What was God's eternal purpose in Christ's atonment?

[Konnie]

To make salvation possible for all people.

 

[Andrew]

AMEN! and so that God can have many sons and Jesus many brothers!

 

[Reformationist]

How so? Am I able to boast becasuse I recived and accepted Gods free gift of His Son?

It depends. Do you believe you accepted that gift because, in your fallen state, you saw it as good or because God changed the desires of your heart, making the gift of God something you desired?

Didn't Christ die for the sins of the world?

This also depends. It depends on what you mean by "world." If, by "world," you mean "everyone who ever existed" then I would tell you that Scripture is emphatic that that is not the case. If, by "world," you mean "all those who willingly embrace the Gospel and look to the works of the Lord as sufficient in propitiating the wrath of God" then I would answer "Yes, He did die for the the world, the world of believers."

Therefore doesn't everyone have an opportunity to be saved?

Only those whom the Father calls can come to Christ, and, Christ is able and efficient in bringing those people to faith. There are no "possibilities." There is no such thing as "chance." All whom the Father calls will be raised up.

God knows who will accept this gift and who will go to hell.

Yes. But it's important to understand that the reason any will accept is because He changes their natural desires. He ordains who will be His.

If God had wanted to save everyone he would have made man without a choice to do good or evil, right?

The most specific reason we have for understanding why God chose to bring about His divine plan the way He did is that He did it for His glory.

If God made the world and all that was in it and it became what it is today, isn't it by the sinful choices of the humankind?

The "sinful choices of humankind" are secondary causes of the way things have worked out. God is the sovereign playwright. We are not puppets. He uses the decisions of His creation to bring about His plan. However, He does not bring about His plan by reacting to our decisions. We freely make decisions based on our nature and God has ordained whatsoever shall come to pass.

The possibility for salvation is possible to all men becasue Christ died for all therefore all have died.

So all people died in Christ? No where does the Word even allude to such a thing. Salvation is not a "possibility." It's a certainty. God did not send His Son to die to make salvation "possible." He sent His Son to make salvation actual. That's why He's called the Savior.

So if we chose not to accept the greatest gift of salvation that is given to all through Christ then we are ****** to hell are we not?

Yes. That's true. Let's explore this. Let's say we take two people. John and Jack. Both attend a church and hear the same Gospel message. John believes what he hears and is saved. Jack does not believe and is not saved. Why did John believe and Jack didn't? Is John smarter? Is he more holy? What made John believe but could not make Jack believe?

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

To make salvation possible for all people.

If I understand you correctly you are telling me that Christ, in living a life of complete obedience and fulfilling the covenant that God made with Adam and in dying the spotless Lamb, actually saved no one with His work. It appears that you are saying that that glorious work of Christ alone does not accomplish a person's salvation. That person's salvation is accomplished ONLY IF that person adds his own works to Christ's.

Konnie, consider this. If Christ's life and death actually secured no one's salvation then we have to consider the possibility that all people could have rejected Christ and that no one would have been saved.

If it's possible that all people could have accepted Christ then you have to admit the possibility that all people could have rejected Christ.

God bless

 

[CCWoody]

How so? Am I able to boast becasuse I recived and accepted Gods free gift of His Son? Didn't Christ die for the sins of the world? Therefore doesn't everyone have an opportunity to be saved? God knows who will accept this gift and who will go to hell.

How so?!!!!? That He has done His part, His work, and now it is up to man to do the rest. But, the very nature of such a construction delcares that man must complete the work of salvation. And, despite the non-Calvinist's protestations to the contrary, if God did not do all the work of salvation, then the Atonement is not complete and man must finish the work.

This would give man a cause for boasting and glory in the presence of God. Do you see how this works? If the Lord has given man a completed Atonement, then there is nothing more to be done. If the Lord has not given man a completed Atonement, then there is something left to be done. Man himself gets the glory for completing the Atonement.

