Sufficient but not efficient?

[Dachaser]

Christ dying for all yet only the elect receive it, implies that part of His sacrifice was meaningless.


Hypothetical universalism has been posited by some, but it's a doctrine that is not commonly shared. It cannot be stated biblically.

That would be the so called 4 points of Grace position?
Could not Jesus death had been due to the sins of all humanity, but he did not personally die in the stead as penal substitution save for His own elect?
Just trying to see how we can take the scriptures when they talk og Him as a death for the whole world, and not try to force my own views unto it?

 

[timfost]

So Calvin would have seen it as being that Jesus died just for the sins of the elect, correct?

Calvin:

"He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him."

Heidelberg 37:

"What do you understand by the word “suffered”? That all the time He lived on earth, but especially at the end of His life, He bore, in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race; in order that by His suffering, as the only atoning sacrifice, He might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, and obtain for us the grace of God, righteousness, and eternal life."

But is there not also the position also posted here that Jesus death was for all sinners, and yet God intended it to be effectual and applied saving grace towards just the elect in Christ?

Hodge, who wrote against Hypothetical universalism, stated:

"Augustinians readily admit that the death of Christ had a relation to man, to the whole human family, which it had not to the fallen angels. It is the ground on which salvation is offered to every creature under heaven who hears the gospel; but it gives no authority for a like offer to apostate angels. It moreover secures to the whole race at large, and to all classes of men, innumerable blessings, both providential and religious. It was, of course, designed to produce these effects; and, therefore, He died to secure them. In view of the effects which the death of Christ produces on the relation of all mankind to God, it has in all ages been customary with Augustinians to say that Christ died ‘suffcienter proomnibus, efficaciter tantum pro electi—’ sufficiently for all, efficaciously only for the elect. There is a sense, therefore, in which He died for all, and there is a sense in which He died for the elect alone."

I'm not asking everyone to agree with me, but we should represent historic reformed theology accurately.

 

[Dachaser]

Calvin:

"He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him."

Heidelberg 37:

"What do you understand by the word “suffered”? That all the time He lived on earth, but especially at the end of His life, He bore, in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race; in order that by His suffering, as the only atoning sacrifice, He might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, and obtain for us the grace of God, righteousness, and eternal life."



Hodge, who wrote against Hypothetical universalism, stated:

"Augustinians readily admit that the death of Christ had a relation to man, to the whole human family, which it had not to the fallen angels. It is the ground on which salvation is offered to every creature under heaven who hears the gospel; but it gives no authority for a like offer to apostate angels. It moreover secures to the whole race at large, and to all classes of men, innumerable blessings, both providential and religious. It was, of course, designed to produce these effects; and, therefore, He died to secure them. In view of the effects which the death of Christ produces on the relation of all mankind to God, it has in all ages been customary with Augustinians to say that Christ died ‘suffcienter proomnibus, efficaciter tantum pro electi—’ sufficiently for all, efficaciously only for the elect. There is a sense, therefore, in which He died for all, and there is a sense in which He died for the elect alone."

I'm not asking everyone to agree with me, but we should represent historic reformed theology accurately.

So per Calvin and Hodge, then Jesus did die for the sins of all humanity, but that death avails itself in a real way towards just the elect?

 

[Jack K]

Just trying to see how we can take the scriptures when they talk og Him as a death for the whole world, and not try to force my own views unto it?

I wonder if you are stuck on one (incorrect) way to read "for the whole world."

One way to read that phrase would be as if it meant "for every person who ever lived." But that's not what it says. And as Calvin pointed out in the commentary quoted earlier, it is much more likely to mean "for people in every part of the world" or "to reclaim the world." Those phrases better fit the context of the Bible passages you're dealing with. It means that people everywhere, not just Jews, may believe and be saved. It also means the salvation Christ has accomplished is reclaiming the whole world that was lost to sin. In those senses, Christ's death absolutely is "for the whole world," yet he did not die for every individual. Be careful not to force an American, individualist understanding on a passage that isn't even addressing that issue.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

So per Calvin and Hodge, then Jesus did die for the sins of all humanity, but that death avails itself in a real way towards just the elect?

David,

You simply are not reading what has come before accurately, which leads to your emphatic and incorrect conclusion. To claim "Jesus did die for the sins of all humanity" without the qualifications that have been made plain is error. Stop doing this. Think about what has actually been said.

From the quoted portion of Calvin:

Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage

Note that from the full quote, Calvin, having denounced any view that would claim the sins of all mankind have expiated the wrath of God, implying Our Lord's sacrifice could not have been designed to do so, Calvin allows a commonly prevailing statement to be made, yet he does not wholly endorse the same, Calvin goes on to refuse that statement to be made concerning the very verse you are appealing to: 1 John 2:2. The verse in question simply does not teach what some would want it to teach.

As to Hodge:

It is the ground on which salvation is offered to every creature under heaven who hears the gospel; but it gives no authority for a like offer to apostate angels. It moreover secures to the whole race at large, and to all classes of men, innumerable blessings, both providential and religious. It was, of course, designed to produce these effects; and, therefore, He died to secure them. In view of the effects which the death of Christ produces on the relation of all mankind to God, it has in all ages been customary with Augustinians to say that Christ died ‘suffcienter proomnibus, efficaciter tantum pro electi—’ sufficiently for all, efficaciously only for the elect. There is a sense, therefore, in which He died for all, and there is a sense in which He died for the elect alone."

Here Hodge provides the grounding for the offer of the Gospel to those who actually hear the Gospel, those having ears to hear, not each and every person. Further, per Hodge, the sacrifice of Our Lord was designed to secure these providential and religious blessings to all persons. This in no way implies salvific blessings to all persons. Hence, per Hodge, there is a sense in which He died for all and a sense in which He died for the elect alone.

 

[Dachaser]

David,

You simply are not reading what has come before accurately, which leads to your emphatic and incorrect conclusion. To claim "Jesus did die for the sins of all humanity" without the qualifications that have been made plain is error. Stop doing this. Think about what has actually been said.

From the quoted portion of Calvin:


Note that from the full quote, Calvin, having denounced any view that would claim the sins of all mankind have expiated the wrath of God, implying Our Lord's sacrifice could not have been designed to do so, Calvin allows a commonly prevailing statement to be made, yet he does not wholly endorse the same, Calvin goes on to refuse that statement to be made concerning the very verse you are appealing to: 1 John 2:2. The verse in question simply does not teach what some would want it to teach.

As to Hodge:


Here Hodge provides the grounding for the offer of the Gospel to those who actually hear the Gospel, those having ears to hear, not each and every person. Further, per Hodge, the sacrifice of Our Lord was designed to secure these providential and religious blessings to all persons. This in no way implies salvific blessings to all persons. Hence, per Hodge, there is a sense in which He died for all and a sense in which He died for the elect alone.

So if I am understanding you correctly on this issue, then the author would be defining just what the extent"for whole earth" really meant, and that was not for all sinners, correct?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

So if I am understanding you correctly on this issue, then the author would be defining just what the extent"for whole earth" really meant, and that was not for all sinners, correct?

Exactly who is "the author" in your question?
John in 1 John 2:2?
Calvin?
Hodge?

 

[timfost]

David,

The reason I've posted the quotes I have in this thread is to demonstrate some of the diversity on this issue. We all affirm that Christ died for the elect effectively and that His purposes are not thwarted or frustrated. As one who affirms that there is a sense that Christ died for all, I want to be very careful in how I promote this as the authors I have quoted very carefully define the parameters of their statements.

I agree with Patrick that you should be more careful in coming to quick conclusions as they often don't account for the nuanced parameters of the discussion. These debates are far bigger than what we can summarize into catch phrases. If you would like to understand the sense in which Christ died for all according to a number of the reformers, I would encourage you to read authors such as Hodge, Dabney, Ursinus and others. Davenant is a good read, but as I stated earlier, he gets caught up into a "conditional decree" of God and by this introduces a decree against a decree. I would also heavily caution against an Amyraldian ordering of God's decrees, as this takes what is a problem with Davenant and compounds it.

As one who has observed many of your posts, I would gently encourage you to use PuritanBoard more as a resource and not as a primary source. It is difficult for 21st century people to appreciate the nuanced debates of the Reformation and we tend to want a "quick fix" to our theological inquiry. If we are not careful, we can easily make a caricature out of an issue that needs much care and qualification.

 

[timfost]

In relation to this conversation, Dabney does make an interesting point that might help to clarify things, especially in the light of the double jeopardy scheme that has been referenced.

"It seems plain that the vagueness and ambiguity of the modern term "atonement," has very much complicated the debate. This word, not classical in the Reformed theology, is used sometimes for satisfaction for guilt, sometimes for the reconciliation ensuing thereon; until men on both sides of the debate have forgotten the distinction. The one is cause, the other effect. The only New Testament sense the word atonement has is that of katallagh , reconciliation. But expiation is another idea. Katallagh is personal. Exilasmo" is impersonal. Katallagh is multiplied, being repeated as often as a sinner comes to the expiatory blood. exilasmo" is single, unique, complete; and, in itself considered, has no more relation to one man’s sins than another. As it is applied in effectual calling, it becomes personal, and receives a limitation. But in itself, limitation is irrelevant to it. Hence, when men use the word atonement, as they so often do, in the sense of expiation, the phrases, "limited atonement," "particular atonement," have no meaning. Redemption is limited, i. e., to true believers, and is particular. Expiation is not limited."

 

[Sovereign Grace]

Thanks for the info guys.

The reason I brought this up was a particular baptist used 2 Cor. 5:15 & 1 Tim. 4:10 to say Christ died for all. He then used the 'sufficient/efficient' saying. I agree that Christ's death, burial & resurrection could save 100,000 worlds, if it was intended to do so.

Now, what benefits of the crosswork of the Christ does the non-elect receive?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Now, what benefits of the crosswork of the Christ does the non-elect receive?

I would be at a loss to claim there were non-salvific benefits to the reprobate designed into the atonement. I simply recognized that this was Hodge's position as I quoted above. Exactly how Hodge distinguishes between general providence and actual non-salvific benefits to the reprobate eludes me.

 

[Dachaser]

Exactly who is "the author" in your question?
John in 1 John 2:2?
Calvin?
Hodge?

The Apostle John

 

[Dachaser]

David,

The reason I've posted the quotes I have in this thread is to demonstrate some of the diversity on this issue. We all affirm that Christ died for the elect effectively and that His purposes are not thwarted or frustrated. As one who affirms that there is a sense that Christ died for all, I want to be very careful in how I promote this as the authors I have quoted very carefully define the parameters of their statements.

I agree with Patrick that you should be more careful in coming to quick conclusions as they often don't account for the nuanced parameters of the discussion. These debates are far bigger than what we can summarize into catch phrases. If you would like to understand the sense in which Christ died for all according to a number of the reformers, I would encourage you to read authors such as Hodge, Dabney, Ursinus and others. Davenant is a good read, but as I stated earlier, he gets caught up into a "conditional decree" of God and by this introduces a decree against a decree. I would also heavily caution against an Amyraldian ordering of God's decrees, as this takes what is a problem with Davenant and compounds it.

As one who has observed many of your posts, I would gently encourage you to use PuritanBoard more as a resource and not as a primary source. It is difficult for 21st century people to appreciate the nuanced debates of the Reformation and we tend to want a "quick fix" to our theological inquiry. If we are not careful, we can easily make a caricature out of an issue that needs much care and qualification.

I think what is hanging me up on this discussion is trying to distinguish between Jesus died due to/for the sins of humanity, and/but that is just for sake of the Elect of God, as I hold to both points as of right now. I see Jesus died in some sense for all, but not in the sense that Christian Universalists have seen it meaning!

 

[timfost]

James Durham puts it this way

I think what is hanging me up on this discussion is trying to distinguish between Jesus died due to/for the sins of humanity, and/but that is just for sake of the Elect of God, as I hold to both points as of right now. I see Jesus died in some sense for all, but not in the sense that Christian Universalists have seen it meaning!

James Durham explains a connection between Christ's death and common grace:

"Doctrine Two. We may consider Christ’s sufferings and death in the fruits of it, either as they respect common favors, and mercies, common gifts, and means of grace, which are not peculiar and saving, but common to believers with others, being bestowed upon professors in the visible Church; or as they are peculiar and saving, such as faith, justification, adoption, etc. Now when we say that Christ’s sufferings and death are a price for the sins of his people, we exclude not the reprobate simply from temporal and common favors and mercies that come by his death; they may have, and actually have, common gifts and works of the Spirit, the means of grace, which are some way effects and fruits of the same covenant. But we say, that the reprobate partake not of saving mercy and that Christ’s death is a satisfaction only for the elect, and that none others get pardon of sin, faith, repentance, etc. by it, but they only; it was intended for none others. And this we clear and confirm from, and by, these following grounds and arguments, which we will shortly hint at."

And Bavinck:

"Although vicarious atonement as the acquisition of salvation in its totality cannot therefore be expanded to include all persons individually, this is not to say that it has no significance for those who are lost. Between the church and the world there is, at this point, not just separation and contrast. It is not the case that Christ has acquired everything for the former and nothing for the latter. In rejecting universalism one may not forget that Christ’s merit has its limits even for the church and its value and meaning for the world. In the first place, it must be remembered, after all, that though Christ as such is indeed the Re-creator, he is not the Creator of all things. Just as the Son follows the Father, so re-creation presupposes creation, grace presupposes nature, and regeneration presupposes birth. Not included in Christ’s merits, strictly speaking, is the fact that the elect are born and live, that they receive food, shelter, clothing, and an assortment of natural benefits. One can say that God would no longer have allowed the world and humankind to exist had he not had another and higher purpose for it. Common grace is indeed subservient to special grace, and along with salvation God also grants the elect many other, natural, blessings (Matt. 6:33; Rom. 8:28, 32; 1 Tim. 4:8; 2 Pet. 1:3)."

_____________________

Concerning offering Christ in the gospel, it should be noted that we do not offer election or effectual calling. The Scriptures tell us to offer Christ indiscriminately and promising salvation on the condition of faith and repentance. Since the general call is distinguished by definition from effectual calling, the basis of such a call to individuals who are either elect or reprobate that conditionally promises Christ to both on the same conditions, can only be a product of a general design in Christ's suffering, though this is not to be confused with a salvific purpose of God in relation to His decree.

Some Scriptures for consideration: John 3:14-18 as it relates to the offer. Col. 1:20 in relation to common grace benefits. Even though Calvin doesn't apply the sufficient/efficient distinction to 1 John 2:2 as does Hodge, John's particular use of the phrase "whole world" in 1 John only applies to the unbelieving world who is "under the sway of the wicked one" (5:19) if we look at how he actually uses the phrase. (Also consider the usage in Revelation: 3:10, 12:9, 16:14.) For us to consider the "whole world" in 1 John 2:2 as the elect world would be a dramatic departure from John's usage in these later books.

Further, we confess that God is a God of mercy and justice. His mercy that extends to us is not at the expense of His justice, which He met in Christ on the cross. If a) common graces (mercies) are extended by God to the non-elect as well as the rest of creation, and b) Christ's sufferings could have nothing to do with these mercies, we expose God to a compromise of justice for mercy since we leave no room for any satisfaction of justice in relation to creation apart from the elect.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

I would be at a loss to claim there were non-salvific benefits to the reprobate designed into the atonement. I simply recognized that this was Hodge's position as I quoted above. Exactly how Hodge distinguishes between general providence and actual non-salvific benefits to the reprobate eludes me.

