Any One believe in a General Atonement around here?

[Allan]

Tom makes an excellent point.
As far as all of israel being saved, no romans 9 is clear that not all did. Also the OT sacrifices did not pay for a single sin. It was a picture of the perfect sacrifice to come.

Actaully it doesn't answer her question. The atonement was on behalf of all of Israel with includes those who believe and those who did not. As I said in my previous post, the OT sacrifice did not pay for a single sin and thus remove it, but it sufficient to cover those sins as they awaited the true sacrifical offering to 'would' pay the debt (not just cover them) of sin.

 

[Tom Butler]

Still waiting for answer.

Sorry, Amy, my forgetter is working well today. My answer is no, not every individual Israelite was saved.

 

[Allan]

Do any of you believe in a general atonement here?

It is my understanding that this was once a common position among baptists.

The General atonement as opposed to particular atonement or universal atonement.

I think it is the most consistent with the various non-cal position on the BB.

To give more detail, it means that Christ paid the price to forgive sin in general. No particular sinner was forgiven but the potential was made in a general fashion so that every sinner, without exception COULD be saved.


By the way, both arminians and 4 point calvinists could believe this.

I am curious as to why the question Dale?

Have you run into a large amount of baptist who hold to universal atonement?
I think many baptist misuse the term 'universal' because they assume it refers to the 'General' understanding. I know I used to say universal when speaking of 'General Atonement' because I thought universal was another way of saying the same thing. Yes, I wrong as I later learned and try to correct those who, like me didn't get it.

 

[Tom Butler]

First, not all of God's chosen people were saved however the sacrifice of atonement was made on behalf all those of Israel (saved and not saved) for sin but the effect of that sacrifice was received only by faith. In light of this, this first must be answered.

Now the question that should be asked in conjuction with the above is;
Were all gentile people forbidden from coming into and becoming apart of Israel (those who God had chosen to work through).
Answer: No.
God did not neglect the Gentiles nor did He leave them out but the Jews were to be the proclaimers of God's grace and mercy toward all who will submit and believe, to the Jew first and then the Gentiles.

Therefore the means of God provision against sin was to all but since God had chosen to work His work specificially through His Chosen people Israel all those who desired to come under God's grace were to join themselves to the group God had chosen to work through.

Therefore God did not exclude anyone in the OT with respect to the sacrifice of Atonement however God chose to only work through 'a' people and not in and toward the whole world on the whole as He is through Christ.

Allan, thanks for the direct answer to my question. As usual, I see it differently. But at least you didn't beat around the bush.

 

[Amy.G]

Sorry, Amy, my forgetter is working well today. My answer is no, not every individual Israelite was saved.

Thanks Tom. My forgetter works better every year. :laugh:

My point is that the OT atonement was a shadow of the real sacrifice to come. So just as the atonement was made for all of Israel, Jesus made the atonement for all mankind, but only those who have faith will be saved.

 

[Allan]

Sorry, Amy, my forgetter is working well today.

:laugh: I like that! Can I use it? :wavey:

 

[Marcia]

Universal atonement is what those who believe in universalism believe as well as some others as well.

Universal atonement means that Christ made a substitutionary atonement for every single sin of every single person ever without exception.
God's wrath is then satisfied and none go to hell since the wrath of God was satisfied for every single individual.
Mostly this is held by universalists but there are also some here that claim universal atonement but that people go to hell with their sins paid for but they go only on their choice.
That position it totally unjust and inconsistent.

IMO the only reasonable positions you can take biblically are the two traditional baptist views of particular and general atonement.

You forgot Christian Universalism, also known as Universal Reconciliation, the view that Christ's death atoned for the sins of everyone and though some will die without believing Christ, they will have another chance and eventually all will believe in Him, including Satan and the fallen angels.

So this view, differing from Universal Atonement (which does not require belief in Christ), does require belief in Christ but states that all will believe, even after death.

This view is purportedly the view of Wm P Young, the author of The Shack, according to a good friend of his. See
http://theshackreview.com/content/SpurgeonFellowshipJournal.pdf

 

[Allan]

I am curious as to why the question/OP Dale?

Have you run into a large amount of baptists who hold to universal atonement?


I think many of those who hold to 'General Atonement' misuse the term 'universal' because they assume it refers to the 'General' understanding. I know I used to say universal when speaking of 'General Atonement' because I thought universal was another way of saying the same thing. Yes, I wrong as I later learned and try to correct those who, like me didn't get it.

 

[John Toppass]

No matter how I read the scripture, I read that Christ died for ALL. Tho, only those who choose to accept Christ as their personal Savior will benefit. Any other belief would require massaging or ignoring some of the scripture.

 

[Tom Butler]

Originally Posted by Tom Butler
Sorry, Amy, my forgetter is working well today.

:laugh: I like that! Can I use it? :wavey:

By all means, be my guest. You don't even have to give me credit for it. I think I stole it from someone else, anyway.

 

[Rippon]

I think I stole it from someone else, anyway.

That is, if your rememberer is working properly.

 

[Lux et veritas]

In the OT did the high priest make atonement once a year for all of Israel or just the "elect" of Israel?

Good question. Just the "elect of Israel". NOT the Canaanites, Hittites, Egyptians, etc. Just for God's chosen people. Wonderful illustration of definite atonement.

 

[Lux et veritas]

First, not all of God's chosen people were saved however the sacrifice of atonement was made on behalf all those of Israel (saved and not saved) for sin but the effect of that sacrifice was received only by faith. In light of this, this first must be answered.

