UNION WITH CHRIST: IN SCRIPTURE, HISTORY, AND THEOLOGY PDF, EPUB, EBOOK

Robert Letham | 164 pages | 28 Nov 2011 | P & R PUB CO | 9781596380639 | English | United Kingdom Union with Christ: In Scripture, History, and Theology by Robert Letham

As Letham concludes, this is found in already-not yet expression in our . And with that, Union with Christ comes to an end. This may be perhaps my only real quibble with the book. Though it may be theologically dense at times, most people would do well to spend some time digging through the treasures Letham has gathered concerning our union with Christ. Particularly this time of year, we do well to remember that Christmas is a celebration of the Incarnation, as we saw above, it is precisely that Incarnation that makes our union with Christ possible. And it is this union with Christ that restores our communion and fellowship with . We do well to emphasize that Jesus came to save us from our sin, but what we miss sometimes is that he came to unite us to himself and to bring us back into our originally intended communion with God. Thanks for the review. As I am not formally theologically educated, I am finding the book a little tough, though I am enjoying to learn to broaden my mind. Todd Billings book with the same […]. Welcome to my blog! Have a look around and use the icons below to connect with me! I see how this kill the notion that limited atonement is deducible from the bare concept of substitution, but does it really affect this classic argument against ? Indeed, it was this argument that convinced me. If unlimited atonement then Christ propitiated for every person's sins according to the Arminian interpretation of 1 John 2. Some people will be in Hell a place of God's wrath 3. No debate there between Calvinists and Arminians, right? However, the above argument assumes that propitiation was actually made at the cross though not applied until time of conversion. Though earlier you implied that propitiation was not accomplished at the cross, I think. Please correct me if I'm totally confused In any case, I think we should be persuaded of limited atonement because of verses such as those we touched upon in John and the intent we find grounded in OT sacrifices. You already agreed that we cannot conclude limited atonement purely based upon the bare concept of substitution. Accordingly, how can you conclude limited atonement or as you put it, the negation of unlimited atonement solely based upon a purely logical argument that does not allow for some to perish though Christ died for them? In other words, you just acknowledged that substitution for certain men doesn't in and of itself disqualify the possibility of those same men going to hell, and that we need revelation for that argument. Your three step argument can at best imply limited application of not limited atonement , and to keep that conclusion Calvinistic you'd have to introduce premises pertaining to unconditional election and , lest you end up with limited application of redemption due to man's alleged free will i. You go on to say that Arminians and Calvinists agree that God accepts the atonement of Christ as substitutionary. What I take by that is that he accepts it as payment for sin. Notwithstanding, the payment must be applied to sinners, which both Arminians and Calvinists also agree upon. The difference is that i Calvinists appreciate that the atonement was only for the elect and that ii all for whom Christ died will receive by grace the reconciliation. Finally, I never denied that God was rendered propitious at the cross. That his wrath was spent on behalf of the elect doesn't logically necessitate by virtue of a substitution concept that those for whom it was spent will receive the gift, though indeed they will and we know that by his revealed word. Let's talk rather than write. I think we're too far apart. Keep in mind, we are dealing with a God who works in perfect harmony, so naturally the Father accepts the Son's vicarious sacrifice and the Spirit applies it according to the divine intention. It was the design of the atonement to secure eternal for all it was intended. The point, however, is that substitution as a concept does not presuppose the necessity of acceptance of the payment. Again, a judge is not required purely by virtue of substitution to accept payment for another. However, given that God sent the Son and the works in harmony, we may conclude Limited Atonement, but in doing so we are employing revelation to inform our thinking, not mere logic. So would you say that all imputation of sin occurs after union with Christ? When Christ said, "It is finished," he was simply referring to successful substitution? There are two imputations - ours to Christ and His to ours. Ours to him occurred at the cross, but His to ours occurs in our life. Substitution as a concept does not presuppose the necessity of acceptance of the payment, which you seem to accept. That being true would suggest that many arguments for Limited Atonement are invalid. Those arguments entail the premise that if and only if Christ died for a sinner the sinner will ultimately be saved. The conclusion being that only those who will be saved did Christ die in their stead. Yet if substitution as a "bare concept" does not imply necessary salvation, then we must arrive at Limited Atonement not logically but theologically. Limited atonement is of interest to me right now because I have been dialoguing with certain particular baptists who say that a non-efficacious atonement is a false gospel. Sounds like you deny the efficacy of the atonement. Incidentally