PDA

View Full Version : Information The doctrine of Limited Atonement UPDATE



poochie
Aug 15th 2008, 11:27 AM
I am only about 1/4 done with my article. But here is what I have thus far. Remember I have not done a proof read nor a grammar check as this is only a draft of my 1/4 done article which I will be including on my popular web resource ministry. Many thousands visit my website and its good to have a article that people can relate with. I have spent many hours on articles that people could not relate (ie Jesus was not a Traditionalist--Rebutt of Chr Fundamentalism).

---

A rebuttal of the Reformed doctrine of
Limited Atonement


First and foremost this article is not written as an attack on Reformed believers. I know of many Reformed believers that love the Lord dearly. I also have made use of Reformed internet ministries like Alpha and Omega, CARTA, and CARM. I welcome a challenge from James White, CARTA or Matt Slick if they are up to rebutting what I have to say in this article. CERM holds to some Calvinist doctrines but neglects Reformed eschatological views among other things. I have written articles on Free Will or Predestination, and Babies and DD people going to Heaven after death. But this article will be focusing on one of Calvinism’s core doctrines known as Limited Atonement. I’ll address the support of this doctrine and what those that hold to it believe, and I will address the many unbiblical interpretations and out of context scripture passages that Reformed use. Then I will exegete and explain four main scripture passages that provide a complete rebuttal of this doctrine. All scripture quotations unless otherwise indicated will be from the King James Version (KJV).

Limited Atonement is one of the five core doctrines of Calvinism. These doctrines compared to their Arminian counterparts are below. Chart cited from Biblical Calvinism by Curt Daniel.

THE 5 POINTS OF
CALVINISM THE 5 POINTS OF ARMINIANISM
TOTAL DEPRAVITY
Sin controls every part of man. He is spiritually dead and blind, and unable to obey, believe or repent. He continually sins, for his nature is completely evil. FREE WILL
Sin does not control man’s will. He is sick and near-sighted, but still able to obey, believe and repent. He does not continually sin, for his nature is not completely evil.
UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION
God chose the elect solely on the basis of His free grace, not anything in them. He has a special love for the elect. God left the rest to be damned for their sins. CONDITIONAL ELECTION
God chose the elect on the basis of their foreseen faith. He loves all men equally. God passed over no one, but gives everyone an equal chance to be saved.
LIMITED ATONEMENT
Christ died especially for the elect, and paid a definite price for them that guaranteed their salvation. UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT
Christ died equally for all men, and paid a provisional price that made salvation possible for all but guaranteed it for none.
IRRESISTABLE GRACE
Saving grace is irresistible, for the Holy Spirit is invincible and intervenes in Man’s heart. He sovereignly gives the new birth, faith and repentance to the elect. RESISTABLE GRACE
Saving grace is resistible for God cannot interfere with Man’s free will. Man is born again after he believes, for faith and repentance are not gifts of God.
PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS
God preserves all the elect and causes them to persevere in faith and obedience to the end. None are continually backslidden or finally lost. FALLING FROM GRACE
Only a few Christians continue in faith and obedience to the end (Arminians are divided over whether one can actually lose his salvation).

So what is the doctrine of Limited Atonement? Consider the definition below from the Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, by Intervarsity Press;

Sometimes called “particular redemption,” the view that Jesus’ death secured *salvation for only a limited number of persons (the elect), in contrast to the idea that the work of the cross is intended for all humankind (as in “unlimited atonement”). This view resuled from the post-Reformation development of the doctrine of *election in Calvinist circles. Proponents claim that because not everyone is saved, God could not have intended that Christ die for everyone.

Reformed types that support this doctrine generally believe that God chose some sinners to save and the rest he reprobated to damnation. Calvinists go so far and say that the death of Christ is efficient only for the elect. Eph 5:25 is one of many verses used which says “Christ also loved the Church, and gave himself for it.” A man loves all othger persons, but has a special love for his wife, or significant other. Good Christian men have a love for everyone, but a special and deep love for his bride. So they use this type of logic to conclude that Christ died and did something for all men at the cross, but his death on the cross meant something really special for the elect. Reformed also use many other verses to aid their defense of Limited Atonement. John 10:15, 17 and 18 are others. These verses say that Christ died for “the sheep.” This phrase would mean “the elect” and cannot be interpreted as Christ dying for men everywhere. In verse 26 does Christ say that not everyone is one of his sheep. Christ never died for the snakes and scorpions nor the goats or wolves, but he died for the elect “his sheep.” Then in John 15:13-14 does Christ say that he would lay down his life for his friends, but not everyone is one of his friends. Isaiah 53:8 is very important to this doctrine as it contains of Old Testament prophecy of Christ dying only for God’s people.

