Jesus' death accomplished salvation for the non-elect

[Harry3142]

Hammster-

We read in Hebrews 8:1-10:14 that Jesus Christ was the high priest of the new covenant, and that by the shedding of his own blood he accomplished the perfect sacrifice of atonement for our sins. This passage also contrasts that perfect atonement with the imperfect ones which had needed to be performed annually prior to this point in time. However, in order to better understand the purpose of an atoning sacrifice, including who it included and why it was performed, I find it helpful to refer back to those imperfect sacrifices. The ceremony involved can be found in Leviticus 16:1-28.

Each year on The Day of Atonement the priest would select 1 bull, 2 goats, and 1 ram for the sacrifice. The entire community would come together around the altar; everyone was to participate in this ceremony.

He sacrificed the bull, and its blood cleansed the priest and his household of the sins which they had committed during that year. He sacrificed one of the goats, chosen by lot, and its blood cleansed the members of the community of the sins which they had committed during that year.

But the other goat was kept alive. The priest placed his hands on the head of that goat, and while his hands were there he recited all of the sins which he, his household, and the community had committed during that year. This action transferred the sins from them to that goat. Then it was driven into the wilderness, taking their sins with it. Lastly, he sacrificed the ram as a burnt offering.

But suppose a stranger had been traveling that day, and passed by where this ceremony was taking place. Would the ceremony have included his sins? No, it would not, and the reason is clear. He had not included himself in the community whose sins the blood of the goat cleansed, and his sins were not included in those transferred to the other goat that was driven into the wilderness.

So the atoning sacrifice was intended for all who wished to have their sins cleansed, but the decision was theirs as to whether they would include themselves in the community for whose sins the sacrifice had been made. In order for it to be effective, they had to consciously include themselves in the community who accepted the blood of the goat as cleansing them of their sins, and their sins had to be included in those transferred to the goat that was to carry them away into the wilderness. A passerby who kept himself seperate from the ceremony would derive no benefit from it.

It's the same with Jesus' own sacrifice. His blood cleanses all who make the decision to accept that sacrifice as efficacious to them personally of their sins. As well, on his head have been put the sins of all who accept his sacrifice, that he might take those sins 'into the wilderness'. But in order for the sacrifice to be effective, each individual needs to make the decision that they will include themselves and their sins in those which his blood cleanses, and which he carries away (Romans 3:19-5:10).

 

[Jack Terrence]

Hammster-

We read in Hebrews 8:1-10:14 that Jesus Christ was the high priest of the new covenant, and that by the shedding of his own blood he accomplished the perfect sacrifice of atonement for our sins. This passage also contrasts that perfect atonement with the imperfect ones which had needed to be performed annually prior to this point in time. However, in order to better understand the purpose of an atoning sacrifice, including who it included and why it was performed, I find it helpful to refer back to those imperfect sacrifices. The ceremony involved can be found in Leviticus 16:1-28.

Each year on The Day of Atonement the priest would select 1 bull, 2 goats, and 1 ram for the sacrifice. The entire community would come together around the altar; everyone was to participate in this ceremony.

He sacrificed the bull, and its blood cleansed the priest and his household of the sins which they had committed during that year. He sacrificed one of the goats, chosen by lot, and its blood cleansed the members of the community of the sins which they had committed during that year.

But the other goat was kept alive. The priest placed his hands on the head of that goat, and while his hands were there he recited all of the sins which he, his household, and the community had committed during that year. This action transferred the sins from them to that goat. Then it was driven into the wilderness, taking their sins with it. Lastly, he sacrificed the ram as a burnt offering.

But suppose a stranger had been traveling that day, and passed by where this ceremony was taking place. Would the ceremony have included his sins? No, it would not, and the reason is clear. He had not included himself in the community whose sins the blood of the goat cleansed, and his sins were not included in those transferred to the other goat that was driven into the wilderness.

So the atoning sacrifice was intended for all who wished to have their sins cleansed, but the decision was theirs as to whether they would include themselves in the community for whose sins the sacrifice had been made. In order for it to be effective, they had to consciously include themselves in the community who accepted the blood of the goat as cleansing them of their sins, and their sins had to be included in those transferred to the goat that was to carry them away into the wilderness. A passerby who kept himself seperate from the ceremony would derive no benefit from it.

It's the same with Jesus' own sacrifice. His blood cleanses all who make the decision to accept that sacrifice as efficacious to them personally of their sins. As well, on his head have been put the sins of all who accept his sacrifice, that he might take those sins 'into the wilderness'. But in order for the sacrifice to be effective, each individual needs to make the decision that they will include themselves and their sins in those which his blood cleanses, and which he carries away (Romans 3:19-5:10).

