Replies

I hold the doctrine of Limited Attainment, that is, only the elect are irresistibly drawn by the Holy Spirit, justified and ultimately glorified.

I do not hold Limited Atonement because I find some passages (esp. 2 Peter 2:1) that I find hard to reconcile with Particular Redemption. I do appreciate the logic and symetry of Particular redemption but do not find logic and symetry sufficient to set aside passages that indicate that Jesus Christ died for all.

My position does not risk universalism because the Father has not elected all and the Spirit draws only the elect. Jean would remind me that this means that there is "wasted blood" to which I reply, "So be it."

T-U-_-I-P for me.

CCW, is this the summary of my position you were requesting? I refer to myself as an Amyraldian but really my views were solidified before I studied the Amyraut controversy.

I do not hold Limited Atonement because I find some passages (esp. 2 Peter 2:1) that I find hard to reconcile with Particular Redemption. I do appreciate the logic and symetry of Particular redemption but do not find logic and symetry sufficient to set aside passages that indicate that Jesus Christ died for all.

This was basically the response of the pastor whose church I am now attending. He is very close to being a Calvinist, but he said that he is afraid of going "beyond what is written" in Scripture. He thinks that logically the Calvinist makes a tight case, but he would rather be silent on what he believes Scripture to be silent.

He also thinks he doesn't make the Reformed cut because he doesn't hold to Limited Atonement and "struggles" with aspects of Irresistable Grace. However, he gives no place to Arminianism and teaches Lordship salvation, i.e. perseverance of the saints.

I might finally concede with him on the Limited Atonement bit... after more study and prayer. After being a denyer of God's sovereignty to any extent (former open theist), it does seem rather formulaic to get it down to T-U-L-I-P. Isn't that what I was doing before with my Open Theism, making God and His nature ultimately definable? Isn't there a danger in taking the mystery out of God's sovereignty?

I'm not saying that I have reached a definite conclusion in this area (not by a long shot), just voicing aloud my own struggles to come to grips with this. I appreciate all of the godly input from brothers (and sisters) on these doctrines and questions.