Dear Jim,
Your original complaint was regarding the historical accuracy of Dr. Daniel's statement on the Reformers view of Limited Atonement. I demonstrated that Dr. Daniel was in fact accurate. Now it would seem that you're attempting to move the goal posts as it were. In other words, Dr. Daniel's official theological position has nothing to do with his ability to lay out the history of Calvinism or your original complaint.
Yes I guess I did move the goal posts but the reason is: I am not sure that Dr. Daniel’s ability to lay out the history of Calvinism is not based on his theological position.
Dr. Daniel states that the “universal atonement is
explicitly taught in the Heidelberg Catechism” which is I believe is not accurate as you say you have demonstrated, the Catechism places
much emphasis on satisfaction. which Dr. Daniel does not believe based on
his position that "God loves you, Christ died for you, and now God pleads with you to believe so that you may be saved"
Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill,
by Curt D. Daniel page 459.
The Bible teaches a substitutionary atonement and you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that it can’t be both for all things that God predestined come to pass.
Enjoy your time on the Highway Discussion Board Jim there is good folks here that are more mature in the faith than me
William (Freshman)
.
