Limited Atonement

[Rippon]

So stilllearning is NOT saved, in your estimation? That, Tommy, is a "no-no" around here. raying:

skypair

Skypair has the audacity to tell someone they violated the rules!

 

[webdog]

Neither do you. Your will is subject to bondage of sin.

...then justice demands one cannot be held accountable.

 

[webdog]

So you are saying that the soul that is not convicted by the holy spirit cannot be saved.... and therefore cannot be held accountable for not being saved?????????

Not even close.

 

[webdog]

I am saying that faith is a gift of God throught which we are saved...... We have no faith aside apart from what God gives us.

It matters not what you say...what does Scripture say? There is not "saving faith" that which is different from faith found in Scripture. It must be eisegeted into it to come to that conclusion.

 

[Rippon]

Webdog, does your pastor know the beliefs you espouse here on the BB? You sit under the ministry of a Calvinist yet you deny the central biblical truths you are taught at church.

 

[webdog]

Webdog, does your pastor know the beliefs you espouse here on the BB? You sit under the ministry of a Calvinist yet you deny the central biblical truths you are taught at church.

Does it make a difference? Is it any of your business?

Calvinism is a systematic theology...it is not "central biblical truths".

 

[jdlongmire]

Webdog, does your pastor know the beliefs you espouse here on the BB? You sit under the ministry of a Calvinist yet you deny the central biblical truths you are taught at church.

???? Really???

 

[webdog]

???? Really???

Shocked? Why? Do you believe us non-cal's should be quarantined?

FTR, we have had quite good discussions on original sin. We have come to agree to disagree. Not anything new...it's been happening for centuries!

 

[jdlongmire]

Shocked? Why? Do you believe us non-cal's should be quarantined?

FTR, we have had quite good discussions on original sin. We have come to agree to disagree. Not anything new...it's been happening for centuries!

Shocked that you would sit under a preacher whose core theology you so strongly disagree with. Maybe the Lord is making you stay...

 

[webdog]

Shocked that you would sit under a preacher whose core theology you so strongly disagree with. Maybe the Lord is making you stay...

I don't believe being a member of a church is only about the theology preached. Much more to consider when putting your membership into a church. He has only been at our church for a couple years...I've been there longer than that.

His "core theology" is salvation by grace through faith in Christ's death, burial and resurrection. That is also mine. The mechanics differ.

 

[jdlongmire]

I don't believe being a member of a church is only about the theology preached. Much more to consider when putting your membership into a church.

hmmm - we are close to agreement on this issue, at least - although, I'd say the theology qualifies the particular local church ministry.

 

[Rippon]

I don't believe being a member of a church is only about the theology preached. Much more to consider when putting your membership into a church. He has only been at our church for a couple years...I've been there longer than that.

His "core theology" is salvation by grace through faith in Christ's death, burial and resurrection. That is also mine. The mechanics differ.

Does your church have a Confession, or Statement of Beliefs? If so, you signed onto it, right?

Was the former Pastor a Calvinist also?

 

[webdog]

Does your church have a Confession, or Statement of Beliefs? If so, you signed onto it, right?

Was the former Pastor a Calvinist also?

Yes to the first, no to the second.

 

[Rippon]

Yes to the first, no to the second.

So the Statement of Beliefs is not Calvinistic as such, right? How did your current Pastor get his post being a Calvinist? Weren't there objections when he came on board?

 

[webdog]

So the Statement of Beliefs is not Calvinistic as such, right? How did your current Pastor get his post being a Calvinist? Weren't there objections when he came on board?

Since I was on the pastor search committee...no objections

He has a real love for the Lord, a teachable spirit (what many pastors no longer have), and a love for the lost (not the "lost elect"). He even admits that there is an element of man's responsibility and God's sovereignty he does not understand, which I admire. Growing up RC, I can see how his lean towards all grace came about.

 

[jdlongmire]

Since I was on the pastor search committee...no objections

He has a real love for the Lord, a teachable spirit (what many pastors no longer have), and a love for the lost (not the "lost elect"). He even admits that there is an element of man's responsibility and God's sovereignty he does not understand, which I admire. Growing up RC, I can see how his lean towards all grace came about.

you do realize every consistent Calvinist would agree with this statement?

He even admits that there is an element of man's responsibility and God's sovereignty he does not understand

 

[webdog]

you do realize every consistent Calvinist would agree with this statement?

Don't see it too much. Stating regeneration precedes faith, faith being a gift, and man not having any role in salvation doesn't lend itself too well to the element of mystery in understanding the mechanics of salvation. It's all mapped out and wrapped in a nice package.

 

[TomMann]

It matters not what you say...what does Scripture say? There is not "saving faith" that which is different from faith found in Scripture. It must be eisegeted into it to come to that conclusion.

By grace...... through faith...... it is the gift.... Just what was it that I said that disagrees with scripture.

I am not sure what your second and third sentences refer too. Do you object to the statement that we are saved through faith, and that some call it faith that saves or saving faith.

 

[jdlongmire]

Don't see it too much. Stating regeneration precedes faith, faith being a gift, and man not having any role in salvation doesn't lend itself too well to the element of mystery in understanding the mechanics of salvation. It's all mapped out and wrapped in a nice package.

Man does have a role - a passive role - a mystery is - how passive?

We get the benefit of the revealed while experiencing the benefit of the mysterious.

 

[HankD]

Certainly, HankD, my position on these doctrines are best summarized by the Westminster Confession of Faith and the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, both conveniently linked here with versions containing the Scripture proofs.

Dear JD, I would prefer your own thoughts and the Scripture it is based upon.

Is there somewhere I can go to better understand your confessed theological and scriptural position, so that I may interact with your stance as opposed to guessing? Or is it simply HankDism?

Yes, the Scriptures I quoted.

Better HankDism than calvinism.

Romans 14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.​

As far as ad hominem is concerned, I was simply making a pithy evaluation based on the contents of your posts - ad argumentum, not ad hominem.

Here is what you said:

It is a semi-Calvinist post by someone that doesn't understand Calvinism and also seems to deny Trinitarian doctrine.

It is clearly an ad hominem.

As I said, you made the accusations. Had your ad hominem been ad argumentum then you would have named one of the positions I had taken and addressed the Scripture I had given in support by way of a rebuttal rather than accusing me of being someone who doesn't understand Calvinism.

First and foremost, there is obviously no Scripture which teaches me that I need to understand calvinism.
Second, It is not so much calvinism that I have issue with but calvinist.

Specifically, the often contentious nature of calvinist preaching "calvinism" which is against Scripture.

1 Corinthians 1

10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?​

It often goes beyond contention when the improper shibboleths are either used (or paradoxically, not used) and the inquisitor pronounces the crime of denying the Trinitarian doctrine and in some cases even questioning the salvation of others (which you did not do) as we have seen in this very thread, simply because they/we "don't understand calvinism".​

You seemed to be creating some non-Trinitatrian division between the will of God concerning the elect while acknowledging the sovereignty of God (or Jesus, as your post seemed to say) to do as He pleases, thus the "semi-Calvinist" comment.

Thank you for softening the indirect accusation of denying Trinitarian doctrine to "creating some non-Trinitarian division". So, how specifically then is this new assessment of my view(s) "creating some non-Trinitarian division between the will of God concerning the elect while acknowledging the sovereignty of God (or Jesus, as your post seemed to say) to do as He pleases".

And, what are you talking about JD? I said nothing about the "elect".
I did not use the words "elect" or "the sovereignty of God".

I am not saying I disagree with these doctrine.
I am saying that I did not address them specifically.

Are you saying I have confused or confounded the distinction of the Persons of the Trinity? What specifically is your contention in your own words. Please don't quote Calvin or the shibboleths of his followers or point me to a website containing a 17th century Confession.

Would it be simpler to start a new thread?

I'll leave that up to your free-will.

Your brother in Christ
HankD