PDA

View Full Version : Understanding and Clarification of Atonement



BrckBrln
Feb 9th 2011, 07:52 PM
I'm seeking some understanding and clarification on the Atonement. I've seen it said on here that Christ died for the sins of every single human. If that is the case, why do people still go to hell? It was my understanding that people go to hell because they are lost in their sins. But if Christ has paid the price for those sins, then why do they still end up in hell? I presume the answer is unbelief. The people who go to hell are the ones that lack faith in Christ. Now, is this unbelief a sin? If it is a sin for which people go to hell for, does that mean that Christ did not die for all the sin of everybody?

I'm reading Michael Horton's Systematic Theology and I'm at the part where he discusses the Atonement, specifically its extent. He says, 'In broad terms, three main answers have been given in church history'. These are:

'One answer is that Christ's death objectively redeemed every person.'

This would be universalism.

'A second option is that Christ died to make salvation of every person possible.'

This would be Arminianism. Another name would be 'hypothetical universalism'. Under this rubric, I'm wondering how many of you would agree with this statement: 'Christ's death does not save either actually or potentially; rather it makes all men savable.' - Lewis Sperry Chafer

'A third view is that Christ died for all of the sins of the elect, thereby redeeming them at the cross.'

This would be Calvinism. The doctrine of 'particular redemption'.

Related to my inquiries above is a quote from Horton:

'[John] Owen summarizes the options: Christ died for (1) all the sins of all people, (2) some of the sins of all people, or (3) all of the sins of some people. If unbelief is a sin, and some people are finally condemned, then there is at least one sin for which Christ did not make adequate satisfaction.' Michael Horton, The Christian Faith, all quotations from p.516-517

So what do you think?

RogerW
Feb 9th 2011, 08:44 PM
I'm seeking some understanding and clarification on the Atonement. I've seen it said on here that Christ died for the sins of every single human. If that is the case, why do people still go to hell? It was my understanding that people go to hell because they are lost in their sins. But if Christ has paid the price for those sins, then why do they still end up in hell? I presume the answer is unbelief. The people who go to hell are the ones that lack faith in Christ. Now, is this unbelief a sin? If it is a sin for which people go to hell for, does that mean that Christ did not die for all the sin of everybody?

I'm reading Michael Horton's Systematic Theology and I'm at the part where he discusses the Atonement, specifically its extent. He says, 'In broad terms, three main answers have been given in church history'. These are:

'One answer is that Christ's death objectively redeemed every person.'

This would be universalism.

'A second option is that Christ died to make salvation of every person possible.'

This would be Arminianism. Another name would be 'hypothetical universalism'. Under this rubric, I'm wondering how many of you would agree with this statement: 'Christ's death does not save either actually or potentially; rather it makes all men savable.' - Lewis Sperry Chafer

'A third view is that Christ died for all of the sins of the elect, thereby redeeming them at the cross.'

This would be Calvinism. The doctrine of 'particular redemption'.

Related to my inquiries above is a quote from Horton:

'[John] Owen summarizes the options: Christ died for (1) all the sins of all people, (2) some of the sins of all people, or (3) all of the sins of some people. If unbelief is a sin, and some people are finally condemned, then there is at least one sin for which Christ did not make adequate satisfaction.' Michael Horton, The Christian Faith, all quotations from p.516-517

So what do you think?

I am a really big fan of Michael Horton, but I wonder if perhaps he left out one other option? That Christ actually paid for ALL sin by His death on the cross. What I mean is that the wrath of God is fully satisfied against every sin by Christ's atoning blood. Those who are born again have all their sins washed away by His cleansing blood. And those who die in unbelief will be cast into the lake of fire where their sins, along with them will die forever! So Christ is the One who paid the penalty of, or is the One who suffered for, not our (elect) sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

BrckBrln
Feb 9th 2011, 09:23 PM
I am a really big fan of Michael Horton, but I wonder if perhaps he left out one other option? That Christ actually paid for ALL sin by His death on the cross. What I mean is that the wrath of God is fully satisfied against every sin by Christ's atoning blood. Those who are born again have all their sins washed away by His cleansing blood. And those who die in unbelief will be cast into the lake of fire where their sins, along with them will die forever! So Christ is the One who paid the penalty of, or is the One who suffered for, not our (elect) sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

If I understand correctly that seems to be option two - Arminianism. That Christ died for the sins of all but only those who respond in faith will have everlasting life while the rest go to hell. That brings us back to my original question; why do people go to hell if their sins are paid for?

RollTide21
Feb 9th 2011, 09:25 PM
I'm seeking some understanding and clarification on the Atonement. I've seen it said on here that Christ died for the sins of every single human. If that is the case, why do people still go to hell? It was my understanding that people go to hell because they are lost in their sins. But if Christ has paid the price for those sins, then why do they still end up in hell? I presume the answer is unbelief. The people who go to hell are the ones that lack faith in Christ. Now, is this unbelief a sin? If it is a sin for which people go to hell for, does that mean that Christ did not die for all the sin of everybody?

I'm reading Michael Horton's Systematic Theology and I'm at the part where he discusses the Atonement, specifically its extent. He says, 'In broad terms, three main answers have been given in church history'. These are:

'One answer is that Christ's death objectively redeemed every person.'

This would be universalism.

'A second option is that Christ died to make salvation of every person possible.'

This would be Arminianism. Another name would be 'hypothetical universalism'. Under this rubric, I'm wondering how many of you would agree with this statement: 'Christ's death does not save either actually or potentially; rather it makes all men savable.' - Lewis Sperry Chafer

'A third view is that Christ died for all of the sins of the elect, thereby redeeming them at the cross.'

This would be Calvinism. The doctrine of 'particular redemption'.

Related to my inquiries above is a quote from Horton:

'[John] Owen summarizes the options: Christ died for (1) all the sins of all people, (2) some of the sins of all people, or (3) all of the sins of some people. If unbelief is a sin, and some people are finally condemned, then there is at least one sin for which Christ did not make adequate satisfaction.' Michael Horton, The Christian Faith, all quotations from p.516-517

So what do you think?I would have to agree with Sperry.

'Christ's death does not save either actually or potentially; rather it makes all men savable.'

RollTide21
Feb 9th 2011, 09:30 PM
If I understand correctly that seems to be option two - Arminianism. That Christ died for the sins of all but only those who respond in faith will have everlasting life while the rest go to hell. That brings us back to my original question; why do people go to hell if their sins are paid for?Because they reject Christ. Scripture is filled with declarations that we are saved by Grace through Faith in Christ. I don't understand why we overanalyze the concept that, while Christ died for all, we can only receive the promise of salvation if we choose Him in Faith. My company offers a Wellness Benefit to all of our employees, but only the ones who choose to participate actually get the benefit.

WSGAC
Feb 9th 2011, 09:41 PM
I'm seeking some understanding and clarification on the Atonement. I've seen it said on here that Christ died for the sins of every single human. If that is the case, why do people still go to hell? It was my understanding that people go to hell because they are lost in their sins. But if Christ has paid the price for those sins, then why do they still end up in hell? I presume the answer is unbelief. The people who go to hell are the ones that lack faith in Christ. Now, is this unbelief a sin? If it is a sin for which people go to hell for, does that mean that Christ did not die for all the sin of everybody?

I'm reading Michael Horton's Systematic Theology and I'm at the part where he discusses the Atonement, specifically its extent. He says, 'In broad terms, three main answers have been given in church history'. These are:

'One answer is that Christ's death objectively redeemed every person.'

This would be universalism.

'A second option is that Christ died to make salvation of every person possible.'

This would be Arminianism. Another name would be 'hypothetical universalism'. Under this rubric, I'm wondering how many of you would agree with this statement: 'Christ's death does not save either actually or potentially; rather it makes all men savable.' - Lewis Sperry Chafer

'A third view is that Christ died for all of the sins of the elect, thereby redeeming them at the cross.'

This would be Calvinism. The doctrine of 'particular redemption'.

Related to my inquiries above is a quote from Horton:

'[John] Owen summarizes the options: Christ died for (1) all the sins of all people, (2) some of the sins of all people, or (3) all of the sins of some people. If unbelief is a sin, and some people are finally condemned, then there is at least one sin for which Christ did not make adequate satisfaction.' Michael Horton, The Christian Faith, all quotations from p.516-517

So what do you think?

If I chime in here I'm afraid it would just remove your thread, but there is another explanation for atonement that is understood not as divine retribution/punishment but rather as the "infinite distance" love will go to get us back. Simone Weil's, Love of God and Affliction probes the depths of this understanding of Christ's suffering.

note: "distance love will go" does not mean "punishment love endures" for those who want to jump in here and steer it back to - atonement as divine justice/retribution satisfied -

BrckBrln
Feb 9th 2011, 09:48 PM
Because they reject Christ. Scripture is filled with declarations that we are saved by Grace through Faith in Christ. I don't understand why we overanalyze the concept that, while Christ died for all, we can only receive the promise of salvation if we choose Him in Faith. My company offers a Wellness Benefit to all of our employees, but only the ones who choose to participate actually get the benefit.

Is rejecting Christ a sin, though? If it is, is it covered by Christ's death? If so, why do they go to hell?

Butch5
Feb 9th 2011, 10:09 PM
I'm seeking some understanding and clarification on the Atonement. I've seen it said on here that Christ died for the sins of every single human. If that is the case, why do people still go to hell? It was my understanding that people go to hell because they are lost in their sins. But if Christ has paid the price for those sins, then why do they still end up in hell? I presume the answer is unbelief. The people who go to hell are the ones that lack faith in Christ. Now, is this unbelief a sin? If it is a sin for which people go to hell for, does that mean that Christ did not die for all the sin of everybody?

I'm reading Michael Horton's Systematic Theology and I'm at the part where he discusses the Atonement, specifically its extent. He says, 'In broad terms, three main answers have been given in church history'. These are:

'One answer is that Christ's death objectively redeemed every person.'

This would be universalism.

'A second option is that Christ died to make salvation of every person possible.'

This would be Arminianism. Another name would be 'hypothetical universalism'. Under this rubric, I'm wondering how many of you would agree with this statement: 'Christ's death does not save either actually or potentially; rather it makes all men savable.' - Lewis Sperry Chafer

'A third view is that Christ died for all of the sins of the elect, thereby redeeming them at the cross.'

This would be Calvinism. The doctrine of 'particular redemption'.

Related to my inquiries above is a quote from Horton:

'[John] Owen summarizes the options: Christ died for (1) all the sins of all people, (2) some of the sins of all people, or (3) all of the sins of some people. If unbelief is a sin, and some people are finally condemned, then there is at least one sin for which Christ did not make adequate satisfaction.' Michael Horton, The Christian Faith, all quotations from p.516-517

So what do you think?

Hi BrckBrln,

That is the dilemma of the Penal model of the atonement. It is also why Christians go round and round in these debates. The problem is that there are assumptions in this model. The Classic view of the atonement doesn't have these problems.

notuptome
Feb 9th 2011, 10:12 PM
John 3:19-20

It is not Gods will that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

God has concluded all in unbelief that He might have mercy upon all.

The atonement has universal provision. The atonement has individual efficaciousness by faith.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

RabbiKnife
Feb 9th 2011, 10:30 PM
People go to hell because God has provided a means of fellowship. Some men receive that means and enter into fellowship.
Other men choose to reject the means and the fellowship.

Eternal separation from God is God honoring the choice of those that choose not to spend eternity in fellowship with Him.

Servant89
Feb 9th 2011, 10:31 PM
I'm seeking some understanding and clarification on the Atonement. I've seen it said on here that Christ died for the sins of every single human. If that is the case, why do people still go to hell? It was my understanding that people go to hell because they are lost in their sins. But if Christ has paid the price for those sins, then why do they still end up in hell? I presume the answer is unbelief. The people who go to hell are the ones that lack faith in Christ. Now, is this unbelief a sin? If it is a sin for which people go to hell for, does that mean that Christ did not die for all the sin of everybody?

I'm reading Michael Horton's Systematic Theology and I'm at the part where he discusses the Atonement, specifically its extent. He says, 'In broad terms, three main answers have been given in church history'. These are:

'One answer is that Christ's death objectively redeemed every person.'

This would be universalism.

'A second option is that Christ died to make salvation of every person possible.'

This would be Arminianism. Another name would be 'hypothetical universalism'. Under this rubric, I'm wondering how many of you would agree with this statement: 'Christ's death does not save either actually or potentially; rather it makes all men savable.' - Lewis Sperry Chafer

'A third view is that Christ died for all of the sins of the elect, thereby redeeming them at the cross.'

This would be Calvinism. The doctrine of 'particular redemption'.

Related to my inquiries above is a quote from Horton:

'[John] Owen summarizes the options: Christ died for (1) all the sins of all people, (2) some of the sins of all people, or (3) all of the sins of some people. If unbelief is a sin, and some people are finally condemned, then there is at least one sin for which Christ did not make adequate satisfaction.' Michael Horton, The Christian Faith, all quotations from p.516-517

So what do you think?

Christ wrote a check for everyone that pays for their sin. But to cash the check we need to take it to the bank and sign it on the back, right? To cash the check written in blood, we need to believe and repent.

JOhn 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;

1 Jn 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our's only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Shalom

RogerW
Feb 9th 2011, 11:11 PM
If I understand correctly that seems to be option two - Arminianism. That Christ died for the sins of all but only those who respond in faith will have everlasting life while the rest go to hell. That brings us back to my original question; why do people go to hell if their sins are paid for?

Not true! Arminianism presents salvation as the free gift merely offered to man. But Scripture assures us that salvation is the free gift GIVEN only to those who believe, and even the faith enabling them to believe is the gift of grace.

Why do people go to hell if their sins are paid for?

Because they died in their sins! How can that be since Christ "is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world"?

Propitiation means atonement; i.e. an expiator. Christ, the expiator paid the penalty of, suffered for all sin. But it is only through faith in His blood that our sins are remitted. Those who die in their sins are nonetheless dead, and sin is no more! The fact they die in their sins does not do away with the fact that Christ, the expiator paid the penalty of, and suffered for all sin. If His atonement was not enough to satisfy the wrath of God against sin, then even in eternity sin would still exist. But we read instead that the wrath of God against all sin was appeased by the atoning blood of the Lamb of God, Who takes away the sin of the world.

2Co*5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
2Co*5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
2Co*5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Butch5
Feb 9th 2011, 11:59 PM
I'm seeking some understanding and clarification on the Atonement. I've seen it said on here that Christ died for the sins of every single human. If that is the case, why do people still go to hell? It was my understanding that people go to hell because they are lost in their sins. But if Christ has paid the price for those sins, then why do they still end up in hell? I presume the answer is unbelief. The people who go to hell are the ones that lack faith in Christ. Now, is this unbelief a sin? If it is a sin for which people go to hell for, does that mean that Christ did not die for all the sin of everybody?

I'm reading Michael Horton's Systematic Theology and I'm at the part where he discusses the Atonement, specifically its extent. He says, 'In broad terms, three main answers have been given in church history'. These are:

'One answer is that Christ's death objectively redeemed every person.'

This would be universalism.

'A second option is that Christ died to make salvation of every person possible.'

This would be Arminianism. Another name would be 'hypothetical universalism'. Under this rubric, I'm wondering how many of you would agree with this statement: 'Christ's death does not save either actually or potentially; rather it makes all men savable.' - Lewis Sperry Chafer

'A third view is that Christ died for all of the sins of the elect, thereby redeeming them at the cross.'

This would be Calvinism. The doctrine of 'particular redemption'.

Related to my inquiries above is a quote from Horton:

'[John] Owen summarizes the options: Christ died for (1) all the sins of all people, (2) some of the sins of all people, or (3) all of the sins of some people. If unbelief is a sin, and some people are finally condemned, then there is at least one sin for which Christ did not make adequate satisfaction.' Michael Horton, The Christian Faith, all quotations from p.516-517

So what do you think?

Hi BrckBrln,

I've taken this from RogerW's post. It is the essence of your problem and the contradiction of the Penal model of the atonement. Roger has attempted to reconcile this but the contradiction is there nonetheless.


RogerW---Why do people go to hell if their sins are paid for?

Because they died in their sins! How can that be since Christ "is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world"?

Propitiation means atonement; i.e. an expiator. Christ, the expiator paid the penalty of, suffered for all sin. But it is only through faith in His blood that our sins are remitted. Those who die in their sins are nonetheless dead, and sin is no more! The fact they die in their sins does not do away with the fact that Christ, the expiator paid the penalty of, and suffered for all sin. If His atonement was not enough to satisfy the wrath of God against sin, then even in eternity sin would still exist. But we read instead that the wrath of God against all sin was appeased by the atoning blood of the Lamb of God, Who takes away the sin of the world.

Notice he says their sins are paid for, yet they die in their sins. Then he says that it is only through faith that sins are remitted. The flaw here is in the statement, Christ's atonement satisfied the wrath of God. If Christ's atonement satisfied the wrath of God, then everyone would be saved, or Christ is not the propitiation of the whole world. According to this statement it is actually faith in Christ's death that would satisfy the wrath of God.

However, it has nothing to do with the wrath of God, that is reformation thinking. The Penal model of the atonement is only about 500 years old, that means the church believed something different for almost 1500 years.

keck553
Feb 10th 2011, 12:05 AM
I think there is a simple answer. Jesus makes it clear to me in John 13

Joh 13:5 Then He *poured water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples' feet and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded.
Joh 13:6 So He *came to Simon Peter. He *said to Him, "Lord, do You wash my feet?"
Joh 13:7 Jesus answered and said to him, "What I do you do not realize now, but you will understand hereafter."
Joh 13:8 Peter *said to Him, "Never shall You wash my feet!" Jesus answered him, "If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me."

Ever clean a dirty table? You take a sponge, dip it in a liquid, then wipe away the dirt. In a like way, God dips a sponge in the blood of Messiah, and wipes away our uncleanliness. But according to 13:8, only if we let Him do it. Anyone who rejects this, then they will have not part with Him, and will be counted among the goats.

Also, Paul says:

(Col 1:21) And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds,

(Col 1:22) yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach--

(Col 1:23) if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.

BroRog
Feb 10th 2011, 01:19 AM
I'm seeking some understanding and clarification on the Atonement. I've seen it said on here that Christ died for the sins of every single human. If that is the case, why do people still go to hell? It was my understanding that people go to hell because they are lost in their sins. But if Christ has paid the price for those sins, then why do they still end up in hell? I presume the answer is unbelief. The people who go to hell are the ones that lack faith in Christ. Now, is this unbelief a sin? If it is a sin for which people go to hell for, does that mean that Christ did not die for all the sin of everybody?

