First, only a pee-wit judges an entire theology based on what they observe on an Internet message board. And that goes both ways.
Second, you have proved my point that the two systems are antithetical to one another.
-
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
- Thread starter MorseOp
- Start date
- Status
First, only a pee-wit judges an entire theology based on what they observe on an Internet message board. And that goes both ways.
Second, you have proved my point that the two systems are antithetical to one another.
Thats your opinion Mark & we all know what opinions are like, dont we.
Personally, in most instances:smilewinkgrin: i happen to agree with it....but thats my humble opinion. Again, we have all got one. :laugh:
I do not retract one thing I have written. You seem quite enthralled with Anglicianism. I am sure you will fit in quite well with them. Drop us a note once in a while and let us know how things are over there.
Give that man a cigar!
MO....that list keeps growing & growing......by the minute.:thumbs:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
SO! You and you alone are gifted to interpret Scripture infallibly. And all along I thought it was the pope.
God does not impose faith on anyone and Spurgeon never taught this. Rather God through regeneration changes man. The prophet Ezekiel tells us:
Ezekiel 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
John Dagg contrasts the nature of unregenerate man and regenerate man well.
“In our natural state we are totally depraved. No inclination to holiness exists in the carnal heart; and no holy act can be performed, or service to God rendered, until the heart is changed. This change, it is the office of the Holy Spirit to effect.
And then the regenerate man.
The change is moral. The body is unchanged; and the identity of the mind is not destroyed. The individual is conscious of being the same person that he was before; but a new direction is given to the active powers of the mind, and new affections are brought into exercise. The love of God is shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Ghost. No love to God had previously existed there; for the carnal heart is enmity against God. Love is the fulfilling of the law, the principle of all holy obedience; and when love is produced in the heart, the law of God is written there. As a new principle of action, inciting to a new mode of life, it renders the man a new creature. The production of love in the heart by the Holy Spirit, is the regeneration, or the new birth; for he that loveth, is born of God.”
“The mode in which the Holy Spirit effects this change, is beyond our understanding. All God's ways are unsearchable; and we might as well attempt to explain how he created the world, as how he new-creates the soul. With reference to this subject, the Saviour said, The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.John 3:8, KJV] We know, from the Holy Scriptures, that God employs his truth in the regeneration of the soul. Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.[James 1:18, KJV] Love to God necessarily implies knowledge of God, and this knowledge it is the province of truth to impart. But knowledge is not always connected with love. The devils know, but do not love; and wicked men delight not to retain the knowledge of God, because their knowledge of him is not connected with love. The mere presentation of the truth to the mind, is not all that is needed, in producing love to God in the heart.
Last edited by a moderator:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
The disclosed ignorance of some on this forum regarding the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace is appalling!
Michael Wrenn
New Member
Oh, please. And I guess the General Baptists, the first and original Baptists, didn't pay any price for their faith.
What is appalling is the Calvinists that claim to know everything about everyone Else's beliefs but claim no one ever understand them. Implying God has only given them the ability to understand Calvinism and everyone else is stupid because God ordained it that way.
Michael Wrenn
New Member
As I said, you should study it more so you can make informed and accurate posts.
Enthralled? :laugh: So, facts = enthralled now, huh?
As another proof of my point, here are seven Anglican positions on baptism; now I am not enthralled with his, simply reporting facts:
1. The Extreme Highchurch view: This insisted that the spiritual effects of baptism were inseparable from it even to the point of an opus operatum or purely mechanical understanding of the rite and this was the only acceptable doctrine of the Church of England.
2. The moderate HighChurch: While holding a high view of Baptismal Regeneration themselves, they recognised diversity of opinion must arise but held that the Liturgy provided a corrective.
3. Calvinist Evangelicals: These accepted a rigorous doctrine of predestination, and with it that of antecedent grace, and therefore denied baptismal regeneration outright as unscriptural.
