Only calvinists are believers.

[Iconoclast]

Like I said in the op, let your own words condemn you.

Yes you said that Webdog.The problem that you do not seem to grasp is my own words do not condemn me.It is your jaundiced eye that has you being obsessed with this notion.There are four or five of you here who attack in this way because you are frustrated.
You cannot answer the biblical positions so you attack what I say by leaving out the context, or not reading the post correctly.
Everyone else does read the post as intended and if the truth be known they agree with the verses offered even if they think they could write it smoother than I can. Agedman read the thread correctly and answered exactly correct. You pouted and "added him to your list". Good luck with that.

You questioned me the other day on the image bearer doctrine using Gen.9:6.
I thought ok WD is finally engaging the scriptures....good.
I gave a solid biblical response that if anyone took the time they could find agreement in almost any systematic theology. I stand by that response.

Instead of agreeing with the response and maybe adding something edifying to it....you looked to mis-read it....intentionally, or unintentionally...only you and God know your heart motive. It is ironic that you would post this:

For those with reading comprehension the purpose of the op is quite clear and needed no further validation. Thank you for adding yourself to my list

Really... this is tedious:thumbsup: Go make yourself some hot cocoa, and come back when you can enter in to some scriptural discussion.
Most come in here for that no matter what doctrines they hold. You and your 3-4 other teamates seem to have an aversion to that.

I have disagreements with several in here.That is good and can be healthy.
Move past your agenda and join the mainstream....let the healing begin:love2:

 

[Dr. Bob]

Using historical context that have had SBC/NBC Baptists as the segment of Baptists of my heritage. Then there are various Black Baptists conventions/associations.

Hence the odd (today) sounding 70% of non-black Baptists are Southern Baptist.

35% of ALL Baptists in the US are Southern Baptist.

And you are right. Odd sounding in today's thinking to divide Baptists by "color". But remember this is how it is done. This is why there are such large number in "Black" Association - choice to volutarilly "segregate".

The most racially segregated place in America is in her churches.

 

[Dr. Bob]

So said today, 1 in 3 of ALL Baptists in the USA are Southern Baptist - by far the largest Baptist group in the nation.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

So said today, 1 in 3 of ALL Baptists in the USA are Southern Baptist - by far the largest Baptist group in the nation.

You mean "Great Commission" Baptists.

 

[Iconoclast]

Well, most "sides" here have considered me apostate, so maybe I need a thread, too.

One thing I've noticed: Not many here take a moderate stance; it's mostly one extreme or another. Or maybe they're just the most vocal.

That is not the worst thing Michael!

15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

That is not the worst thing Michael!

15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

I don't equate "moderate" with "lukewarm". I equate moderate with non-fanatical.

 

[Iconoclast]

I don't equate "moderate" with "lukewarm". I equate moderate with non-fanatical.

This might be the subject of another thread:wavey: I can say it seems as if I tend to be more on the radical edge of the spectrum,so I view it more as the lukewarm passages..or like this verse;

Ecclesiastes 9:10
Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.

You are viewing moderate as gentle which is good. I think it is not as easy to maintain in a war like condition...like BB:laugh: as in a peaceful situation like BB could be :thumbs:

 

[Michael Wrenn]

This might be the subject of another thread:wavey: I can say it seems as if I tend to be more on the radical edge of the spectrum,so I view it more as the lukewarm passages..or like this verse;


You are viewing moderate as gentle which is good. I think it is not as easy to maintain in a war like condition...like BB:laugh: as in a peaceful situation like BB could be :thumbs:

Well, I meant theologically moderate. I know I haven't been moderate in some of my replies.

BTW, I still believe that if you and I could come to an understanding and get along, ol' Fred and I could -- although he doesn't seem to be as willing as you to try.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Yes....Iconoclast should be banned and censored:thumbsup:

Thou hast said...

He believes Adam died in the fall,and we all died in Him. He believes biblical salvation is all of God bringing dead sinners to life.

But not for that reason

What nerve! He believes Jesus was sent by the Father to accomplish redemption to fulfill the covenant of redemption saving all the Father gave to Him.

Nor that one, as no one here would deny the truth of that statement

He believes that those who call the biblical God a monster, unjust, unloving, not omniscient, and fail to believe the biblical testimony on these things...are in danger of missing the biblical salvation,

Sure...but no one has done that. To continue to insist that anyone has is to either:
1.) Fail to read and understand the point being made
or
2.) To intentionally mis-construe what is being argued in order to falsely accuse Which is it in your case?

because there are many described in Mt 7:21-24, who while religious oppose God's truth.

Yes, there are...again this is not being denied or debated

That Iconoclast is so arrogant he believes when Paul warned that many would profess to know God, but in works deny him here;
16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

Yet another red-herring...no one denies nor debates this

Perhaps Iconoclast can be burned at the stake.

delusion of grandeur

You know...he keeps posting links to the confessions of faith,

At least...the Calvinistic ones which agree with his point of view only, as though there are no others which disagree with these ideas.

and the Puritans, and Pastors who actually know what they are talking about.

Puritans...Anglicans (by definition) and therefore paedo-babtists....ought we to assume that we should believe in infant Baptism? If not, why not? Upon what basis do we accept their explanation of Calvinist doctrine, but not their explanation of Baptism? This is why this always remains a pointless argument..and meaningless contention. Are any here tee-totallers? If they are, then they find themselves on the opposite side of the Puritans, for they most assuredly were not. Ditto with Calvin...Ditto with Luther. Why pick and choose? You must either agree with them on ALL points....or defend your areas of agreement with them without "appealing to authority." Unless that is done, then that argument carries no force.

How intolerant

Yes

He is just not politically correct.

Non-issue...red herring

being reprobates by calling the God of the bible a monster,

This has not occured...no one has done this. This was explained earlier...The one whom you accuse of doing this denies that that was the intent. Most who read that thread would have understood that at face value from the moment it was posted....You appear not to. Fine. Thus, the Christian thing to do is to either understand what was intended, or ask for more clarification...Otherwise, you are intentionally mis-representing what was the intended meaning and being a false accuser. Is that your intent? If not, then either cease the baseless accusation or ask for clarification.

Why can't he just"play nice" and not question our progressive ideas

There are no "Progressive" ideas being presented....None. The free-will debate is as old as Christianity itself. Neither point of view is either "Orthodox" or "Progressive". There were Church fathers who from the beginning of Christianity clearly up-held the idea of LFW. There also appear to be those who would have dis-agreed. That is moot as an issue.

 

[agedman]

This has not occured...no one has done this. This was explained earlier...The one whom you accuse of doing this denies that that was the intent. Most who read that thread would have understood that at face value from the moment it was posted....You appear not to. Fine. Thus, the Christian thing to do is to either understand what was intended, or ask for more clarification...Otherwise, you are intentionally mis-representing what was the intended meaning and being a false accuser. Is that your intent? If not, then either cease the baseless accusation or ask for clarification.

Two points to consider:

First, there is plenty of obvious intent documented by the actual words of the poster.

The quote is posted from a now closed thread below.

"Since joining this Board myself... I have never heard as many proponents of the Calvinist point of view, I have never heard as much pro-Calvinist argument....and it has made me more non-Calvinist than I ever was before...whatever they are arguing...I don't want to think like they do, and I decidedly never want to emulate their Theological discourse. I simply do not want to worship the Moral Monster they worship. And I never want to emulate the vicious and un-loving messengers of their god."​

That quote is problematic.

It isn't that it demeans a point of view - that is typical of the BB postings.

It is more the rejection of the Sovereign God.

With statements such as "I simply do not want to worship the Moral Monster they worship" it brings a huge question as to just what god is then being worshiped by that poster or proclaiming one (in this case Calvinists) is not saved.

This should apply across the board despite the view one holds.

We are all supposed to be believers, and worship the one true God.

If one proclaims they do not want to worship that God, then what god do they worship - one of their own making - which is idolatry.

To call that post into question should have been done by the Non-cal viewers as well as cal viewers.

It isn't a mere rejection of Calvinistic thinking being done vehemently, it is a rejection of the Sovereign God.

If this thread has value, it is that we all should be more careful in posting our rejection of some other poster's view.

Second, some on the BB will find that most Calvinistic thinkers are independent of Calvin and critical in examining all writings before embracing what some author has written. This is also true of all other view labels.

A Calvinist may esteem a certain author, but rarely does that esteem come by reputation, alone. It is foundational to the Calvinistic thinker to not embrace quickly in total, but to hold nuggets of truth that agree with Scriptures from selected works.

