Atonement

[steaver]

Convicted, here is a portion of scripture which negates the view that we are no longer made in the image of God but only in the image of Adam......

Acts17:28-29, "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

This is Paul speaking to pagans concerning the human race, not just the born of God.

 

[salzer mtn]

When people say we are born in the image of God, how can this be ? For me to be in the image of God I would have the very nature of God. God cannot sin, Adam chose to sin, so how is this being in the image of God. In Gen. 5 in verse 3 it says, Adam begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth. Adam fell and by that fall many were made sinners Rom 5:19, the nature of Adam was imputed to all his descendants. Jon C. ask what do you mean by his imputed righteous ? the answer is in Rom 5:19 So by the obedience of one ( Christ) shall many be made righteous. Here again in this verse you see a imputation of Adam and also of Christ. There are two federal heads, Adam and Christ. What we get from Adam imputed to us is sin. What we get in Christ is HIS imputed righteousness.

 

[Yeshua1]

Are we made in the image of Adam or God?

What do you mean that we are “imputed” righteousness?

If you will clarify those two issues I would appreciate it. Other than that, I think we are in agreement (although I am not sure what it has to do with this thread).

Perhaps a wrong way to say it, but the basic teaching would be that God takes the rightousness of Jesus, His ability to fully been able to keep the Law of God, and clothes sinners with it, so that when he sees us, its the same as him seeing us fully being Law keepers...

And we are spiritually dead in Adam, due to being reckoned by God to have died in Adam wlhen he sinned and fell, but also humans are still in the image of God in that we are all his creation, and while sinners from the effects of the fall, still have the likness of him in us as in intelligence/emotions/soul/can think abstractly and of myself, something animals do not do!

 

[steaver]

When people say we are born in the image of God, how can this be ? For me to be in the image of God I would have the very nature of God.

Have to give this some more thought................

 

[steaver]

When people say we are born in the image of God, how can this be ? For me to be in the image of God I would have the very nature of God. God cannot sin, Adam chose to sin, so how is this being in the image of God. .

Good questions, however, God said Adam was created in His own image yet Adam was capable of sinning. So being in God's image cannot mean sinless perfection nor can it mean we are equal in all things with God.

 

[JonC]

Jon C. ask what do you mean by his imputed righteous ? the answer is in Rom 5:19 So by the obedience of one ( Christ) shall many be made righteous. Here again in this verse you see a imputation of Adam and also of Christ. There are two federal heads, Adam and Christ. What we get from Adam imputed to us is sin. What we get in Christ is HIS imputed righteousness.

While I view man created in the image of God to apply differently (even if I agreed, it seems Scripture still states Man being made on God's image, even using this as foundational in the Commandments) I do agree with you completely here. Our "imputed" righteousness is the righteousness of Christ. You stated this very well.

 

[Yeshua1]

While I view man created in the image of God to apply differently (even if I agreed, it seems Scripture still states Man being made on God's image, even using this as foundational in the Commandments) I do agree with you completely here. Our "imputed" righteousness is the righteousness of Christ. You stated this very well.

That is due to both Adams were standing for all of us when they took their 'testing" from God, and thankfully, the Second one aced it, while the first one tanked it!

 

[JonC]

Perhaps a wrong way to say it, but the basic teaching would be that God takes the rightousness of Jesus, His ability to fully been able to keep the Law of God, and clothes sinners with it, so that when he sees us, its the same as him seeing us fully being Law keepers...

And we are spiritually dead in Adam, due to being reckoned by God to have died in Adam wlhen he sinned and fell, but also humans are still in the image of God in that we are all his creation, and while sinners from the effects of the fall, still have the likness of him in us as in intelligence/emotions/soul/can think abstractly and of myself, something animals do not do!

I took your statement to mean that men are no longer “created in the image of God,” which would contradict Scripture. I think I now understand your posts better. Thank you for taking the time to clarify for me.

We disagree as I do not believe God's righteousness to be centered in Torah, but to go much deeper than that (I believe it goes beyond moral righteousness and is more ontological to our nature).

Perhaps more to the topic of the OP: I'll ask again:

We both seem to agree on the depravity of men and the unconditional election of God. Where we seem to disagree is that I find two purposes for the Atonement in regards to the world (a basis for salvation for all and a certainly of salvation for the elect) while you find only one. We agree in terms of the elect. We disagree in terms of the non-elect. I believe that the world is condemned for rejecting Christ. You believe that they are condemned because of Adam's sin and of course their own sins (BTW, I don't deny this...only that I think they are ultimately condemned for rejecting the Light).