a particular baptist wrote this to me during a discussion we had about a week ago. His comments make more sense to me after our conversation. You are welcome to share your thoughts of course, though I understand the gist of your contention. Kevin Kennedy, from one of the Southern Baptist Seminaries claims that those who teach substitution only for the elect should agree that the elect can go free before they are converted and believe the gospel. He wants to put those who teach effective atonement in that box, so they can then deny that the death of Christ is the effective difference between saved and lost. This is not only a tactic against definite atonement. Then, and only then, they say, could you say that two persons were dying twice for the same sins of one person. These folks have confused the accomplishment of atonement with the application of the atonement. Not only have they minimized the legal application of the atonement, they have collapsed accomplishment and application into one, as if there were no atonement before . Thus the attempt to put John Owen in a box. Either say that the justification was at the atonement, or agree with them that the atonement is not until the justification. You did say, however, that God is propitiated at the cross. So are you saying that propitiation does not require union with Christ? I would think that our sins being imputed to Christ requires some kind of union. Another particular baptist I've talked to: Not one elect sinner for whom Jesus Christ effectually died for will ever perish. Christ's accomplishment of redemption insures their eternal salvation. The merit of the life and death of Christ ALONE is the only saving difference between saved and lost or heaven and hell. His precious blood and righteousness automatically excludes everything else as the ground of justification and acceptance to God. Jesus Christ's whole work resulted in the justification of His people. Christ, as Mediator of the Everlasting Covenant of Grace, brought in and established an everlasting righteousness which is imputes to His people and makes them to be accepted by the Father on that very basis. These guys don't believe justification occurred at the cross or in eternity by the way; they simply make a distinction between the accomplishment and application of the atonement. They are also adamantly opposed to being a condition for the application of justification. Faith happens at the same time but there is no logical connection between the two. Even the idea of faith as "instrument" or "appropriator" of justification is heretical. This doesn't do justice to "justification by faith" IMO, but if you disagree with them they insist that you are putting human conditions on justification and are unregenerate. Has this product helped you? Share a Testimony. The mission, passion and purpose of Ligonier Ministries is to proclaim the holiness of God in all its fullness to as many people as possible. Your gift enables our worldwide outreach. Donate Now. Fix that problem! Ligonier Ministries The teaching fellowship of R. Reformed Apologist: Robert Letham: Union with Christ: In Scripture, History, and Theology

Though it may be theologically dense at times, most people would do well to spend some time digging through the treasures Letham has gathered concerning our union with Christ. Particularly this time of year, we do well to remember that Christmas is a celebration of the Incarnation, as we saw above, it is precisely that Incarnation that makes our union with Christ possible. And it is this union with Christ that restores our communion and fellowship with God. We do well to emphasize that Jesus came to save us from our sin, but what we miss sometimes is that he came to unite us to himself and to bring us back into our originally intended communion with God. Thanks for the review. As I am not formally theologically educated, I am finding the book a little tough, though I am enjoying to learn to broaden my mind. Todd Billings book with the same […]. Welcome to my blog! Have a look around and use the icons below to connect with me! Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Email Address. In Book Reviews , Theology. Our booksellers. Media mentions. Link to us. Mailing lists. Show prices without shipping. Shipping prices may be approximate. Please verify cost before checkout. About the book: Union with Christ is the central truth of the whole biblical teaching about salvation. The entirety of our relationship with God can be summed up in this doctrine. Yet when people ask what this union actually is, we flounder. The incarnation shows that God has made us to be united with him, and God has given us his Word to enable us to understand the nature of this union. Explore this doctrine from Scripture with Robert Letham, along with some help from the church fathers up through modern theologians. Click on the price to find out more about a book. Confused by the descriptions? How to link to this search. Search for books in Search About Preferences Feedback Help. New books: 1 - 50 of 79 Bookseller Notes Price 1. Burash via United Kingdom. Edition: New. Auf Lager. Burash Ltd via United Kingdom. Edition: First. In stock. United Kingdom. En stock. Vital Products via United States. Qwestbooks via United States. Book Depository International via United Kingdom. Brand new Book. Union with Christ is the central truth of the whole biblical teaching about salvation. Set out with Robert Letham to explore this doctrine from Scripture using help from the The Book Depository via United Kingdom. Book Depository via United Kingdom. I didn't