Featured The Reason why Calvinists and Arminians cannot agree

Best post of the thread. As the Lord looks down, He sees Phd vs Phd explaining His innermost thoughts and purposes. No doubt the Lord has learned an enormous amount of doctrine through these threads. I still wonder if He chose to look at the posts or ordained it in eternity past.

 

This is where you and I differ. I bet there is no one on this forum who is as strongly opposed to all five points of Calvinism as I am -- and yet, I know I can err. Further, I know many Calvinists, and some are my friends. My mom is about as staunch a believer in OSAS as I know; she and I have had passionate discussions on the subject. I would not keep her out of my church -- nor would I keep out EWF, Icon, or you. Although, I doubt any of you would join, I would welcome you and allow you to not only hold your beliefs but also not require that you keep them to yourselves.

 

Excellent! :smilewinkgrin:

 

I have had to do that several times. See how much we have in common?

 

Id say He has an enormous sense of humor & Im positive he laughs at our blunders.

 

That might be debatable Michael.
Some people might think you deny the faith in some areas.
Give the link to your website and let them see for themselves.
Your view of the atonement is not orthodox.
As far as being Baptist, that is up for grabs as well.
I don't know any modern day Baptist that is called "Archbishop."
Nor do I know of any that has belief in successionism that is very similar to the RCC.

 

Out of curiosity MorseOp......if someone told you they were a NCT believer, where would that weigh in at your home church?

 

Well, here we go again.

My view of the atonement is the most orthodox view, as well as the oldest one. The views that came after the first millennium are not "orthodox".

The Full Gospel Baptist Fellowship has bishops.

If you think my views on apostolic succession are very similar to the RCC, you are sadly mistaken.

I know if you had your way you would run me out of the Baptist threads and the Baptist church, but maybe I will accommodate you shortly in both places, voluntarily.

 

No lie.. it is a direct post to yours.

If you believe they are 2 separate gospels then BIBLICALLY I am lost and you are saved. I am speaking to what scripture states not you think and thus my reason for bringing up scripture.

Nope.. I believe you preach the EXACT same gospel that I preach, Moody preached.. and even John Wesley preached.

Unfortunate because you don't understand the gospel message as opposed to (though not expressly separate from) your systematic theology.

While I love Spurgeon, he was wrong in his statement that Calvinism is the gospel. The gospel is the gospel and theology (or systematic theology) is nothing more than man's understanding of God and His work through scripture.
While the gospel is a part of this, the gospel is not any 'ism.

 

Oldest does not always mean orthodox. The RCC supports many of their doctrines with "oldest", as in the Church Fathers views. Many of them held to various heresies.

We are discussing Baptist doctrine are we not. That is the impression I got.
I am not sure what "Full Gospel Baptist Fellowship" is. If you leave the word "Baptist" out you get Full Gospel Fellowship. Is that similar to Full Gospel Association (FGA), thoroughly Charismatic, and nothing like the Baptist Churches we know of today?

That is why I asked for the link. I am going by memory. If my memory serves me correctly I didn't see much difference, especially when one got to the bottom half of the list--from Peter onward.

There are many who take the Baptist name, and it is my opinion that they are not Baptist. But remember that is my opinion. Others may have a much broader opinion than me. I am but one lonely voice. Be thankful for that.

There is another that calls himself a Baptist (you may have noticed). I don't consider him a Baptist either. I don't believe that Baptist doctrine and the Charismatic doctrine can co-exist together. I don't believe in continuing revelation. Is there such a thing as a "Baptist Charismatic church"? I would say only in name, but not in reality. Therefore the person I am referring to is a Charismatic but not a Baptist.

There is another person here that goes to the opposite extreme. If one does not believe in the Calvinistic paradigm, or is not a Calvinist, then he is not saved. That eliminates me. Such an extreme is tolerated, but perhaps it shouldn't be.

Open Theism is not an orthodox doctrine but it is the view of one of the posters here. He is entitled to his opinion no matter how wrong I may believe it is.
It is a place to debate one's views. We aren't going to agree on everything. Some of us have more widely held divergent views than others.

 

2nd question, what if you have not formulated a belief in any eschatology....no Covenant no Dispy.....just plain have not made any conclusions? That would be me at this stage of my spiritual walk.

 

Yes thank you. I have looked at NCT & came to the same conclusions. Yet they try teaching it out here. You have to join this certain church, get re-baptized & then go through a 18 week indoctrination put on by the pastor. I opted out.

 

TCassidy,

In post #92 you defined the gospel as the 5 points of Calvinism, suggesting (along with Aaron) that a non-Calvinistic interpretation of the gospel is not really the gospel. Aaron, in particular, has been more blunt on this accusation than you were, but nevertheless, Allan's response to you is not inappropriate considering your claims.

Also, your post (#92) reveals you have little understanding of our perspective of salvation by Grace through faith. As I explained (and you conveniently ignored) in post #140, we do not believe faith is meritorious, as you fallaciously accused.

 

At 26 pages and counting, I think we can safely re-assign a new top BB Topic:

FORMER #1 Topic: Debating Calvinism vs Arminianism

NEW #1 Topic: Debating why we will keep debating Calvinism vs. Arminianism

:tongue3:

 

I think this thread is much ado about nothing. Now, I am not saying that examining and debating scripture is wrong, on the contrary, it is very good. It is all the vitriol and "my God is bigger than your god", and "I am right, and you are wrong", and "you can not see the truth because of your bias you take when you study", etc. that turns me off.


None of us were saved by our belief systems. When I was a sinner, I couldn't have given you and in depth analysis of what regeneration, sanctification, and justification meant. I knew what salvation meant, and I was devoid of it. I knew Who had it, and I went to Him and pleaded my case as an unworthy sinner, unworthy of His mercy, worthy of eternal punishment, and that without Him, I was going there. Eventhough I had nothing to offer Him in return, He gave me ALL of Him.


Just because I tell people that I had to believe in Him, does not mean I point to myself in the salvation process. It is up to us to believe what He has written about Himself through those who were under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Just because I tell people that I had to pray for my salvation to take place, does not say that I had anything to do with my salvation. God showed me what I really was; a condemned sinner, bound for hell, worthy of going there, and that without His grace, I would be there.

:godisgood: :jesus: :godisgood: :jesus: