The five points of Calvinism and Eternal Security.

[Gorship]

The problem is the assumption non-Calvinists/ non-Arminians are somehow a blend of the two positions.

One example is those who reject individual election. They fall into neither camp yet are not a blend of the two (and are a large group within the SBC).

Scripture tells us what God did in redemption - not the "how" upon which some choose to hang their hats. The issue is often not a lack of study but what is studied. Those who define their faith along soteriological views have simply never moved on to the meat of Scripture. I think perhaps the "how" demands nothing of man while the "what" demands everything.

I'm probably reading this wrong...but coperate election isn't incompatible with arminianism

An Outline of the FACTS of Arminianism vs. The TULIP of Calvinism

Brian Abasciano has done some great writing on the topic.

Sent from my CLT-L04 using Tapatalk

 

[Reynolds]

I'm probably reading this wrong...but coperate election isn't incompatible with arminianism

An Outline of the FACTS of Arminianism vs. The TULIP of Calvinism

Brian Abasciano has done some great writing on the topic.

Sent from my CLT-L04 using Tapatalk

It's not incompatible with more modern arminianism.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,

[For clarification, you seem to believe a pastor from Alabama better represents Southern Baptist doctrine than does a Southern Baptist seminary president over a seminary governed by the SBC and accountable to the SBC churches as a whole.]

I did not say that anywhere. Are you having trouble reading my posts?

 

[JonC]

JonC,

[For clarification, you seem to believe a pastor from Alabama better represents Southern Baptist doctrine than does a Southern Baptist seminary president over a seminary governed by the SBC and accountable to the SBC churches as a whole.]

I did not say that anywhere. Are you having trouble reading my posts?

Which do you believe best represents SBC doctrine - the pastor from Alabama or the SBC seminary professor?

 

[Iconoclast]

Which do you believe best represents SBC doctrine - the pastor from Alabama or the SBC seminary professor?

Al Mohler is hands down over Eric Hankins, it is not even close.

 

[Reynolds]

Al Mohler is hands down over Eric Hankins, it is not even close.

The bad thing is Mohler was trying to be nice. If he had taken the gloves off, it would have been bloody.

 

[Reynolds]

Which do you believe best represents SBC doctrine - the pastor from Alabama or the SBC seminary professor?

The pastor from Alabama. Southern is the odd man out seminary. The lone bastion of Calvinism. (Though that is rapidly changing)

 

[37818]

If I were a "non-cal" I would be embarrassed by Hankins. In All honesty, what can he say? The only two positions you can logically defend are Calvinism and Classical Arminianism. If youyou move any degree toward the middle, your doctrine crumbles.

Please, can you present a case in point from my post#1? Thanks.

 

[Reynolds]

Please, can you present a case in point from my post#1? Thanks.

If you involve the non cal version of free will in the salvation process, you elevate man as the deciding/controlling agent.

 

[JonC]

The bad thing is Mohler was trying to be nice. If he had taken the gloves off, it would have been bloody.

EXACTLY!

That is what I mean by evidence of "milk" vs. "meat".

When Paul talks about the Corinthians being able to only take "milk" he refers to how they act among themselves. Were Mohler to have taken the gloves off then he would proved himself unworthy of his vocation.

 

[JonC]

The pastor from Alabama. Southern is the odd man out seminary. The lone bastion of Calvinism. (Though that is rapidly changing)

Overall I think our churches may be healthier than our seminaries.

What I have experienced in SBC churches are very strong churches among the smaller to mid-sized ones. The larger churches seem (again, in my experience) to be seeking direction.

 

[Yeshua1]

One does not need to know the five poinst of Calvinism to hold to Eternal Security.

On the five points, as I hold them, not being a Calvinist in my view point.
Total Depravity.
Mankind on their own do not seek or understand God. Romans 3:11.
Unconditional Election.
One of the principle conditions of God's election of His elect is they do not merit being elect.
Unmerited yes. Not unconditional. Ephesians 1:4.
Limited Atonement.
That is patently false. Christ's death for sin is for the whole world. 1 John 2:2. 1 John 5:19.
There is no "believer's world" as such. Not Biblical.
Irresistible Grace.
God's grace is available to all men, Titus 2:11. There are those who persist to resist God's sanctifying Spirit, Acts 7:51. Men cannot take credit for faith in Christ, but are fully to blame for their rejection of God's grace.
John 16:7-11.
Perseverance of the Saints.
God who saves, keeps those whom He saves. John 10:26-29.
Noting 1 Corinthians 13:7 with 1 John 4:7.

IF election of God is based upon anything other than His own will and purpose, it would be conditional!

 

[37818]

If you involve the non cal version of free will in the salvation process, you elevate man as the deciding/controlling agent.

Well, technically the term "free will" is not found in the word of God. Man is self willed as opposed to doing God's will.

IF election of God is based upon anything other than His own will and purpose, it would be conditional!

God's election is conditionaly, as I stated, being unmerited on the part of being elect.

 

[Revmitchell]

If you truly wish to discuss it, tell me the points of your soteriology and we will start from there.

I hold to human inability not total inability. I deny that the sin of man has do corrupted him that he cannot respond to the gospel. Scripture does not bear this out. Further, Scripture tells us that the Holy Ghost inspired word of God is the power to salvation (Romans 1:16). God does not need to add more grace to his work of grace which is the gospel. His grace and His word is sufficient (Romans 10:17)

I deny that all of man is guilty of Adam"s sin or that the result of his sin has destroyed the free will of man. Sin certainly had corrupted man but we still bear some of the image of God. Our faith comes from hearing the word of God. (Romans 10:17)

I find it a serious error to conflate the choice of man to repent with God's choice to save man. I reject the notion that man's responsibility to receive the gift of God (salvation) is meritorious in any way or can be deemed to have a causation in the saving of man.

Since when is the giving of a gift, also part of the receiving of the gift?

Election is not individualistic it is corporate. God decided, before the world began, that He would save whoever would receive His free gift. (Ephesians 1:4; John 1:12)

Now, what you need to know is I have been on this board a long time. To me you are a newbie. I have debated these issues over and over again, I have made long posts delineating my positions on things, and even recently have made my positions clear. What I have posted here in this post is not new in the last 6 months.

Your accusations of me are only adhominems repeated from some others I have long ago put on ignore. Its not honest and its not accurate. Just like your characterization of the video is not accurate.

Further, I post one liners because what I am responding to doesn't deserve any more than that. When you post something significant you will get more from me. Right now I will keep my posts to a minimum to your own one liners.

 

[Revmitchell]

Well, technically the term "free will" is not found in the word of God. Man is self willed as opposed to doing God's will.

Whether your position is right or wrong I am not addressing. However, your argument is a bad one. Neither is the word Trinity found in scripture. That does not prove your point.

 

[Reynolds]

EXACTLY!

That is what I mean by evidence of "milk" vs. "meat".

When Paul talks about the Corinthians being able to only take "milk" he refers to how they act among themselves. Were Mohler to have taken the gloves off then he would proved himself unworthy of his vocation.

Mohler is usually not very nice. (I am not saying that he should be.)

 

[JonC]

Mohler is usually not very nice. (I am not saying that he should be.)

Many in his position are not (in my experience) always very nice....unless it is for the public. Given the nature of the "conversation", I suspect this explains his kindness to another Christian involved in the ministry. The topic is one that is debated within a segment of the SBC that cares and there have been instances where Calvinists in the SBC have gotten a bad name.

Had Mohler "drawn blood" there would have been cause to question the seminary's teachings when it comes to representing the SBC churches as a whole. The whole "cage stage" Calvinist issue within SBC churches have many worried that it is simply going to be a repeat along the lines of liberal theology sneaking in and trying to take over churches.

I think he played it well.

 

[Reynolds]

Now, what you need to know is I have been on this board a long time. To me you are a newbie. I have debated these issues over and over again, I have made long posts delineating my positions on things, and even recently have made my positions clear. What I have posted here in this post is not new in the last 6 months.

Your accusations of me are only adhominems repeated from some others I have long ago put on ignore. Its not honest and its not accurate. Just like your characterization of the video is not accurate.

Further, I post one liners because what I am responding to doesn't deserve any more than that. When you post something significant you will get more from me. Right now I will keep my posts to a minimum to your own one liners.

I will answer you in separate posts as time allows.
I honestly do not care whether or not you put me on your ignore list with the others. I will lose not one second of sleep over it. Time on the board would actually be much more peaceful.

I honestly do not care how long you have been posting here.

Others can be the judge of your one liners.

Others can be the judge of my characterization of the video.

Others can judge as to whether I repeat adhominems. (Maybe if many people tell you the same thing, you ought to listen.)

 

[37818]

Whether your position is right or wrong I am not addressing. However, your argument is a bad one. Neither is the word Trinity found in scripture. That does not prove your point.

My point is men are lost do to not doing God's will.

 

[Reynolds]

I hold to human inability not total inability. I deny that the sin of man has do corrupted him that he cannot respond to the gospel. Scripture does not bear this out. Further, Scripture tells us that the Holy Ghost inspired word of God is the power to salvation (Romans 1:16). God does not need to add more grace to his work of grace which is the gospel. His grace and His word is sufficient (Romans 10:17)

The two verses you quote can not happen until God awakens man from his dead state in sin.
Ephesians 2:1-6
Romans 8:7
Romans 14:23
John 6 :44
John 6:33
Ephesians 2:1-2

As to corporate election, if you will be so kind as to be specific about what exactly you refer, I will answer. Nations? Tribes? All who are Christians?