I was questioned in another forum about my views on the sufficiency of Christ's death. I will put the questioners words in blue.
I heard it explained that Christ's death was sufficient for all if only they would believe and efficient for those who actually do believe. What do you think of that position?
The death of Christ is sufficient for the sins of any human being whether they believe or not. Medicine is sufficient to help someone whether they take it or not. The sufficiency of Christ's death is not a hypothetical sufficiency, but a real sufficiency applicable (able to be applied) to all men. Some say that the death is hypothetically sufficient to save all men in another logically possible world if they believe, but not in this world. The reason why one usually says that is because of commercial ideas. They think of Christ's death in literal payment terms. It's so much suffering (money) for so much sin (debt). They literalize the commercial metaphors.
Think about it this way: If God had hypothetically chosen to save ten more people than actually will be saved, would the death of Christ be any different? NO! What if ten thousand? Would the death be the same? Yes! What he accomplished remains the same, but it only savingly benefits those who believe, or who appropriate the provision through faith. The quality of what Christ did on the cross is related to the kind of person he is. The Godman rendered to God the Father a satisfaction of infinite value. The is the Anselmian answer to the question, Cur Deus Homo?...or Why the Godman? The incarnation of the second person of the Trinity was necessary in order to make the kind of satisfaction he made. No mere creature could do what he did. He bore the curse that was due to all men upon himself when he died. The curse of death was the same for all, for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
To say that he bore the curse for the sins of the world is not to say that the world possesses the benefit of it. The application of what he did is conditioned upon the instrumentality of faith. It avails no one unless they believe. His death does not ipso facto (or by the very fact of the thing itself) liberate people when he died. Even those who are the elect MUST appropriate what he did by faith or suffer hell fire themselves. The only reason why the elect appropriate it is because the Holy Spirit efficaciously moves their hearts via regeneration to love God and embrace Christ by faith.
We need to make the biblical distinction between what is provisional and what is possessed. If we confuse the the two, then we end up saying the elect were justified at the time of the cross at least. Some move justification back into eternity. If what Christ did on the cross ipso facto liberates and the legal representation is limited, then those who are legally represented are set free when he dies. The legally represented ones have no basis for abiding under the wrath of God. Their sins are literally and actually paid for prior to their appropriation by faith. Is this what the bible teaches? NO! The bible says that all are under God's wrath before they believe. Their sins are still on them and in them, and thus they are children of wrath. That's the biblical doctrine. Therefore, by the one death of one man, many will be (not are) made righteous (through faith). We are not made righteous when he died, but only after we believe and are imputed with the merits of Christ.
It sounds like you are saying that Christ paid for all the sins of some of the people who are in hell also paying for their sins there. My apologiies if I have miss read you , please let me know. I am having a hard time comprehending how to apply Christ's work on the cross to people in hell.
Christ paid for the sins of the whole world. That's what the bible says. Even John the Baptist said,
NKJ John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
This does not mean that people are saved merely by the death that he died. The expiation or taking away only avails for those who apply the hand of faith to the sacrifice, even though it's intrinsic value removes the legal barriers in case anyone believes. Atonement only occurs when the hand of faith is placed upon the sacrificial offering. The elect alone are made to place the hand of faith upon the sacrificial offering of Christ, and herein is the limitation. It's not the death itself that is limited, for it's a death worthy of the sins of a million worlds. The limitation is seen in the efficacious application by the Spirit (and it accords to the decretive will).
Those in hell are suffering everlasting death because they did not appropriate the promise or provision. If they would have believed, then Christ's death could have in fact covered their penal obligations. Christ took the curse of the sins of the whole world. This only troubles those people who confuse the provision with what is possessed. They are confusing the 'already-not yet' aspect of redemption. If one says that Christ paid for the sins of the whole world, then they think that the whole world is then ipso facto liberated, i.e. pure universalism follows. It is only some Calvinists who have swallowed the arguments of John Owen who think this way. It's built on a number of problematic assumptions, not least of which is a commercial view of the satisfaction. If one pushes the commercial analogy so far as to literalize it, then the paying of a debt liberates the debtee. There is NOTHING further required. If you owe a bank a thousand dollars and I come and pay that debt for you, then the bank cannot come after you. The debt is paid. (See Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology for more on this). We can push the payment metaphors of the bible too far. We should be thinking primarily in terms of penal satisfaction. You have a moral obligation. You are a criminal. You owe God a death. You have sinned against him. It's not money that you owe him, but a death. You have offended a righteous God by your criminal behavior. The soul that sins shall die. God sends his Son to die the death deserved by all the criminals, but makes the obtaining of the benefit conditional. It's not a meritorious condition because it's all of grace, so it is a nonmeritorios condition or instrumental cause. The instrumental cause or condition is trust or faith in Christ. Once one believes into him, they are legally credited with what he did. Apart from the fulfillment of that instrumental condition, they are not legally credited, and thus they abide under God's wrath.
NKJ Ephesians 2:3 among whom also we all (those who now believe) once conducted ourselves (prior to faith) in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath (we owed God death because our sins were on us), just as the others (all those who are still unbelieving and lost).
In conclusion I would just remind you to not confuse what is provisional and what is possessed. Christ's death is the univeral provision for any man and this is why we can indescriminately offer Christ to all men, but they are not possessed of his benefits unless they believe. Anyone at all who does not believe, whether elect or not, is a child of wrath and owes God death. They are criminals.
5 comments:
my only comment is ,to say ,if only they will believe, supposes the sinner to have the ablity to believe. GOD sovereignly gives faith. the fear of a lot of well meaning people is they think they discredit the sufficientcy of CHRIST atonement by saying what the bible plainly says ,thatit is for HIS sheep only.
