I think we all are making an error in equating atonement with the offer of atonement. Aren't they two separate things?Nathan said:I think that its a misunderstanding of terms and idea's.
I think savedbygrace57 means that atonement is not for all when he says that Jesus didn't die for all and the opponent objects to it saying Jesus died for all thereby giving all, the offer of atonement. We're discussing apples and oranges.
I don't think anybody says that 'atonement' is for all - obviously Jesus did not remit the sins of the unbelievers - the sins for which they shall face righteous judgment. In that sense, atonement is limited.
But if we're discussing the scope of the 'offer of atonement', it has to be to all. And this is my explanation as to why I believe Christ's offer is to all. What is the law of faith - that everyone who believes in Jesus Christ for his salvation, is saved. Now why does God mention faith in the salvation process. He does not make it a work-based salvation where faith becomes a 'work' (this is the paradox of John 6:28-29). But it is so because He wants to hold the unbelieving world further accountable under their sins,- because they did not believe in Jesus (John 3:18-20), - in order to shew forth His righteousness in judging them(Psa 51:3-4, Rom 3:4-8) . But how can they be judged of not believing if they never had the offer to believe?
And please let's not throw up hypothetical qns of whether Christ has atoned for the unbeliever who wants to believe - the qn breaks down there because he is no longer an unbeliever but a believer and we hold that Christ has indeed efficaciously and sufficiently atoned for the sins of the believers.
Therefore, I find no harm in holding these 2 beliefs -
1. There is limited atonement in the sense that Christ's blood covers only the sins of His Church.
AND
2. The offer of atonement is unlimited ie Jesus died for all men [to be given the offer of justification/reconciliation/atonement].