4. The majority of Evangelicals: For them baptism was little more than initiation into the visible Church.
5. Some of the former: The "little more" included the recognition of baptism at least as a sign of regeneration as stated by Article 27 of the Thirty-Nine Articles
6. The moderate Evangelicals: These, and J.B. Sumner (Archb of Canterbury 1848-62) was one, accepted what was, from the Highchurch perspective, a modified version of the doctrine in which the spiritual effects are not inseparably tied to the rite. While holding this position, Sumner was not prepared to label Gorham's Calvinistic arguments heretical and insisted that Elizabethan divines (theologians) had allowed that the grace of spiritual regeneration could be separated from the sacrament of Baptism.
7. A Protestant position: Formulated in the first instance by James Mozley as he moved away from Tractarianism and investigated the opinions of early generations of highchurch theologians on baptismal regeneration as Sumner had done. He discovered "statements made sometimes, which, if put into easy English and placed before our [Highchurch] friends, would be set down as heresy, but which occur in undoubtedly orthodox authorities".
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
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.
SovereignMercy
Member
It's proves this text.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
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.
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.
I agree completely that a man is born again by the Spirit, but as I have already showed you from scripture, a man must first receive Jesus and believe on his name before God gives them the power to be born again (John 1:12-13)
I could show you many scriptures that all say a man receives the Spirit AFTER first believing, such as Gal 3:2.
Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Paul's question demands the answer that a person first believes the gospel before receiving the Spirit.
Rom 8:9 tells us that the man who does not have the indwelling Spirit is still in the flesh and none of Christ's. Cornelius believed in God for years before he received the Spirit and was saved. This proves the unregenerate man can believe, and when he does he will receive the Spirit and be born again.
All of the disciples (except Judas) believed on Jesus after his first miracle, but they did not receive the Spirit until 3 years later in John chapter 20. Many thousands of people believed on Jesus but did not have the Spirit until Jesus rose from the dead.
Jhn 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
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.
You are WAY OFF all over the place.
Last edited by a moderator:
I said:
You said:
I said in reference to the above:
You said:
What does all this say?
You said:
I said in reference to the above:
You said:
What does all this say?
It is the pee wit that thinks they know the entirety if what my judgment is based on. Based on what they have read on the internet. What ever that is.
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.
SovereignMercy
Member
What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. And He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father." From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.
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 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.
psalms109:31
Active Member
I really do believe people misunderstand Spurgeon, when they try to force regeneration before faith in his words that he thought was ridiculous. I use Spurgeon as a distinction between hyper and Calvinism.
Spurgeon didn't believe in free will in other words man can't do what they wanted to like fly for instance, our will to him was wicked. He believed in a free agency this is what I believe that is reached by the words of God. To give it a new will different from the will of the flesh. The free agency had nothing else before the word of God, but to follow the will of the flesh which is wicked. So Spurgeon is right He gives us the will to say save me or I perish
We are born again and changed and become a new man through His word, it isn't something already there we have to eat His flesh and drink His blood to have the new life which is Jesus word and the life He lead. Our faith come from the words Jesus spoke and the words about Jesus. We have to be born again by His word we are not born again without it. The sick, the dead is the one needing the cure not the one's who are already alive.
Spurgeon does not believe in free will, but a free agency.
Last edited by a moderator:
I am not sure what you are getting at, but not all disciples left Jesus. There were 120 on the day of Pentacost.
All of the disciples (except Judas) believed on Jesus after his first miracle.
Jhn 2:11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.
Would you agree that this scripture says the disciples believed on Jesus?
Did they have the Holy Spirit at this time? NO. They did not receive the Spirit until 3 years later in John 20.
Jhn 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
Would you agree that this is when the disciples received the indwelling Holy Spirit? This is when they were born of the Spirit and regenerated.
But they had believed for 3 years already. This proves that an unregenerate man has the ability to believe.
You can argue with me if you want, but the scriptures support my view and refute yours.
Calvinism is not based on scripture, it is based on man-made doctrine.
- Status