Why would the Apostle Paul ask the church to pray for him that he might be a bold witness for Christ Eph ? I would say that every great scholar and teacher and theologian alive has made mistakes as I have , and there is no one with perfect understanding of the Bible and all its teachings, but is Calvinism true and does it square with Scripture?
Was John Calvin right? The offer to save his life was his to accept, but it was limited because he refused it and was hanged. The atonement itself is not limited; it is limited because people choose to reject it. Jesus did say that He came to give His life as a ransom for many Mark , meaning, certainly not for all.
It is enough for all, but not accepted by all, so the offer for eternal life is limited, not by God, but by those many who will not receive it. Calvinism is not really a radical departure from Scripture, but I cannot say that I agree with everything he taught, but where we might differ is not going to be over something that a person could risk losing their salvation over.
The man devoured Scripture and would have been sick to his stomach if he felt he was doing injustice to biblical teachings. This book helped support the fledgling movement and helped the reformed Christians and leaders have a ready defense for their faith and a statement of beliefs on the doctrines of their faith.
That is the foundation upon which Calvin built his beliefs, teachings, and writings upon. Not a bad foundation, is it? Here is a related article for you to read: What is Reformed Theology?
Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Bibles. Ruminations on Revelation: Revelation Restarted. Tom Nettles. Bible Study. Truth with Flesh on it Colossians Subscribe For Updates: Subscribe Follow:. Privacy Policy Website Design by openbox9.
Toggle navigation. Reviews Latest Reviews By Category. Subscribe by email Receive every article in your inbox by subscribing below.
Unsubscribe at any time. Search for Search. Sponsor Show Your Support. You May Also Like. The first thing we need to say, with Martyn Lloyd-Jones, is that if we are never accused of preaching antinomianism that is, grace-as-license , we probably have not preached the Gospel correctly.
The difference between being accused of antinomianism literally, anti-law-ism and being guilty as charged is whether we are willing to follow Paul on into chapter 6. There the apostle answers this charge by an announcement of what God has done!
At first, this would seem to favor antinomians, since they place all of the emphasis on what God has done and reject, or at least downplay, the importance of imperatives. Yet in fact, what Paul announces is that God has accomplished not only our justification in Christ, but our baptism into Christ. His argument is basically this: being united to Christ necessarily brings justification and regeneration, which issues in sanctification. He does not say that Christians should not, or must not, live in sin as the principle of their existence, but that they cannot — it is an impossibility.
That they do continue to sin is evident enough, especially in chapter 7, but now they struggle against it. Again, some wish to resolve this mystery: either we can be free from all known sin, as John Wesley taught, or we can be in a state of spiritual death, as antinomianism teaches. However satisfying to our reason, such an easy resolution in either direction ignores the clear teaching of Scripture and robs us of the joy of such a full salvation.
So the two guardrails on this point emerge from the fog of legalism and antinomianism: justification and sanctification are not to be confused, but they are also not to be separated.
However, I hope we have begun to see that the real rationalists are the extremists on either side of these debates.
0コメント