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!
Saul's conversion is one I can think of.gb93433 said:2 Tim. 2:10 "For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory."
Looks like man's work is part of God's work too. That is His choice. I cannot think of one time when God ever reached man with the salvation message without man delivering the message.
Mt. 22:14, "For many are called, but few are chosen."
Out of the called, few are chosen.
He had quite a background of being taught the OT though. Many a Jew has become a Christian having much the same background.webdog said:Saul's conversion is one I can think of.
God following a man? What a combination.Rippon said:Christ is a Calvinist.
that would be the point.webdog said:Blasphemy! Christ is a follower of no man! Heresy!
Did you just ........."slide over".......this verse?stilllearning said:Hi Jarthur001
You asked........
Obviously, I don’t know every Calvinist; But the Calvinists that I have encountered, are forced to “slide over”, 1Timothy 2:4
I accept the verse for what it is, and do not read into it things not there.This verse says, that God desires that all men be saved.
Now if you’re a Calvinist, you can’t accept that, because all men don’t get saved.
So therefore, God’s “desire”, is limited by man’s “free will”.
John Piper says this...
... My aim in this appendix is to show from Scripture that the simultaneous existence of God's will for "all men to be saved" (1 Timothy 2:4) and his will to elect unconditionally those who will actually be saved is not a sign of divine schizophrenia or exegetical confusion. A corresponding aim is to show that unconditional election therefore does not contradict biblical expressions of God's compassion for all people and does not nullify sincere offers of salvation to everyone who is lost among all the peoples of the world.
John Piper is a Calvinist. Therefore you are wrong on both accounts. 1..that a Calvinist can’t accept what you said, and that this is a danger.
However, I disagree with Piper on this. I go with the right "pas".
In Acts 10 we see "pas" used and it is translated.."all manner". I feel that this is how it should read in your passage.Act 10:12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air
Therefore there is no danger. You may disagree and that is fine, but the danger is not there.
If you say all is always all....I will take you to other passages to show you it is not.
Calvinist try not to focus only on one verse, but rather make all the verse fit. Thats not danger..that is good theology.
--------------------------------------------------
When I say “slide over”, what I mean, is if anybody comes to the Bible, with their mind set, in a particular theological view(like Calvinism), and encounter a verse of Scripture that contradicts that view, then they are forced, either to “admit they are wrong, and stop being a Calvinist”(I have never seen this), or they are forced to “slide over it”, and make excuses for not accepting it.
slide over?
Rom 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
what does hate mean in the verse above? Do you accept it as it reads, or are you forced to change the meaning?
I agree. I am perfectly willing to quit using the name "Calvinism" if you will agree to talk about the gospel that Jesus preached and that the apostles preached. Unfortunately we use the name "Calvinism" for that gospel because some have distorted it.gb93433 said:I am unable to find the name of any theologian in the text itself. I only find that we are to focus on the same Jesus that Paul did. He pointed to Christ so why waste one minute discussing what Calvin or any other man believes but rather what scripture teaches. Scripture is inspired by God not Calvin or his followers or his theology.
Or some simply recognize that "Calvinism" is a name for a set of beliefs about soteriology. They don't try to attach other things to it.So often the "Calvinists" today do not agree with Calvin and yet will name themselves as a follower of him or agreeing with his theology. Some do cherry pick to fit their political camp.
I don't. I am a Baptist who holds to biblical doctrine which happens to have been given a nickname. As I said, I prefer simply to say "gospel."Why do you call yourself a Baptist and name yourself a follower of the theology of a pedobaptist?
I welcome you then. I have been there for a long time.My identity is with Christ, not Christ and Calvin or Christ and Calvin's theology. It is Christ, not Christ plus another theologian or theology. It Christ alone not Christ plus something or someone else.
Could be, but that is a different thread. If you start it perhaps some will comment there. For now, this thread is about the gospel. Keep it on that.Could it be that their faith is tied to a man and not the God of the Bible.
Here we have a Calvinist, that seems to be open to the possibility that he is wrong.“John Piper says this...
Quote:
... My aim in this appendix is to show from Scripture that the simultaneous existence of God's will for "all men to be saved" (1 Timothy 2:4) and his will to elect unconditionally those who will actually be saved is not a sign of divine schizophrenia or exegetical confusion. A corresponding aim is to show that unconditional election therefore does not contradict biblical expressions of God's compassion for all people and does not nullify sincere offers of salvation to everyone who is lost among all the peoples of the world.”
I was sorry to read, that you disagreed with his statement.“God's compassion for all people and does not nullify sincere offers of salvation to everyone who is lost among all the peoples of the world.”
You forget, that 1Timothy 2:4, doesn’t only say “all”(pas), but also “men”(anthropos), which Lit. means “human beings”.“However, I disagree with Piper on this. I go with the right "pas".
Quote:
Act 10:12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air
In Acts 10 we see "pas" used and it is translated.."all manner". I feel that this is how it should read in your passage.”
“I feel that this is how it should read in your passage.”
I agree. And I have done my homework, and have compared this verse with the rest of the Bible(as best as I can), and find that it is a chink in the armor of Calvinism.“Calvinist try not to focus only on one verse, but rather make all the verse fit. Thats not danger..that is good theology.”
“Rom 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
what does hate mean in the verse above? Do you accept it as it reads, or are you forced to change the meaning?”
andRomans 8:29
“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.”
1 Peter 1:2
“Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.”
I became a Christian later in life and was not brought up knowing the God of the Bible. I knew lots about Catolicism but not my Bible. When I became a Christian I spent a lot of time reading the Bible rather than reading other books, partly because I did not have any money at the time. The first book I bought was a Bible and read it for one hour each day for 7 years. Then I bought a concordance. For several years I had not heard of calvinism and was leading people to Christ and making disciples. It was a long time before I read anything by Calvin, and when I did, I quickly realized that much of what was attributed to Calvin was not what he actually wrote.Pastor Larry said:I agree. I am perfectly willing to quit using the name "Calvinism" if you will agree to talk about the gospel that Jesus preached and that the apostles preached. Unfortunately we use the name "Calvinism" for that gospel because some have distorted it.
Then it is the gospel according to Jesus Christ not the gospel of anyone else.I am a Baptist who holds to biblical doctrine which happens to have been given a nickname. As I said, I prefer simply to say "gospel."
Jarthur001 said:that would be the point.
Calvinist don't follow a man. Calvinism is the gospel.
stilllearning said:Hi Jarthur001
Nice to hear from you again.
Your first response to my answer was......
Here we have a Calvinist, that seems to be open to the possibility that he is wrong.
????? where does he say Calvinism is wrong?
He gives his views in light of how he sees Calvinism. Please don't slide over his statements.In light of this verse, he admits.....
.I was sorry to read, that you disagreed with his statement
How did I know that?
You fail to understand. We would say all manner of men.....which fits the context and is supported throughout the Bible. In other words...all kinds...all types of mean. Not just the Jews.Then you went on to explain why you disagreed......
You forget, that 1Timothy 2:4, doesn’t only say “all”(pas), but also “men”(anthropos), which Lit. means “human beings”.
i.e. "All human beings"
And if you were to look in the context you would see this is what Pal is talking about..
Please notice verse 7.
7 For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.ty
For this I was a appointed. For what was he appointed a preacher?? This is talking about the point made in your verse. For this...God our Savior, who desires all manner of people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.....
For this reason....(back to verse 7)....I am a teacher of the Gentiles.
Things become clear when you read them in context.
just the Bible. Please don't come to the text with a set mind and maybe you will see.This is just wishful thinking. (A kind of sliding over.)
.1Timothy 2:4, says what it means and means what it says
In light of the full statement where it ends with this...
For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle I am telling the truth, I am not lying, a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth
.--------------------------------------------------
You also said.......
