US immigration chief: Same-sex ties are family ties
Same-sex couples will be considered “family relationships” in immigration proceedings, according to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, a move that could help stem the deportation of those in gay or lesbian binational relationships.
Close family ties to the United States are a factor considered by authorities in deportation cases, and gay and lesbian advocates have long argued for same-sex couples to have the same immigration rights as opposite-sex couples.
“In an effort to make clear the definition of the phrase ‘family relationships,’ I have directed ICE to disseminate written guidance to the field that the interpretation of the phrase ‘family relationships’ includes long-term, same-sex partners,” Napolitano said in a letter....
Limited Atonement wrote: Then how can you say below quote, "which to all intents and purposes, appeared to be universal?" Is your "universal" of lesser scope?
Let me be a bit clearer. I am thinking of universal in the sense of "all" the Jews, even though we know there was only a remnant who were saved. Or do you think that "all" the Jews were saved because descended from Abraham?
John UK wrote: 1. Yes! A type only, requiring fulfilment. 2. Covered the sins of all the Jews? Yes, that is what the picture language seemed to portray, which is my very point.
Then how can you say below quote, "which to all intents and purposes, appeared to be universal?"
Limited Atonement wrote: "Old Testament atonement was limited in three ways. (1) By its nature — it was temporary. (2) By its design. It only covered the sins of God’s covenant people, the Jews (including proselyte Jews).
1. Yes! A type only, requiring fulfilment.
2. Covered the sins of all the Jews? Yes, that is what the picture language seemed to portray, which is my very point.
"Old Testament atonement was limited in three ways. (1) By its nature — it was temporary. (2) By its design. It only covered the sins of God’s covenant people, the Jews (including proselyte Jews). (3) By its effectiveness — it only covered the sin — never to take it away once for all. “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sin” (Hebrews 10:4). Yes, it anticipated the great final sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
So we can readily see that the Old Testament atonement was limited though it did what it was designed to do. It pointed to the better sacrifice, the perfect way of redemption through the Lord Jesus Christ. Both the Old Testament Hebrew (sebach) and the New Testament Greek (thusia) basically mean “a slaughter” (Strong’s Concordance). As a lamb in the Old Testament was led to the slaughter (sacrifice), so was Christ in the New Testament, as the perfect sacrifice which all the others pointed to; and His was never to be repeated. “But this man {Christ}, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God” (Hebrews 10:12)." (C.Woodruff)
John UK wrote: Do you think there may be some confusion caused by the OT sacrifices (being a type) which to all intents and purposes, appeared to be universal?
As per usual you baptists seem to have a problem with the Old Testament. Have you ever read the OT?
ps I hope you are not going to go into your usual insult mode to respond.
Frank wrote: Before I forget, I want to thank God that you have found a fellowship! I will now add the future of that to my prayers for you. We may phrase election differently, but we both say without hesitation that universal salvation or even the possibility of universal salvation is unscriptural. Thanks for the exchange. It was a blessing to me and remember, I never say anything nice unless I mean it. I did a meditation on why the lost are condemned and the significance of that if you want it. Off with my wife for a short outing.
Frank, I also thank you for the fellowship and exchange of views, and especially for your promise of prayer for the success of the pioneering work. I have just sent off for 1100 tracts to give out locally, in the hope that some will come to hear the gospel. And I hope that my experience will hearten you for something to happen in your own locality; I will also pray that comes about, as it is so important to have Christian fellowship and serve the Lord in the context of his local body.
By all means post some more on your meditations, as you find the time.
John UK wrote: That is what I also believe Frank. There is much mystery surrounding the atoning sacrifice of our beloved Saviour, it is very deep water. But it concerns me when some say that "he has done all that he can, it is now up to you". This is what the universal atonement folks say, and I do not think they are correct. Rather I would hold to that doctrine written about by one (Pink?), the title of whose book sums it all up, "Redemption Accomplished & Applied". It is this application of the redemption which is so necessary, that lost, dead sinners may receive life, granted by God, before they will turn to him. I'm glad God has chosen to save some.
Before I forget, I want to thank God that you have found a fellowship! I will now add the future of that to my prayers for you.
We may phrase election differently, but we both say without hesitation that universal salvation or even the possibility of universal salvation is unscriptural.
Thanks for the exchange. It was a blessing to me and remember, I never say anything nice unless I mean it.
I did a meditation on why the lost are condemned and the significance of that if you want it.
