Actuality vs Potentiality?

[webdog]

Without going back through all these pages, Willis, did you ever answer the question if the passover lamb's death saved the Israelites apart from the application on the door posts? Herein lies the answer to your op, and quite soundly refutes limited atonement.

 

[kyredneck]

Without going back through all these pages, Willis, did you ever answer the question if the passover lamb's death saved the Israelites apart from the application on the door posts? Herein lies the answer to your op, and quite soundly refutes limited atonement.

I'm not Willis, but:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=2005653#post2005653

In the type it's the firstborn that's being redeemed. The firstborn is PASSIVE throughout the ordeal, it's the father who sheds the blood and applies it.

And it most definitely was 'limited'. All throughout the Exodus story Jehovah made a clear distinction between the Egyptian and the Hebrew.

 

[webdog]

I'm not Willis, but:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=2005653#post2005653

In the type it's the firstborn that's being redeemed. The firstborn is PASSIVE throughout the ordeal, it's the father who sheds the blood and applies it.

And it most definitely was 'limited'. All throughout the Exodus story Jehovah made a clear distinction between the Egyptian and the Hebrew.

You don't know the firstborn was passive in the application. Had I lived during that time, being the head of my household and also a firstborn, I would have applied it along with my family, not for them.

Also, the firstborn of animals also died, showing the scope of the atonement (universal), unless you believe in 'elect' animals.

The Egyptian firstborn would have also been saved through obedience, in fact you do not know some were not. You are falsely assuming it. In fact, being around the Hebrews day in and day out, its silly to think some werent .

Willis, you can see the problem when you try to force a doctrine into a text.