You are taking Hebrews out of its context. The apostle to the Hebrews had established the principle that Christ became the Captain of salvation to bring the many SONS to glory and no one else.

John Gill on Hebrews 2:10:

all things,.... This is not a periphrasis of Christ, who died, but of God the Father, who delivered him to death; and who is the final cause of all things, in nature, and in grace, all things being made for his pleasure and for his glory; and he is the efficient cause of all things, as follows:

and by whom are all things; all the works of creation, providence, and grace: in bringing many sons to glory; not to worldly glory, but to the heavenly glory, which they are undeserving of; and which was long ago prepared for them; is at present hid; is weighty, solid, durable, yea, eternal: the persons whom God, of his rich grace, brings to this, are "sons"; who are predestinated to the adoption of children; are regenerated by the Spirit of God; believe in Christ; and have the spirit of adoption given them, and so being children, are heirs of glory: and these are "many"; for though they are but few, when compared with others, yet they are many, considered by themselves; they are many that God has ordained to eternal life, and given to Christ, and for whom he has given himself a ransom, and whom he justifies; and accordingly there are many mansions of glory provided for them in their Father's house, whose act it is to bring them thither: he has chosen them to this glory, and prepared it for them; he sent his Son to redeem them; he reveals his Son in them, the hope of glory; he calls them to his eternal glory, and makes them meet for it, and gives them an abundant entrance into it....

 

[bling]

Would you share what denominational church group you think would most closely resemble the views you have articulated here?

Who are you talking to?

 

[Clare73]

Excellent question!

This shows another fallacy to substitution atonement.

A consistent (logically sensible) and Biblical explanation of the questions below on Ro 3:25-26
will show your incorrect understanding of the atonement.

"God presented Jesus as a sacrifice of propitiation (atonement) through faith in his blood.

He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had passed over

(left unpunished) the sins committed beforehand (OT)--he did it to demonstrate his justice

at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies." (Ro 3:25-26)

1) What did God "pass over" the sins committed beforehand (OT)?

2) The "what passed over" consisted precisely of?

3) How did the "what passed over" demonstrate God's justice?

4) For what did Jesus' sacrificial death atone?

5) How does Jesus' sacrificial death atone (make reparation, amends) for it?

6) What is the connection between his atonement and my faith in it (his blood)?

 

[travelah]

Who are you talking to?

You.

 

[travelah]

A consistent (logically sensible) and Biblical explanation of the questions below on Ro 3:25-26
will show your incorrect understanding of the atonement.

"God presented Jesus as a sacrifice of propitiation (atonement) through faith in his blood.

He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had passed over

(left unpunished) the sins committed beforehand (OT)--he did it to demonstrate his justice

at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies." (Ro 3:25-26)

1) What did God "pass over" the sins committed beforehand (OT)?

2) The "what passed over" consisted precisely of?

3) How did the "what passed over" demonstrate God's justice?

4) For what did Jesus' sacrificial death atone?

5) How does Jesus' sacrificial death atone (make reparation, amends) for it?

6) What is the connection between his atonement and my faith in it (his blood)?

Atonement theories are just that, theories. There are defensible aspects of most such theories and many people draw their understanding from more than one theory.

 

[Clare73]

A consistent (logically sensible) and Biblical explanation of the questions below on Ro 3:25-26
will show your incorrect understanding of the atonement.

"God presented Jesus as a sacrifice of propitiation (atonement) through faith in his blood.

He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had passed over

(left unpunished) the sins committed beforehand (OT)--he did it to demonstrate his justice

at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies." (Ro 3:25-26)

1) What did God "pass over" the sins committed beforehand (OT)?

2) The "what passed over" consisted precisely of?

3) How did the "what passed over" demonstrate God's justice?

4) For what did Jesus' sacrificial death atone?

5) How does Jesus' sacrificial death atone (make reparation, amends) for it?

6) What is the connection between his atonement and my faith in it (his blood)?

Atonement theories are just that, theories. There are defensible aspects of most such theories and many people draw their understanding from more than one theory.

Scripture is not theory.

Ro 3:25-26 is not theory, it is the word of God.

Would you like to provide a consistent and Biblical explanation of the questions regarding Ro 3:25-26?

 

[travelah]

Scripture is not theory.

Ro 3:25-26 is not theory, it is the word of God.

Would you like to provide a consistent and Biblical explanation of the questions regarding Ro 3:25-26?

Scripture is not theoretical but Atonement theories are unless you are prepared to demonstrate that penal satisfaction/substitution has the imprimatur of Vincents rule of Christian orthodoxy.

