Featured The Limited Atonement

You are following the scriptures and understanding correctly. When you do that false opposition will rise up to speak against the truth.

 

ibid;
Well did this deeply-taught servant of God say, "unmodified by secular analogies." The truth of God has been grossly perverted, the honor of Christ grievously sullied, and the people of God (who were too lazy to diligently study the Scriptures for themselves) have often been misled by the superficial efforts of irreverent preachers, who sought "Illustrations" from the imaginary analogies in human relations

 

here;
"The plan of redemption, the office of our Surety, and the satisfaction which He rendered to the claims of justice against us, have no parallel in the relations of men to one another. We are carried above the sphere of the highest relations of created beings into the august counsels of the eternal and independent God. Shall we bring our own line to measure them? We are in the presence of Father, Son and Holy Spirit; one in perfection, will and purpose;

That which is outstandingly prominent in the typical sacrifices of the Old Testament is,

first, that they were offered to God, having Him for their object and end, instead of being pageants for making impressions on men.

Second, that they are expiatory, atoning for sin, blotting out iniquities.

Third, that just as the sins of the offerer were imputed to the victim, so the excellency of the victim was ascribed to the offerer.


Fourth, that something more was effected by these offerings than an atonement being made for sins-a satisfaction was offered to God's holiness and justice. This leads us to call attention to the title for this book, and here we cannot do better than give below a digest from Dr. Hodge's able comments on this point: -During the latter part of the nineteenth century the word "Atonement" became commonly employed to express that which Christ wrought for the salvation of His people. But before then, the term used since the days of Anselm (1274), and habitually employed by all the Reformers, was "Satisfaction." The older term is much to be preferred, first, because the word "Atonement" is ambiguous. In the Old Testament it is used for an Hebrew word which signifies "to cover by making expiation." In the New Testament it occurs but once, Romans 5:11, and there it is given as the rendering for a Greek word meaning "reconciliation." But reconciliation is the effect of the sin-expiating and God-propitiating work of Christ. On the other hand, the word "Satisfaction" is not ambiguous. It always signifies that complete work which Christ did in order to secure the salvation of His people, as that work stands related to the will and nature of God.

 

These introductory pragraphs say much;
Of necessity this must be the starting-point when considering the ultimate source of anything, for God "works all things after the counsel of his own will" (Ephesians 1:11). It is nowhere said that He works all things according to "the requirements of His holiness," though God does not and cannot do that which is unholy. There is no conflict between the Divine will and the Divine nature, yet it needs to be insisted upon that God is a law unto Himself. God does what He does, not simply because righteousness requires Him so to act, but what God does is righteous simply because He does it. All the Divine works issue from mere sovereignty.

"Creation could be nothing else but a sovereign act. To deny sovereignty here, would be to deny sovereignty altogether: for, if the created universe came into being, and is what it is, as a necessary consequence of a 'First Cause,' that first cause could not be a person, could not be endowed with freedom of will, could not be God. Besides, if the existence of this first cause necessitated the existence of the universe, it must have done so from all eternity. There could have been no beginning of the created universe.

"Redemption, as well as creation, must also be a purely sovereign determination of the Divine will. This is required by the necessities of the case, as well as plainly declared in Scripture. No doctrine of Redemption that in any way casts the slightest shadow over the high mountain of Divine Sovereignty can be tolerated for a moment. All theologies that in any manner teach or imply that there was any obligation upon God to do this or that for fallen, rebellious subjects of law, are unscriptural, unreasonable, if not blasphemous.

Divine sovereignty is to be recognized as determined to save any fallen ones, in determining who should be saved, in 'choosing,' raising up,' and 'delivering up' the Savior, and in the Savior's giving of Himself; but this Sovereign Redemption once determined, was wrought out under law, and in exact accordance with law" (Dr. J. Armor, "Atonement and Law," 1917).

 

Name one person that believes this.

 

Why don't you address the OP? Start the new year off right

 

This is exactly why I rejected that thinking that follows the typical presentation of Penal Substitution - that is that God poured wrath out upon the Son.

Why, would He?

Not a single verse of Scripture nor a picture of the OT presentation presents such as factual.

Also what does not seem to be presented in your posts (though I may have missed it), but may certainly be part of the presentation was that prior to Moses for the Jews and prior to Christ for the Gentiles, God "winked" (KJV) or overlooked the idolatry (Acts 17).

Not that I am going to go into all that, but it does impact the teaching that Paul gives in Romans in which he states that prior to the law sin existed. (Romans 5) However, HOW humankind was held responsible was changed by the law.

12Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
​

I consider that both you and @JonC are essentially on the same page, except that although sacrifice took place throughout the OT even prior to Moses that the establishment of the Law presented a change in the manner of treatment remedy.

It is at that specific instance that some skid along the rails by insisting the sacrificial atonement system of the OT presented more than a picture of that which was to come. That it holds some factual basis for limited atonement presentations and the specified selection and grouping teaching. It does not. Rather it is a physical picture representation of that which God had already accomplished but would demonstrate to humankind in human time at the crucifixion.

Now, again, I really don't need to get into the weeds in this matter.

It is enough to merely aid the thread in showing how such teaching upon both the wrath of God and the limit of atonement is perhaps needing some adjustments.

There is nothing inappropriate about such adjustments being made for doing so bring more consistency of presentation to the very Scriptures presented.

 

"There is no unlimited open ended atonement for all sinners, the atonement is only for believers."

Then why would the bible condemn those who refuse their atonement?


1 John 5

. 10The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. 11And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.

One who denies the testimony says "Jesus Christ did not die for me, there is no life in his God's son"

You would have to say HE IS TELLING THE TRUTH. Scripture says He his making God a Liar.


Which is it it? Is he telling the truth or making God a Liar?

There is multiple instances like this in scripture.

 

"The denial of an unbeliever is God does not give us eternal life by the Son,"

Okay so then he is telling the truth?

Does God give ME eternal Life by the son? YES OR NO.


This ain't the only spot Scott. All I got to do is mention Jesus offering himself to someone and they reject it.

 

If the atonement is only for believers, then it's limited atonement.
If lack of belief is the only thing that is not atoned for then unbelief is the unforgivable sin.

 

Interestingly, however, the wicked generation cited in Hebrews never crossed the Jordan. They crossed the red sea, were sprinkled with blood by Moses, were said to have believed on some level, but then never entered Canaan due to their unbelief.

"For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it." —Heb. 4:2​

Also in Hebrews 10:29

"Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?"​

You seem to have a scenario where some are sanctified and sprinkled, but not entering into salvation. Not sure yet how to reconcile these.

But to your OP, you seem to have a situation where atonement is only partially applied to the number of people that receive it (or at least receive it on some level).

 

This is the testimony. ----> "that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son."

The one who does not believe----> "the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar,"

The one who does not believe ----->" because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son."

This is the testimony. ----> "that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son."

Believer = I DO BELIEVE "that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son."

Non-believer = I DO NOT BELIEVE "that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son."


Is the NON-BELIEVER telling the TRUTH? Scripture says "the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar,"


The NON-BELIEVER is the LIAR. Because HE SAYS GOD Has not offered him eternal life nor his son.

You would have to AGREE with the NON BELIEVER. That the NON-BELIEVER says the TRUTH. Because you ALSO don't believe God has offered him eternal life.

 

Either the atonement is universal (unlimited) or it is limited. It cannot be both.
Which one is it, utilyan?

 

Jesus Christ offers himself as the true bread to those present.

John 6

32Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of heaven.


They REJECT JESUS

52Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”

[EDITED]

They still REJECT JESUS:

60Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” 61But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? 62“What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?

Calvinist Jesus: This doesn't concern you I never offered anything.

Real Jesus: 62“What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?

Jesus is going to use his ASCENDING TO HEAVEN to PROVE his offering of flesh and blood.

 

Its universal hence The one who REJECT Jesus as their savior has made God a LIAR.

This may be a problem if you subscribe to Irresistible Grace. Which is why some Calvinist are UNIVERSALISTS.