-
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!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is belief the hinge of our salvation?
- Thread starter reformedbeliever
- Start date
webdog said:Yes, Scripture does state that. What it doesn't state is what you imply "if their lives are not apparent/shining brightly they are not justified". God judges the heart, we don't. We are NOT called to be "fruit inspectors" or to judge who is or isn't saved. That is why I believe God referred to Lot as both righteous and godly, because he blended in with the sinful crowd. He knows who is justified...we don't.
Believe it or not, I agree with you partly. The part I disagree on, is that one can be justified (saved) and it not be obvious. If one is not a "Child of God", according to the text, one is a Child of the Devil. A child of the devil is one who is not saved.
So, while I agree that we should not be "fruit inspectors", we also should not have to "inspect" anything. Those who are children of God, rather than of the Devil, are evident, according to scripture.
Note that there are SEVERAL times in scripture, where people are called false brethren, false apostles, etc. The Nicolatians, who are according to the Revelation are in for a lot of torment, confessed Christ, but used his Grace as an excuse to live how they wished. Paul is very clear that one who can do this, was never saved to begin with.
Can I "Look at someone" and tell if they are a Christian? Not for sure. But Matthew 18 tells me if a person is in a particular sin, and we go through the process described getting them to turn from it, that we should treat them as a "Tax Collector and a Gentile".
Now SOME would say that means we are to shun and avoid those people. But that's not what Jesus did with Gentiles and Tax collectors. He hung out with them, and tried o get them saved! That verse is telling us to TREAT them like they are unsaved, rather than like a brother in Christ> to evangelize them, and try to win them to Christ.
YES, we are to use discernment. We are not to "Believe every spirit".
reformedbeliever
New Member
That my friend is not a Calvinistic position. The Calvinists position is that they are born again that they might use their God given faith in order to be saved.
I guess my new question is do you agree that it is by faith that we are born-again (or by faith we are regenerated) ??
Did your view change somewhat along the way??
Sure it is Allan. It is this Calvinist position which apparently you do not understand. Faith itself is given by God. Regeneration/the new birth is by the saving faith given by God. He quickens our dead spirit and makes us alive with the faith He has provided us.
My view has never changed.
Apparently not :laugh: or at least I didn't think the moderate position (in my understanding) was one you heldreformedbeliever said:Sure it is Allan. It is this Calvinist position which apparently you do not understand.
That still (to me) doesn't make any sense. Regeneration is when God gives you faith that you must then use to be saved. My main contetion has always been about what exactly how 'regeneration'works in the Calvinistic view and what actaully it does for and to the non-believer (just before he believes). As I have said earlier to be made 'alive' can only be done when one is 'in Christ' - and one can only be in Christ if one is saved.Faith itself is given by God. Regeneration/the new birth is by the saving faith given by God. He quickens our dead spirit and makes us alive with the faith He has provided us.
- Anyway, I always took you for the common classical position, I guess by default since most of the Calvinists I know hold to it. That was my bad, 'sorry' about that.
No, you view hasn't, but my growth in understanding of your view is :laugh:My view has never changed
Last edited by a moderator:
Allan said:Apparently not :laugh: or at least I didn't think the moderate position (in my understanding) was one you held
That still (to me) doesn't make any sense. Regeneration is when God gives you faith that you must then use to be saved. My main contetion has always been about what exactly how 'regeneration' in the Calvinistic view actaully does for and to the non-believer (just before he believes). As I have said earlier to be made 'alive' can only be done when one is 'in Christ' - and one can only be in Christ if one is saved.
- Anyway, I always took you for the common classical position, I guess by default since most of the Calvinists I know hold to it. That was my bad. Sorry about that.
No, you view hasn't, but my growth in understanding of your view is :laugh:
Would not the "classical" view be the one that CALVIN held?? According to John Calvin, It is through the Word of God that the Holy Spirit brings Faith about within us, which THEN brings regeneration (Institutes Book 3 Chapter 3).
That is the "classical" view. You cannot get more "classical" than the originator.
No, since Calvin was not the 'originator' of Calvinism as it is commonly called, or if you prefere the Soveriegn Grace Doctrines.Havensdad said:Would not the "classical" view be the one that CALVIN held?? According to John Calvin, It is through the Word of God that the Holy Spirit brings Faith about within us, which THEN brings regeneration (Institutes Book 3 Chapter 3).
That is the "classical" view. You cannot get more "classical" than the originator.
Not to mention that there are an asortment of his views that most Calvinists would not and do not agree with him on.
Last edited by a moderator:
What can I say TCG when your right, your right.TCGreek said:In all this we must ask ourselves what does Scripture teach on the whole issue.
If Calvin reflects Scripture accurately, then he's correct, and if he doesn't, he's dead wrong.
TCGreek said:In all this we must ask ourselves what does Scripture teach on the whole issue.
If Calvin reflects Scripture accurately, then he's correct, and if he doesn't, he's dead wrong.
Absolutely! But if were going to say "this is Calvinism" or "that" is Calvinism, we need to at least try to be accurate. Not exactly fair to call a guy wrong for something he never even taught (and actually goes against what he taught).
Allan said:No, since Calvin was not the 'originator' of Calvinism
Augustine and Bucer not withstanding, it was Calvin, specifically Institutes, that brought about "Tulip".
BTW I agree> scripture was the originator of Calvinism!!
Actually it wasn't Calvin's 'Institutes' that brought about the T.U.L.I.P. but Calvins followers set forth the 5 points in rebutal to the 5 Remonstrants brought forth by Joseph Arminus's followers.Havensdad said:Augustine and Bucer not withstanding, it was Calvin, specifically Institutes, that brought about "Tulip".
No, Calvinism is a theology just as Arminianism is (and any other 'isms') which is a system of understanding set forth by men regarding the Truths of the Word of God.BTW I agree> scripture was the originator of Calvinism!!
Last edited by a moderator:
Allan said:Actually it wasn't Calvin's 'Institutes' that brought about the T.U.L.I.P. but Calvins followers set forth the 5 points in rebutal to the 5 Remonstrants brought forth by Joseph Arminus's followers.
No, Calvinism is a theology just as Arminianism is (and any other 'isms') which is a system of understanding set forth by men regarding the Truths of the Word of God.
Allan, sorry for overlapping. :laugh:
At least we are on the same page here :laugh: :thumbs:TCGreek said:Allan, sorry for overlapping. :laugh:
Allan said:At least we are on the same page here :laugh: :thumbs:
If only our ordo salutis could have been the same. :wavey:
Hey, it's close. We hold to the exact same truths. We just have a difference of opinion relating to the mechanics of how those truths operate, at least in part.TCGreek said:If only our ordo salutis could have been the same. :wavey:
Allan said:Hey, it's close. We hold to the exact same truths. We just have a difference of opinion relating to the mechanics of how those truths operate, at least in part.
Allan, one thing I'm sure of: God must open the sinner's heart to response to the Gospel message (Acts 16:14).
To me that is a non-negotiable.
Can you name one non-cal who doesn't believe this??TCGreek said:Allan, one thing I'm sure of: God must open the sinner's heart to response to the Gospel message (Acts 16:14).
To me that is a non-negotiable.
I know I do.
Last edited by a moderator:
reformedbeliever
New Member
Allan said:Apparently not :laugh: or at least I didn't think the moderate position (in my understanding) was one you held
That still (to me) doesn't make any sense. Regeneration is when God gives you faith that you must then use to be saved. My main contetion has always been about what exactly how 'regeneration'works in the Calvinistic view and what actaully it does for and to the non-believer (just before he believes). As I have said earlier to be made 'alive' can only be done when one is 'in Christ' - and one can only be in Christ if one is saved.
- Anyway, I always took you for the common classical position, I guess by default since most of the Calvinists I know hold to it. That was my bad, 'sorry' about that.
No, you view hasn't, but my growth in understanding of your view is :laugh:
If you try to foget about our view of time understanding my be better Allan. We feel the need to attach time to a lot of things which in God's word does not have the qualifer "fore" or before or after etc.
Not sure where your going with that one Reformed. Actually... not sure I understood it.reformedbeliever said:If you try to foget about our view of time understanding my be better Allan. We feel the need to attach time to a lot of things which in God's word does not have the qualifer "fore" or before or after etc.
Let me answer what I 'think' you were saying....
I wasn't speaking of any qualifiers. Yet a qualifier does not necessarily have to be stating 'fore' in order that we might see a sequence (if indeed there is one). In relation to regeneration the qualifier is the function of Regeneration itself (because that defines its purpose) as to 'when' it transpires.
I think there is an order in which regeneration operates as do you and anyone who has been introduced to theology. I believe however that this truth is revealed squarely in answering these three questions:
.......Important
1. What is regeneration'?
.......Very important
2. What does it do?
.......And most importantly
3. How does it do this (#2) ?
Last edited by a moderator: