Hello Allan,
Good to hear from you.Sorry i missed some time on here...was in the hospital for 4-5 days rehabing a back injury. The last time you posted was post 21......webdog jumped in when i was in hospital and asked why i stopped with you.....i responded to him and you in posts 36 and 39.
I think you mis-understood what I was asking you. So I was not sure if you took offence to what I said.....I am not here to hurt or harm anyone who are brothers in Christ.
Allan I will not avoid or deflect anything intentionally, in case you missed it in post 39 here is what my response was in part
Quote:
Originally Posted by webdog
I don't see it. He pointed out the assumption man has to be given "saving faith". He also pointed out the application of the atonement is what saves, not the atonement in itself. Isn't it your position Christ's atonement purchased the elect apart from faith?
God's wrath against sin has been appeased. God's sin against the sinner is appeased once the atonement is applied. Follow up question...do you believe a finite man can repay an infinite God for an infinite transgression made against Him...and how? Since man is not eternal to begin with, spending the rest of eternity in hell paying for their sin leaves God eternally unpaid...unless...someone who is eternal can pay that fine. Guess who
You asked a question, then say the answer you will receive is inconsistent and not possible. Logically, is it really possible to answer your question given this?
I thought Allan's post 21 also went into greater detail answering what you were looking for...
Hello WD,
Let me attempt to clarify.
ps. you must be very busy at work now?/
No.. I wasn't offended

And I wasn't meaning to sound argumentative in post, so if I was I apologize.
I stopped commenting of my own choice because this wasn't, to me, actually being discussed for the point of understanding and clarification of views. There are aspects that Pink holds, that I hold as well and there are aspects that Pink favors, of which I believe scripture does not. Thus in order to talk about the atonement we must speak to the questions as they arise and not continue on till it has either been resolved or an agreement to disagree can be obtained (in this one obtains a better understanding of what the other holds and therefore you can see where the divergence begins specifically).
I believe there are some aspect of the atonement that are ignored in favor a theological perspective. And since both groups (General and limited) both agree that the sacrifice had to be done according to the Law in order for it to be acceptable unto God.. the issue, in my mind, must begin there.
Therefore the questions regarding the sacrifice of atonement -
"What it does"", "Why it is done", are very important as the Law explains them but we can not just off a major aspect of the Law regarding "Whom was it made on behalf of".
Anyway.. my point was actually not to start up 'again' but help you not '
seem like you are evading', by just continuing to move along. I'm not here to win arguments or debates.. I'm here to better understand other believers views so I can speak with more knowledge and understanding and if a person learns something (them OR me) then God be praised.
Since I work 3rd shift security I sometimes get opportunity to speak and they don't care as long as job aspects are finished and maintained in a timely and regulated manner.
Sorry to hear you were in the hospital.
Hope you are doing better.