I'm reading Michael Horton's Systematic Theology and I'm at the part where he discusses the Atonement, specifically its extent. He says, 'In broad terms, three main answers have been given in church history'. These are:

'One answer is that Christ's death objectively redeemed every person.'

This would be universalism.

'A second option is that Christ died to make salvation of every person possible.'

This would be Arminianism. Another name would be 'hypothetical universalism'. Under this rubric, I'm wondering how many of you would agree with this statement: 'Christ's death does not save either actually or potentially; rather it makes all men savable.' - Lewis Sperry Chafer

'A third view is that Christ died for all of the sins of the elect, thereby redeeming them at the cross.'

This would be Calvinism. The doctrine of 'particular redemption'.

Related to my inquiries above is a quote from Horton:

'[John] Owen summarizes the options: Christ died for (1) all the sins of all people, (2) some of the sins of all people, or (3) all of the sins of some people. If unbelief is a sin, and some people are finally condemned, then there is at least one sin for which Christ did not make adequate satisfaction.' Michael Horton, The Christian Faith, all quotations from p.516-517

So what do you think?I think the Bible teaches the second option. One such place is found in John's first epistle.



My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

The concept of atonement (at-one-ment) is the reestablishing of cordial relations between two estranged parties, namely God and man. Propitiation is the placation of God, giving him something that he will accept in order to overcome his animosity. In this passage, John pictures salvation as a two step process in which Jesus placates God through the cross and then subsequently makes an appeal to God for mercy as the advocate for those who want salvation.

Other passages of scripture make the connection between the death of Jesus and reconciliation between God and man.

Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. 2Cor. 5:18-19
Notice that Paul also agrees that God was reconciling the world to himself.

Here again, in the following verse, we have the two part salvation: 1) God reconciles himself through the death of his son, and 2) he saves by giving them life.

For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled , we shall be saved by His life. Romans 5:10In the following verse, Paul asserts that God has reconciled with both Jews and Gentiles through the death of Christ. Note Paul's use of the term "peace" in verse 14, which connotes the same idea as "to be reconciled."

For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. Ephesians 2:14-16In the epistle to the Colossians, Paul gives his readers assurance that peace with God was granted to both those on earth, and those believers in heaven also. Also in the following verse Paul uses the antonym of reconciliation: alienation.

For it was the [Father's] good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all peoples to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether people on earth or people in heaven. And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach-- if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister. Colossians 1:19-23If the first half of salvation is reconciliation with God, the second half of salvation is when Christ goes before God to make an appeal for mercy for those that are his. In terms of the NT narrative, we have several indication markers that reveal whom God is saving. Among these markers is the idea that those whom God is saving will repent of their sins and confess that Jesus is Lord. Returning back to John's epistle we have the following,

If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1John 1:8-9Confession of sins is one marker of the child of God. Those whom God is saving will stand humble before the truth and confess themselves to be a sinner. Repentance from sin is another clear marker of those whom God is saving. Forgiveness of sins is associated with confession, not just reconciliation.


The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross. He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.According to Peter, God raised up Jesus in order that he might offer forgiveness to those in Israel who repent of their sins. The same offer was made to the Gentiles later.

When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, "Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life." Acts 11:18So then, even as the death of Christ became reconciliation for the world, not all those in the world are saved, since salvation is being given only to those who confess their sins, repent of their sins, and accept that Jesus is the one whom God exalted to his right hand as Prince and Savior.

BrckBrln
Feb 10th 2011, 01:21 AM
Thank you all for the responses.

the rookie
Feb 10th 2011, 01:49 AM
Thank you for the great topic!

dagar
Feb 10th 2011, 03:18 AM
The people who go to hell are the ones that lack faith in Christ. Now, is this unbelief a sin? If it is a sin for which people go to hell for, does that mean that Christ did not die for all the sin of everybody?

'Christ died to make salvation of every person possible.'

The lamb had to be slain and the blood applied for the death angel to passover.

Mark F
Feb 10th 2011, 12:05 PM
I've seen it said on here that Christ died for the sins of every single human. If that is the case, why do people still go to hell? It was my understanding that people go to hell because they are lost in their sins. But if Christ has paid the price for those sins, then why do they still end up in hell? I presume the answer is unbelief. The people who go to hell are the ones that lack faith in Christ. Now, is this unbelief a sin? If it is a sin for which people go to hell for, does that mean that Christ did not die for all the sin of everybody?

'Christ's death does not save either actually or potentially; rather it makes all men savable.' - Lewis Sperry Chafer



I have pondered this as well, IMO as with the Calvinist/Arminian and OSAS/NOSAS debates I believe that there are correct interpretations of certain things on both sides, it seems also that what they deny is what causes the sticking points.

You bring up a good point in that if Christ died for all sins, how can a soul be guilty of the "sin" of not believing He died for all sin? Almost exactly as you have worded it I have pondered upon those same problems.

I believe that all men can be saved, that's what I believe the Scripture is saying when it says He died for the sins of the whole world.

Jesus blood has to be applied, we need perfect righteousness, that is where imputation is important, a host of things happen the moment we come to Him in faith.


1 John 5:9-14
9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son. 10 He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son. 11 And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. 13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.

We have to believe what God has said about His Son.


Isaiah 53:4-6
4 Surely He has borne our griefs
And carried our sorrows;
Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

Butch5 has disagreed with the penal model, yet offered no explanation as to what the early church believed, maybe the ransom model?

Again I believe there is correctness in both, the question I think should be how is it applied? Christ paid the ransom (to God) bore the punishment for sin (my sin) and God see's Christ's righteouness when He looks upon me (by faith we are saved).

Great thread BTW

watchinginawe
Feb 10th 2011, 03:13 PM
If I understand correctly that seems to be option two - Arminianism. That Christ died for the sins of all but only those who respond in faith will have everlasting life while the rest go to hell. That brings us back to my original question; why do people go to hell if their sins are paid for?BrckBrin, I think James Arminius would say that Christ suffered and died for all, not that He "paid" for sins. He did not view the atonement in terms of quantitative substitionary punishment for sin, and thus did not believe in a specific atonement but rather a general unlimited atonement, or an atonement unlimited in benefits. Sin that is "paid for" does not need forgiven, since God's wrath would be satisfied in the specific punishment for one's sins.

RollTide21
Feb 10th 2011, 04:13 PM
Is rejecting Christ a sin, though? If it is, is it covered by Christ's death? If so, why do they go to hell?Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the unforgiveable sin, per Matthew 12. There are many interpretations of what this means, specifically, but...the bottom line is, if a man blasphemes the Holy Spirit, he cannot know the Holy Spirit. Whether this means proclaiming the Spirit to be evil, or if this means ultimately rejecting the Spirit unto death, in either case, the person does not KNOW the Holy Spirit. In order to not know the Holy Spirit, one must reject Christ. Blaspheming Christ Himself was considered forgivable. Blaspheming the Holy Spirit, however, is not forgivable because the Holy Spirit is what testifies of the Truth of Christ.

RogerW
Feb 10th 2011, 05:07 PM
Christ is the propitiation; i.e. the expiator for ALL SIN! But nowhere will you find Scripture telling us His atoning blood cleanses every human! The death of Christ, through His atoning blood assures us that ALL sin (every single one of them) is done away through Christ's sacrificial, atoning death. That does not mean that every single human is among the elect of God unto salvation through the blood of Christ.

We know this is true because the Bible tells us Christ is the propitiation not for our sins only but for the whole world. Yet we also read of a place called hell and the lake of fire. That some men are cast into the lake of fire makes is plain that though Christ is the propitiation for ALL sin, some humans will not be cleansed of their sins. But because Christ is the expiator; made amends for wrongdoing, thereby taking away ALL sin. Those who believe (elect) have their sins cleansed through His blood on the cross. But those who die in unbelief are not cleansed by His atoning blood, but their sins too are expiated in the lake of fire. Problem is those who are cast into the lake of fire have their sins burned up, but they too are consumed (as are their sins) by the eternal flames. So we can properly understand how Christ, through His own blood has rid the whole world of ALL sin. Either way (1) cleansed by His blood, or (2) having our sins burned up in the lake of fire...the wrath of God against ALL sin is still satisfied through the work of Christ when He gave Himself to be an offering for the sin of the world world.

RogerW
Feb 10th 2011, 06:06 PM
Again I believe there is correctness in both, the question I think should be how is it applied? Christ paid the ransom (to God) bore the punishment for sin (my sin) and God see's Christ's righteouness when He looks upon me (by faith we are saved).

Great thread BTW

Greetings Mark,

I liked your thoughtful response, and agree somewhat. You ask a very important question regarding the atoning work of Christ, "how is it applied"? Where I find your answer confusing is when you say "by faith we are saved". Stating our salvation this way implies we must put "our" faith in Christ if His ransom is to be applied to us. That is the weakness of the Arminian doctrine, believing fallen man possesses supernatural, saving faith to turn to Christ for everlasting life, while yet a natural human.

I find not only clarity, but also Biblical truth with the doctrine that says, "man is saved by grace", then adds "through faith" which this saving process by grace through faith is all the work of God, that no man may boast. It is true that fallen, natural man will indeed be supernaturally drawn, and turned to Christ through faith, but only because he has already become a recipient of supernatural grace through the power of the Word and Spirit.

RabbiKnife
Feb 10th 2011, 08:18 PM
So the atonement covers all sin but God just picks the cool kids for the after school party?

And your last sentence...."It is true that fallen, natural man will indeed be supernaturally drawn, and turned to Christ trough faith, but only because he has already become a recipient of supernatural grace through the power of the Word and Spirit."...congratulations. You finally understand Arminius.

RogerW
Feb 10th 2011, 10:14 PM
So the atonement covers all sin but God just picks the cool kids for the after school party?

And your last sentence...."It is true that fallen, natural man will indeed be supernaturally drawn, and turned to Christ trough faith, but only because he has already become a recipient of supernatural grace through the power of the Word and Spirit."...congratulations. You finally understand Arminius.

I've never said Arminius denies grace! The problem with Arminians is that they, like their leader, try to convince us that grace is a gift offered, and reception is dependent upon natural, fallen man co-operating with grace. If man is unwilling to co-operate (which every single natural man is), its because he willfully chooses not to come to Christ for life. So Arminians have it almost right! Yep...no natural man desires to choose Christ, so unless God, through grace (ALONE) first changes the natural heart (supernaturally) making man willing, he will not be saved.

RollTide21
Feb 10th 2011, 10:38 PM
I've never said Arminius denies grace! The problem with Arminians is that they, like their leader, try to convince us that grace is a gift offered, and reception is dependent upon natural, fallen man co-operating with grace. If man is unwilling to co-operate (which every single natural man is), its because he willfully chooses not to come to Christ for life. So Arminians have it almost right! Yep...no natural man desires to choose Christ, so unless God, through grace (ALONE) first changes the natural heart (supernaturally) making man willing, he will not be saved.So God changes the heart and, after that, the person chooses whether or not He wants to accept Christ?

dagar
Feb 11th 2011, 12:39 AM
The Penal model of the atonement is only about 500 years old, that means the church believed something different for almost 1500 years.Concerning the ransom theory, how is it the devil thought Christ would remain dead?

Butch5
Feb 11th 2011, 01:03 AM
Concerning the ransom theory, how is it the devil thought Christ would remain dead?

How would anyone know that?

dagar
Feb 11th 2011, 01:07 AM
How is it possible?

RogerW
Feb 11th 2011, 02:37 PM
So God changes the heart and, after that, the person chooses whether or not He wants to accept Christ?

Wonderful question RollTide! How could anyone not accept Christ once God has changed our hearts? This is a fundamental flaw in the doctrine of free will! Man will ALWAYS freely choose according to his nature. As a natural, unregenerate man, we always freely choose against Christ. How can we freely choose that which is against our natural, fallen hearts? Once God has changed our nature, through His Word and Spirit, giving us hearts that desire Christ, we will freely accept Christ, because our nature has been changed supernaturally.

Many Blessings,
RW

RabbiKnife
Feb 11th 2011, 02:39 PM
The "robot always functions according to programming" theory.

RollTide21
Feb 11th 2011, 03:11 PM
Wonderful question RollTide! How could anyone not accept Christ once God has changed our hearts? This is a fundamental flaw in the doctrine of free will! Man will ALWAYS freely choose according to his nature. As a natural, unregenerate man, we always freely choose against Christ. How can we freely choose that which is against our natural, fallen hearts? Once God has changed our nature, through His Word and Spirit, giving us hearts that desire Christ, we will freely accept Christ, because our nature has been changed supernaturally.

Many Blessings,
RWOK. Here is my take on that. I would disagree, mostly.

The guts of your position is irresistible grace and seems to follow unconditional election. That man cannot choose God on his own. God chooses us and we automatically respond.

Here is my take: Man can, of his own volition, be "primed" for a quickening of the Spirit. In order to be ripe for hearing the Spirit, man must be humbled. A person must get to a point where their heart is laid bare before God. They must NEED Him. Pride is a powerful roadblock to salvation. The man who has convinced himself that all of the answers lie within himself and the things of this world is in grave, eternal danger. This is the essence of Matthew 19:24, I think. The rich man felt no NEED for Christ. He was intrigued, but did not seek anything that would sacrifice what he himself had attained for himself.

Furthermore, the beatitudes indicate very clearly the heart of those who will accept Christ:

3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus gives clear indication in these passages, as well as in His ministry overall, that the humble in Spirit are the ones who will inherit the Kingdom. These are who recognize the need for Christ. We always hear about those who find God in times of crisis. The old adage, "There are no athiests in a foxhole" is a truism that speaks to the nature of how God speaks to us, IMO. At times of great trial, we become humbled. It is during those times that we can most readily hear the tug of the Spirit. These times are great equalizers of mankind. In suffering and hardship is where God can speak to ALL men.

It is at the place where man is prostrate, prideless, and humbled that God quickens us. It is here when He reveals the light of the Truth and we respond.

So, I would contend that God quickens us to Him, but only when we are at a place in our heart where we NEED Him. Some of us may say: "Well, I wasn't seeking God when He found me." At risk of speaking for those people, I might debate that. Were you perfectly content in your pride and self-importance? Did you have a weakness? An insecurity? Was there a sense in you that perfect peace was missing? This is the innate knowledge of God that man can sense, which gives passage to the intervention of the Spirit.

RogerW
Feb 11th 2011, 04:27 PM
OK. Here is my take on that. I would disagree, mostly.

The guts of your position is irresistible grace and seems to follow unconditional election. That man cannot choose God on his own. God chooses us and we automatically respond.

Here is my take: Man can, of his own volition, be "primed" for a quickening of the Spirit. In order to be ripe for hearing the Spirit, man must be humbled. A person must get to a point where their heart is laid bare before God. They must NEED Him. Pride is a powerful roadblock to salvation. The man who has convinced himself that all of the answers lie within himself and the things of this world is in grave, eternal danger. This is the essence of Matthew 19:24, I think. The rich man felt no NEED for Christ. He was intrigued, but did not seek anything that would sacrifice what he himself had attained for himself.

Pride certainly does play a role in the heart of unregenerate man. However Matthew 19 is written to dethrone the notion that prideful unregenerate man earn eternal life.

Eternal life is not dependent upon our seeking Christ or making sacrifices...Christ came to seek and to save His lost sheep, and He gives (not offers) them everlasting life. Salvation is of the Lord ALONE! The rich man began the discussion asking "what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?"

Was Christ in His reply telling the young man he could bargain his way into eternal life if he would simply let go of his pride and possessions? I don't think so! But Christ is showing him what he lacked. That of course being trust and faith that eternal life is given by grace through faith...IOW salvation from beginning to end is not dependent upon what we do for Christ, but what He has already done for us. The young man failed to "know" Christ, The Savior because his heart was hard and refused to trust.

This young man is no different than any other unregenerate human! Every heart MUST be changed, softened through His Word and Spirit before man can respond in faith to Christ.


Furthermore, the beatitudes indicate very clearly the heart of those who will accept Christ:

3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus gives clear indication in these passages, as well as in His ministry overall, that the humble in Spirit are the ones who will inherit the Kingdom. These are who recognize the need for Christ.

This is true, but who is humble in spirit? And how did he become humble? You've left out the Scripture telling us that man cannot know Christ unless they hear, and they cannot hear without the Word. So how will natural, unregenerate man humble himself before God if he does not know Christ?


We always hear about those who find God in times of crisis. The old adage, "There are no athiests in a foxhole" is a truism that speaks to the nature of how God speaks to us, IMO. At times of great trial, we become humbled. It is during those times that we can most readily hear the tug of the Spirit. These times are great equalizers of mankind. In suffering and hardship is where God can speak to ALL men.

Doesn't this humbling come from knowing that God exists, and He ought to be worshipped and glorified and exhalted as the Creator? Every man naturally has this knowledge, so in a time of crisis he cries out to God, and even humbles himself pleading for God's mercy. Yet Scripture shows us that apart from knowing Christ no man will inherit eternal life. Salvation is of the Lord, He will save His people from their sins.


It is at the place where man is prostrate, prideless, and humbled that God quickens us. It is here when He reveals the light of the Truth and we respond.

So salvation really has nothing to do with Christ, for man can gain God's mercy and grace by his own righteousness???


So, I would contend that God quickens us to Him, but only when we are at a place in our heart where we NEED Him. Some of us may say: "Well, I wasn't seeking God when He found me." At risk of speaking for those people, I might debate that. Were you perfectly content in your pride and self-importance? Did you have a weakness? An insecurity? Was there a sense in you that perfect peace was missing? This is the innate knowledge of God that man can sense, which gives passage to the intervention of the Spirit.

So again salvation depends on our righteousness...which btw we have none apart from Christ.

divaD
Feb 11th 2011, 05:21 PM
Yep...no natural man desires to choose Christ, so unless God, through grace (ALONE) first changes the natural heart (supernaturally) making man willing, he will not be saved.



Would you say this is available to everyone, except some resist, or just certain ones? If the latter, then how could the former be held accountable for not desiring to choose Christ?

RogerW
Feb 11th 2011, 05:41 PM
Would you say this is available to everyone, except some resist, or just certain ones? If the latter, then how could the former be held accountable for not desiring to choose Christ?

Actually David salvation is proclaimed unto every nation (all people) of the world. It is not limited, as before the cross to only one nation (some people) on earth. ALL resist until they "hear" and through the hearing (Ro 10:17) receive faith to believe. Every man is accountable for their hardness of heart because every man KNOWS that God exist, and that He ought to be worshipped and glorified, yet they willfully choose to refuse His Son. Why? Because of the hardness of their own hearts that every human is naturally born in.

