Once Saved Always Saved vs You Were Never Really Saved at All

[Roymond]

I don't know much of what reformed Christianity teaches. From what I understand, those who are reformed are Calvinist, but not all Calvinists are reformed. I certainly never had any reason to believe there is any major error in their views.

Calvin taught that the blood of Christ only atoned for the predestined, despite the fact that scripture says He died for ALL.

 

[Roymond]

And I was pretty sure Catholics were heavy OSAS supporters.

Rome teaches that if you die without having confessed a "mortal sin" you're not welcomed to heaven.

 

[Think...]

Calvin taught that the blood of Christ only atoned for the predestined, despite the fact that scripture says He died for ALL.

He definitely didn't die for all.

Modern Christians are never taught the Wheat and Tares doctrine. Matthew 13:38 And there are many other passages in Scripture that bear this out.

Scripture also says that Jesus is not Good, while Jesus Himself says He is the Good Shepherd elsewhere.

The Bible must be taken in its entirety. We cannot create doctrine out of single verses as so many do today.

Jesus says 'IF' about 50 times throughout the Book of John. That is proof-positive that there are conditions to the promises He makes.

Matthew 7:21-23 proves that many will stand before God, as part of that ALL that you mentioned, and be utterly rejected for living in habitual sin.

If you don't like what I have to say, prove that the Scripture that I am presenting is false.

 

[jcpartri]

So, the intent of my original post was to be of an encouragement.
I do see it as a doctrine the bible teaches clearly.
No one is forced to believe a doctrine they do not see the bible teaching.
As for the efficacious work of Christ's blood, it seems far more irreverent, in my view, to say that there are people in hell for whom Christ died.
In my view this is a true 'limited atonement' if people can reject Christ's work on the cross.
Having said that, I have no intention of making this thread a battleground of words. People have strong views. I get that.
I am reformed. I am being reformed. Christ is enough.

-many blessings to you all today.

 

[Roymond]

He definitely didn't die for all.

I John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.​

Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

John 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

Romans 5:6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.

Romans 5: 18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

II Corinthians 5:14,15 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died. And he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.

I Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

Hebrews 2:9 Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

II Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

I John 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

Calvin was wrong, and blasphemously so: Jesus, being God and being Man could not die except for all, since as God He was infinite and so the Atonement was infinite, while as Man he died for all with human nature, which is all humans.

Modern Christians are never taught the Wheat and Tares doctrine. Matthew 13:38 And there are many other passages in Scripture that bear this out.

Scripture also says that Jesus is not Good, while Jesus Himself says He is the Good Shepherd elsewhere.

"Jesus is not Good". That is false -- the scripture says no such thing. Jesus is God, so your assertion is that God is not good!

The Bible must be taken in its entirety. We cannot create doctrine out of single verses as so many do today.

Nor can you select the verses you like and just use others, which is what you are doing -- as you demonstrate here:

Jesus says 'IF' about 50 times throughout the Book of John. That is proof-positive that there are conditions to the promises He makes.

Matthew 7:21-23 proves that many will stand before God, as part of that ALL that you mentioned, and be utterly rejected for living in habitual sin.

If you don't like what I have to say, prove that the Scripture that I am presenting is false.

By saying Jesus did not die for all, you blaspheme, and you blaspheme again when you say that Jesus is not good.

The Jesus you say you believe in is not the Jesus of the Bible, and that puts you with the goats and the tares. By believing in a different Jesus, you show you are no Christian but an imposter. And since you are an imposter, and posting here where the discussions are for Christians only, you show that you are a wolf come to harm the sheep.
Happily for you, Jesus did die for all, so you can repent and turn to Him.

 

[didactics]

He definitely didn't die for all.

Modern Christians are never taught the Wheat and Tares doctrine. Matthew 13:38 And there are many other passages in Scripture that bear this out.

Scripture also says that Jesus is not Good, while Jesus Himself says He is the Good Shepherd elsewhere.

The Bible must be taken in its entirety. We cannot create doctrine out of single verses as so many do today.

Jesus says 'IF' about 50 times throughout the Book of John. That is proof-positive that there are conditions to the promises He makes.

Matthew 7:21-23 proves that many will stand before God, as part of that ALL that you mentioned, and be utterly rejected for living in habitual sin.

