Unlimited Atonement

Ulimately, I'd agree with the OP quote in spirit: anyone who truly believes in a unlimited atonement without qualifiers is heretical. God does not save all universally. Thus, the atonement is limited somehow. The question is, how? To what extent? Those who go out of their way to argue against limited atonement have some 'splainin to do. Of course, some will deny this. But there are many on this board who flirt with universalism and are squarely in an open theistic camp and are blind to this. I have no problem with those of more an Amaryladian bent or those who are less thorough in their Reformed stance. But those who say the atonement is not limited stand in opposition to Scripture.

 

you did. You said it was outside of Christ, something of which Piper would disagree.

Correct

incorrect and Piper never said that

The result of being chosen is that we will be saved, adopted, sanctified, glorified.

I think you are smart enough and spiritual enough. you just interpret passage differently from me. That's fine. I would never tell someone that I'm smarter than them because I believe differently from them. I might be totally wrong. If I am, then I'll find that out in my studying of the Scriptures. But you could be wrong too. Or we both are wrong.


btw, you still haven't answered my question. When were you chosen?

 

I guess we are better off than if we were never saved. I'm sure am glad to be on the Lords side and not the Devils!

 

I see it more of a proof text that God doesn't love every individual exactly the same. At least that is how I look at it. I would use passages like John 6:37 and Ephesians 1:4-11 and I Peter 1:1-9 and others as text for supporting election.

 

Was Israel chosen because they were better than all the other nations in any respect.No. Now of course every individual of Israel was not saved --but it was considered God's elect nation.

They are parallels with salvation of any person --Jewish and Gentile alike.

 

So slander Piper now, will you? Have you listened to his sermons? Have you read any of his books? How dare you say that he doesn't place his faith in Christ! Stop your falsehoods now.

 

I have to say that you do intentionally misrepresent on a regular basis.

You have been factually wrong about beliefs that you attribute to Calvinists theologically and historically.

 

I laughed a little when reading the comment about Piper, except that it was sad to misrepresent him in such a way. Obviously he has never really read Piper or at least actually listened to him. To say that Piper believed that Christ had nothing to do is a gross misrepresentation.

 

Post the source, if you've got the courage.

 

Sorry, Webdog, if you thought that I in any way expected people to take my word for anything (apart, perhaps, from personal matters like what my beliefs are - but on the BB we all have to do that).

I'm not sure which of my posts you had in mind. I assume it's one on this thread.

In Post 66, I asked Winman for examples of posts where anyone has claimed to be more intelligent or more spiritual than anyone else, as he had stated that there were hundreds. I was asking, not telling people blindly to follow me. You replied to that post, suggesting I go through recent posts from Luke2427 and Preacher4truth for examples. I responded in Post 73, saying: "I think it better if I leave Luke2427 and Preacher4Truth to reply to this if they wish. I cannot speak for them in saying whether or not they really intended to claim to be more intelligent and spiritual than non-Cals..." My Post 74 was just a note of thanks to Winman for some kind words.

In Post 80 on this thread, I did question what Winman meant when he talked about a thread started by Luke suggesting that Calvinism needs more intellect and spirituality than non-Calvinism. I asked him if he meant the thread: "Does Calvinism require a higher spiritual intellect, spirituality, and... " I then said that if so, that thread had been started by R. Lawson, not Luke - a matter of fact easily checked. I also said that I could not see one thread started by Luke in which he made the proposal that "Calvinists are both more intelligent and spiritual than non-reformed."

Kyredneck thanked me for the "labor" of finding that out, and my Post 83 just explained that there was hardly any labour involved. Kyredneck then wrote suggesting that such checking might stem the flow of Winman's "spouting of falsehoods" (Kyredneck's words, not mine). I responded in Post 85 saying that perhaps it was a simple mistake on Winman's part, because although the "Does Calvinism require..." thread was not started by Luke, it was based on a post of his from another thread.

My final post before this one (on this thread) was Post 88, just an answer to an enquiry about my surname. That post is the only one where I would expect the other BB members to "take my word for it" (though I could send a copy of my birth certificate to anyone who doubts it :laugh: ).

So I am not at all sure where I am supposed to have expected anyone to "blindly take my word" for something.

 

Did you miss Luke's OP gem where he wrote:

Or this Luke post:

 

All right me lad, for your penance say 5 Our Fathers & 3 Hail Marys & I noted your quite a tall Boyo so don't be bumpin your head on way out of the confessional now..... the last ting the parish needs is a nother blinkin lawsuit I'll be thinkin, saints preserve us. :godisgood:

 

And it does. Those are solid remarks, and I stand by them.

What you are good at, Jerome, is taking remarks out of context. You are forever misrepresenting Spurgeon this way, for example.

Calvinism is complex. It is deep and it requires deep meditation.

It is also based on truths that humans find unpalatable- so one must be spiritually mature to go against their fallen nature to receive these particular truths of Scripture that Calvinism systematizes.

Its complexity and depth and anti-man nature means that one must indeed have reached a certain level of intellectual and spiritual maturity to grasp it.

That should be offensive to no one.

I also further clarified in antecedent posts that Arminianism also requires a certain level of spiritual and intellectual maturity to grasp.

But I noticed you did not bother to copy and paste those remarks of mine so that you might represent me more honorably.

 

It is actually a baptistboard rule- he is supposed to cite his sources or he is in violation of the rules, if I recall.

 

Prime example:

Which Spurgeon sermon you got that passage from?

 

Replied to the wrong thread...

 

He would disagree, but he would be wrong because he believes he was elected before faith in Christ. He said his election was not based on his faith. And all Calvinists I've seen deny that election is based on foreseen faith. Without faith you are outside Christ.

I was elected before the foundation of the world according to God's foreknowledge of my faith in Christ. And as Amy correctly pointed out, it is Jesus who is God's elect, I am only elect because when I believed I became a member of his body. This is very different from what Piper believes.

Election must be according to foreknowledge because no one is actually in Christ until they believe, otherwise you would be born saved.

Paul shows this in Romans 16:7 when he speaks of Andronicus and Junia which he said, "who also were in Christ BEFORE me"

So, no one is "in Christ" until they believe in time.

Nevertheless, God can foreknow who will believe and elect them. But they are not elected outside of faith in Christ as Piper teaches.

 

So, the inevitable conclusion of your statement is that God looked down thru time and saw that you, despite your sin nature, will have faith in Christ, therefore, there is good in you, right ? And because of the good that is in you, he elected you.

What, then, are you going to do with these words of the Creator God Himself, as Jesus:

And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. Mark 10:18...

or this:

They are all gone aside , they are all together become filthy : there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Psalm 14:3