Do You Believe In The Doctrines of Grace?

You don't know your Bible, my friend. Try re-reading Ephesians 2:8-9 and try telling me again faith is a work...

Did you ever have faith in Christ, John? Then you have done what you have stated (in bold), as regardless if it's our faith from the beginning...or the "saving faith" that is thrust upon you, you are saving yourself with the means provided.
Are you ashamed, john? Should be...

Faith plays absolutely no role in your theolgy, does it?

 

rewording is NOT a quote Allan...come now. Some were not reworded...most all of them were. This is misleading...is it not?

A quote is what the person said...word for word. Like the quote from calvin. That is fully pulled out of context and if you were to read it and it alone you would have mislead what Calvin said..

This is your so called quote.

You added this last time..

John Calvins Commentaries:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=938642&postcount=27

This is what John Calvin really said..

Now...was that misleading or not?

We will address each one of these if you please. Last time everyone I looked at was just like this.

Why? The truth will set you free.

 

God's love.........totally unconditional
Praise be to God

 

Ok, I see what you mean now. Actually MOST all of them were not. You didn't (by your own words) didn't go beyond the second person on the list, so THAT to...is misleading to say 'most' are not direct quotes.

You are correct that I should have removed the quotations which are specific to to a direct quote. I should have been more academic in that. However Calvins quote IS word for word and IS in complete context.
I would love to hear you explaination on what the words "Human Race" mean. He didn't say Gods elect or His particular sheep, peaple, chosen or any other such wording that is in charactor with his writtings.
Look again at his writting and take them for what they say. Stop trying to interpret a man that is interpreting scirpture. In the preface of His commentaries Calvin states he wrote them in such a way as to allow all to understand who would desire to look into them. (yes. that is a paraphrase, but one you can look up). Look again at Calvins work:

As you can CLEARLY see, Calvin spoke to Christs death on behalf of the Whole World but Redemption only to the elect. General or Universal Atonement but Specific Redemption

Just for the record...so you can see you are wrong, I made this EXACT QUOTE larger in Calvins work. Though they are in different sections it CLEARLY speaks to the same aspects.

Yes, I did. And I did not add it this time because I have recently been shown that His commentaries were completed a couple of years (2 I think) before his institutes were completed. BUT BOTH were to be used together to give his works a more balanced compilation

Not in the least. Actaully I appreciate you giving the Whole of it because it better reveals my point that Calvin was not a staunch believer in Particular Atonement but leaned more toward General.

I'm glad. That means they were accurate and truthful.
But you only looked at two the last time. You didn't even look up Calvin then.

{quote]Why? The truth will set you free. [/QUOTE]
I agree, thank you for you assistance. :wavey:

 

Allan , I'll ask again . Give some quotes from the following men who you say supported unlimited atonement : Coverdale , Zanchius , Zwingli and Bucer . Merely saying they believed your theory does not go far enough . Give us their words . I am not trying to be difficult here . I need proof -- not just assertions .

Of course you also mentioned some other men without citing any of their words either : Latimer , Cranmer , Musculus , Bullinger , Artius , Becon , Paraeus , Osiander , Brentius , and Oecolampadius . That may be too much for you to tackle -- but you were the one who mentioned their names . I'll be content to see your citations of the four in my first paragraph . Time to get specific my friend .

 

Oh brother
Of course I will answer you. I have not shied away from you and your postings yet, but have met them point for point.

BTW - What I gave from the first was so people could go and look FOR THEMSELVES.

You also stated before that those in the list that WERE quoted never made any states like that. But there again I showed you were incorrect. I am at work but I will see if I can access some of my stuff or other specifics.

 

How could you have shown that I was "incorrect" about the quotes from the men in question when you never quoted them Allan ? I'll be content to see the words of the four I specified . When you cite their words it will be the first time you have done so on the BB .

 

Because I DID quote them, just as I showed Jauthor regarding Calvin and his quote on General Atonement or Christ dieing for all men. Go back and read your own thread.
Yes there were a couple which were paraphrased but what they stated is still the same.
You tried that point as well and I went back and showed you there, the exact quotes of the men stating the same thing - General Atonement or Christ dieing for all men.

 

Your contentions that you supplied quotes from the four in in question are threadbare Allan . You never supplied their words , just an assertion that they believed in unlimited atonement . Please demonstrate , that's all I am asking .

 

You are obviously not following what I was saying. In the other thread you were stating None of the people I was referencing, specifically a couple (Basil, Eusebius, Clement, and others) never made statement to which I was giving. I showed THEM specifically. THAT is what I was refering to in which I gave their quotes and where to go and read it for yourself.

