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

Status
Not open for further replies.

panta dokimazete

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
*editing to provide additional clarity*

Brethren, when I read passages like:

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your considered response.
 
Last edited:

SeanPatrickCornell

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

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

panta dokimazete

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

Christ "bought" the world, but he only SAVES His elect people out of the world.
Right! Which also ties to the "wheat and tares" parable. Christ bought the field, and he "saved" the tares until the harvest...
 
Last edited:

SeamusDelion

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

If Jesus was limited then He is powerless.

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

panta dokimazete

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

If Jesus was limited then He is powerless.

Its like a big van, you can pile 20 people into it all squished together, and it'll hold all those people no problem, however there are only 7 seats at best.
no argument, there, necessarily - not sure where that ties into the OP?
 

Ryan&Amber2013

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

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

Taylor

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

If Jesus was limited then He is powerless.

Its like a big van, you can pile 20 people into it all squished together, and it'll hold all those people no problem, however there are only 7 seats at best.
This is an odd analogy for definite atonement that I’m not sure does it justice, and may actually be misleading.
 

Romans922

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

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

SeamusDelion

Puritan Board Freshman
no argument, there, necessarily - not sure where that ties into the OP?
Jesus' sacrifice saves the entire world - Wrong
Jesus' sacrifice only saves some - wrong
Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient for the entire world but only His elect who come to Him will be saved - Correct.

Is this better?
This is an odd analogy for definite atonement that I’m not sure does it justice, and may actually be misleading.
How does this mislead. I was using something simple to understand, A van, could fit many people into it yet only has seats for 7. Jesus' sacrifice was good enough to save the entire world, yet only the Elect will fit into his grace. I don't see how this is misleading, maybe a bad analogy but who said I was perfect?
 

Jerrod Hess

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

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

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

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

- Owen on Particular Redemption, Vol 10 of his works

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

SeamusDelion

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

Go read: https://www.amazon.com/Death-Christ-Controversy-Universal-Redemption/dp/0851513824
I never said Jesus died for all, I said His death was sufficient to cover all the sin of all people The bible clearly states that Christ died for the SIN of the world. Just because His death was sufficient to save all does not mean it did.

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

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

SeamusDelion

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

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

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

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

- Owen on Particular Redemption, Vol 10 of his works

In regards to the questions you have about the two passages you posted, consider that what may be unclear is to be interpreted in light of what is clear.
WCF 1.9 - "The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly."
I think here the confusion is that you guys seem to think I said Christ died for all, like some kind of universalist? .... I in fact did not say that at all. I said just exactly what the bible says, that Christ died for the sin of the world, being suitable to cover every sin of every man. But did he? No, for only the elect will be saved. It still does not take away from the fact that Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient for the entirety of the earths sinfulness. Isn't Jesus the great I AM ? The alpha and Omega? The first and the Last? Who was, Who is, and Who is to come? The Almighty God? ...
 

Jerrod Hess

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

Romans922

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

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

The word "All" ἐφάπαξ laterally means "once for all" This is not meaning all Gods children only. This is why "Anyone who calls apon the name of the LORD WILL be saved"
Sure we know that many will receive the call "but few are chosen" Only the elect will be saved, but why would God falsely call many without having the sacrifice be readily available to them? ...
My intention was to quote you and Post #2. And in your reply you said "Right!" Therefore you are agreeing with him, so I was responding to both of you.

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

SeamusDelion

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

If you agree with me, then it seems pointless to go further to argue with what I'm saying.
I agree with you, I was just trying to exult the Lord and show how His death was sufficient for the entire world, whether He did or not is completely different. I believe that Jesus only saved the Elect.
 

Ryan&Amber2013

Puritan Board Senior
Only the elect will be saved, but why would God falsely call many without having the sacrifice be readily available to them?
But those he called, he justified. He called those whom he chose to save.

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

Romans922

Puritan Board Professor
I believe that Jesus only saved the Elect.
For whom did Jesus die?


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

Taylor

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

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

panta dokimazete

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

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

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

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

Modified to add *"to eternally atone" and *"eternal"
 
Last edited:

SeamusDelion

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

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

Did Jesus' death NOT ONLY provide for the atonement, but in a LESSER way, did His death buy, or also act as payment for, the TEMPORARY suspension of judgment for the non-elect?

A "stay of execution", if you will, in order that the fullness of the eternal covenant play out. Thus, the tie to the analogy of the wheat and tares - the tares were spared until the harvest, then pulled up and burned.
Jesus died for the Sin of the world, as the bible clearly states, no where however, it doesn't say He died only for the Elect.

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


However, through careful Exegesis we can come to the conclusion that the Elect are the only ones to be saved though the atonement was SUFFICENT for the entire world.

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

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

SeamusDelion

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

For a second, your van analogy leaves out the important element of divine intention. It is not as if God needed to save certain number of people, and to accomplish it provided an oversized, gratuitous, superfluous atonement. Again, we just need to say what the Bible says: Christ died for his sheep, and no one else.
Imagine telling someone they need to be careful how they use an analogy because it could mislead someone, while believing in the Doctrine of The Perseverance of the saints.

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

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


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

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

panta dokimazete

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
More on the analogy of the wheat and tares as it relates to the OP:

First, to state the obvious:

The wheat = the elect
The tares = the reprobate

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

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

This interpretation seems to reconcile the 2 verses cited above.
 

SeamusDelion

Puritan Board Freshman
All I'm saying is that it seems to me that the reprobate receive a lesser, but real. benefit from Christ's death in that the promise of Jesus fulfilling the covenant by dying for the sins of the elect results in a temporary stay from judgment and Hell.
Remember the Rich man in Abrahams bosom ? asking just for a trickle of water to be dropped on his tongue? The reprobate don't know how good they have it right now. Just to wake up and live another day to disobey the Lord is grace all in it self. The LORD Is merciful.
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Graduate
Imagine telling someone they need to be careful how they use an analogy because it could mislead someone, while believing in the Doctrine of The Perseverance of the saints.
I'm not sure what this means. If you think the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints means that the elect can never be mislead, then you do not understand perseverance.

I will outline it for you if you don't understand it.
I do understand it, and it is a bad analogy.

The van is the world. - Holds a lot of people.
The seats are for the chosen people of God. though the word can hold all people, don't mean it would have enough seats for everyone.
The post in which you introduced the van analogy said nothing about the world, much less the van being the world. The van analogy, by your own use of it, was intended to give us a picture of the atonement, not the world. If you meant otherwise, you should speak more clearly so as not to add to the confusion.

No where does it say He died only for his sheep.
The Bible says that Christ died for the sheep. Where does it say he died for anyone else?

Not sure why you would want to limit Christ or downplay His saving power.
This is exactly what Arminians say, and it is a straw man. Do you understand definite atonement?
 

panta dokimazete

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

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


However, through careful Exegesis we can come to the conclusion that the Elect are the only ones to be saved though the atonement was SUFFICENT for the entire world.

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

Let the word of God be true and every man a liar. Just because it don't fit your theology don't mean its not correct.
no argument - and thank you for another relevant verse

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

He fully propitiated the sins of the elect

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

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

SeamusDelion

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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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

SeamusDelion

Puritan Board Freshman
no argument - and thank you for another relevant verse

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

He fully propitiated the sins of the elect

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

In one sense to eternally save the elect, in another to temporarily/temporally save everybody (elect and reprobate) to the glory of Christ.
Again, I never stated Jesus died for the entire world. I said He died for its sin. Meaning the atonement was able (if God willed) to save everyone in the world. Did it? No. It only was extended and offered to the Elect.

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

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

Taylor

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