Does unlimited atonement = universal salvation?

Jeremy;
Do you ever think about always having to try to find a different meaning to such words as world, ransom for all, tasted death for everyman, all, whosoever, he that believeth etc. peace:Fish:

 

2 Thessalonians 3:2 And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith. sometimes all doesn't mean all universal but all of them that is being considered. But I think the big question for me was what makes one man different from another man. If we all are fallen in adam how come some seek the Lord and some don't. Why did I see myself as a sinner and seek the Lord while others do not. I just believe that is was of his mercy and no merit of my self. But if its just that God did his part and then its up to us to do our part. Then wouldn't salvation only be as strong as us. Wouldn't we be our own savior. If you have a chain that is 200 pound test, and one link is only 50 pound test. How strong is that chain. The Bible is hard for me though I do admit that. In love brother Jeremy

 

No, All we do is choose. The Salvation part is the same and kept by the same power. peace

 

Brother Bob,

I hope you are doing well. In a post to Jeremy, you wrote:

No, All we do is choose. The Salvation part is the same and kept by the same power. Peace.

I must say, at some level, I agree with you. However, I would say we are free to choose after the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. I’m sure you’d disagree with my regeneration-precedes-redemption argument, but I do agree that a choice is necessary.

I would like to bring our discussion back to the crux of the issue. I have a simple question and it is not meant to be a trick or anything.

Did Jesus pay for sins on the cross?

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Hi Archangel;
I don't know if pay is the word but He did suffer for our sins so that we could escape the second death. He suffered for all but for us to receive that offering we must believe that He is the Christ from the heart. How could we receive His blood even though He shed it for us, unless we believe that He is the Christ and that He did die for our sins. He died for everyone's sin but it is just there at the altar to be offered for your sins too if you will believe (I guess is a good way to put it)? In other words, the transaction is not complete until we believe that He is the Christ from the heart, then and only then is the blood applied to your heart and gives you Salvation.
You know, we are not too far off from each other's belief. You call it Regeneration by the Spirit. Well, I believe the Spirit strives with you to come and follow him to Salvation. I guess the difference is I believe that Spirit strives with all.

 

Brother Bob,

Thanks for the reply! You wrote:

I think I agree. I would say, He suffered for our sins so that we would not have to suffer for them. I would also take that further to say He paid the price for our sins (owed to God) so that we would not have to pay that price. Would you agree with that?

You also said:

Ok, here is where we have a disagreement. I do agree that belief, as a response to God’s revelation (through regeneration) is required. However, I have a question related to your point: If He suffered for all, then what do the non-believers who are sent to hell suffer for?

Do you see my point? I’m not asking at this point if you agree with it…I’m only asking if you see it?

Remember, Brother, I agree that belief is important; I believe that faith is important. However, my question gets to exactly what happened at the cross. It is an age-old question: Did Jesus’ death make possible salvation or Did Jesus’ death actually save?

I am looking forward to our continued discussions.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Yes, I agree except I think for it to be a complete transaction man has to believe.

Because without belief the transaction was not complete so you suffer for your own sins.

His death made possible Salvation if it actually saved then all men would be saved. Now when we believe it is His blood that saves us but only when we believe.
(except you believe you shall die in YOUR sins).

Peace Archangel,

 

I won't speak for others but my answer to this question is posted above:
"Ok, here is where we have a disagreement. I do agree that belief, as a response to God’s revelation (through regeneration) is required. However, I have a question related to your point: If He suffered for all, then what do the non-believers who are sent to hell suffer for?"

They are suffering for the penalty of their sins because they stubbornly refuse to accept the free gift of salvation. However, if more people were elect or if more people have faith in Christ (depending on your soteriological bent) would Christ's death on the cross be any different than it was? That is would He have had to suffer more or less? My answer is no because He paid the penalty for every person's sin.

It's like Dave's analogy above. 10 men face the penalty of 40 lashes each for their crime, but another person willingly decides to take their punishment instead on the condition that they accept his graceful act--conditions which the lawgiver accepts. Would that person have to endure 400 total lashes for the 10 total men or only 40-which was each man's penalty? If only 4 of the men take the deal and 6 stubbornly refuse to accept another's act of grace does that make the act of the mediator any different--he agreed to stand in their place but they refused his conditions so his act doesn't apply to them. Another analogy I like is the Passover. One sheep was killed and it sufficed for all of Israel, but its effect only applied to those who accepted the condition of spreading the blood on the doorpost.

Thus, I believe Christ died unequally for all. Yes He paid the penalty for every person's sin and died to save and keep saved the elect. It's a both/and.

BJ

 

Brandon;
I think I agree with your post it is kinda hard to be sure I have it figured out correctly. When you say stubbornly I put non-belief in its place. Would you agree with that? peace

 

Brother Bob,

Thanks for the reply! You wrote:

Ok! Now we are getting somewhere. I see what you are saying, I don’t agree, but I see what you’re saying.

So, then, what really happened on the Cross? Did Jesus pay for any sins?

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

I think Jesus suffered the wrath of God on all sin for all men. Yet we know unbelievers are under God's wrath for sin even now, even though Christ suffered the wrath for sins. So unbelievers continue to suffer the wrath of God on sin after physical death, which is eternal separation from God. We are kept from the wrath by faith in Christ.

In limited atonement, wouldn't we have to say that when Jesus atoned for sins, he suffered wrath only on some sins, or only on the sins of some people? Did God hold back his wrath on sin for all the unsaved at that point? That is how it would have to be if we say Jesus atoned only for those who are saved.

Due to the passages that say that Jesus died for all (as have been posted), it seems that it is by faith that protection from that wrath is applied. So if there is no faith, there is no protection (salvation) from the wrath.

 

1 John, chapter 2

1: My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

His atonement was:
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes in him will have everlasting life.

so again, for you sins to be paid for or atoned you must believe, or you will die in your sins and go to a devils hell.

Yes, He paid for our sins or made an atonement for our sins, "if we believe". He hath tasted death for all but for it to apply to our sins we must as individuals "believe". peace


Marcia said it very well Archangel, which I think is what I have said all along. peace

 

Brandon,

It is nice to hear from you. You wrote:

The problem I have with this statement is this: If Jesus died a substitutionary death then the penalty for sin has already been paid by Him. If non-believers are sent to hell to pay for their sins and Christ has already paid for their sins on the Cross, this would be injustice—double payment.

You also said:

Again, I have the question: If He paid the penalty for every person’s sin, then there is no penalty for anyone (even the non-believers) to pay.

I do believe that Christ died to pay the penalty for the sins of the Elect. However, I do think that, had God wanted, Jesus’ death could have paid the penalty for the sins of all men and women.

It is good to talk with you, Brandon. I hope we can continue to discuss these matters.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Again, I will stick with these Scriptures. Peace

 

Me too, Bob

How about 1 John 2:2 for another "nail in a sure place"?

2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

 

Brother Bob, Marcia, Primepower7, et al.

It is good to hear from you all! You all raise good questions and they are questions that I still struggle with.

I fully understand what you are saying and I fully understand the Scriptures you have posted and discussed. However, my “Particular Atonement” view tries to take all of the Biblical evidence into account. Let me explain.

In Romans 1-3, Paul builds a case of God’s wrath against all people. Then, in 3:25 he tells us that Jesus has been put forward as a “Propitiation.” The meaning of the word “Propitiation” is very important.

Propitiation means the removal of wrath. In this case, Romans 3, it means the removal of God’s wrath. If as 1 John 2:2 says, “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” then God’s wrath has been removed from everyone . Since we know that not everyone will be saved we can only reach two logical conclusions: 1. The Bible contradicts itself or 2. The 1 John 2:2 verse must, in essence, mean something different.

This argument hinges on the meaning of “Propitiation.” If Jesus was a Propitiation for the sins of everyone (thereby paying for their sins) then God’s wrath has been removed even the non-believers. If God’s wrath is removed from even the non-believers then why are unbelievers sent to hell?

However, if Jesus’ death was a propitiation for the “Elect” only, then their sins have been paid for and God’s wrath is removed from the elect. But, for the non-elect/non-believers, the wrath of God is still needing to be paid for—that happens in Hell.

Now, I’m not asking you all to agree with this. What I am asking is if you see my point—the “atonement” of Christ actually paying for sins.

Now, if you don’t agree—and I’m sure many won’t—please explain WHY you don’t agree. Please don’t post verse after verse and leave it at that. Please explain why you believe it effects the questions before us.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

hilasmos hil-as-mos' atonement, i.e. (concretely) an expiator:--propitiation.
2435. hilasterion hil-as-tay'-ree-on neuter of a derivative of 2433; an expiatory (place or thing), i.e. (concretely) an atoning victim, or (specially) the lid of the Ark (in the Temple):--mercyseat, propitiation.

Apparently it still means "atonement".

Again, I say that the atonement was made but before it applies to each individual : Except ye believe that I am He you shall die in your sins. (The words of Jesus Himself) Now with all respect to other writers I think they are saying the same thing Jesus said. Believe and Repent. peace

 

Archangel, I see your point but I think my view of the word "propiation" is not quite the same as yours, or at least it does not apply the way you say it does.

Here is how I see it:
Propiation is not the removal of wrath on all sin, but the satisfaction of the righteousness of God. It comes from a Greek word meaning "that which expiates" or "propitiates," or "the gift that procures propitiation." The atonement was the act of propiatiation in that a legal requirement for justice was met.

However, God's wrath on sin does not suddenly dissolve due to the atonement, except on those who have faith in Christ. God is still holy and must have wrath on unforgiven sin (of those who have not had faith in Christ). The propitiatian (boy, that's a hard word to type!) of Christ allows God's wrath to be averted when one has faith, but if one does not have faith, then wrath still rests on that person.

God's wrath constantly remains on unforgiven sin, but this wrath is removed by faith because of the propitiation of the atonement.

That's how I see it.

 

Archangel, well in my last post i practically repeated myself, and I will do it a third time and then leave this thread.

I answered your questions in my first post and the "double payment fallacy" has been addressed. Christ paid the penalty of every person's sins, but his payment is only applied (and covers the actual sins) to those who have faith in Him because those are the conditions that He and the Father require. This is the difference between paying the penalty of someone's sins and actually paying for his/her sins (this is the "unequally for all" part for the dualist--the penalty due every person's sins and also the actual sins of the elect). Thus, those who stubbornly refuse to accept Christ's gift and fail to meet the conditions of His payment pay the penalty for their own sins themselves despite Christ's gracious offer to them.

You're trying to remove the condition from the atonement. It's as if it's all or nothing; either He paid only for the sins of those who meet the condition of faith or He paid for every man's sins and there are no conditions to His gift. That's a false either/or. Those who hold to limited atonement label this position merely word games with its splitting hairs between sins's penalty and sins themselves--they may have a point, but I believe there are many Scriptures which support both Christ's atonement for the penalty of every person's sins and Christ's atonement for the sins of the elect, and these two strands are not mutually exclusive.

Dave's comments above I believe still hold and Owen's double payment issue has been addressed numerous times by those smarter than me. I would encourage you to study their words (Dabney and Charles Hodge are good for starters).

BJ