Cheryl Schatz

Mark, you said:

So therefore i disagree that God forgave or ‘atoned’ for non believers sins.

The fact is that we were all non-believers and sinners at one time and yet Christ died for sinners.

Romans 5:8 (NASB)
8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Romans 5:6 (NASB)
6 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.

Unbelievers are are ungodly yet Christ died for the ungodly. Paul could have said that while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the elect. But he didn’t say that. He said that God died for the ungodly. So if one is ungodly and a sinner, we qualify as one that Christ died for.

You said:

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.

Is the atonement not complete if it requires our faith? Is it just an offer and not given by Christ before our faith?

The atonement acheived something for God’s people. It did not just merely make it ‘possible’ (contra Cheryl).

Yes the atonement achieved something for God’s people but it also achieved something for all sinners. I never once said that it merely made salvation “possible”. You are claiming something for me that I never said and do not believe. Why do you do that? I have made it quite clear that the atonement was fully paid. It was not a mere “possibility”. It was all of our sins paid fully and complete.

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.

What is the atonement dependent on? Is the atonement effective without your faith?

Now you can dismiss all the texts you like and say ‘many’ is synonymous for ‘all’, but i think that is wrong.

You can think what you will, but thinking doesn’t make it so. You need Scripture to back up your view. Where is “many” ever synonymous with “few”?

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. ?

Eternal life is justification and yes this is given for all men. Just as one act of sin condemned all, so one act of righteousness gave life (and justification) to all. If it isn’t universal in both cases, then it doesn’t make sense. We could then say that the “all” that is condemnation isn’t really for all after all. What it means for one side, it must mean for the other or the comparison is meaningless.

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.

This is the inconsistency in the Calvinist position not my position. I am consistent. I take the texts for what they say and the comparisons are realcomparisons making Jesus truly the last Adam.

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.

Please explain further so that I can have a full picture of what you believe. It will help me to use your own words in my explanation so that we can be in a position of understanding. One cannot refute a position that he does not understand.

Finally, the whole arguments about God’s mercy and love are unconvincing.

It isn’t an argument jhust about God’s mercy and love but about the very character and nature of God. If God tells us what His nature is and He explains it clear in the Scriptures, we need to listen and understand.

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

This is getting into Romans and we can go on to whatever chapters and books you want to discuss next. But I don’t want to go verse by verse through that very important passage until we get there.

Your position does not make God anymore loving or merciful (unless you hold to open theism of course).

Oh really? Why does God sending His Own Son to die for all not make her more loving and merciful than God sending Jesus to die for just a few select individuals who have been chosen unconditionally?

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?

Sure, God’s creates people who He knows won’t respond in faith. But that doesn’t mean that He is not allowed to purchase their salvation? If so, please show me this from the Scripture.

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.

Their position is vastly different than yours. They believe that God purchased the salvation of all, even though the salvation is rejected, but your position has God purposely creating people whom He has chosen them to go to hell and God has chosen to withhold from them what they need to be saved, yet the position also has God pleading with them to be saved and then getting angry with them that they are not able to obey Him because He has purposely withheld from them the ability to obey His command. That sounds a lot like injustice to me and any earthly judge who would act this way would have the world in an uproar about his injustice.

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.

It isn’t logical at all. It creates a God who isn’t Sovereign and who not only lies about his abilities but he also is not able to act in advance but only able to react. What on earth would that God do if one of his elect dies that he was counting on for a work? No. The open theist position is not logical and it is not Biblical. I am quite concerned about you, that you would even consider it logical.

“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!

Let’s have another look at the verse and compare it to what John himself said in the book of 1 John. John is not going to contradict himself.

John 11:52 (NASB)
52 and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.

1 John 2:2 (NASB)
2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

John said that the price that Jesus paid is not for the nation only, but for the whole world. If John had meant that it was for only the elect in the world, he could have said that. He doesn’t just say “world” here but “whole world”. The term whole is another universal term. It shows that John is not referring to a “few” individuals but the “whole” world.

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.

Let’s stick with this a little while longer. I can see that you have no understanding what I have been saying and so it makes it all the more important that we work toward understanding. I am not saying that you must believe as I do, but it is our time to understand what the other believes. So go ahead and answer the questions here and if there is enough understanding, I can fill in the blanks that have not yet been said.

Thanks cobber!