according to the worth that is in it, is external to it, does not arise from it, but merely depends upon the intention and will of God. It was in itself of infinite value and sufficiency to have been made a price to have bought and purchased all and every man in the world. That it did formally become a price for any is solely to be ascribed to the purpose of God intending their purchase and redemption by it. The intention of the offerer and acceptor [of the sacrifice] that it should be for such, some, or any is that which gives the formality of a price unto it; this is external [to the sacrifice]. But the value and fitness of it to be made a price arises from its own internal sufficiency.​
In respect to the phrase ransom price for all (1 Tim. 2:6), Owen remarks that it must be understood to mean that Christ’s blood was sufficient to be made a ransom for all, to be made a price for all; but that the terms ransom and ransom price more properly denote the application than the value of Christ’s sacrifice. He adds that “the expression to die for any person holds out the intention of our Savior in the laying down of the price, to be their Redeemer.”

Shedd, W. G. T. (2003). Dogmatic theology. (A. W. Gomes, Ed.) (3rd ed., p. 742). Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub.​
That the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ is the perfect warranty of eternal salvation for all whom the Father has given to Him does not diminish the all-sufficiency of the atonement. The blood of the Lord Jesus Christ is abundantly sufficient to atone for the sins of the entire world. It is therefore not without significance that the Lord Jesus is referred to as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world and the Bread that gives life to the world (cf. John 1:29; 6:33). Whoever hears the gospel does not need to wonder whether there is sufficient latitude in the invitation of the gospel for him to return to the Lord and be reconciled with Him. The Canons of Dort emphasize both the particular nature as well as the all-sufficiency of the atonement. We shortchange the witness of the Bible if we neglect one of these aspects.

DeVries, P. (2011). The Glory of the Cross (2). Puritan Reformed Journal Volume 3, 3(2), 28.​

*The value of Christ’s atoning death*
The question has to do, first of all, with the value of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Classical Augustinianism teaches that the atonement of Jesus Christ is sufficient for all men. The value of the sacrifice that Christ offered to the Father is of infinite value. There is enough merit in the work of Jesus Christ to cover the sins of every human being who has ever lived. So there is no limit to the value of the sacrifice that is made. In that sense, what Christ did on the cross is sufficient, objectively considered, to cover the sins of every individual in the world. There is no debate about the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement.

But there is a distinction between the sufficiency of the atonement and the efficiency of the atonement. The question really is, Was Jesus’ death efficient for everybody? This is where we find all kinds of subtle differences of opinion.

Does the atonement result in saving everybody automatically? Does Christ’s death on the cross have the effect of saving the whole world? There are people who believe that Jesus died for the whole world in the sense that his death on the cross brought about that result. Such people are Universalists. Now Arminians do not believe in limited atonement, but neither are they Universalists. Calvinists and Arminians agree that not everybody is saved through the atoning death of Jesus Christ. So there is, in some sense, a limit to the efficiency of the cross.

Sproul, R. C. (2005). The Unexpected Jesus: The Truth Behind His Biblical Names (pp. 127–128). Fearn, UK: Christian Focus Publications.​

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JTB.SDG (Apr 6, 2017)

Yes, sufficient for a thousand worlds of people, efficient only for the elect.


----------



## Gforce9 (Apr 6, 2017)

The elder Dr. Sproul made a great point in this discussion: the sufficient/efficient discussion, while important, doesn't answer the question of intent......what did God intend in the whole matter of Christ as mediator? The intent of the atonement must be asked and answered to effectively speak of it.....

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Apr 6, 2017)

In my opinion, Charles Hodge has the best treatment of the subject. The link below is a little bit lengthy, but well worth the read (and reread!).

http://graceonlinelibrary.org/refor...ent/for-whom-did-Christ-die-by-charles-hodge/


----------



## timfost (Apr 6, 2017)

convicted1 said:


> ...only applicable to the elect(efficient).



"Applicable" is a bit of a dirty word in the reformed community in relation to mankind. "Applicable" was a favorite word of hypothetical universalists, but other reformed views of the atonement tended to shy away from the word in the context of the non-elect. Hodge used the word "suitable." The Hypothetical Universalist Davenant made a distinction between men and angels in his Dissertation in relation to "applicable." He argued that while the death of Christ was by design applicable to all men, it would not actually be applied to any but the elect by the means of God-given faith. In his Dissertation, he argues that Christ was never a suitable substitute for an angel because of difference in the nature of men and angels, so sufficient could not only refer to value, but design.

In short, most of the reformed use some version of the sufficient/efficient formula, but they will apply it differently depending on what view of the atonement they promote.


----------



## Guido's Brother (Apr 6, 2017)

It's pretty standard confessionally Reformed theology. See article 3 and article 8 of chapter 2 of the Canons of Dort.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ed Walsh (Apr 6, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> the sufficient/efficient discussion, while important, doesn't answer the question of intent......what did God intend in the whole matter of Christ as mediator?



His intent was to atone for the sins of the elect. I think [careful, this is my idea] a corollary or "accidental" purpose [affect] is to further remove all excuses from those who reject such a wonderful gospel.

I don't know if this helps, partly because I didn't thoroughly understand your question. Forgive me for that.

Election

The scope of the atonement and the subsequent giving of eternal life to human beings is ‘as many as’ the Father has given the Son. The *intent of the atonement* determines its extent. Election, human and divine, is a choice in the gift of the elector. In political elections we choose from candidates and need give no reason for our choice of one and rejection of others. Electors are sovereign in their electing. Sovereignty is what makes an elector. So with divine election, it is the sovereignty of God that determines who will be covered by the blood of Christ and who will be passed by. The lost might all justifiably be left to be lost for ever. But God in his mercy saves as many as he gives to Jesus. They are a reward to Jesus for his faithfulness (Isa. 53:10). They all come willingly to him (John 6:37–40). He knows them all, one by one (Isa. 49:12; 2 Tim. 2:19). Jesus cares for them and keeps them safely all their days (John 10:3; cf. Ps. 34:6). He will present them to his Father on the last day with joy (Luke 12:8; Jude 24). Gospel salvation is alike the glory of the Son and of the Father.

Keddie, G. J. (2001). A Study Commentary on John: John 13–21 (Vol. 2, pp. 237–238). Darlington, England; Auburn, MA: Evangelical Press.
​LIVING for GOD’S GLORY
AN INTRODUCTION TO CALVINISM
JOEL R. BEEKE
A Discussion on Amyraldianism

George Smeaton says Amyraldianism presents an incoherent system, for it supposes “a double and a conflicting decree; that is, a general decree, in which God was said to will the salvation of all, and a special decree, in which He was said to will the salvation of the elect. To Christ also it ascribed a twofold and discordant aim, viz. to satisfy for all men, and to satisfy merely for the elect.”

Both Amyraldianism and Arminianism maintain that Christ suffered for mankind, not that He paid the penalty for sins. And they both teach, as Robert Letham says, “that this suffering does not intrinsically achieve what it was intended to do since it is dependent on a response on the part of human beings which, in very many cases, fails to materialize.” The difference between Amyraldianism and Arminianism is that in the former, the limitation is the choice of God, while in the latter, the limitation is the choice of the one who believes. Iain Murray says, “Traditional Reformed theology rejected this Amyraldian combination of the universal with the particular, holding that God had only one *intent* and *purpose* in the death of his Son, the actual salvation of those for whom he suffered.”

Beeke, J. R. (2008). Living for God’s Glory: An Introduction to Calvinism (p. 78). Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing.

​


----------



## Gforce9 (Apr 6, 2017)

Ed Walsh said:


> His intent was to atone for the sins of the elect. I think [careful, this is my idea] a corollary or "accidental" purpose [affect] is to further remove all excuses from those who reject such a wonderful gospel.
> 
> I don't know if this helps, partly because I didn't thoroughly understand your question. Forgive me for that.
> 
> ...



Ed,
It wasn't a question on my part, but stating the question that must be asked and answered, according to Dr. Sproul. To state his concern another way: the sufficient/efficient question(s) does/do not ask nor answer enough. One has to go a step further and ask/answer the question of God's intent.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ed Walsh (Apr 6, 2017)

Thanks Greg.

Below are some Scriptures on the Atonement I copied and pasted. Most will be familiar, but several might be helpful as to God's intent.


A. The Scriptures describe the end intended and accomplished by Christ’s work as the full salvation (actual reconciliation, justification, and sanctification) of His people.

1. The Scriptures state that Christ came, not to enable men to save themselves, but to save sinners.

Matthew 1:21: “… she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”

Luke 19:10: “For the Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost.”

2 Corinthians 5:21: For our sake he [God] made him [Christ] to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Galatians 1:3, 4: Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father.

1 Timothy 1:15: The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. And I am the foremost of sinners.

Titus 2:14: … who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.

1 Peter 3:18: For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit.

2. The Scriptures declare that, as the result of what Christ did and suffered, His people are reconciled to God, justified, and given the Holy Spirit who regenerates and sanctifies them. All these blessings were secured by Christ Himself for His people.

a. Christ, by His redeeming work, secured reconciliation for His people.

Romans 5:10: For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.

2 Corinthians 5:18, 19: All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

Ephesians 2:15, 16: … by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby bringing the hostility to an end.

Colossians 1:21, 22: And you, who once were estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him.

b. Christ secured the righteousness and pardon needed by His people for their justification.

Romans 3:24, 25: … they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.

Romans 5:8, 9: But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

1 Corinthians 1:30: He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption.

Galatians 3:13: Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us …

Colossians 1:13, 14: He has delivered us from the dominion of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Hebrews 9:12: … he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

1 Peter 2:24: He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

c. Christ secured the gift of the Spirit which includes regeneration and sanctification and all that is involved in them.

Ephesians 1:3, 4: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.

Philippians 1:29: For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake.

Acts 5:31: “God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.”

Titus 2:14: … who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.

Titus 3:5, 6: … he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior.

Ephesians 5:25, 26: Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word.

1 Corinthians 1:30: He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption.

Hebrews 9:14: … how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

Hebrews 13:12: So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood.

1 John 1:7: … but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.


Steele, D. N., Thomas, C. C., & Nicole, R. (1963). The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended and Documented (pp. 40–43). Philadelphia, PA: The Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co.​


----------



## TheThirdandReformedAdam (Apr 6, 2017)

Could I interject a question, here? I have frequently struggled with the idea that the atonement is "sufficient for all." I pray that this is not owing to a personal under-appreciation of the weightiness of the act of redemption, but I find it difficult to reconcile with the perfect holiness of God. Namely, how does one claim that redemption is "sufficient for all and efficient for few" and yet _not _also conclude that Christ was punished beyond what sin deserved? (I'm not on the offensive; I don't know where I come down on this issue, myself).

Also, good to see a fellow West Virginian on the PB.


----------



## Jack K (Apr 6, 2017)

If I understand it rightly, the sufficiency is found not so much in the extent of the punishment but in the infinite value of the one being punished.

When I discuss this with children, I generally don't use the words "efficient" and "sufficient" even though it is the concept I teach. Instead we will discuss what sort of punishment might be "enough" for one who sins against eternal God. We conclude that it must be not just death, but an eternal death and punishment. So the amount of punishment is the same whether we sin once or a billion times. If I sin right now, it won't mean Jesus' punishment ended up being harsher than it would have been if I don't sin. It's a full-as-can-be punishment either way.

Then we discuss how many deaths would be enough to save all believers. We figure that even if God were willing to punish one ordinary sinless man (assuming such a person existed) for the sins of another man, fairness would demand one man punished for every one man who sins and is saved. How then can Jesus, who is just one man, save all who believe in him? It is because Jesus is not an ordinary man. He is not worth one man, or five men, or even a million men. Jesus is worth infinite men, because he is infinite God.

So it turns out that punishing Jesus _could be_ enough to save everybody, not because the punishment was steeper than it needed to be, but because it's impossible to put a cap on the worth of Jesus. But God has to be willing. One man can't die for another unless God approves. And God is only willing to let the punishment count for those who believe in Jesus. He will not allow for Jesus to have been punished for nothing, for people who reject him. So it only counts for you if you believe.

That's roughly the language I use. Perhaps it's helpful. And as always, if some of you who are wiser know how I could be more precise and correct in my kid-friendly language, I'm all ears.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## MW (Apr 6, 2017)

Let's try to move beyond the surface of words and their shifting significance to something deeper and more certain. Is the atonement sufficient to save the elect in a sense it is not sufficient to save all men? If one answers affirmatively then it is clear that the phrase, "sufficient for all," cannot be used in the same latitude as the phrase, "efficient for the elect." The word "for" requires an equivocation, thus demonstrating that the parallel is not really parallel, and is rather redundant. On the other hand, if one answers negatively it is clear that person really holds the Arminian position that the salvation of the elect depends on something other than Christ's sufficiency for them.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 7, 2017)

If the design of the atonement was for the procurement of the faith of those for whom Our Lord died, how can we even hint that there is some _sufficiency_ for those not having faith so procured? In what sense does that word even apply in this case?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Apr 7, 2017)

What I meant, and poorly expressed it, is that what I am really driving at is did the Christ die for everybody w/o exception. That particular Baptist mentioned _And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again._[2Corinthians 5:15] And also _That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe._[1Timothy 4:10]

Seeing that Jesus said He laid His life down for His sheep and Paul wrote Christ died for the church, how can we(I) reconcile that with Him dying for everybody, even if not salvifically?


