I don't get this argument against Universalism

[InSlaveryToChrist]

I've never come to understand the argument that, for example, Charles Spurgeon held against Universalism:

"If Christ on His cross intended to save every man, then He intended to save those who were lost before He died. If the doctrine be true, that He died for all men, then He died for some who were in Hell before He came into this world, for doubtless there were even then myriads there who had been cast away because of their sins. . . That seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption. To think that my Savior died for men who were or are in Hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain." (Autobiography: 1, The Early Years, p. 172)

Doesn't the above beg the question that after we die we immediately go to heaven or hell? But how then would have some of the OT saints have ascended into heaven before Christ died for them? What does it matter when Christ actually died? Isn't the promise that as Christ was resurrected from dead, so we also shall be raised with Him? Didn't the OT saints also believe by grace through faith in Christ? So didn't the now lost have their "chance" to be saved back then? Or was salvation exclusively preached to the Jews alone until the New Testament? I'm a bit lost here... Any help would be... well, helpful.

 

[Skyler]

Jesus is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world," right?

 

[SRoper]

I haven't seen that objection before. I also find it unpersuasive.

 

[py3ak]

Spurgeon's objection (which I find valid and persuasive, personally) hinges on the intention of Christ. Some people are evidently able to think that Christ died intending to save those He knew would be lost; but even such a one might hesitate to think that Christ died intending to save someone who was already condemned. When you ask if Christ died for Cain or Lamech or the Sodomites who were already in hell at the time of his death it underlines with peculiar pungency the absurdity of affirming that Christ intends an impossibility.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Makes sense when considering the pactum salutis.

AMR

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

Spurgeon's objection (which I find valid and persuasive, personally) hinges on the intention of Christ. Some people are evidently able to think that Christ died intending to save those He knew would be lost; but even such a one might hesitate to think that Christ died intending to save someone who was already condemned. When you ask if Christ died for Cain or Lamech or the Sodomites who were already in hell at the time of his death it underlines with peculiar pungency the absurdity of affirming that Christ intends an impossibility.

I don't think I got it after all... It seems to me that Spurgeon must have presupposed Effectual Atonement in his objection of Universalism for it to make any sense. If you think of what Spurgeon said in light of Ineffectual Atonement, then it would sound very unreasonable.

 

[JennyG]

Makes sense when considering the pactum salutis.

"pact of salvation"? what does that mean, please?

 

[Peairtach]

The Covenant of Redemption in which the Son agreed with the Father to die for the elect is sometimes called the Pactum Salutis.

 

[py3ak]

I don't think I got it after all... It seems to me that Spurgeon must have presupposed Effectual Atonement in his objection of Universalism for it to make any sense. If you think of what Spurgeon said in light of Ineffectual Atonement, then it would sound very unreasonable.

I think the way it works is that once a proponent of Ineffectual Atonement can be brought to concede that anyone is excluded from the intention of Christ in laying down his life for sin, then he has in principle surrendered the position that Christ died for each and every individual person who ever lived or will live. When he can see that it is not blasphemy or nonsense to say that Christ didn't intend to save everyone, then one of the buttresses of ineffectual atonement has been demolished.

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

I don't think I got it after all... It seems to me that Spurgeon must have presupposed Effectual Atonement in his objection of Universalism for it to make any sense. If you think of what Spurgeon said in light of Ineffectual Atonement, then it would sound very unreasonable.

I think the way it works is that once a proponent of Ineffectual Atonement can be brought to concede that anyone is excluded from the intention of Christ in laying down his life for sin, then he has in principle surrendered the position that Christ died for each and every individual person who ever lived or will live. When he can see that it is not blasphemy or nonsense to say that Christ didn't intend to save everyone, then one of the buttresses of ineffectual atonement has been demolished.

Thank you, I get it now (for sure)! One undeniable evidence of Limited Atonement is that the Gospel has not been preached in every tribe, language, people and nation. Why would God have gone through the mess of sacrificing His own Son and not sent a preacher to declare the Gospel? "He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?" (Rom 8:32) Christ's blood was not shed in vain.

Edit: This, of course, is not to say that God has not commanded the preaching of the Gospel to all nations -- just that God has been pleased to keep certain people from hearing the Gospel at all, for the glory of His righteous judgment.

 

[py3ak]

Yes, that is another excellent argument.