Isaiah, Chapter 53, Verse 8, New American Standard Version

By oppression and judgment, He was taken away; And as for His generation, who considered that He was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due?

In Acts 20:28 it says that Christ purchased the church of God with his own blood. Reformed generally believbe that Christs death was tio make possible the salvation of all men, but He also died to make definite the salvation of the elect (Daniel).

Problems with this kind of thinking and reasoning are all over the Bible. Arguing from logic alone a Calvinist wins, but Grace is something that Calvinists who believe in Limited Atonement generally ignore. Next I will be providing the support against the doctrine of Limited Atonement from the Bible and various other resources.


Arguments against the doctrine of Limited Atonement

There are a number of arguments against the doctrine of Limited Atonement. I’ll be addressing and explaining 4 scripture verses that I believe clearly indicate that Christ died for all mankind and not ONLY for the elect.

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

As explained above the motives are the Lord are to bring everyone to repentance. 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 this verse was included in the New Testament? The context of the verse is in reference to the day of the Lord. The LANTC commentary says that “God does not want anyone to perish, so he is giving more time for everyone to repent. He wants as many people as will to come to faith in him.” God does not want anyone to perish and his love is purely the reason that God delays the destruction of the world (LANTC). Can any Calvinist/Reformed explain 2 Peter chapter 3 in context?

humbled
Aug 15th 2008, 12:23 PM
I don't think you've got a very good understanding of Reformed doctrine, to be honest.


Reformed types that support this doctrine generally believe that God chose some sinners to save and the rest he reprobated to damnation.

Not true. While this is a view held by SOME who call themselves reformers, it is not the majority consensus. The view is that God chose some sinners while leaving others to their own devices. Sinners damn themselves by their rejection of Christ. ALL men, by nature, reject Christ. It is by grace we are saved.

Calvinists go so far and say that the death of Christ is efficient only for the elect.

Christ's death was SUFFICIENT for all, in that His blood is valuable enough, and His life was righteous enough to atone for everyone. It is EFFICIENT for those who believe (the word "elect" is used as a pejorative by some, although it is a biblical term). We believe Christ's death, and God's will actually accomplished what they set out to accomplish.

Reformed generally believbe that Christs death was tio make possible the salvation of all men, but He also died to make definite the salvation of the elect

There is no Reformed person who will say Christ's death made ANYTHING merely "possible". See above response.

I would suggest a better understanding of Reformed doctrine if you are willing to go up against James White and Matt Slick. They'll tear you to pieces on that alone.

As for 2 Peter 3 ... the point of that verse is that Peter is writing to "the elect" (see 1 Peter introduction and 2 Peter 3 indicating it is the second letter to them). And God is patient toward those to whom Peter is writing. God is not willing that His Elect will perish. He will bring ALL of them to repentance, so remain strong in the faith is the point.

Alas, I don't have any more time to put into this. I would suggest that you do more research.

poochie
Aug 15th 2008, 04:35 PM
And as previously mentioned the article is only 1/4 done. I still have more articles to read on both sides.

Tear me to pieces..

Thats all subjective to interpretation. Reformed types would say that I have no or little understanding on their doctrines, but non Reformed types would say that I do have a understanding.

But no matter when I finish my article I will post it here or at least a link to it.

Matt Slick has a well done CARM website, however he's New Evangelical and I am not. I have noticed that he welcomes and embraces some leaders in the Emerging Church movement. Such a practice would get him banned or booted from 99.9% of Fundamentalist churches/camps.

While I do not profess to be a Fundamentalist I'm as conservative as an Evangelical can be, just right before Fundamentalism.



I don't think you've got a very good understanding of Reformed doctrine, to be honest.


Reformed types that support this doctrine generally believe that God chose some sinners to save and the rest he reprobated to damnation.

Not true. While this is a view held by SOME who call themselves reformers, it is not the majority consensus. The view is that God chose some sinners while leaving others to their own devices. Sinners damn themselves by their rejection of Christ. ALL men, by nature, reject Christ. It is by grace we are saved.

Calvinists go so far and say that the death of Christ is efficient only for the elect.

Christ's death was SUFFICIENT for all, in that His blood is valuable enough, and His life was righteous enough to atone for everyone. It is EFFICIENT for those who believe (the word "elect" is used as a pejorative by some, although it is a biblical term). We believe Christ's death, and God's will actually accomplished what they set out to accomplish.

Reformed generally believbe that Christs death was tio make possible the salvation of all men, but He also died to make definite the salvation of the elect

There is no Reformed person who will say Christ's death made ANYTHING merely "possible". See above response.

I would suggest a better understanding of Reformed doctrine if you are willing to go up against James White and Matt Slick. They'll tear you to pieces on that alone.

As for 2 Peter 3 ... the point of that verse is that Peter is writing to "the elect" (see 1 Peter introduction and 2 Peter 3 indicating it is the second letter to them). And God is patient toward those to whom Peter is writing. God is not willing that His Elect will perish. He will bring ALL of them to repentance, so remain strong in the faith is the point.

Alas, I don't have any more time to put into this. I would suggest that you do more research.

Redeemed by Grace
Aug 15th 2008, 06:21 PM
The piece of the puzzle that I am missing is why? Why go through this effort in the first place if your mind is already made up without having the data to know why and you are asking for help to support your beliefs? :hmm:


Shouldn't one weigh all the evidence first -- and then come to a conclusion?

poochie
Aug 15th 2008, 08:27 PM
My article is written as a rebuttal to Limited Atonement. I am trying to address the pro side of the argument.

As I mentioned I run a resource ministry and people from all over the world go to it and access information. This article will aid them as countless others have.


The piece of the puzzle that I am missing is why? Why go through this effort in the first place if your mind is already made up without having the data to know why and you are asking for help to support your beliefs? :hmm:


Shouldn't one weigh all the evidence first -- and then come to a conclusion?

RogerW
Aug 15th 2008, 09:51 PM
Calvinists go so far and say that the death of Christ is efficient only for the elect. Eph 5:25 is one of many verses used which says “Christ also loved the Church, and gave himself for it.” A man loves all othger persons, but has a special love for his wife, or significant other. Good Christian men have a love for everyone, but a special and deep love for his bride.

Can you prove this assumption from Scripture? I cannot think of even one Reformed Christian who believes or teaches that Good Christian men have a love for everyone.



So they use this type of logic to conclude that Christ died and did something for all men at the cross, but his death on the cross meant something really special for the elect.

It is not Reformed types who use this logic, it is you, and those like you who hate the biblical doctrine of limited atonement. Notice I said biblical doctrine and not the doctrine of Calvin.



Reformed also use many other verses to aid their defense of Limited Atonement. John 10:15, 17 and 18 are others. These verses say that Christ died for “the sheep.” This phrase would mean “the elect” and cannot be interpreted as Christ dying for men everywhere.

Again you show your lack of understanding Reformed Theology. Christ indeed died for His elect, who are men/women found everywhere. In fact Christians are found of every kindred, tongue, people and nation. (Rev 5:9; 14:6)



In verse 26 does Christ say that not everyone is one of his sheep.
Christ never died for the snakes and scorpions nor the goats or wolves, but he died for the elect “his sheep.”

But doesn't Scripture tell us, "he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world"?



Then in John 15:13-14 does Christ say that he would lay down his life for his friends, but not everyone is one of his friends. Isaiah 53:8 is very important to this doctrine as it contains of Old Testament prophecy of Christ dying only for God’s people.

Isaiah, Chapter 53, Verse 8, New American Standard Version

By oppression and judgment, He was taken away; And as for His generation, who considered that He was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due?

Since you bring up Isaiah 53 lets see how it supports Reformed Theology.

Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

Isa 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Seems pretty clear that Christ paid the sin debt for some (many) men, but not all or every man.



In Acts 20:28 it says that Christ purchased the church of God with his own blood. Reformed generally believbe that Christs death was tio make possible the salvation of all men, but He also died to make definite the salvation of the elect (Daniel).

For someone who professes to have once been a five point Calvinist, I'm amazed at how little you understand Reformed Theology. Christ' death does not make salvation possible for all men. Christ' death actually accomplished salvation for those He came to save.



Problems with this kind of thinking and reasoning are all over the Bible.

I would say then it should not be hard for you to biblically refute Reformed Theology. But I can't say that, because so far you have shown you have very little understanding of Reformed Theology.



Arguing from logic alone a Calvinist wins, but Grace is something that Calvinists who believe in Limited Atonement generally ignore.

Are you serious???



Next I will be providing the support against the doctrine of Limited Atonement from the Bible and various other resources.

This should be interesting!



Arguments against the doctrine of Limited Atonement

There are a number of arguments against the doctrine of Limited Atonement. I’ll be addressing and explaining 4 scripture verses that I believe clearly indicate that Christ died for all mankind and not ONLY for the elect.

Please allow me to offer you a little challenge then. I would hope that you would agree that the Word of God does not, and cannot be found to contradict. So, while you are showing us these verses to prove that Christ died for all mankind, can you show us how you reconcile this thought with just the one passage I gave from Isaiah 53 showing Christ died...not for all, but for many? Perhaps you could also tell us who Peter is speaking to when he says "longsuffering to us-ward".



2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

As explained above the motives are the Lord are to bring everyone to repentance. 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 this verse was included in the New Testament? The context of the verse is in reference to the day of the Lord. The LANTC commentary says that “God does not want anyone to perish, so he is giving more time for everyone to repent. He wants as many people as will to come to faith in him.” God does not want anyone to perish and his love is purely the reason that God delays the destruction of the world (LANTC). Can any Calvinist/Reformed explain 2 Peter chapter 3 in context?

Since you ask... 2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

The fact this is addressed to believers is proven in calling them "beloved." We should not worry about what the scoffers are telling us. The length of time that has past since the promise of Christ's coming has no significance upon the fulfillment of His promise, since the longest term of time is nothing with God. Besides, the reason His coming is delayed is the long-suffering of God toward His elect ("to us-ward"). He is unwilling that even one should perish, for they shall all be brought to repentance and faith.

Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Joh 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
Joh 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

poochie
Aug 16th 2008, 02:59 AM
I am still working on my article so be patient. I printed off 3-5 articles today and some of which support Limited Atonement. I will also be referring to my Erickson book. Unfortunately I have no books on Limited Atonement to use. But regardless a 3,000-6,0000 word article for a website should be fine with my sources.

Regarding misunderstandings.

KJVO types say that I misunderstand their position. KJVO types say that James White misunderstands their arguments.

Charismatics and WOF types claim that John MacArthur and Hank Hanegraaf misunderstand their theology.



Can you prove this assumption from Scripture? I cannot think of even one Reformed Christian who believes or teaches that Good Christian men have a love for everyone.



It is not Reformed types who use this logic, it is you, and those like you who hate the biblical doctrine of limited atonement. Notice I said biblical doctrine and not the doctrine of Calvin.



Again you show your lack of understanding Reformed Theology. Christ indeed died for His elect, who are men/women found everywhere. In fact Christians are found of every kindred, tongue, people and nation. (Rev 5:9; 14:6)



But doesn't Scripture tell us, "he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world"?



Since you bring up Isaiah 53 lets see how it supports Reformed Theology.

Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

Isa 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Seems pretty clear that Christ paid the sin debt for some (many) men, but not all or every man.



For someone who professes to have once been a five point Calvinist, I'm amazed at how little you understand Reformed Theology. Christ' death does not make salvation possible for all men. Christ' death actually accomplished salvation for those He came to save.



I would say then it should not be hard for you to biblically refute Reformed Theology. But I can't say that, because so far you have shown you have very little understanding of Reformed Theology.



Are you serious???



This should be interesting!



Please allow me to offer you a little challenge then. I would hope that you would agree that the Word of God does not, and cannot be found to contradict. So, while you are showing us these verses to prove that Christ died for all mankind, can you show us how you reconcile this thought with just the one passage I gave from Isaiah 53 showing Christ died...not for all, but for many? Perhaps you could also tell us who Peter is speaking to when he says "longsuffering to us-ward".



Since you ask... 2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

The fact this is addressed to believers is proven in calling them "beloved." We should not worry about what the scoffers are telling us. The length of time that has past since the promise of Christ's coming has no significance upon the fulfillment of His promise, since the longest term of time is nothing with God. Besides, the reason His coming is delayed is the long-suffering of God toward His elect ("to us-ward"). He is unwilling that even one should perish, for they shall all be brought to repentance and faith.

Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Joh 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
Joh 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

humbled
Aug 16th 2008, 04:09 AM
Tear me to pieces..

Thats all subjective to interpretation. Reformed types would say that I have no or little understanding on their doctrines, but non Reformed types would say that I do have a understanding. And who do you think has a better understanding of what Reformed types believe?

poochie
Aug 16th 2008, 12:25 PM
The Bible is quite clear in many places and this is that Christ died for the sins of the whole world, and he never predestined anyone to heaven or Hell.

Lord willing I should get allot of work done today on the article.


And who do you think has a better understanding of what Reformed types believe?

IMINXTC
Aug 16th 2008, 01:29 PM
A preacher once scolded me (I am a preacher), "How dare you tell these men that they can go heaven by faith!"

While I'm sure he would not be the finest representative of his ascribed theology (limited atonement, Calvinistic predestination), it only goes to highlight how these " finer points" of doctrine will affect our testimony to the world, particularly when placed in the wrong hands.

"...And he that winneth souls is wise." Pro 11:30

RogerW
Aug 16th 2008, 01:38 PM
The Bible is quite clear in many places and this is that Christ died for the sins of the whole world, and he never predestined anyone to heaven or Hell.

Lord willing I should get allot of work done today on the article.

Ac 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Why didn't Luke simply say every Gentile who believes will receive eternal life? Why do only those Gentiles ordained to eternal life believe?

Ordained - tasso a prolonged form of a primary verb (which latter appears only in certain tenses); to arrange in an orderly manner, i.e. assign or dispose (to a certain position or lot):--addict, appoint, determine, ordain, set.

Predestinated - proorizo to limit in advance, i.e. (figuratively) predetermine:--determine before, ordain, predestinate.

Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

Joh 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

Ac 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

Jude 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

IMINXTC
Aug 16th 2008, 02:36 PM
If this forum fairly represents the evangelical church of today, all I can say is God Help Us. If the unbelieving world is to look into this smorgasbord of debate as representative of the Gospel of Christ, all I can say is God Help Them. God must be the author of confusion after all?
God forbid! I'm outta here. Your synergistic snoozealarmist.

humbled
Aug 16th 2008, 05:55 PM
The Bible is quite clear in many places and this is that Christ died for the sins of the whole world, and he never predestined anyone to heaven or Hell.

Lord willing I should get allot of work done today on the article.I haven't even begun arguing limited atonement ;)

All I said was who do you think has a better understanding of reformed doctrine? Since you said that Reformers typically say you don't know what they believe while NON Reformers will always agree with you ...
Don't you think that the ones who BELIEVE something have a better understanding of that belief than some who spend their time creating strawmen of those beliefs in order to perceivably win an argument?

And yes ... they will tear you to pieces with what little I've seen of your understanding of Reformed doctrine, much less your arguments against limited atonement. You won't even get to argue limited atonement with White or Slick if you start off with an erroneous understanding of what they actually believe. The entire debate would simply be ... now let me tell you what I REALLY believe ... I do it constantly. In fact, I've spent more time on internet chatrooms explaining what my belief actually is than I've spent debating and defending those beliefs. Some people get an idea of something and won't let it go even when confronted with the facts. :cool:

9Marksfan
Aug 16th 2008, 06:30 PM
The Bible is quite clear in many places and this is that Christ died for the sins of the whole world, and he never predestined anyone to heaven or Hell.

Really?

But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation... 2 Thess 2:13a NKJV

For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Thess 5:9 NKJV

They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they were also appointed. 1 Pet 2:8b NKJV

poochie
Aug 16th 2008, 10:13 PM
I am at a Fundamentalist University. Fundamentalists are generally Arminean in this doctrine and believe in Universal Atonement.

While I disagree with Fundamentalists (http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Topical/jesus_traditionalism.htm) about their legalism and philosophy, I agree with them Theologically.

http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Topical/jesus_traditionalism.htm


If this forum fairly represents the evangelical church of today, all I can say is God Help Us. If the unbelieving world is to look into this smorgasbord of debate as representative of the Gospel of Christ, all I can say is God Help Them. God must be the author of confusion after all?
God forbid! I'm outta here. Your synergistic snoozealarmist.

humbled
Aug 16th 2008, 11:06 PM
I am at a Fundamentalist University. Fundamentalists are generally Arminean in this doctrine and believe in Universal Atonement.

While I disagree with Fundamentalists (http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Topical/jesus_traditionalism.htm) about their legalism and philosophy, I agree with them Theologically.

http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Topical/jesus_traditionalism.htmIs that your personal website? CERM (http://www.cerm.info/index.htm)?