The 5 Heads of Doctrine

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by TCassidy, Jun 8, 2016.

  1. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,165
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    I am putting this here because I want to avoid the non-Baptist portion of the forum.

    I am inviting any General Baptist (one who believes in free will, and denies any or all of the 5 Heads of Doctrine as outlined in the Canons of the Synod of Dort) to participate.

    I am also requesting the Calvinists on the forum not to respond in this thread so the participants will not feel they are being ganged up on.

    I will use the acronym TULIP for the points of discussion. I will post one at a time and my General Baptist opponent will then post why he disagrees with that Head of Doctrine.

    I will follow that with what I understand that Head of Doctrine to mean.

    No name calling. No personal attacks. No ugliness. I will delete any post from either side that violates those thread rules.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  2. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,165
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    T = Total Depravity. What do you disagree with regarding this Head of Doctrine?
     
  3. JonC

    JonC
    Expand Collapse
    Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    6,941
    Likes Received:
    370
    I dont. You?
     
  4. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,633
    Likes Received:
    310
    I take that as "I don't disagree with this head." Neither do I.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. JonC

    JonC
    Expand Collapse
    Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    6,941
    Likes Received:
    370
    Exactly.. it's more towards the tail where disagreements emerge. :D
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,165
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    Good. So far we agree.

    T = Total depravity. There is no part of man that is not affected by the fall and thus able to come to Christ on his/her own merit. Every person is Totally Depraved. Not that every person is as bad as they could be, but that no part of man is exempt from the fall. The body is fallen, the soul is fallen, the spirit is fallen.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,165
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    U = Unconditional Election. Do you disagree with this Head of Doctrine?
     
  8. JonC

    JonC
    Expand Collapse
    Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    6,941
    Likes Received:
    370
    No. I do not disagree with unconditional election. You?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,633
    Likes Received:
    310
    Same here
     
  10. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,165
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    Good. Again we agree. Isn't it great when the brethren dwell together in peace? :)

    U = Unconditional Election. Our election is not conditioned on any merit on our part. There is nothing about us that meets any condition of holiness that would compel God to save us because of our exemplary character or conduct.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,165
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    L = Limited Atonement. Any disagree?
     
  12. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,633
    Likes Received:
    310
    Now, here is where the salami slicing and disagreements over definitions get started.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  13. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,165
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    Please state your understanding of the doctrine and why you agree or disagree with it.
     
  14. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,633
    Likes Received:
    310
    Unless you're a Universalist (and I don't think you are), it comes down to your definition of Limited.
     
  15. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,633
    Likes Received:
    310
    Without seeking the death of a forest of trees or multiple terabytes of electrons (which have been expended of the centuries), my take on this head is:
    • The Son of God's Atonement is unlimited in its potential.
    • However, it is limited in its application.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,165
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    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."
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  17. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,165
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    I agree 100%.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  18. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,165
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    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. :)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,165
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    It is wonderful when good men seek agreement. However, I have deleted some posts that were merely argumentative, with the same old "it is wrong because I don't believe it" arguments.

    Again, the purpose of this thread is to discuss the actual 5 Heads of Doctrine and to try to seek agreement with our brothers (or sisters) in Christ.
     
  20. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,633
    Likes Received:
    310
    I think what they disagree with is the definition which limits the atonement's potential.
     

Share This Page

Loading...