Now the question that should be asked in conjuction with the above is;
Were all gentile people forbidden from coming into and becoming apart of Israel (those who God had chosen to work through).
Answer: No.
God did not neglect the Gentiles nor did He leave them out but the Jews were to be the proclaimers of God's grace and mercy toward all who will submit and believe, to the Jew first and then the Gentiles.

Therefore the means of God provision against sin was to all but since God had chosen to work His work specificially through His Chosen people Israel all those who desired to come under God's grace were to join themselves to the group God had chosen to work through.

Therefore God did not exclude anyone in the OT with respect to the sacrifice of Atonement however God chose to only work through 'a' people and not in and toward the whole world on the whole as He is through Christ.

The above has little to no relationship to the work of the high priest on the day of atonement. He bore the names of the 12 tribes of Israel on his breastplate as he went in to atone for Israel. The Gentiles were not included in that work which was a picture (type) of what Christ, our Great High Priest would do at Calvary.

 

[Lux et veritas]

I cast my vote for a general atonement. I certainly disagree with a limited atonement. And I am not sure what is meant by a universal atonement.

Everybody - Arminians and Calvinists LIMIT the atonement. The difference is the 'limitation' they put upon it.

 

[Allan]

The above has little to no relationship to the work of the high priest on the day of atonement.

Then I would suggest you go back and read the law concerning the Atonement once more to clarify. :thumbs:

He bore the names of the 12 tribes of Israel on his breastplate as he went in to atone for Israel. The Gentiles were not included in that work which was a picture (type) of what Christ, our Great High Priest would do at Calvary.

IMO - you are wrong on all counts, as I see it in scripture:
1. No gentile, individual or nation, was forbidden to become apart of Israel. Apparently you don't realize there were many non-hebrews who are apart of Israel.
2. Yes, the Priest made atonement for ALL (not just the elect) of Israel, which included the believers and non alike. Reread the OT Law concerning the sacrifice of atonement - It was made on behalf of every single one of them to 'assume' otherwise is to impose your view upon/into the text were it does not belong.

God did not neglect the Gentiles nor did He leave them out/alone but the Jews were to be the proclaimers of God's grace and mercy toward all who will submit and believe, to the Jew first and then the Gentiles.
IOW - The work of God was not only for the pure blooded Hebrew people alone.

Therefore the means of God provision against sin was to be for all. However as God had chosen to work His work specificially through His Chosen people [Israel], all those other people and/or nations who desired to come under God's grace were to join themselves to the group God had chosen to work through.

Therefore God did not exclude anyone in the OT with respect to the sacrifice of Atonement however God chose to only work through 'a' people and not in and toward the whole world on the whole as He is through Christ.

Therefore in order for your view to be true, you must reconcile the scripture which states in the Law concerning the sacrifice of atonement which is to be made on behalf of "all" -every single person- of Israel.
Another thing you have to reconcile with that, is the fact many of Israel for whom the sacrifice of atonement was made on behalf of, were not Hebrews and yet the sacrifice was made toward them as well.

 

[Allan]

Everybody - Arminians and Calvinists LIMIT the atonement. The difference is the 'limitation' they put upon it.

Actually this is not true in the slightest.

The scope of General atonement is toward all men, and therefore there is no limiting of the atonement that was made.

Since the atonement is applied through faith (Rom 3:25) and not prior to it, even those who will be believers, with respect to the atonement, it has done nothing toward nor for them as of yet. Though it was made for them the very provision it gives has not been yet applied and will only be so by faith.

Therefore the benifit of the atonement, which is redemption, is limited.

So in short;
The atonement is not limited in it's scope, but the redemption it provides through faith is.

 

[Rippon]

The scope of General atonement is toward all men, and therefore there is no limiting of the atonement that was made.


Therefore the benifit (sic)of the atonement, which is redemption, is limited.

So in short;
The atonement is not limited in it's (sic)scope, but the redemption it provides through faith is.

What follows is a snip of a sermon by Charles H.Spurgeon on Particular Redemption.

Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as to infallibly secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say we limit Christ's death; we say, "No, my dear sir, it is you that do it." We say Christ so died that He infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ's death not only may be saved but are saved, must be saved, and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it.
Now,beloved, when you hear any one laughing or jeering at a limited atonement, you may tell him this. General atonement is like a great wide bridge with only half an arch; it does not go across the stream: it only professes to go half way; it does not secure the salvation of anybody. Now, I had rather put my foot upon a bridge as narrow as Hungerford, which went all the way across, than on a bridge that was as wide as the world, if it did not go all the way across the stream.

 

[Amy.G]

Good question. Just the "elect of Israel". NOT the Canaanites, Hittites, Egyptians, etc. Just for God's chosen people. Wonderful illustration of definite atonement.

Wrong. The atonement was made on behalf of ALL Israel, believer and non believer alike.

Allan explained it well.

 

[alatide]

Do any of you believe in a general atonement here?

It is my understanding that this was once a common position among baptists.

The General atonement as opposed to particular atonement or universal atonement.

I think it is the most consistent with the various non-cal position on the BB.

To give more detail, it means that Christ paid the price to forgive sin in general. No particular sinner was forgiven but the potential was made in a general fashion so that every sinner, without exception COULD be saved.


By the way, both arminians and 4 point calvinists could believe this.

Of course. That belief is still the predominant Baptist belief.

 

[Rippon]

To give more detail, it means that Christ paid the price to forgive sin in general. No particular sinner was forgiven but the potential was made in a general fashion so that every sinner, without exception COULD be saved.

Hypothetical propitiation. In this view Christ did not die for anyone in particular, but everyone in general. It's dealing with possibilities and potentialalities -- nothing certain. That perspective is not Pauline.