Did Christ atone for unbelief?

Your conclusion was false regardless of what preceded it.Your conclusion was indeed bogus i.e.completely untrue and intentionally false.There is nothing circular about it.You can't name a single Calvinist who espouses the nonsensical stuff you created out of whole cloth.

You are preoccupied with your vaunted logic.Just stick with the Bible and specific statements which Calvinists have made in order to overthrow what you think are mistaken doctrines.

That's it for now.Just take this new line of action and you'll fare a bit better.

 

You offered a purely rhetorical argument based on the Detrminist' definition of God's foreknowledge. Typical to the Calvinist agenda around here to slip one by and maybe persuade an onlooker. There have been many treads on foreknowledge, this is not one; but I am confident, that in all honesty, you understand the differences between these views, which you hinge on determinism and non-Calvinist do not, yet is your premise.

That is why I pointed to the false delemma which later begs your question. I simply broke down your argument to expose the only value of it as rhetorical. You still have the burden of proof; that is, to prove God's foreknowledge (your premise) equates to determinism. To misplace this burden of proof back on me still represents a "burden of proof fallacy" on top of your prior rhetoric. Nothing has changed here within your argument, except you add more rhetoric on your aforementioned foreknowledge premise.

You guys and your circular arguments!

 

Rhetoric, avoiding the argument fallacy.

Rhetoric only, no argument even offered.

Rhetoric, negative proof fallacy, and already addressed this fallacy in a previous tread.

Rhetoric, taking the argument to the man = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Rhetoric, Circumstantial Ad Hominem.

Rhetoric, seems you ask me to hang up logic, stick with Calvinist interpretations of the Bible, and this should prove I am mistaken. :laugh: Why??? :laugh:

Boy, you certainly straightened me out about logic! Thanks for the advice. :thumbs:

 

According to : Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture :

rhetoric
1 the art of speaking or writing in a way that is likely to persuade or influence people

So thank you Ben for your compliments!

 

"Rhetoric, language used primarily to persuade and influence beliefs or attributes rather than to prove logically." (Brooke Noel Moore, Richard Parker, Critical Thinking 9th Edition.)

 

Ben,you have yet to offer one scintilla of proof that any Calvinists believe that God is responsible for a person's unbelieving sin.

Stop your long-winded pompous displays and answer the question.That is unless you are just blowing hot air and haven't a clue as to why you are coming up with such tommyrot.

 

Maybe you can help me with the non-Calvinist definition of foreknowledge. I think I understand the Calvinist definition, which is determinist. How is the non-Cal view of foreknowledge not?

I am not arguing the validity of Calvinism, so I don't have to prove it. I simply stated what the view is. Neither did I argue the validity of the non-Cal view, I merely stated what it is.

My argument is that under both views, the number of the saved is fixed. Are you saying that under the non-Cal view, the number is not fixed?

I carried my argument one step further--that if the number is fixed, there is no need for Jesus' death to atone for any but that fixed number. Thus, this line of debate is germane to the OP question.

You seem to be arguing that the number is not fixed, and that's why I asked you to flesh out that argument. If I have misread you, I'll rely on you to set me straight.

 

And here I was --- worried all night that you would be offended and "boot" me again! :tonofbricks:

I really didn't mean all that I said about your continuing Christian life. But I would like some answers (and now the questions are really piling up) to how you know your sins were atoned for.

It rather baffles me because I know that the paint I buy at the store is white. I believe the label -- I open the can -- but none of that changes the color on the outside of my house! Don't you see? I actually have to "REPAINT" before MY house will "become" white!!! :laugh:

skypair

 

Are you claiming to be unfamiliar with the accusation or do you just disagree with it??

Where would one need to start in proving to you the accusation's accuracy?? With "total sovereignty?" with "divine reprobation?" with your believe that we are all now created "total depraved" rather than innocent?

skypair

 

Ah-ha!! I think we have hit upon something at last!!! I DID have the "purchase price!" Although the "paint" has already been "mixed," I had to 1) "need" paint, 2) "shop" for it, 3) find it, 4) believe in it, and 5) not the least important, APPLY it!! (In my analogy, it really matters little to me whether I am "drawn" to Loew's or Home Depot. :laugh: But in real life, yeah, I was "drawn" by God's "advertising.")

Look with me at Rev 3:18 for a moment? This is how I believe my analogy is very pertinent. What did Jesus mean "buy of Me gold tried with fire...; and white raiment... ; and eyesalve... ?" He's speaking allegorically, isn't He, Bob. And the first thing He says is "buy of Me." That is, Jesus is saying "I'm not giving this away! Buy of Me."

I believe He is saying "buy salvation" of Me by believing on Me. Look at the 5 foolish virgins and what the wise told them --- "Go and buy." Both these groups of "buyers" are pictures of the left behind church who can no more "buy" salvation by works than they can a can of paint! But they can "buy" it by believing. And they MUST by it during the tribulation ("tried with fire").

"White raiment?" Can they "buy" that? "White raiment" is sanctification. Again, a choice of how they will use their lives.

Contrast this with pretrib (IMO) Rev 3:20 -- "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." Jesus isn't "breaking down the door," is He. He's "knocking." YOU have to open, friend.

Are you saying that Jesus got in without coming through the 'door' that you opened? Who comes in through the "window" ("any other way"), Bob? A "thief," right?

It should be clear from these examples that I had to "buy" and I had to "open," Bob. I don't even suspect that He was on the inside with me and at the same time "knocking" at the "door" on the inside. "laugh"

And I would ask you -- after reading these words, do you still hear "knocking" outside? You might want to turn around and see if it was Calvin, not Christ, that you "let in."

skypair

 

Bob,

You appear to have the "facts" but not the "faith." You've got a "head knowlege" and, sure enough, Jesus did die for your sins whether you "do" anything about it or not. He is also very merciful so that you don't get what you deserve in this life ("by His stripes ye are healed").

But you claim to have received a whole bunch of stuff that God doesn't just give away. There has to have been something about you that caused God to give those things to you -- to give them to your particular soul and your particular spirit.

You say it is "election" and I say "So God gave these things to you because you are 'elect' and you are 'elect' because God gave them to you." Neither has any foundation in you because you can't prove you are elect --- and you haven't proved that you have what you say you do seeing you have not demonstrated that you understand these passages I gave you to consider. What does "go and buy" mean? What does "and if any man open to Me..."

I appreciate your prayers, though. I have been doing likewise for you. At the very least, the "gospel" you seem to espouse is telling others not to do anything with Jesus until and unless they know that they are "elect."

skypair

 

I am saying that there is not a single Calvinist who believes that God is responsible for someone's unbelief.Yeah,I have never heard that one before.Well mabe you have made that charge in the past.You have come up with the most baseless and outlandish accusations against Calvinists.So I have asked for documentation.So far none has been given.

 

You see these kind of statements of yours are so far in the left field.Your sentence above is the crux of your problem Sp.Do you think some people deserve grace?Do they merit God's mercy?Think things out biblically for a change.I'm sure you can answer your own question from the Word of God after you repent for saying such outrageous stuff.

 

The view of the atonement that you are presenting (not that you necesarily hold it) is faulty because it is man centered. Jesus died to propitiate God; that is, to satisfy God's wrath against sin. If Jesus' death does not satisfy God's wrath against all sin, then God will never in all eternity be satisfied that sin has been paid for. This situation would render Jesus' sacrifice imperfect and incomplete. An imperfect, incomplete sacrifice by Jesus could save NNE; not even the elect.

God is satisfied completely with Jesus work. That is why Jesus' death is the ground of salvation for anyone who believes. That is why the gospel is to be preached to everyone.

 

They go to hell for rejecting Christ. Sin is what separates us from God, but it is not what sends us to hell. Christ made the payment for all sin, but He didn't make all men believe.

Strawman. Christ's sacrifice paid the penalty of sin. What makes salvation "possible" as you say is faith in Christ's sacrifice.