-
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!
A Biblicist Alternative To Calvin-Arminian
- Thread starter IveyLeaguer
- Start date
You think it's not true? Look at what is being published. Look at what commentaries are being bought. Look at the resurgence in the SBC. Ignoring it won't make it go away.
Omalley, let me clarify what I SHOULD have said.
I would never have a man KNOWN for being a Calvinist preach in my pulpit. I would also never allow Calvinism to be taught in my church from the pulpit. Neither would I allow anyone to teach it in Sunday School or any other "official" capacity.
The REASON for not allowing it is because that is not what my church teaches. Some people in the congregation may believe it and may chose to stay in the church even though the church rejects it. However, the position of the church in my view should be known and respected. If someone made this an issue I would try and work with them. If they refused to stop undermining the theological unity of the congregation I would make it a church discipline issue.
If the whole church was Calvinist, I would not be there.
I would take this approach not just with Calvinism but with ANY standard of the church. If someone was unceasingly trying to promote Arminianism or whatever I would not allow it.
The unity of the church is the individual local church. Not a bunch of churches with different doctrines.
So, I shouldn't have said my buddy won't ever preach in my pulpit. If he would do me the honor and we could agree then its possible. It all just depends. I do think its irresponsible however to allow your significant personal feelings for loved ones or friends to get in the way of your church's stand. I wouldn't do that. I'm used to being alone so if all my friends leave me so be it. I won't compromise my convictions for anyone.
Jn 16:33
I have never stood in the gap for Calvin, and I don't understand why you would make a statement like that. Do you seriously think this discussion is about the man Calvin? No one on this side is "standing in the gap for Calvin" and no one on your side is standing in the gap for Arminius. And yes, those are the only two options. But this is not about men.
Do you have a better answer as to why Adam sinned? Okay, you tell me why Adam sinned.
The rest of my answers are ridiculous? Really? What less ridiculous answers to those questions would you give?
The truth is, your questions seem to based on assumptions about Calvinism that aren't true, so of course the answers aren't satisfactory for you. They can't be, because they don't deal with the issues you raise, which aren't really issues at all, because they only seem to be issues because you have assumptions about Calvinism that are wrong. And until you chuck those wrong assumptions about Calvinism (and goodness knows, it's not as if no one tried to correct you), so you can respond to issues that really do exist instead of your made up in your own mind issues, all answers will automatically seem ridiculous to you.
D
dianetavegia
Guest
Ah.... again~ He speaks for all! Sorry Larry... We just don't know who you think you are!
Both sides ...
There are two options: One option leads to Heaven by the Blood of the Lamb; and the other option leads to the lake of fire.
Laying the Calvinian and Arminian sides of the Pelagian argument aside, being a Calvinist or being an Arminian does NOT bring one salvation.
There are two options: One option leads to Heaven by the Blood of the Lamb; and the other option leads to the lake of fire.
Laying the Calvinian and Arminian sides of the Pelagian argument aside, being a Calvinist or being an Arminian does NOT bring one salvation.
JGrayhound
New Member
No one thinks it does, El Guero.
Try and keep up.
Try and keep up.
JGrayhound
New Member
Just keep standing in the gap for Calvin brother.
He won't let you down. </font>[/QUOTE]Once again you have shown what you revert to when you can't answer a question.
I think this discussion would be a lot farther along if you, el guero, and any other anti-calvinist would realize that John Calvin is inconsequential to the discussion. No one ever mentioned Calvin...except you.
For Calvinists it is about being true to Scripture...being REAL Biblicists. Calvinist is just a term that helps expedite the conversation when dealing with this issue. We all do it with other doctrines, and no one has a problem...why with this one?
Ah.... again~ He speaks for all! Sorry Larry... We just don't know who you think you are!
But while you are here, give us this mysterious third option: As I see it, both in Scripture and reason, You either believe that 1) God chose individuals to salvation without regard for anything but his glory, or 2) he didn't.
That is a binary option. YOu believe (1) (Calvinist) or you believe (2) arminian. No one has yet to come up with a third option. What biblicist tried to present here was clearly number 2, at least what I saw of it.
D
dianetavegia
Guest
Larry, over and over we've given our answers and you return to putting labels on us that we refuse.
I am tired of wasting my time trying to restate my stand with you, a Follower of Calvin.
I am tired of wasting my time trying to restate my stand with you, a Follower of Calvin.
JGrayhound
New Member
Wow.
Way to not only misunderstand the entire discussion, but to also hurt communication of the issue.
