Penal Substitutionary Atonement

[Van]

Note how Limited Atonement is defended, by claiming differing views are absurd. The absence of any knowledgeable Calvinists able to defend the views from scripture is mind boggling.

Is it absurd to say Christ died as a ransom for all?
Is it absurd to say Christ is the propitiation or means of Salvation for the whole world?
But just as it is absurd to say Christ did not die for all mankind, it is absurd to say since Christ did not die for all mankind, He died only for the specific sins, past, present and future, of only the elect. Absurd time two.

Calvinists and enablers hate it when their cloaked doctrines are de-coded.

BTW, Substitutionary Atonement comes in several flavors, Penal Substitutionary Atonement being the cloaked one, trying to sneak into orthodoxy like a Trojan horse.

 

[Van]

Here is a summary of Particular Reconciliation and General Reconciliation

Particular Reconciliation:
(1) God preselected folks for salvation before creation
(2) Christ came and died for those folks - limited atonement
(3) God gives those folks faith in Christ, then accepts their faith and places them in Christ.

General Reconciliation
(1) God selected Christ to redeem mankind before creation. Therefore those chosen and placed in Christ during their lifetime through belief in the truth were corporately chosen as the target group of His redemption plan before the foundation of the world.
(2) Christ came and died for mankind in general but not specifically for each individual.
(3) God chooses folks and places them in Christ after accepting their faith and reckoning it as righteousness.

The first point of difference centers on the meaning of Ephesians 1:4 which says we (born again believers) were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world. Particular Reconciliation maintains that being chosen in Him means being chosen as foreseen individuals. General Reconciliation maintains that being chosen in Him means Christ was chosen to be the Lamb of God before the foundation of the world and anyone subsequently redeemed by the Lamb was corporately chosen because you do not choose a Redeemer without a plan to redeem. When God chose His Redeemer, in effect He chose corporately all those His Redeemer would redeem, hence, He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world.

The second point of difference centers on the meaning of 1 John 2:2 which says He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world. Particular Reconciliation maintains that Jesus is the propitiation not only for elect Jews but also for elect Gentiles. General Reconciliation maintains that Christ is the propitiation not only for Jews or believers, but also for everybody else, the whole world. Propitiation means that God’s acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice provides the means of salvation, the mechanism of reconciliation. When God puts a believer spiritually in Christ they “receive” the reconciliation provided by Christ’s sacrifice.

The third point of difference centers on the meaning of Romans 4:5 which says but to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. Particular Reconciliation maintains the “his faith” was supernaturally given to him by God because the unregenerate are spiritually unable to trust in Christ. General Reconciliation maintains “his faith” is the individual’s trust in Christ, because if it were God’s gift of faith, it would not need to be reckoned as righteousness.

 

[Rippon]

Is it absurd to say Christ is the propitiation or means of Salvation for the whole world?

Propitiation does not mean "means of salvation." This is how the 1996 NLT renders the meaning in Romans 3:25a :"For God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God's anger against us."

The following is a portion of how Roger Nicole expresses it in his book Our Sovereign Saviour :The Essence of the Reformed Faith:

"Propitiation is the gracious act of God by which he himself has made the provision that is necessary for the outpouring of his blessing, by which he himself has taken care that all demands of the law and of justice be met, so the sinners might be received in grace. Propitiation involves recognition of the objective character of the demands of God; and the Scripture teaches that those demands are met by the work of Jesus Christ." (p.98)

But just as it is absurd to say Christ did not die for all mankind, it is absurd to say since Christ did not die for all mankind, He died only for the specific sins, past, present and future, of only the elect.

Listen, which accords with Scripture? 1) Christ died for the sins of every single person - past, present and future.
2) He died for only the sins of some -- His elect alone

You should recognize that #2 makes the most biblical and common sense. Option number 3 (which I did not list) would make the least sense --He died for no one.

All human residents of glory are the very same ones for whom He died.

 

[preachinjesus]

Note how Limited Atonement is defended, by claiming differing views are absurd.

I am neither a Calvinist nor Reformed.

I do accept, primarily, the penal substitutionary atonement as the primary metaphor for atonement in Scripture (not the only but primary.) However, I do not accept the Calvinist position of limited atonement. God's grace is available to all and those who will be saved is not determined before the creation of this world.

Please don't think you're surrounded by one view. You're not. However, your point is still incorrect.

 

[Van]

Anyone can say, your view is incorrect. That takes absolutely no understanding of the topic. You seem to confuse "substitutionary atonement" for penal substitutionary atonement.

BTW, Substitutionary Atonement comes in several flavors, Penal Substitutionary Atonement being the cloaked one, trying to sneak into orthodoxy like a Trojan horse.

After I wrote this, then this was posted: "Please don't think you're surrounded by one view. You're not." Note the total lack of effort to read understand and respond accurately.

Next, no effort was made to refute the obvious, if Christ died only for the sins, past, present and future, of the elect, that is by definition Limited Atonement.
If Christ paid the penalty for everyone who goes to Hades, i.e. non-elect, then God is extracting double payment for the sin burden of the non-elect, first Christ, then the lost. Thus the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement is a Trojan horse for Limited Atonement.

The correct doctrine is Christ became the propitiation for the whole world, all mankind, when God accepted His sacrifice on the cross. In effect Christ became the propitiationary shelter for all mankind. Any individual outside of Christ is not forgiven, any individual placed in Christ is forgiven, saved, justified, and propitiated. When we are placed spiritually in Christ, and then undergo the circumcision of Christ, we become holy and blameless.

 

[Revmitchell]

Note how Limited Atonement is defended, by claiming differing views are absurd. The absence of any knowledgeable Calvinists able to defend the views from scripture is mind boggling.

Is it absurd to say Christ died as a ransom for all?
Is it absurd to say Christ is the propitiation or means of Salvation for the whole world?
But just as it is absurd to say Christ did not die for all mankind, it is absurd to say since Christ did not die for all mankind, He died only for the specific sins, past, present and future, of only the elect. Absurd time two.

Calvinists and enablers hate it when their cloaked doctrines are de-coded.

BTW, Substitutionary Atonement comes in several flavors, Penal Substitutionary Atonement being the cloaked one, trying to sneak into orthodoxy like a Trojan horse.

You are more arrogant than all the cals I have ever come across.

 

[The Biblicist]

The correct doctrine is Christ became the propitiation

And what is your definition of "propitiation"???

 

[Van]

And what is your definition of "propitiation"???

Before we even think about studying hilasterion and the related words hilaskomai and hilasmos, we must address the three cornerstone words of salvation - propitiation, the means of salvation, redemption, the act of salvation, and reconciliation, the result of salvation. Our word study below enters into the arena of the means of salvation, which is Jesus Christ.

Hilasterion

Our best understanding is that hilasterion referred to the lid of the ark of the covenant, which was sprinkled with blood, and thus referred to as the mercy seat. Articles on its meaning are filled with classic words like expiation, atonement, and propitiation, all of which convey almost nothing to the modern reader. In a nutshell, under the Old Covenant, the blood of animals was sprinkled on the hilasterion on the day of atonement to provide temporary reconciliation with God and avoidance of the wages of sin. Under the New Covenant, Jesus, covered with His precious blood, has become our "hilasterion" (and our blood sin offering) as the means of everlasting reconciliation with God and avoidance of the wages of sin.

Three related Greek words (Hilasterion and Hilasmos-nouns and Hilaskomai -verb) appear 6 times in the New Testament, Romans 3:25, Hebrews 9:5 ; 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10, Luke 18:13, and Hebrews 2:17. If we look at several translations we find the words translated as (1) propitiatory sacrifice; (2) propitiation; (3) mercy seat; (4) atonement and (5) atoning sacrifice for the nouns; with the verb being translated as (1) have mercy; (2) be merciful; (3) turn your wrath; and (4) make propitiation.

In short the verb refers to the act of having mercy and the noun to the means of having mercy. Therefore hilasterion should be understood as the means of obtaining mercy , i.e the propitiatory shelter which is Christ Jesus.

 

[DHK]

"Propitiation is the gracious act of God by which he himself has made the provision that is necessary for the outpouring of his blessing, by which he himself has taken care that all demands of the law and of justice be met, so the sinners might be received in grace. Propitiation involves recognition of the objective character of the demands of God; and the Scripture teaches that those demands are met by the work of Jesus Christ." (p.98)

Listen, which accords with Scripture? 1) Christ died for the sins of every single person - past, present and future.
2) He died for only the sins of some -- His elect alone

You should recognize that #2 makes the most biblical and common sense. Option number 3 (which I did not list) would make the least sense --He died for no one.

All human residents of glory are the very same ones for whom He died.

[FONT=&quot]1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.[/FONT]

Only through the eyes of a Calvinist would choice #2 make sense.
The Bible specifically says that He made an atonement for the sins of the whole world.

