cal and non-cal agreement

[Mexdeaf]

Cornelius is used as an example to support their conditional election. So is the rich young ruler, who wasn't 'good' by the way. Both passages abused from their context to do so.

Innumerous out of context references are quoted to disprove the 'all mankind' indictment of Romans 3 along with indictments in Eph., Col. &c. Many have ascribed themselves good prior to salvation, that they were seeking God, and are adamant against the fact that they were ever hostile toward God &c.

I and many others know this is factual and has been purported by Baptists on this site.

You are correct. Some of the soteriology expressed here on the BB recently is short on the 'soter' part. Can one indeed save themselves?

 

[quantumfaith]

Guys this thread is about what we agree on. Do not let him take it off of that track.

Thanks for the reminder, I will mind my keyboard..

 

[Mexdeaf]

Guys this thread is about what we agree on. Do not let him take it off of that track.

Oops, you are correct. Thanks.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

You are correct. Some of the soteriology expressed here on the BB recently is short on the 'soter' part. Can one indeed save themselves?

The Finneyists certainly believe so.

 

[preacher4truth]

Guys this thread is about what we agree on. Do not let him take it off of that track.

Yes it is about that but the things stated in the OP are in fact straw man arguments there is no agreement on some of those things -- far from it. That's my point.

Here's a better suggestion:

We agree upon the Deity of Christ, the Virgin Birth, the Atoning Blood, Christ the only way to the Father, that God's Word is truth, That Christ is Perfect in all His being &c.

- Blessings

 

[quantumfaith]

Yes it is about that but the things stated in the OP are in fact straw man arguments there is no agreement on some of those things -- far from it. That's my point.

Here's a better suggestion:

We agree upon the Deity of Christ, the Virgin Birth, the Atoning Blood, Christ the only way to the Father, that God's Word is truth, That Christ is Perfect in all His being &c.

- Blessings

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Revmitchell]

I would like the forum folks to explore areas of agreement between the two systems of theological views that consume the better part of many discussions on the forum.

For instance: In the thread (now closed) on Hunt/White, I posted in brief how if removing the "extremes" of the views, there is a certain level of agreement.

Of course, there were two that didn't agree, but I consider that it may be helpful to pursue where we might all agree, and (if only in attempting) come up with some common ground.

Here is the typical "TULIP" for a reference start along with what I consider a common ground on which BOTH views might find agreeable.

Depravity - Both views hold that humankind are depraved and incapable of even having any desire of salvation outside the purposed and direct work of God. Is it not the degree of that depravity that is really argued about?

Election - Both views hold that humankind are elected to salvation. Both views also hold that the election is not based upon any speciality or station of the one to be saved, but by the total mercy and grace of God. Neither side holds that God is ever surprised when one is converted, and that some are (to be) saved while others may actually continue their whole life mocking and spurning.

Atonement - Both views hold that Christ is the ONLY way to the Father. Both views have some limit to atonement to only the saved (or there would be no need for eternal death and hell). Both also agree that the death of Christ is sufficient to all who who have, are and will be saved. Again, is it not the degree of the "all" that is contended over and not the limit of atonement?

Grace - Both views hold that God extends mercy and grace to one who will be saved. That outside of that direct and purposed work, the individual cannot even self determine to come to Christ for Scriptures are clear that no man seeks or even cares outside of this grace of God. Is it not the degree of just how "resistible" or not the work of God is in the individual who will be saved?

Perseverance/preservation of the saints is a none issue on the BB. We all hold to once saved always saved, although the extremes of the Arm. view do not.

Folks, I understand the elementary (basic, simple) form of the TULIP that I have posted.

However, for this discussion, I would like for it to be on unity and agreement, not of areas of disagreement.

In doing so, remember that in presenting your view, it would be considerate to express how you might have agreement (up to a point) with a view you generally argue against.

Brother I appreciate your attempt here. It is a shame one or two will not allow for it. It seems they would turn the Lord's return into something negative.

 

[DHK]

You're clueless to what is held here then. What, you've been here 6 months and so you know all that has been said in the past, correct?

Cornelius is used as an example to support their conditional election. So is the rich young ruler, who wasn't 'good' by the way. Both passages abused from their context to do so.

Innumerous out of context references are quoted to disprove the 'all mankind' indictment of Romans 3 along with indictments in Eph., Col. &c. Many have ascribed themselves good prior to salvation, that they were seeking God, and are adamant against the fact that they were ever hostile toward God &c.

