Christ's Finished Atonement or Christ's Failure Atonement

[Kermos]

Hi again @TibiasDad,

The atoning sacrifice of Christ is reconciliation wrapped with forgiveness called salvation. This sounds relevant to your ... this conveyance is completed near the conclusion of this post.

Lord Jesus Christ says "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin" (John 8:34) and "if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed" (John 8:36), so the monumental wrong with your "The cause of reconciliation is the whole process in order: atonement, God not counting men’s sins against them, conviction of sin, confess and repentance of sin, forgiveness of those sins, and the Holy Spirit entering the heart of man making him spiritually alive and one with God" is because God not counting men’s sins against them is forgiveness of sins for Christ shedding His Blood on the cross absolutely results in forgiveness without exception for the Holy Spirit reveals to us Christians "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins" (Hebrews 9:22) and "we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son" (Romans 5:10) and the Holy Spirit revealing of Christ that "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world" (1 John 2:2).

Upon God not counting men’s sins against them, we Christians know we are forgiven. You do not believe that God not counting men’s sins against them means that you are forgiven.

Your "reconciliation process order" is dead wrong.

(You neglected to post a reply directly to post #70 and post #89 which was the fourth of five posts about your "order of reconciliation", so this is post maintains sequence.)

The opening sentence of this post is pertinent to your question recorded in post #134.

You still have people like Nancy of the world who died and goes to hell being atoned for by Christ, so you cling to Christ's failure atonement (see the opening post).

 

[TibiasDad]

The atoning sacrifice of Christ is reconciliation wrapped with forgiveness called salvation.

No one is saved until they confess and repent of their sins. When they do, they are saved because of the atonement in which they have believed.

Doug

 

[Kermos]

Walmart sells to all but not everyone buys. And Walmart doesn't intend to give their products away. But that doesn't mean Walmart failed. Why would we say God failed?

God does not "sell" like Walmart (Acts 8:18-23)! Your analogy has neither part nor lot in this matter (Acts 8:21)!

But do you believe God can do other than predetermine us? Do you believe God had any other existing option or idea or ability than to predetermine us? ...

Your questions need to be put into the context of the "Christ's Finished Atonement or Christ's Failure Atonement" thread.

I believe about us Christian's relationship with our Holy God Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ; even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and without blemish before him in love; having predestined us for adoption as children through Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his desire (Ephesians 1:3-5) which indicates my belief about always successful Christ's finished atonement!

Christ did not atone for people in hell.

You believe Christ atoned for people in hell (proof post #27), so you believe in Christ's failure atonement.

You have God fail. You make God and us monergized robots.

You wrote "monergized robots" in contrast to "vessels" which God's vessel of mercy Apostle Paul wrote:

​

18 He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.​

​

19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21Or does not the Potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory​

(Romans 9:18-23)​

​

So, faithful, glorious, and graceful Lord and God Jesus Christ fills us vessel of mercy with God's works of mercy which God prepared beforehand for glory!

Paul declares God's Sovereign control of man with "He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires" (Romans 9:18).

Immediately after writing that God is in control, Paul continued with "You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?'" (Romans 9:19) - herein resides man wrongly assigning man's accountability for sin to God - the fault question.

Romans 9:18 segues right into Romans 9:19-23.

Bringing these together:

Paul conveyed "God is in control" (Romans 9:18) then the "you" defiantly mocks God's control with "Why does He still find fault since you have God fail? For who among monergized robots resists His will?" (the book of Second Opinions 9:19).

The "you" in Romans 9:19-20 is the person who rejects God by way of rejecting God's exclusive control of man's salvation; in other words, the "you" is the person that claims man has a free will.

Do not forget that it is written that no purpose of God's can be thwarted (Job 42:2), so scripture reveals that man cannot resist God's will, and Paul knows scripture.

Notice the "you" questioning why God still finds fault. Paul conveys that the "you" asks the fault question in a mocking manner, and the subsequent question about God's will continues with the "you" mocking God who is entirely in control of man's salvation according to Paul (Ephesians 2:8-10 for example).

