Questions for Reformed Calvinists

[poochie]

If this fits you please answer these questions. I'll be including these and probably others at the end of my article on Limited Atonement.

--

Questions for Reformed Calvinists

1. If Limited Atonement was taught in the Bible then can any Reformed person tell me why would Hebrews 2:9 state that Christ should taste death for everyman?

2. If Limited Atonement is a correct doctrine then can Reformed explain 2 Pet 2:1 which says “denying the Lord that bought them.” If Christ had only died for the church as Reformed claim that Acts 20:28 teaches then why would 2 Pet 2:1 state that Christ also died for the false teachers?

3. If God only wanted certain people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth, then can any Calvinist tell me why 2 Pet 3:9 was included in the New Testament?

[Nobunaga]

--



3. If God only wanted certain people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth, then can any Calvinist tell me why 2 Pet 3:9 was included in the New Testament?

Hi poochie

I wouldnt call myself a calvanist although there are parts i agree with like election and predetermination as stated in the bible Romans 8:29.

But this is the paradox i find in the bible on other types of doctrine also, that the oppostit view is also valid and defending one and disregarding the other can lead to division and misunderstanding.

There are elected people and predestined people the ones that will be saved but the Lord is not willing that any should perish " Pet 3:9 and wants all to repent and believe but they will not and will be judged, i dont see a problem with it ?

[Redeemed by Grace]

If this fits you please answer these questions. I'll be including these and probably others at the end of my article on Limited Atonement.

--

Questions for Reformed Calvinists

1. If Limited Atonement was taught in the Bible then can any Reformed person tell me why would Hebrews 2:9 state that Christ should taste death for everyman?

2. If Limited Atonement is a correct doctrine then can Reformed explain 2 Pet 2:1 which says “denying the Lord that bought them.” If Christ had only died for the church as Reformed claim that Acts 20:28 teaches then why would 2 Pet 2:1 state that Christ also died for the false teachers?

3. If God only wanted certain people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth, then can any Calvinist tell me why 2 Pet 3:9 was included in the New Testament?

I have a fundamental problem with your intent here, for you are not looking for the unity in Christ, but want to divide -- and I hope that the mods see this for what this is and shut this thread down before it flames and furthers the divide instead of building each other up.

[poochie]

I have a fundamental problem with your intent here, for you are not looking for the unity in Christ, but want to divide -- and I hope that the mods see this for what this is and shut this thread down before it flames and furthers the divide instead of building each other up.

Actually my intent is elaborative and constructive criticism.

Perhaps my questions need changing as my article has not yet been published. Your answering of them will tell me if they are weak or will need to be left.

[Instrument]

If this fits you please answer these questions. I'll be including these and probably others at the end of my article on Limited Atonement.

--

Questions for Reformed Calvinists

1. If Limited Atonement was taught in the Bible then can any Reformed person tell me why would Hebrews 2:9 state that Christ should taste death for everyman?

It is one thing to say that Christ tasted death for everyone, and other thing to say that Christ atone for the sins of all. They are two different things.

It is clear that Christ tasted death for every human being. by a man came death to the world (Adam), by a man also came the resurrection to the world (Christ).

But even every human being will be resurrected, only those elected will be transformed.


Blessings.

[poochie]

Thanks so much for answering a question.

Thus far it looks like my questions will remain in my article has not a single person has answered all the questions, so perhaps this tells me that I created quality questions.

It is one thing to say that Christ tasted death for everyone, and other thing to say that Christ atone for the sins of all. They are two different things.

It is clear that Christ tasted death for every human being. by a man came death to the world (Adam), by a man also came the resurrection to the world (Christ).

But even every human being will be resurrected, only those elected will be transformed.


Blessings.

[Nobunaga]

Thanks so much for answering a question.

Thus far it looks like my questions will remain in my article has not a single person has answered all the questions, so perhaps this tells me that I created quality questions.

Either that or there are no Reformed Calvanists who want to comment.

[RogerW]

Thanks so much for answering a question.

Thus far it looks like my questions will remain in my article has not a single person has answered all the questions, so perhaps this tells me that I created quality questions.

Greetings Poochie,

Both Nobunaga, and Rbg have stated reasons that Reformed Christians, such as myself, are reluntant to answer your questions. On the off chance that you may truly be seeking to find biblical truths and not here to set us Reformed Christians straight, I will offer a compromise. I will answer your questions on one condition. In my opinion free will Arminian doctrine forces contradiction upon Scripture. If you can show me how you reconcile these apparent universal offers of salvation with passages that state that Christ died for "His own" "many" or "those who believe", so that one passage of Scripture does not contradict another passage, then perhaps we can discuss this doctrine with an attitude of coming together in like minded faith and doctrine for the glory of God, and brotherly love.

