Calvinist Baptism?

Hello Blammo.

I see no problem with it. It does enable others to judge who they are talking to quickly. What's in a name?

No, because our most basic fundamental beliefs are the same as Calvin, God is Sovereign, man is totally depraved and irresistable grace is needed and regeneration first and we have no Pope. And other points of contact. If any disagree with his attitude on baptism, and it was an oddity, that doesn't change the fudamentals of our faith. We do not quote much Calvin stuff on the BB do we? It is always scripture that is presented to make an understanding of scripture. Calvinism is scripture.

How can one affirm anything until he is taught and has learnt from scripture? How much did Lydia know when she was baptised? A new convert will know very little and I still see no evidence from scripture that any question need be asked.

john.

 

Calvinism does not deny that man must "do something" to be saved. He must believe. The issue in Calvinism is why and how man believes. Calvinism believes man believes because God has effectually called him and enabled him to believe, and ensured that belief.

I think the problem is that you don't understand what Calvinism teaches and the distinctions Calvinism makes.

Tom's questions are good. Others could be offered as well.

What is "Calvinist type" language to you? For me Calvinist type language is the language of hte Bible and yes, I use that.

 

"...same verse, same as the first..."

 

Back to your question/s.

The first seems to be redundant for surely the church would know that one has already confessed the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus said at His second baptism, it is finished. Why would we question anyone?

The second, to me is what perhaps could be asked of the Preacher, Pastor, Missionary, which devote their life of service for the rest of their life. But even then, is this right? I don't believe an "Ambassador" for the gospel should put themselves into the position of committing the sin of breaking a vow or a covenant. It is bound to happen if they last out the day. Of course we are committed for we dedicate our life to him without being asked to take "vow".

We all are Ambassador's of Christ Jesus. We are appointed. It is automatic. To God be the Glory, and to man to do the will of God; Not to be "swearing" at the request of man to serve Him the rest of our lives", but to just say Yes I have accepted Christ as my Lord and Savior, if asked. Jesus tells us how to handle such matters in Matthew 5:34-37.

Answering and not coming anywhere near saying I agree with "theologically correct 4/5 Point Calvinist baptism". The "one question is asking if we believe what a man says, that "man being Calvin". I believe we should not let ourselves become Pharisaic.

As to the " One question: Do you believe you have received the free gift of salvation and are a part of God's elect?" My answer is I believe I am saved by the Grace of God Through Faith, without a work, without any man made "vows or covenants", and we are in the Body of Christ Church. We have been circumcised and baptized without hands, and sealed by the Holy Spirit.

We are of the Word of God that became flesh, and today of what He reveals to us from heaven. We are not of any human part of man (notice Jesus was man - II Corinthians 5:16-17) whether it be Peter, James, John, Paul, Apollos, Luther, Calvin, Sunday, Spurgeon, Billy Graham, Warren, or whoever is the latest rage. We are in the "Body Church" formed by He that is in Heaven, and today reconciling the world unto himself.

Water baptism has nothing to do with our salvation. We do the same thing the Catholic's do, Lutheran, Church of Christ, Methodist, Presbyterian, Christian, and all other's, including the "cults". All have a different idea of what "water baptism is all about". Some believes it saves so they "repent and are water baptized for the remission of their sins", as the Jew had to do. We believe no such thing. We join to be with people that think some of the same things we do about being a member of a local church. We are a body of believers that have been baptized by the Holy Spirit.

So most Baptist churches (the Baptist church I was baptized into) used this initiation process in order for me to be able to become a preacher, pastor, teacher, missionary, deacon, hold any office of the church, and be able to vote on matters concerning our church. Without this initiation process people could come to Sunday school, and all church services and functions, join in WMU, BTU, VBS, Basketball, Bowling, or whatever and give (even tithe) if they wished. But they could not come into the "inner court" of full membership. I believe there could be more proselytes of the Christian faith than we realize.

 

I think you mean "second verse, same as the first." It is really in the thousands by now. But unfortunately it needs repeating. If one understands Calvinism, then those questions are no real problem. Some might word things in a different way, but that's a different issue. The idea that man must have faith is a clear teaching of Calvinism, and therefore, the questions are fine. As I said, the issue is why and how man has faith.

You of all people should know since this seems to be about the only topic you post on.

 

I'm curious about this myself as regards Calvinist baptism of infants. Some Calvinists and Lutherans believe that baptizing them makes them "elect" IF "the word" is spoken over them? -- by a priest? -- effectually?

There seems to be something believed here that Baptists don't see.

skypair

 

Unfortunately...no it doesn't. I, for one, am real tired of hearing that same lame phrase repeated so often. Besides the repetetivness, it's simply not true.

[Personal attack deleted. Webdog please post to the OP, regardless of what you think people's positions are, or what their feelings are to you. Leave your personal differences at the door and deal with them via pm's, not on the board. This is a debate on Calvinist Baptism, not on the submect of "Pastor Larry."

 

I think this thread is a prima facie case for the truth of my statement. The fact that someone believes that Calvinism should have a problem with that shows that they do not understand Calvinism.

Did you read what I said? I didn’t say this topic was all you posted on. I said “it seems to be about the only topic you post on.” Notice three key words: 1 and 2: “it seems” – That means my comments are based on my deduction about the state of affairs. It is true that “it seems” this way. 3: “About.” That does not mean it is the “only” thing, but it is a rhetorical device meaning “mostly” or “primarily.” I bet, if we analyze your posting habits, my statement would actually be true, not just “seem” to be true. But I didn’t argue that this was the only topic you post on. I said “it seems” that way. So please read carefully and do not accuse me of dishonesty.

Perhaps you should read closer. There is no arrogance and no finger pointing at all. I know very well that I do not have knowledge of a great many things. I always try to post with caution and humility because I know I am a sinner saved only by grace with nothing in myself. I try to post constructively, to point out what issues are.

Actually, the primary responsibility is teaching. I do encourage and lift them up by teaching. I find it strange that you are willing, based on these conversations, to judge my fitness for ministry. Have you ever talked to me? Interacted with me about anything other than Calvinism? I don't recall any other conversations.

I read very little here. I have prayed for people, you included. But the fact that I don’t trumpet that about seems hardly a negative.

How is this relevant? I have it in my screen name only because someone already had “Larry” when I signed up. But again, I hardly think this limited interaction qualifies you to draw any kind of conclusion about what I do or my gifts for it. I invite you to give me a call and talk to me. Learn about a little about me if you desire. But if you do not choose to do that, please don’t attack my person or ministry.

As I have said many times, I honestly do not care what you personaly believe. I am fine with you not believing what I do (though I think you are wrong). I am not fine with people who do not properly represent what I believe. My participation here was simply to say that Calvinism has no necessary issues with the OP for the reason given, though they might word something differently.

 

Everyone is their own individual expert on Calvinism, even the Calvinists. If the Calvinists could agree on more than a few of their doctines, maybe some of us Non-cals would have a better understanding of Calvinism.

That is your cue. What authors should I read?

- one will say Piper
- another will say Calvin
- another will say MacAurthor
- another will say Gill
- another will say... etc. and on and on and on and on...

(Someone will probably say I excluded the foremost expert from my list, which is hilarious since it includes their namesake)

Why should we even attempt to understand your doctines if you can't even agree on what they are?

 

Blammo,

I think if you start reading those people (and others) you will begin to see some things that are common in all of them. In that, you will see the essence of Calvinism which virtually all agree on. That is what I am talking. Calvinists disagree about some things to be sure. But there are some things that virtually all agree on because they are the sine qua non of Calvinism.

I think one problem is that people don't really read Calvinists to find out what they believe. They read critiques of Calvinism which usually focus on particular points rather than the broad ideas.

I think Calvinists agree on those broad ideas.

 

Blammo,

If you were talking to someone why they should become a Baptist (assume they are already saved), they could throw the same false charge to you. "You Baptists can't agree on anything, so I reject all of you." No, a better way would be to examine some of the Baptist groups that you find reasonable and compare them to Scripture. I would encourage the same if you are interested in understanding Calvinism - read a few of the Calvinistic teachers out there that appear to be reasonable and then compare their teaching to Scripture. Not all of them are going to be the same on the details but it should give you a fair representation of what Calvinism is.

 

Your intertwining of words like "submit" and "accept" seems to be more of the problem.

Having been involved in other threads besides calvinism alongside you, and you having the same ability to navigate the BB as anyone, what it "seems", then is this statement is done out of ignorance or dishonesty. Since you are a moderator, I doubt it's ignorance.

While I don't bet, if I did, your "analasys" would be proven wrong.

I did, and that is what it "seems" like to me.

That's the primary responsibiltiy of a shepherd?!?

I didn't realize that conversations here on the BB were to be taken as personal mulligans.

So now you read very little here...but can form deductions on what topics I am involved in? *open mouth...insert foot* In addition, if you read very little here, why are you responding to so many posts? 17k posts is quite a few responses to non read discussions...
What you refer to "trumpeting" I consider encouragment and lifting up of our brothers and sisters in Christ.

I'm sorry, but what you say here is a reflection of you and your ministry whether you like it or not. You sound like Charles Barkley saying "I'm not a role model". The moment you put "pastor" in your screen name, you should have realized what and who you were representing.

 

I've read some articles by various Calvinists. And, I agree that they agree on some key points. Also, on these forums, it is clear that you guys agree on some key points. However, I remain confused about Calvinism. Everytime I think I understand it better a Calvinist will say something that completely contradicts what I came to understand. I used to ask a lot of questions here, to get a better grip, but I would end up being taken around in circles, and totally losing track of where I started. It's maddening.

I will confess, I have moved quite a bit toward the Calvinist camp. Your arguments are mostly logical, and are near totally supported by Scripture. But, I remain a Non-cal, and it is mostly the label I reject.

 

Blammo, that's fine. The most important thing is that what you believe aligns with Scripture, not whatever label you use to describe it.

 

I agree. I don't reject the label Baptist, but I do feel compelled to explain what I do and do not believe when I identify myself as Baptist. My insecurity about the label Baptist has been greatly magnified since I joined Baptist Board.

I will continue to search the Scriptures and read books by Calvinists with an open mind. As I told Pastor_Larry, I believe I am very close to accepting what Calvinists teach in general. I just can't get past some of my objections, and nobody seems to be able to help.

I am perfectly content with allowing God to know everything while I remain ignorant of some things. I understand that I must study to show myself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. So I will continue to study, but I am not comfortable with believing something that can not be absolutely proven to me scripturally.

 

Exactly.
What he said. ^

 

In the last two pages I have found not one post that addresses this post (the OP). If you don't want to continue with this thread then I will just close it. Please don't turn it into a thread for personal vendettas.

 

Care to elaborate?

 

Again?! No. (see post 37)

 

So start a new thread if you really wanted to have help with your objections.
I'm new here, I don't know your personal issues with Calvinism.