• 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!

Besides Lordship Haters and Calvinist Shills...?

Status
Not open for further replies.
ReformedBaptist said:
And I don't think a person is engaged in self-interest when they are expounding or teaching biblical doctrine. But I suppose selfish motivations are something we all shoudl guard against. :tongue3:
I agree with this, and many believers on both side of the theological debate may actually believe they are teaching biblical doctrine. Yet perusing through these boards it's hard to see the Christian love sometimes.

I am thankful for those such as yourself that can keep a level head in the midst of such controversial topics.
 

ReformedBaptist

Well-Known Member
mparkerfd20 said:
I see where you are coming from Amy, but rest assured from the other perspective I see just as much from the non-Cal side trying to force Cals response by making snide remarks and such. Just reading through these threads today I'm saddened at how bad it's gotten.

I'm often ashamed that I share a common theological view with some here, because of their attitudes towards others. I'm even more ashamed that many "Christians" belittle one another (on BOTH sides of the theological debate) just for the sake of being "right" in their own eyes.

I am mainly ashamed at my own heart. It seems I have tendency to abandon meekness when discussing things in controversy. But this is one of the reasons why I won't abandon the threads altogether. It has really been helpful in my walk with Christ to be slandered and attacked for my beliefs, not because it makes me stronger in my beliefs, but it is a great exercise of my character to respond with patience, kindness, meekness, and love. I don't always do this. And I don't think a strong response always violates these virtues. But it certrainly can.

But you hit the nail on the head my friend; Are we more concerned with appearing to be right than we are with the love of God and our opponent? If we are more concerning with appearing to be right then we truly are self-seeking.

And where I have been selfishly motived, please be patient with me and fogive me.

RB
 

Amy.G

New Member
Guys, I agree with you that both sides can get ugly. There is no excuse for it, no matter what side we're on.

I know that neither side likes to hear this, but I think both sides are right about many, many things. I think we all tend to put God in a box and say "this is the ONLY doctrine that can be right". The trouble is, that God just won't cooperate with that. :tongue3: I am guilty of this as well.

If we all would just try to teach "in love" as the Bible says, we would all be better off and God would be pleased with us, even if we don't get it all right, all the time.
 
Amy.G said:
Guys, I agree with you that both sides can get ugly. There is no excuse for it, no matter what side we're on.

I know that neither side likes to hear this, but I think both sides are right about many, many things. I think we all tend to put God in a box and say "this is the ONLY doctrine that can be right". The trouble is, that God just won't cooperate with that. :tongue3: I am guilty of this as well.

If we all would just try to teach "in love" as the Bible says, we would all be better off and God would be pleased with us, even if we don't get it all right, all the time.

Amen to that! :thumbs:
 

Amy.G

New Member
I was listening to Moody Radio this afternoon and Pastor Don Cole was on with Chris Fabry (sp?) and he was talking about Christians getting angry and contentious with one another. Nah, we don't do that, do we? :laugh: He said that we have to "teach in love", but the first thing we must do is to love the person we're talking to. :eek:

Now, I am ashamed to say it, but I have never thought of it that way. I know I should behave lovingly (although I fail miserably sometimes), but actually loving the person? Wow. That changes everything. If I love the person I'm talking to I probably won't call them a slimy hell bound Christian because they don't think like I do.

Just wanted to share. :)
 

ReformedBaptist

Well-Known Member
Amy.G said:
I was listening to Moody Radio this afternoon and Pastor Don Cole was on with Chris Fabry (sp?) and he was talking about Christians getting angry and contentious with one another. Nah, we don't do that, do we? :laugh: He said that we have to "teach in love", but the first thing we must do is to love the person we're talking to. :eek:

Now, I am ashamed to say it, but I have never thought of it that way. I know I should behave lovingly (although I fail miserably sometimes), but actually loving the person? Wow. That changes everything. If I love the person I'm talking to I probably won't call them a slimy hell bound Christian because they don't think like I do.

