For Whom Did Christ Die?

n this verse the human race is described as a sick man, whose disease is so far advanced that he is altogether without strength: no power remains in his system to throw off his mortal malady, nor does he desire to do so; he could not save himself from his disease if he would, and would not if he could. I have no doubt that the apostle had in his eye the description of the helpless infant given by the prophet Ezekiel; it was an infant—an infant newly born—an infant deserted by its mother before the necessary offices of tenderness had been performed; left unwashed, unclothed, unfed, a prey to certain death under the most painful circumstances, forlorn, abandoned, hopeless. Our race is like the nation of Israel, its whole head is sick, and its whole heart faint. Such, unconverted men, are you! Only there is this darker shade in your picture, that your condition is not only your calamity, but your fault. In other diseases men are grieved at their sickness, but this is the worst feature in your case, that you love the evil which is destroying you. In addition to the pity which your case demands, no little blame must be measured out to you: you are without will for that which is good, your "cannot" means "will not," your inability is not physical but moral, not that of the blind who cannot see for want of eyes, but of the willingly ignorant who refuse to look.

While man is in this condition Jesus interposes for his salvation. "When we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly"; "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us," according to "his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses and sins." The pith of my sermon will be an endeavour to declare that the reason of Christ's dying for us did not lie in our excellence; but where sin abounded grace did much more abound, for the persons for whom Jesus died were viewed by him as the reverse of good, and he came into the world to save those who are guilty before God, or, in the words of our text, "Christ died for the ungodly."

Now to our business. We shall dwell first upon the fact—"Christ died for the ungodly"; then we shall consider the fair inferences therefrom; and, thirdly, proceed to think and speak of the proclamation of this simple but wondrous truth.

First, here is THE FACT—"Christ died for the ungodly." Never did the human ear listen to a more astounding and yet cheering truth. Angels desire to look into it, and if men were wise they would ponder it night and day. Jesus, the Son of God, himself God over all, the infinitely glorious One, Creator of heaven and earth, out of love to me stooped to become a man and die. Christ, the thrice holy God, the pure-hearted man, in whom there was no sin and could be none, espoused the cause of the wicked. Jesus, whose doctrine makes deadly war on sin, whose Spirit is the destroyer of evil, whose whole self abhors iniquity, whose second advent will prove his indignation against transgression, yet undertook the cause of the impious, and even unto death pursued their salvation. The Christ of God, though he had no part or lot in the fall and the sin which has arisen out of it, has died to redeem us from its penalty, and, like the psalmist, he can cry, "Then I restored that which I took not away." Let all holy beings judge whether this is not the miracle of miracles!

Christ, the name given to our Lord, is an expressive word; it means "Anointed One," and indicates that he was sent upon a divine errand, commissioned by supreme authority. The Lord Jehovah said of old, "I have laid help upon one that is mighty, I have exalted one chosen out of the people"; and again, "I have given him as a covenant to the people, a leader and commander to the people." Jesus was both set apart to this work, and qualified for it by the anointing of the Holy Ghost. He is no unauthorised saviour, no amateur deliverer, but an ambassador clothed with unbounded power from the great King, a Redeemer with full credentials from the Father. It is this ordained and appointed Saviour who has "died for the ungodly." Remember this, ye ungodly! Consider well who it was that came to lay down his life for such as you are.

The text says Christ died. He did a great deal besides dying, but the crowning act of his career of love for the ungodly, and that which rendered all the rest available to them, was his death for them. He actually gave up the ghost, not in fiction, but in fact. He laid down his life for us, breathing out his soul, even as other men do when they expire. That it might be indisputably clear that he was really dead, his heart was pierced with the soldier's spear, and forthwith came there out blood and water. The Roman governor would not have allowed the body to be removed from the cross had he not been duly certified that Jesus was indeed dead. His relatives and friends who wrapped him in linen and laid him in Joseph's tomb, were sorrowfully sure that all that lay before them was a corpse. The Christ really died, and in saying that, we mean that he suffered all the pangs incident to death; only he endured much more and worse, for his was a death of peculiar pain and shame, and was not only attended by the forsaking of man, but by the departure of his God. That cry, "My God, my God! why hast thou forsaken me?" was the innermost blackness of the thick darkness of death.

Our Lord's death was penal, inflicted upon him by divine justice; and rightly so, for on him lay our iniquities, and therefore on him must lay the suffering. "It pleased the Father to bruise him; he hath put him to grief." He died under circumstances which made his death most terrible. Condemned to a felon's gibbet, he was crucified amid a mob of jesters, with few sympathising eyes to gaze upon him; he bore the gaze of malice and the glance of scorn; he was hooted and jeered by a ribald throng, who were cruelly inventive in their taunts and blasphemies. There he hung, bleeding from many wounds, exposed to the sun, burning with fever, and devoured with thirst, under every circumstance of contumely, pain, and utter wretchedness; his death was of all deaths the most deadly death, and emphatically "Christ died."

But the pith of the text comes here, that "Christ died for the ungodly"; not for the righteous, not for the reverent and devout, but for the ungodly. Look at the original word, and you will find that it has the meaning of "impious, irreligious, and wicked." Our translation is by no means too strong, but scarcely expressive enough. To be ungodly, or godless, is to be in a dreadful state, but as use has softened the expression, perhaps you will see the sense more clearly if I read it, "Christ died for the impious," for those who have no reverence for God. Christ died for the godless, who, having cast off God, cast off with him all love for that which is right. I do not know a word that could more fitly describe the most irreligious of mankind than the original word in this place, and I believe it is used on purpose by the Spirit of God to convey to us the truth, which we are always slow to receive, that Christ did not die because men were good, or would be good, but died for them as ungodly—or, in other words, "he came to seek and to save that which was lost."

