Unpoll for petal pushers

1. Do you consider yourself a Calvinist?
I did once, but not anymore.
2. Are you a hardsheller?
Yes.
3. Are you an evangelical Christian?
Not in a sense that is understood by this term. I believe we should preach the Gospel of Christ but that the purpose of this is not to save people, instead it is to convert them to the Gospel. Christ has saved his people already.
4. Are you a Calvinist who doesn't believe in evangelizing?
No.
5. Are you a hardsheller that doesn't believe in evangelizing? See #3
6. What baptist denom do you consider yourself? I am in a missionary Baptist church. But I don't consider the Baptist to be a denomination.
7. What's the one part of tulip you would disagree with if you HAD to pick? Don't go saying you wouldn't, just pick one.
Perserverance of the saints. Perserverance puts the ultimate condition of the child of God proportionate to his/her works. Preservation begins and ends through the Sovereign Grace of God and I believe is more consistent with the whole TULIP.

God Bless
Bro. Dallas

 

1. Yes.

2. No

3. Yes

4. All Calvinists believe in evangelizing.

5. No

6. My church is affiliated with the Baptist Union of Western Canada.

7. Can't answer that question. Sorry....

 

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

just Baptist, no modifiers

Maybe perseverance, though I don't necessarily disagree with the way I would explain it. I prefer the terminology "preservation in the grace of God." Or maybe we could go with roses instead of tulips.

 

1. Do you consider yourself a Calvinist?

Yes

2. Are you a hardsheller?

Not Really - I picked the name to honor my deceased Uncle who referred to himself as a Hardshell Baptist.

3. Are you an evangelical Christian?

Yes - If you mean Evangelistic
No - If you mean do I agree with everything in contemporary evangelical circles.

4. Are you a Calvinist who doesn't believe in evangelizing?

No

5. Are you a hardsheller that doesn't believe in evangelizing?

NO

6. What baptist denom do you consider yourself?

Southern Baptist

7. What's the one part of tulip you would disagree with if you HAD to pick? Don't go saying you wouldn't, just pick one.

L - Limited Atonement

 

1. Do you consider yourself a Calvinist?... No way I'm a Primitive

2. Are you a hardsheller?... No I'm a Hardshaller and there is a difference... To our foes we are hardshellers but to ourselves we are hardshallers!

3. Are you an evangelical Christian?... I believe in evangelizing those who are converted as they are ready to receive the message and we can share Jesus Christ!

4. Are you a Calvinist who doesn't believe in evangelizing?... No just a Primitive who see evangelizing among God's coverted children which is desperately needed!

5. Are you a hardsheller that doesn't believe in evangelizing?... I believe it but my interpretation is different!

6. What baptist denom do you consider yourself?... Primitive Baptist

7. What's the one part of tulip you would disagree with if you HAD to pick? Don't go saying you wouldn't, just pick one... Don't disagree with the TULIP only the Calvinist interpretation of some of the points of it!... Can one be saved eternally without the written Gospel being preached? ... Brother Glen

 

Gina, I was kidding about preferring roses to tulips as stated above, but some people do prefer Timothy George's R.O.S.E.S. acrostic:

Radical Depravity
Overcoming Grace
Sovereign Election
Eternal Life
Singular Redemption

I probably couldn't come up with a flower, but prefer terms something like this: Total Inability, Unconditional Election, Specific Atonement, Effectual Call, and Preservation of the Saints.

 

Post removed due to disregard of the topic starter's request.

[ September 17, 2003, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Yes

No

Yes

No ... Any such Calvinist would be a disobedient believer.

No ... Any such hardsheller would be a disobedient believer.

Independent Fundamental

I like Brother Robert's answer on this. I would define them differently. The one that is most often understood is limited atonement although total depravity runs a close second.

 

Both of these are still confusing to me. Why evangelize someone who is already saved?? The Bible talks of evangelism so that people will be saved. The Bible never describes a person as "saved" prior to their conscious belief. In fact, the Bible specifically says that the elect are not saved until they believe (2 Tim 2:10). Why is the biblical terminology not good enough for you guys?

 

Pastor Larry,

Was Peter already saved prior to being converted? (brought back)

If not, then the whole system of believer's baptism is going to have to be redefined.

How is Peter going to strengthen his brethren?

Eternal salvation and timely salvation are very different topics. Anywhere there can be seen a condition placed upon salvation you have deliverance in time.

Otherwise you essentially have not left the Law which declares do this and live, and have not fully come under Grace which declares the just shall live by faith.

I know this will not serve to clear up your misunderstandings, but that misunderstanding IMHO is associating scripture which are conditional as speaking of eternal salvation.

Also, as I think I said above, perserverance places a condition upon Grace. Preservation does not place this condition.

