Johann—
If God only chooses SOME to go to Heaven and rest wind up in hell—YES—that is unjust. To make the argument that God did not CREATE anyone for hell----he just chooses SOME for Heaven and rest WIND UP in hell is a very bad doctrine. But that is exactly what some teach.
And it is a doctrine that I cannot believe–no matter how many excuses I try to make for God.
You believe everyone is going to Heaven? Or are already seated in the heavenly places @Fish153 ?
J.
Johann—
I’m not sure where you are getting that idea. You somehow believe that if Christ died for all then all must go to Heaven. I have never said that. I believe Christ died for ALL MEN, but not all accept that sacrifice. I have already given examples of that which you reject. I could be drowning and someone throws a life-preserver to me but I refuse it. Very stupid. I had the OFFER of being saved. I REJECTED IT. Many, as foolish as it is, REJECT the atoning work of Christ for them. They “refuse to love the truth” so they are choosing their own damnation (2 Thess 2).
You do not want to accept that concept—and that’s fine. Believe whatever you want to believe. But I do not believe that if Jesus died for all that all should somehow go to Heaven. I do not see that in the scriptures at all. I believe salvation is an OFFER that can be rejected.
You seem to believe that that OFFER is only REAL for SOME people. The others may be OFFERED that salvation, but they will never receive it because they are not ELECT. They may hear the message of the Gospel but God has not “given” them the ability to receive it. How then can the offer be REAL? Does God lie? No—it’s impossible for Him to lie. That is why I do not accept the doctrine of Limited Atonement.
In the most clear and simplest terms–and without trying to be disrespectful, but no doubt it will still not be a particularly nice sentiment: I would say that Limited Atonement is simply a rejection of the Gospel.
When God says “all” He doesn’t mean “some”, He means all. Christ died for everyone. Even those who, in the end, will damn themselves in hell through their rejection of Him.
Interesting @TheologyNerd
If by “die for all” you mean whether Scripture explicitly teaches that Christ gave Himself for all humanity, there are very strong texts saying exactly that:
2 Corinthians 5:14–15
1 Timothy 2:6
Hebrews 2:9
1 John 2:2
John 6:51
At the same time, Scripture clearly teaches that Christ’s death has a particular and effective saving purpose for His people:
Matthew 1:21
Matthew 20:28
John 10:11, 15
Acts 20:28
Ephesians 5:25
Therefore, I would not begin with the question, “Was the atonement limited or unlimited?” Those are theological categories that come afterward.
I would begin with the biblical data:
Christ gave Himself for all.
Christ tasted death for everyone.
Christ gave His flesh for the life of the world.
Christ is the propitiation for the whole world.
Christ nevertheless gave Himself specifically for His sheep, His church, and His people.
Then the theological question becomes…
How do these universal and particular statements relate to one another?
. Christ “justified” those for whom He died (Rom. 5:9). If Christ bore the sins of all men without exception, then all men are justified. If all men are justified, then they receive Christ by faith and are at peace with God (Rom. 5:1). All who are justified are likewise glorified (Rom. 8:30). It is clear from the Bible as well as from the world in which we live that many live and die at enmity with God and are lost eternally. If Christ died for all, then all would be justified, and none would be lost. We see from the Bible and our world that this is not true.
Care to explain? We don’t want to preach another ἕτερον gospel, εὐαγγέλιον, like Baptismal regeneration?
J.
In a real sense, all are, in fact, justified (Romans 5:18). That’s what Lutherans call “objective justification”, it’s the objective reality that Christ indeed has accomplished His work for all men without exception. So that in Christ all have died, in Christ all are made alive, in Christ all are justified, etc.
Yet without the Holy Spirit working through the Gospel to work, create, and strengthen faith then nobody can benefit from this. For it is through faith alone that we are justified (i.e. subjective justification)–we personally benefit from Christ’s once and perfect universal work.
What Christ accomplished was universal atonement. (Lutherans reject both Reformed Limited Atonement and Arminian Unlimited Atonement, viewing both as a limit placed on Christ’s work).
However without receiving that gift–which is always a passive reception through faith–then we remain lost.
This is also why Lutherans understand that damnation is not so much a result of God actively damning anyone; damnation is a product of human will.
Lutherans could be described as double monergists:
Salvation is a result of God’s work and will alone.
