Do You Believe In The Doctrines of Grace?

Eh? Particular Atonement (or "Particular Redemption") means that Christ died for a particular people. Limited Atonement means that the benefits of His death only come to particular people. The two terms mean the same thing. (I prefer "Particular Atonement" simply because "Limited Atonement" could be misunderstood as meaning that there will only be a few saved).

I cannot agree that ALL born-again beleivers throughout Church History have believed in Particular Atonement. Methodists don't, (apart from a small group known as "Calvinistic Methodists"), and General Baptists don't - indeed the whole reason for the name was to distinguish them from "Particular Baptists", so called because they believe in Particular Atonement. So unless you are claiming that no Methodist and no General Baptist has ever been born again, I cannot see your argument.

 

Not Particular "Atonement", I didn't state that.

Particular Redemption is that Redeption is specific to those whom God foreknew (in whatever sense you want to hold it). Everyone is not Redeemed thus Universal Redeption.
Atonement is General and made on behalf of all yet only applied to those through faith thus Redemption is specific only to those of Faith.
Example: the Atonement for the Nation of Israel. It was made for the entire Nation but was the entire Nation saved or only those who through faith recieved it.
The Atonement was made to satify the requirements of the Law, and thus Christ had to die for all or else the Atonement would be void.

 

Still waiting.

 

Sorry, I don't know where I got the phrase "Particular Atonement" from, as I had not heard it myself before, and you did not use it. Apart from that faux pas, I stand by the remainder of what I wrote.

 

You do not believe that all born-again believers throughout Church history have believed in God specifically Redeeming certain people (that being specifically people of faith) and Not ALL people. I think that is a standard point we all share, don't you think.

What we don't agree on is Particular or Limited Atonement but we all agree that Redeption is Specific or limited.

 

I have already apologised for my inexplicable (even to myself ) use of the term "Particular Atonement". However, I did give the example of the "Particular Baptist" and "General Baptist" groupings, which was based on what each group held about Particular Redemption.

Spurgeon preached a sermon entitled "Particular Redemption", which started (emphasis mine):

I begin this morning with the doctrine of Redemption. "He gave his life a ransom for many."
The doctrine of Redemption is one of the most important doctrines of the system of faith. A mistake on this point will inevitably lead to a mistake through the entire system of our belief.
Now, you are aware that there are different theories of Redemption. All Christians hold that Christ died to redeem, but all Christians do not teach the same redemption. We differ as to the nature of atonement, and as to the design of redemption. For instance, the Arminian holds that Christ, when He died, did not die with an intent to save any particular person; and they teach that Christ's death does not in itself secure, beyond doubt, the salvation of any one man living. They believe that Christ died to make the salvation of all men possible, or that by the doing of something else, any man who pleases may attain unto eternal life; consequently, they are obliged to hold that if man's will would not give way and voluntarily surrender to grace, then Christ's atonement would be unavailing. They hold that there was no particularity and speciality in the death of Christ. Christ died, according to them, as much for Judas in Hell as for Peter who mounted to Heaven. They believe that for those who are consigned to eternal fire, there was a true and real a redemption made as for those who now stand before the throne of the Most High. Now, we believe no such thing. We hold that Christ, when He died, had an object in view, and that object will most assuredly, and beyond a doubt, be accomplished. ​

The whole sermon can be read at: http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0181.htm

I also came across this, about Wesley, Whitefield and Methodism, which also seems to use the term "Particular Redemption" differently to you:

Wesley's Arminianism caused an estrangement from the uncompromising Calvinist Whitefield. When controversy had become intense, Wesley summed up by saying that "those who believed in universal redemption had no desire to separate, but that those who held particular redemption would not hear of any accommodation, being determined to have no fellowship with men who were in such dangerous errors; so there were now two sorts of Methodists-those for particular and those for general redemption." The break between Wesley and Whitefield lasted but a short time, but the result was the formation of two sorts of organized Methodists, "Wesleyan Methodists" and "Calvinistic Methodists."​

From: http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc07/htm/ii.xi.ii.htm

I am sure others will correct me if I am mistaken, but (as I understand it) the term "Particular Redemption" does not mean that Christ died to make everyone's salvation possible, but only redeemed those who believe on Him.

 

I was not seeking an appology, but was simply trying to elaborate. There was really no need for the appology in either case though I do appreciate your heart regarding it.

And yes, Particular Redemption does have an established meaning.
I was 'trying' to elaborate my understanding of what I call 'Specific Redemption' which is much akin (though not so specifically - ) to the basic meaning of Partular Atonement. Being the 'purpose' in Christs death IN Atoning was accomplished upon those He foreknew by their Redemption through faith.

It was my misspeak (is that a word?) which confused you and probabily others. I have used it in the past but didn't think about it's common earlier usage. Today most people that I've spoken with (who are Calvinistic) use the terms Particular 'Atonement' or Limited Atonement and very seldom Particular Redemption.

Sorry for the confussion. And thanks for the reminder.

BTW - General Baptists are not Arminians anymore so Spurgeon sermon on them, though relevent then is not so much anymore. We deny most all of what he asserts they hold.

 

I have absolutely no intention of getting into this thread, except to offer three observations, upon reading the thread title and looking at the last few posts.

1. - Do I believe in 'the doctrines of grace'??

Absolutely!! Without question!!

2. - Do I believe that NOT all things that purport to be 'the doctrines of grace', are in fact, the doctrines of grace?

Absolutely!! Without question!!

3. - Do I believe that the phrase 'the doctrines of grace' should, in fact, NOT be capitalized, unless there is a specific book, essay, or other proper usage of a "proper name" or other "proper noun" in view? Hence, is the phrase "The Doctrines of Grace" an improper use of capitalization?

Absolutely!! Without question!!



Ed, a.k.a. Language Cop

 

I think you are right. Particular redemption is the same thing as limited (or definite) atonement.

 

I doubt he has given it much thout recently sice he died in May of this year.

 

This is a ridiculous statement and simply untrue.

 

Good point!

Ed

 

Try reading the quote shortly thererafter, and you will see what I was implying.

 

Do you worship Jesus Christ as Lord of your life?

 

I'm just reminding Allan of his own words . I'm quoting straight from the proverbial horse's mouth .

 

And in your posting these without taking the time to actually read the posts you wouldn't look like a horses rear-end.

If you look at my posts after it you will see I 'clarified' what I was saying.

You know it is against BB policy to intentionally misrepresent, and distort someone in your willful manner.

 

Yes , I do . That's why I am quoting you in order to refute you .

 

No you do not, here is MY proof from my posts AFTER it to 'clarify' what I was TALKING ABOUT.

I used the wrong wording to illistrate my point.
Atonement is general but Redeption is specific, thus Specific Redemption but had forgotten the term already had a specific definition while illistrating my point.

It was not used in the manner you set it forth, as though I was making a declaration about what ALL Christians believed historically. I was stating ALL christians historically believed that those of faith in Christ were redeemed specifically.

So no, you did not read nor take the context into consideration before trying to defame and twist.

Now, you can appoligize here as well.

 

Most Calvinists have indeed called it Particular Redemption . Runner-ups would be Specific Redemption and Definite Atonement .

It was just funny . You claim a lot of knowledge about doctrine and Church History -- but were not familiar with such key terms . ' All Christians throughout Church History have believed in PR. But Limited Atonement ? Well that's a different matter .' :laugh:

 

IOW- you were wrong and had no valid argument unless you first took it out of it's context and then twisted it.