The Five Solas

[TCGreek]

1. And that has been the case for centuries. Sometimes I wonder why we engage in Calvinism vs. non-Calvinism debates.


Those are some interesting comments, TC.

1. It would appear that you don't think sotierology matters because you also believe there is nothing we personally can do about it. But the debate rages because that is NOT what scripture tells us.

Imagine, if you will, Pharisees setting up "hoops" for people to "jump through" in order to get to heaven and those "hoops" putting the focus of faith on THEIR doctrines and not on God's (though they claimed to be every bit as scriptural as real Jews).

I'm going to pose a hypothetical for you, TC. Let's just say...

... one of the "hoops" was the need to baptize infants into the God's kingdom just like the Jews circumcised their infants into the same kingdom (that we allegorized from scripture). Next let's suppose we can actually force people into that kingdom, say in Geneva, say with "two swords" -- gov't and religion. We'd have like the "City of God" Augustine was talking about, wouldn't we? But see, just like the RCC, they only have to act like what they already are -- "elect" -- by confession of, say, the "Apostle's Creed." This assures everyone, ourselves included, of our original fellowship of baptism! And see ... we didn't DO anything of ourselves in order to enter, did we? It was "all of God" -- and of those who told us so.


2. Fellowship in the truth has been the hallmark of MY postings. I show disfunction with my left typing hand, I turn around and offer my right hand of fellowship to those emerging from the "fire," re: 2Cor 7, Jude 1:23.


3. Wow! The only time I had such an experience was when I received Christ! So are you saying that the "doctrines of grace" are on a par with or same as "the gospel of grace?" Let's see -- believing the "doctrines" you are informed that you are "elect." Believing the "gospel," you are commanded to repent and receive Christ for salvation. Hmmm.

skypair

1. Skypair, I consider you a brother in the Lord, but frankly speaking, it seems that your stance against Calvinism has sapped you of sound reasoning.

2. Like being born physically and growing up, we get to the point in our development, where through more knowledge, we're able to make sense of how the journey all began, but as a day year old child, we have not the slightlest clue.

 

[saturneptune]

1. Skypair, I consider you a brother in the Lord, but frankly speaking, it seems that your stance against Calvinism has sapped you of sound reasoning.

2. Like being born physically and growing up, we get to the point in our development, where through more knowledge, we're able to make sense of how the journey all began, but as a day year old child, we have not the slightlest clue.

This is why I stay out of the Calvinism threads. The doctrines of grace and sovereignty make more Biblical sense to me than the free will doctrines, but there are plenty of well educated, well thought out posts in favor of the free will position. I believe I am correct in my stance, but only eternity will tell.

Why is it that Calvinists (and guess I am one) feel the need to demean or cut down the other side? It is not a salvation issue, it is not a issue of heresy either way, and quite frankly, way too much flapping of the jaws goes on about it.

I do not see the people who are for the free will position cutting down the other side. I do not see free will posters using dead theologans for avatars.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

This is why I stay out of the Calvinism threads. The doctrines of grace and sovereignty make more Biblical sense to me than the free will doctrines, but there are plenty of well educated, well thought out posts in favor of the free will position. I believe I am correct in my stance, but only eternity will tell.

Why is it that Calvinists (and guess I am one) feel the need to demean or cut down the other side? It is not a salvation issue, it is not a issue of heresy either way, and quite frankly, way too much flapping of the jaws goes on about it.

I do not see the people who are for the free will position cutting down the other side. I do not see free will posters using dead theologans for avatars.

1. I love dead theologians.

2. If you haven't seen free-willers cut down those who are called calvinists I would say you haven't read their posts.

3. I think there is sound, loving reasons to engage this controversy.

 

[TCGreek]

This is why I stay out of the Calvinism threads. The doctrines of grace and sovereignty make more Biblical sense to me than the free will doctrines, but there are plenty of well educated, well thought out posts in favor of the free will position. I believe I am correct in my stance, but only eternity will tell.

