Limited atonement, presbyterian view and Catholic critique.

[Xeno.of.athens]

In my reading, it appears that

Presbyterianism teaches that the atonement made by Jesus Christ on the cross was limited in its design and intent, and that it only applies to a certain group of people, the elect. This is often referred to as "limited atonement."​

​

Scripture references that support this belief include:​

​

• John 10:15, where Jesus says, "I lay down my life for the sheep."
• Matthew 1:21, where it states that Jesus will "save his people from their sins."
• Ephesians 5:25, where Paul states that Christ "loved the church and gave himself up for her."

Other references include:​

​

• Romans 8:29-30, "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."
• 2 Timothy 1:9 "who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,"

It's important to note that, while this is a traditional Presbyterian belief, not all Presbyterians necessarily hold to the doctrine of limited atonement.​

On the other hand

The Catholic Church teaches that the atonement made by Jesus Christ on the cross is for all people, not just a certain group of people, and that it is sufficient for the salvation of all. This is often referred to as "unlimited atonement."​

​

Scripture references that support this belief include:​

​

• John 3:16, where it states that "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."
• 1 John 2:2, where it states that Jesus is the "propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."
• 1 Timothy 2:6, where Paul states that Jesus "gave himself as a ransom for all."

Other references include:​

​

• 1 Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive."
• 2 Peter 3:9, "The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance."

From Catholic perspective, the doctrine of limited atonement is seen as contrary to the universal salvific will of God, which is clearly expressed in the Bible. The Catholic Church understands that Christ's atonement on the Cross is sufficient for all and that it is up to the individuals to accept or reject salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.​

Can one reconcile these views?

 

[BobRyan]

In my reading, it appears that

Presbyterianism teaches that the atonement made by Jesus Christ on the cross was limited in its design and intent, and that it only applies to a certain group of people, the elect. This is often referred to as "limited atonement."​

Yes --- that is "Calvinism". They have some form of TULIP
4 and 5 point Calvinism teaches "limited Atonement"

3 Point Calvinism is a better option in my POV - So then the 3 point version typically does not hold to
L - Limited Atonement
I - Irresistible grace

​

Scripture references that support this belief include:​

​

• John 10:15, where Jesus says, "I lay down my life for the sheep."
• Matthew 1:21, where it states that Jesus will "save his people from their sins."
• Ephesians 5:25, where Paul states that Christ "loved the church and gave himself up for her."

Other references include:​

​

• Romans 8:29-30, "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."
• 2 Timothy 1:9 "who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,"

It's important to note that, while this is a traditional Presbyterian belief, not all Presbyterians necessarily hold to the doctrine of limited atonement.​

On the other hand

The Catholic Church teaches that the atonement made by Jesus Christ on the cross is for all people, not just a certain group of people, and that it is sufficient for the salvation of all. This is often referred to as "unlimited atonement."​

​

Scripture references that support this belief include:​

​

• John 3:16, where it states that "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."
• 1 John 2:2, where it states that Jesus is the "propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."
• 1 Timothy 2:6, where Paul states that Jesus "gave himself as a ransom for all."

Other references include:​

​

• 1 Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive."
• 2 Peter 3:9, "The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance."

From Catholic perspective, the doctrine of limited atonement is seen as contrary to the universal salvific will of God, which is clearly expressed in the Bible. The Catholic Church understands that Christ's atonement on the Cross is sufficient for all and that it is up to the individuals to accept or reject salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.​

Can one reconcile these views?

Arminian groups (such as SDAs, Methodists, and some groups of Baptists ... as well as other groups) and 3 Point calvinists also use those same texts to argue against 4 and 5 point calvinism.

 

[Clare73]

In my reading, it appears that

Presbyterianism teaches that the atonement made by Jesus Christ on the cross was limited in its design and intent, and that it only applies to a certain group of people, the elect. This is often referred to as "limited atonement."​

​

Scripture references that support this belief include:​

​

• John 10:15, where Jesus says, "I lay down my life for the sheep."
• Matthew 1:21, where it states that Jesus will "save his people from their sins."
• Ephesians 5:25, where Paul states that Christ "loved the church and gave himself up for her."

