Reformed Heresy

[Theo1689]

I do need to go to websites for my information

That's what I thought.

Why don't you answer my questions?
Have you read "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ?"

Now, please address the question I asked you,

Why?
Questions are not valid arguments.
And you are sufficiently rude that I would like to minimize my interaction with you.

If you think you have a valid argument, then PRESENT it.
Such does not need my participation.

John 1:9-10, "There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him."

Calvinists believe all Scripture.

John first uses the word 'kosmos' in verses 1:9-10

Please explain how the bolded reference to John's use of 'kosmos' does not mean every single person without exception?

No.
YOU need to explain why you think John's use of "kosmos' DOES allegedly mean "every single person without exception".

You are simply ASSUMING your view, so your entire argument is fallacious.

 

[Theo1689]

I will respond to you when you can provide Biblical Scripture that refutes John 1:29 and Romans 5:12

We believe those two verses.
We believe EVERY verse of Scripture.

There's no need for us to "refute" any verse.

 

[RCM]

Sorry, but you are simply ASSUMING that it DOES mean, "every single person without exception", and then fallaciously trying to shift the burden of proof to me to "prove" it doesn't mean that.

Why should I (or anyone) believe that it DOES mean "every single person without exception".

NO GREEK LEXICON on the face of the Earth defines it that way.

It is noticed that you are unable to honestly answer the question presented to you, because it would expose your error in Biblical exegesis

Do you want to try again? Or do you think John is saying Jesus only made (created) those who are saved?


John 1:9-10, "There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him."

John first uses the word 'kosmos' in verses 1:9-10

Please explain how the bolded reference to John's use of 'kosmos' does not mean every single person without exception?



RCM

 

[ReverendRV]

The Reformed position on 'Limited Atonement' is, "Messiah's work was never intended for those whom God knew would never believe"

Unfortunately, there is no Biblical Scripture that supports such a statement, however, there is Biblical Scripture that completely refutes such an erroneous statement


Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as through one man the sin entered into the world, and through the sin the death, and so the death spread to all men, because all sinned"


John 1:29, "The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!"


1 John 3:8, "The one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil."


1 John 2:1-2, "My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world."


Hebrews 2:14, "Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil"


The Law of Non-contradiction is in play here! The Bible completely refutes the Reformed doctrine of 'Limited Atonement' as nothing but heresy!


The New Testament Scriptures are consistent with the theology of the Old Testament

The 'Day of Atonement' offering was for the whole Nation of Israel

God had always been providing an atonement covering for the Gentile Nations through the Nation of Israel on the Feast of Tabernacles in that 70 bulls were offered for the 70 Gentile Nations (Numbers 29) until God sent His Son into the world - John 3:16-21



The Greek with the definite article and 'sin' in the singular in Romans 5:12 and John 1:29 is irrefutable!




RCM

Would you agree that the Blood Atonement which Jesus made for us, while in the Heavenly Holy of Hollies; was a Limited Atonement? Let's not argue why it was Limited; the WHY would affirm that it was limited...

One reason that we are to be most pitied if Jesus was not Risen, is because there would be no one to make Atonement for us in Heaven; right? Doesn't this mean that the Cross without our High Priest being in Heaven; is no Atonement at all?

When YOU believe in a limited Atonement, the Doctrine of Limited Atonement can't be preposterous...

 

[preacher4truth]

I didn't miss anything,

I agree: You missed everything.

I will respond to you when you can provide'

This doesn't come across as Christian.

Biblical Scripture that refutes John 1:29 and Romans 5:12

Already provided.

RCM

Yes, we know your Nick name.

 

[preacher4truth]

That statement was pulled right off of this board, posted and defended frequently

I am neither Arminian nor Calvinist, I hold to a consistent Biblical Theology


RCM

This is a non-answer. You do realize, do you not, that you are merely dismissing what is posted, them talking of your credentials and faux victory?

That's a non-answer, and it isn't debating or refuting, or even attempting to do so.

 

[Theo1689]

It is noticed that you are unable to honestly answer the question presented to you, because it would expose your error in Biblical exegesis

1) You clearly don't understand the difference between 'unable" (which is false) and "unwilling" (which is true).

