The WRATH of God poured out on Christ … where?

[atpollard]

No way you know the Truth and deny limited effectual atonement, which is the Truth.

John Calvin denied Limited Atonement (not that John Calvin defines Calvinism, the Synod of Dort would be a better starting point).
I just found the irony ... amusing.

John Wesley has a sotieriology that accepts Total Depravity and Unlimited Atonement via "Prevenient Grace" (which I personally find fails "Occam's Razor" by adding unnecessary complexity not clearly supported in Scripture ... but which is not directly refuted by scripture, either). I agree with Calvin that the case for Limited Atonement in Scripture is strong, but not irrefutable. It is not, therefore, a hill upon which I would die (or break fellowship).

Hence I am a Particular Baptist ... who fellowships with General Baptists.

 

[Wrangler]

The "For some reason" is because some people are claiming that God poured His WRATH upon JESUS CHRIST ... which also is a "positive claim" that has the "burden of evidence in support of the claim". (So I offered an example of what happens when the burden is shifted to "proving a negative" - as some attempted ... anyone can claim anything without the need to offer any support.)

I don't get your 2 wrongs make a right approach.

Worse, it seems that your premise is wrong. It seems like a question that deserves to be answered. (Note the question mark in the thread title).

 

[atpollard]

I don't get your 2 wrongs make a right approach.

Worse, it seems that your premise is wrong. It seems like a question that deserves to be answered. (Note the question mark in the thread title).

If you are trying to make a point ... I am not following you or it.

If you just wanted to say that you disagree with everything and anything that I post, whatever it is ... message received.
(That us why I so seldom interact with your posts.)

 

[brightfame52]

John Calvin denied Limited Atonement (not that John Calvin defines Calvinism, the Synod of Dort would be a better starting point).
I just found the irony ... amusing.

John Wesley has a sotieriology that accepts Total Depravity and Unlimited Atonement via "Prevenient Grace" (which I personally find fails "Occam's Razor" by adding unnecessary complexity not clearly supported in Scripture ... but which is not directly refuted by scripture, either). I agree with Calvin that the case for Limited Atonement in Scripture is strong, but not irrefutable. It is not, therefore, a hill upon which I would die (or break fellowship).

Hence I am a Particular Baptist ... who fellowships with General Baptists.

I dont care who else denied limited atonement, to do so is a denial of the scripture, thats the only atonement the scripture teaches.

 

[Wrangler]

If you are trying to make a point ... I am not following you or it.

If you just wanted to say that you disagree with everything and anything that I post, whatever it is ... message received.
(That us why I so seldom interact with your posts.)

I guess our apologist approach does not mesh. Although the title has a question mark, you treat it as a statement that for some reason offense your sensibilities. And although post 102 was a question, it is and I will now put it in that form. Did you notice the question mark in the thread title?

 

[ChristisGod]

1. I do not believe that Jon Calvin taught "double-predestination"
2. You appear to use the term "hyper-calvinism" far too freely ... as others misuse "Pelagianism". There are MANY "Calvinists (including this Particular Baptist) and VERY FEW "hyper-calvinists".

hope this helps.

CALVINISM DEFINED IN 1 VERSE:

John 6:44

• "No one can come to Me [Total Inability]
• unless the Father who sent Me [Unconditional Election]
• draws him; [Irresistible Grace]
• and I will raise him up on the last day.” [Preservation of the Saints]

The following two quotations are from the Institutes of the Christian Religion where John Calvin explicitly calls the absolute decree (decretum absolutum) a "dreadful" and "horrible" decree!

Again I ask: whence does it happen that Adam's fall irremediably involved so many peoples, together with their infant offspring, in eternal death unless because it so pleased God? Here their tongues, otherwise so loquacious, must become mute. The decree is dreadful indeed, I confess.(latin. "Decretum quidem horribile, fateor."; french. "Je confesse que ce decret nous doit epouvanter.") Yet no one can deny that God foreknew what end man was to have before he created him, and consequently foreknew because he so ordained by his decree. If anyone inveighs against God's foreknowledge at this point, he stumbles rashly and heedlessly. What reason is there to accuse the Heavenly Judge because he was not ignorant of what was to happen? If there is any just or manifest complaint, it applies to predestination. And it ought not to seem absurd for me to say that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his descendants, but also meted it out in accordance with his own decision. For as it pertains to his wisdom to foreknow everything that is to happen, so it pertains to his might to rule and control everything by his hand. And Augustine also skillfully disposes of this question, as of others: "We most wholesomely confess what we most correctly believe, that the God and Lord of all things, who created all things exceedingly good [cf. Gen 1:31], and foreknew that evil things would rise out of good, and also knew that it pertained to his most omnipotent goodness to bring good out of evil things to be . . . , so ordained the life of angels and men that in it he might first of all show what free will could do, and then what the blessing of his grace and the verdict of his justice could do. (Augustine, On Rebuke and Grace X. 27)". [1]

