Dr. L.T. Ketchum
New Member
I am neither.
I hold to the Corporate View of Election.
I hold to the Corporate View of Election.
-
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!
Are you a Calvinist?
- Thread starter RichardJS
- Start date
I think it's funny that the largest group in the poll is the "neither." Many who choose that option (at least in Baptist circles) are generally "modified Arminians" or "2 point point Calvinists." Some, on the other hand, are probably semi-Pelagian or even full blown Pelagian.
JDale
JDale
Revisiting An Oldie
Martin is correct here.
There is no middle-ground between the two positions.The truth doesn't meet somewhere in the middle.There are significant differences between the two theological camps.
Calvinists admit that they are Calvinists;but Arminians are loath to admit that they are Arminian.Why is that?Of course all non-Cals are not necessarily Arminian -- most who are not fall into the semi-Pelagian range.Even a famous Arminian,Roger Olson admits that.
Martin said:
Martin is correct here.
There is no middle-ground between the two positions.The truth doesn't meet somewhere in the middle.There are significant differences between the two theological camps.
Calvinists admit that they are Calvinists;but Arminians are loath to admit that they are Arminian.Why is that?Of course all non-Cals are not necessarily Arminian -- most who are not fall into the semi-Pelagian range.Even a famous Arminian,Roger Olson admits that.
ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
tinytim said:
Greetings humpty dumpty. :laugh:
Tiny, you and I evidently share the same fence. Is this fight also occurring with the American Baptists?
I guess I'll have to be in disagreement with my SBC founding fathers. Just because the majority were Five Pointers doesn't mean that I should be nor have to be in order to be a good SBC'er. In my book that is a poor argument for the legitimacy of TULIP being a descriptive doctrine of Southern Baptists today.
If Irresistable Grace is true then how could the unpardonable sin be a possibility? The unpardonable sin, in essence, is resisting the Holy Spirit or is it not? Or how could Stephen accuse the Sanhedrin of being stiff necked and of resisting the Holy Spirit?
I guess I'll have to be in disagreement with my SBC founding fathers. Just because the majority were Five Pointers doesn't mean that I should be nor have to be in order to be a good SBC'er. In my book that is a poor argument for the legitimacy of TULIP being a descriptive doctrine of Southern Baptists today.
If Irresistable Grace is true then how could the unpardonable sin be a possibility? The unpardonable sin, in essence, is resisting the Holy Spirit or is it not? Or how could Stephen accuse the Sanhedrin of being stiff necked and of resisting the Holy Spirit?
Last edited by a moderator:
puros_bran
Member
Calling someone Pelagian because they won't claim either camp is hardly fair... If memory serves correctly Pelagians claim salvation is possible without the cross? Utter nonsense and a heresy that will lead straight to hell!
That's along long way from not strictly agreeing with a couple of geezers from way back.
I'm as uncomfortable around those kooky extreme Arminians as I am those far to serious,really need to smile every great once in a while extreme Calvinist...
But I guess I'm really a closet Calvinist,as I have no problem with any of the Five points. But I've never been a member of a strict teaching Calvinist Church.
That's along long way from not strictly agreeing with a couple of geezers from way back.
I'm as uncomfortable around those kooky extreme Arminians as I am those far to serious,really need to smile every great once in a while extreme Calvinist...
But I guess I'm really a closet Calvinist,as I have no problem with any of the Five points. But I've never been a member of a strict teaching Calvinist Church.
I lacked the perseverance to read all seven pages here. Does that make me an Arminian?
By the way, a dictionary definition of pelagian is "inhabiting the open sea; out to sea..." In England, being out to sea is simply being weird or different. Hence, we could rightly call the inbetweeners pelagian, but not after the order of Pelagius, who was most famous for his denial of original sin.
Yes, I am a confirmed calvinist. those who adopt inbetween views are like only eating the icing on the cake, but never the cake. They want man to control God, "once-saved always saved". If you want me to keep you in my hand, I determine when I will flip my hand and you to boot. One can't have it both ways, I fear.
Cheers, and thankfully elect from before the foundation of the world, by my Father in eternity,
Jim
By the way, a dictionary definition of pelagian is "inhabiting the open sea; out to sea..." In England, being out to sea is simply being weird or different. Hence, we could rightly call the inbetweeners pelagian, but not after the order of Pelagius, who was most famous for his denial of original sin.
Yes, I am a confirmed calvinist. those who adopt inbetween views are like only eating the icing on the cake, but never the cake. They want man to control God, "once-saved always saved". If you want me to keep you in my hand, I determine when I will flip my hand and you to boot. One can't have it both ways, I fear.
Cheers, and thankfully elect from before the foundation of the world, by my Father in eternity,
Jim
I am not a Calvinist.
A Calvinist once tried to explain to me that "God only loves certain people, the elect." I was so disgusted by his arrogance and pride that I completely rejected Calvinism and I refuse to have anything to do with it.
In every church I've ever attended, the Calvinists were the ones causing trouble and constantly trying to force their TULIP points on everyone. At least one of the churches split. Maybe not all Calvinists are like this, I don't know, but since the ones I know personally are, the whole topic just seems too divisive to me, and I steer clear of it as much as possible.
A Calvinist once tried to explain to me that "God only loves certain people, the elect." I was so disgusted by his arrogance and pride that I completely rejected Calvinism and I refuse to have anything to do with it.
In every church I've ever attended, the Calvinists were the ones causing trouble and constantly trying to force their TULIP points on everyone. At least one of the churches split. Maybe not all Calvinists are like this, I don't know, but since the ones I know personally are, the whole topic just seems too divisive to me, and I steer clear of it as much as possible.
Jim1999 said:
I think this is how most calvinists would respond to a nonCalvinist....but I think it also shows that those calvinists are overthinking, and overcategorizing people.
I've never met a noncalvinist, who is also a sincere believer in Jesus, who says they want to control God.
ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
abcgrad94 said:
Do you honestly believe God loves everyone the same? Edit: I am going to start a new thread on this.
RB
I'm neither. I'm a Christian. :laugh: Actually, I have no idea what an Arminian is. I could be one and not know it. :jesus: I don't hold to all 5 points of Calvinism. Denomination-wise, I'm Baptist, although what denomination we are doesn't matter. What matters is if we're born again.
Noticed I had voted, but never posted
I am a five-point biblicist. If calvin or those who bear his link agree with me, that's to the glory of God.
Man is incapable of doing one good thing in the sight of God. Therefore:
God the Father chose some of mankind to receive unmerited grace (since we were incapable of meriting it)
God the Son came and atoned for those selected
God the Spirit regenerated and changed me so that I (otherwise incapable) could repent and believe the gospel
The triune Godhead will keep me as His beloved forever
Pretty basic soteriology, all based squarely on the Word.
I am a five-point biblicist. If calvin or those who bear his link agree with me, that's to the glory of God.
Man is incapable of doing one good thing in the sight of God. Therefore:
God the Father chose some of mankind to receive unmerited grace (since we were incapable of meriting it)
God the Son came and atoned for those selected
God the Spirit regenerated and changed me so that I (otherwise incapable) could repent and believe the gospel
The triune Godhead will keep me as His beloved forever
Pretty basic soteriology, all based squarely on the Word.
while i my theology is reformed and in agreement with a lot more of Calvin's teachings than just 5 points...i don't call or consider myself a Calvinist. A sinner saved by grace yes, but not a calvinist. Part of the reason i don't take that calvinist title is i really don't like the mindset of too many people i know who wear that badge way too proudly and assume that they are not and cannot be wrong, and to challenge them is to challenge God's soveriegnty.
I realize that not everyone is like this, but after 15 years of dealing with my fair share of people like this...it does get old after a while.
So, i'll just stick with a sinner saved by grace who is by no means armenian, but i guess i can see where they are coming from too; just don't agree with them.:thumbs:
I realize that not everyone is like this, but after 15 years of dealing with my fair share of people like this...it does get old after a while.
So, i'll just stick with a sinner saved by grace who is by no means armenian, but i guess i can see where they are coming from too; just don't agree with them.:thumbs:
I believe I was predestined to choose to agree here with Rippon as concerns Jim1999.Rippon said:
Jim1999 is indeed one of the most gracious BB members I've run across. If more of us (and I will include myself among the "us") were as gracious as he, even when some of us disagree, there would be far fewer 'food-fights' on this board, and actually several one-time BB members, who have not heeded any suggestion to
would still be around and still posting, who instead, have found themselves kicked out of
and run into
Ed
P.S. - ©- http://www.giveupalready.com/misc.php?do=showsmilies
© - http://www.smileysmile.net/images/sandboxlogo.gif
© - http://forums.serverbeach.com/misc.php?do=showsmilies
Last edited by a moderator:
Davy Crockett (yes, THAT Davy Crockett) had two terms he used in Congress to describe those sitting on the fence, trying to straddle both positions and holding to none.
Mugwumps = mug is on one side of the fence, wump is on the other (today the word means just the same thing!!)
Boondogglers = not taking either side of black/white issue but seeking some nonsensical "middle" that would make them look swell (today, a boondoggle is what appears to be a good investment and really a swindle or scam)
When it comes to the simple tenets of soteriology, if you believe God is 100% involved (chosing, dying, changing, keeping) and man is 0% (incapable), you are "calvinistic". If you believe man has some involvement - to whatever degree runs the gammut from simple arminianism to pelagianism - you are NOT "calvinistic".
Mugwumps = mug is on one side of the fence, wump is on the other (today the word means just the same thing!!)
Boondogglers = not taking either side of black/white issue but seeking some nonsensical "middle" that would make them look swell (today, a boondoggle is what appears to be a good investment and really a swindle or scam)
When it comes to the simple tenets of soteriology, if you believe God is 100% involved (chosing, dying, changing, keeping) and man is 0% (incapable), you are "calvinistic". If you believe man has some involvement - to whatever degree runs the gammut from simple arminianism to pelagianism - you are NOT "calvinistic".
Eternal life = Baptist Board style!
Let me also offer that this thread is but one more example that should 'prove' the resurrection from the dead - not after any three days (Mk. 8:31), three days and a half (Rev. 11:11), or four days (Jn. 11:39), but now, even after 486 days, with the bones of this thread that " lo, they were very dry. ", so dry, in fact that no longer doth "he stinketh", and still amazingly, "I saw the dead ... stand" as once again, a thread was caused "to come up out of your graves".
Ed
Let me also offer that this thread is but one more example that should 'prove' the resurrection from the dead - not after any three days (Mk. 8:31), three days and a half (Rev. 11:11), or four days (Jn. 11:39), but now, even after 486 days, with the bones of this thread that " lo, they were very dry. ", so dry, in fact that no longer doth "he stinketh", and still amazingly, "I saw the dead ... stand" as once again, a thread was caused "to come up out of your graves".
Ed