May we say to the unconverted, "Christ died for your sins"?

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

Recently, a Reformed brother wrote a post on evangelism in which he warned against deficiencies or inaccuracies in our message. One of the things against which he cautioned us was the use of the phrase, "Jesus died for you," which he argues is "tantamount to declaring that one can declare which lost person is part of God’s elect."

As one who formerly sympathized with some Arminian views of the gospel and who is presently a 5-point Calvinist, I agree with the need to be sure our gospel presentation is soundly biblical. In regards to the danger above, however, I have sometimes wondered whether such language as “Christ died for you” is in all cases absolutely inappropriate in evangelizing the lost.

First, the English preposition “for” (and the Greek huper it translates) is semantically flexible. It can simply mean “because of” or “on account of.” Certainly in a general sense, all human sin as “occasioned” Christ’s death. In other cases, it means “for the intended benefit of.” Here, the efficacy of the “intent” is determined not by the preposition alone but by the immediate and larger context in which it is used.

Second, I think all Calvinists believe that Christ’s death procured (non-saving) benefits not only for the elect but also for the non-elect (1 Tim. 4:10).

Third, some Calvinists see in Christ’s death a kind of salvific stance or posture that God manifests towards all men in general (John 3:16).

Fourth, Paul describes the gospel that he had received (from Christ, the Scriptures, and the other apostles) and preached to the Corinthians during his initial evangelistic labors among them in the following terms: “For I delivered (aorist) to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures [emphasis added]” (1 Cor. 15:3).

Note that, according to verse 1, these words constituted the good news that the Corinthians initially “received” (aorist) and upon which, following their conversion, they “had taken their stand” (perfect). So it would seem, at least from a prima facie reading of this text, that Paul’s gospel presentation to unconverted Greeks included the phrase, “Christ died for our sins.”

Of course, this doesn’t imply that Paul viewed Christ’s atonement as efficient for all. He may simply be alluding to God’s saving posture towards all men as demonstrated in the death of Christ (see above), or he may have intended the all-sufficiency of Christ’s atonement.

On the other hand, one might argue that the phrase “for our sins” was not part of the original message Paul preached. That is, it was only after the audience to whom he writes believed the gospel that Paul could utter that phrase. I’m not fully persuaded by this argument in light of the tenses of the verbs, but I suppose it might be plausible.

In any case, just trying to sharpen iron. What are your thoughts on the use of the phrase "Christ died for your sins" in general and your interpretation of Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 15:1-3 in particular?

Your servant,

 

[PresbyDane]

No
We can say he died so sinners might be saved

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

No
We can say he died so sinners might be saved

Thanks, Martin. I agree with your point that Jesus died so that sinners might be saved. How do you interpret Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 15:3? Do you believe the gospel he preached to them included the words, "Christ died for our sins"? If not, why not? If so, what do you think Paul meant?

Your servant,

 

[MW]

In the gospel the death of Christ is offered to all as the only way of salvation. If the sinner believes on the Lord Jesus Christ he shall be saved. On this basis we may say indefinitely that Christ died for sinners, and therefore every sinner has a warrant to trust in Christ for salvation, and that no sinner perishes because of some insufficiency in Christ's death to save them. However, the Bible nowhere teaches that the warrant for the sinner to believe on Christ is the fact that He died for them individually and personally. Such a teaching would throw the gospel scheme into confusion because it would mean the distinguishing factor upon which salvation depends is the person's own belief rather than the work of Christ.

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

In the gospel the death of Christ is offered to all. If the sinner believes on the Lord Jesus Christ he shall be saved. On this basis we may say that Christ died indefinitely for sinners, and therefore every sinner has a warrant to trust in Christ for salvaiton, and that no sinner perishes because of some insufficiency in Christ's death to save them. However, the Bible nowhere teaches that the warrant for the sinner to believe on Christ is the fact that He died for them individually and personally. Such a teaching would throw the gospel scheme into confusion because it would mean the distinguishing factor upon which salvation depends is the person's own belief rather than the work of Christ.

Thanks, Matthew. I agree with you that "the Bible nowhere teaches that the warrant for the sinner to believe on Christ is the fact that He died for them individually and personally." Would you then interpret Paul's phrase "Christ died for our sins" in the context of 1 Corinthians 15:1-3 as, in essence, making the point you affirm above, namely, "that Christ died indefinitely for sinners"? If so, then may we use the phraseology in that qualified (and guarded) sense when evangelizing?

Your servant,

 

[Pergamum]

Paul was addressing the church in Corinth.

If I am speaking before a church, it is also proper for me to speak to all who claim Christ in this way, that Christ dided for your sins. It is better than saying, "Christ died for some of your sins, because out of every church some of you all are damned hypocrites!" Paul addressed the Corinth church as "saints."

 

[MW]

Thanks, Matthew. I agree with you that "the Bible nowhere teaches that the warrant for the sinner to believe on Christ is the fact that He died for them individually and personally." Would you then interpret Paul's phrase "Christ died for our sins" in the context of 1 Corinthians 15:1-3 as, in essence, making the point you affirm above, namely, "that Christ died indefinitely for sinners"? If so, then may we use the phraseology in that qualified (and guarded) sense when evangelizing?

