As many of you know, I once wrote an article titled “He was buried,” in order to demonstrate why belief in the immortality of the soul means someone can’t be said to be a member of the body of Christ, since it would mean one doesn’t believe a specific (and crucial) element of Paul’s Gospel (please go read that article if you aren’t familiar with why I say this).
I’ve also maintained for years that the “Christ died for our sins” element of Paul’s Gospel means that someone who believes in Infernalism (meaning the doctrine of never-ending torment), or even Annihilationism, also can’t actually be a member of the body of Christ, because they don’t believe that sin has been dealt with, once and for all, through Christ’s death for our sins (if anyone believes that a person can be punished without end because of their sins, they haven’t understood what it means that “Christ died for our sins,” and you can’t truly believe something if you don’t actually understand its meaning). Not only that, though, it also means that someone who believes a person can only be saved by choosing to believe something specific (be it a supposedly “free will” choice, or even a predestined choice) aren’t in the body of Christ either, because it isn’t our belief that saves us, but rather it’s Christ’s death for our sins, along with His subsequent burial and resurrection on the third day, that saves us (this means that even some who call themselves “Christian Universalists” aren’t in the body of Christ, because many of them also believe that salvation only comes through a choice to believe something specific; and please keep in mind that I’m referring specifically to the general salvation that everyone experiences when I discuss verses 3 and 4 of 1 Corinthians 15, of course, and not the special “eternal” life type of salvation referred to in verses 1 and 2 — it’s important to keep in mind that both types of salvation are being discussed in the first four verses of 1 Corinthians 15, and if you aren’t familiar with the different types of salvation, please read this). To believe that one has to choose to believe something specific in order to be saved is putting the cart before the horse, since faith, or belief, in what Christ accomplished is the cart bringing us into the form of salvation known as membership in the body of Christ (also known as salvation from a relative perspective), while the general salvation (from an absolute perspective) because of Christ’s death for our sins, burial, and resurrection on the third day, is the horse.
I should say, while “the salvation of all humanity” isn’t, strictly speaking, Paul’s Gospel itself — since Paul’s Gospel is technically just those combined elements that he said he taught the Corinthians (Christ’s death for our sins, His burial, and His resurrection on the third day) — because the salvation of all humanity is the end result of Christ’s death for our sins, His burial, and His resurrection on the third day, it means that the salvation of all humanity because of what Christ accomplished is this Gospel’s main point. And so, while there are other details about his Gospel which also need to be understood in order to be considered a member of the body of Christ (such as what it means that “He was “buried,” for example), it can legitimately be said that “the salvation of all humanity because of what Christ accomplished” is essentially Paul’s Gospel, since it’s the essence of Paul’s Gospel due to being the end result — and, really, the only reason for the existence — of Paul’s Gospel. (Again, of course, referring to a general salvation, meaning being made immortal and sinless, and not the special “eternal” life sort of salvation which only the body of Christ will get to enjoy in heaven, or even the other “eternal” life sort of salvation, which the Israel of God will enjoy in the kingdom of heaven on earth for 1,000 years.)
Despite all this, there are a number of people out there who I do consider to be true believers but who don’t seem to understand this truth about the meaning of “Christ died for our sins,” insisting, for some reason, that it can’t be referring to the salvation of all humanity because of Christ’s death, but that it must mean something else. Well, one thing we do all agree on is that the words “Christ died for our sins” have to mean something. The question, then, is, “What is it that those words mean?”
One thing I’ve heard some believers teach is that these words somehow mean “justification by faith.” Well, if that’s the case, let’s break down the passage. Paul said in verses 1 and 2 that those who believe his Gospel will be saved. And since everyone that I know in the true body of Christ does at least seem to understand that Paul did teach the salvation of all based solely on Christ’s death for our sins (hmmm…), apart from anything else we have to do (including even choosing to believe this Good News), if that is what it means, the Gospel Paul taught people that they needed to believe in order to be considered saved and in the body of Christ would then be, “believe that a person can be justified by faith, and also that Christ was buried and rose again the third day,” which really makes no sense at all, since it would then mean that we’re justified by having faith that we can be justified by having faith, presuming we have the faith that Christ was buried and resurrected on the third day too, of course (and yes, I realize that, from an absolute perspective, it was Christ’s faith in going to the cross, along with His subsequent burial and resurrection, that ultimately saves and justifies us, but from a relative perspective it’s our faith in Christ — specifically in what Christ did and accomplished [by dying for our sins] — that justifies us, meaning it’s our faith that Paul’s Gospel is true that justifies us, at least from a relative perspective; besides, justification by Christ’s faith ultimately results in the salvation of all anyway, so that would still support exactly what I’m saying as well, presuming that’s what they actually mean by “justification by faith”).
