Limited Atonement -- Calvinist Style (Spurgeon was Reformed.)

[7seasrekeyed]

HERE is a comment on V. 29 from CALVIN himself. Notice he agrees with what both Issachar and I said

V. 29 is referring to the blood of Christ not animal sacrifice

what should I should I say? apparently some people need to refer to Calvin more...never thought I would say that

am I misreading this, or does Calvin seem to suggest that someone can actually leave Christ?

is this perhaps a different Calvin? doesn't seem to be from what I read




29. Who has trodden under foot the Son of God, etc. There is this likeness between apostates under the Law and under the Gospel, that both perish without mercy; but the kind of death is different; for the Apostle denounces on the despisers of Christ not only the deaths of the body, but eternal perdition. And therefore he says that a sorer punishment awaits them.

And he designates the desertion of Christianity by three things; for he says that thus the Son of God is trodden under foot, that his blood is counted an unholy thing, and that despite is done to the Spirit of grace. Now, it is a more heinous thing to tread under foot than to despise or reject; and the dignity of Christ is far different from that of Moses; and further, he does not simply set the Gospel in opposition to the Law, but the person of Christ and of the Holy Spirit to the person of Moses.


source

 

[Issachar92]

Except that 'the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified' is the blood of bulls and goats, NOT the blood of Jesus,

No its not. It says TRAMPLED UNDER FOOT THE SON OF GOD, AND HAS REGARDED AS UNCLEAN the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified and insulted the spirit of grace.

First part of the sentence says SON OF GOD, and second part of the sentence flips to goats? You are only wresting and twisting the verse to something it doesnt say because you must hold on to your belief system, its more important than what the verse says.

The whole world doesnt mean everyone in the world when you want it to, but it does when you do. When it says ALL in regards to man's sinfulness, then it means everyone head for head, despite what the passages Paul quotes from say. But when its about Jesus dying for the world nah that aint all.

You are deceived into taking Calvin's words over what the bible clearly says. Now thats a cult

And you being 83 has not helped you at all. Its probably done more damage than good, you're so far into your church doctrines (I wonder if its the apostate s*dom church of england?) that you are willing to change topics MID VERSE to make it fit.

 

[Issachar92]

HERE is a comment on V. 29 from CALVIN himself. Notice he agrees with what both Issachar and I said

We got problems! valiant is disagreeing with the prophet of Calvinism. What a heretic.

 

[Issachar92]

I checked and even John Gill and other pundits of the 1800s who are reformed agree with me. LOL.

What say ye know? This is embarassing. You come in playing the numbers card, yet your own pundits agree with me. Not that it matters what they say one bit ,since the verse is crystal clear to anyone EXCEPT you and Calvin's two errand boys who liked your posts without even checking just because it was written to spite what I said. Calvin is very disappointed with you lot, yall liked a comment that disagreed with Calvin, there was some other guy who disagreed with Calvin. *Michael Servetus*

So valiant its time for you to: Admit that you were wrong.
OR you hold on to your false view disagreeing with 1) The Bible and the very verse and language itself 2) your pundits 3) logic and wilfully stay deceived and deceiving on this topic.

 

[Zi]

Do you have proof? Oncefallen has stated many times that posting such accusations aren't our rights to do so.

FYI...that is Meggido, a previous member banned and back on here under another username. Same guy, different username, same heretic...and full of hate.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Do you have proof? Oncefallen has stated many times that posting such accusations aren't our rights to do so.

His writings are the same. Same hate filled posts.

 

[valiant]

Why do you continue to promote this lie? Lies are of the devil.

you mean the truths of God

Both Strong's Concordance and Thayer's lexicon clearly explain that "the world" means the inhabitants of the earth, and the whole tenor of Bible truth requires that interpretation also.

Anyone who know Greek knows that it must be translated IN CONTEXT.

If ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God, then ALL need to be saved, and therefore Christ is the propitiation for the sins of THE WHOLE WORLD (1 John 2:1,2).

If Christ is the propitiation for the sins of everybody, them everybody must be propitiated. Universalism.

Strong's Concordance (2889)

kosmos: order, the world​

Original Word: κόσμος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: kosmos
Phonetic Spelling: (kos'-mos)
Short Definition: the world, universe
Definition: the world, universe; worldly affairs; the inhabitants of the world; adornment.

You pick out the one that suits you. That's not good Greek.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 2889: κόσμος κόσμος, κόσμου, ὁ; 3.the world, i. e. the universe 4.the circle of the earth, the earth 5.the inhabitants of the world: θέατρον ἐγενήθημεν τῷ κόσμῳ καί ἀγγέλοις καί ἀνθρώποις,

What about 1. and 2.?? You pick out the one that suits you LOL

1 Corinthians 4:9 (Winers Grammar, 127 (121)); particularly the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human race (first so in Sap. (e. g.

)):Matthew 13:38; Matthew 18:7; Mark 14:9; John 1:10, 29 ( L in brackets); ; Romans 3:6, 19; 1 Corinthians 1:27f (cf. Winer's Grammar, 189 (178)); ; 2 Corinthians 5:19; James 2:5 (cf. Winer's Grammar, as above); 1 John 2:2 (cf. Winer's Grammar, 577 (536)

6. "the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ"

picking out the one that suits you LOL what about 1 to 5????

you really ought to be ashamed of yourself

 

[Rokurac]

A good explanation for those interested.

[video=youtube;saMoS8vVbX4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saMoS8vVbX4[/video]

 

[valiant]

No its not. It says TRAMPLED UNDER FOOT THE SON OF GOD, AND HAS REGARDED AS UNCLEAN the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified and insulted the spirit of grace.

First part of the sentence says SON OF GOD, and second part of the sentence flips to goats? You are only wresting and twisting the verse to something it doesnt say because you must hold on to your belief system, its more important than what the verse says.

Read earlier. ' there remains no more an offering for sin.' That means the old offerings are done away it is now Christ of judgment. I forgive you for your folly

The whole world doesnt mean everyone in the world when you want it to, but it does when you do.

It is questionable whether it ever means everyone in the world.

When it says ALL in regards to man's sinfulness, then it means everyone head for head, despite what the passages Paul quotes from say.

Aha so Paul agree with me????

You are deceived into taking Calvin's words over what the bible clearly says. Now thats a cult

i'm not interested in Calvin's words. I go by the Scriptures.

And you being 83 has not helped you at all. Its probably done more damage than good, you're so far into your church doctrines (I wonder if its the apostate s*dom church of england?) that you are willing to change topics MID VERSE to make it fit.

Yes I have learned wisdom. and I have not changed topic in mid verse.

 

[Nehemiah6]

you mean the truths of God

The lies of the Devil cannot be called the truths of God. Woe unto them that call good evil, and evil good.

Anyone who know Greek knows that it must be translated IN CONTEXT.

Yes, and the context is John 3:16,17. Check it out for yourself.

If Christ is the propitiation for the sins of everybody, them everybody must be propitiated. Universalism.

Even a child would not arrive at such a ludicrous conclusion. Universalism teaches that everyone is saved whether they obey the Gospel or not. The Bible teaches is that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, but only those who obey the Gospel are saved. Big difference.

You pick out the one that suits you. That's not good Greek.

The meanings which do not apply in context can and should be disregarded. And that is exactly what I did, and what anyone would do.

you really ought to be ashamed of yourself

No one should be ashamed of exposing the lies of the Devil and presenting the truth. You should be the one who should submit to the Word of God, not the false doctrines of men.

 

[valiant]

I checked and even John Gill and other pundits of the 1800s who are reformed agree with me. LOL.

Soooo?

What say ye know? This is embarassing. You come in playing the numbers card, yet your own pundits agree with me.

I go to the Scriptures, not to man.

Not that it matters what they say one bit ,since the verse is crystal clear to anyone EXCEPT you and Calvin's two errand boys who liked your posts without even checking just because it was written to spite what I said. Calvin is very disappointed with you lot, yall liked a comment that disagreed with Calvin, there was some other guy who disagreed with Calvin. *Michael Servetus*

LOL so you agree with Calvin?

So valiant its time for you to: Admit that you were wrong.

Why? I am right.

OR you hold on to your false view disagreeing with 1) The Bible and the very verse and language itself 2) your pundits 3) logic and wilfully stay deceived and deceiving on this topic.

I'm beginning to think you're fifteen lol You talk like it. The Bible and the language it uses is on MY side. The pundits can have their opinion although I doubt whether you are right. Logic is on my side too.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

so valiant you ignore what I posted from Calvin himself and just continue on


Calvin himself disagrees with your reinvention of v. 29 and you just blow off that fact and continue on with your posits

you have lost all credibility and too bad you cannot see that

IMO, this is just a bad display of Calvinism at its worst

I would like to think all Calvinists are not as you are. for that matter, you don't even agree with him

nothing is funny...in fact your giggling is starting to sound a little nervous

 

[7seasrekeyed]

Soooo?



