Featured "I don't follow Calvin"

You got one?

 

Bob, if one is a Baptist they have the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith they can reference. The 1689 LBC is close to the Westminster Confession, although it departs with the WCF on baptism and ecclesiology. But please keep in mind that secondary documents like confessions and creeds are not the sole authority for all matters of faith and practice. That is reserved for scripture.

There are more than a few members of this board that agree with Calvinism on predestination and election but eschew the term Calvinist because they associate it with all of John Calvin's theology. I think that is unnecessary but I respect it. The term Mongergist may be acceptable to these individuals.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

The B-I-B-L-E, yeah that's the book for me
I stand alone on the word of God
The B-I-B-L-E

 

If I had to choose a document outside of Scripture it would be LBCF1689

 

Heretics can claim the same thing. Saying you believe the Bible is great but that doesn't actually tell anyone what you believe.

 

Not to worry If God sends them my way the will find out.

 

Bob,

Here is a link to the 1689 LBC as it was originally written. It contains scripture proofs: The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

I think the Calvinistic, ideas of election and limited atonement, are an attempt to justify the situation of those who have never heard and those who do not accept salvation. But ultimately, it is the guise of the Devil for a lost sinner to blamed God rather than personal responsibility for . It is no different that "hath not God said" in Gen.

 

No. First, election is directly in Scripture.

Second, limited atonement has nothing to do with those who have never heard. How in the world do you come to that conclusion?

 

Election for Salvation is not scriptural election for service , a designated time and place is

Are you saying those who have never heard are part of the elect? I mentioned those who were not saved.

You do not seem to know the ramifications of what you believe

 

I'm a baptist and I disagree. Been a baptist all my life and never heard of it until I came here and started reading post. Our church does not hold to the writings of men. The Bible is the sole authority.

What are they ashamed of?
MB

 

Did you even read Bob's OP? No. Of course, you did not.

 

What does being ashamed have to do with it? If someone doesn't agree with the entirety of his views, and most here won't be in agreement with infant baptism, they can't be blamed for not wanting to wear his name.

It would be equally ridiculous if we started referring to all synergists/Arminians/traditionalists as Wesleyans.

 

no, they are not being open on their own beliefs,

 

References?

How did you get that from what I said? Those who die never hearing are not part of the elect.

 

Oh, really? So you reject the London Baptist Confession of 1689?

Chapter 10, part 3
Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit... so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

 

Infants are a different situation than what I am referring to. And those incapable are referring to people who do not have the mental capacity, not those who do have the capacity but have never heard.

 

Scripture is the reference which you misapply

Well , those who have not heard, at no fault of their own are then sent to Hell solely at God's whim. So you are saying God created them , prevented them from hearing, just to send them into eternal torment?

Fallwell Jr does not believe as you do.