A Question for Arminians (or no-name theology believers)

I'll just cut to the chase, because we can't get straight answers from webdog et al:

It is written no where that faith appeases God's wrath. Quite the opposite, really. It's written that by faith men believe unto righteousness, and by faith the elders received a good report, but God's wrath was appeased by the sacrifice of Christ.

If webdog et al would presume to analyze the atonement they should study the Law. That is where Christ's sacrifice is dissected and laid out in its elementary components for our learning.

If a man sinned, two sacrifices had to be made for him. One was a sin offering, and the other was a trespass offering. In one, sin itself is judged, and in the other, the guilt of the sinner. But these are two parts of Christ's one offering on the cross, appeasing God's wrath against both the sin and the sinner in that one act.

It was accomplished. It is finished.

But dog has the atonement divided into two acts: one on the part of Christ, and the other on the part of man. Despite dog's protests, the logical end of his dichotomy is that man partly atones for himself.

 

Since I don't mind being called a universalist, I thought I'd throw in.

Is anyone surprised to find that I am E-3er? Nah, didn't think so.

"The problem is that unbelief is a sin". Why is that a problem, GL? Why is it that you can see the difference between attonement made and attonement applied? The price for all sin committed by all men has been paid. But it hasn't been applied to each individual account.

While Winman's Superbowl tickets were a good illustration, let me offer you one that is a little more specific:

My husband works for a major hospital. They have approximately 2000 patients at any given time. I also have a rich uncle named Sam. Suppose Sam walks in and tells the business administrator to total up the bill for every patient that is residing at the hospital because he is going to pay their bills down to the last penny owed to the last doctor that walked through the patients' rooms.

Hospital business admin being what they are, they add it all up and Sam approves the wire transfer of the funds. HIPAA laws being what they are, the hospital admin CAN'T APPLY PAYMENT to the individual accounts without the patients' individual consent! (not kidding!)

Now the money is there. The hospital is holding it in bank account ready to distribute to those 2000 patients, but first the patients have to consent.

Patients 1-500 don't even ask questions, they just sign the form! Patients 501-1000 have reservations about the motives of the one who paid the price and they want to wait and see what happens with the first 500 before committing their signature. Patients 1001-1500 tell the administers they don't have an ink pen. (stands for all the foolish reasons men don't accept Christ) and the rest of the patients say they can pay their own bill thank you very much!

The price was paid. Who benefitted?

Christ paid the price for all sin, including unbelief or else you wouldn't be saved because at some point in your life you commtted that particular sin yourself. You and I benefitted from Christ's sacrifice because we accepted the gift while those who are still unbelieving cannot and will not benefit from that same gift because they have not yet or they will not accept it, just as 1500 of the people in my illustration haven't signed the consent form.

M fav scripture at the moment that illustrates God waiting on His people to make the choice to belief is,

Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:


What a wonderfully illustrative scripture God has given us to display the simplicity of His plan.

 

Could someone give us an illustration of how a sacrifice in the Old Testament was "made" for all of God's people but "applied" only to certain ones?

 

Just off the top of my head:

How about Eli's sons? They were Jews for which sacrifices were made yearly yet God said:

I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before me for ever: but now Jehovah saith, Be it far from me; for them that honor me I will honor, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed. 1 Samuel 2:30

 

If the temporal sacrifices of the temple did not apply to the sons of Eli, they would not have lived into adulthood. They fell from their place and reaped the consequences of their sins. But if God's wrath against HIS PEOPLE had not been appeased, they would have never had a "place" to begin with.

 

And now that you have me started, what about Achon? Had sacrifices not been made for him, yet he disobeyed and cause the entire nation of innocent Isreal to suffer for his sin and even then God passed judgment on him as an individual even after confession had been made?

Why would God command the destruction of one of His elect after sacrifice and confession had been made? And not just Achon, but his entire family, including the animals?? The only possible answer is that Achon didn't believe and his disobedience was evidence of that, even though sacrifice had been made.

