-
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!
Is there a retitle suggestion for Calvinism and Arminianism
- Thread starter agedman
- Start date
- Status
Tom Butler
New Member
Ah, very clever. I disagree, of course, but still clever, and right on topic.
Tom Butler
New Member
Benjamin said:
You may be onto something. The following verse occurred to me:
Acts 2:23 Peter is preaching:
It appears that God determined from eternity that Jesus would be delivered to his crucifiers, and also determined who they would be. God knew who they would be because he determined who they would be.
Maybe we could combine yours (deterministic) and mine (DoGs) and call us Calvinists Deterministic DoGs.
Then feel free to use the title Butler. I have made it VERY clear I have not asked anyone to defend your doctrine and have stuck to my premise about the claim of the OP and have not not strayed off topic as you previously tried to discretely suggest wiith the tactic of saying no one has offered a tilte (or acted as if I have not addressed the subject of the OP) and all this spelled out in post # 150, Add your tactics to the list of deflections from my claim (which is merely intended to draw out the truth in this matter that you all have attempted to dance around) about the OP's values and sincerity in bringing this title subject up.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tom Butler
New Member
Lighten up, brother. I'm just having a little fun with the OP. Obviously, I'm not doing a very good job of communicating that.
I plead not guilty to deflecting, discreetly suggesting, tactics and dancing around.
And feel free to call me Tom.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tom Butler
New Member
Oh, I've just had this flash. Instead of calling those who reject Calvinism non-Cals, how about:
No-Cals
For the one-pointers or two-pointers, how about
Lo-Cal
Sometimes I just amaze myself.
No-Cals
For the one-pointers or two-pointers, how about
Lo-Cal
Sometimes I just amaze myself.
Last edited by a moderator:
If you say so Butler. But in your not dancing around and having fun not declaring no one has made any suggestions you apparently have conveniently avoided the issue all along concerning "your" preference of THE "Doctrine of Grace" as lacking in discloser, (and "my suggestion" of how to correct the misrepresentation) because there are different views of attaining grace and how it would be more truthful to define your title more precisely as to what your doctrine represents and how this would be more ethical than what appears to be trying to monopolize on the meaning of grace in "your preferred title".
Last edited by a moderator:
Tom Butler
New Member
If you say so Butler. But in your not dancing around and having fun not declaring no one has made any suggestions you apparently have conveniently avoided the issue all along concerning "your" preference of THE "Doctrine of Grace" as lacking in discloser, (and "my suggestion" of how to correct the misrepresentation) because there are different views of attaining grace and how it would be more truthful to define your title more precisely as to what your doctrine represents and how this would be more ethical than what appears to be trying to monopolize on the meaning of grace in "your preferred title".
Let's see, I'm a five-point Calvinist. The term Doctrines of Grace is a time-honored way of saying the same thing. If somebody says, "I hold to the doctrines of grace," he will immediately be recognized as a Calvinist. I described myself as a Calvinist in two posts #91 and #163. I disclosed my view.
Before I used the acronym DoG, I don't remember ever seeing anybody else employ it that way. But I don't claim it as original. I use it as a way to add a light touch to a serious topic that gets overheated sometimes.
Doctrines of Grace is a universally accepted synonym for Calvinist.
But on this board at least, if I describe myself as a DoG, most will know what it means. But there is no attempt to monopolize the term. You're welcome to use it, as well, if it fits your view.
I do not intend to flesh out or defend my views on this thread. That's not what it originally was about.
I rarely get deeply involved in these Cal-non-Cal threads, except to drop in, lob a bomb to stimulate discussion, and leave. It's called having fun.
And you can still call me Tom.
I don’t find Calvinists claiming to preach THE “Doctrines of Grace” as an honorable thing to do for the reasons I have already stated. That the title has been being used this way for some time doesn't change my opinion of the use including that I find it misleading, especially to those who are not aware of the Determinist' implications imposed on grace from the Calvinists who have caused so much division and distaste for their doctrine that somewhere along the line many have resorted to claim this new title. Just because someone else does something doesn’t make it right or discount my reasons why it is seen as unethical even back to whoever started promoting the title as a replacement for Calvinism from the beginning of the use of it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Reply to Deflection
This is an effort to change the subject to omniscience. But note the method, a question posed from a earnest seeker of truth, the bait, with Dr. Bob and Skandelon waiting to beat me us not with honest debate, but with the power of position.
