A Proper Concept of the Atonement

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BD17: I have not suggested anything

HP: Fair enough. I am interested in hearing your presentation.

 

[BD17]

HP: Here we go forgive me for this may be quite lenghthy.

There is a particular way we should look at the atonement and that will be explained below.

God's plan is to save the world by taking people from every nation and forming a new body of humanity. Christ and His death has shown that God's heart is drawn to all people... not only the religious or to people on high positions, but to everyone, men, women, and children of every race. color, interest etc. "Red and yellow, black and white; they are precious in His sight" is not just a littel line from a chidren's hymn. Those word tell a great truth illustrated in the cross. All people will be saved.

Wait you may be asking, isn't that universalism: the belief that everyone will eventually be saved? No it is not. Although we who take the Scriptures seriously cannot believe that each and every individual in the world will be saved, we do have to be universalists in the sense that we are forced to view God's way as being broader than encompassing individuals. God sees the world as a community of humanity. Christ came not only to "save sinners"(1Tim. 1:15) but also to be the "Savior of the world"(John 4:42).

In John 3:17, we can see the universal side of Christ's death: "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him." In the very next verse it says "Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." Verse 17 focuses on the world as a whole and humanity as a race, while verse 18 focuses on the world on an individual level. So you can see that God is concerned with saving the world he created.

Do you follow me so far?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BD17: Do you follow me so far?

http://www.baptistboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=790512​

HP: I believe so, although I cannot at this time, with all the false notions surrounding ‘universal salvation,’ understand why you choose to utilize the same words, but maybe it will become clear as we go along. I cannot see why you would say that “all people will be saved” if in fact you are not going to support the universalist position as well. To me you are utilizing language that is bound to be misunderstood if I am hearing you right. If I did not want to be mistaken for a crow, I might find it appropriate not to dress like one. If I do not desire to be seen as a universlist or a part of those claiming that all people will be saved, I might try and coin my words in such a way as to set myself apart from them, so as not to be confused as being one of them.

Although God is indeed putting forth every effort to save the world, He also tells us that He is going to destroy the world in the end. I am sure you have taken that into account in your presentation yet to come.

With that aside, I believe I am following you so far.

 

[BobRyan]

Hi Bob Ryan,

In all fairness and after discussing many things with you, I see our positions on the atonement primarily separated by semantic differences, not substantive differences. You seem unwilling to shake the word ‘literal’ in relationship to the payment of the penalty, and I refuse to use that word to depict it for obvious reasons I have set forth. The word ‘literal’ carries with it well understood implications that I see as totally and completely at antipodes with the facts related to the atonement.

As long as you keep glossing over the definition for "atonement" that God gives in Lev 16 and as long as you keep insisting that Lev 16 "ends in vs 9" before the work of the High Priest is started in the sanctuary -- and as long as you keep saying that doing this "makes no difference in how we define the proces of atonement in Lev 16" -- then I would say - you are right.

HP said

, I see the gift in the atonement not as granted to us at the moment Christ offered His life on the cross, but rather as only preparing and establishing it, making the way possible and building the bridge to span the gap between the justice of God law and its rightfully incurred penalty, and His mercy to be proffered to us on a personal level upon the fulfilling of the conditions of repentance and faith He has ordained.

You only do that because you are working with the wrong definition for the process of Atonement. As long as you keep truncating Lev 16 in vs 9 you will always HAVE to come up with some workaround as you have described above.

That much is clear.

I don't argue that your attempts to solve the resulting problem are not well thought out - I simply argue that you are creating the problem "for yourself" by ignoring the definition of Atonement as God gives it in Lev 16 and "instead" trying to truncate it with Lev 16:9.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

HP said --

You see the atonement as encompassing the act of atonement on the cross and the application of it by the High Priest of our profession. I commend you for this inclusion of both ideas as being necessary to complete ones initial salvation experience.

Actually - I don't claim that we must wait for some future event in heaven to be saved. But I do agree that the Lev 16 model God gives us includes BOTH the "Atoning Sacrifice" of vs 9 and ALSO all the other acts of the High Priest shown in Lev 16 - work that Christ begins for us according to Heb 4 and Heb 8-10.

Atonement is a "process" according to Lev 16 - not the single "act" of Lev 16:9.

HP said -

I believe in reality you as well more than likely believe that if we are to be found in Him in the last day that continued obedience is required as well, from everything I have read by you.

Agreed. In fact if you look at Daniel 7 you see that "Judgment is passed in favor of the saints" -- in Matt 7 Christ said that the they will be known by their works. In Romans 2 Paul makes this point crystal clear "in that future judgment when according to my Gospel God WILL judge the secrets of man".

 

[BobRyan]

HP: Christ satisfied the demands of the laws penalty on the cross by way of a subsitutionary sacrifice. It did not ‘literally’ pay the penalty demanded by the law, for that penalty was eternal in nature.

If Christ did not "literally satisfy the demands of the law's penalty" then what did He do "symbolically satisfy it"?

If so then could he not hold up a flower and say "I hereby CRUSH this flower and so I SYMBOLICALLY satisify the law's demands for the penalty of sin for the whole world". In fact do we not HAVE that symbolism already in the form of the communion bread?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Hi GE,

Then here are some logical conclusions you cannot escape. If in fact God only paid for the sins of the elect, it is an utter impossibility for any other to come to faith, necessitating the notion that God of necessity predestines the lost to damnation, having never had any other possibility made available to them to be saved. Not only that, but if man can be nothing other than what he is, and for the sinner that is to sin and incur the wrath of God, God is seen as punishing the wicked for something God Himself can be none other than the ultimate cause of. You also cannot escape the logical conclusion that indeed God is in fact the author of all sin. Let me stop there to get your response so far.

You are absolutely right up to the point where you brought in YOUR 'logic'. From there on you make YOUR own conclusions, totally unwarranted and totally DEVOID of true 'logic'.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Here is something I read of EG White many years ago, and although I have nothing in her, this was really worth while. She says something like 'Sin explained, is sin excused!'

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Quoting HP,

"Not only that, but if man can be nothing other than what he is, and for the sinner that is to sin and incur the wrath of God, God is seen as punishing the wicked for something God Himself can be none other than the ultimate cause of."

What 'logic is this? (For example) If man can be nothing other than what he is, and for the sinner that is to sin and incur the wrath of God, HOW can God be seen as the ultimate cause of sin? Ludicrous! No, shocking and arrogant!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Oh oh ohhhh I get it now... those people who believe that Jesus already paid for any sins you might commit in the future, so that it doesnt really matter you are covered anyway?

Not quite, but nearly!

Jesus already paid sor THOSE sins BELIEVERS might commit in future as well as during all their lives, so that it REALLY MATTERS, THEY are covered anyway.

Difference is, you suppose their salvation means liberty and excuse to sin, while it actually means forgiveness of sins and reason for fighting the good fight against sin.

I know the free-willers can't understand it.

 

[BD17]

http://www.baptistboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=790512​

HP: I believe so, although I cannot at this time, with all the false notions surrounding ‘universal salvation,’ understand why you choose to utilize the same words, but maybe it will become clear as we go along. I cannot see why you would say that “all people will be saved” if in fact you are not going to support the universalist position as well. To me you are utilizing language that is bound to be misunderstood if I am hearing you right. If I did not want to be mistaken for a crow, I might find it appropriate not to dress like one. If I do not desire to be seen as a universlist or a part of those claiming that all people will be saved, I might try and coin my words in such a way as to set myself apart from them, so as not to be confused as being one of them.


Although God is indeed putting forth every effort to save the world, He also tells us that He is going to destroy the world in the end. I am sure you have taken that into account in your presentation yet to come.

With that aside, I believe I am following you so far.

Yes, all will be cleared up by the end of the post. I will continue tommorrow Jun 18th.

 

[BobRyan]

Calvinists insist on "slavery continued" so that when a saint sins -- God made them do it just like He is in control and makes everyone do what they do -- so He can still be in control (4 and 5 point Calvinists that is - who teach limited grace). When Lucifer sins in heaven - somehow (they claim) God "made him do it".