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Apr 7, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> If the design of the atonement was for the procurement of the faith of those for whom Our Lord died, how can we even hint that there is some _sufficiency_ for those not having faith so procured? In what sense does that word even apply in this case?


This is my concern with that notion, too. If Christ died for everybody, then everybody eventually gets saved. Even those who never heard the gospel will be saved. And that leads into mysticism. This is the slippery slope that the non-Calvinists will not admit in their theology. They believe that the Christ died for everybody, everybody will be given at least one _'shot'_ at being saved, yet not everyone will have heard the gospel.

This is just a shinier version of Universal Atonement.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Apr 7, 2017)

TheThirdandReformedAdam said:


> Could I interject a question, here? I have frequently struggled with the idea that the atonement is "sufficient for all." I pray that this is not owing to a personal under-appreciation of the weightiness of the act of redemption, but I find it difficult to reconcile with the perfect holiness of God. Namely, how does one claim that redemption is "sufficient for all and efficient for few" and yet _not _also conclude that Christ was punished beyond what sin deserved? (I'm not on the offensive; I don't know where I come down on this issue, myself).
> 
> Also, good to see a fellow West Virginian on the PB.


To me, this 'sufficient for all' is just a cop out. No one denies that Jesus' death could have saved 100 worlds this size, if it was intended to do so. Yet, the death, burial & resurrection of the Christ was for His ppl.

If it is sufficient, then it is sufficient. No need for ppl to try to re-invent the wheel, but sure try to.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Apr 7, 2017)

convicted1 said:


> This is my concern with that notion, too. If Christ died for everybody, then everybody eventually gets saved. Even those who never heard the gospel will be saved. And that leads into mysticism. This is the slippery slope that the non-Calvinists will not admit in their theology. They believe that the Christ died for everybody, everybody will be given at least one _'shot'_ at being saved, yet not everyone will have heard the gospel.
> 
> This is just a shinier version of Universal Atonement.



Here is some wisdom from Thomas Watson on the matter:

"We must qualify also Christ's dying for the world. Christ died sufficiently for all, not effectually. There is the value of Christ's blood, and the virtue of Christ's blood. Christ's blood has value enough to redeem the whole world—but the virtue of it is applied only to such as believe. Christ's blood has the value to save all, but it is not efficacious for all. All are not saved, because some put away salvation from them, "We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles." Acts 13:46. Others vilify Christ's blood, counting it an unholy thing."

And:

"I grant there is a sufficiency of merit in Christ's blood to save all; but there is a difference between sufficiency and efficiency. Christ's blood is a sufficient price for all—but it is effectual only to those who believe. A plaster may have a sovereign virtue in it to heal any wound—but it does not heal any, unless applied to the wound. And if it is so, that all have not the benefit of Christ's redemption—but only some..."

And:

"(3: Appropriation, or applying Christ to ourselves. A medicine, though it be ever so sovereign, if not applied, will do no good. Though the plaster is made of Christ's own blood, it will not heal, unless applied by faith; the blood of God, without faith in God, will not save. This applying of Christ is called receiving him. John 1:12. The hand receiving gold, enriches. Just so, the hand of faith, receiving Christ's golden merits with salvation, enriches us."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Apr 7, 2017)

And Charles Hodge:

"By this dispensation it is rendered manifest to every intelligent mind in heaven and upon earth, and to the finally impenitent themselves, that the perdition of those that perish is their own fault. They will not come to Christ that they may have life. They refuse to have Him to reign over them. He calls but they will not answer. He says, ‘Him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out.’ Every human being who does come is saved. This is what is meant when it is said, or implied in Scripture, that Christ gave Himself as a propitiation, not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world. He was a propitiation effectually for the sins of his people, and sufficiently for the sins of the whole world. Augustinians have no need to wrest the Scriptures. They are under no necessity of departing from their fundamental principle that it is the duty of the theologian to subordinate his theories to the Bible, and teach not what seems to him to be true or reasonable, but simply what the Bible teaches."

Hope this helps!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 7, 2017)

convicted1 said:


> I have heard, and this coming from reformed/particular Baptists, that Christ's death was for all(sufficient), but only applicable to the elect(efficient). Now, what do ye blokes say?


Did Jesus actually then died for the sins of all sinners, but was effectual towards on the elect of God?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 7, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Did Jesus actually then died for the sins of all sinners, but was effectual towards on the elect of God?


If Our Lord actually died for the sins of all sinners, then the wrath of God the Father is propitiated for all sinners. This is contrary to the perspicuity of Scripture on the mattter.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 7, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> If Our Lord actually died for the sins of all sinners, then the wrath of God the Father is propitiated for all sinners. This is contrary to the perspicuity of Scripture on the mattter.


How would you take then the statements of Him put to death for the sins of the whole world? Didn't John say that his death was the propiation not just for us, but for the whole world?


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Apr 7, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> How would you take then the statements of Him put to death for the sins of the whole world? Didn't John say that his death was the propiation not just for us, but for the whole world?


Study 'propitiation' and get back with us. Also, God was propitiated, not fallen man


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 7, 2017)

convicted1 said:


> Study 'propitiation' and get back with us. Also, God was propitiated, not fallen man


Yes, as the death of Jesus was the payment to God the Father required to appease His divine wrath, but how does that figure into his death averted the wrath of God towards the whole world?


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Apr 7, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Yes, as the death of Jesus was the payment to God the Father required to appease His divine wrath, but how does that figure into his death averted the wrath of God towards the whole world?


His wrath is still over the disobedient.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 7, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> How would you take then the statements of Him put to death for the sins of the whole world? Didn't John say that his death was the propiation not just for us, but for the whole world?


1 John 2:2 points to those who should believe and those dispersed throughout the world.

Calvin on the matter:
2. And not for ours only. He added this for the sake of amplifying, in order that the faithful might be assured that the expiation made by Christ, extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel.

Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. *Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation*. They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ 1 suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word *all* or *whole*, he does not include the reprobate, *but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world*. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world.​
See also Rev. 5:9-10 as a nice explanation of what John means in 1 John 2:2.

For further reading: http://rscottclark.org/2006/08/limited-atonement/


----------



## MW (Apr 7, 2017)

timfost said:


> Here is some wisdom from Thomas Watson on the matter:
> 
> "We must qualify also Christ's dying for the world. Christ died sufficiently for all, not effectually. There is the value of Christ's blood, and the virtue of Christ's blood. Christ's blood has value enough to redeem the whole world—but the virtue of it is applied only to such as believe.



