A Question for Arminians (or no-name theology believers)

[Aaron]

Strawman. You hear what you want to hear and not what is said. It is by faith God's wrath is appeased against sinners. It's called the Gospel.

I'll just cut to the chase, because we can't get straight answers from webdog et al:

It is written no where that faith appeases God's wrath. Quite the opposite, really. It's written that by faith men believe unto righteousness, and by faith the elders received a good report, but God's wrath was appeased by the sacrifice of Christ.

If webdog et al would presume to analyze the atonement they should study the Law. That is where Christ's sacrifice is dissected and laid out in its elementary components for our learning.

If a man sinned, two sacrifices had to be made for him. One was a sin offering, and the other was a trespass offering. In one, sin itself is judged, and in the other, the guilt of the sinner. But these are two parts of Christ's one offering on the cross, appeasing God's wrath against both the sin and the sinner in that one act.

It was accomplished. It is finished.

But dog has the atonement divided into two acts: one on the part of Christ, and the other on the part of man. Despite dog's protests, the logical end of his dichotomy is that man partly atones for himself.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Proposition:

A. Christ died for all people -- and His death was for all sin (all means all)

B. Unbelief is a sin against God -- according to the "all men/all sin" aspect of Christ's atonement, unbelief should be one of the sins Christ died for

D. Yet, Unbelievers are not saved and believers are saved

-- Therefore --

E-1. Either Christ did not die for all people and cover all sins
​

E-2. Or Christ did die for all people but not for all sins
​

E-3. Or Christ did die for all people and all sins
​

E-1 is the position of the Reformed (Calvinistic) theology, and holds that the atonement is limited and effectually applied only for the elect.

E-2 is the Amyraldian perspective which states that Christ died for all, but the "effects" of the atonement are for the elect only.

E-3 is the Arminian perspective, which states that Christ did indeed die for all men and all sins.

Starting with E-3, the problem is that unbelief is a sin, so how is it, that Christ died for all sin in all people, yet unbelief remains? It would seem that some form of special pleading is required to satisfy this solution to the proposition above.

Since I don't mind being called a universalist, I thought I'd throw in.

Is anyone surprised to find that I am E-3er? Nah, didn't think so.

"The problem is that unbelief is a sin". Why is that a problem, GL? Why is it that you can see the difference between attonement made and attonement applied? The price for all sin committed by all men has been paid. But it hasn't been applied to each individual account.

While Winman's Superbowl tickets were a good illustration, let me offer you one that is a little more specific:

My husband works for a major hospital. They have approximately 2000 patients at any given time. I also have a rich uncle named Sam. Suppose Sam walks in and tells the business administrator to total up the bill for every patient that is residing at the hospital because he is going to pay their bills down to the last penny owed to the last doctor that walked through the patients' rooms.

Hospital business admin being what they are, they add it all up and Sam approves the wire transfer of the funds. HIPAA laws being what they are, the hospital admin CAN'T APPLY PAYMENT to the individual accounts without the patients' individual consent! (not kidding!)

Now the money is there. The hospital is holding it in bank account ready to distribute to those 2000 patients, but first the patients have to consent.

Patients 1-500 don't even ask questions, they just sign the form! Patients 501-1000 have reservations about the motives of the one who paid the price and they want to wait and see what happens with the first 500 before committing their signature. Patients 1001-1500 tell the administers they don't have an ink pen. (stands for all the foolish reasons men don't accept Christ) and the rest of the patients say they can pay their own bill thank you very much!

The price was paid. Who benefitted?

Christ paid the price for all sin, including unbelief or else you wouldn't be saved because at some point in your life you commtted that particular sin yourself. You and I benefitted from Christ's sacrifice because we accepted the gift while those who are still unbelieving cannot and will not benefit from that same gift because they have not yet or they will not accept it, just as 1500 of the people in my illustration haven't signed the consent form.

M fav scripture at the moment that illustrates God waiting on His people to make the choice to belief is,

Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:


What a wonderfully illustrative scripture God has given us to display the simplicity of His plan.

 

[J.D.]

Could someone give us an illustration of how a sacrifice in the Old Testament was "made" for all of God's people but "applied" only to certain ones?

 

[menageriekeeper]

Just off the top of my head:

How about Eli's sons? They were Jews for which sacrifices were made yearly yet God said:

I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before me for ever: but now Jehovah saith, Be it far from me; for them that honor me I will honor, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed. 1 Samuel 2:30

 

[J.D.]

Just off the top of my head:

How about Eli's sons? They were Jews for which sacrifices were made yearly yet God said:

I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before me for ever: but now Jehovah saith, Be it far from me; for them that honor me I will honor, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed. 1 Samuel 2:30

If the temporal sacrifices of the temple did not apply to the sons of Eli, they would not have lived into adulthood. They fell from their place and reaped the consequences of their sins. But if God's wrath against HIS PEOPLE had not been appeased, they would have never had a "place" to begin with.

 

[menageriekeeper]

And now that you have me started, what about Achon? Had sacrifices not been made for him, yet he disobeyed and cause the entire nation of innocent Isreal to suffer for his sin and even then God passed judgment on him as an individual even after confession had been made?

Why would God command the destruction of one of His elect after sacrifice and confession had been made? And not just Achon, but his entire family, including the animals?? The only possible answer is that Achon didn't believe and his disobedience was evidence of that, even though sacrifice had been made.

 

[J.D.]

And now that you have me started, what about Achon? Had sacrifices not been made for him, yet he disobeyed and cause the entire nation of innocent Isreal to suffer for his sin and even then God passed judgment on him as an individual even after confession had been made?

Why would God command the destruction of one of His elect after sacrifice and confession had been made? And not just Achon, but his entire family, including the animals?? The only possible answer is that Achon didn't believe and his disobedience was evidence of that, even though sacrifice had been made.

Did they loose their salvation? Does punishment for particular sins imply that someone is not saved? Or were they in fact saved from God's wrath through the atonement, but for particular sins, "many of them are sick, and some are asleep"? Remember, in the Jewish economy all Jews were members of the Mosaic Covenant.

 

[menageriekeeper]

If the temporal sacrifices of the temple did not apply to the sons of Eli, they would not have lived into adulthood. Whatever would give you that idea?

They fell from their place and reaped the consequences of their sins. Much like Adam.

But if God's wrath against HIS PEOPLE had not been appeased, they would have never had a "place" to begin with. Who says?

Eli's sons were "priests unto Jehovah". In order to do their job they had all sorts of rituals to follow that were meant to bring them to a heart knowledge of God, but while they outwardly looked to be "good Jewish men" inwardly, in spite of all the rituals and sacrifices they offered, they were no better off than the pagans next door. The sacrifices were made for Isreal as a whole, but also for people as individuals, only none of it did any good. Despite being part of God's elect nation, Eli's sons were not saved and the blood of a thousand sheep couldn't wash away their sin because they didn't accept the word of God.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Did they loose their salvation?

Loosing their salvation implies they were saved to begin with, which I don't believe was the case (though only God knows for sure).

The nation of Isreal was God's chosen people in general, but in specifics there were those who believed and those who totally missed the point. Eli's sons were in the second catagory just as Achon before the had been.

 

[J.D.]

Eli's sons were "priests unto Jehovah". In order to do their job they had all sorts of rituals to follow that were meant to bring them to a heart knowledge of God, but while they outwardly looked to be "good Jewish men" inwardly, in spite of all the rituals and sacrifices they offered, they were no better off than the pagans next door. The sacrifices were made for Isreal as a whole, but also for people as individuals, only none of it did any good. Despite being part of God's elect nation, Eli's sons were not saved and the blood of a thousand sheep couldn't wash away their sin because they didn't accept the word of God.

