✪ "Atheism, moreover, was always something abhorrent to good god-fearing polytheists, and in certain times and places was even a capital offense (in the tenth book of Plato's Laws, if one is interested, quite a thorough case is made for imprisoning and, if necessary, executing those who deny the gods)." Ref-1290, p. 119.
✪ "One would think these would be giddy days for religion's most passionate antagonists; rarely can they have known a moment so intoxicatingly full of promise. A mere glance in the direction of current trends in mass-market publishing should be enough to make the ardent secularist's heart thrill with the daring and delicious hope that we just might be entering a golden age for bold assaults on humanity's ancient slavery to "irrational dogma" and "creedal tribalism."" Ref-1290, p. 3 "atheism that consists entirely in vacuous arguments afloat on oceans of historical ignorance, made turbulent by storms of strident self-righteousness, is as contemptible as any other form of dreary fundamentalism." Ref-1290, p. 4. "As I have already complained, the tribe of the New Atheists is something of a disappointment. It probably says more than it is comfortable to know about the relative vapidity of our culture that we have lost the capacity to produce profound unbelief. The best we can now hope for are arguments pursued at only the most vulgar of intellectual levels, couched in an infantile and carpingly pompous tone, and lacking all but the meagerest traces of historical erudition or syllogistic rigor." Ref-1290, p. 220.
✪ "An example of emphatic use of the independent personal pronoun is found in Lev. 17:11, one of the clearest verses in the Old Testament on the theology of sacrifice. Here the Lord says, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have given it [וַאֲנִי נְתַתִּיו] to you upon the altar to make atonement for your lives, for it is the blood, by means of the life, that makes atonement.” On the one hand, God says that sacrificial blood is for the purpose of making atonement. On the other hand, however, he emphasizes that he himself is the one who provides the means of atonement in the first place. This is an important reversal of how we normally think about sacrifice, namely, as something we give to God." Ref-0184, p. 79.
✪ See anointed - inanimate objects. The objects require atonement after having been defiled by man.
✪ See atonement - unlimited These passages are often used to teach the concept of limited atonement, but the scriptural evidence for unlimited atonement seems clear and overwhelming. "Limited Redemptionists believe that the Cross is the only means whereby the elect are saved. Listen to R. C. Sproul’s objection: “If faith is a condition for God’s justice to be satisfied, then the atonement, in itself, is not sufficient to satisfy the demands of God’s justice. In itself, the atonement is not “sufficient” for anyone. ... Full satisfaction is not rendered until... a person adds to the atonement his faith . . .” We have deliberately chosen this quote in order to demonstrate how an adroit Limited Redemptionist argues. Again, we will unpack his meaning: i. Only Christ’s atonement satisfied God’s justice and so actually secures salvation. ii. If one adds faith in order to receive that atonement, then obviously Christ’s death was not enough. Faith must be added (i.e. the Cross + Faith). This makes faith a work. iii. Therefore, faith is not a condition for receiving the benefits of Christ’s death. If the logic of this position is followed, it is not easy to see how an LR can hold to justification by faith. The fact that they do shows up a problem with their theology at this point. Robert Lightner’s comment is insightful: “The strict Calvinist position which insists that Christ’s death of itself saved the elect makes faith, ... virtually unnecessary.”" Paul Martin Henebury, Paul Martin Henebury, Christ’s Atonement: Its Purpose and Extent, Part 1, Conservative Theological Journal Volume 9, 26 (Fort Worth, TX: Tyndale Theological Seminary, 2005), pp. 103-104. "In fact, it would not be saying too much to state that the main force of their position is based, not principally on the exegesis of Scripture, but upon logical deductions. Instead of going straight to the texts, these brethren must first “set-up” a framework of logic whereby they can reinterpret the many problem texts they encounter (“So then, this cannot mean this,... It must mean that”)." Paul Martin Henebury, Paul Martin Henebury, Christ’s Atonement: Its Purpose and Extent, Part 1, Conservative Theological Journal Volume 9, 26 (Fort Worth, TX: Tyndale Theological Seminary, 2005), p. 94. "The Scriptures do not always include all the truth involved in the theme presented, at a given place. Similarly, if the fact that any reference to the nonelect world is omitted from these passages (which refer only to the elect) is a sufficient ground for the contention that