Observe, then, that when the Son of God determined to die for men, he viewed them as ungodly, and far from God by wicked works. In casting his eye over our race he did not say, "Here and there I see spirits of nobler mould, pure, truthful, truth-seeking, brave, disinterested, and just; and therefore, because of these choice ones, I will die for this fallen race." No; but looking on them all, he whose judgment is infallible returned this verdict, "They are all gone out of the way; they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one." Putting them down at that estimate, and nothing better, Christ died for them. He did not please himself with some rosy dream of a superior race yet to come, when the age of iron should give place to the age of gold,—some halcyon period of human development, in which civilisation would banish crime, and wisdom would conduct man back to God. Full well he knew that, left to itself, the world would grow worse and worse, and that by its very wisdom it would darken its own eyes. It was not because a golden age would come by natural progress, but just because such a thing was impossible, unless he died to procure it, that Jesus died for a race which, apart from him, could only develop into deeper damnation. Jesus viewed us as we really were, not as our pride fancies us to be; he saw us to be without God, enemies of our own Creator, dead in trespasses and sins, corrupt, and set on mischief, and even in our occasional cry for good, searching for it with blinded judgment and prejudiced heart, so that we put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. He saw that in us was no good thing, but every possible evil, so that we were lost,—utterly, helplessly, hopelessly lost apart from him: yet viewing us as in that graceless and Godless plight and condition, he died for us.

I would have you remember that the view under which Jesus beheld us was not only the true one, but, for us, the kindly one; because had it been written that Christ died for the better sort, then each troubled spirit would have inferred "he died not for me." Had the merit of his death been the perquisite of honesty, where would have been the dying thief? If of chastity, where the woman that loved much? If of courageous fidelity, how would it have fared with the apostles, for they all forsook him and fled? There are times when the bravest man trembles lest he should be found a coward, the most disinterested frets about the selfishness of his heart, and the most pure is staggered by his own impurity; where, then, would have been hope for one of us, if the gospel had been only another form of law, and the benefits of the cross had been reserved as the rewards of virtue? The gospel does not come to us as a premium for virtue, but it presents us with forgiveness for sin. It is not a reward for health, but a medicine for sickness. Therefore, to meet all cases, it puts us down at our worst, and, like the good Samaritan with the wounded traveller, it comes to us where we are. "Christ died for the impious" is a great net which takes in even the leviathan sinner; and of all the creeping sinners innumerable which swarm the sea of sin, there is not one kind which this great net does not encompass.

Let us note well that in this condition lay the need of our race that Christ should die. I do not see how it could have been written "Christ died for the good." To what end for the good? Why need they his death? If men are perfect, does God need to be reconciled to them? Was he ever opposed to holy beings? Impossible! On the other hand, were the good ever the enemies of God? If such there be are they not of necessity his friends? If man be by nature just with God, to what end should the Saviour die? "The just for the unjust" I can understand; but the "just dying for the just" were a double injustice—an injustice that the just should be punished at all, and another injustice that the just should be punished for them. Oh no! If Christ died, it must be because there was a penalty to be paid for sin committed, hence he must have died for those who had committed the sin. If Christ died, it must have been because "a fountain filled with blood" was necessary for the cleansing away of heinous stains; hence, it must have been for those who are defiled. Suppose there should be found anywhere in this world an unfallen man—perfectly innocent of all actual sin, and free from any tendency to it, there would be a superfluity of cruelty in the crucifixion of the innocent Christ for such an individual. What need has he that Christ should die for him, when he has in his own innocence the right to live? If there be found beneath the copes of heaven an individual who, notwithstanding some former slips and flaws, can yet, by future diligence, completely justify himself before God, then it is clear that there is no need for Christ to die for him. I would not insult him by telling him that Christ died for him, for he would reply to me, "Why should he? Cannot I make myself just without him?" In the very nature of things it must be so, that if Christ Jesus dies he must die for the ungodly. Such agonies as his would not have been endured had there not been a cause, and what cause could there have been but sin?

Some have said that Jesus died as our example; but that is not altogether true. Christ's death is not absolutely an example for men, it was a march into a region of which he said, "Ye cannot follow me now." His life was our example, but not his death in all respects, for we are by no means bound to surrender ourselves voluntarily to our enemies as he did, but when persecuted in one city we are bidden to flee to another. To be willing to die for the truth is a most Christly thing, and in that Jesus is our example; but into the winepress which he trod it is not ours to enter, the voluntary element which was peculiar to his death renders it inimitable. He said, "I lay down my life of myself; no man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself." One word of his would have delivered him from his foes; he had but to say "Begone!" and the Roman guards must have fled like chaff before the wind. He died because he willed to do so; of his own accord he yielded up his spirit to the Father. It must have been as an atonement for the guilty; it could not have been as an example, for no man is bound voluntarily to die. Both the dictates of nature, and the command of the law, require us to preserve our lives. "Thou shalt not kill" means "Thou shalt not voluntarily give up thine own life any more than take the life of another." Jesus stood in a special position, and therefore he died; but his example would have been complete enough without his death, had it not been for the peculiar office which he had undertaken. We may fairly conclude that Christ died for men who needed such a death; and, as the good did not need it for an example—and in fact it is not an example to them—he must have died for the ungodly.

