The Limited Atonement

[utilyan]

People brought their sacrifices for their sins to be an offering, these they provided, so they had faith.
I can see the people who are the disputers who love to dig in with their knives.

29 And he shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering, and kill the sin offering at the place of the burnt offering.
30 Then the priest shall take some of its blood with his finger, put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and pour all the remaining blood at the base of the altar.
31 He shall remove all its fat, as fat is removed from the sacrifice of the peace offering; and the priest shall burn it on the altar for a sweet aroma to the Lord. So the priest shall make atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him.

And of course those who did not believe after the Lord delivered them out of Egypt He destroyed as they had no faith, just as Jude says.

Those who have contention with me, contend with the Lord as thats is what He commanded them to do for the forgiveness of their sins as it is recorded in the scriptures. So take it up with the Lord.

13“But go and learn what this means: ‘I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT SACRIFICE,’ for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”


6For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.




Keep in mind if you think wrath was poured out on Jesus. That is PAID not FORGIVEN. IE. God Forgives no one.

 

[Calminian]

It is not an atonement by definition of the word unless the sins are forgiven by having the blood applied sprinkled on the transgressor, was what I was saying in the first post.

Yes, that seems logical. The problem is, some passages seem to say otherwise. John talked about a universal propitiation.

1John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.​

So in what sense is Christ the propitiation for the whole world?

And if you really want to be confused, digest this one:

2Pet. 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.​

In what sense are false prophets purchased by the Lord? Not saying I have a perfect answer, just that these texts seem to suggest some problems with limited atonement.

 

[Particular]

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.

I understand. That means there is one sin that is not atoned for. The sin of rejection (making God to be a liar).
Irresistible or not irresistible, you are saying that God's atonement is not universal/unlimited. You either agree with limited atonement or you declare that there is a sin for which the atonement is not effective. Which is it?

 

[JonC]

You either agree with limited atonement or you declare that there is a sin for which the atonement is not effective. Which is it?

This is a false dichotomy (there are other interpretations not considered). For example, there is the very old view that the Atonement was for the "human family" and all sins are atoned when it comes to the Father (judgment being given to the Son). There are at least 3 (three that I know of) views along these lines.

There is also the position that views atonement as ongoing (based on the cross but not exactly atoned for at the Cross).

 

[Son of Robert]

Which is why some Calvinist are UNIVERSALISTS.

I understand universalism to be that all persons will eventually be saved. I'm not an expert in all areas of calvinism but don't calvinists believe that only those predestined to eternal life will be saved?

 

[Particular]

This is a false dichotomy (there are other interpretations not considered). For example, there is the very old view that the Atonement was for the "human family" and all sins are atoned when it comes to the Father (judgment being given to the Son). There are at least 3 (three that I know of) views along these lines.

There is also the position that views atonement as ongoing (based on the cross but not exactly atoned for at the Cross).

Unlimited/Universal atonement, yet not really. Sin somehow is not atoned for, despite the claim that the atonement is universal.
Perhaps universal doesn't mean all. Perhaps unlimited doesn't mean all. Maybe all means almost all, but not quite all.
Tell me about these "views" that contradict themselves.

 

[utilyan]

I understand. That means there is one sin that is not atoned for. The sin of rejection (making God to be a liar).
Irresistible or not irresistible, you are saying that God's atonement is not universal/unlimited. You either agree with limited atonement or you declare that there is a sin for which the atonement is not effective. Which is it?

"That means there is one sin that is not atoned for" All sins handled by Jesus Christ.

It is not limited atonement. If his rejection means he is not being atoned for, Then he is telling THE TRUTH.

You either AGREE with the Non-believer. Or indeed he is a Liar.


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

Do you believe a non-believer is correct or not? Is he not telling the truth?

 

[Son of Robert]

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

Mate, I know very religious unsaved people who believe God gives eternal life through His Son. They happen to believe that eternal life is not through the Son alone.

 

[Particular]

"That means there is one sin that is not atoned for" All sins handled by Jesus Christ.

It is not limited atonement. If his rejection means he is not being atoned for, Then he is telling THE TRUTH.

You either AGREE with the Non-believer. Or indeed he is a Liar.


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

Do you believe a non-believer is correct or not? Is he not telling the truth?

