-
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!
Armi-Calvinist?
- Thread starter MRCoon
- Start date
I haven't done any research to back up any conclusions about most Baptists. Have you?
According to my own personal data point (which doesn't really amount to much), I'd say that most Baptists today aren't at all Arminian, let alone Calminian. They're semi-Pelagian with no trace of Calvinism whatsoever. Of those pastors I've approached on the subject, they are definitely semi-pelagian in their views.
Why semi-pelagian and not Arminian? Because Arminius believed in total depravity, and said so very clearly. These people teach that we are born able, of our own free will, to choose Christ. That's semi-pelagian, not Arminian.
One Baptist pastor, who had just finished his doctorate in theology, was clearly semi-pelagian. When I addressed how this contradicted the 1689 Baptist Confession, he had no answer. I don't think he was familiar with that confession.
He was also of the opinion that Martin Luther's only real complaint with the Catholic Church was the authority of the Pope, and how the Catholic church was dispensing salvation. He had no clue at all about Luther's work, Bondage of the Will, and didn't think the issue of free will had anything whatsoever to do with the reformation. One wonders what schools nowadays teach in order to get a doctorate in theology.
Regardless, from my personal experience (no surveys, no hard data) I'd say most Baptists are semi-pelagian in their views. Maybe I'm just unlucky in picking churches and you're right about most being Calminian.
No it hasn't and I am not webdog, I'm not hyper, I use it in hope someone will explain it to me so that I can stop using it. `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' " It is explicit and as far as I can see it proves limited atonement, my fear is that I see no one else using it.
Talking for myself, I can be an Arminian several times a day and I am awakened to it by an anxiety, and then I remember Christ died for my sins.
john.
Cool webdog, you have posted twice and I still believe no atonement was given by God to the house of Eli. A thing He swore on oath He would not do He will not do.
Give me the answer again since you say you know, be patient with me as I am hard of learning.
God is Sovereign.
john.
Give me the answer again since you say you know, be patient with me as I am hard of learning.
God is Sovereign.
john.
Hello Pipedude.
I'd disagree with this: ...the clearest and most consistent theological thinkers I know are pretty ineffective in ministry.
ISA 55:11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.
Where the word of God is preached, whether by Arminian or Calvinist, God is effective.
john.
I'd disagree with this: ...the clearest and most consistent theological thinkers I know are pretty ineffective in ministry.
ISA 55:11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.
Where the word of God is preached, whether by Arminian or Calvinist, God is effective.
No, but while we discuss it the word of God will go out from us and God will accomplish His purpose with it.
john.
Plain Old Bill
New Member
Npetraley you are true to form telling everybody just what they believe and how it is. You never disappoint.You are truly the jello sheriff of theology.
Kinda reminds me of something Adrian Rogers said: "You can talk about election all you want, but it's a wondrous thing to see how many more get elected in a red-hot revival meeting." I guess we're free to say that God is effective whenever his word is preached, but it's a wondrous thing to see how much more effective he appears in one man's ministry compared to another.
Across the board, I have been singularly unimpressed with the theological acumen of most pastors who are "getting the job done." Despite some glaring exceptions, that seems to be the rule from what I've seen.
Likewise, I have seen less fruit among those who have labored the most intensively in the word and doctrine. Their systems are beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, but their churches languish. Despite some glaring exceptions, that seems to be the rule from what I've seen.
You owe me $.02.
Plain Old Bill
New Member
AMEN!
Tom Butler
New Member
I, for one, would like to hear somebody take a stab at refuting JohnP's take on I Sam3:14. A lot of newbies have signed on since that exhange took place weeks or months ago. I think they'd profit from a fresh round of discussion.
BTW, Good to hear from you John, I seen you've been in an out sporadically. Missed you.
BTW, Good to hear from you John, I seen you've been in an out sporadically. Missed you.
