VERY GOOD---I really like how that explained limited atonement.
You know, one of the very strange things is that of all of TULIP, limited atonement is one that I understood right away. I still can't figure out why people get so upset over it--if you ask them directly if Joe Blow Atheist down the street is saved now because of the Atonement on the Cross, they would say "no, that's universalist teachings"..... so, how can they say(but not mean), that Christ died for everyone??
VERY GOOD---I really like how that explained limited atonement.
You know, one of the very strange things is that of all of TULIP, limited atonement is one that I understood right away. I still can't figure out why people get so upset over it--if you ask them directly if Joe Blow Atheist down the street is saved now because of the Atonement on the Cross, they would say "no, that's universalist teachings"..... so, how can they say(but not mean), that Christ died for everyone??
Because ,and I hesitate to say this , they believe that human faith actuates the atonement........that is the atonement cannot save a soul unless that soul makes it REAL! The main question is over security , some believed God gambled at the cross , but the only gamble at the cross was the Romans.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
... interpretation is necessary to prevent our being misled by the mere sound of words. How many have formed wrong conceptions from the language used in different verses through their failure to understand its sense. To many it appears impious to place a different meaning upon a term than what appears to be its obvious signification; yet a sufficient warning against this should be found in the case of those who have so fanatically and stubbornly adhered to Christ’s words, "this [unleavened bread] is My body," refusing to allow that it must mean "this represents My body" — as "the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are [i.e. symbolize] the seven churches" (Rev. 1:20). The error of Universalism, based upon indefinite terms being given an unlimited meaning, points further warning. Arminianism errs in the same direction. "That He by the grace of God should taste death for every man"(Heb. 2:9) no more included Cain, Pharaoh and Judas than "every man" is to be understood absolutely in Luke 16:16; Romans 12:3; 1 Corinthians 4:5; and "all men" in 1 Timothy 2:4, 6, is no more to be taken as meaning all without exception than it is in Luke 3:15; John 3:26; Acts 22:15.
A W Pink
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Notes on Supralapsarianism & Infralapsarianism"Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" (Romans 9:21).
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
... interpretation is necessary to prevent our being misled by the mere sound of words. How many have formed wrong conceptions from the language used in different verses through their failure to understand its sense. To many it appears impious to place a different meaning upon a term than what appears to be its obvious signification; yet a sufficient warning against this should be found in the case of those who have so fanatically and stubbornly adhered to Christ’s words, "this [unleavened bread] is My body," refusing to allow that it must mean "this represents My body" — as "the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are [i.e. symbolize] the seven churches" (Rev. 1:20). The error of Universalism, based upon indefinite terms being given an unlimited meaning, points further warning. Arminianism errs in the same direction. "That He by the grace of God should taste death for every man"(Heb. 2:9) no more included Cain, Pharaoh and Judas than "every man" is to be understood absolutely in Luke 16:16; Romans 12:3; 1 Corinthians 4:5; and "all men" in 1 Timothy 2:4, 6, is no more to be taken as meaning all without exception than it is in Luke 3:15; John 3:26; Acts 22:15.
A W Pink
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Last edited by cygnusx1; 23rd September 2004 at 08:29 PM.
Hi,
I came into this forum to check out what Calvinism means and didn't know there was such a thing as Reformed Faith!!
Thanks so much for all the links explaining things, I'll be spending some time this week reading through the articles. Was Spurgeon Calvinist or Reformed?? I didn't know he was either/or!
From what I've read in the forum so far I think I've always been Calvinist to a point, so it will be interesting to see how much revelation Holy Spirit gives me.
Spurgeon was both Reformed and a Calvinist. According to my understanding, the two terms are synonymous. Those that call themselves Calvinists ascribe to the theology which John Calvin, one of the leading 17th century reformers, taught in opposition to Roman Catholicism. Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli and many others led the Church in a return to correct Christianity and started and led the Protestant Reformation. It is sad that many Protestant denominations have departed from the Reformed teaching of our fathers, and have since embraced a theology strangely similar to that of Roman Catholicism.
It would be helpful for you to read history on the Reformation and any of the great links provided in the posts above. Sorry if I have rehashed stuff you already know, but I just want to help in any way I can. May God bless you in your understanding of His doctrines!
Vessel of Mercy,
Thanks for your encouragement. I will be looking into Reformed/Calvanism more. I have a question though. Please bare with me as I try and form it.
Today I had a conversation with a friend and was trying to explain predestination to them; and of course I got the usual answer 'But we have free will'. Which is something I'm still processing and couldn't give an answer to. They believe, and I still sort of tend to, that Christ comes to every man during their lifetime, to ask the question 'Will you believe on Me and accept Me?', and that right there, at that point, they have the 'choice' to deny or accept. ( He comes to those who turn Him down too??) What is Calvanism's answer here? Am I turning in circles?
Vessel of Mercy,
Thanks for your encouragement. I will be looking into Reformed/Calvanism more. I have a question though. Please bare with me as I try and form it.
Today I had a conversation with a friend and was trying to explain predestination to them; and of course I got the usual answer 'But we have free will'. Which is something I'm still processing and couldn't give an answer to. They believe, and I still sort of tend to, that Christ comes to every man during their lifetime, to ask the question 'Will you believe on Me and accept Me?', and that right there, at that point, they have the 'choice' to deny or accept. ( He comes to those who turn Him down too??) What is Calvanism's answer here? Am I turning in circles?
Just trying to get a grip,
Tavita
Hi Tavita well if we can have a scripture that says Christ offers every single sinner who ever lives forgiveness we might get somewhere........but I have never read anything like that. I think it is so easy to assume that even if God did offer every man a chance at salvation all would be well ..........but that is not the truth , for many would quite naturally reject it .........now all you have to do is find out why and you will have your answer for man's "free-will" and God's Free Grace. To speak very bluntly , a man seeking out God or asking Him to be His Lord by a natural interaction is as likely as the moon is made out of cheese.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
... interpretation is necessary to prevent our being misled by the mere sound of words. How many have formed wrong conceptions from the language used in different verses through their failure to understand its sense. To many it appears impious to place a different meaning upon a term than what appears to be its obvious signification; yet a sufficient warning against this should be found in the case of those who have so fanatically and stubbornly adhered to Christ’s words, "this [unleavened bread] is My body," refusing to allow that it must mean "this represents My body" — as "the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are [i.e. symbolize] the seven churches" (Rev. 1:20). The error of Universalism, based upon indefinite terms being given an unlimited meaning, points further warning. Arminianism errs in the same direction. "That He by the grace of God should taste death for every man"(Heb. 2:9) no more included Cain, Pharaoh and Judas than "every man" is to be understood absolutely in Luke 16:16; Romans 12:3; 1 Corinthians 4:5; and "all men" in 1 Timothy 2:4, 6, is no more to be taken as meaning all without exception than it is in Luke 3:15; John 3:26; Acts 22:15.
A W Pink
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Notes on Supralapsarianism & Infralapsarianism"Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" (Romans 9:21).
thanks for the link. Definately an interesting read. I would have to say though, that this is something i'm not inclined to take sides on. If I was pressed, I would have to go with infralapsarianism. But really, this is all so new to me-- how I went so many years being so ignorant of things like this, I have no idea!!! LOL
Because ,and I hesitate to say this , they believe that human faith actuates the atonement........that is the atonement cannot save a soul unless that soul makes it REAL! The main question is over security , some believed God gambled at the cross , but the only gamble at the cross was the Romans.
but see, that's just the thing, if faith actuates the atonement, and there are so many who never have faith, then the atonement CANNOT be for all. They actually are agreeing with limited atonement then!!
but see, that's just the thing, if faith actuates the atonement, and there are so many who never have faith, then the atonement CANNOT be for all. They actually are agreeing with limited atonement then!!
very good point Imblessed , sorry I didn't see your response until now .
We believe that Christ's atonement actually atoned , redeemed and bought us many privileges , as well as securing for us everything necessary for a full and free pardon. That includes the gifts of FAITH , REPENTANCE , and the gift of Coming to Christ. We also believe a real transfer took place at Calvary ..........our sins were placed on Christ and His Righteousness was placed upon us. To be received by faith. I have searched the scriptures and on several occasions we are said to have died with Christ and risen with Him. This is only ever spoken of believers!! Very strange if Jesus died for every sinner.
Likewise we believe that the Holy Communion is for believers ONLY , and that the bread and the wine are not to be given to the unbeliever because he has no part in it.
One of my fav verses is "if God be for us , who can be against us , who shall lay any charge against God's Elect"
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
... interpretation is necessary to prevent our being misled by the mere sound of words. How many have formed wrong conceptions from the language used in different verses through their failure to understand its sense. To many it appears impious to place a different meaning upon a term than what appears to be its obvious signification; yet a sufficient warning against this should be found in the case of those who have so fanatically and stubbornly adhered to Christ’s words, "this [unleavened bread] is My body," refusing to allow that it must mean "this represents My body" — as "the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are [i.e. symbolize] the seven churches" (Rev. 1:20). The error of Universalism, based upon indefinite terms being given an unlimited meaning, points further warning. Arminianism errs in the same direction. "That He by the grace of God should taste death for every man"(Heb. 2:9) no more included Cain, Pharaoh and Judas than "every man" is to be understood absolutely in Luke 16:16; Romans 12:3; 1 Corinthians 4:5; and "all men" in 1 Timothy 2:4, 6, is no more to be taken as meaning all without exception than it is in Luke 3:15; John 3:26; Acts 22:15.
A W Pink
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
so, how can they say(but not mean), that Christ died for everyone?? 
very good point Imblessed , sorry I didn't see your response until now .
Linear Mode
