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.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more