Indeed, there is much wisdom in this distinction. Do you yourself hold to it? Do you limit the sufficiency for all to the value of Christ's blood in itself? I thought you held with John Davenant that this type of sufficiency does not go far enough.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 8, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> 1 John 2:2 points to those who should believe and those dispersed throughout the world.
> 
> Calvin on the matter:
> 2. And not for ours only. He added this for the sake of amplifying, in order that the faithful might be assured that the expiation made by Christ, extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel.
> ...


So Calvin would have seen it as being that Jesus died just for the sins of the elect, correct?
But is there not also the position also posted here that Jesus death was for all sinners, and yet God intended it to be effectual and applied saving grace towards just the elect in Christ?
And so there are those 2 options, and also the one that Jesus died to offer a hypocritical salvation to all sinners, and yet God knowing that none can freely receive that, enabled his elect to be granted saving faith?


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Apr 8, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> But is there not also the position also posted here that Jesus death was for all sinners, and yet God intended it to be effectual and applied saving grace towards just the elect in Christ?



Christ dying for all yet only the elect receive it, implies that part of His sacrifice was meaningless.



Dachaser said:


> And so there are those 2 options, and also the one that Jesus died to offer a hypocritical salvation to all sinners, and yet God knowing that none can freely receive that, enabled his elect to be granted saving faith?



Hypothetical universalism has been posited by some, but it's a doctrine that is not commonly shared. It cannot be stated biblically.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Apr 8, 2017)

MW said:


> Indeed, there is much wisdom in this distinction. Do you yourself hold to it? Do you limit the sufficiency for all to the value of Christ's blood in itself? I thought you held with John Davenant that this type of sufficiency does not go far enough.



I agree with Davenant in some of his assertions but deny his belief in a conditional decree which is one facet or application of his sufficiency formula.

I'm not persuaded that you can affirm with Watson that Christ died sufficiently for all men. If I understand you, you would say that the price was of sufficient value, but would not say that he died in any way for the non-elect. Is this correct?

Dabney does a good job summarizing my understanding of the matter:

"Hence, we know that He did not purposely design Christ’s sacrifice to effect the redemption of any others than the elect. But we hold it perfectly consistent with this truth, that the expiation of Christ for sin expiation of infinite value and universal fitness should be held forth to the whole world, elect and non elect, as a manifestation of the benevolence of God’s nature. God here exhibits a provision which is so related to the sin of the race, that by it, all those obstacles to every sinner’sreturn to his love, which his guilt and the law presents, are ready to be taken out of the way. But in every sinner, another class of obstacles exists; those, namely, arising out of the sinner’s own depraved will. As to the elect, God takes these obstacles also out of the way, by His omnipotent calling, in pursuance of the covenant of redemption made with, and fulfilled for them by their Mediator. As to the non elect, God has judged it best not to take this class of obstacles out of the way, the men therefore go on to indulge their own will in neglecting or rejecting Christ."

I know you would disagree with him, but your understanding is not historically the only position as you well know.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 8, 2017)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Christ dying for all yet only the elect receive it, implies that part of His sacrifice was meaningless.
> 
> 
> Hypothetical universalism has been posited by some, but it's a doctrine that is not commonly shared. It cannot be stated biblically.


That would be the so called 4 points of Grace position?
Could not Jesus death had been due to the sins of all humanity, but he did not personally die in the stead as penal substitution save for His own elect?
Just trying to see how we can take the scriptures when they talk og Him as a death for the whole world, and not try to force my own views unto it?


----------



## timfost (Apr 8, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> So Calvin would have seen it as being that Jesus died just for the sins of the elect, correct?



Calvin:

"He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him."

Heidelberg 37:

"What do you understand by the word “suffered”? That all the time He lived on earth, but especially at the end of His life, He bore, in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race; in order that by His suffering, as the only atoning sacrifice, He might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, and obtain for us the grace of God, righteousness, and eternal life."



> But is there not also the position also posted here that Jesus death was for all sinners, and yet God intended it to be effectual and applied saving grace towards just the elect in Christ?



Hodge, who wrote against Hypothetical universalism, stated:

"Augustinians readily admit that the death of Christ had a relation to man, to the whole human family, which it had not to the fallen angels. It is the ground on which salvation is offered to every creature under heaven who hears the gospel; but it gives no authority for a like offer to apostate angels. It moreover secures to the whole race at large, and to all classes of men, innumerable blessings, both providential and religious. It was, of course, designed to produce these effects; and, therefore, He died to secure them. In view of the effects which the death of Christ produces on the relation of all mankind to God, it has in all ages been customary with Augustinians to say that Christ died ‘suffcienter proomnibus, efficaciter tantum pro electi—’ sufficiently for all, efficaciously only for the elect. There is a sense, therefore, in which He died for all, and there is a sense in which He died for the elect alone."

I'm not asking everyone to agree with me, but we should represent historic reformed theology accurately.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 8, 2017)

timfost said:


> Calvin:
> 
> "He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him."
> 
> ...


So per Calvin and Hodge, then Jesus did die for the sins of all humanity, but that death avails itself in a real way towards just the elect?


----------



## Jack K (Apr 8, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Just trying to see how we can take the scriptures when they talk og Him as a death for the whole world, and not try to force my own views unto it?



I wonder if you are stuck on one (incorrect) way to read "for the whole world."

One way to read that phrase would be as if it meant "for every person who ever lived." But that's not what it says. And as Calvin pointed out in the commentary quoted earlier, it is much more likely to mean "for people in every part of the world" or "to reclaim the world." Those phrases better fit the context of the Bible passages you're dealing with. It means that people everywhere, not just Jews, may believe and be saved. It also means the salvation Christ has accomplished is reclaiming the whole world that was lost to sin. In those senses, Christ's death absolutely is "for the whole world," yet he did not die for every individual. Be careful not to force an American, individualist understanding on a passage that isn't even addressing that issue.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 8, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> So per Calvin and Hodge, then Jesus did die for the sins of all humanity, but that death avails itself in a real way towards just the elect?


David,

You simply are not reading what has come before accurately, which leads to your emphatic and incorrect conclusion. To claim "Jesus did die for the sins of all humanity" without the qualifications that have been made plain is error. Stop doing this. Think about what has actually been said.

From the quoted portion of Calvin:


Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage



Note that from the full quote, Calvin, having denounced any view that would claim the sins of all mankind have expiated the wrath of God, implying Our Lord's sacrifice could not have been designed to do so, Calvin _allows_ a commonly prevailing statement to be made, yet he does not wholly endorse the same, Calvin goes on to refuse that statement to be made concerning the very verse you are appealing to: 1 John 2:2. The verse in question simply does not teach what some would want it to teach.

As to Hodge:


timfost said:


> It is _the ground on which salvation is offered_ to every creature under heaven _who hears the gospel_; but it gives no authority for a like offer to apostate angels. It moreover _secures to the whole race at large, and to all classes of men, innumerable blessings, both providential and religious_. It was, of course, designed to produce these effects; and, therefore, He died to secure them. In view of the effects which the death of Christ produces on the relation of all mankind to God, it has in all ages been customary with Augustinians to say that Christ died ‘suffcienter proomnibus, efficaciter tantum pro electi—’ sufficiently for all, efficaciously only for the elect. There is a sense, therefore, in which He died for all, and there is a sense in which He died for the elect alone."



Here Hodge provides the _grounding_ for the offer of the Gospel to those who actually _hear_ the Gospel, those _having ears to hear, _not each and every person. Further, per Hodge, the sacrifice of Our Lord was designed to secure these providential and religious blessings to all persons. This in no way implies salvific blessings to all persons. Hence, per Hodge, there is _a sense_ in which He died for all and _a sense_ in which He died for the elect alone.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 8, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> David,
> 
> You simply are not reading what has come before accurately, which leads to your emphatic and incorrect conclusion. To claim "Jesus did die for the sins of all humanity" without the qualifications that have been made plain is error. Stop doing this. Think about what has actually been said.
> 
> ...


So if I am understanding you correctly on this issue, then the author would be defining just what the extent"for whole earth" really meant, and that was not for all sinners, correct?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 8, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> So if I am understanding you correctly on this issue, then the author would be defining just what the extent"for whole earth" really meant, and that was not for all sinners, correct?


Exactly _who_ is "the author" in your question? 
John in 1 John 2:2?
Calvin?
Hodge?


----------



## timfost (Apr 8, 2017)

David,

The reason I've posted the quotes I have in this thread is to demonstrate some of the diversity on this issue. We all affirm that Christ died for the elect effectively and that His purposes are not thwarted or frustrated. As one who affirms that there is _a sense _that Christ died for all, I want to be very careful in how I promote this as the authors I have quoted very carefully define the parameters of their statements. 

I agree with Patrick that you should be more careful in coming to quick conclusions as they often don't account for the nuanced parameters of the discussion. These debates are far bigger than what we can summarize into catch phrases. If you would like to understand the _sense_ in which Christ died for all according to a number of the reformers, I would encourage you to read authors such as Hodge, Dabney, Ursinus and others. Davenant is a good read, but as I stated earlier, he gets caught up into a "conditional decree" of God and by this introduces a decree against a decree. I would also heavily caution against an Amyraldian ordering of God's decrees, as this takes what is a problem with Davenant and compounds it.

As one who has observed many of your posts, I would gently encourage you to use PuritanBoard more as a _resource_ and not as a _primary source_. It is difficult for 21st century people to appreciate the nuanced debates of the Reformation and we tend to want a "quick fix" to our theological inquiry. If we are not careful, we can easily make a caricature out of an issue that needs much care and qualification.


----------



## timfost (Apr 8, 2017)

In relation to this conversation, Dabney does make an interesting point that might help to clarify things, especially in the light of the double jeopardy scheme that has been referenced.

"It seems plain that the vagueness and ambiguity of the modern term "atonement," has very much complicated the debate. This word, not classical in the Reformed theology, is used sometimes for *satisfaction for guilt*, sometimes for the *reconciliation ensuing thereon*; until men on both sides of the debate have forgotten the distinction. *The one is cause, the other effect*. The only New Testament sense the word atonement has is that of katallagh , reconciliation. But expiation is another idea. *Katallagh is personal. Exilasmo" is impersonal*. Katallagh is multiplied, being repeated as often as a sinner comes to the expiatory blood. exilasmo" is single, unique, complete; and, in itself considered, *has no more relation to one man’s sins than another*. As it is *applied in effectual calling, it becomes personal, and receives a limitation. But in itself, limitation is irrelevant to it.* Hence, when men use the word atonement, as they so often do, in the sense of expiation, the phrases, "limited atonement," "particular atonement," have no meaning. *Redemption is limited, i. e., to true believers, and is particular. Expiation is not limited.*"


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Apr 9, 2017)

Thanks for the info guys.

The reason I brought this up was a particular baptist used 2 Cor. 5:15 & 1 Tim. 4:10 to say Christ died for all. He then used the 'sufficient/efficient' saying. I agree that Christ's death, burial & resurrection could save 100,000 worlds, if it was intended to do so.

Now, what benefits of the crosswork of the Christ does the non-elect receive?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 10, 2017)

convicted1 said:


> Now, what benefits of the crosswork of the Christ does the non-elect receive?


I would be at a loss to claim there were non-salvific benefits to the reprobate designed into the atonement. I simply recognized that this was Hodge's position as I quoted above. Exactly how Hodge distinguishes between general providence and actual non-salvific benefits to the reprobate eludes me.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 10, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Exactly _who_ is "the author" in your question?
> John in 1 John 2:2?
> Calvin?
> Hodge?


The Apostle John


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 10, 2017)

timfost said:


> David,
> 
> The reason I've posted the quotes I have in this thread is to demonstrate some of the diversity on this issue. We all affirm that Christ died for the elect effectively and that His purposes are not thwarted or frustrated. As one who affirms that there is _a sense _that Christ died for all, I want to be very careful in how I promote this as the authors I have quoted very carefully define the parameters of their statements.
> 
> ...


I think what is hanging me up on this discussion is trying to distinguish between Jesus died due to/for the sins of humanity, and/but that is just for sake of the Elect of God, as I hold to both points as of right now. I see Jesus died in some sense for all, but not in the sense that Christian Universalists have seen it meaning!


----------



## timfost (Apr 10, 2017)

James Durham puts it this way


Dachaser said:


> I think what is hanging me up on this discussion is trying to distinguish between Jesus died due to/for the sins of humanity, and/but that is just for sake of the Elect of God, as I hold to both points as of right now. I see Jesus died in some sense for all, but not in the sense that Christian Universalists have seen it meaning!



