The Purpose of Christ on the Cross

[joelkaki]

What was Christ's purpose on the cross? Was it to make every man salvable? Was it to save every single person? Was it to make salvation a possibility? Or was it to save His elect?

Basically I want to discuss limited atonement here, but starting out with the question of Christ's purpose on the cross as a lead-in to the rest of the discussion.

Joel

[Gavin]

Ephesians 5:25
"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her."

[themuzicman]

1 Tim 2:

"3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. "

What part of "ALL MEN" is unclear?

Michael

[Gavin]

Michael, thank you for your post,
What part of "ALL MEN" is unclear?

I could ask a similar question - what part about "Christ . . . gave himself for (the church)" is unclear?

In response to your question about I Timothy 2, I would say that it is not unclear at all. I accept the universal salvific will of God.

However, additional proof will need to be cited if you mean to argue that the universal saving will of God and limited atonement are at odds.

Blessings.:smile:

[joelkaki]

Michael, that was not really my question. I was particularly asking for Christ's purpose on the cross. Was he intending to save every single person? Was he intending to to make salvation possible for every person? Yes or no will do on both questions, provided they are accompanied by a Scripture reference (though you may certainly expand on yes and no)

Joel

[Pilgrim]

I think his answer was clear. I is saying that Christ was intending for every individual to be saved.

But all in all I think that is accomplished not only on the cross but in the resurection. Perhaps one could even say that Christ's purpose on the cross was simply to die.

[joelkaki]

So Christ was intending for every individual to be saved? Is that your view Pilgrim? I just want to make sure before I launch off into a long winded speech.


Joel

[Pilgrim]

Oops. I mistyped...What I was saying is that appeared to be Gavin's answer.

[Gavin]

Oops. I mistyped...What I was saying is that appeared to be Gavin's answer.
I believe in limited atonement. See the verse in Ephesians I cited.

However, based on passages like I Timothy 2, etc., I accept that God's moral will is that all men repent and be saved.

Basically this is going to come down to whether the distinction between moral and sovereign will is tenable from the Scriptures.

[joelkaki]

So what is your position exactly, Pilgrim?

Was Christ making salvation possible, contingent on human faith?
Or was Christ definitely securing the salvation of every person?
Or was Christ definitely securing the salvation of the elect?

Joel

[Pilgrim]

What I know is that Christ's act on the cross is sufficient for me. That's all I can speak to with certainty. But I rather think that what Christ was doing was for every individual but that any individual might reject it.

[joelkaki]

But can you find Biblical support for that last statement?


Joel

[PuritanD]

Joel,

I think that the statement of sufficient for all but effecient for the elect would state my understanding.

In general, all evangelicals believe in a type of limited atonement or else they would be universalist. Even an Arminian who states that Christ's death is sufficient but can be rejected announces that Christ's atonement is limited.

Pilgrim
But all in all I think that is accomplished not only on the cross but in the resurection. Perhaps one could even say that Christ's purpose on the cross was simply to die.

Pilgrim that is fairly close to heresay to think that Christ's purpose on the cross was just to die. Without His death on the cross, there is no forgiveness of sins. How else could God place His judgment upon Him? Hebrews 9:26 states that He sacrificed His life to put away sin.

The resurrection provides the final proof of His deity and sinlessness by God's vindication of Christ's work by resurrecting Him. In and of itself, does not atone for our sins.

Joel, I do not know what your position in the limited atonement you take, but if you do believe that Christ's death was only sufficient and efficient for the elect. I have a question for you.


PuritanD

Hint: check the signature

[Pilgrim]

Pilgrim that is fairly close to heresay to think that Christ's purpose on the cross was just to die. Without His death on the cross, there is no forgiveness of sins. How else could God place His judgment upon Him? Hebrews 9:26 states that He sacrificed His life to put away sin.

I think we may be getting hung up on semantics. Technically speaking it was the resurrection which shows the defeat of death and subsequently our relsease from the power of sin. (Which is why protestant churches don't hang a crusifix in their sanctuaries.) There is also the nature of ANE covenant treaty form which the death and the resurrection satisfies.

Of course you can't have one with out the other. So it is largly pedantic to try to give one element of the act more value. Sort of like arguing about whether Christmas or Easter is more important.

[themuzicman]

03-10-2003 @ 04:32 PM
Gavin:

Michael, thank you for your post,

I could ask a similar question - what part about "Christ . . . gave himself for (the church)" is unclear?

In response to your question about I Timothy 2, I would say that it is not unclear at all. I accept the universal salvific will of God.

However, additional proof will need to be cited if you mean to argue that the universal saving will of God and limited atonement are at odds.

Blessings.:smile:

"The church" consists of all who accept Christ, right?

So, if Christ died so that all man might receive salvation, and His death, in fact, does benefit who who accept Him (the church), then there is no disconnect. The fact that there might have been more in the church, had they chosen to accept Christ doesn't mean He didn't come so they could have salvation, if they'd have asked for it, does it?

Thus, He gave Himself up for the church, whomever that might be.

Michael

[Gavin]

Hey Michael we agreed on something!:yipee:

[PuritanD]

Pilgrim,

What I wanted to point out was that if Christ just needed to die that it begs the question. One would ask, "why crucifixion then?" Why didn't Jesus die either a natural death due to age (though it may be argued that this was impossible due to his sinlessness but that is definitely off the beatin path here), or stoned, or pierced with a spear or had his head chopped off? All of these are a much better way to die than via crucifixion.

There must have been a purpose for Christ to choose death by crucifixion.

Other than that, I completely agree that we needed both the resurrection and His crucifixion. By the way, I wished that the Protestant church would reflect more so on Christ's death than on His birth (just a preference).

PuritanD

[Pilgrim]

Actually, if anything, the protestant church reflects the most on his resurrection.

[EdJones]

The Purpose of Christ on the Cross? How bout the fulfilling of the Scriptures?

[TheFiveSolas]

My position is that Christ's death literally paid the debt (death) due for sins. If that assessment is correct then one of two things follow:
1) Jesus paid for the sins of everyone.
2) Jesus paid for the sins of a specific group.

If 1 is true then all should be saved since there are no sins for which Jesus was not punished (i.e., it would be an injustice for God to punish BOTH Jesus and US for the same sins).

If 2 is true then only those for whom Christ died receive the benefits of His death (i.e., payment for sins).

I think the following rhetorical questions might help.

Will there be people in hell for whom Christ died?

Or, to put it another way.

Will there be people punished in hell for sins that Jesus had already been punished for?

[themuzicman]

03-12-2003 @ 01:13 PM
Gavin:

Hey Michael we agreed on something!:yipee:

I hate it when that happens! :bonk:

:brow:

Michael

[PuritanD]

Yesterday @ 03:54 PM
TheFiveSolas:

My position is that Christ's death literally paid the debt (death) due for sins. If that assessment is correct then one of two things follow:
1) Jesus paid for the sins of everyone.
2) Jesus paid for the sins of a specific group.

If 1 is true then all should be saved since there are no sins for which Jesus was not punished (i.e., it would be an injustice for God to punish BOTH Jesus and US for the same sins).

If 2 is true then only those for whom Christ died receive the benefits of His death (i.e., payment for sins).

I think the following rhetorical questions might help.

Will there be people in hell for whom Christ died?

Or, to put it another way.

Will there be people punished in hell for sins that Jesus had already been punished for?

If what you say is true, then what do we do when Christ interceded on the cross for His enemies to the Father, "forgive them for they do not know what they do?"

Either the Father heard His Son and forgave them of this particular sin, or Jesus wasted his breath since such forgiveness is not possible.

Better yet, since we believe that the atonement is for all sins from the time of Adam onward, how about those times when Moses interceded on behalf on all of Israel and God stated that He would blot that sin out. Was that paid by Christ on the cross? If so, by your supposition, then they must all be saved. But, we know that not all of the nation was saved.

There are problems with narrowing the blood of Christ to being both suffient and effecient for the elect alone. Then the above intercessions for forgiveness cannot be valid.

There are very few if any high Calvinists who have tried to correlate their position of the atonement with passages such as Numbers 14:13-20 and Luke 23:34. How would you do it?

PuritanD

[joelkaki]

Joel, I do not know what your position in the limited atonement you take, but if you do believe that Christ's death was only sufficient and efficient for the elect. I have a question for you.


Perhaps you could clarify for me what you exactly mean when you say "sufficient for all, efficient for some." I like to know exactly what people are referring to before I launch off into anything.

Thanks,
Joel

[Freak]

03-10-2003 @ 04:12 PM
joelkaki:

What was Christ's purpose on the cross? Was it to make every man salvable? Was it to save every single person? Was it to make salvation a possibility? Or was it to save His elect?

Basically I want to discuss limited atonement here, but starting out with the question of Christ's purpose on the cross as a lead-in to the rest of the discussion.

Joel

To purchase our redemption with His holy blood.

Hebrews 9:22 "In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."

[joelkaki]

OK, but who is the "our"? Every single man? Or the elect?


Joel

[Freak]

Today @ 04:04 AM
joelkaki:

OK, but who is the "our"? Every single man? Or the elect?


Joel

For God so loved the world that He gave His Son.....

[Sozo]

But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that being justified by His grace we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

[joelkaki]

“ Today @ 04:04 AM
joelkaki:

OK, but who is the "our"? Every single man? Or the elect?


Joel ”



For God so loved the world that He gave His Son.....

I take it that you think that means every single man, correct? If that is correct, then Christ was a miserable Savior, because he did not save everybody he meant to save.

But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that being justified by His grace we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

I have no problem with that verse. God's love and kindness toward man did appear. But are you certain you want to maintain that that those verses continue to speak of every single man?

Joel

[Arminian]

joe,

OK, but who is the "our"? Every single man? Or the elect?


All of the above. What Christ did for those in the first Adam is fulfilled in the Second. This relates to the OT and NT theme of the second exodus and the new created order. Col 1:20.

But are you certain you want to maintain that that those verses continue to speak of every single man?


Yes. Especially after we consider the verses in context and who Paul's opposition was and what they were claiming.

[Sozo]

Today @ 05:40 PM
joelkaki:


I take it that you think that means every single man, correct? If that is correct, then Christ was a miserable Savior, because he did not save everybody he meant to save.

I have no problem with that verse. God's love and kindness toward man did appear. But are you certain you want to maintain that that those verses continue to speak of every single man?

Joel

"For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men"

God reconciled the entire world (every person that has ever lived or ever will live) to Himself through the death of Christ, it is up to us to be reconciled to God by accepting His life.

[joelkaki]

God reconciled the entire world (every person that has ever lived or ever will live) to Himself through the death of Christ, it is up to us to be reconciled to God by accepting His life.


You contradict yourself in the same sentence. You say that
1. God reconciled every single person to Himself.
2. It is up to us to be reconciled to God.

So we are reconciled, but it is still up to us to be reconciled? Or in other words, we are reconciled but we aren't reconciled? I don't think I need press it further.

Joel

[Freak]

A poster writes: ...then Christ was a miserable Savior, because he did not save everybody he meant to save.

Huh? For God so loved the world...

The world my friend, the world.

[Sozo]

Today @ 06:15 PM
joelkaki:

God reconciled the entire world (every person that has ever lived or ever will live) to Himself through the death of Christ, it is up to us to be reconciled to God by accepting His life.


You contradict yourself in the same sentence. You say that
1. God reconciled every single person to Himself.
2. It is up to us to be reconciled to God.

So we are reconciled, but it is still up to us to be reconciled? Or in other words, we are reconciled but we aren't reconciled? I don't think I need press it further.

Joel

If you owe me 10.00 and I forgive the debt, it is up to you to accept my forgiveness. Or you can choose to reject my forgiveness, and continue to try and pay me off, which would be an insult to my grace!

Understand?

[joelkaki]

If you owe me 10.00 and I forgive the debt, it is up to you to accept my forgiveness. Or you can choose to reject my forgiveness, and continue to try and pay me off, which would be an insult to my grace!

Understand?

I understand your point completely. But I believe the analogy is flawed. God says that we are reconciled--note past tense, definite, it has already happened. God does not say that Christ's death made reconciliation possible, dependent on our faith. It says we are reconciled.

Joel

[joelkaki]

A poster writes: ...then Christ was a miserable Savior, because he did not save everybody he meant to save.

Huh? For God so loved the world...

The world my friend, the world.


First of all, I don't mind you using my name. I ain't ashamed of being the one to have said what I have said, so go ahead and say joelkaki or joel if you want to.

The cultural context of "world" there means not every single person, but world as in not just Jews, but also the world=gentile nations. World=all men without distinction, not all men without exception.

If Christ died so that every single person should be saved, and not all are, then two things are true:
1. Christ did not accomplish his purpose on the cross.
2. Salvation, in the end, is dependent on man's choice.

Both of which are clearly contrary to Scripture.

Joel

[Sozo]

"For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life."

We are not saved by the death of Christ, but by His life.

The death reconciled us to God, but we are still dead unless we receive His life.

"Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ, and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were entreating through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God."

[joelkaki]

"For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life."

We are not saved by the death of Christ, but by His life.

Yes, but you would agree that those he died for are the same ones as he rose for, would you not? (Rom 4:25)


The death reconciled us to God, but we are still dead unless we receive His life.

Here is the problem. You say we are still dead unless we receive his life. You put the emphasis on man receiving God. But look at Eph 2:1,4,5. God is the one that makes us alive. He makes us alive WHILE WE ARE STILL DEAD IN SINS. IT HAS TO BE BEFORE FAITH, BECAUSE IT IS WHILE WE ARE STILL DEAD IN SINS.


"Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ, and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were entreating through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God."

The new creation, the new birth, is not an act of man, but an act of God. (John 1:13)

Joel

[Sozo]

If I was to accept your conclusions of it being all God's doing, than I would have no choice but to believe in ultimate reconciliation.

[joelkaki]

With your present set of beliefs, yes. Which is exactly my point.

Joel

[Sozo]

Today @ 07:36 PM
joelkaki:

With your present set of beliefs, yes. Which is exactly my point.

Joel


Fair enough. I do not believe in the God of Calvin.

[Freak]

Joel--

Christ died for all but forgiveness is effective to only those who believe.