The Old Testament sacrifices were shadows of the real. They signified, or were "pictures", if you will, of the atonement to come. In the Mosaic Covenant, atonement was made for the people of Israel. No exception is made. Every Israelite was atoned for, period. The atonement appeased God's wrath against HIS PEOPLE.

In the New Testament, God's people are not identified with Moses, but with Christ, and are members of the New Covenant by circumcision of heart by the Spirit, not circumcision of flesh by Moses' commandment. Therefore, the atonement of Christ is MADE for and applied to HIS PEOPLE, all of them, without one exception.

Christians can fall from their calling or PLACE, but not from their salvation. In like manner, Achan and as you say, so many others in Israel, fell into sin and reaped the rewards of sin, but that in no way indicates that the temple atonement did not apply to them any more than a Christian falling into sin means that Christ's atonement does not apply to them.

Think about it - by your reckoning, if you fall into sin, it means that the atonement does not apply to you. But I dont' think that's what you really believe, do you?

 

[J.D.]

Loosing their salvation implies they were saved to begin with, which I don't believe was the case (though only God knows for sure).

The nation of Isreal was God's chosen people in general, but in specifics there were those who believed and those who totally missed the point. Eli's sons were in the second catagory just as Achon before the had been.

How do you know that Achon (sp?) was not a believer? Do believers sin? Are they punished? Does the Bible say that Achan went to Hell?

 

[J.D.]

Logging off, will try to reply tomorrow.

 

[menageriekeeper]

How do you know that Achon (sp?) was not a believer?

How do you know he was? The Bible doesn't give that specific. What the Bible does tell us is what would happen to such a one that breaks the Covenant God made with Isreal. In this case:

Jos 7:15 And it shall be, that he that is taken with the accursed thing shall be burnt with fire, he and all that he hath: because he hath transgressed the covenant of the LORD, and because he hath wrought folly in Israel.

A specific judgement for a specific man who didn't really believe God meant what he said. The general judgement had already befallen Isreal as a whole.

(spelling note: I'm dyslexic and often confuse "a" with "o". Thanks for the correction)

It seems I've missed one of your posts, this post is in response your post number 71. I'll respond to your post number 70 in my next post and then you'll have a lot of reading to do in the morning!

Have a good evening!

 

[menageriekeeper]

Jd's words are in black, Menageriekeeper's words are in red

The Old Testament sacrifices were shadows of the real. They signified, or were "pictures", if you will, of the atonement to come. In the Mosaic Covenant, atonement was made for the people of Israel. No exception is made. Every Israelite was atoned for, period. The atonement appeased God's wrath against HIS PEOPLE.

I agree that OT sacrifices were shadows of the coming sacrifice of Christ. I also agree that atonement was made for all the people of Isreal. I do NOT agree that this atonement was applied to individuals who did not believe in faith even though they were outwardly obedient.

I also have to take issue with the idea that God's wrath against the Jewish nation was appeased, considering that sacrifices were still being made at the temple in Christ's time, but God had already judged them and had taken away most of what He'd given them because of their disobedience. The sacrifices were made but not applied because they weren't made in obedience to the Spirit of the Word of God.

In the New Testament, God's people are not identified with Moses, but with Christ, and are members of the New Covenant by circumcision of heart by the Spirit, not circumcision of flesh by Moses' commandment. Therefore, the atonement of Christ is MADE for and applied to HIS PEOPLE, all of them, without one exception.

I believe this, but I also believe that attonement is made for ALL people but only applied to those who believe.

Christians can fall from their calling or PLACE, but not from their salvation. In like manner, Achan and as you say, so many others in Israel, fell into sin and reaped the rewards of sin, but that in no way indicates that the temple atonement did not apply to them any more than a Christian falling into sin means that Christ's atonement does not apply to them.

