Grace cannot be demanded

IF Messiah's coming and His death were only for the Elect -
was the promise of the Messiah and His redemptive work made only to the Elect?
 
Last edited:
armylngst said:
Welcome to the calvinist camp, except I don't see any calvinist banners. Hmm. Could it be because this should be a basic doctrine not owned by anybody? (I am pushing that one needs to stop labeling beliefs they don't like Calvinism. Either it is true, or it is not, regardless of the designer clothes it wears, or lack thereof.
This is what one should know from studying God. (Not Calvin.) Calvin happened to believe it and teach it. So did Paul. So did a lot of other people. So did Jesus. It all goes back to... God. We should not be "I am of Paul", or "I am of Apollos". We can learn from them (discipleship), but we were not born of them. We were born of Christ.
Click to expand...
Chuckle!!! I've always been a "Calvinist leaning" eclectic. Calvin did get some stuff accurate after all.
 
Bob Carabbio said:
POTENTIALLY - yes. It was a SIN OFFERING, the same as what the Israelites did every year - but with a different type of BLOOD. (Isa 53)
Click to expand...
Sorry, I have to disagree with the potential remark.

BIblically this sacrifice includes being made alive in Him, being saved in Him, raising us up with Him, being seated in the heavenlies in Him, paying the debt of the persons sins &c. That's exactly what took place on the cross and this took place and was finished some 2000 years ago. There is no such thing as "potential" salvation in what Christ did as this (these things) didn't happen for every single person who would ever live. Salvation was accomplished, it isn't potential. Note Ephesians 2 & Colossians 1, 2.

As far as the sacrifices of Israel, a type and shadow of Christ, it was only for His people, not the world at large. They both show the exclusivity of salvation, not potential.
 
American Gothic said:
the Hyper Calvinists
Click to expand...
Specifically? Prove your initial remark with tangible evidence.
American Gothic said:
seem to think
Click to expand...
"Seem to think?" Based upon what? Documentation? Or is this merely an unsubstantiated accusation?
American Gothic said:
it was applied to Them before the foundation of the World
Click to expand...
The above is only arrived at after being based upon unsubstantiated and baseless conclusions.

Your post may sound "good to go" to those who don't actually think, but, for the rest of us? It's nonsense.
 
American Gothic said:
the Hyper Calvinists seem to think it was applied to Them before the foundation of the World
Click to expand...
Defined by GTY ministries of John MacArthur by Phil Johnson below :

hyper-Calvinist is one who:
  1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
  2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
  3. Denies that the gospel makes any “offer” of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
  4. Denies that there is such a thing as “common grace,” OR
  5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.
As Phil says, “All five varieties of hyper-Calvinism undermine evangelism or twist the gospel message.” So this is the key to understanding hyper-Calvinism: it undermines evangelism and/or somehow distorts the gospel message.

www.challies.com

Hyper-Calvinism: A Brief Definition

The term hyper-Calvinist is often used as a pejorative. Almost any Calvinist who adheres to the doctrines of grace is likely to be considered a hyper-Calvinist by at least someone. Frankly speaking…
www.challies.com www.challies.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top