The Lord's death did them no saving good whatsoever, indeed it couldn't do them any saving good whatsoever, since they were already physically dead when Christ died and rose again.
And what about post-Calvary folks in the jungles of New Guinea? What will happen to them in particular if they never even hear the gospel message of the New Testament? In other words, in what sense did Christ die to save them in particular if the Omnipotent Spirit of Almighty God is not pleased to GET the missionaries ALL THE WAY out in the middle of nowhere to present the message of the gospel to them in particular?
(How can the Third Person of the Trinity be said to be committed to the salvation of these folks in particular if He does not pull out all stops to get the gospel message to them in particular? And if the Second Person of the Trinity died to save them in particular, how come the Third Person of God is not always clearly and dynamically interested in saving them in particular? [Sometimes the Omnipotent Spirit deliberately leaves providential doors of opportunity closed!])
My point is that the Lord's atoning death can offer folks no saving good whatsoever if they never even get to hear the message. (This is precisely why Calvinists are such energetic jungle missionaries. We know that the unevangelized souls are doomed as having no atonement if we Christians can't even get to them with the New Testament message.)
***
The reason why I am raising these questions is that there are logical difficulties in the doctrine of the atonement as it is commonly understood. And I think that it requires a proud heart not to acknowledge the fact of these serious theological problems.
We need to be spiritually careful, not proud. This is why John Calvin adopted the very careful Scholastic formula, which says Christ's death was "sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect."
No Calvinist denies or even minimizes the free offer of the Gospel. "Christ's death was sufficient for all." No one under the sound of the gospel will be able to complain on Judgment Day that the free offer was a lie. If you go to hell from a church pew, it will be because you refused to submit to the terms of the offer which was made to you--the terms of repentance and faith in the God-man who made a mysteriously wonderful atonement for His people.
And just to help the sinner repent, the Calvinist will also occasionally point out that repentance unto life involves the realization that if you remain forever unwilling to repent for real, forever unwilling to believe for real, THEN YOU HAVE NO ATONEMENT WHATSOEVER. ("Christ's death was efficient only for the elect.")
Do you see what we are saying in all of this? It's a question of efficacy inherent in the design. God's elect must repent and believe the gospel. But they will. The Lord's cross has POWER.
"He SHALL see the travail of His soul and be satisified. He SHALL see His seed."
In other words, the cross-work of Christ actually secures the new birth (notice the travail/seed idea!) in God's elect. In this way, the cross of Christ is INFINITELY more powerful than the poor anti-predestinarian realizes.
If and when you finally grasp this, you will discover that the Calvinist has a much better gospel message than the Arminian does!
I was waiting for this! Here we now find that all men are free (free only to die in their sins), so the Calvinist can maintain that there is no contradiction between those verses that say 'whosoever' and Calvinism.
See, when you cannot reconcile Scripture you just change the meaning of words, so 'free' means not really free (you after, totally dead) what it means is you as a sinner are doing what you choose to do.
This is ofcourse, true but begs the question why are some chosen and some not? This defense of 'freedom' is nothing but smoke and mirrors, intended to confuse the issue. The word 'freedom' in Calvinism, like the word Love, has no real meaning.
Even so, come Lord Jesus
By your definition, NO ONE in the Old Testament were saved by grace, through faith, either. Christ's death on the cross paid the penalty for sin for all mankind for all time.
John 3:3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. 9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? 10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
Notice that Jesus expected Nicodemus to know what it meant to be BORN AGAIN. Salvation is by grace, through faith. Salvation is a gift, given to those who BELIEVE. If God chooses to make some believe and NOT CHOOSE to ALLOW others to believe, then God has nu business judging me for sin, for HE WOULD HAVE DENIED ME SALVATION ON THE SAME TERMS THAT HE OFFERED IT TO OTHERS.
I wanted to answer Doc’s questions in post #73. I did this mostly as a learning exercise for myself. This is not a criticism of Doc. I hope you find value in it, even if you disagree with it.
Have you ever thought about the different ways the Lord speaks to you? His voice does not always come from expected sources. I encourage everyone to listen carefully to opposing viewpoints regardless of your theological position.
