This seems, to me, to be an unnecessary complication of what should be a simple Gospel message. Christ died for my sins, therefore my sins are paid for, hung on the cross, and I bear them no more. I am heaven bound. How does that differ from someone for whom Christ died but is not heaven bound?
Does the "everything" include the souls in hell, the demons, and Satan himself? Are they all also to be reconciled to God through Christ's sacrifice?
I believe the ability to repent, believe, and obey are the products of regeneration. Is that what you are saying?
The Nature of Theology
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by JonC, Mar 24, 2016.
Page 5 of 6
-
-
Now if you are speaking of summary and mistakes (like when you said that was referring to your beliefs as Gnostic heresy when in fact I was not), then I will grant I could have misunderstood something you said. But please be very careful when you accuse me of editing your posts. I understand mistakes, but where you are going is more serious than mere misunderstanding or oversight.
My suggestion is to handle this via PM (you can invite others to the conversation as well) so as not to hijack this thread and risk attacking another on what could be misunderstanding.
The ball is in your court. Let's see where you are led, where you choose to go from here. -
We can say that Christ died for our sins, and that WE have been purchased with a price. I am not denying that simple truth at all. Your statement, however, concerned my view of "limited atonement," which is more than a simple "Christ died for me" type of statement.
-
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
But the result was....the last half of my post disappeared, then you said I spoke against the very thing that I posted in the missing second half of my post.
As far as pm goes.....no....I am not going there as I have also seen things I posted in pm Be twisted into something I did not say.....
All posting with you will be in the open and public until I can establish an element of trust....
As to no longer derail this thread I will start a new thread to deal with this.... -
If we don't get our Soteriology correct, our Christology will, necessarily, be flawed. And if our Christology is flawed then our Theology of the Godhead will be equally flawed. And if our understanding of the Godhead is flawed all the rest of our Theology will suffer from that flaw.
The Ordo Salutus is not temporal, but logical. It is expounded, not to generate a sequence of time, but a logical sequence that disabuses us of any false concept of "innate" faith, or that a lost man must repent first, or muster up some faith first, or has something innate in him that can be exercised unto salvation. The Ordo Salutus is to emphasize that "salvation is of the Lord" and not the result of any innate faith, or goodness, or acceptability, or merit on the part of man.
Lost man not only cannot come to Christ, he will not come to Christ. His lost condition prevents it. -
-
-
My statement was a passage of Scripture, that we repent and believe (as I believe these are a part of, not a product of or a process to, salvation). Those who will be saved are those who believe, those who will not be saved are those who will not believe (here looking at that final salvation), but this is God’s work. God takes out our old heart, puts in a new one. He puts a new spirit in us…puts His Spirit in us. At that point we are not, IMHO, unbelievers without faith. That is not complicated theology. It is “repent and believe”…two words describing one thing.
I understand that Ordo Salutus is not temporal, but logical. I disagree that it is necessary to divide salvation into logical orders. But I understand the concept.
Perhaps I’ll answer the next part a bit later. I’m a little disgusted with this thread (not you) and am starting to decide it’s not worth it. -
Sometimes that is correct and sometimes it is wrong.
I understood you to be saying that none of us has a complete knowledge of the scriptures and therefore none of us can claim absolute understanding. And with that I agree. :)
However, I do believe we tend to over-think some things, making the simple complex. I know I do. When I do so I tend to make things more difficult than they need to be and it is only when I get back to the simplicity of Christ that the light begins to dawn in my otherwise clouded thinking. :)
By the way, I only use the term "calvinist" as a form of short-hand. I am certainly not a "Calvinist" in the normal usage of that term. I do not self-identify as a "Calvinist" because the word itself engenders so much needless strife.
I am a Particular Baptist. I believe in Particular Redemption. I believe Calvin was wrong on many things. But he was right in his Soteriology. But I am an Historic, Particular, Chilliastic Baptist. But try not to over-think it! :)
Because of our human limitations it is necessary for us to examine Eternal Truth in time even though that imposes a temporal limitation on Eternity. But as our finite minds are incapable of comprehending Infinity we have no other recourse. We simply lack the capacity to grasp all of His Eternal Truth is a single giant bite. Therefore we form logical constructs such as the Ordo Salutus. :)
-
And for the most part I have also found this thread interesting. Unfortunately it seems to have departed from its original topic (except perhaps as illustration). But it has been interesting.
Sent from my TARDIS -
And remember this is coming from a guy who spent over 40 years in vocational ministry, 25 of those years as a Seminary Professor.
I once had a student tell me, in class, that he was pre-trib. Fine. I lean that way myself. But I asked him to give a biblical reason he was pre-trib. He just looked at me and sputtered. He knew what he believe but did not know why he believed it.
The same is true of many who self-identify as a "non-calvinist" (I won't use "Arminian" as most Arminians don't self identify as Arminians because they have no clue what an Arminian actually is).
They have been taught: Calvinism - - - Bad. Bad. Bad Calvinism.
And the same is true of many who self-identify as a "Calvinist."
They have been taught: Arminianism - - - Bad. Bad. Bad Arminianism. Good Calvinism. Good. Good.
