Partial LA?

[His clay]

@Carbon stated,
"Limited atonement. Christ died to redeem only those the Father gave him. His sheep, the elect chosen in the COD."

Joshed asked earlier in the thread,

Thanks, but what does a partial-LA look like?

With the prior two statements in place, the goal of this thread is to state why I hold to a .5 when dealing with limited atonement. What exactly does it look like?

PSA's Relevance
I stated the following for a very important reason. "Again, I fully hold to penal substitutionary atonement. Jesus died in my place to satisfy the just demands of God's wrath against sin." The relevance of this statement deserves further elaboration. The double jeopardy argument is that if God dealt with all people's sin on the cross, then for what reason are the unbelieving in hell? Are the paying for their sin a second time?

Sometimes the non-C will respond that they are not paying for their sin in hell; rather, they are paying for their unbelief. The response is "Is unbelief sin?" Jesus certainly seems to think that unbelief is a sin, and if all sin is paid for on the cross, then it seems that unbelief is paid for on the cross. So again, for what reason is the unbeliever in hell? The wages of sin is death, as scripture declares. Are the unbelieving paying for their sins a second time, even though Jesus was their perfect substitute on the cross?

This leads some, who hold to the unlimited atonement position, to jettison PSA. Several of us who used to post at CARM remember a very long discussion over this very issue.

Some, try to push the issue of a believer's acceptance or rejection (by believing or not believing) of the atonement as being ultimately determinative of their reception of the atonement's benefits. But this view suffers from making the atonement hypothetical. Jesus' statement, "It is finished," only applies to a hypothetical sacrifice that only becomes actual when the person believes. This seems highly problematic and overly biased by an obvious libertarian understanding of faith and personal acceptance (note the ability to do otherwise when framing the issue as "believing or not believing").

In short, because I hold to PSA, I see myself as holding to a key piece of the biblical position, but it also has a strong element within it that lends significant weight toward the Calvinistic position. For if Christ was an actual substitute (and not a hypothetical one), then this lends weight toward the atonement being limited in scope to the elect (or one then faces the double jeopardy objection). Of course, the assumption of universalism is unbiblical.

My main struggle
Passages indicating a universal scope, like 1 Jn2, give me significant pause. Yes, I'm well aware of the "all without exception" and "all without distinction" discussion. I've seen the issue debated many times, and most likely I'll see it again. My main struggle is being a fence sitter. Both views seem very plausible to me, and I'm not persuaded fully either way. And herein is my -.5

Uneasy tension
Holding to PSA and fence sitting on the atonement's scope creates an uneasy tension for me. I definitely feel the weight of the double jeopardy objection, but it feels too rationalistic to be fully persuasive to me. I could probably explain the issue better, and I hope to learn from other posters. I'll leave the issue as stated. I'm out of time to explain my views any further.

 

[Carbon]

@Carbon stated,
"Limited atonement. Christ died to redeem only those the Father gave him. His sheep, the elect chosen in the COD."

Joshed asked earlier in the thread,


With the prior two statements in place, the goal of this thread is to state why I hold to a .5 when dealing with limited atonement. What exactly does it look like?

PSA's Relevance
I stated the following for a very important reason. "Again, I fully hold to penal substitutionary atonement. Jesus died in my place to satisfy the just demands of God's wrath against sin." The relevance of this statement deserves further elaboration. The double jeopardy argument is that if God deal with all people's sin on the cross, then for what reason are the unbelieving in hell? Are the paying for their sin a second time?

Sometimes the non-C will respond that they are not paying for their sin in hell; rather, they are paying for their unbelief. The response is "Is unbelief sin?" Jesus certainly seems to think that unbelief is a sin, and if all sin is paid for on the cross, then it seems that unbelief is paid for on the cross. So again, for what reason is the unbeliever in hell? The wages of sin is death, as scripture declares. Are the unbelieving paying for their sins a second time, even though Jesus was their perfect substitute on the cross?

This leads some, who hold to the unlimited atonement position, to jettison PSA. Several of us who used to post at CARM remember a very long discussion over this very issue.