Yet, this is not what scriptures teach us at all. Christ Himself cried out "IT IS FINISHED!" There is nothing left to be said; nothing left to be done. I do ~NOT~ believe to get salvation; I believe that the Lord has already provided my salvation. This is what it means for Him to be Yahoveh-Yireh.

This was the gospel given to Adam:

• Genesis 3:21
  For Adam and his wife the LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them.

Adam did not believe and ask. The LORD simply provided. He is Yahoveh-Yireh, my Y'shua. He covered their nakedness, their shame.

This was the gospel of Abraham:

• Genesis 22
  "My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb...." Then Abraham lifted his eyes and looked, and there behind him was a ram.... And Abraham called the name of the place, Yahoveh-Yireh.

Paul claims this gospel of Abraham as the very bedrock by which we are certain that we will receive all things: What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? The hard part, we are told was the delivery of His own Son. The easy part is the rest. Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? Answer: NONE! Why? Because God justifies. If we are justified, then it is utterly impossible for there to be ANY condemnation against us; even the condemnation which man may attempt to bring because of unbelief.

This is the gospel of the prophets:

• Isaiah 53:4-5
  Surely He has borne our griefs
  And carried our sorrows;
  Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
  Smitten by God, and afflicted.
  But He was wounded for our transgressions,
  He was bruised for our iniquities;
  The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
  And by His stripes we are healed.

Notice that it doesn't say we might be healed. It is without apology that the text says we are healed.

This is the gospel of Christ:

• John 10
  "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep.... and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep...."

The Lord Himself says it crystal clear: "I give my life for the sheep." We hear His voice, we believe, because we are sheep. Those who are not sheep don't believe just exactly as the Lord Himself tells us:

• But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep!

Jesus gave His life for the sheep, not the goats. Goats dont' turn into sheep because they believe. The don't believe because they are ALREAYD goats, just as we are told.

This is the gospel of the whole Bible:

• Hebrews 10:14
  For by one offering He perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

His offering actually perfected forever. It didn't merely make my perfection a possibility. It actually accomplished it for all those who are being sanctified. Yet, you would have me believe that God throws perfect people into hell by telling me that this offering was universally applied to all men....

Dream on!

Becasue if you don't believe that Christ died to forgive your sins, then you will go to hell. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. You can't not believe in God and say, well I don't have to listen to his comandments because my sins are paid for by the Atonement. Isn't it Paul that said that our Liberty in Christ is not a liscence to sin?Yes God is immutable and I believe there is a hell.

You are not even addressing my argument.

• If unbelief is a sin....
• And you tell me that the Lord made an atonement for all sin....
• Then surely the Lord made an atonement for all the sin of unbelief....
• Or you cannot claim that the Atonement is unlimited.

Why should the sin of unbelief hinder an man in his salvation any more than the sin of adultery since a Propitiation for both were made on the cross. You cannot tell me that the sin of unbelief was taken care of on the Cross, yet God will still condemn a man for it.

Talk about having cake and eating it too. And talk about a false balance in judgment, which thing the LORD abhors.

I am sorry I do not understand who you mean by "their" if you mean Christians isn't it in the Bible, and if you don't than you mean unbelievers. There are no fence sitters. And unbelievers need no assurance becasue they are not going to heaven unless something calls them to accept Christ.

I'm talking about true believers who also believe that it is God's expressed will and desire to save all men everywhere without any exception.

Seeing that you and all like you can only resolve the existence of souls in perdition with a change in God's will for them [those in hell] from one of a will to save to a will to destroy forever and noting that this of necessity means that God's will is NOT immutable,...

• then, what specifically is the foundation of your assurance that what God wills for YOU will be executed necessarily and immutably?

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

P.S. I'll make sure you understand my points here before I explain why your 1 Ti 2:4 cite doesn't get you where you want to be and even strengthens the Calvinist interpretation.

 

[CCWoody]

To make salvation possible for all people.

The very words "Christ died to save all men" seem to have an air of majesty worthy of God. However, it cannot be said that Christ offered atonement and secured the salvation of all men. This is the heresy of Universalism, vile and disgusting. The entire wording of such a construction then is reduced to this simple contention: God has made a "possible salvation" for all men. Please note though, that the very wording of this construction implies that a "possible salvation" by grace is not in and of itself a salvation by grace, but at best is a salvation in the use of grace by the man.

It must be stated up front that a "possible salvation" by grace is most definitely NOT an actual salvation by grace; the certainty of the salvation of not one human being is provided for. This grace led NONE to salvation. Before a "possible salvation" can become an actual salvation something must be done. Those who defend a mere "possible salvation" must contend then that man must perform that something for a mere "possible salvation" to become an actual salvation. The efficacious act comes from the man who can accept or stifle and kill the grace of God.

• The Calvinist maintains that the efficacious and irresistible grace of God saves a sinner through the bestowal of the grace of God. Faith itself is a gift from God and is the result of the bestowal of grace.

--ON THE OTHER HAND--

• The Arminian maintains that the inefficacious and resistible grace merely makes salvation possible and the final result of salvation comes NOT from the bestowal of saving grace but from the efficacious act of the natural fallen MAN improving the "possible salvation" to an actual salvation. Faith is generated by man using the grace given to him.

In order for the Arminian's construct to be proved there then must be some inequality in the mix that will determine the final outcome of either salvation or damnation. If grace is the inequality, then the Reformed theologians position is correct and Arminianism is overthrown by the concession. If it is in the efficacious act of the natural fallen MAN improving the "possible salvation" to an actual salvation through faith that he supplies, then salvation is not by grace. Salvation is ultimately by the efficacious act of the natural fallen MAN.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is the inequality:

• the GRACE of God?
• the efficacious act of the natural fallen MAN?

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.

 

[servingtheking]

I thank everyone for the debate, but I can't debate any more becasue I am preparing to go on a missions trip. I think its good that this disagreement hasn't come down to aguments or people being less than polite or without having this thread being closed.

 

[rnmomof7]

Hello everyone. I just wanted to discuss people's opinions regarding God's divine purpose in the Atonement.

If you are inclined, feel free to post Scriptural support for your position.

Thanks for your participation,
God bless

Good survey ...Book mark for later

 

[Jerry_M]

Indeed there are a lot of people in hell, or at least I would imagine so. This doesn't mean that He failed in his work, or that Christ didn't make salvation possible for all people. Some people don't except Christ as their savior. If you argue that they couldn't then doesn't that mean that humans have no free will?

What good is "free will" if:

1) You never hear the Gospel in order to exercise a "choice" for salvation? I will argue that many people don't accept Christ as their savior due to the fact that they have never heard, and will never hear, of Christ.

or

2) Even if you hear the Gospel, your "free will" doesn't give a fig for God? What man will accept Christ as savior when "every imagination of the thoughts of the heart is only evil continually"? It is not a matter of "free will", but rather the fact that all the "free will" in the world is worthless if it never wants to serve God.

No, we are all "dead in trespasses and sins", and need to be "born again".

 

[Andrew]

However, it cannot be said that Christ offered atonement and secured the salvation of all men. This is the heresy of Universalism, vile and disgusting.

Excuse me, but preaching and teaching that Christ did not die for all men but only some is the "heresy, vile and disgusting", not the other way round.

Christ died for all, plain and simple, not just a special group, which I'm sure the hyper Calvinists somehow include themselves in by virture of their own doctrine!

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Col 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

The 2 verses wld not make sense if Christ did not shed his blood for the sins of all men.

 

[calgal]

They make good wookies. I can never for the life of me make out any coherency in whatever they try to communicate.

Classic! They are more like Jawas to me.....

 

[calgal]

Excuse me, but preaching and teaching that Christ did not die for all men but only some is the "heresy, vile and disgusting", not the other way round.

Christ died for all, plain and simple, not just a special group, which I'm sure the hyper Calvinists somehow include themselves in by virture of their own doctrine!

