This will (hopefully) be a long, respectful thread discussing the subject question from a purely biblical perspective.
Let us get started. Although I doubt this will stay civil for very long.... (Please prove me wrong.)
Statement:
The atonement is the work of God in Christ Jesus on the cross of Calvary. In this Holy work, He, being innocent of sin and without blemish, was fully qualified to bear our sins and in doing so voluntarily paid the massive debt to God for our sin. By His sacrifice, He fully satisfied or appeased God’s holy wrath that was due us, and obtained for us as believers, the benefits of salvation. The death of His Only Begotten Son was absolutely necessary because God would not, and could not, by His very character infringe upon, or diminish in any way his perfect justice and glory. The diminution of God’s perfect justice is exactly what would have happened if he had forever ignored man’s sin without full recompense.
Comment:
The fully developed concept of a “penal substitutionary atonement” sounds to many as being a Calvinistic idea or invention. However, this concept came to a full understanding in the church long before the Reformation. It was clearly espoused by Augustine in the late 4th century, by Anselm in the 11th century, and further refined by Aquinas in the 13th century. Even the very word “atonement” is used by the Apostle Paul (below in Romans) and occurs 98 times in the OT (NIV version) generally referring to the Mercy or Atonement Seat of Yahweh. Perhaps (in my estimation or judgement) foreshadowing the future work of Christ. Then it is again used four more times in the NT, in the salvational context given in Romans 3.
Conclusion:
If the Christian cannot grasp and hold to the atonement that is achieved by Christ for us; then there’s no need to go further with the discussion. Please read and understand Romans 3:21-26 (NIV)
21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
Next up: The concept of “Limited Atonement” (The best is yet to come!) ;--)
If you’re going to disagree with anything on this new topic (thread) then please do so via scripture alone!
The message given in Romans 3:21-26 (NIV) is far more than an affirmation of Paul’s position on and understanding of the atonement. It is also rich in describing the relationships between the law, scripture, Jesus Christ, and the Father.
If I may, I’d like to start an informal, verse by verse personal interpretation of Romans 3:21-26 as I have time. Here’s verse 21 :
Romans 3:21 (NIV) –
But now …
Meaning that something has changed or is different from a previous situation or condition. My take on this phrase is that Paul is saying in effect – “now” that Christ has revealed Himself to us and completed His mission…
apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known,
Separate from or in addition to the Law of Moses given at Sinai, the righteousness of God in Christ has been made apparent.
to which the Law and the Prophets testify.
It’s easy to understand the testimony of men as prophets; but how does the law “testify” to God’s righteousness? Some teachers use the analogy of the Mosaic law being in some ways like a schoolmaster or a taskmaster, in that it, (the law) drives us to the only possible source of true redemption, that is, our Lord and Savior, Jesus. God’s Holiness and righteousness is reflected in His perfect law, and is revealed in Christ Jesus and made apparent by grace to all believers.
This website has a hot-link verse look-up feature that uses NIV84 when the NIV version is specified in the reference. I’m not familiar with NIV84 but I like its wording for verse 21 better than the original NIV:
21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.
For me this version more clearly delineates the elements of “righteousness from God” and the Mosaic law.
22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile,
Please keep in mind that we are dealing here with the “very Word of God”. My interpretation is certainly not infallible! But what the words are clearly saying is clearly without blemish!
This righteousness…
- is obviously referring to the previous verse’s phrase “the righteousness of God”.
is given…
- has the clear connotation, or better said, gives a clear declaration of how “the righteousness of God” is a gift. Keep in mind here that no one works or or earns something “given” as a gift! Though many here will agree/disagree about this; this concept of God’s righteousness being a “free gift” to those who believe permeates the entire New Testament.
through faith in Jesus Christ…
- and now we are told that “faith in Jesus Christ” is the qualifier, or what qualifies us to receive “God’s righteousness”. Note that nothing else is listed here other than “faith”. Here’s another point of future contention in that some believe that faith comes from human exertion or effort of some kind.
to all who believe.
- How wonderful and efficient is the word of God! How can there be any doubt when the same thing is so artfully stated in the very same sentence! Righteousness is given through faith (in Christ) to all who believe! To have true “faith” one must truly “believe” and to truly “believe” one must have true faith! The beauty and the affirming symmetry of God’s words here are staggering!
There is no difference between Jew and Gentile,
- Here the Apostle Paul obliterates the Jew -vs- Gentile delineation. The conditions or qualifications that have just been declared are equally applicable to all faithful believers, regardless of human heritage or biological lineage.
