The Five Solas
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by ReformedBaptist, Sep 1, 2007.
Page 6 of 7
-
TCGreek said:1. Skypair, I consider you a brother in the Lord, but frankly speaking, it seems that your stance against Calvinism has sapped you of sound reasoning.
2. Like being born physically and growing up, we get to the point in our development, where through more knowledge, we're able to make sense of how the journey all began, but as a day year old child, we have not the slightlest clue.Click to expand...
Why is it that Calvinists (and guess I am one) feel the need to demean or cut down the other side? It is not a salvation issue, it is not a issue of heresy either way, and quite frankly, way too much flapping of the jaws goes on about it.
I do not see the people who are for the free will position cutting down the other side. I do not see free will posters using dead theologans for avatars. -
saturneptune said:This is why I stay out of the Calvinism threads. The doctrines of grace and sovereignty make more Biblical sense to me than the free will doctrines, but there are plenty of well educated, well thought out posts in favor of the free will position. I believe I am correct in my stance, but only eternity will tell.
Why is it that Calvinists (and guess I am one) feel the need to demean or cut down the other side? It is not a salvation issue, it is not a issue of heresy either way, and quite frankly, way too much flapping of the jaws goes on about it.
I do not see the people who are for the free will position cutting down the other side. I do not see free will posters using dead theologans for avatars.Click to expand...
2. If you haven't seen free-willers cut down those who are called calvinists I would say you haven't read their posts.
3. I think there is sound, loving reasons to engage this controversy. -
saturneptune said:This is why I stay out of the Calvinism threads. The doctrines of grace and sovereignty make more Biblical sense to me than the free will doctrines, but there are plenty of well educated, well thought out posts in favor of the free will position. I believe I am correct in my stance, but only eternity will tell.
Why is it that Calvinists (and guess I am one) feel the need to demean or cut down the other side? It is not a salvation issue, it is not a issue of heresy either way, and quite frankly, way too much flapping of the jaws goes on about it.
I do not see the people who are for the free will position cutting down the other side. I do not see free will posters using dead theologans for avatars.Click to expand...
2. Why the sweeping generalizations if you don't have an ax to grind? -
ReformedBaptist said:1. I love dead theologians.
2. If you haven't seen free-willers cut down those who are called calvinists I would say you haven't read their posts.
3. I think there is sound, loving reasons to engage this controversy.Click to expand... -
TCGreek said:1. Then you should stay out completely and not make these one-sided comments.
2. Why the sweeping generalizations if you don't have an ax to grind?Click to expand...
I come and go to threads as I choose, without your permission.
While I do not agree with Skypair very often, he does not use phrases like "you are sapped of sound reasoning" and "you dont have a clue." Remember, fingers point back. -
1. I will kindly ask you that when you are representing someone, take all that they say into consideration.
a. If the person was responding to someone else statements, find out what those statements were.
b. I will also encourage you not to cut and paste, without a full representation.
2. Beyond what I say here, I have nothing more to add. God bless. -
TCGreek said:1. I will kindly ask you that when you are representing someone, take all that they say into consideration.
a. If the person was responding to someone else statements, find out what those statements were.
b. I will also encourage you not to cut and paste, without a full representation.
2. Beyond what I say here, I have nothing more to add. God bless.Click to expand...
2. Whether part or full statement, name calling is not right.
3. There was no copying and pasting. The full quote is given.
4. Beyond what I say here, I have nothing more to add. God bless. -
Can you demonstrate for me where I've called anyone names?
-
"you dont have a clue" those are not my words, but somehow you have tied them to me.
-
TCGreek said:Can you demonstrate for me where I've called anyone names?Click to expand...
2. Like being born physically and growing up, we get to the point in our development, where through more knowledge, we're able to make sense of how the journey all began, but as a day year old child, we have not the slightlest clue. -
saturneptune said:1. Skypair, I consider you a brother in the Lord, but frankly speaking, it seems that your stance against Calvinism has sapped you of sound reasoning.
2. Like being born physically and growing up, we get to the point in our development, where through more knowledge, we're able to make sense of how the journey all began, but as a day year old child, we have not the slightlest clue.Click to expand...
2. My second statement is an analogy of a newborn baby "not having the slightest clue" of what a grown up would eventually know. Please, read my comments in context.
3. Notice I said "we" including myself.
4. If I've offended Skypair, I will apologize to him. -
TCGreek said:skypair said:1. Skypair, I consider you a brother in the Lord, but frankly speaking, it seems that your stance against Calvinism has sapped you of sound reasoning.Click to expand...
In the big scheme of things, how did Christianity or Judaism survive without Calvinism?? I should have thought that if we were supposed to believe it that Jesus would have started right out preaching it, Jew or not.