Some, try to push the issue of a believer's acceptance or rejection (by believing or not believing) of the atonement as being ultimately determinative of their reception of the atonement's benefits. But this view suffers from making the atonement hypothetical. Jesus' statement, "It is finished," only applies to a hypothetical sacrifice that only becomes actual when the person believes. This seems highly problematic and overly biased by an obvious libertarian understanding of faith and personal acceptance (note the ability to do otherwise when framing the issue as "believing or not believing").

In short, because I hold to PSA, I see myself as holding to a key piece of the biblical position, but it also has a strong element within it that lends significant weight toward the Calvinistic position. For if Christ was an actual substitute (and not a hypothetical one), then this lends weight toward the atonement being limited in scope to the elect (or one then faces the double jeopardy objection). Of course, the assumption of universalism is unbiblical.

My main struggle
Passages indicating a universal scope, like 1 Jn2, give me significant pause. Yes, I'm well aware of the "all without exception" and "all without distinction" discussion. I've seen the issue debated many times, and most likely I'll see it again. My main struggle is being a fence sitter. Both views seem very plausible to me, and I'm not persuaded fully either way. And herein is my -.5

Uneasy tension
Holding to PSA and fence sitting on the atonement's scope creates an uneasy tension for me. I definitely feel the weight of the double jeopardy objection, but it feels too rationalistic to be fully persuasive to me. I could probably explain the issue better, and I hope to learn from other posters. I'll leave the issue as stated. I'm out of time to explain my views any further.

This has the potential to be an excellent discussion. I have to run out, I'll be back in a bit.

 

[Carbon]

@Carbon stated,
"Limited atonement. Christ died to redeem only those the Father gave him. His sheep, the elect chosen in the COD."

Joshed asked earlier in the thread,


With the prior two statements in place, the goal of this thread is to state why I hold to a .5 when dealing with limited atonement. What exactly does it look like?

PSA's Relevance
I stated the following for a very important reason. "Again, I fully hold to penal substitutionary atonement. Jesus died in my place to satisfy the just demands of God's wrath against sin." The relevance of this statement deserves further elaboration. The double jeopardy argument is that if God dealt with all people's sin on the cross, then for what reason are the unbelieving in hell? Are the paying for their sin a second time?

Right. If Christ did make atonement for all of Adam's posterity, and all were redeemed, none would ever be in hell. Just by the simple fact, there will be those who are in hell proves a limited atonement.

Sometimes the non-C will respond that they are not paying for their sin in hell; rather, they are paying for their unbelief. The response is "Is unbelief sin?" Jesus certainly seems to think that unbelief is a sin, and if all sin is paid for on the cross, then it seems that unbelief is paid for on the cross. So again, for what reason is the unbeliever in hell? The wages of sin is death, as scripture declares. Are the unbelieving paying for their sins a second time, even though Jesus was their perfect substitute on the cross?

Right. That would almost say the Covenant of grace was between the Father and man. But after death, they are given another chance. But scripture teaches it was between the Father and the Son. And Jesus said it is finished.

This leads some, who hold to the unlimited atonement position, to jettison PSA. Several of us who used to post at CARM remember a very long discussion over this very issue.

Oh yes.

 

[Carbon]

Some, try to push the issue of a believer's acceptance or rejection (by believing or not believing) of the atonement as being ultimately determinative of their reception of the atonement's benefits. But this view suffers from making the atonement hypothetical. Jesus' statement, "It is finished," only applies to a hypothetical sacrifice that only becomes actual when the person believes. This seems highly problematic and overly biased by an obvious libertarian understanding of faith and personal acceptance (note the ability to do otherwise when framing the issue as "believing or not believing").

In short, because I hold to PSA, I see myself as holding to a key piece of the biblical position, but it also has a strong element within it that lends significant weight toward the Calvinistic position. For if Christ was an actual substitute (and not a hypothetical one), then this lends weight toward the atonement being limited in scope to the elect (or one then faces the double jeopardy objection). Of course, the assumption of universalism is unbiblical.

My main struggle
Passages indicating a universal scope, like 1 Jn2, give me significant pause. Yes, I'm well aware of the "all without exception" and "all without distinction" discussion. I've seen the issue debated many times, and most likely I'll see it again. My main struggle is being a fence sitter. Both views seem very plausible to me, and I'm not persuaded fully either way. And herein is my -.5

I know you have heard these arguments before but,
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. 1 John 1:1-2.

The atoning sacrifice removed our (the elect) sins, he took God's wrath in our place. God's anger is appeased toward his sheep.

