Jesus atoned for the sins of the whole world

Ken Hamrick

Active member
Did you serious declare the Atonement is completely effective and then stipulate there is a need for faith?????

That kind of "double talk" is what drives Atheist and Agnostic rhetoric against Christianity.
No double-talk here. Atonement is completely effective because atonement is not synonymous with sacrifice. The blood of Christ can only be applied to your sin by the Spirit of Christ being sent into your heart to join Himself to you as one New Man in Him. Atonement is His death on the Cross being made yours by you and Christ becoming one through Christ Himself being sent into your heart. Until that happens, you are not yet one with Him and justice still holds you under God's wrath due to your sins. For every single sinner who believes in Christ and has Christ spiritually joined to him by the Holy Spirit, atonement occurs in the life of that sinner and is completely effective.
 

Ken Hamrick

Active member
But what I noted was Christ died for all and those who trust in him have their sins forgiven

There was a provision Christs death

He died for all according to scripture

Those who believe receive the benefit of Christ's sacrifice
Those who believe do received the benefit of Christ's sacrifice. The question is how does it benefit them?
 

Ken Hamrick

Active member
How can there be a need for faith when you have the atonement (Christ's sacrifice) applying its own benefits

Further in saying it is universally applicable have you not ventured into universalism and contradicted your claim fully particular
In the Mosaic Law, we find faith necessary for atonement in every case:

Lev. 1:4 ESV
He shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.

This was the sinner’s act of faith, believing that his sins would be borne by the substitute. The sinner was not to consider what the animal cost him, as if paying a fine; rather, he was to consider what his sin cost the animal as it died in his place. If the sinner did not lay his hand on the head of the animal, then it would not “be accepted for him to make atonement for him,” regardless of intentions.

Christ's sacrifice was an atoning sacrifice, but it was not the atonement itself. It is a sacrifice by which atonement is made for sinners when they come by faith. That is why no one's sins are forgiven until then, and that is why sinners remain under God's wrath until then.
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
In the Mosaic Law, we find faith necessary for atonement in every case:

Lev. 1:4 ESV
He shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.

This was the sinner’s act of faith, believing that his sins would be borne by the substitute. The sinner was not to consider what the animal cost him, as if paying a fine; rather, he was to consider what his sin cost the animal as it died in his place. If the sinner did not lay his hand on the head of the animal, then it would not “be accepted for him to make atonement for him,” regardless of intentions.

Christ's sacrifice was an atoning sacrifice, but it was not the atonement itself. It is a sacrifice by which atonement is made for sinners when they come by faith. That is why no one's sins are forgiven until then, and that is why sinners remain under God's wrath until then.

And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins
 

Ken Hamrick

Active member
And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins
And how does He propitiate? If Christ suffering on the cross in and of itself were enough to propitiate God in the case of sin, then all would be saved. If God was propitiated regarding my sins on the day that Jesus died, then why did I remain under wrath until I believed? Propitiation and wrath cannot coexist.
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
And how does He propitiate?

He just told you.

6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; 7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.

If you die together with him you will live together with him. Jesus IS our peace with God and you must participate with him in his death to be in him who is our Atoning Sacrifice, our Paschal Lamb.

That's why he said you must pick up and carry your own cross if you want to be saved.

If Christ suffering on the cross in and of itself were enough to propitiate God in the case of sin, then all would be saved. If God was propitiated regarding my sins on the day that Jesus died, then why did I remain under wrath until I believed? Propitiation and wrath cannot coexist.
 

Ken Hamrick

Active member
Why do you keep RIPPING this OUT OF CONTEXT?:


2Pet. 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

The context here is LIMITED to the "beloved", who are the "us-ward".
You can't simply IGNORE these cues.
Rom. 2
3 But do you suppose this, you foolish person who passes judgment on those who practice such things, and yet does them as well, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and restraint and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? 5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who will repay each person according to his deeds:

Hmmm... So they are storing up wrath for themselves on the day of God's judgment by refusing to repent in the face of the riches of God's kindness which were intended by God to lead them to repentance?

Rev. 2
21 I gave her time to repent, and she does not want to repent of her sexual immorality. 22 Behold, I will throw her on a bed of sickness, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of her deeds.

I think it's safe to say that this woman was not elect, since she did not repent. Yet, God--as is characteristic of Him--gave her time for the purpose of repenting, but which she did not avail herself of.

