For All you Calvinists, and otherwise

That doesn't surprise me in the least. Most Missionary Baptists (that is the split offs from the PBs) claim to be Calvinists. They espouse A.W. Pink in a huge way (or the ones I know do (as do I)).

Like I said in post #58, “It is their belief that “regeneration can remain inactive before it leads to repentance and faith” that gives the Primitives a bad rap.” Those who are unfamiliar with this concept of making a distinction between regeneration and conversion may have problems understanding this.

 

Well, if I had to compare my personal beliefs with what you listed, I come closest to the Arminian belief, although I believe in Preservation of the Saints. I do not believe any Christian saves himself through works, nor can maintain salvation through works. I believe as Jesus said that those who have believed have passed from death to life.

I do not agree with several of your definitions in the next post. I agree with foreknowledge, I believe the scriptures clearly show God knows who will believe before it actually takes place.

I believe your definition of predestination error. Predestination applies only to saved persons.

I agree with your very brief definition of election, however I believe God elected or chose to save those persons whom he knew by foreknowledge would believe.

I do not necessarily agree with your definition of regeneration. The term regeneration is used only twice in scripture and is much different than how a Calvinist defines it.

Faith is OK, Conversion does mean turning.

Adoption does not mean to be adopted in the sense we hold today. We think of a person being legally adopted into a family into which he did not belong today. In the scriptures adoption means "coming of age", when a person is given legal rights. Galations 4 explains.

Gal 4: 1 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.
3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:
4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

When you trust Christ you are born of God. You are an actual son, you are not like a person who belongs to the Smith family by birth and is adopted by the Jones family. In scripture times a child was under tutors until they reached a particular age, at which point they could legally take possession of their inheritance, sign legal documents... This is what adoption in the scriptures speaks of.

I agree with your definition of perserverance.

I disagree with your definition of repentance. Repentance means to change one's mind, not turn from sin. If repentance means to turn from sin then God is a sinner, because the scriptures say God repented several times.

I basically agree with your other definitions.

 

You say there is no “hard determinism”…that’s your opinion and you’re welcome to it, but I see you contradicting yourself straight away. I would argue that at all 5 points of Calvinism hinge on Determinism as a “logical necessity” and that your (Calvinist) attempts to reconcile free will (influence and response) and determinism (cause and effect) is within that logical necessity, and a must to avoid theological fatalism. Like I said prior; I do not buy into the Calvinist teaching attempts to explain away those things which are logically mutually exclusive (free will and determinism).

Unfortunately, like I’ve also already said, I don’t have the time to properly argue this point right now, but my opinion stands, and I’ll put you on my list should I get the chance to go into greater depth on this.

 

All I know is this, if regeneration means to have spiritual life, then you cannot be regenerated until after you trust Christ. Until you trust Christ you are dead in sins, you are condemned already, you will not see life. The scriptures say numerous times that you cannot have life until you believe. So if regeneration means life, then faith precedes regeneration.

 

I have to ask. Outside of doctrine, what was your impression of them? Were they friendly? Did you feel welcome? Were there many? Did they sing well? Did you linger with them after the service?

 

If you'll imagine a few eyebrow raises and a warm wink with my descriptive wording maybe you will not be taking it as so offensively and I won't be wondering if you are being a bit thin skinned.

You were asking about invitation and I offered scripture to show sincere invitation to all. FWIW, I simply offered the scripture. BTW, limited invitation/limited atonement is there big a difference?

 

I feel they were sincere Christians who have a desire to serve the Lord. Yes, they were friendly and I did feel welcome.

We must have sang at least eight or ten hymns, a cappella of course. Some years ago I served as an organ player for one church I attended, so I am partial toward instruments, but the singing was nice. Although I have always had a pretty good knowledge of the hymns Baptists sing, I don't recall seeing any of the hymns we sang Sunday morning in any other hymnal I have used. I did not linger after the service, I needed to get home, so I left.

