Could those who write long passages PLEASE write in paragraphs of 3-5 lines?

I find it difficult to read 20-30 lines all grouped together.

Break up your thoughts into smaller paragraphs.

Thanks!

“…so that I *scarce* ever…” not *scare*

From childhood up my mind had be full of objections against the doctrine of God’s sovereignty and choosing whom He would to eternal life and rejecting whom He pleased, leaving them eternally to perish and be everlastingly tormented in hell.

It used to appear like a horrible doctrine to me. But I remember the time very well when I seemed to be convinced and fully satisfied as to His sovereignty and His justice. Thus, eternally disposing and dealing with men according to His sovereign pleasure, but never could give an account how or by what means I was thus convinced, not in the least imagining at the time, nor a long time after that there was any extraordinary influence of God’s spirit in it, but only that now I further saw and my reason apprehended the justice and reasonableness of it.

However, in my mind, I rested in it and it put an end to all those cavils and objections, and there has been a wonderful alteration in my mind in respect to the doctrine of God’s sovereignty from that day to this so that I scare ever have found so much as the rising of an objection against it in the most absolute sense in God’s showing mercy to whom He will show mercy and hardening whom He will.

God’s absolute sovereignty and justice with respect to salvation and damnation is what my mind seems to rest assured of as much as of anything I see with my eyes, at least it is so at times. The doctrine has often appeared exceedingly pleasant and bright and sweet. Absolute sovereignty is what I love to ascribe to God.

Listen to John Piper’s message on Romans 9;
“The Absolute Sovereignty of God: What Is Romans Nine About?”
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TopicIndex/43/110_The_Absolute_Sovereignty_of_God_What_Is_Romans_Nine_About/

Jesus did let the demons go into the swine – I don’t judge His actions but acknowledge them. I don’t think it was a matter of preference, but one of benevolent response to their request.

Jesus could have sent the demons where He wanted, but He gave them what they asked for – I see that as the ultimate benevolence – as One who is not intimidated or in need to exact further punishment on those slated for Hell.

Looks like we do pretty much agree on this.

The only reason I prefer limited election/purpose to limited atonement is that it leads some to believe that Jesus didn’t die for the unelect at all – even in a merely sufficient way. This I believe is a gospel killer leaving you with no gospel to preach to the unelect.

I came out of a denomination that is not known for evangelism but it’s very Calvinistic. I think a proper understanding of the atonement would help fix that problem.

You made a nice response to Beautiful Feet also. His post sounds like sloppy agape to me – from an incomplete understanding of the full nature of God.

Yours in Christ,
Riley

I think you might have missed the point of that story. Think: The demons asked “Have you come to torment us before the time?” The reason Jesus did not torment them was b/c it wasn’t their time yet and ultimately would’ve been a rebellion of the Father’s timetable.

It’s also a pitiful show of benevolence to spare them the abyss for just a brief window of time only to throw them into the Lake of Fire for all eternity (if you went into the ER w/ a broken arm and they gave you band aid for some superficial bleeding – would you consider that true benevolence?)

Besides if you put it like that it makes Jesus prefer the demons over the people there by letting them destroy their swine – and that ain’t right.

We must accurately display the Gospel for people and mostly here sharpen my fellow brothers and sisters! That is my act of love.

Thanks for the great clarification and the pecuniary explanation (how long will remember that word ).

You said:
“The sufficiency of the atonement is not limited. It is the purpose and ultimate effectiveness of the atonement that is limited only to the elect.”

I think(?) we agree.

1) I also believe that the scope of the atonement is infinite ie that there can’t be an amount of sin His infinite worth could not cover.

2) Ultimate effectiveness = Only the elect receives or ever was planned to receive its full (underserved) benefits.

Seems, like as with Eddie (who didn’t like the term “Calvinist”), you just don’t like the term “limited atonement,” but we can’t just go changing hundreds of years of technical jargon can we now haha

I don’t like the term “Lord’s prayer” b/c he never prayed that prayer and it should be called the “Disciple’s prayer” (with John 14-17 as “The Lord’s Prayer”), but if I can’t get it my way you can’t either.

Thanks for the help – let’s keep on sharpening each other,

-John