# the atonement



## Batman (Jan 8, 2005)

Did Jesus die only for the elect, or for the "whole world?" This is another verse that stumps me a little (not because I believe in the possibility of universalism). I just added this for clarification because I think I may have steered a few in the wrong direction...next time I will be more specific.

1 John 2:2
"He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only ours but also for the sins of the whole world."whole world

[Edited on 1-8-2005 by Batman]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 8, 2005)

In Revelation 5:9-10 (ESV), we are told, "And they sang a new song, saying, 'Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.'" That passage sheds light on the true meaning of many passages thatsay Christ died for "all" or "the world."

For further illustrations of that same principle, and passages in which "all" and "world" in fact _cannot_ be taken literally, see Genesis 3:20, 6:13, 17, Matthew 10:22, Mark 1:5, John 1:10, 12:19, Acts 2:17, Acts 10:12, Romans 1:8, 2 Timothy 4:17, 1 John 2:15, 5:19, Revelation 12:9 and Revelation 13:3.


----------



## crhoades (Jan 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Batman_
> 1 John 2:2
> "He is the atoning sacrifice for *our* sins, and not only *ours* but also for the sins of the whole world."whole world



Who was John writing the letter to? Jews? So Jesus didn't only die for the Jews but Gentiles also. This was also a point of so many of Jesus parables that salvation was larger than national Israel.


----------



## ARStager (Jan 8, 2005)

Aren't folks supposed to subscribe to the Confessions in order to be admitted to post? I'm not being a jerk here...I just thought that the whole idea was that there be a broad understanding that everyone was already confessional and stood affirmatively on the doctrines they exhibit.


----------



## ARStager (Jan 8, 2005)

I would never arbitrarily be a jerk to someone who had as cool of a signature as "....aint short on cash, mister"


----------



## Batman (Jan 8, 2005)

there's a fine line between being a jerk and just being pompous...and you're riding it. I appreciate the clarifications given by Chris and Chris...my assumption regarding this message board is that we sharpen one another, support one another, etc. Your response neither sharpened or supported. I have been exploring the reformed perspective, which I mostly subscribe to, but I still have questions that I struggle with. If this isn't the forum to post these questions, point me to one that will.


----------



## ARStager (Jan 8, 2005)

Well, sorry for riding the line.


----------



## ARStager (Jan 8, 2005)

It just seemed odd to me (I just signed up for this board, too) that there would be such extensive qualifications (implemented by the administrators) for participating on the board - confessional adherence to be specific, and then for there to be a question as fundamental to our confessional unity as 



> the atonement
> 
> Did Jesus die only for the elect, or for the "whole world?"



in such an open-ended, broad, phrasing. 

I understand that you're searching. We all have. I guess maybe I'm out of line here---I don't know. I just was startled at all the things I had to sign off on just to be granted registration, and then that there would be such a basic doubt about Reformed theology thrown out there for us to substantiate. 

Limited Atonement is no doubt the most disputed of TULIP, I grant you that.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 8, 2005)

Andrew:

I love the fact that we have the rules that we do. I love the fact that we have to confirm that we are confessional. So I understand your point! Coming from where I have I too am concerned when I see a post that makes me wonder how BIG the question being asked is in the heart of the one asking.

But, I have to assume it is for clarification. I myself still have some questions. I don't doubt the doctrines we all hold to so strongly, but at times I can't answer the questions about them as well as many here can, so I ask.


----------



## ARStager (Jan 8, 2005)

Well put, my friend


----------



## Batman (Jan 8, 2005)

I believe in limited atonement...my sister and I entered a discussion recently about limited atonement that I didn't have all the answers to. About a month ago, I had a question about John 3:16. Scott answered my question with grace and backed it with other scriptures. I admit to being a rookie in the reformed faith, and definitely rough around the edges, but eager to learn. 