How do you interpret John 3:19-20?

 

[salzer mtn]

When men speak of having a image of someone they are referring to a look a like image but since God has no body being in his image cannot mean that. In 1 Cor 11:7 the scripture says, For man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and the glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. Man cannot have the perfect nature image of God or he would be without sin. So what is left ? None of the beast of the field which God made were upright in stature, only man. None of the beast of the field has an intellect that they can reason or know good from evil, only man. These are the things that brings us closer to the image and likeness of God more than the Animal kingdom.

 

[Yeshua1]

I took your statement to mean that men are no longer “created in the image of God,” which would contradict Scripture. I think I now understand your posts better. Thank you for taking the time to clarify for me.

We disagree as I do not believe God's righteousness to be centered in Torah, but to go much deeper than that (I believe it goes beyond moral righteousness and is more ontological to our nature).

Perhaps more to the topic of the OP: I'll ask again:

We both seem to agree on the depravity of men and the unconditional election of God. Where we seem to disagree is that I find two purposes for the Atonement in regards to the world (a basis for salvation for all and a certainly of salvation for the elect) while you find only one. We agree in terms of the elect. We disagree in terms of the non-elect. I believe that the world is condemned for rejecting Christ. You believe that they are condemned because of Adam's sin and of course their own sins (BTW, I don't deny this...only that I think they are ultimately condemned for rejecting the Light).

How do you interpret John 3:19-20?

The basis for sinners to be saved by Grace of God is the Cross of Christ, and while his death was sufficent to be able to have saved all sinners, it was only intended to save those whom God effectually applied that Grace towards, and made them able to receive jesus by faith..

I believe that God predestined those who are to get saved, but that he bypassed over the remainder, as he allows them to willingly stay in their lost states.. Do not hold to Double predestination;;;

john to me is stating that sinners by their own natures will not come into the light, a that would expose their sinful condition, so willfully have chosen to keep away and keep in darkness... Shows us that any of us had to have God fraw us near to jesus, that we would not be doing that of and by ourselves!

 

[JonC]

The basis for sinners to be saved by Grace of God is the Cross of Christ, and while his death was sufficent to be able to have saved all sinners, it was only intended to save those whom God effectually applied that Grace towards, and made them able to receive jesus by faith..

I believe that God predestined those who are to get saved, but that he bypassed over the remainder, as he allows them to willingly stay in their lost states.. Do not hold to Double predestination;;;

I agree for the most part. Where I disagree is your insistence that the ONLY aspect of Christ's death that was intended by God was the salvation of the elect.

john to me is stating that sinners by their own natures will not come into the light, a that would expose their sinful condition, so willfully have chosen to keep away and keep in darkness... Shows us that any of us had to have God fraw us near to jesus, that we would not be doing that of and by ourselves!

An implication of Christ dying for the sins of the world is that sinners will not by their own natures come into the Light. To draw near is the drawing of God and not natural man. What I understand from your position, however, is that the Light is not even there for the sinners to willingly reject.

The primary difference between you and I is that you seem to view election as being effected AT the death of Christ while I view it as being effected in the drawing of God to work faith in the life of the sinner. We both agree that at the Cross our "sin debt" was paid. But you seem to hold at at the Cross sinners became saved (that atonement is not potential - there is no "application" in regards to God's drawing and the elect believing). So I think we agree completely on most of our theology, but when it comes to Christ's death we disagree in its purpose (I accept your purpose, but view it as an incomplete understanding).

 

[salzer mtn]

I believe in the Covenant between the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit of the elect before man was ever born Psa 89. The Father gave them to the Son, St. John 6:39, 10:29, 17:2,6,9,11,12,24. to die for them, Isa 53:10 (He shall see His seed) verse 11 (He shall see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many: for he shall bear their iniquities. Verse 12 ( and he bare the sins of many.) Heb 2:13 And again, I will put my trust in Him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.) and the Holy Spirit in due time would regenerate them unto life, St. John 3:8, Rom 8:30

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree for the most part. Where I disagree is your insistence that the ONLY aspect of Christ's death that was intended by God was the salvation of the elect.



An implication of Christ dying for the sins of the world is that sinners will not by their own natures come into the Light. To draw near is the drawing of God and not natural man. What I understand from your position, however, is that the Light is not even there for the sinners to willingly reject.

The primary difference between you and I is that you seem to view election as being effected AT the death of Christ while I view it as being effected in the drawing of God to work faith in the life of the sinner. We both agree that at the Cross our "sin debt" was paid. But you seem to hold at at the Cross sinners became saved (that atonement is not potential - there is no "application" in regards to God's drawing and the elect believing). So I think we agree completely on most of our theology, but when it comes to Christ's death we disagree in its purpose (I accept your purpose, but view it as an incomplete understanding).

The light of Jesus has come into this world, as the Gospel message is preached/taught/lived out before all people, but those who are the elect will react to it and come to jesus to confirrimed that their election from god was true, while the rest shall choose to reamin in the own sins

And while the death of christ was a definite atonement for the sins of a definite people, still had to have that grace applied towards sinners, as that grace was mediated to us thru/by faith in him...

I do not see us as actually being saved until we received him by faith, but that salvation was a certain event to come@

 

[Yeshua1]

I believe in the Covenant between the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit of the elect before man was ever born Psa 89. The Father gave them to the Son, St. John 6:39, 10:29, 17:2,6,9,11,12,24. to die for them, Isa 53:10 (He shall see His seed) verse 11 (He shall see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many: for he shall bear their iniquities. Verse 12 ( and he bare the sins of many.) Heb 2:13 And again, I will put my trust in Him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.) and the Holy Spirit in due time would regenerate them unto life, St. John 3:8, Rom 8:30

Wouldn;t that covenant actually though be the new covenant itself?

 

[steaver]

I believe in the Covenant between the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit of the elect before man was ever born Psa 89. The Father gave them to the Son, St. John 6:39, 10:29, 17:2,6,9,11,12,24. to die for them, Isa 53:10 (He shall see His seed) verse 11 (He shall see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many: for he shall bear their iniquities. Verse 12 ( and he bare the sins of many.) Heb 2:13 And again, I will put my trust in Him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.) and the Holy Spirit in due time would regenerate them unto life, St. John 3:8, Rom 8:30

I believe both Cal and non-Cal would say Amen to this post. We both actually agree with ALL of scripture, where the disagreements arise is when certain passages are expounded with human pov.

Election is before the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God. Cals define foreknowledge one way, non-Cals another way. It's not that God has looked down through time and has learned what people will choose to do with His revelations, God already knows what people will choose to do before they have even been born. It's an all knowing, not a learning. Election and freewill are not at odds with each other, God has integrated freewill into His Creation plan. We just have to accept it as written and should not be letting this cause division among the brethren.

 

[steaver]

I do not see us as actually being saved until we received him by faith, but that salvation was a certain event to come.

How about babies and the mentally retarded? What of those before the cross, how were they being saved, not knowing Jesus Christ?

 

[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."

The question we need to ask ourselves is this, according to Romans 8:33 no charge can be brought against God's elect. So when we were by nature children of wrath, how could we be individually elect?

 

[Yeshua1]

How about babies and the mentally retarded? What of those before the cross, how were they being saved, not knowing Jesus Christ?

My opinion here is that God ordained that the shed blood of Jesus would cover the sins of such as those, as while not innocent, still born sinners, the Cross had in it the means to cover and atone for them..

 

[JonC]

The light of Jesus has come into this world, as the Gospel message is preached/taught/lived out before all people, but those who are the elect will react to it and come to jesus to confirrimed that their election from god was true, while the rest shall choose to reamin in the own sins

And while the death of christ was a definite atonement for the sins of a definite people, still had to have that grace applied towards sinners, as that grace was mediated to us thru/by faith in him...

I do not see us as actually being saved until we received him by faith, but that salvation was a certain event to come@

Then we believe close to the same thing. The death of Christ carried a potential for salvation that is actualized when God draws the sinner to faith. The difference between you and I may only be that I believe this "potential" was for the sins of mankind and not just the elect, although it is only realized to those who God draws according to His sovereign election (the difference between the elect and non-elect being more a matter of God bringing His elect to faith than Christ's death). I believe that the Cross had in it the means to cover and atone for the sins of the world but that only the elect will be brought to saving faith.

 

[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 question we need to ask ourselves is this, according to Romans 8:33 no charge can be brought against God's elect. So when we were by nature children of wrath, how could we be individually elect?

Death of jesus paid for my salvation, but still had to receive that by faith!

And you misunderstand the severity of the fall, as God could not merely foreknow who would come to Jesus to be saved, as he would have to enable thm to do such!

Main disagreement here is that you assume God owes and so provided salvation for all sinners, and sent effecyual grace upon all, and foreknew those who would freely chose jesus, bu tthe bible teaches that those who accept Jesus are the Ones God himself chose to have them do such!