Other references include:​

​

• Romans 8:29-30, "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."
• 2 Timothy 1:9 "who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,"

It's important to note that, while this is a traditional Presbyterian belief, not all Presbyterians necessarily hold to the doctrine of limited atonement.​

On the other hand

The Catholic Church teaches that the atonement made by Jesus Christ on the cross is for all people, not just a certain group of people, and that it is sufficient for the salvation of all. This is often referred to as "unlimited atonement."​

​

Scripture references that support this belief include:​

​

• John 3:16, where it states that "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."
• 1 John 2:2, where it states that Jesus is the "propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."
• 1 Timothy 2:6, where Paul states that Jesus "gave himself as a ransom for all."

Other references include:​

​

• 1 Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive."
• 2 Peter 3:9, "The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance."

From Catholic perspective, the doctrine of limited atonement is seen as contrary to the universal salvific will of God, which is clearly expressed in the Bible. The Catholic Church understands that Christ's atonement on the Cross is sufficient for all and that it is up to the individuals to accept or reject salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.​

Can one reconcile these views?

Not too sure why it matters. . .all that matters is that it applies to all those of saving faith..

 

[Mark Quayle]

Not too sure why it matters. . .all that matters is that it applies to all those of saving faith..

You have a point, but it matters in that, logically, if it ends up only effective for the elect, then God intended it from the beginning only for the elect. It is impossible that God's original intent in creating could be frustrated or undone. There is no plan B.

But also, to me, it matters because the claim is monstrous, that Christ paid for the sins of those who end up paying their own. That, unless someone can somehow merge the two, necessarily implies ineffective payment.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Not too sure why it matters. . .all that matters is that it applies to all those of saving faith..

Like every human argument it may not matter very much at all. What matters is God. He alone IS, all others are derivative. Yet God says that he cares for us and about us; by us I mean humanity. And because God is love he has redeemed all, though the redemption is offered rather than imposed. And being offered it may be rejected.

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day,

I would submit that the interpretation of the Roman Catholic denomination is flawed when it come's to these particular passages:

• John 3:16, where it states that "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."
• 1 John 2:2, where it states that Jesus is the "propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."
• 1 Timothy 2:6, where Paul states that Jesus "gave himself as a ransom for all."

Other references include:

• 1 Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive."
• 2 Peter 3:9, "The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance."

There are many denominations that fall into that category so the Roman Catholic denomination is not alone in their erroneous teaching based on flawed interpretation of Scripture.

In Him,

Bill

 

[fhansen]

Not too sure why it matters. . .all that matters is that it applies to all those of saving faith..

It's important because the nature of God is love-and He loves His creation, all of which He created good, with a fierce and lavish love. He wants all men to be saved but obviosuly allows them to choose otherwise, against goodness, which is the only reason evil was ever able to enter our world to begin with. It's a battle, which rages within ourselves and isn't over until the final spark of evil is overcome with good, until we finally, fully love God with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength to put it another way.

It would be a truly evil God who predetermined and created some to spend eternity in torment while creating others to spend it in eternal luxury with Him, rather than allowing them to make that choice for themselves. From beginning to end the bible is about man's relationship with good and evil, about him learning to distinguish-and choose-between the two with God's guiding hand and grace always seeking to draw him to the right choice.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Good Day,

I would submit that the interpretation of the Roman Catholic denomination is flawed when it come's to these particular passages:

• John 3:16, where it states that "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."
• 1 John 2:2, where it states that Jesus is the "propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."
• 1 Timothy 2:6, where Paul states that Jesus "gave himself as a ransom for all."

Other references include:

• 1 Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive."
• 2 Peter 3:9, "The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance."

There are many denominations that fall into that category so the Roman Catholic denomination is not alone in their erroneous teaching based on flawed interpretation of Scripture.

In Him,

Bill

I think I agree, though it is a category thing. I don't know the Catholic's dealing with each particular verse. Do you?

 

[fhansen]

Good Day,

I would submit that the interpretation of the Roman Catholic denomination is flawed when it come's to these particular passages:

• John 3:16, where it states that "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."
• 1 John 2:2, where it states that Jesus is the "propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."
• 1 Timothy 2:6, where Paul states that Jesus "gave himself as a ransom for all."

Other references include:

• 1 Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive."
• 2 Peter 3:9, "The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance."

There are many denominations that fall into that category so the Roman Catholic denomination is not alone in their erroneous teaching based on flawed interpretation of Scripture.