The sum of our text is this—all the benefits resulting from the Redeemer's passion, and from all the works that followed upon it, are for those who by nature are ungodly. His gospel is that sinners believing in him are saved. His sacrifice has put away sin from all who trust him, and, therefore, it was offered for those who had sin upon them before. "He rose again for our justification," but certainly not for the justification of those who can be justified by their own works. He ascended on high, and we are told that he "received gifts for men, yea, for the rebellious also." He lives to intercede, and Isaiah tells us that "He made intercession for the transgressors." The aim of his death, resurrection, ascension, and eternal life, is towards the sinful sons of men. His death has brought pardon, but it cannot be pardon for those who have no sin—pardon is only for the guilty. He is exalted on high "to give repentance," but surely not to give repentance to those who have never sinned, and have nothing to repent of. Repentance and remission both imply previous guilt in those who receive them: unless, then, these gifts of the exalted Saviour are mere shams and superfluities, they must be meant for the really guilty. From his side there flowed out water as well as blood—the water is intended to cleanse polluted nature, then certainly not the nature of the sinless, but the nature of the impure; and so both blood and water flowed for sinners who need the double purification. To-day the Holy Spirit regenerates men as the result of the Redeemer's death; and who can be regenerated but those who need a new heart and a right spirit? To regenerate the already pure and innocent were ridiculous; regeneration is a work which creates life where there was formerly death, gives a heart of flesh to those whose hearts were originally stone, and implants the love of holiness where sin once had sole dominion. Conversion is also another gift, which comes through his death, but does he turn those whose faces are already in the right direction? It cannot be. He converts the sinner from the error of his ways, he turns the disobedient into the right way, he leads back the stray sheep to the fold. Adoption is another gift which comes to us by the cross. Does the Lord adopt those who are already his sons by nature? If children already, what room is there for adoption? No; but the grand act of divine love is that which takes those who are "children of wrath even as others," and by sovereign grace puts them among the children, and makes them "heirs of God, joint heirs with Jesus Christ."

To-day I see the Good Shepherd in all the energy of his mighty love, going forth into the dreadful wilderness. For whom is he gone forth? For the ninety and nine who feed at home? No, but into the desert his love sends him, over hill and dale, to seek the one lost sheep which has gone astray. Behold, I see him arousing his church, like a good housewife, to cleanse her house. With the besom of the law she sweeps, and with the candle of the word she searches, and what for? For those bright new coined pieces fresh from the mint, which glitter safely in her purse? Assuredly not, but for that lost piece which has rolled away into the dust, and lies hidden in the dark corner. And lo! grandest of all visions! I see the Eternal Father, himself, in the infinity of his love, going forth in haste to meet a returning child. And whom does he go to meet? The elder brother returning from the field, bringing his sheaves with him? An Esau, who has brought him savoury meat such as his soul loveth? A Joseph whose godly life has made him lord over all Egypt? Nay, the Father leaves his home to meet a returning prodigal, who has companied with harlots, and grovelled among swine, who comes back to him in disgraceful rags, and disgusting filthiness! It is on a sinner's neck that the Father weeps; it is on a guilty cheek that he sets his kisses; it is for an unworthy one that the fatted calf is killed, and the best robe is worn, and the house is made merry with music and with dancing. Yes, tell it, and let it ring round earth and heaven, Christ died for the ungodly. Mercy seeks the guilty, grace has to do with the impious, the irreligious and the wicked. The physician has not come to heal the healthy, but to heal the sick. The great philanthropist has not come to bless the rich and the great, but the captive and the prisoner. He puts down the mighty from their seats, for he is a stern leveller, but he has come to lift the beggar from the dunghill, and to set him among princes, even the princes of his people. Sing ye, then, with the holy Virgin, and let your song be loud and sweet,—"He hath filled the hungry with good things, but the rich he hath sent empty away." "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners." "He is able to save to the uttermost them that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them." O ye guilty ones, believe in him and live.

II. Let us now consider THE PLAIN INFERENCES FROM THIS FACT. Let me have your hearts as well as your ears, especially those of you who are not yet saved, for I desire you to be blessed by the truths uttered; and oh, may the Spirit of God cause it to be so. It is clear that those of you who are ungodly—and if you are unconverted you are that—are in great danger. Jesus would not interpose his life and bear the bloody sweat and crown of thorns, and nails, and spear, and scorn unmitigated, and death itself, if there were not solemn need and imminent peril. There is danger, solemn danger, for you. You are under the wrath of God already, and you will soon die, and then, as surely as you live, you will be lost, and lost forever; as certain as the righteous will enter into everlasting life, you will be driven into everlasting punishment. The cross is the danger signal to you, it warns you that if God spared not his only Son, he will not spare you. It is the lighthouse set on the rocks of sin to warn you that swift and sure destruction awaits you if you continue to rebel against the Lord. Hell is an awful place, or Jesus had not needed to suffer such infinite agonies to save us from it.

It is also fairly to be inferred that out of this danger only Christ can deliver the ungodly, and he only through his death. If a less price than that of the life of the Son of God could have redeemed men, he would have been spared. When a country is at war, and you see a mother give up her only boy to fight her country's battles—her only well-beloved, blameless son—you know that the battle must be raging very fiercely, and that the country is in stern danger: for, if she could find a substitute for him, though she gave all her wealth, she would lavish it freely to spare her darling. If she were certain that in his heart a bullet would find its target, she must have strong love for her country, and her country must be in dire necessity ere she would bid him go. If, then, "God spared not his Son, but freely delivered him up for us all," there must have been a dread necessity for it. It must have stood thus: die he, or the sinner must, or justice must; and since justice could not, and the Father desired that the sinner should not, then Christ must; and so he did. Oh, miracle of love! I tell you, sinners, you cannot help yourselves, nor can all the priests of Rome or Oxford help you, let them perform their antics as they may; Jesus alone can save, and that only by his death. There on the bloody tree hangs all man's hope; if you enter heaven it must be by force of the incarnate God's bleeding out his life for you. You are in such peril that only the pierced hand can lift you out of it. Look to him, at once, I pray you, ere the proud waters go over your soul.

