Er, no. In almost every respect.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
No man perishes for want of an atonement
- Thread starter Skandelon
- Start date
- Status
Robert Snow
New Member
How do you know this to be true? Seems like you PB's have a tendency to simply claim a verse doesn't mean what it is saying because is doesn't fit in with Calvinism.
Are you guys implying word substitutions? Anglo Saxon words starting with the letter F perhaps:laugh:
Well, shut the door!
Robert....arent you the one recently applauding Erasmus recently & whats with the Kaw logo....do you own one? Thought youd be a Hog man.
Robert Snow
New Member
duplicate posting
Last edited by a moderator:
Robert Snow
New Member
I don't remember anything about Erasmus, but I don't have a problem with him, as far as I know.
BTW, I own a 2008 Kawasaki Ninja 650, and I love it! I guess I was predestined to own and love fast bikes! :smilewinkgrin:
I've never owned a Harley, although I know several men who do own them. Personally, most Harley Davidson's, and indeed most cruisers, are a little low on power and they don't handle or stop well enough for me to feel comfortable riding one of them.
First, a couple of things about Hodge. Whilst we wouldn't agree with him on the subjects of baptism and ecclesiology, Hodge was a great man. He was also an entirely orthodox classical 5 Point Calvinist, so any attempt to portray him as some sort of closet Arminian are rather wide of the mark. He wrote a very fine critique of the Arminianism and Pelagianism of Charles Finney. I notice you haven't quoted from that.
You agree that Christ didn't endured just so much for so many? Doesn't that mean you affirm that what Christ did endure satisfied the justice needed for every individual, even if its only applied to those effectually called to come to faith?
It is possible to pull a quote or two out of context from almost anybody's writings and suggest that they believe something that they obviously don't. I have a book on John Wesley, where the author tries to prove that he was really some sort of Calvinist. Why people feel the need to do this sort of thing I can't imagine.
Now, let's have a look at what Hodge said:-
Of course he is absolutely right. Where in the Bible does it say that Christ's blood has a definite measureable worth? What Reformed confession suggests that God could have saved more people if only the Lord Jesus had had a little more blood to spread about, or if each drop had possessed a little more value? The suggestion would be laughable if it weren't so blasphemous.Charles Hodge said:
The Bible teaches that God the Father gave to the Son before the foundation of the world (2Thes 2:13), a people whom He was to redeem (John 17:2, 6; Heb 2:13). These are His 'sheep' (John 10:15-16), and He will redeem and save every last one of them (John 6:39; 10:27) by shedding His blood upon the cross (John 10:11). Note that the Good Shepherd gives His life for the sheep, not the goats.
Why are not more or fewer sheep? What is it that determines the size of the flock? Is it the amount or value of the Saviour's blood? Of course not.
Matt 11:25. "I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes. Even so, father, for so it seemed good in Your sight.......and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the father except the Son and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him."
There is one group to whom the Father is revealed by the Son, and one group to whom He isn't. That this is so seemed good in the Father's sight, and the Son thanks Him for it. It is therefore God's good pleasure that determines the size of the flock, and those who think this is unfair should read Rom 9:14-16 and repent of their presumption.
However, the Lord Jesus, immediately after saying these words, spreads His arms wide: "Come to Me, all you who are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Everyone who comes, finds rest in Christ. No one is excluded. There is no talk here of electandreprobate. Let whomsoever will come to the Saviour; He will not turn them away. Let them not wonder if they are part of the flock, for if they come, that is proof positive that they are. Let them come in repentance and faith, and the Lamb will lead them to pools of living water.
The question of the worth of Christ's blood is like asking how many angels can dance on a pinhead- a total waste of time.
'His blood can make the foulest clean;
His blood availed for me!' Charles Wesley
His blood will avail for all who come to Him, and that is all we need to know.
Steve
Please bear with me. I want to make sure that I'm understanding you.
I want to know about Joe. Not about the demands of the law, the handwriting of ordinances, or the impersonal things about the atonement.
Is it that Joe's sins are forgiven and he goes to hell for the sin of unbelief? Or is it that Joe's sins are not forgiven because of unbelief?
Here it sounds like you're saying that each of Joe's sins have been forgiven. That the only sin he will be judged for is the sin of unbelief.
Here it sounds like you're saying Joe's sins aren't forgiven because of unbelief. Do you see the difference? I want to know which one it is.
I want to know about Joe. Not about the demands of the law, the handwriting of ordinances, or the impersonal things about the atonement.
Is it that Joe's sins are forgiven and he goes to hell for the sin of unbelief? Or is it that Joe's sins are not forgiven because of unbelief?
I stand for Jesus Christ humbly and with trembling.
It has been shown by Skandelon and others in this thread that "penal subsitution" is ridiculous, and adsurd effort to support Calvinism's errant view of the completed work of the cross.
Wow, I would've expected that one who is truly concerned for the eternal destiny of others would avoid such self indulgence as this. If this 'diposable income' had been given towards the spread of the gospel, if there were even the remotest of chance that this money could have saved even one soul from an infinity of torment in hell....
How do you reconcile/justify such self indulgence with your free will 'gospel means' theology?
Last edited by a moderator:
AND liberal politics?
quantumfaith
Active Member
My guess is that you have not spent much time in soup lines either?
quantumfaith
Active Member
I find it difficult to "connect these dots". Is it not the liberal politicians who want equality of results for everyone?
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Paul, the apostles to the Gentiles [who is planting Gentile churches in the face of the accusation that those "dirty dog Gentiles" are not God's elect people], is assuring them that they are chosen from the beginning, in that it has been God's plan all along to graft in the Gentiles. This verse is NOT about God choosing to save certain individuals to the neglect of the rest.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
I mean that both people in heaven and hell did evil deeds, so that is not the difference. The difference is FAITH. Those in hell didn't have faith, while those in heaven did. Thus, the X FACTOR is not the deeds, its the faith.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
I agree, it is ridiculous. Thank You. Tell Aaron and others that, please.
You hear it all the time from Calvinists. They say things like, "Would Christ's blood be wasted" or "spilled out on the ground." Or they argue that suffering for that non-elect's sin would have been wasted, as if his suffering was greater based on the number of people He's death covered.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Ok, brother, this comment alone signifies to me that either:
1. You are not reading my posts, because I have stated numerous times that Hodge IS representing historical Calvinism's view of the atonement and not Arminianism.
2. You are not understanding my posts in which I've clearly stated that Hodge is a Calvinist, not an Arminian.
or...
3. You are purposefully changing my views so as to more easily attack and dismiss them as being ridiculous.
Which one is it?
Why would I? I'm discussing His view of the atonement, which seems to be in contrast with many Calvinists on this board....
Yes, I know, but I'm not doing that. If you feel that I am, prove it.
What is the name of the book? That would be interesting to see.
I can't either.
Now, I'll pick up on your other points in the next post...
preacher4truth
Active Member
Faith didn't save the ones in heaven. The difference is grace in election, and that His grace alone saves.
What you continually attempt to do is try to explain your unscriptural notion that folks only go to hell for not believing, and that the only reason they are there is for not belieiving. This is not Scriptural and fails to embrace teh whole entire counsel of God's Word.
Those in hell are simply there because of their own sin, and have received their due reward, that is, death.
The only way for them to escape is to trust Christ, as in their state prior to trusting Christ these sinners are on their way to hell for their sins, not because or "for' not believing. He came to save His people from their sins.
Thus, no one goes to hell "for" rejecting Christ, or "for" not believing, they are already on their way there now. You've falsely bought into the preachers who say "They are going to hell for not trusting Christ" which is misguided nonsense.
The difference then is one is forgiven of ones sins which would have earned this one hell, and the other dies and goes to hell to pay for the wages of sin forever, justly so, for being a sinner, not "for" not believing. Where does sin send a person if unforgiven of those sins? Hell.
- Status