Atonement sparks discussion at NOBTS forum

[Rebel1]

The irony is no one thus far as been able to defend PSA via Scripture, except that they change PSA to mean simply that Christ bore our sins and by His stripes we were healed.

You are right that nowhere in history does PSA crop up until the Reformation. Even Aquinas took pains to make sure his theory of Christ being punished did not become the heresy of God punishing His Son with the punishment for sin and out of anger. Unfortunately Calvin embraced it. And now, at least here, it is fairly widely accepted as tradition (it is assumed), although it remains a minority view world wide.

I believe the reason we see so many theories and interest cropping up (a renewed interest in the Eastern Orthodox view, Christus Victor, and Mennonite theology) within evangelical circles is more and more are seeing the flaw of PSA and seeking a more biblical approach. On one hand it leads to the foolish attempt to find PSA in antiquity. But on another hand it leads to people grasping at unsupportable doctrines (the Mennonite theory of non-violent atonement, for example).

I also believe the traditional approach the best. And, fortunately, it is not something that requires much reasoning out. All you have to do is read the Bible.

Quite so. All well-said.

 

[JonC]

Are you a Universalist? If not, you too believe in limited atonement.

That argument only works within the context Agedman has rejected. This is what I meant before when some said differences in theories minute. It is substantial. Only within Calvinism does this equate to universal salvation. You are assigning to others your own presuppositions.

 

[agedman]

Are you a Universalist? If not, you too believe in limited atonement.



Yes.



Were you ungodly? All men were/are which is why Christ needed to die.



Are you a Universalist?



"Who" limits salvation is the question. The answer to that question is: God does.



I assume you mean to ask why God saves some, but not others. If we begin with the idea that ALL men are guilty before God and deserving of damnation, then we see that God is under no obligation to save anyone. If He condemned all of mankind, He would be just. Likewise, if He saves one, if He chooses to show mercy to one, He is still just. It is His prerogative to show mercy if He so chooses.

We don't know much biblically regarding God's reasons for choosing, but we do know this: It's according to His good pleasure.

Ephesians 1:3–14

Spiritual Blessings in Christ

[3] Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, [4] even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love [5] he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, [6] to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. [7] In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, [8] which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight [9] making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ [10] as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

[11] In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, [12] so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. [13] In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, [14] who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. (ESV)

Absolutely no Scripture limiting the blood to only the elect.

Perhaps thatbrian has been too long at the brew that he sees what is not and proves what is necessarily in doubt.

 

[Yeshua1]

Absolutely no Scripture limiting the blood to only the elect.

So lost sinner si hell are there with their sins propitiated before god on their account?

 

[Yeshua1]

That argument only works within the context Agedman has rejected. This is what I meant before when some said differences in theories minute. It is substantial. Only within Calvinism does this equate to universal salvation. You are assigning to others your own presuppositions.

If God actually provided for all sinners real propitiation, then all lost sinners are in hell when they are reconciled back to God?

 

[agedman]

So lost sinner si hell are there with their sins propitiated before god on their account?

The unsaved are in that place because they are unsaved.

They are unsaved not because of a lack of blood, but because they do not believe.

“Those that do not believe are already condemned”

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 5 PM Pacific.

 

[Yeshua1]

The unsaved are in that place because they are unsaved.

They are unsaved not because of a lack of blood, but because they do not believe.

“Those that do not believe are already condemned”

So their sins were not propitiated for then?
They were never reconciled back to God?

 

[agedman]

So their sins were not propitiated for then?
They were never reconciled back to God?

Again you seem to stumble at this single problem involving the repeal of sin and one being saved

They are not the same.

One can have propitiation yet not believe. This is often the truth of those in the OT. Though the atonement was done, the sin burden resolved, not everyone was saved.

One cannot be saved without propitiation, but propitiation does not guarantee salvation.

Salvation is the granted by God in the gift of belief, not blood.

Math example:

propitiated = A
gifted with Belief = B
Salvation = C

A + B = C

C - B = A not C

C - A = B not C

A does not equal C
B does not equal C

Only A + B = C

Therefore, although all people of all time have propitiation of sin, not all people of all time are saved.

 

[JonC]

If God actually provided for all sinners real propitiation, then all lost sinners are in hell when they are reconciled back to God?

This makes no sense. What are you talking about?

 

[agedman]

This makes no sense. What are you talking about?

Because the thinking that the blood is only for salvation, there is a problem considering people in hell are not sent there because of sin, but because of unbelief.

Foundational to all Scriptural views of the atonement is that they must place salvation as both a gift of God and that gift is bestowed as belief.

It is unbelief that is “condemned already” and not the lack of propitiation

 

[agedman]

So their sins were not propitiated for then?
They were never reconciled back to God?

I neglected to make a statement concerning agreement in part of you question

“They were never reconciled back to God” is true.

Though they were indee propitiated, the reconciliation was not determined by propitiation alone.

Paul preached “the message of reconciliation” and those that believed were saved.

 

[JonC]

Because the thinking that the blood is only for salvation, there is a problem considering people in hell are not sent there because of sin, but because of unbelief.

Foundational to all Scriptural views of the atonement is that they must place salvation as both a gift of God and that gift is bestowed as belief.

It is unbelief that is “condemned already” and not the lack of propitiation

Ah. He has a less than Christ-centered approach.

 

[Yeshua1]

Ah. He has a less than Christ-centered approach.

No, rather he was suggesting that the blood of Jesus was the propitiation for all sinners, and if so, then all have been reconciled back to God!

 

[Yeshua1]

Because the thinking that the blood is only for salvation, there is a problem considering people in hell are not sent there because of sin, but because of unbelief.

Foundational to all Scriptural views of the atonement is that they must place salvation as both a gift of God and that gift is bestowed as belief.

It is unbelief that is “condemned already” and not the lack of propitiation

People go to Hell due to being sinners by birth and by choice, born already in a state of condemnation before even rejecting Christ!

 

[JonC]

No, rather he was suggesting that the blood of Jesus was the propitiation for all sinners, and if so, then all have been reconciled back to God!

You are imposing your theory onto his statement. He is not following your theory, so no, Christ is the propitiation for the sins of all men. They need to be reconciled to God in Christ, not works.

 

[thatbrian]

Absolutely no Scripture limiting the blood to only the elect.

Perhaps thatbrian has been too long at the brew that he sees what is not and proves what is necessarily in doubt.

The blood of Christ was shed for all men? You are indeed a Universalist.

 

[thatbrian]

Absolutely no Scripture limiting the blood to only the elect.

And none regarding the Trinity, either.

We form our doctrine from the whole counsel of God. Using "verse-theology" only leads to heresy.

 

[Yeshua1]

You are imposing your theory onto his statement. He is not following your theory, so no, Christ is the propitiation for the sins of all men. They need to be reconciled to God in Christ, not works.

Did His death propitiate the wrath of God towards lost sinners?

 

[TCassidy]

You folks need to understand that the sacrificial death of Christ, the propitiation, and the atonement, though similar, are not identically the same.

Christ died (shed His blood is a metaphor referring to proof of His violent death) for all. 2 Corinthians 5:15 And that he died for all ...

Atonement is the reparation or expiation for sin.

Propitiation is the price of the atonement.

So, Christ died for all.

The Atonement is sufficient for all, efficient only for those who believe, to whom it is applied.

Propitiation is the price, the violent death, with the shed blood being the proof and the price of our redemption.