The Atonement: Which is The Bible's Teaching?

[JonC]

The death of jesus was sufficient to allow God to save all sinners, but he intended it to only save some sinners, as this passage refers to His death fior the many, and not for the all!

What I am saying is that there is Calvinism and then there is Calvinism. There is a simplistic version (not in a good way) that distills down certain truths (or certain conclusions) and uses this to build an entire “theology”.

It goes like this:

Man has sinned against God and God’s justice demands that He punish every sin. So God chooses a people (the elect) offers His Son on the Cross and punishes Him with the wrath that was due those sinful acts of the elect, effectively atoning for those sins (the debt is paid) and making God both Just and the Justifier of sinners. Those who are non-elect do not have their sins atoned for because Jesus’ punishment (although sufficient because Jesus’ worth as God surpasses the sins of all mankind) did not include the punishment for their sins. At Judgment, the Father will look on the elect as if they were Christ (the payment already rendered) and will pour out His wrath on those who are not chosen (those who do not believe).

I’m not accusing you of this position, but I do see you as sometimes going off in that direction and I am trying to pull you back into Scripture (which is why I often ask for a passage in reference). Scripture does not present God’s wrath against sin as God’s wrath against a sinful act but as God’s judgment against sinners. The example above misunderstands both the nature of sin and the nature of judgment. No one can be punished for my individual sins except me (what I need is forgiveness, not a substitute in this context). Scripture teaches that Christ became man and took on the consequences of sin for mankind in such a way that God will judge the world through Christ (Acts 10:42). And indeed the Father does not judge anyone but has given all judgment to the Son (John 5:22).

So you see how that simplistic, watered down, man-centered (elect centered) version of Calvinism (if we would still call it that) can be a very dangerous thing. It’s so narrow that it forms a tight doctrine where everything is interdependent (remove one thing and the whole thing crumbles) but it is also very much philosophical ideas and very little Scripture (in fact, it denies much of Scripture).

And again - I am not saying this is Calvinism (or that this is what you believe) but it is how some present the position (on both sides). And it is wrong.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes. And sufficiency implies that it could have saved those sinners (if it were not meant as a legitimate means that they could be saved then it would have been insufficient for their salvation). Salvation is to all men a legitimate offer and all men could be saved if they would believe. But they can't because they won't. And we wouldn't either, except that God worked in our hearts in such a way that we believe.

God foreordained those whom would be able to receive the free offer of salvation, as the death of Christ purchased them back, and he bypassed over those who by their very sin natures kept on rejecting him....

 

[JonC]

God foreordained those whom would be able to receive the free offer of salvation, as the death of Christ purchased them back, and he bypassed over those who by their very sin natures kept on rejecting him....

I believe everything is predestined (to include those who will not believe), because of divine omniscience if nothing else. So everything is foreordained. On a side note, Arminianism also teaches that God foreordained those who would be saved.

 

[Yeshua1]

What I am saying is that there is Calvinism and then there is Calvinism. There is a simplistic version (not in a good way) that distills down certain truths (or certain conclusions) and uses this to build an entire “theology”.

It goes like this:

Man has sinned against God and God’s justice demands that He punish every sin. So God chooses a people (the elect) offers His Son on the Cross and punishes Him with the wrath that was due those sinful acts of the elect, effectively atoning for those sins (the debt is paid) and making God both Just and the Justifier of sinners. Those who are non-elect do not have their sins atoned for because Jesus’ punishment (although sufficient because Jesus’ worth as God surpasses the sins of all mankind) did not include the punishment for their sins. At Judgment, the Father will look on the elect as if they were Christ (the payment already rendered) and will pour out His wrath on those who are not chosen (those who do not believe).

I’m not accusing you of this position, but I do see you as sometimes going off in that direction and I am trying to pull you back into Scripture (which is why I often ask for a passage in reference). Scripture does not present God’s wrath against sin as God’s wrath against a sinful act but as God’s judgment against sinners. The example above misunderstands both the nature of sin and the nature of judgment. No one can be punished for my individual sins except me (what I need is forgiveness, not a substitute in this context). Scripture teaches that Christ became man and took on the consequences of sin for mankind in such a way that God will judge the world through Christ (Acts 10:42). And indeed the Father does not judge anyone but has given all judgment to the Son (John 5:22).

