Is Limited Atonement heresy?

Jerry Falwell's Friday the 13th declaration: Limited atonement is heresy

See this [url=http://www.founders.org/blog/2007/04/jerry-falwells-friday-13th-declaration.html]link[/url] to the video of Jerry Falwell's comments on Limited Atonement:

"We are not into particular love or limited atonement. As a matter of fact we consider it heresy."

I ask the members of SI, do you believe that the doctrine of [url=http://www.aomin.org/Was%20Anyone%20Saved.html]Limited Atonement[/url] is heresy?

I ask the members of SI, do you believe that the doctrine of Limited Atonement is heresy?

I am very reluctant to call something heresy, because those that teach such will not inherit the kingdom of God. So no, I don't think it is heresy although I disagree with the doctrine.

Gal 5:20-21 ...heresies.....of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Hi everyone.

This issue of [i]heresy[/i] is something that I have thought about from time to time.

According to Strong's the word which is translated heresies in Galatians 5:20 is

G139

hairesis
hah'ee-res-is
From G138; properly a choice, that is, (specifically) a party or (abstractly) disunion. (“heresy” is the Greek word itself.): - heresy [which is the Greekord itself], sect.

[i]...a choice[/i]

Now, someone with more knowledge of the greek language may point out my error here(and please do if I am in error here), but my impression of this matter of heresy is this:

That something or other becomes a heresy when a person or group of persons insist on a particular doctrine or teaching on a particular subject or fact to the disunion of the body of beleivers, when this subject or fact is not otherwise so self-evident and or plainly and unmistakeably laid out in the scriptures as to make the holding of teachings or doctrines that are contrary to it, the same as rejecting revealed truth.

If that is an acceptable definition of heresy, then perhaps the question of this thread could be phrased this way:

Is the doctrine of [i]Limited Atonement[/i] true?

Or perhaps it may also be asked:

If I contend for the doctrine of [i]Limited Atonement[/i] to the disunion of the body of believers, is that heresy?

Peace be with you all in Messiah Jesus

EDIT: I should rephrase the question [i]Is the doctrine of Limited Atonement true?[/i] to say, is it true, and [b]unmistakeably and plainly so[/b].

Have been thinking about this some more and would consider adding another qualifier to the definition of heresy that I gave before, and that would be this:

I would ask, above and beyond if something is unmistakeably and plainly true, if there is [b]also[/b] some [b]nescessity[/b] in contending for it.

I think of how the Lord Jesus told the Jews

[b][color=660033] I have many things to say and to judge of you[/color][/b]

Yet it is not appearant, at least to me, that He ever did, at least while He was with them. And then too, how He told His own disciples,

[b][color=660033] I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.[/color][/b]

He said they could not bear them [i]now[/i]. So it seems He did not tell them, [i]then[/i].

So it should be with us?

[i] A man hath joy by the answer of his mouth: and a word spoken in due season, how good is it![/i] -Proverbs 15:23

Chris's definition of heresy is correct. Biblically speaking, "to be a heretic" is simply to be an individual who causes division within the church, so as to create factions and parties. The word heresy later came to simply be associated with anybody who taught some different points in regard to doctrine that was considered contrary to established orthodoxy.

Biblically speaking, the word heresy never refers to a doctrine per say, but a person and their actions.

Biblically speaking, the word heresy never refers to a doctrine per say, but a person and their actions.

If I tell you that I disagree with your definition, am I a heretic? ;-)

1Co 11:19,
For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

Ga 5:20
Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

2Pe 2:1
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Heresy in these instances refers to false doctrine.

So, let's get back to the main point a second. Do you believe Limited Atonement is a heresy?

So is Jerry Falwell a heretic for saying that Limited Atonement is heresy? Or is Jay a heretic if he believes in Limited Atonement and thinks everyone else is a heretic if they don't?

Hey, sister, now [i]you're[/i] being a heretic too for even entertaining such a heretical thought!

:-o

My head is still swimming on all of this...mainly because of this:

George Whitefield (my personal hero): Calvinist
John Wesley: Arminian
Charles Finney: In between as a Semi-Pelagianist

Two things they all have in common:

1.) Used by God to shake the world
2.) Called out as heretics in their time and even still today

Heck...even Wesley called Whitefield a heretic...what's the deal?

Obviously the Holy Spirit must not have received the message...

-DO
I Pet 4:2

I would say, from an Arminian point of view, that while I don't believe in limited atonement (and find it amazing that anybody does), that such persons do not preach heresy. For my Calvinist brethren and I both acknowledge and have experienced the atoning work of Christ on the cross. All that is simply in dispute is the exact scope and effects that atoning work provided.

Just a note: What I would consider more close to heresy is the easy-believism and watered down Calvinism that Jerry Falwell preaches.

Such I am very tempted to say is a damnable heresy, for it suggests to folks that things such as holiness of life, commitment to discipleship, and daily following the Lord Jesus Christ are mere options a Christian has, but need not seriously consider should they choose not to. This is something Calvin never taught.

Both sides limit the atonement
The Arminian limits its ability to save
The Calvinist limits the amount who are saved.

Jesus Himself limited the atonement
Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, [b]which is shed for many[/b] for the remission of sins.

Mark 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, [b]which is shed for many.[/b]

Matthew 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and [b]to give his life a ransom for many.[/b]

In speaking of the New Covenant the writer of Hebrews has written
Hebrews 9:28 So [b]Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many[/b]; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Even Isaiah the prophet in speaking of the Messiah wrote
Isaiah 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: [b]for the transgression of my people was he stricken.[/b]
Isaiah 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and [b]he bare the sin of many[/b], and made intercession for the transgressors.

isn't all, many?

you can find just as many verses that say "all", cant you?

Lets declare the whole counsel of God brother!

Acts 20:26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.

~vico

But even the "all" statements do not always mean all in totality. For example in Luke
Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that [b]all the world should be taxed.[/b]

So how much did Mexico pay in this? Or China? We must understand that in this context "all the world" means the Roman world.

Many of the passages that refer to Christ being the Saviour of the world, are written to Jews who thought the Messiah was only for the Jewish race, and not for the World or nations like the Romans and Greeks.

Paul Washer has a very good message on Particular Redemption and Missions and it can be found here[url=http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=sermonsspeaker&sermonID=22007141746]Particular Redemption And Missions[/url]

How many councils have declared Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, and their not too distant relative Arminianism as heresy already? Not that they(the Councils) supercede Scripture, but when a view that was already cast aside as unbiblical comes back in another form, or even the same it does not change it.

I wonder how many of you have honestly read the beliefs of Reformed/Calvinist Theology before commenting? I once was Arminian, so what I say is based upon that background.

May I suggest reading "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" by John Owen, or "A Display of Arminianism" by John Owen.

I started out once to disprove the Five points, but instead ended up seeing the Scriptural truth and validity of them, and have been moved to that belief.

Jesse I guess I am blessed to be "deceived"