Limited Atonement

[stilllearning]

Hi everyone

Gina L made this suggestion......

“Why not have five different threads, each dealing with one petal? That way everyone will know what is being spoken of and everyone knows exactly what is being discussed and why.”

I guess I can start one.
--------------------------------------------------
The error, of “Limited Atonement”, as I understand it, was conceived, out of necessity, because of a mis-interpretation of God’s foreknowledge.

One place, that Limited Atonement seems to be disproved, is.......

2 Peter 2:1
“But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”

Even though these false prophets were headed for hell, the Atoning Blood of Jesus Christ, had also paid for their sins......
“......even denying the Lord that bought them”

 

[David Lamb]

Hi everyone

Gina L made this suggestion......

I guess I can start one.
--------------------------------------------------
The error, of “Limited Atonement”, as I understand it, was conceived, out of necessity, because of a mis-interpretation of God’s foreknowledge.

One place, that Limited Atonement seems to be disproved, is.......

Even though these false prophets were headed for hell, the Atoning Blood of Jesus Christ, had also paid for their sins......
“......even denying the Lord that bought them”

I often wish that tulip did not exist. No, not the flower (though I do suffer with hay-fever ), but the acronym. As far as I know, the phrase "Limited Atonement" was invented for the sake of making an acronym that is a word in its own right, TULIP. "Limited" seems to imply the idea of fewness. "Particular Redemption" seems better, for there is no idea of fewness, yet it encompasses the fact that Jesus Christ, as He Himself put it in John 10.15, laid down His life for the sheep. And remember, He said to some Jews later in the same chapter, in John 10.26-29:

26 "But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 "And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand." ​

So Jesus says that He lays down His life for His sheep in particular, because not everyone is "of His sheep".

I agree that Peter's “......even denying the Lord that bought them” is not easy, and I don't claim to understand the verse fully. But unless Jesus was mistaken in John 10, 2 Peter 2.1 cannot mean that any of those for who the Saviour shed His blood will end up in hell. Jesus also said in John 6.7-39:

37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day."​

​

​

​

 

[MNJacob]

"Specific" is better than "limited".

 

[ReformedBaptist]

"Specific" is better than "limited".

Most of us like Particular Redemption.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Well, brothers, whether it is Particular Redemption, or Limited Atonement, it doesn't change the premise of what stilllearning is saying. That it couldn't be limited atonement, because here are false teachers bringing in damnable heresies according to Peter, an apostle, and who believes God elects His people, and yet he refers to these false prophets as having been bought by the Lord, and we know by that Peter means "bought by the blood" a.k.a., redeemed, atoned for. In other words, limited atonement or particular redemption, it's a false doctrine at best, or erroneous doctrine at worst.
So let's try and address the issue.

 

[Jon-Marc]

Can anyone show scripture that specifically says that God's atonement is limited to specific people and not meant for everyone? God said that it was not His will that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Christ died for ALL, although He knew that not all would accept Him. The offer has been made to everyone to, "Come unto me, and I will give you rest." The only way that God's atonement is limited is that it's limited only to those who come to Him and seek forgiveness and cleansing. God will not save anyone who doesn't accept His free gift.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Can anyone show scripture that specifically says that God's atonement is limited to specific people and not meant for everyone?

Romans 8:30
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Justification is by the blood of Christ Romans 5:9 -"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him."

The "whoms" and "thems" indicate an exclusivity.

God said that it was not His will that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

One more among many verses in the Bible quoted out of context.

Christ died for ALL, although He knew that not all would accept Him. The offer has been made to everyone to, "Come unto me, and I will give you rest."

Here's the context of this verse.

" At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.
All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. " Matthew 11:25-30.

A few points:

verse 25 says the Father hid these from the wise and the prudent, and revealed them to babes. Doesn't sound universal and all-encompassing to me. Does it to you ?
verse 26 indicates this is deemed good by the Father.
verse 27 says not all mankind knows who the Father is EXCEPT those to whomsoever the Son reveals Him. Sounds like choosing to me, doesn't it to you ?
verse 28 therefore is a call to those to whom revelation has been made, not to all mankind as in generic.

The only way that God's atonement is limited is that it's limited only to those who come to Him and seek forgiveness and cleansing. God will not save anyone who doesn't accept His free gift.

