Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
BAM! Thanks! So the 'report that post' response was only a pretense? Yep. Since it was already reported and stated just what I said, since I do not practice lying, it was over looked. Nothing new under the sun.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Jesus is the Savior of All, Especially those that Believe
- Thread starter revmwc
- Start date
- Status
I just reported it. Sorry if you thought this earlier.
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
No, I was referring to TCassidy saying to report it being a pretense.
Perhaps. The reason I asked is that Van commented on another thread that Penal Substitution theory was dependent on Limited Atonement. I disagreed (and still do) but I understand his statement. But I also recall our dialogue about the Atonement encompassing all of God's redemptive act. So I am thinking of a more narrow view of "Limited Atonement" (strictly what Christ's death alone accomplished).
The view (and I will grant that perhaps it is a strawman view no one truly holds) that Jesus' death was intended only as an effective payment for the transgressions of the elect as the Father visited upon the Son the punishment due the elect for transgressions they have committed and received payment in full for those individual sins so that He could forgive them. I take this to be a position because of a few ignorant arguments that are sometimes presented (e.g., if Jesus died for all of men then people are in hell unjustly or everyone is saved). So given that definition, there are certain presuppositions that must be made as Limited Atonement often presumes PST.
More to my question, however, is that often these debates consist of people talking past each other. They do not see atonement in the same light (both sides make statements of the other in ignorance).
OK….I found it. I wouldn’t have bothered to look except it seemed to provoke such a strong response. I thought maybe I had accidentally "liked" something in error....someone insulting you, or accusing you of not standing for what is right, just going along with a SG and BW...etc. And if that were the case I would have apologized and corrected the oversight (I have, in the past, actually gone back because I realized I "liked" something by mistake).
Thankfully, I’ve only “liked” 3 lately (TC –once and you twice).
Here it is…and it wasn’t even to you.
Well, she's dead so I will probably come off pretty good.
And if you don't want to be compared to her, don't use her tactics.
Yes. I “liked” that post. I still like it. If you had said I’d have liked it. It’s true and it’s clever.
Anyway, I did want to ask before. In post 49 you said something that I didn’t really didn't get at the time. Something about gnats and camels. How do they fit in this discussion?
Internet Theologian
Well-Known Member
Why shouldn't a strong stance in support of error, lies, name calling provoke the same in response toward you who supported it?
I’m sorry, brother…..I don’t mean to get into a deep philosophical discussion here….but I’m trying to wrap my head around this…..
That entire outburst was because you were offended that I had liked a reply that TCassidy posted that was true and meant to be given as cleaver (by the emoticons) not directed to you but towards another person (SovereignGrace) because TCassidy argued against some illustration that you had posted but he did not address concerns you had with DHK (I take it as he just chimed in)????
And you rate my post "dumb" for thinking thinking this a bit odd in a thread on limited atonement?
Laugh This takes the cake. I've been here since 2001 and this is a first for me. If you don't mind me asking, brother, how old are you anyway?
That entire outburst was because you were offended that I had liked a reply that TCassidy posted that was true and meant to be given as cleaver (by the emoticons) not directed to you but towards another person (SovereignGrace) because TCassidy argued against some illustration that you had posted but he did not address concerns you had with DHK (I take it as he just chimed in)????
And you rate my post "dumb" for thinking thinking this a bit odd in a thread on limited atonement?
Laugh This takes the cake. I've been here since 2001 and this is a first for me. If you don't mind me asking, brother, how old are you anyway?
Good. Always keep good notes, brother, and I won't worry at all. While you are at it, note that I still have no idea what you are talking about - other than you and DHK have been going at it (I'm not sure how TCassidy got into it, except he was involved on the thread). I certainly don't know how you sucked me into it as I couldn't care less about that thread.
I have not bothered to keep up with it...just jumped in at the tail end. But even with that, it appeared to me that all of y'all were out of hand. That was not a thread of interest for me.
I'm not sure either. Just lucky, I guess!
Anyway....back to my question.
