# Did Christ’s death pay for more than the elect?



## panta dokimazete (Dec 9, 2021)

*editing to provide additional clarity*

Brethren, when I read passages like:

2 Peter 2:1
[1] But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

and

1 Timothy 4:10
[10] For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.

In both verses, the scope includes the non-elect (I.e., false prophets and “all people” vs “those who believe”) who were “bought” and “saved” in some sense.

I can’t help thinking this is related to common grace, which I believe includes the grace God gave Adam when He did not completely destroy mankind at the Fall, or at the Flood. This seems to fall under the promise of Christ as the eternal savior of the elect and, generally, the temporal savior of all mankind.

That is, I’d like to understand if Christ’s death, in some way, as the 2nd Adam and federal head of all Mankind in some sense procures the common grace evident in the fact that all Mankind did not get destroyed at the Fall or in the Flood.

I'm proposing that the promise of Christ's sacrifice is all that graciously held back the Father from totally destroying all Mankind at the Fall and the Flood. I propose that the death of Christ as it relates to the eternal covenant procured both the provision of putting off the total and just destruction of all Mankind, as well as a provision for purchasing the elects' sin debt. And I believe that is what those verses allude to.

Did Christ’s death not only pay for the sins of the elect and deliver eternal life as a component of the eternal covenant, but also pay for the non-elect in the sense He is “saving” them temporarily as “vessels of wrath” (Rom 9) for judgment?

Thanks for your considered response.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Dec 9, 2021)

Personally, I suspect that Christ's death "bought" the whole world in the same way that the one who wanted hidden treasure bought the whole field that contained it.

Christ "bought" the world, but he only SAVES His elect people out of the world.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 9, 2021)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Personally, I suspect that Christ's death "bought" the whole world in the same way that the one who wanted hidden treasure bought the whole field that contained it.
> 
> Christ "bought" the world, but he only SAVES His elect people out of the world.


Right! Which also ties to the "wheat and tares" parable. Christ bought the field, and he "saved" the tares until the harvest...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeamusDelion (Dec 9, 2021)

Jesus' Death was sufficient to save every man woman and child. He lived the perfect life, so He is the perfect sacrifice. 

If Jesus was limited then He is powerless. 

Its like a big van, you can pile 20 people into it all squished together, and it'll hold all those people no problem, however there are only 7 seats at best.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 9, 2021)

SeamusDelion said:


> Jesus' Death was sufficient to save every man woman and child. He lived the perfect life, so He is the perfect sacrifice.
> 
> If Jesus was limited then He is powerless.
> 
> Its like a big van, you can pile 20 people into it all squished together, and it'll hold all those people no problem, however there are only 7 seats at best.


no argument, there, necessarily - not sure where that ties into the OP?


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Dec 9, 2021)

I just don't understand why Jesus would be judged and condemned for people who will be judged and condemned. 

That's like someone paying someone else's ticket, but then that person still has to pay their own ticket. I just don't get the logic.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Dec 9, 2021)

SeamusDelion said:


> Jesus' Death was sufficient to save every man woman and child. He lived the perfect life, so He is the perfect sacrifice.
> 
> If Jesus was limited then He is powerless.
> 
> Its like a big van, you can pile 20 people into it all squished together, and it'll hold all those people no problem, however there are only 7 seats at best.


This is an odd analogy for definite atonement that I’m not sure does it justice, and may actually be misleading.


----------



## Romans922 (Dec 9, 2021)

If Jesus died and paid the price for all, then all had the price paid for them. Their sins fell upon Him, and so their sins atoned for. If that be true - there is therefore now no condemnation for all. That is false, so no Jesus did not pay for more than the elect, that's impossible.

Go read: https://www.amazon.com/Death-Christ-Controversy-Universal-Redemption/dp/0851513824

Reactions: Like 2 | Love 1


----------



## Romans922 (Dec 9, 2021)

panta dokimazete said:


> Right! Which also ties to the "wheat and tares" parable. Christ bought the field, and he "saved" the tares until the harvest...



This is a confusion of the invisible vs visible Church. It is amyraldianism and must be rejected. This is the Puritanboard people!!!

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## SeamusDelion (Dec 9, 2021)

panta dokimazete said:


> no argument, there, necessarily - not sure where that ties into the OP?


Jesus' sacrifice saves the entire world - Wrong
Jesus' sacrifice only saves some - wrong
Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient for the entire world but only His elect who come to Him will be saved - Correct. 

Is this better? 


Taylor said:


> This is an odd analogy for definite atonement that I’m not sure does it justice, and may actually be misleading.


How does this mislead. I was using something simple to understand, A van, could fit many people into it yet only has seats for 7. Jesus' sacrifice was good enough to save the entire world, yet only the Elect will fit into his grace. I don't see how this is misleading, maybe a bad analogy but who said I was perfect?


----------



## JH (Dec 9, 2021)

Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either -
(1) all the sins of all men
(2) all the sins of some men
(3) some of the sins of all men

If the last, then all men have some sins to answer for, and so no man can be saved. For if God enter into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight. "If the LORD should mark iniquities, who shall stand?" (Ps. cxxx. 1). We might all go to cast all that we have to the moles and to the bats, to go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty. (Isa. II. 20, 21).

If the second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room, suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world.

If the first, why then are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, "because of their unbelief, they will not believe." But this unbelief, is it a sin then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins, for which he died, from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins. Let them (the Universalists) choose which part they will.

- Owen on Particular Redemption, Vol 10 of his works

In regards to the questions you have about the two passages you posted, consider that what may be unclear is to be interpreted in light of what is clear.
WCF 1.9 - "The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeamusDelion (Dec 9, 2021)

Romans922 said:


> If Jesus died and paid the price for all, then all had the price paid for them. Their sins fell upon Him, and so their sins atoned for. If that be true - there is therefore now no condemnation for all. That is false, so no Jesus did not pay for more than the elect, that's impossible.
> 
> Go read: https://www.amazon.com/Death-Christ-Controversy-Universal-Redemption/dp/0851513824


I never said Jesus died for all, I said His death was sufficient to cover all the sin of all people The bible clearly states that Christ died for the SIN of the world. Just because His death was sufficient to save all does not mean it did. 

