Just how LIMITED is the ATONEMENT?

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The legal satisfaction is only available for those who are found to be in Christ
to be outside of Christ is to be under the full wrath of God.
The atonement was a covenant death and an ACTUAL, vicarious satisfaction....it was not at all potential....but actual , and particular.
Everyone limits the atonement,unless they are a heretical universalist.
Some of us like to follow the scriptures that actual speak about the scope of the cross work .





have to give credit to Skan in many of his OP here have the ability to make it "seem" those espousing to cal holding different views that what the rest of us do here on BB!

Seems to try to "make a wedge" betwenn the Cal camp, beyween supra/Ifra, 4/5 pointers etc!

And so by evaluating all of this, doesn't that make you a stronger Calvinist (via debate & reevaluation)? I know that in my case it does! So his intention to divide & conquer has only served to strengthen my understanding of the doctrines of Grace & thus my resolve to be more devoted to it! :tongue3:

We will have to thank:applause: Skan for our resolve that DOG is God-centered & True Gospel!

 

[Skandelon]

This statement still does not have want you want in it. It still does not have Christ paying the penalty for sins which will be punished again in hell.

Don't you see that is the very belief Hodge is renouncing as not being orthodox when he writes:

"This doctrine, that the sufferings of Christ amounted to the aggregate sufferings of those who are to be saved, that he endured just so much for so many, is not found in any confession of the Protestant churches, nor in the writings of any standard theologian, nor in the recognised authorities of any church of which we have any knowledge. The whole objection is a gross and inexcusable misrepresentation."

Its fine to disagree with a fellow Calvinist...it happens all the time. But don't attack the messenger for pointing it out.

And the "available" of your quotes is no problem for most of us Calvinists, if you understand what is meant by it.

Salvation is available for all (as in every single person) in the sense of the Gospel call is extended to all

But THAT is NOT the point Hodge is making. He is arguing for the genuine appeal of the gospel to all mankind by appealing to the fact that what Christ accomplished for the elect particularly is likewise sufficient for every individual to be saved. In other words, the legal impediment has been removed making the salvation of EVERYONE and ANYONE by Grace through faith possible...IF they have faith, which of course they WON'T unless first regenerated according to Calvinism. This is why Calvin and the others say that 'NOTHING keeps them from salvation save their own unbelief.'

But in the technical sense NNE should believe that Christ paid for sin and then God expects that same sin to be paid for again in hell.

And Hodge addresses this concept of Christ suffering just so much for so many in the quote above. His view is well established on this subject and if you want to disagree with it, fine...do so. But stop pretending you see eye to eye with him on this subject because you don't.

 

[Skandelon]

Let me correct this understanding. Calvinists would say something like, "they can't receive it because they are unable to." True, they don't want to, but their lack of desire is rooted in their inability according to how Calvinists view Scripture. Here is a verse that sheds light on this view:

1 Corinthians 2:14 14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

Oh, I'm well aware of this view and have replied to it many times here on the board.

 

[preacher4truth]

And so by evaluating all of this, doesn't that make you a stronger Calvinist (via debate & reevaluation)? I know that in my case it does! So his intention to divide & conquer has only served to strengthen my understanding of the doctrines of Grace & thus my resolve to be more devoted to it! :tongue3:

We will have to thank:applause: Skan for our resolve that DOG is God-centered & True Gospel!

No applause necessary, (for skns attempts) but I catch what you mean here.

The mere fact that skns case is perpetually an out of context argument simply shows me that within the non-cal/arm camp there is no refutation which they bring that is remotely plausible.

 

[Skandelon]

have to give credit to Skan in many of his OP here have the ability to make it "seem" those espousing to cal holding different views that what the rest of us do here on BB!

Funny, you being the only Amyraldian here, I thought you of all people would recognize these teachings. After all, most all notable Amyraldians point to them in defense of their views. Sounds like you may be more concerned about what your buddies think of you than what you believe is truth?

Seems to try to "make a wedge" betwenn the Cal camp, beyween supra/Ifra, 4/5 pointers etc!

Any wedge or disagreement between these groups is created by there differing views, not my accurate reporting of those views. Some of you just seem so 'heck bent' on winning an argument you can't see the forrest for the trees.

 

[preacher4truth]

Funny, you being the only Amyraldian here, I thought you of all people would recognize these teachings. After all, most all notable Amyraldians point to them in defense of their views. Sounds like you may be more concerned about what your buddies think of you than what you believe is truth?


Any wedge or disagreement between these groups is created by there <sic> differing views, not my accurate reporting of those views. Some of you just seem so 'heck bent' on winning an argument you can't see the forrest <sic> for the trees.

The highlighted is what he noted you are doing skn, especially the latter half. Another note, your reporting of these views is not accurate.

Don't you have another blog that has dedicated its objective and sole purpose for this cause?

This site here?

http://critiquingcalvinism.blogspot.com/

Isn't that yours skn? I wouldn't exactly call it critiquing.

 

[quantumfaith]

The highlighted is what he noted you are doing skn, especially the latter half.

Don't you have another blog that has dedicated its objective and sole prupose for this cause?

This site here?

http://critiquingcalvinism.blogspot.com/

Isn't that yours skn? I wouldn't exactly call it critiquing.

And your point is? What would YOU call it?

