He wont get past the 1st security level @ Osteen's house.
-
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!
VERY Limited Atonement: Christ died for Paul
- Thread starter Doubting Thomas
- Start date
He wont get past the 1st security level @ Osteen's house.
Tom Bryant
Well-Known Member
probably not... Although if anyone needed to be reformed it would be Osteen.
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
You are probably right--I may have to nail it on his church house doors instead while one of this televised services are going on. (Thanks for the heads up :thumbs
You are probably right--I may have to nail it on his church house doors instead while one of this televised services are going on. (Thanks for the heads up :thumbs
It is what it is....they would probably shoot you as a "Peeping Tom"......wouldnt Doubt it!:laugh:
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Yes, I would need to come in by stealth.
What are you asking, exactly?
Whats the big difference between RC & Anglicans? Then what are the advantages?
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
In order to make the principles of the New Paulinian Reformation easier to remember for the general public, I've decided to come up with a clever acrostic which encapsulates the key tenets of the system. Calvinism has the infamous 'TULIP', and more recently some Arminians came up with their so-called 'FACTS' (see here: http://evangelicalarminians.org/Outline.FACTS-of-Arminianism-vs-the-TULIP-of-Calvinism), so here is mine:
T--Total badness. This is essentially the same as "total depravity" (but I didn't want to run into any problems with potential copyright infringement), so I've tweaked the name a little. This is also where Calvinists, Arminians, and Paulinianists can find common ground--I like to build bridges, you see.
U--Uno. This is Spanish for 'ONE' (I though about using 'Unam' or 'Unus' to sound more fancy, but Latin is a dead language). That is, there is ONE who wins the race (1 Cor 9:24-27). There is ONE Lord, ONE faith, ONE baptism...and ONE for whom Christ died--Paul (Gal 2:20)
B--Baaahhh. This is the sound that SHEEP make. Christ died for His sheep. However, the word 'sheep' can be singular, or plural, so the meaning is ambiguous. We must check context and compare scripture to scripture. Christ taught that it is for ONE SHEEP that the other 99 are left behind. So logically proceeding from the previous point, 'Uno', we know it's Paul who is the sheep (singular) for whom Christ died.
A--All Things. Paul said he became "ALL THINGS to all men" (1 Cor 9:22). The Greek word "world" is "cosmos". One good definition of "cosmos" is that it is "all things". Therefore, Paul is not only the sheep, but he's also the WORLD that God loves.
D--Destruction. (At first I thought about using 'Damnata' for this final point, but decided no one reads Latin, and this word might not make it past the Baptist board censors...er..moderators). As in, 'vessels of wrath prepared for DESTRUCTION' (Romans 9:22). In other words, the rest of us. This final point flows logically from the first four.
So, there it is. As one can see, there is a remarkable internal coherence among the Five Points of Pauliniansim (ie, it makes no sense to refer to oneself as a 2-, 3-, or even 4-point Paulinianist) and if one doesn't like it...TU-BAD.
T--Total badness. This is essentially the same as "total depravity" (but I didn't want to run into any problems with potential copyright infringement), so I've tweaked the name a little. This is also where Calvinists, Arminians, and Paulinianists can find common ground--I like to build bridges, you see.
U--Uno. This is Spanish for 'ONE' (I though about using 'Unam' or 'Unus' to sound more fancy, but Latin is a dead language). That is, there is ONE who wins the race (1 Cor 9:24-27). There is ONE Lord, ONE faith, ONE baptism...and ONE for whom Christ died--Paul (Gal 2:20)
B--Baaahhh. This is the sound that SHEEP make. Christ died for His sheep. However, the word 'sheep' can be singular, or plural, so the meaning is ambiguous. We must check context and compare scripture to scripture. Christ taught that it is for ONE SHEEP that the other 99 are left behind. So logically proceeding from the previous point, 'Uno', we know it's Paul who is the sheep (singular) for whom Christ died.
A--All Things. Paul said he became "ALL THINGS to all men" (1 Cor 9:22). The Greek word "world" is "cosmos". One good definition of "cosmos" is that it is "all things". Therefore, Paul is not only the sheep, but he's also the WORLD that God loves.
D--Destruction. (At first I thought about using 'Damnata' for this final point, but decided no one reads Latin, and this word might not make it past the Baptist board censors...er..moderators). As in, 'vessels of wrath prepared for DESTRUCTION' (Romans 9:22). In other words, the rest of us. This final point flows logically from the first four.
So, there it is. As one can see, there is a remarkable internal coherence among the Five Points of Pauliniansim (ie, it makes no sense to refer to oneself as a 2-, 3-, or even 4-point Paulinianist) and if one doesn't like it...TU-BAD.
Last edited by a moderator:
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Matt can probably answer this in greater detail, but the first obvious difference is that Papists put too much emphasis on PETER, rather than appropriately emphasizing Paul as they should. One might even say Rome has robbed Paul to pay Peter!
Be careful that you're not guilty of reading back your theology into Paul's words.
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
That's good advice for EVERYONE. Thanks for the reminder. :thumbs:
The only way that atonement is limited is that it is limited to those who will call on the Lord in repentance, which means that anyone CAN be saved. Unfortunately most turn away from the Lord--including many who have tried Christianity but never accepted Christ. They tasted and for some reason didn't like what they tasted, and the world drew them away before they could fully taste of Christ and accept Him.
It's like many foods I've tasted and didn't like and didn't eat enough to learn to like it. I was one who needed more than just one taste before I accepted Christ, and it was nearly a year after my first taste before I actually accepted Christ as my Saviour. Had I just taken that one bite on June 1 and turned away, I would probably still be lost. However, I kept going back because I liked what I had tasted 49 years ago and wanted more, and on May 18 of the following year I called on the Lord for forgiveness and salvation.
One taste was not enough, and my continuing to go back until I realized my need for a Saviour. However, many only take the one taste and then walk away--never looking back. There's a verse that says something like "Taste and see that I am good", but I can't find it. I tasted and found that it was good and wanted more, but many taste and don't like what they taste.
It's like many foods I've tasted and didn't like and didn't eat enough to learn to like it. I was one who needed more than just one taste before I accepted Christ, and it was nearly a year after my first taste before I actually accepted Christ as my Saviour. Had I just taken that one bite on June 1 and turned away, I would probably still be lost. However, I kept going back because I liked what I had tasted 49 years ago and wanted more, and on May 18 of the following year I called on the Lord for forgiveness and salvation.
One taste was not enough, and my continuing to go back until I realized my need for a Saviour. However, many only take the one taste and then walk away--never looking back. There's a verse that says something like "Taste and see that I am good", but I can't find it. I tasted and found that it was good and wanted more, but many taste and don't like what they taste.
Interesting Jon, so you liken it to a taste test! Im not trying to be cynical but did you have any great change that shocked you into it or just small nibbles? Lastly, what was the final thing that set you on the path of Christ?
Oooh, lots! For a start, we don't have Papal Supremacy or indeed any other supremacy (some acknowledge the Pope as Patriarch of the West but only as equal to the other Four (Five if you count Moscow) of the Orthodoxen); this of course has weaknesses as well as strengths, chief of which is that no-one can tell TEC to go jump in a lake, much as most of us would like to. We are however episcopal in church government, susbcribing to the threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons which we believe was established by Christ through the Apostles. For us, though, the priest is less of a 'magic man' than s/he is for Catholics. We do howevere believe in Apostolic Succession.
That's ecclesiology. In terms of theology, we base our doctrine on Scripture, Tradition and Reason, and there needs to be a word or two said about each. Scripture is supreme out of the three but we recognise it needs interpreting by the whole Church through the other two 'legs' of our 'theological stool'. By 'Tradition' we mean the Tradition of the Undivided Church prior to the Great Schism of 1054, in particular the great Creeds and Ecumenical Councils, and we therefore reject Western innovations such as transubstantiation and purgatory. 'Reason' is the one which is most tricky since it has arguably led to the sort of deviations one sees in TEC but, put simply, it recognises that all Christians as human beings bring human reasoning ie: our minds to the table when we study Scripture and, to the extent that those minds are created and regenerated by God through the Holy Spirit, our interpretation of Scripture can be guided by that sort of reasoning. Naturally, the evangelical wing of the Church emphasis Scripture, the Anglo-Catholic wing Tradition and the liberal wing Reason.
Soteriologically, we are Reformed, by and large - and that's the big difference between us and the RCs. However, there are one or two caveats to be attached to this. We don't tend to be as Limited Atonement-y as Calvinists. We also stress the importance of good works as marks of a 'true and lively faith' (Cranmer) and therefore stress James and the Gospels as much as Paul. There is also quite a strong 'participatory' emphasis in our take on justification rather than mere 'juridical' or 'forensic'; we can talk about 'putting on Christ' rather than just 'having faith in Christ' and hence we stress the importance of the sacraments of baptism and communion as means of grace to the Christian.
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
That's a great summary, Matt :thumbs:
(Now if I can just get my fellow Anglicans on board with the New Paulinianist Reformation by embracing the teachings of my 99 PLUS 1 Theses and the Five Points of 'TU-BAD' :smilewinkgrin: )
So in-other words a Sacrament provides Grace
Sreiously the only advantage I see to your church is "Pub Night"
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry to hear that.
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
It might be more accurate that a 'sacrament' is a visible sign/act through which GOD (allegedly) provides grace to the one who has faith.
(Sounds superstitious...I thought matter was supposed to be evil. It's hard to fathom that the Father God, the Great SPIRIT in the sky, would condescend to use something so banal as physical matter to effect man's salvation since man is 'imprisoned' in matter to begin with)
Last edited by a moderator:
:laugh:
You forgot, the issue is not that He chose just that one; but that He didn't have to choose any!
(what is TEC?)