# Universal aspects of the atonement



## Pergamum (Nov 18, 2007)

What are the universal aspects of Christ's limited atonement?

In what ways did Christ die for all?


A strict substition for the elect is the primary benefits. Are there secondary benefits that even the reprobate reap?


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 18, 2007)

Pergamum said:


> What are the universal aspects of Christ's limited atonement?
> 
> In what ways did Christ die for all?
> 
> ...



No..... next thread..lol


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 18, 2007)

Richard Baxter, James Ussher, Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge, Willie Shedd, John Murray, R.B. Kuiper and Loraine Boettner all speak of universal aspects to our particular atonement.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 18, 2007)

Pergamum said:


> Richard Baxter, James Ussher, Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge, Willie Shedd, John Murray, R.B. Kuiper and Loraine Boettner all speak of universal aspects to our particular atonement.



Pergy, we have been through this countless of times. Cloaked under a different 'heading". I do not know why some find it so important.

The death of Christ saved His sheep. That is it. 


The promise is indeed universal in respect to such as repent and believe; but to extend it to the reprobate, would be blasphemy. “There is,” saith Ambrose, as just quoted, “a certain special universality of the elect, and foreknown, discerned and distinguished ‘from the entire generality.” This restriction of the promises to such as believe, is proven from the plain and explicit form in which they are expressed.” That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.” “The righteousness of God, which is by the faith of Jesus Christ unto all, and upon all them that believe.” “Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden.” “Whosever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” “He became the author of eternal salvation unto all that obey him.” And from the words of Christ: give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye pearls before swine,” &c. (John 3:16. Rom. 3:22. Matt. 11:28. Acts 2:21. Heb. 5:9. Matt. 7:6.)

The Scriptures, also, everywhere, restrict the efficacy of redemption to certain persons only, as to Christ’s sheep, to the elect and as such as believe, whilst on the other hand it clearly excludes from the grace of Christ the reprobate and unbelieving as long as they remain in their unbelief. “What concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?” (2 Cor. 6:15. See, also, Matt. 20:28; 26:28. Is. 53:11. John 10:15. Matt. 15:24.)


Christ would not even pray for the reprobate, how could we even imagine that His death benefited them in the slightest, for it is much easier to pray for someone then to die for them. He did neither.

“I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me.” (John 17:9.)

His intercessiona nd death is designed and directed at His sheep only. If He refused to give one (intercession), how could he give the other?(death)

I wish this aruguement would finally be put to rest.


----------



## DMcFadden (Nov 18, 2007)

Nicholas (Amazing Grace),

As a relative newbie, forgive my dabbling in an old subject. But, isn't Pergy just referencing the things said by some of the good "particular atonement" Calvinists he cites?

"All that the natural man receives other than curse and death is an indirect result of the redemptive work of Christ,” *Louis Berkhof *(_SystematicTheology_, p. 439).

“There is, then, a sense in which Christ died for all men,” *G. Loraine Boettner *(_*Studies in Theology*_, p. 325). 

“It is not denied by the advocates of particular redemption, or of a limited atonement, that mankind in general, even those who ultimately perish, do derive some advantages or benefits from Christ’s death,” *William Cunningham* (_*Historical Theology*_, vol. II, p.332).

“According to the Reformed faith the divine design of the atonement is in an important respect limited. But the Reformed faith also insists that in other respects it is universal. It can be shown without the slightest difficulty that certain benefits of the atonement, other than the salvation of individuals, are universal.... Therefore the statement, so often heard from Reformed pulpits, that Christ died only for the elect must be rated a careless one... The particular design of the atonement and its universal design in no way contradict each other. Nor do they merely complement each other. They support and strengthen each other. In final analysis they stand and fall together,” *R.B. Kuiper *(_*For Whom Did Christ Die?*_ pp. 78-79).

"Atonement is unlimited and redemption is limited. This statement includes all the Scripture texts: those which assert that Christ died for all men, and those which assert that he died for his people,” *William G.T. Shedd *(_*Dogmatic Theology*_, vol. II, p. 470). 

Although all of these authors hold to a limited atonement, they see some "spill over" benefits for the non-elect as well. John Murray identified a number of these universal benefits, which, he said, “accrue to the non-elect from the redemptive work of Christ.” Perhaps Buswell's explanation would be helpful here:

“There is no question among those who adhere to the Calvinistic system of doctrine as to the fact that the atonement of Christ is universal in three respects: (1) It is sufficient for all... (2) The atonement is applicable to all... (3) The atonement is offered to all,” *J. Oliver Buswell *(_*Systematic Theology*_, vol. II, and pp. 141-142).


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 18, 2007)

DMcFadden said:


> Nicholas (Amazing Grace),
> 
> As a relative newbie, forgive my dabbling in an old subject. But, isn't Pergy just referencing the things said by some of the good "particular atonement" Calvinists he cites?
> 
> ...



Brother Dennis: These men are fence sitters. Cunninghan's staement in light of the writ is unproven at the least.

Again, these statements are made to conjure up some form of 'common grace'. Where is they only could speak of a general benevolence they woudl be find. But they go beyond what is required in that aspect and then point to the biggest event in history, the death of Christ, and speak of some benefit towards those whom he reprobates. I can only wonder why this must be. 

Buswell again enters a territory of denying purpose and intent.

It is sufficient for all whom it was intended, and again, sufficient for all savingly, IF GOD SO PURPOSED!!!!. Christ would not have had to shed any more blood, be beaten anymore, wore more thorns, hung on the cross any longer to satisfy the sins of every man head for head. But alas it was never intended to do so. His atonement is offered t all who believe or will believe. Again this must be qualified as such. #2, I do not understand how it is applicable to all head for head. 

But we are talking of 2 seperate isuues. Universal aspects, vs benefits reaped by the reprobate.

The first must be qualified, the second is serious error.

Perhaps we can come up with the benefits Christ's death procured.

1) redemption
2) forgiveness
3)propitiation 
4) reconciliation 
5) justification 

What else can we add to this list?

So far none of these are benefits towards the reprobate.

Lastly, if we offer any benefit or universality of His death benefits to the reprobate, then we MUST also include Satan and his minions who fell from their first estate. So if one can please tell me what benefit satan received from the death of Christ I will perhaps change my thought..


----------



## DMcFadden (Nov 18, 2007)

Brother Nicholas,

I'm pretty new to some of this stuff, so please forgive my ignorance. But, it would seem that good Reformed theologians (not mere "fence sitters") sometimes argue that common grace itself has a relationship to the atonement.

_The question naturally arises, whether the manifestation of common grace is in any way connected with the atoning work of Christ. As far as we know, Dr. Kuyper does not posit such a connection. According to him Christ as the Mediator of creation, the light that lighteth every man coming into the world, is the source of common grace. This means that the blessings of common grace flow from the work of creation. But this hardly suffices to answer the question, how it is to be explained that a holy and just God extends grace to, and bestows favors upon, sinners who have forfeited everything, even when they have no share in the righteousness of Christ and prove finally impenitent. The question is exactly, How can God continue to bestow those blessings of creation on men who are under the sentence of death and condemnation? As far as the elect are concerned this question is answered by the cross of Christ, but how about the reprobate? Perhaps it can be said that it is not necessary to assume a specific judicial basis for the bestowal of common grace on man in view of the fact (a) that it does not remove the guilt of sin and therefore does not carry pardon with it; and (b) that it does not lift the sentence of condemnation, but only postpones the execution. Perhaps the divine good pleasure to stay the revelation of His wrath and to endure "with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction," offers a sufficient explanation for the blessings of common grace.

Reformed theologians generally hesitate to say that Christ by His atoning blood merited these blessings for the impenitent and reprobate. At the same time they do believe that 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. Says Cunningham: "Many blessings flow to mankind at large from the death of Christ, collaterally and incidentally, in consequence of the relation in which men, viewed collectively, stand to each other." And it is but natural that this should be so. If Christ was to save an elect race, gradually called out of the world of humanity in the course of centuries, it became necessary for God to exercise forbearance, to check the course of evil, to promote the development of the natural powers of man, to keep alive within the hearts of men a desire for civil righteousness, for external morality and good order in society, and to shower untold blessings upon mankind in general. Dr. Hodge expresses it thus: "It is very plain that any plan designed to secure the salvation of an elect portion of a race propagated by generation and living in association, as is the case with mankind, cannot secure its end without greatly affecting, for better or for worse, the character and destiny of all the rest of the race not elected." He quotes Dr. Candlish to the effect that "the entire history of the human race, from the apostasy to the final judgment, is a dispensation of forbearance in respect to the reprobate, in which many blessings, physical and moral, affecting their characters and destinies forever, accrue even to the heathen, and many more to the educated and refined citizens of Christian communities. These come to them through the mediation of Christ, and coming to them now, must have been designed for them from the beginning." These general blessings of mankind, indirectly resulting from the atoning work of Christ, were not only foreseen by God, but designed by Him as blessings for all concerned. It is perfectly true, of course, that the design of God in the work of Christ pertained primarily and directly, not to the temporal well-being of men in general, but to the redemption of the elect; but secondarily and indirectly it also included the natural blessings bestowed on mankind indiscriminately. All that the natural man receives other than curse and death is an indirect result of the redemptive work of Christ.

(*Systematic Theology*, pgs. 439-440) - L Berkhof _


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 18, 2007)

DMcFadden said:


> Brother Nicholas,
> 
> I'm pretty new to some of this stuff, so please forgive my ignorance. But, it would seem that good Reformed theologians (not mere "fence sitters") sometimes argue that common grace itself has a relationship to the atonement.



Brother Dennis:

We will digress very very fast if we go into the CG issue, therefore I will not in this thread at this time. We are all new to this, believe me.

Are you ready to admit and show, or "These good calvinist men" quoted, that Satan and his fallen angels reap any kind of benefit from the death of Christ? This is the deciding factor for those who propose this error.. IF not, then it must be admitted that there is no universal off to all head for head, and no benefit to all head for head


----------



## Thomas2007 (Nov 18, 2007)

Pergamum said:


> What are the universal aspects of Christ's limited atonement?
> 
> In what ways did Christ die for all?
> 
> ...



Great question. Absolutely there are secondary benefits, they just aren't soteriological.

When the jurisdiction of the Covenant became international in scope, then the Gentile nations are included in the civil aspect of the Covenant, just as the Great Commission teaches. Thus, the law of strangers apply to them and they get to enjoy the peace and good order of the Lord's Kingdom to the extent that they outwardly obey the laws.

The war is over, the rebellion is not, and the last enemy death is yet to be done away with. But the reprobate get to enjoy our Peace with the Lord in this life, purchased by the blood of Christ in the vicarious Substitutionary Atonement, whereby we are called His people that were not His people.

Romans 9, makes this very clear - "enduring with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath", is certainly a secondary benefit. Consider everyone but Noah and his children, the Sodomites, the Hittites, the Canaanites and many others that he didn't endure with longsuffering, but now He does.

Cordially,

Thomas


----------



## DMcFadden (Nov 18, 2007)

Nicholas,

Thomas beat me to it. In brief, I do believe that the blessings of God's forebearance to the rebrobate are a form of temporary benefit of Christ's atonement, but not a salvific one.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Nov 19, 2007)

Hey Nicholas,

I went back and read your post after you said I beat you to it. What you posted was good, it seemed to make what should be simple complicated, though. At least to me.

In my view, Christ is Priest, Prophet and King. The soteriological meaning of the Atonement is for the elect alone through the office of Priest, but He is Prophet and King of all. 

He is after all, the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6) and a Priest forever after the order of Melchisedek (Psalm 110:4), which means King of Righteousness and King of Peace. (Hebrews 7:2); and He inherited the heathen as His possession. (Psalm 2:8)

Thus, as we read in Scripture:

"For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God." Romans 14:11

"That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Philippians 2:10-11


----------



## Wannabee (Nov 19, 2007)

Some notes I have for a Bible study I did on 1 John 1:1-2. 



1 John 2
2And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world. 

John 1:29 - 29The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 
1 Timothy 2:3-6 - 3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, 
1 Timothy 4:10 - 10For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. 
Hebrews 2:9 - 9But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone. 
2 Peter 2:1 - 1But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. 
1 John 4:14 - 14And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world. 

Five views
1.	Universalism – everyone will be saved (John 1:5-10; 2:28; 3:14, 15; 5:12, 16)
2.	Arminianism – sufficient for the whole world but efficient only for those who accept/chose Jesus as their savior. The provision for all have been accomplished. No man—Christian, Jew, or Gentile—is outside the mercy of God, unless he places himself there deliberately.
3.	Covers all the evil effects of sin in the world.
4.	Pink – Not just the apostles/Jews, but every people, tribe and nation (apostolic “we”)
5.	Temporal verses spiritual.​
MSB on 1 John 2:2 - “World” indicates the sphere, the beings toward whom God seeks reconciliation and has provided propitiation. God has mitigated His wrath on sinners temporarily, by letting them live and enjoy earthly life (see note on 1 Tim. 4:10). In that sense, Christ has provided a brief, temporal propitiation for the whole world. But He actually satisfied fully the wrath of God eternally only for the elect who believe. 

Matthew 5:44-45 - 44But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45that 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. 

Romans 2:1-5 - 1Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. 2But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. 3And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? 5But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 



> “We do not deny that all men are the intended beneficiaries of the cross in some sense. 1 Timothy 4:10 says that Christ is "the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." What we deny is that all men are intended as the beneficiaries of the death of Christ in the same way. All of God's mercy toward unbelievers -- from the rising sun (Matthew 5:45) to the worldwide preaching of the gospel (John 3:16) -- is made possible because of the cross.
> This is the implication of Romans 3:25 where the cross is presented as the basis of God's righteousness in passing over sins. Every breath that an unbeliever takes is an act of God's mercy withholding judgment (Romans 2:4). Every time the gospel is preached to unbelievers it is the mercy of God that gives this opportunity for salvation.
> Whence does this mercy flow to sinners? How is God just to withhold judgment from sinners who deserve to be immediately cast into hell? The answer is that Christ's death so clearly demonstrates God's just abhorrence of sin that he is free to treat the world with mercy without compromising his righteousness. In this sense Christ is the savior of all men.
> But he is especially the Savior of those who believe. He did not die for all men in the same sense. The intention of the death of Christ for the children of God was that it purchase far more than the rising sun and the opportunity to be saved. The death of Christ actually saves from ALL evil those for whom Christ died "especially."” - Piper



“Thou, too, art part of the world, so that thine heart cannot deceive itself and think, The Lord died for Peter and Paul, but not for me” [LUTHER]. 

"We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men. They say, "No, certainly not." We ask them the next question--Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer, "No." They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say, "No, Christ has died that any man may be saved if..." --and then follow certain conditions of salvation. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as to secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say that we limits Christ's death; we say, "no my dear sir, it is you that do it." We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ's death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it." 
Charles Spurgeon


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 19, 2007)

If Christ is the first fruits of the resurrection and even the damned will regain their bodies at the Last Day, can we say that Christ purchased the resurrection bodies of the damned too? 


Of course, this would be far from a blessing, but it is nonetheless an effect of the atonement that is universal one way in which Christ dies for the whole world.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 19, 2007)

Pergamum said:


> If Christ is the first fruits of the resurrection and even the damned will regain their bodies at the Last Day, can we say that Christ purchased the resurrection bodies of the damned too?
> 
> 
> Of course, this would be far from a blessing, but it is nonetheless an effect of the atonement that is universal one way in which Christ dies for the whole world.



This is a stetch to call it a benefit. It is not part of the thrust of the writ denoting Christ's death


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 19, 2007)

I did write.."Of course, this would be far from a blessing,.."

It does, however, bespeak of Christ's death have universal effects...a start.



Not sure about that "thrust of the writ" stuff....

Christ did say he was the first fruits of the resurrection and this resurrection willhappen to ALL.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 19, 2007)

Thomas2007 said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > What are the universal aspects of Christ's limited atonement?
> ...




If we follow this line of thinking, then what do we call God who will not just immediately bring His elect to Glory and instead let them live in this world?

Romans 9 is 100% salvific in nature. Nothing else..


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 19, 2007)

> "Atonement is unlimited and redemption is limited. This statement includes all the Scripture texts: those which assert that Christ died for all men, and those which assert that he died for his people,” William G.T. Shedd (Dogmatic Theology, vol. II, p. 470).



That is clearly not limited atonement which Shedd is teaching. He seems to have been weak on this point, as that is the same argument which an Arminian employs to justify universal atonement.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 19, 2007)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> > "Atonement is unlimited and redemption is limited. This statement includes all the Scripture texts: those which assert that Christ died for all men, and those which assert that he died for his people,” William G.T. Shedd (Dogmatic Theology, vol. II, p. 470).
> 
> 
> 
> That is clearly not limited atonement which Shedd is teaching. He seems to have been weak on this point, as that is the same argument which an Arminian employs to justify universal atonement.



 Daniel. My goodness we agree on something.. Mark this date and thread down.

This is exactly what the Govt theory of atonement of Groitus proposes.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Nov 19, 2007)

Dear Amazing Grace,

I wonder if some of this debate doesn't concern the sorts of personalities we have. It relates to how neatly we can summarise scripture. Some of us can't bear loose ends, and others of us are happy to retain them.



Amazing Grace said:


> I do not know why some find it so important.



It's because of the simple testimony of Scripture. There are a raft of verses that appear to suggest universal benefits of the atonement, and many aren't convinced by some of the all-too-neat suggestions that explain them away.



Amazing Grace said:


> The death of Christ saved His sheep. That is it.



Brother, that is precisely the problem, Scripture (In my humble opinion) is not that tidy on this point. Yes, the death of Christ saved his sheep, but there is _more to it _in Scripture than that.

Hodge, Shedd, and Dabney are simply trying to produce an explanation that accounts for _all_ of Scripture, not some of it. It won't do to just say they're not truly reformed. That is to miss the point.

Blessings.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 19, 2007)

JohnOwen007 said:


> Dear Amazing Grace,
> 
> I wonder if some of this debate doesn't concern the sorts of personalities we have. It relates to how neatly we can summarise scripture. Some of us can't bear loose ends, and others of us are happy to retain them.
> 
> ...



Brother Martin:

You will not hear me utter those words of being truly refomred. We spoke about this before. Our concern is to be as biblically clear as the scripture allows.

What those people you mentioned above, the ones I have called fence sitters, have done, is compramise the position of particular redemption. I personally do not know why 'limited' was ever used. If we stopped using limited, I believe there would be ,ess discussions like this. The issue I have is why we feel compelled to offer benefits or universality to His death to the reprobate. Why give the pearls to the swine? The only motivation I can come up with is to guard against an arbitrary God. There would be no other reason. And lastly Martin, the 'Calminian " position is easy. Yet very confusing. And these same people mentioned have never said whatthe benefits are scripturally. I listed the benefits of His death. They are crystal clear in the writ. If I am missing any, please add to it.

1) redemption
2) forgiveness
3)propitiation
4) reconciliation
5) justification 

Now Thomas mentioned some civil notion of peace in the Kingdon of God. Or forebearence against destroying the reprobate, but there is no scriptural support for this, so i wont entertain it.

If we continue to speak about benefits, what are the benefits?

Pergy mentioned bodily resureection. Ok, that is an effect, but not a benefit. They may as well not rise again for their own sake. 

Recap:

What are these so called universal aspects, and benefits reaped by the reprobate? We need a list. Scripturally proven..

And are these aspects of universality and benefits offered or include Satan and his minions?

Hodge, Shedd, Amyrault et all calminians better be ready to plead a case for satan, or else their idea folds like a cheap card table...

Origen went this far, but I know of no others.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Nov 19, 2007)

Amazing Grace said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > > "Atonement is unlimited and redemption is limited. This statement includes all the Scripture texts: those which assert that Christ died for all men, and those which assert that he died for his people,” William G.T. Shedd (Dogmatic Theology, vol. II, p. 470).
> ...



Well, the disagreements are about to start again...I preferred your old avatar.


----------



## Wannabee (Nov 19, 2007)

Amazing Grace said:


> Hodge, Shedd, Amyrault et all calminians better be ready to plead a case for satan, or else their idea folds like a cheap card table...


I don't get the relevance. I can understand the idea that there is a temporal aspect to the atonement that includes all men. But I don't understand why this would necessitate atonement for angels.
What needs to be considered is that there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood. However, Adam sinned in the garden and was allowed to live. He didn't trust in God to forgive, let alone save him. He tried to cover his own sin with flimsy leaves. Yet, in spite of him deserving both physical and spiritual death the moment he fell, God allowed him to live and blessed him with many children. Not one single person on earth deserves to take another breath. Yet all go on, mostly oblivious of the benefits God has graced them with. Dr. William Barrick takes this position. Here are some excerpts and his conclusion in regard to the atonement:


> REDEMPTION
> Redemption is _*forensic*_ in its entirety - it met the demands of a just and holy God. Christ, in the intimate direction of His sacrifice, even suffered spiritual separation from the Father (Matt 27:46) in order to pay the penalty of spiritual death for His elect.
> Redemption is _*objective*_ in that it did not depend upon a recipient. That is, God did not look down through the corridor of time to see who would believe. God appointed Christ as “a lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev 13: 8; see also, 1 Pet 1:18-21).
> Redemption is _*effectual *_in both its remote and intimate aspects: (1) the unsaved do have the penalty of Adamic sin-guilt temporarily annulled, and (2) the saved do presently possess eternal life.
> ...



Consider also the Piper quote in my previous post. I set it apart as a quote so it could be found easier. These arguments are very sound and really don't leave any loose ends. If one struggles with the "universal" aspect of Christ's atonement then both of these men present a viable perspective and back it up with Scripture. In a salvific sense, the atonement is absolutely limited (particular) to the elect. In a temporal sense Jesus was sacrificed for the sins of the whole world, especially those who believe. And, voila, no angels involved. What do we do with the angels in Gen. 6 though.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Nov 19, 2007)

Amazing Grace said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > > "Atonement is unlimited and redemption is limited. This statement includes all the Scripture texts: those which assert that Christ died for all men, and those which assert that he died for his people,” William G.T. Shedd (Dogmatic Theology, vol. II, p. 470).
> ...



