Featured Calvinist Confusion

I have no problem being called a Calvinist because I know what is meant by the term. Charles Spurgeon understood it's meaning to be more narrow than embracing the totality of Calvin's theology. I have advanced beyond being upset when opponents of Calvinism call me a determinist or fatalist. A person can call me whatever they want. I simply refuse to argue from another person's premise. In most of the debates on the BB that I have participated in about Calvinism, I have tried to offer a biblical defense. I just choose to ignore pejorative statements since they are wholly subjective and expose my interlocutor's inability to engage in a meaningful debate. For a time I used the terms Monergist and Synergist in substitution of Calvinist and Arminian but I finally came to the conclusion it was naught else than stepping on eggshells. I have since decided to pick and choose which discussions to participate in. I am still of the opinion that the real audience for these discussions are those who read them but seldom post. That makes engaging and disengaging from BB discussions much easier.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

Charles Spurgeon must have been ahead of his time, as he viewed Calvinism as synonymous with the doctrines of grace. He saw the term's meaning as self-evident when used in a Baptist context. Truthfully, how many regulars on the BB do not know what is meant by Calvinism? Any Baptist who believes in infant baptism and Presbyterian ecclesiology is not a Baptist, so the use of the term among Baptists is just as narrow as Spurgeon's use of the word in the 19th-century.

 

So you would thus deny that the Fall made it impossible for sinful humans to believe on their own in Jesus to get saved then?

 

Do you hold to original Sin as affecting all humans with a sin nature, and thus Jesus had to be Virgin Born to bypass being effected by it?

 

Doctrines of Grace is what most Calvinistic Baptists though would be in agreement with, not Presbyterian aspects of John Calvin, nor of Covenant theology proper!

 

Calvinism among Baptists circles would be excluding those things such as infant baptism, and also to the use of Confessions, as those holding to use of Confessions tend to hold to Covenant theology proper, save for the infant issue!

 

So Jesus was born with same sin nature that we all were?

 

So he then would have a sinful nature...

 

Maybe try highlighting God did so love the WORLD! The verse doesn't say for God so loved those in the world he had already elected.

 

Do we have a sin nature?

 

Of course it doesn't. But Calvinists have their own definitions for Biblical words.

All: The elect
Draw all Men: Regenerate the Elect
Everyone: The elect
Whosoever: The elect
World: The elect

Mystery: The way God decrees sin but is not responsible for it.
Mystery (2): Any theological issue held to by Calvinists that contradicts scripture and they cannot explain.

As to John 3:16, the Calvinist's dictionary has this:

John 3:16: Enigmatic verse. One must be a scholar to properly understand this passage. James White’s unbiased insights are recommended.

 

Alright, exegete this verse...

He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.[John 1:10]

 

Alright, explain these two verses...

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.“[John 3:16]

I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours;[John 17:9]