And that. unfortunately, has plumbed the depth of their Theological acumen. :( -
I attend a SBC that affirms OSAS (which, BTW, I don't like because of it's presentation). We have people who have left to attend a neighboring free-will baptist chruch and others who move to a Nazerine church. When talking to them they will explain the reasons for the move, but you know what? It is NEVER doctrine. As far as they know the doctrine is the same. We have got to do a better job as a whole teaching doctrine.
Sometimes I think that churches are merely trying to provide the right answers. "The answer is 'C'." It doesn't matter why C is the answer as long as you know it is.
You will probably disagree with me here, but I would rather attend a free-will church that knows what it believes than a Reformed church that only knows what to believe. You can dialogue with the first, but you will always just be a heretic to the latter. -
Ok...I'm better now. We're working with my mother-in-law (she lived with us for the past several years but we had to move her into a nursing home due to dementia). Add to that finishing my tax returns and I've had a fairly rough weekend.
Arminianism Bad....Calvinism Good....Good...Calvinism....huh?.....your brain washing technique is starting to take. :confused:
-
I attend an SBC church in Texas that is pretty run of the mill SBC. We are very conservative (sometimes to a fault) and firmly believe in eternal security (and I agree OSAS is usually poorly presented). Out of our average Sunday morning attendance of around 700 (of which I pastor an outreach ministry to a local senior retirement park with around 140-150 in attendance) I would guess I am in the minority soteriologically. Perhaps as many as 1/3 of us could be described as Founders Friendly. But we make sure it never becomes a matter for divisiveness. My public stance is "What matters is that you are in Christ, not how you think you got there!"
Most people who leave good bible preaching churches do so for all the wrong reasons, usually over something minor.
When I was in Seminary the Seminary President once said that in his 60 years of ministry he had never had a church split. He had been a logger as a young man and said when he was splitting a log sometimes he would miss and only get a little sap and bark. He would then say he never had a church split, just lost a little bark and sap.
The Seminary Dean of Faculty was a little more pointed. He used to say, of those who left for silly reasons, "Even the Body of Christ needs a bowel movement now and then. Makes the rest of the Body more healthy." :D -
1 Timothy 4:6 If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.
13 Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.
16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them:
5:17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
6:3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
2 Timothy 3:10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
Titus 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
2:1 But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:
7 In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity,
:) -
You said that the discussion starts with soteriology. We may not completely agree, but I do believe that brethern can move forward as long the disagreements are known.
Like I said before, I do believe in the depravity of man, unconditional election, particular redemption, efficacious grace, and the eternal security of the believer. I hope that you can at least understand why I reacted against some comments, even if my reaction was misplaced.
I think that we may differ in how we view those doctrines, I believe it is mostly in the extent of the atonement. Here I agree with John Piper (who, depending on who you ask, is a Calvinist). For all men the death of Christ is the foundation of the free offer of the gospel. Whosoever believes will not perish – God sent His Son for everyone. God is the Savior of all people (1 Tim. 4:10) in that Christ died to provide a valid offer of forgiveness to all, and everyone who trusts Christ would be saved. When the gospel is preached, Christ is offered to all without discrimination. And this offer is legitimate. Piper future notes that the gospel does not offer a possibility of salvation, it IS the possibility of salvation. What is offered is Christ.
All men are the intended beneficiaries of the cross in some sense. Christ is the savior of all men, especially of those who believe. But he is especially the Savior of those who believe. Jesus died for all men, but he did not die for all men in the same sense. He died as a propitiation for the sins of men (as Calvin notes, the world being all man indiscriminately). But He died to save the Church.
So do I affirm particular redemption? Yes. Do I believe that the Atonement as a whole is limited to the elect? No, as this sometimes gets carried too far IMHO. Do I believe that on the Cross all was forgiven? I believe that our Sin (our sinfulness, our fallen nature) was forgiven at the Cross but that we still have to be forgiven for our sins throughout our lives (based on the Cross, in Christ as Mediator). -
The idea that our sins after salvation are not paid for on the cross is a dangerous proposition, if that is what you are saying. It is the cross and the cross alone that pays the penalty for our sin. And that penalty was paid, in full, on the cross. Our confession has nothing to do with our relationship to Christ, only our fellowship. If we fail to "ask forgiveness" for a sin what happens? You are aware, I am sure, that the New Testament never teaches that we should "ask forgiveness." Only confess our sins and thus claim the forgiveness already purchased on the cross. And that only to restore fellowship, never relationship. -
It was a great burden. But one we gladly shared. And we miss them both. :) -
-
I’m still going back catching up on questions. :)
My experience has been that I fit in very well with Calvinists, particularly “Classical Calvinism”, but often find myself at odds with Internet Forum Calvinists. I almost went to a Reformed Baptist church a while back, but a group on this board (and another forum) made me reconsider. (I’m not kidding here, my wife and I intended on attending a small Reformed Baptist Church that Paul Washer spoke at a couple of years ago, but after looking at this board I reconsidered and she flatly refused….and not because of the theology). But like I said, insofar as soteriology goes I am calvinistic...but not a Calvinist.
Page 5 of 6