For whom did the Lord Jesus Christ die? (And why is it important?)

[Kimberley Tobin]

I'm not going to even enter into the fray with this discussion (I think it distracts from what this BB is attempting to do for those who are trying to heal and for those who are still in the assembly searching for answers.)

However, I think there are greater points to bring out re: Calvanism on this BB which deals with grace.  Salvation is of the Lord, the Lord is the one who saves people and brings them all the way to his blessed intention.  There is nothing we can do to add or take away from his work.  IT IS ALL OF GRACE!  This is the blessed truth of Calvanism.  It is liberating.  Now, I no longer have to strive to "enter in", but rely on the wonderful work of my savior on the cross to do all in my life that He has intended.  What a BLESSED TRUTH.  

Let's dialogue about these wonderful truths here, that those who are in bondage to the law can be delivered from their "striving" for the inheritance.  

I love you all.

[H]

Dear Tom and Bob,

Thank you for your courteous posts. Unfortunately, I don't have time to compose a detailed response to your posts right now, but I can point you to some material which may be helpful. I have no problems with I John 2:2, correctly understood. As a matter of fact, in my opinion, it is one of the easiest "proof texts" to deal with (there are others which I find much more difficult). Take a look at these pages:

http://www.ids.org/ids/limit.html
http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/calvinism/full.asp?ID=272

Regarding I Tim. 2:4, you might want to take a look at this page:

http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/calvinism/full.asp?ID=267

That's all I have time for now. May the Lord bless you richly!

Love in Christ,
H

[VinnieGalati]

Tom,  

    I remember hearing a true story of several whales that went upstream too

far in the cold icy waters of the Peugot Sound (I think, but could be in Alaska before I get corrected).  Many people were trying to rescue them. The only solution was to cut holes in the ice so the whales could escape the icy waters and return to the ocean.  "Many" of the whales made it safely by coming up for air in the ice cutouts and returning out.  Not all did. Some perished and died. What was the difference between those that were saved and those that perished?  The whales that came up through the ice holes to breathe lived. They availed themselves of the opportunity given them.  Were the rescuers choosing which whales to save?  Of course not.

I have always likened that account to salvation. Receive the free gift (available to all, not to preselected) and you will live. Reject this offer and the only choice is death.

Tom, once again thanks for your thoughts in response to the questions raised.  

[VinnieGalati]

P.S.-  Can one of you chipheads out there give me a quick lesson.  I want my posts to fill up the whole page to the left and not just be in the middle. What do I need to adjust? Thanks, VPG

[Bob Sturnfield]

P.S.-  Can one of you chipheads out there give me a quick lesson.  I want my posts to fill up the whole page to the left and not just be in the middle. What do I need to adjust? Thanks, VPG

Add spaces after your commas

[jesusfreak]

P.S.-  Can one of you chipheads out there give me a quick lesson.  I want my posts to fill up the whole page to the left and not just be in the middle. What do I need to adjust? Thanks, VPG

More specifically, go into your profile, and fix your signature with spaces after each comma.  It is currently reading your signature phrase as one long word.

[VinnieGalati]

Thanks to all you who helped me out. Next time, I will not break up the thread, but will instead e-mail someone to get an answer like that.

So, can we get another theological searching of the Scriptures going?    How about forgiveness of sins?  What opened my eyes to the legalism and bondage I was involved with in my assy. experience was seeing I was totally forgiven when I believed.  I always knew God forgave and would forgive. I just never knew He did it all- already.  In other words, all my sins were in the future when Jesus died. Therefore, they are all forgiven- past present and future now. How could there be one out there not forgiven when the word says "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness"?  We all would agree that Jesus is not shedding anymore blood. We gave that theology up long ago when we left the Catholic church.
So then, what is left for me?  Does this mean I can do whatever I please because I am forgiven? Seems to indicate that  until you see the whole gospel.  The first half deals with our sins at the cross. They were completely dealt with. That is why Jesus was able to honestly say "It is finished".  How could He if we still had to ask for forgiveness each and every sin-thats not finished.  The second half is truly the best news for us here and now though. The resurrection of Christ is what gives us Christ's Life living in and through us each day. The Spirit of God now has to be my controlling force. Not the LB's, the assy, or George. Now the key word is responsibility. I can do this or do that, but does it edify is the question. I now must walk in love because I am free to, not because I fear judgment from God if I don't.  This is the true reality of the New Covenant I never came close to seeing in the assembly.  Actually, when I did see it I was in the assembly.  As a result of seeing this revelation of God's grace and love however, I was thrown out of the assy. and told to say nothing about this to the saints- even in private conversations. Once you see, you don't need the assy. anymore. You have the Holy Spirit to control you.  What does everyone think? Any clarifications, hedges, if, ands, or buts to add?  God Bless- VPG  

