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!

Stop misrepresenting my view!

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Skandelon, Jan 25, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DaChaser1

    DaChaser1 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,324
    Likes Received:
    0
    You do believe that you made the free will choice to place personal faith in Christ, apart from any work by God other than preaching to you the Gospel?
     
  2. mandym

    mandym New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    There are some who want to misrepresent the views of others because they cannot debate the actual merits of the debates.
     
  3. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    First, I do not know for certain what Pelagius actuallly believed. It is easy to condemn a dead man who cannot defend himself. From what I have read, twice he was found not guilty of heresy, and the third time when he was not present to defend himself he was.

    But if Pelagius believed man can come to God without God's grace, I absolutely disagree with this. Without God's word, none of us would know who the true God is, and we would not know Jesus died for our sins and therefore could not possibly believe on him.

    See, I believe God's word is the grace that bringeth salvation that has appeared to all men.

    Tit 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
    12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

    I believe the word of God is the grace that has appeared to all men. Unsaved persons have the word of God if they want to read it and study it, or they can go to church and hear the preaching of God''s word. Men are aware of God's word, it has appeared to them.

    But only those who listen and learn from the word of God get saved. This is a choice, you can choose to listen and learn, or you can turn away in unbelief, that is your choice.

    Jhn 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

    If you believe in Jesus, you did not believe without the word of God. You weren't walking along one day absolutely ignorant of Jesus and then God suddenly zapped you with this knowledge. No, you had to hear the gospel from either reading the Bible, hearing preaching, or someone witnessing to you. So, if you believed, it was because God sent his word into the world and men to preach it.

    This is what you Calvinists cannot seem to grasp. The word of God is powerful and alive. When a man hears the word of God he is enlightened and taught. You would not know how the world was created if the scriptures did not tell you so. You are also convicted by the power of the Holy Spirit to recognize you are a sinner. And you are taught that God loves you and sent Jesus to die for our sins and rise again, and taught that if you believe on him your sins will be forgiven.

    For a non-Cal, this is enough. The word of God has the power to teach and convict a man. By this we are enabled to believe. Not that we have to be supernaturally regenerated to believe, but we have to be taught to believe.

    Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

    Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

    Does Paul say we have to be supernaturally regenerated to believe here? No. He says we must hear. That is our part, we must listen and learn with a willing heart. But without God first providing his word, we would have nothing to believe. You cannot possibly believe what you do not know. So, this is what I mean by enabling, that God provides his powerful word to teach and convict us, and by this alone we are enabled to believe.

    In my opinion, to believe you must be supernaturally regenerated to believe is to deny the power of God's word.

    Jhn 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

    We cannot speak to dead people. Well, we can, but they cannot hear us. But when Jesus speaks, the dead can hear it. He can speak to the dead. And if the dead are willing to hear and believe, then they shall be made alive.

    So, to say that a person must be made alive to hear is to deny that Jesus has the power to speak to the dead, and when he does speak to the dead they can hear him.

    So, I believe Reformed doctrine denies the power of God's word.

    2 Tim 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

    But I am not Pelagian if Pelagius believed any man could come to God without God's grace.

    But if you want to continue to call me a Pelagian, that is OK with me, I am very secure with what I believe. Childish name-calling does not intimidate me at all, knock yourself out.
     
  4. Luke2427

    Luke2427 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    23
    I agree with this 100%. But when I say this kind of thing, I am reprimanded as being a bully or engaging in overkill.

    But regardless, I have said the same thing about Winman numerous times. I cannot help but think that Skandelon MUST know that he, AT THE VERY LEAST, has STRONG Pelagian and Open Theist leanings. What shocks me is that Skandelon never corrects him on them.

    It makes us wonder...
     
  5. Luke2427

    Luke2427 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    23
    I've been gone for months and my name is still defamed and my hard stance for knowing-what-the-heck-you're-talking-about-before-you-talk-about-it is still a thorn in the hearts of people on here.

    I'm flattered.:love2:

    I hope it lingers on- not for my own sake- but for yours.

    I actually hated Calvinists at one point. I hated people who purported that a good seminary education is needful for a minister as a general rule.
    But what that festering bitterness did in me was keep these ideas in the forefront of my mind all the time until one day it occurred to me that my bitterness was really toward my own self for not being able to support my backwards beliefs against the strength of the other side's arguments.

