Christian Forums

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Christian Forum aspires to be an online community where Christians can come together in fellowship with the purpose to encourage, inspire and build up our faith in Christ Jesus. John 13:34-35
  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Tasted Death for every Man !

Butch5

Member
From
Homer Georgia
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
4,778
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
If we look at the definition of Penal Substitution that Wondering posted from Morrison we can see the cotradiction.

"The result is that within Penal Substitution, Jesus Christ dies to satisfy God’s wrath against human sin. Jesus is punished (penal) in the place of sinners (substitution) in order to satisfy the justice of God and the legal demand of God to punish sin. In the light of Jesus’ death, God can now forgive the sinner because Jesus Christ has been punished in the place of the sinner, in this way meeting the retributive requirements of God’s justice."

According to the definition there is a legal demand of God to punish sin. If that legal demand is death and Jesus died to satisfy it, then it is satisfied. There is no further requirement. Forgiveness would not be necessary as the demand has been met. If the demand has been met it has not been forgiven. If the demand is forgiven it has not been met. The two are mutually exclusive. It has to be one or the other, it cannot be both. This is why Penal Atonement doesn't work. The concept is a logical contradiction.
 

wondering

Supporter
From
Italy
Gender
Female
Messages
18,779
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Why on earth did you approach me then?

I dispute that claim, and you should already have known that.

Can you please show that scripture?

You don't think that is explained by Matthew 26:59-68?

Can you prove that? I don't recall those particular words being said. I remember that He called to mind the prophecy of Psalms 22 in those moments to bring about the fulfilment of that scripture (Luke 24:44).

Well it is clear that you haven't considered the scriptures that it is inconsistent with (nor have you asked to see them), and I can see that you have been conditioned by the views of PSA to only be able to comprehend the scriptures according to the context of it.
What's PSA?

I approached you because a case could be made for penal substitution...
but I'm not the one going to make it since I don't care for it. God's wrath is spoken of in scripture.

The scriptures:

John 3:36 The wrath of God remains on those that do not accept Jesus.
Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness.
Romans 5:9 The blood of Christ will save us from God's wrath.

Re Matthew 26:59-68
59Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus, so that they might put Him to death. 60They did not find any, even though many false witnesses came forward. But later on two came forward, 61and said, “This man stated, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to rebuild it in three days.’” 62The high priest stood up and said to Him, “Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?” 63But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.” 64Jesus said to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN.”

65Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy; 66what do you think?” They answered, “He deserves death!”

67Then they spat in His face and beat Him with their fists; and others slapped Him, 68and said, “Prophesy to us, You Christ; who is the one who hit You?”


What does the above have to do with atonement theories?

And as to what Jesus said on the cross:

There are two teachings on this...who can know for sure?

1. What you cited...Psalm 22
2. Jesus felt abandoned by His fellow Jews, by the Apostles (maybe) and by God Himself because at the moment that the sins of the world fell upon Him...God had to abandon Him because He cannot be near sin.

I think I had a thread on the atonement theories once...
but it didn't do too well ---
 

wondering

Supporter
From
Italy
Gender
Female
Messages
18,779
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Penal Atonement isn't a Biblical concept simply because it's a logical contradiction and therefore not possible
Also because it describes a wrathful God instead of the God of the N.T.

In fact, the Penal Substitution Theory was formulated after the reformation (or at the reformation).
 

Butch5

Member
From
Homer Georgia
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
4,778
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Also because it describes a wrathful God instead of the God of the N.T.

In fact, the Penal Substitution Theory was formulated after the reformation (or at the reformation).
The thing that surprises me is that it is Reformation theology. If as Calvinists believe, God chose the elect before the foundation of the world, why would God be angry at those who were supposedly created to be reprobates? If they're doing just as they were created to do one would think God would expect that, not be angry about it.
 

wondering

Supporter
From
Italy
Gender
Female
Messages
18,779
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
I see that you still haven't seen the question because you are only seeing the doctrine, so perhaps it will help if I can show the question as a purely logical expression in a graphic:

View attachment 11881

  • What effect does the death of Christ have for the unsaved?
Christ's death has no effect on those that do not accept the gift of salvation.

However, Christ died for all men that ever lived, past, present and future.

If you reply, I'll post tomorrow morning.
 

wondering

Supporter
From
Italy
Gender
Female
Messages
18,779
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
The thing that surprises me is that it is Reformation theology. If as Calvinists believe, God chose the elect before the foundation of the world, why would God be angry at those who were supposedly created to be reprobates? If they're doing just as they were created to do one would think God would expect that, not be angry about it.
Great point !
Also, why would Jesus have had to die?
If salvation didn't depend on our acceptance of His sacrifice...
why death on a cross?

Calvinism just makes no sense.
 

Butch5

Member
From
Homer Georgia
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
4,778
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Great point !
Also, why would Jesus have had to die?
If salvation didn't depend on our acceptance of His sacrifice...
why death on a cross?

Calvinism just makes no sense.
I was a Calvinsit for a while. I wasn't well versed in the Scriptures at that time. It was listening to the New Testnant repeatedly that made me reconsider.
 

Serving Zion

Member
From
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Messages
1,243
Joined
Nov 30, 2019
God's wrath is spoken of in scripture.
The wrath of God is the thing that makes them drag Stephen outside and stone him to death, or Saul pick up a spear and hurl it at David.
What does the above have to do with atonement theories?
He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us. Although He was innocent, He was declared guilty of blasphemy and sentenced to death.
at the moment that the sins of the world fell upon Him
What scripture do you rely on to say that?
God had to abandon Him because He cannot be near sin
There's no indication of that in scripture. God was with Him right to the end, as evidenced by the three hours of darkness and the Earthquake. Even the Roman soldier said that: "truly this man was God's son".
 

Serving Zion

Member
From
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Messages
1,243
Joined
Nov 30, 2019
Christ's death has no effect on those that do not accept the gift of salvation.
If you say that, but you also say this:
However, Christ died for all men that ever lived, past, present and future.
Then how can you say that Christ died for those to whom His death has no effect?

When you answer this, remember that the question I asked in the first place used the word "for" and that you have changed that word to "on" when you answered.
 

Hopeful

Member
From
Arizona
Gender
Male
Messages
2,547
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
That's not the issue. Whether we die or not isn't an option. Everyone dies. If that death was paid for we wouldn't die. It has nothing to do with receiving anything. If there was a debt to be paid and it was paid, man wouldn't die. Even Christians who claim their debt is paid still die. If their debt was paid they wouldn't die.
Jesus said we could live forever.
I believe it.
Why don't you?
"I" does not include the vessel that encapsulates me.
 

Hopeful

Member
From
Arizona
Gender
Male
Messages
2,547
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
I see that you still haven't seen the question because you are only seeing the doctrine, so perhaps it will help if I can show the question as a purely logical expression in a graphic:

View attachment 11881

  • What effect does the death of Christ have for the unsaved?
None at all.
Jesus' supplied freedom from sin is a lure to leave the unsaved portion of your graph.
Like I did.
His sacrifice is for all men, but not all are interested in government by God.
That is on them...not God.
We have our part in the transaction.
Believe, and live.
Disbelief equates to a second death.
 

Walpole

Member
From
USA
Gender
Male
Messages
960
Joined
Sep 9, 2018
The thing that surprises me is that it is Reformation theology. If as Calvinists believe, God chose the elect before the foundation of the world, why would God be angry at those who were supposedly created to be reprobates? If they're doing just as they were created to do one would think God would expect that, not be angry about it.
Bingo. Great post!
 

Serving Zion

Member
From
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Messages
1,243
Joined
Nov 30, 2019
None at all.
Then how can you say that Jesus died for them? Jesus said "The son of man came to lay down His life as a ransom for many" and "no greater love has this: that a man should lay down his life for his friends". He never claimed to be laying down His life for those who wouldn't receive Him, but the writer of Hebrews 2:9 has developed a view that Jesus tasted of death for all, even if those whom He has tasted of death for have not received the gift of salvation. Have you considered whether there's possibly a negative rather than a positive effect for those ones at the end of the day in light of the fact that they would have been better off if a) they had received the gift, or b) Jesus had have not given up His life for them?
 

Butch5

Member
From
Homer Georgia
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
4,778
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Jesus said we could live forever.
I believe it.
Why don't you?
"I" does not include the vessel that encapsulates me.
I do believe it. But that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing a supposed payment for sins to God. A debt can't be both paid and forgiven. The two are mutually exclusive. It has to be one or the other. It can't be both.