*Romans6:10 *For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 

The word "All" ἐφάπαξ laterally means "once for all" This is not meaning all Gods children only. This is why "Anyone who calls apon the name of the LORD WILL be saved" 
Sure we know that many will receive the call "but few are chosen" Only the elect will be saved, but why would God falsely call many without having the sacrifice be readily available to them? ...


----------



## SeamusDelion (Dec 9, 2021)

Jerrod Hess said:


> Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either -
> (1) all the sins of all men
> (2) all the sins of some men
> (3) some of the sins of all men
> ...


I think here the confusion is that you guys seem to think I said Christ died for all, like some kind of universalist? .... I in fact did not say that at all. I said just exactly what the bible says, that Christ died for the sin of the world, being suitable to cover every sin of every man. But did he? No, for only the elect will be saved. It still does not take away from the fact that Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient for the entirety of the earths sinfulness. Isn't Jesus the great I AM ? The alpha and Omega? The first and the Last? Who was, Who is, and Who is to come? The Almighty God? ...


----------



## JH (Dec 9, 2021)

James, Universalist classically meant one who rejected particular/limited atonement; it did not mean what most people think of today (that all mankind indeed shall be saved).


----------



## Romans922 (Dec 9, 2021)

SeamusDelion said:


> I never said Jesus died for all, I said His death was sufficient to cover all the sin of all people The bible clearly states that Christ died for the SIN of the world. Just because His death was sufficient to save all does not mean it did.
> 
> *Romans6:10 *For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God.
> 
> ...


My intention was to quote you and Post #2. And in your reply you said "Right!" Therefore you are agreeing with him, so I was responding to both of you. 

If you agree with me, then it seems pointless to go further to argue with what I'm saying.


----------



## SeamusDelion (Dec 9, 2021)

Jerrod Hess said:


> James, Universalist classically meant one who rejected particular/limited atonement; it did not mean what most people think of today (that all mankind indeed shall be saved).


I did not know this, Thank you.


----------



## SeamusDelion (Dec 9, 2021)

Romans922 said:


> My intention was to quote you and Post #2. And in your reply you said "Right!" Therefore you are agreeing with him, so I was responding to both of you.
> 
> If you agree with me, then it seems pointless to go further to argue with what I'm saying.


I agree with you, I was just trying to exult the Lord and show how His death was sufficient for the entire world, whether He did or not is completely different. I believe that Jesus only saved the Elect.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Dec 9, 2021)

SeamusDelion said:


> Only the elect will be saved, but why would God falsely call many without having the sacrifice be readily available to them?


But those he called, he justified. He called those whom he chose to save.

What about the Hindu across the world who has never heard the gospel? He is part of the world that Jesus died for? If so, God has not called him, and has not provided any means for him to be saved. Were certain people forgotten about, or did God in his wisdom plan and orchestrate all of this?


----------



## Romans922 (Dec 9, 2021)

SeamusDelion said:


> I believe that Jesus only saved the Elect.


For whom did Jesus die?


Joh 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. 
Joh 10:12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. 
Joh 10:13 The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. 
Joh 10:14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. 
Joh 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. 
Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Taylor (Dec 9, 2021)

SeamusDelion said:


> How does this mislead.


For one thing, it’s a non-biblical illustration, which in general we should try to avoid, especially for things like the atonement and the Trinity—and other such high and exalted matters—which through illustration often end up being convoluted rather than clarified.

For a second, your van analogy leaves out the important element of divine intention. It is not as if God needed to save certain number of people, and to accomplish it provided an oversized, gratuitous, superfluous atonement. Again, we just need to say what the Bible says: Christ died for his sheep, and no one else.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 9, 2021)

Ok, so I can see that some are confused by the OP (likely my weakness in explaining) - I am NOT proposing that Jesus died *to eternally atone for the sins of the world. He died for the sins of the elect. The *eternal atonement is limited to the elect.

I asked if he died for MORE than the elect. That is, is there another dimension to Jesus' death outside the Atonement?

Did Jesus' death NOT ONLY provide for the atonement, but in a LESSER way, did His death buy, or also act as payment for, the TEMPORARY suspension of judgment for the non-elect? That is, they still have the sin debt, but the ultimate punishment is stayed. Otherwise, what held back God's hand at the Fall?

A "stay of execution", if you will, in order that the fullness of the eternal covenant play out. Thus, the tie to the analogy of the wheat and tares - the tares were spared until the harvest, then pulled up and burned.

Modified to add *"to eternally atone" and *"eternal"


----------



## SeamusDelion (Dec 9, 2021)

panta dokimazete said:


> Ok, so I can see that some are confused by the OP (likely my weakness in explaining) - I am NOT proposing that Jesus died for the sins of the world. He died for the sins of the elect. The atonement is limited to the elect.
> 
> I asked if he died for MORE than the elect. That is, is there another dimension to Jesus' death outside the Atonement?
> 
> ...


Jesus died for the Sin of the world, as the bible clearly states, no where however, it doesn't say He died only for the Elect. 

1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.​
However, through careful Exegesis we can come to the conclusion that the Elect are the only ones to be saved though the atonement was *SUFFICENT* for the entire world.

Some can try to argue that the word "World" refers to the Elect only, however that Greek word is κόσμος -ου, ὁ; (kosmos) Meaning the entirety of the earth.

Let the word of God be true and every man a liar. Just because it don't fit your theology don't mean its not correct.


----------



## SeamusDelion (Dec 9, 2021)

Taylor said:


> For one thing, it’s a non-biblical illustration, which in general we should try to avoid, especially for things like the atonement and the Trinity—and other such high and exalted matters—which through illustration often end up being convoluted rather than clarified.
> 
> For a second, your van analogy leaves out the important element of divine intention. It is not as if God needed to save certain number of people, and to accomplish it provided an oversized, gratuitous, superfluous atonement. Again, we just need to say what the Bible says: Christ died for his sheep, and no one else.


Imagine telling someone they need to be careful how they use an analogy because it could mislead someone, while believing in the Doctrine of The Perseverance of the saints. 

My analogy would not mislead anyone, and was very child like so they could understand in laymen terms until they receive wisdom from the Lord through prayer. I will outline it for you if you don't understand it. 

The van is the world. - Holds a lot of people. 
The seats are for the chosen people of God. though the word can hold all people, don't mean it would have enough seats for everyone. 