So you see how that simplistic, watered down, man-centered (elect centered) version of Calvinism (if we would still call it that) can be a very dangerous thing. It’s so narrow that it forms a tight doctrine where everything is interdependent (remove one thing and the whole thing crumbles) but it is also very much philosophical ideas and very little Scripture (in fact, it denies much of Scripture).

And again - I am not saying this is Calvinism (or that this is what you believe) but it is how some present the position (on both sides). And it is wrong.

That viewpoint of Calvinism that you are speaking against here though would be the one of paul/Spugeon/Calvin et all though, as they held firmly to the penal Substitutionary atonement of the Cross of Christ....

 

[Yeshua1]

The one that you dislike is the very same one those persons held with!

 

[Yeshua1]

I believe everything is predestined (to include those who will not believe), because of divine omniscience if nothing else. So everything is foreordained. On a side note, Arminianism also teaches that God foreordained those who would be saved.

Predestined is far more than just foreknowing those, as God is active saving out His own saints!

 

[JonC]

That viewpoint of Calvinism that you are speaking against here though would be the one of paul/Spugeon/Calvin et all though, as they held firmly to the penal Substitutionary atonement of the Cross of Christ....

No, the "Calvinism" I am speaking against is far too elementary and unbiblical to represent Paul, far to weak on a legitimate "general call" with the potential to save to represent Spurgeon, and obviously not a representation of John Calvin as the argument I used against this type of "Calvinism" was one I borrowed from Calvin's commentary.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, the "Calvinism" I am speaking against is far too elementary and unbiblical to represent Paul, far to weak on a legitimate "general call" with the potential to save to represent Spurgeon, and obviously not a representation of John Calvin as the argument I used against this type of "Calvinism" was one I borrowed from Calvin's commentary.

The Theology that you are against though in a nutshell, gives what is seen as being authentic Calvinism. as regarding salvation proper.

 

[JonC]

Predestined is far more than just foreknowing those, as God is active saving out His own saints!

Again, I was borrowing from another Calvinist - Jonathan Edwards. I'm not saying that God did not decree all to pass, but you used "foreordained" and not "decreed". There is a difference (an important difference, as Edwards points out). Just the fact that God knows what will occur means everything is predestined to occur in accordance with his knowledge.

The difference is the Arminian position on the mode of divine knowledge. For the record, I am with you that God is active in all that occurs (not just relying on a pre-knowledge). But it is often ignored that Arminians also believe God foreordained the elect.

 

[JonC]

The Theology that you are against though in a nutshell, gives what is seen as being authentic Calvinism. as regarding salvation proper.

Not at all. If you read the old guys like John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, and Charles Spurgeon you'd see that they do not fit into this "authentic Calvinism", as you call it. The new guys like John Piper and J.I. Packer don't either (I think John Gill and Sproul may, though).

Read the Canons of Dort (they are available online). Pay attention to its teachings about those who reject the gospel. You will see not only the difference between what those men believed and your non-Calvinism but you can see a Calvism that is God centered (rather than centered on the elect).

You see, @Yeshua1 , Calvinists believe that there are many people who are called by the gospel but who do not repent or believe in Christ. Instead they perish in their unbelief - not because the gospel lacks sufficiency but because they reject this legitimate offer of salvation (Canons of Dort, 2nd Head of Doctrine, Article 6). So it is not the fault of the gospel or of Christ, OFFERED TO THEM through the gospel, nor of God who calls men to the gospel. The fault lies in men, some of whom are called, that reject the gospel. (Canons of Dort, 3 & 4 Heads of Doctrine, Article 9). What you believe is not historic Calvinism but a neo-Calvinistic theory based only lightly on a Calvinistic rejection of James Arminius' ideas about predestination.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning

This thread will be closed sometime after 1 AM Pacific.

 

[Katarina Von Bora]

Sorry if I was not clear. No, I am not promoting universal salvation. I am, however, saying that we engage in the work of the Kingdom because we have fixed our hope on God who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.

What I am saying is that Jesus died as a propitiation for the sins of mankind (for the whole world). Salvation has come to all men in that there is a legitimate offer of salvation to everyone. The problem with some people's "Calvinism" is that they deny this truth and only acknowledge that Christ died to save those who would believe.

1 Timothy 4:10 For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.

A great article from Jim McClarty:

1 Timothy 4:10 | Salvation By Grace

A small excerpt

Far from being a Universalist credo, or an Arminian proof text, this verse is consistent with the whole of Pauline thinking and theology. Paul preached to uncircumcised Gentiles because God is the Savior of every type of human on the planet. There is no other Savior and no other name under Heaven by which men must be saved. But His salvation – although fully effective – is limited to those people who believe and have faith in Christ’s finished work.

 

[JonC]

A great article from Jim McClarty:

1 Timothy 4:10 | Salvation By Grace

A small excerpt

Far from being a Universalist credo, or an Arminian proof text, this verse is consistent with the whole of Pauline thinking and theology. Paul preached to uncircumcised Gentiles because God is the Savior of every type of human on the planet. There is no other Savior and no other name under Heaven by which men must be saved. But His salvation – although fully effective – is limited to those people who believe and have faith in Christ’s finished work.

Thanks for the article. I agree that 1 Tim 4:10 does not even hint at universal atonement, but I do find the "all types" argument contrived. Just because Christ's death was not to those who don't believe the atonement it proved to those who do doesn't give us liberty to interpret Scripture through our theological lenses. John Calvin was right both in highlighting Gods sovereignty in election and in affirming this universal aspect of Christ's death.

 

[Katarina Von Bora]

Thanks for the article. I agree that 1 Tim 4:10 does not even hint at universal atonement, but I do find the "all types" argument contrived. Just because Christ's death was not to those who don't believe the atonement it proved to those who do doesn't give us liberty to interpret Scripture through our theological lenses. John Calvin was right both in highlighting Gods sovereignty in election and in affirming this universal aspect of Christ's death.

I appreciate your input.

From the Greek G3956

1. individually

1. each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything

2. collectively

1. some of all types

God Bless.

 

[JonC]

I appreciate your input.

From the Greek G3956

1. individually

1. each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything

2. collectively

1. some of all types

God Bless.

Yes. By "contrived" I didn't mean impossible. Maybe "forced" would have been a better choice. The interpretation of "types" is unnecessary and inconsistent.

For an example of inconsistently consider Jesus as the proposition of the sins of the "whole world". Some insist "world" here means "types" regardless of the fact John has just used "world" several times to mean world. The only reason for the inconsistently in interpretation is forcing the verse to prove a point it doesn't deny in the first place.

I say unnecessary because the fact Christ's death provided a legitimate offer of salvation to all men does not deny particular redemption.

 

[JonC]

I appreciate your input.

From the Greek G3956

1. individually

1. each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything

2. collectively

1. some of all types

God Bless.

I appreciate your feedback and when I responded last I was short on time. I'd like to clarify here just a bit, largely because I think we believe much the same when it comes to the "scope of the Atonement" as applied to those who are saved. I think that we may differ when it comes to the work of the Cross in expressing God's love, which becomes the basis of just condemnation, to the reprobate. In other words, I believe you may be spot on when it comes to unconditional election and limited atonement, but by focusing on man (on the elect) and not on God you are missing an important truth of Scripture when it comes to divine judgment (that is the centrality of Christ as the Father, who judges no one, has given all judgment to the Son).

When Paul uses the word πᾶς we have to decide what he means. Does he mean “all men” or does he mean “all types of men”? Should the verse be rendered as it is, that “Jesus is the savior of all men, especially the believers” or that Jesus is the “Savior of all types of men, especially of the believers (the believing type)”?

