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

Status
Not open for further replies.

panta dokimazete

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I see you like John Gill - see below - emphasis mine:

Verse 16 (Exodus 15:16)​

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

panta dokimazete

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
More from Johnny G:

Verse 2 (Psalms 74:2)​

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

panta dokimazete

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
You asked me to provide some Scripture references, and I did. Would you kindly deal with the matter directly at hand, which is 2 Peter 2:1? Because, again, you are begging the question. Can you deal with Gill’s argument?
I did - Jesus is the true purchaser in redemptive history - John G is off track, in this instance, which is proven by his own words, which I quoted.
 

SeamusDelion

Puritan Board Freshman
Bad and ill-timed joke.


You recognize, of course, that this is begging the question, because this assertion assumes that 2 Peter 2:1 is speaking of Christ, which is the very point of debate.
You're entitled to you're own opinion.
 

Afterthought

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

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

panta dokimazete

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

Taylor

Puritan Board Graduate
Your argument is irrelevant
Says you, yet it’s not my argument we’re dealing with, but Gill’s.

JG is building his case to support his position that Christ would not buy the reprobate in any sense, which is the premise of my argument.
That’s not true. He’s making an exegetical argument based on the word δεσποτης.

Besides, he had to dance around Jude 1:4 where Christ is explicitly called δεσποτης.
Depends. There’s a significant textual variant here, and one that is especially significant for this discussion, since the variant called God, not Christ, the δεσποτης.
 

Thomas_Goodwin

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

Such discussions should propel worship in Christ and awe.
 

panta dokimazete

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

As Thomas Watson stated of temporal benefits, believers have their benefits by God's covenant mercy; unbelievers have their benefits with God's leave, not his love.
My point is that what you call "occasioned" is bound up as a benefit to all people, at all times in the death of Christ. There is no "unplanned" or "incidental" components of the eternal covenant. Sin is cause for eternal death for Mankind, the price for mitigation is Christ's death, beneficial effects are gracious eternal salvation for the elect, merciful temporal salvation from eternal wrath for the reprobate.
 

panta dokimazete

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
For the peace that grace brings Christians sure do love fighting over it.

Such discussions should propel worship in Christ and awe.
I'm not really fighting. I have always considered the PB to be "iron sharpens iron" and greatly respect the godly Biblical thinkers here. It is a great way to guard your heart and mind from the dangers of the "echo chamber" :)
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Graduate
I'm not really fighting. I have always considered the PB to be "iron sharpens iron" and greatly respect the godly Biblical thinkers here. It is a great way to guard your heart and mind from the dangers of the "echo chamber" :)
Agreed. In the end, I know you and I are in essential agreement regarding doctrinal matters, even if we disagree on some exegetical ones, and I appreciate the dialogue.
 

panta dokimazete

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Depends. There’s a significant textual variant here, and one that is especially significant for this discussion, since the variant called God, not Christ, the δεσποτης.
Only in the sense that he is supporting his premise (Jesus did not in any sense buy the reprobate), which I have refuted in the OP. You cannot deny that Jesus is called δεσποτης by different writers. He has to try and build a context/variant argument solely to support his argument as stated. That's not exegesis.
 

panta dokimazete

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Agreed. In the end, I know you and I are in essential agreement regarding doctrinal matters, even if we disagree on some exegetical ones, and I appreciate the dialogue.
Shoot man, I should have asked them to lock the thread there! :)
Thank you, seriously - I really love His Word and really appreciate a pointed, yet winsome dialogue/debate.
 

timfost

Puritan Board Senior
Hi all,

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

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

panta dokimazete

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Hi all,

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

I would love to see a substantive conversation about this, but this spitfire approach has not paved the way for a productive conversation.
True enough - I really posted this to get feedback on my position. This has helped refine it some. I’ll post another thread after I digest this and hopefully it can be a little less chaotic :)
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Graduate
You cannot deny that Jesus is called δεσποτης by different writers.
I revisited this, and I believe you are claiming far too much. The term δεσποτης occurs ten times in the entire NT. Of those ten times, only one could possibly be said conclusively to refer to Christ—but only on the presupposition of a certain textual tradition. In other words, the text of Jude 4 is disputable. Textual criticism is part of exegesis. And given the fact that in every other case where δεσποτης refers to deity it refers indisputably to the Father, it is unreasonable exegesis to base the opposite conclusion on a single disputed passage.

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

SeanPatrickCornell

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

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

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

Taylor

Puritan Board Graduate
Despotes (δεσπότης) is also used in the NT to refer to the "Master" in the Master / Slave relationship, which relationship is also compared to the Christ / Believer relationship.
Sure, but the question here is strictly exegetical: When is Christ ever explicitly called δεσποτης? The only time he might have been—again, depending on which text tradition you go with—is in Jude 4. All other times speak specifically of the Father.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top