Christ died only for the elect, then it could be argued with inexorable logic that Christ died only for Israel (cf. John 11:51; Isa. 53:8); and that He died only for the Apostle Paul, for Paul declares “who loved me, and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:20). As well might one contend that Christ restricted His prayers to Peter because of the fact that He said to Peter: “But I have prayed for thee” (Luke 22:32)." Ref-0195, p. 3:202. ". . . they qualify this by saying, “These expressions are intended to show that Christ died for all men without distinction . . . they are not intended to indicate that Christ died for all men without exception” (emphasis theirs)." Paul Henebury, Dispensationalism and TULIP - Limited Atonement, 7. [http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/documents/articles/index.htm#67] accessed 20140605. "Arminians and universalists hold that He offered up a sacrifice equally for each and every man. The Calvinist asks, “Why then are not all men saved?” Arminians answer, “Because of the unbelief of some.” To this the Calvinist replies, “Is not unbelief a sin? Is it not therefore covered by the death of Christ? Or did He die for all our sin, except our unbelief?” The Calvinist position is that the blood of Christ is sufficient to save each and every man who ever lived, but is efficient to save only God’s elect. John Owen’s famous summary of the situation put it like this: a. Either, Christ died for all the sins of all men--in which case all men must be saved; b. Or, he died for some of the sins of all men, in which case none will be saved; c. Or, He died for all the sins of some men--in which case, while some are lost, some will be saved." Ref-1363, pp. 45-56. [The former quote, although logically "tidy," ignores the fact that unbelief constitutes the unpardonable sin.] "Kendall viewed Beza as being the instigator of limited atonement, and this has been a highly controversial conclusion. . . . Calvin himself explained: ‘[I]n order that the atonement might take effect, he performed the office of an advocate, and interceded for all who embraced this sacrifice by faith . . . yet I approve of the ordinary reading, that he alone bore the punishment of many, because on him was laid the guilt of the whole world. It is evident from other passages, and especially from the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, that “many” sometimes denotes “all.”’ [Calvin, Isaiah, electronic ed. (Albany, OR: Ages Software, 1998) Isa. 53:12]" Drew Curley, New Calvinism, Part III: A Calvinist Soteriology, Ref-1525, Volume 19 Number 57 (Summer/Fall 2015), 133-184, p. 140. "God so loved the world that he gave his Son (John 3:16). I know that some try to take κόσμος (“world”) here to refer to the elect. But that really will not do. All the evidence of the usage of the word in John’s Gospel is against the suggestion. True, world in John does not so much refer to bigness as to badness. In John’s vocabulary, world is primarily the moral order in willful and culpable rebellion against God. In John 3:16 God’s love in sending the Lord Jesus is to be admired not because it is extended to so big a thing as the world, but to so bad a thing; not to so many people, as to such wicked people. . . . God’s love for the world cannot be collapsed into his love for the elect. " Ref-1512, p. 17. "Clever exegetical devices that make “the world” a label for referring to the elect are not very convincing. Christ Jesus is the propitiation “for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). And much more of the same." Ref-1512, p. 75.
✪ "“Atonement” is an Anglo-Saxon word which means, literally, “a making at one.”" Ref-1200, p. 64n3. "Two recent Christian studies of this word in the Old Testament -- one with a concentration on its meaning in the book of Leviticus, and the other paying special attention to Ezekiel's usage in chapters 40-48 -- have offered a re-evaluation of its meaning in the context of a theocratic government. Their research has determined that the understanding of the Hebrew term for atonement kippur, should be ‘to purify’ or ‘cleanse,’ based on the Akkadian cognate kuppuru, rather than the traditionally understood meaning of ‘to cover,’ borrowed from the cognate Arabic kapara or the ransom/propitiation view, which is based on the noun form kopper and sees atonement as the ‘averting of divine wrath by the payment of a ransom.’" Ref-0146, p. 554. "The firstborn of the Israelites are not automatically spared from death; a lamb must be slaughtered, and its blood applied to the door frame of the house. The clear implication is that the firstborn son of the Israelite families would die if this instruction were not followed, for the Lord had said, ‘when I see the blood, I will pass over you’ (Exod. 12:13, italics added). Thus the lamb becomes the substitute for the firstborn son, dying in his place." Ref-1291, p. 37.
✪ "The doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave himself in the person of his Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin. This understanding of the cross of Christ stands at the very heart of the gospel. There is a captivating beauty in the sacrificial love of a God who gave himself for his people. . . . That the Lord Jesus Christ died for us -- a shameful death, bearing our curse, enduring our pain, suffering the wrath of his own Father in our place -- has been the wellspring of the hope of countless Christians throughout the ages." Ref-1291, p. 21. "If ever there come a wretched day when all our pulpits shall be full of modern thought, and the old doctrine of a substitutionary sacrifice shall be exploded, then will there remain no word of comfort for the guilty or hope for the despairing. Hushed will be for ever those silver notes which now console the living, and cheer the dying; a dumb spirit will possess this sullen world, and no voice of joy will break the blank silence of despair. The gospel speaks through the propitiation of sin, and if that be denied, it speaketh no more. Those who preach not the atonement exhibit a dumb and dummy gospel; a mouth it hath, but speaketh not; they that make it are like unto their idol . . . [C. H. Spurgeon, "The Blood of Sprinkling (part 1)", Sermon no. 1888 in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit: Sermons Preached and Revised by C. H. Spurgeon during the Year 1886, vol. 32 (London: Passmore & Alabaster), pp. 121-132 (p. 129).22" Ref-1291, p. 22. ". . . while it is obvious why God would decide to punish the Egyptians, why would he judge his people? This seems all the more surprising given that the plague on the firstborn is described specifically as ‘judgment on all the gods of Egypt’ (Exod. 12:12). According to Ezekiel 20:4-10, however, the Israelites participated in the idolatry of their Egyptian masters, they too were guilty, and were no less deserving of God’s judgment." Ref-1291, p. 38. "For our purposes, the important thing to note is that Phinehas is said to have ‘turned [the Lord’s] anger away from the Israelites’ (Num. 25:10), and ‘made atonement [kipper] for the Israelites’ (Num. 25:13). Thus the connection between kipper and averting God’s wrath is inescapable. A similar example is found in Numbers 16:46, where the Lord sends a plague on the Israelites in response to their persistent grumbling (cf. v. 41). Moses urges Aaron to offer incense to the Lord and make atonement for the sin of the Israelites, turning aside the Lord’s righteous wrath." Ref-1291, p. 46. ". . . the suffering Servant is himself sinless and righteous. Thus Isaiah 53:9 reads, ‘He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth’ (italics added). Similarly, in verse 11 the Lord pointedly describes him as ‘my righteous servant’ (italics added). But immediately this raises an urgent question: if he is innocent, why should he suffer in this way? Israel was in exile because they deserved it, but the Servant’s experience was undeserved." Ref-1291, p. 59. "The mention of God’s justice being vindicated in the death of Christ raises the question of what happened before Christ came. What was God doing about the sins of those people in the Old Testament who enjoyed his favour? Surely he cannot have been ignoring them, for was we have seen that would impugn his justice. Paul’s answer, which constitutes a third reason for seeing penal substitution in these verses, is that God was delaying his judgment of those sins until they could be punished in Christ. This is implicit in the use of the Greek word anochē, translated ‘forbearance’ in [Rom. 3:25]." Ref-1291, p. 81. "The meaning of hilaste-rion has, however, been disputed, notably by C. H. Dodd. Although he agreed with the scholarly consensus that in classical and Hellenistic Greek literature the meaning ‘propitiation’ for hilaskomai and its cognates ‘is overwhelmingly the more common’, Dodd denied that this was the meaning in the Jewish Greek literature that formed the linguistic background to the New Testament. He claimed rather that in the LXX the word carries the sense ‘purge’, ‘forgive’ or ‘expiate’, and that this is the meaning in all the four occurrences in the New Testament (Rom. 3:25; 1 John 2:2; 4:10; Heb. 2:17). Crucially, the translations Dodd prefers refer to what happens to sin, not what happens to God’s wrath. Sin is purged, forgiven or expiated; wrath is propitiated. . . . Dodd’s claim that the meaning of hilaskomai in the Jewish Greek writings differs consistently from its classical and pagan meaning ‘to propitiate’ is incorrect. Such a meaning is found in the prominent Jewish writers Josephus and Philo, both of whom Dodd ignores. The same meaning is attested in the Apocrypha (4 Maccabees 17:22) and in the early extrabiblical Christin texts I Clement and The Shepherd of Hermas. So much for hilaskomai in the Jewish Greek literature. But what about the LXX? Again, Dodd is wrong. Morris and Nicole cite several examples of the use of hilaskomai in the LXX where the averting of God’s wrath is plainly implied in the context . . . In these places the word must mean ‘propitiate’. ‘Expiate’, ‘forgive’, or ‘purge’ would be inadequate translations." Ref-1291, pp. 82-83. "1 John links