Calvinism and its Secret Universalism

[zoidar]

I’m saying that it appears that your understanding of the atonement is inconsistent because it Has Christ paying for a debt that some people will also have to pay later.

What I tried to do was to find an analogy that would fit the idea that a payment needs to be received to be useful for the receiver.

I agree that it sounds inconsistent that Christ paid for something that then has to be paid again. I believe the inconsistency lays in our thinking, not in reality. Since Christ bore the sins of everyone (I believe), either something is wrong with our court case model or we don't understand how things work in God's Kingdom.

Anyhow, you never answered why you from the Calvinistic view need faith. If the penalty is paid for me I'm free. If this view is correct, then I see no need of faith. Something seems wrong here...

 

[Hammster]

What I tried to do was to find an analogy that would fit the idea that a payment needs to be received to be useful for the receiver.

I agree that it sounds inconsistent that Christ paid for something that then has to be paid again. I believe the inconsistency lays in our thinking, not in reality. Since Christ bore the sins of everyone (I believe), either the court case model is wrong or we don't understand how things work in God's Kingdom.

Anyhow, you never answered why you from the Calvinistic view need faith. If the penalty is paid for me I'm free. If this view is correct, then I see no need of faith. Something seems wrong here...

I’ll give you an illustration borrowed from R. C. Sproul.

It’s the end of the class year. You need an A on the final exam to pass the class. You take the test, and get an F. Let’s say that the instructor has pity on you, and wipes the F off of your record. Does that help you pass? No, because you still needed an A.

Being forgiven for sins isn’t enough. That takes away the negative, but doesn’t apply the positive, in our case righteousness. Our faith is credited as righteousness.

 

[zoidar]

I’ll give you an illustration borrowed from R. C. Sproul.

It’s the end of the class year. You need an A on the final exam to pass the class. You take the test, and get an F. Let’s say that the instructor has pity on you, and wipes the F off of your record. Does that help you pass? No, because you still needed an A.

Being forgiven for sins isn’t enough. That takes away the negative, but doesn’t apply the positive, in our case righteousness. Our faith is credited as righteousness.

Hm, this illustration works with unlimited atonement as well. God wiping off the F from the whole class doesn't give them the A. I like this model a lot better than the court model.

A question I like to ask though is, who says we need an A and why? The illustration explains "how it is", but not logically giving the reason "why".

 

[Hammster]

Hm, this illustration works with unlimited atonement as well. God wiping off the F from the whole class doesn't give them the A. I like this model a lot better than the court model.

A question I like to ask though is, who says we need an A and why? The illustration explains "how it is", but not logically giving the reason "why".

Be perfect. That’s why we need the A.

 

[zoidar]

Be perfect. That’s why we need the A.

A thought entered my mind when I read the image you shared from Sproul. Do you think Christ takes pity on those he saves?

 

[Hammster]

A thought entered my mind when I read the image you shared from Sproul. Do you think Christ takes pity on those he saves?

He loves the ones He saves.

 

[zoidar]

He loves the ones He saves.

Agree, but ... you know the but.

 

[John Mullally]

I wrote earlier on this thread that the commonly accepted version of the doctrine of predestination works against the teaching of Mark 16:16 and I did not clarify. Well here it is.

Jesus says in Mark 16:16 that “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.”

To promote that God loves only some and only saves them is working cross purpose to Mark 16:16. It discourages people from confidently acting on the promise of Mark 16:16, because who knows to what fate I am predestined. The best example of the preaching of Mark 16:16 can be found in Acts 2 and you can learn a lot by studying it.

Well the argument is – Calvinist understanding of predestination is true. Yet, Jesus says that Hell was not made for man. Peter and Paul taught that God is not willing that any perish. 1 John 2:2 and 1 Timothy 4:10 teach that Christ’s atonement was made for all mankind. Hebrews 4:1-3 provides a key in understanding the seeming conflict between God’s love for men and some men being lost – the writer in a warning to his audience says that the promise to enter into God’s rest made in the OT was blocked by people not mixing the promise with faith and that problem extends to today. God’s plan for mankind is not Hell for some – although it happens as Jesus warns. Some say God in his Sovereignty will save whoever he wants to. The NT teaches that God loves humanity and in his sovereignty and per Mark 16:16 has provided redemption to those who will receive his love by believing.