If you don't like what I have to say, prove that the Scripture that I am presenting is false.

Wait, I think you are misunderstanding something. I don’t think he’s saying he believes in universal salvation. The terms Arminians and Calvinists use in Protestant circles is limited atonement vs unlimited (or universal) atonement. The choices are Jesus died on the cross to purchase the possibility of salvation for all, or to guarantee salvation for some. He denies limited atonement because he is Catholic. Their explanation of soteriology is different because they believe there are seven sacraments while Protestants say there are two.

 

[Think...]

By saying Jesus did not die for all, you blaspheme, and you blaspheme again when you say that Jesus is not good.

I didn't say Jesus is not good, I said the Bible says that in Mark 10:18, but I was just making a point. You're the only one who ignored the fact that I immediately followed with 'Jesus is the Good Shepherd.'

What you're doing is trying DESPERATELY to find reasons to accuse me of this or that. It's nothing new. You don't like the Truth I'm presenting from Scripture and you're desperate to silence me, or (Good luck) get me banned.

This is all old hat to me. I've been at this longer than you've been employed to do your job on these sites.

Jesus did not die for all. The Bible is very clear on that. I could post more verses than you did to try and make your case. It wouldn't accomplish anything at all.

If Jesus died for all, why did He purposely refuse to speak Truth to certain people in the streets and explain to His Disciples that the Truth was not FOR those people; and if He had spoken Truth to them, then He'd HAVE TO forgive and heal them?

Matthew 13:11

You have no answer of course.

Why did He go on and on with the evil Jews in the streets, telling them they weren't even CAPABLE of hearing His Truth because their father was the DEVIL? John 8:42-44

"And because I tell you the Truth, ye believe Me not."
John 8:45

If He died to save THEM, here was His chance. Here was the perfect opportunity for Him to tell them to follow Him and open their eyes and give them faith and so on and so forth. Do YOU see Him doing that in any of that chapter anywhere, Roymond?

I sure hope not, because it aint there!

"He that is of God heareth God's Words: YE THERFORE HEAR THEM NOT, BECAUSE YE ARE NOT OF GOD."
John 8:47

What happened here, Roymond? Did Christ forget that He died for these people?

Did He die for these people but He just didn't have the POWER to save them?

What nonsense do you tell yourself about these plain passages to convince you that Jesus died for, and came to save, all mankind?

The Wheat and Tares doctrine is a straightforward teaching of Jesus Christ. It must be studied, considered and understood in order to understand the foundations of the Bible.

The biggest reason you and others so strongly reject this teaching is because it's bad for church business and modern mainstream churchianity.

Sorry, but Truth hurts.

 

[Think...]

Wait, I think you are misunderstanding something. I don’t think he’s saying he believes in universal salvation. The terms Arminians and Calvinists use in Protestant circles is limited atonement vs unlimited (or universal) atonement. The choices are Jesus died on the cross to purchase the possibility of salvation for all, or to guarantee salvation for some. He denies limited atonement because he is Catholic. Their explanation of soteriology is different because they believe there are seven sacraments while Protestants say there are two.

But, with all due respect, there is only ONE TRUTH.

It doesn't matter what denom someone is if their doctrine does not align with God's Word.

We don't just accept other denoms' beliefs simply because they are of a different denom. What is the difference in doing that and accepting another religion altogether just to be agreeable?

The Bible is the final word on all things. If somebody, no matter their denom/religion believes something that is contrary to Scripture, they are wrong. Pure and simple.

God is the Judge. Period.

He gave us His Word so that WE would have a standard to uphold against all things in His Name.

 

[Roymond]

I didn't say Jesus is not good, I said the Bible says that in Mark 10:18, but I was just making a point. You're the only one who ignored the fact that I immediately followed with 'Jesus is the Good Shepherd.'

What you're doing is trying DESPERATELY to find reasons to accuse me of this or that. It's nothing new. You don't like the Truth I'm presenting from Scripture and you're desperate to silence me, or (Good luck) get me banned.

This is all old hat to me. I've been at this longer than you've been employed to do your job on these sites.

Jesus did not die for all. The Bible is very clear on that. I could post more verses than you did to try and make your case. It wouldn't accomplish anything at all.

