Limited vs unlimited atonement?

[FreeGrace2]

I would be interested in the article you viewed if you still have it. Thanks.

Sorry. It was some time ago.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You added the 'modifier' "who will believe."

It is evident from the John 6 passages that God chooses.

I have no doubt that God chooses. Of course He does. But He doesn't choose who will believe, but who will be saved.

And for that, He chooses to save everyone who believes in His Son.
1 Cor 1:21 - For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

We cannot escape this fact as Jesus makes mention later in John 6:

65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”

And here reaffirmed:

Matthew 16: NKJV

15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.


All I'm pointing out is the Sovereignty of the Father to call sinners to Christ; and Christ stating that all the Father gives Him, He will not lose. That's not Calvin, that's the plain words of Jesus Christ as posted above.

Which in no way says or means that God chooses who will believe, which is the actual foundation of reformed election.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Isaid this:
"And Scripture never suggests that God elected anyone to eternal life. Eternal life is available to all men. Titus 2:11"

Yet the apostle Paul teaches the following:

Romans 8: NKJV

28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

This passage says nothing about God choosing who will believe.

It does say that those He foreknew He predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, and that He called them, He justified them, and He glorified them.

Do you know why Paul used the perfect tense for "glorified", since no human has been yet glorified?

 

[Marvin Knox]

Did you condone these things? If so, why? If not, why did you remain?

Already answered. See above.

I ask for reasons pertaining to this thread.

What reasons would that be?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Wouldn't it be great if John 10:28 was the only verse in the bible, in which there is no context to contend with or other words from Jesus and Paul and Peter and James and John?

lol.

Are you really suggesting that there is ANY OTHER verse that somehow magically changes these very plain words of Jesus??? Seriously???

The reason Jesus said what He did about those who receive eternal life will never perish is because taught that eternal life is a gift of God in Rom 6:23 and that the gifts of God are irrevocable in Rom 11:29.

That's why those who receive that specific gift will never perish.

In fact, that's exactly what eternal life means. Never to perish.

So, where is this magical verse that somehow changes the meaning of John 10:28?

25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me. 26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. 30 I and My Father are one.” John 10:25-30

First of all, the context is a reference to His 12 disciples, and not all of the Church in general.

Couldn't be more wrong. Let's start at the beginning of the chapter. Eep v.9, where He explained how to be saved; by "entering through Me". What does that mean?

And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd. John 10:16

How in the world does this help your view? The other sheep refers to Gentiles who have "entered through Him" and are saved.

Second, Jesus qualifies who His sheep are in the preceding verse's.

• My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.

• This isn't a qualifier at all. It's just a description of His sheep in general terms.

The qualifier for who are His sheep is found in v.9.

We know that sheep can become lost, as is the case with Judas Iscariot, who heard His voice and followed Him for 3 1/2 years, and was promoted to an Apostle, then empowered and sent as a sheep to preach the Gospel to the lost, and heal the sick, cast out devils and raise the dead, showing forth the signs of those who believe, then he became a traitor and fell away, having betrayed Him.

We've been over this. There is no excuse for these comments.

You will need to show from the scriptures that Jesus empowers "unbelievers" to preach the Gospel, and heal the sick, and cast out devils, to have a valid point that Judas Iscariot never believed.

Nonsense. You need to show from Scripture plain words about loss of salvation.

Now, get to it.

Sheep can indeed become lost:

Lost = Sinner who is need of repentance; dead to God, in need of salvation, reconciliation to God.
Found = Someone is is reconciled to God; saved.

This would be an opinion only. "lost" and "found" can refer to a number of scenarios.

 

[FreeGrace2]

How about defining the meaning of sovereignty and there you will find your answer. A necessary by-product of sovereignty is power over everything.

Kinda like pulling the puppet strings, huh? No, even kings in ancient times who were understood as being sovereign let their people make a lot of choices.

Just because IS sovereign doesn't mean He makes all the choices. But that is what I keep hearing from the reformed. Not that they say it in those words.

He did elect some, and He enables those elect.

Do you know for what purpose God elects? iow, He chooses for what?

Evangelism is not meaningless, it is the means in which God would use a person/event to bring the elect to Him.

you've missed the whole point. If God has already chosen who will believe, evangelism IS meaningless because those He chose cannot do other than believe. They won't even need an evangelist. Just a Bible to read about what they are going to do to be saved.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Already answered. See above.

What reasons would that be?

This doesn't answer my questions: "The weariness of keeping liberalism at bay for a dozen years was one of the reasons I finally left."

Not clearly, anyway.

