potentcy of atonement

[Cypress]

I see lots of qualifiers such as universal,limited, effectual etcetera, being applied to atonement. Since Christ died to save men I ask you to consider the following.
Proposition 1: Christ's blood is certainly sufficient to cleanse all sin and satisfy all debt owed by all mankind.
Proposition 2: If prop 1 is accepted, then any man can be justified if the blood is applied to his guilt.
IMO If these propositions are accepted, unapplied atonement or wasted atonement would surely be the basis for as much wrath as anyone could imagine, and as much wrath as the bible indicates is in store for the lost. Note that no mechanism for the atonement to be applied is mentioned.
I would like any and all to affirm or deny these two propositions and if so why? Thanks in advance for considering them!:love2:

 

[Skandelon]

Good point. As you know, the Calvinist argues that if Christ cleansed the sin and satisfied the debt of "Joe Heathen," who dies in his rejection of Christ, then that atonement is "wasted."

That to me has always been a weak argument for 2 reasons:

1. The reason you mention here which is that Joe Heathen is being punished for "wasting the atonement," in that he is being rejected, not for his sin (not fulfilling the Mosiac Covenant), but he is being rejected and punished for his unbelief (not fulfilling the Covenant of Grace). As Heb 3 shows, "So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief." And from 2 Cor 5:19: "God was reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them" (and many more...)

So, God is not counting Joe's sin's against him (because of what Christ has accomplished) but he can't enter the "promised land" because of his UNBELIEF...his rejection of the chosen means for reconciliation.

2. Certainly we can all agree that the blood is sufficient to atone all sin, but if their is a stated condition by which that atonement is applied (FAITH), then the debate should NOT be about whether or not the atonement is "limited" (because it is clearly "limited" to those with faith); but instead the debate should be about the effectuality of the mean's God has selected to allow his creatures that condition of faith.

To which the very rebuke of Christ, "Ye of little faith. When will you ever learn!" goes a long way to prove our case, because if Calvinists are correct He should have said, "God when will you effectually give them the faith to believe and stop doubting?" It makes NO sense to hold men accountable for not having something their creator has not granted them the ability to have. They are supposed to be "without excuse," but Calvinism give them many perfect excuses.

 

[Cypress]

Thanks for a response Skan. No trap is planned for those who respond. Small wonder we argue so much to so little effect when we can't seem to agree on and affirm the power of the atonement.

 

[Cypress]

Last call. Please affirm or deny but don't be lukewarm. Feel free to offer correction if you feel the Props are wrong. Thanks