The Fear of Calvinism in the SBC

[preacher4truth]

You, perhaps, but I have not intentionally accused Calvinists in general of anything – if so, please show me where.

So you admit to doing it above within this thread, now you need shown where you've done this? You admitted to being extreme in your slander about them, but now need a guide to see it? Or, was your broad brush denigration, personal unproveable allegations (by your own admission) of Calvinists 'unintentional'? :laugh: :laugh:

 

[preacher4truth]

Not when the topic is addressing the extreme side of the issue. I have not seen you object when Arminianism is being presented as flawed by voicing the ways God has used John Wesley. Instead, you have dealt with the issue at hand. R.C. Sproul is right – there are some who are so aggressive and impatient, on a mission to ensure everyone knows the truth of divine election, that they should be locked in a cage to cool down and mature.

There's your John Wesley concern directed at me, you know, the one you now pretend never took place. Losing 'confidence' in you at an alarming rate. Hey perhaps you should be locked in a cage with them until you lose your chicanery? I'm thinking the affirmative on that one. :thumbs:


Oh. here was your first evidence in your 'Wesley debacle'

I don’t want to get caught up here too much, but sure.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=2065246#post2065246

Get some real proof. For once.

 

[JonC]

So you admit to doing it above within this thread, now you need shown where you've done this? You admitted to being extreme in your slander about them, but now need a guide to see it? Or, was your broad brush denigration, personal unproveable allegations (by your own admission) of Calvinists 'unintentional'? :laugh: :laugh:

:laugh: :laugh: You should be a lawyer..or, heck, even run on the democrat ticket.

No, you know I was asking where I accused Calvinists in general.

Here’s an example on another issue to illustrate. I personally do not believe that because a person ‘walked the aisle’ that they are necessarily false converts. Many Christians have acknowledged their salvation by 'walking the aisle.' But such invitations are automatically dismissed by some (not all...SOME) because they automatically assume it to be easy believesim (or do you deny this occurs?). They automatically seem to view this as contrary to God’s election. It’s not that these who complain hold a false doctrine, but that they apply this doctrine immaturely.

Again, please show me where I accused Calvinists in general.

 

[JonC]

There's your John Wesley concern directed at me, you know, the one you now pretend never took place. Losing 'confidence' in you at an alarming rate. Hey perhaps you should be locked in a cage with them until you lose your chicanery? I'm thinking the affirmative on that one. :thumbs:

I think you missed the part where I said I DID NOT see you voice the ways God used Arminians (as a response to your statement that I should mention the good things some do before addressing a negative issue in a discussion forum). Then you say “show me where…” That’s a little silly, don’t you think? Why don’t you show me where you did?

(this is fun, but you know this thread is going to be closed soon. May not have time to get to actually showing me where you praised Wesley and I denounced Calvinists in general, huh? Heck, I'm still waiting on EW&F to correct my view of Eph. 2...)

 

[preacher4truth]

:laugh: :laugh: You should be a lawyer..or, heck, even run on the democrat ticket.

So you're going ad hominem now. The whole conversation of ours entailed your negative slander of Cals. This isn't seen by you only within this thread, it is one of your traits on BB.

Here’s an example on another issue to illustrate. I personally do not believe that because a person ‘walked the aisle’ that they are necessarily false converts. Many Christians have acknowledged their salvation by 'walking the aisle.' But such invitations are automatically dismissed by some (not all...SOME) because they automatically assume it to be easy believesim (or do you deny this occurs?). They automatically seem to view this as contrary to God’s election. It’s not that these who complain hold a false doctrine, but that they apply this doctrine immaturely.

Again, please show me where I accused Calvinists in general.

That's another story altogether and has nothing to do with this conversation. For your question yet again, I've already answered you.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I certainly do not view you as unable to voice your perspective as you have adequately demonstrated to the contrary. :smilewinkgrin: That’s not what I’m asking.



I will help your lapse in omniscience. In context with the entire passage, my understanding of Ephesians 2:8-9 is that as believers, were once dead in our trespasses and sins. Because of God’s love for us, even when we were dead, He made us alive together with Christ. It is by grace we have been saved through faith. This is not of ourselves, but is the gift of God; not a result of works. I hope that clarifies.

Where does my understanding depart from biblical truth? Don’t just say I’m wrong – show me so I can learn from my mistake rather than view your comment as an unfounded accusation.

Then I am to assume from your answer that you do believe in the DOCTRINE of Radical Depravity & Total Inability....IE men are dead in sin which means that since the fall man rests under the curse of sin and is wholly unable to love God or do anything meriting salvation.

If so, how can you make the claim against Calvinists who object to any Human Responsibility in salvation?

 

[preacher4truth]

I think you missed the part where I said I DID NOT see you voice the ways God used Arminians (as a response to your statement that I should mention the good things some do before addressing a negative issue in a discussion forum). Then you say “show me where…” That’s a little silly, don’t you think? Why don’t you show me where you did?

Here's what you said:

Not when the topic is addressing the extreme side of the issue. I have not seen you object when Arminianism is being presented as flawed by voicing the ways God has used John Wesley. Instead, you have dealt with the issue at hand. R.C. Sproul is right – there are some who are so aggressive and impatient, on a mission to ensure everyone knows the truth of divine election, that they should be locked in a cage to cool down and mature.

Now it is a given that your second sentence above is jumbled a bit. Of course I wouldn't object when Arminianism is being presented as flawed, because it is flawed, nor would I allow you to broad brush the reformed as you have done.

What I see you saying is where was I when arminianism was being broad brushed. The only thing you provided was a link wherein I spoke of how Arminianism (todays brand esp) has sin, man, and God wrong.

But again your sentence is incoherent and jumbled and I see no connection to it and the link to my statement.

I take it like this (your quote above) that I should be balanced and should have objected to Arminianism being denigrated and should have used Wesley as an example of Armininanism being 'of God'.

Later on you said doing so was standing in the way of God:

You shouldn’t have gone into the way God used those who believe Arminian doctrine in arguing against that doctrine.

I am against all error, including Arminian error, even if some of its proponents hold sentimental value in your mind.

I will tell you this, I am no fan of Wesley, of the way he treated Whitefield, and I'm not real huge on the manifestations at his meetings of persons losing control of themselves. I also object to the free will choice error promoted in all systems of the same ilk.

 

[JonC]

So you're going ad hominem now.

Yes...just for a second, anyway.

 

[JonC]

Then I am to assume from your answer that you do believe in the DOCTRINE of Radical Depravity & Total Inability....IE men are dead in sin which means that since the fall man rests under the curse of sin and is wholly unable to love God or do anything meriting salvation.

If so, how can you make the claim against Calvinists who object to any Human Responsibility in salvation?

Yes, that is what I believe.


DoG does not nullify other biblical doctrines, but rather illuminates Scripture as a whole. I do not believe that God saves through coercion. Men still have to believe (here I view belief as a repentance and belief – more than cognitive recognition). You may object as this is somewhat acknowledging the Lordship of Christ (but that is another topic). This belief is, however, a work of God – not man (faith unto salvation is not a product of man’s natural will). Human responsibility (not free-will) being, as Spurgeon put it – “come and drink.”

 

[preacher4truth]

Yes, that is what I believe.
I do not believe that God saves through coercion. Men still have to believe (here I view belief as a repentance and belief – more than cognitive recognition).

But belief is only according to the power of God, not the inherent ability of man, nor because of any choice man has made by belief. It is not not a determinitive choice of man (literally) but rather faith is evidence of salvation, not a cause. Thus the elect can only believe.

When you say man still has to believe ('Men still have to believe' -- implying doing), that language makes his faith the cause of his salvation, and also makes salvation a reward for said action.

 

[JonC]

…nor would I allow you to broad brush the reformed as you have done.

No, that is not my intent. Your objection was that I didn’t praise a few Calvinists who I believe lack mature discernment before mentioning issues with them that I viewed as problematic. You define this as “broad brushing” Calvinism – yet I use a very narrow brush with a confined stroke.

I am against all error, including Arminian error, even if some of its proponents hold sentimental value in your mind.

I will tell you this, I am no fan of Wesley, of the way he treated Whitefield, and I'm not real huge on the manifestations at his meetings of persons losing control of themselves. I also object to the free will choice error promoted in all systems of the same ilk.

Out of couriosity…Are you like Whitefield, who said he probably wouldn’t see Wesley in heaven because Wesley would be so close to the throne he wouldn’t get a glimpse…Whitefield who said “agree to disagree” Wesley borrowed it for the sermon at Whitefield’s death)…or do you simply think Wesley reprobate?


Yes, you are right that I do hold great value, although not merely sentimental, to proponents of Arminian doctrine, although not the doctrine they propose. I know you find fault in this, and perhaps this is the crux of our argument.

 

[JonC]

But belief is only according to the power of God, not the inherent ability of man, nor because of any choice man has made by belief. It is not not a determinitive choice of man (literally) but rather faith is evidence of salvation, not a cause. Thus the elect can only believe.

When you say man still has to believe ('Men still have to believe' -- implying doing), that language makes his faith the cause of his salvation, and also makes salvation a reward for said action.

I agree for the most part with your first statement. I do not with faith being the result of salvation...but instead I do believe that we are saved by grace through faith, not unto faith. My problem with the second statement is that I cannot take ownership of those words. I see why you don't like the wording, but I didn't come up with the answer to "what must I do to be saved."

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

But belief is only according to the power of God, not the inherent ability of man, nor because of any choice man has made by belief. It is not not a determinitive choice of man (literally) but rather faith is evidence of salvation, not a cause. Thus the elect can only believe.

When you say man still has to believe ('Men still have to believe' -- implying doing), that language makes his faith the cause of his salvation, and also makes salvation a reward for said action.

Thats right & why the starting point for any system of doctrine has to be the greater glory of God. This is why, in and of themselves, the Five Points are not the heart of Calvinism; rather they simply serve to explain distinctive aspects of Salvation Theology (soteriology).

However, all 5 points do flow from the heart of Calvinism & Calvinistic beliefs which holds thoroughly to a passion for God's glory. You will note that each doctrine draws attention away from what human beings can accomplish, in order to declare, "Salvation is of the Lord" --Jonah 2:9.

 

[JonC]

faith is evidence of salvation, not a cause.

Thats right

Thank you for the clarification. While my beliefs are similar in ways to Calvinism, where I differ is that I believe by grace we have been saved through faith - while I guess Calvinism teaches we are saved by grace which produces faith (I didn’t realize that all Calvinists held salvation to be independent of faith, except as the cause of faith). While I view faith as an evidence of salvation and God it’s cause, I do not believe that faith is independent of salvation but a requisite. In reality, I don't know if they can be separated. You are right, EW&F…we do differ in interpretation of Ephesians 2:8-9.

 

[preacher4truth]

Thank you for the clarification. While my beliefs are similar in ways to Calvinism, where I differ is that I believe by grace we have been saved through faith - while I guess Calvinism teaches we are saved by grace which produces faith (I didn’t realize that all Calvinists held salvation to be independent of faith, except as the cause of faith).

We believe we are saved by grace through faith as well. But that faith is God's gift as is proven by Scripture Php. 1:13, Rom 10:17; Romans 12:3; 1 Cor. 4:7; 1 Corinthians 1:22ff and the faith we have is only by the power of God, not ourselves, see Eph. 1:19 carefully. From your viewpoint it is apparently something a person must do, some inherent ability to say you believe or make a decision, and at that point the reward is given. Think it through as that is its logical conclusion.

While I view faith as an evidence of salvation and God it’s cause

:thumbs:

I do not believe that faith is independent of salvation but a requisite.

Yes, which is why God gave this faith or power to believe. The same power that rose up Christ from the dead.

In reality, I don't know if they can be separated. You are right, EW&F…we do differ in interpretation of Ephesians 2:8-9.

Yes, grace and faith are inseparable acts of God upon His elect whom He has chosen to salvation. These are also inseparable from predestination, election, calling, justification, sanctification, glorification.

 

[preacher4truth]

I agree for the most part with your first statement. I do not with faith being the result of salvation...but instead I do believe that we are saved by grace through faith, not unto faith. My problem with the second statement is that I cannot take ownership of those words. I see why you don't like the wording, but I didn't come up with the answer to "what must I do to be saved."

I see. I don't think the passage you use (The Philippian jailer/Acts16:31) is as cut and dried as many believe. It is not saying 'do' this and you'll be saved. If so, then man gets glory and it is works based. It is way beyond that so we must examine it and not accept this as a precursor to easy-believism. Rather than all that this 'believe and you will be saved' causes an inward work upon the elect. Some have heard this call to believe, and realized they cannot or do not and have called out to God for mercy and He changed them and regenerated them inwardly, thus they became believers by His power which is always the case.

It is he who asked the question, 'what must I do'? so we cannot base a theology on that and say 'see, you must do this, and when you do this you'll be saved'. It is deeper than that.

The answer of course was he must be a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, and if this be true, that is, that he finds himself a believer, then he will in fact realize salvation. But he knew all that belief entailed that he could possibly know at that point as he saw these men, Paul and Silas suffering persecution, imprisonment, singing in the midst of possible impending death. He saw them as true believers. He could not have gotten it all wrong by seeing their statement as 'easy-believism'. He did not see it as this at all, he knew the price to be paid.

The faith he recognized in the Son of God was not his own ability, but as the Lord opened his heart causing him to have a heart of flesh, and causing him to walk in His ways, Ez. 36:26-27. Then he can honestly say yes, I believe, and God gets all the glory.

 

[preacher4truth]

Thats right & why the starting point for any system of doctrine has to be the greater glory of God. This is why, in and of themselves, the Five Points are not the heart of Calvinism; rather they simply serve to explain distinctive aspects of Salvation Theology (soteriology).

However, all 5 points do flow from the heart of Calvinism & Calvinistic beliefs which holds thoroughly to a passion for God's glory. You will note that each doctrine draws attention away from what human beings can accomplish, in order to declare, "Salvation is of the Lord" --Jonah 2:9.

Amen! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[JonC]

We believe we are saved by grace through faith as well. But that faith is God's gift as is proven by Scripture Php. 1:13, Rom 10:17; Romans 12:3; 1 Cor. 4:7; 1 Corinthians 1:22ff and the faith we have is only by the power of God, not ourselves, see Eph. 1:19 carefully. From your viewpoint it is apparently something a person must do, some inherent ability to say you believe or make a decision, and at that point the reward is given. Think it through as that is its logical conclusion.

Yes, which is why God gave this faith or power to believe. The same power that rose up Christ from the dead.

Yes, grace and faith are inseparable acts of God upon His elect whom He has chosen to salvation. These are also inseparable from predestination, election, calling, justification, sanctification, glorification.

Ok…thanks. I misunderstood your statement. I believe that man can do nothing to merit salvation, or effect his own salvation. Faith is a grace of God, it is a gift. I also believe grace and faith as inseparable from predestination, election, calling, justification, sanctification, and glorification.

 

[JonC]

The faith he recognized in the Son of God was not his own ability, but as the Lord opened his heart causing him to have a heart of flesh, and causing him to walk in His ways, Ez. 36:26-27. Then he can honestly say yes, I believe, and God gets all the glory.

Absolutely.

 

[Van]

We believe we are saved by grace through faith as well. But that faith is God's gift as is proven by Scripture Php. 1:13, Rom 10:17; Romans 12:3; 1 Cor. 4:7; 1 Corinthians 1:22ff and the faith we have is only by the power of God, not ourselves, see Eph. 1:19 carefully.

1) First, if faith in Christ is instilled via irresistible grace, we are saved by grace and given faith. Not how it reads. To be saved through faith, means our faith existed before we were saved, like entering a room full of grace through a door made of faith. We go through the door to gain access to the grace in which we stand, Romans 5:2.

2) Philippians 1:13-14 refers to "brethren trusting in the Lord because of my imprisonment (or trusting because of my bonds)." No support whatsoever for trusting because of irresistible grace. Yet listed as if it did. So a disingenuous reference.

3) Romans 10:17 says faith comes from hearing, not from irresistible grace. Two for two, no support whatsoever for "the gift of faith." Second disingenuous reference.

4) Romans 12:3, at least mentions something that could be misinterpreted as the gift of faith. The verse says we are allotted "a measure of faith." .” What is asserted is that this measure of faith is allotted before salvation and is the means of salvation. But lets look at the context and see if we can figure out what Paul is actually saying. Each one of us, who is saved and indwelt with the Holy Spirit is gifted to build up the body of Christ. But we are not all given all the same gifts, for some are teachers, and some are leaders and some are servants. Each has been allotted a measure, a sphere of influence, an area of calling so that together we can build up the body of believers until we all attain the unity of faith, which is to be Christ-like. So rather than pre-salvation faith, the idea is our post salvation Holy Calling. Although mistaken, at least this verse could be construed to support irresistible grace.

5) 1 Corinthians 4:7 says everything we have, including our faith, we received. But it does not say or suggest we received faith by irresistible grace. Since faith comes from hearing the word of God, we received our faith through the call of the gospel. So we now have 3 or 4 disingenuous references that provide no support whatsoever for irresistible grace.

6) 1 Corinthians 1:22, here the idea, not in the verse but in the passage is that is that gospel is foolishness or a stumbling block to those that do not believe. Again, it does not say nor suggest those who believed were altered supernaturally by irresistible grace.

Bottom line: Four references are non-germane, and one provides an ambiguous phrase that Calvinism misinterprets. Go figure.

BTW, Ephesians 1:19, read any which way including "carefully" says the power working in and through us who believe is the same power that raised Christ from the dead. Again, no support for irresistible grace giving us faith before we are placed "in Christ." None, zip, nada.