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!

Featured The 5 Heads of Doctrine

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by TCassidy, Jun 8, 2016.

Top Posters
Page 3 of 4
  1. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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. :)
     
    #41 TCassidy, Jun 10, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    101
    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.
     
    #42 preachinjesus, Jun 10, 2016
  3. Darrell C

    Darrell C Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    9,631
    Likes Received:
    332
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Agreed.

    It is not appropriate in a public forum to censor speech like this.


    God bless.
     
    #43 Darrell C, Jun 10, 2016
  4. Darrell C

    Darrell C Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    9,631
    Likes Received:
    332
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Would you define "General Baptist."


    God bless.
     
    #44 Darrell C, Jun 10, 2016
  5. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    See Post #1.
     
    #45 TCassidy, Jun 10, 2016
  6. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
    #46 TCassidy, Jun 10, 2016
    • Like Like x 2
  7. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
    #47 TCassidy, Jun 10, 2016
    • Like Like x 2
  8. Rob_BW

    Rob_BW Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    4,320
    Likes Received:
    1,242
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Ah, the second paragraph makes things much more clear.
     
    #48 Rob_BW, Jun 10, 2016
    • Like Like x 3
  9. Darrell C

    Darrell C Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    9,631
    Likes Received:
    332
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
    #49 Darrell C, Jun 11, 2016
  10. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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
     
    #50 HankD, Jun 11, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
  11. kyredneck

    kyredneck Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    19,559
    Likes Received:
    2,889
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That's OK Hank, I'm pretty sure the atonement covers mugwumpism... :)
     
    #51 kyredneck, Jun 11, 2016
  12. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
    #52 TCassidy, Jun 11, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 2
  13. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    My background and education is also GARBC. And the lion's share of GARBC churches and approved schools were, historically, Calvinistic. :)
     
    #53 TCassidy, Jun 11, 2016
    • Like Like x 3
  14. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    957
    Likes Received:
    15
    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.
     
    #54 Bluefalcon, Jun 12, 2016
  15. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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
     
    #55 HankD, Jun 12, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    957
    Likes Received:
    15
    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.
     
    #56 Bluefalcon, Jun 12, 2016
  17. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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
     
    #57 HankD, Jun 12, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    957
    Likes Received:
    15
    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.
     
    #58 Bluefalcon, Jun 12, 2016
  19. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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
     
    #59 HankD, Jun 12, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  20. Bluefalcon

    Bluefalcon Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2004
    Messages:
    957
    Likes Received:
    15
    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.
     
    #60 Bluefalcon, Jun 12, 2016
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 3 of 4
Loading...