The bible as a standard

We have some agreement here, but there is nothing in the bible that prohibits infant baptism. In fact there is nothing that prohibits the baptising of livestock! The bible is simply silent about any prohibitions. We, based on knowledge and reason, limit in our own minds that Christian baptism is reserved for believers only. Yet we get baptised in accordance with John's baptism, which is the practice of total emmersion. John's baptism was unto national repentance, that is calling the jews to repent for the Messiah cometh.

Fact is, there are some words that very easily can be interpreted as being inclusive of infants being baptized. Will you concede that "the household" could and would indeed include infants, if infants were part of the household? Especially since there exists no teaching against it.

In the scriptures it says that our works will be judged and rewards will be given. Though not judged unto salvation, our works will receive commensurate rewards that we will lay at Jesus' feet. Since the scriptures do not contractict it, that includes the works of unbelievers as well.

Those works that come through the fire as refined gold, silver and precious stones we will lay at the Saviors feet. Those works that are consumned in the fire like wood hay and stubble, net us no rewards, leaving us empty handed before Jesus. So, there are Good works that unbelievers do that will have a resultant value in God's eyes.

The point to this is that sharply defined dividers do not exist between Calvin's teaching and Armineus' teachings. It is we mere mortals that put up the dividers, not God!

 

There is, indeed, Truth out there. We all do our best to understand and uncover the Truth, which I believe can be found only from God. The problem comes when a group is convinced that they posess a perfect knowledge of this Truth, and that all those who disagree with it are somehow imperfect in their understanding of God. That is what I'm seeing on this board and on others. The truth is, that we all work through the Scriptures to get closer to Truth. It's not that we have different versions of Truth; it is that we have different perspectives on it. We agree on many things - it is that with which we disagree that causes all the empty rhetoric and argumentation that is found far too often here and in Christian circles.

I've read texts by other denominations that say that the Baptist faith in general is suspect according to others interpretations of the Word. I would assume such teachings would apply to the Primitive Baptists. The point is that they would say the exact same thing: The Pentacostals say: "Fortunately we haev a way of resolving whether or not issues have merit. It's called the Bible." You, sorry to say, do not have the monopoly on Sola Scriptura.

Have you ever had a discussion with a member of the Church of Christ? They use the exact same rhetoric when discussing the use of musical instruments in worship. They will say that Baptists are just blind on the issue. Again, same rhetoric is found on both sides of the coin - whatever that coin may be.

Many people have. It can be easily found on a search engine. Again, they will believe just as adamently about the validity of their Scriptures as you would be on the validity of yours.

And the person that has to decide about the burden of proof will do so, to the best of their abilities. Again, you do not have the market cornered on this type of rhetoric. All denominations fully believe in their own validity involving the Scriptures.

Which is what I never said. Truth (capital T) is worth searching for. But what you HAVE to realize is that those who disagree with you, feel that they are just as close (if not closer) to understanding that truth as you are... and they will use much of the same language you do to prove it.

 

I'm pretty sure the Greek Orthodox church does full immersion of babies.

 

I HAVE to? And what if I decide of my own free will not to realize it?

Seriously, if others would use the same language as the Calvinists do, then perhaps there wouldn't be so much frustration on this board. Most of the Arminian arguments here add interpretations and opinions to scripture rather than allowing scripture to speak for itself. So they really aren't using the same language at all. You can say it is otherwise, but if you want an example, I am about to post a new thread with one.

Regardless, I guess I don't see what you're going on about. So everyone has an opinion? Great. And many people whose opinions differ think their views are scriptural? Great. If you are one of them, then present your scripture and your defense. If you think it's senseless to do so because everyone thinks their interpretation of scripture is the "correct" one, then what are you doing here?

 

It seems obvious that you are deciding not to realize it.

Because those who are not Calvinist disagree with your use of language. You are, in effect, saying that the True way of language is your own, without even admitting the possibility that you may be wrong.

And most of the Calvinist arguments here add interpretations and opinions to scripture rather than allowing scripture to speak for itself.

I recognize that the languages are different, because we possess different hermeneutics.

Clearly - because you fail to realize that other people believe just as strongly about their theology as you do.

Never said it was senseless. I merely want to impres upon you that people debate because they believe their interpretation to be the correct one. Many denominations believe in Sola Scriptura - and those denominations disagree on many points, even though they believe in Sola Scriptura.

My theology is completely Biblical and Spirit-driven. I've been on the board for, what, a year?, and shown the theological proofs for my beliefs, just as the Calvinists have. Where we disagree, we disagree. We believe many things similarly. However, it would be good for you to realize that you, more than likely, do not posess a perfect understanding of Truth - you, as the rest of us, are trying to get as close to it as possible while living on this earth.

 

I think you misunderstand. I think the point is simply that in order to have an actual discussion of Calvanism you have to discuss Calvanism in its own terms. If you can refute it on those grounds, tehn you have accomplished something. If you seek to refute calvanism on arminian grounds you accomplish nothing; we already know that calvanism and arminianism are incompatible.

So it isn't a question of arrogance or anything, just communication.

The question is in the application. To say that you have used the Bible to "prove" your beliefs is not the same thing as saying you have used the bible appropriately.

 

Calvinism as a system is pretty congruent. The a priori assumptions that are made tie together nicely with the Scripture and vice versa. The same is true with Arminianism.

If you seek to refute Arminainism on Calvinist grounds, you accomplish nothing as well.

So, Latreia, who gets to decide on how the Bible is used "appropriately?" I assume that all the theologies would maintain that they are being used appropriately. That's another question about lens and the search for understanding of Truth.

 

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but here's what I was talking about:

"Choose this day" infers that we have the free will to choose. It does not say we have the free will to choose. And it does not even remotely address the issue of salvation, grace, mercy, etc.

"It is not of him who wills...but of God who shows mercy" does not infer that it is God's mercy and not our will that matters, it comes right out and says so.

That's the difference in language. The language of Calvinism is to argue from scripture itself. The language of Arminianism is someone's conclusions about the process of salvation based on inference they see in (often unrelated) scripture.

 

And the Arminian would say that it doesn't have to address the issue of salvation, grace, mercy, and so on. The point is that it Joshua assumes that the people do have a choice to choose who they will serve - God or "not God." Why disagree with a plain view of Scripture?

And Arminians will point out Jeremiah's use of the potter to expressly show that what man does determines whether God shows mercy or not.

And perhaps the difference is that you say they are not - The Romans/Jeremiah connection is one where Arminians see a clear connection and Calvinists do not. Arminius argued from Scripture itself and was able to come up with a solid defense for his theological system. Simply because there are some on the board and elsewhere who do not does not mean that Arminianism is wrong.

Again - there are those who are not Calvinists who would strongly say that Calvinists are the ones who are not arguing straight from Scripture. They would be just as right as Calvinists who say that Arminians are not arguing straight from SCripture... and just as wrong at the same time.

Admit it. Calvinists do not have a stranglehold on perceptions of Truth. Every other theological system claims to do so as well.

 

Romans 9:21
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one hessel unto honor and another unto dishonor?

 

He found a strong argument for it, but ultimately did not agree with it. He also found a strong argument in predestination, yet did not believe that either. There are stong arguments for many things, that can be understoon by examining the whole of Scripture.

Which is exactly what non-Calvinists say of Calvinists - "Calvinists are just quoting what they think the Scriptures are saying." Believe it or not, but a lot of people disagree with the Calvinists' interpretation of use of Scripture - which is my point.

Calvinists to prove their point have to add a thought, place random scriptures around that thought. It works both ways - this is the way that many non-Calvinists perceive Calvinists... and isn't perception is some way reality?

Which is what Calvinists do as well. We all come in with assumptions, whether it is that all Scripture is infallible (which isn't a point that one can prove or disprove) or the use of the word "foreknow" in the Scriptures - along with many other things.

Not sure, exactly, what this means - but can you understand the point that I make? The way that many Calvinists see non-Calvinists is exactly the same way that many non-Calvinists see Calvinists... and more than often for the exact same reasons.

 

Truth is TRUTH no matter where it is found. We find great truth in God's World and in God's Word. Let's be humble in our exegesis of the truth and in our applications of it. God's truth will not contradict itself, either in the World or the Word!!!

Truth Seekers: God loved us and sent His son to die for us. That is wonderful TRUTH!!

Rufus