forgiveness of sins not simply with love but also with justice: ‘If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness’ (1 John 1:9, italics added). Of course, this is not to deny that the Bible elsewhere links forgiveness with God’s love (e.g., Exod. 34:7; Num. 14:19; Neh. 9:17; Ps. 86:5). But here it is the justice of God that forms the grounds of our confidence before him. This makes sense only with reference to penal substitution, for only if we are convinced that God has justly punished our sins in the person of his Son can we appeal to justice as something that would acquit rather than condemn us." Ref-1291, p. 141. "Penal substitution lies at the heart of the gospel. As difficult as it may be, we can no more afford to sidestep this issue for the sake of unity than we can lay aside disagreements on the deity of Christ. This is of a different order to debates about the nature of church leadership or speaking in tongues. It is possible (and desirable) for Christians to retain unity in the gospel if they differ on those subjects. But when the gospel itself is the thing being debated, there is nothing around which to unite. It seems that opponents of penal substitution are agreed on the magnitude of that issue. They content that penal substitution is an unbiblical view of the cross without support in the historic church. They claim that penal substitution undermines the doctrine of the Trinity, without which Christianity would not be Christianity at all. More than that, they insisted that penal substitution portrays God as an unjust tyrant, a vindictive child abuser, and a hypocrite who pays no regard to Jesus’ foundational teaching about love. Finally, they have argued that penal substitution has disastrous pastoral consequences, that it has been used to justify violence against women and children, and that it is stifling the mission of the church in the world. All of these accusations have been made in recent years, and all are documents in this book. These charges are extremely serious." Ref-1291, pp. 216-217. "[Penal substitution] preserves our understanding of God as a perfect being, all of whose attributes are in perfect harmony: love, goodness, justice, holiness, truthfulness, and so on. It would be misleading to say something like ‘At the cross God’s mercy triumphed over his justice.’ That would imply that a conflict existed between God’s attributes such that his mercy ‘won’ while his justice was frustrated. By contrast, penal substitution maintains God’s mercy and his justice, his love, and his truthfulness. All are perfectly fulfilled at the cross. The writer of Psalm 85 [Ps. 85:10] expresses this beautifully . . ." Ref-1291, pp. 137-138.
✪ Writes that the evangelical view of the substitutionary atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross is a misrepresentation akin to “cosmic child abuse.” "The fact is that the cross is not a form of cosmic child abuse, a vengeful father punishing his son for an offense he has not even committed. Understandably, both people inside and outside of the church have found this twisted version of events morally dubious and a huge barrier to faith. Deeper than that, however, is that such a concept stands in total contradiction to the statement that God is love. If the cross is a personal act of violence perpetrated by God toward human kind but borne by His Son, then that makes a mockery of Jesus’ own teaching to love your enemies and to refuse to repay evil with evil." Steve Chalke, The Lost Message of Jesus. "In the mid-twentieth century, the case against penal substitution was articulated most strongly by the biblical scholar C. H. Dodd. In his commentaries on Romans and the letters of John, Dodd argued against the traditional rendering ‘propitiation’ for the Greek hilastērion word group, thereby obscuring the references in Romans 3:25, 1 John 2:2 and 4:10 to the fact that Christ’s death averted God’s wrath from sinful people. Dodd’s view was vigorously challenged by evangelicals such as Leon Morris and Rober Nicole, and was later opposed by popular preachers, particularly Martyn Lloyd-Jones, but nonetheless proved influential, not least because Dodd directed the committees that produced the New English Bible. His understanding of these texts was also reflected in the Revised Standard Version, produced in 1946." Ref-1291, p. 23. ". . . one of the strangest things about modern challenges to penal substitution is the extend to which they continue to rely on interpretations of Scripture soundly refuted by [Leon] Morris decades ago, without even attempting to reply to his case." Ref-1291, p. 26. "Increasing numbers of people are claiming that penal substitution is a cuckoo in the nest. For some, it grew out of the Latin Church’s ideas about penance. Others argue it came from medieval feudal ideas about honour. Still others suggest it arose out of the preoccupation with legal categories and law courts in Europe during the Reformation." Ref-1291, p. 101. ". . . whatever else may be true about the violence of Jesus’ death, it was not an instance of child abuse. Child abuse is carried out against the will of the victim for the sole gratification of the abuser; Jesus willingly went to his death to save his people and glorify his name." Ref-1291, p. 230.
✪ See atonement - limited "In answering the question as to the ‘extent’ of Christ's atonement, it must first be settled whether the ‘extent’ means its intended application, or its intrinsic value; whether the active or the passive signification of the word is in the mind of the inquirer. If the word means value, then the atonement is unlimited; if it means extending, that is, applying, then the atonement is limited." Ref-0104, p. 186 quoting William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, II, p. 466. ". . . it is our conviction that the Bible teaches that Christ died to provide a basis of salvation for all men. To those who are elect and who therefore believe in Christ, this provision secures for them their eternal salvation when they believe. For those who do not believe and thus evidence the fact that they are the nonelect, the provisions exist as a basis of condemnation." Ref-0097, p. 112 Chafer mentions a restriction of unlimited atonement to the present age: ". . . those who . . . are known as unlimited redemptionists contend that Christ died for all men who live in the present age, which age is bounded by the two advents of Christ, and that His death has other and specific values in its relation to the ages past as well as the ages to come." Ref-0195, p. 3:183. ". . . the informed, unlimited redemptionist recognizes the dispensational features of God’s dealings with men, and contends that the universal aspect of the value of Christ’s death could apply only to the present age of the outcalling of that elect company which comprises the Church, which is the Body of Christ -- an age differing, as it does, from all other ages in many respects, notably, that in it a universal gospel is to be preached . . . " Ref-0195, p. 3:189. "Part Two of the book begins with Kevin Kennedy’s convincing argument that John Calvin believed in a universal atonement. For anyone who has studied Calvin’s writings on it this ought to be a dead issue. Scores of examples can be and have been brought forward to prove this assertion. Kennedy demonstrates that Calvin, in arguing against Georgius in Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, rejected the common Calvinistic view that “Christ suffered sufficiently for all, but efficaciously only for the elect” as a “great absurdity.” (209). In the same quote Calvin asserts, It is incontestable that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the whole world (Ibid)." Paul Henebury, Review: “Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism” (2), [http://drreluctant.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/review-whosoever-will-a-biblical-theological-critique-of-five-point-calvinism-2/] accessed 20111213. "For whom did Christ die? He died for ALL (1 Tim. 2:6). He died for ALL MEN (Rom. 5:18; 1 Tim. 4:10). He died for US ALL, for ALL OF US (Isa. 53:6). He died for the UNGODLY (Rom. 5:6). He died for CHRIST-DENIERS (2 Peter 2:1). He died for SINNERS (Rom. 5:8). He died for EVERY MAN (Heb. 2:9). He died for MANY (Matthew 20:28). He died for the WORLD (John 6:33,51; John 1:29 and John 3:16). He died for the WHOLE WORLD (1 John 2:2). He died for the WHOLE NATION of Israel (John 11:50-51). He died for the CHURCH (Eph. 5:25). He died for His SHEEP (John 10:11). He died for ME (Gal. 2:20)." -- George Zeller, John MacArthur’s Position on the Extent of the Atonement, [http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/reformed/macatone.htm] accessed 20190602. "The words, "God loved the world [John 3:16]," have received two very different interpretations. The importance of the subject in the present day makes it desirable to state both views fully. Some think, as Hutcheson, Lampe, and Gill, that the "world" here means God's elect out of every nation, whether Jews or Gentiles, and that the "love" with which God is said to love them is that eternal love with which the elect were loved before creation began, and by which their calling, justification, preservation and final salvation are completely secured.—This view, though supported by many and great divines, does not appear to me to be our Lord's meaning. For one thing, it seems to me a violent straining of language to confine the word "world" to the elect. "The world" is undoubtedly a name sometimes given to the "wicked" exclusively. But I cannot see that it is a name ever given to the saints.—For another thing, to interpret the word "world" of the elect only is to ignore the distinction which, to my eyes, is plainly drawn in the text between the whole of mankind and those out of mankind who "believe." If the "world" means only the believing portion of mankind, it would have been quite enough to say, "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that the world should not perish." But our Lord does not say so. He says, "that whosoever believeth, i. e., that whosoever out of the world believeth."—Lastly, to confine God's love to the elect, is taking a harsh and narrow view of God's character, and fairly lays Christianity open to the modern charges brought against it as cruel and unjust to the ungodly. If God takes no thought for any but his elect, and cares for none beside, how shall God judge the world?—I believe in the electing love of God the Father as strongly as any one. I regard the special love with which God loves the sheep whom He has given to Christ from all eternity, as a most blessed and comfortable truth, and one most cheering and profitable to believers. I only say, that it is not the truth of this text. The true view of the words, "God loved the world," I believe to be this. The "world" means the whole race of mankind, both saints and sinners, without any exception. The word, in my opinion, is so used in John 1:10,29; 6:33,51; 8:12; Rom. 3:19; 2Cor. 5:19; 1Jn. 2:2; 4:14. The "love" spoken of is that love of pity and compassion with which God regards all His creatures, and specially regards mankind. It is the same feeling of "love" which appears in Ps. 145:9; Eze. 33:11; John 6:32; Tit. 3:4; 1Jn. 4:10; 2Pe. 3:9; 1Ti. 2:4. It is a love unquestionably distinct and separate from the special love with which God regards His saints. It is a love of pity and not of approbation or complaisance. But it is not the less a real love. It is a love which clears God of injustice in judging the world. I am quite familiar with the objections commonly brought against the theory I have just propounded. I find no weight in them, and am not careful to answer them. Those who confine God's love exclusively to the elect appear to me to take a narrow and contracted view of God's character and attributes. They refuse to God that attribute of compassion with which even an earthly father can regard a profligate son, and can offer to him pardon, even though his compassion is despised and his offers refused. I have long come to the conclusion that men may be more systematic in their statements than the Bible, and may be led into grave error by idolatrous veneration of a system. The following quotation from one whom for convenience sake I must call a thorough Calvinist, I mean Bishop Davenant, will show that the view I advocate is not new. "The general love of God toward mankind is so clearly testified in Holy Scripture, and so demonstrated by the manifold effects of God's goodness and mercy extended to every particular man in this world, that to doubt thereof were infidelity, and to deny it plain blasphemy."—Davenant's Answer to Hoard, p. 1. "God hateth nothing which Himself created. And yet it is most true that He hateth sin in any creature, and hateth the creature infected with sin, in such manner as hatred may be attributed to God. But for all this He so generally loved mankind, fallen in Adam, that He hath given His only begotten Son, that what sinner soever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. And this everlasting life is so provided for man by God, that no decrees of His can bring any man thither without faith and repentance; and no decrees of His can keep any man out who repenteth and believeth. As for the measure of God's love exhibited in the external effect unto man, it must not be denied that God poureth out His grace more abundantly on some men than on others, and worketh more powerfully and effectually in the hearts of some men than of others, and that out of His alone will and pleasure. But yet, when this more special love is not extended, His less special love is not restrained to outward and temporal mercies, but reacheth to internal and spiritual blessings, even such as will bring men to an eternal blessedness, if their voluntary wickedness hinders not."—Davenant's Answer to Hoard, p. 469. "No divine of the Reformed Church, of sound judgment, will deny a general intention or appointment concerning the salvation of all men individually by the death of Christ, on the condition if they should believe. For the intention or appointment of God is general, and is plainly revealed in holy Scripture, although the absolute and not to be frustrated intention of God concerning the gift of faith and eternal life to some persons, is special, and limited to the elect alone. So I have maintained and do maintain."—Davenant's Opinion on the Gallican Controversy. Calvin observes on this text, "Christ brought life, because the heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish." Again he says, "Christ employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite indiscriminately all to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such also is the import of the term world. Though there is nothing in the world that is worthy of God's favour, yet He shows Himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when He invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ." The same view of God's "love" and the "world," in this text, is taken by Brentius, Bucer, Calovius, Glassius, Chemnitius, Musculus; Bullinger, Bengel, Nifanius, Dyke, Scott, Henry, and Manton. " Ref-1524, John 3:9-21.
