Baptist but not a Calvinist?

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Webdog: Not the way the calvinists define the T...the way the Bible does.

HP: Now if you only believe in one out of five, you are a strange duck. Just one brick between us concerning this five point load. Surely you would desire to distance yourself futher than that from a strange duck like me!
Help us out here. How do the Scriptures define the T?

 

[webdog]

Mankind...since the fall...is totally depraved, needing a saviour. We cannot attain salvation on our own merit, but solely by grace through faith.

Calvinsm teaches total depravity as mankind being a "corpse" unable to respond to the Gospel.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Webdog: Mankind...since the fall...is totally depraved, needing a saviour. We cannot attain salvation on our own merit, but solely by grace through faith.

Calvinsm teaches total depravity as mankind being a "corpse" unable to respond to the Gospel.

HP: If in fact man is born totally depraved, why is this not spiritually speaking a corpse? If man is born in such a state as to eliminate any possibility of contrary choice, and totally evil and that continually, I would think a corpse as a very adequate depiction.


The question as I see it is not whether or not one can attain salvation on his own merit, but rather can he be considered as moral and therefore responsible if in fact there was no other possibility available to him but to be dead spiritually and to sin by his very nature and that continually? Does not morality have to be birthed in an environment of contrary choice? If one is going to be blamed or praised does not the possibility have to exist that he could have done something other than he did under the very same set of circumstances?

 

[webdog]

HP: If in fact man is born totally depraved, why is this not spiritually speaking a corpse? If man is born in such a state as to eliminate any possibility of contrary choice, and totally evil and that continually, I would think a corpse as a very adequate depiction.

Spiritual "death" is separation from God, and describes the soul. Corpse comes from the human understanding of "dead". When one dies a physical death, their soul becomes separated from their body. When one is spiritually dead, their soul is separated from God. The calvinists' use of "corpse" would also have to be attributed to "dead to sin", also, making a true believer unable to sin, which we know is not the case. In John 11 we see a physically dead person respond to the Word. What makes anyone think that a spiritually dead person is unable to respond, too?

 

[Marcia]

In spite of the mass confusion that might exist on this issue, I believe there is much for each of us to gain if we will place our ideas under the scrutiny of Scripture, reason and logic, and experience. I believe it is good to test our opinions concerning Scripture with each other. It should develop a bit of humility in all of us.

Been there, done that. It's impossible to do this here, especially with a Calvinist defining the terms. When we had the C-A thread, I logged many an hour on it - mainly to learn something.

I did. I learned that this just goes round and round in circles because in discussing the very same scriptures, Calvinists and non-Calvinists have different interpretations of them. So it ends up with no one being able to "prove" their side, and they just keep going round and round and round.

BTW, I agree with webdog on what he just said about the Calvinist corpse theory.

 

[Revmitchell]

The real issue with salvation that so often gets dismissed and overlooked, is not who performs certain acts to obtain salvation, but the real issue is who gets the credit for it.

When I dig a hole with a shovel, the shovel has a fine edge that seperates the soil allowing the cup end of the sovel to sink into the earth. The handle gives a place to control the shovel. But even then none of these things give credit to the shovel for diggin the hole. The credit goes to the person who puts the strength and power behind the shovel.

John 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he the power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.

He who has the power gets the credit!:thumbs:

 

[BobRyan]

Been there, done that. It's impossible to do this here, especially with a Calvinist defining the terms. When we had the C-A thread, I logged many an hour on it - mainly to learn something.

I did. I learned that this just goes round and round in circles because in discussing the very same scriptures, Calvinists and non-Calvinists have different interpretations of them. So it ends up with no one being able to "prove" their side, and they just keep going round and round and round.

BTW, I agree with webdog on what he just said about the Calvinist corpse theory.

You are right to observe that on the C-A thread - just as on this area of the board - you almost never see someone say "Really?!! Are you serious?? The bible really says that? Wow then I was wrong!". (Just look at the Abiogenesis vs Romans 1 thread for a glaring example)

A. But who knows what the silen "readers" are saying?

B. And who can not say they did not "learn something" about the views of the other side and how to "better" present the contrasts and expose the contradictions with sharp crystal clear Bible texts?

In those two areas I would say there is almost always gain. I know I definitely benefitted on that second point!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Webdog: Spiritual "death" is separation from God, and describes the soul.

HP: You make a good point. To be dead is not to be unable to respond, but rather to be unwilling. Man, does not need ‘abilities’ to respond to God, he needs simply to yield his will in the direction of the motivation God places before him.

We are supposed to be 'dead to sin' as believers. This is not being ‘unable’ to sin, but rather we are to be unwilling to sin.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Marcia: I learned that this just goes round and round in circles because in discussing the very same scriptures, Calvinists and non-Calvinists have different interpretations of them. So it ends up with no one being able to "prove" their side, and they just keep going round and round and round.

HP: I agree with BR on this point. I sure have gained from conversing with those I disagree with. Who knows how God might bring to mind something that has been said at a particular time even though one might have disagreed with it when it was first stated. Duty is mine, the results are the Lords.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Rev. Mitchell: He who has the power gets the credit!

HP: God deserves all the credit for our salvation, in this we agree. Notice that the individual in the verse you mentioned exercised his will in receiving Him (through repentance and faith) prior to receiving the power to become the sons of God. This is not establishing credit on our part, but rather simply fulfilling the conditions God has set forth to be saved.

I have used the prison illustration before. Let me post it once again per chance that some now writing might have missed it.

A man goes to prison for life, being justly condemned and sentenced by a judge for a specific crime. Can such an individual ‘merit’ a pardon by the performance of good works while in prison? Can such a criminal perform good works to such a degree that the governor is forced to grant this man a pardon based merely on the ‘merit’ of the performance of such good works? Absolutely not. Just the same can the governor, if he so pleases, pardon such a criminal? Of course he can. Still, there is something the criminal MUST do, there is an attitude that MUST be reflected by the criminal to receive a pardon IF the governor is indeed fair and just, and attitudes are tied inseparably to intents of the heart, this very initial intent being none other than a ‘work’ in one sense of the word. The governor MUST witness from the criminal a repentant attitude and a change of heart towards his former criminal behavior if the governor is even to consider such a pardon for the criminal.

What kind of governor would pardon a criminal from prison who had not exhibited true remorse for his crimes? Would not the governor have to be satisfied in his or her mind that IF they pardoned such a criminal that they would not return to commit the same crime or one of like heinous behavior upon society again and that such a criminal possessed and exhibited a true change of heart and attitude towards their former behavior? There are indeed certain conditions that the criminal must meet, works that such a one must of necessity do in order to have the opportunity for a pardon if such an opportunity is offered. These works on the part of the prisoner are in no way meritorious in nature, and in no way force the governor to grant such a one a pardon on their account. Just the same, there are definite conditions or works one must do in order for the governor to consider the pardon. These works are thought of in the sense of ‘not without which,’ not ‘that for the sake of.’ It can properly be stated that one is not pardoned due to any works (in one sense of the word ‘works’ in the sense of ‘that for the sake of’) of the prisoner, but just the same it can be said ‘without works’ (in another sense of the word, that being in the sense of ‘not without which’) one will never see the opportunity to receive a pardon.

Can you see how that works can be thought of as necessary for a pardon, or in the sense of “not without which,” yet at the same time no amount of works can be thought of as “that for the sake of” or forcing the governor to pardon the criminal on the account of works performed by the criminal?

Such I believe is the case in the verse you mention. Paul is not saying that his works save him or keep him saved, just the same, neither will he be found in Christ in the last day apart from his continued obedience.

 

[BD17]

You are all so way off base it is not even funny.

 

[Faith alone]

So you say that you are Baptist but not a Calvinist.

How about looking at the five points of Calvinism and see how you fair? Tell us which ones you agree with and which ones you don’t.