To say that God will save whoever he wants to save and leave the rest to their fate may appeal to some's sensibilities – but that human reasoning is moot because it is specifically contradicted by NT teaching. Again, God is not willing that any should perish. If you are stuck and it helps, think of it this way, God predestines those who obey Mark 16:16.

 

[All Glory To God]

P1) God Loves All and desires all to be saved
. . .

If God desires all to be saved, will all be saved?

If all are not saved, then God has denied himself. And that is not possible (2 Tim 2:13).

And if all are saved, we have to ask ourselves: what was the purpose of the cross? If all are granted access to Gods kingdom.

 

[Danthemailman]

It’s a warning to Jews who reject Christ. They had been relying on the OT sacrificial system. The writer is warning them that if they reject the final sacrifice, there remains no other.

Amen! In regards to Hebrews 10:26, to "sin willfully" in the Greek carries the idea of deliberate intention which stems from rejecting Christ deliberately. This is continuous action, a matter of practice. Now we don't walk along our daily life and "accidentally" fall into a pit called sin. We exercise our will but, the use of the participle clearly shows a ongoing, willful, continuous action. The unrighteous practice sin (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21); not the righteous, who are born of God. (1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 John 3:9)

If the word 'sanctified' in Hebrews 10:29 is used to describe saved people who lost their salvation as eternal IN-securists teach, then we have a contradiction because the writer of Hebrews in verse 10 said "sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Hebrews 10:10) and in verse 14, we read, "perfected for all time those who are sanctified." (Hebrews 10:14) So in Hebrews 10:10, we clearly read ..WE have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. In Hebrews 10:14, we read - For by one offering He has perfected for all time THOSE who are sanctified. To go from sanctified back to un-sanctified would be in contradiction here.

*NOWHERE in the context does it specifically say the person who "trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant" was "saved" and/or "lost their salvation." The reference to "the blood of the covenant that sanctified him" in verse 29 "on the surface" appears to be referring to a Christian, but this overlooks the fact that the word translated "sanctified" (which is the verb form of the adjective "holy") which means "set apart," and doesn't necessarily refer to salvation.

Strong's Concordance
hagiazó: to make holy, consecrate, sanctify
Original Word: ἁγιάζω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: hagiazó
Phonetic Spelling: (hag-ee-ad'-zo)
Definition: to make holy, consecrate, sanctify
Usage: I make holy, treat as holy, set apart as holy, sanctify, hallow, purify.

*In 1 Corinthians 7:14, Paul uses it to specifically refer to non-Christians who are "sanctified" or "set apart" by their believing spouse and by this Paul does not mean that they are saved. A non-Christian can be "set apart" from other non-Christians without experiencing salvation as Paul explained. So the word "sanctified" means to be "set apart." If the word "sanctified" simply meant saved, then you would have to say that the seventh day was saved (Genesis 2:3), the tabernacle was saved (Exodus 29:43), Moses saved the people after coming down off the mountain (Exodus 19:14), the priests and the Levites saved themselves (1 Chronicles 15:14), the Father saved the Son (John 10:36), the Son saved Himself (John 17:19) and many other things that do not line up with scripture.

In verse 39, the writer of Hebrews sets up the CONTRAST that makes it clear to me that he was referring to "nominal" Christians not saved people: But WE are not of those who draw back to perdition, but OF THOSE who believe to the saving of the soul. Those who draw back to perdition do not believe to the saving of the soul and those who believe to the saving of the soul do not draw back to perdition.

So after considering the CONTEXT, it seems most likely that "he was sanctified" should be understood in the sense of someone who had been "set apart" or identified as a professing believer in the community of Hebrew Christians, but later renounces his identification with other believers, by rejecting the "knowledge of the truth" that he had received, and trampling under foot the work and the person of Christ himself. This gives evidence that his identification with the community of Hebrew Christians was only superficial and that he was not a genuine believer.

