how to do a search

I have been trying to search my L4 library all day to find info on the implications of the doctrine of limited atonement and evangelism. I have tried everything I know and still am not finding much of anything in 1885 resources. I'm frustrated. Can anyone help?

Thanks

Rod

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

T Gerold Castle

I did it like this...

Rich DeRuiter

I have been trying to search my L4 library all day to find info on the implications of the doctrine of limited atonement and evangelism. I have tried everything I know and still am not finding much of anything in 1885 resources. I'm frustrated. Can anyone help?

Thanks

Rod

As a 5 point Calvinist and former missionary, I find this an odd question. Do you intend to look at the practical consequences of those who hold this doctrine. That is, is the question: do those who hold to this doctrine do evangelism less, or differently? Or is the question: is this doctrine opposed to the evangelistic mandate of Scripture?

If you want to look at one response by a 5 point Calvinist to the the second question, check out Berkhof here: logosres:stberkhof;ref=Page.p_397;off=1730 . It is a bit too lengthy to post here, but if you'd like I can send it to you via email.

I'm not sure how you would answer the first question, though I know that many Calvinistic denominations send out many missionaries home and abroad. Last I checked (several years ago), the missionary per capita rate (missionary/member) was about equal among Calvinistic and Arminian denominations. But I don't even remember where I saw that data.

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/212554#Comment_212554

to add to what's been said....

How about a search like:

"limited atonement NEAR evangelism"

Also, as another Calvinist, I too think that the idea that Calvinists need not evangelize (or some similar thought) is just not accurate.

Also, probably getting a systematic theology book or two(from a reformed tradition) would help this particular search.

Rodney Staton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/212554#Comment_212554

I'm writing a research paper for my seminary class. I am a 5 pointer also and definitely believe in evangelism (see Rom 10:14-15).

Rodney Staton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/212555#Comment_212555

Thanks, that is one I didn't try.

Ralph Mauch

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/212558#Comment_212558

Thanks, that is one I didn't try.

Not sure which one you didn't try, but what I found to be helpful in sorting through that many resources to make life helpful, is to setup some collections, and then indicate that in your search criteria. I have collections of my Theology books, and then some collections of my favorite authors... Lloyd-Jones and Piper are a few that come to mind for a search on the topic you were looking at. There is great help on setting up collections (also on how to do searches) on the wiki page, or search through some of the tutorials.

Happy digging, and hopefully more productive digging [:)] for you research.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/212590#Comment_212590

I used the search ("limited atonement", "particular redemption") NEAR (evangel*, gospel), which produced some good hits. If you're a 5-pointer, you might like this quote from Spurgeon which was on the first page of results in my library:

I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor.

If ever it should come to pass,
That sheep of Christ might fall away,
My fickle, feeble soul, alas!
Would fall a thousand times a day.

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/212657#Comment_212657

Mark,

thanks for the search idea...and the quote...

I gotta get better at constructing searches! [:$]

Ralph Mauch

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/212657#Comment_212657

I used the search ("limited atonement", "particular redemption") NEAR (evangel*, gospel), which produced some good hits. If you're a 5-pointer, you might like this quote from Spurgeon which was on the first page of results in my library:

Hi Mark, I used your search and when it only gave me 2 instances in Grudem's Systematic Theology, I couldn't beleive that was accurate. I changed your search a tad, to this "limited atonement" OR "particular redemption" NEAR (evangel*, gospel) and got 13 in that resource, plus a bunch of other relsults in other resources. For some reason, it wasn't picking up the "limited atonement" as a result in that query, not sure of the logic for that though?

From a non-reformed type, yet somewhat Calvinistic [:)], the below was one of two that came up in Grudem for your search.

The statement "Christ died for his people only" can be understood to mean that "Christ died to actually pay the penalty for all the sins of his people only." In that sense it is true. But when non-Reformed people hear the sentence "Christ died for his people only," they often hear in it, "Christ died so that he could make the gospel available only to a chosen few," and they are troubled over what they see as a real threat to the free offer of the gospel to every person. Reformed people who hold to particular redemption should recognize the potential for misunderstanding that arises with the sentence "Christ died for his people only," and, out of concern for the truth and out of pastoral concern to affirm the free offer of the gospel and to avoid misunderstanding in the body of Christ, they should be more precise in saying exactly what they mean. The simple sentence, "Christ died for his people only," while true in the sense explained above, is seldom understood in that way when people unfamiliar with Reformed doctrine hear it, and it therefore is better not to use such an ambiguous sentence at all. (pg. 601, Grudem's Systematic Theology)

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/212696#Comment_212696

I used the search ("limited atonement", "particular redemption") NEAR (evangel*, gospel), which produced some good hits. If you're a 5-pointer, you might like this quote from Spurgeon which was on the first page of results in my library:

Hi Mark, I used your search and when it only gave me 2 instances in Grudem's Systematic Theology, I couldn't beleive that was accurate. I changed your search a tad, to this "limited atonement" OR "particular redemption" NEAR (evangel*, gospel) and got 13 in that resource, plus a bunch of other relsults in other resources. For some reason, it wasn't picking up the "limited atonement" as a result in that query, not sure of the logic for that though?

Your search is equivalent to "limited atonement" OR ("particular redemption" NEAR (evangel*, gospel)) which is obviously different, and broader (i.e. limited atonement doesn't need to be near evangel* or gospel). It has lots of hits, but most of them are just for "limited atonement" and therefore don't relate specifically to evangelism or gospel proclamation, which is what was requested. My search gives me 118 results in 38 articles in 33 resources, so I guess my library is more skewed in the direction of these type of resources than yours. As this demonstrates, the 'best' search in any particular setting is somewhat dependent on your library. A user with a big library will need a more specific search than a user with a smaller library.

Rodney Staton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/212657#Comment_212657

Thanks, I am still learning how to use the L4 software. what is the purpose of the *?

Kevin Becker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/212741#Comment_212741

Thanks, I am still learning how to use the L4 software. what is the purpose of the *?

The * is a wildcard

Try reading
http://wiki.logos.com/Search_HELP
http://wiki.logos.com/Detailed_Search_Help

for more details on searching

Ralph Mauch

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/212698#Comment_212698

It has lots of hits, but most of them are just for "limited atonement" and therefore don't relate specifically to evangelism or gospel proclamation, which is what was requested. My search gives me 118 results in 38 articles in 33 resources, so I guess my library is more skewed in the direction of these type of resources than yours.

Ok, that makes sense, I had 93 results in 27 articles, in 24 resources with your search results, it just didn't click, but I get it now. Thanks!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/212786#Comment_212786

I've also had trouble using proximity operators. Today I've been searching for the term כפיך/כפיו.כפיהin Hebrew ("as a mouth"). I typed כ WITHIN 2 WORDS lemma: פה

When I typed כ, there was a drop-down menu. It offered two options for HEBREW: כ; but neither of them were followed by a definition. Neither were pointed. The rest of the options were tri-letter roots. I chose the first option and finished typing. It offered me פה (with pointing and the definition I was looking for)...0 hits. I tried again every way I could think of: I tried both options for כ, I tried to type lemma: כְ WITHIN 2 WORDS lemma: פה, I tried hebrew: כ, I tried to switch the two lexemes...no results.

This has been relatively common for me. I assume it's required that I find a defined lemma from the drop-down box. Does it just not have options for prepositions?

I've read the wiki about proximity operators, and I've looked for other helps. I couldn't find any videos. Can anyone figure out why they don't work for me?

I'm using BHS/WIVU.

Kevin Becker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/213450#Comment_213450

ry, the first thing to check is that you are using the Hebrew portion of the morphology and not the Aramaic. It's not clear which one you have selected from your screenshot. You've probably got it right but occasionally people who have the right search terms get flummoxed by this little detail.

There is something curious going on her with the way the the BHS WIVU shows the lemma for the preposition. The string I got to work was:

lemma:פֶּה WITHIN 2 WORD lemma:ךְּ

The lemma for the preposition doesn't look like you'd expect it to. What I did was found an example of the proposition and copied it from a right click menu to make certain I was doing it right.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/213498#Comment_213498

The snipper screen-shot tool wouldn't let me get an image of the drop-down menu, but it only offers two options for כ no mater what I type in, and both say "Hebrew" next to them. I tried a number of times with a final ך, as well. I also tried to right click the preposition and copy it, then start a search dialogue independently and paste it (I got two options again, both saying "Hebrew," but it yielded no results).

I was able to get to it by right-clicking the preposition and going to a morph search, and then from the morph search adding "WITHIN 2 WORDS פה," and the drop-down menu gave me the right פה, and it yielded 22 results.

I can't get it to work just from typing directly into the search dialogue. Is there a way to get this to work?

Kevin Becker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/213556#Comment_213556

What I did was copied the preposition manually typed "lemma:" and pasted the copied lemma. I don't know how to get the word picker to work properly with this word... sorry.

Dave Moser

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/213574#Comment_213574

I'd also add "definite atonement" to the search, as many Calvinists prefer to use that label. The search would look like:

("limited atonement", "particular redemption", "definite atonement") NEAR (evangel*, gospel)

Debra W Bouey

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/213651#Comment_213651

I'd also add "definite atonement" to the search, as many Calvinists prefer to use that label. The search would look like:

("limited atonement", "particular redemption", "definite atonement") NEAR (evangel*, gospel)

Thanks, David. That produced hits in 38 articles in 30 of my resources.