But as to the rest, no problem. I will get back with you. :thumbs:

 

Sorry, Webdog, and anyone else I may have unintentionally offended/misrepresented. Perhaps I should have added a phrase like "As I understand the Scriptures."

Having said that, I have noticed since joining the Baptist Board that over and over again the doctrines of grace are themselves misrepresented. One of the first messages I read (I can't remember the thread title) came from someone who imagined that those who believe in the grace doctrines don't involve themselves with evangelism, for example.

Anyway, I do apologise for any misrepresentation, and stress once again that it was not intentional.

 

I agree, thank you for you assistance. :wavey:[/QUOTE]

Allan,

I see nothing in Calvins FULL quote, that all Calvinsit do not agree with. There is given this idea by non calvinist, that John Calvin "changed" or "toned down" his teachings. I have yet to see this backed up. There is nothing in that FULL statement that shows any change.

2nd....

the cut and past you keep posting is from a web site that is tring to claim these guys did not believe as Calvinist do today. This list is found around the web in many places.

Here is one of those places..
http://www.chafer.edu/journal/back_issues/v3no2-Rhodes.pdf

You even said...

So it is clear the list is made and used to make people think that these guys did not believe as Calvinist of today. Yet the list does not quote the men word for word. Or...only shows part of a quote in order to make that person SEEM like they disagree with a Calvinist. Yet when you read the quote in context...the full quote in context..it is clear the maker of the list was tring to mislead.

The fact is, if you were to study church history on your own, the subject of the atonement is not addressed as to who it applies to, till after the man from hippo came around. The reason for this is many fold and beyond this thread.

Therefore I still say to use this list of early church fathers with reworded quotes and part quotes as if they disagreed with Calvinism, is very very very misleading.

 

I didn't quote EVERYTHING he stated on his web link, but if you look at his web link he is a 4 point Calvinist. I only used the portion of his accertions concerning the argument against limitied atonement from a historical perspective. I agreed with what he had because I to had ALREADY studied it out and used him as a quick sourse of many quotes because I was at work at the time. However he uses many if not most of the commonly known portions attributed to the authors.

PS...
The full context of Calvins commentary shows a definate difference in current Calvinism regarding The extent of Atonement. (Jesus died for all men, but only the elect will be saved.)

I just got in from work and it was a long night *sigh*.
So forgive me if I don't respond much today or so. I have a tent crusade coming up in 3 weeks and a church start in 4 and I have a pile of preperations to get done. The hard part here is the religiousness of the people who are generational Methodists, Catholics, and Lutherans. In speaking with them personally and going door to door, I have found about 90 percent don't even give themselves a 40 to 60 percent chance of heaven. (I know there is no such thing but when you have a works based salvation that gets their attention)

 

I had no idea this was the guy you pulled from, for he did not make the list himself. I have seen this before he wrote his little paper.

The point is...lets go back to the source. For him, or anyone to quote somone, we need to make sure we do it fairly.

Lets be clear as to what Calvinist do believe on this. Christ work on the cross had the power to save all of mankind. The atonment was not a picture as it was in the OT. Christ death paid it all, and was done only once. At that very point in time, the atonement was finished. Christ laid down his life for His sheep.

The atonement was a love act by God. Do you love all ladies the same as you love your wife? Do you think God loved other nations of the OT as He did the Jews? If you told your wife you loved her, but you loved all ladies just as much as her, what kind of love would she feel? If God loved all nations just as the Jews in the OT, just what was the point?

Christ work on the cross had the power to save all mankind. Any that come to Christ, is washed in the blood. But God also knew who would not come when He called all men to Him. Did Christ die for those that had died before He was born, and had believed in His death? Yes. Christ did not die for those in the ground,...those that died 200 years before,....or those that died in the flood.... that had never believed. This idea cheapens Gods love, just as you would cheapen your wifes love.

 

I appologize for not being here and giving quick answers, but I have a great deal that needs to be getting done (most specifically with a church start that I will Pastor in 3 weeks) but many other things as well. Anyway...

Here are some that should suffice for now.

As I said, Sorry for the drive by posting but it is the best I can do at present.

 

Yes the atonement was an act of Love, no question.
God loves mankind, but does not love all men the same.
He commands me to do the same.
He commands me to love my enemies, AND He commands me to love my wife. Both use the same greek word, so does that mean I must love my enemies with the same love as my wife? Hardly. We are to love all in a compassionate and reaching way, but not in the same manner we love our beloveds for whom we are to give ourselves for (even to our death).

God so loved the world (wicked sinful man) that He gave His most precious Son, that 'whosoever' (those He forknew) would believe in him should not perish but have everlasting life.

