Featured If you are a Five point Calvinist.

None of them, in context, teach that He died for all men, women and children that God has created.
Some are clear all by themselves as Matthew 1:21, John 10:11, and Isaiah 53:8 are, and others are arrived at through their context.

 

But that isn’t what you posted.

Sometimes exuberance visits us all.

 

On salvation I agree with the Reformed and "Calvinist" ( as you call them ), in the so-called "Five Points".
To me, they are correct in every "point".

I agree.

There are other ways to understand how the Bible teaches things...
But only one is the truth.

There is only one faith, one baptism, one truth....there is no such thing as "orthodoxy", and there is no such thing as two Gospels with two contradictory messages.
Either God does all the work, or He does part of it... while we do "our part".

 

Because someone mentioned the name Lazarus, i thought it appropriate to remind folks that had our Lord not been specific in naming Lazarus, all the graves would have been opened with everyone coming forth.

 

Truth can only be misunderstood in more than one way.

peace to you

 

I agree, in 1 Timothy 2:4-6, He gave Himself a ransom for "all"...
the same "every man" as described in Hebrews 2:9 and later developed in the verses after it:

In Hebrews 2:10 I see that it describes them as "sons" that He will bring with Him to glory.
In Hebrews 2:11they are known as "they who are sanctified" as well as "brethren".
In Hebrews 2:12 they are described as "brethren", as well as "the church".
In Hebrews 12:13 He tells us that they are "the children which God has given me" ( see John 6:37-39, John 6:64-65, John 17:2 ).
In Hebrews 2:14 further tells us that they are "the children", just as verse 13 did.
In Hebrews 2:15 they are the "them",
Hebrews 2:16 it tells us the Jesus took on the seed of Abraham ( men )..
In Hebrews 2:17 the "every man" are the "brethren", and that He made reconiliation for the sins of...not "everyone", but "the people"..His people, just as Matthew 1:21 and Isaiah 53:8 tell us.
Finally, in Hebrews 2:18 I see that those He tasted death for are the "them that are tempted".


Regarding Acts of the Apostles 10:42, I agree that He is indeed ordained of God to be the Judge of the quick ( alive, spiritually ) and the dead ( dead, spiritually ).

 

In my case, I know Christ died for me because of the Spirit bearing witness with my spirit. I know that as sinful as I am left to my own strength I could not believe it unless He imparted the new birth first. The bible tells me so.

 

Mere belief can be described in more than one way.

For example, according to the Scriptures, it's not the belief of "ideas" or doctrines that is an indicator of whether or not someone is one of the Lord's people...
It's their belief of His words ( John 8:43-47 ) that is the evidence and what makes their situation true.

 

To me, the underlined seems to be circular reasoning.
I don't say that to be offensive, but to be objective.

For example,
When I first heard the word of God regarding my sin and the punishment for it, I believed the word of God.
When I first heard about Jesus being the way, the truth and the life, I believed the words.

When I first heard the word of God in Romans 5, I believed it and saw that it applied to me.
When I first heard that remission of sins is promised to those who believe on Christ, I believed that...
All at the age of 12 and thereafter.


The subject of who the Lord died for wasn't even on my mind as a very young believer...
I just knew that He died for me and that His blood was shed for me.

The rest came later...some of it much later as I came to study his words deeply and to understand them in their proper contexts.

In other words, I didn't believe a "systematic theology" to start with ( and I still don't )...
I believed basically 1 Corinthians 15:1-6 at the core, and the rest expanded outward from there.

 

Excellent…. You should study Sinclair Ferguson and then The Marrow of Modern Divinity

 

OK, I’m a Primitive Baptist not a Calvinist… in short we find references in scripture for each Doctrine of Grace point but we omit John Calvin and his teachings of infant baptism. That’s frankly Presbyterian or Dutch Reformed.

 

Pay no attention as he is a blowhard… how many times have I….. I I I.

 

But Christ is an experience. And faith is evidence of salvation. I could not believe had Christ not died for me. So limited atonement assures me I'm among the elect. Because I could not discern Christ otherwise. If I save myself, I have nothing but myself to trust in, as is the case in universal atonement.

 

No...it is not a belief in general redemption, aka unlimited atonement.
"Our" is limited. This first creed is something only Christians can declare. The qualifier is "our", we who believe. The atonement is only effective to those who believe.

Is God so unorganized and general as to spill his blood so that much of his blood is wasted? Perhaps that is how some read the Bible and view the Creator. He just generally throws his blood on everything, but the power to make it effective is in the hands of man.
I do not see God ever acting in a way that He is not in full control at all times. Jesus (God) was certainly always in control of every encounter he had with an individual. Even his choice of Judas was purposeful.
I contend that one can easily argue limited atonement from the creed found in 1 Corinthians 3.

 

Just cannot accept that the God who had set up such a plan of salvation as described to us in Romans 8 would in the final state of the salvation process have it u;ultimately rested upon and determined by our " fallen free will decisions"