For who did Christ die?

[2nd_Adam]

expound on it for me

I will expound it after you first post the official Catholic position on those ladder verses.

 

[2nd_Adam]

But if they have never heard, have they sinned?

Well, I think the Magestrieum has an offiicial position on originial sin, rendering all mankind condemned before God, correct? I think I’m in agreement on original sin with the Catholic Faith.

 

[Contarini]

I ask, Is this *unbelief *a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"

This is the famous Puritan riddle by John Owen. It would be interesting to hear your view on this historic riddle. For who did Christ die? I believe choice number 2 is the truth revealed in Scripture (2. All the sins of some men).

I deny the premise that Christ’s saving act can be adequately described by saying that He suffered the legal penalty of our sins. I believe that He *did *suffer death as the penalty of our sins, and I am willing to say further that this death involved in some sense separation from the Father as expressed in His cry on the Cross. But I do not believe that His salvation can be reduced the metaphors of paying a debt or suffering a penalty, particularly given the monstrous implications of this for God’s nature if we do not (as the early Christians did) posit Satan as the one “holding our bond” or insisting on the exaction of the penalty. And of course if we do reintroduce Satan (who in my opinion ought never to have been banished from atonement theology by Anselm and Abelard), then the picture looks very different. Christ paid our debt and suffered our penalty, so that Satan no longer has any claim on us. But we can all choose to *remain *in Satan’s power by our free will. The chains are broken, the dungeon door is open, but we may still choose to remain inside.

Note that this doesn’t address the difficult question of efficacious grace, etc., or the still more difficult philosophical questions bound up in providence, predestination, and free will. I’m simply saying that with regard to the Atonement we have free will to accept the freedom it offers us or to reject it. Owen’s “dilemma” is only a problem if we assume the Calvinist interpretation of Anselm’s reformation of Atonement theology in the first place. (Do we need to get into the major differences between Calvin and Anselm here?)

Edwin

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Here is an interesting post on original sin and infants:

I think the issue that is most controversial is the fate of children
who die in infancy. Catholic theology has held that baptism is
necessary for salvation. For them, baptism is a sacramental act that
(among other things) cleanses us from original sin. Catholic
tradition says that unbaptized infants go to limbo. This is in theory
a part of hell. But it does not contain any actual suffering. The
idea is that unbaptized infants have not committed any actual sins
yet, so there is nothing to be punished for. But because they are not
baptized, they are incapable of the supernatural virtues which come
only from God’s grace. The Catholic Encyclopedia says “Here they are
excluded from the supernatural excellence of heaven, namely the vision
of God, but they do know God and love Him with their perfected natual
faculties.” Note that limbo is officially considered speculative. No
authoritative teaching has been made on it. While Catholic theology
says that baptism is required for salvation, it also allows for
“baptism of intent” and some other special cases. As the Catholic
Encyclopedia comments, we have no way of knowing what provisions God
may have made to deal with this situation.

Protestant theology does not have quite the same issues as Catholic,
because the act of baptism is not emphasized in the same way. For
almost all Protestants, baptism is a sign which we carry out because
Christ told us to, but it is symbolic of the actual regeneration.
Thus the act of baptism itself isn’t the issue – rather the question
is whether infants are in need of, and capable of receiving, grace.
There seems to be some feeling that because they are not fully
responsible, they are incapable of real sin. Thus condemning them to
hell would be unjust. In my view, we need to recognize both that
there are differences in the way God works with infants and adults,
but also that they are in need of his grace. Much of the American
Protestant tradition seems to have overemphasized the significance of
a fully responsible, adult “decision for Christ”. Remember that Jesus
used a child as his example of ideal faith. In my view, children and
infants are as much in need of God’s grace as adults. However God
deals with them in a manner appropriate for their age.

from: geneva.rutgers.edu/src/faq/original-sin.txt

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

FOR WHO DID CHRIST DIE?
John Owen

---

The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:

1. All the sins of all men.
2. All the sins of some men, or
3. Some of the sins of all men.

In which case it may be said:

1. That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
2. That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
3. But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?

You answer, "Because of unbelief."

I ask, Is this *unbelief *a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"

This is the famous Puritan riddle by John Owen. It would be interesting to hear your view on this historic riddle. For who did Christ die? I believe choice number 2 is the truth revealed in Scripture (2. All the sins of some men).

Don’t forget:​

• No sins of all men
• No sins of some men
• Some sins of no men

I think that covers all the possibilities, as to logic anyway.

Christ died for the elect. That is the easy bit. What is not so clear, is whether limited atonement covers the entire human race, or not. I don’t for a moment believe He died for some of the sins of all men. But why shouldn’t or can’t the first two alternatives be different in words, yet amount to the same thing ? Just now, I think I tend to accept both of them.

