Featured The Reason why Calvinists and Arminians cannot agree

We were either foreordained or freely chose to do this....:tongue3: :wavey: :flower:

 

Nope again. It just inflames both sides, and no glory goes to God because of it. God get no pleasure out of His children squabbling with each other. There is no edification when threads deteriorate like this one has.

 

Wouldn't it be great if we could bring in the Jerusalem Council like in the book of Acts and have Peter, Paul and James all speak and make the decision for us like they did back then? When the decision was made, here was the result:

Acts 15:30 (ESV)
30 So when they were sent off, they went down to Antioch, and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter.
31 And when they had read it, they rejoiced because of its encouragement.

We all have the same access to hear them speak today, but we hear different things.
Psalm 133:1 (ESV)
1 Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity!

 

At least one person could have answered post 80. It would only have required a yes, no or maybe.

 

Yes. Indeed, I believe they were both wrong and so did the writers of the Baptist Faith and Message. The majority of Southern Baptists today believe in a moderate or modified version of the two camps.

I believe along with the scholars who penned the BF&M that election should be understood from the 'corporate' perspective, not an overly individualized application (as is common in the more 'Western' approach).

For example, the Calvinist would argue that the individual soul was elected to become a believer; the Arminian would argue that the individual soul was foreknown to be a believer--thus elected; and this "Southern Baptist" would argue that God has elected to saved whosoever believes.

 

Saving belief and regeneration happen at the same time.

 

Winman

No biblical calvinist teaches this.Not one.

Why do you post such nonsense?

 

I agree with you. I have never heard of a case of any significant time lapse between the two and cannot think of an instance in the Bible that indicates such.

 

But Winman is right (in what he has posted). Some Calvinists here have posted that it is possible to have a significant time lapse between the two. Many of them will use Cornelius as a Biblical example. God spoke to him, thus he was regenerated. He heard the gospel and was saved only when Peter came. Look at all the time that passed between. Can God speak to a dead person? the argument would go. Therefore he must have been regenerated but not saved.
I don't believe that, but some do, or some variation of it.

 

Cornelius was a proselyte...like those in acts 19....when the Nt speaks of devout persons...they were Ot saints.....believers who the Spirit worked upon...but after pentecost they were indwelt.

 

Thank you for a response.

 

For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, [who is] our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.

Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh. So then death worketh in us, but life in you.

There we have dead saved folks.

 

The story of Cornelius all takes place within Acts chapter 10. That is after Pentecost. Whether or not he was a proselyte is debatable. Perhaps he was. That is not germane to the story. It happened after Pentecost that Peter had this vision. It happened after Pentecost that God spoke to Cornelius. Pentecost has nothing to do with this story. All of it happened well after Pentecost.

 

I have referenced this group several times, but here it is again: http://fullgospelbaptist.org/

As far as atonement views, I still contend that it is very telling that the earliest Christians who had the same apostolic witness and scriptures that we do, held to the Christus victor view, coupled with the moral influence view, and Christus Victor was held for the first millennium. None of the later Western, Latin views which were held by the RCC and Protestants alike were taught or believed in the earliest churches or for the first 1000 years. These later views came about because of the times in which they were promulgated -- times in which God was viewed in legalist terms: as a stern governor, a feudal lord, or an angry vengeful master.

The CAC has "apostolic succession". My/our view of that is far different from the views of the RCC or even the EOC.

The CAC holds to the core Baptist principles. In some ways we encompass views that go beyond strictly Baptist ones (Celtic and Anabaptist), but I can affirm all the Baptist distinctives that have been referenced on the forum.

If those in charge think I should stop posting in the Baptist threads, I will do that, or if I join a non-Baptist church, I will voluntarily do that.

 

What is NCT?

 

acts 19 happened after pentecost also....they were ot saints in the nt time

It has plenty to do with the story.....

 

new covenant theology....they teach only what is repeated in the nt is valid.they try and do away with the nt lords day/ sabbath. they lead to an antinomianism.