2) I see no need to answer irrelevant questions by you.

3) Questions are not valid arguments. And it is obvious you have no valid argument against Limited Atonement.

Do you want to try again? Or do you think John is saying Jesus only made (created) those who are saved?

If you have an argument against limited atonement, please present it.
Otherwise, please stop wasting my time.

John 1:9-10, "There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him."

Calvinists believe every verse of Scripture.

John first uses the word 'kosmos' in verses 1:9-10

I'll take your word for it (not sure why it's relevant).

Please explain how the bolded reference to John's use of 'kosmos' does not mean every single person without exception?

YOU need to explain why you think "kosmos" allegedly means "every single individual without exception".


It is noticed that you are unable to honestly answer the question presented to you, because it would expose your error in Biblical exegesis

 

[ReverendRV]

This is a non-answer. You do realize, do you not, that you are merely dismissing what is posted, them talking of your credentials and faux victory?

That's a non-answer, and it isn't debating or refuting, or even attempting to do so.

WAY too much of this going on at CARM...

I've recently tried out the Roman Catholicism Board; he may have followed me here in my wake. Like here, there's a whole lot of fighting going on over there. I started a Thread over there; nothing but crickets (a familiar claim). But the Threads where the fight goes on?

Oooweee!

 

[squirrelyguy]

Some more points to ponder, @RCM :

1) Since God is omniscient, then He knows everything that's going to happen, every decision that will be made, and who will end up saved and who won't. So if that's the case, why would He have the Son die to atone for the sins of the people who will never "accept" the atonement?

You can ask this same question about every instance in Scripture in which God is said to "regret" or "repent" of choices He has made. But why ask why? Shouldn't we let God choose what verbiage to use in describing Himself to us?

2) There are names written in the Lamb's book of Life from before the foundation of the world. I believe this to be the names of the elect, the names of those who will be saved, and only those who will be saved. If you have a different understanding of the book of Life, please share it. Nobody else is willing to answer this question. Why would the Son die for those whose names aren't written in the Lamb's book of life?

Of course, Jesus mentions this book in Rev. 3:5 and says that those who overcome will not be blotted out of the book of Life. But that verse doesn't affirmatively say that people can/will be blotted out, so it's up in the air as to whether such an idea is intended by the text. What isn't up in the air is the metaphor of the olive tree that is used in Romans 11 and that branches are capable of being broken off and grafted in again. On what principled basis can we conclude that one's existence in the book of Life is any more fatalistic than one's existence on the olive tree?

Is unbelief a sin, and if so, did Jesus die for that sin?
If Jesus died for all the sins of all the people, then why is anyone unsaved? I think many who deny limited atonement actually deny the atonement, as they don't believe atonement was ever made, only "potential" atonement.

Yes, Jesus died for that sin. But John Owen's famous dilemma is a false one. The atonement is not actualized until it is received by faith. So in reality, nobody's sins are forgiven until the atonement is appropriated by them. You might take a look at the parable of the unforgiving servant and reflect on the fact that the servant is forgiven his entire debt only to have it later reinstated by the master. The atonement of Christ simply doesn't work in the way you suppose it works.

 

[preacher4truth]

WAY too much of this going on at CARM...

I've recently tried out the Roman Catholicism Board; he may have followed me here in my wake. Like here, there's a whole lot of fighting going on over there. I started a Thread over there; nothing but crickets (a familiar claim). But the Threads were the fight goes on?

Oooweee!

Yep. "Where the bodies are there will the eagles be gathered!"

 

[Howie]

Do you believe that Jesus completely defeated sin, death, and the devil, or only partially?

Ephesians 1:19-23
Ephesians 1:19-23, "and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.


Colossians 2:15 When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him.




RCM

You're now moving the goal posts.

 

[Theo1689]

You know, this is an interesting thread for a number of reasons.

1) Reformedguy started a thread on "Limited Atonement" last evening, and RCM start this thread on the SAME topic this morning, calling it simply "Reformed Heresy". I wonder why he felt the need for a second thread on the same topic?

