John 10:15 and the Atonement

This is phony balony! You cannot limit God by your understanding of his word for anyone but yourself. God is way above your league.

 

Southern,

I understand. But a metaphor can be pressed too hard.

1 John 2:2, written by the same author of the gospel of John says something that is straigtforward. I don't want to dismiss that teaching out of hand.

The parallel of the snake on a pole in the OT is significant. Look to the snake and be healed. The snake on a stake clearly was for everyone, but only those who looked were healed.

In the same way, the death of Christ is for everyone, but only those who look to Christ are healed (Isa. 53:5-6). Only the sheep will look to Jesus, and in that sense he laid down his life for the sheep. Yes, there is a group who won't look to Jesus, and in that sense, he didn't lay down his life for them.

It's a metaphor, and it can be pressed too hard.

I really believe that if we could go back to Calvin's understanding of the atonement we could bridge the gap between Westminster Calvinists and evangelical Arminians.

 

No where in the Council of Dort is language used that implies that Jesus Christ died only for the elect. Jesus died for the sins of all humanity. But intercession was made only for the elect.

The Second Main Point of Doctrine
Christ's Death and Human Redemption Through Its
Article 1: The Punishment Which God's Justice Requires

God is not only supremely merciful, but also supremely just. His justice requires (as he has revealed himself in the Word) that the sins we have committed against his infinite majesty be punished with both temporal and eternal punishments, of soul as well as body. We cannot escape these punishments unless satisfaction is given to God's justice.

Article 2: The Satisfaction Made by Christ

Since, however, we ourselves cannot give this satisfaction or deliver ourselves from God's anger, God in his boundless mercy has given us as a guarantee his only begotten Son, who was made to be sin and a curse for us, in our place, on the cross, in order that he might give satisfaction for us.

Article 3: The Infinite Value of Christ's Death

This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.

Article 4: Reasons for This Infinite Value

This death is of such great value and worth for the reason that the person who suffered it is--as was necessary to be our Savior--not only a true and perfectly holy man, but also the only begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Another reason is that this death was accompanied by the experience of God's anger and curse, which we by our sins had fully deserved.

Article 5: The Mandate to Proclaim the Gospel to All

Moreover, it is the promise of the gospel that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be announced and declared without differentiation or discrimination to all nations and people, to whom God in his good pleasure sends the gospel.

Article 6: Unbelief Man's Responsibility

However, that many who have been called through the gospel do not repent or believe in Christ but perish in unbelief is not because the sacrifice of Christ offered on the cross is deficient or insufficient, but because they themselves are at fault.

Article 7: Faith God's Gift

But all who genuinely believe and are delivered and saved by Christ's death from their sins and from destruction receive this favor solely from God's grace--which he owes to no one--given to them in Christ from eternity.

Article 8: The Saving Effectiveness of Christ's Death

For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son's costly death should work itself out in all his chosen ones, in order that he might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation. In other words, it was God's will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father; that he should grant them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit's other saving gifts, he acquired for them by his death); that he should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins, both original and actual, whether committed before or after their coming to faith; that he should faithfully preserve them to the very end; and that he should finally present them to himself, a glorious people, without spot or wrinkle.

Article 9: The Fulfillment of God's Plan

This plan, arising out of God's eternal love for his chosen ones, from the beginning of the world to the present time has been powerfully carried out and will also be carried out in the future, the gates of hell seeking vainly to prevail against it. As a result the chosen are gathered into one, all in their own time, and there is always a church of believers founded on Christ's blood, a church which steadfastly loves, persistently worships, and--here and in all eternity--praises him as her Savior who laid down his life for her on the cross, as a bridegroom for his bride.

 

Southern,

We agree on alot of things.

Perhaps our disagreement here is only semantics. Perhaps not.

I agree fully with the Council of Dort. I believe that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. I believe that payment, however, is not credited by God the Father until Jesus makes interecession. Jesus makes interecession only for the sheep. In that sense, Jesus laid down his life for the sheep.

I don't disagree.

But I think there are other Scriptures that modulate John 10:15. I also think the Council of Dort allows for my understanding.

I cannot in good faith tell someone to look to the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross for their sins if I don't believe he died for everyone's sins. If he didn't, how could I direct someone who is doubting if they are the elect or not, to look to Jesus. What if they aren't the elect? They could draw no sense of assurance from looking to Jesus if they aren't the elect. I would be directing them to a false hope, namely that Jesus died for them, even though they weren't the elect.

