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

Status
Not open for further replies.

SeamusDelion

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

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

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

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

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

Taylor

Puritan Board Graduate
You attacked me by calling me a strawman...
Do you understand what a straw man is? It is a type of fallacious argument. I did not call you a strawman.

You attacked me by calling me an Arminian. Might as well call me a Mormon, I see no difference.
Go back and read my post. I did not call or label you an Arminian. Again, you need to calm down.

And you are right, I am called as a street preacher with courage, not a weak feeble minded internet troll who argues for the sake of argument.
Do you see the irony here? I hope so. You accuse me, falsely, of calling you names, and here you are actually calling me a weak and feeble-minded troll.
 

SeamusDelion

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

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


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

Romans922

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

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

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

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

SeamusDelion

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

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

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

Jesus in fact died and atoned for the sins of the world (as defined in the context of Christ's atonement).
John 3:16 the word Kosmos meaning the entire world is the word used here. The context In my prespective of what I thought it meant was that God has a unconditinal love towards the world (His creation) but does not mean that God loves the whole world in the context of saving it.

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

panta dokimazete

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

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

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

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


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

Romans922

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

I see you also agree Christ died and atoned for the Sin of the world, so my question for you would be where am I going wrong? Or is it my analogies?
Definitions. World in Scripture by the context cannot always mean "the entire world as in all people everywhere at all times" or "the physical earth".

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

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

Romans922

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

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

SeanPatrickCornell

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

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

2 Peter 2:1
But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.

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

We have to deal with that.

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

SeamusDelion

Puritan Board Freshman
I think it is more Biblically accurate to say that His death paid temporarily for the sins of the world (all people of all times - retroactive to the Fall, proactive until the Final judgment - 2 Peter 2:1, 1 Timothy 4:10, 1 John 2:2), while his blood fully and eternally atoned for the elect (too many verses to quote).
I think what you mean here is that God has mercy on us that he doesn't destroy us right here and now. This however, has nothing to do with being saved.
 

panta dokimazete

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
What?

No, never. Temporarily paid for the sins of the world? Where is this in Scripture? There is none that supports temporarily paying for sins. This is completely wrong, and a great danger to believe this.
Why? The Bible seems to teach it. What Biblical principle does it violate for Christ's death to have this dual effect?
 

SeamusDelion

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

2 Peter 2:1
But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.

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

We have to deal with that.
Hence why I say the atonement was sufficient for them but not offered to them.
 

panta dokimazete

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I think what you mean here is that God has mercy on us that he doesn't destroy us right here and now. This however, has nothing to do with being saved.
Really? Instant and total judgment vs a delay in experiencing the unmitigated wrath of God? I'd say that is something to be saved from, temporarily or, even better, eternally.
 

Taylor

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

2 Peter 2:1
But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.
I don't believe "Lord" (δεσποτης in the Greek; better translated "Master") refers to Christ. Here is John Gill's handling of the text:

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

Romans922

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

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

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

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

Taylor

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

There's a similar verse. There will always be those members of the visible church claiming that Christ has bought them, but their teaching damnable heresies shows that they really never were bought by the blood of Christ.
If I remember correctly, Owen in his Hebrews commentary argues that a better translation of this verse would be "wherewith it was sanctified," referring I think to the covenant, not the apostate.
 

Ryan&Amber2013

Puritan Board Senior
You attacked me by calling me a strawman, I can assure you that I am not man of straw and that I lift weights daily to stay in shape and the likes of you could never stop me.
Lol :rofl:This made my day!

Look up straw man in the dictionary, brother.

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

panta dokimazete

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

panta dokimazete

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

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

Taylor

Puritan Board Graduate
I was making a joke trying to be funny.
Bad and ill-timed joke.

Yeah, I actually read this as I was formulating my thoughts. However, Jesus Christ is the only "divine buyer" I know of in redemptive history.
You recognize, of course, that this is begging the question, because this assertion assumes that 2 Peter 2:1 is speaking of Christ, which is the very point of debate.
 

panta dokimazete

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
You recognize, of course, that this is begging the question, because this assertion assumes that 2 Peter 2:1 is speaking of Christ, which is the very point of debate.
Show me in Scripture where the Father bought or buys anything to substantiate that, please. My whole premise (and I believe a key principle of the eternal Covenant of Grace) is that Christ procures from the Father as it relates to Mankind. That is the divine economy.
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Graduate
Show me in Scripture where the Father bought or buys anything to substantiate that, please. My whole premise (and I believe a key principle of the eternal Covenant of Grace) is that Christ procures from the Father as it relates to Mankind. That is the divine economy.
Well, it seems to me 2 Peter 2:1, as John Gill shows above based on the vocabulary used in the verse, is one. Can you demonstrate that Gill is wrong?

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

panta dokimazete

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

As for passages which describe the Father purchasing something, Exodus 15:16 and Psalm 74:2 are quite explicit examples.
You really don't think that is referring to Christ? What/who is the Father buying them from? What currency is He using?
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Graduate
You really don't think that is referring to Christ? What/who is the Father buying them from? What currency is He using?
You asked me to provide some Scripture references, and I did. Would you kindly deal with the matter directly at hand, which is 2 Peter 2:1? Because, again, you are begging the question. Can you deal with Gill’s argument?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top