[Arminian]

joel,

You say we are still dead unless we receive his life. You put the emphasis on man receiving God. But look at Eph 2:1,4,5. God is the one that makes us alive.

Exactly. That's Paul's message. He believed that those before Christ were dead. That didn't necessarily mean that they were going to hell. It meant that they had not yet received the Spirit. Those who lived prior to Christ obeyed the law while they awaited Messiah to bring life.

Gal 3

21Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law.


Now, you refer to the verses in Ephesians but they make the same point. Paul is writing in view of Christ's new work which creates the "one new man." That is, Jew and Gentile into a new entity. So how does faith fit into this?

Here's what Paul has to say in Col 3:

6So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, 7rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.
8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. 11In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature,[1] not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature,[2] God made you[3] alive with Christ.

Here, again, it's clear that faith comes before being made alive. The final verse makes the same point as the ones from Ephesians, but we now see that this "life" is related to the circumcision of the Sprit that follows "faith in the power of God."

As for your comment concering "receive," it's in the active voice. It is something that you actively do.

No time to check spelling (as usual).

[joelkaki]

Christ died for all but forgiveness is effective to only those who believe.

So Christ's purpose was thwarted by the will of man? If Christ died for all, and not all receive the benefit of that death, then his death was essentially ineffectual, and we have no reason to trust in his power, because man's will could defeat his purpose.

Joel

[joelkaki]

Arminian, I disagree that Ephesians 2:1-10 is talking about the status of those in the OT (before Christ came). I will be giving a more complete response to your post soon.

Joel

[Arminian]

jeol,

Arminian, I disagree that Ephesians 2:1-10 is talking about the status of those in the OT (before Christ came). I will be giving a more complete response to your post soon.

That's not what I meant. I meant that all were dead. Those in the OT (under Sinai) were included, but they weren't going to hell because they had the temporary covering of the law. However, all were sinners and in the first Adam.

[Arminian]

So Christ's purpose was thwarted by the will of man? If Christ died for all, and not all receive the benefit of that death, then his death was essentially ineffectual, and we have no reason to trust in his power, because man's will could defeat his purpose.

Christ's purpose was to provide an objective sacrifice for salvation and to leave those who do not accept it in their condemnation. So, no, he did not fail.

[joelkaki]

That's not what I meant. I meant that all were dead. Those in the OT (under Sinai) were included, but they weren't going to hell because they had the temporary covering of the law. However, all were sinners and in the first Adam.


Perhaps you could explain what you meant more before I comment on what you said, or else I might run in entirely the wrong direction.


Joel

[joelkaki]

Christ's purpose was to provide an objective sacrifice for salvation and to leave those who do not accept it in their condemnation. So, no, he did not fail.


Please provide a Biblical reference that tells us that that was Christ's purpose.


Joel

[efta777]

03-18-2003 @ 04:43 PM
joelkaki:

If you owe me 10.00 and I forgive the debt, it is up to you to accept my forgiveness. Or you can choose to reject my forgiveness, and continue to try and pay me off, which would be an insult to my grace!

Understand?

(Edit: I assume you're talking about 2 Corinthians 5:18 here)

I understand your point completely. But I believe the analogy is flawed. God says that we are reconciled--note past tense, definite, it has already happened. God does not say that Christ's death made reconciliation possible, dependent on our faith. It says we are reconciled.

Joel

This quote was from a couple days ago, and I think there is a misunderstanding of the context of Paul's words. He is not writing his letter to EVERYONE. Yes, everyone would read it one day, but he is writing specifically to a church, therefore already being Christians they already HAVE been reconciled. This is IMO one of the most common errors in Biblical exegesis, thinking that in its entirety it was written specifically for us. We have to use these letters to OTHERS and learn from them as such.

[efta777]

I think there's alot about limited atonement in 2 Corinthians 5:11-21, but to save time I won't post the whole thing here:

5:14-15
"For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again."

These verses say that Christ died for ALL, but they also seem to imply a choice when it says "Those who live should..." It is saying that even though Christ 'died for all,' all DON'T live. This is not a contradiction, it's a choice.

5:19-20
"that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God."

So God was reconciling THE WORLD, which means to me that he made reconciliation available to everyone. Then the last statement sums it up by urging those who are not reconciled to BE reconciled. Meaning that it's a choice for anyone.

[Arminian]

joel,

Perhaps you could explain what you meant more before I comment on what you said, or else I might run in entirely the wrong direction.


I just did in my last few posts. Or you can read anything Paul says when he discusses the law/death or the Spirit/life. Stay away from most commentaries written before 1997.

Please provide a Biblical reference that tells us that that was Christ's purpose

He came to save the world, but not condemn it. Those who believe are not condemned.

[Zakath]

Today @ 04:37 PM
Arminian:
...Stay away from most commentaries written before 1997.Just curious, why that particular year?

[Arminian]

Zak,

Just curious, why that particular year?

It's the year that the influence of a particular author took hold. (I won't mention who.)

But I'm just curious why and atheist would care. :huh:

[joelkaki]

It's the year that the influence of a particular author took hold. (I won't mention who.)



Would you go ahead and mention who for my benefit?


Joel

[joelkaki]

I'm still not sure what you mean:

What do you believe the phrase "dead in sins" means?

Joel

[PuritanD]

Joel,

After reading all of your posts here, I am a bit confused by your own stance. I know that in your thread at the Gym you state you agree with the efficiency for the elect but sufficiency for all.

I am wondering if you would not mind defining exactly how you understand the "sufficiency for all" aspect of the atonement. It would clear up my confusion.

Thanks,

PuritanD

[joelkaki]

Joel,

After reading all of your posts here, I am a bit confused by your own stance. I know that in your thread at the Gym you state you agree with the efficiency for the elect but sufficiency for all.

I am wondering if you would not mind defining exactly how you understand the "sufficiency for all" aspect of the atonement. It would clear up my confusion.

Thanks,

PuritanD

Actually, PuritanD, I asked you sometime back for a clear definition of what you meant by "sufficient for all, efficient for elect." I stated what I believe, but before I answer your question could you do that please, so I make sure I am accurate in what I say?

Thanks,
Joel

[PuritanD]

Today @ 11:17 PM
joelkaki:

Actually, PuritanD, I asked you sometime back for a clear definition of what you meant by "sufficient for all, efficient for elect." I stated what I believe, but before I answer your question could you do that please, so I make sure I am accurate in what I say?

Thanks,
Joel

Sorry about that Joel. I must have missed it in your other posts. What I mean by sufficiency is that Christ's death on the cross has the sufficiency to pay for all sins of mankind but unless one is elect then it is not effectual for a person.

Though I do not like this terminology, I will use it with some reluctancy. Sufficiency = hypothetical universalism not literal and Efficiency = this atonement though having possible broader application is only received by those who are the elect.

Which is what I was trying to imply in the other thread concerning the Synod of Dort Article 3 sec 3

I hope that this helps clear the issue for you. If we do differ on exact definition, then I may be willing to debate you in the boxing ring as a C vs C and not A vs C. I do not believe that Jesus just died for the elect alone. I do believe that the effectiveness of his death is for the elect alone.

This is why I do not think that Calvinist are either 4 or 5 points but just 5 points with an understanding that within the Calvinsit camp there is a diversity of meaning on what the L actually means. Sorry for the chatting but I just got another quality point
:yipee:

PuritanD

[Arminian]

joel,

What do you believe the phrase "dead in sins" means?

For Paul it means that they are unable to obey God from the heart because they are without the Spirit. The law brought death, so to live according to it was to "do what I do not what to do." The Spirit brings righteousness and the ability to obey God from the heart, so the "letter" is obsolete.

The law was merely a bandage to deal with sin until the arrival of Messiah. Then God would establish is new humanity in Messiah. This new people of the Second Adam are able to obey God from the heart. The law is now obsolete, so those under the law are condemned in the first Adam.

[Arminian]

Joel,

Would you go ahead and mention who for my benefit?

Nope! :read:

[Solly]

Hmm, either EP Sanders, NT Wright or JDG Dunn is my choice

[joelkaki]

Sorry about that Joel. I must have missed it in your other posts. What I mean by sufficiency is that Christ's death on the cross has the sufficiency to pay for all sins of mankind but unless one is elect then it is not effectual for a person.

When I said I believe that it is sufficient for all, I was basically saying just that His death had the power to save all. His power was not limited to the elect. He could have saved all by his death.


Though I do not like this terminology, I will use it with some reluctancy. Sufficiency = hypothetical universalism not literal and Efficiency = this atonement though having possible broader application is only received by those who are the elect.

That really doesn't make any sense to me at all. What did Christ then do for those besides the elect?


Which is what I was trying to imply in the other thread concerning the Synod of Dort Article 3 sec 3

I hope that this helps clear the issue for you. If we do differ on exact definition, then I may be willing to debate you in the boxing ring as a C vs C and not A vs C. I do not believe that Jesus just died for the elect alone. I do believe that the effectiveness of his death is for the elect alone.

Then what did he accomplish for the non-elect? What was the purpose in dying for them? Was he their substitute? If so, then that is really not the Calvinist position. If not, then how did he die for them?
I would prefer not to debate that in the Boxing Ring, simply because I am not even totally sure as to what you mean; and I really want to debate an Arminian there.


This is why I do not think that Calvinist are either 4 or 5 points but just 5 points with an understanding that within the Calvinsit camp there is a diversity of meaning on what the L actually means. Sorry for the chatting but I just got another quality point



What is a quality point anyway? What is a spam point? I think I've got 5 of each, but I don't know what they are.

Joel

[joelkaki]

PuritanD, would you mind coming and taking a stab at my post over in the library? And Solly too, if you have the time.


Joel

[Arminian]

Solly,

Hmm, either EP Sanders, NT Wright or JDG Dunn is my choice

Pretty close. I'll give you partial credit. However, it's unrelated to NP, per se, so those NP authors aren't relative. However, there is an private association that those authors are a part of.

You neglected to list me and another person.

[PuritanD]

Today @ 10:13 AM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=41597#post41597)
joelkaki:

PuritanD, would you mind coming and taking a stab at my post over in the library? And Solly too, if you have the time.


Joel

Joel, are you talking about your thread regarding good sermons. And did you want my critique of your sermon??

PuritanD

PS: If so, I would do my best :smile:

[joelkaki]

Yes, that is what I was referring to. Thanks,

Joel

[Arminian]

and I really want to debate an Arminian there.


Am I chopped liver?

[joelkaki]

Am I chopped liver?

No, but I was not aware that you offered to debate me over there.


Joel

[Arminian]

No, but I was not aware that you offered to debate me over there.

There are too many rules over there, and too many egos. Besides, YOU started THIS thread.

[joelkaki]

I'm going to be back to the posts on this thread, but I just wanted to debate someone more formally over there. So, in answer to your question, no, you are not chopped liver.


Joel

[nadira]

What was Christ's purpose on the cross? Was it to make every man salvable? Was it to save every single person? Was it to make salvation a possibility? Or was it to save His elect?

Basically I want to discuss limited atonement here, but starting out with the question of Christ's purpose on the cross as a lead-in to the rest of the discussion.

Joel


Greetings and Blessings. I believe the definitive word on the questions of Christ's purpose on the cross and the extent of salvation lies in John 3:14-21 (Note: All biblical references are from the KJV.)

The fundamental issue here is God's love for His creation, the world. In light of this immense love He made the ultimate gesture by sending a gift to humanity that if accepted would restore the relationship that was destroyed in the Garden of Eden through the sin of Adam and Eve, i.e. disobedience of God's commandments. Disobedience resulted in the shattering of the unity/oneness between God and his creation. From that time a void existed which required a perfect sacrifice, the Holy Lamb of God.

Restoration of the unity/oneness between God and His creation through salvation is the purpose for Christ's death on the cross. Jesus and God are one in love and purpose and this unity/oneness is desired for all creation as Jesus
states in John 15:10:

"If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love."

The objective of achieving unity/oneness with God and all creation is embedded in the "manner" Jesus taught His disciples to pray. "Our Father" is all inclusive. Everyone who utters these words can be assured in the instant of this unity/oneness in the same way that light appeared when God said "let there be light". The extent of this unity/oneness is clear in the prayer when the affirmation is made: "Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." (Matthew 6:10 & Luke 11:2).

God's love motivates Him to temper judgment with mercy and to constantly reach out to His creation. In the wilderness the Children of Israel "spoke against God, and against Moses" (Numbers 21:5) after God had granted Israel victory against King Arad and the Canaanite armies (Numbers 21:1-4). This murmuring or complaining resulted in God sending "fiery serpents" among them and many died. When the people acknowledged their sin and sought repentance through petitioning Moses to pray for them God heard Moses' prayer and provided a way of escape for them through the "serpent of brass" placed on a pole. Anyone who was bitten was saved by looking at the "serpent of brass". (Numbers 21:6-9).

Jesus Christ The Messiah takes away the poison of sin through His death on the cross. His precious blood was shed so that "WHOSOEVER believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life". (John 3:15). The word "whosoever" makes it clear that salvation is for every single person on earth who accepts the gift that God has sent us in the person of His son Jesus Christ. These verses from John 3 eloquently state God's position with respect to the salvation of the world:

[17] For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
[18] He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. [19] And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

The question of whether Jesus died on the cross to "save the elect" is dispensed with in John 1:11-13:

[11] He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
[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:
[13] Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Further, Isaiah 53:6 makes it clear that ALL humanity has fallen into sin and that God "hath laid on him [Jesus] the iniquity of us all". WHY?

God made an "everlasting covenant" with Noah in Genesis 9:11-17 not to "cut off" all "flesh" by a flood or to ever destroy the earth by a flood. To remind himself of this covenant God established "the bow" in the cloud, which we know as the rainbow (verse 16). Since the establishment of this covenant God always had to provide humankind with the means of atonement.

The prelude to the covenant and as such the revelation of God's love for His creation can be seen in Genesis 8:20-22. When Noah came out of the ark, built "an altar unto the Lord" and "offered burnt offerings on the altar" in thanksgiving to God for saving he and his family's lives, God was moved AT THIS TIME, BY THESE ACTS, to reflect on WHY He created humankind (Genesis 1:26-27). Noah's humility, gratitude and generosity restored God's confidence in the potential of human beings to transform their nature and to be good because Noah was such a person. His time in the ark had not hardened him or made him resentful of God. He was even more spiritually refined and in awe of God when he left the ark.

