Universal aspects of the atonement

Status
Not open for further replies.
"A strict substition for the elect is the primary benefits. Are there secondary benefits that even the reprobate reap?"

Perhaps my answer is too simple. If we believe that God's glory through Christ and the cross is the climax of God's plan, and the primary reason God created the universe, then 100% of all things that angels, humans and animals enjoy are secondary benefits of Christ's death. Paul tells pagans the gifts of God to them are "life and breath and everything," and "he did good by giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness." Paul told pagans who it was that they had been enjoying their whole lives–and if they turned toward Christ and his cross they would glorify and enjoy this same God forever. I believe there is no other reason that we enjoy anything but because of Christ's death.

It seems to me that to say otherwise would be to lower Christ and the cross from its central place in God's plan as the means by which God is glorified, and imply that all things were originally created with another focal point in mind. The cross ends up being plan B. It would be like a Calvinist pulling the rug out from under his own feet.
 
Brother Joseph?! I feel so distinguished. :D

You didn't say that atonement was conditional. Your statements left room for it, though I wasn't sure what direction you were going. I only sought clarity.

Your response to Romans 3 is viable. I won't quibble there.

Somethng went awry in your highlighting. Rest assured that I am nowhere near Wesley. This is another leap that eludes me.

Here is where Matt's comments should be considered. Somehow you are making assumptions in regard to my thinking that are not compatible with my theological understanding. I said nothing that didn't agree with your statement in regard to Christ's sacrifice having instrinsic value. From my perspective this is not incompatible with what I've stated. So I must assume that we are speaking past one another without a proper understanding of what the other stated. You insert "invite" in a way that I have not. While I "invite" people to repent and believe, I do so with no knowledge of whether or not they are of the elect. God, on the other hand, has predestined all men according to His good pleasure. In other words, your statement "What a terrible God we woud have, who would invite all head for head, yet not make a provsion for their salvation." reveals that either I have not presented myself well or that you have imposed upon what I have stated (provided that it wasn't meant to be a rhetorical statement). The same could be said about your "sufficient/efficient" statements. You stated, "AS I stated before, He would not have had to bleed any more, nor suffer anymore in order to make satisfaction for all men head for head." What does this mean if it doesn't mean that Christ's death is sufficient for the salvation of every man, past, present and future? I'm not trying to pidgeon hole you, I'm simply baffled by what appears to be a contradiction in your argument.

Some clarity is needed in this discussion, obviously. We're missing one another's purpose and perspective.
- Do you consider the offer of salvation to be "legitimate" for all men?
- Is God's invitation directed only to the elect?
- You state, "Since the number of saved is fixed, and connot be moved, then why make universal or sufficient for all statements?" This has been clearly explained by a few different men here.

Furthermore, in case it helps you understand where I'm coming from, I see no relationship between any "sufficiency" and any "universality" in Christ's atonement. I think this may be central to where we are not connecting, for these two, in my mind, never connect.


Excellent post C. Gorsuch. Thank you for the clarity in thought that you have offered.
 
While I "invite" people to repent and believe, I do so with no knowledge of whether or not they are of the elect. God, on the other hand, has predestined all men according to His good pleasure.


I agree. Yet we are not commanded to say that God died for you. It must be qualified for all who believe.


What does this mean if it doesn't mean that Christ's death is sufficient for the salvation of every man, past, present and future? I'm not trying to pidgeon hole you, I'm simply baffled by what appears to be a contradiction in your argument.

Intrinsic value differs much from procuring some universal benefits/blessings for the reprobate. You mentioned some sort of forgiveness for the reprobate.

Some clarity is needed in this discussion, obviously. We're missing one another's purpose and perspective.
- Do you consider the offer of salvation to be "legitimate" for all men?
- Is God's invitation directed only to the elect?
- You state, "Since the number of saved is fixed, and connot be moved, then why make universal or sufficient for all statements?" This has been clearly explained by a few different men here.

I do not believe in a WMO of salvation for all head for head. To say Christ died for you, shed his blood for you, is presumption.

What do you mean by invitation? Without getting this thread closed, are you speaking of duty faith, duty repentance? I believe the invitation according to the parable of the wedding feast, goes to all head for head indiscriminately. Only to show that those not chosen will not come. "Many are called, few are chosen"

I try not to mistake the indicative for the imperative.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top