JM said:
I suspect that your intent was something like:
1. If Christ died for all men, then all men would be saved and wind up in Heaven.
2. We know that all men will not wind up in Heaven.
3. Therefore Christ could not have died for all men.
I agree with point 2, but think there is a hidden assumption in point 1.
As has been pointed out before, this argument has a built-in assumption, namely that Jesus' death is fully and totally sufficient for salvation (i.e. nothing else has to happen above and beyond Jesus' act of sacrifice) You need to justify this assumption and I do not know that you have (please justify or point me to a post where you clearly and squarely address this issue). Without such a justification, your thesis is not supported. It seems that you simply ignore the possibility that an "act of acceptance" is also required in order for Christ's death to put people into heaven.
If you can actually justify the claim that Christ's death is the only condition condition that has to be fulfilled, then I think your Biblical case would actually be quite strong.
In Hebrews 10, we find the result of the offering.
Christ’s death was substitutionary, in Matt. 20:28 we know that Christ’s death was instead. (The Greek word translated ‘for’ in this passage means instead.)
“For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:â€Â
Quote:
Rev. 5.9: "Worthy art thou to take the book and to break its seals; for Thou was slain and didst purchased for God with Thy blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation." When agorazo is used in 1 Cor. 6.20, 7.23, and 2 Pet. 2.1, the meaning is clearly redemption through the atonement of Christ.
“Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;â€Â
If the price of sin has been paid, and God’ wrath is removed from the sinner, God cannot ask for punishment. ‘Christ also hath once suffered for sins,’ for us and the penalty has been paid.
So, yes there is a hidden assumption, that being the penalty has been paid by our redeemer. John Owen wrote, “"If the death of Christ actually obtains redemption, cleansing, purification, bearing away sins, reconciliation, eternal life, and citizenship in a kingdom, then He must have died only for those who do get those things. It is not true that all men have those things, as is very clear! The salvation of all men therefore cannot have been the purpose of the death of Christ"
Luk 19:10 For the Son of man is come to
seek and to save that which was lost.
Christ died for us [Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.] bring us into a state of reconciliation with God [Rom 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.] Christ’s death bring us, for certain, into this state of reconciliation. AMEN!
Christ is our curse [Gal 3:13 Christ hath redeemed
us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
Christ gave Himself for us [Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;]
[quote:b8f71]Believe me, I am not trying to be difficult, but I do not see any material in this quote that in any way makes your case. Where, in this material, do you specifically argue that the scope of those to have the possibility of being saved is actually a sub-set of all humankind. As I suspect you can anticipate, I will assert that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to precisely those people who accept the gift. I read Romans 5. Where in Romans 5 is it stated or implied that the offer of salvation is not made to all men. In fact, I find that Romans 5:18 suggests the opposite of what I think you are arguing for:
Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
The logical outcome, if you believe this passage teaches more then federal headship, is to believe that all will be saved. If all have sinned by Adam, then all are saved by Christ (v. 19). You can’t have it both ways. The context is set for the federal headship of the first Adam and the last Adam/Christ in v. 15 [much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded
unto many.] So we see the federal headship of our Lord covers or abounds to many but not all. In v. 1 we see that Paul is speaking to believers because they already have peace with God.
Perhaps I do not understand your position. I believe that you are arguing for "limted atonement", which I understand to be the belief some men do not even have the possiblility of achieving salvation.
I like the choice of words you used Drew, ‘achieving’ salvation, proves you see it as a goal. Amen. So many think that man wants to be saved, they don’t, the fallen mind is set on the flesh as Paul tells us and is hostile.
Limited atonement means Christ’s death had a purpose and that purpose will be fulfilled.
I think that I have to bite the bullet and "confess" that, indeed, the act of choosing to accept the gift of salvation is a "smart", or "wise", "meritorious" act (I am not sure if you mean "good" in the sense of morally good or in the sense of "just plain smart"). I am willing to admit that Fred's decision to accept Christ at least has something to do with his own "wisdom", although not necessarily with his moral goodness.
Yes, you're onto it here, accept the gift would in the very least 'please God.' But Paul tells us we cannot please God in the flesh Romans 8. So, how does one have a saving faith before regeneration that God would accept?
I understand how many like to use illustrations to make a point, so I’ll borrow Fred the drowner for this one. Lol
Fred is floating on the top of the water dead. A guy comes by in a boat and yell’s, “are you ok,†but Fred doesn’t respond because he’s dead and dead people don’t respond. The guy in the boat reaches over the side and pull’s Fred’s body on board. He then performs CPR and Fred comes to and is thankful for the recuse.
Scripture tells us we are dead in sin, Fred has to be dead for the analogy to work, this ‘dead’ means spiritually dead and not physical. If you’re not willing to allow for Fred to be dead, try this one…
Fred’s drowning. He’s in the water going down fast. A guy in a boat comes by and offers to save him from drowning, problem is, Fred is hostile to the guy in the boat making the offer to help. Fred refuses to consider the help and gets mad at the guy in the boat…he hardens his heart against the offer. Fred drowns willingly.
Fred = sinner
Water = sin
Guy in boat = Christ
Hostile is found in enmity = Rom. 8:7; Eph. 2:15
Fred gets mad just as the sinner does when we share the Gospel offer, and if you’ve shared the Gospel with the uncoverted, you know what I mean.
To sum up, Fred is drowning in his own sin. Gospel is offered that would release him (set him free) from sin and it’s penalty. Even though Fred is misable in sin, he’s even more hostile to the offer made and will pay the price for being a slave to sin.
"The Arminians say, 'Christ died for all men.' Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men? They say, 'No, certainly not.' We ask them the next question: Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer 'No.' They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say, 'No; Christ has died that any man may be saved if ?' and then follow certain conditions of salvation. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as infallibly to secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ's death; we say, 'No, my dear sir, it is you that do it.' We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ's death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it." -- Charles Haddon Spurgeon
Here’s a links to look up, maybe they’ll help answer some questions, but feel free to continue to post them here…I’ll do my best to give an answer.
http://www.heritageonline.org/propitiation.htm[/quote:b8f71]
I'm just now getting into this thread and would like to give my views.
JM, in this post you used only one scripture, Matt. 20:28, to "prove' that Christ's death was substitutionary, since the word for "for" in the Greek, was "anti" which you said means "instead of".
But, let us not ignore the great many verses concerning Christ's sacrificial death, in which the word in Greek is "huper" meaning "on our behalf". See Young's or other Concordance.
Starting with 1 Tim. 2:6 using the AV: "Who gave himself a ransom for (huper) all.
It is so important in Bible exegesis to consider all the scriptures. Here is a list with some quotations. "For" in every case means "on our behalf", not "instead of":
Luke 22:19, 22:20; John 6:51, 10:15, 11:50,51; Rom. 5:6 "..in due time Christ died for the ungodly", 5:8 "..while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us", 8:32; 1 Cor. 5:7, 15:3; 2 Cor.5:14 "For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if One died for all, then were all dead", 5:15, 5:21; Gal. 1:4 "Who gave himself for our sins", 2:20, 3:13; Eph. 5:2, 5:25; 1 Thes. 5:10 "Jesus Christ who died for us"; Tit 2:14; Heb. 2:9; 1 Pet. 2:21, 3:18 "..Christ also hath once suffered...the just for the unjust..",
4:1; 1 John 3:16 "Hereby we see the love of God, because he said down his life for us".
This is compressed to save space. But look them up and know that Christ died on our behalf--not instread of us.
Sin,as a principle, was defeated at the cross. Now let us read 2Cor. 5:18-20
"And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us unto himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of
reconciliation."
Bick
