Defending the truth against the primary so called "proof texts" against Calvinism

In this context, its speaking about the same thing.

 

I am not questioning whether you personally believe, I am glad you do.
But if I accepted Calvinism I know I would be very confused. I know whosoever believes will be saved, but in Calvinism I can do nothing to be saved, I must simply wait for God to regenerate me, and I have no way of knowing if I am regenerated or not. I have no way of knowing what saving faith is. If I do think I believe, not knowing I am regenerated, I could be holding a false faith, a faith of my own that usurps God's sovereignty as the Arminians do.
Therefore, it comes back to knowing if I am regenerated. If so, my faith is real saving faith, if not, it must be a false faith.
So, I cannot truly or simply rely on God's promises, I must necessarily need to know if I am regenerated to have any assurance whatsoever.
This would be a vicious circle of doubt, not faith.

 

I continue to be totally blown away by all the "Baptists" on here who are Calvinists. Calvinism is an absolutely ridiculous belief that I've never seen taught in all my 59 years of being in Baptist churches. Never.

 

And we agree on that too.

completely false and you have been shown this countless times. While yes, regenerate is the first step, Calvinists do not teach that you just sit back and wait. How does one be saved, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Let me ask you, how do you know, Winman, that you have true saving faith?

 

Fine.

Well, now you sound exactly like an Arminian. But I would be filled with doubt if I believed Calvinism. If I had been taught and believed I do not have the ability to have true saving faith unless I was regenerated, I would necessarily worry to know if I was regenerated. That may not worry you, but I know that would worry me. Saying I know I am regenerated because I believe, and that I believe because I am regenerated is circular and proves nothing.

Well, I am not worried that I know how to place my trust in Jesus, I know that I sincerely cast myself upon him and am depending on Jesus alone to save me. Faith is dependence or reliance upon Jesus, not simply believeing a set of facts.

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

Some English translations have "substance", and others don't. It doesn't seem to be a "modern versions" thing, because some very old versions use words like "assurance" or "confidence". Perhaps someone who knows NT Greek could tell us if the Greek word used, upostasiv , could correctly be translated as "confidence" or "assurance". Here is the verse from several English translations:

Now faith is assurance of `things' hoped for, a conviction of things not seen. (American Standard Version, 1901)

Now faith is [the] substantiating of things hoped for, [the] conviction of things not seen. (John Darby's translation, 1890)

Fayth is the grounde of thynges hoped for, the euidence of thynges not seene. (Bishops' Bible, 1568)

Faith is a sure confidence of thinges which are hoped for, and a certaynte of thinges which are not sene. (Coverdale Bible, 1535)

But faith is, of things hoped for, a confidence, of facts, a conviction, when they are not seen; (Rotherham, 1902)

Nowe faith is the ground of things, which are hoped for, and the euidence of things which are not seene. (Geneva Bible, 1587)

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the euidence of things not seen. (Authorised, or King James, Version, 1611)

Now faith is a well-grounded assurance of that for which we hope, and a conviction of the reality of things which we do not see. (Weymouth)

Fayth is a sure confidence of thynges which are hoped for and a certayntie of thynges which are not sene. (Tyndale, 1534)

And faith is of things hoped for a confidence, of matters not seen a conviction, (Young, 1898)
​

Were Coverdale, Tyndale, Rotherham and others using terms other than "substance" mistaken?

 

Baptist, don't think I would call it "ridiculous" but I would most certainly say that in my estimation it not the correct interpretation of the God of Creation.

 

Agreed. I guess "ridiculous" is a harsh word.

 

While I respect the person and impact of Mr. Spurgeon....Calvinism "is not" the Gospel.. The Gospel is the Gospel. Calvinism is simply an interpretation of the Gospel that many share.

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

Some links from Baptists on Calvinism:
http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0573.htm
http://www.learnthebible.org/are-baptists-historically-calvinists.html
http://www.biblebelievers.net/calvinism/kjcalvn1.htm

As I said, I've been a Baptist for over 59 years, and I've NEVER heard Calvinism taught in ANY Baptist church I've been in. BTW, I'm NOT Armenian either! I'm Baptist!

 

There are several problems in the links you provided.

The final link provided is by a KJV only group (or person)--KJV Only being only slightly more ridiculous than a belief in the Easter Bunny.

But, in that final link, the person (or group) make a case against a caricature of Calvinism, not true Calvinism as it is held by many today (or many who held to it in history).

The second and first links seem to argue (the first more blatantly than the second) that the baptist movement started out of the ana-baptists. This could not be more incorrect.

The Baptist movement began as an outgrowth of the British Puritan/Separatist movement. Those who regard the baptist movement having started from the anabaptist are not to be considered as serious historians for they are hopelessly wrong.

The Baptist movement in America was a decidedly Calvinistic movement. The Sandy Creek Baptists, as they were known, were--without a doubt--Calvinists. And the Sandy Creek Baptists are some of the oldest Baptists in America. Despite the academic vandalism of persons such as Ergun Caner, the Sandy Creek--Calvinist connection is without question.

So, while you many not have heard of Calvinism being taught in churches over your 59 years, Calvinism has been "the historic, Baptist" understanding from the beginning.

Of course, as it seems, you are OK to not be a Calvinist. But, your non-Calvinism shouldn't lead you to a faulty understanding of Baptist history. Whether you are ever convinced of the Doctrines of Grace or not History should be much more well respected than it has been in the links you posted...but that's a post for another thread and another time.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

All your point of view, but thank you.

 

I do not know "baptist history" all that well, but irrespective of the "roots" the vast majority of SBC today are NOT reformed in their theology, they are much closer to the Methodist Brothers and sisters, with a primary distinction with respect to OSAS.

 

And just like the methodist(where were Calvinistic at the beginning) denominations change. baptists today come from very reformed groups. This includes the Free will baptists too.

 

points of view, or just historical fact. If someone goes to a free will baptist church, I'm sure he wouldn't never hear Calvinism taught either. But what point does that make?

 

And again, although one should "know" some degree of history, today it is simply not the way for the majority of SBC members.

 

I will have to do some more reading on Baptist History, particularly SB, as I do remember reading some history which indicated that there was a long history of both streams (Cal and Non-Cal). And this was not some "jack-leg" historian, in fact if I remember correctly it was a work by a former Bible professor, Wiley Richards. (But I may be wrong)