James Durham explains a connection between Christ's death and common grace:

"Doctrine Two. We may consider Christ’s sufferings and death in the fruits of it, either as they respect common favors, and mercies, common gifts, and means of grace, which are not peculiar and saving, but common to believers with others, being bestowed upon professors in the visible Church; or as they are peculiar and saving, such as faith, justification, adoption, etc. Now when we say that Christ’s sufferings and death are a price for the sins of his people, we exclude not the reprobate simply from temporal and common favors and mercies that come by his death; they may have, and actually have, common gifts and works of the Spirit, the means of grace, which are some way effects and fruits of the same covenant. But we say, that the reprobate partake not of saving mercy and that Christ’s death is a satisfaction only for the elect, and that none others get pardon of sin, faith, repentance, etc. by it, but they only; it was intended for none others. And this we clear and confirm from, and by, these following grounds and arguments, which we will shortly hint at."

And Bavinck:

"Although vicarious atonement as the acquisition of salvation in its totality cannot therefore be expanded to include all persons individually, this is not to say that it has no significance for those who are lost. Between the church and the world there is, at this point, not just separation and contrast. It is not the case that Christ has acquired everything for the former and nothing for the latter. In rejecting universalism one may not forget that Christ’s merit has its limits even for the church and its value and meaning for the world. In the first place, it must be remembered, after all, that though Christ as such is indeed the Re-creator, he is not the Creator of all things. Just as the Son follows the Father, so re-creation presupposes creation, grace presupposes nature, and regeneration presupposes birth. Not included in Christ’s merits, strictly speaking, is the fact that the elect are born and live, that they receive food, shelter, clothing, and an assortment of natural benefits. One can say that God would no longer have allowed the world and humankind to exist had he not had another and higher purpose for it. Common grace is indeed subservient to special grace, and along with salvation God also grants the elect many other, natural, blessings (Matt. 6:33; Rom. 8:28, 32; 1 Tim. 4:8; 2 Pet. 1:3)."

_____________________

Concerning offering Christ in the gospel, it should be noted that we do not offer election or effectual calling. The Scriptures tell us to offer Christ indiscriminately and promising salvation on the _condition _of faith and repentance. Since the general call is distinguished by definition from effectual calling, the basis of such a call to individuals who are either elect or reprobate that conditionally promises Christ to both on the same conditions, can only be a product of a general design in Christ's suffering, though this is not to be confused with a salvific purpose of God in relation to His decree.

Some Scriptures for consideration: John 3:14-18 as it relates to the offer. Col. 1:20 in relation to common grace benefits. Even though Calvin doesn't apply the sufficient/efficient distinction to 1 John 2:2 as does Hodge, John's particular use of the phrase "whole world" in 1 John only applies to the unbelieving world who is "under the sway of the wicked one" (5:19) if we look at how he actually uses the phrase. (Also consider the usage in Revelation: 3:10, 12:9, 16:14.) For us to consider the "whole world" in 1 John 2:2 as the elect world would be a dramatic departure from John's usage in these later books.

Further, we confess that God is a God of mercy and justice. His mercy that extends to us is not at the expense of His justice, which He met in Christ on the cross. If a) common graces (mercies) are extended by God to the non-elect as well as the rest of creation, and b) Christ's sufferings could have nothing to do with these mercies, we expose God to a compromise of justice for mercy since we leave no room for any satisfaction of justice in relation to creation apart from the elect.


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Apr 10, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I would be at a loss to claim there were non-salvific benefits to the reprobate designed into the atonement. I simply recognized that this was Hodge's position as I quoted above. Exactly how Hodge distinguishes between general providence and actual non-salvific benefits to the reprobate eludes me.


If you look at the Passover lamb, it did 'redeem' all those who were under its blood placed upon the top and sides of the door. Now, not all who were 'redeemed' by this blood made it to the promised land. So I can see where the atonement of Christ could keep God's wrath from being poured out on the reprobate in their lives. Is this your thought as well, Brother?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 10, 2017)

Willis,

Thank you for the response. I have seen things similarly stated. For example, in the _Atonement of Christ_ (trans. Wilson, 1859), Turretin wrote (pg. 124):

"We do not inquire whether the death of Christ gives occasion to the imparting of some blessings even to the reprobate. Because it is in consequence of the death of Christ that the gospel is preached to all nations, that the gross idolatry of many heathen nations has been abolished, that the daring impiety of men is greatly restrained by the word of God, that multitudes of the human family obtain many and excellent blessings, though not saving gifts, of the Holy Spirit. It is unquestionable that all these flow from the death of Christ, for there would have been no place for them in the church, unless Christ had died."​
Given the high esteem Turretin garners, some have possibly mistaken what he is actually stating by assuming that by these words Turretin implies a direct intention by God in the design of the atonement. In fact, I do not think Turretin even came close to implying as such. These "_blessings_" in my mind are but the outworking of the general providence of God. In fact, a few pages later, Turretin writes:

"_It is altogether gratuitous to say that Christ in his death had a twofold intention: one conditional, which extended to all; the other absolute, which is limited to a few. Scriptures nowhere countenances such a distinction_."

We know Scripture declares the even the reprobate may prosper in this life over the elect, what some may call the result of "_common grace_". But again, I have to ask _Is this the design of God or is it the mere result of general providence_? I think it is the latter.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 10, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Exactly _who_ is "the author" in your question?
> John in 1 John 2:2?
> Calvin?
> Hodge?





Dachaser said:


> The Apostle John



In that case, the quote from Calvin given earlier supplies the answer to your question:

"_So if I am understanding you correctly on this issue, then the author would be defining just what the extent "for whole earth" really meant, and that was not for all sinners, correct?_"

To wit: John in 1 John 2:2 was in no way implying by the "_whole world_" that the design of the atonement was for each and every person.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 10, 2017)

timfost said:


> James Durham puts it this way
> 
> 
> James Durham explains a connection between Christ's death and common grace:
> ...


So way then infer that part of "common Grace" would be the provision of the Lord to meet things such as food for the needy/poor, to have things set up to help others such as hospitals/schools, and to have basically a way to provide for common good and protection?

So that would tie into the Lord causing it to rain on both just and unjust?

Would the death and resurrection of Jesus provide for even the Lost their eternal bodies?


----------



## MW (Apr 10, 2017)

timfost said:


> I agree with Davenant in some of his assertions but deny his belief in a conditional decree which is one facet or application of his sufficiency formula.



Thomas Watson: "Christ's blood has value enough to redeem the whole world."
John Davenant: "not as some assert, by reason of its mere sufficiency, or intrinsic value, in which respect the death of Christ, or the blood of the Son of God, is a price more than sufficient to redeem each and all men and angels."

Thomas Watson: "but the virtue of it is applied only to such as believe."
John Davenant: "We have exhibited the universal virtue and efficacy of the death of Christ."