Noah had been chosen by God to build the ark so that he and his family would be spared as God brought total and complete destruction to the earth because he was "a just man and perfect in his generations". We are told that he "walked with God" and that he "found grace in the eyes of the Lord". (Genesis 6:8-9). After the flood Noah acknowledged God's justice and supremacy in destroying the world by acts of submission (building the ark) and making sacrifices (burnt offerings on the altar). Thus the seeds of redemption and salvation were sown for future generations.

God created US to share HIS world with Him and to be co-creators with Him. He wanted us to have dominion and to rule in the earth (Genesis 1:28-30) as He rules in heaven using principles established by Him (Genesis 2:16-17) which unify the two realms and ensure endless bliss and peace, the utopia we have long sought.

We were created solely for God's pleasure: that is, to worship and to serve Him and His purpose in the earth as is plainly spelled out in His Word, particularly in the Book of Deuteronomy. Some other passages which substantiates this view, cited here for quick reference are:

Genesis 17:1

"And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect."

Zechariah 3:7:

"Thus saith the Lord of Hosts: if thou wilt walk in my ways, and if thou wilt keep my charge, then thou shalt also judge my house, and shalt also keep my courts, and I will give thee places to walk among these that stand by."

2 Chronicles 16:9:

"For the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to show himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward him......"

And, Psalm 14:2-3 which is the justification for Jesus coming and dying on the cross to make salvation possible:

[2] The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
[3] They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

In Peace.....Nadira

[BurningBush--U]

What was Christ's purpose on the cross? Was it to make every man salvable? Was it to save every single person? Was it to make salvation a possibility? Or was it to save His elect?

Basically I want to discuss limited atonement here, but starting out with the question of Christ's purpose on the cross as a lead-in to the rest of the discussion.

Joel
Short answer:

If you want to know the truth, you have to start 1) with Genesis 2) the Law.

He came for one group in specific, and through the law allowed the other peoples to be included, the rest of the explaination has to be done through the eyes of the law.

BTW, what do you mean by limited attonement? Specifics!

[againstthegoads]

BTW, what do you mean by limited attonement? Specifics!

In my understanding it means that Jesus' attoning death was only for the salvation of the elect. In other words, Jesus did not die for the salvation of everyone, but only those He had chosen. It does not mean that The attonement is limitted within itself, it is complete, all it means is that there is a limit to who receives it.

The Arminian says that Jesus died for all and the attonement is effectual for those who believe.

The Calvinist says that Jesus died for the elect and the attonement is for those He has chosen.

As to Jesus' purpose on the Cross????

He was doing the Will of the one who sent Him.
He was fulfilling the Law
He was giving his life as a ransome for many (not all)
And so on...The freaky thing is that Jesus was an active participant in creation and when man was created, He knew in advance that this man would turn from Him and He would have to die to save them...And yet He still created. this is an awesome God.

[GoBahnsen]

Joel,

I think that the statement of sufficient for all but effecient for the elect would state my understanding.

In general, all evangelicals believe in a type of limited atonement or else they would be universalist. Even an Arminian who states that Christ's death is sufficient but can be rejected announces that Christ's atonement is limited.



Pilgrim that is fairly close to heresay to think that Christ's purpose on the cross was just to die. Without His death on the cross, there is no forgiveness of sins. How else could God place His judgment upon Him? Hebrews 9:26 states that He sacrificed His life to put away sin.

The resurrection provides the final proof of His deity and sinlessness by God's vindication of Christ's work by resurrecting Him. In and of itself, does not atone for our sins.

Joel, I do not know what your position in the limited atonement you take, but if you do believe that Christ's death was only sufficient and efficient for the elect. I have a question for you.


PuritanD

Hint: check the signatureA light came on as I read the part I put in bold type. I have often been less than real clear about what it was that made Christ's resurrection so tied to our justification. And I think I just saw that as Christ was raised, He was being accepted in all the work He did on the cross.

IOW, He was raised for our justification...speaks to the fact that all that Jesus did for His people on the cross was stamped with approval by His resurrection. So it was His resurrection that finalized all His cross-work. When Christ was accepted by resurrection power, so to, all whom He represented were also accepted, thus justified by His resurrection.

If Christ was not raised, then we are still in our sins, as Paul said, i.e. unjustified.

[Reader]

A light came on as I read the part I put in bold type. I have often been less than real clear about what it was that made Christ's resurrection so tied to our justification. And I think I just saw that as Christ was raised, He was being accepted in all the work He did on the cross.

IOW, He was raised for our justification...speaks to the fact that all that Jesus did for His people on the cross was stamped with approval by His resurrection. So it was His resurrection that finalized all His cross-work. When Christ was accepted by resurrection power, so to, all whom He represented were also accepted, thus justified by His resurrection.

If Christ was not raised, then we are still in our sins, as Paul said, i.e. unjustified.

Amen. And . . .

If Christ had not resurrected, thereby proving and demonstrating His Divinity and Godly powers over death, His would have been just another human sacrifice in the eyes of men.

Joel . . .I believe that Jesus Christ was a federal head over an elect people chosen by the Father and given to Him to represent in His righteous life, suffering and death on the cross, and resurrection from death.

The atonement of Jesus Christ was particular in nature, and not universal. The cross work of Jesus Christ was 100% successful, for as He promised the Father, He has lost none. (John 17:12, 6:39, 10:29)

(Apologies if this repeats others' replies or leaves discussion out . . .I reviewed the thread rather briefly.)

[RanRan]

The atonement of Jesus Christ was particular in nature, and not universal.

That is another gospel. John said that Christ was the propitiation for not just our sins but the sins of the whole world. That is the basis for the atonement and it IS universal, and plainly so, from scripture. God placed EVERYONE under disobedience to show mercy to EVERYONE. He is not counting men's sin against them. Again, that's the Gospel - the good news to man. Few come to believe it.

The question is: should one consider themself 'elected' if they do NOT believe the one true Gospel? "For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it." So says Christ.

Election (which cannot be known) is not the Gospel (which can be known and communicated to men). This is why Paul communicated Christ crucified and that only. The true Gospel is clear - even a child a can understand it. 'God loves you' is the pure expression of it and can be expressed to anyone. It is not the unreasonable, unintelligible, capricious, lucky-charm gospel of 'election' or the self-centered, ego-centric gospel of the religious. The true Gospel stands above both and few find it, or finding it, will stand for it.

[smaller]

That is another gospel. John said that Christ was the propitiation for not just our sins but the sins of the whole world. That is the basis for the atonement and it IS universal, and plainly so, from scripture. God placed EVERYONE under disobedience to show mercy to EVERYONE. He is not counting men's sin against them. Again, that's the Gospel - the good news to man. Few come to believe it.

Have you come to believe this ranran?

If so, then good for you.

[Reader]

That is another gospel. John said that Christ was the propitiation for not just our sins but the sins of the whole world.

Yeah, it is the true Gospel. You quote the teaching of John, who was a Jew, telling the good news that sinners from every nation around the world would have their sins propitiated by the cross work of Jesus Christ. This is not a promise of universal remission of sins, but forgiveness from God would be worked not just for the nation of Israel, but for ". . every tribe and tongue and people and nation." Rev. 5:9, 7:9



That is the basis for the atonement and it IS universal, and plainly so, from scripture.