In Him,

Bill

It's not only the RCC or those other denominations that you're arguing with, using novel ideas which were mainly unknown in the early chruch, but you're also opposed to the Eastern Orthodox and the ECFs in this. You're arguing with Christianity.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I would submit that the interpretation of the Roman Catholic denomination is flawed when it come's to these particular passages

How do you interpret those passages and in exactly what way is a Catholic interpretation flawed?

This is how Catholic interpreters have interpreted one the verses you raised. What, specifically is wrong with their interpretation?

John 3:16-17 "For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son: that whosoever believeth in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting. For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world: but that the world may be saved by him."

Give his only begotten Son ---​

God sent not his Son into the world. He was then his Son, his only begotten Son, before he sent him into the world. He was not, therefore, his Son, only by the incarnation, but was his Son from the beginning, as he was also his word from all eternity. This was the constant doctrine of the Church, and of the Fathers, against the heresy of the Arians, that God was always Father,[1] and the Son always the eternal Son of the eternal Father. See note on chap. i. ver. 14. (Witham) ---​

​

The world may be saved.​

Why, says St. Augustine, is Christ called the Saviour of the world, unless from the obligation he took upon himself at his birth? He has come like a good physician, effectually to save mankind. The man, therefore, destroys himself, who refuses to follow the prescriptions of his physician. (St. Augustine)​

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]​

[1] Greek: Aei Theos, aei uios; ama pater, ama uios. Arius began his heresy by denying this, as it appears in his letter to Eusebius, of Nicomedia, in St. Epiphanius, hær. 69, p. 731.​

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

In my reading, it appears Presbyterianism teaches that the atonement made by Jesus Christ on the cross was limited in its design and intent, and that it only applies to a certain group of people, the elect.

This, in my estimation, is the true problem for those who oppose Reformed theology, not limited atonement but unconditional election. If you tell them, "The efficacy of the atonement is applied only to believers," they probably won't have a problem with that. It is widely agreed that the cross of Christ saves only those who repent and believe. But when you introduce the idea that it's only the elect who repent and believe, well, that is what really stirs up the ire of fallen humanity.

And this, of course, is not even to mention the fact that both sides have a limited atonement at any rate, one side limiting its extent (i.e., the salvation of certain people made actual) and the other side limiting its efficacy (i.e., the salvation of all people made possible; something further is needed to make actual the salvation of any).

Note: What makes the difference between those who come to share in the forgiveness of sins and eternal life and those who do not? You might say it's the corrupt and guilty human will that makes the difference, since Christ did everything he could and equally for everyone—but please observe how that puts the focus on man. The acquisition of salvation was the work of Christ, but the application of salvation is the work of man? I think anyone who is uncomfortable with a man-centered theology needs to wrestle with that.

On the other hand , the [Roman] Catholic church teaches that the atonement made by Jesus Christ on the cross is for all people, not just a certain group of people, and that it is sufficient for the salvation of all.

The key word there is "sufficient," and it's an important word because it introduces the bait-and-switch that just happened here. It was flown under the radar so most will not have noticed—perhaps even Xeno didn't notice—but it is easily exposed by simply highlighting the fact that Presbyterians and other Calvinists likewise believe and teach that the cross of Christ is "sufficient for the salvation of all." As made clear in the Canons of Dort (CD)—the source material for the so-called five points of Calvinism—the cross of Christ "is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world" (CD II.3; emphasis added).

It is not the sufficiency of the cross that is limited but its extent. Presbyterians and other Calvinists believe that the atoning work of Christ is fully efficacious only in the regenerate elect: "This was the sovereign counsel and most gracious will and purpose of God the Father, that the [salvific] efficacy of the most precious death of his Son should extend to all the elect ... all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation and given to him by the Father" from every nation, tribe, language, and people (CD II.8).

Scripture references that support [unlimited atonement] include:

John 3:16
Xeno quoted this passage but didn't make the case that it supports unlimited atonement. Any Calvinist would happily reassure him that we certainly do believe that "everyone who believes in [Christ] will not perish but have eternal life." But who is it that believes? Those who are appointed to eternal life (Acts 13:48), that is, the sheep (John 10:26). Here, once again, we see that the issue is not limited atonement but unconditional election.

1 John 2:2
In this passage we read that "[Jesus Christ] is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." If this is about unlimited atonement, as Xeno suggests, then we have a problem: How can God's wrath remain on those who reject the Son (John 3:36) if that divine wrath was turned away for every single person at the cross of Christ (Brown 1980, 3:151; Elwell 1984, 888)? There is not so much as a hint in this passage that Christ is maybe, possibly, or potentially the propitiation, but rather that he is, period. His atoning work was not incomplete. "It is finished," indeed.

1 Timothy 2:6
The apostle Paul tells us that Christ "gave himself as a ransom for all" but, again, if this is about unlimited atonement, as Xeno suggests, then we have more problems. In what sense did Christ give himself as a ransom? It was the price paid for the redemption of a captive from slavery, whereby he set us free from bondage to the law and our sins and its wages, death (Matt 20:28; Mark 10:45; Titus 2:14; 1 Pet 1:18-19). If he is the expiation for literally every single person who has ever lived, then everyone has been delivered, freed, and saved—because, again, there is no language of potentiality here. His atoning work was complete. It cannot be denied that not all of mankind is delivered, freed, and saved. So, again, who is it that believes? As I said, the issue is not limited atonement but unconditional election.

1 Corinthians 15:22
There is no doubt that "in Christ all will be made alive"—but who is in Christ? Everyone? Here we would have to suspend the discussion about limited atonement in order to talk about covenant union, the first Adam and last Adam, federal headship, and so forth. Suffice it to say for now that everyone by default is in Adam, and only by grace is any in Christ (e.g., 1 Cor 1:30, "It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus," cf. 12:18; John 6:37).

2 Peter 3:9
I will forgo the usual explanation of this passage and instead assume that it means exactly what Xeno reads it as saying, that the Lord "does not wish for any to perish but for all to come to repentance." (Once more he just quotes the passage without explaining how this is supposed to prove unlimited atonement.) Let's assume that God does not want any to perish. Let's also assume that he knows from all eternity who will and won't believe. If God wills the salvation of all, which Roman Catholics believe, Xeno said, then it's an enormous problem that he is said to create people he knows will perish. The minute Xeno begins providing an explanation that solves this paradox, the passage loses any force it had for supporting unlimited atonement.

-----

Brown, C., ed. 1980. Dictionary of New Testament Theology, rev. ed. 3 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Elwell, W. A., ed. 1985. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

 

[BobRyan]

In my reading, it appears that

Presbyterianism teaches that the atonement made by Jesus Christ on the cross was limited in its design and intent, and that it only applies to a certain group of people, the elect. This is often referred to as "limited atonement."​

​

Scripture references that support this belief include:​

​

• John 10:15, where Jesus says, "I lay down my life for the sheep."
• Matthew 1:21, where it states that Jesus will "save his people from their sins."
• Ephesians 5:25, where Paul states that Christ "loved the church and gave himself up for her."

Other references include:​

​

• Romans 8:29-30, "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."
• 2 Timothy 1:9 "who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,"

It's important to note that, while this is a traditional Presbyterian belief, not all Presbyterians necessarily hold to the doctrine of limited atonement.​

On the other hand

The Catholic Church teaches that the atonement made by Jesus Christ on the cross is for all people, not just a certain group of people, and that it is sufficient for the salvation of all. This is often referred to as "unlimited atonement."​

​

Scripture references that support this belief include:​

​

• John 3:16, where it states that "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."
• 1 John 2:2, where it states that Jesus is the "propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."
• 1 Timothy 2:6, where Paul states that Jesus "gave himself as a ransom for all."

Other references include:​

​

• 1 Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive."
• 2 Peter 3:9, "The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance."

From Catholic perspective, the doctrine of limited atonement is seen as contrary to the universal salvific will of God, which is clearly expressed in the Bible. The Catholic Church understands that Christ's atonement on the Cross is sufficient for all and that it is up to the individuals to accept or reject salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.​

Can one reconcile these views?

I don't agree that the Catholic view is the same as the Calvinist view. So here you and I might find agreement.

Arminian views line up with the Bible reminding us that Rom 2:11 "God is NOT partial"
2 Peter 3:9 'God is not WILLING that ANY should perish"
(even in though we know that in the end the "many" of Matt 7 perish and the "few" do not)
1 John 2:2 NIV Jesus is the "atoning sacrifice our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."

To the extent that the Catholic view also agrees with the above - I find it to be correct.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Yes --- that is "Calvinism". They have some form of TULIP
4 and 5 point Calvinism teaches "limited Atonement"

3 Point Calvinism is a better option in my POV - So then the 3 point version typically does not hold to
L - Limited Atonement
I - Irresistible grace



Arminian groups (such as SDAs, Methodists, and some groups of Baptists ... as well as other groups) and 3 Point calvinists also use those same texts to argue against 4 and 5 point calvinism.

I am confused; how can a person be a Calvinist and yet be 3 points out of 5? Which 3 do they teach?

 

[BobRyan]

I am confused; how can a person be a Calvinist and yet be 3 points out of 5? Which 3 do they teach?

3 Points are usually
1. Total depravity
2. Limited Atonement
3. Perseverance of the saints

And all the 3, 4, and 5 point Calvinists hold to OSAS that I am aware of (Once Saved Always Saved)

Arminians don't hold to "Limited Atonement" the way Calvinists do. Our limited Atonement is that while Jesus is the "atoning sacrifice" for all humans - the process of atonement is not completed for anyone who rejects it.

I am of the Arminian group that says that the full atonement process is not completed in the case of someone who rejects Christ even though His sacrifice was made to pay for their sins - their rejection of that payment means they don't get the benefit of it.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

... the process of atonement is not completed for anyone who rejects it.

1. Who finishes Christ's atoning work?

2. Where in Scripture will we find that his atoning work was not completed?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

1. Who finishes Christ's atoning work?

2. Where in Scripture will we find that his atoning work was not completed?

Saint Paul writes

Colossians 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church:​

The verse does not speak of atonement, none in the new testament do, but it does indicate that saint Paul's suffering fills up (completes?) those things that are wanting (lacking) in the sufferings of Christ. What saint Paul means is a little obscure, it is however, worth mentioning the existence of this passage because it may speak to the topic and ought to be properly analysed in a discussion such as this.

Haydock offers this commentary:

Colossians 1:24​

And fill up those things....in my flesh for his body, which is the church.[5] Nothing was wanting in the sufferings or merits of Christ, for a sufficient and superabundant redemption of mankind, and therefore he adds, for his body, which is the church, that his sufferings were wanting, and are to be endured by the example of Christ by the faithful, who are members of a crucified head. See St. John Chrysostom and St. Augustine. (Witham) ---

Wanting. There is no want in the sufferings of Christ himself as head; but many sufferings are still wanting, or are still to come in his body, the Church, and his members, the faithful. (Challoner) ---

St. John Chrysostom here observes that Jesus Christ loves us so much, that he is not content merely to suffer in his own person, but he wishes also to suffer in his members; and thus we fill up what is wanting of the sufferings of Christ. (St. John Chrysostom) ---

The wisdom, the will, the justice of Jesus Christ, requireth and ordaineth that his body and members should be companions of his sufferings, as they expect to be companions of his glory; that so suffering with him, and after his example, they may apply to their own wants and to the necessities of others the merits and satisfaction of Jesus Christ, which application is what is wanting, and what we are permitted to supply by the sacraments and sacrifice of the new law.​

 

[BBAS 64]

How do you interpret those passages and in exactly what way is a Catholic interpretation flawed?

This is how Catholic interpreters have interpreted one the verses you raised. What, specifically is wrong with their interpretation?

John 3:16-17 "For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son: that whosoever believeth in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting. For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world: but that the world may be saved by him."

Give his only begotten Son ---​

God sent not his Son into the world. He was then his Son, his only begotten Son, before he sent him into the world. He was not, therefore, his Son, only by the incarnation, but was his Son from the beginning, as he was also his word from all eternity. This was the constant doctrine of the Church, and of the Fathers, against the heresy of the Arians, that God was always Father,[1] and the Son always the eternal Son of the eternal Father. See note on chap. i. ver. 14. (Witham) ---​

​

The world may be saved.​

Why, says St. Augustine, is Christ called the Saviour of the world, unless from the obligation he took upon himself at his birth? He has come like a good physician, effectually to save mankind. The man, therefore, destroys himself, who refuses to follow the prescriptions of his physician. (St. Augustine)​

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]​

[1] Greek: Aei Theos, aei uios; ama pater, ama uios. Arius began his heresy by denying this, as it appears in his letter to Eusebius, of Nicomedia, in St. Epiphanius, hær. 69, p. 731.​

Good Day,

I just think a quote from a biography is just a snippet, and a bit context is needed

Tractate 12 (John 3:6-21)​

10. For He came down and died, and by that death delivered us from death: being slain by death, He slew death. And you know, brethren, that this death entered into the world through the devil's envy. God made not death, says the Scripture, nor delights He in the destruction of the living; but He created all things to be. But what says it here? But by the devil's envy, death entered into the whole world. Wisdom 1:2 To the death offered for our entertainment by the devil, man would not come by constraint; for the devil had not the power of forcing, but only cunning to persuade. Had you not consented, the devil had brought in nothing: your own consenting, O man, led you to death. Of the mortal are mortals born; from immortals we have become mortals. From Adam all men are mortal; but Jesus the Son of God, the Word of God, by which all things were made, the only Son equal with the Father, was made mortal: for the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.

11. He endured death, then; but death He hanged on the cross, and mortal men are delivered from death. The Lord calls to mind a great matter, which was done in a figure with them of old: And as Moses, says He, lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up; that every one who believes in Him may not perish, but have everlasting life. A great mystery is here, as they who read know. Again, let them hear, as well they who have not read as they who have forgotten what perhaps they had heard or read. The people Israel were fallen helplessly in the wilderness by the bite of serpents; they suffered a great calamity by many deaths: for it was the stroke of God correcting and scourging them that He might instruct them. In this was shown a great mystery, the figure of a thing to come: the Lord Himself testifies in this passage, so that no man can give another interpretation than that which the truth indicates concerning itself. Now Moses was ordered by the Lord to make a brazen serpent, and to raise it on a pole in the wilderness, and to admonish the people Israel, that, when any had been bitten by a serpent, he should look to that serpent raised up on the pole. This was done: men were bitten; they looked and were healed. Numbers 21:6-9 What are the biting serpents? Sins, from the mortality of the flesh. What is the serpent lifted up? The Lord's death on the cross. For as death came by the serpent, it was figured by the image of a serpent. The serpent's bite was deadly, the Lord's death is life-giving. A serpent is gazed on that the serpent may have no power. What is this? A death is gazed on, that death may have no power. But whose death? The death of life: if it may be said, the death of life; ay, for it may be said, but said wonderfully. But should it not be spoken, seeing it was a thing to be done? Shall I hesitate to utter that which the Lord has deigned to do for me? Is not Christ the life? And yet Christ hung on the cross. Is not Christ life? And yet Christ was dead. But in Christ's death, death died. Life dead slew death; the fullness of life swallowed up death; death was absorbed in the body of Christ. So also shall we say in the resurrection, when now triumphant we shall sing, Where, O death, is your contest? Where, O death, is your sting? 1 Corinthians 15:54 Meanwhile brethren, that we may be healed from sin, let us now gaze on Christ crucified; for as Moses, says He, lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up; that whosoever believes in Him may not perish, but have everlasting life. Just as they who looked on that serpent perished not by the serpent's bites, so they who look in faith on Christ's death are healed from the bites of sins. But those were healed from death to temporal life; while here He says, that they may have everlasting life. Now there is this difference between the figurative image and the real thing: the figure procured temporal life; the reality, of which that was the figure, procures eternal life.

12. For God sent not His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world through Him may be saved. So far, then, as it lies in the physician, He has come to heal the sick. He that will not observe the orders of the physician destroys himself. He has come a Saviour to the world: why is he called the Saviour of the world, but that He has come to save the world, not to judge the world? You will not be saved by Him; you shall be judged of yourself. And why do I say, shall be judged? See what He says: He that believes in Him is not judged, but he that believes not. What do you expect He is going to say, but is judged? Already, says He, has been judged. The judgment has not yet appeared, but already it has taken place. For the Lord knows them that are His: He knows who are persevering for the crown, and who for the flame; knows the wheat on His threshing-floor, and knows the chaff; knows the good grain, and knows the tares. He that believes not is already judged. Why judged? Because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.

 

[BobRyan]

1. Who finishes Christ's atoning work?

Christ finished the atoning sacrifice on the cross. However the Bible concept of atonement (as we see in Lev 16) is much larger than "the sin offering slain" - the Day of Atonement has a number of things done by the High Priest that go beyond that.. All of it is needed for the full Bible scope of atonement to be completed. And Christ does it.

2. Where in Scripture will we find that his atoning work was not completed?

His Atoning sacrifice was completed at the cross once for all according to 1 John 2:2
But His work as High priest continues Heb 8:1-5 and that work as Heb 9 points out - is making use of the blood of the atonement shed for mankind on the cross.

Read God's Lev 16 definition for atonement and tell us if it ends with the slaying of the sin offering in your reading of it.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Christ finished the atoning sacrifice on the cross.

I’m afraid that you are now confusing me. At first you said that the process of atonement is “not completed” for those who reject it, and here you are saying that Christ “finished” the atoning sacrifice on the cross. If you are making some kind of distinction between “finished” and “not completed,” then I’m afraid it’s not obvious to me, so you will have to spell it out more fully.

Or perhaps the distinction you’re making is that the acquisition of salvation was the work of Christ (and it is completed), but the application of salvation is the work of man (and it is not completed). Before I bother cracking that nut open, let’s make sure it’s actually your nut.

However the Bible concept of atonement (as we see in Lev 16) is much larger than "the sin offering slain" - the Day of Atonement has a number of things done by the High Priest that go beyond that.. All of it is needed for the full Bible scope of atonement to be completed. And Christ does it.

I am interested in that term you used, saying that the full scope of atonement is something that Christ “does” (not something he “did”). Were you being less than careful with what you wrote, or does that deserve the significance that it seems to have?

His atoning sacrifice was completed at the cross once for all, according to 1 John 2:2. But his work as high priest continues (Heb 8:1-5) and that work (as Hebrews 9 points out) is making use of the blood of the atonement shed for mankind on the cross.

And what is it that our high priest is doing? Is he continuing to atone for sin? God forbid! Christ made a single offering that was perfect and fully sufficient to abolish and put away sin forever. All is finished that was necessary for the salvation of the world. The life, death, and resurrection of Christ settled the matter of sin and salvation for all time. As David Guzik put it in his Bible commentary, Christ’s ministry for us “continues in heaven but not in the sense of continuing to atone for our sin. His ministry continues for us in intercession and defending us against the accuser of God’s people.” As our intercessor and mediator, our heavenly high priest presents our prayers mingled with the rich incense of his merit, our advocate who is the ground of our requests, prayers, intercessions, and thanks.

Returning to my two questions:

Who finishes Christ's atoning work? Nobody, for Christ himself offered a perfect, complete, and fully sufficient atoning sacrifice.

Where in Scripture will we find that his atoning work was not completed? Nowhere, for it was not incomplete. His work as our high priest in heaven is not atoning for our sin but interceding and advocating for us.

 

[BobRyan]

1. Who finishes Christ's atoning work?

Christ finished the atoning sacrifice on the cross. However the Bible concept of atonement (as we see in Lev 16) is much larger than "the sin offering slain" - the Day of Atonement has a number of things done by the High Priest that go beyond that.. All of it is needed for the full Bible scope of atonement to be completed. And Christ does it.

2. Where in Scripture will we find that his atoning work was not completed?

His Atoning sacrifice was completed at the cross once for all according to 1 John 2:2
But His work as High priest continues Heb 8:1-5 and that work as Heb 9 points out - is making use of the blood of the atonement shed for mankind on the cross.

Read God's Lev 16 definition for atonement and tell us if it ends with the slaying of the sin offering in your reading of it.

I’m afraid that you are now confusing me. At first you said that the process of atonement is “not completed” for those who reject it, and here you are saying that Christ “finished” the atoning sacrifice on the cross. If you are making some kind of distinction between “finished” and “not completed,” then I’m afraid it’s not obvious to me

Christ's atoning sacrifice (the sin offering slain for the sins of the world) was completed, finished, ended at the cross.

The problem as Lev 16 details show us --- is that the popular idea of limiting the Atonement doctrine to "just the atoning sacrifice" is a failed idea and does not survive the Bible details in Lev 16 where we see Christ's work as High priest continues beyond His work as the sin offering (atoning sacrifice).

, so you will have to spell it out more fully.

Or perhaps the distinction you’re making is that the acquisition of salvation was the work of Christ (and it is completed), but the application of salvation is the work of man (and it is not completed).

True - but the application of that atoning sacrifice is part of the Bible scope for the term atonement process in scripture as we see in Lev 16.

To atone is to bring God and man to be "at one" - it includes Christ's work in John 14 - where He goes to "prepare a place" for us. That work is what He does as our High Priest - in Heb 8 and Heb 9 -- ministering in the Sanctuary in heaven for us.