Pink...the Atonement, 1 Jn2:2

[Pastor_Bob]

Don't accuse Pastor Bob of heresy. He is a good man. A synergist but still a good man.

Thanks for the kind words. Although you and I disagree in a couple of areas, and I enjoy bantering with you here, I have always held you in the highest regard and have even used your writings here at the college on several occasions.

 

[Yeshua1]

You were responding to my answer to Pastor Bob, NOT Bob Ryan. Don't accuse Pastor Bob of heresy. He is a good man. A synergist but still a good man.

I was not meaning him at all, my mistake on posting, as really meant our Sda friend Bob!

 

[Yeshua1]

Thanks for the kind words. Although you and I disagree in a couple of areas, and I enjoy bantering with you here, I have always held you in the highest regard and have even used your writings here at the college on several occasions.

I was not speaking about you, but the other Bob posting here.....

 

[Pastor_Bob]

I was not speaking about you, but the other Bob posting here.....

I knew you were not answering nor referring to me. No harm done and no offense taken. Who among us has not gotten a bit mixed up with the quote feature?

 

[BobRyan]

Iconoclast said: ↑
This article is broken up into 5 sections here...pick out any portion you do not agree with and show your biblical reason for this.


The Atonement by Arthur W. Pink

1. If ALL the sins of ALL men were laid upon Christ, then the sin of unbelief was too. That unbelief is a sin is clear from the fact that in 1 John 3:23 we read, "And this is His commandment, That we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ." Refusal to believe in Christ is, therefore, an act of flagrant disobedience, rebellion against the Most High. But if all the sins of all men were laid upon Christ (as it is now asserted), then He also endured the penalty for the Christ-rejector's unbelief. If this be so, then Universalism is true. .

Which is where the article begins to go off the rails. So stopping here to refute the false choice of universalism that arises solely as a result of the author's flawed definition for atonement.

Christ paid the debt owed for all sin (as the Atoning Sacrifice for it) for all mankind in all of time - 1 John 2:2.

But that was "Atoning Sacrifice" of Leviticus 16 "Day of Atonement" teaching of the Bible. The "Lord's goat slain" - the "sin offering killed".

However in Lev 16 it takes both the work of Christ as Sin offering AND the work of Christ as "High Priest" which Hebrews 8:1 says is "the main point" - to complete the full Bible definition of "Atonement".

Something Calvinism falls short in comprehending in its own redefinition of the term "Atonement"

The High Priestly work of Christ in Lev 16 and in Hebrews 9 (8 and 9) - includes the interaction between Christ and the sinner - applying the benefits of the atoning sacrifice to the repentant sinner.

Thus.. unlimited atoning sacrifice.
But limited application in the role of Christ as High Priest.

So not universalism.

Game over.

you did not interact with the article.....
This article is broken up into 5 sections here...pick out any portion you do not agree with and show your biblical reason for this.

So then close attention to detail on your part would have helped just then.

 

[BobRyan]

The complete salvation wrought by Jesus while upon the Cross was when he died, it is finished/completed in full!

Avoiding every detail in the post and the scriptures presented ... to stop and pontificate appealing to your "quote of you"?

Everyone on this board can see that we are all still on planet earth - in a world of sin... with sinful natures. This is irrefutable. One day it will be the case of living "by sight" and the sinful natures all having been deleted when we are taken to heaven. That day has not come yet.. as it turns out.

More bible - less stories is always the better way to go.

Hint: What work of Christ is said to be the "main point" in Hebrews 8:1???

 

[BobRyan]

In keeping with the request of the OP, I would like to respond to this first point. I disagree, obviously, with all of them. My biggest problem with the Limited Atonement position is that it implies, or even clearly states, that Christ's atonement is limited only to the "elect" for the simple reason that God did not want the non-elect to be saved.

I believe Pink is creating a false scenario in making the atonement of Christ and the application of that atonement one and the same. ,

Indeed - that is the flaw in the first point.

And it is seen clearly in Lev 16 "Day of Atonement" where the Bible definition of "Atonement" requires "both" the Work of Christ as the sin offering AND the work of Christ as High Priest to apply the benefits of that "Atoning Sacrifice" 1John 2:2 that was completed at the cross.

Y1 argues that if you happen to notice this Bible detail... it must be Ellen White's fault.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

A W Pink was a hyper-Calvinist, whose book, the Sovereignty of God, was edited for being unbiblical! So he is really not an authority on such matters

My own comments for 1 John 2:2 are here, Jesus Christ: The Atonement For The Human Race

 

[Iconoclast]

Which is where the article begins to go off the rails. So stopping here to refute the false choice of universalism that arises solely as a result of the author's flawed definition for atonement.





So then close attention to detail on your part would have helped just then.

looks as if you misunderstand what Pink wrote very clearly.

 

[Iconoclast]

HankD,

He will not share His glory with another.

Nevertheless He does call us to reason WITH Him.

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Hank ,
Despite the language used here...I do not think we are called to "reason WITH" Him
33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?

 

[Iconoclast]

Pastor_Bob,

Hello Pastor Bob,

In keeping with the request of the OP, I would like to respond to this first point. I disagree, obviously, with all of them.

Wow...okay, lets see what you have got....

My biggest problem with the Limited Atonement position is that it implies, or even clearly states, that Christ's atonement is limited only to the "elect"

Let me ask some questions while I read through this, as TC has already put forth a few classic responses.

Dr.Bob....
1}Do you think any non elect person will be saved...if so what biblical basis can you show that will happen at all?

2]Do you believe ALL men sinned and died in Adam, and stood condemned to hell if God does not intervene in Mercy?

3} If God does all He intends to do as Isa46:9-11 indicates as a fact, are you suggesting He wants to save everyone but somehow cannot get it done.

for the simple reason that God did not want the non-elect to be saved.

1] Is God obligated to save all men ever born?

2] If Salvation is of the Lord,who is perfect in Wisdom....and scripture reveals election is before individuals born in Adam do anything good or evil, Are you then saying that God had to elect all persons in spite of His prefect wisdom?

3] If nonelect persons love their sin and hate God....can God overlook those who He has not elected?Ho owns the rights to all Humans ever born.
15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?

16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

I believe Pink is creating a false scenario in making the atonement of Christ and the application of that atonement one and the same. The example of the Passover (Exodus 12) is the best illustration to this issue.

I think no one on this board can take Pink's arguments and scripturally refute them which is the challenge of the OP>

Clearly - indisputably - the blood of the Passover lamb was made available to any and all who choose to apply it to their doorposts.

Are you certain that all people even know of this instruction?

Clearly, all who did so were saved from certain death. So, although the blood was absolutely sufficient, it had to be applied.

yes it did

The sin of unbelief is nothing more than failing to apply the universal atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ.

You assume a universal atonement...

The failing is not in the Lord's work on Calvary,

That is never the issue.

it is in the unbelieving heart of man.

That is always the issue.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Pastor_Bob,

Hello Pastor Bob,


Wow...okay, lets see what you have got....



Let me ask some questions while I read through this, as TC has already put forth a few classic responses.

Dr.Bob....
1}Do you think any non elect person will be saved...if so what biblical basis can you show that will happen at all?

2]Do you believe ALL men sinned and died in Adam, and stood condemned to hell if God does not intervene in Mercy?

3} If God does all He intends to do as Isa46:9-11 indicates as a fact, are you suggesting He wants to save everyone but somehow cannot get it done.



1] Is God obligated to save all men ever born?

2] If Salvation is of the Lord,who is perfect in Wisdom....and scripture reveals election is before individuals born in Adam do anything good or evil, Are you then saying that God had to elect all persons in spite of His prefect wisdom?

3] If nonelect persons love their sin and hate God....can God overlook those who He has not elected?Ho owns the rights to all Humans ever born.
15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?

16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.


I think no one on this board can take Pink's arguments and scripturally refute them which is the challenge of the OP>


Are you certain that all people even know of this instruction?

yes it did

You assume a universal atonement...



That is never the issue.

That is always the issue.

The Bible teaches universal atonement

 

[Iconoclast]

The Bible teaches universal atonement

No...not at all

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

No...not at all

So John Calvin, who is supposed to be the "father" of Calvinism, and one of the main people in the Reformed Movement, was wrong?

