depthdeception said:
I agree that the Atonement creates surety for those who believe. However, unlike you, I do not believe that the atonement necessarily compels those who are elected to believe, to believe.
I think no such thing. It is not the atonement that compels anyone to believe but, rather, God's work of regeneration and His sovereign dispensation of salvitic faith.
Therefore, while it is a surety for those who believe, the atonement creates the possibility that belief is salvific.
I distinguish between "belief" and "faith" in these types of discussions because I don't feel that "belief" conveys the strength intended by the Bible's references to the faith of the saints. That said, any belief that includes within the elements of true faith is
always salvific.
If Christ endures the "punishment" for human sin from God, humanity is not being reconciled to God. Rather, Christ--by being punished--is changing God's mind concerning God's designs to "punish" humanity. In this sense, then, God is the one being reconciled, not humanity.
God's design in the creation of the elect was
never punishment so your point is, once again, both biblically inaccurate and moot. He has loved them from eternity and all that He does is for their good. He needn't have His mind changed to purpose the atonement to reconcile them to Him in an everlasting covenant. It is His lack of change that gives us hope that we will be with Him in Heaven forevermore.
Forgiveness requires no conditions upon which it becoes "fitting." Rather, the very nature of forgiveness is that it is given without condition. A forgiveness "earned" or "merited" is not forgiveness.
Then please, enlighten me as to God's purpose in sending His Son to die? You clearly deny that His vicarious death was necessary for man to be forgiven so I'm wondering why you believe He became incarnate in the first place. If there is no reason for God to forgive anyone, why does He do it? It seems as if you're espousing that God performs an action with eternal consequences with absolutely no antecedent cause for doing so.
What, the "good news" that Christ did not desire to reconcile some to God? How is that "good news?"
It is quite clear to me whose glory is more important to you and it certainly isn't Christ. It is "good news" to me that Christ is capable of accomplishing all that He purposes and that none, not even me, can stay His hand. If God deigns to leave some to their sins and justly punish them for their iniquity, then it is good that He is glorified in the dispensation of His justice against their iniquity. Unlike you, I do not begin to presume that because I find something to be pleasing to my senses, like the salvation of all without exception, that anything else is "bad news" or unrighteous.
No, Christ purposed to reconcile all of creation to God. However, as reconciliation is ultimate a relational reality that requires reciprocity, it is perfectly obvious that not all will be reconciled, even though all are forgiven (the foundation for reconciliation).
This is the tripe of man centered doctrine at it's worst. You contend that God purposes the
actual death of the Son to
actually reconcile all mankind without exception to the Lord but because the intended recipient of His work of reconciliation chooses to reject the work of Christ on his behalf, that work is impotent to
actually accomplish it's purpose. The very idea that God forgives someone yet they still go to hell is so utterly unbiblical it is offensive. Your disdain for the forgiveness of God is abhorant.
The kind of "reconciliation" which Calvinism espouses is not reconciliation at all, as it is compelled on the basis of the gift of forgiveness, and not a response to it.
That's because we acknowledge that it is the Giver of the gift that establishes it's efficacy rather than that the recipient determines whether God's will shall be done but, hey, I'm sure you revel in your view. It certainly does tickle your ears.
"Demanded?" No, the nature of God's righteousness and love is that God became human in order to reconcile humanity to Godself, doing for humanity--on behalf of humanity--that which humanity could not do for itself.
You claim that He did so for all people without exception. Please, explain what it is that Christ did "on behalf of humanity which humanity could not do for itself?" What did He accomplish with His death?
However, this "righteousness" is not satisfied in the supposed "punishment" of Christ, but rather in the relational fidelity which Christ exhibited to the Father in confronting the sinfulness of humanity and violent forces of evil in the world. God's response to "transgression" is always that of love, of an attempt to reconcile the offending party, not punishment. Punishment is the consequences which sinful humanity naturally experiences when they refuse the loving overtures of God in history through Christ.
Then you purport a contradiction, for if God's justice is "satisfied" in Christ's "exhibition of fidelity with the Father in His incarnation and atonement" then man's response is irrelevent and all will inherit the blessings due to those for whom Christ died. Unless, of course, it is your contention that man's refusal of God's "loving overture" nullifies the efficacy of Christ's work on their behalf?
No, justice does not demand recompense. This is the problem with the Church. There is no punishment that God could expend upon humanity that would be equal to the offense. Therefore, to punish humanity simply to satisfy "justice" would be irrelevant, as God would gain nothing by punishing, nor lose anything by not punishing. The hope of salvation is that God is merciful and has sacrificed all in order to reconcile humanity to Godself.
If not to satisfy the demands of God's established law, i.e., justice, for what was Christ sent to obey even unto death? The gospel you preach is nothing more than the touchy-feely, man centered, "God loves everyone but is impotent to save you without your permission" tripe that is indicative of what is actually wrong with the church today.
But in penal substitutionary theory, the "punishment" of Christ is not the full embodiment of God's purpose to save humanity as God's desire is to actually destroy humanity in order to satisfy "divine justice" (which God supposedly is more concerned about than anything else).
The "punishment of Christ" was never purposed to "save humanity" from anything. It is purposed, and accomplishes, the reconciliation of God's elect to God. Destruction is simply the natural result of violating the law of God, for that is what He established in the Garden when forming the covenant with Adam and his descendants.
Rather, Christ is presented as doing that which God was not willing to do, i.e., forgive humanity of its sins. Therefore, one can only conclude that in his death and supposed "punishment" by God, Christ is changing God's attitude toward humanity (which, as penal substitutionary atonement presumes, was to destroy humanity), not representing God's desire for humanity.
Christ is God so why do you differentiate between His purpose in the atonement and what God was willing to do? Clearly God was willing, and able, to make provision for the forgiveness of His elect as shown by the incarnation and atonement of Christ.
