Limited atonement !

[KingJ]

Yes, sorry, I can see how that would be ambiguous to you.


Allow me to rephrase....

As a member of that master race, being German, I can readily say that you are making their point for them.



Hope that helps to clarify,
Rhema

You need to explain what ''point'' I am making for them not merely state ''I am making a point for them''. I disagree with you. Explain yourself.

Yet another troll like post. Your posts have no meat. Much ado about nothing. Still waiting for you to respond to the initial rebuttal to your claims on here. You like to evade and create rabbit trails. You are the definition of a troll (look it up).

 

[KingJ]

Greetings men,

Please consider continuing teething in private.
Any further unpleasantries may be deleted.

Work together.
May rephrase that
(Wisdom is referred to as 'she' and 'her'.

Work to-get-her (together)

Post in peace. Remember the principal thing.


Bless you ....><>

PS: it was the Lord Who opened my eyes. Prior to that, I was in ignorance and blind to much/most while considering my 'intelligence' to be good.
I realized how empty my 'intelligence' was, upon being quickened.

If you have tasted and seen that the LORD is good, I think you will understand.

Hi Br Bear, a read of @Rhema posts will show you is trolling and belittling members here. He has a history of doing this on the site too.

 

[Brightfame52]

Did Christ die for every human being of mankind ? No, His Death was limited to them He died and redeemed unto God. Heb 9:12,15

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Now those He died for and redeemed are they which are called, to receive the promise of eternal inheritance or eternal life.

In Gods economy of Salvation, His Kingdom, them who Christ died and redeemed shall be called Isa 43:1

But now thus saith the Lord that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art mine.

Zech 10:8

I will hiss for them, and gather them; for I have redeemed them: and they shall increase as they have increased.

That word hiss means to whistle, pipe it denotes the call of them to be gathered

So the redeemed by the death of Christ, will be effectually called, and that by name, and gathered to their Shepherd !

So the death of Christ is limited to the redeemed, and then called and gathered ! 18

 

[Brightfame52]

Was Paul a human being?

Foolish Unlearned question

 

[Brightfame52]

It's not my opinion. I took you through several chapters of Romans to prove it.

Notice I said several chapters. Not a verse here and a verse there.

On the other hand you jump form boon to book grabbing a passage hare and a passage there.

It is your opinion. Posting scripture doesnt negate that its your opinion on what they mean.

 

[KingJ]

Did Christ die for every human being of mankind ? No, His Death was limited to them He died and redeemed unto God. Heb 9:12,15

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Now those He died for and redeemed are they which are called, to receive the promise of eternal inheritance or eternal life.

In Gods economy of Salvation, His Kingdom, them who Christ died and redeemed shall be called Isa 43:1

But now thus saith the Lord that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art mine.

Zech 10:8

I will hiss for them, and gather them; for I have redeemed them: and they shall increase as they have increased.

That word hiss means to whistle, pipe it denotes the call of them to be gathered

So the redeemed by the death of Christ, will be effectually called, and that by name, and gathered to their Shepherd !

So the death of Christ is limited to the redeemed, and then called and gathered ! 18

You are not here for discussion, this forum is not a message board.

Your post is so weak and has been thoroughly debunked here in this thread, yet you keep re posting the same mindless drivel.

 

[Charlie24]

Did Christ die for every human being of mankind ? No, His Death was limited to them He died and redeemed unto God. Heb 9:12,15

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Now those He died for and redeemed are they which are called, to receive the promise of eternal inheritance or eternal life.

In Gods economy of Salvation, His Kingdom, them who Christ died and redeemed shall be called Isa 43:1

But now thus saith the Lord that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art mine.

Zech 10:8

I will hiss for them, and gather them; for I have redeemed them: and they shall increase as they have increased.

That word hiss means to whistle, pipe it denotes the call of them to be gathered

So the redeemed by the death of Christ, will be effectually called, and that by name, and gathered to their Shepherd !

So the death of Christ is limited to the redeemed, and then called and gathered ! 18

Limited atonement is true in a sense, but there are two separate views on "limited."

The Calvinists view of limited by means of no free will, and limited by the means of free will.

Unlike the Calvinists, some of us believe that "many are called but few are chosen" is referring to those who have freely rejected the call to salvation, with the chosen being those who freely accepted the call to salvation, and are chosen of God from the foundation of the world, God's foreknowledge.

In this view, one must accept the call of his own free will to reap the benefits of the atonement.

In this way, the atonement is actually limited to those who choose to take advantage of it.

 

[Charlie24]

Limited atonement is true in a sense, but there are two separate views on "limited."

The Calvinists view of limited by means of no free will, and limited by the means of free will.

Unlike the Calvinists, some of us believe that "many are called but few are chosen" is referring to those who have freely rejected the call to salvation, with the chosen being those who freely accepted the call to salvation, and are chosen of God from the foundation of the world, God's foreknowledge.

In this view, one must accept the call of his own free will to reap the benefits of the atonement.

In this way, the atonement is actually limited to those who choose to take advantage of it.

But I know you're outspoken on this topic and I'll not argue. Just setting forth the opposite view!

 

[Butch5]

Foolish Unlearned question

But you didn't answer the question.

 

[Butch5]

It is your opinion. Posting scripture doesnt negate that its your opinion on what they mean.

I didn't just post Scripture. I explained how your statement is out of context.

 

[Butch5]

Yet that presupposition itself cannot be found in Scripture. It is an idea brought to the study of Scripture, and hence is not Exegetical. (Unless I missed some scripture somewhere.)

That's because Scripture doesn't explain logic. It assumes it. One of the laws if logic is Non-Contradition. Two opposing things cannot both be true at the same time. Since Scripture is without error and doesn't change anything that contradicts it must be error

But this omits the fact that not all Scripture that is claimed to be Scripture is Scripture. So... said argument might just flush out bad Scripture, as, for example, with the Gospel of Judas.

I believe John's Gospel is universally accepted as Scripture.

As I've mentioned above, the book of Revelation is not in our canon. And at some point, the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas were both removed from the canon.

But, the Gospel of John is.

Rhema
(As a preemptive statement, - C'mon, it wouldn't take God nearly 400 years to get the canon straight.)

(And as a second preemptive statement, - How is it possible to accept the decision of Catholic Bishops regarding what should and should not be scripture when one rejects the Doctrine of Soteriology practiced by these Very Same Bishops... as if God is more interested in preserving a book than he is in saving souls.)

Not sure where you're going here.

PS: @Butch5 I'm kinda sad that you abandoned our discussion.

I didn't abandon it, I forgot about it. I've been pretty slammed at work for the last 3 months and haven't been able to do much.

 

[Butch5]

Did Christ die for every human being of mankind ? No, His Death was limited to them He died and redeemed unto God. Heb 9:12,15

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Now those He died for and redeemed are they which are called, to receive the promise of eternal inheritance or eternal life.

In Gods economy of Salvation, His Kingdom, them who Christ died and redeemed shall be called Isa 43:1

But now thus saith the Lord that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art mine.

Zech 10:8

I will hiss for them, and gather them; for I have redeemed them: and they shall increase as they have increased.

That word hiss means to whistle, pipe it denotes the call of them to be gathered

So the redeemed by the death of Christ, will be effectually called, and that by name, and gathered to their Shepherd !

So the death of Christ is limited to the redeemed, and then called and gathered ! 18

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

The Holy Bible: King James Version. 2009. Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Notice John writes that Christ is the True Light that lights "every" man coming into the world. He uses the singular, not the plural. "Every man." That means every single one. He gives them light so that they might believe. So John rejects your claim that Christ only died for some.

 

[Rockerduck]

Limited atonement is true in a sense, but there are two separate views on "limited."

The Calvinists view of limited by means of no free will, and limited by the means of free will.

Unlike the Calvinists, some of us believe that "many are called but few are chosen" is referring to those who have freely rejected the call to salvation, with the chosen being those who freely accepted the call to salvation, and are chosen of God from the foundation of the world, God's foreknowledge.

In this view, one must accept the call of his own free will to reap the benefits of the atonement.

In this way, the atonement is actually limited to those who choose to take advantage of it.

Right there in the bold is wrong. Calling people Calvinists is wrong., because you are putting labels on people. I believe the "many are called and few are chosen".. I've been a member of this forum since 2011 and only in the last couple of years, I'd say "God chose me", and boom, people call me Calvinist. I only know my experience, not others. That's why I boldly respond that I'm not a Calvinist. I would truly love it, if members here could discuss a doctrinal subject and not ridicule, be condescending, and even insult others intelligence. When did all this calling people Calvinist come from? God is not the author of confusion but of peace.

 

[Charlie24]

Right there in the bold is wrong. Calling people Calvinists is wrong., because you are putting labels on people. I believe the "many are called and few are chosen".. I've been a member of this forum since 2011 and only in the last couple of years, I'd say "God chose me", and boom, people call me Calvinist. I only know my experience, not others. That's why I boldly respond that I'm not a Calvinist. I would truly love it, if members here could discuss a doctrinal subject and not ridicule, be condescending, and even insult others intelligence. When did all this calling people Calvinist come from? God is not the author of confusion but of peace.

That's a quick judgement on something that points only to separate views on limited atonement.

No one was called a Calvinist, only the views were given.

There was no ridicule, only subject matter discussed!

I suppose some have a complex over these issues.

 

[Rockerduck]

That's a quick judgement on something that points only to separate views on limited atonement.

No one was called a Calvinist, only the views were given.

There was no ridicule, only subject matter discussed!

I suppose some have a complex over these issues.

Then let us discuss the bible doctrine and not labels that one point might be aligned with a philosophy. Liberals and Conservatives have always existed together. They argue politics, and still be friends. In religion, it has existed since the Pharisees and Sadducees. They still met together. Now days all I see is attacks on Calvinists. No one is attacking Armenians. When did all this derision start?

 

[Charlie24]

Then let us discuss the bible doctrine and not labels that one point might be aligned with a philosophy. Liberals and Conservatives have always existed together. They argue politics, and still be friends. In religion, it has existed since the Pharisees and Sadducees. They still met together. Now days all I see is attacks on Calvinists. No one is attacking Armenians. When did all this derision start?

It seems to me it started with John Calvin, although the idea was taken from Augustine. At that time most of the Reformers disagreed with ol' John.

Martin Luther was at odds with Calvin on these issues.

 

[Charlie24]

It seems to me it started with John Calvin, although the idea was taken from Augustine. At that time most of the Reformers disagreed with ol' John.

Martin Luther was at odds with Calvin on these issues.

Whether right or wrong in doctrine, I give credit to all the Reformers. They all knew the Church had apostatized and a new course needed to be charted.

 

[Rockerduck]

Whether right or wrong in doctrine, I give credit to all the Reformers. They all knew the Church had apostatized and a new course needed to be charted.

Calvinism vs. Arminianism - which view is correct? | GotQuestions.org

Calvinism vs. Arminianism - which view is correct? What are the five points of Calvinism vs. the five points of Arminianism?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[Charlie24]

Calvinism vs. Arminianism - which view is correct? | GotQuestions.org

Calvinism vs. Arminianism - which view is correct? What are the five points of Calvinism vs. the five points of Arminianism?

www.gotquestions.org

I already know that most of the GQ writers are Calvinists. But I have to say I agree with them on most everything else, a few exceptions.

 

[Charlie24]

I already know that most of the GQ writers are Calvinists. But I have to say I agree with them on most everything else, a few exceptions.

If you search far enough into the history of GQ's, you'll find the opposition writers to Calvinism in the mix.

But now it's almost entirely Calvinist writers. How id that happen?

Another thing to notice, it's surprising how many talk forums out there are operated by Calvinists.

It seems to me that Calvinism is on the rise all the way around.

In your opinion is that a good thing or bad?