Questions about church statements of faith

[davidgeminden]

At the end of this post are four faith statements that are found in some typical Baptist church constitutions. I have some questions concerning these statements.


Question 1) Does these statements indicate that the church takes a three-point-Calvinist position where they believe in the 5-point Calvinist definition of Total Depravity, Unconditional election and Perseverance of the saints (eternal security)?


Question 2) Does these statements indicate that the church takes a 2-point-Calvinist position where they believe in the 5-point Calvinist definition of Total Depravity and Perseverance of the saints (eternal security)?


Question 3) Does these statements indicate that the church takes a pseudo-Arminian position where they also believe in the 5-point Calvinist definition of Perseverance of the saints (eternal security)?


Question 4) Does these statements indicate that the church takes an inherent free will of man position where they also believe in the 5-point Calvinist definition of Perseverance of the saints (eternal security)?


Question 5) Are these four church statements of faith designed to be acceptable by all four of the above types of Christians?


Question 6) How would you write these statements to explicitly indicate the above 3-point Calvinist position?


Question 7) How would you write these statements to explicitly indicate the above 2-point Calvinist position?


Question 8) How would you write these statements to explicitly indicate the above pseudo-Arminian position that believe in the 5-point Calvinist definition of perseverance of the saints (eternal security)?


Question 9) How would you write these statements to explicitly indicate an inherent free will of man position and also believe in the 5-point Calvinist definition of perseverance of the saints (eternal security)?


Question 10) How would you write these statements so that they would be acceptable to all four of the above positions that I listed above?




FOUR STATEMENTS OF FAITH:


A) THE HOLY SPIRIT. We believe that the Holy Spirit is a person who convicts the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment; and that He is the Supernatural Agent in regeneration, baptizing all believers into the body of Christ, indwelling and sealing them unto the day of redemption (John 16:8-11; Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor. 12:12-14; 2 Cor. 3:6; Eph. 1:13-14).We believe that He is the divine Teacher who assists believers to understand and appropriate the Scriptures and that it is the privilege and duty of all the saved to be filled with the Spirit (Eph. 1:17-18; 5:18; 1 John 2:20, 27). We believe that God is sovereign in the bestowal of spiritual gifts to every believer by the Holy Spirit. God uniquely uses evangelists, pastors, and teachers to equip believers in the assembly in order that they can do the work of the ministry (Rom. 12:3-8; 1 Cor. 12:4-11, 28; Eph. 4:7-12). We also believe that the sign gifts of the Holy Spirit (such as speaking in tongues and the gift of healing) were temporary gifts for the purpose of demonstrating God’s approval of the church prior to the completion of His written Word. Therefore speaking in tongues was never a necessary sign of the baptism or filling of the Holy Spirit. Modern tongues-speaking is not Biblical tongues-speaking because it is in violation of the specific instruction of Scripture (I Cor. 14:27). Although God does often heal according to the prayers of His children, ultimate deliverance of the body from sickness or death awaits the consummation of our salvation in the resurrection (1 Cor. 1:22; 13:8; 14:21-22).


B) MAN. We believe that man was created in the image and likeness of God; but that in Adam’s sin the human race fell, inherited a sinful nature, and became alienated from God. Every person is born totally depraved and, of himself, utterly unable to remedy his lost condition (Gen. 1:26-27; Rom. 3:22-23; 5:12; 6:23; Eph. 2:1-3; 4:17-19).


