Just how LIMITED is the ATONEMENT?

[Skandelon]

Just as I suspected, you turn to ad hominem instead of providing a defense for your views. Typical. Have a great day.

 

[preacher4truth]

Just as I suspected, you turn to ad hominem instead of providing a defense for your views. Typical. Have a great day.

I've provided a defense, any defense a Calvinist has to you is "ad hominem." [personal attacks snipped]

 

[Skandelon]

I've provided a defense, any defense a Calvnist has to you is "ad hominem."

Your 'defense' was to merely claim that other comments and context suggests that he doesn't mean what he said, but you don't provide any other quotes or context to support your claims. You just simply say that it there and expect us to take your word for it. That is not a defense.

It's just like before when you were debating with Winman that Barns (a KNOWN Amyraldian) is in agreement with your views of Limited atonement when clearly he is not. It is okay for you to disagree with some Calvinists you know?

 

[preacher4truth]

Your 'defense' was to merely claim that other comments and context suggests that he doesn't mean what he said, but you don't provide any other quotes or context to support your claims. You just simply say that it there and expect us to take your word for it. That is not a defense.

It's just like before when you were debating with Winman that Barns (a KNOWN Amyraldian) is in agreement with your views of Limited atonement when clearly he is not. It is okay for you to disagree with some Calvinists you know?

You've not provided any proof whatsoever. Does understanding Calvins comprehensive view of theology bring what he says into a different context, or not?

I never said Barnes was in agreement with me, nor I with him. I asked winman to show me where he disagrees and what his point is. That's what I asked. So, you're incorrect here and misunderstanding what I said and why I said it the way I did.

There really is no point in going around attempting to find something someone disagrees with me about that is a calvinist, is there?

Seriously, this is basically all you ever really discuss. Why not make a different, refreshing, edifying thread on a different topic altogether?


Please tell me why sharing a link to another forum where you debate the same issue is in violation of BB rules. Many on here provide links for proofs. Tell me where in the BB rules that is a personal attack.

 

[Skandelon]

You've not provided any proof whatsoever. Does understanding Calvins comprehensive view of theology bring what he says into a different context, or not?

Sure, his context matters. I have provided quotes which suggest he takes the Calvinistic approach by which God provides all that is needed for the salvation of all men, but only effectually calls (regenerates) the elect. Have you provided one quote to counter that view? No. Have you provided any contextual arguments from Calvin that counter that view? No.

I never said Barnes was in agreement with me, nor I with him.

You wrote: "What you are arguing is ambiguous (unclear) concerning placing Barnes in disagreement with me. Where is he in disagreement with me here?
World doesn't mean "people", it means age. Do you understand this? World also doesn't mean "every person who ever lived." This is part of your mistake. "

Which is the same argument you are attempting to make against the quote I provided for Calvin. You are claiming Barns like Calvin are in agreement with you because they mean "age" not 'every individual,' yet Barns is KNOWN, without question, to support universal atonement.

Seriously, this is basically all you ever really discuss. Why not make a different, refreshing, edifying thread on a different topic altogether?

Again, this is making it personal. Discuss the topic or don't, but DO NOT make it personal. That is against the rules.

Please tell me why sharing a link to another forum where you debate the same issue is in violation of BB rules. Many on here provide links for proofs. Tell me where in the BB rules that is a personal attack.

Because you are not quoting a scholar to support your argument on this topic, but you are providing a link to support your personal attack against me that I spend too much time on this subject, which is NOT allowed. It is an ad homenium attack and is off topic. If you are really concerned about how much time I spend on this topic then address me in a PM, but I doubt that is your real concern. Your real effort here is to try to make me look bad and divert the topic of the thread.

 

[preacher4truth]

You wrote: "What you are arguing is ambiguous (unclear) concerning placing Barnes in disagreement with me. Where is he in disagreement with me here?World doesn't mean "people", it means age. Do you understand this? World also doesn't mean "every person who ever lived." This is part of your mistake. "

First things here, I am not trying to make you look bad.

Secondly, my response to winman is an attempt to allow him to clarify what he is trying to say brother. That is what my reply meant, nothing more. I apologize it wasn't more clear, but that is all I meant in my response, so I could accurately understand what he is trying to say.

Thirdly, my link was meant as proof I am not lying, not as you have thought the reason was. You've also talked of your other blog on here. So, to me, it wasn't wrong to show a link to another site. Nothing personal was intended brother.

 

[MB]

MB, isn't this essentially what we all do, we in sense, pejoratively jab each other with a somewhat "sarcastic" retort of "and you think you are the only one to have a handle of biblical truth". This is NOT a personal jab at you, rather an observation that I make about most who participate in the discussion.

The realization of biblical truth can only be had through God. You can study the bible until the cows come home but with out the consideration of the teaching of the Holy Spirit you simply do not have truth. Men study the Word and then decifer what it means for them selves. They claim they wouldn't be able to understand it with out interpreting it.
The Bible says;
Pro 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
My observation is that if men would rely on God for doctrine rather than themselves and others, we would all agree.
What you see as a sarcastic comment from me was meant to wake people up to the truth of the Word. Interpretation is a tool men use to understand is it not? It only stands to reason that if you have to use a tool to understand, you simply are not Leaning on God for that understanding.

 

[Herald]

Interpretation is a tool men use to understand is it not? It only stands to reason that if you have to use a tool to understand, you simply are not Leaning on God for that understanding.

And what if two people have honestly studied the Word on a given issue and then still disagree? Both are absolutely convinced they are right. There comes a point when we have to disengage from the dialogue and just agree to disagree.

 

[Herald]

Well, Brother Herald, "kosmos" was the greek word used for world in John 1:29, as well as John 3:16. To the best of my knowledge, it doesn't mean "some", "part", "few", "elect" of the world, but world in its entirety.

I think you're missing my point. If you studied up a bit more on the Calvinists you cited in your previous post you would find out that they don't share the conclusion you think they do. I understand that's more of a bother than what's it worth for an online discussion board. Trust me on this one thing though: both sides on this issue are completely convinced their side is being true to Scripture. I don't think anyone is knowingly advocating an unbiblical position.

 

[Herald]

If I am blessed to make it to CHRISTmas this year, I will read firsthanded what Calvin believes in regards to this. I asked my M-I-L to buy the "Institutes" for me. If I reject Calvinism(and I do), I need a clearer understanding of what He believed.

Brother, be careful of Calvin! LOL I appreciate his work and ministry but his views on ecclesiology and baptism are in error. He was no Baptist.

 

[glfredrick]

If I am blessed to make it to CHRISTmas this year, I will read firsthanded what Calvin believes in regards to this. I asked my M-I-L to buy the "Institutes" for me. If I reject Calvinism(and I do), I need a clearer understanding of what He believed.

Unfortunately, your first error is in believing (or thinking) that you will find a detailed explanation of "Calvinism" from Calvin's Institutes. You won't. Not that Calvin does not lay out tenets of his theology, but rather that the 5 points are not laid out in anything resembling the TULIP used so popularly these days to explain what is (mistakenly) said to be Calvin's absolute position.

Calvinism itself stems from an answer to the Arminian challenge at the Synod of Dort, and Calvin had nothing at all to do with that discussion other than the fact that his preaching, teaching, and theology were instrumental in furthering the Reformation along biblical lines.

Please don't let me dissuade you from reading the Institutes, however. Everyone should read them. Oh, and if you really can't wait, you can read them on-line at any number of sources for free. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html

 

[glfredrick]

I must either be simple minded or stupid, but I don't understand the confusion over the atonement of Christ. If we go back to the OT sacrifice that was done once a year for the whole nation of Israel, we can easily understand it.

The OT sacrifice was but a shadow of the one true sacrifice of Christ, but the principal is the same.

Once a year the priest took the blood into the the Holy of Holies to sprinkle on the mercy seat. This was done on behalf of the whole nation of Israel. And yet, not every individual in the nation was saved by it. Why? Because there were some who did not believe. So even though the sacrifice was made on their behalf, their unbelief condemned them.

It is no different under the New Covenant. Jesus was the sacrifice for ALL, but not ALL will be saved because some will not believe. Without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God.

What is so confusing about that?????

What is so confusing is that some can't believe. It is not just that they won't believe, they cannot. Unless they are of the elect, that is. Also, salvation does not equal election. There are other parts and this has been explained by myself and others countless times. In reading Calvin, Hodge, Edwards, and other qualified and capable "Calvinists" one WILL find the complete discussion of ALL of the component parts of salvation, election being just one.

Now, question in return... What is so difficult to grasp about that?

 

[glfredrick]

Brother, be careful of Calvin! LOL I appreciate his work and ministry but his views on ecclesiology and baptism are in error. He was no Baptist.

Calvin DOES NOT EQUAL "Calvinism."

Before you take someone to task or ask them to take care about Calvin, in reference to Calvinism, it would be helpful for you to understand exactly what Calvinism actually is. I'll let you do your own homework, but as I stated above, Calvin had nothing, really, to do with the 5 points of the TULIP that make up the preponderance of the doctrine of grace often called Calvinism.

