The Issue of Limited Atonement

[jeremiah1five]

How about expanding your knowledge.....

Gen 22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
Gen 22:13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.

The context of forgiveness in the first born. The "heir" of all things.

What forgiveness? Does it say God forgave Abraham for the near-death of Isaac? Did Isaac forgive his father for almost killing him? Did Abraham forgive God for commanding this near-death act of Isaac? Where in the text is forgiveness stated?

The whole event is a lesson in obedience. Did you know Isaac was a young man who could've fought off Abraham's attempt to tie him to the makeshift altar? Isaac willingly lay on the place where he was to be slain. Abraham obeyed God's command to take his son of promise and slay him on a makeshift altar? Isaac obeyed by laying down on the place of his impending death. Where does it say someone was forgiven and the other was offering forgiveness?

Where?

Nowhere is the answer.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Christ is the blessing, forgiveness is through Him

Long life is a blessing. Having a name made great by God is the blessing. Prosperousness is a blessing of the covenant. Having a great number of "families of the earth" is a blessing just as described by God in the number of the stars and the sand on the seashore. Land to live on is a blessing from God. Having an heir is a blessing of God. But nowhere is Christ named or implied in these blessings God gave Abraham. There is no forgiveness in this covenant just as there is no faith as a requirement in this covenant.

The only thing Abraham was required to do was circumcision of the flesh, the removal of foreskin of all males, even those who are not his kin such as servants and visitors to his home. God is specific when He says, "my covenant is with YOU and YOUR SEED." A person can be circumcised but not be an heir to the covenant such as Ishmael. But because he was seed of Abraham through a servant named Hagar, he was not an heir of the Abraham promises. He received his own blessings and promises from God by virtue of being Abraham's seed. Just as there was to be other seed of Abraham who are identified as "families of the earth." God never blessed those who were not Abraham's seed, and this includes the offspring of Ham and Japheth. God pronounced no blessings upon them so why do you interpret "families of the earth" as being identified as "Gentiles." God gave no blessings to Ham and Japheth's offspring. They did not circumcise themselves to receive Abraham's blessings. This is because the promises are to Abraham AND HIS SEED.

 

[praise_yeshua]

What forgiveness? Does it say God forgave Abraham for the near-death of Isaac? Did Isaac forgive his father for almost killing him? Did Abraham forgive God for commanding this near-death act of Isaac? Where in the text is forgiveness stated?

The whole event is a lesson in obedience. Did you know Isaac was a young man who could've fought off Abraham's attempt to tie him to the makeshift altar? Isaac willingly lay on the place where he was to be slain. Abraham obeyed God's command to take his son of promise and slay him on a makeshift altar? Isaac obeyed by laying down on the place of his impending death. Where does it say someone was forgiven and the other was offering forgiveness?

Where?

Nowhere is the answer.

Did you pay attention to the "Lamb" portion?

Gen 22:13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.

I know you have a problem with understanding the simplest of things.

How about I help you a little to understand the obvious....

Lamb. Offering. Forgiveness. Isaac is free.

Isaac was destined for death. Nothing Abraham could do was going to stop it. You're focusing upon Abraham when Abraham only cared about Isaac....

Isaac is the focus here.....

Same with you. You were destined for death. Nothing you can do will stop it. You just keep getting weaker and weaker. Sadder and Sadder. Lesser and lesser of a person as you wither away to you can't even take your last breath. Feeble. Decrepit.... as everything around goes to nothing.

BUT GOD, in His rich mercy wherein He loved us toward us in the like of Abraham spared not ONLY Abraham lineage for endless death but the lineage of the entire world.

God swearing by Himself. When God wants something done that lasts ALL ETERNITY....

He isn't going to rely upon you to do it. You're not capable. All your life is.... is a vapor that appears at end like "fluctuance" and then slowly the stink fades away.

