Featured Did Christ Provide Sinners Only a "Chance"?

Of course. You are praising Mankind, again.

 

I am used to the Word of God Leading people to Worship God.

 

Read the bible Alan, God expects man to make real choices. You do realize that those we words of instruction. It is what one is to do not necessarily what they would do. Your reading into the text what you want to find rather than read what the text actually says. Bad form there Alan.

 

So that means you do not praise the Lord? Why is that Alan, do you think you are above that?

 

Alan your comment does not relate to what I wrote but then again you do that a lot.

 

Is this your thing?

1) The Governmental View.


This view holds that the purpose of the atonement was to prevent God's pardoning of sinners from encouraging sin.

The salvation of sinners requires no bearing of the penalty of their sins.

Their turning from sin to God is enough to justify God in saving them.

But the pardoning of the guilty, without some exhibition of God's hatred against sin and of His regard for His law, would license sin and rob the law of any authority over the consciences of men.


(2) The Example View.


This view holds in common with the governmental view that Christ's death was not substitutionary.

It holds that God did not need to be propitiated in behalf of the sinner; that the only hindrance to the salvation of sinners lies in the sinner's continued practice of sin.

Reformation, therefore, is the adequate remedy, and this can be effected by man's own will.

To encourage us in this Jesus died as a noble martyr, exemplifying an unselfish devotion that chose death rather than the compromise of His duty to God and man.

We are saved, not by trusting Him as our sin-bearer, but by trusting in God according to His example and thus devoting ourselves to righteousness.


(3) The Moral-Influence View.

This view holds in common with both the former that sin brings no guilt that must be removed.

It is not the guilt, but the practice of sin that hinders salvation.

Christ's death was only an exhibition of love to soften man's heart and lead him to repentance.

"Christ's sufferings were necessary, not in order to remove an obstacle to the pardon of sinners which exists in the mind of God, but in order to convince sinners that there exists no such obstacle" (Strong).

 

I do not know that I hate anything more in my soul than to hear that Christ DID NOT die to give all sinners a chance! To think that any person was chosen to hell from eternity, with no chance at repentance and salvation, is horrific. I don't believe it!

 

I do not believe in chance... Mercy is not chance!... Sovereign Grace is not chance... Jesus Christ the Son Of God said he would save ALL his Father gave him and lose nothing... Believe in chance all you want... I believe in the promises of God because God does not leave anything to chance... Chance only exist in this world... God leaves everything to his purpose not chance... Visit the potters house and learn... Brother Glen

 

The true view of the atonement recognizes all the truths in other views,
but it recognizes more.

They err in emphasizing one element of truth to the exclusion of others.

Other truths recognized by the true view of the atonement are:

A. The Truth As To God's Nature.

All of the false views to which we have given special attention
deny that there is in the nature of God any hindrance whatsoever
to the pardoning of sinners.

The hindrance is supposed to be all on the sinner's part.

Christ's suffering was in no sense a satisfaction
of any subjective principle in the divine nature.

Thus these views logically deny the holiness and justice of God.

They picture God as being love only.

Retributive wrath against sin is no element of divine nature.

That these views are false
in respect to the view of divine nature furnished by them
is evident from Rom. 3:25,26.

We are told here that God set forth Jesus Christ
not simply as a scenic exhibition of His hatred
against sin to serve the exigencies of His government;

nor as an exemplar of unselfish devotions to duty;

nor as a mere manifestation of love
through the suffering of the creator with the creature;

nor yet as the means of the subjective purification of human nature;

but as a covering for sin (through expiation)
that His justice might not be impugned in the justification of sinful men.

B. The Truth As To The Nature Of The Law.

All of the false views of the atonement to which we have given special treatment represent the law of God as a purely arbitrary appointment that may be relaxed partially or wholly at will instead of a revelation of the nature of God with no more possibility of change in its demands than there is of change in the nature of God.

The Law of God demands an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

The Law of God demands that every transgression and disobedience shall receive a just recompense of reward. Heb. 2:2.

The view of the atonement that is correct must recognize this.

C. The Truth As To The Guilt Of Sin.

These false views that we are considering deny that sin involves us in objective guilt that requires expiation.

The following Scriptures teach that it does:
John 3:36; Rom. 1:18; 2:5,6, 3:19; 6:23; Gal. 3:10;
Eph. 5:5,6; Col. 3:5,6; Rev. 20:13.

from: http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF Books II/Simmons - A Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine.pdf

 

The Truth as to the Substitutionary Nature of the Atonement.

The following passages show that the suffering of Christ
was a substitute for the suffering
that believers would have undergone in Hell:
see: "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect?" (Rom. 8:33).

"Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows
... was bruised for our iniquities;

the chastisement of our peace was upon him;

and with his stripes we are healed.

All we like sheep have gone astray;

we have turned everyone to his own way;

and Jehovah hath laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Isa. 53:4-6).
see: "men of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation"
(Rev. 5:9).

". . . being justified freely by his grace
through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood,
to show his righteousness because of the passing over of the sins
done aforetime, in the forebearance of God;

for the showing, I say, of his righteousness at the present season:
that he might himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus" (Rom. 3:24,25).
see: "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect?" (Rom. 8:33).

Propitiation is a synonym of expiation,
which means "enduring the full penalty of a wrong or crime."

Propitiation appeases the lawgiver by satisfying the law
in the rendering of "a full legal equivalent for the wrong done."

". . . Christ died for us. Much more then, being justified by his blood,
shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him" (Rom. 5:8,9).

"Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect?" (Rom. 8:33).

The implied answer is, No one.

And the implied reason is that Christ has paid their sin debt
by suffering the penalty of the law in their stead.

"Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness
to everyone that believeth" (Rom. 10:4). = same as The Elect.

". . .our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ" (1 Cor. 5:7).

"Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf;
that we might become the righteousness of God in him" (2 Cor. 5:21).

We become the righteousness of God in Christ,
not through any moral influence of the death of Christ upon us,
but by the imputation of righteousness to us
through faith apart from works.

See Rom. 4:1-8. ". . . Christ. . . gave himself up for us,
an offering and a sacrifice to God . . . "Eph. 5:2).

". . . offered one sacrifice for sins for ever . . ." (Heb. 10:12)"

"Because Christ also suffered for sins once,
the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God . . . "
(I Pet. 3:18).

E. The Truth as to the Redeeming of Ransoming Features of the Atonement.

Note the following passages:
"The Son of man came not to be ministered unto,
but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many" (Matt. 20:28).

"But of him are ye in Christ Jesus,
who was made unto us wisdom from God,
and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption" (1 Cor. 1:30).

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law,
having become a curse for us" (Gal. 3:13).

"God sent forth his Son . . . that he might redeem them
that were under the law" (Gal. 4:4,5).

" . . . in whom we have redemption through his blood
the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace"
(Eph. 1:7).

". . .who gave himself a ransom for all" (1 Tim. 2:6).
see: "men of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation"
(Rev. 5:9).

". . .who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity"
(Titus 2:14).

". . . through his own blood, entered in once for all into the holy place,
having obtained eternal redemption" (Heb. 9:12).

"Ye were redeemed . . . with precious blood . . .
even the blood of Christ" (I Pet. 1:18,19).

". . . thou wast slain, and didst redeem unto God with thy blood,
men of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation" (Rev. 5:9).

In the passages above in which "redeem"
or one of its cognates appears we have four Greek words
or their cognates:

"agorazo," meaning "to acquire at the forum;"

"exagorazo" to acquire out of the forum;"

"lutroo," "to loose by a price;"

and "apolutrosis," "a loosing away."

The Greek words in the passages where "ransom" appears
are respectively "lutron," "a price,"
and "antilutron," "a corresponding price."

The plain meaning of these passages,
in the light of the rest of the New Testament, especially Rom. 3:25,26,
is that the death of Christ
was the price of our deliverance from sin's penalty.

See further Rom. 8: 1,33,34; 10:4. Gal. 3:13 describes exactly how we are redeemed when it tells us that we are redeemed from the curse of the law through Christ who became a curse for us.

He bore the curse we deserve.

He paid the penalty we owed.

For that reason we go free.

Note that "ransom" in 1 Tim. 2:6 means "a corresponding price."

This means that the price paid by Christ
corresponded to the debt we owed.

In other words Christ suffered the exact equivalent
of that which those for whom He died would have suffered in Hell.

