MDC
Well-Known Member
No you are wrong and is why I say you espouse compromise and confusion. The doctrinal truths that make up so called Calvinism is the gospel. Which you being educated in these teachings should know. And I know you know the scriptures that justify particular "limited" atonement for the elect. You just find them offensive... or feel sorry for the pelagians and arminians that find it offensive? So quit asking for something from me that you are already prepared to reprove with your Arminian logic. Can you refute election from scripture?? So what makes you think logically you can refute the effectual particular "limited" atoning work of Christ for His elect? And quit crying about me slandering you. I have done no such thingYou say that 5-point Calvinism is the gospel and anything other than that is not the gospel. You are wrong.
If I am illogical in my view of the atonement - show me where I am illogical.
Show me where the scriptures tell us that a person for whom Christ died 2000 years ago can go for 99 years until his deathbed conversion existing as a "child of wrath - even as the rest" and it is illogical to say that the unjustifed can not possibly go for eternity in that same condtion.
Show me either from scripture or logic that the premise on which limited atonement is founded is scriptural or at least logical.
If you have ever done it here, I have yet to notice it.
All I have seen is scriptures which bear on the other 4 points put forth - along with the usual comments about Christ spilling His blood for no reason and other such Calvinist cliches.
Why don't you (in a simple and straight forward manner with no misrepresentation of what I believe or have done in my life or any slander of me) - give me a scripture or two which teach limited atonement and then refute my logic concerning the "children of wrath" both elect and otherwise?
That should be a simple task for you if you have thought it all through enough to be so dug in about your beliefs.
Let's start over again right there shall we?
If you can't or won't then we have nothing more to talk about. Your choice - make your choice in the next post please.
Calling a troll a troll is not not necessarily mean spirited - any more than calling a Pharasee a viper is mean spirited.
I have followed him or her in this forum for some time. I have debated him or her as well - contrary to your saying that I am ashamed to take non-Reformed to task.
That person denies the incarnation and the atoning shedding of Christ's blood for salvation. He or she is not a believer Calvinist, Arminian or otherwise. He or she is a Christian Forums troll and many others will vouch for that.
Upvote
0