# May we say to the unconverted, "Christ died for your sins"?



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Recently, a Reformed brother wrote a post on evangelism in which he warned against deficiencies or inaccuracies in our message. One of the things against which he cautioned us was the use of the phrase, "Jesus died for you," which he argues is "tantamount to declaring that one can declare which lost person is part of God’s elect." 

As one who formerly sympathized with some Arminian views of the gospel and who is presently a 5-point Calvinist, I agree with the need to be sure our gospel presentation is soundly biblical. In regards to the danger above, however, I have sometimes wondered whether such language as “Christ died for you” is in all cases absolutely inappropriate in evangelizing the lost. 

First, the English preposition “for” (and the Greek _huper_ it translates) is semantically flexible. It can simply mean “because of” or “on account of.” Certainly in a general sense, all human sin as “occasioned” Christ’s death. In other cases, it means “for the intended benefit of.” Here, the efficacy of the “intent” is determined not by the preposition alone but by the immediate and larger context in which it is used. 

Second, I think all Calvinists believe that Christ’s death procured (non-saving) benefits not only for the elect but also for the non-elect (1 Tim. 4:10). 

Third, some Calvinists see in Christ’s death a kind of salvific _stance_ or _posture_ that God manifests towards all men in general (John 3:16). 

Fourth, Paul describes the gospel that he had received (from Christ, the Scriptures, and the other apostles) and preached to the Corinthians during his initial evangelistic labors among them in the following terms: “For I delivered (aorist) to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died _*for our sins*_ in accordance with the Scriptures [emphasis added]” (1 Cor. 15:3). 

Note that, according to verse 1, these words constituted the good news that the Corinthians initially “received” (aorist) and upon which, following their conversion, they “had taken their stand” (perfect). So it would seem, at least from a _prima facie_ reading of this text, that Paul’s gospel presentation to unconverted Greeks included the phrase, “Christ died for our sins.” 

Of course, this doesn’t imply that Paul viewed Christ’s atonement as _efficient_ for all. He may simply be alluding to God’s saving posture towards all men as demonstrated in the death of Christ (see above), or he may have intended the _all-sufficiency_ of Christ’s atonement. 

On the other hand, one might argue that the phrase “for our sins” was not part of the original message Paul preached. That is, it was only after the audience to whom he writes believed the gospel that Paul could utter that phrase. I’m not fully persuaded by this argument in light of the tenses of the verbs, but I suppose it might be plausible. 

In any case, just trying to sharpen iron. What are your thoughts on the use of the phrase "Christ died for your sins" in general and your interpretation of Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 15:1-3 in particular? 

Your servant,


----------



## PresbyDane

No
We can say he died so sinners might be saved


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Martin Marsh said:


> No
> We can say he died so sinners might be saved



Thanks, Martin. I agree with your point that Jesus died so that sinners might be saved. How do you interpret Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 15:3? Do you believe the gospel he preached to them included the words, "Christ died for our sins"? If not, why not? If so, what do you think Paul meant?

Your servant,


----------



## MW

In the gospel the death of Christ is offered to all as the only way of salvation. If the sinner believes on the Lord Jesus Christ he shall be saved. On this basis we may say indefinitely that Christ died for sinners, and therefore every sinner has a warrant to trust in Christ for salvation, and that no sinner perishes because of some insufficiency in Christ's death to save them. However, the Bible nowhere teaches that the warrant for the sinner to believe on Christ is the fact that He died for them individually and personally. Such a teaching would throw the gospel scheme into confusion because it would mean the distinguishing factor upon which salvation depends is the person's own belief rather than the work of Christ.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

armourbearer said:


> In the gospel the death of Christ is offered to all. If the sinner believes on the Lord Jesus Christ he shall be saved. On this basis we may say that Christ died indefinitely for sinners, and therefore every sinner has a warrant to trust in Christ for salvaiton, and that no sinner perishes because of some insufficiency in Christ's death to save them. However, the Bible nowhere teaches that the warrant for the sinner to believe on Christ is the fact that He died for them individually and personally. Such a teaching would throw the gospel scheme into confusion because it would mean the distinguishing factor upon which salvation depends is the person's own belief rather than the work of Christ.



Thanks, Matthew. I agree with you that "the Bible nowhere teaches that the warrant for the sinner to believe on Christ is the fact that He died for them individually and personally." Would you then interpret Paul's phrase "Christ died for our sins" in the context of 1 Corinthians 15:1-3 as, in essence, making the point you affirm above, namely, "that Christ died indefinitely for sinners"? If so, then may we use the phraseology in that qualified (and guarded) sense when evangelizing? 

Your servant,


----------



## Pergamum

Paul was addressing the church in Corinth.

If I am speaking before a church, it is also proper for me to speak to all who claim Christ in this way, that Christ dided for your sins. It is better than saying, "Christ died for some of your sins, because out of every church some of you all are damned hypocrites!" Paul addressed the Corinth church as "saints."


----------



## MW

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Thanks, Matthew. I agree with you that "the Bible nowhere teaches that the warrant for the sinner to believe on Christ is the fact that He died for them individually and personally." Would you then interpret Paul's phrase "Christ died for our sins" in the context of 1 Corinthians 15:1-3 as, in essence, making the point you affirm above, namely, "that Christ died indefinitely for sinners"? If so, then may we use the phraseology in that qualified (and guarded) sense when evangelizing?



In that specific context I would suggest another mode of interpretation on the basis of the Greek preposition used in connection with "sins," and that is that "our sins" were the procuring cause of His death. It is only by understanding it in this way that sense can be made of the later statement that the Corinthians would still be in their sins if Christ had not been raised, ver. 17. Hence I think it safest to see the apostle's language as reflecting the Corinthians' reception of the gospel, and that penal, substitutionary death is the proper reference.


----------



## PresbyDane

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Martin Marsh said:
> 
> 
> 
> No
> We can say he died so sinners might be saved
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, Martin. I agree with your point that Jesus died so that sinners might be saved. How do you interpret Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 15:3? Do you believe the gospel he preached to them included the words, "Christ died for our sins"? If not, why not? If so, what do you think Paul meant?
> 
> Your servant,
Click to expand...


I do not think he included those words because that would contradict what he says in other places conserning soteriology.
I think he stated it more like Acts 17 you know telling them what their problem was and what the solution was (them believing in Christ and what he had done)
when they then say they can not do that, which we also experience in real life and see in scripture with words like "help my unbelief" then he can tell them That Christ has done ALL that was needed for them to be saved.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Pergamum said:


> Paul was addressing the church in Corinth.
> 
> If I am speaking before a church, it is also proper for me to speak to all who claim Christ in this way, that Christ dided for your sins. It is better than saying, "Christ died for some of your sins, because out of every church some of you all are damned hypocrites!" Paul addressed the Corinth church as "saints."



Hey Perg. I agree he was addressing the church. But he's describing the content of the gospel he had preached (past tense) and which they had received (past tense). That gospel message, it would seem, included the statement, "Christ died for your sins." That's how the language of the text seems to read--at least to me. 

On the other hand, I did acknowledge above that Paul may be importing into the gospel content he preached (past tense) and which the Corinthians believed (past tense) an idea that wasn't originally there, viz., that "Christ died for* [their] *sins." Maybe, as your comment seems to suggest, Paul originally said something like, "Christ died for sin" or Christ died so that sinners might be saved." Then later, when addressing these Corinthians in their post-conversion state, he added the phrase "for our sins." Is that your view?


----------



## Pergamum

Yes, that is my view. But I have not thought it out as deeply as you have. Any weaknesses/holes in my view?


----------



## moral necessity

in my opinion, we may use that statement with appropriate qualifications in mind. First of all, we don't know the sovereign plan of God, as to whom he died for, and so, we can say that statement with a certain generality implied in it, that he did die for their sins, if he is ever going to make them regenerate at some point in their life. And secondly, we may say that statement also, with some level of certainty, that it is in accord with the common Gospel invitation that we are called to represent and offer to all of mankind. For, if we are called to truly offer a real invitation to all of mankind, then we must therefore truly offer a proper foundation for that invitation. And so, the general statement of him "dying for our sins" is most appropriately fitting, in my opinion. 

However, when we speak from God's perspective upon things, we always take several steps backwards in such bold statements. And so, the proprieity of such statements always depends upon which platform the statements are being made from. The question I end up asking myself often, is, whether or not I always have to speak to others from the perspective of God or not. If I did, I would probably not say many of the statements that scripture ever makes. And so, there has to be a reality in which I talk to others as if I am "under the sun", so to speak.....using the words of Solomon. But, that being said, I, in my own mind, have to try to qualify my statements, so as to have a clear conscience in what truth I am trying to express. And so, with man, I commonly speak in generalities, as man, until I encounter those whose minds take them beyond such general expressions into more particular thoughts. 

So, yes......I make that statement to people.....and I think it's appropriate to do so.....but, each circumstance or person that we encounter has his own boundries of appropriateness and needs that need to be met.....and wisdom and discernment dictates how much into the perspective of God that we delve into in our conversations with them.

Blessings!


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

Pergamum said:


> Yes, that is my view. But I have not thought it out as deeply as you have. Any weaknesses/holes in my view?



Actually, I've not thought through the exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15:1-3 in great detail as it relates to the question I raised above. I was simply reflecting on the passage recently in light of a blog written by a Reformed brother and thought I'd post some of my tentative thoughts on the PB to glean some input from the brethren here. As I said above, I think the view you advance is plausible. Paul's description of the content of the gospel he preached to the _at one time_ unconverted Corinthians may assume their present state (as he writes) and therefore contain information that was not part of the original message. 

Thanks for the interaction!

-----Added 3/2/2009 at 01:16:08 EST-----



moral necessity said:


> in my opinion, we may use that statement with appropriate qualifications in mind. First of all, we don't know the sovereign plan of God, as to whom he died for, and so, we can say that statement with a certain generality implied in it, that he did die for their sins, if he is ever going to make them regenerate at some point in their life. And secondly, we may say that statement also, with some level of certainty, that it is in accord with the common Gospel invitation that we are called to represent and offer to all of mankind. For, if we are called to truly offer a real invitation to all of mankind, then we must therefore truly offer a proper foundation for that invitation. And so, the general statement of him "dying for our sins" is most appropriately fitting, in my opinion.
> 
> However, when we speak from God's perspective upon things, we always take several steps backwards in such bold statements. And so, the proprieity of such statements always depends upon which platform the statements are being made from. The question I end up asking myself often, is, whether or not I always have to speak to others from the perspective of God or not. If I did, I would probably not say many of the statements that scripture ever makes. And so, there has to be a reality in which I talk to others as if I am "under the sun", so to speak.....using the words of Solomon. But, that being said, I, in my own mind, have to try to qualify my statements, so as to have a clear conscience in what truth I am trying to express. And so, with man, I commonly speak in generalities, as man, until I encounter those whose minds take them beyond such general expressions into more particular thoughts.
> 
> So, yes......I make that statement to people.....and I think it's appropriate to do so.....but, each circumstance or person that we encounter has his own boundries of appropriateness and needs that need to be met.....and wisdom and discernment dictates how much into the perspective of God that we delve into in our conversations with them.
> 
> Blessings!



Charles, I appreciate your attempt to provide a balanced, "multi-perspectival" approach to the question.

Your servant,


----------



## PresbyDane

I think you meant to thank Charles


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Paul could say to a group of non-believers: "Christ died for OUR sins," and not mean "our" in a sense that includes, but in fact _excludes,_ the audience in their present state of unbelief--i.e. "WE believe, ergo, he died for our sins." Change the status of the audience member's belief, and suddenly that judgment is inclusive. They have individually adopted the "for me" perspective of faith on the death of Christ.

What I mean is that Paul's use of "our" in 1Cor15:1-3 doesn't remove the element of faith, in my view.

And, I would say that when Paul addresses a church (that has not abandoned or virtually abandoned the gospel) he uses the "judgment of charity" in addressing professors of faith according to their profession, that is, as being what they claim to be. Therefore since he's now speaking to present professors of faith, his choice of words is bound to reflect his present, rather than past, relation to these persons.


----------



## BJClark

Dr. Bob Gonzales;



> I agree he was addressing the church. But he's describing the content of the gospel he had preached (past tense) and which they had received (past tense). That gospel message, it would seem, included the statement, "Christ died for your sins." That's how the language of the text seems to read--at least to me.



Why would it include the word 'your' when he was including his own sin in the 'our'? 

People can be peculiar in how they hear and interpret certain words, they actually go based on the meaning of the word..if I say "Christ died for 'your' sins", does that mean Christ did not die for (my) the speakers sin?

No, but that is what some people hear, and even get offended, assuming your excluding your self from that sinful state, and have been known to turn around and begin to name the speakers list of sins..and at that point they have gone on the defensive and anything you say..falls on deaf ears..

