Pink...the Atonement, 1 Jn2:2

[Iconoclast]

One clue as stated in my post - the path to "not offending" God is not "MORE TORTURE and torment for GOD"... can we get agreement on "the obvious"??

Atonement is not about "appeasement of an offended God".

Atonement is of the form "God so LOVED that HE GAVE His only begotten Son" as the remedy for our sin problem

This is a "Gospel basic"

A.W. Pink – 1 John 2:2 [from The Sovereignty of God] – The Confessing Baptist

 

[Iconoclast]

The Atonement by Arthur W. Pink
It is unspeakably sad that the atoning death of the Lord Jesus Christ-the most wonderful event that has ever happened or will happen-should have been made the occasion of contention and controversy. That it has been so, affords an awful example of human depravity. The more so, that throughout the centuries of this Christian era, some of the hottest theological battles have been waged over the vital truth of the Atonement.

Speaking generally, only two views or interpretations of the Cross have received much favor among the professed people of God: the one which affirmed that the Atonement was effected to make certain the salvation of all who believe; the other which supposed that atonement was made in order to make possible the salvation of all men. The former is the strict Calvinist view; the latter, the Arminian. Even here, the difference was not merely one of terms, but of truth over against error. The one is definite and explicit; the other indefinite and intangible. The one affirms an Atonement which actually atones (i. e. fully satisfied God for those on whose behalf it was made); the other predicates an Atonement which was a sorry failure, inasmuch as the majority of those on whose behalf it was supposed to be offered, perish notwithstanding. The logical and inevitable corollary of the one is a satisfied, because triumphant Savior; the other (if true) would lead, unavoidably, to a disappointed, because defeated Savior. The former interpretation was taught by such men as Wickcliff, Calvin, Latimer, Tyndale, Bunyan, Owen, Dodderidge, Jonathan Edwards, Toplady, Whitefield, Spurgeon, etc. The latter by men who, as theologians, were not worthy to unloose their shoes.

Of late, a new theory has been propounded to the Christian public, a theory which approximates perilously near that of the Universalists. Erroneously based upon a few texts whose scope is confined to the people of God, the view which is now rapidly gaining favor in circles which are regarded as orthodox, is to the effect that, at the Cross, the sin question was fully and finally settled. We are told, and told by men who are looked up to by many as the champions of orthodoxy, that all the sins of all men were laid upon the crucified Christ. It is boldly affirmed that at the Cross the Lamb of God did as much for those who would not believe, as He did for those who should believe on Him. It is dogmatically announced that the only grievance which God now has against any man, is his refusal to believe in the Savior. It is said that the single issue between God and the world, is not the sin question, but the Son question.

We have said that this theory of the Atonement is a new one, and new it surely is. So far as the writer is aware, it was never propounded, at least in orthodox circles, till within the last two or three decades. It appears to be another product of this twentieth century, and like most if not all other of them, it is far inferior to what went before. Yet, strange to say, an appeal is made to the Holy Scriptures in support of it. But in one way we are thankful for this, inasmuch as the Word of God supplies us with an infallible rule by which we may measure it. We shall, therefore, examine this strange and novel theory in the light of Holy Writ, and doing this, it will not be difficult to show how thoroughly untenable and fallacious it is.

 

[BobRyan]

The Archangel said: ↑
Who is the offended party? Who is it that is ultimately offended by the sin(s) of man?

The Archangel

BobRyan said: ↑
God is offended and insulted by sin.. and rebellion.

AND God is the one tormented and tortured in the "Atoning Sacrifice".

The Archangel said: ↑
Here's another question: If God is the offended party, and we seem to agree on this, how does He become unoffended?
The Archangel

One clue as stated in my post - the path to "not offending" God is not "MORE TORTURE and torment for GOD"... can we get agreement on "the obvious"??

Atonement is not about "appeasement of an offended God".

Atonement is of the form "God so LOVED that HE GAVE His only begotten Son" as the remedy for our sin problem

This is a "Gospel basic"

A.W. Pink – 1 John 2:2 [from The Sovereignty of God] – The Confessing Baptist

Thanks for quoting my post sequence above.

Did you want to make a comment?

I notice than in your link -- Pink seems to think that "universalism" is the only other thing he can think of for 1 John 2:2 -- other than trying to eisegete Calvinisms limited atoning sacrifice into 1 John 2:2

 

[BobRyan]

ibid
In the seventh place, to insist that “the whole world” in 1 John 2:2signifies the entire human race is to undermine the very foundations of our faith. If Christ is the propitiation for those that are lost equally as much as for those that are saved, then what assurance have we that believers too may not be lost? .

The text does not say "because He is the atoning sacrifice for the whole world - the whole world is going to heaven"

Neither is that the Arminian argument for 1 John 2:2

- the much imagined false-alternative of Pink is a flawed argument.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.







Quoting "yourself" as heavily as you do... you probably missed the "forgiveness revoked" teaching of Christ in Matthew 18



Quoting yourself as heavily as you do you probably did not read Romans 2, or Daniel 7 or 2 Cor5:10 where ALL are to stand before the judgment seat of Christ... and Romans 6:23 says the "reward" for sin is death.

