REDEMPTION/ATONEMENT: US vs THEM (the L of TULIP)

[atpollard]

There are different theories about REDEMPTION.

We all, if we are Christian, believe that Jesus Christ died to redeem.

Beyond that, different people teach a different NATURE of the atonement and a different DESIGN of the redemption. With what follows, I propose to lay out in clear and logical terms how THEIR view is wrong and OUR view is correct. Nothing more and nothing less.

PART I: THEM​

THEY claim that Jesus Christ did not die with the intent to save any particular person. When Jesus died, that death did not, all alone and completely by itself, secure the salvation of any specific living human being beyond any shadow of a doubt. THEY teach that Jesus Christ died to make salvation possible for all men and available to all men … that because of Christ’s work of redemption, any man who pleases may obtain eternal life by doing something else.

If THEY are willing to be honest, then THEY will be forced to admit that IF no man was willing to give way and voluntarily surrender to God’s grace, then Christ’s atonement would have saved no one. THEY must admit that in their belief there is no PARTICULARITY in the atonement of Christ for one individual over another. According to THEM, Jesus Christ died on the cross for Judas in hell as much as for Peter in heaven. THEY believe that for every person who is consigned to the eternal fires of hell, there was a redemption made that was every bit as real, and was identical to, the redemption made for every person who stands before the throne in heaven.

PART II: US​

WE believe that when Jesus Christ died, that He had an objective in view. WE believe that objective will with complete assurance and beyond any shadow of a doubt be accomplished. WE measure the intent of the death of Christ by the effect that it accomplished. If THEY were to ask US the question:

“What was the purpose or intention of Christ’s death?”

WE would respond with the obvious answer: “What the death of Christ accomplished.” The measure of the effect IS the measure of the intent when one is speaking of God’s Love. Is is nonsense to think that God Almighty’s intentions could be frustrated by anything! It beggars the imagination that the design of something so great as the Atonement could have in any way, shape or form missed the mark in any measure.

Therefore, WE are not afraid to believe, proclaim and firmly hold that Jesus Christ came into the the world to accomplish exactly what He did accomplish … to save “a multitude which no man can number” [Revelation 7:9]. Furthermore, because of this, WE believe that every person for whom Christ died must - beyond the shadow of a doubt certain:

• be cleansed from sin
• be washed in His blood
• stand redeemed before the Father’s throne

WE do not believe that Jesus made any atonement for those that are damned. Christ only makes EFFECTUAL atonement, Christ does not fail in atoning for people. WE cannot think that the blood of Christ was spilled with the intention of saving those whom GOD Foreknew could never be saved. WE cannot believe that the precious blood of Christ was pointlessly shed for those that were already damned and in hell when (as THEY would have US believe) Christ died to save them!

PART III: THE FALSE ACCUSATION​

THEY will often make the accusation of US:

“Calvinism limits the atonement of Christ because WE say Christ did not die to bring Sanctification to all men.”

This accusation is false, it is THEY that limit the atonement. WE do not.

THEY say Christ died for all men, but that death did not secure the salvation of all men. (Even THEY are not UNIVERSALISTS arguing that there is no hell). THEY teach that Christ did not UNCONDITIONALLY secure the salvation of any man in particular. They teach “Christ died so that any man may be saved if …” - then come the conditions for salvation. Above and beyond this, THEY typically believe that a man can fall from Grace even after they have been justified. So then … who is it that really limits the death of Christ? THEM! THEY say that the death of Christ did not irresistibly secure the death of anybody, but accuse US of limiting the death of Christ.

WE say that Jesus Christ died to, with complete certainty, secure the salvation of “a multitude that no man can number” [Revelation 7:9]. WE say that through Christ’s death this multitude of individuals not only MAY be saved, but MUST be saved, and WILL be saved … there is no possibility of any outcome other than their being saved!

So who really has a limited view of Christ’s death: US or THEM?

Charles Spurgeon presented this issue with a terrific analogy. THEY (Arminians / Free Will / General Atonement) is like a great wide bridge that spans only half way across a river: it does not secure salvation for anybody, but has room for everybody. WE (Calvinist / Reformed / Particular Atonement) is like a narrow bridge that spans all the way across the river: it secures salvation for all who cross it and none others.

“Now, I had rather put my foot upon a bridge as narrow as Hungerford, which went all the way across, than on a bridge that was as wide as the world, if it did not go all the way across the stream.“ - C.H. Spurgeon

Me, too.

PART IV: THE VERSE​

Those that know me, know that I like a scripture verse to support what I say. Recently I have observed that posting many verses just leads to many bunny trails. Therefore I offer just one verse (from two places):

• Matthew 20:28 [NKJV] "just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."
• Mark 10:45 [NKJV] "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

 

[BobRyan]

1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.​

hmmm that looks like your "THEM" category to me.

1 John 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.​

oops - John appears to have fallen into your "THEM" category again.

John 1:10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.​

oops - John appears to have fallen into your "THEM" category again.

Rom 11:​

9 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. 22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.​

oops - The Apostle Paul appears to have fallen into your "THEM" category again.

Rom 2:11 For there is no partiality with God.​

​

oops - The Apostle Paul appears to have fallen into your "THEM" category again.

Rom 2:​

5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who will render to each person according to his deeds: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.​

12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.​

​

oops - The Apostle Paul appears to have fallen into your "THEM" category again.

Matt 18:31 So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their lord all that had happened. 32 Then summoning him, his lord *said to him, ‘You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33 Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?’ 34 And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him. 35 My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.”​

​

oops - Matthew's record of the teachings of Christ appears to have fallen into your "THEM" category again.

 

[BobRyan]

Charles Spurgeon presented this issue with a terrific analogy. THEY (Arminians / Free Will / General Atonement) is like a great wide bridge that spans only half way across a river: it does not secure salvation for anybody, but has room for everybody. WE (Calvinist / Reformed / Particular Atonement) is like a narrow bridge that spans all the way across the river: it secures salvation for all who cross it and none others.

That is merely an accusation but is not logical

By contrast the following 2 points are irrefutably true and both sides can see the point

1. Arminians can have full assurance that they are saved today - but cannot know that 20 years from today they will still be saved.

2. The 5 point Calvinist can't even know that - since their view of 'perseverance of the saints' - means that if 20 years from today they fail to "persevere" then they would certainly retro-delete all the assurance they had claimed to have today.

Of course almost every 5 point Calvinist today would claim that although they cannot see the future - 20 years from today - yet God has told them personally via His promises in scripture that in their case they most certainly will persevere 20 years from today. But when they fail to persevere 20 years from today then at that time they will also fully affirm that God in fact did not tell them today - what they would do 20 years from today.​

​

The thing is - everyone can see this point -- it is so obvious to both sides even if one of the sides does not feel comfortable with it.

 

[BobRyan]

There are different theories about REDEMPTION.

We all, if we are Christian, believe that Jesus Christ died to redeem.

Beyond that, different people teach a different NATURE of the atonement and a different DESIGN of the redemption. With what follows, I propose to lay out in clear and logical terms how THEIR view is wrong and OUR view is correct. Nothing more and nothing less.

Your title says you are focused on "limited atonement" but in fact you are really focused on "I" irresistable grace for the OSAS argument you then make.

I suggest another shot at "L" Limited Atonement.

Because there is a case that could be made for BOTH Calvinists and Arminians believing in some sort of "Limited Atonement" depending on how you define that term.

IF we restrict the term "atonement" to just "the Atoning Sacrifice of Christ completed once for all on the cross" then Arminians have an unlimited atonement with Jesus as "The atoning sacrifice for OUR sins and not OUR sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" -- as the "Atoning Sacrifice" while admitting that not everyone will accept that gift of Christ. By contrast the Calvinists would be stuck at that point needing to rework that entire text or having their view fail to survive it. So then Calvinism loses in that case.

But if we go to a more broad definition for the term "Atonement" (one that some Calvinists will admit to and so also some Arminians) that this includes not ONLY Christ's death on the cross but in fact all the events for a given person where his case is fully resolved, sins forgiven, case closed - no possibility of the person changing their mind, no possibility of the books reopened for that person etc. Then Atonement is indeed "limited" to only the "FEW" of Matt 7 since only the FEW are saved.

The problem that Calvinists face is that although some of them like that second case above - they try to jam all of that interaction between the sinner and their Mediator, and the choice to accept the Gospel etc... into that one event at the cross instead of letting the cross remain as "The Atoning Sacrifice" moment in Salvation history where the "sin offering" of Lev 16 is slain on that day of Atonement illustration that God gives.

 

[atpollard]

1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.​

hmmm that looks like your "THEM" category to me.

1 John 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.​

oops - John appears to have fallen into your "THEM" category again.

John 1:10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.​

oops - John appears to have fallen into your "THEM" category again.

Rom 11:​

9 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. 22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.​

oops - The Apostle Paul appears to have fallen into your "THEM" category again.

Rom 2:11 For there is no partiality with God.​

​

oops - The Apostle Paul appears to have fallen into your "THEM" category again.

Rom 2:​

5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who will render to each person according to his deeds: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.​

12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.​

​

oops - The Apostle Paul appears to have fallen into your "THEM" category again.

Matt 18:31 So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their lord all that had happened. 32 Then summoning him, his lord *said to him, ‘You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33 Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?’ 34 And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him. 35 My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.”​

​

oops - Matthew's record of the teachings of Christ appears to have fallen into your "THEM" category again.

So do you advocate “available to all and effective for none” or “available to all and effective for all: universalism”?

 

[BobRyan]

So do you advocate “available to all and effective for none” or “available to all and effective for all: universalism”?

Matt 7 says the many are lost and the few are saved.

So universalism is not the answer.

1 John 2:2 makes Christ the Atoning Sacrifice for the sins of the whole world - this is irrefutable.

"Atoning Sacrifice" is very specific to the Bible concept of "Atonement". It is not about a cashier's check going to my bank account - (which is how some people rework this) rather it is the Bible concept of "Atonement".

In Atonement - God does not "get paid" rather He gets tortured.

It is like saying - "I stole groceries from the store and then instead of me being beaten for my crime - the store owner was beaten" and then offered me the opportunity of allowing his beating to stand in the place of the beating I owed due to my crime.

Calvinists sometimes call this "the store owner getting paid". But in fact no cash goes to the store owner - he is now stolen from AND beaten. This gives him all the rights in the world to withdraw that offer or to make the offer to me on any basis that he likes - which is why Christ warns us about the Matt 18 forgiveness revoked scenario and Paul warns us about the Rom 11 - salvation revoked scenario.

At the "time of the cross" I did not yet exist, I had committed no sins, I had confessed nothing, I had repented of nothing, I claimed nothing... I did not exist. Yet Christ suffered the full extent of my punishment that was due to me in the Lake of Fire for each one of my sins that I would commit in the future. Nobody "paid" God, Christ did not get paid anything. Rather He was tormented.

As for Christ effectively having a saving relationship with me - well you can't "effectively shake the hand" of a person that does not yet exist (nor come to some sort of agreement with a nonexistent person). I would have to first exist - to have any kind of "effective interaction/relationship with Christ". (reality being what it is)

As some point in time - I was then born.. became aware of my status as a sinner condemned to die apart from Christ - and I accepted the Gospel

 

[disciple Clint]

There are different theories about REDEMPTION.

We all, if we are Christian, believe that Jesus Christ died to redeem.

Beyond that, different people teach a different NATURE of the atonement and a different DESIGN of the redemption. With what follows, I propose to lay out in clear and logical terms how THEIR view is wrong and OUR view is correct. Nothing more and nothing less.

PART I: THEM​

THEY claim that Jesus Christ did not die with the intent to save any particular person. When Jesus died, that death did not, all alone and completely by itself, secure the salvation of any specific living human being beyond any shadow of a doubt. THEY teach that Jesus Christ died to make salvation possible for all men and available to all men … that because of Christ’s work of redemption, any man who pleases may obtain eternal life by doing something else.

If THEY are willing to be honest, then THEY will be forced to admit that IF no man was willing to give way and voluntarily surrender to God’s grace, then Christ’s atonement would have saved no one. THEY must admit that in their belief there is no PARTICULARITY in the atonement of Christ for one individual over another. According to THEM, Jesus Christ died on the cross for Judas in hell as much as for Peter in heaven. THEY believe that for every person who is consigned to the eternal fires of hell, there was a redemption made that was every bit as real, and was identical to, the redemption made for every person who stands before the throne in heaven.

PART II: US​

WE believe that when Jesus Christ died, that He had an objective in view. WE believe that objective will with complete assurance and beyond any shadow of a doubt be accomplished. WE measure the intent of the death of Christ by the effect that it accomplished. If THEY were to ask US the question:

“What was the purpose or intention of Christ’s death?”

WE would respond with the obvious answer: “What the death of Christ accomplished.” The measure of the effect IS the measure of the intent when one is speaking of God’s Love. Is is nonsense to think that God Almighty’s intentions could be frustrated by anything! It beggars the imagination that the design of something so great as the Atonement could have in any way, shape or form missed the mark in any measure.

Therefore, WE are not afraid to believe, proclaim and firmly hold that Jesus Christ came into the the world to accomplish exactly what He did accomplish … to save “a multitude which no man can number” [Revelation 7:9]. Furthermore, because of this, WE believe that every person for whom Christ died must - beyond the shadow of a doubt certain:

• be cleansed from sin
• be washed in His blood
• stand redeemed before the Father’s throne

WE do not believe that Jesus made any atonement for those that are damned. Christ only makes EFFECTUAL atonement, Christ does not fail in atoning for people. WE cannot think that the blood of Christ was spilled with the intention of saving those whom GOD Foreknew could never be saved. WE cannot believe that the precious blood of Christ was pointlessly shed for those that were already damned and in hell when (as THEY would have US believe) Christ died to save them!

PART III: THE FALSE ACCUSATION​

THEY will often make the accusation of US:

“Calvinism limits the atonement of Christ because WE say Christ did not die to bring Sanctification to all men.”

This accusation is false, it is THEY that limit the atonement. WE do not.

THEY say Christ died for all men, but that death did not secure the salvation of all men. (Even THEY are not UNIVERSALISTS arguing that there is no hell). THEY teach that Christ did not UNCONDITIONALLY secure the salvation of any man in particular. They teach “Christ died so that any man may be saved if …” - then come the conditions for salvation. Above and beyond this, THEY typically believe that a man can fall from Grace even after they have been justified. So then … who is it that really limits the death of Christ? THEM! THEY say that the death of Christ did not irresistibly secure the death of anybody, but accuse US of limiting the death of Christ.

WE say that Jesus Christ died to, with complete certainty, secure the salvation of “a multitude that no man can number” [Revelation 7:9]. WE say that through Christ’s death this multitude of individuals not only MAY be saved, but MUST be saved, and WILL be saved … there is no possibility of any outcome other than their being saved!

So who really has a limited view of Christ’s death: US or THEM?

Charles Spurgeon presented this issue with a terrific analogy. THEY (Arminians / Free Will / General Atonement) is like a great wide bridge that spans only half way across a river: it does not secure salvation for anybody, but has room for everybody. WE (Calvinist / Reformed / Particular Atonement) is like a narrow bridge that spans all the way across the river: it secures salvation for all who cross it and none others.

“Now, I had rather put my foot upon a bridge as narrow as Hungerford, which went all the way across, than on a bridge that was as wide as the world, if it did not go all the way across the stream.“ - C.H. Spurgeon

Me, too.

PART IV: THE VERSE​

Those that know me, know that I like a scripture verse to support what I say. Recently I have observed that posting many verses just leads to many bunny trails. Therefore I offer just one verse (from two places):

• Matthew 20:28 [NKJV] "just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."
• Mark 10:45 [NKJV] "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

It should be noted that the "US" that your refer to also believe that God so loved man that He made some men just so He could give them no chance what so ever to avoid eternal punishment, that is not the God I believe in, My God loves everyone and gives everyone an opportunity for salvation.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

So do you advocate “available to all and effective for none” or “available to all and effective for all: universalism”?

There is a third option " available for all who believe ": the Gospel.
Blessings

 

[bling]

There are different theories about REDEMPTION.

We all, if we are Christian, believe that Jesus Christ died to redeem.

Beyond that, different people teach a different NATURE of the atonement and a different DESIGN of the redemption. With what follows, I propose to lay out in clear and logical terms how THEIR view is wrong and OUR view is correct. Nothing more and nothing less.

PART I: THEM​

THEY claim that Jesus Christ did not die with the intent to save any particular person. When Jesus died, that death did not, all alone and completely by itself, secure the salvation of any specific living human being beyond any shadow of a doubt. THEY teach that Jesus Christ died to make salvation possible for all men and available to all men … that because of Christ’s work of redemption, any man who pleases may obtain eternal life by doing something else.

If THEY are willing to be honest, then THEY will be forced to admit that IF no man was willing to give way and voluntarily surrender to God’s grace, then Christ’s atonement would have saved no one. THEY must admit that in their belief there is no PARTICULARITY in the atonement of Christ for one individual over another. According to THEM, Jesus Christ died on the cross for Judas in hell as much as for Peter in heaven. THEY believe that for every person who is consigned to the eternal fires of hell, there was a redemption made that was every bit as real, and was identical to, the redemption made for every person who stands before the throne in heaven.

PART II: US​

WE believe that when Jesus Christ died, that He had an objective in view. WE believe that objective will with complete assurance and beyond any shadow of a doubt be accomplished. WE measure the intent of the death of Christ by the effect that it accomplished. If THEY were to ask US the question:

“What was the purpose or intention of Christ’s death?”

WE would respond with the obvious answer: “What the death of Christ accomplished.” The measure of the effect IS the measure of the intent when one is speaking of God’s Love. Is is nonsense to think that God Almighty’s intentions could be frustrated by anything! It beggars the imagination that the design of something so great as the Atonement could have in any way, shape or form missed the mark in any measure.

Therefore, WE are not afraid to believe, proclaim and firmly hold that Jesus Christ came into the the world to accomplish exactly what He did accomplish … to save “a multitude which no man can number” [Revelation 7:9]. Furthermore, because of this, WE believe that every person for whom Christ died must - beyond the shadow of a doubt certain:

• be cleansed from sin
• be washed in His blood
• stand redeemed before the Father’s throne

WE do not believe that Jesus made any atonement for those that are damned. Christ only makes EFFECTUAL atonement, Christ does not fail in atoning for people. WE cannot think that the blood of Christ was spilled with the intention of saving those whom GOD Foreknew could never be saved. WE cannot believe that the precious blood of Christ was pointlessly shed for those that were already damned and in hell when (as THEY would have US believe) Christ died to save them!

PART III: THE FALSE ACCUSATION​

THEY will often make the accusation of US:

“Calvinism limits the atonement of Christ because WE say Christ did not die to bring Sanctification to all men.”

This accusation is false, it is THEY that limit the atonement. WE do not.

THEY say Christ died for all men, but that death did not secure the salvation of all men. (Even THEY are not UNIVERSALISTS arguing that there is no hell). THEY teach that Christ did not UNCONDITIONALLY secure the salvation of any man in particular. They teach “Christ died so that any man may be saved if …” - then come the conditions for salvation. Above and beyond this, THEY typically believe that a man can fall from Grace even after they have been justified. So then … who is it that really limits the death of Christ? THEM! THEY say that the death of Christ did not irresistibly secure the death of anybody, but accuse US of limiting the death of Christ.

WE say that Jesus Christ died to, with complete certainty, secure the salvation of “a multitude that no man can number” [Revelation 7:9]. WE say that through Christ’s death this multitude of individuals not only MAY be saved, but MUST be saved, and WILL be saved … there is no possibility of any outcome other than their being saved!

So who really has a limited view of Christ’s death: US or THEM?

Charles Spurgeon presented this issue with a terrific analogy. THEY (Arminians / Free Will / General Atonement) is like a great wide bridge that spans only half way across a river: it does not secure salvation for anybody, but has room for everybody. WE (Calvinist / Reformed / Particular Atonement) is like a narrow bridge that spans all the way across the river: it secures salvation for all who cross it and none others.

“Now, I had rather put my foot upon a bridge as narrow as Hungerford, which went all the way across, than on a bridge that was as wide as the world, if it did not go all the way across the stream.“ - C.H. Spurgeon

Me, too.

PART IV: THE VERSE​

Those that know me, know that I like a scripture verse to support what I say. Recently I have observed that posting many verses just leads to many bunny trails. Therefore I offer just one verse (from two places):

• Matthew 20:28 [NKJV] "just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."
• Mark 10:45 [NKJV] "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

First off: “Godly type Love” is totally unconditional, with God’s greatest sacrificial Love being seen with Christ being: tortured, humiliated and cruelly murdered. God is Love, so God is not doing stuff to get something, but is a “Giver”, He gives not needing anything in return and man cannot provide anything to God, but God would like man to freely receive His gifts as pure charity and thus out of a gratitude type Godly Love, Love Him, but again that is not required for God’s Love.

We see the greatest Love of God being shown in having a willing Christ being tortured, humiliated and murdered, if we are anyone else wants to accept or reject that Love, that is our problem and does not add to or detract from God’s Love. If the prodigal son had not returned home the Father’s Love in patiently waiting and wanting the son, would still be seen, because that is who the Father is.

Atonement is a huge topic with many theories all having huge problems. You bring up an excellent verse: Matthew 20:28 [NKJV] "just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." This ransom amount far exceeds any “King’s ransom”, the sacrifice to make the ransom is far greater than any sacrifice by man, the child being held back is totally undeserving, and the freedom to be gained is that of a heir to a marvelous Kingdom, but who is the criminal kidnapper holding the child away from his Father and Home, for if no kidnapper than no ransom is being paid? Think about this:

When we go to a nonbelieving sinner what are we trying to get that nonbeliever to accept, is it: the Bible stories, the Church we attend, a doctrine we believe, or is it Jesus Christ and Him crucified?

If the sinner accepts Jesus Christ and Him crucified, a child is set free to enter the Kingdom and be with God his Father, but if the sinner does not accept Jesus Christ and Him Crucifies a child is held out of the Kingdom and does not go to his Father. Would the sinner not accepting the Father’s huge sacrificial “ransom” (equaling Jesus Christ and Him crucified), be upsetting to the Father?

Is this nonbelieving sinner a cruel, criminal kidnapper and does this fit a kidnapping scenario?

 

[atpollard]

It should be noted that the "US" that your refer to also believe that God so loved man that He made some men just so He could give them no chance what so ever to avoid eternal punishment, that is not the God I believe in, My God loves everyone and gives everyone an opportunity for salvation.

Perhaps, although that is really a separate issue.

Here the question is more primal: God is OMNISCIENT, so he has always known who will spend eternity in Heaven and who will not. (True even if salvation was 100% based on human works - which it is not - but God would still know who would and who would not be saved.)

KNOWING THIS, did Jesus shed His blood pointlessly on people who He already knew would never be saved? Many of those people had already lived and died by the time of the incarnation, so they were already in Hell (like the rich man and Lazarus Jesus spoke about). Did Jesus shed blood pointlessly for people that were already damned and He knew would never be saved?

The SECOND POINT is just as important. Did Jesus actually SAVE anyone? If salvation requires both Jesus work and our human effort to believe, then the death and resurrection of God saved nobody. It purchased a CHANCE for everybody (setting aside those who were already in hell from this point in the discussion), but alone, His blood saved no one. This is a BRIDGE half-way across the river of damnation with man required to provide a plank to finish crossing!

That is what is at stake with the Atonement.

[WE believe that the BLOOD really does save all that it was shed for. WE believe that GOD accomplished the whole task that he set out to accomplish ... the bridge goes all the way across the river of damnation to the throne of God. We believe that God failed at nothing and wasted nothing in a pointless gesture.]

 

[atpollard]

There is a third option " available for all who believe ": the Gospel.

Then Jesus saved no one ... they are saved when they believe. His blood built HALF a bridge to God and they must "leap" the remainder.

"the Father draws ..."
"the Father has given to Me ..."
"remove your heart of stone ..."
"made you alive ..."

That is also part of the Good News.

 

[atpollard]

1 John 2:2 makes Christ the Atoning Sacrifice for the sins of the whole world - this is irrefutable.

Let us test if your hermenutic is consistent (do you apply the same rule in all cases, or only when convenient):

1 John 5:19 [NKJV] We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.

This verse also says "the whole world", so does that mean that every individual person without exception lies under the sway of the wicked one?

Matthew 3:5 [NKJV] Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him

Does this verse also mean each and every person without exception went to meet him? Was the region depopulated except for the crowd surrounding Jesus?

[Is it at least POSSIBLE that 1 John 2:2 "And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world." says "the whole world" but does not mean "each and every person without exception", but could mean "a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues" Revelation 7:9 ]

 

[BobRyan]

Matt 7 says the many are lost and the few are saved.

So universalism is not the answer.

1 John 2:2 makes Christ the Atoning Sacrifice for the sins of the whole world - this is irrefutable.

"Atoning Sacrifice" is very specific to the Bible concept of "Atonement". It is not about a cashier's check going to my bank account - (which is how some people rework this) rather it is the Bible concept of "Atonement".

In Atonement - God does not "get paid" rather He gets tortured.

It is like saying - "I stole groceries from the store and then instead of me being beaten for my crime - the store owner was beaten" and then offered me the opportunity of allowing his beating to stand in the place of the beating I owed due to my crime.

Calvinists sometimes call this "the store owner getting paid". But in fact no cash goes to the store owner - he is now stolen from AND beaten. This gives him all the rights in the world to withdraw that offer or to make the offer to me on any basis that he likes - which is why Christ warns us about the Matt 18 forgiveness revoked scenario and Paul warns us about the Rom 11 - salvation revoked scenario.

At the "time of the cross" I did not yet exist, I had committed no sins, I had confessed nothing, I had repented of nothing, I claimed nothing... I did not exist. Yet Christ suffered the full extent of my punishment that was due to me in the Lake of Fire for each one of my sins that I would commit in the future. Nobody "paid" God, Christ did not get paid anything. Rather He was tormented.

As for Christ effectively having a saving relationship with me - well you can't "effectively shake the hand" of a person that does not yet exist (nor come to some sort of agreement with a nonexistent person). I would have to first exist - to have any kind of "effective interaction/relationship with Christ". (reality being what it is)

As some point in time - I was then born.. became aware of my status as a sinner condemned to die apart from Christ - and I accepted the Gospel

Let us test if your hermenutic is consistent (do you apply the same rule in all cases, or only when convenient):

In all cases it is wise to read the Bible and accept what it says -- even if you find it "inconvenient". The Jews learned this lesson the hard way at the start of the Christian church -- because a great many of them found scripture to be "inconvenient".

So then let's pay close attention to 1 John 2:2 text that you apparently find so inconvenient

1 John 2:2 NIV - 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

Here John speaks of the WHOLE world - not just "world" and he specifically singles out the saved "an NOT for OUR sins only" -- which is explicit language ofr INCLUSION rather than EXCLUSION. So with that in mind - notice what the "OUR" group is included in --- the WHOLE world... showing that he means both the saved and the unsaved and a total and full scope for world -- "whole world" in that very context.

Details which I think we can assume will get skimmed over as they are truly "inconvenient" for some points of view..

1 John 5:19 [NKJV] We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.

A great example where the WE who are "OF GOD" are contrasted rather than INCLUDED in the whole world.

Your attempt to conflate the two cases is more than a little transparent/obvious. Did you fully realize that at the start of your post??

for 1 John 5:19 to use the same sort of INCLUSION language as we see in 1 John 2:2 it would need to say something like "We OURSELVES are corrupt and under the sway of the devil and not only is this true of us but also of the WHOLE WORLD" -- which obviously you do not have in 1 John 5:19.

Your "solution" for 1 John 2:2 is to 'not look at it at all' -- which I think a number of people suspected would happen.

Your suggestion illustrates the maxim that if one holds the details of the Bible at a sufficient distance (in your case not even looking at 1 John 2:2 much less contrasting/comparing the details with some degree of completeness) - then any ol idea can be suggested as if plausible.

 

[eleos1954]

There are different theories about REDEMPTION.

We all, if we are Christian, believe that Jesus Christ died to redeem.

Beyond that, different people teach a different NATURE of the atonement and a different DESIGN of the redemption. With what follows, I propose to lay out in clear and logical terms how THEIR view is wrong and OUR view is correct. Nothing more and nothing less.

PART I: THEM​

THEY claim that Jesus Christ did not die with the intent to save any particular person. When Jesus died, that death did not, all alone and completely by itself, secure the salvation of any specific living human being beyond any shadow of a doubt. THEY teach that Jesus Christ died to make salvation possible for all men and available to all men … that because of Christ’s work of redemption, any man who pleases may obtain eternal life by doing something else.

If THEY are willing to be honest, then THEY will be forced to admit that IF no man was willing to give way and voluntarily surrender to God’s grace, then Christ’s atonement would have saved no one. THEY must admit that in their belief there is no PARTICULARITY in the atonement of Christ for one individual over another. According to THEM, Jesus Christ died on the cross for Judas in hell as much as for Peter in heaven. THEY believe that for every person who is consigned to the eternal fires of hell, there was a redemption made that was every bit as real, and was identical to, the redemption made for every person who stands before the throne in heaven.

PART II: US​

WE believe that when Jesus Christ died, that He had an objective in view. WE believe that objective will with complete assurance and beyond any shadow of a doubt be accomplished. WE measure the intent of the death of Christ by the effect that it accomplished. If THEY were to ask US the question:

“What was the purpose or intention of Christ’s death?”

WE would respond with the obvious answer: “What the death of Christ accomplished.” The measure of the effect IS the measure of the intent when one is speaking of God’s Love. Is is nonsense to think that God Almighty’s intentions could be frustrated by anything! It beggars the imagination that the design of something so great as the Atonement could have in any way, shape or form missed the mark in any measure.

Therefore, WE are not afraid to believe, proclaim and firmly hold that Jesus Christ came into the the world to accomplish exactly what He did accomplish … to save “a multitude which no man can number” [Revelation 7:9]. Furthermore, because of this, WE believe that every person for whom Christ died must - beyond the shadow of a doubt certain:

• be cleansed from sin
• be washed in His blood
• stand redeemed before the Father’s throne

WE do not believe that Jesus made any atonement for those that are damned. Christ only makes EFFECTUAL atonement, Christ does not fail in atoning for people. WE cannot think that the blood of Christ was spilled with the intention of saving those whom GOD Foreknew could never be saved. WE cannot believe that the precious blood of Christ was pointlessly shed for those that were already damned and in hell when (as THEY would have US believe) Christ died to save them!

PART III: THE FALSE ACCUSATION​

THEY will often make the accusation of US:

“Calvinism limits the atonement of Christ because WE say Christ did not die to bring Sanctification to all men.”

This accusation is false, it is THEY that limit the atonement. WE do not.

THEY say Christ died for all men, but that death did not secure the salvation of all men. (Even THEY are not UNIVERSALISTS arguing that there is no hell). THEY teach that Christ did not UNCONDITIONALLY secure the salvation of any man in particular. They teach “Christ died so that any man may be saved if …” - then come the conditions for salvation. Above and beyond this, THEY typically believe that a man can fall from Grace even after they have been justified. So then … who is it that really limits the death of Christ? THEM! THEY say that the death of Christ did not irresistibly secure the death of anybody, but accuse US of limiting the death of Christ.

WE say that Jesus Christ died to, with complete certainty, secure the salvation of “a multitude that no man can number” [Revelation 7:9]. WE say that through Christ’s death this multitude of individuals not only MAY be saved, but MUST be saved, and WILL be saved … there is no possibility of any outcome other than their being saved!

So who really has a limited view of Christ’s death: US or THEM?

Charles Spurgeon presented this issue with a terrific analogy. THEY (Arminians / Free Will / General Atonement) is like a great wide bridge that spans only half way across a river: it does not secure salvation for anybody, but has room for everybody. WE (Calvinist / Reformed / Particular Atonement) is like a narrow bridge that spans all the way across the river: it secures salvation for all who cross it and none others.

“Now, I had rather put my foot upon a bridge as narrow as Hungerford, which went all the way across, than on a bridge that was as wide as the world, if it did not go all the way across the stream.“ - C.H. Spurgeon

Me, too.

PART IV: THE VERSE​

Those that know me, know that I like a scripture verse to support what I say. Recently I have observed that posting many verses just leads to many bunny trails. Therefore I offer just one verse (from two places):

• Matthew 20:28 [NKJV] "just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."
• Mark 10:45 [NKJV] "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

Jesus did die for everybody for all time
.
John 3:16 Jesus died for all: “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.” Nothing within this verse suggest that God’s Son perished for only the ‘elect.’ Only a skewed reading of the text would convey that the ‘world’ actually means the ‘elect.’

Whosoever believes (faith) .... from Adam until the end of time. All for all time have been and are in the position of choice. Follow the Lord and HIs precepts ..... or not. Believe God ... or not. God don't force himself on anyone .... nor does He make their choices for them or predetermine their choices. He does know what a persons choice will be .... but does not make anyones choices for them.

Did God create lucifer/satan and the 1/3 to rebel against Him so He could destroy them later? Did He decide of those who would be destroyed? No .... they also had choice.

Without choice ..... is nonsense.

You can't force someone to love you .... we know that .... God knows that .... Love must be a choice or it's not love.

There is no love in the Calvinism view and LOVE is what God is all about .... not something He does ..... it is who He is

1 John 4

God Is Love​

7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. 10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.

Love is a choice.

 

[BobRyan]

Then Jesus saved no one

A. that is not logical
B. No text says "you were saved before you were born"

All who are saved are saved by Christ - but that does not mean they accepted the Gospel before they were born, or that at birth they were "born again" or any of the other flaws that come along with the idea you are suggesting.

 

[ViaCrucis]

THEY claim that Jesus Christ did not die with the intent to save any particular person. When Jesus died, that death did not, all alone and completely by itself, secure the salvation of any specific living human being beyond any shadow of a doubt. THEY teach that Jesus Christ died to make salvation possible for all men and available to all men … that because of Christ’s work of redemption, any man who pleases may obtain eternal life by doing something else.

If THEY are willing to be honest, then THEY will be forced to admit that IF no man was willing to give way and voluntarily surrender to God’s grace, then Christ’s atonement would have saved no one.

Agreed, that is a problem.

THEY must admit that in their belief there is no PARTICULARITY in the atonement of Christ for one individual over another. According to THEM, Jesus Christ died on the cross for Judas in hell as much as for Peter in heaven. THEY believe that for every person who is consigned to the eternal fires of hell, there was a redemption made that was every bit as real, and was identical to, the redemption made for every person who stands before the throne in heaven.

Ah, but Christ did die for Judas even asmuch as He died for St. Peter.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[atpollard]

Your "solution" for 1 John 2:2 is to 'not look at it at all'

I addressed 1 John 2:2, you simply ignored my answer.
So clearly WE (you and I) are not having a conversation … you are posting a blog.
You don’t need me for that, so have fun.

 

[atpollard]

John 3:16 Jesus died for all: “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.” Nothing within this verse suggest that God’s Son perished for only the ‘elect.’ Only a skewed reading of the text would convey that the ‘world’ actually means the ‘elect.’

No, but “whosoever believes” IS the elect. The reprobate do not believe.

Romans 8:28-30 [NKJV]

And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.​

​

• Whose purpose?
• Who Foreknew?
• Who predestined?
• Who called?
• Who justified?
• Who glorified?

So WHO is responsible for “whosoever believes”? [HINT: John 6:44]

PS: WORLD means Revelations 7:9-10 [“After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, saying, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!"] … God so loved them!

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Then Jesus saved no one ... they are saved when they believe. His blood built HALF a bridge to God and they must "leap" the remainder.

"the Father draws ..."
"the Father has given to Me ..."
"remove your heart of stone ..."
"made you alive ..."

That is also part of the Good News.

Sometimes a gift needs to be accepted. This is what is meant by " to believe ".
Blessings

 

[atpollard]

Jesus did die for everybody for all time

What is the purpose in Jesus dying in AD 33 for someone that died in 600 BC and is already in Hell (like the rich man that Jesus described)?