Cheryl Schatz

Mark,
Thanks for your quick response. You said:

It is important to note that the atonement is the ‘canceling’ of our debt. That is, Jesus took our sin and the punishment for our sin onto his shoulders. Now if Jesus atoned in exactly the same way for every person, how is it that they are sent to hell- are not their sins ‘atoned’ for?

I agree that the atonement is the complete payment of our debt and that Jesus took all of our sins and the punishment for our sins on his own body. Because Jesus paid for our sins on the cross there was not a single part of the payment for our sins that could happen after the cross. It was “paid in full” as Jesus Himself said when He cried out “It is finished”.

The entire work of redemption had been brought to completion. The single Gr. word here (translated “it is finished”) has been found in the papyri being placed on receipts for taxes meaning “paid in full” (see Col. 3:13, 14).
MacArthur, J. J. (1997). The MacArthur Study Bible (Jn 19:30).

Mark you asked:

Now if Jesus atoned in exactly the same way for every person, how is it that they are sent to hell- are not their sins ‘atoned’ for?

It is for the very same reason as why your sins were not forgiven by God before you were born. Or perhaps I should not assume that you believe as I do. Mark tell me were your sins atoned for and forgiven on the cross so that not even one sin that you would commit in the future would be held against you? Were you created with your sins already forgiven since Jesus’ atonement on the cross happened before you were born?

Perhaps Cheryl, you believe that the sin of ‘unbelief’ or ‘rejection’ of the message of salvation was not atoned for. If that is what you believe then that worries me, because then you are saying the atonement was only ‘partial’- it did not atone for all sin.

The only sin that was not atoned for on the cross was the unpardonable sin and this cannot be done in ignorance. Every single forgiveable sin was paid for completely on the cross. Not a partial payment – but a full and complete payment.

Now some passages regarding the ‘limited’ nature of the atonement.

Joh 10:15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.
Joh 10:16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

Now you object Cheryl because here Jesus does not say ‘only’. That is true- but look at verse 16. His sheep are from other ‘folds’ and he must bring them also.

You rightly picked out my objection. Jesus did not say that He laid down His life for only the sheep. As far as “bringing” other sheep, this is a far different thing than dying for all. I am not saying that Jesus “brings” all into the flock. Therefore the issue of Jesus bringing other sheep does not answer my question. I am asking where you get the doctrine that Jesus died only for the elect. John 10:15, 16 does not say that He laid down His life only for the sheep. So let’s agree that Jesus doesn’t bring all into the sheepfold. But you must still answer the question about the extent of who Jesus died for.

This is evidently how we should understand the term ‘world’- people from every tribe, language, nation. Universal language needs to be understood against the backdrop of the first century when the Jews were astonished that salvation was given also to the gentiles.

I agree that Jesus died for the “world” as in every tribe and every language group and every nation because Jesus died for all. But where does the Bible say that Jesus did not die for everyone and that Jesus died only for the elect? Where is this limitation clearly stated?

You said:

Joh 17:19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.
Joh 17:20 “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,

Jesus ‘consecration’ is his atonement. It is for his disciples and for those who ‘believe’ through the disciples teaching (Christians). This is in the midst of Jesus prayer where he specifically says he is not praying for the ‘world’ (non-believers) in the context.

Consecration is not the sacrifice but it is a dedication and a making holy of something that is already cleansed. There is not a single lexicon that I have that says this Greek word means the sacrifice. You are simply wrong in using these verses to refer to the atonement. Jesus is praying for believers and for those who will become believers. His dedicating Himself and He is dedicating them for unity. The dedication is for that which is already cleansed and we will become one – the reason for Jesus’ dedication.

I agree that Jesus in this Prayer to the Father in John 17 did not pray for the unbelieving world. He only prayed for believers and future believers that they may see Him and His glory. But this is far from any kind of proof that Jesus died only for believers. Consecration is not the atonement. Only believers will see Jesus in His glory in heaven and Jesus’ prayer was rightfully only for believers.

Is this why it was so easy for you to become a Calvinist? Did you accept by faith that consecration meant the atonement rather than looking the word up to see what the actual Greek word meant? It is impossible to get the atonement into this passage and say that Jesus limited His death to only a few.

Joh 11:51 He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation,
Joh 11:52 and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.

Again we see here more clearly how we should understand universal language. Jesus not only died for the jews but also the ‘children’ from abroad (the world)

The problem that you have here is that Jesus is prophesied to die for “the nation”. But not all of the nation became believers, yet He died for the nation. It is universal language that includes Jesus’ death for all whether they were believers or not. Once again a wonderful passage that proves universal atonement even for the unbelievers.

Revelation 5:9, “Worthy art Thou to take the scroll and to open its seals, for Thou wast slain and by Thy blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.”

Same again. Note it does not say every single man in the world. It is limited

Once again the passage you quoted does not say that Jesus died only for a select few. His blood ransomed people from all tribes, all tongues and all peoples and all nations. The passage cannot be used at all to say that Jesus died for only a select few people.

The verses that you are using are the most powerful ones that show the universal extent of the atonement.

You said:

John 11:51-52, “He prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.”

1 John 2:2, “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”

Note the parellel between John 11 and 1 John 2:2(often used against limited atonement). It’s clear John is using universal language to mean people scattered abroad (from all tribes, toungues etc). Also remember that ‘propitiated’ sins cannot be punished. So if the propititation is every single person then every single person is excluded from punishment= universalism.

