Featured God died for James Holmes

that made lol, thanks

 

I realise that my freind, and that is precisely what I am getting at. The reality is that if you hold to penal substition you must, by definition, hold also to particular redemption. They are hand and glove, two sides of the same coin.

All too often the reformed are accused of redefining terms like 'world', 'all' and 'all men' whilst we are using these terms within their recognised semantic range (in English and also the underlying Greek terms) whilst those opposing us are redefining terms like 'saved' and 'redeemed' to merely speak of potential rather then the complete accomplishment that these words mean and yet we are the ones that cannot be reasoned with

 

Not saying here that YOU did not hold to jesus death as a substitute for sinners, but the truth is that Arminian theolgy DOES in some quarters NOT hold to that view of the atonement, and DO go for more of those other views I had mentioned!

 

Still trying to understand how jesus died for all and paid for their individual sins, yet ONLY some will be actually benfited by that and be saved!

is God not to secure all those that jesus died for, on behalf of?

 

The reformed creeds have the answer my freind, they explain the texts well

 

To the opening poster:

There's a manner of presentation and obligation to show kindness to those suffering when you make that presentation and use your words.

You lack proper diplomacy and empathy for those suffering by how you choose to present your message. It is irresponsible and shows an immature nature.

It's not the time for "shock value preaching." That type of preaching is a very rare need.

 

firstly let us note that is an anachronism as the term was not coined until the turn of the twentifieth century!

Secondly, though there is much dispute as to what Calvin believed in regards to the extent of the atonement only those ignorent of his theology make such catagoric statements my freind. No I assume the quote you used is from chosen but free?

It takes a lot more then one uncited snippet of Calvin's words to establish his views, and how they developed over his life time. whilst nothing will replace actually reading Calvin himself, in his historic context, a good summary of the teaching of calvin on the atonement is "Calvin and the Atonement' by Robert A Peterson, SR. What is interesting is that Peterson used to think in the same way as Geisler does until he studied Calvin.

The reality is that there was no debate within reformed circles regarding the extent of the atonement (there was debate with the anabaptists but Calvin considered their theology 'too purile to be worthy of refutation.") It is only later developments that have caused us to carefully define our terms and speak presicely in regards to the extent of the atonement - in Calvins day there was no need and so we do see what appears to be two clear trains of thought one limited and one general in calvins words - the question is what did he think was general and what limited? Most likley he had a scholastict view, that the ationement was efficeient for all, but only sufficient for the elect.

 

So did Hodge and berkhof and calvin! As i read though while in school...

still a dispy, "reformed" kind of one as am into progressive wing of it, but so see also the DoG has being the way tht God does salvation!

 

This is why I perfer the term "particular atonement", as sometimes those not holding to same views as cals in salvation say that Cals teach that jesus death was limited as hold to a limited atonement...

My take is that the worth of his death was infinite in value, as it was God Hilself in the person of his Son making the atonemnt, but that it is effectually, benefits ONLY the Elect of God!

 

I go for 'particular redemption' myself