 

[Danthemailman]

Looks like he was apostate.

Simon the sorcerer is said to have “believed and was baptized” at the preaching of Philip (Acts 8:13) but later, when Simon offers the apostles money to have their ability to impart the Holy Spirit (verses 18–19), he is rebuked by Peter. Peter answered: "May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. (verses 20-21) Even though we read that Simon "believed," the remainder of the verse hints at the true object of his belief: "the miracles and signs which were done." No saving belief in Christ.

 

[Don Maurer]

It feels like you are saying that with my view of atonement Christ's death didn't accomplish anything. Maybe that's not what you are saying, but I feel a bit offended by that.

See Hammster's post at #460 above.

An interesting fact is that in the old covenant, the atonement sacrifice was made for all the Israeli people, but not every person atonement was made for was saved.

I question the assumption concerning the absolute and total equality of the New Covenant and the Old Covenants. While I would agree that the nature of the Old Covenant did not provide salvation for each and every Israelite. I would not agree that the nature of the New Covenant is the same.

The writer of Hebrews divides the nature of the two covenants when he says:
Hebrews 8:7-8a For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. For finding fault with them, He says,

Then the writer quotes Jeremiah and notes this exact thing in the New Covenant promises in Jeremiah.
Jeremiah 31:34
They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

The point I am trying to make is that while zoidar's 2nd statement is true at face value, I think he is implying that this is somehow parallel with the New Covenant.

 

[zoidar]

See Hammster's post at #460 above.


I question the assumption concerning the absolute and total equality of the New Covenant and the Old Covenants. While I would agree that the nature of the Old Covenant did not provide salvation for each and every Israelite. I would not agree that the nature of the New Covenant is the same.

The writer of Hebrews divides the nature of the two covenants when he says:
Hebrews 8:7-8a For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. For finding fault with them, He says,

Then the writer quotes Jeremiah and notes this exact thing in the New Covenant promises in Jeremiah.
Jeremiah 31:34
They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

The point I am trying to make is that while zoidar's 2nd statement is true at face value, I think he is implying that this is somehow parallel with the New Covenant.

I didn't miss Hamster's post.

I don't see Christ's sacrifice as a payment, not the way we pay a fine for speeding. If I did I think I would agree of it being inconsistant. A washing machine is a better comparison. It's provided for the whole family (everyone created in God's image), but those in the family that don't wash their clothes walk around dirty.

Also if we see it as a payment I don't see why we need to receive it by faith. We don't need to believe the fine to have been paid for us to be free. So that I would say is inconsistent in Hamster's view.

 

[Don Maurer]

I didn't miss Hamster's post.

I don't see Christ sacrifice as a payment, not the way we pay a fine for speeding

I didn't miss Hamster's post.

I don't see Christ's sacrifice as a payment, not the way we pay a fine for speeding. If I did I think I would agree of it being inconsistant. A washing machine is a better comparison. It's provided for the whole family (everyone created in God's image), but those in the family that don't wash their clothes walk around dirty.

Also if we see it as a payment I don't see why we need to receive it by faith. We don't need to believe the fine to have been paid for us to be free. So that I would say is a contradiction in Hamster's view.

Oh, I did not see that one coming (I will admit that I am used to arminians borrowing from the reformed view of the atonement). You deny the penal aspect of the atonement! I assume you also deny it as substitutionary? A true general view of the atonement? What benefits did the atonement have for unbelievers?

* Edit, I will slow down, I see you are editing your posts and I am responding to parts you wrote earlier.

 

[zoidar]

Oh, I did not see that one coming (I will admit that I am used to arminians borrowing from the reformed view of the atonement). You deny the penal aspect of the atonement! I assume you also deny it as substitutionary? A true general view of the atonement? What benefits did the atonement have for unbelievers?

* Edit, I will slow down, I see you are editing your posts and I am responding to parts you wrote earlier.

Editing posts is a bad habit of mine.

First I like to say, isn't penal substitution a Protestant idea, neither held by Catholics or Orthodox Christians?

What benefit did the serpent have that Moses rose in desert to those that refused to look at it? Means of healing was provided.

