Definite Atonement

[Arial]

The phrase Limited Atonement was used to make the acronym TULIP. Unfortunately that has caused many an Arminianist of one flavor or another to recoil in horror. And is used on this gut reaction alone, to turn many away from even examining the doctrines any further. The problem they fail to recognize is that they are the ones that actually have limited atonement, whereas Reformed theology teaches not an atonement that is limited, but one that is definite. The atonement of those who claim free will as the agent of our attaining salvation is severely limited to those who choose Christ with this said free will. In order to not make that limited they say Jesus paid for the sins of everyone whether they choose Christ or not. The illogic of that should be obvious but for some reason it is not to those who believe it. They have an atonement that is not only limited, but largely ineffectual, and a terrible case of double jeopardy. Oddly they also cry against the doctrines of predestination and election by saying that would make God unjust.

So what does definite atonement mean and where can we find support for it in the scriptures?

It means that the atonement Jesus made did exactly what God intended it to do. It gave some people to Jesus but did not give all people to Jesus. John 6:37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.
John 6:39 ANd this is the will of Him who sent Me, That I shall lose none of all those He has given me, but raise them up at the last day.
John 17:24 Father, I desire that they also whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.

And how else is God going to give these people to Jesus and Jesus die for them, unless He knows them before the foundation of the world, elects them to salvation, predestines them to have faith in Christ, and calls them. "MY sheep hear my voice and follow me." "A stranger they will not follow." and gives them the faith they need. "By grace you have been saved through faith, And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

The Bible tells us in Romans 9 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not born and had done nothing either good or bad---in order that God's purposes of election might continue, not because of works but because of Him who calls---she was told, "The older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

And just in case there be any question as to what Paul is saying and why he asks and answers the anticipated response, "Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy and compassion on whom I have compassion. So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy."

So definite atonement means that God was and is always serving His purposes, and He purposed to save some, but not all. And Jesus, went to the cross to do the work of redeeming them, exactly as God purposed. The atonement He made was great enough in scope to cover all peoples in all nations, but it was not intended to do so. As shown by the fact that the Bible also tells us that many more enter the wide gate that leads to destruction than those who enter the narrow gate to eternal life.

It is never good to talk back to God or tell Him what He can and cannot do or what He will or will not do.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I think Jesus made the most concise statement of limited atonement himself in John 6:

(1) "I lay down my life for the sheep" (v. 15).

(2) "You are not my sheep" (v. 26).
​

In other words, there are some for whom he did not lay down his life.

 

[Mikeuk]

That’s the trouble with protestant proof texting.

Your theology has to line up with it all, not just the bits you like.

1 Timothy 4:10
10 For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.

1 John 2:2
2 and he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

Does not fit with Calvinism does it?
We are catholic because of scripture, not in spite of it.

But then much of TULIP is easily dismissed.
like irresistible grace that can be resisted!

Acts 7:51
51 "You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

That’s the trouble with protestant proof texting.

Your theology has to line up with it all, not just the bits you like.

1 Timothy 4:10
10 For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.

1 John 2:2
2 and he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

Does not fit with Calvinism does it?
We are catholic because of scripture, not in spite of it.

But then much of TULIP is easily dismissed.
like irresistible grace that can be resisted!

Acts 7:51
51 "You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.

Aside from Protestantism and Catholicism, how do you reconcile the verses you have posted here with the fact that not everybody is saved?

 

[Rella]

I think Jesus made the most concise statement of limited atonement himself in John 6:

​

(1) "I lay down my life for the sheep" (v. 15).​

​

(2) "You are not my sheep" (v. 26).​

​

In other words, there are some for whom he did not lay down his life.

I also think that ....John 6:37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away..... is further proof that not all are sheep.

 

[Rella]

Aside from Protestantism and Catholicism, how do you reconcile the verses you have posted here with the fact that not everybody is saved?

You must first understand ... Catholics read the bible differently. One with more NT books for starters. I had family who never owned a bible because in their formitive years bible reading was not encouraged, lest one misunderstood the written word. It was then proper to get their understandings during mass from their local priests. Yet today, many RCC still have the pew bibles in Latin... and there is a movement from some that want the masses to be restored to Latin. But that is beside the point.

You say:

Aside from Protestantism and Catholicism, how do you reconcile the verses you have posted here with the fact that not everybody is saved?

You cannot reconcile anything IMO when there are still the following beliefs.

Is There Really "No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church?"

The Catholic Church teaches infallibly, “extra ecclesiam nulla salus,” or, “outside the Church there is no salvation.” But as with all dogmas of the Faith, this...

www.catholic.com

The Catholic Church teaches infallibly, “extra ecclesiam nulla salus,” or, “outside the Church there is no salvation.

Are Only Catholics Saved?

This affirmation [no salvation outside the Catholic Church] is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those w...

www.catholic.com

This affirmation [no salvation outside the Catholic Church] is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation. (Catechism, 846)

EVEN POPE JOHN PAUL II said

Did a statement by John Paul II mean that only Catholics can be saved?

Pope John Paul II’s remark is consistent with the constant teaching of the Catholic Church. Notice that he uses the word “reject” which, in context,...

www.catholic.com

Pope John Paul II’s remark is consistent with the constant teaching of the Catholic Church. Notice that he uses the word “reject” which, in context, means making a conscious decision against the Church that one knows to be founded by Jesus Christ.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church text confirms this: “They could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it” (CCC 846, emphasis added).

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

You must first understand ... Catholics read the bible differently. One with more NT books for starters. I had family who never owned a bible because in their formitive years bible reading was not encouraged, lest one misunderstood the written word. It was then proper to get their understandings during mass from their local priests. Yet today, many RCC still have the pew bibles in Latin... and there is a movement from some that want the masses to be restored to Latin. But that is beside the point.

You say:


You cannot reconcile anything IMO when there are still the following beliefs.

Is There Really "No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church?"

The Catholic Church teaches infallibly, “extra ecclesiam nulla salus,” or, “outside the Church there is no salvation.” But as with all dogmas of the Faith, this...

www.catholic.com

The Catholic Church teaches infallibly, “extra ecclesiam nulla salus,” or, “outside the Church there is no salvation.

Are Only Catholics Saved?

This affirmation [no salvation outside the Catholic Church] is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those w...

www.catholic.com

This affirmation [no salvation outside the Catholic Church] is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation. (Catechism, 846)

EVEN POPE JOHN PAUL II said

Did a statement by John Paul II mean that only Catholics can be saved?

Pope John Paul II’s remark is consistent with the constant teaching of the Catholic Church. Notice that he uses the word “reject” which, in context,...

www.catholic.com

Pope John Paul II’s remark is consistent with the constant teaching of the Catholic Church. Notice that he uses the word “reject” which, in context, means making a conscious decision against the Church that one knows to be founded by Jesus Christ.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church text confirms this: “They could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it” (CCC 846, emphasis added).

None of this has anything to do with my question. If you want to answer my question, go ahead and do so or refrain from replying with non-related material.

 

[Mikeuk]

Aside from Protestantism and Catholicism, how do you reconcile the verses you have posted here with the fact that not everybody is saved?

Because they have a choice - grace is available to all, but not all accept it .
You know those who do by those who “ obey” .

The problem with one line proof texts : are you telling me only the Israelites are the elect? Mat 21:24

‘I was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.’

 

[brightfame52]

Particular Definite atonement is established by the efficacious results, saving results of them Christ died for, understanding, that not all without exception expereince these saving results, hence His death was limited to them that do, mainly His Elect.

Notice Titus 2:14

14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

Now are all without exception redeemed from all iniquity and purified unto God unto good works ? No of course not Matt 7:23

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

See these cannot be anyone Christ gave Himself for !

 

[Arial]

You must first understand ... Catholics read the bible differently. One with more NT books for starters. I had family who never owned a bible because in their formitive years bible reading was not encouraged, lest one misunderstood the written word. It was then proper to get their understandings during mass from their local priests. Yet today, many RCC still have the pew bibles in Latin... and there is a movement from some that want the masses to be restored to Latin. But that is beside the point.

You say:


You cannot reconcile anything IMO when there are still the following beliefs.

Is There Really "No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church?"

The Catholic Church teaches infallibly, “extra ecclesiam nulla salus,” or, “outside the Church there is no salvation.” But as with all dogmas of the Faith, this...

www.catholic.com

The Catholic Church teaches infallibly, “extra ecclesiam nulla salus,” or, “outside the Church there is no salvation.

Are Only Catholics Saved?

This affirmation [no salvation outside the Catholic Church] is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those w...

www.catholic.com

This affirmation [no salvation outside the Catholic Church] is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation. (Catechism, 846)

EVEN POPE JOHN PAUL II said

Did a statement by John Paul II mean that only Catholics can be saved?