There is no "atonement" in the sense we use the word in Grotius position. In the Governmental View of the Atonement Christ did not die for anyone's sins, at all, it was merely an example of what retribution would require,
if God exacted it. So, when he uses the words "substitutionary atonement" and "propitiation" you can't interpret
them the way we do, or try to understand them in a framework as having any notion of relevance to our presuppositional framework, or you'll completely misinterpret Grotius. It's very easy to do because its hard to understand new meanings for these words.

He starts upon the principle of civil government, and works it out backwards, applying a limiting concept upon
God in which He is required to Justify himself to man. Ultimately, Christ was incarnate as a necessary requirement for God to remain Just in His adjudication of man's sin from an innocent estate.

In Grotius, atonement is made for the principle of sin.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Nov 19, 2007)

Amazing Grace said:


> If we follow this line of thinking, then what do we call God who will not just immediately bring His elect to Glory and instead let them live in this world? Romans 9 is 100% salvific in nature. Nothing else..




God. What would you call Him?


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 19, 2007)

Wannabee said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > Hodge, Shedd, Amyrault et all calminians better be ready to plead a case for satan, or else their idea folds like a cheap card table...
> ...



My point being is that if we include any type of benefit for man, we must include some benefit for satan and his lot that fell with him. They will be judged and cast into the fire along with the reprobate. This novel idea that the cross allows the reprobate to continue breathing is mere sepculation. Piper is very weak on this "troubling scripture" (in quotes denoting not troubling at all), just as Spurgeon is at his worst commenting on the same verse. He is the savior of all men... even if we dont restrict this to all the chosen, of which the language will aloow, let's say Paul intended this to mean all head for head, the point he is making is Christ is the only savior aviable to anyone. There is no other name under heaven one can be saved.

Now the troubling part is the adverb "malista''. Paul uses this word denoting "specially" in other verses, where its meaning is only intended as an emphasis to the ending word.

Act 25:26 Of whom I have no certain thing to write unto my lord. Wherefore I have brought him forth before you, and* specially *before thee, O king Agrippa, that, after examination had, I might have somewhat to write.

Paul is only speaking of Agrippa. There was no other person intended in this verse.


1Ti 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

Here is another example of the usage of malista denoting an emphasis on the previous phrase before it. Also, Christs salvific operation is complete. There are no degrees of it. 

Piper:_“We do not deny that all men are the intended beneficiaries of the cross in some sense. 1 Timothy 4:10 says that Christ is "the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." What we deny is that all men are intended as the beneficiaries of the death of Christ in the same way. All of God's mercy toward unbelievers -- from the rising sun (Matthew 5:45) to the worldwide preaching of the gospel (John 3:16) -- is made possible because of the cross_.

How is this made possible by the cross? Were the reprobate immediately destroyed at birth prior to His death? Or are we admitting the God has the cross in view atoning for OT saints, as well as preserving the reprobate with longsuffering? This makes no sense whatsoever.

Benevolence is according to is good pleasure, not tied to the cross.

Piper:This is the implication of Romans 3:25 where the cross is presented as the basis of God's righteousness in passing over sins. Every breath that an unbeliever takes is an act of God's mercy withholding judgment (Romans 2:4). *Every time the gospel is preached to unbelievers it is the mercy of God that gives this opportunity for salvation.*


What is an opportunity for salvation? Is this Piper or is he quoting Wesley? Romans 3:25 is strictly limited to OT elect who looked forward to the cross. 

25whom God did set forth a mercy seat, through the faith in his blood, for the shewing forth of His righteousness, because of the passing over of the bygone sins in the forbearance of God --

26for the shewing forth of His righteousness in the present time, for His being righteous, and declaring him righteous who [is] of the faith of Jesus. 


This scripture has nothing to do with temporal blessings of life for the reprobate. Paul did not have iinbelievers in site for this passage.

Piper:_Whence does this mercy flow to sinners? How is God just to withhold judgment from sinners who deserve to be immediately cast into hell? The answer is that Christ's death so clearly demonstrates God's just abhorrence of sin that he is free to treat the world with mercy without compromising his righteousness. In this sense Christ is the savior of all men._

In regards to the elect. Who by nature stained with the sin of adam, and their own sins deserve eternal death. Again, nothing to do with temporary benefits to the reprobate.

ANy universal aspect preached is not the gospel of the writ. any reprobate benefit from His death is not presented in the writ. The wrath of God was satisfied for eternal measures. Temporal benefits are not derived from His death.

Perhaps the next error will be something like this"

"irresistible grace is sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect.” 

Or

Total depravity is sufficient for all, but effectual for only the elect"

or 

Election is sufficient for all, but only effectual for the elect.

Pure compramising fence sitters the propononts of this nonsense are...pure fence sitters.


----------



## Wannabee (Nov 20, 2007)

Thanks for the response Nicholas. I appreciate what you've presented. Your statement, "we must include some benefit for satan [sic] and his lot that fell with him," hold no water. It's a straw man. There simply is no scriptural warrant for such a claim. 

Consider this - the idea that the very creature, the one and only, that was created in the image of his Creator has rebelled against his Creator. The horrendousness of sin requires immediate and severe justice. If God is to let any man sin and yet live then His perfect justice is not served and compromise has entered the character of the Almighty. Obviously this is impossible. Admittedly, the best this world offers pales in comparison with the glories of heaven. And the worst it offers pales in comparison to the horrors of hell. Yet we have to answer for the existence of sinners outside of the saving grace affected in the crucifixion. To fail to do so is to trivialize the magnitude of the fall of man. Shall we wink at the sin of the world? Should God let His justice go unanswered in the earth? And yet how can we account for the love shown to all men in the sun that rises "on the evil and on the good," and God sending "rain on the just and the unjust"? (Mat 5:45)

In Acts 25:26 the structure of the verse demands a set - subset relationship. The first use of "you" is plural, the second (thee) is singular. Agrippa is "specially" the recipient, although Paul was brought before all present. Your statement that "Paul is only speaking of Agrippa" does not fit the use of the pronouns, their relationship nor the context of the verse, which is clear because of the plural pronoun.

1 Timothy 5:8 does nothing for either position because of the narrowness of Paul's intent. However, 1 Timothy 4:10 is clearly a set - subset relationship. "Those" are "especially" a subset of "all men." 

While I agree with your treatment of Piper's "opportunity for salvation," this hardly dismantles his premise. And there is a sense in which God's benevolence is for His good pleasure. But His perfect justice cannot be sacrificed for His good pleasure. This negates the perfections of His characteristics. 

Read Spurgeon again. Perhaps I missed something, but I re-read it and find his reasoning quite sound.

To claim that "This scripture has nothing to do with temporal blessings of life for the reprobate" is to flat out deny that God blesses reprobates with earthly pleasures. You go on to state, rather emphatically and authoritatively, "ANy universal aspect preached is not the gospel of the writ. any reprobate benefit from His death is not presented in the writ. The wrath of God was satisfied for eternal measures. Temporal benefits are not derived from His death." Perhaps you are correct. I disagree. But it's not a hill I'll die on at this time. The problem is, though, that you have failed to prove your point exegetically, _sola scriptura_.

Your following comments regarding the other aspects of TULIP are unhelpful to the discussion. I'll caution you in regard to your accusation of those who disagree with you as "compromising fence sitters..." Compromise takes on many forms. It can be those who succumb to unbiblical pressures. It can be those who embrace worldly philosophy over Scriptural verity. And it can also be those who adhere to systematics above proper exegesis and the perspicuity of Holy Writ. Your passion is well founded. But it must be Scripture first, regardless of how uncomfortable the conclusions are, and which reformers are refuted. 

Your Brother,
For Jesus,


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 20, 2007)

Brither Joe;

I will get to your post later. I have something else that I thought was included in my last post, but alas it was late!!!

WHat got me over the hump pf this sufficient for all, or unviersal aspects/benefits for all head for head was the doctrine of the Triune Godhead. Specially their work in the salvation of the elect.

Any thought of universal aspects of the atonement have the Godhead split in purpose. If Christ died universally for all men head for head in some sense, conditionally IF they would repent, but the Spirit only applied the benefits to the elect soley, then the trinity was not in conjunction of purpose. If the Father elected some/reprobated others. Yet Christ died for those reprobated in some way, then Christ is at odds with the Father and the Spirit. If the Father hates easau, yet Christs death procured some benefits for him, temporal, as the sun and the rain, again this splits their purpose. Since general benevolence is not tied to the cross in any way. The death of Christ flows from the love of God to His sheep. That is the fountain. In now way did He have the reprobate in mind for its design..

The Good Shepherd lays down His life on behalf of the sheep ... I lay down My life for the sheep" (John 10:11,15).


----------



## Wannabee (Nov 20, 2007)

I'm sorry Nicholas. I don't follow your line of reasoning. Similar to your statements regarding the necessity of including angels in any universal sense of the atonement, I see no reason that there would need to be any division in the godhead. First of all, I don't think I would call the effectiveness of Christ's atonement for the elect conditional. They must believe. But to use the word "if" signifies that they, and the reprobate, have a choice. One is either regenerate or not. The "choice" has already been made. Those who believe are saved by the blood of Jesus. No man comes to Jesus except the Father draws him.

Consider also the great responsibility and debt that all men owe God in light of His mercy and grace. It matters not whether they believe or not. No man deserves to live and all men deserve swift, immediate and eternal condemnation. It is in light of this "temporal forgiveness" (forgive my lack of a better expression) that mankind is that much more without excuse (Rom 1:20-21), "because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened." 

Romans 2:4-11 
Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that *the goodness of God leads you to repentance*? 5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”: 7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; 10 but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God. 



Will the unbelief of fallen men make the faithfulness of God without effect? "Let God be true but every man a liar." 

Romans 3:21-26
But now *the righteousness of God* apart from the law *is revealed*, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, *through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe.* For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because *in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed*, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

How can a perfectly just God simply "pass over the sins that were previously committed"? Can He do so and remain just? The good Shepherd does indeed lay down His life for His sheep. And yet the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world identified with fallen man in John's baptism of repentance. Did He only identify with the elect? Did all who received the benefits of Christ believe?

Unlike your testimony, I did not have to get "over the hump of this sufficient for all, or universal aspects/benefits for all head for head." My understanding was the limitation of the atonement to the elect only. I was comfortable with this position. Indeed, it makes perfect sense, from a salvific/spiritual/eternal perspective. It was through further study that I was persuaded, against my comfort and much that I understood, that there must be some aspect of forgiveness for all men (again, in light of God's perfect justice and the seriousness of sin). While gaining a more biblical understanding of God's sovereignty in election was probably the most freeing theological understanding I have ever gained, this too was very freeing. It opened up God's Word and His perfect plan in a way that I had previously set aside as a mystery. Honestly, I really don't care whether one calls it "atonement" or what. Perhaps, because of the temporal aspect of it, another word would be more fitting. The point is that God shows grace, mercy and a certain level of forgiveness even to those who are not elect. In light of the fact that there is *NO* forgiveness without the shedding of blood, we have to deal with the realities before us. The only other answer I know of is to consider sacrifices as some sort of temporal covering of our sin. Yet this is impossible in light of the absence of any sacrificial system today, and the all sufficient, once for all, sacrifice of the Son of God.

Where I am correct may I be persuasive. Where I err may I be persuaded.


