Atonement: Appeasing the Wrath of God

Skandelon · Aug 4, 2004

Does Christ's atonement appease the wrath of God for all sin or just for some sin? The bible seems to indicate all sin has been atoned for by Christ, but Calvinists argue that it would be blood wasted if Christ atoned for men's sin who were not forgiven.

Is that a biblical arguement or just human logic?

Couldn't it be that Christ did atone for all sin so that God has the freedom to justly judge men by their response to his gift of atonement presented to them in his word?

Because of Christ ALL men don't have to be condemned by a just God any longer because his wrath has been appeased, once and for all. BUT He places one condition upon their benefiting from that atonement and that is that they must believe in it and repent of their wrong doing.

Just like a judge might pay the fine for a criminal and then that would give the judge the freedom to let him go or sentence him based upon his response to the gift he gave.

Thoughts?

pinoybaptist · Aug 4, 2004

Skandelon:

Here is an excellent article on that question:

The Atonement

John Owen
from: The Monergist Website

THE ATONEMENT (A Rebuttal of Thomas More's The Universality of God's Free Grace)

Here's an excerpt:
I wish there were a ubb code for letter-spacing.

The title [The title here referred to is The Universality of God’s Free Grace . . . , a book written by Thomas More and published in 1643. —Ed.] pretends satisfaction to them who desire to have reason satisfied: which, that it is a great undertaking, I easily grant; but for the performance of it, “hic labor, hoc opus.” That ever Christian reason, rightly informed by the word of God, should be satisfied with any doctrine so discrepant from the word, so full of contradiction in itself and to its own principles, as the doctrine of universal redemption is, I should much marvel. Therefore, I am persuaded that the author of the arguments following (which, lest you should mistake them for others, he calleth reasons), will fail of his intention with all that have so much reason as to know how to make use of reason, and so much grace as not to love darkness more than light. The only reason, as far as I can conceive, why he calls this collection of all the arguments and texts of Scripture which he had before cited and produced at large so many reasons, being a supposal that he hath given them a logical, argumentative form in this place, I shall briefly consider them; and, by the way, take notice of his skill in a regular framing of arguments, to which here he evidently pretends. His first reason, then, is as followeth:—

I. “That which the Scripture oft and plainly affirmeth in plain words is certainly true and to be believed, Prov. 22:20, 21; Isa. 8:20; II Peter 1: 19, 20;

“But that Jesus Christ gave himself a ransom, and by the grace of God tasted death for every man, is oft and plainly affirmed in Scripture, as is before shown, chap. 7-13: “Therefore, the same is certainly a truth to be believed, John 20:31; Acts 26:27.”

First, the proposition of this argument is clear, evident, and acknowledged by all professing the name of Christ; but yet universally with this caution and proviso, that by the Scripture affirming any thing in plain words that is to be believed, you understand the plain sense of those words, which is clear by rules of interpretation so to be. It is the thing signified that is to be believed, and not the words only, which are the sign thereof; and, therefore, the plain sense and meaning is that which we must inquire after, and is intended when we speak of believing plain words of the Scripture.

But now if by plain words you understand the literal importance of the words, which may perhaps be figurative, or at least of various signification, and capable of extension or restriction in the interpretation, then there is nothing more false than this assertion; for how can you then avoid the blasphemous folly of the Anthropomorphites, assigning a body and human shape unto God, the plain words of the Scripture often mentioning his eyes, hands, ears, etc., it being apparent to every child that the true importance of those expressions answers not at all their gross carnal conception? Will not also transubstantiation, or its younger brother consubstantiation, be an article of our creed?

With this limitation, then, we pass the proposition, with the places of Scripture brought to confirm it; only with this observation, that there is not one of them to the purpose in hand,—which, because they do not relate to the argument in consideration, we only leave to men’s silent judgments.

Secondly, The assumption, or minor proposition, we absolutely deny as to some part of it; as that Christ should be said to give himself a ransom for every man, it being neither often, nor once, nor plainly, nor obscurely affirmed in the Scripture, nor at all proved in the place referred unto: so that this is but an empty flourishing. For the other expression, of “tasting death for every man,” we grant that the words are found Heb. 2:9; but we deny that every man doth always necessarily signify all and every man in the world.

Nouqetounte" panta anqrwpon didaskonte" panta anqrwpon, Col. 1:28—”Warning every man, and teaching every man.” Every man is not there every man in the world; neither are we to believe that Paul warned and taught every particular man, for it is false and impossible.

