Please tel me that you agree w it?
and that it is not just a Presbyterian Doctrine
-
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!
2 Thess. 2:13-14, What does it say? pt2
- Thread starter Iconoclast
- Start date
- Status
Please tel me that you agree w it?
and that it is not just a Presbyterian Doctrine
It is the biblical teaching. God has revealed those component parts to the church.
Point 1 -
The reason that God chose Jacob was because he was born second. God gives us visuals of spiritual truths all through his scriptures. This second birth began with Abel. Then it was Shem. Afterward, it was Isaac instead of Ishmael, Jacob instead of Esau. It was Jesus instead of Israel. In case you do not think Jesus is the second born son of God check this out.
Ex 4:21 And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.
22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:
23 And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.
Point 2
Whether his so called act of sovereign choice is an act of gracious love will depend on who you talk to, seems to me. I bet when that fellow who was not sovereignly chosen to be saved but sovereignly chosen to be on fire forever and forgotten of God might not appreciate God's gracious love. You guys are sick.
Point 3
Your point 3 affirms my counterpoint of point 2.
You are extra biblical. You are presenting a teaching the scriptures do not mention. You are adding to the word of God.
Look at this and learn something;
Joh 7:14 Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught.
15 And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?
16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
18 He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.
You fellows speak of yourselves, that you are special to God above other sinners and you seek your own glory. Why else would you be on here daily trying to convince others of your special status with God? Jesus said if any man will do his (god the Father's) will, he shall know of God the Father's doctrine.
God has commanded all men every where to repent on the one hand and he has commanded all men to believe on the other, and you say in your doctrine you have done neither.
According to Jesus himself it was God the Father who put the condition in verse 17, which you will deny is there, and it is he that put the operative words of WILL DO his will, making doing those things a choice to obey him. The sovereignty of the will in this case has been transferred to the hearer.
That is what it means.
Calvinists have offered two ways of viewing God's activities with man - dispensationalism and covenant theology (covenant theology is based on the late 16th to early 17th century Reformed theology of a covenant of works and a covenant of grace).
The problem with Covenant Theology is it takes an unbiblical view of what constitutes "covenant" (the "covenants" in Covenant Theology do not meet the specific definition or requirements as stated in Scripture).
JD731,
How do you define "Baptist Doctrine"? What is that? Do you have creed or confession of faith that you are thinking of?
\I have baptist confessional documents that show that tulip was the teaching they held. The 1century church believed these things.
How do you define "Baptist Doctrine"? What is that? Do you have creed or confession of faith that you are thinking of?
\I have baptist confessional documents that show that tulip was the teaching they held. The 1century church believed these things.
Based on what?
Most of this board is for baptists only.
Are you suggesting they are not believers?
You are right here
At one time Covenant Theology was only a Presbyterian doctrine (of course, at one time Dispensationalism was only a Calvinistic doctrine....and at one time the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement and Calvinism was only Presbyterian doctrines).
But today we see Covenant Theology, a form of Calvinism, the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, and Dispensationalism across several denominations.
JD731,
Because you have not understood the teaching, does not mean it does not exist. Scriptures do not mention the term trinity, but you do not deny that teaching do you?
I asked you to define Covenant. What is that? what constitutes a "covenant, in the bible?
Because you have not understood the teaching, does not mean it does not exist. Scriptures do not mention the term trinity, but you do not deny that teaching do you?
I asked you to define Covenant. What is that? what constitutes a "covenant, in the bible?
I have not seen anyone do this. Could you provide a direct quote that says this?
Yes..the peace of God comes from true doctrines.
We see several who try and give a fractured fairy tale version and rewrite of history, but they should be rejected.
Covenant theology also has been shown to be among baptists so these claims are without merit.
It is true that Covenant Theology is extra-biblical. But we are men and are finite in our understanding.
Some may only be able to accept redemptive history through the lens of Covenant Theology.
My view is let those in need of a crutch have that crutch lest they stumble.
It is not up to us to judge the servants of Another. Covenant Theology does not negate the gospel of Jesus Christ, so while you and I may be able to discern it is extra-biblical (actually, it is unbiblical) and it is fair to discuss these topics, we also have to take care not to become a stumbling block to those in need of such frameworks to grasp biblical concepts.
The depth of Scripture is in its spiritual truths, and these transcend man made templates like Covenant Theology as they are revealed to the believer spiritually and applied to our lives by God.
Logical fallacy. Nobody is questioning the title of Covenant Theology and Scripture does state the doctrine of the Trinity (in the actual text of Scripture).
Point 1 and 2
You are wrong about that. No sooner than the gentiles begin to populate the church of Jesus Christ under the preaching of Paul, the chosen apostle to the gentiles, than did the original Calvinists, the Jews who said they believed in Christ, begin to manifest themselves as unbelievers in the grace of God, demanding that gentiles believers keep certain parts of the law of Moses. This caused contention and eventually division. That division still exists today. You can read about it in Acts 14 and how it was resolved in Acts 15. Later John in his first epistle would write about these divisions.
1Jo 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
Here is the whole paragraph.
18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us,
they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. 21 I have
not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the
Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth
the Son, the same hath not the Father: [but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also]. 24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the
beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. 25 And this is the promise that he
hath promised us, even eternal life. 26 These things have I written unto you
concerning them that seduce you. 27 But the anointing which ye have received of
him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Whatever we believe about Jesus will be what the Father tells us in his words. I take issue with Calvinists because they do not believe the Father. They make up their own doctrines in their own words.
Point 3
Define most. There is a whole section that says (Baptists only). And you do not know this?
Point 4
They say total depravity equals total inability in their theology. Why am I charged of wrong doing if I say about them what they say about themselves? They cannot believe the gospel even if they hear it because of this condition. It is reasonable and logical then to accept that faith does not come by hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ but by some other way. The gospel is not the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth as Rom 1:16 says. Something else must come first and prepare the way, according to them. They say God gives them the gift of faith in the same sentence that they preach irresistible grace. Do you see anything wrong with that?
Jd,
I asked you to define "baptist doctrine" as you used this term a few times now.
What is it? What is it to have baptist doctrine?
I asked you to define "baptist doctrine" as you used this term a few times now.
What is it? What is it to have baptist doctrine?
Baptist doctrine is the contextual teaching of the prophets and apostles and collective doctrines that are taught by the words of the scriptures. It is to recognize that the words in the scriptures are "spiritual" and as such have multiple meanings that must be mined from other passages that have the same words and a comparison made. Of course, this is the reason the natural man cannot understand the scriptures and these elaborate theological systems that deny fundamental truths is the best anyone can do when they have human wisdom only. Spiritual truths are taught by spiritual words. Saying this is not original with me. God said it and I read it in the scriptures and just agree with it. Spoiritual words must be illuminated to the spiritual mind by the Spirit. Check out God saying it and keep in mind he is not speaking here of the simple gospel but about the deep things of God, the mysteries of God and the faith.
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but (in the words) which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
I believe Baptists are the only Christian group who have ever understood these words and taught them to others. Only a handful are still faithful because Baptist churches have been infiltrated by philosophies and false teachers and professors, and the faithful men have not contended for the faith when they should have and marked those false teachers. Scripture says a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
Notice these tears of God through the apostle Paul to the wonderful church at Ephesus;
. Ac 20:26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men
.
27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
The infiltration has become so bad that men name their theology after themselves; Wesleyan, Calvinisism, Lutheran. This says a lot.
JD731,
Thanks for trying to explain JD.
And so, what exactly is that? Is it whatever anyone claims is true if they say it is in context? Every group claims they follow scripture.
Is it up to you to define what is baptist doctrine?
If I meet a new convert today, and he asks what baptists actually believe, how do we communicate with him?
Reformed Baptists say the same thing
I do not notice anything different with what you say here?
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but (in the words) which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
Thanks for trying to explain JD.
And so, what exactly is that? Is it whatever anyone claims is true if they say it is in context? Every group claims they follow scripture.
Is it up to you to define what is baptist doctrine?
If I meet a new convert today, and he asks what baptists actually believe, how do we communicate with him?
I can quote others who say the exact same thing.
Reformed Baptists say the same thing
I do not notice anything different with what you say here?
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but (in the words) which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
Any other real Christian from several different denominations says this also!
Anyone who decides to post on a Baptist only site should know what a Baptist is. But that is what the debate is about. I am a Baptist and you are a Baptist you say but we agree on nothing. Your agreement is with the Presbyterians and Lutherans, and others who preach the strange unbiblical and confusing doctrines of the Reformed.
The issue is Reformed "Baptist" doctrine is a mixture of Presbyterian doctrine and Baptist doctrine. It is a relatively new theology (a few centuries old), so there will be inconsistencies with Scripture in places.
The early Presbyterians borrowed from the pharisees in developing "tools" to help digest Scripture. These included things like confessions, systems of thinking about how God interacted with man, and catechisms. Over time those "tools" became as important as the Scripture they were invented to teach.
Reformed theology is the simplest theology in Christianity. The reason is it has attempted to distill God into easy to grasp segments that work together to support Reformed ideas. That is the beauty of the theology (it is neat, clean, concise). Ironically, that is one indication it could be problematic. It is shallow, focusing not on spiritual truth but on systems developed to defend its own structure.
But this also means Reformed theology lends itself well (in places) towards evangelism and at least communicating the gospel in easily grasped illustrations. Although it replaces much of Scripture with its own structure the gospel is still there, just less impactful and demanding.
It's like baby food. An infant cannot eat a hamburger, but the child still needs to eat. It is better to eat as an infant all ones life than to starve.
