Christ died for all men
Here's the second point of the Remonstrants:
ART. II. That, agreeably thereto, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption, and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins, except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John iii. 16: "God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"; and in the First Epistle of John ii. 2: "And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only. but also for the sins of the whole world."
This one's simple. Christ died for everybody but only believers actually end up in heaven. Calvinists claim that Christ didn't die for everyone.
How does this work? In the passover, the lamb was killed and it's blood was applied. It's a two step process. In the case of Christ He died for everyone, but His blood is applied only to believers. But for those that are lost, Christ did:
1) die for them
2) offer to save them
3) intended to save them
4) provided for their salvation
However:
1) Christ does not advocate or intercede for them
2) The Father does not justify them
3) they are not forgiven.
Calvinists generally collapse these two steps into one either through "eternal justification" or God's absolute purpose to save only the elect. But by dividing this into two pieces, Arminians teach that Christ died for all men.
Here again, there are two viewpoints under the general view that Christ died for all. The first is penal substitution, the second is called the Governmental Theory of Atonement.
Under the first viewpoint, Christ paid the penalty of our sins. The wages of sin is death. Christ died for us. Therefore, Christ paid the penalty for us. This is my viewpoint.
This viewpoint comes under attack by Calvinists who claim an unjust double payment. How can Christ and the damned pay the same penalty? The answer is that God has to mercifully accept Christ's payment as a substitute for their paying, and even if Christ died, if God does not accept Christ's death on their behalf, they must pay.
But other Arminians are persuaded by the Calvinist argument and deny that Christ paid the penalty for our sins. Rather, Christ is a "public display of justice" in which God shows His displeasure for sins, but it's not a penalty.
Either viewpoint is Armininian and the key thing is that Christ died for all men, not just the elect.
ART. II. That, agreeably thereto, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption, and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins, except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John iii. 16: "God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"; and in the First Epistle of John ii. 2: "And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only. but also for the sins of the whole world."
This one's simple. Christ died for everybody but only believers actually end up in heaven. Calvinists claim that Christ didn't die for everyone.
How does this work? In the passover, the lamb was killed and it's blood was applied. It's a two step process. In the case of Christ He died for everyone, but His blood is applied only to believers. But for those that are lost, Christ did:
1) die for them
2) offer to save them
3) intended to save them
4) provided for their salvation
However:
1) Christ does not advocate or intercede for them
2) The Father does not justify them
3) they are not forgiven.
Calvinists generally collapse these two steps into one either through "eternal justification" or God's absolute purpose to save only the elect. But by dividing this into two pieces, Arminians teach that Christ died for all men.
Here again, there are two viewpoints under the general view that Christ died for all. The first is penal substitution, the second is called the Governmental Theory of Atonement.
Under the first viewpoint, Christ paid the penalty of our sins. The wages of sin is death. Christ died for us. Therefore, Christ paid the penalty for us. This is my viewpoint.
This viewpoint comes under attack by Calvinists who claim an unjust double payment. How can Christ and the damned pay the same penalty? The answer is that God has to mercifully accept Christ's payment as a substitute for their paying, and even if Christ died, if God does not accept Christ's death on their behalf, they must pay.
But other Arminians are persuaded by the Calvinist argument and deny that Christ paid the penalty for our sins. Rather, Christ is a "public display of justice" in which God shows His displeasure for sins, but it's not a penalty.
Either viewpoint is Armininian and the key thing is that Christ died for all men, not just the elect.
Comments