Jesus stated that the plan was completed, that the Sacrifice of the Cross made it "paid in full", correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

Yeshua1 said: ↑
He holds to the doctrine of Investigative Judgement, so is really confused!





When you say you read Daniel 7 "but you prefer scripture" is this because you imagine that Daniel 7 and Romans 2 are not scripture??

No, rather that how EW viewed them was not scriptural!

 

[The Archangel]

If your argument is that the 1 John 3:16 act of God giving up His Son to die for the sins of the world has nothing to do with your concept of "atonement" you have departed a very long way from the Bible definition of it. Tell us how you did that. I find your logic most "illusive" at that point.

Are you referencing 1 John 3:16 or John 3:16? The former references Jesus laying down of His life, which does reference His atoning work. If that is the case (you're referencing 1 John 3), what is it that brings atonement? His death, for sure, is involved, but what does that death do for the Father? How does Jesus' death turn God's wrath away from us?

The Archangel

 

[BobRyan]

The Archangel said: ↑
Ok... So, in what way is the Father appeased by the Son?

The Archangel

I never claimed the Father was "appeased" by the Son. Do you have a quote of me saying that?

I keep claiming "God so LOVED the world that HE GAVE" John 3:16... you saw that right?
"God was IN CHRIST reconciling the World to Himself" 2 Cor 5..

I keep posting scripture - Calvinists keep saying they find these basic Gospel details in scripture - confusing.

The Archangel said: ↑
Sure, I saw your posts... But, with John 3:16 especially, there is no "atonement" discussed.

The Archangel

If your argument is that the John 3:16 act of God giving up His Son to die for the sins of the world has nothing to do with your concept of "atonement" you have departed a very long way from the Bible definition of it. Tell us how you did that. I find your logic most "illusive" at that point.

Are you referencing 1 John 3:16 or John 3:16? The former references Jesus laying down of His life, which does reference His atoning work. If that is the case (you're referencing 1 John 3), what is it that brings atonement? His death, for sure, is involved, but what does that death do for the Father? How does Jesus' death turn God's wrath away from us?

The Archangel

Jesus' death satisfies the debt that is demanded by the Law of God for sin. God is tortured "for us"... on our behalf.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
On the contrary - I actually read Daniel 7 and Romans 2 instead of clinging to man-made-tradition against the clear statements in the Bible

Yeshua1 said: ↑
As do i, but I prefer the scriptures
When you say you read Daniel 7 "but you prefer scripture" is this because you imagine that Daniel 7 and Romans 2 are not scripture??

When you say you read Daniel 7 "but you prefer scripture" is this because you imagine that Daniel 7 and Romans 2 are not scripture??

No, rather that how EW viewed them

How would you even know??
Wasn't it you who saw a quote of Matthew 18 and Romans 11 and said it was "Ellen White" even though the reference and the text were right there??

 

[BobRyan]

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.

Quoting "yourself" as heavily as you do... you probably missed the "forgiveness revoked" teaching of Christ in Matthew 18

Quoting yourself as heavily as you do you probably did not read Romans 2, or Daniel 7 or 2 Cor5:10 where ALL are to stand before the judgment seat of Christ... and Romans 6:23 says the "reward" for sin is death.

Jesus stated that the plan was completed, that the Sacrifice of the Cross made it "paid in full", correct?

Jesus said 'it is finished' --

1 John 2:2 says the "Atoning sacrifice" for OUR sins and not for OUR sins only but for the sins of the whole world - was completed at the cross.

And Paul says in Hebrew 8:1 "The MAIN POINT is this..."

Details matter.

 

[Yeshua1]

How would you even know??
Wasn't it you who saw a quote of Matthew 18 and Romans 11 and said it was "Ellen White" even though the reference and the text were right there??

Big problem is that you read it thru the glasses of EW, not from the view of the Holy Spirit!

 

[Yeshua1]

Jesus said 'it is finished' --

1 John 2:2 says the "Atoning sacrifice" for OUR sins and not for OUR sins only but for the sins of the whole world - was completed at the cross.

And Paul says in Hebrew 8:1 "The MAIN POINT is this..."

Details matter.

Did Jesus finish the salvation, or does he still need the Investigative Judgement still?

 

[BobRyan]

Did Jesus finish the salvation,

There is no "finish the salvation" text ... you are merely "quoting you"...

Quote something from the actual Bible that would be appropriate to say "yes" to

 

[BobRyan]

Big problem is that you read it thru the glasses of EW, not from the view of the Holy Spirit!

Your spells of "creative writing" not the compelling argument to someone who differs with your bias - that you seemed to have imagined to yourself.

(You probably already knew that.. but I just wanted to state the obvious)

 

[utilyan]

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. But it is not so. The very advocates of the view we are now refuting would not affirm it. And therein may be seen the inconsistency and untenableness of their teaching. For if unbelief is a sin and Christ did not suffer the penalty of it, then all sin was not laid upon Christ. Thus there are only two alternatives: a strictly limited Atonement, availing only for believers; or an unlimited Atonement which effectually secures the salvation of the entire human race.

