You can be a Christian and deny essential doctrine

[Yeshua1]

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?

Just interesting that a VAST number of theologians agree with me, and only Wright and Arminians seem to with your take!

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, outstanding scholars abound on all sides of the debates. John Calvin, John Wesley, N.T. Wright, Karl Barth, Søren Kierkegaard,....great scholars who disagree at some critical theological point.

The problem is we can't simply rely on our traditions to prove our ideas. @Yeshua1 insists that his understanding is what Scripture states yet has not been able to provide a passage stating his understanding.

I value the works of scholars, and I value the contributions of many from various traditions. But I do not adopt their belief. We have to know where Scripture ends and our understanding begins. That is the issue here.

I have been using the scriptures, as did all those people that I listed, and the PST has been held by a vast majority of Conservative reformed and Baptists since the Reformation, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

I have been using the scriptures, as did all those people that I listed, and the PST has been held by a vast majority of Conservative reformed and Baptists since the Reformation, correct?

Again, its only mainly Arminians and those following Wright and His erroneous NPP that take your view!

 

[agedman]

Just interesting that a VAST number of theologians agree with me, and only Wright and Arminians seem to with your take!

What is astounding is you willingness to cling to a scheme irregardless of Scripture just because some notables who you might esteem as intellectually your superiors agree to that scheme.

There would never have been a reformation with that thinking.

 

[Yeshua1]

What is astounding is you willingness to cling to a scheme irregardless of Scripture just because some notables who you might esteem as intellectually your superiors agree to that scheme.

There would never have been a reformation with that thinking.

My point is that those who are much more learned than I do agree that the Bible teaches that.....

 

[agedman]

My point is that those who are much more learned than I do agree that the Bible teaches that.....

Or were such constrained by socio/political and educational background to hold that thinking?

Thinking that because the socio/political and educational background are no longer a factor can be seen as not aligned with Scripture.

Basic to the question is the priority of Scripture. If one clings to a teaching in spite of the evidence of Scripture, then that is like the worship of icons and idols.

It is important to also recognize that Calvin followed the teaching of others more than developing his own thinking when it comes to limited atonement.

So what guarantee is that they got it right? None

 

[TCassidy]

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

As a Particular Baptist I don't believe the blood was shed only for the elect. I believe Christ's sacrifice produced blessings to all people, and made the offer of salvation to all people possible.

I believe the Atonement is limited in its application, not in its power, scope, or ability to save each and every person who ever lived.

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

I believe the Atonement is sufficient for all and efficient only for those who believe. And most Arminians will believe the same. Arminians also limit the Atonement to believers only.

TCassidy calls this doctrine, "particular redemption."

Yes. Yes he does! As an Historic Particular Baptist I believe in Particular Redemption. That Christ saved me on the cross and nothing need be added to His finished work.

When, in time, I heard the Gospel, was drawn by the Father to the Son, and regenerated by the Power of the Holy Spirit, He then gave me faith to believe, repent, and obey. All of Him. None of me.

 

[JonC]

I have been using the scriptures, as did all those people that I listed, and the PST has been held by a vast majority of Conservative reformed and Baptists since the Reformation, correct?

None of those have used Scripture to prove the basis of their argument - Calvin articulated the Atonement within that specific language and theory was built on theory.

I lean more towards Luther than Calvin, and more towards the Radical Reformers than Luther. But I can show you in Scripture what I believe. You cannot.

 

[Yeshua1]

As a Particular Baptist I don't believe the blood was shed only for the elect. I believe Christ's sacrifice produced blessings to all people, and made the offer of salvation to all people possible.

I believe the Atonement is limited in its application, not in its power, scope, or ability to save each and every person who ever lived.

I believe the Atonement is sufficient for all and efficient only for those who believe. And most Arminians will believe the same. Arminians also limit the Atonement to believers only.

Yes. Yes he does! As an Historic Particular Baptist I believe in Particular Redemption. That Christ saved me on the cross and nothing need be added to His finished work.

