In what sense did Christ die for all sinners?

[atpollard]

"Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." Ephesians 2:3.

Nice verse, I am quite fond of Ephesians 2:1-10. It had a tremendous impact on me as a infant in Christ.

Jesus death Appeased the Wrath of God, on behalf of His Elect.

Where in Ephesians 2:3 does it say that? Where in Ephesians 2 does it either imply or even hint at that? Where in Ephesians 2 does it suggest anything other than we WERE sinners and GOD (as a sovereign act of GRACE) forgave our sins?

Ephesians 2:1-10 [ESV]
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience-- among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved-- and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

We WERE children of wrath, we ARE his workmanship. What comes in between is not a “transfer of wrath”, but “rich in mercy” and “the great love with which he loved us” and “grace” and “gift”. Go ahead and read it for yourself.

Catholic has Zero to do with anything Baptist, i.e., Biblical.
The Bible is a True Baptist's Home Court Advantage.

For me to repeatedly request a scripture supporting the claim of another poster, and for them to repeatedly respond with a question asking me to disprove their “tradition” IS very Catholic (which is not derogatory, but an acknowledgement that the RCC rejects Sola Scriptura for the equality of Scripture and Sacred Tradition).

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

there is a real "offer" of salvation that goes with the gospel message.

Who is it that you think some "offer" of "salvation" is preached to?

Spiritually dead, lost sin-cursed, God-Haters?

Is the word real' just supposed to be added in, to make it sound important, or is the word 'real' supposed to be defining something that is 'real'? What in the world might that be?

I believe in the Total Depravity of all men having Total Inability.

Do you believe men are Totally Depraved,
then try to add "But Not Totally Unable"?

"HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY AND MAN'S SPIRITUAL INABILITY".

"Another question concerning man's Responsibility is, How can man be Responsible for not fully obeying the Law of God and for not receiving the Gospel when it is heard, when he is unable by Nature to do either of these?

"For proof of man's spiritual inability,
see chapters on Sin and Conversion.

"The Answer to this Question is that man can be Responsible for what he is unable to do only on the supposition that he is to blame for his inability.

"And it is a fact that man is to blame for his Spiritual Inability.

"It is not that he individually, by his own personal act,
originated the inability, because he was born with it.

"But every man sinned in Adam, and thus originated his Spiritual Inability. That every man sinned in Adam is the True Teaching of Romans 5:12- "Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that ALL SINNED."

"Sinned" in the Greek is aorist tense, which expresses pointed past action. The passage makes it refer to the Participation of all men in the sin of Adam.

"But how did we Participate in the sin of Adam when we were not born when he sinned? We think we cannot do better than give the following words of A. H. Strong in reply:

"God Imputes the sin of Adam immediately to all his Posterity, in virtue of that Organic Unity of mankind by which the Whole Race at the time of Adam's Transgression existed, not individually, but seminally, in him as its head.

"The Total Life of Humanity was then in Adam; the Race as yet had its being only in him. Its essence was not yet individualized; its forces were not yet distributed; the powers which now exist in separate men were then Unified and Localized in Adam;

"Adam's will was yet the will of the Species. In Adam's Free Act, the will of the Race Revolted from God and the Nature of the Race Corrupted itself.

"The Nature which we now possess is the same Nature that corrupted itself in Adam- not the same in kind merely, but the same as flowing to us continuously from him.

"Adam's sin is Imputed to us immediately, therefore, not as something foreign to us, but because it is ours--we and all other men having existed as One Moral Person, or One Moral Whole, in Adam, and as the result of that Transgression, possessing a Nature destitute of Love to God and prone to evil" (Systematic Theology, p. 328)."

They were able to say this with sincerity

Man is Free to except the "free offer", for "Pardon" of their sins.

He JUST NEVER WILL, because "it is NOT of him that Willeth."

"MAN AS MUCH A FREE AGENT AS GOD".

We have noted that A. H. Strong says:
"Free Agency is the power of self-determination."

"Others define Free Agency as the power one has to act according to his choice, to do as he pleases.