It is also my assumption (based upon a teaching by RC Sproul), that the non-elect will enter hell unable to use the excuse that they were never elected. They will enter hell because they rejected Jesus. Am I right? The discussion I had with my sister revolved around the paradoxical nature of this idea.


----------



## ARStager (Jan 8, 2005)

I think your summary of Sproul is pretty accurate. Double-predestination, if you are familiar with that term, must always be explained in a passing-over sense. Everyone deserves justice. Some get mercy.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 8, 2005)

> that the non-elect will enter hell unable to use the excuse that they were never elected. They will enter hell because they rejected Jesus. Am I right?



YES!

Not going to Hell is a gift from God through grace. Going where you deserve to go is no one's fault but your own.



> The discussion I had with my sister revolved around the paradoxical nature of this idea.



I would guess your sister doesn't understand this because God's soverignty and providence are concepts she has not heard nor studied. I highly suggest you study the providecne of God and discuss that with her. That's what helped me with the seemingly paradoxical nature of this kind of debate.


----------



## Shane (Jan 8, 2005)

Just a quick question. Should we not be open to people who are trying to learn more about Calvinism and Handling the bible correctly?

I am a Christian for a little over a year and have still much to learn but love the theology and studying the bible. 
I can't say I understand all of the confessions 100 % and still have some questions about Calvenism?

Does this mean I am not welcome. I am sure it won't. After all would Christ turn me away because I am only beggining to learn all these wonderful truths?

I am sure it would be different if I was trying to push some other agenda and certainly is not the case.


----------



## Batman (Jan 8, 2005)

that's the argument I gave my sis, but she can't get over the idea that those predestined to hell can't look at God and ask "why am I responsible for going to hell when you chose me to go there?" My sister isn't the only one I know who struggles with this concept. I know many Christians who have difficulty grasping it, because it seems paradoxical. This is one of my favorite topics to discuss with reformed brothers because the more I talk about it, the more I understand it.


----------



## Robin (Jan 8, 2005)

Hey - look at this!! Here is a study, using Scripture, teaching the Reformed understanding of "particular redemption" (the atonement).  Copy this for those yet uncertain what the Bible teaches about it --- plus, it examines what the Church believed before Calvin. 


http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/sratonement.htm

Robin


----------



## Batman (Jan 8, 2005)

Shane...amen, brother. We are saved by faith alone, grace alone...not the ability to grasp every aspect of the reformed faith.


----------



## Batman (Jan 8, 2005)

Robin, thank you. I'll check it out.


----------



## Shane (Jan 8, 2005)

Thanks for that Link Robin.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Batman_
> I believe in limited atonement...my sister and I entered a discussion recently about limited atonement that I didn't have all the answers to. About a month ago, I had a question about John 3:16. Scott answered my question with grace and backed it with other scriptures. I admit to being a rookie in the reformed faith, and definitely rough around the edges, but eager to learn.
> 
> It is also my assumption (based upon a teaching by RC Sproul), that the non-elect will enter hell unable to use the excuse that they were never elected. They will enter hell because they rejected Jesus. Am I right? The discussion I had with my sister revolved around the paradoxical nature of this idea.



When we require confessional adherence we do allow felxibility, especially for those who are still learning. And the question you asked is perfectly legitimate. AR, your criticism is unnecessary. 

What we really have here is a hermenuetical issue. How to rightly interpret the verse in light of our belief that Christ died for His people only. Chris and Chris have given good answers. Here's just a little more. In both those verses, 1 John 2 and John 3:16-19, something more is being taught than possibility of salvation. Jesus actually accomplished something. He was an atonement or a propitiation. God's wrath is completely satisfied apart from any work of ourselves, so that God can no longer extend His wrath to those for whom Christ atoned. God's justice is completely satisfied, and the one for whom the sacrifice has been made is completely made right before God. That leaves you two options. One, Christ died for every individual for all time (universalism) or Two, Christ died for some through out every part of the earth. The atonement is complete and final so those are the only two options. It is really the Arminians who believe in a limited atonement since they make the final work of Christ incomplete without the effort of man (but I will not try to change the established lingo in the debate today). 
Chris nailed it. John was teaching, both in his epistles and gospel, that salvation was offered and accomplished to more than just the Jews. It was global in scope. Christ's sheep were dispersed throughout the world beyond the flock of Israel, in every tribe, nation, and tongue. If you take the "whole world" to mean every individual then you must conclude universalism because God's wrath is completely satisfied in Christ, and you hence contradict so many other Scriptures which clearly teach many are going to suffer the wrath of God in hell.

As for their responsibility, yes you are right. All men are responsible for their sin before God. God is soveriegn yes, but works through secondary causes, the enslaved will of man being one of those. 

[Edited on 8-1-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## Batman (Jan 8, 2005)

Patrick, thanks for your insight, brother. What do you mean by God works through secondary causes, and what are other examples besides the enslaved will of man?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Batman_
> Patrick, thanks for your insight, brother. What do you mean by God works through secondary causes, and what are other examples besides the enslaved will of man?


That is how God can ordain all things, yet not "do" them himself. (See also the WCF) Usually it is through the desires of men. There is also nature, and the devil. An illustration of this would be when David numbers Israel in 2 Samuel 24 adn 1 Chronicles 21. The Samuel account says the Lord was angry at Israel an incited David to number Israel. The Chronicles account says that Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel. Yet David is the one punished. Which account is right? They all are. God desired to punish Israel. Satan desired to destroy Israel. David desired to boast in his strength. But God was at the beginning and end of it all accomplishing His will. 

There are other examples too, like God allowing Joseph's brothers to sell him into slavery, so that he would come to Egypt and save many from famine, including his family. Jospeh understood this when he said "what you intended for evil, God intended for good." That also sets up the sorjourn of Israel in Egypt leading right up to the Exodus. God's will is accomplished through the secondary causes.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 8, 2005)

Wonderful examples Patrick! That is why I love this place and myself ask questions.


----------



## Batman (Jan 8, 2005)

I appreciate it, Patrick. Thanks again.


----------



## ARStager (Jan 8, 2005)

> When we require confessional adherence we do allow felxibility, especially for those who are still learning. And the question you asked is perfectly legitimate. AR, your criticism is unnecessary.



Nicely put. And I agree that this is a place for learning and sharpening. 

I just think that the original question could have been asked with the information Batman later provided about his conversation with his sister, rather than leaving it open to be interpreted as 

"...are you serious...LIMITED atonement?! For God so love the WORLD!"

So maybe this is simply a suggestion that comment threads begin with something more like "I am accepting this confessionally-summarized biblical truth provisionally, but I don't entirely understand it, and I need some help articulating it to someone who thinks I'm crazy and ignore cut-and-dry passages of scripture."

But I guess the consensus is that I'm the one who's off my rocker. 

No pompousness or jerkness was ever intended. Just clarification desired.


----------



## Authorised (Jan 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Batman_
> 
> They will enter hell because they rejected Jesus. Am I right?




Actually, I would say that God sends us to hell for being the sinners we are, one of which is rejecting Christ, but not solely for our rejection.

[Edited on 8-1-2005 by Authorised]


----------



## ARStager (Jan 8, 2005)

Maybe the best way of putting it is that they are condemned because "although they knew God they" didn't acknowledge him as God but "supressed the truth in unrighteousness"


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Authorised_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Batman_
> ...



Men go to hell because they are sinners. The sin because they are sinners, not become sinners because they sin. All men stand condemned - even infants, because they have sinned in Adam. Adam is our federal head, and his sin is our sin. In the same way, Christ's obedience is our obedience. Romans 5 is foundational.


----------



## ARStager (Jan 8, 2005)

Fred-

you're exactly right. my remarks didn't account for being "concieved in sin"


----------