Jesus' Atonement was able to atone for the entire world. Did it? No. 

I do say what the Bible says, Christ died for the Sin of the world. No where does it say He died only for his sheep. - You only come to that conclusion due to study. Now should the bible be careful ? Jesus Atonement was Gigantic. He gave his life, being God in the flesh. Seems like a really huge deal actually. Not sure why you would want to limit Christ or downplay His saving power.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 9, 2021)

More on the analogy of the wheat and tares as it relates to the OP:

First, to state the obvious:

The wheat = the elect
The tares = the reprobate

I'm not going into the whole parable, but it seems clear the tares had a temporary benefit - they weren't immediately eradicated - they got to live until the harvest. 

All I'm saying is that it seems to me that the reprobate receive a lesser, but real. benefit from Christ's death in that the promise of Jesus fulfilling the covenant by dying for the sins of the elect results in a temporary stay from judgment and Hell.

This interpretation seems to reconcile the 2 verses cited above.


----------



## SeamusDelion (Dec 9, 2021)

panta dokimazete said:


> All I'm saying is that it seems to me that the reprobate receive a lesser, but real. benefit from Christ's death in that the promise of Jesus fulfilling the covenant by dying for the sins of the elect results in a temporary stay from judgment and Hell.


Remember the Rich man in Abrahams bosom ? asking just for a trickle of water to be dropped on his tongue? The reprobate don't know how good they have it right now. Just to wake up and live another day to disobey the Lord is grace all in it self. The LORD Is merciful.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Dec 9, 2021)

SeamusDelion said:


> Imagine telling someone they need to be careful how they use an analogy because it could mislead someone, while believing in the Doctrine of The Perseverance of the saints.


I'm not sure what this means. If you think the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints means that the elect can never be mislead, then you do not understand perseverance.



SeamusDelion said:


> I will outline it for you if you don't understand it.


I do understand it, and it is a bad analogy.



SeamusDelion said:


> The van is the world. - Holds a lot of people.
> The seats are for the chosen people of God. though the word can hold all people, don't mean it would have enough seats for everyone.


The post in which you introduced the van analogy said nothing about the world, much less the van being the world. The van analogy, by your own use of it, was intended to give us a picture of the _atonement_, not the world. If you meant otherwise, you should speak more clearly so as not to add to the confusion.



SeamusDelion said:


> No where does it say He died only for his sheep.


The Bible says that Christ died for the sheep. Where does it say he died for anyone else?



SeamusDelion said:


> Not sure why you would want to limit Christ or downplay His saving power.


This is exactly what Arminians say, and it is a straw man. Do you understand definite atonement?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 9, 2021)

SeamusDelion said:


> Jesus died for the Sin of the world, as the bible clearly states, no where however, it doesn't say He died only for the Elect.
> 
> 1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.​
> However, through careful Exegesis we can come to the conclusion that the Elect are the only ones to be saved though the atonement was *SUFFICENT* for the entire world.
> ...


no argument - and thank you for another relevant verse

I think there is a dual propitiation (appeasement) demonstrated here that aligns to the OP.

He *fully* propitiated the sins of the elect

He* temporarily* propitiated the sins of the whole world, in order to put off final judgment so that the fulness of the eternal covenant would play out.

In one sense to *eternally *save the elect, in another to *temporarily/temporally *save everybody (elect and reprobate) to the glory of Christ.


----------



## SeamusDelion (Dec 9, 2021)

Taylor said:


> I'm not sure what this means. If you think the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints means that the elect can never be mislead, then you do not understand perseverance.
> 
> 
> I do understand it, and it is a bad analogy.
> ...


I think you are confused. You give no scripture to prove your arguments and then call me names because you didn't understand the analogy? I am not an Arminian, and I agree that only the elect are saved by Christ. What you don't understand that I am trying to relay is that His *atonement* was *sufficient* for the *entire* world. I never once said the Bible saves anyone other then the Elect, What I did say is that the bible states that Jesus died for the *sin* of the world. 

This is a great apologetic to use against people who say Jesus died for them, when in fact he actually didn't. 

I am not sure why you are attacking me when I am correct.


*Edited to emphasize words and not anger, my apologies.


----------



## SeamusDelion (Dec 9, 2021)

panta dokimazete said:


> no argument - and thank you for another relevant verse
> 
> I think there is a dual propitiation (appeasement) demonstrated here that aligns to the OP
> 
> ...


Again, I never stated Jesus died for the entire world. I said He died for its* sin*. Meaning the *atonement* was able (if God willed) to save everyone in the world. Did it? No. It only was extended and offered to the Elect.

I am glad someone is finally seeing what I am relaying. I think the problem here is that you guys are stuck on the fact you believe I said Jesus died for the whole world, when in fact I only said His *atonement* was *Sufficient* for the whole world, as the Bible clearly says.

Hope this helps explain things better and I apologize for any confusion.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Dec 9, 2021)

SeamusDelion said:


> You...call me names...





SeamusDelion said:


> ...you are attacking me...


Friend, I would suggest you refrain from becoming emotional. I would also ask you not make false accusations. I have not called you any names. I said that _what you said_ is something Arminians say. I never said _you_ are an Arminian. And even if I did, such would not be calling you a name. Secondly, I am not attacking you. If you think me cordially challenging your analogy (not even necessarily your position) is attacking you, then frankly, online discussion is probably not for you.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Taylor (Dec 9, 2021)

SeamusDelion said:


> I think the problem here is that you guys are stuck on the fact you believe I said Jesus died for the whole world...


Not sure who "you guys" are. The only thing I ever challenged was your analogy.


----------



## SeamusDelion (Dec 9, 2021)

You attacked me by calling me a strawman, I can assure you that I am not man of straw and that I lift weights daily to stay in shape and the likes of you could never stop me. 

You attacked me by calling me an Arminian. Might as well call me a Mormon, I see no difference. Arminian are false believers and enemies of God. 
in your rebuttal over my analogy that you did not like (Sorry for offending you) was a weak one, you clearly stated you understood the analogy but then in the second line told me you didn't know the van was the world, but the atonement, which makes no sense. 

