Does unlimited atonement = universal salvation?

[The Archangel]

Marcia,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply and yes, “Propitiation” IS a hard word to type!

I wanted to address some things you said in your post. You wrote:

Propitiation 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 propitiation in that a legal requirement for justice was met.

Ok, I don’t agree completely with your definition of propitiation, but for argument sake, let’s go with it for the moment. You said “A legal requirement for justice was met.” I’m assuming you are referring to Jesus’ death on the cross because of which “a legal requirement for justice was met.”

If that requirement for justice was met, on whose behalf was it 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 propitiation (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.

It seems like you are saying that Faith is that which forgives sin. If having faith means that we are given propitiation, when did that propitiation occur? Was it when we came to faith or was it when Jesus died to pay the penalty for sin on the cross?

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

I think this is the crucial question. I would agree that God’s wrath remains on unforgiven sin. However, what I am saying is that Jesus death on the cross, since it was a propitiation, actually was the price for sin and the means of forgiving sin. If that is the case, it becomes VERY important just who he died for. If He died for all, then those sins are paid and there is no further penalty. If He died for the elect only, then the sins of the un-believers still have to bear the wrath of God.

I guess the best way to ask my question is this: IF Jesus actually paid for all sins on the cross, how or why do the sins of the non-believers need to be paid for…again?

I hope you see the validity of my question and I hope you see that I am not trying to trap you in the answer.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Brother Bob]

I don't need to believe because since unbelief is sin and Jesus paid for ALL my sin, I will still go to heaven.

I never saw anyone post on here that said you didn't have to believe. peace

 

[The Archangel]

To all,

Just for the record:

I never said that you didn't have to believe. I think belief is scriptural and is absolutely necessary for salvation.

BTW, Brandon, I'm not ignoring you. I read your post and I don't agree with what you wrote (all three times). But I will certainly try to address your post later. (I won't have internet access again until Monday.).

Blessings to you all, ESPECIALLY tomorrow at your worship services.

The Archangel

 

[Marcia]

This has been a most interesting thread I started, but I am still trying to reconcile that if Christ paid for ALL the sins of ALL people that would mean the following:

I am an unbelieving, faithless unrepentant reprobate but becasue Jesus paid for ALL my sins - even my unbelief, faithlessness and unrepenatnt heart - I will go to heaven, becasue Jesus paid for ALL my sin. If Jesus already paid the penalty for ALL my sin I CAN NOT go to hell becasue I can't be punished for what Jesus already paid for. He paid the price for my sin, ALL my sin including unbelief, faithlessness and unrepentance

I don't need to believe because since unbelief is sin and Jesus paid for ALL my sin, I will still go to heaven.

Is this true???

I hope you read the post by Brandon Jones at the bottom of page 4. He pretty well answers the question.

Here's maybe another way to put it. Jesus atoned for sins -- he provided the sacrifice necessary to satisfy God's righteousness. But this sacrifice is not automatically applied to everyone because God requires faith. "Without faith it is impossible to please God" (Heb. 11.6). Those without faith perish because even though the sacrifice was made, they did not appropriate it through faith (whether you believe God gives them faith or they choose to believe).

Maybe we are looking at it wrongly to say they are suffering for sins. They are not suffering for sins so much as suffering the separation from God (which is torment) because Christ's atonement did not apply to them because they were without faith. "The wages of sin is death" - that is, separation from God. Separation occurs because faith was not present and so the sacrifice for them was not applied.

I don't think I can do this again.

 

[Marcia]

Archangel, the legal requirement was on behalf of God - his demand for judgment on sin.

Okay, I answered Brandon one way. Here is another. I might confuse myself doing this, but it's good mental exercise. Keep in mind I'm thinking out loud in these posts so they may not be logically consistent with each other, or they might all be different ways of saying the same thing.

I think you are hung up on the "suffering for sins" idea. The wages of sin is death - eternal separation from God. People are not suffering for their sins but for unbelief, which results in separation from God. This results when there is no faith.

So the atonement satisfies God's righteousenss, but faith is the only way to apply Christ's righteousness. Without this righteousness imputed to us, we are still in our sins, resulting in eternal separation from God.

 

[The Archangel]

Marcia,

Thanks for your reply and I hope you had a good weekend. You wrote:

I think you are hung up on the "suffering for sins" idea. The wages of sin is death - eternal separation from God. People are not suffering for their sins but for unbelief, which results in separation from God. This results when there is no faith.

I understand this…but I do have several problems with it. Let me say: Yes, I am hung-up on the “suffering for sins” idea. There is a simple reason for this—the word “Propitiation,” by definition means to appease an angry deity (God, in this case) by the act of sacrificing. 1 Peter 3:18 brings this out:“For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,”

This passage from 1 Peter makes it clear that Christ did suffer for our sins. If He suffered for the sins of the elect only then non-believers have suffering to do in hell. (I’m not going to rehash this argument here)

Also, you said that people do not suffer for their sins but for their unbelief. I don’t think this agrees with Scripture. Let me explain why: Never in the Bible do we see God taking righteous vengeance on “lack of faith.” Rather, we see, many times, God judging sin. All through the Old Testament Law, we see the sacrificial system being used to atone for sin. Therefore, I think your presupposition of hell being for those without faith is not correct.

I do think a lack of faith is a consequence of sinfulness.

You also said:

So the atonement satisfies God's righteousness, but faith is the only way to apply Christ's righteousness. Without this righteousness imputed to us, we are still in our sins, resulting in eternal separation from God.

Ok. But satisfies His righteousness how? By paying for sins that had been passed over. “[we] are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” (Romans 3:24-26 ESV)

Sin is the issue; lack of faith is not the issue, at least when we speak about what Christ accomplished on the Cross.

Now, I do whole-heartedly agree with the idea that faith is required for salvation. It has always been the case that man MUST respond to God in Repentance and Faith in order to be saved.

Let’s deal with the matters in this post before we move on to the Repentance and Faith thing.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Marcia]

I understand this…but I do have several problems with it. Let me say: Yes, I am hung-up on the “suffering for sins” idea. There is a simple reason for this—the word “Propitiation,” by definition means to appease an angry deity (God, in this case) by the act of sacrificing. 1 Peter 3:18 brings this out:“For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,”

But is the the biblical definition of propitiation "to appease an angry deity?" That is the pagan definition. This makes it sound like a God whose anger can be placated with sacrifices. But the God of the Bible has a constant wrath on sin - not an anger that is sporadic or arbitrary. The appeasement was of God's righteousness and justice -- justice was served because God's holiness demands judgment on sin. The atonement did not end God's wrath on sin - we know that because the Bible tells us that God continues to have wrath on sin and this wrath will be unleashed. If the atonement appeased God's wrath on all sin, God would no longer have wrath on sin.

Also, you said that people do not suffer for their sins but for their unbelief. I don’t think this agrees with Scripture. Let me explain why: Never in the Bible do we see God taking righteous vengeance on “lack of faith.” Rather, we see, many times, God judging sin. All through the Old Testament Law, we see the sacrificial system being used to atone for sin. Therefore, I think your presupposition of hell being for those without faith is not correct.

I do think a lack of faith is a consequence of sinfulness.

I think this might be a semantics issue. I do think that death (eternal separation from God) is a consequence of sin but lack of faith is what allows that to happen.

But satisfies His righteousness how? By paying for sins that had been passed over. “[we] are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” (Romans 3:24-26 ESV)

Sin is the issue; lack of faith is not the issue, at least when we speak about what Christ accomplished on the Cross.

But look at the words in verse 25 - "to be received by faith." Redemption is given through faith, which the atonement allows. Redemption is not directly given by the atonement. Maybe we could say faith (by God's grace) is the medium through which redempton is given by the atonement?

 

[The Archangel]

Marcia

Marcia,

Good post, thanks for the interaction. Let me address a few issues.

But is the biblical definition of propitiation "to appease an angry deity?" That is the pagan definition. This makes it sound like a God whose anger can be placated with sacrifices.

In this case the definition of “Propitiation” is the same for pagan and Biblical uses. I know this may seem weird but the range of semantic uses is the same. Let me illustrate: When Christ was on the cross He said “It is finished.” This is taken from the Greek word Telestai (sp?). We have seen in other literature from the same time period, especially in business records, that this word is used to mark receipts paid. In other words, this word can be used to say, “Paid in full.”