Therefore, I believe with Calvin (and the Scripture writers) that Jesus died for the sin's of every person. The elect will look, the rest won't. Why does this view bother you so much?

Until you address this issue, we'll just be spinning our wheels.

 

Yes, and according to 1 John, we are commanded to believe in Jesus, thus not to believe is disobedience. Is sin disobedience? Yes. Is unbelief disobedient? Yes. Thus unbelief is sin. To say that unbelief is disobedience when one is commanded to believe then say that the sin is disobedience, not unbelief is (a) poor exegesis, and (b) a nonsequitar.

Amen, but nowhere does Scripture say that saving faith is from man alone. John 6:44 very clearly says man is not able to come to Jesus apart from the Father drawing him. John 1 says we are saved, not by the will of the flesh or the will of man. Saving faith is an act of the will. Not exercising saving faith is also an act of the will. It is not a morally neutral action. Ephesians 2:8 is a two clause grammatical construct. It is correct that the verse does not explicitly say that faith is the gift of God. However, the word "for" very clearly links the entire verse to the sentence beginning in 2:4. The word "that" is the second clause of v.8 has an antecedent. The antecedent is not a single word, it is the entire preceding clause, and that clause is linked to the sentence beginning in v.4, and the subject is God not man. Salvation is a gift from God's grace from beginning to end, including the faith to believe. It does not come from our own will from our own spiritual ability, or we have something about which to boast, otherwise you contradict v.9.

PURE SPECULATION NOT SUPPORTED IN SCRIPTURE, Wes. If it is true, then faith, all belief is not unsinful. You are saying the unbelief and belief are morally neutral. It also means that not believing in Jesus is not sinful. However, it must be sinful because it is disobedient not to believe according to 1 John. How can believing in Jesus not be sinful and disbelieving in Jesus be sinful is unbelief is not a sin? That's illogical.

You still haven't shown the Scripture that says it is NOT a sin. It is an assumption you are making without any exegetical evidence. I can be very concrete here, Wes. I have given you multiple Scriptures that say unbelief IS disobedience; unbelief and disobedience ARE THE SAME WORDS IN GREEK! However, just to satisfy you: The Greek word is "pistis".

Eph 2:8 -
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

There you go, that's the word in Eph. 2:8,.

Rom. 14:23b ,"whatever is not from faith is sin."

The verb form is pistueo. It is God's commandment that we believe (pistueo) in His Son. Not to have faith (pistis) in Jesus is sin, because whatever is not of faith (pistis) is sin. (Rom.14:23).

No, the first sin was when Eve disbelieved God's word and then she disobeyed. All sin is a form of idolatry, and all idolatry is built on disbelieving God. Unbelief is a sin. Scripture very clearly teaches it is, Wes. You are wrong to say it is not a sin, because Scripture says that WHATEVER is not of faith IS SIN. Even if you say that unbelief is just an attitude or a condition that it is still a sin, because WHATEVER is not of faith is sin, and by definition, the very attitude of unbelief is not of faith, unless you say whatever is not of faith is sin, except certain attitudes and conditions like unbelief, which contradicts the word "whatever."

[ November 08, 2004, 02:42 AM: Message edited by: GeneMBridges ]

 

Gene,

Calvin had no problem with double jeopardy.

He said that those who reject the death of Christ on their behalf were doubly culpable.

Romans and Genesis both speak of faith being credited to a person's account.

The payment has been made by Christ!

The sinner's account is credited by God when Jesus makes interecession. He makes intercession for those who have faith!

I think five-pointers are missing this one. Someone read the Council of Dort, which was a reaction to Arminius' followers, and show me where it says Jesus Christ died only for the elect.

After you can't find that, show me in Scripture where it says that Jesus "only" laid down his life for the elect.

When you can't find that verse, would someone please have the humility to say, "OK, it's not there."

The mistake is making the death of Christ the application of forgiveness, when Scripture makes the application the intercession of Christ.

Jesus is, after all, the great high priest. His sacrifice is for all sin. But the intercession before the Father in the Holy of Holies is only for the elect.

The sacrifice is universal.
The intercession is limited.

Where am I wrong?

 

First, God is logical. You end up with a nonsequitar to say that, because you have an ineffective actual atonement for unbelievers, and that is illogical. It also implicitly embraces a double standard, because it is effective and actual for us and not them. Too many logical fallacies in a God we know must be completely logical. Somewhere you end up either in the land of contradiction or the land of the double standard.

