Featured The Reason why Calvinists and Arminians cannot agree

Baptist churches have congregational governments. As I look over this web-page:
http://fullgospelbaptist.org/html/collegeofelders.html

It really doesn't seem to be Baptist to me, even though the name "Baptist" is there. Like I said previously, just because a church has the name Baptist, doesn't mean they are.

It was hard to find a good statement of faith on the site.
Truthfully it looked like a "pray with us and give us your money site."

That has as much support as baptismal regeneration and infant baptism, both of which are supported by the ECF.
Nowhere in the Bible do you find "Christus Victor."

The truths of the atonement are found in the Bible, not in history.

I already am in one debate on apostolic succession with a Charismatic. He believes we have apostles today because revelation may continue today and the gifts of the Spirit continue today.

There were 12 apostles. The last apostle was Matthias who fulfilled the office of Judas, as appointed in Acts chapter one. There are 12 foundations in the New Jerusalem. On them will be written 12 names, the names of the 12 apostles--12 and only 12. There is no apostolic succession. The Lord never made any provision for it. The foundation of the church is made of the prophets, the apostles, and Christ, Christ being the chief cornerstone. The church continues to be being built on that foundation, of which the prophets and the apostles are part of.

Is your government like baptist church government? Is it congregational?

What you do is up to you. I am just saying that not everything that calls itself Baptist is.

 

Oh, yes; I've heard of that.

 

And your point is???

No it doesn't. Salvation is through Christ. It is not through Judaism. Christ died for the sins of Cornelius whether or not he was a proselyte. That has no bearing on the story. Both Jews and Gentiles need Christ. That is why Christ had to die.

 

Se my answers above, in red.

 

I red as much as I could find. The site had very little about actual doctrine in which they believed.

This is just your opinion. Again, let me reiterate: There is no "Christus Victor" in the Bible. I don't find "Calvin" in the Bible either. These are people's names. The Bible is Scripture.

That is contradictory. What "apostle" has succeeded from Peter til now? Who is the present one if you believe in succession.

This does not indicate "congregational" to me:

 

The CAC is not the Full Gospel Baptist Church Fellowship. When you asked if we were congregational, weren't you asking about the CAC?

 

Thank you DHK, I did tell the truth. Luke2427 said that he believes a person can be regenerated for "a long time" before he is saved, but did not say how long this is.

I have also posted this statement from V. A. Voorhis an assistant of R. C. Sproul in the past.

source- http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/reformed/regenera.htm

I think most Calvinists would consider R. C. Sproul a "biblical Calvinist".

Icon is not fond of truth.

 

I will just summerize this thread by admitting we all have different prospectives on gospel interpertations.....Duh right!

Let us recall though that in obedience to scripture, we are commanded to obey what is the greatest of Jesus' commandments, the most radical of all of his teaching: Love your enemies.

 

Almost forgot.....if we have to divide, why couldn't we divide over who is doing a better job of feeding widows and orphans?

Happy Columbus Day

Ciao!

 

1. I'm Curious as to where you see corporate Election in the BF&M?

2. Thanks also for the Adam Clarke Link on my old Corporate view of Romans 8:29 thread...I just now saw it after remembering it and searching for it. I must have missed your response earlier. I may resurect it with some follow-up questions. we'll see.

 

Actually, I referred to the 'writers' of the BF&M, not to the document itself, as it was probably the goal of the committee to remain somewhat neutral on such controversial matters so as to avoid causing division in the SBC.

If you read Hershel Hobbs book titled the BF&M where he expounds upon his personal views on the subject (or the work of Adrian Rodgers and others), you will see a more detailed explanation of the corporate view. I can't remember who said what, but I do recall one of them using the analogy of an airplane saying that the pilot may have a predetermined destination, but not necessarily predetermine who will or will not board the plane. Likewise, God has set a predetermined plan for all who enter Christ (whether Jew or Gentile). So, its not that God has predetermined who will or will not believe (enter), but that he has predetermined what will happen to whosoever does believe (enter). Make sense?

No problem. Look forward to discussing if further if you wish.

 

THERE IT IS! The final "Make sense?" And you even used an air-plane story! :smilewinkgrin:

Yes, I do believe the view itself makes sense to me. I believe I understand the basics of what the Corporate Election view proposes. What I don't see much of is clear Biblical support for it in a way that disproves individual election.

The other very large hesitancy is that I have yet to find any proposition of corporate election before Barth...it may be there, but I haven't been able to find it in a few Internet searches.

 

Also, Skan, if you are SBC (I didn't know you were till now)...What is your take on what would be best as far as either uniting and cooperating (Like SaturnNeptune & Tom Butler) or Separating (like EWF & MorseOP)? Which would be best:

1. SBC with lots of churches that are a mix of Cal & Non-Cal?
2. SBC with churches that are definitively either one or the other, but which cooperate for SBC goals?
3. A denominational split for the sake of peace?

 

Well, I hope you know that the corporate view doesn't negate the individual, we just approach the individual from the corporate perspective instead of the other way around. Make sense?

IOW, there are individuals on that plane and those individuals are predestined to adoption, sanctification and glorification. They just weren't previously predestined to become believers while the rest of humanity was left without hope, as Calvinism believes.

Well, there are quotes from early church fathers which certainly seem to support this perspective but, as I'm sure you know, the documented systematized approaches are certainly not as easy to access in those early days.

Plus, the corporate view isn't really a 'system' like Calvinism, in that it doesn't need a full discourse in order to explain away all the apparent contradictions and hard to swallow realties. It is simply a perspective shift regarding how we understand the intent of the author when speaking about predestination and election. And in this perspective there isn't much dilemma or explanations needed. Leo Garrett, in his well known Systematic Theology, wrote this on the subject:

"From Augustine of Hippo to the twentieth century, Western Christianity has tended to interpret the doctrine of election from the perspective of and with regard to individual human beings. During those same centuries the doctrine has been far less emphasized and seldom ever controversial in Eastern Orthodoxy. Is it possible that Augustine and later Calvin, with the help of many others, contributed to a hyper individualization of this doctrine that was hardly warranted by Romans 9-11, Eph. 1, and I Peter 2? Is it not true that the major emphasis in both testaments falls upon an elect people -- Israel (OT) and disciples or church (NT)?"
​

 

I think a combination of 1 and 2 is fine. This tends to only become a conflict when the leader draws a hard line in the sand by attacking the opposing perspective as heretical or a 'false gospel.' I see no practical or logical reason for Calvinists to draw such lines for even by their own dogma they must admit that God has ordained such differences. And as long as Calvinists don't start promoting anti-evangelism (which is not typical in my experience) or start stirring up disunity in the body, I don't see a good reason for non-Cals to draw hard lines either.

 

In past conversations with them I have made it clear that I believe that the Holy Spirit's ministry today is to convict of sin, righteous, and judgment. But that is not good enough. The new birth must take place before salvation, and some times that new birth (regeneration) can take place a great while before the actual time of salvation. I don't see that in Scripture, but that is what some believe.
Like you I believe God can be working in a person's heart to bring that person to regeneration/salvation which are virtually simultaneous.