Featured General Reconciliation

so, if the book of life was written from the foundation of the world, and the blood of the Eternal Lamb of Glory also shed from the foundation of the world, and that blood shed for a particular people, and only for them, the words in Exodus makes sense where God requires the blood of the passover lamb on the doorposts of all Israelites and ONLY Israelites, and instructed His priests to sprinkle the people with the same sacrificial and atoning blood, COLLECTIVELY, not individually.
The Spirit marks His people, and the Spirit knows who they are.
He was enacting, through this national people whom He created from the loins of one man, Abraham, what is to be considered a dot, a period, a finish punctuation mark, HERE IN TIME, which He has foreordained in eternity, and we need to recall Paul's words to the Roman church in Romans 15:4, quote:

For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

The entire Scripture, all its shadows, types, pictures, etc., is God's message of hope to those of us specifically in this and coming generations, just as the star at Bethlehem shined in the heavens a beacon for those who look and hope to his coming and the fulfillment of all prohecies concerning His coming.

We derive hope from the fact that none of our flimsy, flim-flam deeds is expected by the Father for our redemption.

Christ did it all.
Nothing lacking.

 

whil the atonement of jesus death on the Cross was a propiation for all the sins of the Elect of God, ALL were born sinners under condemnation, and that ONLY when we were born again and justified by God in this kife at a real moment in time did we become the reconciled of God!

 

Jesus death appeased the wrath of God towards the sinners that God intended for Him to die for, penal substitution, so to deny a particular view, wouldn't arminian traditionally have to deny substitution, and go for more exotic viewpoints?

 

Van, you still don't get it, you just have to speak against Calvinism as if that is some bad that you can't escape.

You say that I misquoted you by putting "atonement" rather than "reconciliation," but frankly the Scriptures use atonement as reconciliation - that is the meaning the words are interchangeable.

Wanting to assign my posts as attempts to refute you and that you flatly refused - even assigned some evil agenda to an offering of resource to benefit your quest - is truly sad.

 

Actually reconciliation is the result of the cross but that does not mean that reconciliation occurred only in time AFTER the cross. All saints prior to the cross were reconciled to God through faith and had their sins remitted by faith (Acts 10:43) and Paul explicitly states this in Romans 3:25:

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Paul also states the same in Hebrews:

15 ¶ And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

 

The text does not say a word about denying or distorting the atonement but denying the "Master" who bought them. The object of the verb is "Master" not the word "bought."

 

Deny what? The grammar repudiates your interpretation entirely. The text does not say they "deny the atonement" but deny "the master." The object of the verb "deny" is not "bought" as your interpretation demands but the object is "The Master." Peter did not say they denied being "bought" by the Master.

You are directly inferring that Calvinists are "false prophets" and that they deny "the Master". I was just warned for merely defining repudiation of the new birth was close to be an offense to be banned and yet you can come on and direct assert those who embrace limited atonement are "false prophets" and deny "the Master" who bought them.

 

This text is one of the more stronger proof texts used against a strict limited atonement. However, I believe the atonement is universal in the sense that Christ paid the eternal penalty for the Adamic sin singular (Jn 1:29) so that no individual goes to hell or is punished in hell for the race sin in Adam. Instead, they are judged "according to their own works" performed in their own individual bodies. So, in the sense of the sin of the world singular they were redeemed from that penalty. This is the reason why dying infants and others who die incapable of rational decision do not go to hell as the only sin that would condemn them to hell is race participation in Adam's sin.

 

Does your post above back up my understanding of Romans 3:25 that being
God before place Jesus the Christ, that is before the foundation of the world, a propitiation. the place of mercy. God did this because of the belief, the faith, he God was placing in his Son, to be born of woman, of being obedient unto death, shedding his sinless blood. Because of this faith of God, he God made a promise before the world begin of the hope of eternal life for the Christ, as of a lamb without spot and without blemish.

When Jesus, the lamb of God, learned and became obedient unto death, see Heb 5:8 Phil 2:8 he was given or inherited the promise of God, being the heir of God, by the resurrection from the dead, incorruptible and thus became the substance of things hope for the evidence of things not seen bringing salvation, grace through the faith, to man.

I believe the word shows that Spirit the God, Holy as Father brought forth the Son of God, the Holy One, the Just one, into the world, conceived/generated Matt 1:20 within the virgin Mary then born of her. Then because of the aforementioned above the promise of the blessings given to Abraham can be given us through the promise of the Holy Spirit.

Before the foundation of the world the Christ was going to come into the world for the purpose of death, therefore God created man, Adam in his image and made a help meet for him by taking woman from the Man, Adam. For the very purpose of the Christ, the seed of Abraham, the son of David, the Son of God coming into the world.

Abraham the friend of God and David the man after God's own heart were men OF the faith, not men who generated faith from within themselves.

They were men of the belief to come. See Gal. 3:23-25

The belief being that God in Christ would reconcile the world unto himself.

 

Good to have you back.

 

How does this retract from the truth of the principle that the blood of the Lamb was SELECTIVELY and PARTICULARLY applied ONLY to those whose names were written from the foundation of the world in the Lamb's book of Life, long before they even heard the Name of Christ, or the gospel, or "accepted" Christ
?
The FACT is that the Bible teaches names were written in a book in ETERNITY PAST and for those whose names are not in that book, there is no atonement, no adoption, and no redemption.

And if the language is difficult, then on what basis do you accept the NASB's rendering ?

 

well, didn't you just admit that Scripture teaches God wrote names in His book of life FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD ?

And the same Scriptures teaches that God sends to the lake of fire those whose names were not found in the book ? Therefore the blood of Christ does not COVER THE WHOLE WORLD ?

so, whose doctrine is now bogus.
Those of the Doctrine of Grace, or those of the doctrine of disgrace such as yours ?