Are they (CRCNA) ordaining women now? My wife was raised Dutch Reformed....how are they different? What confessions do you hold to?
Last edited by a moderator:
-
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!
Tulip: Limited Atonement
- Thread starter SpiritualMadMan
- Start date
Are they (CRCNA) ordaining women now? My wife was raised Dutch Reformed....how are they different? What confessions do you hold to?
Maybe he really is Armenian....are you related to Danny Thomas? LOL
SpiritualMadMan
New Member
I have always had a problem with certain spellings, and IESpell doesn't work all that great in IE8...
SpiritualMadMan
New Member
(The Last Time I tried to Post this the Board Went Down?)
Limited Atonement: Yes it is limited to those who are being saved. For the Calvinist this goes to election and implies Absolute Predestination.
For those of us who ascribe, somewhat, to Aminius, we see the Atonement for Whosoever Will May Come. And is limited only by choice.
Again, for the Calvinist it's solely by God Choice for the individual.
For Arminius, God has paid the Price in Full and the choice is for the individual to choose life.
Will start a Thread on Irresistable Grace.
That should be good, too.
Limited Atonement: Yes it is limited to those who are being saved. For the Calvinist this goes to election and implies Absolute Predestination.
For those of us who ascribe, somewhat, to Aminius, we see the Atonement for Whosoever Will May Come. And is limited only by choice.
Again, for the Calvinist it's solely by God Choice for the individual.
For Arminius, God has paid the Price in Full and the choice is for the individual to choose life.
Will start a Thread on Irresistable Grace.
That should be good, too.Tom Butler
New Member
We we stand before God, none of us will be able to say:
I wanted to be saved but you wouldn't let me.
Or
I didn't want to be saved but you made me.
I wanted to be saved but you wouldn't let me.
Or
I didn't want to be saved but you made me.
Tom Butler
New Member
On second thought, I'd like to amend the above post.
When I had a heart of stone, God gave me a heart of flesh. Then I was willing.
When I had a heart of stone, God gave me a heart of flesh. Then I was willing.
GE:
Yes;
no elect will say: "I wanted to be saved but you wouldn't let me."
No actually saved will say: "I wanted to be saved but you wouldn't let me."
And no reprobate will say: "I wanted to be saved but you wouldn't let me."
It's not even funny; its too dry and logical.
And yes,
no elect will say: "I didn't want to be saved but you made me." He will say, I didn't want to be saved but you saved me non the less.
And no reprobate will say: "I didn't want to be saved but you made me."
Because that in both cases is far too illogical to be funny any more.
Then it became serious, quoting Tom Butler, "When I had a heart of stone, God gave me a heart of flesh. Then I was willing." God didn't give you a heart of flesh when you already had a heart of flesh, but "when I had a heart of STONE".
Calvinistic theological cliché for that is: Regeneration, the irresistibility of God's grace; the inexplicable unobservable (mysterious) Divine wonder of 'been born again'.
Note the Bible always presupposes an elect as one having been born again; not Continuous Present Tense. The 'mystery' is HIDDEN IN but not hidden TO the elect.
Last edited by a moderator:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Step 1 -- "define terms"
If by "atonement" you mean the "atoning sacrifice" at the cross. Then it was completed at the cross once-for all and covers all of mankind. It is an unlimited atoning sacrifice.
If you are also including the Lev 16 concept of atonement then you would need BOTH the "atoning sacrifce" and the "High priestly ministry" of Lev 16 to be completed before the full meaning of the term is completed. In that context then - it is "limited" because the wicked will not be fully atoned for - but rather will burn in the lake of fire.
in Christ,
Bob
SpiritualMadMan
New Member
Thanks Bob! Clear and Concise...
GE:
The SAME cultic, blasphemous jargon over and over and over!
As if Christ "made sacrifice of Himself" while not being "High Priest of Almighty God", but 'became' first, 'priest' from 40 days after his resurrection and promoted to 'high priest' from 1844!
HORRIBLE....
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
You are welcomed.
Many times the differences in POV start with failure to "agree to definition of terms" thus people tend to talk past each other when it is not needed.
in Christ,
Bob
Dr. Walter
New Member
The word "redeem" and "redemption" demand whatever the object is, it is a "purchased possession" rather than "potential" redemption. The atonement is impossible apart from the High Preist office - no such atonement exists in history or in God's purpose of redemption. The issue is both design and application. In Leviticus what the atonement is applied to is equal to what it is designed for. A redemption that does not redeem and an atonement that does not atone is non-existent in Leviticus just as an atonement without preistly application is non-existent in Leviticus.
Dr Walter, if I remember correctly you came onto BB not so long ago. I think you have not made acquaintance with everyone yet.
Well, let me inform you there are some BB authors who think sacrifice could be made without priest or priesthood.
Just to give you perspective I hope.
Well, let me inform you there are some BB authors who think sacrifice could be made without priest or priesthood.
Just to give you perspective I hope.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Which is why WHEN we include the ongoing work of Christ in Heaven as our High Priest today (see Heb 4, 7, 8 and 9) as part of the broader Lev 16 scope for atonement - INSTEAD of limiting it to "atoning sacrifice" at the cross - what we have is the FULL scope of redemption and we have in that case limited atonement - because clearly ALL are not saved nor will they be.
But when I differ with Calvinism's limited atonement it is because it tends to ignore the full Lev 16 scope, reduce the whole thing down to "atoning sacrifice" and then declare that is the sacrifice that was limited!
The Bible teaches an UNLIMITEd atoning sacrifice in 1John 2:2 but a LIMITED atonement (not all mankind saved) IF you accept the full scope definition for the concept of Atonement as we find it in Lev 16.
in Christ,
Bob
Why do we (does the text) say that Jesus died for the sins of the world? Why does the text not teach that Jesus died for the sins of the elect or that Jesus died for the sins of those who "believe (in) Jesus" or who accept the gift of salvation?
The pelagian and semi-pelagian interpretations claim that God's intent and objective is not identical to God's actions and God's results. In other words, process theology. God, like humans, is to be judged by his intent and not his results?
The pelagian and semi-pelagian interpretations claim that God's intent and objective is not identical to God's actions and God's results. In other words, process theology. God, like humans, is to be judged by his intent and not his results?
GE:
Here you have struck at the heart of all Seventh-day Adventism's heresies.
I must say Bob Ryan goes beyond the error of his own church. Mrs E.G. White herself declares Jesus offered up Himself (meaning made 'sacrifice' of Himself) "Himself the Priest". I here refer to one statement of hers only. I believe she will have made countless contradictory statements as well.
SpiritualMadMan
New Member
Originally Posted by Dr. Walter
The word "redeem" and "redemption" demand whatever the object is, it is a "purchased possession" rather than "potential" redemption. The atonement is impossible apart from the High Preist office - no such atonement exists in history or in God's purpose of redemption. The issue is both design and application. In Leviticus what the atonement is applied to is equal to what it is designed for. A redemption that does not redeem and an atonement that does not atone is non-existent in Leviticus just as an atonement without preistly application is non-existent in Leviticus.
This is only a problem if we neglect:
Heb 6:20 where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.
Hebrews 7 goes on to amplify this concept of Priest and King after the "Type" of Melchizidek. Which may well have been a theophany.
Jesus fulfills, in Himself, the requirements of The High(est) Priest.
Jesus offered Himself on the Cross, emptying Himself, becoming Flesh and Bone not Flesh and Blood.
Then offered His own Blood at the Heavenly Altar once for all.
And, now as that Priest intercedes on our behalf as our advocate...
Wouldn't it be better to ask for clarification, rather then accuse, automatically, of cultic or heretical (at least in your view) posts?
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Because it is an "unlimited" atoning sacrifice but a "limited atonement" when you include the High Priestly work of Christ because in that case it encompasses the life, redemption, new birth or rejection of every soul on this planet.
A point where Walter appears to agree - curiously enough.
That aspect needs more review.
Matt 7 "by their fruits you shall know them...Not everyone who SAYS Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven but he who DOES the will of My Father... "
Romans 2 "It is not the hearers of the Law that are JUST before God but the DOERS of the law WILL be JUSTIFIED".
in Christ,
Bob
SpiritualMadMan
New Member
Wow Bob... That palagian whatchamacallit sounds strange...
I would say that God's expressed intent *ALWAYS* comes to pass. And, His actions *ALWAYS* obtain His Objectives...
As I see it, the problem is where we mis-read something and assume we "Know The Mind Of God", which arrogance deserves a hearty, :tonofbricks: (I really wanted Roll on the Floor laughing...)
I see this quite frequently in Word of Faith circles, and other "New Revivalist" groups.
I would say that God's expressed intent *ALWAYS* comes to pass. And, His actions *ALWAYS* obtain His Objectives...
As I see it, the problem is where we mis-read something and assume we "Know The Mind Of God", which arrogance deserves a hearty, :tonofbricks: (I really wanted Roll on the Floor laughing...)
I see this quite frequently in Word of Faith circles, and other "New Revivalist" groups.
GE:
The exact terms of the Scriptures explain things as they really were and are:
Jesus first emptIED Himself;
then becAME 'flesh'; and
on the Cross made "SACRIFICE" of Himself "once for all",
then "OFFERED" His victorious _LIFE_
at the Heavenly Altar of "THE GLORY OF THE FATHER"
IN HAVING BEEN "RAISED FROM THE DEAD" …
right inside the grave of Joseph.
"God WHEN He RAISED Christ from the dead SET Him at his own right hand...
wherefore God hath highly EXALTED Him ...
This Jesus hath God RAISED UP ... “FROM THE DEAD” …
THEREFORE BEING by the right hand of God EXALTED ...
God hath EXALTED Him WITH his right hand: Prince and Saviour ...
FOR FORGIVENESS OF SIN ... T-H-E-R-E!!
THAT SAME Jesus whom ye have crucified
hath God made both LORD AND CHRIST ...
WHEN THEY HEARD THEY WERE PRICKED IN THE HEART."
It is blasphemy and utter ingratitude and unbelief atonement for sin goes on or only began 'in heaven' and that Jesus' BLOOD is 'there', now 'offered' on an 'altar' for the forgiveness of sins. It’s abominable!