It's interesting that Jim L. claims limited atonement is not biblical, then proceeds to give an article written by someone else to defend his stance. Do you not think for yourself? Where is the biblical support from your own studies on this subject?
You also ignored my question, so let's try again - - - IF Christ was the atoning sacrifice for the 'whole world' then that means all who die in unbelief have had that sin atoned for right? How is that possible?
Here's another question, if Christ died for all, then why did He make this statement from John 8:24Â "I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins."
Didn't He atone for the ones He states will die in their sins?
Please, no links. Read the questions and ponder them.
Hmm, found another interesting article and this is from Down Under.
Lindsey wrote: ...This general belief has been infiltrating the whole Protestant church, often unawares, even by church leaders, from extreme Reformed to extreme Charismatic groups, including the large â€śmiddleâ€ť group of mainstream and evangelical churches, owing to the spread of Warrenism, contemporary Christian music and other factors. Some people claim to be pre-millennial and dominionist â€“ impossible. Examples of dominionism are:...
Reconstructionism: Catholics, Reformed and extreme Calvinists generally believe it is the role of the church to reconstruct society along lines with laws as laid down in the Bible. â€śThe Church Triumphantâ€ť is a slogan used...
So...your case is if it's from a famous person it's a valid argument? You've gotta have someone paying you to say this nonsense...and you still haven't responded to my question.
And why should you object to abortion being in healthcare? According to your theology it's better that they are butchered because hey they'll go to Heaven. And you go even a step further and say that abortion should be legalized, so what is this babble that you're speaking?
The democrats, who are solely responsible for Obamacare, admitted they lied about keeping your doctor and your plan and how much it was going to cost because they figured you were too stupid.
Obama says elderly shouldn't get needed help, just take a pill and deal with it
Obamacare for ending the elderly
Here is a sad story about how universal healthcare works for those in Canada
Universal "healthcare" means don't get sick and if you do, hurry up and die.
Currently according to the CDC, 28.4 millions without health coverage but the press and the dems are complaining that the number per the CBO under "replacement plan" would be 26 million without it. Looks like the Republican plan insures more than the current democrat plan. (both are bad ideas) Many whose premiums are subsidized have deductibles that equal the vast majority of their income, so for all intents and purposes they have no healthcare coverage.
With friends like Jim who define the above as caring and compassionate, who needs enemies?
NeedHim wrote: Definition: The redemptive work of Christ was definite in design & accomplishment. It wasn't intended to make salvation possible for every man but actually to accomplish salvation for the elect. Christ, acting as the representative of all those given to Him by the Father, fully satisfied the infinite demands of God's law, & accomplished eternal redemption for them. Even though Christ's obedience & sufferings were of infinite value & sufficient to expiate the sins of the entire race, had this been God's purpose, the accomplishments of His death were, by eternal design, limited to the elect only.
That's very nicely put, and is mine own position exactly. It is a most wonderful thing that the Lord Jesus has specifically loved and given himself for those given him by the Father.
"The Bible clearly points to conception as the beginning of human life. Samson said, â€śI have been a Nazirite to God from my motherâ€™s wombâ€ť (Judges 16:17). He refers to his unborn self as having already been what God planned him to beâ€”a Nazirite. David says, â€śYou formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my motherâ€™s wombâ€ť (Psalm 139:13). Again, we see David referring to himself as a person in the womb. Then, he says, â€śYour eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of themâ€ť (Psalm 139:16). David is saying that God had all of his days planned out for him while he was still in the womb. Again, this evidence points to personhood beginning at conception, rather than at the moment of birth. We see God had a similar plan for the life of the pre-born Jeremiah: â€śBefore I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nationsâ€ť (Jeremiah 1:5)." https://www.gotquestions.org/is-abortion-murder.html
Here's your stumbling block Jim L....IF Christ was the atoning sacrifice for the 'whole world' then that means all who die in unbelief have had that sin atoned for right? How is that possible?
Here's another problem, Christ already said who He laid down His life for and who He shed His blood for. So, to say he died for 'all' and atoned for their sins is to call Him a liar. Who is He referring to when He says 'the whole world'? Every person ever born, like, say, Hitler? Is Hitler in heaven? According to your theology, he is because Christ atoned for, or put away, Hitler's sins as well. So, 'world' must mean to whom Christ referenced in the verses I gave prior, 'many' and 'sheep'. In other words, sinners from every tribe, tongue and nation.
As for 'Calvinism', that label should be chucked into the garbage. Calvin is NOT the author of the precious doctrines of grace and should never be given credit. So many make an idol out of John Calvin and proudly label themselves as 'Calvinists'. What an atrocity!!!
I just gave you some responses from more famous people than myself, Conner7!
Bruce Bartlett wrote: In 1983, the conservative columnist George Will admonished conservatives for opposing the welfare state, rather than endorsing it and molding it to their philosophy. Said Will:
If conservatism is to engage itself with the way we live now, it must address governmentâ€™s graver purposes with an affirmative doctrine of the welfare state. The idea of such an affirmation may, but should not, seem paradoxical. Two conservatives (Disraeli and Bismarck) pioneered the welfare state, and did so for impeccably conservative reasons: to reconcile the masses to the vicissitudes and hazards of a dynamic and hierarchical industrial economy. They acted on the principle of â€śeconomy of exertion,â€ť using government power judiciously to prevent less discriminating, more disruptive uses of power. . . . Conservatives need ways to make the welfare state more compatible with conservative values.
Who on earth would be stupid enough to ask a bunch of kids about theology???
If people such as the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury cannot get these things right - How can anybody expect kids to???
"John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him."
Jim that's such a lame response, I asked you to tell me of a good argument, this was your reply, " For one thing it's Christian and for another it just benefits the country."
That's a pretty good mantra, without any scripture to back it up, "love your neighbor as yourself" does not mean "leave all sense of reason when trying to help others"
"It just benefits the country" so it benefits the country to encourage its citizens to live as recklessly as possible and have everyone pay for other people's medical problems that they inflicted upon themselves...who paid you to regurgitate this idea?
Bruce Bartlett wrote: The writer Irving Kristol, who was extremely influential in the intellectual development of Republican and conservative ideas in the 1970s, wrote this in defense of the welfare state in 1976:
The idea of a welfare state is in itself perfectly consistent with a conservative political philosophyâ€”as Bismarck knew, a hundred years ago. In our urbanized, industrialized, highly mobile society, people need governmental of some kind if they are to cope with many of their problems: old age, illness, unemployment, etc. They need such assistance; they demand it; they will get it. The only interesting political question is: How will they get it?
Jim Particular Redemption is taught & it's a Biblical concept & not just ones opinion. Clarity is always an important aspect in dealing with truths in how that affects doctrines & teachings being applied to the reader & hearer of His life changing truths amen.
Definition: The redemptive work of Christ was definite in design & accomplishment. It wasn't intended to make salvation possible for every man but actually to accomplish salvation for the elect.
Christ, acting as the representative of all those given to Him by the Father, fully satisfied the infinite demands of God's law, & accomplished eternal redemption for them. Even though Christ's obedience & sufferings were of infinite value & sufficient to expiate the sins of the entire race, had this been God's purpose, the accomplishments of His death were, by eternal design, limited to the elect only.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Limited atonement is not Biblical, Amyraldism (Four point Calvinism)
"I had to admit the truth: four-point Calvinism is no Calvinism at all. If limited atonement is false, then the other four points are false as well. One cannot truly and consistently believe in total depravity, unconditional election, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints without accepting definite atonement."
"Calvinism isnâ€™t a produce stand from which we can pick and choose which doctrines we wish to keep and pass over the rest in a sort of hermeneutical reprobation. Calvinism is an interwoven system of theology which must be accepted or rejected as a whole. From the acceptance of one point, one is compelled by simple logic to the acceptance of all the rest. You canâ€™t deny one without denying them all. The four-point Calvinist is as consistent as a psalm-singing atheist."
Excellent article, pity many of the links in it don't work, but I have read similar material so I say it's accurate. Unfortunately, the Romish church is a poor replacement for good government-run organizations. The Romish Church not being Christian needs a lot of oversight. See http://tinyurl.com/3baobh (Abuse Tracker).
Jim I want you to tell me why I should pay for someone else's health problems. I want to hear a good arguments for this, because in a society where there are an abundance of drunkards, fornicaters, people who smoke, etc.
Why should I pay for their ailments that they brought upon themselves?
Well, one thing is for sure. Christ knew He was the only begotten Son of God and He knew that He was God in the flesh and He often spoke those truths. So, someone cannot disagree with this and not come to the conclusion that He was delusional or a liar.
I didnâ€™t read the article, but anyone who professes a belief in Christ and does not believe He was God in the flesh has simply reinvented a Savior that satisfies their sinful natures.
Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
John 8:56-58 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
And of course as we all know, there are many more scriptures that reveal this truth.