have to leave the introduction of this book to be encouraged. He states that in being united to Christ we are united to the entire Trinity. This is why this book is so disappointing. Letham does not use his space is a wise and helpful way. He merely keeps begging the question and repeating himself. Even though Letham relies on Evans and Garcia, he avoids interaction with recent discussions by Fesko, Horton, and McCormack on the priority of forensic justification. Obviously this person has not read the book, or at least not carefully. In fact, Garcia is mentioned maybe a couple of times and not always favorably. As for not interacting with Horton, Fesko etc. Obviously this person has an agenda and wants to see Letham deal with it. Letham obviously had something else in mind, doing the church a service by discussing Union in scripture, history and theology, which he did with great clarity and profundity. BTW, the book is absolutely brilliant on many levels. Only one with a partisan bent can think otherwise. Thanks for the reply. As for partisanship, he is an Owenite. This might more light. I am not well-versed in the debate, but my understanding of the Owenite argument is that if union with Christ is necessary for redemption, as opposed to the cross only, then the legal efficacy atonement is undermined, double jeopardy only comes into play once a person is united with Christ, and the government theory of the atonement gets a hat tip. I read this article. Correct me I am misunderstanding you, but you would say that the atonement is efficacious, though not because said efficacy is necessitated by penal substitution but by election, as revealed elsewhere in scripture? And if this is indeed your view would you mind commenting on Tom Nettles' arguments quoted in McCulley article. Appreciate your insight. Happy new year. The atonement is no sooner undermined because redemption must be applied by the Spirit than the decree of the atonement is undermined by the actual atonement. The decree of the cross contemplates not only the work of the cross but also its application. To say that redemption can occur apart from union with Christ makes union with Christ superfluous. We must let revelation be our guide, not theories that defy revelation. Revelation teaches that prior to the application of redemption, elect sinners are considered children of wrath just the like the rest. I don't think that guy is an "Owenite. The point of my post to which you linked is that union with Christ is not a logical necessity of the cross - it's a revealed necessity born out of God's desire, but that has nothing to do with the person who thinks that union is not necessary for redemption. Payment does not logically imply reception of payment. Notwithstanding, God's word reveals that all for whom Christ died will by grace receive the reconciliation. Doesn't accomplishment necessitate application? Justification was not accomplished at the cross. Justification does not occur without imputation of perfect righteousness to the sinner, which happens in union and certainly not before one's birth. Correct me if I'm wrong then, but it sounds like given your position which I have no argument against then there is really no meaningful place for the double-payment argument against indefinite atonement. You would argue for definite atonement solely on the basis of passages like John 10? I think we might be talking about two different things. It is true that if Jesus was punished for a particular sinner who ended up dying for his own sins, then two payments would be made for the same sinner. I'm allowing of course the impossibility that a sinner can satisfy his debt before God. But that would not be "double jeopardy," which has to do with the same person being tried twice for the same crime. In other words, that Jesus paid for my sins does not logically imply that I don't have to pay for my sins. After all, why should a judge be required to accept another's sacrifice on behalf of an unrepentant, ungrateful sinner who could care less that a payment was made? Now then, we know that God's elect don't have to pay for their sins and it's not because they're grateful for the work of the Substitute. Rather, we know this based upon God's revelation - that it is God's intention to apply redemption to all those for whom redemption was accomplished. Now of course along with that application comes gratitude in the sinner. Having said that, we might be able to apply a double jeopardy argument to those who are already united to Christ, for to be united to Christ is to receive all the benefits of Christ's redemption no less than had we ourselves somehow accomplished redemption. Once we're baptized into Christ's work, redemption is ours - and this is key, no less than had we somehow paid for our own sin. Accordingly, I might be willing to argue for eternal security for those in Christ based upon a double jeopardy principle because once we're united to Christ existentially, what is Christ's becomes ours no less than had we ourselves earned it. Whereas prior to being united to Christ we are not partakers of redemption - though God has revealed that the design of the cross is to secure salvation for the elect. Notwithstanding, until we were united to Christ - Ephesians teaches that we remained children of wrath just like the rest. Lastly, I would argue for definite atonement first and foremost by the design and intent of the OT sacrifices, which I don't see polemicists often doing. OT sacrifice was intended for those with whom God had established his covenant, and not the gentiles for instance. It was for