Well, that is the purpose of the thread and the question asked.

I disagree with you. I believe in Limited Atonement.



God placed EVERYONE under disobedience to show mercy to EVERYONE. He is not counting men's sin against them. Again, that's the Gospel - the good news to man. Few come to believe it.

So Jesus died for all men, but it doesn't do all men any good? Jesus forgave all the sins ever committed in the whole world, but multitudes of sins are not forgiven? God is not counting sins against anybody, but there will be many judged, condemned, and thrown into the lake of fire?

Your "theology" is inconsistent.






The question is: should one consider themself 'elected' if they do NOT believe the one true Gospel?

Election is not conditional upon belief. Belief is conditional upon being one of God's elect. Only those chosen in Christ the Elect, will be gifted with faith to believe in His sacrifice for their sins.



"For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it." So says Christ.

The words of Jesus in Luke 9:24 are in context of discipleship; not salvation. A selfless discipleship will be evidence of true salvation.



[quote]Election (which cannot be known) is not the Gospel (which can be known and communicated to men). This is why Paul communicated Christ crucified and that only. The true Gospel is clear - even a child a can understand it. 'God loves you' is the pure expression of it and can be expressed to anyone. It is not the unreasonable, unintelligible, capricious, lucky-charm gospel of 'election' or the self-centered, ego-centric gospel of the religious. The true Gospel stands above both and few find it, or finding it, will stand for it.

I don't think we should tell individuals that God loves them, when we don't know whether God does love them or not, or whether Christ actually died for them or not.

I proclaim the gospel by telling others that Christ died the death of His people and forgives His people all their sins, so that His righteousness might be imputed to their behalf. I put the truth in general terms, so that I am not making false or empty promises.

Of course, I know you will disagree. But the OP wanted to know our opinions about this.

[RanRan]

I don't think we should tell individuals that God loves them, when we don't know whether God does love them or not, or whether Christ actually died for them or not.

I proclaim the gospel by telling others that Christ died the death of His people and forgives His people all their sins, so that His righteousness might be imputed to their behalf. I put the truth in general terms, so that I am not making false or empty promises.

I appreciate you being forthright. But your conclusions point out the fundamental problem of this gospel.

You cannot know whether God loves any particular person - including your own children, including yourself - it may all be a deception to think of oneself as loved. Saying that you believe a gospel that says God doesn't love everyone may only be completing a circle of deception from which you cannot extract yourself.

You also set up the problem of the Truth setting people free. If a man believes that God does not love him and Christ did not die for him - he is, in fact, IN the Truth. He has entered the Truth and has been freed from deception. I might point out to him that he is not believing the true Gospel - whereas you cannot. What becomes of that man under the system? Again, he cannot be extracted because he is being true to both himself and God. That man sought and found. Those who seek the truth are rewarded.

You can never know the assurance the true Gospel provides. Belief in your 'election' may be a deception, since you cannot know whether you are 'elected' or not, and because what 'secret knowledge' you place your fate upon is something you cannot know other than your belief in your 'election' itself being proof of your 'election.' A completely circular and egocentric proposition.

Lastly, it is an affront to reason and clear thinking. Because, ultimately, it reduces the entire Gospel, the work of Christ and salvation itself to a matter of pure luck of the draw. The gospel of whimsy becomes logic's champion. Ironic, isn't it?

[spitndirt]

What was Christ's purpose on the cross? Was it to make every man salvable? Was it to save every single person? Was it to make salvation a possibility? Or was it to save His elect?

Basically I want to discuss limited atonement here, but starting out with the question of Christ's purpose on the cross as a lead-in to the rest of the discussion.

Joel
Hi,

Since Jesus is 'the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world' I would say that He took away the sin of the world thereby opening up salvation to 'whosoever'. This would make 'belief' and 'unbelief' the standard for judgment. If one believes he does so unto salvation and the sacrifice is effective. If one does not believe he does so unto damnation and his sin remains.

I'm also 'toying' with the possibility that [all] are 'vivified' at the cross so that God would be shown 'just' to all according to their deeds. Christ was crucified outside the city. So all meet Him there at the cross and are made alive. Being made alive they are then enabled obey the command to 'enter into the city of the King', so to speak. Those who obey do so 'believing', while the disobedient remain outside and perish there. Also, figuratively, if Lazarus being made alive would have disobeyed the command 'Come out'. he would have died again in his tomb. Seems to me that our Lord frames His life giving Words into commands that we are enabled to obey, being made alive. What do you think...?

Peace

[RanRan]

Since Jesus is 'the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world' I would say that He took away the sin of the world thereby opening up salvation to 'whosoever'. This would make 'belief' and 'unbelief' the standard for judgment. If one believes he does so unto salvation and the sacrifice is effective. If one does not believe he does so unto damnation and his sin remains.

What is done cannot be undone - the sacrifice stands eternally. If you study the Last Judgment, you will see that it is not belief or unbelief, per se, that is the criteria (neither side knew their acts, or non-acts, were as much to Christ himself) rather, the criteria is more in the nature of love - what we say is the supreme product of faith and trust in the goodness of God. That is the basis of the judgment. The sacrifice stands whether we believe it or not - unbelief does not nullify the cross, as if man were in control of God. The Gospel says that God is not counting men's sins against them. True to His Word, we do not see those sins brought against either group. We see the judgment of the heart, not based on the Law (that was nailed to the cross according to the Gospel) but upon Christ's Kingdom proof of citizenship of loving God and loving our fellow man.

One of the hero's of Christ's many parables was a Samaritan, what we today would call an Arab or Moslem. That parable ticked off many of His fellow Jews. If it ticks us off or gives rise to our 'reasons' for God to hate him...well, I think there's going to be some surprises at the Last Judgment, particularly for the 'religious.'

[spitndirt]

What is done cannot be undone - the sacrifice stands eternally. If you study the Last Judgment, you will see that it is not belief or unbelief, per se, that is the criteria (neither side knew their acts, or non-acts, were as much to Christ himself) rather, the criteria is more in the nature of love - what we say is the supreme product of faith and trust in the goodness of God. That is the basis of the judgment. The sacrifice stands whether we believe it or not - unbelief does not nullify the cross, as if man were in control of God. The Gospel says that God is not counting men's sins against them. True to His Word, we do not see those sins brought against either group. We see the judgment of the heart, not based on the Law (that was nailed to the cross according to the Gospel) but upon Christ's Kingdom proof of citizenship of loving God and loving our fellow man.

One of the hero's of Christ's many parables was a Samaritan, what we today would call an Arab or Moslem. That parable ticked off many of His fellow Jews. If it ticks us off or gives rise to our 'reasons' for God to hate him...well, I think there's going to be some surprises at the Last Judgment, particularly for the 'religious.'
Hi Ran Ran,

Belief and unbelief: Belief 'obeys' so that love is the result since all that Christ commands falls under love God - love neighbor. Unbelief leads to serving oneself, the very opposite of love. I see these things as being connected. But you are right to say that the 'acts of love' - or as Paul said it, '...faith expressing itself in love...' - are specifically subject to judgment.

The cross: I also agree that this is 'finished' and stands forever - and must to be effective for believers. However, for unbelievers the cross becomes of no effect since they continue in sin, not believing. This is why I said '...their sin remains...'. Not that the cross is not still standing, but through unbelief it becomes of no effect because of unbelief - which will be shown to be true at the final judgment.

Thanks for your response.....peace

[RanRan]

Not that the cross is not still standing, but through unbelief it becomes of no effect because of unbelief - which will be shown to be true at the final judgment.
Faith does not propitiate God. Likewise, we don't nullify the cross by NOT believing Christ took away the sins of the world by His sacrifice on it. His accomplishment on the cross is complete, perfect and eternal whether it is believed or not. You and I do not propitiate or un-propitiate God, man has not had the ability to do so, only the God/Man Christ who came along with the ability to offer Himself.

Christ's accomplishment stands right to and through the Last Judgment. God remains propitiated, reconciled, loving mankind right to the end. Those entering Christ's Kingdom have, by the criteria, helped the Kingdom advance by their, sometimes, frail and tiny contribution (a cup of water), those not entering, did not. But that does not mean those not entering the Kingdom will find their un-belief justified in seeing the cross having no-effect even at that event. They will experience justice in the perfect shadow of the cross, even there. The Christ they rejected and the Kingdom they ignored and the love they would not believe will be oh so real - that's why they will gnash their teeth.

So do not think that unbelievers with have their unbelief confirmed by experiencing a God who does not love them by ignoring the same cross they ignored. (That is to say, the unbelieving god CREATED by unbelievers and enemies of the Gospel). Christ has made a great many promises to us about the Kingdom - the Judgment is His protection of His Kingdom - it's all done out of love for humanity, of which He, the Lord of the Universe, is a member.

[spitndirt]

Faith does not propitiate God. Likewise, we don't nullify the cross by NOT believing Christ took away the sins of the world by His sacrifice on it. His accomplishment on the cross is complete, perfect and eternal whether it is believed or not. You and I do not propitiate or un-propitiate God, man has not had the ability to do so, only the God/Man Christ who came along with the ability to offer Himself.

Christ's accomplishment stands right to and through the Last Judgment. God remains propitiated, reconciled, loving mankind right to the end. Those entering Christ's Kingdom have, by the criteria, helped the Kingdom advance by their, sometimes, frail and tiny contribution (a cup of water), those not entering, did not. But that does not mean those not entering the Kingdom will find their un-belief justified in seeing the cross having no-effect even at that event. They will experience justice in the perfect shadow of the cross, even there. The Christ they rejected and the Kingdom they ignored and the love they would not believe will be oh so real - that's why they will gnash their teeth.

So do not think that unbelievers with have their unbelief confirmed by experiencing a God who does not love them by ignoring the same cross they ignored. (That is to say, the unbelieving god CREATED by unbelievers and enemies of the Gospel). Christ has made a great many promises to us about the Kingdom - the Judgment is His protection of His Kingdom - it's all done out of love for humanity, of which He, the Lord of the Universe, is a member.
Hi RanRan

Let me try again. I am not saying that unbelief affects God if that is what you are suggesting. You are not hearing me if this is what you are thinking. Faith has to do with 'man'. It is the man who rejects the sacrifice who makes the cross [for himself] of no effect. He, the unbeliever, will find that the cross will not save him in the end because of his unbelief. The cross itself is never 'emptied of its power' - but still it's power will be as ineffectual for 'the salvation' of the rejecters of it. Now, I also agree that 'the cross' will show God to be just in his judgment, but still for the unbeliever it will in the end have no 'saving effect'. This is what I am saying. If this is NOT SO, then all are saved reguardless of their deeds. Hopefully I have clarified my position.

Peace

[nadira]

Faith does not propitiate God. Likewise, we don't nullify the cross by NOT believing Christ took away the sins of the world by His sacrifice on it. His accomplishment on the cross is complete, perfect and eternal whether it is believed or not. You and I do not propitiate or un-propitiate God, man has not had the ability to do so, only the God/Man Christ who came along with the ability to offer Himself.

Christ's accomplishment stands right to and through the Last Judgment. God remains propitiated, reconciled, loving mankind right to the end. Those entering Christ's Kingdom have, by the criteria, helped the Kingdom advance by their, sometimes, frail and tiny contribution (a cup of water), those not entering, did not. But that does not mean those not entering the Kingdom will find their un-belief justified in seeing the cross having no-effect even at that event. They will experience justice in the perfect shadow of the cross, even there. The Christ they rejected and the Kingdom they ignored and the love they would not believe will be oh so real - that's why they will gnash their teeth.

So do not think that unbelievers with have their unbelief confirmed by experiencing a God who does not love them by ignoring the same cross they ignored. (That is to say, the unbelieving god CREATED by unbelievers and enemies of the Gospel). Christ has made a great many promises to us about the Kingdom - the Judgment is His protection of His Kingdom - it's all done out of love for humanity, of which He, the Lord of the Universe, is a member.


Greetings and Peace RanRan:

Jesus Christ always stressed the importance of "BELIEF." In fact the theme of belief is one of the major elements in His teachings. Salvation cannot be realized unless WE: (a) believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God; (b) believe that Jesus was sent into this world by God to die for the sins of humanity so that salvation could be attained by ALL; (c) believe that "the name of Jesus" is the door through which we enter into the kingdom of God and are thereby able to access power to do the work for which God has created us on this earth (i.e. Matthew 28:19-20).

Nicodemus is a case in point. He came to Jesus full of unbelief. The fact that he came by night is a clue because he was concerned that his peers would ridicule him for seeking out Jesus because very few of them believed that Jesus had come from God. Thus Jesus said in John 8:24 to these Unbelievers:

[24] I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

Here we see that believing is critical to salvation because these Jews first had to believe before they could become converted. John 8:30-31 advances the theme of belief as follows:

[30] As he spake these words, many believed on him.

[31] Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed.

Jesus likewise addressed the unbelievers, skeptics and scoffers who engaged in polemics to demonstrate that they had no need of the freedom He was offering them - i.e. the freedom from sin - because they were the seed of Abraham, his children, and had never been "in bondage to any man" by levelling His criticisms fully at THEIR UNBELIEF. The juxtaposition is deliberate and it makes the point succinctly:

[39] They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

[40] But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

What were the works of Abraham on which Jesus is implicitly asking them to reflect? Abraham was a man of faith. God spoke to him. He heard God's words and he acted without hesitation, journeying from Haran to the land of Canaan (Genesis 12:4-5).

When there was a famine in the land of Canaan this did not cause Abraham to doubt God's Promise and Covenant that He [God] would give the Land of Canaan to Abraham and his seed forever. Abraham didn't start to murmur and complain that God had asked him to leave the comfort of the Chaldees and to bring his wife into a desert. Instead, Abraham saw the famine as one of the ways that God was working out His purpose to make the land available for him and his descendants by starving out the Canaanites.

Abraham decided to go down into Egypt and "to sojourn there" until the famine was over in Canaan. (Genesis 12:10). As soon as the conditions in Canaan improved Abraham went back to Bethel, "where his tent had been at the beginning, between Bethel and Hai". (Genesis 13:3). Abraham's first altar was at this place Bethel. As soon as he returned to his origins he offered God praise, thanksgiving and sacrifice for giving him safe passage in Egypt and allowing him to return to Canaan with great wealth, thus making him a force to be contended with among the heathen Canaanites.

Abraham understood what Paul says in Hebrews 10:38 that "the just shall live by faith"; and Hebrews 11:6:

"But without faith it is impossible to please him [God]; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

As Noah heard and obeyed, so did Abraham, thus establishing the principle that ]"faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God".

This is what Jesus was saying to the Unbelievers. He was telling them that no one had seen the Father; or, that no one knew the Father except himself because He came from heaven and knew what the Father wanted and expected of humankind. His constant emphasis to them was to HEAR and BELIEVE in order to obtain salvation.

The Voice of God represents the Power of God. His Voice decrees and releases His Word into the universe. This is why we must Hear. These words are intricately connected by divine purpose: Voice > Word > Hear. We must also Believe and act on that belief by obeying because everything in the universe moves when God says: "LET THERE BE" (Genesis 1:3). God opens His mouth and His Voice is the instrument of salvation or destruction.

King David in 2 Samuel 22:7 takes this concept of the power of voice to another level by showing the connectedness of the human voice to the ear of God and, subsequently the voice of God responding to human voice:

[7] In my distress I called upon the Lord, and cried to my God: and he did hear my voice out of his holy temple, and my cry did enter into his ears.

What happened then? In verse 14, David says:

[14] The Lord thundered from heaven, and the most High uttered his voice. When God's Voice was "uttered" on behalf of His servant, David was saved from his enemies: Verses 17-19:

[17] He sent from above, he took me; he drew me out of many waters;
[18] He delivered me from my strong enemy, and from them that hated me; for they were too strong for me.
[19] They prevented me in the day of my calamity; but the Lord was my stay.

Jesus was trying to teach the "lost sheep of the House of Israel" (Matthew 15:24), who had long ceased to hear God's voice due to all the years they had been in captivity, that God had sent Him to bring them a word of hope for redemption; and, that all they had to do was to hear and believe that He had come from God: John 8:42-45:

[42] Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

[43] Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word,

[44] Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

[45] And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

Jesus tried his utmost to demonstrate to these Unbelievers that God's Word Is Truth. Why? Because God is a God of Covenant. Whatever He says He will do then He will do it. His Word said that Jesus would be sent into the world to die for the sins of humankind, to reclaim Eden from grip of the serpent, Satan. All humanity was lost when Adam and Eve sinned. Nevertheless, God who seals up the end in the beginning, in the same way He made "the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind whose seed is in itself" (Genesis 1:11), had a plan to redeem His Creation.

This plan was and still is His Son, Jesus Christ The Messiah. Jesus was there speaking to the children of Israel reiterating those words of redemption, salvation and deliverance which had been spoken by God Himself in the Garden of Eden: Genesis 3:14-15:

[14] And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

[15] And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, [i.e. the Virgin Mary] and between thy seed [i.e. the Unbelievers/Evildoers] and her seed [i.e. Jesus]; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

God had also spoken and signified His Word of SALVATION THROUGH JESUS CHRIST THE MESSIAH throughout the ages by His prophets to Israel beginning with Moses: Deuteronomy 18:18-19:

[18] I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

[19] And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

Other prophets who heard God's Word about His Son include: Isaiah (Chs. 7, 9 & 53); Micah (Ch. 5); Daniel (Ch.3:25); Jeremiah (Chs. 23 & 31); Zechariah (Chs. 9,
10,11 & 12); Malachi (Ch. 3:1).

Jesus told the Unbelievers in John 5:39 that they should "search the scriptures", God's Word, because "they testify of me". Nicodemus went from Unbelief to Belief because he understood that salvation required not that he re-enter his mother's womb and be born again but that he believe on Jesus Christ, The Son of God. Belief is the quintessential factor in salvation.

If we do not believe that God sent Jesus to die for our sins then we do not believe in God. Why would this be so? God's Word represents and makes known to us WHO God Is and WHAT His plan is for our lives. We see God through His Word, we know Him through His Word, we show our love, respect and loyalty to Him when we obey His Word. This is why Jesus said to His disciples in John 14:15:

[15] If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Throughout the Gospels Jesus tells His disciples of the importance of believing, i.e. having faith. On many occasions he castigates them for having too little faith (Matthew 8:26); having no faith (Matthew 17:17); and of the value of having as little faith as "a grain of mustard seed" in order to accomplish great feats (Matthew 17:20).

Jesus also heals many people because of their great faith, notable among these are those who were not of the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" such the "woman of Canaan" or the Syrophoenician woman (Matthew 15:21-28); and, the centurion who understood authority and who knew that Jesus did not have to come to his home to heal his sick servant but only had to speak the word. The centurion's story is a great example of the power of voice (Matthew 8:5-10). So great was this man's faith that Jesus said:

"Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel (Ibid.: 10).

Further, the centurion's faith caused Jesus to remark on the fact that "THE ELECT", i.e. the children of Israel, would be lost if they persisted in their unbelief; and, that the feast would be open to all who were willing to believe and to come in and to sit at the banquet: Matthew 8:11-12:

[11] And I say unto you. That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.

[12] But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

I close with this point for consideration: Even though Jesus was the Son of God He could do no "mighty work" in Nazareth. Mark 6:6 states that Jesus "marvelled because of their unbelief". He later advises His disciples that when confronted with situations such as Nazareth, in carrying out the Great Commission He gave them (Matthew 28:19-20), that they should not worry because these people will suffer a great penalty for their UNBELIEF: Mark 6:10-12:

[10] And he said unto them, In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place.

[11]And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

[12] And they went out, and preached that men should repent.

[13] And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.


I BELIEVE.....I BELIEVE.....I BELIEVE.

Blessings!!

[RanRan]

Greetings and Peace RanRan:

Jesus Christ always stressed the importance of "BELIEF." In fact the theme of belief is one of the major elements in His teachings. Salvation cannot be realized unless WE: (a) believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God; (b) believe that Jesus was sent into this world by God to die for the sins of humanity so that salvation could be attained by ALL; (c) believe that "the name of Jesus" is the door through which we enter into the kingdom of God and are thereby able to access power to do the work for which God has created us on this earth (i.e. Matthew 28:19-20).

Yes, of course. I am Lutheran and place justification by faith alone (but not a faith that is alone) in the highest regard. Yet, the Last Judgment confronts us all, because it does not speak of faith per se, that is, directly.

One way to explain that is to see the Church as the third party mentioned in the Last Judgment - His 'Little One's' - they are NEITHER sheep nor goats, but have passed from death to life already. Both the sheep and the goats are clearly judged by how they treated His Church - and do not lose their reward. "If they're not against us, they're for us."

God's mercy may extend beyond what we want it to be. I do not want to be found like Jonah, that of drawing a line beyond where I think God should not go, and then being angry when He does...

So it may be that the Last Judgment is telling us more about His Mercy than the anger many perceive as they doubt the Gospel that Christ reconciled God to man.

Anyway, food for thought....

[BurningBush--U]

To buy the field.

Biblical, short and sweet.

But Why?