No, not really. I just put him on ignore. I'm just not going to waste my time arguing I'll just let his own words speak for him.
Last edited by a moderator:
-
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!
Sympathy for the Arminian
- Thread starter Protestant
- Start date
- Status
No, not really. I just put him on ignore. I'm just not going to waste my time arguing I'll just let his own words speak for him.
Protestant
Well-Known Member
Reply
Thank you, Tom, for your backhanded welcome as well as the gracious invitation to take my Christianity elsewhere.
I purposefully used the designation, 'Protestant', to signify my adherence to several of the most important doctrinal truths taught and believed by the Protestant Reformers, be they Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican, Baptist or non-Conformist. I oppose the Church of Rome on scriptural, historical and moral grounds.
I hold to the Reformed Baptist London Confession, as well as the Westminster Confession, not withstanding differences in the application and meaning of water baptism.
I have been baptized as an unbelieving infant as well as a believing adult....both of which did not save me. It was the baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire by the Lord Jesus Christ which gave me the right and privilege to be called 'Christian.'
I consider English Reformed Baptist Benjamin Keach to be one of the greatest preachers and teachers to have walked the Earth. I also consider retired Kentucky Baptist preacher Henry Mahan to be a giant among God's greatest
preachers and teachers to have ever lived.
I'm sorry, Tom, if I don't fit the mold regarding your definition as to what is 'acceptable.' I suggest you take it up with the Potter. <smile>
Thank you, Tom, for your backhanded welcome as well as the gracious invitation to take my Christianity elsewhere.
I purposefully used the designation, 'Protestant', to signify my adherence to several of the most important doctrinal truths taught and believed by the Protestant Reformers, be they Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican, Baptist or non-Conformist. I oppose the Church of Rome on scriptural, historical and moral grounds.
I hold to the Reformed Baptist London Confession, as well as the Westminster Confession, not withstanding differences in the application and meaning of water baptism.
I have been baptized as an unbelieving infant as well as a believing adult....both of which did not save me. It was the baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire by the Lord Jesus Christ which gave me the right and privilege to be called 'Christian.'
I consider English Reformed Baptist Benjamin Keach to be one of the greatest preachers and teachers to have walked the Earth. I also consider retired Kentucky Baptist preacher Henry Mahan to be a giant among God's greatest
preachers and teachers to have ever lived.
I'm sorry, Tom, if I don't fit the mold regarding your definition as to what is 'acceptable.' I suggest you take it up with the Potter. <smile>
salzer mtn
Well-Known Member
Welcome brother, I have listened in person and on tape many a sermon of Henry Mahan. One message he preached comes to mind, Recovering The Gospel.
Protestant
Well-Known Member
Thank you so much for the welcome! I was blessed to be given 100 of brother Mahan's sermons on CD. I had previously been listening to him via YouTube. His grasp and memory of Scripture are a wonder to behold!
Wow, dripping with arrogance.
How you make that kind of call is something to behold. Go line-by-line and state what you don't agree with and why. Simply dropping your waterbags is not sufficient.
Seems to me that laying out his background and what has influenced him isn't arrogance, but giving the BB an opportunity: For some to use as a resource. For others to use as you just did - belittle. For those of us, who don't really care, but will enjoy whomever comes calling to share and participate, it is "Welcome."
Tom,
I suggest you do some more research on Protestantism. Landmark Baptists aside, Baptists can trace their lineage back to Reformation.
When the term Arminian is used to describe Baptists that believe in the free will position, it does not mean that these Baptists agree with everything Arminius and his followers taught. It is used, specifically, to describe their view of free will in salvation. In actuality free will Baptists (not the denomination but those who believe in free will) are more semi-Pelagian than Arminian, but Arminian has become synonymous with both positions.
As far as Southern Baptists, they are all over the map theologically.
DrJamesAch
New Member
Baptists existed long before the Reformation. What a pathetic attempt to link Calvinism and Luther to Baptists. Calvin, Luther, and the RCC were ALL hostile to Baptists.
And the term Arminian is not simply used by Calvinists to identify Baptists who believe in free will. It is used to identify any Baptist who disagrees with Calvinism, period.
Sounds good to me.
Why not?
There are those who lump all believers in the doctrines of grace under one large lump, why not do that with those that don't hold a similar view?
"Unfair" is the claim that I have heard. "You are painting with too wide a brush." Is another.
If such is the true cry of one group, then it is the true cry of the other.
I'm an American, a Texan. To many in the world, I must own a ranch, ride a horse, rope long horn cattle, wear a white ten gallon hat (only the bad guys were black hats), and wear a gun.
