[connectthedots]

From the article: I became a full "five-pointer" upon reading the following section:

The question that needs a precise answer is this: Did He or didn't He? Did Christ actually make a substitutionary sacrifice for sins or didn't He? If He did, then it was not for all the world, for then all the world would be saved. (Palmer, The Five Points of Calvinism, p. 47.)

When Palmer admitted that predestination, as it applies to the salvation or eternal damnation of every person, is illogical and not consistent with a loving and just God, and offered no justification for that view other than he believes it anyway; I rejected his brand of Calvinism.

[nobdysfool]

I'm reading his book right now. I've seen what you're talking about, and I have wondered about it, but for now I have chalked it up to him being honest enough to admit that he personally didn't understand it, and wasn't going to try to baffle with bull***t to get past it. I took it as a certain honesty on his part which many so-called authors and self-appointed "authorities" seem to lack, especially in this day and age.

The rest of his book seems solid, at least as far as I've read, so I see no reason to reject his whole book just because he admits he doesn't understand predestination.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

When Palmer admitted that predestination, as it applies to the salvation or eternal damnation of every person, is illogical and not consistent with a loving and just God, and offered no justification for that view other than he believes it anyway; I rejected his brand of Calvinism.

I'd be curious to see the citation in question, where Palmer "admitted that predestination, as it applies to the salvation or eternal damnation of every person, is illogical and not consistent with a loving and just God".

I'm not doubting you've a specific excerpt in mind, I'm just wondering whether or not the wording in question admits of other interpretations than that which you have derived. Perhaps Palmer did not intend the meaning which you have gleaned from that particular section, or constructed his wording poorly.

At any event, I'd be interested to read the Citation you have in mind. Thanks!

best, op