157 – Terminology – Part 5 (Cont.)

157 – Terminology – Part 5 (Cont.)




The work of vicariously taking away sins. It was originally an Old Testament, priestly ordinance which did not remove sins, but only pointed to God’s future work of reconciliation which in time was done by the offering up of Himself in the person of Jesus Christ this rendering His people ‘at-one’ with Himself making peace between God and all the objects of atonement, whosoever they might be, either Old or New Testament saints.


(Also called Definite Atonement or Particular Redemption, which I normally use) This is the doctrine that Christ did not die indiscriminately, impersonally and equally for all men, i.e., as much for men in hell, even when He died, as for men in heaven, but rather died particularly and personally for the ‘Sheep,’ whom the Father had given to His Son. The doctrine is that He laid down His life definitely for HIS SHEEP. This doctrine does not, initially or directly, address sufficiency or availability, as some foolishly argue, but rather addresses design and effect. That is to ask, Whom did He purpose to reconcile and whom did He reconcile? Whom did He render ‘at-one’ with Himself?


Essentially the same as atonement: Covering, not in the sense of hiding, but in the sense of cancellation, as in mathematical or financial reconciliation.


The effect of atonement: essentially, reconciliation is propitiation or atonement in the New Testament sense. That is to say, that by the death of Christ we are reconciled to, and at peace with God. Note: The same Greek word is rendered atonement and reconciliation, which thing is most often true in the Old Testament Hebrew as well. The proper conclusion should be that atonement in the New Testament sense should never be seen as less than total reconciliation to God. In Christ we have now received (Rom. 5:11) the atonement which all the Old Testament gospel types promised. In the New Testament sense, we must never think of atonement as less than complete reconciliation to God.


To be purchased or bought back. It is a metaphorical term used in the New Testament to describe the release from the judicial bondage of sin, in which God’s elect inherently dwell. The biblical idea of redemption carries a view which precludes the possibility of anyone who enjoys this redemption ever, under any circumstance, suffering relapse into bondage or eternal damnation.


This term addresses an agreement between the Father and the Son concerning the redemption of his people from their sins. That the Father and the Son made such an agreement, one with another, is not directly stated in Scripture, but is taught, and can be proven by hundreds of Scriptures. Let only a couple suffice. John 6:37-39 teaches that the Father sent Christ for that purpose and that Christ came for that agreed purpose. John 3:14-17 teach that the Father sent the Son for a particular purpose, that the Son came to fulfill the purpose for which He was sent by the Father, and that the total fulfillment of that purpose would surely be realized.


The doctrine which argues against the basic premise of particular redemption, or the philosophy that Christ is the personal savior of the elect. This doctrines is: 1) That the motivation for redemption was God’s benevolence to men in general. 2) From this motive He sent His Son to make the salvation of all men possible. 3) That God, by virtue of a universal, hypothetical decree, offers salvation to all men if they will believe. 4) That all men have a natural ability to repent and believe. 5) But, whereas this ability is contradicted by a moral inability, God determined to give His efficacious grace to a certain number of the human race, thus securing their salvation. This is sometimes described by the term “Provisional Redemption” or Provisional Atonement”.