• 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!

Must One hold to the Trinity in order to be saved then?

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
No, Scripture repeatedly instructs us to judge "fruit", that spiritual life begats spiritual fruit, that we are judged by our works whether good or bad. Scripture is against you here.

The text for doctrine is "what is written" in God's Word.
The text of Spiritual life is the fruit of the Spirit (the things God produces).

You seem to be making up phrases that sound Christian but are not.

"The blood stained Gospel"??? The Gospel is not stained with blood. It may sound pious but it is not.

We are saved in Christ, but we cannot test if we are in Chriat by saying we are in Christ. We are saved to do good works prepared beforehand that we should do them.
The remission for our sins was and is purchased by the blood shedding for our sins by the Messiah

No, "particular Baptist" is not another name for Calvinist. The majority of Baptists historically in the States were Arminianism (adopted in part from the Methodists, which was for a long time the largest Protestant denomination in the US).

There was a time when no Baptist (thise who practice believers baptism, not a particular denomination) were Calvinists.

For most of our history Calvinistic Baptists were a minority.

Not sure that any of that matters. There are a lot of Mormons, but that dies not mean they are correct.
Actually, particular Baptists are also Reformed Baptist, and as such, were and are strongly Calvinistic

No, "particular Baptist" is not another name for Calvinist. The majority of Baptists historically in the States were Arminianism (adopted in part from the Methodists, which was for a long time the largest Protestant denomination in the US).

There was a time when no Baptist (thise who practice believers baptism, not a particular denomination) were Calvinists.

For most of our history Calvinistic Baptists were a minority.

Not sure that any of that matters. There are a lot of Mormons, but that dies not mean they are correct.
Yes, at one point, a majority of Baptists in America adhered to Calvinist theology. While Calvinism has always been one strand within Baptist theology, it was particularly dominant in the early days of American Baptist churches, especially among "Particular Baptists". However, over time, particularly in the 20th century, there was a shift away from Calvinism within certain Baptist groups, especially the Southern Baptist Convention.

Here's a more detailed explanation:
  • Early Baptist History:
    From the 17th century onwards, both Calvinist and Arminian Baptists existed in the American colonies.

  • Particular Baptists:
    The early Baptist churches, particularly in the Middle Colonies, were heavily influenced by Calvinism. They were often referred to as Particular Baptists, emphasizing the belief in a definite atonement (that Christ died for the elect).

  • The Great Awakening:
    The Great Awakening in the 18th century further strengthened Calvinism among Baptists, leading to the rise of "Separate Baptists" who were strongly Calvinistic.

  • Shift away from Calvinism:
    While Calvinism was dominant, it wasn't the only perspective. Southern Baptist historian Thomas Nettles notes that even within Calvinistic Baptists, there were different emphases and interpretations. In the late 18th and 19th centuries, a movement away from strict Calvinism began to emerge, particularly within the Southern Baptist Convention.

  • Present Day:
    Today, while Calvinism remains a significant theological perspective within some Baptist churches, there is a wide range of views. Many Baptists identify as Arminian, holding that God's grace is available to all who believe.
As I stated, Calvinism was a strong group within Baptist traditions, and were not seen as being either heresy or a minority, at least not until late 1800's early 1900's in America
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
How is one saved? Is it the name of Christ despite the host of misconceptions held by even the best theologians?

Or is it a faultless understanding of incomprehensible truths?
It depends on just whom is the object on ones faith trusting into, is it the Jesus of the blessed trinity, or any other false one, such as found in Islam, JW, Mormonism etc?
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Yes, at one point, a majority of Baptists in America adhered to Calvinist theology. While Calvinism has always been one strand within Baptist theology, it was particularly dominant in the early days of American Baptist churches, especially among "Particular Baptists". However, over time, particularly in the 20th century, there was a shift away from Calvinism within certain Baptist groups, especially the Southern Baptist Convention.

Here's a more detailed explanation:
  • Early Baptist History:
    From the 17th century onwards, both Calvinist and Arminian Baptists existed in the American colonies.

  • Particular Baptists:
    The early Baptist churches, particularly in the Middle Colonies, were heavily influenced by Calvinism. They were often referred to as Particular Baptists, emphasizing the belief in a definite atonement (that Christ died for the elect).

  • The Great Awakening:
    The Great Awakening in the 18th century further strengthened Calvinism among Baptists, leading to the rise of "Separate Baptists" who were strongly Calvinistic.

  • Shift away from Calvinism:
    While Calvinism was dominant, it wasn't the only perspective. Southern Baptist historian Thomas Nettles notes that even within Calvinistic Baptists, there were different emphases and interpretations. In the late 18th and 19th centuries, a movement away from strict Calvinism began to emerge, particularly within the Southern Baptist Convention.

  • Present Day:
    Today, while Calvinism remains a significant theological perspective within some Baptist churches, there is a wide range of views. Many Baptists identify as Arminian, holding that God's grace is available to all who believe.

