Is there anyone interest in an organized discussion?

[kyredneck]

Please elaborate.

Is this another verbal saying for "time salvation"?

Yes.

Eternal Salvation- man passive. Temporal Salvation- man active.

Regeneration- man passive. Conversion- man active.

Birth from above- man passive. Entering the kingdom- man active.

Please delve deeper...I know very little about it....

Born Again: The Doctrine of Effectual Calling

The Two Phases of Sancitification

[ETA--Have you read that blog I PM'd you yet?]

Yea, I'll PM you back.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Old Schoolism: the doctrine that the human will is passive in eternal salvation and active in gospel salvation.

YES YES....good summary:thumbs:

 

[Van]

After 5 pages, lets have the discussion on Calvinism

I have been considering starting a discussion on Calvinism. I would like the discussion to have some ground rules and definitions settled on beforehand to help keep the discussion productive. It would probably also be helpful to breakdown the topic into smaller issues and look at them in order. My question right now is this: is anyone interested in such a discussion?

I will state beforehand that I am not a Calvinist, but I hesitate to call myself an Arminian. I consider myself open minded and try always to conform my beliefs to the word of God. So, if you can prove it to me in the Bible, I will believe it.

I realize that it is unlikely that anyone's mind will be changed, but that is no reason to not try.

Calvinism can be defined every which way, so lets define it as believing in at least 4 of the 5 points of the Tulip,

Total Spiritual Inability, fallen men are unable to seek God and trust in Christ.

Unconditional Election, God chose foreseen individuals before the foundation of the world, for salvation, for His purpose, but not through any aspect found in the foreseen individual such as faith.

Limited Atonement, Christ died only for the Elect, referring to the supposed foreseen individuals chosen before the foundation of the world.

Irresistible Grace, Fallen people, being unable to seek God or trust in Christ, are altered, enabled, so that they willingly and irresistible come to saving faith in Christ, and this quickening, this alteration is by "irresistible grace."

Perseverance of the Saints, says once a person is saved, then He is kept by God and will continue in the faith until he physically dies. Those that depart from us were never of us, i.e. never actually saved.

Now Jeremy, what would you like to discuss?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I have been considering starting a discussion on Calvinism. I would like the discussion to have some ground rules and definitions settled on beforehand to help keep the discussion productive. It would probably also be helpful to breakdown the topic into smaller issues and look at them in order. My question right now is this: is anyone interested in such a discussion?

I will state beforehand that I am not a Calvinist, but I hesitate to call myself an Arminian. I consider myself open minded and try always to conform my beliefs to the word of God. So, if you can prove it to me in the Bible, I will believe it.

I realize that it is unlikely that anyone's mind will be changed, but that is no reason to not try.

I wonder (and don't take this the wrong way) if you have sufficient understanding of Sovereign Grace to propose this as a topic of discussion. Perhaps it would be better to focus on why you don't subscribe to either Calvinism or Arminism.

 

[JeremyV]

Gone for a little while and wow. I think my purpose for this thread had been served. It is clear that that there are enough people interested to start an organized discussion.

Considering the complexity of the issue ahead of us, I think it is not wise that we try to carry it on in one long thread. Instead I believe it would be better to divide the issue into smaller topics, each having it's own thread. By sticking to the topic in the given thread, I believe we will be less likely to be side tracked or to take on too much to chew at one time. For this reason I propose that we ask the moderator to close this thread and I will start another. I would suggest we first look into terminology as that seems to be on everyone's mind at the moment and in my mind is a good starting point.

Before asking the moderator to close the thread I'd like to know if this sounds reasonable to you. Does the overall plan sound good? Does the first topic seem appropriate?

 

[steaver]

....already been tried with the very simplest of terms:

Synergism: the doctrine that the human will cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the work of regeneration.

Monergism: the doctrine that the Holy Ghost acts independently of the human will in the work of regeneration.

DoGs had no problem with it.

Too many mugwumps in the synergist/Arminian/free willer/Pelagian/semi-Pelagian/non-Cal camp that wouldn't accept the definition. Doesn't matter how 'delicately' it's presented, the synergist/Arminian/free willer/Pelagian/semi-Pelagian/non-Cal camp won't come to agreement with it.

.

How would you respond to me then since my beliefs would line up with your definition of Monergism, and yet I reject Calvinism? The human will has nothing to do with regeneration, this is an act of God alone after one calls upon the Lord.

 

[Revmitchell]

Gone for a little while and wow. I think my purpose for this thread had been served. It is clear that that there are enough people interested to start an organized discussion.

Considering the complexity of the issue ahead of us, I think it is not wise that we try to carry it on in one long thread. Instead I believe it would be better to divide the issue into smaller topics, each having it's own thread. By sticking to the topic in the given thread, I believe we will be less likely to be side tracked or to take on too much to chew at one time. For this reason I propose that we ask the moderator to close this thread and I will start another. I would suggest we first look into terminology as that seems to be on everyone's mind at the moment and in my mind is a good starting point.

Before asking the moderator to close the thread I'd like to know if this sounds reasonable to you. Does the overall plan sound good? Does the first topic seem appropriate?

Good luck.

 

[convicted1]

Calvinism can be defined every which way, so lets define it as believing in at least 4 of the 5 points of the Tulip,

Total Spiritual Inability, fallen men are unable to seek God and trust in Christ.John 6

Unconditional Election, God chose foreseen individuals before the foundation of the world, for salvation, for His purpose, but not through any aspect found in the foreseen individual such as faith.Romans 8 & Ephesians 1

Limited Atonement, Christ died only for the Elect, referring to the supposed foreseen individuals chosen before the foundation of the world.John 10 & John 17 Romans 8, Ephesians 1 & Revelation 17

Irresistible Grace, Fallen people, being unable to seek God or trust in Christ, are altered, enabled, so that they willingly and irresistible come to saving faith in Christ, and this quickening, this alteration is by "irresistible grace."John 3 & John 6

Perseverance of the Saints, says once a person is saved, then He is kept by God and will continue in the faith until he physically dies. Those that depart from us were never of us, i.e. never actually saved.

Now Jeremy, what would you like to discuss?

I gave you some chapters to read....

 

[convicted1]

YES YES....good summary:thumbs:

Yeah....I just wanna know what "mugwumpism" is...:laugh:

 

[Rippon]

Total Spiritual Inability, fallen men are unable to seek God and trust in Christ.

You need to elaborate.

Unconditional Election, God chose foreseen individuals before the foundation of the world, for salvation, for His purpose, but not through any aspect found in the foreseen individual such as faith.

What is this foreseen business? Calvinists don't buy that stuff.

Limited Atonement, Christ died only for the Elect, referring to the supposed foreseen individuals chosen before the foundation of the world.

Again, this so-called foreseen stuff is something alien to Calvinists.

Irresistible Grace, Fallen people, being unable to seek God or trust in Christ, are altered, enabled, so that they willingly and irresistible come to saving faith in Christ, and this quickening, this alteration is by "irresistible grace."

More correctly : Effectual Calling.

Perseverance of the Saints, says once a person is saved, then He is kept by God and will continue in the faith until he physically dies. Those that depart from us were never of us, i.e. never actually saved.

Not a very objective rehearsal. If you really wanted to present what Calvinists believe you should have used the 1689 or the WCoF --all based on Scripture. Convicted1 pointed you in the right direction.

 

[kyredneck]

How would you respond to me then since my beliefs would line up with your definition of Monergism, and yet I reject Calvinism?

Pure outright confusionism.

The human will has nothing to do with regeneration, this is an act of God alone after one calls upon the Lord.

So confused that you're unable to see the stark contradiction between what you just stated and the clear teaching of scripture:

who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Jn 1:13

 

[kyredneck]

Yeah....I just wanna know what "mugwumpism" is...:laugh:

"Mugwumpism" wants to 'have it both ways', and has it's roots in failure to 'rightly divide'.

I anticipate steaver will fire back to me along these lines, 'Why didn't you include Jn 1:12?'

We'll see.

 

[JeremyV]

Gone for a little while and wow. I think my purpose for this thread had been served. It is clear that that there are enough people interested to start an organized discussion.

Considering the complexity of the issue ahead of us, I think it is not wise that we try to carry it on in one long thread. Instead I believe it would be better to divide the issue into smaller topics, each having it's own thread. By sticking to the topic in the given thread, I believe we will be less likely to be side tracked or to take on too much to chew at one time. For this reason I propose that we ask the moderator to close this thread and I will start another. I would suggest we first look into terminology as that seems to be on everyone's mind at the moment and in my mind is a good starting point.

Before asking the moderator to close the thread I'd like to know if this sounds reasonable to you. Does the overall plan sound good? Does the first topic seem appropriate?

Looking back, I realize that I never made it clear that the only purpose of this thread was to see if enough people were interested in an organized discussion. Because of this, I will not ask that this thread be closed. I have, however, gone ahead and started another thread for the purpose of defining terms:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=2127505#post2127505

Join me if you are interested.

 

[Yeshua1]

Pure outright confusionism.



So confused that you're unable to see the stark contradiction between what you just stated and the clear teaching of scripture:

who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Jn 1:13

Placing faith in jesus on order to get saved is NOT a good work adding to grace though!

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.