Moreover, in the catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. - Vincent of Lerins : “The Commonitories”​

Of course it does not since penal substitution is itself a modification of Anselm's satisfaction theory.

To your question, I will pass. Several atonement theories can make profitable use of the same passage including Christus Victor and Anselm's Satisfaction. There are four general classes of atonement theory, not one and no one sect has an infallible lock on such interpretive theology.

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

You asked, "Did He take the punishment for their sins, or something else?"

What was the punishment He took?

Death.

What court pronounced this punishment on Him?

The most brutal imaginable, Rome.

What judge passed this punishment on Him?

The Roman governor of the region, an especially brutal one, Pilate.

Or, I should ask, did Jesus take the punishment for sinners?

It certainly wasn't for the righteous (which could only be Himself)

 

[BluhdoftheLamb]

Inescapable perhaps in 21st century English, but not in the context of the Jewish culture of the NT.

Words like all, every man, all men, the world, etc., in the context of their culture, meant "including the Gentiles," as distinct from just Israel whom he had only dealth with up to that point.
God had not dealt with all, every man, all men, the world, etc. since Abraham. They were distinct from all. . .the world, etc.

Therefore, these words in the NT do not always mean every individual person.
The truths presented in the rest of the NT indicate which meaning is intended, either "including the Gentiles" or "every individual person," or both.

How is "including the Gentiles" distinct from "every individual person?"

 

[gmm4j]

They aren't condemned BECAUSE of the cross. Pretty basic stuff.

The elect aren't condemned because the work of the cross has been applied to them by faith.

After Jesus atoned for their sins on the cross and prior to belief they were still perishing, under God's wrath, and stood condemned, wouldn't you say?

John 3:16-19
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

Pretty basic stuff.

 

[Jack Terrence]

The elect are never condemned.

It is unfortunate that many Reformed today think that the Elect were never condemned.

Paul said that they were condemned:

And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

The historic Reformed faith says that they were condemned:

IV. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify the elect; and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins and rise again for their justification; nevertheless they are NOT justified UNTIL the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.

 

[Clare73]

Scripture is not theoretical but Atonement theories are unless you are prepared to demonstrate that penal satisfaction/substitution has the imprimatur of Vincents rule of Christian orthodoxy.

Scripture itself, understood in the light of the whole counsel of God, rather than in the light of Vincent, is my only authority.

penal substitution is itself a modification of Anselm's satisfaction theory.

To your question, I will pass. Several atonement theories can make profitable use of the same passage including Christus Victor and Anselm's Satisfaction. There are four general classes of atonement theory, not one and
no one sect has an infallible lock on such interpretive theology.

Correct, but the word of God in Ro 3:25-26 has a lock on it.

And none of those "theories" are contradictory, they all are aspects of it.

However, since you choose not to reckon with Ro 3:25-26, because you are unable to present a consistent and Bilblical explanation of it which can be reconciled to your theory of atonement, I will do so.

"God presented Jesus as a sacrifice of propitiation (atonement) through faith in his blood.

He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had passed over

(left unpunished) the sins committed beforehand (OT)--he did it to demonstrate his justice

at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies." (Ro 3:25-26)

1) What did God "pass over" the sins committed beforehand (OT)?

-----Penalty on their sin was "passed over," their sin was left unpunished. (penal)

2) The "what passed over" (penalty) consisted precisely of?

-----Eternal punishment due on their sin.

3) How did the "what passed over" (penalty) demonstrate God's justice?

-----Justice requires a penalty for law breaking.

4) For what did Jesus' sacrificial death atone?

-----The law-breaking of all those who believe in his propitiation for their sin (of breaking God's laws). (atonement)

5) How does Jesus' sacrificial death atone (make reparation, amends) for it?

-----He paid the penalty due for their law-breaking. (subsitution)

6) What is the connection between his atonement and my faith in it (his blood)?

-----The forgiveness of sin, purchased by Jesus' sacrifice of propitiation paying my penalty, is applied to me only by faith

in his propitiation, and that forgiveness is salvation, from the wrath of God at the final judgment.

The word of God in Ro 3:25-26 clearly presents substitutional penal atonement.

 

[rogueapologist]

-----Justice requires a penalty for law breaking.

Why, exactly, does justice "require" a penalty for law breaking? Would God, as God, not be equally just in turning a blind eye to sin? To whose standard of justice is God bound?

 

[Clare73]

How is "including the Gentiles" distinct from "every individual person?"

Sinners, including the Gentiles, are now being saved, but not every individual person (Gentile).