So if you say "our"; while some will still be offended (because the Gospel IS offensive to unbelievers) they don't put their guard up as quickly going on the defensive.


----------



## Anton Bruckner

I thought my 6 year old the following this weekend.

1. What did Jesus came to do?
ans. Jesus came to save His people by dying for their sins.

2. Did Jesus came to save everyone?
ans. No, only His people.

3. Who are Jesus' people?
ans. Those who believe and trust in Him.

4. How does a person who believe in Jesus behave?
ans. Matt 22:37. They love the Lord, their God with all their heart, all their mind and with all their soul.

ps. I will keep grilling it into his head.


----------



## Scott1

Another good, thought provoking post, Bob.

I have not had formal theological training, but here are a few of my thoughts:



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Recently, a Reformed brother wrote a post on evangelism in which he warned against deficiencies or inaccuracies in our message. One of the things against which he cautioned us was the use of the phrase, "Jesus died for you," which he argues is "tantamount to declaring that one can declare which lost person is part of God’s elect."
> 
> As one who formerly sympathized with some Arminian views of the gospel and who is presently a 5-point Calvinist,
> Once you understand the "five points" necessarily are related to and dependent upon one another you can see them as relating to the central reformed doctrine, The Doctrine of God.
> 
> All other doctrines relate in some way to the central doctrine of God- something which is not true of theological constructs outside of "reformed."
> 
> There is no such thing as "three point" Calvinist, etc, logically or otherwise.
> 
> It really helped me understand that "all" often means "all sorts of people" especially Jews and Gentiles in many biblical contexts. Also that "us" is often referring the believers (the elect), especially in the context of new testament passages as God expanded his dealings from mostly Israel to the "whole world" (Jew and Gentile).
> 
> And by now you know, the secondary causes of liberty man has apply to everything _except_ saving or initiating salvation for one's self so man really does have "free will" [which of course, is limited by his nature]
> 
> 
> I agree with the need to be sure our gospel presentation is soundly biblical. In regards to the danger above, however, I have sometimes wondered whether such language as “Christ died for you” is in all cases absolutely inappropriate in evangelizing the lost.
> 
> First, the English preposition “for” (and the Greek _huper_ it translates) is semantically flexible. It can simply mean “because of” or “on account of.” Certainly in a general sense, all human sin as “occasioned” Christ’s death. In other cases, it means “for the intended benefit of.” Here, the efficacy of the “intent” is determined not by the preposition alone but by the immediate and larger context in which it is used.
> 
> Second, I think all Calvinists believe that Christ’s death procured benefits not only for the elect but also for the non-elect (1 Tim. 4:10).
> 
> But not salvation... or else everyone _would_ be saved, and that of course is not the case. Many are called, but few are chosen. (cf Matthew 22:14)
> 
> Third, some Calvinists see in Christ’s death a kind of salvific _stance_ or _posture_ that God manifests towards all men in general (John 3:16).
> 
> Fourth, Paul describes the gospel that he had received (from Christ, the Scriptures, and the other apostles) and preached to the Corinthians during his initial evangelistic labors among them in the following terms: “For I delivered (aorist) to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died _*for our sins*_ in accordance with the Scriptures [emphasis added]” (1 Cor. 15:3).
> 
> Note that, according to verse 1, these words constituted the good news that the Corinthians initially “received” (aorist) and upon which, following their conversion, they “had taken their stand” (perfect). So it would seem, at least from a _prima facie_ reading of this text, that Paul’s gospel presentation to unconverted Greeks included the phrase, “Christ died for our sins.”
> 
> Of course, this doesn’t imply that Paul viewed Christ’s atonement as _efficient_ for all. He may simply be alluding to God’s saving posture towards all men as demonstrated in the death of Christ (see above), or he may have intended the _all-sufficiency_ of Christ’s atonement.
> 
> On the other hand, one might argue that the phrase “for our sins” is anachronistic, that is, Paul really didn’t preach those words initially; it was only after the audience to whom he writes believed the gospel that Paul could utter that phrase. I’m not persuaded by this argument, but I suppose it might be plausible.
> 
> In any case, just trying to sharpen iron. What are your thoughts on the use of the phrase "Christ died for your sins" in general and your interpretation of Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 15:1-3 in particular?
> 
> Your servant,



You are swerving into a key observation. You can see why reformed does not emphasize "altar calls" or "making a decision for Christ" as a means of salvation. Rather, it is through discipling in the context of the local church. In the ordinary course of teaching through God's Word, God uses the ordinary means of teaching His Word to bring people to salvation and understand election, regeneration, justification, adoption and sanctification.

In the end, we can acknowledge that God uses biblically incorrect means "you make a decision to receive Christ" rather than what Scripture says "God makes a decision to receive you, because of Christ's righteousness alone."

We don't come to God in our fallen condition, evaluate His offer, and decide to choose Him. He looks at us, dead in sin, and for some reason known only to Himself, decides to miraculously change us so we can believe and rest on that belief alone... Based on absolutely nothing in our selves, contrary to what we deserve, He chooses to give mercy and reward with eternal life... all to the praise of His glorious grace!

It becomes a matter of worshipping God in spirit and in truth, and obedience, particularly as you grow in Christ. To whom much is given, much is required, which includes rightly understanding our God as He has revealed Himself in Scripture. One realizes how great an offense it is to our God to misrepresent Him and to base our representation of Him based only on what we imagine, particularly for those who lead and teach God's people."


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

BJClark said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree he was addressing the church. But he's describing the content of the gospel he had preached (past tense) and which they had received (past tense). That gospel message, it would seem, included the statement, "Christ died for your sins." That's how the language of the text seems to read--at least to me.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would it include the word 'your' when he was including his own sin in the 'our'?
> 
> People can be peculiar in how they hear and interpret certain words, they actually go based on the meaning of the word..if I say "Christ died for 'your' sins", does that mean Christ did not die for (my) the speakers sin?
> 
> No, but that is what some people hear, and even get offended, assuming your excluding your self from that sinful state, and have been known to turn around and begin to name the speakers list of sins..and at that point they have gone on the defensive and anything you say..falls on deaf ears..
> 
> So if you say "our"; while some will still be offended (because the Gospel IS offensive to unbelievers) they don't put their guard up as quickly going on the defensive.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the correction, Bobbi. Paul actually used the 1st person plural "our," not the 2nd person plural "your." Your comments are helpful too.

Thanks,

-----Added 3/2/2009 at 09:00:27 EST-----



Anton Bruckner said:


> I thought my 6 year old the following this weekend.
> 
> 1. What did Jesus came to do?
> ans. Jesus came to save His people by dying for their sins.
> 
> 2. Did Jesus came to save everyone?
> ans. No, only His people.
> 
> 3. Who are Jesus' people?
> ans. Those who believe and trust in Him.
> 
> 4. How does a person who believe in Jesus behave?
> ans. Matt 22:37. They love the Lord, their God with all their heart, all their mind and with all their soul.
> 
> ps. I will keep grilling it into his head.



Thanks, brother. I don't disagree with any of your points (except there are a few typos  which I often make myself). I think it's commendable that you're catechizing your young child. May you know fruit for your labors!

Sincerely yours,

-----Added 3/2/2009 at 09:02:47 EST-----



Scott1 said:


> Another good, thought provoking post, Bob.
> 
> I have not had formal theological training, but here are a few of my thoughts:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> Recently, a Reformed brother wrote a post on evangelism in which he warned against deficiencies or inaccuracies in our message. One of the things against which he cautioned us was the use of the phrase, "Jesus died for you," which he argues is "tantamount to declaring that one can declare which lost person is part of God’s elect."
> 
> As one who formerly sympathized with some Arminian views of the gospel and who is presently a 5-point Calvinist,
> Once you understand the "five points" necessarily are related to and dependent upon one another you can see them as relating to the central reformed doctrine, The Doctrine of God.
> 
> All other doctrines relate in some way to the central doctrine of God- something which is not true of theological constructs outside of "reformed."
> 
> There is no such thing as "three point" Calvinist, etc, logically or otherwise.
> 
> It really helped me understand that "all" often means "all sorts of people" especially Jews and Gentiles in many biblical contexts. Also that "us" is often referring the believers (the elect), especially in the context of new testament passages as God expanded his dealings from mostly Israel to the "whole world" (Jew and Gentile).
> 
> And by now you know, the secondary causes of liberty man has apply to everything _except_ saving or initiating salvation for one's self so man really does have "free will" [which of course, is limited by his nature]
> 
> 
> I agree with the need to be sure our gospel presentation is soundly biblical. In regards to the danger above, however, I have sometimes wondered whether such language as “Christ died for you” is in all cases absolutely inappropriate in evangelizing the lost.
> 
> First, the English preposition “for” (and the Greek _huper_ it translates) is semantically flexible. It can simply mean “because of” or “on account of.” Certainly in a general sense, all human sin as “occasioned” Christ’s death. In other cases, it means “for the intended benefit of.” Here, the efficacy of the “intent” is determined not by the preposition alone but by the immediate and larger context in which it is used.
> 
> Second, I think all Calvinists believe that Christ’s death procured benefits not only for the elect but also for the non-elect (1 Tim. 4:10).
> 
> But not salvation... or else everyone _would_ be saved, and that of course is not the case. Many are called, but few are chosen. (cf Matthew 22:14)
> 
> Third, some Calvinists see in Christ’s death a kind of salvific _stance_ or _posture_ that God manifests towards all men in general (John 3:16).
> 
> Fourth, Paul describes the gospel that he had received (from Christ, the Scriptures, and the other apostles) and preached to the Corinthians during his initial evangelistic labors among them in the following terms: “For I delivered (aorist) to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died _*for our sins*_ in accordance with the Scriptures [emphasis added]” (1 Cor. 15:3).
> 
> Note that, according to verse 1, these words constituted the good news that the Corinthians initially “received” (aorist) and upon which, following their conversion, they “had taken their stand” (perfect). So it would seem, at least from a _prima facie_ reading of this text, that Paul’s gospel presentation to unconverted Greeks included the phrase, “Christ died for our sins.”
> 
> Of course, this doesn’t imply that Paul viewed Christ’s atonement as _efficient_ for all. He may simply be alluding to God’s saving posture towards all men as demonstrated in the death of Christ (see above), or he may have intended the _all-sufficiency_ of Christ’s atonement.
> 
> On the other hand, one might argue that the phrase “for our sins” is anachronistic, that is, Paul really didn’t preach those words initially; it was only after the audience to whom he writes believed the gospel that Paul could utter that phrase. I’m not persuaded by this argument, but I suppose it might be plausible.
> 
> In any case, just trying to sharpen iron. What are your thoughts on the use of the phrase "Christ died for your sins" in general and your interpretation of Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 15:1-3 in particular?
> 
> Your servant,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are swerving into a key observation. You can see why reformed does not emphasize "altar calls" or "making a decision for Christ" as a means of salvation. Rather, it is through discipling in the context of the local church. In the ordinary course of teaching through God's Word, God uses the ordinary means of teaching His Word to bring people to salvation and understand election, regeneration, justification, adoption and sanctification.
> 
> In the end, we can acknowledge that God uses biblically incorrect means "you make a decision to receive Christ" rather than what Scripture says "God makes a decision to receive you, because of Christ's righteousness alone."
> 
> We don't come to God in our fallen condition, evaluate His offer, and decide to choose Him. He looks at us, dead in sin, and for some reason known only to Himself, decides to miraculously change us so we can believe and rest on that belief alone... to the praise of His glorious grace.
> 
> It becomes a matter of worshipping God in spirit and in truth, and obedience, particularly as you grow in Christ. To whom much is given, much is required. One realizes how great an offense it is to our God to misrepresent Him and to base our representation of Him based only on what we imagine."
Click to expand...


Thanks, Scott. Your comments are helpful and I affirm them.


----------



## cih1355

I would say that Jesus died for other people or that Jesus died for His people. 

In 1 Corithians 15, Paul is speaking to believers and he is saying to them that Christ died for our sins. The word, "our", refers to Paul himself and the believers that he is speaking to. 

Before those believers became Christians, did Paul use the exact words, "Christ died for our sins", when he preached the gospel to them?


----------



## ManleyBeasley

I say "Christ died for sinners" when speaking to people about the gospel.


----------



## AThornquist

Some very good thoughts on this thread. And I'm with Manley--I typically just say that Christ died for sinners or Christ died for all who would believe (I said the latter during my graduation speech). I am only concerned that the wording of "Christ died for our sins" would be misconstrued by our theologically and spiritually ignorant world. I obviously don't believe anyone's eternal disposition will be changed by thinking (or not thinking) that "Christ died for them" if they weren't chosen to be vessels of mercy, but I believe that true doctrine should be preserved and protected, regardless.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

cih1355 said:


> I would say that Jesus died for other people or that Jesus died for His people.
> 
> In 1 Corithians 15, Paul is speaking to believers and he is saying to them that Christ died for our sins. The word, "our", refers to Paul himself and the believers that he is speaking to.
> 
> Before those believers became Christians, did Paul use the exact words, "Christ died for our sins", when he preached the gospel to them?



Curt,

I agree that Paul is writing to believers in 1 Corinthians 15. But when he gives a description of the gospel he _had preached _(past tense) and which they _had received_ (past tense), he describes it with the phrase, "the Messiah died *for our* sins according to the Scriptures." I see one of two possibilities:

(1) Paul really didn’t preach those words initially; it was only after the audience to whom he writes believed the gospel that Paul could utter that phrase. I think this is a plausible reading.

(2) Paul did say to an audience that included unconverted Greeks, "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures," but he didn't intend the preposition "for" (_huper_) to convey the idea of efficacy (as if Christ's death had already atoned for their sins irrespective of their election and faith) but meant one of the following:
(a) Christ's death was _occasioned_ by all human sin, i.e., on account of "our sin" he died.
(b) Christ's death demonstrates God's _saving posture_ towards the race of fallen men indiscriminately. 
(c) Christ's death is offered as a _sufficient_ atonement for all indiscriminately but is, in fact, only _efficient_ for those who believe (who, as it turns out, were ordained unto eternal life). ​Presently, I haven't made up my mind concerning which view I prefer as being the most viable interpretation of Paul's word. I definitely believe in a particular design behind Christ's work. But I also want to resist the temptation of trying to be more restrictive with my language than the apostles were.


----------



## Iconoclast

1 Corinthians 15 (Young's Literal Translation)

1 Corinthians 15
1And I make known to you, brethren, the good news that I proclaimed to you, which also ye did receive, in which also ye have stood, 

2through which also ye are being saved, in what words I proclaimed good news to you, if ye hold fast, except ye did believe in vain, 

3for I delivered to you first, what also I did receive, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Writings, 

4and that he was buried, and that he hath risen on the third day, according to the Writings,

DR.Bob,
The good news in which they stand is that Jesus has died a covenant death.
He is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise as The Promised Seed.
In Luke 1 Spirit filled Zacharias said it this way;


> 67And Zacharias his father was filled with the Holy Spirit, and did prophesy, saying,
> 
> 68`Blessed [is] the Lord, the God of Israel, Because He did look upon, And wrought redemption for His people,
> 
> 69And did raise an horn of salvation to us, In the house of David His servant,
> 
> 70As He spake by the mouth of His holy prophets, Which have been from the age;
> 
> 71Salvation from our enemies, And out of the hand of all hating us,
> 
> 72To do kindness with our fathers, And to be mindful of His holy covenant,
> 
> 73An oath that He sware to Abraham our father,
> 
> 74To give to us, without fear, Out of the hand of our enemies having been delivered,
> 
> 75To serve Him, in holiness and righteousness Before Him, all the days of our life.
> 
> 76And thou, child, Prophet of the Highest Shalt thou be called; For thou shalt go before the face of the Lord, To prepare His ways.
> 
> 77To give knowledge of salvation to His people In remission of their sins,



The Redemption spoken of is a covenant redemption. The Great High Priest interceding on behalf of all those given to Him.


> 9and him who was made some little less than messengers we see -- Jesus -- because of the suffering of the death, with glory and honour having been crowned, that by the grace of God for every one he might taste of death.
> 
> 10For it was becoming to Him, because of whom [are] the all things, and through whom [are] the all things, many sons to glory bringing, the author of their salvation through sufferings to make perfect,
> 
> 11for both he who is sanctifying and those sanctified [are] all of one, for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
> 
> 12saying, `I will declare Thy name to my brethren, in the midst of an assembly I will sing praise to Thee;' and again, `I will be trusting on Him;'
> 
> 13and again, `Behold I and the children that God did give to me.'
> 
> 14Seeing, then, the children have partaken of flesh and blood, he himself also in like manner did take part of the same, that through death he might destroy him having the power of death -- that is, the devil --
> 
> 15and might deliver those, whoever, with fear of death, throughout all their life, were subjects of bondage,
> 
> 16for, doubtless, of messengers it doth not lay hold, but of seed of Abraham it layeth hold,
> 
> 17wherefore it did behove him in all things to be made like to the brethren, that he might become a kind and stedfast chief-priest in the things with God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people,


 Nowhere are people told that Jesus died for them personally, unless it is speaking of those who are In Christ.
Paul says it this way;


> 15This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.


 We can say this with complete confidence. Jesus has died for His people MT.1:21. His people are scattered everywhere in the world.


> 50Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
> 
> 51And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
> 
> 52And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.



If we change or diminish the force of the verses it does not convey what the verses were intended to convey. 
We can still show concern for the souls of those we speak with and stay faithful to the the scripture at the same time.
No where in Acts did the apostles say, Christ died for you and the Holy Spirit is seeking to draw you.


----------



## moral necessity

Again....I don't see where we are called to speak from the same platform of God's perspective at all times in all of our conversations. Are we not to speak to children as if they are children, and to adults as if they are adults? And so, why would we not be content to speak in the manner that scripture often speaks, upon certain circumstances, and within certain contexts, and yet be content to qualify it within our own rational minds? And so, sometimes we speak as if from man's perspective, and yet sometimes from God's. Wisdom is to discern when something different is needed, as well as to when and where it is to best apply.


----------



## DonP

moral necessity said:


> Again....I don't see where we are called to speak from the same platform of God's perspective at all times in all of our conversations. Are we not to speak to children as if they are children, and to adults as if they are adults? And so, why would we not be content to speak in the manner that scripture often speaks, upon certain circumstances, and within certain contexts, and yet be content to qualify it within our own rational minds? And so, sometimes we speak as if from man's perspective, and yet sometimes from God's. Wisdom is to discern when something different is needed, as well as to when and where it is to best apply.



This is a good thought and really a main factor in the discussion. Is there a need to speak from this humanistic perspective as a means to present the gospel so one can be converted? And if not then why do it? 

But I would say scripture never ever says to a non-covenant person, Christ died for you. Or us, with them in mind. The Epistles begin with, to the saints, though there may be unconverted in the midst, he speaks as if he is speaking to the converted, though in reality this is how we address not the converted, for we do not know who they are, we are addressing the visible covenant members, who receive the benefit of being treated as converts. 

Do you need to say Jesus died for you? Why do people need to say this? We know that we cannot know that we are speaking the truth when we say it because Jesus may not have died for them. 

So I don't think God would want us going around lying or speaking that which we do not know is true. That violates so many scriptures. 

Since there is no need to say this I think it is absolutely wrong. 

A sinner can be welcomed with the words, Christ died for all who will believe in Him. Will you believe? If you will repent and believe in him there is forgiveness or He has paid for all your sins. He died to save people from the punishment of their sins and give them a relationship with God and eternal life. 
Why the need to put the cart before the horse? If you believe, he has died for you, or forgiven you. But only if you are one of those who believes. 

What is so deficient in these statements that we need to say Jesus died for you?
If someone said this to me I would answer, well great then I guess I am all set for heaven then right? Its a done deal you say, I can't lose my salvation and Christ already died for me, paid for my sins, thanks, see ya later. 

Now what do you say;well wait no he didn't die for you because you didn't believe, I am sorry to have misled you? Please don't go away with a false sense of security, you are really still in your sins there is more to it than that??

Why set yourself up for a mess. In fact this is a real mess. Much of Arminianism hangs on these words. 

This discussion is a major part of what was called the Marrow Controversy where for ever, no one said Christ died for you. They mainly offered Christ to those seeking, or who by sitting under the preaching had come to a place of conviction and wanted salvation. And along came some evangelistic preachers who started saying things close to this and others gave it more liberty and made a mess in the church that lasts to this day. 

It would be good to go back and Read the Marrow controversy, by especially reading Thomas Boston's Appendix to the book, the Marrow of Modern Divinity by Fisher. A most excellent work on the covenants also. Great for dispensationalists to read if they are open. Helped clear my 33 years ago.

Fisher himself, not a minister, is a bit loose in language twice in his allegory story, but Boston is quite precise in how he , The Erskine's and others defended the marrow and our warrant to offer the gospel to all. But we need to do it carefully. 

I think Murray was influenced or just let Stonehouse have his say in their booklet the Free Offer of the gospel because they Messed up. 

An excellent read on the subject is Christ Freely offered by Rev Ken Stebbins, though he was a bit hard on the Marrowmen and in speaking with him recently he would recant that part now. But he does an excellent analysis of many though out history on this subject and masterfully corrects the heresy of the Protestant Reformed Church, Hoeksema and rebuts Englesma's book, Hypercalvinism and the Call of the Gospel, his main purpose in writing the book. 

Also excellent is the Sum of Saving Knowledge in the Westminster Standards, a Form I wish the reformed churches would adopt again since we have so much trouble defining the gospel and what minimal amount a man must believe to say he has believed savingly or make a credible profession of faith. 

So yes we have a warrant to offer Christ freely to all men, but we should not mislead them by saying, Christ died for you. There is no need for it. It demeans the work of Christ's atonement which accomplished the salvation and did in fact propitiate God's punishment on whoever He died for. God cannot punish again anyone Christ already paid for. 
So it would be a lie to say it to someone not elect and it confuses them for the future where there is no need. 
In his Service,


----------



## moral necessity

I just wonder......of those whom we feel comfortable to even say such thoughts to....how do we know that they are even elect at all? Could not they fall away from the faith within the next 20 years or so? And if so, did we not say false sentences to them anyway, and perhaps baptize them falsely even? And so, how do we truly discern whether to truly say to someone or not that Christ has truly died for their sins at all? So, I think there must be some level of uncertainty when we speak these words to anyone at all. And so, what makes the apparent unregenerate more unworthy of such phrases as the apparent regenerate? In my mind, I offer it to all equally, as if it were something available to them if they wanted it. And, if they wanted it, then it was God prompting them to want it, and so it is truly theirs anyway. I'll let him figure out the grey area.

-----Added 3/4/2009 at 02:03:50 EST-----



PeaceMaker said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again....I don't see where we are called to speak from the same platform of God's perspective at all times in all of our conversations. Are we not to speak to children as if they are children, and to adults as if they are adults? And so, why would we not be content to speak in the manner that scripture often speaks, upon certain circumstances, and within certain contexts, and yet be content to qualify it within our own rational minds? And so, sometimes we speak as if from man's perspective, and yet sometimes from God's. Wisdom is to discern when something different is needed, as well as to when and where it is to best apply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a good thought and really a main factor in the discussion. Is there a need to speak from this humanistic perspective as a means to present the gospel so one can be converted? And if not then why do it?
Click to expand...


Just so it's clear....I would never speak from a "humanistic perspective" as a motive to make somebody feel more relaxed for their own personal conversion. I would never use it as a strategy for the "easy welcoming" of the gospel, but, I would always strive to never use the contrary as a hindrance to the gospel.....if that makes any sense.

Blessings!


----------



## Confessor

moral necessity said:


> I just wonder......of those whom we feel comfortable to even say such thoughts to....how do we know that they are even elect at all? Could not they fall away from the faith within the next 20 years or so?



If there's evidence of regeneration, it'd be foolish to say otherwise. We don't have to have _certainty_ to declare someone a brother in Christ, or else we could declare no one as one of the elect.

Paul said, "Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? *So this weak brother, for whom Christ died*, is destroyed by your knowledge" (1 Cor. 8:9-11).

This would show that it is okay to say someone is redeemed, provided we have evidence; certainty is not required.


----------



## Scott1

A few things might be helpful in understanding this.

We can use the term "elect" for those whom God has (and will) redeem. Someone who has not yet "come to faith" but will in a few years is really still "elect."

We can never be absolutely certain whom God has elected, regenerated (inner call), justified, adopted and given faith. Only God can do this and only God can know for sure.

However, over time, a person who has been regenerated will show some evidence of his new nature. His constituent nature has changed. It is different, because God has miraculously changed it. It is not perfect (that happens in the state of glory only), but it will reflect what it is. Many places in Scripture teach this- from Judas Iscariot's betrayal to the parable of the sower, etc.

It is also why church discipline is important. While it is not a guarantee, it is a means by which God both reclaims offenders, and effectively closes the kingdom for those who, over time, show no evidence of the Holy Spirit working in their lives, despite their profession. The Westminster Confession of faith calls these kinds of people, "hypocrites." Nothing can be absolutely certain, so we trust God will lead those in authority in His Church to protect His church from misrepresentation and harm.

That's also why when the elders interview someone for membership, they look for a "credible" profession of faith- not perfection, but for a real basis in what God has done.
That's another reason why, in the Presbyterian system at least, a plurality (more than one) Elders are required to make discernments like this.

If you believe and understand God has given real power and authority to His Church authority to do this, and gifted and equipped those He has called to that authority, it is easier to understand this.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> . . . .
> I agree that Paul is writing to believers in 1 Corinthians 15. But when he gives a description of the gospel he _had preached _(past tense) and which they _had received_ (past tense), he describes it with the phrase, "the Messiah died *for our* sins according to the Scriptures." I see one of two possibilities:
> 
> (1) Paul really didn’t preach those words initially; it was only after the audience to whom he writes believed the gospel that Paul could utter that phrase. I think this is a plausible reading.
> 
> (2) Paul did say to an audience that included unconverted Greeks, "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures," but he didn't intend the preposition "for" (_huper_) to convey the idea of efficacy (as if Christ's death had already atoned for their sins irrespective of their election and faith) but meant one of the following:
> (a) Christ's death was _occasioned_ by all human sin, i.e., on account of "our sin" he died.
> (b) Christ's death demonstrates God's _saving posture_ towards the race of fallen men indiscriminately.
> (c) Christ's death is offered as a _sufficient_ atonement for all indiscriminately but is, in fact, only _efficient_ for those who believe (who, as it turns out, were ordained unto eternal life). ​Presently, I haven't made up my mind concerning which view I prefer as being the most viable interpretation of Paul's word. I definitely believe in a particular design behind Christ's work. But I also want to resist the temptation of trying to be more restrictive with my language than the apostles were.



Bob,
The fact that you may say to an unbeliever "Christ died for our sins" (or "your sins") meaning one thing in your mind does not prevent it from being heard in the common universal sense. Therefore the use of the phrase remains problematic.

I am happy to say, "Christ died for sinners just like you and me."

According to J. I. Packer, “Preaching the gospel is not a matter of telling people that God has set His love on each of them and Christ has died to save each of them. The knowledge of being the object of God’s eternal love and Christ’s redeeming death belongs to the individual’s assurance . . . which is to be inferred from the fact that one has believed, not proposed as the reason one should believe.” (J. I. Packer, Introductory Essay to John Owen’s, _The Death of Death in the Death of Christ_, Banner of Truth, pp. 18-19.)

Or, as John Owen has said, “There are none called by the gospel even once to enquire after the purpose and intention of God concerning the particular object of the death of Christ, everyone being fully assured that His death shall be profitable to them that believe in him and obey him.” (Ibid., p. 296.)

In my humble opinion, my task is to explain man’s need of Christ, His sufficiency to save, and His offer of Himself as Savior to all who truly turn to Him. If one is proclaiming a gospel message that demands a universal provision in the atonement, he is not proclaiming the gospel of the Scriptures.

Blessings,


----------



## Michael Doyle

Confessor said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just wonder......of those whom we feel comfortable to even say such thoughts to....how do we know that they are even elect at all? Could not they fall away from the faith within the next 20 years or so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there's evidence of regeneration, it'd be foolish to say otherwise. We don't have to have _certainty_ to declare someone a brother in Christ, or else we could declare no one as one of the elect.
> 
> Paul said, "Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? *So this weak brother, for whom Christ died*, is destroyed by your knowledge" (1 Cor. 8:9-11).
> 
> 
> This would show that it is okay to say someone is redeemed, provided we have evidence; certainty is not required.
Click to expand...


This is a good point. We must welcome those who profess Christ and are not under an obligation to know of their inclusion to the invisible church. 

This has been something I have wrestled with in evangelism for some time and have come to conclusion that words mean things. While I can freely offer the gospel to all, it is imperative that I present it accurately.

You mat say that the gospel and it effectiveness is not dependent upon me proclaiming rightly, and you would be correct, and yet we are to rightly handle the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15) Would it not be irreverent of us to handle the word carelessly? Yet Paul does say, "Do not quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers." You can take this to the extreme and say semantics are unimportant, but I highly doubt this was Paul`s intention. He is speaking of a teaching that has no positive, practical impact on its adherents. 

Their are many false teachers and those looking to persuade men into false doctrines, it must be our purpose to handle the Word accurately.


----------



## moral necessity

Confessor said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just wonder......of those whom we feel comfortable to even say such thoughts to....how do we know that they are even elect at all? Could not they fall away from the faith within the next 20 years or so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there's evidence of regeneration, it'd be foolish to say otherwise. We don't have to have _certainty_ to declare someone a brother in Christ, or else we could declare no one as one of the elect.
> 
> Paul said, "Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? *So this weak brother, for whom Christ died*, is destroyed by your knowledge" (1 Cor. 8:9-11).
> 
> This would show that it is okay to say someone is redeemed, provided we have evidence; certainty is not required.
Click to expand...


I agree with you, and I guess, in a roundabout way, that was the point I was trying to make. I call many people my brothers in Christ based upon their profession of faith. I speak of them as if "Christ had died for their sins." Could I be wrong about their true status before God? Very possibly. So, I'm using the phrase in a general way to someone who it very possibly might not really apply. So, I don't see much difference in doing that as I would in speaking it in a similar manner while evangelizing. Anyway, just wanted to clear up the thought I was intending to get across.


----------



## CDM

My thinking:

Well, DID Christ die for the sins of everyone? No.
Therefore, I will not tell people Christ died for *their* sins.

I will tell people, as we have example in scripture: Christ died for sinners; Christ died for the sins of his people; Christ will in no wise cast off those who repent of their sins and come to him in faith, etc.


----------



## nicnap

mangum said:


> My thinking:
> 
> Well, DID Christ die for the sins of everyone? No.
> Therefore, I will not tell people Christ died for *their* sins.
> 
> I will tell people, as we have example in scripture: Christ died for sinners; Christ died for the sins of his people; Christ will in no wise cast off those who repent of their sins and come to him in faith, etc.


----------



## Michael Doyle

mangum said:


> My thinking:
> 
> Well, DID Christ die for the sins of everyone? No.
> Therefore, I will not tell people Christ died for *their* sins.
> 
> I will tell people, as we have example in scripture: Christ died for sinners; Christ died for the sins of his people; Christ will in no wise cast off those who repent of their sins and come to him in faith, etc.


----------



## Confessor

moral necessity said:


> I agree with you, and I guess, in a roundabout way, that was the point I was trying to make. I call many people my brothers in Christ based upon their profession of faith. I speak of them as if "Christ had died for their sins." Could I be wrong about their true status before God? Very possibly. So, I'm using the phrase in a general way to someone who it very possibly might not really apply. So, I don't see much difference in doing that as I would in speaking it in a similar manner while evangelizing. Anyway, just wanted to clear up the thought I was intending to get across.



I think it would be a category error to say that you generally tell brothers and sisters (siblings?) in Christ that Christ died for them and therefore you can tell any sinner who has not yet repented that Christ died for them. The former have evidence of regeneration while the latter do not.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Contra_Mundum said:


> And, I would say that when Paul addresses a church (that has not abandoned or virtually abandoned the gospel) he uses the "judgment of charity" in addressing professors of faith according to their profession, that is, as being what they claim to be. Therefore since he's now speaking to present professors of faith, his choice of words is bound to reflect his present, rather than past, relation to these persons.



I was thinking of this when the question was asked. In reference to the visible Saints, in fact, I think it is very common to exhort at large and remind what Christ has done for the Church. I've known at least one young man that I believe was a Christian for several years who was converted by my teaching on Romans 6. He had been struggling with sin for years and understanding the believer's union with Christ crystallized the Gospel for him. Obviously, I cannot be certain of such things but it was a turning point for him.

I think the Epistles are full of this kind of language and it is one of the reasons I have a problem with attempts by some Churches to claim to know who the regenerated are. I believe the Gospel goes out with a command to each of us: "Today, if you hear His voice do not harden your hearts." I believe men and women who have sat in preaching for years may be converted, Today, by the hearing of the Word and there are times, in the normal preaching of the Word, that the announcement is made to the Church that Christ died for Her. I think she is especially privileged to receive this News in a way that a person outside the Church cannot.


----------



## KMK

May we say to the unconverted, "Christ died for your sins"?

This reminds me of a quote from Calvin's Institutes that I read today.



> If anyone, then, can use this word (free will) without understanding it in a bad sense, I shall not trouble him on this account. But I hold that because it cannot be retained without great peril, it will, on the contrary, be a great boon for the church if it be abolished. I prefer not to use it myself, and I should like others, if they seek my advice, to avoid it. 2.2.8



Perhaps there is an obscure way that we can say to the unconverted, "Christ died for your sins," but 'can it be retained without great peril'? I think that it should be abolished (like the word 'free will') since it is easily replaced with statements like, "Christ died for sinners," which are more of a 'boon' to the church.


----------



## toddpedlar

Can I ask why you would tell an unconverted person this? Dissembling is a sin and I simply cannot understand why anyone would advocate its practice, especially in bringing Christ to people who do not know Him - but if I have heard your reasoning on this correctly, that is exactly what you're advocating.

You have stated that when you say to this unconverted person "Christ died for your sins", you understand that you cannot be saying for certain that Christ's death procured the person's salvation. You can only mean that at the very least he procured some benefits for this person, but maybe he in fact died to purchase salvation. 

When a person hears this, what will he hear? I cannot think other than he will hear "Christ died to pay the penalty for your sins and thereby procure your salvation."

Why would you EVER say something that will almost certainly be misunderstood?

If the person hears this, he may very well say "Good, then what reason is there that I have to believe in Him and submit to Him as Lord? Given that He died to cover my sins, I can happily go on in my sin and I'll go to heaven when I die." What POSSIBLE motivation would telling a person this give him to come to faith? If he does, he will almost certainly embrace a faith wherein he views his act of faith as casting the winning vote in some sort of God vs. Satan election. You told him that Christ died for Him - he understood that to mean that his sins were covered, but only if he made Christ's payment good by believing. This is an Arminian half-truth.

Why be so deliberately obscurantist in evangelism? Why not give the person the truth? You're surely not going to win someone over by giving him a half-truth. The gospel is not that Christ surely died for that person's sins - the gospel is that Christ laid down His life for those who are His sheep, those who entrust themselves to Him. I honestly think telling an unconverted person something that will undoubtedly be misunderstood, that you then have to, if you are willing to renege on your original dissemblance and explain truthfully, is unbecoming of a Christian.


----------



## toddpedlar

An added analogy.

When a you tell some unconverted person "Christ died for your sins", while meaning what you have argued you mean, Bob, and knowing that this person very likely will misunderstand the meaning and appropriate something to himself that is not correct, it is very much like the following hypothetical.

Suppose it was the case that Christ died for all those who comb their hair.

You happen upon someone who wears dredlocks (i.e. does not comb his hair, ever) and will not have any other way of wearing his hair because of his religion (i.e. he's a Rastafarian). However you also know he has a pet rabbit (actually a Belgian hare) whom he dearly loves, and likes to keep nice and neat. 

So, because you know his tendencies and likes and dislikes, you tell him, in the presence of his pet bunny, "Christ died for those who comb their hair". You know what you mean, but also that likely he will hear this as "who comb their hare" and be satisfied that he is in with Christ because he is diligent about his pet care. 

See the problem in this? It's the same, it seems to me, as your own hypothetical case, and wrong to practice, for the same reasons.


----------



## moral necessity

Confessor said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you, and I guess, in a roundabout way, that was the point I was trying to make. I call many people my brothers in Christ based upon their profession of faith. I speak of them as if "Christ had died for their sins." Could I be wrong about their true status before God? Very possibly. So, I'm using the phrase in a general way to someone who it very possibly might not really apply. So, I don't see much difference in doing that as I would in speaking it in a similar manner while evangelizing. Anyway, just wanted to clear up the thought I was intending to get across.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it would be a category error to say that you generally tell brothers and sisters (siblings?) in Christ that Christ died for them and therefore you can tell any sinner who has not yet repented that Christ died for them. The former have evidence of regeneration while the latter do not.
Click to expand...


I figured you'd say that, but let me ask you, what evidence do you persoanlly have of my repentance that goes beyond a profession of faith? I want you to know that I'm not arguing for the ability to tell the masses that Christ died for their sins, in that I am no advocate of Universal Redemption. I just think that, as I implied before, there are some grey areas of overlap, just as there are with baptism. But, I wonder, how does one initially come to the place where they "close with Christ" without first having a knowledge that he died for their own personal sins? If they are to place faith in an atonement, how are they to do so, unless they first believe that atonement was accomplished for them? The knowledge of his atonement for us is supposed to give us something to believe, and the motivator to drive us to repent and believe, not vice-a-versa. Sometimes, I think our Calvinism gets in the way of our sincere offer of the Gospel. It doesn't have to though. The gospel is for "whosoever will" place their faith in the work of Christ for them. But, a work of Christ for them has to exist in their minds first, does it not, for them to place faith in it? How about the snake on the pole for the Israelites? Did not Moses place the snake on the pole as the cure being offered to everyone? Or, did he say, "God gave this snake on this pole to save some of you, but you must first turn to look at this snake in repentance before I will tell you that it is here to deliver you"? What kind of ground for faith is that? Rather, knowing that God placed that snake on the pole for each of them individually is the ground for each of their faiths, and is the motivator for each individual to turn and look to the cure. It's hard to balance this with speaking from the perspective of God, I know, but I think some scripture lends itself to not restrict the proclamation of the gospel to only speaking from his point of view.

This tends to be how I think for now, but I respect those who differ. Let me know what you think, brother. As always, I look forward to your thoughts.

Blessings and fellowship!


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

moral necessity said:


> I figured you'd say that, but let me ask you, what evidence do you persoanlly have of my repentance that goes beyond a profession of faith? I want you to know that I'm not arguing for the ability to tell the masses that Christ died for their sins, in that I am no advocate of Universal Redemption. I just think that, as I implied before, there are some grey areas of overlap, just as there are with baptism. But, I wonder, how does one initially come to the place where they "close with Christ" without first having a knowledge that he died for their own personal sins? If they are to place faith in an atonement, how are they to do so, unless they first believe that atonement was accomplished for them. The knowledge of his atonement is supposed to give us something to believe, and the motivator to drive us to repent and believe, not vice-a-versa. Sometimes, I think our Calvinism gets in the way of our sincere offer of the Gospel. It doesn't have to though. The gospel is for "whosoever will" place their faith in the work of Christ for them. But, a work of Christ for them has to exist in their minds first, does it not, for them to place faith in it? How about the snake on the pole for the Israelites? Did not Moses place the snake on the pole as the cure being offered to everyone? Or, did he say, "God gave this snake on this pole to save some of you, but you must first turn to look at this snake in repentance before I will tell you that it is here to deliver you"? What kind of ground for faith is that? Rather, knowing that God placed that snake on the pole for each of them individually is the ground for each of their faiths, and is the motivator for each individual to turn and look to the cure. It's hard to balance this with speaking from the perspective of God, I know, but I think some scripture lends itself to not restrict the proclamation of the gospel to only speaking from his point of view. This tends to be how I think for now, but I respect those who differ. Let me know what you think, brother. As always, I look forward to your thoughts. Blessings and fellowship!
> 
> 
> 
> I think Charles raises an important point, When he writes above, "If they are to place faith in an atonement, how are they to do so, unless they first believe that atonement was accomplished for them," he's probably stating the matter in a way that seems a bit strong to some of us--or at least in a way that calls for careful qualification. All of us, I assume, including Charles, believe in a limited or particular design behind Christ's atoning work. We believe that Christ died in order to secure efficaciously atonement for his people, that is, the elect.
> 
> On the other hand, can we not say that Jesus died in order to make atonement _available_ to any and to all who will believe? Is it not possible that God's love for the world in John 3:16 is not referring there to his electing love for his particular people but rather to his _general benevolence_ for sinful mankind and that that love is demonstrated in the sending of his son to be a sacrifice for human sin? Hence, the atonement reveals _God's salvific stance_ towards all men indiscriminately. Can we not say to sinners, "Jesus died for your sins" _in the sense that_ he died that _they might look to his atoning death as a sufficient sacrifice for their sins_ and, as a result, receive forgiveness?
> 
> A number on the list have expressed above their preference for the phrase, "Jesus died for sinners." I've no objection to that phrase. However, when I make that statement on the heals of demonstrating to the audience to which I preach that they are all sinners (Rom. 3:10ff; 23), am I not implying by way of logical inference that in some sense Jesus died for them? That is, You are a sinner > Jesus died for sinners (the elect in one sense; all mankind in another sense) > Jesus died for you (in at least a general sense).
> 
> Some may think that statements of intention must always be interpreted efficaciously. If Jesus died in order that men might be saved then those all men for whom he died must be saved. I affirm this at one level--when the elect are in view. Nevertheless, not all statements of _intent_ need be interpreted as efficacious. When Jesus says to his Jewish opponents (many of whom were most likely reprobate) in John 5:34, "I say these things so that [_hina_] you may be saved," he does not mean for us to conclude that all within earshot of his preaching must be numbered among the elect since, after all, his intent (I say ... in order that) cannot be thwarted. In this case, Jesus is merely expressing his desire (in keeping with the revealed will of God) that all men indiscriminately look to his person, words, and work as the only hope of salvation (John 14:6).
> 
> The bottom line is this: is it biblically or theologically illegitamate to say to sinners, "Jesus died for our sins" or "Jesus died for your sins"? From a biblical standpoint, I've suggested that 1 Corinthians 15:1-3 may give us warrant to do so. If Paul's original message to the uncoverted Greeks of Corinth was "Christ died for our sins," then he may be interpreted as saying, in essence, "We're all sinners, Jews and Greeks. Jesus died to provide an atonement for such people. That is, Jesus died that our sins might be forgiven. Therefore, look to him and his atoning death as the hope of your salvation." I grant that Paul's words might be interpreted differently. But I'm not certain the interpretation I've suggested above is exegetically, contextually, or theologically unviable.
> 
> Theologically, I think it's possible to maintain both _a limited efficacious design_ behind Christ's atonement while simultaneously affirming _an unlimited non-efficacious intention_ behind that atonement. This, as Charles notes above, relates somewhat to the free offer of the gospel.
> 
> Your servant,
Click to expand...


----------



## Semper Fidelis

toddpedlar said:


> Can I ask why you would tell an unconverted person this? Dissembling is a sin and I simply cannot understand why anyone would advocate its practice, especially in bringing Christ to people who do not know Him - but if I have heard your reasoning on this correctly, that is exactly what you're advocating.
> 
> You have stated that when you say to this unconverted person "Christ died for your sins", you understand that you cannot be saying for certain that Christ's death procured the person's salvation. You can only mean that at the very least he procured some benefits for this person, but maybe he in fact died to purchase salvation.
> 
> When a person hears this, what will he hear? I cannot think other than he will hear "Christ died to pay the penalty for your sins and thereby procure your salvation."
> 
> Why would you EVER say something that will almost certainly be misunderstood?
> 
> If the person hears this, he may very well say "Good, then what reason is there that I have to believe in Him and submit to Him as Lord? Given that He died to cover my sins, I can happily go on in my sin and I'll go to heaven when I die." What POSSIBLE motivation would telling a person this give him to come to faith? If he does, he will almost certainly embrace a faith wherein he views his act of faith as casting the winning vote in some sort of God vs. Satan election. You told him that Christ died for Him - he understood that to mean that his sins were covered, but only if he made Christ's payment good by believing. This is an Arminian half-truth.
> 
> Why be so deliberately obscurantist in evangelism? Why not give the person the truth? You're surely not going to win someone over by giving him a half-truth. The gospel is not that Christ surely died for that person's sins - the gospel is that Christ laid down His life for those who are His sheep, those who entrust themselves to Him. I honestly think telling an unconverted person something that will undoubtedly be misunderstood, that you then have to, if you are willing to renege on your original dissemblance and explain truthfully, is unbecoming of a Christian.



Todd,

Are you asking me this on the basis of my post or somebody else?


----------



## KMK

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> A number on the list have expressed above their preference for the phrase, "Jesus died for sinners." I've no objection to that phrase. However, when I make that statement on the heals of demonstrating to the audience to which I preach that they are all sinners (Rom. 3:10ff; 23), am I not implying by way of logical inference that in some sense Jesus died for them? *That is, You are a sinner > Jesus died for sinners (the elect in one sense; all mankind in another sense) > Jesus died for you (in at least a general sense). *



It seems more logical to me to put it this way: You are a sinner in need of salvation > Jesus died for all who believe they are sinners in need of salvation > Jesus died for you if you believe you are a sinner in need of salvation.

This way you avoid implying to the unrepentant that in some sense Jesus died for them.

If Jesus wanted to send the message that he died 'in some way' for all, why would he say to the Pharisees in Matt 9:13, "I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."


----------



## DonP

*Why we call each other brother - Christ died for you*

Good humanistic reasoning and logic here, that if we baptize non-elect and we call non-elect brother, in church etc. why not tell a non-professor that Christ died for them? Seems like this is being consistent, though both could be wrong. 

Please consider this. In the OT we see God establishing a covenant people. 

People apart from their own will, were born into this covenant. 

They were referred to as "the People of God" Children of God, etc. 

We know not all of them were converted or elect, but still called My people.

But God no where calls those who are elect, but not yet converted and who are living outside of the covenant people, the Children of God etc. The titles are not for the elect, but for those living in the visible covenant whether they are in the eternal invisible covenant or not. Though we see the promise to all nations eventually. "Those who were not ... They shall be called My People", but not until after they believe and join the covenant. 

This is the weakness for the Baptist who think they should only baptize true believers. They can't. They can't know who is elect. So we do not baptize only believers, we baptize those who make a profession and become members of the visible covenant. 

So what we see is one reason everyone should be a presbyterian and hold to covenant theology and not be modern dispensationals. 

That is, those in the covenant, by birth or by "choice" and profession, receive special treatment. They are holy, in some sense of the word, 1Cor 7:13, though perhaps not converted, distinctly separate from the heathen. They get the benefits of being in the covenant, as Paul mentions the profit of having been Jews. There was no outcry of moms saying how can this covenant be better if my child is now not in the covenant and they were before? So we know the children are still in the visible covenant though non-communicant until they have their own profession of discerning that the Lords body and blood is for them. 
The distinction among the covenant people is the Supper, not the covenant mark, circ or bapt. (Sorry to digress, please bear with this, you see how this all ties together and must be there for clarity so we do not have the confusion in how we interpret as this thread manifests.)

*We do not know who the elect are so we do not deal with people from the perspective of predestination.* We deal with them from a point of human responsibility. 

We acknowledge and know God is sovereign so it affects our belief, but we have to be careful to know how to use this. A major confusion for many who come into the reformed doctrines esp. from Arminianism is they are not clear on this, just as I wasn't, being an Arminian coming to this understanding. 

So our application is: I pray, ask God for food and a job, then I go look for the job and work, to buy my food, then I thank God for giving me the food. 
Did you see both in there? In their proper place. To mix these would be to wait for God to providentially send manna down to feed me. 

So I am warranted to treat as believers those, who by birth into the covenant, or by credible profession enter, though they may not be elect. 
This is a benefit or blessings of the covenant that those outside do not get. 

No one, by this covenant language, is saying, I confirm that you are elect, because we do not deal with election this way. No need to. That is God's domain. I recognize it exists, and praise Him for it, but I speak from limited human responsibility. And to speak to the church by saying, "to the saints", or "brethren", is warranted covenant language and to be understood in covenant meaning by the hearers, who SHOULD understand this. Though some in the room may not be converted yet or elect at all. 

But I have no such warrant to use covenant language with someone outside the covenant. I can't say, Christ died for you. 
In fact in counseling professing believers I use extra care when trying to comfort or encourage them saying, you know Christ has paid for your sins and God can't punish you, if you have truly believed *in Him.* or I may say there is no need for guilt or worry if you are truly born again. 

Now as an Arminian, one might understand Paul in a universalistic sense to be saying, Christ died for all of OUR sins, each and every one of you. And Christ died for all men to mean each and everyone of you. 

But indeed to the covenant educated, Paul clearly says, Christ died for *OUR *sins, those of us in the covenant, those of us like me who believe, our sins. Clearly not, and in distinction to, what some want him to have said, *your *sins.

He did not say, your sins, he said our sins. He was not making himself a part of the worldly and heathen. He was holding himself apart form the world and part of the covenant believers. See how the Arminian sunglasses influence how we interpret??

In fact I can say to the person, I believe Christ died for my sins and I would like you to be able to have this confidence also, or have this faith or hope. 

But not died for your sins. How does that help him? 

Again and most emphatically, what would be the need? 
To as many as received Him, and only those who received Him, he gave them to be sons of God. its limited language, not wide open; and further qualified by, "to those who believe". 
And 1 Tim 4:10 who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.
NKJV meaning: the only savior in the world for all men of all races and nations, not just Jews, but really only of those who believe. 


The gospel is not to believe Christ died for my sins anyway. It is to believe I am a sinner under the curse of the law, need to repent and believe in Christ. Believe what? well that is highly debated but according to our W. Confession it certainly is not that Christ died for my sins, because under the section on assurance of faith we are told that this certainty is NOT of the essence of saving faith and some may not have it until after waiting long and enduring many trials and see this faith so strong and clear and no longer doubt that Christ died for their sins. They may have a hope Christ died for their sins but they do not fully believe trustingly yet in this or they would be assured.

But even if you think one must believe Christ died for their sins to be saved, 
that belief would be the reflex action of a regenerated person who may have just been born again by grace through the Spirit, who imparted faith, producing repentance and this belief; so they are in Christ and in the covenant. Though not formally recognized until approved by an elder. 

Or else it would be a false profession and they are not saved. 

So please, like Todd and so many others here have said, and clearly put, this not only could, but it has lead to great misunderstanding, false assurance, and a great part of the false gospel of the Arminian heresy so common today; many who having made that profession, live like the world, and fall away, (covenant breakers), bringing great disgrace to the name of Christ and the covenant church. 

Leave the convincing that Christ died for them, to the work of the Holy Spirit! 

In His service,


----------



## Confessor

moral necessity said:


> I figured you'd say that, but let me ask you, what evidence do you persoanlly have of my repentance that goes beyond a profession of faith? [...] If they are to place faith in an atonement, how are they to do so, unless they first believe that atonement was accomplished for them? The knowledge of his atonement for us is supposed to give us something to believe, and the motivator to drive us to repent and believe, not vice-a-versa.



Still, though, I would say that I have evidence, as you have knowingly subscribed to a confession and discussed theology with others on the board, and you have treated many people graciously. Even if this is only a huge deception, well, I'm being deceived into thinking that you're redeemed. We don't want to invoke some Cartesian skepticism here.

As for telling people to believe, tell them "Christ died for the sins of all who believe in Him." I think that is pretty concise and encourages repentance.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

KMK said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> A number on the list have expressed above their preference for the phrase, "Jesus died for sinners." I've no objection to that phrase. However, when I make that statement on the heals of demonstrating to the audience to which I preach that they are all sinners (Rom. 3:10ff; 23), am I not implying by way of logical inference that in some sense Jesus died for them? *That is, You are a sinner > Jesus died for sinners (the elect in one sense; all mankind in another sense) > Jesus died for you (in at least a general sense). *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems more logical to me to put it this way: You are a sinner in need of salvation > Jesus died for all who believe they are sinners in need of salvation > Jesus died for you if you believe you are a sinner in need of salvation.
> 
> This way you avoid implying to the unrepentant that in some sense Jesus died for them.
> 
> If Jesus wanted to send the message that he died 'in some way' for all, why would he say to the Pharisees in Matt 9:13, "I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
Click to expand...


Ken,

I appreciate your input and concern that we not compromise the doctrine of limited atonement or poorly communicate the gospel. I want to assure you that my motive for initially raising the question is not related to any kind of latent Arminianism (at least I hope not), unprincipled sentimentalism or willingness to compromise biblical truth. I'm only trying to do justice to all the statements of Scripture related to Christ's work and its reference to sinners. 

As I noted above, 1 Corinthians 15:1-3 might provide warrant for using the phraseology "Christ died for our sins" when speaking with unconverted men. If so, then Paul obviously has _in that immediate context_ a sense in view other than "Christ efficaciously made satisfaction for our sins." If he actually said to his audience of unconverted Greeks, "Christ died for our sins," he must have meant something more general like, "Christ died for the benefit of us sinners, viz., so that we, if we receive this good news, might be saved." 

In 1 Timothy 4:10, Paul describes "the living God" as "the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe." In this passage, God is obviously not a "Savior" to both groups designated _in the same sense_. Yet, Paul did not allow his "particularism" to prevent him from predicating to God some kind of Saviorhood vis-a-vis all human beings. Yes, we must be quick to qualify what he meant lest the unbeliever misunderstand. That does not mean, however, that we are forbidden from using soteriological terminology in a general, non-efficacious sense in relation to unbelievers, does it? Isn't it reasonable to assume that when the unbeliever hears us offer Christ's sacrifice to them as the all-sufficient atonement "for your sin," he'll be intelligent enough to catch the qualifier--"if you believe"?

Your servant,


----------



## cih1355

There can be some unwanted consequences of saying, "Jesus was actually punished for each and everyone one of your sins.", to someone who does not profess to be a Christian. He could say, "Thank you for letting me know that Jesus was punished for me. I'm glad to hear that I will not be punished in hell." I could imagine an Arminian saying to him, "Wait a minute. You have to believe in Jesus in order to be saved. You don't automatically go to heaven just because of the fact that Jesus was punished for you." If the unbeliever is astute and clearly understands the penal substitutionary view of Christ's atonement, then he would say, "Didn't you say that Jesus was actually punished for all of the sins of every single person who has ever lived on earth? If Jesus was actually punished for me, why would I go to hell? What would I get punished for?". Have you ever heard of a scenario like this that has actually happened?


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

PeaceMaker said:


> This is the weakness for the Baptist who think they should only baptize true believers. They can't. They can't know who is elect. So we do not baptize only believers, we baptize those who make a profession and become members of the visible covenant. So what we see is one reason everyone should be a presbyterian and hold to covenant theology and not be modern dispensationals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? As a Baptist pastor, my warrant for baptizing someone is based not on my privy to inside information regarding God's decree. I baptized those who make _a credible profession of faith_ in Christ, for such and only such are _legally warranted_ to be members of the visible New Covenant family of God.
> But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the [legal] right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:12-13).​Nothing about the children of believers in this text. Indeed, this text contravenes role of blood-ties, which served as warrant for membership in the visible Old Covenant community.
> 
> But, I confess, this is off-topic
Click to expand...


----------



## Confessor

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the weakness for the Baptist who think they should only baptize true believers. They can't. They can't know who is elect. So we do not baptize only believers, we baptize those who make a profession and become members of the visible covenant. So what we see is one reason everyone should be a presbyterian and hold to covenant theology and not be modern dispensationals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? As a Baptist pastor, my warrant for baptizing someone is based not on my privy to inside information regarding God's decree. I baptized those who make _a credible profession of faith_ in Christ, for such and only such are _legally warranted_ to be members of the visible New Covenant family of God.
> But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the [legal] right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:12-13).​Nothing about the children of believers in this text. Indeed, this text contravenes role of blood-ties, which served as warrant for membership in the visible Old Covenant community.
> 
> But, I confess, this is off-topic
Click to expand...


The counter-argument to this is that a profession of faith does not necessarily equate a true belief, and thus choosing to baptize only professors is fallible.

Still


----------



## KMK

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Isn't it reasonable to assume that when the unbeliever hears us offer Christ's sacrifice to them as the all-sufficient atonement "for your sin," he'll be intelligent enough to catch the qualifier--"if you believe"?
> 
> Your servant,



Perhaps, but how hard is it to just add the qualifier? 

I have no problem with what you are saying in theory, and have no doubt you are justified in your exegesis. However, from a pastoral perspective, living in the world in which we live, facing the strongholds that we face, I avoid the statement, "Christ died for you," when speaking to the unbeliever because I fear it might do more harm than good. Consider how much time and space has been dedicated to qualifying the statement here in this thread. It seems like the statement creates more problems than it solves.


----------



## charliejunfan

I tell people that if they have faith in Christ alone and hate more and more sin to the end of their lives then that means that He chose them and died for them to save them, and also that they cannot believe what I say unless the Holy Spirit first gives them new birth.


----------



## toddpedlar

Semper Fidelis said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can I ask why you would tell an unconverted person this? Dissembling is a sin and I simply cannot understand why anyone would advocate its practice, especially in bringing Christ to people who do not know Him - but if I have heard your reasoning on this correctly, that is exactly what you're advocating.
> 
> You have stated that when you say to this unconverted person "Christ died for your sins", you understand that you cannot be saying for certain that Christ's death procured the person's salvation. You can only mean that at the very least he procured some benefits for this person, but maybe he in fact died to purchase salvation.
> 
> When a person hears this, what will he hear? I cannot think other than he will hear "Christ died to pay the penalty for your sins and thereby procure your salvation."
> 
> Why would you EVER say something that will almost certainly be misunderstood?
> 
> If the person hears this, he may very well say "Good, then what reason is there that I have to believe in Him and submit to Him as Lord? Given that He died to cover my sins, I can happily go on in my sin and I'll go to heaven when I die." What POSSIBLE motivation would telling a person this give him to come to faith? If he does, he will almost certainly embrace a faith wherein he views his act of faith as casting the winning vote in some sort of God vs. Satan election. You told him that Christ died for Him - he understood that to mean that his sins were covered, but only if he made Christ's payment good by believing. This is an Arminian half-truth.
> 
> Why be so deliberately obscurantist in evangelism? Why not give the person the truth? You're surely not going to win someone over by giving him a half-truth. The gospel is not that Christ surely died for that person's sins - the gospel is that Christ laid down His life for those who are His sheep, those who entrust themselves to Him. I honestly think telling an unconverted person something that will undoubtedly be misunderstood, that you then have to, if you are willing to renege on your original dissemblance and explain truthfully, is unbecoming of a Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Todd,
> 
> Are you asking me this on the basis of my post or somebody else?
Click to expand...


I'm sorry I didn't quote something from Bob's posts, but I guess I thought the person I was questioning was clear. I was asking why anyone would, in bearing witness to Christ, use such language as "Christ died for your sins". I was addressing Bob's statement that (as I read him) he would in fact say this, knowing that he meant something different by "Christ died for your sins" than most would hear when told that. My point was that this is nothing more than dissembling, obscurantism, or in other words, an example of deceitful speech. 

Todd


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

toddpedlar said:


> I'm sorry I didn't quote something from Bob's posts, but I guess I thought the person I was questioning was clear. I was asking why anyone would, in bearing witness to Christ, use such language as "Christ died for your sins". I was addressing Bob's statement that (as I read him) he would in fact say this, knowing that he meant something different by "Christ died for your sins" than most would hear when told that. My point was that this is nothing more than dissembling, obscurantism, or in other words, an example of deceitful speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Todd,
> 
> I appreciate your concern that we be clear and accurate in our presentation of the gospel. I have affirmed a number of times my commitment to a particular design of Christ's atonement. Nevertheless, I have attempted to provide NT examples in which the apostle Paul describes "the living God" as "the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe" (1 Tim. 4:10). In this passage, God is obviously not a "Savior" to both groups designated _in the same sense_. Yet, Paul did not allow his "particularism" to prevent him from predicating to God some kind of Saviorhood vis-a-vis all human beings. Would you accuse Paul of "dissembling, obscurantism, or ... deceitful speech" because he dares to describe God as (in some sense) a Savior of all men?
> 
> Moreover, I noted that in 1 Corinthians 15:1-3 we might have warrant for using the phraseology "Christ died for our sins" when speaking with unconverted men. If so, then Paul obviously has _in that immediate context_ a sense in view other than "Christ efficaciously made satisfaction for our sins." If he actually said to his audience of unconverted Greeks, "Christ died for our sins," he must have meant something more general like, "Christ died for the benefit of us sinners so that we, if we receive this good news, might be saved." Once again, if the original gospel Paul preached to the Corinthians when they were yet unconverted included the phrase, "Christ died for out sins" (which the grammar and context allows), would you accuse Paul of "dissembling, obscurantism, or ... deceitful speech"?
> 
> In John 3:16 teaches us that "God so loved the world that he sent his only Son in order than whoever (from that mass of humanity toward which God demonstrated his love) believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." I have argued elsewhere that "world" in this context is probably referring to fallen humanity (which best fits John's usage of _kosmos_, see John 1:10; 7:7; 8:12, 23, 26; 9:5; 12:31, 46, 47; 17:6, 9, 14, 21, 23) and not to "the world of the elect." Of course, John, like the other Scripture writers, believed in an efficacious atonement that had special reference to the elect (see John 17:9). But he did not seem to have a problem speaking of Christ's earthly ministry as a display of God's benevolent love and salvific posture towards all fallen men in general.
> 
> Do unconverted men distort such truths as God's general love for fallen humanity and Christ's free offer and a gospel of free grace unto their own distruction? Yes. But shall we prohibit the use of apostolic language just because it might be misinterpreted? Shall we attempt to "improve" on certain statements in the NT because they (on the surface) don't sit comfortably with our system? Don't mistake me. I'm not suggesting that there are real contradictions in the NT or that the passages to which I've alluded above in any way undermine the NT witness in favor of a particular design behind Christ's atoning mission to earth. I'm only suggesting that language is sometimes more flexible than those who like everything in "black-and-white" tidy compartments may prefer. If the Greek term agape could on the one hand be used for the highest form of love (John 3:16, 35) and on the other hand be used for the most despicable form of lust (2 Sam. 13:1, 4), then we must resist the tempation to be more precise or fastitidous than Scripture. Let every statement be understood and interpreted in its context--not by some wooden (unsound) linguistic methodology that only allows for one possible meaning.
> 
> Humbly yours,
Click to expand...


----------



## Theognome

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry I didn't quote something from Bob's posts, but I guess I thought the person I was questioning was clear. I was asking why anyone would, in bearing witness to Christ, use such language as "Christ died for your sins". I was addressing Bob's statement that (as I read him) he would in fact say this, knowing that he meant something different by "Christ died for your sins" than most would hear when told that. My point was that this is nothing more than dissembling, obscurantism, or in other words, an example of deceitful speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Todd,
> 
> I appreciate your concern that we be clear and accurate in our presentation of the gospel. I have affirmed a number of times my commitment to a particular design of Christ's atonement. Nevertheless, I have attempted to provide NT examples in which the apostle Paul describes "the living God" as "the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe" (1 Tim. 4:10). In this passage, God is obviously not a "Savior" to both groups designated _in the same sense_. Yet, Paul did not allow his "particularism" to prevent him from predicating to God some kind of Saviorhood vis-a-vis all human beings. Would you accuse Paul of "dissembling, obscurantism, or ... deceitful speech" because he dares to describe God as (in some sense) a Savior of all men?
> 
> Moreover, I noted that in 1 Corinthians 15:1-3 we might have warrant for using the phraseology "Christ died for our sins" when speaking with unconverted men. If so, then Paul obviously has _in that immediate context_ a sense in view other than "Christ efficaciously made satisfaction for our sins." If he actually said to his audience of unconverted Greeks, "Christ died for our sins," he must have meant something more general like, "Christ died for the benefit of us sinners so that we, if we receive this good news, might be saved." Once again, if the original gospel Paul preached to the Corinthians when they were yet unconverted included the phrase, "Christ died for out sins" (which the grammar and context allows), would you accuse Paul of "dissembling, obscurantism, or ... deceitful speech"?
> 
> In John 3:16 teaches us that "God so loved the world that he sent his only Son in order than whoever (from that mass of humanity toward which God demonstrated his love) believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." I have argued elsewhere that "world" in this context is probably referring to fallen humanity (which best fits John's usage of _kosmos_, see John 1:10; 7:7; 8:12, 23, 26; 9:5; 12:31, 46, 47; 17:6, 9, 14, 21, 23) and not to "the world of the elect." Of course, John, like the other Scripture writers, believed in an efficacious atonement that had special reference to the elect (see John 17:9). But he did not seem to have a problem speaking of Christ's earthly ministry as a display of God's benevolent love and salvific posture towards all fallen men in general.
> 
> Do unconverted men distort such truths as God's general love for fallen humanity and Christ's free offer and a gospel of free grace unto their own distruction? Yes. But shall we prohibit the use of apostolic language just because it might be misinterpreted? Shall we attempt to "improve" on certain statements in the NT because they (on the surface) don't sit comfortably with our system? Don't mistake me. I'm not suggesting that there are real contradictions in the NT or that the passages to which I've alluded above in any way undermine the NT witness in favor of a particular design behind Christ's atoning mission to earth. I'm only suggesting that language is sometimes more flexible than those who like everything in "black-and-white" tidy compartments may prefer. If the Greek term agape could on the one hand be used for the highest form of love (John 3:16, 35) and on the other hand be used for the most despicable form of lust (2 Sam. 13:1, 4), then we must resist the tempation to be more precise or fastitidous than Scripture. Let every statement be understood and interpreted in its context--not by some wooden (unsound) linguistic methodology that only allows for one possible meaning.
> 
> Humbly yours,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I concur that the strict linguistic argument is not as sound as it appears for an exclusion of the OP phrase in question in a modern context. In all of the texts you mentioned above (1 Cor. 15:1-3, John 3:16 and 1 Tim. 4:10) we find a caveat which gives clarity to the intention within the text. These caveats show the intention within the context within the verses given, revealing the desire of God for salvation versus actual regeneration. Thus the differentiation of what is common and what is special is clear.
> 
> Theognome
Click to expand...


----------



## DonP

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the weakness for the Baptist who think they should only baptize true believers. They can't. They can't know who is elect. So we do not baptize only believers, we baptize those who make a profession and become members of the visible covenant. So what we see is one reason everyone should be a presbyterian and hold to covenant theology and not be modern dispensationals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? As a Baptist pastor, my warrant for baptizing someone is based not on my privy to inside information regarding God's decree. I baptized those who make _a credible profession of faith_ in Christ, for such and only such are _legally warranted_ to be members of the visible New Covenant family of God.
> But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the [legal] right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:12-13).​Nothing about the children of believers in this text. Indeed, this text contravenes role of blood-ties, which served as warrant for membership in the visible Old Covenant community.
> 
> But, I confess, this is off-topic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bob, the entire teaching is not all in one verse. I see nothing there about immersing people under water for receiving either.
> 
> Don't you agree the moms would have complained if the children weren't still in the covenant? And Paul would have had to explain why what you say happened did? Why God dropped children out of the covenant?
> This would have been a radical change.
> The promises we inherit are to believers AND THEIR SEED.
> But we can discuss this in another thread.
> 
> What we need to see here is why would you want to and what is the need to say Jesus died for you.
> 
> Please answer this. Why do you feel the need to say this instead of a more accurate and truthful statement. Esp since IT IS NEVER EVER SAID THAT WAY IN SCRIPTURE. Repent and believe, Believe and be baptized, turn from idols to serve the living God. etc. But never receive Jesus, decide for Christ, accept Jesus as your personal savior, Ask Jesus into your heart, etc. these are all lay perversions of the gospel message due to weak pastoral oversight and instruction and discipline.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

PeaceMaker said:


> What we need to see here is why would you want to and what is the need to say Jesus died for you.
> 
> Please answer this. Why do you feel the need to say this instead of a more accurate and truthful statement. Esp since IT IS NEVER EVER SAID THAT WAY IN SCRIPTURE. Repent and believe, Believe and be baptized, turn from idols to serve the living God. etc. But never receive Jesus, decide for Christ, accept Jesus as your personal savior, Ask Jesus into your heart, etc. these are all lay perversions of the gospel message due to weak pastoral oversight and instruction and discipline.
> 
> 
> 
> Don,
> 
> First, I appreciate your desire to use Scriptural language when evangelizing. Of course, those of us somewhat conversant in Puritan literature are aware that the Puritans and their successors did not follow this rule to the letter. They often spoke of "closing with Christ." Where is that found in the Bible?
> 
> Second, you haven't addressed my exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15:1-3. At the risk of repetition _ad nauseam_, let me repeat what the text _appears _to says. Paul describes the gospel that he had received (from Christ, the Scriptures, and the other apostles) and preached to the Corinthians during his initial evangelistic labors among them in the following terms: “For I delivered (aorist) to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died _*for our sins*_ in accordance with the Scriptures [emphasis added]” (1 Cor. 15:3). Note carefully that, according to verse 1, these words constituted the good news that the Corinthians initially “received” (aorist) and upon which, following their conversion, they “had taken their stand” (perfect). So it would seem, at least from a _prima facie_ reading of this text, that Paul’s gospel presentation to unconverted Greeks included the phrase, “Christ died for our sins.”
> 
> Here we have to make an exegetical decision. Were the words Paul used to describe the gospel he had preached among the (then unconverted) Corinthians _ipsissima verba_ (the very words) or _ipsissima vox_ (the basic message). If the latter, then we might argue that Paul added the phrase "for our sins" as _a dictum ex eventu_ (a saying after the event). That seems unlikely, however, since Paul uses the Greek _hoti _in order to introduce something akin to quotation. Consequently, what Paul describes in verse 3b and following is the very message Paul _had preached_ to them when first among them and which they _had received_.
> 
> If this exegesis is correct, then the gospel Paul preached included the phrase, "Christ died for our sins." We may take that in one of two ways: (1) Paul and his associates stuck their index finger in their own breasts when uttering that phrase, viz., we want you Corinthians to know that Jesus died for "us," that is, for Paul and company, not necessarily for you because we don't know if you're one of the elect. Or (2) Paul and his associates were identifying with the Corinthians as part of that sinful mass of humanity for whom Christ's death is sufficient to save contingent on faith. That is, "Christ died for the benefit of us sinners so that we, if we receive this good news, might be saved." This, I submit to you, is not to far removed from saying in a general way, "You're a sinner. Christ died for such people as you. His atonement will satisfy God's justice and pacify God's wrath and secure God's pardon if you will receive his offer of salvation," which, in my mind, is a kind of longhand for "Christ died for your sins."
> 
> So I don't share your certainty that "IT IS NEVER EVER SAID THAT WAY IN SCRIPTURE." Moreover, you seem to be quite convinced that phraseology like "receive Jesus," "decide for Christ," "accept Jesus as your personal savior," "ask Jesus into your heart," are nothing more than "lay perversions of the gospel message due to weak pastoral oversight and instruction and discipline." Would you say the same about the phrase "close with Christ," used by some of the Puritans and their successors? (see the PB thread on this phrase) It might interest you to know that none of the phrases you list such as "repent and believe," "relieve and be baptized," or "turn from idols to serve the living God" are found once in the Bible, at least in the most literal sense. That's because the Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, not in English. The phrases you list are merely translations of the original.
> 
> Moreover, the Bible does in fact describe saving faith in terms of "receiving [_lambano; paralambano_]" Christ not only in the passage we've been discussing (1 Cor. 15:1) but in other texts:ESV Matthew 10:14 And if anyone *will not receive you* or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town.
> 
> ESV Mark 10:15 Truly, I say to you, whoever *does not receive* the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."
> 
> ESV John 1:11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did *receive him*, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
> 
> ESV John 12:48 The one who rejects me and *does not receive* my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day.​There are more verses that could be cited. But these should suffice to demonstrate that "receiving Christ" is synonymous with "believing Christ." I would also submit to you that calling on sinners to "make a decision for Christ" is not at all unbiblical. I believe it finds justification from such texts as follows:ESV Deuteronomy 30:19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore *choose life,* that you and your offspring may live,
> 
> ESV Psalm 119:30 *I have chosen* the way of faithfulness; I set your rules before me.​ESV Psalm 119:173 Let your hand be ready to help me, for *I have chosen* your precepts.
> 
> ESV Proverbs 1:29 Because they hated knowledge and *did not choose* the fear of the LORD,
> 
> ESV Isaiah 56:4 For thus says the LORD: "To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, *who choose* the things that please me and hold fast my covenant,​Interestingly, the English "choose" in these passages most commonly translates the same Hebrew term _bahar_ used for God's choosing a people for his name. In any case, these passages clearly call people to make a choice, i.e., a decision or a commitment.
> 
> I confess that the phrase, "Ask Jesus in your heart," does not find a close biblical equivalent and may sound somewhat sentimental in the context of easy-believism. Nevertheless, I don't believe we should adopt the position that argues we must only use the precise vocabulary of Scripture. (1) that isn't possible since we'd have to speak Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, (2) it's not wrong to paraphrase Scripture--note how Matthew takes great liberty with Isaiah 42:1-4 (Matt. 12:17-20). And (3) "ask Jesus into your heart," if properly explained and qualified, may be a way of stressing the need for an inward change (regeneration) and embrace of Christ's lordship, i.e., if you would receive Christ, he would have your whole heart and life.
> 
> In summary, I appreciate your zeal for maintaining an accurate and biblical communication of the gospel. I share that zeal. I have not, however, been convinced by your arguments (1) that any use of the phrase "Christ died for our (or your) sins" when speaking to unconverted people is in all cases unbiblical and wrong, and (2) that the use of such phrases as "receive Christ" or "decide for Christ" or "ask Christ into your heart" are of necessity lay perversions (for all we know, these phrases may have been coined by preachers!). It all depends on what one means when he uses them. If properly explained, these expressions may represent aspects of a biblical call to repent and believe the gospel.
> 
> Humbly yours,
Click to expand...


----------



## cih1355

> I confess that the phrase, "Ask Jesus in your heart," does not find a close biblical equivalent and may sound somewhat sentimental in the context of easy-believism. Nevertheless, I don't believe we should adopt the position that argues we must only use the precise vocabulary of Scripture. (1) that isn't possible since we'd have to speak Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, (2) it's not wrong to paraphrase Scripture--note how Matthew takes great liberty with Isaiah 42:1-4 (Matt. 12:17-20). And (3) "ask Jesus into your heart," if properly explained and qualified, may be a way of stressing the need for an inward change (regeneration) and embrace of Christ's lordship, i.e., if you would receive Christ, he would have your whole heart and life.



The phrase, "Ask Jesus in your heart", is a vague expression. It doesn't clearly communicate what it means to believe in Jesus. I think it is better to say, "Rely or depend upon Christ alone for your salvation from sin", or "Trust in Christ alone for your salvation from sin". To believe in Christ means to trust, rely on, or to depend upon Christ.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

cih1355 said:


> The phrase, "Ask Jesus in your heart", is a vague expression. It doesn't clearly communicate what it means to believe in Jesus. I think it is better to say, "Rely or depend upon Christ alone for your salvation from sin", or "Trust in Christ alone for your salvation from sin". To believe in Christ means to trust, rely on, or to depend upon Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the Puritan phrase, "Close with Christ"? Is that less vague and more clear? Just curious to know if you think they made the same mistake moderns make, viz., obscuring the gospel invitation with vague extra-biblical terminology.
Click to expand...


----------



## cih1355

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> cih1355 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The phrase, "Ask Jesus in your heart", is a vague expression. It doesn't clearly communicate what it means to believe in Jesus. I think it is better to say, "Rely or depend upon Christ alone for your salvation from sin", or "Trust in Christ alone for your salvation from sin". To believe in Christ means to trust, rely on, or to depend upon Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the Puritan phrase, "Close with Christ"? Is that less vague and more clear? Just curious to know if you think they made the same mistake moderns make, viz., obscuring the gospel invitation with vague extra-biblical terminology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that the phrase is less vague and more clear. To close with Christ means to join or unite with Christ by faith. The word, "close", can mean "join" or "unite".
Click to expand...


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

cih1355 said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cih1355 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about the Puritan phrase, "Close with Christ"? Is that less vague and more clear? Just curious to know if you think they made the same mistake moderns make, viz., obscuring the gospel invitation with vague extra-biblical terminology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the phrase is less vague and more clear. To close with Christ means to join or unite with Christ by faith. The word, "close", can mean "join" or "unite".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Curt,
> 
> Are we straining at gnats and swallowing camels? "Closing with Christ" meant to the Puritans and their successors the equivalent of "accepting" or "receiving" Christ as Lord and Savior. Jonathan Edwards writes,[Natural] hearts do not *close with Christ*, but are averse to him.... They are not willing to *take Christ as he is*; they would fain divide him. There are some things in him that they like, and others that they greatly dislike; but consider him as he is, and he is offered to them in the gospel, and they are not willing *to accept Christ*.​William Guthrie:*Believing on Christ* must be personal; a man himself and in his own proper person must *close with Christ Jesus*-"˜The just shall live by his faith.´ (Hab. 2:4.) This says, that it will not suffice for a man´s safety and relief, that he is in covenant with God as a born member of the visible church, by virtue of the parent´s subjection to God´s ordinances: neither will it suffice that the person had the initiating seal of baptism added, and that he then virtually engaged to seek salvation by Christ´s blood, as all infants do: neither does it suffice that men are come of believing parents; their faith will not instate their children into a right to the spiritual blessings of the covenant; neither will it suffice that parents did, in some respects, engage for their children, and give them away unto God: all these things do not avail. The children of the kingdom and of godly predecessors are cast out. Unless a man *in his own person have faith in Christ Jesus*, and *with his own heart approve and acquiesce* in that device of saving sinners, he cannot be saved. I grant, this faith is given unto him by Christ; but certain it is, that it must be personal.​According to these citations, "closing with Christ" is more akin to "receiving" or "accepting" Christ in an act of faith, not "joining" Christ or "uniting oneself to" Christ. Indeed, it falls into the category of a personal "decision."
> 
> Does the NT ever use the language of "joining" or "uniting ourselves to" Christ? It does use terminology like "joining" for church membership (Acts 5:13; 9:26). It does teach "union with Christ," which is ultimately something God does for us not something we're called to do--as least in a technical sense (as far as I know).
> 
> In all honesty, I feel no great burden to defend the phrase, "Accept Jesus into your heart." I think it is subject to misunderstanding and should only be used when what is meant is properly explained. The same holds true with biblical vocabulary like "receive Christ," "trust Christ," "believe in Christ," etc. I live in the Bible-belt of America where even plain biblical language is misinterpreted by the natural man. Indeed, I lived the first 22 years of my life as a Roman Catholic who "believed in Christ" (and I really did believe in a historical Jesus) but was unconverted and didn't understand the full meaning of the phrase "believe in Christ" until an evangelical pastor offered me a fuller explanation. Hence, like the apostles, we have to explain what we mean.
> 
> On a related note, how about this phrase: "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." I find it amusing that some Calvinists find language like "receive Christ" or "accept Christ" too synergistic and man-centered (I'm not accusing you of this.) Yet, Peter calls for a decision. He uses the imperative passive of _sozo_, meaning, _"Be saved from [the fate] this corrupt generation by means of repenting and turning to Christ_" (Acts 2:38-40). Of course sinners cannot "turn" from their sin and "receive" Christ except the Spirit draw them. But it's our responsibility to call on sinners _to act_. Whether we use the precise vocabulary of Scripture (translated into our language, of course) or whether we use extra-biblical phrases like "close with Christ," we will most likely need to give further explanation.
> 
> Your servant,
Click to expand...


----------



## DonP

Bob, you answered my question with a question on a completely different issue. 

You forgot to say, ouch you win I have no reason for wanting this that makes any sense at all esp after all the intelligent posts here. 

Instead you said, why didn't you answer me about the "our sins" words. 

You must not have read my post. 

This makes me think you don't really want to see this and you just want to argue so I am dropping from this thread. 

I did, its real simple 

he said OUR sins. He distinctly did not say , YOUR sins. End of that subject. 

He was not including himself in with the heathen and using "our " to include them with him. He was excluding them and saying He died for "our", those of us who believe, we in the covenant, our sins. Not your sins. 

He could not have been more distinct in support of most posts here if he had spoken in response to this thread. 
He could have said Christ died for your sins or everyone's sins but he didn't. He said our sins. Our must be that of those who believe because Paul didn't LIE! 

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify this. 
In His Service.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales

PeaceMaker said:


> Bob, you answered my question with a question on a completely different issue.
> 
> You forgot to say, ouch you win I have no reason for wanting this that makes any sense at all esp after all the intelligent posts here. Instead you said, why didn't you answer me about the "our sins" words.
> 
> You must not have read my post. This makes me think you don't really want to see this and you just want to argue so I am dropping from this thread. I did, its real simple. he said OUR sins. He distinctly did not say , YOUR sins. End of that subject.
> 
> He was not including himself in with the heathen and using "our " to include them with him. He was excluding them and saying He died for "our", those of us who believe, we in the covenant, our sins. Not your sins.
> 
> He could not have been more distinct in support of most posts here if he had spoken in response to this thread. He could have said Christ died for your sins or everyone's sins but he didn't. He said our sins. Our must be that of those who believe because Paul didn't LIE!
> 
> Thanks for the opportunity to clarify this.
> In His Service.



Dear Don,

I'm sorry you feel compelled to drop out of this discussion because you think I did not read your post or answer your question(s). In point of fact, I did read your post and did attempt (though in your mind unsuccessfully) to answer your question(s). Once again, as I did in post #56, I'll cite the heart of your challenge to me:Please answer this. Why do you feel the need to say this instead of a more accurate and truthful statement. Esp since IT IS NEVER EVER SAID THAT WAY IN SCRIPTURE. Repent and believe, Believe and be baptized, turn from idols to serve the living God. etc. But never receive Jesus, decide for Christ, accept Jesus as your personal savior, Ask Jesus into your heart, etc. these are all lay perversions of the gospel message due to weak pastoral oversight and instruction and discipline.​In these words, you make it very clear that any communication to fallen men in general to the affect that Christ died for their sins is inaccurate and inappropriate. With great emphasis you assert, "IT IS NEVER EVER SAID THAT WAY IN SCRIPTURE." Moreover, you yourself introduce a different (but I believe related issue) when your assert, "But never receive Jesus, decide for Christ, accept Jesus as your personal savior, Ask Jesus into your heart, etc." "These," you go on to assert, "are all lay perversions of the gospel message due to weak pastoral oversight and instruction and discipline."

How did I respond to your challenge? 

First, I pointed out the fact that most recognize it is not necessary to parrot the exact language of Scripture when explaining the content and terms of the gospel. The Puritans and their successors, as I pointed out, developed the exhortation "close with Christ," which is NEVER EVER SAID IN SCRIPTURE, but which in their 17th/18th century idiom meant something like "accept" or "receive" Christ as Lord and Savior. This first point establishes the appropriateness of using language that conveys the same basic meaning as particular biblical doctrine thought it may not use the precise language in which that doctrine is expressed in Scripture. Hence, I don't agree with your logic when you write, "Its real simple. He said OUR sins. He distinctly did not say, YOUR sins. End of that subject." To me that seems like a simplistic way to do exegesis and theology. 

Second, I pointed again to the exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15:1-3. Apparently, you agree with me that the phrase "Christ died for our sins" was part of the original message Paul preached to the Corinthians when they were yet unconverted. In other words, you don't appear to interpret that phrase as a _dictum ex eventu_. So, as I pointed out in my response to you, that leaves us with two basic alternatives: (1) The good news that Paul preached to the unconverted Greeks was that Christ had died for the sins of Paul, his companions, and other believers. Paul's audience were expected to infer from this that Christ did not in any sense die for them since Paul used "our" in a more restricted sense and did not use the plural "your." Presumably, Paul would have also explained to them that they could be part of the "our" if only they "received" Christ. 

(2) The second interpretation, which I prefer, interprets the "our" as _inclusive_. Paul and his associates were identifying with the Corinthians as part of that sinful mass of humanity for whom Christ's death is sufficient to save contingent on faith. That is, "Christ died for the benefit of us sinners so that we, if we receive this good news, might be saved." This, I submit to you, is not to far removed from saying in a general way, "You're a sinner. Christ died for such people as you. His atonement will satisfy God's justice and pacify God's wrath and secure God's pardon if you will receive his offer of salvation," which, in my mind, is a kind of longhand for "Christ died for your sins."

Don, I didn't demand that you agree with me. Nor did I accuse your view as being "a lay perversion of the gospel." I simply offered my interpretation as a possible way to interpret Paul's words. If it's true (and you'll note throughout my posts that I refrain from dogmatism), then it does give us warrant to say to unconverted men that "Jesus died for your sins" not in the sense that he made complete satisfaction for their sins but either that "your sins occasioned his death" or "he died that your sins might be forgiven if you believe." 

Is my interpretation of Paul's words inconsistent with the teaching of Scripture elsewhere? I don't think so. That's why I cited passages like 1 Timothy 4:10 and John 3:16 which apply soteric language to all fallen men in general (in one sense) and to believers in particular (in another sense). Here's one more example:ESV 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.*​I know that some Calvinists prefer to particularize the phrase "the whole world" be delimiting it to "the whole world of the elect" or "all sorts of people in the world." The first is untenable since John distinguishes "the whole world" from the believers he's addressing. The second is plausible but it introduces an abstraction (i.e., Christ making satisfaction not for actually sinners but for "sorts of" people). I prefer to take the phrase "the whole world" in the same sense John uses it elsewhere in the same epistle:ESV 1 John 5:19 We know that we are from God, and *the whole world* lies in the power of the evil one.​Here the sense is not "all sorts of people" lie in the power of the evil one but rather the entire fallen world (excluding believers who "are from God). Apparently, the great Princeton exegete and theologian Charles Hodge was of the same opinion. Here are his comments on 2 John 2:2:
This is what is meant when it is said, or implied in Scripture, that Christ gave Himself as a propitiation, not for our sins only, but_ for the sins of the whole world_. He was a propitiation *effectually for the sins of his people, and sufficiently for the sins of the whole world. *Augustinians have no need to wrest the Scriptures. They are under no necessity of departing from their fundamental principle that it is the duty of the theologian to subordinate his theories to the Bible, and teach not what seems to him to be true or reasonable, but simply what the Bible teaches [emphasis added] (_Systematic Theology_, 2:558-9).​ So I would humbly submit to you that saying to the unconverted, "Christ is the sufficient propitiation for your sins" or (via shorthand) "Christ died for your sins," viz. Jesus died that your sins might be forgiven if you believe, is not of necessity "a lay perversion of the gospel." 

You also asserted (quite forcefully), that the gospel call is "never receive Jesus, decide for Christ, accept Jesus as your personal savior, ask Jesus into your heart, etc." I spent spent a great deal of time questioning your sweeping assertion in post #56. The fact that you accuse me of addressing "a completely different issue" (when I was simply trying to address all your assertions) and the fact that you're upset because I "forgot to say, ouch you win" make me wonder whether you really read my post in its entirety.

In closing, let me assure you of my goodwill and desire to pursue what makes for peace. I'm not trying to cram my interpretations or views down your throat or anyone else's. I'm only suggesting that we as 5-point Calvinist need not feel constrained to force every text into the most exclusive and particularistic reading. Also, when we complain about language like "receive" Christ as Savior or "accept the Lord Jesus into your heart," we should inquire what is meant before condemning such phraseology outright as "a lay perversion of the gospel." 

May the Lord bless your ministry and approaching Lord's Day!


----------