I agree
GOOD. Now we are getting somewhere.
good. there will be a test at the end.And I have done my homework,
It's clear you need to study more.and have compared this verse with the rest of the Bible(as best as I can), and find that it is a chink in the armor of Calvinism.
What do you mean if?If I am wrong(about 1Timothy 2:4),![]()
Context is king. No one reads a newspaper with only one line. Why read the Bible that way?PLEASE somebody show me how I am wrong.
GoodThe way you asked this question, sounded like you expected me “slide over it” myself.
(But I won’t.)
.God was able to say that he Loved Jacob and hated Esau, because in His foreknowledge, he saw that Esau was going to reject Him, and Jacob was going to accept Him
Oh shoot. You said you would not. Now go back again and read the passage I gave you (Romans 9) and tell me why Esau was hated?
And you never did tell me what "hate means...which is what I asked.
Does God foreknow everything? I'm sure you will answer yes. When did God know what He knows? Was it before he looked and saw esau, or after?The same kind of foreknowledge talked about in........
This is how I became a Calvinist. I was brought up not to be a Calvinist, but when I started reading and studying the Bible on my own, I concluded I had no other option. I still have not read much by Calvin because I don't really care what Calvin believed.gb93433 said:... I spent a lot of time reading the Bible rather than reading other books
Of course. The soteriology generally called "Calvinism" is the gospel according to Jesus Christ. I would prefer that simplicity.Then it is the gospel according to Jesus Christ not the gospel of anyone else.
I agree.It is easy to get sidetracked on other things outside of what scripture teaches.
And would likely be a pretty strong Calvinist.If the average person spent one hour per day reading and studying his Bible he would be much better equipped for service.
If that is your feeling, then you don't understand Calvinism.gb93433 said:Calvinism is a gospel but not the gospel of Jesus Christ.
No...Calvinism declares the gospel of God..(romans1)The Bible never declares the gospel of Calvin to be the gospel of Christ.
Then you agree with Calvinism. Good...now we are getting somewhere.The Bible is without error and inspired by God.
bogus claims by those who do not understand what it is. still waiting on those errors and that hidden danger. maybe you can help give one. I mean...come on...if its that bad...and there are so many....maybe you can at least give one error and why it is an error.Calvin had many errors in his theology.
Think about his beliefs about the kingdom. I cannot imagine one person today believing anything like that.Pastor Larry said:This is how I became a Calvinist. I was brought up not to be a Calvinist, but when I started reading and studying the Bible on my own, I concluded I had no other option. I still have not read much by Calvin because I don't really care what Calvin believed.
Of course. The soteriology generally called "Calvinism" is the gospel according to Jesus Christ. I would prefer that simplicity.
There are many who believe what he believed, but I won't defend that. Notice that this conversation is about soteriology. It's not about infant baptism, his view of the kingdom, communion, or anything else. It's about soteriology.Think about his beliefs about the kingdom. I cannot imagine one person today believing anything like that.
No, I have chosen to believe what the Bible says about salvation. Other people labeled what I believe "Calvinism." Calling it a "greased pig" is kind of a slippery way to try to win an argument. Calvinism is pretty well agreed in terms of soteriology. It's not all that slippery at all.The calvinism you suggest is like a greased pig. You have chosen to cherry pick what you agree with Calvin on and throw away the rest.
I did.Why do you not do the same thing with Arminius?
Please keep this thread on topic. If you want to discuss this, start a thread on it.What would you call those who are declared conservatives and claim to believe the Bible but live like practical atheists?
Name calling with no proof always falls on those that have no proof to give.gb93433 said:The calvinism you suggest is like a greased pig.
Are you saying this is a bad idea? Do you think we should keep what we disagree with, and throw away what we agree with?You have chosen to cherry pick what you agree with Calvin on and throw away the rest.
Arminius was declared a heretic by the church, but still he said somethings I agree with. He believed in Original Sin as did other reformers. Some on this board reject this long held doctrine of the church.Why do you not do the same thing with Arminius?