If his rejection is not paid for then sin is not fully atoned. The sin of rejection is left unatoned for and thus the sinner dies in his sins.

In that case the atonement is limited only to those who accept Christ.

Utilyan, there can only be limited atonement or universal salvation for all who have been atoned.

Otherwise unlimited atonement is a false label.

 

[utilyan]

Mate, I know very religious unsaved people who believe God gives eternal life through His Son. They happen to believe that eternal life is not through the Son alone.

Never heard of that. I have heard folks just flat out reject.

John 14
6Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

Acts 4
12“And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”

 

[agedman]

If his rejection is not paid for then sin is not fully atoned. The sin of rejection is left unatoned for and thus the sinner dies in his sins.

In that case the atonement is limited only to those who accept Christ.

Utilyan, there can only be limited atonement or universal salvation for all who have been atoned.

Otherwise unlimited atonement is a false label.

May I suggest that the atonement was not a singular but multiple presentations in the OT picture all performed by the Christ at the crucifixion.

Where the atonement day had multiple sacrifices, clothing changes, ... the whole of all the pictures recorded as a the day of atonement was wrapped up in the garden, crucifixion, and resurrection.

Because most take a narrow slice and present, they may indeed be limiting what is not.

It is my opinion, and I think Scriptures teach, that the blood shed was for all “in the land.”

Because God own the land and seas, it was for all creation.

However, Paul makes it abundantly clear, and so did the Christ, that the death and resurrection benefit only the believer.

Therefore, the atonement is limited, not by the insufficient supply of blood, for reconciliation is offered to every person. Rather, the atonement is limited by God in exactly who benefits from the death and resurrection. It s His choice for His purpose.

Where the Scriptures do specify that the resurrection and death are specific to believers, the Scripture do not place such limit upon the blood.

This is further represented in the OT day of atonement where regardless of belief the blood was sprinkled. Yet, only those who believed resided in paradise.

 

[utilyan]

If his rejection is not paid for then sin is not fully atoned. The sin of rejection is left unatoned for and thus the sinner dies in his sins.

In that case the atonement is limited only to those who accept Christ.

Utilyan, there can only be limited atonement or universal salvation for all who have been atoned.

Otherwise unlimited atonement is a false label.

"In that case the atonement is limited only to those who accept Christ."
Right so he is telling the TRUTH. Square Peg meet Round Hole.

He can't be rejecting if it was never offered to him. IE.... He is telling the truth.

His claim is Jesus is not atoning for him. Your claim is Jesus did not atone for him. There is no sin he is telling the truth.

The exact claim you make on the reprobate is the same he makes himself and is getting him in trouble.


Do you agree with the reprobate? I DO NOT BELIEVE "that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son."

You are correct MR reprobate, He did not offer you eternal life. You have spoken the TRUTH.


OR

You are WRONG Mr. reprobate, He did offer you eternal life and this life is in his son., You are a Liar.

 

[JonC]

Unlimited/Universal atonement, yet not really. Sin somehow is not atoned for, despite the claim that the atonement is universal.
Perhaps universal doesn't mean all. Perhaps unlimited doesn't mean all. Maybe all means almost all, but not quite all.
Tell me about these "views" that contradict themselves.

The views do not contradict themselves, but they do contradict the Reformed idea of Atonement.

Aquinas had one such view. All human sin was atoned for but there was a "treasury of merit" upon which absolved sins based on the work of Christ.

Justin Martyr viewed Christ's work as reconciling the sin of the "human family". Atonement (Insofar as the cross) is universal but forgiveness depends on repentance.

I view Christ as the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world (all mankind, i. e. sin). In this sence God is propitiate yet men must be reconciled in Christ (not quite universal atonement but not limited atonement either).

Some hold that the Atonement appeased God (the Father) and atoned for all human sin towards every person (universal atonement). They consider the Father as viewing no one guilty because they were paid for by Christ's blood. The unbeliever will, however, be rightly judged by Christ.

I am sure there are other views as well.

Outside of a Reformed understanding of the Atonement questions of its scope simply do not make sense.

 

[agedman]

The views do not contradict themselves, but they do contradict the Reformed idea of Atonement.

Aquinas had one such view. All human sin was atoned for but there was a "treasury of merit" upon which absolved sins based on the work of Christ.

Justin Martyr viewed Christ's work as reconciling the sin of the "human family". Atonement (Insofar as the cross) is universal but forgiveness depends on repentance.

I view Christ as the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world (all mankind, i. e. sin). In this sence God is propitiate yet men must be reconciled in Christ (not quite universal atonement but not limited atonement either).

Some hold that the Atonement appeased God (the Father) and atoned for all human sin towards every person (universal atonement). They consider the Father as viewing no one guilty because they were paid for by Christ's blood. The unbeliever will, however, be rightly judged by Christ.

I am sure there are other views as well.

Outside of a Reformed understanding of the Atonement questions of its scope simply do not make sense.

All sin paid for.

Limit of belief dependent upon the direct purposed work of God.

Folks need to be careful to remember the day of atonement was not a single act, but multiple pictures presented.

It would be a mistake to consider atonement unlimited.

 

[Particular]

"In that case the atonement is limited only to those who accept Christ."
Right so he is telling the TRUTH. Square Peg meet Round Hole.

He can't be rejecting if it was never offered to him. IE.... He is telling the truth.

His claim is Jesus is not atoning for him. Your claim is Jesus did not atone for him. There is no sin he is telling the truth.

The exact claim you make on the reprobate is the same he makes himself and is getting him in trouble.


Do you agree with the reprobate? I DO NOT BELIEVE "that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son."

You are correct MR reprobate, He did not offer you eternal life. You have spoken the TRUTH.


OR

You are WRONG Mr. reprobate, He did offer you eternal life and this life is in his son., You are a Liar.

It doesn't matter what a human declares. Either the blood of Christ atones for all sin or it doesn't. Unlimited or limited.

 

[JonC]

All sin paid for.

Limit of belief dependent upon the direct purposed work of God.

Folks need to be careful to remember the day of atonement was not a single act, but multiple pictures presented.

It would be a mistake to consider atonement unlimited.

IMHO there are only two options under the Reformed understanding of atonement because of the focus of individual sins that must be atoned for. In that context, I agree.

At the same time it would be a mistake to conclude these are the only two options within Christianity.

 

[agedman]

IMHO there are only two options under the Reformed understanding of atonement because of the focus of individual sins that must be atoned for. In that context, I agree.

At the same time it would be a mistake to conclude these are the only two options within Christianity.

Doesn’t the reformed view lump the blood, death and resurrection into the single structure of limited atonement?

 

[utilyan]

It doesn't matter what a human declares. Either the blood of Christ atones for all sin or it doesn't. Unlimited or limited.

Scripture states it matters and its on GOD's Declaration.

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.


The unbeliever does not believe-->God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.

Has he spoken the TRUTH or Does he make God a Liar? The forgiveness is right there being offered, the unbeliever does not accept it.

This is real easy question to answer. Is the unbeliever telling the TRUTH or NOT? Yes or No?

 

[JonC]

Doesn’t the reformed view lump the blood, death and resurrection into the single structure of limited atonement?

Sorry, I meant "Reformed" as of Reformed trajectory (the idea that sins must be atoned for individually or on behalf of individuals rather than Sin (human sinfulness) as a "human family". My bad.

 

[Particular]

The views do not contradict themselves, but they do contradict the Reformed idea of Atonement.

Aquinas had one such view. All human sin was atoned for but there was a "treasury of merit" upon which absolved sins based on the work of Christ.

Justin Martyr viewed Christ's work as reconciling the sin of the "human family". Atonement (Insofar as the cross) is universal but forgiveness depends on repentance.

I view Christ as the Propitiation for the sins of the whole world (all mankind, i. e. sin). In this sence God is propitiate yet men must be reconciled in Christ (not quite universal atonement but not limited atonement either).

Some hold that the Atonement appeased God (the Father) and atoned for all human sin towards every person (universal atonement). They consider the Father as viewing no one guilty because they were paid for by Christ's blood. The unbeliever will, however, be rightly judged by Christ.

I am sure there are other views as well.

Outside of a Reformed understanding of the Atonement questions of its scope simply do not make sense.

Your position seems to be limited by atonement, even though I am sure you think differently.

I find it interesting to see twisting and redefinition of atonement so that it isn't really atonement at all. To me it's just humans trying to control God and get the upper hand.