    On one hand I am ashamed of myself for being a fire breathing, King James Only, Anti-Calvinist, education hating fundamentalist.

    On the other, I'm glad for the experience of personally being able to contrast the two worlds.

    And I'm glad for the thorn that brought me to the light.

    STT, I hope it festers in you until it does to you what it did to me.

    I am honored to have been the instrument that placed that in your heart like, to a lesser degree, Stephen's hard words were probably an instrument that helped bring Paul to the truth.
     
    #45 Luke2427, Jan 26, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 26, 2012
  6. Luke2427

    Luke2427 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    23
    The 1689 London Baptist Confession pretty well sums up mine.

    Hope that helps.
     
  7. David Lamb

    David Lamb Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I agree, and have said so several times on the BB. If "Calvinism" meant "following Calvin in everything he believed and taught", not a single baptist could be a Calvinist, because Calvin believed in, taught and practiced paedobaptism. Here, for instance, is a quote from his commentary on Acts 10.47:
    And whereas unlearned men infer thereupon that infants are not to be baptized, it is without all reason. I grant that those who are strangers from the Church must be taught before the sign of adoption be given them; but I say, that the children of the faithful which are born in the Church are from their mother’s womb of the household of thekingdom of God. Yea, the argument which they use preposterously against us do I turn back retort upon themselves; for, seeing that God hath adopted the children of the faithful before they be born, I conclude thereupon that they are not to be defrauded of the outward sign; otherwise men shall presume to take that from them which God hath granted them.
    I never (or very rarely) refered to myself as a Calvinist before joining the Baptist Board. Here, I found, "Calvinism" appears to be used as the usual term for what are sometimes called "The Doctrines of Grace", "Reformed doctrine" and "monergism". A problem with the use of the term "Calvinism" has been that it can give the impression that those who believe such doctrines are following a mere man (John Calvin) rather than the Saviour. I remember writing something like this a few yedars back. I have just done a sefrach for it, and found it in a thread Quotes on Limited Atonement, where I wrote (in answer to a poster who had repeatedly stated that Calvinists elevate Calvin over Christ):
    I can believe in the possibility of someone writing a systematic theology in which the author refuses to give glory to God's name, but instead gives it to Calvin's. However, I have never come across such a work. Of course there are several systematic theologies where the theological standpoint is similar to that of Calvin's, but that is not the same thing as giving glory to Calvin's name instead of God's. Perhaps you could let us know who wrote a systematic theology that glorifies Calvin, at the expense of the glory due to God alone, and give us some actual quotes from it to back up what you are saying.

    The Reformers were very clear, that salvation is by Grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, in the Scriptures alone, and to the glory of God alone.

    I think at least part of the problem is the very name (Calvinism) that is so often given to those beliefs otherwise known as "The Doctrines of Grace" or "Reformed theology". Calvin did not invent what we call "Calvinism". It is just a convenient term for what is called the Doctrines of Grace.

    Incidentally, I found the idea of Calvinism/Doctrines of Grace/Reformed theology being something we need to "own up to" rather strange. If all who believed those doctrines kept the fact quiet, this discussion would not be taking place. :)

     
  8. glfredrick

    glfredrick New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    2
    If you will note my behavior since joining this board some 3000+ posts ago, you will recognize that I have never before made public a PM.

    In this case, I felt that the issue was already a public issue and that the conversation behind the scenes needed exposure to the light of day so I posted it -- including my own remarks.

    I understand the "private" nature of the PM system. But I also understand that some works are done in darkness on purpose and I resolved long ago in my ministry career to expose to light those who do so intentionally. Pastoral care and the private nature of individual conversations is one thing, public affairs on this board, and the covering of the PM system to take them from the public light is another, and I made the call.
     
  9. seekingthetruth

    seekingthetruth New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1,611
    Likes Received:
    0
    I didnt defame your name....you did that yourself

    John
     
  10. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    17
    Spot on. Keeps people from their snide comments behind the scenes. I've employed this exposing a couple who practice these tactics, and it's been awful quiet since, I haven't heard a peep. :)
     
  11. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    1
    Here is one list of essential tenets of Open Theism:
    1. God's greatest attribute is love.
    This attribute of God is often elevated above His other attributes and used to interpret God in such a way as to be a cosmic gentleman who wants all to be saved, mourns over their loss.

