Did Jesus Die For All Humanity?

[Butch5]

While the above give many passages as examples relating to Christs' sacrifice as a ransom, it is also undeniable that Christ does pay a substitutionary atonement for the sins of those who believe. Passages which show a form of ransom are used by Arminians to suggest that Christ did not die as a form of penal substitution, and it is necessary to their doctrine to rule out any substitutionary atonment/propitiation. Of course, the reverse is not true, in that propititation does not rule out a form of ransom, whether it be general (4-point Calvinism) or limited to the elect (5-point Calvinism). Therefore, since the scripture mentions both a ransom and propitiation, only Calvinism allows for them to be reconciled, since propitition does not rule out a ransom for those who will believe, but on the other hand a general ransom rules out any form of propititation.

Also, any thoughts on my earlier post?

Could you please provide Scripture for this Penal Atonement?

[BroRog]

Greetings BroRog,

Either the Bible teaches atonement is limited or we must accept universalism.

Again, universal atonement only leads to universalism if we accept St. Anselm's understanding of the atonement. But St. Anselm was wrong and so we don't have a problem.

Atonement is a favorable exchange or reconciling back to God. Propitiation speaks of the atoning victim; e.g. Christ is the expiator.

Atonement and propitiation are two words for the same thing, and neither one requires a victim. The only requirement is that the offended party accept a remedy of some kind.

[Veretax]

This is kind of a tricky question. The bible says he died for all the sins of the world. That's not the question that needs asking. The question is whether Christs death on the cross, shedding of blood, and subsequent resurrection is effective for all the world (humanity) to be saved. Is it effectual in saving all, and the answer to that has to be no, because while Christ made the way to cross that great Chasm, it still takes a step of faith to come to him and accept that his sacrifice was sufficient for your own sins.

[revrobor]

Oh c'mon guys. Are we "right fighting" here? John 3:16 settles it. "For God so loved the world (mankind) that He gave His only Son the whosoever (anyone who chooses to follow Him) believes in Him (God) should not perish but have everlasting life". God made the offer, man must accept it or it doesn't do him any good and he will be lost. It's that simple. One's salvation does not depend on another's interpretation of Scripture. As long as the above criteria is met one is saved.

[PilgrimPastor]

Oh c'mon guys. Are we "right fighting" here? John 3:16 settles it. "For God so loved the world (mankind) that He gave His only Son the whosoever (anyone who chooses to follow Him) believes in Him (God) should not perish but have everlasting life". God made the offer, man must accept it or it doesn't do him any good and he will be lost. It's that simple. One's salvation does not depend on another's interpretation of Scripture. As long as the above criteria is met one is saved.

The question in question... is "What did John mean by the world?" IF Christ died for the world, then are ALL people saved in Christ regardless of belief? IF Christ died for the whole world to make salvation available then why do some not believe? IF Christ died only for the elect then what does that imply about the inherent worth of the non-elect?

John 3:16 settles why Christ came but not for whom definitively.

I know where you are coming from but theology does matter as it drives our work for the kingdom. Even those who espouse a "don't give me theology only the Bible" have a theology, it is usually just unnamed...

[revrobor]

The question in question... is "What did John mean by the world?" IF Christ died for the world, then are ALL people saved in Christ regardless of belief? IF Christ died for the whole world to make salvation available then why do some not believe? IF Christ died only for the elect then what does that imply about the inherent worth of the non-elect?

John 3:16 settles why Christ came but not for whom definitively.
.

"WHOSOEVER". In other words Anyone WHO CHOOSES to accept the salvation offered NOT everyone regardless. Why is that so hard to understand?

[PilgrimPastor]

Bill

You are asking me to read every passage in that list before replying to you? I have three degrees in biblical studies and I have been in the word heavily for several years... while appreciate your invitation to read 1/3 of the Bible right now, I'll pass.

In fact, if the criteria of my being "wrong" or "Right" hinges upon that assignment, then you're right and I'm wrong...

[PilgrimPastor]

"WHOSOEVER". In other words Anyone WHO CHOOSES to accept the salvation offered NOT everyone regardless. Why is that so hard to understand?

I'm not defending that position, it is pretty easy to understand... I was offering commentary on the discussion.

[embankmentlb]

Oh c'mon guys. Are we "right fighting" here? John 3:16 settles it. "For God so loved the world (mankind) that He gave His only Son the whosoever (anyone who chooses to follow Him) believes in Him (God) should not perish but have everlasting life". God made the offer, man must accept it or it doesn't do him any good and he will be lost. It's that simple. One's salvation does not depend on another's interpretation of Scripture. As long as the above criteria is met one is saved.

Man, that is about as clear cut a statement as one can get.

[Butch5]

This is kind of a tricky question. The bible says he died for all the sins of the world. That's not the question that needs asking. The question is whether Christs death on the cross, shedding of blood, and subsequent resurrection is effective for all the world (humanity) to be saved. Is it effectual in saving all, and the answer to that has to be no, because while Christ made the way to cross that great Chasm, it still takes a step of faith to come to him and accept that his sacrifice was sufficient for your own sins.

Hi V,

Think of it this way. Did Christ die for all humanity? Yes. Mankind was in bondage to Satan and sin, Christ died to redeem mankind. He did that. Jesus said in John that man is condemned already because he does not believe, not because of sin. The problem is with Anselm's model of the atonement, which says that Christ paid the price for sins to appease the wrath of God. Under this model, if we say that Christ died for all of mankind, we wind up with universalism, or we haveto break it down and say was it effectual for all mankind? However, if we reject Anselm's model for the original model, the Classic view, which is much more in depth, we have Christ giving Himself as a sacrificial lamb to buy back (redeem) from the kidnapper (Satan) God's beloved creation. In the Classic view there is no payment to God. If we look at Scripture there is no mention of a payment to God. I believe there are serious problems with Anselm's model, the main one being this, if Christ paid the price for our sins, what is there for God to forgive? There is no need to forgive a debt that has been paid.

[PilgrimPastor]

Butch,

Good thoughts. Indeed the ransom theory makes sense of some of this but what about the rather highly elevated position it gives Satan? Christ HAD to die to buy us back from a being inferior to Himself? I'll admit that the warfare view and ransom theory do alleviate some of the problems with Anselm's understanding of the atonement, but is it perhaps at too high a price?

[RogerW]

We don't become sinners because we sin??? Tell that to Paul,

Romans 6:16 ( KJV )
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Paul says we're the servant of sin if we yield to sin, not that we yield to sin because we are sinners.

Can you provide Scripture to support your claim that no one would come to the light. Especially when Christ has given light to every person born?

John 1:6-9 ( KJV )
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

Every man born in Adam, is born to die...why?

John is simply saying that Christ is the True Light, and that all "through Him" might believe. He is not saying, as you imply that Christ gives Light to every man. If he were he would be contradicting what he has already said.

Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

When John says, "which lighteth every man that cometh into the world" it is simply an expression denoting the whole human race. Jesus came to be a light to lighten the Gentiles, as well as the Jews.

Lu 2:32 A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.

Scripture makes it plain that Christ being the Light that brings Light to the whole humanity does not mean that every man can or does embrace The True Light of Christ.

Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

So who will come to the True Light of Christ? Not the world because the world does not know Him (Pretty much encompasses every human). Not His own (Hebrew people; Jews) because His own will not receive Him. It is only those who receive Him, to them alone He GIVES (not offers) power to become sons of God. These alone believe on His name, being born of God alone (not of blood, not of the flesh, nor of the will of man)!

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
Joh 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Joh 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Many Blessings,
RW

[RogerW]

If you got notice of a large inheritance but you must notify the bank of your address etc and sign to receive this money, would you make an issue that it is not a free gift since you had to do something to get it?

Greetings Alaska,

This really isn't a very good comparison of salvation. We can use your analogy with a few changes to make is useful in defining how we become saved. The free gift of salvation, like a large inheritance, is GIVEN to our account but we don't have to do anything to receive the inheritance. It simply goes into our account because the One GIVING the inheritance has already done all the necessary work, and since this inheritance is ours because it is GIVEN by His grace, through His gift of faith, we simply receive all the benefits of salvation without any work at all to help save ourselves. We don't want to confuse obedience that comes after salvation with salvation by grace alone.

This is the way it must be because the GIVER of this great inheritance insists that His gift is of His grace alone, otherwise it will not be of His grace, but of debt. He (the GIVER of this inheritance) will not share His glory with us! Lest we begin to think He is some how indebted to us, giving us something we neither earn nor deserve...we MUST UNDERSTAND salvation is all of grace from beginning to end!

'Saved...not of works' is a horrible lie when applied to the idea that nothing a person can do can somehow connect to their salvation.
Would we say that nothing the person can do can effect whether or not he gets the inheritance?

Don't make the mistake of confusing salvation and obedience. This was the mistake the Jews made thinking they could some how earn righteousness before God by the good works they do (keeping the law). Yes, we are called (after salvation) to obedience! If we profess to be in Christ...then obey His commands, not to be saved but because we are saved.

The strength the person finds to respond to the gospel message is attributed to the grace of God in Christ that results from believing in him.

This is true! But don't forget even our ability to believe (saving faith) is a gift that comes from His grace.

The change a believer undergoes in behaviour and outlook is not something they can take credit for: it is not of themselves lest they should boast for it is God that works in them to both will and do of his good pleasure: these changes are God's workmanship.

Amen!

A gospel not encouraging yielding to God's grace and hence living a godly life; a gospel not associating 'saved' with 'changed' is a false gospel and a false grace worthy of the most scathing condemnation.

Again I say Amen!

Many Blessings,
RW

[RogerW]

Again, universal atonement only leads to universalism if we accept St. Anselm's understanding of the atonement. But St. Anselm was wrong and so we don't have a problem.

I have never so much as heard of St. Anselm, little lone read his understanding of atonement. My understanding of limited atonement comes from the Bible!

Atonement and propitiation are two words for the same thing, and neither one requires a victim. The only requirement is that the offended party accept a remedy of some kind.

Before I comment, perhaps you could restate this. I'm not sure I understand you.

Many Blessings,
RW

[Sirus]

This is true! But don't forget even our ability to believe (saving faith) is a gift that comes from His grace.

Hi Roger, are you talking about the faith all have or or the often misinterpreted Eph 2:8 faith that people think is the gift? It says 'through faith' (the means by which) we obtain the gift grace/salvation.

To answer the thread question, yes, of course Jesus died for all.