I believe the qualifier forces the interpretation of “all mankind” (Jesus being the Savior of all types of men, especially those who believe, does not make sense).

But more than this, Paul is not the only one who makes this observation. In John 3:16 the Apostle John records Jesus as saying God loved the world by sending His Son. Later, in his first epistle, John tells us that Jesus is the propitiation for our sins, and not only ours but for the sins of the whole world. Some argue types here, but they are merely reading into the text their theology.

I say this because throughout John uses κόσμος to mean the world (not a type, and not believers throughout the world, but the world). In 1 John the author uses κόσμος several times before he tells us that Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of this κόσμος. In fact, κόσμος is used 186 times and those who believe it refers to “types” or “the elect throughout the world” are asking us to believe the word is used this way only twice in Scripture.

This begs the question, why? Why would we translate κόσμος one way and then all of a sudden change when we hit a couple of passages? My suggestion is dishonest hermeneutics. While translating these verses to mean that Jesus is the Savior of all mankind, or that Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, may not even hint at being an obstacle to the doctrine of limited atonement there are some who reject anything that is not directly supportive of their theology. They cannot understand an aspect of God’s work that does not fall in suit with their ideas. Another problem is that Calvinism (here I mean the five points as expressed at Dort regarding soteriology) as been reduced in the minds of some to an elementary, narrow, simplistic, and wrong version of what it once was.

I use John Calvin often not because of the term “Calvinism” but because he was, IMHO, an outstanding scholar. Calvin did not think through his theology lightly. He believed that God decreed all that occurred and that everything is predestined. Calvin taught predestination in election based on God’s own divine will. And Calvin taught that Christ was the propitiation for the sins of all mankind. And Calvin was right that there is no inconsistency with Jesus being the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. Or with Jesus being the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (every soul that ever lived ). The problem is with neo-Calvinism and the fact that those biblical truths do not fit into their system.

Anyway, thanks for the comments you have offered. I hope this post clarifies better my position on this passage (and this topic).

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 10 PM Pacific.

 

[The Biblicist]

4 ¶ Surely he has borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was on him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opens not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 ¶ Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief: when you shall make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he has poured out his soul to death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

This text clearly teaches substitutionary atonement and that the wrath of God was poured out upon his Son with regard as the Son becoming the "sacrifice" for sins of His people but not in the sense of any personal merit. In the sense of personal merit he is the beloved of the Father.

For example, "for the transgression of my people WAS HE STRICKEN' by God. It is God that "laid on him the iniquity of us all" and it was God that bruised him, and it was God which had to be "satisfied" with the travail of his soul. This is God's response to his son in the role or position of substitutionary sacrifice for our sins, it is not his response against His Son's personal character or merits as an individual. Christ is the "beloved" of the Father even on the cross with regard to His own personal character and merits. But with regard to his role as a "sacrifice" for the sins of his people (substitutionary sacficial role) he is the object of God's wrath against sin.

There is no contradiction between Christ the "sacrifice" for sins suffering the "condemnation" (= wrath applied) for our sins and at the very same time on a PERSONAL LEVEL being "beloved" of the Father on the cross with regard to his own personal merits. Don't confuse his "personal" merits with his role as a 'sacrifice" for sin and don't pit one against the other as both are equally true.

The role of penal substititionary atonement was a LEGAL POSITION on the cross where the Law's penalty was completely satified, the condemnation of the Law was carried out in full against sin. This LEGAL POSITION of Christ should not be confused with His PERSONAL character or PERSONAL relationship to God. On the cross with regard to his PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP with God he is "the beloved" who is being obedient to God unto death. On the cross with regard to his LEGAL POSITION he is the object of the wrath of God's law until the condemnation is satisfied, and thus God is "satisfied with the travail of his soul" as an penal substitutionary offering for sin upon which the full condemnation of the law is being poured out.

Substitutionary penal atonement is the ONLY Biblical view. All the rest are either flawed and/or come short.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 10 PM Pacific.