God created man "very good", but through his own willful rejection, man disobeyed God, and heeded the voice of the serpent (devil). So now every man, being born of the same fallen nature that passes upon the very good man when he sinned, is inherited by every human being. Every man is born under the condemnation of death, and will die in their sins unless they "hear" the gospel, receive faith and turn to Christ for life. Every man hears the gospel with natural hearing, but only those who receive faith upon hearing; i.e. the elect are predestined unto eternal life in Christ from the foundation of the world. Therefore salvation is of the Lord! He came to seek and to save the lost, and He will save His people from their sins. Not according to the will of man, but according to the will of God.

RollTide21
Feb 11th 2011, 06:02 PM
Pride certainly does play a role in the heart of unregenerate man. However Matthew 19 is written to dethrone the notion that prideful unregenerate man earn eternal life.My position clearly agrees with this.


Eternal life is not dependent upon our seeking Christ or making sacrifices...Christ came to seek and to save His lost sheep, and He gives (not offers) them everlasting life. Salvation is of the Lord ALONE! The rich man began the discussion asking "what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?"Whom do you clarify as lost sheep and where were they before they were lost? In saying that man has a responsibility to respond to God's call doesn't translate into man being responsible for his own salvation. There is no Scripture to support that God forces man into Salvation. I believe that God calls, man surrenders and receives.

Was Christ in His reply telling the young man he could bargain his way into eternal life if he would simply let go of his pride and possessions? I don't think so! But Christ is showing him what he lacked. That of course being trust and faith that eternal life is given by grace through faith...IOW salvation from beginning to end is not dependent upon what we do for Christ, but what He has already done for us. The young man failed to "know" Christ, The Savior because his heart was hard and refused to trust.WHY did he lack trust and faith? That is the question, here. His heart was hardened to the Spirit of Truth because he was unwilling to see a need outside of himself and his own fleshly accomplishment.

This young man is no different than any other unregenerate human! Every heart MUST be changed, softened through His Word and Spirit before man can respond in faith to Christ. What was the point of Jesus saying "Truly I tell you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to be saved." What is his message here and what signficance does it have as opposed to the examples who came to Christ for healing of themselves or their loved ones? The difference is self-importance verses a broken Spirit.

This is true, but who is humble in spirit? And how did he become humble? You've left out the Scripture telling us that man cannot know Christ unless they hear, and they cannot hear without the Word. So how will natural, unregenerate man humble himself before God if he does not know Christ?No man can accept Christ lest God call Him in Spirit. I believe that 100%. Christ clearly demonstrates, however, that the Spirit speaks to those who are "poor in Spirit". The humility of heart sets the stage for the Grace of God. Where is the Scripture that indicates God's Nature to be one where He barges in with random Grace on those who don't want to have anything to do with Him?

Doesn't this humbling come from knowing that God exists, and He ought to be worshipped and glorified and exhalted as the Creator? Every man naturally has this knowledge, so in a time of crisis he cries out to God, and even humbles himself pleading for God's mercy. Sure. I agree.

Yet Scripture shows us that apart from knowing Christ no man will inherit eternal life. Salvation is of the Lord, He will save His people from their sins.Of course. I certainly wouldn't dispute this. My point is that, at that time of humbling, the Spirit intervenes and shines the light of the Truth of Christ on the heart of man...and it is then that man accepts Christ.

So salvation really has nothing to do with Christ, for man can gain God's mercy and grace by his own righteousness??? I haven't the faintest idea where this conclusion came from in my post.

So again salvation depends on our righteousness...which btw we have none apart from Christ.Again, not sure where you got that I said that man's righteousness has anything to do with his salvation.

RogerW
Feb 11th 2011, 06:21 PM
My position clearly agrees with this.

Whom do you clarify as lost sheep and where were they before they were lost? In saying that man has a responsibility to respond to God's call doesn't translate into man being responsible for his own salvation. There is no Scripture to support that God forces man into Salvation. I believe that God calls, man surrenders and receives.
WHY did he lack trust and faith? That is the question, here. His heart was hardened to the Spirit of Truth because he was unwilling to see a need outside of himself and his own fleshly accomplishment.
What was the point of Jesus saying "Truly I tell you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to be saved." What is his message here and what signficance does it have as opposed to the examples who came to Christ for healing of themselves or their loved ones? The difference is self-importance verses a broken Spirit.
No man can accept Christ lest God call Him in Spirit. I believe that 100%. Christ clearly demonstrates, however, that the Spirit speaks to those who are "poor in Spirit". The humility of heart sets the stage for the Grace of God. Where is the Scripture that indicates God's Nature to be one where He barges in with random Grace on those who don't want to have anything to do with Him?
Sure. I agree.
Of course. I certainly wouldn't dispute this. My point is that, at that time of humbling, the Spirit intervenes and shines the light of the Truth of Christ on the heart of man...and it is then that man accepts Christ.
I haven't the faintest idea where this conclusion came from in my post.
Again, not sure where you got that I said that man's righteousness has anything to do with his salvation.

To clarify RT what I believe you are saying is that man MUST co-operate with grace or he cannot be saved! The heart of the problem with this is that it makes salvation God's work of grace plus man's work in rightly responding. That does away with grace altogether! In order for grace to actually be grace it MUST be unmerited. True grace is God alone changing man's heart, (out of love, not by force) enabling him to respond to Christ in repentance, believing. How some liken this great love and mercy from God to God forcing salvation on man is beyond belief? If God does not reach down to man turning and saving him, despite his hardened heart, then no man would be saved.

RollTide21
Feb 11th 2011, 08:16 PM
To clarify RT what I believe you are saying is that man MUST co-operate with grace or he cannot be saved! The heart of the problem with this is that it makes salvation God's work of grace plus man's work in rightly responding. That does away with grace altogether! In order for grace to actually be grace it MUST be unmerited. True grace is God alone changing man's heart, (out of love, not by force) enabling him to respond to Christ in repentance, believing. How some liken this great love and mercy from God to God forcing salvation on man is beyond belief? If God does not reach down to man turning and saving him, despite his hardened heart, then no man would be saved.I don't see how God requiring man to respond does away with Grace. But for Grace, we would be hopelessly lost with no chance at redemption.

That said, I am not as vehemently opposed to your position as some. My experiences with the Lord have certainly left me in utter awe of His Grace. He has restored me and kept me for years when I have been the picture of rebellion and futility. I praise Him for that, daily. And...believe me, I understand your position. In my own life with my own particular flaws, I am who I am SOLELY through the Grace of God. My whole issue is reconciling that with Scripture which clearly indicates numerous examples where man has a choice to accept or reject.

RogerW
Feb 11th 2011, 08:43 PM
I don't see how God requiring man to respond does away with Grace. But for Grace, we would be hopelessly lost with no chance at redemption.

That said, I am not as vehemently opposed to your position as some. My experiences with the Lord have certainly left me in utter awe of His Grace. He has restored me and kept me for years when I have been the picture of rebellion and futility. I praise Him for that, daily. And...believe me, I understand your position. In my own life with my own particular flaws, I am who I am SOLELY through the Grace of God. My whole issue is reconciling that with Scripture which clearly indicates numerous examples where man has a choice to accept or reject.

Rolltide, isn't that because you believe the gift of eternal life is offered? I don't believe Scripture anywhere shows us eternal life is offered so that unregenerate, natural man has a choice to accept or reject eternal life. In fact Scripture tells us repeatedly that Christ GIVES eternal/everlasting life to all who believe. As far as I can tell the gospel of salvation is offered unto every man. And all who believe by grace through faith (all the gift of God) are GIVEN everlasting life. We've confused the outward call of the gospel, that every man naturally hears with the inward call that only His sheep hear when Christ calls them by name (see Jo 10:1-18). Only His sheep hear Him calling them by name, and follow Him. Christ is the good Shepherd, Who gave His life for the sheep.

Joh*1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Joh*1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Tit*3:4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
Tit*3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Tit*3:6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
Tit*3:7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

RollTide21
Feb 11th 2011, 09:35 PM
Rolltide, isn't that because you believe the gift of eternal life is offered? I don't believe Scripture anywhere shows us eternal life is offered so that unregenerate, natural man has a choice to accept or reject eternal life. In fact Scripture tells us repeatedly that Christ GIVES eternal/everlasting life to all who believe. As far as I can tell the gospel of salvation is offered unto every man. And all who believe by grace through faith (all the gift of God) are GIVEN everlasting life.OK. I don't have an issue at this point. Our ideas are not too far apart here. You say that Salvation is offered to all. I agree. You also say that Christ GIVES eternal life to all who believe. I'm with you. You say that all who believe do so by Grace through Faith. This faith comes solely from God. Still with you.


We've confused the outward call of the gospel, that every man naturally hears with the inward call that only His sheep hear when Christ calls them by name (see Jo 10:1-18). Only His sheep hear Him calling them by name, and follow Him. Christ is the good Shepherd, Who gave His life for the sheep.Here is where I balk. Question: How is it determined who are the sheep that can hear His voice? I am firmly with you in that some hear His voice and some don't. I would say that the qualification for hearing His voice is a contrite and humble heart. Not righteousness, but a LONGING for righteousness. I assume that you would say that no man possesses the ability to long for righteousness. That is where we diverge, I think. But then, I would go back to...how are the sheep determined?


Joh*1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Joh*1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.OK. I'm with you. Salvation cannot be achieved through Faith without Grace.

Tit*3:4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
Tit*3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Tit*3:6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
Tit*3:7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.OK. Just to clarify: I don't equate a contrite Spirit with righteousness. We are separated from God and deemed sinners until we are washed in the Blood. The verses indicating that righteousness cannot achieve Salvation specifically imply that we cannot save ourselves. By indicating that we must be humble in Spirit before we can hear God's voice is not indicative that our humility can save us. It merely indicates that we now are ripe to hear and receive the Grace of God...which is the ONLY thing that can save us.

keck553
Feb 11th 2011, 09:40 PM
I don't see how God requiring man to respond does away with Grace. But for Grace, we would be hopelessly lost with no chance at redemption.

It doesn't. By grace we, both religious leglalists and sinners are invited to the table. If we do show up, we've responded. If we don't show up, then we've responded. It's not so much a requirement as it is a choice.

In my opinion

BrckBrln
Feb 11th 2011, 11:05 PM
Returning back to my original point, in what real way can we say that Christ died for the sins of all people? I think you would have to qualify that statement by saying: Christ died for the sins of the people that respond to him in faith. Because, remember, the cross only makes salvation possible. So, when doing evangelism, you are speaking to people lost in their sins, on the way to hell. However, if they respond to the Gospel with faith in Christ, their sins are washed away and are now on the path to everlasting life.

Am I correct, then, in saying it's inaccurate to go proclaiming that Christ has died for the sins of all people? Because it's only those who respond to Christ that are not in their sins anymore, while everybody else is still lost in their sin. This is why people go to hell, is it not? If unbelief is why people go to hell, is that not a sin? So we get back to my original question that if unbelief is a sin and Christ has atoned for it, why do people still go to hell?

I guess what I am saying is, that it's only the Universalist that can claim Christ has actually died for the sins of all people. The effect of this truly universal atonement is that nobody goes to hell because there is no reason for them to end up there since their sins have been paid for by Christ on the cross. Do you see?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Arminianism states that Christ has made salvation possible for anybody willing to place their faith in Christ, with divine grace enabling them to do so. Calvinism, on the other hand, states that Christ has purchased the salvation of the elect that the Father has given to him, with divine grace bringing about the decreed faith in the elect.

So, Arminianism should say that Christ has died for the sins only of those who come to him in faith. Calvinism says Christ has died for the sins only of those whom the Father has elected. And it's Universalism that says Christ has died for the sins of every single human. So my whole point for this thread is to point out that it's inaccurate for Arminians to say what only the Universalist can say, namely, that Christ has died for the sins of all people. It's not quite that simple for the Arminian. To put things in bullet form:


Universalism: Christ died for the sins of all people.
Arminianism (hypothetical universalism): Christ died for the sins of all people who respond in faith.
Calvinism (particularism): Christ died for the sins of the elect.

RogerW
Feb 11th 2011, 11:31 PM
Returning back to my original point, in what real way can we say that Christ died for the sins of all people? I think you would have to qualify that statement by saying: Christ died for the sins of the people that respond to him in faith. Because, remember, the cross only makes salvation possible. So, when doing evangelism, you are speaking to people lost in their sins, on the way to hell. However, if they respond to the Gospel with faith in Christ, their sins are washed away and are now on the path to everlasting life.

Am I correct, then, in saying it's inaccurate to go proclaiming that Christ has died for the sins of all people? Because it's only those who respond to Christ that are not in their sins anymore, while everybody else is still lost in their sin. This is why people go to hell, is it not? If unbelief is why people go to hell, is that not a sin? So we get back to my original question that if unbelief is a sin and Christ has atoned for it, why do people still go to hell?

I guess what I am saying is, that it's only the Universalist that can claim Christ has actually died for the sins of all people. The effect of this truly universal atonement is that nobody goes to hell because there is no reason for them to end up there since their sins have been paid for by Christ on the cross. Do you see?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Arminianism states that Christ has made salvation possible for anybody willing to place their faith in Christ, with divine grace enabling them to do so. Calvinism, on the other hand, states that Christ has purchased the salvation of the elect that the Father has given to him, with divine grace bringing about the decreed faith in the elect.

So, Arminianism should say that Christ has died for the sins only of those who come to him in faith. Calvinism says Christ has died for the sins only of those whom the Father has elected. And it's Universalism that says Christ has died for the sins of every single human. So my whole point for this thread is to point out that it's inaccurate for Arminians to say what only the Universalist can say, namely, that Christ has died for the sins of all people. It's not quite that simple for the Arminian. To put things in bullet form:


Universalism: Christ died for the sins of all people.
Arminianism (hypothetical universalism): Christ died for the sins of all people who respond in faith.
Calvinism (particularism): Christ died for the sins of the elect.



Could it really be a misunderstanding about why people go to hell? I mean...is it true people go to hell because of unbelief (sin)? What if people are cast into hell because they have no covering for their sins? If man are cast into hell because of sin, then who can be saved? Even Christians (most) would not claim perfect righteousness while living in this world. So while it is true that sin does indeed separate us from God, it is not our sins that keep us from obtaining everlasting life. Would it not be better to say it is in being discovered naked, without the righteousness of Christ, His perfect holiness, His faith that we are cast into the eternal flames? Christ paid the sin debt, but only those sinners found in Him will have eternal life. And this by grace through faith (salvation, the gift of God that no man may boast).

BrckBrln
Feb 11th 2011, 11:36 PM
Could it really be a misunderstanding about why people go to hell? I mean...is it true people go to hell because of unbelief (sin)? What if people are cast into hell because they have no covering for their sins? If man are cast into hell because of sin, then who can be saved? Even Christians (most) would not claim perfect righteousness while living in this world. So while it is true that sin does indeed separate us from God, it is not our sins that keep us from obtaining everlasting life. Would it not be better to say it is in being discovered naked, without the righteousness of Christ, His perfect holiness, His faith that we are cast into the eternal flames? Christ paid the sin debt, but only those sinners found in Him will have eternal life. And this by grace through faith (salvation, the gift of God that no man may boast).

Yes, that is what I said. If one's sins are atoned for, there is no reason to end up in hell. It's my contention that only Universalists can say that all sin is atoned for, while Arminians can say the sin of a person is only atoned for if they respond in faith.

RogerW
Feb 11th 2011, 11:38 PM
Yes, that is what I said. If one's sins are atoned for, there is no reason to end up in hell. It's my contention that only Universalists can say that all sin is atoned for, while Arminians can say the sin of a person is only atoned for if they respond in faith.

Don't get me wrong, I'm on the same side as you! But how do you explain the Scriptures telling us that Christ died not for our (elect) sins, but also of the whole world?

BroRog
Feb 12th 2011, 12:02 AM
Returning back to my original point, in what real way can we say that Christ died for the sins of all people? I think you would have to qualify that statement by saying: Christ died for the sins of the people that respond to him in faith. Because, remember, the cross only makes salvation possible. So, when doing evangelism, you are speaking to people lost in their sins, on the way to hell. However, if they respond to the Gospel with faith in Christ, their sins are washed away and are now on the path to everlasting life.

Am I correct, then, in saying it's inaccurate to go proclaiming that Christ has died for the sins of all people? Because it's only those who respond to Christ that are not in their sins anymore, while everybody else is still lost in their sin. This is why people go to hell, is it not? If unbelief is why people go to hell, is that not a sin? So we get back to my original question that if unbelief is a sin and Christ has atoned for it, why do people still go to hell?

I guess what I am saying is, that it's only the Universalist that can claim Christ has actually died for the sins of all people. The effect of this truly universal atonement is that nobody goes to hell because there is no reason for them to end up there since their sins have been paid for by Christ on the cross. Do you see?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Arminianism states that Christ has made salvation possible for anybody willing to place their faith in Christ, with divine grace enabling them to do so. Calvinism, on the other hand, states that Christ has purchased the salvation of the elect that the Father has given to him, with divine grace bringing about the decreed faith in the elect.

So, Arminianism should say that Christ has died for the sins only of those who come to him in faith. Calvinism says Christ has died for the sins only of those whom the Father has elected. And it's Universalism that says Christ has died for the sins of every single human. So my whole point for this thread is to point out that it's inaccurate for Arminians to say what only the Universalist can say, namely, that Christ has died for the sins of all people. It's not quite that simple for the Arminian. To put things in bullet form:


Universalism: Christ died for the sins of all people.
Arminianism (hypothetical universalism): Christ died for the sins of all people who respond in faith.
Calvinism (particularism): Christ died for the sins of the elect.
Your bullet list assumes one of the many satisfaction theories of the atonement, which all boil down to the idea that God needed a pound of flesh in order satisfy justice. But since the Biblical view of the atonement is not that the cross satisfied justice but became the prerequisite for reconciliation, neither one of those three is correct. The cross was NOT a matter of justice, but as the Bible says the cross is a matter of mercy and grace. The reason why Calvinists, for instance, believe in limited atonement is because they believe the cross fulfilled or satisfied God's justice. Had the cross satisfied justice for all the sins of all the people, then Universalism would be true. The doctrine of Limited Atonement solves this problem. However, had the church not accepted or affirmed Anselm's view of the atonement, or others like his, the doctrine of Limited Atonement wouldn't be necessary.

The atonement isn't forensic at all, or a satisfaction of justice in any way. The atonement is an act of propitiation, which seeks reconciliation but is not necessarily expiatory; but expiation or cleansing from sin comes later when God grants his forgiveness.