Second, you need to support the idea exegetically that God exacts penalty for sins twice. Personally, I'd love to find it, but if you do, then that's a real problem, because how can we be sure He won't do the same thing to us for our other sins if He's doing it for unbelief?

Third, I disagree with the assessment that Calvin did not affirm particular atonement and Kendall's assessment of him.

Take a look here: http://www.apuritansmind.com/Arminianism/NicoleRogerCalvinsLimitedAtonement.htm Note also the book Southern recommended.

Fifth: Exegetically, I do not find general atonement supported. I know, it should be first on the list, but, oh well, this is where I'm putting it tonight .

Sixth: I might be wrong, but I still say unbelief is a sin. No Scripture supports it. Neither does Scripture say that Jesus paid for all our sins, except unbelief. (This one is not meant for you, Don ).

Seventh: The only way I can justify general atonement is to say all a person's sins are paid for, including unbelief, so basically, we all have clean slates, including that sin, or else the atonement is not actual, and that God is the one that makes it effectual, and the only way around double jeopardy is to posit a new round of God's wrath on unbelievers, which is pure speculation. I don't find double jeopardy supported in Scripture.

Eighth: The way I read the Synod of Dort, it does not affirm general atonement. Article 8 under Christ's Death, et.al. specifically limits it to "His chosen ones...and them only."

Articles 3 and 4 do not contradict this. They speak of the infinite value of the atonement, which is correct and which we 5 pointers affirm. However, Article 8 limits the scope itself. It is infinite in value, as our sins are infinite transgressions to an infinite God and the One that suffered was Himself infinite. All the reasons in A.3 and 4 are correct. The power is infinite, the scope is limited, see. A.8.

[ November 08, 2004, 03:15 AM: Message edited by: GeneMBridges ]

 

Whew! Thanks! Because I do believe that unbelief is sin!

To convince me, Gene, you need to deal with the distinction between the sacrifice, which takes place outside the Holy of Holies, and the intercession of the priest, which takes place in the Holy of Holies.

Show me why there can be no distinctin between the sacrifice and the intercession.

The sacrifice is universal and actual! It was in fact a sacrifice for all sin, including disbelief.

But until the sacrifice is credited to you by God through faith because of the high priest's intercession on your behalf, your sins remain unpardoned! Where am I wrong in saying this? And why is this illogical? I don't think it is. I humbly submit to correction if I am.

I agree with #8. I also see how both interpretations could be drawn from #8. I think they purposely worded it this way, because I think Calvinists were debating just this point back in the 1600s.

 

Hi Gene;

I think your view of what is logical doesn't necessarily match that of GOD
1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

I believe that Calvinism is illogical and contradictory, Namely to claim that predestination and election insures your Salvation. If God's plan is written in stone don't you think He sill has control over that stone. To assume otherwise is an insult to His Sovereignty as it is taught by Calvinism. While it is true that God never changes this doesn't mean that He cannot change his plans and does.
All the seed of Isaac made up the elect of God's chosen people. If that election was to assure there Salvation then the Jews wouldn't have been able to reject Christ.

Joh 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

Clear proof of God changing His mind about some of His own.
May God give you light;
Mike

 

Mike,

I'm sorry, but I can't even follow what you say most of the time.

And what I am able to follow is often contradictory to the very Word of God.

The evidence of Scripture concerning the elect has been presented so well that your last statements deserve no rebuttal.

 

Hi Paul33;

I'm disappopinted to read this from you. It is strange that, for the most part you allowed me to think you understood what I wrote. since you have certainly been able to respond to what I writen so far. You're the first to ever tell me this. I suggest you just ignore what I write.
May God Bless You With Light;
Mike

 

I think your view of what is logical doesn't necessarily match that of GOD
1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

I believe that Calvinism is illogical and contradictory, Namely to claim that predestination and election insures your Salvation. If God's plan is written in stone don't you think He sill has control over that stone. To assume otherwise is an insult to His Sovereignty as it is taught by Calvinism. While it is true that God never changes this doesn't mean that He cannot change his plans and does.
All the seed of Isaac made up the elect of God's chosen people. If that election was to assure there Salvation then the Jews wouldn't have been able to reject Christ.

