Did Jesus only atone, on the cross, for those who would believe in him?
Colossians 1:20 ... and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
1 Timothy 2:6 ... who gave himself as a ransom for all men...
2 Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all...
And then this would be atonement for everyone.
Certainly Jesus did lay down his life for the sheep (Jn. 10:15). And is there a verse saying Jesus laid down his life for everyone, too?
John 6:51 This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
What is the good news that the non-elect are being commanded to repent and believe? That God loves other people? That the elect's sins have been paid for?
Now the reply might be that "repent and believe the good news" is only directed really to the elect. But this verse seems to indicate differently:
2 Thess. 2:10 They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
What then is the truth, that if they had loved it, would have saved them, if Christ did not die for them? What can Paul mean, if there is no atonement for them? His statement seems to imply clearly that the alternative to their unbelief was salvation.
2 Thess. 2:12 ... and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.
Why are they condemned for not believing that God does not love them, that Christ did not pay the price for their sins, for refusing to believe that there is no atonement for them?
So then what was the truth they were to believe? Must this not be the gospel? For if they had believed it, they would have been saved.
But for the non-elect, if limited atonement is true, Christ did not die for them, thus would it have saved them, if they had somehow believed that Christ did not pay the price for their sins?
Blessings,
Lee
Colossians 1:20 ... and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
1 Timothy 2:6 ... who gave himself as a ransom for all men...
2 Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all...
And then this would be atonement for everyone.
Certainly Jesus did lay down his life for the sheep (Jn. 10:15). And is there a verse saying Jesus laid down his life for everyone, too?
John 6:51 This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
What is the good news that the non-elect are being commanded to repent and believe? That God loves other people? That the elect's sins have been paid for?
Now the reply might be that "repent and believe the good news" is only directed really to the elect. But this verse seems to indicate differently:
2 Thess. 2:10 They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
What then is the truth, that if they had loved it, would have saved them, if Christ did not die for them? What can Paul mean, if there is no atonement for them? His statement seems to imply clearly that the alternative to their unbelief was salvation.
2 Thess. 2:12 ... and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.
Why are they condemned for not believing that God does not love them, that Christ did not pay the price for their sins, for refusing to believe that there is no atonement for them?
So then what was the truth they were to believe? Must this not be the gospel? For if they had believed it, they would have been saved.
But for the non-elect, if limited atonement is true, Christ did not die for them, thus would it have saved them, if they had somehow believed that Christ did not pay the price for their sins?
Blessings,
Lee
Comment