Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Was Anyone Saved at the Cross? (Limited Atonement)
Alpha and Omega Ministries ^ | James White

Posted on 07/18/2002 8:49:17 PM PDT by A.J.Armitage

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-308 next last
To: George W. Bush; xzins; winstonchurchill; Revelation 911; The Grammarian
ftD to drstevej: Vance, however, takes the opposite view and agrees with your view that Calvin was not for Unlimited Atonement! I would think you'd been around long enough to know that FR's Calvinists have said exactly the same thing many times. I suppose you're suprised that we Calvinist Baptists don't believe in infant baptism even though Calvin supported it (while admitting the scriptural foundation was quite weak).

We are not discussing other church practices. If that were the case, myself and the Methodists would be in disgreement. We are discussing TULIP which is the Calvinistic system.

I think Calvins views on it are germane to the discussion.

I think you imagine Calvin to be something we do not.

I think you are imagining something that I do not.

BTW, most Arminians are far more Arminian than Arminius was. Since you claim Arminianism, do you consider yourself utterly restricted to Arminius' various doctrinal beliefs? No. And Calvinists are not the prisoners of Jean Chauvin of Geneva (the real one). As I understand it, there were no "Calvinists" until after there were "Arminians". There was merely the broad doctrine of the Reformation churches across Europe, united in a general resistance to Rome (of which Calvin was generally the exemplar outside of Germany), then Arminius' five objections to Reformation doctrine (a retreat to Rome's theology), the Dordt condemnation of "Arminianism", and finally, the name "Calvinists" was attached to those who affirm the TULIP in the broad tradition of the Reformation.

First, the church that calls itself 'Arminian' has moved away from Arminianism, not closer to it.

Second, Arminius views were not a 'retreat' to Romes' position since they do not represent a works system.

What they were were a return to the Bible and a rejection of philosophical speculation.

Calvin would have had no idea what a Calvinist or an Arminian was.

Agreed! Hence his tolarance of Melanchthon's work which was proto-Arminian, bringing back in the human will as a factor in salvation.

Neither would Arminius since he was already dead before his work was latched onto by his anti-Reformation colleagues. Arminius can hardly be claimed as a Reformer in any way since he actually undermined the Reformation.

Oh, give me a break! Arminius was as anti-Catholic as they come!

Arminius is in the full tradition of the Reformation

This is from the Works of Arminius.

For my part when I reflect on the disputes which have produced such a lamentable division in Holland, I can hardly comprhend how men of genius could persuade themselves, that the dogmas of St. Augustine on Predestination and Grace are essential to the Reformation of Christianity;

For there were many holy men, in the purest ages of the Church,who thought directly the reverse of the Father.

Cannot we renounce the monstrous and ridiculous doctrine of Purgatory, the Indulgances, the false Traditions of the Church of Rome, and the Tyranny of the Pope, without believing in Absolute Predestination, and Irresistable Grace?

What was thought of the hypothesis of the Bishop of Hippo, by all those respectable individuals who, struck with the absurdity and falsehood of the doctrines I have just enumerated, embraced the Reformation of the last century?

Did they give themselves the trouble of examining whether it was true or false? Those difficult and abstract questions occupied the sole attention of the divines, who took it into their heads to form a completed system of Divinity; and among them who chose that employment, there were many who have more carefully examined the Holy Scripture, and Ecclesiastical Antiquity,preferred the moderate sentiments of the Greek Fathers.

Even Calvin himself was not persuaded that his own notions respecting Predestination and Grace were essential to Religion; For he took the trouble of translating into French the Common Places of Melenchthon-who thought very differently from him on those controverted subjects, -and in the preface which he prefixed in that work, he bestows on the author all imaginable praise.

Could he conscientiously have acted thus, if he had been persuaded that the sentiments of Melanchthon sapped the foundations of the Reformation?

Many eminent Reformed Divines have openly maintained, that the doctrines of Universal Grace, of the Power to resist its operation and of Conditional Predestination, are in the number of those Articles which every one may believe without renouncing the principles of Religion.

Some learned Hollanders had boldy defended this doctrine, before Arminius became a minister at Amsterdam and a Professor at Leyden, and likewise before Gomarus had risen up against him.

Their writings are still extent; although it is true, that certain ministers who were too hasty, exerted themselves to bring those authors and their productions into dispute; But the States of Holland uniformly checked this impetous zeal.

The Professors of Leyden were allowed a perfect liberty of teaching conformably to the sentiments of Melanchthon; and when Arminius was called to that University, his opinions were generally known; For he had declared them in the Church of Amsterdam, from which he had received very honourable testimonals.

Gomarius, and many others of the same opinion, having entered into conversation with Arminius, made no scruple of acknowledging, immediately that the difference between the sentiments which existed between them, did not at all concern the foundations of the Reformation.

True it is, that Gomarus did not remain long on good terms with Arminius. Whether he had taken umbrage at the reputation of his new collegue, or the enemies of Arminius had found means to provoke the anger of Gomarus by some artful insinuation or other; he violently set his face against a man, some time before, he looked upon as orthodox.

(Le Vassor's History of the Reign of Louis XIII, cited in the Works of Arminius,(3Vol) Testimonies,p.liv)

101 posted on 07/21/2002 1:23:20 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush; xzins; winstonchurchill; Revelation 911; The Grammarian
Now, it must be stated at this point that the man, prior to the offer of "Prevenient Grace" has absolutely nothing but his own natural fallen VIRTUE to use in his decision on whether or not to receive this "Prevenient Grace". Man without the aid of anything from God must decide whether or not to receive the grace that he will then use to create his own salvation from the mere "possible salvation" that Christ wrought on the Cross. Actually, I like this argument very much. The Arminians will reply that their mythical Prevenient Grace is adequate to enable any to repent. But they never answer why they were good enough or smart enough to take advantage of this Prevenient Grace? Were all of them given the same amount? Their enthroning of the god of Human Free Will seems to be a throne of thorns when one considers that they still affirm God's action in their salvation. But in their egalitarian philosophy of salvation, is God any less "cruel" because He didn't give enough Prevenient Grace to save others or send His Holy Spirit strongly enough to convict their hearts? The real root of Arminianism is a judgment of God. They try to explain away His justice because they do actually believe God to be cruel. This is why they make free will the central object of their religion. Their posited free will is a failed attempt to justify God's justice. Their theological artifices like Prevenient Grace are merely the rotten timber used to support their Free Will tower of Babel. Getting back to the article's thrust, it's quite obvious that their Prevenient Grace is only a "possible grace", just as their salvation is a "possible salvation". It's rather striking when you think about it. I keep thinking that we once had a terrific Spurgeon sermon where he dealt with some of these same topics but I can't recall it exactly.

Arminian: Because I'm good enough and I'm smart enough...

No, it was simple obedience to obey the Gospel Then said they unto him, what shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent (Jn.6:29) And this is his commandment, that we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ,(1Jn.3:24)

Calvinist: Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me

And let everyone else go to hell even though He could have saved them! On top of this, God Decrees Adam to sin so we would be all under sin in the first place.

As for your other nonsense,here is something regarding Wesley,

I must, however, confess, that he does not, as some real Protestants, continually harp upon the words FREE grace, and FREE will; but he gives reasons of considerable weight for this. (1.) Christ and his apostles never did so. (2.) He knows the word grace necessarily implies the freeness of a favor; and the word will, the freedom of our choice: and he has too much sense to delight in perpetual tautology. (3.) He finds, by blessed experience, that when the will is touched by Divine grace, and yields to the touch, it is as free to good, as it was before to evil. He dares not, therefore, make the maintaining free will, any more than free breath, the criterion of an unconverted man. On the contrary, he believes none are converted but those who have a free will to follow Jesus; and, far from being ashamed to be called a "free-willer," he affirms it as essential to all men to be "free-willing creatures," as to be "rational animals;" and he supposes he can as soon find a diamond or a flint without gravity, as a good or bad man without free will.

Nor will I conceal that I never heard him use that favorite expression of some good men, Why me? Why me? though he is not at all against their using it, if they can do it to edification. But as he does not see that any of the saints, either of the Old or New Testament ever used it, he is afraid to be humble and "wise above what is written," lest "voluntary humility" should introduce refined pride before he is aware. Doubting, therefore, whether he could say, Why me? Why me? without the self-pleasing idea of his being preferred to thousands, or without a touch of the secret self applause that tickles the Pharisee's heart, when he "thanks God he is not as other men," he leaves the fashionable exclamation to others, with all the refinements of modern divinity; and chooses to keep to St. Paul's expression, "He loved me," which implies no exclusion of his poor fellow sinners; or to that of the royal psalmist, "Lord, what is man, that thou art mindful of him; and the son of man, that thou visitest him."

5. As a consequence of the doctrine of general redemption, Mr. Wesley lays down two axioms, of which he never loses sight in his preaching. The first is, that ALL OUR SALVATION IS OF GOD IN CHRIST, and therefore OF GRACE; -- all opportunities, invitations, inclination, and power to believe being bestowed upon us of mere grace; -- grace most absolutely free: and so far, I hope, that all who are called Gospel ministers agree with him. But he proceeds farther; for, secondly, he asserts with equal confidence, that according to the Gospel dispensation, ALL OUR DAMNATION IS OF OURSELVES, by our obstinate unbelief and avoidable unfaithfulness; as we may "neglect so great salvation," desire to "be excused" from coming to the feast of the Lamb, "make light of" God's gracious offers, refuse to "occupy," bury our talent, and act the part of the "slothful servant;" or, in other words, "resist, grieve, do despite to," and "quench the Spirit of grace," by our moral agency.

The first of these evangelical axioms he builds upon such scriptures as these: -- "In me is thy help. Look unto me and be saved. No man cometh unto me except the Father draw him. What hast thou that thou hast not received? We are not sufficient to think aright of ourselves, all our sufficiency is of God. Christ is exalted to give repentance. Faith is the gift of God. Without me ye can do nothing," &c, &c. And the second he founds upon such passages as these: "This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light. Ye always resist the Holy Ghost. They rejected the counsel of God toward themselves. Grieve not the Spirit. Quench not the Spirit. My Spirit shall not always strive with man. Turn, why will ye die? Kiss the Son, lest ye perish. I gave Jezebel time to repent, and she repented not. The goodness of God leads [not drags,] thee to repentance, who after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up wrath unto thyself. Their eyes have they closed, lest they should see, and be converted, and I should heal them. See that ye refuse not him that speaketh from heaven. I set before you life and death, choose life! Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life. I would have gathered you, and ye would not," &c, &c. http://truthinheart.com/EarlyOberlinCD/CD/Fletcher/1stCk.htm

102 posted on 07/21/2002 1:42:54 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
I can not find Curt Daniel, History and Theology of Calvinism on amazon.com can you give a publisher, date for this publication

Yes, the name of the bookstore is Good Books . Its address is 2456 Devonshire Rd, Springfield, IL. 62703, USA.

They specalize in out of print and second-hand books.

I do not see a phone number on the catalogue, but if you write they will send you one.