"We have seen that Free Agency does not imply ability to Transcend oneself and to act contrary to one's character.

"Free Agency does not exclude determination to either good or bad.

"Free Agency does exclude compulsion and restraint from outside of ones Nature, and it also just as surely excludes mere caprice and arbitrariness.

"What more than this can be affirmed of God?

"What less can be affirmed of man?

"God is Self-Determined. So is man, and at all times.

"God always Acts according to His Choice;
He does as He Pleases.* So also does man.

"God cannot Transcend Himself
and Act Contrary to His Character.** Neither can man.

"God is Ever Determined to Good.
Natural man is ever determined to that which is spiritually evil.

"A Regenerated man is determined, in the main, to that which is good. When he commits evil, he is, for the moment determined to evil.

" The will of God is never compelled or restrained by anything outside His own nature. The same is true of man. God never acts capriciously or arbitrarily, that is, without sufficient cause. Neither does man. God always acts according to His preference, considering things as a whole; but not always according to His preference in things, considering them separately and apart from His perfect plan.*** For instance, God immanently prefers holiness at all times, but, in consideration of His plan as a whole, He purposed to permit sin; because it, in some way, is necessary to the working out of His plan. This is analogous to the fact that man has conflicting preferences, but he always follows his strongest preference; and in doing so, his will is wholly and absolutely free."

there are whole books written by 5 point Calvinists on the "free offer" in which they show how, theologically, both concepts can be true at the same time.

To those, who believe both the free offer of salvation and a limited atonement

I do not believe myself that the atonement was limited in any sense in which it shut out someone at that time.

Then, since we all sinned in Adam, every member of the Human Race was shut out, but God had Prepared a Lamb Slain before the Foundation of The World.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Your testimony appears to be that you do not believe this:

Jesus death Appeased the Wrath of God, on behalf of His Elect.

Where in Ephesians 2:3 does it say that? Where in Ephesians 2 does it either imply or even hint at that? Where in Ephesians 2 does it suggest anything other than we WERE sinners and GOD (as a sovereign act of GRACE) forgave our sins?

And, I'm going to say that anyone who believes that The Atonement of Jesus Crist was "sufficient for all", do not believe in any Actual, Real, Substitutionary Sacrifice was Accomplished by Jesus death, burial, and resurrection, but that they consider Jesus' Atonement, as being merely a vague hypothetical notion leaving lost souls in no better shape than if Jesus had never been Made sin.

Down below, from:

A Triune Perspective ​

on The Limited (Definite) Atonement​

Edwin Palmer (d. 1980),
is where he brings these thoughts under consideration:

"If the Atonement does not actually Save,
does not really Remove God’s curse from people,
does not Actually Redeem them,
then it indeed can be for all the world,
even for those who are in Hell.

We WERE children of wrath, we ARE his workmanship. What comes in between is not a “transfer of wrath”, but “rich in mercy” and “the great love with which he loved us” and “grace” and “gift”. Go ahead and read it for yourself.

Ephesians 2:16 "And that He might Reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having Slain the enmity thereby:"

Again, "The Son’s Atonement.

"The Bible teaches the death of Jesus in at least four different ways.

"When Christ died,

1) He Made a Substitutionary Sacrifice for sins (Heb. 9-10);

"2) He Propitiated, that is, Appeased or Placated,
the Righteous Wrath of God
(Rom. 3:25; Heb. 2:17, 2 John 2:2; 4:10);

"3) He Reconciled His people to God – that is, He Removed the enmity between them and God (Rom. 5:10, 2 Cor. 5:20, etc.);

"and 4) He Redeemed them from the curse of the law (Gal. 3:13). …

"The Nature of the Atonement – what did Christ actually do? –

"Answers the Question: For whom did Christ die?

"The noun (Atonement) defines its adjective (limited).

Again,
"If the Atonement does not actually Save,
does not really remove God’s curse from people,
does not actually Redeem them,
then it indeed can be for all the world,
even for those who are in Hell.

"But if the death of Jesus is what the Bible says it is –
a Substitutionary Sacrifice for sins, an Actual
and not a hypothetical Redemption,
whereby the sinner is really Reconciled to God –

then obviously,
it cannot be for every man in the world.

"Because then everybody would be saved,
and obviously they are not."

Is that as obvious as your hand in front of your face,
or just another Bible Truth for some people to stick their head in the sand about and Pretend God didn't actually do anything worth while to Assure Eternal Salvation for some, since, left to themselves, no human being would have ever come to Jesus in Salvation, regardless of Him having Come to die on the cross, or not.

 

[DaveXR650]

Who is it that you think some "offer" of "salvation" is preached to?

Spiritually dead, lost sin-cursed, God-Haters?

Well. Yes. "such were some of you".

Alan, you illustrate by your posts just the problem I have with your branch of Calvinism. It's fine to believe in any degree of sovereignty you want and any view of the extent of the atonement you want as far as I am concerned. But you and your camp have made a great mistake if you allow that to get into your preaching where you do not offer or invite sinners to come to Christ with the full promise that if they come they will be saved.

It really does come down to that. That's where Owen was and by far most of the other Reformation era Calvinists. That's where Spurgeon, Bonar, Ryle were. I might be wrong but then they were too. My point is that I am not pulling this out of thin air.

Man is Free to except the "free offer", for "Pardon" of their sins.

He JUST NEVER WILL, because "it is NOT of him that Willeth."

"MAN AS MUCH A FREE AGENT AS GOD".

We have noted that A. H. Strong says:
"Free Agency is the power of self-determination."

See, this is why you get into trouble and fly off the handle with all caps, font size changes and such. We were talking about the scope and meaning of the atonement, not man's innate ability to respond.

All my bolded statement said above and all I have ever asserted in these posts, is that from our point of view, salvation can be freely offered to anyone and they can be told that if they come they will be saved. There is nothing in the atonement itself that hinders this from being true. Now for me, I conclude that this by necessity means that the atonement is not limited, that Spurgeon was right in what he said and the idea of the atonement being sufficient for all, efficient for the elect is a sound statement. In your usual zealous overstatement you start calling that Satanic like some kind of lunatic.

But again, regardless of one's view on the atonement, if like Owen, they can see fit for whatever reason to preach that all can come and anyone who does so will be saved then I have no problem with their theology. In a way, if God is omnipotent, then of course he had to have in mind the elect in a way different than those who he knew would never respond to the gospel. There are a lot of complicated and philosophical reasons why this can be so while preserving various degrees of free will but that's another post.

Regarding free will, your statement "He just never will" is true but Edwards would have followed it with "because he doesn't want to". "He can't because he won't". The inability, being moral, is blamable because of that reason. But that's not the discussion here. Except I do want to say this. I think the free willers on here, the Wesleyans, and the Provisionists, and the Free Will Baptists, the New Anabaptists, and the moderate Calvinists, and the Fundamental Baptists, are all far more accurate in their sharing of the gospel than you and you need to rethink this and read more instead of digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole with this misapplication of theology.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

WRATH is something that remains on those that “reject so great a salvation”, not a debt that Jesus paid to the Father.

We WERE children of wrath, we ARE his workmanship. What comes in between is not a “transfer of wrath”, but “rich in mercy” and “the great love with which he loved us” and “grace” and “gift”. Go ahead and read it for yourself.

The Appeasement of God’s Wrath.​

Romans 3:21-26​

Each instance of propitiation in English translations of the Bible is a variation of the same Greek word hilasmos. Bible study resources consistently associate this word with an act of appeasement towards an offended or wrathful party. Greek scholars tell us that this word indicates “the means of appeasing God, or averting His anger; and not a single instance to the contrary occurs in the whole Greek literature.”1 If we are going to form an understanding of propitiation, we absolutely must start by grappling with the concept of God’s wrath.

Some may not like the idea of a wrathful God, but a comprehensive view of Scripture does not leave us much choice. John 3:36 states: “Whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” Ephesians 5:6 and Colossians 3:6 also speak in clear terms of the wrath of God. Revelation 16 recounts the pouring out of seven golden bowls full of the wrath of God.

Consider also today’s reading from Romans 3. In verse 25, we are offered “the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by His blood, to be received by faith.” Why do we need this propitiation? Because, as the first chapter of Romans has already stated plainly in verse 18, “The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.” Propitiation is the appeasement of wrath!

The tax collector described by Jesus in Luke 18:13 understands this reality, and he “beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’” As it happens, the tax collector actually uses a variation of the word hilasmos. He is literally praying, “God, be propitiated for me!”

Praise God for Jesus’ analysis in the next verse: “I tell you, this man went down to his house justified…. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Today, I will…bow before God in prayer, as one who has incurred His righteous wrath and who humbly accepts the propitiation by His Son’s blood.

1George Smeaton, The Apostles’ Doctrine of the Atonement (Waikato, New Zealand: Titus Books, 2013) 455.

 

[JonC]

it is, as that fits the examples given and pointed to us in the OT sacrificial stem and Suffering Servant Isaiah 53, and even in the proto gospel of Genesis chapter 3

Wrong. You interpret (misinterpret) the OT sacrificial system by assuming it to be identical in purpose to the pagan ANE culture. This is wrong (the pagan ANE sacrifices were a perversion).

If you took Isaiah 53 as it is written you woukd not hold the position you currently hold. What you have done, perhaps without knowing, is start with a theory and then go seeking support. Again, wrong method.

 

[JonC]

We also call what they hold to as being "Pauline Justification"

Yes. And nany of those who disagree with Penal Substitution Theory hold what they call "Pauline Justification:.

I know the Reformers that developed Penal Substitution Theory and those influenced by them believe Penal Substitution Theory correct. That is no great insight, brother


The issue here is many, like me, believe that "Pauline Justification" does not exist as a seperate type of Justification. Instead we (those who believe like I believe) hold that Paul was re-describing to the Church redemption, the reconciliation of man to God, and the necessity of individual reconciliation.

I find it concerning that so many believe Paul developed a new system or Theory of Justification called "Pauline Justification". Paul's words are no greater, or less, than the remainder of Scripture. One should strive to be "of Chriat", not "of Paul".

 

[JonC]

Catholic has Zero to do with anything Baptist

This is not completely accurate. Most Baptists believe at least some Roman Catholic doctrine and adopt some Roman Catholic practices, although these doctrines and practices have been reformed.

Here are a few examples:

1. The way we observe the Lord's Supper (a waifer or bit of bread with a sip of grape juice or wine). This is foreign to the meal observed in remembrance of Christ prior to the Roman Catholic Church.

2. Most Western Baptists believe the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. This was a reform the of Roman Catholic view (Aquinas' Substitution based on merit was shifted to be based on divine justice).

3. The ordered method of worship (program worship) many use originated with the Catholic Church and was continued by the Reformers from the Roman Catholic Church, and passed to Baptists.

4. Most Baptists hold the Catholic view, some reformed Cathilic views, of "Original Sin".

5. What many Baptists view as minister vs laity, with the "overseer" or paster coming from without the congregation can be argued to have had its start from the Catholic Church.

 

[JonC]

All of the lost before were saved had that stored up wrath and judgement/condemnation towards them by a Holy God, so in Order to allow for God the Father to freely save us, where did that wrath and judgement we incurred to Him go to in order to have Him justify us without violating his own Nature?

Your friend says something hateful to you and you are wrathful. But he catches this and sincerely apologizes and you two are on good terms. Where does your wrath go?

You have adopted a flawed philosophy of justice and divine wrath (one given to you as reformed Roman Catholic doctrine). You do not remotely understand the Cross and cannot until you start trusting in God's Word.

It is difficult (I was once on your shoes) but it is possible to take Scripture for what is written as true and complete.

 

[atpollard]

Your testimony appears to be that you do not believe this: Jesus death Appeased the Wrath of God, on behalf of His Elect.

My "testimony" is that I was lied to most of my life by well meaning people until God and the BIBLE told me "straight-up" how things REALLY are, so I now trust the WORD OF GOD (both) as the only "norma normans non normata" (measure of measures that has no higher measure to judge it against). Thus, when people make claims of BIBLICAL TRUTH, I ask where it says that. When the verse presented does not appear to SAY what they claim it says, then I invite them to explain it.

I now offer you the same opportunity as the previous brother. Here is every verse in the OT and NT that says "appeased", so you can show me where scripture teaches what you claim:

1 Kings 13:6 [NASB20] And the king responded and said to the man of God, "Please appease the LORD your God and pray for me, so that my hand may be restored to me." So the man of God appeased the LORD, and the king's hand was restored to him, and it became as it was before.

2 Kings 13:4 [NASB20] Then Jehoahaz appeased the LORD, and the LORD listened to him; for He saw the oppression of Israel, how the king of Aram oppressed them.

2 Chronicles 33:12 [NASB20] When he was in distress, he appeased the LORD his God and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers.

Ezekiel 5:13 NASB20] 'Then My anger will be spent and I will satisfy My wrath on them, and I will be appeased; then they will know that I, the LORD, have spoken in My zeal, when I have spent My wrath upon them.

Zechariah 6:8 [NASB20] Then He called out to me and spoke to me, saying, "See, those who are going to the land of the north have appeased My wrath in the land of the north."


... and here is every verse in the OT and NT that says "appease", in case it was translated in the present tense:

Genesis 32:20 [NASB20] and you shall say, 'Behold, your servant Jacob also is behind us.'" For he said, "I will appease him with the gift that goes ahead of me. Then afterward I will see his face; perhaps he will accept me."

1 Kings 13:6 [NASB20] And the king responded and said to the man of God, "Please appease the LORD your God and pray for me, so that my hand may be restored to me." So the man of God appeased the LORD, and the king's hand was restored to him, and it became as it was before.

Proverbs 16:14 [NASB20] The fury of a king is [like] messengers of death; But a wise person will appease it.

Matthew 28:14 [NASB20] "And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will appease him and keep you out of trouble."


* Note: I used NASB20 because it had the most instances of "appeased" and "appease", feel free to select any translation/verse you wish that teaches what you affirm ("All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," - 2 Timothy 3:16)

 

[Paleouss]

Greetings Dave. Back from the in-law weekend. Making my way through all the posts I missed.

I don't personally believe, and I have writings from Edwards, that he didn't believe either, that God was actually feeling wrath toward or was angry with Jesus. If that specifically is what is bothering you then I would agree and you would be in agreement with guys like Edwards.

My camp

Some Calvinists, like R.C Sproul, have written that God was actually angry to the point of hating Jesus when he was on the cross

Not my camp

Rather, try to keep all God's attributes in mind at once.

Key

His holiness and sense of justice does indeed demand punishment for sin because he has officially announced sanctions and punishment for sin.

Agreed. And I do believe that when we see "wrath" in the Bible it is the 'word picture' that represents judgement within the stratagem of God. We don't see God just going around having wrath. God brings wrath within a picture story after mankind has violated some covenant or law. Like the example of bringing the Jewish people out of Egypt. The sequence of events within the picture story is (1) God first gave the Ten Commandments, then and only then (2) God had wrath on those that did not choose God (Exo 32:28).

But the point here is, that while the wrath is averted and put aside and we don't come under it, there is an actual reason for that and it's because our sins were really washed away, covered, put on Christ, sent off on a scapegoat, removed as far as the East from the West and so on.

God showing us through picture stories the deep workings of God's stratagem. Amen.

Keep seeking God's truth

 

[Paleouss]

Greetings in the Name of The Lord,, my brother.

Greetings to you as well, brother. Thank you for providing your insight into some of what I have written.

.
Well, I guess I sure can't find any connection to be made there in any regard.

Do you agree that one purpose of the Incarnation, death and resurrection was to put all things under His foot (1Cor 15:24-28, Heb 2:8, 1John 3:8, Phil 2:10, 1Pet 3:22)?

Peace to you brother.

 

[atpollard]

And, I'm going to say that anyone who believes that The Atonement of Jesus Crist was "sufficient for all", do not believe in any Actual, Real, Substitutionary Sacrifice was Accomplished by Jesus death, burial, and resurrection, but that they consider Jesus' Atonement, as being merely a vague hypothetical notion leaving lost souls in no better shape than if Jesus had never been Made sin.

No problem to me, I am a 5-pointer so Limited (EFFECTIVE) Atonement is my belief. As Charles Spurgeon put it "God builds a narrow bridge all the way across, not a wide bridge part way across that men must jump the gap." [my bad paraphrase]

That does not mean that God cannot FORGIVE unless his WRATH is first satisfied. That is what I cannot find taught in Scripture and will not ADD to God's Word. That does not mean that Jesus suffered the WRATH that God had stored up for US as some claim but scripture does not.

Thus I continue to invite brothers in Christ to present me with Scripture to support their teaching and question those teaching when they go beyond what the scriptures presented actually say. So far the real evidence is two-fold:

1. The definition of PROPITIATION: which is a bit questionable given the actual Greek word and its other NT use. This is primarily built on the ENGLISH definition of the word rather than the Greek definition. Sadly, I wish I were an expert on Greek, but I am not even a layman. I am just able to read a Lexicon and see where and how it is used in other places and the opinions of other scholars.

2. The opinion of the CROWD that Killed Jesus: The OT Prophet predicted, and the NT records, that the Jews that killed Jesus believed that he was a blasphemer and cursed by God. Peter makes it clear in Acts 2 that they were wrong, which God proved by raising Jesus from the dead.

This is a poor foundation for so important a doctrine as the inability of God to forgive without first TRANSFERRING WRATH. So I reject that unbiblical detail until supporting scripture can be provided that God DID transfer WRATH.

 

[Paleouss]

Thus I continue to invite brothers in Christ to present me with Scripture to support their teaching and question those teaching when they go beyond what the scriptures presented actually say. So far the real evidence is two-fold:

atpollard, greetings again brother. Side note but related.

In regard to Christ satisfying justice (the law). What do you think about Galatians 3:13 as it pertains?

(Gal 3:13 NKJV) 13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed [is] everyone who hangs on a tree"). [underline mine]

It seems to me that Gal 3:13 suggests that Christ has done something on our behalf regarding the law. It specifically says that that something is, "the curse of the law". Would you say that this "curse of the law" is related to the law giving sin strength, "the strength of sin is the law" (1Cor 15:56)? In other words, sin and the law are intertwined in some way and Christ comes to address both.

Peace to you brother

 

[atpollard]

atpollard, greetings again brother. Side note but related.

In regard to Christ satisfying justice (the law). What do you think about Galatians 3:13 as it pertains?

(Gal 3:13 NKJV) 13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed [is] everyone who hangs on a tree"). [underline mine]

It seems to me that Gal 3:13 suggests that Christ has done something on our behalf regarding the law. It specifically says that that something is, "the curse of the law". Would you say that this "curse of the law" is related to the law giving sin strength, "the strength of sin is the law" (1Cor 15:56)? In other words, sin and the law are intertwined in some way and Christ comes to address both.

Peace to you brother

Do you remember as a Child being told "don't touch that" ... so, of course, that meant you had to touch it.
... What EXACTLY does the HOT pot feel like?
... How can DRY ICE burn you? There is only one way to find out (touch it).
I think it was Ben Franklin that wrote "Experience is the best teacher, but one should not learn all your lessons that way".

The LAW and SIN are like that (at least in my experience).
LAW says "do not touch the stove, it is hot".
SIN says "How will you really know hot unless you touch the stove?" ... and so we get burned.

People like to pass the blame off. Adam certainly wasted no time: "This woman THAT YOU GAVE ME" ... [see God, SHE and YOU are responsible - I am just a poor victim]. Even as a 100% non-christian sinner, I never embraced that. Those decisions were MINE. I chose to touch that stove and that Dry Ice and to stick a knife on the outlet and lick a battery terminal ... to see what would happen. I chose to take when I wanted. I chose to fight when threatened. I knew good and evil from earliest memory, and I CHOSE evil. I made excuses for why, but ultimately, BECAUSE I WANTED TO is the ultimate why. Therein lies "sin nature" - the "bent arrow that cannot hit the mark". The FLESH that craves sin. The MIND that cannot comprehend the FOOLISH things of God.

The LAW is the light that makes us aware of that which is within us - the curse that we choose to live under (not that we have an option, but the curse is not contrary to our will).

That is why we need to be REDEEMED from it ... from all of it ... the CURSE and the LAW and the SIN.
The LAW is the good RULE that we cannot obey ("do not touch the stove")
The SIN is the action that we do contrary to the law ("We touch the stove and get burned")
The CURSE is our innate nature that compels us to do what the Law says not to do ("We must touch the stove because we were told not to")
Christ fulfilled the LAW and suffered the CURSE [unjust death], thereby shattering the power of SIN.

When WE touch the stove and it demands to burn us, CHRIST holds out his had where he was burned UNJUSTLY and the stove retreats, relinquishing its right to burn us because of what CHRIST DID.

 

[DaveXR650]

I now offer you the same opportunity as the previous brother. Here is every verse in the OT and NT that says "appeased", so you can show me where scripture teaches what you claim:

I would just suggest you so the same search with "wrath". It occurs 199 times, sometimes referring to the wrath of God and sometimes to man. @Alan Dale Gross is right in that statement. There are times in scripture where the scenario is that God's wrath has broken out on the people of Israel and Moses tells Aaron to go immediately out to atone and intercede for the people. To find those instances you can plug in "wrath" because the word "appease" wasn't used but the concept Alan was suggesting is. So is "atone".

Also you will notice that the use of "wrath" means something like "anger to the point of being acted upon". That's just my own definition so take it for what it's worth. That is important because in that sense yes, wrath can build up so to speak, be a mounting emotion so to speak, yet be withheld without being actually manifested. So a saint, before he was saved may indeed have been accumulating "wrath" (potentially) but if in due time he repents, based on Christ's propitiating work, this wrath will never be executed upon him. And God being a judge and this being an important enough concept that it is said that God is just and a justifier (so indeed that matters), it is proper to say God loved us even while we were in our sins and in fact we all were timewise when Christ died for us.

Lastly, in the search of the word "wrath" in scripture, it is often used referring to human wrath. And it is explained that usually, our wrath is sinful for several reasons. One, it can occur for unjust reason in us. Two, it can result in doing things we are forbidden to engage in. Three, as creatures, we have fewer rights, have been forgiven much ourselves, and are not in a real position to administer judgement and act on our wrath.

But God is in such a position, and it is part of his nature and how he reacts to sin. I would suggest that if you look up all instances of "wrath" in scripture and read in context, without aid of commentaries, you will begin to understand the role of wrath in penal substitution. If you don't think it fits at that point then nothing else need be said.

 

[JesusFan]

Well. Yes. "such were some of you".

Alan, you illustrate by your posts just the problem I have with your branch of Calvinism. It's fine to believe in any degree of sovereignty you want and any view of the extent of the atonement you want as far as I am concerned. But you and your camp have made a great mistake if you allow that to get into your preaching where you do not offer or invite sinners to come to Christ with the full promise that if they come they will be saved.

It really does come down to that. That's where Owen was and by far most of the other Reformation era Calvinists. That's where Spurgeon, Bonar, Ryle were. I might be wrong but then they were too. My point is that I am not pulling this out of thin air.

See, this is why you get into trouble and fly off the handle with all caps, font size changes and such. We were talking about the scope and meaning of the atonement, not man's innate ability to respond.

All my bolded statement said above and all I have ever asserted in these posts, is that from our point of view, salvation can be freely offered to anyone and they can be told that if they come they will be saved. There is nothing in the atonement itself that hinders this from being true. Now for me, I conclude that this by necessity means that the atonement is not limited, that Spurgeon was right in what he said and the idea of the atonement being sufficient for all, efficient for the elect is a sound statement. In your usual zealous overstatement you start calling that Satanic like some kind of lunatic.