I go to the Scriptures, not to man.


but you don't seem to understand them



LOL so you agree with Calvin?

are you not among the self proclaimed Calvinists in this thread? you don't agree with what those who oppose that religious system post, so unless you are making this up as you go along, it seems YOU do not agree with what you say you agree

that's puzzling to say the least



Why? I am right.

in your own eyes only



I'm beginning to think you're fifteen lol You talk like it. The Bible and the language it uses is on MY side. The pundits can have their opinion although I doubt whether you are right. Logic is on my side too.

logic has never crossed your doorstep. again, at 83, we would expect a better response with some actual facts from you as well less mocking and just plain personal disdain for a person younger than you are

 

[7seasrekeyed]

you really ought to be ashamed of yourself

without fail, this is the type of rendering offered by someone who really has no answers and is trying very hard to take the heat off themself

 

[Depleted]

That's a bit heavy duty.

1 Cor. 6:1-8

Isn't past time we call it like we see it? There are many here who pretend they are Christians, but actions show it's not true.

 

[Depleted]

Good Morning Depleted, I'm just an innocent bystander following along with "your 'groovie' thread"

Targum, (Aramaic: “Translation,” or “Interpretation”), any of several translations of the Hebrew Bible or portions of it into the Aramaic language. The word originally indicated a translation of the Old Testament in any language but later came to refer specifically to an Aramaic translation.

The earliest "Targums" date from the time after the Babylonian Exile

Word Origin: Targum
[tahr-goo m; Sephardic Hebrew tahr-goom; Ashkenazic Hebrew tahr-goo m] /ˈtɑr gʊm; Sephardic Hebrew tɑrˈgum; Ashkenazic Hebrew ˈtɑr gʊm/

noun, plural Targums, Hebrew, Targumim

[Sephardic Hebrew tahr-goo-meem; Ashkenazic Hebrew tahr-goo-mim] /Sephardic Hebrew tɑr guˈmim; Ashkenazic Hebrew tɑrˈgu mɪm/ (Show IPA)

1. a translation or paraphrase in Aramaic of a book or division of the Old Testament

Groovy? Haven't heard that word for a while. I like it. lol

I always am mixed minded on Targums. I like translation, but have problems with interpretations. Especially, since I don't know which is which.

 

[Depleted]

“I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.” 1Cor. 9:22

Paul’s great object was not merely to instruct and to improve, but to save. Anything short of this would have disappointed him; he would have men renewed in heart, forgiven, sanctified, in fact, saved. Have our Christian labours been aimed at anything below this great point? Then let us amend our ways, for of what avail will it be at the last great day to have taught and moralized men if they appear before God unsaved? Blood-red will our skirts be if through life we have sought inferior objects, and forgotten that men needed to be saved. Paul knew the ruin of man’s natural state, and did not try to educate him, but to save him; he saw men sinking to hell, and did not talk of refining them, but of saving from the wrath to come. To compass their salvation, he gave himself up with untiring zeal to telling abroad the gospel, to warning and beseeching men to be reconciled to God. His prayers were importunate and his labours incessant. To save souls was his consuming passion, his ambition, his calling. He became a servant to all men, toiling for his race, feeling a woe within him if he preached not the gospel. He laid aside his preferences to prevent prejudice; he submitted his will in things indifferent, and if men would but receive the gospel, he raised no questions about forms or ceremonies: the gospel was the one all-important business with him. If he might save some he would be content. This was the crown for which he strove, the sole and sufficient reward of all his labours and self-denials. Dear reader, have you and I lived to win souls at this noble rate? Are we possessed with the same all-absorbing desire? If not, why not? Jesus died for sinners, cannot we live for them? Where is our tenderness? Where our love to Christ, if we seek not his honour in the salvation of men? O that the Lord would saturate us through and through with an undying zeal for the souls of men.

(Just thought a reminder what the message was that everyone seems high on arguing about.)

What's wrong with THIS message again?

 

[oldethennew]

O that the Lord would saturate us through and through with an undying zeal for the souls of men.


when we Love and Serve Him above ourselves, then this statement will be understood...

 

[Issachar92]

are you not among the self proclaimed Calvinists in this thread? you don't agree with what those who oppose that religious system post, so unless you are making this up as you go along, it seems YOU do not agree with what you say you agree

you have lost all credibility and too bad you cannot see that

As I predicted, scholars gonna scholar. Once reality is being denied there aint nothing to be done. Its a lost cause.

Cya in the next one folks.

 

[Depleted]

How about that? The best way to stop a thread is to re-reference the OP and ask what's wrong with it.

Got nothing, so off to taunt in other threads.

And people wonder why I openly say who is not a Christian?