In that specific context I would suggest another mode of interpretation on the basis of the Greek preposition used in connection with "sins," and that is that "our sins" were the procuring cause of His death. It is only by understanding it in this way that sense can be made of the later statement that the Corinthians would still be in their sins if Christ had not been raised, ver. 17. Hence I think it safest to see the apostle's language as reflecting the Corinthians' reception of the gospel, and that penal, substitutionary death is the proper reference.

 

[PresbyDane]

No
We can say he died so sinners might be saved

Thanks, Martin. I agree with your point that Jesus died so that sinners might be saved. How do you interpret Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 15:3? Do you believe the gospel he preached to them included the words, "Christ died for our sins"? If not, why not? If so, what do you think Paul meant?

Your servant,

I do not think he included those words because that would contradict what he says in other places conserning soteriology.
I think he stated it more like Acts 17 you know telling them what their problem was and what the solution was (them believing in Christ and what he had done)
when they then say they can not do that, which we also experience in real life and see in scripture with words like "help my unbelief" then he can tell them That Christ has done ALL that was needed for them to be saved.

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

Paul was addressing the church in Corinth.

If I am speaking before a church, it is also proper for me to speak to all who claim Christ in this way, that Christ dided for your sins. It is better than saying, "Christ died for some of your sins, because out of every church some of you all are damned hypocrites!" Paul addressed the Corinth church as "saints."

Hey Perg. I agree he was addressing the church. But he's describing the content of the gospel he had preached (past tense) and which they had received (past tense). That gospel message, it would seem, included the statement, "Christ died for your sins." That's how the language of the text seems to read--at least to me.

On the other hand, I did acknowledge above that Paul may be importing into the gospel content he preached (past tense) and which the Corinthians believed (past tense) an idea that wasn't originally there, viz., that "Christ died for [their] sins." Maybe, as your comment seems to suggest, Paul originally said something like, "Christ died for sin" or Christ died so that sinners might be saved." Then later, when addressing these Corinthians in their post-conversion state, he added the phrase "for our sins." Is that your view?

 

[Pergamum]

Yes, that is my view. But I have not thought it out as deeply as you have. Any weaknesses/holes in my view?

 

[moral necessity]

in my opinion, we may use that statement with appropriate qualifications in mind. First of all, we don't know the sovereign plan of God, as to whom he died for, and so, we can say that statement with a certain generality implied in it, that he did die for their sins, if he is ever going to make them regenerate at some point in their life. And secondly, we may say that statement also, with some level of certainty, that it is in accord with the common Gospel invitation that we are called to represent and offer to all of mankind. For, if we are called to truly offer a real invitation to all of mankind, then we must therefore truly offer a proper foundation for that invitation. And so, the general statement of him "dying for our sins" is most appropriately fitting, in my opinion.

However, when we speak from God's perspective upon things, we always take several steps backwards in such bold statements. And so, the proprieity of such statements always depends upon which platform the statements are being made from. The question I end up asking myself often, is, whether or not I always have to speak to others from the perspective of God or not. If I did, I would probably not say many of the statements that scripture ever makes. And so, there has to be a reality in which I talk to others as if I am "under the sun", so to speak.....using the words of Solomon. But, that being said, I, in my own mind, have to try to qualify my statements, so as to have a clear conscience in what truth I am trying to express. And so, with man, I commonly speak in generalities, as man, until I encounter those whose minds take them beyond such general expressions into more particular thoughts.

So, yes......I make that statement to people.....and I think it's appropriate to do so.....but, each circumstance or person that we encounter has his own boundries of appropriateness and needs that need to be met.....and wisdom and discernment dictates how much into the perspective of God that we delve into in our conversations with them.

Blessings!

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

Yes, that is my view. But I have not thought it out as deeply as you have. Any weaknesses/holes in my view?

Actually, I've not thought through the exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15:1-3 in great detail as it relates to the question I raised above. I was simply reflecting on the passage recently in light of a blog written by a Reformed brother and thought I'd post some of my tentative thoughts on the PB to glean some input from the brethren here. As I said above, I think the view you advance is plausible. Paul's description of the content of the gospel he preached to the at one time unconverted Corinthians may assume their present state (as he writes) and therefore contain information that was not part of the original message.

Thanks for the interaction!

-----Added 3/2/2009 at 01:16:08 EST-----

in my opinion, we may use that statement with appropriate qualifications in mind. First of all, we don't know the sovereign plan of God, as to whom he died for, and so, we can say that statement with a certain generality implied in it, that he did die for their sins, if he is ever going to make them regenerate at some point in their life. And secondly, we may say that statement also, with some level of certainty, that it is in accord with the common Gospel invitation that we are called to represent and offer to all of mankind. For, if we are called to truly offer a real invitation to all of mankind, then we must therefore truly offer a proper foundation for that invitation. And so, the general statement of him "dying for our sins" is most appropriately fitting, in my opinion.

However, when we speak from God's perspective upon things, we always take several steps backwards in such bold statements. And so, the proprieity of such statements always depends upon which platform the statements are being made from. The question I end up asking myself often, is, whether or not I always have to speak to others from the perspective of God or not. If I did, I would probably not say many of the statements that scripture ever makes. And so, there has to be a reality in which I talk to others as if I am "under the sun", so to speak.....using the words of Solomon. But, that being said, I, in my own mind, have to try to qualify my statements, so as to have a clear conscience in what truth I am trying to express. And so, with man, I commonly speak in generalities, as man, until I encounter those whose minds take them beyond such general expressions into more particular thoughts.

So, yes......I make that statement to people.....and I think it's appropriate to do so.....but, each circumstance or person that we encounter has his own boundries of appropriateness and needs that need to be met.....and wisdom and discernment dictates how much into the perspective of God that we delve into in our conversations with them.

Blessings!

Charles, I appreciate your attempt to provide a balanced, "multi-perspectival" approach to the question.

Your servant,

 

[PresbyDane]

I think you meant to thank Charles

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Paul could say to a group of non-believers: "Christ died for OUR sins," and not mean "our" in a sense that includes, but in fact excludes, the audience in their present state of unbelief--i.e. "WE believe, ergo, he died for our sins." Change the status of the audience member's belief, and suddenly that judgment is inclusive. They have individually adopted the "for me" perspective of faith on the death of Christ.

What I mean is that Paul's use of "our" in 1Cor15:1-3 doesn't remove the element of faith, in my view.

And, I would say that when Paul addresses a church (that has not abandoned or virtually abandoned the gospel) he uses the "judgment of charity" in addressing professors of faith according to their profession, that is, as being what they claim to be. Therefore since he's now speaking to present professors of faith, his choice of words is bound to reflect his present, rather than past, relation to these persons.

 

[BJClark]

Dr. Bob Gonzales;

I agree he was addressing the church. But he's describing the content of the gospel he had preached (past tense) and which they had received (past tense). That gospel message, it would seem, included the statement, "Christ died for your sins." That's how the language of the text seems to read--at least to me.

Why would it include the word 'your' when he was including his own sin in the 'our'?

People can be peculiar in how they hear and interpret certain words, they actually go based on the meaning of the word..if I say "Christ died for 'your' sins", does that mean Christ did not die for (my) the speakers sin?

No, but that is what some people hear, and even get offended, assuming your excluding your self from that sinful state, and have been known to turn around and begin to name the speakers list of sins..and at that point they have gone on the defensive and anything you say..falls on deaf ears..

So if you say "our"; while some will still be offended (because the Gospel IS offensive to unbelievers) they don't put their guard up as quickly going on the defensive.

 

[Anton Bruckner]

I thought my 6 year old the following this weekend.

1. What did Jesus came to do?
ans. Jesus came to save His people by dying for their sins.

2. Did Jesus came to save everyone?
ans. No, only His people.

3. Who are Jesus' people?
ans. Those who believe and trust in Him.

4. How does a person who believe in Jesus behave?
ans. Matt 22:37. They love the Lord, their God with all their heart, all their mind and with all their soul.

ps. I will keep grilling it into his head.

 

[Scott1]

Another good, thought provoking post, Bob.

I have not had formal theological training, but here are a few of my thoughts:

Recently, a Reformed brother wrote a post on evangelism in which he warned against deficiencies or inaccuracies in our message. One of the things against which he cautioned us was the use of the phrase, "Jesus died for you," which he argues is "tantamount to declaring that one can declare which lost person is part of God’s elect."

As one who formerly sympathized with some Arminian views of the gospel and who is presently a 5-point Calvinist,
Once you understand the "five points" necessarily are related to and dependent upon one another you can see them as relating to the central reformed doctrine, The Doctrine of God.

All other doctrines relate in some way to the central doctrine of God- something which is not true of theological constructs outside of "reformed."

There is no such thing as "three point" Calvinist, etc, logically or otherwise.

It really helped me understand that "all" often means "all sorts of people" especially Jews and Gentiles in many biblical contexts. Also that "us" is often referring the believers (the elect), especially in the context of new testament passages as God expanded his dealings from mostly Israel to the "whole world" (Jew and Gentile).

And by now you know, the secondary causes of liberty man has apply to everything except saving or initiating salvation for one's self so man really does have "free will" [which of course, is limited by his nature]


I agree with the need to be sure our gospel presentation is soundly biblical. In regards to the danger above, however, I have sometimes wondered whether such language as “Christ died for you” is in all cases absolutely inappropriate in evangelizing the lost.

First, the English preposition “for” (and the Greek huper it translates) is semantically flexible. It can simply mean “because of” or “on account of.” Certainly in a general sense, all human sin as “occasioned” Christ’s death. In other cases, it means “for the intended benefit of.” Here, the efficacy of the “intent” is determined not by the preposition alone but by the immediate and larger context in which it is used.

Second, I think all Calvinists believe that Christ’s death procured benefits not only for the elect but also for the non-elect (1 Tim. 4:10).

But not salvation... or else everyone would be saved, and that of course is not the case. Many are called, but few are chosen. (cf Matthew 22:14)

Third, some Calvinists see in Christ’s death a kind of salvific stance or posture that God manifests towards all men in general (John 3:16).

Fourth, Paul describes the gospel that he had received (from Christ, the Scriptures, and the other apostles) and preached to the Corinthians during his initial evangelistic labors among them in the following terms: “For I delivered (aorist) to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures [emphasis added]” (1 Cor. 15:3).

Note that, according to verse 1, these words constituted the good news that the Corinthians initially “received” (aorist) and upon which, following their conversion, they “had taken their stand” (perfect). So it would seem, at least from a prima facie reading of this text, that Paul’s gospel presentation to unconverted Greeks included the phrase, “Christ died for our sins.”

Of course, this doesn’t imply that Paul viewed Christ’s atonement as efficient for all. He may simply be alluding to God’s saving posture towards all men as demonstrated in the death of Christ (see above), or he may have intended the all-sufficiency of Christ’s atonement.

On the other hand, one might argue that the phrase “for our sins” is anachronistic, that is, Paul really didn’t preach those words initially; it was only after the audience to whom he writes believed the gospel that Paul could utter that phrase. I’m not persuaded by this argument, but I suppose it might be plausible.

In any case, just trying to sharpen iron. What are your thoughts on the use of the phrase "Christ died for your sins" in general and your interpretation of Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 15:1-3 in particular?

Your servant,

You are swerving into a key observation. You can see why reformed does not emphasize "altar calls" or "making a decision for Christ" as a means of salvation. Rather, it is through discipling in the context of the local church. In the ordinary course of teaching through God's Word, God uses the ordinary means of teaching His Word to bring people to salvation and understand election, regeneration, justification, adoption and sanctification.

In the end, we can acknowledge that God uses biblically incorrect means "you make a decision to receive Christ" rather than what Scripture says "God makes a decision to receive you, because of Christ's righteousness alone."

We don't come to God in our fallen condition, evaluate His offer, and decide to choose Him. He looks at us, dead in sin, and for some reason known only to Himself, decides to miraculously change us so we can believe and rest on that belief alone... Based on absolutely nothing in our selves, contrary to what we deserve, He chooses to give mercy and reward with eternal life... all to the praise of His glorious grace!

It becomes a matter of worshipping God in spirit and in truth, and obedience, particularly as you grow in Christ. To whom much is given, much is required, which includes rightly understanding our God as He has revealed Himself in Scripture. One realizes how great an offense it is to our God to misrepresent Him and to base our representation of Him based only on what we imagine, particularly for those who lead and teach God's people."

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

Dr. Bob Gonzales;

I agree he was addressing the church. But he's describing the content of the gospel he had preached (past tense) and which they had received (past tense). That gospel message, it would seem, included the statement, "Christ died for your sins." That's how the language of the text seems to read--at least to me.

Why would it include the word 'your' when he was including his own sin in the 'our'?

People can be peculiar in how they hear and interpret certain words, they actually go based on the meaning of the word..if I say "Christ died for 'your' sins", does that mean Christ did not die for (my) the speakers sin?

No, but that is what some people hear, and even get offended, assuming your excluding your self from that sinful state, and have been known to turn around and begin to name the speakers list of sins..and at that point they have gone on the defensive and anything you say..falls on deaf ears..

So if you say "our"; while some will still be offended (because the Gospel IS offensive to unbelievers) they don't put their guard up as quickly going on the defensive.

Thanks for the correction, Bobbi. Paul actually used the 1st person plural "our," not the 2nd person plural "your." Your comments are helpful too.

Thanks,

-----Added 3/2/2009 at 09:00:27 EST-----

I thought my 6 year old the following this weekend.

1. What did Jesus came to do?
ans. Jesus came to save His people by dying for their sins.

2. Did Jesus came to save everyone?
ans. No, only His people.

3. Who are Jesus' people?
ans. Those who believe and trust in Him.

4. How does a person who believe in Jesus behave?
ans. Matt 22:37. They love the Lord, their God with all their heart, all their mind and with all their soul.

ps. I will keep grilling it into his head.

Thanks, brother. I don't disagree with any of your points (except there are a few typos which I often make myself). I think it's commendable that you're catechizing your young child. May you know fruit for your labors!

Sincerely yours,

-----Added 3/2/2009 at 09:02:47 EST-----

Another good, thought provoking post, Bob.

I have not had formal theological training, but here are a few of my thoughts:

Recently, a Reformed brother wrote a post on evangelism in which he warned against deficiencies or inaccuracies in our message. One of the things against which he cautioned us was the use of the phrase, "Jesus died for you," which he argues is "tantamount to declaring that one can declare which lost person is part of God’s elect."

As one who formerly sympathized with some Arminian views of the gospel and who is presently a 5-point Calvinist,
Once you understand the "five points" necessarily are related to and dependent upon one another you can see them as relating to the central reformed doctrine, The Doctrine of God.

All other doctrines relate in some way to the central doctrine of God- something which is not true of theological constructs outside of "reformed."

There is no such thing as "three point" Calvinist, etc, logically or otherwise.

It really helped me understand that "all" often means "all sorts of people" especially Jews and Gentiles in many biblical contexts. Also that "us" is often referring the believers (the elect), especially in the context of new testament passages as God expanded his dealings from mostly Israel to the "whole world" (Jew and Gentile).