If Jesus died for all, why did He purposely refuse to speak Truth to certain people in the streets and explain to His Disciples that the Truth was not FOR those people; and if He had spoken Truth to them, then He'd HAVE TO forgive and heal them?

Matthew 13:11

You have no answer of course.

Why did He go on and on with the evil Jews in the streets, telling them they weren't even CAPABLE of hearing His Truth because their father was the DEVIL? John 8:42-44

"And because I tell you the Truth, ye believe Me not."
John 8:45

If He died to save THEM, here was His chance. Here was the perfect opportunity for Him to tell them to follow Him and open their eyes and give them faith and so on and so forth. Do YOU see Him doing that in any of that chapter anywhere, Roymond?

I sure hope not, because it aint there!

"He that is of God heareth God's Words: YE THERFORE HEAR THEM NOT, BECAUSE YE ARE NOT OF GOD."
John 8:47

What happened here, Roymond? Did Christ forget that He died for these people?

Did He die for these people but He just didn't have the POWER to save them?

What nonsense do you tell yourself about these plain passages to convince you that Jesus died for, and came to save, all mankind?

The Wheat and Tares doctrine is a straightforward teaching of Jesus Christ. It must be studied, considered and understood in order to understand the foundations of the Bible.

The biggest reason you and others so strongly reject this teaching is because it's bad for church business and modern mainstream churchianity.

Sorry, but Truth hurts.

You're just repeating the same error: you don't get to ignore some passages because you don't agree with them.

The verses I stated are plain, and your only argument is to deny that they mean what the words plainly say:

He is the propitiation... for the sins of the whole world.
the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all
the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world
Christ died for the ungodly.
so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
And he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.
Who gave himself as a ransom for all
Jesus ... by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.
not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

The Spirit says through the inspired writers that Jesus is the propitiation for the world, that the LORD put on Jesus the iniquity of all, that Jesus takes away the sin of the world, that Jesus died for the ungodly, and so on. None of it says that He died only for some and not for the rest.

By denying that He died for all you deny the Incarnation and you thus serve a different Christ and teach a different Gospel.

Besides which, your arrogance and your accusations and pretense that you know others motives is of the flesh. You make your motives plain by that fruit, and it is not the fruit of the Spirit. Your attitude and actions are among Paul's list of the works of the flesh!

A second time I invite you to repent and surrender to the Savior whom you insult.

 

[Roymond]

Wait, I think you are misunderstanding something. I don’t think he’s saying he believes in universal salvation. The terms Arminians and Calvinists use in Protestant circles is limited atonement vs unlimited (or universal) atonement. The choices are Jesus died on the cross to purchase the possibility of salvation for all, or to guarantee salvation for some. He denies limited atonement because he is Catholic. Their explanation of soteriology is different because they believe there are seven sacraments while Protestants say there are two.

I deny limited atonement because it is not possible. The blood of Christ, being the blood of the Word, is of infinite value. Limited atonement says that either the blood of the Savior was not strong enough to save everyone, or it says that God is not love. And since the Incarnate Word took on human nature, that Atonement applies to all of human nature (which is why a fair number of early Fathers believed that eventually all would be saved); it cannot apply to some human nature and not to the rest, as that would mean that Christ is divided in Himself, one part Savior and the rest not Savior.
Christ did not purchase "the possibility of salvation for all", He purchased it for all. That's where the "if" comes in that T points to: it is like the parable of the wicked servants -- they were in the Master's vineyard, not outside of it, but they rejected what that vineyard truly was, that it was the vineyard of their Master; if they had welcomed the Son, they would have remained in the vineyard. So also if He did not die for all, then He was not sent into the world to save the world, but was sent both to save and to condemn, yet the holy Apostle writes that Jesus told Nicodemus that the Son was not sent to condemn the world. Adam indeed brought sin to all because by his sin he corrupted human nature; Christ as the Second Adam does not transform some human nature and not other, else He would be no second Adam, indeed He would be lesser than Adam since Adam corrupted all yet Christ supposedly did not 'un-corrupt' all. If Adam brought death to all, yet Christ did not bring life to all, then Christ is a poor Savior indeed, and Adam is greater than Christ. Again, the action of Adam besmirched human nature; how is it then that a Savior does not clean human nature but leaves it sullied?
Indeed John Chrysostom put it well:
'“So Christ was once offered.” By whom offered? Evidently by Himself. Here he says that He is not Priest only, but Victim also, and what is sacrificed. On this account are [the words] “was offered.” “Was once offered” (he says) “to bear the sins of many.” Why “of many,” and not “of all”? Because not all believed. For He died indeed for all, that is His part: for that death was a counterbalance against the destruction of all men. But He did not bear the sins of all men, because they were not willing.'
The gift of Christ is greater than the offense of Adam, not lesser. He indeed died for all, as Adam brought death to all, but those who choose darkness rather than light are condemned, not because He did not die for them but because they chose darkness despite the light.
The error of limited atonement is that it treats the matter as something in a courtroom -- but the Incarnation did not happen in a courtroom, it happened in human flesh. God the Word took on human flesh, took on all of human nature, and either He healed all of human nature or He healed none. It is akin to putting a dash of salt into boiling water; the salt does not remain only with part of the water but pervades all of it -- there is not one part of the water that becomes salty while the rest does not. So also with the Incarnation: since He is consubstantial with us according to the manhood, He is consubstantial with all manhood, for manhood is one thing like the salt in the water; His Manhood permeates all manhood.

This was a bit rambling, but it shows that limited atonement is not a possibility, it is a courtroom fiction.

- = - + - = -

BTW, the original (and historically speaking the only) Protestants held three sacraments: Baptism, the Eucharist, and Confession/Absolution. It was those called radicals by both those who Protested (at the second Council of Speyers, against arbitrary action by the Holy Roman Empire) and by Rome who reducted the number of sacraments to two.

 

[didactics]

I deny limited atonement because it is not possible. The blood of Christ, being the blood of the Word, is of infinite value. Limited atonement says that either the blood of the Savior was not strong enough to save everyone, or it says that God is not love. And since the Incarnate Word took on human nature, that Atonement applies to all of human nature (which is why a fair number of early Fathers believed that eventually all would be saved); it cannot apply to some human nature and not to the rest, as that would mean that Christ is divided in Himself, one part Savior and the rest not Savior.
Christ did not purchase "the possibility of salvation for all", He purchased it for all. That's where the "if" comes in that T points to: it is like the parable of the wicked servants -- they were in the Master's vineyard, not outside of it, but they rejected what that vineyard truly was, that it was the vineyard of their Master; if they had welcomed the Son, they would have remained in the vineyard. So also if He did not die for all, then He was not sent into the world to save the world, but was sent both to save and to condemn, yet the holy Apostle writes that Jesus told Nicodemus that the Son was not sent to condemn the world. Adam indeed brought sin to all because by his sin he corrupted human nature; Christ as the Second Adam does not transform some human nature and not other, else He would be no second Adam, indeed He would be lesser than Adam since Adam corrupted all yet Christ supposedly did not 'un-corrupt' all. If Adam brought death to all, yet Christ did not bring life to all, then Christ is a poor Savior indeed, and Adam is greater than Christ. Again, the action of Adam besmirched human nature; how is it then that a Savior does not clean human nature but leaves it sullied?
Indeed John Chrysostom put it well:
'“So Christ was once offered.” By whom offered? Evidently by Himself. Here he says that He is not Priest only, but Victim also, and what is sacrificed. On this account are [the words] “was offered.” “Was once offered” (he says) “to bear the sins of many.” Why “of many,” and not “of all”? Because not all believed. For He died indeed for all, that is His part: for that death was a counterbalance against the destruction of all men. But He did not bear the sins of all men, because they were not willing.'
The gift of Christ is greater than the offense of Adam, not lesser. He indeed died for all, as Adam brought death to all, but those who choose darkness rather than light are condemned, not because He did not die for them but because they chose darkness despite the light.
The error of limited atonement is that it treats the matter as something in a courtroom -- but the Incarnation did not happen in a courtroom, it happened in human flesh. God the Word took on human flesh, took on all of human nature, and either He healed all of human nature or He healed none. It is akin to putting a dash of salt into boiling water; the salt does not remain only with part of the water but pervades all of it -- there is not one part of the water that becomes salty while the rest does not. So also with the Incarnation: since He is consubstantial with us according to the manhood, He is consubstantial with all manhood, for manhood is one thing like the salt in the water; His Manhood permeates all manhood.

