probably because he didn’t intend for it to become a cardinal point in the dogma of those that worship him.

* How is the atonement unlimited in the Calvinist perspective?

* How does the Penal view tell us that His death is only applied to the elect?

* How does the last sentence mesh with Calvinism?

Rick I would simply state that Mike Ratliff doesn’t truly understand Calvinism. Not only does the statement you highlighted not mesh with itself it doesn’t mesh (in entirety) with Calvin’s views on the atonement or any of the confessionals.

“The Atonement is unlimited in sufficiency; however, Penal Substitution tells us that His death is applied to the elect alone. His atoning death, His shed blood, is sufficient to cover the guilt of all the sins of the entire population of the world for all time so God commands us to offer it to all by preaching the Gospel to all people, however, only the elect will respond and be saved according to God’s eternal purpose as He draws them to the Saviour.”

How do you get your doctrinal cake and eat it too? Calvinism is the labrynth that keeps us all guessing. Here are some questions about that paragraph:

* How is the atonement unlimited in the Calvinist perspective?

* How does the Penal view tell us that His death is only applied to the elect?

* How does the last sentence mesh with Calvinism?

Exactly my point. In the scientific world, if you use your credentials as part backing a claim, your credentials are then fair game as far evaluating that claim goes. If you don’t use them, they’re not part of the discussion (though their absence may be, in some circumstances).

In Ken Silva’s case, it’s undeniable that his title(s) are part of his schtick in the “credibility” of his articles lies, so pointing out his “ordination” and the size/history of his “church” is not out-of-bounds…

(Via crackberry in Colorado… Heading out of cell coverage…)

#64: I was speaking specifically of some of Chris L’s comments in general.

OK – I stand corrected…

I don’t think the ODMs do a disservice to the church.

False accusations about brothers and sisters in Christ is not a disservice to the church?

Gleefully pointing out the sins of fallen brothers and sisters in Christ is not a disservice to the church?

Pointing out that those outside of Christ sin is not a disservice to the church?

Stifling the Spirit by raising your own ethnocentric brand of how the faith must be practices is not a disservice to the church?

Calling pastors goat-herders, declaring who is and is not an actual brother or sister in Christ is not a disservice to the church?

Twisting quotes, using partial quotes, ignoring context so you can fortify you witch-hunt is not a disservice to the church?

Raising issue of methodology and preference to absolutes of the faith is not a disservice to the church?

Attacking the motives, the character, the lives of brothers and sisters in Christ is not a disservice to the church?

Ignoring large swathes of the Lord’s work throughout history is not a disservice to the church?

Poisoning the mind of the weaker brother is not a disservice to the church?

you appear every bit as vitriolic and angry as those you condemn

Hmmm… you are just like them -

I’m not saying that

Hmmm… you are just like them -

I’m not saying that – not sure if that was directed at me. Actually, I don’t see the ODMs all that bad in the grand scheme of things. Guys, this – at the end of the day – is a big world, but we do have the ability to make it very small.

But do you think things should be left completely unaddressed?

No, I don’t, but the more I think about it, to have 2 immature believers (the one pointing the accusation in a gleeful tone and the other defending it) going head to head is fairly fertile ground for the enemy. That’s why I mentioned ‘righteous judgment’ being so important.

Just as the ODMs resort to their favorite pinatas, sarcasm, and the like, I see that we easily descend to that here in our interactions.

My comments on this particular thread are just some thoughts I’m considering, especially in light of Christ, the early church, those who suffered during the dark ages and even in our day. There is something powerful in their harmlessness and ability to suffer wrong, trusting that the Righteous Judge would prevail, that has the ability to overcome darkness (maybe only after they’re dead and gone).

Stephen is a bright example to me. He declared the truth and left no stone unturned. He died well. I can only imagine the impact this had on Paul, who turned out to perhaps be the brightest light in his time.

I don’t think the ODMs do a disservice to the church. You guys sometimes operate (at least here) with a somewhat myopic view, as do we all, about the impact certain things have.