 

[zoidar]

Oh, I did not see that one coming (I will admit that I am used to arminians borrowing from the reformed view of the atonement). You deny the penal aspect of the atonement! I assume you also deny it as substitutionary? A true general view of the atonement? What benefits did the atonement have for unbelievers?

* Edit, I will slow down, I see you are editing your posts and I am responding to parts you wrote earlier.

I wouldn't say I totally dismiss the idea of penal substitution. I think as it's held today have some errors. Maybe that means that I do dismiss it, since I'm not completely buying it? What benefits do unbelievers have of the atonement? They are bought free, their sins have been conquered, but they have no use of that until they receive it.

 

[Don Maurer]

First I like to say, isn't penal substitution a Protestant idea, neither held by Catholics or Orthodox Christians?

My opinion is complicated. Currently, I would agree that the majority of Roman Catholics would dispute penal substitution along with some Arminian protestants as more General atonement.

What benefit did the serpent have that Moses rose in desert to those that refused to look at it? Means of healing was provided.

None

 

[Don Maurer]

What benefits do unbelievers have of the atonement? They are bought free, their sins have been conquered, but they have no use of that until they receive it.

I do not see the concept of any forgiveness of sin for unbelievers in scripture. When the scriptures talk about the atonement, it addresses the elect, or Christians.
1 Cor 6:20 For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.
1 Cor 7:23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.
Paul exorts Christian behavior based upon Christians being bought by the blood, but not unbelievers.

Heb 9:28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many,
In John 10, Christ died for the sheep, he died for the Church, he died for his friends. There are many many atonement verses that limit the extent of the atonement. I will not flood the screen with a lot of verses. In Hebrews 9:28 Christ bore the sins of many, but the word "many" falls short of a general atonement.

General atonement interpretations are based upon misunderstandings of the world "all" (pas) or "world." Common passages like John 3:16 are used that it is impossible to used to demonstrate a general or universal atonement including unbelievers. Even in John 3:16 there is a limit to the extent of the atonement. In the phrase "whosoever believes" (ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων) the participle (the ones who believe) limits the extent of the atonement only to believers. The two verses after this in John 3:17-18 also demonstrate a non-universal atonement.

* I apologize, I did not want to quote a lot of verses. That always seemed cheap and shallow behavior to me. So let me pick one verse and context. If I had to pick one context to work on, I would pick the Heb 9:28 reference. That context follows discussions on the high priestly ministry of Christ in the New Covenant. In that context, in Hebrews 9:14, Christs sacrifice on the cross "makes perfect" (Heb 10:1) or "perfected" (Hebrews 10:14). If that is the blessings of being under the atonement, then do you not have to say that unbelievers are actively perfected? In Hebrews, all who are under the blood and the atonement have Christ as their great high priest. Christ is the mediator who pleads his blood for all who are under the atonement. But Hebrews applies this atonement not to unbelievers, but only to the "many" (Heb 9:28). The "many" in verse 28 are also "those who eagerly await for Him." The many are those in vese 26 with whom Christ "put away sins."

I am done for now. If you write, I will read, but I have other things I need to move unto and get done.

Thanks,
Don

 

[zoidar]

I do not see the concept of any forgiveness of sin for unbelievers in scripture. When the scriptures talk about the atonement, it addresses the elect, or Christians.
1 Cor 6:20 For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.
1 Cor 7:23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.
Paul exorts Christian behavior based upon Christians being bought by the blood, but not unbelievers.

Heb 9:28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many,
In John 10, Christ died for the sheep, he died for the Church, he died for his friends. There are many many atonement verses that limit the extent of the atonement. I will not flood the screen with a lot of verses. In Hebrews 9:28 Christ bore the sins of many, but the word "many" falls short of a general atonement.

General atonement interpretations are based upon misunderstandings of the world "all" (pas) or "world." Common passages like John 3:16 are used that it is impossible to used to demonstrate a general or universal atonement including unbelievers. Even in John 3:16 there is a limit to the extent of the atonement. In the phrase "whosoever believes" (ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων) the participle (the ones who believe) limits the extent of the atonement only to believers. The two verses after this in John 3:17-18 also demonstrate a non-universal atonement.