Heb 6:13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,

I've told you this before but you're too stubborn to pay attention. There is a covenant that exists within the Trinity whereby they've bound themselves to salvation of the willing from among humanity.

We don't save ourselves. We don't forgive ourselves.

Do me a favor, in about 100 years remind me of how good you are. Would you?

 

[brightfame52]

Long life is a blessing. Having a name made great by God is the blessing. Prosperousness is a blessing of the covenant. Having a great number of "families of the earth" is a blessing just as described by God in the number of the stars and the sand on the seashore. Land to live on is a blessing from God. Having an heir is a blessing of God. But nowhere is Christ named or implied in these blessings God gave Abraham. There is no forgiveness in this covenant just as there is no faith as a requirement in this covenant.

The only thing Abraham was required to do was circumcision of the flesh, the removal of foreskin of all males, even those who are not his kin such as servants and visitors to his home. God is specific when He says, "my covenant is with YOU and YOUR SEED." A person can be circumcised but not be an heir to the covenant such as Ishmael. But because he was seed of Abraham through a servant named Hagar, he was not an heir of the Abraham promises. He received his own blessings and promises from God by virtue of being Abraham's seed. Just as there was to be other seed of Abraham who are identified as "families of the earth." God never blessed those who were not Abraham's seed, and this includes the offspring of Ham and Japheth. God pronounced no blessings upon them so why do you interpret "families of the earth" as being identified as "Gentiles." God gave no blessings to Ham and Japheth's offspring. They did not circumcise themselves to receive Abraham's blessings. This is because the promises are to Abraham AND HIS SEED.

Its really a foolish argument, I mean Christ is the Blessing of the Covenant, the Abrahamic Covenant and forgiveness of sins accompanies Christ. The Blessing of Abraham are all the Spiritual blessings provided for Salvation, all through the accomplished life and death and resurrection of Christ Abrahams Spiritual Seed.

Here is a OT passage that speaks of Christ and His forgiveness in the Abrahamic Covenant Micah 7:18-20

18 Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy.

19 He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.

20 Thou wilt perform the truth to Jacob, and the mercy to Abraham, which thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the days of old.

Vs 19 is similar to also the New Covenant language about their sins being not remembered Heb 8:12

12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

A matter of fact, the New Covenant and the Abrahamic Covenant are one and the same

 

[civic]

A matter of fact, the New Covenant and the Abrahamic Covenant are one and the same

nope

Five times in Genesis 12, as God is giving the Abrahamic Covenant, He says, “I will.” Clearly, God takes the onus of keeping the covenant upon Himself. The covenant is unconditional. One day, Israel will repent, be forgiven, and be restored to God’s favor (Zechariah 12:10–14; Romans 11:25–27). One day, the nation of Israel will possess the entire territory promised to them. One day, the Messiah will return to set up His throne, and through His righteous rule the whole world will be blessed with an abundance of peace, pleasure, and prosperity.got?

hope this helps !!!

 

[praise_yeshua]

nope

Five times in Genesis 12, as God is giving the Abrahamic Covenant, He says, “I will.” Clearly, God takes the onus of keeping the covenant upon Himself. The covenant is unconditional. One day, Israel will repent, be forgiven, and be restored to God’s favor (Zechariah 12:10–14; Romans 11:25–27). One day, the nation of Israel will possess the entire territory promised to them. One day, the Messiah will return to set up His throne, and through His righteous rule the whole world will be blessed with an abundance of peace, pleasure, and prosperity.got?

hope this helps !!!

While I disagree with the thoughts that Christ must restore Israel "after the flesh" ( I would argue that there really isn't such a thing anymore). Christ's Kingdom is not of this world. Even Israel after the flesh is a heavenly people established only in the Resurrection of the dead.

It is certain that the covenant is only established in the work of the Son. Not anything else.

 

[civic]

While I disagree with the thoughts that Christ must restore Israel "after the flesh" ( I would argue that there really isn't such a thing anymore). Christ's Kingdom is not of this world. Even Israel after the flesh is a heavenly people established only in the Resurrection of the dead.

