Arminian Aberrations cont.

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Luke2427, Feb 8, 2012.

  1. Luke2427

    Luke2427
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    8
    I said:
    Skandelon said:
    It is not true that to affirm sufficiency demands that the only hinderance is man's faith response. That most assuredly is a hinderance, but it is not the ONLY hindrance. That does not follow.

    I have eggs sufficient to feed five families. ONE hindrance to those five families could be their lack of faith that I actually have the eggs- true. But another hindrance could also be that I never intended for four of those five families to ever have my eggs. You'll have to trust that I have good reasons though you cannot understand them. But specifically I only ever intended for MY family to eat those eggs.
     
  2. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    With all due respect, I don't care if you don't think it follows, it is what the Hodges and Shedd are arguing. That is MY point and it is being made to show that one can hold to THIS form of atonement without being deemed a Universalist.

    What does the statement, "No one perishes for lack of atonement," mean to you? If the atonement is truly sufficient AND there is a hinderance to its being applied (besides the lack of faith), then what is that hinderance and how can you still claim its sufficiency if that hindrance prevents its application?
     
  3. Luke2427

    Luke2427
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    8
    It means that there is no deficiency in the work of Christ. No man hungers for want of groceries in my town. There are groceries enough for everyone. That does not mean that the grocer HAS TO intend to stock the shelves of every single person in town.
     
  4. convicted1

    convicted1
    Expand Collapse
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,011
    Likes Received:
    3
    Well, on a lighter note. In your town, if that grocer doesn't stock enough for everyone in town, then he'll soon be out of business. Because, they will go somewhere else to buy what they need, if he doesn't have it in stock....:laugh:


    Now, on to the "mud slinging", err, I mean, thread. :love2:
     
  5. DaChaser1

    DaChaser1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,324
    Likes Received:
    0
    just take the John Calvin view here!

    that the death of Christ upon the Cross sufficient in its value to indeed be able to save all, as being God, death had unlimited value, but ONLY effectual towards being apllied towards those whom God had elected to be saved in Christ!
     
  6. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    And if that is true then the ONLY thing between a person and salvation is their own unbelief, right?
     
  7. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Agreed. Which would be like Calvin said, that all other legal impediments have been removed, save only their unbelief.

    Which would be equal to unconditional election, not atonement. That was my point before. The limiting is not in the atonement, but in the CHOICE of God to elect and irresistibly call some to faith. Just as the hinderance is your intent not to give them eggs, so too the hinderance or limitation is God's intent not to give the non-elect faith. Faith is the only hinderance. We both agree on that point...we just disagree as to the intent of God and the nature by which we have faith.

    So, do we now agree that the only hinderance for salvation is faith? (whether faith is limited by free will or God's will is another discussion)
     
  8. seekingthetruth

    seekingthetruth
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    What? This explains Calvinism? [inflammatory]

    Besides, if you had food for my family and purposely withheld it, for whatever reason, i would never trust you. As a matter of fact, this would make you an enemy of mine, not someone I would "have to trust".

    Your analogies make no sense. Do you use these in sermons?

    John

    Besides, if you only intend for your own family to eat enough eggs for 5 families, ist that the ultimate form of greed and selfishness? Doesnt the Bible teach against this sort of behavior and not promote it? yet you attribute this sort of greed and selfishness to God?

    No wonder i am NOT a Calvinist
     
    #8 seekingthetruth, Feb 9, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 9, 2012

Share This Page

Loading...