On the contrary God's atonement is only for those whom He knew from eternity past, whom He loved before they loved Him.
If the blood of God is shed and the purpose of shedding is atonement, then that purpose will not fail by virtue of the refusal of anyone, and it will not be effective by virtue of the acceptance of the sinner.
If the blood was shed for all mankind, then there is no way that all mankind is not atoned for.


Let me quote a friend, if you will:

Can you ACCEPT something that has never been OFFERED to you?
The Offering of Christ was NOT to you, but TO GOD, for you.
Eph. 5:2; Heb. 9:14.

The word ACCEPT in its various tenses
is in the K.J.T. 87 times, and not a single one of these contexts
even implies for a person to "Accept Christ," but that He has
accepted you - Eph. 1:6.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

Most of us like Particular Redemption.

"PR" is a sanitized label for the same egregious errors of a Limited Atonement.


LM

 

[pinoybaptist]

"PR" is a sanitized label for the same egregious errors of a Limited Atonement.


LM

Would you mind showing us the egregiousness of our erroneous doctrine ?
Please do not include links to books you have written, or websites you have put up, with all due respects.
Let us all try to discuss this right here on this board, and quote only Bible passages when necessary, or second and third party references when needed.
Of course, practical applications or illustrations relative to premises and rebuttals on both sides may be admissible.

 

[pinoybaptist]

I am considering that the word "them" which seems to be referencing the false prophets, may actually be referencing the "people" spoken of in the first part of the opening sentence of verse 1. What do you think ?

Also, I brought up the question about "limited atonement" to another board, and an interesting answer I got was that Peter was actually referencing Deuteronomy 32:6 "Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?".

The poster said Moses was speaking about the mixed multitude that all received blessings when God brought them out of Egypt. Peter was using it in a manner that showed that these people, the false prophets, were once recipients of temporal blessings because they once associated themselves with God's people.

That makes me think of another term I read of in this board in another thread, I forget which, but the poster in that thread referred to how God blesses both the just and the unjust.

FWIW.

 

[Lou Martuneac]

"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world," (1 John 2:2).

That is what the Bible says! Now I'm sure we'll be treated to the incredible claim that the Bible really does not say that at all.


LM

 

[Rippon]

That is what the Bible says! Now I'm sure we'll be treated to the incredible claim that the Bible really does not say that at all.


LM

Has Christ propitiated the sins of every single person, past, present and future?Of course not.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Has Christ propitiated the sins of every single person, past, present and future?Of course not.

I asked LM that question, or a variation of that question, in another forum, but unfortunately that discussion did not go well.

Let me ask the question again, and just so there is no misunderstanding of the meaning of the word, here is what Easton's Bible Dictionary says.

that by which God is rendered propitious, i.e., by which it becomes consistent with his character and government to pardon and bless the sinner. The propitiation does not procure his love or make him loving; it only renders it consistent for him to execise his love towards sinners. In Rom. 3:25 and Heb. 9:5 (A.V., "mercy-seat") the Greek word _hilasterion_ is used. It is the word employed by the LXX. translators in Ex. 25:17 and elsewhere as the equivalent for the Hebrew _kapporeth_, which means "covering," and is used of the lid of the ark of the covenant (Ex. 25:21; 30:6). This Greek word (hilasterion) came to denote not only the mercy-seat or lid of the ark, but also propitation or reconciliation by blood. On the great day of atonement the high priest carried the blood of the sacrifice he offered for all the people within the veil and sprinkled with it the "mercy-seat," and so made propitiation. In 1 John 2:2; 4:10, Christ is called the "propitiation for our sins." Here a different Greek word is used (hilasmos). Christ is "the propitiation," because by his becoming our substitute and assuming our obligations he expiated our guilt, covered it, by the vicarious punishment which he endured. (Comp. Heb. 2:17, where the expression "make reconciliation" of the A.V. is more correctly in the R.V. "make propitiation.")

Not my words. But according to this definition, the meaning and synonyms for the word are "forgiveness, washing, atonement, removing, expiation".

If according to LM, Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, with whole world meaning all the inhabitants of the world, without exception, what is to prevent us from understanding that LM is of the belief that the atonement being univesal then all men, without exception, now stand sinless before God, hid in Christ, and washed clean by the blood of Christ and therefore all men are accepted in Christ ?