Why don’t you now produce scripture from Jesus’ mouth that states the following:
“Christ did not intend to die in this effecacious sense for everyone.” Page 1530
Or else this will have to be seen for what it is: running ahead, asserting sinful logic, not staying in the actual doctrines of Christ.
9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. 11 Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work. 2John 9-11
4 if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached
12 And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about.
13 For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ.
14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.
15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve. 2Cor 11
Now would somebody produce doctrine actively taught by Paul that says:
“Christ did not intend to die in this effecacious sense for everyone.”
I would hope this site could get back to what it was intended in the first place, and that is “For the Gospel”
Stan
You have to ask yourself, is the person who teaches this gospel—“Christ did not intend to die in this effecacious sense for everyone.” Page 1530 actually staying in the doctrines of Christ, when John 3 (Jesus words) say something so much different?
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
Nothing at all saying anything about “not intending to die in some manner for everyone”!
Of course we could change God’s flawless words around to make it mean what some popular “preachers” are promoting, but that would only prove that somebody was lying!
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
“for all have sinned...” pretty obvious that “all” means every child of Adam inclusively has sinned.
“and fallen short of the glory of God,” as fallen creatures, we can no longer be in God’s Holy presence. Like Moses, we are not yet allowed to “see His glory”.
24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
“and all are justified freely...” all are justified! Meaning that all who believe are declared to be innocent, without guilt; completely absolved, acquitted! And how is this accomplished and done “freely”?
“by his grace ...” it is purely a gift of God [See: Ephesians 2:8 (NIV) ]
“through the redemption ...” that we are saved,
“that came by Christ Jesus. “ by Him who the Father sent!
“and all are justified freely...” all are justified!
Really Dan?
Do you think Paul was self deceived when he warned us that there are servants of satan out there, and this is exactly how to identify such?
4 if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached
13 For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ.
14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.
15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve. 2Cor 11
So even servants of Satan, whose end will be what their actions deserve, are actually justified?
Do you think Paul was a little confused/deceived, and you are sent to right things?
He, being innocent of sin and without blemish, was fully qualified to bear our sins
Would you be talking about the “jesus” that did not intend to die for some or would you be talking about the Jesus that died “to save the world “ (John 3:17) and “for the sins of the whole world.” (1John 2)
You cannot get a start until you identify the Jesus you are speaking of. The Jesus that Jesus did not speak about, or the Jesus that He did speak about.
Otherwise you have to give room to JW’s, Catholics, SDA’s and Mormons with their various teachings of Jesus that Paul never taught, but identified such as servants of satan.
9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. 11 Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work. 2John
It is curious that you refuse to speak to which Jesus you are talking about!
100% minus those that ““Christ did not intend to die in this effecacious sense for everyone.” Page 1530 = Those Whom Did Christ Die For
You cannot get away from this doctrine of demons without dealing with it directly.
If it is taught directly by Jesus, please provide the proof. (asked on the other thread without response)
If it is not taught by Jesus, are you not reponsible for warning others of this doctrine of demons, this “going beyond what is written”, this “not staying in the doctrine of Christ”?
Ignoring error is no proof that error should be used in other assumptions!
Are you speaking of the Christ that will come a second and third time, knowing the Satan knows the time of the coming? (pretrib rapture “jesus")
Or are you speaking of the “jesus” that never intended to die for a select group of people” that cannot be found in His teachings?
“Christ did not intend to die in this effecacious sense for everyone.” Page 1530
Or are you in the Christ that says:
“Whosoever will come after me, let him deny self, and take up his cross, and follow me.”
Are you, like Sproul or Chuck Smith, asserting sinful self, teaching things He never taught, or will you deny self (like He commands) and submit to Him?
If there is anyone out there following our (my) walk through Romans 3, I apologize for the slow and halting fashion with which I have been posting. Free time is at a premium right now for me and I ask for your indulgence, and thank you for your kind patience.
Before we continue, I want to share a small but relevant nugget of biblical information that I learned of recently:
In the previous post addressing Romans 3:23 & 24; the word “redemption” was used near the end of verse 24. I think that we all tend to equate the word redemption with being saved, rescued, or (of course) redeemed. There’s little doubt that Christ is our savior, He has redeemed us, He is our redemption etc. These statements are true and are all correct affirmations of a redemptive salvation through Christ alone.
