Jump to content
Online Baptist

Calvinism or Arminianism? How do you answer?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The problem with aligning to those terms is how they are defined by those groups. They don't mean what you mean when you say "Totally Depraved", or "perserverance" as a couple of examples.

I find it alarming that too many people think that there are only two choices here. Neither Calvinism or Arminianism lines up with Scripture.

I would repeat my previous answer. I am a Biblicist. Neither John Calvin, nor Jacob Arminius, were correct in there writings.  And, neither one is a standard for doctrine. If the person is seekin

Posted Images

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 6/19/2020 at 11:22 AM, SureWord said:

No doubt babies go to heaven. Whether they are part of the church I am not sure. They may be part of some other redeemed body in heaven. Maybe part of the "general assembly" (Hebrews 12:23)

15 hours ago, jeff_student_of_Jesus said:

"No doubt" ?   Then why has this same point been argued for centuries without clear resolution ?  i.e. there has been no clear definitive specific or general provable argument or statement of Scripture of such a statement.

For comparison,   why are so many babies/children declared unclean by Jesus. ? (all those who are without at least one believing parent.)

11 hours ago, SureWord said:

"No doubt" because sin is not imputed where there's no knowledge of the law. Babies have no knowledge of the law.

I think the only ones debating about this for centuries are wacky 5-point Calvinists.

For the sake of accuracy, but with no intention to engage in debate on the matter within this thread discussion --

I myself am a ZERO point Calvinist (thus in NO WAY a "wacky 5-point Calvinist"); however, I DO have disagreement with the "no doubt" comment concerning babies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
2 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

For the sake of accuracy, but with no intention to engage in debate on the matter within this thread discussion --

I myself am a ZERO point Calvinist (thus in NO WAY a "wacky 5-point Calvinist"); however, I DO have disagreement with the "no doubt" comment concerning babies.

So where do babies go? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
God Would Have ALL Men to be Saved!!
 
2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
 
1Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. == A stake in the false teaching Calvinism's heart!
 
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

Surely,  a false gospel , whoever brings a false gospel,  brings it wherever they go - any forum,  any church,  any school.  They cannot do otherwise, can they ?

They could be anti-C,  pro-C,  neither C nor A,  and they still carry a false gospel everywhere.   (except within the assembly of believers,  where they are not permitted).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
15 minutes ago, SureWord said:

So where do babies go? 

The point of my comment was NOT to declare my certainty as to where any given baby goes, but was to communicate my DOUBT that the commonly held viewpoint can be established with Biblical certainty.

From my understanding of Romans 5:12-19, I believe not only in "original" sin (as per Adam's sin), but also in "original" guilt, judgment, and condemnation.  In and because of Adam's first sin, ALL are sinful sinners in the sight of God; ALL stand guilty before God; and ALL are condemned already under God's judgment.

However, I also believe from other passages of Scripture that ALL are given a legitimate drawing unto the opportunity of salvation through faith.  Thus I am brought to a place of doctrinal quandary.  To claim that all babies go to heaven is to deny the need for faith on their part (which would stand contrary to a great deal of Biblical truth).  To claim that all babies go to hell is to deny the legitimate opportunity of faith from them (which would not really be a problem if I actually believed in Calvinism). 

Even so, I am brought to a place of conjecture (but recognizing that it is conjecture only, without a word of Scripture one way or the other).  How can the above truths of Biblical doctrine be reconciled?  My own conjecture gives answer -- In the precise moment of death, wherein the babies mind is made fully capable, the Lord our God grants a single, momentary opportunity of decision to believe or reject the Savior.  With that conjecture in mind, I cannot tell where any given baby goes because God has not and does not reveal to me the decision of each and every baby.

Yet regardless of anyone's agreement or disagreement with me on this, it is simply not accurate to claim that ONLY Calvinists doubt where baby's go.  Some of us non-Calvinists (indeed, firmly non-Calvinist) also possess doubt; and we do so because we cannot find ABSOLUTE certainty from that which God's Word specifically teaches on the matter.  We engage in conjecture in order to balance all of the doctrinal truths from God's Word that apply to the matter; but we acknowledge our conjecture as being conjecture, not as being absolute Biblical doctrine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

Thanks for the prompt reply.

The fall of Adam created a sin nature in all of us but sin is not imputed where there is no knowledge of the law since sin itself is a transgression of the law. Therefore I don't see how babies could go to hell or any of place (Limbo, Paradise, "under the altar") other than heaven for they could not have this knowledge.

Now this doesn't mean they will be part of the body of Christ (i.e. the church of the firstborn) but perhaps the "general assembly" or some other place within the "family of God". I do believe they will be covered under the blood of Christ.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Oh, I believe there is direct evidence in Scripture of a child's innocence before God. Not only direct evidence but also many clues and deliberate omissions in Scripture. Keep in mind that I am not a grieving parent over a deceased child and that I as many, made professions of "faith" as a child. None of that changes what Scripture reveals.

Children and the New Birth?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

Cain LIVED BEFORE the TORAH was given.

Genesis 4:7 If you do what is right, will you not be ...
[Search domain www.biblehub.com/genesis/4-7.htm] https://www.biblehub.com/genesis/4-7.htm
Sin is crouching at the door, eager to control you. But you must subdue it and be its master." .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sin brought DEATH before the TORAH was given.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world ...
[Search domain biblehub.com/romans/5-12.htm] https://biblehub.com/romans/5-12.htm
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death was passed on to all men, because all sinned.

 

13 For sin was in the world before the law was given

 

=======================================

Children are almost all unclean:

1 Corinthians 7:13 And if a woman has an unbelieving husband and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him.

14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his believing wife,

and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband.

Otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, SureWord said:

Thanks for the prompt reply.

The fall of Adam created a sin nature in all of us but sin is not imputed where there is no knowledge of the law since sin itself is a transgression of the law. Therefore I don't see how babies could go to hell or any of place (Limbo, Paradise, "under the altar") other than heaven for they could not have this knowledge.

Now this doesn't mean they will be part of the body of Christ (i.e. the church of the firstborn) but perhaps the "general assembly" or some other place within the "family of God". I do believe they will be covered under the blood of Christ.

Not really the point of my original post on this matter.  As I stated therein, I do NOT intend to debate this subject in the present thread discussion.  So then, what was the point of my original post on this matter?  

You said -- "No doubt."  But some of us DO indeed "doubt."  Furthermore, you said -- "The only ones debating" (doubting) the matter were Calvinists.  Yet some of us who "doubt" are NOT Calvinists by any degree.  In that thought/statement you simply were inaccurate. 

(Note: If you desire to discuss this matter more directly with me, I am willing to give some time to doing so in a thread discussion dedicated for that subject.)

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
added "note"
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
50 minutes ago, jeff_student_of_Jesus said:

Cain LIVED BEFORE the TORAH was given.

Genesis 4:7 If you do what is right, will you not be ...
[Search domain www.biblehub.com/genesis/4-7.htm] https://www.biblehub.com/genesis/4-7.htm
Sin is crouching at the door, eager to control you. But you must subdue it and be its master." .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sin brought DEATH before the TORAH was given.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world ...
[Search domain biblehub.com/romans/5-12.htm] https://biblehub.com/romans/5-12.htm
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death was passed on to all men, because all sinned.

 

13 For sin was in the world before the law was given

 

=======================================

Children are almost all unclean:

1 Corinthians 7:13 And if a woman has an unbelieving husband and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him.

14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his believing wife,

and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband.

Otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.

Jeff,

We appreciate your comments. On Online Baptist, for several reasons, we only use the Authorized Version of the Bible, more commonly named the King James Version, in order to stop confusion. Could you please use only the KJV when quoting the Bible?

Thanks!

Alan

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
1 hour ago, Alan said:

Jeff,

We appreciate your comments. On Online Baptist, for several reasons, we only use the Authorized Version of the Bible, more commonly named the King James Version, in order to stop confusion. Could you please use only the KJV when quoting the Bible?

Thanks!

Alan

I will try to ...   Usually I have short time,   and copy paste from biblegateway /internet searches for expediency ,  when the meaning is kept true.

 

Note that those quotes I've used in any posts,  do not contradict KJV, as far as known.  

When the meaning is known, actually,   none of the frequently authorized translations contradict each other,  again as far as known.

I had to do an internet search on someone's post/quote of Scripture - it looked to me like a country's (Danish/Norwegian/other) particular language.. at first,  and not very clear....  

So,  I might use other internet search findings, perhaps best Hebrew and original language as close as possible (no, I don't know other languages, but love the simple plain truthful rendering when available of them in word studies, etc) ....

Shalom to all who love and follow Jesus,

Jeff

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Jeff,

May I remind you of the rules, which every forum board has, which a person should have read before posting.

Rule # 3 plainly states, " 3. Feel free to quote the Bible, if you do we ask that you use the KJV. This is done to avoid confusion. The Administrators and Moderators of this site believe that the KJV is Gods preserved Word for the English speaking people, and we ask that you respect that and use the KJV when quoting scripture."

When I first read your post the scriptures that you quoted were confusing, and still are, so, I knew that they were not from the KJV Bible but some other modern version. What you posted confused the issue at hand and did not help me to understand the issue better.

Please, out of respect for the written words of God, and respect for the rules on Online Baptist, and respect for those who have a deep reverence and respect for the written words of God, and to stop confusing issues, use the KJV.