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Col 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

The 2 verses wld not make sense if Christ did not shed his blood for the sins of all men.

HyperCalvinist is an insult but I will let it pass for now. Calvinists believe in Proclaiming the gospel but are not working under a false belief that everyone can of their own free will get saved. Humans would rather jump from happy thought to happy thought with no thought of the impact on others as long as we get our way. God completely changes our hearts and thought patterns in a radical way. Being Christ centered is not a natural state for humans.

 

[SoldierofChrist]

Andrew, Calvinists have been quite active in evangelism, in most cases even more so than other Christian groups.

Also, understand that Calvinists believe that all true Christians saved through the blood of Christ are saved regardless if they believe in the 5 points. Indeed it is God's will that will preach to all nations and peoples, yet regardless, not all believe.

By saying that Christ died for all men at the cross, and yet, a vast amount of people have died without Christ in their life, you are saying that Christ is not able to accomplish what the Father set for him to do. To save those whom the Father has drawn.

I have been an Arminian all my life, and when I was introduced to Calvinism I was just as peeved and skeptical as you. I didn't understand it all, and I had a lot of misconceptions which is quite typical of most arminian Christians today. I would say open your mind a bit, do not be so defensive and judgmental of Calvinism. Do some research on it. PM me if you are interested in some books that would be a good starter for you.

 

[Drotar]

May I remind those here that the fastest growing church in history is the Evangelical (fundamentalist) church, started in 1898, and today having 11 million members. We are Calvinist, aggressive ones if you know any of us. The runner-up is Mormonism, started in 1830 and having 7 million today. Evangelicals are VERY big on missions.

Pray tell, exactly how much emphasis dos Arminian churches place on evangelism and missionary work? You konw, I have to give y'all props, taht objection is a good one- but only in theory. In practice, Calvinists virtually MANAGE Trinitarian overseas evangelism. You know where you can see the most lax evangelism in the within Christendom? Churches of Christ, Methodist, and Pentecostal. Arminian churches. I'm sorry if this is taken personally, but that objection was ad hominem, and so a response in a like manner should logically follow.

I never undersood why some still actually use this objection. Fact is, it backfires like nothing I've ever seen. Independent Batpist and Evangelical churches are exemplary models for evangelism.

Now what motivates us- the fact that we know that the word of the Lord WILL NOT return void,a nd that whatever God ordains WILL come to pass. Not maybe. Not hopefully. Will. We know that our God is UNSTOPPABLE at accomplishing whatever He so wills. The reason why in practice Calvinists have such a strong emphasis on evangelism is because of the doctrine of irresistible grace. TTYL Jesus loves you!

 

[Drotar]

What good is "free will" if:

1) You never hear the Gospel in order to exercise a "choice" for salvation? I will argue that many people don't accept Christ as their savior due to the fact that they have never heard, and will never hear, of Christ.

or

2) Even if you hear the Gospel, your "free will" doesn't give a fig for God? What man will accept Christ as savior when "every imagination of the thoughts of the heart is only evil continually"? It is not a matter of "free will", but rather the fact that all the "free will" in the world is worthless if it never wants to serve God.

No, we are all "dead in trespasses and sins", and need to be "born again".

Well said!

"It is not a matter of 'free will', but rather that" our free will is worthless if bound to serve the flesh.

I'm going to have to add that sentence to something of mine.

Excuse me, but preaching and teaching that Christ did not die for all men but only some is the "heresy, vile and disgusting", not the other way round.

Christ died for all, plain and simple, not just a special group, which I'm sure the hyper Calvinists somehow include themselves in by virture of their own doctrine!

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Col 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

The 2 verses wld not make sense if Christ did not shed his blood for the sins of all men.

These objections wouldn't be so bad if they weren't the SAME THING EVERY TIME.

Are you actually here to listen to what we might have to say concerning Scripture, or are you just stalking the forums waiting for your turn to speak?

