5 views on the atonement

Dale, I know I sound like a broken record but I truly believe that in order to understand the atonement of Christ, we must go back to the OT and study the sacrificial system and the atonement the high priest offered on behalf of all Israel.
We must also understand the temple was a copy of the real temple in heaven. It gives us insight into what goes on at the throne of God when dealing with sin and atonement for it.
We must also look at the first passover and why the Lord passed by certain houses.

I think if we can understand these things, we will have a true understanding of the atonement of Christ, who is the true Lamb of God that was spoken of in the OT.

 

Well, I can't vote for any of them, because it is flawed. If you had ...

Universal atonement-some will reject but that is just a choice, It IS still a sin.

...or Amy's answer condensed, I could.

 

This poll is actually about the extent of the atonement, not the definition of the atonement. A poll on the definition of the atonement would include: atonement as healing, atonement as penal substitution, and atonement as Christus Victor. Perhaps there are even more possible definitions

 

I'm not overly bright and don't fully understand all the choices in order to vote. As for atonement, it was bought by the blood of Christ Jesus for all. Some will accept it, but most will not. God knows who will and who will not accept His gift of eternal life.

 

You are right, it does help...
But there is a fundamental difference.. .the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin.. .they just covered it... that is why it had to be done yearly...

Jesus took away the sin... once and for all...

For further study, read Hebrews chapter 10.

 

Yes. The OT sacrificial system was a shadow of the perfect sacrifice.

 

Yes, exactly.

The OT sacrifice of atonement was an outward thing only. The priest, on the day of atonement, made a sacrifice on behalf of the whole nation—his people. The sacrifice he presented cleansed the whole nation outwardly, so that God could to remain with the people—the nation Israel.

Christ's is the sacrifice that doesn't just clean outwardly, but really takes away sin.

I think that making parallels between the two systems is a good way to understand the atonement. And as long as we're making parallels between the OT sacrifice of atonement and Christ's sacrifice of atonement, if Christ was the priest of his sacrifice (which he was, see Hebrews 2:16-17) who were the people that he represented? Is everyone in the world one of Christ's people or are believers throughout the world (the offspring of Abraham through faith) Christ's people?

 

This can be answered using the same OT comparison. Were all of the israelites justified?

 

Nope, but I don't know how that's relevant, because although the OT sacrifice of atonement was made on behalf of the whole nation, the OT sacrifice of atonement couldn't justify anyone. That wasn't its function. It's function was to provided an outward cleansing—a purification of the flesh, but not the conscience.

The relevant question is this: Did the OT sacrifice of atonement accomplish a temporary outward cleansing of the whole nation? In what it was actually able to do able to do, was it effective for all those on whose behalf it was made?

 

The problem I have is with "potential". Christ didn't "potentially" atone for sin, He did. It is only applied to those who are in Him.

 

:thumbsup:

There is no "potential" in God.

 

Here another you forgot:
"At whatever time are we baptized, we are washed and purified once for the whole life" (Institutes, IV) - John Calvin
"By baptism we are ingrafted into the body of Christ.. infants are to be baptized... children of Christians, as they are immediately on their birth received by God as heirs of the covenant, are also to be admitted to baptism" (Institutes, IV) - John Calvin

 

Hey, we are up by two!!! Whoohoo! :thumbs: