Do You Believe In The Doctrines of Grace?

[Allan]

==Since particular atonement (limited atonement) is a major part of Calvinism I think the Founder's Blog got it right.

As I said one can assume and postulate whatever extent they want to try to take it, but he gave a one liner that spoke directly to the doctrine of limited - That is all I am showing, and anything more is taking it further than the statement actaully goes.

==If something is a "heresy" those who teach that something are heretics. I see no way around that. That is why I asked in my post if Falwell really understands the implications of his remarks? Personally I don't think he does. I don't think he would call John MacArthur, John Piper, Al Mohler, or Tom Nettles, heretics. I certainly don't believe Falwell would call George Whitefield a heretic. I believe Falwell, like Caner, is on a anti-Calvinism rant right now and is saying things that he has not carefully thought through. That would be a big problem for anyone but it is a really big problem with the ones doing it are leaders of a major Church, Christian University, and seminary.

Believe it or not, it is most of the Educated and intellectual crowd who says that one can teach a heresy and not be a heretic. I agree with you however that to call a teaching a heresy by implication alone denotes that teacher as a heretic. And to say someone teaches a false doctrine in the same manner addresses that teacher as a false and lieing teacher (a heretic).

==I will not deny that there are folks on both sides who go to extremes.

Nor will I.

 

[reformedbeliever]

Does not Jerry limit the attonement himself? I guess he is calling himself a heretic. Jesus died for whosoever will. Calvinists do not deny that. Most don't anyway.

 

[Allan]

Does not Jerry limit the attonement himself? I guess he is calling himself a heretic. Jesus died for whosoever will. Calvinists do not deny that. Most don't anyway.

I'm not sure what you mean brother by him 'limiting' atonement himself.
Please explain.

I think he is limiting his respect by how he has begun addressing different issues and views, but I haven't heard anything concerning your comment.

 

[reformedbeliever]

I'm not sure what you mean brother by him 'limiting' atonement himself.
Please explain.

I think he is limiting his respect by how he has begun addressing different issues and views, but I haven't heard anything concerning your comment.

Does Jerry believe the attonement is effectual for those who never believe? If not, he limits it.
He places limitation on the fact that one has to believe. Most all limit the attonement, except for the universalist.

 

[Rippon]

Allan , you have not now , nor in the past , furnished any proof , just assertions , that a number of those men from Church history believed in unlimited atonement . Again I ask , where are the "exact locations" for the mere statements that Coverdale , Zanchius , Zwingli , and Bucer held to your general view of the atonement ? Deal specifically with these men right now -- you never gave any sources for your contentions . You really have a lot of work on your hands . Zanchius especially was known for what you might consider to be a hard Calvinism . And Bucer instructed Calvin more fully on the doctrine of grace . He was Calvin's mentor . As I have said before , instead of these teachings being known as Calvinism now they might very well have been known as Bucerism . He championed their scripturalness before John Calvin was out of his teens .

 

[David Lamb]

Do I believe in the Doctrines of Grace? Yes. The alternative is to believe that I can save myself, make myself fit for heaven, forgive my own sins. But of course I can't do any of that. Ephesians 2.8-10:

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.​

One of my favourite hymns is this one - I don't know if it is used in other countries:

O how the grace of God
Amazes me!
It loosed me from my bonds
And set me free!
What made it happen so?
'Twas His will, this much I know
Set me, as now I show,
At liberty.

2 My God has chosen me,
Though one of nought,
To sit beside my King
In heaven's court.
Hear what my Lord has done,
O the love that made Him run
To meet His erring son!
This has God wrought.

3 Not for my righteousness,
For I have none,
But for His mercy's sake,
Jesus, God's Son,
Suffered on Calvary's tree -
Crucified with thieves was He -
Great was His grace to me,
His wayward one!

4 And when I think of how,
At Calvary,
He bore sin's penalty
Instead of me,
Amazed, I wonder why
He, the sinless One, should die
For one so vile as I:
My Saviour He!

5 Now all my heart's desire
Is to abide
In him, my Saviour dear,
In Him to hide.
My shield and buckler He,
Cov'ring and protecting me:
From Satan's darts I'll be
Safe at His side.

6 Lord Jesus, hear my prayer,
Thy grace impart;
When evil thoughts arise
Through Satan's art,
Oh, drive them all away
And do Thou, from day to day,
Keep me beneath Thy sway,
King of my heart.

7 Come now the whole of me,
Eyes, ears and voice,
Join me, Creation all,
With joyful noise:
Praise Him Who broke the chain
Holding me in sin's domain,
And set me free again!
Sing and rejoice!

E T. SIBOMANA translated by R. GUILLEBAUD​

 

[Martin]

Does not Jerry limit the attonement himself? I guess he is calling himself a heretic. Jesus died for whosoever will. Calvinists do not deny that. Most don't anyway.

==Everyone, except universalists, limits the atonement in one way or the other. Those who believe in unlimited atonement agree that Christ's death is only effective for those who are the elect (those who believe) however they also believe that Christ died to offer salvation to the non-elect even if they never accept it. Those who believe in particular atonement believe that Christ's death is only effective for the elect and that He did not die for the non-elect. So it seems to me that the debate does not center around Christ's death for the Christians but rather the relationship between Christ's death and those who will never be saved. So the question here is did Christ die for the non-elect as well the elect (2Pet 2:1) or did He only die for His elect (Jn 10:11)? How one answers that question will determine which side of this debate he/she falls down on. Personally, despite being an almuni of Liberty Theological Seminary, I tend to lean towards the particular view. While there are some problem verses with the particular atonement view (1John 2:1-2, 2Pet 2:1) I think there are more serious problem verses for the general atonement view (Jn 10:11, Heb 10:26, etc). There is a sense, however, in which I think this is a debate that will only be solved in eternity when all is finally known (1Cor 13:12). There is no need to refer to anyone, on either side of this debate, as heretics. Neither side denies the Deity of Christ, the atonement, or the blood of Jesus. All sides believe in those things. What the two sides disagree on is how Christ's death effects those who will never be saved. There is no need to refer to either position as heresy since neither position denies the atonement.

Falwell's comments are uncalled for and reflect a serious theological shortsightedness. If Falwell is claiming that limited/particular atonement is heresy then he is claiming that all who hold that position are heretics. Therefore the logical/theological conclusion of Falwell's view is that men such as George Whitefield, John Newton, and Charles Spurgeon were heretics who have perished in the fires of hell. Therefore logically the same fate awaits men like John MacArthur, Al Mohler, RC Sproul, James White, and everyone else who believes in particular atonement. This is why I doubt Falwell gave much serious thought to his comments before he made them. I am greatful that Falwell is not Scripture and that his declaration of heresy is not above question. As stated above I don't consider either position (general or particular atonement) to be heresy. Godly men who are in glory at this very moment have found themselves on different sides of this debate (AW Pink, Adrian Rodgers). Godly men who are still on this side of eternity find themselves on different sides of this debate (Paige Patterson, Al Mohler). Falwell's comments are very unfortunate as are simular comments by Ergun Caner (his claim that reformed theology is a cancer, etc). I have a great respect for Liberty University/Seminary and many professors who serve there (some of whom are Reformed). That is what makes this so tragic.

 

[reformedbeliever]

==Everyone, except universalists, limits the atonement in one way or the other. Those who believe in unlimited atonement agree that Christ's death is only effective for those who are the elect (those who believe) however they also believe that Christ died to offer salvation to the non-elect even if they never accept it. Those who believe in particular atonement believe that Christ's death is only effective for the elect and that He did not die for the non-elect. So it seems to me that the debate does not center around Christ's death for the Christians but rather the relationship between Christ's death and those who will never be saved. So the question here is did Christ die for the non-elect as well the elect (2Pet 2:1) or did He only die for His elect (Jn 10:11)? How one answers that question will determine which side of this debate he/she falls down on. Personally, despite being an almuni of Liberty Theological Seminary, I tend to lean towards the particular view. While there are some problem verses with the particular atonement view (1John 2:1-2, 2Pet 2:1) I think there are more serious problem verses for the general atonement view (Jn 10:11, Heb 10:26, etc). There is a sense, however, in which I think this is a debate that will only be solved in eternity when all is finally known (1Cor 13:12). There is no need to refer to anyone, on either side of this debate, as heretics. Neither side denies the Deity of Christ, the atonement, or the blood of Jesus. All sides believe in those things. What the two sides disagree on is how Christ's death effects those who will never be saved. There is no need to refer to either position as heresy since neither position denies the atonement.

Falwell's comments are uncalled for and reflect a serious theological shortsightedness. If Falwell is claiming that limited/particular atonement is heresy then he is claiming that all who hold that position are heretics. Therefore the logical/theological conclusion of Falwell's view is that men such as George Whitefield, John Newton, and Charles Spurgeon were heretics who have perished in the fires of hell. Therefore logically the same fate awaits men like John MacArthur, Al Mohler, RC Sproul, James White, and everyone else who believes in particular atonement. This is why I doubt Falwell gave much serious thought to his comments before he made them. I am greatful that Falwell is not Scripture and that his declaration of heresy is not above question. As stated above I don't consider either position (general or particular atonement) to be heresy. Godly men who are in glory at this very moment have found themselves on different sides of this debate (AW Pink, Adrian Rodgers). Godly men who are still on this side of eternity find themselves on different sides of this debate (Paige Patterson, Al Mohler). Falwell's comments are very unfortunate as are simular comments by Ergun Caner (his claim that reformed theology is a cancer, etc). I have a great respect for Liberty University/Seminary and many professors who serve there (some of whom are Reformed). That is what makes this so tragic.

Exactly my point. I do believe in particular redemption, without thinking that those who hold to another valid scriptural position are hereitics.

 

[Rippon]

RB , how can another view of the issue be "valid" ? If you have a scriptural basis for believing something from Scripture you believe in its validity . You should believe that other views are wrong , i.e. invalid . I am not centering on the heretical side of things at this point .

 

[reformedbeliever]

RB , how can another view of the issue be "valid" ? If you have a scriptural basis for believing something from Scripture you believe in its validity . You should believe that other views are wrong , i.e. invalid . I am not centering on the heretical side of things at this point .

The reason I say valid, is because there are scriptures that certainly seem to say that the attonement was universal. I don't agree, but you have to admit they are there. I will not call someone a heretic who holds to those views....... not where anyone can hear me anyway......... lol. :laugh: J/k

 

[webdog]

Does not Jerry limit the attonement himself? I guess he is calling himself a heretic. Jesus died for whosoever will. Calvinists do not deny that. Most don't anyway.

Sorry brother, but the "whosoever wills" come out of the world that Christ was given for. Whe "whosoever wills" are the ones who do not perish. Hebrews 2 teaches the opposite of limited atonement. It's so plain that only a systematic theology built on Scripture taken out of context (as we see even with the quotes taken out of context in this thread) can dismiss it.

Heb 2:9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.
Joh 3:16"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

 

[webdog]

Do I believe in the Doctrines of Grace? Yes. The alternative is to believe that I can save myself, make myself fit for heaven, forgive my own sins. But of course I can't do any of that.

Odd, because I don't believe in the so called "doctrines of grace", and I also don't believe I can save myself, make myself fit for Heaven, and forgive my own sins.
Can this misrepresentation PLEASE STOP! These are nothing but strawmen that are repeated over, and over, and over again. Ignorance is NOT bliss!

 

[reformedbeliever]

Sorry brother, but the "whosoever wills" come out of the world that Christ was given for. Whe "whosoever wills" are the ones who do not perish. Hebrews 2 teaches the opposite of limited atonement. It's so plain that only a systematic theology built on Scripture taken out of context (as we see even with the quotes taken out of context in this thread) can dismiss it.

Heb 2:9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.
Joh 3:16"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

G3956
πᾶς
pas
pas
Including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole: - all (manner of, means) alway (-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), X throughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.

 

[webdog]

...see other thread....

I would add that what you highlighted also has to be taken in context of Strongs.

apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole:

- all (manner of, means) alway (-s), any (one), X daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no (-thing), X throughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.

 

[joycebuckner]

A question for all of you that know so very much on theology. When can a Christian say that even though they know God will never put more on anyone then they can bare....I have to much. I do not want any more. The pain has been to great. Will I see my Lord if I end all of the things that others just claim to understand. Can things ever get so bad that God will understand taking your own life????????????????
Come on guys. Who has the best answer for this one.......or the most convencing..............pondering are we?????????

 

[reformedbeliever]

A question for all of you that know so very much on theology. When can a Christian say that even though they know God will never put more on anyone then they can bare....I have to much. I do not want any more. The pain has been to great. Will I see my Lord if I end all of the things that others just claim to understand. Can things ever get so bad that God will understand taking your own life????????????????
Come on guys. Who has the best answer for this one.......or the most convencing..............pondering are we?????????

Mrs. Buckner, we are not our own but we have been bought with a price. I'm sure you know that. I understand about pain. I've had chronic pain for 17 years. I'd be happy to visit with you online or by phone if it would help. Have you told Allan how miserable you are? There are some things that doctors can do to help. I'll keep you in my prayers. Will you do the same for me? thanks.

 

[joycebuckner]

Yes sir, How well I know about the price that was paid for me. No Allan only knows some. There is the pain in the body that is always there and there is other pain.
But my question was in general...sort of...lol
How do you know me sir????We can talk some..a little

 

[johnp.]

Can this misrepresentation PLEASE STOP!

It is not a misrepresentation. If the one making the decision isn't the one that saves what is he? Salvation hinges on your decision according to free will, stop misrepresenting what you believe please webdog.

john.

 

[webdog]

If the one making the decision isn't the one that saves what is he?

Obedient to a righteous God.

Salvation hinges on your decision according to free will, stop misrepresenting what you believe please webdog.

Salvation hinges on God's grace. If not for His grace, there is no salvation. Nice try, though...

 

[johnp.]

Obedient to a righteous God.

Exactly, works salvation. You salvation depended on you didn't it? Stop misrepresenting your faith.

Salvation hinges on God's grace.

Why you misrepresent your own belief is beyond me. Potential salvation is all your God offers but you must make it actual, ergo, you save yourself with the means provided. Why are you ashamed of this?

If not for His grace, there is no salvation.

You mean without your decision there is no salvation. If it was His grace that saved you why are more not saved? Is it because they make a decision in the negative?

john.