"I" is the vessel that encapsulates you.God told Adam, 'you are dust'. He said through Moses that Man is flesh. That means the flesh is "you"
 

Serving Zion

Member
From
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Messages
1,243
Joined
Nov 30, 2019
Then how can you say that Jesus died for them? Jesus said "The son of man came to lay down His life as a ransom for many" and "no greater love has this: that a man should lay down his life for his friends". He never claimed to be laying down His life for those who wouldn't receive Him, but the writer of Hebrews 2:9 has developed a view that Jesus tasted of death for all, even if those whom He has tasted of death for have not received the gift of salvation. Have you considered whether there's possibly a negative rather than a positive effect for those ones at the end of the day in light of the fact that they would have been better off if a) they had received the gift, or b) Jesus had have not given up His life for them?
In addition to this, Hopeful , I have noticed from JLB 's post in your other thread that 1John 2:2 says "He is the propitiation [...] for the whole world", specifically saying that Jesus is "not just the propitiation for us".

Doesn't it seem that these New Testament writers are both adamantly saying that Jesus provides propitiation for those who aren't Christian? How can that be?

brightfame52 I think you might like to say something about that too.
 

Butch5

Member
From
Homer Georgia
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
4,778
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
In addition to this, Hopeful , I have noticed from JLB 's post in your other thread that 1John 2:2 says "He is the propitiation [...] for the whole world", specifically saying that Jesus is "not just the propitiation for us".

Doesn't it seem that these New Testament writers are both adamantly saying that Jesus provides propitiation for those who aren't Christian? How can that be?

brightfame52 I think you might like to say something about that too.
I think part of the confusion is that in Reformed thinking Jesus dying for sin is equated with salvation, therefore, since everyone isn't saved, He didn't die for everyone. The theology doesn't allow a way for Jesus to die for sin and people not be saved.
 

Serving Zion

Member
From
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Messages
1,243
Joined
Nov 30, 2019
I think part of the confusion is that in Reformed thinking Jesus dying for sin is equated with salvation, therefore, since everyone isn't saved, He didn't die for everyone. The theology doesn't allow a way for Jesus to die for sin and people not be saved.
That's interesting!
 

Butch5

Member
From
Homer Georgia
Gender
Male
Christian
Yes
Messages
4,778
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
That's interesting!
Yeah, it's clear from Scripture that Jesus died for everyone. There are plenty of passages that tell us that. The one you posted, 1 John 2 is a really good example. John specifically differentiates between Christians and the rest of the world. He said, Christ is the propitiation, mercy seat, not only for Christians but for the whole world. In Hebrews Paul's says that He tasted death for every man. John also said, in his Gospel, that Christ came that all might believe and then went on to say that He gives light to every person coming into the world. So, he qualifies his "all" statement by saying every person. So, if we are to understand the Scriptures we shouldn't be trying to redefine the word all, we should be trying to figure out a way that Jesus can die for all and yet not all are saved. The Ransom theory of the Atonement gives us just that. That's why I reject Penal Atonement. However, Penal Atonement is a big part of Reformation theology, so, until that issue is addressed the Reformed believer isn't going to be able to reconcile the problem in the theology, that being that all can't mean all if it's equated with salvation.
 

Fastfredy0

Supporter
From
Chandler, Tx
Gender
Male
Messages
1,348
Joined
May 4, 2020
This is an abridged explanation of 1 John 2:2 from a reformed prospective
1 John 2:2 and he himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for our sins but also for the whole world. Pink, A.W. . The Sovereignty of God (Kindle Locations 4197-4203).

There is one passage more than any other which is appealed to by those who believe in universal redemption, and which at first sight appears to teach that Christ died for the whole human race. We have therefore decided to give it a detailed examination and exposition. “And He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). This is the passage which, apparently, most favors the Arminian view of the Atonement, yet if it be considered attentively it will be seen that it does so only in appearance, and not in reality. Below we offer a number of conclusive proofs to show that this verse does not teach that Christ has propitiated God on behalf of all the sins of all men.

In the first place, the fact that this verse opens with “and” necessarily links it with what has gone before. We, therefore, give a literal word for word translation of 1 John 2:1 from Bagster’s Interlinear: “Little children my, these things I write to you, that ye may not sin; and if any one should sin, a Paraclete we have with the Father, Jesus Christ (the) righteous”. It will thus be seen that the apostle John is here writing to and about the saints of God. His immediate purpose was two-fold: first, to communicate a message that would keep God’s children from sinning; second, to supply comfort and assurance to those who might sin, and, in consequence, be cast down and fearful that the issue would prove fatal. He, therefore, makes known to them the provision which God has made for just such an emergency. This we find at the end of verse 1 and throughout verse 2. The ground of comfort is twofold: let the downcast and repentant believer (1 John 1:9) be assured that, first, he has an “Advocate with the Father”; second, that this Advocate is “the propitiation for our sins”. Now believers only may take comfort from this, for they alone have an “Advocate”, for them alone is Christ the propitiation, as is proven by linking the Propitiation (“and”) with “the Advocate”! Also the word “Comfort”, in such a case, belongs to none but believers; unto others in a state and condition of alienation, wrath is to be denounced, John 3:36. Thirdly, They are the "little children" to whom he writes, 1 John 2:1; whom he describes, verses 12, 13, to have "their sins forgiven them for his name's sake," and to "know the Father."

In the second place, if other passages in the New Testament which speak of “propitiation,” be compared with 1 John 2:2, it will be found that it is strictly limited in its scope. For example, in Romans 3:25 we read that God set forth Christ “a propitiation through faith in His blood”. If Christ is a propitiation “through faith”, then He is not a “propitiation” to those who have no faith! Again, in Hebrews 2:17 we read, “To make propitiation for the sins of the people” (Hebrews 2:17, R. V.).

In the third place, who are meant when John says, “He is the propitiation for our sins”? We answer, Jewish believers. And a part of the proof on which we base this assertion we now submit to the careful attention of the reader. In Galatians 2:9 we are told that John, together with James and Cephas, were apostles “unto the circumcision” (i.e. Israel). In keeping with this, the Epistle of James is addressed to “the twelve tribes, which are scattered abroad” (1:1). So, the first Epistle of Peter is addressed to “the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion” (1 Peter 1:1, R. V.). And John also is writing to saved Israelites, but for saved Jews and saved Gentiles. Some of the evidences that John is writing to saved Jews are as follows.

In the opening verse he says of Christ, 1 John 1:1 “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—“ How impossible it would have been for the Apostle Paul to have commenced any of his epistles to Gentile saints with such language!

1 John 2:7 “Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning”. The “beginning” here referred to is the beginning of the public manifestation of Christ— in proof compare 1 John 1:1; 1 John 2:13, etc. Now these believers the apostle tells us, had the “old commandment” from the beginning. This was true of Jewish believers, but it was not true of Gentile believers.

“I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known Him from the beginning” (1 John 2:13). Here, again, it is evident that it is Jewish believers that are in view.

“Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us” (1 John 2:18-19). These brethren to whom John wrote had “heard” from Christ Himself that Antichrist should come (see Matthew 24). The “many antichrists” whom John declares “went out from us” were all Jews, for during the first century none but a Jew posed as the Messiah. Therefore, when John says “He is the propitiation for our sins” he can only mean for the sins of Jewish believers.

...and on it goes....
 

Walpole

Member
From
USA
Gender
Male
Messages
960
Joined
Sep 9, 2018
Nice to see the Calvinists again falling on their sword.

In salvation history, the reality of the new always surpasses the figure of the old. In the Old Testament, on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), the high priest offered the sacrifice of the goat to atone for the sins off ALL of Israel, both the believers and unbelievers (cf. Lev 16:1-22).

Enter Jesus Christ, our great high priest, who now fulfills the old and surpasses it with the new...

John 1:29 ---> The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, 'Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.'"

1 John 2:2 ---> "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

1 John 4:14 ---> "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world."

1 Timothy 2:3-6 ---> "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time."


In the Old Testament, God used Israel as an instrument of salvation for all mankind ---> This is fulfilled by Jesus Christ, who is the promised Messiah and now Lord of all, offering salvation to ALL men. This is the Gospel. Anything opposed to this is a false Gospel.

If Jesus Christ did not make atonement for the world, then it would be the first time in ALL of salvation history where the type / foreshadowing / figure of the old actually surpassed the reality of the new. We know this is not the case in salvation history and demonstrates the falsity of the God of Calvinism.
 
Last edited:
Top