Did Jesus Christ die for the sins of all men or only for the sins of the elect? The Arminian or non-Reformed view of salvation holds to the work of Christ on the cross being as being for all men. In this view, Christ dies for the sins of all men to make salvation possible. It is then made effective upon the acceptance of man, those that reject this gift of salvation are then sent to the eternal flames of hell. What then becomes of those that never heard the gospel? They had their sins paid on calvary but yet never rejected the offer of salvation, do they perish as well? Upon what basis do they, the ones that never heard the gospel and thus never rejected it, get sent to hell since Christ died for their sins as well? Does God take a double payment?
God has received payment for the sins of all men by the sacrifice made by Jesus, he then takes payment from the individual for the very same sins that Jesus already paid, is this not double jeopardy? There are a few problems with holding to a universal atonement. Lets use the American Indian as an example. Prior to the colonization of the north American continent by Spain, France and England in the early part of the 16th century, the Indians did not have anyone presenting them with the gospel and thus did not reject the gospel. If they are then saved because their sins were atoned by Christ then salvation is possible without ever knowing Christ as Lord and savior. If they are not saved and are sent to hell then God is receiving a double payment for those sins.
Among those that hold to a reformed view of salvation the atoning work of Christ is only efficacious for the elect. In my opinion, had God wanted all men without exception to be saved, Jesus would not have to do anymore than he already did but His work is meant only for those whom God predestined unto salvation. Therefore, because God decreed that only those whom He called will be saved, the perfect work of Jesus on the cross is limited only to the elect.
I will be discussing the topic of salvation and try to get into more specifics and provide scriptural references in future posts. I may take the time and go through the Ordo Salutis from the Reformed perspective. Remember… Calvinism is a nick name for biblical Christianity ;-)
You know recently i’ve been reading about this as well and I’m still battling with the two views, they seem pretty convincing to me..the thing is the Limited Atonement is just, I don’t know…it kind of discourages me from going out into the world and preaching the gospel, because well if wide is the gate and broad the path that leads to destruction and narrow the door and straight the path that leads to salvation and not many will find it, then not many are of the “Elect” and while i’m eternally thankful to have been saved I feel sorrow for those that were/aren’t/will not be drawn by the Father…while with Universal Atonement there is that dilemma of the one’s who’ve never heard of the gospel and are going to hell because well they just didn’t know (actually its because of their own sin, but if no one tells them how will they know?)…But at least one knows that everyone has a chance to be saved as opposed to the Limited atonement argument…. ArGHH!! you see its justtt I don’t know…
And the arguments i’ve heard for each side, “For God so loved the ‘world’…” is this word world referring to the elect? or the ENTIRE planet? etc..
And what about Acts 17:30 where God commands all men to repent?
And Hebrews 2:9? “…so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.” everyone meaning the entire human race? or everyone of the elect??
If it interests you, this archive has some challenges to the double-payment dilemma from some surprising sources. <a href=”http://calvinandcalvinism.wordpress.com/category/double-jeopardydouble-payment/
David
ack
Double Jeopardy/Double Payment
see if that works
Flynn, thanks for the link and also thanks for coming by!
Rita, I want to write a post in support of limited atonement where I will go through all verses that deal with the topic, even those that may seem to support universal atonement.
Let me try and address, on a very superficial level, the verses you have posted and later I can do something a little more thorough, Lord willing.
Hebrews 2:9 “… so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.” If taking that verse on it’s own we can conclude that Jesus tasted death for all but in v.10 we read “… in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering.” in verse 11 we continue reading “For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one origin. That is why id not ashamed to call them brothers”
In verse 10 Jesus brings many sons to glory, not all. By following the “everyone” in verse 9, verse 10 defines who the “everyone” of verse 9 was. Jesus does not bring everyone to glory nor does he perfect everyone through His suffering. In verse 11, Jesus is sanctifying the sanctified and he calls the ones whom he sanctified brothers. Jesus does not sanctify nor is not now sanctifying everyone, only those whom He has brought to glory, perfected through His suffering.
Acts 17:30 does not directly speak of the issue of universal atonement.