Seeing John is writing to believers (My little children) knowing they are sanctified in Christ, even so, they can and will sin and since Christ was in our stead as we confess our sins we are forgiven. That's a blessed assurance. And how much more knowing that all the elect from the world. Until the end of the age. 1 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance.

Uneasy tension
Holding to PSA and fence sitting on the atonement's scope creates an uneasy tension for me.

I would think so.

I definitely feel the weight of the double jeopardy objection, but it feels too rationalistic to be fully persuasive to me. I could probably explain the issue better, and I hope to learn from other posters. I'll leave the issue as stated. I'm out of time to explain my views any further.

Like I said, I'm sure you have heard the debate before. The more I think about it the more clear it becomes. I'm interested to hear other replies.

 

[Carbon]

@Carbon stated,
"Limited atonement. Christ died to redeem only those the Father gave him. His sheep, the elect chosen in the COD."

As @Josheb stated earlier I'll take this up with you in @His clay's new op but redemption and atonement are not identical.

I understand Redemption as, The purchase of God's favor by the death and sufferings of Christ; the ransom or deliverance of sinners from the bondage of sin, and the penalties of God's violated law by the atonement of Christ. In whom we have redemption through his blood.
Eph 1:7
&
Col 1:14.

Atonement
The expiation of sin made by the obedience and personal sufferings of Christ.

I hope we are on the same channel with these @Josheb ?

 

[Arial]

My main struggle
Passages indicating a universal scope, like 1 Jn2, give me significant pause. Yes, I'm well aware of the "all without exception" and "all without distinction" discussion. I've seen the issue debated many times, and most likely I'll see it again. My main struggle is being a fence sitter. Both views seem very plausible to me, and I'm not persuaded fully either way. And herein is my -.5

I don't think of 1 John 2 meaning all sin including unbelief, for all in Adam is paid for on the cross as plausible, for the simple reason that it can't be since a great many go to hell. Jesus either paid a sin debt or He did not. And if He did not, it could only be because He did not intend to. The atonement is is not limited in scope---it goes to all the world, and could have paid for all sins----it is limited to its intent. To save those who the Father is giving to the Son. That being said, I see how a person could be confused by the statement in 1 John. But we know what did happen and is still happening today. Some inherit the kingdom, some go into hell and pay the sin debt themselves.

Uneasy tension
Holding to PSA and fence sitting on the atonement's scope creates an uneasy tension for me. I definitely feel the weight of the double jeopardy objection, but it feels too rationalistic to be fully persuasive to me. I could probably explain the issue better, and I hope to learn from other posters. I'll leave the issue as stated. I'm out of time to explain my views any further.

I agree with @Carbon . Ouch!! The rationality in the it the "distinction"/"exception" (if that is what you mean. I am not sure if that is what you refer to there or the double jeopardy argument) is rational according to the information we are given in the scriptures. IMO there is nothing raitional is saying Jesus died so that sin and unbelief cannot condemn a person and then have the majority of persons condemned for their sin and unbelief. So something else has to be true.

 

[Carbon]

The atonement is is not limited in scope---it goes to all the world, and could have paid for all sins----it is limited to its intent.
To save those who the Father is giving to the Son. That being said, I see how a person could be confused by the statement in 1 John. But we know what did happen and is still happening today. Some inherit the kingdom, some go into hell and pay the sin debt themselves.

When you say it goes to the whole world; you mean as the whole world has the elect?
and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. 1 John 2:2.
Since John is speaking to believers and uses the words "for our sins", how could it mean anything but the elect? So, the atonement must be limited to the elect alone. If not then the sins of all Adam's posterity has been expiated. But, we know that's not true.

 

[Carbon]

@Carbon stated,
"Limited atonement. Christ died to redeem only those the Father gave him. His sheep, the elect chosen in the COD."

Joshed asked earlier in the thread,


With the prior two statements in place, the goal of this thread is to state why I hold to a .5 when dealing with limited atonement. What exactly does it look like?

PSA's Relevance
I stated the following for a very important reason. "Again, I fully hold to penal substitutionary atonement. Jesus died in my place to satisfy the just demands of God's wrath against sin." The relevance of this statement deserves further elaboration. The double jeopardy argument is that if God dealt with all people's sin on the cross, then for what reason are the unbelieving in hell? Are the paying for their sin a second time?