A simple search of the archives would serve you well, but for you to be proven incorrect by self discovery would prevent you from being able to post things that you are completely oblivious about.

You don't know what you are talking about.

And that you don't believe it? I couldn't care less. I and many others know this is factual and has been purported by Baptists on this site.

As observed:
Not an appeal to any other authority (e.g. Catechism, Calvin, etc.)
Not an appeal to Scripture.
Only an appeal to yourself as your own authority.

Stop attacking others, and put and end to the offensive posts.
Post something useful and beneficial and directed at the OP, not at others.

 

[agedman]

It would be nice if there was the adherence to the things above by what you call both groups.

On Depravity one group (a few on here) disagree with depravity as per your description and say that being lost they did desire God, were good, seeking Him, always loved God &c and deny Romans 3 indictment upon all mankind. They also deny other passages of themselves being hostile toward God, enemies in their mind, at enmity with God, under wrath like the rest of mankind. Somehow these Scriptures don't talk about them at all. Is it then a wonder they reject Depravity as you explain it and as Scripture explains it?

On Election you'd be incorrect again. Several on here believe in election based upon themselves, what they've done &c, what they call conditional election, or God chose based upon _____________. They'll fight against election in general, or the true Biblical teaching of unconditional election they will attack vehemently but bring up their false flavor of conditional election and they love it and will reiterate their seeking God, good things done &c. Since they deny Romans 3 as per above it is is easy for them to believe the false notion of conditional election and not accept biblical unconditional election. There is also a huge disdain among these in the biblical aspect of God choosing. This is seen on BB in many instances, and proof to show that not all saved are elect is sought with taking Scriptures out of context to do so, mocking those who know they are elect &c.

Those two huge erroneous views held by some on here are due cause for reproving their teachings and there can be no unity with these things being held. Furthermore, I've never met a true Baptist that believes the way these few do. Neither have any pastors, professors or evangelists that I've spoken to heard of a Baptist such as this.

On the first view you discussed, I agree with you that (IF my mind doesn't fail in recall) that there were a few posts that disparage the depravity as total and promote that there must be some spark of "free - (whatever)" involved that every man innately has.

However, In following a great deal of threads on the discussion(s) and some in which I contested within, I noticed that even those who disagreed with me on "total" depravity did so with the concept that unless the Holy Spirit works through the Word - that person cannot be saved. In that, some may reject the term but hold to a semblance of the same in regards to state of the heathen unregenerate.

They may not hold to the degree of depravity (if there is in fact degrees) but generally all would relate that no person can come to the Father unless the Spirit draws them.


In the second discussion, again you are correct (although I don't recon as many as you have seen - I haven't been here as long as you).

The problem seems to come from a view that involves some "cooperate or corporate" salvation election in which I just don't see as Scriptural until the millennium. But that is for a different thread.

However, when it comes to election in the purest sense, it does seem all sides agree that no attainment to station of living or precondition status of a person draws God's favor. It is that God elects as He chooses irregardless of humankind.

As you so very well point out, where there is strong disagreement seems to be in the ability or lack there of of the heathen to have some innate capability to respond by actually "accepting or rejecting" salvation. That is troubling to me. But does not diminish the original statement that in some manner all have a hold on some form of unconditional election.

I have no problem with reproving error. As you have possibly noticed, I also have "crossed swords" on occasion with most on the BB over some matter I viewed as portrayed incorrectly.

What I am attempting to accomplish is to see if most of the board will agree on at least some very basic ground.

 

[InTheLight]

In the church I serve (as does saturneptune), the large majority of our members are not Calvinists. We DoGs are in a definite minority, yet, we get along just fine, focusing on areas of agreement where we can, and agreeing to disagree where we can't. So we have some experience in this area of seeking agreement.

We all agree that all have sinned.
We all agree that the Holy Spirit must initiate the process with illumination and conviction. It is the Holy Spirit who opens the eyes of the sinner to spiritual truth; convicts him of sin and its consequences; and draws him to repentance and faith.

Whether one believes all are enabled, or only the elect, we all agree on illumination, conviction and drawing.

We all agree that salvation involves repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

We all agree that God is able to keep those who have committed to him, and no one can snatch them out of his hand, that the gifts and calling of God are "without repentance."

Even though we may approach the subject of election from different perspectives, these agreements are something we can all embrace as the basis for unity among us. Because, in the final analysis, we agree on the Gospel.

Great post! :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[preacher4truth]

As observed:Only an appeal to yourself as your own authority.

Sort of, but not quite.