the elect within Israel. In the like manner, the cross is intended for those who were given to Christ by the Father before creation, and not the world. I think John 17 settles the matter even more so than John I think I understanding your argument: Christ dying for one's sins does not logically imply God's reception of that payment. Hence the need for union with Christ, which is not necessitated from payment alone but will occur by God's design. I see how this kill the notion that limited atonement is deducible from the bare concept of substitution, but does it really affect this classic argument against unlimited atonement? Indeed, it was this argument that convinced me. If unlimited atonement then Christ propitiated for every person's sins according to the Arminian interpretation of 1 John 2. Some people will be in Hell a place of God's wrath 3. No debate there between Calvinists and Arminians, right? Union with Christ: In Scripture, History, and Theolo () by Letham, Robert

Community Reviews. Showing Average rating 4. Rating details. More filters. Sort order. Jul 01, Andrzej Stelmasiak rated it liked it. To read pages took me 4 hours and two sittings - it reads quickly, as Letham plays it really safe here, not exploring new grounds, it's your typical stuff repeated in a book form, so the same content but not as concise for the obvious reason. He 3 stars is not bad. He relies often on a secondary sources but, what is good, is that he likes what Richard Muller wrote! When he doesn't, it will be repeated stuff from his 'Through Western Eyes'. And he is perhaps too quick with suggesting closet Nestorianism at times - even if he is right that particular view may lead to that conclusion, he should be more charitable towards people. It made me smile when I've read the very last paragraph in the book - unashamedly evangelistic. Glad I have read it, glad that someone has kindly lent it to me - as this would not be a keeper. Jun 24, Rylan S. Some good insights but really struggles organizationally and gets bogged down by extended historical-theological sections. At times relies far more on Reformed thinkers than on the biblical text itself. Nov 07, Ray Clendenen rated it liked it Shelves: theology-bible. This is a good book. For someone interested in and especially in what the reformed tradition has taught about the doctrine of union with Christ, this is a great book. Unfortunately, my interest is primarily in what the Bible says. He speaks to this, but most of the book is more theological than biblical in nature not to imply that I find no value in "theology" per se. So I'm glad I read the book, and I got some good stuff out of it. But I'm not excited about it. I benefited This is a good book. Apr 03, Eric Yap rated it it was amazing Shelves: shelved. Despite it being a relatively short book, this is one of the most challenging book on soteriology I have ever read. I definitely need t Despite it being a relatively short book, this is one of the most challenging book on soteriology I have ever read. I definitely need to revisit some of the chapters as I am either not fully convinced or fully comprehended the nuances, but Letham has postulated a rather comprehensive doctrine of union with Christ, demonstrating the interdependence of i. Jun 30, Jacob Aitken rated it really liked it Shelves: christology , covenant , historical-theology , merry-protestantism , reformed-stuff , , systematic-theology. Letham spins the Greek image-likeness into First and Second Adam. All of humanity shares the image with First Adam. Christ, the Second Adam, is also the image of God. Regenerate humanity participates in this image. They said all of humanity is created in the image but must achieve the likeness of God. The unites us to Christ He is the agent of the indwelling Jn. Letham notes that the Holy Spirit makes a permanent residence mone within us Quoting the English Puritan Rowland Stedman, he notes, "There are 'two great bonds or ligaments' of this union. On Christ's part, he dwells in believers by his Spirit. He introduces the theme of corporate solidarity: Josh. Humans remain human while deified. While Letham is giving the East a fair reading, it must be acknowledged that the Palamite strands of Eastern Orthodoxy revert to an impersonal, energetic union. See the comments by Vladimir Moss. In fact, God is not even God. It would be interesting to link this with the OT concept of the glory-cloud. Points to our destiny. Letham then quotes numerous sources almost to overkill pointing out that the Reformed had a rich and nuanced appreciation of Union with Christ However, earlier he said that the Greek Palamite? Even still, I have my doubts that the East can truly avoid collapsing the communion with the Persons into a communion with the energies see comments by Moss, Romanides, and Jenson. Contra detractors, Calvin affirms that the body and blood of Christ are substantially offered. He simply explains the mode: the Holy Spirit transfuses the flesh of Christ to us Theological Treatises, We just reject a local presence. Letham is aware of the Nestorian charge and sense that Calvin drifted there at times, given his comments on 1 Corinthians Per Polanus there is a real sacramental union and a conjunction between signum and res. While there are suggestions that Calvin was close to the East, I think Letham overplays that point The East does not mean by energies what Horton means by it. Conclusion: I've listed some of my criticisms above so I won't repeat them here. The book is short, focused, and easy to read. There is a lot of repetition, sometimes almost whole