Joh 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

Clear proof of God changing His mind about some of His own.
May God give you light;
Mike </font>[/QUOTE]First, we reason. God reasons. We can not do anything that God Himself can not do, because no creator can give anything to his creation that he himself does not possess. Logic is the process of sound reasoning. We reason using logic, thus we can know God does as well. God is perfect; He also uses logic; therefore He is perfectly logical. He requires faith of us, therefore our faith is also a logical faith. If we embrace logical contradictions, we show we are not being logical, and we need to reevaluate our faith. Logic exists as a necessary concomitant of God's existence. There is such a thing as the law of noncontradiction. Truth does not contradict itself. I have shown multiple times how many logical contradictions one must embrace in order to embrace Arminianism. Furthermore, by saying you think Calvinism is illogical, you display a manifest lack of understanding of the material, because one of the things that critics of Calvinism do agree upon is that it is LOGICAL.

Joh 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

Yes, He created humanity and humanity, which lives in darkness by nature is in unbelief, universally rejected Him. He came to His own,and they did not receive Him. Likewise, He came to the Jews, and they all rejected Him. There is nothing here supporting your position.

If you think Calvinism is illogical, then start a thread on it, and show us step by step how that is true. This thread is about the atonement.

 

Don, exegetically, did the OT sacrifices apply to the Gentiles as well as the Jews? Did it apply to the people of God (Israel) or to the nations as well?

There need be no distinction btw. the intercession and the sacrifice. Christ intercedes for those for whom the sacrifice is made, just as the high priest made intercession for those for whom that sacrifice was made. Did he (the high priest) make sacrifice and intercession for everybody in the world? Did he make sacrifice and intercession for the people of God only?

 

That is an imposed distinction that does not work in the Gospel.

It is like saying "Oh - well since you say that Christ died for you then that means you don't think He died for me!". Such an imposed meaning can never be made with the Gospel. Yet you seek to do so simply because Calvinism "needs" it.

IT is quite clear that IF the superset is the "WHOLE WORLD" as Christ tells us in 1John 2:2 then the subset "OUR SINS" or "MY SHEEP" as in the case of John 10 IS INCLUDED in the superset scope already set in 1John 2:2 and in 1John 4 and in John 3:16 and in John 1:1-10 and in ...

You know - the Bible.

The text does "not" say "I have only died for my sheep and no one else" but "Cavlinism needs it" so you gladly insert it.

But it makes no sense when combined with the rest of scripture on this point.

So your attempt to prop up Calvinism fails before it gets started.

Wrong again. This is another bait and switch tactic needed by Calvinism. There is no question but that in the great 1John 2:2 superset "The whole world" there is also the subset "my sheep". And obviously the fact that Christ is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the superset "Whole World" will obviously show that he is also the one who dies for the subset WITHIN that great superset "my sheep".

Arminians do NOT need to ignore this obvious fact. Quite to the contrary - arminianism relies on it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

Calvinism does not require a limited sacrifice for the elect only.

I spent today reading Calvin's commentaries on the relevant verses. I am convinced that John Calvin believed that Jesus died for the sins of the world, but that the payment for sin accomplished by Jesus on the cross is not applied to the elect until Christ intercedes on their behalf on account of faith.

The sacrifice is universal in that Christ paid the penalty for every person's sin. The benefits of the sacrifice are available to all, because he really did pay the penalty for sin.

The intercession is particular in that God credits that payment only to those who have faith, as Christ intercedes on their behalf at the Father's right hand.

Forgiveness doesn't take place until Christ intercedes. If it took place before then, then the elect would be forgiven whether they had faith or not.

Christ did pay the penalty for sin, but the application of that payment doesn't take place until a person believes and Christ intercedes at the Father's right hand.

 

If John Calvin were alive today, he would be a 4 point Calvinist!

I don't mean to rile anyone up. But I've read his commentaries, and Calvin made a distinction between the sacrifice which makes salvation available to all, and the intercession, which applies the benefits of the sacrifice to the elect.

 

You sound like a 3 PT Calvinist.

I have to admit that my approach is specifically directed to 4 and 5 pt Calvinists.

The distinction you make above - is the distinction between the atoning sacrifice - (paid for all) and the completed process of atonement (as seen in Lev 16 and in Heb 8-10) that could not be complete without the specific individual high priestly work of Christ in the Heavenly sanctuary - done on an individual by individual basis.

So I agree.

 

Hi Bob,

It's nice to have someone say they agree with me for a change!

"Forgiveness doesn't take place until Christ intercedes. If it took place before then, then the elect would be forgiven whether they had faith or not."

What I was referencing was the idea that the sacrifice itself applies the forgiveness. If that were true, no one would need to repent and believe because the sacrifice is automatically applied.

What I mean is this. When a person believes, Christ intercedes and we are justified.

I believe Christ intercedes for all saints, both OT and NT, on the basis of faith.

Thanks again, Bob.