 

[Hammster]

You asked, "Did He take the punishment for their sins, or something else?"

What was the punishment He took?
What court pronounced this punishment on Him?
What judge passed this punishment on Him?

Or, I should ask, did Jesus take the punishment for sinners?

I guess you don't understand the intent of the question.

 

[Hammster]

I think you have a good post. The opening post in the thread is pursuing a line of thought that I do not see as a reasonable understanding of the opposing position. Granted, the term salvation is used regarding Christ's sacrifice but I think that is only from a mere ignorance of the importance of terminology (I am not stating that as a negative against the opponent presumed in the OP but as a common issue of understanding among many laypeople).
Christ's atonement was provisionary for all men yet efficacious only through faith. Further, the elect are those known of God as faithful in Christ. That is not securing salvation for the non-elect as you have well pointed out. I would like to believe the OP knows and understands this.

I guess you didn't understand. The person I quoted said that Christ secured salvation for the non-elect. You should have read the OP.

 

[Clare73]

Why, exactly, does justice "require" a penalty for law breaking? Would God, as God, not be equally just in turning a blind eye to sin? To whose standard of justice is God bound?

That is the nature of justice. If it does not require a penalty for law breaking, then it is not justice.

Why does any system of justice require a penalty for law breaking?

Why do justice systems not turn a blind eye to law breaking?

Do you want to live in a society where there is no justice, no penalty for kidnapping your child?

God is bound to his own justice, just as he is bound to his own immutability or truthfulness, if he is going to be consistent with himself.

 

[Hammster]

Hammster-

We read in Hebrews 8:1-10:14 that Jesus Christ was the high priest of the new covenant, and that by the shedding of his own blood he accomplished the perfect sacrifice of atonement for our sins. This passage also contrasts that perfect atonement with the imperfect ones which had needed to be performed annually prior to this point in time. However, in order to better understand the purpose of an atoning sacrifice, including who it included and why it was performed, I find it helpful to refer back to those imperfect sacrifices. The ceremony involved can be found in Leviticus 16:1-28.

Each year on The Day of Atonement the priest would select 1 bull, 2 goats, and 1 ram for the sacrifice. The entire community would come together around the altar; everyone was to participate in this ceremony.

He sacrificed the bull, and its blood cleansed the priest and his household of the sins which they had committed during that year. He sacrificed one of the goats, chosen by lot, and its blood cleansed the members of the community of the sins which they had committed during that year.

But the other goat was kept alive. The priest placed his hands on the head of that goat, and while his hands were there he recited all of the sins which he, his household, and the community had committed during that year. This action transferred the sins from them to that goat. Then it was driven into the wilderness, taking their sins with it. Lastly, he sacrificed the ram as a burnt offering.

But suppose a stranger had been traveling that day, and passed by where this ceremony was taking place. Would the ceremony have included his sins? No, it would not, and the reason is clear. He had not included himself in the community whose sins the blood of the goat cleansed, and his sins were not included in those transferred to the other goat that was driven into the wilderness.

So the atoning sacrifice was intended for all who wished to have their sins cleansed, but the decision was theirs as to whether they would include themselves in the community for whose sins the sacrifice had been made. In order for it to be effective, they had to consciously include themselves in the community who accepted the blood of the goat as cleansing them of their sins, and their sins had to be included in those transferred to the goat that was to carry them away into the wilderness. A passerby who kept himself seperate from the ceremony would derive no benefit from it.

It's the same with Jesus' own sacrifice. His blood cleanses all who make the decision to accept that sacrifice as efficacious to them personally of their sins. As well, on his head have been put the sins of all who accept his sacrifice, that he might take those sins 'into the wilderness'. But in order for the sacrifice to be effective, each individual needs to make the decision that they will include themselves and their sins in those which his blood cleanses, and which he carries away (Romans 3:19-5:10).

The sacrifice was intended for God's people.

 

[Arcoe]

2) The "what passed over" (penalty) consisted precisely of?

-----Eternal punishment due on their sin.

5) How does Jesus' sacrificial death atone (make reparation, amends) for it?

-----He paid the penalty due for their law-breaking. (subsitution)

Clare, you said the penalty due to man's sin is ETERNAL punishment. Then you made the statement that Jesus PAID the penalty for man.

If I'm not mistaken, Jesus DID NOT fully pay for man's sins. If Jesus paid ETERNAL punishment for man's sins, He would still be paying the penalty today and forever.

If Jesus paid the penalty of 'three days' in hell, then this must be the punishment for man's sins, not ETERNAL punishment.

So, either man stays three days in hell for his sins, or Jesus didn't pay the full penalty. Care to comment.