What are the foundations/beginnings of it? Absolute sovereignty of God -- which means He in no wise avoids responsibility for our sin. Fate -- man has no control over his life, "que sera, sera." Catholicism -- infant baptism, Eucharistic grace, sacral society (state is "arm" of church), no dispensational difference between elect Israel and elect church, "traditions" of Calvinism considered as important as the Bible to faith and practice, etc.
2. Like being born physically and growing up, we get to the point in our development, where through more knowledge, we're able to make sense of how the journey all began, but as a day year old child, we have not the slightlest clue.Click to expand...
skypairClick to expand... -
I have to admit, bro, that perhaps I am at the end of any rationales that might convince you to change your doctrine.Click to expand...
In the big scheme of things, how did Christianity or Judaism survive without Calvinism?? I should have thought that if we were supposed to believe it that Jesus would have started right out preaching it, Jew or not.Click to expand...
What are the foundations/beginnings of it? Absolute sovereignty of God -- which means He in no wise avoids responsibility for our sin. Fate -- man has no control over his life, "que sera, sera." Catholicism -- infant baptism, Eucharistic grace, sacral society (state is "arm" of church), no dispensational difference between elect Israel and elect church, "traditions" of Calvinism considered as important as the Bible to faith and practice, etc.Click to expand...
TC, you admit living with issues in your faith that don't make sense --- that Calvinism can't explain for you. Just maybe Calvinism is not "the complete story."Click to expand...
skypair\ -
saturneptune said:Why is it that Calvinists (and guess I am one) feel the need to demean or cut down the other side? It is not a salvation issue, it is not a issue of heresy either way, and quite frankly, way too much flapping of the jaws goes on about it.Click to expand...
And unfortunately, free willers see it as a salvation issue. Here's how free will sees it --- Calvinism is and "addendum" to Christianity (similar to "The Book of Mormon," the RCC Catechism, etc.) that tells people they don't have to, in fact CAN'T, repent and receive Christ in order to be saved because they can do nothing "decisional" to choose their own salvation. Obviously, that thinking is diametrically opposed to scripture. There is not an instance I can think of in scripture where those being offered salvation didn't believe in the name of Christ, repent, and THEN receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit (regeneration/new birth).
The citations that Calvinists use to "prove" their "doctrines of grace" are places where a person is getting saved --- they are instances where the process is truncated in order to show some particular aspect of the process (such as God's pre-creation plan to save mankind).
skypair -
skypair said:TCGreek said:I have to admit, bro, that perhaps I am at the end of any rationales that might convince you to change your doctrine.
In the big scheme of things, how did Christianity or Judaism survive without Calvinism?? I should have thought that if we were supposed to believe it that Jesus would have started right out preaching it, Jew or not.
What are the foundations/beginnings of it? Absolute sovereignty of God -- which means He in no wise avoids responsibility for our sin. Fate -- man has no control over his life, "que sera, sera." Catholicism -- infant baptism, Eucharistic grace, sacral society (state is "arm" of church), no dispensational difference between elect Israel and elect church, "traditions" of Calvinism considered as important as the Bible to faith and practice, etc.
TC, you admit living with issues in your faith that don't make sense --- that Calvinism can't explain for you. Just maybe Calvinism is not "the complete story."
skypairClick to expand...
I know you don't agree with the doctrines I believe, but please will you at least accept that those who do believe those doctrines don't do so because Calvin (or anyone else) taught them, but because that is what we firmly believe the bible teaches? I and others have made similar requests to you before, but apparently to no avail, as you continue telling us that we believe the bible plus Calvin's works. If I believed things just because Calvin taught them, then I would not be a baptist.
Genuine Christians have different understandings about many things, not just the matter of Calvinism-Non Calvinism. We see that on this Board. Some believe in a literal 6-day creation, some don't. Some are premillennial, some postmillennial, some amillenial. Just two examples of the many that could be given. Yet surely we all believe that "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God," that "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners", and that sinners must "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. You seem to pick out this Cal-non Cal business, attack the other "side", and give the impression (I trust you don't mean it) that you know everything there is to know about the bible. I'm thinking of the way you say to TC that he "admits" to not understanding everything he believes, in fact in another thread you actually seemed to be saying that you yourself have a complete understanding of God's Word.Click to expand... -
David Lamb said:Skypair, you are continuing to tell us what we believe, then argue against your definitions. I am a hundred percent certain that no one on this Board whom you refer to as "Calvinist" believes that man has no control over his life, or believes in "fate", or holds to Doris Day's "Que Sera Sera, Whatever will be will be". And your apparent suggestion (maybe I have misunderstood you) that Calvinistic baptists believe in Catholicism, infant baptism, Eucharistic grace, and the idea that the church is an "arm" of the state, is absolutely ridiculous and wrong. Neither I, nor (I imagine) anyone else writing in the Baptist Only forums on the BB believes such things. (I have left out your last example, the matter of Israel and the church, because there are varying views on this among all Chrtistians on this matter. I know Calvinists who believe that the elect church and the elect of national Israel are two separate things, and I know of non Calvinists who believe as I do that the two are one.)
