Why are you a Baptist?

[righteousdude2]

We Usually Don't Agree, BUT.....

I would identify myself as a Christian. I don't follow a man generated theology.

....I have to give you one big AMEN!

 

[Tom Butler]

In a general sense, one is either a Calvinist or an Arminian. But, and it's a big but, Baptists are different. Historically, a Baptist distinctive has been the doctrine of the security of the believer. Since, by definition, Arminians reject that doctrine (it's what makes them Arminian), the overwhelming majority of Baptists cannot be labeled as Arminian.

The exceptions, of course, are groups like the Free-Will Baptists and General Baptists, who are Arminian, since they do not believe in the security of the believer. Free-Will Baptists believe in free will. By extension, they hold that if one can will to exercise saving faith, they can will to no longer exercise it, and thus lose their salvation.

General Baptists got that name because they hold to a general atonement; that is,Christ died for every one without exception. They, too, believe one may fall from grace.

I can hear some of you saying, Whoa! I believe in free will and I hold to eternal security. Others will say, hold on, I'm a Southern Baptist (or IFB) and I hold to a general atonement and free will, but I deny that one can lose his salvation.

That's because most Baptists are not consistent, as the FWBs and General Baptists are. They(most Baptists) believe one freely wills to trust Christ for salvation,but cannot freely will to no longer believe. FWBs hold that if you have the will to believe, you have the will to un-believe. The FWBs also believe one may sin away his salvation, but the rest of us disagree. So we invented backsliding.

So, since most Baptists are definitely not Arminian, we need a name to distinguish non-Calvinists from the Calvinists. I have used Non-Cal for some time. I think it's better than Not-Cal or Un-Cal.

I would identify myself as a Christian. I don't follow a man generated theology.

Matt, in this instance, Christian tells us very little. It doesn't tell if you believe in salvation by grace or works; it doesn't tell us if you believe in baptismal regeneration, or sacramental ordinances--or not. That kind of thing. So, I wouldn't run from Non-Cal. It tells us a lot that Christian doesn't.

 

[dcorbett]

My IFB Pastor has often said that we are neither Arminian or Calvinist....somewhere in between.

And since I am not comfortable with either philosophy, I agree. :tongue3:

 

[drfuss]

Tom writes:
"In a general sense, one is either a Calvinist or an Arminian. But, and it's a big but, Baptists are different. Historically, a Baptist distinctive has been the doctrine of the security of the believer. Since, by definition, Arminians reject that doctrine (it's what makes them Arminian), the overwhelming majority of Baptists cannot be labeled as Arminian."

Arminians also believe in the security of the believer. Arminians believe that they are just as secure in Christ as any Baptist believes they are secure. But Arminians do not believe in the doctrine of eternal security. The difference is in definitions and terminology.

Tom writes:
"The FWBs also believe one may sin away his salvation, but the rest of us disagree."

This is false. See my post #46.
FWBs believe that a Christian can only forfeit his salvation by deciding to stop believing. They do not believe that they can lose their salvation while still believing. FWBs do not believe that sin can take away their salvation.

For many years, books promoting the doctrine of eternal security, have been written that provided false information about what Arminians believe. Many of these books reference other books that also misrepresent what Arminians believe, and so on.

There are some fringe denominations that may believe sin and works are involved in retaining a Christian's salvation. In some cases, these fringe denominations, mistakenly, have been assumed to represent all Arminians. Also, there are some individuals within the Arminian denominations that have fallen off the theological cliff into works and sin affecting the believer's security; and their belief, mistakenly, have been taken to represent all Arminians. BTW, I have also observed this type of cliff falling by individuals in SBC churches.

Before the Internet, it was easy to get away with misrepresenting what others believe. But now there is no reason for these misrepresentions to continue. If you want to know what a denomination believes, go to its website and see for yourself. Or if you want more information than found there, look up on the Internet what a denomination official or theologian says about it.

 

[Tom Butler]

drfuss, thanks for setting me straight. Seems that there are as many kinds of Arminians as there are Calvinists. Hard to lump them into one definition.

 

[JesusFan]

In a general sense, one is either a Calvinist or an Arminian. But, and it's a big but, Baptists are different. Historically, a Baptist distinctive has been the doctrine of the security of the believer. Since, by definition, Arminians reject that doctrine (it's what makes them Arminian), the overwhelming majority of Baptists cannot be labeled as Arminian.

Think that this is where the confusion comes in though!
IF one holds to Dog. than would support unconditional eternal Security for the believer, as we would see it as being due to the fact that God elected and saved us by His Will and by ireesistable Grace, hence cannot lose it...

IF one to the concept that God either saves us through the Gospel ONLY, no other application of grace required, or by "commin Grace" given to all, than can lose it IF we turn aside form the Lord...

The exceptions, of course, are groups like the Free-Will Baptists and General Baptists, who are Arminian, since they do not believe in the security of the believer. Free-Will Baptists believe in free will. By extension, they hold that if one can will to exercise saving faith, they can will to no longer exercise it, and thus lose their salvation.

Think that those groups are actually being consistent with their own Theology!

General Baptists got that name because they hold to a general atonement; that is,Christ died for every one without exception. They, too, believe one may fall from grace.

I can hear some of you saying, Whoa! I believe in free will and I hold to eternal security. Others will say, hold on, I'm a Southern Baptist (or IFB) and I hold to a general atonement and free will, but I deny that one can lose his salvation.

That's because most Baptists are not consistent, as the FWBs and General Baptists are. They(most Baptists) believe one freely wills to trust Christ for salvation,but cannot freely will to no longer believe. FWBs hold that if you have the will to believe, you have the will to un-believe. The FWBs also believe one may sin away his salvation, but the rest of us disagree. So we invented backsliding.

Think it because many do not logically think it through on this doctrine...
IF we are saved by God via Election way cals see it, would by definition would have eternal security, if its a different model of Sotierology, would hvae to include the provision that there at least is a "chance" omne can forfeit/lose salvation by act of there 'Free will"..

As one explained to me, God can and does hold the securly, but he also grnts the free Will to chose to turn aside if they will!

So, since most Baptists are definitely not Arminian, we need a name to distinguish non-Calvinists from the Calvinists. I have used Non-Cal for some time. I think it's better than Not-Cal or Un-Cal.

think Free will/grace would be a decent 'label", as one would still uphold the Cross and the Gospel, just that we have more of a part in our salvation..

Matt, in this instance, Christian tells us very little. It doesn't tell if you believe in salvation by grace or works; it doesn't tell us if you believe in baptismal regeneration, or sacramental ordinances--or not. That kind of thing. So, I wouldn't run from Non-Cal. It tells us a lot that Christian doesn't.

Surprised on how muchpeople reject 'labels", as we all have to be in a group, as though ALL Christinas, disagree in eschatology/Sotierology etc!

 

[matt wade]

Please name an Arminian on this board. Please stop avoiding the question.

Still waiting on who that Arminian is.

 

[JesusFan]

Still waiting on who that Arminian is.

Its the ones here posting on the BB who would affirm that we have the capability/means within ourselves to produce faith and believe in jesus without ANY work of grace God has to do on our behalf!

that basically, we would still be able to excercise our 'free will" and believe unto Jesus, as despite the fall, we still have capability to believe on our own!

 

[matt wade]

Its the ones here posting on the BB who would affirm that we have the capability/means within ourselves to produce faith and believe in jesus without ANY work of grace God has to do on our behalf!

that basically, we would still be able to excercise our 'free will" and believe unto Jesus, as despite the fall, we still have capability to believe on our own!

Who are they? Name them.

 

[InTheLight]

Its the ones here posting on the BB who would affirm that we have the capability/means within ourselves to produce faith and believe in jesus without ANY work of grace God has to do on our behalf!

That's a pretty serious allegation. Who are these people? Name them.

 

[WestminsterMan]

snip...
My question is why did you chose to be a Baptist
...snip

Hmmm... Because I didn't know any better?

snip...and in particular why did you chose the particular type of Baptist you are?

I didn't choose - I was indoctrinated from birth.

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

Still waiting on who that Arminian is.

Well, before someone points to me, let me state categorically that I am neither - I see myself as a Thomist.

WM

 

[JesusFan]

That's a pretty serious allegation. Who are these people? Name them.

thanks for highlighting my quote!

Forgot to inser the word "additional" act/work of Grace!

We ALL agree the the Cross and Christ death saves us, I meant to see its "Just" the Gospel and no other act of Grace God sends to us, as they hold we have faith inherit within us to accept Christ...

DHK and Skandlion hold prettymuch to that theology, based upon what I can understand from their postings!

 

[matt wade]

DHK and Skandlion hold prettymuch to that theology, based upon what I can understand from their postings!

Ok, so finally we have a couple of names. DHK and Skanelon are our mysterious Armenians! They might be surprised to know that...

 

[JesusFan]

Ok, so finally we have a couple of names. DHK and Skanelon are our mysterious Armenians! They might be surprised to know that...

Not saying they are Arms, just that based upon what I see them describing the salvation process as being..

if NOT arms, definitly Non Cals

 

[matt wade]

Not saying they are Arms, just that based upon what I see them describing the salvation process as being..

if NOT arms, definitly Non Cals

Ok, who are the Arms then? You said they exist here on this board. Please tell us who they are. Let me refresh your memory on what you said earlier:

Think that there are MANY here on the BB who simple refuse too see that there ARE Arms on this board who somehow seem to "forget" that their theology teaches no eternal security and that they also forgot that even their system teaches that man is a sinner that needs God to extend Grace towards them in order to be able to believe!

 

[JesusFan]

Ok, who are the Arms then? You said they exist here on this board. Please tell us who they are. Let me refresh your memory on what you said earlier:

Basically, any one here who would say that the Lord grants both grace and the Gospel in order to save us, who says that grace can be rebuked/rejected, not irrestible...

isn't that what Skan himself has posted here?

DHK thinks that the Gospel is sufficient to save those who believe, as we have inherit faith within us, and the Gospel produces a faith response...

Think Sandlion has posted agrees with God grace and the Bible, just that His grace can and is resisited by people!
Classic Arminianism!

 

[DHK]

Ok, so finally we have a couple of names. DHK and Skanelon are our mysterious Armenians! They might be surprised to know that...

If you don't know what we believe don't try and guess.
I am not an Armenian. That is someone from Armenia, and I have never even been there. :laugh:
Nor, am I an Arminian, a follower of the theology of Arminius.
Don't post what you don't know.

 

[DHK]

Here is the OP

I realize that the "flavor" of Baptist where I belong is in the minority here on the BB. My question is why did you chose to be a Baptist and in particular why did you chose the particular type of Baptist you are? I'll give you my answer a little later.

My answer:
I am a Baptist because I believe that the beliefs and distinctive of the Baptists fall more closely in line with Biblical teaching more than any other church, denomination, etc.

Having said that, this thread has been derailed, and upon request it shall be closed.