Interesting reformed church visit today, a report card.

subllibrm said:
1. Calvin was not the author of TULIP.
2. My reformed friends dispute your application of limited atonement. The limit is not referring to availability but of effect. The opposite would be unlimited atonement, which would be universalism.
Click to expand...
1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation (atoning sacrifice) for our sins (Christians), and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
2 Peter 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

To take a life or death stand on the hill that Jesus didn’t die for the sins of the whole world when two different apostles said he did is ludicrous. Some people are so tied to a creed (whether Calvin penned the T.U.L.I.P. or not) that they must justify their belief for fear that if there is a disagreement on a single point, their theology will be destroyed. I believe only God grants repentance unto life (Acts 11:18), apart from man’s help because no man seeks after God (Rom 3:11). I believe the elect were “ordained to eternal life” (Acts 13:48) and “chosen before the foundation of the world” (Eph 1:4). We are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Is there any heresy in what I have said?
 
biscuit1953 said:
1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation (atoning sacrifice) for our sins (Christians), and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
Click to expand...

What does "propitiation" mean, and how does it apply to every individual in the whole world?
 
Ransom said:
I've never heard of this song before and have no opinon.

Except that since you misrepresented the lyrics, your opinion is disregarded.
Click to expand...
My opinion is just as good as your opinion. My opinion is you have misrepresented my position because I didn’t include the entire unabridged lyrics. Your opinion is disregarded for misrepresenting my opinion. If you want to justify the lyrics go right ahead.
 
biscuit1953 said:
My opinion is you have misrepresented my position because I didn’t include the entire unabridged lyrics.
Click to expand...

My opinion is that you edited out all the lyrics that weren't "down down down" to make it look stupid.

You are correct that your opinion is as good as mine. Since I have no opinion on the song, my opinion is worth nothing.
 
Ransom said:
My opinion is that you edited out all the lyrics that weren't "down down down" to make it look stupid.

You are correct that your opinion is as good as mine. Since I have no opinion on the song, my opinion is worth nothing.
Click to expand...
If you were being honest, you know I wasn’t talking about just the lyrics. I was talking about the fact that I couldn’t even understand the words even with them in front of me while watching the video. I was talking about animal like growling sounds and was contrasting a classical hymn that edifies the body of Christ as opposed to absolute gibberish that needed an interpreter. I was giving a direct contrast between a hymn by Charles Wesley, rich in doctrine that was melodious, to wild gyrations and mind numbing repetitions that meant nothing, that was supposed to be edifying to the Church. I was talking about how Charles Spurgeon tied hymnology to scripture and doctrine that edified the entire body of Christ. You misrepresented my position.
 
Last edited:
biscuit1953 said:
If you were being honest, you know I wasn’t talking about just the lyrics. I was talking about the fact that I couldn’t even understand the words even with them in front of me while watching the video.
Click to expand...

Why is that anyone's problem but yours?

When I'm faced with music I can't understand and don't like, I don't listen to it. There's no need to make a public display of tearing my robes because the metal chick growls and I can't make the lyrics out. I'm not the intended audience.
 
Ransom said:
I've never heard of this song before and have no opinon.

Except that since you misrepresented the lyrics, your opinion is disregarded.
Click to expand...
One of these days I may go through all 849 threads and try to find one time where you ever admitted you were wrong about anything.

“There is nothing progressive about being pigheaded and refusing to admit a mistake.” C.S. Lewis

​
 
Ekklesian said:
Everyone believes in Limited Atonement. The disagreement is on the limiter. Is it man or God?
Click to expand...
The apostles were saying that the shed blood of Christ was sufficient, not only for our sins, but for the sins of the whole world. I have never heard a five pointer even admit that. Peter came right out and stated in unquestionable language that Jesus paid for the sins of even the false prophets and those that bring in damnable heresies with his blood. Is that a damnable heresy?
 
biscuit1953 said:
The apostles were saying that the shed blood of Christ was sufficient, not only for our sins, but for the sins of the whole world. I have never heard a five pointer even admit that.
Click to expand...
“Sufficient for all, efficient for the elect” is a longstanding slogan by Calvinists to describe the issue you are talking about. They might likewise express it as “Christ’s atonement was limited in its intent or purpose, but it was unlimited in its power.” 😊
 
Last edited:
ALAYMAN said:
“Sufficient for all, efficient for the elect” is a longstanding slogan by Calvinists to describe the issue you are talking about. They might likewise express it as “Christ’s atonement was limited in its intent or purpose, but it was unlimited in its power.” 😊
Click to expand...
No matter how someone tries to frame it, Peter didn’t mince words. Jesus' blood paid for the sins of even the non-elect. There is no need to argue over the point. To accept the clear words of Peter isn’t a threat to Calvinism. I might add that the issue is the fact that we can't reconcile the responsibility on man's part. Jesus paid the price but sinful men reject it.
 
Last edited:
biscuit1953 said:
2 Peter 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
Click to expand...
Does 2 Peter 2:1 teach that Christ, by His death on the cross, atoned for the sins of unsaved false prophets who bring in destructive heresies? Not necessarily.

"Wayne Grudem makes a good case that Peter is referring to the Exodus in 2:1. For Peter compares the false prophets that would arise in the church to the false prophets that arose in Israel: 'False prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you.' In the Old Testament the whole nation of Israel, and thus even the false teachers in it, was considered to have been 'bought' by God in the Exodus from Egypt. Through this deliverance, God 'bought' the nation of Israel and thus Israel rightfully belonged to God as His peculiar people. We see this in Deuteronomy 32:6, which is the passage that Peter is probably alluding to: 'Do you thus repay the Lord, O foolish and unwise people? Is not He your Father who has bought you? He has made you and established you.' God 'bought' Israel not by the death of Christ but, as this text says, by forming the nation. This is evident from Exodus 15:16 as well, which speaks of the Exodus as the act of God whereby He 'bought' Israel: 'Terror and dread fall upon them; by the greatness of Thine arm they are motionless as stone; until they people pass over, O Lord, until the people pass over whom thou hast purchased.'”

www.desiringgod.org

Does 2 Peter 2:1 Deny Effectual Atonement?

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. While this is a…
www.desiringgod.org www.desiringgod.org

See also: "Some suggest Peter may be recalling Israel’s deliverance from Egypt, where God 'bought' His people out of slavery, and the false teachers denied that deliverance."

www.bing.com

the lord that bought them - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.
www.bing.com www.bing.com
 
illinoisguy said:
Does 2 Peter 2:1 teach that Christ, by His death on the cross, atoned for the sins of unsaved false prophets who bring in destructive heresies? Not necessarily.

"Wayne Grudem makes a good case that Peter is referring to the Exodus in 2:1. For Peter compares the false prophets that would arise in the church to the false prophets that arose in Israel: 'False prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you.' In the Old Testament the whole nation of Israel, and thus even the false teachers in it, was considered to have been 'bought' by God in the Exodus from Egypt. Through this deliverance, God 'bought' the nation of Israel and thus Israel rightfully belonged to God as His peculiar people. We see this in Deuteronomy 32:6, which is the passage that Peter is probably alluding to: 'Do you thus repay the Lord, O foolish and unwise people? Is not He your Father who has bought you? He has made you and established you.' God 'bought' Israel not by the death of Christ but, as this text says, by forming the nation. This is evident from Exodus 15:16 as well, which speaks of the Exodus as the act of God whereby He 'bought' Israel: 'Terror and dread fall upon them; by the greatness of Thine arm they are motionless as stone; until they people pass over, O Lord, until the people pass over whom thou hast purchased.'”

www.desiringgod.org

Does 2 Peter 2:1 Deny Effectual Atonement?

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. While this is a…
www.desiringgod.org www.desiringgod.org

See also: "Some suggest Peter may be recalling Israel’s deliverance from Egypt, where God 'bought' His people out of slavery, and the false teachers denied that deliverance."

www.bing.com

the lord that bought them - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.
www.bing.com www.bing.com
Click to expand...
The Desiring God article comes to the conclusion:

“So we have seen that there are three large ambiguities in 2 Peter 2:1. First, it is unclear whether the purchase of these false teachers is a reference to the death of Christ or not. Second, it is unclear whether the one who “bought” them is even Christ or simply the Father. Third, it is unclear whether Peter is speaking according to reality or appearance.”

So even he is acknowledges that the passage is not a slam dunk on limited atonement as understood in the T.U.L.I.P. To be clear, I am closer to your position when it comes to salvation as an act of God choosing the elect before the foundation of the world, but I simply don’t have the same understanding you have on Jesus’ sacrifice paying for the sins of only the elect as opposed to the whole world. I will simply give John Wesley’s understanding of it as a counter argument and may there be no animosity because of our different understandings.

“Teachers among you, who will privately bring in - Into the church. Destructive heresies - They first, by denying the Lord, introduced destructive heresies, that is, divisions; or they occasioned first these divisions, and then were given up to a reprobate mind, even to deny the Lord that bought them. Either the heresies are the effect of denying the Lord, or the denying the Lord was the consequence of the heresies. Even denying - Both by their doctrine and their works. The Lord that bought them - With his own blood. Yet these very men perish everlastingly. Therefore Christ bought even them that perish."
 
biscuit1953 said:
The apostles were saying that the shed blood of Christ was sufficient, not only for our sins, but for the sins of the whole world. I have never heard a five pointer even admit that.
Click to expand...

Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation. They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage...

John Calvin, commentary on 1 John 2:1​

It's easy to say "never" when you never read past your own limited bookshelf.
 
biscuit1953 said:
No matter how someone tries to frame it, Peter didn’t mince words. Jesus' blood paid for the sins of even the non-elect.
Click to expand...

Then why do the non-elect pay for them in hell?

Also, you have yet to give a definition of "propitiation" (1 John 2:1).
 
biscuit1953 said:
2 Peter 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
Click to expand...

Assumption #1: "The Master" is Jesus.

Assumption #2: "who bought them" alludes to the cross.

Can you justify that?
 
Ekklesian said:
Everyone believes in Limited Atonement. The disagreement is on the limiter. Is it man or God?
Click to expand...

Alternatively, Calvinists believe the Atonement was limited in scope: as though God has built a bridge across a canyon, and those whom he invites may cross.

Arminians limit the Atonement's effect: God built a nice big bridge for anyone to use who wants to, but it only goes halfway across the canyon.
 
Ransom said:
Assumption #1: "The Master" is Jesus.

Assumption #2: "who bought them" alludes to the cross.

Can you justify that?
Click to expand...
Assumption #1: “The Master” isn’t Jesus.

Assumption #2: “who bought them” doesn’t allude to the cross.

The Bible clearly teaches that God holds every individual personally responsible for his own sins. It also puts the responsibility on the individual to come to God. We are commanded to repent and believe the gospel while at the same time Paul says there is no one who seeks after God, no not one. I’m not disputing salvation is wholly of God, but I’m also not throwing the verses out that says it is our responsibility to the respond to the gospel.

Rom 10:9 if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Mark 1:15 “ “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”
John 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
James 4:8 Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.
Isa 55:1 “Come, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.
Rev 22:17 The Spirit and the Bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

At the final great white throne judgment, unsaved men and women will be judged according to their works, not as to whether God chose them or not. It always comes back to reconciling the unreconcilable as far as our human understanding. God is wholly responsible for our election, but the scriptures also says we are responsible for receiving the gospel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top