Then let it be noticed—and this is the point I want constantly to keep before your view—that Jesus died out of pure pity. He must have died out of the most gratuitous benevolence to the undeserving, because the character of those for whom he died could not have attracted him, but must have been repulsive to his holy soul. The impious, the godless—can Christ love these for their character? No, he loved them notwithstanding their offences, loved them as creatures fallen and miserable, loved them according to the multitude of his loving-kindnesses and tender mercies, from pity, and not from admiration. Viewing them as ungodly, yet he loved them. This is extraordinary love! I do not wonder that some persons are loved by others, for they wear a potent charm in their countenances, their ways are winsome, and their characters charm you into affection; "but God commendeth his love towards us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us." He looked at us, and there was not a solitary beauty spot upon us: we were covered with "wounds, and bruises, and putrefying sores," distortions, defilements, and pollutions; and yet, for all that, Jesus loved us. He loved us because he would love us; because his heart was full of pity, and he could not let us perish. Pity moved him to seek the most needy objects that his love might display its utmost ability in lifting men from the lowest degradation, and putting them in the highest position of holiness and honour.

Observe another inference. If Christ died for the ungodly, this fact leaves the ungodly no excuse if they do not come to him, and believe in him unto salvation. Had it been otherwise they might have pleaded, "We are not fit to come." But you are ungodly, and Christ died for the ungodly, why not for you? I hear the reply, "But I have been so very vile." Yes, you have been impious, but your sin is not worse than this word ungodly will compass. Christ died for those who were wicked, thoroughly wicked. The Greek word is so expressive that it must take in your case, however wrongly you have acted. "But I cannot believe that Christ died for such as I am," says one. Then, sir, mark! I hold you to your words, and charge you with contradicting the Eternal God to his teeth, and making him a liar. Your statement gives God the lie. The Lord declares that "Christ died for the ungodly," and you say he did not, what is that but to make God a liar? How can you expect mercy if you persist in such proud unbelief? Believe the divine revelation. Close in at once with the gospel. Forsake your sins and believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall surely live. The fact that Christ died for the ungodly renders self-righteousness a folly. Why need a man pretend that he is good if "Christ died for the ungodly?" We have an orphanage, and the qualification for our orphanage is that the child for whom admission is sought shall be utterly destitute. I will suppose a widow trying to show to me and my fellow trustees that her boy is a fitting object for the charity; will she tell us that her child has a rich uncle? Will she enlarge upon her own capacities for earning a living? Why, this would be to argue against herself, and she is much too wise for that, I warrant you, for she knows that any such statements would damage rather than serve her cause. So, sinner, do not pretend to be righteous, do not dream that you are better than others, for that is to argue against yourself. Prove that you are not by nature ungodly, and you prove yourself to be one for whom Jesus did not die. Jesus comes to make the ungodly godly, and the sinful holy, but the raw material upon which he works is described in the text not by its goodness but by its badness; it is for the ungodly that Jesus died. "Oh, but if I felt!" Felt what? Felt something which would make you better? Then you would not so clearly come under the description here given. If you are destitute of good feelings, and thoughts, and hopes, and emotions, you are ungodly, and "Christ died for the ungodly." Believe in him and you shall be saved from that ungodliness.

"Well," cries out some Pharisaic moralist, "this is dangerous doctrine." How so? Would it be dangerous doctrine to say that physicians exercise their skill to cure sick people and not healthy ones? Would that encourage sickness? Would that discourage health? You know better; you know that to inform the sick of a physician who can heal them is one of the best means for promoting their cure. If ungodly and impious men would take heart and run to the Saviour, and by him become cured of impiety and ungodliness, would not that be a good thing? Jesus has come to make the ungodly godly, the impious pious, the wicked obedient, and the dishonest upright. He has not come to save them in their sins, but from their sins; and this is the best of news for those who are diseased with sin. Self-righteousness is a folly, and despair is a crime, since Christ died for the ungodly. None are excluded hence but those who do themselves exclude; this great gate is set so wide open that the very worst of men may enter, and you, dear hearer, may enter now.

I think it is also very evident from our text that when they are saved, the converted find no ground of boasting; for when their hearts are renewed and made to love God they cannot say, "See how good I am," because they were not so by nature; they were ungodly, and, as such, Christ died for them. Whatever goodness there may be in them after conversion they ascribe it to the grace of God, since by nature they were alienated from God, and far removed from righteousness. If the truth of natural depravity be but known and felt, free grace must be believed in, and then all glorying is at an end.

This will also keep the saved ones from thinking lightly of sin. If God had forgiven sinners without an atonement they might have thought little of transgression, but now that pardon comes to them through the bitter griefs of their Redeemer they cannot but see it to be an exceeding great evil. When we look to Jesus dying on the cross we end our dalliance with sin, and utterly abhor the cause of so great suffering to so dear a Saviour. Every wound of Jesus is an argument against sin. We never know the full evil of our iniquities till we see what it cost the Redeemer to put them away.

Salvation by the death of Christ is the strongest conceivable promoter of all the things which are pure, honest, lovely, and of good report. It makes sin so loathsome that the saved one cannot take up even its name without dread. "I will take away the name of Baalim out of thy mouth." He looks upon it as we should regard a knife rusted with gore, wherewith some villain had killed our mother, our wife, or child. Could we play with it? Could we bear it about our persons or endure it in our sight? No, accursed thing! stained with the heart's blood of my beloved, I would fain fling thee into the bottomless abyss! Sin is that dagger which stabbed the Saviour's heart, and henceforth it must be the abomination of every man who has been redeemed by the atoning sacrifice.

To close this point. Christ's death for the ungodly is the grandest argument to make the ungodly love him when they are saved. To love Christ is the mainspring of obedience in men—how shall men be led to love him? If you would grow love, you must sow love. Go, then; and let men know the love of Christ to sinners, and they will, by grace, be moved to love him in return. No doubt all of us require to know the threatenings of the wrath of God; but that which soonest touches my heart is Christ's free love to an unworthy one like myself. When my sins seem blackest to me, and yet I know that through Christ's death I am forgiven, this blest assurance melts me down.

