Propitiation

Going backward through your post to respond.

1) I did not claim the elect or firstborn are restricted to the levites or priests. Rather, I was asking if the atonement blood was restricted to them. For in the presentation that all believers are the elect and the priests, then if the blood of the OT type were true to the picture, the levites and priests would be the only beneficiaries.

2) The point of going through the long post on Isaiah was to demonstrate that more often the selection of a passage to support a line of thinking should actually be supported by the context of that passage. So, I attempted in a very brief manner to show how the selection you posted was actually used in the context.

3) Perhaps it may be good to reflect on some questions. Offered more for rhetorical reflection, then of proving one side of the argument or the other.

Was those chosen and taken out of Egypt ALL Jews? Or was there a mixed multitude?

When the tabernacle offerings were instituted, were they for the multitude that came out of Egypt (including the mixed multitude) or for the Jews, only?

When the atonement offering was made, were other than Jews included?

Were all Jews believers when the atonement offerings were made?

What were the Jews called by God, and did this include those converted who were not blood related to the nation?

When strangers, slaves, or travelers were among the Jews, did not the blood cover them, too?

When Christ shed his blood, why present it as restricted to the believers, when the Scriptures present the believers are chosen by God, and not a single time is blood presented but as to ALL - all the world, all ungodly, ...?

How can the whole world be held accountable for the rejection based on lack of belief, if the blood of that promise was not shed for them?

Can a single soul stand before the final judgment and be able to proclaim, "How can I not be excused? You shed no blood on my behalf? You only shed it for others, and that supposed to be just?"
​

Ok, enough of the rhetorical questions.

I want to compliment you on presenting the Scriptures with your arguments. It makes for good foundational conversation!

I would consider that we agree on much, perhaps more than either of us would admit in the sharpness of discerning difference within exchanges such as this thread.

​

 

I've been attempting to bring up in my mind a better way to communicate that which I have attempted very poorly to present. For if I had done better, perhaps the contention might be a bit more focused.

Perhaps, a look at Paul would help. There are only a few times when we get to see a glimpse of his teaching.

Paul in his short address on Mars Hill, said that God has provided in such a manner that every person is held accountable in Acts 17:

"24“The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; 26and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, 27that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’
​

So the heathen of Athens, were considered by the poets and according to Paul's agreement as Children of God ("His children").

Now, to what end?

29“Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. 30“Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, 31because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”
​

Is it not then abundantly clear that Paul considered ALL those he addressed as "children of God?"

Did he not proclaim that same demand that Peter expressed on Pentecost, for repentance and belief being THE deciding factor of salvation?

Why didn't Paul spend time discussing the blood being only for the elect, if he had the opinion that all those heathen on Mars Hill were the children of God, or if not the children of God, why did he agree that they were the children of God?

Paul, knowing that the blood was shed for all the children of God (from Adam to all) also knew that not all that are children of the flesh are the children of promise.

Paul shares, in Romans 9, that although Abraham had children of the flesh (another example that all are children of God consistent with Paul's statement on Mars Hill), NOT ALL are children of promise.

So, what is the difference between the two groups?

As shown throughout the Scriptures but in particular that very familiar statement of John, "Those that believe are not condemned, but those that do not believe are condemned, already."

WHY?

Was it because of a lack of blood, or effective, efficient, blood supply?

NO!

John again:

"...because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19“This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20“For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21“But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”
​

Ultimately, the Scriptures state that the blood was shed for the ungodly.

All, including Adam, are certainly the whole of the ungodly. No one is left out of the group - ungodly, not a single one.

However, not all the ungodly are saved, because God will redeem as He desires. Just as Abraham had many, only one was the child of promise. Jacob had many, but only one was the sustain-er. Mary had many, but only one was the redeemer.

So, why then does this bring much exercise to those who are limited propitiation thinkers?

Because in some manner, they seemed convinced that salvation is wrapped up in the blood.

Not understanding that the blood was shed for sin, not for salvation.

Adam sin was both rebellion AND replacement. He knowingly took the fruit and ate (rebellion), and he did so in full understanding that he was placing Eve as more important than God (replacement).

The Sin of rebellion issue was covered by the blood for all.

The replacement issue (with "His stripes we are healed"), that fellowship issue, that issue of "reconciliation" is God choice. He decides from the all those of us who will be proclaimed His "Children of promise."

 

in Acts 17:

"24“The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25 nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; 26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, 27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’


Reconcile that in bold and underlined relative the the world and his children.

Are some in the world currently appointed by God to seek God whereas others are not currently, so appointed.

Consider. One cannot just reach out and grasp, that is take for himself, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth. God gives it to whom he wills. In Romans 8:23 they are spoken of as those who have the firstfruit of the Spirit. Are these of the firstfruit of the Spirit the same as those of Acts 15:8,14 as a people for his name?

What does it mean in verse 16 when it says after this I will return and verse 17 where it says that the residue of men might seek? Is this a different appoint time that some of the children might seek?

Was the reality of the shadow of the holyday, firstfruits, the having of, the firstfruit of the Spirit? An appointed time.

I am with you, I believe the world is the world and I believe the elect are of an appointed time.

I also agree that you probably will not agree with the later.

My only questions would be. Who are the residue of men? When does them seeking the Lord take place? Will they be given the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Truth?

 

Who are the residue of men?

Residue - the rest of, the remaining, those who remain,

Taking that the words pertain the time following the second coming, it is anyone left from the world wide destructions and conflicts.

When does them seeking the Lord take place?

Staying consistently with the theme being the time following the second coming, this would pertain in full to the millennium.

Will they be given the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth?

My opinion is that they are not. The reasons are:
1) The Holy Spirit was given to this time to guide believers into all truth.
2) Because the presence of the King of Kings is again on earth, the truth is found in Him
3) Paul says that now we know and see, and are known in part. But then we see face to face in complete understanding.
4) remember this is my opinion, only.

 

Yes, but they will insist that Jesus atoned for all sinners, and that the basis for salvation rests upon the will of man and not of God!

 

who does this?

 

NO!!!!!!

That is a complete miss-characterization.

The statement SHOULD have been written.

"....they will insist that Jesus atoned for all sinners, and that the basis for salvation rests upon the will of God to select those of His desire for His purpose."

But, see, those that want to wrap salvation in the blanket of blood, rather than the substance of belief, cannot present that the teaching of the Scriptures:

1) the blood was shed ONCE for all men. No future person has to have the blood shed for them. There is no bucket of blood waiting to be applied.
2) the determination of eternal estate is not in the blood for resides in belief.
3) the belief (faith) is not some self generated intellectualism agreed upon by some fallen free will, but is bestowed by the Holy Spirit giving ears to hear the gospel.
4) Those that do not believe (have no God given faith) are already condemned, no matter how righteous or unrighteous they may live. Their fate is sealed.
5) There will be not one soul to stand before God on the final judgment and with the excuse that Christ did not shed His Blood for them.
6) All condemned in eternity are not condemned by because of unbelief.​

 

All who see God as needing to have co assist Him to save us!

 

And who sees that?

 

The death of Jesus was intended by the father to apply towards and be effectual for the sake of the elect alone.

 

That I disagree with this statement is not conditioned upon my revising that the death was not a place where God expressed His wrath as some would embellish in evangelical terms that the crowd might be coaxed into saying a prayer.

Yeshua1, the Scriptures present absolutely no supporting statement of agreement to such a limit as you express

Rather, the limit is upon the choice of God in who will be redeemed from the ALL of who could be redeemed if He had purpose and plan to redeem the ALL.

 

The Father had already chosen out a people for Himself to be saved by the death of Christ, and he made sure that the elect of His do get saved!

 

Again, you desire to limit BLOOD to that of salvation.

That is not what the Scripture presents as the duty of Blood, nor how salvation is secured.

Salvation is limited by belief, not by blood.

 

Salvation was purchased and secured for us by the bllod/death of jesus in our stead, and faith is the means God requires to access that grace!

 

1) What does the Scripture state is the purpose of the blood?

“The forgiveness of sins” is the statement not some manner of purchase and not some level of salvation.

2) The presentation that sin had to be paid for is NOT supported by Scriptures.

Sin pays. It does not demand payment as if some credit is due. “Wages of sin is death.”

3) God does not require anything to access any “unmerited favor” (grace).

Belief (faith) is “the gift of God.”

4). How is such available to be offered?

“In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” (1 John 4:10).

Propitiation is NOT the love of God, it is NOT salvation, it IS the blood sprinkled upon the mercy seat.

Such blood was being shed from the prayers in the garden to that spear thrust into the side. It soaked His garments before the rulers, dripped from the lictor’s whips, oozed from holes torn by thorns, all before the first hammer punched the nail through the skin.

But none of the blood purchased salvation.

The blood was the offering used for forgiveness of sins, and ONLY the forgiveness of sins, ONCE for ALL.

 

We who are the elect of God were sinners bought/back purchased by the blood of Christ, as there is NO forgiveness for sins apart from the shedding of blood!

 

Certainly, as I have repeatedly posted. But prehaps you overlooked.

Shedding of blood = forgiveness of sins.

Done once for all for all time. Not as some would imagine as a bucket of blood held in reserve and dispensed as needed.

1 John 2
“...Jesus Christ the righteous; 2and He Himself is the propitiation for our (believers) sins; and not for ours (believers) only, but also for those of the whole world (all people who ever lived).”
​

However, blood shed for forgiveness of sin does not guarantee salvation!

 

His death make sure salvation for those whom he died in the place of!

 

You seem to blend blood, death, and salvation.

 

And he is right to do so.
Christ has shed His blood for us once and for all (Hebrews 9:12.
He has died for our sins once and for all (Hebrews 10:10).
He has wrought salvation for us once for all (Hebrews 7:25).