As I have stated before, I think we would all be further along in the discussion if people realize that John Calvin is inconsequential to the discussion....and if comments like the above were not used.
boy, talk about labels. Anyway, I can respect your desire to be 'labeled' as something other than C or A. I don't necesarily see or understand where you get that, but that's ok. I would just rather you guys come up with a different label than biblicists. Labels intrinsically are supposed to mean something, and the term biblicist doesn't really convey anything about your position. Might I suggest neitherist as suggested by biblicist a while back?
D
dianetavegia
Guest
Just the opposite JGrayhound! My use of that term was to prove my point!
I do not want to be labeled an Arminian because that implies I do not believe in OSAS. That label is forced upon me continually by a Calvinist. My use of Follower or Calvin was to show how labels 'feel' when they are not the label you choose for yourself. I think it made my point VERY clear.
Pastor Larry will not allow us to be 'neither'. He FORCES a label upon those of us who disagree with Calvin. That doesn't sit well with me at all.
I do not want to be labeled an Arminian because that implies I do not believe in OSAS. That label is forced upon me continually by a Calvinist. My use of Follower or Calvin was to show how labels 'feel' when they are not the label you choose for yourself. I think it made my point VERY clear.
Pastor Larry will not allow us to be 'neither'. He FORCES a label upon those of us who disagree with Calvin. That doesn't sit well with me at all.
Diane, I love you sister...
But your post goes to the heart of an inconsistency that bothers me about "non-calvinists".
The objection to calvinism almost always hinges on the view of man's free will. But if God was not sovereign over getting you saved, why should one consider Him sovereign over keeping you saved?
If the man's choice is really the critical factor in initial salvation then how can it cease to be afterwards? The same grace that saved us keeps us saved does it not? If that grace required a human act of sovereign free will to get it started then how can it require less to keep it going?
BTW, I think the 5 Arminian points refuses to answer the question about whether you can lose salvation or not. You can be OSAS and Arminian... I just don't think it is a consistent position.
But your post goes to the heart of an inconsistency that bothers me about "non-calvinists".
The objection to calvinism almost always hinges on the view of man's free will. But if God was not sovereign over getting you saved, why should one consider Him sovereign over keeping you saved?
If the man's choice is really the critical factor in initial salvation then how can it cease to be afterwards? The same grace that saved us keeps us saved does it not? If that grace required a human act of sovereign free will to get it started then how can it require less to keep it going?
BTW, I think the 5 Arminian points refuses to answer the question about whether you can lose salvation or not. You can be OSAS and Arminian... I just don't think it is a consistent position.
Where did you ever give a third option between God electing and God not electing? Where did you say it once, much less over and over?
This in itself reveals a problem. Neither Calvinists nor arminians are followers of people. That is absurd. Those labels are not about following men, but about what one believes about what the Bible teaches. I am not a follower of Calvin because I believe God elects people to salvation. You are not a follower of Arminian becuase you don't believe God elects people to salvation. Don't make that mistake.
No it doesn't. It means that you don't believe God sovereingly elected individuals to salvation. Boy, talk about missing somethign that been explained time and time again.
Actually, it is contemporary theology that has used the term in that matter.
I think you revealed a great misunderstanding of what the labels actually mean.
It has nothing to do with what I allow. I certainly don't have that power. It is simply an issue of how theologians use the term.
When you say biblicist, I raise my hand high and without apology, because I belivee the Bible front to back, cover to cover. And because I am a biblicist, I am a Calvinist. I believe God elects individuals to salvation. That is what biblicism teaches.
Plain Old Bill
New Member
It seems to me that right up to this entry IveyLeaguer has been ignored. He stated point by point what he agreed with and disagreed with on the Calvin and Arminian side of this thread which he started.
I've read this thread over several times.My view is probably simplistic or I am misunderstanding my reading also.But here is how I see it ,irresistable grace and predestination go hand in hand. The choice is taken from us.Without the choice it is not a matter of love but simple robotic obedience to an irresistable command which we are powerless to disobey.I don't think we can properly love and adore God without some choice.
I don't know that anybody hates Calvin it's just a matter of agreement or disagreement and to what degree that the arguement really gets going. Perhaps if the discussions were'nt quite so dogmatic it would be helpful?
I've read this thread over several times.My view is probably simplistic or I am misunderstanding my reading also.But here is how I see it ,irresistable grace and predestination go hand in hand. The choice is taken from us.Without the choice it is not a matter of love but simple robotic obedience to an irresistable command which we are powerless to disobey.I don't think we can properly love and adore God without some choice.
I don't know that anybody hates Calvin it's just a matter of agreement or disagreement and to what degree that the arguement really gets going. Perhaps if the discussions were'nt quite so dogmatic it would be helpful?