Quotes On Limited Atonement

I was referring to the group who calls themselves Bible Baptists, and yes, the term has a different connotation where I come from, not where I am.

I come from the Philippines, and I am now in the United States.

And I came from Bible Baptists, and in the country I came from, native Bible Baptist pastors and members usually (not always) mean bigoted, holier-than-thou, they are damned, we are saved, baptist briders, with pastors of the ilk that trainbrainmommy describes as abusive, authoritarian, and overbearing.

Sorry if I stepped on your toes, didn't mean to, my mistake.

Carry on, folks, and let's not hijack the thread.

 

I didn’t leave anything out. All sin is damnable, and Jesus took the damnation for those who believe. (Haven’t I made that clear before?)

The scriptural point of reconciliation is 1) for you to quit being dishonest about what I and others believe, and 2) for you (and I as necessary) to conform our views to Scripture. I have shown clear places where your beliefs are in contradiction to Scripture. You have shown no such place for mine.

In each of these first cases, I have shown you to be either misinformed or shown that you have misrepresented some things. As for as spiritually revealed truth vs. Calvinist truth, I am not aware of any difference between what I believe and what Scripture reveals. And you have certainly not shown any. You have shown where you disagree with Scripture, but not where I do. I have no fear of change. I changed about 15 years ago because of the Word. Why should I change back?

[quote[But it occurs that when scripture says that the Word is able to separate in asunder the soul and spirit, that we ought to be able to discover 1) what soul and spirit are and 2) how scripture works that way. But you're not even trying. Your reaction is "no difference." So I am left with trying to "rub your nose in it."[/quote]What do you mean I am not even trying? What is there to try? The Bible does not explain what difference there is between soul and spirit. Furthermore, the Bible uses the terms interchangeable. So why shouldn’t I? Heb 4:12 and 1 Thess 5:23 are the only passages that make this distinction, and in both cases it seems clear that is using the terms rhetorically to talk about the totality of man, or the center of man’s being. I don’t find that confusing.

Absolutely unconscionable. You declare that Christ has failed. That God has failed. This in spite of clear revelation that none of God’s purposes will fail.

No, not at all. Scripture declares a different scenario. It says that man does not choose God, and is not able to please God. My conscience will not allow me to change that to say what you say.

Here again, you are being dishonest. There is absolutely no excuse for this kind of statement from you. You have done it before and have been corrected. You continue in it, leading us to conclude that you are being intentionally and willfully dishonest and therefore living in willful sin.

Why can you not be honest about what we believe? Is it because you will not be able to disagree with us anymore? What is driving you?



As far as I am concerned, this is over. You are being willfully dishonest about what I believe, even after having been told. That is dishonorable, and unethical. This forum deserves better than the likes of your method.

 

Now it's my turn to apologise! I should have written more clearly, because you certainly didn't "step on my toes", and I was not complaining in any way. I just wanted to make sure that I had undestood your earlier message properly.

 

Or for you to 1) own up to your Calvinism and 2) stop using "our words with the devil's dictionary." Seriously, larry, these are necessary on your part.

John Hagee gave a great sermon yesterday on Sardis [means "escaped from," as in from RCC -- Reformation]. She had a name that liveth but was dead. Why? "Remember how ye received, and heard, and hold fast, and repent..." What did Luther say? "faith in Christ alone."

"Faith," Hagee said, "got replaced by formalism." He said, "They've changed His name to their name." That's what systematic theology caused, Lar. Glory is not to God's name but to Calvin's. And don't accuse me -- this is Hagee.

If it's dishonesty for me, so it is for Hagee and a multitude of others who believe the Bible. I'm sorry you cannot objectively assess what I am saying. I accept the fault in that I was not trained to be a communicator. Apparently "dishonesty" is in the eyes of the beholder -- relative to truth as you know it. I thank God I never accused you of such.

Let the words of Jesus be your "rebuke" -- "1 And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. 2 Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God. 3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee. 4 Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy. 5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels." Rev 3:1-5

skypair

 

I have never denied my Calvinism.

I have never done that. I have always defined words scripturally and theologically.

Hagee is a false teacher on many things. On this he is just nonsensical. Systematic theology did not cause anything. It has always existed. Glory is not to Calvin’s name but to God.

The dishonesty involved here is when you accuse me of something I don’t believe, when you know I don’t believe it. It has nothing to do with what you believe, but with what you say I believe.

I have objectively assessed it. I am not sure why you think I haven’t. I have repeated what you believe to show that I understand what you believe. I have used Scripture to refute your belief. And the best you can do is misrepresent what I believe and ignore issues.

Your problem is not in communication. It is in what you believe.

You never had reason to accuse me of such. If you would have accused me of it, it would have been but another dishonest statement on your part. To my knowledge I have never been dishonest about what you believe. And the fact that you have never pointed it out leads me to believe I am rigth ... I have never been dishonest about what you believe.

