Well, let's see.
So, General Baptists Only.
No Particular Baptists.
Any disagree? Yes. No.
If "yes" we will start a thread to discuss that and that only.
-
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!
The 5 Heads of Doctrine
- Thread starter TCassidy
- Start date
So, General Baptists Only.
No Particular Baptists.
Any disagree? Yes. No.
If "yes" we will start a thread to discuss that and that only.
I'm not a particular Baptist. I affirm a general Baptist view of soteriology. I said, in my posts, that I am a General Baptist.
Why are you willy-nilly deleting posts? This is inappropriate.
Why are you willy-nilly deleting posts? This is inappropriate.
Agreed.
It is not appropriate in a public forum to censor speech like this.
God bless.
If you want to post something off topic please feel free to start your own thread.
This one is not to debate. It is to encourage those who deny all or part of the Canons of Dort to say so. And when they say so a new thread will be opened to discuss that issue and that issue only.
I will not, under any circumstances, allow this thread to deteriorate into a mean-spirited debate characterized by name calling and false accusations.
If you want to do that do it in your own thread.
Great. Which of the Heads so far posted do you disagree with. Not a long drawn out Russian novel, but a simple "Disagree with T." Or disagree with U.
When you do that either I, or you can if you want to, will start a new thread to discuss that Head of Doctrine and no other. And that thread, if I start is, will be heavily moderated to insure there is no name calling, false accusation, or general mean spirited comments.
Ah, the second paragraph makes things much more clear.
Is "General Baptist" a branch that is identified?
I believe in free will (though not salvifically and I have a few problems with how TULIP is taught.
Would I be considered a General Baptist because I am a Baptist not associated with the known groups?
God bless.
Any calvinists
Not because of its association but maybe because of your "free will" and "tulip" position.
The great schism in the Baptist world is Regular (or General) vs Particular Baptists :
Reference to Comparison Between Particular and General Baptists L. Rush Bush
My emboldening.
https://defendingcontending.com/2013/03/31/comparison-between-particular-and-general-baptists
My local church is in the General Association of Regular Baptists (GARBC).
Myself I am a Mugwump (Google it) but I can't find a Mugwump Baptist Church within a reasonable drive time however I am content within my local church because the fruit of the Spirit is quite evident there (the only real earthly test of genuine faith - IMO of course).
On the other hand, though it is not a Baptist church, my son's local church is a Reformed Church - roughly equivalent to a Particular Baptist. The fruit of the Spirit is also quite evident there.
HankD
Not because of its association but maybe because of your "free will" and "tulip" position.
The great schism in the Baptist world is Regular (or General) vs Particular Baptists :
Reference to Comparison Between Particular and General Baptists L. Rush Bush
My emboldening.
https://defendingcontending.com/2013/03/31/comparison-between-particular-and-general-baptists
My local church is in the General Association of Regular Baptists (GARBC).
Myself I am a Mugwump (Google it) but I can't find a Mugwump Baptist Church within a reasonable drive time however I am content within my local church because the fruit of the Spirit is quite evident there (the only real earthly test of genuine faith - IMO of course).
On the other hand, though it is not a Baptist church, my son's local church is a Reformed Church - roughly equivalent to a Particular Baptist. The fruit of the Spirit is also quite evident there.
HankD
Last edited:
Okay, back on topic. Please. Again, this is not a debate forum.
Now, last but not least:
P = Perseverance of the saints.
The saved will remain saved, not because of any merit in them, but because they are preserved by the power of God. Jude 1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called.
Any disagree? If so, start a thread in C/A and defend the idea a genuinely saved person can lose his salvation.
Now, last but not least:
P = Perseverance of the saints.
The saved will remain saved, not because of any merit in them, but because they are preserved by the power of God. Jude 1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called.
Any disagree? If so, start a thread in C/A and defend the idea a genuinely saved person can lose his salvation.
My background and education is also GARBC. And the lion's share of GARBC churches and approved schools were, historically, Calvinistic.
Bluefalcon
Member
The Council of Dort's first line of article 1 under the first main doctrine begins, "Since all people have sinned in Adam . . . ." This is not a biblical way of expressing the situation at all, as Paul plainly says it was the sin of one, not all.
All were infected:
Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
I don't think this would even take a thread of its own?
What do you say Bluefalcon?
HankD
Bluefalcon
Member
Yes, all have sinned, just as in Rom 3.23, but in neither place does it teach that all sinned in Adam. All "were made sinners," yes, "all have sinned," yes, but all did not sin in Adam, or else it wasn't one man's offense, and neither should Paul have said "by one man's righteousness" were it not also by "one man's sin" that death passed unto all men.
That's a matter of scholarly opinion Bluefalcon both "passed" and "sinned" in Romans 5:12 are indicative aorist active. Both agreeing upon the moment of his sin.
In other words when Adam sinned and death passed upon all "for all sinned" or "all had sinned" not "all have sinned".
NKJV Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.
If all had not sinned when Adam sinned then why did death pass upon?
Its an old question, you take one view, I take the other.
HankD
Bluefalcon
Member
It's just that Paul's argument is logical: one sinned --> death passed upon all --> on account of which all have sinned
But unless I'm mistaken it seems you have reversed it: all sinned in Adam --> on account of which death passed upon all. But that's not what the text says.
But unless I'm mistaken it seems you have reversed it: all sinned in Adam --> on account of which death passed upon all. But that's not what the text says.
The tenses match - indicative aorist active - completed action in past time (Can/will others knowledgeable comment)?
By Adam -
sin entered the world
death passed to all
all sinned
therefore the events happened together.
HankD
Bluefalcon
Member
If Paul wanted to say all sinned in Adam, he could have. Instead, he goes above and beyond not to say that: by one man (not everyone) sin entered the world (Rom 5.12), Adam's (not everyone's) transgression (5.14), offense of one (not everyone) (5.15), one (not everyone) that sinned (5.16), by one (not everyone) to condemnation (5.16), one man's offense (5.17), offense of one (5.18), one man's disobedience (5.19). And you claim one clause in 5.12 that could just as easily refer to all sinning personally as in 3.23, to contradict all the others? Why? Why say that all sinned in Adam, when Paul himself didn't say that? Now how were all made sinners? I say by God's imputation, just as by his imputation people become righteous, but of course people differ on how all were made sinners.