The "you" is certainly mocking because immediately after the question about God's will, Paul wrote:

​

On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? (Romans 9:20)​

​

See the "On the contrary" which is indicative that the following statement of Paul refutes the mocking questions of the "you" about the fault question and the question about God's will (in Romans 9:19).

Paul continues immediately after "On the contrary" in Romans 9:20 showing that the thing molded cannot resist the will of the Molder.

The thing molded represents the "you".

The Molder represents God.

IN TRUTH, PAUL CONVEYS THAT MAN CANNOT RESIST GOD'S WILL (ROMANS 9:19-20)!

Behold the parallel of the defiant "you" as adversary against God (in Romans 9:19-20) to free-willians based upon the content of free-willian philosophical writings - look at your post, Kampioen.

My brother Paul wrote "it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy" (Romans 9:16).

You free-willian philosophers project that Christ's atonement depends on the man who wills, and you free-willians believe God's merciful atonement fails for people like Nancy (see the original post).

 

[TibiasDad]

You believe Christ atoned for people in hell (proof post #27), so you believe in Christ's failure atonement.

Before they chose to go to hell…


Doug

 

[Kermos]

What @civic said….

Doug

Please point out the post where civic responded to the following because I'm not noticing one. And the following proves the error of your free-will way.

In other words, you can’t answer it now! If my order is wrong, disprove it! What order would you put it in?

Doug

Your "order of reconciliation"/"The cause of reconciliation is the whole process in order: atonement, God not counting men’s sins against them, conviction of sin, confess and repentance of sin, forgiveness of those sins, and the Holy Spirit entering the heart of man making him spiritually alive and one with God" (proof post #71) has been spiritually proven to be anti-truth because:

1. you place the indwelling Holy Spirit (John 3:3) in last place (proof post #63)
2. you confusedly collide your first place with your last place (proof post #66):
   • your first place is atonement/"at one" with God,
   • your last place is "one with God".
3. you place conviction before the Holy Spirit indwells (proof post #67)
4. God not counting sins is forgiveness (proof post #70).
5. your demote God and exalt man (proof post #71):
   • the Blood of Jesus alone cleanses Christians (1 John 1:5-10).
   • a good confession of sin is fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23).
   • a faithful walk in the Light is fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23).
   • you have man controlling God.
   • if-then logic statements by John show:
     • evidence of the indwelling Holy Spirit
     • not cause and effect, that is, not man causing God to effect.

This is a thread about Christ's atonement, and Christ's finished atonement is reconciliation with God.

You still have people like Nancy of the world who died and goes to hell being atoned for by Christ, so you cling to Christ's failure atonement (see the opening post).

 

[Kermos]

you are projecting once again by saying we do not believe Christs love controls us.

Yet, you dispute that Christ's love controls us Christians in the following, civic, according to your own words.

nice try Paul is describing himself as a jew/pharisee under the law but as he says Christ has set him free from the law.

thanks for admitting Christ does not actually in reality control you.

next fallacy

You Illegitimately converted the plural word "us" into the singular word "me", civic, and you did it because you do not believe that Christ's love controls you - just look at your "thanks for admitting Christ does not actually in reality control you".

Look carefully at the plural word us inside of the Apostle Paul's writing that Christ's love controls us (2 Corinthians 5:14) which indicates us Christians.

Christ's love controls us Christians (2 Corinthians 5:14), and this includes me. And, this includes me making this post.

Apparently you did not understand what you should have read in Romans 7:14-25-Romans 8:1-8 because you wrote "thanks for admitting Christ does not actually in reality control you".

I believe Christ's love controls us Christians (2 Corinthians 5:14), and this is a requirement for Christ's finished atonement to apply to us (John 3:21).

You do not believe Christ's love controls us (2 Corinthians 5:14), so you believe in Christ's failure atonement.

