The Atonement: Which is The Bible's Teaching?

[Yeshua1]

I believe this is what you get when one starts building theology on theory. We look at the Atonement and narrow it down to a "priority" (which, unfortunately, also means we minimize other aspects of the Atonement as less important). And then we start building a narrative to get from point A to point B, and from B to C.

For example - Scripture teaches that Christ's death was an atoning sacrifice (to include the more specific propitiation for human sin). He bore our sins and was wounded for our transgressions. Jesus took upon Himself the consequences of human sin (which could be physical death, but this is ignored in favor of a spiritual death). So Jesus took upon himself the consequences, which is a punishment for our sin. Jesus took our punishment. He took our punishment individually to account for each sin we committed. The Father punished Jesus. Jesus is our substitute so He took our place. Taking our place the Father looked at Jesus as if He was us. The Father punished the Son with our punishment. If we were not saved we would be condemned to Hell "on that day". Jesus must have experienced Hell on the Cross....which means being cast away from the presence of God. ect. Theory and ideas built upon theory and ideas and taken as if it were Scripture itself.

I know that Jesus was quoting the scripture on God forsaking Him, but also see Him as actual feeling/experiencing that break from the father in a way that we will not be able top fully understand, as he as God cannot forsake Himself, but in His Humanity, the father did in some sense while upon the Cross!

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes. I never thought (and hopefully you don't think implied) that we were less than united in Christ over this disagreement. At one time I held your view (I grew up in a church that taught of God "turning His back" on Jesus and accepted that position at face value). Now I hold a more Trinitarian position regarding the doctrine of the Cross as a whole. I was not "less saved" or walking further from God when I held my previous view. Being "like Christ" doesn't mean possessing all the right answers, but a life marked with His love in submission to God. I believe this describes you, and despite my struggles with sins in my own life I hope that it describes me as well.

I argue strongly against your position because I believe it an error that obscures certain truths of the Atonement (e.g., the love of the Father towards His Son on the Cross), not because I believe you have rejected the gospel message. And it makes me go back and revisit my own doctrines and evaluate what I bring into the passage verses what is actually there.

My viewpoint actually support the trintarian view, as Jesus exoerienced in his humanity what he could not in His deity, IE< temp separation from the father due to becoming our sin offering!

Do ypou believe that the wrath of God was actually poured out for sins on Jesus at the Cross then, or as something else?

 

[JonC]

I know that Jesus was quoting the scripture on God forsaking Him, but also see Him as actual feeling/experiencing that break from the father in a way that we will not be able top fully understand, as he as God cannot forsake Himself, but in His Humanity, the father did in some sense while upon the Cross!

I don't believe Jesus experienced the Criss in such a dualistic manner - i.e., "in His humanity" but not His divinity....I believe this is a philosophical attempt at reconciling to our mind something beyond our grasp, and unfortunately it detracts from what is revealed (the idea of two natures separated in experience is foreign to Scripture which always treats Jesus as both God and man -in experience and being).

We simply disagree, not on Scripture but on reasoning out to "fill in the blanks".

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't believe Jesus experienced the Criss in such a dualistic manner - i.e., "in His humanity" but not His divinity....I believe this is a philosophical attempt at reconciling to our mind something beyond our grasp, and unfortunately it detracts from what is revealed (the idea of two natures separated in experience is foreign to Scripture which always treats Jesus as both God and man -in experience and being).

We simply disagree, not on Scripture but on reasoning out to "fill in the blanks".

Do you see Jesus as the sin beaer, would have experience the wrath of God for those sins?

 

[JonC]

My viewpoint actually support the trintarian view, as Jesus exoerienced in his humanity what he could not in His deity, IE< temp separation from the father due to becoming our sin offering!

Do ypou believe that the wrath of God was actually poured out for sins on Jesus at the Cross then, or as something else?

I don’t mean that your position ignores the Trinity. What I mean is that your position holds a dichotomy between the Father and the Son at the point of the atonement. To me this places the Father and Son in discordant roles as God looks upon Jesus as a sinner rather than as His Righteous One obediently taking upon Himself the sins of man and suffering the consequences due what He (Jesus) took upon Himself by becoming man. It takes a biblical truth (God taking upon Himself humanity and human sin – knowing no sin He became sin for us) to what is in my view an unbiblical level. But I do apologize if you thought I was implying you denied the doctrine of the Trinity (if that were the case we wouldn't even be engaging each other at this point).

I do believe that Jesus suffered the consequences of sin and that God's wrath towards mankind was satisfied. But I do not believe that God looked upon Jesus as a sinner.

 

[JonC]

Do you see Jesus as the sin beaer, would have experience the wrath of God for those sins?

