Frankly, if one is not a Calvinist, then he has no Biblical basis for believing in eternal security.
Watch it!! You are labeling what God said in His Word with a man who came along way way after God said it. Calvin, Spurgeon and the rest of them are NOT the ones who wrote the Bible. The Bible clearly teaches eternal life, by the way, Security is not a Bible term, You know like altar calls?
He may be basing it on sentimentality, or wishful thinking, but certainly not on the Bible. If man is responsible for getting himself born again by his free will, then man is responsible to keep himself by his free will all the way to heaven - a task at which he will always fail. And man can never be born again by his free will - it's a fallen, depraved will.
Man is responsible for how he responds to God.He can't save himself he can only accept what Christ has done for him, and the faith and repentance is granted by God.
Again, look at the Scripture verses I gave on Agrippa, and Acts 7:51--they resisted the Holy Ghost! You can not deny that it can be done when you look at Scripture. He is so sovereign, He will put them in Hell for not responding to the call of the Holy Spirit.
Ken
A Spurgeonite
www.spurgeon.org</font>[/QUOTE]Not a spurgeonite,
A Follower of Christ.
The Significance of Limited Atonement
Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by tfisher, Aug 7, 2002.
Page 4 of 5
-
First, let me encourage you to use the quoting function properly. It will make your posts much easier to read. I will try to answer this one. In the future, I probably won’t even read them.
-
Ken -
Ken
A Spurgeonite
www.spurgeon.org
[ August 17, 2002, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ] -
I am sorry to have to tell you that the two dozen or so Calvinist that I know don't say what you say. They cling to Spurgeon for dear life. And it seems to me that if he and Jesus Christ had been contemporaries, many of them would have followed Spurgeon or Calvin instead.
I did not learn all that I have said from anti-Calvinist books. Dear friend, I have all but quoted these folks that I have dealt with one on one. I am getting my info from self acclaimed calvinist; I didn't label them as such. You say that is incorrect, but I don't study after Spurgeon. I read his books and have really enjoyed some. But if you read and follow after man, then brother, you are incorrect.
I sense a very arrogant spirit in these discussions when people are berated for calling themselves Bible believing Christians. That may be considered useless to a debate, but I don't want to be identified with mere men. I want to be identified with Christ. I've heard it all now, Spurgeonite??Just who are we commanded to follow?
I am not above getting help from men of God of old or those here now, but I've never seen an element in this doctrine that would give me a greater burden for souls, make me pray for lost family, and carry the gospel to all men. What I have seen is precious people sit and wonder, 'Am I elect? If I'm not, there's nothing I can do about it. So, I'll just do nothing because no matter what I do, I can't change it.' These folks go on and live in careless sin thinking that if it is to be, it will be. That's fatalism dear friend. And I certainly don't believe something like Calvinism can successfully be preached to sinners when the message sent is clear: God will save some, and some He will not.
On the other hand the people I have met that are self acclaimed 2 pointer, 4 pointer, full blown 5 pointer, don't even see the need to see souls saved. How sad.
I can not see anywhere in the Scriptures where God chose some to go to heaven and the rest to go to Hell. God wanted restored fellowship with all mankind, that is why he brought restoration to a fallen race. He is desirous of us, and not because we are worthy in any sense. Remember, we are made in His image. Everyone of us. He wanted fellowship with mankind, so He made a way.
Dear brethren, I was saved by grace like anyone else. And you implied a bit much by saying that I did not understand that our life was not a sinless life, when I plainly stated that I knew people could get out of the will of God. Perhaps you should do a little survey and find out what so called Calvinist believe. I actually had one tell me that man does not have a will until they are saved!
You don't believe that God wanted to save the rich young ruler, or Agrippa or that crowd in Acts 7:51? You make think I am reading too much into, but the passages speak for itself. At least I am not overlooking what it obviously says.
I read a good bit of Tozer, Dr. Harold B. Sightler, Rice, Oliver B. Greene, Ironside, but I dare not call myself a Sightlerite, a Greenist, or such like. I will not label myself after any one man but Christ.
As far as Scripture goes, all the ones I have been posting and noone has answered yet. As I am a mother of three homeschooled children, I don't have anymore time left, but you can look back and see what they are. -
Ken
A Spurgeonite -
pinoybaptist Active MemberSite Supporter
If God decreed to save every man who ever lived is Christ's death enough? If you answer yes, you believe in unlimited atonement as I have described it. If you answer no ... well there's a whole passal of other problems</font>[/QUOTE]Pastor Larry:
I have a high regard for you and so I would like to say I have no intention of maliciously locking horns with you or anyone else for that matter.
I have no wish to "troll" anybody.
That being said, I simply meant that for things to lock and work logic and syntax have to be correctly thought of and laid out.
I wanted to point out that "unlimited atonement" seems to be an incorrect syntax because the logic points to "universal redemption" which contradicts particular redemption a.k.a. election.
However, since you introduced the word sufficiency which I believe, with my limited English vocabulary, to be synonymous to efficacy then I will accept your explanation, but not call it unlimited atonement.
I will agree that had God decided to save the entire human race then the blood of Christ is more than sufficient and efficacious, but since he did not, then His blood atonement is limited to His elect. -
Ken Hamilton,
If you trusted in the Holy Spirit as indicated in John 14:26, meaning get your understanding from Him rather than fleshly, human, depraved, and yet redeemed men like Augustine through Boyce, you would be more in keeping with the Word of God. -
What chapter and verse in the Bible says that Five Point Arminians are not allowed to believe that all saved persons presently have everlasting life in God?
In John 10 Jesus Himself tells His people that they 'will never perish . . . ' Every Christian has the right to believe His truth.
We believe God rather than the views of earth, bound men and women's views. -
Referencing your computer programs and syntax, syntax and grammar are often very precise, they are often used imprecisely as well. I think a phrase like "unlimited atonement" probably just caught on over time. It used to be particular and general atonement of which I would be a particularist.
Words words words ... wierd things they are ... -
-
-
Pastor Larry,
We are consistent in what we believe. If the Bible says that all who believed in Jesus received everlasting life then we take His statements as fact and more than reliable. Should we think otherwise? -
-
-
-
pinoybaptist Active MemberSite Supporter
Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
and 8 -
-
Ken
A Spurgeonite -
Ken
A Spurgeonite</font>[/QUOTE]Because man's will is sinful. The redemption of Christ allows man to be holy once and for all. It is because of this salvation that we are to live a life holy and acceptable to God. Simply because man can choose God by the Holy Spirit does not mean that his will is sufficient enough NOT to need sanctification.
-
"Because man's will is sinful. The redemption of Christ allows man to be holy once and for all. It is because of this salvation that we are to live a life holy and acceptable to God. Simply because man can choose God by the Holy Spirit does not mean that his will is sufficient enough NOT to need sanctification."
So you hold that man is so sinful that he can not sanctify himself, but not so sinful that he can't justrify himself through his own will to beleive?
On what basis do you make the distinctions implicit in this idea?
Page 4 of 5