Quotes (614)

Philip Doddridge We should often repeat to [our children] that God is so holy, and yet so gracious that, rather than He would on the one hand destroy man or on the other leave sin unpunished, He made His own Son a sacrifice for it, appointing Him to be humbled that we might be exalted, to die that we might live.

– Philip Doddridge

1702 – 1751

40 thoughts on “Quotes (614)

  1. He died for everybody. He forgives everybody.

    Many will just not believe it.

    Grace through faith.

    Why everyone does not come to faith is the question we can ask Him when we get ‘up’ there.


  2. @theoldadam,

    If Christ died for every soul ever, and yet, some don’t believe, then the best you can say about the Lord and King of Heaven and Earth is, “God knows He tried!”. And that is flat out wrong.

    As verse 2 of the song on the link declares:

    Father, Son and Spirit: three and yet one
    Working as a unit to get things done
    Our salvation began in eternity past
    God certainly has to bring all His purpose to pass
    A triune, eternal bond no one could ever sever
    When it comes to the church, peep how they work together
    The Father foreknew first, the Son came to earth
    To die- the Holy Spirit gives the new birth
    The Father elects them, the Son pays their debt and protects them
    The Spirit is the One who resurrects them
    The Father chooses them, the Son gets bruised for them
    The Spirit renews them and produces fruit in them
    Everybody’s not elect, the Father decides
    And it’s only the elect in whom the Spirit resides
    The Father and the Spirit- completely unified
    But when it comes to Christ and those in hell?
    Well, they be saying:

    God knows He tried

    Listen here: http://trinitypastor.wordpress.com/2009/05/28/rapper-shai-linne-on-the-blood-of-christ/


  3. Manfred,

    I was just quoting the Bible.

    If you have a problem with what’s in that book, you’d beter take it up with the Author.

    “He died for the sins of the whole world.”

    There are plenty of people in hell, because they do not believe (no faith).

    When we believe, God gets all the credit. When we reject, we get all the blame.

    Maybe that does not compute to you, but that is the way it is.

    I will attempt to listen to your link a bit latter. The word ‘rapper’ in there scares me a bit (not too crazy about that stuff), but I’ll give it a go anyhow.


  4. adam,

    Anyone can quote a text. To understand MUCH of Bible, one needs to see what whole counsel of God is on the matter, not one or two verses.

    If “the whole world” in the verse you cited means every soul over all time, how do you reconcile the trinity within itself? Christ is at odds with the other two Persons. Yet if that phrase means “people from every nation” – those being the elect of God without respect to nation – then we have unity within the Trinity.

    Shai Linne is a hip-hop artist with a solid reformed stand. His music takes a back seat to his message. His only reason for what he does is the glory of God.


  5. OK.

    I believe that our God loves His children, all of them, and you say that He has got it in for some of them.

    I’ll take my loving and forgiving God, and you can have your monster that abandons His creation.

    What does dying for everyone have to do a proper understanding of the trinity?

    At the cross, Jesus asked the Father to forgive those that put him up on that cross (all of us).

    The Father answered that prayer in the affirmative when He rasied Jesus from the dead.

    The real problem that you have (and that I have) with that is why some people come to faith, and some don’t.

    We’ll have to ask Him that when we get there, for none of us really knows the answer.

    Thanks for the background on Shai Linne. I’m sure the Lord is using him for His purposes.


  6. Adam,

    People are by nature children of wrath – not children of God. The only people who are children of God are those whom He has called – the elect – and saved.

    Those who don’t come to faith in Christ are not called. All that the Father calls come to the Son. All that the Father gives to the Son are kept. People do not believe because it’s our natural state to be in rebellion against God. Spiritual truth cannot be discerned by the lost person. God, by His Spirit, must regenerate a person before he can receive the gift of faith.

    Sounds like you are an Arminian – that’s a heretical view. Hope I’m mistaken.


  7. Nope. Not Arminian. Lutheran.

    We also believe that no one seeks for God. The Bible tells us that and it is evident in our own lives as we constantly stray from Him (sin and not trusting Him).

    The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus’ death was for all. To deny that teaching is heretical.

    Check out this simple chart that compares Calvinism, Arminianism, and Lutheranism:


    Let me know what points you disagree with.


  8. The Lutheran view uses one lone verse that, by itself, does not explain the matter. Again, one must look to the whole counsel of God to see the truth of this matter – not a verse and a verse there.

    The doctrine of “limited atonement” is the sticking point that divides many Christians; mostly – I believe – because it and the Bible are only partially understood.

    Here are some helpful articles explaining this matter – which is not heretical, it’s biblical.





  9. God only calls His elect.


    I am a Lutheran (LCMS) and I am also a five point Calvinist.

    The two are are completely compatible…

    There is ANOTHER, larger Lutheran Synod (ELCA), who handle God’s Word in a liberal fashion and would probably agree with the Arminian view.

    Any ELCA doctrine defenders out there?


