Those who demand a scripture that demands a Limited Atonement !

[cygnusx1]

A few days ago there was a bit of a battle going on here in Soteriology concerning Limited Atonement , also known as Definite Atonement .

It was demanded by those who believe in Universal Atonement that those who believe in Limited Atonement provide at least one scripture that limits the atonement to below all men , the difficulty being many scriptures do seem on the face of it to give some evidence of a Universal Atonement .

Well here is one such scripture that specifically rules out all atonement for certain ones by God :

1 Samuel 3:14, "And therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever."


This text specifically mentions the house of Eli and their sin shall NEVER be atoned for !

Sure , some will gloss over this and suggest Christ still came to atone for these sinners , even though God the Father swore to exclude them from all future hope by shutting them off from atonement forever !

Yes , there are very good reasons for accepting Limited Atonement , and the open minded will find the truth.

 

[sdowney717]

Good verse for limited atonement

'provide at least one scripture that limits the atonement to below all men '

In the NT, everlasting destruction, so there is no atonement possible for this class of persons.
2 Thessalonians 1

6 since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, 7 and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,

10 when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe,[a] because our testimony among you was believed.

For unbelievers there is no atonement, they have everlasting destruction.
Defined here as those who do not know God and or are disobedient to the Gospel.
Ignorance is no excuse, they are guilty who commit sins ignorantly and they go to hell fire.

Hard to grasp that someone would think God redeems all men seeing the above and all the mention of the ungodly in scripture who go to an eternal hell fire.

 

[FreeGrace2]

A few days ago there was a bit of a battle going on here in Soteriology concerning Limited Atonement , also known as Definite Atonement .

It was demanded by those who believe in Universal Atonement that those who believe in Limited Atonement provide at least one scripture that limits the atonement to below all men , the difficulty being many scriptures do seem on the face of it to give some evidence of a Universal Atonement .

Well here is one such scripture that specifically rules out all atonement for certain ones by God :

1 Samuel 3:14, "And therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever."


This text specifically mentions the house of Eli and their sin shall NEVER be atoned for !

Sure , some will gloss over this and suggest Christ still came to atone for these sinners , even though God the Father swore to exclude them from all future hope by shutting them off from atonement forever !

Yes , there are very good reasons for accepting Limited Atonement , and the open minded will find the truth.

Yes, the open minded will certainly find the truth. But to correct the OP a bit, there has been no "demand", but rather, a request, and a frequent one at that, for those who do not believe that Jesus Christ died for everyone to provide a verse that is clear and unambiguous that He didn't die for everyone.

So, finally, one from RT has provided a verse that supposedly teaches that Christ didn't die for.

What is clear is that the house of Eli is being punished for Eli's sin of not rebuking his evil sons. And the verse clearly stipulates the punishment; there will be no atonement by sacrifice or offering forever.

The problem for the OP is that this verse in no way extends beyond the OT sacrificial system. It has nothing to do with what Christ did.

How do we know this? The writer of Hebrews was very clear about the OT system of sacrifice and atonement.

Heb 9:24-28 -
24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28 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.

The word for "many" in v.28 is "polus", which is the exact same word found in Rom 5:15 - But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.

In both passages, it is "the many" per my interlinear. That phrase, "hoi polloi" means "the masses", an idiom signifying "everybody".

The reason the OP acknowledges "the difficulty being many scriptures do seem on the face of it to give some evidence of a Universal Atonement" is because all those passages are clear enough for anyone with an open mind to understand that Christ most assuredly died for the masses, or everyone.

 

[cygnusx1]

As expected , the argument runs that this exclusion by God of all sacrifice and offering by atonement forever is only OT sacrifices !

To the open minded this is denial of the obvious , God swearing to show no mercy by denying atonement by sacrifice forever to these sinners , only to turn around and change His mind years later by sending his son to sacrifice and atone for them is a clear contradiction.

It is the weakest argument , also obvious why it is being made , prejudice and clinging onto preconceived views , seeing as we are told that Christ death is capable of saving men even in OT times , sure , because it works both forwards and backwards through time , are we then gullible enough to believe God restricts Atonement forever to these men and at the same time offers them , in their own time , Christ's atonement ?