    2. Man's free will is truly free in the libertarian sense.
    Man's free will is not restricted by his sinful nature but is equally able to make choices between different options.By contrast, compatibilist free will states that a person is restricted and affected by his nature and that his nature not only affects his free will choices, but also limits his ability to choose equally among different options.

    3. God does not know the future.
    This is either because God cannot know the future because it does not exist, or...It is because God chooses to not know the future even though it can be known.

    4. God takes risks.
    Because God does not know the future exhaustively, He must take risks with people whose future free will choices are unknowable.

    5. God learns.
    Because God does not know the future exhaustively, He learns as the realities of the future occur.

    6. God makes mistakes.

    Because God does not know all things and because He is dealing with free will creatures (whose future choices He does not know), God can make mistakes in dealing with people. Therefore, God would change His plans accordingly.

    7. God changes His mind.
    God can change His mind on issues depending on what He learns and what He discovers people do. Usually, God's change of mind is due to Him being surprised by something for which He didn't plan or expect.

    You may of course delete or add to this list, however I see only 1 or 2 items that you even POSSIBLY in some remote way lay at the feet of Skandelon. Your analysis here, at least according to this definition, is off base.
     
  12. webdog

    webdog Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,696
    Likes Received:
    2
    Why do you keep asking ME questions?!? ANSWER THE QUESTION POSED TO YOU
     
  13. DaChaser1

    DaChaser1 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,324
    Likes Received:
    0

    Thing a problem as regarding the term "Calvinism" is that some here view that as I do, in regards to mainly expressing Sotierology model, the DoG...

    reformed bethren tend to see it including ALL aspects of the theology, salvation just a part of it!
     
  14. DaChaser1

    DaChaser1 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,324
    Likes Received:
    0
    Open theism God might be the God of the philoophers, but is NOT the God of the Bible!
     
  15. Amy.G

    Amy.G New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    4
    philoophers???? New cult? :laugh:
     
  16. glfredrick

    glfredrick New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    2
    Some, perhaps, but typically not Baptists who tend to see "Calvinism" primarily as a framework for understanding soteriology.
     
  17. glfredrick

    glfredrick New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    2
    We should be careful when speaking about philosophers, as we are all one at one time or another. Philosophy is the endeavor by which one searches for "wisdom" (sophia) and we all do that. The way some see or use the term points more to a "secular" view of that wisdom instead of a view that suggests that our wisdom stems from the revelation of God, but that view that holds that wisdom stems from God does not have to be dismissed in order to do philosophy, nor are philosophers who do not even understand or regard God disqualified in their search, for they merely search according to the "other" revelation of God -- His creation (a general revelation versus the more "specific" revelation of His Word).

    In any case, some -- mostly called "liberals" in that their view of Scripture stems from their worldview, which includes a very human understanding above the self-revelation of God -- see that the only way God can really be pleasing to humans who do not regard Him in the same light as the self-revelation of His Word, where He is held to be "all knowing" (etc.), is that God must be limited. And so they present a theological doctrine that suggests just that -- that God is most human-like in His limitations -- He cannot see into the future (or if He can, not in a way where He can see specific ACTIONS of free individuals, those not happening until a "choice" is made) nor can He divinely guide free humans into those actions. So, he (I find it difficult to even capitalize pronouns for God when having this discussion as I do not see that those holding the open theism view of God truly speak about GOD) must observe, learn, take chances, and hope for the best.

    A deficient and weak view of God to be sure. A friend of mine penned a couple of books on the subject that are worth reading. Check out Bruce Ware on any Christian book seller's list.
     
  18. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    1
    And......?

    I guess I don't understand your point.
     
    #58 quantumfaith, Jan 26, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 26, 2012
  19. DaChaser1

    DaChaser1 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,324
    Likes Received:
    0

    Thanks for readdressing this!

    Would agree that Christian Philosophy as an approach to understanding/speculate on the person/nature of God if valid, as long as it uses the scriptures as ultimate source of wisdom in this area...

    I see Open theism as being more the vain man centered musings paul warns us against!
     
  20. DaChaser1

    DaChaser1 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,324
    Likes Received:
    0
    just following up your point, that God of open Theism NOT One have in the Bible!

    Your outlined points pretty much confirms that!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...