Featured Christ's Atoning Death on the Cross

The previous thread this discussion took place in has been closed, as the thread was spiraling off course. But I still think this is fertile ground for discussion, and I would like to continue if the moderators will allow it. Hopefully this thread can remain a little more focused than the last one did.

**NOTE for the Mods: I'm leaving this in the Cal/Arm forum, as it will likely contain much Cal/Arm terminology and discussion. Please move it to a more appropriate place, if necessary.**

Protestant, I've heard this argument several times before. Somehow, the camp I fall in is viewed as believing in a weak Christ because we believe God allows man to accept or reject Him.

And yet we are saved by grace through faith. We see examples all through the New Testament of Christ stating that man has to respond. It's the Monergist who adds in a component of God moving or enabling the man to respond first. My camp (at least in my secluded little corner of this world) believes God will draw, but He does not force man to do anything, nor does He create a situation in which a man cannot respond to Him. Otherwise we have a scriptural accounting of God that reveals Him as a being that requires repentance and belief, but never allows certain men to repent and believe, yet still condemns them for not doing something that He never allowed them to do. Try as I might, I simply cannot see that God revealed in the nature of Jesus Christ.

The response, though, is solely up to the individual. He stands at the door and knocks, and if any man opens, He will come in and sup with him. To hear the Monergist position on this, Jesus stands at the door, knocks, then moves the man to open the door (or alternatively never extends to man the grace to open the door) and then enters in by forcing man to open the door.

See, my camp views the scriptures as revealing that God offers man the choice. The alternative, as our resident hyper-Cal would put it, is that man is essentially born saved (as the Elect cannot escape their Election) and born damned (as the non-Elect cannot enter into salvation, as they are not the Elect). We don't see that in scripture. We see a God the desires ALL men to repent, and in fact commands ALL men to repent.

That is only available if Christ atoned for ALL men. Otherwise what good is repentance if no atonement was offered for us?

That's a bit of putting words in my mouth that I did not say or even intend. Let's use an analogy (which will obviously be weaker than Christ's atonement, but will hopefully prove a point). Say the richest man in America dies and he leaves his estate to every person in the nation. Everyone will get $100. All you have to do is drive to City Hall to pick up your money. If you don't go and pick yours up, can you reasonably accuse the wealthy man of not giving you anything? Can you reasonably say he left you nothing, if you are the one who did not move to receive it?

Of course, that analogy won't work for you, as you seem far more monergistic in viewing the issue than my side.

And as I've said before, I cannot see that aspect of God in the scriptures, especially as revealed by the nature of Jesus Christ in the gospels. As I mentioned above, the "definite" atonement side, while something that can be argued from scripture (as I believe my point can be), renders a large portion of humanity as born damned. They have no hope; no chance; no choice. God never intended to save them and is, according to some, merciful in letting them perish eternally. Yet we see scripture saying God is "not willing that any should perish" but that "all should come to repentance."

Yes. I hope I'm doing a fair enough job elucidating them for you.

The allusion I was making concerning the OT sacrifices wasn't concerned with what group of people the sacrifices were made for, but rather the nature of the sacrificed and what the sacrificed was capable of.

Yes, Israel was the chosen people. But we also read that Christ came unto His own, and His own received Him not. If they were chosen of God then how could they reject the Christ? WE see that as a function of the free will God as allotted to mankind. Israel was able to make a choice for or against God. Some Israelites believed on Jesus. Many more did not. I believe that is the case of the world as a whole (considering the scripture of the broad gate and the strait gate). But the OT sacrifice covered the whole of Israel, believer and unbeliever alike. Kind of like when it rains, it rains on the just and the unjust. We see the sacrificial death of Christ in much the same light. It is available to all, but we must accept or reject it. However, we do not see that it in any way weakens Christ, as some on your side of the aisle seem to think.

Again, we are right back to the biggest hang-up my side has with Election...The infallible word of God states that God desires none to perish, yet the doctrine of Election has that same God condemning multitudes into the second death by virtue of never intending to save them in the first place.

It is my belief that my camp's view of scripture reveals God desiring all to come to repentance, and then actually offering all the means to do so.

Again, I hope this helped to clarify my stance.

 

To counter your question with a question of my own: When did either thief have opportunity to repent?

So often I hear your side say that man cannot repent unless God moves him to repent. Yet God commands all men everywhere to repent. God, we are told, is not willing that any should perish. But according to limited atonement, God is more than willing that vast numbers should perish, and then those purporting limited atonement call it "justice and mercy." I don't see that in the Bible.

I see the thief on the cross who spoke to Jesus as one that Christ spoke of in Rev 22, saying let any who thirst come and drink.

 

Thank you, as well. I appreciate a civil discussion.

I'm not saying there is greater or lesser power of obedience. I am merely trying my best to go by what scripture says. Did God change how man was designed after the Fall? I don't read where He did. All have failed. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

I see scriptural evidence of us having the ability to sin or to not sin, even after the fall. The woman caught in adultery, brought before Jesus, was instructed by Jesus to "Go, and sin no more." Now, if we are so depraved that we cannot help but sin, why would Jesus tell her this? Obviously, she had the ability to choose not to sin.

I never said it was not necessary. Please understand this, not a single one of us would tell you that someone can, of their own decision, accept God unto salvation. We still believe that God must draw us. We just do not believe that God's calling is irresistible. We believe that we can turn from God, or outright reject God. If God's grace and call are indeed irresistible, then why are we instructed to not quench the Spirit.

Where does it say we are saved by God's grace plus nothing? We are saved "by grace" "through faith." Paul makes it abundantly clear that we must hear the preached word and we must respond by calling on God's name. Only the monergist camp, specifically of Calvinist election, seems to think we can be saved without faith, or that our faith comes after our salvation. I've noticed a component of the Election camp that seems to think us merely believing on God is a work. This idea, though, negates Ephesians 2:8-9.

The thing is, no one in my camp (at least in my little corner of the world) believes that their faith "earned" them salvation. We simply see the revelation in scripture that without faith we wouldn't be saved. Salvation still came from God. He did not have to give it to us. But He did establish a system in His own word that shows how we come to salvation, and that system includes faith.

I'll give it my best shot...

Both of these verses indicate that man has the ability to come to God, but we can reasonably infer that God issues a call of some type first. To see the "water of life" as salvation, then it is reasonable to infer that "[being] athirst]" is the type of God's calling. It's plainly evident in 3:20 that God calls us, in that He stands at the door and knocks. It is up to the man to open the door unto Him.

This, to my side, is an indicator that God desires all men to be saved. Now, if you believe in Calvinist Election, then God, who the Bible says "desires that none should perish" and "will have all men to be saved," actually desires none of this, and instead wants and will have only a few saved out, and He is merciful in this attitude. As Brother Icon pointed out, Election is God saving a multitude of sinners, but he avoids the flipside of the argument, which is if God through Election saves one group, He inevitably issues damnation on the remainder.

There is scripture after scripture after scripture that shoes us that the Lord died for all men. To achieve limited atonement requires some pretty serious twisting of the scripture. There has to be a picking-and-choosing of when "all" means "all" or when "the world" actually means "the world" and not just "the Elect." Paul explains to Titus that the saving grace of God has appeared to all men. If Paul is only talking about the Elect, then why not just say "the Elect?" Why hide it in the scripture?

To evidence my point immediately above, this verse uses "all men" twice, but only those espousing Calvinist Election would stretch it to say the first "all men" actually means "all men," but the second "all men" actually means just "the elect."

Here's another one. God is the savior of all men, and here it has to be all men, because it is afterward qualified with the statement "specially of those that believe."

God allows us the choice. It is clear, at least to my camp, who are not looking through Calvinist glasses, that this is a clear scriptural teaching. I cannot help that you feel this damages the sovereignty of God. Jesus is the propitiation for our sins, and not just ours, but for the whole world.

If, in the Monergist doctrine, God is the sovereign arbiter of our final destination, with absolutely no input from man, then what was the point of the Great Commission? Why do Calvinist even bother preaching? Can one of the Elect lose their Election? Can one of the non-Elect find their way into Election?

 

1 Timothy 2:3-4 teaches clearly that God would have all men to be saved.

So Election is God granting eternal life to only one group. How does the Calvinist justify that Election is only the good part while passing over the obvious conclusion that, if God is electing one group to eternal life, then He must by necessity be condemning the non-Elect to perishing?

No, and I never said I did. The Bible shows us that God would have all men to be saved. He does not want any to perish. He was lifted up, and thereby draws all men unto Him. As I told Protestant, He stands at the door and knocks. It is left to man to respond to that drawing and that knocking.

 

You have displayed, to me, a proclivity for twisting and ignoring scripture in order to make the Word fit your chosen theology. You make absolutes out of conditional states, and you then couch your arguments on these insipid 'Yes or No?' questions. I'm not putting you on ignore, but I will not answer your "Yes or No" attempts.

I have presented my side's view of the scripture as best I can on an internet forum. I have shown you scriptures of God desiring all mankind to be saved. He desires and commands all mankind to come to repentance. Only when scripture is twisted to fit Calvinistic Election do we see a God who does not desire to save everyone.

 

Of course. I appreciate that you brought thoughtful questions and not just doctrinal rhetoric.

Just curious, but where do the more Calvinistic among your side come up with the idea that Christ is praying for the Elect here? I've only ever read that as Christ praying for those performing the crucifixion on him. I just don't see any contextual clues to indicate a sudden switch in perspective away from the immediate situation into some spiritual reverie concerning the Elect.

Nor have I tried to say that it is. I do not believe I did anything to earn my salvation. Consider Noah and his family. The ark was their salvation, and remains a type and shadow of salvation today. But God didn't move Noah onto the ark without Noah's consent. No. Noah and his family had to move themselves to enter the ark, but it was God who shut the door and God who provided the salvation. Consider the Romans that Paul wrote to, telling them that they had to believe and call upon the name of the Lord to be saved. Couple that with Paul's instruction to the Ephesians, where he says we are saved by grace through faith. Obviously, Paul was not counting belief/faith as a "work," ergo salvation still requires us to believe/have faith.

It is also God's will that none should perish, but that all should come to repentance. It is also God's commandment that all men everywhere should repent. Jesus came not to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. John 3:17 is, itself, a conditional statement. If the sacrifice of Christ was indeed the finality that Calvinism claims it to be, instead of the means by which people are saved, and if the "world" of John 3 is indeed only the Elect, as many Calvinists claim, then shouldn't that verse read "that the Elect through Him would be saved"? But instead the verse leaves open the possibility for the whole world to come to Him. He claimed that if He was lifted up, He would draw ALL men unto Him. The Bible tells us many are called, but few are chosen. 2 Peter 2:1 tells us of heretics and false prophets who deny "the Lord that bought them." If the Lord never died for them in the first place, then how can Peter say the Lord had bought them?

Again, so why did Paul tell the Romans they had to call upon the name of the Lord? Why did Jesus issue a great commission that the disciples should go and preach tot he nations? If God has already decided all these things; and not one of the Elect may lose their Election; nor can one of the non-Elect gain Election, then why bother? This is the logical evangelical end-point of Calvinism. Cornelius and his household were obviously already regenerated and, as such, were clearly of the Elect before Peter ever got there.

We don't all agree that they are truths. Surely, the Calvinists will agree with you, as they should. You present a reasoned definition of their doctrine. The non-Calvinists will, most likely, though I cannot speak for all, agree with me that the "truths" you espouse are not as clearly evident in the Bible as you believe.

Please remember, though, that my camp is not purporting the notion that man can come into salvation by himself, of his own desire. We still require God to draw. As I tried to show earlier, we see the scene of Christ standing at the door and knocking as one in which the man in the house must choose to open the door. We see you theology as stating that man has no choice. If he is Elect, he will have the grace to open the door. If he is not Elect, he will never receive the grace to open the door.