And by now you know, the secondary causes of liberty man has apply to everything except saving or initiating salvation for one's self so man really does have "free will" [which of course, is limited by his nature]


I agree with the need to be sure our gospel presentation is soundly biblical. In regards to the danger above, however, I have sometimes wondered whether such language as “Christ died for you” is in all cases absolutely inappropriate in evangelizing the lost.

First, the English preposition “for” (and the Greek huper it translates) is semantically flexible. It can simply mean “because of” or “on account of.” Certainly in a general sense, all human sin as “occasioned” Christ’s death. In other cases, it means “for the intended benefit of.” Here, the efficacy of the “intent” is determined not by the preposition alone but by the immediate and larger context in which it is used.

Second, I think all Calvinists believe that Christ’s death procured benefits not only for the elect but also for the non-elect (1 Tim. 4:10).

But not salvation... or else everyone would be saved, and that of course is not the case. Many are called, but few are chosen. (cf Matthew 22:14)

Third, some Calvinists see in Christ’s death a kind of salvific stance or posture that God manifests towards all men in general (John 3:16).

Fourth, Paul describes the gospel that he had received (from Christ, the Scriptures, and the other apostles) and preached to the Corinthians during his initial evangelistic labors among them in the following terms: “For I delivered (aorist) to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures [emphasis added]” (1 Cor. 15:3).

Note that, according to verse 1, these words constituted the good news that the Corinthians initially “received” (aorist) and upon which, following their conversion, they “had taken their stand” (perfect). So it would seem, at least from a prima facie reading of this text, that Paul’s gospel presentation to unconverted Greeks included the phrase, “Christ died for our sins.”

Of course, this doesn’t imply that Paul viewed Christ’s atonement as efficient for all. He may simply be alluding to God’s saving posture towards all men as demonstrated in the death of Christ (see above), or he may have intended the all-sufficiency of Christ’s atonement.

On the other hand, one might argue that the phrase “for our sins” is anachronistic, that is, Paul really didn’t preach those words initially; it was only after the audience to whom he writes believed the gospel that Paul could utter that phrase. I’m not persuaded by this argument, but I suppose it might be plausible.

In any case, just trying to sharpen iron. What are your thoughts on the use of the phrase "Christ died for your sins" in general and your interpretation of Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 15:1-3 in particular?

Your servant,

You are swerving into a key observation. You can see why reformed does not emphasize "altar calls" or "making a decision for Christ" as a means of salvation. Rather, it is through discipling in the context of the local church. In the ordinary course of teaching through God's Word, God uses the ordinary means of teaching His Word to bring people to salvation and understand election, regeneration, justification, adoption and sanctification.

In the end, we can acknowledge that God uses biblically incorrect means "you make a decision to receive Christ" rather than what Scripture says "God makes a decision to receive you, because of Christ's righteousness alone."

We don't come to God in our fallen condition, evaluate His offer, and decide to choose Him. He looks at us, dead in sin, and for some reason known only to Himself, decides to miraculously change us so we can believe and rest on that belief alone... to the praise of His glorious grace.

It becomes a matter of worshipping God in spirit and in truth, and obedience, particularly as you grow in Christ. To whom much is given, much is required. One realizes how great an offense it is to our God to misrepresent Him and to base our representation of Him based only on what we imagine."

Thanks, Scott. Your comments are helpful and I affirm them.

 

[cih1355]

I would say that Jesus died for other people or that Jesus died for His people.

In 1 Corithians 15, Paul is speaking to believers and he is saying to them that Christ died for our sins. The word, "our", refers to Paul himself and the believers that he is speaking to.

Before those believers became Christians, did Paul use the exact words, "Christ died for our sins", when he preached the gospel to them?

 

[ManleyBeasley]

I say "Christ died for sinners" when speaking to people about the gospel.

 

[AThornquist]

Some very good thoughts on this thread. And I'm with Manley--I typically just say that Christ died for sinners or Christ died for all who would believe (I said the latter during my graduation speech). I am only concerned that the wording of "Christ died for our sins" would be misconstrued by our theologically and spiritually ignorant world. I obviously don't believe anyone's eternal disposition will be changed by thinking (or not thinking) that "Christ died for them" if they weren't chosen to be vessels of mercy, but I believe that true doctrine should be preserved and protected, regardless.

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

I would say that Jesus died for other people or that Jesus died for His people.

In 1 Corithians 15, Paul is speaking to believers and he is saying to them that Christ died for our sins. The word, "our", refers to Paul himself and the believers that he is speaking to.

Before those believers became Christians, did Paul use the exact words, "Christ died for our sins", when he preached the gospel to them?

Curt,

I agree that Paul is writing to believers in 1 Corinthians 15. But when he gives a description of the gospel he had preached (past tense) and which they had received (past tense), he describes it with the phrase, "the Messiah died for our sins according to the Scriptures." I see one of two possibilities:

(1) Paul really didn’t preach those words initially; it was only after the audience to whom he writes believed the gospel that Paul could utter that phrase. I think this is a plausible reading.

