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 Savior versus Sacrament

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by The Biblicist, Jun 26, 2012.

  1. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    49,493
    Likes Received:
    2,548
    Faith:
    Baptist
    you err as so many do regarding how calvinists view salvation, as you seem to make god the puppet master, and we his mindless slaves!

    Could the REAL reason RCC goes against it is that it makes God the sole source of salvation, apart fom the church or works that we do?
     
  2. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I've read Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. I know what He believed. Did you know Calvin made a support for infant baptism?
    Do you know Calvin held to sacramentalism in his view proven from his book? Calvin defines sacraments this way
    Even Calvin believed that the Sacraments minister to people. However, I quoted to you where many modern Calvinist have taken his teaching. Though Calvin himself would never have gone so far.

    So if you do not agree with my post then you fall into this catagory of calvinist. 1) God decreed to make the world and men 2) God decreed the fall (God must therefore be responsible for it.) 3) God decreed to save only those he arbitrarily elected to be saved and the others left in their condition (which is to say by doing nothing he made a decision not to save them which means scripture lied about him willing that all men be saved. God only wills that his elect is saved.) 4) God decreed the cross to save men. 4) God redeems the elect (still no choice). 5) God only applies grace to the elect. Which denies his love for the non elect.
     
  3. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    49,493
    Likes Received:
    2,548
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Again, you er in that you choose to base this upon human statnrds of what would be 'fair/right/just!"
    ALL are sinners, who freely have chosen to rebel and keep sinning... god owes NONE the right to be saved, its solely his grace and mercy that ANY are saved!
     
  4. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I agree with covenant theology and it is how God deals with people. There is biblical support for that throughout the scriptures. And it just shows that you even disagree with the man whom you got your theology through. Because the bottom line of all protestant theology is that each individual is the arbiture of truth there is really no authority over what each person thinks. And every person is authoritative in understanding scripture.

    Which means you prove again my point. In reality there is no truth higher than yours and no authority greater than yours. Calvin was wrong. Luther was wrong, Mantz is wrong, John Smyth is wrong, Oliver Cromwell is wrong, Billy Graham is wrong, Billy Sunday is wrong, John and Charles Wesley are wrong, the Pastor down at the free will baptist church is wrong, Bubba from Alabama is wrong (not that there is anything wrong with Alabama!), You, however, believe you are correct and therefore must conclude you have greater interpative ability than anyone else. And what if every one holds that view? Well, you get 35,000 different denominations each with a twist to their point of view.

    Not at all. I'm just classifying your theological perspective. However, the scriptures say
    So by looking at things as they are when looking at your theological perspective you hold that Man is Totally Depraved which means that
    which means that every intention of man is evil that man cannot of his own accord do something for selfless reasons or be unselfish at any point. Considering this then we must hold that when scriptures tell us that
    we must assume that the image in which we were made is gone and nothing remains. Which means that evil overcame the all the image of God. However, does this play out in reality? No. According to CS Lewis and Kant we can see vestiges of the image of God to prove that he exist by noticing the nature of man. The fact that man universally has a view of Just, or right. That every culture ocnsiders murder to be wrong. That all cultures praise hero's that are self sacrificing going against their own wishes and never does the coward considered a hero. That Mothers lay down their lives for their children. That people do act selflessly. Ad infinitum shows us very much that the image of God still resides in us. However original sin doesn't Totally make one depraved. What original sin does is
    . or our nature was changed that
    But that is different from being totally depraved.
     
  5. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    49,493
    Likes Received:
    2,548
    Faith:
    Baptist
    again, we affirm that in depravity man can and still will do some good works, will be nice to others, its just that due to having a sin nature at war against god, cannot submit ny himself to God, turn to jesus, in order to get saved! will instead creat/make up own religions, and worship a god that suits them...
     
  6. Rooselk

    Rooselk Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    Messages:
    160
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think most church historians - whether Catholic, Protestant, or secular - would disagree with you about that.

    Also, I would not call the Waldenses ancient by any means given that they came into existence in the late middle ages.
     
  7. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    In other words, you take Roman Catholic sources over Waldensian historians?

    Sorry, but I interpret uninspired Roman Catholic selective source materials by inspired prophetic insights on post-apostolic history.

    From that perspective (inspired perspective of future history of the Lord's Churches) I see the so-called Church Fathers as the history of predicted apostasy. It does not take too much common sense to see the seeds of apostasy in the Ante-Nicene Fathers are developing into more expressive apostate doctrine in the Ante-Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers.
     
  8. Rooselk

    Rooselk Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    Messages:
    160
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Biblicist: Heretical groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons hold similar views of church history, which is reason enough to reject such views. But I guess one must grasp at whatever straw one can to explain why the early church doesn't resemble one's particular church today in either practice or points of doctrine.
     
    #128 Rooselk, Jul 7, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 7, 2012
  9. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    The New Testament writers provide a prophetic guide to identifying key characteristics of true churches between the first and second coming, as well as, identifying key characteristics of apostate Christianity which includes JW's and Mormons as well as Catholics.

    Again, you simply choose to accept Catholic interpretation of history over the Waldenses interpretation of their own history.
     
  10. Rooselk

    Rooselk Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    Messages:
    160
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, the view I take is that of the 16th Century Reformers, not the Roman Catholic church.
     
  11. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    The "Reformers' views were basically the same as the RCC. That is why they were called "Reformers." They were Catholics who trying to reform the RCC from within. They had been priests. They were unsuccessful and were, for the most part, excommunicated. But it is doubtful that their view of history changed that much. They had already been brainwashed. It was historians that came afterward, finding documents that were written before the Reformation that we count on.

    Concerning the sacraments and ordinances, read this post:
    http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1866981&postcount=41

    Concerning the history of ancient sects that believed somewhat like Baptists of today, consider that even Catholics like Cardinal Hosius testify to the ancient origin of the Waldenses. Writing in the 16th century he says that they have existed these past 1200 years down to the Apostles.
     
    #131 DHK, Jul 7, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 7, 2012
  12. Bro. James

    Bro. James Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,130
    Likes Received:
    59
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Reference to Cardinal Hosius

    There is an interesting article regarding "Trail of Blood" and Cardinal Hosius quotes. See: Tracing the Cardinal Hosius "Baptist" Quote, by Ben Townsend. Ben did an extensive search to clear up the bibliography questions regarding Cardinal Hosius.

    Peace,

    Bro. James
     
  13. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    49,493
    Likes Received:
    2,548
    Faith:
    Baptist

    Yes, as the reformers believed that God had allowed them to 'rediscover' the truth of salvation by grace/faith Alone in yeshua, and wanted rome to cleanse itself out on the Sotierology end, but they mainly focused on that small segment of theology!
     
Loading...