Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | retxar | 5879 | ||
Sorry Joe, forgive me for offending you. Please allow me to explain. First of all, the “scripture weaving” I was referring to, was the attempts of those trying to prove the doctrine of limited atonement. That was what the discussion was about, right? You apparently were “questioning my motives” when you falsely assumed I was speaking of the doctrine of election. I was not. The doctrine of election is clear. The question is what election means; the before knowledge of God, or the before choosing of God. Those with the before choosing viewpoint must, somehow, make the doctrine of limited atonement stick also. I have read all the post, so I will not rehash what has already been said. For me, the scripture evidence to “make it stick”, is not there. Second of all, my choice of the word “slant” was not a good one. This is my fault. Forgive me again. You probably assumed the adjective definition, not the noun definition I meant. Slant as an adjective means “to distort so as to present a particular point of view.” Slant as a noun means “a tendency or inclination toward a particular point of view.” Could your view of limited atonement be defined as “a tendency or inclination toward a particular point of view”? My “slant” of un-limited atonement could certainly be defined as such. Last of all, I forgive you for your accusation of calling me a blasphemer. I feel you thought I was saying something other than what I indicated. Please don’t think I’m saying this in sarcasm. Jesus knows I am not. This is something that is required from me, not you. (Mark 11:25-26). See you in heaven brother! Jesus is Lord! |
||||||
2 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5888 | ||
I was not personally offended by your comments. If I got offended every time someone with a theologically different viewpoint questioned my motives, I would be curled up in a fetal position, crying in the corner. Forgiveness is no problem. I do, however, have a knee-jerk reaction to those who claim that those who hold to limited atonement having a dishonest heart. Jonathan Edwards the Great Awakener didn't have an honest heart? Francis Schaeffer didn't have an honest heart? R.C. Sproul does not have an honest heart? John Calvin the Reformer did not have an honest heart? See? Once you start lining up those who held/hold to limited atonement (and this is just the very tip of the iceberg), it becomes clear that either God used in tremendous, powerful ways those with "dishonest hearts" when it came to who Christ died for; or that just maybe their hearts were not dishonest after all. For the record, I did not directly call you a blasphemer. What I did intend to say is that if limited atonement is indeed Biblical, dismissing it as a "doctrinal slant" is treading dangerous water. For example, put the word "Trinity" in the place of "limited atonement." You and I both are Trinitarians, and if a Oneness Pentecostal came along and called the Trinity a doctrinal slant deriving from a dishonest heart, we should think that God would be extremely displeased at such an accusation. While I do not hold limited atonement to be a salvific issue, if there exists even a possibility that limited atonement is what is revealed in Scripture, we should not be so quick to brush it off. Sorry if that did not come out the way it was intended! In any case, I do not see how one can logically hold to unconditional election and unlimited atonement unless Christ didn't actually pay the full penalty for humanity's individual sins on the cross. If Christ actually died for the sins of all human beings (i.e. paid the full penalty), whose sins are those in Hell paying for? |
||||||