I see Jesus as bearing our sins and as a propitiation for the sins of the world.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don’t mean that your position ignores the Trinity. What I mean is that your position holds a dichotomy between the Father and the Son at the point of the atonement. To me this places the Father and Son in discordant roles as God looks upon Jesus as a sinner rather than as His Righteous One obediently taking upon Himself the sins of man and suffering the consequences due what He (Jesus) took upon Himself by becoming man. It takes a biblical truth (God taking upon Himself humanity and human sin – knowing no sin He became sin for us) to what is in my view an unbiblical level. But I do apologize if you thought I was implying you denied the doctrine of the Trinity (if that were the case we wouldn't even be engaging each other at this point).

I do believe that Jesus suffered the consequences of sin and that God's wrath towards mankind was satisfied. But I do not believe that God looked upon Jesus as a sinner.

This is why it is impossible to fully get what was going on at the cross, as the father did indeed see Jesus as becoming sin on our behalf, as the sin bearer, and yet he still stayed sinless... He was loving His own Son, and yet at the same time hating the Sin that he now represented while on the Cross...

God anger towards sin poured upon that messiah of God in full...

 

[Yeshua1]

I see Jesus as bearing our sins and as a propitiation for the sins of the world.

Was the wrath of God upon him?

 

[JonC]

Was the wrath of God upon him?

For context, please - What verse are you speaking of?

 

[Calv1]

Do you see Jesus as the sin beaer, would have experience the wrath of God for those sins?

What's funny when I see these debates are the questions. When you say "Do you see Jesus as the sin bearer", you may was well ask "Do you believe I Peter where it says "He bore our sins....", or Isaiah 53 where it says the same".

You do what you like, but it's SUCH A WASTE OF TIME debating anyone but orthodox, yes they did it in the old days, but they didn't have the information we have today. It's clear Jesus died only for His sheep, for the elect, I don't see Hitler sinless do you, not Hitlers sins judged twice, it's insanity.

Was watching on YouTube "Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" (We need some better English versions), not a verse goes by without showing God's full sovereignty over all affairs of man "I prevented Abimilech from sinning against you", "The Lord put into her heart to get the servant water", "She was barren, but the Lord blessed her and she was with child", I think we have to look at it this way;

Atheists, who have not the Spirit read it, and see nothing. Arminians read it and see nothing. I think we must be most charitable to the new Christian, or the Arminian who is new to the "debate, there is no debate", so how can they miss it? "The natural man cannot understand the things of God". Abraham wasn't a good man, he was a pagan, it's God that called him and made him into what he was, same with Isaac and Jacob. Each and every action ordered by the Lord, JUST AS HE'S SAID.

Really you're wasting your time, these people have their own philosophy, maybe they were raised that way, maybe they won't exercise Faith and believe what God says about Himself, and maybe they are one of the "Lord Lord didn't we do this and that in your name", "I never knew you", but it's ridiculous, read Job, read Isaiah, well if you believe in free will don't for you can't trust scripture if man has free will, God DIDN'T put the words in their mouths. It's just a joke, a decade, over a decade is long enough, I've done my duty, you'll find some really don't know the Lord, but again ALWAYS give the charity that they do, and are just very confused.

 

[Calv1]

My viewpoint actually support the trintarian view, as Jesus exoerienced in his humanity what he could not in His deity, IE< temp separation from the father due to becoming our sin offering!

Do ypou believe that the wrath of God was actually poured out for sins on Jesus at the Cross then, or as something else?

This is the orthodox view. Remember Jesus had the Spirit "Without Measure", he can as "Son of Man", though God He didn't show His entire self, He did transfigure, but He lived as a man. He was "Led by the Spirit TO BE TESTED". So yes, on the cross His Father not only abandoned Him "My God, My God why have you forsaken me", but God's wrath was poured out into His Soul in a way we'll never know this side of Heaven.

But yeah you're right, the other fellow wrong.

 

[JonC]

What's funny when I see these debates are the questions. When you say "Do you see Jesus as the sin bearer", you may was well ask "Do you believe I Peter where it says "He bore our sins....", or Isaiah 53 where it says the same".

You do what you like, but it's SUCH A WASTE OF TIME debating anyone but orthodox, yes they did it in the old days, but they didn't have the information we have today. It's clear Jesus died only for His sheep, for the elect, I don't see Hitler sinless do you, not Hitlers sins judged twice, it's insanity.

Was watching on YouTube "Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" (We need some better English versions), not a verse goes by without showing God's full sovereignty over all affairs of man "I prevented Abimilech from sinning against you", "The Lord put into her heart to get the servant water", "She was barren, but the Lord blessed her and she was with child", I think we have to look at it this way;

Atheists, who have not the Spirit read it, and see nothing. Arminians read it and see nothing. I think we must be most charitable to the new Christian, or the Arminian who is new to the "debate, there is no debate", so how can they miss it? "The natural man cannot understand the things of God". Abraham wasn't a good man, he was a pagan, it's God that called him and made him into what he was, same with Isaac and Jacob. Each and every action ordered by the Lord, JUST AS HE'S SAID.

Really you're wasting your time, these people have their own philosophy, maybe they were raised that way, maybe they won't exercise Faith and believe what God says about Himself, and maybe they are one of the "Lord Lord didn't we do this and that in your name", "I never knew you", but it's ridiculous, read Job, read Isaiah, well if you believe in free will don't for you can't trust scripture if man has free will, God DIDN'T put the words in their mouths. It's just a joke, a decade, over a decade is long enough, I've done my duty, you'll find some really don't know the Lord, but again ALWAYS give the charity that they do, and are just very confused.

I think the issue is whether or not he can defend his version of Calvinism via Scripture. As it stands, I suspect that neither of you can without a good helping of "logical conclusions" and subjective reasoning. Scripture has not changed from "the old days". The information that we have now is the work of others as they develop theories to determine just what and how God thinks and acts beyond what Scripture has revealed.

To clarify, there are more views than one within orthodox Christianity and we would be fools to think otherwise. The view that God punished Jesus with the individual punishments due the individual sins of the elect is not the orthodox position (it is, in fact, a historically minority view and not without serious issues).

So the challenge remains - provide Scripture to explain the context by which God's wrath was pored out on Jesus (I'm not saying it wasn't, but I am saying it warrants going to God's Word for the answer).

 

[MennoSota]

When we get to the point that we deny Jesus as the savior of all mankind, especially those who believe,

because the first part does not fit our theology then we've gotten to the point where we have abandoned Scripture in favor of our own understanding.

Jon, please clarify this for me.

"When we get to the point that we deny Jesus as the savior of all mankind, especially those who believe,"

What do you mean? You seem to promote universal atonement, but then include "especially for those who believe."
Why would belief matter if the atonement is universal? There is no need to qualify your statement.
If Jesus is the Savior of all mankind, then he's the Savior of all mankind. There is no other qualification needed. Unless...mankind ultimately saves themselves by their choice believe or disbelieve the atonement. That would be salvation by works, not by grace through faith.
Please clarify.

 

[JonC]

Jon, please clarify this for me.

"When we get to the point that we deny Jesus as the savior of all mankind, especially those who believe,"

What do you mean? You seem to promote universal atonement, but then include "especially for those who believe."
Why would belief matter if the atonement is universal? There is no need to qualify your statement.
If Jesus is the Savior of all mankind, then he's the Savior of all mankind. There is no other qualification needed. Unless...mankind ultimately saves themselves by their choice believe or disbelieve the atonement. That would be salvation by works, not by grace through faith.
Please clarify.

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.

 

[MennoSota]

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.

Again, I do not understand the last phrase.

"God who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers."

If God is the Savior of all men, then your qualifier "especially of believers" is redundant and unnecessary.

It comes across that you don't really believe God is the Savior of all men. That would be good, because the Bible is very clear that not all men are saved. Many, the majority of mankind, are not saved. In fact, if it were not for God's grace, all fall short of the mark.

We engage in the work of the Kingdom because God has commissioned us to be His ambassadors, preaching the message of reconciliation. That message of reconciliation would be unneeded if Christ's atonement were unlimited. All would be automatically reconciled by Christ's unlimited atonement. This means that Christ's atonement must be limited to those whom God has predestined to believe. Our obedience in engaging the lost with the gospel is a blessing God has given to us. He uses His children to call to those children who do not yet know they are chosen for adoption. God could have just done it Himself, but in His perfect plan He gives me a purpose. It's wonderful and so amazing that God would enlist me for such a meaningful task.

I truly cannot fathom your final statement and need for qualification.

 

[JonC]

Again, I do not understand the last phrase.

"God who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers."

If God is the Savior of all men, then your qualifier "especially of believers" is redundant and unnecessary.

It comes across that you don't really believe God is the Savior of all men. That would be good, because the Bible is very clear that not all men are saved. Many, the majority of mankind, are not saved. In fact, if it were not for God's grace, all fall short of the mark.

We engage in the work of the Kingdom because God has commissioned us to be His ambassadors, preaching the message of reconciliation. That message of reconciliation would be unneeded if Christ's atonement were unlimited. All would be automatically reconciled by Christ's unlimited atonement. This means that Christ's atonement must be limited to those whom God has predestined to believe. Our obedience in engaging the lost with the gospel is a blessing God has given to us. He uses His children to call to those children who do not yet know they are chosen for adoption. God could have just done it Himself, but in His perfect plan He gives me a purpose. It's wonderful and so amazing that God would enlist me for such a meaningful task.

I truly cannot fathom your final statement and need for qualification.

Well, I guess the first thing we need to make clear is that those are Paul’s words in 1 Timothy (to include the qualifier) and not my own. Jesus is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. I could claim this because this is what Scripture says, and even if I couldn't fathom the statement and the need for qualification I could accept it because it is God's Word. It is not dependent on my understanding. Here, however, I believe the statement is very clear. Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men, especially those who believe. But since it is Scripture and not my own words, all I can do is offer commentary.

The Atonement (here I mean Christ's death, burial and resurrection) not only secured the salvation of those who would believe (God loved the world by sending His Son that all who believed would have life) but also constituted a legitimate offer of salvation to all mankind (Christ is the propitiation for our sins, not only ours but the sins of the whole world).

 

[MennoSota]

Well, I guess the first thing we need to make clear is that those are Paul’s words in 1 Timothy (to include the qualifier) and not my own. Jesus is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. I could claim this because this is what Scripture says, and even if I couldn't fathom the statement and the need for qualification I could accept it because it is God's Word. It is not dependent on my understanding. Here, however, I believe the statement is very clear. Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men, especially those who believe. But since it is Scripture and not my own words, all I can do is offer commentary.

The Atonement (here I mean Christ's death, burial and resurrection) not only secured the salvation of those who would believe (God loved the world by sending His Son that all who believed would have life) but also constituted a legitimate offer of salvation to all mankind (Christ is the propitiation for our sins, not only ours but the sins of the whole world).

I will simply state that I think you misunderstand Paul and John in your use of scripture.

 

[JonC]

I will simply state that I think you misunderstand Paul and John in your use of scripture.

Why do you believe Paul added the qualifier (remember, it was his statement without my interpretation you couldn't fathom in post # 115)?

I ask because while you and I may agree on the doctrine of Limited Atonement it seems to me that you are unnecessarily dismissing passages that are not directly supportive of your theology. I believe this because of the quickness you rejected 1 Timothy 4:10 prior to my explanation.

 

[MennoSota]

Why do you believe Paul added the qualifier (remember, it was his statement without my interpretation you couldn't fathom in post # 115)?

Jon, the discussion regarding 1 Timothy and John 3 has gone round and round since I have been here. The counter is what does Paul mean by the multiple verses where he calls believers chosen, elect and predestined.
Which view is more consistent with all of scripture? There is no doubt that not all men are saved. This alone shows that the atonement is not unlimited.

Jon, I hear your arguments. I made the same arguments 15-20 years ago. The more I read the Bible, the more I could not reconcile the view you presently hold. Like you, I earnestly loved God and passionately sought to walk with God. Nothing has changed in that regard. What has changed is my understanding of the atonement based upon more reading of the Bible.
I hold no ill will toward you or your earnest desire to understand God's word. I simply don't hold your position anymore.

 

[JonC]

Jon, the discussion regarding 1 Timothy and John 3 has gone round and round since I have been here. The counter is what does Paul mean by the multiple verses where he calls believers chosen, elect and predestined.
Which view is more consistent with all of scripture? There is no doubt that not all men are saved. This alone shows that the atonement is not unlimited.

Jon, I hear your arguments. I made the same arguments 15-20 years ago. The more I read the Bible, the more I could not reconcile the view you presently hold. Like you, I earnestly loved God and passionately sought to walk with God. Nothing has changed in that regard. What has changed is my understanding of the atonement based upon more reading of the Bible.
I hold no ill will toward you or your earnest desire to understand God's word. I simply don't hold your position anymore.

No ill will on this end either, brother. Like you I affirm the 5 points, which means I believe Jesus purposed to save only those who would believe. I also understand the John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2 views.

I do not disagree that those who are saved are only those God draws, those who He predestined (I believe predestined implies those who will not believe as well). But I do not believe it necessary to deny that salvation was made available to all men as a legitimate offer.

This is interesting to me because we are so closely aligned in our conclusions yet we differ in how we get here. I also held your view at one time, but I never really considered the 1 Timothy passage (I don't know how I would have reconciled the verse back then).

1. How do you interpret God as "the Savior of all men, especially believers"?

2. Since you state that you once affirmed both limited atonement and a universal provision (classic Calvinism) what passages made you abandon the latter?

Thanks, BTW, for your feedback. I've read your posts on several threads and appreciate your views and willingness to engage.