Some things never change in this forum, in fact they come in predictable cycles of practice and behaviour.
Such are, the entrenching into groups of shut-minded buddy condescension, the mushroom-like turned up of new monikers under cover, the mantra of pride, the dismantling of texts to accommodate a fixed position, and the adhominem propaganda when arguments cannot be refuted.
There is a hint of "Leave them alone" in Scripture
All, meaning all, or any of all kind still means the provision is there for all kinds, so the same concept stands.
Again this is true of another facet of the redemption plan, the reconciliation,
"God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, *not imputing their trespasses unto them*; and has committed unto us the word of reconciliation."
The plan of reconciliation brought the possible provision of justification for all as stated above, or for all kinds of men, but surely not all enjoy the privilege of being excepted from their personal guilt after being such opportunity presented to them.
"Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God."
Again the same works regarding personal accountability in judgement,
"Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind."
Either group will be judged because of their accountability according to their circumstance, which implies they have been exposed to a general knowledge, with a different response.
Darren Thomas wrote: Israel in the OT represents at best the visible church, separated from the world, with God in the midst guarding and observing God's appointed ordinances. How does that help your case for an atonement for every person who has ever lived when the majority of the then existing world was outside of this visible community? Hmmm....
Sorry, but your question is obsolete because it falls out of biblical context and out of the blue print of Scripture.
God was reveling his plan of redemption in types through the nation of Israel and in this case, revealing the broad work of the cross through the national day of atonement.
Another type along the same is the lifting up of the serpent in the desert.
"... as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."
Obviously, the offer was there for all to take advantage off, but the application was not automatic for all, neither general.
Here is another text to consider, " if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." Christ states that the fruit of his resurrection would make possible to draw all unto him, yet it is a fact that not all are.
John UK wrote: Mine own thinking was greatly helped by studying atonement in the OT, and especially Yom Kippur - The Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16). The whole day was devoted to providing the whole group of people with a blood atonement. This was for everybody, but not everybody had faith in it, so the atonement did not avail for them. But it was there FOR them. There was no lack in what God told them to do.
Darren, Substitutionary atonement is the facet speaking of the application of the atonement, not the extend of the atonement. At the Passover, by the death of the lamb the believing soul was justified .
John UK wrote: Personally, I think the expression 'limited atonement' is misleading and inadequate. Whereas the phrase 'particular redemption' says it all.
But you find some using the term 'particular' still believe in *limiting*, say curtailing the atonement, as if God was not eternal in all His attributes, works, purpose and nature.
Darren, The use sophistry is never commendable, and this is what is used when you state that if Christ died for all, all should be saved. Remember the parable when the hiring man stated, can I not do what is right with my own things? What if I wish to be generous and sovereign with what I have?
"Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?"
So, what is to us to put God into our personal reasoning box?
John UK wrote: 1. "Again let me remind you that the Scriptures plainly teach us that the atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ has a universal bearing; and it seems to me that those who limit the value of the atonement do most seriously err from the faith. I believe the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was so infinite that, if there had been ten thousand worlds full of sinners to have been redeemed, it was amply sufficient to have redeemed them all." CHS
"When we are giving the invitations of the gospel that we find in the Scriptures, we never think of limiting them. Though we believe the special purpose of Christâ€™s atonement was the redemption of his Church, yet we know that his sacrifice was infinite in value, and therefore we set the wicket gate as wide open as we can, and we repeat Christâ€™s own invitation, 'Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.' " CHS
2. Darren Thomas " the value of the atonement ..."
1. "... we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world."
However, only to those that "received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God"
2. "... the Lamb of God, ... takes away the sin of the world."
Significant address This is a vital and accurate analysis of the trajectory sound, fundamental, bible-believing churches follow throughout the second, third and fourth generation from their origins. Dr. Spence asserts that any movement is in continual 'movement' and as a river they move into the direction the quality of its leadership in the following generations.
My Own 2 cents wrote: I hope that answers your question
Sorry, but there was no question presented in my comment. !?!?
The issue commented upon was about the Baptist mantra that any Bible believing Christian during the dark ages was a 'Baptist' under a different name. This is a fallacy. Most of the groups that might have baptized adults, with the exception of the Waldensians, did not hold to all the modern Baptist beliefs, yet they held positive points in common with other denominations who may claim them also as their historical 'ancestors'.
My Own 2 cents wrote: *Interesting Fact: Baptist's began at the Jordan River, and ever since then have existed in one way or another throughout the ages. If course they have been called different names from age to age, but doctrines and practices have stayed the same.
So, can the congregationalists, presbyterians, brethren, and perhaps even methodists say. A little of wishful thinking in this common 'baptist' rationale.
Chris G P wrote: It shows the wonderful product of the missionaries of 200 or so years ago, who at the cost of their lives and health often, went to the South Sea islands to preach the gospel, very often where there were even cannibalistic practices. Today those islands are solidly and evangelically Christian. Many rugby players come from these societies, and stand firm in the faith, and they will not compromise to suit the decadent desires of Western secularist liberals.