What does that have to do with limited atonement (which the author affirms)?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Do you recognise the differences between reformed/calvinist/Hyper?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
What does that have to do with limited atonement (which the author affirms)?
Which is what has happened by hyper-calvinists.
Your definition and those you posted are not historically accurate...
More than that as long as hebrews 10 is in the bible there is no dispute on this at all.
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. No one can explain verse 14 ....in context to be anything other than a perfect covenant death for them that were sanctified......no more, no less...it cannot be stated any clearer, and no one can explain it away....
Can you explain how this verse does not mean exactly what it says it means???
that are sanctified.He hath perfected forever them
you can use any source or link you would like...but you will not be able to do it.
it is finished ....complete....
Your definition and those you posted are not historically accurate...
Actually they are . David Allen lays out that case pretty well.
Knowing that he affirms limited atonement, how do you understand what he wrote there?
What you think Rev?
What you think Rev?
I do not agree that he affirms limited atonement as it is used on this board and by many other hyper calvinists.
Actually they are . David Allen lays out that case pretty well.
Feel free to present it...I am speaking of answering to hebrews 10:14,please
Feel free to present it.
I already have
..I am speaking of answering to hebrews 10:14,please
It doesn't make your case about the history of hyper-calvinism. Not sure why you brought it up.
It is more than that. Even some Calvinists see it that way.
Would say that limited atonement by ITSELF NOT equal to Hyper cal, bu that it can be when taken to even more extreme!
Calvin may or may not had agreed to limited view, hard to pin him down on that...
Many prefer touse term Definite atonement
this tends to show up in areas between Reformed calvinist, non reformed, s many of them hold to DoG but for unlimited atonement!
So one can be a calvinist, yet not hold to limited view, but think all proper reform do hold to it!
Here is another one:
One hyper-Calvinist, reacting to my comments about this subject on an e-mail list, declared, "The message of the Gospel is that God saves those who are His own and damns those who are not." Thus the good news about Christ's death and resurrection is supplanted by a message about election and reprobation—usually with an inordinate stress on reprobation. In practical terms, the hyper-Calvinist "gospel" often reduces to the message that God simply and single-mindedly hates those whom He has chosen to damn, and there is nothing whatsoever they can do about it.
Hypere cals place God decreeing that both saved/lost are determined where they go as being first ordained of God, so they would be fatalistic in theology, NOT "classic calvinism!"
What does that have to do with limited atonement (which the author affirms)?
IF the death of jesus was of an unlimited atoning nature, why does God withhold that effectual grace towards some?
Definite/limited accounts for Him applying it towards just those whom he xhose to be saved by the Cross, but why would he not apply it to the remainder in unlimited?
Doesn't that live sinners who have been reconciled to God still going to hell?
I do not agree that he affirms limited atonement as it is used on this board and by many other hyper calvinists.
You are one confused guy. Phil Johnson is John MacArthur's right arm man. Of couse he believes in specific redemption.
You need to do some research before making your claims about Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism. Have you ever read anyting from the Acts of the Synod of Dort? That is classic Calvinism;not hyper-Calvinism.
You are quick to paint Calvinists as H-C's. Just what do you,in your opinion think that "Calvinists" believe regarding the extent of the atonement?
You are one confused guy. Phil Johnson is John MacArthur's right arm man. Of couse he believes in specific redemption.
You need to do some research before making your claims about Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism. Have you ever read anyting from the Acts of the Synod of Dort? That is classic Calvinism;not hyper-Calvinism.
You are quick to paint Calvinists as H-C's. Just what do you,in your opinion think that "Calvinists" believe regarding the extent of the atonement?
You need to do your own research and read my sources.
You need to do your own research and read my sources.
Please answer my reasonable questions.
I already have
It doesn't make your case about the history of hyper-calvinism. Not sure why you brought it up.
I have no problem with Phil Johnson or his article.There are a few points of discussion of his article that need to be discussed.....
A few other Puritan and mainstream Reformed theologians have also denied the love of God to the reprobate. They are a distinct minority, but they nonetheless have held this view. It's a hyper-Calvinistic tendency, but not all who hold the view are hyper-Calvinists in any other respect.
This error stems from a failure to differentiate between God's redemptive love, which is reserved for the elect alone, and His love of compassion, which is expressed in the goodness He shows to all His creatures (cf. Matt. 5:44-45; Acts 14:17). Fo
Those who would dispute him, do so over the issue of common grace,which he correctly identified under pt4.....hoekema...in 1925.
My reason for bringing up Hebrews 10:14 is clear in terms of particular redemption. I was asking you....how you read , preach , or teach that text,and have it not mean exactly what it means.
This would eliminate much of the acrimony over this issue.
In light of this text....how can you not hold particular redemption in that it clearly says....He hath perfected forever, them that were sanctified.
I would like an explanation from you, from any link, or source, or anywhere that can seriously say this does not mean what it does mean.
Those who would dispute him, do so over the issue of common grace,which he correctly identified under pt4.....hoekema...in 1925.
Correction,that's Herman Hoeksema in 1926.
I do not agree that he affirms limited atonement as it is used on this board and by many other hyper calvinists.
That's not what you said initially. You said that those who hold to limited atonement were hypercalvinists. He affirms limited atonement. I've already shown you that.
This is beginning to feel like a semantic game.
Correction,that's Herman Hoeksema in 1926.
Thank you...i am spelling challenged especially as it was listed under point 4 in the article...
I get literature from some brothers in a christian reformed church in michigan.
they all back him on this as indeed the split at that time was over the common grace issue....
David Silversides debated them ...it is a two message series on sermonaudio. it is a good listen.
That's not what you said initially. You said that those who hold to limited atonement were hypercalvinists. He affirms limited atonement. I've already shown you that.
This is beginning to feel like a semantic game.
Oh brother ok well you stick to your little semantic argument there. I am sure it will serve you well.
Oh brother ok well you stick to your little semantic argument there. I am sure it will serve you well.
You leveled the charge, then used a 5-pointer to support your charge. When I asked about it, you basically said he's not "that kind of 5-pointer."
Is Johnson incorrect in saying he affirms limited atonement? You said earlier that such an affirmation would make him a hypercalvinist.
I'm thoroughly confused.
Thank you...i am spelling challenged especially as it was listed under point 4 in the article...
I just didn't want folks to get confused with Anthony Hoekema.
I get literature from some brothers in a christian reformed church in michigan.
they all back him on this as indeed the split at that time was over the common grace issue....
David Silversides debated them ...it is a two message series on sermonaudio. it is a good listen.
I am with the PRC on the subject of Common Grace. I read a number of exchanges with Dr. Silversides and a fellow named Andrew Koerner. It's very illuminating.
But I will listen to the messages in a few days time.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.