This was a bit rambling, but it shows that limited atonement is not a possibility, it is a courtroom fiction.

- = - + - = -

BTW, the original (and historically speaking the only) Protestants held three sacraments: Baptism, the Eucharist, and Confession/Absolution. It was those called radicals by both those who Protested (at the second Council of Speyers, against arbitrary action by the Holy Roman Empire) and by Rome who reducted the number of sacraments to two.

Am I wrong here, are you in fact saying you do hold to Christian Universalism or what's sometimes called universal reconciliation?

If you are quoting John Chrysostom then I take it you do not affirm Christian Universalism. However, when you posit, "Christ did not purchase "the possibility of salvation for all", He purchased it for all." it sounds that's what you are advocating--Universal Reconciliation. I think what you are saying is that your views line up with unlimited atonement, or if you prefer, general atonement.

 

[Roymond]

Am I wrong here, are you in fact saying you do hold to Christian Universalism or what's sometimes called universal reconciliation?

If you are quoting John Chrysostom then I take it you do not affirm Christian Universalism. However, when you posit, "Christ did not purchase "the possibility of salvation for all", He purchased it for all." it sounds that's what you are advocating--Universal Reconciliation. I think what you are saying is that your views line up with unlimited atonement, or if you prefer, general atonement.

Atonement has to be unlimited because the blood of the Incarnate Word is of unlimited value. As for universal reconciliation, I'd like to believe it but despite how many of the early Fathers held to it I can't quite make a convincing case. My next preferred position would be that held by other Fathers, that all are resurrected into the presence of God, and for those who are His that resurrection is joy and continues, while for those who reject the light it is agony such that they wither away and are no more. I forget which Father it was who noted that this would be good news for all; those who are in Christ thus are forever with Him, while those who reject Him don't suffer eternally but receive mercy in the form of their existence coming to an end.

To borrow imagery from a Jesuit I once knew, the Atonement purchased a flat (apartment) for everyone, and everyone got keys to theirs, but some choose to throw away the keys and reject the gift.

As far as "the possibility of salvation for all" v "purchased it for all", if He had purchased only a possibility I don't think that fits with His declaration "It is <now and forever, utterly and totally> finished!" If He only purchased a possibility, then the work wasn't truly finished because more remained in order to make that salvation actual for everyone. τετέλεσται does not leave room for mere potential!

On the other hand, what the early Fathers meant by universal reconciliation is not what most people would guess. Origen's view is perhaps typical, that all suffer in a fire built of our own unrepented sins, which for those not in Christ means every sin they ever committed however small of large, and as one suffers in the flames each and every sin churns to the surface of memory and with it experience -- not just knowledge, but experience! -- of all the pain and suffering that sin caused anyone else, including not just other humans but also every part of nature. This continues so long as the person tries to avoid facing sins; it is only relieved by accepting full responsibility and welcoming the experiential knowledge -- i.e. the suffering -- of all those who suffered as a result of each sin and cries out to God for relief. Given human stubbornness and tendency to try to avoid responsibility, and given that we sin continuously merely in that as selfish humans our actions are never free of selfishness, one can imagine this suffering to continue for the equivalent of millions of years. It's worth noting that this equivalent was taken literally in the Roman Catholic scheme of Purgatory such that punishment was reckoned in years of suffering, and from there it was a small step to assuming that this suffering must take place in a location -- one similar to heaven and hell -- and thus what began as a doctrine of purgation became a picture of an actual physical place where people suffered actual physical torment. Yet as some modern theologians have noted, the greatest suffering in such a condition wouldn't be the physical, since the greatest pain we humans endure is not that of the body but of the mind and of the heart, so Purgatory as a place as traditionally envisioned both lacks any kind of foundation anywhere in the scriptures but also lacks the aspect of the worst pain humans can suffer: the torment of the soul.
That sort of universal reconciliation includes all those who never heard the Gospel, though there's a twist: some have held that when, as Peter says, Jesus went and preached to the spirits in prison that it wasn't just those who had died previously to the Crucifixion but was in fact all who ever had and ever would die -- making it, in modern terms, an event not on the timeline (or perhaps I should say not on our timeline, seeing as eternity may certainly have others where events march differently!) -- so that every human who has ever lived and died plus will live and die heard the Gospel from the Word Himself, thus providing a foundation for this deliverance from eternal suffering. This was assessed as being just because each person's 'time' in torment ends up being determined by that person, a form of sentencing difficult to fault. A verse that was referenced in this connection is Jesus' statement that "Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny". [On a personal level, one reason I like this position is that it solves the Roman Catholic conundrum of what happens to a Christian who dies in a state of "mortal sin": it becomes no different from dying in any other state; we can (and will) be purified beyond the grave and made one with our Lord.]

