• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The 5 Heads of Doctrine

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
What I find humorous is those who make a blanket statement that they disagree with Limited Atonement have failed to realize they too believe in a limited atonement. They seldom say the Devil will be saved, or all his demons. So, in that sense, they too limit the atonement. :)
I am not sure that this is the sense that the doctrine of limited atonement was intended to be taken. Being that in Christ God took on flesh (humanity or the human condition) I think most restrict the question of the scope to mankind. But you are right....in your sense all believe in limited atonement (not all dogs go to Heaven :)).
 

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
T = Total Depravity. What do you disagree with regarding this Head of Doctrine?
I disagree with this terminology because both the OT and the NT support the idea that we are made in the image and likeness of God.
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
I think what they disagree with is the definition which limits the atonement's potential.
I agree. But that is, in my opinion, and in the opinion of most Particular Baptists, a false definition. And therein lies the problem. Not having a thorough understanding of the doctrine being argued against results in arguing against a straw man of the opponents own making. :)
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
I disagree with this terminology because both the OT and the NT support the idea that we are made in the image and likeness of God.
You seem to have missed the point. What part of man, body, soul, or spirit, do you think was not affected by the fall and thus has such spiritual merit that such a man can come to God on that unfallen merit?

And, again, this is not a debate thread. It is a thread to find common ground. A simple one sentence response is all that is necessary.

"I disagree with "Total Depravity" because I don't think all of man is fallen. I think his body (or soul or spirit) did not fall with Adam."

When we get that sort of response I will open another thread to discuss that issue.

In the meantime I will be deleting posts that are a restatement of the already heard arguments.
 

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You seem to have missed the point. What part of man, body, soul, or spirit, do you think was not affected by the fall and thus has such spiritual merit that such a man can come to God on that unfallen merit?

And, again, this is not a debate thread. It is a thread to find common ground. A simple one sentence response is all that is necessary.

"I disagree with "Total Depravity" because I don't think all of man is fallen. I think his body (or soul or spirit) did not fall with Adam."

When we get that sort of response I will open another thread to discuss that issue.

In the meantime I will be deleting posts that are a restatement of the already heard arguments.
OK Tom no debate; I disagree with "Total Depravity" because though I believe man is fallen body, soul and spirit yet he still retains the image of God.
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
OK Tom no debate; I disagree with "Total Depravity" because though I believe man is fallen body, soul and spirit yet he still retains the image of God.
I agree with Total Depravity because it does not say that fallen man does not retain the image of God.

Dort
Man was originally formed after the image of God. His understanding was adorned with a true and saving knowledge of his Creator, and of spiritual things; his heart and will were upright, all his affections pure, and the whole man was holy. But, revolting from God by the instigation of the devil and by his own free will, he forfeited these excellent gifts; and an in the place thereof became involved in blindness of mind, horrible darkness, vanity, and perverseness of judgment; became wicked, rebellious, and obdurate in heart and will, and impure in his affections.

Man after the fall begat children in his own likeness. A corrupt stock produced a corrupt offspring. Hence all the posterity of Adam, Christ only excepted, have derived corruption from their original parent, not by limitation, as the Pelagians of old asserted, but by the propagation of a vicious nature, in consequence of the just judgment of God.

Therefore all men are conceived in sin, and are by nature children of wrath, incapable of saving good, prone to evil, dead in sin, and in bondage thereto; and without the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, they are neither able nor willing to return to God, to reform the depravity of their nature, or to dispose themselves to reformation.
 

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I disagree with 'irresistible grace" because I believe the elect are first predispositioned to salvation.
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
Uh, we haven't gotten to Irresistible grace yet.

Okay, Hank, just for you.

I - Irresistible Grace. Do any disagree?
 

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I disagree with "perseverance" of the saints because there in a minute nuance of possible failure in the word "persevere".
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
I disagree with 'irresistible grace" because I believe the elect are first predispositioned to salvation.
Irresistible Grace simply states that no elect person will resist unto perdition.

So, I agree with Irresistible Grace but also agree with you that the elect are predispositioned to salvation. :)

So, do we agree to agree? :D
 

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Hey, I'm a stickler for semantics, etymology and nuances of words.
The BB needs a challenge every now and then :)

HankD
 

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I have a very "slight" disagreement with the "sufficient/efficient" type of thinking.
 

percho

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Correct. The Atonement is unlimited in its scope and ability to atone for every sin ever committed by every person who ever lived or will live. But is limited in its application. Only believers have the full measure of the Atonement applied to their sins.

As it is so well stated "sufficient for all efficient only for the elect" (believers).

It is true that, in some measure, the atonement grants benefits to all mankind. One of which is that it makes the offer of the Gospel a true and precious offer. 1 Timothy 4:10 "For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe."
Can I ask a question here?
Are the elect elected because they believe or are they elected to believe. I believe the latter. That they are elected and translated from unbelief unto belief, therefore become believers.
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
Can I ask a question here?
Are the elect elected because they believe or are they elected to believe. I believe the latter. That they are elected and translated from unbelief unto belief, therefore become believers.
Please start another thread in the C/A forum to discuss that issue.
 
Top