Any One believe in a General Atonement around here?

[Dale-c]

Do any of you believe in a general atonement here?

It is my understanding that this was once a common position among baptists.

The General atonement as opposed to particular atonement or universal atonement.

I think it is the most consistent with the various non-cal position on the BB.

To give more detail, it means that Christ paid the price to forgive sin in general. No particular sinner was forgiven but the potential was made in a general fashion so that every sinner, without exception COULD be saved.


By the way, both arminians and 4 point calvinists could believe this.

 

[JDale]

Do any of you believe in a general atonement here?

It is my understanding that this was once a common position among baptists.

The General atonement as opposed to particular atonement or universal atonement.

I think it is the most consistent with the various non-cal position on the BB.

To give more detail, it means that Christ paid the price to forgive sin in general. No particular sinner was forgiven but the potential was made in a general fashion so that every sinner, without exception COULD be saved.


By the way, both arminians and 4 point calvinists could believe this.

Yes, I affirm General Atonement. I would say that a majority of Baptists -- at least Southern Baptists -- believe in General Atonement. It's certain that General and Free Will Baptists do.

 

[sag38]

I have no problem with general atonement.

 

[Dale-c]

I posted this a while back and I was surprised at how many claimed essentially universal rather than general.
They did not like the term universal but that was essentially what they did believe.

As far as I can tell there are really only 4 possible choices:

1. Particular to the elect (my view)
2. Particular to sins other than unbelief (or perhaps anyone unpardonable sin you want to throw in)
3. General
4. Universal.

 

[webdog]

Since Christ satisfied God's wrath against sin, and the universe is under the curse of sin, it can be both universal and general. All creation groans, and will be renewed one day due to the work on the cross.

 

[rdwhite]

I cast my vote for a general atonement. I certainly disagree with a limited atonement. And I am not sure what is meant by a universal atonement.

 

[Dale-c]

I cast my vote for a general atonement. I certainly disagree with a limited atonement. And I am not sure what is meant by a universal atonement.

Universal atonement is what those who believe in universalism believe as well as some others as well.

Universal atonement means that Christ made a substitutionary atonement for every single sin of every single person ever without exception.
God's wrath is then satisfied and none go to hell since the wrath of God was satisfied for every single individual.
Mostly this is held by universalists but there are also some here that claim universal atonement but that people go to hell with their sins paid for but they go only on their choice.
That position it totally unjust and inconsistent.

IMO the only reasonable positions you can take biblically are the two traditional baptist views of particular and general atonement.

 

[rdwhite]

Universal atonement means that Christ made a substitutionary atonement for every single sin of every single person ever without exception.
God's wrath is then satisfied and none go to hell since the wrath of God was satisfied for every single individual.

Well then, I must say I disagree with universal atonement. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[Winman]

I believe Jesus paid for the sins of all men, but it is only effectual to those that believe.

1 Tim 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

So I believe Christ is potentially the saviour of all men, but effectual only to those that believe on him.

 

[Dale-c]

Well then, I must say I disagree with universal atonement. Thanks for the explanation.

Sorry, I misread your post. Yes, I would say you do agree with general atonement.

 

[Dale-c]

I believe Jesus paid for the sins of all men, but it is only effectual to those that believe.

1 Tim 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

So I believe Christ is potentially the saviour of all men, but effectual only to those that believe on him.

As far as I understand, that is the general position.
It is the potential position.
Christ died potentially for all men conditioned only on their own belief.

 

[Amy.G]

As far as I understand, that is the general position.
It is the potential position.
Christ died potentially for all men conditioned only on their own belief.

In the OT did the high priest make atonement once a year for all of Israel or just the "elect" of Israel?

 

[Tom Butler]

In the OT did the high priest make atonement once a year for all of Israel or just the "elect" of Israel?

Since all Israel were God's elect (or chosen) people, the question is more properly, did the high priest make atonement for those who were not Israelites?

 

[Amy.G]

Since all Israel were God's elect (or chosen) people, the question is more properly, did the high priest make atonement for those who were not Israelites?

So, was all of Israel saved? Every single person?

 

[webdog]

Since all Israel were God's elect (or chosen) people, the question is more properly, did the high priest make atonement for those who were not Israelites?

"Not all Israel is Israel"

 

[Dale-c]

Tom makes an excellent point.
As far as all of israel being saved, no romans 9 is clear that not all did. Also the OT sacrifices did not pay for a single sin. It was a picture of the perfect sacrifice to come.

 

[Allan]

Since all Israel were God's elect (or chosen) people, the question is more properly, did the high priest make atonement for those who were not Israelites?

First, not all of God's chosen people were saved however the sacrifice of atonement was made on behalf all those of Israel (saved and not saved) for sin but the effect of that sacrifice was received only by faith. In light of this, this first must be answered.

Now the question that should be asked in conjuction with the above is;
Were all gentile people forbidden from coming into and becoming apart of Israel (those who God had chosen to work through).
Answer: No.
God did not neglect the Gentiles nor did He leave them out but the Jews were to be the proclaimers of God's grace and mercy toward all who will submit and believe, to the Jew first and then the Gentiles.

Therefore the means of God provision against sin was to all but since God had chosen to work His work specificially through His Chosen people Israel all those who desired to come under God's grace were to join themselves to the group God had chosen to work through.

Therefore God did not exclude anyone in the OT with respect to the sacrifice of Atonement however God chose to only work through 'a' people and not in and toward the whole world on the whole as He is through Christ.

 

[Allan]

Tom makes an excellent point.
As far as all of israel being saved, no romans 9 is clear that not all did. Also the OT sacrifices did not pay for a single sin. It was a picture of the perfect sacrifice to come.

True, it did not 'remove' sin, however it did 'cover' their sins till Christ came to remove it completely rather than cover it. Thus all OT saints said to be justified still had sin but it was covered and not yet removed. Covered by the provision of God through the Sacrifice of Atonement by an animal but awaiting the true sacrifice to remove our sin completely.

It did not pay for a single sin but it DID cover them till the true one came. And thus it was temporarily sufficient but not efficient to the eternal need

 

[Amy.G]

So, was all of Israel saved? Every single person?

Still waiting for answer.

 

[Dale-c]

Amy, I answered that in post 16. Or were you waiting for a response from Tom?