Atonement

[Rippon]

I couldn't think of a concise title for what I want to put forward. Winman was always talking about the deal that Calvinists cannot actually have any assurance of salvation. Why, in his estimation? He theorized that since we, as Calvinists, believe that Christ's death was designed specifically for the elect only --how could any one of us have any confidence that we are among the select number of the specially chosen ones? Winman wrongly thought that he, believing in a general election, could be more sure of his election since everyone was included in his atonement scheme. I know that's a silly way of looking at things, and not the least bit biblical. Nevertheless, some here still hold to that premise. To counter that en masse mentality I submit the following.

I will quote some snippets from John L. Dagg's Manual of Theology. He wrote it in 1857.

" Some have maintained that, if the atonement of Christ is not general, no sinner can be under obligation to believe in Christ, until he is assured that he is one of the elect. This implies that no sinner is bound to believe what God says, unless he knows that God designs to save him. God declares that there is no salvation, except through Christ; and every sinner is bound to believe this truth...Yet every sinner, who trusts in Christ for salvation, is bound to commit himself, unreservedly, to the sovereign mercy of God. If he requires some previous assurance that he is in the number of the elect, he does not surrender himself to God, as a guilty sinner ought. The gospel brings every sinner prostrate at the feet of the Great Sovereign, hoping for mercy at his will, and in his way: and the gospel is perverted when any terms short of this are offered to the offender. with this universal call to absolute and unconditional surrender to God's sovereignty, the doctrine of particular redemption exactly harmonizes. " (pgs. 330,331)

 

[Skandelon]

If I may, allow me to rephrase this objection. Forgive me if its not representative of what you were attempting to address, but I do think it is relevant.

When men come to believe that they are not really RESPONSE-ABLED then they tend to act irresponsibly. For example, what I see happening in Ferguson frustrates me because the people seem to be "playing the victim." As if the reason for all their troubles is that the "MAN" is out to get them. They believe race baiting charlatans like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who tell them that they are victims of a society who won't allow them to succeed because of their skin color. They act like they aren't RESPONSIBLE.

They are not being told to take responsibility for their own choices, but instead that their choices don't matter because the authorities won't allow them to succeed anyway. So, instead of taking ownership of their own behavior, they excuse their behavior as being justified under the oppressive hand of their authorities. Would you agree with this assessment thus far?

Now, apply that to our theological views. When a system of doctrine implies (even if unintentionally) that God, not man, is ultimately responsible for man's choices to act yet men are punished for those actions, then men very well could take on this type of "what will be will be" behavior.

If you tell some people that God is the one who decided before the foundation of the world if they would fail or succeed, how do you think they might respond practically to that knowledge? What about a young man who is caught in addiction and even after repenting and being baptized finds himself over and over again failing? Might he conclude He isn't one of the beloved elect after all and give up all together, thinking of himself as a victim of the "the MAN" who has sealed his fate?

In short, I'm asking you to consider how your doctrine practically affects people...for good or bad. It may or may not have affected you in this way, but I'm asking how it COULD affect others when taken to its natural end (even if that is not what is intended). How do you answer these things? How do you help people not come to those conclusions and play the victim?

Face it, if people come to believe they really have no response-ability, then they will act like it.

 

[convicted1]

Now, www.thefreedictionary.com defines atonement thusly:


atonement

1. satisfaction, reparation, or expiation given for an injury or wrong

2. (Theology) Christian theol (often capital)
a. the reconciliation of man with God through the life, sufferings, and sacrificial death of Christ

b. the sufferings and death of Christ

3. (Theology) Christian Science the state in which the attributes of God are exemplified in man

4. reconciliation or agreemen

[C16: from Middle English phrase at onement in harmony]


Now, if the atonement was universal, then everyone w/o exception has been reconciled, "at onement in harmony" with God. The atonement is a covering of our sins, and by this covering, we have been reconciled back to God because our sins have been blotted out, and He now sees us through Christ.


People want to go back to the sheep or goat used in Exodus 12, and the serpent on a pole in Numbers 21 and use them in a universal manner. But these were not express images of the Saviour to come, but only types and shadows. Men such as Abram/Abraham, Isaac, Jacob/Israel, Moses, Aaron, Samuel, David, Solomon, &c, were all types of our heavenly Father, but they weren't express images of Him, because they sinned. The same with the sheep/goat and serpent on a pole. They were pictures of that which was to come later, and not the genuine, because they weren't good enough to blot out sins. They, as an atonement, only pushed their sins ahead, and there was another atonement made the next year. Then they were pushed ahead another year, and then another atonement had to be made. Then there was another atonement made, and their sins were pushed ahead another year....



Christ made the atonement once and for all time. This atonement is definite and has a definite target audience, His sheep.


Funny you mentioned what you did in your post, Brother Skan. People are always playing the victim. They have it in their mind that it's someone else's fault for what happened to them.

 

[convicted1]

If I may, allow me to rephrase this objection. Forgive me if its not representative of what you were attempting to address, but I do think it is relevant.

OK.....

When men come to believe that they are not really RESPONSE-ABLED then they tend to act irresponsibly. For example, what I see happening in Ferguson frustrates me because the people seem to be "playing the victim." As if the reason for all their troubles is that the "MAN" is out to get them. They believe race baiting charlatans like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who tell them that they are victims of a society who won't allow them to succeed because of their skin color. They act like they aren't RESPONSIBLE.

How did you arrive at this conclusion, Brother? Look at the change in Adam after he ate and sinned in the Garden. He, and she, daily communed w/God. But after their rebellion, when God came, they ran and hid in the bushes. They didn't want Him to see their nakedness. It was from that point forth, that they, and all their posterity, became responsible for their willful rebellion.

They are not being told to take responsibility for their own choices, but instead that their choices don't matter because the authorities won't allow them to succeed anyway. So, instead of taking ownership of their own behavior, they excuse their behavior as being justified under the oppressive hand of their authorities. Would you agree with this assessment thus far?

But we preach, and/or witness to people quite a bit. We tell them that they have to be reconciled back to God or suffer the consequences. We are telling sinners their responsibilty to obey the gospel. We tell them their choices do matter. Believe or suffer in torment eternally. We preach/witness to people indiscriminately, not knowing who the sheep and goats are. We know that if there's some of His sheep around, they will hear and come and be reconciled back to God in His time.

Now, apply that to our theological views. When a system of doctrine implies (even if unintentionally) that God, not man, is ultimately responsible for man's choices to act yet men are punished for those actions, then men very well could take on this type of "what will be will be" behavior.

Neither side believes God is responsible for mankind's sins. That a rather ridiculous strawman argument there, Brother. When God placed Adam and Eve in the Garden, He told them what they could and could not do. Yet, He placed no barriers around the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Neither did He twist their arms, and push them in their backs to eat and sin. Man, not God, is responsible for that.

Adam and Eve, and all mankind, from there on are always pointing the finger at others....

Adam, "that woman you gave me...."

Eve, "that serpent beguiled me......"

It's called accountabilty, and no one wants to take it and claim it for their own, but push it off on others....

If you tell some people that God is the one who decided before the foundation of the world if they would fail or succeed, how do you think they might respond practically to that knowledge? What about a young man who is caught in addiction and even after repenting and being baptized finds himself over and over again failing? Might he conclude He isn't one of the beloved elect after all and give up all together, thinking of himself as a victim of the "the MAN" who has sealed his fate?

All we can do a christians is present Christ to them. All we can do is witness to them and tell them what the gospel does. If God's not at work w/i their heart working the will and do, our words go in one ear and out the other.

In short, I'm asking you to consider how your doctrine practically affects people...for good or bad. It may or may not have affected you in this way, but I'm asking how it COULD affect others when taken to its natural end (even if that is not what is intended). How do you answer these things? How do you help people not come to those conclusions and play the victim?

The gospel always has an effect on people. They will either flee from it or come running to Him seeking His mercy. We tell them the goodness and severity of Lord and then leave them in God's hands. Again, we don't know the sheep from the goats, so we preach to any and all w/i range of our voices.

Face it, if people come to believe they really have no response-ability, then they will act like it.

Yeah, like Ellen Degeneres, Oprah Winfrey, Tom Cruise, those self-righteous Pharisees, for example. If you asked one of them if they were going to hell, if I was a bettin' man, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts they flat-out say "NO"!! These people, especially Ellen Degeneres and Oprah Winfrey help many, many people. They do what the world calls "good deeds", but their hearts are not right with God. The atonement hasn't been applied to them....yet. Later on, if it's God's will, they will receive it...if not, then they won't...

 

[Van]

Why use the term "atonement?" Because Calvinism has redefined the word to mean what Calvinism claims.

Lets consider sequence:

Calvinism has it in this order:

1) God chose foreseen individuals before creation.
2) Christ died for the sins, past, present and future, of those previously chosen individuals.
3) Thus, even if one of those individuals has not yet been born, he or she was fully reconciled when Christ died.

In summary, His death reconciled all the elect, and thus was an atonement.

Now lets look at it from another perspective:

1) God chose Christ to be His Redeemer, before the foundation of the world, and therefore corporately chose those the Redeemer would redeem before the foundation of the world.

2) Christ died for all mankind, becoming the propitiation or means of salvation not only for us, but also for the whole world.

3) When and if God credits a person's faith in Christ as righteousness, He transfers the individual spiritually into Christ, where the individuals sin burden is removed. Thus individual election for salvation occurs during our lifetime, after we place our faith in Christ, and when we are chosen and transferred, we are justified, reconciled and made holy and blameless by the blood of Christ.

So these two totally different sequences drive the divide over the meaning of "atonement." The second sequence says only when a person is transferred spiritually into Christ are they reconciled and made "at one with Christ."

 

[salzer mtn]

If I may, allow me to rephrase this objection. Forgive me if its not representative of what you were attempting to address, but I do think it is relevant.

When men come to believe that they are not really RESPONSE-ABLED then they tend to act irresponsibly. For example, what I see happening in Ferguson frustrates me because the people seem to be "playing the victim." As if the reason for all their troubles is that the "MAN" is out to get them. They believe race baiting charlatans like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who tell them that they are victims of a society who won't allow them to succeed because of their skin color. They act like they aren't RESPONSIBLE.

They are not being told to take responsibility for their own choices, but instead that their choices don't matter because the authorities won't allow them to succeed anyway. So, instead of taking ownership of their own behavior, they excuse their behavior as being justified under the oppressive hand of their authorities. Would you agree with this assessment thus far?

Now, apply that to our theological views. When a system of doctrine implies (even if unintentionally) that God, not man, is ultimately responsible for man's choices to act yet men are punished for those actions, then men very well could take on this type of "what will be will be" behavior.

If you tell some people that God is the one who decided before the foundation of the world if they would fail or succeed, how do you think they might respond practically to that knowledge? What about a young man who is caught in addiction and even after repenting and being baptized finds himself over and over again failing? Might he conclude He isn't one of the beloved elect after all and give up all together, thinking of himself as a victim of the "the MAN" who has sealed his fate?

In short, I'm asking you to consider how your doctrine practically affects people...for good or bad. It may or may not have affected you in this way, but I'm asking how it COULD affect others when taken to its natural end (even if that is not what is intended). How do you answer these things? How do you help people not come to those conclusions and play the victim?

Face it, if people come to believe they really have no response-ability, then they will act like it.

With me, as with others when we learned we could not change ourselves for lack of power I cast myself on Christ who could change me. Some people know matter what system is preached to them will twist it and say I'm not responsible and continue in their sin's. For example, eternal security of the saved is a truth that causes me to love Christ more, but some would say, if I believed that I would sin all I want to for I cannot be lost.

 

[Yeshua1]

Why use the term "atonement?" Because Calvinism has redefined the word to mean what Calvinism claims.

Lets consider sequence:

Calvinism has it in this order:

1) God chose foreseen individuals before creation.
2) Christ died for the sins, past, present and future, of those previously chosen individuals.
3) Thus, even if one of those individuals has not yet been born, he or she was fully reconciled when Christ died.

In summary, His death reconciled all the elect, and thus was an atonement.

Now lets look at it from another perspective:

1) God chose Christ to be His Redeemer, before the foundation of the world, and therefore corporately chose those the Redeemer would redeem before the foundation of the world.

2) Christ died for all mankind, becoming the propitiation or means of salvation not only for us, but also for the whole world.

3) When and if God credits a person's faith in Christ as righteousness, He transfers the individual spiritually into Christ, where the individuals sin burden is removed. Thus individual election for salvation occurs during our lifetime, after we place our faith in Christ, and when we are chosen and transferred, we are justified, reconciled and made holy and blameless by the blood of Christ.

So these two totally different sequences drive the divide over the meaning of "atonement." The second sequence says only when a person is transferred spiritually into Christ are they reconciled and made "at one with Christ."

The death of Christ provideds the means by which legally God could forgive those who breal His Law, and my reconcialation to God came the hour I first believed on Him to save me from my sins, I was not eternally saved/reconcialed!

 

[Yeshua1]

Those who stay lost in their sins have made that "free" decision to do such, yo reject Jesus and get saved, as they will not be doing this 'soul searching' that you seem to imply, as sinners will want to keep on doing own things, as bad fruit comes from bad trees still!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

With me, as with others when we learned we could not change ourselves for lack of power I cast myself on Christ who could change me. Some people know matter what system is preached to them will twist it and say I'm not responsible and continue in their sin's. For example, eternal security of the saved is a truth that causes me to love Christ more, but some would say, if I believed that I would sin all I want to for I cannot be lost.

My own experience is not as was yours at all. I was definitely NOT seeking God, in fact, years earlier I had set aside my war with God because subconsciously I really stopped believing in him. What kinda God killed baby's and sent them to hell, tortured my sister with cerebral palsy and then killed her....etc. in my heart I fired Him & He was subjugated to my unbelief thinking process. Yet, when He decided the time was right, He came to me, revealed Himself, then it was child's play for Him to arrange circumstances to where I was confronted with His revelation. The only choice after that is to willfully bind my spirit with His, which I gladly did, as did you. But it was not a "choice" I made. It was the ONLY possible avenue to take, which is the case in all true salvation episodes.

 

[salzer mtn]

My own experience is not as was yours at all. I was definitely NOT seeking God, in fact, years earlier I had set aside my war with God because subconsciously I really stopped believing in him. What kinda God killed baby's and sent them to hell, tortured my sister with cerebral palsy and then killed her....etc. in my heart I fired Him & He was subjugated to my unbelief thinking process. Yet, when He decided the time was right, He came to me, revealed Himself, then it was child's play for Him to arrange circumstances to where I was confronted with His revelation. The only choice after that is to willfully bind my spirit with His, which I gladly did, as did you. But it was not a "choice" I made. It was the ONLY possible avenue to take, which is the case in all true salvation episodes.

Before Christ began to seek me I was not seeking him at all either. I was quite content in my sin's. But regeneration was in a instance and then my other post covers my conversion. Some would say I was already changed, some would say I was going through conviction, It all Depends on what version of Baptist you believe.

 

[comitatus1]

Why use the term "atonement?" Because Calvinism has redefined the word to mean what Calvinism claims.

Lets consider sequence:

Calvinism has it in this order:

1) God chose foreseen individuals before creation.

No, God chose. Saying that God 'foresaw' means there was a time when God did not KNOW who would 'choose' Christ...and we all know God knows everything, right?

2) Christ died for the sins, past, present and future, of those previously chosen individuals.

..Yes, He did.

3) Thus, even if one of those individuals has not yet been born, he or she was fully reconciled when Christ died.

No. They are reconciled at the moment, which is ordained by God, that they believe. 1-1/2 out of 3 isn't bad...well, it is, actually.

In summary, His death reconciled all the elect, and thus was an atonement.

Yes, with the corrections to your post as listed above.

Now lets look at it from another perspective:

1) God chose Christ to be His Redeemer, before the foundation of the world, and therefore corporately chose those the Redeemer would redeem before the foundation of the world.

By the Father's will and not of man's...yes

2) Christ died for all mankind, becoming the propitiation or means of salvation not only for us, but also for the whole world.

Which is why all are saved...well, no, they are not. Guess that makes your premise false.

3) When and if God credits a person's faith in Christ as righteousness, He transfers the individual spiritually into Christ, where the individuals sin burden is removed. Thus individual election for salvation occurs during our lifetime, after we place our faith in Christ, and when we are chosen and transferred, we are justified, reconciled and made holy and blameless by the blood of Christ.

There is no 'if' with God. At the time of His choosing, His elect believe in Christ.

So these two totally different sequences drive the divide over the meaning of "atonement." The second sequence says only when a person is transferred spiritually into Christ are they reconciled and made "at one with Christ."

They are only different because of your faulty logic. Scripture says differently.

Chris

 

[JonC]

"I believe the doctrine of election, because I am quite certain that, if God had not chosen me, I would never have chosen Him; and I am sure He chose me before I was born, or else He never would have chosen me afterwards; and He must have elected me for reasons unknown to me, for I could never find any reason in myself why He should have looked upon me with special love." - Spurgeon

That sums it up for me.

 

[Iconoclast]

No, God chose. Saying that God 'foresaw' means there was a time when God did not KNOW who would 'choose' Christ...and we all know God knows everything, right?..Yes, He did.

No. They are reconciled at the moment, which is ordained by God, that they believe. 1-1/2 out of 3 isn't bad...well, it is, actually.Yes, with the corrections to your post as listed above.By the Father's will and not of man's...yesWhich is why all are saved...well, no, they are not. Guess that makes your premise false.There is no 'if' with God. At the time of His choosing, His elect believe in Christ.

