way 2 go
Well-known member
:sherlock:
please explain as there is something missing
Nothing limited Jesus atonement and not all sin is atoned for
The Serious Consequences of NOT Believing that Jesus Atoned for the Sins of the World
- Thread starter Robert Pate
- Start date
please explain as there is something missing
Nothing limited Jesus atonement and not all sin is atoned for
If Jesus atoned for the sins of the whole world, 1 John 2:2, then we must conclude that all sin has been atoned for.
Hate that I missed this gem before.
Jesus is the only Savior available for the world, but logically, He remains the Savior only of the saved. The unsaved don't have a savior, by definition. A savior is one who saves. This shouldn't be brain surgery...
OTOH, if God intended to save every single person through Jesus' death (as you say), then God's plan was a complete failure, as only some are saved. If the sin of refusing to believe in His Son was truly atoned for, God could never condemn or cast anyone into Hell, but only sadly accept their free will choice to turn away from Him and go to Hell willingly. (But that's not the scriptural picture we are given, rather it is God who actively shuts the door and God who casts into Hell - God hates these sinners. (Psa5:5, Psa11:5))
But contrary to your view of a passive God who means well and offers to save every single person but doesn't seem to get very involved with individuals in space and time, the scriptures do teach of One who "works all things after the counsel of His will." (Eph1:12)
Isa46:10-11 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,
Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man who executes My counsel, from a far country.
Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it."
Scripture teaches that God can easily frustrate man's will but that His plans cannot fail. (How could they, since He has declared the ends from the beginning?)
Psa33:10-11The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nothing;
He makes the plans of the peoples of no effect.
The counsel of the Lord stands forever, The plans of His heart to all generations.
Psa135:5-6 For I know that the Lord is great, And our Lord is above all gods.
Whatever the Lord pleases He does, In heaven and in earth, In the seas and in all deep places.(Psa115:3; Dan4:35)
God does whatever he pleases in heaven and earth, so if it pleased Him to save every person, He could do that. But that doesn't seem to be His intent in scripture.
When Paul was encouraging Timothy, he didn't appeal to Timothy to trust his own free will, but rather to trust the purposes of this God who declares the end from the beginning:
2Tim1:8-9 Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner, but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel according to the power of God, who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began...
There is an alternative offered in scripture to your view, that instead of one homogeneous world toward whom God offers vague well-wishing, there are two distinct subsets with different purposes:
Rom9:22-23 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory...?
You don't like that. It's not very egalitarian. You would prefer a smaller god-ling who is constrained by time who cannot declare the end from the beginning so that everyone could have a "chance" of choosing to be a vessel of mercy. That's why I keep harping on your devotion to Aristotle - when you read the Bible through the lens of human philosophy, it does seem unfair for God to love and choose only some. But the Bible repeatedly says that that is what He does - He sees a world where no one at all will come to Him, so being mighty to save (Zep3:17, Isa63:1), He opens and softens hearts so that some will certainly come and be saved.
Matt1:21 And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He WILL save His people from their sins.
If Jesus' mission was to save every single person from their sins, He failed. But His mission was always based on a love for His people, the Church. (Eph5:25)
I missed your scripture reference on how it could be "like, the worst sin you can commit?" Is it only the worst because you personally disagree with it?
So you cheerfully declare all 5pointers damned, not because of scripture, but because of your personal pride? Your arrogance knows no bounds...
Calvinism should not be a salvation issue at all - it's only useful as it helps to explain how the whole bible fits together. It only becomes a salvation issue when someone like Pate denies SOOOO much of scripture to hold onto to those 8 or so verses (taken out of context) that he so cherishes...and worse, aspires to judge God as unjust if God won't submit to Pate's moral authority. That is simply madness.
If Jesus said the OT was about Him, then I believe it. If the God who inspired the Psalms says that it is the ungodly who try to mock him by saying, "Does God really know?", then I will affirm that God really declares(/ordains) your end before you are born, even if it enrages you as you hold tight to Aristotle's ethical teaching. If the scriptures really teach that if Jesus was given up for us, then we will certainly receive all things for salvation (such as justification), then either every single person will certainly receive justification and salvation, or else Rom8:32-34 was written only about the Church and not every single person.
God does as He pleases. Man does as he pleases, which is a problem for natural man without the Spirit unless God chooses to soften his heart and change his affections.
You know, the scriptures say there will be no sin in Heaven. (Rev21:27)
I guess that means there is no "free will", so you wouldn't like Heaven anyway, Pate.
Aw, from someone with "Patrick Jane" as an avatar, I would have hoped for a more thoughtful (or at least more clever) response. Your shallowness comes as a huge disappointment.
We are not robots but we also do not choose randomly.
If your tradition teaches that we can believe and be included as Jesus' sheep, why does Jesus teach the opposite? What does Jesus mean when He taught that "good trees produce good fruit"?
If Donald Trump walked into the voting booth last November believing himself to be the best candidate and Hillary to be the Bad Girl of Babylon, what exactly do you mean when you say he was "free" to vote for Hillary?
Last edited:
or else, that you are misinterpreting 1John2:2 in a way that conflicts with hundreds of other verses, which should help correct you when you are that far off base on 1John2:2, if only you would read the rest of scripture...
1 Timothy 4:10 KJV -
God does nothing outside of his holy, just, merciful, righteous nature and character. God cannot and will not sin against his holy law, nor will he sin against his created beings.
Only those that hear and believe the Gospel are given the Holy Spirit. There will not be any sin in heaven because we will be changed and will be like him, 1 Corinthians 15:52.
There is nothing wrong with 1 John 2:2. But there is plenty wrong with what you believe.
Yeah, I liked that episode of the Mentalist where they were honoring a lifeguard as the savior of all 12 people involved in a boating accident, and especially those 2 that actually were saved and lived.
Of course, there wasn't an episode like that, because no one ever really talks like that outside of Calvinism debates. That is a problematic translation to put that much weight on.
I think Skeat's take on the Greek word Malista (as a means of clarification in some contexts) makes more sense, and so a better translation of that verse might be "...because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, specifically meaning believers..."
It's a bit unusual for "God" to be identified as the Savior in the NT rather than Jesus specifically, so it's also possible that "Sustainer" is a better English equivalent in that context than "Savior," as God provides for believers spiritually as well as physically. (Matt5:45)
But if you are an honest man arguing in good faith who believes your interpretation of that verse enough to pray in front of your church and your family that you thank God for being the Savior of Judas and the unrepentant child molesters, and especially for being your Savior, then by all means, stick with it. Don't let me stop you if you somehow find that to be a source of great assurance. But if you just pull it out because it looks on the surface like it disagrees with Calvinism, but then sweep it back under the rug immediately afterwards - then hey, you know God sees that...
Assuming you do believe that God is the Savior of the unsaved, I would be sincerely curious to read more about how that works out in your head. When most noncalvinists talk about Jesus as the "Savior" of the world and "atoning" for all sin, they translate it almost subconsciously as meaning "potential Savior" and "potential atonement" even though there is zero research into the Greek to support those sorts of corrections or adjustments to the translated language.
Brother Ducky
New member
There can be no atonement for sin that is unforgivable.
If there is one sin with no atonement then it follows that not all sin is atoned for.
All sin minus one sin is not all sin.
jsanford108
New member
Try this, Jesus is the provider of salvation for all men. Jesus makes salvation available to all who do nothing more than... "Whosoever that shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" Romans 10:13. This means that God is off the hook for the salvation of fallen man. God has done all that he can do for the salvation of fallen man. He even gives his only begotten Son. The ball is now in humanities court.
jsanford108
New member
Jesus could have atoned for every sin of the world, but He did not. Why? Because that would be unjust. That is why Christ mentions hell, an unforgivable sin, etc. To have absolved all would be unjust to Himself. And Christ cannot be contradictory or unjust. Thus, He did not die for the sins of the every single individual.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
jsanford108
New member
Jesus could have died and atoned for every sin. He is limitless. To have done so would have been unjust.
Christ mentions hell, an unforgivable sin, etc. If Christ died for every sin, then He is now contradicting His very Words, making them untrue.
Christ cannot be unjust or dishonest. He is eternally good. Therefore, Christ cannot have gone against His Words, nor died for every sin of every individual because that would be unjust to Himself.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
I'll play.
There's nothing external that limits Jesus' atonement, but His intention in offering Himself could be a possible limiting factor.
In John17:9,20, Jesus prays for only those people who believe or will believe. If He is only offering Himself for that subset of human beings in space and time, then it makes sense to limit His High Priestly prayer accordingly and refuse to make intercession for the subset of people who will never believe.
Rom8:32-34 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.
Again, if Jesus was delivered up for us all, then who could condemn us, as those for whom Jesus died will surely receive all things for salvation, including justification. But this promise has nothing to offer unbelievers, who are condemned "already" (John3:18).
Gal3:13Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”)...
Matt25:41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
If Jesus became a curse for those goats on His left, how could they still cursed and told to depart?
The value of His sacrifice was infinite and could have covered every single person, but the Bible tells us that some are "condemned already" and God's wrath abides against them, suggesting that God is not in a state of "at-one-ment" with certain people - He is certainly not reconciled to them.
Heb10:12-14 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
Hebrews tells us that "by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified." Please walk me through how this could logically include the enemies that He is waiting to make His footstool? Please don't skip steps so I can follow along.
So address what I believe. I have addressed your trainwreck take on 1John2:2 and Heb2:9 and so on in great detail. I have given you plenty to work with, so pick something and explain why God really "doesn't know" and my take on Psa73:11-12 is wrong, or why Romans9 uses language like "the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" when you clearly don't think it means Hell?
If there won't be sin in heaven because our glorified bodies won't desire sin, would that mean He is turning us into robots? If it's ok for there to be no free will in Heaven, maybe free will isn't much to fight over?
If the angels in heaven have a free will we will have a free will also, because we are greater than the angels.
He is the only Savior available to the world, but He is no "potential Savior." If He is only the provider of possible salvation to the unsaved, then it is still no great assurance to believers that He provides the same uncertain salvation to them.
He is more than a provider of salvation. He does not passively make it available, so that clever, spiritual men can come pick up a bottle of salvation at their leisure. He opens and softens hearts. He opens eyes. He seeks out His lost sheep and unfailingly brings them back. He gives the increase in His Church. It is because of Him (not ourselves) that we are in Christ Jesus.
You claim all the credit for your personal belief but never explain why God keeps taking credit for conversions in the scriptures, if that is supposed to be so unjust of Him.
1) With whom exactly would God be "on the hook"?
Again, you are eager to judge the One who told Job, “Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge?" Or the One who answered a similarly foolish argument with Rom9:20 "But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, 'Why have you made me like this?' ”
You say delusional things like this because you believe God is in the defendant's chair and must meet your approval. You are starting from a foundation of human philosophy and trying to adjust scripture to fit. Until you repent of this mindset, you are in danger from the God of the Bible, who laughs with derision at your arrogance.
2) Luke14 includes the parable of the Great Supper. A great man invites many to come to be his guests, but all refuse (in ways that subtly mock him).
Luke14:23 Then the master said to the servant, ‘Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.
If the master is willing to "compel" some to come in, does that make him evil? Who does the master in the story represent?
So...you're saying Satan's prideful fall was not a sin?
Or that you think you will be "free" to fall and be cast out of Heaven?