I found the Daniel book under the 'new book' section of the Scholarly Reprints catalogue. They have two, 'Good Books' and 'Scholarly Reprints'

103 posted on 07/21/2002 1:53:07 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
I am sorry, I forgot to mention the publisher and date. It is Scholarly Reprints, Dallas, 1993.
104 posted on 07/21/2002 1:55:04 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration; Jean Chauvin
Second, Arminius views were not a 'retreat' to Romes' position since they do not represent a works system.

Not what you really belive: "God made man savable; man makes man saved."

Did I get you quoted right!

BTW, Jean ftd is still telling lies about Melanchthon it seems!
105 posted on 07/21/2002 2:04:42 PM PDT by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody; Jean Chauvin; RnMomof7; fortheDeclaration; xzins
The Arminians never found an answer and ftd actually declared in response to it that man makes salvation complete.

Well, that seems to sum up their position. They rely upon a possible grace to bring them to a possible salvation and which they can then lose by more exercise of their free will. Everywhere you turn with these Arminian folk, it's "Me, ME, ME! Well, I suppose we shouldn't be surprised, given their pro-choice theology.

One can only hope that they have at least assigned God some minor and inconsequential role in their salvation.

Given that some Arminians claim to believe in Eternal Security, one must conclude that, with their possible-grace leading to their possible-salvation, all they can logically expect is Eternal Insecurity.

Actually, I'm not particularly unhappy to have received a Hebrews 10 challenge here. It made me go back and re-read the article several times very closely. I have to say that I'm quite surprised that this author has expounded at such length on Christ as our Intercessor and High Priest and delved into what can be scripturally known of the relationship between the Son and the Father. This is actually a very wonderful teaching. I'm a bit surprised because I've rarely read anyone else who draws these matters using Hebrews 10 as their primary source. And yet, I know of no other place in scripture that paints such a lovely and detailed picture of the relationship between Father and Son and the believer's role in the Father's plan. I like this article very very much. It seems the author expounds nearly everything which can be known from the scripture and not a bit more. How rare to find an expositor so careful in finding both original intent and its universal application. He reminds me a bit of Calvin or Spurgeon at their best.

Of course, you probably suspected I felt that way. I've written at great length on these same matters previously, particularly with reference to Hebrews 10:1-18, the triumphal summary of Hebrews 1-9 and the most authoritative and complete dismissal of the Old Covenant, not to mention the death blow delivered to the Roman and other sacerdotal rituals and sacraments.
106 posted on 07/21/2002 3:13:37 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
Well, did the the "one offering" actually sanctify those for whom it was made or did it simply make it possible for them to be holy?

The finished work of Jesus Christ on the Cross of Calvary made them holy.

Is the action "past and completed" and nothing more required or does something else have to be done?

It is complete.

Like Jesus said "It is finished."

Does Hebrews 10:14 present the Eternal Security of the saints?

Yes. How can they that have been sanctified and perfected by the Eternal Holy God be lost?

"For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified."

107 posted on 07/21/2002 3:19:40 PM PDT by zadok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration; drstevej
Try Here for out of print or unusual books


http://www.alibris.com/
108 posted on 07/21/2002 3:23:26 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
Did you read the entire argument which I have posted twice now elsewhere?

Sorry. I failed to respond to this question. Yes, I saw it at least once before. As I recall, I complimented you on it. When I first read it, I thought it was OPie's work, mostly because it presented a muscular line of reasoning and concluded with an inescapable dichotomy. Very reminiscent of OPie's best writing. I'm sure you know how highly I regard his presentation and logic skills, something I've always envied.

So we can hardly be surprised that the Arminians refused to answer you.
109 posted on 07/21/2002 3:25:23 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Who is Curt Daniel and what are his academic credentials?
110 posted on 07/21/2002 3:32:02 PM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: xzins
"Zd, it's quite obvious from calvinist doctrine that the folks who are to be saved are preselected before time. These preselected ones, then, CANNOT be lost, they cannot perish.

Correct. They cannot perish. Their God is Judge, Jury and Executioner. If God be for them, who can be against them?

By calvinist doctrine you are saying that the verse actually reads: God is not willing that any of the ones who he has already decided cannot fail to exist and cannot ever perish, actually perish.

Correct. They cannot perish. God is the only one who can cause someone to perish. God loves them. He sanctified them and made them holy in His Son Jesus Christ.

What is this: "The theology of the God prone to anxiety attacks?"

The God of the Bible knew all those whom He would Save and all those whom He would DAMN before He even began Creation.

No, He's not anxious. He is the Sovereign Judge and His sheep know His voice.

111 posted on 07/21/2002 3:38:32 PM PDT by zadok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
Check out this link for Curt Daniel. I'll still navigating myself, but it does have some info.

http://members.aol.com/blesshope/

112 posted on 07/21/2002 3:46:32 PM PDT by Wrigley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
I don't know if this is the same person.

http://members.aol.com/rbiblech/

113 posted on 07/21/2002 3:52:46 PM PDT by Wrigley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
"Your concept of God hoping we will vote yes having been given us a neutral zone better fits the expression "anxiety ridden God."

Amen.

114 posted on 07/21/2002 3:53:33 PM PDT by zadok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration; CCWoody; Jean Chauvin; RnMomof7; Jerry_M
I think Calvin's views on it are germane to the discussion.

Well, I suppose. Many people have embraced the sovereignty of God in salvation without reading Calvin. Most "Calvinists" I know did. Among Baptists, you don't all that often hear Baptist clergy calling themselves Calvinists. They quite often describe themselves as "grace men". Jerry_M certainly does, among many others. Those like RnMom and I certainly did not read any Calvin prior to becoming Calvinists and I dont think CCWoody did either, judging by his remarks. I recall that he discovered that he was what is called a Calvinist long after embracing the scriptural doctrines of grace (another term for the TULIP).

Sorry, but we don't fit into that nice little box of yours.