JD731,
Hello JD,
Vague statements about The Spirit enabling a person to see truth, while important, do not explain what you mean at all.
Before you say any belief is not "baptist doctrine" it would seem that you should give more of an explanation to demonstrate what you are saying , and be able to offer a defense.
Okay, so feel free to offer your side if it is a debate.
I do not recall saying that. Can you post where I said any such thing? Often I notice that your posts seem to go in a certain direction. If I knew for sure where they were going I would not need to ask questions like I am doing now.
I do not see where you have clarified your position at all.If someone asked me...what does JD think or how does JD define baptist doctrine I could not really explain your position! That is why i am asking you to clarify, which teachings you see as "baptist teaching, baptist doctrine" ?
I agree with many things with Christians of other denominations. I look for common ground, and go from there.
I try and understand what they teach. I ask where we agree, and where we differ.
I do not consider their teaching strange or unbiblical. i see why we can agree, and why we must differ on different areas.
Can you perhaps make a list, showing what you differ on that you find, strange, and unbiblical?
Some offer weak caricatures of reformed teaching with no basis in truth. This demonstrates they have no understanding of the actual teaching, but rather think they have more of an understanding of anyone in Church history.
Foolish posts of this nature are quickly dismissed and rejected as not even credible. We are hoping you can step up and do better.
Looking forward of your lists, of both baptist doctrine/ non baptist, strange doctrine.
Hello JD,
Well you have posted on a baptist site and used the term "baptist doctrine".. You have made a few attempts to explain your position, but strangely enough you have not really offered anything that really spells it out.
Vague statements about The Spirit enabling a person to see truth, while important, do not explain what you mean at all.
Before you say any belief is not "baptist doctrine" it would seem that you should give more of an explanation to demonstrate what you are saying , and be able to offer a defense.
Okay, so feel free to offer your side if it is a debate.
I do not recall saying that. Can you post where I said any such thing? Often I notice that your posts seem to go in a certain direction. If I knew for sure where they were going I would not need to ask questions like I am doing now.
I do not see where you have clarified your position at all.If someone asked me...what does JD think or how does JD define baptist doctrine I could not really explain your position! That is why i am asking you to clarify, which teachings you see as "baptist teaching, baptist doctrine" ?
I agree with many things with Christians of other denominations. I look for common ground, and go from there.
I try and understand what they teach. I ask where we agree, and where we differ.
I do not consider their teaching strange or unbiblical. i see why we can agree, and why we must differ on different areas.
Can you perhaps make a list, showing what you differ on that you find, strange, and unbiblical?
Some offer weak caricatures of reformed teaching with no basis in truth. This demonstrates they have no understanding of the actual teaching, but rather think they have more of an understanding of anyone in Church history.
Foolish posts of this nature are quickly dismissed and rejected as not even credible. We are hoping you can step up and do better.
Looking forward of your lists, of both baptist doctrine/ non baptist, strange doctrine.
Interesting caricature Jon. It exposes your bias against systematic theology, which is not a borrowing from the Pharisees, but traces itself back to Elisha's school of the prophets.
Certainly Jewish rabbi's wrote out their interpretation of scripture and taught it to their students. Certainly the traditions of those teachings grew to distort scripture (this is a danger that any predominant teacher faces). Jesus had to correct these teachings and felt the wrath of repercussion.
In 1 Corinthians 15 we see the earliest creed (catechism) of the church. In Revelation 15 we see two songs the church likely sang in the 1st Century that taught them of Jesus and His deliverance.
Paul calls on his readers to imitate him and follow the traditions taught by the apostles, which means they catechized their congregations.
Catechism, therefore, is not evil. What is evil is wandering away from scripture into traditions of men that have no root in scripture. It is here where our debates happen. We try to connect our personal catechism with scripture and prooftext our understanding. The debate is in whose prooftext is most accurate with the teaching of the apostles and therefore Jesus (God Himself).
So, while the confession of Reformed Baptists was written down in 1689, its roots go deeper than that. Talk with EW&F and you'll hear him state the teachings are connected directly to the Apostles. Thus, your narrative and his narrative are in conflict...and thus the debate begins.
2 Thessalonians 2:13
But we should always give thanks to God for you, brothers and sisters beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.
First this verse presents the doctrine of conditional election with great clarity, resulting in several translations that alter the grammar to alter the message.
Paul is addressing born anew believers, siblings of Christ and children of God.
Clearly our individual election for salvation is in view, because those chosen are "beloved by the Lord."
What beginning is in view, creation or the inauguration of the New Covenant? Inauguration of the New Covenant.
How was our conditional election accomplished? God's Spirit set the individuals apart in Christ, the sanctification by the Spirit.
On what basis was the conditional election made? Through faith in the truth, God utilized our faith if credited as righteousness by God, thus the election is by grace and not by works.
- Status