The real problem, however, is that the words “justification by faith,” and even the concept of justification by faith, just aren’t found anywhere in verse 3, which means that this idea is nothing more than reading one’s assumption into the verse. The truth is, “Christ died for our sins” could really mean anything we want it to at all if it can mean something that isn’t included in, or at least implied by, those specific words. For example, it could mean “Alexander the coppersmith did Paul much evil” — or anything else Paul wrote about, for that matter — if we’re picking things from his epistles that have no connection with the words “Christ died for our sins” on their own. So at the end of the day, it must have something to do with the result of Christ’s death for our sins. And what did Christ’s death for our sins accomplish? Well, it resulted in the promise of eventual salvation for all humanity. And since I can’t think of anything else that the words “Christ died for our sins” might mean in that verse, at least not without reading one’s assumption into the text, not to mention without contradicting verses 1 and 2 (along with other parts of Scripture as well), I’d argue that the salvation of all humanity is logically the only thing Paul could have possibly been referring to there.
It’s really all about the process of elimination. Once you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. As I said, “Christ died for our sins” has to mean something, and I really can’t think of anything else it could mean (and I haven’t heard a convincing argument from anyone else that their assumption about what it means has to be what it means either, especially since I’ve never seen any of them demonstrate from Scripture just how those words can mean what they’re claiming they do). However, if you still do disagree that it’s referring to the salvation of all, please let me know exactly where your interpretation of “Christ died for our sins” (be it “justification by faith,” or whatever else it may be) is located — or at least implied by or the end result of what’s stated — in verse 3, all without contradicting verses 1 and 2 (or any other part of the Bible for that matter).
It’s important to also keep in mind that, as we know from that very passage, when Paul met the Corinthians in person (remember, Paul wasn’t telling the Corinthians his Gospel for the first time in this epistle; he was repeating what he’d previously told them in person), he specifically said the words, “Christ died for our sins,” to them (and not “Christ died for your sins,” as some mistakenly believe). Now, this wouldn’t mean anything to the Corinthians on its own when they heard these words, so they would have asked him what that meant, and Paul would have, of course, explained that it means all sin has now been dealt with because of Christ’s death, and because of this, each of them was guaranteed eventual general salvation (immortality and sinlessness) whether they believed it or not. So unless the Corinthians were severely mentally impaired, they would have understood that this means all humanity must be guaranteed general salvation too, whether they (meaning the rest of humanity) believe it or not as well (since the Corinthians hearing him proclaim his Gospel to them for the first time would have had no reason to believe that Christ’s death for sin only applied to them and Paul specifically, but excluded everyone else in the world who wasn’t in the crowd hearing him speak at that particular moment). So yes, it seems clear to me that the only way to understand those specific words in verse 3 of 1 Corinthians 15 is to understand that all sin is dealt with through Christ’s death (whether one has faith that it’s true or not while it’s still possible to have faith — which I say because, when one is standing before Christ at the Great White Throne, belief won’t be based on faith anymore, but will rather be based on sight at that time), and hence all humanity is guaranteed general salvation (which, again, simply refers to being made immortal and sinless and, yes, being justified, whether they had faith when it was still possible to have faith or not) at some point in the future. And verses 1 and 2 tell us that only those who believe the Good News that Christ’s death dealt with all sin (and hence guarantees the general salvation of all humanity) are saved now, at least as far as special salvation goes (presuming they also understood the rest of the passage, of course).
What he definitely wouldn’t have done when the Corinthians asked him what “Christ died for our sins” means was say, “It means you can now be justified by faith,” because they then would have asked him, “Faith in what?”, and if he then turned around and said, “In Christ’s death for our sins,” that would have been an entirely circular answer (basically meaning that “one can be saved by believing that one can be justified by having faith in the fact that one can justified by faith,” as I was getting at earlier), and they would have walked away completely confused, not knowing what he was talking about. So at the end of the day, if it isn’t the salvation of all, you’re going to need to come up with a good explanation as to what “Christ died for our sins” is telling us without giving a circular answer, and, again, without contradicting verses 1 and 2 (or any of the rest of the Bible).