So as you SHOULD be able to see, my loving other women IN NO WAY cheapens the Love I have for my wife because it is not the 'same' love and scripture bears witness to it as well.
Just as we are to love our enemies, God says we are to love the brethren.
But God also says that we are to 'prefer' the brethren. Showing there is to be a distinction in love that is given. They both are in essense the same but different in manifestation and application.

I thought you knew this stuff James??

 

Being that it is clear that Gods love is not the same for all, you will then understand why Christ said...Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

If we were to change the wording to..."that a man lay down his life for everybody"...then the word love would be pointless.

lets look at the context..

The context is about love. Christ is showing how much he loves them..

>>>>>Now notice the contrast of love and hate..

If Christ in this passage wanted to show his love to those He had choosen and I feel this is the point of the passage, then when He says..."Greater love"...this statement is to show just how great His love was for his choosen found in verse 16 (But I chse you). If this included the world, then again the statement would have no point. But it did not include the world which hated Him...the statement was just to His friends..the oes He loved...the ones He chose....the ones He died for.

Also please note this...

In verse 19...the reason they would be hated, was because they were chosen. This is the same reason the jews were hated. They were picked out from the rest of the world...and the world now hates them for this reason.

I can relate to this statement. If I claim to be elect..choosen by God, some hate me for say this.

Somethings never change

 

Can you not see your main problem with your text James?
WHO are the FRIENDS He is speaking of??
... and...
WHO has He chosen and appointed??
THE TWELVE. (including Judas)

Now you get yourself into a very sticky position if you are ASSUMING this is referning to salvaiton (as though to signify for whom [the elect] He is dieing - which it is not). The entire context of the passage you quoted is about a relationship - yes, as in abiding (active present tense) IN His LOVE.

Notice Jesus uses the you (plural) in speaking with ALL of his present disciples.
Jesus is declaring the simple truth that if you do that which he asks, it is proof of their fellowship/relationship CURRENTLY with Him. Remember, preceding this was the illistration of abiding in the vine. (already IN CHRIST) Again not speaking of salvation but relational. Look at the rest in light of context:

Jesus said:

This all by its lonesome COULD be an argument for your position. However with the preceding and suceding verses it shows that line of thinking a theological presupposition.

The rest:

Which specifies the context is relational and NOT salvic.
Jesus's death is for his friends and THEY (OF the twelve) are his friends IF they will continue in His word and keep His commands.
(Are we know in a works salvation?) No, it is discribing the relationship between Himself and His disciples/friends.

This is why Jesus NO LONGER CALLS THEM SERVANTS.
Now wait a minute. I thought when we are/were not in Christ we are enemies of God, haters even, and never called SERVANTS.?

Again, unless you hold to a works based salvaiton. One can be a good servant and them be rewarded with one day (by keeping the commands and abiding) be rewarded as being Gods Friend and no longer a servant.

However, unfortunately Jesus once again proclaims specifically WHO He is refering to in this passage (chapter 15 through chapter 17).

He chose them and appointed them (the 12) TO BEAR FRUIT - This pertains to the 12 Disciples to which He is addressing and in directly correlary to the Vine and branches/bringing forth much fruit shown previously. And even Judas will bear the fruit for which He was chosen and appointed to bring forth but that fruit is not the fruit of His Vine and therefore it will be cast into the fire. This discourse it for the encouragement, benifit, and preperation of (specifically) the 11 because of what will transpire for the that point forward since His death was drawing nigh.

This is NOT about savlation but abiding and proof of that abiding. The "choosing" in these passages are specifically about being chosen to a purpose and NOT specifically about salvation. You are bringing your theological presuppositions to the text and bending every which way.

As you continue reading it is evendent even to a greater degree it is the disciples (the 11) which Jesus is addressing and speaking about, regarding what they will face and what they have to hope in as they rest in His peace.

It doesn't sound like we were considered Christ's Friends for which He died, But His enemies.
And AFTER being reconsiled we are IN a Relationship with Him thereby called His friends IF we continue in His commands and Love. (Perseverance of the Saints)


PS... The contrasting of Love and Hate is SPECIFIC to the relationship ALREADY obtained. The world hates them because they are no longer of the World but have been chosen out from it. The hated does not stem from being 'chosen' and they are not, as you suppose. But specificall that since they are no long of THEM and their Nature but of a Godly and God fearing nature they must by 'nature' hate them since the two oppose one another. REmember, the World LOVES it OWN, what is not of the World is hated by the World.

 

Congratulations and blessing Allan!

 

Thank you Benjamin, I appreciate that.:godisgood: