Featured The Confused Arminian

As long as its honest & upfront I am OK with it! Other than that....Im born again so Im given a conscience (that is something new to me so be patient)

 

Well, let's see. How about right-wing, redneck, deep-water Baptist DoG?

 

Well, if that's the case, you need to go to Hollywood and get yourself an Oscar for your performances on here......I thought you weren't acting at all......na na na na boo boo.....LOL J/K with ya, Brother. :tonofbricks:

 

Forgot old...and as I see it you can only claim redneck if you got coal miner genes..got any black lungers in the blood?!?

 

:laugh: :laugh:

 

:laugh: :laugh:

 

Hitler would not accept the title "monster"- but he was.

Firemen who charged into the twin towers to save lives would not accept the title "heroes"- but they are.

Who cares what titles people "accept". Truth is objective. Things are what they are regardless of whether or not those things want to be CALLED that.

Who cares what titles they accept?

The question is, what theological system most mirrors their own? The answer is glaringly obvious.

If eternal security is what they think separates them from Jacobus Arminius- they've got another thing coming. Arminius was not settled on that issue himself.

I'll call a spade a spade even if it wants to call itself a king.

 

So you think an altar is the only place to make a decision?

You seriously don't think that Calvinists believe people decide to follow Jesus???

You don't know what you are talking about.

It is simply that Calvinists know from the Scriptures WHY... don't miss that all-important word- WHY.... WHY, did you hear it... WHY people decide to follow Jesus.

It is because God has worked in them to will and to do of his good pleasure. That what the Bible says, ITL. Not Luke. The Bible.

Calvinists believe the BIBLE.

And because they do they do not have the SLIGHTEST problem with many of these songs.

Show one.

Enter Jeopardy music.

 

I know of no one who that title offends.

But thoughtful people know this about that title: it is meaningless.

No title that does not identify what you DO believe can be taken seriously by thoughtful people.

All that title does is tell us five things you do NOT believe.

That means you could believe a TRILLION other things from Satan worship to atheism.

Christopher Hitchens was a "non-cal"

Anton Levae (sp?) was a "non-cal".

Marylin Manson is a "non-cal"

The problem with the title is it tells us ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about what you DO believe so who could take it seriously?

It is a title that lets you worm out of being nailed down to a consistent, logical theology. It allows you to be like jello being nailed to a wall. When one takes on the title "Arminian" he bravely sets himself out there to have his beliefs scrutinized. So the title is meaningful.

So its not that the title is offensive; it is that it is useless.

 

I started using Non-Cal in our discussions here because Arminian does not apply to most Baptists who are not Calvinists. Arminians believe one can loset his salvation. Most Baptists hold to eternal security. Generals and Free Wills excepted, of course.

So, I adopted Non-Cal simply to draw a distinction between those who are Calvinists and those who aren't. It's a pretty general term, but in the context of our discussions on the Baptist Board, it tells us quite a bit.

 

Question Tom, are you a Calvinist in the strictest sense of the word...like John Calvin was...like Persbyterians are...?

 

What would be better, imo, is to educate folks here concerning this fact: you can believe eternal security and still be an Arminian.

Jacobus Arminius himself was not settled on the matter.

 

And that would be the distinction between Classical Arminianism and Wesleyan Arminianism.

 

Regardless, the point stands.

"Non-cal" is meaningless.

"Arminian" is meaningful.

Thomas Helwys and John Smyth were thorough Arminians (except that Smyth tried to leave the baptist movement and applied to join to the Mennonite movement but died before he could get in. Who KNOWS what this guy believed?)

 

I wouldn't say that "non-Cal" was meaningless; it is actually too meaningful -- that is, it can contain too many meanings, anything from Lutheran, to Catholic, to who-knows-what.

Yeah, Smyth was an enigma in some ways. He was an Anglican priest who became a Baptist and died sort of a Baptist-Mennonite. He should still be considered a hero by Baptists.

 

It depends on what strain of Baptist you identify with.

Obviously, I identify with the Particular Baptists who sprang up, quite separately from Smyth and Helwys a few years later- Spilsbury and such.

But that there have been good folks from either strain is without question.

I do think some make the mistake, however, of thinking that the Particular Baptists owe their existence to the first Baptists fifteen years older than them who were General Baptists.

They did not split. They had totally different beginnings.

 

My motto is: I am fine with the good ole 1689 :thumbs: :godisgood:

 

That is historically correct.

 

So your saying Baptists really startrrd in the17th century ...a fairly recent development then.