Comments for Calvin and Calvinism

Comment on Romans 8:32 and the Argument for Limited Atonement (Revisited) by Traduções Crédulas: Romanos 8:32 e o Argumento pela Satisfação Limitada | credulo

Sat, 18 May 2013 18:40:53 +0000

[...] Fonte: http://calvinandcalvinism.com/?p=12483 [...]

Apply here payday loans

Comment on James Fraser of Brea (1639-1698), Limited Atonement and the Argument from Romans 8:32 by CalvinandCalvinism

CalvinandCalvinism — Fri, 17 May 2013 15:09:53 +0000

Hey there,

Thanks. Yes to Ryle. He is on my to-do list to blog material from him.

Thanks for stopping by.
David

Comment on James Fraser of Brea (1639-1698), Limited Atonement and the Argument from Romans 8:32 by AB

AB — Fri, 17 May 2013 14:52:17 +0000

What a fantastic site! I am a ” Calvinist” and have wrestled with limited atonement for years! It has impacted my peace , assurance. It is amazing to read men like Calvin, Hodge, Charnock and find they believed in unlimited atonement and limited redemption. It makes so much more sense to my soul and magnifies the love, mercy and grace of God! Are you aware that JC Ryle also believed in unlimited atonement and limited redemption. It’s spelled out in his ” Expository Thoughts on the Gospel of John”. I want to thank whoever maintains this site!

Comment on James Fraser of Brea (1639-1698), Limited Atonement and the Argument from Romans 8:32 by CalvinandCalvinism

CalvinandCalvinism — Wed, 08 May 2013 19:27:01 +0000

You could put that into a nifty syllogism.

Of course the problem will be that the average 5-pointer will imagine that notwithstanding that there is no provision (“means” whereby God can save/is able to save a given person) for a given man, nonetheless, God is still “able” to save that man.

This parallels the sufficiency problem for the standard or average 5-pointer: somehow a penal provision not actually made for a given man, in any direct sense, can somehow be penally *sufficient* for that same man?

Hello??

They just cant see the problem, and partly because they imagine (allege) that predestination and preterition would generate the same logical problem. And so it goes in a circle, as preterition does not cause generate the same problem, so neither does the reality of a limited provision (ie a penal provision not made for a given man) pose a problem.

Result: Head meets wall, effecting blood scatter-pattern on wall. :)

Comment on James Fraser of Brea (1639-1698), Limited Atonement and the Argument from Romans 8:32 by Philip C

Philip C — Wed, 08 May 2013 19:13:42 +0000

I can’t believe I didn’t see that before.
If men are not died for then even if they believe it will not avail them, because without the atonement God is *not able* to save.

But Romans says God *is* able therefore they were died for.