You should have said are, not is.I was just wondering is there any semi-calvinists on this board?
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!
You should have said are, not is.I was just wondering is there any semi-calvinists on this board?
If you can't spell it correctly you don't know what it means.I think it is foolish and anyone who uses semi palagianism must also accept semi calvinism. To not do is us pure arrogance. To them palagianism is a pejorative.
If you actually read The Institutes you would agree with the greater bulk of it.Also I disagree with a lot of what is found in "The Institutes." His polity, His baptism. His involvement in civil matters.
And, of course, no Baptist had a hand in writing any of those Canons.I emphasize the historic Baptist doctrine of Particular Redemption, and the Soteriology of the canons of the synod of Dort.
That is one of the reasons I try not to use the word "Calvinist." Simply because it engenders so much strife. Not to mention false definitions of Particular Redemption.
Also I disagree with a lot of what is found in "The Institutes." His polity, His baptism. His involvement in civil matters.
So rather than emphasizing Calvin, which includes so much I disagree with, I emphasize the historic Baptist doctrine of Particular Redemption, and the Soteriology of the canons of the synod of Dort.
Your post actually sounds like it could be used as the definition of a semi-Calvinist, if the term Calvinism was used to describe the entirety of his beliefs and not just the five points.
I have Presbyterian friends who view Baptist and Calvinist as opposing terms. So who knows. And who’s defining those points?
I also know many Calvinists who would agree with most anti-Calvinists on this form – they also reject Calvinism as their opponents define their beliefs.
semi palagianism
If you can't spell it correctly you don't know what it means
Semi-Palagianism was condemned as heresy at the council of Orange in 529.
I have actually read the Institutes. Several times. And there is still much I disagree with.If you actually read The Institutes you would agree with the greater bulk of it.
No, the authors were, for the most part, Dutch Reformed. What is your point? They were writing on Soteriology. Had they been writing on baptism or church polity I would have had massive disagreements with them.And, of course, no Baptist had a hand in writing any of those Canons.
In what points?I believe I am a semi-calvinist
Which of the 5 doctrines do you accept?I believe I am a semi-calvinist
I am like many Calvinist Baptists, in that fully accept Reformed view on Sotierology, wile still holding to Premil/Baptist views on church leadership and other Baptist distinctions...I have actually read the Institutes. Several times. And there is still much I disagree with.
No, the authors were, for the most part, Dutch Reformed. What is your point? They were writing on Soteriology. Had they been writing on baptism or church polity I would have had massive disagreements with them.
"Much that I disagree with" is rather vague. Out of all the contents of The Institutes are you claiming you disagree with most of what he wrote? The adverb most is more specific. If you would claim that indeed you disagree with most of The Institutes then you wouldn't even be a Christian.I have actually read the Institutes. Several times. And there is still much I disagree with.
Your "no" may be confusing to some. I said that none of the Canons were written by Baptists.No, the authors were, for the most part, Dutch Reformed.
Touche!Is that like being semi-pregnant?
Oh Oh......He's back!You should have said are, not is.
Or, more commonly : uh oh.Oh Oh......He's back!
No means, uh, well, "no."Your "no" may be confusing to some.
No, none of the canons were written by baptists. Understand now?I said that none of the Canons were written by Baptists.
mine conveys great adulation while yours suggest 'oh No (not him again)'... see the subtlety?Or, more commonly : uh oh.
Think tha he, along with me, disagree with Calvin on Covenant theology, especiall in regardsto israel/Church, infant baptism, and church leadership,,,"Much that I disagree with" is rather vague. Out of all the contents of The Institutes are you claiming you disagree with most of what he wrote? The adverb most is more specific. If you would claim that indeed you disagree with most of The Institutes then you wouldn't even be a Christian.
This issue is similar to Baptists who claim to not believe most of the Westminster Confession of Faith. I made a thread on this topic a few years ago on this board. One who actually claims to object to most of the content of that document is not a Christian. There is way too much material in that document that is solidly biblical --as is the vast majority of The Institutes.
Your "no" may be confusing to some. I said that none of the Canons were written by Baptists.
Do you disagree with anything in The Canons of Dort?
Can agree with Reform Sotierology, yet also diagree with Covent theology regrding Israel/Church, infant baptism!"Much that I disagree with" is rather vague. Out of all the contents of The Institutes are you claiming you disagree with most of what he wrote? The adverb most is more specific. If you would claim that indeed you disagree with most of The Institutes then you wouldn't even be a Christian.
This issue is similar to Baptists who claim to not believe most of the Westminster Confession of Faith. I made a thread on this topic a few years ago on this board. One who actually claims to object to most of the content of that document is not a Christian. There is way too much material in that document that is solidly biblical --as is the vast majority of The Institutes.
Your "no" may be confusing to some. I said that none of the Canons were written by Baptists.
Do you disagree with anything in The Canons of Dort?