Why is it that Calvinists (and guess I am one) feel the need to demean or cut down the other side? It is not a salvation issue, it is not a issue of heresy either way, and quite frankly, way too much flapping of the jaws goes on about it.

I do not see the people who are for the free will position cutting down the other side. I do not see free will posters using dead theologans for avatars.

1. Then you should stay out completely and not make these one-sided comments.

2. Why the sweeping generalizations if you don't have an ax to grind?

 

[saturneptune]

1. I love dead theologians.

2. If you haven't seen free-willers cut down those who are called calvinists I would say you haven't read their posts.

3. I think there is sound, loving reasons to engage this controversy.

Been reading them lot longer than you have been here.

 

[saturneptune]

1. Then you should stay out completely and not make these one-sided comments.

2. Why the sweeping generalizations if you don't have an ax to grind?

I am as much a Calvinist as you. If there is an ax to grind, it is giving those who favor the doctrines of grace and sovereignty a collective perception of arrogance and "holier than thou" which you are not.

I come and go to threads as I choose, without your permission.

While I do not agree with Skypair very often, he does not use phrases like "you are sapped of sound reasoning" and "you dont have a clue." Remember, fingers point back.

 

[TCGreek]

1. I will kindly ask you that when you are representing someone, take all that they say into consideration.

a. If the person was responding to someone else statements, find out what those statements were.

b. I will also encourage you not to cut and paste, without a full representation.

2. Beyond what I say here, I have nothing more to add. God bless.

 

[saturneptune]

1. I will kindly ask you that when you are representing someone, take all that they say into consideration.

a. If the person was responding to someone else statements, find out what those statements were.

b. I will also encourage you not to cut and paste, without a full representation.

2. Beyond what I say here, I have nothing more to add. God bless.

1. I would kindly ask that you stop calling names.

2. Whether part or full statement, name calling is not right.

3. There was no copying and pasting. The full quote is given.

4. Beyond what I say here, I have nothing more to add. God bless.

 

[TCGreek]

Can you demonstrate for me where I've called anyone names?

 

[TCGreek]

"you dont have a clue" those are not my words, but somehow you have tied them to me.

 

[saturneptune]

Can you demonstrate for me where I've called anyone names?

1. Skypair, I consider you a brother in the Lord, but frankly speaking, it seems that your stance against Calvinism has sapped you of sound reasoning.

2. Like being born physically and growing up, we get to the point in our development, where through more knowledge, we're able to make sense of how the journey all began, but as a day year old child, we have not the slightlest clue.

 

[TCGreek]

1. Skypair, I consider you a brother in the Lord, but frankly speaking, it seems that your stance against Calvinism has sapped you of sound reasoning.

2. Like being born physically and growing up, we get to the point in our development, where through more knowledge, we're able to make sense of how the journey all began, but as a day year old child, we have not the slightlest clue.

1. What is the naming calling in that?

2. My second statement is an analogy of a newborn baby "not having the slightest clue" of what a grown up would eventually know. Please, read my comments in context.

3. Notice I said "we" including myself.

4. If I've offended Skypair, I will apologize to him.

 

[skypair]

1. Skypair, I consider you a brother in the Lord, but frankly speaking, it seems that your stance against Calvinism has sapped you of sound reasoning.

I have to admit, bro, that perhaps I am at the end of any rationales that might convince you to change your doctrine.

In the big scheme of things, how did Christianity or Judaism survive without Calvinism?? I should have thought that if we were supposed to believe it that Jesus would have started right out preaching it, Jew or not.

What are the foundations/beginnings of it? Absolute sovereignty of God -- which means He in no wise avoids responsibility for our sin. Fate -- man has no control over his life, "que sera, sera." Catholicism -- infant baptism, Eucharistic grace, sacral society (state is "arm" of church), no dispensational difference between elect Israel and elect church, "traditions" of Calvinism considered as important as the Bible to faith and practice, etc.

2. Like being born physically and growing up, we get to the point in our development, where through more knowledge, we're able to make sense of how the journey all began, but as a day year old child, we have not the slightlest clue.

TC, you admit living with issues in your faith that don't make sense --- that Calvinism can't explain for you. Just maybe Calvinism is not "the complete story."

skypair

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I have to admit, bro, that perhaps I am at the end of any rationales that might convince you to change your doctrine.

I wanted to take the liberty to respond your post to TC. I hope it doesn't offend you. Upon this not, of trying to convince one to change their doctrine, it may apprear from my writings that my desire and aim is to get Arminians (please allow the use of the term for what it is, not what it isn't) to become Calvinists. That is not the case for me. My desire and pray to God has been first and foremost to bring honor and glory to God by being uncorrupted in doctrine. My aim toward my brethren has been to strengthen them and build them up in Christ, if God would so give me the grace to do so, and to remove error from their minds, not so I could merely remove error, but so that by so removing they would bear more fruit in the truth.

In the big scheme of things, how did Christianity or Judaism survive without Calvinism?? I should have thought that if we were supposed to believe it that Jesus would have started right out preaching it, Jew or not.

Of course, you understand that this presupposes that we learned "Calvinism" outside of our holy faith, outside the Holy Scriptures of truth, and outside of Christ. This is not our testimony. And when men throughout the centuries have proclaimed these particular truths as we find them in Christ, we rejoice with the truth.

What are the foundations/beginnings of it? Absolute sovereignty of God -- which means He in no wise avoids responsibility for our sin. Fate -- man has no control over his life, "que sera, sera." Catholicism -- infant baptism, Eucharistic grace, sacral society (state is "arm" of church), no dispensational difference between elect Israel and elect church, "traditions" of Calvinism considered as important as the Bible to faith and practice, etc.

You have asked a question to answer it for yourself. But as for us, we have found the foundations of what we believe in Scripture. When we do not find the pagain idea of fate in Scripture, we do not confess it. When we do not find infant baptism, eucharistic grace (transubstantiation), sacral society, or dispensationalism in Scripture, we do not confess them. Slypair, it you, and as far as I have seen, you alone, who have made Calvinism equal with Scripture as though it were some sort of infallible tradition. In as much as the the doctrines of grace are derived from Holy Scripture are they the infallible doctrines of God.

TC, you admit living with issues in your faith that don't make sense --- that Calvinism can't explain for you. Just maybe Calvinism is not "the complete story."

You were asked before, to which if you answered, I missed it so far, but let me ask: Have you comprehended all mysteries? Have you all knowledge? Are we to correctly understand you here that there is nothing in Scripture that you do not understand?

skypair\

 

[skypair]

Why is it that Calvinists (and guess I am one) feel the need to demean or cut down the other side? It is not a salvation issue, it is not a issue of heresy either way, and quite frankly, way too much flapping of the jaws goes on about it.

Saturn -- I believe both sides are guilty of "cutting down" their antagonists with what they believe to be the truth. However, like Pharisees when they thought Jesus might be talking about them, both sides tend to take offense rather than investigate the merits of another's contentions.

And unfortunately, free willers see it as a salvation issue. Here's how free will sees it --- Calvinism is and "addendum" to Christianity (similar to "The Book of Mormon," the RCC Catechism, etc.) that tells people they don't have to, in fact CAN'T, repent and receive Christ in order to be saved because they can do nothing "decisional" to choose their own salvation. Obviously, that thinking is diametrically opposed to scripture. There is not an instance I can think of in scripture where those being offered salvation didn't believe in the name of Christ, repent, and THEN receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit (regeneration/new birth).

The citations that Calvinists use to "prove" their "doctrines of grace" are places where a person is getting saved --- they are instances where the process is truncated in order to show some particular aspect of the process (such as God's pre-creation plan to save mankind).

skypair

 

[David Lamb]

I have to admit, bro, that perhaps I am at the end of any rationales that might convince you to change your doctrine.

In the big scheme of things, how did Christianity or Judaism survive without Calvinism?? I should have thought that if we were supposed to believe it that Jesus would have started right out preaching it, Jew or not.

What are the foundations/beginnings of it? Absolute sovereignty of God -- which means He in no wise avoids responsibility for our sin. Fate -- man has no control over his life, "que sera, sera." Catholicism -- infant baptism, Eucharistic grace, sacral society (state is "arm" of church), no dispensational difference between elect Israel and elect church, "traditions" of Calvinism considered as important as the Bible to faith and practice, etc.

TC, you admit living with issues in your faith that don't make sense --- that Calvinism can't explain for you. Just maybe Calvinism is not "the complete story."

skypair

Skypair, you are continuing to tell us what we believe, then argue against your definitions. I am a hundred percent certain that no one on this Board whom you refer to as "Calvinist" believes that man has no control over his life, or believes in "fate", or holds to Doris Day's "Que Sera Sera, Whatever will be will be". And your apparent suggestion (maybe I have misunderstood you) that Calvinistic baptists believe in Catholicism, infant baptism, Eucharistic grace, and the idea that the church is an "arm" of the state, is absolutely ridiculous and wrong. Neither I, nor (I imagine) anyone else writing in the Baptist Only forums on the BB believes such things. (I have left out your last example, the matter of Israel and the church, because there are varying views on this among all Chrtistians on this matter. I know Calvinists who believe that the elect church and the elect of national Israel are two separate things, and I know of non Calvinists who believe as I do that the two are one.)

I know you don't agree with the doctrines I believe, but please will you at least accept that those who do believe those doctrines don't do so because Calvin (or anyone else) taught them, but because that is what we firmly believe the bible teaches? I and others have made similar requests to you before, but apparently to no avail, as you continue telling us that we believe the bible plus Calvin's works. If I believed things just because Calvin taught them, then I would not be a baptist.

Genuine Christians have different understandings about many things, not just the matter of Calvinism-Non Calvinism. We see that on this Board. Some believe in a literal 6-day creation, some don't. Some are premillennial, some postmillennial, some amillenial. Just two examples of the many that could be given. Yet surely we all believe that "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God," that "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners", and that sinners must "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. You seem to pick out this Cal-non Cal business, attack the other "side", and give the impression (I trust you don't mean it) that you know everything there is to know about the bible. I'm thinking of the way you say to TC that he "admits" to not understanding everything he believes, in fact in another thread you actually seemed to be saying that you yourself have a complete understanding of God's Word.

 

[saturneptune]

Skypair, you are continuing to tell us what we believe, then argue against your definitions. I am a hundred percent certain that no one on this Board whom you refer to as "Calvinist" believes that man has no control over his life, or believes in "fate", or holds to Doris Day's "Que Sera Sera, Whatever will be will be". And your apparent suggestion (maybe I have misunderstood you) that Calvinistic baptists believe in Catholicism, infant baptism, Eucharistic grace, and the idea that the church is an "arm" of the state, is absolutely ridiculous and wrong. Neither I, nor (I imagine) anyone else writing in the Baptist Only forums on the BB believes such things. (I have left out your last example, the matter of Israel and the church, because there are varying views on this among all Chrtistians on this matter. I know Calvinists who believe that the elect church and the elect of national Israel are two separate things, and I know of non Calvinists who believe as I do that the two are one.)

I know you don't agree with the doctrines I believe, but please will you at least accept that those who do believe those doctrines don't do so because Calvin (or anyone else) taught them, but because that is what we firmly believe the bible teaches? I and others have made similar requests to you before, but apparently to no avail, as you continue telling us that we believe the bible plus Calvin's works. If I believed things just because Calvin taught them, then I would not be a baptist.

Genuine Christians have different understandings about many things, not just the matter of Calvinism-Non Calvinism. We see that on this Board. Some believe in a literal 6-day creation, some don't. Some are premillennial, some postmillennial, some amillenial. Just two examples of the many that could be given. Yet surely we all believe that "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God," that "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners", and that sinners must "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. You seem to pick out this Cal-non Cal business, attack the other "side", and give the impression (I trust you don't mean it) that you know everything there is to know about the bible. I'm thinking of the way you say to TC that he "admits" to not understanding everything he believes, in fact in another thread you actually seemed to be saying that you yourself have a complete understanding of God's Word.

Mr. Lamb,
If all the Calvin-free will posts were as gracious and well thought out as yours, there would be no problems. Your thoughts reach a level of excellence I have not seen approached on this board.

 

[David Lamb]

Mr. Lamb,
If all the Calvin-free will posts were as gracious and well thought out as yours, there would be no problems. Your thoughts reach a level of excellence I have not seen approached on this board.

If I was American, I think the right response would be, "Aw, Shucks!" Anyway, thanks. I try (not always successfully, I'm afraid) to remember that our posts can be seen by non-Christians as well as Christians. That thought tends to help me "put the brakes on" any rising thoughts of "retaliation".

Even if it really is as you say, I can assure you that there are other areas of my life where I need God's help to overcome those "sins that so easily beset me."

Thank you again.

 

[skypair]

I wanted to take the liberty to respond your post to TC. I hope it doesn't offend you.

You can't offend me, bro. :godisgood: I think that is the first key to taking anyone seriously is that you judge their comments to be reasonable based on the perspective they are taking.

My desire and pray to God has been first and foremost to bring honor and glory to God by being uncorrupted in doctrine.

As with us all. What is interesting in your case (and I suspect with many other "Calvinist Baptists") is that you chose Christ yourself (in your "Arminian days") but now deny that any lost person can come the way you yourself came. Do you know what the Spirit gave me as my first response to salvation? To tell my best friend so he could choose Jesus as Savior and Lord.

But this thing about "uncorrupted doctrine" --- isn't Calvinism just the "Cliff's Notes" for the Bible? Not even written by the original author, it's Calvin's and others' gleanings from the original work, right?

My aim toward my brethren has been to strengthen them and build them up in Christ, if God would so give me the grace to do so, and to remove error from their minds, not so I could merely remove error, but so that by so removing they would bear more fruit in the truth.

I can attest to your fervor and good intentions. You are, as it were, a teacher to grow others in grace. If only that were what was in view in your content. Grace, unmerited favor, is the love of God for EVERY man. Grace is that Christ died for the sins of EVERY man. Grace is that an offer is "on the table" -- a "covenant" already "signed on the bottom line" by its Author -- for the salvation of EACH and EVERY man who will co-sign. Where would YOU be if you hadn't accepted the offer? co-signed the new covenant?

Of course, you understand that this presupposes that we learned "Calvinism" outside of our holy faith, outside the Holy Scriptures of truth, and outside of Christ.

Actually, this is the problem. We often find Calvinism in our desire to grow in grace but, whether saved or unsaved, we CAN find Calvinism as a "system" of explaining scripture.

I would also say that true "Reform faith" (not maybe the Baptist version) IS outside the faith barely nibbling on scriptural truth and most of its adherents, as in the general population, outside of Christ. And it is easy to grow in grace while not being saved --- good works have their reward! I would say that Christ's words to Sardis were prophetic of the Reform successor to Thyatira.

I would say that the most perverse tenet of the system is that it pushes people away from "decisional salvation."

But as for us, we have found the foundations of what we believe in Scripture.

As directed there by spiritual "guides." That sounds harsh but think about the other scriptures that those "guides" destroy by redefining words and contexts. You are arguing with Allan about a context that has a more viable explanation when Paul's addressees, "my brethren, my kinsman according to the flesh," is taken into account. "My heart's desire and prayer for ISRAEL" -- "Hath God cast away His PEOPLE?" Your historis and contemporary "guides" are not nearly so knowledgeable as you give them credit for.

When we do not find the pagain idea of fate in Scripture, we do not confess it.

Then tell me -- what decision of man does change the course of God's plans. Did God "lie" that saying He intended to destroy all in Sodom? Destroy all of Nineveh? Destroy all His own people except Moses? To send you to hell unless you repent?

When we do not find infant baptism, eucharistic grace (transubstantiation), sacral society, or dispensationalism in Scripture, we do not confess them.

Deny them -- but you now live with their influence upon your system of theology. Same as when Jesus said the Pharisees fathers had slain the prophets sent from God and asked, "How does godly theology come from such a heritage?" How, indeed, does Catholicism survive as "Christian" despite their defilement of the "incorruptible seed?" Those things I mention had theological consequences.

Have you comprehended all mysteries? Have you all knowledge? Are we to correctly understand you here that there is nothing in Scripture that you do not understand?

I believe I understand the mysteries named in scripture. There aren't any others (as some call transubstantiation, forgiveness of original sin, etc.). I "have a handle on" the NT -- even much of Revelation. What I would have you understand is that there are answers to Calvinism's insolubles -- they are just in the further study of Calvinism. Calvinism/Reform/Protest/breaking with the RCC could only take us so far but the answers are in scripture.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Skypair, you are continuing to tell us what we believe, then argue against your definitions. I am a hundred percent certain that no one on this Board whom you refer to as "Calvinist" believes that man has no control over his life, or believes in "fate", or holds to Doris Day's "Que Sera Sera, Whatever will be will be".

Not KNOWINGLY, they don't. We are in the realm of what David called "secret faults," DL. But if man can appear to make all the decisions and yet NOT influence his results and destiny, then all is fate. It may not appear to be fate since many things operate according to "law" that have at least 2 possible outcomes -- good or bad. But the truth of Christianity is that "miracles" demonstrate that the "laws" can be Divinely contravened.

And your apparent suggestion (maybe I have misunderstood you) that Calvinistic baptists believe in Catholicism, infant baptism, Eucharistic grace, and the idea that the church is an "arm" of the state, is absolutely ridiculous and wrong.

Have that heritage and influence.

I know you don't agree with the doctrines I believe, but please will you at least accept that those who do believe those doctrines don't do so because Calvin (or anyone else) taught them, but because that is what we firmly believe the bible teaches?

I would if you could prove that premise. It appears to me, though, that taking Calvinism out of your understanding of Christianity would be like taking "The Book of Mormon" our of Mormonism -- you can't explain either without there being the other.

I and others have made similar requests to you before, but apparently to no avail, as you continue telling us that we believe the bible plus Calvin's works. If I believed things just because Calvin taught them, then I would not be a baptist.

In that case, I apologize for not making the dissimilarities between Christianity and Calvinism plainer. I have tried with my might to show Calvinism's shortcomings to the point that it would be rejected out-of-hand as a reliable "system" or "construct" of belief.

Genuine Christians have different understandings about many things, not just the matter of Calvinism-Non Calvinism.

But the purpose of the Spirit is "UNITY in the knowledge and faith of Christ," Eph 4:13 -- so that does not excuse teaching error nor studying to find the truth that God plainly reveals.

Some believe in a literal 6-day creation, some don't. Some are premillennial, some postmillennial, some amillenial.

Because we all do not have the same "measure of the gift of Christ," Eph 4:7 So it comes a point when those who say they "don't know" something to listen and learn from those who have discovered it. Questions like "how does God choose whom He will save" are NOT hidden from the born again child of God's view (though they apparently are from Calvinists like Sproul)! Such, to me, would be jsutification for taking their 'theories' off the table. Theology since the Reformation has been just this very process of testing our beliefs and, where they are deficient, reworking the model according to the Word of God.

... and that sinners must "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation.

That's our point of divergence. Your the "regeneration precedes faith" thing. Calvinist do NOT acknowledge that "belief" and what that entails (repentance and receiving Christ) precedes regeneration. And if it is "all of God," then what we believe or "decide" in the matter have no consequences. It is apparently either a) coincidental or b) contrived ("will-worship," Col 2:23) that the 'elect' seem to follow Christ.

You seem to pick out this Cal-non Cal business, attack the other "side", and give the impression (I trust you don't mean it) that you know everything there is to know about the bible. I'm thinking of the way you say to TC that he "admits" to not understanding everything he believes, in fact in another thread you actually seemed to be saying that you yourself have a complete understanding of God's Word.

It would help if y'all didn't think YOU knew everything (or at least enough to be dogmatic in your beliefs) as well! :laugh:

skypair