In John 3:16, Gods love is demonstrated by sending Jesus to die for all the believing ones. The use of “so” is as a modifier. John is not stating that God loved the world “so” much but that God loved the world “in this manner, so that…” the words ’so’ and ‘that’ are modifiers in that sentence. There is no Greek word for for “whosoever”. In Greek the words for “whosoever believes” are “pas ho pisteuon” which Dr. James White, who was part of the translation team for the NASB update, translates as “all those believing”
So, it is not that God loves everyone in the world and sent Jesus to die for all of them hoping that some will believe, but that God demonstrates His love for the world, both Jew and Gentile by sending his Son to die for those believing.
okk i see now, thanks!:) I’m gonna read those verses again tonight..
Hey there
On Jn 3:16 one can take it as Calvin and many others have taken it. One does not need to create a false juxtaposition–as some do–of its either absolutely all mankind, who has lived, lives and will live, versus all kinds of elect.
If you wish check out some of posts in the Jn 3:16 and Heb 2:9 archives at Calvin and Calvinism
David
Just on this:
“In John 3:16, Gods love is demonstrated by sending Jesus to die for all the believing ones,”
thats not exactly correct. The object of the love is the world. And in Jn 12:47-48, the man who rejects Christ and is condemned at the last day is part of this world. The sentence structure in 12:48 is the same as in 3:17. Again I would encourage you to scope out Calvin on Jn 12:47-48 before you make any decision or claim as to what is and is not true Calvinism.
David
David, thanks for the comments.
Calvin is not the first and last word on salvation. The term “Calvinism” was not established by Calvin nor was it established in his lifetime.
The use of the word “world” by John is not the same in every instance. The word “world” is used differently in ch.3 than how it used in ch.17. In ch.3 you have Jesus dying for the “world” and in ch.17 Jesus is NOT praying for the world but for those whom the father has given Him.
There is no need to move away from ch.3, we can find the object of God’s love as well as for whom Christ died. It is my contention that God’s love for the world is demonstrated by the sending of His son to die for the believing ones.
The chapter begins with Nicodemus and Jesus and Jesus is speaking of being born again. Jesus is making a distinction in salvation between those who are born of the spirit and those who are not. Jesus then speaks of Moses and the serpent, there were those who died from the snakes and there were those that admitted their sin and were not killed by the snakes but saved by looking upon the serpent Moses raised up. I have already spoken on v. 16, but in v.18 the ones who do not believe are already condemned, not in the last day but already. If one says that according to v.16, Christ died for the world without exception then Christ also died for those that are already condemned. I say that Christ died for the world, without distinction not without exception.
David, the love that God is demonstrating by sending his son as a sacrifice is a saving love not a generic love.
Hey there,
You say:
Calvin is not the first and last word on salvation. The term “Calvinism” was not established by Calvin nor was it established in his lifetime.
David: Sure, but we do go by his name, so he does count for more. But there are others too, like Shedd, C Hodge, and Dabney, and again others, like Ball, Boston, and on it goes.
You say:
The use of the word “world” by John is not the same in every instance. The word “world” is used differently in ch.3 than how it used in ch.17. In ch.3 you have Jesus dying for the “world” and in ch.17 Jesus is NOT praying for the world but for those whom the father has given Him.
David: Well you see here is where modern scholarship is helping out. World for John primarily denotes apostate mankind, the world in darkness and in rebellion against God. See on this folk like Morris, Carson, Kostenberger, and others. This actually reflects the older view of mankind in degeneracy (Arrowsmith, Luther, et al).
So in that case the world in the instances you cite can be the same. For example, the world not prayed for is not the world of the reprobate, but the world of unbelief which is juxtaposed to the 11, for whom Jesus prays. Read the context of v9 and the world is set apart from the 11 apostles, not the elect.
Secondly, its incredibly impossible to allege that within the 1 verse, world undergoes 2 or more changes, the world he comes into, is the world he does not condemn, because it is the world he came to save v17. And in 12:47 the obvious point we are to make in answer to the implied question “why is this man not condemned?” An: “because I did not come to condemn this man, but to save this man, insofar as he is part of the world.