Damnation is a result of human work and will alone.
So, yes, as the Scripture very plainly says: There is justification for all men, for Christ suffered and died for all; but not all are justified before God through faith, without faith we die in our sin.
First, when you say that “all are, in fact, justified” from Romans 5:18, what precisely do you mean by “justified”? Do you mean that every individual has already received a forensic declaration of righteousness before God, or do you mean that Christ has objectively accomplished the righteous basis for justification for all people? Those are not necessarily the same proposition. If the former is what you mean, how do you reconcile that with Romans 3:28, where Paul says that a man is “justified by faith,” Romans 4:5, where the one who believes is the one whose faith is counted for righteousness, and Romans 5:1, where Paul says, “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God”?
Second, in Romans 5:18, why should “all men” in the second half necessarily mean every individual who has ever lived? Paul says, “by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.” Yet in verse 19 he immediately explains the comparison by saying, “by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” Why does Paul move from πάντες, “all,” in verse 18 to οἱ πολλοί, “the many,” in verse 19? Is Paul describing two universal groups consisting of precisely the same individuals, or is he speaking covenantally and representatively about Adam and Christ and those who belong to each head?
Third, if Romans 5:18 means that every individual has already been objectively justified, how do you understand Paul’s statement in Romans 5:9 that “we shall be saved from wrath through him,” and Romans 5:10, where those who are reconciled to God are specifically those who “shall be saved by his life”? What is the relationship between this universal objective justification and Paul’s subsequent distinction between those who are reconciled and those who remain under wrath?
Fourth, you wrote that “in Christ all have died, in Christ all are made alive, in Christ all are justified.” I would ask you to demonstrate each of those propositions from the contexts in which the language occurs. For example, 1 Corinthians 15:22 says, “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive,” but verse 23 immediately qualifies the latter statement: “they that are Christ’s” are raised in their proper order. Why should “all” in verse 22 therefore be understood as every individual without exception when Paul himself qualifies the resurrection group in the following verse?
Likewise, in 2 Corinthians 5:14–15 Paul says that Christ “died for all,” but his conclusion is not that all people are therefore already justified. Instead, he proceeds to proclaim reconciliation and says in verse 20, “we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.” How does that appeal for reconciliation relate to your concept of objective justification?
Fifth, you say that Christ’s universal work is something that everyone can “benefit from” only through faith. I would ask whether Scripture itself ever describes the unbeliever as already possessing justification but merely lacking its subjective benefits. Romans 8:1 says, “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus,” while Romans 8:13 warns that those who live after the flesh “shall die.” Paul does not appear to speak of an unbeliever as already justified in one sense while remaining condemned in another.
Sixth, you describe salvation as “double monergism,” with salvation being God’s work and damnation being man’s work and will alone. I understand the theological reasoning behind that formulation, but I would ask whether Scripture permits us to describe damnation as exclusively a work of human will. Scripture certainly emphasizes human responsibility. Jesus says, “ye will not come to me, that ye might have life” (John 5:40), and John 3:19 says that men loved darkness rather than light. Yet Scripture also speaks of God’s judicial activity in judgment. Romans 9:18 says, “whom he will he hardeneth,” and Romans 9:22 speaks of “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.” How do these texts fit into the claim that damnation is solely the product of human will?
Seventh, I would be interested in your distinction between universal atonement and universal justification. If Christ’s death is universal, I can understand the argument that Christ died for all. But why must “Christ died for all” entail “all are objectively justified”? Those appear to be separate theological propositions that require separate exegetical demonstration. 1 Timothy 2:6 says that Christ “gave himself a ransom for all,” while the same letter can speak of the necessity of faith and salvation. How do you establish the additional step from universal atonement to universal forensic justification?
Finally, I would ask about the phrase “not all are justified before God through faith.” If all are already objectively justified, but only believers are justified before God through faith, are we using “justified” in two different senses? If so, where does Paul himself establish that distinction? Or are “objective justification” and “subjective justification” theological categories developed to reconcile passages that otherwise appear to use justification differently?
J.
Note, brother @TheologyNerd what I am not doing here is attacking Lutheranism, Reformed theology, Arminianism, or any other theological “camp.” My concern is not with defending a particular tradition, but with examining the exegetical and theological claims being made and testing them carefully against the biblical text.
Maybe with you I can have an edifying discussion.
J.