Watch out for HyperCalvinism!

[Earth Wind and Fire]

JonC: You said "...but I do believe limited redemption (which some will say is the same as limited atonement and others will say it is not)."

You left things hanging there. What was your point?

By the way,I am not familiar with the terminology of "limited redemption". It that something you coined? Of course "limited atonement" isn't a very helpful term either. I prefer to say specific redemption or particular redemption (atonement).

Yes I quite agree....what does he mean by Limited Atonement? If you said that you believe that the efficacy & power of Christs atonement is "Limited" then ......

But to your point Rippon, that is NOT what a Monergist believes....rather its Particular Atonement they subscribe to.

 

[JonC]

JonC: You said "...but I do believe limited redemption (which some will say is the same as limited atonement and others will say it is not)."

You left things hanging there. What was your point?

By the way,I am not familiar with the terminology of "limited redemption". It that something you coined? Of course "limited atonement" isn't a very helpful term either. I prefer to say specific redemption or particular redemption (atonement).

Hey Rippon. My point was that if Evan wanted to “debate” Calvinism vs Arminianism the scope the Atonement (which Winman challenged him on) would be just as good a place as any to start – on a different thread. I mentioned that this was an area of disagreement even among Calvinist -perhaps as a caution :smilewinkgrin:

I didn’t coin the phrase “limited redemption,” but I’m not sure where I heard it first. Perhaps Shedd's “Atonement is unlimited, and redemption is limited” argument. I prefer “particular redemption” – mostly because it sounds better, however it is vague to a degree. I don’t believe “redemption” and “atonement” to be the same.

 

[Alive in Christ]

It is good to be wary of ALL calvinism. not just hyper...

 

[JonC]

Yes I quite agree....what does he mean by Limited Atonement? If you said that you believe that the efficacy & power of Christs atonement is "Limited" then ......

Definitions are probably one of the hardest part of this type of discussion. That’s why I prefer to speak of redemption rather than atonement. I can defend Christ coming to redeem those who will believe, those God had given Him (the elect), but I do not believe the Atonement was limited nor that it effected salvation. My beliefs are in line with some Calvinists, others would see this as a rejection of limited atonement, and some do not differentiate between atonement and redemption.



I was really just warning Evan that if he chooses to debate this he can’t stereotype view points and would have to “get into the weeds.”

 

[JonC]

It is good to be wary of ALL calvinism. not just hyper...

You should always be cautious of doctrines when presented to you by others and examine it yourself. This is a good rule of thumb regardless of what theological view point one holds.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

You should always be cautious of doctrines when presented to you by others and examine it yourself. This is a good rule of thumb regardless of what theological view point one holds.

Indeed. Most Calvinists will tell you that Christ's sacrifice was not sufficient -- nor should it have been -- for the "whole world" but only for the elect. However, neither Calvin nor the Council of Dort ever affirmed that view. Both, in fact, state that the atoning work of Christ should be understood in judicial terms and it had a double intent. That is to say, Christ died with a purpose concerning the provision of his atoning work and a purpose concerning the application of that work. The first represents the universal sufficiency of Christ’s atoning work, and the second represents the effective application of that work in the salvation of the elect. In this view, the atonement is conceived in judicial (rather than pecuniary -- or atonement, ransom, etc.) terms. Jesus died to make perfect satisfaction for all human sin. bearing the curse of the law and of the Father’s wrath against sinners, so that God can justly vindicate all to whom the benefits of Christ’s death are then applied.

John Calvin drew his inspiration for outlining his concept from the Council of Dort, and his students later created the five points. Contrary to popular belief, Calvin did not write those points, and probably wouldn't completely agree with them. They were formulated by his students after his death, and their hyper-enthusiasm tended to make them misrepresent what their mentor taught.

 

[Alive in Christ]

You should always be cautious of doctrines when presented to you by others and examine it yourself. This is a good rule of thumb regardless of what theological view point one holds.

Many years ago I held to calvinism. I was absolutly convinced it was the better way to go theolgically.

But in time I came to see that I was dead wrong.

I do not concider calvinists to be lost or a cult. I have no dought they are brothers and sisters in Christ

But the calvinist theology is great error in my opinion.

 

[Rippon]

!!! ???

TND: you made some puzzling remarks.
"John Calvin drew his inspiration for outlining his concept from the Council of Dort..."

Calvin died in 1564. Dort took place over several months between 1618 and 1619. So Calvin didn't draw any inspiration from something that happened decades after his death.

Then you said: "And his students later created the five points."

As I said,Calvin died in 1564. The Synod of Dort was more than a half century later. If any of his students were alive during that Synod they would have been at least in their mid-seventies.

Perhaps you meant the word "students" in another way.

And to call the Canons of Dort merely the five points is silly.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

TND: you made some puzzling remarks.
"John Calvin drew his inspiration for outlining his concept from the Council of Dort..."

Calvin died in 1564. Dort took place over several months between 1618 and 1619. So Calvin didn't draw any inspiration from something that happened decades after his death.

Then you said: "And his students later created the five points."

As I said,Calvin died in 1564. The Synod of Dort was more than a half century later. If any of his students were alive during that Synod they would have been at least in their mid-seventies.

Perhaps you meant the word "students" in another way.

And to call the Canons of Dort merely the five points is silly.

Thank You :thumbs:

 

[JonC]

Many years ago I held to calvinism. I was absolutly convinced it was the better way to go theolgically.

But in time I came to see that I was dead wrong.

I do not concider calvinists to be lost or a cult. I have no dought they are brothers and sisters in Christ

But the calvinist theology is great error.

I understand what you mean. Many years ago my views were “non-Calvinistic.” Mostly because I thought it theologically flawed. In time, I came to see I was wrong. As I grow and learn in Christ, I continue to remain willing to see that I am wrong. In fact, I welcome the refinement.


Like you, I do not consider this issue a matter of salvation – I was just as saved then as I am now.

I can’t deal with “Calvinism” – there is too much diversity. It’d be like lumping all “non-Calvinists” into one group and ascribing to them a certain view (other than “Calvinists are wrong” – they pretty much agree on that). I do believe there is serious error in some Calvinist’s theology, while I am in general agreement with others (but not willing to call their theology – or mine – perfect and complete).

 

[Yeshua1]

There ya go! :thumbsup:

how about 'hyper free will?"

 

[JonC]

how about 'hyper free will?"

Same error - different direction :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Yeshua1]

Same error - different direction :smilewinkgrin:

But that sames to be more prevelent in baptist circles than Hyper cal is!

 

[JonC]

But that sames to be more prevelent in baptist circles than Hyper cal is!

Yep, it does, doesn't it.