Lon

This is called "Amyraldianism". 4-point Calvinism. "Reformers" who deny Limited Atonement, but hold to some of the other Doctrines of Grace. Fuller Seminary produces many of this stripe. Liberal mish-mash more than outright Universalists. They eventually come to the same conclusions tho, unfortunately.

Still buddies...

i don't think i like my attitude ! - who are you, and how did you get in here ? " i'm a locksmith. and i'm a locksmith

it doesn't take much to amuse this crowd

It's easy to have fun with good sports.
And I do soooooooo like to laugh and have a good time.

Here is my answer to Trinitarianism: http://christianforum.boards.net/thread/8/trinitarianism

Yes, MacArthur used some infelicitous language initially, giving rise to the charge of Semi-Pelagianism. MacArthur responded to the constructive criticism by reframing his argument to more clearly affirm justification by faith. Unfortunately the older charges still linger and stick to him no matter how much he has tried to offer up correctives.

BTW, I should make clear that there is an aspect to the atonement which is judicial and wherein God does credit to believers Christ's righteousness by faith, but that imputation does not stop there; it should direct us to God's unilateral covenant with Abraham, where God alone in the manifestation of Father and Son passed through the blood-cut offering and in the fulness of time fulfilled that covenant in the singular Seed of Christ himself, so we receive his credit in its absolute maturity. This is our confidence and the certainty we have that we are included in the fulfillment of that covenant, while we await that day when we transfer into full realization of our ontology in Christ.

Hi Lon, there is much said on this topic, but the single best place to start, in my opinion, is "The Mediation of Christ" by Thomas F. Torrance. This little 125 page book has had the biggest impact on me of any read in my life excepting the Bible. Torrance does not spend a lot of time refuting the double decree, instead he builds a much broader and richer and more inclusive case for the atoning/as yet/Mediating work of Christ. If you will shoot me your mailing address, I would cheerfully gift you with a copy of this book. Best regards, Thomas

It goes back to parallel universes or 4 deminsions. Lot of places we dont know of

Yin and yang came from void. There is no future in void. There is no past before the big bang.

I think a laxity of rules enforcement coupled with undermining some of the institutions/traditions that helped bind the community, along with the feeling that we're more and more on autopilot is making it feel as though the joint is running out a string. Not sure how that can change absent a stir in leadership.

Ignore feature:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3858851#post3858851

Thanks my friend. We should meet for coffee sometime (I'll hide my fangs and horns).

Hi Lon TY.

Yes, Jesus ate with sinners but He didn't EVER endorse their sins; in fact He told them what would happen if they didn't repent.

Yeah, really I'm not even upset about it. I just think it's a lot more serious violation to anathematise a person or to associate him with anti-christ than it is to poetically ascribe dumb assedness to a multiplicity of posters in passing. But not upset about it at all

:thumb: on the "Baking a cake" post (though we probably won't agree on the cake part). Apparently I haven't spread enough rep around since the last atta-boy...and why TOL cares if I rep the same person repeatedly I'll never know.

Read your complaint about the growing problem with Arians dominating TOL, but I doubt Mods will respond. For a long time myself and others have asked they at least be forbidden from posting on ECT, but they are still permitted on that forum.

I'm double pred as well. But I do believe in common grace and that God has some form of love for the non-elect (which is I think what Nang and I would disagree on.) But Nang would still accept the duty of unregenerate reprobates to repent and believe the gospel, which B57 would reject. B57 also basically anathemizes anyone who doesn't agree with him on anything for pretty much any reason