  10. How many verses do you want?

    “The Lord is . . . patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Peter 3:9).

    “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not” (Matthew 23:37)!

    “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus (Romans 3)”

    “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men” (Romans 5).

    “in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them . . .” (2 Corinthians).

    “if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment . . .” (Hebrews 10).

    “He [Christ] is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2).

    “. . . God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all” (Romans 11:32).

    “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (John 3:18).

    “he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

    “by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast (Ephesians 2: 8 and 9).

    “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (Romans 3:28).

    I think your theory about making up one’s mind on the basis of a few verses may work against you.


  11. Good to hear, Jeff.

    Adam – one observation about the link you provided: the Calvinist view is not a stairway TO heaven, that is the Arminian view. The Calvinist view, if one wants to stay with the metaphor, is a stairway FROM heaven. That is the right view of Jacob’s ladder. Man cannot climb any ladder or stairway into heaven.


  12. Jeff,

    You are a Lutheran, but the view of the atonement you espouse is not Lutheran.

    It is Calvinism. The two are close, but definitely different.

    Ask your pastor.


  13. the view of the atonement you espouse is not Lutheran.

    I very respectfully disagree, Adam.

    When one has the highest regard for God AND His Word (as is my experience in the LCMS), one MUST maintain that God is completely sovereign.

    The way I look at it is: “Who do you thank for your salvation?”

    That answer to that question alone is a sufficient rebuke to Arminianism.


  14. Jeff,

    When you are saved, GOD gets ALL the credit.

    When you are lost, YOU get all the blame.

    That is Lutheran theology (and is correct).

    Calvinist theology blames God when people are lost.

    I don’t think we ought blame God for any of that, since He died on that cross for the sins of the entire world.

    Again… call up your pastor and see if I’m not right.


  15. Calvinist theology blames God when people are lost.

    Actually, I think the proper perspective is:

    “20 Now in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for honorable use, some for dishonorable.” (2 Timothy 2:20)

    “21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?” (Romans 9:21)


  16. Same end.

    You’re asttributing their lostness to the will of God…Who desires that all men be saved.

    I think we have to give God credit where it is due, and gives ourselves the blame, where it is due.


  17. You guys have got me going now.

    I put up a post on my concerning same…and I made some allusions to you guys.

    I think I fairly stated stated the case, although boldly.

    I hope you don’t mind. I can’t imagine why you would, but ???

    Anyway, you’re more than welcome to chime in over there, also.

    But be forewarned, there are a few bulldigs over there. But they are all pretty civil (for the most part!) 😀


  18. Adam,

    I looked at your blog, and you have me QUOTED as saying:

    “He only died for the elect. Period. End of story.”


    That’s not what I wrote.

    I wrote:

    God only calls His elect.

    With the quote you ascribed to me, there is an easily inferable tone which I did not take.

    I’ll stay here.


  19. Jeff H,

    Consider for whom did Christ die – only for His elect, His sheep. From John 10:

    Joh 10:11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.
    Joh 10:12 He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them.
    Joh 10:13 He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.
    Joh 10:14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me,
    Joh 10:15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.
    Joh 10:16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

    Jesus gives His sheep eternal life – the gift of faith. That was purchased by His blood. The sheep of the other fold are the elect not yet saved. None but the elect can be sheep and not a drop of His blood was shed for those not called as sheep.


  20. Uh… Manfred,

    I agree…

    I’m a Calvinist, remember?

    Look at my earlier posts here.

    Manfred… I’d like to add, though, that “the sheep of the other fold” is commonly understood to be elected Gentiles.


  21. Jeff H

    Whether them other sheep be Gentiles or not, they be His sheep – that’s for sure 🙂 I am one that was in the other fold – elect but not saved – and am now in the fold of the Shepherd of my soul. Praise the Lord for His infinite mercy!


  22. Jeff H,

    A Calivinist Lutheran?

    I was a Calvinist, I would have done it if it were possible.

    Much more, an Owenian Limited Atoner Calvinist?

    And Lutheran?

    I dare say you can only say what you said because you probably chucked Smalcald away from your Lutheran Confession.

    Good luck.



  23. L P Cruz,

    A Calivinist Lutheran?


    I was a Calvinist, I would have done it if it were possible.

    It is, and I do.

    Luther took the highest view of Scripture, as do Calvinists.

    Much more, an Owenian Limited Atoner Calvinist?

    Huh? John Owen was an staunch defender of Calvinism, and rebuked Arminians, so… What are you saying here?

    And Lutheran?

    I dare say you can only say what you said because you probably chucked Smalcald away from your Lutheran Confession.

    Absolutely not!

    Here’s your answer (from Smalcald Articles, Part III, Article I. Of Sin):

    Hence, it is nothing but error and blindness in regard to this article what the scholastic doctors have taught, namely:

    4] That since the fall of Adam the natural powers of man have remained entire and incorrupt, and that man by nature has a right reason and a good will; which things the philosophers teach.

    5] Again, that man has a free will to do good and omit evil, and, conversely, to omit good and do evil.

    6] Again, that man by his natural powers can observe and keep [do] all the commands of God.

    7] Again, that, by his natural powers, man can love God above all things and his neighbor as himself.

    8] Again, if a man does as much as is in him, God certainly grants him His grace.

    For if this teaching were right [approved], then Christ has died in vain, since there is in man no defect nor sin for which he should have died;

    As a Calvinist, I claim that I am the opposite of #4 – #8 above.

    Luther agrees. He called it heretical teaching.


  24. Jeff H.

    What you quoted was not the issue.

    Here is the portion that seemed to have not clicked with you on the Smalcald Articles: Part III Article III

    42] On the other hand, if certain sectarists would arise, some of whom are perhaps already
    extant, and in the time of the insurrection [of the peasants] came to my own view, holding that
    all those who had once received the Spirit or the forgiveness of sins, or had become believers,
    even though they should afterwards sin, would still remain in the faith, and such sin would not
    harm them, and [hence] crying thus: “Do whatever you please; if you believe, it all amounts to
    nothing; faith blots out all sins,” etc.—they say, besides, that if any one sins after he has
    received faith and the Spirit, he never truly had the Spirit and faith: I have had before me [seen
    and heard] many such insane men, and I fear that in some such a devil is still remaining [hiding
    and dwelling].

    If you asks Calvinists why there are people who used to believe and now disbelieve, they argue from 1 John. This is only one side, the other side of the story is the parable of stony ground and the seeds. Luther accounts for both as stated above.

    If you do not think this hits on Calvinistic thinking, I can only say you are living a pipe dream, sorry to say. You have not encountered much Calvinism.

    Shall we now go to Calvin and Calvinists thinking on the Sacraments? And how they touch upon Justification and the idea of the Means of Grace and how Calvinism demolishes both?

    You think you can be a 5 pointer and think there is no damage to the Lutheran idea of justification? That is a bit astounding if not naive.

    Lutheranism and Calvinism are not cut from the same cloth. Their ideas of repentance and faith are quite distinct and nuance but different from each other.

    You can only say you are both because you are not taking seriously what they mean by their words. Melanchton did that and was rejected eventually by the Lutherans.

    I touched upon Owen because he was a staunch defender of Limited Atonement.

    I recommend reading the scholarly study of Neil Chambers on Owen’s pecuniary ideas of the Atonement.

    Atonement and Justification are equated to be the same by Calvinism.

    Lutherans do no such thing and if the Lutheran does that, he commits blunder. He must have not taken the controversy why the Formula of Concord was written.

    Good luck on your reconciliation project.



  25. LP Cruz,

    What you quoted changes nothing, in that even though we are saved, WE WILL SIN AGAIN.

    It does not constitute ‘cheap grace’ or ‘easy believe-ism’. It just means that we are still on ‘this side of Heaven.’

    It also does not immediate challenge whether the person was ever saved in the first place.

    The question is whether they sin ‘for a season’ or do they ‘fall into sin.’

    I’m sorry that you are unable to enjoy being a Lutheran who is also a Calvinist…

    I guess I’m just taking a higher view of Scripture and God’s sovereignty than you are.

    Good luck on your reconciliation project.

    No project… just a logical conclusion.

    Also, there is no such thing as luck! God is sovereign, remember?


    In Christ,
    – Jeff H


  26. LP Cruz,

    Whoa! Calm down, friend!

    What you quoted was not the issue.

    But, you never answered what you do with what I quoted from the Smalcald Articles, Part III, Article I. Of Sin… since that is exactly the issue.

    This is only one side, the other side of the story is the parable of stony ground and the seeds.

    That is your opinion… your way of interpreting Luther’s intent. I find this duality of thought often happens when one attempts to elevate man and lower God in viewing any theological position.

    You have not encountered much Calvinism.

    And you know this how?

    I can only say you are living a pipe dream, sorry to say…

    …That is a bit astounding if not naive.

    Why the snarky tone? I thought we were just having a polite discussion…

    I took a look at your blog, and your tone is… less than polite.

    Maybe you like it that way. If you decide to be civil, we can continue to discuss this interesting issue.

    In Christ,
    – Jeff H


  27. Jeff,

    Is it the tone, or the truth?

    Please continue to visit the blog check specially what I wrote about Calvinism through the labels. There is plenty of issues there.

    I do not moderate my blog so comment at will; we carried your thoughts at the Old Adam.



  28. Is it the tone, or the truth?

    Ah. More snarkiness…

    I’ve heard no truth from you yet.

    we carried your thoughts at the Old Adam.

    Actually, ‘Adam’ (Steve) did not quote me at all, remember?

    Just re-read our exchange in this post.

    So, since we can’t seem to have an adult discussion, sorry friend…

    In Christ,

    – Jeff H


Tell us what you think:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s