General Reconciliation

Discussion in 'Calvinism/Arminianism Debate' started by Van, Dec 7, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    I do not advocate "universal atonement" but I do advocate "general reconciliation." The difference between general and universal is that universal suggests that the reconciliation is applied individually to everybody. I do not think this is what the bible teaches. But Jesus being the propitiation for the whole world, God reconciling the world to Himself, indicates redemption is available to everybody; Jesus having paid the ransom for the many. If you continue reading in 2 Corinthians 5:18-21, you see that being reconciled in the general sense, does not indicate you have "received" the reconciliation individually, that is why we have the ministry of reconciliation. Therefore the difference between general reconciliation and individual reconciliation is in who has "received" the reconciliation. And this occurs when God places us individually "in Christ." (1 Corinthians 1:30)

    Here is a summary of Particular Reconciliation and General Reconciliation

    Particular Reconciliation:
    (1) God preselected folks for salvation before creation
    (2) Christ came and died for those folks - limited atonement
    (3) God gives those folks faith in Christ, then accepts their faith and places them in Christ.

    General Reconciliation
    (1) God selected Christ to redeem mankind before creation. Therefore those chosen and placed in Christ during their lifetime through belief in the truth were corporately chosen as the target group of His redemption plan before the foundation of the world.
    (2) Christ came and died for mankind in general but not specifically for each individual.
    (3) God chooses folks and places them in Christ after accepting their faith and reckoning it as righteousness.

    The first point of difference centers on the meaning of Ephesians 1:4 which says we (born again believers) were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world. Particular Reconciliation maintains that being chosen in Him means being chosen as foreseen individuals. General Reconciliation maintains that being chosen in Him means Christ was chosen to be the Lamb of God before the foundation of the world and anyone subsequently redeemed by the Lamb was conceptually chosen because you do not choose a Redeemer without a plan to redeem..

    The second point of difference centers on the meaning of 1 John 2:2 which says He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world. Particular Reconciliation maintains that Jesus is the propitiation not only for elect Jews but also for elect Gentiles. General Reconciliation maintains that Christ is the propitiation not only for believers, but also for everybody else, the whole world. Propitiation means that God’s acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice provides the means of salvation, the mechanism of reconciliation. When God puts a believer spiritually in Christ they “receive” the reconciliation provided by Christ’s sacrifice.

    The third point of difference centers on the meaning of Romans 4:5 which says but to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. Particular Reconciliation maintains the “his faith” was supernaturally given to him by God because the unregenerate are spiritually unable to trust in Christ. General Reconciliation maintains “his faith” is the individual’s trust in Christ, because if it were God’s gift of faith, it would not need to be reckoned as righteousness.
     
  2. agedman

    agedman
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,255
    Likes Received:
    185
    Van,

    Why don't you just stick to what the Scripture uses as the words rather than trying out some new vocabulary that really clouds the Scriptures.

    Propitiation is the payment in full of all sins of all humankind from Adam to the last one born. It is ONLY used in the NT and is ONLY used in relation to the payment in full made on the Cross.

    Reconciliation is atonement - and is consistently used throughout the Scriptures in that capacity. As Romans states the blood of bulls and goats did not pay for the sins - that was the work of the cross.

    The OT sacrifices and offerings were pointing toward the fulfillment of the promised sacrificial Lamb of God, and could therefore be used to provide a temporary reconciliation (atonement) between God and humankind.

    But now Christ has not only provided the full blood sacrifice of Propitiation, but stands as the advocate for the believer - the reconciler (atoner) between God and man.

    When you try to use "reconciliation" and appoint the properties of propitiation, it isn't consistent with Scriptures no matter if it is regular, general, specific, Atlantic, or whatever.
     
  3. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    The reason I use reconciliation is because it is the word used in the English translation of Scripture. The reason I use Propitiation, meaning means of salvation, is because it is the word used in the English translation of Scripture.

    Now, on the other hand, I do not use "reconciler" or "atoner" because they do not appear in any of the English translations of Scripture I searched. Why do you concoct a complaint about my choice of words, rather than address the content. Answer, shuck and jive.
     
  4. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    Hilasterion

    Before we even think about studying hilasterion and the related words hilaskomai and hilasmos, we must address the three cornerstone words of salvation - propitiation, the means of salvation, redemption, the act of salvation, and reconciliation, the result of salvation. Our word study below enters into the arena of the means of salvation, which is Jesus Christ.

    Hilasterion

    Our best understanding is that hilasterion referred to the lid of the ark of the covenant, which was sprinkled with blood, and thus referred to as the mercy seat. Articles on its meaning are filled with classic words like expiation, atonement, and propitiation, all of which convey almost nothing to the modern reader. In a nutshell, under the Old Covenant, the blood of animals was sprinkled on the hilasterion on the day of atonement to provide temporary reconciliation with God and avoidance of the wages of sin. Under the New Covenant, Jesus, covered with His precious blood, has become our "hilasterion" (and our blood sin offering) as the means of everlasting reconciliation with God and avoidance of the wages of sin.

    Three related Greek words (Hilasterion and Hilasmos-nouns and Hilaskomai -verb) appear 6 times in the New Testament, Romans 3:25, Hebrews 9:5 ; 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10, Luke 18:13, and Hebrews 2:17. If we look at several translations we find the words translated as (1) propitiatory sacrifice; (2) propitiation; (3) mercy seat; (4) atonement and (5) atoning sacrifice for the nouns; with the verb being translated as (1) have mercy; (2) be merciful; (3) turn your wrath; and (4) make propitiation.

    In short the verb refers to the act of having mercy and the noun to the means of having mercy. Therefore hilasterion should be understood as the means of obtaining mercy , i.e the propitiatory shelter.







    .

    .
     
  5. Jacob_Elliott

    Jacob_Elliott
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2013
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    0
    In John 3:16 I believe the same greek word for world is used. John 3 :17 for Christ came not to condem the world but to save it. If your definition of world is correct God/Christ either failed in his mission, or every single person is saved. Or it means people from ever tongue tribe and nation.
     
  6. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    Not sure why this post appears in this thread, since "world" was not defined or even mentioned. But I recognize a different Calvinist doctrine being asserted, where world means this here, but that there, whatever is needed to support Calvinism.

    If you analyze John's books, you will find (or the objective reader will find) that John uses the word translated world, to refer to fallen mankind or the corrupt value system of fallen mankind.

    In John 3:16, God loved the world in this way, He gave is one of a kind Son. Obviously fallen mankind is in view. In John 3:17 we see that God sent His Son so that the world might be saved through Him.

    So the silly Calvinist chestnut relies on claiming saving some of mankind does not equate with saving the world. But if we set that absurdity aside, we see that God is saving the world (fallen mankind) one person at a time. He is reconciling the world to Himself, one person at a time, when He puts an individual spiritually in Christ, where they undergo the circumcision of Christ. The suggestion that if the world refers to all of fallen mankind, then saving some does not save the world is absurd. The requirement that says you must save everyone of the world to save the world is a Calvinist fiction designed to nullify John's usage and insert the Calvinist view. Twaddle.

    God and Christ did not fail to provide general reconciliation for the whole world, nor did God and Christ fail to reconcile each individual placed in Christ.

    Bottom line, Calvinism rewrites scripture by redefining words such that they mean this here and that there, in order to pour Calvinism into the text. But would viewed objectively, the TULI of Calvinism cannot be found anywhere in Scripture.
     
    #6 Van, Dec 8, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 8, 2013
  7. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49

    First 2 Corinthians 5:18 says that believers have been, a completed act, reconciled. These are the folks that have received the reconciliation because they have been spiritually placed in Christ. Then in verse 19, scripture says that in Christ God is reconciling the world to Himself. Calvinists say that in this verse, Paul was using the word translated as world to refer to the elect rather than all mankind. So the issue is how did Paul use the term. He used it in a few different ways so lets see what they were.

    In Acts 17:24, Paul uses the "world" to refer to everything created by God both in the physical realm and in the spiritual realm. Lets call this #1. (The kosmos of creation.)

    In Acts 17:31, Paul uses the "world" to refer to mankind, both the elect and the non-elect and this usage includes both the worldly concerns of mankind and the corrupt worldly value system of mankind and the location where mankind resides. Lets call this #2 (The kosmos of man)

    Romans 1:20 - #1; Romans 3:6 - #2; Romans 3:19 - #2; Romans 4:13 - #2. (This one requires a little explanation. To be an heir is to receive a blessing, not to give one. Christ, the seed of Abraham reconciled the world (mankind) and Abraham, being part of mankind - he received his portion of the world's blessing, thus an heir of the world.) Romans 5:12 - #2; Romans 5:13 - #2; Romans 10:18 - #2;

    In Romans 11:12, Paul uses the world to refer to all of mankind except Jews. Lets call this #3. (The kosmos of Gentiles).

    Romans 11:15 - #3; 1 Cor. 1:20 - #2; 1 Cor. 1:21 - #2; 1 Cor. 27 - #2 twice; 1 Cor. 1:28 - #2; 1 Cor. 2:12 - #2; 1 Cor. 3:19 - #2; 1 Cor. 3:22 - #2; 1 Cor. 4:13 - #2; 1 Cor. 5:10 - #2 twice; 1 Cor. 6:2 - #2 twice; 1 Cor. 7:31 - #2 twice; 1 Cor. 7:33 - #2; 1 Cor. 7:34 - #2; 1 Cor. 8:4 - #2; 1 Cor 11:32 - #2, 1 Cor. 14:10 - #2; 2 Cor. 1:12 - #2; 2 Cor. 5:19 - #2, Gal. 4:3 - #2; Gal. 6:14 - #2 twice; Eph. 1:4 - #1; Eph. 2:2 - #2; Col. 1:6 - #2; Col. 2:8 - #2; Col. 2:20 - #2; 1 Tim. 1:15 - #2; 1 Tim. 3:16 - #2; and 1 Tim. 6:7 - #2;

    In summary, Paul used #1 twice (Acts 17:24 and Eph. 1:4) and #3 twice (Romans 11:12 and 11:15). In the remaining uses, Paul used the word translated world to mean #2.
    Thus in 2 Corinthians 5:19, Paul is referring to all mankind and not just the elect. In my quick study, Paul never used the term to refer to the elect only.

    May God Bless

    .
     
  8. agedman

    agedman
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,255
    Likes Received:
    185
  9. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Certainly "We BEG YOU on behalf of Christ BE reconciled to God" indicates that the World is not "reconciled" but rather on the cross God was engaged in the process of "reconcilING the World to Himself".

    A process that continues in the form of
    1. the witness and conviction of the Holy Spirit "convicting the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment"
    2. "DRAWING ALL MEN unto ME" John 12:32
    3. the Gospel "APPEAL" of the form "We BEG YOU on behalf of Christ BE reconciled to God" 2Cor 5.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  10. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Indeed. In Romans 3 and in 1John 2:2 the NIV rightly translates this as "Atoning Sacrifice".

    in Ezek 45:20 it is Atonement. LLX
    in Lk 18:13 "Be merciful"

    There is the greek pagan concept of "propitiating the angry deity with blood sacrifice" but that is not the Bible model of Atonement.

    In Atonement "God so LOVED the WORLD that HE gave".

    In Greek Pagan model it would be "Christ so sacrificed Himself that He appeased God's anger"

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  11. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    No Thanks

    I believe I know what you were attempting. Now if we can return to the topic...
     
  12. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    Hi Bob, thanks for your contribution. Several translations do indeed translate the Greek word as atoning sacrifice, but most go with propitiation. No matter the translation choice, the meaning remains the same, "means of salvation." Christ is the "propitiatory shelter" and thus when we are spiritually placed within that shelter, we are propitiated, reconciled, saved.

    My NIV reads in Romans 3:25 (you did not specify your verse) "sacrifice of atonement." Now at 1 John 2:2 atoning sacrifice does appear in the NIV (also NET and WEB). However propitiation appears in the other well respected translations including the NASB.

    As I said before, when the term is applied to Christ and not the lid of the ark of the covenant, "propitiatory shelter" is my choice as the best translation, but is not the choice of most if not all translations.

    I agree deflecting wrath is not a good illustration, rather mechanism for the removal of the sin burden (the consequence of just punishment for our sin) best illustrates the idea in Romans 3:25 and 1 John 2:2.

    Christ, became the mechanism for the removal of our sin burden, through the shedding of His blood unto death, which demonstrates God's righteousness in the forgiveness of our sins.
     
  13. agedman

    agedman
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,255
    Likes Received:
    185
    I had no agenda but to share with you how others arrived at their statements, and that you might see what the effect and what constituted an opposing view.

    That you don't welcome such information to help with development and understanding of the topic but would rather assign it as some negative agenda on my part is unwarranted.

    It presents no problem upon me that you don't want to find support and learn even more about this topic.
     
  14. percho

    percho
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    3,888
    Likes Received:
    37
    Which one of those would a Mayan or an Incan have fallen under who died in the year AD 983?

    By whose faith could he have been saved? Wonder what he worshiped?
     
    #14 percho, Dec 9, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 9, 2013
  15. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    Always finding fault and never addressing the topic, or in other words, more shuck and jive. Calvinism is simply a mistaken doctrine invented by men and poured into scripture.

    General Reconciliation and receiving that reconciliation through faith are clearly taught in scripture.
     
    #15 Van, Dec 10, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 10, 2013
  16. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,515
    Likes Received:
    49
    Many individuals have been born, lived their lives, and died without ever hearing the gospel. Jesus told us to take the message of the gospel to the "ends of the earth."

    Thus, whenever the opportunity of redemption through faith occurs by spreading the gospel, part of the message to those hearing it is that Christ died for them.
     
  17. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Hi Van -

    I agree the Bible model is that Christ paid our debt of sin - became "the sin offering for us" Isaiah 53:10. For "the atoning sacrifice our SINS and not for OUR sin only but for the SINS of the Whole World" 1 John 2:2 NIV.

    The Bible model is that "God so LOVED that HE gave" - so it is God paying the debt for sin that His own Law demands of the transgressor.

    He paid all the debt for each sin - and every sinner in all of time.

    Some would argue that it is not possible for that debt to be paid. Well... Christ paid it. He endured the accumulated suffering and torment - due to each person for each sin -- for all of time.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  18. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,023
    Likes Received:
    47
    God wrath is upon those who have not received jesus as their Lord/Saviour, correct?

    the propiation of the death of jesus applies JUST towards the saved by it, right?

    So until actually saved, ALL under God judgement/wrath, correct?

    So how can it NOT be a particular atonement, for Jesus death did NOT propiate the wrath of God towards all, but just unto some?
     
  19. agedman

    agedman
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,255
    Likes Received:
    185
    Van,

    Are you so hurt by "Calvinism" that you can't even stay on your own topic in this thread about your thinking on atonement?

    Your refusal of using a resource I offered is one thing, but your claim about my character and my pursuit of truth is most unwarranted. You might employ such techniques as shuck and jive and wandering off topic, but that is generally not found of me on the BB.

    The above quoted post is off topic and attacking the person. My posts on this thread were not "finding fault" but inquiry as to why you didn't stick with actual word usage (the first), not off topic (presenting outside resources ON topic), and it is truly sad that maligning character is all you can offer.

    You post about schemes "invented by men;" it is actually your words for your scheme concerning the use for the word atonement being just that sort - one invented by a man.

    Where is "general atonement" found - That EXACT wording. Where is such even alluded?

    Can't be done. Nope not found. It is a scheme of your own imagination in which you are making assumptions and assignments that may or may not be accurate. Yet, you have such audacity as to disparage other "invented by men" schemes? That disparagement seems to apply to your own work just as you would desire it be applied to that of others - even that which you strongly disagree.

    When one offers a resource to benefit a development idea and show historically some thinking that ON the topic developed in the past and the difficulties that were found, it is not some sneaky attempt by the Calvinists. It was a good faith offer; totally up to you to to use or not.
     
  20. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    What I am contributing in this post may seem to go against those who hold views that I might generally agree with, so I say these with all due respects.

    Receiving Jesus, in the sense that neo-Arminians and semi-pelagians speak of, has nothing to do with God's wrath being on or not on them.
    The Bible says, clearly, that if one's name is not in the book of life, which will be reviewed at the Great White Throne judgment, then he/she is cast into the lake of fire (Rev 20).

    Now when were those names written thereon ?

    BEFORE the foundation of the world, according to Rev. 13:8, was when that book was populated, and those whose names are not found there, will wonder at (admire and follow) the antichrist.

    One's name is not written thereon because he accepted the Lord as his Savior, rather, the implication is (like faith) one accepts the Lord and will not be deceived by fake Christ's because his name is on that book.

    Therefore, the blood of propitiation, was shed for those whose names are on that book, and only for them. And so it is PARTICULAR REDEMPTION.
    Particular as to the who, particular as to the why, and particular as to the how.


    Now, the question begs itself.

    how can somebody whose name God foreknew and wrote down in that book be under judgment/wrath when
    the very purpose of God writing that particular name on that particular book is to appropriate the blood of the Lamb of glory slain FROM THE FOUNDATION of the world which was again shed, physically, in time, at the cross, on God's appointed hour ?

    Jesus made it very clear that His mission was to bring back His lost sheep, He has always referred to those He came to redeem as His sheep, not goats, and even in the Old Testament, His people have always been called His saints.

    What am I saying ?

    That in the Father's mind, the fact of the redemption of His people, is a settled matter, even before Calvary. As far as the eternal Father, Son, and Spirit, is concerned, the blood has been shed and his saints are covered by it. The word of His Son committing Himself to redeeming God's people with His own life and blood is as good as DONE as far as the One in Three is concerned.

    The Father trusted the Son to proceed with the purpose of redemption, here in time, at the cross, the Son trusted the Father to bring His body back to life as proof of His eternal Sonship TO HIS ELECT PEOPLE, and the Spirit trusted these things and so He did His task of quickening God's own (proof of this quickening being various personae before Christ's birth looking forward to the birth of the Son of the Living God).

    And so we have the continous progression spoken of by Paul in his systematic soteriology in Romans 8:28-30, quote:

    And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
    For whom he did foreknow , he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
    Moreover whom he did predestinate , them he also called : and whom he called , them he also justified : and whom he justified , them he also glorified .

    No one slipping through the cracks.
    the 'whom' is the 'them', and the 'them' is the 'whom'.

    That is how he was able to translate Enoch and Elijah into His kingdom.
    Good as done.
    And Satan, and all his minions in the opposition, in the spirit world and in this physical world, can do nothing about it.
    Except to resort to their old tricks, which is "YEAH, DID GOD SAY ?".

    God has looked down in time, and seen His Son doing His task at the cross, and there is no doubt whatsoever in the mind and heart of the Triune God, the CROSS WILL HAPPEN, AND IT WILL SUCCEED (and did succeed).

    That is why SALVATION IS OF THE LORD, then, now, and forever.

    Paul understood this trust of each other among the members of the Trinity (or perhaps taught about it by the very same Three in One) which is why the KJ translation was correct when it translated Philippians 2:20 as : I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live ; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
     
    #20 pinoybaptist, Dec 11, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 11, 2013
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...