It is certain that the covenant is only established in the work of the Son. Not anything else.

And notice there is nothing about atonement for sin, the shedding of blood, forgiveness of sin with Gods promise to Abraham ad the covenant that was made. And the N.T. does not equate the above with Jesus body and blood in the Lords Supper.

Its nothing more than an assumption made.

And the New Covenant is a conditional covenant not an unconditional one. The Calvinist would say they were both unconditional.

 

[brightfame52]

nope

Five times in Genesis 12, as God is giving the Abrahamic Covenant, He says, “I will.” Clearly, God takes the onus of keeping the covenant upon Himself. The covenant is unconditional. One day, Israel will repent, be forgiven, and be restored to God’s favor (Zechariah 12:10–14; Romans 11:25–27). One day, the nation of Israel will possess the entire territory promised to them. One day, the Messiah will return to set up His throne, and through His righteous rule the whole world will be blessed with an abundance of peace, pleasure, and prosperity.got?

hope this helps !!!

Im afraid you have been deceived by that dispy teaching, I myself was also over 40 years ago

 

[civic]

Im afraid you have been deceived by that dispy teaching, I myself was also over 40 years ago

I'm afraid you have been deceived like I was for over 40 years with calvinism.

 

[praise_yeshua]

And notice there is nothing about atonement for sin, the shedding of blood, forgiveness of sin with Gods promise to Abraham ad the covenant that was made. And the N.T. does not equate the above with Jesus body and blood in the Lords Supper.

Its nothing more than an assumption made.

And the New Covenant is a conditional covenant not an unconditional one. The Calvinist would say they were both unconditional.

What about the "Lamb" reference that is the means of the validity of this covenant?

Gen 22:8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

Gen 22:13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.

I wouldn't classify this as an assumption.

The lamb referenced here couldn't possibly be the lamb that Abraham actually offered.

The Jew, John the Baptist, spoke of this Lamb when he said...

Joh 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Im afraid you have been deceived by that dispy teaching, I myself was also over 40 years ago

Covenant Theology isn't much different. You just slide the "choice" toward yourselves.

 

[civic]

What about the "Lamb" reference that is the means of the validity of this covenant?

Gen 22:8 And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.

Gen 22:13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.

I wouldn't classify this as an assumption.

The lamb referenced here couldn't possibly be the lamb that Abraham actually offered.

The Jew, John the Baptist, spoke of this Lamb when he said...

Joh 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Nowhere in the NT does anyone identify Abraham with God the Father or with Isaac and Jesus.

God provided the ram that was killed. Jesus was sacrificed and Isaac was not.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Nowhere in the NT does anyone identify Abraham with God the Father or with Isaac and Jesus.

God provided the ram that was killed. Jesus was sacrificed and Isaac was not.

I disagree. We should review those areas.

Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

This alone establishes the context of Son and the Father within the very life of Abraham and Isaac.

There are many ways that the Gospel was preached before Jesus Christ's advent in the life of Abraham.

What mountain were Isaac and Abraham on when Abraham took the knife to slay his son?

 

[civic]

I disagree. We should review those areas.

Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

This alone establishes the context of Son and the Father within the very life of Abraham and Isaac.

There are many ways that the Gospel was preached before Jesus Christ's advent in the life of Abraham.

What mountain were Isaac and Abraham on when Abraham took the knife to slay his son?

I take that as inference at best since the NT does not correlate them with each other. Otherwise we can read into scripture whatever we want. When the NT directly quotes the OT then we have a basis to interpret it properly.

It’s the same with the scapegoat which was never sacrificed but released. It’s not a type of Christ but many assume it is.

 

[Doug Brents]

I'm not going to take a stand on whether or not atonement is limited or sufficient for all because I honestly don't know.

I'd just like to hear from non-Calvinists as to how they reconcile their view of atonement with the fact that not all people will be saved. Isn't that, by definition, limited atonement? Or is there another explanation?