I can tell you hundreds and thousands of cases in which this infinite love has done all the good that morality itself could ask to have done; it has changed the heart and turned the entire current of the man's nature from sin to righteousness. The sinner has believed, repented, turned from his evil ways, and become zealous for holiness. Looking to Jesus he has felt his sin forgiven, and he has started up a new man, to lead a new life. God grant it may be so this morning, and he shall have all the glory of it.

III. So now we must close—and this is the last point—THE PROCLAMATION OF THIS FACT, that "Christ died for the ungodly." I would not mind if I were condemned to live fifty years more, and never to be allowed to speak but these five words, if I might be allowed to utter them in the ear of every man, and woman, and child who lives. "CHRIST DIED FOR THE UNGODLY" is the best message that even angels could bring to men. In the proclamation of this the whole church ought to take its share. Those of us who can address thousands should be diligent to cry aloud—"Christ died for the ungodly"; but those of you who can speak to one, or write a letter to one, must keep on at this—"Christ died for the ungodly." Shout it out, or whisper it out; print it in capitals, or write it in a lady's hand—"Christ died for the ungodly." Speak it solemnly, it is not a thing for jest. Speak it joyfully; it is not a theme for sorrow, but for joy. Speak it firmly; it is indisputable fact. Facts of science, as they call them, are always questioned: this is unquestionable. Speak it earnestly; for if there be any truth which ought to arouse all a man's soul it is this: "Christ died for the ungodly." Speak it where the ungodly live, and that is at your own house. Speak it also down in the dark corners of the city, in the haunts of debauchery, in the home of the thief, in the den to the depraved. Tell it in the gaol; and sit down at the dying bed and read in a tender whisper—"Christ died for the ungodly." When you pass the harlot in the street, do not give a toss with that proud head of yours, but remember that "Christ died for the ungodly"; and when you recollect those that injured you, say no bitter word, but hold your tongue, and remember "Christ died for the ungodly." Make this henceforth the message of your life—"Christ died for the ungodly."

And, oh, dear friends, you that are not saved, take care that you receive this message. Believe it. Go to God with this on your tongue—"Lord save me, for Christ died for the ungodly, and I am of them." Fling yourself right on to this as a man commits himself to his lifebelt amid the surging billows. "But I do not feel," says one. Trust not your feelings if you do; but with no feelings and no hopes of your own, cling desperately to this, "Christ died for the ungodly." The transforming, elevating, spiritualising, moralising, sanctifying power of this great fact you shall soon know and be no more ungodly; but first, as ungodly, rest you on this, "Christ died for the ungodly." Accept this truth, my dear hearer, and you are saved. I do not mean merely that you will be pardoned, I do not mean that you will enter heaven, I mean much more; I mean that you will have a new heart; you will be saved from the love of sin, saved from drunkenness, saved from uncleanness, saved from blasphemy, saved from dishonesty. "Christ died for the ungodly"—if that be really known and trusted in, it will open in your soul new springs of living water which will cleanse the Augean stable of your nature, and make a temple of God of that which was before a den of thieves. Trust in the mercy of God through the death of Jesus Christ, and a new era in your life's history will at once commence.

Having put this as plainly as I know how, and having guarded my speech to prevent there being anything like a flowery sentence in it, having tried to put this as clearly as daylight itself,—that "Christ died for the ungodly," if your ears refuse the precious boons that come through the dying Christ, your blood be on your own heads, for there is no other way of salvation for any one among you. Whether you reject or accept this, I am clear. But oh! do not reject it, for it is your life. If the Son of God dies for sinners, and sinners reject his blood, they have committed the most heinous offence possible. I will not venture to affirm, but I do suggest that the devils in hell are not capable of so great a stretch of criminality as is involved in the rejection of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Here lies the highest love. The incarnate God bleeds to death to save men, and men hate God so much that they will not even have him as he dies to save them. They will not be reconciled to their Creator, though he stoops from his loftiness to the depths of woe in the person of his Son on their behalf. This is depravity indeed, and desperateness of rebellion. God grant you may not be guilty of it. There can be no fiercer flame of wrath than that which will break forth from love that has been trampled upon, when men have put from them eternal life, and done despite to the Lamb of God. "Oh," says one, "would God I could believe!" "Sir, what difficulty is there in it? Is it hard to believe the truth? Darest thou belie thy God? Art thou steeling thy heart to such desperateness that thou wilt call thy God a liar?" "No; I believe Christ died for the ungodly," says one, "but I want to know how to get the merit of that death applied to my own soul." Thou mayest, then, for here it is—"He that believeth in him," that is, he that trusts in him, "is not condemned." Here is the gospel and the whole of it—"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: he that believeth not shall be damned."

I am a poor weak man like yourselves, but my gospel is not weak; and it would be no stronger if one of "the mailed cherubim, or sworded seraphim" could take the platform and stand here instead of me. He could tell to you no better news. God, in condescension to your weakness, has chosen one of your fellow mortals to bear to you this message of infinite affection. Do not reject it! By your souls' value, by their immortality, by the hope of heaven and by the dread of hell, lay hold upon eternal life; and by the fear that this may be your last day on earth, yea, and this evening your last hour, I do beseech you now, "steal away to Jesus." There is life in a look at the crucified one; there is life at this moment for you. Look to him now and live. Amen.

How can you say no internal compulsion when the flesh is compelling even for a regenerate man (Rom.7:24) That definition (no citation) is meaningless.

compulsion \Com*pul"sion\, n. [L. compulsio. See Compel.] The act of compelling, or the state of being compelled; the act of driving or urging by force or by physical or moral constraint; subjection to force.

I assert that Man's Will is not subjected to Force which compels him to do evil; rather, he Wants to do evil, and so he freely wills to do evil.

But, if you want to say that Romans 7:24 teaches that Man's Will is compelled to evil by the flesh, I'll grant the point for the sake of discussion -- as it forces you to an even harsher view of Man's Depravity against God, that of Martin Luther's "Bondage of the Will" rather than John Calvin's position of freedom within the context of depravity. So, if you want to say that Romans 7:24 teaches that Man's Will is compelled to evil by the flesh, I am willing to grant the point for argument's sake.

Thank you, but I will make my own statements. Here is the Biblical way to look at it. God foreknew that those cities would reject of their own free will God's free offer of grace (as seen in Sodom). That becomes part of God's Plan, He let them go their own way, honoring their choice.

And God foreknew that they would of their own free will Repent and accept God if He performed the salvific miracles before them. Remember that before Time, no "choice" of their had yet been made, so their was no "choice" of theirs to honor -- simply the foreknowledge of the different choices which they would make given different elections of grace, either of which Election of Grace the omnipotent God could freely choose to include in His plan, with the knowledge that His own election of Grace would create the conditions under which they would choose one thing, or the other. So whichever foreknown creative scenario God saw fit to create, He would be honoring their choice, because whichever choice they would make (repent or not repent) would necessarily be the dependent result of His prior election as to grace. After all, if God had seen fit to perform miracles, and they had (as He foreknew they would) Repented, He would have honored that Choice too, would He not? And neither choice was predestined to happen until He decided which foreknown creative scenario He was going to create.

Knowing that His election to perform miracles would create the condition in which they would Repent; and...
Knowing that His election to NOT perform miracles would create the condition in which they would NOT Repent;
God deliberately chose to create the conditions in which they would NOT repent, rather than the conditions in which they would Repent.

And so they did freely choose to Not Repent, but only after God had already decided that He was going to create the foreknown scenario in which they would Not Repent.

The rebuke to the Jews is for their decision in freely rejecting God's greater grace (miracles). The Jews actions were also foreseen and therefore part of God's Plan, yet not part of God's directive will, but permissive will. How does that sound?

It sounds as if you have inappropriately placed a Choice of Man before God's choice to create. Obviously, you cannot do that. Before God decided which foreknown scenario He was going to create, there was no "choice" to "respect" -- neither choice had happened, and neither choice was predestined to happen, until after God decided what His own actions would be. When He decided he would perform no salvific miracles in Tyre and Sidon, THEN their foreknown choice to Not Repent became the predestined choice, and God respected that choice. But, if He HAD decided to perform the salvific miracles, THEN their foreknown choice to Repent would be the predestined choice, and God would have respected that choice.

But neither choice existed in fact until after He had determined whether or not He would perform miracles, so there was no choice to "respect" until after God had decided which foreknown scenario He would create.

You haven't evaded Absolute Predestination in the passage at all, merely tried to place the contingent and dependent choice of a Creature before the antecedent and precedent Creative choice of the Creator. But that is not possible for a Creationist.

Your argument is akin to saying God knew Man was predestined to choose to Fall before He created the universe, and God "respected" that "choice". But there was no "choice" of Man to respect at that point in time, only the foreknown potentiality that Man would Fall -- IF God decided to create the universe and IF God decided to create Man and IF God decided to place the Tree in the Garden. God was not forced to do any of these things; He could have not created the universe, or not created man, or not created the Tree in the Garden.

Thus, It was God's sovereign choice to create the conditions in which Man would Fall; He was under no obligation to create Man at all, and He could have freely chosen to create different conditions (i.e., no Tree in the Garden, etc) under which Man would not Fall. Likewise, it was God's sovereign choice to create the conditions in which Tyre and Sidon would Not Repent; He was under no obligation to create the Tyrians and Sidonians at all, and He could have freely chosen to create different conditions (i.e., ordained salvific miracles, etc) under which the Tyrians and Sidonians would Repent. To deny this, is to pretend that the choices of Men precede the Creation choices of God -- which is the worst kind of idolatry.

And thus, His free choices absolutely predestined their choices in all cases.

Run as fast as you like, yet the words of Christ bind you to acknowledge Absolute Predestination; though you rage against them still, you cannot escape them, hard as you try.

"Are unrepentant murderers and adulterers indwelt by the Holy Spirit?" -- I am not quite sure what that has to do with a Man's ability to lose his salvation........so you tell me.

Gee, I am just not sure either. That is why I am ASKING you. You know a great deal about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, no? And about that subject, I simply require a "yes" or "no" answer, for my own information:

Are unrepentant murderers and adulterers indwelt by the Holy Spirit?

Well? Yes, or No?

"If a Saved Man commits murder and adultery, and is not Repentant, does he remain Saved?" ~~ I dont know the importance of the crimes listed...sin is sin... I dont know where the threshold would be in that case though....he obviously would have opportunity to repent. I would suppose if he didnt repent then that disobedience would open the door for Satan to begin to darken his understanding until line upon line he could fully return to unbelief. I just dont know at what point the Lord deliniates between the person remaining in faith and then crossing back into unbelief.

If a Saved Christian man committed adultery and murder and six months passed and he did not repent one bit, would he still be Saved if he died that night? Why or why not?

I have given up on your second question.

WHAT?!?! You are not even able to read eight verses of Matthew?

Good grief. You should sit at A.J.Armitage's feet and plead with him, "teach me, rabbi, for I am not even able to read eight verses in a row. I need your understanding, I am a child in the Faith, and you are learned and wise, and able to read and understand eight or more verses in a row!!"

Why don't you try again.

First, try reading the Scripture...

Matthew 11: 20 - 27 -- Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you." At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure." All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

Now, we'll break it into three questions, concerning the specific evidence of this passage:

Did the omniscient God foreknow that Tyre and Sidon would freely choose TO REPENT in the case of His performance of Miracles like unto those He performed in Chorazin and Bethsaida?
And did the omniscient God foreknow Tyre and Sidon would freely choose NOT TO REPENT in the case of His non-performance of such Miracles?
And did the omnipotent God CHOOSE not to perform these Miracles in Tyre and Sidon, a choice which had as its perfectly foreknown result the NON-Repentance of Tyre and Sidon, just as He foreknew?

D, the blind can not see..you want to attribute it to some superhuman effort on your part...that somehow a blind man can see if he tries hard enough

John 12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

Ephesians 4:18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:

2 Corinthians 4
3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. Ephesians 1
8 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,
19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,

1Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

Ezekiel 11
19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:

2 Corinthians 3:3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

D, you know all this..The blind see and the lame walk..not on their own effort..

When you push Calvinism back to its premises and ask why the Calvinist has no answer. All the words spent on defending the points are wasted because ultimately the system has no final answer that deals with what God is doing and why He is doing it.

He does it to please Himself and to glorify Himself before all His creation. Do not imagine Arminians are perched upon some high ground here from which lofty elevation they may look down upon the humble Calvinist.

The purpose to God in all of this(according to Calvinism) is His own glorification.

With regard to salvation and other matters, the Bible repeatedly teaches us that God intends to show His eternal glory. And He demands that we acknowledge it. And this pattern of glorification will ultimately culminate at the Judgment Throne where every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is King. And I suspect that the damned will confess it as well before they are cast into hell. You will not embarass a Calvinist by accusing him of a proper fear of God and acknowledging God's intent in glorifying Himself over and above all His creation.

Yet, the glory of saving millions when He could have saved billions seems an empty glory. Could not the glory relate to the fact that despite opposition He achieved His goals, to provide salvation for all (even though all will not accept it) and still perserve the will of His creatures to respond freely to His grace.

You may feel that God has diminished His glory by not choosing to offer universal salvation. If so, your KJV has done you little good. I do not judge God's methods.

This He did because it gave Him pleasure (Rev.4:11)

Let's look closer, shall we?

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. - Revelation 4:11 KJV

The writer is declaring Christ worthy of glory and honor and power through the Father. All creation was created by and through Him but the power of the Father worked all these things for the pleasure of the Son. At least, this is my reading. The writer declares and affirms the legitimacy of Christ as King and Messiah and affirms his role in creation and that the purpose of creation is to glorify Him, the Son of Man. Some might argue that this verse applies to the Father, not the Son. I think that it refers to Christ because it is difficult to make sense of Revelations 5:8 otherwise.

Let's just deal with your insinuation that Calvinists have some kind of fetish over the glory of God as it relates to the sovereignty of God in salvation as revealed by the light of the Word. Naturally, no Calvinist thread can be considered complete without some quotes of Romans 9:

Romans 9

15
For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16
So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17
For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19
Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20
Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22
What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23
And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24
Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

I don't see where God is indicating that He has any regard for your pro-choice philosophy of salvation in this passage.

Look at verse 17 where Paul describes that Pharoah was lifted up in order that God's power should be known throughout the earth. That was God's purpose in Pharoah's life. And because of God's action here, the story of Pharoah survives to this day. Where was Pharoah's "choice"? Pharoah was damned from all eternity but God's purpose in even allowing him life and temporal power was in fulfilling His plan for Israel. And God glorified Himself throughout the earth in the damnation of Pharoah. That was not His primary purpose. But it was His purpose for Pharoah.

Let's look at Paul's question in verse 21: "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?". I ask you the same question. Does God have the right and the power to make a man either for salvation or for damnation? We already know that Pharaoh (among many others) was created to be damned in the process of God's purpose with the nation of Israel. Can you answer Paul? Where was Pharaoh's choice?

Moving ahead, notice that colon at the end of verse 22. The KJV translators obviously felt that the proper rendering here was to indicate that one of the ways in which God makes known His glory and His mercy (and His love) to the Elect was His forbearance toward the evil of the Reprobate.

You might ask what purpose is served in God tolerating evil to glorify Himself for the sake of the Elect. And Paul answers you directly in verse 23.

Since I would expect you'll still cling to idol of man's "choice" as the ultimate object of all Creation (since you don't find the glory of God adequate), I'll give my own answer, one for which you can find innumerable examples of this very principle of which Paul writes here.

All of the Gentiles of the early church became members of Christ's flock under the New Covenant. And yet, they sprang from the heathen evil of dozens or hundreds of generations of evil and unsaved ancestors who committed grievous offences against God, even against the revelation of His natural law as we well know.

God tolerated the evil of those ancestors in order to bring forth that one single sheep for Christ's own flock. To apply this to modern times, ask yourself how many generations of heathen evil God has tolerated to bring forth the modern Christians of the African or Asian churches.

God has indeed "endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:".

And why did He do this? "And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"

Paul was a missionary to Gentiles, absolutely dedicated and passionate in his calling. He knew that this is the reason why we are commanded to preach the Gospel of Christ to all the nations. Poor and unworthy vessels that we are, God has chosen, for His own glory, to use us to call forth the Elect from all nations. He doesn't need us and more than He actually needed Pharaoh. But it pleases Him to glorify Himself through our frail actions in obedience to Him.

And people still wonder why Calvinist denominations have such a strong record of missionary work given their theology. Calvinists took Paul seriously. Perhaps you can understand as well why OPie and I so strongly affirm the necessity of Preaching To Obey.

Your #1008: Now you're just being silly. It has already been seen that your "counter-arguments" were crushed within minutes after leaving your keyboard.

