Baptist but not a Calvinist?

HP: Now if you only believe in one out of five, you are a strange duck. Just one brick between us concerning this five point load. Surely you would desire to distance yourself futher than that from a strange duck like me!
Help us out here. How do the Scriptures define the T?

 

HP: If in fact man is born totally depraved, why is this not spiritually speaking a corpse? If man is born in such a state as to eliminate any possibility of contrary choice, and totally evil and that continually, I would think a corpse as a very adequate depiction.


The question as I see it is not whether or not one can attain salvation on his own merit, but rather can he be considered as moral and therefore responsible if in fact there was no other possibility available to him but to be dead spiritually and to sin by his very nature and that continually? Does not morality have to be birthed in an environment of contrary choice? If one is going to be blamed or praised does not the possibility have to exist that he could have done something other than he did under the very same set of circumstances?

 

HP: You make a good point. To be dead is not to be unable to respond, but rather to be unwilling. Man, does not need ‘abilities’ to respond to God, he needs simply to yield his will in the direction of the motivation God places before him.

We are supposed to be 'dead to sin' as believers. This is not being ‘unable’ to sin, but rather we are to be unwilling to sin.

 

HP: I agree with BR on this point. I sure have gained from conversing with those I disagree with. Who knows how God might bring to mind something that has been said at a particular time even though one might have disagreed with it when it was first stated. Duty is mine, the results are the Lords.

 

HP: God deserves all the credit for our salvation, in this we agree. Notice that the individual in the verse you mentioned exercised his will in receiving Him (through repentance and faith) prior to receiving the power to become the sons of God. This is not establishing credit on our part, but rather simply fulfilling the conditions God has set forth to be saved.

I have used the prison illustration before. Let me post it once again per chance that some now writing might have missed it.

A man goes to prison for life, being justly condemned and sentenced by a judge for a specific crime. Can such an individual ‘merit’ a pardon by the performance of good works while in prison? Can such a criminal perform good works to such a degree that the governor is forced to grant this man a pardon based merely on the ‘merit’ of the performance of such good works? Absolutely not. Just the same can the governor, if he so pleases, pardon such a criminal? Of course he can. Still, there is something the criminal MUST do, there is an attitude that MUST be reflected by the criminal to receive a pardon IF the governor is indeed fair and just, and attitudes are tied inseparably to intents of the heart, this very initial intent being none other than a ‘work’ in one sense of the word. The governor MUST witness from the criminal a repentant attitude and a change of heart towards his former criminal behavior if the governor is even to consider such a pardon for the criminal.

What kind of governor would pardon a criminal from prison who had not exhibited true remorse for his crimes? Would not the governor have to be satisfied in his or her mind that IF they pardoned such a criminal that they would not return to commit the same crime or one of like heinous behavior upon society again and that such a criminal possessed and exhibited a true change of heart and attitude towards their former behavior? There are indeed certain conditions that the criminal must meet, works that such a one must of necessity do in order to have the opportunity for a pardon if such an opportunity is offered. These works on the part of the prisoner are in no way meritorious in nature, and in no way force the governor to grant such a one a pardon on their account. Just the same, there are definite conditions or works one must do in order for the governor to consider the pardon. These works are thought of in the sense of ‘not without which,’ not ‘that for the sake of.’ It can properly be stated that one is not pardoned due to any works (in one sense of the word ‘works’ in the sense of ‘that for the sake of’) of the prisoner, but just the same it can be said ‘without works’ (in another sense of the word, that being in the sense of ‘not without which’) one will never see the opportunity to receive a pardon.

Can you see how that works can be thought of as necessary for a pardon, or in the sense of “not without which,” yet at the same time no amount of works can be thought of as “that for the sake of” or forcing the governor to pardon the criminal on the account of works performed by the criminal?

Such I believe is the case in the verse you mention. Paul is not saying that his works save him or keep him saved, just the same, neither will he be found in Christ in the last day apart from his continued obedience.

 

HP: Are you just going to shoot the prophet or weigh in with a reasoned response?

 

HP: I believe I understand you and would agree.

HP: No problem in not giving a definite answer if one is in question to a degree. This is a learning process, not a blame game or a name game. It is difficult to express just how we understand truth at times. I sure have changed how I word things over the years and am still in the process of learning how to express myself. Never read Geisler’s book but sounds somewhat intriguing.

HP: Amen

HP: Excellent way to express it I would say. If God is not at work we could have absolutely no influence for good. God is at work in the heart of the sinner prior to salvation, even in the heart of those that never accept His gift. Conscience testifies to this fact.

HP: That one will take some further illustration or explanation for me to follow. It is not that you are necessarily unclear, it may be that I am just slow in understanding.

HP: Rejoice in the freedom God has allowed yourself to find. He that Christ sets free is free indeed! We can change, modify, scrap or hold to anything God shows us at any time without the fear of what men, and the organizational boxes they try to fit us into, can do to us.

 

HP: I have to wonder what page the five points are listed on. None the less, I take it you are a five point Calvinist. Cannot argue with that. Here is one that takes them all hook line and sinker regardless of the logical consequences of such beliefs.

By the way, what was the page reference where one could find these five points listed?

You have stated what IMO is the truth in part, in that these points stand or fall together. When you accept the first as I understand Augustine or Calvin believed, the other point just fall in lock step with one another. For this reason I find that Arminians are the most inconsistent in that they accept the first point but deny the others. I still happily proclaim, “Oh those blessed inconsistencies!”