chapters, from every one of his earlier works! As usual, Letham represents mature, balanced scholarship. Good general introduction to Union with Christ When some of the historical arguments might seem esoteric and irrelevant, Letham does a good job explaining these and how they relate to Union with Christ. Jan 07, Nathan rated it liked it. This is a pretty standard Reformed overview of how to understand union with Christ Biblically. This is a great way to start out a study like this. Letham This is a pretty standard Reformed overview of how to understand union with Christ Biblically. Letham is pretty well-read and gives a good representative picture of the theology of union with Christ as it has developed through the centuries. I thought this was where the book shined the brightest. Share a Testimony. The mission, passion and purpose of Ligonier Ministries is to proclaim the holiness of God in all its fullness to as many people as possible. Your gift enables our worldwide outreach. Donate Now. Fix that problem! Ligonier Ministries The teaching fellowship of R. Close Your Cart Loading After all, why should a judge be required to accept another's sacrifice on behalf of an unrepentant, ungrateful sinner who could care less that a payment was made? Now then, we know that God's elect don't have to pay for their sins and it's not because they're grateful for the work of the Substitute. Rather, we know this based upon God's revelation - that it is God's intention to apply redemption to all those for whom redemption was accomplished. Now of course along with that application comes gratitude in the sinner. Having said that, we might be able to apply a double jeopardy argument to those who are already united to Christ, for to be united to Christ is to receive all the benefits of Christ's redemption no less than had we ourselves somehow accomplished redemption. Once we're baptized into Christ's work, redemption is ours - and this is key, no less than had we somehow paid for our own sin. Accordingly, I might be willing to argue for eternal security for those in Christ based upon a double jeopardy principle because once we're united to Christ existentially, what is Christ's becomes ours no less than had we ourselves earned it. Whereas prior to being united to Christ we are not partakers of redemption - though God has revealed that the design of the cross is to secure salvation for the elect. Notwithstanding, until we were united to Christ - Ephesians teaches that we remained children of wrath just like the rest. Lastly, I would argue for definite atonement first and foremost by the design and intent of the OT sacrifices, which I don't see polemicists often doing. OT sacrifice was intended for those with whom God had established his covenant, and not the gentiles for instance. It was for the elect within Israel. In the like manner, the cross is intended for those who were given to Christ by the Father before creation, and not the world. I think John 17 settles the matter even more so than John I think I understanding your argument: Christ dying for one's sins does not logically imply God's reception of that payment. Hence the need for union with Christ, which is not necessitated from payment alone but will occur by God's design. I see how this kill the notion that limited atonement is deducible from the bare concept of substitution, but does it really affect this classic argument against unlimited atonement? Indeed, it was this argument that convinced me. If unlimited atonement then Christ propitiated for every person's sins according to the Arminian interpretation of 1 John 2. Some people will be in Hell a place of God's wrath 3. No debate there between Calvinists and Arminians, right? However, the above argument assumes that propitiation was actually made at the cross though not applied until time of conversion. Though earlier you implied that propitiation was not accomplished at the cross, I think. Please correct me if I'm totally confused In any case, I think we should be persuaded of limited atonement because of verses such as those we touched upon in John and the intent we find grounded in OT sacrifices. You already agreed that we cannot conclude limited atonement purely based upon the bare concept of substitution. Accordingly, how can you conclude limited atonement or as you put it, the negation of unlimited atonement solely based upon a purely logical argument that does not allow for some to perish though Christ died for them? In other words, you just acknowledged that substitution for certain men doesn't in and of itself disqualify the possibility of those same men going to hell, and that we need revelation for that argument. Your three step argument can at best imply limited application of redemption not limited atonement , and to keep that conclusion Calvinistic you'd have to introduce premises pertaining to unconditional election and irresistible grace, lest you end up with limited application of redemption due to man's alleged free will i. You go on to say that Arminians and Calvinists agree that God accepts the atonement of Christ as substitutionary. What I take by that is that he accepts it as payment for sin. Notwithstanding, the payment must be applied to sinners, which both Arminians and Calvinists also agree upon. The difference is that i Calvinists appreciate that the atonement was only for the elect and that ii all for whom Christ died will receive by grace the reconciliation. Finally, I never denied that God was rendered propitious at the cross. That his wrath was spent on behalf of the elect doesn't logically necessitate by virtue of