jsjohnnt
New member
Let me ask you all a question: can you all put into words the difference between “universal atonement” and “universal salvation?” That seems to be a critical question.
Let me begin: atonement is the reconciliation of God to mankind via Jesus Christ. It is centered in the very existence of Christ as God. The Messiah of God was all about reconciliation; reconciliation was and is an outgrowth of His very nature.
Salvation, on the other hand, is not a divinely existential consideration, but a judgment, as we believe, of God in Christ when our thoughts will be judge on that “last day" (Romans 2:14).
The problem some are having on this thread (and this is only my opinion), is this: we conflate the two issues, universal atonement with universal salvation, not realizing that the former is the product of the being of God (there was no option for God in Christ but to reconcile all of his creation to Himself Col 1:20) while "salvation" is the produce of a divinely held judgment. The two are not the same. But, just as the prodigal chose not to continue in the faithfulness of his father, we too can walk away from the blessings and faithfulness of our Creator (Col 1:23). While reconciliation is universal (again, Col 1:20) and the salvation that is attached to this work of God, we can choose to walk away. The prodigal could not escape the faithfulness of his father but he could walk away from that father’s trust and faithful.
Still, the father stood on the porch, every day, filled with unconditional hope for his wondering son. Reconciliation was never an issue with the Father. And the father already had plans for this wayward child, if the boy would only see how worthless his life was without his father. Both reconciliation and salvation, in this case, were unconditional and beyond the efforts of either son save for the fact that the family members, wherever they might be, must continue as “family” and, in that sense, must always be “returning” to their father (we might call this “obedience”).
Anyway, that is how I see the difference between the two issues, yet, allowing for them to be inexorably “joined at the hip.” If we understand that “obedience” is only and always best defined as our “returning” to God and God in Christ, then we can see how incidental is our obedience and how profoundly universal is God’s atonement.
Update: to Totton Linnet and the Greek Guy, I did not mean to ignore your recent posts. Its just that I have been working on this post, my post, for several hours, and when I came to publish, you good folks had beat me to the punch. And maybe my thoughts are not all that critical to this thread.
I do thank 5280 for the thread, and the opportunity taken for me to get my thinking reconciled to "reconciliation."
Let me begin: atonement is the reconciliation of God to mankind via Jesus Christ. It is centered in the very existence of Christ as God. The Messiah of God was all about reconciliation; reconciliation was and is an outgrowth of His very nature.
Salvation, on the other hand, is not a divinely existential consideration, but a judgment, as we believe, of God in Christ when our thoughts will be judge on that “last day" (Romans 2:14).
The problem some are having on this thread (and this is only my opinion), is this: we conflate the two issues, universal atonement with universal salvation, not realizing that the former is the product of the being of God (there was no option for God in Christ but to reconcile all of his creation to Himself Col 1:20) while "salvation" is the produce of a divinely held judgment. The two are not the same. But, just as the prodigal chose not to continue in the faithfulness of his father, we too can walk away from the blessings and faithfulness of our Creator (Col 1:23). While reconciliation is universal (again, Col 1:20) and the salvation that is attached to this work of God, we can choose to walk away. The prodigal could not escape the faithfulness of his father but he could walk away from that father’s trust and faithful.
Still, the father stood on the porch, every day, filled with unconditional hope for his wondering son. Reconciliation was never an issue with the Father. And the father already had plans for this wayward child, if the boy would only see how worthless his life was without his father. Both reconciliation and salvation, in this case, were unconditional and beyond the efforts of either son save for the fact that the family members, wherever they might be, must continue as “family” and, in that sense, must always be “returning” to their father (we might call this “obedience”).
Anyway, that is how I see the difference between the two issues, yet, allowing for them to be inexorably “joined at the hip.” If we understand that “obedience” is only and always best defined as our “returning” to God and God in Christ, then we can see how incidental is our obedience and how profoundly universal is God’s atonement.
Update: to Totton Linnet and the Greek Guy, I did not mean to ignore your recent posts. Its just that I have been working on this post, my post, for several hours, and when I came to publish, you good folks had beat me to the punch. And maybe my thoughts are not all that critical to this thread.
I do thank 5280 for the thread, and the opportunity taken for me to get my thinking reconciled to "reconciliation."