This may have already been addressed (I haven't read all 74 pages of comments), but I believe the solution is to understand conditional atonement.

Jesus' sacrifice is sufficient to cover all sin for all time. But not all sin is atoned by His sacrifice because there are conditions placed on His atonement. If you do not believe (have faith/trust/obedience) in Him then you are excluded from His umbrella of atonement. But if you do believe (have faith/trust/obedience) in Him then you are pulled under His umbrella of atonement and are saved.

It is not about whether His atonement is sufficient. It is about whether we surrender to Him.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I take that as inference at best since the NT does not correlate them with each other. Otherwise we can read into scripture whatever we want. When the NT directly quotes the OT then we have a basis to interpret it properly.

It’s the same with the scapegoat which was never sacrificed but released. It’s not a type of Christ but many assume it is.

I think you can recognize that this is the same argument that Unitarians use to disallow any context of the Holy Trinity.

It is more than a inference. I referenced the very life of Abraham. Not some inference. I'll listen to an alternative view. Tell me how the Gospel was preached to Abraham in your view?

I would like for you to recognize that Abraham and Isaac where on Mount Moriah. The same place we now reference as "Gordon's Calvary" or Golgotha. There are no coincidences to be found here. It was planned and executed by God Himself. God told Abraham where to go. God told Abraham who to take with him. God lead Abraham in exactly what to do. They went to very spot where Christ was to be offered for humanity.

 

[praise_yeshua]

This may have already been addressed (I haven't read all 74 pages of comments), but I believe the solution is to understand conditional atonement.

Jesus' sacrifice is sufficient to cover all sin for all time. But not all sin is atoned by His sacrifice

Actually not true. Life and death now lay solely in the choice of Jesus Christ.

It isn't the "sins" of humanity that damns the individual. It is the rejection of the offer of Jesus Christ.

 

[Doug Brents]

It isn't the "sins" of humanity that damns the individual.

Correct, it is not the sins of humanity. It is the individuals sins which condemn the individual.

It is the rejection of the offer of Jesus Christ.

The rejection of the offer of Jesus is not what condemns. Everyone is already condemned because everyone has sinned. It is the acceptance of Jesus' offer that saves, and because not everyone will accept His offer, not everyone is saved.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Correct, it is not the sins of humanity. It is the individuals sins which condemn the individual.

The rejection of the offer of Jesus is not what condemns. Everyone is already condemned because everyone has sinned. It is the acceptance of Jesus' offer that saves, and because not everyone will accept His offer, not everyone is saved.

That isn't what that verse says....Read it again please....

Jhn 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

They are condemned already because they haven't believed.

The verse is very clear. You're reading your bias into the passage.

Individual sin isn't all about the individual. We are taught to sin. You taught someone to sin yourself. Even the law brings the knowledge of sin. It literally imparts the knowledge to know what NOT TO DO.... to the point of enlighten someone TO DO IT....

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Absolutely not! Certainly, I would not have known sin except through the law. For indeed I would not have known what it means to desire something belonging to someone else if the law had not said, “Do not covet.”
Rom 7:8 But sin, seizing the opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of wrong desires. For apart from the law, sin is dead.

 

[Doug Brents]

That isn't what that verse says....Read it again please....

Jhn 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

They are condemned already because they haven't believed.

We are not condemned because we don't believe. It that was the case, then no one in the OT would have been condemned, because there was no Son of God to believe in.

Death comes about because of sin. It is sin which separates us from God. Belief in Jesus is the only way out of condemnation.

Individual sin isn't all about the individual. We are taught to sin. You taught someone to sin yourself. Even the law brings the knowledge of sin. It literally imparts the knowledge to know what NOT TO DO.... to the point of enlighten someone TO DO IT....

There was no law against murder, but Cain still murdered. His sin was not counted against him, because where there is no law there is no transgression. But the wrong was still committed.