This is part 7 of a series on forgiveness. See the index here.
Six years ago a commenter asked me the following:
Since you are an Anabaptist, as was I at one time, do you believe Mr. Kauffman’s claims? May I assume you are an “Arminian” Anabaptist in favor of the ordo solutis of Jacobus Arminius?
Walt, a former Anabaptist, had converted to Calvinism. This was, IMO, a lateral move. I responded:
I’m not a Calvinist. When I have issues with Arminianism, I look for a third explanation.
There are many theories of atonement, including:
| View | Key Idea | Notable Proponents |
|---|---|---|
| Ransom Theory | Jesus’ death paid a ransom to Satan to free humanity from bondage. | Early Church Fathers (e.g., Origen) |
| Christus Victor | Jesus triumphed over sin, death, and the devil. | Gustav Aulén (20th century revival) |
| Satisfaction Theory | Jesus’ death satisfies the honor due to God, offended by sin. | Anselm of Canterbury (11th c.) |
| Penal Substitution | Jesus bore the penalty for sin in our place, satisfying divine justice. | Reformers: Calvin, Luther; modern Reformed |
| Moral Influence Theory | Jesus’ life and death demonstrate God’s love, inspiring human repentance. | Peter Abelard (12th c.); liberal theology |
| Governmental Theory | Jesus’ death shows God’s moral governance and the seriousness of sin. | Hugo Grotius (17th c.) |
| Healing/Exemplarist | Jesus brings healing through his suffering and shows the way to live. | Eastern Orthodox, some liberal Protestants |
| Universal Atonement | Christ died for all, but benefit depends on faith. | Jacob Arminius; John Wesley |
| Limited Atonement | Christ died only for the elect whom God predestined to save. | John Calvin; Reformed theologians |
But, the reason I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian is because Jesus did not come to atone for our sins. In the Old Testament, to atone means to literally cover over. There can be no “theory of atonement” because Jesus’ blood didn’t atone—cover over—our sins. It did not function the way that the blood of animals functioned:
He entered once and for all into the Holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves, but by means of his own blood, thus obtaining everlasting redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes of a heifer, being sprinkled on those who have been defiled, make people holy (as regards the “cleanness” of the flesh), how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the everlasting spirit offered himself without blemish to God, cleanse our conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
And for this reason he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for redemption from the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called will receive the promise of the inheritance in the age to come.
For since the law has only a shadow of the good things to come, not the true form of the things, it is never able, by the same sacrifices that they offer continually year after year, to make those who draw near perfect. Otherwise, would they not have stopped offering those sacrifices? Because the ones who serve, having been once cleansed, would have had no more consciousness of sins.
But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year after year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
So when someone asks me “Which theory of atonement do you believe?” the correct answer is “None of them.” This I follow up with the observation that “atonement is not featured in the New Testament.”
To understand Christ’s salvific work, read about Jesus healing ten lepers:
Now on his way to Jerusalem, Jesus traveled along the border between Samaria and Galilee. As he was going into a village, ten men who had leprosy met him. They stood at a distance and called out in a loud voice,
When he saw them, he said,
And as they went, they were cleansed. One of them, when he saw he was healed, came back, praising God in a loud voice. He threw himself at Jesus’ feet and thanked him—and he was a Samaritan. Jesus asked,
Then he said to him,
Ten lepers received a life-changing miracle. Jesus healed all ten men, but only one of them returned in thanks and honored God. Jesus said something curious to him when he said that his faith made him whole.
Were not the nine also made whole?
And, when you are done with that question, how did Jesus forgive sins before he had shed his blood for sins?
i was wondering why i had a problem with the whole idea of Christians talking about atonement-now i know why.
Also, last night while watching RifleMAN TV show, an episode( ”Day of Reckoning-Lucas is torn by conflicting emotions when he meets the town’s new preacher, a former outlaw whom the Rifleman vowed to kill.”) came on and i watched in a new light because of Derek’s recent series.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5SPDqMD81c
The Rifleman – Season 4, Episode 28 – Day of Reckoning – Full Episode
Here’s some comments that give more hints about the story.:
Professor,
i was wondering why i had a problem with the whole idea of Christians talking about atonement-now i know why.
It’s a whole lot of needless theology created long after Jesus died. It only serves to confuse and obfuscate. They are complex where Jesus’ teaching was simple.
The Hebrew notion of atonement in the Hebrew word for atonement was never translated into the Greek Septuagint in an equivalent form. Without the language pointing the way, the Greek-speaking Jews and Christians only understood atonement in terms of the OT context. And the context of the blood sacrifice of animals was not the same as the context of Jesus’ sacrifice.
The Hebrew word emphasizes covering. The Greek word emphasizes satisfaction and reconciliation. Bible people try to merge the two meanings together, but they really don’t fit together.
It seems curious that God would allow His Word to be translated in such a way, but I believe it is to disconnect the Old from the New, to emphasize how Christ’s redemptive work was different. The old sacrificial system had to end. The translation was, in a way, prophetic.
What I don’t understand is why people created so many theories of atonement when they could have just understood Jesus’ analogy to financial and material debt. It is much easier to understand than the muddled mess that theologians invented.
Consider what Paul said:
So also David speaks of the blessing on the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works, saying,
This would have been the perfect time to explain how David prophesied that Jesus’ blood would atone for our sins, but instead Paul emphasized faith. Paul understood the “covering over”—atonement—that David saw as the precursor to faith.
Then you have James:
Here James references atonement—covering over—but there is no mention of blood anywhere. It’s all about restoring a brother back into faith. The preceding verses are all about the effect of faith for forgiveness:
And lastly we have Peter:
How can this be? How can love of all things “cover over” sin. Where is the atonement of Jesus’ blood? Surely Peter of all people knew better!
Thus did three apostles fail to apply atonement to the sacrifice of Christ. The only place in the New Testament where atonement is discussed is—as I mentioned in the OP—the book of Hebrews, which is addressed to the Jews who had been living under the first covenant.
Christ’s “atoning” work can only be said to have satisfied the requirements of the first covenant (and only for those under that covenant), leading to it being replaced by the new covenant. The old was a covenant of blood atonement, the new is a covenant of faith.
Peace,
DR
Because Jesus is Lord.
What is the significance of the following passage, in your estimation?
remission — the cancellation of a debt, charge, or penalty.
You have not really answered the question. You have just turned the question back on me. Is it because you do not know, or because you don’t want to answer it?
After all, God the Father and Lord of All was unable to save us from our sins without Jesus. So the answer “Because Jesus is Lord” is inadequate (it is missing a word).
I can answer the question, of course. I know how Jesus could forgive sins before he actually shed his blood. And it’s not time travel or other philosophical games. In fact, I have already answered the question in a paragraph earlier in this series. But if I explained it here that would invalidate the learning opportunity: for you to figure it out yourself.
His blood removed our sin debt (I have been reading this series, it is interesting).
If I’m interpreting correctly?
Perhaps it just read strangely to me because atonement and the cancellation of the sin debt are kind of synonymous in my mind. Ive never really thought about it.
Liz,
First, atonement in the Old Testament is not synonymous with remission. The only example of remission in the Old Testament Law is Jubilee. We should be talking about Theories of Jubilee, not Theories of Atonement. It’s all messed up.
Second, atonement in English and the NT is closer to remission than OT atonement. The problem? Translations, theologians, and pastors use OT atonement and NT atonement interchangeably.
More later…
Peace,
DR
Liz,
You said…
Because Jesus is Lord.
…but what you should have said was “Because Jesus is their Lord.” So the first thing to note is that Jesus can only forgive the debt of his own people. It’s not because Jesus is Lord, or else he could forgive anyone he chose. Rather, he can only forgive those who choose him. That is why each time he forgave sins, it was after they had demonstrated their faith. So however Jesus forgives sins, it is intimately connected to faith (a point that should be obvious, but I will discuss in Part 11 next week).
