You can be a Christian and deny essential doctrine

One of the more remarkable facets in the word John gave about a believer who sins is found in 1 John 1:

“... but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.”​

This is NOT the atonement blood that was once shed, but the purification aspect that every priest and people outside the temple did on a regular basis.

be careful to not suggest that this blood is from a reoccurring sacrifice such as the OT folks had to attend, rather, it is a confirmation that that atonement blood was sufficient and that Love, which compelled Christ, is also in the heart of the believer as a purification tool to cleanse and polish for service.

For centuries the silver was polished, and that is the picture of the principle John is expressing in this, The light discloses the tarnish that the believer be cleansed.

 

You do not think that when we sin and refuse to confess and deal with it to God, that we are not hindering the workings of the Lord in our lives? that we just keep on receiving blessings from Him, and not chastisement?

 

What do you do with the passages that describe jesus as the suffering messiah, who would take upon Himself the wrath and punishment from God due sinners?

 

What caused Him to experience being forsaken by the Father, was that not the same as lost sinners will face also?

 

While upon the Cross, Jesus became sin for us, as the sin bearer who was in our place, God treated Him as if He was the chief sinner...

 

His obedient Son who was willing to experience the very wrath of God towards sins that all lost sinners will in judgement, correct?

 

Amen! Here is some scripture for you:

Calvinists and Calvinist Baptists, believe that all of their sins, past, present, and future, were borne by Christ on the Cross. This is because His sacrifice was once for all time. (Hebrews 9:12; Hebrews 9:25-28; Hebrews 10:10; Hebrews 10:12-14). Remember our salvation is secure. We did nothing to deserve it and can do nothing to lose it. Compare Romans 8:1; John 3:18; John 3:36; John 5:24; John 6:40; John 6:44; John 6:47; John 6:65; John 10:27-30; 1 Corinthians 3:1;1 Corinthians 3:10; 1 Corinthians 3:12-15; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 1 Corinthians 5:5; 1 Corinthians 11:27; 1 Corinthians 11:29-32.

Christ's continuous intercession for us makes our forgiveness and salvation certain! We must, however, confess our sins to have fellowship with the Father. (1 John 1:9). No matter how many times we sin and repent, our eternal relationship with Him is never broken. (Matthew 18:21,22. Luke 17:3,4).

Upon the unbelieving, God's wrath abides now. (John 3:36) It does not wait until Judgement.

 

Even Baptist Arminians believe this. It is not peculiar to just Calvinistic thinkers.

What is under question is the “limit” Calvinistic place upon the blood signifying that it was shed only for the elect. Such is not supported by both OT type nor by NT statements.

In order to prove such is the truth one must find at least one Scripture that world means elect. There is none.

Should you find one, a special thread on world and elect has been started to show the proof.

All Baptists (even Arminian thinking) hold once saved always saved.

Again, nothing that all Baptist’s adhere too.

Of course, but why does it abide?

NOT because of the lack of blood supply covering all humanity sin, but as John clearly states, because of unbelief.

 

Not tradition, but interesting that calvin, Grudem, erickson, warfield, Hodgh. Berkhof et all agreed with me on this!
So nearly all reformed theologians were wrong, and all reformed Baptists were also?

 

Why not?

When it came to the reformation, is not the thinking that it stood against the teachings of the RCC theologians?

So, if a part of the reformed scheme must be more perfectly aligned with Scripture, is that really not good?

It isn't who agrees or disagrees.

It is what does the Scripture hold as the truth.

The presentation of Scripture is that the limit to redemption is not a limit in blood supply, but a limit of the grace and faith granted by the Father.

Why does this seem to alarm those that supposedly cling to the truth of Scripture over tradition?

Could it be that they find comfort in tradition rather than truth?

 

For some reason I have this going on in my head!

 

Not at all! These scholars studied the scriptures diligently. They came to similar conclusions and formulated a body of doctrine. (The Arminians did the same thing: hence, their traditions!)

 

agedman, wrote:

"What is under question is the “limit” Calvinistic place upon the blood signifying that it was shed only for the elect..."

Jn 17:9 Christ prays for the elect and not for the world.

Eph 1:4,5,7 The elect, "have redemption through his blood."

1 Pe 1:1,18-19 The elect "were redeemed...with the precious blood of Christ.

Here is the Calvinist understanding of the Atonement:

The Atonement is sufficient for all, but efficacious only for some (the elect).

My Calvinist books and articles cite an abundance of scripture on this subject.
TCassidy calls this doctrine, "particular redemption."