The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Atonement insufficient?

pilgrim,

I see averagefellar and you understood my meaning despite the typo. I agree the atonement is a full atonement because it completely satifies God's perfect justice which an eternity in hell by the unregenerate could never do (Try the math).

The work of atonement is finished but it does the elect no good until it is personally imputed to them. As Luther writes in the Large Catechism,

Is this to imply that people suffer eternal punishment for neutrality? Either that would be the case, or God's atonement only applies to original sin, and not sins of omission, comission in daily life. Which is it? "Not because thier sins were not atoned for," implies that the opposite, then would be true (double negatives), that their sins are atoned for, due to the sacrifice of Christ. "But because the atonement of Christ has not been imputed to them," therefore the active obedience of Christ by living a perfect life imputed alone saves people, apart from His bearing the sins of sinners on the cross?
Trying to wrap my brain around what it is you're trying to teach,
troy

This much is true, which I also have stated several times.... the atonement, in and of itself cannot save a sinner. That which was secured by the atonement must also be applied. However, if you believe, which it is evident that you do, that Christ actually atoned for all mankind, without exception, thus satisfying all that was required in their behalf (substitution) and the Father is therefore appeased, then of necessity it must also be that all men are saved. Why? because it was the Father who sent the Son into the world to redeem those whom He had predestinated to eternal life, in Christ. And, it is the Holy Spirit Who in total harmony and agreement with the decree of the Father and the vicarious substitutionary atonement of the Son applies that which He accomplished by his perfect righteousness and death (penal substitution) to them. To assert that the Christ made full atonement for all men indiscriminately but that God refuses the benefits of that atonement to all but even more so holds men accountable for sins which have been atoned for and then casts them into everlasting punishment is absurd. Not only that, it creates a conflict within the Godhead:

The Father predestinates and elects some.
The Son gives His life as a substitute for all.
The Holy Spirit regenerates and calls some

So, your view is corrupt on at least two counts; it violates the economic relationship within the Godhead between the three persons. And it violates the very essence of justice. Of course, there are more caveats to your view, but one other important one which must be mentioned is that you have no biblical support for it.

And your quote from Luther says nothing to support your view either, i.e., about a universal atonement. But again, even if it did, Luther is not infallible; just in case you didn't realize that. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

pilgrim,


We should be careful not to confound the persons nor divide the substance of the Trinity. There is no conflict in the Godhead:

God will have all men to be saved and elects some. 1 Tim. 2:4, Rom. 8:28-30.
God dies for all men and declares some righteous in Christ. 2 Cor. 5:15, Rom. 5: 17-21.
God offers salvation to all men and regenerates some. John 3:16, Titus 3:5-7.

God will have mercy on whom He has mercy. Those who are saved are saved by God alone. Those who are lost are lost by their own fault.

Again, and the last time I'll ask, if Christ atoned for ALL sins of ALL people, by what sin are people yet condemned? Please answer.


God bless,

william

As is typical of all Arminians and those who hold to a universal atonement, which btw is no atonement at all for it is insufficient to actually save, you are pitting those passages which speak in universal terms against those which speak in specific terms. Christ only came to redeem "His own", His sheep:

John 10:11 (ASV) "I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd layeth down his life for the sheep."

For a detailed exegesis of 1Tim 2:4, see here: An Exegetical Study of 1Timothy 4:10

Your reply, btw, didn't address the problems which I pointed out that exist in your view. Will you address them? as well as averagefellar's question, which although he's asked of you on several occasions, you have chosen to avoid?

In His Grace,

pilgrim,

I think the "points" have been "sufficiently covered".

Thanks for the link. It appears that I agree with the modified or four point Calvinist position. I'm assuming the point denied is Limited Atonement and they would also deny double predestination.

Since it is obvious you either will not or can not answer my question, I'll ask another. Could you explain what was accomplished by Christ's atonement?


God bless,

william

Speratus?