Now let’s step back. What are the two ways out of a financial debt? (1) For the debt to be cancelled; or (2) for the debt to be transferred away from you onto another (e.g. co-signing). With the former, the debt disappears completely, but with the latter the debt can be forgiven of the original debtor, but the debt remains the responsibility of another.
Jesus could forgive sins because he could claim them as his own. To transfer them to his own ledger. He could do this only because the debtor had chosen him. This meant that the sin-debt was transfered onto Christ. Christ was obligated to repay it in some way, but he had not yet repaid it.
In Hebrew thought, a leader (of a family, clan, government, or divine realm) could send agents on his behalf who were, legally speaking, the leader himself. The leader was fully responsible for those under his domain. This is what the Manosphere calls the patriarch, what Radix Fidem calls the Feudal Lord, and what the Romans called the paterfamilias. All reflect the notion that the leader has full and complete rights over whatever was under his domain.
He had both duty and responsibility. Thus if a person under his domain committed a crime, he could answer for it while absolving the original person from blame. He still had to pay the cost of whatever punishment was enacted, but he had to the right to do it on behalf of anyone within his domain. (I’ve mentioned this concept on many occasions when I’ve critized the Manosphere’s “weak patriarchy”)
When we make Jesus our Lord, we are his vassals. He has the right to transfer our debts and the punishments for those debts onto ourself. He becomes the debtor and all negotiations over proper punishment because his duty and responsibility. His promise of his blood was enough to convince the debt-holder to allow Christ to take the debt onto himself (which he could subsequently cancel). We have no say in the matter.
Thus did Jesus forgive sins before he died. And it wasn’t just the few that forgave him. Scripture says that those who had died had implicitly placed their trust—hope—in the Messiah that was to come. Their sins had already been transferred onto Jesus as well.
When Jesus went to the cross, he was already bearing the sins of many. And when he died, he paid the cost. But unlike the blood of bulls and goats which only covered over—atoned for—sin, Jesus blood cancelled the debt.
The shedding of blood was the transaction required by the master to pay off the debts that had been transferred onto him from his vassals/slaves/servants/children. Only then, once Christ’s slate had been cleansed, could he be resurrected and take his place in heaven. But not before! Jesus had to die, because death was the penalty for all the sin he had acquired.
Fortunately, Christ’s blood is efficacious for all sin in all time. But the condition is the same. We must make Jesus our Lord and master in order for him to be able to add our debts to his ledger and erased from our own.
And, to be clear, the ledgers are not officially checked until the Day of Judgment at the end of the age. When that occurs, our names will be found in the Lamb’s Book of Life, where all those who have made Jesus their master will be listed. The ledger of anyone whose name is on that list will be empty. And the sins that are on Jesus’ ledger will be marked as cancelled on account of his blood. It is then, and only then, after the judge rules that we are clear, that we will receive resurrection of the flesh as the reward for having no debt.
But those whose sins are not on Jesus’ ledger will be forced to pay off their own debts…. but will be unable. That means that those who do not forgive will have to account for those sins still on their own ledger, the ones that the chose to keep because they denied the power to save.
—————————
The point is this: Jesus could always forgive the sin of those who followed him. That’s why all that was required for salvation was to follow Christ. As Charlton says:
And this is why he had to die.
—————————
We have to forgive because when a person who has chosen Jesus sins, God has already cancelled their sin-debt. It would be absurd to think that we could hold onto the same sin that God has already forgotten. Moreover, because that sin is on Jesus’ ledger, if you fail to forgive what you are actually doing is denying Jesus’ right to claim that sin as his exclusive own.
Peace,
DR
I see them as largely synonymous as well, Liz. It has been eye opening to me to learn that the very idea of atonement is suspect among fellow believers. I have literally never heard this before Derek.
As a snobby classicist, I have been trained -educationally, at least- to be more open to wisdom that has held down through the ages and more suspect to that which sounds new.
The issue here is that I am not certain whether what Derek is saying is old or new, LOL. Not only does Matt 26:28 spring to mind, but also Ephesians 1:7 and Hebrews 9 (verse 20-something). Hebrews goes to great lengths to parallel Christ’s death with the OT sacrificial system.
Faith in Christ’s death and resurrection is the peg on which salvation hangs. At the end of the day, the question for me is whether this is just semantics, or if it matters whether we call it atonement or covering. If we interpret his death as though atonement and covering are different, is the end result different?
Modern Red Pill / Real Man Christianity:
Forgiveness is only allowed for MEN who profess Game, accept everything Red Pill, worship the sex-act, have a rock solid Frame and profess Christ only when its convenient to do so otherwise you deserve to be in hell after your death. Rollo and Company will be given the exception because “we cannot judge another mans faith, maybe he has accepted Jesus and hasnt told anyone, or he could do so on his death bed. We cannot judge” Forgiveness also applies to men who marry at 22 and have a great career, a house and a hot wife.
Lastmod,
Well, the point of this series is that forgiveness and repentance are independent concepts. The reason we do not judge has nothing to do with whether they have accepted Jesus or repented.
The truth is, if Jesus is the Lord of Rollo and Company, then they’ll be in heaven with the rest of us, regardless of the relative severity or importance of our sins. I find it a relief that when all is said and done, we will not have to strive against one another. I sincerely hope that they are not left out because of their unwillingness to forgive.
Peace,
DR
I was being a bit cheeky in my comment 🙂
Yeah, I thought that might be the case.
But I do have great concern for how judgmental and unforgiving the Manosphere can be. I wouldn’t mind spending eternity with forgiving Rollos or Pseudonymous Commenters, but they may be trying to keep themselves out. The Lord only knows.
To the extent that I’m permitted to forgive their lack of forgiveness, I choose to do so. Perhaps God will accept that and note it on their ledgers.
i thought Modern Red Pill / Real Man Christianity knows MEN would do it right, yet i don’t remember Queen Elizabeth going this far off the rails:
https://www.gbnews.com/royal/king-charles-blasted-disrespectful-easter-message-queen-ex-chaplain
Queen’s ex-chaplain blasts King Charles over ‘disrespectful’ Easter message amid ‘ongoing act of antagonism’
The monarch reflected on Judaism and Islam during his Easter message
King Charles has been slammed by the late Queen’s former Chaplain Dr Gavin Ashenden, after sharing a “disrespectful” Easter message on Maundy Thursday.
The monarch is facing swathes of criticism after choosing to reflect on Judaism and Islam in his message – on a holiday that celebrates Christianity.
King Charles said: “On Maundy Thursday, Jesus knelt and washed the feet of many of those who would abandon Him. His humble action was a token of His love that knew no bounds or boundaries and is central to Christian belief.
BUT what really got everyone riled up?:
https://www.gbnews.com/royal/king-charles-islam-easter-message-royal-news
King Charles, 76, also spoke about Judaism and Islam, adding: “The love He showed when He walked the Earth reflected the Jewish ethic of caring for the stranger and those in need, a deep human instinct echoed in Islam and other religious traditions, and in the hearts of all who seek the good of others.”
The King’s Easter message comes a few weeks after the Royal Family issued a message to Muslims living in the UK and around the world in celebration of Eid.
i guess King Charles will have to continue in his lessons on being MR.MCMAHON ’98-’02(the peak of his Character stories) & more game=redpill manosphere posts from ’08-’13-speaking of which Dalrock said game made his marriage ”happy”-so why isn’t the manosphere going game-heavy to make everyone’s marriage ”happy”?, instead of drifting off into the ”blackpill” singularity like pseudonymous commenter Deti said in ’23?
