johnp. said:
1 Sam 3:14 Therefore, I swore to the house of Eli, `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' "
again you fail to realize they WERE atoned for up TILL THAT MOMENT. Go back and read what I wrote TO YOU earlier.
There is no atonement given for the house of Eli to reject is there? Answer this point please. : Don't confuse shadows for reality. When Jesus died on the cross He did not die for Eli's house did He? He said they will never be atoned for. Is that not true?
There is no atonement ANYMORE for Eli, but there was.
The answer has been given and your hypothosis proved false :thumbs:
They rejected the atonement offered and was henceforth given over to their ungodliness. Just as have shown you repeatedly but you will not deal that.
Christ is the propitiation not only for us, but for the sins of the whole world. No amount side stepping can get you past it. Eli was not born unable to be atoned for it was ONLY AFTER God made that declartion due to Eli's rejection and exaltation of his son's over God and His Word.
Why did they not receive an atonement? 1SA 2:25 If a man sins against another man, God may mediate for him; but if a man sins against the LORD, who will intercede for him?" His sons, however, did not listen to their father's rebuke, for it was the LORD's will to put them to death.
Lets see, you left out the part of Eli being very old and hearing that his sons (also well into their mature years) were doing ungodly things and causing the people to transgress. They had already rejected the Law of God and ways of the Lord for self-indulgence and ludeness. They could not repent NOW because they rejected the truth which they held in unrighteousness that could have saved them, and God gave them over to believe their lie. They could not repent at that point. Nothing in the context now the chapter preceding or suseding the verse you quoted states they were NEVER able to be atoned for. The FACT they were priests necessitated they be atoned for otherwise they were not qualified for service when they BEGAN. You are taking an end result, dismissing the biblical principle that states why they can not come to God to try to maintain a view that contradicts the scripture. You are completely not acknowledging everything that leads UP TO that point.
Why would the Lord die for those the Lord wants dead?
Ask Him, He wrote or breathed the very words which state that says He did.
Christ died for sinners, for the ungodly, for sins of the whole World. :thumbs:
If one receives it then it's deserving as it was a condition to be met.
deserve verb (deserved, deserving) to have earned, be entitled to... (Chambers.)
Wrong. You are making a quantum leap that because one accepts an offer it is because they deserve the offer made. Completely false in precept and logic.
First, you can not earn a gift given freely.
If favor is offered to someone who has no favor with the one offereing, then by the context in which the offering is given necessitates (in this instance as with atonement) the person accepting has nothing of worth or value in which to deserve such an offer.
Therefore the accepting of that favor offered does not make the person who is accepting it, deserving by virture of circumstances (having no favor - sinners of the world from which God brought us from) and the nature of gift offered (in propitiation).
Since the only condition is to believe and under free will belief is the work of man then having once believed one deserves salvation, it was earned because the condition was met.
That is your cliche` and unbiblical to. It can only be earned if it is a reward for your work. If it is offered when you have done nothing whereby to have the offer extended to you, then you are by definition undeserving, since you have not proved yourself worthy of the offer in the first place. It is the nature of atonement that refutes you "deserving". It is a gift offered when we were and did nothing to cause or compel God to extend such a priceless prize.
That is classic. But it cannot be universal can it as it was given only to Israel, but not all Israel are Israel are they?
Eli's house wasn't Israel was it? ...Although good will be done to Israel, in your family line there will never be an old man. 1 Sam 2:32.
Give it up. You can sqeeze blood out of thin air, and you can't make scripture into your personal play thing. Eli's house was under the atoning sacrifice the vast majority of his life as were his sons. Otherwise they could not ahve been temple priests. They came to a point later on in which God denies them atonement.
Eli never rejected God. 1 Sam 3:18 So Samuel told him everything, hiding nothing from him. Then Eli said, "He is the LORD; let him do what is good in his eyes."
His sons, however, did not listen to their father's rebuke, for it was the LORD's will to put them to death.
john.
The fact he did not deal with his sons as he was supposed to by Law, AND the fact that he "kicked against the sacrifice (atonement) and offerings shows without question his rejection of truth though he still preformed the duties of a priest.
And he stated "let Him do what seems good in His eyes". BECAUSE God had ALREADY declared this was going to happen and Eli already knew the judgment of God, and that they which commit such things are worthy of death but he also took pleasure in them (his sons) that do them.
because niether he nor they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And it was for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.:thumbs:
