N-C's Really Agree With Much of Calvinism

[skypair]

Not sure where you get that view from, though! The first part is right - a dead spiritual "corpse" cannot do anything spiritual, such as believing and repenting.

There you have it then. You have to be saved before you can repent but THEN you are no longer repenting unto salvation! Webdog has mentioned this a half dozen times.

Salvation obviates the need to "crucify Christ afresh" by repenting unto the justification of the soul but salvation activates the need to repent of each sin we find in ourselves unto the sanctification of our spirits. Now I am aware that you have certain problems with that statement because Calvinists I've debated with don't see any distinction between soul and spirit which is also why they fall into the regarding original sin. But we can discuss that if you think it would help you understand salvation better or in a new way.

But you still seem mistaken when you imply that calvinists believe sinners can be actually saved without believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. Certainly, when they look back on their conversions, they see that it was God Who enabled them to believe, as in that glorious "but God...." passage, Ephesians 2.4-6:

This IS the issue of soul vs spirit, David. The soul is dead but the means by which we can believe, the spirit, is most certainly alive! What Calvinism is basically assuming in their defintion of "spiritually dead" is that the lost person, like Lazarus, is soul dead and "brain dead," too!

As for any similarity between calvinism and the RC "confessional", I can tell you from personal experience that it is not so.

I know. As I told rip, I do try to "caricature" some facets of Calvinism in order to examine form and function. As I said above, a saved person does not need to "crucify Christ afresh" yet that is the ordo salutis that you attest to. You say that one must be regenerated/born again/saved in order to repent. In fact, Calvinism says that salvation is "unconditional" -- without any act on our part. But if you are already saved, repenting would, indeed, seem to be crucifying Him afresh, no? Or else seem to be like Catholic confessional in that your intention is to quit sinning, not be saved.

Why not believe it in the same manner in which you received salvation --- Your soul was dead - your not dead spirit (mind, emotions, will) heard God's Spirit - you repented from self and turned to Christ - you were regenerated by the Spirit/saved! Isn't that what Peter said would happen? Repent, be baptized, receive the Spirit (Acts 2:38-39)?

skypair

 

[skypair]

I certainly have never met, or read of, a calvinist who believes that anyone apart from God can forgive sins.

Yeah, there's a loose wire in this connection, for sure! :laugh: I was speaking in regards to infant baptism remitting original sin thus entering the infant into the kingdom which is only entered through salvation. In this way, I believe that many Reform church members believe they are in the kingdom. I know that Catholics for the longest time believed Augustine about being regenerated but they designated the time of regeneration to be at baptism as an infant. I think Reformers were split on this but always put regeneration sometime before repentance.

skypair

 

[skypair]

I have looked in several English translations. Some say just "bed", some "sickbed" or "bed of sickness".

Well, it's a bed for adultery which is what the verse mentions is done there. I believe the next verse where we see "all the churches will know..." connects the 7 personally to that bed.

But imagine, too, David --- we all believe there will be in the tribulation a one world church of AC, right? Well, church or religion or cult -- whatever. I have lots of clues as to its origins but maybe you have some I haven't considered. There's a HUGE geographical clue in Rev 17:18 along with a developmental clue 2 verses earlier for identifying this Rev 2:22 harlot in the bed.

You seem to be accusing those with calvinistic beliefs of following the pope's lie, and say that most of them in are going to throw in with the Catholics!

Those LEFT BEHIND of Sardis will. Was that not clear?

skypair

 

[David Lamb]

Yeah, there's a loose wire in this connection, for sure! :laugh: I was speaking in regards to infant baptism remitting original sin thus entering the infant into the kingdom which is only entered through salvation. In this way, I believe that many Reform church members believe they are in the kingdom. I know that Catholics for the longest time believed Augustine about being regenerated but they designated the time of regeneration to be at baptism as an infant. I think Reformers were split on this but always put regeneration sometime before repentance.
skypair

Does this have anything particularly to to do with calvinism/non-calvinism? Yes, some calvinistic churches practice infant "baptism", and some do not, just as some non-calvinistic churches practice infant baptism and some do not.

 

[skypair]

Does this have anything particularly to to do with calvinism/non-calvinism? Yes, some calvinistic churches practice infant "baptism", and some do not, just as some non-calvinistic churches practice infant baptism and some do not.

