What is the purpose of Calvinism?

[Jerome]

Full subscription to the 1689 London Baptist Confession

You may want to read what the actual signers of the 1689 London Baptist Confession meant when they wrote ""bishops or elders, and deacons". The recent Baptist fad of reinterpreting it to mean something akin to the Presbyterians' plurality of elders was definitely not what was meant by them.

Here is how one explained the term elder:

Benjamin Keach, 1697:
“Query, Are there no ruling Elders besides the Pastor?
Answ. There might be such in the Primitive Apostolical Church, but we see no ground to believe it an abiding Office to continue in the Church, but was only temporary.
1. Because we have none of the Qualifications of such Elders mention’d, or how to be chosen.
2. Because we read not particularly what their Work and Business is, or how distinct from preaching Elders; tho we see not but the Church may (if she sees meet) choose some able and discreet Brethren to be Helps in Government. We have the Qualifications of Bishops and Deacons directly laid down, and how to be chosen, and their Work declared, but of no other Office or Officers in the Church, but these only.”

Benjamin Keach, 1701:
“others think there were men ordained Elders, that were not gifted to preach, but to be helpful in Discipline, or in the Governement of the Church : but we reading neither of their Qualifications, or how to be chosen (nor of their peculiar Work, distinct from Pastors, nor any such elders chosen in any particular. church in the Apostles days) can see no ground for any such an Office, or Officers in the Church”

 

[doulous]

You may want to read what the actual signers of the 1689 London Baptist Confession meant when they wrote ""bishops or elders, and deacons". The recent Baptist fad of reinterpreting it to mean something akin to the Presbyterians' plurality of elders was definitely not what was meant by them.

Here is how one explained the term elder:

Benjamin Keach, 1697:
“Query, Are there no ruling Elders besides the Pastor?
Answ. There might be such in the Primitive Apostolical Church, but we see no ground to believe it an abiding Office to continue in the Church, but was only temporary.
1. Because we have none of the Qualifications of such Elders mention’d, or how to be chosen.
2. Because we read not particularly what their Work and Business is, or how distinct from preaching Elders; tho we see not but the Church may (if she sees meet) choose some able and discreet Brethren to be Helps in Government. We have the Qualifications of Bishops and Deacons directly laid down, and how to be chosen, and their Work declared, but of no other Office or Officers in the Church, but these only.”

Benjamin Keach, 1701:
“others think there were men ordained Elders, that were not gifted to preach, but to be helpful in Discipline, or in the Governement of the Church : but we reading neither of their Qualifications, or how to be chosen (nor of their peculiar Work, distinct from Pastors, nor any such elders chosen in any particular. church in the Apostles days) can see no ground for any such an Office, or Officers in the Church”

I've heard this argument. Thank you.

 

[Tom Butler]

Acts 20:28. Paul is meeting with the elders from the congregation at Ephesus. He describes them as shepherds (pastors) and overseers (bishops). It seems that elders were the most spiritual and wisest men in the congregation. The Holy Spirit gave them the spiritual gifts which led to their roles as pastors and bishops.

 

[Pastor Larry]

So which of the 3-6 pointers is correct?

First, there are very few three pointers, and there are no six pointers. Second, they are all correct on the main thing which is unconditional election. That is the hinge. Beyond that, as in every group, there are intramural debates about certain issues.

One of those may be correct while the others a heresy.

I don't think any of them are heresy, using the historic definition of heresy.

Does that leave most Calvinists as heretics?

No.

hose are excuses.

Since I am not God, and not omniscient, I won't pretend to know. Apparently, you don't share that view with me and that is unfortunate. I would caution you to stop short of making proclamations about things that you know nothing about.

I don't just believe in God's sovereignty but believe the entire Bible.

We welcome you then. We as Calvinists believe the same thing.

I am a Christian who believes that God in His sovereignty created man with a free will to make choices.

We Calvinists agree for the most part.

If man has no choice and it is all God's choice then the evil that man does would be God's will and that man is predestined to do evil. What label would you give me?

Since you asked, I would call you a poor thinker, who has not sufficiently grappled with biblical revelation on the topic. You have bought into simplistic explanations of men.

Take a look at http://bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=29318

So? I appreciate these men's passion for the gospel, and I reject their explanations of it, at least the ones I have seen.

 

[Jerome]

there are no six pointers.

John Piper adds a predestination to hell sixth point.

 

[Pastor Larry]

John Piper adds a predestination to hell sixth point.

That point (for those who believe it) has traditionally been included in the five points. It has never been considered a sixth point. I think Piper actually calls himself a seven point Calvinist.

Those interested in Piper's view can see it here: http://www.desiringgod.org/Resource...en_he_says_that_he_is_a_sevenpoint_Calvinist/

Note that it says he is not adding to the historical points.

 

[Jim1999]

We tend to forget that the 5 points of calvinism was in direct refutation of the 5 points of arminianism, and not vice versa.

Calvinism itself begins with the absolute sovereignty of God, and all the other teaching follows.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[webdog]

We tend to forget that the 5 points of calvinism was in direct refutation of the 5 points of arminianism, and not vice versa.

Calvinism itself begins with the absolute sovereignty of God, and all the other teaching follows.

Cheers,

Jim

Wrong. As a non calvinist, my theology also begins with the absolute sovereignty of God. God is in control (sovereign) not controlling (calvinism).

 

[Jim1999]

Do you comprende enfrancais better than English? I can speak in French if you will understand what I say better.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Pastor Larry]

Wrong. As a non calvinist, my theology also begins with the absolute sovereignty of God.

How does this make Jim's statement wrong? He didn't say anything about your belief. He said something only about Calvinism.

God is in control (sovereign) not controlling (calvinism).

What is the difference you see here?

 

[webdog]

How does this make Jim's statement wrong? He didn't say anything about your belief. He said something only about Calvinism.

I took "all other teaching follows" as referring to calvinism being the only true soteriology. If that was not Jim's intent, my apologies to Jim.

What is the difference you see here?

God is in control of every action, including sin, but He is not controlling every action, including sin. He requires faith and repentance, He doesn't have faith and repentance for us.

 

[Pastor Larry]

God is in control of every action, including sin, but He is not controlling every action, including sin.

I am still not sure exactly what distinction you are making here.

He requires faith and repentance, He doesn't have faith and repentance for us.

This is what Calvinism teaches, so that is certainly not an issue.

 

[webdog]

I am still not sure exactly what distinction you are making here.

The difference between being in contol and controlling.

This is what Calvinism teaches, so that is certainly not an issue.

I was simply answering the question you asked.

 

[Pastor Larry]

The difference between being in contol and controlling.

Repeating your terms doesn't help me understand the distinction you are making. You say he is in control, but is not controlling. What do you mean by that exactly?

 

[webdog]

Repeating your terms doesn't help me understand the distinction you are making. You say he is in control, but is not controlling. What do you mean by that exactly?

Not in the mood for the circular game today, Larry.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Not in the mood for the circular game today, Larry.

There's nothing circular about it. You haven't answered the question.

I was simply asking you to explain what you see as the difference between God being "in control" but not being "controlling." So far (that I have seen) you haven't given an answer. I have no idea what that means.

I don't see what this distinction is and I am simply asking you to explain what you mean. I am not sure I disagree with you. I might if I understood what you mean, or I might not.

How is he in control of every action but not controlling every action.

 

[gb93433]

I am still not sure exactly what distinction you are making here.

In many many cases the verbs associated with the action of God is passive. Not every action of God is active.

 

[golfjack]

reply

GolfJack,

According to your profile you are not a Baptist. This is a Baptist Only section of the BB. Please restrict your posts to the sections of the BB that are open to all Christian Denominations.

 

[MB]

You obviously are unacquainted with confessionalism. The confessions are man made documents. No one doubts that. The worth of the confessions is based on their accuracy to scripture. Individual interpretation is a dangerous thing. Ask fifty Christians how they interpret a particular text and you may wind up with 20 or 30 different interpretations. The confessions were written to provide unity in biblical interpretation. Are they infallible? No. They deserve to be poked, prodded, and exmained in light of scripture. But if they are proven to be accurate then they provide a faithful commentary on major scriptural doctrines.

What isn't accrate is men being regenerated before faith.

Since Grace is what we need to be regenerated or saved and Grace comes through faith a man must be convinced and convicted before Salvation. There isn't even one scripture that even hints at prefaith regeneration.
MB

 

[doulous]

What isn't accrate is men being regenerated before faith.

There isn't even one scripture that even hints at prefaith regeneration.
MB

Actually, you're wrong.

1 Corinthians 2:14 14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

The gospel cannot be understood by the sinner because it is spiritually appraised. The words may be processed, but not the spiritual truth. It is the Spirit that gives understanding, and this is done during the ordo salutis.

John 3:3-10 3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" 5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' 8 "The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit." 9 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can these things be?" 10 Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things?

Nicodemus was able to understand the words of Jesus, but not the things of the Spirit. Why? Go back to 1 Cor. 2:14. Nicodemus was not regenerate. His heart was still cold to the things of God.

Ephesians 2:4-5 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),

Where do you see a work of man in this passage? The subject is God and the object is "us." God made us alive together with Christ, even while we were still dead in our trespasses and sins. Spiritually dead people can't believe because they are incapable of believing. Why? Again, back to 1 Cor. 2:14.

Just because you say, "There isn't even one scripture that even hints at prefaith regeneration" doesn't make it so.