John Yurich USA wrote:
[snip] I have total self control [snip]

Then you must be sinless!

John UK wrote:
Thanks DJ. So the penal substitution aspect of the atonement is solely compatible with a particular atonement, whereby all the sins of God's elect are punished entirely and completely, and will never come against the saints unto condemnation.
Conversely, if Christ is said to have died for the sins of all men irrespective, then it could not have been a substitutionary atonement, not a penal atonement.
Yep, it all makes sense to me. And it reminds me of Horatio Spafford's hymn "It is well with my soul". Written out of tragedy, I think of the lines...
My sins, O the bliss of this glorious thought
My sins, not in part but the whole
Is nailed to his cross and I bear them no more
Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord! O my soul!

John UK wrote:
Sure it does, thanks man. But it didn't actually answer my question. Could you have a go at that as well, please? Thank you.

As per TULIP, Limited (or PARTICULAR) atonement declared that Christ's death did EXACTLY and COMPLETELY what God had intended for His chosen ones.

John UK wrote:
What shall we say, "Three cheers for the pharmaceutical industry."?

Nope.

John UK wrote:
One thing I would like to ask of my bona fide calvinistic friends here, if they are willing and able to enlighten me with regard to the atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ, who loved us and gave his life for us.
I have always believed in a substitutionary atonement, which is a penal substitution - "Christ died for our sins according the scriptures".
Now believing in such a thing, is it also crucial to believe in limited atonement, the L of tulip, as of necessity? I'd never really thought about that.
If that is true, then I would have to declare tuppip bankrupt, and find other ways to understand certain texts of scripture. And I see that my pilgrim friend Frank would also have to review his position of tu_ip. Thank you.

But for the ease of remembering an acronym and because the Synod of Dordt was basically a Dutch assembly, "TULIP" was decided upon. Most of the Synod agreed upon PARTICULAR atonement [Atonement reserved for and PARTICULAR to God's elect]. But this would make the acronym "TUPIP".

LIMITED was chosen instead of PARTICULAR for the sake of the easily remembered acronym TULIP.

John UK wrote:
I know, it's larfable it it wasn't so serious. Vultures unable to fly or eat, wandering about on the ground with a glazed expression, until they keeled over and died. In Mumbai, one religion depends on the vultures to clean up their dead when they leave them on roof tops. But with no vultures, they had to rethink their strategy.
No good comes from injecting cows.

John UK wrote:
[snip] You heard about the vultures in India going senile and dying because they ate carcases of injected meat?

As you would say ... LARFING!

John UK wrote:
It's always good to find the principles in the scriptures. But when it comes to "food", we need to realise that modern foods are not the same as the old foods. It would be interesting to see what the Lord would make of the meat injections and additives to water and processed food and hydrogenated oil used for margarine and battery chickens and fish farms where you can "grow" a 10lb salmon in as many months.
"godliness is of value in every way". So could we say that a man who eats greasy chips every day with battered fish, pasty, beefburgher etc. all with dollops of vinegar and sprinkled with plenteous refined salt, along with ketchup or sauce, washed down with some strong coffee or glass of wine, is acting in godliness?

John UK wrote:
And yet, whenever someone says that eating healthily affects your health for the good, some Christians go to great lengths to prove this incorrect, even if they've got a plaster on every finger.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Yes, Penny, is important source for pointing out persecution, [URL=http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/majid-rafizadeh/killings-of-christians-by-islamists-doubled-in-2013/print/]]]Killings of Christians by Islamists Doubled in 2013[/URL], which no doubt covers much of the material that the SA article, does.

Lurker wrote:
[snip] If Adam and Eve fell from a covenant of works, what covenant did they fall into?
"The just shall live by faith." Was that also true in the garden? If yes, how do you reconcile a covenant of works to faith? When God published His covenants, faith was life and blessings and works was death and curse. Didn't Adam and Eve reap the curse?

God was even gracious to Adam when, after he fell, God immediately promised a seed of Eve Who would crush the head of the serpent. (Genesis 3:15 ... the protoevangelium ... the Good News in it's VERY basic form). Faith in this promise of God was all that man from thenceforth could be saved. Adam, Abel, Seth, Enoch,... Noah were under this rudimentary Gospel until it was further developed with Abraham. MORE light upon this promise was given to Moses through the Law with all its types and shadows. The fulfillment, of course, with Jesus Christ. A GREAT light had come.

Unprofitable Servant wrote:
Hey, DJC49, glad to see you back and posting regularly again.

Got a question for you, if you don't mind.

When God said He was going to establish a covenant with Noah, He used the word covenant(Genesis 6:18), same with Abraham (Genesis 15:18), same with new covenant (Hebrews 8:13). Where do you see the word covenant in ANY conversation we have between Adam and God?

You're quite correct. I do NOT see the word "covenant" in ANY conversation between God and Adam! However, I understand the implicit principle within Gen 2:16,17 ... much like I don't EVER see the word "Trinity" anywhere in the Bible but I understand that Trinity has ALWAYS been the very essence of the Godhead.

God always deals with man by means of covenant -- whether explicit or implied.

BTW, do you believe that a "covenant" existed betweem God and David (i.e., the "Davidic Covenant")? See: 2 Samuel 7

Now, do you find the word "covenant" ANYWHERE within 2 Samuel 7? Of course not. But yet, even without the word, a covenant between God and David is understood!

Lurker wrote:
[snip] ... CT claims that Adam and Eve were in a covenant of works in the garden. Nothing to establish the claim. [snip]

"And the Lord God commanded man, saying, of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eat thereof thou shalt surely die" [Gen 2:16,17]

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Well, UPS, I could read Der Spiegel, then, the title explains it all, [snip] On the Way Down: The Erosion of America's Middle Class, from which, "While America's super-rich congratulate themselves on donating billions to charity, the rest of the country is worse off than ever. Long-term unemployment is rising and millions of Americans are struggling to survive. The gap between rich and poor is wider than ever and the middle class is disappearing." while this may have been written 3-1/2 years ago, unfortunately, things haven't changed except for what the super-rich control, (Oh, for you who are still in the Middle Class, take a look at [snip].
It's about time the Super-Rich start paying their fair share in taxes, since [snip] Rich people more likely to cheat, behave badly, research finds, kick the Greedy Old Party out!

Oh, if it wasn't the War on Poverty programs we have 2X the people in poverty.

CAB wrote:
[snip] UK John and his surreal alter egos. [snip]

CAB wrote:
Name calling without examples does not edify.

CAB wrote:
Comparing Blood Atonement w/ key TULIP Bloodless Atonement heresy.
Penal (Bloodless) Atonement: Key unbiblical heresy undergirding all 5 points of TULIP and OSAS--says God picked people to be saved and arranged to personally pour out wrath on Jesus on the cross and 3 days in Hell, one by one, for every single "Chosen's" sin, calculated and tabulated beforehand. Is a variation of Catholic heresy that has Jesus still suffering, writhing, atoning on the cross.

CAB wrote:
Interesting.
I checked Wikipedia, buzzed through Amyraltism and Penal Atonement. Crazy stuff.
I'm not going to go to seminary to learn that stuff, and I'm not impressed. We have our Bible and the Holy Spirit; and, hey, my Bible says plain as day the BLOOD of Jesus cleanses us from sin. Well, I read through the Wikipedia articles put together by Calvinists/Reformed, and there was not ONE WORD ABOUT THE BLOOD. You can go check it out yourself and see. [snip]

BTW, that Wikipedia article on Penal Death DID indeed mention BLOOD. Perhaps in your buzzing through the page you missed it ...

Mike wrote:
If you believe you can be saved, then not saved, you're illogical, for eternal life by definition cannot be granted temporarily.

To which CAB, in reply, wrote:
Tell that to Adam and Eve -- or Lucifer and his angels.

So how did Adam and Eve have salvation BEFORE they ate of the tree? Prior to their fall, did they hear the Good News of the Gospel and believe?

And as for Satan and his angels ...
There was NEVER any plan of redemption and salvation.

Sister, you certainly have your theological categories messed up!
____________

Now here's something for you to chew on:
"In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the ELECT angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality. [1 Tim 5:21]

Imagine that! "ELECT" angels!
I wonder who elected them?

CAB wrote:
How much suffering? Read history. Foxe's book of Martyrs if you can stand to read it. Read the Bible, read Paul's life and see what he endured, 8 beatings, a few stonings, shipwrecks, imprisoned, abandoned, martyred. Paul never assumed OSAS, and kept on running his race, keeping his eyes on the prize, was anxious to go to Heaven but glad to stay to work. Toward the very end he felt confident he could pass his last test, martyrdom, and was joyfully looking forward to Heaven because as he said, he had run his race.

I know that I haven't.

Perhaps neither one of us is saved; or perhaps we have both LOST our salvation!