(2) Paul did say to an audience that included unconverted Greeks, "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures," but he didn't intend the preposition "for" (huper) to convey the idea of efficacy (as if Christ's death had already atoned for their sins irrespective of their election and faith) but meant one of the following:

(a) Christ's death was occasioned by all human sin, i.e., on account of "our sin" he died.
(b) Christ's death demonstrates God's saving posture towards the race of fallen men indiscriminately.
(c) Christ's death is offered as a sufficient atonement for all indiscriminately but is, in fact, only efficient for those who believe (who, as it turns out, were ordained unto eternal life).
​

Presently, I haven't made up my mind concerning which view I prefer as being the most viable interpretation of Paul's word. I definitely believe in a particular design behind Christ's work. But I also want to resist the temptation of trying to be more restrictive with my language than the apostles were.

 

[Iconoclast]

1 Corinthians 15 (Young's Literal Translation)

1 Corinthians 15
1And I make known to you, brethren, the good news that I proclaimed to you, which also ye did receive, in which also ye have stood,

2through which also ye are being saved, in what words I proclaimed good news to you, if ye hold fast, except ye did believe in vain,

3for I delivered to you first, what also I did receive, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Writings,

4and that he was buried, and that he hath risen on the third day, according to the Writings,

DR.Bob,
The good news in which they stand is that Jesus has died a covenant death.
He is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise as The Promised Seed.
In Luke 1 Spirit filled Zacharias said it this way;

67And Zacharias his father was filled with the Holy Spirit, and did prophesy, saying,

68`Blessed [is] the Lord, the God of Israel, Because He did look upon, And wrought redemption for His people,

69And did raise an horn of salvation to us, In the house of David His servant,

70As He spake by the mouth of His holy prophets, Which have been from the age;

71Salvation from our enemies, And out of the hand of all hating us,

72To do kindness with our fathers, And to be mindful of His holy covenant,

73An oath that He sware to Abraham our father,

74To give to us, without fear, Out of the hand of our enemies having been delivered,

75To serve Him, in holiness and righteousness Before Him, all the days of our life.

76And thou, child, Prophet of the Highest Shalt thou be called; For thou shalt go before the face of the Lord, To prepare His ways.

77To give knowledge of salvation to His people In remission of their sins,

The Redemption spoken of is a covenant redemption. The Great High Priest interceding on behalf of all those given to Him.

9and him who was made some little less than messengers we see -- Jesus -- because of the suffering of the death, with glory and honour having been crowned, that by the grace of God for every one he might taste of death.

10For it was becoming to Him, because of whom [are] the all things, and through whom [are] the all things, many sons to glory bringing, the author of their salvation through sufferings to make perfect,

11for both he who is sanctifying and those sanctified [are] all of one, for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

12saying, `I will declare Thy name to my brethren, in the midst of an assembly I will sing praise to Thee;' and again, `I will be trusting on Him;'

13and again, `Behold I and the children that God did give to me.'

14Seeing, then, the children have partaken of flesh and blood, he himself also in like manner did take part of the same, that through death he might destroy him having the power of death -- that is, the devil --

15and might deliver those, whoever, with fear of death, throughout all their life, were subjects of bondage,

16for, doubtless, of messengers it doth not lay hold, but of seed of Abraham it layeth hold,

17wherefore it did behove him in all things to be made like to the brethren, that he might become a kind and stedfast chief-priest in the things with God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people,

Nowhere are people told that Jesus died for them personally, unless it is speaking of those who are In Christ.
Paul says it this way;

15This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

We can say this with complete confidence. Jesus has died for His people MT.1:21. His people are scattered everywhere in the world.

50Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

51And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

52And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.

If we change or diminish the force of the verses it does not convey what the verses were intended to convey.
We can still show concern for the souls of those we speak with and stay faithful to the the scripture at the same time.
No where in Acts did the apostles say, Christ died for you and the Holy Spirit is seeking to draw you.

 

[moral necessity]

Again....I don't see where we are called to speak from the same platform of God's perspective at all times in all of our conversations. Are we not to speak to children as if they are children, and to adults as if they are adults? And so, why would we not be content to speak in the manner that scripture often speaks, upon certain circumstances, and within certain contexts, and yet be content to qualify it within our own rational minds? And so, sometimes we speak as if from man's perspective, and yet sometimes from God's. Wisdom is to discern when something different is needed, as well as to when and where it is to best apply.

 

[DonP]

Again....I don't see where we are called to speak from the same platform of God's perspective at all times in all of our conversations. Are we not to speak to children as if they are children, and to adults as if they are adults? And so, why would we not be content to speak in the manner that scripture often speaks, upon certain circumstances, and within certain contexts, and yet be content to qualify it within our own rational minds? And so, sometimes we speak as if from man's perspective, and yet sometimes from God's. Wisdom is to discern when something different is needed, as well as to when and where it is to best apply.

This is a good thought and really a main factor in the discussion. Is there a need to speak from this humanistic perspective as a means to present the gospel so one can be converted? And if not then why do it?

But I would say scripture never ever says to a non-covenant person, Christ died for you. Or us, with them in mind. The Epistles begin with, to the saints, though there may be unconverted in the midst, he speaks as if he is speaking to the converted, though in reality this is how we address not the converted, for we do not know who they are, we are addressing the visible covenant members, who receive the benefit of being treated as converts.

