Arminians/Semi-Pelagians Teach and Believe in Limited Atonement.

[motibi]

To ARMINIANS -Romans 11:32 "for God has shut up all to unbelief, that he might have mercy on all".

To CALVINISTS -1 Timothy 4:10"for for this we both labour and are reproached, because we hope on the living God, who is Saviour of ALL MEN ESPECIALLY y of those believing."

DOUBTERS I Cor. 15:23-28"But every man in his own order:..For He must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet..last enemy...destroyed is DEATH... Son also Himself be subject unto Him..that God may be ALL IN ALL"

[SuperDonster]

Amen and Amen. I usually say this: If there where 1,000,000 ppl on earth and God let thm choose to accept Him or not, how many would accept? According to Rom3:10-11,Psa14:2-3; 58:3; the answer is ZERO. Well, wht if God decided? How many would He save? We don't know exactly but we do know that God would save MORE than ZERO. Therefore, God's election is more merciful than if it was left up to man's free will to decide. Rev7:9 says God is going to save a number that we can't numbered. Praise God!

[Brightstar27]

The doctrine of the Atonement has to do with the extent of the provision of Christ's death, not its effectual salvaic benefits. Limited Atonement teaches that Christ provides only for a select few who will irrevocably be saved, and the Unlimited Atonement view teaches that Christ has provided atonement for everyoandne everywhere ther salvic benefits thereof only effectual however upon the faith belief of the sinner. I firmly believe that the Word of God clearly teaches the latter.

[polopowers1]

Christ satisfied God alone.The gifts given to the Son are found in John 17 Christ died for God's satisfaction and the the Gifts of that satisfaction are the elect only.

[VictorLepanto]

Of course we all limit the atonement. We can only control our will to a certain extent. We can only consent to submit to Christ's grace to certain extent. We must over time, learn to submit to it more fully. Very few of us will ever fully submit our will to God's in this life time. God respects our free will He will not force us beyond where we are willing to go. Besides, I can consent to something this day & this hour. This doesn't robotically seal me to will like wise tomorrow.

[sthcrox]

the problem between these two sides is a good example of how not to argue doctrines fruitlessly and unprofitably. Jesus died for anybody who will repent and seek Him. Rebels and God-rejectors will not be saved. That is what the Bible teaches. God does not 'impose' His sacrifice on anyone. We simply CHOOSE to accept or reject. Why is there a Hell? For satan, demons, and unrepentant sinners!

[LinuxHawk]

This point is very well demonstrated..

[nobooks]

Stupid christians, if you are indeed, doesn't Romans 5:17,18 say that through ONE sin came to ALL and that through ONE salvation came to all? If all doesn't mean all, does that go for the effects of sin as well? Or does it say that sin affects ALL because of Adam, and salvation affects ALL because of Christ? Since when does saying yes to God's enlightenment of or lost condition count as works due wages? And since when does God making you aware of your sinfulness make you saved? Stupid people.

[rkg62976]

Hey, nobooks. I think it is important to read the entirety of the passages within their context. Your obviously caught up with the word 'ALL' in v.18 of Rom.5. But notice the use of the word 'MANY' in v.15,16,19. Also the word 'THEY' in v.17, referring to the one's who 'recieve abundance of grace...' There exists a particularity in Romans 5, to be sure.

[allofusandothers]

All those "in Adam" (first Adam) is every person ever born agreed and inherit death from this Adam. The logic still applies perfectly to Christ as well (the second Adam) because it is all in Christ. All those in Christ inherit the Grace that comes from Him - which is life. Only those in Him receive the benefit of being in Him. Have a look at John 15. Believers remain in him (The Vine) and only they receive the life this vine gives.

[nobooks]

to clarify...we are only saved if we submit to god, but the salvation of Jesus is available to all

[joshuadmeans]

Honestly, why argue? Doesn't Scripture list debate among the deplorable things the world does? Rather than nit-picking every last point of varying doctrines, we are called to be of the same mind, striving toward the faith of the Gospel, and in so doing, we are also to conduct ourselves in a manner worthy of the Gospel. Provide a defense for the faith, not for your philosophies. With every argument like this, you lose the ability to say, "We do not wage war as the world wages war." They debate.

[hellavadeal]

God so loved the world that he sent his only son. That whosoever believes in him shall not parish but have life everlasting.

good vid.

[allofusandothers]

John 3:16 is incredibly misunderstood. Jesus was talking to Nicodemus - a Jew. The Jews were the only ones singled out by God and given Law the Law through Moses. The Jews had no comprehension that God`s plan of redemption was to redeem a people (those believing) for himself not from just from within the Jews but also from within all tribes tongues and peoples - "The World". Jesus was putting him straight.

[garouHH]

I feel like an anthropology freshman who finds himself in a village the middle of the deepest jungle.

[kr5501]

Great video! Great Point! Semi-Pelagians are reduced to saying that Christ did not secure salvation for one single man. It scares me to DEATH that not to long ago I thought this way. A young Christian being taught tradition, not understanding what I was really saying. We have got to take study serious! The truth is hard and it distroys all human effort.

[revstuw]

Wow,

if I just defined Pelgianism & it's main tenants, what is so hard about deducing Semi from that? We both know exactly what your trying to say & I am trying to graceful here that you are way out of bounds. But clearly do I need to spell it out my friend? If I asked you to define "Classic" Arminian Theology, you would be lost as many 5 pointer's of which you no doubt are.

[LaneCh]

lol, so you don't really know the difference. That's all you had to say, but I'm glad you said a little more now namely implying that I'm lost so I have good reason to block you now. Perhaps next time you should actually know what you're attempting to dispel before you actually attempt to dispel it then call the person who knows better, "lost". I wish to waste no further time dealing with such ignorance with some who also displays such willful incompetence.

[revstuw]

Pelagius' view essentially denied the work of the Messiah (Pelagius personally preferring 'teacher' or 'master' to any epithet implying divine power).

If you would now take the writings of Jacob Arminus, then you will see clearly what I mean my friend.

[LaneCh]

Well, that's all nice and good if I would have asked you to define Pelagianism, but I asked you specifically to define Semi-Pelagianism which you have failed to do as of yet. Are you even familiar with what this system is? If so, then why do you persist with your straw man that someone is saying that Arminianism is synonymous to Pelagianism?

[revstuw]

To him, the grace of God was only an added advantage; helpful, but in no way essential. Pelagius disbelieved in original sin, but said that Adam had condemned humankind through bad example, and that Christ's good example offered humanity a path to salvation, not through sacrifice, but through instruction of the will. Jerome emerged as one of the chief critics of Pelagianism, because, according to him,

[revstuw]

(St. Jerome suggests he was Scottish or perhaps from Ireland.) He was certainly well known in the Roman province, both for the harsh asceticism of his public life, as well as the power and persuasiveness of his speech. Until his more radical ideas saw daylight, even such pillars of the Church as Augustine referred to him as "saintly." Pelagius taught that the human will, tempered in good deeds and rigorous asceticism, was sufficient to live a sinless life.

[revstuw]

Jesus' execution is devoid of the redemptive quality ascribed to it by orthodox Christian theology. (Thus Pelagianism is Heresy or Un-Orthodox Theology) (Calvinists also regularly have accused Arminian's of being "Semi-Pelagians" because of their free will emphasis)

What Little Is Known About Pelagius:

Little or nothing is known about the life of Pelagius.

[revstuw]

Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as "setting a good example" for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam's bad example). In short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility, for its own salvation in addition to full responsibility for every sin (the latter insisted upon by both proponents and opponents of Pelagianism). According to Pelagian doctrine, because humanity does not require God's grace for salvation (beyond the creation of will),

[revstuw]

Pelagianism

Pelagianism is a theological theory named after Pelagius. It is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature (which God called very good), and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin.

[revstuw]

The age old argument that Arminian Theology is in any way related to Pelegianism is truly "heresy". One needs only to read the teachings of Pelegus & than Jacob Arminius.

al

[LaneCh]

Are you familiar with what Semi-Pelagianism is? If so, define it.

[toobfunnybunny]

@LaneCh

yeah, what lane said.

[jdwalker222]

I find it very interesting that people still support the idea of a limited atonement when it clearly contradicts what the Scriptures say. 1 John 2:2 clearly says that Christ is the sacrifice for not only our sins, but also for the sins of the whole world.

[LaneCh]

The reason people still promote limited atonement is because the argumentation that is used in regards to 1John 2:2 is far more consistent with Scripture than the ones against it. Calvinists interpret "all" here to mean all of a group. Taking into consideration Romans 8:28-29, John 6:37-44, and Eph. 1:4-5, it flows logically with Scripture and doesn't demand that any verses get ignored as Arminianism promotes.

[jdwalker222]

I would agree that Arminianism does indeed ignore things in the Scripture, however I believe Calvinism does as well. The word "all" is not even mentioned in 1 Jn 2:2. The term is actually "holou ou kosmou"/"the whole world" contrasted with "hamartiown hemown"/"our sins" which clearly points to Christ being the sacrifice for sins for the entire world. I do not disagree that a lot of instances of "all" in the Bible do refer to a specific group. But this is expected it was written for a group.

[LaneCh]

Change the word "all" that I mentioned to "world." The same argument applies.

[jdwalker222]

Context doesn't allow it to apply to the term "world" there. As I said before the term in the Greek is actually "whole world" as contrasted to the sins of John and his readers. Later in that chapter he uses the same word for world to refer to that which his readers must not love. In fact the world/"kosmos" often times can be translated meaning all of humankind.

[LaneCh]

Actually it does. All of a certain group is all the verse is saying hence "holos kosmos" or "complete world".

"In fact the world/"kosmos" often times can be translated meaning all of humankind."

That's just poor.

[jdwalker222]

Exactly "complete/whole world" simply cannot be thought of as a group that excludes anyone. The word "whole" implies the "whole of a group" and "world" could imply several things, but context narrows it down. He is clearly not talking about any group of believers because of the usage of the same word in v.15 and his contrast to himself and other believers before in v.2. Context points to either "the whole of humans" or "whole of the unbelieving world". And that's not poor it can mean that.

[LaneCh]

Think of it like this: Let's say you have kids and they're playing outside while you prepare dinner. Dinner is ready then you yell out the door, "You all come in to eat." Was it your intention for everyone in the world to come in or just a complete group of people?

Also, in your first comment you said, "the world/"kosmos" often times can be translated meaning all of humankind." Now you say, "that's not poor it can mean that." Why the break from "often times" to "it can"?

[Godcorpusa]

Thstrongest argument for me for limited or particular atonement is we don't see any apostle in the book of acts witnessing in our modernistic way, " Don't you knw Christ would've died for you even if you were the only person on earth". We elevate man over the gospel. The gospel we proclaim is a general call, God's effectual call is precise. Look at the examples in the book of acts, especially Peter's message on the day of pentecost. Repent and believe the gospel, we don't know who's the elect.

[Godcorpusa]

Sorry, I thought I lost my 1st post.

[LaneCh]

No problem. I'll delete the second.

[Godcorpusa]

Wow, indeed Charles Spurgeon is the, 'prince of preachers'. To thnk I went through so much of my christian life thinking Christ's sacrifice was a little take it or leave it thing. Growing up in my circle those who weren't saved would say, "When I get saved..., or I'm not ready to give up this or not'. That type of talk denied those great calvinistic truths that loudly state, 'SALVATION IS OF THE LORD', and it's a GOOD THING too, we would limit.

[artanis68]

LaneCH

Your comments and this video leads me to believe that Calvinists are folks that never got picked for dodge ball in grade school. So now you've found a theology that "picks" little ole you. Limited Atonement makes God out to be so arbitrary and capricious.

Beside, how about looking into the governmental atonement theory - at least this doesn't make God out to be a monster as Calvinism does.

[LaneCh]

Your ad-homs lead me to believe that you really have no premise for your argument to begin with. Well, actually, they're proof that you actually have no argument to begin with. It would be very interesting if you could actually give a substantiated argument rather than your pejorative assertions alone. We'll see if you can, I guess...

[artanis68]

My argument with all Calvinist is that you approach all scripture with a bias and a presupposition - Calvinism. You do not approach scriptures hermeneutically, but rather you have allowed a particular theological filter to filter everything you read. Your no different than the Pharisee's - they too could not see the forest for the tree's because they had blinded themselves as a result of their presuppositions. Calvinism cant be valid for it violates the known character of God.

[LaneCh]

I'll just leave up your comment, not because I agree with it, but so others will see your irrational thought. I'm sure someone will comment on it eventually.

PS. One difference between a Calvinist and a non-Calvinist is that predominantly the Calvinist admits that what they believe about the Scriptures affects their evangelism, preaching, etc. where those who usually deny it at least imply that they have no tradition that they adhere to. At least the Calvinist deals with the issue honestly.

[artanis68]

Aren't you being just a little pious here! Tradition? OK lets see where your tradition comes from - a former Pagan (Augustine) who took the concepts of pagan and Greek dualism and mingled them with Christianity. Besides last time I looked tradition does not have a veto when it comes to truth - important yes - but should NEVER be the overarching factor.Again Pharisees held to their traditions and see where it got them. Maybe you cant comment because you know you have such a bad presupposition

[LaneCh]

Um... I did comment on it. I see that you didn't comment on the assertion that you have a tradition as well, though. Do you agree that you have tradition? Also, there is a big difference between tradition and traditionalism. I have an mp3 podcast I could send you if you'd like to not remain ignorant of the difference. Just let me know.

[budcarfan]

"You do not approach scriptures hermeneutically..."

Could you please give an example of this position?

[artanis68]

Sure, one of the 1st rules of hermeneutics is no interpretation can violate the known demonstrated character of God. Another rule is that interpretation can not violate the rule of right reason or right judgment. Predestination does both. For God to arbitrarily pick the elect and send billions to hell because he foreordained it so, violates the known character of God. When Jesus said "When you see me you see the father - I don't seem to get predestination!"

[LaneCh]

"no interpretation can violate the known demonstrated character of God."

Do you hold that Christ died effectually for any man or merely made salvation possible?

"...interpretation can not violate the rule of right reason or right judgment."

Who's "right judgment?" If it's yours then your argument is completely circular and no person who honestly deals with facts and logic will take you seriously (taking into account that there have been those who have read this and do already, of course.)

[artanis68]

Ever heard of Natural Law? You use it everyday - read Romans 2:14. All men are equipped with a conscience for good reason.

[LaneCh]

What question are you addressing? If it's one that I asked, I have to wonder if you even read what you're replying to. I don't see how what you've said follows with either the question of "Do you hold that Christ died effectually for any man or merely made salvation possible?" or "Who's "right judgment [do you refer to]?"

[artanis68]

LaneCh let's back up here - do you first agree that no interpretation of scripture can violate the demonstrated character of God?

Second, with regards to the atonement I believe that Christ atonement is what allows God to pardon sin and reconcile man to God. God desired a way to forgive sin and to pardon sinners. Christ did not have to overcome any unwillingness on the Father's part to save us. The atonement does not bring about any change in the Father, either in His person or His attitude

[LaneCh]

What? Of course I agree that no interpretation of Scripture can violate God's character. The question is, though, do you? Scripture obviously speaks of God choosing people to salvation.  To say that God doesn't would be questioning the revealed character of God, not the other way around.

[artanis68]

Cont'd. Nothing in us motivated the Father, it was all because He is rich in grace and mercy.atonement is only one condition of our salvation. Another is repentance from sin, and another is faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, which I understand to include the commitment of faith to live so as not to break the heart of God again. Repentance does not mean only remorse, but willingly and freely condemning ourselves and justifying God.

[artanis68]

It means willingly turning from all known sin, and turning to "the obedience of faith" to God, up to our present light Romans 8:3-4).The extent of the atonement is sufficient for all men, but efficient only for those who repent, believe and persevere. Scripture teaches that Christ died for all men Heb. 2:9), the whole worldJohn 3:16;1 John 2:2), and also that He died specifically for His sheep, His people, the elect. S

[LaneCh]

Ah, the "Arminian Three." You forgot 2Peter 3:9. Are you going to continue in your dishonesty and deny your Arminianism? Arminians are the only ones who usually do that. Calvinists just come out and say they agree with Calvin's interpretation of Scripture while Arminians cowardly deny they even side with Arminius. I'd be much more shocked if you had actually admitted that, but your denial is even more proof that you're Arminian in theology. It's the norm of those from your camp.

[LaneCh]

"We don't follow no man's interpretation!  We just believe the Bible!" Yeah...

Anyway, those Scripture verse are addressed in other videos I've posted. The one's that aren't can be found explained here:

tinyurl(.)com/ysx2hv

[artanis68]

Since it is efficient for those who do believe, He did die for the elect, and for them only, in one sense. But since it is sufficient for all men, He also is said to have died for the whole world. Perhaps the most concise verse is 1 Tim 4:9-10, which says that God is "the savior of all men, especially of those who believe."

[LaneCh]

1Tim 4:9-10 is an argument drawn from the lesser to the greater. The greek word is a general term, and denotes one who defends and preserves. In other words, if there is no man who does not feel the goodness of God towards him, and who is not partaker of it, how much more shall it be experienced by the godly who hope in Him? It does not explicit in what you imply.

[Godcorpusa]

I don't think we realize how much we interpet everything through Charles Finneyism, even though we don't call it that.

[redking15ca]

If i wanted i could plunge myself into the world... It wouldn't be hard

In the last days there will be those who turn from the faith...

[budcarfan]

WOW...

...this stuff here just screams "TRUTH"

[WorshipVideo]

Very hard to refute when it is put so clearly.

Thanks Lane

[reformedman]

If Christ died for whoseover would believe, then Christ's atonement is limited totally. No one CAN believe.

Without faith which is given by God(Eph 2:1-10), no one can believe.

Therefore, Arminians limited the atonement down to a very small number of people; 0 people can be saved by arminian theology.

Reformed theology, on the otherhand displays God's love to those who he has given to believe in that not only does he provide the vehicle but that He also provides the entry to the vehicle.

[Godcorpusa]

Amen, why boast in a sacrifice that theoriticaly may save no one. I stole that from C. Spurgeon, but there are people on both sides that really love the Lord and want to get the gospel out.

[neborg67]

@reformedman

You show your ignorance of Arminian theology. Arminians believe in prevenient Grace, which is grace given by God which enables men to believe. This is also what seperates Arminianism from Semi-Pelagianism (Arminians actually believe in Total Depravity contrary to popular Calvinist belief).

So under both Calvinism and Arminianism, faith is a gift, in the sense that none can believe on their own. The difference is Arminians don't believe that this gift is irresistible.

[neborg67]

@reformedman

You show your ignorance of Arminian theology. Arminians believe in prevenient Grace, which is grace given by God which enables men to believe. This is also what seperates Arminianism from Semi-Pelagianism (Arminians actually believe in Total Depravity contrary to popular Calvinist belief).

So under both Calvinism and Arminianism, faith is a gift, in the sense that none can believe on their own. The difference is Arminians don't believe that this gift is irresistible.

[reformedman]

@neborg67 Don't you see what you just said yourself?!

If it is irresistable, it is therefore not a grace, it is actually a hypothetical offer.

If it is an offer, it is then up to the person to decide to get saved or not.

If it is up to the person, it is no longer Christ, but the person.

In other words, the difference between those in hell and those in heaven is this:

Those in heaven did something that those in hell didn't.

Those in heaven made a better choice.

Glory goes to man, then.

[neborg67]

@reformedman Wrong again.

You said "Those in heaven did something that those in hell didn't."

That is equally true of Calvinism. According to Calvinists, the elect excercise saving faith, while the reprobate do not. There is nothing active under Arminianism that man does that is not also in Calvinism.

Under both systems man is naturally incapable of doing any good. Under Arminianism, the only thing that man can do is resist, the absence of resisting is not meritious, it's merely an inaction

[reformedman]

@neborg67 Please study the doctrine. We are not referring to works AFTER regeneration, we are referring to BEFORE regeneration. The whole core of the focus on this debate is not on the believer, it is the non-believer.

Therefore your statement is absolutely wrong. Man cannot decide to disregard an offer; he is dead, he is spiritually dead, in his trespasses and sins. He is totally depraved of any spiritual good. He is incapable of refusing/accepting a spiritual offer; he cannot comprehend it.

[neborg67]

@reformedman

All you have said is that Arminianism is not Calvinism (suprise suprise!).

All I was showing was that you don't understand Arminianism. There is no merit on mans part. Faith is not a work, especially seeing that Arminians believe that we only believe my the grace of God (you need to research th Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace. - which BTW is what seperates Arminianism from Semi-Pelagianism). It makes no difference whether it is before or after regeneration. (cont..)

[neborg67]

@reformedman cont

I would also contend that you do not understand what it is to be spiritually dead. Total Depravity and Biblical Spiritual deadness are not one and the same.

you said: "He is incapable of refusing/accepting a spiritual offer; he cannot comprehend it", that is unless God draws the sinner. Where Calvinists go wrong is they consider this drawing to be irresistible. We can argue till the cows come home,of which is right- but the fact remains that your original accusation is false.

[reformedman]

@neborg67

**All I was showing was that you don't understand Arminianism.**

You don't know who I am or what I've studied.

**you need to research th Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace**

You keep pushing prevenient grace as if you just learned about it, as if it is your new toy.

Please read Ephesians chapter 2 and formulate for yourself a paraphrase of each verse just to make sure you actually understand what it is you believe. You might be pleasantly surprised. Do the same for John 6

[neborg67]

@reformedman If you truely understood the Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace, you would know that means the Glory goes to God, and not man - per your accusation. Under Arminianism, man contributes nothing, not even to his belief. There is nothing in Eph 2 or John 6 that refutes Arminianism. For some reason, you seem to think that Arminianism denies faith is a gift.

[reformedman]

@neborg67

part 1 - the concept of prevenient grace is an ability given by God to man that he may be capacitated to make a decision. The fact that man makes any decision with regard to his salvation NULLIFIES GOD'S GLORY. Can you understand the difference between a monergistic and synergistic system relies ONLY on the fact that one man DID something that the other DID NOT.

[reformedman]

@neborg67

part 2 - Alternately, that an offer was accepted causing salvation

or

that an offer was refused causing damnation means that salvation depends on the response of the offer. If salvation depends on the response of an offer, it is no longer God's full work of grace, glory is partially given to the one who made the right choice in answer to the offer.

[neborg67]

@reformedman

As I said, under Arminianism man contributes nothing to his faith. So Where is the glory in that? The only act he can naturally do is negative. You can persist with your straw man if you like, but you have proven nothing.

[neborg67]

@reformedman

So seem to think if man being able to reject God (by God choosing not to act irresistibly) somehow gives man glory. This is a presuposition which needs to be proven.

By that same token, seeing you think it's mans lack of choice which makes man not responsible for salvation, you are left with a problem. Calvinism, generally being deterministic, negates any real choice in any matter including sin. By your own standard, this should negate mans resposibility for his "choice" of sin .

[reformedman]

@neborg67 on your first paragraph--Ephesians 2, John 6

on your second paragraphy--you are getting close to the answer, you almost got it. Next time you visit a funeral, look at the body and imagine making it an offer. Please understand that what happened in the foundation of the book of Genesis in chapter 2 and 3 are REAL, it is not figurative, it is real. That being the case, meditate over this, and fully investigate what it actually was that happened to mankind that day.

[neborg67]

@reformedman Oh dear,

typical Calvinism, reading too much into the imagery of death. You know, dead bodies also can't walk or talk, so guess according to your logic, we must be regenerated to do that too...

As for Gen 3 and the fall, it appears you are struggling to differentiate between semi-pelagianism and Arminianism. You should know that Arminianism does not deny the effects of the fall. Again... prevenient grace is what is needed to over come this.

[reformedman]

@neborg67 Ephesians 2 and John 6 refer only to spiritual activity, not to the physical activities of walking and talking. It appears you are not even trying to comprehend, it is as if your ears are not only closed but that something is purposely closing them.

[neborg67]

@reformedman

Wow, the arrogance of Calvinism ... you are the enlightened ones.

Firstly, this was never a debate about which of the two systems are right. It was about accurately representing the system.

Secondly, you haven't provided any specific argument from John 6 or Eph 2.... It's not like Arminians have never come across these passages.

Thirdly I accept your withdrawal of your claim that Arminianism gives man the Glory seeing you cannot back your claim.

[neborg67]

@reformedman

I see you have made not refuted my refutation of your accusation that Glory goes to man under Arminianism. I suggest you either refute my argument, or withdraw your claim.

[toobfunnybunny]

@reformedman

agreed. 

[elijahsraven]

Excellent answer to Arminians.

[reformedcalvinist216]

awesome video....Thanks.

[YoungCalvinist08]

Another great video, Bro. Lane

[2corinthians710]

Calvinism, good theology no doubt.

[EZEKIEL3622]

Amen, 100% truth, once again, the cross is not an offer, it's the finished work of Christ. The great irony is that the Armenians say the Calvinist "limit the atonement", but it's the Armenians that want to hold on to "free will" in respect to salvation. The Calvinist says that God does everything in the cross, even the "faith" that gets me to make my decision for Christ. So ho then is the real limiter?

[StormTrek]

Gotta love Spurgeon. His Sermons were amazing.

[nanking37]

Thanks so much Lane.