I can’t see how Baptists could adopt Calvinism as a label when Calvinism is clearly distinguishable to Reformed Protestants, not Baptists.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Temporal Salvation
- Thread starter Earth Wind and Fire
- Start date
Then they are phonies
I don’t use the acrostic at all, nor do I use the label ‘Calvinist’ primarily because it does not even begin to represent what it means to be a total Christian. Rather, it is a total and radical change of worldview, of vision, heart, mind and soul.I agree, however, as James would contend, the works are integral to the faith. One is not separated from the other.
True faith results in works.
Works does not result in true faith.
Hence, when I share the gospel, I present the view of the tulip (modified -L) with the view of the P being two in a pod.
eucharisteo
New Member
Earth Wind, and Fire ask, "is the subject matter credible to Orthodox?"
Yes, because it strikes at the very heart of the gospel. What did Jesus die for if he didn't die to secure the salvation of his elect...
The Lord Jesus uttered the words, "Tetelestai." "It is finish." Jn 19:30
If Christians can still walk away Jesus's Death on the cross failed and was useless to acoomplish its goal.
Yes, because it strikes at the very heart of the gospel. What did Jesus die for if he didn't die to secure the salvation of his elect...
The Lord Jesus uttered the words, "Tetelestai." "It is finish." Jn 19:30
If Christians can still walk away Jesus's Death on the cross failed and was useless to acoomplish its goal.
eucharisteo
New Member
Earth Wind, and Fire,
What do you believe about this topic?
What do you believe about this topic?
When I am dealing with one who has not come to Christ, then I don't either.
And, the acrostic doe not even mention the work of the Holy Spirit and agree that is not it representable of "what it means to be a total Christian," for it make no mention of maturing which involves such things as building a reliance upon God based on a history of the believers own recognition that in all matters He directs the paths and other matters.
I use it on the BB (but rarely anywhere else) because in 5 letters it mostly represents my views. I typically have to express, though, that my understanding is different when it comes to the "L" being a limit of atonement, for I place the limit not on the blood but of God's own authority of endowment of belief. And, as I mentioned before, the stuttering "P" because I hold to both the preservation by God of his own and the perseverance of His own in God.
What I do not like is that some, who have some issue with the doctrines of Grace, attempt to place all that use the acrostic into a narrow binding. Sort of like that same type of issue when it comes to placing all dispensational thinking or premillennialism as if it all came from Darby or holds to the Darby scheme presented on the BB.
I view dispensation as a way of outlining, and I place doctrine upon the need to be pre-millennial. But that is another thread.
I am still sorting that out.
The Scriptures present the death, burial and resurrection where not for a select few.
That there is a Broadway as compared to that narrow footpath of redemption does not frustrate that reconciliation is available for all.
eucharisteo
New Member
earth wind and fire states, "I can’t see how Baptists could adopt Calvinism as a label when Calvinism is clearly distinguishable to Reformed Protestants, not Baptists."
First,
Baptists are protestants and men like Charles Spurgeon, John Gill, Andrew Fuller, and Adonarim Judson were Baptists and Calvinists...
Baptists originated from England in the 17th century.
The 2 branches of Baptists at that time were General and Particular; Particular Baptists were Calvinists.
First,
Baptists are protestants and men like Charles Spurgeon, John Gill, Andrew Fuller, and Adonarim Judson were Baptists and Calvinists...
Baptists originated from England in the 17th century.
The 2 branches of Baptists at that time were General and Particular; Particular Baptists were Calvinists.
Not all "baptists" originated in England in the 1600's.
Roger Williams was the originator of the Baptist churches in America. He came out of (or was forced out depending on the point of view) the Church of England.
No Baptists I am aware of originated with the RCC. Do Baptists jump the sacramental hoops that Catholics and Protestants do? Do they
Baptise babies and sprinkle adult converts? I don’t think so. So I reject any inference that we are affiliated in any way to Protestants.
Last edited:
Church of England to being a Puritan to being a Baptist. I’d say he was a convert.
My reason for looking at Temporal Salvation is 2 fold...one some very serious Christians I know (who will remain nameless) firmly believe in it. I would really love to hear their explainations however I realize they may take some heat, particularly from “ The Calvinistic inclined”
Two, I am not looking for contentious debate ... one that turns into rock throwing. What I’m looking for is clarification so I can make a decision.
EWF!... If you don't mind me asking, what decision do you need to make?... If you feel uncomfortable answering here you can always PM me... I already started a PM for just us two... Brother Glen
Imo, the temporal salvation is related to physical salvation from the world and worldly aspects that seek to destroy, mar, hinder... the walk and life of the believer. In that aspect, there is both the eternal preservation aspect and the believer obligation of perseverance.
But there is another aspect that may or may not be related to the thread.
Back in the early 1800's there was a thinking that considered salvation was "time" oriented. That is, the salvation of a person was not established from God, but was according to the timeline of human history.
OT saints were not saved until the blood was shed, the Christ had died, the resurrection had been accomplished, and then the OT saints could accept or reject the salvation. Sometimes, one might hear a preacher rattle about the Christ having to preach to the OT folks between His death and resurrection, and sometimes they will lift out of context passages about how hell "enlarged itself" after the redeemed were removed so that others not saved would find room available and could enjoy the torments.
However, that human time oriented thinking was in conflict with both the statements of Scriptures (Abraham being righteous while still alive) and the statements concerning the Lord Jesus Christ slain before or from the foundations of the world (before time began).
The time oriented salvation is just not scripturally sound.
Before human time began, Christ was already slain.
Before human time began, God had already appointed (elected) those whom He would redeem.
Before human time began, Eternity was, is, and will always be.
Why then are some so very desirous to refuse the plain evidences of Scripture and adopt some human time oriented salvation view?
Because the temporal is all they have to offer. They cannot offer a God that is Sovereign over time, space, existence, and purposes all things to His good pleasure and according to His authority. Such folks must have a God that is unaware of the future, who is not certain how large to make the eternal lake of fire and the new heaven and earth. They must place the aspects of human physics to constrain the one who designed the universe and can only perceive and have a concept of that which is earthy and earthly minded.
But there is another aspect that may or may not be related to the thread.
Back in the early 1800's there was a thinking that considered salvation was "time" oriented. That is, the salvation of a person was not established from God, but was according to the timeline of human history.
OT saints were not saved until the blood was shed, the Christ had died, the resurrection had been accomplished, and then the OT saints could accept or reject the salvation. Sometimes, one might hear a preacher rattle about the Christ having to preach to the OT folks between His death and resurrection, and sometimes they will lift out of context passages about how hell "enlarged itself" after the redeemed were removed so that others not saved would find room available and could enjoy the torments.
However, that human time oriented thinking was in conflict with both the statements of Scriptures (Abraham being righteous while still alive) and the statements concerning the Lord Jesus Christ slain before or from the foundations of the world (before time began).
The time oriented salvation is just not scripturally sound.
Before human time began, Christ was already slain.
Before human time began, God had already appointed (elected) those whom He would redeem.
Before human time began, Eternity was, is, and will always be.
Why then are some so very desirous to refuse the plain evidences of Scripture and adopt some human time oriented salvation view?
Because the temporal is all they have to offer. They cannot offer a God that is Sovereign over time, space, existence, and purposes all things to His good pleasure and according to His authority. Such folks must have a God that is unaware of the future, who is not certain how large to make the eternal lake of fire and the new heaven and earth. They must place the aspects of human physics to constrain the one who designed the universe and can only perceive and have a concept of that which is earthy and earthly minded.
I wish I knew. I have a sister in law who I thought was saved till she started to contradict scripture and move in the wrong direction biblically and embrace worldly positions.... but she was saved!?! Or was she? I don’t know how to process it. I don’t even know how to view myself... I sometimes willingly sin. Why???? Glenn there are too many questions I don’t have answers to.EWF!... If you don't mind me asking, what decision do you need to make?... If you feel uncomfortable answering here you can always PM me... I already started a PM for just us two... Brother Glen
Since Primitive Baptists deny that there are any conditions, even faith or repentance, for "eternal salvation," the idea of "temporal salvation" is there answer to all the places where men are told to do something and be saved (repentance, faith, baptism, etc.). They also depart from traditional Calvinism because they reject Absolute Predestination but still affirm TULIP with some modification on the I and P.
eucharisteo
New Member
agedman states, "and...Not all "baptists" originated in England."
Sir, Baptists about 1609 beginned in England with aman name John Smith. Later, Henry Jacobs with the Particular Baptists. Roger Williams started a Baptist Church here in America, but before this Baptists had all ready started and spreaded?
Sir, Baptists about 1609 beginned in England with aman name John Smith. Later, Henry Jacobs with the Particular Baptists. Roger Williams started a Baptist Church here in America, but before this Baptists had all ready started and spreaded?
Based on my research, most modern Baptists owe their origins to men like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et al who came out of the Roman Catholic Church in the Protestant Reformation. All of the histories I have read trying to prove the opposite are less than convincing. Even if it could be proven (which it has not) that there have always been Baptists, what would it prove? Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and some Anglicans and Lutherans claim "Apostolic Succession" to validate their claims, but what does it prove in those cases? Are we really going to reduce our argument for truth on that?
Agreed, as holding to eternal predestination as the PB do would mean that the stated need to receive jesus thru faith is no longer required!