William,

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. BTW, Curt Daniel is not saying that the Reformers believed in Hypothetical Universal Atonement when he speaks of the "two aspects" of their view of Limited Atonement. This fact is clearly spelled out in the links I provided.

Quote
William said:

But I have to say that I am not sure I agree with the good Dr. Daniel concerning his viewpoint of historic calvinism. I think it's a subject that needs to be researched rather that accepting his point of view.

Here's another problem:

Quote
William said:

. . . Dr. Daniel’s believes that God loves you, Christ died for you, and now God pleads with you to believe so that you may be saved and that God has given a sufficient common grace to believe.

. . . *The Bible teaches a substitutionary atonement Dr. Daniel’s does not.

This is simply incorrect. Dr. Daniel's position is clearly that of "Particular Redemption." This fact can be heard plainly in the following lecture on Limited Atonement. His position is found between 11 and 14 minutes into the lecture. Right click the link below and choose "save as" to download.

Limited Atonement


Jim

Jud 1:3 . . . contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.