[H]

I still don't have time to compose a detailed response to Tom and Bob, so I will just paste Arthur Pink's discussion of I John 2:2. He does a fairly thorough job of explaining it, and I believe his interpretation is correct. If any of you can see any errors in his reasoning, please point them out to me. I am willing to listen.

H


"5. "And He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." (1 John 2:2) This is the passage which, apparently, most favors the view we are now rebutting, and yet if it be considered attentively it will he seen that it does so only in appearance, and not in reality. Below we offer a number of conclusive proofs to show that this verse does not teach that Christ has propitiated God on behalf of all the sins of all men.

In the first place, the fact that this verse opens with "and" necessarily links it with what has gone before. We, therefore, give a literal, word for word translation of 1 John 2:1 from Bagster's Interlinear: "Little children my, these things I write to you, that ye may not sin; and if any one should sin, a Paraclete we have with the Father, Jesus Christ (the) righteous." It will thus be seen that the apostle John is here writing to and about the saints of God. His immediate purpose was two-fold: first, to communicate a message that would keep God's children from sinning; second, to supply comfort and assurance to those who might sin, and, in consequence, be cast down and fearful that the issue would prove fatal. He, therefore, makes known to them the provision which God has made for just such an emergency. This we find at the end of v. 1 and throughout v. 2. The ground of comfort is twofold: let the downcast and repentant believer (1 John 1:9) be assured that, first, he has an "Advocate with the Father"; second, that this Advocate is "the propitiation for our sins." Now believers only may take comfort from this, for they alone have an "Advocate," for them alone is Christ the propitiation, as is proven by linking the Propitiation ("and") with "the Advocate"!

In the second place, if other passages in the New Testament, which speak of "propitiation" be compared with 1 John 2:2, it will be found that it is strictly limited in its scope. For example, in Rom. 3:25 we read that God set forth Christ "a propitiation through faith in His blood." If Christ is a propitiation "through faith," then He is not a "propitiation" to those who have no faith! Again, in Heb. 2:17 we read, "To make propitiation for the sins of the people." (Heb. 2:17, R. V.)

In the third place, who are meant when John says, "He is the propitiation for our sins"? We answer, Jewish believers. Part of the proof on which we base this assertion we now submit to the careful attention of the reader.

In Gal. 2:9 we are told that John, together with James and Cephas, were apostles "unto the circumcision" (i. e. Israel). In keeping with this, the Epistle of James is addressed to "the twelve tribes, which are scattered abroad." (1:1) So, the first Epistle of Peter is addressed to "the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion." (1 Peter 1:1, R. V.) And John also is writing to saved Israelites, but for saved Jews and saved Gentiles.

Evidences that John is writing to saved Jews are as follows. (a) In the opening verse he says of Christ, "Which we have seen with our eyes . . . and our hands have handled." How impossible it would have been for the apostle Paul to have commenced any of his epistles to Gentile saints with such language!

(b) "Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning." (1 John 2:7) The "beginning" here referred to is the beginning of the public manifestation of Christ-in proof compare 1:1; 2:13, etc. Now these believers the apostle tells us, had the "old commandment" from the beginning. This was true of Jewish believers, but it was not true of Gentile believers.