Folks, behold the defense of Calvinism.
This is an effort to change the subject to omniscience. But note the method, a question posed from a earnest seeker of truth, the bait, with Dr. Bob and Skandelon waiting to beat me us not with honest debate, but with the power of position.
Folks, behold the defense of Calvinism.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
DaChaser,
Van is an Open Theist in that he denies God's perfect knowledge. That is not a Baptist doctrine and contradicts even the most general reading of the boards Profession of Faith, thus is not allowed in a Baptist forum. If he wishes to discuss his views on this subject he will need to go to a non-Baptist forum. Sorry, but those are the rules he agreed to....
Van is an Open Theist in that he denies God's perfect knowledge. That is not a Baptist doctrine and contradicts even the most general reading of the boards Profession of Faith, thus is not allowed in a Baptist forum. If he wishes to discuss his views on this subject he will need to go to a non-Baptist forum. Sorry, but those are the rules he agreed to....
preacher4truth
Active Member
Then why does he continue "unsnipped" to place his false teachings in Baptist Forum, even as of right now?
Reply to Agedman,
Lets take your assertions one at a time. Why would the NASB translate "en" as "by?" Here we have proximity, i.e. in, being used to denote cause, thus "by" the Spirit rather than "in" the Spirit.
Yes, sanctification here refers to a one time event, being set apart in Christ.
No, the sanctification (meaning set apart,an event) does not follow the election, it refers to how the election took place, i.e you pick an apple from the bin and put it aside in your cart. So you chose the apple by the setting aside work of your hand.
According to the foreknown plan of God, God chose you for salvation by setting you apart in Christ based on crediting your faith as righteousness.
Your effort to introduce the ability of God to do what Calvinism says He did has no merit, we are discussing what scripture actually says He did without adding to the text.
God chose you for salvation through the sanctification of the Spirit and faith in the truth. This is all about God's election of individuals and because His choice was based on faith in the truth, His election occurred during our lifetime, and was conditional.
The meaning of foreknowledge does not change if God is the one with foreknowledge. Notice Peter says Christ was foreknown as the Lamb of God before the foundation of the world. This is God using knowledge from the past, before creation. When Christ was crucified, it was by the foreknowledge of God, and note that God described it in detail in Isaiah 53, long before or in the past. Look at it this way, when God prophecies, He describes what will happen in the future, and then He causes what He described to occur, He brings it about. This is actually how the Bible describes God.
All this stuff about God controlling everything, exhaustive determinism, simply is an effort to change 2 Thessalonians 2:13 from what it says, i.e. a rewrite. Doctrine must be accord with scripture, not nullify it.
The point about salvation not being mentioned was that Calvinism applies through sanctification to "for salvation" in 2 Thessalonians 2:13, but we have the same thing described in the underlined portion of 1 Peter 1:1-2 without "for salvation" being mentioned. Thus being set apart refers to election, not salvation. Bottom line if something existed to be set apart, it cannot occur before that something was created.
Lets take your assertions one at a time. Why would the NASB translate "en" as "by?" Here we have proximity, i.e. in, being used to denote cause, thus "by" the Spirit rather than "in" the Spirit.
Yes, sanctification here refers to a one time event, being set apart in Christ.
No, the sanctification (meaning set apart,an event) does not follow the election, it refers to how the election took place, i.e you pick an apple from the bin and put it aside in your cart. So you chose the apple by the setting aside work of your hand.
According to the foreknown plan of God, God chose you for salvation by setting you apart in Christ based on crediting your faith as righteousness.
Your effort to introduce the ability of God to do what Calvinism says He did has no merit, we are discussing what scripture actually says He did without adding to the text.
God chose you for salvation through the sanctification of the Spirit and faith in the truth. This is all about God's election of individuals and because His choice was based on faith in the truth, His election occurred during our lifetime, and was conditional.
The meaning of foreknowledge does not change if God is the one with foreknowledge. Notice Peter says Christ was foreknown as the Lamb of God before the foundation of the world. This is God using knowledge from the past, before creation. When Christ was crucified, it was by the foreknowledge of God, and note that God described it in detail in Isaiah 53, long before or in the past. Look at it this way, when God prophecies, He describes what will happen in the future, and then He causes what He described to occur, He brings it about. This is actually how the Bible describes God.
All this stuff about God controlling everything, exhaustive determinism, simply is an effort to change 2 Thessalonians 2:13 from what it says, i.e. a rewrite. Doctrine must be accord with scripture, not nullify it.
The point about salvation not being mentioned was that Calvinism applies through sanctification to "for salvation" in 2 Thessalonians 2:13, but we have the same thing described in the underlined portion of 1 Peter 1:1-2 without "for salvation" being mentioned. Thus being set apart refers to election, not salvation. Bottom line if something existed to be set apart, it cannot occur before that something was created.
Hopefully BOTH the cals/Non cals could agree that Open Theism is NOT valid per scriptures!
No, I was asking about something you said. I'm not "deflecting" anything but asked a question of something YOU said. Can you answer my question? And btw, my question was over the word "foreknowledge" and not omniscience. I know you deny God's omniscience, but was wanting an clarification about a word definition you used.
I've wondered the same thing....
Good, we agree that it is a one non-time specific event in this verse.
Using your illustration of the apple and cart, before the apple was even picked up, there was the choosing (election) of the apple from the many available. Within that decision making of which apple was to be selected (chosen), by the criteria known only to the one doing the selecting, was the setting apart of that apple as special from the rest. All done before the apple was even picked up to be put in the cart. The rest of the apples might wonder what criteria was used and why that apple was selected over others. The apples complain about the one who does the choosing as being unfair.
If we were to use your application of the illustration,any apple might just happened to fall in the cart as the cart was passing by and be considered "set apart." The apple may be rejected by the owner of the cart and thrown back. The rest of the apples might complain about their position, ability, and chance in comparison to other apples. The apples complaint is centered upon the apples and whatever reason the apple didn't fall into the cart.
But faith is not under a person's ownership. Paul speaking to believer in Romans says that "God has dealt to every man the measure of faith."
According to the foreknowledge of God at the beginning of this world, He chose you for salvation by setting you apart and the sprinkling of the blood (purification).
You need to get the idea that I have some hidden agenda out of your thinking if we are to work toward some agreement on scriptures. I haven't shown other than what I consider proper work in the Scriptures. I have even taken what you offered and shown it applicable with appropriate modifications to the principle of what we are discussing.
We agree that God chose you for salvation is accurate, but you have not shown the choosing nor the salvation as "conditional." I again refer you to Paul's statement in Romans, and restated in Ephesians that faith is given by God.
I totally agree!
Just for readers to know, here is the verse Van referred:
"But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:"
I see - continual thanksgiving to God for the Thessalonian believers.
I see - the Thessalonians were greatly loved of the Lord.
I see - the reason they are greatly loved is because God choose them from the beginning (creation)
I see - the results of having been chosen were salvation.
I see - the believers were set apart by the Holy Spirit of God
I see - the believers believed the truth.
I don't see any evidence that I am attempting to "rewrite" the scriptures. If I am mistaken, I am certain any Greek scholar will be obliged to correct what I may have ignored or misstated.
I agree that "being set apart refers to election"
I disagree that something has to be created before being set apart. I have shown by stating the names of the parents of those not yet conceived yet specified as sanctified (set apart) by God, in the previous posts.
Perhaps as Van and I discuss under watchful eye of the forum folks, your wisdom of Scriptures will be obliged to keep us both on track and honest to the Authority of the Word of God.
Van and I hope to come to some Scriptural agreement. Not by stating personally held views and naming camps, but by a thorough discussion of the verses, with the hope the Spirit of God will illuminate us - those watching and participating in the discussion - the truth.
If the discussion falls apart, I am determined not to be the cause.
- Status