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

Same here. The response to it was unfounded and prattle.

 

Bro, look, nothing we say, even with Scripture, and proving their strawman claims wrong will ever sway them to the acknowledgment of the truth.

Answering and wrangling back and forth with them day in and day out isn't really a profitable engagement. It's not worth it to cast pearls only to see snide attacks and remarks parade by day after day when you do. Post after post is made with a strawman comment against "Calvinists" and it all heads down the same useless rabbit trail of denial by them, and the same parade, yet again from the tribe that adds nothing theological or even spiritual to the debate at hand. Just remarks about the person over and over and over, or how they feel about the person over and over and over.

It's like feeding that stray cat, you do it, and it keeps coming back, so don't. It would be nice to actually have some fruitful discussions with some brothers on the reformed side without all this banter from theirs.

By the way, congrats to the G-Men, great ball game.

 

Despites Skan pointing us back to post #6, I don't think he has really answered why he things that a person Goes to hell for the single sin of unbelief, which is somehow the only sin not atoned for by the cross.

This is a repeat of the often-heard statement on this forum that people don't go to hell for their sins, but only for their rejection of the gospel. Which simply doesn't jive with Romans 1 and the many who have died without ever hearing the gospel.

 

You're correct, it's errant teaching.

 

Thank you 12 strings, you give great examples of HOW one should question and disagree with another. Blessings to you.

 

The only thing you have "proved" is that you can ONLY have reasonable discussions with someone who aligns with YOU. That is all.

 

Well, it is enlightening to be obliged to give an answer to even a strawman claim.

And, certainly the wrangling of each day can be a tiresome read - especially when I don't remember where I left off reading the day before.

But, it is good to OCCASIONALLY feed a stray cat. That keeps them coming back when hungry and perhaps find a mouse or two.

 

What is not "cool' is ascribing adams sin to God. We sinned in adam.We get a sin nature from Adam....as the consequence of his sin.
we have gone over this several times...yet ...our unelected calvisist spokesman...tries to tell us what we believe....and the thing that is "not cool "is....it never matches what we believe.
there is a non stop attack on what we believe...by our "spokesman"
God is not responsible in any way for Adams sin.....Adam is.

The NATURE we get from God...is the NEW NATURE...at new birth. We get that from the LAST ADAM.....

 

:applause: :thumbsup:

 

Skan is not saying that....and you know it. His claim, his argrument, is that reformational (calvinistic) theology, taken to an extreme logical position must assert that. He is making this observation as a point of discussion and debate...and you know this too.

It is much akin to the consistent claim that if you are not calvinist in your theology then you do not believe that God is sovereign or that you elevate oneself.

Both are bogus.....and we all know it.

 

Amen to your teachings here concerning sin nature/Adam.

To your point about our unelected spokesperson, spot on accuracy. :thumbsup:

He doesn't know what we believe, acts as if he does, but as you say it doesn't match, falls short, and then the relentless attack built upon his own subjective opinions and personal experiences. :sleeping_2:

It gets old dismantling his theories. No, that's not true, it's actually enjoyable. :smilewinkgrin:

 

When I read things like this, it is hard to tell the Particular Baptist, from the General Baptist.

To be plain, I find it hard to tell what you believe, so please do not presume I wish to "attack it".

I simply wish to ask a plain question.

I think we all have a Bible, and will likely agree it says that Adam, was made in God's image.

Yet he sinned.

I think we can all agree on that as well.

You said "God is not responsible in any way for Adams sin.....Adam is."

I agree completely.

Did he choose to sin?

 

Hello ACF,
Welcome to the BB....ACF....all who are searching the bible will come to much agreement..as the same Spirit is at work in us...equipping us to better worship our Lord and to serve Him in extending His Kingdom, bringing gospel truths to the lost.

Adam was created with what would be original righteousness...GEN 1:31..all was good. He was however untested.

Eve was utterly deceived by satan,1tim2:11-14.....but Adam commited deliberate and willful sin...failing to protect Eve,and us for that matter as he was to be the head of His wife, as well as being an image bearer and law keeper.
God had been dealing with Adam in what is often described as a covenant of works...or a covenant of life....Hosea 6:7

To understand his failure as an image -bearer...Gen 1:26..... we can see what and how the Last Adam...the Lord Jesus...fulfilled the terms of this broken covenant...always doing the Fathers will, and keeping the law 100% for us!
Mt 3;

mt 5:17-19;

We are saved by law keeping and works! not ours...... but Jesus active obedience put to the account of the elect sheep ,who he came to redeem. He as our substitue takes our sin away, and gives us a perfect righteousness!!!

 

Iconoclast,

Thanks for the welcome. Nothing to disagree with in your response, but I am having trouble finding an answer to the question I asked.

The idea of God dealing with Adam through a convenant of works seems to me to be a separate issue.

As I read my Bible, one fact that seems clear as any other, is Adam disobeyed God's commandment.

He ate of the forbidden fruit.

I am still interested in knowing your opinion of whether Adam chose to sin.

Difficult question, I know.

God does not contradict Himself.

The Bible says that Adam sinned, and as you and I have agreed, this sin was entirely Adam's responsibility.

Did he choose to sin?

 

Icon said: "but Adam commited deliberate and willful sin". I think that's means Adam made a choice.

God didn't make him sin.

 

Why don't you answer one for a change?

 

Adam chose Eve.

He knew she was a goner and he chose to die with her in order to have her.

Sound familiar?

IMO, any 'culpability' on God's part in the fall would arise from the fact that He intentionally inserted Adam into the garden as head when Satan, who was first, was still there. The installation of Adam was the cause of the serpent's jealousy and the resulting enmity that we still deal with today.

 

ACF, I don't presume to answer for all calvinists here, or possibly any of the calvinists for that matter. The claim of self appointed spokesman by some is a total red herring, no one claims to be their spokesman.

What I have deduced about Adam from much of what I have read by multiple calvinists on this board is this:

Adam was the first and only human being to have any sense of free will, he truly had free will, with respect to all that was available to him. Those of us that have followed have absolutely no sense of freedom in the matter, we are free to follow the nature given us by Adam.

This is what I have deduced in nutshell, now I will let the critics correct my "self appointed" spokesmanship.

 

Pot/ kettle :tongue3:

 

Quantumfaith,

Thank you for the response. I don't presume to answer for others either, so can appreciate the sentiment.

The reason I asked the question in the first place is I think it a good example of where the topic of Free Will gets tangled up with all the other baggage that comes up wherever Paricular and General baptists try to discuss their differences.

(I prefer the old lables to the new, because I think we were once upon a time closer to the middle ground than we are today, and I long to see a return to that before the church I have known all my life is torn the rest of the way apart.)

No matter whether one believes in Free Will or Election, that belief has no impact on our salvation.

I have seen you write something along this line I believe.

So, when it is a discussion between believers, it is really just a debate on how we got to where we are, which makes it hard for me to understand all the name calling, and character attacks.

I think extremes of either view too easily become aberant doctrine.

As I said in another post, it is interesting to me that Charles Spurgeon experienced his epiphany, conversion, or what ever you would call it, in a Methodist church, yet he was a "Calvinist".

This is intersting to me precisely because Spurgeon later came to understand, and preach, that Free Will and Election were both in scripture.

He eloquenty spoke on this topic in sermon # 239 based on Romans 9 ("Jacob and Esau").

No need to reconcile "Old Friends", and that is how I think it should be.