My comment "the 4 remaining points" was referring to an earlier post where I said that I can go along with total depravity, but that's as far as I can go with Calvinism. The remaining 4 are cancelled out by free will.
-
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!
Baptists are Not Protestants.
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
My comment "the 4 remaining points" was referring to an earlier post where I said that I can go along with total depravity, but that's as far as I can go with Calvinism. The remaining 4 are cancelled out by free will.
That's called Irresistible Grace.
Not if you read the Scripture (like the verses I've been quoting) and see that God calls and honors man's decision.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
The truth is not a myth! The truth is that the unbiblical doctrine of the fall of man in the Garden of Eden is a silly story concocted by intellectually and spiritual impaired men to explain why some people do such bad things but, of course, fails to explain why many more people do such good things. This silly story has not been taught for over 150 years in out best seminaries and Universities because it has no Biblical support and yet here it is in 2025 on a Christian message board!Anyone touting "free will" is sadly, eternally mistaken. Often "willingly" mistaken. Man is not God last time I checked, especially in regards to the soul's salvation.
"If it's going to be, it's up to me", is the bumper sticker of hell.
If anyone wants a discussion on the bondage of the human will, read Martin Luther's tome, then ask to start a new topic on the BB on who started the myth of man's so-called "free" will.
I have here in my study 29 commentaries on Genesis, and 273 commentaries on Romans including every exegetical commentary of the Greek text of Romans that has ever been published in English by a publishing house or university. My dissenters have nothing but their foolish imaginations and a Bible that they lack the education to understand.
Martin Luther confessed that throughout his entire life he was in bondage to sin, that the Apostle Paul was in bondage to sin, and that all Christians will be in bondage to sin until they die. This horrific doctrine that denies the efficacy of the atonement of Christ on the cross has been, for the next 500+ years, taught by most Lutherans. An important and notable exception was Friedrich August Grottreu Tholuck who in his Kommentar Zum Briefe Pauli an Die Römer published in 1824 stood firmly on behalf of Christ and the Apostle Paul.
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
Thank you. But I thought (obviously mistakenly) that you believed that man by his free will could choose for himself whether or not to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Yet now you seem to be agreeing with my post where I said: "And we are told that the natural many cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God. So something must happen to change a sinner dead in trespasses and sins. That is something God does. "
Piper 2
Member
Yeah, that is an old Fundy view. It is wrong. We came from English Protestants and Plymouth Brethren and Anabaptists who were all protestants.
37818
Well-Known Member
Ana-baptists go back to the 4th century. Our NT to the first.
Anyone have a copy of Richard Shacklock translation of Hosius?
As mentioned here. Hosius on the Anabaptists, By Stephen M. duBarry - 2009 I managed to find a copy, but its over 200MB lol and is basically just scanned images. Would be nice if someone like forgottenbooks picked this up and created a printed version. Anyone got a less bulky pdf copy of...
www.baptistboard.com
Last edited:
I agree with the Calvinists that man is totally depraved. Paul and Isaiah make that fact clear.
Man makes his choice for or against God once the Holy Spirit pierces the heart of man with the truth of the Word of God.
Heb. 4:12
"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do."
Piper 2
Member
That is a dream. the old Trail of Blood argument. Debunked.
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
I don't see how Baptists could possibly have come from Plymouth Brethren. The first Baptist church was formed in Spitalfields, London, in 1611 or 1612. The Plymouth Brethren didn't start until the 1820s in Dublin.
37818
Well-Known Member
Did you read that research article, done by Ben Townsend?
Tracing the Cardinal Hosius “Baptist” Quote by Ben Townsend
1 Tracing the Cardinal Hosius “Baptist” Quote By Ben Townsend Preliminary note: In the Introduction to J.M. Carroll’s “The Trail of Blood,” Clarence
Last edited:
Piper 2
Member
Sorry, I am not wasting any time on anything related to Carroll. It's a ridiculous argument and history. I read it 30 years ago.Did you read that research article, done by Ben Townsend?
