Baptist but not a Calvinist?

[webdog]

Said by Faith Alone,
"... I am able, as unregenerate, to respond to the gospel by faith BEFORE being re-born."

Never have I heard the most incomprehensible untruth stated so bluntly! Or does he say it with the tongue in the cheek?

So you believe Nicodemus was born again prior to faith in Christ? If someone is regenerated and dies prior to having faith in Christ, do they go to Heaven or Hell? I look forward to your answers.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Brother Bob: If you are a Calvinist Faith; If I understood all you have written with a quick read,
Then you are my kind of Calvinist. Amen,
Election is just another way of saying "believers".

HP: Not so fast Brother Bob. Now according to some on this list we are sailing together in a ‘Pelagian’ boat as I recall, not a Calvinistic one. With all the good things FA stated that we seem to find agreement with, shouldn’t we be calling him ‘Our kind of Pelagian?” :laugh:

 

[Faith alone]

I do not doubt that in numbers... but in percentage, the non-Calvinists far and away out-number the Calvinists Baptists.

Quote:

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

------------------------------------------------

Hogwash! In bold print. There are more calvinistic baptists to-day than 60 years ago. The majority of historic Canadian Baptists are all reformed. The Canadian Baptist schools are all reformed.

I think there are a lot of people who fail to understand Calvinism, as readily displayed on these forums. They pick and choose the doctrines that centre around man rather than the sovereignty of God. It mostly has to do with the mythical "free will" of man.

The best man can do with so-called free will is under the permissive will of God, and that is limited by His sovereignty. I much prefer my sovereign God over the puny god that is so often displayed in other theological formulations.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Faith alone]

HP: Not so fast Brother Bob. Now according to some on this list we are sailing together in a ‘Pelagian’ boat as I recall, not a Calvinistic one. With all the good things FA stated that we seem to find agreement with, shouldn’t we be calling him ‘Our kind of Pelagian?” :laugh:

:tongue3:

Uh, a "moderate Pelagian"? :smilewinkgrin:

FA

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

FA: Uh, a "moderate Pelagian"?

HP: Hey, glad to see your back! Seriously, I know you are busy. I read your posts with keen interest. Sure there are things we disagree with, but there is more agreement than disagreement. I kept the posts to refer to later. Stay in touch as you can. We have much to discuss. Possibly I might try an address just a point or two at a time and see if we can keep our posts very concise and to the point to save time and energy in responding. It is all too easy to write too lengthy of posts and distract readers from the most pertinent points. I am guilty for sure.

Would you mind sharing just a note or two on what and where you are teaching? You do not have to disclose any details, just general things like public or private, many subjects or just one or so. Just give us enough brief details to get the picture of your job.

Thanks again for the interesting posts. Hope to hear back from you soon as you are able.

Pray one for another.

PS. From here forward, we wll quietly and secretly refer to our alliance as the order of the MP's :thumbs:

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Webdag:
"...So you believe Nicodemus was born again prior to faith in Christ? If someone is regenerated and dies prior to having faith in Christ, do they go to Heaven or Hell?"

GE;
First question: Answer: Most certainly, yes! Anything unbiblical about it?

Second question: Answer: It is impossible someone is 'regenerated' but receives not faith. Faith is the gift of God -- of grace --- of regeneration or rebirth. Faith is the act of only the 'new man' - saving, abiding, faith that is.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

FA:
"Now I realize that no Calvinist would express it like that, but the basis for my salvation is simply that Christ died for my sin and I have trusted in Him. I may fall into sin again, though I have been changed, but his promise is secure since it does not depend on my perseverance in good works but in His finished work at the cross alone."

True; yet it is as sure the elect shall persevere in faith (and good works such as faith) even unto the end. God shall "find him faithful" in that day.

 

[Brother Bob]

Hogwash! In bold print. There are more calvinistic baptists to-day than 60 years ago. The majority of historic Canadian Baptists are all reformed. The Canadian Baptist schools are all reformed.

Do Calvinist was hogs too?

