Limited atonement destroyed

[MennoSota]

That hypocrite, John Owen, also wrote, in his A Display Of Arminianism, that



John Owen suffered death temporal, with at least some of its antecedents and attendants. That's why he's been buried in a grave, in England, for over 300 years.

In your quote, Owen, who, of course, considered himself to be elect, said



Yet, in my quote, he affirms, in addition to that, that temporal death is a punishment of original sin. So, according to Owen, even though Christ already suffered for the elects' original sin, the elect, themselves also must suffer for their original sin, thereby making Christ's suffering for the elects' original sin of none effect. What rank Calvinist hypocrisy!

Maybe that sort of performance is why Owen was called a "nonconformist"; his affirmations out of the one side of his mouth did not conform to his affirmations out of the other side of his mouth.

Thanks for the Owen quote. I may have seen it before, but if I did, I had forgotten about it. But, now I'll keep that one handy to always be paired with the one I already knew about, and have just now quoted. They work against each other magnificently!

LOL, you're so twisted up. Yes, the effect of Adams sin is that death of our organic body happens to all. The condemnation upon sin is placed only upon those for whom Christ's atonement is not given. For those whom Christ died to save, the elect, the wrath of God fell upon Christ.
Clearly this biblical truth makes you gnash your teeth in hatred. Your hate does not concern me.

 

[7djengo7]

I also see no contradiction between the sovereignty of God and man's responsibility

You see no contradiction between the phrase "the sovereignty of God" and the phrase "man's responsibility"? Great. Neither do I. Those are phrases, not propositions. Only propositions, and not phrases, can be in contradiction to one another. So, what proposition do you think you mean by the phrase "the sovereignty of God"? And, what proposition do you think you mean by "man's responsibility"? Write out those propositions for me, and we shall see whether or not they constitute a pair of contradictories.

 

[7djengo7]

LOL, you're so twisted up. Yes, the effect of Adams sin is that death of our organic body happens to all. The condemnation upon sin is placed only upon those for whom Christ's atonement is not given. For those whom Christ died to save, the elect, the wrath of God fell upon Christ.
Clearly this biblical truth makes you gnash your teeth in hatred. Your hate does not concern me.

Hi, Sociopath. "LOL, you're so twisted up." That's funny to you? You think I am in serious, God-blaspheming theological error, and you laugh about it? What a lying hypocrite you are.

Oh, guess what, my Owen quote is still right there, contradicting your Owen quote, and you can't make it go away.

1. Did Christ suffer punishment for the elects' original sin, or did He not?
2. Do the elect suffer punishment for their own original sin, as Owen affirmed they do, or do they not?

Two more questions which you are now forced to stonewall against, and to lie about, saying that you have answered them. At least, somehow, your own mind is able, mercifully, to anesthetize itself from the embarrassment your stonewalling against my questions is causing you.

 

[MennoSota]

Hi, Sociopath. "LOL, you're so twisted up." That's funny to you? You think I am in serious, God-blaspheming theological error, and you laugh about it? What a lying hypocrite you are.

Oh, guess what, my Owen quote is still right there, contradicting your Owen quote, and you can't make it go away.

1. Did Christ suffer punishment for the elects' original sin, or did He not?
2. Do the elect suffer punishment for their own original sin, as Owen affirmed they do, or do they not?

Two more questions which you are now forced to stonewall against, and to lie about, saying that you have answered them. At least, somehow, your own mind is able, mercifully, to anesthetize itself from the embarrassment your stonewalling against my questions is causing you.

God is not blasphemed when He is lifted up as the Sovereign King who rules over all His creation and judges rightly.
God is not blasphemed when we acknowledge His glorious right to choose as He wills.
You make God out to be weak and impotent when you declare that God cannot act until humans choose as they will. Get off your Yertle the Turtle throne before God tosses you off by the scruff of your neck, jengo.

 

[MennoSota]

You are simply not writing your written words carefully.

Things that heap coals upon people's heads, making their sins more odious to God, are neither mercies nor deliverance. Why are you so fond of paradox theology?

Do you imagine there are sins that are not odious to God? What fantasies do you have about your carnal self?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Of course I didn't read the whole sermon! I merely read the portion that I quoted, because that was interesting.

If this is how you operate, why would anyone be obliged to interact with your declarations? It is a fool's errand.

AMR

 

[7djengo7]

If this is how you operate, why would anyone be obliged to interact with your declarations? It is a fool's errand.

AMR

Hey, do what you want, Professor. You're obviously not obligated to answer any of my questions, which is lucky for you, since you are forced to stonewall against them. If you aren't interested in trying to defend your irrational ideology from rational objections, then, by all means, continue to do as you've been doing, and hedge yourself from them. Trying to defend Calvinism is, indeed, a fool's errand. It's not like anyone else is going to read this thread, where they would see that you have done nothing in its cause--unless you consider getting "thanked" and high-fived by nobody but other pretentious Calvinist bots is a mark of success in the cause of Calvinism.

 

[MennoSota]

Hey, do what you want, Professor. You're obviously not obligated to answer any of my questions, which is lucky for you, since you are forced to stonewall against them. If you aren't interested in trying to defend your irrational ideology from rational objections, then, by all means, continue to do as you've been doing, and hedge yourself from them. Trying to defend Calvinism is, indeed, a fool's errand. It's not like anyone else is going to read this thread, where they would see that you have done nothing in its cause--unless you consider getting "thanked" and high-fived by nobody but other pretentious Calvinist bots is a mark of success in the cause of Calvinism.

Wait, what!? You think you are thinking rationally? Again, you make me laugh out loud.
Time to give it up, jengo, you are in way over your head.

 

[7djengo7]

Do you imagine there are sins that are not odious to God?

No. Do you? Why would you ask me such an asininely irrelevant question? Because you are asinine? If you have a qualm with the phrase "making their sins more odious to God", then take it up with Ask Mr. Religion; I got it from him:

You are simply not reading my written words carefully. Slow down and compose yourself.

God's mercies are poured out upon the reprobate undeservedly while the walk this earth (temporally). Many are blessed with riches and success. The rain falls upon the good and bad alike. That is the point of the quoted portion you are all aflutter about. These things heap coals upon their heads, making their sins more odious to the holy God.

AMR