Unconditional election is a fact of Scripture. But it is also a fact that God's nature is immutable, and part of His nature is want sinners--all sinners--to repent. And He wants it enough to give them time for that purpose and shower them with His kindnesses in order to lead them toward it.
 
Last edited:
T

TomFL

Guest
In the Mosaic Law, we find faith necessary for atonement in every case:

Lev. 1:4 ESV
He shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.

This was the sinner’s act of faith, believing that his sins would be borne by the substitute. The sinner was not to consider what the animal cost him, as if paying a fine; rather, he was to consider what his sin cost the animal as it died in his place. If the sinner did not lay his hand on the head of the animal, then it would not “be accepted for him to make atonement for him,” regardless of intentions.

Christ's sacrifice was an atoning sacrifice, but it was not the atonement itself. It is a sacrifice by which atonement is made for sinners when they come by faith. That is why no one's sins are forgiven until then, and that is why sinners remain under God's wrath until then.
That is not the issue

The comments which declared the atonement was completely effectual and universally applicable were
 
T

TomFL

Guest
Why do I need to?

Why would I even waste my time when no matter what I say, you're simply going to claim I'm wrong? I'm not interested in wasting my time.
More Theo

refuses to answer, but will claim he is right and I and the evidence is wrong

Fact is when he thinks he has an argument he will post it but when he has no answer this is what we get
 
T

TomFL

Guest
Rom. 2
3 But do you suppose this, you foolish person who passes judgment on those who practice such things, and yet does them as well, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and restraint and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? 5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who will repay each person according to his deeds:

Hmmm... So they are storing up wrath for themselves on the day of God's judgment by refusing to repent in the face of the riches of God's kindness which were intended by God to lead them to repentance?

Rev. 2
21 I gave her time to repent, and she does not want to repent of her sexual immorality. 22 Behold, I will throw her on a bed of sickness, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of her deeds.

I think it's safe to say that this woman was not elect, since she did not repent. Yet, God--as is characteristic of Him--gave her time for the purpose of repenting, but which she did not avail herself of.

Unconditional election is a fact of Scripture. But it is also a fact that God's nature is immutable, and part of His nature is want sinners--all sinners--to repent. And He wants it enough to give them time for that purpose and shower them with His kindnesses in order to lead them toward it.
But unconditional election to salvation is not a fact of scripture. There are no verses which teach it
 
T

TomFL

Guest
No, I wasn't.
I was given four verses which you TWISTED to try to support unlimited atonement.

I don't believe that you have studied NEARLY enough of Calvin's writings to competently represent him. If you want to believe Calvin believed in unlimited atonement, you are free to do so, but I believe you are VERY wrong. But if that's the case, then you've just destroyed your argument of WHY you quoted Calvin in the first place. I can simply argue that he coloured his commentary according to (what you claim is) his theology.

I also don't believe you even CARE about responsibly and respectfully representing Calvin. I believe you have no qualms about misrepresenting anyone and everyone as long as it results in you trying to support and defend your false teachings.



Again, I can interpret Calvin and Barnes in a way consistent with my theology.
As for JFB, I simply reject their opinion on that particular entry.
They're not infallible, after all.



Three of them agreed with me.



That would be you.
(Thanks for asking, btw...)



Nor do I have to.
Whatever I say, you're simply going to deny it automatically.
So I'm not particularly inclined to waste my time.

The approach Theo takes when he is unable to answer

As was posted a number of Calvinist author plainly dispute Theo's notions

9. But the Lord is not slack, or, delays not. He checks extreme and unreasonable haste by another reason, that is, that the Lord defers his coming that he might invite all mankind to repentance.
Calvin's Commentaries.

As some men count slackness. It is probable that the apostle here had his eye on some professing Christians who had become disheartened and impatient, and who, from the delay in regard to the coming of the Lord Jesus, and from the representations of those who denied the truth of the Christian religion, arguing from that delay that it was false, began to fear that his promised coming would indeed never occur. To such he says that it should not be inferred from his delay that he would not return, but that the delay should be regarded as an evidence of his desire that men should have space for repentance, and an opportunity to secure their salvation. 2 Peter 3:15.