Why would there be seats in the van then if the whole van would be saved? just pack them on in then, use the widest road possible.... Since you seen to keep saying what the bible does not, I question your ability to even read the bible, or my posts at that, since you keep referring to "died for the sin of the world" as universalism in the modern context of the meaning and keep referring to what the bible never states (Christ only died for the elect) 

Jesus Atonement being sufficient for the entire world is baby food, friend. 

And you are right, I am called as a street preacher with courage, not a weak feeble minded internet troll who argues for the sake of argument.


----------



## Taylor (Dec 9, 2021)

SeamusDelion said:


> You attacked me by calling me a strawman...


Do you understand what a straw man is? It is a type of fallacious argument. I did not call you a strawman.



SeamusDelion said:


> You attacked me by calling me an Arminian. Might as well call me a Mormon, I see no difference.


Go back and read my post. I did not call or label you an Arminian. Again, you need to calm down.



SeamusDelion said:


> And you are right, I am called as a street preacher with courage, not a weak feeble minded internet troll who argues for the sake of argument.


Do you see the irony here? I hope so. You accuse me, falsely, of calling you names, and here you are _actually_ calling me a weak and feeble-minded troll.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeamusDelion (Dec 9, 2021)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Personally, I suspect that Christ's death "bought" the whole world in the same way that the one who wanted hidden treasure bought the whole field that contained it.
> 
> Christ "bought" the world, but he only SAVES His elect people out of the world.




Here is a great analogy of what I was trying to relay, I must have missed this post.


----------



## Romans922 (Dec 9, 2021)

SeamusDelion said:


> Here is a great analogy of what I was trying to relay, I must have missed this post.


This is a fallacious analogy as well. If Christ bought the world, then His blood purchased the world. He didn't purchase the world with His blood only to save a part. That is an attack upon the blood of Christ. Sean's argument is that world is defined as all people everywhere in all times. But John 3:16 as well as the rest of the Gospel of John, the epistles of John and add in there Romans declares that sometimes world isn't everyone. Even the OT does the same, showing forth that world is defined, by the context in those situations, as Gentiles.

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 

God so loved the world
He gave His only begotten Son -- for those whom God so loved -- the world
World is defined again -- whosoever believeth in him
World -- will not perish but have everlasting life

Jesus in fact died and atoned for the sins of the world (as defined in the context of Christ's atonement).


----------



## SeamusDelion (Dec 9, 2021)

Romans922 said:


> This is a fallacious analogy as well. If Christ bought the world, then His blood purchased the world. He didn't purchase the world with His blood only to save a part. That is an attack upon the blood of Christ. Sean's argument is that world is defined as all people everywhere in all times. But John 3:16 as well as the rest of the Gospel of John, the epistles of John and add in there Romans declares that sometimes world isn't everyone. Even the OT does the same, showing forth that world is defined, by the context in those situations, as Gentiles.
> 
> Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
> 
> ...


John 3:16 the word Kosmos meaning the entire world is the word used here. The context In my prespective of what I thought it meant was that God has a unconditinal love towards the world (His creation) but does not mean that God loves the whole world in the context of saving it. 

I see you also agree Christ died and atoned for the Sin of the world, so my question for you would be where am I going wrong? Or is it my analogies?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 9, 2021)

Romans922 said:


> This is a fallacious analogy as well. If Christ bought the world, then His blood purchased the world. He didn't purchase the world with His blood only to save a part. That is an attack upon the blood of Christ. Sean's argument is that world is defined as all people everywhere in all times. But John 3:16 as well as the rest of the Gospel of John, the epistles of John and add in there Romans declares that sometimes world isn't everyone. Even the OT does the same, showing forth that world is defined, by the context in those situations, as Gentiles.
> 
> Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
> 
> ...




I think it is more Biblically accurate to say that His *death *paid *temporarily *for the sins of the world (all people of all times - retroactive to the Fall, proactive until the Final judgment - 2 Peter 2:1, 1 Timothy 4:10, 1 John 2:2), while his *blood* fully and *eternally* atoned for the elect (too many verses to quote).

Reactions: Wow 1 | Sad 1


----------



## Romans922 (Dec 9, 2021)

SeamusDelion said:


> John 3:16 the word Kosmos meaning the entire world is the word used here. The context In my prespective of what I thought it meant was that God has a unconditinal love towards the world (His creation) but does not mean that God loves the whole world in the context of saving it.
> 
> I see you also agree Christ died and atoned for the Sin of the world, so my question for you would be where am I going wrong? Or is it my analogies?


Definitions. World in Scripture by the context cannot always mean "the entire world as in all people everywhere at all times" or "the physical earth". 

For example, 1Jn 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. 

Jesus is the propitiation (He bore the wrath of God) for the sins of the whole world. The world here is "the elect". Sometimes world is defined as the physical earth. Sometimes not. The context defines words. I've stated where you have gone wrong.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans922 (Dec 9, 2021)

panta dokimazete said:


> I think it is more Biblically accurate to say that His *death *paid *temporarily *for the sins of the world (all people of all times - retroactive to the Fall, proactive until the judgment - 2 Peter 2:1, 1 Timothy 4:10, 1 John 2:2), while his *blood* fully and *eternally* atoned for the elect (too many verses to quote).


What? 

No, never. Temporarily paid for the sins of the world? Where is this in Scripture? There is none that supports temporarily paying for sins. This is completely wrong, and a great danger to believe this.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Dec 9, 2021)

Romans922 said:


> This is a fallacious analogy as well. If Christ bought the world, then His blood purchased the world. He didn't purchase the world with His blood only to save a part. That is an attack upon the blood of Christ.



But Christ did (in some way) "buy" the unbeliever as well as the believer.

2 Peter 2:1
*But 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.*

I can't see any way to interpret this passage other than that Christ did *in some way* "buy" even these false prophets and false teachers.

We have to deal with that.

Edit to add: I do NOT intend this to mean that Christ in any way, shape, or form "died savingly temporarily for the sins of the non-elect" as *panta dokimazete* is suggesting.


----------



## SeamusDelion (Dec 9, 2021)

panta dokimazete said:


> I think it is more Biblically accurate to say that His *death *paid *temporarily *for the sins of the world (all people of all times - retroactive to the Fall, proactive until the Final judgment - 2 Peter 2:1, 1 Timothy 4:10, 1 John 2:2), while his *blood* fully and *eternally* atoned for the elect (too many verses to quote).


I think what you mean here is that God has mercy on us that he doesn't destroy us right here and now. This however, has nothing to do with being saved.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 9, 2021)

Romans922 said:


> What?
> 
> No, never. Temporarily paid for the sins of the world? Where is this in Scripture? There is none that supports temporarily paying for sins. This is completely wrong, and a great danger to believe this.


Why? The Bible seems to teach it. What Biblical principle does it violate for Christ's death to have this dual effect?


----------



## SeamusDelion (Dec 9, 2021)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> But Christ did (in some way) "buy" the unbeliever as well as the believer.
> 
> 2 Peter 2:1
> *But 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.*
> ...


Hence why I say the atonement was *sufficient* for them but not offered to them.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 9, 2021)

SeamusDelion said:


> I think what you mean here is that God has mercy on us that he doesn't destroy us right here and now. This however, has nothing to do with being saved.


Really? Instant and total judgment vs a delay in experiencing the unmitigated wrath of God? I'd say that is something to be saved from, temporarily or, even better, eternally.


----------



## Taylor (Dec 9, 2021)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> But Christ did (in some way) "buy" the unbeliever as well as the believer.
> 
> 2 Peter 2:1
> *But 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.*


I don't believe "Lord" (δεσποτης in the Greek; better translated "Master") refers to Christ. Here is John Gill's handling of the text:

..._even denying the Lord that bought them_; not the Lord Jesus Christ, but God the father; for the word κνριος is not here used, which always is where Christ is spoken of as the _Lord_, but δεσποτης; and which is expressive of the power which masters have over their servants, and which God has over all mankind; and wherever this word is elsewhere used, it is spoken of God the father, whenever applied to a divine person, as in Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; 2 Tim. 2:21; Rev. 6:10 and especially this appears to be the sense, from the parallel text in Jude 4 where the Lord God denied by those men is manifestly distinguished from our Lord Jesus Christ, and by whom these persons are said to be bought: the meaning is not that they were redeemed by the blood of Christ, for Christ is not intended; and besides, whenever redemption by Christ is spoken of, the price is usually mentioned, or some circumstance or another which fully determines the sense; see Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 6:20 and 7:23; Eph. 1:7; 1 Pet. 1:18, 19; Rev. 5:9 whereas here is not the least hint of any thing of this kind: add to this, that such who are redeemed by Christ are the elect of God only, the people of Christ, his sheep and friends, and church, and who are never left to deny him so as to perish eternally; for could such be lost, or deceive, or be deceived finally and totally by damnable heresies, and bring on themselves swift destruction, Christ’s purchase would be in vain, and the ransom-price be paid for nought; but the word _bought _regards temporal mercies and deliverance, which these men enjoyed, and is used as an aggravation of their sin in denying the Lord.​​—John Gill, _Exposition of the New Testament_, 2 Peter 2:1; italics original.​


----------



## KMK (Dec 9, 2021)

Wow! This is a blast from the past. Welcome back JD.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Dec 9, 2021)

panta dokimazete said:


> He* temporarily* propitiated the sins of the whole world, in order to put off final judgment so that the fulness of the eternal covenant would play out.


Where is the biblical evidence for this? I ask because it seems foreign to me. Thanks!


----------



## Romans922 (Dec 9, 2021)

Taylor said:


> I don't believe "Lord" (δεσποτης in the Greek; better translated "Master") refers to Christ. Here is John Gill's handling of the text:
> 
> ..._even denying the Lord that bought them_; not the Lord Jesus Christ, but God the father; for the word κνριος is not here used, which always is where Christ is spoken of as the _Lord_, but δεσποτης; and which is expressive of the power which masters have over their servants, and which God has over all mankind; and wherever this word is elsewhere used, it is spoken of God the father, whenever applied to a divine person, as in Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; 2 Tim. 2:21; Rev. 6:10 and especially this appears to be the sense, from the parallel text in Jude 4 where the Lord God denied by those men is manifestly distinguished from our Lord Jesus Christ, and by whom these persons are said to be bought: the meaning is not that they were redeemed by the blood of Christ, for Christ is not intended; and besides, whenever redemption by Christ is spoken of, the price is usually mentioned, or some circumstance or another which fully determines the sense; see Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 6:20 and 7:23; Eph. 1:7; 1 Pet. 1:18, 19; Rev. 5:9 whereas here is not the least hint of any thing of this kind: add to this, that such who are redeemed by Christ are the elect of God only, the people of Christ, his sheep and friends, and church, and who are never left to deny him so as to perish eternally; for could such be lost, or deceive, or be deceived finally and totally by damnable heresies, and bring on themselves swift destruction, Christ’s purchase would be in vain, and the ransom-price be paid for nought; but the word _bought _regards temporal mercies and deliverance, which these men enjoyed, and is used as an aggravation of their sin in denying the Lord.​​—John Gill, _Exposition of the New Testament_, 2 Peter 2:1; italics original.​


This is good exposition from Johnny Gill the baptist. 

Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 

There's a similar verse. There will always be those members of the visible church claiming that Christ has bought them, but their teaching damnable heresies shows that they really never were bought by the blood of Christ.


----------



## Taylor (Dec 9, 2021)

Romans922 said:


> Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
> 
> There's a similar verse. There will always be those members of the visible church claiming that Christ has bought them, but their teaching damnable heresies shows that they really never were bought by the blood of Christ.


If I remember correctly, Owen in his Hebrews commentary argues that a better translation of this verse would be "wherewith it was sanctified," referring I think to the covenant, not the apostate.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Dec 9, 2021)

SeamusDelion said:


> You attacked me by calling me a strawman, I can assure you that I am not man of straw and that I lift weights daily to stay in shape and the likes of you could never stop me.


Lol This made my day!

Look up straw man in the dictionary, brother.

And please just relax. This is a friendly conversation. Nothing to get worked up about.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 9, 2021)

KMK said:


> Wow! This is a blast from the past. Welcome back JD.


Hey! As you can see, I am once again bringing up topics that are easy to understand, reconcile and leads to harmony and love 

Seriously, glad to be back - SDG!


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 9, 2021)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Where is the biblical evidence for this? I ask because it seems foreign to me. Thanks!


I believe it is good and necessary consequence in light of 2 Peter 2:1, 1 Timothy 4:10, 1 John 2:2, to name a few.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 9, 2021)

I honestly think this is a good defense against both Arminian and universalist apologetics. It still limits the effectual atonement and solves for the proof texts they use.


----------



## SeamusDelion (Dec 9, 2021)

panta dokimazete said:


> Why? The Bible seems to teach it. What Biblical principle does it violate for Christ's death to have this dual effect?





Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Lol This made my day!
> 
> Look up straw man in the dictionary, brother.
> 
> And please just relax. This is a friendly conversation. Nothing to get worked up about.


I was making a joke trying to be funny.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 9, 2021)

Taylor said:


> I don't believe "Lord" (δεσποτης in the Greek; better translated "Master") refers to Christ. Here is John Gill's handling of the text:
> 
> ..._even denying the Lord that bought them_; not the Lord Jesus Christ, but God the father; for the word κνριος is not here used, which always is where Christ is spoken of as the _Lord_, but δεσποτης; and which is expressive of the power which masters have over their servants, and which God has over all mankind; and wherever this word is elsewhere used, it is spoken of God the father, whenever applied to a divine person, as in Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; 2 Tim. 2:21; Rev. 6:10 and especially this appears to be the sense, from the parallel text in Jude 4 where the Lord God denied by those men is manifestly distinguished from our Lord Jesus Christ, and by whom these persons are said to be bought: the meaning is not that they were redeemed by the blood of Christ, for Christ is not intended; and besides, whenever redemption by Christ is spoken of, the price is usually mentioned, or some circumstance or another which fully determines the sense; see Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 6:20 and 7:23; Eph. 1:7; 1 Pet. 1:18, 19; Rev. 5:9 whereas here is not the least hint of any thing of this kind: add to this, that such who are redeemed by Christ are the elect of God only, the people of Christ, his sheep and friends, and church, and who are never left to deny him so as to perish eternally; for could such be lost, or deceive, or be deceived finally and totally by damnable heresies, and bring on themselves swift destruction, Christ’s purchase would be in vain, and the ransom-price be paid for nought; but the word _bought _regards temporal mercies and deliverance, which these men enjoyed, and is used as an aggravation of their sin in denying the Lord.​​—John Gill, _Exposition of the New Testament_, 2 Peter 2:1; italics original.​


Yeah, I actually read this as I was formulating my thoughts. However, Jesus Christ is the only "divine buyer" I know of in redemptive history.


----------



## Taylor (Dec 9, 2021)

SeamusDelion said:


> I was making a joke trying to be funny.


Bad and ill-timed joke.



panta dokimazete said:


> Yeah, I actually read this as I was formulating my thoughts. However, Jesus Christ is the only "divine buyer" I know of in redemptive history.


You recognize, of course, that this is begging the question, because this assertion assumes that 2 Peter 2:1 is speaking of Christ, which is the very point of debate.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 9, 2021)

Taylor said:


> You recognize, of course, that this is begging the question, because this assertion assumes that 2 Peter 2:1 is speaking of Christ, which is the very point of debate.


Show me in Scripture where the Father bought or buys anything to substantiate that, please. My whole premise (and I believe a key principle of the eternal Covenant of Grace) is that Christ procures from the Father as it relates to Mankind. That is the divine economy.


----------



## Taylor (Dec 9, 2021)

panta dokimazete said:


> Show me in Scripture where the Father bought or buys anything to substantiate that, please. My whole premise (and I believe a key principle of the eternal Covenant of Grace) is that Christ procures from the Father as it relates to Mankind. That is the divine economy.


Well, it seems to me 2 Peter 2:1, as John Gill shows above based on the vocabulary used in the verse, is one. Can you demonstrate that Gill is wrong?

As for passages which describe the Father purchasing something, Exodus 15:16 and Psalm 74:2 are quite explicit examples.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 9, 2021)

Taylor said:


> Well, it seems to me 2 Peter 2:1, as John Gill shows above based on the vocabulary used in the verse, is one. Can you demonstrate that Gill is wrong?
> 
> As for passages which describe the Father purchasing something, Exodus 15:16 and Psalm 74:2 are quite explicit examples.


You really don't think that is referring to Christ? What/who is the Father buying them from? What currency is He using?


----------



## Taylor (Dec 9, 2021)

panta dokimazete said:


> You really don't think that is referring to Christ? What/who is the Father buying them from? What currency is He using?


You asked me to provide some Scripture references, and I did. Would you kindly deal with the matter directly at hand, which is 2 Peter 2:1? Because, again, you are begging the question. Can you deal with Gill’s argument?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 9, 2021)

I see you like John Gill - see below - emphasis mine:



> Verse 16 (Exodus 15:16)​Fear and dread shall fall upon them .... On the several nations and people before mentioned, especially the Canaanites, which the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem interpret of the fear of death, lest the Israelites should fall upon them and destroy them, or God should fight for them, against them, and bring ruin and destruction on them:
> by the greatness of thine arm they shall be as still as a stone ; awed by the power of God, visible in what he had done for the Israelites, and upon their enemies; they should be like stocks and stones, immovable, have no power to act, nor stir a foot in their own defence, and against Israel, come to invade and possess their land; nor in the least molest them, or stop them in their passage over Jordan, or dispute it with them, but stand like persons thunderstruck, and as stupid as stones, not having any spirit or courage left in them:
> till thy people pass over, O Lord, till the people pass over , which thou hast purchased; pass over the brook of Arnon, and the ford of Jabbok, according to the Targum of Jonathan; or the ford of Jabbok, and the ford of Jordan, according to the Jerusalem Targum; the river of Jordan is doubtless literally meant, at least chiefly; and the accomplishment of this prediction may be seen in Joshua 3:15 which was an emblem of the quiet passage of Christ's purchased people, through the ford or river of death, to the Canaan of everlasting rest and happiness: *Christ's people are purchased by him*, who is able to make the purchase, and had a right to do it, and has actually made it, by giving his flesh, shedding his blood, laying down his life, and giving himself a ransom price for them: these do, and must pass over Jordan, or go through the cold stream of death; it is the way of all the earth, of good men as well as others; it is a passage from one world to another; and there is no getting to the heavenly Canaan without going this way, or through this ford; and all the Lord's purchased people, like Israel, clean pass over through it, not one are left in it; their bodies are raised again, their souls are reunited to them, and both come safe to heaven and happiness: and, for the most part, they have a quiet and easy passage, the enemy is not suffered to disturb them, neither the sins and corruptions of their nature, nor an evil heart of unbelief, nor Satan with his temptations; and the terrors of death are taken away from them; so that they can sit and sing on the shores of eternity, in the view of death and another world, saying, death, where is thy sting? grave, where is thy victory? &c.; and this is to be ascribed to the greatness of Jehovah's arm, to his almighty power, on which they lean, and go on comfortably in the wilderness; and by this they are carried safely through death to glory, and it is owing to this that the enemy and the avenger are stilled.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 9, 2021)

More from Johnny G:



> Verse 2 (Psalms 74:2)​Remember thy congregation, which thou hast purchased of old ,.... Alluding to the redemption of the congregation of Israel out of Egypt, when they were said to be "purchased", Exodus 15:16 and as that people were typical of the people of God, they may be said to be "purchased then", even of old; *though the purchase in reality was not made till the blood of Christ was shed, with which he purchased his church,* Acts 20:28 , indeed he was the Lamb, slain from the foundation of the world, in the purpose and promise of God, and in the typical sacrifices so early offered up, Revelation 13:8 , and besides, the words may be considered as the words of the church of God groaning under antichristian oppression and cruelty, hundreds of years since the death of Christ, and so may be said to be of old purchased; and which is called a "congregation", because a select number, chosen of God, and called out of the world, and brought into one body, and into fellowship with Christ and one another; and though they may not meet together in one place, they are all of one body, and will one day make one general assembly and church of the firstborn, called "the congregation of the righteous", Psalm 1:5 now it is desired of the Lord for these, that they might be remembered with his lovingkindness and tender mercies, with his covenant and promises, and be delivered and saved out of the hands of their enemies:
> the rod of thine inheritance, which thou hast redeemed ; the Targum adds, out of Egypt; but this is to be understood not of the redemption of the people of Israel, but of the redemption of the church of God from sin, Satan, the law, the world, hell, and death; who are chosen by the Lord for his inheritance, his peculiar treasure and portion; and which he highly values and esteems, and is dear unto him as such, as the redemption of them by the blood of Christ shows:
> this Mount Sion wherein thou hast dwelt ; meaning the church of God, which often goes by this name, both in the Old and in the New Testament, comparable to the mount of Zion for its height, holiness, and immoveableness; where the Lord has promised to dwell, and where he does dwell, and will for evermore. As the reference to Sion literally understood, it is called "this Sion", because well known, and because the psalm might be composed or said in it, as Kimchi observes; and which shows that it was written before the destruction of the city and temple, and while Zion was the seat of religious worship, and therefore a prophecy of future times.
> - John Gills Exposition of the Bible Commentary


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 9, 2021)

Taylor said:


> You asked me to provide some Scripture references, and I did. Would you kindly deal with the matter directly at hand, which is 2 Peter 2:1? Because, again, you are begging the question. Can you deal with Gill’s argument?


I did - Jesus is the true purchaser in redemptive history - John G is off track, in this instance, which is proven by his own words, which I quoted.


----------



## SeamusDelion (Dec 9, 2021)

Taylor said:


> Bad and ill-timed joke.
> 
> 
> You recognize, of course, that this is begging the question, because this assertion assumes that 2 Peter 2:1 is speaking of Christ, which is the very point of debate.


You're entitled to you're own opinion.


----------



## Taylor (Dec 9, 2021)

panta dokimazete said:


> I did - Jesus is the true purchaser in redemptive history - John G is off track, in this instance, which is proven by his own words, which I quoted.


Is Jesus anywhere else called the δεσποτης?


----------



## Afterthought (Dec 9, 2021)

There is a distinction between benefits purchased by Christ's death and benefits occasioned by Christ's death. All the benefits of Christ's death come in a package deal: whoever he died for is dead with him and will live with him and must live unto him, not to themselves (Romans 6 compared with 2 Cor 5:14). There is not a single temporal or spiritual benefit purchased by Christ for any that are not elect. However, Christ's death results in a new world order that includes a universal offer of Christ and command to repent and believe, the allowance of unbelievers and the reprobate to enjoy outward benefits of church membership, and the continuance of life on earth before the judgment. This new state of affairs is a benefit to all, but it is done solely with the purpose of accomplishing Christ's saving purposes for the elect, so the benefit to the reprobate brought by this new state of affairs is only occasioned by, not purchased by, Christ's death. This temporal benefit--good in and of itself--results in greater judgment to the reprobate.

As Thomas Watson stated of temporal benefits, believers have their benefits by God's covenant mercy; unbelievers have their benefits with God's leave, not his love.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 9, 2021)

Taylor said:


> Is Jesus anywhere else called the δεσποτης?


Your argument is irrelevant - JG is building his case to support his position that Christ would not buy the reprobate in any sense, which is the premise of my argument. Besides, he had to dance around Jude 1:4 where Christ is* explicitly *called δεσποτης.


----------



## Taylor (Dec 9, 2021)

panta dokimazete said:


> Your argument is irrelevant


Says you, yet it’s not my argument we’re dealing with, but Gill’s.



panta dokimazete said:


> JG is building his case to support his position that Christ would not buy the reprobate in any sense, which is the premise of my argument.


That’s not true. He’s making an exegetical argument based on the word δεσποτης.



panta dokimazete said:


> Besides, he had to dance around Jude 1:4 where Christ is* explicitly *called δεσποτης.


Depends. There’s a significant textual variant here, and one that is especially significant for this discussion, since the variant called God, not Christ, the δεσποτης.


----------



## Thomas_Goodwin (Dec 9, 2021)

For the peace that grace brings Christians sure do love fighting over it.

Such discussions should propel worship in Christ and awe.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 9, 2021)

Afterthought said:


> There is a distinction between benefits purchased by Christ's death and benefits occasioned by Christ's death. All the benefits of Christ's death come in a package deal: whoever he died for is dead with him and will live with him and must live unto him, not to themselves (Romans 6 compared with 2 Cor 5:14). There is not a single temporal or spiritual benefit purchased by Christ for any that are not elect. However, Christ's death results in a new world order that includes a universal offer of Christ and command to repent and believe, the allowance of unbelievers and the reprobate to enjoy outward benefits of church membership, and the continuance of life on earth before the judgment. This new state of affairs is a benefit to all, but it is done solely with the purpose of accomplishing Christ's saving purposes for the elect, so the benefit to the reprobate brought by this new state of affairs is only occasioned by, not purchased by, Christ's death. This temporal benefit--good in and of itself--results in greater judgment to the reprobate.
> 
> As Thomas Watson stated of temporal benefits, believers have their benefits by God's covenant mercy; unbelievers have their benefits with God's leave, not his love.


My point is that what you call "occasioned" is bound up as a benefit to all people, at all times in the death of Christ. There is no "unplanned" or "incidental" components of the eternal covenant. Sin is cause for eternal death for Mankind, the price for mitigation is Christ's death, beneficial effects are gracious eternal salvation for the elect, merciful temporal salvation from eternal wrath for the reprobate.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 9, 2021)

Thomas_Goodwin said:


> For the peace that grace brings Christians sure do love fighting over it.
> 
> Such discussions should propel worship in Christ and awe.


I'm not really fighting. I have always considered the PB to be "iron sharpens iron" and greatly respect the godly Biblical thinkers here. It is a great way to guard your heart and mind from the dangers of the "echo chamber"

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Dec 9, 2021)

panta dokimazete said:


> I'm not really fighting. I have always considered the PB to be "iron sharpens iron" and greatly respect the godly Biblical thinkers here. It is a great way to guard your heart and mind from the dangers of the "echo chamber"


Agreed. In the end, I know you and I are in essential agreement regarding doctrinal matters, even if we disagree on some exegetical ones, and I appreciate the dialogue.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 9, 2021)

Taylor said:


> Depends. There’s a significant textual variant here, and one that is especially significant for this discussion, since the variant called God, not Christ, the δεσποτης.


Only in the sense that he is supporting his premise (Jesus did not in any sense buy the reprobate), which I have refuted in the OP. You cannot deny that Jesus is called δεσποτης by different writers. He has to try and build a context/variant argument solely to support his argument as stated. That's not exegesis.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 9, 2021)

Taylor said:


> Agreed. In the end, I know you and I are in essential agreement regarding doctrinal matters, even if we disagree on some exegetical ones, and I appreciate the dialogue.


Shoot man, I should have asked them to lock the thread there! 
Thank you, seriously - I really love His Word and really appreciate a pointed, yet winsome dialogue/debate.

Reactions: Like 1 | Love 1


----------



## timfost (Dec 9, 2021)

Hi all,

I love this subject and part of me really wants to jump in. I think, however, that there had been very little substance here. We know that there is a fairly wide range of diversity in Reformed theology concerning the specifics of Christ's satisfaction. The "double jeopardy" argument has been set fourth _ad nauseam_ here and seems to prove that there is a lack of careful and intentional listening. Surely the doctrine that Christ through his satisfaction procured common grace benefits is widely held among the reformed. We may quibble on some of these points and the exact terminology, but there is a thoroughly orthodox presence of these doctrines among the Reformed.

I would love to see a substantive conversation about this, but this spitfire approach has not paved the way for a productive conversation.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## panta dokimazete (Dec 10, 2021)

timfost said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I love this subject and part of me really wants to jump in. I think, however, that there had been very little substance here. We know that there is a fairly wide range of diversity in Reformed theology concerning the specifics of Christ's satisfaction. The "double jeopardy" argument has been set fourth _ad nauseam_ here and seems to prove that there is a lack of careful and intentional listening. Surely the doctrine that Christ through his satisfaction procured common grace benefits is widely held among the reformed. We may quibble on some of these points and the exact terminology, but there is a thoroughly orthodox presence of these doctrines among the Reformed.
> 
> I would love to see a substantive conversation about this, but this spitfire approach has not paved the way for a productive conversation.


True enough - I really posted this to get feedback on my position. This has helped refine it some. I’ll post another thread after I digest this and hopefully it can be a little less chaotic


----------



## Taylor (Dec 10, 2021)

panta dokimazete said:


> You cannot deny that Jesus is called δεσποτης by different writers.


I revisited this, and I believe you are claiming far too much. The term δεσποτης occurs ten times in the entire NT. Of those ten times, only one could possibly be said conclusively to refer to Christ—_but only on the presupposition of a certain textual tradition_. In other words, the text of Jude 4 is disputable. Textual criticism is part of exegesis. And given the fact that in every _other_ case where δεσποτης refers to deity it refers indisputably to the Father, it is unreasonable exegesis to base the opposite conclusion on a single disputed passage.

In other words, the most you could say is that in Jude 4 the referent _could_ be Christ, but it is not _indisputably_ so. And given the evidence of all the other occurrences, it is not reasonable to say it is even _probably_ so. The majority of the evidence is against it.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Dec 10, 2021)

Taylor said:


> I revisited this, and I believe you are claiming far too much. The term δεσποτης occurs ten times in the entire NT. Of those ten times, only one could possibly be said conclusively to refer to Christ—_but only on the presupposition of a certain textual tradition_. In other words, the text of Jude 4 is disputable. Textual criticism is part of exegesis. And given the fact that in every _other_ case where δεσποτης refers to deity it refers indisputably to the Father, it is unreasonable exegesis to base the opposite conclusion on a single disputed passage.
> 
> In other words, the most you could say is that in Jude 4 the referent _could_ be Christ, but it is not _indisputably_ so. And given the evidence of all the other occurrences, it is not reasonable to say it is even _probably_ so. The majority of the evidence is against it.



Despotes (δεσπότης) is also used in the NT to refer to the "Master" in the Master / Slave relationship, which relationship is also compared to the Christ / Believer relationship.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Dec 10, 2021)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Despotes (δεσπότης) is also used in the NT to refer to the "Master" in the Master / Slave relationship, which relationship is also compared to the Christ / Believer relationship.


Sure, but the question here is strictly exegetical: When is Christ ever _explicitly called_ δεσποτης? The only time he _might_ have been—again, depending on which text tradition you go with—is in Jude 4. All other times speak specifically of the Father.


----------

