To Non Cals here:Does Man Need Prevenient Grace or Not To Accept Jesus ?

[quantumfaith]

For one, my theology is not false.

Secondly, an accusation/implication of a "negative affect upon the church" (via calvinist theology) would certainly have eternal consequences.

I disagree with the "negative affect" insinuation.

- Peace

I thought you said you were not a Calvinist....per se.

 

[preacher4truth]

I thought you said you were not a Calvinist....per se.

Correct. But, on the BB it has become the norm for me to accept this, as I've allowed some to label me such. Doing so propels further dialogue, and to fight against the label would be to no avail.

So I accept it in that sense.

 

[JesusFan]

Correct. But, on the BB it has become the norm for me to accept this, as I've allowed some to label me such. Doing so propels further dialogue, and to fight against the label would be to no avail.

So I accept it in that sense.

basically, two types of posters here on BB in Sotierology...

First group holds that man was in the fall of Adam spiritually killed off, nade dead in Sin, has sin natures
can ONLY receive Jesus if God does 'something" and than can hear and respond to Gospel and get saved
Impetus is God as saving basis

Second group holds that man still can freely decide to accept/reject jesus, damaged, but not "killed" Spiritually by the fall, , they can freely decide it
God gave them free will to say yes or no to the Gospel message

 

[quantumfaith]

Correct. But, on the BB it has become the norm for me to accept this, as I've allowed some to label me such. Doing so propels further dialogue, and to fight against the label would be to no avail.

So I accept it in that sense.

Other than "paedo baptism" (sp). What is (are) the differences between DoG and Calvinism?

 

[JesusFan]

Other than "paedo baptism" (sp). What is (are) the differences between DoG and Calvinism?

Would they be considered "reformed baptists?"

Doesn't DoG include all of the provisions of calvinism, including idea of Covenant theology, infant baptisms, church govt etc?

 

[quantumfaith]

Would they be considered "reformed baptists?"

Doesn't DoG include all of the provisions of calvinism, including idea of Covenant theology, infant baptisms, church govt etc?

That is my question, so I do not remain ignorant of the differences between DoG and Calvinism. I really would like to know.

 

[preacher4truth]

That is my question, so I do not remain ignorant of the differences between DoG and Calvinism. I really would like to know.

Does your church baptize infants? Probably not since they are Baptists.

Same here.

Paedobaptisms are a carry-over doctrine.

Keep in mind I was never taught by man to believe DoG or "calvinism" but my ministry and walk were directed by God into these discoveries.

Of course, as a fundamental Baptist, I reject infant baptism as error.

- Peace

 

[quantumfaith]

Does your church batize infants? Probably not since they are Baptists.

Same here.

Paedobaptisms are a carry-over doctrine.

Keep in mind I was never taught by man to believe DoG or "calvinism" but my ministry and walk were directed by God into these discoveries.

Of course, as a fundamental Baptist, I reject infant baptism as error.

- Peace

I did "assume" you rejected paedo baptism. I was after more "meaningful" differences between DoG and Calvinism.

 

[JesusFan]

I did "assume" you rejected paedo baptism. I was after more "meaningful" differences between DoG and Calvinism.

Could be wrong, think that DoG would be the infamous/famous TULIP, while calvinism would be the 'entire package" i[of infant baptism, covenant theology, church govt, reforming/restoring society etc

Many baptists here would be cals in DoG for Sotierology, not so much rest of the stuff!

 

[glfredrick]

Could be wrong, think that DoG would be the infamous/famous TULIP, while calvinism would be the 'entire package" i[of infant baptism, covenant theology, church govt, reforming/restoring society etc

Many baptists here would be cals in DoG for Sotierology, not so much rest of the stuff!

You are incorrect... Calvinism is a popular synonym for Doctrines of Grace, and both are limited to soteriology. I thought that I detailed Calvinism for you earlier today.

Again, it is this error in what Calvinism IS that is driving most of the discussion surrounding it. It is NOT becoming a follower of Calvin. It IS a particular soteriological view that carries the name of Calvin, but not developed by him nor pressed forward by him, but rather as a response to the Articles of the Remonstrance at the Synod of Dort. The TULIP was the response to the 5 Articles of the Remonstrance (5 articles of Arminian theology).

Also, it probably pays to add here that Calvinism does not make God deterministic, for it ONLY deals with soteriology, where God's sovereignty is necessary (so says even the articles of the Remonstrance!) for man to even begin the act of salvation. That is what the Bible says, and it is this misinformed view of Calvinism that has everyone up in arms that is in large part driving a "no-name" theology that is neither biblical nor cohesive.

If Calvinism meant that one had to baptize infants, and follow other Ecclesiology practices of Calvin, then it would be called Presbyterianism (and it is!). But Calvinism is not Presbyterianism, which is a comprehensive sect of Christianity with a soteriological view, an ecclesiological view, an eschatological view, and a Christiological view all to its own, distinct from the baptistic view.

 

[JesusFan]

You are incorrect... Calvinism is a popular synonym for Doctrines of Grace, and both are limited to soteriology. I thought that I detailed Calvinism for you earlier today.

Again, it is this error in what Calvinism IS that is driving most of the discussion surrounding it. It is NOT becoming a follower of Calvin. It IS a particular soteriological view that carries the name of Calvin, but not developed by him nor pressed forward by him, but rather as a response to the Articles of the Remonstrance at the Synod of Dort. The TULIP was the response to the 5 Articles of the Remonstrance (5 articles of Arminian theology).

Also, it probably pays to add here that Calvinism does not make God deterministic, for it ONLY deals with soteriology, where God's sovereignty is necessary (so says even the articles of the Remonstrance!) for man to even begin the act of salvation. That is what the Bible says, and it is this misinformed view of Calvinism that has everyone up in arms that is in large part driving a "no-name" theology that is neither biblical nor cohesive.

If Calvinism meant that one had to baptize infants, and follow other Ecclesiology practices of Calvin, then it would be called Presbyterianism (and it is!). But Calvinism is not Presbyterianism, which is a comprehensive sect of Christianity with a soteriological view, an ecclesiological view, an eschatological view, and a Christiological view all to its own, distinct from the baptistic view.

So for those of us here on the BB...

Calvinism would be in either presy/baptist circles, where presby takes it as part of Covenant views, while baptist tend to take with Dispy forms?

And it is ONLY in matter of Sotierology, so other viewpoints would thus be stating to some degree than man has free will enough still to decide without aid of God directly to trust in jesus or not?

 

[webdog]

basically, two types of posters here on BB in Sotierology...

First group holds that man was in the fall of Adam spiritually killed off, nade dead in Sin, has sin natures
can ONLY receive Jesus if God does 'something" and than can hear and respond to Gospel and get saved
Impetus is God as saving basis

Second group holds that man still can freely decide to accept/reject jesus, damaged, but not "killed" Spiritually by the fall, , they can freely decide it
God gave them free will to say yes or no to the Gospel message

Your second group is a deliberate misrepresentation and you know it. You have started enough threads and "asked" enough "questions" to no longer say such things.

 

[webdog]

First, you keep dragging one quip by MacArthur into these discussions as if it carries the ultimate weight. Any one person can say things that don't come off the way they thought they would, or even be mistaken, but also be of a general opposite direction in their general theological tenor, and i find that to be the case with both Piper and MacArthur, both of whom you have cited in your effort to find some common ground (i.e., persuade those who see things other than you that you alone are correct).

And second, yes, you in particular, as a moderator have started countless threads designed to draw in those who have a different viewpoint, not to discuss or even debate those points, but rather to offer an olive branch while having an ulterior motive in hand before the thread is complete -- that being to attempt to smash or otherwise discredit the theology of the one with whom you disagree. In the socialist political realm it is called "spin" or "politically correct speech." Here, it is just argumentation, but the effort is similar.

In that sense, where are the Calvinist moderators on this board?



I am not in jest at all... Post count drives forum life. If the Calvinists that the moderators of this forum continually beat up would just withdraw, the forum would drop in threads and posts in a dramatic fashion almost instantly.

When I see posts halted just because certain moderators are pinned up against the wall while other threads continue forever because the prevailing side is ahead, it sends messages to persons that are on the other side of the equation. When I find mods who argue against orthodox Christian doctrine that has been held by the church since its inception, I wonder what the hidden agenda of this board truly is.

As for why I return? I find the arguments, no matter how far afield from actual tested biblical theology, to be worth the cost in order to cause me to clarify my position. In other words, I'm using this site to de-sensitize myself to the arguments of humanists, atheists, liberals, communists, and others of various religious and philosophical vantage points. If I just wanted a place were everyone was in agreement, I could easily find that, but here I find people all over the map in the weirdest sort of ways.

...and you say my purpose here is to derail threads...while you continue your short novel approach in doing just that. Pot or kettle?

Nice...you lump us in with humanists, atheists and communists. Your true colors are bleeding through.

 

[JesusFan]

Your second group is a deliberate misrepresentation and you know it. You have started enough threads and "asked" enough "questions" to no longer say such things.

Going from what both Skandelon and DHK have posted here on BB...
Not trying to misrepresent them or any one else.

that man has been granted 'enough" Free Will by God that any of us can hear and respond to the Gospel, as it is the power of God to grant salvation and Eternal life...

So who ever hears/read Gospel, has the capability within themselves to actually place faith in jesus, as the Gospel produces that in those willing to receive jesus...

How have I mis said anything?

 

[webdog]

Going from what both Skandelon and DHK have posted here on BB...
Not trying to misrepresent them or any one else.

that man has been granted 'enough" Free Will by God that any of us can hear and respond to the Gospel, as it is the power of God to grant salvation and Eternal life...

So who ever hears/read Gospel, has the capability within themselves to actually place faith in jesus, as the Gospel produces that in those willing to receive jesus...

How have I mis said anything?

Start with "damaged but not killed" in reference to spiritual death. You know that is a misrepresentation...please stop repeating it over and over again.

 

[JesusFan]

Start with "damaged but not killed" in reference to spiritual death. You know that is a misrepresentation...please stop repeating it over and over again.

They belive that man was hurt by the fall of Adam, but not 'damaged" enough spiritual to need God to provide anything else other than the Gospel, with conviction of the HS...

Isn't that your and their view?

 

[webdog]

They belive that man was hurt by the fall of Adam, but not 'damaged" enough spiritual to need God to provide anything else other than the Gospel, with conviction of the HS...

Isn't that your and their view?

You know it is not. Please stop repeating "what we believe" after being told what we actually believe.

 

[preacher4truth]

They belive that man was hurt by the fall of Adam, but not 'damaged" enough spiritual to need God to provide anything else other than the Gospel, with conviction of the HS...

Isn't that your and their view?

Precisely. Not dead, just got the wind knocked out of them, not hostile toward God, not enemies by wicked works, not at enmity with God, instead pretty good ol' boys that were seeking God and doing good stuff! :laugh: :thumbsup:

 

[Winman]

They belive that man was hurt by the fall of Adam, but not 'damaged" enough spiritual to need God to provide anything else other than the Gospel, with conviction of the HS...

Isn't that your and their view?

And you deny Romans 1:16

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

An analogy: You begin to have severe headaches and your vision is blurred. You go to the doctor and he tells you that you have a large tumor in your brain that is growing quickly. You ask if there is some natural cure. The doctor says no, but he has the power and ability to safely remove the tumor.

So, you schedule the surgery and go in. You completely trust the doctor. You allow him to put you to sleep and operate. He successfully removes the tumor and you are cured.

Now, did you save yourself? Did your trusting the doctor magically make the tumor go away? Did you do any work to make the tumor go away?

NO. Your faith did nothing. You simply submitted and committed yourself to the doctor, you put your very life in his hands and completely depended on him to heal you. The doctor had all the power and ability, you had nothing.

The gospel itself has the power, it is God's word, the same word that created the universe. But just like the doctor, you must come to Jesus and place yourself in his hands. He has the ability and the power to save you, you have nothing.

Faith is not a work, it is ceasing from work and placing yourself in Jesus's hands, just as you would trust a doctor to heal a brain tumor.

 

[Skandelon]

First, you keep dragging one quip by MacArthur into these discussions as if it carries the ultimate weight.

First, its no mere "quip," it is an article written for the sole purpose of addressing a negative trend of Reformed believers toward what he thinks is a false understanding of God's love. (he even wrote a book about it)

Second, he is not the ultimate weight, but I figured some of the Calvinists here might be more likely to here is exposition of the text more openly, than from the likes of me. Plus, it wasn't just MacArthur. I also quoted from Piper and Calvin...and listed many other mainstream Calvinists who concur with their views.

So, now would you call their efforts socialistic and attack them as you have me?

Any one person can say things that don't come off the way they thought they would, or even be mistaken, but also be of a general opposite direction in their general theological tenor, and i find that to be the case with both Piper and MacArthur, both of whom you have cited in your effort to find some common ground (i.e., persuade those who see things other than you that you alone are correct).

I quoted them in articles where their purpose was to address these questions regarding what should be "common ground" for them and arminians. You have mistaken this desire to find common ground on these points of doctrine as being solely mine, when in reality they were Calvinistic scholars who sought to bring this understanding and affect the trend toward extremism.

And second, yes, you in particular, as a moderator have started countless threads designed to draw in those who have a different viewpoint, not to discuss or even debate those points, but rather to offer an olive branch while having an ulterior motive in hand before the thread is complete -- that being to attempt to smash or otherwise discredit the theology of the one with whom you disagree.

So now you can read the heart and mind of other through the keyboard? Amazing.

Heaven forbid someone come to a Baptist debate forum to debate controversial baptist doctrines. Especially if it is with an "olive branch" (of kindness), because we all KNOW that can't be real. And how dare HE discredit views with which he disagrees! Oh the horror!

Here, it is just argumentation, but the effort is similar.

Yeah, we shouldn't have argumentation on a debate forum....

In that sense, where are the Calvinist moderators on this board?

Dr. Bob is an Admin (higher than a Mod) and Calvinist who oversees this forum. When I joined there were 4 Calvinistic mods and no active non-Calvinists....the "good ol days," I suppose.

I am not in jest at all... Post count drives forum life. If the Calvinists that the moderators of this forum continually beat up would just withdraw, the forum would drop in threads and posts in a dramatic fashion almost instantly.

You caught us. We all got together at Chucky Cheeses last year and came up with this plan to get the post count up. It was hard because DHK wanted to play the role of a Calvinist, but TomVols insisted on that part. Tom won at a game of skeet ball and broke the tie. Me, I was playing in the fun pit with all the plastic balls so I got stuck with this bit. But the pizza was good. :laugh: