[Gamecock]

Oh boy, a new Calvin debate! Bump for a read in the AM.

[Cleburne]

I am curious, how many other FR Protestants would agree with Calvin's quite strong sacramentalism? And if not, how do you explain the abundant Scriptural passages lending so much strength to baptism?

My own sacramental theology is very much in line with Calvin, and the general consensus of the Fathers- and, most importantly, the Scriptures, though that sounds rather puffed-up pious (I believe the Bible and you don't!!).

[Conservative til I die]

Who's John Calvin? He's sorta like Charles Taze Russell, Ellen White, and Mary Baker Eddy right?

[rwfromkansas]

This is off-topic, but I don't want to forget it, so any Arminians who believe in God "predestinating by seeing who would choose him," listen up:

Why do you believe that God would predestinate by looking down time to see who would choose him, yet deny limited atonement? If you believe in even that kind of predestination, obviously God knows who will choose him through the ages. God knows that not everyone will choose him and he predestines based on seeing the future in your view. But, the thing is, there could not be any true "unlimited atonement" in this case. Why would God send his Son to shed blood for people that are not predestined since God saw they would not accept him? The Atonement would be limited purely by the act of predestination, even in this contorted view of predestination. God would not shed blood for anybody he knew was going to hell.