No it hasn't and I am not webdog, I'm not hyper, I use it in hope someone will explain it to me so that I can stop using it. `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' " It is explicit and as far as I can see it proves limited atonement, my fear is that I see no one else using it.
Talking for myself, I can be an Arminian several times a day and I am awakened to it by an anxiety, and then I remember Christ died for my sins.
john. </font>[/QUOTE]He died for your sins? How do you know if you are on His exclusive list?
by JackRUS
I have no quarrel with Abraham's faith. Justification by faith is a central belief of Reformation theology. But the reason Abraham had faith was because he was first called by God:
Long time no post with my friend. Hope this finds you doing well.
I have no quarrel with Abraham's faith. Justification by faith is a central belief of Reformation theology. But the reason Abraham had faith was because he was first called by God:
Abraham excercised faith after he was called (by God). Ephesians tells us:
The antecedent for "it" is grace, saved and faith. All three are the "gift of God." It is my contention that Abraham was able to excercise faith because he first received it as an act of grace from God. Prior to receiving the "gift of God" in Ephesians 2:8, Abraham was spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1), or totally depraved (take your pick).
npetrely - I agree. Pelagianism teaches natural ability. That's what the message is today in the "hot revivials". So good to here somebody else feels the same way.
Johnp - good to here from you - you should post more often. I like your direct and to-the-point style - seems to drive 'em crazy!
Johnp - good to here from you - you should post more often. I like your direct and to-the-point style - seems to drive 'em crazy!
Jarthur001
Active Member
No it hasn't and I am not webdog, I'm not hyper, I use it in hope someone will explain it to me so that I can stop using it. `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' " It is explicit and as far as I can see it proves limited atonement, my fear is that I see no one else using it.
Talking for myself, I can be an Arminian several times a day and I am awakened to it by an anxiety, and then I remember Christ died for my sins.
john. </font>[/QUOTE]He died for your sins? How do you know if you are on His exclusive list? </font>[/QUOTE]I do hope someday the other side will come up with new ways to attach the gospel. These same old lines are..well...OLD.
Salvation is in Gods hands. Being that we are not God, we have no idea who the elect are. We are told to "GO TELL" not guess who.
This should hold you for a few hours when this will be asked again. Until that time...why not a "this means we are robots" statement?
In Christ...James
Doulous.
Sorry, but that is not how Paul explained it in Romans 4 or Galatians 3. (see also James 2)
The act of trust performed by Abraham initiated the conversion. It is true that God gave him light in doses, but He did this knowing that Abraham would do what he did. But it was still an acts of Abraham's will, just like when he was about to sacrifice Issac.
What you say directly contradicts James 2:21-24. Sorry.
Sorry, but that is not how Paul explained it in Romans 4 or Galatians 3. (see also James 2)
The act of trust performed by Abraham initiated the conversion. It is true that God gave him light in doses, but He did this knowing that Abraham would do what he did. But it was still an acts of Abraham's will, just like when he was about to sacrifice Issac.
What you say directly contradicts James 2:21-24. Sorry.
No it hasn't and I am not webdog, I'm not hyper, I use it in hope someone will explain it to me so that I can stop using it. `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' " It is explicit and as far as I can see it proves limited atonement, my fear is that I see no one else using it.
Talking for myself, I can be an Arminian several times a day and I am awakened to it by an anxiety, and then I remember Christ died for my sins.
john. </font>[/QUOTE]He died for your sins? How do you know if you are on His exclusive list? </font>[/QUOTE]I do hope someday the other side will come up with new ways to attach the gospel. These same old lines are..well...OLD.
Salvation is in Gods hands. Being that we are not God, we have no idea who the elect are. We are told to "GO TELL" not guess who.
This should hold you for a few hours when this will be asked again. Until that time...why not a "this means we are robots" statement?
In Christ...James </font>[/QUOTE]I'm serious. John argues for Limited Atonement, and then he says that he is thankful that Jesus died for his sins. How can he be sure?
And didn't you just write?: