Common Grace & the Atonement?

[thistle93]

Hi! I am fascinated with how the cross was particularly intended to save the elect but also how the atonement had secondary effects (non saving) on the non-elect as a result of common grace (or whatever you prefer to refer to it as).

So would it be correct to say that the atonement was a substitutionary atonement for the elect and it was a moral governmental atonement for the non-elect?
That the atonement for the elect was a propitiation that appeased the wrath of God for them and the atonement for the non-elect merely covered their sins (much like OT animal sacrifices did not truly forgive sin) only until the final judgment when their sins will be fully exposed and they are judged and condemned for them?

Do you know any good books that deal with the topic of common grace and how the atonement relates to it?

For His Glory-
Matthew

 

[timmopussycat]

Hi! I am fascinated with how the cross was particularly intended to save the elect but also how the atonement had secondary effects (non saving) on the non-elect as a result of common grace (or whatever you prefer to refer to it as).

So would it be correct to say that the atonement was a substitutionary atonement for the elect and it was a moral governmental atonement for the non-elect?
That the atonement for the elect was a propitiation that appeased the wrath of God for them and the atonement for the non-elect merely covered their sins (much like OT animal sacrifices did not truly forgive sin) only until the final judgment when their sins will be fully exposed and they are judged and condemned for them?

What Christ's redemption certainly accomplished is that it showed that God remains just even though he did not immediately punish all sinners with death immediately as they deserve. (Rom 3:25,26) I don't know any books where the the implications of this statement for non-believers have been worked out.

 

[rbcbob]

Josh, may I assume that with such a verbose response this is not one of those days you have set aside for bathing and cologne?

 

[Gforce9]

 

[earl40]

This is an interesting area of thought. I wonder if the non spiritual benefits the the non elect enjoy here on earth were procured by Jesus. For instance, when a Christian gives a glass of water to someone who is not elect I assume it is because of the cross. So was this water given with the intent of love in His (God's) eyes, knowing full well it would result in greater punishment in hell towards the ungrateful receiver of good providence?

 

[Frosty]

I do not agree with that assertion. I'm not sure how that conclusion can be reached through Scripture. Scripture is very clear that the atonement was in fact payment for sins on behalf of the elect, but I'm not seeing where it is tied to "common grace". Are you using common grace to mean the concept that God, in His providence, provides for the common needs of all people as part of His creation, whether saved or not? He has always in His providence been good to those in His creation. Maybe I am misunderstanding you?

 

[J. Dean]

Indirectly there have been side benefits to Christianity from a social point of view. I suppose you could consider this a form of common grace.

 

[py3ak]

Matthew, I would recommend some previous threads, including one you started.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/common-grace-essential-mediatorial-kingship-Christ-73369/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/common-grace-62544/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/grace-common-22768/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f62/common-grace-common-grace-66450/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/atonement-add-condemnation-unbelievers-hebrew-10-29-a-72414/

On these threads Mr. Winzer gives a number of characteristically lucid and profound explanations, as well as providing some very intriguing quotes.