Candle Lit wrote: "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light." This quote is attributed to Einstein in a discussion with a professor. Whether or not it occurred, I don't know, but it is one way to look at the issue.
Psalm 139:8 If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
John UK wrote: Maybe the expression should have been 'limited application' rather than limited atonement. I think you will find that many neo-frenchies actually believe that the sins of God's elect were all counted, in terms of value, in terms of depth of punishment, actual sins. This cannot be right, because punishment for sin is eternal and infinite. And remember that you have to develop doctrine from scripture, not the other way round
Matt 1:21 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
The name Jesus comes from two words which mean "Jehovah saves" Thus HE was named in terms of what HE would accomplish quote "save HIS people"
That is precisely what God and Jesus ordained and accomplish.
The atonement and the blood are applied to salvation - BY GOD (R) BY GOD - to the ELECT.
GOD *LIMITS* Atonement.
The alternative UNlimited atonement would imply universalism.
But as per usual John you are attacking Calvinism because as you have hinted at before YOU don't like it. Hence your constant "racist" comment "frenchies" Can't you say the mans name without being nasty?
John UK wrote: Joe, you are asking me to answer a hypothetical question, but if you mean by "can" the ability, then yes, because of the infinite nature of the atonement. But if you mean by "can" the possibility, then no, of course not. There would be no purpose in election then, would there.
If the blood/atonement of Christ is sufficient for ALL. - Why does it not save "ALL"???
Because God "LIMITS" the application of the atonement to His own Elect. That is why it is called "LIMITED ATONEMENT"
This is called english comprehension besides Biblical theology.
Heb 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the AUTHOR AND FINISHER OF OUR FAITH; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
God dealt to man God decided the measure of Faith.
Rom 12:3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as GOD HATH DEALT TO EVERY MAN THE MEASURE OF FAITH.
Dealt Authored measured finisher of Faith Is by God and His Son Jesus.
Nothing about the faith being a human faculty here.
"A more cautious figure than Warren might have passed on the opportunity to become a political lightning rod. But he has spent the past few years positioning himself for just such a role as a suprapolitical, supracreedal arbiter of public virtues and religious responsibilities."
Wow!! Isn't America lucky to have a guy like Rick.
Faithful Remnant wrote: 1] As for the Limited Atonement doctrine, I have often found it to be the most questionable of the five Doctrines of Grace....still wrestle with it.
2] I think whether one is Calvinist or not, there is agreement that only believers benefit from the Atonement(only the sheep).
In #2 you have "limited" atonement to the Lord's flock.
In #1 you appear to question your own conclusion?
If God does this, quote; Jo 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. Then who is God going to apply the "value" of His Son's death to? Those HE drew - or those HE didn't?
The destruction of the family is being conducted in a variety of attacks. Single parenting was the trend in the 6o's, followed closely by homosexual acceptance. Adultery of course has always been there but in these recent decades divorce has become a booming business. Having less children to interfere with the serving of mammon has loomed large also in these times. This article highlights the problem that people are living longer and therfore requiring extra caring. The reason I add it to the above list is that it is a sign of the times and requires more funding therfore mammon gets even more service. But we see a problem arising in the future - less children means less capacity in society to take care of granny and grumpy. Further we will experience less taxpayers and less young people to do the more agile jobs like police, soldier and labourer. The long term forecast for family and society looks distinctly bleak and tremulous. Isn't life wonerful.
From the Preface of the NIV Quote. "That they were from many denominations - including Anglican, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Brethren, Christian Reformed, Church of Christ, Evangelical Free, Lutheran, Mennonite, Methodist, Nazarene, Presbyterian, Wesleyan and other churches - helped to safeguard the translation from sectarian bias."
Question Who compromised???
These denoms separate themselves by doctrines extracted from Scripture. How then can they agree in terms of "Dynamic Equivalence" to produce an exact unanimity?