"I don't follow Calvin"

[Pastor_Bob]

I know some who take exception to the label "Calvinist." I've often heard, especially when one quotes Calvin to refute a point, that "I do not always agree with Calvin" or "Calvin is not my final authority." I, of course, would agree with that statement. Unfortunately for those who do not wish to be identified with Calvin, Reformed theology always be eponymous to John Calvin.

That being said, is there a "go to" treatise to which one would refer to accurately state their beliefs in the matter of free will, election, predestination, and salvation in general? Would it be the Canons of Dordt? The Westminster Confession of Faith? The Institutes of the Christian Religion? Or, some other work that would state your position accurately?

 

[kyredneck]

is there a "go to" treatise to which one would refer to accurately state their beliefs in the matter of free will, election, predestination, and salvation in general?

You got one?

 

[Reformed]

I know some who take exception to the label "Calvinist." I've often heard, especially when one quotes Calvin to refute a point, that "I do not always agree with Calvin" or "Calvin is not my final authority." I, of course, would agree with that statement. Unfortunately for those who do not wish to be identified with Calvin, Reformed theology always be eponymous to John Calvin.

That being said, is there a "go to" treatise to which one would refer to accurately state their beliefs in the matter of free will, election, predestination, and salvation in general? Would it be the Canons of Dordt? The Westminster Confession of Faith? The Institutes of the Christian Religion? Or, some other work that would state your position accurately?

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

 

[HankD]

The Westminster Confession of Faith? The Institutes of the Christian Religion? Or, some other work that would state your position accurately?

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

 

[Reformed1689]

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

 

[Reformed1689]

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

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

 

[HankD]

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.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

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

Thank you, my friend. The reason I mentioned those three specifically is because I have those three works in my library. I will have to acquire a copy of the one you referenced.

My motivation is simply to reference a source which would accurately state one’s position on these issues.

I know very well that our positions are often misstated, misapplied, and misunderstood. So, thank you again for your straight answer.

 

[Reformed]

Thank you, my friend. The reason I mentioned those three specifically is because I have those three works in my library. I will have to acquire a copy of the one you referenced.

My motivation, regardless of the opinion of those here who have judged my motives (contrary to the Scripture which they claim is their sole authority), is simply to reference a source which would accurately state one’s position on these issues.

I know very well that our positions are often misstated, misapplied, and misunderstood. So, thank you again for your straight answer.

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

 

[loDebar]

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.

 

[Reformed1689]

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?

 

[loDebar]

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

 

[MB]

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.

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.

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.

What are they ashamed of?
MB

 

[Reformed]

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.

 

[Rob_BW]

What are they ashamed of?
MB

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.

 

[loDebar]

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

 

[Reformed1689]

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

References?

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

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

 

[InTheLight]

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.

 

[Reformed1689]

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.

 

[loDebar]

References?



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

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.