The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum For Whom Did Christ Die?

xyz,

Bonerges has captured the essence of your obfuscation, i.e., the issue of "whom"; the object of Christ's atoning work. Thus, I won't spend time iterating the obvious. However, IF I have grasped the remainder of the quote above, it would appear that you are saying that there are those who will not escape condemnation because they "reject substitutionary propitiation".

As one who apparently is less educated in theological matters than you, I have some further problems comprehending the remainder of what you wrote for the following:

At face value, it seems you hold that if one simply assents to "substitutionary propitiation"; i.e., one aspect of Christ's vicarious substitutionary atonement, viz. propitiation, then that person will avoid condemnation.

a. Assensus which was made popular by Robert Sandeman (see here: Andrew Fuller and the Sandemanians), aka: "Easy Believism" has no saving value whatsoever. The demons believe in the Trinity, Christ's substitutionary work, etc., yet are destined to eternal damnation.

b. Since Christ's atonement was substitutionary, then whatever it did accomplish it was rendered complete "in behalf of" those who were the intended recipients.

c. In regard to propitiation (Gk: hilaskomai), which means to appease the wrath of one who is offended by the removal of that which has caused the offense. Since Christ IS the propitiation for sin, then God's anger is effectively and completely removed by the expiation of sin; the offense. Thus as Owen inarguably shows, if Christ's death was for all, i.e., every man, woman and child from Adam to the very last of the human race, then all MUST be saved. If one should argue, as you appear to be doing, that one is barred from salvation due to the rejection of one truth which you call "substitutionary propitiation", in itself a sin, and if Christ's death atoned for ALL sin, then why should the rejection of that one particular doctrine; a sin, prevent that one from being saved since Christ died for ALL sins, past, present and future? Indeed, Owen's thesis is more than relevant and indisputable.

d. ALL are under judgment by nature and thus there is no need to reject anything to be damned. For, being in Adam one is under the wrath of God and subject to damnation automatically. Any actual sins committed only add to that damnation. This is known as the doctrine of "Original Sin"; all have Adam's guilt imputed to their account AND inherit a corrupt nature which is predisposed to sin and sin only. Again, an unborn child is destined to eternal hell just because it is human unless God takes pity on that child and by the Spirit unites it to Christ by grace.

e. If a governor pardoned a criminal then it wouldn't matter if the individual refused to accept it and chose to remain in jail. The fact is, legally, the pardon would still be in effect since it is a legal pronouncement by the only one who has the authority and power to exact the pardon. The acceptance of the pardon does NOT make it effectual.

For a brief but more comprehensive summary of Christ's vicarious substitutionary atonement see here: The Atonement, by Prof. John Murray.

In regard to the biblical doctrine of "Original Sin" see here: The Sinfulness of Original Sin, by W.G.T. Shedd.

In His grace,