Second, Arminius views were not a 'retreat' to Romes' position since they do not represent a works system.

Yes, they do. They require upon works of men to obtain salvation. We've explained this many times.

Agreed! Hence his [Calvin's] tolerance of Melanchthon's work which was proto-Arminian, bringing back in the human will as a factor in salvation.

As Jean Chauvin has repeatedly pointed out, your claim upon Melanchthon is tenuous at best. I'm not sure Arminians or Calvinists can lay a full claim on him. Or would wish to. It's the same thing with Calvinists with regard to Augustine's body of work.

Even Calvin himself was not persuaded that his own notions respecting Predestination and Grace were essential to Religion; For he took the trouble of translating into French the Common Places of Melenchthon-who thought very differently from him on those controverted subjects, -and in the preface which he prefixed in that work, he bestows on the author all imaginable praise.

This should be no surprise. We Calvinists have denied from the very earliest threads that the Calvinist understanding of scripture is essential to salvation. We have always maintained that it is necessary to a systematic theology that comprehends all of scripture.

And Calvin's blurb of praise for Melanchthon is more complex than you presume. It does not prove your point any more than Arminius' own praise for Calvin's Commentaries which he recommended to all Christians over every work of Christendom except the Bible itself, specifically stating the Commentaries were more valuable than anything written by the ancient church fathers (which is a statement of praise so high I'm not sure that I can quite agree, however greatly I admire the Commentaries as the work of a superb Bible student).

Overall, one can find many praises and rebukes among all the major leaders of the Reformation era. Certainly, we've posted many examples of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and others previously to establish the point. I think it requires a very careful understanding of the full history of the Reformation and its minutiae to really grasp these relationships.

I would suggest you find a more reliable source for historical information on early Arminianism and Calvinism than Le Vassor, given the mischief that occured around his History of Louis XIII. It remains an obscure work in our time.
115 posted on 07/21/2002 3:54:18 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
God is not willing that ANY of His elect will be lost. The sacrifice of Jesus Christ is sufficient to pay for all of their sins, it is impossible for them to be lost.

If that is case, why does the verse describe God as 'longsuffering'?

If God has already decided who is going to be saved and who not, where does the need for 'longsuffering' come in?

Romans 9 answers your question.

22: What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

116 posted on 07/21/2002 4:05:40 PM PDT by zadok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration; CCWoody; RnMomof7
Arminian: Because I'm good enough and I'm smart enough...

ftd: No, it was simple obedience to obey the Gospel...

But the Word teaches that we, as fallen and corrupt creatures (spirtual corpses dead in our trespasses and sin), hate and reject the Truth without exception (except for Christ Himself, the Son of Man). How can you obey prior to receiving grace, being regenerated, believing in Christ and repenting your sins?

Given the general and non-directive sprinkling of (prevenient) grace which you posit and your implicit assumption that each and every human being gets an equal dollop of prevenient grace from God sufficient to repentance unto salvation, then, given the equality of grace which you assume all human beings to receive, you can have no other possible explanation as to why some accept Christ and others refuse than to accept that Arminian believers are either "good enough" or "smart enough" to take advantage of your mythical prevenient grace. Your entire philosophy of God's "fairness" rests upon this contradiction.

Of course, since "grace" has always been generally understood as the "unmerited favor of God in spiritual revelation" then in fact your "prevenient" grace is no grace at all. It's your right as a human being to receive it. Your grace is nothing special. And every person who is ultimately saved or damned has received the same exact dollop of grace from God. Sufficient only to save some, but not all for whom it was intended. There is actually nothing special about your "prevenient" grace. It's no more special than God giving you a kidney or a lung. It's standard equipment for all human beings by your theology.

Don't you even blush when you sing "Amazing Grace"? After all, you have no more grace in you than did Judas or the most depraved of damned souls in history. You all got the same amount prior to salvation. And that is why you must believe that you are good enough or smart enough to repent given the universal equality of God-given grace which you propose.

Tell me, was Paul's dollop of prevenient grace the same as yours? Did Paul have an advantage in grace over you or I as a result of his meeting the resurrected Christ on the road to Damascus? Wasn't that exhibition of grace a little more than prevenient? Merely one of many examples...

Some grace! A possible-grace that may or may not lead to a possible-salvation which you may or may not lose. The author of our article was remarkably mild in his remarks.
117 posted on 07/21/2002 4:18:34 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: zadok; RnMomof7
zadok to ftd: Romans 9 answers your question.

Well, now I know you're a bona fide Calvinist. No Calvinism thread can be considered complete without Romans 9. I remember how RnMom used to point that out rather humorously for us...
118 posted on 07/21/2002 4:24:52 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
:)
119 posted on 07/21/2002 4:30:09 PM PDT by zadok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
Those like RnMom and I certainly did not read any Calvin prior to becoming Calvinists and I dont think CCWoody did either, judging by his remarks. I recall that he discovered that he was what is called a Calvinist long after embracing the scriptural doctrines of grace (another term for the TULIP).

Actually, when I am with my pastor, I refer to myself as Reformed, especially in response to his questions to me. It tends not to upset the few Rabid Arminians that we do have in the congregation. If you will notice that my grace argument, which I distributed to my pastor, used the expression "Reformed theologian" and Arminian.
120 posted on 07/21/2002 4:44:51 PM PDT by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody; RnMomof7; Dakota gal in Seattle; OrthodoxPresbyterian
"Reformed theologian"

A good phrase. But I always smile when I hear it. As long as we're careful with capitalization (i.e. "Reformed theologian" instead of "reformed theologian").

I do believe that when you first came on these threads you weren't even sure what a Calvinist was and then, as soon as you understood what the TULIP was, promptly wrote that you had held the doctrines of sovereignty in salvation long before hearing anything of Calvinism and had acquired those views from your own Bible study.

I was trying to recall the names of a few other "Calvinists" at FR who had that same experience of rather suddenly discovering that they were what are commonly called "Calvinist". I recall a Canadian writer (was his name Arthur Constance?) who wrote many books subsequently but who came to his faith after being snowbound in a cabin for a winter. He also became a Calvinist without knowing what one was. Strangely enough, he was also an inventor and an engineer. What is it with engineering and scientific professions that lead so many toward Calvinist doctrine? I've often noticed this. Is it that the engineering instinct reads the scriptures like a schematic of salvation, knowing full well that nothing in the structure of man is capable of saving himself but only the sovereign power of God? That's my current theory.

I thought these examples tend to deflect the tired accusation that we have acquired a worldly and manmade philosophy of Calvinism. The repeated independent discovery of the doctrines of grace from scripture alone testifies strongly against the accusation ftD has hurled so many times.

Dakota gal in Seattle to A.J.Armitage in #34: For all of my life I thought I was a Presbyterian. After reading your post, I must be a Calvinist.

What a comment this is on some of the modern Presbyterian churches, who once so firmly and universally upheld Calvinist doctrine so intrepidly. I was glad for Dakota_gal but I had to smile a little here. I thought Orthodox Presbyterian should see this one and forgot to flag him earlier.
121 posted on 07/21/2002 5:23:38 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: xzins
1 Timothy 4:10: "We have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe."

First, a typical Arminian quote of a partial verse, let alone a passage in context. Let's correct that:
1 Timothy 4:10 KJV
For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
I think that I prefer to let Dr. Gill, Spurgeon's predecessor, answer your post:
For therefore we both labour
Not in the word and doctrine, though they did; nor in the exercise of internal godliness, though there is a work in faith, and a labour in love; nor with their own hands, at their trades and business, to support themselves, and others; but by enduring hardships and afflictions, as stripes, imprisonment, weariness, pain, watchings, fastings, hunger, thirst, cold, and nakedness; see Corinthians 11:23-27).
And suffer reproach;
with patience and cheerfulness. The Alexandrian copy, and another manuscript, read, "we strive"; or contend even to an agony, combating with sin, Satan, and the world, with profane men, and with false teachers; and to all this they were animated by the promises made to godliness; and therefore they showed it by their practices, or rather by their sufferings, that they believed it to be a true and faithful saying; and which is further conferred by what follows:
because we trust in the living God;
for the accomplishment of the said promises, who has power, and therefore can, and is faithful, and therefore will, make good what he has promised; and since it is life he has promised, faith is the more encouraged to trust in him, since he is the living God, in opposition to, and distinction from, lifeless idols; he has life in himself, essentially, originally, and independently, and is the author and giver of life, natural, spiritual, and eternal, unto others. Wherefore there is good reason to trust in him for the fulfilling of the promises of the present and future life, made unto godliness.
Who is the Saviour of all men;
in a providential way, giving them being and breath, upholding them in their beings, preserving their lives, and indulging them with the blessings and mercies of life; for that he is the Saviour of all men, with a spiritual and everlasting salvation, is not true in fact.
Specially of those that believe;
whom though he saves with an eternal salvation; yet not of this, but of a temporal salvation, are the words to be understood: or as there is a general providence, which attends all mankind, there is a special one which relates to the elect of God; these are regarded in Providence, and are particularly saved and preserved before conversion, in order to be called; and after conversion, after they are brought to believe in Christ, they are preserved from many enemies, and are delivered out of many afflictions and temptations; and are the peculiar care and darlings of providence, being to God as the apple of his eye: and there is a great deal of reason to believe this, for if he is the Saviour of all men, then much more of them who are of more worth, value, and esteem with him, than all the world beside; and if they are saved by him with the greater salvation, then much more with the less; and if he the common Saviour of all men, and especially of saints, whom he saves both ways, then there is great reason to trust in him for the fulfilment of the promises of life, temporal and eternal, made to godliness, and godly persons. This epithet of God seems to be taken out of Psalms 17:7 where he is called (Myowx eyvwm) , "the Saviour of them that trust", or believe.
Your use of 1 Timothy 4:10, if read as literally as you apparently intend to force upon us all, requires a belief in Universalism. Read literally, it plainly contradicts dozens of other scripture passages. Since you deny being any sort of Universalist, then what other explanation can you offer to this verse other than that exposited by Gill, and a very similar reading by Calvin.

This verse cannot be read literally except by a Universalist. Therefore, your "answer" to my post was no answer at all but only a bit of scriptural legerdemain to deflect attention from the points I raised.
122 posted on 07/21/2002 6:01:19 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
I thought these examples tend to deflect the tired accusation that we have acquired a worldly and manmade philosophy of Calvinism.

If anything is a manmade and worldly philosophy it is Arminianism.

Worldly men do not trust in God for their salvation, they trust themselves.

123 posted on 07/21/2002 6:08:21 PM PDT by zadok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
Is it that the engineering instinct reads the scriptures like a schematic of salvation, knowing full well that nothing in the structure of man is capable of saving himself but only the sovereign power of God? That's my current theory.

Actually, the vast majority of engineers that I know who do believe are Arminian. Interestingly, every believing engineer who is a Calvinist that I know is also a pastor.
124 posted on 07/21/2002 6:20:46 PM PDT by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Wrigley; fortheDeclaration
In viewing the website it is the same person.

The book is a transcript of his 75 taped messages and available as a syllabus from a local book store for $30.00. This is why I was unable to find it on amazon. It is privately printed.

The credentials of Dr. Daniel are:
- Central Bible College (B.A.)
- Fuller Theological Seminary (M.Div.)
- University of Edinburgh (Ph.D.)

