Who were you addressing your comment to? I couldn’t find the quote in your comment anywhere in the posts above.

Personally, I am more “anti-follower” than I am anti-calvinist…I am not a follower of John Calvin, I am a follower of Christ and Christ alone.

AMDG

see http://www.christianunplugged.com/abanesassessment.htm

I have now posted an 8-part (yes, 8-part) reply to Mr. Silva, since he took it upon himself to bring into question not just my views on Rick Warren, but my entire Christian “walk with Jesus”!!!—how predictable.

My lead off Part 1 article is at http://abanes.com/kensilva3.html

Of particular interest, I think, is my response to Silva’s unfortunate accusations about my entire “walk with Jesus” based on nothing more than the fact that I happen to enjoy “country music” and the band “Green Day.” My response to these rather odd charges can be found in the last part of the series at:

http://abanes.com/kensilva46_65.html

RAbanes

Actually, I am saying a bit of both. Let me explain.

Most subjects that have strong Scriptural support are generally not contested. Why? Because the teaching is clear.

“Limited atonement” as taught by some does not fall into that category. Notice I said as “taught by some”. There is plenty of teaching on limited atonement that does not go beyond what the Scripture says on the subject. There are plenty of exegetical studies on the subject. However, even those exegetical studies vary on their defense.

Therein lies the problem on subjects without strong Scriptural support. The “details” can be skewed either way and they can be defended exegetically without any problems concerning that defense.

If you are interested in where I stand… I try to stand just as the Scripture stands on issues. This does leave a lot to be desired by some people.

A few more examples to clear up my statements.

The doctrine of “predestination” and God’s will is taught but the “details” are not. See Romans 9:20 and context. Paul does not give us the when/what/where/why other than who are we to question God. Many people have written books and books to try to teach “detail” that isn’t in the Scripture. Consequently, they have invented all sorts non-Bilblical things such as the “dual will of God” etc etc… They invent these to try to fit God into their understanding which simply cannot be done. We can only go by what God has revealed to us in His Word. Nothing more, nothing less.

I recently did a bit of study on preterism and this is another good case of weak Scriptural support. The full preterist is hinging all of his doctrine on a few verses, a few events and external “exegetical” study. The fact of the matter is there are exegetical studies that both support it and refute it. However, the Scripture as a whole just doesn’t support their view and if your exegesis uses intrinsic sources (the Scripture itself) you will have a mountain of verses to “explain away” before you can support that view.

So now to limited atonement. The extent that some teach it is filled with assumptions and attempting to make verses fit into our “logic” and “understanding”.

In my opinion such courses of action do not build “sound doctrine”.

AMDG

We have a “back and forth” argument taking place without the use of Scripture as a basis. As a result it is a “tit for tat” which is mostly meaningless.

We have people defending/attacking third parties instead of those third parties addressing the issues themselves. If said third parties don’t care enough to defend themselves then it doesn’t warrant anyone else defending them.

Your point about Warren not addressing the charges (himself) brought against him from fellow brothers and sisters in Christ (with Scriptural backing) is a serious one.

AMDG

Are you saying that the doctrine of limited atonement has weak support in scripture? Or are you saying is a lot of people have it skewed? The latter I would agree with. The former, not.

At this point, instead of tiresome internet polemic, I would suggest Hugh Martin’s “The Atonement” or even John Owen’s “Death of Death…” Read those two, and then read the bible, and then tell me whether definate atonement has little scriptural support… It only has poor scriptural support if we simply have not done our homework.

As for Warren, I’ve softened after reading Abanes opinions. Some of us Reformed Fundy types can be so blinded about outing our brothers in Christ. They are mistaken, and have stuff to learn, and us moreso.
Let’s help each other.

You know what really frustrates me, Brian, as I have been looking and linking to all of the RA/Warren banter. Neither side brings up actual scripture in their discussion. They might allude to it in a generalized way, but never go to it for counsel in this regard. I guess this is symptomatic of the biblical illiteracy that is rampant in the church–even amongst those who claim to be biblicists. I’m done rambling, thanks for listening/reading.

Bobby