You say: There is no need to move away from ch.3, we can find the object of God’s love as well as for whom Christ died. It is my contention that God’s love for the world is demonstrated by the sending of His son to die for the believing ones.
David: But thats missing the syntax. The object of the love and the redemption is not limited to the believers. Ive used this example before: Harry loves his co-workers on the 7th floor (all of them), so he throws a party so that all who come will have the best party they have ever seen.
There is no need to suggest that the party was only for those who actually came, etc. God so loved the world that he gave his son in order that the ones who believe of this world, will not perish….
Its truer to the syntax, the following verse, and the preceding verse, etc.
You say:
The chapter begins with Nicodemus and Jesus and Jesus is speaking of being born again. Jesus is making a distinction in salvation between those who are born of the spirit and those who are not. Jesus then speaks of Moses and the serpent, there were those who died from the snakes and there were those that admitted their sin and were not killed by the snakes but saved by looking upon the serpent Moses raised up. I have already spoken on
David: thats a good example too. The structure of v15 is very much similar.
John 3:14 “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; 15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.
The gift and provision of the bronze serpent was for the whole people. The provision was not only for the ones who looked up. It was God’s gift to all the nation, so that anyone of the nation who was bitten and who looked up would be saved. Its exactly proper and parallel to gift of the Son to the world, as provision.
You say:
v. 16, but in v.18 the ones who do not believe are already condemned, not in the last day but already. If one says that according to v.16, Christ died for the world without exception then Christ also died for those that are already condemned. I say that Christ died for the world, without distinction not without exception.
David: What does ‘all without distinction’ mean? In classic thought it meant ‘all without this or that distinction.’ What is more, now we say ‘all without any exception.’ ‘All without exception’ was taken actually much the same way in the old days, as no one literally thought it meant everyone without any possible exception. But today… well it now has its own baggage.
So lets go back ‘all without distinction’ means ‘all without this or that distinction’ (eg race, sex etc). Since when did it mean some of all without distinction? Thats what you really want, is it not?
You say:
David, the love that God is demonstrating by sending his son as a sacrifice is a saving love not a generic love.
David: Well folk like Calvin, Ball, and Dabney said it was the love that seeks the salvation of all men. Calvin called it the first degree of love, electing being the third; and this first degree is to all without exception. Those three alone are pretty well credentialed as far as being “reformed” goes.
Anyway, thanks for reading. I would encourage you to scope out other trajectories within mainstream Calvinist thought. It helps no one if we imagine that there was and is only one version of true historic Calvinism.
take care,
David
I am more than astonished that you would use the analogy of “Harry and the party”. This is the type of analogy that Arminians use to support their interpretation of that verse. I am also amazed that you do not see the difference in the the “world” that God loved with the “world” that Jesus was sent into and with the “world” that will be saved.
The Doctrines of Grace are all intertwined and they all follow each other logically.
You never offered an exegesis of John 3:16, you never commented on the use of “so” and “that” as modifiers, you only alluded to comments made by others that you never even bothered to footnote or at the very least posted their comments.
“Thus we see three degrees of the love of God as shown us in our Lord Jesus Christ. The first is in respect of the redemption that was purchased in the person of him that gave himself to death for us, and became accursed to reconcile us to God his father. That is the first degree of love, which extends to all men, inasmuch as Jesus Christ reaches out his arms to call and allure all men both great and small, and to win them to him. But there is a special love for those to whom the gospel is preached: which is that God testifies unto them that he will make them partakers of that benefit that was purchased for them by the death and passion of his son. ”
This from the link you had left, from Calvin’s commentary on John 3:16… does not this last sentence show the difference in love?
Yo have you ever read “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ” by John Owen? Its by far the best argument against universal atonement ever written (apart from you know, Scripture;)
If you don’t get a chance to read it, at least read JI Packer’s introduction. One of the things Packer points out is that those who hold to universal atonement really reduce the atonement to a jar of healing balm sitting on top of a dresser. It has no merrit and power of its own, rather it sits there waiting for a person to come along and apply it to themselves.