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

[Van]

You know, that's a lot like what @Van says about you have to have a righteous faith that God credits you with. And everybody gives him a hard time.

Why do Calvinists think making material false statements to protect false doctrine reflects God's will for their lives?
Did I say we have to a "righteous faith" that God credits you with? No, of course not.
I said God credits as righteous faith our worthless, filthy rag faith or not.

Thus this poster provides disinformation to derail any sort of useful discussion of doctrine.

 

[Alan Gross]

The Munster Anabaptists were Baptists (probably closer to Baptists today than Anabaptists)

Right. We're those "madmen" ones even saved? Questionable.

From: Untitled =" The Anabaptists of Munster."

"W. A. Jarrel, in his most excellent book, quotes several historians as to the diversity among those called Anabaptists.

"It is necessary that we understand this if we are going to look at the Munster disorders.

Following is a quote from Jarrel:

"There were several kinds of Anabaptists at the time of the Munster troubles. Says Hase: "These Anabaptists ... were ... a class of enthusiasts resembling each other, but very unlike each other in moral and religious character... Some of them were persons who renounced the world, and others were slaves of their own lusts; to some of them marriage was only an ideal religion communion of spirit; to others it resolved itself into a general community of wives; some did not differ from the reformers with respect to doctrine, but others rejected original sin and the natural bondage of the will, denied that we are to be justified by the merits of Christ alone, or that we can partake of his flesh and maintained that our Lord's body was from heaven, and not begotten of the virgin."

The issue is the term Anabaptist was used to indicate those who bueve in believer's baptism.

The gates of hell did not prevail against them (the term Anabaptist was used to indicate those who believe in believer's baptism.)

Re-Baptizers!

 

[Alan Gross]

Would be better if said you had:

"righteous faith"

Given by God, with Rentance, as Faith in the Object: Jesus Christ and have His Righteousness Credited to you that way.
...

The:

worthless, filthy rag faith

is still:

worthless, filthy rag faith

and only "credited" or deserving of Hell, forever!

The way we see it.

 

[Van]

Would be better if said you had:
Given by God, with Rentance, as Faith in the Object: Jesus Christ and have His Righteousness Credited to you that way.
.
The:
is still:
and only "credited" or deserving of Hell, forever!

The way we see it.

Yes, you deny God's word and do not provide any insight into why God chooses those rich in faith, or those that love God, or those with faith in the truth.

Clearly your way is man-centered nonsense.

 

[Alan Gross]

Given by God, with Rentance, as Faith in the Object: Jesus Christ and have His Righteousness Credited to you

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:" Ephesians 2:8.

I thought you knew that one!

Yes, you deny God's word and do not provide any insight into why God chooses

God has to choose to give Faith, to Abraham or anyone else, and Do the Quickening to ETERNAL LIFE, because our own faith is always dead faith in nothing, until He does.

Ephesians 2:1 "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;"

Just thought I'd throw that in, again.

I believe it.

 

[DaveXR650]

The Munster Anabaptists were Baptists (probably closer to Baptists today than Anabaptists), but I agree their doctrine would not be considered Anabaptist theology.

The point I was making was that Calvin was indeed a man of his time. What we call Baptists today came directly out of Puritanism. Both the free will Baptists and the Calvinistic Baptists. The free will Baptist founders had some traceable influence from Anabaptist groups. If anyone has some information that there was a valid Baptist denomination in 1530 I'd be interested in the source. I'm not saying that there has not always been people who believe in simple faith in Jesus Christ, I'm talking about a traceable group of Baptists, conscious of being "Baptists", from that time period.

 

[DaveXR650]

Why do Calvinists think making material false statements to protect false doctrine reflects God's will for their lives?
Did I say we have to a "righteous faith" that God credits you with? No, of course not.
I said God credits as righteous faith our worthless, filthy rag faith or not.

Thus this poster provides disinformation to derail any sort of useful discussion of doctrine.

I had never heard of that aspect of Calvin's theology. It reminded me of what you say. I do apologize that the comparison offended you. Most people when they come up with some idea get it from somewhere and if you can understand where it will help you understand why they believe like they do.

 

[Van]

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:" Ephesians 2:8.
Snip

God has to choose to give Faith, to Abraham or anyone else, and Do the Quickening to ETERNAL LIFE, because our own faith is always dead faith in nothing, until He does.

God credited HIS, repeat His, repeat His faith, not some one else's faith.