If you look at the Passover lamb, it did 'redeem' all those who were under its blood placed upon the top and sides of the door. Now, not all who were 'redeemed' by this blood made it to the promised land. So I can see where the atonement of Christ could keep God's wrath from being poured out on the reprobate in their lives. Is this your thought as well, Brother?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Willis,

Thank you for the response. I have seen things similarly stated. For example, in the Atonement of Christ (trans. Wilson, 1859), Turretin wrote (pg. 124):

"We do not inquire whether the death of Christ gives occasion to the imparting of some blessings even to the reprobate. Because it is in consequence of the death of Christ that the gospel is preached to all nations, that the gross idolatry of many heathen nations has been abolished, that the daring impiety of men is greatly restrained by the word of God, that multitudes of the human family obtain many and excellent blessings, though not saving gifts, of the Holy Spirit. It is unquestionable that all these flow from the death of Christ, for there would have been no place for them in the church, unless Christ had died."​

Given the high esteem Turretin garners, some have possibly mistaken what he is actually stating by assuming that by these words Turretin implies a direct intention by God in the design of the atonement. In fact, I do not think Turretin even came close to implying as such. These "blessings" in my mind are but the outworking of the general providence of God. In fact, a few pages later, Turretin writes:

"It is altogether gratuitous to say that Christ in his death had a twofold intention: one conditional, which extended to all; the other absolute, which is limited to a few. Scriptures nowhere countenances such a distinction."

We know Scripture declares the even the reprobate may prosper in this life over the elect, what some may call the result of "common grace". But again, I have to ask Is this the design of God or is it the mere result of general providence? I think it is the latter.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Exactly who is "the author" in your question?
John in 1 John 2:2?
Calvin?
Hodge?

The Apostle John

In that case, the quote from Calvin given earlier supplies the answer to your question:

"So if I am understanding you correctly on this issue, then the author would be defining just what the extent "for whole earth" really meant, and that was not for all sinners, correct?"

To wit: John in 1 John 2:2 was in no way implying by the "whole world" that the design of the atonement was for each and every person.

 

[Dachaser]

James Durham puts it this way


James Durham explains a connection between Christ's death and common grace:

"Doctrine Two. We may consider Christ’s sufferings and death in the fruits of it, either as they respect common favors, and mercies, common gifts, and means of grace, which are not peculiar and saving, but common to believers with others, being bestowed upon professors in the visible Church; or as they are peculiar and saving, such as faith, justification, adoption, etc. Now when we say that Christ’s sufferings and death are a price for the sins of his people, we exclude not the reprobate simply from temporal and common favors and mercies that come by his death; they may have, and actually have, common gifts and works of the Spirit, the means of grace, which are some way effects and fruits of the same covenant. But we say, that the reprobate partake not of saving mercy and that Christ’s death is a satisfaction only for the elect, and that none others get pardon of sin, faith, repentance, etc. by it, but they only; it was intended for none others. And this we clear and confirm from, and by, these following grounds and arguments, which we will shortly hint at."

And Bavinck:

"Although vicarious atonement as the acquisition of salvation in its totality cannot therefore be expanded to include all persons individually, this is not to say that it has no significance for those who are lost. Between the church and the world there is, at this point, not just separation and contrast. It is not the case that Christ has acquired everything for the former and nothing for the latter. In rejecting universalism one may not forget that Christ’s merit has its limits even for the church and its value and meaning for the world. In the first place, it must be remembered, after all, that though Christ as such is indeed the Re-creator, he is not the Creator of all things. Just as the Son follows the Father, so re-creation presupposes creation, grace presupposes nature, and regeneration presupposes birth. Not included in Christ’s merits, strictly speaking, is the fact that the elect are born and live, that they receive food, shelter, clothing, and an assortment of natural benefits. One can say that God would no longer have allowed the world and humankind to exist had he not had another and higher purpose for it. Common grace is indeed subservient to special grace, and along with salvation God also grants the elect many other, natural, blessings (Matt. 6:33; Rom. 8:28, 32; 1 Tim. 4:8; 2 Pet. 1:3)."