They are only different because of your faulty logic. Scripture says differently.

Chris

:thumbs::applause::thumbs: Yes...you are correct:thumbs:

 

[Iconoclast]

"I believe the doctrine of election, because I am quite certain that, if God had not chosen me, I would never have chosen Him; and I am sure He chose me before I was born, or else He never would have chosen me afterwards; and He must have elected me for reasons unknown to me, for I could never find any reason in myself why He should have looked upon me with special love." - Spurgeon

That sums it up for me.

Exactly:thumbs::wavey::thumbs:

 

[steaver]

If I may, allow me to rephrase this objection. Forgive me if its not representative of what you were attempting to address, but I do think it is relevant.

When men come to believe that they are not really RESPONSE-ABLED then they tend to act irresponsibly. For example, what I see happening in Ferguson frustrates me because the people seem to be "playing the victim." As if the reason for all their troubles is that the "MAN" is out to get them. They believe race baiting charlatans like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who tell them that they are victims of a society who won't allow them to succeed because of their skin color. They act like they aren't RESPONSIBLE.

They are not being told to take responsibility for their own choices, but instead that their choices don't matter because the authorities won't allow them to succeed anyway. So, instead of taking ownership of their own behavior, they excuse their behavior as being justified under the oppressive hand of their authorities. Would you agree with this assessment thus far?

Now, apply that to our theological views. When a system of doctrine implies (even if unintentionally) that God, not man, is ultimately responsible for man's choices to act yet men are punished for those actions, then men very well could take on this type of "what will be will be" behavior.

If you tell some people that God is the one who decided before the foundation of the world if they would fail or succeed, how do you think they might respond practically to that knowledge? What about a young man who is caught in addiction and even after repenting and being baptized finds himself over and over again failing? Might he conclude He isn't one of the beloved elect after all and give up all together, thinking of himself as a victim of the "the MAN" who has sealed his fate?

In short, I'm asking you to consider how your doctrine practically affects people...for good or bad. It may or may not have affected you in this way, but I'm asking how it COULD affect others when taken to its natural end (even if that is not what is intended). How do you answer these things? How do you help people not come to those conclusions and play the victim?

Face it, if people come to believe they really have no response-ability, then they will act like it.

Excellent points! :thumbs:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Im sorry, but I see this as sheer semi-Pelagianism, teaching that salvation is a cooperative effort between the sinner and God—with final salvation depending on the sinner's performance.

Plus it is complete bunk that Monergist believe that every iota of their very being is predetermined when the bible clearly states that it is their salvations that are predetermined. Lastly they do indeed make a choice, but not until they interact with the Holy Spirit.

I see Scans whole post as disingenuous & an attempt to justify bad theological conclusions.....which are still bad no matter how you dress them up. The "Lipstick on a swine" analogy is appropriate here.

 

[Rippon]

"I believe the doctrine of election, because I am quite certain that, if God had not chosen me, I would never have chosen Him; and I am sure He chose me before I was born, or else He never would have chosen me afterwards; and He must have elected me for reasons unknown to me, for I could never find any reason in myself why He should have looked upon me with special love." - Spurgeon

That sums it up for me.

Salvation is of the Lord (Jon. 2:9)

'Tis not that I did choose thee,
For, Lord, that could not be;
This heart would still refuse thee,
Hadst thou not chosen me.
Thou from the sin that stained me
Hast cleansed and set me free;
Of old thou hast ordained me,
That I should live to thee.

'Twas sov'reign mercy called me
and taught my op'ning mind;
The world had else enthralled me,
To heav'nly glories blind.
My heart owns none before thee,
For thy rich grace I thirst;
This knowing, if I love thee,
Thou must have loved me first.

Josiah Conder, 1836

 

[Yeshua1]

Excellent points! :thumbs:

Except not biblical ones though!

Do you know any calvinist. reformed or Baptist, who actually states that sinners have no accountibility towards God?

 

[steaver]

Except not biblical ones though!

Do you know any calvinist. reformed or Baptist, who actually states that sinners have no accountibility towards God?

Do you know any non-cals who do not believe salvation is ALL of God? Yet over and over we here sinners must help God save them if you do not hold to TULIP.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Do you know any non-cals who do not believe salvation is ALL of God? Yet over and over we here sinners must help God save them if you do not hold to TULIP.

So is it your pov that God cant save people all by Himself? Sounds to me that your claiming God is inept!