Sometimes the non-C will respond that they are not paying for their sin in hell; rather, they are paying for their unbelief. The response is "Is unbelief sin?" Jesus certainly seems to think that unbelief is a sin, and if all sin is paid for on the cross, then it seems that unbelief is paid for on the cross. So again, for what reason is the unbeliever in hell? The wages of sin is death, as scripture declares. Are the unbelieving paying for their sins a second time, even though Jesus was their perfect substitute on the cross?

This leads some, who hold to the unlimited atonement position, to jettison PSA. Several of us who used to post at CARM remember a very long discussion over this very issue.

Some, try to push the issue of a believer's acceptance or rejection (by believing or not believing) of the atonement as being ultimately determinative of their reception of the atonement's benefits. But this view suffers from making the atonement hypothetical. Jesus' statement, "It is finished," only applies to a hypothetical sacrifice that only becomes actual when the person believes. This seems highly problematic and overly biased by an obvious libertarian understanding of faith and personal acceptance (note the ability to do otherwise when framing the issue as "believing or not believing").

In short, because I hold to PSA, I see myself as holding to a key piece of the biblical position, but it also has a strong element within it that lends significant weight toward the Calvinistic position. For if Christ was an actual substitute (and not a hypothetical one), then this lends weight toward the atonement being limited in scope to the elect (or one then faces the double jeopardy objection). Of course, the assumption of universalism is unbiblical.

My main struggle
Passages indicating a universal scope, like 1 Jn2, give me significant pause. Yes, I'm well aware of the "all without exception" and "all without distinction" discussion. I've seen the issue debated many times, and most likely I'll see it again. My main struggle is being a fence sitter. Both views seem very plausible to me, and I'm not persuaded fully either way. And herein is my -.5

Uneasy tension
Holding to PSA and fence sitting on the atonement's scope creates an uneasy tension for me. I definitely feel the weight of the double jeopardy objection, but it feels too rationalistic to be fully persuasive to me. I could probably explain the issue better, and I hope to learn from other posters. I'll leave the issue as stated. I'm out of time to explain my views any further.

Hello,

I have a question.

How can one not believe in Limited atonement, and it not affect the rest of TULIP?

Take, for example, Total Depravity.

How could Total Depravity stand, but not Limited atonement?

Dosent limited atonement strengthen, clarify, and define Total depravity? And visa versa?

How can one believe in Total Depravity and disagree with Limited Atonement?

If all are not Totally depraved, then there is no limit to the atonement.

 

[Arial]

When you say it goes to the whole world; you mean as the whole world has the elect?
and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. 1 John 2:2.
Since John is speaking to believers and uses the words "for our sins", how could it mean anything but the elect? So, the atonement must be limited to the elect alone. If not then the sins of all Adam's posterity has been expiated. But, we know that's not true.

The whole world as in all nations and types of people. Not just Israel, and not just those he was writing to, but believers everywhere.

 

[Carbon]

The whole world as in all nations and types of people. Not just Israel, and not just those he was writing to, but believers everywhere.

Amen!
That's what I thought but had to be sure.

 

[Arial]

Hello,

I have a question.

How can one not believe in Limited atonement, and it not affect the rest of TULIP?

Take, for example, Total Depravity.

How could Total Depravity stand, but not Limited atonement?

Dosent limited atonement strengthen, clarify, and define Total depravity? And visa versa?

How can one believe in Total Depravity and disagree with Limited Atonement?

If all are not Totally depraved, then there is no limit to the atonement.

I agree. If there is total depravity, then for any to be saved and not have that salvation based on any merits or demerits in the person, there must be unconditional election.

And if there is unconditional election the the atonement is limited in its intent.

And if there are these three there must be a grace that accomplishes its purpose.

And if you have all of these it stands as a necessity that those elected, brought to Christ and given to Him by grace, and for whom He paid the penalty and became the satisfaction to God, will be preserved in perseverance.

 

[Carbon]

I agree. If there is total depravity, then for any to be saved and not have that salvation based on any merits or demerits in the person, there must be unconditional election.

And if there is unconditional election the the atonement is limited in its intent.

And if there are these three there must be a grace that accomplishes its purpose.

And if you have all of these it stands as a necessity that those elected, brought to Christ and given to Him by grace, and for whom He paid the penalty and became the satisfaction to God, will be preserved in perseverance.

Amen. And then we have irresistible grace. If people are totally depraved, we have to be saved by grace, and this grace must be irresistible. If we are not saved by grace there would be no salvation because man is totally depraved. And since there is irresistible grace, there must be a total depravity and limited atonement. Otherwise, what would be the sense of irresistible grace? If the atonement wasnt limited, but unlimited, we wouldn't need irresistible grace, all would be wooded onward to where they can decide on their own. Which wouldn't be grace at all.

 

[Carbon]

Amen. And then we have irresistible grace. If people are totally depraved, we have to be saved by grace, and this grace must be irresistible. If we are not saved by grace there would be no salvation because man it totally depraved. And since there is irresistible grace, there must be a total depravity and limited atonement. Otherwise, what would be the sense of irresistible grace? If the atonement wasnt limited, but unlimited, we wouldn't need irresistible grace, all would be wooded onward to where they can decide on their own. Which wouldn't be grace at all.

All saving things are said to be communicated to us in Christ, Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ Eph 1:3.
5 He predestined us to adoption as sons and daughters through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will
11 In Him we also have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things in accordance with the plan of His will,

If the redemption of Christ were not certain (or definite), but was uncertain about the outcome, Christ would of gone about it without any certainty whether anyone would be saved by it or not, and all the fruit of this mystery would depend on man's free will.

 

[His clay]

Thanks for your thoughts everyone. I've read everything written thus far.
@Arial @Carbon

 

[His clay]

I don't think of 1 John 2 meaning all sin including unbelief, for all in Adam is paid for on the cross as plausible, for the simple reason that it can't be since a great many go to hell. Jesus either paid a sin debt or He did not. And if He did not, it could only be because He did not intend to. The atonement is is not limited in scope---it goes to all the world, and could have paid for all sins----it is limited to its intent. To save those who the Father is giving to the Son. That being said, I see how a person could be confused by the statement in 1 John. But we know what did happen and is still happening today. Some inherit the kingdom, some go into hell and pay the sin debt themselves.

I agree with @Carbon . Ouch!! The rationality in the it the "distinction"/"exception" (if that is what you mean. I am not sure if that is what you refer to there or the double jeopardy argument) is rational according to the information we are given in the scriptures. IMO there is nothing raitional is saying Jesus died so that sin and unbelief cannot condemn a person and then have the majority of persons condemned for their sin and unbelief. So something else has to be true.

PSA + Double jeopardy + fence sitting on scope = tension (cognitive dissonance as some call it)

 

[Josheb]

I understand Redemption as, The purchase of God's favor by the death and sufferings of Christ; the ransom or deliverance of sinners from the bondage of sin, and the penalties of God's violated law by the atonement of Christ. In whom we have redemption through his blood.
Eph 1:7
&
Col 1:14.

Atonement
The expiation of sin made by the obedience and personal sufferings of Christ.

I hope we are on the same channel with these @Josheb ?

Just arrived. Haven't read through the thread yet. Got here via this post's mention of my handle so let me comment on this and I'll address the thread when I've gone through it.

Redemption: buy back

Atonement: restore what was lost, damaged, or make reparation.

There are significant differences with a small overlap. Even though there is an overlap the two should not be treated synonymously, or as identical terms. Christ purchased us. Think of it like something you take to a pawn store and sell. The pawnshop buyer gives you money for the item. He gets the item; it is now his. You leave the store with money (or barter) which is then yours. An exchange has been made that would normally be permanent except for the fact you also received a ticket empowering you to buy back, or redeem the item you sold. Another example, less analogous but worth noting, is when we take food stamps in to purchase food. The stamp is worth nothing unless and until it is exchanged for the more valuable item. Another analogy that is a better analogy is the example where I damage something of yours and it causes you damage beyond the ordinary value of the item itself. Say you have a vintage car. Since the car is old its face value is very low, but because it is a vintage car the market value may be significantly more than its face value (I once owned a 1969 Indy pace car for which I paid $800 but today a mint condition Indy is worth more than $250k!). However, if the vintage car has sentimental value for you that cannot be measured by the market and I steal your car and wreck it my paying you the face value definitely would not atone for its value to you, and neither would my paying the higher market value.

Buying back a car I sold to a pawnbroker is redemption.

Repaying you for the value of a car and all the additional damage I may have caused is atonement.

We were sold into slavery of sin. In addition to the symbolic significance of all the verses about slaves and slavery in the Bible think of,

Romans 7:14
For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin.

We needed to be bought back. That's what God did when he had His Son sacrificed. We were purchased.

1 Corinthians 6:15-20
Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? .........Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore, glorify God in your body.

1 Peter 1:17-19
If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth; knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.

Bought, bought with a price. Jesus bought us back. That does not cover all the damage, though, because while our disobedience separated us from God the ensuing sin and death (dead in transgression/sin) had an ongoing corrupting, rotting effect on each and every one of us (and humanity as a whole. When Adam disobeyed God, God did no lose only one man; He lost all humanity! That is one of the reasons no one person could ever repay God all that He had lost. A sinless man might redeem and atone for himself, but no finite human can provide God an entire population of an entire species made in His image. The logos of God that is God by whom, for whom, and through whom all in Christ are made could, though. Buying back a dead corpse does not bring back to God what He lost. This is why all of the Ordo Salutis is predicated on regeneration. Life must be given where only death exists and the damage repaired to the rotted corpse now made alive. That is atonement. The blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin (or its effects).

Let me pause for a moment to make an observation we may or may not all know, and if known may not have been considered on this page (since I haven't read the whole thread). The word "atonement" is nowhere found in the Hebrew or the Greek, and although the word can be found in the Old Testament, it is nowhere found in the New . Look and see (I'll wait ). The English term is first used in Exodus 29:33, where the Hebrew word is "kaphar" which simply means "cover". The more theologically accurate term would be propitiation, which means appease. The English word comes from at-one-ment, the idea being that of reconciliation, joining, and becoming one. That was not in the Old Testament, old covenant mindset. These are entirely New Testament set of concepts.

My regrets; I have to leave. I'll return to elaborate more when I have time, but anyone can examine the New Testament for the many verses about restoring, repairing, making new, and reparations made to God. These go on top of the purchase.

 

[Carbon]

Just arrived. Haven't read through the thread yet. Got here via this post's mention of my handle so let me comment on this and I'll address the thread when I've gone through it.

Redemption: buy back

Atonement: restore what was lost, damaged, or make reparation.

There are significant differences with a small overlap. Even though there is an overlap the two should not be treated synonymously, or as identical terms. Christ purchased us. Think of it like something you take to a pawn store and sell. The pawnshop buyer gives you money for the item. He gets the item; it is now his. You leave the store with money (or barter) which is then yours. An exchange has been made that would normally be permanent except for the fact you also received a ticket empowering you to buy back, or redeem the item you sold. Another example, less analogous but worth noting, is when we take food stamps in to purchase food. The stamp is worth nothing unless and until it is exchanged for the more valuable item. Another analogy that is a better analogy is the example where I damage something of yours and it causes you damage beyond the ordinary value of the item itself. Say you have a vintage car. Since the car is old its face value is very low, but because it is a vintage car the market value may be significantly more than its face value (I once owned a 1969 Indy pace car for which I paid $800 but today a mint condition Indy is worth more than $250k!). However, if the vintage car has sentimental value for you that cannot be measured by the market and I steal your car and wreck it my paying you the face value definitely would not atone for its value to you, and neither would my paying the higher market value.

Buying back a car I sold to a pawnbroker is redemption.

Repaying you for the value of a car and all the additional damage I may have caused is atonement.

We were sold into slavery of sin. In addition to the symbolic significance of all the verses about slaves and slavery in the Bible think of,

Romans 7:14
For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin.

We needed to be bought back. That's what God did when he had His Son sacrificed. We were purchased.

1 Corinthians 6:15-20
Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? .........Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore, glorify God in your body.

1 Peter 1:17-19
If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth; knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.

Bought, bought with a price. Jesus bought us back. That does not cover all the damage, though, because while our disobedience separated us from God the ensuing sin and death (dead in transgression/sin) had an ongoing corrupting, rotting effect on each and every one of us (and humanity as a whole. When Adam disobeyed God, God did no lose only one man; He lost all humanity! That is one of the reasons no one person could ever repay God all that He had lost. A sinless man might redeem and atone for himself, but no finite human can provide God an entire population of an entire species made in His image. The logos of God that is God by whom, for whom, and through whom all in Christ are made could, though. Buying back a dead corpse does not bring back to God what He lost. This is why all of the Ordo Salutis is predicated on regeneration. Life must be given where only death exists and the damage repaired to the rotted corpse now made alive. That is atonement. The blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin (or its effects).

Let me pause for a moment to make an observation we may or may not all know, and if known may not have been considered on this page (since I haven't read the whole thread). The word "atonement" is nowhere found in the Hebrew or the Greek, and although the word can be found in the Old Testament, it is nowhere found in the New . Look and see (I'll wait ). The English term is first used in Exodus 29:33, where the Hebrew word is "kaphar" which simply means "cover". The more theologically accurate term would be propitiation, which means appease. The English word comes from at-one-ment, the idea being that of reconciliation, joining, and becoming one. That was not in the Old Testament, old covenant mindset. These are entirely New Testament set of concepts.

My regrets; I have to leave. I'll return to elaborate more when I have time, but anyone can examine the New Testament for the many verses about restoring, repairing, making new, and reparations made to God. These go on top of the purchase.

Thanks

 

[His clay]

Just arrived. Haven't read through the thread yet. Got here via this post's mention of my handle so let me comment on this and I'll address the thread when I've gone through it.

Redemption: buy back

Atonement: restore what was lost, damaged, or make reparation.

There are significant differences with a small overlap. Even though there is an overlap the two should not be treated synonymously, or as identical terms. Christ purchased us. Think of it like something you take to a pawn store and sell. The pawnshop buyer gives you money for the item. He gets the item; it is now his. You leave the store with money (or barter) which is then yours. An exchange has been made that would normally be permanent except for the fact you also received a ticket empowering you to buy back, or redeem the item you sold. Another example, less analogous but worth noting, is when we take food stamps in to purchase food. The stamp is worth nothing unless and until it is exchanged for the more valuable item. Another analogy that is a better analogy is the example where I damage something of yours and it causes you damage beyond the ordinary value of the item itself. Say you have a vintage car. Since the car is old its face value is very low, but because it is a vintage car the market value may be significantly more than its face value (I once owned a 1969 Indy pace car for which I paid $800 but today a mint condition Indy is worth more than $250k!). However, if the vintage car has sentimental value for you that cannot be measured by the market and I steal your car and wreck it my paying you the face value definitely would not atone for its value to you, and neither would my paying the higher market value.

Buying back a car I sold to a pawnbroker is redemption.

Repaying you for the value of a car and all the additional damage I may have caused is atonement.

We were sold into slavery of sin. In addition to the symbolic significance of all the verses about slaves and slavery in the Bible think of,

Romans 7:14
For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin.

We needed to be bought back. That's what God did when he had His Son sacrificed. We were purchased.

1 Corinthians 6:15-20
Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? .........Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore, glorify God in your body.

1 Peter 1:17-19
If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth; knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.

Bought, bought with a price. Jesus bought us back. That does not cover all the damage, though, because while our disobedience separated us from God the ensuing sin and death (dead in transgression/sin) had an ongoing corrupting, rotting effect on each and every one of us (and humanity as a whole. When Adam disobeyed God, God did no lose only one man; He lost all humanity! That is one of the reasons no one person could ever repay God all that He had lost. A sinless man might redeem and atone for himself, but no finite human can provide God an entire population of an entire species made in His image. The logos of God that is God by whom, for whom, and through whom all in Christ are made could, though. Buying back a dead corpse does not bring back to God what He lost. This is why all of the Ordo Salutis is predicated on regeneration. Life must be given where only death exists and the damage repaired to the rotted corpse now made alive. That is atonement. The blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin (or its effects).

Let me pause for a moment to make an observation we may or may not all know, and if known may not have been considered on this page (since I haven't read the whole thread). The word "atonement" is nowhere found in the Hebrew or the Greek, and although the word can be found in the Old Testament, it is nowhere found in the New . Look and see (I'll wait ). The English term is first used in Exodus 29:33, where the Hebrew word is "kaphar" which simply means "cover". The more theologically accurate term would be propitiation, which means appease. The English word comes from at-one-ment, the idea being that of reconciliation, joining, and becoming one. That was not in the Old Testament, old covenant mindset. These are entirely New Testament set of concepts.