First, we are to preach to the world because we don't know who the elect are. We have to present it to everyone, so that the elect will repent when converted by the Holy Spirit. We must try to preach to all, since no one knows the plans of God and who He has chosen.

But the real answer to your objections (if you want to get into Calvinism, I REALLY hope that you post more verses/ if you're really interested, you can pick up where the debate with cenimo left off. It didn't exactly go the way I intended it to) lies in distinguishing the difference between- R. C. Sproul fans eat your heart out- the external and internal call.

The external call is our evangelizing and preaching the gospel to unbelievers. This is our responsibility. The difference is that according to Arminian theology, this is enough to convert people. But we say that preaching the gospel is simply not enough. It will always fall on deaf ears.

In steps the Holy Spirit. This is the internal calling. By regenerating us, He creates a new nature to combat the old, and delivers a fatal wound to our old nature. (BTW, in this I differ with Sproul. This is also why I had to edit my last paper on sin and salvation- instead of believing that regeneration is a reversing of our old nature, I think that more accurately it is a creating of a second, new nature, and the slow fatality of the old. I think that by calling regeneration a reversing of our old nature, it places too little emphasis on the fact that that old nature is still present. In fact, some may unintentionally forget to add into their theology that the old nature wasn't technically reversed because then it wouldn't be present. I say it was "fatally wounded" and dying but not dead, thus requiring our perseverance and cooperative effort of sanctification to putting to death the old desires of the flesh.)

Anywho, the external call is the responsibility of the saint. It is always ineffectual without the internal call, the work of the Holy Spirit. Only when both work together is there conversion and repentance. That's why we place a HUGE emphasis on evangelism, contrary to popular opinion. In the verses you presented, Jesus gave the command to preach. Well we say AMEN!

 

[Andrew]

These objections wouldn't be so bad if they weren't the SAME THING EVERY TIME.

Are you actually here to listen to what we might have to say concerning Scripture, or are you just stalking the forums waiting for your turn to speak?

[not worth responding to such arrogance]

 

[Andrew]

May I remind those here that the fastest growing church in history is the Evangelical (fundamentalist) church, started in 1898, and today having 11 million members. We are Calvinist, aggressive ones if you know any of us. The runner-up is Mormonism, started in 1830 and having 7 million today. Evangelicals are VERY big on missions.

Pray tell, exactly how much emphasis dos Arminian churches place on evangelism and missionary work? You konw, I have to give y'all props, taht objection is a good one- but only in theory. In practice, Calvinists virtually MANAGE Trinitarian overseas evangelism. You know where you can see the most lax evangelism in the within Christendom? Churches of Christ, Methodist, and Pentecostal. Arminian churches. I'm sorry if this is taken personally, but that objection was ad hominem, and so a response in a like manner should logically follow.

[utterly boastful!]

 

[Drotar]

Let me get this straight:

We're told that Calvinists have no reason to evangelize and are inactive at it.

I say, "No that's not true. The opposite is."

The next attack is again, placed strategically against the actual person who holds to a belief. By warding off slander and asking one to apply those same principles to their own churches to notice that the opposite is true, that person becomes also arrogant. Did you find inconsistency in the facts themselves, or was presentation of them in defense boastful?

If you feel taht what I wrote wasn't worth you responding to, then may I respectfully point out that that seems to have a hint of arrogance itself.

We're not here to bicker. And we're certainly not here to deliver blows against the people themselves. Let Scripture be our guide. Please present it if you would like to defend your opinion. TTYL Jesus loves you!

 

[Andrew]

If you feel taht what I wrote wasn't worth you responding to, then may I respectfully point out that that seems to have a hint of arrogance itself.

It is your sarcastic, talk-down, I-know-it-all tone Drotar. Otherwise I might respond with scripture.

 

[Drotar]

All right. I'm sorry if I came on like that. Sometimes I can be so emotional over a topic that the most prominent feature in what I wrote is its sting. I wasn't acting Christ like. Please accept my apologies.

I would appreciate your Scripture verses. TTYL Jesus loves you!