2. If ALL the sins of ALL men were laid upon Christ, how could He say, "The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men"? (Matt. 12:31) Observe that Christ here used the future tense, "shall not be." Note, too, He did not merely say to the blaspheming Jews that He was then addressing, "Shall not be forgiven unto you," but in order to take in all others who should be guilty of this sin, He said, "Shall not be forgiven unto men." It is worse than idle to raise the cavil that the sin here spoken of was peculiar and exceptional, i.e., committed only by the Jews there addressed. The fact that this solemn utterance of Christ's is found not only in Matthew, but in Mark, and also in Luke-the Gentile Gospel-disposes of it.

Without attempting to define here the precise nature of this sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, it is sufficient now to point out that it is a sin quite distinct from unbelief. In Scripture "blasphemy" is always an act of the lips, not merely of the mind or will. For our present purpose, it is enough to call attention to the undeniable fact that none other than the Savior Himself here tells us there is a sin (other than unbelief) which "shall not be forgiven unto men." This being so, then it is obviously a mistake, a serious error, to say that all sin was laid on Christ and atoned for.

3. If ALL the sins of ALL men were laid upon Christ, how could He possibly say to certain ones, "Ye shall seek Me, and shall die in your sins?" (John 8:21) Christ was here addressing the Pharisees. The time was only a short while before His death. He was speaking, therefore, of that which lay on the other side of His crucifixion and resurrection. This is seen from the fact that He first said, "I go My way, and ye shall seek Me." Most evidently was He referring to His return to the Father. And yet He expressly declared that after His departure from this world, these men would "seek" Him (but in vain), and they should die in their sins. Their death would be subsequent to His, and their death should be in sins. The striking thing is, that these awful words were uttered, on this same occasion, no less than three times. For in John 8:24 we read, "I said therefore unto you, That ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am, ye shall die in your sins." Note, carefully "die," not in your sin, but "in your sins." Here, then, is another indubitable proof that Christ did not bear all the sins of all men.

4. If ALL the sins of ALL men were laid upon Christ, why did the apostle Paul (under the Holy Spirit) write, "For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolator, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience." (Eph. 5:5, 6) The "children of disobedience" (cf. Eph. 2:2) is a name for unbelievers. It views them as rebels against God. The passage now before us tells us why "the wrath of God" shall come upon them-"because of these things," looks back to what had been specified in the previous verses. God's wrath would yet descend upon them not only because of their rejection of Christ, but because they had been guilty of sins of immorality and covetousness.

It is remarkable that v. 6 begins with the words, "Let no man deceive you with vain words." It certainly looks as though the Holy Spirit was here anticipating and repudiating this modern perversion of God's truth. Men do now tell us that no wrath from God will ever fall on men because of the sins of immorality and covetousness. Men now tell us that God's wrath for all sins came upon Christ. But when men tell us such things, none other than the Holy Spirit declares that they are "vain (empty) words." They are empty words because there is no truth in them! Then let us not be deceived by them.

OP,

The points made don't take into a account the man who won't forgive himself. The whole world and God can forgive you. But if you don't forgive yourself you are stuck.

 

[Yeshua1]

There is no "finish the salvation" text ... you are merely "quoting you"...

Quote something from the actual Bible that would be appropriate to say "yes" to

When Jesus died, were all of my sins paid in full?

 

[Yeshua1]

Your spells of "creative writing" not the compelling argument to someone who differs with your bias - that you seemed to have imagined to yourself.

(You probably already knew that.. but I just wanted to state the obvious)

Ellen white taught another Gospel, so she did not hear from Jesus Christ!

 

[BobRyan]

Ellen white taught another Gospel,

You are free to imagine that and engage in your creative writing... I have always said that.

I prefer actual Bible discussions.

 

[BobRyan]

When Jesus died, were all of my sins paid in full?

Who do you think got paid? Jesus?

Did Jesus "pay himself" by "getting himself tortured" in your view?

God defines atonement in His own "Day of Atonement" model found in Leviticus 16 where the chapter does not end with the slaying of the "Sin offering". Did you suppose that this is where God's chapter on that topic ended?

Do you know why Paul says "The MAIN POINT is this" in Hebrews 8:1 speaking of the High Priestly role of Christ after His resurrection??

 

[utilyan]

Who do you think got paid? Jesus?

Did Jesus "pay himself" by "getting himself tortured" in your view?

God defines atonement in His own "Day of Atonement" model found in Leviticus 16 where the chapter does not end with the slaying of the "Sin offering". Did you suppose that this is where God's chapter on that topic ended?

Do you know why Paul says "The MAIN POINT is this" in Hebrews 8:1 speaking of the High Priestly role of Christ after His resurrection??

Got to remember Bob they only think God is GOOD Legally. Not actually. God is about power and paying up.

God has flipped his lid in righteous anger, God wants to torture everyone, Everyone deserves hell. But instead he is going to torture Jesus and let all his wrath out on him.