* I apologize, I did not want to quote a lot of verses. That always seemed cheap and shallow behavior to me. So let me pick one verse and context. If I had to pick one context to work on, I would pick the Heb 9:28 reference. That context follows discussions on the high priestly ministry of Christ in the New Covenant. In that context, in Hebrews 9:14, Christs sacrifice on the cross "makes perfect" (Heb 10:1) or "perfected" (Hebrews 10:14). If that is the blessings of being under the atonement, then do you not have to say that unbelievers are actively perfected? In Hebrews, all who are under the blood and the atonement have Christ as their great high priest. Christ is the mediator who pleads his blood for all who are under the atonement. But Hebrews applies this atonement not to unbelievers, but only to the "many" (Heb 9:28). The "many" in verse 28 are also "those who eagerly await for Him." The many are those in vese 26 with whom Christ "put away sins."

I am done for now. If you write, I will read, but I have other things I need to move unto and get done.

Thanks,
Don

Every Christian (with few exceptions) agrees that the atonement is applied by faith. If we look at John 3:16-17 you mention, it doesn't say that the atonement didn't include everyone. What it says is that God gave his Son for everyone (the world) and that those who believe in him will have eternal life, IOW it's applied to those that believe. I don't know how you understand John 3:16-17, but I think it's hard to get "world" here to mean anything else than everyone.

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
— John 3:16-17

On Hebrews I believe as you do that "many" (Heb 9:28) doesn't mean all. But where you believe it refers to those that will be eternally saved in the end, I believe it refers to us when we have come to faith, not before faith. How are we made perfect before we have received Christ? It's those, when they draw near through faith that they are perfected.

For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near.
— Hebrews 10:1

Also looking at Leviticus 16 we see that the sins were first confessed before they were borne away. So also we need to confess our sins before they are borne (away).

Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and he shall lay them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands in readiness. The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a solitary land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness.
— Leviticus 16:21-22

so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.
— Hebrews 9:28

 

[Don Maurer]

Every Christian (with few exceptions) agrees that the atonement is applied by faith.

Well, you did said there were exceptions.... : ) .... that would be me and other reformed guys in this place. I doubt you would get many reformed guys here (maybe even none) to agree that "the atonement is applied by faith." Reformed people see faith as a part of the atonement and not the cause of the atonement being applied. This is actually the crux of the matter. This is the actual issue. Everything else discussed is just bobbles.

Let me explain further. Reformed people would agree that justification is by faith alone... absolutely!!! Justification by faith alone is a hill for reformed people to die on. The doctrine of Justification by faith alone is in every reformed creed. However, Reformed people do not equate the word "atonement" as equal with justification. The atonement, or shed blood of Christ did far more than justify. We see the benefits of the atonement before and after justification. Before the justification there is "prevenient grace" or "regeneration." The reformed community sees faith as the result of regeneration, not the result of sinful and rebellious man, who is in Adam and is "by nature a child of wrath" (Ephesians 2:3), and suppresses the knowledge of God (Romans 1:18). Without the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration, there would be no faith. Faith is caused by regeneration (1 John 5:1) or being born again and is a the result of the atonement and not the cause of it being applied.

This also has to do with "original sin" or what Calvinists call "total depravity." Since Calvinists or Reformed doctrine states that no man can come to Christ (see John 6:44). Therefore, no one can have faith. Due to original sin, we are born into a rebellion against God and the human race only suppresses the truth about God and redemption (Romans 1:18). Faith is not something that is possible for sinful men to achieve, it is a gift (Philippians 1:29; Ephesians 2:8-9) of the Holy Spirit.

If we look at John 3:16-17 you mention, it doesn't say that the atonement didn't include everyone. What it says is that God gave his son for everyone (the world) and that those who believe in him will have eternal life, IOW it's applied to those that believe. I don't know how you understand John 3:16-17, but I think it's hard to get "world" here to mean anything else than everyone.