Please note that the definition of the word as given by Easton's does not leave room for any action on the part of the person whose sins are being propitiated for, such as the person's acceptance, refusal, or participation.

 

[Allan]

I asked LM that question, or a variation of that question, in another forum, but unfortunately that discussion did not go well.

Let me ask the question again, and just so there is no misunderstanding of the meaning of the word, here is what Easton's Bible Dictionary says.



Not my words. But according to this definition, the meaning and synonyms for the word are "forgiveness, washing, atonement, removing, expiation".

If according to LM, Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, with whole world meaning all the inhabitants of the world, without exception, what is to prevent us from understanding that LM is of the belief that the atonement being univesal then all men, without exception, now stand sinless before God, hid in Christ, and washed clean by the blood of Christ and therefore all men are accepted in Christ ?

Please note that the definition of the word as given by Easton's does not leave room for any action on the part of the person whose sins are being propitiated for, such as the person's acceptance, refusal, or participation.

I don't know how you got that out of the quote you gave.

Notice here what it states:

that by which God is rendered propitious, i.e., by which it becomes consistent with his character and government to pardon and bless the sinner. The propitiation does not procure his love or make him loving; it only renders it consistent for him to execise his love towards sinners.

Then it goes on to states about the propitiation as being a covering:

Rom. 3:25 and Heb. 9:5 (A.V., "mercy-seat") the Greek word _hilasterion_ is used. It is the word employed by the LXX. translators in Ex. 25:17 and elsewhere as the equivalent for the Hebrew _kapporeth_, which means "covering," and is used of the lid of the ark of the covenant (Ex. 25:21; 30:6).

One needs to go back and read up on the atonement here. Especially in light of the fact that not all the blood was used that was shed but only a portion and the rest was poured out at the base of the alter where it was walked on. This helps one understand what Paul meant here regarding one of apostasy:

Hbr 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Now watch what he states here regarding both the mercy seat meaning (covering) and it being synonomous with the propitiation or reconciliation by blood.

This Greek word (hilasterion) came to denote not only the mercy-seat or lid of the ark, but also propitation or reconciliation by blood.

It is still maintaining the meaning of a 'covering' through which it allows Him to excersize His love toward sinners.
Now pay close attention here regarding the atonement:

On the great day of atonement the high priest carried the blood of the sacrifice he offered for all the people within the veil and sprinkled with it the "mercy-seat," and so made propitiation. In 1 John 2:2; 4:10, Christ is called the "propitiation for our sins."

Now, was every single person who was a Jew saved because an atonement was for them?? Answer: No they were not however we must take note that it was made on behalf of all and not just some. Though the redemption made throught the atonement was imparted to some not all were redeemed because an atonement was made.

Finally:

Here a different Greek word is used (hilasmos). Christ is "the propitiation," because by his becoming our substitute and assuming our obligations he expiated our guilt, covered it, by the vicarious punishment which he endured. (Comp. Heb. 2:17, where the expression "make reconciliation" of the A.V. is more correctly in the R.V. "make propitiation.")

Again Easton is maintaining consistancy here by refering to the atonement as a covering to allow God to work in Love toward [all] sinners instead of immediate Judgment.

He is the propitiation for our sins, and not ours only, but the sins of the whole world. It can't be any clearer than that. The other aspect brought up in this thread regarding those false prophets and His purchase of them is another very specific one as well. There are many others but I can't see how it is continued to be dismissed as some do, at least I personally don't understand.

Just for clarity - from the International Stardard Bible Enclyclopedia on "Expiation" (it is all I have up here at work) :

2. Theological Implication:

The basal idea in Hebrew terms is that of covering what is offensive, so restoring friendship, or causing to be kindly disposed. The Greek terms lack the physical reference to covering but introduce the idea of friendliness where antagonism would be natural; hence, graciousness. Naturally, therefore, the idea of expiation entered into the concept. It is especially to be noted that all provisions for this friendly relation as between God and offending man find their initiation and provision in God and are under His direction, but involve the active response of man. All heathen and unworthy conceptions are removed from the Christian notion of propitiation by the fact that God Himself proposed, or "set forth," Christ as the "mercy-seat," and that this is the supreme expression of ultimate love. God had all the while been merciful, friendly, "passing over" man’s sins with no apparently adequate, or just, ground for doing so. Now in the blood of Christ sin is condemned and expiated, and God is able to establish and maintain His character for righteousness, while He continues and extends His dealing in gracious love with sinners who exercise faith in Jesus. The propitiation originates with God, not to appease Himself, but to justify Himself in His uniform kindness to men deserving harshness. Compare also as to reconciliation, as in Ro 5:1-11; 2Co 5:18 ff.

 

[Rippon]

Scripture Citations Are From The NRSV

Though the redemption made throught the atonement was imparted to some not all were redeemed because an atonement was made.

Rip: Please rephrase in more understandable language.

He is the propitiation for our sins, and not ours only, but the sins of the whole world. It can't be any clearer than that.

Sometimes clarity is in the eye of the beholder.What appears clear to you is actually murking-up the text.First of all, who is being referenced as "our"? And who is being referenced as "the whole world"?It would be pointless to say that Christ is the propitiation for some, yet the propitiation for each and every individual past, present and future.Did Christ propitiate the sins of those in hell and going to that abode?!Did Christ die for the damned?!Is Christ the Advocate for the damned?!In 1 John 2:1 it says :"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"No, Christ is not the Advocate or the Intercessor of the damned, only for His elect -- His sheep -- the Church.

I have told you before and I'lll tell you again -- you need to compare Scripture with Scripture. The same author of 1 John wrote the Gospel of John.

Look again at 11:51,52 and compare it with 1 John 2:2:"He did not say this on his own, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the dispersed children of God.( I emboldened)

These dispersed or scattered children of God are from around the world. There was an international scope to the Atonement in that the elect are from every tribe and language around the world. But His death did not atone for every single individual's sin in the world.

To be really 'clear' than 1 John 2:2 should read thusly to fit in with your forced interpretation:"and He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world."

 

[Allan]

Though the redemption made through the atonement was imparted to some not all were redeemed because an atonement was made.

Rip: Please rephrase in more understandable language.

It is clear

Sometimes clarity is in the eye of the beholder.What appears clear to you is actually murking-up the text.

Only with regard to your "Limited" understanding of the Atonement (pun intended).

First of all, who is being referenced as "our"? And who is being referenced as "the whole world"?

Simple- the 'our' can being one of two views but I will go with your understanding, that being the Jews. When we look at 1 John 2:2, we need to cross-reference it with John 11:51,52: which states that -

"He [Caiaphas] did not say say this on his own, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation, and not for that nation only, but to gather into one the dispersed children of God."( NRSV)

- the [ ] are for clarity of who is being spoken of.

Now in relation to the above do you really believe the scriptures that Christ's death was for the whole nation (all the Jews)? This goes back to the Atonement and for whom it was made on behalf of. Here scripture states "the WHOLE Nation".
If we combine your view of atonement with what scripture states right here then you have to believe that everyone who is Jewish is to be saved since He was to die for them all?? So also for everyone in all other nations.

It does not say for some of those IN that nation and in other nations but specifically states FOR THE Nation, and not THAT Nation ONLY..

Let us remember what 'scripture' states and not our pet theological views. It states the sacrifice was for ALL of Israel (just as the Atonement of the OT was made on behalf of them all) but not ALL of Israel was saved because of the sacrifice that was made for them. It could only be applied to the people by or through faith. (Rom 3:25)

You have to do A LOT of twisting the scriptures to make it say that some of those in the nations when it specifcially says He was to die for that nation and not for that nation only. A nation is an all inclusive term regarding all of a certain people.

John consistantly uses the phrase "whole world" in reference to the wicked and decieved (or unregenerate) in his works. To be on the safe side however let's double check at how John uses the phrase "whole world" each time - shall we

Here is every time the phrase is used by John:

1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.

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

Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Rev 16:14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, [which] go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

Seems pretty consistant.
Whole world = the wicked and decieved (unregenerate) - and NOT all mankind - but ALL unregenerate
And if you like I will even say there can be one other definition seen - Whole World = All people non-Jewish ('all' here being inclusive every non-Jew just as "our" is inclusive of every Jew)

What you will not find regarding the defintion of the term world is that it ever refers to the or an elect people. From the OT through the NT (in relation to it's meaning of a people in relation to God) it is always the lost unregenerate people that are distinct from the God own.

