ROSES, a reasonable baptist position?

[Amy.G]

quote: Not true. Speaking as a non-cal, the most unkind thing is limited atonement. Teaching that Christ only died for some when the Bible makes it clear He died for the whole world.
-----------------------------------------------

The problem with calvinism is the false statements, like this, that people make about it.

Just shows they don't know calvinism.

Sad,

Jim

Calvinist believe in limited atonement.

Calvinists claim (at least they do on this board) that Christ only died for some not all.

What is it I don't know?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

quote: Not true. Speaking as a non-cal, the most unkind thing is limited atonement. Teaching that Christ only died for some when the Bible makes it clear He died for the whole world.
-----------------------------------------------

The problem with calvinism is the false statements, like this, that people make about it.

Just shows they don't know calvinism.

Sad,

Jim

Yea your on the money there Jimmy me lad. Had you studied it & had some understanding of it, then feel free to make comment....but this nonsense just reinforces that their is scant knowledge of it. That indicates much unfortunately

 

[Amy.G]

Yea your on the money there Jimmy me lad. Had you studied it & had some understanding of it, then feel free to make comment....but this nonsense just reinforces that their is scant knowledge of it. That indicates much unfortunately

Exactly what did I say that was false?

 

[Jim1999]

The atonement achieved on the cross is sufficient for all, but efficient for some. On the crosses themselves, Christ died and guaranteed one thief a place with Him upon death. But Christ was cruel not accepting the other? Or, did He pass him by to his own destiny?

The limited atonement is established by God and His scriptures, and not by calvinists. All Israel shall be saved. If this is the literal, physical Israel, it failed. If it is the body Christ it is true. The total application of scripture makes it right.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[jaigner]

Yea your on the money there Jimmy me lad. Had you studied it & had some understanding of it, then feel free to make comment....but this nonsense just reinforces that their is scant knowledge of it. That indicates much unfortunately

Seems to me like God can do whatever God wants. He's sovereign. Any free will on our part comes underneath the umbrella of God's sovereignty.

 

[jaigner]

The atonement achieved on the cross is sufficient for all, but efficient for some. On the crosses themselves, Christ died and guaranteed one thief a place with Him upon death. But Christ was cruel not accepting the other? Or, did He pass him by to his own destiny?

The limited atonement is established by God and His scriptures, and not by calvinists. All Israel shall be saved. If this is the literal, physical Israel, it failed. If it is the body Christ it is true. The total application of scripture makes it right.

Big, big thumbs up.

 

[Amy.G]

Christ died and guaranteed one thief a place with Him upon death. But Christ was cruel not accepting the other? Or, did He pass him by to his own destiny?



Cheers,

Jim

Christ didn't pass him by. The criminal passed Christ by.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Big, big thumbs up.

Jag....In all honesty Ive been watching & listening to this Subject Matter & heard some really ridiculous accusations. Rather than putting nonsense out there, go study the subject matter so at least you have an educated understanding of what your either supporting or rejecting...does that make sense?

Try reading 'The Doctrines of Grace" by James Montgomery Boice & Philip Ryken. That will at least give you a basis.

 

[quantumfaith]

The atonement achieved on the cross is sufficient for all, but efficient for some. On the crosses themselves, Christ died and guaranteed one thief a place with Him upon death. But Christ was cruel not accepting the other? Or, did He pass him by to his own destiny?

The limited atonement is established by God and His scriptures, and not by calvinists. All Israel shall be saved. If this is the literal, physical Israel, it failed. If it is the body Christ it is true. The total application of scripture makes it right.

Cheers,

Jim

Jim, I am being gentle and kind as I respond not angry or mean spirited. I understand that textual communication can be difficult at best for a "complete communication". So the following is just "as I see it".

The atonement achieved on the cross is sufficient for all, but efficient for some.

Forgive me but this sounds like "semantics". If it is only "efficient" for a pre-selected subset of humanity, then that can reasonably and easily interpreted as being for only some. (Limited Atonement)

On the crosses themselves, Christ died and guaranteed one thief a place with Him upon death. But Christ was cruel not accepting the other? Or, did He pass him by to his own destiny?

Again, as I see it, the one thief was promised to be in paradise, because He recognized and acknowledged who he was in the presence of, and seems to me quite possible that he exhibited a heart of repentance, while the other "chose" to continue to rail against Jesus and all others.