a substitution concept that those for whom it was spent will receive the gift, though indeed they will and we know that by his revealed word. Let's talk rather than write. I think we're too far apart. Keep in mind, we are dealing with a God who works in perfect harmony, so naturally the Father accepts the Son's vicarious sacrifice and the Spirit applies it according to the divine intention. It was the design of the atonement to secure eternal salvation for all it was intended. The point, however, is that substitution as a concept does not presuppose the necessity of acceptance of the payment. Again, a judge is not required purely by virtue of substitution to accept payment for another. However, given that God sent the Son and the Trinity works in harmony, we may conclude Limited Atonement, but in doing so we are employing revelation to inform our thinking, not mere logic. So would you say that all imputation of sin occurs after union with Christ? When Christ said, "It is finished," he was simply referring to successful substitution? There are two imputations - ours to Christ and His to ours. Ours to him occurred at the cross, but His to ours occurs in our life. Substitution as a concept does not presuppose the necessity of acceptance of the payment, which you seem to accept. That being true would suggest that many arguments for Limited Atonement are invalid. Those arguments entail the premise that if and only if Christ died for a sinner the sinner will ultimately be saved. The conclusion being that only those who will be saved did Christ die in their stead. Yet if substitution as a "bare concept" does not imply necessary salvation, then we must arrive at Limited Atonement not logically but theologically. Limited atonement is of interest to me right now because I have been dialoguing with certain particular baptists who say that a non-efficacious atonement is a false gospel. Sounds like you deny the efficacy of the atonement. Incidentally a particular baptist wrote this to me during a discussion we had about a week ago. His comments make more sense to me after our conversation. You are welcome to share your thoughts of course, though I understand the gist of your contention. Kevin Kennedy, from one of the Southern Baptist Seminaries claims that those who teach substitution only for the elect should agree that the elect can go free before they are converted and believe the gospel. He wants to put those who teach effective atonement in that box, so they can then deny that the death of Christ is the effective difference between saved and lost. This is not only a tactic against definite atonement. Then, and only then, they say, could you say that two persons were dying twice for the same sins of one person. These folks have confused the accomplishment of atonement with the application of the atonement. Not only have they minimized the legal application of the atonement, they have collapsed accomplishment and application into one, as if there were no atonement before justification.

Union With Christ: In Scripture, History, and Theology | Nate Claiborne

In order to ground these points more fully, the bulk of chapter 2 is composed of an excursus on the development of Christological thought up to the 2nd Council of Constantinople. Chapter 3 then moves forward to discuss Pentecost. First, in chapter four we see that union with Christ means that Christ is our representative before the Father. It is in this and the next two chapters that Letham does more historical survey work. One analogy Letham uses to capture some of this is that of a team captain. When the captain of a team scores a goal, or when the quarterback of a football team throws a touchdown pass, it counts for the whole team. While imperfect, the analogy does capture much of what is meant by Christ being our representative. Chapter 5 shifts the focus from Christ as our representative to the transformative effects of our union with him. In the end, Letham concludes with 10 theses on union with Christ and our transformation:. In some ways, this chapter is the kind of climax to the book with chapter 6 being more like a denouement. However, it is in the final chapter that Letham turns his focus to union with Christ in death and resurrection. Because of our union with Christ, we are united with him in his death and burial, as well as his resurrection and ascension. As Letham concludes, this is found in already-not yet expression in our baptism. And with that, Union with Christ comes to an end. This may be perhaps my only real quibble with the book. Though it may be theologically dense at times, most people would do well to spend some time digging through the treasures Letham has gathered concerning our union with Christ. Particularly this time of year, we do well to remember that Christmas is a celebration of the Incarnation, as we saw above, it is precisely that Incarnation that makes our union with Christ possible. And it is this union with Christ that restores our communion and fellowship with God. Though earlier you implied that propitiation was not accomplished at the cross, I think. Please correct me if I'm totally confused In any case, I think we should be persuaded of limited atonement because of verses such as those we touched upon in John and the intent we find grounded in OT sacrifices. You already agreed that we cannot conclude limited atonement purely based upon the bare concept of substitution. Accordingly, how can you conclude limited atonement or as you put it, the negation of unlimited atonement solely based upon a purely logical argument that does not allow for some to