This is what he has written:

On Mark 14:24

"Which is shed for many. By the word many he means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race; for he contrasts many with one"

On John 3:16

"That whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life"

On Colossians 1:14

"He says that this redemption was procured through the blood of Christ, for by the sacrifice of his death all the sins of the world have been expiated"

 

[Iconoclast]

"Saved-By-Grace,

So John Calvin, who is supposed to be the "father" of Calvinism, and one of the main people in the Reformed Movement, was wrong?

Calvin had many things wrong....He was not a Baptist was he?

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

"Saved-By-Grace,



Calvin had many things wrong....He was not a Baptist was he?

so, why do you think the Lord "elected" YOU, and not the others? Are you "better"? Give me ONE reason why you believe from the Bible, that you should be "elected", and the rest damned? When God says that He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that they turn and live, you think that He is wrong? Your understanding is nothing but "elitism" and no where taught in the Bible!

 

[Iconoclast]

Saved-By-Grace,

so, why do you think the Lord "elected" YOU, and not the others?

29 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.

30 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.

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

Are you "better"?

Have you ever sang Amazing grace???

Give me ONE reason why you believe from the Bible, that you should be "elected", and the rest damned?

15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy,

9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

When God says that He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that they turn and live, you think that He is wrong?

God is never wrong, that is very profane speech that you should not use.

Your understanding is nothing but "elitism" and no where taught in the Bible!

This shows your continued ignorance of this great bible theme....popst less drivel, read the scriptures before trying these foolish ideas,

 

[BobRyan]

Iconoclast said: ↑
This article is broken up into 5 sections here...pick out any portion you do not agree with and show your biblical reason for this.


The Atonement by Arthur W. Pink

1. If ALL the sins of ALL men were laid upon Christ, then the sin of unbelief was too. That unbelief is a sin is clear from the fact that in 1 John 3:23 we read, "And this is His commandment, That we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ." Refusal to believe in Christ is, therefore, an act of flagrant disobedience, rebellion against the Most High. But if all the sins of all men were laid upon Christ (as it is now asserted), then He also endured the penalty for the Christ-rejector's unbelief. If this be so, then Universalism is true. .
Which is where the article begins to go off the rails. So stopping here to refute the false choice of universalism that arises solely as a result of the author's flawed definition for atonement.

Which is where the article begins to go off the rails. So stopping here to refute the false choice of universalism that arises solely as a result of the author's flawed definition for atonement.

BobRyan said: ↑
Christ paid the debt owed for all sin (as the Atoning Sacrifice for it) for all mankind in all of time - 1 John 2:2.

But that was "Atoning Sacrifice" of Leviticus 16 "Day of Atonement" teaching of the Bible. The "Lord's goat slain" - the "sin offering killed".

However in Lev 16 it takes both the work of Christ as Sin offering AND the work of Christ as "High Priest" which Hebrews 8:1 says is "the main point" - to complete the full Bible definition of "Atonement".

Something Calvinism falls short in comprehending in its own redefinition of the term "Atonement"

The High Priestly work of Christ in Lev 16 and in Hebrews 9 (8 and 9) - includes the interaction between Christ and the sinner - applying the benefits of the atoning sacrifice to the repentant sinner.

Thus.. unlimited atoning sacrifice.
But limited application in the role of Christ as High Priest.

So not universalism.

Game over.

Iconoclast said: ↑
you did not interact with the article.....
This article is broken up into 5 sections here...pick out any portion you do not agree with and show your biblical reason for this.

So then close attention to detail on your part would have helped just then.

looks as if you misunderstand what Pink wrote very clearly.

If you could make that point - I assume you would have by now. Pontifical pronouncement not actually the same as "proof" or "evidence" as it turns out.

 

[BobRyan]

The Bible teaches universal atonement

It teaches "universal atoning sacrifice"

2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. NIV

 

[BobRyan]

Pastor_Bob,

3} If God does all He intends to do as Isa46:9-11 indicates as a fact, are you suggesting He wants to save everyone but somehow cannot get it done.
.

Isaiah 5:4
What more could have been done for my vineyard
than I have done for it?
When I looked for good grapes,
why did it yield only bad?


Matthew 23
37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.

1}Do you think any non elect person will be saved...

Or the elect - being lost?

John 1:11 "He came to His OWN and His OWN received Him not"