So statement of belief, but no formal adherence toa Confession of Faith, such as the 1689?
-
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!
What are the distinctives of "Reformed Baptist"?
- Thread starter Wesley Briggman
- Start date
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
David Guzik's Position on Calvinism
Personal Beliefs
- David Guzik does not identify as a Calvinist.
- He appreciates many aspects of Reformed and Calvinistic theology but does not fully agree with all their doctrines.
Key Points of Disagreement
- Guzik emphasizes that he believes in:
- God's sovereignty
- Man's inability to save himself
- The importance of God's covenants in redemption
- He disagrees with the Calvinistic view that regeneration precedes faith, which suggests that one must be born again before believing.
Relationship with Calvinism
- Guzik acknowledges that many people in the Calvary Chapel movement may hold views that blend elements of both Calvinism and Arminianism.
- He aims to let Scripture speak for itself, rather than strictly adhering to either Calvinist or Arminian interpretations.
Conclusion
While Guzik values certain teachings from Calvinist thinkers, he does not classify himself as a Calvinist and maintains a nuanced approach to the doctrines of salvation.Auto-generated based on listed sources
I have not called your views a heresy - ever. I never call anyone's views on a forum a heresy.
I called Charles Taze Russell's views heretical, and pointed out that he, and others like him, claimed "just to believe the Scriptures" as you claim to do.
Yes you did, messages and reports to staff (I can see the reports and I was included in the pm's).
Look through your messages.
@Martin Marprelate
You claimed that I reject passages. If this is true then I would call my belief heresy and correct it so that it does not reject Scripture.
I care less about what you think about my beliefs than I do about holding a biblical beluef.
You made a claim, which I take seriously. Often others can see what we miss. Please let me know the passages I rejected and how I rejected them.
Last edited:
KenH
Well-Known Member
That is correct. I don't recall hearing such as that being mentioned at all.
You are using the scriptures at times with what some of us see as being A miS understanding OF those passages
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
But that is just what we say about those that hold to the calvinst view.
I never call people heretics. You have called my views heretical on the open forum, but I have never called anyone a heretic. You will not find anywhere that I called you a heretic.
Which post are you thinking of? Let's have chapter and verse.
You, on the other hand have repeatedly accused me and every other Reformed Baptist of being closet Roman Catholics. Here your post #64.
JonC said:
I was thinking of the post where you said I reject passages. I was just wondering which ones.
I have never accused you of being a closet Roman Catholic.
I pointed out that your theology is re-formed Roman Catholicism.
I was simply asking you to provide the passages that I deny so that I can correct my understanding. If you are calling my belief a heresy (I assume with Scripture rather than men as the standard) then help me out.
I also would like you to provide what part of my belief on essential doctrine is not actually in the Bible so that I can correct that error as well.
I have pointed out what of your faith is not in the Word of God so that you have the choice to lean on your understanding or on every word that comes from God.
That is what we (those of us who are Christians) do. We point out what the other cannot see so that we do not stray from God's Word, from Truth.
I am asking what parts of God's Word I reject and what parts of my belief is not actually "words that cometh forth from God".
I was not calling you a liar, but asking you to provide that for correction just as I have pointed out where your faith has strayed from God's Word.
If you think my beluef is biblical, that it does not stray from God's Word, that it does not contain anything outside of God's Word as actual belief, then why would you fight so hard against it?
5 point Gillinist
Active Member
So, are you saying the Martin is not a Christian? And by that extension those who interpret the bible as he does?
And I have asked you which of my posts you are thinking of. Let me have the post number and I will answer you.
That is the same as saying that I am a closet Roman Catholic.
Firstly, I have NOT called your belief a heresy. It may be because I'm a Brit, but I associate that word with the burning of Lollards and Reformers, and I don't use it. What I have done is to say, correctly, that just about every heretic that ever was has declared that he "just holds to Scripture." I have NOT called you a heretic. Give me the post number that you object to, and I will answer you.
Will do, when you provide the post number.
You have, of course, done nothing of the kind. My faith is is line with the 1689 Confession1:1 which states, "The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience" (2 Tim. 3:15-17; Isaiah 8:20; Luke 16:29-31; Eph. 2:20). If you have a problem with this, tell me what it is and we can discuss it.
I have been teling you for 20 years and it does not seem to have done much good.
Again, tell me which post of mine you are speaking of, and I will reply as soon as I can. However, I have continuing duties at my church and elsewhere, so my reply may not be immediate.[/QUOTE]
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
No that is not what I see in @JonC words. What I see there is him pointing out that those that hold to the calvinist understanding are just confused Christians.
You have added man-made views to the word of God and in some cases actually hold those views to be superior to the word of God.
Once again, addressing me and running from any sort of contribution to the topic. False teachers have this practice in common, as they cannot defend their false doctrines from truth.
Did I provide my view of "soul liberty" in post #51? Yes. Calvinists deny the lost are able to understand and affirmatively respond to the gospel, but if a lost person is free to believe the gospel, they are not enslaved to darkness. This top down, believe this or you are out dogma is inconsistent with several baptist distinctives.
The rich young ruler was seeking eternal life, thus able to understand and desire this spiritual promise from God.
Many lost people will seek the narrow door (which is Christ) but will not find it, thus able to seek the spiritual promise of salvation.
I could go on and on with verse after verse where lost people seek God. All the Calvinists do is read into Romans 3:11 that none seek after God "at any time" which is not in the text.
Here is your first problem. "Soul liberty" is the right of the individual to follow the dictates of his conscience in the matter of religion. It does not address the question of whether a lost soul will trust in Christ without the leading of the Spirit. The Bible does that (Romans 8:8-9; 1 Cor. 2:14 etc., etc.).
And here you are denying soul liberty to Reformed Baptists. Heigh-ho!
5 point Gillinist
Active Member
I don't know anyone who is reformed who would hold to tradition over proper interpretation. I think we simply desire to have convincing scriptural exegesis in order to change our view (as anyone should). I would say that your statement comes from a worldview that believes yours is the proper interpretation. Could you be wrong? If not, then your own traditions are being held superior to scripture. As such, I don't think anyone on this thread has seen any scriptural evidence given to change one's view from either side, say what you want, but I'd be careful about lobbing the accusation against others of holding their views to be superior to God's word should it be you that is in fact guilty of it.
It does not address? Yes it does. You cannot believe in the gospel if you are unable to believe the gospel, thus not free.
I do not deny your right to believe false doctrine, scripture clearly indicates many will not find the narrow door. I just want to knock down your signposts pointing to the broad road that leads to destruction. Only a false teacher would deny our right to call out false teachers.
Did I claim a lost soul will trust in Christ without the "leading of the Spirit." Nope, so there you go again making false charges to change the subject. No one comes to Christ without being drawn (attracted) by the Father through the revelation of the gospel of Christ! But none of that requires "supernatural enablement by Irresistible Grace."
We are stating that your Jesus as Victor understanding of the Atonement is acceptable, bu the PST would be the preferred atonement viewpoint, as accords best with Pauline Justification and in line with our spiritually dead status before getting saved , and is the standard reformed view, and held by Calvinistist/Reformed and many Non Cal Baptists
Particular baptists were once a main view within Baptists, not the "free will" viewpoint
no One can state that Pst is merely "man made theology, not biblical", as it has been defined as being the Orthodox view among Reformed, and reformed/Calvinist Baptists, and even many Non Cal Baptists
??
No. I have already said that I was no less a Christian when I believed as @Martin Marprelate does.
I do not know whether @Martin Marprelate is a Christian. It probably depends a lot on how he holds his understanding (has he been "carried away" by the philosophy, is he "leaning" on his understanding or "on every word that comes from God"? I have no idea.
I am saying that those of us who are Chriatians are those who "lean not on [our] understanding but on every word that comes from God", those of us who are not "carried away" by philosophy.
As such we (who are Christians) "sharpen" one another by pointing out where each of us stray from God's Word.
This does not mean that we, who ate Christians, have no disagreements. BUT it means that our disagreements are based on interpretation and application of "what is written".
I pointed out where @Martin Marprelate strayed from God's Word (points where his faith was based on human philosophy, speculation about what the Bible could teach beyond what "is written".
@Martin Marprelate indicated that my position (and "traditional Christianity") is in fact a heresy. I am not denying that it could be, as we are imperfect in this life, but simply asking him to provide where my belief (it is stated in this thread) departs from God's Word.
If @Martin Marprelate believes that my belief is in fact a heresy, but cannot provide any place where it departs from Scripture, then yes...I would have to wonder if he is legitimately a Christian or if he has been "carried away" from the faith.
BUT no, I am assuming @Martin Marprelate has in mind passages that I reject or places where my belief is an addition to God's Word (an idea about what the Bible "teaches" but is actually absent from Scripture).
So I am awaiting his response so that I can correct any error that I may hold. I realized different interpretations exist, but I certainly do not want to hold a belief that I cannot test against "what is written", and I do not want my beluef to contradict any of God's words.
So your complaint is that while I believe God's Word I reject Calvinism (or at least the Calvinistic idea of the Atonement). I am good with that.
I believe that "Pauline Justification" is the actual words written in Paul's epistles.