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.
The 5 Heads of Doctrine
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by TCassidy, Jun 8, 2016.
Page 1 of 4
-
-
T = Total Depravity. What do you disagree with regarding this Head of Doctrine?
-
-
Squire Robertsson AdministratorAdministrator
I take that as "I don't disagree with this head." Neither do I.
-
-
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. -
U = Unconditional Election. Do you disagree with this Head of Doctrine?
-
-
Squire Robertsson AdministratorAdministrator
Same here
-
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. -
L = Limited Atonement. Any disagree?
-
Squire Robertsson AdministratorAdministrator
Now, here is where the salami slicing and disagreements over definitions get started.
-
-
Squire Robertsson AdministratorAdministrator
Unless you're a Universalist (and I don't think you are), it comes down to your definition of Limited.
-
Squire Robertsson AdministratorAdministrator
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.
-
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." -
-
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. :)
-
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 AdministratorAdministrator
I think what they disagree with is the definition which limits the atonement's potential.
Page 1 of 4