 

[preacher4truth]

And your point is? What would YOU call it?

I'd call it misinformed and inaccurate.

 

[Skandelon]

At least I provide citations, quotes and actual support for my arguments. If I've taken something out of its context then provide the context and explain how I have misrepresented it, otherwise you are just blowing smoke.

General unfounded and unsupported accusations, something you have become known for, only serve to cause unneeded confusion and distractions which is why I've mostly ignored your posts of late. But may I take this time to challenge you to actually do some work and study on this matter in order to refute my claims and maybe we all can benefit from your involvement for a change.

 

[preacher4truth]

At least I provide citations, quotes and actual support for my arguments. If I've taken something out of its context then provide the context and explain how I have misrepresented it, otherwise you are just blowing smoke.

General unfounded and unsupported accusations, something you have become known for, only serve to cause unneeded confusion and distractions which is why I've mostly ignored your posts of late. But may I take this time to challenge you to actually do some work and study on this matter in order to refute my claims and maybe we all can benefit from your involvement for a change.

I've already done this. Keep puffing smoke.

We all know what "all" means contextually to these theologians. Thus, you're the one that needs to backtrack and actually study.

It is clear from your blog and from the BB whom your objective is against.

 

[quantumfaith]

I'd call it misinformed and inaccurate.

Fair enough, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Misinformed I would definitely disagree with as Skan has spent much time as a calvinist. Inaccurate, well, that is your view, interpretation and opinion. One that some would agree with and others (myself included) would not agree with.

 

[quantumfaith]

I've already done this. Keep puffing smoke.

We all know what "all" means contextually to these theologians. Thus, you're the one that needs to backtrack and actually study.

It is clear from your blog and from the BB whom your objective is against.

Here we go again with the drivel. If you disagree with someone, great. If you are going to suggest that that they need to "puff smoke' and and study because they are (in your eyes) completely inaccurate, then correct them with your own wisdom.

 

[preacher4truth]

Fair enough, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Misinformed I would definitely disagree with as Skan has spent much time as a calvinist. Inaccurate, well, that is your view, interpretation and opinion. One that some would agree with and others (myself included) would not agree with.

I can settle with you on that. How much have you personally studied to conclude such?

How much time has said spent as a calvinist? Seeing his misunderstanding of this, and his out of context arguments, I tend to think it was not long at all, and that he never knew what it taught altogether.

 

[preacher4truth]

Here we go again with the drivel. If you disagree with someone, great. If you are going to suggest that that they need to "puff smoke' and and study because they are (in your eyes) completely inaccurate, then correct them with your own wisdom.

Yes, let's skip over the same drivel from skn, yes? It's allowable from him, correct? From a cal? Well, that's a no-no. I've seen this often here. No-no's for some, allowable for others.

 

[quantumfaith]

I can settle with you on that. How much have you personally studied to conclude such?

How much time has said spent as a calvinist? Seeing his misunderstanding of this, and his out of context arguments, I tend to think it was not long at all, and that he never knew what it taught altogether.

I have NEVER been a calvinist, and unless I have some type of "Damascus Road" experience, I never will be. I have been a reader and student all of my life as adult. Also, I do have two years of Bible College coursework at Florida Baptist College (formerly known as Baptist Bible Institute) Studied under numerous respected and loved professors, my favorite being Dr. Jerry Lee, Professor of Old Testatment.

Is there a degree in calvinism or in "non-calvininsm" which I am unaware of. Is there some amount of time or possibly correspondence courses that might make my position "credentialed"?

Currently I hold a B.S. and M.S (and then some) in mathematics.

 

[preacher4truth]

I have NEVER been a calvinist, and unless I have some type of "Damascus Road" experience, I never will be. I have been a reader and student all of my life as adult. Also, I do have two years of Bible College coursework at Florida Baptist College (formerly known as Baptist Bible Institute) Studied under numerous respected and loved professors, my favorite being Dr. Jerry Lee, Professor of Old Testatment.

Is there a degree in calvinism or in "non-calvininsm" which I am unaware of. Is there some amount of time or possibly correspondence courses that might make my position "credentialed"?

Currently I hold a B.S. and M.S (and then some) in mathematics.

Again I ask, how much of Calvinism have you studied and do you understand? None of what you've said answered such a direct question.

 

[quantumfaith]

Again I ask, how much of Calvinism have you studied and do you understand? None of what you've said answered such a direct question.

I am convinced that I understand its premises and positions. How much have you studied anything other than such? Do you have credentials in such?

 

[preacher4truth]

I am convinced that I understand its premises and positions. How much have you studied anything other than such?

I serioulsy doubt this.

Back to the "smoke" thing. Allowable for skn yes, but drivel from another, correct?

 

[quantumfaith]

I serioulsy doubt this.

Back to the "smoke" thing. Allowable for skn yes, but drivel from another, correct?

The silliness of THIS exchange is over for me.

 

[preacher4truth]

The silliness of THIS exchange is over for me.

Of course it is, you'll lose in answering a direct question concisely so instead you bound off.

My post was no more drivel than that of skn.

Next time use unbiased judgment before you accuse anyone of anything, and be ready to use the same judgment upon all. OK?

His blog, and objective here against the cal brethren stem from misinformation and misunderstanding.