I will discuss this after you answer my earlier question. If Jesus’ death was a propititation for your sins, then were your sins completely paid for before you were born so that you were born sinless in God’s eyes? Were your sins paid for and forgiven with no sin left to be forgiven while you were still a sinner? And how could you be a sinner if your sins were already forgiven? Again, I will answer your questions very clearly after you answer about your own sins and Jesus’ death.

More…

Mar 10:45 For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

‘Many’ not all.

Many is a synonym for “all”. Many is not a synonym for few. How do you explain this? Jesus did not say that He came to give His life for a few yet He clearly said that only a few would find life.

Matthew 7:14 (NASB)
14 “For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

If Jesus said that only a few find life, then how come He also said that He died for many and not few? This verse proves the universal extent of the atonement and not that Jesus died for the few but rather for the many.

You said:

And again

Mat 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Hebrews 9:28, “So Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.”

My answer still stands. How can the few now become the many? Did Jesus die for the few or the many?

More…

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,
Eph 5:26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
Eph 5:27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

The people who benefit from the atonement are the church…not all men. Christ gave himself up for ‘her’.

Yes, the church benefits from the atonement, yet Paul did not say that Jesus gave Himself up only for the church and no benefit was made for rest of the world. The fact that only the church will believe cannot be used to prove that Jesus dying for the many is the same thing as Jesus dying for the few. How do you explain this contradiction?

Titus 2:14 “He gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.”

Christ redeems ‘us’ the church, not all men.

Again these verses are all true, but none of them reads that Jesus died only for the church and that He did not give up His life for all men.

Finally
Rom 8:32 He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?

See the link between the atonement and God giving us all things. If the atonement is for all men, then the promise of this verse is destroyed.

Why do you think that?

To conclude Jesus only ‘atoned’ for God’s children- the elect.

I understand that this is what you believe Mark, but I also fail to see how someone convinced you from the Scriptures that Jesus died only for a select few. None of the verses that you quoted says that. How on earth did you accept so easily that Jesus the God of mercy could not have mercy on more than a very few that He would choose before they had faith? How does this give glory to the God of Mercy who is gracious and merciful?

Psalm 145:8 (NASB)
8 The LORD is gracious and merciful;
Slow to anger and great in lovingkindness.

Is the Almighty God now devoid of grace and mercy except to a very few that He chose without any condition of faith? Is He now less than great in lovingkindness since He chose unconditionally to bestow His lovingkindness and mercy on so few? I fail to see how God’s unconditional choice of just a few and sending Jesus to die for just a few is Biblical just as I fail to see how it is glorifying to the amazing God who ABOUNDS in mercy. How does His abounding in mercy show from the Calvinist limited atonement doctrine?

Rather than a limited atonement preplanned for just a few, the Scriptures are replete with the joy of God’s abundant mercy:

Psalm 103:8 (NKJV)
8 The LORD is merciful and gracious,
Slow to anger, and abounding in mercy.

Can you show how God is abounding in mercy with a rare and scarce atonement?

Mark you continued:

Redemption is preached to all, but the actual nature and effect of the atonement belongs to those for whom Jesus actually atoned- the elect.

This position really makes God out to be a God of mockery. What is the purpose of preaching redemption to all and requiring all to believe what for most is a lie? How could we require one for whom Christ did not die to believe that Christ died for him? Is that not a lie? Yet he must believe this lie and is required by God’s wrath to believe the lie? How is that consistent with God’s view of truth? Can any of us preach the salvation of Jesus on the cross to one who was not included in the atonement but who is not excluded in the command to believe it? This seems to me to be a twisted plan of mockery which is far more consistent with the nature of satan than that of God. I am not trying to accuse you of anything, but just giving you my Biblical understanding of a doctrine that requires the non-elect to repent and believe when by the very nature of their “place” as one who has been picked as an eternal reprobate, they cannot act in belief as one of the elect but are required to believe a lie or suffer God’s wrath. Who could demand such a thing while withholding from them the very thing that they need to respond, repent and believe?

If the atonement was universal then we must accept a doctrine of universalism which I am not willing to do.

This is a false dilemma. It is not either or. It is not just Calvinism or universalism because there are not just two choices. Who convinced you that there are Biblically only two choices?

You cannot say that Jesus bore the sins of all men and then say that people are still punished for their sins because of rejection of the gospel. If this is true, then Jesus never actually atoned their sins anyway. Cheryl you must have a very different definiton of what ‘atonement’ actually means. It cannot mean ‘full forgiveness of sins’ because the wrath of God fell on Jesus.

Again, I will answer this after you answer my questions. I will ask in a slightly different way right now. How can your sins have been forgiven by the atonement of Christ yet you were still called a sinner and in need of being regenerated because of your sin? Why did the atonement which was paid on your behalf have no affect on you until late in your life? Do you have an answer for that? I am quite anxious to hear your answers. And I am quite anxious to respond to your questions after you are given a full chance to explain yourself.

Mark, it would be a good time to remind everyone that I believe you to be a brother in Christ – one who has been saved by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus because of the atonement of Christ on the cross. This debate is not between a believer and an unbeliever. It is an inhouse debate between believers.

That’s all I had time for right now. I will get to the next comments of yours later when I have another break to respond.