Not the doctrines of grace (the "scope" of the Atonement was not even an issue). Calvin assumed Christ to be the Propitiation for all men without exception.But they were taught well before Calvin.
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!
Not the doctrines of grace (the "scope" of the Atonement was not even an issue). Calvin assumed Christ to be the Propitiation for all men without exception.But they were taught well before Calvin.
John Qwen sarcasticly wrote To The Reader, "To what purpose serves the general ransom, but only to assert that Almighty God would have the precious blood of his dear Son poured out for innumerable souls whom he will not have to share in any drop thereof, and so, in respect of them, to be spilt in vain, or else to be shed for them only that they might be the deeper damned?". . . Either all will be saved, or, since most perish, his death didn't pay for sin at all, and you are mistaken.
You can trace that at least as far back as Augustine.Not the doctrines of grace (the "scope" of the Atonement was not even an issue). Calvin assumed Christ to be the Propitiation for all men without exception.
Augustine taught that Christ suffered in humanity's place.You can trace that at least as far back as Augustine.
I was referring particularly to limited atonement. Or should I say "particular redemption."I do not know we can make the leap to say he affirmed the "Doctrines of Grace" (it would be problematic to even say Calvin affirmed the Doctrines of Grace).
Not all are called. Those that are not will not be saved.Because if he paid for all the sins of all people, all will be saved. And we know better.
Scripture says Christ became the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world. 1 John 2:2
Scripture also says:
1Pe 3:18
For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
Note the result of Christ's death is the opportunity to "bring us to God."
No...He did not. This is to deny the substitutionary nature of the atonement once again.Again, this is a huge assumption that you must address instead of relying on a fallacy.
Christ died for the sin of man (in toto). All are not saved. There are no "unpaid" sins.
The teaching is all through scripture itself. Who wrote about it, more, or less is a secondary issue exploited by some who cannot deal with the full range of scripture and seek a way to dismiss it without full consideration.But they were taught well before Calvin.
It's plainly obvious that you don't know what the Greek grammar was 2000 years ago. Just curious do you always talk like you know it all? Must bve a complex of some kind.Do you even know what the underlying grammar is? Do you know the difference between a transitive use and an intransitive use is?
The Archangel
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's just plain stupid (the statement, not you) - no one is denying the substutionary nature of the Atonement. No one is denying the unsaved will die in their sins.No...He did not. This is to deny the substitutionary nature of the atonement once again.
Unsaved men die in their sins as Jesus taught in John 8. Surely a "Calvinist" such as yourself would not make such an error.
Do you believe Calvin could not deal with the full range of Scripture? What about Jonathan Edwards who held a view of predestination very much intertwined with omniscience (some Calvinists call him "moderate" while others [the hypocrites] deny his doctrine as even being Calvinism....except when it suits them). Could he "not deal with the full range of Scripture"? What of Luther? Arminius? Augustine? Aquinas?The teaching is all through scripture itself. Who wrote about it, more, or less is a secondary issue exploited by some who cannot deal with the full range of scripture and seek a way to dismiss it without full consideration.
Do you believe Calvin could not deal with the full range of Scripture? What about Jonathan Edwards who held a view of predestination very much intertwined with omniscience (some Calvinists call him "moderate" while others [the hypocrites] deny his doctrine as even being Calvinism....except when it suits them). Could he "not deal with the full range of Scripture"? What of Luther? Arminius? Augustine? Aquinas?
Are we to believe you or your choices of teachers and what you select of their teachings incorporate this "full range of Scripture" where all others have failed?
I apologize on advance (but am not sorry for saying it) this is the kind of arrogance in doctrine that typifies the cage staged.
Well, JonC my friend,You can't (shouldn't) just make up these straw men so you can knock 'em down. That may impress children but not us grown ups.
I apologize on advance (but am not sorry for saying it) this is the kind of arrogance in doctrine that typifies the cage staged
We are not looking to this man or that man, but scripture itself.That's just plain stupid (the statement, not you) - no one is denying the substutionary nature of the Atonement. No one is denying the unsaved will die in their sins.
You can't (shouldn't) just make up these straw men so you can knock 'em down. That may impress children but not us grown ups.
If the Reformers were correct and Christ is the propitiation for the sins of all without exception and Augustine was correct that Christ died for the sins of the human race where does this idea that they have to affirm universal salvation originate????
(Doctrinally it is within Beza's Calvinizm after he systematized Calvin's work and placed sovereignty within soteriology, something Calvin hadn't done but probably should have).
But here it is assumed because he has proved unable/ unwilling to "connect the dots". He says "if-then" as if we are to blindly follow and that is where he rests his case.
Stick to the doctrines, @Iconoclast . We are not friends and we do not need to pretend otherwise. I have not, and will not, insult you. Don't patronize me and we can get along discussing doctrine.Well, JonC my friend,
I do not pay much attention to self-proclaimed "calvinists", who "like" or post" winner" to every non cal post ....attacking the position..
You seek to redefine doctrine and church history in a way most mainstream, real Calvinists do not do.
Of course, you are quite welcomed to post your ideas as you want to..
We are also quite welcome and free not to follow your rabbit trails, and looking to remark on inconsistencies from church history.
You like others now look to use the term cage stage to define mainstream Calvinism, which no one has ever seen you define, or defend at any time in recent memory., if ever.
Your excessive hubris causes you to try and turn from doctrinal truth, to again make a personal comment about those who post on here.
Stick to doctirine, not people,like here ;
offer your opinion on the doctrine, not on me, or what you think about me. I am not the topic of the OP. I do not think you understand my posts. Perhaps you should avoid commenting on them if you cannot help but call me unkind names,and go all over the place....
I am referencing these men and their theologies. Scripture does not settle the matter as philosophical leanings color interpretation.We are not looking to this man or that man, but scripture itself.
Do not put us into these positions some offered years ago.
No one quoted these men, but rather Jesus and the Apostles.
Apologies...I should have clarified that it was not Calvin, Edwards, or Augustine who said that Christ is the propitiation for all man's sin. That was actually Sripture. I offered Calvin's affirmation that this means all men without exception snd Augustine's view that Christ died for the sins of the human race.We are not looking to this man or that man, but scripture itself.
Do not put us into these positions some offered years ago.
No one quoted these men, but rather Jesus and the Apostles.
We are not friends and we do not need to pretend otherwise.
.I have not, and will not, insult you
I have been telling you, that is not going to happen...I will show you why in this post.Don't patronize me and we can get along discussing doctrine.
What we can discuss is OBJECTIVE doctrine (not opinion).
I did not bring up, Calvin, or anything hypothetical.Neither of us know if Calvin would have affirmed limited atonement should that have been an issue of his day. I think we both suspect he may have, but that is hypothetical.
We both know Jonathan Edwards affirmed predestination (you mentioned studying the man's doctrine), but not in a way that many "stronger" Calvinists would accept.
The issue is that Calvinists have not historically denied that Christ is a propitiation for the sins of manking, without exception (to borrow from Calvin). Some have adopted that view but others never did.
The reasoning is we cannot simply state "if Christ is the propitiation for the sin of man without exception/ for the entire human race (Calvin/ Augustine) then all are saved or Christ died for mo ones sins.
If you want to make that claim then you need to defend it instead of just stating it as fact.
Christ is the propitiation for all man's sins without exception (Calvin)
Wonderful, except Augustine was not an Apostle, so I will go with the writer of HebrewsChrist died for the sin of the human race (Augustine). Yet only those who believe are saved.
@Iconoclast ,"JonC,/snip/
I am referencing these men and their theologies. Scripture does not settle the matter as philosophical leanings color interpretation.
JonC, I do not need you to be my spokesman. I might indeed find some value in some of what they taught. I do not need you suggesting what i might, or might not believe.You may not find value in the works of Calvin, Edwards, and Augustine
But they were scholars and have offered much on tbe topic.
Scripture states that Christ is the propitiation for all man's sins
I do not care what Calvin thought on this. many times people take his quotes out of context and offer an alternate meaning to his thoughts. The scripture does not teach this., and the language (as Calvin noted) demands this to be without exception.
This I can agree with as I quoted Jesus teaching this fact.Yet Scripture also clearly presents the unsaved as dying in their sin.
Calvinists do believe in Jesus teaching.That should settle it, and traditionally it did for most (to include many Calvinists).
But as Calvinistic Baptists became more and more like Presbyterians that baptize a neo-orthodox "Calvinism" emerged which does not really belong to Baptists because of their Presbyterian leanings and never belonged to the Reformed churches (proper) because of their Baptist distinctive.
You can suspect what you want. I suspect certain things about your view also. I have no need to share them in this format. I would recommend you do not need to offer your ideas, on my posts. I do not think you can see the difference between what Calvinists see, and what you imagine they seeI suspect this plays a lot in the "cage stage-ness" many experience. They are neo-orthodox and do not really fit in with any camp so they force their own.