I don't mean that our works determine our salvation.
I mean faith without works is dead.(James 2:26)

If we have a faith that fails to result in a spiritual birth then our faith is useless.
A mind set on the flesh is death while a mind set on the Spirit is life.
We are known not by what we profess to belueve but by our fruits.
If we have good works, and yet profess a wrong Jesus, not saved

Yep. It goes both ways. No work based salvation and belief unto salvation is a faith that works.
yes, as doctrine is essential, for one cannot be saved if holding to a denial of essential cardinal truths of the Christian Faith

They are Calvinistic. So are Generdl Baptists.

But you are not talking about historical Calvinism. You are talking about the philosophy behind Calvinism integrated into Baptist churches.


For example, here is an excerpt from the Canons of Dort (the "5 points" are a summary of the Canons of Dort) explaining a bit regarding unconditional election.

This is a part of the 1st Point (Election):

"Since we must make judgments about God’s will from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they together with their parents are included, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy."


What you are calling "Calvinism" is Calvinistic philosophy applied to the Baptist faith.
None except Apostles and Prophets though were not holding to theology and doctrines that had some degree of philosophy mixed in

You are wrong.

Yes, Particular Baptists were a strong group.

But many non-Calvinistic Christians considered Cakvinism a heresy. Many even wrote about it being "popish" and "Romeish", just reformed Roman Catholic heresy.
Was and is not heresy

Not per the Bible (that is what I mean by you ARE NOT dola scripture).

What does the Bible states was purchased by the blood of Christ?
our salvation

Still, it grounds on those truths.

I have struggled to understand how any person can be a Calvinist and be saved. The reason is Calvinism holds a doctrine that is unbiblical (not in Scripture) as defining the gospel. In this way, it can rightly be called "another gospel".

But at the same time I know that I was not less saved when I was a Calvinist. And many of my friends, then and now, are Calvinists and Christians.

My conclusion is it depends on how they Calvinist holds their philosophy. Do they hold it as their understanding limited by the "human condition" (like Spurgeon noted he did in "God's Will and Man's Will")? Do they hold it as if it were Scripture itself and a vital part of the gospel?

My conclusion is God, not our understanding of salvation, saves.
We mold agree to hold to the special revelation of the bible in regards to the essentials of the faith , and one can be saved apart from ones views on Calvinism, Armianism, free will gospel etc, but not if we hold to another gospel like all cults do

I know you hesitate to use Scripture, but try it this time. Pretend you are like me and hold to sola Scripture.

Quote a verse stating what was purchased by the blood of Christ.

You don't have to keep guessing....it is really in the Bible.
I use the scripture, but you understanding of the passages and mine conflict some times
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Actually, particular Baptists are also Reformed Baptist, and as such, were and are strongly Calvinistic
They are Calvinistic. So are Generdl Baptists.

But you are not talking about historical Calvinism. You are talking about the philosophy behind Calvinism integrated into Baptist churches.


For example, here is an excerpt from the Canons of Dort (the "5 points" are a summary of the Canons of Dort) explaining a bit regarding unconditional election.

This is a part of the 1st Point (Election):

"Since we must make judgments about God’s will from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature but by virtue of the gracious covenant in which they together with their parents are included, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom God calls out of this life in infancy."


What you are calling "Calvinism" is Calvinistic philosophy applied to the Baptist faith.

If we have good works, and yet profess a wrong Jesus, not saved
Yep. It goes both ways. No work based salvation and belief unto salvation is a faith that works.

As I stated, Calvinism was a strong group within Baptist traditions, and were not seen as being either heresy or a minority, at least not until late 1800's early 1900's in America
You are wrong.

Yes, Particular Baptists were a strong group.

But many non-Calvinistic Christians considered Cakvinism a heresy. Many even wrote about it being "popish" and "Romeish", just reformed Roman Catholic heresy.

yes, as doctrine is essential, for one cannot be saved if holding to a denial of essential cardinal truths of the Christian Faith
Still, it depends on those truths.

I have struggled to understand how any person can be a Calvinist and be saved. The reason is Calvinism holds a doctrine that is unbiblical (not in Scripture) as defining the gospel. In this way, it can rightly be called "another gospel".

But at the same time I know that I was not less saved when I was a Calvinist. And many of my friends, then and now, are Calvinists and Christians.

My conclusion is it depends on how they Calvinist holds their philosophy. Do they hold it as their understanding limited by the "human condition" (like Spurgeon noted he did in "God's Will and Man's Will")? Do they hold it as if it were Scripture itself and a vital part of the gospel?

My conclusion is God, not our understanding of salvation, saves.

our salvation
I know you hesitate to use Scripture, but try it this time. Pretend you are like me and hold to sola Scripture.

Quote a verse stating what was purchased by the blood of Christ.

You don't have to keep guessing....it is really in the Bible.

We mold agree to hold to the special revelation of the bible in regards to the essentials of the faith , and one can be saved apart from ones views on Calvinism, Armianism, free will gospel etc, but not if we hold to another gospel like all cults do
Funny thing is, cults do not belueve they are cults. They often view their doctrine as being what the Bible teaches.

