• 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!

If anyone care about facts.

Status
Not open for further replies.

MB

Well-Known Member
How and specifics?

I have watched the video through.
I see the problem having to do with not correctly understanding the fall, or Christ's teaching on the new birth, otherwise Augustinianism would have not been accepted.
What fall? Did some body fall? From where did they fall? Oh I know what you're talking about but Adam's sin did not cause me to bear his sin. Maybe you didn't watch the whole video.
Determinism isn't original to Calvinism it is a mix as I understand it Augustine took doctrines from these older beliefs and joined them together with Christianity to create Calvinism. Calvinist isn't the only group to believe in determinism. It certainly did not come from Scripture. The first 400 years after the crucifixion Christianity was freewill exclusively.
MB
 

37818

Well-Known Member
That’s the point. Determinism, and the philosophical constructs used to frame it, Total inability, Unconditional election and Irresistible grace leading to doctrines of Limited atonement and denying free will where not only not believed by the Early Church Fathers but were considered heresy.

Specifically, the video explains that none, zero of the Early Church Fathers accepted these doctrines which denied freedom of the will which originated with the Gnostics and Stoics where Augustine came to understand them through Manicheanism teachings.

Augustine’s views changed due to conflicts and were widely rejected, he went back and revised his prior views to conform to Determinism to line up with his Manicheanism and Gnosticism roots which influenced his position for 10 years after conflict arose over infant baptism wherein, he came up with the necessity of baptismal regeneration of infants because he believed as the Manicheans that babies where born in guilt and damnable sin, which was a different added in view of original sin than had ever been a part of Christianity before that time.

That view of original sin, that man is responsible for the guilt while being unable to respond for lack of Free Will/Human Volition but still culpable for the sins came directly out of the Manicheanism doctrines of all things physical being evil and were never a part of Christianity, until Augustine by means of Determinism.

Not understand what role the divine knowledge, Genesis 3:22, of good and evil plays in our inheritance from Adam and Eve our sinful nature.

And not understanding God's kingdom is for children, Matthew 18:3; John 3:3-4 . . . .
 

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
And of course your not biased.
MB
Oh I am definitely biased, but I don't say that the other side is not useful. I actually listen to their arguments (I used to be on the other side by the way) and then take their arguments apart systematically. What you do is just stick your fingers in your ear and say "Nu uh that's not true!"
 

utilyan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oh I am definitely biased, but I don't say that the other side is not useful. I actually listen to their arguments (I used to be on the other side by the way) and then take their arguments apart systematically. What you do is just stick your fingers in your ear and say "Nu uh that's not true!"

That can't be right. You mean God has not flipped the switch for him to accept any gospel you give. Right?

Would he better his chances at salvation by pretending to believe you.

Or describe to us the day before your regeneration and acceptance of Calvinism.

It sounds like you optimistically looked and hoped to understand Calvinism before you understood it.


Is there a change of attitude or action brother MB can take so God will change his mind and elect him?
 

utilyan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You know what I think would be useful is If a Calvinist could in a post give the bare minimum Gospel. Sufficient enough for God's elect to regenerate from, whether that be one sentence or the entirety of genesis to revelations.

If you are stuck on an island with non-Calvinists and there is no bible, can you deliver the gospel? What is the minimum that need be understood?
 

Particular

Well-Known Member
That can't be right. You mean God has not flipped the switch for him to accept any gospel you give. Right?

Would he better his chances at salvation by pretending to believe you.

Or describe to us the day before your regeneration and acceptance of Calvinism.

It sounds like you optimistically looked and hoped to understand Calvinism before you understood it.


Is there a change of attitude or action brother MB can take so God will change his mind and elect him?
This is just a strawman.
No human understands the work of God in salvation before God quickens them.
However, God is not silent in scripture regarding his work.
What is interesting is that you close your eyes to what God has said and then claim it is a made up theology of one man, namely John Calvin.
 

Particular

Well-Known Member
You know what I think would be useful is If a Calvinist could in a post give the bare minimum Gospel. Sufficient enough for God's elect to regenerate from, whether that be one sentence or the entirety of genesis to revelations.

If you are stuck on an island with non-Calvinists and there is no bible, can you deliver the gospel? What is the minimum that need be understood?

1 Corinthians 15:3-4 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.
 

Deadworm

Member
Particular,

It is easy to forget that the mighty move of the Holy Spirit in response to Jonathan Edwards's famous sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" happened during his second delivery of that same sermon. Edwards apparently had no significant spiritual impact in his first delivery of that sermon in a different town. . The second church must have attracted more people with a deep spiritual hunger for more of God.

Each of the major revivals was different in its emphases and catalysts. The one thing that most revivals had in common is that they were "soaked" in prolonged and regular intercessory prayer. It is fascinating but frustrating to speculate on why we can't have a comparable mass revival today. I think there are at least 3 reasons:

(1) A failure to consider the possibility that each revival comes in a different way and takes a different shape. Limiting expectations can block what God wants to accomplish.
(2) An unwillingness to devote hours weekly to group intercessory prayer: We live in an age of short attention spans and overcrowded schedules and life patterns.
(3) A divisive and competitive spirit among evangelical churches: It's very hard these days to gain interdenominational cooperation for joint programs that might enhance our witness and promote the kingdom of God,.
 

utilyan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
This is just a strawman.
No human understands the work of God in salvation before God quickens them.
However, God is not silent in scripture regarding his work.
What is interesting is that you close your eyes to what God has said and then claim it is a made up theology of one man, namely John Calvin.
"What is interesting is that you close your eyes to what God has said and then claim it is a made up theology of one man,"
No it wouldn't be interesting or a surprise at all, precisely because -->"No human understands the work of God in salvation before God quickens them."

Which is exactly what I am saying in the post.

Your buddy here says "What you do is just stick your fingers in your ear and say "Nu uh that's not true!""

In which i reply that cant be right precisely because -->"No human understands the work of God in salvation before God quickens them."


Your telling us "What is interesting is that you close your eyes to what God has said and then claim it is a made up theology of one man, namely John Calvin."

Of course in your theology our eyes would be close even if we are ELECT until God quickens them.
 

utilyan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
1 Corinthians 15:3-4 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.

Can I walk up to any non-christian and speak this as the GOSPEL TRUTH?

OR is the correct way:

1 Corinthians 15:3-4 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ MIGHT HAVE died for your sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.

Tell me my version is FALSE.

Because you don't know who is Elect or Not. And I would be a LIAR to tell a reprobate Christ died for OUR sins.



Did Christ die for me particular? Can you give me the HONEST Gospel?
 
Last edited:

Particular

Well-Known Member
"What is interesting is that you close your eyes to what God has said and then claim it is a made up theology of one man,"
No it wouldn't be interesting or a surprise at all, precisely because -->"No human understands the work of God in salvation before God quickens them."

Which is exactly what I am saying in the post.

Your buddy here says "What you do is just stick your fingers in your ear and say "Nu uh that's not true!""

In which i reply that cant be right precisely because -->"No human understands the work of God in salvation before God quickens them."


Your telling us "What is interesting is that you close your eyes to what God has said and then claim it is a made up theology of one man, namely John Calvin."

Of course in your theology our eyes would be close even if we are ELECT until God quickens them.
It's not my theology. It's God's word.
 

Particular

Well-Known Member
Can I walk up to any non-christian and speak this as the GOSPEL TRUTH?

OR is the correct way:

1 Corinthians 15:3-4 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ MIGHT HAVE died for your sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.

Tell me my version is FALSE.

Because you don't know who is Elect or Not. And I would be a LIAR to tell a reprobate Christ died for OUR sins.
Speak it as the truth. Know full well that if the non-believer responds in belief, it is by the willful act of God.

Note that Paul is writing to the Corinthians in the past tense.

Delivered is past tense. When he says "our" sins he is declaring that the Corinthians are Christians.

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures."

Why are you so obstinately opposed to what God shares in his word? I note that you have no scripture for whatever your position is. All you do is curse John Calvin. You literally have nothing of substance to add to any conversation. You simply whine about John Calvin. Fix your record player, utilyan.
 

MB

Well-Known Member
Oh I am definitely biased, but I don't say that the other side is not useful. I actually listen to their arguments (I used to be on the other side by the way) and then take their arguments apart systematically. What you do is just stick your fingers in your ear and say "Nu uh that's not true!"
Not so David I've read lot on Calvinism. I've compared it to what the scriptures actually say and I do not find anything Calvinistic in the scriptures. Actually I think your the one with your ears plugged.You have to deny the truth of scripture to be a Calvinist. This is why they have so much trouble with simple grammar and the meaning of words. I'm reminded of the Pharisee's they to thought that they were wise and Pious, but the wise and pious will be made fools. Scripture says so.
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
I have yet to meet a Calvinist on this board who does not claim to be and proud of it to boot Why there are so many who completely understand Biblical Greek The scholars who translate the scriptures for us should be ashamed of all the mistakes they've made according to these so called Greek masters.
MB
 

utilyan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Speak it as the truth. Know full well that if the non-believer responds in belief, it is by the willful act of God.

Note that Paul is writing to the Corinthians in the past tense.

Delivered is past tense. When he says "our" sins he is declaring that the Corinthians are Christians.

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures."

Why are you so obstinately opposed to what God shares in his word? I note that you have no scripture for whatever your position is. All you do is curse John Calvin. You literally have nothing of substance to add to any conversation. You simply whine about John Calvin. Fix your record player, utilyan.

"Delivered is past tense. When he says "our" sins he is declaring that the Corinthians are Christians."

Okay. Then how do you declare the gospel to non-Christians?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top