Calvinism

[CharismaticLady]

I read it. You didn't actually address it.

Good grief, it is very clear as day that Paul in Ephesians 1 in the introduction is confirming the Jewish chosen apostles out of the chosen nation.

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.

7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace 8 which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, 9 having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, 10 that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him. 11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, 12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.

13 In Him you also trusted

 

[John Caldwell]

I’ve attended many Baptist sermons and they preach PST?

Not all but most. Baptists are indebted noy only to baptistic faiths but also to Reformed belief.

Recently more baptists (and, interesting, Calvinists) have been trying to rework their view of the Atonement. That is one reason it has become a "hot topic" among baptists and Reformed churches. People have started realizing the cracks in the theory.

 

[Waiting on him]

Common ground.

Do Calvin’s baptize infants?

 

[CharismaticLady]

that is because we are reformed baptists

It seems strange that there are all kinds of "Baptists" with whole different bases of belief. Some are Calvinist, while others are Arminian; some are Cessationists, while others are Continuists. Everybody believes in baptism, so why use the confusing name of Baptist?

 

[Steve Owen]

Ok…..so here we are:

@David Taylor admits his belief is not actually stated in Scripture but believes that is how “good theology” is done, @Anthony D'Arienzo rejects the "literal method" of hermeneutics because it makes God serve a dictionary while giving us "biblical meanings" for words, that the early church fathers were Calvinists, and now they do not even believe Scripture itself states the divinity of Christ.

This is the new “Calvinism”.


Extra-biblical foundational belief, subjective history, liberal hermeneutics, “another” gospel, and a denial that Scripture itself states the divinity of Christ.

I think we are approaching giving pearls to swine.

John,
If peace is going to break out, you need to stop misrepresenting your brothers in Christ. If you are going to accuse them of gross error, you need to quote them in the post. And a woodenly literal hermeneutic is the hermeneutic of the Pharisees (John 3:4; 6:52). What is needed is a Biblical hermeneutic. And you know perfectly well that the Doctrines of Grace did not start with Calvin.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Do Calvin’s baptize infants?

Good question. If any do it would only be Reformed Calvinists.

 

[Waiting on him]

Not all but most. Baptists are indebted noy only to baptistic faiths but also to Reformed belief.

Recently more baptists (and, interesting, Calvinists) have been trying to rework their view of the Atonement. That is one reason it has become a "hot topic" among baptists and Reformed churches. People have started realizing the cracks in the theory.

Have you considered that maybe this is only in part to the liberal views this country is adopting?

 

[John Caldwell]

Do Calvin’s baptize infants?

Yes. Calvin did not believe that those who hold baptist beliefs should be permitted to live within the authority of his church.

But to be fair, the only Reformer who was opposed to infant baptism was Zwingli and he conceded the argument. During the Reformation period the baptist distinctive could be seen in the various Anabaptist movements. But while Anabaptist could be considered baptists (minus the liberty part) Baptists are not Anabaptist (Anabaptist holds other distinctives as well....most of which I am more inclined to believe as true the older I get).

 

[John Caldwell]

Common ground.

No. Not common ground. Atheists don't believe in infant baptism either .

 

[CharismaticLady]

John,
If peace is going to break out, you need to stop misrepresenting your brothers in Christ. If you are going to accuse them of gross error, you need to quote them in the post. And a woodenly literal hermeneutic is the hermeneutic of the Pharisees (John 3:4; 6:52). What is needed is a Biblical hermeneutic. And you know perfectly well that the Doctrines of Grace did not start with Calvin.

Doctrine of Grace? Yes, you are correct, it started in the first century and is part of our New Covenant. But somewhere down the centuries even before the death of the apostles that grace was turned into a doctrine of licentiousness.

Jude 1:1-4
For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.

What is denied about Jesus is that he was manifest to take away our sin, and in Him there is no sin. But evil men have turned "take away" to "cover" as in God only sees the blood of Jesus which covers us while we act lewdly underneath!

lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! 6 For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, 7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

[John Caldwell]

Have you considered that maybe this is only in part to the liberal views this country is adopting?

Some of it is. But some is not. The theory did not exist until the 16th century. Some have decided that the best approach is to rewrite history and make the early church distinctly Calvinistic and the Early Church Father's as teaching Penal Substitution Theory. This may have flown decades ago but with the advent of technology and resources (not the internet, per se, but scholarly resources readily available) only a fool or an extraordinary lazy Christian could believe that the early church taught PST.

Add to this the decreasing "size" of the world where other Christian views are closer to us than they once were and cracks start to appear. Most Christians reject PST, both historically and at this time. I think that people are starting to realize this. I hope so anyway.

