# That is Blasphemy!



## JM

I have heard all my life, like you have, that "The Lord Jesus Christ died to redeem and save all people." There is no doctrine in all the world more blasphemous than that. 

To say that Christ died for all people without exception is to say that he died for multitudes for whom he refused even to pray. Read it for yourself in John 17:9 and 20. To say that he died for all without exception is to say that he died in vain for the multitudes of the damned!

*That is blasphemy!* 

It is a blatant declaration that Jesus Christ is a failure! If he's a failure, he is not God and is not fit to be trusted. The Bible nowhere teaches or implies that Christ died for, redeemed, or came to save those multitudes who are at last lost in hell. Those for whom Christ died shall never die! The Son of God redeemed all whom he came to redeem; and he shall save all whom he came to save.

L I N K


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Excellent read dear brother!


----------



## JohnOwen007

JM said:


> I have heard all my life, like you have, that "The Lord Jesus Christ died to redeem and save all people." There is no doctrine in all the world more blasphemous than that.



Don't you think that's a little too strong dear brother? I suspect there are more blasphemous doctrines than that. The problem is that when we use language that's too strong about something we're likely to cause overreactions in the opposite direction from others ... church history is strewn with such happenings.


----------



## AV1611

JohnOwen007 said:


> JM said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have heard all my life, like you have, that "The Lord Jesus Christ died to redeem and save all people." There is no doctrine in all the world more blasphemous than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you think that's a little too strong dear brother? I suspect there are more blasphemous doctrines than that. The problem is that when we use language that's too strong about something we're likely to cause overreactions in the opposite direction from others ... church history is strewn with such happenings.
Click to expand...


There is no more precious a truth than the giving up of the Son for his people upon the cross. To teach a doctrine other than limited atonement is in my opinion the blasphemy of blasphemies. What think thee of Christ is the test, because you cannot be right in the rest, until ye think rightly of him!


----------



## BobVigneault

Let's keep in mind that we discuss theology in different contexts here on the Board. Some love to speak of pure doctrine separated from the world of churches and experience. Some like to discuss theology from a more devotional approach, and some like to discuss how it effects the dealings with folks coming into our church.

An argument can certainly be made that the consequences of denying particular atonement could lead to great blasphemy. In practice, the majority of pastors, teachers, laypeople, someone's mom or brother-in-law have been taught the nice fuzzy sentiment that Jesus died for everybody. They don't look for consistency in their thinking, in fact they are just parroting what they've been told.

So yes, we can say this is the mother of all blasphemies, but I believe that what Marty is getting at is that in dealing with REAL people we may want to measure our didactic response.

We may feel justified in screaming "Damn you to hell you blasphemous son of a whore!!!!" but we may further the true gospel by saying to our erring brother or mom, "have you thought about the consequences of that sentiment when followed to it's natural conclusion?"

We can't keep our claws out all the time.


----------



## Herald

BobVigneault said:


> Let's keep in mind that we discuss theology in different contexts here on the Board. Some love to speak of pure doctrine separated from the world of churches and experience. Some like to discuss theology from a more devotional approach, and some like to discuss how it effects the dealings with folks coming into our church.
> 
> An argument can certainly be made that the consequences of denying particular atonement could lead to great blasphemy. In practice, the majority of pastors, teachers, laypeople, someone's mom or brother-in-law have been taught the nice fuzzy sentiment that Jesus died for everybody. They don't look for consistency in their thinking, in fact they are just parroting what they've been told.
> 
> So yes, we can say this is the mother of all blasphemies, but I believe that what Marty is getting at is that in dealing with REAL people we may want to measure our didactic response.
> 
> We may feel justified in screaming "Damn you to hell you blasphemous son of a whore!!!!" but we may further the true gospel by saying to our erring brother or mom, "have you thought about the consequences of that sentiment when followed to it's natural conclusion?"
> 
> We can't keep our claws out all the time.



Bob - 

What is the purpose of our supposed "right" theology? Is our desire to be more like Christ? To be light in a dark world? I sure hope it is. The PB is an incubator of sorts. Theological thought is planted, watered and grown. It's stimulating and has lead many members to make corrections to how they view God. But when we carry our theology into our daily life, where we reach and connect with people, we need to understand that not everyone is there - wherever there is. I won't regurgitate what Bob said above. He articulated it better than I could.


----------



## Mayflower

THE BLASPHEMIES OF UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT by Pastor Don Fortner 

http://grace-for-today.com/888.htm 
http://grace-for-today.com/889.htm 
http://grace-for-today.com/890.htm


----------



## sotzo

> There is no more precious a truth than the giving up of the Son for his people upon the cross. To teach a doctrine other than limited atonement is in my opinion the blasphemy of blasphemies. What think thee of Christ is the test, because you cannot be right in the rest, until ye think rightly of him!



You border on works righteousness in this statement. So, how _rightly_ does one have to be before I am _made right_ before God. Shall I spend my life honing my Christology, hoping I pass some exam at the end of my life? 

Don't get me wrong...what we think of Christ is important (as he himself pointed out)...but if there is supposed to be a one to one correlation between my subjective understanding of who Christ is and who He really is objectively, we will all be damned.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

sotzo said:


> There is no more precious a truth than the giving up of the Son for his people upon the cross. To teach a doctrine other than limited atonement is in my opinion the blasphemy of blasphemies. What think thee of Christ is the test, because you cannot be right in the rest, until ye think rightly of him!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You border on works righteousness in this statement. So, how _rightly_ does one have to be before I am _made right_ before God. Shall I spend my life honing my Christology, hoping I pass some exam at the end of my life?
> 
> Don't get me wrong...what we think of Christ is important (as he himself pointed out)...but if there is supposed to be a one to one correlation between my subjective understanding of who Christ is and who He really is objectively, we will all be damned.
Click to expand...


There is evidently a level of right thinking about Christ that is necessary. I don't see where your assessment is truly associated with works righteousness. I do see where your assessment may lead to an accusation that some level of gnosticism is necessary for deliverance.

And I don't personally think that a denial of limited atonement is as blasphemous as turning the Glory of God into some carved image that looks like some creature he made.


----------



## sotzo

> There is evidently a level of right thinking about Christ that is necessary. I don't see where your assessment is truly associated with works righteousness. I do see where your assessment may lead to an accusation that some level of gnosticism is necessary for deliverance.
> 
> And I don't personally think that a denial of limited atonement is as blasphemous as turning the Glory of God into some carved image that looks like some creature he made.



I agree wholeheartedly with your response. What I meant by works righteousness is the weight given, in the OP and some replies, to a correct view of Christ with respect to the limit of his atonement. Those posts convey a sense of "you best not hold to unlimited atonement or you will not be saved".


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

sotzo said:


> Those posts convey a sense of "you best not hold to unlimited atonement or you will not be saved".



Well, that is what some write and think. And there is a level where many of us who seek God don't get the whole picture. But as far as making a confession of TULIP necessary for the entry way into heaven, that is just out there in no man's land. It just aint so.


----------



## AV1611

sotzo said:


> I agree wholeheartedly with your response. What I meant by works righteousness is the weight given, in the OP and some replies, to a correct view of Christ with respect to the limit of his atonement. Those posts convey a sense of "you best not hold to unlimited atonement or you will not be saved".



The doctrine of limited atonement and _only that doctrine_teaches that Christ's death was vicarious, efficacious and satisfactory. If you hold to universal redemption then you do not believe in one of those three things and thereby demonstrate that you are not trusting in Christ's death hence you are not saved. This is _not_ a neo-gnostic Calvinism.

I am not saying that a person would call it "limited atonement" but if you asked someone was Christ's death vicarious, efficacious and satisfactory? and they replied in the afirmative then they are saved.


----------



## Calvibaptist

AV1611 said:


> sotzo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree wholeheartedly with your response. What I meant by works righteousness is the weight given, in the OP and some replies, to a correct view of Christ with respect to the limit of his atonement. Those posts convey a sense of "you best not hold to unlimited atonement or you will not be saved".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The doctrine of limited atonement and _only that doctrine_teaches that Christ's death was vicarious, efficacious and satisfactory. If you hold to universal redemption then you do not believe in one of those three things and thereby demonstrate that you are not trusting in Christ's death hence you are not saved. This is _not_ a neo-gnostic Calvinism.
> 
> I am not saying that a person would call it "limited atonement" but if you asked someone was Christ's death vicarious, efficacious and satisfactory? and they replied in the afirmative then they are saved.
Click to expand...


So, Charles Wesley, who believed in universal atonement, was not saved?!? I may disagree with his view as being unbiblical, but I find it hard to consign him to hell for it.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

AV1611 said:


> sotzo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree wholeheartedly with your response. What I meant by works righteousness is the weight given, in the OP and some replies, to a correct view of Christ with respect to the limit of his atonement. Those posts convey a sense of "you best not hold to unlimited atonement or you will not be saved".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The doctrine of limited atonement and _only that doctrine_teaches that Christ's death was vicarious, efficacious and satisfactory. If you hold to universal redemption then you do not believe in one of those three things and thereby demonstrate that you are not trusting in Christ's death hence you are not saved. This is _not_ a neo-gnostic Calvinism.
> 
> I am not saying that a person would call it "limited atonement" but if you asked someone was Christ's death vicarious, efficacious and satisfactory? and they replied in the afirmative then they are saved.
Click to expand...


I Know good brothers who are semi pelagian who would affirm the vicarious, efficacious, and satisfactory work of Christ in propitiating their sin.


----------



## elnwood

JM said:


> To say that Christ died for all people without exception is to say that he died for multitudes for whom he refused even to pray. Read it for yourself in John 17:9 and 20. To say that he died for all without exception is to say that he died in vain for the multitudes of the damned!



In John 17:9, Jesus is not praying specifically for the elect; he is praying for the disciples. In fact, the group he was praying for included Judas (v.12) because he is mentioned as the one in the group who has been lost. So that prayer cannot possibly mean specifically the elect.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

elnwood said:


> JM said:
> 
> 
> 
> To say that Christ died for all people without exception is to say that he died for multitudes for whom he refused even to pray. Read it for yourself in John 17:9 and 20. To say that he died for all without exception is to say that he died in vain for the multitudes of the damned!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In John 17:9, Jesus is not praying specifically for the elect; he is praying for the disciples. In fact, the group he was praying for included Judas (v.12) because he is mentioned as the one in the group who has been lost. So that prayer cannot possibly mean specifically the elect.
Click to expand...



Well now I have another disagreement.


> (Joh 17:9) I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
> 
> (Joh 17:10) And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.



Judas was never one of the Lord's. He always knew Judas was a devil.


----------



## AV1611

Calvibaptist said:


> So, Charles Wesley, who believed in universal atonement, was not saved?!? I may disagree with his view as being unbiblical, but I find it hard to consign him to hell for it.



I do not share Whitefield's view


----------



## AV1611

puritancovenanter said:


> I Know good brothers who are semi pelagian who would affirm the vicarious, efficacious, and satisfactory work of Christ in propitiating their sin.



which I do not desire to get caught up in.

God bless brother!


----------



## JM

Hey folks, I didn't mean to start another debate thread, that wasn't my intention.

Apologies to all.


----------



## VictorBravo

JM said:


> Hey folks, I didn't mean to start another debate thread, that wasn't my intention.
> 
> Apologies to all.



 It's OK. Debates jump out in all sorts of places. I could probably post that I'm having a good day and an epistemology debate might spring up.


----------



## tellville

victorbravo said:


> JM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey folks, I didn't mean to start another debate thread, that wasn't my intention.
> 
> Apologies to all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's OK. Debates jump out in all sorts of places. I could probably post that I'm having a good day and an epistemology debate might spring up.
Click to expand...


How do you _know_ that you are having a good day?


----------



## elnwood

puritancovenanter said:


> Well now I have another disagreement.
> 
> 
> 
> (Joh 17:9) I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
> 
> (Joh 17:10) And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judas was never one of the Lord's. He always knew Judas was a devil.
Click to expand...


[BIBLE]John 17:9-12[/BIBLE]

You are right if you read this as a passage about the elect. Yes, Judas was never part of the elect, but he was one of the disciples. I think it's pretty clear from context that Jesus is praying particularly to the disciples, and not the elect.

Also, if John 17:9 were talking about the elect, then there would be no reason to distinguish between those in John 17:9 and those in John 17:20, which is about the elect.

[BIBLE]John 17:20[/BIBLE]


----------



## RamistThomist

victorbravo said:


> JM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey folks, I didn't mean to start another debate thread, that wasn't my intention.
> 
> Apologies to all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's OK. Debates jump out in all sorts of places. I could probably post that I'm having a good day and an epistemology debate might spring up.
Click to expand...


How do you *know* you are having a good day? Did you read that in Scripture? I know you are a closet Clarkian! 

Bob:


> We may feel justified in screaming "Damn you to hell you blasphemous son of a whore!!!!"



Can I have that as my signature?

I agree with what the JohnOwen007 guy said. While particular atonement is a precious doctrine, heated over-statements will cause over-reactions.


----------



## kvanlaan

> So, Charles Wesley, who believed in universal atonement, was not saved?!? I may disagree with his view as being unbiblical, but I find it hard to consign him to hell for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not share Whitefield's view
Click to expand...


Why is it that we will openly discuss why an Arminian can't share the table with us because they are idolators and thus outside of the Kingdom until they repent, and we browbeat those evangelists who declare people saved because of an altar call, but when George Whitfield does it with regards to what is by the aforementioned an _infamous_ idolator, we somehow take it as nearly God-breathed?


----------



## RamistThomist

kvanlaan said:


> So, Charles Wesley, who believed in universal atonement, was not saved?!? I may disagree with his view as being unbiblical, but I find it hard to consign him to hell for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not share Whitefield's view
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it that we will openly discuss why an Arminian can't share the table with us because they are idolators and thus outside of the Kingdom until they repent, and we browbeat those evangelists who declare people saved because of an altar call, but when George Whitfield does it with regards to what is by the aforementioned an _infamous_ idolator, we somehow take it as nearly God-breathed?
Click to expand...


Because appeals to authority are awesome debate clinchers.


----------



## jbergsing

I agree with you wholeheartedly except for this statement:


JM said:


> There is no doctrine in all the world more blasphemous than that


I agree that it is certainly blasphemous, however, I'm sure there are more blasphemous statements than that Jesus died for all.


----------



## elnwood

Spear Dane said:


> Because appeals to authority are awesome debate clinchers.



And so is calling the opposing position the most blasphemous doctrine in all the world.


----------



## Calvibaptist

Spear Dane said:


> kvanlaan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not share Whitefield's view
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that we will openly discuss why an Arminian can't share the table with us because they are idolators and thus outside of the Kingdom until they repent, and we browbeat those evangelists who declare people saved because of an altar call, but when George Whitfield does it with regards to what is by the aforementioned an _infamous_ idolator, we somehow take it as nearly God-breathed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because appeals to authority are awesome debate clinchers.
Click to expand...


Except that if you notice my comment, I did not mention Whitefield. I mentioned Wesley. I, personally, don't care if Whitefield thought Wesley was damned to hell or not. My question was whether, based on the OP, anyone who believes as Wesley did is considered a false teacher and reprobate.

I could have just as easily asked if you consider my father, who is a Methodist minister, a reprobate, but I didn't want to get personal.


----------



## MW

If we listen carefully we will find something implicit in the statement which is blasphemous, but which is not necessarily accepted by those who deny particular redemption. Implicit in the statement is the idea that Christ's death doesn't redeem anyone. Now, anyone who states it in that explicit way must agree that it is blasphemous -- a complete undoing of the whole fabric of salvation. But the fact is, believers who deny particular redemption would not accept the implication. Therefore they are not personally speaking the blasphemy.


----------



## AV1611

Calvibaptist said:


> I could have just as easily asked if you consider my father, who is a Methodist minister, a reprobate, but I didn't want to get personal.



My aunt is a Methodist superintendent


----------



## JohnOwen007

What I had in mind in my earlier comment is this: correct doctrine is *dangerous*. It's dangerous because it so easily makes us arrogant (so 1 Cor. 8:1 "Knowledge puffs up but love builds up"): I'm superior because I know more. Hence, correct doctrine without love can actually do *great damage* to our brothers and sisters in Christ, as Paul says:

"So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is *destroyed by your knowledge*." (1 Cor. 8:1)

So correct doctrine _alone_ is actually dangerous unless it is accompanied with love. Correct doctrine is like a scalpel. If a scalpel is put in the hands of a surgeon he or she can bring about healing, but in the hands of someone less responsible great damage can be done.

I remember some 20 years ago when I first became aware of the doctrines of grace, I called an older brother in Christ in my congregation a "heretic" because he didn't believe in unconditional predestination. Looking back on it now causes me to be utterly ashamed. My cocky rhetoric helped put a relational wedge between us that really was never repaired. If I really cared for my brother I would've approached him in a more humble spirit, as a sinner, and with more respect for him without the name calling.

It's ironic how the doctrines of *grace *can produce arrogance, when the appropriate response is humility, because if I have good doctrine, it's only due to God's grace and not my own intellect or savvying brilliance.


----------



## JM

armourbearer said:


> If we listen carefully we will find something implicit in the statement which is blasphemous, but which is not necessarily accepted by those who deny particular redemption. Implicit in the statement is the idea that Christ's death doesn't redeem anyone. Now, anyone who states it in that explicit way must agree that it is blasphemous -- a complete undoing of the whole fabric of salvation. But the fact is, believers who deny particular redemption would not accept the implication. Therefore they are not personally speaking the blasphemy.




Thank you.


----------