I don't see how the Calvinistic view of Limited Atonement (as in TUILP) could exist (without being another doctrine all together) outside of a Reformed view of the atonement. I disagree that this is straining gnats. It is a legitimate question.
For example, how is this doctrine of Limited Atonement held in the Recapitulation theory of Irenaeus? How did it exist in Aquinas' Substitution theory (as Aquinas actually stated that it would have been unjust for God to have punished the Son with our punishment)? Or in Christus Victor theory (historically the most commonly held)? Or Government theory?
That is my question. It seems to me that the doctrine of Limited Atonement as defined within TULIP (or even Dort) presupposes ideas about how God effected our salvation and the purpose of the Cross within that plan.
I don't see how the Calvinistic view of Limited Atonement (as in TUILP) could exist (without being another doctrine all together) outside of a Reformed view of the atonement. I disagree that this is straining gnats. It is a legitimate question.
For example, how is this doctrine of Limited Atonement held in the Recapitulation theory of Irenaeus? How did it exist in Aquinas' Substitution theory (as Aquinas actually stated that it would have been unjust for God to have punished the Son with our punishment)? Or in Christus Victor theory (historically the most commonly held)? Or Government theory?
That is my question. It seems to me that the doctrine of Limited Atonement as defined within TULIP (or even Dort) presupposes ideas about how God effected our salvation and the purpose of the Cross within that plan.
The problem he runs into with that ideology is that not everyone who holds to penal substitution holds to the TULIP. In fact the vast majority of them do not, I would venture to say.
I agree with you, Rev. I was just wondering how much relevance the doctrine of Limited Atonement, or even Unlimited Atonement, would have if taken outside of a penal substitution understanding of the atonement.
Would those doctrines have developed as we know them apart from the work of the Reformers? If they already existed, then how did they fit (or did the fit) into other understandings of what the death of Christ itself accomplished?
I understood where you were going. I just pointed out the ridiculousness of such a claim. Those crazy claims are more about being against Calvinism then they are about really understanding that doctrine.
I take it you're still on you're phone, eh?
Zechariah 7:12 God called and sent the prophets to Israel but they (Israel) refused to hear and heed the prophets and God’s word. They out of their own conscience made their hearts as an adamant stone most think the adamant stone to be a diamond or flint, the hardest of stones to cut. Thus we see they hardened their heart that is they hardened their conscience and would not heed the beckoning, the drawing of the Holy Spirit in the offer of Grace.
12 Yea, they made their hearts as an adamant stone, lest they should hear the law, and the words which the Lord of hosts hath sent in his spirit by the former prophets: therefore came a great wrath from the Lord of hosts.
God brought His wrath upon them for their refusal to turn to Him.
Let’s look at the heart of man:
Calvin makes this statement “…Purity of heart is universally acknowledged to be the mother of all virtues…” He then states, “And yet there is hardly one person in a hundred, who does not put craftiness in the place of the greatest virtue.”
Let’s look at the heart of man:
Calvin makes this statement “…Purity of heart is universally acknowledged to be the mother of all virtues…” He then states, “And yet there is hardly one person in a hundred, who does not put craftiness in the place of the greatest virtue.”
So the greatest virtue man has mother of all virtues in him purity of heart according to Calvin.
God created man in His image. What does that mean? Just Adam or everyone born?
Let’s look at shared attributes first.
God is Faithful many men whether saved or not saved have the innate ability to remain faithful. God is good man has the innate ability to accomplish good things, many depend on what they consider good works to get them to heaven.
God is impartial can an unbeliever be impartial, some possibly can, what about a believer, well many believers are far from impartial.
God is said to be a jealous God, men are jealous although it can be in a sinful way.
God is a God of justice, man has what he considers justice.
God is longsuffering, many humans are longsuffering especially with their children.
God is a God of Love, man has the innate ability to love, God gave man the ability to love the innate ability to Love, eros love as well as Philadelphia Love that is brother love. Man whether saved or not has the ability to fall in Love with a woman and a woman with a man. Parents have a great love for their children at least most do. But man does not possess agape’ Love that is the unconditional Love that God shows to sinners.
