The Extent/Intent of the Atonement

[Arial]

Two things stood as obstacles to man being reconciled to God, and God to mankind.

• Our position as a sinful being, including our personal sins.​
• God's justice against sin which demands it face death and His wrath.​

In order for reconciliation to be made, these two things must be dealt with. Our sin is often referred to in Scripture as a debt. (Col 2:13-14; Matt 6:12). It is what justice demands of the sinner. It is a penal code requiring punishment for the offense, just as in secular laws of the land. The penal code against sin is death and God's wrath. But in this is also the need of the debt to be satisfied, either by the one who owes the debt (in this case the sinner) or by another making satisfaction for the debt instead. Christ does both on the cross. He is the substitutionary satisfaction and He also bears the penalty of sin on His flesh. He does not do this in theory or potentially, but actually. An actual transaction is made in the spiritual realm that is visible on earth in the death of Christ. And not an ordinary death, but an intensely violent and painful, physically and emotionally, for the One on the cross. His body, as one of us endures it as our substitute, and His deity as Son of God, through the suffering will gain victory over the power of sin and death for us, and brings us mercy, the forgiveness of sin. In this justice and mercy kiss. The suffering of the One who has infinite dignity, is sufficient to cover the sins of all men.

But does it? Was it intended to cover the sins of all men, of all time?

We know that it doesn't or all men would be saved whether they had faith or not. Only Universalists disagree with this. And yet there is a large segment of Christ's church that nonetheless says Christ did pay for the sins of all men without exception, while at the same time say it is contingent upon faith. How can that be, if complete satisfaction was made by Christ? How can that be if He bore the punishment that the curse of sin requires in full? How can He die for only those who believe and also at the same time die for those who don't believe?

The only answer to that if one wants to maintain the power and sovereignty of God and the glory of Christ must be that the atonement was intended, not for all men without exception, but for all men without distinction. It was not made for specific nations or types of people, but was accomplished and intended for all nations and all walks life. And this is verified in the great commission to the apostles prior to His ascension. It is verified in prophecy that salvation would come not only to the Jews, but to the Gentiles as well. That it was intended for specific individuals is verified in that it is always restricted in relation to Jesus to "His sheep," to "those He draws and raises up at the last day," to "those who believe." to "My people," to "those appointed unto eternal life," to the "foreknown, predestined, called, justified, and glorified," to the "chosen," to "those who God gives Him,"etc. God choose on whom He will show mercy and on whom He will not. God makes of the same lump of clay, one vessel for holy use, and another not.

Anything less is not an actual atonement but one in theory or potential only.

 

[GoKart Mozart]

..How can that be, if complete satisfaction was made by Christ? How can that be if He bore the punishment that the curse of sin requires in full? How can He die for only those who believe and also at the same time die for those who don't believe?

The only answer to that if one wants to maintain the power and sovereignty of God and the glory of Christ must be that the atonement was intended, not for all men without exception..

Another answer/option could be there's error in the model you are using.
In your model, in Adam all men die without exception but in Christ only some are made alive.
You are placing more potentency on the sin of Adam than in the cross of Christ.

Now you must find the error.

 

[Arial]

Another answer/option could be there's error in the model you are using.
In your model, in Adam all men die without exception but in Christ only some are made alive.
You are placing more potentency on the sin of Adam than in the cross of Christ.

Now you must find the error.

In any model only some are made alive.

Obviously, God has the power to save everyone. Obviously, Jesus could have made satisfaction and taken the penalty for all without exception. If we look at the results, and we look at the Scriptures, and know from them that God always accomplishes His purpose, then it is from those same scriptures we must come to understand why not all are saved, why not all are made spiritually alive. And remember, God has no obligation to save anyone. He owes us nothing, we owe Him everything.

The sin of Adam passing to all his progeny is because by divine decree this first man would stand as the representative of all mankind. If one does not like that they can only take it up with God. If they don't believe that, they will need to demonstrate from the authority of Scripture that it is not so. Christ is called the second Adam, for just as Adam was the representative (head) of all mankind, so Christ is the representative (head) of all who are in Him through faith. It is not a matter of the potency of the sin of Adam having more potency that the life of Christ. It is a matter of what Christ came to do.

So, the OP puts forth the atonement in its parts of satisfaction and penalty. Do you disagree with that portion of the OP? If so, what is the disagreement and how would you adjust it? If your disagreement is with the intent being for specific persons the Father was giving the Son, then what is your thinking on that and counter to the op. And I am not asking for a statement only, but a demonstration of its truth. If scriptures are used, they must contain exegesis and exposition, not merely quoted.

 

[Arial]

Now you must find the error.

Really? How am I to find an error if I don't believe there is one?

If you say there is an error the obvious conversational, (rather than contentious) response would be for you to point out the error and present a defense of your position. That is the way in which debate works. What you gave was an unsupported and spurious theory, and nothing to replace the assertions of the OP.

 

[GoKart Mozart]

How am I to find an error if I don't believe there is one?

So you do think that the sin of Adam is more potent than the cross of Christ?

If you say there is an error the obvious conversational, (rather than contentious) response would be for you to point out the error

I did point out the error.
In your model, in Adam all men die without exception, and you state that by necessity in Christ only some are made alive.

and present a defense of your position.

I'm not arguing a position, only scratching my head at what looks like error.

That is the way in which debate works.

Nor am I interested in debate. I have never studied nor practiced debate. I don't know the rules and have no desire to learn them nor participate. I am interested in conversation that could be beneficial for growth. Whether I'm right or wrong or score the proper points is not my goal.

What you gave was an unsupported and spurious theory, and nothing to replace the assertions of the OP.

I gave no theory. I merely pointed to what I perceive to be a flaw in your presentation. You place more power/potency/efficacy in sin than in Christ. Perhaps the problem is the model itself? Perhaps the Satisfaction Theory that you have been repeating needs to be examined further.
Perhaps Anselm was merely using a contemporary (to his day) analogy for the sake of example (I do not know) and never intended his example to go any further. (again I don't know).

 

[Arial]

So you do think that the sin of Adam is more potent than the cross of Christ?

No.I actually made the point that Christ through His death and resurrection defeated the power of sin to condemn His people. How did you miss that?

I did point out the error.
In your model, in Adam all men die without exception, and you state that by necessity in Christ only some are made alive.

It is a fact that in Adam all men die without exception and I never said it was a necessity that in Christ only some are made alive. But it is true that only some are made alive in Christ. Surely you agree with this, so what is the error?

I'm not arguing a position, only scratching my head at what looks like error.

If it simply looks like error to you, shouldn't that spur you on to examine it more closely and find the error and why it is an error, and what is accurate, and present it? I actually put forth a logical train of thought, attempting to keep it biblically consistent, in the presentation. If there is an error, and you consider it response worthy or important, it should be possible for you to find the weak link and show why it is a weak link and repair the chain. Making a statement as you did, scratching your head and all, without a position and without presenting a case for the position, is just arguing.

Nor am I interested in debate. I have never studied nor practiced debate. I don't know the rules and have no desire to learn them nor participate. I am interested in conversation that could be beneficial for growth. Whether I'm right or wrong or score the proper points is not my goal.

Obviously I am not referring to a formal debate. The minute someone presents a different position from the one being presented, a conversation is assumed that takes the form of debating an issue. If one side puts forth support for their position and all the other side does is say in one form or another "That is not true." that is not a conversation and shows no interest in having one or in exploring anything.

I gave no theory. I merely pointed to what I perceive to be a flaw in your presentation. You place more power/potency/efficacy in sin than in Christ. Perhaps the problem is the model itself? Perhaps the Satisfaction Theory that you have been repeating needs to be examined further.

