Calvinism

[Waiting on him]

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")?

I’ve only read the Bible, but as far as their views on public offices, I’ve stated on this forum months ago, what Christian would want to rule the dung heap.

 

[Mjh29]

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

I do. But that is a COMPLETELY different topic. Tbh, I would never really even debate baptism on this site... there's too much work to do solidifying the BASIC tenants of Scripture. It's like trying to eat the meat when we can't even choke down the milk.

 

[reformed1689]

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.

And verse 4 is after his introduction of him as an apostle and is now talking about the brothers and sisters in Ephesus.

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.

This is after the introduction of Paul as an apostle, not part of it.

 

[CharismaticLady]

And verse 4 is after his introduction of him as an apostle and is now talking about the brothers and sisters in Ephesus.

This is after the introduction of Paul as an apostle, not part of it.

Not verse 4, but verse 13. I even underlined if for those who can't see these obvious.

 

[reformed1689]

(Yes, I'm being cantankerous).

That's the first honest thing you have said today.

 

[reformed1689]

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).

I have nothing to apologize for.

 

[reformed1689]

Not verse 4, but verse 13. I even underlined if for those who can't see these obvious.

Doesn't change anything.

 

[John Caldwell]

Do Calvin’s baptize infants?

Sorry.....I just saw @David Taylor 's post. I read your question to be about Calvin, not Calvinists.

All Reformed theology affirms infant baptism. All traditional Calvinists (historical Calvinists) practice infant baptism. But there are also Baptists who have taken on some of Reformed Theology and rejected other teachings. These "Calvinists" do not practice infant baptism. Many are more like Presbyterian churches with that exception (they have adopted elder leadership, covenant theology [although dispensationalism was a Calvinistic doctrine as well]).

 

[reformed1689]

It's like trying to eat the meat when we can't even choke down the milk.

Or even taste it.

 

[reformed1689]

All Reformed theology affirms infant baptism.

Not true. Reformed Baptists do not affirm infant baptism. This is why you shouldn't lump everyone as a Calvinist, it's not a proper label.

 

[John Caldwell]

I have nothing to apologize for.

Somehow I thought you would not own up.We both know Scripture does not state that God punished Jesus instead of punishing us.

My statement is that you believe Scripture does not state (in the text) that Jesus is God.

You believe Scripture teaches both, but states neither. And you are wrong.

What does your congregation think about your idea that Scripture does not state (what is written) that Jesus is God? Do they believe it justifies the theories you see as just as implied in Scripture?

 

[Preacher4Truth]

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.

That's utterly false, yet another text you do not understand.

What he, Paul, is saying is to the church, that is, all those who are chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, and it plainly states this in chapter 1.

Thank God that He chooses or none would be saved!

Your teaching is therefore and frankly false teaching and heresy, CharismaticLady.

For anyone else who cares to continue to listen, the epistle to the Ephesians is a letter to all the churches which Paul ministered to as some mss. attest, it was not specifically "to the church at Ephesus" or "to the Ephesians" only, nor was it to Jewish apostles as Charismaticlady says, since he was the apostle to Gentiles, (as if only Jewish Apostles were chosen) since he was the apostle to Gentiles.

Read the Book carefully, it is written to those who've believed, not to some elitist Jewish Apostles group. Sadly, for her to say this shows how utterly false her teaching is, even a cursory reading of the text shows it's to regular believers like you and me.

It is therefore a letter to all chosen in Christ, which describes us today and is to us as well as to those whom he had written at that time, showing the timeless nature of God revealing himself to all He has chosen.

Rest in this fact, it is for you, dear Christian! Read it with that in mind, and God bless you as you do. Do not allow any person to rob you of this fact.

 

[Mjh29]

Not true. Reformed Baptists do not affirm infant baptism. This is why you shouldn't lump everyone as a Calvinist, it's not a proper label.

Again @John Caldwell I am Reformed Presbyterian. That means that I am Reformed and DO hold to infant baptism

Brother @David Taylor is a Reformed Baptist. Which means that he is equally as Reformed in his theology, but does NOT hold to infant baptism.

Please, actually learn about a topic before pretending to be an expert. Not trying to be mean at all but... this statement could not be farther from the truth, and yet you post it with such finality it makes people think that you actually have done thorough study of Reformed theology. I would hate for you to bear false witness and lie on accident.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Doesn't change anything.

I can't believe you ever received a degree in theology, because the first thing you would have learned was to NEVER take one verse out of context, and make a doctrine out of it. Your degree is actually a baloney sandwich. You break every rule of hermeneutics. You have lost all credibiltiy. Nothing you have ever said in this post is sound doctrine.

 

[Mjh29]

Your degree is actually a baloney sandwich

Careful... you're slandering his name as a pastor; and assuming no one is holding you hostage you are committing this sin willingly.

 

[John Caldwell]

Again @John Caldwell I am Presbyterian. That means that I am Reformed and DO hold to infant baptism

Brother @David Taylor is a Reformed Baptist. Which means that he is equally as Reformed in his theology, but does NOT hold to infant baptism.

Please, actually learn about a topic before pretending to be an expert. Not trying to be mean at all but... this statement could not be farther from the truth, and yet you post it with such finality it makes people think that you actually have done thorough study of Reformed theology. I would hate for you to bear false witness and lie on accident.

I disagree. But I suppose it depends on where we get our definitions.

David does not hold Reformed Theology as defined by R.C. Sproul (he's my "cheat sheet" for Reformed definitions).

Either way, it is not either of us bearing false witness (although I would be interested in where you get your definition, perhaps I'll adopt your source).

 

[Preacher4Truth]

Again @John Caldwell I am Reformed Presbyterian. That means that I am Reformed and DO hold to infant baptism

Brother @David Taylor is a Reformed Baptist. Which means that he is equally as Reformed in his theology, but does NOT hold to infant baptism.

Please, actually learn about a topic before pretending to be an expert. Not trying to be mean at all but... this statement could not be farther from the truth, and yet you post it with such finality it makes people think that you actually have done thorough study of Reformed theology. I would hate for you to bear false witness and lie on accident.

Yes. Good post. The disingenuous nature of dialog should be abandoned. Unfortunately many as he hold onto this because falsities are the only way to continue their arguments. Owning up would end it.

 

[John Caldwell]

Careful... you're slandering his name as a pastor; and assuming no one is holding you hostage you are committing this sin willingly.

He is not a pastor. If I recall correctly, he sells insurance. Regardless, Jim Jones was a pastor so it really does not matter.

 

[Mjh29]

I disagree. But I suppose it depends on where we get our definitions.

David does not hold Reformed Theology as defined by R.C. Sproul (he's my "cheat sheet" for Reformed definitions).

Either way, it is not either of us bearing false witness (although I would be interested in where you get your definition, perhaps I'll adopt your source).

R.C., rest his soul, was not of unbiased opinion; he himself was a Reformed Presbyterian. What I am saying is that you should be careful lumping people all together.

 

[reformed1689]

I can't believe you ever received a degree in theology, because the first thing you would have learned was to NEVER take one verse out of context, and make a doctrine out of it. Your degree is actually a baloney sandwich. You break every rule of hermeneutics. You have lost all credibiltiy. Nothing you have ever said in this post is sound doctrine.

Oh boy, projecting what you actually do on me. Nice...

 

[Preacher4Truth]

I can't believe you ever received a degree in theology, because the first thing you would have learned was to NEVER take one verse out of context, and make a doctrine out of it. Your degree is actually a baloney sandwich. You break every rule of hermeneutics. You have lost all credibiltiy. Nothing you have ever said in this post is sound doctrine.

It's sad to see you continuing to resort to this behavior.