Just wanted to share. :)

How about slimy heaven-bound Christians? :laugh:
 

Bible-boy

Active Member
Grasshopper said:
I reject the notion that Calvinism is an extreme. Our Baptist forefathers sure didn't think so. Maybe the "middle of the road/center" position is extreme.


:eek:

An intellectually honest assessment of Baptist History reveals that there have always been Baptists in both the Calvinist and Free Will camps.

The problem today comes when proponents of either system take their positions to an extreme (the hyper- end of the spectrum). When this happens it ends in absurdity and very flawed Theology (if not heresy).

Personally, I am quite satisfied to sit in the biblical tension squarely between the two camps.
 

Marcia

Active Member
Goldie said:
The Bible does containly contain a doctrine called "The Lordship of Jesus Christ", but this shouldn't be confused with making Him the "Lord of your life" though in order to be saved. Many people also confuse discipleship with salvation. They think that if you're not called, you're not saved. So if Israel is chosen - does that mean all the Jews are saved? No. The Bible clearly states that only a remnant will be saved out of Israel.

...And last, but not least - there is a lot of pride in testifying to one's salvation via Lordship Salvation because in effect one is saying "I've made Jesus my Lord" which means that Jesus controls your life and that you are TOTALLY YIELDED - which you are not, because no-one is. Why? Because all still sin. So in effect we are giving something to God to get something in return - it's like making a trade for salvation - "I'll make you the Lord of my life and you will give me salvation". Therefore this type of salvation is earned. But salvation is never earned because it's a FREE GIFT that we just need to RECEIVE.

Goldie, your post was long so I left most of it out but just wanted to say I think it was good and I agree with it. :thumbs:
 

Marcia

Active Member
Bible-boy said:
...Personally, I am quite satisfied to sit in the biblical tension squarely between the two camps.

Me, too! I agree (I had to add "I agree" because my post was too short! I didn't know it had to have at least 10 characters).
 

skypair

Active Member
ReformedBaptist said:
Now I love the doctrine of election. I want to understand it better. But the doctrine of election is not a calvinist doctrine. It is a biblical doctrine. You may not understand election the way a calvinist explains it, but it is a biblical doctrine.
That is music to my ears, RB!!

Listen. You know what "election" is? It is the "predestination" spoken of in Rom 8:29! Nothing more -- it DOESN'T mean the same thing as "foreknown." And nothing less -- it doesn't mean that God is done with you so long as He saves you!

"Election" = salvation is a Calvinist doctrine. Calvinism has a mistaken view of 1) "foreknown" and of 2) human spirituality.

Foreknowing is just God's omniscience in operation. It's not predestining or choosing or any such thing -- it is foreseeing or knowing beforehand.

Human spirituality consists of 1) soul and 2) spirit. Calvinism denies this duality. The soul that dies in sin (Ezek 18:20) must be reborn. The spirit (mind, emotions, and will) remains "open"/free to contemplate that option. So whereas the Calvinist sees no such opportunity, the Bible militates against such foolishness of men. The gospel actually invites men to accept salvation as the alternative 1) to eternity in hell and 2) to a life lived under the "wrath of God." But salvation is NOT monergistic -- an action taken by God without our cooperation/participation.

skypair
 
Last edited by a moderator:

skypair

Active Member
ReformedBaptist said:
I am mainly ashamed at my own heart. It seems I have tendency to abandon meekness when discussing things in controversy. But this is one of the reasons why I won't abandon the threads altogether. It has really been helpful in my walk with Christ to be slandered and attacked for my beliefs, not because it makes me stronger in my beliefs, but it is a great exercise of my character to respond with patience, kindness, meekness, and love. I don't always do this. And I don't think a strong response always violates these virtues. But it certrainly can.
"Iron" doesn't "sharpen iron" without FRICTION, right? Good point, RB! :thumbsup: I don't believe that any of us has all the truth nor is all that we put forth false. Sometimes we need to see "in what ways is LS true? In what ways is it false?"

