Robert Snow
New Member
:laugh:
I LOVE flowers, thanks. They are the best smelling electronic flowers I have ever encountered.
-
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 of Scripture
- Thread starter Van
- Start date
- Status
I LOVE flowers, thanks. They are the best smelling electronic flowers I have ever encountered.
Tom Butler
New Member
All of them express Biblical truth. But as an alternative to TULIP or ROSES, close but no cigar.
convicted1
Guest
Don't get your nose too close, Bro. Robert. I heard that he dungs'em right before he posts them. :laugh:
convicted1
Guest
That's okay Bro. Tom. I don't smoke.
Since all Calvinists on the BB appear by their lack of topical discussion to accept the rewrite of the T, lets move on to the U.
Here is the original wordings:
The first problem with this is that it should read Unlimited Reconciliation, i.e. available for anyone to receive. The second problem is it says God reconciled all of fallen mankind to Himself, and it should say God is reconciling fallen mankind to Himself, one person at a time.
The exhibits to support this premise are: 1 John 2:2 - Christ would not be the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world if reconciliation was not being offered to the whole world.
Exhibit two is Romans 5:10 which says we were reconciled "to God" by the death of Christ but then draws a distinction between being reconciled in that general way, and being saved. Now this difficulty is explained (exhibit three) in 2 Corinthians 5:18 where again Paul says God reconciled us (an individual rather than general action) and gave us the ministry of reconciliation. Clearly then Paul is saying God provided reconciliation to mankind through the death of Christ, but only those who receive the reconciliation, by God crediting our faith as righteousness and placing us in Christ, are saved. So as God is putting individuals in Christ, He is "reconciling the world to Himself" one individual at a time.
So according to the scriptures referenced the "U" should read:
Here is the original wordings:
The first problem with this is that it should read Unlimited Reconciliation, i.e. available for anyone to receive. The second problem is it says God reconciled all of fallen mankind to Himself, and it should say God is reconciling fallen mankind to Himself, one person at a time.
The exhibits to support this premise are: 1 John 2:2 - Christ would not be the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world if reconciliation was not being offered to the whole world.
Exhibit two is Romans 5:10 which says we were reconciled "to God" by the death of Christ but then draws a distinction between being reconciled in that general way, and being saved. Now this difficulty is explained (exhibit three) in 2 Corinthians 5:18 where again Paul says God reconciled us (an individual rather than general action) and gave us the ministry of reconciliation. Clearly then Paul is saying God provided reconciliation to mankind through the death of Christ, but only those who receive the reconciliation, by God crediting our faith as righteousness and placing us in Christ, are saved. So as God is putting individuals in Christ, He is "reconciling the world to Himself" one individual at a time.
So according to the scriptures referenced the "U" should read:
God provision for the sins of mankind is unlimited, in the fact that the shed blood of jesus had infinite value, God Himself died on the Cross...
Limited in the sense that it fully and actually only covers/propitiation on behalf of those whom have that Grace effectually applied towards them by God, by His Will and for His good pleasure, the Elect!
This is not even a valid presentation of Calvinism's limited atonement. Jesusfan just makes it up from whole cloth, without a shred of biblical support.
I provided several verses that teach God's provision for the sin of mankind is unlimited, Jesus being the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world.
1 John 2:2. Jesusfan says it was limited in scope and then muddies the waters by saying unlimited in value. If it did not provide propitiation for the whole world, all of fallen mankind it was limited in value, being worthless to those not covered. Again, Calvinism is totally unbiblical.
But if we unscramble the muck Calvinism makes of Biblical doctrine, we get the U of the Reformed TULIP.
Last edited by a moderator:
Pretty clear from the Bible that Jesus died as a propiation of the sins of the entire World, in the sense that it had infinite worth, but that ONLY those who come to Him for their sins to be covered and atoned for by the Cross are the saved by it, and those are the ones chosen and elect out beforehand by God!
“L” should stand for Limited Atonement: All mankind has been reconciled to God, but not all men have received the reconciliation. We are individually set apart, chosen, elected and made “at one with God” when we are spiritually baptized into Christ based on God accepting our faith in Christ as sufficient for His purpose.
Lets revise this one too.
As supporting verses, we have God choosing individual based on their faith in the truth such that they are rich in faith, 2 Thessalonians 2:13 and James 2:5. We are made alive together with Christ, Ephesians 2:5. Romans 4:4,5/24 tells us that it is God who credits our faith, it has no value of and in itself.
Lets revise this one too.
As supporting verses, we have God choosing individual based on their faith in the truth such that they are rich in faith, 2 Thessalonians 2:13 and James 2:5. We are made alive together with Christ, Ephesians 2:5. Romans 4:4,5/24 tells us that it is God who credits our faith, it has no value of and in itself.
There was nothing invalid about the presentation. Calvinism says sufficient for all and efficient for the elect. It's of infinite value sufficient to cover the sins of the whole world.
"While the death of Christ is abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world, its saving efficacy is limited to the elect."
Tom Butler
New Member
To most Calvinists, efficiency equals sufficiency. Otherwise, the L in Limited Atonement is meaningless.
convicted1
Guest
Gonna hafta disagree with you on this Brother.....as if you didn't know. :laugh:
There is no sufficiency is something that's never intended for you. Calvinists state that Jesus died for the elect only. The non-elect were left completely out of this atoning process. How is there any sufficiency in this for the non-elect?
That's like me having $200.00 in my pocket(I am talking hypothetically here. I am married, and I haven't had $200.00 in a LONG time :laugh: ). I see a starving child, and eventhough I have the money, unless I offer it to him/her, that money is useless to them. However, if I offer it to them, and they accept it, they can eat. If I offer, and they refuse, they will starve to death. If I offer the money, and they reject it, and die, the blame is in their lap. If I have it, and know they really need it, and don't offer it, and they die? Well, then part of the blame falls to me.
Stop making sense.
The meaning of limited atonement is that it is limited in scope, Christ dying only for the supposedly preselected elect. Jesusfan said Christ provided propitiation for the whole world. That is not Calvinism. Calvinism says Christ died for the elect only and not for all mankind. Calvinists must misrepresent their doctrine in order to offer any sort of biblical defense. It is as if Jesusfan has no concept of the Penal Substitution theory of Atonement, where Christ died only for the sins of the elect and providing absolutely no propititation for the non-elect.
Then Jbh28 posts that Jesusfan had it right. Calvinism must be defended by deception or else it becomes obvious it is unbiblical.
Then Jbh28 posts that Jesusfan had it right. Calvinism must be defended by deception or else it becomes obvious it is unbiblical.
Buried in this doctrine is the doctrine of conditional individual election for salvation during the lifetime of the believers. Thus Calvinism's point, "Unconditional Election of individuals before creation" is utterly removed from the formulation. Calvinism bases their mistaken view on a misunderstanding of the meaning of Ephesians 1:4, where God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. According to the theory, God chose us individually before He created us, redefining the meaning of creation by having all of creation exhaustively planned out and foreordained before God actually created anything. Calvinism rests on redefining words such as creation.
Next they ignore "in Him" or suppy differeing meanings for the phrase. Some say God chose individuals to be placed in Him. Others simply delete it, saying the verse reads He chose us before the foundation of the world. None address the obvious, when God chose His Redeemer, His Lamb, before the foundation of the world, He corporately chose those the Redeemer would redeem, hence He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world.
But why is this corporate election view to be accepted over and against the "individual" election view of Calvinism? Because of 3 or so passages that specifically teach God chooses us individually during our lifetime. 1 Peter 2:9-10 says we lived without mercy before being chosen. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says God chose us through faith in the truth. James 2:5 says God chose those who were poor to the world but rich in faith who were heirs to the promise to those who love God. 1 Corinthians 1:26-31 says individuals were chosen that were consider foolish in the world.
Therefore the Bible actually teaches conditional election, with God determining whose faith to credit as righteousness.
I believe God does offer salvation to all. Even in your example, you have a sufficient amount of money to pay for the child to have some food. You offering it or not doesn't negate that you have a sufficient amount of money. However, I believe God does make an offer to all to repent(Acts 17:30) but only intends to save the believers(elect).
That's funny right there. An anti Calvinist saying we are misrepresenting our doctrine.
Why must you resort to person attacks? You whine and cry when you think we do it to you(when we don't) but now you say I'm being deceptive? He explained what he meant by his statement. Christ'd death is sufficient for all man, but its limited in efficiency to the believers(elect).
Here is what he said,
Speaking of misrepresenting...
It shouldn't. The Cannons of dort(where the 5 points comes from) specifically state it is sufficient for all. Otherwise, it's limiting the power of the atonement in that it wasn't powerful enough.
The limited has to do with 2 things. One is that it's efficient only for believers(elect). We can all agree on that. Where the disagreement is in the intent of the atonement. Christ died to make salvation possible or died specifically for specific people? That's really where the limited part is at. I prefer to say believers here because the Bible is clear that the atonement will only save believers and God never had any intention to save those that die in unbelief. The atonement was never meant to save those that die in unbelief.
convicted1
Guest
- Status