Featured What I wish the other side understood

I was referring to a verse that states we are born of the Spirit.Not regeneration before FAITH.
Joh 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
MB

 

What does that have to do with posting here, amongst brothers and sisters?

 

That is a popular assertion. But the promise is not to have one's name blotted out (Revelation 3:5).

 

In Britain, you struggle to find many Christians of any sort, and struggle a whole lot more to find Reformed Christians.
But, in England at least, there are more Reformed Baptists than Reformed Presbyterians. Presbyterianism is only strong in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

 

no regular Baptists? Are you in like Cornwall ?

What dominates Wales?

 

Bob, which is why I used the Monergist/Synergist terminology. Some Baptists associate Calvinism with infant baptism. Some like to cite Servetus as a reason for disliking the name. Still, others just do not like anything that is named after a person. While the modern use of the term means strictly the Reformed view of salvation, not everyone agrees with that. Likewise with Arminianism. There are those who reject the term because they believe it means one can lose their salvation. Again, it is named after a man.

Now, as to why some will not even use the terms Monergist/Synergist, those reasons are a bit more revealing. First, there are those like @HankD who simply do not know what they believe. I have to accept Hank's explanation on face value. Second, these two theological terms provide no cover to stand behind. By accepting the term Monergist, a person is saying that they believe the Holy Spirit is the only agent who effects regeneration of Christians. By accepting the term Synergist, a person is saying that they believe salvation is cooperative (God + man). To expect that level of transparency among most members of the Baptist Board is unrealistic. They will still claim those terms do not describe them. The funny part is that when you ask them to describe their respective views of salvation they come down squarely on one view or the other. There is no avoiding it, but refusing to be defined gives them the "out" of plausible deniability.

 

It's a miraculous change in nature that makes us crave holiness and abhor sin. It's like changing a cat into a dog.

 

It is just choosing to do the right thing in free will. If we choose to do the wrong thing it is easie to continue and go to more depraved behavior, just a we mature in Christ is actually continuing to choose the correct action .

When we are saved then we then have the information and longing to do correctly.

 

You must believe (be saved according to Jesus) before you can choose to comply, otherwise you would not.

 

one can't have something in order to get get the same thing.

When we understand our need and Jesus is the only one that can saved us, we choose to comply and believe that He can and will save. It is free will decision

 

What I want the other side to understand: I've enjoyed my time here love you all, even if we don't always agree on the issue this sub forum is devoted to.

 

Thank you Reformed for believing me (or so it seems).

"when you ask them to describe their respective views of salvation they come down squarely on one view or the other. There is no avoiding it, but refusing to be defined gives them the 'out' of plausible deniability":

I cannot believe that God is not sovereign.
I cannot believe man has not free will.

Compounding the two:
I cannot believe that man has not free will and/or that God being omnipotent and omni everything else is powerless to give each and every individual that ability to choose WITHOUT VIOLATING HIS SOVEREIGNTY.

It is true I have vacillated over the years and in reality I suppose I can be categorized as simultaneously being Monergist/Synergist - yes impossible but then again - "with God ..."
But I am now settled in and feel comfortable in my position.

The LORD is my "out".

My test for fellowship puts
the Fruit of the Spirit first.
Correct doctrine (TALK - apart from Monergist/Synergist,).
Practice (WALK).

This is not a challenge but my true witness before the LORD.

I am sure I am not alone.

 

I do believe you. I said "face value" because I am taking you at your word.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

I do not consider you taking either position. I consider you be undecided. That is much different than those who have a firm position.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

Thanks.

 

Well said, likewise I reject the either/or claims of such definitions which are typically meant to bolster one's own position. I see the Synergist/Monergist definitions as nothing more than a teaching tool of the Determinist view that amounts to a roundabout way to impose that their opposition believes they save themselves and thus merely offering a fallacious false dilemma. Or in short, a way to say, "you accept the term, gotcha"...

 

Gimme that old soft shoe, that old soft shoe...