Mark

Cheryl,

I will answer your question which is ” 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?”

I have already said earlier but you must have missed it. I agree that the atonement becomes effective by our coming to salvation. When Jesus died, he died for past, present and future sins.

However God was not limited in knowing who his sheep were (contra open theism) both past and future. He knew who were his elect and so Jesus bore there sins on the tree enabling them to be granted ‘atonement’ from their sins once God regenerated their hearts and they put faith in Christ. Even an evangelical arminian agrees with this. God is not limited in knowing who will be his sheep.

So therefore i disagree that God forgave or ‘atoned’ for non believers sins. Yes the atonement requires our faith to be effective but the only sins atoned for by Jesus on the cross were those God determined to be his. The atonement acheived something for God’s people. It did not just merely make it ‘possible’ (contra Cheryl). Your view in my opinion makes the atonement a non-atonement. It didn’t actually acheive anything, because the effectiveness is only depended on my own faith.

Now you can dismiss all the texts you like and say ‘many’ is synonymous for ‘all’, but i think that is wrong. There are so many cases in the New Testament of universal language being used in a limited sense- we use it ALL the time. After all you don’t say that that Christ justified ‘all’ men do you?

Rom 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

This is the inconsistency in the Arminian position- it picks and chooses which texts to use. It ignores the cultural backdrop to help understand what the NT authors meant.

I look forward to see how you explain the atonement. I wonder how you believe that unbelievers sins are forgiven on the cross yet they are not forgiven on judgement day.

Finally, the whole arguments about God’s mercy and love are unconvincing. God is merciful that we can even breath right now becasue of our sin. The mind of the ‘flesh’ cannot even please God yet he gives people happy healthy lives. This is God’s common grace. He is gracious to all of us, even those who always have the ‘flesh’ nature of the first Adam

Rom 8:5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.
Rom 8:7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.
Rom 8:8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Your position does not make God anymore loving or merciful (unless you hold to open theism of course). An arminian perspective on God at least upholds the biblical teaching on God’s foreknowledge, so is not God creating people who he knows won’t respond in faith? The Arminian position does not overcome our notions of injustice- it remains the same. God still creates people knowing they are going to be sent to hell. That is why i at least appreciate the open theist perspective- it is the logical conclusion to the Arminain position although most arminains attempt to dispute that.

“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. ”

Cheryl look again at verse 52 in John 11 and then see what ‘nation’ should mean. Those that Jesus died for ‘nation’, ‘scattered children of God’, John saids, God will “bring them together and make them one”. Doesn’t sound like non belivers to me, does it to you? Those Jesus died for will be brought together as one!- God’s church or elect. Not all Israel is Israel!

Anyway i could go back over all of what you said but we need to move on in the exegesis. After you attempt to show me what your understanding of the atonement is, i will respond to your latest exegetical points.