 

Did they loose their salvation? Does punishment for particular sins imply that someone is not saved? Or were they in fact saved from God's wrath through the atonement, but for particular sins, "many of them are sick, and some are asleep"? Remember, in the Jewish economy all Jews were members of the Mosaic Covenant.

 

Eli's sons were "priests unto Jehovah". In order to do their job they had all sorts of rituals to follow that were meant to bring them to a heart knowledge of God, but while they outwardly looked to be "good Jewish men" inwardly, in spite of all the rituals and sacrifices they offered, they were no better off than the pagans next door. The sacrifices were made for Isreal as a whole, but also for people as individuals, only none of it did any good. Despite being part of God's elect nation, Eli's sons were not saved and the blood of a thousand sheep couldn't wash away their sin because they didn't accept the word of God.

 

Loosing their salvation implies they were saved to begin with, which I don't believe was the case (though only God knows for sure).

The nation of Isreal was God's chosen people in general, but in specifics there were those who believed and those who totally missed the point. Eli's sons were in the second catagory just as Achon before the had been.

 

The Old Testament sacrifices were shadows of the real. They signified, or were "pictures", if you will, of the atonement to come. In the Mosaic Covenant, atonement was made for the people of Israel. No exception is made. Every Israelite was atoned for, period. The atonement appeased God's wrath against HIS PEOPLE.

In the New Testament, God's people are not identified with Moses, but with Christ, and are members of the New Covenant by circumcision of heart by the Spirit, not circumcision of flesh by Moses' commandment. Therefore, the atonement of Christ is MADE for and applied to HIS PEOPLE, all of them, without one exception.

Christians can fall from their calling or PLACE, but not from their salvation. In like manner, Achan and as you say, so many others in Israel, fell into sin and reaped the rewards of sin, but that in no way indicates that the temple atonement did not apply to them any more than a Christian falling into sin means that Christ's atonement does not apply to them.

Think about it - by your reckoning, if you fall into sin, it means that the atonement does not apply to you. But I dont' think that's what you really believe, do you?

 

How do you know that Achon (sp?) was not a believer? Do believers sin? Are they punished? Does the Bible say that Achan went to Hell?

 

Logging off, will try to reply tomorrow.

 

How do you know he was? The Bible doesn't give that specific. What the Bible does tell us is what would happen to such a one that breaks the Covenant God made with Isreal. In this case:

Jos 7:15 And it shall be, that he that is taken with the accursed thing shall be burnt with fire, he and all that he hath: because he hath transgressed the covenant of the LORD, and because he hath wrought folly in Israel.

A specific judgement for a specific man who didn't really believe God meant what he said. The general judgement had already befallen Isreal as a whole.

(spelling note: I'm dyslexic and often confuse "a" with "o". Thanks for the correction)

It seems I've missed one of your posts, this post is in response your post number 71. I'll respond to your post number 70 in my next post and then you'll have a lot of reading to do in the morning!

Have a good evening!

 

Jd's words are in black, Menageriekeeper's words are in red

 

This OT verse was given to a nation that was already typically redeemed.The OT was a breakable covenant.The blessings would come with obediance.the curses would come upon all covenant breakers.
We learn in Rom 9:6-8 that not all Israel was of Israel.
The curses spoken of in Deut 28-33 came upon Israel in MT20-24 by 70 ad.

 

I believe OT saint were looking foward to redemption, but redemption wasn't complete until the resurrection of Christ.

If as Romans says, all Israel was not of Israel, then not everyone was affected by the completion of Christ's sacrifice. (I think we agree on this?)

MT=Matthew? Then I agree. The cursings that concerned Israel as a nation came to a point of finality by AD 70, though I won't go so far as to say every single curse was by then fulfilled. Even so, as the OT is the foreshadowing of the NT, how God dealt with nation Israel is a foreshadowing of how He deals with us today, both as individuals and as the Bride of Christ. (we have it much better!)

 

Not liking the answers does not count as silence.

 

Here is an effort to answer

Puzzle solved by presenting scriptural rather than man-made doctrine.