Falwell: Limited atonement is ‘heresy’
April 15th, 2007Jerry Falwell on Friday preached a message at Liberty University in which he called limited atonement a heresy. Tom Ascol has responded appropriately.
52 Responses to “Falwell: Limited atonement is ‘heresy’”
Tom wrote a great review of Falwell’s message. Very well articulated. I find it odd that Falwell would boast such a claim seeing how he condemns great men of the faith. On the other hand, following his logic one would have to conclude that he would not consider them men of the faith, but heretics who are now being kept for the judgment at which point Christ will cast them out of His presence and into Hell.
Also, in perusing the comments under Tom’s blog, there was a comment that I found ironic and true. If Falwell is a Southern Baptist he supports those he condemns such as Al Mohler. If his giving goes to the Southern Baptist Convention, then part of that funding goes to schools like Southern Baptist Theological Seminary which has Al Mohler as its president. One would also have to wonder why Falwell would hold to the Baptist name seeing how their confessions of old and the history thereof has strong roots in limited atonement and Calvanism in general.
j razz
Very astute, j razz.
As a Liberty seminary alum this is disturbing. I knew that the institution had Arminian tendencies, but I always found my theology profs to be fair-minded. In a research project with very narrow choice of topics, I chose the free will vs. election debate. My professor was the son of Liberty co-founder Elmer Towns. While I felt reasonably certain that my personal views of biblical election would not find a kindred spirit in the person of the one grading my paper, I did receive a very good mark. While he may not have agreed with me, Dr. (Sam) Towns noted the consistency and cogency of my position. I really appreciated that.
Now, it seems that the university is just going to paint with very broad strokes. And when logical debate and dialogue aren’t enough, one may just resort to name-calling.
Dr. Falwell needs to learn the difficult lesson of Dr. Criswell’s life…..sometimes it’s better just to ride off into the sunset on a high note. Otherwise one might ruin one’s lasting legacy of godly influence.
I thought it was a great response as well. What puzzles me most is why many Christians go out of their way to condemn non-essential matters. No one who believes in limited atonement (or, better said, particular redemption) is a heretic, and no one who rejects it is a heretic. While I accept it and believe it to be part of a high perception of God, I don’t believe it is an essential part of the gospel as outlined by Paul in 1 Cor. 15.
Why would we ever listen to or care what Falwell says?
Why would we ever listen to or care what Falwell says?
Because one part of the body is still a part of the body and it affects the whole.
His Christianity affects mine and visa versa. (I am not promoting here an individualistic self-catering Christianity, but am merely stating that his actions affect how others view mine and visa versa in so much as we do them under the banner of Christ).
Side note: I was in India a back in the 90’s and often ran into people who thought of the United States as a Christian nation. With this thought, they assumed that all of America was Christian. This is based on their belief that they are born into Hinduism so it must be that we are born into Christianity. A majority of those I spoke with who had this mindset really did not want anything to do with Christianity as they saw the movies that Hollywood was producing as well as the programming on MTV, etc (they get satellite) and would often respond to me as saying that Christians have no morals or values.
I think this to be to our shame.
j razz
I just wish Jerry Falwell had a big dose of humility and modesty. It would carry him a long way. Proud and pompus Christians do themselves no favors by laying claim to the mind of God and throwing around the “H” word. Why not just say, “This is where I am in my journey by the grace of God” and let it go at that? Perhaps it’s just too much fun to label and cast aspersions on other believers.
Thank goodness for people like Tom Ascol who can respond to these issues. I appreciate the way he gracefully deals with Falwell…too bad it’s not reciprocated….
Isn’t universalism the polar opposite of limited atonement?
How are you defining universalism?
j razz
The fact of the matter is this-Spurgeon, Edwards, Bunyan, etc. were all just men. And, if they held the same view of Atonement as the Hyper-Calvinists of today, they indeed held a view that walked the line of heresy-there-I said it–Jesus wasn’t an advocate of limited atonement.
Tom,
Spurgeon, Edwards, Bunyan, etc., were not hyper-Calvinists. Most people today who hold to the belief of limited atonement are not hyper-Calvinists. In fact, if you can identify some hyper-Calvinists today, then I’d like to know who they are. I honestly don’t know any of them myself.