Alan

 

 

Edited by Alan
grammar
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
3 hours ago, Alan said:

Jeff,

May I remind you of the rules, which every forum board has, which a person should have read before posting.

Rule # 3 plainly states, " 3. Feel free to quote the Bible, if you do we ask that you use the KJV. This is done to avoid confusion. The Administrators and Moderators of this site believe that the KJV is Gods preserved Word for the English speaking people, and we ask that you respect that and use the KJV when quoting scripture."

When I first read your post the scriptures that you quoted were confusing, and still are, so, I knew that they were not from the KJV Bible but some other modern version. What you posted confused the issue at hand and did not help me to understand the issue better.

Please, out of respect for the written words of God, and respect for the rules on Online Baptist, and respect for those who have a deep reverence and respect for the written words of God, and to stop confusing issues, use the KJV.

Alan

 

 

Shalom Alan et al,  to you and your households today, ....

 

I have no problem with the rules and purposes you refer to.

If something was confusing, or not understood to you,  it would be best to quote the post and ask what it means.   Otherwise I have no idea,  and others may have no idea,  what confuses you.

There is no "confusing issues" in my posts that I know of - except as and when I post something that shows a previous post has an error,  to bring to light the error and see if the poster is interested or not. - i.e. the poster, or readers,  who know and love the truth,  or who don't care (since I don't know them,  except for one 'new' poster who broadcasts false gospel everywhere he (or she or them) goes) ....

Scripture is Truth.

jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
3 hours ago, jeff_student_of_Jesus said:

Shalom Alan et al,  to you and your households today, ....

 

I have no problem with the rules and purposes you refer to.

If something was confusing, or not understood to you,  it would be best to quote the post and ask what it means.   Otherwise I have no idea,  and others may have no idea,  what confuses you.

There is no "confusing issues" in my posts that I know of - except as and when I post something that shows a previous post has an error,  to bring to light the error and see if the poster is interested or not. - i.e. the poster, or readers,  who know and love the truth,  or who don't care (since I don't know them,  except for one 'new' poster who broadcasts false gospel everywhere he (or she or them) goes) ....

Scripture is Truth.

jeff

Jeff,

If you have no problem with the rules than why do I have to explain anything to you?

Alan

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
2 hours ago, Alan said:

Jeff,

If you have no problem with the rules than why do I have to explain anything to you?

Alan

Shalom today to all who love the Creator,  who are called according to His Purpose in Christ Jesus;

Alan: I noticed in the last hour,  looking/searching 'translation' on the forum,  briefly, that others disagree with you,  and you yourself posted something like you were going to 'enforce' "your interpretation" on your thread ....  

This indicates others whether new or old,  whatever group they are in I didn't pursue to find out,

disagree with "your interpretation" of things,  whether of the KJV or other ideas I don't know.

You "chose" to try to explain something(s),  but did not show at all any confusion caused by anything in my posts, whether Scripture quotes , or just my statements not directly quoting Scripture.

The purpose of my posts,  with and without Scripture,  is to provide/ illustrate/ show truth,   and to either agree with (supportive) of a previous post of someone,  or to disagree or show what looked like a direct error or a seeming error in someone's post ---  i.e. always in the direction of clarity for those who trust and rely on the Father in heaven and who abide in the Word,  and the Word abides in them.

If anything in any post of mine looks to be in error , actually,  kindly post/quote it and I'll consider it and discuss it plainly.

In Christ, always abiding in Him, and His Word abiding in me/ us/ ,

jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

Obviously, no one on this site has ever heard of Reformed Baptist. Unfortunately, the closest to me is 33 miles away, so it’s a little impractical for me to drive to services all this way twice a week, which I tried for over nine months; and this is even with the pastor being a teammate from high school, whose beliefs line up perfectly with mine. Which are as Biblical as any, or more than any I’ve read on this site.

If any of you care to check history of Christianity in America you’ll see that the Christianity that came over from our forefathers in England from the Puritans in Virginia, and later from the Pilgrims in Massachusetts, and for that matter from those souls who earlier tried to make a go of it in North Carolina, were of the Reformed persuasion. This was the Baptist Church until about 1849 or so.

Edited by Beltrod
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
1 hour ago, Beltrod said:

Obviously, no one on this site has ever heard of Reformed Baptist. Unfortunately, the closest to me is 33 miles away, so it’s a little impractical for me to drive to services all this way twice a week, which I tried for over nine months; and this is even with the pastor being a teammate from high school, whose beliefs line up perfectly with mine. Which are as Biblical as any, or more than any I’ve read on this site.