Maybe limited atonement is true - but not the whole truth. Several passages favour the position that Christ died for all men, & they are as much part of God’s Revelation in Christ as the passages that favour limited atonement. As Reformed theology is no stranger to the function of paradox in the Bible, ISTM it should be quite at ease accepting that both positions are true.

Who are the elect ? Some men.
Who are the elect ? All men.

Again, both positions are, ISTM, equally founded on Scripture & Christ; & are equally true. Maybe from different POVs, or maybe for some other reason, such as language.

If there can be several models for the Atonement, of very varied content: why can there not be several statements as to who are its beneficiaries ? I think it has to be treated as a Messianic act, an act of the Messiah as Priest-King (therefore Shepherd), suffering for the sins of His subjects. Since His Kingly authority is bounded only by His own obedience to the Father Who is King of Kings, & since Psalm 72 (& others: 69; 89;etc) is ultimately about His Kingship; & since His Kingship extends through all time & all space; it seems safe to reason that His Priestly and Royal Atonement is for all men.

 

[mathematician]

I think the Catholic Church would agree with me that unbelief is a tremendously big sin. We call God a liar when we do not believe the testimony of God about His Son.

Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. - 1 John 5;10

It depends upon motives. It is a sin to percieve the truth and then reject it, but a genuine inability to percieve the truth is not a sin. (John 9.41)

If salvation is not (in principle) available to all men, it is difficult to see how they can be held morally responsible for rejecting it.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Don’t forget:​

• No sins of all men
• No sins of some men
• Some sins of no men

I think that covers all the possibilities, as to logic anyway.

Christ died for the elect. That is the easy bit. What is not so clear, is whether limited atonement covers the entire human race, or not. I don’t for a moment believe He died for some of the sins of all men. But why shouldn’t or can’t the first two alternatives be different in words, yet amount to the same thing ? Just now, I think I tend to accept both of them.

Maybe limited atonement is true - but not the whole truth. Several passages favour the position that Christ died for all men, & they are as much part of God’s Revelation in Christ as the passages that favour limited atonement. As Reformed theology is no stranger to the function of paradox in the Bible, ISTM it should be quite at ease accepting that both positions are true.

Who are the elect ? Some men.
Who are the elect ? All men.

Again, both positions are, ISTM, equally founded on Scripture & Christ; & are equally true. Maybe from different POVs, or maybe for some other reason, such as language.

If there can be several models for the Atonement, of very varied content: why can there not be several statements as to who are its beneficiaries ? I think it has to be treated as a Messianic act, an act of the Messiah as Priest-King (therefore Shepherd), suffering for the sins of His subjects. Since His Kingly authority is bounded only by His own obedience to the Father Who is King of Kings, & since Psalm 72 (& others: 69; 89;etc) is ultimately about His Kingship; & since His Kingship extends through all time & all space; it seems safe to reason that His Priestly and Royal Atonement is for all men.

There is defintely a paradox. But we should be driven by the Scriptures.

…even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” - Matthew 20:28

For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” - Mark 10:45

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” - John 6

She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”
Mat 1:21

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber. But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.” This figure of speech Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them.
John 10

 

[2nd_Adam]

It depends upon motives. It is a sin to percieve the truth and then reject it, but a genuine inability to percieve the truth is not a sin. (John 9.41)

If salvation is not (in principle) available to all men, it is difficult to see how they can be held morally responsible for rejecting it.

There is tension on this issue, and what you said makes sense in our limited minds. It seems to be an apparent contradiction in our minds, but not in God’s mind. BTW… all the great doctrines in the Christian Faith have much tension. The gospel proclamation is a genuine offer made to all mankind. Forgiveness, reconcilation, adoption… are available to all who will come to Christ. But who is able to come to Christ on their own power? We only come to Christ because we find Him to be desirable to come to Him. Unbelievers don’t come to Christ because He is undesirable to them.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Can we alll agree that the death of Christ is only effectual for the elect of God?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Can we alll agree that the death of Christ is only effectual for the elect of God?

His death is sufficient for all, but effectual only for those who respond to his universal gift of grace.

 

[2nd_Adam]

His death is sufficient for all, but effectual only for those who respond to his universal gift of grace.

What’s the word in the Bible for that group who respond to his universal gift of grace which results in eternal life?

Answer: (The Elect)

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

What’s the word in the Bible for that group who respond to his universal gift of grace which results in eternal life?

Answer: (The Elect)

When used by a Calvinist it usually means those whose names by irresistible grace, with no conditions, with no possibility of failure, are pulled out of God’s magic hat and sent to heaven.

Is this a fair description of what it means to you?

If not, tell me why not.

 

[2nd_Adam]

When used by a Calvinist it usually means those whose names by irresistible grace, with no conditions, with no possibility of failure, are pulled out of God’s magic hat and sent to heaven.

Is this a fair description of what it means to you?

If not, tell me why not.

The words “Elect” and “Chosen” are in Catholic Bible translations, right?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

The words “Elect” and “Chosen” are in Catholic Bible translations, right?

So are the reasons why one person is Elect and Chosen while another is not.

It is conditional and resistible.

 

[2nd_Adam]

So are the reasons why one person is Elect and Chosen while another is not.

It is conditional and resistible.

Do you believe God elects those who elect themselves… or a personal belief of self-election? What is the purpose of the Elect or the remnant saved by grace, if mankind determines who will be elected? Do you want to attempt to expound these verses in regards to the elect and those who are called for us? Do you believe the disciples chose Jesus? Do you believe God can be sovereign in salvation at the same time as man being sovereign too?

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? - rom 8

Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, the offspring of David, as preached in my gospel, for which I am suffering, bound with chains as a criminal. But the word of God is not bound! Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. - Paul

 

[mathematician]

It is conditional and resistible.

Well Thomas Aquinas would disagree:

newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm

I know when they discover that, Aquinas usually becomes a Catholic’s least favorite saint, for the same reason that Calvin is a Protestant’s least favourite saint. For both of them, Augustine usually goes down the pan soon after. Nevertheless, predestination to eternal life has always been a Catholic doctrine.

Are there any reasons for predestination? None that we are made aware of. That may be scandalous, but who says God has got to justify himself to us?

 

[Zooey]

Christ died for all the sins of all men. His death reconciled mankind with God. This gift of grace enables mankind to seek, find, love, and follow God.

However, men are free to reject this gift of grace.

Okay, if Christ died for the sin of unbelief, than all mankind will be saved since Christ paid the price for all sins for all men. Isn’t the lack of response as God demands simply an extension of the sin of unbelief?

I think you’re confusing “sufficiency” and “efficiency”.
I also think that you (& Owen) are having a terrible time understanding the meaning of the word “grace”.
That’s OK; but—it doesn’t make you any “righter”.

“Penal subsitution” isn’t a Catholic doctrine:

Would that it were no-one’s doctrine! Nothing I see is so apt to give people an utterly false (and a horrifically insulting!!) view of God as Cosmic Child Abuser.
If that were “Christianity”, Zooey would take vanilla. (Thank God for His amazing grace…which is above & beyond the imagination of those who are trapped in the snares of the false teaching of Penal Substitution).

 

[2nd_Adam]

I think you’re confusing “sufficiency” and “efficiency”.
I also think that you (& Owen) are having a terrible time understanding the meaning of the word “grace”.
That’s OK; but—it doesn’t make you any “righter”.

Okay, since you brought it up, please tell me what is the difference between sufficiency and efficency.

 

[Zooey]

Okay, since you brought it up, please tell me what is the difference between sufficiency and efficency.

Sufficiency: Christ’s sacrificial death is sufficient in that it has redeemed all mankind from the loss of Heaven. (Everyone is equally invited to the life of grace which leads to Life Eternal).
Efficiency: This great gift of grace is only efficient for those who accept and cooperate with His grace. (God is able to give everyone Eternal Life. However, being a gentleman, He does not drag anyone kicking & screaming through the doors of Heaven; He allows those who so choose to instead proceed to that which was prepared for the devil & his angels…hell).

It is interesting to consider that it is the lack of understanding of this same thing that causes some to become Calvinists, and some to become Universalists. (Both are wrong, only in, as it were, opposite directions from the truth.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Sufficiency: Christ’s sacrificial death is sufficient in that it has redeemed all mankind from the loss of Heaven. (Everyone is equally invited to the life of grace which leads to Life Eternal).
Efficiency: This great gift of grace is only efficient for those who accept and cooperate with His grace. (God is able to give everyone Eternal Life. However, being a gentleman, He does not drag anyone kicking & screaming through the doors of Heaven; He allows those who so choose to instead proceed to that which was prepared for the devil & his angels…hell).

It is interesting to consider that it is the lack of understanding of this same thing that causes some to become Calvinists, and some to become Universalists. (Both are wrong, only in, as it were, opposite directions from the truth.

We can agree that the blood of Christ is sufficent to save all mankind, all fallen angels, and other creatures that have sinned that we are not aware of. However, please tell me why the blood of Christ does not redeem the fallen angels?