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
— John 3:16-17

There are different understandings among Calvinists or Reformed people. This might produce some inter-Reformed discussion, but here goes!! There are some who might merely point out that John 3:16 does not actually say that the atonement is for all men, but they would agree that God loves all men. I am not one of them. I do not believe that God loves all men in a redemptive way. I would be OK with the idea God loves all men because they are his creation, because he gives them common grace. I would disagree that this is what John 3:16 is saying. John 3:16 is not speaking of common grace or loving people because the are his creation. The context is about his redemptive love. Another context about Gods redemptive love would be Romans 9:13. In that verse he hated Esau. How can God love the world (each and every person who ever lived) redemptively if he hated Esau? Would you agree that both contexts speak of God's redemptive love? If you do, then do you not have a problem? This is not a problem for me because I see limitations upon the term "world" in John 3:16. The term world can have many many different meanings in scripture. John Owen, in his book "the death of death in the death of Christ" listed quite a large group of different meanings for the term.

Now to the context of John 3:16 itself. First, it is impossible to understand the phrase "that whoever believes in him" in any universal way. It is impossible due to the grammar. When some approach the term "whoever" or "whosoever" they fail to see the limits on the term. In greek, when you have a participle following the word "all" (pas), the participle always limits the term "all." In John 3:16 the term all does not show up because it is translated by the english term "whosoever." The term "whosoever" must be understood in a limited sense. Let me illustrate. If I were to say to a room full of 10 people "whoever wants an ice cream cone come with me," we understand that there is context and a limit to the use of the term "whoever." I am not offering an ice cream cone to everyone in the world that ever lived. I am only offering an ice cream cone to the world inside the room of 10 people. That illustration only shows how the term "whosoever" can have a limited context. The greek grammar in John 3:16 requires a that we understand that the term "whosoever" be limited only to those who believe. So then, God gave his only begotten son (atonement) for the purpose of saving only those who believe.
* Also note that there is a way in greek to express the english term "whosoever" in an indefinite way that could include the whole world in the sense of it being each an every person. That would be if the particle "an" was in the sentence. Such an example is found in John 4:14. In John 4:14 the word "whosoever" is very different from the same english word in John 3:16.
* One might ask why Christ used a limited clause in John 3:16 and used the indefinite particle in John 4:14. Of course the answer is "context." In John 3:16 there is a redemptive context, and in John 4:14 Christ is making a gospel offer, but not speaking of redemption.

The idea of a redemptive world also occurs in verse 17. The world is saved (I recognize it is a conditional clause). Then in verse 18, Christ says that unbelievers are judged already! Why the term "already?" (hdh)? Because they did not believe, and faith is a part of the atonement.

On Hebrews I believe as you do that "many" (Heb 9:28) doesn't mean all. But where you believe it refers to those that will be eternally saved in the end, I believe it refers to us when we have come to faith, not before faith. How are we made perfect before we have received Christ? It's those that draw near through faith that are perfected.

This is confusing. I think you are agreeing with me that Hebrews 9:28 requires a limit to the extent to the atonement?

Also looking at Leviticus 16 we see that the sins were first confessed before they were borne away. So we need to confess our sins before they are borne (away).

Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and he shall lay them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands in readiness. The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to a solitary land; and he shall release the goat in the wilderness.
— Leviticus 16:21-22

This gets back to something I wrote about before. You are equating two unequal covenants. In the Old Covenant, the priest had to go into the Holy of Holy's every year. Why? The same sins needed atoned for repeatedly. If the covenants were equal, Christ would need to die every year (Hebrews 9:26). Of course under the New Covenant, the true Christ died once and for all (Hebrews 9:28).

Also, more importantly, I do not think confessing the iniquities results in salvation. I would take the plural (iniquities) as referring to individual sins. While I agree that we should confess our sins (1 John 1:9, I do not see sorrow or the confession of individual sins as the same thing as faith and repentance.

I am guessing you do not see the people under the atonement of Lev 16 as saved anyway since you formerly agreed that not all Israel was saved.

I really have to stay away from this site, I have other things to do. I will be shutting it down. Maybe tomorrow I will come back.