Can I Tell an Unbeliever ‘Jesus Died for You’?

Yep, God's universal love is of such a variety that it is overpowered by God's decree of reprobation! Look, have the nerve to say what you mean like John Owen and A. W. Pink. God hates the non-elect.

Yes, you can tell an unbeliever, “Jesus died for you."

John 3:16 teaches God gave His only Son because God loved the world. Not just the elect world, but the world.

Christ died for the ungodly (Romans 5:6). All humanity is ungodly.

Scripture tells us Jesus’ sacrificial death was for all, for the world.

1 John 2:2 tells us Jesus’ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world.

Scripture says Jesus died for the elect, and it says Jesus died for the world (John 1:29) or for all (1 Timothy 2:6). It never says Jesus only died for the elect.

If Jesus did not die for all humanity, there are large numbers of people who have no hope or chance of salvation. It is deceptive to believe in Limited Atonement and then say, but everyone has the opportunity to be saved. If Jesus did not die for you, you never had a chance to be saved, and you never will have a chance to be saved. Limited Atonement people say, but if they believe… Believe in what? If Jesus did not die for you, you have nothing to believe in! If Jesus did not die for you, you are as sure for Hell as if you were already there.

So yes! Praise God that Jesus, God the Son, died for all. Hence we now have on our church sign, “Jesus died for you, and rose again.”

David R. Brumbelow

Warren Wiersbe quote:

2 Peter 2:1

“In what sense were these people ‘bought’ by the Lord? While it is true that Jesus Christ died for the church (Ephesians 5:25), it is also true that He died for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). He is the merchant who purchased the whole field (the world) that He might acquire the treasure in it (Matthew 13:44). When it comes to application, our Lord’s atonement is limited to those who believe. But when it comes to efficacy, His death is sufficient for the whole world. He purchased even those who reject Him and deny Him! This makes their condemnation even greater.” -Warren Wiersbe

https://gulfcoastpastor.blogspot.com/2019/05/warren-wiersbe-on-calvinism-unlimited.html?showComment=1711081802460#c141647237375947187

David R. Brumbelow

It has been said that

everyone believes in limited atonement. Some believe that God limits the efficacy of the atonement to the elect while others believe that unrepentant sinners limit the efficacy of the atonement for themselves.

1 John 2:2 is not as clear as many seem to think. Who is “ours” (ours here in Jerusalem or wherever John was at the time?) in “not ours only”? And who is “the whole world” (e.g., all believers throughout the world?) and in what sense was it “for” them?

There are multiple ways to answer each of these questions, with arguments pro and con.

Phrases like “chose us in him before the foundation of the world” (Eph 1:4) are far less ambiguous.

Like the author, I think Christians can disagree on this without deserving to be labeled heretics or second-rate Christians. But, like him, I also believe in “definite” atonement. This is a better term than “limited,” for emotional reasons, if nothing else. People have such a hard time getting past their gut reaction to “limited.” But definite focuses on the right thing: there was never any doubt or guessing in God’s plan for who He was on the cross to redeem. He is not in Heaven flipping a coin and guessing who is going to believe or whether Joe Evangelist is going to be persuasive enough in his altar call to ‘win’ this person or that one.

We’re certainly right to say God “so loved the world,” because Jesus said it. But again, is it obvious that “world” means “every single person, individually” (vs. as a whole) and “loved each individual in exactly all the same ways”? That’s a lot of freight to put in that truck bed. It can be done, and argued for. Many have done it. It takes a lot of work, though, and it is only obvious that all of that belongs on the truck if you’re convinced before you start.

After reading John Owen's work (along with Packer's excellent introduction), I walked away with it encapsulated as whether you believe the death on the cross made a way for all, or whether the death on the cross secured salvation for the past, current and future believers. I avoid the statement, "Jesus died for you", because it is limiting. Instead focus on the gospel message with the believer and focus on whether they accept or reject Christ.

"We deny that all mankind are the object of that love of God which moved him
to send his Son to die; God having ‘made some for the day of evil,’ Prov. xvi. 4; ‘hated them before they were born,’ Rom. ix. 11, 13; ‘before of old ordained them to condemnation,’ Jude 4; being ‘prepared to destruction,’ Rom. ix. 22; ‘made to be taken and destroyed,’ 2 Pet. 11.12; ‘appointed to wrath,’ 1 Thess. v. 9; to ‘go to their own place,’ Acts i. 25.” - The Death of Death, 115.