Pelagian? I do believe that a man must choose good or evil and that he must believe, repent and be baptized. After a man has done all that he is still not saved, he has just did what God commanded him to do, for repentance is required at the hands of all men. It is still by the Grace of God that he receives Salvation through faith. God don't grab you by the hair of the head like the Calvinist believe and save you. You must repent and believe or you will die and go down to a devil's hell. I think baptism cuts me out of Pelagianism doesn't it, or am I mistaken. There are so many labels I just go along all time calling myself a Christian.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Do Calvinist was hogs too?

If hogs are dirty, and in need of washing, yes.

And we are predestined to wash the thing, too.

:smilewinkgrin::smilewinkgrin::smilewinkgrin:

 

[Brother Bob]

:applause: :applause: :thumbs: Hard to say what you get into before the end.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Brother Bob: I think baptism cuts me out of Pelagianism doesn't it, or am I mistaken. There are so many labels I just go along all time calling myself a Christian.

HP: Are you kidding? Once in the boat, always in the boat. Baptism would just make you MP+

Seriously, why would baptism cut you out of anything? All Pelagius was opposed to in the area of baptism to my knowledge was infant baptism for the remission of original sin. He did not see infants as moral beings and as such neither sinful nor holy, as far as I understand him.

 

[Brother Bob]

I don't believe in infant baptism either. I thought I read where he didn't consider baptism an ordainance of the church but must of been wrong.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BB: I thought I read where he didn't consider baptism an ordainance of the church but must of been wrong.

HP: I will try and see what I can find. Many Spirit filled men have not believed that baptism was an ordinance to be partaken of, but mainly due to the unscriptural thoughts surrounding baptism of their day, believing that it was a condition of salvation, and that the water itself had some salvic power to cleanse from sin.

George Fox of the Quakers was such a man. I might not agree with him in the total disregard of baptism, but if you look at the state and beliefs in the church of his day, it is my contention that indeed he was a man sent from God to set the Church aright in it’s beliefs as to what are the true biblical conditions of salvation. There is an old book entitled “George Fox, the red Hot Quaker“ which I read some time ago that got my attention. God used that man mightily.

 

[Tom Butler]

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?

Let's look at three NT stories of Jesus' raising the dead: The young man in Luke 7, the daughter of Jairus in Luke 8, and Lazarus of Bethany in John 11. In each case, Jesus "quickened" them, then spoke directly to them. The reason they could respond is that Jesus had made them alive. They possessed no ability of their own to respond until they had been given life.
They were, in effect, regenerated.

Here is the spiritual analogy. Paul, in Ephesians 2:1 said, "you hath he quickened who were dead in their trespasses and sins. Even when were were dead he quickened us..." We are in effect, regenerated, so that when the Holy Spirit illuminates us, convicts us, draws us, we are able to, yea desire, to freely respond in repentance and faith.

When we were lost, we were, as Paul put it, dead IN our sins, not dead TO sin.

You might answer, Oh but dead corpses can do neither right or wrong. They can please God and they can't sin. The answer is that the spiritually dead are not physically dead, thus able to feed the sinful desires of the flesh. John 1:13 clearly and unequivocally states that whose who are born again are not regenerated by their wills, but by God.

This is the Calvinist view, that when one responds in repentance and faith to the call of Christ, it is because God has given him the ability to do so. And God has also given him the freedom to desire (that is, to will, to want) to respond.

This may seem to have strayed from the OP, but it speaks directly the question of how to define total depravity.

 

[Tom Butler]

Baptist who are not Calvinists (and these days, that's most of them) would strongly deny that they are Arminian. That's because they define Arminians as ones who favor salvation by works, baptismial regeneration, and falling from grace.

For the same reason, I think Calvinists ought not to label non-Calvinist Baptists as Arminian, either. They're really neither, sort of a hybrid. It does not advance the discussion by wrapping them in a label they don't want to wear.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Tom Butler: Here is the spiritual analogy. Paul, in Ephesians 2:1 said, "you hath he quickened who were dead in their trespasses and sins. Even when were were dead he quickened us..." We are in effect, regenerated, so that when the Holy Spirit illuminates us, convicts us, draws us, we are able to, yea desire, to freely respond in repentance and faith.

HP: What right do we have to say “here is the spiritual analogy” concerning a Scriptural passage, when in fact no such connection is made as such in Scripture? Is not that using Scripture to our private doctrinal advantage, as opposed to interpreting it as it is plainly written? I cannot think of one time Christ or any writer used an illustration of raising one from the dead for a picture of salvation. Is such an approach to Scripture wise?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Tom Butler: For the same reason, I think Calvinists ought not to label non-Calvinist Baptists as Arminian, either. They're really neither, sort of a hybrid. It does not advance the discussion by wrapping them in a label they don't want to wear.

HP: This discussion was not intended to place a label of Calvinist, or non-Calvinist on anyone. This discussion was intended to get us to examine the doctrines we hold to, and see if in fact logic does not demand that we accept the very notions we say we detest. For instance, what good does it do to try and say that we detest and do not hold to predestination of the damned, if in fact we believe in the predestination of the elect?

One cannot escape the logical ends of their arguments. If you detest the logical end of your argument, the premise you start from must in fact be faulty. If man is born a sinner, and God has predestined only some to salvation, logic demands that those that are left have been by a direct choice of God to be left out of any hope, and that from eternity past, establishing the doctrine of the predestination of the damned by default. If one sees that the predestination of the damned is in error, you cannot hold to original sin and predestination of the elect, in any sense that would picture God as arbitrarily picking some to salvation and others to their damnation apart from mans will being involved.

It is logical insanity to hold to original sin and predestination of the elect and then state that predestination of the damned is in error.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Tom Butler: John 1:13 clearly and unequivocally states that whose who are born again are not regenerated by their wills, but by God.

HP: If a governor states that he will never pardon one who has not shown remorse for his crime and has evidenced a repentant heart, and a prisoner shows remorse for his sin and has shown a repentant heart, has the prisoner in any way 'merited' a pardon by his actions? If the prisoner is granted a pardon, having fulfilled the conditions the governor has mandated must be fulfilled in order to receive a pardon, can it be stated that the pardon was granted 'by the will' of the prisoner?

Tom, we need to think through this issue carefully. You are placing a paper duck up to shoot at when you try and equate mans will being the means by which one is regenerated if his will is involved in the process. That is simply not the case. When one eliminates man's will from the salvation process, you cannot end up anywhere short of necessitated fatalism, predestined damnation of the damned, and make a Holy and Just God out to be a arbitrary tyrant and a respecter of persons.

 

[BD17]

HP: If a governor states that he will never pardon one who has not shown remorse for his crime and has evidenced a repentant heart, and a prisoner shows remorse for his sin and has shown a repentant heart, has the prisoner in any way 'merited' a pardon by his actions? If the prisoner is granted a pardon, having fulfilled the conditions the governor has mandated must be fulfilled in order to receive a pardon, can it be stated that the pardon was granted 'by the will' of the prisoner?

Tom, we need to think through this issue carefully. You are placing a paper duck up to shoot at when you try and equate mans will being the means by which one is regenerated if his will is involved in the process. That is simply not the case. When one eliminates man's will from the salvation process, you cannot end up anywhere short of necessitated fatalism, predestined damnation of the damned, and make a Holy and Just God out to be a arbitrary tyrant and a respecter of persons.

Ahhh Hp you must look at the driving cause behind why the prisoner repented? Was it of His own accord or BECAUSE the govenor said he will not pardon any one who does not show remorse. Had the Govenor not said that would the prisoner have repented? You see what the First cause is? It is the Govenor. God is a first cause from which all other actions flow.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BD17: Had the Govenor not said that would the prisoner have repented?

HP: Let me ask you a question. If a Governor would refuse to pardon the criminal, and the prisoner was on his way to the death chamber, does the possibility still exist that he might in fact repent although no possibility remained for a pardon? Would it take some 'driving force' to necessitate the repentance, or could the prisoner have a change of heart and simply form an intent to exercise repentance?