_____________________

Concerning offering Christ in the gospel, it should be noted that we do not offer election or effectual calling. The Scriptures tell us to offer Christ indiscriminately and promising salvation on the condition of faith and repentance. Since the general call is distinguished by definition from effectual calling, the basis of such a call to individuals who are either elect or reprobate that conditionally promises Christ to both on the same conditions, can only be a product of a general design in Christ's suffering, though this is not to be confused with a salvific purpose of God in relation to His decree.

Some Scriptures for consideration: John 3:14-18 as it relates to the offer. Col. 1:20 in relation to common grace benefits. Even though Calvin doesn't apply the sufficient/efficient distinction to 1 John 2:2 as does Hodge, John's particular use of the phrase "whole world" in 1 John only applies to the unbelieving world who is "under the sway of the wicked one" (5:19) if we look at how he actually uses the phrase. (Also consider the usage in Revelation: 3:10, 12:9, 16:14.) For us to consider the "whole world" in 1 John 2:2 as the elect world would be a dramatic departure from John's usage in these later books.

Further, we confess that God is a God of mercy and justice. His mercy that extends to us is not at the expense of His justice, which He met in Christ on the cross. If a) common graces (mercies) are extended by God to the non-elect as well as the rest of creation, and b) Christ's sufferings could have nothing to do with these mercies, we expose God to a compromise of justice for mercy since we leave no room for any satisfaction of justice in relation to creation apart from the elect.

So way then infer that part of "common Grace" would be the provision of the Lord to meet things such as food for the needy/poor, to have things set up to help others such as hospitals/schools, and to have basically a way to provide for common good and protection?

So that would tie into the Lord causing it to rain on both just and unjust?

Would the death and resurrection of Jesus provide for even the Lost their eternal bodies?

 

[MW]

I agree with Davenant in some of his assertions but deny his belief in a conditional decree which is one facet or application of his sufficiency formula.

Thomas Watson: "Christ's blood has value enough to redeem the whole world."
John Davenant: "not as some assert, by reason of its mere sufficiency, or intrinsic value, in which respect the death of Christ, or the blood of the Son of God, is a price more than sufficient to redeem each and all men and angels."

Thomas Watson: "but the virtue of it is applied only to such as believe."
John Davenant: "We have exhibited the universal virtue and efficacy of the death of Christ."

Watson taught the particularist position of intrinsic sufficiency. Davenant taught the modified position of ordained sufficiency.

I'm not persuaded that you can affirm with Watson that Christ died sufficiently for all men. If I understand you, you would say that the price was of sufficient value, but would not say that he died in any way for the non-elect. Is this correct?

Watson taught the price is of sufficient value. "Christ's blood has value enough to redeem the whole world." That is how he explained the phrase, "Christ died sufficiently for all men." He also taught "the world" refers to the elect: "Christ takes away the sins of the world, that is, the world of the Elect." Watson did not teach the doctrine that "the world" refers to each and every man in the world.

Dabney does a good job summarizing my understanding of the matter:

Dabney contradicted himself. He began with benevolence, but explained this in terms of complacence when he spoke of "every sinner's return to his love" (which Calvinists have always restricted to the elect). He has created a love in God which is ineffective to accomplish its ends. This is contrary to his own stated thesis, "Christ's design in His vicarious work was to effectuate exactly what it does effectuate;" "We know that God's omnipotence surely accomplishes every purpose of His grace."

He also advocated the post-redemptionist doctrine, claiming that election is the reason why redemption is applied to some and not to others. This doctrine was rejected by reformed theologians because it divides the Trinity and teaches that the Father says "no" to His own dear Son.

 

[MW]

What is meant by the preposition "for?" We know what the Bible means when it uses the preposition. It means that Christ has died in their place and for their good. He has died for their actual salvation. So now we ask the theologians, What do they mean by the preposition "for?" If they do not mean what the Bible means why should we listen to them?

 

[timfost]

What is meant by the preposition "for?" We know what the Bible means when it uses the preposition. It means that Christ has died in their place and for their good. He has died for their actual salvation. So now we ask the theologians, What do they mean by the preposition "for?" If they do not mean what the Bible means why should we listen to them?

Consider Hodge again:

"He died for all, that He might arrest the immediate execution of the penalty of the law upon the whole of our apostate race; that He might secure for men the innumerable blessings attending their state on earth, which, in one important sense, is a state of probation; and that He might lay the foundation for the offer of pardon and reconciliation with God, on condition of faith and repentance."

Since you believe that Christ's death has nothing to do with anyone or anything besides the effectual salvation of the elect, you cannot understand "for" in any other way. But if one sees other purposes of God in Christ's death, it's not difficult to use the word "for" in relation to the non-elect since God effectually works His multiple purposes through Christ's sufferings.

I think you need to stop trying to impose your particular "particularist" understanding on those who understand other benefits accruing from Christ's death. "For" is only inconsistent when you force your premise on those with a different one.

 

[timfost]

So way then infer that part of "common Grace" would be the provision of the Lord to meet things such as food for the needy/poor, to have things set up to help others such as hospitals/schools, and to have basically a way to provide for common good and protection?

So that would tie into the Lord causing it to rain on both just and unjust?

I'm a little confused by the question... I believe that all the mercies of God extend to a sinful world because of Christ's sufferings that propitiated the Father.

Would the death and resurrection of Jesus provide for even the Lost their eternal bodies?

Believers who died in the Lord will raise because He rose. This is in many ways the consummation of God's mercy to us. I find it difficult to imagine that the resurrection unto condemnation relates in any way to the mercy of God, but rather His wrath and judgment.

 

[Dachaser]

I'm a little confused by the question... I believe that all the mercies of God extend to a sinful world because of Christ's sufferings that propitiated the Father.



Believers who died in the Lord will raise because He rose. This is in many ways the consummation of God's mercy to us. I find it difficult to imagine that the resurrection unto condemnation relates in any way to the mercy of God, but rather His wrath and judgment.

That they still will exist and not just be destroyed would be part of His mercy even in their judgment? As would Him having differing degrees of punishment in hell?

 

[timfost]

That they still will exist and not just be destroyed would be part of His mercy even in their judgment? As would Him having differing degrees of punishment in hell?

As to different degrees, I'm not sure if the scriptures would ever call that mercy. I don't want to speculate.

 

[MW]

Consider Hodge again:

"He died for all, that He might arrest the immediate execution of the penalty of the law upon the whole of our apostate race; that He might secure for men the innumerable blessings attending their state on earth, which, in one important sense, is a state of probation; and that He might lay the foundation for the offer of pardon and reconciliation with God, on condition of faith and repentance."

It may well be reasoned that sinful men gain a stay of execution as a result of Christ's death. The Bible, though, never speaks of Christ dying FOR men in this sense. The belief of it is not a matter of special revelation, and pressing it as if it were a biblical doctrine is false.

Thankfully men like Hodge were temperate in their reasoning and careful to bring out what the Bible itself teaches. In the paragraph following the quotation he carefully showed the proper sense in which the Bible speaks of Christ dying for all men, i.e., all kinds or classes of men.

 

[timfost]

Thankfully men like Hodge were temperate in their reasoning and careful to bring out what the Bible itself teaches. In the paragraph following the quotation he carefully showed the proper sense in which the Bible speaks of Christ dying for all men, i.e., all kinds or classes of men.

Hodge:

"He was a propitiation effectually for the sins of his people, and sufficiently for the sins of the whole world. Augustinians have no need to wrest the Scriptures. They are under no necessity of departing from their fundamental principle that it is the duty of the theologian to subordinate his theories to the Bible, and teach not what seems to him to be true or reasonable, but simply what the Bible teaches. But, in the second place, it is to be remarked that general terms are often used indefinitely and not comprehensively. They mean all kinds, or classes, and not all and every individual. When Christ said, ‘I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me,’ He meant men of all ages, classes, and conditions, and not every individual man."

Hodge's second point is what you referenced above. His second point was not a negation of the first. A negation of the first point is what Hodge calls "wrest[ing] the Scriptures."

The scripture does talk about Christ dying for "things" (Col. 1:20). Perhaps the problem is your system, not the doctrine?

 

[MW]

Hodge's second point is what you referenced above. His second point was not a negation of the first. A negation of the first point is what Hodge calls "wrest[ing] the Scriptures."

As noted, if one desires to "reason" to the point of a stay of execution, there is no problem from a rational point of view. But to say the Scriptures teach this is what is meant by Christ dying FOR men is unbiblical; and Hodge himself goes beyond this. He concluded, "In the review of this subject, it is plain that the doctrine that Christ died equally for all men with the purpose of rendering the salvation of all possible, has no advantage over the doctrine that He died specially for his own people, and with the purpose of rendering their salvation certain." Any analysis of Hodge which brings him to differ with himself is either a false analysis or it regards him as contradicting himself. If the latter one wonders what purpose was served in bringing Hodge into the discussion.

The scripture does talk about Christ dying for "things" (Col. 1:20). Perhaps the problem is your system, not the doctrine?

You have simply failed to produce a Scripture which speaks of Christ dying FOR men. As usual, to avoid the plain facts of the case you have raised something irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[timfost]

He concluded, "In the review of this subject, it is plain that the doctrine that Christ died equally for all men with the purpose of rendering the salvation of all possible, has no advantage over the doctrine that He died specially for his own people, and with the purpose of rendering their salvation certain." Any analysis of Hodge which brings him to differ with himself is either a false analysis or it regards him as contradicting himself. If the latter one wonders what purpose was served in bringing Hodge into the discussion.

I agree with you and Hodge on this. Christ did not die equally for all. I apologize if this was unclear.

You have simply failed to produce a Scripture which speaks of Christ dying FOR men. As usual, to avoid the plain facts of the case you have raised something irrelevant to the discussion.

Many scriptures speak about Christ dying for all. No scriptures speak of Christ not dying for some. Col. 1:20 talks about things in heaven and earth. It's difficult to get terminology that is more inclusive than this. If men are the exception of this comprehensive statement, please point me to the exception.

 

[MW]

Col. 1:20 talks about things in heaven and earth. It's difficult to get terminology that is more inclusive than this. If men are the exception of this comprehensive statement, please point me to the exception.

Have you sat down to do the exegetical work necessary to understand this passage and its parallel place in Ephesians 1? Have you come to a definitive position on what is intended by the words? Or are you just throwing it out there because of its universal sounding language? If you consult Hodge on Ephesians 1 you will see that from the reformed point of view these passages are referring to actual redemption and reconciliation, that is, those who are actually saved. To apply it to any other than those who are saved is to teach some form of universal restoration, which is contrary to the reformed and evangelical faith.

Again, you are failing to see that holy Scripture speaks of Christ dying FOR men in the sense that Christ has died in their place and for their salvation. Whatever reason says about non-saving temporal consequences, holy Scripture only reveals that Christ has died FOR men to eternally save them from sin and wrath.

 

[Dachaser]

I agree with you and Hodge on this. Christ did not die equally for all. I apologize if this was unclear.



Many scriptures speak about Christ dying for all. No scriptures speak of Christ not dying for some. Col. 1:20 talks about things in heaven and earth. It's difficult to get terminology that is more inclusive than this. If men are the exception of this comprehensive statement, please point me to the exception.

Why would the Apostles have not chosen to pen down the word in the Greek then for just for the elect and not for all?