I'm an American, a Texan. I don't have a ranch, don't own a horse, wouldn't want to rope a cow, and don't wear a white ten gallon hat.
I do own a gun (as I consider all good folks should have the right) and know how to use it.
Lumping folks into some pigeon hole has been around sense the tower of confusion.
DrJamesAch
New Member
Sounds good to me.
Why not?
There are those who lump all believers in the doctrines of grace under one large lump, why not do that with those that don't hold a similar view?
"Unfair" is the claim that I have heard. "You are painting with too wide a brush." Is another.
If such is the true cry of one group, then it is the true cry of the other.
I'm an American, a Texan. To many in the world, I must own a ranch, ride a horse, rope long horn cattle, wear a white ten gallon hat (only the bad guys were black hats), and wear a gun.
I'm an American, a Texan. I don't have a ranch, don't own a horse, wouldn't want to rope a cow, and don't wear a white ten gallon hat.
I do own a gun (as I consider all good folks should have the right) and know how to use it.
Lumping folks into some pigeon hole has been around sense the tower of confusion.
Show me how many threads a Non Calvinist has started about "The Fallacies of the Doctrines of Grace"? Go ahead, show me where those threads are at.
I can show you where others have started threads about CALVINISM. If you are not a Calvinist, then why do you chime in every time someone posts a refutation of Calvinism? I'll tell you why BECAUSE YOU KNOW THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE.
What we should really do is just drop the name "Calvinism" and just using the real name of AUGUSTINIANISM until it sticks.
I just had an idea, I am going to write a thread opening post entitled, The Fallacies of the Doctrines of Grace." It would have four main points. the T of the Tulip is unbiblcial; the U of the Tulip is unbiblcial, the L of the Tulip is unbiblical, and the I of the Tulip is unbiblical.
I would not address how this Calvinist or that Calvinist might believe, but instead address the published statements concerning those four fallacies.
That way, the "not all Calvinists believe that" dodge would not fly.
My summary statement would read something like this, and yes I got it from someone else: Calvinism teaches you were saved or damned from all eternity for all eternity and nothing you can do will alter the predestined outcome of your or your loved ones lives. Hence the doctrines of futility.
I would not address how this Calvinist or that Calvinist might believe, but instead address the published statements concerning those four fallacies.
That way, the "not all Calvinists believe that" dodge would not fly.
My summary statement would read something like this, and yes I got it from someone else: Calvinism teaches you were saved or damned from all eternity for all eternity and nothing you can do will alter the predestined outcome of your or your loved ones lives. Hence the doctrines of futility.
DrJamesAch
New Member
saturneptune
New Member
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Last edited by a moderator:
Any recent thread started by you.
How about EVERY thread started by you.
Have you EVER started a thread that did not pertain to calvinistic thinking which you have recently lumped into the doctrines of grace as being one in the same?
This statement makes no sense.
Are you trying to say I shouldn't post on the BB?
Are you trying to say I am a calvinistic thinker who defends too much?
Are you trying to say that when one presents a "refutation of calvinism" I shouldn't help with correcting the mistakes - which are at times inaccurate and extreme that have little resemblance to what is actually true?
Are you lumping what Calvin taught is exactly what Reformed Baptists believe?
Why don't you just drop all the names and deal with the truth of Scriptures.
Here is one for you to start a thread on and remember not one word (even implied) about some view other than your own.
The Scriptures state in Ephesians 2:
And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
Now, surely you have thoughts that you can express using only your view.
Demonstrate how skilled you are in supporting a view WITHOUT referring to any other view but your own.
As others join in the conversation, they have the freedom to reply using various views and even naming them. But try carrying on a discussion without mentioning the name of or demeaning any other view.
I and others have conducted such a conversation and it is greatly refreshing.
I do believe that you have already done that in another thread. But I may be wrong in that assumption.
Van have you and I never had a discussion in which one of us "fled."
How about you and Icon.
Is it not true that sometimes we all get tired of the fight and retire for a while?
Van,
You know this statement is not completely accurate.
ALL are damned - for ALL have sinned.
It is true that there is NOTHING YOU can do that will alter that outcome.
However:
But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
If you can demonstrate some human volition in that passage then your doing the same as you did in John 6 - adding to the Scripture because your view obliges the Scripture conform to your view. Adding such would completely obliterate that all salvation, from the first impulse of Godly conviction to the glory appointed to the believer's eternity, is the result of God's unmerited favor.
DrJamesAch
New Member
Well bless God look how much Van has grown in 2 years! :applause:
- Status