It sometimes comes up in regard to when one is regenerated according to Calvinism, yes.

skypair

 

[David Lamb]

It sometimes comes up in regard to when one is regenerated according to Calvinism, yes.

skypair

Not among baptists, though. (And this thread is on a "Baptist Only" forum, so there shouldn't be anyone here arguing for paedobaptism or for baptismal regeneration).

 

[Rippon]

Chapter 22:"Of Lawful Oaths And Vows"

My last post concerning the theme of this thread was #34 . So I will try to get us back on track. Again, I think it will be established that most of the Westminster Confession of Faith would be in compliance with what the majority of non-Cals believe. Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion also falls under the same idea.

Here, in chapter 22 I would suspect that all seven heads should meet with no significant objections .

 

[Rippon]

Chapter 24:"Of Marriage And Divorce"

Don't be concerned . Again, I'm following G.I. Williamson's treatment of the WCoF. I will not neglect any chpters by the time I finish with this thread.

The matter in this chapter ( six headings )would create no problems for the average non-Cal.

 

[Rippon]

Chapter 25:"Of The Church"

There are six heads. The last four would fall into conformity with the non-Cals.

 

[Rippon]

Chapter 26:"Of Communion Of Saints"

These three heads would be greeted with a hearty "Amen" by the non-Cal contingent.

 

[Rippon]

Chapter 27:"Of The Sacraments"

Don't be misled by the word 'sacrament' it equates with 'ordinance'. There was an especial effort by the framers of this document to differencite with the Roman Catholic sacerdotal system. However, because of possible misunderstandings and reservations ( some of which Calvinists here share with you) I think only one of the five heads would be acceptable to most of you.

 

[Rippon]

Chapter 28:"Of Baptism"

There are five heads in this chapter. Now you may be thinking :"Well, all five would be counter to my beliefs." But not so fast.

Here is the second head: "The ouward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy ghost, by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto."

I know, I know, you don't like that word sacrament. And you may hesitate when coming upon the words "by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto."

The 5th head:"Although it be a great error to contemn [ yes, that was how it was spelled then-- Rip ]or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated."

You shouldn't have a problem with that.

The 7th head:"The sacrament of baptism is but once to be administered to any person."

Again, you would have to agree with the above, because you certainly do not believe that folks should have multiple baptisms.

So it's 3 out of 7 for this chapter.

 

[David Lamb]

My last post concerning the theme of this thread was #34 . So I will try to get us back on track. .

My sincere apologies to you, Rippon, and to everyone else for taking the thread away from its original theme.:tear:

 

[Rippon]

My sincere apologies to you, Rippon, and to everyone else for taking the thread away from its original theme.:tear:

Oh, it wasn't your fault David. It was a necessary derailment.We were forced to detour for a bit.But now the Switching Station has given us the go-ahead.

 

[Rippon]

Progress Report

There are a total of 32 chapters in the Westminster Confession of Faith. I've lighly examined 26 chapters. Of these five chapters would not have met with their seal of approval.( But I may later reconsider some sections of chapter 5 dealing with the Providence of God.) So, there are six more chapters to go with this exercise.

So far 10 complete chapters are in total conformity with non-Calvinism. The remaining chapters I have covered are in the following approximate levels of agreement : 50%; 40%; 33%; 66%; 17%; 66%; 33%; 29%; 87.5%; 20% and 43%. That's an average of slightly more than 30% compliance ( with the five chapters which had no agreement taken into consideration ).We'll see how well or how poorly my original estimate was regarding the WCoF being in harmony with the non-Cal stance 51%-65%.

 

[Rippon]

Chapter 29:"Of The Lord's Supper"

There are eight heads in this chapter. All eight, though not framed in the Zwinglian sense, would pass muster to a non-Cal.

 

[Rippon]

Chapter 30:"Of Church Censures"

This is an area where many churches , Calvinist or not, would fall short.Of the four heads numbers 1,3 and 4 would be acceptable to the non-Cals.

 

[Rippon]

Chapter 33:"Of The Civil Magistrate"

G.I. Williamson's arrangement puts this ahead of some chapters which were originally put in a different order.
Of the four heads numbers 1,2 and 4 would be be okay for non-Cals.

 

[Rippon]

Chapter 31:"Of Synods And Councils"

Since this is a Presbyterian document Baptists ( including Reformed Baptists) would be in disagreement with some material here.
There are five heads.One of which , #4 would be acceptable.

 

[Rippon]

Chapter 32:"Of The State Of Men After Death...

"And Of The Resurrection Of The Dead".

All three heads are fine. They present no problems for the non-Cal.