• 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!

Ex-Calvinism (Why I am no longer a Calvinist)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Particular

Well-Known Member
What persuaded me to leave my position was the absence of Scripture to support it. That is what persuaded me it was wrong (it was such an important doctrine I expected it to be in the Bible).

For example: I could say that Jesus had a pet. In fact Jesus had a pet dog named Spot. Jesus loved Spot and this is the reason Jesus turned the water into wine. Spot kept barking and brought Mary's attention to the situation. Jesus' love for Spot demonstrates why mankind was originally intended not to eat meat. Provide a passage stating otherwise.

We all have presuppositions. This is necessary. It is one thing to believe Jesus had a pet. It is another to build on that extra-biblical belief. It is one thing to believe that 15th century judicial philosophy embodies the Hebrew notion of justice. It is another to build on the belief.

The problem is not the belief but constructing fundamental doctrines on the belief. The presuppositions must be addressed and defended, especially on fundamental doctrines. But what is done is people offer verses that do not support their presuppositions, read into those verses their presuppositions, and do so in groups so that can pat themselves on the back and feel that they have supported their position.

Jon, you are being vague. Is this intentional? If so, why?
What presupposition do you now ascribe to? Jesus had a pet turtle?
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Jon, you are being vague. Is this intentional? If so, why?
What presupposition do you now ascribe to? Jesus had a pet turtle?
My current presupposition is that fundamental doctrines (those we build upon) need to be stated in the Biblical text itself. That is where I separate from Calvinists.
 

37818

Well-Known Member
Hmm. . . .
Romans 6:23, "For the wages of sin is death; . . ."

Ezekiel 18:4, ". . . the soul that sinneth, it shall die."

Romans 5:8, ". . . while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

Isaiah 53:12, ". . . he hath poured out his soul unto death: . . ."

Isaiah 53:6, "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."
 

Particular

Well-Known Member
My current presupposition is that fundamental doctrines (those we build upon) need to be stated in the Biblical text itself. That is where I separate from Calvinists.
This is an incredibly vague comment by you. Are you intentionally avoiding telling us what you believe and how scripture supports your belief?
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
This is an incredibly vague comment by you. Are you intentionally avoiding telling us what you believe and how scripture supports your belief?
I told you we can discuss my view on a thread started on my view if you would like.

BUT you are asking me to explain my views and defend my views on post #165 of a thread about another topic.

Do you think that an honest request?
 

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
m-kay....I suppose I agree with RSR and Reformed that if you still embrace TULIP you can properly consider yourself Calvinist.

I beg to differ. I do embrace TULIP but I am not a Calvinist. A Calvinist is a follower of all Calvins teaching including baby baptism and jumping hoops of sacraments. Plus they define predestination as involving Gods scripting every fiction of your life. I don’t believe that!
 
Last edited:

Particular

Well-Known Member
I told you we can discuss my view on a thread started on my view if you would like.

BUT you are asking me to explain my views and defend my views on post #165 of a thread about another topic.

Do you think that an honest request?
I think this thread is dishonest in that the op is vague and explains nothing about Calvinist presuppositions and why they are not supported biblically. I think you have provided no biblical reason for why you reject Calvinist presuppositions.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I think this thread is dishonest in that the op is vague and explains nothing about Calvinist presuppositions and why they are not supported biblically. I think you have provided no biblical reason for why you reject Calvinist presuppositions.
To be clear, I affirm Calvinism EXCEPT for the idea divine justice is in accord with the 15th century humanistic legal philosophy as I believe that philosophy inherently wrong.

If Calvinism does not hold that presupposition then I have affirmed Calvinism. If it does then I only reject the presupposition and its fruit.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I beg to differ. I do embrace TULIP but I am not a Calvinist. A Calvinist is a follower of all Calvins teaching including baby baptism and jumping hoops of sacraments. Plus they define predestination as involving Gods scripting every fiction of your life. I don’t believe that!
that would be presbie Reformed, but not us Baptist reformed!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
To be clear, I affirm Calvinism EXCEPT for the idea divine justice is in accord with the 15th century humanistic legal philosophy as I believe that philosophy inherently wrong.

If Calvinism does not hold that presupposition then I have affirmed Calvinism. If it does then I only reject the presupposition and its fruit.
You are rejecting penal Substitution, correct?

And also that Adam experienced spiritual death in the fall?
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
You are rejecting penal Substitution, correct?

And also that Adam experienced spiritual death in the fall?
I am rejecting a form of the philosophy of justice called "rertibutive justice".

If Penal Substitution Theory depends on that philosophy then yes. If not then no.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I am rejecting a form of the philosophy of justice called "rertibutive justice".

If Penal Substitution Theory depends on that philosophy then yes. If not then no.
Is there any other basis for it though?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top