All Atonement is Limited by Something

Well you've said nothing whatsoever that contradicts anything I've said, so I can only assume you agree 100% with me.

 

You are being irrational to think such when I said I thought you were wrong.

 

Wording it this way may imply that General Baptists believe that the blood of Christ is not inherently plentifully efficacious. But it is. The issue is that man loses out on that efficacy by rejecting the blood.

 

If you expressed the points you disagree with and why, you may find the conversation more productive.

 

The atonement has to pay for whatever is not of faith in order to pay for sin. Whatever is not of faith is sin. So universalist unwittingly limit it, gutting it of its capacity to pay for sin since all but believers perish. If people choose to believe, as they say, the atonement becomes unnecessary because believing needs no atonement.

 

There is no limitation on blood of Jesus to save every single human being. The only reason everyone who hears the Gospel isn't saved is because many, many people reject the Gospel. It's not because God set a limit on who He would save, but because of the hardness of heart of those have heard and rejected.

The OT archetype of redemption is the Exodus, and in particular the blood of the lamb on the doors of the Israelites. If any of the firstborn of Egypt had been in those houses with the blood on the doorposts would have survived the death angel. As far as we can tell, every Israelite put the blood on their doors and every house with the blood on their doors was safe that night.

God did not choose a group of Israelites to save from Egypt. If an Israelite failed to put blood on his door, the firstborn in his house died, but we have no record that any of them failed, as far as I can tell.

The glaring weakness of "Limited Atonement" is that we have no type or shadow of it in the Old Testament. The Calvinist canard that the blood of Jesus is good for the whole world, but efficacious only for the Elect is simply not worked out for us in the Old Testament. If Limited Atonement were true, it would have been revealed in the Exodus.

 

Wrong. The limits on salvation have to do with the willingness of the hearers to believe the Gospel. The blood of Jesus and its power are available to all, but many reject the Gospel and cannot appropriate it. That is not divine limit that God set on the blood. The blood saves everyone who comes to the Lord, and if 100% of humanity accepted the Gospel, 100% of humanity would be saved. The blood of Jesus is not out of reach of any human being due to any divine decree.

How about reading what I actually said instead of trying to assign false values to my words?? Think you can manage that? I never said that everyone is saved. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Nope, again, you are dishonest about what I said. I said that God did not select a portion of the Israelite captives to save, and then leave the rest in captivity. Everyone who applied the blood as instructed were saved and to the best of our knowledge, all of the Israelites did just that and all of them were redeemed from captivity in Egypt. That was as far as my comments extended. Again stop putting words in my mouth.

Nope, there is not. The exodus from Egypt is the archetype of redemption and it does not reveal a Limited Atonement.

God did not save them in the wilderness only to decide to kill off the ones He decided not to save. Their death was due to their disobedience, not Limited Atonement.

 

Wrong. It is not a limitation on the blood if someone hears and rejects the Gospel. It is a fallacious and biblical incorrect statement to make that if the blood has no limitations, everyone would be saved. That is simply not true. The limitation is on the Gospel, not the blood. The Gospel can only save those who believe. If the blood had any limitation, it would be a limitation on the kinds of sin that it could cover. But the blood has no limitation on who it can save, nor is there a limitation on the kinds of sin that it can cover.

Actually that is the case YOU were making. What I said is that they lost their lives in wilderness due to disobedience, not because of a limited atonement. That is not a bad reflection on the archetype of redemption in the Exodus.

 

Ok. There were more points than I wanted to deal with all at once. Like I said, I do not want to write a book to answer a single post.

One point, we are not individually guilty for what Adam did. But we did inherit the knowledge of good and evil and that knowledge effects our human nature.

 

Already addressed this. This does not say that he died for all men. He saved SPECIFICALLY a few.

Whole world does not mean every individual person as we have shown countless numbers of times.

This doesn't actually apply to the discussion.

 

davidtaylorjr said

HankD said: ↑
1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

"Already addressed this. This does not say that he died for all men. He saved SPECIFICALLY a few."

Friberg, UBS and Liddell Scott do not list SPECIFICALLY as a meaning.

HankD said: ↑
1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

"Whole world does not mean every individual person as we have shown countless numbers of times."

Only to your satisfaction,not conclusively. Not in every case anyway.

1 John 5:19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

"This doesn't actually apply to the discussion".

Yes it does.

 

See the word "particularly" in your lexicons? Particluarly means to give special emphasis to, specifically. So yes, they do say specifically.

No, CONTEXT.

 

Fine, the readers will decide.

 

I agree, we are not individually guilty in Adam... Adam got a corporate judgement, not an individual judgement. Adam's judgement included Adam, and the physical world too - the ground was cursed for Adam's sake... not because the ground sinned. Adam's corporate judgement (death) affects all people, even those between Adam and Moses (when the Law was given) who did not eat from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Those between Adam and Moses did not die because they sinned by eating from the Tree (the only Law in existence until Moses came)... they died because the whole of creation was cursed with death because of Adam.

In fact the writer of Hebrews implies that when we have been fully wiped clean of our sin, we will no longer have the knowledge of good and evil.

Heb 10:1-2 NASB 1 For the Law, since it has [only] a shadow of the good things to come [and] not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins?​

 

@Gup20, I am of the point of view that Adam and Eve both died [spiritually] that very day too. By vurtue of mankind inheriting the knowledge of good abd evil, all mankind die spiritually.

That interpretation is patently false. But as believers we are counted as if we do not sin (1 John 3:6) any longer, not being under the Law (1 John 3:4; Romans 4:15; Romans 6:14). And because we in fact sin we have a provision, 1 John 1:8-10; 1 John 2:1-2; Hebrews 9:24: 1 Timothy 2:5-6: Isaiah 53:12. Hebrews 10:16-17.

 

Both views are as bogus as a three dollar bill.

1 Christ died for all mankind, becoming the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world. 1 John 2:2.

2. Christ's blood is only applied to those God chooses and places in Christ. Together, anyone can be saved, because Christ provides the means for everyone, but only those chosen and placed in Christ receive the reconciliation.

Rom 5:11
And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.

 

It clearly isn't the atonement that saves it's Jesus Christ. Even you should know this. No one is saved with out faith and grace. Christ died for the sins of the world. He did this so that those who trust in Him would be saved. The blood of Christ is not applied with out faith and grace. We are not saved by the blood. We are saved by Jesus Christ and His grace. We are washed in His blood to cleanse us of our sins. But the atonement does not save. No where in scripture does it say we are saved by the blood. The belief that we are is Catholic no doubt.
MB

 

Really, how did the Exodus help out Pharaohs army?