perish though Christ died for them? In other words, you just acknowledged that substitution for certain men doesn't in and of itself disqualify the possibility of those same men going to hell, and that we need revelation for that argument. Your three step argument can at best imply limited application of redemption not limited atonement , and to keep that conclusion Calvinistic you'd have to introduce premises pertaining to unconditional election and irresistible grace, lest you end up with limited application of redemption due to man's alleged free will i. You go on to say that Arminians and Calvinists agree that God accepts the atonement of Christ as substitutionary. What I take by that is that he accepts it as payment for sin. Notwithstanding, the payment must be applied to sinners, which both Arminians and Calvinists also agree upon. The difference is that i Calvinists appreciate that the atonement was only for the elect and that ii all for whom Christ died will receive by grace the reconciliation. Finally, I never denied that God was rendered propitious at the cross. That his wrath was spent on behalf of the elect doesn't logically necessitate by virtue of a substitution concept that those for whom it was spent will receive the gift, though indeed they will and we know that by his revealed word. Let's talk rather than write. I think we're too far apart. Keep in mind, we are dealing with a God who works in perfect harmony, so naturally the Father accepts the Son's vicarious sacrifice and the Spirit applies it according to the divine intention. It was the design of the atonement to secure eternal salvation for all it was intended. The point, however, is that substitution as a concept does not presuppose the necessity of acceptance of the payment. Again, a judge is not required purely by virtue of substitution to accept payment for another. However, given that God sent the Son and the Trinity works in harmony, we may conclude Limited Atonement, but in doing so we are employing revelation to inform our thinking, not mere logic. So would you say that all imputation of sin occurs after union with Christ? When Christ said, "It is finished," he was simply referring to successful substitution? There are two imputations - ours to Christ and His to ours. Ours to him occurred at the cross, but His to ours occurs in our life. Substitution as a concept does not presuppose the necessity of acceptance of the payment, which you seem to accept. That being true would suggest that many arguments for Limited Atonement are invalid. Those arguments entail the premise that if and only if Christ died for a sinner the sinner will ultimately be saved. The conclusion being that only those who will be saved did Christ die in their stead. Yet if substitution as a "bare concept" does not imply necessary salvation, then we must arrive at Limited Atonement not logically but theologically. Limited atonement is of interest to me right now because I have been dialoguing with certain particular baptists who say that a non-efficacious atonement is a false gospel. Sounds like you deny the efficacy of the atonement. Incidentally a particular baptist wrote this to me during a discussion we had about a week ago. His comments make more sense to me after our conversation. You are welcome to share your thoughts of course, though I understand the gist of your contention. Kevin Kennedy, from one of the Southern Baptist Seminaries claims that those who teach substitution only for the elect should agree that the elect can go free before they are converted and believe the gospel. He wants to put those who teach effective atonement in that box, so they can then deny that the death of Christ is the effective difference between saved and lost. This is not only a tactic against definite atonement. Then, and only then, they say, could you say that two persons were dying twice for the same sins of one person. These folks have confused the accomplishment of atonement with the application of the atonement. Not only have they minimized the legal application of the atonement, they have collapsed accomplishment and application into one, as if there were no atonement before justification. Thus the attempt to put John Owen in a box. Either say that the justification was at the atonement, or agree with them that the atonement is not until the justification. You did say, however, that God is propitiated at the cross. So are you saying that propitiation does not require union with Christ? I would think that our sins being imputed to Christ requires some kind of union. Another particular baptist I've talked to: Not one elect sinner for whom Jesus Christ effectually died for will ever perish. Christ's accomplishment of redemption insures their eternal salvation. The merit of the life and death of Christ ALONE is the only saving difference between saved and lost or heaven and hell. His precious blood and righteousness automatically excludes everything else as the ground of justification and acceptance to God. The Lord Jesus Christ's whole work resulted in the justification of His people. Christ, as Mediator of the Everlasting Covenant of Grace, brought in and established an everlasting righteousness which is imputes to His people and makes them to be accepted by the Father on that very basis. These guys don't believe justification occurred at the cross or in eternity by the way; they simply make a distinction between the accomplishment and application of the atonement. They are also adamantly opposed to faith being a condition for the application of justification. Faith happens at the same time but there is no logical connection between the two. Even the idea of faith as "instrument" or "appropriator" of justification is heretical. This doesn't do justice to "justification by faith" IMO, but if you disagree with them they insist that you are putting human conditions on justification and are unregenerate. Do you believe faith is a condition for justification? Not in a meritorious sense but in a logical sense. If what you mean by efficacy is what you've been saying all along, then of course the atonement is "non-efficacious" for you have made imputation through union superfluous for justification. The trajectory of what you've been saying is men can even be glorified without being united to Christ's work just as long as the Savior died for them according to definitive atonement. As the Westminster standards teach, even elect infants dying in infancy are united to Christ etc. Propitiation occurs prior to union with Christ for union cannot occur until man's conception in the flesh and spirit and it requires being baptized into the Savior's work. Seems very confused to me. Logical conditions need not even be causes. If one is never justified apart from faith, we may say that faith is a necessary condition for justification. Faith, by their standard it would seem, always occurs with justification, making faith a necessary condition but not necessarily an instrumental cause - again by employing their terms as set forth by you. A necessary condition need not be meritorious, especially when God effects the condition irresistibly. Yes, just as the the people you just described do too. They just don't know what a logical condition is. Either you misrepresented them by accident or else they're confused. First, Paul said we died "with him" 2 Tim. Why would this not imply union at the cross? Second, if imputation presupposes union, then there could be not imputation of our sins to Him at the cross if we weren't united with Him at the cross. Fesko : In fact, we may say that there are three phases of our union with Christ, the predestinarian "in Christ," the redemptive-historical "in Christ," the union involved in the once-for-all accomplishment of salvation, and the applicatory "in Christ," which is the union in the actual possession or application of salvation. These three phases refer not to different unions but rather to different aspects of the same union. Let me know what you think. It's hard for me to believe that anyone would want to suggest that we died with Christ before we were born. For if that were true, then we would be dead to sin and alive in Christ before conversion! Moreover, the verse you quoted comes from this passage: "Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. The saying is trustworthy, for: If we have died with him, we will also live with him; if we endure, we will also reign with him; we deny him, he also will deny us; if we are faithless, he remains faithful" Every bit of that occurs in the experience of the believer the enduring, the obtaining, the dying, the living, the reigning, the denying , and not at the cross. No case can be made for dying with Christ apart from existential union in the experience of the believer. The imputation to our account presupposes that we are living in the world - just like the imputation of sin to Christ's presupposes that he had come in the flesh. We must be alive to receive the imputation, just as Christ had to take on flesh in order to be credited with our sin. Imputation presupposes that the person receiving the imputation is in the flesh. Re: Fesko, he is simply equivocating over the term union, for he says there are different aspects of the same union, but then he refers to a particular "union" at the cross, which obviously cannot be the same union as the entire union to which he places all three supposed aspects of union within, hence the equivocation. He uses union two different ways with two different meanings in the same discourse. But aside from that, Fesko certainly does not make the unorthodox mistake of saying that we were baptized into Christ's death at the cross, for even he acknowledged in the statement the application of redemption in the life of the believer , something you apparently are denying, or at least questioning very strongly. I'm afraid you have headed down a wrong path on this matter. The doctrine you are toying with denies the plain teaching of Scripture, that we are united to Christ by grace through faith, which means we were not justified at the cross but rather after by the Spirit. It also sounds as though the doctrine you first suggested you were trying to defeat you are now actually wanting to defend. For that reason, I have no more time for this since you seem not to be a sincere seeker of the truth but rather a defender of an unorthodox teaching. Unless you would like to talk on the phone, I think this discussion has pretty much run its course as I think the error has been refuted well enough in this forum, but I will discuss the matter with you if you so choose. Best wishes.

https://files8.webydo.com/9592130/UploadedFiles/408951BF-33E5-371D-CDD7-4BE773EDB116.pdf https://uploads.strikinglycdn.com/files/0f666ada-61b6-457d-bd3d-9fabbc0c18cb/die-ursachen-der-erdwarme-und-die-unhaltbarkeit-der-kant- laplaceschen-theorie-379.pdf https://files8.webydo.com/9586345/UploadedFiles/744F5C74-26A7-8EE5-4587-BC3976FFA4DD.pdf https://uploads.strikinglycdn.com/files/dc2190f5-f7be-40a3-8a1d-3d235500c822/meine-welt-auf-deutsch-wortschatz-uben-mein-tag-in-der- schule-zu-hause-516.pdf https://static.s123-cdn-static.com/uploads/4637496/normal_601f26fbf1bb8.pdf