Do we all really believe in a 'limited atonement?'

He lost fellowship with the church. He was later accepted back in.
2 Corinthians 2:7 So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow.



Are you saying he was saved (eternally), lost his salvation, and was later saved again?


Rather than asking ME questions in hopes I'll guess what you're talking about, why don't you explain what it is you believe, plainly, because I don't have a clue.

 

See my last post. Comment if you wish,

 

He lost the temporal aspects/benefits of his salvation, but retained the eternal aspects of his salvation.

Why is that hard to understand?

And yes, I'm well aware he was brought back into the fold, 1 Cor 5:5 is a snapshot of what his condition was going to be at that time, At that time Paul didn't know that he would repent.

 

"Saved sheep" = God's redeemed born from above children brought into a covenant relationship with their Saviour.

"Lost sheep" = God's redeemed born from above children without a covenant relationship with their Saviour.

In the NT the word 'lost' is always in conjunction with 'sheep'. Somewhere along the way 'sheep' was dropped. Nowadays, most believe that 'lost' implies goats bound for eternal destruction.

 

How can one be a redeemed, born again, child of God and yet have no relationship with Christ? That makes no sense.

 

So, Christ did not atone for all one's sin. There is the one sin that he must right on his own.

Unless you are going to assert that unbelief is not a sin.

 

Then it's the first one. Christ did not atone for all one's sin. There is still the one act that one must do to be be saved.

 

No they don't, bro. Calvinists assert that belief is a birthmark. They had as much to say about their second birth as they did their first one.

 

Yet another strawman.

"Calvinists" equate election and those who are elect with the fact they will be saved. Each one. Unconditionally.

All the elect will confess this with their mouth.

There is still this pretense in non-cal theology that this applies to some secret mystical group of those not elect, and that 'they too will be saved.'

None who are saved are 'non-elect.'

 

I notice you once again offer no scripture as was requested for your accusation against God. God spelled out the terms to Adam.Adam rebelled and receives the promised consequences. God did not "make"adam rebel....he broke the terms of the covenant.
You twist it once again to "blame God'....calvinists do not blame a holy righteous God for adams sin. You do not seem to like our God. You always blame him...just like the first adam did...the woman you gave me

 

Not cool Icon, not cool...and you KNOW it.

 

I thought it was an excellent post; concise, truthful, and with the application of scriptual type included.

 

Why do we get criticized for seeing God doing what only God can do?

 

When you say, "Can God make me become a Christian?" I tell you yes, for herein rests the power of the gospel. It does not ask your consent; but it gets it. It does not say, "Will you have it?" but it makes you willing in the day of God's power....The gospel wants not your consent, it gets it. It knocks the enmity out of your heart. You say, I do not want to be saved; Christ says you shall be. He makes our will turn round, and then you cry,"'Lord save, or I perish! (C.H.S)

 

Glad You saw it that way, I did not.

 

Spot on answer, and as you say, no Scripture.

I really can't see why quaff decided to butt in here and offer support. Anyone offering support against what you said is at enmity with the truth you've expressed. That type of trite behavios I don't pleasant at all, nor profitable behavior for those confessing believers.

Tell me, why is this the typical response and attitude of non-cals towards the reformed brethren?