Calvanism

[SureWord]

2 hours ago, Bouncing Bill said:

I am not defending or condemning the gap theory. Just musing.  I do not see how it can be condemned as heresy as time is not mentioned between versus 1 and 2 in Genesis one. Hmmm, maybe I should start a new thread on this.

Start a new thread because it could get way off the OP topic 

 

[Baptistsenior]

On 5/25/2021 at 1:10 PM, SureWord said:

When were Armenians ever trying to kill Baptists? I don't recall. I know Calvinists persecuted Baptists but followers of Jacob Arminius never did. Unless you are referring to papists but they aren't Armenians in the true sense of the word.

Scofield never taught salvation by works in the OT. Others do but not Scofield. 

Where do people come up with this stuff?

 

I either got that from This day in Baptist History, or The Trail of Blood.  Everyone back then was trying to kill the baptists and they were constantly hiding 

[SureWord]

5 hours ago, Baptistsenior said:

I either got that from This day in Baptist History, or The Trail of Blood.  Everyone back then was trying to kill the baptists and they were constantly hiding 

I think it was mostly Calvinists. I know here in America it was definitely that. It was usually over re-baptizing or preaching the gospel without a license.

There's a book by William P. Grady entitled "What Hath God Wrought" that covers this.

[BrotherTony]

On 12/23/2020 at 7:38 AM, Baptistsenior said:

I asked my old IFB Pastor once if we were Calvanist or Arminian  I won't tell his answer cause I want your thoughts  

Not to be flippant or snide, but would it truly matter? Does your salvation depend on whether or not you know what position your pastor holds? I won't tell where I stand on the issue, because that is my own personal business, but people get too caught up in these theological mindsets where they don't trust the Word of God or God period, instead trying to hold fast to some theologians idea of what "salvation" is or isn't and how it is obtained/given to us. Labels don't help anyone...the Bible truth, a changed heart and life do! 

[Salyan]

My salvation may not depend on my pastor’s doctrine, but my church membership would. I personally could not attend a church that taught Calvinism – it is such an offense to the character of God.

I must confess that I don’t understand the OP. What does his pastor’s stance have to do with our responses? There are independent Baptists that are Calvinist, and independent Baptists that are not. And there is a third stance between Calvinism and Arminianism - It’s not just either or.

[SureWord]

1 hour ago, Salyan said:

My salvation may not depend on my pastor’s doctrine, but my church membership would. I personally could not attend a church that taught Calvinism – it is such an offense to the character of God.

I must confess that I don’t understand the OP. What does his pastor’s stance have to do with our responses? There are independent Baptists that are Calvinist, and independent Baptists that are not. And there is a third stance between Calvinism and Arminianism - It’s not just either or.

Yes, I never understood those that insist you have to be one or the other as if there are no other options.

[BrotherTony]

8 hours ago, Salyan said:

My salvation may not depend on my pastor’s doctrine, but my church membership would. I personally could not attend a church that taught Calvinism – it is such an offense to the character of God.

I must confess that I don’t understand the OP. What does his pastor’s stance have to do with our responses? There are independent Baptists that are Calvinist, and independent Baptists that are not. And there is a third stance between Calvinism and Arminianism - It’s not just either or.

I have no problem with sitting under the teachings of either a Calvinist or an Arminian leaning preacher. As long as they're preaching from the pulpit, "For by grace ye are saved," that's enough for me...of course, depending on the attitude it's preached in. If it's preached as if the pastor and a certain few in the church were "elect" and the "pride" was showing though, as it was in one church my wife and I attended for a short while, we wouldn't be there long. I sat under a Calvinist preacher for three years and we never had a problem. I sat under an Arminian leaning preacher growing up, and the only problem I had with the way the Gospel of Jesus Christ was presented was this...it was "say this prayer and you're saved." Basically, a fire insurance policy with Jesus! UGH! The other Arminian leaning churches I've attended since I got married, I've never had problem with. As I stated, I've defended both positions, and I'll never reveal what my beliefs concerning this subject are, because I believe that's between God and me. Both sides have valid, Scripture backed points. The two factions need to learn how to get along and let GOD be the judge. 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

4 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

Both sides have valid, Scripture backed points. The two factions need to learn how to get along and let GOD be the judge. 

Hmmmm, to me that does not seem Biblically valid.  Since this debate concerns the doctrine of the gospel, if one or another side is wrong, then they are "accursed" according to Galatians 1:6-9; and I for one could not comfortably engage in ministry fellowship with those whom the Lord our God has pronounced as "accursed."

[Salyan]

I concur. And again, there are not only 2 sides to choose from here. 

[BrotherTony]

22 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Hmmmm, to me that does not seem Biblically valid.  Since this debate concerns the doctrine of the gospel, if one or another side is wrong, then they are "accursed" according to Galatians 1:6-9; and I for one could not comfortably engage in ministry fellowship with those whom the Lord our God has pronounced as "accursed."

So, if this is the case, please, pray tell, which side is correct? Which side is the right side to be on? Can you prove it 100% beyond any reasonable doubt? The same could be said about several other Bible teachings, but that would be for a different thread. This one is on Calvinism. I hate to say it, but people spend too much time following the teachings of men over the teaching of the Scriptures. As I've stated, I'm not an apologist for either side. I'm a neutral "participant," if you could call what I'm doing is participating in either point of view.  So, @Pastor Scott Markle, which side is "accursed," to use your word. I don't see where either side is not preaching the gospel, though I do find that most Calvinists are overly arrogant and smug in their approach. Example of their attitude, "I'm of the elect. God chose me, but He didn't choose you if you believe the way Arminius believed." The apologists for Arminius can be just as arrogant, calling the other side "heretical" and "anti-Scriptural" when they believe people can't still retain their free will and PUT their faith in Jesus Christ instead of it being fore-ordained. They have the duty to choose which whether or not to accept Christ. UGH. It gets mind boggling how both sides believe they're correct, but nobody can prove 100% which side is correct.

Edited June 14, 2021 by BrotherTony

[Pastor Scott Markle]

2 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

So, if this is the case, please, pray tell, which side is correct? Which side is the right side to be on? Can you prove it 100% beyond any reasonable doubt? The same could be said about several other Bible teachings, but that would be for a different thread. This one is on Calvinism. I hate to say it, but people spend too much time following the teachings of men over the teaching of the Scriptures. As I've stated, I'm not an apologist for either side. I'm a neutral "participant," if you could call what I'm doing is participating in either point of view.  

First, you act as if there is ONLY two possible positions to take. This in itself is a mistake.  Both the position of the Calvinist and the position of the Arminian are SYSTEMS of belief, including multiple points of doctrine (even when we are narrowing our consideration only upon the doctrine of salvation).  Some of those points of doctrine may be mutually exclusive, possessing only two options - the one option and its direct opposite.  However, other of those points possess more than two options, allowing for more than only two systems of belief.  

2 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

So, if this is the case, please, pray tell, which side is correct? Which side is the right side to be on? Can you prove it 100% beyond any reasonable doubt?

So, @Pastor Scott Markle, which side is "accursed," to use your word. 

Second, are you asking whether I can "prove" to YOU "100% beyond any reasonable doubt" which side is correct before I can recognize for MYSELF which side is "accursed," and thereby choose to separate MYSELF from ministry fellowship with them?  Or are you asking whether I have "proven" to MYSELF 100% beyond any reasonable doubt which side is correct so that I can recognize for MYSELF which side is "accursed," and thereby choose to separate MYSELF from ministry fellowship with them?  If you are asking the first question, I have no idea whether I could "prove" this to you, since I have never had any previous opportunity to attempt such an objective; however, I doubt that it would be possible since you seem to be portraying yourself as one who is already 100% determined to hold the position of "uncertainty."  Yet I do not believe that I need to "prove" any such thing to YOU, in order for me to choose with whom I myself will or will not fellowship in ministry.  Your recognition or denial of belief has no real bearing on my choices before the Lord my God concerning personal fellowship and separation.  On the other hand, if you are asking the second question above, then I would answer that I most certainly HAVE "proven" to myself from Biblical study 100% beyond any reasonable doubt within my heart which side is correct; and it is NEITHER the Calvinistic system of belief NOR the Arminian system of belief.  If we are considering only the so-called "five points" of the debate, I recognize that three of those points are mutually exclusive, possessing only two possible positions.  On ALL three of those points I believe that the Calvinistic system of belief is in error and that the Arminian system of belief is correct.  However, I recognize that the other two points are not mutually exclusive and actually posses more than two possible positions.  Even so, on those two points I believe that both the Calvinistic system of belief and the Arminian system of belief are in error.  Thus I hold to neither system of belief as a system.  In addition, I possess NO reasonable doubts concerning the position that I hold.  Even so, I am quite comfortable making choices of fellowship and separation over these matters.

3 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

So, @Pastor Scott Markle, which side is "accursed," to use your word. 

Actually, let us recognize that the word "accursed" is NOT my word, but is from GOD'S OWN WORD on the matter.  Furthermore, let us recognize that the doctrinal divide between the systems of Calvinism and Arminianism are great enough that both sides as a full system cannot be correct.  It is possible that both sides could be in error; but the contradictions of the two systems of belief against each other are such that they both cannot be correct.  Even so, at least one of the two systems of belief has the doctrine of salvation wrong, which further means that at least one of the two systems of belief falls under the condemnation of Galatians 1:6-9.  Even so also, this behooves us to determine through diligent, disciplined Bible study which this might be, in order that we do not join in error and thus fall under that same condemnation.

[Salyan]

1 minute ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Furthermore, let us recognize that the doctrinal divide between the systems of Calvinism and Arminianism are great enough that both sides as a full system cannot be correct.  It is possible that both sides could be in error; but the contradictions of the two systems of belief against each other are such that they both cannot be correct. 

THIS. Things that are different cannot be the same. 
 

Tony, if it helps, here is my nutshell on why I personally believe that neither of your named two systems have the doctrine of salvation correct.

Calvinism: This doctrine blatantly ignores the repeated, clear words of scripture that God “would have all men to be saved,” and that “God so loved the world that whosoever believeth… may be saved.”

Arminism: In repudiating eternal security, this doctrine ignore God’s words that no one shall be able to pluck believers out of His hand.

The biblical position combines the free will of all men to accept Christ for salvation, combined with an assurance of salvation that is based on God’s promise, and not Calvinism’s teaching that “you will always be saved because you had no choice in the first place”.

[Baptistsenior]

On 6/12/2021 at 1:29 PM, BrotherTony said:

Not to be flippant or snide, but would it truly matter? Does your salvation depend on whether or not you know what position your pastor holds? I won't tell where I stand on the issue, because that is my own personal business, but people get too caught up in these theological mindsets where they don't trust the Word of God or God period, instead trying to hold fast to some theologians idea of what "salvation" is or isn't and how it is obtained/given to us. Labels don't help anyone...the Bible truth, a changed heart and life do! 

My statement had little to do with salvation and everything to do with  which Baptists were first.   There is more to Christianity than salvation and yes what pastors think does matter. God gave them to us for a reason.  However since all great pastors and theologians disagree it's best to get alone with God and His word to find out truths.  Don't mind me, I'm not a theologian (nor would I follow one)  I'm just an old lady 

[Salyan]

I suppose neither were first, as both streams of theology Originate from more recent founders. The Bible position would have been first.

[Bouncing Bill]

Has anyone every met a Calvinist who did not believe they were part of the elect?