Many Blessings,
RW

[Redeemed by Grace]

Greetings Poochie,

Both Nobunaga, and Rbg have stated reasons that Reformed Christians, such as myself, are reluntant to answer your questions. On the off chance that you may truly be seeking to find biblical truths and not here to set us Reformed Christians straight, I will offer a compromise. I will answer your questions on one condition. In my opinion free will Arminian doctrine forces contradiction upon Scripture. If you can show me how you reconcile these apparent universal offers of salvation with passages that state that Christ died for "His own" "many" or "those who believe", so that one passage of Scripture does not contradict another passage, then perhaps we can discuss this doctrine with an attitude of coming together in like minded faith and doctrine for the glory of God, and brotherly love.

Many Blessings,
RW

Hi Roger,

My advice is to walk away... for within his opening comments he stated that he will be using these responses at the end of his 'article' - for which we know will not be subjective and researched enough for balance -- and whatever we replyed to would probably be used without permission and probably be taken out of context...


So having stated that.... travel at your own risk

[Instrument]

poochie:

1. If Limited Atonement was taught in the Bible then can any Reformed person tell me why would Hebrews 2:9 state that Christ should taste death for everyman?

look at the following verse:

• 10For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
  

2. If Limited Atonement is a correct doctrine then can Reformed explain 2 Pet 2:1 which says “denying the Lord that bought them.” If Christ had only died for the church as Reformed claim that Acts 20:28 teaches then why would 2 Pet 2:1 state that Christ also died for the false teachers?

Christ bought the general resurrection. But although every human will be risen, only selected according to God's purpose will be transformed.

3. If God only wanted certain people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth, then can any Calvinist tell me why 2 Pet 3:9 was included in the New Testament?

Do not forget that the text is a reference to His coming. So is this:

when have entered the fullness of the elect, then will happen the second coming of Christ. You can see this in Rom chapter 11.


Blessings.

[poochie]

Thanks for answering my questions I appreciate it.

I got a very long, long, long, long response from a Apologetics web ministry in response to my questions, so perhaps this tells me I created quality questions as it took them more than 10 pages to answer to of my questions. This tells me that I created quality questions.

My article is still in th works and I am striving to address and be somewhat fair to Reformed believers in it. I state that my article is not a attack on them.

Thanks again..

poochie:

look at the following verse:

• 10For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
  

Christ bought the general resurrection. But although every human will be risen, only selected according to God's purpose will be transformed.



Do not forget that the text is a reference to His coming. So is this:

when have entered the fullness of the elect, then will happen the second coming of Christ. You can see this in Rom chapter 11.


Blessings.

[9Marksfan]

If this fits you please answer these questions. I'll be including these and probably others at the end of my article on Limited Atonement.

I'm going to respond on the basis that any quote is anonymous, because I can't be sure it won't be altered or taken out of contxt - sorry.

--

Questions for Reformed Calvinists

1. If Limited Atonement was taught in the Bible then can any Reformed person tell me why would Hebrews 2:9 state that Christ should taste death for everyman?

Instrument makes a good response - what I was planning to say too - context is everything. I also understand that the literal Greek is "tasted death for every" - who are the every? The many sons He would bring to glory. This is echoed in 2 Cor 5:15 - if, as you contend, Christ died for all 9as in every single individual), what does "therefore all died" mean? Are you a universalist? or is the "all" believers, ie "those who [now] live"?

2. If Limited Atonement is a correct doctrine then can Reformed explain 2 Pet 2:1 which says “denying the Lord that bought them.” If Christ had only died for the church as Reformed claim that Acts 20:28 teaches then why would 2 Pet 2:1 state that Christ also died for the false teachers?

Christ died for the church - these false teachers were members of the visible embodiment of that church and will have claimed that Christ bought them - the term shows just how serious their sin is and, I believe, may well be Peter using the term in a sarcastic manner. If you put the words "the Lord who boguht them" in quotes, you can see how it could well have been sarcastic - but of course NT Greek didn't have punctuation marks!

3. If God only wanted certain people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth, then can any Calvinist tell me why 2 Pet 3:9 was included in the New Testament?

What God wants and what God ultimately wills to bring about are two different things - and there is great mystery in that. We are wise to accept that mystery....