|
|
USER COMMENTS BY “ ENGLISH LAD ” |
|
|
| Page 1 | Page 2 · Found: 27 user comments posted recently. |
|  |
|
|
 6/22/19 5:25 PM |
| English Lad | |  |  |
|
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
|
John UK wrote:
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
Here John says that Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of God's people, but extends it to include the whole world. I think the use of the words "whole world" explain it to us adequately. And then in 1 John 4:14 John says that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. Plain enough. “Whole world” doesn’t mean every single individual. If you make it say that then it’s clear as mud. |
|
|
| 6/22/19 3:07 PM |
| English Lad | | | |
|
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
|
Mike wrote:
It is interesting that Pink said "The latter by men who, as theologians, were not worthy to unloose their shoes." "Their shoes," meaning the shoes of such men as John Calvin. I reckon Calvin must be insufficiently Calvinist:
"Now the mean whereby we be made partakers of our Lord Jesus Christ, is our embracing of the
promises of the Gospel by true faith. For the faithless have no profit at all by the death and passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, but rather are so much the more damnable, because they reject the mean that God had ordained: and their unthankfulness shall be so much the more grievously punished, because they have trodden under foot the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was the ransom for their souls."
Calvin, Sermons on Galatians, Sermon 2, 1:3-5, p., 39/27
Did Calvin mean what he said, or did he misspeak? As unregenerate sinners we were not able to keep the law perfectly because of our sin nature but God nevertheless held us responsible for not keeping it perfectly. One doesn’t have to have ability to be held responsible. That is philosophical nonsense. |
|
|
| 6/20/19 11:17 AM |
| English Lad | | | |
|
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
|
Mike wrote:
One wonders how such a low view of God ever came about. Romans 921 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? Maybe you like to worship of god of your own making? Try worshipping the God who reveals himself in the Bible. |
|
|
| 6/20/19 9:07 AM |
| English Lad | | | |
|
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
|
"...Salvation is a work of the whole Trinity. The Father sets the operation in action, the Spirit separates the elect from the world and Christ provides not only the victim, His obedient self, but He is the Offerer, giving Himself for His Bride. The fact that the entire Trinity was at work in the plan of redemption is very relevant in combating modern views of the atonement which suggest that either God shows two conflicting wills in the atonement, or Christ set his own will against His Father’s in redeeming a people for Himself, or that Christ merely played the hero’s part which was accepted with hindsight by God or that Christ was merely ‘offered’ by the Father as Abraham was prepared to offer Isaac. The emphasis on Christ’s obedience and the blood money (ransom) paid also goes a long way in debunking modern Governmentalists and so-called Evangelical Calvinists who neither see the necessity of a full obedience to the law on Christ’s part nor see the relevance of Christ dying for the elect and for none other." G EllaWhere does the bible ever say that Christ represented the whole of humanity? As the second Adam, he represented only the people that the Father gave him. A god who provides for people already in hell is not magnanimous; he's confused! |
|
|
| 6/19/19 8:13 PM |
| English Lad | | | |
|
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
|
“The distinction (between the intrinsic and extrinsic value of the atonement) we ....hold to be human, needless, unscriptural, and misleading. It does not simplify the presentation of the gospel to sinners. It affords no comfort to anxious inquirers sighing under the burden of deplored sin, to whom infinite generalities bring no relief. Their question invariably is, no “has an atonement of unlimited value been provided?” but “Did Christ die for ME?” It magnifies neither the justice, nor the wisdom, nor the love of God, and introduces confusion into the beautifully harmonious and coherent scheme of Divine salvation. On the other hand the doctrine of a just and sufficient atonement is, in all ways, adapted to the wants of sinners, while it reflects transcendent glory upon the God of all grace....
On examination it will be seen that the root of all objections to an atonement, limited both in design and efficacy, lies in dislike to the Sovereignty of God. In determining the extent of His salvation He pleased Himself alone. The right to do this, proud reason invariably denies Him. Hence the many attacks upon the revelation of plans and proceedings, in all of which He claims and exercises His royal prerogative.” W Styles |
|
|
| 6/19/19 5:42 PM |
| English Lad | | | |
|
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
|
Those who believe in a universal atonement err greatly."All passages which refer to the cause of His sufferings, explicitly state that these had definite relation to accurately considered sins. “With His stripes,” i.e., with stripes inflicted on Him, one by one, till the required number was reached, “we are healed.” “The Lord hath laid on Him,” not the iniquity, or sin as sin, but, as in the margin, “the iniquities of us all.” “For the transgressions of my people was He smitten.” “The chastisement of our peace,” i.e., such punishment as must be endured to ensure our peace “was upon Him.” “He was delivered for our offences.” “He died for our sins.” “He suffered for us in the flesh.” He, “the just” one, died instead of the “unjust” ones. “He gave Himself for our sins.” The wrath of God excited by our sins therefore caused His suffering, and to exhaust that measured wrath He suffered." W Styles |
|
|
| 6/19/19 8:58 AM |
| English Lad | | | |
|
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
|
As the Lord Jesus died on the cross:• He was an actual substitute for sins (Hebrews 2:9-10) - Whose sins?
• He actually turned away the righteous anger of God (propitiation - Romans 3:25; 1 John 4:10) - Who from?
• He actually reconciled a people to God (Romans 5:10; Hebrews 2:17) – Who?
• He actually redeemed from the curse of the Law (Galatians 3:13) – Who? In other words…
• He didn’t merely make something possible by His death
• He actually did achieve these things for those whom He represents!! Who does He represent?
• See: Mathew 1:21; John 10:11,15,26; 6:37-40; Acts 20:28; Ephesians 5:25-27; etc. Excerpt From: Stuart Olyott’s “This We Believe.” There is a sermon of which this was a part. One can listen to it here: http://www.knowyourbiblerecordings.org/sermons_locked/TWB10.mp3 |
|
|
|
| Jump to Page : 1 [2] |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
