Doctrines like Limited Atonement - why?
- Thread starter LeeLoving
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Agreed, but that doesn't negate our ability to choose to reject it. It doesn't mean God forces us to continue in the way despite our wishes, and it certainly doesn't negate the multiple passages where we are exhorted to continue in the faith. If it were not possible to walk away then the epistle writers wasted a lot of ink in those passages.
I could, but here you're attempting to over literalize a metaphor. Being born again does not mean that every aspect of birth is true of the new birth, merely that we must become new creations. You're just like nicodemus asking if he should crawl back into his mothers womb if you understand it that way.
Why would Jesus use something you had no control over to depict the new birth if you had control over it?
As an analogy, because what was in view was not the idea of control you're merely reading your doctrine into the picture. It doesn't need to be there for the analogy to work, and I see no contextual reason to assume that it was in mind.
But, faith is a fruit of the Holy Spirit. So you were born again before you responded?
Once again you're reading your doctrine into things rather than addressing what the text says. You haven't dealt with my objections, yet you press on as if you have proven your position to be true and keep trying to set little traps. So why is so much ink wasted exhorting us to remain in the faith, asking us to choose life rather than death, etc if the choice is made by God?
You cannot respond unless you believe it. So God saved you before you could respond.
I’m not ashamed of myself, I’m ashamed of the school for two reasons:
1. it’s a Reformed seminary that pukes out Calvinistic stupidity.
2. It’s a leftist, hate-bashing cesspool whereby most everyone affiliated with it hates straight, White men who love the Lord.
So when God says "choose," he really means "I have chosen for you?" The issue isn't whether God saved, but whether my choice was a genuine choice made from my own will. It's not belief, but recognition that happens when the gospel is preached. I didn't respond to what was said, my belief has developed since recognizing the voice in the message. I knew the voice of my God and I loved it. Belief is a response to the gospel, just as faith is.
You're missing the larger point, the presentation of the choice implies that they had the real ability to choose. Nothing in the new covenant implies we lost capacities and if what you are saying is the case then it is not Adam who is responsible for the loss of the imago dei that is required for us to lose the ability to choose, but Christ. Now, in a sense I did not choose Christ because I didn't choose to have the gospel preached to me. But that doesn't negate that I had the ability to respond to the gospel.