The sinner does have the ability to believe if we mean constitutional ability. They do have a will. What the unregenerate sinner lacks is the moral ability to believe. We are not concerned about their will power, but their WON'T power.
There is nothing in the statement, "if only they will believe" that suggests that the unregenerate has moral ability to believe. It's an affirmation of their constitutional ability and responsibility before God. It is only those who have a problem with human responsibility who fail to make the careful distinction, and make a false dilemma between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. The above is an affirmation that Christ is really and actually available to any man, so long as he believes. Not only that, but God wills (in the revealed/preceptive sense) for it to be available to all men, and thus commands his people to preach to all men. This idea is that which really bothers the High and Hyper-Cavlinists who propose a strictly limited atonement.
I agree that God sovereignly grants the moral ability to believe via regeneration. This is where the particularity of the atonement should lie, rather than in the death itself. The elect alone are granted faith, and thus they appropriate Christ's death that is universally sufficient for all men.
Just because the bible affirms that Christ died for his sheep, it does NOT follow that he died ONLY for his sheep. One cannot infer a universal negative from that positive statement. That's basic logic. Paul said that Christ died for him. Does it follow that Christ, according to that statement, did not die for anyone else? Of course not.
It is not fear that drives me to my conclusion regarding the sufficiency of Christ's satisfaction, but scripture rightly interpreted along with sound reasoning.
These are your errors:
1) The statement "if only they believe" does not entail moral ability to believe.
2) You straw man (misrepresent) my position, as if I do not affirm that it is God who grants the ability to believe.
3) You wrongly assume that I arrive at my view because of fear.
4) You mistakingly infer that Christ died for the elect alone because the bible states that he died for his sheep.
Study the scriptures and church history, think it through more, and pray. Then come back when you have better arguments :-)
He will not pray for those He died for?? John 17
Was the sin of unbelief and unrepentance payed for in the atonement??
The Lamb of God was slain before the foundation of the world, Rev. 13:8, but was manifest in these last times for you, I Peter 1:20
Propitiate God's wrath for a people and later apply it to the same people.
how about John Murray?
some things to consider.
Anonymous said...
"He will not pray for those He died for?? John 17"
Me:
Of course he prays for those he dies for. He prays for both unbelievers as well as for believers, but he does not pray for each the same way. In John 17, Christ is praying for his disciples who have believed. He's not praying for all the elect, for some of them were still in unbelief and sin. So then, in chapter 17, he's not praying for all the elect as elect, but for some of the elect who have believed. I have dealt with the John 17 passage here:
John 17:9 and Decretalism
"Was the sin of unbelief and unrepentance payed for in the atonement??"
Me:
I have dealt with that issue here:
Chambers on Unbelief as a Sin Atoned For
"The Lamb of God was slain before the foundation of the world, Rev. 13:8, but was manifest in these last times for you, I Peter 1:20"
Me:
There is some dispute over what is said to be before the foundation of the world. Is the Revelation passage saying names were written before the foundation of the world? Or that the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world. The RSV carries the first sense:
RSV Revelation 13:8 and all who dwell on earth will worship it, every one whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain.
If one takes the reference to be the Lamb, then I ask was the Lamb of God ACTUALLY slain before the foundation of the world? Or decreed TO BE slain before the "foundation of the world"? I think he was decreed to be slain, but not yet slain. Also, the Revelation passage sheds no light on the issue of whether or not Christ was slain for the non-elect or for the elect alone. If you think it does, that's a theological assumption imposed on the text. The text does not address the design of Christ's death. Furthermore, in 1 Peter 1:20, Peter is talking to believers (elect qua believer), not all of the elect (elect qua elect). You're equivocating on the sense of "you" in order to make it have the sense of elect qua elect. Also, a negative inference fallacy is happening in your argument. You infer from the bare positive statement, "He was manifest for you" that he was therefore ONLY manifest for "you." The text does not say that Christ was ONLY manifested for them that believe (his audience). If you're trying to get a STRICTLY limited atonement view out of your connection between these two passages, your case is AWEFULLY weak. There are clear signs of exegetical desperation and stretching in your thinking processes.
"Propitiate God's wrath for a people and later apply it to the same people."
Me:
The double jeopardy argument has been thoroughly dealt with here:
Double Jeopardy?
"how about John Murray?"
Me:
What about him? He's was a good man and excellently argues for common grace and the well-meant offer, but he was still mistaken in his atonement views, unfortunately. He was still working with a limited imputation view such that Christ only represents the elect in the death he died. If Christ only suffers sufficiently for the elect, then on what basis can we assert that his death is really sufficient for all? The two ideas are obviously incompatible. Further, if his death is not really sufficient for all, then how can we say his death is offerable to all? There's nothing in it for the non-elect if he only suffers sufficiently for the elect. Limited imputation undermines the basis for the free offer, yet John Murray tries to maintain both views. Also, as Millard Erickson says in his Christian Theology text, Murray makes the mistake of collapsing accomplishment and application. If we confuse the two, then we are left with justification prior to faith (all the elect justified at the cross or in eternity). That's clearly against scripture.
"some things to consider."
Me:
The above ideas have been considered and thoroughly refuted in the articles on my blog.
Nice try Gene ;-)
Oh, and lest you should retort to my John 17 argument by bringing up verse 20, I would remind you that he is only praying for people as they are contemplated as believers. He is asking that all of his requests be true of those who will come to believe. Once again, the context of John 17 concerns special requests for believers.
NKJ John 17:20 " I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word;
Post a Comment