Blessings
Joe


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 20, 2007)

Wannabee said:


> I'm sorry Nicholas. I don't follow your line of reasoning. Similar to your statements regarding the necessity of including angels in any universal sense of the atonement, I see no reason that there would need to be any division in the godhead. First of all, I don't think I would call the effectiveness of Christ's atonement for the elect conditional. They must believe. But to use the word "if" signifies that they, and the reprobate, have a choice. One is either regenerate or not. The "choice" has already been made. Those who believe are saved by the blood of Jesus. No man comes to Jesus except the Father draws him.




Do not be sorry Brother Joseph, I am enjoying this brief study on a such a vast subject. One that can never be exhausted. THe elect's atonement is not conditional at all, if I said that earlier, it was a mistake. But to propose some universal aspect of the atonement, or benefit to the reprobate, if they repent and believe, which is what piper, shedd et all say, this makes it conditional. Yes the must believe, and they will believe becasue Christs death is for them only. The division IS created by embracing a universal aspect/benefit to all head for head.

The covenant made with Christ, the Father, the Spirit is for one purpose, design, and intent. SO I am not the one saying there is division. The calminian, Amyraldian, low low calvinist makes this division.

The Father elected, Christ became their head, their representative. He did not pledge to represent the reprobate in any way. Christ dies for His sheep. As the scripture shows,* The Good Shepherd lays down His life on behalf of the sheep ... I lay down My life for the sheep" (John 10:11,15).* This is all scripture says. Christ never spoke of some universal aspect for all head for head in His death, if He did, I have missed it. AS I mentioned before, He did not even pray for the reprobate. No intercessional role for them, so how could we conclude that He died for them in any way, when He would not even pray for them?



Wannabee said:


> IConsider also the great responsibility and debt that all men owe God in light of His mercy and grace. It matters not whether they believe or not. No man deserves to live and all men deserve swift, immediate and eternal condemnation. It is in light of this "temporal forgiveness" (forgive my lack of a better expression) that mankind is that much more without excuse (Rom 1:20-21), "because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened."



I agree with this to a point. But God has been merciful from the beginning out of His benevolence towards His creation. 



Wannabee said:


> I
> Romans 2:4-11
> Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that *the goodness of God leads you to repentance*? 5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”: 7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; 10 but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.



i do not know what this verse has to do with any benefit for the reprobate. The goodness of God leads the elect to repentance, true biblical repentance. These are attributes of God that are not tied to the cross. 




Wannabee said:


> I
> Will the unbelief of fallen men make the faithfulness of God without effect? "Let God be true but every man a liar."
> 
> Romans 3:21-26
> ...



Yes He did only identify with the elect. Yes all who received the application of His death believed... Again this scripture is strictly speaking to the sins of the OT saints who lived before the cross. IT is the only way to reconcile their salvation prior to the death of Christ. He did it becasue of the covenant with Christ who died for past present and future elect. 

Gill:

for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God: by "sins that are past", *are meant, not sins before baptism, nor the sins of a man's life only, but the sins of Old Testament saints, who lived before the incarnation of Christ, and the oblation of his sacrifice; and though this is not to be restrained to them only, for Christ's blood was shed for the remission of all his people's sins, past, present, and to come;* yet the sins of the saints before the coming of Christ, seem to be particularly designed; which shows the insufficiency of legal sacrifices, sets forth the efficacy of Christ's blood and sacrifice, demonstrates him to be a perfect Saviour, and gives us reason under the present dispensation to hope for pardon, since reconciliation is completely made: "remission" of sin does not design that weakness which sin has brought upon, and left in human nature, whereby it is so enfeebled, that it cannot help itself, and therefore Christ was set forth, and sent forth, to be a propitiation; but rather God's passing by, or overlooking sin, and not punishing for it, under the former dispensation; or else the forgiveness of it now, and redemption from it by the blood of Christ, *"through the forbearance of God"; in deferring the execution of justice, till he sent his Son, and in expecting satisfaction of his Son; which shows the grace and goodness of God to his people, and the trust and confidence he put in his Son: the other end on the part of God, in setting forth Christ to be a propitiation,* 



Wannabee;325687Unlike your testimony said:


> that there must be some aspect of forgiveness for all men[/B] (again, in light of God's perfect justice and the seriousness of sin). While gaining a more biblical understanding of God's sovereignty in election was probably the most freeing theological understanding I have ever gained, this too was very freeing. It opened up God's Word and His perfect plan in a way that I had previously set aside as a mystery. Honestly, I really don't care whether one calls it "atonement" or what. Perhaps, because of the temporal aspect of it, another word would be more fitting. *The point is that God shows grace, mercy and a certain level of forgiveness even to those who are not elect.* In light of the fact that there is *NO* forgiveness without the shedding of blood, we have to deal with the realities before us. The only other answer I know of is to consider sacrifices as some sort of temporal covering of our sin. Yet this is impossible in light of the absence of any sacrificial system today, and the all sufficient, once for all, sacrifice of the Son of God.
> 
> Where I am correct may I be persuasive. Where I err may I be persuaded.
> 
> ...



Brother, I pray the highlighted part is only some delusion that will become clear soon for you. This is where I must draw the line deeper. I hope you do not think I could possibly agree that there is some "sort" of forgiveness for the sins of all men head for head, when I do not see any temporal benefit for the reprobate. I doubt you can shake hands with many on our team who will admit this. Not that an appeal to numbers is a sure win, this is one step away from the wesleyan camp Joseph. May I ask what this "sort" or "kind" of forgiveness entails? 

Christs death is infinite in regards to its INTRINSIC VALUE. AS I stated before, He would not have had to bleed any more, nor suffer anymore in order to make satisfaction for all men head for head. Yes its design could not and cannot be seperated from its function.