I do not bring this up to bolster my point. Rather, I bring this up as an example of the semantic range of a word. In doing so, I am pointing out that the “Biblical” use of a word, as you described it, is best viewed in light of the way the word was used in the time period. When discussing interpretations, we must look at the range of the word itself—Propitiation does mean to appease the wrath of a deity—and we must look at how the author, Paul in this case, uses the word. Paul is certainly making the argument that God’s wrath needed to be propitiated and that Christ Himself is the propitiation. The notion, even if pagan in origin, is applied to the situation at hand and the word means what it means.

But the God of the Bible has a constant wrath on sin - not an anger that is sporadic or arbitrary.

If you could explain this more, I’d appreciate it. God’s wrath on sin can be seen throughout the pages of Scripture—of this there is no doubt. However, your assertion that it is “Constant” is not as clear. The reason I’m saying it is unclear is because the Old Testament sacrificial system actually allowed a way for God’s wrath to be appeased. The sacrifice of a bull/goat/sheep/etc. in the place of the human was said to be an atonement for sins. Once the atonement was made, it is not said that God’s wrath was still on that particular sin. That is why I’d like you to explain this further.

The appeasement was of God's righteousness and justice -- justice was served because God's holiness demands judgment on sin.

I agree that God’s holiness demands judgment on sin. In other words, God can’t forgive sin (in such a way that He overlooks it), He requires a payment. In Paul’s writing of Romans, he shows that the very reason Christ was put forward as a propitiation was because, in times past, God had passed over sins. Had God not punished those sins, He could have rightly been charged with injustice.

The atonement did not end God's wrath on sin - we know that because the Bible tells us that God continues to have wrath on sin and this wrath will be unleashed. If the atonement appeased God's wrath on all sin, God would no longer have wrath on sin.

If the atonement did not end God’s wrath on sin, where is our forgiveness? If the atonement did not end God’s wrath on sin, why did Jesus endure God’s wrath as “He, who knew no sin, was made to be sin for us.?”

Please explain how Christ could have paid for our sins and how we still have something to pay?

I do think that death (eternal separation from God) is a consequence of sin but lack of faith is what allows that to happen.

I have seen this explanation many times. The problem I have with this is that the Scripture says, “The wages of sin is death,” “The soul that sins will die,” etc. Never does the Scripture say, “The wages of faithlessness is death,” etc.

In Scripture faith is counted as righteousness in the life of Abraham. However, we don’t see the converse—faithlessness being the cause of separation. Sin is always presented as that which separates us from God.

More on your last point later.

Until then, Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Marcia,

Here is the other post I promised. You wrote:

Redemption is given through faith, which the atonement allows. Redemption is not directly given by the atonement. Maybe we could say faith (by God's grace) is the medium through which redemption is given by the atonement?

I think this is an important matter in our discussion. It would seem that you are intending to mean that Faith is the thing that saves us. While faith is important and indispensable to salvation, it is not the primary factor in the process. Let me explain.

None of us is righteous, we all, without exception, deserve death for our sins. Death is the just and righteous punishment we are all owed. Our sin nature condemns us before we start sinning and our sinning doubly condemns us—we sin because we are, by nature, sinners.

Because God is the Creator and we are the creature, sin is, by nature, treason against God. This can be seen in King David’s Psalm 51 confession—he said about his sin “against you [God] and you alone have I sinned. This confession about sinning only against God is in spite of the fact that he sinned against Uriah by committing adultery with Bathsheba and he sinned against Uriah by ordering his death, yet God is the only One that David says he has sinned against.

Because we are by nature sinners, God does not owe us salvation. He chooses to save us—this is an act of His grace. It is at the cross, in the person of Christ, that God punishes our sins so that His justice is fulfilled and He is said to be both Just and Justifier.

So, it must be said that the Atonement actually accomplishes something. I would say it accomplishes and guarantees the salvation of the elect—because of the intrinsic nature of the atonement as seen in the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Now, let me say that some of my reformed brothers and sister make a bad error here. Some reformed persons argue that Repentance and Faith are not necessary for salvation. They argue that since Christ paid for their sins, nothing else is needed. That position blatantly disagrees with Scripture. Scripture clearly teaches that we must exercise repentance and faith. The way Scripture speaks, however, shows that faith is itself a gift from God.

So, we can say that Grace is God’s decision, He forgives sins justly because of Christ’s payment on the cross, and that forgiveness is applied to us when we respond to God in repentance and faith.

Notice that Grace, God’s decision, is the basis for salvation and He takes the initiative to make the payment (Christ’s death on the cross) and He guarantees our acceptance by the regenerating work of His Holy Spirit.

This post is quite a bit longer than I intended and it probably raises more questions than it answers. I guess that’s good for an ongoing discussion.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Marcia]

In this case the definition of “Propitiation” is the same for pagan and Biblical uses. I know this may seem weird but the range of semantic uses is the same. Let me illustrate: When Christ was on the cross He said “It is finished.” This is taken from the Greek word Telestai (sp?). We have seen in other literature from the same time period, especially in business records, that this word is used to mark receipts paid. In other words, this word can be used to say, “Paid in full.”

I do not bring this up to bolster my point. Rather, I bring this up as an example of the semantic range of a word. In doing so, I am pointing out that the “Biblical” use of a word, as you described it, is best viewed in light of the way the word was used in the time period. When discussing interpretations, we must look at the range of the word itself—Propitiation does mean to appease the wrath of a deity—and we must look at how the author, Paul in this case, uses the word. Paul is certainly making the argument that God’s wrath needed to be propitiated and that Christ Himself is the propitiation. The notion, even if pagan in origin, is applied to the situation at hand and the word means what it means.

Thanks for your post. I see what you're saying about the semantic range of a word, but the one thing I would say to this is that the Biblical God has a different nature than that ascribed to the false gods. Therefore, propitiation of the Biblical God would not necessarily mean the same thing as it did for the pagan gods.

In Rom 3.25-26, the language about propitiation is more about God's righteousness than his wrath:

whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Also, it is the person with faith who is justified. They are not automatically justified by the propitiation. We are still under wrath until justified by faith.

If you could explain this more, I’d appreciate it. God’s wrath on sin can be seen throughout the pages of Scripture—of this there is no doubt. However, your assertion that it is “Constant” is not as clear. The reason I’m saying it is unclear is because the Old Testament sacrificial system actually allowed a way for God’s wrath to be appeased. The sacrifice of a bull/goat/sheep/etc. in the place of the human was said to be an atonement for sins. Once the atonement was made, it is not said that God’s wrath was still on that particular sin. That is why I’d like you to explain this further.

By saying God's wrath on sin is constant, I mean that God's attributes do not change. His holiness and righteousness demand wrath on sin and God's nature is constant. So God's wrath on sin always exists, at the same time as his mercy, love, omniscience, etc. are existing. When someone is saved, God's wrath is no longer on that person, but he still has wrath on the sin of the unsaved. As for the sacrifices, God's wrath ended temporarily, but more sacrifices had to be made until Jesus came. Hebrews tells us that these sacrifices had to made over and over - forgiveness was not a done deal as far as the animal sacrifices went.

If the atonement did not end God’s wrath on sin, where is our forgiveness? If the atonement did not end God’s wrath on sin, why did Jesus endure God’s wrath as “He, who knew no sin, was made to be sin for us.?”

Please explain how Christ could have paid for our sins and how we still have something to pay?

The atonement allows one through faith to no longer be under God's wrath. One is not automatically justified by the atonement; one must have faith to be justified.

God's wrath is still on the unsaved.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
Rom 1.18


"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
Jn 3.36

I have seen this explanation many times. The problem I have with this is that the Scripture says, “The wages of sin is death,” “The soul that sins will die,” etc. Never does the Scripture say, “The wages of faithlessness is death,” etc.

In Scripture faith is counted as righteousness in the life of Abraham. However, we don’t see the converse—faithlessness being the cause of separation. Sin is always presented as that which separates us from God.

I agree that sin separates us from God. However, lack of faith brings on separation from God, or can prevent it.

Take care, brethren, that there not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God.
Heb 3.12

So we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief.
Heb 3.19

I may have to think on this some more but this is it for now.