Search results

We need to back up and define our terms if you want continue Luke: Define what you mean by "faith." Here are some from MacArthur which have brought many of the same type of arguments you seem to be suggesting: "The Greek word translated 'belief' is not referring merely to intellectual...

Which one of these is living faith: 1. Indy stands on a ledge saying out loud "I believe..." but never takes a step. 2. Indy stands on a ledge saying out loud "I believe..." while taking a step into open space. Now, if you believe someone can spend their whole life on the ledge professing...

The atonement satisfies divine justice for the sins of all the world, yes. So, if someone doesn't go to heaven its not for lack of atonement, it is for a lack of faith. I have several versus that support this teaching if you are interested... "They perish because the refused to accept the...

:thumbsup: We certainly agree on this point. All the more reason not to draw conclusions about it which scriptures themselves do not draw...something both 'systems' are guilty of doing at times, IMHO.

But, doesn't even that statement presume that God's revelation of himself isn't in itself gracious and sufficient to accomplish its intent to "reveal?"

The point seemed to get lost on you kyredneck, I felt one strawman attack deserved another, but instead of recognizing it for what it was you simply corrected one and continued the other. :(

So, non-Calvinistic believers, like CS Lewis, could have done the same thing? In that nothing was preventing them from adopting Calvinistic 'truth?' So, you are affirming LFW for believers in that they had the ability to willingly do otherwise?

Faith is what it is. It is either authentic or its not. Its either sufficient or its not. Its either dead or living. So when you use the word 'faith' without indicating which kind of faith you are talking about it confuses the matter. I affirm that 'living faith alone saves.' But like...

Was this intended to be a joke, or is this a sincere disagreement? I seriously think the answer to this question speaks volumes regarding the nature of choice as it relates to our discussion. Luke, why do you suppose God has chose to grant the 'truth' of Calvinistic soteriology to some of...

"There is no debate among Christians as to the sufficiency of that satisfaction to accomplish the salvation of all men, however vast the number. This is absolutely limitless. 2d. Nor as to its applicability to the case of any and every possible human sinner who will ever exist. The relation of...

Well in that case its not the atonement that is limiting the number of those who will be saved, but the election of those who will be effectually regenerated to certain faith. That is why some Calvinists change the term from 'limited atonement' to 'particular redemption.' They believe it...

Are those the same answers to the question as to who accepts the 'truth' of Calvinism? 1. The one who accepts Calvinism is better in some way than the one who does not. 2. God did the choosing. If #1 then Calvinists have room for boasting while affirming LFW; and if number 2 they are...

So, if you aren't atoned for until the moment of faith, then you have proven that people can be atoned for and yet not be saved YET, thus proving universalism is not a necessary result of unlimited atonement. Thus atonement can be applied but a person not necessarily be saved....but as stated...

Notice how you have to keep adding the words, 'to be saved' or 'in order to be saved.' Your words added to confound an otherwise simple matter. Define 'dead faith' and be done with it. Read what I wrote again: "Someone can believe that Jesus is the son of God and NOT choose to follow him as...

The OP presented the problem of the "Lordship controversy" (to which I referred) by suggesting that faith w/o works can save (i.e. faith alone or faith and acting?) I confronted it in the same way MacArthur did by defining the different kinds of faith: Dead faith versus living faith. Living...

I've never changed what I have been saying, you are just now starting to understand me. There is a difference in "in order to be saved" and "in order to know if you are saved...." You seemed to take my argument for the latter and apply it to the former all the while ignoring all my clarifying...

I responded directly to your last post and the quotes of mine that you pointed out. I'm glad to respond to any of my quotes... Ok, lets take the opposite of this statement to see if you will affirm it: For a person to be consider truly born again there doesn't need to be a willingness to act...

And AA Hodge? Well, that may be a difference on how one defines atonement. I started a thread just now regarding how some equate atonement with salvation. Some actually believe that judicial satisfaction is 'atonement' but you don't seem to draw that conclusion. Luke, if Christ atoned for your...

John Hendryx, a Calvinist, made this argument: The problem with this argument is that it appears to presume that atonement is equal to salvation. It ignores the fact that the demands of justice for one's sin may be fully satisfied without their being saved. The conditions for being...

slave 4 Christ, There are differing approaches even within the Reformed tradition regarding the atonement. C. Hodge, AA Hodge, Shedd, Dabney (Princeton guys) and some others have taken an approach which some other Reformed scholars disagree. Some argue that Christ died only for the elect in...