Lewis on Atonement theories

[JonC]

Just was stating what Isaiah and peter and paul all stated here!

Not, you were not. And that is a serious issue (saying verses in those books state something they do not actually state). But I suspect you don't see that, or didn't bother to check.

Please respond by quoting the actual verses and we can compare it to what you claimed they all stated.

 

[DaveXR650]

I find it strange that a calvinist would say that you have to humble yourself and ask to be born again. Don't they understand the calvinist TULIP or WCF/LBCF.

I would say you have an understanding of Calvinism that is based on a caricature. I don't know if the Puritans would have known what you were talking about if you told them they believed in the TULIP. And the worst attack I ever had on this board was from a Calvinist after I pointed out how the WCF did indeed say that men can reject the call of God and that it was in the section on the "general" call. I have said before that the modern shallow internet Calvinist has read a few articles and is good at debating the TULIP but has no breadth of knowledge of how practicing Calvinists preached and taught because they haven't bothered to read much. What I said about Martyn Lloyd Jones is true and you can look up and listen to that sermon in 5 minutes, in his own words. Do you know that Owen, in his section on the Holy Spirit says that men can, on their own, before any regenerative work of the Holy Spirit, by using the means available to them, in their current state, increase their chance of being saved? Edwards, in several of his sermons pleads and reasons with people to repent and come to Christ. Horatius Bonar has a booklet called "Words to Winners of Souls". And none of these even touch Spurgeon. If it doesn't fit your view of Calvinism I'm sorry, but you need to read more. Phil Johnson, who is the heir apparent of John MacArthur has articles talking about this very thing. It's not something I came up with.

 

[Aaron]

I disagree. Adam was a representative of mankind.

I know you disagree, and you're completely unbiblical.

Adam is the father of mankind. As it is stated in the very passage you quoted, "all sinned." It is not, "all are reckoned to have sinned." It is "all sinned."

And I ask again: What does it mean that our sins were laid upon Christ?

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 301 am EDT (Tue) / 1201 am PDT (Tue)

 

[JonC]

I know you disagree, and you're completely unbiblical.

Adam is the father of mankind. As it is stated in the very passage you quoted, "all sinned." It is not, "all are reckoned to have sinned." It is "all sinned."

And I ask again: What does it mean that our sins were laid upon Christ?

The thing is, I am biblical. "Unbilical" refers to teachings that are not in the Bible, NOT different interpretations of the same passages.

You have no basis to measure differing interpretations because you are unable to see past your own views.

 

[AustinC]

The thing is, I am biblical. "Unbilical" refers to teachings that are not in the Bible, NOT different interpretations of the same passages.

You have no basis to measure differing interpretations because you are unable to see past your own views.

Your teaching is not taught in the Bible...you just say it is taught. What is taught and what you claim is taught are two very different things.
You seem to be oblivious to the substitutionary foreshadowing of the entire sacrificial system in Exodus 28-31 so that you reject the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus which fulfills that which was foreshadowed. Your view has no historic merit and was never taught by any of the church fathers. You just imagine they taught what you teach.

 

[37818]

It's not a work, lol.

Confession with the mouth, a prayer and believers immersion are not required in order to be saved. They are works. Believing that they are not works doesn't make them not works.

 

[37818]

You deny then that the OT Prophets spoke of God storing up towards people bowls of wrath due to their sins?

Where do you get that?!

 

[Silverhair]

I would say you have an understanding of Calvinism that is based on a caricature. I don't know if the Puritans would have known what you were talking about if you told them they believed in the TULIP. And the worst attack I ever had on this board was from a Calvinist after I pointed out how the WCF did indeed say that men can reject the call of God and that it was in the section on the "general" call. I have said before that the modern shallow internet Calvinist has read a few articles and is good at debating the TULIP but has no breadth of knowledge of how practicing Calvinists preached and taught because they haven't bothered to read much. What I said about Martyn Lloyd Jones is true and you can look up and listen to that sermon in 5 minutes, in his own words. Do you know that Owen, in his section on the Holy Spirit says that men can, on their own, before any regenerative work of the Holy Spirit, by using the means available to them, in their current state, increase their chance of being saved? Edwards, in several of his sermons pleads and reasons with people to repent and come to Christ. Horatius Bonar has a booklet called "Words to Winners of Souls". And none of these even touch Spurgeon. If it doesn't fit your view of Calvinism I'm sorry, but you need to read more. Phil Johnson, who is the heir apparent of John MacArthur has articles talking about this very thing. It's not something I came up with.

Where the problem comes in is that we are not dealing with the old time calvinists on here are we. I agree that many of the ones we deal with now really do not know what the old ones believed. If they taught as you say then they would have been more in tune with the bible. Having said that if they actually held to the WCF then they still would have had some serious differences with the bible.

Some people rely on the old preachers to formulate their theology, I just can not do that. While I will read books and commentaries from the old teachers I still rely on the Holy Spirit to guide me. The bible is not a book of mysteries but rather it is a guide book.

Far to many people read into the bible what they want to find instead of reading it to find what God has to say to us.

 

[AustinC]

Where the problem comes in is that we are not dealing with the old time calvinists on here are we. I agree that many of the ones we deal with now really do not know what the old ones believed. If they taught as you say then they would have been more in tune with the bible. Having said that if they actually held to the WCF then they still would have had some serious differences with the bible.

Some people rely on the old preachers to formulate their theology, I just can not do that. While I will read books and commentaries from the old teachers I still rely on the Holy Spirit to guide me. The bible is not a book of mysteries but rather it is a guide book.

Far to many people read into the bible what they want to find instead of reading it to find what God has to say to us.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 301 am EDT (Tue) / 1201 am PDT (Tue)

This thread is closed