BrckBrln
Feb 12th 2011, 12:14 AM
Don't get me wrong, I'm on the same side as you! But how do you explain the Scriptures telling us that Christ died not for our (elect) sins, but also of the whole world?

Like this. (http://www.reformationtheology.com/2005/10/understanding_1_john_22_by_pas.php) (link to reformationthoelogy.com)

Mark F
Feb 12th 2011, 01:17 AM
Your bullet list assumes one of the many satisfaction theories of the atonement, which all boil down to the idea that God needed a pound of flesh in order satisfy justice. But since the Biblical view of the atonement is not that the cross satisfied justice but became the prerequisite for reconciliation, neither one of those three is correct. The cross was NOT a matter of justice, but as the Bible says the cross is a matter of mercy and grace. The reason why Calvinists, for instance, believe in limited atonement is because they believe the cross fulfilled or satisfied God's justice. Had the cross satisfied justice for all the sins of all the people, then Universalism would be true. The doctrine of Limited Atonement solves this problem. However, had the church not accepted or affirmed Anselm's view of the atonement, or others like his, the doctrine of Limited Atonement wouldn't be necessary.

The atonement isn't forensic at all, or a satisfaction of justice in any way. The atonement is an act of propitiation, which seeks reconciliation but is not necessarily expiatory; but expiation or cleansing from sin comes later when God grants his forgiveness.

It is a satisfaction of divine justice, it is an act of propitiation, it is a reconciliation, it is a ransom, it is all of these, why does it have to be only one thing?

As to salvation we are told to believe, we are told to repent, we are told no one can come unless the Father calls him, we are said to be chosen, we are said to be the elect of God.

It is all of these things and we always have be so narrow and say it is only this way, why is it then that all these "opposing doctrines" have Scriptures that seem to be supporting all of them?

I think that is why the Scriptures say "The just shall live by faith"!!!

BroRog
Feb 12th 2011, 01:35 AM
It is a satisfaction of divine justice, it is an act of propitiation, it is a reconciliation, it is a ransom, it is all of these, why does it have to be only one thing?The Biblical picture is not satisfaction of divine justice. If it were, then forgiveness and mercy would not be necessary.


It is all of these things and we always have be so narrow and say it is only this way, why is it then that all these "opposing doctrines" have Scriptures that seem to be supporting all of them?Well, if our goal is to understand what the scriptures are saying to us, then what we find will be narrowed down to the objective meaning of them.

Mark F
Feb 12th 2011, 02:32 AM
The Biblical picture is not satisfaction of divine justice. If it were, then forgiveness and mercy would not be necessary.
What about Isaiah 53? What is God saying there?

4b Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.

10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise[crush] Him;
He has put Him to grief.

If God simply forgives without justice being carried out He ceases to be good. His righteousness demands that sin is punished.

How about these Scriptures?

Prov 17:15
15 He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just,
Both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD.

Numbers 14:18a
‘The LORD is longsuffering and abundant in mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression; but He by no means clears the guilty,
That Jesus bore our just due on the cross makes mercy and grace possible!
God chose to grant that mercy and grace to those that come to Him recognising that they don't deserve it. You can't be forgiven for what you don't think you've done.

Well, if our goal is to understand what the scriptures are saying to us, then what we find will be narrowed down to the objective meaning of them.

I put that post there to maybe cause a few brains to think is all.

dagar
Feb 12th 2011, 02:45 AM
But since the Biblical view of the atonement is not that the cross satisfied justice but became the prerequisite for reconciliation, neither one of those three is correct. The cross was NOT a matter of justice, but as the Bible says the cross is a matter of mercy and grace.

The atonement isn't forensic at all, or a satisfaction of justice in any way. The atonement is an act of propitiation, which seeks reconciliation but is not necessarily expiatory; but expiation or cleansing from sin comes later when God grants his forgiveness.but why the prerequisite? Why Judgment and Wrath? Saved from Wrath. The wages of sin is death. See the blood - will passover. On and on, and without faith in his blood, there is judgment and wrath. There's a need for the prerequisite.

BroRog
Feb 12th 2011, 05:31 PM
but why the prerequisite? Why Judgment and Wrath? Saved from Wrath. The wages of sin is death. See the blood - will passover. On and on, and without faith in his blood, there is judgment and wrath. There's a need for the prerequisite.The Bible pictures an estrangement between God and mankind due to our sin. This estrangement would be insurmountable or insolvable without a mediator. We learn that Jesus is our mediator, making an appeal to God on our behalf. The cross appeased God's wrath and allowed Jesus to gain access to the heavenly throne to make an appeal for us.

Having said all that, peace between enemies is a two-way street. It isn't enough for Jesus to make an appeal to God for mercy on our behalf if we don't want mercy from God in the first place. This is why the Bible sometimes assumes, and at other times makes explicit, that salvation goes only to those who want it; salvation is granted to those who both trust in Jesus to be their mediator, and express their desire for salvation through repentance, confession, remorse, and a commitment to live a new life. This, I think, is the Biblical view.

This view stands in contrast to the theory of the atonement we were handed by St. Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas Aquinas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_(satisfaction_view)

BroRog
Feb 12th 2011, 06:00 PM
What about Isaiah 53? What is God saying there?

If God simply forgives without justice being carried out He ceases to be good. His righteousness demands that sin is punished.I don't think this is necessarily true. Had I punched you in the nose, you would have every right to take me to court. But if I were to find a way to appease your wrath before we went to court, then you would't be evil for forgiving me, even though my act is punishable. Righteousness doesn't demand that sin be punished, if the one offended agrees to forgive the offence.


How about these Scriptures?
That Jesus bore our just due on the cross makes mercy and grace possible!
God chose to grant that mercy and grace to those that come to Him recognising that they don't deserve it. You can't be forgiven for what you don't think you've done.Jesus tells a parable about a man who owed a king a large sum of money. The sum was so large that it would be impossible for the man to pay the king what he owes him. The king was willing to forgive the debt and let the man go. As the man was leaving the king, he found a fellow servant and demanded that his fellow servant pay him back everything he owed. And when the servant asked for forgiveness, the man had his fellow thrown into prison. When the king found out about this, he chose not to forgive the man's debt and had the man thrown into prison.

The point Jesus makes is that if we expect God to forgive our debt, we need to be willing to forgive others. The underlying assumption is that the king is willing to forgive a very large debt of those who are willing to forgive others. That is, the king is NOT demanding that someone else pay the debt instead. The king is NOT saying, "I will forgive you if you find someone else who will pay me the money you owe me." This is what the satisfaction theory of the atonement teaches us. God is forgiving you because he found someone else to punish for your sins. But this is not what the parable teaches us. The parable teaches us that God is willing to forgive our sins if we are willing to forgive others. He isn't demanding payment from anyone.

The concept of forgiveness and mercy are antithetical to the idea that Jesus is somehow paying back what was taken or balancing out an injustice. Had Jesus actually done this, then salvation wouldn't be mine as a gift of God's mercy but what is owed to me.

Butch5
Feb 12th 2011, 11:53 PM
How is it possible?

How would anyone know what the devil was thinking?

dagar
Feb 13th 2011, 12:42 AM
How would anyone know what the devil was thinking?Why would you need to?

dagar
Feb 13th 2011, 12:49 AM
The cross appeased God's wrath and allowed Jesus to gain access to the heavenly throne to make an appeal for us. How does that follow what you said earlier?

BroRog -"But since the Biblical view of the atonement is not that the cross satisfied justice but became the prerequisite for reconciliation, neither one of those three is correct. The cross was NOT a matter of justice, but as the Bible says the cross is a matter of mercy and grace."


Having said all that, peace between enemies is a two-way street. It isn't enough for Jesus to make an appeal to God for mercy on our behalf if we don't want mercy from God in the first place. This is why the Bible sometimes assumes, and at other times makes explicit, that salvation goes only to those who want it; salvation is granted to those who both trust in Jesus to be their mediator, and express their desire for salvation through repentance, confession, remorse, and a commitment to live a new life. This, I think, is the Biblical view.I agree.

Butch5
Feb 13th 2011, 01:06 AM
Why would you need to?

You asked me this question in post 27.


Concerning the ransom theory, how is it the devil thought Christ would remain dead?

How would anyone know what the devil is think anything?

Butch5
Feb 13th 2011, 01:09 AM
Originally Posted by BroRog
The cross appeased God's wrath and allowed Jesus to gain access to the heavenly throne to make an appeal for us.

I'd sure like to see that Scripture.

dagar
Feb 13th 2011, 01:59 AM
How would anyone know what the devil is think anything?I didn't ask what the devil was thinking. The Classic tells us what he was thinking. I ask you to explain how it is even possible the devil could think Christ would remain dead? That is the crux of the Classic view.

watchinginawe
Feb 13th 2011, 03:02 AM
The Biblical picture is not satisfaction of divine justice. If it were, then forgiveness and mercy would not be necessary. Exactly. The atonement has so many models that you can't limit the view to a penal view and then ask "if it is paid for why didn't it settle the matter"

Luke 5:18 And, behold, men brought in a bed a man which was taken with a palsy: and they sought means to bring him in, and to lay him before him. 19 And when they could not find by what way they might bring him in because of the multitude, they went upon the housetop, and let him down through the tiling with his couch into the midst before Jesus. 20 And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee. 21 And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone? 22 But when Jesus perceived their thoughts, he answering said unto them, What reason ye in your hearts? 23 Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Rise up and walk? 24 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins, (he said unto the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house. 25 And immediately he rose up before them, and took up that whereon he lay, and departed to his own house, glorifying God.

Jesus forgave those sins without any attention to a transaction which required the debits and credits to balance in the books of sin and God's righteous wrath.

We can also see when it was that Jesus forgave the sins, it was when He saw their faith. Seems to have worked good in the specific situation, but a bigger plan was already progressing by which Jesus would open a way for all, but to specifically those that would hear and believe the Gospel (complete with the power of God unto Salvation) in faith. I can still recall the day God saved me, and I can speak metaphorically of being "washed in the blood" and sing the songs of the "power of the blood". However, my faith isn't in the blood.

dagar
Feb 13th 2011, 03:19 AM
Exactly. The atonement has so many models that you can't limit the view to a penal view and then ask "if it is paid for why didn't it settle the matter"Yes, but you can you say

BroRog -The Biblical picture is not satisfaction of divine justice. If it were, then forgiveness and mercy would not be necessary.

and also say?
BroRog -"The cross appeased God's wrath and allowed Jesus to gain access to the heavenly throne to make an appeal for us."

I don't think either the classic or penal view are correct alone.

watchinginawe
Feb 13th 2011, 03:37 AM
Yes, but you can you say

BroRog -The Biblical picture is not satisfaction of divine justice. If it were, then forgiveness and mercy would not be necessary.

and also say?
BroRog -"The cross appeased God's wrath and allowed Jesus to gain access to the heavenly throne to make an appeal for us."

I don't think either the classic or penal view are correct alone. I can't argue with that. If it were so straightforward there would only be one model. I have been all over the place over the years and have settled lately on "Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Jesus Christ went to the cross as a unilateral gesture of God's love toward us (grace), not as a conduit of wrath so that He could then love us.

Jesus likened Himself and His mission to that of the bronze serpent that God instructed Moses to construct in the wilderness. John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

No one would suggest that the brazen serpent had power only to cure a certain number of folks. God said: Numbers 21:8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. 9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived. It worked every time, there was no preset number that it could cure, as many as were bitten the Lord provided a way to live.

Butch5
Feb 13th 2011, 03:35 PM
Yes, but you can you say

BroRog -The Biblical picture is not satisfaction of divine justice. If it were, then forgiveness and mercy would not be necessary.

and also say?
BroRog -"The cross appeased God's wrath and allowed Jesus to gain access to the heavenly throne to make an appeal for us."

I don't think either the classic or penal view are correct alone.

Please show where Scripture teaches that the cross appeased the wrath of God.

Butch5
Feb 13th 2011, 03:39 PM
I didn't ask what the devil was thinking. The Classic tells us what he was thinking. I ask you to explain how it is even possible the devil could think Christ would remain dead? That is the crux of the Classic view.

Where exactly does the Classic view tell us this?

Butch5
Feb 13th 2011, 04:08 PM
Like this. (http://www.reformationtheology.com/2005/10/understanding_1_john_22_by_pas.php) (link to reformationthoelogy.com)

There's a problem here. Mr. Samson's entire exposition rests on an assumption, which I think is highly unlikely. He says,


Pastor John Samson
With this in view, we approach the First Epistle of John, which is a letter written to a primarily Jewish audience. So in 1 John 2:2, as in the rest of the letter, we have the Apostle John, a Jew, writing primarily to fellow Jewish believers in the Messiah. He writes of Jesus Christ being "the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only (Hebrews), but also for the whole world (the Gentiles)."

First of all, he has made a statement without any verification. Under normal circumstances this may be acceptable. However, when his entire exposition of the passages is based on this statement it really should be validated. I personally find it hard to believe that some 60 years after the death of Christ the church in Ephesus and the surrounding area was primarily Jewish. Remember this was Paul's territory before his death. John only came here after Paul was executed. I really find it hard to believe this letter is primarily to Jewish believers.

BrckBrLn, do you really believe that Paul's Gentile churches reverted to primarily Jewish churches after his death. It's these kinds of expositions that are troubling, people just make statement and expect us to just accept what they say. If this letter was not written primarily to a Jewish audience this entire exposition falls apart. Can you verify that the audience was primarily Jewish? If not, then this is merely some one's opinion.

BroRog
Feb 13th 2011, 05:47 PM
How does that follow what you said earlier?

BroRog -"But since the Biblical view of the atonement is not that the cross satisfied justice but became the prerequisite for reconciliation, neither one of those three is correct. The cross was NOT a matter of justice, but as the Bible says the cross is a matter of mercy and grace."

I agree.

One follows from the other if we accept the idea that the one who was offended (God) can set the terms for peace (an offering). Let's think about the animal sacrifices for a moment and ask the question, "Why did a man offer a bull to God?" Did he steal God's bull? No, I don't think this was the reason. Offering a bull to God wasn't an act of restitution, reparation or restoration. The Bull is a gift of conciliation, an acknowledgment of the offense along with an appeal to reconcile. What God told Israel through the prophets was, "I don't really need your bull. I want your actual and real contrition. I will forgive the sins of those who are honest and contrite." God didn't want a bull because he wanted his bull back. He asked for a bull because the bull would represent contrition and an appeal for reconciliation. It wasn't a matter of justice; it was a matter of conciliation.

dagar
Feb 13th 2011, 07:28 PM
Please show where Scripture teaches that the cross appeased the wrath of God.What happens to those that do not believe?

dagar
Feb 13th 2011, 07:54 PM
Where exactly does the Classic view tell us this?So people that hold the classic view do not say satan thought Christ would remain dead? In fact I think you've said the same. Here
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/139430-What-is-the-finished-work-of-Christ-on-the-Cross?p=1793734#post1793734
you posted a link to here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_%28ransom_view%29
which says
"God, however, tricked the Devil into accepting Christ's death as a ransom, for the Devil did not realize that Christ could not be held in the bonds of death"
Do you not agree with that?

dagar
Feb 13th 2011, 09:00 PM
One follows from the other if we accept the idea that the one who was offended (God) can set the terms for peace (an offering). Let's think about the animal sacrifices for a moment and ask the question, "Why did a man offer a bull to God?" Did he steal God's bull? No, I don't think this was the reason. Offering a bull to God wasn't an act of restitution, reparation or restoration. The Bull is a gift of conciliation, an acknowledgment of the offense along with an appeal to reconcile. What God told Israel through the prophets was, "I don't really need your bull. I want your actual and real contrition. I will forgive the sins of those who are honest and contrite." God didn't want a bull because he wanted his bull back. He asked for a bull because the bull would represent contrition and an appeal for reconciliation. It wasn't a matter of justice; it was a matter of conciliation.I don't see the separation. Justice is served either way. Judgment is passed in both cases.

Mark F
Feb 13th 2011, 09:03 PM
So people that hold the classic view do not say satan thought Christ would remain dead? In fact I think you've said the same. Here
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/139430-What-is-the-finished-work-of-Christ-on-the-Cross?p=1793734#post1793734
you posted a link to here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_%28ransom_view%29
which says
"God, however, tricked the Devil into accepting Christ's death as a ransom, for the Devil did not realize that Christ could not be held in the bonds of death"
Do you not agree with that?

I don't think it would be Satan, he wasn't after us, when we were without Christ it is God that is after us, there was no trickery in Christ's death, I'm certain that the devil not realizing death could not hold Christ is man's speculation.


Matthew 10:28
And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

God is the one to fear.

Mark F
Feb 13th 2011, 09:41 PM
One follows from the other if we accept the idea that the one who was offended (God) can set the terms for peace (an offering). Let's think about the animal sacrifices for a moment and ask the question, "Why did a man offer a bull to God?" Did he steal God's bull? No, I don't think this was the reason. Offering a bull to God wasn't an act of restitution, reparation or restoration. The Bull is a gift of conciliation, an acknowledgment of the offense along with an appeal to reconcile. What God told Israel through the prophets was, "I don't really need your bull. I want your actual and real contrition. I will forgive the sins of those who are honest and contrite." God didn't want a bull because he wanted his bull back. He asked for a bull because the bull would represent contrition and an appeal for reconciliation. It wasn't a matter of justice; it was a matter of conciliation.

The animal sacrifices were pointing to Christ, It was all God's plan on His terms, an innocent victim was killed, and blood was shed. The reason the prophets wrote about the attitude of the heart was to teach that the sacrifices pointed to a person, the coming redeemer. If it was as you say and they were for conciliation, why did Jesus die then? Conciliation is works plain and simple, salvation has never been by works.

You say it is not a matter of justice, what, was God merciful to us instead of being just? If that is the case then logic tells us the opposite is true: God is unjust.

What happens to those who reject Christ and die in their sin? What did God tell Adam?


Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.


Genesis 2:16-17
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Has the consequences of sin changed now? Will people who sin die? I expect that you will agree that they do, so if they die now (without Christ) and are punished by God, is He being just with them? He said He would right? So God will carry out His divine will justly and in perfect righteousness and they will receive death, justice will be carried out.

Why then is the Christian exempt from the wages of sin? Why does God just forget about our sins and let us off the hook? In fact why are we the objects of His grace and blessings? How can He do that, we sinned too!!! The reason He can is that Christ took our place, He suffered the seperation and punishment from God so God could not be ever called into question that He is perfectly righteous in His grace and mercy toward us.

Why does Paul write in Romans 3 that God had passed over the sins in the past BUT NOW he demonstrates that He is just, and the justifier of those in Christ? Who is He demonstrating that He is just to? Any who would accuse Him!!


Romans 3:24-26
24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Logic again, how can we be justified if justice was not met?

Bandit
Feb 13th 2011, 10:12 PM
... If one's sins are atoned for, there is no reason to end up in hell. It's my contention that only Universalists can say that all sin is atoned for, while Arminians can say the sin of a person is only atoned for if they respond in faith.

Hello BrckBrln,

It is my contention (to borrow your wording) that all sin is atoned for (potentially), but that atonement is applied only to those who respond by faith. Let me continue skimming through, and then I will respond more fully.

Bandit
Feb 13th 2011, 11:02 PM
I'm seeking some understanding and clarification on the Atonement. I've seen it said on here that Christ died for the sins of every single human. If that is the case, why do people still go to hell? It was my understanding that people go to hell because they are lost in their sins. But if Christ has paid the price for those sins, then why do they still end up in hell? I presume the answer is unbelief. The people who go to hell are the ones that lack faith in Christ. Now, is this unbelief a sin? If it is a sin for which people go to hell for, does that mean that Christ did not die for all the sin of everybody?
...
So what do you think?


If I understand correctly ... That brings us back to my original question; why do people go to hell if their sins are paid for?


Returning back to my original point, in what real way can we say that Christ died for the sins of all people? I think you would have to qualify that statement by saying: Christ died for the sins of the people that respond to him in faith. Because, remember, the cross only makes salvation possible. So, when doing evangelism, you are speaking to people lost in their sins, on the way to hell. However, if they respond to the Gospel with faith in Christ, their sins are washed away and are now on the path to everlasting life.


Hello BrckBrln,

Here is how I understand the atonement. Go back to Isreal in Egypt. God gave the people instructions (Ex. 12) for Passover lambs to be killed, eaten, and the blood to be applied to every doorpost. The Passover lamb was sufficient for any and every household... as long as the blood was applied and every person remained under the blood (and did not exit the doorposts).

I view the atonement in much the same way. Jesus is the Passover Lamb who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). This blood is available to all. Christ's blood is sufficient for any and all sins; all that must be done is for a person, any person, to apply that blood to the doorposts of their heart (and to remain under that blood covering). Those who do not apply His blood (or who do not remain under its protective covering) do so to their own ruin.

So that is how I see it. His blood is sufficient for any and all sins; He truely died for the sins of all. What we must do is apply that blood individually.



Am I correct, then, in saying it's inaccurate to go proclaiming that Christ has died for the sins of all people? Because it's only those who respond to Christ that are not in their sins anymore, while everybody else is still lost in their sin. This is why people go to hell, is it not? If unbelief is why people go to hell, is that not a sin? So we get back to my original question that if unbelief is a sin and Christ has atoned for it, why do people still go to hell?

You are not correct here. Jesus did die for the sins of the whole world (all people). Failure to apply the blood (or remain under it) by any individual does not negate the fact that Jesus was slain for their sins. They simply did not apply the blood to their hearts (or failed to remain under its covering). People go to hell because they refuse to apply the blood from the Lamb which God supplied. No fault of God's or the Lamb's.


I guess what I am saying is, that it's only the Universalist that can claim Christ has actually died for the sins of all people. The effect of this truly universal atonement is that nobody goes to hell because there is no reason for them to end up there since their sins have been paid for by Christ on the cross. Do you see?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Arminianism states that Christ has made salvation possible for anybody willing to place their faith in Christ, with divine grace enabling them to do so. Calvinism, on the other hand, states that Christ has purchased the salvation of the elect that the Father has given to him, with divine grace bringing about the decreed faith in the elect.

So, Arminianism should say that Christ has died for the sins only of those who come to him in faith. Calvinism says Christ has died for the sins only of those whom the Father has elected. And it's Universalism that says Christ has died for the sins of every single human. So my whole point for this thread is to point out that it's inaccurate for Arminians to say what only the Universalist can say, namely, that Christ has died for the sins of all people. It's not quite that simple for the Arminian. To put things in bullet form:


Universalism: Christ died for the sins of all people.
Arminianism (hypothetical universalism): Christ died for the sins of all people who respond in faith.
Calvinism (particularism): Christ died for the sins of the elect.


Christ has died for all sins. His blood is upon God's alter. Anyone may apply it to the doorposts of their hearts. We should proclaim as a central part of the gospel that God has provided the sacrificial Lamb whose blood covers all sins.

"Apply the blood of Christ to the doorposts of your heart and live!"

chad
Feb 13th 2011, 11:05 PM
John 1:29 – John the Baptist declares, “look the lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world”

Peoples sins are paid for, but in order for that forgiveness to apply, they must first accept Jesus, believe and repent. Forgiveness does not automatically apply to all people, although Jesus death covers all sin that people may commit. People still go to hell, because they have not accepted Jesus Christ.

When people accept Christ, they enter into a covenant, where the blood of Jesus makes atonement and sins are forgiven.


----
I've seen it said on here that Christ died for the sins of every single human. If that is the case, why do people still go to hell? It was my understanding that people go to hell because they are lost in their sins. But if Christ has paid the price for those sins, then why do they still end up in hell? I presume the answer is unbelief. The people who go to hell are the ones that lack faith in Christ. Now, is this unbelief a sin? If it is a sin for which people go to hell for, does that mean that Christ did not die for all the sin of everybody?

LookingUp
Feb 13th 2011, 11:20 PM
I didn't ask what the devil was thinking. The Classic tells us what he was thinking. I ask you to explain how it is even possible the devil could think Christ would remain dead? That is the crux of the Classic view.I just wanted to add some things to consider when trying to determine if it was possible that Satan would think Christ would remain dead.

During Christ’s ministry, demons seemed to know who Jesus was but they didn’t seem to understand why he was there at that time (Mk 1:24; 3:11; 5:7; Lk 8:28).

God’s wisdom which led to the crucifixion of Christ was kept secret and hidden until after the resurrection (Rom. 16:25; 1 Cor. 2:7; Eph. 3:9-10; Col. 1:26).

Unbeknownst to them, Satan and his cohorts played into God’s secret plan and were instrumental in bringing the reconciliation of the world (Jn 13:27; Acts 2:22-23).

If the rulers of this age had understood the secret wisdom of God, they wouldn’t have crucified the Lord of glory (1 Cor. 2:6-8).

Satan and his cohorts could not fathom the wisdom of God and figure out why the Son of God had entered their domain. If God could withhold this secret from His enemies, could He withhold any other secrets from them?

BrckBrln
Feb 13th 2011, 11:37 PM
Hello BrckBrln,

Here is how I understand the atonement. Go back to Isreal in Egypt. God gave the people instructions (Ex. 12) for Passover lambs to be killed, eaten, and the blood to be applied to every doorpost. The Passover lamb was sufficient for any and every household... as long as the blood was applied and every person remained under the blood (and did not exit the doorposts).

I view the atonement in much the same way. Jesus is the Passover Lamb who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). This blood is available to all. Christ's blood is sufficient for any and all sins; all that must be done is for a person, any person, to apply that blood to the doorposts of their heart (and to remain under that blood covering). Those who do not apply His blood (or who do not remain under its protective covering) do so to their own ruin.

So that is how I see it. His blood is sufficient for any and all sins; He truely died for the sins of all. What we must do is apply that blood individually.




You are not correct here. Jesus did die for the sins of the whole world (all people). Failure to apply the blood (or remain under it) by any individual does not negate the fact that Jesus was slain for their sins. They simply did not apply the blood to their hearts (or failed to remain under its covering). People go to hell because they refuse to apply the blood from the Lamb which God supplied. No fault of God's or the Lamb's.



Christ has died for all sins. His blood is upon God's alter. Anyone may apply it to the doorposts of their hearts. We should proclaim as a central part of the gospel that God has provided the sacrificial Lamb whose blood covers all sins.

"Apply the blood of Christ to the doorposts of your heart and live!"

Yes, what you described is classic Arminianism. You would agree with the second bullet on Arminianism, right?

'Arminianism (hypothetical universalism): Christ died for the sins of all people who respond in faith.'

Responding in faith would be equivalent to applying Christ's blood, appropriating Christ's atonement. Under this system, it is inaccurate to say that Christ died for the sins of everybody. As I showed, only the Universalist can truly make that claim. You, as an Arminian, have to qualify that statement adding 'who respond in faith'.

Do you see what I'm saying here?

Bandit
Feb 13th 2011, 11:49 PM
Yes, what you described is classic Arminianism. You would agree with the second bullet on Arminianism, right?

'Arminianism (hypothetical universalism): Christ died for the sins of all people who respond in faith.'

Responding in faith would be equivalent to applying Christ's blood, appropriating Christ's atonement. Under this system, it is inaccurate to say that Christ died for the sins of everybody. As I showed, only the Universalist can truly make that claim. You, as an Arminian, have to qualify that statement adding 'who respond in faith'.

Do you see what I'm saying here?

I'm sorry, but I do not see it as you do. As I see it, Jesus died for the sins of all the world. His life and blood were given for all. Because only some apply the blood does not take away from the fact that the blood was available and sufficient for all. I don't think I quite fit into the box you seem to be trying to place me.

Jesus was crucified for the sins of the world, but only those who actually apply His blood to the doorposts of their hearts have their sins covered. I think this is not identical with the position you are tying to place me in.

Butch5
Feb 14th 2011, 01:12 AM
So people that hold the classic view do not say satan thought Christ would remain dead? In fact I think you've said the same. Here
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/139430-What-is-the-finished-work-of-Christ-on-the-Cross?p=1793734#post1793734
you posted a link to here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_%28ransom_view%29
which says
"God, however, tricked the Devil into accepting Christ's death as a ransom, for the Devil did not realize that Christ could not be held in the bonds of death"
Do you not agree with that?

So where did I say it? The link I posted was to Wikipedia, it gives a general description of the Ransom view, It also gives the varying ideas. The idea that God tricked Satan is apparently a later invention which seems to be in the writings of Origen and Augustine. It was not the view of Irenaeus and the earlier writers. I posts in the other post about God being a Gentleman, that was the view of Irenaeus.

This is all irrelevant though to your question, and your question is irrelevant to the issue of the Ransom view. It doesn't matter if anyone knew whether or not the devil thought that Christ would remain dead. The Ransom view is the view they held. It's not really necessary for them to explain it in such a way as to answer the questions of people 2000 years later. They were writing to people of their day, they also had " A LOT" more information available to them than either you or I have. Do you know how many letters Paul wrote? What about Peter, John, or Matthew? What about the oral traditions handed down by Paul, they had those, you don't, neither do I. So, they were in a much better position to understand the atonement. And, they "DIDN'T" come up with either the Penal or the Satisfaction models. Here is how Irenaeus understood the Christ's redeeming work. I think He is right on target.

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1
Irenaeus- Disciple of Polycarp, disciple of John


Chap. I.—Christ Alone Is Able to Teach Divine Things, and to Redeem Us: He, the Same, Took Flesh of the Virgin Mary, Not Merely in Appearance, but Actually, by the Operation of the Holy Spirit, in Order to Renovate Us. Strictures on the Conceits of Valentinus and Ebion.

1. For in no other way could we have learned the things of God, unless our Master, existing as the Word, had become man. For no other being had the power of revealing to us the things of the Father, except His own proper Word. For what other person “knew the mind of the Lord,” or who else “has become His counsellor?” (Rom. 11:34) Again, we could have learned in no other way than by seeing our Teacher, and hearing His voice with our own ears, that, having become imitators of His works as well as doers of His words, we may have communion with Him, receiving increase from the perfect One, and from Him who is prior to all creation. We—who were but lately created by the only best and good Being, by Him also who has the gift of immortality, having been formed after His likeness (predestinated, according to the prescience of the Father, that we, who had as yet no existence, might come into being), and made the first-fruits of creation—have received, in the times known beforehand, [the blessings of salvation] according to the ministration of the Word, who is perfect in all things, as the mighty Word, and very man, who, redeeming us by His own blood in a manner consonant to reason, gave Himself as a redemption for those who had been led into captivity. And since the apostasy tyrannized over us unjustly, and, though we were by nature the property of the omnipotent God, alienated us contrary to nature, rendering us its own disciples, the Word of God, powerful in all things, and not defective with regard to His own justice, did righteously turn against that apostasy, and redeem from it His own property, not by violent means, as the [apostasy] had obtained dominion over us at the beginning, when it insatiably snatched away what was not its own, but by means of persuasion, as became a God of counsel, who does not use violent means to obtain what He desires; so that neither should justice be infringed upon, nor the ancient handiwork of God go to destruction. Since the Lord thus has redeemed us through His own blood, giving His soul for our souls, and His flesh for our flesh, and has also poured out the Spirit of the Father for the union and communion of God and man, imparting indeed God to men by means of the Spirit, and, on the other hand, attaching man to God by His own incarnation, and bestowing upon us at His coming immortality durably and truly, by means of communion with God,—all the doctrines of the heretics fall to ruin.

Butch5
Feb 14th 2011, 01:19 AM
What happens to those that do not believe?

You didn't show any Scripture.

Those that don't believe are condemned. Now, how about that Scripture?

dagar
Feb 14th 2011, 01:25 AM
You didn't show any Scripture.I didn't need to because I know you know them. You just said
Those that don't believe are condemned.Condemned -Judged. Why? Sin demands judgment. What's the judgment? Wrath. What's the judgment for those that believe? Peace.

Butch5
Feb 14th 2011, 01:29 AM
Here's one of the biggest problems in this discussion. The use of atone and atonement is wrong. Atonement as used today is different from that used in the KJV. the word atonement only appears in the NT one time, in Romans 5 in the KJV. At the time the KJV was written Atonement did not mean to make reparation, it meant "At one" it was "At one ment". A better modern word would be reconciliation, not reparation.

Butch5
Feb 14th 2011, 01:33 AM
I didn't need to because I know you know them.

You didn't provide any because there are none. Nowhere do the Scriptures teach that the cross satisfied the wrath of God. You have to find that in Reformation theology, not Scripture.

You just said Condemned -Judged. Why? Sin demands judgment. What's the judgment? Wrath. What's the judgment for those that believe? Peace.[/QUOTE]

Sin demands judgement??? Scripture???

Butch5
Feb 14th 2011, 01:34 AM
You didn't show any Scripture.

Those that don't believe are condemned. Now, how about that Scripture?

What about the ransom? You still haven't answered, would that be to God?

LookingUp
Feb 14th 2011, 01:45 AM
Butch,

You know this theory so much better than I do. Can you help me see how the following fits in with this idea that salvation is about God rescuing us from the powers of darkness?

Jesus was pierced through for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities and the chastening for our well-being fell upon him. The LORD was pleased to crush him. (Isa 53).

God publicly displayed him as a propitiation (appeasement?) for the sins the whole world to demonstrate His righteousness. (Rom. 3:25; Heb. 2:17; 1 Jn 2:2).

He was made sin on our behalf (2 Cor 6:21).

He put away sin by the sacrifice of himself (Heb 9:26).

BroRog
Feb 14th 2011, 02:03 AM
You say it is not a matter of justice, what, was God merciful to us instead of being just? If that is the case then logic tells us the opposite is true: God is unjust.No, not really. Again, those who are being merciful are not unjust.


Has the consequences of sin changed now? Will people who sin die? I expect that you will agree that they do, so if they die now (without Christ) and are punished by God, is He being just with them? He said He would right? So God will carry out His divine will justly and in perfect righteousness and they will receive death, justice will be carried out.Everyone dies. Physical death isn't the wages of sin; condemnation is.

Everyone sins. If hell was the punishment for sin, then we would all go to hell. Hell is NOT the punishment for sin. Hell is the punishment for unbelief.


Why then is the Christian exempt from the wages of sin?The wages of sin is condemnation. Christians are exempt from the wages of sin because God forgave them.


Why does God just forget about our sins and let us off the hook?He lets us off the hook because he wants to do that.


In fact why are we the objects of His grace and blessings?It pleased him.


How can He do that, we sinned too!!! The reason He can is that Christ took our place, He suffered the seperation and punishment from God so God could not be ever called into question that He is perfectly righteous in His grace and mercy toward us. Either Christ took our place or God had mercy on us. Can't be both.


Why does Paul write in Romans 3 that God had passed over the sins in the past BUT NOW he demonstrates that He is just, and the justifier of those in Christ? Who is He demonstrating that He is just to? Any who would accuse Him!!Notice Paul's point is that the cross was a demonstration of his justice, not actual justice.


Logic again, how can we be justified if justice was not met?Justification is granted freely, not bought and paid for.

BroRog
Feb 14th 2011, 02:06 AM
I don't see the separation. Justice is served either way. Judgment is passed in both cases.You think offering a bull serves justice? You think the person offering the bull stole God's bull?

LookingUp
Feb 14th 2011, 02:16 AM
You think offering a bull serves justice? You think the person offering the bull stole God's bull?BroRog, would you mind addressing my post too? Post #84? How do those Scriptures fit in with your idea of what God has done for us through Jesus?

Oh, yeah, one more thing. What do you mean the wages of sin is condemnation? It says the wages of sin is death?

BrckBrln
Feb 14th 2011, 02:29 AM
I'm sorry, but I do not see it as you do. As I see it, Jesus died for the sins of all the world. His life and blood were given for all. Because only some apply the blood does not take away from the fact that the blood was available and sufficient for all. I don't think I quite fit into the box you seem to be trying to place me.

Jesus was crucified for the sins of the world, but only those who actually apply His blood to the doorposts of their hearts have their sins covered. I think this is not identical with the position you are tying to place me in.

I don't think you see that we are, in fact, saying the same thing. Your sentence in bold is the same thing bullet number two says. Only your statement is a fuller and more complete expression. Let's try this again. Do you agree that Christ died for the sins of all people but only those who respond in faith are saved?

The problem, I think, is what do we both mean when we say Christ died for the sins of all people or the world? Arminianism believes the Cross only makes salvation possible so that everybody is able to come to Christ if they so choose and be saved. But this isn't exactly what we mean when we say Christ died for the sins of the world. That would mean that all sin is atoned for actually not possibly. So that nobody would need to go to hell because their sin is atoned for even though they don't believe (which is presumably a sin, however it also is covered). That would be Universalism. Do you see?

What I'm trying to say is that it's inaccurate for the Arminian to say that Christ died for the sins of all people period. There needs to be a qualifier to that statement. A better formulation would be that Christ, by dying on the Cross, made salvation possible for everybody, but only those who respond by faith have their sins atoned for. Don't you agree?

dagar
Feb 14th 2011, 02:48 AM
You think offering a bull serves justice? You think the person offering the bull stole God's bull?
Justice was not served there. Judgment wasn't passed there.

BroRog
Feb 14th 2011, 03:24 AM
BroRog, would you mind addressing my post too? Post #84? How do those Scriptures fit in with your idea of what God has done for us through Jesus?

Oh, yeah, one more thing. What do you mean the wages of sin is condemnation? It says the wages of sin is death?Sure. I'll answer the second question first. The full sentence is

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Here Paul sets up a contrast between "death" and "eternal life". To understand the kind of death Paul has in mind, it's helpful to know and understand the kind of life he has in mind. We would make a mistake to think that Paul is saying that the wages of sin is the loss of biological viability, or the end of life functions. We die for all kinds of reasons and many of them are not due to sin. Biological death is simply the result of living in a world of entropy. Body parts wear out, diseases attack our biological systems, we have accidents, we serve in wars, or people kill us. Wars and homicide can be attributed to sin, but not disease, entropy, or accidents.

As an example of the reason why condemnation is the actual intent of the term "death" in Romans 6:23, rather than the loss of biological viability let's look at a modern phenomenon. Those who play video games, especially role playing games, understand that death is not the end of game play. Game designers typically program a "resurrection" function into the game so that players who "die" in the game can return to game play in a resurrected form. There might be some kind of set back, a loss of possessions, or a long journey back to a place where the "resurrection" takes place, but death in the video game world is just an inconvenience.

If "death" in a video game meant never being allowed to play the game again, this would be closer to the idea Paul has in mind. To die without the hope of eternal life, death is the end of the story for a person. To die, in this sense, is not only to lose biological viability, but the loss of biological viability is the end of existence. Unlike a role-playing video game, those who die without the hope of eternal life, die without any hope of continuance, or substance, or meaning, or love. Those who die without the hope of eternal life, are condemned to remain dead. There is no resurrection to Life for them; there is only the resurrection to sure judgment.

If we define "eternal life" as the state of wellbeing, a contented state of being happy, healthy, and prosperous, then "death" the way Paul means it is the state of being permanently cut off from such a Life. It isn't simply a matter of a broken body that ends up in a dirt pile; it's the idea that all hope for human flourishing and fulfillment has been lost forever. That's why I used the word "condemnation" rather than "death"; we tend to forget just what death actually means with regard to why God created us in the first place. Death means being condemned -- cut off from our ultimate fulfillment.


Can you help me see how the following fits in with this idea that salvation is about God rescuing us from the powers of darkness?

Jesus was pierced through for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities and the chastening for our well-being fell upon him. The LORD was pleased to crush him. (Isa 53).It was the darkness of the human heart that put the hope of humanity to death. His resurrection demonstrated that his love for mankind was able to overcome the hatred and darkened hearts that almost snuffed out all possibility that mankind would find the fulfillment and human flourishing God created us for.


God publicly displayed him as a propitiation (appeasement?) for the sins the whole world to demonstrate His righteousness. (Rom. 3:25; Heb. 2:17; 1 Jn 2:2).Here salvation is seen in terms of a believers agreement with God that what Jesus got on the cross is what he or she actually deserved. The powers of darkness, which are nothing more than the power of deception, would try to convince us otherwise.


He was made sin on our behalf (2 Cor 6:21).To be "made sin" in this context means that Jesus symbolically personified sin as one would play a role in a story. God is granting salvation to those who identify with Jesus in the sense that they say, "That should have been me on the cross that day, not him."
God "treated as sin" the one "who knew no sin." The epitome of human depravity was demonstrated in that human beings placed an innocent man on a cross, knowing he was innocent, in order to protect a deified institution. The cross challenges us to examine such an injustice and instead of being outraged at those who did such a thing, we admit that it could have been me nailing him to the cross, since I am, at the end of the day, no different than they. To be lifted out of darkness is to be honest about who we are as a species.


He put away sin by the sacrifice of himself (Heb 10:27). Not sure where this actually occurs.

LookingUp
Feb 14th 2011, 03:54 AM
Not sure where this actually occurs.Sorry, that's Heb. 9:26.

BroRog
Feb 14th 2011, 04:13 AM
Sorry, that's Heb. 9:26.The author of Hebrews argues that the purpose of the animal sacrifices was to act as a picture-example and foreshadowed the propitiation the messiah would later offer. He sets out, in this section to make two main points: 1) it was appropriate for the messiah to fulfill this role, and 2) the sacrifice the messiah made was eternally effective.

Butch5
Feb 14th 2011, 04:15 AM
Butch,

You know this theory so much better than I do. Can you help me see how the following fits in with this idea that salvation is about God rescuing us from the powers of darkness?

Jesus was pierced through for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities and the chastening for our well-being fell upon him. The LORD was pleased to crush him. (Isa 53).

Hi Julie,

this passage give many Christians trouble, however, it simply is not the same as that used in the day of Christ. In Jesus' day the Scriptures used by the people and Jesus and the apostles was the Septuagint. This passage reads quite differently in the Septuagint.

Chapter 53
53:1 O Lord, who has believed our report? and to whom
has the arm of the Lord been revealed? 2 We brought a
report as of a child before him; he is as a root in a thirsty
land: he has no form nor comeliness; and we saw him, but
he had no form nor beauty. 3 But his form was ignoble, and
inferior to that of the children of men; he was a man in
suffering, and acquainted with the bearing of sickness, for
his face is turned from us: he was dishonoured, and not
esteemed. 4 He bears our sins, and is pained for us: yet we
accounted him to be in trouble, and in suffering, and in
affliction. 5 But he was wounded on account of our sins,
and was bruised because of our iniquities: the
chastisement of our peace was upon him; and by his
bruises we were healed. 6 All we as sheep have gone
astray; every one has gone astray in his way; and the Lord
gave him up for our sins.
7 And he, because of his affliction, opens not his mouth:
he was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb
before the shearer is dumb, so he opens not his mouth. 8
In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: who shall
declare his generation? for his life is taken away from the
earth: because of the iniquities of my people he was led to
death.9 And I will give the wicked for his burial, and the
rich for his death; for he practised no iniquity, nor craft
with his mouth. 10 The Lord also is pleased to purge him
from his stroke. If ye can give an offering for sin, your soul
shall see a long-lived seed: 11 the Lord also is pleased to
take away from the travail of his soul, to shew him light,
and to form him with understanding; to justify the just one
who serves many well; and he shall bear their sins. 12
Therefore he shall inherit many, and he shall divide the
spoils of the mighty; because his soul was delivered to
death: and he was numbered among the transgressors;
and he bore the sins of many, and was delivered because
of their iniquities.

Notice there is nothing here about God bruising Christ. On the contrary it says that God was willing to purge Him of his stroke and to take away the travail of His soul. There are more instances where the Septuagint clears up problems we encounter.


God publicly displayed him as a propitiation (appeasement?) for the sins the whole world to demonstrate His righteousness. (Rom. 3:25; Heb. 2:17; 1 Jn 2:2).

Again, look at the translation. Most of our original English translations were made by reformers, and many modern translators tend to follow them. The Greek word translated "propitiation" is "Hilasterion" and is also translated "Mercy Seat" Read those verses you posted and insert mercy seat instead of propitiation.


Hebrews 9:4-5 ( KJV )
Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;
And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.

Notice what Paul says regarding this.

Hebrews 9:3-14 ( KJV )
And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;
Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;
And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.
Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.
But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:
The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

I think we can easily understand what Paul means by looking at "Hilasterion", the mercy seat in the OT.

Exodus 25:16-22 ( KJV )
And thou shalt put into the ark the testimony which I shall give thee.
And thou shalt make a mercy seat of pure gold: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof.
And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat.
And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof.
And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be.
And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee.
And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.


Leviticus 16:1-4 ( KJV )
And the LORD spake unto Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they offered before the LORD, and died;
And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the veil before the mercy seat, which is upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat.
Thus shall Aaron come into the holy place: with a young bullock for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering.
He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and so put them on.


Leviticus 16:13-16 ( KJV )
And he shall put the incense upon the fire before the LORD, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy seat that is upon the testimony, that he die not:
And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy seat eastward; and before the mercy seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times.
Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the veil, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat:
And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness.

I think it becomes clear from these passages what Paul has in mind. the mercy seat is where God met with man, Christ is where God meets with man. The Mercy Seat is where blood was shed for sins. Christ is where blood is shed for sins. The Mercy Seat was the place where reconciliation was made between God and man. Christ is where reconciliation is made between God and man.

I don't think appeasement fits this scenario, simply because the sacrifices they offered, the bulls and goats, did not appease God, they could not take away sins. Their sins were not remitted until Christ came.


Heb.2:17 is speaking of Christ not God.


He was made sin on our behalf (2 Cor 6:21).

I believe here that Paul is speaking metaphorically, Christ suffered the consequences of our sin. We should have been destroyed because of our sin. Satan doesn't offer eternal life, therefore those who serve him will die.


He put away sin by the sacrifice of himself (Heb 10:27).

Here I believe Paul to be saying that Christ offered himself as the ransom, giving his life for those who were held in bondage to Satan. His redeeming mankind makes it possible for man to received forgiveness and remission of sins.

I hope this helps.

Butch5
Feb 14th 2011, 04:23 AM
Hey Julie,

Here is a link to Irenaeus' Against Heresies Book 5. He goes into the atonement in this book

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.html

Mark F
Feb 14th 2011, 04:31 AM
No, not really. Again, those who are being merciful are not unjust.
So if someone murdered your family and they caught them and in court the judge said he was merciful and set the murderer free you would not think the judge to be wicked and vile?


Everyone dies. Physical death isn't the wages of sin; condemnation is.
I should have clarified, I wasn't speaking of physical death, but spiritual.

Everyone sins. If hell was the punishment for sin, then we would all go to hell. Hell is NOT the punishment for sin. Hell is the punishment for unbelief.
And unbelief is sin.

The wages of sin is condemnation. Christians are exempt from the wages of sin because God forgave them.
The Bible says the wages of sin is death. Explain how God can forgive some for sin and not others, please be specific.


Either Christ took our place or God had mercy on us. Can't be both.
I can't see one without the other.

Notice Paul's point is that the cross was a demonstration of his justice, not actual justice.
If I demonstrate how to shoot a gun, wouldn't I shoot it? To demonstrate something dosen't mean to create an illusion of.

BroRog
Feb 14th 2011, 05:38 AM
So if someone murdered your family and they caught them and in court the judge said he was merciful and set the murderer free you would not think the judge to be wicked and vile?Your analogy doesn't fit because your analogy is setting God in the place of the judge rather than the one being offended. In your analogy, God would be the one who survived the murders. While it would be unjust for the court to let the murderer go; it would not be unjust for me to forgive the murderer. See what I mean?


And unbelief is sin.Sure, but unbelief is the particular sin that God will not forgive. And this is his choice. It isn't that he is obligated to not forgive unbelief. This is his choice.


The Bible says the wages of sin is death. Explain how God can forgive some for sin and not others, please be specific.As Jesus says, God will forgive all sins except that of unbelief. Our sin, per se, doesn't condemn us; we are condemned by our unbelief. Here is how Jesus puts it.



He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


I can't see one without the other.Let's put it this way. If Jesus paid for my sins, and the atonement is a matter of justice, then why does the Bible say so much about the fact that my sins were forgiven? If my sins were paid for, they weren't forgiven, they were paid for. If Jesus took the punishment for my sins, then what has God got against me? If Jesus took the punishment for my sins then justice demands that God be obligated to save me. If Jesus took the punishment for my sins, then God has no reason to forgive me.

If Joe owes Mark $5 and Sam agrees to pay Mark the $5 on behalf of Joe, then Joe's debt was paid, not forgiven. If Mark forgives the debt, then there would be no need for Sam or Joe for that matter, to pay it.


If I demonstrate how to shoot a gun, wouldn't I shoot it? To demonstrate something dosen't mean to create an illusion of.Sure, you might choose to actually shoot the gun. Or you might make a video, which depicts a gun being shot. Paul argues in Romans 3 that the cross was a public demonstration of God's righteousness, which he accepted as an appeasement of his wrath. Paul couldn't be saying that the cross satisfied our debt to justice since he just previously said that being justified is a gift of God by his grace.

LookingUp
Feb 14th 2011, 06:54 AM
Sure. I'll answer the second question first. The full sentence is

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Here Paul sets up a contrast between "death" and "eternal life". To understand the kind of death Paul has in mind, it's helpful to know and understand the kind of life he has in mind. We would make a mistake to think that Paul is saying that the wages of sin is the loss of biological viability, or the end of life functions. We die for all kinds of reasons and many of them are not due to sin. Biological death is simply the result of living in a world of entropy. Body parts wear out, diseases attack our biological systems, we have accidents, we serve in wars, or people kill us. Wars and homicide can be attributed to sin, but not disease, entropy, or accidents.

As an example of the reason why condemnation is the actual intent of the term "death" in Romans 6:23, rather than the loss of biological viability let's look at a modern phenomenon. Those who play video games, especially role playing games, understand that death is not the end of game play. Game designers typically program a "resurrection" function into the game so that players who "die" in the game can return to game play in a resurrected form. There might be some kind of set back, a loss of possessions, or a long journey back to a place where the "resurrection" takes place, but death in the video game world is just an inconvenience.

If "death" in a video game meant never being allowed to play the game again, this would be closer to the idea Paul has in mind. To die without the hope of eternal life, death is the end of the story for a person. To die, in this sense, is not only to lose biological viability, but the loss of biological viability is the end of existence. Unlike a role-playing video game, those who die without the hope of eternal life, die without any hope of continuance, or substance, or meaning, or love. Those who die without the hope of eternal life, are condemned to remain dead. There is no resurrection to Life for them; there is only the resurrection to sure judgment.

If we define "eternal life" as the state of wellbeing, a contented state of being happy, healthy, and prosperous, then "death" the way Paul means it is the state of being permanently cut off from such a Life. It isn't simply a matter of a broken body that ends up in a dirt pile; it's the idea that all hope for human flourishing and fulfillment has been lost forever. That's why I used the word "condemnation" rather than "death"; we tend to forget just what death actually means with regard to why God created us in the first place. Death means being condemned -- cut off from our ultimate fulfillment.I like the way you’ve put the idea of death being cut off from our ultimate fulfillment. I’ve always thought that we were meant to live our lives in perfect union with God and that through the resurrection, we will finally achieve this complete unity and it will bring us an unsurpassable joy and fullness of love. That the tragedy for those who die apart from God is that they will never attain what God always desired for them.

What I don’t fully agree with is the idea that disease, entropy and accidents can’t be traced back to sin.


It was the darkness of the human heart that put the hope of humanity to death. His resurrection demonstrated that his love for mankind was able to overcome the hatred and darkened hearts that almost snuffed out all possibility that mankind would find the fulfillment and human flourishing God created us for.

Here salvation is seen in terms of a believers agreement with God that what Jesus got on the cross is what he or she actually deserved. The powers of darkness, which are nothing more than the power of deception, would try to convince us otherwise.

To be "made sin" in this context means that Jesus symbolically personified sin as one would play a role in a story. God is granting salvation to those who identify with Jesus in the sense that they say, "That should have been me on the cross that day, not him."
God "treated as sin" the one "who knew no sin." The epitome of human depravity was demonstrated in that human beings placed an innocent man on a cross, knowing he was innocent, in order to protect a deified institution. The cross challenges us to examine such an injustice and instead of being outraged at those who did such a thing, we admit that it could have been me nailing him to the cross, since I am, at the end of the day, no different than they. To be lifted out of darkness is to be honest about who we are as a species.OK, I remember you comparing this to when Moses lifted up the serpent (I think that was you). The serpent didn’t carry anyone’s sin. The serpent represented sin. God grants salvation to anyone who can agree that this is what sin deserves. So, Jesus was chastened, pierced through, and crushed in order to publically display what sin deserves (to display the righteousness of God) and Jesus experienced this undeserved death for us so that he could rescue us from the powers of darkness. He resuces us primarily by demonstrating a profound, self-sacrificial love which broke open the gates of hell and destroyed the power of sin thus destroying death’s hold over man. In this way, man can be resurrected and fulfill his ultimate destiny.

dagar
Feb 14th 2011, 07:04 AM
I just wanted to add some things to consider when trying to determine if it was possible that Satan would think Christ would remain dead.

During Christ’s ministry, demons seemed to know who Jesus was but they didn’t seem to understand why he was there at that time (Mk 1:24; 3:11; 5:7; Lk 8:28).Then they must not have even understood he was going to die at this time. If that's the case this is not applicable to whether or not they thought he would remain dead when the time came.



God’s wisdom which led to the crucifixion of Christ was kept secret and hidden until after the resurrection (Rom. 16:25; 1 Cor. 2:7; Eph. 3:9-10; Col. 1:26).Actually those don't say anything about "until after the resurrection" and they say the crucifixion was God's wisdom. Based on these, I can't make the jump from hidden for ages, to hidden from Satan at the time of crucifixion though. Jesus stated what his death and resurrection would mean before his crucifixion -Joh 12:24.



Unbeknownst to them, Satan and his cohorts played into God’s secret plan and were instrumental in bringing the reconciliation of the world (Jn 13:27; Acts 2:22-23).

If the rulers of this age had understood the secret wisdom of God, they wouldn’t have crucified the Lord of glory (1 Cor. 2:6-8).I don't know how these could be applied to -hidden from Satan at the time of crucifixion.


Satan and his cohorts could not fathom the wisdom of God and figure out why the Son of God had entered their domain. If God could withhold this secret from His enemies, could He withhold any other secrets from them?You don't think they knew about the promised seed and prophecies concerning him and his death? Even still, after all that he had done and said himself concerning his death and resurrection, do you think they thought he was full of it? The chief priests and Pharisees got it -Mat 27:62-63, and you think the devil and his cohorts didn't?

LookingUp
Feb 14th 2011, 07:53 AM
Then they must not have even understood he was going to die at this time. If that's the case this is not applicable to whether or not they thought he would remain dead when the time came.


Actually those don't say anything about "until after the resurrection" and they say the crucifixion was God's wisdom. Based on these, I can't make the jump from hidden for ages, to hidden from Satan at the time of crucifixion though. Jesus stated what his death and resurrection would mean before his crucifixion -Joh 12:24.


I don't know how these could be applied to -hidden from Satan at the time of crucifixion.

You don't think they knew about the promised seed and prophecies concerning him and his death? Even still, after all that he had done and said himself concerning his death and resurrection, do you think they thought he was full of it? The chief priests and Pharisees got it -Mat 27:62-63, and you think the devil and his cohorts didn't?Sure, why not? Jesus had been teaching his disciples for some time he was going to die and rise again. They didn’t get it. You don’t think God could have kept Satan from getting it?

“…he said to his disciples, ‘Let these words sink into your ears; for the Son of man is going to be delivered into the hands of men.’ But they did not understand this statement, and it was concealed from them so that they would not perceive it; and they were afraid to ask him about this statement” (Luke 9:44-45).

“For as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise again from the dead” (John 20:9).

“For he will be handed over to the Gentiles and will be mocked and mistreated and spit upon, and after they have scourged him, they will kill him; and the third day he will rise again. But the disciples understood none of these things, and the meaning of this statement was hidden from them and they did not comprehend the things that were said” (Luke 18:33:34).

Jesus finally had to open their minds to understand the Scriptures (Luke 24:45).

The disciples were distraught after the death of Jesus, still not getting that he would rise from the dead. And you don't think God could have concealed this from Satan?

DeafPosttrib
Feb 14th 2011, 10:54 AM
Butch,

Wow! You explained on atonement with scriptures so deep. I second on you!!! I agree with you! Well say!

I am not OSAS. I know what postional of your beleif is. That you are not OSAS.
OSAS believes the atonement of Christ "paid" ALL our sins -past,present, and FUTURE too.

My understanding of Heb. 10:10 points out that Christ is the perfect atonement, He is the only one pure, and without spot, that He has the power to atone our sins at once. He fulfilled Old Testament sacrifice system. That, these are not perfect, and has faults in them. He is the only perfect sacrifice that He took our sins at once.

Romans 3:24-25 points out that God has set forth on Christ is the propitiation by THROUGH FAITH in His blood. And God declared us that we are justified in Christ, by through our faith, that He forgived all our PAST sins. This is the point of God imputed us as righteous and just since we put our faith on Christ - the beginning of salvation. That ALL our past sins are all forgiven. Nothing say inthis passage suggests that His blood already authomatically forgiven all our current and future commit sins after our salvation. Rather this passage tells us that God justified us by base upon our faith on Jesus at the point of our beginning salvation(Eph. 1:13) that all our sins are cast away into the sea, God forgets all our past sins. That we are justified in Christ.

After our salvation. We are responsiblity to confess to Christ when after we recently commit sins, long as He is faithful and just to forgive and to cleanse all our sins- 1 John 1:9. BUT, if we do commit sins without being confess our current sins to Him for long time, therefore, He is NOT going to forgive our current sins. IF we continue sins without confess throughout our lifetime, by the time, we die(physical), then, our sins would be REMAIN in us, that God does NOT forgive us, and our sins would be end up on everlasting fire!

Anyway, good job explaining the atonement! God bless you!

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

RollTide21
Feb 14th 2011, 09:18 PM
Hello BrckBrln,

Here is how I understand the atonement. Go back to Isreal in Egypt. God gave the people instructions (Ex. 12) for Passover lambs to be killed, eaten, and the blood to be applied to every doorpost. The Passover lamb was sufficient for any and every household... as long as the blood was applied and every person remained under the blood (and did not exit the doorposts).

I view the atonement in much the same way. Jesus is the Passover Lamb who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). This blood is available to all. Christ's blood is sufficient for any and all sins; all that must be done is for a person, any person, to apply that blood to the doorposts of their heart (and to remain under that blood covering). Those who do not apply His blood (or who do not remain under its protective covering) do so to their own ruin.

So that is how I see it. His blood is sufficient for any and all sins; He truely died for the sins of all. What we must do is apply that blood individually.




You are not correct here. Jesus did die for the sins of the whole world (all people). Failure to apply the blood (or remain under it) by any individual does not negate the fact that Jesus was slain for their sins. They simply did not apply the blood to their hearts (or failed to remain under its covering). People go to hell because they refuse to apply the blood from the Lamb which God supplied. No fault of God's or the Lamb's.



Christ has died for all sins. His blood is upon God's alter. Anyone may apply it to the doorposts of their hearts. We should proclaim as a central part of the gospel that God has provided the sacrificial Lamb whose blood covers all sins.

"Apply the blood of Christ to the doorposts of your heart and live!"I'd have to revisit the Passover, but there seems to be a glaring issue with that example...

The command to place the Blood of the Lamb on the doorposts was given by God ONLY to the Israelites, was it not? How was this a picture of God's shed blood for ALL of mankind?

RollTide21
Feb 14th 2011, 09:26 PM
Either Christ took our place or God had mercy on us. Can't be both.
Why can't God's Mercy be the fact that He had Christ take our place?

RollTide21
Feb 14th 2011, 09:34 PM
If Joe owes Mark $5 and Sam agrees to pay Mark the $5 on behalf of Joe, then Joe's debt was paid, not forgiven. If Mark forgives the debt, then there would be no need for Sam or Joe for that matter, to pay it.
I might be confused, but in using this analogy, you seem to be saying that our sin was forgiven without any debt being paid. Isn't the whole idea that Christ paid our debt and it is by Christ that we are forgiven THAT debt? Is it not Mercy to substitute Christ for us to pay the debt of sin?

I'm not sure one way or the other in this particular discussion, but I can't see where Mercy and Justice are mutually exclusive when it comes to Christ dying for our sins.

technologyvault
Feb 15th 2011, 12:18 AM
Yours is an interesting set of questions. Christ did die for everyone's sins, and his resurrection means that everyone who has ever been born on this planet will be resurrected, having their spirits and bodies reunited again. Except for the few Sons of Perdition who deny the Holy Ghost, all will eventually be saved with some degree of glory.

Bandit
Feb 15th 2011, 12:35 AM
I'd have to revisit the Passover, but there seems to be a glaring issue with that example...

The command to place the Blood of the Lamb on the doorposts was given by God ONLY to the Israelites, was it not? How was this a picture of God's shed blood for ALL of mankind?

I hope you see the foreshadowing of Christ's sacrifice in the Passover. Jesus was killed during Passover for a reason; the Passover foreshadowed His sacrifice. That is why John said what he said in John 1:29. That is also why Paul calls Jesus "our Passover" in 1st Cor. 5:7.

dagar
Feb 15th 2011, 12:43 AM
Sure, why not? Jesus had been teaching his disciples for some time he was going to die and rise again. They didn’t get it. You don’t think God could have kept Satan from getting it?

“…he said to his disciples, ‘Let these words sink into your ears; for the Son of man is going to be delivered into the hands of men.’ But they did not understand this statement, and it was concealed from them so that they would not perceive it; and they were afraid to ask him about this statement” (Luke 9:44-45).

“For he will be handed over to the Gentiles and will be mocked and mistreated and spit upon, and after they have scourged him, they will kill him; and the third day he will rise again. But the disciples understood none of these things, and the meaning of this statement was hidden from them and they did not comprehend the things that were said” (Luke 18:33:34).

Jesus finally had to open their minds to understand the Scriptures (Luke 24:45).
I'm sorry I thought we were talking about Satan? These say the disciples did not understand but doesn't say what caused (why) it to be hidden from them.


“For as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise again from the dead” (John 20:9).This means they believed, not knowing Scripture said He would rise. Could be what is meant above by -they did not understand - it was hid.


You don’t think God could have kept Satan from getting it?

The disciples were distraught after the death of Jesus, still not getting that he would rise from the dead. And you don't think God could have concealed this from Satan?Could? Sorry but I don't base important theological matters on what I think God can or cannot do.

Bandit
Feb 15th 2011, 12:56 AM
I'm sorry, but I do not see it as you do. As I see it, Jesus died for the sins of all the world. His life and blood were given for all. Because only some apply the blood does not take away from the fact that the blood was available and sufficient for all. I don't think I quite fit into the box you seem to be trying to place me.

Jesus was crucified for the sins of the world, but only those who actually apply His blood to the doorposts of their hearts have their sins covered. I think this is not identical with the position you are tying to place me in.


I don't think you see that we are, in fact, saying the same thing. Your sentence in bold is the same thing bullet number two says. Only your statement is a fuller and more complete expression. Let's try this again. Do you agree that Christ died for the sins of all people but only those who respond in faith are saved?

Yes, I agree with that last statement, but I think you may be drawing inferences from that statement that I would not. So I do think there are some subtle, but important differences between us.


The problem, I think, is what do we both mean when we say Christ died for the sins of all people or the world? Arminianism believes the Cross only makes salvation possible so that everybody is able to come to Christ if they so choose and be saved. But this isn't exactly what we mean when we say Christ died for the sins of the world. That would mean that all sin is atoned for actually not possibly. So that nobody would need to go to hell because their sin is atoned for even though they don't believe (which is presumably a sin, however it also is covered). That would be Universalism. Do you see?

The underlined is the inference you make which I do not. I bolded the "we" above. I am not sure who this "we" is, but I suspect I am not among them. I believe Jesus was sacrificed for the sins of the world. He is the universal Passover Lamb. By that I mean He is the one and only sacrifice for any and all sins. I think where we are diverging is that I see Jesus as the sacrificial Lamb for all sin. You seem to see Him as the sacrificial Lamb for only some sins (the sins of the elect).


What I'm trying to say is that it's inaccurate for the Arminian to say that Christ died for the sins of all people period. There needs to be a qualifier to that statement. A better formulation would be that Christ, by dying on the Cross, made salvation possible for everybody, but only those who respond by faith have their sins atoned for. Don't you agree?

I understand this is hard to grasp, but I see Jesus as being the sacrificial Lamb for the entire world. Remember, I am only offering my understanding of things, and I can appriciate that my understanding may not exactly fit the way you expected. Perhaps the following will help. Let's say we are each talking to two people: one who will eventually be saved and the other who will be eventually condemned. If I understand your position, you would say that Jesus died for the sins of the one but not the sins of the other. I, on the otherhand, would say that Jesus died for the sins of both, but that one had "applied" the sacrificial blood to his life while the other had not. I hope this helps explain in part where I think our differences lie.

BrckBrln
Feb 15th 2011, 02:51 AM
I get what you are saying Bandit and it's exactly the point of my making this thread. Let's look at things this way.

According to Universalism, Christ went to the cross to purchase the redemption of all people. Therefore, all will be saved.

According to Arminianism, Christ went to the cross to make salvation possible. He didn't go to the cross with the purpose of saving any particular people. Therefore, anybody who appropriates this salvation will be saved.

According to Calvinism, Christ went to the cross to purchase the redemption of those the Father gave to him, the elect. Therefore, all the elect will be saved.

I think that you want to say what the Universalist says but you mean what the Arminian says.

BroRog
Feb 15th 2011, 02:59 AM
I might be confused, but in using this analogy, you seem to be saying that our sin was forgiven without any debt being paid.Yes. That is what I am saying.
Isn't the whole idea that Christ paid our debt and it is by Christ that we are forgiven THAT debt?If Christ paid the debt, then there would be no need to forgive it.


Is it not Mercy to substitute Christ for us to pay the debt of sin?Yes, it would be merciful, but why talk about forgiveness then?


I'm not sure one way or the other in this particular discussion, but I can't see where Mercy and Justice are mutually exclusive when it comes to Christ dying for our sins.I understand.

BroRog
Feb 15th 2011, 03:03 AM
Why can't God's Mercy be the fact that He had Christ take our place?Yes, it's possible that God, in his mercy, could have done it this way. However, it wouldn't be forgiving our sins; it would be something else.

RogerW
Feb 15th 2011, 03:42 PM
Like this. (http://www.reformationtheology.com/2005/10/understanding_1_john_22_by_pas.php) (link to reformationthoelogy.com)

Thank you for the link! It is very helpful, and has persuaded me of the proper interpretation of how Christ is indeed the propitiation not for our (elect Jews) sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world (elect Gentiles).

RollTide21
Feb 15th 2011, 04:18 PM
Yes, it's possible that God, in his mercy, could have done it this way. However, it wouldn't be forgiving our sins; it would be something else.In His Mercy, He forgave us our debt. That He placed that debt on Christ doesn't exclude US from being forgiven that debt. If no debt was to be paid, why did Christ have to die (You may have answered this one, somewhere)?

BroRog
Feb 15th 2011, 07:03 PM
In His Mercy, He forgave us our debt. That He placed that debt on Christ doesn't exclude US from being forgiven that debt. If no debt was to be paid, why did Christ have to die (You may have answered this one, somewhere)?I know that we have been trained to think that forgiveness and payment are the samething, and I used to think this way too; but one day as I was discussing this subject on-line with a group of people the nagging voice in the back of my mind kept saying, "but why do we think that Jesus paid the debt for our sins if he forgave them?" We were actually talking about what it means to forgive each other, because Jesus wants us to forgive each other and sometimes forgiveness between sinners gets a little tricky. :)

What is forgiveness anyway? If Joe punches me in the nose in anger, isn't forgiveness the moment when I decide not to allow that punch to keep Joe and me from being friends? I'm not asking to punch Joe back; and I'm not asking for permission to punch you or someone else in the nose so that Joe and I might reconcile. I simply decide to let it go. All I want from Joe is an apology and a good will effort to solve his anger problem.

When the Bible says that God will forgive us our sins, I think this is what it means. God isn't asking to punish me for them, and he isn't asking to punish Jesus for them. All God is asking of me is that I repent and become a disciple of his son Jesus.

So why did Jesus have to die?

From my perspective, this is a very profound and insightful question.

After all, we are so accustomed to thinking in terms of payment and that the purpose of the cross was the forgiveness of our sins. Then again, why did Jesus tell the paralytic that his sins were forgiven? Jesus hadn't died on the cross yet. How can he say, if the cross was necessary for the forgiveness of sins, "your sins ARE forgiven?" And what about John's baptism for the forgiveness of sins? John says that if someone were to get baptised by him, his sins would be forgiven. This was also prior to the cross. What specifically happened at the cross such that Jesus would say, " this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." Jesus was going to die, and he associates his death -- in some way he doesn't make explicit -- with the forgiveness of sins. On the one hand, Jesus is able to simply forgive the sins of the paralytic -- no cross necessary. On the other hand, He closely associates the cross with the covenant and the forgiveness of sins. Both are true and valid.

Consequently, we are left with this very profound question. If Jesus was able to forgive the sins of the paralytic without having to have died first, then what was the cross all about? Why did Jesus have to die if he could simply forgive the sins of anyone he wanted at any time he wanted? Some Christians will undoubtedly say, "The cross is what actually brought about forgiveness. Jesus was able to forgive the paralytic because he knew that he was going to the cross." This sounds like a plausible explanation. I used to think of it this way too.

One day while attempting to answer that question I searched the NT looking for places where the Apostles talked about the cross. What did they teach us was the reason for the cross? What is the Biblical teaching on why Jesus had to die? To my surprise I discovered the reason for the cross was not forgiveness of sins, at least not directly, but reconciliation with God. The cross is actually more closely associated with the concept of reconciliation than forgiveness. Reconciliation is some kind of prior step -- a prerequisite if you will -- to forgiveness.

Using my example above, I'm not even going to entertain the notion of forgiving Joe for punching me in the nose until the antipathy or the animosity between us can be resolved. Some kind of reparation has to take place. It doesn't need to be a tit-for-tat compensation; but something needs to be done for me. I'm not going to forgive Joe if he is not willing to make some kind of conciliatory movement in my direction -- to make some sort of appeal for reconciliation. Once we are friends again, I will be glad to forgive Joe and not allow the punch to get between us.

In other words, while we are his enemies, something needed to be done to make us his friends. Once we became friends with God, then we are in a position to be forgiven by him. Paul puts it this way,



For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath [of God] through Him. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. Romans 5:6-10

In Paul's view, the cross was the means by which man was able to become friends with God. Jesus died for us while we were his enemies. As such, the cross wasn't directly involved in our forgiveness; but rather, the cross was directly involved in our reconciliation. Once having been reconciled, then, God is willing to forgive us and give us life. Accordingly, prior to being forgiven, we needed to be reconciled. Once having been reconciled, we gain access to God through the cross via the Holy Spirit and having access to God through Jesus Christ, he makes an appeal for mercy on our behalf. It's technically a two step process; first comes reconciliation, then comes forgiveness.

This still doesn't answer the question of why God chose death on a cross as THE thing that would make amends and bring reconciliation between God and man. He could have just as easily accepted flowers and candy, or two tickets to the Super Bowl. Paul gives us a clue at the end of Romans 3



. . . being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Before God would forgive our sins, we needed someone to help us reconcile with God. God decided that he would accept the conciliatory gesture of Jesus death on the cross. The purpose of the cross was not a payment for our sins. This could have been done privately and even without our knowledge. The purpose of the cross, according to Paul was to become a public demonstration of his righteousness.

With that, I must end this post because I need to go to work. I would love to kick this around more and explore this idea further. Admittedly, I don't know all there is to know about this exchange.

RollTide21
Feb 15th 2011, 08:21 PM
I know that we have been trained to think that forgiveness and payment are the samething, and I used to think this way too; but one day as I was discussing this subject on-line with a group of people the nagging voice in the back of my mind kept saying, "but why do we think that Jesus paid the debt for our sins if he forgave them?" We were actually talking about what it means to forgive each other, because Jesus wants us to forgive each other and sometimes forgiveness between sinners gets a little tricky. :)

What is forgiveness anyway? If Joe punches me in the nose in anger, isn't forgiveness the moment when I decide not to allow that punch to keep Joe and me from being friends? I'm not asking to punch Joe back; and I'm not asking for permission to punch you or someone else in the nose so that Joe and I might reconcile. I simply decide to let it go. All I want from Joe is an apology and a good will effort to solve his anger problem.

When the Bible says that God will forgive us our sins, I think this is what it means. God isn't asking to punish me for them, and he isn't asking to punish Jesus for them. All God is asking of me is that I repent and become a disciple of his son Jesus.

So why did Jesus have to die?

From my perspective, this is a very profound and insightful question.

After all, we are so accustomed to thinking in terms of payment and that the purpose of the cross was the forgiveness of our sins. Then again, why did Jesus tell the paralytic that his sins were forgiven? Jesus hadn't died on the cross yet. How can he say, if the cross was necessary for the forgiveness of sins, "your sins ARE forgiven?" And what about John's baptism for the forgiveness of sins? John says that if someone were to get baptised by him, his sins would be forgiven. This was also prior to the cross. What specifically happened at the cross such that Jesus would say, " this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." Jesus was going to die, and he associates his death -- in some way he doesn't make explicit -- with the forgiveness of sins. On the one hand, Jesus is able to simply forgive the sins of the paralytic -- no cross necessary. On the other hand, He closely associates the cross with the covenant and the forgiveness of sins. Both are true and valid.

Consequently, we are left with this very profound question. If Jesus was able to forgive the sins of the paralytic without having to have died first, then what was the cross all about? Why did Jesus have to die if he could simply forgive the sins of anyone he wanted at any time he wanted? Some Christians will undoubtedly say, "The cross is what actually brought about forgiveness. Jesus was able to forgive the paralytic because he knew that he was going to the cross." This sounds like a plausible explanation. I used to think of it this way too.

One day while attempting to answer that question I searched the NT looking for places where the Apostles talked about the cross. What did they teach us was the reason for the cross? What is the Biblical teaching on why Jesus had to die? To my surprise I discovered the reason for the cross was not forgiveness of sins, at least not directly, but reconciliation with God. The cross is actually more closely associated with the concept of reconciliation than forgiveness. Reconciliation is some kind of prior step -- a prerequisite if you will -- to forgiveness.

Using my example above, I'm not even going to entertain the notion of forgiving Joe for punching me in the nose until the antipathy or the animosity between us can be resolved. Some kind of reparation has to take place. It doesn't need to be a tit-for-tat compensation; but something needs to be done for me. I'm not going to forgive Joe if he is not willing to make some kind of conciliatory movement in my direction -- to make some sort of appeal for reconciliation. Once we are friends again, I will be glad to forgive Joe and not allow the punch to get between us.

In other words, while we are his enemies, something needed to be done to make us his friends. Once we became friends with God, then we are in a position to be forgiven by him. Paul puts it this way,


For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath [of God] through Him. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. Romans 5:6-10
In Paul's view, the cross was the means by which man was able to become friends with God. Jesus died for us while we were his enemies. As such, the cross wasn't directly involved in our forgiveness; but rather, the cross was directly involved in our reconciliation. Once having been reconciled, then, God is willing to forgive us and give us life. Accordingly, prior to being forgiven, we needed to be reconciled. Once having been reconciled, we gain access to God through the cross via the Holy Spirit and having access to God through Jesus Christ, he makes an appeal for mercy on our behalf. It's technically a two step process; first comes reconciliation, then comes forgiveness.

This still doesn't answer the question of why God chose death on a cross as THE thing that would make amends and bring reconciliation between God and man. He could have just as easily accepted flowers and candy, or two tickets to the Super Bowl. Paul gives us a clue at the end of Romans 3




. . . being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.


Before God would forgive our sins, we needed someone to help us reconcile with God. God decided that he would accept the conciliatory gesture of Jesus death on the cross. The purpose of the cross was not a payment for our sins. This could have been done privately and even without our knowledge. The purpose of the cross, according to Paul was to become a public demonstration of his righteousness.

With that, I must end this post because I need to go to work. I would love to kick this around more and explore this idea further. Admittedly, I don't know all there is to know about this exchange.Going to have to read through this multiple times and mull it over. Maybe look up some Scripture.

How fun is it to talk about and analyze this stuff?

BroRog
Feb 15th 2011, 10:38 PM
Going to have to read through this multiple times and mull it over. Maybe look up some Scripture.

How fun is it to talk about and analyze this stuff?I enjoy helping people get a handle on this stuff and I enjoy exploring the implications.

LookingUp
Feb 16th 2011, 12:50 AM
I know that we have been trained to think that forgiveness and payment are the samething, and I used to think this way too; but one day as I was discussing this subject on-line with a group of people the nagging voice in the back of my mind kept saying, "but why do we think that Jesus paid the debt for our sins if he forgave them?" We were actually talking about what it means to forgive each other, because Jesus wants us to forgive each other and sometimes forgiveness between sinners gets a little tricky. :)

What is forgiveness anyway? If Joe punches me in the nose in anger, isn't forgiveness the moment when I decide not to allow that punch to keep Joe and me from being friends? I'm not asking to punch Joe back; and I'm not asking for permission to punch you or someone else in the nose so that Joe and I might reconcile. I simply decide to let it go. All I want from Joe is an apology and a good will effort to solve his anger problem.

When the Bible says that God will forgive us our sins, I think this is what it means. God isn't asking to punish me for them, and he isn't asking to punish Jesus for them. All God is asking of me is that I repent and become a disciple of his son Jesus.

So why did Jesus have to die?

From my perspective, this is a very profound and insightful question.

After all, we are so accustomed to thinking in terms of payment and that the purpose of the cross was the forgiveness of our sins. Then again, why did Jesus tell the paralytic that his sins were forgiven? Jesus hadn't died on the cross yet. How can he say, if the cross was necessary for the forgiveness of sins, "your sins ARE forgiven?" And what about John's baptism for the forgiveness of sins? John says that if someone were to get baptised by him, his sins would be forgiven. This was also prior to the cross. What specifically happened at the cross such that Jesus would say, " this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." Jesus was going to die, and he associates his death -- in some way he doesn't make explicit -- with the forgiveness of sins. On the one hand, Jesus is able to simply forgive the sins of the paralytic -- no cross necessary. On the other hand, He closely associates the cross with the covenant and the forgiveness of sins. Both are true and valid.

Consequently, we are left with this very profound question. If Jesus was able to forgive the sins of the paralytic without having to have died first, then what was the cross all about? Why did Jesus have to die if he could simply forgive the sins of anyone he wanted at any time he wanted? Some Christians will undoubtedly say, "The cross is what actually brought about forgiveness. Jesus was able to forgive the paralytic because he knew that he was going to the cross." This sounds like a plausible explanation. I used to think of it this way too.

One day while attempting to answer that question I searched the NT looking for places where the Apostles talked about the cross. What did they teach us was the reason for the cross? What is the Biblical teaching on why Jesus had to die? To my surprise I discovered the reason for the cross was not forgiveness of sins, at least not directly, but reconciliation with God. The cross is actually more closely associated with the concept of reconciliation than forgiveness. Reconciliation is some kind of prior step -- a prerequisite if you will -- to forgiveness.

Using my example above, I'm not even going to entertain the notion of forgiving Joe for punching me in the nose until the antipathy or the animosity between us can be resolved. Some kind of reparation has to take place. It doesn't need to be a tit-for-tat compensation; but something needs to be done for me. I'm not going to forgive Joe if he is not willing to make some kind of conciliatory movement in my direction -- to make some sort of appeal for reconciliation. Once we are friends again, I will be glad to forgive Joe and not allow the punch to get between us.

In other words, while we are his enemies, something needed to be done to make us his friends. Once we became friends with God, then we are in a position to be forgiven by him. Paul puts it this way,



For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath [of God] through Him. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. Romans 5:6-10

In Paul's view, the cross was the means by which man was able to become friends with God. Jesus died for us while we were his enemies. As such, the cross wasn't directly involved in our forgiveness; but rather, the cross was directly involved in our reconciliation. Once having been reconciled, then, God is willing to forgive us and give us life. Accordingly, prior to being forgiven, we needed to be reconciled. Once having been reconciled, we gain access to God through the cross via the Holy Spirit and having access to God through Jesus Christ, he makes an appeal for mercy on our behalf. It's technically a two step process; first comes reconciliation, then comes forgiveness.Can’t it also be said that we were enemies of not just God but of His kingdom? As sinners, we became traitors of the kingdom siding with Satan, the ruler of this world (Jn 12:31), this present evil age (Gal 1:4). So, once an enemy of the kingdom of God is reconciled, that gives His enemy a choice to come under His reign. Jesus makes an appeal for mercy on behalf of the one that chooses to be loyal to the King.


This still doesn't answer the question of why God chose death on a cross as THE thing that would make amends and bring reconciliation between God and man. He could have just as easily accepted flowers and candy, or two tickets to the Super Bowl. Paul gives us a clue at the end of Romans 3How does accepting flowers and candy destroy the works of the devil and overthrow his power? How does this free us from the bondage of sin now? Paul says our REAL struggle is against powers of darkness and spiritual forces of evil (Eph 6:12; 2 Cor 10:3-5).





. . . being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Before God would forgive our sins, we needed someone to help us reconcile with God.Why do we need help? We don’t need help to reconcile with each other? Why weren’t our gestures to be reconciled to God good enough?


God decided that he would accept the conciliatory gesture of Jesus death on the cross. The purpose of the cross was not a payment for our sins. This could have been done privately and even without our knowledge. The purpose of the cross, according to Paul was to become a public demonstration of his righteousness.

With that, I must end this post because I need to go to work. I would love to kick this around more and explore this idea further. Admittedly, I don't know all there is to know about this exchange.What do you do with the cosmic warfare motif running throughout all of Scripture? What do you do about these:

Jesus came to:
Destroy the works of the devil (1 Jn 3:8)
Overthrow the power of the devil (Heb 2:14)
Do good works and heal all who were oppressed by the devil (Acts 10:38)
Set the captives free (Lk 4:18; Eph 4:8)
Rescue us from this present evil age (Gal 1:4)
Turn us from the dominion of Satan to God (Acts 26:18)
Establish new reign—the kingdom of God “came” when he cast out demons (Mt 12:28)
Put all enemies under his feet (1 Cor 15:25)

Satan:
Is the ruler of this world (Jn 12:31; 14:30; 16:11)
Is the ruler of the power of the air (Eph. 2:2)
Hindered Paul from going where he wanted to (1 Thes 2:18)

The world is:
Under the power of the evil one (1 Jn 5:19)

Human Beings:
Slaves to sin (Jn 8:34)
Freed from slavery by abiding in Christ (Jn 8:32)
Held in bondage by sin (Rom 3:9; 6:6-12; 7:7-20, 23, 25)
Need to escape snare of devil having been held captive to do his will (2 Tim 2:26)
Sold into bondage to sin (Rom 7:14)
Real struggle is against powers of darkness and spiritual forces of evil (Eph 6:12; 2 Cor 10:3-5)

BroRog
Feb 16th 2011, 01:13 AM
How does accepting flowers and candy destroy the works of the devil and overthrow his power? How does this free us from the bondage of sin now? Paul says our REAL struggle is against powers of darkness and spiritual forces of evil (Eph 6:12; 2 Cor 10:3-5).I don't think they necessarily would, but how does the cross free us from bondage etc.? As I see it the atonement, whether its flowers or the cross doesn't free anybody from the bondage to sin -- at least not directly. Atonement is just the first step.


Why do we need help? We don’t need help to reconcile with each other? Why weren’t our gestures to be reconciled to God good enough?I'm not sure the Bible spells this out explicitly. We read that God was reconciling the world to himself through Jesus Christ. Apparently it was God's good pleasure to accept conciliation through a mediator. The author of Hebrews points out that Jesus had to enter into the heavenly temple to make an offering on our behalf. I assume, therefore, that we couldn't do this ourselves.


What do you do with the cosmic warfare motif running throughout all of Scripture?I'm not sure what you are asking. Are you asking me if the atonement plays a role in dealing with Satan?

LookingUp
Feb 16th 2011, 02:44 AM
I don't think they necessarily would, but how does the cross free us from bondage etc.? As I see it the atonement, whether its flowers or the cross doesn't free anybody from the bondage to sin -- at least not directly.John told us that the Son of God APPEARED FOR THIS PURPOSE—to destroy the works of the devil” (1 Jn 3:8). If this is why Jesus appeared, then this purpose has got to be directly tied to freeing us from bondage. We know that Jesus came to rescue us from this present evil age (Gal 1:4), turn us from the dominion of Satan to God (Acts 26:18), and set the captives free (Lk 4:18; Eph 4:8). The cross made it possible for Christ to disarm the authorities and rulers (Col 2:15), destroy the works of the devil, and put all his enemies under his feet (1 Cor 15:25) thus freeing us from bondage. Exactly how the cross did this is not explicitly stated in Scripture. I see Calvary as an expression of self-sacrificial love. Just as evil has real power to destroy and keep us in bondage leading to death, I think love has real power to restore and free us to life.


Atonement is just the first step.

I'm not sure the Bible spells this out explicitly. We read that God was reconciling the world to himself through Jesus Christ. Apparently it was God's good pleasure to accept conciliation through a mediator. The author of Hebrews points out that Jesus had to enter into the heavenly temple to make an offering on our behalf. I assume, therefore, that we couldn't do this ourselves.

I'm not sure what you are asking. Are you asking me if the atonement plays a role in dealing with Satan?Why does God portray Satan as a real being with real powers whom Jesus specifically came to defeat? Flowers and candy could not have done that. What does the cosmic warfare theme have to do with us saying sorry to God through Jesus?

ProDeo
Feb 16th 2011, 10:43 AM
Am I correct, then, in saying it's inaccurate to go proclaiming that Christ has died for the sins of all people? Because it's only those who respond to Christ that are not in their sins anymore, while everybody else is still lost in their sin. This is why people go to hell, is it not? If unbelief is why people go to hell, is that not a sin? So we get back to my original question that if unbelief is a sin and Christ has atoned for it, why do people still go to hell?

In a country the old king hands over the power to his son. The new king during his inauguration to celebrate his kingship declares that all prisoners are given a new chance and need to be released. Ultimate undeserved grace.

Now there are 2 kind of prisoners, those who pack their bags and step into freedom and reinvent life again and a few who don't want to go for whatever reason and stay in jail.

Does that change anything to the fact that the new king has offered them freedom?

It's what unbelievers do, they are offered freedom, yet decide to stay in jail (hell).

Mark F
Feb 16th 2011, 12:01 PM
God dosen't just forgive us.

Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden and died spiritually for one sin.

We have sinned against an infinitely holy, good, and just God who cannot just forgive sin, if He could Jesus would not have had to become a curse for us.


Galatians 3:13
Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree” ),

LookingUp
Feb 16th 2011, 06:26 PM
Everyone dies. Physical death isn't the wages of sin; condemnation is.

Everyone sins. If hell was the punishment for sin, then we would all go to hell. Hell is NOT the punishment for sin. Hell is the punishment for unbelief.But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. (Rev. 21:8).

Here John has unbelieving and a bunch of other things together saying that the punishment for all these sins is the second death, the lake of fire. Seems like the wages of sin is the second death. Isn’t that why it’s placed in contrast to eternal life in Rom. 6:23? Eternal death or eternal life…

BroRog
Feb 16th 2011, 08:24 PM
John told us that the Son of God APPEARED FOR THIS PURPOSE—to destroy the works of the devil” (1 Jn 3:8). If this is why Jesus appeared, then this purpose has got to be directly tied to freeing us from bondage. We know that Jesus came to rescue us from this present evil age (Gal 1:4), turn us from the dominion of Satan to God (Acts 26:18), and set the captives free (Lk 4:18; Eph 4:8). The cross made it possible for Christ to disarm the authorities and rulers (Col 2:15), destroy the works of the devil, and put all his enemies under his feet (1 Cor 15:25) thus freeing us from bondage. Exactly how the cross did this is not explicitly stated in Scripture. I see Calvary as an expression of self-sacrificial love. Just as evil has real power to destroy and keep us in bondage leading to death, I think love has real power to restore and free us to life.

Why does God portray Satan as a real being with real powers whom Jesus specifically came to defeat? Flowers and candy could not have done that. What does the cosmic warfare theme have to do with us saying sorry to God through Jesus?I'm trying to get a sense of the picture you have in your mind about what the cross actually did. In the Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, Lewis speaks about how the sacrifice of Aslan was a "deeper magic" that was able to overcome the spell of the Witch. I believe some Christians think of the cross this way also, as if God needed the cross in order to defeat the power of Satan. There was some kind of cosmic reason why God couldn't have broken the power of Satan and saved the world from darkness without the power of the cross. There was some kind of cosmic rule that God couldn't break and God's hands were tied until our hero Jesus went to the cross for him.

Is that how you are seeing the cross?

BroRog
Feb 16th 2011, 08:26 PM
But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. (Rev. 21:8).

Here John has unbelieving and a bunch of other things together saying that the punishment for all these sins is the second death, the lake of fire. Seems like the wages of sin is the second death. Isn’t that why it’s placed in contrast to eternal life in Rom. 6:23? Eternal death or eternal life…Yes, if by "eternal" we mean "permanent and unalterable."

LookingUp
Feb 16th 2011, 09:59 PM
I'm trying to get a sense of the picture you have in your mind about what the cross actually did. In the Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, Lewis speaks about how the sacrifice of Aslan was a "deeper magic" that was able to overcome the spell of the Witch. I believe some Christians think of the cross this way also, as if God needed the cross in order to defeat the power of Satan. There was some kind of cosmic reason why God couldn't have broken the power of Satan and saved the world from darkness without the power of the cross. There was some kind of cosmic rule that God couldn't break and God's hands were tied until our hero Jesus went to the cross for him.

Is that how you are seeing the cross?Not exactly. I think God could have done it anyway He chose to do it, but for our sakes I think He chose to defeat the power of Satan with the kind of self-sacrificial love only the cross could demonstate

LookingUp
Feb 16th 2011, 10:01 PM
Yes, if by "eternal" we mean "permanent and unalterable."Yes, that's what I mean. So, I would say hell (or the lake of fire) is the consequence for all sin, including unbelief.

Steelle77
Feb 23rd 2011, 02:58 AM
This is an amazing thread! It has been very stimulating and informative! Thank you for putting it up! I hold to the reformed view of the atonement, but I would say there have been excellent things said on other positions and I have a lot of studying to do :).

I would like to say something though which I don't believe has been brought up, unless I missed it.

I'm not sure why we believe that when we see an absolute term in the Scripture that it always is stating an absolute fact. As is the case here with verses which contain words like all, world, whole, and so forth. But the truth is we speak in absolute terms everyday when we do not mean to state absolute facts.

Ex. "We say all 'all the time'." Well, I don't mean by that statement that all we ever say is the word all. Sometimes we sleep, eat, or say other words. You see this type of figurative speech in any work of literature. It's everywhere! Well, its not everywhere; its here, there, and the other place :). See if I stopped you everytime you used an absolute term when you didn't mean an absolute fact I would never catch my breath! Well, I would eventually, I'm not going to die to prove a point lol.

I believe this is evident in Scripture. Here are a few examples of a less controversial nature. "In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed." Luke 2:1 No it didn't. How much taxes did the Chinese pay to Caeser, or those living in the Americas at the time. "And the angel said to them, Fear not, for behold I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people." Well, it wasn't good for Herod, or Pilot for that matter. "because of the hope laid up for you in heaven. Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel, which has come to you, as indeed in the whole world it is bearing fruit and growing..." Col 1:5-6. Now you can't believe by saying the gospel is bearing fruit in the whole world that Paul is indicating here that even in Austrailia and the Americas people are hearing the Gospel message. "So the Pharisees said to one another, "You see that you are gaining nothing. Look, the world has gone after him." John 12:19 This was the pharisees response to Jesus entering Jerusalem on the donkey. They didn't mean the whole world, just those following him through the city. I believe you just have to understand that the Bible, just like any other text, uses figurative language at times. To not believe this would have to mean that Scripture is not inerrant.