The Reason why Calvinists and Arminians cannot agree

[Earth Wind and Fire]

For the record, my church is not SBC. It is an independent Reformed Baptist Church that subscribes to the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith.

Again, I am not SBC either. In addition to never ever seeing them in NJ, I would never ever be able to build unity with them .....I consider them ambiguous. I also am much more comfortable with the 1689 Because it helped me to understand when no Pastor was present.

As a sidebar question to MorseOp though, what is it that you recognize as Reformed v. Particular or Old School or Primitive Baptist? You can answer this privately if you prefer.

 

[OldRegular]

This is simply refuted by scripture. Cornelius was not saved, and he did not have the indwelling Holy Spirit, yet he feared God, prayed always, and gave much alms to the people. God recognized his works of righteousness and sent an angel to tell him to send for Peter. Only after hearing the gospel from Peter was he saved and received the Holy Spirit.

You have no basis to make such a statement. The message of Scripture is that he was saved. There is nothing in the account to indicate otherwise. It is true that he did not have the indwelling Holy Spirit but this is typical of the believers under the dispensation of the Old Testament. There is no indication in the discussion that Cornelius was not saved. The primary purpose of recording this event is to show that the Gospel was for Gentiles as well as Jews.

I would also point out that there were other events in the book of Acts where those saved had not yet received the Holy Spirit.

Acts 8:14-17
14. Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15. Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16. (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

The Philipian jailer also had a desire to be saved, yet he had not believed and so was dead in sins when this happened. After coming to Paul and Silas he heard the gospel and believed on Jesus.

The case of the Philippian is obviously more difficult. However, it is impossible to prove your case using this event for the simple reason that little is said about what happened.

Thousands believed on Jesus but were not regenerated. They did not have the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit was not given yet. This proves the unregenerate man can believe.

Where in Scripture does it say that all regenerate persons are in-dwelt with the Holy Spirit. I have shown from the Scripture passage above [Acts 8:14-17] that this is not true. The Scripture account regarding Cornelius indicates that he also was saved but not in-dwelt with the Holy Spirit.

Consider the following Scripture:

Acts 2:37-39
37. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38. Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Nothing is said in the above passage about belief or faith. This simply demonstrates that yanking a verse of Scripture out of context to prove your point is not necessarily valid!

 

[MorseOp]

Again, I am not SBC either. In addition to never ever seeing them in NJ, I would never ever be able to build unity with them .....I consider them ambiguous. I also am much more comfortable with the 1689 Because it helped me to understand when no Pastor was present.

As a sidebar question to MorseOp though, what is it that you recognize as Reformed v. Particular or Old School or Primitive Baptist? You can answer this privately if you prefer.

Reformed Baptists have the following distinctives:

1. Confessional (usually the 1689 LBC)
2. Adhere to the RPW (Regulative Principle of Worship)
3. Covenantal (non-dispensational)
5. Teach the doctrines of grace

Particular Baptists share belief in the doctrines of grace, but may/may not agree with the other RB distinctives. It is on a church by church basis.

Primitive Baptists share belief in the doctrines of grace, but they are certainly not Reformed. They practice foot washing during communion, a custom that the Reformed would reject as ritualistic. Generally they are not covenantal or confessional.

 

[DHK]

This discussion will have to continue on another thread if desired, as this thread is over 30 pages.