Both the Roman Catholic Pope and the “head’ of the Anglican church are obviously inclusivists and apparently universalists. So are a sizable chunk of (mostly liberal) Protestants in America. It upsets many people to hear that, but I don’t know how anyone could deny it. See here.
It amazes me that people still embrace corporate Christian denominations. I guess admitting that the thing you’ve head dear for so long is corrupt is hard to accept. It’s like Old Yeller, but without a Katie or Travis Coates to do what needs to be done.
What do you mean by “corporate Christian denominations”? Is that to include any and all denominations or a specific type (PCA, SBC, UMC, etc)?
Our church is none of those; too niche-y by American standards. People drive a good long way to get to our church because there are so few 1689 churches that they are spread out. However, we are a denomination albeit not a corporate one.
Very disappointed in HRM, King Charles III. I know the role of The Crown concerning Christianity has been dulled over the past two centuries……but could not even deliver a proper “Easter Message” is a bit wrong.
What angered me, and my family in the UK was having a Muslin “call to prayer” in St Georges Chapel at Windsor Castle a few weeks back.
One of the most sacred areas of British Christendom being used for this. It was a daring and deliberate “slap in the face” to British Christians. It was also a daunting “laying down the gauntlet of “what are you all going to do aboutit? Nothing! You protest, we’ll smear you as anti-Muslim. You say little or nothing, we’ll take it as agreement with our stance”
Can you imagine…the King of Saudi Arabia on Easter morning giving an “uplifting message” to all the foreign Christian workers in the Kingdom about the “work and life of Jesus and His ressurection”
No. It wouldnt happen.
The British now are sadly so brow beaten. English guys will beat the snot outta you dissing their football club with bicycle chains and broken bottles. English women will be “offended” by “sexual harassment” by “creepy men” but will do or say nothing about their daughters, female cousins and relatives raped and held hostage by “grooming gangs” which ‘just-happen-to-be’ mostly men of the Muslim faith from Pakistan / Afghanistan
Come Lord Jesus!
These days it seems that if you complain or protest… they’ll arrest you.
Between the few of us, that is where Easter will be celebrated. The Lord is risen. He is risen indeed. Forgiveness and eternal life is available to all who want it.
I am not devout, probably lukewarm by the accounts of “others” in the Christian world….but I do know by being inspired by the work, faith and trust of those early believers.
“what can mere men do to me?”
“to be out this life is to be present with the Lord”
I pray and hope that if that time comes, where I may indeed have to “count the cost” that I stand on the side of eternity.
Since my current church embraced the occult last summer, I’ve mostly stopped going to church. My previous church embraced, among other things, deviant sexuality. And let’s not get started about all the churches that cucked to the government in 2020. I’ve lost the desire to participate in traditional religious experiences.
Having attended a church regularly for most of my life, I find myself in a deeply uncomfortable situation. None of the local churches I’ve explored have struck me as good alternatives. I’ve been floundering about.
From Part 5:
A Christian is defined by his ultimate conviction, by what he ultimately wants; not be what he achieves. We are all sinners -what is decisive is whether this is acknowledged; and what this means is that it is our conviction that counts, and not our behaviour.
This series has grown now to 11 parts—including those that are scheduled for publication—with maybe even more to come. If Liz doesn’t respond to my last comment to her, there will be a part 12 for sure.
Part 11 will explore this idea in more depth.
True enough but the Bible speaks constantly on standing on His promises. Living a life *worth* His favor. Countless stories of men who “stood the test” not only in the Bible but throughout the centuries (despite Christianity being *cucked* by Betas in 1282 AD or whatever)
I do know Jesus, from the example by Peter…..He doesnt want us to “flee” or deny Him when the time comes. Forgiveness is granted but the example of Peter is to “flee” from evil, not Him. Lesson learned right?
Even in the times of Daniel. He just didnt “have his faith in God” when he was thrown to the lions. He kept the Sabbath. He followed Gods Laws, the Commandments…..he led by example IN his faith in God despite being hauled away with his fellow Jews to Babylon. Many probably died in that journey. Many Jews tortured and forced into slavery. He still stood firm on what he said and did before facing the King and before that lions den.
Jesus wants and does expect us if we indeed profess Him, that we have standards to uphold so that others will be inspired to His kingdom.
I dont see that in the ‘sphere in general.
I see and have read: provision, provision, provision….terminology invented by man. STEM degree. Hotter, tighter, younger. Endless hairsplitting debates over words in Genesis. Doing stuff to make women like you (ughhhh). The expectation of spinning plates, Game, dates, all the other terms…and little or nothing about Christ….unless its to backup their esteemed masculinity while shutting out everyone else.
Just my take. Flame away
Nah, no flames. I more-or-less agree with you.
All I need say anyway is that repentance and holy living—sanctification—is the result of faith and forgiveness—justification. I would never say that you only need justification because sanctification does not matter. False, false, false! I’m simply acknowledging the simplicity of faith and its rewards, while utterly debunking any possible defense of works-righteousness.
Saw on Spawneys a comment from the only real man in the room from another blog state “BJs first, then we’ll talk….its crass, but this is what men need to do today….”
So much for that Christian thing / walk…
Saw on Spawneys a comment from the only real man in the room from another blog state “BJs first, then we’ll talk….its crass, but this is what men need to do today….”
So much for that Christian thing / walk…
YEAH i saw that too, and that real man in the room from another blog liked to say Roissy=Heartiste was crass/”over the top”(forgetting that Roissy=Heartiste NEVER claimed to be a ”Christian” while also NOT specifically telling ”Christians” to do anything-”Christians” were naming and claiming the Rossyian /Heartistian PUA game=redpill stuff was ”Christian” and good to do in ”Christian” marriage( and dating) , NOT the other way around .)
Also
“BJs first, then we’ll talk….its crass, but this is what men need to do today….”
And he’d be okay with guys doing that to his daughters?
Like, supposedly, Dalrock (who thought it ”cool” about his then-girlfriend, now wife’s father pulling a shotgun on him once ?)was/would be okay with guys gaming his daughter as a teen/adult?
In their world……as the proclaimed leders of “men” and “restoring masculinity”……….rules for thee, but not for me is their go to in the end.
If I could see some genuine humility…….the way Jesus expressed and lived. No being a wuss so to speak…because he wasnt. But he wept for the brothers he led, taught and loved (despite them still letting Him down, and not “getting it” on the first try or repeated tries). He spoke with truth and integrity to the “teachers of the law” without holding back, and without resorting to “negs” “smears” and “put downs” he truly wanted them to indeed repent and “taste and see”
Knowing these men would indeed put Him to death in the end…..but it didnt matter.
In The Garden where He did ask “if this cup…”
He didbnt spend time in “the gym” and he spoke about money and provision as only tools and a means. Not a “gateway” to him. He didnt speak to men about “BJ’s first, then we’ll talk” concerning women.
I wrestle with all of this and have been plagued by dreams and sometimes nightmares over “what Jesus expects and what man demands”
I have tried to make clear but I smeared as bitter, cucked, blinded-by-blue-pill-thinking not just from the sphere but by actual MEN I have met in church. Granted, I fully admit, I cannot communicate as well as Jesus or other more “learned” men.
I am beginning to believe that I am going insane.
I mean, we sing in church (well, I used to sing) “to be like Jesus” and I dont see it. Hollow words? Empty tombs sung on Sunday? Millions of people will enter Gods House this holy Sunday (Easter) and most….not just “women” but MEN will have no idea who dwells, who lives there and whose house it really is.
What of Simon Cyrene who was grabbed out of the throngs to held carry the Cross that Jesus bore? Was he a “professed believer”? Did he have baptism, Communion? Was he an “upstanding-member-of-the-local-temple” was his wife a “devout holy woman who walked ten paces behind him and called him Lord?”
We dont know, and we dont have to know because its not important.
What of Joseph who provided the tomb for Jesus? He was evidently “rich” and a “secret” follower of Jesus. He didnt have the Holy Ghost. Nor did he “follow Jesus around for the years of his ministry”
Did he try to stop the trial of Jesus? Did he preach to the Sanhedrin? We dont know, and we dont need to know. All that matters is that in the moment, his faith in Jesus was made when the tomb was to be provided.
How dare those disciples not provide a tomb and run a collection plate!!!! (sarcasm)
Plenty of ordinary men (Im not talking Moses or Paul or Daniel) who “counted the cost” at the right time and moment.
Again, I pray when or if that time comes for me. I stand with eternity.
The people then asked Jesus, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, **except it were given unto him of my Father.**
-John 6: 28-29, 64-65
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: **it is the gift of God:**
-Ephesians 2:8
And for this reason he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for redemption from the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those *who have been called* will receive the promise of the inheritance in the age to come.
…This post got me thinking about the TULIP acronym I had to memorize as a kid.
The reality remains: not all believe. Grace, as a gift from God, is what enables belief in Him, and this act of belief is faith. Consider the account of the ten lepers; all experienced cleansing (the removal of their affliction), yet only one returned in faith, demonstrating that grace was uniquely given to him by the Father.
Extending this concept, the parable of the ten virgins offers a parallel. Five possessed oil, representing God’s grace—the work of the Spirit, an unmerited gift beyond purchase, as illustrated by Simon the Magus’s failed attempt.
Doesn’t this pattern of selective enabling and response strongly suggest a connection to the theological doctrine of “Limited Atonement”? Or rather, that not everyone can be a partaker of the new covenant?
E,
No, because scripture clearly and unambiguously states that Jesus blood is efficacious for all. It’s a matter of choice, of choosing to make Jesus your Lord and master. All sin can be easily forgiven, it just requires you to choose the side of Jesus. That’s it, that’s the only requirement. God cannot forgive you your debts unless you are one of Christ’s body.
Notably, Jesus’s elect included the 12 disciples, but one of them chose not to be on Jesus’ side, but to serve Satan instead. Everyone can be a partaker of the new covenant—because the blood of Christ was an offer for all—but not everyone will choose to do so.
If Jesus could offer forgiveness to whoever he chose—despite the fact that in each example scripture gives they clearly chose him—then there would have been no need for the cross. Limited Atonement logically implies that the blood wasn’t required. That’s why I asked the questions that I did:
Would you like me to discuss TULIP in more depth? Perhaps just Limited Atonement?
Peace,
DR
“Everyone can be a partaker of the new covenant—because the blood of Christ was an offer for all—but not everyone will choose to do so.”
This statement highlights a crucial point: the act of choosing Christ is, in this view, predetermined. While the path to salvation is presented, individuals will not ultimately choose it unless they have been previously chosen to partake in it.
The concept is supported by 1 John 2:19: ‘They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.’ This verse suggests a distinction between those who were genuinely part of the elect and those who were not.
“God cannot forgive you your debts unless you are one of Christ’s body”
Which aligns with Ephesians 1:4: ‘According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.’ This implies a predetermined, compelling force within the elect, enabling them to ‘choose’ Christ within the new covenant. As Psalm 110:3 states, ‘Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power…’
Who, then, can instill this willingness to choose Jesus, if not God himself, acting according to His predetermined plan? In this sense, faith is not an independent human act, but a gift placed within us by the Father before the foundation of the world.
“Would you like me to discuss TULIP in more depth? Perhaps just Limited Atonement?”
Rather than focusing on TULIP or Limited Atonement in isolation, a discussion on predestination or election would be more pertinent (provided it doesn’t eat into any commitments). While a contentious topic, it is one I firmly believe to be true.
I’ve got a bad headache. I’ll try to reply to these comments tomorrow (Saturday).