More than that I hope that people are starting to take Scripture seriously and not just rely on what a commentator or preacher has said. To quote Mullder and Scully (probably not a quote, but from the x-files) the truth is out there. People do not have to rely on second hand information.

For example, anyone who has read this can do the exact same thing I did. Get a dry erase board and write down every passage dealing with the atonement (it took two large ones for me, and a couple of months....but I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed to begin with). Then erase every verse that does not state that God punished Jesus instead of punishing us. Now that the boards are blank start working through what Scripture actually states (what is written).

 

[Waiting on him]

No. Not common ground. Atheists don't believe in infant baptism either .

Lol, just did a quick read on the anabaptist. And couldn’t help but laugh, the Baptist churches I’ve attended most of the men are carrying guns.

 

[John Caldwell]

John,
If peace is going to break out, you need to stop misrepresenting your brothers in Christ. If you are going to accuse them of gross error, you need to quote them in the post. And a woodenly literal hermeneutic is the hermeneutic of the Pharisees (John 3:4; 6:52). What is needed is a Biblical hermeneutic. And you know perfectly well that the Doctrines of Grace did not start with Calvin.

Steve,

I have not, and will not, misrepresent what anyone states on this board or anywhere else. What people mean is another matter and something that I cannot know. @Anthony D'Arienzo made it very clear that Calvinism is the gospel. He clarified when Calvinism is rightly understood then it is the gospel. But that did not help his case. @David Taylor replied to my request that he provide Scripture that states what he claims is taught and responded that this is not how "good theology" is done. David offered twice that Scripture itself does not state that Jesus is God.

I can provide several places where Scripture states that Jesus is God and even one where it is stated in reference to an Old Testament passage.

Insofar as the Doctrines of Grace, you are correct. I am not saying that they started with Calvin, they didn't. The Doctrines of Grace are post-Calvin. They developed from Theodore Beza's systemization of the Institutes. Prior to this time Calvin did not place sovereignty under soteriology (he seemed to have wrestled with this one). Beza placed it under soteriology but even here the Doctrines of Grace were post-Beza (and post-James Arminius) as an answer to the five articles. They are based on Calvin's decrees, but are not as old as the Institutes.

 

[reformed1689]

No. Not common ground. Atheists don't believe in infant baptism either .

It's not common ground that we are both against infant baptism? Now you are just being cantankerous.

 

[John Caldwell]

Lol, just did a quick read on the anabaptist. And couldn’t help but laugh, the Baptist churches I’ve attended most of the men are carrying guns.

Yes. That is one of the major distinctives (and why Anabaptist can be Baptist but not the other way around). Not only do you have pacifism but they believed it was sinful for a Christian to hold public office. They held distinct views along with what is the "baptist distinctive". I am leaning more and more to their way of thinking.

Have you studied the Radical Reformation (the "second wave")?

 

[reformed1689]

I have not, and will not, misrepresent what anyone states on this board or anywhere else.

@David Taylor replied to my request that he provide Scripture that states what he claims is taught and responded that this is not how "good theology" is done. David offered twice that Scripture itself does not state that Jesus is God.

And you CONTINUE to put for this lie! Do you have no shame? I did not say that Scripture does not say Jesus is God. I said there is no single verse that explicitly states "Jesus is God."

You have CONTINUALLY misrepresented what I have said and lied about it. When I even point it out you continue to put forth the same lie. You are in active sin right now.

 

[John Caldwell]

It's not common ground that we are both against infant baptism? Now you are just being cantankerous.

No. It's not common ground. It's a coincidence . (Yes, I'm being cantankerous).

 

[reformed1689]

Do Calvin’s baptize infants?

Depends. Some do, some don't. Just like some arminians do, some don't.

 

[John Caldwell]

And you CONTINUE to put for this lie! Do you have no shame? I did not say that Scripture does not say Jesus is God. I said there is no single verse that explicitly states "Jesus is God."

You have CONTINUALLY misrepresented what I have said and lied about it. When I even point it out you continue to put forth the same lie. You are in active sin right now.

David, please re-read my post. Then you can apologize if you find it in your character. I chose the words very carefully (to be precise).

 

[CharismaticLady]

Yes. That is one of the major distinctives (and why Anabaptist can be Baptist but not the other way around). Not only do you have pacifism but they believed it was sinful for a Christian to hold public office. They held distinct views along with what is the "baptist distinctive". I am leaning more and more to their way of thinking.

Have you studied the Radical Reformation (the "second wave")?

Where are you, Texas?