(c) "I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known Him from the beginning." (2:13) Here, again, it is evident that it is Jewish believers that are in view.

(d) "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us." (2:18, 19) These brethren to whom John wrote had "heard" from Christ Himself that Antichrist should come (see Matt. 24). The "many antichrists" whom John declares "went out from us" were all Jews, for during the first century none but a Jew posed as the Messiah. Therefore, when John says "He is the propitiation for our sins," he can only mean for the sins of Jewish believers." [It is true that many things in John's Epistle apply equally to believing Jews and believing Gentiles. Christ is the Advocate of the one, as much as of the other. The same may be said of many things in the Epistle of James.]

In the fourth place, when John added, "And not for ours only, but also for the whole world," he signified that Christ was the propitiation for the sins of the Gentile believers too, for, as previously shown, "the world" is a term contrasted from Israel. This interpretation is unequivocally established by a careful comparison of 1 John 2:2 with John 11:51, 52, which is a strictly parallel passage: "And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also He should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad." Here Caiaphas, under inspiration, made known for whom Jesus should "die." Notice now the correspondency of his prophecy with this declaration of John's:

"He is the propitiation for our (believing Israelites) sins."
"He prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation."
"And not for ours only."
"And not for that nation only."
"But also for the whole world"- That is, Gentile believers scattered throughout the earth.
"He should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad."

In the fifth place, the above interpretation is confirmed by the fact that no other is consistent or intelligible. If the "whole world" signifies the whole human race, then the first clause and the "also" in the second clause are absolutely meaningless. It Christ be the propitiation for everybody, it would be idle tautology to say, first, "He is the propitiation for our sins and also for everybody." There could be no "also" if He be the propitiation for the entire human family. Had the apostle meant to affirm that Christ is a universal propitiation he had omitted the first clause of v. 2, and simply said, "He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world."

In the sixth place, our definition of "the whole world" is in perfect accord with other passages in the New Testament. For example: "Whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the Gospel; which is come unto you, as it is in all the world." (Col. 1:5,6) Does "all the world" here mean, absolutely and unqualifiedly, all mankind? Had all the human family heard the Gospel? No; the apostle's obvious meaning is that the Gospel, instead of being confined to the land of Judea, had gone abroad, without restraint, into Gentile lands. So in Rom. 1:8: "First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world." The apostle is here referring to the faith of these Roman saints being spoken of in a way of commendation. But certainly all mankind did not so speak of their faith! It was the whole world of believers that he was referring to! In Rev. 12:9 we read of Satan "which deceiveth the whole world." But again this expression cannot he understood as a universal one, for Matt. 24:24 tells us that Satan does not and cannot "deceive" God's elect. Here it is "the whole world" of unbelievers.

In the seventh place, to insist that "the whole world" in 1 John 2:2 signifies the entire human race is to undermine the very foundations of our faith. If Christ be the propitiation for those that are lost equally as much as for those that are saved, then what assurance have we that believers too may not be lost? If Christ be the propitiation for those now in hell, what guarantee have I that I may not end in hell? The blood-shedding of the incarnate Son of God is the only thing which can keep any one out of hell, and if many for whom that precious blood made propitiation are now in the awful place of the damned, then may not that blood prove inefficacious for me! Away with such a God-dishonoring thought.

However men may quibble and wrest the Scriptures, one thing is certain: The Atonement is no failure. God will not allow that precious and costly sacrifice to fail in accomplishing, completely, that which it was designed to effect. Not a drop of that holy blood was shed in vain. In the last great Day there shall stand forth no disappointed and defeated Savior, but One who "shall see of the travail of His soul and be satisfied." (Isa. 53:11)"

[AaronC]

H--

You haven't had any takers on your Reformed thread.  That doesn't mean that you're not right.

Aaron Cantrell

[moonflower]

I can hear that ball and chain of Calvinsim clanging, so let's keep this simple.
The word "world" means the world and everyone in it. To say that it means anything less would be saying that His nail holes weren't deep enough; that there are some sins that were not covered at the cross. Jesus spent time in hell, separated from the Father. Can it get any worse than that? Could He have done anything more?  It was a finished work.
No one can give excuse that he was 'predestined' for eternal damnation before he even took his first breath, and can't help but sin.
God created man with a will, and even a gift has to be received. The unsaved, being fooled by the enemy, have chosen to reject the gift.  We receive salvation by grace thru faith, just as we continue the Christian walk by grace thru faith. We choose to avail ourselves of His grace, and  by His grace thru faith we walk in the steps that He prepared beforehand (Eph. 2:10) to our foreordained inheritance that is available to all believers, if they choose His ways.
'Even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive...'

[H]

I can hear that ball and chain of Calvinsim clanging, so let's keep this simple.

Your reference to "that ball and chain of Calvinism clanging" gives me the impression that you have only been exposed to negative (legalistic) varieties of Calvinism. Keep in mind that there are many varieities of Calvinism and Calvinists, just as there are many varieties of Arminianism and Arminians. There are undoubtedly legalistic and obnoxious Calvinists, just like there are legalistic and obnoxious Arminians. Lumping all Calvinists into one group and judging them on the basis of your limited knowledge and experience of a few representatives is not really fair. Let me assure you, there are some nice Calvinists around! I know, because I have met some (not in my country, but in the USA and England).

The word "world" means the world and everyone in it.

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you on this point. The word in the Greek is "kosmos", and if you look it up in "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature" by W.F.Arndt and F.W.Gingrich, translated from Walter Bauer, you will discover that "kosmos" has at least 8 meanings, depending on the context. As a matter of fact, only rarely does it mean "the entire human race." If you don't believe me, go look it up yourself. Even in those places where “kosmos” refers to mankind, it doesn’t always refer to the entire human race. Let me just give you 2 examples. In 2 Pet. 2:5, “world” refers exclusively to unbelievers (“And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth [person], a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;”). God spared Noah and his family, so they are obviously not included in the “old world” and “the world of the ungodly”. In contrast, “world” in John 12 :19 refers exclusively to people who were “going after him (Jesus)” (“The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world is gone after him.”). There is absolutely no way that you can make “world” in this verse refer to the entire human race. It refers to a large, indefinite group of people who shared a common characteristic, namely “going after Jesus.” I believe that the same concept applies in John 3:16 and I John 2:2. In John 3:16, I believe “world” refers to “whosever believeth” (i.e., all true believers, all the elect, not just Jewish believers), and in I John 2:2, I believe “world” refers to all true believers among the Gentiles (the “our” refers to Jewish believers, as Pink explains in the material in my previous post; by the way, have you read it? If you feel his reasoning is wrong, could you point out where he is mistaken?).

To say that it means anything less would be saying that His nail holes weren't deep enough; that there are some sins that were not covered at the cross. Jesus spent time in hell, separated from the Father. Can it get any worse than that? Could He have done anything more?  It was a finished work.

I agree that it was a finished work, sufficient for the entire human race, and there is nothing that can be added to it. That is not the issue. The issue is “FOR WHOM was this finished work INTENDED?” ALL the sins of those for whom it was intended were indeed paid for, which is precisely why it cannot have been intended for everybody, because not everybody will be saved. If ALL the sins of ALL men were paid for, then nobody would go to hell.

No one can give excuse that he was 'predestined' for eternal damnation before he even took his first breath, and can't help but sin.
God created man with a will, and even a gift has to be received. The unsaved, being fooled by the enemy, have chosen to reject the gift.  

I agree that all the lost will be “without excuse” (Romans 1:20). They do have a will and they do choose to reject God. They will suffer the consequences.

We receive salvation by grace thru faith, just as we continue the Christian walk by grace thru faith. We choose to avail ourselves of His grace, and  by His grace thru faith we walk in the steps that He prepared beforehand (Eph. 2:10) to our foreordained inheritance that is available to all believers, if they choose His ways.
'Even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive...'