Tracing the Cardinal Hosius “Baptist” Quote by Ben Townsend
1 Tracing the Cardinal Hosius “Baptist” Quote By Ben Townsend Preliminary note: In the Introduction to J.M. Carroll’s “The Trail of Blood,” Clarencedocslib.org
Piper 2
Member
There is no direct delineation of any baptists. We are a conglomeration of histories. That is why I put numerous sources of our background. And yes, I have read many many books on Baptist History. Please don't suggest I read your particular book.
37818
Well-Known Member
The bad citation was not from Carroll. Rather by Clarence Walker. And it predates Walker's citation of it. And the original source of Walker's has not been identified. But has been proven to be a misquote of another actual Latin source Ben Townsend found.
Last edited:
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
Sorry, I don't understand. What "particular book?" I didn't mention any book in my post, let alone suggest that you read it. I simply pointed out that Baptists were around over 200 years before the Plymouth Brethren, so Baptists couldn't have grown out of Brethrenism.
Hutch
New Member
If you believe salvation is 100% of God, but we have to do something to maintain that salvation, than it is not a salvation 100% of God, finished on the cross, and 0% dependent on us.
Your stating salvation is dependent on us to keep our salvation is adding works to your salvation.
You can't have it both ways.
The verses you use for your support are in context of backsliding, and being put on a shelf, and not being useful to God in service to Christ.
Your view is similar to Calvin's view. He believed that if you died in a backslidden state, you were not saved in the first place.
Hutch
New Member
You choose to interpret Scripture on way, I choose another way. So it makes sense that the references in your library match your interpretation. At one time my library numbered over 900 volumes and not a one of them held a position other than OSAS eternal security.
As for...
Indeed, for the first 1,500 years of the church there were only a few doctrines that the entire church believed in without dispute. One of those doctrines was the conditional security of the believer. And in spite of the 500 years since then and all of the strenuous teaching to the contrary, the huge majority of the Church still unreservedly believes in the conditional security of the believer!
I've been a student of church history since the '70s and I have no idea where this statement comes from. It is not true. Then, again, it might be true in the books you have chosen to read. Eternal security of the saints was not an early church doctrinal in issue because the church fathers accepted it as Scriptural. It was not up for debate.
Hutch
New Member
I agree. It's all or nothing with Calvinism. It is a system of theology that you have to accept as a package deal.
(But, my position? I'm a non-Calvinist. I choose to toss out the whole package.)
We all backslide to some degree, that's when God gives us a little spanking to get us back in line.
But if we begin to place our faith in something else other than the finished work of Christ, as many of the Jews did by abandoning Christ and going back to Temple worship (the Law) then our salvation is forfeited. We must keep the faith in Christ to the end, period!
Heb. 3:14
"For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;"
Notice that we are partakers of Christ IF we keep our faith to the end.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
It is extreme unfortunate that you allowed your library to be so severely biased! My library very carefully reflects not what I personally believe, but an extremely wide spectrum of Jewish and Christian theological thought expressed by the top scholars representing those thoughts—whether I agree with them or not. Indeed, I have here in my study 273 commentaries on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans including every exegetical commentary on the Greek text of Romans that has ever been published in English by a publishing house or university.
The doctrine of conditional security was very widely taught throughout the early Christian world by many, and it was NEVER taught defensively because there was no other view to oppose. Calvinists are very much aware of this and they have very diligently searched the now available massive databases using the very best search tools and they have come up emptied handed. A few of them, however, have published translated quotes to the contrary out of context, but those same quotes have been published in context in the original Greek and Latin proving that the Calvinists were either careless or deliberately dishonest.
I am aware that not all believers in the doctrine of eternal security are Calvinists, but it is the Calvinists who have made, by far, the most effort to defend it in view of the history of the interpretation of the Old and New Testaments.