• 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!

The Reason why Calvinists and Arminians cannot agree

Status
Not open for further replies.
The difference is I, for the umpteenth time, have only quoted scripture and let it speak for itself. I have never quoted Calvin once... you on the other hand continually misquote, misinterpret, and twist snippets of scripture to promote your errors. I don't post on this forum to try to win you over but to post the biblical alternative to your errant views, knowing that my God works all things after the counsel of His own will.
 

Winman

Active Member
The difference is I, for the umpteenth time, have only quoted scripture and let it speak for itself. I have never quoted Calvin once... you on the other hand continually misquote, misinterpret, and twist snippets of scripture to promote your errors. I don't post on this forum to try to win you over but to post the biblical alternative to your errant views, knowing that my God works all things after the counsel of His own will.

I didn't start this thread, MorseOp a Calvinist started this thread. He wanted to discuss the issue, so I joined in and discussed it. So shoot me.

And it is easy to say I misquote, misinterpret, and twist scripture, but not explain where and how I did this. Show me where I misquoted, misinterpreted, or twisted scripture.

I'll be waiting for you to show me that.
 

Michael Wrenn

New Member
John Smyth, was driven to Amsterdam by persecution.

A plea for religious freedom by Helwys were not heeded by James I and imprisonment of Baptist leaders soon followed including that of Helwys.

The Particular Baptists suffered persecution, with many of its members and leaders being imprisoned.

The Restoration in 1660 began with promises of liberty of conscience from Charles II, but renewed persecution of Baptists soon began. Those who were not willing to take an oath of allegiance to the king were assumed to be seditious. Charles prohibited all unlawful gatherings meeting for the purpose of religious worship.

Further persecution came under the Clarendon Code (1661-1665) with its Corporation Act (1661) and Act of Uniformity (1662), and then under the Conventicle Acts (1664, 1670). This usually resulted in the imprisonment and fining of Baptists, although the possibility of execution was a very real one.

The Act of Uniformity resulted in the Great Ejection from the state church, mainly comprising Presbyterians. This had two implications for the Baptists: one was that some of the ejected ministers joined the Baptist camp; the other was that dissent suddenly became both common place and somewhat respectable.

The Declaration of Indulgence (1672) provided brief respite but this was soon withdrawn and persecution began again.

Try reading a little history now and then.

What in the world are you talking about? I knew all that already. Church history is one of my passions, having studied it in depth for 37 years.

Your comment is laughable.
 

Michael Wrenn

New Member
Ive witnessed three people exit this board within the last week & am seriously considering leaving the board as well. The threads are an utter mess here. God is not glorified in the bicker matches and the lack of church over sight rampant on this board. There are other alternatives,ones that are in a better position to teach me & also honor my beliefs.

Don't leave.
 

Michael Wrenn

New Member
So, now your comment extends back to the 16th Century, and encompasses all Calvinists from all time? Next you are going to tell me how great Anglicanism is. Oh wait, that is Michael.

Well, if you're going to be wrong, and post falsehoods, you might as well go all the way. :)
 

Michael Wrenn

New Member
If there cannot be civility in an Internet thread (and yes, I know I am part of the problem), that is indicative of what happens in our churches. In fact, I never have these type of discussions outside of the Internet. I do not stop people on the street and get into Calvinist vs. Arminian debates. I do not do it with family members or friends. I can count the times when visitors to my church brought up the subject. The discourse was always civil, even though we disagreed.

I know there are points of disagreement even among like-minded people. I am amillennial while another elder in my church is historic premillennial. We extend liberty to each other in that area. But our church solidly believes, and teaches, the doctrines of grace. You can attend, and even join, our church while not believing in the doctrines of grace, so long as you agree to submit to the teaching of the church and not to advocate anything different. But among church leadership there is agreement on what constitutes the Gospel. Should not an Arminian church be the same? Would an Arminian church tolerate Calvinist members advocating a different doctrine than what the church holds to? Michael Wren tries to bring up Anglicanism as some sort of example of a plurality of doctrinal positions. If he wants to be an Anglican apologist that is fine, but that is not the way it works in most Baptist churches.

I have been a Baptist for a long, long time. I have only been a Reformed Baptist for the past ten years. Of all the Baptist churches I attended (and there have been many of them), I cannot remember one church that did not have a united doctrinal position shared by the pastor and elders/deacons when it came to the Gospel. Sure, individual members may have had divergent views, but the "church" usually believed one thing. Sometimes providence forces a Christian to attend a church they would normally not choose. Maybe there are health issues and the person cannot travel. Maybe the live in rural area and there are no like-minded churches in the vicinity. There are a myriad of reasons. In that case you have to determine whether the choices available are faithful to the Gospel and make the best choice you can. You attend that church and stop from causing disunity because you disagree with what the church teaches. But it would be better if you found a church that was more aligned with your beliefs. I am convinced of that.

I am not trying to be an "Anglican apologist". I just find it amazing that Baptists who trumpet soul liberty can't have Calvinists and Arminians in the same church on an equal basis. Seems like Anglicans have much more actual soul liberty, and Baptists should be ashamed of that. But go ahead and nit-pick each other to death over it and exclude believers from fellowship over it. Doing so denies soul liberty, but it seems that nowadays this is a principle only and not a practice among many who claim the name "Baptist".

In my own CAC, we are decidedly non-Calvinist in our Principles, but we allow soul liberty and would accept Calvinists wholeheartedly and on an equal basis.
 

MorseOp

New Member
I am not trying to be an "Anglican apologist". I just find it amazing that Baptists who trumpet soul liberty can't have Calvinists and Arminians in the same church on an equal basis. Seems like Anglicans have much more actual soul liberty, and Baptists should be ashamed of that. But go ahead and nit-pick each other to death over it and exclude believers from fellowship over it. Doing so denies soul liberty, but it seems that nowadays this is a principle only and not a practice among many who claim the name "Baptist".

In my own CAC, we are decidedly non-Calvinist in our Principles, but we allow soul liberty and would accept Calvinists wholeheartedly and on an equal basis.

What does this mean? Does it mean that you would allow Calvinists to join your church and try to push your agenda, or does it mean you would allow them to join, so long as they agreed not to do that? I have already said that we allow non-Calvinists to join, so long as they agree to submit to the teaching of the church and not push their agenda. An officer of the church is held to a different standard. Since our doctrinal statement is the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, all church officers (pastors, elders, and deacons) must subscribe to the confession with no exceptions.
 

Michael Wrenn

New Member
What does this mean? Does it mean that you would allow Calvinists to join your church and try to push your agenda, or does it mean you would allow them to join, so long as they agreed not to do that? I have already said that we allow non-Calvinists to join, so long as they agree to submit to the teaching of the church and not push their agenda. An officer of the church is held to a different standard. Since our doctrinal statement is the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, all church officers (pastors, elders, and deacons) must subscribe to the confession with no exceptions.

We would not muzzle anyone. A person may believe and teach as they are led, as long as it does not, in the words of John Wesley, "strike at the root of Christianity."
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jesus did not say a man must be born of the Spirit to have the ability to believe in these verses, you are inserting that into scripture. Jesus said a person must be born of the Spirit before he can see the kingdom of Heaven. That is, a person must be born again before he can enter Heaven.

Jhn 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

You interpret the word "see" in this verse to mean having the ability to believe. That is not what it says or means. If Jesus wanted to say a person must be born of the Spirit to believe, that is what he could have easily said. No, Jesus is speaking of entering heaven as shown in vs. 5.

Jhn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

This is what Jesus meant in vs. 3 when he said unless a man is born of the Spirit he cannot "see" the kingdom of heaven, he was saying a person cannot "enter" the kingdom of heaven. Jesus does not say one word about the necessity to be born again to have the ability to believe, that is a Reformed insertion that is not supported by the scripture.





That's exactly the point I have been trying to make, Jesus did not mention beliieving or having faith whatsoever in verses 3 through 6, you are inserting into scripture what is not there. Jesus doesn't mention believing until verse 12. After verse 12 Jesus mentions faith many times, and always says a person must believe to have life.

