Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Welcome to Christforums the Protestant Community. You'll need to register in order to post your comments on your favorite topics and subjects. You'll also enjoy sharing media across multiple platforms. We hope you enjoy your fellowship here! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Christforums

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy. God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now
Sign in to follow this  
Stratcat

Premillenialism

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strat, Premillenialism Category is up, and it further splits into Historical and Dispensational Premillenialism.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×