Ephesians 2:1 "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;"

Yes, we are quickened, made alive, regenerated after, repeat after, we are "together" repeat together with Christ, repeat with Christ.

 

[Van]

You posted disinformation. I cannot believe you have never studied Romans 4. God credits (or not as He decides) as righteous faith our worthless, filthy rag faith.

Of course what we think we know comes from valid and invalid undertandings.

We cannot have a useful discussion unless you address my actual views, not bogus ones you invent and attribute to me.

 

[Alan Gross]

I'm not saying that there has not always been people who believe in simple faith in Jesus Christ

To be Baptist-like we would look for believer's baptism, also.

I'm talking about a traceable group of Baptists, conscious of being "Baptists", from that time period.

I don't know of one before 1550.

"Eythorne Baptist church," says Mr. Davies in the letter already referred to, "was founded not later than 1550.

Joan Boucher, or Joan of Kent, was a member of this church. She was a lady of means, a zealous Christian, and on May 2d, 1550, she was led to the stake. The church still exists.

"Braintree, sometimes spoken of as Bracking and Braintree, but now known by the one name, is in Essex, and the church was existing here in 1550, and still exists."

http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/shackelford.compendium.list.html

I don't know of anyone that has ever claimed that the name "Baptist" is essential to a search for " like faith and order" churches.

Ana-Baptists were called that because they baptized all those saved folks who had some other 'baptism', as not being valid.

Eventually the "Ana", or "Re"-Baptiser, was dropped and became the name "Baptist".

 

[Alan Gross]

I see this:

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:" Ephesians 2:8.

The same as: "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." Romans 4:5.

And the opposite of this addition to the Book:

Yes, we are quickened, made alive, regenerated after, repeat after, we are "together" repeat together with Christ, repeat with Christ.

This sentence is self-contradictory:

as righteous faith our worthless, filthy rag faith.

Crazy.

 

[DaveXR650]

Ana-Baptists were called that because they baptized all those saved folks who had some other 'baptism', as not being valid.

But there are major theological differences beyond believers baptism. What we call Ana-Baptists historically, had a whole different set of beliefs and would not recognize present day Baptists or even guys like Bunyan. They tried to follow the the Sermon on the Mount in a more literal way than we do and they had no concept of eternal security as modern Baptists do. In the early days of the Calvinistic resurgence of the Young, Restless and Reformed, there was a move to try to reconnect with Anabaptism as a way to feel valid and to counter the argument that Calvinists were making that modern day Baptists had strayed off the path of what Baptist should mean - Calvinistic.

I'm not against Anabaptism or Mennonites. I have some of their books that I got at the museum in Berlin, Ohio. We could learn a few things from them and from people like the Moravians. I was in a United Missionary Church growing up and it had a Mennonite influence and had some of the best Christians in it I ever saw.

If I remember right, the Baptists that came out of the Puritan era were divided into Calvinistic and Arminian. The Arminian side split in two with one side being more influenced by the Anabaptist and Moravian theology. It's been a while. I could try to dig that up.

 

[Van]

I see this:
The same as: "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." Romans 4:5.
And the opposite of this addition to the Book:
This sentence is self-contradictory:
Crazy.

Thus our faith in God, who justifies the ungodly, is counted as righteousness or righteous faith.

 

[Alan Gross]

Getting there:

Thus our faith in God, who justifies the ungodly, is counted as righteousness or righteous faith.

But it still looks like you're saying, "Hi God, my righteousness is as filthy menstrual rags, but You are going to credit me with the Perfect Righteousness of the Virgin Born Son of God Who Obtained it, by Living under the Law, without sin, because I'm bringing You my worthless, filthy rag faith."

I don't get that.

What happens to "sin"?

 

[Alan Gross]

In the early days of the Calvinistic resurgence of the Young, Restless and Reformed, there was a move to try to reconnect with Anabaptism as a way to feel valid and to counter the argument that Calvinists were making that modern day Baptists had strayed off the path of what Baptist should mean - Calvinistic.

I found this to be decent: The Church in the Wilderness;
or, The Baptists Before the Reformation
by W.[illiam] W.[allace] Everts, Jr.

It starts out:

"The Acts of the Apostles are the most wonderful chapter in church history. Inspired by the great commission, as flaming heralds, the apostles bore the glad tidings to all nations; Bartholomew, east to India;

"Thomas, north to Parthia; Paul, west to Italy and Spain; while the rest labored within this wide circumference, Peter in Babylon, Philip in Phrygia, and Mark the Evangelist at Alexandria.

"Before the first generation had passed away, Asia, Africa, and Europe had heard the word; and churches were established in the chief provinces and cities of the Roman Empire. Planted in the centers of the population, these churches stood as outposts of the sacred army that sought new conquests and universal empire.

"But opposition to the new and aggressive religion, in the heart of man, in the customs of society, in false faiths, in jealous despotisms, grew by the corruption of the religion itself, and was embodied in Antichrist-the great Dragon which persecuted the church with inappeasable rage, opening the dungeon, lighting the fagot, inventing the horrors of the Inquisition, enlisting armies to ravage the lands of the faithful, to burn down their dwellings, and drive them from their homes.

"Persecution followed persecution with increasing severity, and it seemed as though the new faith would be exterminated. Diocletian boasted that it was, and recorded his boast on a tablet of brass.

"But it was explicitly promised that the church should not be destroyed.

"She did not perish, but was only hidden in the wilderness to which she had fled to escape the rage of the dragon, to be nourished there a time, times, and half a time, until she might reappear among the cities, states, and empires of the world unchallenged by Antichrist..."

 

[DaveXR650]

I found this to be decent: The Church in the Wilderness;
or, The Baptists Before the Reformation
by W.[illiam] W.[allace] Everts, Jr.

Thanks Alan. I'd like to look into the history more if I have time. As I get older people tend to put you there anyway. A few years ago my grandson was heard telling one of his friends "You know who Ivanhoe was, don't you. Pa says he was a knight. I think it was in the '70's."

 

[Van]

Getting there:


But it still looks like you're saying, "Hi God, my righteousness is as filthy menstrual rags, but You are going to credit me with the Perfect Righteousness of the Virgin Born Son of God Who Obtained it, by Living under the Law, without sin, because I'm bringing You my worthless, filthy rag faith."
I don't get that.
What happens to "sin"?

Calvinists make it impossible to discuss biblical doctrine because they ignore the actual doctrine under discussion and construct bogus views to knock down. Do we tell God, "you are going to credit me?" Nope, God decides whose faith to credit, we do not. The bible says the choice is God's and the Calvinists continually claim we are saying we merit the choice. Totally false and a deliberate effort to deny the biblical doctrine presented in God's word. Thus we never make any progress in discussing God's actual doctrine.

 

[Van]

Does God tell us to believe in Him? John 3:16, John 6:29
Does God tell us salvation does not depend of the person who wills to be saved, but upon God? Romans 9:16
Does Paul speak as to men of flesh using spiritual milk? 1 Corinthians 3:1-3
Does God credit the faith of some and then bestow gracious benefits? Romans 4:23-25

Does Calvinism deny all these doctrines? Go figure

 

[Alan Gross]

The bible says the choice is God's and the Calvinists continually claim we are saying we merit the choice. Totally false and a deliberate effort to deny the biblical doctrine presented in God's word.

If you say you do not merit the choice, do agree with this statement, that the preaching of the Gospel's PURPOSE IS SUPERNATURALLY BLESSED?

from: The New Testament Church (pg. 49)

I believe that the Great Commission of "going into all the world and preaching the gospel to every creature", is supernaturally blessed of God.

The worst enemy of it is the “Do something religious” evangelism.

Paul said to the Philippian jailer, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.”

Do you know what this drives into the mind of the natural man?

He thinks, “That is the only act that I have to perform?

How easy!” That is not instructing the jailor to perform an act.

Faith is not an action. It produces actions, but it is not an act.

It is a state of the soul that is created by the Holy Spirit, through the instrumentality of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

But the transformation is performed by God.

Repentance is not a natural act, or series of actions.

It too, is the state of the soul that is wrought by God.

It is a condition, an attitude of the soul, that is created through the work of God, and we are instrumental in these elements of salvation, by preaching the gospel. We are to do the preaching of the gospel."

 

[Van]

Calvinists make it impossible to discuss biblical doctrine because they ignore the actual doctrine under discussion and construct bogus views to knock down. Do we tell God, "you are going to credit me?" Nope, God decides whose faith to credit, we do not. The bible says the choice is God's and the Calvinists continually claim we are saying we merit the choice. Totally false and a deliberate effort to deny the biblical doctrine presented in God's word. Thus we never make any progress in discussing God's actual doctrine.

Our faith in God, who justifies the ungodly, is counted as righteousness or righteous faith.

Liberals redefine words rather than submit to God's word as intended. The say saved by grace through faith does not mean God utilizes our faith in His gracious salvation. On and on folks, on and on.