There's no charge for the welcome. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Now, as to a <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> being the right response to John Owen's statement concerning Christ's atonement, I confess I don't grasp what you mean by that. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/stupidme.gif" alt="" /> Would you be so kind as to elucidate?

In His grace,

After you (or someone) has dealt with the content of my post, I don't think it will be necessary.

Unfortunately, I am but a simple and elderly man who does find it necessary that you explain what you meant. I would truly like to understand you but at this point I cannot. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

xyz,

I've never read anything by Owen that brought a grin to my face. He's very sober. Your post isn't as clear as you may think. Please go into more detail. It's hard to get the point or point's you're trying to make. jaf

Why is that?

I can think of a few reasons, although there may be more:

1. The reader(s) are not familiar with your writing style, or
2. The writer has difficulty expressing his/her thoughts cogently in regard to the readership, or
3. The writer is being evasive for some reason.

Whatever the reason what IS clear is that some of us here are having a difficult time understanding your response(s), particularly your statement that a "smile" icon is sufficient an answer to what you think of John Owen's For Whom Did Christ Die?.

In His grace,

Thank you. I have read this post a few times and cannot understand what is meant. I was afraid it was just me. So…if it wouldn't be too much trouble, please explain.

Patrice

4. The two readers are insufficiently educated theologically to understand the post. One of them has, in effect admitted this. They are both evidently competent with ordinary English, so dictionary.com or similar is their first resort, if they genuinely have comprehension difficulties.

5. The readers are being evasive for some reason. This is a standard reaction when people are completely defeated, and is by no means unusual on the 'net. It is almost always the reason when people simply declare incomprehension without reason. Genuine incomprehension almost invariably asks for a particular word or phrase to be explained, especially when a reason is requested.

Certainly, this is a real possibility. However, I can say without hesitation that this reason (insufficient theological education) does not apply to any of the three individuals who have asked for clarification.


This too is a real possibility, although once again, it incontrovertibly does not apply here since the request for clarification by all has been genuine. Contrariwise, your responses have been anything but helpful in answering those queries, the original context which originated the issue being:

Question: From your response I am curious to know how you deal with John Owen's statement here: For Whom Did Christ Die?. (Pilgrim)

Answer: I think a grin is the right response to Mr Owen's offering. (xyz)

PS. You have a PM (Private Message) waiting a response also. Click the flashing envelope icon on the upper right-hand side of the page under your username.

In His grace,

This too is a real possibility, although once again, it incontrovertibly does not apply here since the request for clarification by all has been genuine. [/quote]
How can the reader know that?

Well, since I am one of those readers I am quite certain that my query is genuine.

Seriously, I really don't have time for silly games. If you don't care to clarify your response that is acceptable. But a word to that point would be appreciated.

In His grace,

xyz

I have read your posts, but I am at a loss to understand what you are getting at.
I had thought that it might be just me, but judging from others responses, I don't believe that is the case.

So unless you have come to this thread/board to cause trouble, I would ask that you make yourself clear.
If you are here to cause trouble, I doubt very much your stay here will be a long one.

Tom

But you said that you didn't know what I was getting at.

This seems to me to be precisely one of those. But we shall see.

'Christ died for all sins, past, present, future.'

That much is clear, surely?

'No-one can claim impunity against God.'

That means that no-one can say they sinned against God and got away with it. (If they could, they would be God.)

'However, not all will escape condemnation, because to reject substitutionary propitiation'

That means to reject the 'payment' made on one's behalf, like refusing a governor's pardon because you reckon you had not committed a crime.

'is to put oneself under law,'

As Paul wrote.

'and all under law are condemned, except Christ.'

As Paul wrote.

'So justice is perfectly served.'

As should now be clear, it it wasn't before.

Now, deal with all of that, and if you can then with reason claim that Owen is relevant, fair enough.

.....