• Total depravity.
• Unconditional election
• Limited Atonement
• Irresistible grace
• Perseverance of the saints

OK, I'll bite...

T - not as Calvinists state it. I am able, as unregenerate, to respond to the gospel by faith BEFORE being re-born.

U - Again, not as Calvinists state it. Though this one I guess I'd have to go along with, pretty much... just do not like how they express it or some assumptions made. (For example, it is assumed if God chooses me unconditionally, then I do not choose to believe... not true.) Norman Geisler's book handles this one pretty well - Chosen But Free.

L - Ugh - many Cs do not hold to this one either. Jesus died for the sin of the entire world.

I - John 6:44 is mis-interpreted. We can resist God's grace. But we cannot be saved unless God is at work in our lives.

P - I firmly hold to the security of the believer, but not as Cs describe it. We were regenerated not on the basis of our persevering in anything. It is a completely free gift received by faith alone. So IMO my position here is stronger than Calvinism states it.

So I usually refer to it as "tUP". Also, I do, FWIW refer to myself as a "moderate Calvinist." The problem is that they will refuse to accept my "membership," calling me an antinomian Arminian. Neither are true though.

BTW, not many Baptists are Reformed today, though many of the statements of faith throughout Baptist history were.

FA

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BD17: You are all so way off base it is not even funny.

HP: Are you just going to shoot the prophet or weigh in with a reasoned response?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

FA: OK, I'll bite...

T - not as Calvinists state it. I am able, as unregenerate, to respond to the gospel by faith BEFORE being re-born.

HP: I believe I understand you and would agree.

U - Again, not as Calvinists state it. Though this one I guess I'd have to go along with, pretty much... just do not like how they express it or some assumptions made. (For example, it is assumed if God chooses me unconditionally, then I do not choose to believe... not true.) Norman Geisler's book handles this one pretty well - Chosen But Free.

HP: No problem in not giving a definite answer if one is in question to a degree. This is a learning process, not a blame game or a name game. It is difficult to express just how we understand truth at times. I sure have changed how I word things over the years and am still in the process of learning how to express myself. Never read Geisler’s book but sounds somewhat intriguing.

L - Ugh - many Cs do not hold to this one either. Jesus died for the sin of the entire world.

HP: Amen

I - John 6:44 is mis-interpreted. We can resist God's grace. But we cannot be saved unless God is at work in our lives.

HP: Excellent way to express it I would say. If God is not at work we could have absolutely no influence for good. God is at work in the heart of the sinner prior to salvation, even in the heart of those that never accept His gift. Conscience testifies to this fact.

P - I firmly hold to the security of the believer, but not as Cs describe it. We were regenerated not on the basis of our persevering in anything. It is a completely free gift received by faith alone. So IMO my position here is stronger than Calvinism states it.

HP: That one will take some further illustration or explanation for me to follow. It is not that you are necessarily unclear, it may be that I am just slow in understanding.

FA: So I usually refer to it as "tUP". Also, I do, FWIW refer to myself as a "moderate Calvinist." The problem is that they will refuse to accept my "membership," calling me an antinomian Arminian. Neither are true though.

HP: Rejoice in the freedom God has allowed yourself to find. He that Christ sets free is free indeed! We can change, modify, scrap or hold to anything God shows us at any time without the fear of what men, and the organizational boxes they try to fit us into, can do to us.

 

[2BHizown]

That page in the bible that renders truth 'optional' or take this word but not that word, must have been left out of my bible! Never knew it to be optional or open to individual decisions.
The truth in is scripture!
The problem is in knowledge and understanding.
We gain both in reading and study of the word, actually not in discussing over and over ad infinitum.
Christ is the way, the truth and the life!
If scripture is true its not up for debate!
Some things in scripture are 'hard words', difficult to accept. That doesnt make them optional just because we dont understand. It means we dig, dig, and sig some more until the fog clears and the HS shines His light into our heart and understanding!
Like them or not, if the 5 points are scriptural we must accept!
Calvin didnt start it and neither did Augustine! God started it and He will definitely finish it. It behooves us all to be about reading it and asking for that Light to be shined into our heart and head!
The 5 points all stand or fall together. They're not up for grabs! No one ever said we had to like it all, but with study and prayer we do actually come to love it, every word of those doctrines and to give Him thanks!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

2BHIZOWN: That page in the bible that renders truth 'optional' or take this word but not that word, must have been left out of my bible! Never knew it to be optional or open to individual decisions……………… Like them or not, if the 5 points are scriptural we must accept!

HP: I have to wonder what page the five points are listed on. None the less, I take it you are a five point Calvinist. Cannot argue with that. Here is one that takes them all hook line and sinker regardless of the logical consequences of such beliefs.

By the way, what was the page reference where one could find these five points listed?

You have stated what IMO is the truth in part, in that these points stand or fall together. When you accept the first as I understand Augustine or Calvin believed, the other point just fall in lock step with one another. For this reason I find that Arminians are the most inconsistent in that they accept the first point but deny the others. I still happily proclaim, “Oh those blessed inconsistencies!”

 

[BobRyan]

What kind of governor would pardon a criminal from prison who had not exhibited true remorse for his crimes? Would not the governor have to be satisfied in his or her mind that IF they pardoned such a criminal that they would not return to commit the same crime or one of like heinous behavior upon society again and that such a criminal possessed and exhibited a true change of heart and attitude towards their former behavior? There are indeed certain conditions that the criminal must meet, works that such a one must of necessity do in order to have the opportunity for a pardon if such an opportunity is offered. These works on the part of the prisoner are in no way meritorious in nature, and in no way force the governor to grant such a one a pardon on their account. Just the same, there are definite conditions or works one must do in order for the governor to consider the pardon. These works are thought of in the sense of ‘not without which,’ not ‘that for the sake of.’

In Romans 3 we see that the sinful nature in mankind is incapable of "doing good works" of its own volition.

But in the supernatural drawing of God (John 12:32) in the Gospel we see supernatural conviction of "the world" of sin and righteousnessa and judgment in John 16 is combined with the DRAWING of John 12:32 thus all are enabled to choose and have their will enabled TO choose if they so desire.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[2BHizown]

HP: I have to wonder what page the five points are listed on. None the less, I take it you are a five point Calvinist. Cannot argue with that. Here is one that takes them all hook line and sinker regardless of the logical consequences of such beliefs.

By the way, what was the page reference where one could find these five points listed?

You have stated what IMO is the truth in part, in that these points stand or fall together. When you accept the first as I understand Augustine or Calvin believed, the other point just fall in lock step with one another. For this reason I find that Arminians are the most inconsistent in that they accept the first point but deny the others. I still happily proclaim, “Oh those blessed inconsistencies!”

Have never seen the inconsistencies and can see how they are mutually supportive!
As to which page I found the doctrines of grace on it began in the garden of Eden and continues throughout the OT and into the NT, the cross, tomb, resurrection, ascension and on to glory!
Funny, the more we read, the clearer it seems to get! Such sound doctrines that once you see you want everyone else to see also!
Soli deo gloria!

 

[drfuss]

This thread reminds me of a discussion I had recerntly with a "Calvinists". Over 50 years ago, he attended a seminary that taught Calvinism. He said he was still a Calvinists. However, when I went over the 5 points as the 5 pointers define them, he said now he does not agree with any of them except the P. On perseverence, he agreed with the result, but not the rationale to get there.

In short, over the years he redefined all 5 points based on studying the scripture. However, he still considers himself a Calvinists.

From what I have read on BB, if you define the points as the 5 pointers do, you must agree with all five points to be consistent. I think that is what HP is trying to set everyone up for.

BTW, I am not a Calvinists.

 

[Burrito Breath]

"Tulip" bah! "Daisy" Si!

Geeve me daisy flower any day!


He love me, He love me not! He love me, He love me not!

It be all there in mi King James Only Bible (and Spanglish too!)

Read and learn!