Regeneration means to have life. Actually, it means to have life AGAIN which proves we were not born dead in sin. If we were born dead in sin then you could never say we are alive AGAIN, but that is exactly what the word "regeneration" literally means.

No, Jesus repeatedly says no man is regenerated or has life until he first believes. You ignore all of this scripture.



You need to learn to read for yourself, Jesus does not even mention faith or believing until verse 12, you are inserting your ideas into scripture when they are not there.



Jesus did not use the word "saved" here, you are playing with words. Jesus said you have to believe to have LIFE, and that is what we are discussing, regeneration or LIFE.




And Jesus repeatedly said a person must believe to have LIFE or regeneration.



I would agree that no man can believe without the work of the Spirit. That work is the convicting and persuading power of the word of God. No man could possibly believe in Jesus unless God had revealed Jesus to us through prophets who wrote the holy scriptures and men of God who preached those scriptures. This is a work and grace of God.

But nowhere do the scriptures say a person must be supernaturally regenerated to believe the gospel. You have not proved that here, you have not shown one word of scripture to support your view whatsoever. You can't do it, because no such scripture exists.

Nice try ...but false once again. We enter into the Kingdom while here on earth...it is not speaking of entering heaven in the future.
Jesus taught the kingdom is at hand...col says we are translated into the kingdom.

12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:

13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

People explain truth in many different ways to you...but you twist it in a way that will not allow you to come to truth.The fact is.....you cannot believe it unless God allows you to.
You do not understand both new birth and regeneration.
Everyone has said the same thing to you. You lament saying everyone either calls you names, or tells you ...you do not understand any of the verses.....that is because it is obvious to us.

You posted ....asking us to show you where you are wrong.It would be easier for us to remark when you get a verse correct.:thumbsup:

That only happens when you post a verse without commenting on it.When you comment it reveals the error.:wavey:
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
All of that is 100% the truth.

The EOC never adopted the errors of the Latin West. And the original Baptists were not Calvinists or Augustinians.

The original baptists were the Apostles..they were calvinistic and augustianian before Calvin and before Augustine.
 

Winman

Active Member

Nice try ...but false once again. We enter into the Kingdom while here on earth...it is not speaking of entering heaven in the future.
Jesus taught the kingdom is at hand...col says we are translated into the kingdom.

People explain truth in many different ways to you...but you twist it in a way that will not allow you to come to truth.The fact is.....you cannot believe it unless God allows you to.
You do not understand both new birth and regeneration.
Everyone has said the same thing to you. You lament saying everyone either calls you names, or tells you ...you do not understand any of the verses.....that is because it is obvious to us.

You posted ....asking us to show you where you are wrong.It would be easier for us to remark when you get a verse correct.:thumbsup:

That only happens when you post a verse without commenting on it.When you comment it reveals the error.:wavey:

And you redefine the word regeneration. Regeneration means to be alive again, and no one is spiritually alive until after their sins are forgiven, which necessarily must take place AFTER they believe.

You say a person cannot understand the gospel until he is regenerated, Hebrews 6 proves you wrong.

Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

You mistake enlightenment with regeneration. The Holy Spirit convicts and enlightens a sinner to understand the truth, but this is not regeneration, this is not being born again. An enlightened and convicted sinner can be brought to the point of repentance and yet turn away in unbelief.

So, you redefine what the word "regeneration" means. Regeneration literally means to be made alive again, and no one is alive again until their sins are forgiven. Until your sins are forgiven you are DEAD IN SIN.

Faith precedes regeneration, Calvinism teaches falsehood.
 

MorseOp

New Member
We would not muzzle anyone. A person may believe and teach as they are led, as long as it does not, in the words of John Wesley, "strike at the root of Christianity."

Michael, thank you for clarifying.

Obviously we hold to a different standard. We consider any teaching that is contrary to scripture to be a false teaching. The elders have the responsibility of protecting the flock from error. We cannot patrol a person's heart, but if a false teaching is being promulgated in the church it will be stopped by taking the appropriate measures (depending on the circumstance and the nature of the false teaching). What qualifies as a false teaching? Things like denial of the Trinity, denial of original sin, denial of the virgin birth, denial of the substitutionary atonement of Christ, advocating universal atonement, and the Arminian or semi-Pelagian gospel et. al.

Some false teachings strike at the core of Christianity, while others do not. The former errors must be addressed with prejudice. That is partly done through the preaching of the Word of God. The best defense against false hood is to proclaim the truth. Not as often is the need for direct confrontation with the individual. Praise God that I can count on one hand (and still have fingers left over) the number of times the elders have had to do that.

All this stems from a love for God, His Word, and His sheep. Sheep have to be lead by shepherds who have their best interest at heart. If not, the wolves are ready and willing to pounce at the slightest pretext.
 

Bronconagurski

New Member
And you redefine the word regeneration. Regeneration means to be alive again, and no one is spiritually alive until after their sins are forgiven, which necessarily must take place AFTER they believe.

You say a person cannot understand the gospel until he is regenerated, Hebrews 6 proves you wrong.

Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

You mistake enlightenment with regeneration. The Holy Spirit convicts and enlightens a sinner to understand the truth, but this is not regeneration, this is not being born again. An enlightened and convicted sinner can be brought to the point of repentance and yet turn away in unbelief.

So, you redefine what the word "regeneration" means. Regeneration literally means to be made alive again, and no one is alive again until their sins are forgiven. Until your sins are forgiven you are DEAD IN SIN.

Faith precedes regeneration, Calvinism teaches falsehood.

Some say Hebrews 6 is merely describing a hypothetical situation. I happen to believe the person apostosized and did turn away from the truth and reject the gospel like you do, but no one can be dogmatic on the scripture, imo. The big questions is, why can they not return? But back to the point: Do all Calvanists say that a person is regenerated before belief? If so, how does that take place?
 

Winman

Active Member
Some say Hebrews 6 is merely describing a hypothetical situation. I happen to believe the person apostosized and did turn away from the truth and reject the gospel like you do, but no one can be dogmatic on the scripture, imo. The big questions is, why can they not return? But back to the point: Do all Calvanists say that a person is regenerated before belief? If so, how does that take place?

Well, the scripture says it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance. They are right there where you make that decision to choose Jesus or reject him. I believe that when anybody makes that decision to reject Jesus, they become hardened, they will never again come under that great conviction.

I can not say whether all Calvinists believe regeneration precedes faith, but it is absolutely the majority view of Calvinists.

Regeneration before faith is illogical. Until you believe you are condemned, you are dead in your trespasses and sins. You can't be spiritually alive and spiritually dead at the same moment, yet that is what Calvinism teaches. Some Calvinists teach that a person can be regenerated for years, even decades before they express faith in Christ. This would be a person who is born again of the Spirit of God who is walking around dead in trespasses and sins for decades. Totally absurd, but this is what many teach.

Jesus said the Holy Spirit would reprove the world of sin. The Holy Spirit enlightens a man to understand he is a sinner in danger of perishing, the Spirit convicts a man of his sin. This is what Calvinists call regeneration. This is incorrect, regeneration means to be alive again. No one is spiritually alive until their sins are forgiven, which happens AFTER faith.
 

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Some say Hebrews 6 is merely describing a hypothetical situation. I happen to believe the person apostosized and did turn away from the truth and reject the gospel like you do, but no one can be dogmatic on the scripture, imo. The big questions is, why can they not return? But back to the point: Do all Calvinists say that a person is regenerated before belief? If so, how does that take place?

What does your own salvation experience & testimony tell you?
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
EWF posts more shuck and jive, the question was: How do Calvinists say regeneration takes place before a person believes. They will not answer because we are made alive together with Christ, not before we are spiritually placed in Christ.

Calvinists and Arminians cannot agree because they both hold unbiblical positions and are unwilling to accept the plain reading of scripture. So they attack opponents personally, this guy demeans God, this guy does not know what he is talking about, this guy posts nasty comments and on and on.
 

MorseOp

New Member
Do all Calvanists say that a person is regenerated before belief? If so, how does that take place?

If you don not mind me chiming in.

Regeneration is what occurs when the heart and mind (affections and thought) is made able to understand and respond to the Gospel. In order to understand the Reformed view of regeneration, one needs to also understand total depravity and total inability. Reformed Christians believe than man is completely fallen in his nature (total depravity). He is a sinner for two reasons: A) Because he is born in sin (original sin) ~and~ B) Because he sins. This is all in keeping with his fallen nature. Besides being in a fallen nature, man is in bondage to sin. Everything he does is tainted by sin. He is incapable of any good work from a heavenly perspective (total inability). Even fallen man's desire for God is flawed. Left to his own devices fallen man would never choose God, because of inability and lack of desire.

In Reformed parlance regeneration is also termed enlightenment or illumination. This occurs when the Holy Spirit changes man's heart and mind; making him able to appropriate and respond to the Gospel. The man whom the Spirit enlightens to the Gospel will then respond in the affirmative (irresistible grace). Theologians have debated as to how far in advance of accepting the Gospel regeneration can take place. Some theologians are on record as stating it can happen years before, while others believe it is almost instantaneous with salvation. I happen to believe that true regeneration takes place almost instantaneously. God can be working in a person's life for years in order to bring them to the time/place when they will come to faith, but it is only at the time when the Spirit changes the heart (Ezk. 36) that the new birth takes place.
 

Bronconagurski

New Member
What does your own salvation experience & testimony tell you?

My own testimony tells me that I was under conviction several weeks before being saved. I finally trusted what God said through the convicting power of the Holy Spirit. I still remember the struggle for my soul. The battle was for the mind. What I now know was Satan or one of his minions was telling me that if I got saved, that people would ridicule me. I had a bunch of rough friends, if you can call them that, and they would certainly reject me if I got saved. On the other hand, I was under deep conviction for my sin and knew where I would end if I died. I was scared to go to sleep some nights. But the Holy Spirit kept confirming in my heart that Jesus died for my sins and if I turned from my sin and trusted the gospel, I would indeed be saved and God would lead me then. The preacher made an appeal for those were lost and wanted to be saved and I felt like if I walked out that door I would never have another chance to be saved. I walked down to the altar and prayed and asked God to forgive me for my sin and to save me and He did. I know salvation is not by feeling, but the burden of sin rolled away and I knew in my heart that God had moved in my spirit. But just because that is what happened to me does not mean that is everyone's experience, of course.
 

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Id seriously like to know how much of this is engendered into a persons salvation experience. I vividly recall my own brother, who was at the time a Fundamentalist Baptist Pastor telling me that his young daughter was getting baptized, that she had accepted Jesus. At the time I did not see any change in the girl (she was very young) but my bro insisted she was indeed spiritually transformed.

Today my question is was she in fact regenerated or was it (as I suspect) pier pressure by my brother & his wife to conform to expectations. My own conversion was so unexpected, so gut wrenching so dramatic that I recall it & it happened with the Holy Spirit upfront confronting me with my unbelief. After that I was so ashamed of myself that I pulled over in my car & cried like a baby. That was life changing.

So ....do we all experience a similar conversion?
 

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
My own testimony tells me that I was under conviction several weeks before being saved. I finally trusted what God said through the convicting power of the Holy Spirit. I still remember the struggle for my soul. The battle was for the mind. What I now know was Satan or one of his minions was telling me that if I got saved, that people would ridicule me. I had a bunch of rough friends, if you can call them that, and they would certainly reject me if I got saved. On the other hand, I was under deep conviction for my sin and knew where I would end if I died. I was scared to go to sleep some nights. But the Holy Spirit kept confirming in my heart that Jesus died for my sins and if I turned from my sin and trusted the gospel, I would indeed be saved and God would lead me then. The preacher made an appeal for those were lost and wanted to be saved and I felt like if I walked out that door I would never have another chance to be saved. I walked down to the altar and prayed and asked God to forgive me for my sin and to save me and He did. I know salvation is not by feeling, but the burden of sin rolled away and I knew in my heart that God had moved in my spirit. But just because that is what happened to me does not mean that is everyone's experience, of course.

So who do you believe was convicting you of your sins, telling you to get straight.......who was changing your heart, giving you a conscience so you agonized over your immortal soul? I believe I know but you have to answer that yourself my brother. Clearly though, there was a tussle going on & for a reason.....to bring you to God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top