I know you don't agree with the doctrines I believe, but please will you at least accept that those who do believe those doctrines don't do so because Calvin (or anyone else) taught them, but because that is what we firmly believe the bible teaches? I and others have made similar requests to you before, but apparently to no avail, as you continue telling us that we believe the bible plus Calvin's works. If I believed things just because Calvin taught them, then I would not be a baptist.
Genuine Christians have different understandings about many things, not just the matter of Calvinism-Non Calvinism. We see that on this Board. Some believe in a literal 6-day creation, some don't. Some are premillennial, some postmillennial, some amillenial. Just two examples of the many that could be given. Yet surely we all believe that "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God," that "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners", and that sinners must "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. You seem to pick out this Cal-non Cal business, attack the other "side", and give the impression (I trust you don't mean it) that you know everything there is to know about the bible. I'm thinking of the way you say to TC that he "admits" to not understanding everything he believes, in fact in another thread you actually seemed to be saying that you yourself have a complete understanding of God's Word.Click to expand...
If all the Calvin-free will posts were as gracious and well thought out as yours, there would be no problems. Your thoughts reach a level of excellence I have not seen approached on this board. -
saturneptune said:Mr. Lamb,
If all the Calvin-free will posts were as gracious and well thought out as yours, there would be no problems. Your thoughts reach a level of excellence I have not seen approached on this board.Click to expand...
Even if it really is as you say, I can assure you that there are other areas of my life where I need God's help to overcome those "sins that so easily beset me."
Thank you again. -
ReformedBaptist said:I wanted to take the liberty to respond your post to TC. I hope it doesn't offend you.Click to expand...
My desire and pray to God has been first and foremost to bring honor and glory to God by being uncorrupted in doctrine.Click to expand...
But this thing about "uncorrupted doctrine" --- isn't Calvinism just the "Cliff's Notes" for the Bible? Not even written by the original author, it's Calvin's and others' gleanings from the original work, right?
My aim toward my brethren has been to strengthen them and build them up in Christ, if God would so give me the grace to do so, and to remove error from their minds, not so I could merely remove error, but so that by so removing they would bear more fruit in the truth.Click to expand...
Of course, you understand that this presupposes that we learned "Calvinism" outside of our holy faith, outside the Holy Scriptures of truth, and outside of Christ.Click to expand...
I would also say that true "Reform faith" (not maybe the Baptist version) IS outside the faith barely nibbling on scriptural truth and most of its adherents, as in the general population, outside of Christ. And it is easy to grow in grace while not being saved --- good works have their reward! I would say that Christ's words to Sardis were prophetic of the Reform successor to Thyatira.
I would say that the most perverse tenet of the system is that it pushes people away from "decisional salvation."
But as for us, we have found the foundations of what we believe in Scripture.Click to expand...
When we do not find the pagain idea of fate in Scripture, we do not confess it.Click to expand...
When we do not find infant baptism, eucharistic grace (transubstantiation), sacral society, or dispensationalism in Scripture, we do not confess them.Click to expand...
Have you comprehended all mysteries? Have you all knowledge? Are we to correctly understand you here that there is nothing in Scripture that you do not understand?Click to expand...
skypair -
David Lamb said:skypair said:Skypair, you are continuing to tell us what we believe, then argue against your definitions. I am a hundred percent certain that no one on this Board whom you refer to as "Calvinist" believes that man has no control over his life, or believes in "fate", or holds to Doris Day's "Que Sera Sera, Whatever will be will be".Click to expand...
And your apparent suggestion (maybe I have misunderstood you) that Calvinistic baptists believe in Catholicism, infant baptism, Eucharistic grace, and the idea that the church is an "arm" of the state, is absolutely ridiculous and wrong.Click to expand...
I know you don't agree with the doctrines I believe, but please will you at least accept that those who do believe those doctrines don't do so because Calvin (or anyone else) taught them, but because that is what we firmly believe the bible teaches?Click to expand...
I and others have made similar requests to you before, but apparently to no avail, as you continue telling us that we believe the bible plus Calvin's works. If I believed things just because Calvin taught them, then I would not be a baptist.Click to expand...
Genuine Christians have different understandings about many things, not just the matter of Calvinism-Non Calvinism.Click to expand...
Some believe in a literal 6-day creation, some don't. Some are premillennial, some postmillennial, some amillenial.Click to expand...
... and that sinners must "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation.Click to expand...
You seem to pick out this Cal-non Cal business, attack the other "side", and give the impression (I trust you don't mean it) that you know everything there is to know about the bible. I'm thinking of the way you say to TC that he "admits" to not understanding everything he believes, in fact in another thread you actually seemed to be saying that you yourself have a complete understanding of God's Word.Click to expand...
skypairClick to expand...
Page 6 of 7