tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post154527053601996223..comments2023-07-22T04:24:08.498-04:00Comments on Controversial Calvinism: Did Christ's Sacrifice Actually Save?Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01602468757765608379noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-64895232909837661192011-01-11T13:26:06.120-05:002011-01-11T13:26:06.120-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.ForAllTruthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12262615355101910509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-17488114289863124712009-06-14T21:28:49.596-04:002009-06-14T21:28:49.596-04:00:-) @ Josh:-) @ JoshStevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602468757765608379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-39255589957371795462009-06-12T17:14:01.554-04:002009-06-12T17:14:01.554-04:00Fine update, brother!Fine update, brother!Joshhttp://theologyonline.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-88853864716230219152009-06-11T11:09:10.006-04:002009-06-11T11:09:10.006-04:00Yes, helmet, those are excellent points. I partic...Yes, helmet, those are excellent points. I particularly like the last one about Christ's intercession as a living high priest. Thanks for the excellent comment.<br /><br />SteveStevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602468757765608379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-48959875209066768392009-06-11T07:21:21.346-04:002009-06-11T07:21:21.346-04:00The post is entitled "Did Christ's Sactif...The post is entitled "Did Christ's Sactifice <i>Actually</i> Save?"<br /><br />The notion that Christ's death actually erased sins has some bizarre ramifications. If all the elect's sins have long ago been done away with, why are they still born as sinners? Wouldn't nowaday's elect have to be born as saints? And if the sins of a 21th century shoplifter had already been deleted before they are even committed, wouldn't the sins be necessitated? I mean, does it make sense to think that sins are <b>actually</b> erased before they are done? And if sins were actually forgiven on the cross, why is there a need for <b>intercession</b>? There's no meaningful place for the act of intercession in the Limited Atonement view, because if all sins have been done away with, what do the words of John <br /><br />“But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.”<br /><br />and<br /><br />“But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.”<br /><br />mean to us? These words that we are forgiven by intercession in the presence would be meaningless, wouldn't they?<br /><br />And if sins were actually erased on the cross, why does Paul say:<br /><br />"If Christ has not risen, then your faith is futile and you are still in your sins" (1 Cor 15,17)?<br /><br />There'd be no forgiveness without the resurrection. Why? Because Christ always <b>lives</b> to intercede for the elect. Remission of sins is by Christ's <b>life</b> not by his death. Thus, there was no actual remission of sins on the cross, but a provisional for all those who would approach the high priest through faith. Forgiveness is by intercession and intercession is the work of the <b>living</b> high priest.<br /><br />-a helmeta helmethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10159557031242847451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-60103086516619103052009-06-08T22:23:10.700-04:002009-06-08T22:23:10.700-04:00Yes, you're right. I haven't done with Ni...Yes, you're right. I haven't done with Nicole on this point. The biggest problem I see is that he simply begs the question, as you have pointed out. But there is also the practical question of reading what Calvin actually wrote and interpreting it in a half-way normal way ... which Nicole often fails to do.<br /><br />I want to get to both items, but I couldn't resist starting with the questions on the Eucharist. Calvin's theology of the Lord's Supper simply excludes the possibility of limited atonement in the way it's taught ... and Nicole hasn't a clue on that score.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602468757765608379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-4929220087882837372009-06-08T22:01:51.437-04:002009-06-08T22:01:51.437-04:00Hey Steve,
You say:
"It is of course legiti...Hey Steve,<br /><br />You say:<br /><br />"It is of course legitimate to distinguish, as Calvin clearly does, between impetration and application, but it is improper to separate these, since they always go together."<br /><br />I think that is more fundamental than the either-or fallacy. That is Nicole retrojecting his own assumptions back into Calvin: which he does time and time and time again.<br /><br />But how does he know that?<br /><br />Take Musculus as a counter-example:<br /><br />"M. [Musculus] Moreover it is the office of a Mediator not only to pray but also to offer. And he offered himself upon the Cross for all men. For (as says Paul) Christ died for all men. Finally Saint John says that he is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. <b>How then says he that he prays not for the world seeing he died for all men</b>, and was the propitiation for the sins of the whole world? C. [Calvin] this may be briefly answered, that these prayers which seem to be made for all men are notwithstanding restrained to the Elect of God." <a href="http://calvinandcalvinism.com/?p=614" rel="nofollow">Augustine Marlorate (1506-1562) on the Death of Christ</a><br /><br />Christ dies for all men, but does not pray for all men.<br /><br />Thats the very separation of the impetration-application that Nicole says is impossible for the Reformed.<br /><br />Over and over Nicole inserts his own assumptions into Calvin.<br /><br />DavidDavidhttp://calvinandcalvinism.com/?page_id=214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-43706152623510413072009-06-08T17:01:43.143-04:002009-06-08T17:01:43.143-04:00How do you like that for an update, Josh? :-)How do you like that for an update, Josh? :-)Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602468757765608379noreply@blogger.com