At root the question of limited atonement come down to Christology -- though I will note in passing that a good OCA Orthodox priest friend once expounded on a major facet of Orthodox theology, namely that answering any question that is actually theological must begin by asking , "Who is Jesus?", in which case everything is about christology! If Christ is Savior, He must be Redeemer; if Redeemer, He must be fully God and fully Man; and if He is fully God and fully Man then it is not possible for atonement to be other than universal -- in other words, to say that Christ didn't die for everyone is to say that He is either not fully God or not fully Man (or both), which is to say that He is no Redeemer, and if He is no Redeemer then he is no Savior. If (and I think of that little Greek particle εἰ, which means both "if" and "since") He is Savior, then He is Savior of all.

 

[didactics]

Atonement has to be unlimited because the blood of the Incarnate Word is of unlimited value. As for universal reconciliation, I'd like to believe it but despite how many of the early Fathers held to it I can't quite make a convincing case. My next preferred position would be that held by other Fathers, that all are resurrected into the presence of God, and for those who are His that resurrection is joy and continues, while for those who reject the light it is agony such that they wither away and are no more. I forget which Father it was who noted that this would be good news for all; those who are in Christ thus are forever with Him, while those who reject Him don't suffer eternally but receive mercy in the form of their existence coming to an end.

To borrow imagery from a Jesuit I once knew, the Atonement purchased a flat (apartment) for everyone, and everyone got keys to theirs, but some choose to throw away the keys and reject the gift.

As far as "the possibility of salvation for all" v "purchased it for all", if He had purchased only a possibility I don't think that fits with His declaration "It is <now and forever, utterly and totally> finished!" If He only purchased a possibility, then the work wasn't truly finished because more remained in order to make that salvation actual for everyone. τετέλεσται does not leave room for mere potential!

On the other hand, what the early Fathers meant by universal reconciliation is not what most people would guess. Origen's view is perhaps typical, that all suffer in a fire built of our own unrepented sins, which for those not in Christ means every sin they ever committed however small of large, and as one suffers in the flames each and every sin churns to the surface of memory and with it experience -- not just knowledge, but experience! -- of all the pain and suffering that sin caused anyone else, including not just other humans but also every part of nature. This continues so long as the person tries to avoid facing sins; it is only relieved by accepting full responsibility and welcoming the experiential knowledge -- i.e. the suffering -- of all those who suffered as a result of each sin and cries out to God for relief. Given human stubbornness and tendency to try to avoid responsibility, and given that we sin continuously merely in that as selfish humans our actions are never free of selfishness, one can imagine this suffering to continue for the equivalent of millions of years. It's worth noting that this equivalent was taken literally in the Roman Catholic scheme of Purgatory such that punishment was reckoned in years of suffering, and from there it was a small step to assuming that this suffering must take place in a location -- one similar to heaven and hell -- and thus what began as a doctrine of purgation became a picture of an actual physical place where people suffered actual physical torment. Yet as some modern theologians have noted, the greatest suffering in such a condition wouldn't be the physical, since the greatest pain we humans endure is not that of the body but of the mind and of the heart, so Purgatory as a place as traditionally envisioned both lacks any kind of foundation anywhere in the scriptures but also lacks the aspect of the worst pain humans can suffer: the torment of the soul.
That sort of universal reconciliation includes all those who never heard the Gospel, though there's a twist: some have held that when, as Peter says, Jesus went and preached to the spirits in prison that it wasn't just those who had died previously to the Crucifixion but was in fact all who ever had and ever would die -- making it, in modern terms, an event not on the timeline (or perhaps I should say not on our timeline, seeing as eternity may certainly have others where events march differently!) -- so that every human who has ever lived and died plus will live and die heard the Gospel from the Word Himself, thus providing a foundation for this deliverance from eternal suffering. This was assessed as being just because each person's 'time' in torment ends up being determined by that person, a form of sentencing difficult to fault. A verse that was referenced in this connection is Jesus' statement that "Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny". [On a personal level, one reason I like this position is that it solves the Roman Catholic conundrum of what happens to a Christian who dies in a state of "mortal sin": it becomes no different from dying in any other state; we can (and will) be purified beyond the grave and made one with our Lord.]

At root the question of limited atonement come down to Christology -- though I will note in passing that a good OCA Orthodox priest friend once expounded on a major facet of Orthodox theology, namely that answering any question that is actually theological must begin by asking , "Who is Jesus?", in which case everything is about christology! If Christ is Savior, He must be Redeemer; if Redeemer, He must be fully God and fully Man; and if He is fully God and fully Man then it is not possible for atonement to be other than universal -- in other words, to say that Christ didn't die for everyone is to say that He is either not fully God or not fully Man (or both), which is to say that He is no Redeemer, and if He is no Redeemer then he is no Savior. If (and I think of that little Greek particle εἰ, which means both "if" and "since") He is Savior, then He is Savior of all.

Now, I hold to the view of limited atonement. Call me a heretic if you will. Though, by no means do I deny the incarnation of Christ.
The atoning work of Christ is sufficient for all but efficient only for some. The merit of Christ’s atonement is given to all who believe and to all who repent of their sins. And, not everyone actually receives the full benefits wrought by Christ’s saving work on the cross; namely, those who do not believe.


Universal Atonement – The position that Jesus bore the sin of everyone who ever lived.


Also Universal Atonement – Jesus purchased salvation of all people, though some decided to throw away the keys.

 

[Roymond]

Now, I hold to the view of limited atonement. Call me a heretic if you will. Though, by no means do I deny the incarnation of Christ.
The atoning work of Christ is sufficient for all but efficient only for some. The merit of Christ’s atonement is given to all who believe and to all who repent of their sins. And, not everyone actually receives the full benefits wrought by Christ’s saving work on the cross; namely, those who do not believe.


Universal Atonement – The position that Jesus bore the sin of everyone who ever lived.


Also Universal Atonement – Jesus purchased salvation of all people, though some decided to throw away the keys.

If it's sufficient for all, then it's universal.
Though I think part of the trouble is the definition of words: as I read the Fathers, "atonement" indicates removing the penalty, what Paul refers to as nailing the writ of condemnation to the Cross. So those who are condemned are not condemned because of trespasses, since those were all nailed to the Cross, but because though their trespasses were dealt with they chose darkness over the light, as Jesus says in John 3. And as another Father noted, that is a greater transgression than the total of all someone's sins, since it is not merely violating laws but violating the gift of the One who is Himself the Atonement!

 

[didactics]

If it's sufficient for all, then it's universal.
Though I think part of the trouble is the definition of words: as I read the Fathers, "atonement" indicates removing the penalty, what Paul refers to as nailing the writ of condemnation to the Cross. So those who are condemned are not condemned because of trespasses, since those were all nailed to the Cross, but because though their trespasses were dealt with they chose darkness over the light, as Jesus says in John 3. And as another Father noted, that is a greater transgression than the total of all someone's sins, since it is not merely violating laws but violating the gift of the One who is Himself the Atonement!

I think a hard thing for most of us to grasp about atonement is propitiation, including myself. Naturally all these questions can arise like, why did the wrath of God pour out on his Son or the Father turn his face away (Mt 27:46)? It is an important thing for us to ponder because in it explains the depth of what’s really happening. This isn’t said to happen the moment Christ dies. The verse before it says, “from the sixth hour darkness fell upon all the land until the ninth hour.” Some have said that more is going on here than just physical pain of the crucifixion. It demonstrates the substitution for sinners and Jesus as sin-bearer. God’s wrath must be appeased for real sin because he is holy. And, Jesus willed that it should happen, though it is said this was really the most excruciating part of the experience.

Though, you’re right, another important thing to consider is the meaning of Jesus’ blood. For “without [the] shedding of blood there is no remission” of sins (Heb 9:22). As well, the resurrection powerfully demonstrates that he accepted his death in the place of sinners—full and perfect payment of sin’s penalty.