And,

For as soon as God's dread majesty (latin. "horribilis dei maiestas") comes to mind, we cannot but tremble and be driven far away by the recognition of our own unworthiness, until Christ comes forward as intermediary, to change the throne of dreadful glory into the throne of grace. As the apostle also teaches how we should dare with all confidence to appear, to receive mercy, and to find grace in timely help (Heb 4.16). And as a rule has been established to call upon God, and a promise given that those who call upon him shall be heard, so too we are particularly bidden to call upon him in Christ's name; and we have the promise made that we shall obtain what we have asked in his name. "Hitherto," he says, "you have asked nothing in my name; ask and you will receive." (John 16:24, comm.) "In that day you will ask in my name" (John 16:26, Vg.), and "whatever you ask . . . I will do it that the Father may be glorified in the Son" (John 14:13, cf. Comm. and Vg.) [2]

He continued:

God is said to set apart those whom he adopts into salvation; it will be highly absurd to say that others acquire by chance or by their own effort what election alone confers on a few. Therefore, whom God passes over, he condemns: and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children. Institutes, III, 23, 1.

 

[brightfame52]

John Calvin denied Limited Atonement (not that John Calvin defines Calvinism, the Synod of Dort would be a better starting point).
I just found the irony ... amusing.

John Wesley has a sotieriology that accepts Total Depravity and Unlimited Atonement via "Prevenient Grace" (which I personally find fails "Occam's Razor" by adding unnecessary complexity not clearly supported in Scripture ... but which is not directly refuted by scripture, either). I agree with Calvin that the case for Limited Atonement in Scripture is strong, but not irrefutable. It is not, therefore, a hill upon which I would die (or break fellowship).

Hence I am a Particular Baptist ... who fellowships with General Baptists.

Hey friend, anyone who denies particular limited, effectual atonement, automatically by default, denies the exclusive saving virtue of the Cross of Christ, and have made something man must do, to be the condition by which Salvation is effected or applied. Once you admit something like that, it robs the Cross of its saving power. Just be aware of that my friend.

 

[atpollard]

I dont care who else denied limited atonement, to do so is a denial of the scripture, thats the only atonement the scripture teaches.

I am familiar with the MANY verses that affirm that Christ gave his life for His sheep (the chosen, the elect).
Do you have any explicit verses that Christ did not die for ANYONE? (Any 'smoking gun' verse to utterly refute Unlimited Atonement?)
... I haven't found one.

I mostly see debates on "all without distinction" (Jews and Gentiles) vs "all without exception" (all mankind - sheep and goats) that come down to semantics and dead languages.

 

[brightfame52]

I am familiar with the MANY verses that affirm that Christ gave his life for His sheep (the chosen, the elect).
Do you have any explicit verses that Christ did not die for ANYONE? (Any 'smoking gun' verse to utterly refute Unlimited Atonement?)
... I haven't found one.

I mostly see debates on "all without distinction" (Jews and Gentiles) vs "all without exception" (all mankind - sheep and goats) that come down to semantics and dead languages.

Any and all scriptures referencing the death of Christ for sinners, are explicitly limited to the elect, regardless if the word sheep is used, church, or all, or world. I cant help it if people hijack words like all, world, ect and attempt to make them say, all without exception. I dont need a verse that says Christ didnt die for anyone.

 

[ChristisGod]

Hey friend, anyone who denies particular limited, effectual atonement, automatically by default, denies the exclusive saving virtue of the Cross of Christ, and have made something man must do, to be the condition by which Salvation is effected or applied. Once you admit something like that, it robs the Cross of its saving power. Just be aware of that my friend.

