Bert:
I will ask you, for the third time: 'Do YOU, not Paraeus, but YOU, do you believe that Christ died to save one and everyone?"
David: Did you read Paraeus? What Paraeus believes I believe.
David
The Mission of Christ
-
Bert Mulder
- Berichten: 9087
- Lid geworden op: 28 aug 2006, 22:07
- Locatie: Grace URC Leduc Alberta Canada
- Contacteer:
Ok, Pareus did not believe in hypothetical universalism. so you don't either, nor did Pareus believe that Christ died for one and everyone, but only for those given Him by the Father, so that is what you believe too.
Why not just say so.
So the PuritanBoard, and Dr. C. M. McMahon were wrong when they accused you of the accursed doctrine of the Amyraldians, here?
Why not just say so.
So the PuritanBoard, and Dr. C. M. McMahon were wrong when they accused you of the accursed doctrine of the Amyraldians, here?
Mijn enige troost is, dat ik niet mijn, maar Jezus Christus eigen ben, Die voor mijn zonden betaald heeft, en zo bewaart, dat alles tot mijn zaligheid dienen moet; waarom Hij mij ook door Zijn Heilige Geest van eeuwig leven verzekert, en Hem voortaan te leven van harte willig en bereid maakt.
-
Bert Mulder
- Berichten: 9087
- Lid geworden op: 28 aug 2006, 22:07
- Locatie: Grace URC Leduc Alberta Canada
- Contacteer:
Yes, I read the brief quote from David Paraeus, on the death of Christ, in which he states, with the words of the Canons of Dordt, that even though the death of Christ is sufficient for the sins of the whole world, he only died for the faithful. His death was sufficient for all, but efficient for His people.Flynn schreef:Did you read Paraeus?
By the way, saw that that Amyraldian heretic Baxter is also (erroneously) quoting Paraeus.
I find myself continuously answering your questions. Are you about to reciprocate?
Mijn enige troost is, dat ik niet mijn, maar Jezus Christus eigen ben, Die voor mijn zonden betaald heeft, en zo bewaart, dat alles tot mijn zaligheid dienen moet; waarom Hij mij ook door Zijn Heilige Geest van eeuwig leven verzekert, en Hem voortaan te leven van harte willig en bereid maakt.
Did you read all of it?
Sounds like you didnt get very far. Cut and paste and print it. Read his contribution to the HC catechism and his lecture, which I typed out.
After you have read it all--I mean all of it--then I will answer any other questions from you; but not before you read it all.
I will of course direct you to the main point of this thread: Calvin on the mission of Christ. Did you read any of that?
David
Sounds like you didnt get very far. Cut and paste and print it. Read his contribution to the HC catechism and his lecture, which I typed out.
After you have read it all--I mean all of it--then I will answer any other questions from you; but not before you read it all.
I will of course direct you to the main point of this thread: Calvin on the mission of Christ. Did you read any of that?
David
-
Bert Mulder
- Berichten: 9087
- Lid geworden op: 28 aug 2006, 22:07
- Locatie: Grace URC Leduc Alberta Canada
- Contacteer:
Believe I still have an unanswered question waiting....Flynn schreef:Did you read all of it?
Sounds like you didnt get very far. Cut and paste and print it. Read his contribution to the HC catechism and his lecture, which I typed out.
After you have read it all--I mean all of it--then I will answer any other questions from you; but not before you read it all.
I will of course direct you to the main point of this thread: Calvin on the mission of Christ. Did you read any of that?
David
Mijn enige troost is, dat ik niet mijn, maar Jezus Christus eigen ben, Die voor mijn zonden betaald heeft, en zo bewaart, dat alles tot mijn zaligheid dienen moet; waarom Hij mij ook door Zijn Heilige Geest van eeuwig leven verzekert, en Hem voortaan te leven van harte willig en bereid maakt.
-
Bert Mulder
- Berichten: 9087
- Lid geworden op: 28 aug 2006, 22:07
- Locatie: Grace URC Leduc Alberta Canada
- Contacteer:
David, you have once again shown that you are unable to sustain a discussion on serious doctrional issues.Flynn schreef:When you can say to me that you have read all of Paraeus, Bert, I will answer any other question which is not germane to the Missions thread or General Love thread.Bert Mulder schreef:
Believe I still have an unanswered question waiting....
Take care,
David
Until you reply by stating that you unequivocally condemn the heresy of amyraldism, the charge stands.
Christ did not die for those not given Him of the Father.
Until such a time I will not engage you in any debate.
Mijn enige troost is, dat ik niet mijn, maar Jezus Christus eigen ben, Die voor mijn zonden betaald heeft, en zo bewaart, dat alles tot mijn zaligheid dienen moet; waarom Hij mij ook door Zijn Heilige Geest van eeuwig leven verzekert, en Hem voortaan te leven van harte willig en bereid maakt.
I posted a reply, but decided to delete it. I went back and scanned some of the back-posts and realised I dont want go down this tit-for-tat line. I realise I should not have even started down that road. Sorry, for messing up the thread.
If you want to read Paraeus and interact with him and with me on what he says I am fine with that.
Thanks
David
If you want to read Paraeus and interact with him and with me on what he says I am fine with that.
Thanks
David
I think this is a question that should never have been answered decisively in church history. Because there are lots of passages in Scripture that do imply that Christ died for all. En there are lots of them from which the implication can be drawn that this is not true. I do not know how to resolve this issue. Neither does it seem to me to be very important, if only we can believe and preach that He died for all who come to Him in faith.Bert Mulder schreef:David, you have once again shown that you are unable to sustain a discussion on serious doctrional issues.Flynn schreef:When you can say to me that you have read all of Paraeus, Bert, I will answer any other question which is not germane to the Missions thread or General Love thread.Bert Mulder schreef:
Believe I still have an unanswered question waiting....
Take care,
David
Until you reply by stating that you unequivocally condemn the heresy of amyraldism, the charge stands.
Christ did not die for those not given Him of the Father.
Until such a time I will not engage you in any debate.
G'day,
I will try this one more time. I have taken the quotations I posted yesterday with 1 new one, and I will simply underline the words that I think are relevant.
Calvin:
"If any man hear my words." After having spoken concerning his grace, and exhorted his disciples to steady faith, he now begins to strike the rebellious, though even here he mitigates the severity due to the wickedness of those who deliberately--as it were--reject God; for he delays to pronounce judgment on them, because, on the contrary, he has come for the salvation of all. In the first place, we ought to understand that he does not speak here of all unbelievers without distinction, but of those who, knowingly and willingly, reject the doctrine of the Gospelwhich has been exhibited to them. Why then does Christ not choose to condemn them? It is because he lays aside for a time the office of a judge, and offers salvation to all without reserve, and stretches out his arms to embrace all, that all may be the more encouraged to repent. And yet there is a circumstance of no small moment, by which he points out the aggravation of the crime, if they reject an invitation so kind and gracious, for it is as if he had said, “Lo, I am here to invite all, and, forgetting the character of a judge, I have this as my single object, to persuade all, and to rescue from destruction those who are already twice ruined.” No man, therefore, is condemned on account of having despised the Gospel, except he who, disdaining the lovely message of salvation, has chosen of his own accord to draw down destruction on himself. The word judge, as is evident from the word save, which is contrasted with it, here signifies to condemn. Now this ought to be understood as referring to the office which properly and naturally belongs to Christ; for that unbelievers are not more severely condemned on account of the Gospel is accidental, and does not arise from its nature, as we have said on former occasions. Calvin, John 12:47
"He who rejecteth me." That wicked men may not flatter themselves as if their unbounded disobedience to Christ would pass unpunished, he, adds here a dreadful threatening, that though he were to do nothing in this matter, yet his doctrine alone would be sufficient to condemn them, as he says elsewhere, that there would be no need of any other judge than Moses, in whom they boasted, (John 5:45.) The meaning, therefore, is: “Burning with ardent desire to promote your salvation, I do indeed abstain from exercising my right to condemn you, and am entirely employed in saving what is lost; but do not think that you have escaped out of the hands of God; for though I should altogether hold my peace, the word alone, which you have despised, is sufficient to judge you. Calvin, John 12:48.
"But go rather to the lost sheep." The first rank, as we have said, is assigned to the Jews, because they were the firstborn; or rather, because at that time they alone were acknowledged by God to belong to his family, while others were excluded. He calls them lost sheep, partly that the apostles, moved by compassion, may more readily and with warmer affection run to their assistance, and partly to inform them that there is at present abundant occasion for their labors. At the same time, under the figure of this nation, Christ taught what is the condition of the whole human race. The Jews, who were near to God, and in covenant with him, and therefore were the lawful heirs of eternal life, are nevertheless pronounced to be lost, till they regain salvation through Christ. What then remains for us who are inferior to them in honor? Again, the word sheep is applied even to the reprobate, who, properly speaking, did not belong to the flock of God, because the adoption extended to the whole nation; as those who deserved to be rejected, on account of their treachery, are elsewhere called the children of the kingdom, Matthew 8:12.) In a word, by the term sheep, Christ recommends the Jews to the apostles, that they may dedicate their labors to them, because they could recognize as the flock of God none but those who had been gathered into the fold. Calvin Matt 10:6.
"To the lost sheep of the house of Israel." He bestows the designation of sheep of the house of Israel not on the elect only, but on all who were descended from the holy fathers; for the Lord had included all in the covenant, and was promised indiscriminately to all as a Redeemer, as he also revealed and offered himself to all without exception. It is worthy of observation, that he declares himself to have been sent to LOST sheep, as he assures us in another passage that he came to save that which was lost, (Matthew 18:11.) Now as we enjoy this favor, at the present day, in common with the Jews, we learn what our condition is till he appear as our Savior. Calvin Matt 15:24.
“And wept over it.” As there was nothing which Christ more ardently desired than to execute the office which the Father had committed to him, and as he knew that the end of his calling was to gather the lost sheep of the house of Israel, (Matthew 15:24,) he wished that his coming might bring salvation to all. This was the reason why he was moved with compassion, and wept over the approaching destruction of the city of Jerusalem. For while he reflected that this was the sacred abode which God had chosen, in which the covenant of eternal salvation should dwell-- the sanctuary from which salvation would go forth to the whole world, it was impossible that he should not deeply deplore its ruin. And when he saw the people, who had been adopted to the hope of eternal life, perish miserably through their ingratitude and wickedness, we need not wonder if he could not refrain from tears. Calvin, Luke 19:41.
Simon’s mistake lies only in this: Not considering that Christ came to save what was lost, he rashly concludes that Christ does not distinguish between the worthy and the unworthy. That we may not share in this dislike, let us learn, first, that Christ was given as a Deliverer to miserable and lost men, and to restore them from death to life. Translator's footnote: “Que Christ a este donne pour liberateur au genre humain, miserable et perdu;”--that Christ was given as a deliverer to the human race, miserable and lost.” Calvin, Luke 7:36. [David: in that last, the French version of this work, as this added comment, not in the Latin. The translator is giving us this extra information as a footnote.]
Christ doth not only declare his power, but also his goodness; to the end he may allure men unto himself with the sweetness of his grace. For he came to save the world, and not to condemn it. Calvin, Acts 5:12. [David, Calvin is referencing John 12:47-48 here]
For supporting documentation from Calvin, see
Calvin on 2 Corinthians 5:20
And: Calvin on Matthew 23:37
David: Calvin died about 60 years before Amyraut was even born, so making that sort of connection is anachronistic. These are Calvin's own words. He speaks for himself. Calvin held to both a high predestinarian theology and to common grace, general love and the well-meant offer. For him, there was no contradiction. And there was no contradiction because he placed the revealed will of God on its rightful foundation.
Take care,
David
I will try this one more time. I have taken the quotations I posted yesterday with 1 new one, and I will simply underline the words that I think are relevant.
Calvin:
"If any man hear my words." After having spoken concerning his grace, and exhorted his disciples to steady faith, he now begins to strike the rebellious, though even here he mitigates the severity due to the wickedness of those who deliberately--as it were--reject God; for he delays to pronounce judgment on them, because, on the contrary, he has come for the salvation of all. In the first place, we ought to understand that he does not speak here of all unbelievers without distinction, but of those who, knowingly and willingly, reject the doctrine of the Gospelwhich has been exhibited to them. Why then does Christ not choose to condemn them? It is because he lays aside for a time the office of a judge, and offers salvation to all without reserve, and stretches out his arms to embrace all, that all may be the more encouraged to repent. And yet there is a circumstance of no small moment, by which he points out the aggravation of the crime, if they reject an invitation so kind and gracious, for it is as if he had said, “Lo, I am here to invite all, and, forgetting the character of a judge, I have this as my single object, to persuade all, and to rescue from destruction those who are already twice ruined.” No man, therefore, is condemned on account of having despised the Gospel, except he who, disdaining the lovely message of salvation, has chosen of his own accord to draw down destruction on himself. The word judge, as is evident from the word save, which is contrasted with it, here signifies to condemn. Now this ought to be understood as referring to the office which properly and naturally belongs to Christ; for that unbelievers are not more severely condemned on account of the Gospel is accidental, and does not arise from its nature, as we have said on former occasions. Calvin, John 12:47
"He who rejecteth me." That wicked men may not flatter themselves as if their unbounded disobedience to Christ would pass unpunished, he, adds here a dreadful threatening, that though he were to do nothing in this matter, yet his doctrine alone would be sufficient to condemn them, as he says elsewhere, that there would be no need of any other judge than Moses, in whom they boasted, (John 5:45.) The meaning, therefore, is: “Burning with ardent desire to promote your salvation, I do indeed abstain from exercising my right to condemn you, and am entirely employed in saving what is lost; but do not think that you have escaped out of the hands of God; for though I should altogether hold my peace, the word alone, which you have despised, is sufficient to judge you. Calvin, John 12:48.
"But go rather to the lost sheep." The first rank, as we have said, is assigned to the Jews, because they were the firstborn; or rather, because at that time they alone were acknowledged by God to belong to his family, while others were excluded. He calls them lost sheep, partly that the apostles, moved by compassion, may more readily and with warmer affection run to their assistance, and partly to inform them that there is at present abundant occasion for their labors. At the same time, under the figure of this nation, Christ taught what is the condition of the whole human race. The Jews, who were near to God, and in covenant with him, and therefore were the lawful heirs of eternal life, are nevertheless pronounced to be lost, till they regain salvation through Christ. What then remains for us who are inferior to them in honor? Again, the word sheep is applied even to the reprobate, who, properly speaking, did not belong to the flock of God, because the adoption extended to the whole nation; as those who deserved to be rejected, on account of their treachery, are elsewhere called the children of the kingdom, Matthew 8:12.) In a word, by the term sheep, Christ recommends the Jews to the apostles, that they may dedicate their labors to them, because they could recognize as the flock of God none but those who had been gathered into the fold. Calvin Matt 10:6.
"To the lost sheep of the house of Israel." He bestows the designation of sheep of the house of Israel not on the elect only, but on all who were descended from the holy fathers; for the Lord had included all in the covenant, and was promised indiscriminately to all as a Redeemer, as he also revealed and offered himself to all without exception. It is worthy of observation, that he declares himself to have been sent to LOST sheep, as he assures us in another passage that he came to save that which was lost, (Matthew 18:11.) Now as we enjoy this favor, at the present day, in common with the Jews, we learn what our condition is till he appear as our Savior. Calvin Matt 15:24.
“And wept over it.” As there was nothing which Christ more ardently desired than to execute the office which the Father had committed to him, and as he knew that the end of his calling was to gather the lost sheep of the house of Israel, (Matthew 15:24,) he wished that his coming might bring salvation to all. This was the reason why he was moved with compassion, and wept over the approaching destruction of the city of Jerusalem. For while he reflected that this was the sacred abode which God had chosen, in which the covenant of eternal salvation should dwell-- the sanctuary from which salvation would go forth to the whole world, it was impossible that he should not deeply deplore its ruin. And when he saw the people, who had been adopted to the hope of eternal life, perish miserably through their ingratitude and wickedness, we need not wonder if he could not refrain from tears. Calvin, Luke 19:41.
Simon’s mistake lies only in this: Not considering that Christ came to save what was lost, he rashly concludes that Christ does not distinguish between the worthy and the unworthy. That we may not share in this dislike, let us learn, first, that Christ was given as a Deliverer to miserable and lost men, and to restore them from death to life. Translator's footnote: “Que Christ a este donne pour liberateur au genre humain, miserable et perdu;”--that Christ was given as a deliverer to the human race, miserable and lost.” Calvin, Luke 7:36. [David: in that last, the French version of this work, as this added comment, not in the Latin. The translator is giving us this extra information as a footnote.]
Christ doth not only declare his power, but also his goodness; to the end he may allure men unto himself with the sweetness of his grace. For he came to save the world, and not to condemn it. Calvin, Acts 5:12. [David, Calvin is referencing John 12:47-48 here]
For supporting documentation from Calvin, see
Calvin on 2 Corinthians 5:20
And: Calvin on Matthew 23:37
David: Calvin died about 60 years before Amyraut was even born, so making that sort of connection is anachronistic. These are Calvin's own words. He speaks for himself. Calvin held to both a high predestinarian theology and to common grace, general love and the well-meant offer. For him, there was no contradiction. And there was no contradiction because he placed the revealed will of God on its rightful foundation.
Take care,
David