1. 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!

Do you have a problem with Calvinism?

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Daniel David, Nov 8, 2002.

  1. Bob Alkire

    Bob Alkire New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    3,134
    Likes Received:
    1
    I disagree with alot of Calvinism, but I don't have a problem with it. I wouldn't be a member of a Church that was, because I would diagree with much of their doctrine and I'm sure it goes both ways. Do I think they are Christians? They are just like from my side, some are some are not. But today in so many churches we are more into music and such than doctrine, that tells us alot of where the church is today.
     
  2. Rev. G

    Rev. G New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Messages:
    1,635
    Likes Received:
    0
    Unfortunately, many place the labels upon us or else what we believe is just popularly summarized under a particular title.

    Rev. G
     
  3. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    If I just say Christian, to some that might mean a variety of things, including non-Christian things such as Catholicism.

    Do you speak in tongues?
    How do you feel about homosexuality?
    Is the Bible God's Word?
    Do you believe in premillenialism?
    Do you believe in predestination?
    Was Christ's death sufficient for salvation?
    How do you baptize?

    These are just some of the issues that would answer why people do not just associate themselves as Christian.

    I am a calvinistic, dispensational (Grace-type), fundamentalist, Baptist.

    Given the above, you probably know where I stand on alot of issues without even asking.
     
  4. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    1
    JIMNSC asked:

    Why do folks chose to summarize their beliefs with another name?

    It is convenient theological shorthand. If I just say I am a "Christian," it says practically nothing in this day and age. On the other hand, if I call my self a "Calvinist," then the person I am talking to knows that I affirm the Five Points of Calvinism:

    </font>
    1. Evangelism is unnecessary because God will save his elect whether they like it or not and drag them kicking and screaming into heaven</font>
    2. God created a race of mindless robots to do his will</font>
    3. God has created thousands of innocent little babies just so he can send them to hell</font>
    4. Heretics should be burned at the stake, just as Calvin murdered Servetus</font>
    5. You don't need your Bible as long as you are a cold intellectual, and have the Institutes of the Christian Religion and the works of R. C. Sproul in your library</font>
    [​IMG]

    [ November 15, 2002, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: Ransom ]
     
  5. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ransom, where do you get this stuff? Number 2 and 3 were hysterical. I should just follow your posts from now on. I would be laughing all day.
     
  6. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    1
    Oh, great, now you're going to hate me for rewriting them. [​IMG]
     
  7. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because our minds have not been completely renewed (Romans 12:1-2).</font>[/QUOTE]I would call that a nature, a complex of attributes. There is no way to account for sin or righteousness without a corresponding nature. It is why the unbelievers can do not righteousness ... they have no nature to do so. Remember the definition of free will: The ability to act in accordance with the nature. That is why the unbeliever can do no righteousness; they have no righteous nature. It is also why the believe can sin; they still have a sin nature. The old man is what died; not the old nature.
     
  8. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Galatians 5:24

    NKJV
    And those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

    ESV
    And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
     
  9. Siegfried

    Siegfried Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    0
    I haven't read all the posts on this thread, so rebuke me if this has been brought up before.

    Helen, isn't what you're advocating essentially Pelagianism? My memory of church history could be poor, and I don't have my text with me to check, but as I recall Pelagius said man is born spiritually weak or sick, but not dead. When man sins wilfully he dies spiritually.

    Isn't that essentially what you're saying? I don't know if you would consider yourself a Pelagian or not, but if you don't, please show me where Pelagius taught something different, or else where you believe something essentially different from what he taught.

    [ November 15, 2002, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: Siegfried ]
     
  10. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    I honestly don't know enough about the different flavors to define myself one way or another, although quite a number of people have defined me as all sorts of different things!

    However, if we are to become as little children; if the children's angels always see the face of the Father in heaven, etc. etc. and if Paul's spiritual death occurred only after he heard (and comprehended) the law, then what we are is born sick unto death with a sin nature, but not yet dead spiritually, or separated from God. All I know is that this is what the Bible indicates.

    To me, an excellent picture is a child born sick unto death with AIDS (or HIV), because of the activities of the mother and her sickness. Our hearts are wrenched by the plight of these little ones who have done nothing to deserve the fate thrust upon them, and we work like crazy to do everything for them we can.

    How is it that we should have more compassion than God?

    I don't think that is even the most remote possibility.

    But every one of us is born in the same condition because of Adam's (and Eve's) sin -- we are sick unto death with this spiritual disease. But I do not see where the Bible ever says we are stillborn spiritually. Only that death is inevitable. So as good as dead? Yes, with the advent of a comprehension of the law, but dead yet? No. The Bible never indicates that and I do think the words of Jesus indicate the opposite.

    Now I have received PM's from those in charge here saying they will delete any posts of mine which dispute their interpretation of original sin. This one does, so I assume it, too, will be deleted. But I have attempted to answer and will cut and paste this in a PM to you so that at least you will know I responded.

    God bless.
     
  11. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Helen, is Ephesian 2:3 in your Bible?

    among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

    Do you see that? By nature, people are children of wrath.

    Your post can stand because you answered a question. No mas .
     
  12. Siegfried

    Siegfried Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    0
    Helen,

    I did a little research with the limited resources at my disposal currently. It seems that Pelagianism argues that sinless perfection is possible. It was denounced as heresy at a Council of Ephesus around 500 A.D. (give or take a century or so).

    Semi-Pelagianism came into favor subsequently in opposition to Augustinianism. Semi-Pelagianism seems to focus on the synergistic working of man and God to bring about salvation in addition to the idea of spiritual sickness as opposed to moral neutrality. Semi-P is distinguished from full-P on the point that sinless perfection is not possible.

    Arminius was later accused of being a semi-P, but he died before they could sort it all out. Semi-P was condemned as a heresy at some church council, but I don't remember which.

    I'm not claiming the authority to call it a heresy, just reporting what one church council did. It seems to me that your beliefs are consistent with semi-P, but I don't know enough about historical theology or what you believe to say that dogmatically.
     
  13. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    Helen, is Ephesian 2:3 in your Bible?

    among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, and I see that it is followed by Ephesians 2:4 -- But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions -- it is by grace you have been saved.

    And, considering that the tiny ones do not have the neuron connections required for thought processes, that would make it interesting that you would relate Eph. 2:3 to the concept of being stillborn spiritually at physical birth if not before.

    I'll go for the spirit being renewed. That's biblical.

    Yes, but we are even more objects of His love, thank God. Now, why should He love adults more than little kids?

    to Seigfried: I certainly don't think sinless perfection is possible! And I know we can do nothing to earn, help with, or help maintain our salvation. Paul says to work it out with fear and trembling, but that is talking about our attitude, not actually contributing by works. Any good works I do are done by Christ via the Holy Spirit in me. I know better than to claim anything else!

    So I don't think I fit into either of those categories.

    I just do what I can to believe what the Bible says.
     
  14. Rev. G

    Rev. G New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Messages:
    1,635
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just for historical clarification, the Council of Ephesus was held in AD 431. [​IMG]

    Rev. G
     
  15. Karen

    Karen Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2000
    Messages:
    2,610
    Likes Received:
    0
    ......
    Yes, Scott Bushey DID disagree with Dr. Mohler's statements about infants, but SO DID I and I still believe that infants are elect.

    I think you all need to read R. C. Sproul a bit more before you start accusing him of the thing(s) you are. At worst he believes that only the infants of believers are elect.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Your point is unclear to me. Yes, you think so, but Scott does not seem to. I have indeed studied some R.C. Sproul works, and he does think it possible that some infants go to Hell. He expresses uncertainty.
    I gave examples that showed C.S. Murphy's original point. You agree that those examples exist and yet say they don't mean anything.

    Karen
     
  16. KenH

    KenH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    41,907
    Likes Received:
    1,469
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Once you go outside of the basics of T.U.L.I.P., Calvinists are not monolithic in their beliefs. In this area, some of us express uncertainty about infants, and some of us express confidence that in God's grace He saves all infants.

    Theology is seldom tidy with everything wrapped up with a nice neat bow. [​IMG]

    Ken
     
  17. Karen

    Karen Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2000
    Messages:
    2,610
    Likes Received:
    0
    Very wise statement. And it shows the root cause of a lot of the disagreements in the C/A forum.
    Seems to me that a number of Calvinists there, on one issue or another, are always saying that Calvinists do not believe A as non-Calvinists say they do. And HOW MANY TIMES do they have to say it? They get tired of explaining it over and over.

    When the real case is that some Calvinists believe A and some believe non-A. And each tries to speak for all Calvinists.

    Karen
     
  18. russell55

    russell55 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    This might be true to a certain extent. But as Ken said, on the basics of TULIP, there is agreement. And, generally speaking, that is where you see people getting frustrated by what they see as a misrepresentaion of their view.
     
  19. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    The pastor of a church I attend is a 3 point Calvinist. One new family joined the church a few months ago who was from the reformed group and would only accept 5-point-Calvinist teachings.

    They eventually left.

    I did not realize there were such strong feelings between 3-point and 5-point groups until I saw that.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  20. Daniel David

    Daniel David New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Messages:
    5,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Liberal theology begins with redifining God, rejecting his revelation, and thinking more highly of man that the Bible allows.

    It is no surprise that the SBC sunk into so much liberalism.

    Thankfully, their is a strong movement to embrace the sovereignty of God, the authority of his word, and the depravity of man.

    Calvinists are really the only ones who are in a position to be pleasing to God.

    Thankfully, arminians aren't always aware of where their theology leads people.
     
Loading...