1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Atonement: Appeasing the Wrath of God

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Skandelon, Aug 4, 2004.

  1. Tumbleweed

    Tumbleweed New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    0
    No one argues with the fact that Christ's redemption is applied to the individual on condition of faith. What IS in contention is the utterly illogical proposition that Christ's sacrifice does not become a real, actual payment for sins until it is somehow activated by man's faith 2000yrs later.

    I notice that you seem to be trying to deal with this in a later reply to UMP, where you suggest that perhaps the payment WAS actual for the sins of men now in Hell, and that sinners are therefore not condemned for their lying, adultery, etc, but for the single reason of unbelief. This is another dead-end -
    1) This means, that Christ did not atone for all sins, including inbelief, in which case no man could be saved, given that we were all in a state of unbelief at one time - Eph.2:1-9, Is.1:18
    2) The Bible is very clear that men DO suffer eternal judgement for their particular sins, and not just for unbelief - Mk.9:43-48, I Cor.6:9-10, etc.

    If Christ's atonement was real and vicarious, then it must at some point be applied to those for whom is was made.

    Yours in Him,
    - Paul
     
  2. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    No one argues with the fact that Christ's redemption is applied to the individual on condition of faith. What IS in contention is the utterly illogical proposition that Christ's sacrifice does not become a real, actual payment for sins until it is somehow activated by man's faith 2000yrs later.

    I notice that you seem to be trying to deal with this in a later reply to UMP, where you suggest that perhaps the payment WAS actual for the sins of men now in Hell, and that sinners are therefore not condemned for their lying, adultery, etc, but for the single reason of unbelief. This is another dead-end -
    1) This means, that Christ did not atone for all sins, including inbelief, in which case no man could be saved, given that we were all in a state of unbelief at one time - Eph.2:1-9, Is.1:18
    2) The Bible is very clear that men DO suffer eternal judgement for their particular sins, and not just for unbelief - Mk.9:43-48, I Cor.6:9-10, etc.

    If Christ's atonement was real and vicarious, then it must at some point be applied to those for whom is was made.

    Yours in Him,
    - Paul
    </font>[/QUOTE]I follow you but I disagree with that conclusion. The scripture clearly teaches that without the sheding of Blood there is no forgiveness of sin. This means that had Christ not done what he did there would not be any forgiveness, but because of what Christ did God can now justly forgive ANYONE/WHOSOEVER asks to be forgiven in faith...yes even 2000 years later because his death is timeless and "once for all."
     
  3. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ok John you have pulled out the major Calvinistic proof texts for the doctrine of Total Depravity and now I'm going to show you how none of them say what you need them to say to draw your conclusions:

    1. 1 Cor 2:14: Paul never mentions in this context, his audiences inability to understand the gospel message. If you read verse 10 and following you will see that he is speaking about the "deep things of God" which is confirmed in the fact that in the next few verses Paul reveals that even the "brethen" of Corinth can't recieve these same spiritually decerned things to which Paul is refering. If you try to maintain that Paul in the text means that lost men cannot understand ANYTHING that is spiritual in nature then he would be contradicting himself in his letter to the Romans (ch 1) where he clearly teaches that the lost men could "clearly see and understand" the divine nature and eternal qualities of our God. On top of that these men understood these things just from what was revealed to them in nature. Just think how much more they could understand when a man speaking in their own language explained such things to them.

    Let me say this point again: The gospel is a work of the Holy Spirit, so proof texts that tell us men's inability when unassisted by the Holy Spirit cannot be texts that support the notion of men's inability in regard to understanding the gospel, which IS a work of the Holy Spirit. It IS the power of God unto salvation.

    2. Eph. 2 : You assume that being spiritually dead makes one unable to respond to God's powerful life giving force. Why would you assume such a thing. The analogy of "deadness" is not perfectly applied to us because we do respond and we do have wills. Paul also speaks of us being dead to sin as believers. Do you assume that means we are now unable to sin? Of course not, that would be carring the analogy to an extreme. Now if you can show me where "spiritual deadness" is explained in scripture to mean "unable to respond in faith to the gospel" then you may have a case.

    3. Romans 3:10: It is interesting to me that you quoted this verse to support your statement, "If the elect were judged by their response to the gospel, they would all be condemned." This verse is not about ones response to the gospel, and its not about faith. It about men's response to the law and his falling short in everyway in regard to God's standard of righteousness, but the text doesn't stop there. In verse 21 it goes on to reveal a righteousness now being revealed apart from the law of works, its a righteouness through faith in Christ. We know longer can boast, he goes on to explain. Why? Because we have faith? Of course not! That is not what he is combating. Those boasting were boasting in the law, not in faith. That is clearly what Paul was combating.

    Therefore, Romans 3:10 is telling us men's inability before God's solution, not his inability once confronted by God's solution. God's solution of course is in the powerful message of the cross. Men can't fulfill the demand of the law, but that doesn't in any way suggest that men can't humbly surrender in faith to the one who did fulfill the law for us.

    Please keep looking to find a verse that teaches that men are unable to respond in faith to the gospel message. This is why I left Calvinism, I could never find that passage. Maybe you can?
     
  4. Tumbleweed

    Tumbleweed New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is there really a logical, sensible extrapolation from Heb.9:22 that results in a universal atonement, or have you been learning Methods of Bible Study from the good doctor?
     
  5. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Is there really a logical, sensible extrapolation from Heb.9:22 that results in a universal atonement, or have you been learning Methods of Bible Study from the good doctor? </font>[/QUOTE]What I stated is really not a support for universal atonement, but support for an atonement for whosoever meets the critera set by God. Faith leading to repentance.
     
  6. John Gilmore

    John Gilmore New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    748
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok John you have pulled out the major Calvinistic proof texts for the doctrine of Total Depravity and now I'm going to show you how none of them say what you need them to say to draw your conclusions:
    . . .
    Please keep looking to find a verse that teaches that men are unable to respond in faith to the gospel message.
    </font>[/QUOTE]You accepted my bible verses that teach unlimited atonement but not my verses that teach unlimited depravity. Without unlimited depravity, there is no need for unlimited atonement. Man has no need of a Saviour who does not completely save.
     
  7. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    God "DRAWS ALL mankind unto Him" John 12:32 therefore ALL are "enable to make that choice that TD disables"... even Calvinists admit that the John 12:32 drawing ENABLEs that choice.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  8. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    And as already stated - it is the "Atoning Sacririce" 1John 2:2 NIV that is provided - while the Heb 8-10 High priestly role of Christ in the Lev 16 atonement process continues even now.

    In Christ,

    bob
     
  9. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    What?!? I believe in the doctrine of Original Sin and I believe all men are born totally unable to save themselves or do anything righteous own their own. My point has always been is that God didn't leave us on our own. He came to seek and to save the lost and he employes many means by which to do that (Christ, apostles, the gospel, scripture, preachers etc). The question is can men respond to God's means of reconciliation? I say if they can't then they will have the perfect excuse on judgement day. "I was unable to do anything to respond to the word by which you judge me, God."
     
  10. npetreley

    npetreley New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    2
    You added the word mankind. It's not there. The word is simply "all". Whether it's "all people" or "all peoples" or "all something else" is determined by interpretation and context. (And it is Jesus saying it. I know that Jesus and God are one, but the difference can be meaningful in some cases.)

    Not this Calvinist, if that's what one would call me. I still haven't decided exactly what the verse means. The most logical meaning from the context, (to me at least), is that He will draw all peoples -- that is, the elect from all over the world.

    I do not equate that statement with God's enabling power referred to in John 6, although it is possible the two are the same.

    I don't think this is the best interpretation, but I have often wondered if the verse means that He'd draw all men to Himself in the sense that He'd be the center of controversy for the rest of history -- both hated and loved.

    Regardless, you're wrong on both counts. It's not all mankind (the word "mankind" is not in the text), and not all Calvinists equate the verse with God's enabling power.
     
  11. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    You don't think its the least bit suspicious that while Christ is on earth He is hiding the gospel from "Totally depraved" Jews so they won't believe it and repent and He is sending these men who were supposedly born with "Total inability" a spirit of stupor so they won't understand the gospel for a time then says in John 6 while talking to a group of these Jews that they can't come to him or believe in him unless God draws them and then later says that he will draw all to himself?

    Could it be that they couldn't come to him while he was on earth (unless specifically chosen and drawn by the father) because he had a purpose to accomplish through their unbelief (ie the cross) but after his purpose in hardening them was completed that he would draw everyone to himself?

    Naw, that would be too biblical :rolleyes:
     
  12. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Indeed the translators add this in because leaving it UNQUALIFIED could conceivable include plants and animals -- they show that Christ draws mankind - and in this the context fully supports them in you look at the preface we have in John 1.


    OK one exception noted. I am simply noting that this is not JUST an Arminian claim about what God's DRAWING enables.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  13. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,136
    Likes Received:
    3
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I did a search on all Bibles listed in Crosswalk and except for Darby which said only had 'all', the rest, Modern and KJV, used the word either men, peoples, or people to me, and not the collective mankind. Unless, of course, you're using an Adventist translation.
     
  14. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,136
    Likes Received:
    3
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You said you were not in ignorance when you were baptized into your cult, Bob Ryan. So I take that to mean that you knew not only the Bible, but also every fundamental practice of the SDA, and that you accepted that Ellen G. White was given the Spirit of Prophecy, and is therefore a prophet of your god, which you say is also the Christian God.

    So, explain to us this statement of your prophet:

     
  15. npetreley

    npetreley New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    2
    The point is that some translators render it "all men", and others render it "all peoples", showing that your interpretation is not the only one. Moreover, depending upon the context, "all men" can mean the same thing as "all peoples" but "all peoples" never infers "all mankind".
     
  16. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I didn't know there WAS an Adventist translation.

    Did skip the NASB?

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  17. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Here is an interesting case of ALL being IN the text -- using the New Adventist Standard Bible

    .. or is that New Adventist Sanctified Bible??

    .. Maybe New Adventist Special Bible?

    (OK - well at least it is NASB)

    32 ""And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.''

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  18. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,136
    Likes Received:
    3
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Bob Ryan said:

    Neither did I. But you said, the translator....

    And since it wasn't in the more popular translations by translators, then.....
     
  19. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I can't believe NASB is no longer popular.

    Did I miss something?

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  20. npetreley

    npetreley New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    2
    Amplified Bible

    John 12:32 And I, if and when I am lifted up from the earth [on the cross], will draw and attract all men [Gentiles as well as Jews] to Myself.


    NKJV

    John 12:32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself."


    Darby

    John 12:32 and I, if I be lifted up out of the earth, will draw all to me.


    Wycliffe

    John 12:32 And if I shall be enhanced from the earth, I shall draw all things to myself.


    Of course there's the good ol' CEV, which paints Jesus to be a failure...

    Contemporary English Version

    John 12:32 If I am lifted up above the earth, I will make everyone want to come to me."
     
Loading...