Even the OT saints were saved by faith:

Rom 9:31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
Rom 9:32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

Think about it - by your reckoning, if you fall into sin, it means that the atonement does not apply to you. But I dont' think that's what you really believe, do you?

Falling into sin? It's hard to fall down if you are already in the pit. The attonement is applied to pull me out of sin. God tossed the rope of attonement in my direction, but I have to grab hold for it to do me any good! PTL, I felt the drawing of Christ and with the influence of the Holy Spirit, I grabbed hold long ago!

 

[Iconoclast]

M fav scripture at the moment that illustrates God waiting on His people to make the choice to belief is,

Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:


What a wonderfully illustrative scripture God has given us to display the simplicity of His plan

This OT verse was given to a nation that was already typically redeemed.The OT was a breakable covenant.The blessings would come with obediance.the curses would come upon all covenant breakers.
We learn in Rom 9:6-8 that not all Israel was of Israel.
The curses spoken of in Deut 28-33 came upon Israel in MT20-24 by 70 ad.

 

[glfredrick]

Nonsense quote of the day.Courtesy of MB.

I agree... There are so many wrong statements made by MB above that any response point-by-point would only give credence to the veracity of what he wrote. I'll let him hang by his own rope.

 

[menageriekeeper]

This OT verse was given to a nation that was already typically redeemed.The OT was a breakable covenant.The blessings would come with obediance.the curses would come upon all covenant breakers.
We learn in Rom 9:6-8 that not all Israel was of Israel.
The curses spoken of in Deut 28-33 came upon Israel in MT20-24 by 70 ad.

I believe OT saint were looking foward to redemption, but redemption wasn't complete until the resurrection of Christ.

If as Romans says, all Israel was not of Israel, then not everyone was affected by the completion of Christ's sacrifice. (I think we agree on this?)

MT=Matthew? Then I agree. The cursings that concerned Israel as a nation came to a point of finality by AD 70, though I won't go so far as to say every single curse was by then fulfilled. Even so, as the OT is the foreshadowing of the NT, how God dealt with nation Israel is a foreshadowing of how He deals with us today, both as individuals and as the Bride of Christ. (we have it much better!)

 

[glfredrick]

I find the silence of the Arminians and no-named theologies persons deafening in this post. They cannot respond to the OP proposition. As has been said countless times by those of that persuasion toward those who hold a Reformed perspective, what is avoided is what cannot be answered... :laugh:

 

[webdog]

I find the silence of the Arminians and no-named theologies persons deafening in this post. They cannot respond to the OP proposition. As has been said countless times by those of that persuasion toward those who hold a Reformed perspective, what is avoided is what cannot be answered... :laugh:

Not liking the answers does not count as silence.

 

[Van]

Here is an effort to answer

Thanks for the puzzle. And sorry if this view has been offered in the posts before mine, I am just responding to the OP.

First lets amend the statements so they are backed with scripture.

A. Christ died for all people because He laid down His life as a ransom for all.

B. Unbelief is a sin and cannot be forgiven if it continues until death. However, if a person comes to their senses and puts their trust in Christ, all the previous rejections and unbelief are forgiven.

C. Those whose faith God credits as righteousness are saved, those who did not hear, were unable to hear, or did not trust wholeheartedly are not saved from God's perfect justice.

Now based on these three biblically supported statements, we can draw the following conclusions about the extent of God's reconciliation.

1. Christ died for all people, and His sacrifice provides the propitiation or means of salvation for all people. There is no other way.

2. Only believers whose faith is credited as righteousness receive the reconciliation provided by Christ's propitiation. If all people were believers all sin would be forgiven, if no one is a believer, no sin is forgiven.

Therefore:
E1 is unbiblical,
E2 comes nearer to being supported but it is not the effects that is limited, it is the people who receive the effects that is limited.
E3 is also quite close to being biblical, but only the sin of those whose faith is credited as righteousness receive the reconciliation provided for all sin.

Puzzle solved by presenting scriptural rather than man-made doctrine.