My regrets; I have to leave. I'll return to elaborate more when I have time, but anyone can examine the New Testament for the many verses about restoring, repairing, making new, and reparations made to God. These go on top of the purchase.

My bad for not @ you. I really thought that my quote of your words in the op would send you a notification. Hence, I didn't use the @ feature.

 

[makesends]

My main struggle
Passages indicating a universal scope, like 1 Jn2, give me significant pause. Yes, I'm well aware of the "all without exception" and "all without distinction" discussion. I've seen the issue debated many times, and most likely I'll see it again. My main struggle is being a fence sitter. Both views seem very plausible to me, and I'm not persuaded fully either way. And herein is my -.5

1 Jn 2:2 "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."

Even in English, where "everybody" is used, it doesn't always mean everybody who ever lived or will have lived, but everybody within a group. I don't know if this argument is what you are referring to by the "all without distinction" definition, but I'm laying it out for you anyway. I know in Spanish, "the whole world" ("todo el mundo") usually just means "everybody" in some particular sense, and not really all people who ever lived or will have lived.

This, to me, is a different use of "the whole world" from "all without distinction between Jew and Gentile", because it can also reasonably be taken another way —that of the fact there is no other but Christ. To make it fit English well, it might say, "...only he can be the atoning sacrifice..." because if anyone's sins are to be atoned for, it is by Christ alone.

 

[Arial]

Bought, bought with a price. Jesus bought us back. That does not cover all the damage, though, because while our disobedience separated us from God the ensuing sin and death (dead in transgression/sin) had an ongoing corrupting, rotting effect on each and every one of us (and humanity as a whole. When Adam disobeyed God, God did no lose only one man; He lost all humanity! That is one of the reasons no one person could ever repay God all that He had lost. A sinless man might redeem and atone for himself, but no finite human can provide God an entire population of an entire species made in His image. The logos of God that is God by whom, for whom, and through whom all in Christ are made could, though. Buying back a dead corpse does not bring back to God what He lost. This is why all of the Ordo Salutis is predicated on regeneration. Life must be given where only death exists and the damage repaired to the rotted corpse now made alive. That is atonement. The blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin (or its effects).

Very true. The one making atonement for such a crime as is committed by all of humanity ever, must be infinitely greater than those He is atoning for.

Another way of distinguishing between redemption and atonement is satisfaction and atonement. Those who do not agree with the penal aspect often do agree with the satisfaction.

Redemption goes back to the law of the kinsman redeemer. This would be a male relative who had the privilege or responsibility to act on behalf of a relative who was in trouble, need, or danger. Go el is the Hebrew term, meaning one who delivers or rescues, or redeems property or a person. It is interesting that in Ex 6:6 God designates Himself as the One who would deliver Israel from bondage with acts of judgement. The Exodus is a forerunner and shadow of a people being delivered from bondage to sin.

Jesus, our kinsman redeemer, as one of us, steps forward to make atonement for us, to deliver us from our bondage to sin.

This redemption of the kinsman redeemer was to in essence bail the one in need out of trouble by paying the debt or in the case of the nearest relative marrying a widow, become her provider and protector as husband. (Boaz and Ruth).

So, Jesus offered Himself as Redeemer and this satisfies that aspect of what needed to be done to redeem a people. That, however did not solve the entire divide between God and man. There was still the matter of a penalty that must be met for the treason against God that comes in us through Adam, and hold us in the condition of being an enemy of God. The offering of satisfaction alone could not do that. In order for God to remain just, our depravity, our sin and sins, must meet sins punishment. Atonement must be made. Death and judgement. Thus the cross and the grave. Full propitiation. Only in this is the Holy One able to defeat the power of sin and death to condemn, by rising again to life victorious, ascending back to the Father as our High Priest, in His victory crowned King of kings. Jesus offering Himself is the satisfaction (redeemer) the punishment He bore on the cross is the atonement.

And if Jesus did this, He did it. He fully accomplished His mission. Therefore, if not all people are redeemed, and they are not, the only reason for that must be in God and cannot be in the guilty---in man. The Bible tells us it is in God, who calls, and chooses, elects, predestines, draws, and gives to the Son.