There is obviously truth in Calvinism. It is important that we not accept 2nd best, though. As Dr Rogers used to say, "Which is more deceptive? A clock that is 5 minutes off or one that is 2 hours off? 5 minutes! You will have a sense that a clock that is 2 hours off is wrong. The clock that is 5 minutes off is just deceptive enough that you may not know you are late!"

Calvinism is "5 minutes late." It cannot give us the correct "time" in that it cannot tell us why God chooses whom He does to salvation. Is that not a CRITICAL question? How about this --- Calvinism can't tell us how evil entered into the world (again, free will not fate, right?). Calvinism says that on account of predestincation, God can't "answer" prayer. Calvinism as much as says you are "resigned to your fate" when it comes to heaven or hell. Nothing YOU can "do" about it. Do you believe that?

skypair
 

Jarthur001

Active Member
skypair said:
"Iron" doesn't "sharpen iron" without FRICTION, right? Good point, RB! :thumbsup: I don't believe that any of us has all the truth nor is all that we put forth false. Sometimes we need to see "in what ways is LS true? In what ways is it false?"

There is obviously truth in Calvinism. It is important that we not accept 2nd best, though. As Dr Rogers used to say, "Which is more deceptive? A clock that is 5 minutes off or one that is 2 hours off? 5 minutes! You will have a sense that a clock that is 2 hours off is wrong. The clock that is 5 minutes off is just deceptive enough that you may not know you are late!"

Calvinism is "5 minutes late." It cannot give us the correct "time" in that it cannot tell us why God chooses whom He does to salvation. Is that not a CRITICAL question? How about this --- Calvinism can't tell us how evil entered into the world (again, free will not fate, right?). Calvinism says that on account of predestincation, God can't "answer" prayer. Calvinism as much as says you are "resigned to your fate" when it comes to heaven or hell. Nothing YOU can "do" about it. Do you believe that?

skypair
Rogers who? :)
 

ReformedBaptist

Well-Known Member
Skypair,

Two things my friend,

1) Yes, I do know what election is. No, I don't agree with your definition of it.

2) You still have not convinced me you actually understand calvinism. What you have put up as calvinism in your posts, and many I am sure have pointed this out to you before, I have never read from any calvinist...and I have read alot of them. lol

I also notice you seem much more agreeable to talk to skypair. That is nice to see. If you will actually quote a true calvinist who is explaining election, say for example...C.H. Spurgeon, or someone, and then deal with the actual doctrine, I might dialogue with on you on the subject. :thumbsup:
 

JDale

Member
Site Supporter
Goldie:

I thank you for posting, though I'm not sure if you think I don't grasp the meanings and nuances of the Lordship debate in particular. I'm really right there with you on most of the things you said. Below I've highlighted portions of what you said, upon which I comment below your quotes...


Goldie said:
JDale,

...Many people also confuse discipleship with salvation. They think that if you're not called, you're not saved...

One doesn't have to be either Arminian or Calvinist either in one's outlook - just a sinner who believes in Jesus Christ as his/her Saviour. Saved by Grace, through faith in Jesus Christ, and through faith alone, not by works. I'm neither an Arminianist or a Calvinist. I'm just a sinner saved by Grace. Even the best Christian is just a sinner, but a saved one nevertheless.

Once you let go of all the works and let God do all the work through Jesus Christ, you appreciate your salvation and right-standing with Him in a very special way, and He can accomplish more in and with you ....

We are rotten to the core really - and when God looks at us He sees Jesus' Righteousness and that's what brings us into right-standing with Him.

The works that we do as Christians should be to please God - that should be our underlying motive, our works should not be done as a pathway to salvation, as we cannot save ourselves.

Once you hold onto saved by grace through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone...you're not so prone to judging them because you realise that is you, that can very well be you...

...We all stumble and fall...We are all merely human. Fallen humans...

Take water baptism for instance - it's a sign of discipleship, not salvation...

...Christians are predestined to become like Christ (after the rapture/resurrection), they are not predestined to salvation. So salvation is only through Christ alone, not through works that we might boast - and works means anything that we might do in order to be saved. It is my understanding that Jesus rather BECOMES the Lord of our lives as we grow IN GRACE.

The Apostle Paul who is seen as the greatest Christian to have ever lived even stated, "O wretched man that I am" and called himself the "chief of sinners". My bet is that you would've banged heads even with Paul....

And last, but not least - there is a lot of pride in testifying to one's salvation via Lordship Salvation because in effect one is saying "I've made Jesus my Lord" which means that Jesus controls your life and that you are TOTALLY YIELDED - which you are not, because no-one is. Why? Because all still sin...Therefore this type of salvation is earned. But salvation is never earned because it's a FREE GIFT that we just need to RECEIVE.

...Salvation amounts to belief and reliance in Him (total dependence and trust), not giving up one's sins. The true meaning of Biblical repentance is to have a change of mind, i.e., to change from unbelief to belief in Him.


(1) Discipleship, as you said, should not be mistaken for salvation. However, Discipleship IS (and must be viewed as) the proper and expected response of one who is truly saved -- Ephesians 2:8-10:
"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, {it is} the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them." It was "prepared beforehand that we would walk in" good works. That's what we were "created in Christ Jesus for." NOT as a means of salvation, but as a RESULT of Salvation.

(2) I, too, acknowledge, that I am "a sinner saved by grace." Some, however, use that as an excuse not to think thru the very real issues and theological questions we are presented with -- like Calvinist determinism vs. Free Moral agency and God's foreknowledge. I cettainly don't think you use this as an excuse, but I would surmise that you have definite opinions about the extent of the atonement, whether or not one can "resist" saving grace, and whether or not one may apostasize vs. unconditional perseverance.

(3) That said, I fully agree with you that we are "rotten to the core." What more can I say? We are sinful, we are fallen, we are corrupt, we are lost -- we are TOTALLY DEPRAVED. With the Calvinist and every other Biblical Christian, I bow as the Publican, smite my chest and confess, "I'm just a sinner." From such, I can do NOTHING to contribute to my own salvation. Nothing. In fact, you said that "the works we do as Christians should be to please God..." I find myself with Paul in ROmans 7, not even able to do THAT! My works are no more than "filthy rags" as Isaiah called them.

(4) I COMPLETELY agree that, were it not for Christ' Righteousness, I could not be in right standing with Christ. When I stand before God, ALL that will give me entrance to His Kingdom is the Robe of Righteousness HE places upon my shoulders! And that robe was/is obtained ONLY by grace alone thru faith alone! I hope you have not tossed me into the category of "works salvation," as this would be antithetical to all I have EVER espoused, taught, preached and believed.

(5) I have not attempted to stand in judgment of anyone on this thread -- I have attempted to find those here who find themselves in the same general territory as I. That is all. Though, I have BEEN judged by a few...

(6) Please tell me, in what way could I possibly have "banged heads" with Paul?! First, he was an Apostle, so I imagine I would immediately defer to his considerable knowledge and authority if he concluded I was wrong. Second, I don't think I've advocated anything Paul would not wholeheartedly endorsed -- and had in fact preached or written himself.

(7) Water Baptism is meant to be a "picture" of salvation. It is a memorial of Christ' death, burial and resurrection -- and of our participation in it spiritually as we "die to self and sin, and rise to walk in newness of life." It ritually reenacts what has taken place in the heart of the believer. In other words, "it is an outward sign of an inward grace." Baptism DOES NOT SAVE, but it is intended as the first step of obedience in the walk of a new believer.

(8) It seems in your statement's about Lordship that you misunderstand [at least] my view of the matter. Let me explain succinctly, my view -- John MacAurthur can answer for himself:

First, we don't MAKE Jesus Christ Lord -- He IS LORD. Period.

Second, We don't come to Him for salvation on OUR TERMS, we come on HIS terms.

Third, we are not capable of living above all sin while in our flesh. See Romans 7. Even Paul knew that. But your statement above -- "Lordship salvation is saying...that Jesus Controls your life and you are TOTALLY YIELDED..." indicates strongly that you equate the term Lordship with "perfection." As IF... The fact that I acknowledge Jesus as Saviour AND Lord over my life in NO WAY implies I am His perfect servant. I struggle to be obedient and consistent -- and too often I fail. That does not mean He isn't LORD over my life and Saviour of my soul!