My response (which you quoted) was to one who stated my post was nonsense. Said post didn't appeal to Scripture whatsoever but to ones 'own authority'. Said post got a pass.

Wonder why?

Thus there was no appeal to Scripture needed, as Scripture was not the context. My appeal was to the history of comments on the BB.

When posts are about Scripture, then I use Scripture. When posts are concerning held beliefs on BB then I appeal to the held beliefs of others.

- Blessings

 

[saturneptune]

This is a wonderful thread, because, it foucses on a positive, agreement. If this were made the normal routine, the Calvin-free will threads would be near zero, and ten to twelve posters I can think of would be out of business.

 

[preacher4truth]

On the first view you discussed, I agree with you that (IF my mind doesn't fail in recall) that there were a few posts that disparage the depravity as total and promote that there must be some spark of "free - (whatever)" involved that every man innately has.

However, In following a great deal of threads on the discussion(s) and some in which I contested within, I noticed that even those who disagreed with me on "total" depravity did so with the concept that unless the Holy Spirit works through the Word - that person cannot be saved. In that, some may reject the term but hold to a semblance of the same in regards to state of the heathen unregenerate.

They may not hold to the degree of depravity (if there is in fact degrees) but generally all would relate that no person can come to the Father unless the Spirit draws them.


In the second discussion, again you are correct (although I don't recon as many as you have seen - I haven't been here as long as you).

The problem seems to come from a view that involves some "cooperate or corporate" salvation election in which I just don't see as Scriptural until the millennium. But that is for a different thread.

However, when it comes to election in the purest sense, it does seem all sides agree that no attainment to station of living or precondition status of a person draws God's favor. It is that God elects as He chooses irregardless of humankind.

As you so very well point out, where there is strong disagreement seems to be in the ability or lack there of of the heathen to have some innate capability to respond by actually "accepting or rejecting" salvation. That is troubling to me. But does not diminish the original statement that in some manner all have a hold on some form of unconditional election.

I have no problem with reproving error. As you have possibly noticed, I also have "crossed swords" on occasion with most on the BB over some matter I viewed as portrayed incorrectly.

What I am attempting to accomplish is to see if most of the board will agree on at least some very basic ground.

agedman,

Thanks for your reply.

The thing that I am getting at is that in your quote of 'all here' agreeing on said points, that such reasonings fall well short of what is true and of what does actually take place on BB.

Anything other is pure romanticism and such does not reflect a tangible reality here.

- Blessings

 

[agedman]

agedman,

Thanks for your reply.

The thing that I am getting at is that in your quote of 'all here' agreeing on said points, that such reasonings fall well short of what is true and of what does actually take place on BB.

Anything other is pure romanticism and such does not reflect a tangible reality here.

- Blessings

The agreement statements do "fall well short of what is true (of some held views) and what does actually take place on the BB." I'm not much of a romantic, but would like to see at least one thread in which folks can make statements that are agreeable.

How curious it is that I don't yet recall reading a post from a "non-cal" on this thread. It would seem that there would actually be a great thrill in finding and showing a certain agreement.

Perhaps there will be those who are non-cal in view that can see some agreement with the statements and contribute those points of agreement. If they disagree, then why not state how the statements could be modified to show agreement?

I did very much like the post that included the "deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the resurrection, substitutionary atonement, His imminent return et. al." That was good!

 

[Winman]

The agreement statements do "fall well short of what is true (of some held views) and what does actually take place on the BB." I'm not much of a romantic, but would like to see at least one thread in which folks can make statements that are agreeable.

How curious it is that I don't yet recall reading a post from a "non-cal" on this thread. It would seem that there would actually be a great thrill in finding and showing a certain agreement.

Perhaps there will be those who are non-cal in view that can see some agreement with the statements and contribute those points of agreement. If they disagree, then why not state how the statements could be modified to show agreement?

I did very much like the post that included the "deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the resurrection, substitutionary atonement, His imminent return et. al." That was good!

I don't believe non-Cals like myself desire to be in agreement with Calvinists. I have no desire whatsoever to be in agreement with Calvinism, as I consider it utterly false doctrine. It is NOT what the scriptures say.

That said, I have no desire to be in agreement with Catholics, or Mormons, or JWs... The scriptures say CONTEND for the faith, not compromise.

Jud 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

Contend means to fight for the truth, not compromise and hold hands with those who teach falsehood.

I could go over each point, but it is a little late, maybe tomorrow I will post how I disagree with your views.

If you would rather not hear why I disagree, that is fine, I have posted my views many hundreds of times here at BB.