I believe the issue arrises when we attempt to reconcile to general GOspel call with a limited/particular provision. Thats is also why I am not a proponent of the WMO(Well meant offer) of salvation for all who hear. What a terrible God we woud have, who would invite all head for head, yet not make a provsion for their salvation. This is far more henious than a God whos invitation is directed only to those whom He made atonement for. The sufficient atonement gospel, is in fact a "no-spel". The sufficient/efficient gospel is basically 2 gospels. The elect have theirs and the reprobate have one for themselves. When you confess a sufficient/efficient distinction, you seperate the person of Christ from the work He covenented to perform. How you can offer Christ without His designed mission is beyond scripture. Since the number of saved is fixed, and connot be moved, then why make universal or sufficient for all statements? Christ would have to come and die again for their sins..


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Nov 20, 2007)

I've watched a few of these threads run into the same problem with the same "camps" every time.

Before one can adequately explain what both sides are trying to prove, one must first determine whether he is speaking in the Compound Sense of the Scriptures, or the Divided Sense of the Scriptures.

The argument both sides have would instantaneously disappear if they first understood that the question is not a theological conundrum, but rather a hermeneutical conundrum.

What both sides fail to see is that both sides enter into hermeneutical contradictions that are unescapable without understanding the two senses.

Just a note.

I'd suggest:

Two Wills of God


----------



## k.seymore (Nov 20, 2007)

"A strict substition for the elect is the primary benefits. Are there secondary benefits that even the reprobate reap?"

Perhaps my answer is too simple. If we believe that God's glory through Christ and the cross is the climax of God's plan, and the primary reason God created the universe, then 100% of all things that angels, humans and animals enjoy are secondary benefits of Christ's death. Paul tells pagans the gifts of God to them are "life and breath _and everything,_" and "he did good by giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness." Paul told pagans _who_ it was that they had been enjoying their whole lives–and if they turned toward Christ and his cross they would glorify and enjoy this same God forever. I believe there is no other reason that we enjoy anything but because of Christ's death.

It seems to me that to say otherwise would be to lower Christ and the cross from its central place in God's plan as the means by which God is glorified, and imply that all things were originally created with another focal point in mind. The cross ends up being plan B. It would be like a Calvinist pulling the rug out from under his own feet.


----------



## Wannabee (Nov 21, 2007)

Brother Joseph?! I feel so distinguished.  

You didn't say that atonement was conditional. Your statements left room for it, though I wasn't sure what direction you were going. I only sought clarity.

Your response to Romans 3 is viable. I won't quibble there.

Somethng went awry in your highlighting. Rest assured that I am nowhere near Wesley. This is another leap that eludes me. 

Here is where Matt's comments should be considered. Somehow you are making assumptions in regard to my thinking that are not compatible with my theological understanding. I said nothing that didn't agree with your statement in regard to Christ's sacrifice having instrinsic value. From my perspective this is not incompatible with what I've stated. So I must assume that we are speaking past one another without a proper understanding of what the other stated. You insert "invite" in a way that I have not. While I "invite" people to repent and believe, I do so with no knowledge of whether or not they are of the elect. God, on the other hand, has predestined all men according to His good pleasure. In other words, your statement "What a terrible God we woud have, who would invite all head for head, yet not make a provsion for their salvation." reveals that either I have not presented myself well or that you have imposed upon what I have stated (provided that it wasn't meant to be a rhetorical statement). The same could be said about your "sufficient/efficient" statements. You stated, "AS I stated before, He would not have had to bleed any more, nor suffer anymore in order to make satisfaction for all men head for head." What does this mean if it doesn't mean that Christ's death is sufficient for the salvation of every man, past, present and future? I'm not trying to pidgeon hole you, I'm simply baffled by what appears to be a contradiction in your argument.

Some clarity is needed in this discussion, obviously. We're missing one another's purpose and perspective.
- Do you consider the offer of salvation to be "legitimate" for all men?
- Is God's invitation directed only to the elect?
- You state, "Since the number of saved is fixed, and connot be moved, then why make universal or sufficient for all statements?" This has been clearly explained by a few different men here. 

Furthermore, in case it helps you understand where I'm coming from, I see no relationship between any "sufficiency" and any "universality" in Christ's atonement. I think this may be central to where we are not connecting, for these two, in my mind, never connect.


Excellent post C. Gorsuch. Thank you for the clarity in thought that you have offered.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Nov 22, 2007)

Wannabee said:


> While I "invite" people to repent and believe, I do so with no knowledge of whether or not they are of the elect. God, on the other hand, has predestined all men according to His good pleasure.




I agree. Yet we are not commanded to say that God died for you. It must be qualified for all who believe.




Wannabee said:


> What does this mean if it doesn't mean that Christ's death is sufficient for the salvation of every man, past, present and future? I'm not trying to pidgeon hole you, I'm simply baffled by what appears to be a contradiction in your argument.



Intrinsic value differs much from procuring some universal benefits/blessings for the reprobate. You mentioned some sort of forgiveness for the reprobate. 



Wannabee said:


> Some clarity is needed in this discussion, obviously. We're missing one another's purpose and perspective.
> - Do you consider the offer of salvation to be "legitimate" for all men?
> - Is God's invitation directed only to the elect?
> - You state, "Since the number of saved is fixed, and connot be moved, then why make universal or sufficient for all statements?" This has been clearly explained by a few different men here.



I do not believe in a WMO of salvation for all head for head. To say Christ died for you, shed his blood for you, is presumption. 

What do you mean by invitation? Without getting this thread closed, are you speaking of duty faith, duty repentance? I believe the invitation according to the parable of the wedding feast, goes to all head for head indiscriminately. Only to show that those not chosen will not come. "Many are called, few are chosen"

I try not to mistake the indicative for the imperative.


----------