But is longsuffering to us-ward. Toward us. The delay should be regarded as a proof of his forbearance, and of his desire that men should be saved. Every sinner should consider the fact that he is not cut down in his sins, not as a proof that God will not punish the wicked, but as a demonstration that he is now forbearing, and is willing that he should have an ample opportunity to obtain eternal life.
Barnes' Notes on the New Testament.

any—not desiring that any, yea, even that the scoffers, should perish, which would be the result if He did not give space for repentance.
JFB - A Commentary: Critical, Experimental, and Practical on the Old and New Testaments.





Some will perish (verse 7), but that is not God’s desire. Any (τινας [tinas]). Rather than “some” (τινες [tines]) above. Accusative with the infinitive ἀπολεσθαι [apolesthai] (second aorist middle of ἀπολλυμι [apollumi]. God wishes “all” (παντας [pantas]) to come (χωρησαι [chōrēsai] first aorist active infinitive of χωρεω [chōreō], old verb, to make room). See Acts 17:30; Rom. 11:32; 1 Tim. 2:4; Heb. 2:9 for God’s provision of grace for all who will repent.

A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933), 2 Pe 3:9.
 

civic

Well-known member
The approach Theo takes when he is unable to answer

As was posted a number of Calvinist author plainly dispute Theo's notions

9. But the Lord is not slack, or, delays not. He checks extreme and unreasonable haste by another reason, that is, that the Lord defers his coming that he might invite all mankind to repentance.
Calvin's Commentaries.

As some men count slackness. It is probable that the apostle here had his eye on some professing Christians who had become disheartened and impatient, and who, from the delay in regard to the coming of the Lord Jesus, and from the representations of those who denied the truth of the Christian religion, arguing from that delay that it was false, began to fear that his promised coming would indeed never occur. To such he says that it should not be inferred from his delay that he would not return, but that the delay should be regarded as an evidence of his desire that men should have space for repentance, and an opportunity to secure their salvation. 2 Peter 3:15.

But is longsuffering to us-ward. Toward us. The delay should be regarded as a proof of his forbearance, and of his desire that men should be saved. Every sinner should consider the fact that he is not cut down in his sins, not as a proof that God will not punish the wicked, but as a demonstration that he is now forbearing, and is willing that he should have an ample opportunity to obtain eternal life.
Barnes' Notes on the New Testament.

any—not desiring that any, yea, even that the scoffers, should perish, which would be the result if He did not give space for repentance.
JFB - A Commentary: Critical, Experimental, and Practical on the Old and New Testaments.





Some will perish (verse 7), but that is not God’s desire. Any (τινας [tinas]). Rather than “some” (τινες [tines]) above. Accusative with the infinitive ἀπολεσθαι [apolesthai] (second aorist middle of ἀπολλυμι [apollumi]. God wishes “all” (παντας [pantas]) to come (χωρησαι [chōrēsai] first aorist active infinitive of χωρεω [chōreō], old verb, to make room). See Acts 17:30; Rom. 11:32; 1 Tim. 2:4; Heb. 2:9 for God’s provision of grace for all who will repent.

A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933), 2 Pe 3:9.
The Fallacy known as the Appeal to Authority explained :

appeal to authority​

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.​

It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However, it is entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not. yourlogicalfallacy.com

hope this helps !!!
 
T

TomFL

Guest
The Fallacy known as the Appeal to Authority explained :

appeal to authority​

You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.​

It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However, it is entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not. yourlogicalfallacy.com

hope this helps !!!
Actually I primarily argued the case based on the context, the parrallel text of Jude, and the fact believers are not in danger of perishing and in need of repentance

The Calvinist commentaries were added as a further affirmation as to the validity of my position

It is also a known fact commentators appeal to other noted experts to buttress their position

It is a further affirmation when the commentaries share the same theology of the one whose position you are arguing against

It also calls into question his claim of ripping out of context

BTW every one here has appealed to authority

You produced a thread doing just that

Many here quote lexicons

Its all the same thing
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Theo1689

Well-known member
More Theo

refuses to answer, but will claim he is right and I and the evidence is wrong

Fact is when he thinks he has an argument he will post it but when he has no answer this is what we get

Take the chip off your shoulder, Tom.
We all know all you want to do is argue, you revel in it.
You love telling everyone they're all wrong, and only you are right.

I'm not interested in enabling your anti-Christian behaviour further.
 
Top