I agree with this also! The question is, WHY do we “choose to avail ourselves of His grace”? I believe it is because He first chose us (Eph. 1:4-5)! How else can someone who is “dead in trespasses” suddenly come to life? Did Lazarus arise from his grave because he decided to come back to life, or was it because the Lord decided to raise him up from the dead?

That’s all for now. May the Lord richly bless you!

Love in Christ,
H

[Joe Sperling]

I love the writings of Arthur Pink but I could never accept a limited atonement teaching. To H I believe when the word US is used in many cases it means mankind--us--human beings. I've always believed(perhaps there is no biblical basis for this) that the BEST of something you can think of would represent the character of God. What is greater and better: a God who only died for "his own" leaving the rest to spend eternity in hell, or a God who died for ALL, giving EVERYONE a chance to be with him. Remember, the Bible says that the lake of fire was "reserved for the Devil and his angels" it doesn't say "reserved for the devil and his angels and all not atoned for". The Lake of fire is not meant for man, even though we know man will be there. To me the greater and best would be a God who died for ALL for it shows the greater love. "Behold, I stand at the door and knock, if ANYONE hear my voice and open the door, I will come into him and sup with him and he with me".  This was spoken to a church, Laodicea---but isn't Christ ALREADY inside a true believer? But he is asking ANYONE who hears his voice to open the door. To limit the atonement to me is to limit God himself.   --Joe

[brian]

Pink's not as smart as H here, mind you, but a "fairly thorough" job will do for us morons until H has the time to go through the original language for refinements.
Actually, this fellow H was totally humiliated in his reasoning on http://www.geftakyslodge.com, and the editor there didn't put up with his nonsense.

this is a rather meanspirited response. humiliation is a pretty lousy goal.

an open forum debate is only useful if the ones participating in it have the maturity not to resort to namecalling and personal attacks. if you disagree with something you read, simply present your side of the argument. writing posts like the one i quoted just ruins your credibility. if you are spoiling for an angry brawl you came to the wrong place.

[H]

In response to Joe Sperling's post, I would just like to quote an extract from Spurgeon (taken from this page:
http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/calvinism/full.asp?ID=402

"Some persons love the doctrine of universal atonement because they say, "It is so beautiful. It is a lovely idea that Christ should have died for all men; it commends itself," they say, "to the instincts of humanity; there is something in it full of joy and beauty." I admit there is, but beauty may be often associated with falsehood. There is much which I might admire in the theory of universal redemption, but I will just show what the supposition necessarily involves. If Christ on His cross intended to save every man, then He intended to save those who were lost before He died. If the doctrine be true, that He died for all men, then He died for some who were in hell before He came into this world, for doubtless there were even then myriads there who had been cast away because of their sins.

Once again, if it was Christ’s intention to save all men, how deplorably has He been disappointed, for we have His own testimony that there is a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and into that pit of woe have been cast some of the very persons who, according to the theory of universal redemption, were bought with His blood. That seems to me a conception a thousand times more repulsive than any of those consequences which are said to be associated with the Calvinistic and Christian doctrine of special and particular redemption. To think that my Savior died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of divine justice. That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins for which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity that could ever have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of the Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities. God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise and good!"

Love in Christ,
H

[Joe Sperling]

H----
Perhaps you are correct--I really don't know. According to Scripture No one is in the lake of fire at the present time---
they will only be cast there AFTER judgement day. Why should they spend an eternity in hell? I have always believed it is because they REJECTED an ETERNAL provision which could have kept them from entering there. If someone suffered death to provide you an outlet and you reject it, you have put yourself in the position of loss. If Christ did not die for those who wind up in hell, isn't it far more monstrous that God would never have even given them a CHANCE? To me that is far more monstrous of an idea--that God would create people, put them on earth, knowing they NEVER will have a chance to be saved and will be eternally DAMNED. It indeed is monstrous that Christ would die for people who wind up lost---that is why they will be ETERNALLY lost----they rejected an ETERNAL provision.  But thanks for your input H---This is one of those discussions, like pre-trib or post-trib etc. that we will really never know until that day when the Lord reveals all. take care,  Joe