[drstevej]

***Limited vs unlimited atonement is a good example. The Calvinist of today, confuses unbelievers going to hell as justification for a limited atonement. They fail to realize He has already been judged for ALL sins. The cross was all judgement. Forgiveness occurs upon acceptance of Him through faith. If one sins again, the believer is still indwelt by the Holy Spirit, but no longer filled and acts in a reprobate fashion. For many of today's Calvinists, this nicely explains their lack of any love for their fellow man.***

Having read this several times, it makes no sense. The rest of the post wasn't much better.

[ventana]

Having read this several times, it makes no sense

I agree, its pretty obtuse.

But I think the point he is attempting to make is noteworthy. As one who believes the mission Jesus charged us to perform (working to bring others to Christ) is useful to Him, my feeling is this: many of those who deny the efficacy of that mission from a position of alleged authority and contend the scriptures "prove" their case are actively propagandizing against the earthly mission of Christ's Church.

And what else would the adversary do to "improve" on that situation?

The possible loss of salvation of others is a high price to pay for what comes down to an argument over semantics.

v.

[Cvengr]

It's my understanding that Calvinist (5-point) believe Christ's blood only served a limited atonement, that is only an atonement intended for believers, but not all of mankind. I find the atonement was made in an unlimited fashion for all mankind, to cover all sin, but that which may be counted as righteousness in order for that atonement to be credited to a person is the faith of the believer.