Such an argument contradictory as it is will be clung onto whatever the cost by some .

But the truth shall set you free !

Were these men atoned for by God ?

No.

 

[Shane R]

This way of speaking of a limited atonement is a straw-man. Few would argue that atonement is truly unlimited. The question is whether the atonement is limited by some property or characteristic inherent to God or whether man, through unbelief and disobedience, is the limiting factor.

Could Christ's death potentially benefit all men? Yes. However, the scriptures are clear that a portion of humanity is lost and will be lost eternally.

 

[cygnusx1]

Regarding N T texts that use the word "many" , clearly that word is self evidently restricting , it doesn't mean "all" :

"Many are called but few are chosen"

All are called ?

Many haven't heard the Gospel , and know nothing of Gods call , that is why we send out missionaries , because men are ignorant .
Does this excuse them ?

No !

There are distinct levels of grounds of condemnation , the gospel is but one of them , if rejected it brings a higher condemnation .

The universal ground of condemnation for all sinners is Gods revelation in Nature , which is universal : Romans 1-2

 

[ForceofTime]

Well here is one such scripture that specifically rules out all atonement for certain ones by God :

1 Samuel 3:14, "And therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever."

This text specifically mentions the house of Eli and their sin shall NEVER be atoned for !

Ok, but with this in mind:

Hebrews 10:26 KJV For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

Along with this:

1 Samuel 2:29 KJV Wherefore kick ye at my sacrifice and at mine offering, which I have commanded in my habitation; and honourest thy sons above me, to make yourselves fat with the chiefest of all the offerings of Israel my people?

It could be argued that they had it, but abused it.

 

[FreeGrace2]

As expected , the argument runs that this exclusion by God of all sacrifice and offering by atonement forever is only OT sacrifices !

To the open minded ones, the context is clearly about the OT sacrifices. It says so clearly. And I showed from Hebrews that the OT sacrifices had to be done repeatedly because they didn't actually remove the penalty of sin. That's what Christ did.

To the open minded this is denial of the obvious , God swearing to show no mercy by denying atonement by sacrifice forever to these sinners , only to turn around and change His mind years later by sending his son to sacrifice and atone for them is a clear contradiction.

The key is "atonement by sacrifice", which is clear reference to the system in place at the time it was written.

It is the weakest argument , also obvious why it is being made , prejudice and clinging onto preconceived views , seeing as we are told that Christ death is capable of saving men even in OT times , sure , because it works both forwards and backwards through time , are we then gullible enough to believe God restricts Atonement forever to these men and at the same time offers them , in their own time , Christ's atonement ?

Such an argument contradictory as it is will be clung onto whatever the cost by some .

Denial of the obvious isn't helpful for the ones who deny. The verse is about the OT sacrificial system, not about Christ's death.

Or, if it was, it only indicates that Levi's house wasn't included in Christ's sacrifice, yet there is no reason to believe that. But even if your view was right, all that can be said is that Christ didn't die for Levi's house. Nothing more than that.

But the truth shall set you free !

Only when believed.

Were these men atoned for by God ?

No.

They were excluded from the OT sacrifices and offerings.

The contextual key is the words "sacrifices and offerings". That is clearly an OT thing.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Regarding N T texts that use the word "many" , clearly that word is self evidently restricting , it doesn't mean "all" :

"Many are called but few are chosen"

All are called ?

The key was the phrase "the many", which is an idiom for "the masses". Christ died for the masses.

Many haven't heard the Gospel , and know nothing of Gods call , that is why we send out missionaries , because men are ignorant .
Does this excuse them ?

No !

Red herring.

There are distinct levels of grounds of condemnation , the gospel is but one of them , if rejected it brings a higher condemnation .

Do you mean deeper in the lake?

The universal ground of condemnation for all sinners is Gods revelation in Nature , which is universal : Romans 1-2

Yes, one of my favorite passages that I quote often to Calvinists.

 

[hedrick]

The discussions I've read of the OT sacrificial system point out that sacrifices are generally for inadvertent sins, but not for "high-handed" sins. Number 15:29-31. However many scholars believe that true repentance could deal with those sins. The usual OT citation for forgiveness outside the sacrificial system is Ps 51.

I see no reason to think that this passage goes beyond Num 15, in saying that the sin of Eli and his sons was high-handed, and thus beyond ordinary atonement by the sacrificial system. However if Christ is unable to deal with intentional sins, we're all in trouble.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The discussions I've read of the OT sacrificial system point out that sacrifices are generally for inadvertent sins, but not for "high-handed" sins. Number 15:29-31. However many scholars believe that true repentance could deal with those sins. The usual OT citation for forgiveness outside the sacrificial system is Ps 51.

I see no reason to think that this passage goes beyond Num 15, in saying that the sin of Eli and his sons was high-handed, and thus beyond ordinary atonement by the sacrificial system. However if Christ is unable to deal with intentional sins, we're all in trouble.

 

[St_Worm2]

I'm not sure if this is perfectly suited to this thread, but in Acts we read:

"Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. For so the Lord has commanded us:
​

‘I have set you as a light to the Gentiles, that you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth.’　
​

Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life, believed." Acts 13:46-48
​

 

[cygnusx1]

Never had any problem with Christ dying for many (masses of humanity) it covers gender , race , high and lowly . But not those destined to disobey (Jude)

It cannot include the house of Eli , else God lies

1 Samuel 3:14, "And therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever."

And God cannot lie

 

[cygnusx1]

The discussions I've read of the OT sacrificial system point out that sacrifices are generally for inadvertent sins, but not for "high-handed" sins. Number 15:29-31. However many scholars believe that true repentance could deal with those sins. The usual OT citation for forgiveness outside the sacrificial system is Ps 51.

I see no reason to think that this passage goes beyond Num 15, in saying that the sin of Eli and his sons was high-handed, and thus beyond ordinary atonement by the sacrificial system. However if Christ is unable to deal with intentional sins, we're all in trouble.

God swore to exclude Eli's house from atonement forever , not for a few hundred years , repentance can never deal with sins stain and condemnation but is Gods gift to us to bring us back to Himself , without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin , not some sins .

 

[sdowney717]

God swore to exclude Eli's house from atonement forever , not for a few hundred years , repentance can never deal with sins stain and condemnation but is Gods gift to us to bring us back to Himself , without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin , not some sins .

God says, the Rock of Christ makes them fall, those who are stumble over the rock being disobedient to the gospel and to which they were appointed.

6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture,

“Behold, I lay in Zion
A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.”
7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient,[c]

“The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone,”[d]
8 and

“A stone of stumbling
And a rock of offense.”[e]
They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed..

They are disobedient to the WORD and to this they were appointed. that is to to stumble and be disobedient.

In Jude it says.

4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Long ago marked for condemnation. These are sensual persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit.

Sensual == earthy emotional fleshly minded persons, puffed up in their own vain imaginations, in agreement with the spirit of this age and who do not posses Godly wisdom.
False teachers and false brethren cause divisiveness from pure true doctrine of God.
They introduce their own interpretations, theory and thoughts which are of earthly wisdom which is devilish ultimately in origin. Their tongues are set on fire by hell (Satan) and why not as for many, Satan is their spiritual father.

Our doctrine must include the whole counsel of God in scripture as Paul says,

26 Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. 27 For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. 28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God[c] which He purchased with His own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. 31 Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.

The church of God, Jesus purchased with His own blood. Jesus did not purchase all men otherwise they would be in the church and of God. Those not purchased are outside of God's precious promises, they are not children of the promise. They are not of those who God has said “In Isaac your seed shall be called.”

 

[FreeGrace2]

Never had any problem with Christ dying for many (masses of humanity) it covers gender , race , high and lowly . But not those destined to disobey (Jude)

Except there is nothing in Jude to conclude that Christ didn't die for everyone. One only needs to properly understand what is being "destined" for the disobedient.

It cannot include the house of Eli , else God lies

Been over this, but you are free to hold on to your own opinion. The context refers to the OT sacrificial system, period.

1 Samuel 3:14, "And therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever."

Yep, as I said.

And God cannot lie

No one is suggeting that.

 

[ForceofTime]

Never had any problem with Christ dying for many (masses of humanity) it covers gender , race , high and lowly . But not those destined to disobey (Jude)

It cannot include the house of Eli , else God lies

1 Samuel 3:14, "And therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever."

And God cannot lie

Of course not, anymore than He lied here:

Jeremiah 22:29-30 KJV O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD. (30) Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

But, in here: Matthew 1:1 KJV The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. we see the following:

Matthew 1:12 KJV And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;

 

[hedrick]

God swore to exclude Eli's house from atonement forever , not for a few hundred years , repentance can never deal with sins stain and condemnation but is Gods gift to us to bring us back to Himself , without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin , not some sins .

I trust you realize that Heb actually says "under the Law ... without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins". Note "under the Law." Lev (part of the Torah) gives the Law's way of expiating sin. Ps 51 gives a non-legal approach.

Furthermore, both Ps 51 and Heb 10 make it clear that the legal approach was always intended just as a foreshadowing of the new covenant. Indeed Heb 10:5 and 8 say that sacrifice is *not* needed.

 

[ForceofTime]

I trust you realize that Heb actually says "under the Law ... without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins". Note "under the Law." Lev (part of the Torah) gives the Law's way of expiating sin. Ps 51 gives a non-legal approach.

Galatians 4:4-5 KJV But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, (5) To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Furthermore, both Ps 51 and Heb 10 make it clear that the legal approach was always intended just as a foreshadowing of the new covenant. Indeed Heb 10:5 and 8 say that sacrifice is *not* needed.

Insofar as we can give anything worthy to God except that which came from God from the first. Abraham didn't need to sacrifice Isaac because God would provide His Son. This also goes for Ps. 51. This is faith in the perfect sacrifice of the Passover Lamb that is Jesus Christ. Hebrews 10 repeats this over and over:

Hebrews 10:10 KJV By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Hebrews 10:12 KJV But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Hebrews 10:14 KJV For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

To say sacrifice is not needed for remission of sins makes the Cross void indirectly, so care must be taken. Repentance alone is not enough, it must be a repentance which leads to the Cross.

 

[hedrick]

Galatians 4:4-5 KJV But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, (5) To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Insofar as we can give anything worthy to God except that which came from God from the first. Abraham didn't need to sacrifice Isaac because God would provide His Son. This also goes for Ps. 51. This is faith in the perfect sacrifice of the Passover Lamb that is Jesus Christ. Hebrews 10 repeats this over and over:

Hebrews 10:10 KJV By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Hebrews 10:12 KJV But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Hebrews 10:14 KJV For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

To say sacrifice is not needed for remission of sins makes the Cross void indirectly, so care must be taken. Repentance alone is not enough, it must be a repentance which leads to the Cross.

My point was only that Heb makes a distinction between the legal sacrificial system and the kind of non-legal salvation that comes from Christ. I don't think 1 Sam was saying that the latter is impossible. That would be to maintain a completely unbiblical doctrine that there are sins which God won't forgive even if we repent. (It is, of course, possible that the Lord spoke as he did because he knew that Eli's sons would never repent.)

I'm not quite sure what your last sentence means. The OT doesn't refer explicitly to Christ, for obvious reasons. I'm not aware, however, of any Biblical concept of two kinds of repentance, once of which counts and one of which does not. To my knowledge repentance always includes turning to God. For us, of course that includes explicitly turning to Christ. That connection is only hinted at in the OT.

When I said the Ps 51 referred to a repentance not associated with sacrifice, obviously I didn't mean to dissociate it from Christ's sacrifice. It is a repentance not associated with the OT sacrificial system. Which I think is the point being made in 1 Sam. It is very unlikely that 1 Sam is referring to Christ's sacrifice. Sure, God could insert anachronisms in the OT if he wanted to. I just don't see any reason to assume it when there's a perfectly reasonable understanding that doesn't require that. I think you're adopting a very forced interpretation of this passage.