God bless,

william

averagefellar,

Since you have ignored my previous answers, I don't see much point in answering another question; however, I will.

I believe that Jesus Christ, true God, begotten of the Father from eternity, and also true man, born of the Virgin Mary, has redeemed me, a lost and condemned creature, purchased and won me from all sins, from death, and from the power of the devil, not with gold or silver, but with His holy, precious blood and with His innocent suffering and death, in order that I may be His own, and live under Him in His kingdom, and serve Him in everlasting righteousness, innocence, and blessedness, even as He is risen from the dead, lives and reigns to all eternity.

Speratus,

When you posit that God "will have all men to be saved", you mean by this that God "desires" the salvation of all men, not that he will save all men. This desire is an unfulfilled longing it would seem.

Certainly God does not expect dead men to come to life on their own (pelagianism) or by divine assistance (semi-pelagianism). Therefore, for God to desire a dead man to live would require that God desire to convert the dead man, which leaves God desiring in time that which he did not desire in eternity. Indulge me as I repeat myself and elaborate. You agree, along with Calvinists, that man cannot be converted apart from the monergistic work of regeneration. Notwithstanding, since you believe that God desires the salvation of reprobate men, then you should also affirm that God desires to regenerate such men since men cannot convert themselves. Your doctrine, therefore, reduces to God desiring to convert men (in history) that he did not desire to see converted (from eternity)! When did God change his mind as to what he originally desired with respect to the reprobate? Or would you argue that in eternity God planned to pass over the reprobate while desiring not to do so? In either case, your problem, as I see it, is that you (perhaps unwittingly) transfer the power of salvation from God to man when you speak in terms of God “desiring” the conversion of all men without exception. Again, I can see an Arminian speaking in such terms, but not a Reformer.

I intentionally ignored the doctrine of particular redemption but to deny it requires the same disharmony within the Godhead. If you won’t square the Holy Spirit’s work with the decree of the Father, I don’t think I have much of a chance of persuading you that your view of the Son’s vicarious work is also disharmonious.

Thoughts?

Ron

Ron D,

God will not stop being God in order to conform to the Calvinist system. Before the foundation of the world, God will have all men to be saved. In the fulness of time, God died for all men. God offers His salvation to all.

The fact that He has done and is doing all this for all mankind in no way obligates Him to elect, impute the righteousness of Christ, or regenerate anyone. That He has chosen before the foundation of the world to save a remnant according the election of grace, impute the righteousness of Christ to them, and regenerate them is not owning to anything foreseen within them or any sense of obligation toward them but out of sheer mercy and grace.

Once again, no scripture.


Nor for your system either, especially with all its holes.


Did this plan fail?


I'll ask, for the final time before I dismiss you as rambling on this topic;

By what sin are men yet condemned?


God bless,

william

Speratus,

I was merely hoping you might interact with my post with reasonable care.

Thanks anyway.

Ron

Pilgrim,

I recognize that you have appealed to the wording in sripture of John 17:2 and John 6:37. Only recently have I come to see these verses in a differerent light. I am considering the posibility these passages refer to predestination.

There is a sense that I could say that a tree has a burden of fruit and there are good and bad apples on the tree. On the one hand, God "shakes the tree" and Jesus holds out a basket. God's predestined hand guides only the good apples into Jesus' basket.

On the other hand, God could shake the tree containing both good and bad into a receiving net. The bad are gathered out and disposed of and the remaining good are directed into Jesus' receiving basket.

I believe that God's word in its entire counsel does not contradict. Help me to understand that Jesus mentions He does not pray for the world (kosmos) in John 17:9 but God so loved the world (kosmos) in John 3:16. Obviously, by internal evidence alone, the kosmoi of these passages must be a different entity.

Would you consider "..those whom You have given Me.." of John 17:9 to be all the Elect? Or only the disciples (the 12 whom Jesus called to follow Him during His earthly ministry)?

John 17: 2 seems to be less restrictive, that "as many as" most likely extends to individuals beyond the immediate 12.