I started October 2 pounds lighter than I started September.
My first bike ride was August 17 and 10 miles was a hard ride.
Since then
After being sick for a week, I rode today (22 miles) and it was the worst average speed in a while. I have a lot of work to do in two weeks (I'm still planning a ride to Big Rapids and back).
The "L" - "limited atonement" - AKA "definite atonement", "particular redemption".
I know what the doctrine means, but there are folks out there who can put it much more simply than I can. From wiki:
The doctrine states that Jesus Christ's substitutionary atonement on the cross is limited in scope to those who are predestined unto salvation and its primary benefits are not given to all of humanity but rather just believers.
Removing the "predestination" language, which is a debate all unto itself, we can "universalize" that definition.
Some folks define "predestined" to mean "those who God knew, from eternity, who would (in the future) believe). That's fine...for the purpose of explaining "limited atonement", we can use "those who will believe".
If I try to simplify, what I come up with is
"Limited atonement" means that Christ's suffering and death on the cross made atonement only for those who believe."
(my brain is working at half-speed - thank you, nyquil)
If we want to define "limited atonement", we need to define "atonement". Here we can get into a spiral: atonement = expiation = atonement, etc...(it is here I go off on a tangent, reading Anshelm...Subsitutionary vs. Satisfaction - which for the purpose of definition doesn't seem to matter much)
I found a "definition" of "atonement" that is more of a graphic than a definition.
"atonement" = at-one-ment. Sort of romantic, actually.
Who has the suffering and death of Christ on the cross made "at one" with God? Whose sins are paid for?
If the sins of all the people in all the world are paid for, how can God justly send anybody to hell? They've been bought and paid for by the blood of Christ.
In the end, everybody except Universalists limit the scope of the atoning blood of Christ.
Outside of Universalism, both sides limit the effectiveness of atonement (atonement being the actual payment - either Christ being the our substitute on the cross OR Christ satisfying our debt to the Father on the cross). In unlimited atonement, the death of Christ does not pay the penalty for the sins of the unsaved; they go to the grave still owing the debt. In unlimited atonement, Christ is not the substitute
If atonement is limited to those who believe, then Christ's blood paid the penalty in a very effective way and it does exactly what it was meant to do: purchase souls.
If atonement is universal (for every person who every lived), then Christ's blood effectually purchases nothing, it merely raises the possibility of salvation.
Either atonement is limited, and only the sins of some are paid for; some are saved, or atonement is unlimited, and all sins are paid for and none will go to hell.
Has the suffering and death of Christ on the cross made all "at one" with the Father? Is the scope of effectiveness of the payment limited to those who believe?
OR
Is all of mankind "at one" with the Father? All are bought and paid for, all have been purchased and all will find eternal life?
I started this post with an eye toward 1 John 2:2.
Unless Universalism is true and all people, of all times are bought and paid for, if their sins are covered, and all will go to heaven, then atonement is limited...the question is: who limits it.
The "L" part of TULIP..."Limited Atonenent".
Also known as "definite atonement" or "particular redemption".
Now...I'm going to take this post in an entirely different and political course.
On another blog, I'm hearing about our "Christian" Bible calling Jews "children of the devil" and I'm hearing about the sinful history of the persecution of Jews by Christians.
Yes. It happened. Yes. It was sin.
The popular epitaph is "Christ-killer".
Who took Christ's life?
John 10:17-18 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my lifeonly to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."
My first question: if Christ had not been crucified, where would we be? The "religious Jews" were instruments of God, prophecied. Jesus' death was the necessary sacrifice, ordained by the Father from the beginning of time. If God had demanded the sacrifice, are the people who brought that sacrifice about to blame?
Now...on to "the L".
From a Reformed perspective, who is responsible for the death of Christ? When I was an Arminian, my answer would have been "all of us".
But if I buy into the "L", that is not the right answer.
The short definition of "limited atonement" is: Christ's redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them.
If Christ's redeeming work was intended to save only those who would believe on Christ the Saviour, His blood in not on the hands of the Jews, it is not on the hands of unbelievers.
The blood of Christ is on my hands. My hands...the hands of a believer.
Romans 5:8-11 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
That is the "L". The "L" lays the blame of Christ's death on me.
65 miles by bike...I was within 15 miles of Big Rapids, but was afraid I'd run out of sunlight if I did the ride both ways in one day (and it would have kicked my butt). And I wasn't planning on riding that far, so I didn't have overnight stuff to stay in a hotel.
I know the campaign protestations.
I know that Barack Obama says that he has always supported health care for infants.
This is "inaccurate".
2001: SB 1095
(...) Amends the Statute on Statutes. Defines "born-alive infant" to
include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. Defines "born alive" to mean the complete expulsion or extraction from the mother of an infant, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.... Obama voted "no" on even letting the bill pass out of committee, so that it could be voted on by the Senate
Obama's comments are on pages 84 on.
2002 - Next verse, same as the first...SB 1662.
and 2003...SB 1082...
And Obama said...
"They have not been telling the truth," Mr. Obama said. "And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying."
He added that it was "ridiculous" to suggest he had ever supported withholding lifesaving treatment for an infant. "It defies common sense and it defies imagination, and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive," he said in the CBN interview.
Here's the problem...the Illinois Senate keeps minutes.
Obama lies, calls his opposition liars and his followers say..."ok".
It is said: "There are two kinds of cyclists. Those who have fallen and those who have not fallen...yet."
Today I joined the ranks of those who have fallen. My elbow is messed up and I just noticed the bruise and scrape on my shoulder. There is also a scrape and bruise on my knee (all on the left side).
My bike: the handlebars are twisted a little bit. In the fall the chain came off and that's the bright side!
I am getting more mechanically independent. I put the thing back on by myself.
I am very glad that nobody was around to see me. Especially the part where I got my shoe lace wrapped around the brake lever and was laying face down on the bridge, not able to get loose from my bike...
Miles logged...37.
I rode 50 miles (plus a few feet) yesterday and 21.1 today.
This morning I didn't feel sore at all, but after the 21 miles my legs are a little weak...but it's my upper arms that are like rubber.
I have serious bike lust.
This is a very feminine bike...flowers and all. Women's "geometry"- shorter crank arms, different saddle, greater "seat to peddle"vs. "seat to handlebar" ratio. Road tires, beautiful bike...and it could be in my future.
How so? It's a reward. What do I have to do? Ride from my house to Big Rapids, MI (+/- 54 miles) and back as far as Riverside Park (so I don't have to climb the rather large hill at the end of a 100 mile+ ride.)
My goal? On or before the first weekend of November.