Owen teaches double predestination further on in the book (133).

If the atonement is not definite:

Is it true that God can only save people who want to be saved and ask?

If God has done all he can do, should I pray that God should save people or should I pray that he does things to make them want to be saved?

#playingdevilsadvocate

Maybe not. We don't want God tilting the table in regard to man's free will. He must simply them choose without any outside pressure. (I'm kidding, of course.)

Reformed limited atonement theology is deductive theology. It will encounter texts like John 3:16-17 and 1 Tim. 4:10 and will bring its "If...then" thinking to the texts. Then the skirmish between the Bible and the interpreter happens until "world" is made to mean "elect", thereby turning John 3:16 into a tautology. Then the mischaracterizations of freewill are brought out (betraying the lack of reading of e.g., Arminius or Wesley). But the fact is no text teaches limited redemption and many teach quite the opposite. It's not for us to explain away what the Bible SAYS. We must place ourselves under it and fetch our theology from there.

The article asks whether we can tell an unsaved person that Christ died for them if we hold to limited redemption. The answer is No, unless you wish to live with a contradiction. All you can do is tell sinners that Christ died on the cross for some sinners, although not the majority (Matt. 7:13). Logically, you cannot invite people to come to Christ if the overwhelming odds are they are not welcome, anymore than you can invite a stranger to a party if you don't know they are invited. Like I said, the older writers were more up front about this.

Finally, although he may not know it, brother Barkman's remark about praying to make them want to be saved is similar to the Reformed doctrine of preparationism taught by J. Edwards and Thos. Hooker.

I personally think that “intent” is the wrong question to be asking. The real issue for me is sufficiency. When Jesus died on the cross, he could not have suffered more than what he did, but did he only suffer for the sins of the elect or did he suffer for the sins of the everyone without exception. Or, to put it another way, did Jesus have the sins of all people imputed to him on the cross, or only the sins of the elect?

I have a hard time believing that the whosoever passages are valid (e.g., John 3:26, Rom 10:13, “whosoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved”) if Jesus did not bear everyone’s sins on the cross.

Owen says in opposition to my position, “I cannot conceive an intention in God that Christ should satisfy his justice for the sin of them that were in hell some thousands of years before, and yet be still resolved to continue their punishment on them to all eternity.”

Yet, the penalty Jesus paid is unquantifiable – i.e., the payment/suffering is the same if (A) Sins of elect and non-elect imputed to Christ or (B) only sins of elect imputed to Christ. Furthermore, the application of atonement does not occur until the elect/sinner exercises saving faith. Our sins are not removed and righteousness applied until we are united with Christ by faith. Before we were saved by faith, the elect are described as “children of wrath” like the rest of mankind (Eph 2:1-3).

The Bible maintains a difference between the accomplishment of redemption on the cross and the application of that redemption to our person. The sacrifice of the Passover Lamb was sufficient for all but only applied to those who applied it to their door posts. Because the suffering of Christ is not quantifiable there is none wasted and because not applied until time of faith, there is no double payment.

So, yes, I think you can tell unbelievers that Jesus died for you, even if you believe in election.

Please examine II Corinthians 5:14,15 carefully. "that if One died for all, then all died." This does not say that all died in Adam, but that "all" died in Christ, and that the "all" for whom Christ died "should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again." All for whom Christ died are obligated to live for the One who died to give them life. The "all" for whom Christ died are those who are made alive as a result of His death. "All" does not mean everyone without exception, but everyone who is made alive in Christ.

Well brother, I've never seen this text used to teach limited atonement before, and for good reason; it has nothing to do with the subject. It is simply a statement of the truth that Christ died for the sins of all the saints, and also that those saints should live for Him. This is an in-house discussion. It has nothing to do with unbelievers who may or may not become believers.

This is the text that forced S. Lewis Johnson to resign his teaching position at Dallas Seminary. When this text moved Dr. Johnson from a four to five point position, he was in violation of the universal atonement position required of Dallas teachers. If only he had realized this text has nothing to do with limited atonement it would have spared him a great deal of anguish.

It sure would have. He violated a cardinal rule of interpretation: don't interpret clear passages from unclear ones. Another vary plausible interpretation is that Christ's death was a death for all in Adam but only imputed for those who trust Christ. Hence, "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself" (2 Cor. 5:19. "World" here is a reference to sinners in general. Whichever, even many LR's don't go to 2 Cor. 14 as a proof text.