Points of disagreement.

[JonC]

Acts 2:38. 'Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of SINS...'

Exactly. Our sins need to be forgiven. And Christ is our Mediator, our High Priest, our Advocate with the Father through whom we may obtain forgiveness for our sins when we sin and repent of those sins.

I am not saying that our sins do not need to be forgiven. Quite the opposite.

I am saying that we are literally cleansed by the blood of Christ rather than this blood being a payment for our sins. The cleansing and the forgiveness is real rather than a metaphor for placating an angry God.

Jesus actually cleanses us from all unrighteousness.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Come on Alan!

He is the satisfaction for our sins, and not for OURS ONLY, but also for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD.

There can be no mistake, He is the satisfaction for the sins of all of humanity.

Charlie,
I don't know you but from reading your posts I like you and would sooner stand with you that with many others here, but you know this isn't really so.
If Christ is the satisfaction for the sins of every person in the whole world, then God is satisfied in respect of the sins of every person in the whole world, and the whole world is saved. We know that isn't so.
Everybody limits the atonement in some way. You limit it by saying (correctly) that only those who believe are saved. But in that case God cannot be satisfied by Christ's propitiation for these people, so the atonement is limited. I would say that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of Jew and Gentile, Barbarian, Scythian, rich and poor, slave and free, men and women, but He is not the propitiation for the sins of EVERY PERSON in the WHOLE WORLD, nor was He set forth to be.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Jesus actually cleanses us from all unrighteousness.

Yep! He cleanses us from our sins.
Have you sorted it out so I can post on the 'Early Atonement View' thread? That would be so helpful. Thanks!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Isaiah 53:10-11
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied:
by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many;
for he shall bear their iniquities.


And my strawman understanding of your own position…

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him;

But God didn’t have any responsibility in it.

he hath put him to grief:
But the suffering has no correlation to any specific sin of men a therefore to none at all.

when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin,
But Jesus is not suffering any sort of punishment or consequence of anything.

he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
Jesus is resurrected and the work that God planned for salvation is completed and accomplished by Jesus Christ.

He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied:
God saw the suffering of Jesus and it made Him happy, not because it satisfied the answer for sin, rather, it was just something that made God happy to see.

by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many;
for he shall bear their iniquities.
But the suffering and the carrying of men’s sins have nothing to do with each other.


Yep. I sure don’t see it that way. But that is what I get from your presentation. You inevitably will call it a strawman argument so I have labeled that way.
Whatever kind of argument you call it, that is what you are teaching me. Whether or not that is what you are trying to say, this is what you are getting across.
I reject it as a teaching.

This is the best thing I have seen on this board for quite a while. Good job! How God must love us sinners to put His beloved Son to grief for us!

 

[Charlie24]

Charlie,
I don't know you but from reading your posts I like you and would sooner stand with you that with many others here, but you know this isn't really so.
If Christ is the satisfaction for the sins of every person in the whole world, then God is satisfied in respect of the sins of every person in the whole world, and the whole world is saved. We know that isn't so.
Everybody limits the atonement in some way. You limit it by saying (correctly) that only those who believe are saved. But in that case God cannot be satisfied by Christ's propitiation for these people, so the atonement is limited. I would say that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of Jew and Gentile, Barbarian, Scythian, rich and poor, slave and free, men and women, but He is not the propitiation for the sins of EVERY PERSON in the WHOLE WORLD, nor was He set forth to be.

That's not the way it goes, Martin. We will disagree all the way through this.

Christ is the satisfaction for the sins of all of humanity in that Christ has reconciled us to God, making it possible for salvation to take place. The fractured relationship between God and man has been mended so to speak.

This is how Christ is the mediator of a New Covenant between God and man, through His atonement for us.

The reason it doesn't work for you is that the base factor is the free will of man.

 

[JonC]

Yep! He cleanses us from our sins.
Have you sorted it out so I can post on the 'Early Atonement View' thread? That would be so helpful. Thanks!

It is sorted out. But you cannot post on it.

Most people can but I excluded people who by a history of their posts would hijack it into a debate for Pensl Substitution Theory.

The reason is that I do not want it to be a debate against the Classic view, or even a defense of the Classic view.

I intend it to be an explanation of what those of us who hold to that view beliece.

I want that so that people can understand the opposing position. It is the primary Christian view, although not in Western Christianity. It is biblical, but through a different model than the Latin theories.

Your view is biblical using your framework. My view is as well. So I thought why not start a thread so others can understand the Classic view (this could only be done by somebody who holds or held this view).

I did not start the thread to change people's mind. I do not care what position they choose. But I thought at least they could understand the view.

What you do is defend your view (which is fine) argue against any other view (again, fine) and try to obstruct others from understanding opposing views (not fine).

You would not be able to contribute to the thread. You would constantly post quotes from ECF's that we all believe to obscure differences in beliefs.

That said, you could and perhaps should start a thread explaining the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement so those who never held it could understand. People could ask questions.

 

[JonC]

Come on Alan!

He is the satisfaction for our sins, and not for OURS ONLY, but also for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD.

There can be no mistake, He is the satisfaction for the sins of all of humanity.

The problem is your conclusion (which is correct) cannot be correct under the framework of Penal Substitution.

Consider the implications:

At a moment in history Christ satisfied God's wrath against the sins of the world by taking that punishment upon Himself.

If this really means the sins of everybody then it means the debt of everybody was paid at that moment in time. No person could be held accountable for their debt of sin.

So Christ, although capable of dying for the sins of a thousand worlds, only suffered the punishment for the group of people God chose to save and He paid their debt on the cross.

How could God punish the sins of the lost if He already punished Jesus for those sins on the cross, prior to the resurrection? How would they "remain in their sins" if their debt of sin has already been paid in full?

Limited Atonement is the only consistent and logical conclusion under that framework.

 

[Charlie24]

That's not the way it goes, Martin. We will disagree all the way through this.

Christ is the satisfaction for the sins of all of humanity in that Christ has reconciled us to God, making it possible for salvation to take place. The fractured relationship between God and man has been mended so to speak.

This is how Christ is the mediator of a New Covenant between God and man, through His atonement for us.

The reason it doesn't work for you is that the base factor is the free will of man.

The Old Covenant with the Ten Commandments was broken by man before Moses could get down off the mountain with the tablets.

The New Covenant in Christ is an everlasting Covenant that can't be broken, impossible to be broken.

This New Covenant in Christ Jesus is based on His performance whereas the Old was based on the performance of man.

Amazing are the works of our Lord, everything is perfect that He does, and He does it all for us!

 

[JonC]

BTW, Jon. I still can't seem to get onto the 'Early Atonement View' thread. If you would sort that out for me that will be really helpful. I'm sure you wouldn't want to be restricting discussion, would you?

It is not a discussion. It is an explanation of what those of us who hold the Classic view believe.

How could you help explain a belief you reject but never held? You can't.

 

[Charlie24]

The problem is your conclusion (which is correct) cannot be correct under the framework of Penal Substitution.

Consider the implications:

At a moment in history Christ satisfied God's wrath against the sins of the world by taking that punishment upon Himself.

If this really means the sins of everybody then it means the debt of everybody was paid at that moment in time. No person could be held accountable for their debt of sin.

So Christ, although capable of dying for the sins of a thousand worlds, only suffered the punishment for the group of people God chose to save and He paid their debt on the cross.

How could God punish the sins of the lost if He already punished Jesus for those sins on the cross, prior to the resurrection? How would they "remain in their sins" if their debt of sin has already been paid in full?

Limited Atonement is the only consistent and logical conclusion under that framework.

No Jon, you're forgetting something that the Calvinists deny.

There is a condition to be met that God demands in order to benefit from the atonement for our sins.

Do you remember what that condition is?

 

[JonC]

No Jon, you're forgetting something that the Calvinists deny.

There is a condition to be met that God demands in order to benefit from the atonement for our sins.

Do you remember what that condition is?

I am not forgetting it. I think they are wrong. But Penal Substitution Theory itself holds that on the cross God punished Jesus for our sins, paying our debt. Their view is that God cannot therefore collect a debt that has already been paid.

Their view (Calvinists) is just building theory on theory. I agree it is wrong, but I get Their logic.

 

[Ben1445]

Yes. It pleased the Lord. Peter explains this very well - the source of Christ's sufferkng and death was evil, but it was also the predetermined plan of God. It was His will.

I do not care what you reject or accept (that is between you and God).

But for me, I do believe God not only can forgive sins but does forgive sins. Rather than punishing the righteous to clear the guilty, I believe God is just and will never be guilty of evil.

I also believe that salvation is the work of Christ doing the will of the Father AND that the salvation of man was completed on the cross (something you strongly deny).

But I am not accountable for your faith. That is your problem.

At what point have I strongly denied that salvation was finished on the cross. I think you have me confused with someone else.

 

[JonC]

At what point have I strongly denied that salvation was finished on the cross. I think you have me confused with someone else.

I might be confusing you with somebody else. A couple of members said that the cross made salvation possible by paying our debt of sin.

At my age, who knows? I logged on the computer the other day and by the time it came up forgot why. So I could have confused you with somebody else.

 

[Ben1445]

I might be confusing you with somebody else. A couple of members said that the cross made salvation possible by paying our debt of sin.

I would assume that to mean that salvation is possible for all men and that because there are some people who reject the only way of salvation, it is only possible to be saved. But I don’t have the context of the conversation.

At my age, who knows? I logged on the computer the other day and by the time it came up forgot why. So I could have confused you with somebody else.

The sort of belief, that salvation is not complete with Christ at Calvary, is not one that I ever want credit for keeping. Forgiven and forgotten. Not a big deal.

 

[JonC]

I would assume that to mean that salvation is possible ...

No. I meant accomplishing the reconciliation of man to God.

The members who presented the Father punishing Christ to collect a debt to make salvation possible were hyper Calvinists.

Sorry for confusing you as one of them.