Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Originally posted by Chappie:
Previous Post:
So then, can we at least take the "L" out of the TULIP and replace it with atonement that was not limited to the elect in scope????
Previous response:
It depends on what you mean by "scope." The scope of the value is unlimited. No one denies that. The scope of the intent is because the atonement did not make salvation possible, it made it certain.
If it made it certain, and only applies to the elect, then it is limited in scope/application.
Previous Post:
Is this what you now assume????
Previous Response:
No. I am not assuming that. I was anticipating your answer.
And what is my answer?
Previous Post:
God cherished the opportunity to love them. It pleased him to afford them the opportunity to know him and know his love. Better to love and lose, than never to love at all.
Previous response:
That is certainly not scriptural in any way ... as evidenced by the fact that you have cited no Scripture for it. God created man for his glory, as it tells us many times (Isa 44, Eph 1, Rev 4, 1 Cor 10).
If I quote scriptures Pastor, will you deal with them? You, as far as I am aware of at this time, have not responded to the last set of scriptures that I posted. Anyway, do you deny that to glorify God is to love God and to obey God. How do we as that which is created glorify God…
Previous Post:
Does not John 3:16 resolve that issue for you? In response to such a gift, is a minimum of "acceptance" not a loving and just request? If volitionally you rejected salvation as it is paid for and offered by God, can you now justly blame God for being born. Being free moral creatures demands accountability.
Previous Response:
I agree. But John 3:16 is not a problem for me, it is a problem for you. If God loved the world, then why does he allow people to be born that he knows are going to freely reject him? Isn't that cruel? If you knew you child was going to run out in the street and get run over, would you not, out of love, prevent him from doing so? Why did God allow people to be born knowing that he was going to send them to hell? Isn't that cruel?
A better question might be, “if your God is such a loving God, why does he create people that he knows that he is going to reject.” We reject him because we are fools, what excuse do you offer for your God? I strongly deny any accusation that God created a single soul solely for stoking the fires of hell. And I have a grave concern for anyone that would make that accusation. And to my understanding, Calvinism makes that accusation when it says that God does not offer every single man woman and child of his creation the opportunity to be saved. Hell is a consequence of our actions. God cannot be held accountable for those in hell because he offered every single person the opportunity to be saved.
Previous Post:
If you understand freewill as it is taught in scripture, there is no problem to be resolved. No problem compounded equals no problem...
Previous Response:
It is you who doesn't understand what free will is. Free will is not the power of contrary choice. It is the ability to act in accordance with the nature. That is why a God who cannot do anything at all can still be absolutely free.
Why don’t we use a dictionary definition of the word, instead of a made up one. Bible or secular dictionary, the choice is yours.
Previous Post:
Can we remove the "L"from TU"L"IP??? YOUR RESPONSE DOES NOT APPEAR TO EMBRACE IT..
Previous response:
You can remove whatever you want. The position I hold does embrace the standard teaching on the atonement. The distinction between sufficiency and efficiency is normal.
Are you offended by the question.
“Can we remove the "L"from TU"L"IP”??? As I do not see anything edifying or Christlike by your response:
“You can remove whatever you want”. If I remove it and you do not, does this bring us any closer to reconciling our differences. Is that our goal, or has it changed? Per your request, are we not all called to respond to each other in a more Christlike manner. The last part of your response was all that was necessary.
[ October 02, 2002, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: Chappie ]