If the justice of God demanded that Christ die
in order that God might justify sinners,
the same justice demanded
that He pay the full penalty owed by the sinners.

Justice can forego all the penalty
as easily as it can forego the least part of it.

"For God to take that as satisfaction which is not really such
is to say that there is no truth in anything.

God may take a part for the whole; error for truth, wrong for right

. . . If every created thing offered to God is worth just so much
as God accepts it for, then the blood of bulls and goats might take away sins, and Christ is dead in vain" (Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:573-581; 3:188,189).

...
We adopt, therefore, as the true view of the nature of the atonement,
a view that combines the commercial theory and the ethical theory
as they are described by Strong.

From the commercial theory we accept the idea expressed in 1 Tim. 2:6
--the paying of a corresponding or equivalent price.

And from the ethical theory we accept the fact
that it was not divine honor and majesty that demanded the atonement,
as the commercial view asserts,
but the ethical principles of holiness and justice in God.
...
It cannot be argued that God was under obligation
to provide redemption for all men without exception,
for such an argument would exclude grace from the atonement.

Grace means not only unmerited favor, but also favor that is not owed.

Grace and obligation are mutually exclusive.

Furthermore, if God was obligated
to provide redemption for every son of Adam,
He would be obligated likewise to give to each one
the ability to receive that redemption by faith.

This God has not done,
as we have shown in the previous chapter on election.*
...
(b) Furthermore it was not necessary
for God to provide a general atonement
to make men responsible for rejecting Christ.

Men reject Christ not because of a lack of atonement for them,
but because they love darkness rather than light (John 3:19),

because they will not have Him to reign over them (Luke 19:14).

(c) Nor was it necessary that Christ die for the whole Adamic race
in order to make God's general call sincere.

It is the notion of some that God's general call
requires men to believe that Christ died for them.

This is not true.

The twenty-eight chapters of Acts,
"though replete with information about apostolic dealing with souls,
record no precedent whatever for that now popular address to the unconverted-
Christ died for you" (Sanger, The Redeemed).

"All men are called on in Scripture to believe the gospel,
but there is no instance in Scripture in which men are called upon
to believe that Christ died for them"
(Carson, The Doctrine of the Atonement and Other Treatises, P. 146).

 

Not "evident" in the slightest. What is evident is Christ did ALL the work for ANYONE to be saved. Anyone who repents and believes on Christ. He really meant that.

 

Luke 10:30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way...

 

Actually, I do not tell God what He means. I just read the Holy Bible and He tells me what He means.

 

We have intimated that God is as much under obligation
to remove man's spiritual inability to come to Christ
as He is to provide an atonement for Him.

In other words, man's perversity of nature
makes his salvation as impossible from a human standpoint
as does the absence of an atonement.

But some may take exception to this
by saying that whereas
man's perversity of nature creates a moral impossibility,
the lack of atonement furnishes a natural impossibility.

We reply that this is correct;

but the moral impossibility is primary and is absolute.

Therefore the natural impossibility can furnish no added hindrance.

(d) Neither is a general atonement necessary
to the manifestation of God's love.

The provision of an ineffective atonement
would reveal nothing but a blind, futile love.

Is this the kind of love God's love is?

Nay, verily, God's love is intelligent, purposeful, sovereign, effective.

God's redemptive love is wholly grounded within Himself,
and does not proceed at all because the objects of it are lovely,
nor because they deserve anything good at His hands.

Therefore, it is wholly subject to His sovereign will
(Deut. 10:15; Rom. 9:13).

It is His immanent, peculiar, gracious delight
in bestowing His favor upon chosen objects.
...
"Whenever the Holy Scriptures speak
of the sufficiency of redemption,
they always place in it the certain efficacy of redemption.

The atonement of Christ is sufficient
because it is absolutely efficacious,
and because it effects the salvation of all for whom it was made.

Its sufficiency lies not in affording men a possibility of salvation,
but in accomplishing their salvation with invincible power.

Hence the Word of God never represents
the sufficiency of the atonement
as wider than the design of the atonement"

(Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John, 1945 edition, Vol. 3, p. 76).

Would that this last sentence
could be emblazoned across the sky
LET IT BE EMPHASIZED AGAIN,
IN THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST
SUFFICIENCY EQUALS EFFICIENCY.

