Limited atonement !

[Rockerduck]

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.

I liked the summary at the end. Which is what I have been preaching. We can disagree and still be agreeable. We are one in Christ and that is what Jesus wants us to be. To rise above the fray and be united in Christ Jesus, with the common enemy of the god of this world and not against each other, which against the Holy Spirit.

 

[Rockerduck]

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?

Its a bad thing. But love is the answer. Remember Christ loved us and died for us.

 

[Charlie24]

I liked the summary at the end. Which is what I have been preaching. We can disagree and still be agreeable. We are one in Christ and that is what Jesus wants us to be. To rise above the fray and be united in Christ Jesus, with the common enemy of the god of this world and not against each other, which against the Holy Spirit.

We should thank God that being correct on Doctrine doesn't determine our salvation!

Even though we may disagree and the kitchen may get hot, we are still Brothers in Christ.

 

[Rockerduck]

We should thank God that being correct on Doctrine doesn't determine our salvation!

Even though we may disagree and the kitchen may get hot, we are still Brothers in Christ.

Amen

 

[Charlie24]

Its a bad thing. But love is the answer. Remember Christ loved us and died for us.

On that we agree!

 

[Charlie24]

I liked the summary at the end. Which is what I have been preaching. We can disagree and still be agreeable. We are one in Christ and that is what Jesus wants us to be. To rise above the fray and be united in Christ Jesus, with the common enemy of the god of this world and not against each other, which against the Holy Spirit.

You have to keep in mind that it cuts to the heart of some who see other Brothers proclaim a God that assigns some to hell and they have nothing to say about it. I know all Calvinists don't see it this way, but for the hard core 5 point Calvinist that is the battle they are facing with other Brothers in Christ.

 

[Rhema]

Greetings men,

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

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).

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.

It would be interesting to count up how many times you've called me a troll....
I can think of at least five posts of yours that should be deleted.
And I'm pretty sure that Br. Bear knows my heart. We've spoken at length.
You and I ? Not so much, and I think that's going to stay that way.

Rhema
(Hopefully this post will be deleted too.)

 

[Rockerduck]

You have to keep in mind that it cuts to the heart of some who see other Brothers proclaim a God that assigns some to hell and they have nothing to say about it. I know all Calvinists don't see it this way, but for the hard core 5 point Calvinist that is the battle they are facing with other Brothers in Christ.

I've challenged 5 points Calvinists many times and very publicly. I worked with the Billy Graham crusades and have many stories of 'faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God."

 

[Charlie24]

I've challenged 5 points Calvinists many times and very publicly. I worked with the Billy Graham crusades and have many stories of 'faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God."

So you don't consider yourself a Calvinist? I ask because of your defense of the Calvinists earlier in our conversation.

I could have mistaken that as you being a Calvinist when in reality you're not.

 

[Rhema]

That's because Scripture doesn't explain logic. It assumes it.

That in itself seems to be an assumption, in that most all Christians will tell you that their beliefs are a matter of faith, not logic. Is faith logical? Calvinism purports itself to be logical, but obviously that is strongly debated. It seems to be an almost cultist faith.

Two opposing things cannot both be true at the same time.

I think Schrodinger would disagree with you, given his problems with cats.

I would submit that logic is a construct of the wiring of the human brain, not necessarily a law objectively suffused throughout creation. I would also submit that most all human brains are not wired well. As an example, look at how the common man think of justice. Yet Jesus said:

And when he is come, he will reprove (rebuke) the world of (regarding) sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment (justice):​

(John 16:8 KJV)​

We call this Autognosticism, the tendency of men to convince themselves that they know what is truly good and what is truly evil, apart from what God has directly revealed.

Since Scripture is without error

Well, at the risk of getting into a long debate over another touchy item in the site's Statement of Faith, we might discuss what you mean by "error."

Mark and Luke actually do contradict one another:

And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff (G4464) only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:​

(Mark 6:8 KJV)​

​

And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves (G4464), nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.​

(Luke 9:3 KJV)​

So did Jesus say except for a staff? Or not a staff at all? Then again, you might think such not to be an "error," so we can "put a pin" in it. (Truly.)

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

Not all of it. The story of the stoning of the woman is found only in later copies of the gospel, not in the earlier ones, and then it bounces around in several places depending upon the root manuscript. I will say, however, that it is universally accepted that the timeline of Jesus' actions in the Gospel named John does not follow the timeline of events as specified in the Synoptics.

As one studies this gospel more deeply, it becomes obvious that it was either written by a student of Philo who became a convert, or as a polemic against the work of Philo. One just cannot understand John unless one has read Philo.

Not sure where you're going here.

My apologies that I wasn't more clear, but we can move on. They were merely preemptive arguments regarding the fact that our canon is not the same.

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.

Uh oh... I truly didn't mean to whinge. I was trying to say that I was enjoying our discussion. But I TOTALITY get it about work. (Sorry.)

Best Regards,
Rhema

 

[Butch5]

That in itself seems to be an assumption, in that most all Christians will tell you that their beliefs are a matter of faith, not logic. Is faith logical? Calvinism purports itself to be logical, but obviously that is strongly debated. It seems to be an almost cultist faith.

Yes, faith is logical

I think Schrodinger would disagree with you, given his problems with cats.

I would submit that logic is a construct of the wiring of the human brain, not necessarily a law objectively suffused throughout creation. I would also submit that most all human brains are not wired well. As an example, look at how the common man think of justice. Yet Jesus said:

And when he is come, he will reprove (rebuke) the world of (regarding) sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment (justice):​

(John 16:8 KJV)​

We call this Autognosticism, the tendency of men to convince themselves that they know what is truly good and what is truly evil, apart from what God has directly revealed.

I would disagree with your submission. If you care to explain how two opposing things can both be true at the same time, I'm all ears

Well, at the risk of getting into a long debate over another touchy item in the site's Statement of Faith, we might discuss what you mean by "error."

Mark and Luke actually do contradict one another:

And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff (G4464) only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:​

(Mark 6:8 KJV)​

​

And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves (G4464), nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.​

(Luke 9:3 KJV)​

So did Jesus say except for a staff? Or not a staff at all? Then again, you might think such not to be an "error," so we can "put a pin" in it. (Truly.)

Not sure where you see the contradiction.

Not all of it. The story of the stoning of the woman is found only in later copies of the gospel, not in the earlier ones, and then it bounces around in several places depending upon the root manuscript. I will say, however, that it is universally accepted that the timeline of Jesus' actions in the Gospel named John does not follow the timeline of events as specified in the Synoptics.

Luke is the only one who purports to give an orderly exposition.

As one studies this gospel more deeply, it becomes obvious that it was either written by a student of Philo who became a convert, or as a polemic against the work of Philo. One just cannot understand John unless one has read Philo. So, none of the early Christians understood John? That's a rather bold claim.


My apologies that I wasn't more clear, but we can move on. They were merely preemptive arguments regarding the fact that our canon is not the same.

I'm not sure what your cannon is, as I don't know where you stand

Uh oh... I truly didn't mean to whinge. I was trying to say that I was enjoying our discussion. But I TOTALITY get it about work. (Sorry.)

Best Regards,
Rhema

No worries, I've finally gotten caught up on one business. Now I have to get caught up on the other.

 

[Rhema]

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.

I would note that "pas" in verse seven is plural, correctly rendered "all," and that the word "men" is italicized, meaning that it is not in the Greek text.

The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.​

(John 1:7 KJV)​

People tend to forget the italicization in the KJV.

Prost,
Rhema

 

[Rhema]

Right there in the bold is wrong. Calling people Calvinists is wrong., because you are putting labels on people.

What if they self-identify as a Calvinist?

 

[KingJ]

It would be interesting to count up how many times you've called me a troll....
I can think of at least five posts of yours that should be deleted.
And I'm pretty sure that Br. Bear knows my heart. We've spoken at length.
You and I ? Not so much, and I think that's going to stay that way.

Rhema
(Hopefully this post will be deleted too.)

Exposing and calling out trolling is a must on any discussion forum. If mods read your posts they will agree.

I think you need to ''google'' what an internet troll is.

 

[Rockerduck]

So you don't consider yourself a Calvinist? I ask because of your defense of the Calvinists earlier in our conversation.

I could have mistaken that as you being a Calvinist when in reality you're not.

Just because God chose me, doesn't degate all the people God has called. I've been to church's where a person was convicted and were called, and they came forward to be saved. I've heard many testimonies where God has called men and they knew God was calling them and resisted, finally accepted Christ on their knees. I have many stories I can tell you. Gary Chapman, who wrote the book "the five love languages", Said every he went to church he felt God call him. He said after a few times. He didn't feel the call anymore. He said it scared him so bad, he ran to the front to pray to be saved, and he was.

 

[Rockerduck]

What if they self-identify as a Calvinist?

what if you delf-identify as an Arminian?

 

[Charlie24]

Just because God chose me, doesn't degate all the people God has called. I've been to church's where a person was convicted and were called, and they came forward to be saved. I've heard many testimonies where God has called men and they knew God was calling them and resisted, finally accepted Christ on their knees. I have many stories I can tell you. Gary Chapman, who wrote the book "the five love languages", Said every he went to church he felt God call him. He said after a few times. He didn't feel the call anymore. He said it scared him so bad, he ran to the front to pray to be saved, and he was.

When God calls there is a condition to be met for salvation. You must believe on Christ or the calling is only good for the judgement, being condemned.

Remember 1 Timothy 2:3-6?

"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time."


God wants ALL men/women to be saved, that is His will! "Whosoever will let Him come."

But we see that even God doesn't get His will with disobedient man.

Most of the worlds population from the beginning of time are in Hell.

 

[Butch5]

I would note that "pas" in verse seven is plural, correctly rendered "all," and that the word "men" is italicized, meaning that it is not in the Greek text.

The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.​

(John 1:7 KJV)​

People tend to forget the italicization in the KJV.

Prost,
Rhema

That's correct. However, my argument isn't based on verse 7. It's based on verse 9 which does contain the word man. Pa's and anthropos are both singular. Thus the all or pas in verse 7 refers to every single person.

I'm well aware that the italicized words are not in the Greek text.

 

[Brightfame52]

Did Christ die for every human being of mankind ? No, His Death was limited to them He died and reconciled unto God. Rom 5:10

10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Col 1:21-22

21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled

22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:

Eph 2:16

16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross/or death, having slain the enmity thereby:

Now the word reconciled in Col 1:21 is the greek word apokatallassō:

1. to reconcile completely
2. to reconcile back again
3. bring back a former state of harmony

There is no such thing as Christ dying for people and they not be reconciled to God completely, which is nothing short of Salvation !

So His death is limited to the reconciled completely ! 18

 

[Brightfame52]

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.

This is error.