A Proper Concept of the Atonement

HP: You are avoiding the issues at hand, refusing to answer directly. One the one hand you say you disagree with the grocery store model, and then you use it yourself to support your own ideas.

You keep changing the focus. Now, instead of focusing on the what we agree was made with the ‘penalty of sin’ as it’s focus, you turn our attention to something other than that. namely a persons ‘individual sin.’ The two issues I admit are related in a sense, and are both at the forefront of this discussion, but what I am trying to nail down is that the atonement was NOT a literal payment of any or all of the debt owed by all men or simply the elect. The focus of the atonement was towards the satisfaction of the law, NOT the particular sins of any or all individuals. Particular and individual sins of all men are addressed SUBSEQUENT to the atonement on the cross, and not concurrent with it.

You have floated the notion, as I understand you, that God forgave all sins in particular and that God takes back or revokes that forgiveness on behalf of the damned. Tell me Bob, what invokes God to take back or revoke ones atonement for their sins? You posted two Scriptures which you say support such a notion. It may be wise to look at these individually to see if in fact you can use them to support such a notion. If you like, take them one at a time and show us how they each support such a notion.

 

Quote:
HP: the atonement was NOT a literal payment of any or all of the debt owed by all men or simply the elect. The focus of the atonement was towards the satisfaction of the law, NOT the particular sins of any or all individuals. Particular and individual sins of all men are addressed SUBSEQUENT to the atonement on the cross, and not concurrent with it.

HP: Now you tell me that something that is literally accomplished is not really literally accomplished until some later time. How can something be literally accomplished ‘on the cross’, as you clearly stated, yet at the same time and in the same sense, not literally accomplished until individual sins are addressed? Now I would think that if my literal sins were atoned for 'on the cross,' that they would have to be dealt with on the cross.

Sorry Bob, your logic is skewed. Something cannot ‘be and not be’ at the same time in the same sense. Something cannot be dealt with and not dealt with at the same time in the same sense.

 

For the rest of you on the list, such as DHK, suggesting that Christ died for all the sins of the world, but refuse to accept the logical end of such a belief, i.e., universalism, give us your ideas as to how this literal payment for sin is revoked on behalf of the damned, having had their sins literally paid for on the cross. Are you now going to be forced into the position of the Calvinist, believing only the sins of the elect are paid for, or are you going to tell us why the grace of God, as shown by the forgiveness of sins, is less that effective to save those He paid the literal price for the sins of the damned that you say, again, were literally paid for?

I certainly do not agree with the scenario that Bob suggests, that God revoked His forgiveness of those that will eventually, according to him, be annihilated, nor in his idea that God dealt with our sins literally yet they are not literally dealt with until later, but the silence of this issue by the rest of you is not a way to influence others to your position. Tell us how and why God can literally pay for something that never is really paid or double jeopardy is invoked, and the atonement less than effective to accomplish its stated purpose according to those stating a literal payment has been made for all sin.

 

Hi Claudia,
This is one of the most important watershed issues we could possibly address. How one views the atonement absolutely determines, consciously or not, ones ideas of salvation and what it entails. I hope to expound on this issue for those on the list as yourself as we go along. I am trying to focus on the groundwork long enough to allow the Holy Spirit to enlighten the conscience of those involved to see the illogical and unscriptural ideas that are harbored with such improper views of the atonement. The whole notion of God literally paying for all past present and future sins, the heart dogma of the sinning religion notion, lies tucked neatly within the views one has of the atonement. The absolute proof that such a belief is illogical and inconsistent with Scripture lies in the proper understanding of the atonement.
Be patient. Don’t bail. See if in fact in time God will enlighten our hearts and minds in areas we might not have addressed in depth before, or at least understood where in the world those believing in a sinning religion arrived at such far gone conclusions than Scripture presents

 

Hi GE,

Then here are some logical conclusions you cannot escape. If in fact God only paid for the sins of the elect, it is an utter impossibility for any other to come to faith, necessitating the notion that God of necessity predestines the lost to damnation, having never had any other possibility made available to them to be saved. Not only that, but if man can be nothing other than what he is, and for the sinner that is to sin and incur the wrath of God, God is seen as punishing the wicked for something God Himself can be none other than the ultimate cause of. You also cannot escape the logical conclusion that indeed God is in fact the author of all sin. Let me stop there to get your response so far.

