<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Thinking about the atonement</title>
	<atom:link href="http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz/thinking-about-the-atonement/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz/thinking-about-the-atonement/</link>
	<description>developing the mind of Christ</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 11 Dec 2011 00:12:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dominic Bnonn Tennant &#187; On the atonement, part 5: universal salvation, or double payment</title>
		<link>http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz/thinking-about-the-atonement/#comment-1132</link>
		<dc:creator>Dominic Bnonn Tennant &#187; On the atonement, part 5: universal salvation, or double payment</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 02:55:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz/?p=41#comment-1132</guid>
		<description>[...] of a dilemma. This is the same argument I used in my discussion with Daryll Burling when we were thinking about the atonement. The way I formulated it then was as a reductio ad absurdum of the universal [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] of a dilemma. This is the same argument I used in my discussion with Daryll Burling when we were thinking about the atonement. The way I formulated it then was as a reductio ad absurdum of the universal [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: orthodox</title>
		<link>http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz/thinking-about-the-atonement/#comment-222</link>
		<dc:creator>orthodox</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz/?p=41#comment-222</guid>
		<description>&quot;the doctrine of free will, while popular, is not a biblical doctrine&quot;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;That&#039;s funny on several levels. Firstly because I didn&#039;t mention any &quot;doctrine of free will&quot;. Secondly because Calvinists always seem to be claiming to believe in free will.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;the doctrine of free will, while popular, is not a biblical doctrine&#8221;</p>
<p>That&#8217;s funny on several levels. Firstly because I didn&#8217;t mention any &#8220;doctrine of free will&#8221;. Secondly because Calvinists always seem to be claiming to believe in free will.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dominic Bnonn Tennant</title>
		<link>http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz/thinking-about-the-atonement/#comment-220</link>
		<dc:creator>Dominic Bnonn Tennant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Oct 2007 20:47:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz/?p=41#comment-220</guid>
		<description>Hi Darryl; thanks for replying.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Having considered your clarification, and indeed having spent much time in consideration of my quality versus quantity argument, I find myself in agreement with you. However, as I understand your clarified position, it seems that you are actually holding to a limited atonement/particular redemption view, with the acknowledgement that Christ&#039;s sacrifice, being perfect and infinite, could be imputed to all people without exception if that was what God so chose (ie, you&#039;re establishing a counterfactual which is true, but irrelevant to actuality).&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Given this, it does not seem that we can say Christ died for the sins of the whole world, meaning all people without exception. The question &quot;for whom did Christ die?&quot; is answered with &quot;for his elect&quot;. The fact that his sacrifice &lt;i&gt;could&lt;/i&gt; have been imputed to all, because it is perfect, does not seem to change this. It&#039;s more of a caveat on particular redemption than a redirection to ulimited atonement.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;However, I think your response highlights flaws in my argument which deserve their own correction, and so I will post a second article when I have the time. Until then, God keep you,&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Dom</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Darryl; thanks for replying.</p>
<p>Having considered your clarification, and indeed having spent much time in consideration of my quality versus quantity argument, I find myself in agreement with you. However, as I understand your clarified position, it seems that you are actually holding to a limited atonement/particular redemption view, with the acknowledgement that Christ&#8217;s sacrifice, being perfect and infinite, could be imputed to all people without exception if that was what God so chose (ie, you&#8217;re establishing a counterfactual which is true, but irrelevant to actuality).</p>
<p>Given this, it does not seem that we can say Christ died for the sins of the whole world, meaning all people without exception. The question &#8220;for whom did Christ die?&#8221; is answered with &#8220;for his elect&#8221;. The fact that his sacrifice <i>could</i> have been imputed to all, because it is perfect, does not seem to change this. It&#8217;s more of a caveat on particular redemption than a redirection to ulimited atonement.</p>
<p>However, I think your response highlights flaws in my argument which deserve their own correction, and so I will post a second article when I have the time. Until then, God keep you,</p>
<p>Dom</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Darryl</title>
		<link>http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz/thinking-about-the-atonement/#comment-219</link>
		<dc:creator>Darryl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Oct 2007 10:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz/?p=41#comment-219</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m certainly not a universalist, nor do I subscribe to Hypothetic Universalism.  Mankind is utterly depraved, and incapable of saving himself, thus election and consequent regeneration by the Holy Spirit are necessary acts of God on an individual.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;In my mind (and thus this post), I have always distinguished between atonement and justification.  On reflection - this is not necessarily everyone&#039;s understanding, and thus is misleading. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;I regard atonement as being related to the value of Christ&#039;s death (which is infinite), and regarding justification (or redemption) as the application of that atonement.  This means that if God chose to do so - the death of Christ would be sufficient for the salvation of all men everywhere - however, God has chosen some - not all - to be redeemed or justified, and thus the application of Christ&#039;s death is strictly limited to those who believe.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Perhaps I should say the following by way of clarification: Christ&#039;s death in itself had unlimited and infinite value because He is Holy God.  The intention of Christ&#039;s death (actual satisfaction and atonement of sin for individuals) is given only to those who believe.  Salvation is offered to all - the whole world, but received only by those who believe (which indeed implies repentance from sin).&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Dom - thanks for your humility and the time you&#039;ve taken to respond to my post - as a result I&#039;ve done more research and have much more clarity around this area.  I&#039;ll update my post in a moment to clarify.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m certainly not a universalist, nor do I subscribe to Hypothetic Universalism.  Mankind is utterly depraved, and incapable of saving himself, thus election and consequent regeneration by the Holy Spirit are necessary acts of God on an individual.</p>
<p>In my mind (and thus this post), I have always distinguished between atonement and justification.  On reflection &#8211; this is not necessarily everyone&#8217;s understanding, and thus is misleading. </p>
<p>I regard atonement as being related to the value of Christ&#8217;s death (which is infinite), and regarding justification (or redemption) as the application of that atonement.  This means that if God chose to do so &#8211; the death of Christ would be sufficient for the salvation of all men everywhere &#8211; however, God has chosen some &#8211; not all &#8211; to be redeemed or justified, and thus the application of Christ&#8217;s death is strictly limited to those who believe.</p>
<p>Perhaps I should say the following by way of clarification: Christ&#8217;s death in itself had unlimited and infinite value because He is Holy God.  The intention of Christ&#8217;s death (actual satisfaction and atonement of sin for individuals) is given only to those who believe.  Salvation is offered to all &#8211; the whole world, but received only by those who believe (which indeed implies repentance from sin).</p>
<p>Dom &#8211; thanks for your humility and the time you&#8217;ve taken to respond to my post &#8211; as a result I&#8217;ve done more research and have much more clarity around this area.  I&#8217;ll update my post in a moment to clarify.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SKyN</title>
		<link>http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz/thinking-about-the-atonement/#comment-218</link>
		<dc:creator>SKyN</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Oct 2007 04:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz/?p=41#comment-218</guid>
		<description>Bnonn - Thanks for this post it was excellent.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Orthodox - I can understand what you are saying, it is a logical conclusion based on your own presuppositions, in particular your personal belief in human autonomy. However as Bnonn has detailed here - http://bnonn.blogspot.com/2006/11/on-strawmen-free-will.html, the doctrine of free will, while popular, is not a biblical doctrine. Once your belief on this matter is corrected you will see that Bnonns post is correct.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Romans 9:14 - 18 &quot;What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,&lt;br/&gt;   &quot;I will have mercy on whom I have mercy and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.&quot; It does not, therefore, depend on man&#039;s desire or effort, but on God&#039;s mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: &quot;I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.&quot;Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bnonn &#8211; Thanks for this post it was excellent.</p>
<p>Orthodox &#8211; I can understand what you are saying, it is a logical conclusion based on your own presuppositions, in particular your personal belief in human autonomy. However as Bnonn has detailed here &#8211; <a href="http://bnonn.blogspot.com/2006/11/on-strawmen-free-will.html">http://bnonn.blogspot.com/2006/11/on-strawmen-free-will.html</a>, the doctrine of free will, while popular, is not a biblical doctrine. Once your belief on this matter is corrected you will see that Bnonns post is correct.</p>
<p>Romans 9:14 &#8211; 18 &#8220;What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,<br />   &#8220;I will have mercy on whom I have mercy and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.&#8221; It does not, therefore, depend on man&#8217;s desire or effort, but on God&#8217;s mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: &#8220;I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.&#8221;Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: orthodox</title>
		<link>http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz/thinking-about-the-atonement/#comment-216</link>
		<dc:creator>orthodox</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:22:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz/?p=41#comment-216</guid>
		<description>The problem here, is that you are looking at the problem with a purely juridical set of presuppositions. Unbelief is a sin. God is out to nuke us because of sin. Therefore the atonement can&#039;t cover the unbelief of unbelievers, or they would be saved.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;But we (Orthodox) don&#039;t look at the atonement that way most of the time. The atonement is a hospital. Anyone who wants to avail themselves of the atonement can do so. Anyone who doesn&#039;t avail themselves isn&#039;t nuked because of lack of atonement. Rather they have chosen not to be with God, and God honours their decision to be apart from God. It&#039;s not the angry judge tossing them in jail, it is the stubborn patient who doesn&#039;t desire to live in the hospital.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;It&#039;s a good example of how ones presuppositions can  blind us to considering all the options.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;My advice is to read the bible and just believe what it says:&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Rom. 5:18  So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The problem here, is that you are looking at the problem with a purely juridical set of presuppositions. Unbelief is a sin. God is out to nuke us because of sin. Therefore the atonement can&#8217;t cover the unbelief of unbelievers, or they would be saved.</p>
<p>But we (Orthodox) don&#8217;t look at the atonement that way most of the time. The atonement is a hospital. Anyone who wants to avail themselves of the atonement can do so. Anyone who doesn&#8217;t avail themselves isn&#8217;t nuked because of lack of atonement. Rather they have chosen not to be with God, and God honours their decision to be apart from God. It&#8217;s not the angry judge tossing them in jail, it is the stubborn patient who doesn&#8217;t desire to live in the hospital.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s a good example of how ones presuppositions can  blind us to considering all the options.</p>
<p>My advice is to read the bible and just believe what it says:</p>
<p>Rom. 5:18  So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