Additionally, what has ecclesiology to do with soteriology, save that one needs to be saved before being part of the church and its practices?

 

[Amy.G]

What is so confusing is that some can't believe. It is not just that they won't believe, they cannot. Unless they are of the elect, that is. Also, salvation does not equal election. There are other parts and this has been explained by myself and others countless times. In reading Calvin, Hodge, Edwards, and other qualified and capable "Calvinists" one WILL find the complete discussion of ALL of the component parts of salvation, election being just one.

Now, question in return... What is so difficult to grasp about that?

Oh I grasp what you're saying just fine. You get your theology from men and not God.

 

[webdog]

Calvin DOES NOT EQUAL "Calvinism."

Before you take someone to task or ask them to take care about Calvin, in reference to Calvinism, it would be helpful for you to understand exactly what Calvinism actually is. I'll let you do your own homework, but as I stated above, Calvin had nothing, really, to do with the 5 points of the TULIP that make up the preponderance of the doctrine of grace often called Calvinism.

Additionally, what has ecclesiology to do with soteriology, save that one needs to be saved before being part of the church and its practices?

Before flying off the handle and "taking someone to task" it would help to understand who you are engaging. Herald is a calvinist :laugh:

 

[glfredrick]

Oh I grasp what you're saying just fine. You get your theology from men and not God.

Sorry to burst your bubble Amy, but we ALL get our theology from man and not from God. The ALL includes yourself, your pastor, your favorite teachers, etc.

Men, saved and sealed by God, full of the Holy Spirt work on the doctrines of faith found in the revealed Word of God. They craft true propositional statements that become theological doctrines based on as accurate as possible an understanding of the text of Scripture -- from beginning to end.

Conversely, the only other answer is that you or those who you follow have some sort of party line directly to God? Why are you not sharing? Where are your great books of wisdom that perfectly match the Scriptures and are absolutely coherent in all they contain? I've read most of the systematic theologies and a ton of peripheral theology (biblical, historical, etc.) that is out there. I find little at all that supports your understanding.

 

[glfredrick]

Before flying off the handle and "taking someone to task" it would help to understand who you are engaging. Herald is a calvinist :laugh:

Doesn't stop him from being wrong on that subject. I am from the Scriptures and doctrines as originally sourced, not from a list of people that I have to support.

I've taken a number of the Calvinists on this board to task for their own stereotype of the doctrine. I've found that, overall, it is a most non-understood doctrine, and that is reinforced every time we get into yet another discussion on the issue. Oh, and that is why I wrote what I wrote to Skandelon earlier. He came into contact with articulate Calvinists who burst his (and others') bubble about what Calvinism actually states. That will always happen when one actually studies instead of just reacting based on emotion or tradition.

 

[Skandelon]

Doesn't stop him from being wrong on that subject. I am from the Scriptures and doctrines as originally sourced, not from a list of people that I have to support.

I've taken a number of the Calvinists on this board to task for their own stereotype of the doctrine. I've found that, overall, it is a most non-understood doctrine, and that is reinforced every time we get into yet another discussion on the issue. Oh, and that is why I wrote what I wrote to Skandelon earlier. He came into contact with articulate Calvinists who burst his (and others') bubble about what Calvinism actually states. That will always happen when one actually studies instead of just reacting based on emotion or tradition.

I think it is clear that I have better represented the nuances of what Calvin and many Calvinistic scholars have taught than you or any other "Calvinist" on this board.

As MacArthur has said, "I am troubled by the tendency of some - often young people newly infatuated with Reformed doctrine - who insist that God cannot possibly love those who never repent and believe. I encounter that view, it seems, with increasing frequency." I agree with MacArthur as this is the type of thing being represented as "Calvinism" on this forum consistently.

I also agree with Piper who wrote, "...the intellectual appeal of the system of Calvinism draws a certain kind of intellectual person, and that type of person doesn't tend to be the most warm, fuzzy, and tender. Therefore this type of person has a greater danger of being hostile, gruff, abrupt, insensitive or intellectualistic. I'll just confess that. It's a sad and terrible thing that that's the case. Some of this type aren't even Christians, I think. You can embrace a system of theology and not even be born again." Again, this type of hostility is often witnessed here.

I've introduced quote after quote of true Calvinistic scholars who I disagree with over some theological points in order to show that some here Out-Calvin John Calvin, and tend toward hyperism. This thread, which shows the distinction between Cals who affirm the sufficiency of the atoning work of Christ (rather than merely claiming its valuable enough to be sufficient), is another example of my willingness to actually deal with what REAL Calvinists teach. Some would rather continue in their "self-taught internet theology" rather than dealing with the historical perspectives I have presented in the actual words of the scholars.

I've been accused of taking them out of context but no one has yet to present any proof of this by providing quotes within the context that counters what I've presented. That is revealing.

 

[glfredrick]

I think it is clear that I have better represented the nuances of what Calvin and many Calvinistic scholars have taught than you or any other "Calvinist" on this board.

Pulleeaasseee... Really? Let me be clear. No, you have not. You have cherry-picked Calvinist theologians while absolutely missing their main point on a continual basis. Yes, you do bring nuance, but you fail to mention that they may be examining the cause against their position in so doing.

As MacArthur has said, "I am troubled by the tendency of some - often young people newly infatuated with Reformed doctrine - who insist that God cannot possibly love those who never repent and believe. I encounter that view, it seems, with increasing frequency." I agree with MacArthur as this is the type of thing being represented as "Calvinism" on this forum consistently.

You've about worn out that MacArthur quote and also Piper's below. They were writing to young zealous students who do the same as you and others -- argue against a straw man that is not the true view.

I also agree with Piper who wrote, "...the intellectual appeal of the system of Calvinism draws a certain kind of intellectual person, and that type of person doesn't tend to be the most warm, fuzzy, and tender. Therefore this type of person has a greater danger of being hostile, gruff, abrupt, insensitive or intellectualistic. I'll just confess that. It's a sad and terrible thing that that's the case. Some of this type aren't even Christians, I think. You can embrace a system of theology and not even be born again." Again, this type of hostility is often witnessed here.

I've introduced quote after quote of true Calvinistic scholars who I disagree with over some theological points in order to show that some here Out-Calvin John Calvin, and tend toward hyperism. This thread, which shows the distinction between Cals who affirm the sufficiency of the atoning work of Christ (rather than merely claiming its valuable enough to be sufficient), is another example of my willingness to actually deal with what REAL Calvinists teach. Some would rather continue in their "self-taught internet theology" rather than dealing with the historical perspectives I have presented in the actual words of the scholars.

Sure you have... All with an ax to grind AGAINST the position. One might think that by now, you would be educated and cognizant of the claims of the doctrine, but no, you are just as adamant about your human-centered view as ever. do some Calvinists here and elsewhere "out Calvin" Calvin? Yup. So do you in the way you argue the points, except that you are cherry-picking any negative phrase as if any of those you cite are actually in tune with your doctrine. Let me clue you in... They are not.

Above, you make out Christ to be a mere example. At least that is consistent with classical Arminianism. But, he is not mere example. He IS that atonement and propitiation who imputes His righteousness to those who have none, while taking their sin upon Himself.

I've been accused of taking them out of context but no one has yet to present any proof of this by providing quotes within the context that counters what I've presented. That is revealing.

You take the quotes out of context by absolutely ignoring the fact that each of the men you cite are avowed Calvinists who never apologized nor recanted from their position. That is akin to reading the Bible and failing to mention that God is the sovereign King of all... Oh, wait... :BangHead:

 

[preacher4truth]

Pulleeaasseee... Really? Let me be clear. No, you have not. You have cherry-picked Calvinist theologians while absolutely missing their main point on a continual basis. Yes, you do bring nuance, but you fail to mention that they may be examining the cause against their position in so doing.



You've about worn out that MacArthur quote and also Piper's below. They were writing to young zealous students who do the same as you and others -- argue against a straw man that is not the true view.





Sure you have... All with an ax to grind AGAINST the position. One might think that by now, you would be educated and cognizant of the claims of the doctrine, but no, you are just as adamant about your human-centered view as ever. do some Calvinists here and elsewhere "out Calvin" Calvin? Yup. So do you in the way you argue the points, except that you are cherry-picking any negative phrase as if any of those you cite are actually in tune with your doctrine. Let me clue you in... They are not.

Above, you make out Christ to be a mere example. At least that is consistent with classical Arminianism. But, he is not mere example. He IS that atonement and propitiation who imputes His righteousness to those who have none, while taking their sin upon Himself.



You take the quotes out of context by absolutely ignoring the fact that each of the men you cite are avowed Calvinists who never apologized nor recanted from their position. That is akin to reading the Bible and failing to mention that God is the sovereign King of all... Oh, wait... :BangHead:

I agree totally with you here glfredrick.

Skns opening statement to which you've responded is the most self-promoting, self-aggrandizing and pride filled statement I have seen on ANY forum.

His only rebuttal to me is for me to provide him with a Scholar (listen to this) who agrees that skn has taken Calvin out of context. :laugh:

Please. How ridiculous.