Replies

#1. The guy is a 4 point calvinist. REad the article and see his deference toward Calvin. He is not the only calvinist around who rejects "limited atonement."

#2. I'm not trying to be divisive. I'm trying to be part of the solution that topples calvinism from the stage of Christian History. I think it's bad theology.

Please note that that is not directed at you personally. I've discussed with you in the past and find you an able combatant, one who knows her subject, and most importantly, I consider you a Christian.

#1. The guy is a 4 point calvinist. REad the article and see his deference toward Calvin. He is not the only calvinist around who rejects "limited atonement."

Then the guy is what is referred to as an Amyraldian, not a Calvinist. He may agree with 4 points of Calvinism, others may agree with 3 or 2 or 1, but that doesn't make them a Calvinist. A Calvinist holds to all 5 points.

#2. I'm not trying to be divisive. I'm trying to be part of the solution that topples calvinism from the stage of Christian History. I think it's bad theology.

You may have good intentions (even though I adamantly think you are wrong regarding Calvinism being bad theology), but the tone of your posts is very divisive. It is possible to argue a point without exagerating it to the point of distortion. What you are presenting is not Calvinism - it is an ugly spin on it that offends those of us who believe that the doctrine is actually beautiful.

1. T - Everyone's flippin' crazy and corrupt. 2. U - God's picks some for heaven and some for hell. 3. L - Then he died ONLY for the ones he picked. 4. I - Then he forced them on the busride to heaven. 5. P - And he ain't lettin' any of 'em off 'til they get there.
Xzins, this part is not constructive but inflamatory. In order to improve the level of discourse (cause you know some Calvinist is gonna see this and say you're flippin' crazy and corrupt for writing it), try to avoid such language in the future. It is divisive, and it is a distortion, and it doesn't become you or add anything to your argument.
It makes sense if he died for those he had some hope for. And since the c'vist scholar I quoted says Jesus died for all, then that only makes sense if EVERYONE has a fair and equal shot at a real, unprogrammed hope.
Sorry, but this statement doesn't make sense in light of God's omnipotence. God doesn't "have hope" for anyone. He KNOWS with CERTAINTY who will be saved. His atonement does not cover the sins of those who will not be saved, therefore it is limited to those who will be saved. Even YOU believe in limited atonement of some form unless you are a Universalist.

Please note that that is not directed at you personally. I've discussed with you in the past and find you an able combatant, one who knows her subject, and most importantly, I consider you a Christian.
I consider you a Christian as well, which is why I admonish you to up the level of discourse. I've called Calvinists out on their level of discourse before as well. We can debate till the cows come home, but we needn't make it so ugly that it is just an unfair representation of what the other person believes.