Saying what you believe is clearer than saying Calvinist

[pinoybaptist]

No. It was done independent of man, but it was done so that man would have a way to God.

Hi, Amy.
Thought you may not want to interact with the "bad boy" of BB. lol.
but you are correct. And the way is CHRIST. And the builder of the way is God.

Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. But it was done to draw all men to Christ.
John 3:14-15 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

again, this is a true Scripture. The question is: does it apply to every Tom, Dick and Harry of humankind ? Will every Tom, Dick and Harry of humankind believe ? Obviously, without the Spirit quickening their dead (separated from God) spirits they won't.
Besides, you're not going to accept my take on this, but in reading the Bible I found that whenever the verse refers to salvation or destruction because of an input or absence of one from the subject (in this case, the Israelites, who are a picture of God's elect people), it is in connection with gospel blessings, not eternal redemption.

Was this written to believers?
2 Peter 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.

Peter, under inspiration of the Spirit, cannot be wrong. The letter was written to believers, for believers, about believers. These false teachers were blood-bought and therefore owned by their Redeemer.

If so, do you believe a Christian can lose his salvation?

Only if Christ stands up from His throne, throw out His redeemed already with Him, puff their souls out of existence, and shut the doors of heaven forever more.

You think He will do that ?

 

[Aaron]

I know a Calvinist who evangelizes and witnesses. I have to ask him........why? God has already picked His people out according to Calvinism, so why witness?

That's like asking, why do newlyweds . . . ? —nevermind. You get the picture.

We evangelize and witness because we love the Gospel, we love our fellow man, and we just love witnessing.

It is an especial condescension of God that He has chosen to work His plan of Redemption through the preaching of His creatures.

I guess I'm floored that there are Baptists who do believe in it. Never knew any before.

Actually, the freewill Baptists kind of rank right up there with the snake-handlers in my estimation.

 

[Winman]

Saying "Calvinist" is just as clear.

I love this statement by one of the Calvinists at that site.

Agreed, I hate the term Calvinist because it is often mistaken for what it actually believes

I know what this fellow meant to say, but he got it right anyway.

 

[Amy.G]

Peter was being sarcastic? Man, these answers you Calvinists give to explain away scripture that refutes your doctrine get more ridiculous by the moment. Do you ever stop and really listen to yourself?

Peter did not say these heretics claimed Jesus bought them, Peter himself said the Lord bought them. In fact, Peter said these men denied the Lord.

You beat me to it.

Some say this is a hard passage, but it's only hard to understand if you're looking through the lens of Calvinism.

 

[Amy.G]

Hi, Amy.
Thought you may not want to interact with the "bad boy" of BB. lol.

I always enjoy you Pinoy.

Peter, under inspiration of the Spirit, cannot be wrong. The letter was written to believers, for believers, about believers. These false teachers were blood-bought and therefore owned by their Redeemer.

If these false teachers were redeemed then what is their "swift destruction"?

Only if Christ stands up from His throne, throw out His redeemed already with Him, puff their souls out of existence, and shut the doors of heaven forever more.

You think He will do that ?

No Way!!!



You know I don't agree with you but thanks for being civil. :wavey:

 

[mets65]

So you're saying that the blood of Glory's Lamb, the blood Christ shed, Christ died on that cross, suffered all that pain and humiliation, conquered death, and FINALLY, the effectivity, the efficacy of the blood He shed and the pain He underwent, DEPENDS on the sinner's ability to believe in Him ?



What you guys cannot get, and will never get from what I can see here, is that Jesus Christ's redemption of His people is not hinged on anything else on the part of the sinners He has redeemed, but stands alone and apart from any work or contribution from the redeemed. He redeemed BECAUSE it was His will to do so. He died because HE gave up the ghost, and not from any blow that any weapon can inflict on Him.

You keep quoting Scriptures that were written by believers TO believers and say that applies to every soul on this planet.

If it doesn't depend on us to believe in him then what's the point? What would be the point in Jesus doing what he did if God could just make everyone saved? That's the whole point is that we find ourselves in our unrighteousness missing something and we make the conscience effort to accept him as our savior. God doesn't want a person on this earth to go to hell. No not one. So if Calvinism is true why would he elect just certain people, why not all people? Are you saying he's not powerful enough to save all? Or are you saying that he doesn't love everyone? Or that he loves some more then others? Or is their a capacity limit in heaven? The blood is efficient and sufficient regardless of our choice. If someone chooses to give someone a million dollars in this country but it's up to you to submit your claim to get it, then it's basically being left up to you. It's kind of like look I'm giving you this awesome gift but you've got to at least come get it. Saying that it's man's choice to accept Christ is not in any way downplaying what Christ did for us. It's the simple fact that God gives us the choice, and if we choose not to accept, as foolish as it may be then it's our catastrophic loss. If we don't have the choice then what's the point of even living this life? Look I know not all calvinists are anti-witnessing or anti-missions, but really if God has already elected certain people and they will be saved no matter what, then what's the point?


Like I said the blood is effective, it's up to us to go choose it. God loves us, but like a supreme parent says look I'm not going to make that choice for you, you're going to have to do that.

 

[Winman]

You beat me to it.

Some say this is a hard passage, but it's only hard to understand if you're looking through the lens of Calvinism.

Well, when you are trying to convince yourself that a verse is saying the exact opposite of what it clearly says, it can get a bit confusing.

[image too big]

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

And so the line is drawn......so be it!:thumbs:

 

[Mexdeaf]

I know a Calvinist who evangelizes and witnesses. I have to ask him........why? God has already picked His people out according to Calvinism, so why witness? It's mind boggling. NO, I DO NOT believe in Calvinism, I repeat...........It's un-Biblical. I guess I'm floored that there are Baptists who do believe in it. Never knew any before.

Most Baptists in the early days were Calvinists. It wasn't until Finney came along with his 'new evangelism' that many changed over to the '1-2-3-pray after me' side.

I see it as a return to our Scriptural roots.

 

[mets65]

Most Baptists in the early days were Calvinists. It wasn't until Finney came along with his 'new evangelism' that many changed over to the '1-2-3-pray after me' side.

I see it as a return to our Scriptural roots.

Things typically are suppose to progress with the gain of knowledge though. We don't still believe the world is flat because that's how the earlier generations believed. (And yes I know they didn't think the world was flat when Columbus set sail)

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Most Baptists in the early days were Calvinists. It wasn't until Finney came along with his 'new evangelism' that many changed over to the '1-2-3-pray after me' side.
/QUOTE]

funny stuff MD :laugh:

 

[glfredrick]

A fivefold definition: The definition I am proposing outlines five varieties of hyper-Calvinism, listed here in a declining order, from the worst kind to a less extreme variety (which some might prefer to class as "ultra-high Calvinism"):

A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:
Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR
Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.​

All five varieties of hyper-Calvinism undermine evangelism or twist the gospel message.

A Calvinist is NOT a hyper-Calvinist by definition. Some wish to make it so. In fact, the writer of the article cited above says this:

Finally, some critics unthinkingly slap the label "hyper" on any variety of Calvinism that is higher than the view they hold to. Arminians like to equate all five-point Calvinism with hyper-Calvinism (as Calvary-Chapel author George Bryson does in his horrible little book, The Five Points of Calvinism: "Weighed and Found Wanting" [Costa Mesa: Word for Today, 1996]). That approach lacks integrity and only serves to confuse people.

As people of God, it behooves us to speak truthfully and accurately about our theological position, both our own and that of those around us. Anything else is an outright lie and in violation of the Scriptures that command us to be people of truth.

Let the truth of each position stand or fall on its merits and Scriptural backing, but at least spell out the positions accurately out of respect for those who hold them.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Most Baptists in the early days were Calvinists. It wasn't until Finney came along with his 'new evangelism' that many changed over to the '1-2-3-pray after me' side.
/QUOTE]

funny stuff MD :laugh:

Actually it is heart-breakingly true. :tear:

 

[TCassidy]

You said you were a "Particular Baptist". You further stated you don't like to use the term "Calvinist". Why not? If you think Calvinism is correct, why not use it? The term "Christian" isn't well accepted either in more and more places. You going to start calling yourself something else so you don't upset other people?


You appear to be "braver" than the rest, since no one else has bothered to respond.

As I have stated before, I don't use the term Calvinist for several reasons. The first being that biblical soteriology is much too big to bear the name of any man. The second is when most people hear the term they don't think of the canons of Dort, but of the caricature of those great doctrines they have been taught by equally ignorant men. And, thirdly, I disagree with Calvin on many subjects so it would be inconsistent for me to call myself after a man I have several serious disagreements with.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Actually it is heart-breakingly true. :tear:

Brother, If you knew any serious Welsh Calvinist & saw the unspeakable joy in which they lives & how secure they are in themselves & theirs beliefs, you'd breathe a sigh of relief. We laugh at these guys. Their of no serious consequence & no threat to us.

Besides, Calvinism is on the upswing so Naw, Naw Raspberry....LOL :thumbs:

MD, Im hoping that in my lifetime to see a real HS led revival. There's my focus.

So Relax & Glorify God....thats your charge anyway.

Have a Great Sunday!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

As I have stated before, I don't use the term Calvinist for several reasons. The first being that biblical soteriology is much too big to bear the name of any man. The second is when most people hear the term they don't think of the canons of Dort, but of the caricature of those great doctrines they have been taught by equally ignorant men. And, thirdly, I disagree with Calvin on many subjects so it would be inconsistent for me to call myself after a man I have several serious disagreements with.

So what do you call yourself....Reformed?

 

[Baptist4life]

If it doesn't depend on us to believe in him then what's the point? What would be the point in Jesus doing what he did if God could just make everyone saved? That's the whole point is that we find ourselves in our unrighteousness missing something and we make the conscience effort to accept him as our savior. God doesn't want a person on this earth to go to hell. No not one. So if Calvinism is true why would he elect just certain people, why not all people? Are you saying he's not powerful enough to save all? Or are you saying that he doesn't love everyone? Or that he loves some more then others? Or is their a capacity limit in heaven? The blood is efficient and sufficient regardless of our choice. If someone chooses to give someone a million dollars in this country but it's up to you to submit your claim to get it, then it's basically being left up to you. It's kind of like look I'm giving you this awesome gift but you've got to at least come get it. Saying that it's man's choice to accept Christ is not in any way downplaying what Christ did for us. It's the simple fact that God gives us the choice, and if we choose not to accept, as foolish as it may be then it's our catastrophic loss. If we don't have the choice then what's the point of even living this life? Look I know not all calvinists are anti-witnessing or anti-missions, but really if God has already elected certain people and they will be saved no matter what, then what's the point?


Like I said the blood is effective, it's up to us to go choose it. God loves us, but like a supreme parent says look I'm not going to make that choice for you, you're going to have to do that.

Amen!!! :thumbs:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

If it doesn't depend on us to believe in him then what's the point? What would be the point in Jesus doing what he did if God could just make everyone saved? That's the whole point is that we find ourselves in our unrighteousness missing something and we make the conscience effort to accept him as our savior. God doesn't want a person on this earth to go to hell. No not one. So if Calvinism is true why would he elect just certain people, why not all people? Are you saying he's not powerful enough to save all? Or are you saying that he doesn't love everyone? Or that he loves some more then others? Or is their a capacity limit in heaven? The blood is efficient and sufficient regardless of our choice. If someone chooses to give someone a million dollars in this country but it's up to you to submit your claim to get it, then it's basically being left up to you. It's kind of like look I'm giving you this awesome gift but you've got to at least come get it. Saying that it's man's choice to accept Christ is not in any way downplaying what Christ did for us. It's the simple fact that God gives us the choice, and if we choose not to accept, as foolish as it may be then it's our catastrophic loss. If we don't have the choice then what's the point of even living this life? Look I know not all calvinists are anti-witnessing or anti-missions, but really if God has already elected certain people and they will be saved no matter what, then what's the point?


Like I said the blood is effective, it's up to us to go choose it. God loves us, but like a supreme parent says look I'm not going to make that choice for you, you're going to have to do that.

So the clay tells the potter what makes sense & what he will do now.......forgive me if Im not convinced or impressed by your argument.

 

[mets65]

So the clay tells the potter what makes sense & what he will do now.......forgive me if Im not convinced or impressed by your argument.

The only thing I wish to ask you is why would God deny salvation to a certain number of people?

 

[Winman]

A Calvinist is NOT a hyper-Calvinist by definition. Some wish to make it so. In fact, the writer of the article cited above says this:



As people of God, it behooves us to speak truthfully and accurately about our theological position, both our own and that of those around us. Anything else is an outright lie and in violation of the Scriptures that command us to be people of truth.

Let the truth of each position stand or fall on its merits and Scriptural backing, but at least spell out the positions accurately out of respect for those who hold them.

That article you posted shows why it is a false argument for Calvinists to constanty accuse non-Cals of misrepresenting your position. You have no one position that all who call themselves Calvinist agree to.