Watson taught the particularist position of intrinsic sufficiency. Davenant taught the modified position of ordained sufficiency.



timfost said:


> I'm not persuaded that you can affirm with Watson that Christ died sufficiently for all men. If I understand you, you would say that the price was of sufficient value, but would not say that he died in any way for the non-elect. Is this correct?



Watson taught the price is of sufficient value. "Christ's blood has value enough to redeem the whole world." That is how he explained the phrase, "Christ died sufficiently for all men." He also taught "the world" refers to the elect: "Christ takes away the sins of the world, that is, the world of the Elect." Watson did not teach the doctrine that "the world" refers to each and every man in the world.



timfost said:


> Dabney does a good job summarizing my understanding of the matter:



Dabney contradicted himself. He began with benevolence, but explained this in terms of complacence when he spoke of "every sinner's return to his love" (which Calvinists have always restricted to the elect). He has created a love in God which is ineffective to accomplish its ends. This is contrary to his own stated thesis, "Christ's design in His vicarious work was to effectuate exactly what it does effectuate;" "We know that God's omnipotence surely accomplishes every purpose of His grace."

He also advocated the post-redemptionist doctrine, claiming that election is the reason why redemption is applied to some and not to others. This doctrine was rejected by reformed theologians because it divides the Trinity and teaches that the Father says "no" to His own dear Son.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## MW (Apr 10, 2017)

What is meant by the preposition "for?" We know what the Bible means when it uses the preposition. It means that Christ has died in their place and for their good. He has died for their actual salvation. So now we ask the theologians, What do they mean by the preposition "for?" If they do not mean what the Bible means why should we listen to them?


----------



## timfost (Apr 12, 2017)

MW said:


> What is meant by the preposition "for?" We know what the Bible means when it uses the preposition. It means that Christ has died in their place and for their good. He has died for their actual salvation. So now we ask the theologians, What do they mean by the preposition "for?" If they do not mean what the Bible means why should we listen to them?



Consider Hodge again:

"He died for all, that He might arrest the immediate execution of the penalty of the law upon the whole of our apostate race; that He might secure for men the innumerable blessings attending their state on earth, which, in one important sense, is a state of probation; and that He might lay the foundation for the offer of pardon and reconciliation with God, on condition of faith and repentance."

Since you believe that Christ's death has nothing to do with anyone or anything besides the effectual salvation of the elect, you cannot understand "for" in any other way. But if one sees other purposes of God in Christ's death, it's not difficult to use the word "for" in relation to the non-elect since God effectually works His multiple purposes through Christ's sufferings. 

I think you need to stop trying to impose your particular "particularist" understanding on those who understand other benefits accruing from Christ's death. "For" is only inconsistent when you force your premise on those with a different one.


----------



## timfost (Apr 12, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> So way then infer that part of "common Grace" would be the provision of the Lord to meet things such as food for the needy/poor, to have things set up to help others such as hospitals/schools, and to have basically a way to provide for common good and protection?
> 
> So that would tie into the Lord causing it to rain on both just and unjust?



I'm a little confused by the question... I believe that all the mercies of God extend to a sinful world because of Christ's sufferings that propitiated the Father.



> Would the death and resurrection of Jesus provide for even the Lost their eternal bodies?



Believers who died in the Lord will raise because He rose. This is in many ways the consummation of God's mercy to us. I find it difficult to imagine that the resurrection unto condemnation relates in any way to the mercy of God, but rather His wrath and judgment.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 12, 2017)

timfost said:


> I'm a little confused by the question... I believe that all the mercies of God extend to a sinful world because of Christ's sufferings that propitiated the Father.
> 
> 
> 
> Believers who died in the Lord will raise because He rose. This is in many ways the consummation of God's mercy to us. I find it difficult to imagine that the resurrection unto condemnation relates in any way to the mercy of God, but rather His wrath and judgment.


That they still will exist and not just be destroyed would be part of His mercy even in their judgment? As would Him having differing degrees of punishment in hell?


----------



## timfost (Apr 12, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> That they still will exist and not just be destroyed would be part of His mercy even in their judgment? As would Him having differing degrees of punishment in hell?



As to different degrees, I'm not sure if the scriptures would ever call that mercy. I don't want to speculate.


----------



## MW (Apr 12, 2017)

timfost said:


> Consider Hodge again:
> 
> "He died for all, that He might arrest the immediate execution of the penalty of the law upon the whole of our apostate race; that He might secure for men the innumerable blessings attending their state on earth, which, in one important sense, is a state of probation; and that He might lay the foundation for the offer of pardon and reconciliation with God, on condition of faith and repentance."



It may well be reasoned that sinful men gain a stay of execution as a result of Christ's death. The Bible, though, never speaks of Christ dying FOR men in this sense. The belief of it is not a matter of special revelation, and pressing it as if it were a biblical doctrine is false.

Thankfully men like Hodge were temperate in their reasoning and careful to bring out what the Bible itself teaches. In the paragraph following the quotation he carefully showed the proper sense in which the Bible speaks of Christ dying for all men, i.e., all kinds or classes of men.


----------



## timfost (Apr 12, 2017)

MW said:


> Thankfully men like Hodge were temperate in their reasoning and careful to bring out what the Bible itself teaches. In the paragraph following the quotation he carefully showed the proper sense in which the Bible speaks of Christ dying for all men, i.e., all kinds or classes of men.



Hodge:

"He was a propitiation effectually for the sins of his people, and sufficiently for the sins of the whole world. Augustinians have no need to wrest the Scriptures. They are under no necessity of departing from their fundamental principle that it is the duty of the theologian to subordinate his theories to the Bible, and teach not what seems to him to be true or reasonable, but simply what the Bible teaches. But, in the *second place*, it is to be remarked that general terms are often used indefinitely and not comprehensively. They mean all kinds, or classes, and not all and every individual. When Christ said, ‘I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me,’ He meant men of all ages, classes, and conditions, and not every individual man."

Hodge's second point is what you referenced above. His second point was not a negation of the first. A negation of the first point is what Hodge calls "wrest[ing] the Scriptures."

The scripture does talk about Christ dying for "things" (Col. 1:20). Perhaps the problem is your system, not the doctrine?


----------



## MW (Apr 12, 2017)

timfost said:


> Hodge's second point is what you referenced above. His second point was not a negation of the first. A negation of the first point is what Hodge calls "wrest[ing] the Scriptures."



As noted, if one desires to "reason" to the point of a stay of execution, there is no problem from a rational point of view. But to say the Scriptures teach this is what is meant by Christ dying FOR men is unbiblical; and Hodge himself goes beyond this. He concluded, "In the review of this subject, it is plain that the doctrine that Christ died equally for all men with the purpose of rendering the salvation of all possible, has no advantage over the doctrine that He died specially for his own people, and with the purpose of rendering their salvation certain." Any analysis of Hodge which brings him to differ with himself is either a false analysis or it regards him as contradicting himself. If the latter one wonders what purpose was served in bringing Hodge into the discussion.



timfost said:


> The scripture does talk about Christ dying for "things" (Col. 1:20). Perhaps the problem is your system, not the doctrine?



You have simply failed to produce a Scripture which speaks of Christ dying FOR men. As usual, to avoid the plain facts of the case you have raised something irrelevant to the discussion.


----------



## timfost (Apr 12, 2017)

MW said:


> He concluded, "In the review of this subject, it is plain that the doctrine that Christ died equally for all men with the purpose of rendering the salvation of all possible, has no advantage over the doctrine that He died specially for his own people, and with the purpose of rendering their salvation certain." Any analysis of Hodge which brings him to differ with himself is either a false analysis or it regards him as contradicting himself. If the latter one wonders what purpose was served in bringing Hodge into the discussion.



I agree with you and Hodge on this. Christ did not die equally for all. I apologize if this was unclear.



MW said:


> You have simply failed to produce a Scripture which speaks of Christ dying FOR men. As usual, to avoid the plain facts of the case you have raised something irrelevant to the discussion.



Many scriptures speak about Christ dying for _all_. No scriptures speak of Christ _not _dying for some. Col. 1:20 talks about things in heaven and earth. It's difficult to get terminology that is more inclusive than this. If men are the exception of this comprehensive statement, please point me to the exception.


----------



## MW (Apr 12, 2017)

timfost said:


> Col. 1:20 talks about things in heaven and earth. It's difficult to get terminology that is more inclusive than this. If men are the exception of this comprehensive statement, please point me to the exception.



Have you sat down to do the exegetical work necessary to understand this passage and its parallel place in Ephesians 1? Have you come to a definitive position on what is intended by the words? Or are you just throwing it out there because of its universal sounding language? If you consult Hodge on Ephesians 1 you will see that from the reformed point of view these passages are referring to actual redemption and reconciliation, that is, those who are actually saved. To apply it to any other than those who are saved is to teach some form of universal restoration, which is contrary to the reformed and evangelical faith.

Again, you are failing to see that holy Scripture speaks of Christ dying FOR men in the sense that Christ has died in their place and for their salvation. Whatever reason says about non-saving temporal consequences, holy Scripture only reveals that Christ has died FOR men to eternally save them from sin and wrath.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 14, 2017)

timfost said:


> I agree with you and Hodge on this. Christ did not die equally for all. I apologize if this was unclear.
> 
> 
> 
> Many scriptures speak about Christ dying for _all_. No scriptures speak of Christ _not _dying for some. Col. 1:20 talks about things in heaven and earth. It's difficult to get terminology that is more inclusive than this. If men are the exception of this comprehensive statement, please point me to the exception.


Why would the Apostles have not chosen to pen down the word in the Greek then for just for the elect and not for all?


----------



## timfost (Apr 14, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Why would the Apostles have not chosen to pen down the word in the Greek then for just for the elect and not for all?



We interpret scripture with scripture, and we also understand that doctrines can be deduced from scripture. We know explicitly from scripture that Christ came to effectually save the elect alone. This is something that we all agree with, even when we disagree about some of the particulars. Can we go farther along this train of thought and conclude that Christ in no way died for anybody but the elect? I believe not, though probably most others on this board would disagree. I believe that it is speculative to go further than what the scriptures clearly reveal on this issue and that some universality in Christ's sufferings can be more persuasively deduced. I find Dort instructive in this regard:

"Finally, this Synod exhorts all their brethren in the gospel of Christ to conduct themselves piously and religiously in handling this doctrine, both in the universities and churches; to direct it, as well in discourse as in writing, to the glory of the Divine name, to holiness of life, and to the consolation of afflicted souls; to regulate, by the Scripture, according to the analogy of faith, not only their sentiments, but also their language, and to *abstain from all those phrases which exceed the limits necessary to be observed in ascertaining the genuine sense of the Holy Scriptures*, and may furnish insolent sophists with a just pretext for violently assailing, or even vilifying, the doctrine of the Reformed Churches."

Unfortunately, such strong positions seem to prevail when these things are discussed, and heavy accusations are promptly used. Unfortunately, historical positions are often neglected or redefined and caricatures are made of the doctrine. I wish it were not so, but it seems to be the cold reality.


----------



## Dachaser (Apr 14, 2017)

timfost said:


> We interpret scripture with scripture, and we also understand that doctrines can be deduced from scripture. We know explicitly from scripture that Christ came to effectually save the elect alone. This is something that we all agree with, even when we disagree about some of the particulars. Can we go farther along this train of thought and conclude that Christ in no way died for anybody but the elect? I believe not, though probably most others on this board would disagree. I believe that it is speculative to go further than what the scriptures clearly reveal on this issue and that some universality in Christ's sufferings can be more persuasively deduced. I find Dort instructive in this regard:
> 
> "Finally, this Synod exhorts all their brethren in the gospel of Christ to conduct themselves piously and religiously in handling this doctrine, both in the universities and churches; to direct it, as well in discourse as in writing, to the glory of the Divine name, to holiness of life, and to the consolation of afflicted souls; to regulate, by the Scripture, according to the analogy of faith, not only their sentiments, but also their language, and to *abstain from all those phrases which exceed the limits necessary to be observed in ascertaining the genuine sense of the Holy Scriptures*, and may furnish insolent sophists with a just pretext for violently assailing, or even vilifying, the doctrine of the Reformed Churches."
> 
> Unfortunately, such strong positions seem to prevail when these things are discussed, and heavy accusations are promptly used. Unfortunately, historical positions are often neglected or redefined and caricatures are made of the doctrine. I wish it were not so, but it seems to be the cold reality.


Think that we can safely conclude here that on this doctrine, along with certain others, there is no 100 % agreement on it as to what the scriptures say, but that we can still hold to our positions as long as not making it a proof if one is Reformed enough?


----------



## timfost (Apr 14, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Think that we can safely conclude here that on this doctrine, along with certain others, there is no 100 % agreement on it as to what the scriptures say, but that we can still hold to our positions as long as not making it a proof if one is Reformed enough?



Where we all agree on what the scriptures say, there is some diversity on the what it means. There is much more that unites what we believe than divides it, though. The diversity on this issue is not what makes somebody a four or five "pointer". Rather, Dort embraced much of this diversity and formulated a confession that allowed for this diversity and yet carried a united front against the Remonstrance.


----------