 

[didactics]

@Think...
In regards to the young rich ruler (see Mk 10:17-22), it is more likely that he supposed Jesus only to be a good teacher. Though, he gave him the kind of respect and honor one would have for a king, and so he assisted his faith. Christ would have him mean that he looked upon him to be God when he called him "good master" and seized on those words and used it to test the man's faith. He then tested him on his understanding of goodness. The young man supposed himself to be a good man, not realizing no one has kept the Ten Commandments perfectly but Jesus. Some have suggested that he actually gained his wealth by extortion and is the reason he went away sad. One of the things mentioned is “do not defraud”, which is an unusual thing to say in the middle of giving some of the Ten Commandments. He gave him five horizontal commandments, commandments to do with his fellow man. Instead of the tenth commandment, Thou shalt not covet, our Savior here puts, Defraud not.* By what follows, he showed this man that his god was his money.

*Since the wording is unique to Mark's account, it could just be a paraphrase against coveting.

 

[didactics]

You don't believe Jesus is God?

Don’t misunderstand me, I’m saying the man made a sincere inquiry, but he thought he could gain eternal life by the principle of doing something to be justified. Notice, Jesus didn’t say “I’m not good” but rather “no one is good but God alone”. Before that however, he asks, “Why do you call me good?” What he is doing here is challenging him on the meaning of essential goodness. Our English word God has affinity with good.

 

[Desert Squatch]

Can I get some of your guys opinions on this issue?
Does the Bible teach that once you are saved, you can always saved or can you actually fall out of your salvation
by rejecting it and living a non-Christian life? Or would that indicate that you were never truly saved to begin with?

Everybody reads the scriptures with their own personal doctrunal bias. So when you ask others for help in understanding something, they will share with you their own personal doctrinal bias -- they one they were taught -- the one they have decided to believe. So, I suggest that you read people's posts with an understanding that they do not have the corner of the truth to your question. The best thing you can do is read the scriptures yourself, study the passages that talk about your question, and decide for yourself. I do know this, most people have one picture of God the father and a completely different picture of Jesus. That alone is confusing to me and frustrates me. Let me end with this, God loves you. God is crazy about you. God has been redeeming you from the day He created you.

 

[didactics]

Do you believe Jesus is God?

Yes or no?

Before I answer your question, could you answer me this: is Jesus good? Is he alone intrinsically good? Is Jesus one with the Father (Jn 10:30)?

 

[Roymond]

I think a hard thing for most of us to grasp about atonement is propitiation, including myself. Naturally all these questions can arise like, why did the wrath of God pour out on his Son or the Father turn his face away (Mt 27:46)? It is an important thing for us to ponder because in it explains the depth of what’s really happening. This isn’t said to happen the moment Christ dies. The verse before it says, “from the sixth hour darkness fell upon all the land until the ninth hour.” Some have said that more is going on here than just physical pain of the crucifixion. It demonstrates the substitution for sinners and Jesus as sin-bearer. God’s wrath must be appeased for real sin because he is holy. And, Jesus willed that it should happen, though it is said this was really the most excruciating part of the experience.

Though, you’re right, another important thing to consider is the meaning of Jesus’ blood. For “without [the] shedding of blood there is no remission” of sins (Heb 9:22). As well, the resurrection powerfully demonstrates that he accepted his death in the place of sinners—full and perfect payment of sin’s penalty.

In an Introduction to the New Testament seminar I sat in on years ago, the professor set out "propitiation" as the toughest term in the New Testament. "Atonement" isn't hard to get, or "satisfaction" (though that term would later be twisted by a theologian in the British Isles), or "ransom" (though the question of to whom it was paid endures), but "propitiation" is tough for modern westerners. Those in the Middle Ages had a better handle on it due to how the feudal system worked, but the epitome of its meaning is suggested in Genesis when Jacob plans how to restore peace with his brother Esau on his return home from years of working for their uncle Laban: Jacob has no idea how Esau feels about him, so he sends gifts -- not small ones, but sacrificial! -- to win favor, to make Esau friendly towards him. Then he humbles himself to seek peace with Esau, leaving everything in Esau's hands.
So yes, propitiation includes appeasement, but also gaining favor.

<and I just nodded off for twenty minutes and don't remember where I was going with this.>