Doesn;t the truth Of a Covenant relationship assume definite atonement?

Discussion in 'Calvinism/Arminianism Debate' started by Yeshua1, Jun 10, 2014.

  1. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,134
    Likes Received:
    52
    For if the Old and new Covenants were to be based upon sinners being reconciled back to a Covenant relationship with God, wouldn't that infer that God would be choosing Jesus as a definite atoner towards his covenant peoples?
     
  2. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,381
    Likes Received:
    728
    Yeshua1

    Off course it does. In most of the church world it is understood. Here on BB ....not so much:laugh::laugh: They hate the word and teaching of it:wavey:
     
  3. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,134
    Likes Received:
    52
    Just seems so obvious in the scriptures, that God always called out and kept a covenant people for Him underthe Old Covenat, how much more so under the New one?
     
  4. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Why invent a gospel based on "extreme inference"??

    The Bible says of Christ's atoning sacrifice "he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins and not for our sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE World' 1John 2:2.

    Thus God did not argue for "limited atoning sacrifice" as Calvinists do - but rather "unlimited atoning sacrifice' as Arminians do.

    So while it is true that there must be a limited atonement - since all are not saved in the end -- it is not true that there must also be a limited Atoning Sacrifice.

    A lot of Calvinists miss that detail.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     

Share This Page

Loading...