 

[civic]

Yet, you dispute that Christ's love controls us Christians in the following, civic, according to your own words.



You Illegitimately converted the plural word "us" into the singular word "me", civic, and you did it because you do not believe that Christ's love controls you - just look at your "thanks for admitting Christ does not actually in reality control you".

Look carefully at the plural word us inside of the Apostle Paul's writing that Christ's love controls us (2 Corinthians 5:14) which indicates us Christians.

Christ's love controls us Christians (2 Corinthians 5:14), and this includes me. And, this includes me making this post.

Apparently you did not understand what you should have read in Romans 7:14-25-Romans 8:1-8 because you wrote "thanks for admitting Christ does not actually in reality control you".

I believe Christ's love controls us Christians (2 Corinthians 5:14), and this is a requirement for Christ's finished atonement to apply to us (John 3:21).

You do not believe Christ's love controls us (2 Corinthians 5:14), so you believe in Christ's failure atonement.

Nice diversion away from Romans 7 which was my previous comment. Now back to Romans 7 to correct your abuse of the passage

Romans 7:7–25 unpacks verse 5, and Romans 8:1–17 unpacks verse 6. In verses 7–25 we see how sin via the law brings death to those in the flesh, and in Romans 8:1–17 we see how the Spirit grants life to those who belong to Jesus Christ. Romans 7:5–6 forecasts what Paul is about to say in remarkably clear terms. The Holy Spirit is never mentioned in Romans 7:7–25. But Paul refers to the Spirit 15 times in Romans 8:1–17, suggesting that the person described in Romans 7:7–25 is one who doesn’t have the Spirit in his life. The essence of what it means to be a Christian is to be indwelt with the Spirit (Rom. 8:9). We see in both Romans 7:14 and 7:18 that the one described is of the “flesh,” one who is still in the old Adam, one who is unregenerate.


The total defeat described in Romans 7 contradicts how Paul describes Christian experience in Romans 6 and 8. Paul proclaims in Romans 6 that we’re no longer slaves to sin (6:6), that we’re free from the sin that enslaved us when we were unbelievers (Rom. 6:16–19).


Romans 7- Do you not know, brothers and sisters—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law has authority over someone only as long as that person lives? 2 For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. 3 So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.


4 So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5 For when we were in the realm of the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. 6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.


7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.


13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.


14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.


21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.


A number of objections surface against what I’ve said. Let’s look at two of them briefly. First, how does a reference to unbelievers fit with Romans 7:23 (“For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being”)? Doesn’t such delight and longing for God’s law show that a believer is in view? Not necessarily. Many pious Jews loved God’s law and yet didn’t know God. Paul himself testifies that the Jews have a “zeal for God,” though they lacked knowledge (Rom. 10:2). There can be zeal and delight in the law (witness the Pharisees) when one isn’t truly saved.


Second, Paul shifts from past-tense verbs in Romans 7:7–11 to present-tense verbs in verses 14–25. Doesn’t that prove Christians are in view? Not necessarily. Scholars recognize that present tense doesn’t necessarily designate present time. The temporal nature of an action must be discerned from context, since present-tense verbs, even in the indicative, may be used with reference to the past or even the future.


The tense of the verb doesn’t emphasize time in Romans 7:7–25. Rather, the use of the present tense here fits with the state or condition of the person. Paul is emphasizing one’s captivity, subjugation, and impotence under the law. His use of the present tense doesn’t denote past time but highlights in a vivid way the slavery of life under the law.


If I’m right in the way I interpret this passage, the difference between me and those who see this as Christian experience isn’t great. After all, we both agree that believers fall short in numerous ways and that we struggle daily with sin. The reason we differ is that I see Romans 7:13–25 as describing total defeat, and that isn’t our story as Christians since the Holy Spirit also empowers us to live in a new way.Schreiner

hope this helps !!!

 

[Aaron]

Walmart sells to all but not everyone buys. And Walmart doesn't intend to give their products away. But that doesn't mean Walmart failed. Why would we say God failed?

