Featured Theory of atonement, do you have one?

You keep harping on this type of statement, but so far it lacks support.

Now, that doesn't mean that a theory is necessarily wrong.

But, what provides the most Scriptural support should be considered as the most secure to the truth.

So far, a limited atonement for only the elect is terribly weak.

Better is admitting that the Blood shed was for all, and that the redemption resides completely in the prerogative of the Father.

At least that way there is the greatest amount of Scripture support, it violates no Scripture, and it is faithful to both the OT type and NT fulfillment.

 

He is the first fruits, the Groom, the High Priest, the good Shepherd, the Alpha and Omega...

Such are not statements to be taken lightly.

Now as Christ being the High Priest, what would you desire to share?

Are the elect not also priests?

Are you about to contend that the OT blood only covered the priests?

 

How do you know?

Were all Jews, slaves, foreigners, automatically redeemed irregardless of belief?

 

I have been doing a quick search for online information about the stranger and sojourner as it relates to the OT interaction in Israel.

So far, I think this one of the better that I have seen. Perhaps it will guide some into understanding the portrayal of the Cross in the Old Testament. Then maybe not.

From Sword Searcher: Stranger and Sojourner (in the Old Testament) in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.