Fourth, you seem to exclude the idea that repentance is a necessary part of salvation. Yet, you state EXACTLY what I have ALWAYS said -- and what the Bible plainly teaches -- regarding the place of REPENTANCE in salvation! You said: "The true meaning of repentance is to have a change of mind, i.e. to change from unbelief to belief in Him." YES! Faith and repentance are two sides of the same coin! They are not "different," nor can they be separated from each other. As Paul writes in Hebrews 6:1 -
"Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God..."

We make these terms harder than they have to be, and we split theological hairs that aren't meant to be split -- and it causes divisions that aren't necessary! Salvation IS a free gift. We must merely humble ourselves, and receive it. Hope this explains where I'm coming from...

Now that I broke my own OP intent, I return you to the regularly scheduled invitation....

Surely there are others? Don't hide in the corners, or secret yourself in the shadows. Don't turn your knuckles white holding on to the back of the pew before you! Turn loose, and come! Are there others?
icon10.gif


JDale
 

JDale

Member
Site Supporter
Bible-boy said:
An intellectually honest assessment of Baptist History reveals that there have always been Baptists in both the Calvinist and Free Will camps.

The problem today comes when proponents of either system take their positions to an extreme (the hyper- end of the spectrum). When this happens it ends in absurdity and very flawed Theology (if not heresy).

Personally, I am quite satisfied to sit in the biblical tension squarely between the two camps.


BB:

How VERY McQuilkin-esque of you! You didn't go to Columbia International University did you? That principle was ingrained in us while I was a student there... Dr. Robertson McQuilkin is a very wise and Godly man.

JDale
 

JDale

Member
Site Supporter
skypair said:
That is music to my ears, RB!!

Listen. You know what "election" is? It is the "predestination" spoken of in Rom 8:29! Nothing more -- it DOESN'T mean the same thing as "foreknown." And nothing less -- it doesn't mean that God is done with you so long as He saves you!

"Election" = salvation is a Calvinist doctrine. Calvinism has a mistaken view of 1) "foreknown" and of 2) human spirituality.

Foreknowing is just God's omniscience in operation. It's not predestining or choosing or any such thing -- it is foreseeing or knowing beforehand.

Human spirituality consists of 1) soul and 2) spirit. Calvinism denies this duality. The soul that dies in sin (Ezek 18:20) must be reborn. The spirit (mind, emotions, and will) remains "open"/free to contemplate that option. So whereas the Calvinist sees no such opportunity, the Bible militates against such foolishness of men. The gospel actually invites men to accept salvation as the alternative 1) to eternity in hell and 2) to a life lived under the "wrath of God." But salvation is NOT monergistic -- an action taken by God without our cooperation/participation.

skypair


SP:

MUST you chase RB down on every thread?! I've noted this earlier -- this is NOT specifically relevant to the OP. RB posts on other threads -- "election" may be argued on any number of them. That's not the focus here.

JDale
 

skypair

Active Member
ReformedBaptist said:
Skypair,

Two things my friend,

1) Yes, I do know what election is. No, I don't agree with your definition of it.

2) You still have not convinced me you actually understand calvinism. What you have put up as calvinism in your posts, and many I am sure have pointed this out to you before, I have never read from any calvinist...and I have read alot of them. lol

I also notice you seem much more agreeable to talk to skypair. That is nice to see. If you will actually quote a true calvinist who is explaining election, say for example...C.H. Spurgeon, or someone, and then deal with the actual doctrine, I might dialogue with on you on the subject. :thumbsup:
Now that would be a "closed minded" exercise, would it not? :laugh: Me having to stand on YOUR ground explaining YOUR theology to you.

Better yet, as I have tried to do, let's go back to the Bible. Simply put, in biblical terminology, "election" does NOT mean "salvation."

But second, you ostensibly belong to the Baptist church (else you wouldn't post on this particular forum). That being the case, you may NOT have been exposed to the real Calvinism -- Presbies, Lutherans, etc. Don't tale MY word for it -- go visit. Make it a "field trip." Go see that they are all "snug in their pews" believing that they are saved without having to "lift a finger" in response to God. They recite the "Apostle's Creed" as if it were "necessary and sufficient" to salvation and they "cap" every prayer off with "the Lord's Prayer" as if that had some mystical power. Being baptized as an infant for "original sin" and entrance into the kingdom is a HUGE thing (similar to Catholics)! Communion still transmits "grace" to the partaker in some way. Not "saving grace," mind you, but "cleansing" grace at that very least.

skypair
 

ReformedBaptist

Well-Known Member
skypair said:
Now that would be a "closed minded" exercise, would it not? :laugh: Me having to stand on YOUR ground explaining YOUR theology to you.

Better yet, as I have tried to do, let's go back to the Bible. Simply put, in biblical terminology, "election" does NOT mean "salvation."

But second, you ostensibly belong to the Baptist church (else you wouldn't post on this particular forum). That being the case, you may NOT have been exposed to the real Calvinism -- Presbies, Lutherans, etc. Don't tale MY word for it -- go visit. Make it a "field trip." Go see that they are all "snug in their pews" believing that they are saved without having to "lift a finger" in response to God. They recite the "Apostle's Creed" as if it were "necessary and sufficient" to salvation and they "cap" every prayer off with "the Lord's Prayer" as if that had some mystical power. Being baptized as an infant for "original sin" and entrance into the kingdom is a HUGE thing (similar to Catholics)! Communion still transmits "grace" to the partaker in some way. Not "saving grace," mind you, but "cleansing" grace at that very least.

skypair

JDale,

Sorry about this brother. But I think Skypair is Irresistably attracted to my posts. :laugh:

Skypair,

I have a plethra of presbyterian works on my shelves, and I beginning my seminary work with a presbyterian seminary. I am finally going to get to study John Calvin's works. Hoorah!

Our church is having a joint service with Grace Presbyterian Church in Douglasville this coming Lord's Day evening. We will be taking the Lord's Table together. Hallelujah!

And yes, I am a member in good standing with Berean Baptist Church, a reformed Baptist church in Austell, GA, confessionally 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith (of which I take a minor exception at this point, but I am researching).

My point is, I love my presbyterian brethren. I love my Independant Baptist brethren, SBC brethren, methodist brethren, charismatic brethren, et. I love my brethren in Christ in whatever demonation or non-denomnation they might be in.

My suggestion is that you visit them. I have attended both Lutheran and Presbyterian services. Nothing what you are describing happened there. I love my Lutheran brethren, but there are some area where I disagree with them on. But I would take the Lord's Table with them anytime I the Lord gave me a chance.

And I have been thinking about attending Calvary Free Presbyterian Church on Sunday evenings on occasion. Very loving people and a great pastor.

RB
 

JDale

Member
Site Supporter
Whoa Calvie! ;-)

ReformedBaptist said:
JDale,

Sorry about this brother. But I think Skypair is Irresistably attracted to my posts. :laugh:

...We will be taking the Lord's Table together...

I would take the Lord's Table with them anytime I the Lord gave me a chance.

RB


Wait wait!! Okay, first, obviously SP has absolutely no regard for my aim for this thread. I find that more than a little disquieting....

Second -- I thought Calvie's believed in CLOSED Communion!? How is it you practice Communion with other churches -- of other denominations, no less? Early [Calvinist] Particular Baptists certainly wouldn't have allowed such!

You go on to mention you would take the Lord's Table with them anytime...? Doesn't this violate the tenant of Closed Communion too? If I, not a member of your Church, and not a Calvinist, were to attend this service Sunday evening -- or a communion service at your home church -- would I not be excluded from the Lord's Table? If not, some of your Calvinist compadres might take you to task! If so, WELCOME TO THE PRACTICE OF OPEN COMMUNION!
icon12.gif


JDale
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top