More reasons Why The penal Substitution Atonement Model is best One!

As a friend wrote,
https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/...e6592a343b8924d35b0eaae5cd16c45d&action=click

 

thanks for this, Y1.
I particularly recommend the 4th link. Americans may not be aware of Garry Williams, but he is one of the best younger theologians in Britain. You need to have your brain in gear to understand him, and I shall certainly be reading his article a second time, but he is worthy of the effort required to engage fully with him.

 

Amen

Limited Atonement (Particular Redemption)

Limited Atonement is a doctrine offered in answer to the question, "for whose sins did Christ atone?" The Bible teaches that Christ died for those whom God gave him to save (John 17:9)

Joh 17:9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine... Christ died, indeed, for many people, but not all (Matthew 26:28).

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins

Specifically, Christ died for the invisible Church -- the sum total of all those who would ever rightly bear the name "Christian" (Ephesians 5:25).
This doctrine often finds many objections, mostly from those who think that Limited Atonement does damage to evangelism. We have already seen that Christ will not lose any that the father has given to him (John 6:37). Christ's death was not a death of potential atonement for all people. Believing that Jesus' death was a potential, symbolic atonement for anyone who might possibly, in the future, accept him trivializes Christ's act of atonement. Christ died to atone for specific sins of specific sinners. Christ died to make holy the church. He did not Atone for all men, because obviously all men are not saved. Evangelism is actually lifted up in this doctrine, for the evangelist may tell his congregation that Christ died for sinners, and that he will not lose any of those for whom he died!

 

There is a difference between “God pouring out his wrath” or some such statement as it pertains to the cross, and Christ taking on the wrath.

The first is not accurate, but the second is Scriptural.

Again, looking at Isaiah 53, the sequence wounded (pierced), bruised (crushed), stripes (scourging) - each a statement of blood letting. Each pertains to that which brings the required blood for reconciliation.

Transgressions, iniquities, and healing each had to be take place for the God to be both just and justifier. This was all necessary for God. Such a requirement for remissions of all that would cause God to stand in opposition to man was brought to a resolution that the first Adam be brought back into Eden (to use a word picture).

However there is one other requirement - chastisement. “The chastisement of our peace (well-being) upon Him.

Christ took upon Himself all necessary for restoration, but this is peculiarly special.

What a monstrous cost the peace, the well-being the intimacy required.

That the believer can have that which only God can give. That which passes understanding, that promise of “unforsaken friendship,” a benefit completely for man delivered to every believer.

That wonderful fellowship that Adam enjoyed with the Father in the cool of Eden is able to be given to the believer by the Father because of the chastisement of the Son.

Now, I know that some may disagree with the sentiment I expressed in this section of Isaiah.

When Paul preached reconciliation, it included restoration which will be completed in glorification.

 

Ah, but another poor soul that places the limit upon the sufficiency of the blood supply.

Strange that the OT lamb’s blood brought atonement for all in the land. A picture of what God would do for His land (creation). No limit in the blood.

Strange that the Apostle John wrote specifically that the blood was not just for believers, but all the world. No limit in the blood.

Strange that the Apostle Paul wrote that Christ died for the ungodly, and didn’t specify by indicating a portion of the ungodly.

Strange is that it is not sin that condemns, but unbelief. No limit in the blood.

So what is the Scriptures teach as the actual limit in atonement?

There is a limit to atonement, not from insufficient blood supply, but by God’s own purposed design.

Romans 9 is the statement of Paul on limited atonement. No limit on blood.

Why the “reformed” grab onto that which the Scriptures do not teach is just poor thinking.

 

Wether you say there is no blood limit or you say there is a limited Atonement, they both mean the same, the blood is ONLY applied to a few predestined elect who will be miraculiously be made born again so that they can believe by faith, Regeneration has to precede faith.

 

Amen, but the big question is who can or will believe.

 

Not the statement of either John or Paul.

The blood is once given for all, irregardless of any condition, for while we (all humanity) were sinners, Christ died. Sufficient and efficient, with no limit.

Romans 9 is the focus of Scriptures of where the actual limit resides.

It is that choice of the Father.

Those He chooses are not condemned, those He does not choose are condemned by unbelief, not lack of blood.

 

You missed the point.

There is no Scripture that states “the blood is only applied to a few predestined elect.”

What the Scriptures do teach is God is the determiner of vessels use, of who is elect and who isn’t.