So that every man, in the Scripture, is not universally collective of all of all sorts, but either distributive, for some of all sorts, or collective, with a restriction to all of some sort; as in that of Paul, every man, was only of those to whom he had preached the gospel.

Secondly, in the original there is only uper panto", for every, without the substantive man, which might be supplied by other words as well as man,—as elect, or believer.

Thirdly, That every one is there clearly restrained to all the members of Christ, and the children by him brought to glory, we have before declared. So that this place is no way useful for the confirmation of the assumption, which we deny in the sense intended; and are sure we shall never see a clear, or so much as a probable, testimony for the confirming of it.

To the conclusion of the syllogism, the author, to manifest his skill in disputing in such an argumentative way as he undertaketh, addeth some farther proofs. Conscious, it seems, he was to himself that it had little strength from the propositions from which it is enforced; and, therefore, thought to give some new supportments to it, although with very ill success, as will easily appear to any one that shall but consult the places quoted, and consider the business in hand. In the meantime, this new logic, of filing proofs to the conclusion which are suitable to neither proposition, and striving to give strength to that by new testimony which it hath not from the premises, deserves our notice in this age of learned writers. “Heu quantum est sapere.” Such logic is fit to maintain such divinity. And so much for the first argument.
II. “Those whom Jesus Christ and his apostles, in plain terms, without any exception or restraint, affirm that Christ came to save, and to that end died, and gave himself a ransom for, and is a propitiation for their sin, he certainly did come to save, and gave himself a ransom for them, and is the propitiation for their sins, Matt. 26:24; John 6:38; I Cor. 15:3, 4; Heb. 10:7; John 8:38, 45; II Peter 1:16; Heb. 2:3,4;

“But Jesus Christ and his apostles have, in plain terms, affirmed that ‘Christ came to save sinners,’ I Tim. 1 15; the ‘world,’ John 3:17; that he died for the ‘unjust,’ I Peter 3:18; the ‘ungodly,’ Rom. 5:6; for ‘every man,’ Heb. 2:9; ‘gave himself a ransom for all men,’ I Tim 2:6; and is the ‘propitiation for the sins of the whole world,’ I John 2:2; and every one of these affirmations without any exception or restraint, all being unjust, ungodly, sinners, and men, and of the world, Rom. 3:10, 19, 20, 23; Eph. 2:1-3; Titus 3:3; John 3:4, 6: “Therefore, Jesus Christ came to save, died, and gave himself a ransom for all men, and is the propitiation for their sins, John 1:29.”

To the proposition of this argument I desire only to observe, that we do not affirm that the Scripture doth, in any place, lay an exception or restraint upon those persons for whom Christ is said to die, as though in one place it should be affirmed he died for all men, and in another some exception against it, as though some of those all men were excluded,—which were to feign a repugnancy and contradiction in the word of God; only, we say, one place of Scripture interprets another, and declares that sense which before in one place was ambiguous and doubtful. For instance: when the Scripture showeth that Christ died or gave himself a ransom for all, we believe it; and when, in another place, he declares that all to be his church, his elect, his sheep, all believers,—some of all sorts, out of all kindreds, and nations, and tongues, under heaven; this is not to lay an exception or restraint upon what was said of all before, but only to declare that the all for which he gave himself a ransom were all his church, all his elect, all his sheep, some of all sorts: and so we believe that he died for all. With this observation we let pass the proposition, taking out its meaning as well as the phrase whereby it is expressed will afford it, together with the vain flourish and pompous show of many texts of Scripture brought to confirm it, whereof not one is any thing to the purpose; so that I am persuaded he put down names and figures at a venture, without once consulting the texts, having no small cause to be confident that none would trace him in his flourish, and yet that some eyes might dazzle at his super-numerary quotations. Let me desire the reader to turn to those places, and if any one of them be any thing to the purpose or business in hand, let the author’s credit be of weight with him another time. O let us not be as many, who corrupt the word of God! But perhaps it is a mistake in the impression, and for Matt. 26:24, he intends verse 28, where Christ is said to shed his blood for many. In John 6, he mistook verse 38 for 39, where our Saviour affirms that he came to save that which his Father gave him,—that none should be lost; which certainly are the elect. In I Cor. 15:3, 4, he was not much amiss, the apostle conjoining in those verses the death and resurrection of Christ, which he saith was for us; and how far this advantageth his cause in hand, we have before declared. By Heb. 10:7, I suppose he meant verse 10 of the chapter, affirming that by the will of God, which Christ came to do, we are sanctified, even through the offering of the body of Jesus,—ascribing our sanctification to his death, which is not effected in all and every one; though perhaps he may suppose the last clause of the verse, “once for all,” to make for him. But some charitable man, I hope, will undeceive him, by letting him know the meaning of the word efapax. The like may be observed of the other places,—that in them is nothing at all to the proposition in hand, and nigh them at least is enough to evert it. And so his proposition in sum is:—”All those for whom the Scripture affirms that Christ did die, for them he died”; which is true, and doubtless granted

Click to expand...

Tumbleweed · Aug 4, 2004

I appreciate your sincerity in trying to view the Lord's atonement in a way harmonious with your understanding of freewill. However, there are two great obstacles:

The first is logical: If, as in your illustration, "a judge might pay the fine for a criminal," then logically and morally, that most certainly would NOT "give the judge the freedom to let him go or sentence him based upon his response to the gift he gave," because the criminal's debt is in fact discharged. The Judge's only moral course is to set the criminal free, unless of course he lied about having paid the debt.

I think we have a good example of how God's word confirms this in I Jn.1:9 - "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." Why "faithful and just"? Because the debt for what we have done was really and truly paid at Calvary. Any other course would render God UNfaithful and UNjust.

Now, we both agree that the benefits of Christ's atoning work are applied to each believer in time, as each of us comes to repentance and faith. However, it is possibly this chronological application of redemption that tempts people to the idea that the atonement 2000yrs ago was only potential not real and complete. However, we only have to contemplate our Master's agonies for a moment to know that this was no phantom atonement, but a blood-price He paid (Rom.6:23) that was actual, and sealed with His own words, "It is Finished!"

Secondly, and most importantly, when taken together, those scriptures that speak directly of Christ's atonement do not give any encouragement to the idea that Christ's atoning work at Calvary was only provisional or potential.
On the contrary, they present us with a Substitution, a Ransom, an Accomplishment (I Pet.3:18, II Cor.5:21, Gal.3:13, Matt.20:28, Matt.1:21, etc.)

If Christ's atonement was an actual vicarious atoning for sin, then that atonement MUST in due course be be applied to those for whom it was made. Any compromise at this point leads to form of Socinianism in which Christ's actual satisfaction for sins is denied.

Yours in Him,
- Paul

Monergist · Aug 4, 2004

Originally posted by Skandelon:

Couldn't it be that Christ did atone for all sin so that God has the freedom to justly judge [DEAD] men by their response [EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE DEAD] to his gift of atonement presented to them in his word?

Because of Christ ALL [DEAD]men don't have to be condemned by a just God any longer because his wrath has been appeased, once and for all. BUT He places one condition upon their benefiting from that atonement [EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE DEAD] and that is that they must believe [EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE DEAD]in it and repent [EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE DEAD] of their wrong doing.

Just like a judge might pay the fine for a [DEAD]criminal and then that would give the judge the freedom to let him [THE DEAD CRIMINAL]go or sentence him based upon his response [ALTHOUGH HE IS DEAD]to the gift he gave.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Question: Does not this judge-- or someone-- or something, need to give life to this guy before he can do all that stuff??

"Jesus paid it ALL, ALL to Him I owe..." If what you state is true (which it obviously isn't, but if it were) God would require double payment of those who go to hell.

gabe · Aug 4, 2004

"Couldn't it be that Christ did atone for all sin so that God has the freedom to justly judge men by their response to his gift of atonement presented to them in his word?"

Seems strange to me. That's all the cross accomplishes? The mere ability for our rejection or acceptance of the offer of salvation? We already had those choice of going God's way, and we have all fallen short. That's why Christ died, to save us from ourselves.

Monergist · Aug 4, 2004

Originally posted by Skandelon:
...so that God has the freedom to justly judge men by their response...
Click to expand...

Was God somehow bound, so that He was not able to judge justly? Could He not have thrown the whole lot of mankind into hell and have been just in doing so? Does sinful man give freedom to God someway? Has the creature bound up the creator?

gabe · Aug 4, 2004

"Was God somehow bound, so that He was not able to judge justly? Could He not have thrown the whole lot of mankind into hell and have been just in doing so?"

No, He could not be just in doing so, for such would be in violation of His own Nature.

"Does sinful man give freedom to God someway? Has the creature bound up the creator?"

Seems like an interesting question you have there, but I'm not sure I understand. Could you expound?

Skandelon · Aug 5, 2004

My point was simply to ask some what ifs, so bare with me a bit longer...

What if God wanted to have mercy and save those who would have faith in him and who at least honestly try to live in obedience such as Abraham and Job. He couldn't just dismiss their sin and remain just, so it had to be atoned. Then, because His wrath was appeased He would then be free to forgive those who in faith repent of their sin and He would still be free to do whatever He wanted with those who didn't. Who is to say that the wrath of God wasn't fully appeased on the cross? Hell was a place created for punishment of Satan and his angels, its not a place of atonement or propitation, as if those going there are atoning for their own sin with their eternal damnation. It is a place of punishment. For what? What are men being judged by? According to John 12 they are judged by their respond to the word, therefore one could conclude the one goes to hell as a punishment for ignoring God's revelation and not necessarily because God couldn't have forgiven him based upon Christ's atoning work despite his rebellion to the word.

Again, I am just seeking some better understanding on this, so I appreciate all the comments. Thanks.

Tumbleweed · Aug 5, 2004

Originally posted by Skandelon:

He couldn't just dismiss their sin and remain just, so it had to be atoned. Then, because His wrath was appeased He would then be free to forgive those who in faith repent of their sin and He would still be free to do whatever He wanted with those who didn't. Who is to say that the wrath of God wasn't fully appeased on the cross?
Click to expand...

You can only begin to answer the sort of question you are pondering if you have the courage to first face up to a prior question, which is this: What did Christ actually DO at Calvary? This is what I was trying to get at in an earlier post on this thread. Was His atonement for sin vicarious and actual, or was it only provisional and theoretical? The Biblical evidence leaves no doubt that it was a real, final, finished, substitutionary payment for sin.

This being so, it is inaccurate to speak of God therefore being "free to forgive those who in faith repent of their sin ." On the contrary, once the price had been paid, He was OBLIGED to forgive those who repent (I Jn.1:9), otherwise He would be in conflict with faithfulness and justice.

- Paul

BobRyan · Aug 5, 2004

As I have mentioned earlier - the term in 1John 2:2 and in Romans 3 - is from a Bible based Hebrew perspective (i.e. that of the Bible writers in this case) "Atoning Sacrifice".

Both Atonement and Atoning Sacrifice find their first detailed illustration given by God in Lev 16 as HE speaks of "The Day of Atonement".

The Atoning sacrifice is "paid for all" according to John in 1John 2 -- NOT ONLY "our sins but the sins of the whole world".

However the entire process of atonement and the entire work of atonement (as God describes it in Lev 16) goes far beyond the moment of the "Atoning Sacrifice" - it includes the work of the High Priest IN the Most Holy Place.

Israel then and today understands this as the great day of judgment for the world.

This means that the Daniel 7 and 2Cor 5 principle that "WE MUST ALL stand before the judgment seat of Christ" is applicable.

This means that the description in Hebrews 8-10 of Christ beginning His High priestly ministry IN HEAVEN after the cross - IS applicable.

Instead of thinking that the cross is "the last significant thing that Christ ever did" - the NT text tells us HE IS STILL working in our behalf in God's great Gospel plan of salvation.

It is precisely BECAUSE this work of Christ is ignored in its connection to God's own Lev 16 illustration that there is so much confusion on the subject of atonement and lack of attention to the fact of "Atoning Sacrifice" Plus "High Priestly ministry of Christ" as God describes it BOTH in the OT and the NT.

In Christ,

Bob

Monergist · Aug 5, 2004

No, He could not be just in doing so, for such would be in violation of His own Nature.
Click to expand...

So then He is violating His own nature by condemning all the non-elect angels? The problem with this kind of thinking is that it creates an idol; it starts by defining his "nature" by whatever you perceive it should be, then trying to cram him into the mold. I see that you claim to be a universalist. That is just the logical end of consistent "universal atonement" rational.

RO 3:5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.)

RO 3:6 May it never be! For otherwise how will God judge the world?

Seems like an interesting question you have there, but I'm not sure I understand. Could you expound?
Click to expand...

Has God become bound by sinful man so that God cannot do what he desires to do {save sinners) unless sinful man gives him the permission to do so?

That's why Christ died, to save us from ourselves.
Click to expand...

While there may be a grain of truth in that, more importantly, Christ died to save us from the wrath of God. I wonder, after reading your posts, if you really understand the gravity of sin.

Monergist · Aug 5, 2004

Originally posted by Skandelon:
My point was simply to ask some what ifs, so bare with me a bit longer...

What if God wanted to have mercy and save those who would have faith in him and who at least honestly try to live in obedience such as Abraham and Job.

RO 3:10 as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; RO 3:11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;

RO 3:19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, that every mouth may be closed, and all the world may become accountable to God;RO 3:20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

RO 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

RO 9:16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy

He couldn't just dismiss their sin and remain just, so it had to be atoned. Then, because His wrath was appeased He would then be free to forgive those who in faith repent of their sin and He would still be free to do whatever He wanted with those who didn't. Who is to say that the wrath of God wasn't fully appeased on the cross?

RO 3:25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;RO 3:26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

ISA 53:11 As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities.

Hell was a place created for punishment of Satan and his angels, its not a place of atonement or propitation, as if those going there are atoning for their own sin with their eternal damnation. It is a place of punishment. For what? What are men being judged by? According to John 12 they are judged by their respond to the word,

1SA 26:23 "And the LORD will repay each man for his righteousness and his faithfulness;

PS 62:12 And lovingkindness is Thine, O Lord, For Thou dost recompense a man according to his work.

COL 3:25 For he who does wrong will receive the consequences of the wrong which he has done, and that without partiality.

HOS 4:9 And it will be, like people, like priest; So I will punish them for their ways, And repay them for their deeds.

GAL 6:7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.

therefore one could conclude the one goes to hell as a punishment for ignoring God's revelation and not necessarily because God couldn't have forgiven him based upon Christ's atoning work despite his rebellion to the word.

Again, I am just seeking some better understanding on this, so I appreciate all the comments. Thanks.
Click to expand...

UMP · Aug 5, 2004

Originally posted by Skandelon:
Does Christ's atonement appease the wrath of God for all sin or just for some sin? The bible seems to indicate all sin has been atoned for by Christ, but Calvinists argue that it would be blood wasted if Christ atoned for men's sin who were not forgiven.

Is that a biblical arguement or just human logic?

Couldn't it be that Christ did atone for all sin so that God has the freedom to justly judge men by their response to his gift of atonement presented to them in his word?

Because of Christ ALL men don't have to be condemned by a just God any longer because his wrath has been appeased, once and for all. BUT He places one condition upon their benefiting from that atonement and that is that they must believe in it and repent of their wrong doing.

Just like a judge might pay the fine for a criminal and then that would give the judge the freedom to let him go or sentence him based upon his response to the gift he gave.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Yes,
But look at the PRICE which was paid. The perfect one, GOD in the flesh died for HIS people! Let me put it to you this way. If you paid the price for 20 cars and only got 3 in return, would your "purchase" have been successful ? I submit Christ died for X number (whatever that number may be) of people of which He WILL get ALL whom He paid for.

John 6:37 "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out."

John Gilmore · Aug 5, 2004

Originally posted by Skandelon:
Does Christ's atonement appease the wrath of God for all sin or just for some sin? The bible seems to indicate all sin has been atoned for by Christ, but Calvinists argue that it would be blood wasted if Christ atoned for men's sin who were not forgiven.

Is that a biblical arguement or just human logic?

Click to expand...

Human logic. Scripture plains says the Lamb of God takes away the sin of the world. To deny unlimited atonement would be to deny that, in the communication of the attributes, Christ is fully God and fully man. One drop of Christ's blood, true God and true man, is sufficient to atone for an infinite number of sins.

Couldn't it be that Christ did atone for all sin so that God has the freedom to justly judge men by their response to his gift of atonement presented to them in his word?
Click to expand...

No. Just as man can not atone for his own sins, man can not respond to the gift of atonement presented in the Word. We plead the merit of Christ not the merit of our response. God alone saves man.

[ August 05, 2004, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: John Gilmore ]

Skandelon · Aug 5, 2004

No. Just as man can not atone for his own sins, man can not respond to the gift of atonement presented in the Word.
Click to expand...

But man is judged by his response to the word as seen in John 12:

47 And if anyone hears My words and does not *believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. 48 He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him--the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.

Are you saying that men can't repond to the word by which they will be judged? Can you support that with scripture please. Thanks.

Skandelon · Aug 5, 2004

Originally posted by Tumbleweed:
You can only begin to answer the sort of question you are pondering if you have the courage to first face up to a prior question, which is this: What did Christ actually DO at Calvary? This is what I was trying to get at in an earlier post on this thread. Was His atonement for sin vicarious and actual, or was it only provisional and theoretical? The Biblical evidence leaves no doubt that it was a real, final, finished, substitutionary payment for sin.
Click to expand...

Well, it could be argued that paying for the sins of the world is just a real, final, finished and substitutiionary so I don't see that being a valid point.

This being so, it is inaccurate to speak of God therefore being "free to forgive those who in faith repent of their sin ." On the contrary, once the price had been paid, He was OBLIGED to forgive those who repent (I Jn.1:9), otherwise He would be in conflict with faithfulness and justice.
Click to expand...

Not if he place a condition on the application of the atonement. The condition being faith had to be met by the man in order for the atonement to be applied, just in the OT days when the priest would offer the sacrifice the people had to confess. Christ's death being timeless in nature and having finished the atonement process the only thing that must be met is the men's response, men's faith and repentance. That is all that is required, it no longer by works of the law as many believed.

Skandelon · Aug 5, 2004

I asked: What if God wanted to have mercy and save those who would have faith in him and who at least honestly try to live in obedience such as Abraham and Job.

You quoted:
RO 3:10 as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; RO 3:11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;

RO 3:19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, that every mouth may be closed, and all the world may become accountable to God;RO 3:20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

RO 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

RO 9:16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy

I agree with all of these passages, but I didn't say Abraham and Job were justified because they were good or righteous. They were justified for their faith. All are sinner and own there own they would have been hopeless, but God didn't leave them on their own. Your prove texts show men's plight without Christ's work and the gospel message, it does not show his ability or lack there of to respond to Christ's message of hope.

Skandelon · Aug 5, 2004

Originally posted by UMP:

But look at the PRICE which was paid. The perfect one, GOD in the flesh died for HIS people! Let me put it to you this way. If you paid the price for 20 cars and only got 3 in return, would your "purchase" have been successful ? I submit Christ died for X number (whatever that number may be) of people of which He WILL get ALL whom He paid for.
Click to expand...

Yes, and it could be argued that he knew who would believe and died only for their sins. Or it could be argued that the work of atonement was sufficient to appease all God's wrath against the sin of man and that hell is not there to appease God's wrath but its there to punish rebellious wills.

Monergist · Aug 5, 2004

Originally posted by Skandelon:
Yes, and it could be argued that he knew who would believe and died only for their sins. Or it could be argued that the work of atonement was sufficient to appease all God's wrath against the sin of man and that hell is not there to appease God's wrath but its there to punish rebellious wills.
Click to expand...

"Circular reasoning" is a method of false logic, by which "this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this." It is also called "reasoning in a circle."

John Gilmore · Aug 5, 2004

Originally posted by Skandelon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />No. Just as man can not atone for his own sins, man can not respond to the gift of atonement presented in the Word.
Click to expand...

But man is judged by his response to the word as seen in John 12:

47 And if anyone hears My words and does not *believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. 48 He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him--the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.

Are you saying that men can't repond to the word by which they will be judged? Can you support that with scripture please. Thanks. </font>[/QUOTE]The natural man does not respond (1 Cor. 2:14). He is dead in trepasses and sin (Eph. 2:1). If the elect were judged by their response to the gospel, they would all be condemned (Rom. 3:10). Faith looks to Jesus Christ alone not to any human merit of the response to the Word.

Atonement: Appeasing the Wrath of God

Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

pinoybaptist Active Member
Site Supporter

Tumbleweed New Member

Monergist New Member

gabe New Member

Monergist New Member

gabe New Member

Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

Tumbleweed New Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

Monergist New Member

Monergist New Member

UMP New Member

John Gilmore New Member

Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

Monergist New Member

John Gilmore New Member

Useful Searches

Atonement: Appeasing the Wrath of God

Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

pinoybaptist Active Member Site Supporter

Tumbleweed New Member

Monergist New Member

gabe New Member

Monergist New Member

gabe New Member

Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

Tumbleweed New Member

BobRyan Well-Known Member

Monergist New Member

Monergist New Member

UMP New Member

John Gilmore New Member

Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

Monergist New Member

John Gilmore New Member

pinoybaptist Active Member
Site Supporter