He is pastor of:
Reformed Bible Church
Springfield, IL

-------

While these credentials are solid, Dr. Nicole far exceeds Dr. Daniel in his academic credentials and especially as a student of Calvin:

Dr. Roger Nicole

Dr. Nicole is Professor of Theology at RTS/Orlando. A native Swiss Reformed theologian, he has long been regarded as one of the preeminent theologians in America. As a bibliophile and distinguished librarian, his personal collection includes Calvin's Commentaries on the Gospels and Acts published during Calvin's lifetime and many other rare volumes from the 1500s and 1600s. Dr. Nicole is an associate editor for the New Geneva Study Bible and a corresponding editor for Christianity Today. He assisted in preparation of the NIV Bible, is a past president of the Evangelical Theological Society, and was a founding member of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. He has written approximately 100 articles and contributed to 50 books and reference works.

Degrees:
- Sorbonne, M.A.
- Gordon Divinity School, Th.D.
- Harvard, Ph.D.

-------
I would give more credence to his assessment of Calvin and the issue of limited atonement rather than Dr. Daniel's. Furthermore the Westminster Theological Journal is a recognized scholarly journal of Calvinistic theology whose editors are careful in screening the articles they publish. (I have had two published by them and am familiar with the process.) To my knowledge no rebutal has been made od Dr. Nicole's article in a journal or major publication.

-----

Therefore I stand by my statement:
***Dr. Roger Nicole's article in Westminster Journal makes a convincing case that Calvin made no definitive statement on the issue.***

-----
BTW, in a PhD course on Calvin's theology at WTS a student wrote his paper on Calvin's view of the atonement. He was unable to make a clear case for either view. The professor, Dr. George Hutchinson responded "men Calvin never addresses the issue directly so you will find statements that may be used to infer either position."

-----
Selah


125 posted on 07/21/2002 6:23:01 PM PDT by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: zadok
If anything is a manmade and worldly philosophy it is Arminianism.

Precisely. Calvinism describes an entirely supernatural salvation. Arminianism is far more worldly, far more acceptable to worldly men.

It is, more than any other thing, the doctrines of grace which makes the world so hate the full Word of God. And scripture tells us to expect this very thing. The Arminian concepts offend no one; they are rather pleasing to hear in fact.

I think history is replete with examples of how the world hates and persecutes those who preach the full Word of God and particularly His sovereignty in the salvation of men. Regardless of the theological anemia of their doctrine, our Arminian friends have succeeded in greatly minimizing the "offensiveness" of the Bible to the world. But they've done so by diminishing the full truth of the Word. Little wonder that they're forced to make begging altar calls and other modern innovations. By contrast, Calvinists, ever assertively preaching and witnessing, routinely witness repentance and faith in converts without doing any begging from a pulpit (although we do make the free offer as well). Calvinists rely upon God and His sovereign grace to convict hearts, not merely upon some persuasive and emotive phrases. What a comfort to know that God is in control and our own human failings can never damn another person, that our God shall prevail in collecting every lamb in Christ's flock. How desperate the plight of the Arminians by comparison.
126 posted on 07/21/2002 6:41:54 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush; zadok
Well, now I know you're a bona fide Calvinist. No Calvinism thread can be considered complete without Romans 9. I remember how RnMom used to point that out rather humorously for us...

Then I read it:>))

127 posted on 07/21/2002 7:05:51 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
Actually, when I am with my pastor, I refer to myself as Reformed, especially in response to his questions to me. It tends not to upset the few Rabid Arminians that we do have in the congregation. If you will notice that my grace argument, which I distributed to my pastor, used the expression "Reformed theologian" and Arminian.

I have started to tell family and friends that I now take a "reformed" position.

The title "Calvinist" makes people nervous..

128 posted on 07/21/2002 7:08:16 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
What is it with engineering and scientific professions that lead so many toward Calvinist doctrine?

Pray mine comes that way huh?

129 posted on 07/21/2002 7:09:57 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Then I read it:>))

And I remember when Romans made me feel so accused and so angry that I couldn't even read it. Literally, like it was written in a foreign language. Of course, for me it was so foreign because it is written in the language of God's utter sovereignty, an idea I didn't like at the time. To put it mildly.
130 posted on 07/21/2002 7:34:30 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: zadok
What is this: "The theology of the God prone to anxiety attacks?" The God of the Bible knew all those whom He would Save and all those whom He would DAMN before He even began Creation.

We both know your argument on this verse is weak. Now try 1 Ti 4:10 - The Savior of the WHOLE world, and especially of those who believe.

The argument in favor of unlimited atonement just builds and builds. That's why there are a good number of 4 pt calvinists.

131 posted on 07/21/2002 7:47:16 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush; fortheDeclaration; winstonchurchill; Revelation 911; The Grammarian
GW, there is no universalism required, as you well know.

Your handling of the verse is simply weak and not very compelling at all. Essentially, you're trying to say that he's not the Savior of the whole world and especially of those who believe.

In other words, your argument is this: "What you see isn't actually what you see." And you have no compelling evidence to make me disbelieve my own eyes and my own ability to read.

And then there's this verse: 1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

It's relentless, GW, the case of obvious scripture continues to build. Should I deny my own eyes on this verse as well?

The atonement is unlimited.

132 posted on 07/21/2002 7:55:33 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: xzins
We both know your argument on this verse is weak

Then why have you not offered a counter?

2 Peter was written to the ELECT. Are you still having a hard time following the context?

"Now try 1 Ti 4:10 - The Savior of the WHOLE world, and especially of those who believe."

George W. already did an excellent job in illustrating that verse in it's proper context in his post #122 .