 

HP: Precisely. If God ‘literally’ paid for all past present and future sins, how could it possibly matter, or why should we even worry? Loss of rewards? I am afraid that is not only unscriptural, but absolutely illogical that such a notion, totally not understood by us in this world without absolute knowledge of what they consist of anyway, and will not ever serve to properly influence anyone to Scriptural repentance and obedience. One look at the Church world today will prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

HP: The ATONEMENT SINFUL? You will have to explain this one to me, but on another thread as it strays too far from the topic we are addressing.

HP: You have not established how any of these things are in the least sinful. Again that would be a great topic for a new thread if you so desire.

HP: That is about as illogical as one can imagine. How can an Omnipotent God not understand the direct consequences of His atonement? He either is or is not Omnipotent. I believe He ‘is’ according to Scripture. With man it might appear to be impossible, but with God, Omnipotent as He is, nothing is ‘NOT highly possible’ that is at direct antipodes with that which He knows in fact will come to pass. What is impossible is that suggestion you make that anyone could believe, or that my views mandate me believing, that the atonement could have accomplished nothing. That is an illogical and unfounded deduction to make or assume from anything I have said or implied.

HP: Why don’t you start a thread on this issue as well? We are not discussing the issue of free will as of yet, and I do not intend to enter into that discussion on this thread. You have not addressed anything as of yet that directly pertains to the atonement as is being discussed, nor have you offered any insight into the illogical conclusions of those believing in a literal payment theory thus far. Why don’t you focus upon the issues of this thread and enlighten us as to how you avoid the illogical consequences of such a view?

 

Let me see if I can make the logical progression of the literal payment theory, in that God literally paid for the sins of the elect alone, more understandable. In specific, how such a view mandates the notion that God is in fact, logically in accordance to this ‘literal’ scheme, the author of all evil.

This scheme implies that God has predetermined for the foundations of the world that He would make an atonement for a select chosen few, and that few only. This logically induces the notion that God, being the creator of all men, must have created some to damnation from eternity past. This being established, it logically necessitates the notion that God created some men as evil, with no other possibility being other than to be evil and that continually.

Evil is but the effect of a cause, and if in fact God is the Cause, being the Creator, the effect (in this case evil) could in no way be anything other than the evil it was necessitated by God to be.

Conclusion: God, if He is the creator of all men, having created some to damnation via their sinful actions, and their sinful actions being nothing more than the necessitated and foreknown consequents of His own Divine will, can be nothing other than the author of the evil produced. Such necessity is logically dictated, and is not only the case for the evil in man, but the evil perpetrated by any of His creations as well, including Satan himself. God is therefore the author of all evil according to the view in question.

 

HP: That would be a good topic for you to start a thread on.

 

The importance of a proper view of the atonement cannot be stressed enough. It directly effects many other issues such as whether or not ones sins, past present and future have been literally forgiven. If the atonement was not a literal payment of the sin debt of the elect, no such notion such as that can be upheld or supported. Scripture does not state that all past present and future sins are paid for. That is a presupposition brought to Scripture based upon a faulty notion of the atonement, its nature, what it entails and what it accomplished.

What we have seen and are presently witnessing on this thread, are some of the ideas that are being floated to deliver one holding to the literal payment theory from the logical ends it of necessity genders. If one is consistent with the premise that ‘all sins of every sinner were paid for literally on the cross,’ it degenerates logically to nothing short of complete and total universalism, and that just for starters. If one tries to vary that premise to limit the atonement to the sins of only the elect, one finds himself necessarily upholding the notion of double predestination with all its illogical and absurd necessitated ends, such as God being a respecter of persons, God being of necessity the Author of all evil, God punishing man for an unavoidable fate, etc.