The limited atonement is established by God and His scriptures, and not by calvinists

Again, as I understand it, limited atonement is a theological construct attributed to John Calvin, probably more accurately Theodore Beza. It is itself and honest attempt of man to interpret meaning and purpose from the Holy Scriptures as related to atonement. It may or may not be a correct interpretation of the scriptures.

The total application of scripture from cover to cover, yields one thing in my mind, God is LOVE and he acts in creation and sustenance and redemption because of the attribute of His. (Personal musing) He did not create because He was lonely, or bored, but because He LOVED. He was under no obligation to begin the process of redemption, but did so because He is Love.

I John 4

 

[jaigner]

Jag....In all honesty Ive been watching & listening to this Subject Matter & heard some really ridiculous accusations. Rather than putting nonsense out there, go study the subject matter so at least you have an educated understanding of what your either supporting or rejecting...does that make sense?

Try reading 'The Doctrines of Grace" by James Montgomery Boice & Philip Ryken. That will at least give you a basis.

Well, you can feel free to point out inconsistencies or discrepancies in what I say. I studied Calvin a good bit in grad school, though surely not quite as thoroughly as many. And my study of him has been more through the broader reformed tradition. I'd be interested to know what nonsense I've been putting out there.

 

[Luke2427]

WHAT?!? Please tell me this was a typo and you didn't mean this! Regeneration is new life...passing from spiritual death to spiritual life! No hope?!? If you believe that, you really have no business stating...

Once again we see this great barrier of communication between us. I think it is because you are half cocked when you start reading my posts. You didn't get what I was saying at all and then, bang! with the exclamation points.

Easy, dog.

Follow the parable of the sower Jesus told. Here are four different soils that experience the onset of life. Three of the four lose that life.

Those three were not ever saved. But they did experience a type of spiritual regeneration. But the cares of this world, etc... choked the spiritual life out of their hearts and they became "twice dead..."

These types are often your false teachers that Peter and Jude warns about. These are often they of whom it is said that they had escaped the corruption of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and became entangled again.

 

[Luke2427]

Jim, I am being gentle and kind as I respond not angry or mean spirited. I understand that textual communication can be difficult at best for a "complete communication". So the following is just "as I see it".

The atonement achieved on the cross is sufficient for all, but efficient for some.

Forgive me but this sounds like "semantics". If it is only "efficient" for a pre-selected subset of humanity, then that can reasonably and easily interpreted as being for only some. (Limited Atonement)

This is what EVERY theologian who is not a universalist believes. Arminian theologians believe this. This is not a Calvinistic thing- this is uniformly accepted by ALL reputable scholars.

No even Arminian theologian believes other wise.

On the crosses themselves, Christ died and guaranteed one thief a place with Him upon death. But Christ was cruel not accepting the other? Or, did He pass him by to his own destiny?

Again, as I see it, the one thief was promised to be in paradise, because He recognized and acknowledged who he was in the presence of, and seems to me quite possible that he exhibited a heart of repentance, while the other "chose" to continue to rail against Jesus and all others.

And why did he have a better heart than the other thief? Was he a better man than the other thief? Was he less sinful? Was he innately wiser.

If so, who made him that way?

The limited atonement is established by God and His scriptures, and not by calvinists

Again, as I understand it, limited atonement is a theological construct attributed to John Calvin, probably more accurately Theodore Beza. It is itself and honest attempt of man to interpret meaning and purpose from the Holy Scriptures as related to atonement. It may or may not be a correct interpretation of the scriptures.

The total application of scripture from cover to cover, yields one thing in my mind, God is LOVE and he acts in creation and sustenance and redemption because of the attribute of His. (Personal musing) He did not create because He was lonely, or bored, but because He LOVED. He was under no obligation to begin the process of redemption, but did so because He is Love.

I John 4

No sir. And this is important dear brother. God is certainly love. But love is NOT what motivated him to build the universe. A desire to have a people by which he could manifest his grace thus receiving eternal glory for that grace is what motivated him to build the universe. See Ephesians 2.

Man is not the center of God's universe. Christ is. God wished to bring His Son eternal glory so he built a world which would fall so that Christ could die for it making the ultimate sacrifice for it that he might receive eternal praise and honor.

Glory is the primary motive. Love is just what God is- and it is only one aspect of what God is. He is also a consuming fire.

 

[Luke2427]

Some scholars actually believe that "world," as in "so loved the world," actually means the elect. I'm not a Greek scholar, so I don't really have a vote, but I know that many believe that.

And, though I'm not a straight Reformed theology backer, there is nothing unkind about Christ dying for some and not all. God can do whatever God wants to do. He created us, we rebelled. The universe belongs to God. End of story.

Kudos! This is a tremendous statement!!

This is where it's at folks. Right here!

Get this and your theology will fix itself.

Let God be God and do as he pleases because he alone does all things perfectly.

 

[Luke2427]

Christ didn't pass him by. The criminal passed Christ by.

I actually agree with part of this. But why did the one criminal pass him by while the other accepted him.

Because God made the one willing and left the other to his own devices.

The only other option is to declare that the one was better than the other; a claim for which you will find no biblical support whatsoever.

The one was willing because God changed his heart.

This is what God does to all before they can be saved.

 

[quantumfaith]

This is what EVERY theologian who is not a universalist believes. Arminian theologians believe this. This is not a Calvinistic thing- this is uniformly accepted by ALL reputable scholars.

No even Arminian theologian believes other wise.

God is still the One choosing or electing to save; He has just done so according to one particular condition: faith in Jesus Christ. Since election is directly tied to salvation, and since God has not decreed to unconditionally save anyone, neither has He unconditionally elected anyone unto salvation. The apostle Paul affirms as much: "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" (1 Cor. 1:21 NIV). God has elected to save those who believe.



And why did he have a better heart than the other thief? Was he a better man than the other thief? Was he less sinful? Was he innately wiser.

No, neither was a "better" man than the other. One "chose" to respond to the grace of God, the other "chose" not to do so. You and I will most likely always be apart on this issue.

If so, who made him that way?

He made himself that way, that is the thief that "rejected" the messiah.

The limited atonement is established by God and His scriptures, and not by calvinists



No sir. And this is important dear brother. God is certainly love. But love is NOT what motivated him to build the universe. A desire to have a people by which he could manifest his grace thus receiving eternal glory for that grace is what motivated him to build the universe. See Ephesians 2.

Man is not the center of God's universe. Christ is. God wished to bring His Son eternal glory so he built a world which would fall so that Christ could die for it making the ultimate sacrifice for it that he might receive eternal praise and honor.

Glory is the primary motive. Love is just what God is- and it is only one aspect of what God is. He is also a consuming fire.

I intellectually understand your position of the "Glory" of God, and I in no means wish to disrespect that nor disregard it. But, I respectfully disagree. So I would say, as did you, No Sir!
While I do agree that we, as part of His creation should seek to glorify God in all that we do, we do so out of our Love for Him, because He first loved us

 

[Rippon]

I actually agree with part of this. But why did the one criminal pass him by while the other accepted him.

Because God made the one willing and left the other to his own devices.

The only other option is to declare that the one was better than the other; a claim for which you will find no biblical support whatsoever.

The one was willing because God changed his heart.

This is what God does to all before they can be saved.

We both agree Luke. (Oh boy! To get Rip's agreement is not necessarily a good thing in some quarters.)

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Well, you can feel free to point out inconsistencies or discrepancies in what I say. I studied Calvin a good bit in grad school, though surely not quite as thoroughly as many. And my study of him has been more through the broader reformed tradition. I'd be interested to know what nonsense I've been putting out there.

Jag, I was NOT referring to you. OK?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

B]The limited atonement is established by God and His scriptures, and not by calvinists[/B]


Glory is the primary motive. Love is just what God is- and it is only one aspect of what God is. He is also a consuming fire.

luke...post tenebras lux is not there yet for these folks

 

[quantumfaith]

I would like to request that my fellow brothers and sisters in the faith, remember my wife Joyce and I in your prayers. We will shortly be traveling to Ireland for a time of vacation. Please pray for our safe travel, and perhaps that God would grant me (us) the opportunity to share my faith in the Word of God with any new friends I may encounter.

 

[webdog]

Once again we see this great barrier of communication between us. I think it is because you are half cocked when you start reading my posts. You didn't get what I was saying at all and then, bang! with the exclamation points.

Easy, dog.

Follow the parable of the sower Jesus told. Here are four different soils that experience the onset of life. Three of the four lose that life.

Those three were not ever saved. But they did experience a type of spiritual regeneration. But the cares of this world, etc... choked the spiritual life out of their hearts and they became "twice dead..."

These types are often your false teachers that Peter and Jude warns about. These are often they of whom it is said that they had escaped the corruption of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and became entangled again.

The exclamation point came from my shock that such a thing would be said. It continues because not only do you not deny it, you use the parable of the sower as your proof text in supporting it (which has to do with sowing truth, not who would be saved).

Straight forward question...do you believe someone can pass from spiritual death to spiritual life and perish eternally?