But again, regardless of one's view on the atonement, if like Owen, they can see fit for whatever reason to preach that all can come and anyone who does so will be saved then I have no problem with their theology. In a way, if God is omnipotent, then of course he had to have in mind the elect in a way different than those who he knew would never respond to the gospel. There are a lot of complicated and philosophical reasons why this can be so while preserving various degrees of free will but that's another post.

Regarding free will, your statement "He just never will" is true but Edwards would have followed it with "because he doesn't want to". "He can't because he won't". The inability, being moral, is blamable because of that reason. But that's not the discussion here. Except I do want to say this. I think the free willers on here, the Wesleyans, and the Provisionists, and the Free Will Baptists, the New Anabaptists, and the moderate Calvinists, and the Fundamental Baptists, are all far more accurate in their sharing of the gospel than you and you need to rethink this and read more instead of digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole with this misapplication of theology.

We offer to all lost sinners the gospel of Jesus, as to those who are to be saved by it will be sweet news to their ears, and to those who prefer to stay in their sins and darkness, and stay lost, will be aroma of death to them

 

[atpollard]

I would just suggest you so the same search with "wrath".

See post #225 (I offered an opportunity for that word already and was invited to prove their statement of faith was false in response.)

I am not advocating that WRATH does not exist. I am requesting some indication that WRATH is "transferred" rather than "forgiven" when it comes to saints or that any WRATH which Christ suffered was from God.

As far as "APPEASED" goes, I am not rejecting anything that scripture states Christ's death/blood achieved. I am asking where "appeasing" God is listed in scripture as something that it achieved? I am questioning whether the connotations of "appeased" are accurate if scripture does not use that word to describe what Christ achieved.

Sola Scriptura means that the BIBLE (what God actually SAID) is the yardstick that we measure truth by. Lots of arguments and theories sound good, but that does not make them Biblical.

 

[atpollard]

But God is in such a position, and it is part of his nature and how he reacts to sin. I would suggest that if you look up all instances of "wrath" in scripture and read in context, without aid of commentaries, you will begin to understand the role of wrath in penal substitution. If you don't think it fits at that point then nothing else need be said.

Copy-pasted from earlier in the topic:

I do not take issue with God’s RIGHT to wrath. There is nothing in the argument “we deserve punishment for our sin”, “Jesus accepted the punishment that we deserved”, “both God’s absolute JUSTICE and absolute MERCY were preserved” … that violates anything in the character of God. God certainly COULD have done that and WOULD have been completely within his right to do so.

I am uncomfortable taking it as FACT when God never EXPLICITLY states he DID do that. I am uncomfortable building on any foundation that must be inferred by reading between the lines rather than being clearly and explicitly stated.

 

[DaveXR650]

My issue is that I keep seeing WRATH directed at SINNERS, not at SAINTS. So I keep asking those that keep accusing me of ignoring scripture to POINT to the scripture that I am ignoring, so I can believe, too.

I guess I'm at a loss because this verse below from you quotes explains what I thought you were asking.

[Jhn 3:36 ESV] 36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

The wrath of God remains on those who don't believe. That must mean that it was on those who believe, before they believed.

[Rom 5:9 ESV] 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

If you are suggesting that all those verses show is that the wrath is averted for "saints" or believers and implying that God forgives in a way unconnected to Christ's shedding of blood then how do you account for the above and all the passages like it? Somehow we are justified by his blood and Hebrews for example connects this directly with the parallels in with the Old Testament priesthood.

Saints are those who were sinners before they were saints. It is true that there is a branch of Calvinism that seems to deny a conversion from sinner to saint "in time" and have an idea of eternal justification. If that's where you are then I understand your position.

But the bottom line is, if someone believes that you can be forgiven by God simply doing so then there was no real reason for Christ to die. There are denominations and churches that are of that school of thought but I have the same question you have but with this difference. If Christ's death was not in some way involved with the removal of the wrath of God that truly was hanging over all of us then please tell me some reason why he had to die on the cross.