Limited Atonement?

[Trout]

Reader, that's two us asking for the origin of your 'sciptural' text: "all He died for, would surely believe" Provide that scripture or admit that you are making it up. Your choice.

We asked you to verify your doctrine, you never came through, why are you trying to coerce Reader into doing something you yourself won't do.

RanRan, do you think you are a hypocrite?

[RanRan]

There are many here who oppose Christ's Gospel, it's been that way everywhere and at all times.

[Trout]

There are many here who oppose Christ's Gospel, it's been that way everywhere and at all times.

And there is one here named RanRan who tries to inject his heresy into every discussion, I hope he comes to an understanding of the gospel.

[RanRan]

Trout, you are a riot!

[The Plain Jane]

Trout, you are riot!

But he's telling the truth...

[The Plain Jane]

Because it would take an eternity. We would be stuck in an endless free will vs. determinism debate. I mean, we could if you want. I was trying to narrow it down to a more direct subject. Haven't there been other threads dealing with the other topics. The entire TULIP is so broad. I'll admit that I wrote my original question with a presupposition, but I pretty much made that clear in my first post. What I'm getting as an answer from everyone in here is basically. "No. Not really." If you want to open the subject to the whole TULIP, we can. I singled out LA because it is the point that I have heard the least about from Calvanists and I was curious.

I think that would be a good idea. I want to have a richer understanding of the TULIP anyway. Here, I'll cut and paste from another thread in which I discuss the TULIP:

Yes, I meant the Tulip and only the Tulip.

Total deprevaity. I'm not sure I diagree with TD. I don't know enough about it to say weather I disagree with it or not. Someone told me that TD and Bound Will are one in the same, but I'm not sure.

Unconditional Election. This means God choose some for Hell and some for Heaven. And it's not based on the person at all. Well, the Scriptures says God desires all to come to repentance 2 Peter 3:9. So how can God desire the repentance of the ones chosen for Hell? God desires all to saved and come to a knowledge of truth. 1 Tim 2:4 How can this be when he choose some for Hell?

Limited Attonement. This means Christ died for only the elect. The Scriptures seem to teach Christ died for all. Indeed, and for that reason his sweat became like drops of blood. John 1:29 and John 3:16. I am sure there are more, but they escape me.

Irrestible Grace. This means that we can not reject God. The Scriptures plainly teach we can. Matthew 23:37 and Acts 7:51 There are more, they also escape me.

Perserverance of the Saints. This in essence teaches once saved, alway saved, and the Bible plainly teaches us to beware. Because we can lose our salvation if we are not careful. First parable in Luke 8, 1 Cor 10:12, Galations 5:4, Matthew 10:22.

Another thing I admire Calvinists for is their emphasis on the sovernity of God. I love John Piper books. Calvinits seem to be very passionate about their faith. I always said if I to switch to something else within Protestantism it would be Calvinism.

[Reader]

But he's telling the truth...

With all due respect Jane and Trout, it has been hard enough for the last several months to have a threaded discussion exempt from RanRan's interference, but now your recent rebukes, although accurate and right, are continuing and heightning the interference.

Is there a way for the two of you to continue your displeasure with RanRan, without hijacking every thread started?

This dialogue between the three of you has been predominating Theology 201 for days. Is that right? If right, it is terribly boooorrrrrrriiiiinnnnng!

(Logical suggestion: Ban RanRan altogether . . .but don't tell anyone Reader suggested so! )

[RanRan]

With all due respect Jane and Trout, it has been hard enough for the last several months to have a threaded discussion exempt from RanRan's interference, but now your recent rebukes, although accurate and right, are continuing and heightning the interference.

Is there a way for the two of you to continue your displeasure with RanRan, without hijacking every thread started?

This dialogue between the three of you has been predominating Theology 201 for days. Is that right? If right, it is terribly boooorrrrrrriiiiinnnnng!

(Logical suggestion: Ban RanRan altogether . . .but don't tell anyone Reader suggested so! )

That would solve your problem, wouldn't it? You'd be free to snow everyone. So are you going to provide some scriptural proof of your claim that: "all He died for, would surely believe" ???????????????????????????????????

[AGJ442]

But Jesus promised the Father that all He died for, would surely believe, and thereby be saved, and none would be lost. What in your thinking, nullifies the Holy Scriptures that say this?

This is where I was looking for your reference. Please tell me the reference where the scriptures say what you have just said above.

How come Judas didn't believe?

Because he chose not to.

How come Judas was not saved?

Because he didn't believe

How come Judas was lost?

Same as above.

Do the promises of the Son, made to the Father, mean anything?

Of course.

Or are the promises between infinite Father and infinite Son, and infinite Son and infinite Father, dependent upon the finite?

The wording of your question is interesting, but as such, no. ( I know that I am being set up for a response here ).

[Trout]

With all due respect Jane and Trout, it has been hard enough for the last several months to have a threaded discussion exempt from RanRan's interference, but now your recent rebukes, although accurate and right, are continuing and heightning the interference.

Hey . . . I made a couple of posts that were on topic.

I enjoy reading along with the threads, rarely participating, but I am very tired of RanRan's constant attack on Christianity.

[RanRan]

You are a riot, Trout!

[AGJ442]

Uh . . .I am asking you to provide YOUR explanation, belief, or Scripture at this point in the discussion . . .right?

You said you believed Jesus shed His blood for Judas Iscariot. I asked questions and you are supposed to provide foundation for your convictions, from the Word of God, at this point.

Waiting . . .

I gave some scripture reguarding Unlimited Atonement, which is what this thread is supposed to be about, and got no response to it. Do you want more? I'm sure that I can provide more verses but respond to what I gave first.

[The Plain Jane]

With all due respect Jane and Trout, it has been hard enough for the last several months to have a threaded discussion exempt from RanRan's interference, but now your recent rebukes, although accurate and right, are continuing and heightning the interference.

But wouldn't you say to continue asking questions THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED a tad bit dishonest? Is it right to CONTINUE to use Scripture out of context? IS IT RIGHT TO IGNORE THE WORDS OF CHRIST, who he supposably loves?

Paul had no problem exposing people who didn't teach good doctrine. 2 Timothy 1:15. AGJ442 is new and should be aware of his error.

Is there a way for the two of you to continue your displeasure with RanRan, without hijacking every thread started?

We started a thread just for him. He left it after we throughly exposed his heresy. Said we couldn't debate. It is called A Question for RanRan:

I think heresy should be exposed regardless the thread. And the teaching that all mankind is forgiven is rank heresy.

This dialogue between the three of you has been predominating Theology 201 for days. Is that right? If right, it is terribly boooorrrrrrriiiiinnnnng!

Can you entertain me and tell me why it is boring? You think correcting someone's abuse of the Gospel boring? I call it duty and spiritual obligation.

(Logical suggestion: Ban RanRan altogether . . .but don't tell anyone Reader suggested so! )

Can't get banned for rank heresy, already asked. (Just kidding)

[RanRan]

I gave some scripture reguarding Unlimited Atonement, which is what this thread is supposed to be about, and got no response to it. Do you want more? I'm sure that I can provide more verses but respond to what I gave first.

AGJ, these are not debaters coming against you. They don't play by the rules of debate. And they don't care that they don't. Don't expect much.

[The Plain Jane]

AGJ, these are not debaters coming against you. They don't play by the rules of debate. And they don't care that they don't. Don't expect much.

AGJ, this guy is a crock, he is not a debater himself. He can't support his position and refuses to do so.

Remember how he answered you question with questions?