Posted on 02/25/2002 11:01:41 PM PST by fortheDeclaration
Did I ever say it didn't matter? I don't think so.
I am constantly aware of the potential for satanic deception in my own life, and care enough for my brother that I don't want him to be ignorant of the possibility.
Yes, don't you?
Hebrews 9:14 ...how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Lie #1. There were some things before this, but here is the first outrigh and blatant lie.
You forgot to answer this question. I answered all of yours plainly.
So do you now agree with me, (and Wesley and Clarke) that man no longer is made in the image of God?
As you know, I've never claimed to be a theological scholar. I've tried to make it fairly plain that I'm presenting what I believe and attempting to grasp the concept of what others believes.
So, in my passion and in the intensity of this forum - with it's once posted, always posted attitude - I occasionally find myself tripping over my own words.
I'm the first to admit that the Calvinists can out debate me. After all most of them either do this professionally or have been here on FreeRepublic for months or years. They're so convinced they're the only ones with the truth that they "know" that I'll either leave in frustration or come over to the dark side.
But in their assertion of their superior spiritual intellect and understanding they are gravely mistaken. They seem to believe that scriptural knowledge equates with scriptural authority or scriptural accuracy.
But the reality is that Uncle Screwtape could out debate the best of us. And he is known by many screen names.
This debate has raged among scholars for some 400 years. It will not be settled because Ward Smythe stumbles over his own words.
No will it be settled because the "totally depraved" believe they are scripturally inerrant.
Good post and good points.
I do think you underestimate your grasp of the logic being used. You are an invaluable ally of the true scriptural position of an UNLIMITED ATONEMENT. Christ truly did die for all. And all truly are capable of coming to him.
We must keep our eyes on those truths of scripture, because all of the logic we use trying to explain it is just that....human logic.
Don't you realize that the same charge can be made against your belief, with very little modification of your statement:
In contrast the God of Arminianism wants many to perish. If He did not, He would ensure the preaching of the Gospel and "Damascus Road" experiences to all and all would go to heaven. Which God is the I am that I am according to scriptures?
You don't answer the "Limited Atonement" of your position. Why do millions die and never hear the name of Jesus? Why doesn't God direct the circumstances of everyone's life in the same way that He did for Saul of Tarsus? Doesn't your God care enough to do enough to make sure that everyone gets the message of salvation? Why don't the birds sing it every morning in every place? Why don't the "rocks cry out" and proclaim His excellence? Why has He concealed Himself from such a great part of His creation? If He really wants to save all without exception, then why isn't He trying harder?
Notice that we have the answer: God has chosen, by the good pleasure of His will, to save those whom He has chosen to save from the punishment that all deserve. He has done everything that is required to carry out the salvation of His elect, and will never lose even one of them. He extends His salvation to the whole world, and will save from every people, tribe, and tongue. He will not be frustrated in carrying out His salvific work, and will be glorified in all that he does. This is the I am that I am of the scriptures.
Whoso sheddeth man's blood - Whether upon a sudden provocation, or premeditated, (for rash anger is heart - murder as well as malice prepense, (Mt 5:21,22)), by man shall his blood be shed - That is, by the magistrate, or whoever is appointed to be the avenger of blood. Before the flood, as it should seem by the story of Cain, God took the punishment of murder into his own hands; but now he committed this judgment to men, to masters of families at first, and afterwards to the heads of countries. For in the image of God made he man - Man is a creature dear to his Creator, and therefore ought to be so to us; God put honour upon him, let us not then put contempt upon him. Such remains of God's image are still even upon fallen man, that he who unjustly kills a man, defaceth the image of God, and doth dishonour to him.
Yes, but He gave them the choice not to come. In His sovereignty, He gave them that choice.
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. - 2 Peter 3:9
There is pretty good evidence that late in life, that Calvin himself recanted "limited atonement" and advocated "unlimited atonement."
To be sure, your statement below that God offers salvation to everyone is NOT a "limited atonement." One either believes a limited atonement or one doesn't.
If the offer goes to EVERYONE, how is that limited? Sounds "unlimited" to me. That's the realization that Calvin arrived at.
1. There is no limitation on the free offer of the Gospel. All who believe will be saved.
2. There is a limitation of the efficacious impact of the atonement. Only those who believe will be saved.
3. What realization did Calvin arrive at? Do you have documentation of this, or is this something that someone posted on a website, but you haven't taken the time to verify? (Or, more probably, it is a misunderstanding from one who doesn't know the distinction between the Gospel offer and the atonement any better than you seem to demonstrate.)
Of course. I wholeheartedly agree with you on this.
But Jesus' death was "for the sins of the whole world." The atonement was sufficient to the point that even if EVERYONE believed the blood would cover all.
The gospel is REALLY offered to all. It isn't just "pretending" in its offer. That would make God duplicitous.
Ward these are apples and oranges and you know it I think:>) Wesley 1st of all speaks in the past tense..man was made in God's image..we know that Wesley no longer believes that we are made in God's image because He told us so in Chapter 5
The argument Wesley makes here is one to support his theology..that there remains enough of God's image ( call it prevenient grace)so that man can make a free choice..
Wesley is NOT saying that man is still made in God's image..He is defending his theology here..that somehow the fall was not totally deadly the dead man could still breath a little bit.
This is NO argument that man is still made in God's image!
This is the classic Calvinist position on Limited Atonement. As I have tried to point out, this is also true for the Arminian. What good does it do a man that the blood of Christ is sufficient to cleanse him from sin if that blood does not cleanse him from sin?
(Note, I am answering the same on both threads, I don't have the time to see which one this really belongs to.)
Of couse you will lead us to your resource right?
X,The blood of Christ is sufficent for all, but effective only for some.
The call goes forth
Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few [are] chosen.
I. "Limited Atonement" Defined
A. LIMITED ATONEMENT DEFINED BY "STRICT" CALVINISTS.
The so-called "strict" Calvinists, such as those in the Dutch Reformed Tradition, and other strict Reformed and Presbyterian traditions define LIMITED ATONEMENT as the theory that the death of the Lord Jesus Christ on Calvary's cross was strictly LIMITED in any and all of its aspects ONLY TO THE ELECT or saved ones, or believers in Christ. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the unsaved or the non-elect people of the world. In NO sense whatever, according to this FALSE VIEW, could you tell a sinner in the audience who eventually would NOT be saved in his lifetime, that "CHRIST DIED FOR YOUR SINS." Christ died (in this FALSE VIEW) ONLY for the sins of the ELECT, and NOT for the sins of the non-elect in any sense whatsoever! This is the definition of "LIMITED ATONEMENT" which I will argue against as being unscriptural and, in effect, therefore, a heretical doctrine!
B. LIMITED ATONEMENT DEFINED BY "MIXED-UP" CALVINISTS
There is, however, a school of what I term "mixed-up" Calvinists, who think they also hold to a "LIMITED ATONEMENT" theory who teach that Christ's death was sufficient for the whole world, but efficient or effective only for those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior. This explanation of Christ's death is CORRECT, and is Scripturally SOUND, but it is NOT the proper definition of "LIMITED ATONEMENT," and all who hold it, therefore, are NOT believers in "LIMITED ATONEMENT," but rather in "UNLIMITED ATONEMENT." This is an important distinction to bear in mind as we progress in our study.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.