It would be pointless to say that Christ is the propitiation for some, yet the propitiation for each and every individual past, present and future. Did Christ propitiate the sins of those in hell and going to that abode?

This is 'your' problem with scripture not mine
Yes, Christ is the propitiation for all men at all times. :thumbs:

In 1 John 2:1 it says :"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"No, Christ is not the Advocate or the Intercessor of the damned, only for His elect -- His sheep -- the Church.

Christ's "advocacy" is indeed limited to believers as seen in 1Jo 2:1 1Jo 1:7. However His propitiation extends as far as sin does. We see this in the verse the OP uses regarding 2Pe 2:1, "denying the Lord that bought them."
The fact that the "whole world" cannot be restricted to the believing portion of the world as is clearly seen when compared to 1Jo 4:14 ; and "the whole world," 1Jo 5:19 nor those in Rev.)

"Thou, too, art part of the world, so that thine heart cannot deceive itself and think, The Lord died for Peter and Paul, but not for me" -- [LUTHER].

I have told you before and I'lll tell you again -- you need to compare Scripture with Scripture. The same author of 1 John wrote the Gospel of John.

I have, am, and will continue to do so -thank you. But it is apparent that you need to do the same.

Look again at 11:51,52 and compare it with 1 John 2:2:"He did not say this on his own, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the dispersed children of God.( I emboldened)

I have already dealt with this verse that speaks specifically of the unlimited nature of the atonement

There was an international scope to the Atonement in that the elect are from every tribe and language around the world. But His death did not atone for every single individual's sin in the world.

Yes, there was an international scope because the atonement is not limited otherwise it would not have stated 'the nation" nor would it have stated "and not for that nation only" since this deals with "all" people which comprise or make up what is a nation. It is a word that is inclusive and not exclusive. Allow context to determine your theology and not your theology the context.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Allan:

In light of the length of your post, and the fact that I don't have much time, I would like to address just a few issues which I see about your reply.

But first, to answer your questions as to where I got the statement about the atonement being synonyms for those words I cited, if that was what you were asking about.

Atonement, if I understand it correctly, means expiation, or the washing away of sins. If it is, then sins are forgiven, which is why they were washed away, buried in the blood. And most of the other words there have the same implications.

Now, if atonement is unlimited, and God had always intended it to be so, would it not have been more consistent with His character and purposes for the atonement to have commanded His people, to require the tribes surrounding Israel to attend the yearly ceremonies, or at least have representatives to this yearly ceremony, in order to make the illustration that the blood of the slain lamb, which represents the blood of Calvary's lamb, as well as the blood of the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world, is intended to atone for and expiate for every man that ever existed on the face of this earth ?

You and others keep pointing to the example that while all Israel was sprinkled, not all Israel was saved or indeed covered by the blood, and yet forget that in Egypt everyone who was of Israel was spared by the angel of death. Isn't the blood on the door also a picture of the atonement ?

I find it more consistent that while on that yearly sacrifice the sins of the people, of the entire Israel, did indeed cover all of Israel, not all of Israel obey the Living God that walks among them.

These ceremonies depicting the atonement are but pictures of what is really coming, pointing to the ultimate atonement to be done at the cross, and in that atonement, the Son of God covered every sin, past, present, and future of all His people everywhere and in all time, and none was left outside. The writer of Hebrews makes this completeness and efficacy as well as the finality very clear from beginning to end of his discourse.

Therefore, I find so many missing links in the gear, in a manner of speaking, when somebody says that the atonement was for all but meant only for those who accept it. I don't find the Jews, as a picture of the true redeemed Israel, being asked to signify by print or by thumb whether they will participate in the ceremony, and I don't see the Bible telling us that the High Priest for that year went into the Holy of Holies with a list of names from every tribe who wished to be covered by that year's blood of atonement, and names of those who do not want their sins included when the priest lays his hands on the goat that is to be released in the wilderness.

Both of these ceremonies, of course, represent atonement.

Now, as to the use of the word "sinners", just because Easton used the word "sinners" in his explanations doesn't mean the blood for whom the atonement was being ceremonially shed included all men without exception. As I have said, if this included all men without exception, why deliberately exclude the midianites, jebusites, hittites and termites around Israel which were sinners as much as Israelites ?

Obviously the answer would be that because the sinners for whom God intended the ceremony was the people whom He had created from the loins of one man, himself a sinner, Abraham, and for no other.

 

[skypair]

Hey guys,

Here's my thought: "...and not ours only but the sins of the whole world."

I have been raising this issue often but this is the exact place to address it again --- Calvinism does NOT see soul and spirit as divisible.

If they did, they would see that Christ paid for EVERY sin of the spirit (mind, emotion, will) and yet cannot justify any SOUL that doesn't believe ON Him/God.

Repentance is turning from sin but repentance alone does not save/justify --- it affects only the spirit. It is saying, "OK, Jesus has paid for all these sins and I am going to turn from them and never purposely sin again." But then you do sin again because you are still a sinner at "heart" --- in your thinking, in your emoting, in your will!!! Nothing in your spirit has changed permanently/eternally!!! So Calvies, by overlooking the soul, miss the truth of ...

You are saved -- justified with God -- by the re-orientation of your SOUL!! Your soul covenants ("condition") with God to start trusting His wisdom, not yours; His Holy Spirit, not your own spirit, the life He has for you, not the one you have for laid out yourself. IOW, God becomes your conscience. He takes over the "throne"/conscience/soul of your life and God NEVER sins. That's where John gets 1John 3:6 -- "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not:..." Sounds like an extreme statement to make but the believier's soul is pure because it is now "Christ in you."

But odd as it may sound to Calvies, we can't change our souls without making a choice in our spirits. There is no "unconditional," "irresistible" way to be saved. God chooses EVERYONE but only those who choose Him will be saved. Sanctification of our SPIRIT-life (thought life) avails only as "good works." You'll get credit when Jesus opens the "book of works" at His judgment seat (2Cor 5:10, Rev 20:12).

But unless you are justified in your SOUL-life (purposefully, covenantially through a "sinner's prayer" of some sort, Rom 10:9-10), you are still lost. In fact, I would go so far as to say that your spirit life can never be submitted to Christ if your soul life is not first surrendered to/covenanted with Him.

skypair

There, have I explained it better this time? It is such a disservice to theology to ignore the soul-spirit distinction.

 

[Allan]

Allan:

But first, to answer your questions as to where I got the statement about the atonement being synonyms for those words I cited, if that was what you were asking about.

Atonement, if I understand it correctly, means expiation, or the washing away of sins. If it is, then sins are forgiven, which is why they were washed away, buried in the blood. And most of the other words there have the same implications.

Where did you see 'washing away' anywhere in your Easton quote?

Now, if atonement is unlimited, and God had always intended it to be so, would it not have been more consistent with His character and purposes for the atonement to have commanded His people, to require the tribes surrounding Israel to attend the yearly ceremonies, or at least have representatives to this yearly ceremony, in order to make the illustration that the blood of the slain lamb, which represents the blood of Calvary's lamb, as well as the blood of the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world, is intended to atone for and expiate for every man that ever existed on the face of this earth ?

No that is a false premise. We must remember that no nation or tribe was forbidden to become apart of Israel. In fact Israel was to be a testimony to all the world about God that they might believe (just as we in the NT are His testimony) and come into His people. God chose to work or act through Israel as His temporal or symbolic mediary and the rejection of them was a rejection of Him, just as the rejection of Christ (our true mediator) is the rejection of God. One did not have to believe in Jesus to with Him but one could not be saved unless one came to God through Him. In order to receive eternal salvation one had to come to God through them but still by faith.

Therefore we see the same principle played out with Israel with the exception of seeing the scope extending further and further to reveal the full plan and extent of the Atonement. Thus the illistration of atonement as seen in the OT is one that expands from one lamb slain for all members of that household by the head of the household (Ex 12:3,4) to that of a yearly sacrifice once for all the Nation by the High Priest, to that in the NT of Christ or the Great High Priest for all of the world.

And yes the ceremony of the Atonement was for Israel but this does not exclude those of gentile line amoungst them. You are right in that it was a shadow and that shadow illistrates that this was not only for those after Jacobs blood line but anyone who would come. Thus anyone or nation could have joined them, however though the nations did not but we do know that many people did and in fact some gentiles are part of Jesus own lineage.

You and others keep pointing to the example that while all Israel was sprinkled, not all Israel was saved or indeed covered by the blood, and yet forget that in Egypt everyone who was of Israel was spared by the angel of death. Isn't the blood on the door also a picture of the atonement ?

OF course it is now here is the $25 question:
Did they have to sacrifice a lamb for each person that was going to be in their house?
or..
Did that blood cover all (either their own family or the inclusion of neighboring a family) in that house from God's Judgment being passed (physical death)?

It was the later was it not. God stated to slay a lamb and to place it's blood upon door posts of ther home and 'all who are under that roof' will be covered. That being God was appeased by that blood to deal with them in His love. That is the picture of Atonement both in Egypt and in the Law - One lamb for all. The extent is shown to expand from one house, to all Israel, to the whole world. These pictures of the Atonement only foreshadow the true magnitude of that to which God intended in it's extent but it's extent does not define it's purpose.

The extent of the Atonement serves to justify its purpose.

The atonement was for all that whosoever believes will be saved that all who stand in unbelief have condemned themselves.

I find it more consistent that while on that yearly sacrifice the sins of the people, of the entire Israel, did indeed cover all of Israel, not all of Israel obey the Living God that walks among them.

Then do you contend that every Jewish person born during the OT was saved?

These ceremonies depicting the atonement are but pictures of what is really coming, pointing to the ultimate atonement to be done at the cross, and in that atonement, the Son of God covered every sin, past, present, and future of all His people everywhere and in all time, and none was left outside. The writer of Hebrews makes this completeness and efficacy as well as the finality very clear from beginning to end of his discourse.

I do not disagree that the purpose of Redemption through the atonement was complete. I however can not deny the consistancy of scripture showing the contrary to your view. Not everyone for whom the Atonement was made for was saved and scripture spells this out consistantly and plainly throughout the OT. And that brings us right back to the OP and the verse given about Christ purchasing even the false prophets which bring in damnable heresies and their own destruction:

2 Peter 2:1
“But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.”

I don't find the Jews, as a picture of the true redeemed Israel, being asked to signify by print or by thumb whether they will participate in the ceremony, and I don't see the Bible telling us that the High Priest for that year went into the Holy of Holies with a list of names from every tribe who wished to be covered by that year's blood of atonement, and names of those who do not want their sins included when the priest lays his hands on the goat that is to be released in the wilderness.

Of course he didn't go in with some list because God demanded that the atonement was to be done on behalf of ALL of Israel regardless of if they wanted it or not. The propitiation is imparted through faith not in the fact it was done. To me you are still are still stuck trying to get around God stating it is for ALL of Israel but not all of Israel were saved and that the propitiation is only imparted through faith.

Both of these ceremonies, of course, represent atonement.

Of Course they were and Christ had to fulfill the Law and the law demanded that the atonement was to be for all. Christ fulfilled the law to the uttermost in that He did not only do it for all of Israel but for the whole world.

Now, as to the use of the word "sinners", just because Easton used the word "sinners" in his explanations doesn't mean the blood for whom the atonement was being ceremonially shed included all men without exception. As I have said, if this included all men without exception, why deliberately exclude the midianites, jebusites, hittites and termites around Israel which were sinners as much as Israelites ?

First, there is no distinction of some sinners or elect sinners or a certain particular group of sinners which Christ came to save. Scripture states and thus I must follow: He came to save sinners.
The term 'sinners' is all inclusive and only through theogolical redefining will it be anything else.

God did not exclude anyone because they could have come into the Nation of Israel as well. This is where your point consistantly breaks down - IMO.

Obviously the answer would be that because the sinners for whom God intended the ceremony was the people whom He had created from the loins of one man, himself a sinner, Abraham, and for no other.

I completely and (IMO) biblically disagree. There were many not of the loins of one man (Abraham) who were under that same ceremony, and some (gentiles) of them are even in Jesus own lineage. However, Not all Israel was saved either just because the atonement was made for them.

 

[Amy.G]

OK. I will now stop posting and defer all questions to Allan. :laugh:

You say what I want to say, but sooo much clearer. :thumbs: