Why?

These teachings bring unity in churches who are confessional.They believe these teachings are the biblical teaching. It is simple.:thumbs::thumbs:

Those outside those churches are divisive. Look what happens here on BB....the confessional brothers are 90% on the same page...small differences but overall unity.:thumbs:

 

In a confessional,Calvinistic Baptist church they would be warmly welcomed to join the congregation. However, if people do not agree with the 1689, for instance they could not become members.

Doesn't that make perfect sense? They wouldn't be refused the right to fellowship and sit under preaching and teaching --but there would have to be a unity of faith and not agreeing wth a particular confession of faith would preclude them from membership.

The folks would understand --it would be a commonly known fact.

 

In most Reformed Baptist Churches that I know a non-Calvinist can join the church so long as they agree not to advance doctrines contrary to what they church believes. It is that way in my church. The exception is for church officers who must have full subscription to the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith.

 

You display a woeful lack of knowledge of church history. Calvinism's roots go back to Augustine of Hippo. Calvin gets a doctrine named after him only because his teaching on predestination and election was post-Reformation. It was more relevant than Augustine's.

Unity? The church that came out of the Reformation was solidly Augustinian (Calvinistic). Arminian dominance came much later. So, using your logic, it was the Arminians who introduced disunity into the Church.

Sanctification is impacted by erroneous doctrine. What gave you the impression that it was not? A person may be saved even if they hold to an incorrect understanding of a biblical issue. While their error may not imperil their soul, it could stunt their level of sanctification.

 

Biblical error gives someone an improper understanding of theology, would you not agree? Do you not believe Calvinism is wrong and that those who follow it are also wrong? Ergo, if someone believes error it is going to effect their Christian growth, i.e. their level of sanctification. I am not talking rocket science here.

 

Yep, agreed. :thumbs:

 

The Person of the Lord jesus, and the Bible itself is what we can bring in agreement on, correct?

Or was there no general agreement in the Body until the Confessions came around then?

 

What do you think?

 

Yeshua1

No...incorrect:thumbsup:

3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

Think that once again you are making statements not based on anything you can support:thumbsup:

What was agreed upon? Can you show it? Can you back up your statement, or are you going to hide like a turtle?

What was the "general agreement"? show it...or explain with scripture....:wavey: just waving in case I do not see you again.:laugh:

 

I ask myself one question when I study what is termed T.U.L.I.P. Is it doctrinal? Calvin may have coined the term but is it doctrinal? Does the bible backup T.U.L.I.P. It doesn't matter to me what others say about it or against it. Is it doctrinal? Does T.U.L.I.P and its 5 points stand because it is doctrine or fall because according to scripture it is in error? Each man or woman must decide for themselves what is truth and what is untruth to their own understanding according to the enlightenment that the Lord has given each of them. I know where I stand on the first point of T.U.L.I.P! If I add leaven to a doctrinal point that is unleavened then the doctrine I created becomes an untruth creating domino effect and the whole thing falls every point one by one. I definitely believe in Total Depravity and believe it is biblical before John Calvin saw the light of day. With that belief all the other point fall into place and meld as a whole. It is ALL the work of Christ or none of the work of Christ he needs the sinners help. Then I remember the forgiven thief on the cross and REJOICE!. Like always say "Consider what I say and The Lord Giveth Thee The Understanding

 

Cleland Boyd McAfee minted the acrostic in 1905 --286 years after the Canons of Dort were finalized.

 

OK!... :thumbsup:

 

Let's make sure we have the same understanding of sanctification. Christians are being progressively sanctified. In other words we are constantly in the process of becoming more like our Savior. Sometimes it is 3 steps forward and 2 steps backwards, but the Holy Spirit is always at work conforming us to into the image of Christ (Eph. 4;15; Phil 1:6).

One of the things that can hamper our sanctification is a misunderstanding of the scriptures, which leads to sin. As a Calvinist I am not simply content to believe in the doctrines of grace, I am compelled to teach them so that others will believe them too. Why? Because I believe Synergism is wrong. I believe those that hold to it vex themselves with with a free will theology that produces a flawed understanding of God. By affirming their doctrine, and teaching it to others, they are propagating their error.

Now, I know Synergists who believe the same thing about me and those of my ilk. They believe we are in error, and that by teaching our doctrine to others we are leading them into error. Our error can only result in a wrong understanding of how God operates. Maintaining such systemic error can have a negative impact on my Christian walk, even if I do not recognize the impact.