"The argument in favor of unlimited atonement just builds and builds."

In your own deluded mind Xzins.

Have you even stopped to consider that you might be WRONG?

It doesn't seem as though you have. You assume you are correct and in the process you reject the clear teachings of scripture.

133 posted on 07/21/2002 8:11:44 PM PDT by zadok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
fortheDeclaration wrote:
If that is case, why does the verse describe God as 'longsuffering'? If God has already decided who is going to be saved and who not, where does the need for 'longsuffering' come in?

God is longsuffering because he puts up with (suffers) the sin of the whole world until the last sinner is saved.

134 posted on 07/21/2002 8:16:16 PM PDT by RochesterFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: zadok; fortheDeclaration; winstonchurchill; Revelation 911; The Grammarian
In your own deluded mind Xzins.

Have I called you a name that that is necessary?

GW's response to 1 Ti 4:10 is simply that I shouldn't believe what the verse appears to literally say. He offers no compelling reason for doing so.

Zad, I gave him then another verse that supports a literal rendering of 1 Ti 4:10. It is 1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

There are so many more, Zad. It is impossible for you to prove a limited atonement to one who reads the bible literally.

135 posted on 07/21/2002 8:19:06 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: xzins
1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

This verse simply shows that salvation is open to the Gentiles as well as Israel. .

136 posted on 07/21/2002 8:31:31 PM PDT by zadok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: xzins; George W. Bush; zadok; drstevej; RnMomof7; A.J.Armitage; Jerry_M; OrthodoxPresbyterian

2434 hilasmos {hil-as-mos'} found 2 times in the whole Bible!

Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words:

akin to hileos ("merciful, propitious"), signifies "an expiation, a means whereby sin is covered and remitted." It is used in the NT of Christ Himself as "the propitiation," in 1Jo 2:2; 4:10, signifying that He Himself, through the expiatory sacrifice of His Death, is the Personal means by whom God shows mercy to the sinner who believes on Christ as the One thus provided.

What is indicated is that provision is made for the whole world, so that no one is, by Divine predetermination, excluded from the scope of God's mercy; the efficacy of the "propitiation," however, is made actual for those who believe.

And in the same identical manner when Paul says that "He [Jesus] is the Savior of all men" we do not see any verb which indicates that Jesus has actually been made the Savior by actually bearing the sins of all men in His body. Rather, just like 1 John 2:2, this verse is teaching that Jesus is the means of Salvation for all men and He is the actual Salvation for all those who believe.

Now, I know that you will not like this good reading of these verses because they destroy your "Plan B" salvation garbage. Besides, something else that Paul says to Timothy actually shreds the idea that this verse teaches a Universal Atonement.

137 posted on 07/21/2002 8:37:27 PM PDT by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: xzins; zadok
Gill on 1John 2:2

Verse 2. And he is the propitiation for our sins,.... For the sins of us who now believe, and are Jews: and not for ours only; but for the sins of Old Testament saints, and of those who shall hereafter believe in Christ, and of the Gentiles also, signified in the next clause: but also for [the sins] of the whole world; the Syriac version renders it, "not for us only, but also for the whole world"; that is, not for the Jews only, for John was a Jew, and so were those he wrote unto, but for the Gentiles also. Nothing is more common in Jewish writings than to call the Gentiles amle, "the world"; and Mlweh lk, "the whole world"; and Mlweh twmwa, "the nations of the world" {l};

See Gill on "John 12:19"; and the word "world" is so used in Scripture; see John 3:16; and stands opposed to a notion the Jews have of the Gentiles, that hrpk Nhl Nya, "there is no propitiation for them" {m}: and it is easy to observe, that when this phrase is not used of the Gentiles, it is to be understood in a limited and restrained sense; as when they say {n}, "it happened to a certain high priest, that when he went out of the sanctuary, amle ylwk, "the whole world" went after him;" which could only design the people in the temple. And elsewhere {o} it is said, "amle ylwk, "the "whole world" has left the Misna, and gone after the "Gemara";" which at most can only intend the Jews; and indeed only a majority of their doctors, who were conversant with these writings: and in another place {p}, "amle ylwk, "the whole world" fell on their faces, but Raf did not fall on his face;" where it means no more than the congregation. Once more, it is said {q}, when "R. Simeon ben Gamaliel entered (the synagogue), amle ylwk, "the whole world" stood up before him;" that is, the people in the synagogue: to which may be added {r}, "when a great man makes a mourning, amle ylwk,

"the whole world" come to honour him;" i.e. a great number of persons attend the funeral pomp: and so these phrases, ygylp al amle ylwk, "the whole world" is not divided, or does not dissent {s}; yrbo amle ylwk, "the whole world" are of opinion {t}, are frequently met with in the Talmud, by which, an agreement among the Rabbins, in certain points, is designed; yea, sometimes the phrase, "all the men of the world" {u}, only intend the inhabitants of a city where a synagogue was, and, at most, only the Jews: and so this phrase, "all the world," or "the whole world,"

in Scripture, unless when it signifies the whole universe, or the habitable earth, is always used in a limited sense, either for the Roman empire, or the churches of Christ in the world, or believers, or the present inhabitants of the world, or a part of them only, Luke 2:1; and so it is in this epistle, 1 John 5:19; where the whole world lying in wickedness is manifestly distinguished from the saints, who are of God, and belong not to the world; and therefore cannot be understood of all the individuals in the world; and the like distinction is in this text itself, for "the sins of the whole world" are opposed to "our sins," the sins of the apostle and others to whom he joins himself; who therefore belonged not to, nor were a part of the whole world, for whose sins Christ is a propitiation as for theirs:

so that this passage cannot furnish out any argument for universal redemption; for besides these things, it may be further observed, that for whose sins Christ is a propitiation, their sins are atoned for and pardoned, and their persons justified from all sin, and so shall certainly be glorified, which is not true of the whole world, and every man and woman in it; moreover, Christ is a propitiation through faith in his blood, the benefit of his propitiatory sacrifice is only received and enjoyed through faith; so that in the event it appears that Christ is a propitiation only for believers, a character which does not agree with all mankind;

add to this, that for whom Christ is a propitiation he is also an advocate, 1 John 2:1; but he is not an advocate for every individual person in the world; yea, there is a world he will not pray for John 17:9, and consequently is not a propitiation for them.</Block quote>

Gills point is well taked xzins. Do you believe in the Universal atonement? Does all really mean ALL ? Is every man that every lived and everyman that will ever lived saved ?


138 posted on 07/21/2002 8:40:31 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

Oppps

Bedtime

Gills point is well taken xzins. Do you believe in the Universal atonement? Does all really mean ALL ? Is every man that every lived and every man that will ever live saved ?

139 posted on 07/21/2002 8:41:53 PM PDT by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Thank you for the excellent post.
140 posted on 07/21/2002 8:43:39 PM PDT by zadok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody; xzins
"Plan B" salvation garbage"

Was someone teaching that people that never believed in Jesus Christ are somehow saved by "Plan b"?

It seems like that is how xzins interprets 1 Timothy 4:10

"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe."

If we read this scripture xzins way, we are led to believe that Jesus is the Saviour of EVERYONE, even those who do not believe.

Xzins, are you a Universalist?

141 posted on 07/21/2002 8:56:03 PM PDT by zadok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: zadok; xzins; CCWoody; RnMomof7
This verse simply shows that salvation is open to the Gentiles as well as Israel.

I was about to post the same thing, probably in a long-winded post of many thousands of words. Thank you for your brevity.

Many of the verses the Arminians rely upon are actually teaching salvation for both Jews and Gentiles. Paul, apostle to the Gentiles, teaches this over and over. Certainly, Peter teaches the same in some passages.

And John in his 3:16, always the final refuge of the Arminians.

They ignore the very Jewish nature of the early church and its leadership and the very radical notion of salvation in Christ, to both Jew and Gentile (Greek) which is found in many places in the New Testament. Paul and other early teachers spent a great deal of time dismissing the Old Covenant of Israel and the New Covenant in Christ of all men (Jews and Gentiles).

Oopsie, did I use the word 'all'?

142 posted on 07/21/2002 9:07:51 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: zadok; fortheDeclaration; Revelation 911; winstonchurchill
Again, there is an argument that I should deny what my own eyes see. How about: John 3:16 - For God so loved the WORLD that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

It is impossible to disprove an unlimited atonement to a bible literalist. There are simply too many verses that tie together. Like I said, that's why there are so many 4 point calvinists.

It requires convoluted explanations to get around these verses. It requires a simple literalism to believe them.

143 posted on 07/21/2002 9:11:46 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody; George W. Bush
see #143
144 posted on 07/21/2002 9:13:41 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: zadok
Xzins, are you a Universalist?

No.

145 posted on 07/21/2002 9:15:33 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: xzins
The atonement is unlimited.

It cannot be unlimited. You have apparently discovered a possible-atonement to go along with your possible-grace and possible-salvation and Eternal Insecurity.

Either there is atonement or there is not atonement. Either the death of Christ on the cross redeems a believer or it does not.

There are no theoretical atonements. An atonement which fails to save a man's soul cannot possibly be an atonement. The very concept is non sequitur.

Of what use is a possible atonement? Do you realize that you are saying that Christ's death actually atoned for the souls of the damned who will burn in hell forever?

NO! Christ did not atone for the damned upon His cross. He gave Himself for His own flock, not for the children of the devil.

There can be no atonement without salvation.
146 posted on 07/21/2002 9:16:56 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
See #143
147 posted on 07/21/2002 9:17:09 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush; fortheDeclaration; winstonchurchill; Revelation 911; The Grammarian
The atonement is unlimited. It cannot be unlimited.

But the Bible says it is unlimited.

A simple reading of clear passages says Christ died for all. See #143 again.

Here's another. It simply says what it says. John 1:29: "The next day John saw Jesus coming towards him and said, 'Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.'"

GW, are you a bible literalist? I am.

Also, go read my new thread on George Washington entitled "Was GWashington a Christian?" and tell me what you think. Thanks.

148 posted on 07/21/2002 9:22:34 PM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: RochesterFan; fortheDeclaration

fortheDeclaration wrote:

If that is case, why does the verse describe God as 'longsuffering'? If God has already decided who is going to be saved and who not, where does the need for 'longsuffering' come in?

God is longsuffering because he puts up with (suffers) the sin of the whole world until the last sinner is saved.

Exactly! The Gardener has dug around and watered the tree and cared for it and yet it bears no fruits of His glory. He suffers its existence because He knows that at the appointed time after He has called the last of the elect He fully intends to gather all these worthless trees together and gains His glory by burning them. He is longsuffering toward us letting them consume all the blessings of this earth. The creation is subjected to this futility and she groans and labors with pain. But the creation is subjected to it in hope because she will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

149 posted on 07/21/2002 9:27:39 PM PDT by theAmbassador
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7; zadok; George W. Bush
Christ is a propitiation through faith....

Yep! 1 John 2:2 presents the Propitiation as a noun. There is another verse which says specifically how the sinner receives the benefits of the Propitiation; Romans 3:25. Only one who wishes to violently wrench this verse and those like it out of context can make this verse teach a universal Atonement.
150 posted on 07/21/2002 9:39:50 PM PDT by CCWoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-308 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson