Featured Are forms other than Calvinism & Arminanism debate form to be C & A debate?

Baptism has nothing to do with salvation...if you're a Baptist. If we open soteriology to non-baptists then you open up salvation via sacraments. (ie baptism as the means of salvation)

 

Most Baptists would doubt the salvation of someone who refused to be baptized yet claimed to be saved. And they will not be allowed to join the church. Some of the church fathers we use in debate or name ourselves after seemed to believe baptism was a requirement for salvation. I you'll challenge someone's salvation for thinking they decided to believe then I would think baptism would be fair game also.

 

I would argue that baptism is an effect of salvation based upon obedience. It is not required for salvation. If it was, then Jesus lied to the thief on the cross.

 

The One I don’t want to doubt my salvation is the Lord God.

 

The Calvinists constantly post Calvinist doctrine as thread openers. They just do not use the words " Calvinism" or "TULIP."
And the Calvinists constantly charge anti-Calvinist views as wrong, bringing the debate into any biblical discussion. This has been allowed for years.

 

I don’t believe in Calvinism; I discussed it for years; it’s a waste of time; I don’t want to discuss it again. Of course you can all discuss it as you wish.

 

For example, here is part of the Thread Opener in a recent thread by a Calvinist:

So who or what is the 'whole world' in verse 2? It cannot be every single person in the world, because if Christ has propitiated the Father towards every single person and is interceding for them, then they will all be saved, which we know is not the case.​

This is claiming the Calvinist misreading of 1 John 2:2 is valid. And this was not posted in the C&A forum.

 

Noted, Sliverhair.

 

What you don't like me pointing out your errors.

 

Well....the debate has to begin somewhere, and the OP gets to decide.

 

But that's the trouble. It never stays on the original subject. The moderators should move threads that would be better on a different forum. And the OP should have the right to state that something is off the original subject, or let it go if they want.

 

Seems like that name would fit! That's about how they act!

 

The gospel of Grace vs the gospel of Works would be the equivalent of Calvinism vs Everybody else.

 

Austin there is not much grace in the WCF, LBCF or the DoG.

 

I bet he's the same guy that taught the class on the atonement. Just kidding.

 

@JonC . Someday. I wish somebody with a theological background, who is fairly neutral, would write book about the Calvinistic resurgence that took place in the last 30 years. For laymen, like most of us on here, it has been confusing and has left a lot of animosity that will not disappear in my lifetime I'm sure. This may be off topic but I think it explains some of the stuff you see. I just got to thinking about that when you mentioned your professor. I wonder if this started in theology departments or was it grass roots?