Featured Christ's Atoning Death on the Cross

Excellent question. First, I assume you agree that Christ’s prayer in John 17 was spoken just before He was taken to be crucified.

You must agree that it was the ‘high priestly’ prayer of Christ acting in the office of High Priest. Yes?

You agree that Christ was praying for the salvation of certain men given Him by the Father. Yes?

I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

You acknowledge Christ made atonement on the cross.

Do you agree that Christ was both the High Priest and sacrificial offering for sins?

I hope so, because Christ was both the sacrificing High Priest as well as the sacrifice Himself.

But our High Priest offered himself to God as a single sacrifice for sins, good for all time. Then he sat down in the place of honor at God's right hand. (New Living Translation)

On the Day of Atonement the Jewish High Priest offered blood sacrifices for his, the sins of his fellow priests, as well as the people of Israel.

And Aaron shall bring the bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and shall make an atonement for himself, and for his house, and shall kill the bullock of the sin offering which is for himself……..Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat:
16 And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness.

Christ’s intercessory prayer on the cross was on behalf of those given Him by the Father.

As High Priest, He offered the Father His blood sacrifice as payment for the sins of those same ones given Him by the Father.

It is on the basis of His innocent shed blood that He asks their sins be forgiven, that atonement be made, just as the Jewish High Priest, a type of Christ, asked the Lord to forgive the sins of Israel on the Day of Atonement.

Christ’s atonement was specific and efficacious to only those given Him by the Father: the Israel of God, spiritual Israel, comprised of both Jews and Gentiles chosen in Christ from the foundation of the world.

These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

Eternal life is Christ’s to give.

He gives this divine gift to as many as the Father has given Him; no more, no less.....per the Father's express instructions.

He does not give eternal life to ‘the world.’

We know this is true because He does not pray for 'the world,' nor does He ask forgiveness for the sins of ‘the world.’

Had He asked forgiveness for the sins of ‘the world’ - meaning every human who ever lived, then one of two things would have happened:

1. The sins of ‘the world’ would be forgiven because the Father always hears and answers the prayers of His Son;

2. Christ’s prayer would be in conflict with the will of the Father. As such, it would be considered sin and a sinful Christ would not have been raised from the dead.

Since we know that not all ‘the world’ has forgiveness of sins and eternal life, and we know that Christ always walks, talks, and prays according to the Father’s will, therefore we know Christ could not possibly have prayed for or made atonement for the sins of the world – i.e., every human ever born.

The ones given Christ are not of ‘the world,’ meaning they are to be delivered out of the kingdom of darkness and brought into the kingdom of light in Christ:

If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

Make sense?

 

Both Calvinism and Islam are determinist, fatalist systems. Both believe and teach absolute predestination. That is factual. I did not say that Islam and Calvinism have anything in common other than that.

 

Then you demonstrate that you understand neither Calvinism nor Islam.

The Archangel

 

Yes...fatalism and determinism are very different from each other.

 

Wrong. God placed man in the Garden and gave him a choice to obey and live or rebel and die. God never coerced, twisted an arm, pushed him to the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but he chose to do this of his own volition.

From that point forth, everybody could have been damned for hell and God would still be holy, just, good, &c. But, in His grace and mercy, He chose a people from amongst the fallen to give to His Son to atone for their sins. It was they that Christ was mocked for, was smacked for, had His beard plucked from His sweet face for, was nailed to the cross for, bled for, died for, was buried for, was resurrected for, and will come back for....

 

They show they don't understand that which they think they do....

 

:thumbsup::applause::thumbsup:Yes....he has completely missed it.

 

PT, I am returning to your previous responses since I have not yet read a response to my assertion that Christ our High Priest prays and makes atonement only for those given Him by the Father, the rest of the ‘world’ is excluded by the eternal, immutable decree of God.

Re: ability to not sin intact after the fall………Several other Board members agree with you…..as did Pelagius, the Socinians, (now called Unitarians), as well as the Church of Christ denomination.

Let’s see what Scripture says:

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

For the wages of sin is death.

Scripture clearly states all humans are sinners, the proof of which is all humans die….even infants.

I’m sure you are in agreement thus far.

All unrighteousness is sin

If all have sinned and all unrighteousness is sin, then we must conclude that all humans are unrighteous.

Does Scripture agree with this conclusion?

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.

Thus, your argument begins with a false assumption: an unrighteous man can do that which is pleasing and spiritually ‘good’ in the eyes of the Lord.

Scripture states otherwise:

there is none that doeth good, no, not one

Therefore, the question is not whether man has the ability to not sin, meaning does not commit a heinous crime which all acknowledge is sinful or can cease from engaging in a particular sin.

The issue centers on the fact that unless we are regenerated by the Spirit we are slaves of sin who can do nothing spiritually ‘good’ in the eyes of God because every imagination of the thoughts of his heart is only evil continually.

Scripture tell us it is with the heart that man believes unto righteousness.

Spiritual saving faith which justifies cannot be generated by the evil heart of sinful man.

Therefore, man must be born anew first before he can birth justifying faith.

There is nothing evil in God commanding man to cease sinning.

Neither is it evil for you or I to demand evil doers cease from their wicked ways.

Neither is it evil for the Lord to command men to repent and believe the Gospel.

Such a command is truthful, good, holy and righteous.

The fault lies not in the command, but in men who refuse the truthful, good, holy and righteous command.

Any thoughts?

 

PT, you seem to be very focused on this particular adultery incident. So let’s examine it:

And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

It is one thing to be commanded to cease partaking of an adulterous relationship, and quite another to have the Lord forgive that sin.

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Jesus has the authority to forgive sins.

Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, take up your bed and walk’?

Jesus forgave her sin, as He did the paralytic.

Why, then, is it a flawed command to admonish the forgiven adulteress to commit adultery no more?

Is not the NT rife with admonitions addressed to professing Christians that they not walk after the flesh, but rather after the Spirit?

Let us assume, on the other hand, that Jesus did not forgive her sin, but simply admonished her to sin no more.

What is flawed about such an admonition?

Would it not be to her best interests to cease such destructive behavior?

Would not silence knowing the seriousness of the sin and its consequences be considered assent?

As I have explained in previous posts, our Lord’s commands to men are His revealed Preceptive will as to man’s duty before God and his fellow man.

It is this revealed Preceptive will which man may disobey.

The fact that man disobeys God’s command does not make the command flawed.

Had the adulteress gone and continued in her sin, Christ’s command would be no less true, good, holy and righteous.

Adam was given one negative commandment which he willfully broke.

The Lord knew, from eternity, such would be the case.

Does that make the command “not to eat…” a flawed command?

Of course not.

PT, please reexamine the construct of your argument.

I must respectfully remind you your premise is erroneous; therefore your conclusion has no biblical basis of truth whatsoever.

Any thoughts?

 

PT, your POV is widespread among our adversaries, including many on this Board.

Other Board members skirt around this very issue – the possible injustice of God – by declaring regeneration occurs after placing saving faith in Jesus Christ.

All men, they say, have the innate ability to believe if they so will.

By such a declaration they view God as just, giving believers what they rightly deserve: regeneration and union with Christ.

Your POV is similar:

If God does not give all men the necessary supernatural divine gift of regeneration, He is unjust in condemning them.

But both POVs are not founded in biblical truth.

Salvation is not of justice, but of grace.

Grace gives men what they do not deserve: salvation.

God has declared it is His sole prerogative to bestow saving grace to whom He wills, as well as to withhold saving grace from whom He wills.

God does no injustice in denying men what they do not deserve.

God would be unjust, however, if He did not give men what they do deserve: condemnation for their sin.

The men you had mentioned in a previous post, Abraham and Job, were recipients of saving grace.

The saving grace of regeneration is not owed anyone.

Salvation is all of the Lord’s grace: from efficacious calling unto glorification.

Do you pray for the regeneration of your unsaved loved ones?

I do.

 

Agreed. Also, a very irenic response.

 

And by saying that, you demonstrate that you understand neither. I have studied Calvinism for decades. I understand it well. That's why I am so much against it -- it and Roman Catholicism.

 

I think I won't say anything more on this topic, if I can restrain myself. It won't change any minds, and besides that, I have some friends on here with Calvinist beliefs, and I don't want to create antagonism between us. I know I have some enemies, too, but that's neither here nor there.

 

Brother Rebel,

You do error equating predestination synonymous with fatalism. I suggest you read the brief one paragraph article below on the difference.

God bless,

Brother Joe

"PREDESTINATION AND FATALISM

Is the doctrine of the predestination of all things fatalism? If not, wherein do they differ? Those who assert that they are the same, certainly betray an entire lack of understanding of the meaning of words, or of their uses; and besides, they are certainly ignorant of what the doctrine of fatalism is. They are not in the slightest degree the same. Fatalism was held by some in the past centuries, and we are informed by writers, that some people in the east hold this dogma still. It means that there is an indefinite something which has no consciousness, and therefore no will, and which is blind, which fixes the destiny of God, as well as of men. It is a dumb and dead power that is supreme, and from which the divine powers can no more escape than can men. In heathen ideas, the many gods whom they worshipped, were all subject to this intangible, indefinable power, as completely as were men. On the other hand, the doctrine of predestination declares that there is a supreme being, who ever lives and reigns, and whose purpose is eternal, and who governs all things, and moves all things, and is moved by none. This God is the Sovereign arbiter of all, and all things must bow to his sway. There is no power back of him, but he is himself the source of all power, and being, and life. We trust that those who have been saying that predestination was fatalism, have been ignorant of the difference, for if they have not been, they have been guilty of willingly deceiving, or trying to deceive the people by saying that they were the same. All things are fixed, but not as fatalism claims, by a dumb, dead power, above and beyond Diety, but by the sovereign will and power of the all-wise God himself. "

Elder F. A. Chick
December, 1897

Republished – Signs of the Times
Volume 143, No. 5
May, 1975

 

I know what I'm talking about, and the author is mistaken. That's all I'll say.

 

Originally Posted by Protestant:
"The fault lies not in the command, but in men who refuse the truthful, good, holy and righteous command."

PT, I see you have still not answered my assertion that Scripture clearly teaches Christ, as both High Priest and sacrifice, atoned for the sins of only those given Him by the Father.

Nor have you answered how Christ could successfully fulfill the Father’s eternal, immutable decree to ‘save His people from their sin,’ if, as you allege, the Father’s decree included every human ever born.

Nor have you addressed my conclusion that you advocate a Gospel of justice, whereby all men are given an equal chance to be saved; salvation is left up to man’s good use of his faculties.

Our side advocates a Gospel of grace, whereby all men are justly condemned before our holy righteous God, but because of His unmerited love and grace many are freely given those spiritual gifts necessary unto salvation.

In essence, the controversy centers on several key points:

1. The lessons learned in the Garden.

2. The effect of Adam’s disobedience upon his posterity.

3. The purpose of Christ’s mission.

4. The eternal purpose and intention of the Father’s sending Christ in the first place.

5. The meaning of ‘saving grace.’

6. The difference between God’s justice and God’s grace.

In reviewing your quote posted above, I perceive a critical error in your argument.

You use an inappropriate analogy.

Though man is now a depraved sinner who hates the true God, he, nonetheless, is a responsible moral being.

Had our Lord insisted that man first ‘fly’ 100 yards in order to be saved, your analogy would have merit.

Man is physically incapable of flying like a bird.

But, truth be told, our Lord demands from man that which man utilizes daily: a will which is able to make decisions and choices upon which man acts daily.

The fault lies not in man’s mental ability to think, or his physical ability to act, but rather his moral ability to desire the holiness and truth of God.

Our Lord is well aware of man’s moral depravity and graciously uses His power to overcome man's intense hatred through the new birth.

In the new birth man is changed from carnal to spiritual, a necessary change in order to desire the things of God.

However, the new birth is owed no man, since God is debtor to no one.

It is God’s prerogative to either give to the undeserving that which is not deserved – saving grace – or to deny it to the undeserving.

Denying to man what he does not deserve is not evil.

Neither is giving good things to some undeserving man evil.

Sadly, there are many on this Board, such as yourself, who think it evil of the Lord because He is good and gracious to some, but not to all.

 

PT has apparently taken a sabbatical from this thread. Hopefully it is for the purpose of reassessing his theology since he has been unable to refute my assertions.

Let us continue examining his theses.

Re: the above quote…… Man was offered the choice of obedience or disobedience in the Garden.

He failed, as would any other man put in his place.

The testing of man is over. The Lord is not in the business of having to resort to plan ‘B’ in the hopes of finding success.

Salvation of the Elect by the perfect life and sacrifice of Jesus Christ was always plan ‘A.’

Our Lord is presently calling out a people for His name.

His sheep hear His voice and follow Him.

His sheep hear His words (teachings/doctrines) and believe them.

Other shepherds they will not follow.

Truth be told, the richest man of the highest estate in the Universe became a poor nobody for our sakes.

Yet He was spurned, mocked, persecuted and executed.

Today most spurn His message. Why?

Because nobody wants what He has to give……unless He first performs a miraculous change in them.

Then and only then do they see and appreciate His true beauty, wisdom and selfless sacrifice; taking our sin upon Himself that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Lamentably, there are huge numbers of professing Christians who view Christ as their personal ATM machine.

They eagerly go to church to collect those imaginary $100 bills He offers them.