-
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!
N-C's Really Agree With Much of Calvinism
- Thread starter Rippon
- Start date
- Status
JustChristian
New Member
Rippon said:
So saying that a different way, then Calvinists believe 51%-65% of what Non-Calvinists believe. Right?
I think we should go back to my comments and consider the "unity of the Spirit" before we go on to rip's treatment of the WCoF. If he is maintaining that Cals and non-Cals are only in 51-65% agreement, for sure THEY haven't "come to the measure of the stature of Christ" yet, (Eph 4:13). That does leave the possibility that the non-Cals ARE CLOSER to that stature than the Cals! :jesus:
skypair said:
JustChristian
New Member
skypair said:
Personally, I believe that it's a moot point. Both theologies are amply supported by the Bible. For that reason, I believe that both are true but in a way that hasn't yet been revealed to us. This argument is a waste of precious time.
It's the "way that hasn't yet been revealed to us" that concerns me, BB. If they are "true" ("amply supported") only from the Word, I believe we could all reach unity of faith and knowledge" that would approach "the stature of Christ." But since some of us are attempting to reach the stature of Calvin, 1) the "way not yet revealed" cannot be understood to some of us and 2) precious time is being wasted on that line of reasoning.BaptistBeliever said:
skypair
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
Which of us are? I have yet to come across anyone on the Baptist Board who believes in "attemting to reach the stature of Calvin." Do we not all believe that we should seek to emulate Jesus Christ, not Jean Calvin, Jakob Arminius, Billy Graham, or any other mere mortal man or woman? We don't imitate our Saviour perfectly, at least I know only too well that I don't.skypair said:
David, here's my point --- the Catholics rely on the ECF's; Calvinists on Augustine, Calvin, Luther, etc. for their understanding of theological doctrine and practice. Tell me it isn't so. And then quote me T, U, L, I, P, foreknow = predestine, salvation precedes knowing of Christ, etc. "chapter and verse." But people -- and you know who -- are "hard over" on these things that MOST Baptists can't find in scripture!!!David Lamb said:
Calvinism is a distraction. When people ought to be talking about what Christ said and prophecy in particular, Calvinism omits the latter knowing NOTHING (yeah, I said nothing) about eschatology! Few of them understand the parables and mysteries so instead of being "stewards of the mysteries of God" (1Cor 4:1), they are "stewards of the mysteries of Calvin!" Instead they want to talk about WCoF, election vs. salvation, God's sovereignty vs man's responsiblity, sin nature vs. free will -- anything that displays and exalts their knowledge of what Calvinism says.
David, we ought to be teaching among CHRISTIANS things that unify us in Christ (Eph 4:13) -- parables, mysteries, eschatology, Christian living, etc. Instead we are stuck on revisiting our salvation, Heb 6:1 -- "Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,..." Have we really not gotten past that??? They have basically "fallen away," (6:6), David. What are they hoping -- that others will "crucify Christ afresh" and be saved in accordance with their theology??
NO! Election, if there be such as they understand it, is PAST!! We don't have to "review" it. We're either moving on towards Christ or moving with them towards Calvin. TULIP is all good and well but, to the saved, it is behind us. How does any of that help us going forward? We all know where we are and we don't need "Mapquesst" to tell us how we got here! :laugh:
PL once said, "What does it matter? We all arrived at the same place. Now what?" Now what, indeed? Christ or Calvin?
skypair
skypair said:
How relativistic of you SP . SP , the new Protagoras . SP is the measure of all things . There is no objective truth as far as he's concerned .
SP , you have shamelessly and consistently engaged in fabricating falsehood upon falsehood on the BB regarding Calvinism . That's the way you are and the way you will remain , because you find great delight in your sin . You have been reproved countless times by many others here on the BB ( not just myself ) .
You enjoy saying the most outrageous things -- knowing that the things you say are silly in the extreme and offensive to those who are Calvinistic . Go out and fashion your Calvin-doll . Shoot your pitiful arrows into it , then burn the effigy . Next ,gloat that no other man in the history of the world has defeated Calvinism until you came on the scene . Acquire followers to pay homage ( and money )to you for your heroic actions and spellbinding words of eloquence . You will gain adherents from all over the globe . You could start your own club , maybe even your own forum . SkyPair Rules ! How satisfied you will be !
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
That is my point - Calvinists (however strange it may seem) do not rely on Calvin. "Calvinist" is generally used today to mean refer to anyone who believes in such doctrines as election, predestination, and so on, even if they have never heard of Calvin. I say it again - we do not rely on Calvin.skypair said:
Some Calvinists may have eschatalogical views that do not agree with your own, but that doesn't mean that they know nothing of eschatology. (And of course, there is a range of views on eschatology among people who are not Calvinists). And I for one do not want to "display and exalt my knowledge of what Calvinism says". That is just as mistaken as it would be to say that non-Calvinists want to display and exalt their knowledge of what Arminianism says.skypair said:
But Christians are no more united on Christian living, eschatology etc than they are on Calvinism/non Calvinism. You only have to look at a few threads on the Board to see that some are premillennial, some post-millennial, some a-millennial; some believe that total abstention is the only choice for Christians regarding alcohol, and some believe in moderation. I have never before heard anyone suggest that Hebrews 6.1 is saying that we should not discuss salvation; and if it is saying that, surely you are just as much in the wrong as the Calvinists, because you take part in many "Cal/non-Cal" discussions.skypair said:
Do you ever praise and thank God for saving you? I am sure you do. That is in the past too. There is a looking back (no not in the way Lot did!) and a looking forward. Describing the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul says that it is a looking back ("You proclaim the Lord's death") and a looking forward ("Till He comes"). Also, think of the numerous times the children of Israel were reminded how they had got from Egypt to the Promised Land. Such reminders were often linked to the present or the future, as for example in Deuteronomy 8.11-18.skypair said:
TULIP is just an acronym for the so called "Five Points" made by the Synod of Dort in 1619 (55 years after Calvin's death) in answer to the the specific five points put forwarward by the Remontrants, the followers of Arminius. Thus it is not, nor was it intended to be, a complete statement of faith.
Calvin may have believed some of the same things that I believe. But that doesn't make it a choice for me between Christ and Calvin. It seems from your posts that Arminius believed some of the same things you believe, but it would be unfair and wrong of me to suggest that you had a choice of following Christ, or following Arminius, and that you chose Arminius.
I hope that makes it clearer for you. I would just finish by stressing that I do not "rely on Calvin".
Last edited by a moderator:
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
Although I don't agree everything he writes, I don't consider Skypair a liar. I think he is mistaken, (as he no doubt thinks I am :laugh: ), but I do not consider that to be the same as deliberately telling untrue things.Rippon said:
Plain Old Bill
New Member
Rippon has finally lost it. I knew this would happen. Rippon where are you? come back.
raying: :wavey:
raying: :wavey:Chapter 21:"Of Religious Worship And The Sabbath Day
There are eight articles in this section. I think most non-Cals would agree with the first 7 of them. The last has nothing to do with the C vs. A issue, although it might not be met with favor for other reasons. The first head mentions God's Sovereignty but should not ruffle any feathers.
There are eight articles in this section. I think most non-Cals would agree with the first 7 of them. The last has nothing to do with the C vs. A issue, although it might not be met with favor for other reasons. The first head mentions God's Sovereignty but should not ruffle any feathers.
reformedbeliever
New Member
David Lamb said:
There are so many who foam at the mouth when the word Calvinism is mentioned........ that they can't see past the foam. :laugh:
I "caricature" Calvinism -- I emphasize its flaws. That is not falsehood because the object of the caricature does exist -- just as when you have a sidewalk artist draw your caricature. To him, certain aspects that identify you jump out at him which he also desires to have noticed by others as well.Rippon said:
Mainly I draw from Jesus caricature of Sardis. I believe we must go after what makes Sardis "have a name that liveth but art dead" because we certainly don't want to come before Christ's throne "dead," do we? What do YOU suppose it is that makes Sardis "dead," rip?
skypair
skypair said:
You invent things . You fabricate on a regular basis. You attribute things to us that are silly in the extreme. And yet you want to be taken seriously. You do not evidence the least bit of regret with respect to your perpetual campaign of misrepresentation.
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
I have just re-read Revelation 3.1-4 (the only place Sardis is mentioned in the bible, so I assume it is the passage you refer to):skypair said:
1 ¶ "And to the angel of the church in Sardis write, ‘These things says He who has the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars: "I know your works, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead. 2 Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die, for I have not found your works perfect before God. 3 Remember therefore how you have received and heard; hold fast and repent. Therefore if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you. 4 You have a few names even in Sardis who have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with Me in white, for they are worthy."
Does it say, "You are dead because you hold to those doctrines that, centuries in the future, will come to be nicknamed 'Calvinism'?" No. Jesus says rather that they had a name that they were alive - their profession to be Christians was in name only. No specific doctrine is mentioned, unlike the church at Pergamos, some of whom held the doctrine of Balaam, and some the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, or the church at Thyatira, where false teaching about sex and sacrifices was permitted, or the church at Laodicea, which had become complacent, and had lost their zeal.There certainly are churches today that are dead in the way Sardis was, but by no means are they only found among churches that are Calvinistic. "Calvinistic" does not equal "dead".
Yes, sir.David Lamb said:
The depiction of the churches is not only issue of "type" but of "timing." This church timewise was the church that follows Thyatira which I hope we can agree is a major portion with Pergammum of Catholicism. Philadelphia timewise would represent the 1700's revival era.
So it behooves us to analyze both typology and timing regarding Sardis for this discussion -- mainly "How did 'having a name that liveth but art dead' manifest itself?" And the one thing that I see is that the Reformers felt like they were "elect" in Christ "irresistibly" and "unconditionally."
At first it was because they were baptized as infants that they were "adopted" and there was no more need of "works" (such as they believed choosing Christ to be). And they, in fact, railed on the Anabaptists who, though of the same Protestant pursuasion, felt like they needed to "rebaptize" those who made a profession of faith as an adult. The plain truth, in my biblical view of "NameTLBAD," is that there was no condition that they had to meet whereby must be saved. They were saved 'irresistibly.'
Now that is NOT the state of many Reform/Calvinist churches today. They have bowed to what Paul called characterized in 1Cor 11:19 as the pressure exerted upon all the sects/heresies to practice the "manifestly approved" theology of Philadelphia. But Sardis in Revelation is speaking to those who hold tenaciously to the original version whereby you could be baptized and attend church your whole life and presume to be saved.
And there were still such churches (specifically Presby, Congregational, Methodist) when I grew up in Indianapolis as a kid (BTW, I WAS paying attention then -- I got my "God and Country" Award as a Boy Scout which was a pretty intense study of denominatinal doctrine.). I was absolutely "blown away" by the notion that a) God spoke to me in scripture and b) that I must not just believe but receive salvation thereby entering into the new covenant.
Now today I come on board BB and see most Calvinists practicing my same faith but averring the original Sardis. This is what bothers me -- they think that by having a firm grasp on Calvinism, they have a firm grasp on Christianity. And no wonder when some of their teachers claim that "Calvinism IS the Christian gospel," etal. David, most of it's vocabulary is not even found in scripture. Most of its interpretation denies Israel and can't make heads or tails of eschatology. And most of them in the near future (if I understand prophecy) are going to throw in with the Catholics. Why? Read 2Thes 2:10 "...because they RECEIVED NOT ... that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie" -- "the lie"/AC's/the Pope's lie!
David, 2Thes 2 is the church's "Olivet Discourse." Every word and phrase -- even "man of sin" and "son of perdition" -- is church related. Knowing that, I fear what some people describe as Christianity! :tear:
skypair
It's called "interpretation," rip. I merely interpret things differently than you. Your intepretation have the merit that they are taught by men. Mine have the merit that they are taught by the Spirit.Rippon said:
I don't believe you are being honest here. For instance, if you truly believe in the "total sovereignty of God," then you have no other choice than to say that your belief in God is "fatalistic." There is not one thing that gets done without God's hand on it --- therefore, we are stuck with whatever fate God gives us.
Of course, you will then start to "backpedal" on that (just like most Calvinists do on "limited atonement," "free will," etc.) so that they aren't quite so extreme as once taught). But you don't -- at that point and seeing the falsity of your original notion -- just reject Calvinism out-of-hand as you should!! So having renounced the extreme of your opinion, you then come back with saying MY view is "extreme."
skypair
- Status