If you want to take issue with the doctrine of limited atonement, then feel free to do so. But let’s at least get the terminology right and be fair in how you label those with whom you disagree.
I’ll go a step further–Sproul, MacArthur, D. James Kennedy–heretics? I will not go that far-but again, if their view mirrors that of a Spurgeon-the ice is thin!
That’s fair-I do acknowledge that me terminology is misguided, but for anyone to hold to a view of limited atonement-call them Hyper or just plain Calvinists–it’s a dangerous thing.
Tim, what proof do you offer, if any, that these men were not Hyper-Calvinists? Please give me your definition of a Hyper-Calvinists.
I would like to further comment on the previous quotes on this page. I prefer to take the Roman Catholic view and not even get bogged down in a discussion of particular versus general atonement. As far as humility goes, I just wish someone would find a handful of people that hold to a limited atonement view that are humble. You will be searching for a long time-it’s sad but true.
I also have to ask anyone who considers themselves to believe in Limited Atonement; if you are a Christian-how do you know that Christ died for you? What if he only died for the apostles? Laugh-but if hold to limited atonement, the matter is not funny.
Thanks for the chance to voice my concerns. I’m signing off–God bless all of you!
As far as humility goes, I just wish someone would find a handful of people that hold to a limited atonement view that are humble. You will be searching for a long time-it’s sad but true.
Be careful with statements like that as it would appear that you would claim to hold to general atonement and yet your comments do not show you as being humble.
j razz
Tom,
It’s really simple. Calvinists are those who believe in God’s sovereignty over everything — including salvation — and in human responsibility to respond to the gospel. They evangelize because God has commanded it and because God uses human instruments in bringing people to Christ.
Hyper-Calvinists are those who say that evangelism isn’t necessary because God is going to save people regardless. Those who chided William Carey for his desire to spread the gospel in India were hyper-Calvinists.
When you call people hyper-Calvinists, you’re saying they don’t believe in evangelism and are not evangelistic. And if you say that about Sproul, MacArthur, Kennedy, Spurgeon, Edwards, Bunyan, etc. — then you’re guilty of lying and bearing false witness.
I also have to ask anyone who considers themselves to believe in Limited Atonement; if you are a Christian-how do you know that Christ died for you?
Tom, I would like to ask you the same thing albeit concerning general atonement. How do you know that you are saved?
Further, I would like to ask you this: Did Christ accomplish something on the Cross? If so, what?
j razz
I do believe in General Atonement-whosoever will-and yes-I know I’m saved because I’ve trusted Christ–it seems that people that believe in Limited Atonement-which is an empty term because it is bankrupt-can’t be sure-because you are attempting to play God in saying that Christ died for some-but not for all. I respect your convictions that Limited Atonement is indeed valid-but do not be so arrogant to think that General Atonement is not. Jesus is definitely a General Atonement advocate. Why die for some? Seems pointless!
It’s funny to me how you guys throw the issue of being humble in the faces of people that believe in a General Atonement. Your arrogance blindes you! The humble view is that of General Atonement. Particular Atonement is arrogant in its definition–It’s like an Arminian saying that you can lose your salvation. Then ask that Arminian if they ever lost theirs-they will probably answer no. I pray that your eyes will be opened to truth-the truth of God’s sovereignty-yes! But also, the truth of God’s endless love–in that he sent his son to die 4all. The just for the unjust–the unjust being all people at all times in all places.
P.S. I didn’t say those guys were hyper-Calvinists-I said they held to Limited Atonement–I admitted that my terminology was too broad-I’m not bearing false witness-it appears thought, that you guys are caught up in point fingers. When your limited atonement view proves void-you point out sins such as false witness-which in this case-I am not guilty of. Let’s not judge brothers. Let’s love one another-as Christ loved us ALL!!! Hence, he died 4us ALL!
As far as Calvin, I’m sure he was a pious man-and I’m sure he was a Christian, but let’s not forget my brothers that his reform was strictly magisterial-no real spiritual reform at all–Plus-he showed very little mercy in the execution of Michael Servidus.
Tom,
What did Christ accomplish on the cross? If anything? You never answered my question.
j razz
Christian Youtube? Are we so scared to interact with the world that we have to make our own version of youtube? I was glad to see that the Pope talked about hell-yay for him. I’m glad the pontiff is finally proving that Catholics are Christians. Look, I will probably never be limited atonement-any likewise, you guys will never be convinced by me-but what is your view of Catholic theology? Let’s move in another direction.
Tom,
How about trying to keep your comments in one post? This multiple-post thing is a bit much.
Also, let’s don’t move in another direction of discussion. I’m the one who sets the topics for discussion here, and the topic in this post has been established. If you want to discuss Catholic theology, you can bring it up in an Open Blog Friday.
Tom, I would appreciate it if you would answer my question above. I am curious as to what you think about this issue.
In regards to your statements where you paint Christ as being in the general atonement camp, what scriptures do you have to back this statement up? It is a very pointed statement to say that Christ is _____ unless you have a solid, scriptural foundation upon which to build that statement.
j razz
Christ accomplished the redemption of all mankind on the cross. What else could he have possibly done on the cross? I would have it that none would perish, I came to seek and save those that are lost(all people), I came to save the world, not to judge the world, For God so loved the world……..whoever believeth, etc. What other verses do you want?
What happened to love, justice, and peace? What happened to the interpersonal side of the gospel? Everyone focuses on the spiritual only. Love your neighbor as yourself has gone out of the window-it’s always about the definitions of atonement, etc. The Beatitudes have gone out of the window-parables-out of the window-Jesus’ most important teachings-out of the window. Feel free to write whatever response you wish-I will not be visiting this page any more. Thank you,
God Bless.
Christ accomplished the redemption of all mankind on the cross.
If Christ accomplished the redemption of all mankind as you say, then why are people still going to Hell? If He truly wrought salvation for all as you claim, why then Hell?
Did not Jesus say, “My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.”?
If the Father has given us, Christians, to Jesus and according to you Christ accomplished salvation for all, then why are people still dying and going to Hell?
1. Christ died for all the sins of all people.
2. Christ died for some of the sins of all people.
3. Christ died for all the sins of some people.
Those are the options. If 1. is true then no one would be going to tell as all sin has been atoned for.
If 2. is true then all are going to Hell as we all fall short of the glory of God and no one is righteous. Even one sin would seperate us from God.
3. is the only viable option left unless you can think of some other option.
For Christ’s death to have meant something, He had to die for a purpose. I would say that purpose is two fold at least. 1. To bring glory to the Father and 2. to save that which was lost, to die for His sheep.
Let’s think on this a minute. If God the Father sent His son to die for a possibility that some might come to know Him, but ultimately it hinged on man to decide to accept Christ’s sacrifice on His behalf, that would be uncharacteristic of the God of the Bible as He knows that man is born into sin and naturally opposed to the things of God: including salvation. A means that has no end goal is worthless. If God provided the means but no end, then Christ accomplished nothing more than a mere hypothetical possibility. If God the Father provided and end to the means (an accomplishment that followed Christ’s agonizing death and bearing of sin), then Christ actually accomplished something… which I would hold as being the glorification of the Father and the redemption of those the Father has given Him.
Think about it, if Christ died for a mere possibility, then quite frankly there was a very real possibility that no one would come to know Christ and God the Father sent His Son to die for nothing. If no one came to know Him, then His death would have been all for nothing. But, if He died knowing that He would secure the salvation of many by His death, then He accomplished exactly what He sat out to do.
If Christ set out to save the whole world and yet the whole world was not saved, Christ failed and God failed (and this would cease to make God the God of the Bible as He cannot fail). If Christ set out to save those which the Father has given Him and those truly are saved, then He accomplished what He set out to do.
I think that the burden would lie on you Tom to show otherwise. I am interested in your response so I hope that you do choose to come back and interact. We could all learn something here.
j razz
Does anyone feel like this blog just went through a hit and run?
Nicely done j razz. Tom, I do hope you stick around. I have read this post several times and I don’t see where anyone has said anything that should make you upset or want to never visit this page again. This is a friendly discussion. Don’t turn it into anything more.
Another problem with the ‘Christ died for all’ position is that it cannot logically hold to a Christ alone soteriology.
If the Bible teaches that Christ died for all and that everyone ‘gets a chance’ to accept Him (which is what most who hold to that belief would say), what do we do with people and cultures who passed away before the gospel was ever preached in their midst?
What about a man who died in South America an hour after the resurrection? We must either say he was lost with no hope of salvation or that he could be saved somehow apart from Christ. You find many who hold to the ‘Christ died for all’ position toying with this idea that those who’ve never heard of Christ can be saved through ‘the light they’ve received’ or something like that. A concept found nowhere in scripture.
In fact, scripture is clear that we have enough revelation of God in nature to condemn us but not enough to save us (Romans 1:20)
I think Don is back.
That’s just wrong, Zoner.
Jesus said, “for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for MANY for the forgiveness of sins.” Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24
Did Jesus ever use the word “all”? He did.
If He chose to use the word “all” elsewhere in His teachings, why did He use the word “many” in the verses quoted above?
Because His blood is SUFFICIENT for all, but only EFFICIENT for those who come.
Conclusion: Jesus taught limited atonement.
Also…
If Jesus taught limited atonement and someone who claims to be a spokesman for God teaches something other than what Jesus taught, who’s the heretic?
Just for clarification, Michael Servetus did not believe in the Trinity nor the eternal sonship of Christ. T.D. Jakes would be closely aligned to this view. Servetus was burned at the stake by order of the Geneva Council. Nicholas de la Fontaine had a more active role in Servetus’s excecution than Calvin. Although Servetus was rightly titled a heretic, his view of paedobaptism was right on (this was one of the two charges against him along with teaching against trinitarianism).
j razz
Why is that wrong? The similar contentious posts and the frequency of them is what I was trying to make light of.
I’m kidding. It was funny.
Maybe I need to do a series on blog etiquette. I’d never in a million years dream of going to someone else’s blog — someone I don’t even know — and say, “Let’s talk about something else. I don’t want to talk about this anymore.”
What are people thinking?
The term “Calivinism” is unfortunate. Calvin just categorized the same doctrine that the other Reformers held, along with St. Augustine, and Paul, and Moses (Ex. 33:19). Here’s another favorite: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace AMONG THOSE WITH WHOM HE IS PLEASED!” (Lk. 2:14).
Could Tom be ……. Don?
Who is Don? Any way, wow-I’ve struck a nerve with you Calvinists-Jesus-teaching Limited Atonement? Careful-could possibly smell of heresy? Not being rude-just straight forward. You guys get so worked up. How do any of us know for sure that people are dying and going to hell? I respect your positions, but lets step outside of our narrow dogmatic tunnels for a minute and think logically-I know logic is a bad word, but God gave us logic.
Again, Mr. J Razz, I don’t fully comprehend your definition of mankind being completely worthless. Jesus said that those that believe in him will inherit eternal life, but those that have not believed in him are condemned already.-John 3:17– My next question is this my brothers–and this is a serious question-this is not meant to be sarcastic or mean spirited-I just really want to know the position you are looking at it from. Are you guys implying that God predetermined men to sin, so he could send his own Son to die only for the sins of the ones he would choose to save when the Bible says that God wishes for all to come to eternal life? If this is not the case, then man chose to sin-can man not choose to repent? Just a question-again, don’t get on the defense–this comment is written with all humility and sincerity.
And I fully understand the quote above-that Jesus’ atonement is sufficient for all-but only efficient for those that are chosen. But, does it not seem that although some will not be saved-which indeed I believe-does this all of the sudden change the fact that the atonement is still Efficient for all men at all times. We can’t go back and change the effect of the atonement-can we?–sorry Tim-for the multiple quotes-
So disbelief in the Trinity is worthy of the death penalty? Interesting–are you implying T.D. Jakes should be arrested and handed a death sentence? Any way, I sincerely love you guys-I consider you guys my brothers in Christ-I realize you guys have a hard time saying that to me-because we don’t see eye to eye-that’s unfortunate–I’ll pray for you guys if you will pray for me–with love,
peace—
Tom
Thanks for the link to Tom Ascol. His response was great. We should all pray for Mr. Fawell. Lord knows he needs it.