God is a God of mercy and many humans have the ability to show mercy upon others.
God is truth man has an innate ability to tell the truth but is not constantly telling the truth.
God is wise, men are wise many genius level but they are not spiritual wise.
God is a God of wrath and man can be very much full of wrath.
So man was created with several attributes which are innate in him, where does purity of heart come in as an innate purity of heart? God has placed within mankind a conscience. What is conscience? Ethics, integrity, scruples, moral principles a sense of right and wrong that is where the innate purity of heart is in mankind. It is that conscience that drives a person to God, that knowledge of right and wrong, and many hear the gospel and know it is right in their conscience (heart) and accept the truth of the Gospel and receive Christ. Does following our conscience make us better than others? Not in any fashion, is it works on our part not at all. Many have a seared conscience and that seared conscience leads them to reject God, while those who have a pure conscience (heart) or as the term is a clear conscience, are open to receive God and when the Holy Spirit comes in conviction, when the Spirit and church say come many follow their conscience (heart) as it leads them to accept Christ that is what a pure heart does.
But what does the conscience of human beings do for them?
John 8:9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
These had their conscience convicting them with the Lord Himself bringing the truth and they went out from the presence of Christ lost and undone. The woman who was a sinner then accepted Christ and was saved from her sinful ways.
Acts 23:1 And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.
Paul speaks of His conscience being good before God, his conscience (heart) was pure.
1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
Hebrews 9: 8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: 9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; 10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
The conscience of one leads them to accept Christ while the others follow after the lust of the flesh and sin in rejecting the gospel and the grace that God freely offers to them. Those who consciences were seared have nothing to do with God, who seared their consciences?
.
Last edited:
Again, what did you do to make your heart pure?
Bro. mwc...
You're looking at the heart of man as that heart that was given to Adam pre-fall, yet post-fall, the bible says The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?[Jeremiah 17:9] Look at how Jeremiah described the heart of mankind.
1) It is deceitful above all things
2) Beyond cure(and you came to God with a pure heart?)
3) Who can understand it?
We are made in the image of God, but that image was marred when Adam sinned. We now bear Gods image through Adam's fallen state. As Moses plainly wrote When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and named him Seth.
Now, what caused you to come to Christ with a pure heart?
You're looking at the heart of man as that heart that was given to Adam pre-fall, yet post-fall, the bible says The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?[Jeremiah 17:9] Look at how Jeremiah described the heart of mankind.
1) It is deceitful above all things
2) Beyond cure(and you came to God with a pure heart?)
3) Who can understand it?
We are made in the image of God, but that image was marred when Adam sinned. We now bear Gods image through Adam's fallen state. As Moses plainly wrote When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and named him Seth.
Now, what caused you to come to Christ with a pure heart?
Bro. mwc...
Yes...let's...
Yes...let's...
You are talking about innate faithfulness. Many people have died lost and remained faithful unto their spouse for 50+ years. I agree with that. Yet, anything innate, such as faith, love, hope, mercy, patience(longsuffering as thee KJV puts it) is always focused upon fellow mankind and not God. I will break this down in each point you posted.
And yet Jesus said there is none good but God. Even the plowing of the wicked is sin. You have a faulty view of sinful man, Monsieur. Man is wicked to the core.
God is impartial? Srsly? You will not find that anywhere in the bible, Monsieur. Go chose Israel and left the rest to their just perils. He chose them based solely upon His loving them. It was not because they had pure hearts, either. God's love is based upon nothing man has or is, but based solely upon Him and who He really is...love.
Every attribute of God is pure and sinless. Even anger, wrath, vengeance and the aforementioned jealousy are holy attributes, as He is sinless, holy, immaculate, pristine.
Yet, we can err when we execute justice. There are many who have be jailed for 30+ years only to found out they were innocent. Yet, every time God executes justice, He is correct.
Some are devoid of this. God is longsuffering with His people, not willing any of them perish. That is the proper context of 2 Peter 3:9
- Status