Furthermore, dishonesty has nothing to do with the eye of the beholder. Dishonesty is when you say something that isn't true. When you say that in Calvinism God is responsible that we believe, not man, you have been dishonest. Calvinism teaches that man is responsible to believe.

How would this rebuke me? This is exactly what I believe and live. Hagee’s take on it (assuming he takes the church age view which I think he does) is nonsense. But that’s beside the point. The passage is great and offers no contradiction to anything i believe.

 

I can believe in the possibility of someone writing a systematic theology in which the author refuses to give glory to God's name, but instead gives it to Calvin's. However, I have never come across such a work. Of course there are several systematic theologies where the theological standpoint is similar to that of Calvin's, but that is not the same thing as giving glory to Calvin's name instead of God's. Perhaps you could let us know who wrote a systematic theology that glorifies Calvin, at the expense of the glory due to God alone, and give us some actual quotes from it to back up what you are saying.

The Reformers were very clear, that salvation is by Grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, in the Scriptures alone, and to the glory of God alone.

I think at least part of the problem is the very name (Calvinism) that is so often given to those beliefs otherwise known as "The Doctrines of Grace" or "Reformed theology". Calvin did not invent what we call "Calvinism". It is just a convenient term for what is called the Doctrines of Grace.

Incidentally, I found the idea of Calvinism/Doctrines of Grace/Reformed theology being something we need to "own up to" rather strange. If all who believed those doctrines kept the fact quiet, this discussion would not be taking place

 

Thanks, David.

I guess a lot of times whilest one is trying to stamp out a fire, he/she actually spreads it. Sorry.

I guess if I have proven anything to myself it is how shallow Calvinism is. You know Calvin's formal training was as a lawyer. And it would appear from the "experiment" in Geneva that he sought to design a church-state, state-church theology even though Jesus said His kingdom was not of this world.

Anyway, David -- I'd be glad to continue along on topic with you if you'd like.

skypair

 

Thanks for your gracious reply, Skypair.

I think you have emphasised one of the points I was making - that as a name for the doctrines of grace held by many baptists, "Calvinism" is inadequate and misleading. Clearly baptists would not be baptsits if they believed what Calvin believed about baptism. And as you say, Calvin's views on the relationship between church and state cannot be reconciled to baptist teaching. But there is nothing in the doctrines of grace themselves that would make it impossible to believe them and still be a baptist. The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, for instance, includes those doctrines.

But I take your (deserved:tonofbricks: ) mild rebuke to me about keeping to the topic (sorry about not doing so before). In order to bring my reply back on topic, here is a quotation about limited atonement, or "particular redemption" as he calls it, a far more positive term, from a sermon by Spurgeon, preached on the morning of 28th February, 1858 at the Music Hall, Royal Surrey Gardens, London:

Now, you are aware that there are different theories of Redemption. All Christians hold that Christ died to redeem, but all Christians do not teach the same redemption. We differ as to the nature of atonement, and as to the design of redemption. For instance, the Arminian holds that Christ, when He died, did not die with an intent to save any particular person; and they teach that Christ's death does not in itself secure, beyond doubt, the salvation of any one man living. They believe that Christ died to make the salvation of all men possible, or that by the doing of something else, any man who pleases may attain unto eternal life; consequently, they are obliged to hold that if man's will would not give way and voluntarily surrender to grace, then Christ's atonement would be unavailing. They hold that there was no particularity and speciality in the death of Christ. Christ died, according to them, as much for Judas in Hell as for Peter who mounted to Heaven. They believe that for those who are consigned to eternal fire, there was a true and real a redemption made as for those who now stand before the throne of the Most High.

Now, we believe no such thing. We hold that Christ, when He died, had an object in view, and that object will most assuredly, and beyond a doubt, be accomplished. We measure the design of Christ's death by the effect of it. If any one asks us, "What did Christ design to do by His death?" we answer that question by asking him another—"What has Christ done, or what will Christ do by His death?" For we declare that the measure of the effect of Christ's love, is the measure of the design of it. We cannot so belie our reason as to think that the intention of Almighty God could be frustrated, or that the design of so great a thing as the atonement, can by any way whatever, be missed of. We hold—we are not afraid to say that we believe—that Christ came into this world with the intention of saving "a multitude which no man can number;" and we believe that as the result of this, every person for whom He died must, beyond the shadow of a doubt, be cleansed from sin, and stand, washed in blood, before the Father's throne. We do not believe that Christ made any effectual atonement for those who are for ever damned; we dare not think that the blood of Christ was ever shed with the intention of saving those whom God foreknew never could be saved, and some of whom were even in Hell when Christ, according to some men's account, died to save them.​

Every blessing to you!