@Pastor_Bob , I commend you for starting this thread. I hope you
You are correct. We are Baptists because of Baptist distinctives.
You are correct. We are Baptists because of Baptist distinctives.
-
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 I wish the other side understood
- Thread starter Pastor_Bob
- Start date
Pastor_Bob,
That being said, some in a debate context avoid the label when another person zero's in on their position. This is when the objection is raised and they want to"move the goalpost".
Rather than admit they have deviated from scripture, they protest that they do not fit into either camp.
Also, everyone is at different stages of growth, or decline of understanding scripture and need some fine tuning.
Labels help cut to the chase. Can every label be an exact fit, no?
That being said, some in a debate context avoid the label when another person zero's in on their position. This is when the objection is raised and they want to"move the goalpost".
Rather than admit they have deviated from scripture, they protest that they do not fit into either camp.
Also, everyone is at different stages of growth, or decline of understanding scripture and need some fine tuning.
As to the second clause of your sentence and perchance I am included, I am being honest before all, including the LORD, I do not fit into either camp (RE:Calvin, Arminius).
Hank, if I remember correctly you said you are undecided on Monergism vs. Synergism. Most people are not undecided; they have a definite opinion on one or the other.
Pastor_Bob
Well-Known Member
In this debate, there are no positions on which to zero in. I am definitely not a Calvinist and I strongly oppose some Arminian theology. Thus, the need to understand exactly what the opponent in the debate actually believes if you hope to have a fruitful discussion.
For example, since I am not a Calvinist, some may conclude that I believe one can lose his salvation. That is simply not true. Some made conclude that, since I am not a "monergist" that I believe I have to work for my salvation. Again, that is just not the truth.
More times than not, the other side is not even in field goal range when it comes to understanding the position. That is the purpose of this thread.
Not applicable to many situations. Many of us, in reality, do not fit in either, all the while holding to a strict interpretation of Scripture.
I agree.
I am truley undecided about several things within the scope of the Sovereignty of God versus the Responsibility of Man.
For several years I would vacillate from one to the other however "undecided" relieves the stress from the resultant tension clearing the mind and simply leaving it in God's hands.
That is not something to be ashamed of. I was in your position for a good period of time as I moved away from Synergism.
I think it pretty safe to say that those who place high value on utilizing labels for the purpose to impose beliefs and thus conclusions onto their opposition (“synergist”, etc.) stereotypically likewise will demonstrate they value the use of fallacious false dilemmas in their arguments.
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Care to explain?
Its a joke, sorta. But I'll start a thread later for it, maybe you give us your take.
"Pastor_Bob,
Everyone holds to different twists and turns for many reasons. Some have more training that others, some have more abilities. Sooner or later, everyone fits into a category or under a label.
hehe
[and I strongly oppose some Arminian theology.
Which sort of says....you agree with alot of it, but take strong exception to past of it,[is that fair]An example, many post here and are Arminian except they plead the Fifth,osos.
So while posting what is primarily an arminian stance, they make an exception of the 5th
Agreed
Everyone holds to different twists and turns for many reasons. Some have more training that others, some have more abilities. Sooner or later, everyone fits into a category or under a label.
Not yet,
hehe[and I strongly oppose some Arminian theology.
Which sort of says....you agree with alot of it, but take strong exception to past of it,[is that fair]An example, many post here and are Arminian except they plead the Fifth,osos.
So while posting what is primarily an arminian stance, they make an exception of the 5th
Agreed
Agreed
How about Wales?
The Presbyterian Church of Wales (formerly the 'Calvinistic Methodists') is now almost entirely apostate, and is in free-fall numerically. The episcopalian Church of Wales is even worse. Most true Christians are found in independent churches which are mostly, though not entirely, baptistic.
Another thought: whilst the Free Church of Scotland (the 'wee frees') and some other small Presbyterian denominations are theologically sound and keeping their numbers up quite well SFAIK, there is a very welcome growth of Reformed baptist churches in Scotland which is very good to see.
We have a Sottish Pastor and his wife from a tiny Presby denomination who come to my church each year when they holiday down here. They are super people, but they are always in a dilemma as to whether to join in with our hymns, since their denomination sings only metrical psalms.
Last edited:
Thank you... sad to see that Wales is post Christian, but where I am in the States (New Jersey) it’s the same thing.
I have fretted over this topic for years, and most of the time reading comments only led to more confusion.
I’ve only read 40 posts of this thread, so if the following is mentioned in the rest, please excuse, since I don’t plan to read the remainder, as the more I read the “confuseder” I get.
However, I just found a book in my bookcase, that I didn’t even know I had, called “hand in Hand” by Randy Alcorn. This book is his attempt to explain the similarities and contradictions of the two camps, and the scripture leading to each conclusion.
I haven’t read but 4 chapters so far, but I’m already to the point of mostly believing that the real, true, basic differences are the interpretations of verses and terms, rather than a vast valley of conflict that it seems to be.
Don’t know if it will answer the ultimate question of which is correct, but my leanings are that both are correct. And just because we (or me anyway) cannot reconcile the two “opposites” does not mean that God is not capable of having two truths that are, to us (me) contradictory, to be perfectly harmonious to Him.
Excellent read so far!
I’ve only read 40 posts of this thread, so if the following is mentioned in the rest, please excuse, since I don’t plan to read the remainder, as the more I read the “confuseder” I get.
However, I just found a book in my bookcase, that I didn’t even know I had, called “hand in Hand” by Randy Alcorn. This book is his attempt to explain the similarities and contradictions of the two camps, and the scripture leading to each conclusion.
I haven’t read but 4 chapters so far, but I’m already to the point of mostly believing that the real, true, basic differences are the interpretations of verses and terms, rather than a vast valley of conflict that it seems to be.
Don’t know if it will answer the ultimate question of which is correct, but my leanings are that both are correct. And just because we (or me anyway) cannot reconcile the two “opposites” does not mean that God is not capable of having two truths that are, to us (me) contradictory, to be perfectly harmonious to Him.
Excellent read so far!
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
They can't both be correct.
Hank, I take you at your word .Many are searching things out and I am searching also. That being said if people comment enough everyone gets a handle on where they are.
OK I can identify with that but why is that so important to us?