But do you believe God can do other than predetermine us? Do you believe God had any other existing option or idea or ability than to predetermine us? ...

You have God fail. You make God and us monergized robots.

A shoplifter may have tried to ripoff Walmart. I think they may have tried to make off with the "reconciliation process order"

 

[Hosanna]

Jesus never fails

So many souls have tested Him
Throughout the course of time
So many still reach out to Him
With broken hearts and minds
And every one of them will say
With no exception that they find
Jesus never fails (he never fails)

Even in the days of old
He brought His people through
And then He came to show His love
And died for me and you
And then He rose again to prove
That every story has been true
Jesus never fails

Jesus never fails, Jesus never fails

You might as well get thee behind me, Satan
You cannot prevail, because Jesus never fails
Sometimes this world brings trouble
I find so hard to bear
I know I could not make it
Without Jesus being there
It's so encouraging to know
However deep we're in despair
Jesus never fails

Oh, so what can I do to prove to you
Tell me, how can you deny? (Oh)
No untold facts, no mysteries
It's all so cut and dried
On the witness stand of your life
I'll be the first to testify

Jesus never fails

Jesus never fails, Jesus never fails

You might as well get thee behind me, Satan
You cannot prevail, because Jesus never fails
Jesus never fails, Jesus never fails

You might as well get thee behind me, Satan
You cannot prevail because Jesus never fails
Jesus never fails
Never fails

Songwriters: Gary Lee Driskell

 

[TibiasDad]

Please point out the post where civic responded to the following because I'm not noticing one. And the following proves the error of your free-will way.

Post in thread 'Christ's Finished Atonement or Christ's Failure Atonement'

Oct 22, 2025

Dear @TibiasDad,

Lord Jesus Christ says "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin" (John 8:34) and "if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed" (John 8:36), so the monumental wrong with your "The cause of reconciliation is the whole process in order: atonement, God not counting men’s sins against them, conviction of sin, confess and repentance of sin, forgiveness of those sins, and the Holy Spirit entering the heart of man making him spiritually alive and one with God" is because God not...

• civic

Doug

 

[Kermos]

That’s because they are connected ; Christ does not forgive unless there is confession first! It’s not rocket science, not even Greek rocket science; if we confess he is faithful and will forgive us our sins. The subjunctive mood portrays probability and potential. The hina clause, in order that, shows a response to an action. A happens in order that B can occur.

And by the way, there is nothing illegal about it! You may be wrong, but you’re not illegal! It’s not illegal to disagree on this forum.

Doug

.

Your illegal hina clause grammar results in you believe that you cause Christ to be faithful based on your faulty interpretation of 1 John 1:9.

You illogically apply "cause and effect" where "evidence and existence" are indicated in Truth (John 14:6).

We Christians are already forgiven (see 1 John 1:7 ahead of verse 9) by the time any of us might confess our sins (see 1 John 1:9), so the existence of forgiveness in 1 John 1:9 is evidence of the Holy Spirit indwelling us Christians.

1) Of course it does, but this doesn’t mean it is not connected to something else in the sentence.

2) Conditional sentences:
To express a potential or uncertain condition, often with ean (ἐὰν)
ἐὰν ὁμολογῶμεν

Doug

1) actually, the full clause must be maintained otherwise you break the author's concept, so all of "If we confess our sins" (1 John 1:9) must grammatically be joined with all of "He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:9), and the author does not state that it's a requirement to confess sin in order to be forgiven, so your "Christ does not forgive unless there is confession first" flat out adulterates the concept presented by Holy Spirit inspired Apostle John.

2) The action of "we confess our sins" is under the loving control of God because Holy Spirit inspired Paul wrote "it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13).

Your "Christ does not forgive unless there is confession first" nullifies the Blood of Christ in "but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin" (1 John 1:7), and the "we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light" is the fruit of the indwelling Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23).

 

[TibiasDad]

1) actually, the full clause must be maintained otherwise you break the author's concept, so all of "If we confess our sins" (1 John 1:9) must grammatically be joined with all of "He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:9), and the author does not state that it's a requirement to confess sin in order to be forgiven, so your "Christ does not forgive unless there is confession first" flat out adulterates the concept presented by Holy Spirit inspired Apostle John.

You are deliberately ignoring the grammar of John’s words, and that to your own detriment and demise. Again,
2) Conditional sentences:
To express a potential or uncertain condition, often with ean (ἐὰν)
ἐὰν ὁμολογῶμεν

No matter how you cut it, the opening clause is a conditional statement! I have not separated anything; if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive. This has been my argument all along!

Doug

 

[Kermos]

You are arguing a fallacy known as a false dichotomy.

next fallacy.

Your argument of me "arguing a fallacy known as a false dichotomy" is false.

Here is your opportunity to prove that there paragraph wrong by you telling me that the population specified in the whole world as referenced in "He is the atonement for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world" (1 John 2:2) is not everybody everywhere in all time, even people like Nancy mentioned in the original post.

 

[TibiasDad]

He is the atonement for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world" (1 John 2:2) is not everybody everywhere in all time, even people like Nancy mentioned in the original post.

Now your statement is correct!

Doug

 

[Kermos]

Nope, that’s you making straw man arguments! Atonement is not salvation nor forgiveness! It is the means of reconciling God to the world, which makes forgiveness and salvation possible!

You, on the other hand, equate forgiveness and atonement as meaning the same thing! That’s why I asked if “the whole world is saved” because the whole world's sins were atoned for and “not ours (current believers) only!

Did nothing of the sort, and never will! The whole world is everyone, everywhere in all times. Whoever believes will be saved! Nobody’s sins are excluded as a general rule of thumb.


Doug

If you had read the original post, then you would have seen "Christ's finished atonement is for the whole world, and the whole world includes exclusively the persons whom the Christ chooses as recipients for Christ's atonement", so based on this fact the whole world will be saved as the whole world is all the people of the Kingdom of God as per "He is the atonement for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world" (1 John 2:2). This is Christ's finished atonement.

Look at your post, atonement is for "The whole world is everyone, everywhere in all times" which you then limit atonement down from everyone everywhere in all time down to only "Whoever believes will be saved".

Atonement always secures forgiveness for all who are born of God believers in Christ (John 3:3).

Since you hold that atonement doesn't secure forgiveness, then your atonement is failure.

 

[TibiasDad]

If you had read the original post

I read your OP, and it was incorrect in it eisegetic overlay of presumption and lack of scholarship.

Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

Look at your post, atonement is for "The whole world is everyone, everywhere in all times" which you then limit atonement down from everyone everywhere in all time down to only "Whoever believes will be saved".

1) No one was saved at the conclusion of the atonement. (With maybe the exception of the thief on the cross next to Jesus.)

2) All men can be saved because of the atonement.

3) Whoever believes in Christ (and his atonement for their sins) will be saved!

4) Only belief in what Christ has done, including the atonement, will save us.

Doug

 

[Kermos]

No, it is a verb acting as a noun! Expiation, “the act of extinguishing the guilt incurred by something”, is another synonym.

This act is what allows God to “not count men’s sins against us” especially when we believe! Nothing is forgiven until we believe! But when we believe, we are saved because he atoned for the sins of the whole world! The act of atonement gives us something to believe in and be saved!


Doug

No, atonement (propitiation) is a noun in 1 John 2:2. You believe in limited atonement for sins because you wrote "Nothing is forgiven until we believe", and you believe Christ's atonement for sins applies to the whole world being everyone everywhere in all time even people like Nancy mentioned in the original post, yet Christ's atonement for sins certainly results in forgiveness of sins, not potential, but absolute complete successful forgiveness of sin accepted by God, so you believe in Christ's failure atonement because of people like Nancy.