Then examine it. Here you have represented what I said in a way that in no way represents it. I do not place more power in sin than in Christ. The entire OP concerns the atonement and the way in which it reconciles God and man, and whether or not it was intended and done for all men without exception. It begins with two things that must be dealt with in order for that to happen. It shows how Jesus accomplished conquering sin and death in order to achieve this reconciliation. Maybe you should try starting at the beginning again.

Perhaps Anselm was merely using a contemporary (to his day) analogy for the sake of example (I do not know) and never intended his example to go any further. (again I don't know).

What are you talking about?

 

[Mr GLee]

I gave no theory. I merely pointed to what I perceive to be a flaw in your presentation. You place more power/potency/efficacy in sin than in Christ. Perhaps the problem is the model itself? Perhaps the Satisfaction Theory that you have been repeating needs to be examined further.
Perhaps Anselm was merely using a contemporary (to his day) analogy for the sake of example (I do not know) and never intended his example to go any further. (again I don't know).

It's not the oral traditions of dying mankind as a laws fathers that we are to rightly divide rather than sola scriptura (all things writen in the law and the prophets) Its not the approval of dying mankind (Pope) by which we are lovingly commanded to rightly divide ( 2 Timothy 2;15)

Today we have the same source of Christian faith, Christ in us working to both reveal his understanding (faith) and empower us to do it to the good pleasure of our unseen Holy Father. Just as when God moved men to pen it . (Philippian 2:13)

Revelation is still the last chapter in the book of prophecy. The loving commandment is to not add to it or subtract from the one source of Christian new born again faith.

The gospel has nothing to do any man to include Anselm that some must as a law of men called a patron saints (3500) needed to give credence (false) to thier oral traditions' of dying mankind Teaching mankind can commune with dead saints as workers with familiar spirits (3550 and rising) waiting for the Pope's approval. Idol images are available to put a face on the legion of gods

Like what some call saint Christopher the god of elevators etc ( many gods) .

We are warned of those antichrists' false prophets false apostles. (1 John 2 :26 -27who say we do need a dying man to teach us as if God could not keep his promise to teach, comfort and last but not least bring to our memory the previous things he has taught us the one good teaching master.Lord of lords

There is a fixed chasm

Luke 16; 26 And beside all this, between us (The living)and you (the dead)there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

 

[Arial]

It's not the oral traditions of dying mankind as a laws fathers that we are to rightly divide rather than sola scriptura (all things writen in the law and the prophets) Its not the approval of dying mankind (Pope) by which we are lovingly commanded to rightly divide ( 2 Timothy 2;15)

Today we have the same source of Christian faith, Christ in us working to both reveal his understanding (faith) and empower us to do it to the good pleasure of our unseen Holy Father. Just as when God moved men to pen it . (Philippian 2:13)

Revelation is still the last chapter in the book of prophecy. The loving commandment is to not add to it or subtract from the one source of Christian new born again faith.

The gospel has nothing to do any man to include Anselm that some must as a law of men called a patron saints (3500) needed to give credence (false) to thier oral traditions' of dying mankind Teaching mankind can commune with dead saints as workers with familiar spirits (3550 and rising) waiting for the Pope's approval. Idol images are available to put a face on the legion of gods

Like what some call saint Christopher the god of elevators etc ( many gods) .

We are warned of those antichrists' false prophets false apostles. (1 John 2 :26 -27who say we do need a dying man to teach us as if God could not keep his promise to teach, comfort and last but not least bring to our memory the previous things he has taught us the one good teaching master.Lord of lords

There is a fixed chasm

Luke 16; 26 And beside all this, between us (The living)and you (the dead)there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

How does this relate to the OP?

 

[Arial]

I gave no theory. I merely pointed to what I perceive to be a flaw in your presentation. You place more power/potency/efficacy in sin than in Christ. Perhaps the problem is the model itself? Perhaps the Satisfaction Theory that you have been repeating needs to be examined further.

I am going to go out on a limb here, since you give no reasoning as to why you think the presentation is giving more power, potency, and efficacy to sin than to Christ; and say this is coming from a belief that Jesus atoned for the sins of all men of all time, without exception. Is that where your disagreement comes from?