 

[agedman]

I don't believe non-Cals like myself desire to be in agreement with Calvinists. I have no desire whatsoever to be in agreement with Calvinism, as I consider it utterly false doctrine. It is NOT what the scriptures say.

That said, I have no desire to be in agreement with Catholics, or Mormons, or JWs... The scriptures say CONTEND for the faith, not compromise.

Jud 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

Contend means to fight for the truth, not compromise and hold hands with those who teach falsehood.

I could go over each point, but it is a little late, maybe tomorrow I will post how I disagree with your views.

If you would rather not hear why I disagree, that is fine, I have posted my views many hundreds of times here at BB.

Please do post, Winman.

I would encourage you to take the OP and separate each point and show how if it were modified it would be in agreement with your views (if only in a minor way).

Just as the strong Cal's would contend the OP isn't in total agreement with what they hold, yet can agree somewhat on the statements, I look to see how you can also show a level of disagreement, yet also demonstrate how the statements do show some level of agreement with your view.

Of course, you could also add to the list started by Herald; "deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the resurrection, substitutionary atonement, His imminent return et. al."

 

[convicted1]

Depravity - Both views hold that humankind are depraved and incapable of even having any desire of salvation outside the purposed and direct work of God. Is it not the degree of that depravity that is really argued about?

I agree that we are depraved. However, I don't agree that we are born depraved, but in a state of grace until we come to understand the true consequences of sin. To know to doeth go, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

Election - Both views hold that humankind are elected to salvation. Both views also hold that the election is not based upon any speciality or station of the one to be saved, but by the total mercy and grace of God. Neither side holds that God is ever surprised when one is converted, and that some are (to be) saved while others may actually continue their whole life mocking and spurning.

I see more of a corporate view of election, and that election is Christ centered, and not man-centered. We are chosen in Him, and not outside of Him.

Atonement - Both views hold that Christ is the ONLY way to the Father. Both views have some limit to atonement to only the saved (or there would be no need for eternal death and hell). Both also agree that the death of Christ is sufficient to all who who have, are and will be saved. Again, is it not the degree of the "all" that is contended over and not the limit of atonement?

The atonement was made for all, but only those who accpet it are the ones who are saved. The others rejected it and are left to their own peril(s).

Grace - Both views hold that God extends mercy and grace to one who will be saved. That outside of that direct and purposed work, the individual cannot even self determine to come to Christ for Scriptures are clear that no man seeks or even cares outside of this grace of God. Is it not the degree of just how "resistible" or not the work of God is in the individual who will be saved?

We are saved by grace through faith. Without faith, there's no grace. So we aren't saved by grace alone, but by grace through faith. No faith=no grace=no salvation.

Perseverance/preservation of the saints is a none issue on the BB. We all hold to once saved always saved, although the extremes of the Arm. view do not.

Agreed with here. :thumbs:

Folks, I understand the elementary (basic, simple) form of the TULIP that I have posted.

However, for this discussion, I would like for it to be on unity and agreement, not of areas of disagreement.

In doing so, remember that in presenting your view, it would be considerate to express how you might have agreement (up to a point) with a view you generally argue against.

I pray that I have presented my view in a christian like manner and that you can at least understand what I tried to convey. Sometimes what I type and what I mean are "polar opposites" of each other.

 

[Herald]

I agree that we are depraved. However, I don't agree that we are born depraved, but in a state of grace until we come to understand the true consequences of sin. To know to doeth go, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

The verse you quoted (Jas. 4:17) is in the context of hypocritical behavior that is occurring in the church. In other words there was already an existing problem and James was addressing it. It is not a proof-text that an infant is born without sin.

There seems to be a disconnect in your statement, "I agree that we are depraved" and then qualifying your statement by stating, "[we are depraved], but in a state of grace until we come to understand [sic] sin". What you are really saying is that infants are born without sin. The consequences of that are that it denies we have a sin nature and provides the possibility, however minuscule, that an infant can grow up and live a sinless life and thus not need the atoning work of Christ. I am not saying that you believe that, but that is where your view of the infants relation to sin can lead.

 

[InTheLight]

How curious it is that I don't yet recall reading a post from a "non-cal" on this thread. It would seem that there would actually be a great thrill in finding and showing a certain agreement.

Hello. I am here.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1997722&postcount=30

 

[Revmitchell]

T

How curious it is that I don't yet recall reading a post from a "non-cal" on this thread.

What in the world is wrong with you? Maybe you should go back and reread this thread before speaking like this.