Originally Posted by Cranmer
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
We know from using the Analogy of Faith, what Peter was NOT saying, i.e., Christ's atoning death was not designed for "all"; indiscriminately for every single individual. If that were the case, then one would be forced into a form of Amyraldianism; Christ actually paid the penalty for "all", thus satisfying the penalty due to them "all", but it is not made effective unless it is received by faith. Thus, the challenge is to determine in what sense "bought" is to be understood.

I would like to know where Scripture is ever given the blanket term of "analogy" in the text itself? Since truth can only be stated in propositions, how is truth an "analogy" rather than a logical proposition? Was David the king of Israel, or is that merely an "analogy"?
Charlie,

You have a problem.....!!! You are so enamoured with Gordon Clark that you go off on tirades that have no bearing upon what is being discussed or in this particular case what I wrote, i.e., ONE PHRASE; "Analogy of Faith". Take a pill, will ya? igiveup

The phrase "Analogy of Faith" is a much used and recognized orthodox phrase which is synonymous with "comparing Scripture with Scripture". It has absolutely NOTHING to do with Van Til's description of scriptural writing being an "analogy". You would do well to READ what people write in CONTEXT and exercise some of the fruit of the Spirit which you should possess.

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]