Can't speak for the others but I don't want to debate the caricature that you put up as an example of what non-Calvinists believe.
Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.
-
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 you are not Reformed, you cannot believe in eternal security
- Thread starter Calv1
- Start date
- Status
Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.
Evidently you are not a very good debater either. In your case, you cannot stay on topic and are easily derailed. You let your anger influence your argument.
I am not nearly that handsome.
It is a rule violation to question another posters salvation. If someone has questioned your salvation please report the post.
Nor the caricature of what non-Calvinists claim Calvinists believe.
It's cool, he didn't question another poster's salvation. He questoned the salvation of two posters.
I vote to let him stay, but a stern talking to from the mods may be in order.
I have no real interest in pursuing it. I consider the source.
Way back when, uh 16 years ago or so when I first came on board at the BB it seemed to me too much credence was given to calvin, arminius - too much infighting between C and A.
I'm guilty as well.
Besides, to be honest, sometimes it's fun! oops.
Hasn't diminished much...
Why?
...one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos... Substitute Paul, Apollos with Calvin Arminius...
I don't want to identify with any sinner theologian. Ya, I did when I received my formal education but hey, I wanted to pass my courses
HankD
Well, I obviously disagree and will provide a defense for my reply.
That James Arminius was more Church of Rome than Protestant is a horrible mischaracterization of the doctrine Arminius held. James Arminius was a student of Theodore Beza. He served as a professor of theology at Leiden until he died. Prior to his death he debated his teachings with Fransiscus Gomarus (who defended Beza’s position). The courts concluded Arminius’ teachings, “mostly relating to the subtle details of the doctrine of predestination, were of minor importance and could coexist”.
Your comment betrays an ignorance of history. Arminius’ teachings were orthodox Calvinism (except on those points he departed, evaluated pre-Dort). There is no evidence that James Arminius rejected the Reformed Theology that Theodore Beza praised him for holding in the letter he wrote on Arminius’ behalf (June 3, 1585), except on the points that had caused him to stumble before over predestination (and to be fair, John Calvin wrestled with the placement of Divine Sovereignty).
What distinguished the Reformers from Rome was not the doctrine of predestination (remember, the Anabaptists…who did not hold to a Calvinistic soteriology….had joined the protestant movement to the extent Martin Luther wrote of them as being with them but not “of them”). I understand that sometimes people get emotional when they find an “enemy” to fight, and they assign to that “enemy” false statements and conclusions that do not really belong. I understand it happens, but I really don’t understand why. You are wrong that Arminius’ doctrine was more Catholic than Reformed. He departed in a few, but important, points.
Hugo Grotius, Ordinum Hollandiae AC Westfrisiae Pietas (1613).
You are wrong that only “true Reformed Theology” is unique among all world religions because you replace Christianity with “true Reformed Theology”. A man can believe Reformed Theology and perish in Hell. A man cannot be a Christian and perish. The object of theology is to study and understand God while the object of Christianity is to know Christ. There is a difference.
You also seem to ignore the differences within Reformed Theology. You have the doctrine of Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, Beza, and Arminius on the Reformed side, but they all hold theologies that differ to a degree. And then there are those you deem outside of the faith (men who are outside of Reformed theology), like Petr Chelčický, Conrad Grebel, and Felix Manz. You exclude men like Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Cyril of Alexandria.
How do you "almost" say something?
Can't take any action until somebody reports it. The only thing the Mods do without consulting the Admin Council is to remove profane or vulgar words/references. But even then we report it after the fact.
That's just ignorant. It's like saying everyone is either Southern Baptist or Free-will Baptist.
He's not saying that Arminian believers aren't eternally secure, only that there are some logical inconsistencies between Arminianism and the Biblical doctrine of eternal security that they will have trouble reconciling it.
In other words, the problem isn't with their security, but with how they articulate it.
I've reported Rolfe's insult four times now. So far, it's still allowed.
Actually it is very close to the truth. There is no middle ground. You either believe in total depravity or you don't. Unconditional election or you don't. Particular atonement or you don't. Efficacious grace or you don't. Preservation of the Saints or you don't.
What insult?
Ed. to add: If this is about you not being part of a clique, you and I can form our own if it will help.
Last edited:
It's part of the unspoken debate rules.
e.g. In the heat of a debate one (either side) will say "If you prayerfully and/or carefully read the scripture/OP I gave as a proof text, then you will understand what I am saying".
Thin ice with no falling through.
You have been on the receiving end.
I think some of the insults in this particular thread have broken through the ice though.
Like I said I've been guilty in the past as well.
HankD
- Status