This form provides us with the opportunity to address any questions or concerns that you may have.

Premillenialism

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Premillenialism

    There are many premillenialists, like myself, who do believe in TULIP. Maybe make a subtopic on this?

  • #2
    Sure, please respond with the name of the category. Are you suggesting "Premillenialism"? As I understand it there's also Historic premillennialism. Which do you suggest or both?
    Comment>

    • #3
      Strat, Premillenialism Category is up, and it further splits into Historical and Dispensational Premillenialism.
      Comment>

      • #4
        Great! Thanks very much. I know my beliefs are a bit off the beaten path, but I do know others who share them. Do you have a description of Historical?
        Comment>

        • #5
          Put this up last night in the Premil Category: Historical and Dispensational Premillenialism

          Thank you Dr. Mac for helping explain the Premil positions and creating the Category Sections!
          Comment>

          • #6
            I'm pre-millennial but I don't believe in TULIP. There are few Five Point Calvinists. I think the norm is probably between 4-2 points that Calvinists believe in these days.

            Comment>

            • #7
              Originally posted by Chuckt View Post
              I'm pre-millennial but I don't believe in TULIP. There are few Five Point Calvinists. I think the norm is probably between 4-2 points that Calvinists believe in these days.
              Which are no Calvinist at all. Some have an issue with Limited Atonement which is the most controversial point in the TULIP making for a "professing" 4 point Calvinist. Often this is nothing more than confusion about what the doctrine of Limited Atonement actually teaches.

              And welcome to Christforums, Chuckt,

              God bless,
              William
              Comment>

              • #8
                William

                What does the doctrine of Limited Atonement actually teach?

                Ship Alone
                Comment>

                • #9
                  Hi Ship Alone,

                  Here's a great video on the subject and an article giving a brief run down on Reformed Soteriology: What is Reformed Christian Theology




                  God bless,
                  William
                  Comment>

                  • #10
                    Hello William

                    I seldom like what someone else is saying. I would rather you tell me what limited atonement actually is. I admit, I believe I understand what it is. And I disagree, in part, with what I understand it is. But I would like to know what you understand it is.

                    Ship Alone
                    Comment>

                    • #11
                      Hi Ship Alone,

                      I provided both a link and video, that link took me quite awhile to compile and publish. And while I certainly appreciate you taking an interest in me, it isn't going to happen, that is, me searching for unique ways to explain the same doctrine to everyone that questions the Council of Dort's response to the Five points of Arminianism. Please take the time to review the thread I posted. The video is just additional information, pretty much summarizing the same thing.

                      If you're too busy to click the link, then here:

                      L - "Limited atonement," also called "particular redemption" or "definite atonement", asserts that Jesus's substitutionary atonement was definite and certain in its purpose and in what it accomplished. This implies that only the sins of the elect were atoned for by Jesus's death. Calvinists do not believe, however, that the atonement is limited in its value or power, but rather that the atonement is limited in the sense that it is intended for some and not all. Some Calvinists have quipped, "The atonement is sufficient for all and efficient for the elect," while other Calvinists find such wording confusing rather than helpful. All Calvinists would affirm that the blood of Christ was sufficient to pay for every single human being IF it were God's intention to save every single human being. But Calvinists are also quick to point out that Jesus did not spill a drop of blood in vain (Galatians 2:21), and therefore, we can only be sure that His blood sufficed for those for whom it was intended, however many (Matthew 26:28) or few (Matthew 7:14) that may be. Some Calvinists also teach that the atonement accomplished certain benefits for all mankind, albeit, not their eternal salvation. The doctrine is driven by the Calvinistic concept of the sovereignty of God in salvation and their understanding of the nature of the atonement. At the Synod of Dort, both sides agreed that the atonement of Christ's death was sufficient to pay for all sin and that it was only efficacious for some (it only actually saved some). The controversy centered on whether this limited efficacy was based on God's election (the view of the Synod and of later Reformed theologians) or on the choice of each person and God's foreknowledge of that choice (the view of Arminius).
                      By the way I posted what I had because this thread has been derailed. The thread is about Premillenialism and not Calvinism.

                      God bless,
                      William
                      Comment>

                      • #12
                        William

                        Very good. I don't want to be in a thread that has been derailed. I will see if the subject surfaces again.

                        Ship Alone
                        Comment>
                        Working...
                        X
                        Articles - News - SiteMap