Frank wrote: Minor point of disagreement. Good for you on the answer concerning the judgment. A poor analogy, but a useful on is this. Someone has a disease; there is a vaccine that will cure it but they refuse to take it. Their death certificate will not say "didn't take the vaccine", but will say cause of death "the disease". That concept helps to understand election better. The lost will not say, "you didn't elect me", so I am not to blame. They will understand they are guilty because of their sins that remain. Mt. 7:21-23, John 3:19-20, Re 20:12, Mt 25:32-46
That is what I also believe Frank. There is much mystery surrounding the atoning sacrifice of our beloved Saviour, it is very deep water. But it concerns me when some say that "he has done all that he can, it is now up to you". This is what the universal atonement folks say, and I do not think they are correct. Rather I would hold to that doctrine written about by one (Pink?), the title of whose book sums it all up, "Redemption Accomplished & Applied".
It is this application of the redemption which is so necessary, that lost, dead sinners may receive life, granted by God, before they will turn to him.
John UK wrote: Thanks Frank. I'll differ only that I do not believe Calvary was necessary to condemn the lost, as they were/are already lost. I would define Calvary's purpose as being the redemption needed to purchase God's elect, that they would have eternal life through Jesus Christ by the forgivess of sins, paid for by the sinless substitute. I would say that the lost are condemned at the judgment because of their sins. (Scripture also seems to teach that their unbelief ALSO brings them into condemnation, but I haven't ironed that one out yet.)
Minor point of disagreement. Good for you on the answer concerning the judgment. A poor analogy, but a useful on is this. Someone has a disease; there is a vaccine that will cure it but they refuse to take it. Their death certificate will not say "didn't take the vaccine", but will say cause of death "the disease". That concept helps to understand election better. The lost will not say, "you didn't elect me", so I am not to blame. They will understand they are guilty because of their sins that remain.
Frank wrote: John, Calvary represents God’s love and mercy to a sinful world. It will result in salvation and eternal life for His elect and will result in condemnation for those who reject His grace and mercy. It is where God Himself suffered for and paid the price for the sins of the world. Its “purpose” was to save elect and to condemn the lost. 2 Cor. 5:19, 21 – 2 Cor. 2:14-15 KJV Why do you think the lost are condemned at the judgment?
Thanks Frank. I'll differ only that I do not believe Calvary was necessary to condemn the lost, as they were/are already lost.
I would define Calvary's purpose as being the redemption needed to purchase God's elect, that they would have eternal life through Jesus Christ by the forgivess of sins, paid for by the sinless substitute.
I would say that the lost are condemned at the judgment because of their sins. (Scripture also seems to teach that their unbelief ALSO brings them into condemnation, but I haven't ironed that one out yet.)
Okay, I will try and express my thoughts without simply referring to the scriptures; that is something I don’t mind doing since I meditate a great deal on the meaning of truth and scriptures.
The problem of course with that is that any definition of Calvary could then be lacking. A critic could say a simple definition is lacking because it is too simple and a complex one is lacking because it is too complex. In other words, I used John 3:14-15 and 1Timothy 1:15 because they both expressed my personal thoughts perfectly. As an aside, I never associate courage with contemplating God’s word. To me the greatest blessing is when I understand new truths that might consist of learning where I am wrong on any given subject. I think it is silly to say that we agree on things when in fact we don’t and of course God knows!
Calvary represents God’s love and mercy to a sinful world. It will result in salvation and eternal life for His elect and will result in condemnation for those who reject His grace and mercy. It is where God Himself suffered for and paid the price for the sins of the world. Its “purpose” was to save elect and to condemn the lost. 2 Cor. 5:19, 21 – 2 Cor. 2:14-15 KJV
Why do you think the lost are condemned at the judgment?
So, when we consider who really limits the atonement, we realize that there is a limitation on both sides of the argument. The Arminian necessarily limits God to the whim of finite, fallen man. The Calvinistic view, which is the scriptural view, limits the atonement only in design making it a definite atonement. Perhaps no one has said it better than the Puritan John Owen (1616-1683). Quote; "The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either: (l) All the sins of all men. (2) All the sins of some men, or (3) Some of the sins of all men. In which case it may be said: (a) That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so none are saved. (b) That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth. (c) But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins? You answer, Because of unbelief. I ask, is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!" (the-highway.com)
Frank wrote: John, I answered below? Or at least that was my intention. Let me know if that is not what you are looking for.
Thank you Frank for your comment and for sharing your experiences. I am really in much the same boat, having not been in church for a few years, but after much prayer, a miracle has occurred. A Welshman born in South Africa became a missionary in Botswana for over a decade, then over a decade in England, blessing many folks with his preaching, until feeling called to pioneer a new work just three miles from where I live. For six months I have sat under his Bible Studies in a public place and been greatly blessed; hopefully a new church will be formed by the end of the year, as attendance has been good. What an answer to heartfelt prayer.
The question though, you never answered directly, although I see the last post has addressed this very subject. See if you can answer it in simple terms:
What was Calvary's Purpose? or....
What was God doing at Calvary?
Walling wrote: I asked John UK and all he does in false witness...
You asked?
You mean: "What does that have to do with the price of fish?"
"The term "limited" atonement has given much offense. It may not indeed be the most fortunate terminology. It is capable of misunderstanding and misrepresentation. Some for this reason may prefer the terms "definite" or "particular" atonement. But what we are particularly insistent upon defending is that which the term historically used connotes, and so if the disuse of the term "limited" is calculated to create the impression that we have renounced the doctrine of which the term is the symbol, if in other words the disuse is calculated to placate the enemies of our Reformed Faith, then we must resolutely refuse to refrain from its use. The atonement is limited, because in its precise intention and meaning and effect it is for those and for those only who are destined in the determinate purpose of God to eternal salvation. We may well bless God that this is not a meager company, but a multitude whom no man can number out of every nation and kindred and people and tongue." (J.Murray)
John UK wrote: Good morning brother! I look at it like this. It is quite easy to formulate a doctrine from scripture whereby God has loved all men and bases his election upon what he sees as an omniscient God. Thus: "elect according to the foreknowledge of God". And they happily continue along those lines. Now imagine some folks coming along and claiming God does NOT love all men, that he has chosen some only unto salvation, and some unto reprobation (the hypermen syndrome). Thus, in the eyes of the first group, these others seem to be limiting God's love and, because of their misinterpreted text, rebel against this strange teaching that God actually hates the majority of folks in the world. And thus all calvinists are regarded as misrepresenting God, and so both they and their doctrine are regarded as evil. But if you show them the correct interpretation of "foreknowledge", it may take a while for it to sink in. See what I mean? Frank. The question?
Walling,
I thought I answered your question regarding truth. To me it is anything that pertains to understanding and knowing our triune God.
John,
I answered below? Or at least that was my intention. Let me know if that is not what you are looking for.
Lurker wrote: perhaps you could tell us if there is any Christian "truth" which is not comprehended in the biblical definition of "truth".
It is not me that needs to define truth. I know what truth is and I can exegete Scripture correctly. I asked Frank who brought the whole thing up and he apparently doesn't have a clue. I asked John UK and all he does in false witness, is insult people who don't agree with his mysterious religious philosophies. Apparently you are in agreement with this team. Good luck with your search.
eyesalve wrote: I don't believe I said anything against arminians; only seeking to understand how the reverend Spirit filled man can say that certain Biblical doctrines quote, "are quite evil and heretical?" rather than simply stating more humbly as you have just done "it is a mystery".
Good morning brother!
I look at it like this. It is quite easy to formulate a doctrine from scripture whereby God has loved all men and bases his election upon what he sees as an omniscient God. Thus: "elect according to the foreknowledge of God". And they happily continue along those lines.
Now imagine some folks coming along and claiming God does NOT love all men, that he has chosen some only unto salvation, and some unto reprobation (the hypermen syndrome). Thus, in the eyes of the first group, these others seem to be limiting God's love and, because of their misinterpreted text, rebel against this strange teaching that God actually hates the majority of folks in the world. And thus all calvinists are regarded as misrepresenting God, and so both they and their doctrine are regarded as evil.
But if you show them the correct interpretation of "foreknowledge", it may take a while for it to sink in. See what I mean?
Walling wrote: What "Truth" is not understood by the elect? Frank.
Since your feathers got all ruffled (shame on yer, John! ), perhaps it would be easier for you, being an elect "good Biblical Calvinist PRESBYTERIAN" and all, to enlighten us poor ignorant Baptist folk by giving us the biblical definition of "truth".
And for kickers, perhaps you could tell us if there is any Christian "truth" which is not comprehended in the biblical definition of "truth".
48
There are a total of 127 user comments displayed | add new comment |
COMMENTS | 
), perhaps it would be easier for you, being an elect "good Biblical Calvinist PRESBYTERIAN" and all, to enlighten us poor ignorant Baptist folk by giving us the biblical definition of "truth". 