By Adam all have sinned; all were made sinners, and death came upon all.
By Adam the entire human race was affected--not just a few, not just the elect or non-elect, but ALL.

Therefore by Christ provision for salvation was made for ALL. All sins of all mankind have been paid for: past, present and future. Only as one trusts Christ as Savior can that atonement cover him.
The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Only from someone who fails to understand that John uses the term "world" to refer to non-Jews (*sort of an "us" and "them" thinking) would they come up with the concept that God actually atoned for the sin of every person who ever lived and IF they go to heaven it will be because THEY believed.

Yep. The works-centric, man-focused "If it's going to be, it's up to me" mentality rears its head on people who don't comprehend English and the Jewish mindset.

 

[Van]

Some think John 3:16 should be understand as saying God so loved the "non-jews" that He gave His one of a kind Son so that whoever, Jews and Non-Jews believe in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. Hangs together poorly don't you know.

John used the Greek word translated "world" to refer to fallen mankind or the corrupt value-system of fallen mankind. Efforts to say it means elect here, non-elect there, Jews here, Gentiles there are without merit.

1 John was written to believers (1 John 2:12) and therefore 1 John 2:2 refers to "believers - us" and "non-believers - the whole world, Jews and Gentiles."

The correct doctrine is Christ became the propitiation for the whole world, all mankind, when God accepted His sacrifice on the cross. In effect Christ became the propitiationary shelter for all mankind. Any individual outside of Christ is not forgiven, any individual placed in Christ is forgiven, saved, justified, and propitiated. When we are placed spiritually in Christ, and then undergo the circumcision of Christ, we become holy and blameless. God puts us "into Christ" monergistically, He alone transfers us spiritually. He chooses us by setting us apart in Christ, the sanctification by the Spirit on the basis of Him crediting our faith in Christ as righteousness, Romans 4:4-5, 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

 

[Rippon]

Some think John 3:16 should be understand as saying God so loved the "non-jews"

You are confused. No one thinks that Jesus loved only the Gentiles.

that He gave His one of a kind Son so that whoever, Jews and Non-Jews believe in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Well, that's better, but you have just contradicted your opening phrase. The word "whoever" needs to be understood as 'the believing ones.'

John used the Greek word translated "world" to refer to fallen mankind or the corrupt value-system of fallen mankind. Efforts to say it means elect here, non-elect there, Jews here, Gentiles there are without merit.

Cosmos has at least seven or more meanings in the New Testament.

1 John was written to believers (1 John 2:12) and therefore 1 John 2:2 refers to "believers - us" and "non-believers - the whole world, Jews and Gentiles."

His children are scattered around the world. His sheep are found on an international scale.

 

[Van]

I see we have an irrational post in defense of Calvinsim. Dr. Bob said John used "world" to refer to "non-Jews." Now Mr. Rippon says no one (i.e. Dr. Bob) believes John used the word to refer to "non-Jews." Yeah, right.

Calvinists love to define God's inspired words as their doctrine requires, elect here, non-elect there, Jews here, non-Jews there and so forth and so one. Twaddle. John uses the Greek word translated "world" to refer to fallen mankind or the corrupt value-system of fallen mankind.

1 John is a letter written to believers, so "but also the whole world" refers to non-believers.

 

[percho]

For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; Rom 8:20

What creation was subjected to futility, for the purpose of, hope?

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Well it appears it is the world (κόσμος kosmos) that was created subjected to futility.


For God so loved the world, (κόσμος kosmos, that he created, subjected to futility) that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Was the only begotten Son , the hope of Rom. 8:20? Was that hope, that Son going to be, propitiation, for the whole world?

1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (κόσμος kosmos)

From the foundation of the world? (κόσμος kosmos) 1 Peter 1:18-20

 

[Dr. Bob]

Could give more examples from John's writing how he tries to get the Jewish mind-set OUT of the pix and help people understand that the elect were individuals from every ethnicity, not just Jews.

I John 2:2 is another: "[Jesus] is the actual atone for our (Jewish elect believers) sins, and not for our (Jewish elect believers) sins solely, but also for the sins of the whole world (Jewish/non-Jewish "all" elect believers).

Obviously Jesus did not atone for/pay the price/be the sacrifice/covered (your choice of terms) everyone who ever lived. He reminded us that some still "die in their sins" (John 8:21) and "whose sin remains" (John 9:41)

If the goal of the atonement was to actually atone (duh) for sin and Jesus DID this, then how can some still have sin un-atoned for and die in it?

 

[Dr. Bob]

Was Christ made a curse for "all" (without exception; everyone who ever lived)? How can He then say "Depart you who are cursed"? (Mt 25:41)

Was Christ made the sin-bearer and substitute for the entire human race, bearing man's punishment for sin? Then He bore the sins of those who are today lifting up their eyes in torments of hell-fire. What a failure.

Was Christ paying the redemptive price for every single person, then how are some today paying the price for their sin (Rom 3:23)? If the Son paid the Father the sacrifice, it is a DONE DEAL. Paid. Actually ransoms the soul.

What if I don't like it, want it, or believe it? No big deal. It is not "up to me"; it is a transaction of deity and paid in full. This is where everyone who tries (unsuccessfully) to universalize the atonement meets head on with truth. Either salvation is 100% of God and if God atones, if God forgives, if God redeems, then that soul is for all eternity redeemed . . or if it takes some action on the part of man to become effective, then who is in charge; who is "god" deciding for salvation

 

[Rippon]

Was Christ made a curse for "all" (without exception; everyone who ever lived)? How can He then say "Depart you who are cursed"? (Mt 25:41)

Yes, and Christ said that He also does not know some (Matt.7:23 and 25:12). In Acts 1:25 it was said of Judas that he "left to go to his own place." In John 17:12 it says that he was "doomed to destruction."

In Romans 9:22 Paul writes that the objects of God's wrath are "prepared for destruction."

In 1 Thess. 5:9 it says that "God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation..." Obviously he appointed others to indeed suffer wrath.

In 2 Thess.2:3 the man of lawlessness is "doomed to destruction."

In 2 Peter 2:3 certain ones have had condemnation "long hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping." (It says about the same thing in Jude 4,13).

2 Peter 3:7 :"By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly."

 

[Rippon]

Was Christ made the sin-bearer and substitute for the entire human race, bearing man's punishment for sin? Then He bore the sins of those who are today lifting up their eyes in torments of hell-fire.

Was Christ paying the redemptive price for every single person, then how are some today paying the price for their sin (Rom 3:23)? If the Son paid the Father the sacrifice, it is a DONE DEAL. Paid. Actually ransoms the soul.

Yes indeed. I keep hearing from the other side of the aisle that Christ paid for the sins of everyone. If He paid for them then every single person is forgiven --which is utter nonsense.

What if I don't like it, want it, or believe it? No big deal. It is not "up to me"; it is a transaction of deity and paid in full. This is where everyone who tries (unsuccessfully) to universalize the atonement meets head on with truth. Either salvation is 100% of God and if God atones, if God forgives, if God redeems, then that soul is for all eternity redeemed . . or if it takes some action on the part of man to become effective, then who is in charge; who is "god" deciding for salvation

Very well said.

 

[DHK]

Was Christ paying the redemptive price for every single person, then how are some today paying the price for their sin (Rom 3:23)? If the Son paid the Father the sacrifice, it is a DONE DEAL. Paid. Actually ransoms the soul.

What if I don't like it, want it, or believe it? No big deal. It is not "up to me"; it is a transaction of deity and paid in full. This is where everyone who tries (unsuccessfully) to universalize the atonement meets head on with truth. Either salvation is 100% of God and if God atones, if God forgives, if God redeems, then that soul is for all eternity redeemed . . or if it takes some action on the part of man to become effective, then who is in charge; who is "god" deciding for salvation

You may think this an oversimplification, but if I purchase (pay for in full), make the transaction, of any gift that is a sacrifice to me personally, and then give it to someone I love; then if that person for any reason rejects that gift given out of love and sacrifice it is my fault? Am I to blame? Do we charge the giver with blame because his gift was not accepted?

 

[DHK]

Only from someone who fails to understand that John uses the term "world" to refer to non-Jews (*sort of an "us" and "them" thinking) would they come up with the concept that God actually atoned for the sin of every person who ever lived and IF they go to heaven it will be because THEY believed.

Yep. The works-centric, man-focused "If it's going to be, it's up to me" mentality rears its head on people who don't comprehend English and the Jewish mindset.

[FONT=&quot]John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.[/FONT]

From the beginning of his book to the end of it John identifies his readers focus to the world--the entire word as from creation onward. Christ did not come to a part of the world. The light at creation shone on all the world, and as that light lit up all the world, so the Light of Christ lit up all this World. The analogy cannot be missed.
He is the Light of this world.

The same theme continues right to the end of the book where he writes:
[FONT=&quot]John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.[/FONT]
Who might believe?
Ye (who are in the world) might believe that Jesus is the Christ...