C) SALVATION. We believe that salvation is the gift of God brought to man by grace and received by personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, Whose precious blood was shed on Calvary for the forgiveness of our sins. (John 1:12; Eph. 1:7; 2:8-10; 1 Pet. 1:18-19; Matt. 12:31-32; 1 John 1:9)


D) ETERNAL SECURITY. We believe that all the redeemed, once saved, are granted immediate eternal life. These are kept by God’s power and are thus secure in Christ forever. (John 6:37-40; 10:27-30; Rom. 8:1; 38-39; 1 Cor. 1:4-8; 1 Pet. 1:4-5) We also believe that it is the privilege of believers to rejoice in the assurance of their salvation through the testimony of God’s Word, which, however, clearly forbids the use of Christian liberty as an occasion to the flesh. (Rom. 13:13-14; Gal. 5:13; Titus 2:11-15)

 

[pinoybaptist]

Both the classical Arminians and Calvinists believe in the total depravity of man and differ only in the ability to come to Christ for salvation, if I am not mistaken, so I don't see where 2 point this and 3 point that apply.

You're either a full-blown Calvinist or a full-sail Arminian.

But that's just me.

(not a Calvinist).

 

[Tom Butler]

Both the classical Arminians and Calvinists believe in the total depravity of man and differ only in the ability to come to Christ for salvation, if I am not mistaken, so I don't see where 2 point this and 3 point that apply.

You're either a full-blown Calvinist or a full-sail Arminian.

But that's just me.

(not a Calvinist).

Although there are lots of Calvinist Baptist around, I suspect the majority in America are non-Calvinist. But neither Arminian or Semi-Pelagian really fits them. Many Baptists are a hybrid. They will argue strongly for Total Depravity and Perseverance and Preservation of the Saints, but back away from the other three points. Every Baptist I know will get real defensive if you call him an Arminian. To most Baptist, Arminans believe in falling from grace, and that means they aren't one.

Most of the debate among Baptists is over the nature of the will, and where regeneration fits in the salvation timeline.

Non-Cal Baptists are quite inconsistent over free will. They will argue for it in salvation, but argue against it in eternal security. At least the "full-sail" Arminians are consistent about it. They argue that if you can choose Jesus for salvation, you can unchoose him as well.

Thankfully, it appears that an increasing number of Baptist are returning to their roots and embracing the Doctrines of Grace. It, of course, is a sinister plot to by President Albert Mohler to brainwash those students at Southern Seminary. Aided and abetted by that pesky Founders movement.

 

[Jerome]

Now here's something you probably won't find on the "Founders" website:

From James B. Taylor's (the first Secretary of the Foreign Mission Board of the SBC) Virginia Baptist Ministers (1859), s.v. "David Jessee" [emphasis added]:

In the early part of his ministry [Elder David Jessee] advocated the high-toned Calvinistic view of that subject; but in the latter years of his life he supported the view now generally adopted by the Baptists, viz., that the atonement is general in its nature.

 

[davidgeminden]

Comments and More Questions

I believe that many Christians joining a Baptist Church have never heard the 5-point Calvinist definition of “totally depraved”, they just interpret “totally depraved” to mean a person is extremely wicked and naturally born a sinner, because of the phrase “inherited a sinful nature” used in the context of the statement about man; they do not associate the loss of mans free will with the phrase “totally depraved”. Actual, based on just the two words (totally depraved), a person that does not have the Calvinists dictionary will not have any clue that the phrase could mean that a person does not have the free will ability to accept or reject Christ as his savior. Therefore, my impression of phrase “totally depraved” used in the statement of man is that it is open to a wide range of interpretation since the phrase is not given an explicit 5-point Calvinist definition in any of the statements by detailing that man does not have a free will to accept or reject Christ as their savior. By doing that, these statements allow the phrase to be acceptable to a wider variety of Christians, including Christians that believe man has a free will capable of accepting or rejecting Christ. What do you think? Therefore, the four types of Christians that I listed in my opening questions could all accept the statements of faith listed in my opening post. I strongly believe the phrase “totally depraved” in the statement of man is used to help attract the 3-point and 2-point Calvinists, which believe that man has the free will to accept or reject Christ. I have found that those 3-point and 2-point Calvinist live with a contradiction by employing a “two sides of a coin” type of explanation of the contradiction. Also, I have met many Christians that call themselves 3-point or 2-point Calvinists that are members of churches where the phrase “totally depraved” is replaced with the phrase “naturally sinful”. In fact, all of the four types of Christians that I listed in my opening questions I have seen being members in churches that have those statements of faith that I listed in my opening post.


How do you all interpret the statements of faith, that I listed in my opening post? What type or types of Christians do you all think those statements of faith target?


I thought of some more questions.


Does anybody know of a church that has statements of faith that make explicit statements that could only be acceptable to the 3-point Calvinists that I referred to in my opening questions? Please post those statements or a URL where I can read them.


Does anybody know of a church that has statements of faith that make explicit statements that could only be acceptable to the 2-point Calvinists that I referred to in my opening questions? Please post those statements or a URL where I can read them.


Does anybody know of a church that has statements of faith that make explicit statements that could only be acceptable to the pseudo-Arminian position where they also believe in the 5-point Calvinist definition of Perseverance of the saints (eternal security)? Please post those statements or a URL where I can read them.


Does anybody know of a church that has statements of faith that make explicit statements that could only be acceptable to those that believe in the inherent free will of man position where they also believe in the 5-point Calvinist definition of Perseverance of the saints (eternal security)? Please post those statements or a URL where I can read them.

 

[Winman]

I don't believe that man is Totally Depraved. I used to, that is what I had heard all my life. But when I examine the scriptures I don't see it, in fact I believe it teaches the opposite.

First, man was not created absolutely morally perfect as God is. Man was created innocent, there is a big difference. Man had the ability to sin from day one, else how else could Adam and Eve sinned? God cannot be tempted with evil, man could and obviously was.

James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

The scriptures say God cannot be tempted with evil. Adam and Eve were tempted by evil, so they were never absolutely perfect as some teach. I had myself believed this until I read and considered the scriptures.

And notice it says man is drawn away of his own lust. We are not held accountable for Adam's sin, the scriptures say God never punishes a man for the sins of his father or vice versa.

Deut 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

So, I do not believe in the concept of original sin. Man had the ability to sin the very day he was created, and we all have this ability now. So I do not see a fall in the garden as many teach. Man has always had the ability to sin.

And man is not 100% evil. God said man became as him, knowing both good and evil. If it is evil to know good and evil, then God is evil for he knows this himself by his own words.

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

God himself said man is become as one of us, to know good and evil. This cannot be an evil thing, or else God would also be evil.

And the scriptures show that after Adam and Eve sinned that a man can choose to do good or evil, he is not in absolute bondage to sin as some teach. Cain could have offered an acceptable sacrifice, the Lord himself said so.

Gen 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Cain could have done good, but he chose not to.

So, I do not see this fall that everybody teaches. When man ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that is exactly what happened. He became consicious of what is good and what is evil. He acquired self-consciousness and self awareness. Before this day they both ran around naked and were completely unaware of it. They were like little children who do not realize they are naked, and do not understand what is right and wrong.

Little children do wrong, they will fight with their siblings and even hit them. They will take every cookie on the plate and not share with others. So they are born with the ability to sin just as Adam and Eve were created with the ability to sin. But little children are completely unaware. They are not self-consicious and they do not understand the concepts of right and wrong until they reach a certain degree of maturity. They are good in that they are innocent.

This is how Adam and Eve were in the beginning, innocent, not absolutely morally perfect. There was no fall. There is not one word in the curse God pronounced upon Adam and Eve concerning their moral natures whatsoever, see for yourself.

Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Where does God say even one word to either Adam or Eve in this curse concerning their moral natures?

 

[pinoybaptist]

I don't believe that man is Totally Depraved. I used to, that is what I had heard all my life. But when I examine the scriptures I don't see it, in fact I believe it teaches the opposite.

First, man was not created absolutely morally perfect as God is. Man was created innocent, there is a big difference. Man had the ability to sin from day one, else how else could Adam and Eve sinned? God cannot be tempted with evil, man could and obviously was.

your own argument works against your thesis. the fact that man had always had the ability to sin, even if he was at first innocent, proves his Total Depravity already.

He is unable to come to God on God's terms, after his fall, and he is unable to obey God and believe the Creator even in his innocence, when totally enjoying all the benefits of living under God, enjoying His fellowship, and talking with Him face to face.

What more proof of Total Depravity do you want ?

Christ had only one goal in mind, that was to please the Father, to obey God, and to do God's will, and that is because He was conceived of the Holy Spirit, a branch of God, if you will, had the Divine Nature in Him, unlike man, and Adam, who was created from dust.

Christ is the exact opposite of the totally depraved Adam.

I would rethink your position, or go back to whoever you adopted it from, and confront him with that counter-thesis.

 

[Winman]

He is unable to come to God on God's terms, after his fall, and he is unable to obey God and believe the Creator even in his innocence, when totally enjoying all the benefits of living under God, enjoying His fellowship, and talking with Him face to face.

But that is not what the scriptures say. God said Cain could do well if he chose to. Otherwise God's statement to Cain makes no sense whatsoever. And God does not make non-sensical statements.

Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Notice God said "if". This shows Cain could do either good or bad in this situation.

So, while I completely agree that man is sinful (how can that be denied?), the scriptures do not teach that man is 100% evil all the time and is completely unable to do good things at times. And it does not show that Cain needed to be regenerated to do good either. In fact, God's statement to Cain clearly shows he had the ability to make his own choice. And notice God says sin shall desire Cain, but Cain will rule over sin, not the opposite as you say.

And I did not learn this from anyone, I learned it from reading the scriptures and carefully considering exactly what it says. You can read, open your Bible. I am not making this stuff up, it is what the scriptures clearly say.

 

[pinoybaptist]

But that is not what the scriptures say. God said Cain could do well if he chose to. Otherwise God's statement to Cain makes no sense whatsoever. And God does not make non-sensical statements.

Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Notice God said "if". This shows Cain could do either good or bad in this situation.

So, while I completely agree that man is sinful (how can that be denied?), the scriptures do not teach that man is 100% evil all the time and is completely unable to do good things at times. And it does not show that Cain needed to be regenerated to do good either. In fact, God's statement to Cain clearly shows he had the ability to make his own choice. And notice God says sin shall desire Cain, but Cain will rule over sin, not the opposite as you say.

And I did not learn this from anyone, I learned it from reading the scriptures and carefully considering exactly what it says. You can read, open your Bible. I am not making this stuff up, it is what the scriptures clearly say.

winman, I am at work today, and this issue needs a little research. Suffice to say that God's election according to the Bible began before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4; Rev. 13:8).

As I understand it in studying the Bible, there are two types of people in this world, the elect and the unelect, and the unelect are of the lineage of Cain, but like I said, that is the way I understand it, in as far as the lineages are concenrend, and I may be wrong.

I will keep this thread in mind, and come back to it.
When, I do not know, but I will come back to it, because this is interesting to me as well, and this is something I do not hold tenaciously to, and if you can convince me otherwise, well and good.

 

[Winman]

I will keep this thread in mind, and come back to it.
When, I do not know, but I will come back to it, because this is interesting to me as well, and this is something I do not hold tenaciously to, and if you can convince me otherwise, well and good.

Well thank you, that was a kind response. But I am not trying to convince you of anything. I want to know exactly what the scriptures say, God's interpretation of the scriptures, not man's (including my own). And I want all people to know God's interpretation of the scriptures.

I do get frustrated with Calvinist's because they seem to absolutely disregard scripture that is very easily understood to contradict their doctrine. The story of Cain is one such example. It is very clear to me that God himself said Cain could do well and give a sacrifice that would be acceptable to God. God said he would accept it. That is a good thing, how could it not be?

But Calvinism teaches than unregenerate man can do no good work whatsoever. Even that which seems good is not because man does it with an evil motive.

And this is not my opinion, I have read what Calvin himself said.

John Calvin: “For our nature is not only utterly devoid of goodness, but so prolific in all kinds of evil, that it can never be idle. Those who term it concupiscence use a word not very inappropriate, provided it were added, (this, however, many will by no means concede,) that everything which is in man, from the intellect to the will, from the soul even to the flesh, is defiled and pervaded with this concupiscence; or, to express it more briefly, that the whole man is in himself nothing else than concupiscence.” (Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 2, Chapter 1, Section 8)

Calvin says man is utterly devoid of goodness, but that is not what I see in scripture. Jesus said man can do good things.

Luke 11:11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Jesus said we are evil, and we are. But he also said a man can give good gifts to his children, so man is not absolutely devoid of good as Calvin taught.

Jesus showed the unsaved can have a good heart.

Luke 8:15 But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.

Jesus said it is those with an honest and good heart who when hearing his words keep them. A Calvinist will say these person's hearts were first regenerated, but you will find not one word to that effect in this passage. The scriptures teach that a man first hears the word of God, then believes, then receives the Spirit.

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

There is nothing difficult about this verse to understand. A small child could easily understand the order shown here. I asked this question earlier:

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

What occurs first here, repentence or receiving the Holy Ghost? I do not understand how any sincere person could not possibly see that Peter said these men must repent in order to receive the Holy Ghost. But Calvinism teaches that a man is absolutely depraved and cannot possibly repent unless he first receives the Holy Spirit and is regenerated.

So, don't believe me, believe the scriptures. Read for yourself, which comes first, repentence or receiving the Holy Spirit? What does Ephesians 1:13 say? Does it say you receive the Spirit and then believe the word of God when you hear it, or does it say you hear the word of God, believe it, and then receive the Spirit?

I want the scriptures to convince you, not what I say.

 

[davidgeminden]

More comments and questions

Hi Pinoybaptist,
Hi Winman,
Hi Tom Butler,


Your comments describe and reveal what particular theological stand each of you take is interesting to know; however, my opening post (#1) and my second post (#5) reveal that I started this thread in order to get help on interpreting the common statements of faith that I listed in my opening post. I also wanted to learn how different churches write their statements of faith to express each of the four theological stands that I listed in my opening post.


You all appear to have different theological stands, and I assume you all may be attending a church whose statements of faith explicitly express each of your stands. If that is the case, would each of you copy and paste your church's statements of faith that clearly delineate each of your stands. I want to learn how those churches clearly state their stand with minimal verbiage and still be easily understood by the average Christian. Churches usually do not write their statements of faith to be encyclopedic in size. You could list the URLs of your churches, if they have their statements of faith posted online at their websites.

I understand there are other threads started for debating the different theological stands each of you have.


Thanks,

 

[pinoybaptist]

Hi Pinoybaptist,
Hi Winman,
Hi Tom Butler,


Your comments describe and reveal what particular theological stand each of you take is interesting to know; however, my opening post (#1) and my second post (#5) reveal that I started this thread in order to get help on interpreting the common statements of faith that I listed in my opening post. I also wanted to learn how different churches write their statements of faith to express each of the four theological stands that I listed in my opening post.


You all appear to have different theological stands, and I assume you all may be attending a church whose statements of faith explicitly express each of your stands. If that is the case, would each of you copy and paste your church's statements of faith that clearly delineate each of your stands. I want to learn how those churches clearly state their stand with minimal verbiage and still be easily understood by the average Christian. Churches usually do not write their statements of faith to be encyclopedic in size. You could list the URLs of your churches, if they have their statements of faith posted online at their websites.

I understand there are other threads started for debating the different theological stands each of you have.


Thanks,

Our website is under construction, but the below, taken from another PB church, bsically reflects our statement of faith or whatever it is they are called.

Article 1.
We believe in only one true and living God. The Father, Son and The Holy Spirit.

Article 2.
We believe that the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the inspired Word of God and the only rule of faith and practice and we prefer the King James translation.

Article 3.
We believe that all the human race is hereditarily depraved and they are totally unable to extricate themselves from this condition of their own free will and ability.

Article 4.
We believe in the eternal unconditional election of all the saints unto glory.

Article 5.
We believe that the atonement and redemption of Jesus Christ are for the elect only and that they are justified in the sight of God by the imputed righteousness of The son alone.

Article 6.
We believe in the sovereign, irresistible, direct, immediate and ever effectual work of The Holy Spirit in calling, regenerating and sanctifying the elect of God at His own appointed way and time.

Article 7.
We believe that there are those of the elect in every nation, kindred tongue and people and family on earth.

Article 8.
We believe in the final preservation of all the children of God and they will all live with God in glory.

Article 9.
We believe in the resurrection of the dead; the just to eternal joy and happiness; the wicked to shame and everlasting contempt.

Article 10.
We believe that baptism by immersion and The Lord's Supper and washing of feet are ordinances in the church and true believers are the only fit subjects.

Article 11.
We believe that the children of God who are born again, are under law to Christ and it is obligatory upon them to obey this law, that in so doing they receive the blessings promised, but in disobedience they suffer the penalty while here in this world.

Article 12.
We believe that Christ set in the church everything necessary for its happiness and well being and all the modern day additions and auxiliaries are unscriptural and should not be tolerated.

Article 13.
We believe that no minister has a right to the administration of the ordinances, only such as are regularly called and come under the imposition of hands by the presbytery.

 

[Tom Butler]

Yeah, we did sorta stray away from the OP.

Our church is fairly diverse with regard to Calvinism. I would say the majority of our members are non-Cals, with a sprinkling of Cals, of whom I am one.

My preference would be the London Confession of Faith of 1689, but that's not going to happen.

So to accommodate each other, we have adopted the SBC's Baptist Faith and Message as our statement of faith.

One may wonder how Cals and non-Cals can co-exist in a congregation. All I can say is, we do.

 

[davidgeminden]

Our website is under construction, but the below, taken from another PB church, bsically reflects our statement of faith or whatever it is they are called.

Article 1.
We believe in only one true and living God. The Father, Son and The Holy Spirit.

Article 2.
We believe that the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the inspired Word of God and the only rule of faith and practice and we prefer the King James translation.

Article 3.
We believe that all the human race is hereditarily depraved and they are totally unable to extricate themselves from this condition of their own free will and ability.

Article 4.
We believe in the eternal unconditional election of all the saints unto glory.

Article 5.
We believe that the atonement and redemption of Jesus Christ are for the elect only and that they are justified in the sight of God by the imputed righteousness of The son alone.

Article 6.
We believe in the sovereign, irresistible, direct, immediate and ever effectual work of The Holy Spirit in calling, regenerating and sanctifying the elect of God at His own appointed way and time.

Article 7.
We believe that there are those of the elect in every nation, kindred tongue and people and family on earth.

Article 8.
We believe in the final preservation of all the children of God and they will all live with God in glory.

Article 9.
We believe in the resurrection of the dead; the just to eternal joy and happiness; the wicked to shame and everlasting contempt.

Article 10.
We believe that baptism by immersion and The Lord's Supper and washing of feet are ordinances in the church and true believers are the only fit subjects.

Article 11.
We believe that the children of God who are born again, are under law to Christ and it is obligatory upon them to obey this law, that in so doing they receive the blessings promised, but in disobedience they suffer the penalty while here in this world.

Article 12.
We believe that Christ set in the church everything necessary for its happiness and well being and all the modern day additions and auxiliaries are unscriptural and should not be tolerated.

Article 13.
We believe that no minister has a right to the administration of the ordinances, only such as are regularly called and come under the imposition of hands by the presbytery.

Hi pinoybaptist,


Thanks for the list of articles of faith. I assume the PB stands for Primitive Baptist Church. It appears to me that the articles of faith delineates a very clear 5-point Calvinist stand, and only a 5-point Calvinist would be comfortable enough to join a Primitive Baptist Church. Correct me if my conclusions are wrong.


David G.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Hi pinoybaptist,


Thanks for the list of articles of faith. I assume the PB stands for Primitive Baptist Church. It appears to me that the articles of faith delineates a very clear 5-point Calvinist stand, and only a 5-point Calvinist would be comfortable enough to join a Primitive Baptist Church. Correct me if my conclusions are wrong.


David G.

Most 5 point Calvinists will be comfortable, yes, until missions and missionaries and gospel regeneration is discussed, then, they either leave, or sing "I saw the light" with us. lol.

But I have seen many a hard core Arminian come to terms with Doctrines of Grace.

 

[John Toppass]

I feel really sorry for those to whom it seems they are followers of Calvin or Arminius. I truly think that they would be happier and the devil sadder when they start proclaiming and following Jesus Christ.

I realize that there is no way I could ever do anything that would make me gain salvation without God's grace.

I am so thankful that God made this gift of grace to me and it was made to the whole world as stated in His Word. I am thankful that God gave me the free will to accept this gift and become one of His elect.

I am so thankful that by becoming a child of God, that there is no way that I can unbecome His child.

I also am thankful that even when I fail to act as a child of God should, the Comforter, Holy Spirit, makes me realize this and helps me to get back on track.

I am especially thankful that I am not a Calvinist or Arminium or anything in between, left or right. I am a Christian and not one thing Calvin or Arminius came up with was an original thought. (they are not scriptual half the time).

Jesus Christ is who I try to imitate (sometimes poorly) Jesus Christ is the only one I celebrate.

 

[davidgeminden]

Yeah, we did sorta stray away from the OP.

Our church is fairly diverse with regard to Calvinism. I would say the majority of our members are non-Cals, with a sprinkling of Cals, of whom I am one.

My preference would be the London Confession of Faith of 1689, but that's not going to happen.

So to accommodate each other, we have adopted the SBC's Baptist Faith and Message as our statement of faith.

One may wonder how Cals and non-Cals can co-exist in a congregation. All I can say is, we do.

Hi Tom,


I went to the SBC website FAQ page at this URL ( http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/faqs.asp#7 ). The following is question 7 and their answer that I found at the above URL.
<<<<
7. What is the SBC's official view of the doctrine commonly known as "Calvinism?"


The Southern Baptist Convention has not taken an official stance on either Calvinism or Arminianism. If you surveyed Southern Baptists across the nation you would likely find adherents at both ends of the spectrum with plenty at each point in between.”
>>>>


I also found their latest “Baptist Faith and Message” that you referred to at this URL ( http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp#iii ). After reading their “Baptist Faith and Message”, I concluded that a true 5-point Calvinist and a true Arminian would find it almost impossible to agree to it. Even though I am not a member of a Southern Baptist Church, their “Baptist Faith and Message” left me with the impression that true 5-point Calvinists and true Arminians would be few in number in Southern Baptist Churches. It left me with the impression that the four types of Christians that I listed in my opening post would make up the bulk of the membership; they would be: 1) 3-point Calvinists that say they believe in the 5-point Calvinist definition of Total Depravity, Unconditional election and Perseverance of the saints (eternal security) 2) 2-point Calvinists that say they believe in the 5-point Calvinist definition of Total Depravity and Perseverance of the saints (eternal security) 3) pseudo-Arminians that say they believe in the 5-point Calvinist definition of Perseverance of the saints (eternal security) 4) those of the “inherent free will of man” position that say they believe in the 5-point Calvinist definition of Perseverance of the saints (eternal security). Since you attend a church that has adopted the SBC “Baptist Faith and Message” as its statement of faith, what is the distribution that you observe? I also thought the “Baptist Faith and Message” avoided making the implication that the grace of God was irresistible; and it also avoided implying unconditional election and limited atonement.


If to be a member of a Southern Baptist Church, that has the “Baptist Faith and Message” as its statement of faith, it is required to agree with the “Baptist Faith and Message”, how can a true 5-point Calvinists and a true Arminian in good conscience state that he or she agrees with the “Baptist Faith and Message”. In fact, how can a Christian that says he believes in the 5-point Calvinist definition of Total Depravity and Unconditional election in good conscience agree to the SBC “Baptist Faith and Message”? Maybe, it is not required to agree with the SBC “Baptist Faith and Message” to be a member of a Southern Baptist Church? Are there minimal requirements for membership in a Southern Baptist Church that are not listed in the SBC “Baptist Faith and Message”, but are listed in another church document that I do not know about?




David G.

 

[pinoybaptist]

I feel really sorry for those to whom it seems they are followers of Calvin or Arminius. I truly think that they would be happier and the devil sadder when they start proclaiming and following Jesus Christ.

I realize that there is no way I could ever do anything that would make me gain salvation without God's grace.

I am so thankful that God made this gift of grace to me and it was made to the whole world as stated in His Word. I am thankful that God gave me the free will to accept this gift and become one of His elect.

I am so thankful that by becoming a child of God, that there is no way that I can unbecome His child.

I also am thankful that even when I fail to act as a child of God should, the Comforter, Holy Spirit, makes me realize this and helps me to get back on track.

I am especially thankful that I am not a Calvinist or Arminium or anything in between, left or right. I am a Christian and not one thing Calvin or Arminius came up with was an original thought. (they are not scriptual half the time).

Jesus Christ is who I try to imitate (sometimes poorly) Jesus Christ is the only one I celebrate.

Read your statements carefully and then make a study of neo-Arminianism or semi-Pelagianism and you'll find you fit into one of them. And while I am a Doctrine of Grace adherent and not a Calvinist, I will tell you that there is not one Calvinist on this board who will look down at their feet and fidget at being so unkindly referred to as a follower of Calvin.
They are not.

Now, you go a little farther from the altar and look down at your feet and smite your breast and tell the Lord to be merciful to you a sinner instead of looking at others Christ died for and insinuating at their sinfulness for being followers of men, you self-righteous blind hypocrite !

 

[John Toppass]

Read your statements carefully and then make a study of neo-Arminianism or semi-Pelagianism and you'll find you fit into one of them. And while I am a Doctrine of Grace adherent and not a Calvinist, I will tell you that there is not one Calvinist on this board who will look down at their feet and fidget at being so unkindly referred to as a follower of Calvin.
They are not.

Now, you go a little farther from the altar and look down at your feet and smite your breast and tell the Lord to be merciful to you a sinner instead of looking at others Christ died for and insinuating at their sinfulness for being followers of men, you self-righteous blind hypocrite !

It seems as your the one smiting your breast and calling names. This happens often when one has low self-esteem. They try to drag others down to make themselves feel better.

I did not mean to offend you, I stated my belief just as you did but I did not try to belittle you. I tend to think that your feeling of being offended does not come from the heart but from the toes that were stepped on.

I do not call you names, you can try to fit me in any category you like. I am not being self-righteous or hypocritical. I firmly believe that I am to follow Christ and not another man. I firmly believe we as Christians should be doing our best to be classified as a Christ follower. After all, we may be the only chance someone else has to see or hear about Christ.

You are in my prayers and I forgive your attack on me.

 

[pinoybaptist]

It seems as your the one smiting your breast and calling names. This happens often when one has low self-esteem. They try to drag others down to make themselves feel better.

I did not mean to offend you, I stated my belief just as you did but I did not try to belittle you. I tend to think that your feeling of being offended does not come from the heart but from the toes that were stepped on.

I do not call you names, you can try to fit me in any category you like. I am not being self-righteous or hypocritical. I firmly believe that I am to follow Christ and not another man. I firmly believe we as Christians should be doing our best to be classified as a Christ follower. After all, we may be the only chance someone else has to see or hear about Christ.

You are in my prayers and I forgive your attack on me.

alright, i will drop this subject and accept your explanations.