 

[Marvin Knox]

It is difficult to not consider the others as they are interwoven as one doctrine. I personally believe that if one is considered untrue, the rest may as well be.

I do consider the others and I do consider them interwoven as one doctrine.

However limited atonement is not necessarily true just because the others are IMO.

It stands apart form the others because it does not necessarily follow from the others.

It is at best redundant and at worst unsciptural and highly offensive to the vast majority of evangelical Chrisitans.

Since it isn't scriptural IMO and not even logical according to what we see in the lives of the elect themselves and other possible ways of looking at how God reconciled the whole world (all things) to Him through Christ - it simply shouldn't be included as something which is solid doctrine.

It is poorly named as is Total Depravity. Total as in the whole of man afflicted/influenced by sin.

They certainly are poorly named.

Actually I find that every point in TULIP could be better phrased. Of course that would require a different flower to serve us. But so be it IMO.

The atonement applied to the elect by God at the appointed time.

Certainly.

No arguement from me there.

As the elect of God we were be nature "children of wrath even as the rest" until such time as He acted with special grace toward us resulting in salvation throught faith.

I agree. But the atonement is an active agent in my opinion, it's implied by its title. And it must be applied.

And it is applied for some by grace thru faith. Others for whom the blood was shed are passed over and left in the condition that even the elect were in before being given saving faith.

Namely: they were people for whom Christ died for some time ago and were, even so, children of wrath.

Common grace?

Yes - but not necessarily saving grace. Not all are effectually called.

Those who are are covered in the "irresistibl grace" letter.

By the way - even that kind of grace can be "resisted" for a time. Paul kicked against the goads for quite some time before being broght into the Kingdom through a very dramatic act of God.

My testemony is very much like Paul's for what it's worth.

It's difficult to wrap my mind around the decrees in eternity vs. Christ's work at His appointed time. But we know we can at least count our years before conversion as a loss as Paul did.
The realm of the spiritual and the workings of our soul are not areas we are made expert, that is certain.
We know enough, I believe, to have an idea (The effects of Adam's disobedience, what's necessary to have a desire for God, etc.) that many greater theologians have expounded upon.

No problem with those thoughts from me.

I respect your understanding of the topic though I am curious how you've come to the conclusion you have. I'm sure you've explained exhaustively.

It was just a matter of noticing how offensive "limited atonement", as usually taught by Calvinists, was to the Christian community in general -- and then revisiting it with much prayer and thought.

Once I realized that the standard Calvinist logic which led to limited atonement was not solid logic at all -- the rest was easy.

We should all be like the Bereans and revisit even our most cherished beliefs from time to time with an eye to the scriptures.

If it's the "All"s that have you, we know that it doesn't always mean every person. It could mean all of a particular group based on context - "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up." or it could be an exaggeration.

Could be.

But Paul in Ephesiansr 2:1-3 was a Jew writing to gentiles and therefore His "we" included both Jew and gentile believers. Therefore the "rest" could only mean unbelievers - which could include either Jews or gentiles or both.

It's a matter of acurately exegeting the passage.

But this is hardly the only passage which indicates that Christ died for the entire world.

It could mean every single person but then we are left with questions. Why isn't everyone saved? Is the atonement ineffective?

They are not saved because they lacked fatih. They lacked faith because they were justly passed by and left in their sins as children of wrath - even as we were for some time after Christ atoneed for our sins.

My other concern is reconciling with the other 4 points as they are closely linked and build off of each other, each important to the next.

All are closely linked but irresitible grace IMO.

If all that was meant by that was that all will not be saved in the end or (even more restrictively) all will not be drawn to the Son by the Father - there would be no trouble from me on the point.

But that is not all that is meant as we can see from the various references to part of Christ's blood being spilt and wasted and other such hooey often spat out by Calvinists toward any who would dare question limited atonement or require that it be nuanced in some way to correct the bad logic.

Peace brother!

 

[Marvin Knox]

This doesn't answer my questions: "The weariness of keeping liberalism at bay for a dozen years was one of the reasons I finally left."

Not clearly, anyway.

What exactly do you want - a complete disertation concerning my history?

I was drawn to the Presbyterian church because (as an "evangelical charismatic/Baptist") I had become convinced of the Reformed doctrines of grace.

The Reformed and Presbyterians have a long and glorious history through both worldwide evangelism and theologians such as John Knox, Jonathan Edward, or D.James Kennedy.

To my dismay I found the little local church I associated with initiaally to be largely evangelical and conservative but partly including liberals as well.

I was one of the few who were equipped to refute liberal thought and soon began to teach Reformed doctrines and conservative values.

I became associtated with an inter-Presbyterian news paper ministry named the "Presbyterian Layman" It was the strongest bulwark agains liberalism in the church at large.

I did not "join" the Presbyterians officailly because I wouldn't support liberalism monetarily even obliquely.

Our church finally finally came to a crossroads concerning such things as abortion rights and homosexuality (in the very liberal political atmosphere of Portland,Oregon - or Moscow on the Columbia as conservatives sometimes call the town).

Rather than let our little church be swept into the growing tide of liberal thought - I shocked my friends mightily and joined the church offically - vowing to fight on if they would stay with me.

I was almost immediately ordained as a elder and appeared often to refute liberal ideas in the large meetings of pastors and elders from all over the N.W. and eventually the nation.

All of the liberal elders either resigned or left the local church during my tenure.

The long fight against false doctrine was stressful and took a large toll on my family life.

I finally left the church after being sure that the elder board was mostly conservative and that we had a new staunchly conservative pastor to take the helm.

Whether elder or just an average church member - we are not told to flee our church when doctrine begins to drift. We are told to fight the good fight.

With Timothy we are told by Paul: "I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry."

If you happen to b hinting that I should feel shame - I have absolutely no shame for my stint in the PCUSA fighting liberal thought and weak and false doctrine. But rather, if anything, it is one of the things I am most proud of in my Christian life.

Now - please tell me what this has to do with the thread.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

What exactly do you want - a complete disertation concerning my history?

I was drawn to the Presbyterian church because (as an "evangelical charismatic/Baptist") I had become convinced of the Reformed doctrines of grace.

The Reformed and Presbyterians have a long and glorious history through both worldwide evangelism and theologians such as John Knox, Jonathan Edward, or D.James Kennedy.

To my dismay I found the little local church I associated with initiaally to be largely evangelical and conservative but partly including liberals as well.

I was one of the few who were equipped to refute liberal thought and soon began to teach Reformed doctrines and conservative values.

I became associtated with an inter-Presbyterian news paper ministry named the "Presbyterian Layman" It was the strongest bulwark agains liberalism in the church at large.

I did not "join" the Presbyterians officailly because I wouldn't support liberalism monetarily even obliquely.

Our church finally came to a crossroads concerning such things as abortion rights and homosexuality (in the very liberal political atmosphere of Portland,Oregon - or Moscow on the Columbia as conservatives sometimes call the town).

Rather than let our little church be swept into the growing tide of liberal thought - I shocked my friends mightily and joined the church offically - vowing to fight on if they would stay with me.

I was almost immediately ordained as a elder and appeared often to refute liberal ideas in the large meetings of pastors and elders from all over the N.W. and eventually the nation.

The long fight against false doctrine was stressful and took a large toll on my family life.

I finally left the church after being sure that the elder board was mostly conservative and that we had a new staunchly conservative pastor to take the helm.

Whether elder or just an average church member - we are not told to flee our church when doctrine begins to drift. We are told to fight the good fight.

With Timothy we are told by Paul: "I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry."

If you are hinting that I should - I have absolutely no shame for my stint in the PCUSA fighting liberal thought and weak and false doctrine. But rather, if anything, it is one of the things I am most proud of in my Christian life.

Now - please tell me what this has to do with the thread.

A simple yes or no would have worked, but thanks for the details.

It relates to the thread in that doctrinal clarity is only achieved when we don't hold to an agenda. Agendas get in the way of biblical truth.

I don't feel the need to try to make someone feel same, as I have done more shameful things than your average Presbyterian. I might however challenged or question someone who can't drive 15 more minutes to a conservative church rather than stay in a Liberal one.

I live on the other coast, and believe me, it's no picnic finding a conservative Presbyterian church here, but I make it happen.

 

[MDC]

I do consider the others and I do consider them interwoven as one doctrine.

However limited atonement is not necessarily true just because the others are IMO.

It stands apart form the others because it does not necessarily follow from the others.

It is at best redundant and at worste unsciptural and highly offensive to the vast majority of evangelical Chrisitans.

Since it isn't scriptural IMO and not even logical according to what we see in the lives of the elect themselves and other possible ways of looking at how God reconciled the whole world (all things) to Him through Christ - it simply shouldn't be included as something which is solid doctrine.

They certainly are poorly named.

Actually I find that every point in TULIP could be better phrased. Of course that would require a different flower to serve us. But so be it IMO.

Certainly.

No arguement from me there.

As the elect of God we were be nature "children of wrath even as the rest" until such time as He acted with special grace toward us resulting in salvation throught faith.

And it is applied for some by grace thru faith. Others for whom the blood was shed are passed over and left in the condition that even the elect were in before being given saving faith.

Namely: they were people for whom Christ died for some time ago and were, even so, children of wrath.

Yes - but not necessarily saving grace. Not all are effectually called.

Those who are are covered in the "irresistibl grace" letter.

By the way - even that kind of grace can be "resisted" for a time. Paul kicked against the goads for quite some time before being broght into the Kingdom through a very dramatic act of God.

My testemony is very much like Paul's for what it's worth.

No problem with those thoughts from me.

It was just a matter of noticing how offensive "limited atonement", as usually taught by Calvinists, was to the Christian community in general -- and then revisiting it with much prayer and thought.

Once I realized that the standard Calvinist logic which led to limited atonement was not solid logic at all -- the rest was easy.

We should all be like the Bereans and revisit even our most cherished beliefs from time to time with an eye to the scriptures.

Could be.

But Paul in Ephesiansr 2:1-3 was a Jew writing to gentiles and therefore His "we" included both Jew and gentile believers. Therefore the "rest" could only mean unbelievers - which could include either Jews or gentiles or both.

It's a matter of acurately exegeting the passage.

But this is hardly the only passage which indicateds that Christ died for the entire world.

They are not saved because they lacked fatih. They lacked faith because they were justly passed by and left in their sins as children of wrath - even as we were for some time after Christ atoneed for our sins.

All are closely linked but irresitible grace IMO.

If all that was meant by that was that all will not be saved in the end or (even more restrictively) all will not be drawn to the Son by the Father - there would be no trouble from on the point.

But that is not all that is meant as we can see from the various references to part of Christ's blood being spilt ans wasted and other such hooey often spat out by Calvinists toward any who would dare question limited atonement or require that it be nuanced in some way to correct the bad logic.

Peace brother!

You mean how offensive it was towards pelagians and arminians? Or maybe you found it as well to be offensive all along? Do you care that it is offensive towards "Calvinistic" brothers and sisters by teaching unlimited atonement. I believe it's confusing and illogical what you are teaching. I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly, but that's what I'm getting. Forgive me if I'm wrong. But I will say what Spurgeon said, Calvinism is the gospel. Pelagianism and Arminianism is man centered and perverts the gospel of grace. And is why there is always a heated battle between the two

 

[jimmyjimmy]

and highly offensive to the vast majority of evangelical Chrisitans.

This is a perfect conformation of what I had suspected about you.

Your stay in the PCUSA, regardless of how unscathed you think you walked away, has had an effect on your thinking, therefore, your theology. The Progressive Liberal politics which comes included with Protestant Liberalism, especially the notion of "equality", has a way of tainting ones theological views.

The above quote reveals your desire to protect feelings (only some people's) over and above protecting and defending truth.

The gospel, we are told, is offensive to many. Are we to avoid proclaiming it for that reason?

 

[Marvin Knox]

You mean how offensive it was towards pelagians and arminians?

Yes - among others including Reformed believers such as Calvin.

Do you care that it is offensive towards "Calvinistic" brothers and sisters by teaching unlimited atonement.

If it is offensive to anyone - yes I care.

But how can saying that Christ died for the sins of the entire world so that anyone believing on Him coul be saved by that grace through faith unto justification before God - be offensive to anyone?

I believe it's confusing and illogical what you are teaching.

What is illogical IMO is saying that logic dictates that anyone for whom Christ died cannot be under the wrath of God for eternity when you and I were under that wrath until the time when we exercised saving faith - even though Christ had died for our sins already.

I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly, but that's what I'm getting. Forgive me if I'm wrong.

What I am saying is that Ephesians 2:1-3 says that we were children of wrath just as are unbelievers after Christ died for our sins ------ and that 1 John 2:2 says that "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."

The two taken together, even without the other scriptures we could list say that, limited atonement is not only not a logical extension of the other 4 points but is unscriptural as well.

But I will say what Spurgeon said, Calvinism is the gospel. Pelagianism and Arminianism is man centered and perverts the gospel of grace.

Pelagianism and Arminianism are man centered and do not represent the gospel of grace properly.

Any so called Calvinism which inclued limited atonement perverts the gospel of grace.

The gospel of grace tells the world that if they believe on the Lord Jesus Christ they will be saved.

Limited atonement tells the world that if they manage to believe they may not be saved because Christ may not have died for their sins.

And is why there is always a heated battle between the two

There are heated battles between the two because some of each misrepresent what the other is saying and will not enter into a civil Christian discussion without resorting to red herrings and cliches like "you believe that Christ spilt His blood for no good reason" or "if you believe in the sovereignty of God in that way we must be but mere robots and puppets".

 

[jimmyjimmy]

The gospel of grace tells the world that if they believe on the Lord Jesus Christ they will be saved.

Limited atonement tells the world that if they manage to believe they may not be saved because Christ may not have died for their sins.

No. No. No. No.

Talk about misrepresentations.. . Come on, Marvin. You are smarter than that, and you know that most Reformed people are too cleaver to let that slide, as well.

The gospel goes out and it does it work in the hearts of the elect. If anyone believes it, that is proof he is among the elect. We can "promiscuously" proclaim the gospel to all, and we must! That's our duty, and anyone who comes will never be turned away. They are no such people as those who wish to be saved who aren't. They are no such people who come to Christ as repentant sinners who are not embraced by Him (and me).

 

[Marvin Knox]

This is a perfect conformation of what I had suspected about you.

There's no reason at all to "suspect" anything about me. I've laid my history and belifs befoe you and for all to see.

If you have further questions please ask.

Your stay in the PCUSA, regardless of how unscathed you think you walked away, has had an effect on your thinking, therefore, your theology. The Progressive Liberal politics which comes included with Protestant Liberalism, especially the notion of "equality", has a way of tainting ones theological views.

Paul and any number of saintly teachers after him including myself remained unscathed in their theology even as they associated with wrong teachers in an effort to obey the Lord and lead them from error through rebuke and correction.

I formed my Reformed beliefs before I associated with any Reformed churches and I refined them (correctly) while I was there.

The above quote reveals your desire to protect feelings (only some people's) over and above protecting and defending truth.

Simply not true - whethe we are talking about the liberal Presbyterians I did battle with or the conservative ones I am correcting now.

The gospel, we are told, is offensive to many. Are we to avoid proclaiming it for that reason?

The gospel is not limited atonement and I sure hope you know that regarless of your defending and teaching that doctrine.

How am I avoiding proclaiming the gospel?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

How am I avoiding proclaiming the gospel?

You are not. At least not that I'm aware of. My point was relating to offending people, and it goes back to your concern over offending Arminians.

 

[GillDouglas]

Kinda like pulling the puppet strings, huh? No, even kings in ancient times who were understood as being sovereign let their people make a lot of choices.

Just because IS sovereign doesn't mean He makes all the choices. But that is what I keep hearing from the reformed. Not that they say it in those words.

There is no comparison between God (the Creator of ALL things) and human kings.

Do you know for what purpose God elects? iow, He chooses for what?

Depends on the individual. Why did God choose Issac; who was indeed a liar, and a deceiver?

you've missed the whole point. If God has already chosen who will believe, evangelism IS meaningless because those He chose cannot do other than believe. They won't even need an evangelist. Just a Bible to read about what they are going to do to be saved.

That is an assumption based on your misunderstanding of a doctrine you do not subscribe to. I'm telling you that you're wrong.

 

[Marvin Knox]

If anyone believes it, that is proof he is among the elect. We can "promiscuously" proclaim the gospel to all, and we must! That's our duty, and anyone who comes will never be turned away. They are no such people as those who wish to be saved who aren't. They are no such people who come to Christ as repentant sinners who are not embraced by Him (and me).

Every Reformed theologian knows that.

But our job is not to present election and special calling to the world. It is to proclain that God was reconciling the world to Himself through Christ not counting their sins against them and to implore the world to be reconciled to God through faith.

Is it your intent to snipe away and demand that I explain my beliefs enough times that you can catch me saying something you can jump on with a "NO NO NO" even though I have told you enough for you to know how I meant what I said - even if I did not say it the best way possible?

As you said about me - "this is conformation" - I suspected as much.

 

[Marvin Knox]

You are not. At least not that I'm aware of. My point was relating to offending people, and it goes back to your concern over offending Arminians.

I thought I heard you ask if I was avoiding proclaiming it and not "are we to avoid claiming it".

My mistake.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Every Reformed theologian knows that.

But our job is not to present election and special calling to the world. It is to proclain that God was reconciling the world to Himself through Christ not counting their sins against them and to implore the world to be reconciled to God through faith.

Is it your intent to snipe away and demand that I explain my beliefs enough times that you can catch me saying something you can jump on with a "NO NO NO" even though I have told you enough for you to know how I meant what I said - even if I did not say it the best way possible?

As you said about me - "this is conformation" - I suspected as much.

Of course we don't proclaim the gospel saying, "if you are elect, then come to the table". We understand that only the elect will come, but we proclaim the good news first and teach them doctrine later, right?

You are arguing against HYPER Calvinism, not Calvinism, and I would join you in correcting hypers all day long; however, we are discussing the L in Limited Atonement at the moment.