I LOVE flowers, thanks. They are the best smelling electronic flowers I have ever encountered.
TULIP of Scripture
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Van, Nov 18, 2011.
Page 2 of 5
-
-
-
-
-
Since all Calvinists on the BB appear by their lack of topical discussion to accept the rewrite of the T, lets move on to the U.
Here is the original wordings:
The exhibits to support this premise are: 1 John 2:2 - Christ would not be the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world if reconciliation was not being offered to the whole world.
Exhibit two is Romans 5:10 which says we were reconciled "to God" by the death of Christ but then draws a distinction between being reconciled in that general way, and being saved. Now this difficulty is explained (exhibit three) in 2 Corinthians 5:18 where again Paul says God reconciled us (an individual rather than general action) and gave us the ministry of reconciliation. Clearly then Paul is saying God provided reconciliation to mankind through the death of Christ, but only those who receive the reconciliation, by God crediting our faith as righteousness and placing us in Christ, are saved. So as God is putting individuals in Christ, He is "reconciling the world to Himself" one individual at a time.
So according to the scriptures referenced the "U" should read:
-
edit, misread the post....
-
Limited in the sense that it fully and actually only covers/propitiation on behalf of those whom have that Grace effectually applied towards them by God, by His Will and for His good pleasure, the Elect! -
I provided several verses that teach God's provision for the sin of mankind is unlimited, Jesus being the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world.
1 John 2:2. Jesusfan says it was limited in scope and then muddies the waters by saying unlimited in value. If it did not provide propitiation for the whole world, all of fallen mankind it was limited in value, being worthless to those not covered. Again, Calvinism is totally unbiblical.
But if we unscramble the muck Calvinism makes of Biblical doctrine, we get the U of the Reformed TULIP.
-
Pretty clear from the Bible that Jesus died as a propiation of the sins of the entire World, in the sense that it had infinite worth, but that ONLY those who come to Him for their sins to be covered and atoned for by the Cross are the saved by it, and those are the ones chosen and elect out beforehand by God! -
“L” should stand for Limited Atonement: All mankind has been reconciled to God, but not all men have received the reconciliation. We are individually set apart, chosen, elected and made “at one with God” when we are spiritually baptized into Christ based on God accepting our faith in Christ as sufficient for His purpose.
Lets revise this one too. -
"While the death of Christ is abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world, its saving efficacy is limited to the elect." -
To most Calvinists, efficiency equals sufficiency. Otherwise, the L in Limited Atonement is meaningless.
-
There is no sufficiency is something that's never intended for you. Calvinists state that Jesus died for the elect only. The non-elect were left completely out of this atoning process. How is there any sufficiency in this for the non-elect?
That's like me having $200.00 in my pocket(I am talking hypothetically here. I am married, and I haven't had $200.00 in a LONG time :laugh: ). I see a starving child, and eventhough I have the money, unless I offer it to him/her, that money is useless to them. However, if I offer it to them, and they accept it, they can eat. If I offer, and they refuse, they will starve to death. If I offer the money, and they reject it, and die, the blame is in their lap. If I have it, and know they really need it, and don't offer it, and they die? Well, then part of the blame falls to me. -
-
The meaning of limited atonement is that it is limited in scope, Christ dying only for the supposedly preselected elect. Jesusfan said Christ provided propitiation for the whole world. That is not Calvinism. Calvinism says Christ died for the elect only and not for all mankind. Calvinists must misrepresent their doctrine in order to offer any sort of biblical defense. It is as if Jesusfan has no concept of the Penal Substitution theory of Atonement, where Christ died only for the sins of the elect and providing absolutely no propititation for the non-elect.
Then Jbh28 posts that Jesusfan had it right. Calvinism must be defended by deception or else it becomes obvious it is unbiblical. -
Next they ignore "in Him" or suppy differeing meanings for the phrase. Some say God chose individuals to be placed in Him. Others simply delete it, saying the verse reads He chose us before the foundation of the world. None address the obvious, when God chose His Redeemer, His Lamb, before the foundation of the world, He corporately chose those the Redeemer would redeem, hence He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world.
But why is this corporate election view to be accepted over and against the "individual" election view of Calvinism? Because of 3 or so passages that specifically teach God chooses us individually during our lifetime. 1 Peter 2:9-10 says we lived without mercy before being chosen. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says God chose us through faith in the truth. James 2:5 says God chose those who were poor to the world but rich in faith who were heirs to the promise to those who love God. 1 Corinthians 1:26-31 says individuals were chosen that were consider foolish in the world.
Therefore the Bible actually teaches conditional election, with God determining whose faith to credit as righteousness. -
-
Here is what he said, -
The limited has to do with 2 things. One is that it's efficient only for believers(elect). We can all agree on that. Where the disagreement is in the intent of the atonement. Christ died to make salvation possible or died specifically for specific people? That's really where the limited part is at. I prefer to say believers here because the Bible is clear that the atonement will only save believers and God never had any intention to save those that die in unbelief. The atonement was never meant to save those that die in unbelief. -
Page 2 of 5