Well said brother:applause::applause:Many are re-discovering these things that people have moved away from.
-
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!
Yea, but several people HAVE changed
- Thread starter Luke2427
- Start date
- Status
Well said brother:applause::applause:Many are re-discovering these things that people have moved away from.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
I didn't mean to imply that you couldn't. I was making commentary on what has been my typical experience with Calvinists who claim to once have been 'Arminian.' And that has been that they are not aware of the scholarly non-Calvinistic Baptist approach...but have reduced it to what is known as the 'foresight faith view'....A view I find as equally unsatisfactory as the Calvinists do.
Do you mean that you used to believe you can lose your salvation? Because even non-Calvinistic baptists typically don't hold to that view either. I know I don't.
I understand why you might think that, as I used to believe likewise; however I'd like you to consider another perspective.
Which of these two people is worse in your estimation:
1. A guy who hates a creator who first hated him?
or
2. A guy who hates a creator who first loved him?
-------------------
1. A guy who is born unable to willingly respond to the creator's appeals?
or
2. A guy who is able to willingly respond, but freely chooses to rebel, suppress the truth and turn away from the geniune appeals of his creator?
------------------
1. A guy who does horrible, grievous sins without repentance who was born unable to do otherwise.
or
2. A guy who does horrible, grievous sins without repentance who was born able to do otherwise?
-------------------
1. The insane man with a mental disorder who murders another?
or
2. The sane man with a sound mind who maliciously chooses to murder?
or
2. A guy who hates a creator who first loved him?
-------------------
1. A guy who is born unable to willingly respond to the creator's appeals?
or
2. A guy who is able to willingly respond, but freely chooses to rebel, suppress the truth and turn away from the geniune appeals of his creator?
------------------
1. A guy who does horrible, grievous sins without repentance who was born unable to do otherwise.
or
2. A guy who does horrible, grievous sins without repentance who was born able to do otherwise?
-------------------
1. The insane man with a mental disorder who murders another?
or
2. The sane man with a sound mind who maliciously chooses to murder?
I think a strong case can be made that #2 is the worse guys in all these situations and that guy better reflects the unbeliever of our system, than the unbeliever of the Calvinistic system. So, on what basis do you conclude that Calvinism does a better job of 'putting man in the dust'? In reality you have given all unbelievers a really good excuse for their unbelief. They don't believe because God hasn't granted it to them...they rebel without repentance because they were born unable to do otherwise. They were born unloved, rejected and unchosen by their maker and destined to die and go to hell. What better excuse is there than that?
I understand that too, as I had a similar testimony, but are you aware of the alternatives to your particular view of 'arminianism' (non-Calvinism) that may be able to bring you even closer, as is my testimony now?
We non-Calvinists also believe in the Sovereignty of God. We just don't apply it in such a way as to undermine the responsibility of man:
"God Sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, 'What doest thou?' Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so." - A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God
preacher4truth
Active Member
You're correct in the context of which we speak, although we've all had more than one blessing.
The fact remains that those who haven't experienced that to which we speak of, specifically being enlightened to the doctrines of grace, said will remain clueless to what it actually means and to its experience.
To fight against it day and night, or, to repudiate these teachings when they come up, or to bring them up unremittingly only to mock them? Well, that in itself is another issue altogether.
preacher4truth
Active Member
I concur with Iconoclast. Well said, and what a tremendous blessing.
I'm not sure I'm understanding you here. We have the ability to exercise free will, only not where our Election is concerned & that is the domain of the Lord.
Matthew 24:31 “And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.”
Ephesians 1:3-4 “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.”
Romans 8:33 “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.”
Romans 9:11 “(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
”Titus 1:1-2 “Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness; in hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began.”
1Peter 1:2 “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.”
quantumfaith
Active Member
Thank You Tom
salzer mtn
Well-Known Member
Man is free but he always uses this freedom to sin and not to turn to God. He has a will but his will is bent to do evil. Man's will is held captive by his nature. You can throw out a steak to a cow to eat in the pasture of lush green grass. The cow has a freedom of will to eat the steak or eat the grass, but the cow will choose the grass every time because the cows will is taken captive by it's nature. My other answers are in the purple.
Last edited by a moderator:
Now, this is just pure nonsense. Note that not one word of scripture was provided to support this. This is preaching Calvinism, not scripture, and there is a HUGE difference between the two.
2 Chr 19:1 And Jehoshaphat the king of Judah returned to his house in peace to Jerusalem.
2 And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to king Jehoshaphat, Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the LORD? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the LORD.
3 Nevertheless there are good things found in thee, in that thou hast taken away the groves out of the land, and hast prepared thine heart to seek God.
Now, here is God himself saying he found "good things" in king Jehoshaphat. He had taken away the groves out of the land, and he had "prepared his heart to seek God".
This verse alone refutes everything Salzer Mtn just said.
If you are going to spout off Calvinist dogma, then at least show scripture to support it.
Now, as far as the OP, who cares? Perhaps several have gone over to Calvinism, so what? What does that prove? Nothing. In fact, we know from scripture that the vast majority will follow false doctrine that leads to destruction.
Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Numbers is not a good argument.
I just want to praise the Lord that He predestined me to be a non-Cal!
convicted1
Guest
To Brother Skan: Yes, I have jumped ship and went to the other side of the debate.
To Brother Webdog: It's always good to defend your position and I commend you for backing up your beliefs. I don't jump into these debates much because I have come to the conclusion that there's more grief than grace being brought to the forefront of them.
To all the others: I know that there are DoG's/Hard Shells who were once Arminians, and there are Arminians who were once DoG's/Hard Shells. One should never study with a closed mind. I studied through the free will perspective and it caused me to see things through free will. When I begged God to allow me to read w/o any slant one way or t'other, it seemed that the DoG's just leaped out at me. I have become fully convinced of all five points, and even pre-faith regeneration, something I fought so hard against for over six years. But, I consider those on the other side of the debate my Brothers and Sisters in Christ, just like I did the DoG's when I was in the free will camp.
To Brother Webdog: It's always good to defend your position and I commend you for backing up your beliefs. I don't jump into these debates much because I have come to the conclusion that there's more grief than grace being brought to the forefront of them.
To all the others: I know that there are DoG's/Hard Shells who were once Arminians, and there are Arminians who were once DoG's/Hard Shells. One should never study with a closed mind. I studied through the free will perspective and it caused me to see things through free will. When I begged God to allow me to read w/o any slant one way or t'other, it seemed that the DoG's just leaped out at me. I have become fully convinced of all five points, and even pre-faith regeneration, something I fought so hard against for over six years. But, I consider those on the other side of the debate my Brothers and Sisters in Christ, just like I did the DoG's when I was in the free will camp.
convicted1
Guest
:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
May God bless you and your ministry, my Brother. I have heard many free will preachers who could really preach His word. I don't care what anyone's stance is, if they preach Jesus, I'll rejoice.
LOL...yea this tribal nonsense is for the birds...but that's human nature. Not God nature.
But your comment above conserns me. Let me ask you if you read my post above and what you make of it?
Yes....totally agree.:jesus:
convicted1
Guest
Hey!!! You stole one of my :thumbs: and inserted your :jesus:!!! No fair!! That's okay, because I love :jesus:, too!!!
convicted1
Guest
BTW, I've been missing you over "there".....wink....wink.....where you been??????
I must correct you....I didn't steal anything...I replaced with :jesus: ....it is my belief in him that I no longer can or will steal.
I take the hint:wavey:
evenifigoalone
Well-Known Member
Can someone explain to me what Arminianism is? Is it similar to Calvinism or the opposite of it?
I did look it up a little bit and from what I've read it seems similar...but I'm still a little confused.
Heatedness is almost natural (for lack of better word) in debate, but it can easily lead to logical fallacies.
When I do get into a debate I try my best to at least try to respect the opinions of others. If it's clear my opponent doesn't give a hoot about doing the same, I won't debate with him.
That said, it is true that debate can change people's minds. But they have to pretty much be willing to let it first. Most people get into debates with the idea of changing the other person's mind instead of thinking of it as an educational experience.
I did look it up a little bit and from what I've read it seems similar...but I'm still a little confused.
Heatedness is almost natural (for lack of better word) in debate, but it can easily lead to logical fallacies.
When I do get into a debate I try my best to at least try to respect the opinions of others. If it's clear my opponent doesn't give a hoot about doing the same, I won't debate with him.
That said, it is true that debate can change people's minds. But they have to pretty much be willing to let it first. Most people get into debates with the idea of changing the other person's mind instead of thinking of it as an educational experience.
Last edited by a moderator:
Arminianism is a term that is often misused by Calvinists and sometime a few others who use it to refer to anyone who is not a Calvinist. On this board it is probably best just to overlook its misuse.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
That may be your individual perspective, but depending on what you mean by ' the ability to exercise free will,' I contend that many of the Reformed types would disagree. Determinists deny the concept of contra-causal freedom (i.e. the categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from an action).
- Status