✪ "There are several major models of the atonement that have been held by assorted Christian groups at various times, and continue to hold influence in some groups today. . . The Example (or Moral Influence) Theory. . . . The idea is that the death of Christ serves as a perfect example of love. Christians, therefore, are to emulate Christ's love. . . . Christus Victor, or Christ the Victor, “argues that humanity's main problem is that we are trapped and oppressed by spiritual forces beyond our control. Christ's death, then, is seen as a ransom that frees us from captivity. His death and resurrection defeats the evil spiritual forces.” . . . The Ransom Theory understanding is a subset of Christus Victor with the addition that “at the cross, God handed Jesus over to Satan in exchange for the souls of humans help captive to Satan.” . . . Powerful Weakness Theory . . . Brian McLaren . . . articulated this interpretation . . . [which] . . . sees Jesus becoming vulnerable on the cross and accepting suffering from everyone, Jew and Roman, and not visiting suffering on everyone in some sort of revenge. It puts on display God's loving heart which wants forgiveness, not vengeance. . . . . . . Healing Theory . . . not only did Christ's death provide for salvation from sin but also physical healing is available in the atonement by request in this present life. . . . Satisfaction Theory . . . is similar to penal substitution except that it understands Christ's death as a compensation for the honor of a holy God wounded by sin. The Son's death satisfied that offense to God's honor. . . . Penal Substitution . . . Christ's perfect sacrifice for our sins is necessary to satisfy God's righteousness. Christ's death bore a divine penalty that we deserved." Gary E. Gilley, The Significance of Christ's Crosswork, Ref-0785, Volume 15 Number 45, August 2011, 7-26, pp. 8-10 "Why Christus Victor has gained popularity among emerging adherents and others who see the gospel as including a social element is obvious. If the cross is designed to presently correct social, political, and economic structures then the mission of the church is to right the injustices in the world." Gary E. Gilley, The Significance of Christ's Crosswork, Ref-0785, Volume 15 Number 45, August 2011, 7-26, p. 15 ". . . a mistake is often made when theologians attempt to force one to choose between the three main interpretations of the atonement. The truth is all three have biblical support or help explain the multifaceted beauty of Christ's great crosswork. John R. W. Stott expressed this truth well when he wrote, In fact all three of the major explanations of the death of Christ contain biblical truth and can to some extent be harmonized, especially if we observe that the chief difference between them is that in each God's work in Christ is directed toward a different person. In the “objective” view God satisfies himself, in the “subjective” he inspires us, and in the “classic” he overcomes the devil." Gary E. Gilley, The Significance of Christ's Crosswork, Ref-0785, Volume 15 Number 45, August 2011, 7-26, p. 15
✪ "Once someone lamented the destruction of Jerusalem and wept that it was no longer possible, without the sacrificial system, to atone for one's sins. ‘No, my son,’ Rabban Yochanan replied. ‘We have a means of making atonement. And what is it? It is deeds of love. . .’" Ref-0150, p. 288. "It was declared that Passover could be celebrated without the sacrifice of the paschal lamb. The order, seder, of the Passover eve ritual was transformed; one could eat the unleavened bread and bitter herbs without the meat of the lamb -- contrary to the clear stipulation of the Bible." Ref-0150, p. 291.
✪ "‘Long ago I ceased to count heads,’ [Spurgeon] said in 1887, ‘Truth is usually in the minority in this evil world.’" Ref-1324, p. 18. "Pink was by temperament an ambitious man and, while that temperament was redirected in him as a Christian, the apparent smallness of his circle of influence, at an age when many men are at their peak, must have entered into the discouragement he sometimes knew. . . . Yet at the heart of Pink’s desire for a wider ministry was his burden that so few cared for a deeper understanding of the Word of God. It distressed him that so many struggling Christians remained unfed." Ref-1325, pp. 208-209.