bkmitchell — 2017-03-25T08:56:38-04:00 — #1
Neither Calvinists nor Arminians but Baptists?
If you have taken the time to read the article or if you know something about the author or the website:
(1) What is your opinion on the article?
(2) Do you agree or disagree with it and why?
(3) If, you happen to be a Baptist do you believe the article speaks of one type of Baptist or Baptist in general?
(4) If, you did not read the article but you are a Baptist or someone who knows a lot about Baptist what do you think is the Baptist position?
dave_l — 2017-03-25T09:44:49-04:00 — #2
This is an interesting thread. I’m hoping many will comment. But I believe we should stick to the name Christian and shun all other words used to bolster how fragmented and divided we have become.
I believe Calvinism was necessary to wrench power from the Roman Catholic Church. And the ice-cold logic of Calvinism became doctrine that contains some truth. And truth sets us free.
The Arminians on the other hand wanted a less sovereign god and developed a scheme that shared sovereignty between god and man. Where Free Will use of the sacraments is the mainstay of Roman Catholicism, the Arminians substituted “Evangelical obedience” for the sacraments. But the result is the same. A vending machine where salvation pops out when you pay for it.
I see a longline of house churches, never involved with either the Protestants or Catholics other than their persecution by them. These form a chain of believers baptizing believers from the first century until now. But each remaining an independent group free from institutional organization until recently.
So while I’m Baptized by immersion in water, and have found freedom from a few of the Calvinistic doctrines proven by scripture. I believe the name Christian is the only name we should wear.
And we should not make knowledge a test for friendship but only make sure what we know is true.
david_taylor_jr — 2017-03-25T13:46:06-04:00 — #3
I have not read the article, though I plan to, and traditionally Baptists are Calvinist. For support I point to the London Baptist Confession of Faith from the 17th Century. It's almost identical to the Westminster confession except for parts about Baptism and a few other items.
lu1 — 2017-03-29T19:58:56-04:00 — #4
When one is speaking about Baptist, there are different core beliefs that are adhered to but there are differences for example Southern Baptist which is the largest Baptist denomination in the USA but you also have American Baptist who are more liberal in their theology. You also have Sabbath keeping Baptist who are conservation.Here is an excerpt from this article form 2010... A Baptist perspective.
At this point, we would like to affirm more clearly who we are from a positive perspective. Please note that as we make these affirmations we are not saying that Calvinist Baptists and Arminian Baptists are not truly seeking to be Baptists. We certainly believe that Baptists can be Calvinists and they can be Arminians, but we prefer not to allow ourselves to be defined by either of those great positions, because we see something even greater, something that deserves more attention and requires a higher allegiance. Likewise, theologians open to Molinism, such as Bruce Little and Ken Keathley, do their work with a firm commitment to evangelical Baptist convictions. What we are saying is that our own passion for God’s Word, for Christ and for His Great Commission necessarily places every desire for settling the long- running and seemingly intractable Calvinist-Arminian debate to the side. We recognize this is a debate that will continue to be held and should be held in certain restricted venues. However, the debate itself is trumped by our need to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ, to proclaim Scripture, and to obey His Great Commission. Moreover, we believe our position is the mainstream Southern Baptist position, as Richard Land said in his chapter, “the Separate Baptist Sandy Creek Tradition has been the melody for Southern Baptists, with Charleston and other traditions providing harmony” (50). Here are our thoughts about these interwoven, mutually reinforcing and majoritarian priorities:
dave_l — 2017-03-30T06:50:32-04:00 — #5
The problem with not settling the Arminian/Calvinist debate comes down to glorifying Christ in the matters of salvation vs. glorifying ourselves for picking up on it.
Also it involves two different Christs, two different Christianities, and two different gospels.
lu1 — 2017-03-30T07:58:36-04:00 — #6
Having a hard time following your logic... Is this a salvation issue with you?
I thought the Gospel / Good new was centered on Christ, Christ Crucified and the Resurrection... So how is this two different Christs as if that is possible...Either He is Christ or He is not Christ.... again not following your logic
dave_l — 2017-03-30T08:15:16-04:00 — #7
“For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.” (Matthew 24:5)
Grace saves sinners through the preaching of the gospel. “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” (1 Peter 1:23) Jesus says; “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” (John 3:36)
But many say the person does not have everlasting life until they agree to the terms. Making them, not Christ, the ultimate savior.
david_taylor_jr — 2017-03-30T08:21:38-04:00 — #8
The Scriptures clearly state they must believe. Whether you want to admit it or not there is a choice that has to be made by the human.
dave_l — 2017-03-30T08:26:53-04:00 — #9
This is true, but faith comes by hearing the word. And God saves most through the hearing of the gospel. The word regenerates the hearts of those having ears to hear. “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” (1 Peter 1:23) So they believe from that moment on and have everlasting life. “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” (John 3:36)
Salvation happens while they hear and believe the preaching of the word. Before any "evangelist" tells them they are not saved until they contribute their two cents.
david_taylor_jr — 2017-03-30T08:28:58-04:00 — #10
I agreed with most of your post until this part. Not sure what you mean by the last sentence.
dave_l — 2017-03-30T08:40:14-04:00 — #11
The person becomes born again hearing the gospel. And they believe in Christ as it unfolds before them. They have everlasting life believing what they hear.
But the evangelist says you must choose to believe, or choose to accept Christ and so on. He adds to the gospel making it a system of works. He doesn't realize God already saved the believers as he preached to them.
lu1 — 2017-03-30T09:40:38-04:00 — #12
I was hoping that we could stay focus on the topic. However let us look at the verse in light of context.
The disciples’ question in verse 3 prompts Jesus’ teaching about the future destruction (Matthew 24:4–25). The emphasis of the verse shows that the disciples’ question makes a connection between the destruction of the temple and the end of history, and that Jesus’ discourse responds directly to this question. Messianic pretenders will gain a huge following by claiming to represent or even to be Jesus (verse 5), by imitating his miracles (verse 24), and by sanctioning lawlessness (verses. 11–12). So powerful will be the deception that some will renounce the faith (verse 10), and even the elect will nearly surrender or surrender their faith (verse 24 the elect who are saved maybe be deceived). So there is later a connection with Revelation 13:11 concerning this teaching of Jesus and there is safeguard is adherence to Jesus’ teachings (verse 25; as it relates to Revelation. 13:11). Also in 2nd Thessalonians 2:1–12 we see a description of the last and worst of the many antichrists (1 John 2:18) at work throughout the this period.
So the context is time specific however if can be used universally as well. But my concern is this in the position posted earlier by you that there is an assumption that one or the other Calvinist or Arminianist are not saved because of their understanding. I submit that there are many who are saved who fall on both sides of this discussion.
There lies my inability of following your logic. We are a Christians if we believe that Christ lived a perfect life, Died for the sins of many and was resurrected.... Romans 10:9-10... So as David T., clearly stated and correctly I might add. There is a choice that humans are involved in the process.
The topic of giving or not giving is moot in my eyes. The issues is are Baptist - Calvinist , Arminianist or something else. Not if they are children of the anti-christ because of the positional understanding. For these reasons I clearly state this position. One, I find both position are as followed. It is not a salvation issue. Two, it is man's philosophy, basically imperfect man trying to understand a perfect God. In Conclusion I will give them grace and I will not judge their salvation on this point. How this is a different Christ I fail to see your point. But let us focus on the original question.
dave_l — 2017-03-30T09:46:23-04:00 — #13
Or false preachers saying Jesus is the Messiah too?
lu1 — 2017-03-30T09:48:38-04:00 — #14
But Jesus was answering the disciples' specific question about the temple destruction and preachers generally don't claim to be the Messiah
dave_l — 2017-03-30T10:00:47-04:00 — #15
I believe you are correct about this. But it remains an enemy planted the Tares and they must have believed a false gospel in order to be in the pulpits and sitting next to you in church. The Tares looked like true believers until destruction began following in the wake of their teachings. This is why I say if a doctrine destroys lives it is false and those preaching it are either really deceived or they are Tares.
lu1 — 2017-03-30T19:15:54-04:00 — #16
One could argue that the enemy that planted the Tares was Satan and the Tares were already damned as children of Satan before being in the church?
dave_l — 2017-03-31T06:08:59-04:00 — #17
This might be true. It seems to represent the Supralapsarian view of predestination. But I think it is safer to say God arbitrarily saved many from the same lump of sinners. We recognise them by their faith and holy lifestyles. And God left the rest in their sins. Keeping their sin in check with laws, rewards and punishments.
I think God uses the Tares as he did in OT Israel. Most were wicked in need of the Law and rewards. But the true believers like Abraham already lived holy lives. And the Tares, just as the wicked Jews in the OT, have been the main persecutors of true believers throughout history. But they also deceive and lead the true Church astray. At the end of the Tare passage Jesus says; “The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.” (Matthew 13:41)
So a simple question and answer routine will help identify them. This is why I posted the article Doctrines that Destroy. It is a recent post if you want to read it. essentially, if the doctrine helps destroy anything good, it is suspect.
lu1 — 2017-03-31T16:49:35-04:00 — #18
But the Wheat and the Tares is about the end times
It refers to the eschatological ingathering of the people of God to life, and His opponents to death. Revelations 14:14–20 probably draws from this concept. Reading Matthews 14:15 and comparing it to verse 30 is more in line with the Age of Grace...
But let's focus on the topic Baptist, Calvinist, Arminianist or something else
dave_l — 2017-04-01T05:21:48-04:00 — #19
Keep in mind the end times began with Jesus’ earthly ministry (Hebrews 1:2; 9:26; 1 Corinthians 10:11; Galatians 4:4; Ephesians 1:10; 1 Peter 1:20).
lu1 — 2017-04-01T08:52:02-04:00 — #20
Ok?!? Still not following the logic...End times and how it relates to Baptist, Calvinist, Arminianist or something else.
next page →