Limited Atonement: Let's set the record straight.

Did not take long for that specifically-predicted "universalism" rabbit-trail to get proposed after this post predicting that it would, was posted

 

"2 Pet. 2:1; 1 John 2:2; Tim. 2:6; 4:10; Tit. 2:11—asserting that the death of Christ is for all"

Well ok then... there you have it.

Hebrews 8 and 9 shows the work of Christ as our High Priest (and also Hebrews 4) where the individual case-by-case work in Atonement is done for the individual.

Leviticus 16 - God's own illustration on the topic of "Day of Atonement" shows that it is BOTH the work of Christ as the "sin offering" in Lev 16 - AND ALSO the work of Christ as "High Priest" that is require for the full Bible scope of the term "Atonement" to be satisfied.

And as we are told in Hebrews 8:1 Christ's work for us now in heaven is "the MAIN point"

 

2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. 1 John 2:2

The mere reference to the text - or in this case the mere quote of it - gives rise to the objection. That is "instructive" for the unbiased objective Bible student.

And leads to this observation - "What those texts say is obvious -- what is "not obvious" is the "assumption" that "all terms must be downsized and redefined that do not fit Calvinism's assumptions when they appear to contradict Calvinism".

 

In Leviticus 16 - The application of the atoning sacrifice (Christ) in Lev 16 is done in the Sanctuary by the High Priest (Christ).

And His work in the Sanctuary is highlighted in Hebrews 4, 8,9,10 - pointing to individual application of it -- case-by-case

 

1 John 2:2 does not exist in a vacuum. If Jesus atoned for the sins of the whole world, what do those who go to hell "pay" for all eternity? Where is there, ostensibly, a payment by Christ and a payment by those in hell?

The Archangel

 

But, the work of the priest and the "work" of the sacrifice are not separated in either case. In fact, Hebrews makes the point that Christ makes atonement with His own blood, not the blood of a dumb animal who cannot choose to substitute itself for anyone. But, the application of the blood to the altar is the second side of the atonement coin, the first side being the sacrifice of the lamb itself. If either action is missing, not atonement has been made. You cannot separate the sacrifice and the application. Neither Hebrews nor the Old Testament will allow for that.

The Archangel

 

It is in Lev 16... the sin offering is an animal being sacrificed and the High Priest is applying the blood in the sanctuary - after the sacrifice is full and complete.

What is more Hebrews 8:1 points to Christ in the sanctuary as High Priest while Hebrews 10 points to his once-for-all sacrifice completed at the cross.

Correct - both symbols in the OT point the work of Christ. Both the OT High Priest and the OT sin offering.

Two distinct events -- one following the other.

Hence the flaw in the Calvinist argument

The atoning "sacrifice" is full and complete once the sin offering is slain... no more slaying the sin offering. but the High Priests work remains to be done.

The OT does not make the case that the High Priest's work is done either while the sin offering is "being sacrificed" or as soon as the offering is dead... the chapter does not end in vs 15

Lev 16
15 “Then he shall slaughter the goat of the sin offering which is for the people, and bring its blood inside the veil and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, and sprinkle it on the mercy seat and in front of the mercy seat. 16 He shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the impurities of the sons of Israel and because of their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and thus he shall do for the tent of meeting which abides with them in the midst of their impurities. 17 When he goes in to make atonement in the holy place, no one shall be in the tent of meeting until he comes out, that he may make atonement for himself and for his household and for all the assembly of Israel.

20 “And when he has made an end of atoning
for the Holy Place
and the tent of meeting
and the altar,
he shall present the live goat.

33 He shall make atonement
for the holy sanctuary,
and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting
and for the altar, and
he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly.

34 And this shall be a statute for ever for you, that atonement may be made


Hebrews 7 points out that Christ did not need to make atonement for himself. So that is an exception to the model that God gives in Lev 16.

in Christ,

Bob

 

You have defined atonement to exclude particular redemption in that case - which means that unlimited atonement using your definition is equal to "unlimited Atoning Sacrifice" - and ignores the work done in Lev 16 that come after the sacrifice.

The problem with that is that a lot of people will use "Atonement" in the full Lev 16 "Day of Atonement" model where the full definition for the term is what they mean.

Definition of terms need to be agreed to - to have the discussion without confusion as to what is meant.

Unlimited Atoning Sacrifice.
But limited Atonement

Is what you get if you let the "Atonement" concept include both the work of Christ as the Sin Offering and the work of Christ as High Priest doing work in heaven for the individual AFTER the sin offering - Atoning Sacrifice is complete at the cross.

Which is only a problem if you limit the entire concept of Atonement to "just the sin offering slain" in Lev 16 "Day of Atonement"

It is correct in describing Calvinism if you limit the term "Atonement" to just the act of slaying the sin offering.

It is but it is confusing since the full Bible scope for the term "Atonement" includes both where the "Atoning Sacrifice" of 1 John 2:2 is just the 'sin offering being slain' part of Lev 16... .ending it in vs 15

Purely because of the way you are redefining "Atonement" to mean "only the Atoning Sacrifice part".

Have to agree to terms to get agreement on concepts or what the implications are

 

You are misunderstanding my argument. It isn't that I'm saying these actions aren't connected. They certainly are. I'm saying both actions are two sides of the same coin. If I have a quarter, I have the heads and the tails. I do not have only a heads or only a tails, an if I have only heads or only tails, I do not have a quarter.

In the same way, the sacrifice of the lamb and the application of the blood were two distinct aspects of the same event. It would never have been thought of that the lamb's blood would not be applied to the mercy seat. Both the sacrifice and the pouring of the blood on the mercy seat are part of the atonement and one cannot be left out, or no atonement has been made.

Where you're going off the rails is that you're assuming Jesus is withholding His own blood for a case-by-case application. See here:

You're assuming that Jesus makes a case-by-case application of His own blood when the priests on the Day of Atonement clearly did not. Therefore, it is to be understood that Jesus is both the sacrificial lamb (and the scapegoat, too, I might add) and the priest. He does both functions--dying as a substitute (by spilling his blood) and applying that blood in our favor on the mercy seat before God. There is no separation; the atonement event requires both actions and Jesus does both actions, one following the other. If He does not apply the blood, as you claim, then no atonement has been made, and since the crucifixion is a once-in-an-eternity event and cannot be repeated, no atonement can be made if Jesus has withheld His blood.

The Archangel

 

It isn't "unimaginable," you're just wrong.

If the atonement was universal (meaning all sins of all people of all time were paid for) then the people in Hell have no reason to go there. And, if there is a universal atonement and people still are going to hell, you have God caught in an injustice where He has paid the sin-debt of sinners and is still requiring them to pay their own debt in Hell for all eternity. Therefore, your understanding of this as you've described it above denies the justice of God Himself because those in hell are giving what amounts to a double payment for their sin (Christ's death being the first payment and their torment in Hell being the second).

The Archangel

 

That is something not even God can do though, for to be able to grant to any of His created beings the means to overcome His will and purpose would negate His sovereignty.

 

Being a Calvinist, he would have seen it as having unlimited grace to save all lost sinners, but that God's INTENT would be to have that saving Grace applied just towards the Elect in Christ.