ECT This is why I believe the Atonement played no favorites . . .

[Cross Reference]

George MacDonald rejected the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement as developed by John Calvin, which argues that Christ has taken the place of sinners and is punished by the wrath of God in their place, believing that in turn it raised serious questions about the character and nature of God. Instead, he taught that Christ had come to save people from their sins, and not from a Divine penalty for their sins. The problem was not the need to appease a wrathful God but the disease of cosmic evil itself. George MacDonald frequently described the Atonement in terms similar to the Christus Victor theory. MacDonald posed the rhetorical question, "Did he not foil and slay evil by letting all the waves and billows of its horrid sea break upon him, go over him, and die without rebound—spend their rage, fall defeated, and cease? Verily, he made atonement!”

 

[patrick jane]

What do you mean, "no favorites"?

 

[Interplanner]

George MacDonald rejected the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement as developed by John Calvin, which argues that Christ has taken the place of sinners and is punished by the wrath of God in their place, believing that in turn it raised serious questions about the character and nature of God. Instead, he taught that Christ had come to save people from their sins, and not from a Divine penalty for their sins. The problem was not the need to appease a wrathful God but the disease of cosmic evil itself. George MacDonald frequently described the Atonement in terms similar to the Christus Victor theory. MacDonald posed the rhetorical question, "Did he not foil and slay evil by letting all the waves and billows of its horrid sea break upon him, go over him, and die without rebound—spend their rage, fall defeated, and cease? Verily, he made atonement!”

1, I see no connection between your title and the McD quote. There is nothing about favoritism in it, which is usually understood as the question about whether God was working with Israel one way, one basis, and with the nations in another way and basis.
2, McD was a classic Catholic with issues about what the Reformation said about justification. I don't know what he did when he got to 2 Cor 5, where Christ was made sin so that we could become the righteousness of God in him. That act potentially reconciles the balances involved. Needless to say, if you know your church history in that part of the world, there are undoubtedly personal circumstances that affected your theological position much more than just dispassionate research--the Catholic--Protestant mess. That mess also generated modern Dispensational eschatology.

 

[Cross Reference]

1, I see no connection between your title and the McD quote. There is nothing about favoritism in it, which is usually understood as the question about whether God was working with Israel one way, one basis, and with the nations in another way and basis.
2, McD was a classic Catholic with issues about what the Reformation said about justification. I don't know what he did when he got to 2 Cor 5, where Christ was made sin so that we could become the righteousness of God in him. That act potentially reconciles the balances involved. Needless to say, if you know your church history in that part of the world, there are undoubtedly personal circumstances that affected your theological position much more than just dispassionate research--the Catholic--Protestant mess. That mess also generated modern Dispensational eschatology.

Sin did its darnedest to enter the life of Jesus but found it could only rollover Him.

God was in Him reconciling the world to Himself through the life of Jesus, equal to Himself, whereby Jesus was able to cancel out the power of sin that held man captive. There was no need for the wrath of God to be upon Jesus but upon those who would crucify Him instead of thanking Him.

 

[Nick M]

Who is McDonald, and why is a quote from him in a thread about what the Bible says? Paul, our apostle, says in Romans 5:18 that the free gift came to all men. That is not playing favorites.

 

[Cross Reference]

Who is McDonald, and why is a quote from him in a thread about what the Bible says? Paul, or apostle, says in Romans 5:18 that the free gift came to all men. That is not playing favorites.

Try this by me:

"Jesus slayed the power of evil by letting all the waves and billows of its horrid sea break upon him, go over him, and die without rebound—spend their rage, fall defeated, and cease? Verily, he made atonement! His resurrection proved this to be true as it must be true from us if we abide in the attitude of His crucifixion" . . . Cross Reference.

 

[Interplanner]

Try this by me:

"Jesus slayed the power of evil by letting all the waves and billows of its horrid sea break upon him, go over him, and die without rebound—spend their rage, fall defeated, and cease? Verily, he made atonement! His resurrection proved this to be true as it must be true from us if we abide in the attitude of His crucifixion" . . . Cross Reference.

What 1800s Catholics like McD were trying to get away from was the Protestant doctrine that sin was a debt that had to be repaid with righteousness.

As for your quote, I don't see where you have dealt with it either. You're very visually stimulated, but there are some doctrines to know when dealing with atonement.

I don't know what your line about the resurrection means. The NT view in Rom 4:25 and Acts 13:33 is that the resurrection of Christ proved that his accomplishment met the infinite standard God had demanded to atone for humans. It was an award to Christ. That is powerfully liberating to us. There is no possible doubt of justification, since God has raised Christ. Acts 2 is a declaration of enthronement because of what he has accomplished. And to further bless all nations, God gave him the Spirit to pour out so that this message of forgiveness could get to all nations.

If you want to get a creative understanding of the idea of atonement, the WW2 period movie ATONEMENT is great. The novelist realizes that to restore innocence that she stole from the couple, she has to write a novel in which they get back what she stole by false accusation. It's only a picture of course, and meant to be understood as an analogy, but it is very powerful.

 

[Nick M]

"Jesus slayed the power of evil by letting all the waves and billows of its horrid sea break upon him, go over him, and die without rebound—spend their rage, fall defeated, and cease?

Yeah...no. God the Father forsook him. God the Father poured his wrath out on the Son so justice could be served. He was later raised as he was without spot or blemish. Perhaps you mean things like fasting where Satan tried to get him to sin and failed.

 

[Cross Reference]

What 1800s Catholics like McD were trying to get away from was the Protestant doctrine that sin was a debt that had to be repaid with righteousness.

Sorry but, I don't see that in what I posted. Did you take algebra in school? If so, what does +1 + -1 equal?

 

[Interplanner]

McD has opposition to what the Reformers said justification was; see Lewis's collection on that. The singularity of Christ as our righteousness disrupts most of the sacraments, through which Catholicism says grace is transmitted.

One of the genius insights of the Reformation is that what God has done for us in Christ (justification) and what he does in us through the Spirit (transformation) are not the same thing and call for careful relating. Justification deals with sin as a debt all our lives. Transformation is how changed we are, and how that is accomplished. Justification motivates a believer to further transformation.

 

[Cross Reference]

McD has opposition to what the Reformers said justification was; see Lewis's collection on that. The singularity of Christ as our righteousness disrupts most of the sacraments, through which Catholicism says grace is transmitted.

One of the genius insights of the Reformation is that what God has done for us in Christ (justification) and what he does in us through the Spirit (transformation) are not the same thing and call for careful relating. Justification deals with sin as a debt all our lives. Transformation is how changed we are, and how that is accomplished. Justification motivates a believer to further transformation.

In other words, justification is "affirmational" that it become "aspirational". If aspirational is not entered into the affirmational becomes doubtful.

 

[Interplanner]

In other words, justification is "affirmational" that it become "aspirational". If aspirational is not entered into the affirmational becomes doubtful.

do you mean: if there is no significant change then we do not honor Christ's work for us? That's true, but there will be people who are 'the least in the kingdom of heaven', yet there they are.

 

[Cross Reference]

do you mean: if there is no significant change then we do not honor Christ's work for us?

Honor? Why, if OSAS?

That's true, but there will be people who are 'the least in the kingdom of heaven', yet there they are.

Who might they be, the presumptuous?

If I declare myself to be "In Christ", what does that mean?

If I say I do things as "unto the Lord", what does that say about me?

 

[nikolai_42]

George MacDonald rejected the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement as developed by John Calvin, which argues that Christ has taken the place of sinners and is punished by the wrath of God in their place, believing that in turn it raised serious questions about the character and nature of God. Instead, he taught that Christ had come to save people from their sins, and not from a Divine penalty for their sins. The problem was not the need to appease a wrathful God but the disease of cosmic evil itself. George MacDonald frequently described the Atonement in terms similar to the Christus Victor theory. MacDonald posed the rhetorical question, "Did he not foil and slay evil by letting all the waves and billows of its horrid sea break upon him, go over him, and die without rebound—spend their rage, fall defeated, and cease? Verily, he made atonement!”

Are you prepared to accept the upshot of universalism?

 

[Cross Reference]

Are you prepared to accept the upshot of universalism?

No. I am not a universalist. However, I nevertheless agree with Macdonald's:

"Did he not foil and slay evil by letting all the waves and billows of its horrid sea break upon him, go over him, and die without rebound—spend their rage, fall defeated, and cease? Verily, he made atonement!”

 

[nikolai_42]

No. I am not a universalist. However, I nevertheless agree with Macdonald's:

"Did he not foil and slay evil by letting all the waves and billows of its horrid sea break upon him, go over him, and die without rebound—spend their rage, fall defeated, and cease? Verily, he made atonement!”

In view of Christ's success (as it is defined in this view of the atonement) and your statement that the atonement "played no favorites", how do you avoid universalism?

 

[Cross Reference]

In view of Christ's success (as it is defined in this view of the atonement) and your statement that the atonement "played no favorites", how do you avoid universalism?

That' is easy if you can be convinced it is not speaking salvation but redemption. Though it may not be making the distinction itself when persuading to convert to it.

 

[nikolai_42]

That' is easy if you can be convinced it is not speaking salvation but redemption. Though it may not be making the distinction itself when persuading to convert to it.

Is redemption, then, universal?

If so, does that apply to this passage :

Therefore the redeemed of the Lord shall return, and come with singing unto Zion; and everlasting joy shall be upon their head: they shall obtain gladness and joy; and sorrow and mourning shall flee away.
Isaiah 51:11

And if it is universal (and applicable), then you are saying that even though these all have been redeemed (and have everlasting joy), they aren't all necessarily saved?

If, on the other hand, you don't believe redemption is actually universal, what governs the applicability of redemption?

 

[Interplanner]

In view of Christ's success (as it is defined in this view of the atonement) and your statement that the atonement "played no favorites", how do you avoid universalism?

Not everyone accepts the offer.

I find this quote by McD to be straining NOT to believe what his Reformation counterparts were teaching. If the horror of the crucifixion was not to be the real thing that all the sacrifices of goats and rams stood for on Yom Kippur, then what?

It is an unfortunate statement by McD that prolonged division between Protestants and Catholics when both could have been on the road to a practical unity in the Gospel alone.

 

[nikolai_42]

Not everyone accepts the offer.

I find this quote by McD to be straining NOT to believe what his Reformation counterparts were teaching. If the horror of the crucifixion was not to be the real thing that all the sacrifices of goats and rams stood for on Yom Kippur, then what?

It is an unfortunate statement by McD that prolonged division between Protestants and Catholics when both could have been on the road to a practical unity in the Gospel alone.

I read it as a rejection of penal substitution in favor of a view where the atonement was Christ actually reckoning with sin instead of the punishment for it...with the result that atonement is universally obtained (and whatever understanding of "atonement" CR reads into that). The penal substitution view looks at justification and says Christ took the punishment for _______ and so reconciled man to God. As such, if it were universally applied, all would necessarily be saved. CR seems to me to be saying that the atonement can be applied universally without all being saved - but I can't see that in light of (at least) Isaiah 51:11. No one I know of will say Christ failed to do what He was sent to do. But what, exactly, was accomplished is the question.

I'm just not sure how one can avoid universal salvation with this view - short of making man's choice determinative.