1. 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!

Particular Redemption: Misconceptions cleared up

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by ReformedBaptist, Sep 11, 2007.

  1. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Ratings:
    +96
    Hey folks,

    I thought this forum was lacking in threads on the doctrines of grace so I started another one. :laugh: :laugh: Just kidding.

    I am not one to quote articles in mass as we are suppose to discuss and sometimes, if needed, debate the issues. Nevertheless I came accross a short article that I thought was worth sharing and will hopefully bring sober thinking to one of the points of calvinsim that is most hotly debated: Particular Redemption.

    Here is the link http://www.monergism.com/clearing_up_some_common_misper.php

    I am going to cut and past the points, but not the comment on the points. Let me ask a great favor, if you wish to post replies and discuss them, PLEASE read the entire article. It can be read in a few short minutes as it is not long at all. But in order to keep this post brief I have excluded the author's explainations.


    May the Lord be pleased to use this information to clear up misconceptions, define the issue, and promote unity among the redeemed.
     
  2. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Ratings:
    +96
  3. skypair

    skypair New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    4,657
    Ratings:
    +0
    RB,

    To me, it appears that the doctrine of "particular redemption" applies to sanctification which cannot be accomplished in the unsaved but is automatically accomplished in the saved by the indwelling HS. I believe Calvinism is failing to make the distinctionhere between justification before God and sanctification through Christ.

    That is, Christ died for ALL sin but most do not appropriate their justification in Christ through decisional reeneration. However, ALL will be "rescued" from hell to stand before Christ on account of their sins are forgiven.

    Excuse me -- gotta go watch the morning sun highlighting the palm trees and peniusulas that jut out into the ocean (first morning in Kauai).


    skypair
     
    #3 skypair, Sep 12, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 12, 2007
  4. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Ratings:
    +96
    I percieve that thou art not far from universalism. :laugh:

    That is my impression of what you wrote here.
     
  5. skypair

    skypair New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2006
    Messages:
    4,657
    Ratings:
    +0
    But there is a difference. You needn't "paint" me with that "brush."

    Scripture affirms what I say -- it does not support the Calvinist formulation of what Christ accomplished on the cross.

    skypair
     
  6. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Ratings:
    +96
    Why don't you take a jab at saying something postitve. In my OP I wrote "May the Lord be pleased to use this information to clear up misconceptions, define the issue, and promote unity among the redeemed."

    Now, what in the OP do you wish to comment upon as it relates to common misconceptions concerning the doctrine of particular redemption? Do you agree or disagree with the similarites the author presents? Why or why not?

    And skypair, I was just joking about the universalism comment...hence the laugh face...
     
  7. swaimj

    swaimj <img src=/swaimj.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,426
    Ratings:
    +0
    Here are some responses to some of the statement on the Monergism sight.
    John 3:17-18 is clear both to God's intent for the atonement and the reason for its limiting.
    Here is God's intent: For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him.

    Here is the reason for the limitation of the atonement's application: The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God.

    Just as the believer's present suffering is not worthy to be compared to the glory that will follow, the unbeliever's eternal suffering is not to be compared to a temporal benefit of Christ's death. This argument is pretty silly.

    Christ died for the Father. He died to satisfy God's wrath against sin and he died to display God's righteousness to men. God's righteous standard has always been made known to man, first through the conscience and then through the law. But today, God's righteousness is displayed for all the world to see and it is displayed by the Father, as Romans 3:25 says: God publicly displayed him at his death as the propitiation (satisfaction) accessible through faith.
     
  8. swaimj

    swaimj <img src=/swaimj.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,426
    Ratings:
    +0
    Here are some responses to some of the statement on the Monergism sight.
    John 3:17-18 is clear both to God's intent for the atonement and the reason for its limiting.
    Here is God's intent: For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him.

    Here is the reason for the limitation of the atonement's application: The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God.

    Just as the believer's present suffering is not worthy to be compared to the glory that will follow, the unbeliever's eternal suffering is not to be compared to a temporal benefit of Christ's death. This argument is pretty silly.

    Christ died for the Father. He died to satisfy God's wrath against sin and he died to display God's righteousness to men. God's righteous standard has always been made known to man, first through the conscience and then through the law. But today, God's righteousness is displayed for all the world to see and it is displayed by the Father, as Romans 3:25 says: God publicly displayed him at his death as the propitiation (satisfaction) accessible through faith.
     
  9. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Ratings:
    +96
    Thanks for the reply. Swaim, what do you mean Christ died for the Father? Do you mean He came to do the Father's will? Then I agree. But He did not die for, or on behalf of the Father, but for His people.
     
Loading...