If any of you care to check history of Christianity in America you’ll see that the Christianity that came over from our forefathers in England from the Puritans in Virginia, and later from the Pilgrims in Massachusetts, and for that matter from those souls who earlier tried to make a go of it in North Carolina, were of the Reformed persuasion. This was the Baptist Church until about 1849 or so.

You're agrument is truth based on tradition. That's the same approach the Roman Catholic Church takes. Because they were allegedly first means they are the most scriptural or "the one true church" when it only means they have been pulling the wool over everyone's eyes the longest.

Sola scripture.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, Beltrod said:

If any of you care to check history of Christianity in America you’ll see that the Christianity that came over from our forefathers in England from the Puritans in Virginia, and later from the Pilgrims in Massachusetts, and for that matter from those souls who earlier tried to make a go of it in North Carolina, were of the Reformed persuasion. This was the Baptist Church until about 1849 or so.

Actually, the doctrinal differences between General Baptists and Particular Baptists existed long before 1849.  Indeed, I believe that historically the first officially recognized Baptist churches of England were considered General Baptist in belief system (due to doctrinal influences from the European Anabaptist Mennonites), NOT Particular Baptist in belief system.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
On 6/29/2020 at 10:05 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Actually, the doctrinal differences between General Baptists and Particular Baptists existed long before 1849.  Indeed, I believe that historically the first officially recognized Baptist churches of England were considered General Baptist in belief system (due to doctrinal influences from the European Anabaptist Mennonites), NOT Particular Baptist in belief system.

We PB trace though back to earky 17th century, as the first Confession 1644!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 hours ago, DaChaser said:

We PB trace though back to earky 17th century, as the first Confession 1644!

Indeed, and I believe that the General Baptists are historically recognized as being in England as early as 1614.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
God Would Have ALL Men to be Saved!!
 
2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
 
1Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. == A stake in the false teaching Calvinism's heart!
 
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 36 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online


  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Alan

      Happy Birthday John Young! God Bless! 🍰
      · 1 reply
    • KJV ME!

      Now it is time for me to step out of my shell and let go... I AM STRICT KJV!... In scripture God said he would preserve his word... Well did he or didn't he?... If there is every translation under the sun, then he didn't but I KNOW HE DID!... The preserved word of God called the KJV is for the English people has been around for over 400 years and what is interesting to me, is the KJV was translated in 1611 and the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620... Coincidence?... A new book the preserved KJV word of God for the New World... So take that you KJV naysayers... I have been reading, studying and digging through the KJV for over 50 years... My belief is 100% Christ and scripture says so... Glad to be here and its time to take these shackles off!   
      John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
      I am... Brother Ramsey
       
      · 1 reply
    • stan1964stanssb

      Praise God I found such a powerhouse of the outpouring of His Spirit and unapologetic in regards of the defense of the KJV Bible. When I became a Christian back in 1984, I was told to get & read the KJV. It's been my choice all these years.
      · 0 replies
    • 1Timothy115  »  Ukulelemike

      Mike,
      RE: This is why I am here, why are you?
      Also, the land in Egypt wasn't land God gave them it was land Joseph through Pharaoh gave them. God gave them Canaan.
      Dave 
      · 1 reply
    • Alan

      Praise the Lord! Sherry and I, safe, tired, and joyful,  are back in Taiwan.
      · 0 replies
  • Popular Now

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      27,621
    • Total Posts
      279,880
  • Topics

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Alan

      Happy Birthday John Young! God Bless! 🍰
      · 1 reply
    • KJV ME!

      Now it is time for me to step out of my shell and let go... I AM STRICT KJV!... In scripture God said he would preserve his word... Well did he or didn't he?... If there is every translation under the sun, then he didn't but I KNOW HE DID!... The preserved word of God called the KJV is for the English people has been around for over 400 years and what is interesting to me, is the KJV was translated in 1611 and the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620... Coincidence?... A new book the preserved KJV word of God for the New World... So take that you KJV naysayers... I have been reading, studying and digging through the KJV for over 50 years... My belief is 100% Christ and scripture says so... Glad to be here and its time to take these shackles off!   
      John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
      I am... Brother Ramsey
       
      · 1 reply
    • stan1964stanssb

      Praise God I found such a powerhouse of the outpouring of His Spirit and unapologetic in regards of the defense of the KJV Bible. When I became a Christian back in 1984, I was told to get & read the KJV. It's been my choice all these years.
      · 0 replies
    • 1Timothy115  »  Ukulelemike

      Mike,
      RE: This is why I am here, why are you?
      Also, the land in Egypt wasn't land God gave them it was land Joseph through Pharaoh gave them. God gave them Canaan.
      Dave 
      · 1 reply
    • Alan

      Praise the Lord! Sherry and I, safe, tired, and joyful,  are back in Taiwan.
      · 0 replies
×
×
  • Create New...