Anyone who believes that believes in a false gospel and christ.

 

[ChristisGod]

Any and all scriptures referencing the death of Christ for sinners, are explicitly limited to the elect, regardless if the word sheep is used, church, or all, or world. I cant help it if people hijack words like all, world, ect and attempt to make them say, all without exception. I dont need a verse that says Christ didnt die for anyone.

You must change the definitions of all , everyone , world , all the world, all mankind to mean a few. You read your false Augustinianism, Calvinism into scripture.

hope this helps. !!!

 

[brightfame52]

Anyone who believes that believes in a false gospel and christ.

I would say anyone who doesnt believe it, believes a false gospel and christ. There only hope is if God has purposed to deliver them from delusion and deception.

 

[brightfame52]

You must change the definitions of all , everyone , world , all the world, all mankind to mean a few. You read your false Augustinianism, Calvinism into scripture.

hope this helps. !!!

Nothing needs to be changed, all is needed is understanding.

 

[atpollard]

Hey friend, anyone who denies particular limited, effectual atonement, automatically by default, denies the exclusive saving virtue of the Cross of Christ, and have made something man must do, to be the condition by which Salvation is effected or applied. Once you admit something like that, it robs the Cross of its saving power. Just be aware of that my friend.

I generally agree, however I am a biblicist by nature … whatever scripture says, I accept because scripture says it and is reliable. Limited Atonement makes sense and fits a LOT of verses, however it is not EXPLICITLY stated in any scripture. If you think me wrong, then just post the verse. [shrug]

 

[brightfame52]

I generally agree, however I am a biblicist by nature … whatever scripture says, I accept because scripture says it and is reliable. Limited Atonement makes sense and fits a LOT of verses, however it is not EXPLICITLY stated in any scripture. If you think me wrong, then just post the verse. [shrug]

I believe enough scripture has been provided to establish limited atonement, and to deny it, is simply a betrayal of the efficacy of Christs death, there just no alternative my friend, no matter how coy you want to be about it.

 

[quietthinker]

Correct...God certainly was not angry with Jesus.

God made His Word, both a Sacrifice and Savior (and EXAMPLE)...FOR any man willing to Believe AND Sacrifice his own life For the Lord and (Accept by, through, of a mans true heartful confession,) Gods Forgiveness, Salvation and Quickening.

Those who steadfastly DO not Believe, Reject Sacrificing their own Life, Reject Gods Forgiveness, Salvation, Quickening....Shall suffer the consequences of (First the Lambs Wrath), (Then the Devils Wrath), (Then Gods Wrath), Death and Be forever Separated from God and forgotten.

“The Example”...remember stiffnecked OT men begging to SEE God, because they could not BELIEVE by “hearing”?
God promised them...they would SEE.
* God sent His Word for them TO SEE.
...What they SAW, was not what they expected...
A plain common Jewish looking man kind of thing, from some place of no importance, without a kingdom, without a crown, without a title of nobility, without an army, without piles of wealth/gold and to boot, walking around preaching things that sounded like fanciful made up stories....<—- THAT’S the one, the Jews waited for? REALLY God?
Are you kidding me? (Or so the majority of Jews were whispering.)

who was the sacrifice to? God, us or the devil?

 

[ChristisGod]

I believe enough scripture has been provided to establish limited atonement, and to deny it, is simply a betrayal of the efficacy of Christs death, there just no alternative my friend, no matter how coy you want to be about it.

To affirm that is a false christ and gospel

 

[quietthinker]

That's a false statement friend, you should be ashamed

It's not a false statement brightframe52 ...and I'm not ashamed.
Here is where I get the concept from if you care to familiarise yourself with it....copied for your convenience.

Romans 5:6-19
6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! 10 For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11 Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and lifefor all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

 

[brightfame52]

quietthinker

It's not a false statement brightframe52 ...and I'm not ashamed.

Yes it is and you should be ashamed !

Here is where I get the concept from if you care to familiarise yourself with it....copied for your convenience.

Im already familiar with those scriptures, not interested in your manipulation of them to prove a false premise you should be ashamed of.

 

[Taken]

who was the sacrifice to? God, us or the devil?

Eph 5:
[2] And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.