Pope John Paul II’s remark is consistent with the constant teaching of the Catholic Church. Notice that he uses the word “reject” which, in context,...

www.catholic.com

Pope John Paul II’s remark is consistent with the constant teaching of the Catholic Church. Notice that he uses the word “reject” which, in context, means making a conscious decision against the Church that one knows to be founded by Jesus Christ.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church text confirms this: “They could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it” (CCC 846, emphasis added).

There is a special forum for these discussions.

Roman Catholicism​

 

[Arial]

That’s the trouble with protestant proof texting.

Your theology has to line up with it all, not just the bits you like.

1 Timothy 4:10
10 For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.

1 John 2:2
2 and he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

Very interesting. Proof texts given to accuse others of proof texting.
How about you expound on each and every one of the texts given in the OP? And while you are doing so, consider also who God reveals Himself to be throughout all of the scriptures, and align that with your interpretation of those texts.

While I am waiting I will delve into these TWO, texts you and all Arminianists pull out as totally isolated from the whole counsel of God as texts to disprove the election and predestination doctrines of Reformed theology.
1 Tim 4:10 For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.
First I will put it into its proper perspective from the content of the letter itself, the who, what, where, when. and why of the context. Second I will look at what it cannot be saying and why. Third I will propose what it is or might be saying.

Perspective. Paul had left Timothy in charge of the church at Ephesus. In Acts 20:29-30 Paul warns the Ephesian elders that false teachers, some coming from leadership would plague that church, and evidently it was happening when Paul wrote this letter. So it is a letter of exhortation for Timothy to stand strong 1 Tim 1:3-11, and hold fast to sound doctrine, and lays out instructions for choosing leadership. When we come to chapter 4:6-9 we have Paul saying



6 If you put these things before the brothers,[a] you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed. 7 Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths. Rather train yourself for godliness; 8 for while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come. 9 The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance.
And then verse 10
10 For to this end we toil and strive,[b] because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe. So this is the situation, and the purpose of the letter which though written to Timothy, is for all the church.

(I have to leave for anappointment but will come back and finish this. I saved draft but just in case it does not save I will post this portion so I don't have to do it all over agains from scratch. My apologies.)

 

[Rella]

Point taken and heeded. But after I post this I feel it much better for me to just move on as I am too often misunderstood here
and truly wont be missed.

There is a special forum for these discussions.

Roman Catholicism​

In my mind I was replying to

Aside from Protestantism and Catholicism, how do you reconcile the verses you have posted here with the fact that not everybody is saved?

Which was in response to

Mikeuk​

That’s the trouble with protestant proof texting.

Your theology has to line up with it all, not just the bits you like.

1 Timothy 4:10
10 For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.

1 John 2:2
2 and he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

Does not fit with Calvinism does it?
We are catholic because of scripture, not in spite of it.

But then much of TULIP is easily dismissed.
like irresistible grace that can be resisted!

Acts 7:51
51 "You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.

The knock against Calvinism, and the knock against protestant ... proof texting... needs to be understood that the comment

We are catholic because of scripture, not in spite of it. (Which seemingly is not referencing the universal Catholic meaning)

is making reference to still current beliefs in that church and in no way could line up with either Calvinism or Arminianism .

Blessings to all....

And to all a good bye

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Because they have a choice - grace is available to all, but not all accept it .
You know those who do by those who “ obey” .

The problem with one line proof texts : are you telling me only the Israelites are the elect? Mat 21:24

‘I was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.’

So you believe that, based on a couple of Bible verses that declare God wants all saved, and based on the rest of the Bible we know that isn't the case because the eternal destiny of many people is hell, people themselves are responsible for their position because they can reject God? This must mean that you were saved by yourself then. God did not save you, you saved yourself. There isn't any other conclusion that can be drawn from your position.

 

[ReverendRV]

Point taken and heeded. But after I post this I feel it much better for me to just move on as I am too often misunderstood here
and truly wont be missed.



In my mind I was replying to


Which was in response to


The knock against Calvinism, and the knock against protestant ... proof texting... needs to be understood that the comment

We are catholic because of scripture, not in spite of it. (Which seemingly is not referencing the universal Catholic meaning)

is making reference to still current beliefs in that church and in no way could line up with either Calvinism or Arminianism .

Blessings to all....

And to all a good bye

Hang in there Rella...

I myself am often misunderstood, but time has a way of getting Truth Over...

 

[Arial]

@Mikeuk Continuation of post #11 1 Tim 4:10 For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.
ALready covered: Perspective. Left to cover: what it cannot be saying; what it is or might be saying.

It cannot be saying that Jesus is the Savior of all people without exception, because not all people are saved, only those who believe are. And since it can't be saying that it can't be saying that He is the Savior especially of those who believe. That would be a totally nonsense sentence.

What it might be saying and probably is, considering the rest of what we are told in the Bible.

Savior of all men: The general call to repentance and salvation is extended to all people. (Matt 11:28) We the preachers of the gospel, don't know whom God has chosen to save but we do know that He has elected people from all nations, tribes, tongues etc. (Rev 7:9-17).

Especially of those who believe: The Greek word translated "especially" has an alternate translation used by Paul in other places as "that is to say." In this case Paul would be clarifying that by "all men" he means those who come to put their trust in Christ. It can also be translated as it is here as "especially" and "particularly". If his is the case Paul may be using Savior in the broader sense of "benefactor", meaning common grace. God lavishes generous provision on all men (Matt 5:45) but special redemptive grace on "those who believe."

1 John 2:2
2 and he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.
Propitiation: A sacrifice to God meant to take away the enmity brought by sin between God and the worshiper.

SInce that is what Jesus death on the cross was intended to do, and did, if it was for the sins of the whole world without exception, then everyone's sins would be forgiven whether they believed or did not believe. If it was for all without exception but only for those who believe, it is a contradiction, and those who do not believe are never propitiated for even though according to this interpretation of "whole world" that is what Jesus did on the cross. We would have Christ as a failure and a God who does not accept His Son's payment, extracting it also from the unbeliever.

So what John is saying is that Christ's sacrifice is not only sufficient for his immediate community, but is valid anywhere in the world for those who believe. It requires no addition, nothing but belief in the person and work of Jesus.

But then much of TULIP is easily dismissed.
like irresistible grace that can be resisted!

It is the Holy Spirit who is resisted, not grace, but that is not even what the "I" of TULIP means. The accurate statement of the doctrine is effectual grace. And that means just as God's word when He sends it out always accomplishes His purposes for sending it, so does His grace when He bestows it to bring a person into the Kingdom.

Acts 7:51
51 "You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.

See above. Here is another verse from Acts 13:47-48 For so the Lord has commanded us saying, "I have made you a light for the Gentles, that you may bring salvation to the end of the earth." And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

Exegete that passage.

 

[Arial]

Point taken and heeded. But after I post this I feel it much better for me to just move on as I am too often misunderstood here
and truly wont be missed.

Come on Rella! Don't do that. I am sure there are times when most if not all of us feel that way, and certainly I have. I doubt that it is true but even if it is----so what? Right? What you posted was interesting and good, it just wasn't in the right thread, and I was trying to avoid yet another takeover of a thread. It opened the way for that and you know the saying. "Give an inch, and a mile will be taken. Seriously, you are wanted, welcome---don't go. I have very much enjoyed your voice sounding on the forum.

 

[Arial]

In my mind I was replying to

Which was in response to

The knock against Calvinism, and the knock against protestant ... proof texting... needs to be understood that the comment

We are catholic because of scripture, not in spite of it. (Which seemingly is not referencing the universal Catholic meaning)

is making reference to still current beliefs in that church and in no way could line up with either Calvinism or Arminianism .

Blessings to all....

I know that it came about by @Mikeuk's post.

 

[Rella]

Hang in there Rella...

I myself am often misunderstood, but time has a way of getting Truth Over...

Thank you.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

That’s the trouble with Protestant proof-texting. Your theology has to line up with it all, not just the bits you like.

And it does.

Anyway, I'm probably not the only one who noticed that you completely and so obviously evaded the point of my post. Would you care to address it, or is evasion what we must settle for? How does your theology line up with what Jesus said there? "We are catholic because of scripture, not in spite of it," after all.

[1 Timothy 4:10 and 1 John 2:2] does not fit with Calvinism, does it?

Of course it does. Evidently, you are not aware of that.

Well, that tells us something about you but nothing about Calvinism.

 

[TibiasDad]

I think Jesus made the most concise statement of limited atonement himself in John 6:

​

(1) "I lay down my life for the sheep" (v. 15).​

​

(2) "You are not my sheep" (v. 26).​

​

In other words, there are some for whom he did not lay down his life.

You are not my sheep does not mean you cannot be my sheep! It is an indicative statement about a present reality. It does not say anything about potentials or final circumstances!


Doug