General Reconciliation

[pinoybaptist]

so, if the book of life was written from the foundation of the world, and the blood of the Eternal Lamb of Glory also shed from the foundation of the world, and that blood shed for a particular people, and only for them, the words in Exodus makes sense where God requires the blood of the passover lamb on the doorposts of all Israelites and ONLY Israelites, and instructed His priests to sprinkle the people with the same sacrificial and atoning blood, COLLECTIVELY, not individually.
The Spirit marks His people, and the Spirit knows who they are.
He was enacting, through this national people whom He created from the loins of one man, Abraham, what is to be considered a dot, a period, a finish punctuation mark, HERE IN TIME, which He has foreordained in eternity, and we need to recall Paul's words to the Roman church in Romans 15:4, quote:

For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

The entire Scripture, all its shadows, types, pictures, etc., is God's message of hope to those of us specifically in this and coming generations, just as the star at Bethlehem shined in the heavens a beacon for those who look and hope to his coming and the fulfillment of all prohecies concerning His coming.

We derive hope from the fact that none of our flimsy, flim-flam deeds is expected by the Father for our redemption.

Christ did it all.
Nothing lacking.

 

[Van]

Blah, blah

Van,

Are you so hurt by "Calvinism" that you can't even stay on your own topic in this thread about your thinking on atonement?

Your refusal of using a resource I offered is one thing, but your claim about my character and my pursuit of truth is most unwarranted. You might employ such techniques as shuck and jive and wandering off topic, but that is generally not found of me on the BB.

The above quoted post is off topic and attacking the person. My posts on this thread were not "finding fault" but inquiry as to why you didn't stick with actual word usage (the first), not off topic (presenting outside resources ON topic), and it is truly sad that maligning character is all you can offer.

You post about schemes "invented by men;" it is actually your words for your scheme concerning the use for the word atonement being just that sort - one invented by a man.

Where is "general atonement" found - That EXACT wording. Where is such even alluded?

Can't be done. Nope not found. It is a scheme of your own imagination in which you are making assumptions and assignments that may or may not be accurate. Yet, you have such audacity as to disparage other "invented by men" schemes? That disparagement seems to apply to your own work just as you would desire it be applied to that of others - even that which you strongly disagree.

When one offers a resource to benefit a development idea and show historically some thinking that ON the topic developed in the past and the difficulties that were found, it is not some sneaky attempt by the Calvinists. It was a good faith offer; totally up to you to to use or not.

Folks, did you see "general atonement" in the above quote, in quotation marks, as if I had used the term? Calvinism is defended by misrepresenting the views of those who hold differing views.

I explained by I thought deflecting wrath missed the illustration, thus counting the view of propitiation presented in the link.

The Calvinist, off topic as usual is simply finding fault with my behavior, rather than adding anything biblical concerning the topic.

The three words from the OP are propitiation, redemption and reconciliation. Propitiation = means of salvation; Redemption = the act of salvation; Reconciliation = the result of Salvation.

Christ provided the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world, providing the opportunity for redemption and reconciliation. This act of provision, justification of life for all men, I call "General Reconciliation."

 

[Yeshua1]

whil the atonement of jesus death on the Cross was a propiation for all the sins of the Elect of God, ALL were born sinners under condemnation, and that ONLY when we were born again and justified by God in this kife at a real moment in time did we become the reconciled of God!

 

[Yeshua1]

Folks, did you see "general atonement" in the above quote, in quotation marks, as if I had used the term? Calvinism is defended by misrepresenting the views of those who hold differing views.

I explained by I thought deflecting wrath missed the illustration, thus counting the view of propitiation presented in the link.

The Calvinist, off topic as usual is simply finding fault with my behavior, rather than adding anything biblical concerning the topic.

The three words from the OP are propitiation, redemption and reconciliation. Propitiation = means of salvation; Redemption = the act of salvation; Reconciliation = the result of Salvation.

Christ provided the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world, providing the opportunity for redemption and reconciliation. This act of provision, justification of life for all men, I call "General Reconciliation."

Jesus death appeased the wrath of God towards the sinners that God intended for Him to die for, penal substitution, so to deny a particular view, wouldn't arminian traditionally have to deny substitution, and go for more exotic viewpoints?

 

[agedman]

Folks, did you see "general atonement" in the above quote, in quotation marks, as if I had used the term? Calvinism is defended by misrepresenting the views of those who hold differing views.

I explained by I thought deflecting wrath missed the illustration, thus counting the view of propitiation presented in the link.

The Calvinist, off topic as usual is simply finding fault with my behavior, rather than adding anything biblical concerning the topic.

The three words from the OP are propitiation, redemption and reconciliation. Propitiation = means of salvation; Redemption = the act of salvation; Reconciliation = the result of Salvation.

Christ provided the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world, providing the opportunity for redemption and reconciliation. This act of provision, justification of life for all men, I call "General Reconciliation."

Van, you still don't get it, you just have to speak against Calvinism as if that is some bad that you can't escape.

You say that I misquoted you by putting "atonement" rather than "reconciliation," but frankly the Scriptures use atonement as reconciliation - that is the meaning the words are interchangeable.

Wanting to assign my posts as attempts to refute you and that you flatly refused - even assigned some evil agenda to an offering of resource to benefit your quest - is truly sad.

 

[Van]

Agedman says I do not get it, thus yet again finding fault with me rather than addressing the topic. I speak against Calvinism because it is an invention of men, not found in scripture. It is mistaken doctrine.

No, the meaning of the English words reconciliation and atonement, especially given the Calvinist definition of atonement, are not the same.

As I said before reconciliation is the result of salvation. Being unholy sinners, when we undergo the circumcision of Christ, we become the righteousness of God. Thus reconciliation occurs only when we are spiritually placed in Christ and not before God places us spiritually in Christ.

General Reconciliation describes the provision of salvation to all men because Christ paid the ransom for the many, but Individual Reconciliation describes the result of salvation applied to all placed in Christ.

Christ literally shed His blood for all men, but only the people placed in Christ are washed by His blood (undergo the circumcision of Christ) and become the righteousness of God in Him.

 

[Van]

Calvinisms view of what Christ accomplished with the finished work of the Cross goes beyond exotic and plunges into absurdity.

Christ became the propitiation for the whole world, all of fallen mankind, and therefore anyone placed into Christ is placed within the propitiationary shelter. Pretty simple really.

Think of Christ as a fountain of living water, everyone placed in the fountain is washed clean and lives forever. No matter how many people are placed in the eternal fountain, they are washed clean, whether just one person or 100 billion persons. Anyone who is of the world can be washed clean and become the righteousness of God because the Lamb of God takes away the sin of the world.

 

[Van]

Besides the noun, translated reconciliation, and the verb translated reconcile, scripture contains the compound word "apokatallassō" which means subsequently reconciled. Apo means out of, from, when speaking of location and after or since when speaking of time or sequence. In these three usages, Ephesians 2:16; Colossions 1:20 and 1:21, the idea is that the reconciliation occurs subsequent to the finished work of the cross.

 

[The Biblicist]

Besides the noun, translated reconciliation, and the verb translated reconcile, scripture contains the compound word "apokatallassō" which means subsequently reconciled. Apo means out of, from, when speaking of location and after or since when speaking of time or sequence. In these three usages, Ephesians 2:16; Colossions 1:20 and 1:21, the idea is that the reconciliation occurs subsequent to the finished work of the cross.

Actually reconciliation is the result of the cross but that does not mean that reconciliation occurred only in time AFTER the cross. All saints prior to the cross were reconciled to God through faith and had their sins remitted by faith (Acts 10:43) and Paul explicitly states this in Romans 3:25:

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Paul also states the same in Hebrews:

15 ¶ And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

 

[Van]

Folks, pay no attention to those seeking to change the subject.

Reconciliation = result of salvation.
Redemption = act of salvation
Propitiation = means of salvation

Everyone placed spiritually in Christ is baptized into His death. Thus no one was placed in Christ and therefore reconciled unto after the cross.

Calvinists claim people were washed by His blood before He died. As I said, this goes beyond exotic and plunges into absurdity. No need to waste time with that twaddle.

 

[Van]

2 Peter 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who (H)bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

Calvinists deny that Christ paid the ransom for all, becoming the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world. Thus, their bogus doctrine is called limited atonement.

On the other hand, scripture teaches Christ became, through His death, the propitiationary shelter for the whole world, and therefore anyone spiritually placed within that shelter is reconciled to God. Individual Reconciliation results in salvation, being made alive together with Christ, undergoing the circumcision of Christ where our sin burden is removed, and becoming the righteousness of God, blameless and holy and righteous in Christ.

 

[The Biblicist]

2 Peter 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who (H)bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

Calvinists deny that Christ paid the ransom for all, becoming the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world.

The text does not say a word about denying or distorting the atonement but denying the "Master" who bought them. The object of the verb is "Master" not the word "bought."

 

[Van]

Another widely spread mistaken view, in my opinion, is that scripture teaches Christ's blood was shed from the foundation of the world. The grammar is difficult in Revelation 13:8, but the NASB renders it as referring to names not written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain. Thus from creation, names have been written or not written in the Lamb's book of life, but this verse does not teach Christ was slain during creation. Rather the bible teaches, using the generations from Adam to Jesus, that Christ was slain thousands of years after creation.

 

[Van]

Calvinism objects to the obvious. At 2 Peter 2:1 teaches that false teachers deny the Master who bought them (the false teachers). Just read it and pay no attention to Calvinist twaddle. The worst heresy is to deny the Master who bought the very heretics spreading false doctrine. Thus Christ paid the ransom for all, becoming the propitiation for the whole world.

 

[The Biblicist]

Calvinism objects to the obvious. At 2 Peter 2:1 teaches that false teachers deny the Master who bought them (the false teachers). Just read it and pay no attention to Calvinist twaddle. The worst heresy is to deny the Master who bought the very heretics spreading false doctrine. Thus Christ paid the ransom for all, becoming the propitiation for the whole world.

Deny what? The grammar repudiates your interpretation entirely. The text does not say they "deny the atonement" but deny "the master." The object of the verb "deny" is not "bought" as your interpretation demands but the object is "The Master." Peter did not say they denied being "bought" by the Master.

You are directly inferring that Calvinists are "false prophets" and that they deny "the Master". I was just warned for merely defining repudiation of the new birth was close to be an offense to be banned and yet you can come on and direct assert those who embrace limited atonement are "false prophets" and deny "the Master" who bought them.

 

[The Biblicist]

Deny what? The grammar repudiates your interpretation entirely. The text does not say they "deny the atonement" but deny "the master." The object of the verb "deny" is not "bought" as your interpretation demands but the object is "The Master." Peter did not say they denied being "bought" by the Master.

You are directly inferring that Calvinists are "false prophets" and that they deny "the Master". I was just warned for merely defining repudiation of the new birth was close to be an offense to be banned and yet you can come on and direct assert those who embrace limited atonement are "false prophets" and deny "the Master" who bought them.

This text is one of the more stronger proof texts used against a strict limited atonement. However, I believe the atonement is universal in the sense that Christ paid the eternal penalty for the Adamic sin singular (Jn 1:29) so that no individual goes to hell or is punished in hell for the race sin in Adam. Instead, they are judged "according to their own works" performed in their own individual bodies. So, in the sense of the sin of the world singular they were redeemed from that penalty. This is the reason why dying infants and others who die incapable of rational decision do not go to hell as the only sin that would condemn them to hell is race participation in Adam's sin.

 

[percho]

What I am contributing in this post may seem to go against those who hold views that I might generally agree with, so I say these with all due respects.

Receiving Jesus, in the sense that neo-Arminians and semi-pelagians speak of, has nothing to do with God's wrath being on or not on them.
The Bible says, clearly, that if one's name is not in the book of life, which will be reviewed at the Great White Throne judgment, then he/she is cast into the lake of fire (Rev 20).

Now when were those names written thereon ?

BEFORE the foundation of the world, according to Rev. 13:8, was when that book was populated, and those whose names are not found there, will wonder at (admire and follow) the antichrist.

One's name is not written thereon because he accepted the Lord as his Savior, rather, the implication is (like faith) one accepts the Lord and will not be deceived by fake Christ's because his name is on that book.

Therefore, the blood of propitiation, was shed for those whose names are on that book, and only for them. And so it is PARTICULAR REDEMPTION.
Particular as to the who, particular as to the why, and particular as to the how.


Now, the question begs itself.

how can somebody whose name God foreknew and wrote down in that book be under judgment/wrath when
the very purpose of God writing that particular name on that particular book is to appropriate the blood of the Lamb of glory slain FROM THE FOUNDATION of the world which was again shed, physically, in time, at the cross, on God's appointed hour ?

Jesus made it very clear that His mission was to bring back His lost sheep, He has always referred to those He came to redeem as His sheep, not goats, and even in the Old Testament, His people have always been called His saints.

What am I saying ?

That in the Father's mind, the fact of the redemption of His people, is a settled matter, even before Calvary. As far as the eternal Father, Son, and Spirit, is concerned, the blood has been shed and his saints are covered by it. The word of His Son committing Himself to redeeming God's people with His own life and blood is as good as DONE as far as the One in Three is concerned.

The Father trusted the Son to proceed with the purpose of redemption, here in time, at the cross, the Son trusted the Father to bring His body back to life as proof of His eternal Sonship TO HIS ELECT PEOPLE, and the Spirit trusted these things and so He did His task of quickening God's own (proof of this quickening being various personae before Christ's birth looking forward to the birth of the Son of the Living God).

And so we have the continous progression spoken of by Paul in his systematic soteriology in Romans 8:28-30, quote:

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
For whom he did foreknow , he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Moreover whom he did predestinate , them he also called : and whom he called , them he also justified : and whom he justified , them he also glorified .

No one slipping through the cracks.
the 'whom' is the 'them', and the 'them' is the 'whom'.

That is how he was able to translate Enoch and Elijah into His kingdom.
Good as done.
And Satan, and all his minions in the opposition, in the spirit world and in this physical world, can do nothing about it.
Except to resort to their old tricks, which is "YEAH, DID GOD SAY ?".

God has looked down in time, and seen His Son doing His task at the cross, and there is no doubt whatsoever in the mind and heart of the Triune God, the CROSS WILL HAPPEN, AND IT WILL SUCCEED (and did succeed).

That is why SALVATION IS OF THE LORD, then, now, and forever.

Paul understood this trust of each other among the members of the Trinity (or perhaps taught about it by the very same Three in One) which is why the KJ translation was correct when it translated Philippians 2:20 as : I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live ; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Does your post above back up my understanding of Romans 3:25 that being
God before place Jesus the Christ, that is before the foundation of the world, a propitiation. the place of mercy. God did this because of the belief, the faith, he God was placing in his Son, to be born of woman, of being obedient unto death, shedding his sinless blood. Because of this faith of God, he God made a promise before the world begin of the hope of eternal life for the Christ, as of a lamb without spot and without blemish.

When Jesus, the lamb of God, learned and became obedient unto death, see Heb 5:8 Phil 2:8 he was given or inherited the promise of God, being the heir of God, by the resurrection from the dead, incorruptible and thus became the substance of things hope for the evidence of things not seen bringing salvation, grace through the faith, to man.

I believe the word shows that Spirit the God, Holy as Father brought forth the Son of God, the Holy One, the Just one, into the world, conceived/generated Matt 1:20 within the virgin Mary then born of her. Then because of the aforementioned above the promise of the blessings given to Abraham can be given us through the promise of the Holy Spirit.

Before the foundation of the world the Christ was going to come into the world for the purpose of death, therefore God created man, Adam in his image and made a help meet for him by taking woman from the Man, Adam. For the very purpose of the Christ, the seed of Abraham, the son of David, the Son of God coming into the world.

Abraham the friend of God and David the man after God's own heart were men OF the faith, not men who generated faith from within themselves.

They were men of the belief to come. See Gal. 3:23-25

The belief being that God in Christ would reconcile the world unto himself.

 

[percho]

This text is one of the more stronger proof texts used against a strict limited atonement. However, I believe the atonement is universal in the sense that Christ paid the eternal penalty for the Adamic sin singular (Jn 1:29) so that no individual goes to hell or is punished in hell for the race sin in Adam. Instead, they are judged "according to their own works" performed in their own individual bodies. So, in the sense of the sin of the world singular they were redeemed from that penalty. This is the reason why dying infants and others who die incapable of rational decision do not go to hell as the only sin that would condemn them to hell is race participation in Adam's sin.

Good to have you back.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Another widely spread mistaken view, in my opinion, is that scripture teaches Christ's blood was shed from the foundation of the world. The grammar is difficult in Revelation 13:8, but the NASB renders it as referring to names not written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain. Thus from creation, names have been written or not written in the Lamb's book of life, but this verse does not teach Christ was slain during creation. Rather the bible teaches, using the generations from Adam to Jesus, that Christ was slain thousands of years after creation.

How does this retract from the truth of the principle that the blood of the Lamb was SELECTIVELY and PARTICULARLY applied ONLY to those whose names were written from the foundation of the world in the Lamb's book of Life, long before they even heard the Name of Christ, or the gospel, or "accepted" Christ
?
The FACT is that the Bible teaches names were written in a book in ETERNITY PAST and for those whose names are not in that book, there is no atonement, no adoption, and no redemption.

And if the language is difficult, then on what basis do you accept the NASB's rendering ?

 

[pinoybaptist]

................
Calvinists deny that Christ paid the ransom for all, becoming the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world. Thus, their bogus doctrine is called limited atonement.

...............

well, didn't you just admit that Scripture teaches God wrote names in His book of life FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD ?

And the same Scriptures teaches that God sends to the lake of fire those whose names were not found in the book ? Therefore the blood of Christ does not COVER THE WHOLE WORLD ?

so, whose doctrine is now bogus.
Those of the Doctrine of Grace, or those of the doctrine of disgrace such as yours ?