The Free will view of the Bible does not support it - so Calvinsits "believe it anyway"

But they do have one point that I agree with - once the Atonement of Lev 16 is completed - SOME are atoned for and some are not. Those who ARE atoned for have no sin and those who are not atoned for - suffer for all of their own sins.

But where the 4 and 5 pointers get it wrong - is rejecting the Lev 16 concept of atonement that INCLUDES the High Priestly work of Christ

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Bob Ryan: But they do have one point that I agree with - once the Atonement of Lev 16 is completed - SOME are atoned for and some are not. Those who ARE atoned for have no sin and those who are not atoned for - suffer for all of their own sins.

HP: Here is an issue I have yet to discuss with you. Once the atonement, as you see it, is completed, you say that they ‘have no sin.’ Are you, as to the Calvinist and semi-Calvinists implying that all past present and future sins have been atoned for?

You also say that those who have not yet atoned for suffer for ‘all their sins.” When does that happen? Are you telling me that they suffer the penalty for sins in this world, or is it that the only hope they can entertain is the hope of being annihilated in the next?

If you desire to have meaningful conversation, it is always in order to represent the other ones position as fairly as you are able. For you to suggest, as you did, that I do not believe one can be saved until he passes into eternity is simply not the case, and I believe you know that. Why then imply that that is my position? Sure we can know we are saved in this present world, but we also can be deceived. Our salvation now is held by faith not absolute knowledge. We now have a sure hope, but in the world to come that hope will be changed to absolute knowledge as our salvation is 'consummated,' finally completed in an absolute sense, when we hear the words, “Well done thou good and faithful servant!” Yes we are (or can be) saved now, we are(or can be) ‘being’ saved as we walk with the Lord, and we will (or can be) be saved when it is totally consummated in the Kingdom of heaven.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Bob Ryan: As long as you keep glossing over the definition for "atonement" that God gives in Lev 16 and as long as you keep insisting that Lev 16 "ends in vs 9" before the work of the High Priest is started in the sanctuary -- and as long as you keep saying that doing this "makes no difference in how we define the proces of atonement in Lev 16" -- then I would say - you are right.

HP: So much for tryting to find a little agreement with you Bob. Help me out here. Give to us that ‘definition’ of the atonement you see as so clear in Lev.18. When you see a sign that points in the direction of a town, and says 'Dallas' on it, is the town best seen on the sign, or when you enter into the actual town? Since when is a type and a shadow a ‘definition’ for something? Your approach seems like one that would try and explain to us how a 747 is designed and built by examining the methods used by the Wright brothers in building their first plane. Has it ever occurred to you that one might start with the latest revelations in the NT to explain to us, define, or illuminate our understanding as to the shadows found in the OT instead of the other way around? It appears you are trying to operate in reverse osmosis. It is not necessary for me to be able to explain or even understand all the type and shadows of Lev 16 in order to have a more complete and fuller understanding today of the atonement.
When have I ever stated that it ‘makes no difference how we define the atonement?? What do you think this thread is all about, and why do you think I lay the stress that I do on understanding it from a proper perspective? Just because I may not buy into ever nuance you find as you try and correlate types and shadows to the NT does not mean I feel that it does not make a difference of how we define the atonement. It is comments such as this that make discussions with some a hard instead of enjoyable encounter.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan:
Bob Ryan: But they do have one point that I agree with - once the Atonement of Lev 16 is completed - SOME are atoned for and some are not. Those who ARE atoned for have no sin and those who are not atoned for - suffer for all of their own sins.

HP: Here is an issue I have yet to discuss with you. Once the atonement, as you see it, is completed, you say that they ‘have no sin.’ Are you, as to the Calvinist and semi-Calvinists implying that all past present and future sins have been atoned for?

I do agree with them about the fact that Atonement complete really does COMPLETE all disposition of sin from the standpoint of the Gospel and forgiveness. I do not agree that the Atonement can be considered to be complete BEFORE Christ's work as High Priest is "complete".

When it is complete then whatever is to be forgiven is not only paid for - but forgiveness fully applied to the believer. The Lev 16 describes Atonement and shows us that this is the Day of Atonement service -- which is the last and final service in the Levitical year ... no more sacrifices no more events for sacrifice and offerings - "that's it".

It includes both the work of Christ as "Atoning Sacrifice" Lev 16:9 AND the work of Christ our High Priest that "starts" after the Cross Heb 4, 7, 8, 10 etc.

HP
You also say that those who have not yet atoned for suffer for ‘all their sins.” When does that happen?

Yep they get the pure unmodified "fire and brimstone" torment (Rev 14:10) of the "Lake of Fire" Rev 20. They pay the full debt of torment in the "second death" Rev 20 - the debt owed for each and every sin.

HP said

Are you telling me that they suffer the penalty for sins in this world, or is it that the only hope they can entertain is the hope of being annihilated in the next?

When Atonement process is complete - God pours out the Seven Last plagues on the living wicked and then Christ is revealed from heaven flaming fire at which time the "Righteous dead in Christ" (1Thess4) are raised up in the "First Resurrection" Rev 20:4.

HP
If you desire to have meaningful conversation, it is always in order to represent the other ones position as fairly as you are able. For you to suggest, as you did, that I do not believe one can be saved until he passes into eternity is simply not the case, and I believe you know that.

I don't know where I claimed that - but if you I said something that appeared to make that point - I did not mean to do it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

HP: So much for tryting to find a little agreement with you Bob.

I don't think it is as remote as you say - some things remain in full agreement.

HP

Help me out here. Give to us that ‘definition’ of the atonement you see as so clear in Lev.18 (16 actually). When you see a sign that points in the direction of a town, and says 'Dallas' on it, is the town best seen on the sign, or when you enter into the actual town? Since when is a type and a shadow a ‘definition’ for something?

The Passover predictes both the substance and the timing of Christ's substitutionary atonement for us as the "Lamb of God" our "Atoning Sacrifice". Paul says in 1Cor 5 "Christ our PASSOVER is Slain". It shows us the purpose of his redeeming sacrifice and even the exact time it occurs. Christ was slain ON Passover!

I suppose we "could" argue that God's instruction is "insufficient" and "we don't need no stinking passover chapter to learn more of the infinite depths of this subject" -- but I don't see myself going there personnally.

The same is true for God's teaching on Pentecost showing the exact timing of the event, feast of first fruits showing the timing of the resurrection of Christ and echoed for us in 1Cor 15 as such.

Instead of pretending that "God really did not have much to say" about this all important subject - we find that we must START where God "starts" with us on the subject and taking each lesson HE teaches - ADD to our knowledge to help us understand these events "in depth" rather than just on the surface.

Keeping with that model I am happy to BEGIN with GOD's definition of "Atonement" and observe how HE expands on it BUILDING on the foundations HE has already laid down.

This is shocking for those who use the "toss out the bad bible now we have just the good bible left to read" model for Bible study.

I don't follow that model.

Hopefully we could come to agreement on at least that much.

HP It is not necessary for me to be able to explain or even understand all the type and shadows of Lev 16 in order to have a more complete and fuller understanding today of the atonement.

Ok - well that would be "that other model".

In the mean time - my Bible has 66 books - not just 23 post-cross focused texts.

HP:When have I ever stated that it ‘makes no difference how we define the atonement??

Err - I hope never. It is just that I KEEP POINTING out the definition I find in scripture and you keep "using another one anyway" without coming back (until now) with either a "I don't need to read that stinking scripture" for the text I quote OR with a "ok I see - well let's see what the scripture says there and use the details you pointed out for a minute and see where that takes us".

HP:

I feel that it does not make a difference of how we define the atonement. It is comments such as this that make discussions with some a hard instead of enjoyable encounter.

Go back and review your own comments to me -- SEE how each time you have been saying that my view is incorrect BASED on taking YOUR definition for Atonement - not mine AS IF I had claimed that view of yours (or even the definition used by the Calvinists) AND THEN drawn "my conclusions based on your (and their) definitions". I did not do that - but your responses seem to post as if that was the area of difference - as if I had done exactly that.

So after trying to point out this gap in my last 3 posts and not getting you to stop and note the differences - I turned up the volume a bit in the pointed language.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Bob Ryan: So after trying to point out this gap in my last 3 posts and not getting you to stop and note the differences - I turned up the volume a bit in the pointed language.

HP: So turning up the volume consists in avoiding ones direct questions and misrepresenting the others position? No need to waste your energy turning up that volume. You and I have addressed the issue sufficiently so as to enlighten any listener as to our differing beliefs, and that being the case I feel it would be in the best interest of the list to end my discussion with you on this topic at this time. If you have something new to offer, or decide to answer the questions I asked you directly, feel free to do so. If any of the others have any thing to offer or questions to ask, by all means I am open to answer them as I am able. I would appreciate your understanding in this matter. Bob. Thank you.

 

[BobRyan]

When you argue that there is "no difference" between the view that DOES take into account all the aspects of the Lev 16 process of Atonement -- (including BOTH the Atoning Sacrifice of Vs 9 AND all the work of Our High Priest Jesus Christ - that is described both in Lev 16 AND in Heb 4, 8, 9 and 10).. and the Calvinist view that assumes the chapter ends in vs 9 with the "Atoning Sacrifice" -- then it appears that you are simply glossing over the differences. So I keep highlighting those "differences

Your following comment speaks "volumes"

Quote:
HP It is not necessary for me to be able to explain or even understand all the type and shadows of Lev 16 in order to have a more complete and fuller understanding today of the atonement.

In Lev 16 we see "explicitly "in the text" the subject of "the Day of Atonement" addressed - what OTHER WHOLE chapter did you find after that - addressing explicitly the subject "Day of Atonement" that is unique and distinct apart from the Passover?

Recall that the Spring feasts provide revelation pointing to events surrounding Christ's first coming and the fall Feasts give revelation pointing to Christ's second coming.

The fact that you feel free to ignore the text of scripture - AND the model of "building" on what God has established -- is "instructive" for any open minded reader.

I will grant you that.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: When you argue that there is "no difference" between the view…..

Bob, I did no such thing. What I did try and get across to you was that your view ends up in the same necessitated quagmire that the Calvinist does, when you try and make the atonement a literal payment, which it is not. That is not saying you believe the same things as the Calvinist. It is that your approach, as distinct as you try to make it, cannot escape the same pitfalls starting from a false literal payment notion. I ‘glossed over those distinctions??’ Pardon me Bob, I even COMMENDED you for your differences, pointing them out. Remember??
Tell me again what the literal penalty for sin is, even in accordance to your view. How many ‘literal annihilations’ did Christ suffer? If he did not suffer at least one, He could not have suffered the literal punishment, nor could it be a literal payment. The laws demands were satisfied by a SATISFACTION of the law’s penalty, not the literal one. How hard is that to grasp? How hard is it to see that if Christ would have suffered a literal payment of annihilation, that He would still be annihilated? It is not that you believe like a Calvinist per say, but you try and hang on to the very basic concept of a literal payment that lands the Calvinistic system in a maelstrom of confusion and then try to act like the logical error you have fallen into right next to the Calvinist doesn’t exist and that you are miles apart. I will agree that you are miles apart in some areas, and for some of those distinctions I applaud you for.

BR: Your following comment speaks "volumes"

Quote:



Quote:
HP It is not necessary for me to be able to explain or even understand all the type and shadows of Lev 16 in order to have a more complete and fuller understanding today of the atonement.

BR: In Lev 16 we see "explicitly "in the text" the subject of "the Day of Atonement" addressed - what OTHER WHOLE chapter did you find after that - addressing explicitly the subject "Day of Atonement" that is unique and distinct apart from the Passover?

HP: If I never had an inkling about the Passover or the ‘day of atonement in the OT, and just heard the good news of the NT gospel and the fact that Jesus Christ died to forgive men of their sins, I would have known more about the atonement at that moment than they ever did in the OT EVEN IF they would have understood all there was to be revealed about the shadows.

If mission work consisted of first enlightening men of the OT process of the atonement before they could understand the work of Christ on the cross, it would have been set back at least a couple thousand years or so. One second as a new creature in Christ is worth more than all the knowledge the high priest ever had in the OT about the shadow of that which was to come. If any man believes he understands every type or shadow in Lev 16 alone, let his show forth his ignorance by trying to explain it to us.

Sure there is a lot we can understand, but there is more that we cannot understand, and do not need to understand, for God did not devise the OT ceremonial law for us as Gentile believers, and He has not made every type and shadow clear for our understanding, nor even the understanding even of the Jews. God does not have to, nor does He always, make sure we understand Himself, His plan, or His intentions and ends in every detail. Sometimes He just says ‘do this in obedience’ and leaves us holding our questions about His actions or orders until some later appointed time. Even then we may never fully understand the why’s and therefore’s, even in eternity.

God’s ways are higher than our ways, and His understanding past finding out. Try to explain Lev 16 to your satisfaction Bob. I am sure you understand much about it. Still, our best efforts will always come up short and end with many unanswered questions.

BR: Recall that the Spring feasts provide revelation pointing to events surrounding Christ's first coming and the fall Feasts give revelation pointing to Christ's second coming.

HP: Here we go again. What does this piece of conjecture on your part, (which may or may not be the case,) have anything to do with the ‘literal payment theory’ we are discussing? What I do not have to be is an OT scholar or understand every type and shadow in Lev 16 to see the logical absurdity of believing in a literal payment theory and the illogical ends it genders. Neither will the best scholar of OT types and shadows be able to keep one out of the illogical pitfalls of the literal payment theory.

BR: The fact that you feel free to ignore the text of scripture - AND the model of "building" on what God has established -- is "instructive" for any open minded reader.

HP: Hogwash.

 

[BobRyan]

Tell me again what the literal penalty for sin is, even in accordance to your view. How many ‘literal annihilations’ did Christ suffer? If he did not suffer at least one, He could not have suffered the literal punishment, nor could it be a literal payment. The laws demands were satisfied by a SATISFACTION of the law’s penalty, not the literal one. How hard is that to grasp? How hard is it to see that if Christ would have suffered a literal payment of annihilation, that He would still be annihilated? It is not that you believe like a Calvinist per say, but you try and hang on to the very basic concept of a literal payment that lands the Calvinistic system in a maelstrom of confusion and then try to act like the logical error you have fallen into right next to the Calvinist doesn’t exist and that you are miles apart. I will agree that you are miles apart in some areas, and for some of those distinctions I applaud you for.

#1. Both the Calvinists and I maintain that the debt of suffering owed by the sinner in the fires of hell - the 2nd death - is what Christ "pays".

but in their case they claim the "debt" owed is "infinite punishment - infinite torment - eternal tormenting" as you also agree.

By contrast I claim that the suffering owed is "proportional" Luke 12:45-55 and finite and is completely paid.

#2. I claim that the Atonement INCLUDES both the payment "The Atoning Sacrifice" of Lev 16:9 AND the High Priestly work of Christ.

You and the Calvinists seem to agree that atonement EXCLUDES the High Priestly work of Christ no matter what God says scripture in Lev 16 about "the DAY of ATONEMENT" - AND that it was completed at the cross since it is ONLY the "Atoning Sacrifice".

So in those aspects - you and they agree.

By contrast I claim the Scripture to be accurate and true in Lev 16 - authored By God and infallible and true - unbreakable as Christ said. In my view the FINITE debt of suffering is paid but the ATONEMENT PROCESS includes the Lev 16 work of the High Priest as God says!

If you can START with that point and SHOW that my view is still in trouble - please go ahead. Note that in your comment your claim is that GIVEN my view it still has problems.

Please show it.