2) The OP seems to think that forum "discussions" consist of nothing more than posting a bunch of verses at people, and throwing around derogatory accusations if we don't automatically change our beliefs. I wonder if he thinks things work this way in real life?

3) He also doesn't seem to understand that we've seen most of these "proof-texts" hundreds of times already (lack of charity), and that we've already answered them hundreds of times. Does he really think we are obligated to answer the same tired objectives every time someone new comes around, rather than the objector doing his OWN due diligence (eg. books, searching forums) to see how we've ALREADY answered these objections in the past? Quite frankly, I'm getting pretty tired of people getting a bunch of proof-texts from an "anti" website, and spending 5 seconds putting them into a post, expecting us to invest a significant amount of time responding to them, only to have our responses ignored.

4) I've repeatedly noticed that critics approach the issue as if WE were trying to convince THEM to change their beliefs (I'm certainly not), when in fact it seems that THEY are trying to convince us that we are wrong and they are right. Yet the don't feel the need to prove their own position (ie. proving "kosmos" allegedly means, "every single individual without exception"), but WE allegedly have the need to prove that THEIR made up definition is wrong.

5) It seems that every anti-Calvinist "knows" that Limited atonement is "wrong", yet everyone has a DIFFERENT reason why it's wrong. I mean, this poster didn't try to use Matt. 23:37, John 3:16, 1 Tim. 2:4, 2 Pet. 3:9, etc., the "usual suspects", although he did use 1 John 2:2), but he brought up a number of peculiar verses and didn't even bother to EXPLAIN how (or why) he thinks they even ADDRESS limited atonement.

Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as through one man the sin entered into the world, and through the sin the death, and so the death spread to all men, because all sinned"

That teaches universal sinfulness, not universal atonement.

John 1:29, "The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!"

Another question that never seems to get answered is that critics seem to think there can only be one possible meaning for a verse, and if anyone is misinterpreting a verse, it certainly cannot be them. These are the kinds of people who cannot be reasoned with, IMO. And it's why grown-ups use phraseology like, "agree to disagree".

Hebrews 2:14, "Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil"

The only way I can see this interpreted in a way that denies limited atonement is to assert that hell will be empty, which is ITSELF a heresy.

The Law of Non-contradiction is in play here! The Bible completely refutes the Reformed doctrine of 'Limited Atonement' as nothing but heresy!

Another question I have for the OP is: Do you think that Calvinists aren't saved?
And if so, do you think that shouting "heresy" is going to lead them into believing you teach truth? Because in reality it has the opposite effect. In general people aren't drawn to doctrines held by people who appear unstable and unhinged.

The Greek with the definite article and 'sin' in the singular in Romans 5:12 and John 1:29 is irrefutable!

Yep, I get it.... You can't possibly be wrong.
You're inerrant and infallible.

Yet I'm still convinced that the Bible teaches "limited atonement".

 

[Howie]

You can ask this same question about every instance in Scripture in which God is said to "regret" or "repent" of choices He has made. But why ask why? Shouldn't we let God choose what verbiage to use in describing Himself to us?

Of course, Jesus mentions this book in Rev. 3:5 and says that those who overcome will not be blotted out of the book of Life. But that verse doesn't affirmatively say that people can/will be blotted out, so it's up in the air as to whether such an idea is intended by the text. What isn't up in the air is the metaphor of the olive tree that is used in Romans 11 and that branches are capable of being broken off and grafted in again. On what principled basis can we conclude that one's existence in the book of Life is any more fatalistic than one's existence on the olive tree?

Yes, Jesus died for that sin. But John Owen's famous dilemma is a false one. The atonement is not actualized until it is received by faith. So in reality, nobody's sins are forgiven until the atonement is appropriated by them. You might take a look at the parable of the unforgiving servant and reflect on the fact that the servant is forgiven his entire debt only to have it later reinstated by the master. The atonement of Christ simply doesn't work in the way you suppose it works.

A whole lot of words to say a whole lot of nothing.

The atonement of Christ is limited only to those who believe -- no faith from you, no atonement for you.

 

[Theo1689]

You can ask this same question about every instance in Scripture in which God is said to "regret" or "repent" of choices He has made. But why ask why? Shouldn't we let God choose what verbiage to use in describing Himself to us?

So you're saying we should try to understand the message?
Just worship the words, like in that old Star Trek episode?

Of course, Jesus mentions this book in Rev. 3:5 and says that those who overcome will not be blotted out of the book of Life. But that verse doesn't affirmatively say that people can/will be blotted out, so it's up in the air as to whether such an idea is intended by the text.

Exactly.

What isn't up in the air is the metaphor of the olive tree that is used in Romans 11 and that branches are capable of being broken off and grafted in again. On what principled basis can we conclude that one's existence in the book of Life is any more fatalistic than one's existence on the olive tree?

Okay, you've convinced me. No verses actually mean anything, they're simply words without meaning (or apparently a meaning we're not supposed to have access to?)

Yes, Jesus died for that sin.

That's an opinion.

But John Owen's famous dilemma is a false one.

That's also an opinion.

The atonement is not actualized until it is received by faith.

Where does the Bible teach about "unactualized atonement"?
This is a twisting that Arminians have to do, in order to try to deny limited atonement.
It seems very simply to their "unactivated faith". God gives everyone faith, but we have to "activate" it by believing.

What happened to Steve's "simplicity of the gospel"?

The atonement of Christ simply doesn't work in the way you suppose it works.

That's an opinion.
Maybe the atonement of Christ simply doesn't work in the way YOU suppose it works.
Oh, I forgot...
Calvinists are always wrong, and non-Calvinists are always right.

 

[RCM]

RCM said:

I do need to go to websites for my information

That's what I thought.

That was a typo error on my part, I do not need to go to websites for my information

Have you read "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ?"

Owen's works volume 10 chapter IX, sure I have read it


Show me from Owen's argument where he addresses John 1:29 and Romans 5:12, you cannot

Much of what Owen writes I agree with, because 90% of his argument is dealing with what the Biblical Scriptures state regarding Christ's death as it relates to saved believers

Owen does not address what the Biblical Scriptures state regarding Christ's death in regards to 'sin' in the singular with the definite article as presented in John 1:29 and Romans 5:12



RCM

 

[RCM]

Why?
Questions are not valid arguments.
And you are sufficiently rude that I would like to minimize my interaction with you.

You use questions all the time

I have not been rude

I have challenged you to defend your position regarding John's use of 'kosmos' in John 1:9-10 and you are unable to do so

John's theology refutes the heretical doctrine of 'Limited Atonement'



RCM

 

[Howie]

RCM said:

John 1:29, "The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!"




John 1:9-10, "There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him."


John first uses the word 'kosmos' in verses 1:9-10

Please explain how the bolded reference to John's use of 'kosmos' does not mean every single person without exception?



RCM

Shifting the burden of proof, you are.

 

[RCM]

No.
YOU need to explain why you think John's use of "kosmos' DOES allegedly mean "every single person without exception".

You are simply ASSUMING your view, so your entire argument is fallacious.

Let me post this again for you, Theo

I am using Biblical Scripture in my argument and you are not, so who is assuming and whose argument is nothing but wind?


Please address the question I asked you,


John 1:9-10, "There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him."


John first uses the word 'kosmos' in verses 1:9-10

Please explain how the bolded reference to John's use of 'kosmos' does not mean every single person without exception?




RCM

 

[SovereignGrace]

Why does this seem all too familiar? Like playing "whack-a-mole?"

You’ve figured this out in the “Nick” of time, eh?

 

[RCM]

We believe those two verses.
We believe EVERY verse of Scripture.

There's no need for us to "refute" any verse.

You believe those two verses with a heretical interpretation of 'kosmos' that John clearly defines in John 1:9-10



John 1:9-10, "There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him."



Please explain how the bolded reference to John's use of 'kosmos' does not mean every single person without exception?


The Apostle John clearly refutes Reformed heretical doctrine on 'Limited Atonement'


RCM