Although I don't agree with the doctrine, I still count them as brothers and sisters in Christ. I feel the same way toward the Primitive Baptist here on the Baptist Board, and yes Dr. Bob, that includes you! :1_grouphug:

 

Thank you for that honest assessment brother. It meant a lot to me to hear those good words concerning them from you.

 

You and I might should be buddies...

 

glfredrick:

BTW: I wanted to say Thank You for all those "definitions". Really do appreciate it. Currently I am actually reading a book by a "reformed" theologian. Kenneth Keathley. "Salvation and Sovereignty". I do realize, many of the "devoted" reformers probably do not put much "stake" in Dr. Keathley, but I am, for the moment enjoying the read.

 

...........................................

 

I will gladly be "buddies" with anyone, as long as you realize, I like molinism with a heavy lean away from reformation theology. I like molinism for several reasons, one being, that in quantum physics, we now understand the "random" nature of the universe, ie, that to me being interpreted, that God built into the fabric of creation "wiggle room" for some essence of creaturely free will, though I am not convinced of "libertarian" free will.

Mercy, Peace and Love in abundance.

 

I also look at God's purposes in creation and see some "wiggle room" from the classical view of Divine foreknowledge to explain free will. "Libertarian free will" carries so many definitions, depending who is defining, that I generally chose to avoid the label rather than argue the definition.

Blessings

 

I often incur incredible "criticism" with regard to "free will" of creatures, usually with the argument that it "totally discounts" the sovereignty of God. I just fail to see how that is so. For me, it makes God even more Awesome and Sovereign, in that he can "allow" for some elements of free will (randomness) and still accomplish His ultimate purposes in the lives of nations and men.

 

O.K., brother, I have to correct you here. Hyper Calvinism does not equal Supralapsarianism. A person can be a non-hypercalvinist, and a supralapsarian at the same time.

The definition of Hyper-Calvinism, classically speaking, has nothing to do with the order of the decrees. Hyper-Calvinism's sole defining characteristic, is downplaying evangelism because of election. One can be a Supra, or Infra, and a Hyper, or a Supra, or Infra, and a non-Hyper.

 

I'm curious about your comment that God can "allow" for some elements of free will (randomness). I think I need some clarification.

Are you saying that "some elements of free will" means that the will is not completely free? That there are limits? Can those limits imply that regarding free will, God says "this far and no farther?"

Does this then follow to mean that God's sovereignty trumps man's will? If God can limit man's will, can he over-ride it completely?

Then, we still haven't even touched Acts 2:23, "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain;"

One could make the argument that God's foreknowledge springs directly from his determinate counsel, not the other way around. I read from this verse that what God determines today he has determined from eternity. What I don't read from this verse is that God foreknows man's choices and reacts accordingly.

Yet, Peter described those who carried out God's determine counsel as wicked, thus held responsible.

I certainly don't have all the answers, but I can't see God's determinate counsel trumped by man's will. To argue that is to argue that God is at the mercy of man's will, and He can't do some things if man won't let him.

 

Tom, here is what I am trying to say:

I most definitely an convinced that God has created mankind with some degree of "free will". It is my view, that man must use that free will with regards to salvation. I think science (quantum physics and mechanics) has stumbled perhaps on the "wiggle room" that God has, by design forged into creation.

I do believer God is supreme and soveriegn over all, but I aslo believe that He intentionally created, particularly His moral creation with the ability to "choose" or not to "choose".

Quantum physics and mechanics has taught us during this past century, that things are not as "completely certain" as one might think, with respect to the atomic and sub-atomic realm. Personally, I see this as part of God's grand design to allow for freedom for his creation, albeit, within the established parameters He has set forth.

To me, mans ability to choose (free will) in no way takes away from God's Glory or Sovereignty, in fact, I think it highlights God's Greatness even more so.

So, even though you may disagree with me to the existence of "free will" or any degree of freedom, please understand and respect that I hold an "infinitely high" view of YHWH.

 

BTW: If you have interest in some writing integrating physics, science and faith, might I suggest almost anything by Dr. John Polkinghorne.