Do you need to say Jesus died for you? Why do people need to say this? We know that we cannot know that we are speaking the truth when we say it because Jesus may not have died for them.

So I don't think God would want us going around lying or speaking that which we do not know is true. That violates so many scriptures.

Since there is no need to say this I think it is absolutely wrong.

A sinner can be welcomed with the words, Christ died for all who will believe in Him. Will you believe? If you will repent and believe in him there is forgiveness or He has paid for all your sins. He died to save people from the punishment of their sins and give them a relationship with God and eternal life.
Why the need to put the cart before the horse? If you believe, he has died for you, or forgiven you. But only if you are one of those who believes.

What is so deficient in these statements that we need to say Jesus died for you?
If someone said this to me I would answer, well great then I guess I am all set for heaven then right? Its a done deal you say, I can't lose my salvation and Christ already died for me, paid for my sins, thanks, see ya later.

Now what do you say;well wait no he didn't die for you because you didn't believe, I am sorry to have misled you? Please don't go away with a false sense of security, you are really still in your sins there is more to it than that??

Why set yourself up for a mess. In fact this is a real mess. Much of Arminianism hangs on these words.

This discussion is a major part of what was called the Marrow Controversy where for ever, no one said Christ died for you. They mainly offered Christ to those seeking, or who by sitting under the preaching had come to a place of conviction and wanted salvation. And along came some evangelistic preachers who started saying things close to this and others gave it more liberty and made a mess in the church that lasts to this day.

It would be good to go back and Read the Marrow controversy, by especially reading Thomas Boston's Appendix to the book, the Marrow of Modern Divinity by Fisher. A most excellent work on the covenants also. Great for dispensationalists to read if they are open. Helped clear my 33 years ago.

Fisher himself, not a minister, is a bit loose in language twice in his allegory story, but Boston is quite precise in how he , The Erskine's and others defended the marrow and our warrant to offer the gospel to all. But we need to do it carefully.

I think Murray was influenced or just let Stonehouse have his say in their booklet the Free Offer of the gospel because they Messed up.

An excellent read on the subject is Christ Freely offered by Rev Ken Stebbins, though he was a bit hard on the Marrowmen and in speaking with him recently he would recant that part now. But he does an excellent analysis of many though out history on this subject and masterfully corrects the heresy of the Protestant Reformed Church, Hoeksema and rebuts Englesma's book, Hypercalvinism and the Call of the Gospel, his main purpose in writing the book.

Also excellent is the Sum of Saving Knowledge in the Westminster Standards, a Form I wish the reformed churches would adopt again since we have so much trouble defining the gospel and what minimal amount a man must believe to say he has believed savingly or make a credible profession of faith.

So yes we have a warrant to offer Christ freely to all men, but we should not mislead them by saying, Christ died for you. There is no need for it. It demeans the work of Christ's atonement which accomplished the salvation and did in fact propitiate God's punishment on whoever He died for. God cannot punish again anyone Christ already paid for.
So it would be a lie to say it to someone not elect and it confuses them for the future where there is no need.
In his Service,

 

[moral necessity]

I just wonder......of those whom we feel comfortable to even say such thoughts to....how do we know that they are even elect at all? Could not they fall away from the faith within the next 20 years or so? And if so, did we not say false sentences to them anyway, and perhaps baptize them falsely even? And so, how do we truly discern whether to truly say to someone or not that Christ has truly died for their sins at all? So, I think there must be some level of uncertainty when we speak these words to anyone at all. And so, what makes the apparent unregenerate more unworthy of such phrases as the apparent regenerate? In my mind, I offer it to all equally, as if it were something available to them if they wanted it. And, if they wanted it, then it was God prompting them to want it, and so it is truly theirs anyway. I'll let him figure out the grey area.

-----Added 3/4/2009 at 02:03:50 EST-----

Again....I don't see where we are called to speak from the same platform of God's perspective at all times in all of our conversations. Are we not to speak to children as if they are children, and to adults as if they are adults? And so, why would we not be content to speak in the manner that scripture often speaks, upon certain circumstances, and within certain contexts, and yet be content to qualify it within our own rational minds? And so, sometimes we speak as if from man's perspective, and yet sometimes from God's. Wisdom is to discern when something different is needed, as well as to when and where it is to best apply.

This is a good thought and really a main factor in the discussion. Is there a need to speak from this humanistic perspective as a means to present the gospel so one can be converted? And if not then why do it?

Just so it's clear....I would never speak from a "humanistic perspective" as a motive to make somebody feel more relaxed for their own personal conversion. I would never use it as a strategy for the "easy welcoming" of the gospel, but, I would always strive to never use the contrary as a hindrance to the gospel.....if that makes any sense.

Blessings!

 

[Confessor]

I just wonder......of those whom we feel comfortable to even say such thoughts to....how do we know that they are even elect at all? Could not they fall away from the faith within the next 20 years or so?

If there's evidence of regeneration, it'd be foolish to say otherwise. We don't have to have certainty to declare someone a brother in Christ, or else we could declare no one as one of the elect.

Paul said, "Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge" (1 Cor. 8:9-11).

This would show that it is okay to say someone is redeemed, provided we have evidence; certainty is not required.

 

[Scott1]

A few things might be helpful in understanding this.

We can use the term "elect" for those whom God has (and will) redeem. Someone who has not yet "come to faith" but will in a few years is really still "elect."

We can never be absolutely certain whom God has elected, regenerated (inner call), justified, adopted and given faith. Only God can do this and only God can know for sure.

However, over time, a person who has been regenerated will show some evidence of his new nature. His constituent nature has changed. It is different, because God has miraculously changed it. It is not perfect (that happens in the state of glory only), but it will reflect what it is. Many places in Scripture teach this- from Judas Iscariot's betrayal to the parable of the sower, etc.

It is also why church discipline is important. While it is not a guarantee, it is a means by which God both reclaims offenders, and effectively closes the kingdom for those who, over time, show no evidence of the Holy Spirit working in their lives, despite their profession. The Westminster Confession of faith calls these kinds of people, "hypocrites." Nothing can be absolutely certain, so we trust God will lead those in authority in His Church to protect His church from misrepresentation and harm.

That's also why when the elders interview someone for membership, they look for a "credible" profession of faith- not perfection, but for a real basis in what God has done.
That's another reason why, in the Presbyterian system at least, a plurality (more than one) Elders are required to make discernments like this.

If you believe and understand God has given real power and authority to His Church authority to do this, and gifted and equipped those He has called to that authority, it is easier to understand this.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

. . . .
I agree that Paul is writing to believers in 1 Corinthians 15. But when he gives a description of the gospel he had preached (past tense) and which they had received (past tense), he describes it with the phrase, "the Messiah died for our sins according to the Scriptures." I see one of two possibilities:

(1) Paul really didn’t preach those words initially; it was only after the audience to whom he writes believed the gospel that Paul could utter that phrase. I think this is a plausible reading.

(2) Paul did say to an audience that included unconverted Greeks, "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures," but he didn't intend the preposition "for" (huper) to convey the idea of efficacy (as if Christ's death had already atoned for their sins irrespective of their election and faith) but meant one of the following:

(a) Christ's death was occasioned by all human sin, i.e., on account of "our sin" he died.
(b) Christ's death demonstrates God's saving posture towards the race of fallen men indiscriminately.
(c) Christ's death is offered as a sufficient atonement for all indiscriminately but is, in fact, only efficient for those who believe (who, as it turns out, were ordained unto eternal life).
​

Presently, I haven't made up my mind concerning which view I prefer as being the most viable interpretation of Paul's word. I definitely believe in a particular design behind Christ's work. But I also want to resist the temptation of trying to be more restrictive with my language than the apostles were.

Bob,
The fact that you may say to an unbeliever "Christ died for our sins" (or "your sins") meaning one thing in your mind does not prevent it from being heard in the common universal sense. Therefore the use of the phrase remains problematic.

I am happy to say, "Christ died for sinners just like you and me."

According to J. I. Packer, “Preaching the gospel is not a matter of telling people that God has set His love on each of them and Christ has died to save each of them. The knowledge of being the object of God’s eternal love and Christ’s redeeming death belongs to the individual’s assurance . . . which is to be inferred from the fact that one has believed, not proposed as the reason one should believe.” (J. I. Packer, Introductory Essay to John Owen’s, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, Banner of Truth, pp. 18-19.)

Or, as John Owen has said, “There are none called by the gospel even once to enquire after the purpose and intention of God concerning the particular object of the death of Christ, everyone being fully assured that His death shall be profitable to them that believe in him and obey him.” (Ibid., p. 296.)

In my humble opinion, my task is to explain man’s need of Christ, His sufficiency to save, and His offer of Himself as Savior to all who truly turn to Him. If one is proclaiming a gospel message that demands a universal provision in the atonement, he is not proclaiming the gospel of the Scriptures.

Blessings,

 

[Michael Doyle]

I just wonder......of those whom we feel comfortable to even say such thoughts to....how do we know that they are even elect at all? Could not they fall away from the faith within the next 20 years or so?

If there's evidence of regeneration, it'd be foolish to say otherwise. We don't have to have certainty to declare someone a brother in Christ, or else we could declare no one as one of the elect.

Paul said, "Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge" (1 Cor. 8:9-11).


This would show that it is okay to say someone is redeemed, provided we have evidence; certainty is not required.

This is a good point. We must welcome those who profess Christ and are not under an obligation to know of their inclusion to the invisible church.

This has been something I have wrestled with in evangelism for some time and have come to conclusion that words mean things. While I can freely offer the gospel to all, it is imperative that I present it accurately.

You mat say that the gospel and it effectiveness is not dependent upon me proclaiming rightly, and you would be correct, and yet we are to rightly handle the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15) Would it not be irreverent of us to handle the word carelessly? Yet Paul does say, "Do not quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers." You can take this to the extreme and say semantics are unimportant, but I highly doubt this was Paul`s intention. He is speaking of a teaching that has no positive, practical impact on its adherents.

Their are many false teachers and those looking to persuade men into false doctrines, it must be our purpose to handle the Word accurately.