Featured The Unlimited Atonement.

"Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he [was] wounded for our transgressions, [he] was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken." ( Isaiah 53:4-8 ).

Based on the context and following the pronouns, whose transgression does Isaiah say that He was stricken for, my friend?
Who are the "we", the "our", and the "us all" referring to in this passage?

Also, see how Isaiah tells us all of it in the past and present tense, as if to say it's already done?
That is prophecy.

When the Lord purposes to do something, it always comes to pass.

 

"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:" ( Romans 5:1 ).

Who are the ones here that are justified by faith, my friend?

" For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement." ( Romans 5:6-11 ).

Again, based on context and following who is being spoken of:

Who did God commend His love toward,
who did Christ die for while they were yet sinners,
who is now justified by His blood,
who shall be saved from wrath through Him,
who were His enemies,
and who was reconciled to God by the death of His Son, in this passage?

 

" For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:
15 and [that] he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.
17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
19 to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech [you] by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
21 For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." ( 2 Corinthians 5:17-21 ).

Same here.

Who is addressed in the above?
Who are the "all" and the "they which live", and that hereafter should not live to themselves, but to Him that died for them?

Who is reconciled to Christ, and who makes up "the world" that God is not imputing their trespasses to...
That Christ was made sin for, so that they would be made the righteousness of God in Him?

 

Does your quoting without providing context ever bother you?
Each of these verses have been shared with you in the context of the letter in which it was written. Do you disregard the context in order to demand your opinion be correct?
Please quote the context around the verse so we can discuss the whole of the writing.

 

1 John 1:8-10; 2:1-6

If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.

Let us discuss:
Universalism or not Universalism?

 

" For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s.
9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
11 For it is written, [As] I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God." ( Romans 14:7-8 )

Yet again, the same as above, my friend.
Who are the "us", the "we", and the "thy" referring to?

That He is indeed both the Lord of the living ( the believer, alive in Christ, spiritually ) and the dead ( the unbeliever, still dead to Christ and in their trespasses and sins ), I do not deny;
that every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess to God... again, I agree.
But that He died for everyone?

I don't wish to offend, but in at least 5 of those verses ( and their 4 accompanying passages ) that you've listed above, I see the context saying a very different thing.
Please take another look at them, carefully.

May God bless you.

 

Not to me it doesn't.

But that He is Lord of all,
regardless of whether or not they are saved and whether or not they are men or angels:

" Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth;
11 and [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father." ( Philippians 2:9-11 ).

Again, that is what the Scriptures say.
Every tongue will confess that He is Lord.

Notice in Romans 14:9, that He is both the Lord of the living and Lord of the dead...
"Lord" being King, not propitiation or appeasement.

Just because He is Lord of all, does not mean that He is the Shepherd of all...
He is the Shepherd of the sheep... not of the goats, who will go away into everlasting punishment ( Matthew 25:31-46 ).
Also notice what He says here:

"I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep." ( John 10:11 ).

 

What type of god would do as you suggest? That is, set the stage for people to save themselves legalistically? It seems he would be a bully who threatens them with eternal torture unless they say "uncle". Or bribes them with eternal pleasure if they submit. This is the type of god universal atonement combined with free will suggests. It's all legalism forcing people to let him have his way or else. This is no different than Catholicism only they make the Pope a proxy bully. Think about it.

"World" to an American might mean everyone. But to a first-century Jew, it would mean Gentiles too. And this would fulfill Abraham's promise.

 

Perhaps some neglect that prior to the resurrection the enemy of believers held the keys of death.

How does one know this. Couple of reasons.

First from Job. When the enemy appeared before God, he was allowed to do most anything to Job but God restricted him from taking his life.

Secondly, recall the struggle over the body of Moses?

also, do not neglect the declaration of the Lord saying that now He held they keys.

Ultimately, all physical bodies will cease to function, that is the nature of the old nature. However, the believers are a new creature, new creation, and pass from death to life eternal.

The reason this is important is because some of the verses in this thread would be enhanced if folks remembered Christ now has total authority, “all power is given unto me…”

He alone holds the keys of everlasting life, death, hell, the grave, the creation, …


Just a suggestion to keep in mind.

 

The blood was certainly shed for all.

No one goes to the second death from a lack or sufficient shed blood.

They go because their names are not in the book of life.

Rather then spending time arguing about the atonement, it would be far better to search the Scriptures and answer these questions.

1) when are names written in the book of life?
2) is there any Scripture that states that a name is added or taken (blotted out) of the book of life?
3) whose names are in the book of life?
​

When those three questions are answered by the Scripture, the atonement issue will resolve itself.

 

I think you're misunderstand where I'm coming from...

I see Romans 14:9 as not expressing the possibility, but the purpose of something in green,
where I see you understanding it as expressing the possibility ( and not the purpose ) of something in red.

"Might":

1. • past of may.
     • used in reported speech, to express possibility or permission.
       "he said he might be late"
     • expressing a possibility based on an unfulfilled condition.
       "we might have won if we'd played better"
     • expressing annoyance about something that someone has not done.
       "you might have told me!"
     • expressing purpose.
       "he avoided social engagements so that he might work"
   • 2.​
     used tentatively to ask permission or to express a polite request.
     "might I just ask one question?"
     • asking for information, especially condescendingly.
       "and who might you be?"
   • 3.​
     used to express possibility or make a suggestion.
     "this might be true"
     

"Might", past tense of "may":
"Archaic. (used to express ability or power.)"

In the Greek, the root word is "κυριεύω", transliterated into English as "kyrieuō", and means, "Have dominion over"...
while the word used in Romans 14:9 is " κυριευση" and means " He might be Lord" or "He should be being Lord":

https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/rom14.pdf
Verse Analysis: Romans 14:9 - Textus Receptus Bibles
κυριεύσῃ — 1x G2961 κυριεύω

"Might" and "should" are both English expressions of purpose, not just possibility.

 

Perhaps the best biblical definition is found in Romans 5:

6Yet indeed Christ, of us still being without strength, according to the right time, died for the ungodly. 7For rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though on behalf of the good man perhaps someone would even dare to die. 8But God demonstrates His love to us, that of us being still sinners, Christ died for us.

9Therefore much more, having been justified now by His blood, we will be saved by Him from wrath! 10For if, being enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved in His life! 11And not only so, but also we are rejoicing in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.​

Just as in the OT the atonement was a demonstration of reconciliation to come, the actions of the atonement by the Christ provided the permanent reconciliation, as Hebrews says, once offered.

 

No!

The blood was shed for all the world, just as John states.

That is why the reconciliation rests squarely upon belief, and as such the death and resurrection are only beneficial to the believers.

IMO, no one stands at the last judgement before God without knowing that the blood of Christ was shed, and they rebelled. That knowledge that reconciliation rested upon their belief and they rebelled will eat upon the as the maggots do the dead and the fire is not quenched.

That is mere opinion, and not to be taken as having any biblical veracity.