What is meant is that only believers of the Gospel message will repent. The biblical command is certainly to repent, yet the carnal man cannot do this. The message is then to the regenerated quickened individual to repent of his sins and turn to Christ. Otherwise you simply have decisional regeneration with the difficulties in understanding how a person dead in trespasses and sins can obey God, yet declare that Salvation is all by Grace.

The scenario breaks down to the teaching that God provided the way, but man must accept (believe) that way and walk therein, while at the same time declaring there is an elect.

To me these are confusing and cannot be reconciled.

Hope that does help somewhat in explaining at least what I mean when I say the Gospel message converts and not regenerates nor quickens.

Jesus declared this in John Chapter 3 right along with the declaration of the need of being born again:

God Bless
Bro. Dallas

 

Your last post makes this scripture unequivocally state eternal salvation is conditional, if you make this passage speak of eternal salvation. What is 'obtain' what is the 'eternal glory'?

Here Paul says 'Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, (speaking of the elect, the whole body of folks Paul cannot identify, who are part of the elect who will receive eternal salvation)

'that they may also obtain'

Strong's says of obtain the following:

G5177
τυγχάνω
tugchanō
toong-khan'-o
Probably for an obsolete τύχω tuchō (for which the middle voice of another alternate τεύχω teuchō [to make ready or bring to pass] is used in certain tenses; akin to the base of G5088 through the idea of effecting; properly to affect; or (specifically) to hit or light upon (as a mark to be reached), that is, (transitively) to attain or secure an object or end, or (intransitively) to happen (as if meeting with); but in the latter application only impersonally (with G1487), that is, perchance; or (present participle) as adjective usual (as if commonly met with, with G3756, extraordinary), neuter (as adverb) perhaps; or (with another verb) as adverb by accident (as it were): - be, chance, enjoy, little, obtain, X refresh . . . self, + special. Compare G5180.

Then to make this passage say what is commonly believed of it makes it to say that the Sacrifice of Jesus was not sufficient to 'save his people from their sins.'


God Bless
Bro.Dallas

 

Yes, but "converted" in that passage is not the same as "conversion" as it is used in theology. That is comparing apples to oranges (the source of a lot of theological misunderstanding).

Soteriology is not about deliverance in time. To speak of "salvation" in those terms is not to speak of soteriology. Soteriology deals with eternal salvation and it is always conditioned on belief and repentance in Scripture, never apart from it. There is no such thing as "timely deliverance" in the doctrine of soteriology. In many cases, true salvation hastens one departure from this earth, not prolongs it.

But you have again confused two different things. Preservation is God's work; perseverance is ours. And perserverance is not a condition, it is an evidence. Failign to understand the temporal references to perserverance and soteriology confuse this in your mind. Preservation is not perseverance. Do not confuse them.

I agree with this but there is no confusion in this. This is fully explained in the Scripture as shown in teh Calvinistic soteriology. There is no conflict here.

Key words being "to me." To the rest of us, we have no problem with this. We must simply take Scripture for what it says and I fear that is what you are not doing on this regard. There is no conflict between salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone and repenting and believing. The Scripture that teaches one surely teaches the other. WE cannot dispense with one or the other. We must hold to both.

Not in the least.

And this is the same Christ that declared belief necessary for salvation. To affirm one part of his teachign while denying another part does not seem reasonable to me.

 

Eternal salvation is conditional only on the working of God in the elect to secure salvation through belief and repentance. The only weak link here is God, if you consider him weak. I certainly don't.

Not in any way ... Paul addresses this in numerous other passages. The sacrifice of Jesus was sufficient to save people from their sins. But Scripture plainly declares that such salvation comes from belief and repentance in teh Lord Jesus Christ was was the sacrifice for sins. It cannot be had any other way.

Again I say that the clarity and multitude of Scriptures on this point renders me dumbfounded as to how you can possibly disagree. This seems so clearly explicated in the text by so many different authors that it is unbelievable that it is still questioned, whether by yourself on one end or by works salvationists on the other.


God Bless
Bro.Dallas [/QB][/QUOTE]

 

Eternal salvation is conditional only on the working of God in the elect to secure salvation through belief and repentance. The only weak link here is God, if you consider him weak. I certainly don't.

Not in any way ... Paul addresses this in numerous other passages. The sacrifice of Jesus was sufficient to save people from their sins. But Scripture plainly declares that such salvation comes from belief and repentance in teh Lord Jesus Christ was was the sacrifice for sins. It cannot be had any other way.

Again I say that the clarity and multitude of Scriptures on this point renders me dumbfounded as to how you can possibly disagree. This seems so clearly explicated in the text by so many different authors that it is unbelievable that it is still questioned, whether by yourself on one end or by works salvationists on the other.

 

Brother Dallas (and all), I recommend for a good read Conditional Time Salvation - Is it the Truth? by Elder R. H. Boaz (a Primitive Baptist minister).