Tom,
You twist what people say. J razz didn’t say “disbelief in the Trinity is worthy of the death penalty”, and don’t deny that you attempted to imply that he did. He was simply stating what the history of Servetus was, and stated that Jakes beliefs are very close. I don’t see where he agreed or diagreed. Just stated what happened.
I would say there are many things previously considered by men to be worthy of death that aren’t now.
You also say, “I realize you guys have a hard time saying that to me-because we don’t see eye to eye.” Why do you say that we “have a hard time?” Do you know something about me?
You say, “I’ll pray for you guys if you will pray for me.” Tom, I’ll pray for you whether or NOT you pray for me! That’s grace versus works.
Again, Mr. J Razz, I don’t fully comprehend your definition of mankind being completely worthless.
I don’t believe I ever typed anything to that effect. Where did you see that or think that I implied that? If God is willing to commune with us and send His Son to die for us, I would be at a loss to say that man is completly worthless.
Are you guys implying that God predetermined men to sin, so he could send his own Son to die only for the sins of the ones he would choose to save when the Bible says that God wishes for all to come to eternal life? If this is not the case, then man chose to sin-can man not choose to repent?
I do not know the motiviation behind God’s actions, I just know what I read in scripture. I cannot tell you the mind of God, but I can tell you what scripture plainly states. Man chose to sin in the garden. At that point in time, man had no sin nature. He was free from the bondage of the curse and freely at the fruit. Since the fall of man, we have 3 enemies: Satan, Sin & Death.
Let’s say you are right in that man chose to sin, but that does not mean that man can freely choose to repent now. Why? Because of Romans. We are enemies of God who seek after our own lustful desires. We seek what we percieve as good for us. We were born into sin nature. So, we are naturally bent towards sin. We do not have freedom of the will, but we do have free agency (look that term up if you don’t know what it means). Our will is always dictated by outside sources and it is never free. Want an example? You see a commercial advertising a cheeseburger. You then start thinking about whether you are hungry and the burger that caused you to start thinking about it. So, you go to the restaurant and get the burger or if not that, you go to the refrigerator and get something to eat. The same is true with sin nature. No one has to teach a baby or child how to be selfish or how take things from others or lie. They do those things quiet well on their own. Our will is bent towards sin due to the fall.
So, to answer your question, if man had choice in the garden, that does not mean that man has choice now as those were two totally different periods with two totally different states of man.
Tom,
How do you deal with the argument above concerning what Christ accomplished on the cross. I don’t see that you addressed that after it was written.
Before I commented on it, you wrote Christ accomplished the redemption of all mankind on the cross. What else could he have possibly done on the cross?
Do you still agree with your previous statement? If yes how do you deal with what I have written above?
Thanks for coming back and toning down your pointed statements. I think if you read back over my statements, you will see that there was never any name calling or crude comments on my behalf towards you or anyone. But, I cannot say the same for your comments (read back over them noting that all we can see is the text you typed). Don’t take that as a stab at you, but if we truly are brothers (and given that you have believed on the gospel of Christ) it would be to your detriment if I did not bring that to your attention.
So disbelief in the Trinity is worthy of the death penalty? Interesting–are you implying T.D. Jakes should be arrested and handed a death sentence?
No. I did not say or imply that. I do not think that scripture teaches that we should capture and kill those who think differently than us. I do believe that scripture commands us to share the gospel in hopes that they might repent and come to Christ.
j razz
TIM - I lost my post! Something is wrong.
I’ll not retype it, but simply summarize:
Tom — read the entirety of scripture paying special note of God’s sovereignty, God-centeredness, and gracious but particular works in salvation.
Most of us felt “smacked” when we first struggled with these issues - they seemed to completely go against the grain of our whole understanding of God and man. I could defeat the arguments of men, but was conquered nonetheless by the authority of God’s Word. Read and struggle with God not us.
You really do not understand what it is that we actually believe. To help this please see my post:
http://ruanole2.blogspot.com/2007/03/doctrines-of-grace.html