 

Actually, in Hebrews 12:22; "But ye are come unto mount Sion,
and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem,
and to an innumerable company of angels,"

means "God can't count"(?)

 

Arguments From Scripture.

(a) Isa. 53:11. In this passage, the prophet,
in speaking of Christ's sacrifice,
says that God
"shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall he satisfied."

We take this to mean that the just demands of God,
the penalty of the broken law, were satisfied in the death of Christ.

But for whom? If for every son of Adam,
then God cannot in justice damn any of them.

Satisfied justice can demand nothing more.

If the reader is minded to argue that the lost in Hell will suffer,
not for their sins in general, but only for the sin of rejecting Christ,
we refer him back to our discussion
of the theory of a general atonement under" (2) The Theory Disproved."

Furthermore this same passage represents God as saying:

"By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many;
for he shall bear their iniquities."

This tells how Christ justifies men, that is,
by bearing their iniquities.

And note that this justification is not made
to depend on anything else.

If Christ had to bear men's iniquities to justify them,
then it follows, as the night the day,
that those whose iniquities He bore must receive justification.

By accepting this satisfaction at the hands of Christ,
God puts Himself under obligation to Christ (not to the sinner)
to communicate justification to everyone
for whom satisfaction is made,
which He does by working repentance and faith in the heart.

(b) John 15:13.

"Greater love hath no man than this,
that a man lay down his life for his friends."

If Christ laid down His life for every man without exception,
then He has the greatest love for every man;

and, therefore, loves those that perish in Hell
as much as those He saves.

Could Christ ever be satisfied
with some of the objects of His greatest love in Hell?

Moreover, if it were true that Christ loves those that perish
as much as He does those that are saved,
we should have to attribute our salvation to
ourselves rather than to the love of Christ.

(c) Rom. 8:32: "He that spared not his own Son,
but delivered him up for us all,
how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?"

This passage argues that God's greatest gift of His Son
guarantees all lesser gifts.

Hence it follows that God delivered up His Son
for none except those
to whom He freely gives all other spiritual blessings,
that is, those who believe. See Eph. 1:3.

(d) Rom. 8:33,34. These verses tell us that no charge
or condemnation can be brought against the elect;

that God will not charge them, for it is He who justifies;

and that Christ will not condemn, because He died for them.

This passage would be deprived of all logical force
if Christ had died for any
that He shall someday condemn in judgment.

Hence He died for none except those who escape judgment.

(e) 2 Cor. 5:14: "For the love of Christ constraineth us;
because we thus judge, that one died for all, therefore all died."

There is here the undeniable assertion
that all for whom Christ died, died representatively in Him.

Hence death has no power over them,
and none of them will suffer it;

but all will receive justification and eternal life through faith.

In commenting on the last three words of this passage,
A. T. Robertson says:

"logical conclusion . . ., the one died for all
and so that all died when he died.

ALL THE SPIRITUAL DEATH POSSIBLE
FOR THOSE FOR WHOM CHRIST DIED"

(Caps ours-Word Pictures in the New Testament).

Do not fail to note the use of "all" in this passage.

(f) 2 Cor. 5:19: "God was in Christ,
reconciling (katalasso) the world unto himself,
NOT IMPUTING THEIR TRESPASSES UNTO THEM . . ."

This tells what God was doing in the death of Christ
and it tells how He was doing it:

He was reconciling men to Himself
and He was doing it by laying their trespasses on Christ
and, therefore, not imputing, reckoning,
charging them to those for whom Christ died.

Christ, in His death, accomplished full
objective reconciliation for the objects of His death,
which necessitates
their being brought to experience subjective reconciliation.

The only right conclusion from this is
that Christ died for those and those only
who eventually receive reconciliation.

Note the use of the word "world" in this passage.

(g) John 10:15; Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25.

In these passages Christ is said to have purchased the church,
to have given Himself for it,
to have laid down His life for the sheep.

"I know that universal terms
are sometimes connected in the Scriptures with the atonement;

but if these are to be interpreted in their widest sense,
why should the sacred writers have employed the restrictive at all?

The universal terms . . .
may be readily made to harmonize with the restrictive,
but no man can make the restrictive harmonize with the unlimited-
(Parks, The Five Points of Calvinism).

 

BINGO!!!