I am not Calvinist. I am not an Arminian. I can’t confine myself to any particular “man-made” theology. If I had to say, I’m probably somewhere between a Calvinist and a Dispensationalist. I encourage everyone to not let any theology come between you and Christ. If all these debates over theology confuse you or wear on you go to Galatians and read what Paul says about living in the freedom of Christ.
Now to the questions:
“There were people who were already physically dead and beyond even the possibility of salvation when Christ did His atoning work. In what saving sense did He die for them in particular?”
The statement seems to be saying that those who died before Christ could not be saved. I don’t agree. Salvation is the same throughout history. The timing of Christ’s death on the cross is irrelevant. God’s Grace has been displayed in every age. The basis of salvation in every age is the death of Christ. Those who were physically dead before Christ’s death were saved or not saved by God’s grace through faith according to God’s revelation. Scriptural evidence: God gave the promise of Christ to Abraham. Abraham had faith in this revelation and was saved by God’s grace. Genesis 15:1-6 and Romans 4:18-25
So Christ’s atoning work was also for those who lived and died prior to his time. See also Habakkuk 2:1-4.
From Henry’s commentary on Habakkuk:
Synopsis: - Habakkuk must wait in faith. (1-4)
”He will rest his soul on the promise, and on Christ, in and through whom it is given. Thus he walks and works, as well as lives by faith, perseveres to the end, and is exalted to glory; while those who distrust or despise God's all-sufficiency will not walk uprightly with him. The just shall live by faith in these precious promises, while the performance of them is deferred. Only those made just by faith, shall live, shall be happy here and for ever.”
“And what about post-Calvary folks in the jungles of New Guinea? What will happen to them in particular if they never even hear the gospel message of the New Testament?”
If they never hear the Gospel message then they are lost, but the failure is theirs, not God’s. God reveals his truth to all men (by the Great Commission, by conscience, by creation, and by many other agents), but men everywhere suppress that truth. The man in the jungles of New Guinea is inexcusable. (Rom 1:20).
God’s judgment of the people past and present who are “untold” is based not on their response to unrevealed truth but to their lack of response to what they have received.
The “untold” man in the middle of the Amazon or the heart of Los Angeles is not simply innocent or misinformed. Their fall is willful. God’s judgment is warranted and true. (Rom 2:1–3)
In other words, in what sense did Christ die to save them in particular if the Omnipotent Spirit of Almighty God is not pleased to GET the missionaries ALL THE WAY out in the middle of nowhere to present the message of the gospel to them in particular?
The value of Christ’s death is unchanged. The power of Christ’s death is not diminished by the absence of missionaries. The “untold” are responsible and are not innocent.
(This is not an argument against evangelism. On the contrary, the Great Commission is highly important.)
How can the Third Person of the Trinity be said to be committed to the salvation of these folks in particular if He does not pull out all stops to get the gospel message to them in particular?
The Lord has “pulled out all the stops” to reveal his plan to the world. He does stop short of forcing men to accept the revelation. Every person has sufficient knowledge to be held liable for sin. In Romans, Paul gives the explanations and reasons for man’s inexcusable state.
”No matter how isolated a man may be from the revelation of God’s righteousness in the gospel of Jesus Christ, that man is entirely without excuse. The wrath of God is on him because of his ungodliness and unrighteousness, not because of his lack of faith in Christ.” –J. Ronald Blue
And if the Second Person of the Trinity died to save them in particular, how come the Third Person of God is not always clearly and dynamically interested in saving them in particular?
I see no reason to think this. The Lord is always, clearly, dynamically interested in saving man. His judgment is his and his alone and should not be seen as a lack of interest in saving us. We are all already under condemnation. That the Lord provides a way for any of us to escape his wrath is powerful evidence. I would not accuse him of lack of interest.
It is implied in these questions that the value of Christ’s atonement is connected to results of man’s salvation. That is, if someone is not saved then Christ’s atonement had no value. I don’t agree. Man does not determine the value of Christ’s atonement. Man cannot decrease the value of the atonement by rejecting Christ. God set the value of Christ’s atonement. It cannot be diminished.
Peace in Christ,
JWinNC