The 5 Heads of Doctrine

[TCassidy]

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.

 

[TCassidy]

T = Total Depravity. What do you disagree with regarding this Head of Doctrine?

 

[JonC]

T = Total Depravity. What do you disagree with regarding this Head of Doctrine?

I dont. You?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I take that as "I don't disagree with this head." Neither do I.

I dont. You?

 

[JonC]

I take that as "I don't disagree with this head." Neither do I.

Exactly.. it's more towards the tail where disagreements emerge.

 

[TCassidy]

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.

 

[TCassidy]

U = Unconditional Election. Do you disagree with this Head of Doctrine?

 

[JonC]

U = Unconditional Election. Do you disagree with this Head of Doctrine?

No. I do not disagree with unconditional election. You?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Same here

No. I do not disagree with unconditional election. You?

 

[TCassidy]

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.

 

[TCassidy]

L = Limited Atonement. Any disagree?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Now, here is where the salami slicing and disagreements over definitions get started.

L = Limited Atonement. Any disagree?

 

[TCassidy]

Now, here is where the salami slicing and disagreements over definitions get started.

Please state your understanding of the doctrine and why you agree or disagree with it.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Unless you're a Universalist (and I don't think you are), it comes down to your definition of Limited.

Yes I disagree because it is not found in scripture.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

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.

Please state your understanding of the doctrine and why you agree or disagree with it.

 

[TCassidy]

Unless you're a Universalist (and I don't think you are), it comes down to your definition of Limited.

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."

 

[TCassidy]

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.

I agree 100%.

 

[TCassidy]

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.

 

[TCassidy]

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.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I think what they disagree with is the definition which limits the atonement's potential.

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.