• 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!

Do You Believe In The Doctrines of Grace?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Martin

Active Member
Do you believe in limited (particular) atonement? If so Jerry Falwell has declared you to be a heretic (message given on Friday, April 13 at LU). Don't feel bad however. After all a great number of Godly men like Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Roger Williams, Charles Spurgeon, Al Mohler, and John MacArthur (etc) are in the same boat since they all believed/believe in the doctrines of grace. I wonder if Falwell has given this that much thought? I wonder if he understands the implications of what he is saying?

http://www.founders.org/blog/2007/04/jerry-falwells-friday-13th-declaration.html
 

3John2

New Member
Yes I believe in the doctrines of grace. You forgot to add John Piper & Mark Dever to that list of preachers as well. I didn't always believe that though & it was with MUCH studying & searching that I finally was convinced of that. Having said that when I WAS convinced I didn't exactly LIKE it!:BangHead:
 

johnp.

New Member
If so Jerry Falwell has declared you to be a heretic...

We are ain't we Martin? 2 someone who has views and opinions that conflict with those of the majority. (Chambers) :) Praise the Lord.


Who's Jerry Falwell?

john.
 

Jarthur001

Active Member
johnp. said:
We are ain't we Martin? 2 someone who has views and opinions that conflict with those of the majority. (Chambers) :) Praise the Lord.


Who's Jerry Falwell?

john.
sign me up as a heretic...

BTW..not sure if that was a pun or not...but it was a great line....being falwell was founder of The Moral Majority
 

npetreley

New Member
James_Newman said:
Isn't that what the 'doctrines of grace' is talking about? A club that you have to be a member of to be saved?

As a matter of fact, it's quite an exclusive club of sinners and scum hand-picked by God before we were born according to no merit of our own, born not of blood, the will of the flesh nor the will of man, but of God.

Aren't you a member? Or did you ditch this club in order to say you joined yours of your own free will?
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I subscribe to particular redemption . I believe in the doctrine(s) of grace . Why ? Because the Bible tells me so ! Shame on Jerry !
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Allan

Active Member
Martin said:
Do you believe in limited (particular) atonement? If so Jerry Falwell has declared you to be a heretic (message given on Friday, April 13 at LU). Don't feel bad however. After all a great number of Godly men like Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Roger Williams, Charles Spurgeon, Al Mohler, and John MacArthur (etc) are in the same boat since they all believed/believe in the doctrines of grace. I wonder if Falwell has given this that much thought? I wonder if he understands the implications of what he is saying?

http://www.founders.org/blog/2007/04/jerry-falwells-friday-13th-declaration.html
Now, I'm no particular lover of Jerry. and Caner needs to grow up at bit but...
That is not what Jerry stated. He did not say that those of the doctrines of Grace or Calvinism were Heretics. The Founders blog quotes only one sentence in his sermon and that sentence does not say such. He states: (we being LU)
"We are not into partcular love or limited atonement. As a matter of fact we consider it heresy."
Jerry's statement is in regard to "particular love or limited atonement", and not against Calvinism on the whole. Yes, you can 'assume' that is what he is meaning, and you can 'postulate' that statement as the premise of his thought but niether are factaul to what he actaully said and was specifically referencing.

He states "they consider IT a heresy", and nothing more. They took what he said and stretched it as they ran with it. Not a good thing.

It is not good for ANY brother in Christ to see what it feels like to be treated in such a way by another brother in Christ. This goes on from both sides and is disgraceful, or should I say UN-grace-filled.

PERSONALLY, I think it is ridiculous the garbage both sides spew at times.
Since Christian College and Seminary (and online blogging and debating over the years) I can not count how many times I have been called a heretic, believer of doctrines of demons BECAUSE I did not hold to Calvinism. Even on here on the BB a couple of times. These people have questioned my salvation, even stated I preach another gospel. One of my favorites was that I am a false teacher who is decieved into thinking I'm saved so I can lead the reprobates away from the true God , and fulfill my purpose of damnation for Gods glory. (SEBTS in 2001)

The truth is, Unlimited Atonement has been a main theological understanding throught Christian history. It was held to by the majority of the early church fathers and even some Calvinists. They are both issues that have been around by varying degrees at different points in Christian history. They have been argued and still no biblical resolution has been established as to which is most true on the whole. Each person holds their own view but it has never been established as an immutable truth by which all believers agree. The atonement is held as immutable but 'limited and unlimited' regarding the mechanics are those issues being debated still.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Isaiah40:28

New Member
Wow, Liberty is definitely fighting back at the Calvinists.
Jerry Falwell, Ergun Caner and Gordon Olson all taking their turns at shooting down Calvinism.
Maybe Dave Hunt should move to Virginia and help centralize the anti-Calvinist camp.
:sleeping_2:
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Tis a shame that such a clear and pervasive doctrine as special redemption has been denied by so many professing Christians throughout Christian history . Christ died for the express purpose of securing the salvation of His elect . It can't be made any plainer than what is laid-out in Holy Writ . Why many "bible-Believers' deny the doctine , and with such vehemence at times is both sad and sinful .
"Church leaders' such as Caner , Falwell , Geisler , Hunt , Finney , Wesley , Moody , Sunday and countless others have a great deal of accountability for their false teaching regarding this doctrine .
 
Last edited by a moderator:

joycebuckner

New Member
I am saved through the grace of the One and true Living God. Through what His son Jesus Christ did for me so that I wouldn't have to spend all eternity in hell. I excepted that loving grace and my Lord and Savior. Because of excepting what Jesus did for me I am Heaven bound. I have been told that because I believe this (by calvinist) that I glory in my part of my salvation.
I do Glory in the only part that I can when it comes to my salvation............Being smart enough to see that I can;t save myself and only by excepting what Christ Jesus did for me can I be saved.
That is what the bible teaches and Mr. Farwell teaches as well.
Do we all see everything exactly a like?????no . Will we ever ?no. But you people come to this Baptist Board to find someone to fight with and Lord knows you can always find a reason to argue.
I came in here tonight to visit like minded people. I agree with some and disagree with some ......so what... You people are always acting like Rosey Odonald.....Find anything good and find away to gripe about it,,,,,,,,,,,,,
God bless and have mercy on your all...If the anti-christ werre here, you would all die trying to turn each other in to him. Try the love of Jesus,,,,,If you have it it will come out and an arguing sight like this will sicken you
 

Allan

Active Member
Rippon said:
Tis a shame that such a clear and pervasive doctrine as special redemption has been denied by so many professing Christians throughout Christian history . Christ died for the express purpose of securing the salvation of His elect

"Church leaders' such as Caner , Falwell , Geisler , Hunt , Finney , Wesley , Moody , Sunday and countless others have a great deal of accountability for their false teaching regarding this doctrine .
My point in spades.
But Rippon you also once again you neglect the myriads of others throughout history who did not hold to such a doctrine.
So, since you forgot to add these and a host of others throughout history I will remind you many that both you and I have already discussed and to which I have shown historically and documentedly their position on Atonment as being General:
You might remember our discussion in one of your threads some time ago : Early Church dad and they children - (I think)

Quotations from the Well Known Early Church Fathers

Clement of Alexandria (150-220): "Christ freely brings...salvation to the whole human race."
Paedagogus, ch. 11;
"...and supplying all the antidotes of salvation to those who are diseased. For the greatest and most regal work of God is the salvation of humanity."
Paedagogus, ch. 12

Eusebius (260-340): "It was needful that the Lamb of God should be offered for the other lambs whose nature He assumed, even for the whole human race."Demonstratio Evangelica, ch. 10, preface;

Athanasius (293-373): "Christ the Son of God, having assumed a body like ours, because we were all exposed to death [which takes in more than the elect], gave Himself up to death for us all as a sacrifice to His Father."
On the Incarnation of the Word,

Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386): "Do not wonder if the whole world was ransomed, for He was not a mere man, but the only-begotten Son of God."Catacheses, 13:2;

Gregory of Nazianzen (324-389): "The sacrifice of Christ is an imperishable expiation of the whole world."23 Oratoria 2 in Pasch., i.e., Passover;

Basil (330-379): "But one thing was found that was equivalent to all men....the holy and precious blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which He poured out for us all."On Ps. 49:7, 8, sec. 4;

Ambrose (340-407): "Christ suffered for all, rose again for all. But if anyone does not believe in Christ, he deprives himself of that general benefit."
Ambrose also said, "Christ came for the salvation of all, and undertook the redemption of all, inasmuch as He brought a remedy by which all might escape, although there are many who...are unwilling to be healed."
On Ps. 118, Sermon 8

Augustine (354-430): Though Augustine is often cited as supporting limited atonement, there are also clear statements in Augustine's writings that are supportive of unlimited atonement. For example: "The Redeemer came and gave the price, shed His blood, and bought the world. Do you ask what He bought? See what He gave, and find what He bought. The blood of Christ is the price: what is of so great worth? What, but the whole world? What, but all nations?"
He also stated, "The blood of Christ was shed for the remission of all sins."

Serm. cxxx, part 2

Cyril of Alexandria (376-444): "The death of one flesh is sufficient for the ransom of the whole human race, for it belonged to the Logos, begotten of God the Father."Oratorio de Recta Fide, no. 2, sec. 7

Prosper (a friend and disciple of Augustine who died in 463): "As far as relates to the magnitude and virtue of the price, and to the one cause of the human race, the blood of Christ is the redemption of the whole world: but those who pass through this life without the faith of Christ, and the sacrament of regeneration, do not partake of the redemption."
Prosper also said, "The Savior is most rightly said to have been crucified for the redemption of the whole world."
Prospor then said yet again, "Although the blood of Christ be the ransom of the whole world, yet they are excluded from its benefit, who, being delighted with their captivity, are unwilling to be redeemed by it."
Answer to Vincentius
the second and third quotation:
Reply to Capitula Gallorum, no. 9,

Quotations from the Reformers of the 16th Century
Martin Luther (1483-1546): "Christ is not cruel exactor, but a forgiver of the sins of the whole world....He hath given Himself for our sins, and with one oblation hath put away the sins of the whole world....Christ hath taken away the sins, not of certain men only, but also of thee, yea, of the whole world...Not only my sins and thine, but also the sins of the whole world...take hold upon Christ."Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians;

Philip Melanchton (1497-1560): "It is necessary to know that the Gospel is a universal promise, that is, that reconciliation is offered and promised to all mankind. It is necessary to hold that this promise is universal, in opposition to any dangerous imaginations on predestination, lest we should reason this promise pertains to a few others and ourselves. But we declare that the promise of the Gospel is universal. And to this are brought those universal expressions which are used constantly in the Scriptures."
Melanchthon, Common-places

Other people involved to some degree in the Reformation who held to unlimited atonement include: Hugh Latimer, Myles Coverdale, Thomas Cranmer, Wolfgang Musculus, Henry Bullinger, Benedict Aretius, Thomas Becon, Jerome Zanchius, David Paraeus, and John Calvin.

Quotations from Other Luminaries from Recent Church History
Philip Schaff: "His saving grace flows and overflows to all and for all, on the simple condition of faith....If, by the grace of God, I could convert a single skeptic to a childlike faith in Him who lived and died for me and for all, I would feel that I had not lived in vain."

B. F. Westcott: "Potentially, the work of Christ extends to the whole world." And "the love of God is without limit on His part, but to appropriate the blessing of love, man must fulfill the necessary condition of faith."
B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John

A. T. Robertson: [The word "world" in John 3:16 - "For God so loved the world" - means] "the whole cosmos of men, including the Gentiles, the whole human race," and adds that "this universal aspect of God's love appears also in II Cor. 5:19; Rom. 5:8."
A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament

Tidbits
The 6th council in Constantinople (680-681) declared, "Wherefore we confess two wills and two operations, concurring most fitly in him for the salvation of the human race."

It is, of course, no secret to the student of the Reformation that the Lutheran branch almost without exception embraced the unlimited view. "But that Luther, Melanchthon, Osiander, Brentius, Oecoiampadius, Zwinglius and Bucer held the doctrine of a general atonement...

Thus also, it was with their immediate successors, as the language of the Psalgrave Confession testifies.... 'Of the power and death of Christ, believe we,' say these German Christians, that the death of Christ (whilst he being not a bare man, but the Son of God, died,) is a full, all sufficient payment, not only for our sins but for the sins of the whole world. . .

The Heidelberg Catechism (1563) of the German Reformed Church in answer to the thirty-seventh question, "What dost thou understand by the word Suffered?" has this answer: "That all the time he lived on earth, but especially at the end of his life, he bore, in body and soul, the wrath of God against the of the whole human race...."

John Calvins Commentaries:
John 3:16, he said: ". . . The Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish.''11 Concerning the term whosoever in the same verse, he said: "And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the impact of the term world, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favour of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.''

Such an understanding of this verse and the words employed in it is certainly not in keeping with many who claim to be Calvinists, as the following pages will reveal. Another illustration of Calvin's view is to be found in his explanation of:

Matthew 26:28. ". . .This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins [italics mine]." He says: "Under the name of many he designates not a part of the world only, but the whole human race"

It would in fact be better held that Limited atonement was not popular UNTIL the Synod of Dort.

Lastly:
Romans 5:18 says: "Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men."

Regarding this verse, John Calvin says: "He makes this favor common to all, because it is propoundable to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all [i.e., in their experience]; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive Him."

Regarding the two occurrences of the phrase "all men," E. H. Gifford comments: "The words all men [in v. 18] must have the same extent in both clauses."
This is a copied post from our conversations, since it is much easier to copy/paste than rewrite it all agian. :smilewinkgrin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

pinoybaptist

Active Member
Site Supporter
joycebuckner said:
I am saved through the grace of the One and true Living God. Through what His son Jesus Christ did for me so that I wouldn't have to spend all eternity in hell. I excepted that loving grace and my Lord and Savior. Because of excepting what Jesus did for me I am Heaven bound. I have been told that because I believe this (by calvinist) that I glory in my part of my salvation.
I do Glory in the only part that I can when it comes to my salvation............Being smart enough to see that I can;t save myself and only by excepting what Christ Jesus did for me can I be saved.
That is what the bible teaches and Mr. Farwell teaches as well.
Do we all see everything exactly a like?????no . Will we ever ?no. But you people come to this Baptist Board to find someone to fight with and Lord knows you can always find a reason to argue.
I came in here tonight to visit like minded people. I agree with some and disagree with some ......so what... You people are always acting like Rosey Odonald.....Find anything good and find away to gripe about it,,,,,,,,,,,,,
God bless and have mercy on your all...If the anti-christ werre here, you would all die trying to turn each other in to him. Try the love of Jesus,,,,,If you have it it will come out and an arguing sight like this will sicken you

You are either saved thru the merit of Christ alone, independent of your actions, prayers, tears, understanding, or speech, or you are saved because you took some action about what Christ did. Can't be two ways. Speak only from one side of your mouth, please.

As for the debate and argumentations here, we people, the adherents to the Doctrine of Grace, whom you apparently dislike and disdain and allude to as troublemakers and rabblerousers (despite Christ's instructions about calling your brother names, such as "fool") have been discussing these with you meek, soft-speaking, loving, gentle, Christ-like, heaven-bound, decision-making people, and though oftentimes the discussion do get sharp both sides (yes, please believe that us troublemaking, good-for-nothing rabblerousers, too) do their best to keep most discussions civil, complete with Scriptural and extra-scriptural references, even before you came here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Allan

Active Member
pinoybaptist said:
You are either saved thru the merit of Christ alone, independent of your actions, prayers, tears, understanding, or speech, or you are saved because you took some action about what Christ did. Can't be two ways. Speak only from one side of your mouth, please.

As for the debate and argumentations here, we people, the adherents to the Doctrine of Grace, whom you apparently dislike and disdain and allude to as troublemakers and rabblerousers (despite Christ's instructions about calling your brother names, such as "fool") have been discussing these with you meek, soft-speaking, loving, gentle, Christ-like, heaven-bound, decision-making people, and though oftentimes the discussion do get sharp both sides (yes, please believe that us troublemaking, good-for-nothing rabblerousers, too) do their best to keep most discussions civil, complete with Scriptural and extra-scriptural references, even before you came here.
You REALLY DO have a martyrdom complex. You need to have that looked at.
And if your salvation has nothing to do with you my friend, then why MUST YOU BELEIEVE. If salvation is NOTHING of you then there is NO need for faith but unfortunately scripture speaks to the contrary. You ARE involved in that if you DO NOT BELEIVE you WILL NOT be saved and God said so.

BTW- If you will Re-Read what she wrote, you will notice she includes EVERYONE in this thread including ME...and she's my mother :laugh:
 

Jarthur001

Active Member
Allan said:
My point in spades.
But Rippon you also once again you neglect the myriads of others throughout history who did not hold to such a doctrine.
So, since you forgot to add these and a host of others throughout history I will remind you many that both you and I have already discussed and to which I have shown historically and documentedly their position on Atonment as being General:
You might remember our discussion in one of your threads some time ago : Early Church dad and they children - (I think)


This is a copied post from our conversations, since it is much easier to copy/paste than rewrite it all agian. :smilewinkgrin:
Allan,

I mean really. How many times must we go over this list of misleading quotes? I have gone over it with you two times myself. And you think the OP was misleading? This long list has more then just one misleading quote, far beyond what one will find in the OP. If you think others should not mis-quote, please follow your own words. :)
 

Allan

Active Member
Jarthur001 said:
Allan,

I mean really. How many times must we go over this list of misleading quotes? I have gone over it with you two times myself. And you think the OP was misleading? This long list has more then just one misleading quote, far beyond what one will find in the OP. If you think others should not mis-quote, please follow your own words. :)
Actually James, they are not misleading, and I showed you specifically they were not misleading by showing you where, when, and in what context each one you had questions on as to the validity of the quote. Go back and read. You never did comment after that anyway, other than to say that it is not an easy thing to show the early church father before 200 or so were specifically calvinistic. I agree and showed you were each one AFTER that was quoting that Atonement is General or Universal but Redemption is specific.

If you remember correctly I went back and cut/pasted the EXACT quote which was made in that thread, AND gave the exact location so you could go look for yourself at the context. This post I place here in SHOWS what those works were so people would not have to take our word for it but the authors themselves. I went back and found them point for point and gave the historical documents that you can go back to and find it for yourself.

This is speaking to Limited Atonement NOT Calvinism and it was directly to what Jerry was speaking of when he stated "we consider it a heresy".

P.S. - though there were a couple which had points PARAPHRASED, that does not indicate a mis-quote but the main point concerning their quote. I did however go back and pull SPECIFIC quotes for your viewing pleasure and more so in the original thread. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Allan

Active Member
Here is a web link to our conversation, just in case.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=36710&page=6&highlight=early+church+dads
It should take you to page 2 where you and I began. But I will place here, our last conversation.
Originally Posted by Allan
This is the preface of Eusebius work:


It was in Book 10. It was a typo on the listing of the footer which indictates the quote is from the preface of his work. And apparently some of these are paraphrases. Like I told Rippon LONG ago when we first spoke of these (or maybe it was Reformedbeliever) I mearly copied his quick list because I am at work when I post most of the time and don't have access to my research on these and even then it was photo copies that are highlighted. But I lay what I have bare here in the fullness of their own writings and not in single sentences.

Here is a peice from Ch 7
This one could go in the blindness thread
I don't have a problem with the statements as they were wrote. Yet you have to agree, many are changing the wording to better fit their own thoughts. I did not look all of them up. I ran into a book that I could not find, and stopped looking all together after a hour. But it seems most of the statements were reworded.

I want to add this...

I also do not deny the doctrines of grace was not talked about from around 120-320ad. It was not that they talked much about free-will either. There were a small hand full that took one side on the other, but for the most part it was silent time. If you are to look at church history as a whole it is clear why this was.

I also have to agree with rippon. Gill is well trusted in Church history. Gill is more Calvinist than I, but he does seem to be true to report the facts, even when it hurts his views. Now he will add his slant, but one can read though that.

I love history, and the hardest part is seeing who lies and who does not. If one must lie, then something is wrong. If you trace back stories of some, you wonder where in the world they come up with their stuff. But if you read all the books you can, i feel the real story comes foreward.
And my last post to you:
I agree that rewording isn't a good idea...but they were not reworded to far from the mark. I should have known better than to post such things without making sure it is exact (I agree because it can be misleading) but I had HOPED people would research it for themselves and come to their own conclusions.

I can grant that from the time ??? - to about 320 not much was specifically stated on one side or the other. But from about 300 to 320 onward we do see them. So basically what we are looking for is from Eusebius on-ward. (with the exception of course for Clement of Alexandria since his statement reveals a common thought among an at least equal portion that salvation was for ALL humanity.)

With regard to Gill. Yes he was a good church historian but one with a decided bent. No one will do a literary work without some bias and he is no exception. Especially in light of the many people we find through out biblical history who didn't hold to the Calvinistic view of limited atonement. But the early church fathers beleived its scope (Atonement) was much wider but its application narrower.
As you can see you do not dispute the quotes I give. And as I stated SOME were re-worded in paraphrase form but I dealt with that by giving full disclosure of what was being referenced in its full context.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Martin

Active Member
Allan said:
Jerry's statement is in regard to "particular love or limited atonement", and not against Calvinism on the whole. Yes, you can 'assume' that is what he is meaning, and you can 'postulate' that statement as the premise of his thought but niether are factaul to what he actaully said and was specifically referencing.

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

Allan said:
He states "they consider IT a heresy", and nothing more. They took what he said and stretched it as they ran with it. Not a good thing.

==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.


Allan said:
I think it is ridiculous the garbage both sides spew at times.
Since Christian College and Seminary (and online blogging and debating over the years) I can not count how many times I have been called a heretic, believer of doctrines of demons BECAUSE I did not hold to Calvinism. Even on here on the BB a couple of times. These people have questioned my salvation, even stated I preach another gospel. One of my favorites was that I am a false teacher who is decieved into thinking I'm saved so I can lead the reprobates away from the true God , and fulfill my purpose of damnation for Gods glory. (SEBTS in 2001)

==I will not deny that there are folks on both sides who go to extremes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top