The Intent of the Atonement

[Baptist Renegade]

Does God base Hos election towards the redeemed based upon His will and purpose, or upon seeing/koreknowing that we would turn to Jesus to get saved?

I believe I already articulated my position. It is according to God's sovereign will and good pleasure.

The seminary is non-Calvinistic hence why they have a course in which they are trying to disprove Calvinism. The Academic Dean is aware of my position and encouraged me to take the course and I decided to take it "as a favor" to him where he could get a differing perspective and I would try to "poke holes" into some of their arguments.

In the end, I wanted to formulate a QED answer of which neither side could argue and bring to light the foolishness of such consistent babbling.

 

[Baptist Renegade]

If you’re an honest Calvinist, you can’t tell every stranger you meet that God loves them. (Emphasis on honest.)

I disagree with the idea of just telling everybody that "God loves them!" There is this one gentleman on YouTube who preaches at Gay Pride events telling everyone that "God loves them" while the crowd is outwardly hostile and blasphemous towards the God of whom he is preaching!

I will not just tell anyone and everyone that "God loves them!" What I will tell them is that if they are outside of Christ, the wrath of God abides on them (Jn 3:36; Eph 2:3) and that God is angry with the wicked every day (Psa 7:11). I will also tell them that "The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit" (Psa 34:18). I will also remind them of Jesus's promise that "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out" (Jn 6:37).

I believe this to be of the utmost importance whether you are Calvinist, Arminian, or whatever and should probably be discussed outside of an argument such as this. I believe that young man would be much more effective if he followed my advice and, truth be known, he may actually gain a little more respect from the crowd he is trying to reach.

But back to this argument at hand: Do you believe that God's love towards his elect differs from his love towards those who perish?

Secondly, lets get back to the intent of my OP here: For what reason did Christ die? If we can remember that all things are of and to his glory, perhaps we can realize that everything is "not about us" and we wouldn't be getting our knickers twisted up over arguments such as this!

 

[Baptist Renegade]

Imagine not being able to speak with a stranger and honestly tell them that God loves them and that He prepared an eternal home in heaven for them. An honest Calvinist cannot tell every stranger this basic truth.

An honest Calvinist rejects the following verses: Timothy 2:4 says, “God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” And first John 2:2 says, “Christ is the expiation for our sins and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

As I said in a prior response, such should not even be discussed in an evangelistic situation! Before anyone is able to appreciate the benefits of adoption, eternal home in heaven, etc., they must first come to the realization that they are dead in their sins and that the wrath of God abides in them! It is only when they understand that the "wages of sin is death" that they may appreciate the fact that the "Gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ his son!"

Therefore the issue is not whether Calvinism (election and predestination) is correct, but rather that one should STAY ON POINT regarding to the pertinent issues of the gospel message!

 

[Baptist Renegade]

The belief system from Calvin that you’ve chosen to adopt is heretical, in my opinion. God is good. Limited atonement is sacrilegious—the idea that Jesus only died for some. The idea that there’s some mystical power making salvation irresistible to some and unavailable to others is dismissive of the very heart of Christianity. I’m not saying God is bound to treat everyone equally, but the opportunity for salvation is not the same thing.

As an honest Calvinist, you can never tell someone “God loves you,” because you are unable to know whether the person is elect or damned. At least the Calvinist Arthur Pink was being intellectually honest when he said: “When we say that God is sovereign in the exercise of his love, we mean that he loves whom he chooses. God does not love everybody.”

You boys can’t have your cake and eat it too.

And for the record, yes, I fully understand that this topic has been discussed and argued on the forum for many years. I also understand I’m not going to switch your position, but I hope that the gravity of not being able to tell a stranger that “God loves you” gets you thinking about the ramifications of your view.

Huk, I look at stuff like this from you and I kid you not! I see a younger version of myself when I first came onto the FFF with the very same arguments in the early 2000s! Resistance is futile son!

 

[Baptist Renegade]

That is pretty much Arminian.

God intended to save the elect.

I am an admitted "Pussy-Footer" when it comes to the "L" and if that makes me an "Arminy" in your book, so be it. I do not believe that you can make a rock-solid scriptural argument for a "Limited Atonement" where Christ died ONLY to save his elect but if you have one, I am all ears!

I can appreciate the fact that one may come to a logical deduction that "Christ died only for the elect" based upon understanding and application of the other "four points" and therefore come to a "back door" conclusion regarding the "L." Not a hill I am willing to die upon though.

To reiterate my position:

The INTENT of the Atonement is - To the praise of his Glory throughout the ages
The EXTENT of the Atonement is - To save all who believe
The APPLICATION of the Atonement is - Limited only to those who believe

That's my position and I am sticking to it!

 

[JesusFan]

I am an admitted "Pussy-Footer" when it comes to the "L" and if that makes me an "Arminy" in your book, so be it. I do not believe that you can make a rock-solid scriptural argument for a "Limited Atonement" where Christ died ONLY to save his elect but if you have one, I am all ears!

I can appreciate the fact that one may come to a logical deduction that "Christ died only for the elect" based upon understanding and application of the other "four points" and therefore come to a "back door" conclusion regarding the "L." Not a hill I am willing to die upon though.

To reiterate my position:

The INTENT of the Atonement is - To the praise of his Glory throughout the ages
The EXTENT of the Atonement is - To save all who believe
The APPLICATION of the Atonement is - Limited only to those who believe

That's my position and I am sticking to it!

Even John Calvin Himself seemed to "waffle" on the issue of limited atonement, as have read Calvinist scholars who used him to deny/support it

 

[DrHuk&Duck]

Huk, I look at stuff like this from you and I kid you not! I see a younger version of myself when I first came onto the FFF with the very same arguments in the early 2000s! Resistance is futile son!

Hey, that could be, but there are a lot of very smart theologians who don’t subscribe to Calvinism. I earlier linked a couple of them with legitimate PhDs who are theology professors. I feel like some of you guys on the forum act like only knuckle dragging nitwits subscribe to non-Calvinism, but the truth is, you’re very much in the minority.

 

[Bob Jones VI]

I am an admitted "Pussy-Footer" when it comes to the "L" and if that makes me an "Arminy" in your book, so be it. I do not believe that you can make a rock-solid scriptural argument for a "Limited Atonement" where Christ died ONLY to save his elect but if you have one, I am all ears!

Me saying it is Arminian is not a slam. I was basically that, and just a 4 point Calvinist until about 5 years ago. I am not mocking you at all. Actually I respect you greatly.

I spent a summer 4 or 5 years ago reading this book: Before I read it, I was about half convinced, and it answered all of my questions. It is the ultimate book on Particular Atonement. I am now convinced. It is a very misunderstood and misrepresented doctrine.

There are so many versions.

And I have been reading this, but had to put it down because of classwork. It is much newer and excellent.

 

[Ransom]

Even John Calvin Himself seemed to "waffle" on the issue of limited atonement, as have read Calvinist scholars who used him to deny/support it

I think the worst that could be said was that he was not explicit on the topic, unlike the other four so-called points of Calvinism. So there are plenty of statements in the Institutes that imply God's universal love for mankind or intent to offer salvation to all men.

However, Calvin believed in penal substitutionary atonement, with Christ's death not merely making salvation possible, but making it effective. In his commentary on 1 John 2:2, he writes:

Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation.​

Propitiation, in other words, can't be universal. Self-evidently, the sins of all people indiscriminately have not been expiated. Calvin was aware that some were of the opinion that the Atonement was "sufficient for all, efficient for the elect"; however,

[t]hough then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. (Source)​

Incidentally, this parallels something John records in his Gospel that the high priest said: "he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad" (John 11:51-52). The wording parallels that of 1 John 2:2, perhaps giving us some insight into what John meant when he said Christ is the propitiation for the "whole world": not just Jews only, but Jews and Gentiles together. The "whole Church" is scattered throughout the whole world.

Calvin's theology was strongly covenantal, and the covenants into which God entered with his people were particular, not universal or indefinite.

So while Calvin may have been indistinct on that particular topic, the overall tone of his theology would make a stronger indirect case for a definite atonement than a general one.

 

[Baptist Renegade]

Hey, that could be, but there are a lot of very smart theologians who don’t subscribe to Calvinism. I earlier linked a couple of them with legitimate PhDs who are theology professors. I feel like some of you guys on the forum act like only knuckle dragging nitwits subscribe to non-Calvinism, but the truth is, you’re very much in the minority.

There are a lot of people I disagree with who have spent more time and studied out their position. I do not believe that only "Knuckle-dragging nitwits" subscribe to non-Calvinism but sadly, it seems the loudest opponents are and I think they need to step back and consider why this is so! One of the main reasons is that we become far too emotionally attached to a "position" rather than sincerely desiring the truth. I actually enjoy well thought out arguments from the othe side that actually make me think and if I am sounding contemptuous, it is likely because I find myself disappointed because it is the same old drivel and misrepresentations! One non-Calvinist scholar that I deeply respect is Roger E. Olson and I have cited him in a few papers when I felt it necessary to defend the "other side" from mischaracterizations made by the Calvinist crowd. I would also say that those who had part in the Articles of Remonstrance were no dummies either!

I would like to respect Leighton Flowers more than I do. Seriously. But to be honest, hearing his arguments tend only to push me firmly and solidly into the reformed camp! I am certain there are those would say the very same thing regarding reformed scholars who are arrogant, condescending, and dismiss all non-Calvinists as semi-pelagian at best and heretical at worst. Fact of the matter is that most good Arminians are my brothers in Christ and I should remember this and treat them as such.

 

[Baptist Renegade]

Me saying it is Arminian is not a slam. I was basically that, and just a 4 point Calvinist until about 5 years ago. I am not mocking you at all. Actually I respect you greatly.

I spent a summer 4 or 5 years ago reading this book: Before I read it, I was about half convinced, and it answered all of my questions. It is the ultimate book on Particular Atonement. I am now convinced. It is a very misunderstood and misrepresented doctrine.
View attachment 7863
There are so many versions.

And I have been reading this, but had to put it down because of classwork. It is much newer and excellent.

View attachment 7864

I appreciate this bro! Of course you realize that in many cases, I tend to "play dumb and feign ignorance" at times! I run with an eclectic crowd and those in my Church are all over the spectrum regarding these issues. I therefore have to exercise diplomacy and I avoid the "C" word at all costs. If I do bring it up, it is often in a negative light towards those who are contentious. I do speak dogmatically though saying telling my Sunday School class that "God decrees all things that come to pass" but I also carefully define the statement to which there would be no disagreement.

 

[ALAYMAN]

The point is, if He first loved us, as Paul put it, in the manner you've described, no one would be saved.

Why would nobody be saved in the manner which I've described?

 

[Bob Jones VI]

I appreciate this bro! Of course you realize that in many cases, I tend to "play dumb and feign ignorance" at times! I run with an eclectic crowd and those in my Church are all over the spectrum regarding these issues. I therefore have to exercise diplomacy and I avoid the "C" word at all costs. If I do bring it up, it is often in a negative light towards those who are contentious. I do speak dogmatically though saying telling my Sunday School class that "God decrees all things that come to pass" but I also carefully define the statement to which there would be no disagreement.

I understand. When I was becomong more and more Sovereignty of God oriented, I was in an independent Baptist church and had to choose my words carefully. I particularly remember one guy, known as a big giver, to say, "you aren't a calvinist, are you?" Talk about showing your hand. I was not there on limited atonement, so I said, well, it depends on what you mean.

 

[Bob Jones VI]

Bill Mounce wrote this: He is a Greek scholar. Penal Subsitutionary Atonement.

Old Testament noun: כַּפֹּרֶת (kappōret). Generally translated “atonement cover” or “mercy seat,” kappōret almost exclusively occurs in Exodus 25 and 37 (in the building of the ark of the covenant) and in Leviticus 16. The word describes the golden cover placed on the ark of the covenant; on it were two cherubim whose outstretched wings formed Yahweh’s earthly throne. Because he “lived” there, the Most Holy Place had to be filled with a cloud of incense on the Day of Atonement, lest the high priest see him and die. All forgiveness and purging of sin, of course, is possible only because of the forgiving grace and mercy of God.


New Testament noun: ἱλασμός (hilasmos). Hilasmos refers to “an atoning sacrifice” or “propitiation.” This word occurs in 1 John 2:2 and 4:10. Jesus is himself the sacrifice that atones for sin. Our sins have destroyed our relationship with God, but Christ’s shed blood purifies us from all sin and restores us to fellowship with God (1 John 1:6–7). We should never forget that the root of our reconciliation with God is his incredible love, expressed when he sent his Son to be our atoning sacrifice.

New Testament noun: ἱλαστήριον (hilastērion). Hilastērion means “atonement cover” or “sacrifice of atonement” or “that which propitiates or expiates.” In the Septuagint, it’s used almost exclusively for the atonement cover (kappōret) placed on top of the ark of the covenant.

1. In Hebrews 9:5, hilastērion corresponds to the Old Testament use—the atonement cover on top of the ark. That’s where God dwelt in all his glory.

2. The other use of hilastērion is in Romans 3:25, where Paul writes that God has presented Jesus as a “place of atonement.” This word must relate first to its Old Testament usage, so that Jesus is the person/place where God passes over our sins without punishing them because of his sacrifice. Christ now occupies the very place the atonement cover inhabited in the Most Holy Place for the removal of sins on the Day of Atonement. He’s also the One in whom God lives in the flesh, and the One through whom God’s wrath against sin (Rom. 1:18) is placated, resulting in a renewed relationship between God and rebels.

When we put these two Greek nouns together along with the verb hilaskomai, we see that Jesus is represented in the New Testament as the priest who performs the atonement sacrifice (hilaskomai), as the One who is himself the atonement sacrifice (hilasmos), and as the place where the atonement sacrifice occurs (hilastērion).

Everything we need for God’s forgiveness, for the removal of God’s anger, and for reconciliation with God himself can be found in Jesus.

 

[Ekklesian]

...Jesus is represented in the New Testament as the priest who performs the atonement sacrifice (hilaskomai), as the One who is himself the atonement sacrifice (hilasmos), and as the place where the atonement sacrifice occurs (hilastērion).

Everything we need for God’s forgiveness, for the removal of God’s anger, and for reconciliation with God himself can be found in Jesus.

O Holy Ghost, whose temple I ​

Am, but of mud walls , and condensèd dust, ​

And being sacrilegiously ​

Half wasted with youth's fires of pride and lust, ​

Must with new storms be weather-beat, ​

Double in my heart Thy flame, ​

Which let devout sad tears intend, and let—​

Though this glass lanthorn, flesh, do suffer maim—​

Fire, sacrifice, priest, altar be the same.​

​

From 'A Litany'—John Donne ​