When, in time, I heard the Gospel, was drawn by the Father to the Son, and regenerated by the Power of the Holy Spirit, He then gave me faith to believe, repent, and obey. All of Him. None of me.

Yes, as there are general blessings and specific ones from the Cross!

 

[Yeshua1]

None of those have used Scripture to prove the basis of their argument - Calvin articulated the Atonement within that specific language and theory was built on theory.

I lean more towards Luther than Calvin, and more towards the Radical Reformers than Luther. But I can show you in Scripture what I believe. You cannot.

I have over and over again, and yet you simply refuse to accept that God treated Jesus as he will all lost sinners in the judgement while upon the Cross!

 

[JonC]

I have over and over again, and yet you simply refuse to accept that God treated Jesus as he will all lost sinners in the judgement while upon the Cross!

You have SAID that over and over again. But you have not provided a VERSE OF SCRIPTURE that states God treated Jesus as the lost at Judgment.

You really don't see this, do you? Even after my request that you put those words in bold and your inability to do so you still believe those words are somewhere there.

Like I said before, you are allowing tradition to blind you to what is Scripture and what is theory. You simply can't tell the difference.

 

[agedman]

When, in time, I heard the Gospel, was drawn by the Father to the Son, and regenerated by the Power of the Holy Spirit, He then gave me faith to believe, repent, and obey. All of Him. None of me.

This is strange.

“Nothing needed added to His work.”

Yet, here is the list added:
Hearing the gospel,
Drawn by the Father,
Regenerated by the Holy Spirit,
Endowment of faith to believe...

“Be not dismayed!”

I do not disagree with a single item, nor the order given, for it is certainly Scriptural.

That which I disagree is some supposed limit of the blood including the efficiency and effectiveness.

Certainly, I can rationalize such thinking established as an attempt to placate the Arminius and the Calvinist in attempt to find unity, however, there is no Scripture support. It is at best a human endeavor that actually doesn’t need to take place.

Take the blood, as Scripture states it as given as complete, and then place redemption as the Scripture does as limited to the authority of God.

That resolves all issues of bias and continued strife under the standard of the Scripture, as the sole authority.

 

[Yeshua1]

You have SAID that over and over again. But you have not provided a VERSE OF SCRIPTURE that states God treated Jesus as the lost at Judgment.

You really don't see this, do you? Even after my request that you put those words in bold and your inability to do so you still believe those words are somewhere there.

Like I said before, you are allowing tradition to blind you to what is Scripture and what is theory. You simply can't tell the difference.

Isaiah screams that Jesus was the suffering Messiah, and that he took upon Himself the due penalty deserved by us as being law breakers.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 4:30 Pacific.

 

[TCassidy]

Isaiah screams that Jesus was the suffering Messiah, and that he took upon Himself the due penalty deserved by us as being law breakers.

Scripture chapter and verse?

 

[Yeshua1]

Scripture chapter and verse?

Isaiah 53, which leads right into Romans and Pauline justification!

 

[JonC]

Isaiah screams that Jesus was the suffering Messiah, and that he took upon Himself the due penalty deserved by us as being law breakers.

No one has denied that Jesus suffered, bearing our sins. It is your addition to what Isaiah screams that we were discussing.

 

[Yeshua1]

No one has denied that Jesus suffered, bearing our sins. It is your addition to what Isaiah screams that we were discussing.

Is it that you believe that it would be unfair to have Jesus treated as if He was a sinner by God then?

 

[Yeshua1]

You have SAID that over and over again. But you have not provided a VERSE OF SCRIPTURE that states God treated Jesus as the lost at Judgment.

You really don't see this, do you? Even after my request that you put those words in bold and your inability to do so you still believe those words are somewhere there.

Like I said before, you are allowing tradition to blind you to what is Scripture and what is theory. You simply can't tell the difference.

I know that the Bible teaches that Jesus suffered and paid for my sin debt owed to God in my stead....

 

[TCassidy]

Isaiah 53, which leads right into Romans and Pauline justification!

And what verses? Can you quote it and explain it just a bit for us who may have a slightly different understanding of it than you do?