However, from the Greek language perspective, the word for redemption used in the NT literally means “loosed”, “to be unbound”, or “freed from bindings or bondage”. Some see the act of redemption as being analogous to a drowning swimmer being pulled out of the water, or when a child is stopped from running in front of a speeding car. Of course the swimmer and the child are both saved or redeemed (in an earthly sense) in these cases. However, the Greek word “apolytrōsis” that is used in this verse of the NT for the word “redemption” really has the connotation more like that of: “a release from bondage that is effected by payment of a ransom”, “a deliverance”, or (my favorite definition) “a liberation that is procured by the payment of a ransom”!
If you go back and re-read verse 24, first with the idea of “being saved” in mind for the word “redemption; and then re-read it with the meaning of “costly liberation” or “paid deliverance” in the place of the word “redemption”, it gives the verse a rather different nuance, a much sweeter meaning. At least for me it is sweeter. Sweeter, so much so because for me it assigns to Christ a better appellation than “savior” which is very good and accurate in a basic sense. But oh, how much better it is to think of Christ as our liberator from the bondage of sin! Add to that liberating concept, the idea of how the “liberated” are truly and factually unable to assist the “liberator”! Fundamentally, what exactly did the POWs do for the soldiers who marched into Auschwitz?!?! Not one thing, nothing, nada!!!! They were almost as powerless as we sinners are to accomplish their own liberation, attain their own freedom! This is why I like the interpretation of the word “redemption/redeemer” as “liberation/liberator” much better than a very good word like “savior”. For me the word “liberator” assigns a more accurate understanding of the role and the work of Christ in our salvation! Redemption and salvation as found in: Romans 8:21 (NIV)
Well, I’m out of time again! Perhaps in the next post I’ll continue with my crude interpretation of Romans3, verse 25 and more if time permits!
Many thanks to all of you for allowing me to express my understanding of these Holy words!
May our Father, by the power of the Spirit, keep us and preserve us from error or self-serving bias!
Dan,
Thanks again for your presentation on this topic.
I wish we could get rid of the troublemaker who is throwing around false accusations against almost everyone in the body of Christ.
A universal atonement logically leads to universalism. If Christ paid the penalty for all sinners, then there must be something that sinners must do to appropriate that salvation.
How could God send people to hell for endless torment (at least according to some), if He already paid the penalty for that sin?
Universalism, which was taught by some early church fathers, is now making a big comeback in the person of Rob Bell.
I wish we could get rid of the troublemaker who is throwing around false accusations against almost everyone in the body of Christ.
Because JW’s say they are in Christ, do you believe them?
Ditto Mormons? They teach satan and Jesus are “spirit brothers”
Ditto SDA’s, who preach a Jesus that could have sinned? Are they really in Christ, Stan? Or who believe Holy Spirit was responsible for their foundation of lies?
Ditto Sproulites (and others), who go beyond what Jesus taught, in this teaching: “Christ did not intend to die in this effecacious sense for everyone.” Page 1530—Now if you could just prove such with actual Words of Christ, these false teachers could avoid the negativity of this passage:
9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. 11 Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work. 2John 9-11
It is what it is!
Is the body of Christ really any cult that claims they are His body? I do not accept that.
Is the body of Christ really any person who goes beyond what is written, teaching things about the Savior that cannot be found in scripture? I do not accept that. And neither did St. Paul (2Cor 11).
It is the lookalikes, the cults, the false teachers who are bearing false witness. They are the real troublemakers! So deny self, Stan, and cease bearing false witness.
A universal atonement logically leads to universalism.
I don’t see scripture that says to go beyond what is written if it makes logical sense!
Logical sense is no part of salvation, and only proves that a person is not obeying a core teaching:
“If any man will come after me, let him deny self, and take up his cross, and follow me.”
Running ahead of Jesus’ teachings using sinful human logic merely identifies one as such:
9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. 11 Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work. 2John 9-11
Notice 2John does not say:
9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ, unless they are using their logic, does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. 11 Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work. 2John 9-11
Whoever wants it to read like that just might not be denying self, and is believing lies.
The original says what it says. Who are we sinful mortals to teach things into flawless scripture that are NOT there?
Jesus even say that without Him, you can do nothing. That would include denying self!
Let us not mix logic with Jesus’ teachings, as He has asked His sheep to deny self.
concept, the idea of how the “liberated” are truly and factually unable to assist the “liberator”! Fundamentally, what exactly did the POWs do for the soldiers who marched into Auschwitz?!?! Not one thing, nothing, nada!!!! They were almost as powerless as we sinners are to accomplish their own liberation, attain their own freedom! This is why I like the interpretation of the word “redemption/redeemer” as “liberation/liberator” much better than a very good word like “savior”. For me the word “liberator” assigns a more accurate understanding of the role and the work of Christ in our salvation! Redemption and salvation as found in: Romans 8:21 (NIV)