That is your opinion.

There you go again, OPie, copying and pasting the same stuff. Your #1008 is a repost of your #936. Have you not understood my replies thus far? You need to read Matthew 11:23, and my #962, more carefully.

In general terms, Calvinism has been utterly refuted over and over by many talented and eloquent posters along the following lines, yet still you soldier on.

God is Love, desiring the best for all, not creating people to damn them unless chosen for salvation.
God is fair and just, granting all the grace to repent and improve, not withholding the means to repent so they will be damned to hell forever.
God is all-powerful, accomplishing all His purposes, and granting true free will, properly defined, to all in the sphere in which He has placed us, so we can learn and grow, develop and improve.
It is not necessary for God to predetermine everything, both good and evil, in order to be Sovereign, for that would make God the author of evil.
(In fact, when you think about it, the evil that men do does not seem to threaten God's sovereignty or omnipotence in the Calvinist mind, as it makes damnation just. They consider fallen man fully free to do whatever evil he wills. It would appear that only the potential that a man might be able to choose good, in a way that does him and others good, so threatens God's sovereignty or glory in Calvinist eyes that God must predetermine everything, denying free will. How ridiculous.)

Now to continue with the details:

I wrote yesterday, "The Bible does not tell us the final outcome of anyone". You pointed out that Jude tells us the inhabitants of Sodom are in hell now.

You also reminded us that in LDS theology, hell does eventually deliver up its dead (Revelation 20:13, after the Millennium), who have by that time paid the uttermost farthing for their own sins. This is called the Second Resurrection. "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:22), Christ having atoned for Adam's transgression, which brought death into the world, man is held accountable only for his own sins.

1 Corinthians 15:40-42
40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. ...

Paul compares the glory of the celestial kingdom, where God and Christ dwell with those who are valiant in the cause of Christ, with the brightness of the sun. He compares the glory of the terrestrial kingdom, where the just dwell, with the brightness of the moon. Paul does not mention the name of the third kingdom, where the unjust dwell after they have suffered for their sins, whose glory is compared to the brightness of the stars, but we know it as the Telestial Kingdom (D&C 76:81-85). Though they are not left in hell forever, where God and Christ dwell they cannot come.

You were saying yesterday that this is an "escape clause" that alone refutes your Absolute Reprobation case for Christians who are LDS, but, you claim, not for other Christians.

So let's do this. We will consider the "final outcome", for our purposes, to be whether people who have died are with the righteous in peace now, or with the wicked in hell now. That modifies my statement as follows:

The Bible does not tell us the current state of anyone who has died other than Jesus Christ, God the Son, who stands at the right hand of God the Father, Abraham, in whose bosom the righteous dwell, and the inhabitants of Sodom, who are in hell.

Let me know if there are others you want to add.

The point still is that neither we, nor Augustine, nor Calvin, know the current fate of the inhabitants of Tyre and Sidon, because the Bible does not tell us.

There were people who came to Jesus from the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, and saw His miracles, before His rebuke of Chorazin in Matthew 11 and Luke 10.

Luke 6:17
And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people out of all Judaea and Jerusalem, and from the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, which came to hear him, and to be healed of their diseases;

Later He goes to that region, perhaps to escape the press of the multitudes in Israel, and a Syrophenician woman asks for her daughter's healing.

Mark 7:24 (compare Matthew 15:21)
And from thence he arose, and went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and entered into an house, and would have no man know it: but he could not be hid.

There is more in the excellent post #1016 by xzins.

Now regarding Sodom, a careful reading of Matthew 11:23 shows that Christ did not say they would have repented, like Tyre and Sidon. He says the city would have remained until that day. I think the difference means something. In the days of Abraham and Lot, it would have been spared had ten righteous been found in it. There were not that many, and the righteous were apparently all removed before the fire and brimstone fell. Ten would have kept that city around despite all the wicked in it, so it is not fair to say that the city would have repented.

At any rate, we know from Genesis that they were all wicked and unrepentant when they perished in Sodom, and we know from Jude that they are in hell now.

We do not know these things about Tyre and Sidon, in fact there is evidence of considerable receptiveness from the current inhabitants of that region in contrast to the hardness of heart of the Jews in Bethsaida.

Your statement is fallacious in your 979: "God alone decided before all Time whether or not they would choose to Repent, by choosing whether or not they would be shown the miracles which He knew would bring about their Repentance.", because:

You are confusing miracles with grace to repent,
You implicitly assume that God predetermines and controls whether people will repent or not, and causes them to repent (assume Calvinism, and lo and behold, Calvinism is proved),
You erroneously assume that miracles are the only way and only opportunity for God to obtain repentance from them, and
You do not know what you claim to know about their condition when they died and their condition now, as we do with Sodom.
You are relying too much on the miracles. Faith comes not by signs, but signs follow those that believe. According to your own Calvinism, regeneration must come before the reprobate pays any useful attention to such things.

Your logic, as I said, is dreadful.

So you are not justified in your conclusion that God withheld from them the grace to repent and thrust them into hell, or even that the miracles were withheld from them.

QED

Surely plenty of those people are in hell now because they are unrepentant sinners, but even for those, you haven't shown that God withheld from them the grace to repent.

Another thought on Matthew 11:

As doc would put it, Jesus deals a crushing, fatal blow to Calvinism in verse 20:

20 Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not:

If Calvin were correct, He would have regenerated them (or not, as He chose) before expecting them to repent, and then caused their repentance. No point in upbraiding them for the hardness of their unrepentent hearts.

A preacher cannot regenerate, and so must preach repentance to both unregenerate and regenerate, but the Lord of all would not do so if Calvin were correct.

There are things like this all through the Bible that disprove Calvinism.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.