The Reason why Calvinists and Arminians cannot agree

[convicted1]

At 26 pages and counting, I think we can safely re-assign a new top BB Topic:

FORMER #1 Topic: Debating Calvinism vs Arminianism

NEW #1 Topic: Debating why we will keep debating Calvinism vs. Arminianism

:tongue3:

We were either foreordained or freely chose to do this....:tongue3: :wavey: :flower:

 

[MorseOp]

I think this thread is much ado about nothing.

I disagree. It has helped flesh out some of the motivations of those who post on this board.

 

[convicted1]

I disagree. It has helped flesh out some of the motivations of those who post on this board.

Nope again. It just inflames both sides, and no glory goes to God because of it. God get no pleasure out of His children squabbling with each other. There is no edification when threads deteriorate like this one has.

 

[Bronconagurski]

Nope again. It just inflames both sides, and no glory goes to God because of it. God get no pleasure out of His children squabbling with each other. There is no edification when threads deteriorate like this one has.

Wouldn't it be great if we could bring in the Jerusalem Council like in the book of Acts and have Peter, Paul and James all speak and make the decision for us like they did back then? When the decision was made, here was the result:

Acts 15:30 (ESV)
30 So when they were sent off, they went down to Antioch, and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter.
31 And when they had read it, they rejoiced because of its encouragement.

We all have the same access to hear them speak today, but we hear different things.
Psalm 133:1 (ESV)
1 Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity!

 

[MorseOp]

Nope again. It just inflames both sides, and no glory goes to God because of it. God get no pleasure out of His children squabbling with each other. There is no edification when threads deteriorate like this one has.

Wow. We cannot even agree on reasons why threads are started. Why am I not surprised?

 

[percho]

At least one person could have answered post 80. It would only have required a yes, no or maybe.

 

[Skandelon]

Could John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius have both been wrong?

Yes. Indeed, I believe they were both wrong and so did the writers of the Baptist Faith and Message. The majority of Southern Baptists today believe in a moderate or modified version of the two camps.

I believe along with the scholars who penned the BF&M that election should be understood from the 'corporate' perspective, not an overly individualized application (as is common in the more 'Western' approach).

For example, the Calvinist would argue that the individual soul was elected to become a believer; the Arminian would argue that the individual soul was foreknown to be a believer--thus elected; and this "Southern Baptist" would argue that God has elected to saved whosoever believes.

 

[Iconoclast]

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?

Saving belief and regeneration happen at the same time.

 

[Iconoclast]

Winman

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.

No biblical calvinist teaches this.Not one.

Why do you post such nonsense?

 

[saturneptune]

Winman



No biblical calvinist teaches this.Not one.

Why do you post such nonsense?

I agree with you. I have never heard of a case of any significant time lapse between the two and cannot think of an instance in the Bible that indicates such.

 

[DHK]

I agree with you. I have never heard of a case of any significant time lapse between the two and cannot think of an instance in the Bible that indicates such.

But Winman is right (in what he has posted). Some Calvinists here have posted that it is possible to have a significant time lapse between the two. Many of them will use Cornelius as a Biblical example. God spoke to him, thus he was regenerated. He heard the gospel and was saved only when Peter came. Look at all the time that passed between. Can God speak to a dead person? the argument would go. Therefore he must have been regenerated but not saved.
I don't believe that, but some do, or some variation of it.

 

[Iconoclast]

But Winman is right (in what he has posted). Some Calvinists here have posted that it is possible to have a significant time lapse between the two. Many of them will use Cornelius as a Biblical example. God spoke to him, thus he was regenerated. He heard the gospel and was saved only when Peter came. Look at all the time that passed between. Can God speak to a dead person? the argument would go. Therefore he must have been regenerated but not saved.
I don't believe that, but some do, or some variation of it.

Cornelius was a proselyte...like those in acts 19....when the Nt speaks of devout persons...they were Ot saints.....believers who the Spirit worked upon...but after pentecost they were indwelt.

 

[percho]

Yes. Indeed, I believe they were both wrong and so did the writers of the Baptist Faith and Message. The majority of Southern Baptists today believe in a moderate or modified version of the two camps.

I believe along with the scholars who penned the BF&M that election should be understood from the 'corporate' perspective, not an overly individualized application (as is common in the more 'Western' approach).

For example, the Calvinist would argue that the individual soul was elected to become a believer; the Arminian would argue that the individual soul was foreknown to be a believer--thus elected; and this "Southern Baptist" would argue that God has elected to saved whosoever believes.

Thank you for a response.

 

[percho]

But Winman is right (in what he has posted). Some Calvinists here have posted that it is possible to have a significant time lapse between the two. Many of them will use Cornelius as a Biblical example. God spoke to him, thus he was regenerated. He heard the gospel and was saved only when Peter came. Look at all the time that passed between. Can God speak to a dead person? the argument would go. Therefore he must have been regenerated but not saved.
I don't believe that, but some do, or some variation of it.

For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, [who is] our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.

Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh. So then death worketh in us, but life in you.

There we have dead saved folks.

 

[DHK]

Cornelius was a proselyte...like those in acts 19....when the Nt speaks of devout persons...they were Ot saints.....believers who the Spirit worked upon...but after pentecost they were indwelt.

The story of Cornelius all takes place within Acts chapter 10. That is after Pentecost. Whether or not he was a proselyte is debatable. Perhaps he was. That is not germane to the story. It happened after Pentecost that Peter had this vision. It happened after Pentecost that God spoke to Cornelius. Pentecost has nothing to do with this story. All of it happened well after Pentecost.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Oldest does not always mean orthodox. The RCC supports many of their doctrines with "oldest", as in the Church Fathers views. Many of them held to various heresies.
We are discussing Baptist doctrine are we not. That is the impression I got.
I am not sure what "Full Gospel Baptist Fellowship" is. If you leave the word "Baptist" out you get Full Gospel Fellowship. Is that similar to Full Gospel Association (FGA), thoroughly Charismatic, and nothing like the Baptist Churches we know of today?
That is why I asked for the link. I am going by memory. If my memory serves me correctly I didn't see much difference, especially when one got to the bottom half of the list--from Peter onward.
There are many who take the Baptist name, and it is my opinion that they are not Baptist. But remember that is my opinion. Others may have a much broader opinion than me. I am but one lonely voice. Be thankful for that.

There is another that calls himself a Baptist (you may have noticed). I don't consider him a Baptist either. I don't believe that Baptist doctrine and the Charismatic doctrine can co-exist together. I don't believe in continuing revelation. Is there such a thing as a "Baptist Charismatic church"? I would say only in name, but not in reality. Therefore the person I am referring to is a Charismatic but not a Baptist.

There is another person here that goes to the opposite extreme. If one does not believe in the Calvinistic paradigm, or is not a Calvinist, then he is not saved. That eliminates me. Such an extreme is tolerated, but perhaps it shouldn't be.

Open Theism is not an orthodox doctrine but it is the view of one of the posters here. He is entitled to his opinion no matter how wrong I may believe it is.
It is a place to debate one's views. We aren't going to agree on everything. Some of us have more widely held divergent views than others.

I have referenced this group several times, but here it is again: http://fullgospelbaptist.org/

As far as atonement views, I still contend that it is very telling that the earliest Christians who had the same apostolic witness and scriptures that we do, held to the Christus victor view, coupled with the moral influence view, and Christus Victor was held for the first millennium. None of the later Western, Latin views which were held by the RCC and Protestants alike were taught or believed in the earliest churches or for the first 1000 years. These later views came about because of the times in which they were promulgated -- times in which God was viewed in legalist terms: as a stern governor, a feudal lord, or an angry vengeful master.

The CAC has "apostolic succession". My/our view of that is far different from the views of the RCC or even the EOC.

The CAC holds to the core Baptist principles. In some ways we encompass views that go beyond strictly Baptist ones (Celtic and Anabaptist), but I can affirm all the Baptist distinctives that have been referenced on the forum.

If those in charge think I should stop posting in the Baptist threads, I will do that, or if I join a non-Baptist church, I will voluntarily do that.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

That's fine. All of us are at different stages in our spiritual development. I am amil but hold to it loosely. NCT is a different animal. It has no real historical roots and seems to be a 20th Century concoction. Its view on the Law is problematic in my estimation.

What is NCT?

 

[Iconoclast]

The story of Cornelius all takes place within Acts chapter 10. That is after Pentecost. Whether or not he was a proselyte is debatable. Perhaps he was. That is not germane to the story. It happened after Pentecost that Peter had this vision. It happened after Pentecost that God spoke to Cornelius. Pentecost has nothing to do with this story. All of it happened well after Pentecost.

acts 19 happened after pentecost also....they were ot saints in the nt time

f Cornelius all takes place within Acts chapter 10. That is after Pentecost. Whether or not he was a proselyte is debatable. Perhaps he was. That is not germane to the story

It has plenty to do with the story.....

 

[Iconoclast]

What is NCT?

new covenant theology....they teach only what is repeated in the nt is valid.they try and do away with the nt lords day/ sabbath. they lead to an antinomianism.

 

[MorseOp]

What is NCT?

New Covenant Theology.