The details in the OP should have disabused you of that, provided there was a willingness to set that aside for the duration of attempting to comprehend the content in the post, from a neutral position and logically. If one could do so without looking at say, the title of the OP, and then begin reading already opposed to it, and with the intention of finding something to perceive as faulty, then it could result in an actual discussion.

If this is not done, and not even considered as a viable approach, what we have is statements made about the post, that are not accompanied by any corroborating evidence, or any means of examination of the persons reasoning in making the statement. No way to carry on a conversation iow.

Shall we try again?

Why do you think that the satisfaction of Christ as presented in the OP is flawed? What would the satisfaction be instead?

 

[Mr GLee]

How does this relate to the OP?

I was responding to a law of the fathers dying mankind a false extent-intent-of-the-atonement

 

[Mr GLee]

Two things stood as obstacles to man being reconciled to God, and God to mankind.

• Our position as a sinful being, including our personal sins.​
• God's justice against sin which demands it face death and His wrath.​

In order for reconciliation to be made, these two things must be dealt with. Our sin is often referred to in Scripture as a debt. (Col 2:13-14; Matt 6:12). It is what justice demands of the sinner. It is a penal code requiring punishment for the offense, just as in secular laws of the land. The penal code against sin is death and God's wrath. But in this is also the need of the debt to be satisfied, either by the one who owes the debt (in this case the sinner) or by another making satisfaction for the debt instead. Christ does both on the cross. He is the substitutionary satisfaction and He also bears the penalty of sin on His flesh. He does not do this in theory or potentially, but actually. An actual transaction is made in the spiritual realm that is visible on earth in the death of Christ. And not an ordinary death, but an intensely violent and painful, physically and emotionally, for the One on the cross. His body, as one of us endures it as our substitute, and His deity as Son of God, through the suffering will gain victory over the power of sin and death for us, and brings us mercy, the forgiveness of sin. In this justice and mercy kiss. The suffering of the One who has infinite dignity, is sufficient to cover the sins of all men.

But does it? Was it intended to cover the sins of all men, of all time?

We know that it doesn't or all men would be saved whether they had faith or not. Only Universalists disagree with this. And yet there is a large segment of Christ's church that nonetheless says Christ did pay for the sins of all men without exception, while at the same time say it is contingent upon faith. How can that be, if complete satisfaction was made by Christ? How can that be if He bore the punishment that the curse of sin requires in full? How can He die for only those who believe and also at the same time die for those who don't believe?

The only answer to that if one wants to maintain the power and sovereignty of God and the glory of Christ must be that the atonement was intended, not for all men without exception, but for all men without distinction. It was not made for specific nations or types of people, but was accomplished and intended for all nations and all walks life. And this is verified in the great commission to the apostles prior to His ascension. It is verified in prophecy that salvation would come not only to the Jews, but to the Gentiles as well. That it was intended for specific individuals is verified in that it is always restricted in relation to Jesus to "His sheep," to "those He draws and raises up at the last day," to "those who believe." to "My people," to "those appointed unto eternal life," to the "foreknown, predestined, called, justified, and glorified," to the "chosen," to "those who God gives Him,"etc. God choose on whom He will show mercy and on whom He will not. God makes of the same lump of clay, one vessel for holy use, and another not.

Anything less is not an actual atonement but one in theory or potential only.

Amen

Salvation has always been to all nations that are elected to salvation. God is no respecter of clay.

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

The same Spirit of Christ that worked in the Son of man Jesus works in us today.

 

[Mr GLee]

So you do think that the sin of Adam is more potent than the cross of Christ?

I did point out the error.
In your model, in Adam all men die without exception, and you state that by necessity in Christ only some are made alive.


I'm not arguing a position, only scratching my head at what looks like error.


Nor am I interested in debate. I have never studied nor practiced debate. I don't know the rules and have no desire to learn them nor participate. I am interested in conversation that could be beneficial for growth. Whether I'm right or wrong or score the proper points is not my goal.

I gave no theory. I merely pointed to what I perceive to be a flaw in your presentation. You place more power/potency/efficacy in sin than in Christ. Perhaps the problem is the model itself? Perhaps the Satisfaction Theory that you have been repeating needs to be examined further.
Perhaps Anselm was merely using a contemporary (to his day) analogy for the sake of example (I do not know) and never intended his example to go any further. (again I don't know).

I would think as many as the father gave the son of Man, Jesus, they are made alive born again. As many as

One thing I would offer that I have been looking at is all the work of salvation it was done in 6 days that our Holy Father did work. He is the Spirit of adoption or sonship by Him we can cry out Abba. . the lamb slain from the foundation.

The promised demonstration of the two prophecies was displayed as a sign to the world thousands of years later in respect of the prophesy three days and three nights.

Jesus performing the demonstration of the finished work in three phases. Beginning in the Garden of Gethsemane "the prophesied witness of two", then moving prophecy to the hill or cross the "bloody demonstration" as sign to the whole world.. in a hope to draw them to the living word. And last the demonstration of the Tomb the demonstration of "faith" the unseen things of God. Three working together to present the gospel. In that way it was the Father who removed the grave clothes and rolled back the stone as in "it is finished"

Those elected from the foundation, their names are written in a book . The books 2 will be opened revealing as many as the father gave to the Son they alone were empowered to come .

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

John 8:30 As he spake these words, many believed on him.

John 17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give "eternal life" to as many as thou hast given him.

 

[GoKart Mozart]

I actually made the point that Christ through His death and resurrection defeated the power of sin to condemn His people. How did you miss that?

Well, you say Christ partially defeated sin, it was only a victory for a select few.

What are you talking about?

I shared some information in a post in the 'Atonement' section that you said that you read, I took you at your word that you did.
The Satisfaction Theory of Atonement (linked again) is a Middles Ages construct based in Germanic Tribalism/fuedalism.. the very environment in which Anselm of Canterbery lived. It looks to me to be a contemporary (to Anselm) analogy used to try and explain the Atonement to his peers/congregation. I wonder if he ever intended for the Catholic Church and the Latin West to make it the by-all-end-all of discussion on the topic. The Reformers later took the Catholic Satisfaction Theory to a whole new place. (see the link, it explains it well, no need for me to copy/paste)

Shall we try again?

Why do you think that the satisfaction of Christ as presented in the OP is flawed? What would the satisfaction be instead?

I see several models of Atonement referenced, mentioned, taught in Holy Scripture. There are three or more other theories and each one seems to teach various aspects of Atonement. However, I Personally do not think any are all encompassing when it comes to the work of Christ nor were they ever intended to be.
The most prominent, in my view, is the one actually named and illustrated in Holy Scripture, that would be 'Ransom'. The Pearl of Great Price is an illustration of the Ransom Theory of Atonement (as example) and bears little to no resemblance to Satisfaction Theory.
I would say the Recapitulation Theory better explains how Christ is seen as the new Adam who succeeds where Adam failed.
Christ undoes the wrong that Adam did and, because of his union with humanity, leads humankind on to eternal life. There was a post several months ago discussing Christus Victor, which I also think covers ground that the Satisfaction Theory omits.

Is this enough?

Aside
Going back a few posts, I said "Now you must find the error." That was a poor choice of words and confusing. I apologize. It should have been more along the lines of now we need to explore the perceived errors/shortcomings that I maintain exists in Satisfaction Theory alone.

 

[Mr GLee]

Well, you say Christ partially defeated sin, it was only a victory for a select few.

I don't think anyone said partially defeated and not totally. God does not give a remnant of grace. And it's off to limbo.

 

[GoKart Mozart]

I don't think anyone said partially defeated and not totally. God does not give a remnant of grace. And it's off to limbo.

You should take a look at the concept of "Limited Atonement"

 

[Arial]

Well, you say Christ partially defeated sin, it was only a victory for a select few.

My position is not that of a partial defeat, but rather a defeat of the power of sin to condemn the believer. Jesus accomplished that on the cross---for the believer. We are currently in a state of right now, but not yet, as God continues to gather His people to Christ through the preaching of the gospel. That is, we are fully saved now, sealed in Christ by the Holy Spirit, progressively being sanctified by Him in righteousness while we live in our fallen flesh, in a fallen world that is influenced by the devil; but the fullness of our salvation has not yet come. When it does at Christ's coming in judgement and the putting of all His enemies under His feet, then will death be fully and eternally abolished. "Partial defeat" is your analogy of what I have said, not what I have actually said, or what the content of the OP implies.

I shared some information in a post in the 'Atonement' section that you said that you read, I took you at your word that you did.
The Satisfaction Theory of Atonement (linked again) is a Middles Ages construct based in Germanic Tribalism/fuedalism.. the very environment in which Anselm of Canterbery lived. It looks to me to be a contemporary (to Anselm) analogy used to try and explain the Atonement to his peers/congregation. I wonder if he ever intended for the Catholic Church and the Latin West to make it the by-all-end-all of discussion on the topic. The Reformers later took the Catholic Satisfaction Theory to a whole new place. (see the link, it explains it well, no need for me to copy/paste)

You are now discussing a different OP on a different board (Atonement) and not this OP which is on an entirely different board (Arminianism/Calvinism). The fact that they are on different boards is an indication that the subject is not the same. This one is about the extent and intent of of the atonement in Reformed theology.

At the beginning of this OP I lay the groundwork for what is to come, which covers the two-fold necessity of the atonement; satisfaction and penal.

I see several models of Atonement referenced, mentioned, taught in Holy Scripture. There are three or more other theories and each one seems to teach various aspects of Atonement. However, I Personally do not think any are all encompassing when it comes to the work of Christ nor were they ever intended to be.
The most prominent, in my view, is the one actually named and illustrated in Holy Scripture, that would be 'Ransom'. The Pearl of Great Price is an illustration of the Ransom Theory of Atonement (as example) and bears little to no resemblance to Satisfaction Theory.
I would say the Recapitulation Theory better explains how Christ is seen as the new Adam who succeeds where Adam failed.
Christ undoes the wrong that Adam did and, because of his union with humanity, leads humankind on to eternal life. There was a post several months ago discussing Christus Victor, which I also think covers ground that the Satisfaction Theory omits.

I am not discussing the different named atonement theories in this thread. I am discussing what was said about the atonement in my words and from it presenting the view of the atonement as being universal----having been made for all without exception---is not plausible. It had to be specific as to its intent or it is not actual but only potential, and therefore not a real atonement but one in theory only.

You seem to be trying to discuss the OP in the board Atonement in this OP which is in A'ism/C'ism. If that is what you want to discuss, I will be happy to respond to whatever you present---in that thread.

 

[GoKart Mozart]

You are now discussing a different OP on a different board (Atonement) and not this OP which is on an entirely different board (Arminianism/Calvinism). The fact that they are on different boards is an indication that the subject is not the same. This one is about the extent and intent of of the atonement in Reformed theology..

You seem to be trying to discuss the OP in the board Atonement in this OP which is in A'ism/C'ism..

Fair enough. I will not engage further in this thread.

 

[Arial]

Fair enough. I will not engage further in this thread.

To avert any misunderstanding: I was not suggesting that you not engage in this thread. I wish that you would only in a way with the discussion of the extent/intent of the atonement as presented in Reformed theology. It could be a lively and beneficial discussion. If you disagree with what was presented show in what way you disagree with it and why.

For example, what makes it actual if it is made for all people without exception, yet, dependent upon man's free will choice?

 

[donadams]

many are made alive cos we must choose to believe!

((Not everyone believes))

Jn 3:16 “whosoever”

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Thks