This is one reason I am sola Scripture when it comes to foundational doctrines. If it is not in the Bible then it is not foundational doctrine, not absolute, and prone to error.

Cults will test what they believe is taught in Scripture by what they believe the Bible teaches.

I don't care what people think the Bibke teaches. I want to know that God says.

I use the scripture, but you understanding of the passages and mine conflict some times
No, you didn't.

Quote the passage.
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
I know you hesitate to use Scripture, but try it this time. Pretend you are like me and hold to sola Scripture.

Quote a verse stating what was purchased by the blood of Christ.

You don't have to keep guessing....it is really in the Bible.
I know it is

13 Christ bought us with His blood and made us free from the Law. In that way, the Law could not punish us. Christ did this by carrying the load and by being punished instead of us. It is written, “Anyone who hangs on a cross is hated and punished.” 14 Because of the price Christ Jesus paid, the good things that came to Abraham might come to the people who are not Jews. And by putting our trust in Christ, we receive the Holy Spirit He has promised.

Funny thing is, cults do not belueve they are cults. They often view their doctrine as being what the Bible teaches.

This is one reason I am sola Scripture when it comes to foundational doctrines. If it is not in the Bible then it is not foundational doctrine, not absolute, and prone to error.

Cults will test what they believe is taught in Scripture by what they believe the Bible teaches.

I don't care what people think the Bibke teaches. I want to know that God says.
Except you are not infallible, nor am I on our views of the scriptures and what they teach, so at most I can say that you have some wrong understandings of what is meant, and that you can say I also have wrong understandings but neither can state categorically free will gospel is wrong, or Calvinism is wrong
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I know it is

13 Christ bought us with His blood and made us free from the Law. In that way, the Law could not punish us. Christ did this by carrying the load and by being punished instead of us. It is written, “Anyone who hangs on a cross is hated and punished.” 14 Because of the price Christ Jesus paid, the good things that came to Abraham might come to the people who are not Jews. And by putting our trust in Christ, we receive the Holy Spirit He has promised.
Yes, that is one.

Here is another:

knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.


Now, I realize you reject the sola scriptura, but in order for us to discuss this we need to stick with Scrioture (because I am a sola scriptura guy).


In those two passages, what was purchased with the blood of Christ?

Hint...just use the passages.
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Yes, that is one.

Here is another:

knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.


Now, I realize you reject the sola scriptura, but in order for us to discuss this we need to stick with Scrioture (because I am a sola scriptura guy).


In those two passages, what was purchased with the blood of Christ?

Hint...just use the passages.
We were purchased back to the Father thru the shedding of his blood upon that Cross
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Except you are not infallible, nor am I on our views of the scriptures and what they teach, so at most I can say that you have some wrong understandings of what is meant, and that you can say I also have wrong understandings but neither can state categorically free will gospel is wrong, or Calvinism is wrong
Here is the difference - I recognize that man's teaching is prone to error, but God is not.

That is why I am sola scriptura.
I believe the Bible teaches "what is written" in the Bible.

How do I know Calvinism is wrong? Because it is not in the Bible (it fails the test).

Even among those of us who are sola scriptura regarding foundational doctrines there can be differences in interpretation. BUT we have in common the belief that the Bibke teaches "what is writen".

You don't.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
We were purchased back to the Father thru the shedding of his blood upon that Cross
I'll give you a B-.

You did get the "what was purchased?" question correct. We were purchased, not our salvation.

Had you stopped there you'd have earned an A+.

But I deducted for adding to Scripture. Still, a B- isn't bad. I'd say just above average among anti-sola scriptura folk.
 

Aaron

Member
Site Supporter
It depends on just whom is the object on ones faith trusting into, is it the Jesus of the blessed trinity, or any other false one, such as found in Islam, JW, Mormonism etc?
Actually, it depends on Who's doing the saving.

What if one only new Him as Jesus of Nazareth?
 

Aaron

Member
Site Supporter
I guess he embraces Jws and Mormons as believers? Their denial of Christ's true identity is merely relegated to "incomprehensible truths?" Doctrinal essentials are not at odds with believing in the name of Christ.
I meant humanly incomprehensible. I certainly didn't mean truly exceptional divines such as you and Jesus Fan.

I'm certain it's a tremendous disposition to be asked to suffer the little children.
 

5 point Gillinist

Active Member
I meant humanly incomprehensible. I certainly didn't mean truly exceptional divines such as you and Jesus Fan.

I'm certain it's a tremendous disposition to be asked to suffer the little children.
I believe I clarified my position in the thread earlier when asked by @JonC, it's available for you to go back and read. I find your last sentence quite intriguing, given your conduct on the board with others who disagree with your theological stances.
 

Aaron

Member
Site Supporter
Trinitarian doctrine is truly strong meat. Fortunately, the milk of the Word is sufficient for a true conversion.

In the law, a burnt sacrifice could be a bull or pigeon. One thing was critical, one understood a life was being given for him.

Unless you bring a bull, you can't be saved!!

Well, some understand Him as a pigeon right now.

You see the bull and the bulls guts. Don't let knowledge puff you up.
 
Top