Of course, it’s also been stated by many people that 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 was talking only about those in the Corinthian church who believed Paul’s Gospel (or at least only about people who believed Paul’s Gospel in general), and that it didn’t include the rest of humanity anywhere in its words, and, in fact, that the “for our sins” part of this Gospel was only referring to the sins of those specific Corinthians who believed that the words in Paul’s Gospel are true (or at least only referring to the sins of those who believe his Gospel in general). And while it is true that this part of the chapter was about what the recipients of this particular epistles believed, this point is completely irrelevant because he was simply repeating in writing what he told them in person and what they believed back at that time they met him in person, as we already covered, not to mention because what they specifically believed in order to be able to be said to be saved wouldn’t actually make any sense at all if “our sins” wasn’t referring to the sins of all humanity, for the reasons I also already gave above.
In addition, aside from the fact that he didn’t tell them something along the lines of, “Christ can have died for the sins of you Corinthians specifically, but only if you happen to believe that He died for your sins, making it so that He did die for your sins, even though He didn’t actually die for your sins if you don’t believe He did” (which would have to be the case if this passage was only about the sins of the Corinthian believers rather than the sins of all humanity), why would he have called this the good news he brought to them if it wasn’t already news which is good for his audience at the time he spoke it to them in person, before they even believed it? (This is why it’s called good news/a Gospel to begin with: because it’s good news whether someone believes it or not, or even hears it or not — it couldn’t be called good news if it’s something that has to be believed in order to avoid a never-ending punishment, since it could then only be called potential good news, or Paul’s Potential Gospel; and if this isn’t about the eventual salvation of all, I should add, then Paul’s Gospel has nothing to do with the salvation of all in the first place and we should never connect his Gospel with the salvation of all, because there’s no basis for even saying that the salvation of all is the end result of Christ’s death for our sins, burial, and resurrection if Christ’s death for our sins isn’t referring to how all sin has now been dealt with by Christ’s death.) The statement that “Christ died for our sins” would have to already be good news to anyone Paul told this fact to before he even spoke the words to them if he wanted to be able to call it a Gospel in the first place, and not just news which can be good, but only if they happened to hear it and then also believe it’s true, somehow turning it into good news for them (although not really particularly good news, since, statistically speaking, they were still pretty much guaranteed to lose most of their loved ones to never-ending punishment in the end, especially if modern Christians are correct).
I should also say, this is where the Calvinists are at least partly correct (or at least those Calvinists who don’t say unscriptural and illogical things such as, “Christ’s death for our sins was sufficient to save all, but efficient to save only the elect,” because if something must be added to His sacrifice in order for someone to be saved — even something as simple as having to believe the right thing — then His death for our sins was, by definition, INsufficient on its own to save anyone). The consistent Calvinists at least understand that, if we can’t do anything at all to save ourselves, it can only be Christ’s death for our sins (along with His subsequent burial and resurrection) that saves us, which means that anyone whose sins Christ died for has to be saved (which we believers understand is referring to general salvation, of course, and not to the special “eternal” life type of salvation), even if only proleptically at present (prolepsis being a common figure of speech used throughout the Bible which means “the representation or assumption of a future act or development as if presently existing or accomplished,” calling what is not yet as though it already were, in other words, as God Himself often does), since otherwise His death for our sins accomplished absolutely nothing for anyone prior to someone hearing about His death for our sins and then choosing to believe that His death for our sins accomplished something for them too, thus making them their own (at least partial) saviour by turning Christ’s ineffectual action (which, by definition, is what His death for our sins would be if it didn’t have any effect without someone else doing something, such as choosing to believe something specific, to add to it as well) into an action that finally helped accomplish something for them after all.
Where these Calvinists go wrong is in forgetting that the words Paul specifically said he spoke to the Corinthians when he first evangelized to them in person were not “Christ died for your sins” (or even “Christ died for the sins of the elect,” which is what most Calvinists believe he meant). Instead, he wrote that the words he told them in person were “Christ died for our sins.” If he only meant that Christ died for the sins of the Corinthians and himself specifically, it would mean He didn’t also die for the sins of anyone else, including the believers in Rome or Galatia or anywhere else for that matter (and that He didn’t die for your sins either). But let’s say that he just meant “the sins of the elect,” or even “the sins of believers in general” (to make this point clear to those who aren’t Calvinists as well), when he said “for our sins.” Well, since it’s not like believing Christ died for our sins could then make it a fact that he died for their sins specifically, but only after believing it (since He only died once), this means He had to have at least died for the sins of anyone hearing this proclamation of Good News before Paul spoke those words to anyone. And so, unless every single Corinthian Paul spoke to believed his words, if Christ’s death for our sins is what saves us, it would mean that Paul was lying to anyone who didn’t believe that Christ died for our sins when he spoke those words to them, because that statement would have to include everyone hearing him say those words rather than just the listeners who also believed those words were true (since it would mean that Christ didn’t actually die for their sins after all, considering the fact that anyone whose sins Christ died for has to be saved). Not only that, it would mean we were also lying anytime we explained that the Good News includes the fact that Christ died for our sins, at least if anyone who heard us didn’t believe it either (unless, perhaps, what one actually has to believe in order to be saved is that Jesus died only for the sins of Paul and the Corinthians he spoke to — and that everyone in Corinth he preached his Gospel to got saved — and not that he actually died for you or anyone else, but then we’d have to ask what the basis of our general salvation really was in the first place, as well as why Paul even referred to Christ’s death for the sins of the Corinthians and himself specifically as “Good News” in that passage (and in person when he first met them), not to mention why we’re called to believe Paul’s Gospel in order to be justified and enjoy the special salvation, if His death for our sins didn’t apply to everyone else as well).
So yes, Christ’s death for our sins actually had to apply to all humanity (and hence guarantee the general salvation of all humanity), and if someone doesn’t understand that this assertion by Paul means everyone has been saved from a proleptic perspective, they can’t be said to be in the body of Christ yet, because Paul said in this passage that his readers were saved when they believed this Gospel/Good News (or, at the very least, they have to believe the truths that are contained within verses 3 and 4 in order to be in the body of Christ, which yes, I’ll acknowledge does mean that someone who doesn’t necessarily understand the truths about what those two verses mean as I just laid out in this article and in my “He was buried” article, but who does still believe the truths themselves based on other passages of Scripture, technically would still be a true believer and a member of the body of Christ, even if they were confused about the meaning of this passage), and since general salvation is based on Christ’s death for our sins rather than on our faith, this can only be the special salvation — meaning membership in the body of Christ — that they were brought into at the time they truly believed that Christ died for our sins. There really is no alternative interpretation that doesn’t contradict Scripture. As I already pointed out, verses 1 and 2 say that one is saved if they believe the Gospel he taught them in person, the Gospel he then repeated in writing in verses 3 and 4. And we know that belief in anything doesn’t save anyone as far as general salvation goes (since adding a requirement for that type of salvation would be teaching salvation by works), so verses 3 and 4 have to be about a different form of salvation from the one referred to in verses 1 and 2. And you just won’t find anything about “justification by faith” — or any other possible interpretation either — in verses 3 and 4, so there’s just no room for it to mean anything other than the salvation of all.
If it helps, another way of looking at all this is to recognize that verses 1 and 2 are referring to salvation from a relative perspective, because they’re talking about something that relatively few people will get to enjoy, which is an early experience of the salvation that everyone is eventually going to enjoy (that salvation consisting of being made immortal and sinless and being justified, as we’ve already learned), along with the additional benefits that salvation from a relative perspective also brings (such as membership in the body of Christ, and all that this membership entails as well). Salvation from a relative perspective does require a certain criteria to be met in order to get to enjoy this early experience of salvation, however, even if meeting that criteria (which consists of believing, or having faith, that Paul’s Gospel is true, as Paul explained in those first two verses of the chapter that we’re talking about) is technically a gift from God rather than out of ourselves. Verses 3 and 4, on the other hand, are referring to the same salvation, but from an absolute perspective (so the same immortality, sinlessness, and justification, in other words, even if not necessarily the membership in the body of Christ that a relatively small number of people will also get to enjoy), because these two verses are about the reason why everyone eventually gets to enjoy this salvation, with that reason for why everyone will eventually enjoy this salvation being Christ’s death for our sins, burial, and resurrection on the third day (and this reason being referred to as Paul’s Gospel). Basically, it’s only salvation from a relative perspective that has a criteria which must be met — which is believing Paul’s Gospel — but everyone gets to enjoy the salvation from an absolute perspective at some point (both those who experience its early form, also known as relative salvation, and those who experience it later) because of what it is that Paul laid out in his Gospel (Christ’s death for our sins, His burial, and His resurrection on the third day), whether they believed his Gospel or not. But if what “Christ died for our sins” means also had a criteria that has to be met in order to experience its end result (which everyone in the body of Christ knows is the salvation of all humanity), then salvation from an absolute perspective would require something from us (even if just faith) in order to make Christ’s death for our sins actually accomplish anything. So once again, verses 3 and 4 can’t be about anything we have to do, but can only be about what God and Christ did, namely guaranteeing the eventual salvation of all humanity because of Christ’s death for our sins, burial, and resurrection on the third day.