That is why you will often see the Calvinistic thinkers engage one another in exploring some nuance of a post to seek common ground or to show how they view a specific course throughout the Scriptures in a small but significant way.

For instance: regeneration threads. Some Calvinists hold regeneration takes place at the point of Salvation, while others would contend that the work of the Holy Spirit bringing Godly convicting is the conception of the unregenerate being given regeneration. Both sides have validity, and actually it matters so very little, accept to actually what constitutes the concept of total inability/depravity.

 

[InTheLight]

It isn't a mere rejection of Calvinistic thinking being done vehemently, it is a rejection of the Sovereign God.

No, it's the rejection of the Calvinistic definition of the Sovereign God. Most people don't accept the idea that God predestines people to damnation.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Two points to consider:

First, there is plenty of obvious intent documented by the actual words of the poster.

There is not apparently as you misread it....I have explained I will not do so again...You are reading into it what you want. Just get off of it.

That quote is problematic.

Then ignore it, and move along with your life

It isn't that it demeans a point of view - that is typical of the BB postings.

That, and that alone is precisely it's intent

It is more the rejection of the Sovereign God

.

I, and all others on this board fully believe in a fully Sovereign God...So.....

It isn't a mere rejection of Calvinistic thinking being done vehemently, it is a rejection of the Sovereign God.

No, it is in fact, a mere rejection of Calvinistic thinking vehemently expressed, and almost anyone would have clearly understood that from the outset. I believe in a totally Sovereign God...I believe in a totally Sovereign God....Now why don't you accept the above, and stop accussing someone falsely.

If this thread has value, it is that we all should be more careful in posting our rejection of some other poster's view.

True enough.....and now that the quote and it's intent has been fully explained. Then there is no more need to obsess over it....Move along with your life. One should be more careful indeed...because when they are not, some Calvinist....such as yourself and/or Icon will either misread from ignorance, or mis-construe intentionally in order to continuously falsely accuse. Lesson learned.....Never assume the Calvinist will treat the intended meaning of anything said by a non-Calvinist reasonably....Got it.

 

[Iconoclast]

Personally, I do not believe this. However, let me say at this point that the whole idea that "Questioning someone's salvation" is case for dismissal, or breaking the rules, is ludicrous. Nowhere in the text of the rules for this board, does it state that questioning anothers salvation is against the rules. I know some people (moderators) have interpreted the rules that way, but it does not say that anywhere.

Though not in the Baptist section, there are Catholics and even at times atheists, who have posted on this board. Must I confess them to be saved, contra to all biblical evidence? Am I to affirm their salvation and let them walk blithely into hell? I have heard "baptists" on this board affirm "faith + works" salvation...am I to turn a blind eye? Where on earth do you get that questioning someone's salvation is a personal attack? Questioning the salvation of some, is the most loving, wonderful thing that you can do for them.
This whole "silence dissenting opinion" bit, is getting old. Why are you bothered by his words, WD? Are you worried he might be right? Why not let him believe what he chooses to believe, and express that opinion to any who choose to listen to him

Well said Hd:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Iconoclast]

Two points to consider:

First, there is plenty of obvious intent documented by the actual words of the poster.

The quote is posted from a now closed thread below.

"Since joining this Board myself... I have never heard as many proponents of the Calvinist point of view, I have never heard as much pro-Calvinist argument....and it has made me more non-Calvinist than I ever was before...whatever they are arguing...I don't want to think like they do, and I decidedly never want to emulate their Theological discourse. I simply do not want to worship the Moral Monster they worship. And I never want to emulate the vicious and un-loving messengers of their god."​

That quote is problematic.

It isn't that it demeans a point of view - that is typical of the BB postings.

It is more the rejection of the Sovereign God.

With statements such as "I simply do not want to worship the Moral Monster they worship" it brings a huge question as to just what god is then being worshiped by that poster or proclaiming one (in this case Calvinists) is not saved.

This should apply across the board despite the view one holds.

We are all supposed to be believers, and worship the one true God.

If one proclaims they do not want to worship that God, then what god do they worship - one of their own making - which is idolatry.

To call that post into question should have been done by the Non-cal viewers as well as cal viewers.

It isn't a mere rejection of Calvinistic thinking being done vehemently, it is a rejection of the Sovereign God.

If this thread has value, it is that we all should be more careful in posting our rejection of some other poster's view.

Second, some on the BB will find that most Calvinistic thinkers are independent of Calvin and critical in examining all writings before embracing what some author has written. This is also true of all other view labels.

A Calvinist may esteem a certain author, but rarely does that esteem come by reputation, alone. It is foundational to the Calvinistic thinker to not embrace quickly in total, but to hold nuggets of truth that agree with Scriptures from selected works.

That is why you will often see the Calvinistic thinkers engage one another in exploring some nuance of a post to seek common ground or to show how they view a specific course throughout the Scriptures in a small but significant way.

For instance: regeneration threads. Some Calvinists hold regeneration takes place at the point of Salvation, while others would contend that the work of the Holy Spirit bringing Godly convicting is the conception of the unregenerate being given regeneration. Both sides have validity, and actually it matters so very little, accept to actually what constitutes the concept of total inability/depravity.

Another clear post.:thumbs::thumbs::wavey:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Iconoclast vehemently denies he questions the salvation of others when called out on it...on what seems to be a daily basis. Let his words condemn him.

Any other cal want to join him in this belief? I would rather have one thread where I can go to in order to update who believes me to be a reprobate so I know for future reference in debate on this board. Amazing this blatant rule violation is allowed.

:thumbsup::wavey::godisgood:Another Clear Post!!!:applause:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

No, it's the rejection of the Calvinistic definition of the Sovereign God. Most people don't accept the idea that God predestines people to damnation.

:thumbsup::jesus::applause:Some Biblical Truth!!!:thumbsup:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Like I said in the op, let your own words condemn you.

Well said WD :applause::jesus::wavey::thumbsup:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

If the rules of conversation aren't followed then we all loose. The rules here are not unreasonable. I believe they should be enforced with no exceptions. They are on other boards I go to.MB

Well said !!!:applause::thumbsup::wavey:

 

[agedman]

No, it's the rejection of the Calvinistic definition of the Sovereign God. Most people don't accept the idea that God predestines people to damnation.

No, it is in fact, a mere rejection of Calvinistic thinking vehemently expressed, and almost anyone would have clearly understood that from the outset. I believe in a totally Sovereign God...I believe in a totally Sovereign God....Now why don't you accept the above, and stop accussing someone falsely.

The difficulty in accepting these two posts as other than opinion is that in my earlier post I specified exactly what the problem post was and the reason for the reaction.

I further attempted (obviously in vain) to clarify how that particular selection misconstrued the various Calvinistic thinking on threads. Why it is that Calvinistic thinkers generally come at a passage from various angles of application.

Another interpretation to the first part of the post could have been that the poster hasn't encountered very many Calvinistic thinkers in his sphere of interaction; that the BB presents a strange phenomena that generates vulnerability issues that to some expose areas of immaturity or weakness which in turn are handled by emotional struggles. I do not consider that the poster is either immature or weak; I do think that the sphere of the understanding is helped more than might be realized by all contributions on the board. It is neat to watch how the Scriptures are handled so skillfully, and how many wonders are disclosed by all who post.

Rejection of a view is not bad; that is called discernment. As we grow, in wisdom and knowledge of the Savior and understanding of God, we are not all at the same time at the same levels. God has done this purposefully. We all can learn from each other.


There will always be a general undercurrent of sharp tone, words of biting edge, and volatility that lays just under the surface. Even a thread on periods, that bring a smile, show how that the form of generating an argument is part of the board.

Two points were being made by my response and posting of the original statement: First, to show that, "yes, there was the statement of something said, and here it is;" Second, to encourage a backing away from posting the extreme carnal emotionally based indictment of any view by any poster.

Again, apparently not everyone is in agreement.

But that isn't anything out of the ordinary for the BB.

Like my first post on this thread, this thread is only meant to foment further division and not for edification.

So far, the projection has been born truthful.

 

[Herald]

Though not in the Baptist section, there are Catholics and even at times atheists, who have posted on this board. Must I confess them to be saved, contra to all biblical evidence?

You have every right to question whether they are Christians. If someone believes or advocates a false gospel then they are displaying evidence that they are lost. The question is whether those who hold to free will view (a.k.a. foreknowledge view) are Christians. I believe their view is in error, but that is not enough to separate them from Christ.