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!

Any One believe in a General Atonement around here?

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Dale-c, Aug 29, 2009.

Top Posters
Page 1 of 3
  1. Dale-c

    Dale-c Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do any of you believe in a general atonement here?

    It is my understanding that this was once a common position among baptists.

    The General atonement as opposed to particular atonement or universal atonement.

    I think it is the most consistent with the various non-cal position on the BB.

    To give more detail, it means that Christ paid the price to forgive sin in general. No particular sinner was forgiven but the potential was made in a general fashion so that every sinner, without exception COULD be saved.


    By the way, both arminians and 4 point calvinists could believe this.
     
    #1 Dale-c, Aug 29, 2009
  2. JDale

    JDale Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2006
    Messages:
    496
    Likes Received:
    2
    Faith:
    Baptist

    Yes, I affirm General Atonement. I would say that a majority of Baptists -- at least Southern Baptists -- believe in General Atonement. It's certain that General and Free Will Baptists do.
     
    #2 JDale, Aug 29, 2009
  3. sag38

    sag38 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,395
    Likes Received:
    2
    I have no problem with general atonement.
     
    #3 sag38, Aug 29, 2009
  4. Dale-c

    Dale-c Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    I posted this a while back and I was surprised at how many claimed essentially universal rather than general.
    They did not like the term universal but that was essentially what they did believe.

    As far as I can tell there are really only 4 possible choices:

    1. Particular to the elect (my view)
    2. Particular to sins other than unbelief (or perhaps anyone unpardonable sin you want to throw in)
    3. General
    4. Universal.
     
    #4 Dale-c, Aug 29, 2009
  5. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    Since Christ satisfied God's wrath against sin, and the universe is under the curse of sin, it can be both universal and general. All creation groans, and will be renewed one day due to the work on the cross.
     
    #5 webdog, Aug 29, 2009
  6. rdwhite

    rdwhite New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Messages:
    434
    Likes Received:
    0
    I cast my vote for a general atonement. I certainly disagree with a limited atonement. And I am not sure what is meant by a universal atonement.
     
    #6 rdwhite, Aug 29, 2009
  7. Dale-c

    Dale-c Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Universal atonement is what those who believe in universalism believe as well as some others as well.

    Universal atonement means that Christ made a substitutionary atonement for every single sin of every single person ever without exception.
    God's wrath is then satisfied and none go to hell since the wrath of God was satisfied for every single individual.
    Mostly this is held by universalists but there are also some here that claim universal atonement but that people go to hell with their sins paid for but they go only on their choice.
    That position it totally unjust and inconsistent.

    IMO the only reasonable positions you can take biblically are the two traditional baptist views of particular and general atonement.
     
    #7 Dale-c, Aug 29, 2009
  8. rdwhite

    rdwhite New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Messages:
    434
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well then, I must say I disagree with universal atonement. Thanks for the explanation.
     
    #8 rdwhite, Aug 29, 2009
  9. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    I believe Jesus paid for the sins of all men, but it is only effectual to those that believe.

    1 Tim 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

    So I believe Christ is potentially the saviour of all men, but effectual only to those that believe on him.
     
    #9 Winman, Aug 29, 2009
  10. Dale-c

    Dale-c Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, I misread your post. Yes, I would say you do agree with general atonement.
     
    #10 Dale-c, Aug 29, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 29, 2009
  11. Dale-c

    Dale-c Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    As far as I understand, that is the general position.
    It is the potential position.
    Christ died potentially for all men conditioned only on their own belief.
     
    #11 Dale-c, Aug 29, 2009
  12. Amy.G

    Amy.G New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    4
    In the OT did the high priest make atonement once a year for all of Israel or just the "elect" of Israel?
     
    #12 Amy.G, Aug 29, 2009
  13. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    2
    Since all Israel were God's elect (or chosen) people, the question is more properly, did the high priest make atonement for those who were not Israelites?
     
    #13 Tom Butler, Aug 29, 2009
  14. Amy.G

    Amy.G New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    4
    So, was all of Israel saved? Every single person?
     
    #14 Amy.G, Aug 29, 2009
  15. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    "Not all Israel is Israel"
     
    #15 webdog, Aug 30, 2009
  16. Dale-c

    Dale-c Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tom makes an excellent point.
    As far as all of israel being saved, no romans 9 is clear that not all did. Also the OT sacrifices did not pay for a single sin. It was a picture of the perfect sacrifice to come.
     
    #16 Dale-c, Aug 30, 2009
  17. Allan

    Allan Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,902
    Likes Received:
    5
    First, not all of God's chosen people were saved however the sacrifice of atonement was made on behalf all those of Israel (saved and not saved) for sin but the effect of that sacrifice was received only by faith. In light of this, this first must be answered.

    Now the question that should be asked in conjuction with the above is;
    Were all gentile people forbidden from coming into and becoming apart of Israel (those who God had chosen to work through).
    Answer: No.
    God did not neglect the Gentiles nor did He leave them out but the Jews were to be the proclaimers of God's grace and mercy toward all who will submit and believe, to the Jew first and then the Gentiles.

    Therefore the means of God provision against sin was to all but since God had chosen to work His work specificially through His Chosen people Israel all those who desired to come under God's grace were to join themselves to the group God had chosen to work through.

    Therefore God did not exclude anyone in the OT with respect to the sacrifice of Atonement however God chose to only work through 'a' people and not in and toward the whole world on the whole as He is through Christ.
     
    #17 Allan, Aug 30, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 30, 2009
  18. Allan

    Allan Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,902
    Likes Received:
    5
    True, it did not 'remove' sin, however it did 'cover' their sins till Christ came to remove it completely rather than cover it. Thus all OT saints said to be justified still had sin but it was covered and not yet removed. Covered by the provision of God through the Sacrifice of Atonement by an animal but awaiting the true sacrifice to remove our sin completely.

    It did not pay for a single sin but it DID cover them till the true one came. And thus it was temporarily sufficient but not efficient to the eternal need
     
    #18 Allan, Aug 30, 2009
  19. Amy.G

    Amy.G New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    4
    Still waiting for answer. :)
     
    #19 Amy.G, Aug 30, 2009
  20. Dale-c

    Dale-c Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amy, I answered that in post 16. Or were you waiting for a response from Tom?
     
    #20 Dale-c, Aug 30, 2009
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 3
Loading...