Non protestant baptists

[Eternally-Grateful]

Do you disregard all Calvin taught solely because of his belief baptism is salvific (a position with which I, too, disagree)?

I think everyone would have some basics of truth.. even calvin and arminius although apposed had some beliefs that were not against the word of God

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

You do understand Calvin was one of the most prolific Christian thinkers in Christendom, yes? You understand Calvinism is not limited solely to soteriology?

does not make him right we should not be men followers but God followers

 

[MTMattie]

You do understand Calvin was one of the most prolific Christian thinkers in Christendom, yes? You understand Calvinism is not limited solely to soteriology?

Calvin was the first I ever read that said " while the others (the reprobate) would be “barred from access to” salvation and sentenced to “eternal death "

My church never taught that, even with the imnportance , to them of the WMCOF.... Plus The "doctrine" of reprobation is not biblical when one knows one of the strongest arguments against the doctrine of reprobation is that Scripture explicitly states that God desires all people to be saved. If God had preordained some people to be lost without any hope of salvation, these verses would be contradictory.

Was Calvin influential. Too much so... The West Minster Confession of Faith ... which my church follows... ( not so much lately)
also copied from Calvin... 100 years after his death...

A prolific Christian thinker.... Sure. that's why he was a self appointed prophet , or believed himself to be equal to the prophets of the bible. Jon Balserak's book on Calvin is an interesting read, for any who want to know more about the man himself... yet
it is one man's opinion. I have only read bits....

As to not being limited to his soteriology.... of course.... but that does not garner any respect from me for the man.

 

[JoshebB]

I think everyone would have some basics of truth.. even calvin and arminius although apposed had some beliefs that were not against the word of God

LOL! Of course. Arminius was an apologist for monergism for much of his Christian life. Even after parting ways with Augustinian monergism, he remained an unequivocal advocate of what we now call "total depravity." He remained at least a one-pointer . He also continued to subscribe to Protestant Theology pertaining to the nature of God, the Reformation Protestant view of Christ, most of the monergistic view of the covenant(s), and held qualified views of at least two other points in TULIP. He could easily be called a one and two halves pointer .

The problem discussing soteriology, as I believe I have already noted, is that many Baptists are no longer Arminian. Many Baptists have moved toward the Pelagian end of the spectrum and now hold Traditionalist or Provisionist soteriologies. Augustinian monergism is not identical to Lutheran monergism and neither are identical to Calvinist monergism. On the extreme end strict determinism is a gross misrepresentation of Calvinism just as completely unfettered free will is a gross misrepresentation of Arminianism. Arminius was Augustinian. Wesleyanism is not the same as Arminianism, and Traditionalism is not identical to either of those two viewpoints, and Provisionism isn't identical, either.

Sadly, these differences are not taught to the average Christian and, as a result, there are a lot of ill-informed Christians on both sides of the divide and many Christians who think they are Arminian when they are not. There are also some Baptists who incorrectly think (water) baptism is salvifically causa when it is not. Because we live in an age when information is readily available, church history is not difficult to find and learn and it is not written by persecutors.

 

[JoshebB]

does not make him right we should not be men followers but God followers

Which is why I don't quote Calvin (or any other theologian) unless Calvin (or some other theologian) is the topic of discussion.

 

[JoshebB]

A prolific Christian thinker.... Sure. that's why he was a self appointed prophet , or believed himself to be equal to the prophets of the bible. Jon Balserak's book on Calvin is an interesting read, for any who want to know more about the man himself... yet
it is one man's opinion. I have only read bits....

Nonsense.

As to not being limited to his soteriology.... of course.... but that does not garner any respect from me for the man.

More nonsense. This thread is not about the man. To the degree that Reformation/Protestant theology is relevant to this op it is the theology(-ies), not the man/men that is relevant. No ad hominems, please.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Can you provide me with at least one example of a sinfully dead and enslaved sinner coming to God salvifically wherein scripture explicitly attributes that salvation to the sinner's volition?

your joking right?

the woman who was bleeding and came behind and touched Jesus

The man who was dropped from a roof by his friends.

cornelius and his houshold

did jesus not say like the people in moses day we must believe, and those who do are no longer condemned.

its all over the place

Can you provide me with at least one example of a sinfully dead and enslaved sinner coming to God salvifically wherein God is not already at work in that sinner for the purpose of that sinner's salvation?

God is at work in all of us.. Its the work of God we believe

Can you provide me with at least one verse in the Bible explicitly stating God subjects Himself, subordinates His will, and is dependent upon the will of the sinfully dead and enslaved sinner's will?

strawman argument

If the answer to any of those questions is "No, I cannot provide such an example," then please say that. Please do not ignore the questions and do not respond with non-answers. Just answer the questions asked and whatever those answers might be, you'll move the conversation forward and we can then discuss the answers provided. We cannot discuss answers not posted and I won't be collaborating with non-answers, especially red herrings, non sequiturs, ad hominems, straw men, etc. No inferences, either. I explicitly and specifically asked for explicit statements in scripture.

"Yes," or "No," and if "Yes," then post the relevant verse or passage explicitly stating what was asked. If "No," then we can discuss how the position is reached inferentially and how valid and veracious that case might be.

can we get back to the op please. this is not a pro calvin thread. there are enough of these all over the chatroom

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

LOL! Of course. Arminius was an apologist for monergism for much of his Christian life. Even after parting ways with Augustinian monergism, he remained an unequivocal advocate of what we now call "total depravity." He remained at least a one-pointer . He also continued to subscribe to Protestant Theology pertaining to the nature of God, the Reformation Protestant view of Christ, most of the monergistic view of the covenant(s), and held qualified views of at least two other points in TULIP. He could easily be called a one and two halves pointer .

The problem discussing soteriology, as I believe I have already noted, is that many Baptists are no longer Arminian. Many Baptists have moved toward the Pelagian end of the spectrum and now hold Traditionalist or Provisionist soteriologies. Augustinian monergism is not identical to Lutheran monergism and neither are identical to Calvinist monergism. On the extreme end strict determinism is a gross misrepresentation of Calvinism just as completely unfettered free will is a gross misrepresentation of Arminianism. Arminius was Augustinian. Wesleyanism is not the same as Arminianism, and Traditionalism is not identical to either of those two viewpoints, and Provisionism isn't identical, either.

Sadly, these differences are not taught to the average Christian and, as a result, there are a lot of ill-informed Christians on both sides of the divide and many Christians who think they are Arminian when they are not. There are also some Baptists who incorrectly think (water) baptism is salvifically causa when it is not. Because we live in an age when information is readily available, church history is not difficult to find and learn and it is not written by persecutors.

sir

this is not a calvin vs arminian thread. please keep it on topic

 

[JoshebB]

sir

this is not a calvin vs arminian thread. please keep it on topic

Report my posts if you think they violate the tou. Otherwise, keep you own off-topic commentaries to yourself lest your own posts be reported for off topic content, unnecessary bickering, and acting like a mod. When you get elected sheriff of the forum then you can tell others how to post. Until then, stow that dross.

Post #24 is relevant to this op and if the reasons thereof escaped you then it is best to ask. This op asserts a Baptist view of baptism relevant to salvation and makes additional claims, some of which are incorrect. The viewpoints, both correct and incorrect, expressed in the opening post are a result of soteriological orientation and the fact - the reality - is that within the Baptist Church (and its theological predecessors) soteriology is not monolithic.

 

[360watt]

I grew up GARBC baptist. My church folded and came back as an independent fundamental baptist. I am not longer baptist. i attend a non denomination.

the name or denomination of the church does not make it a true church, it is more what is taught.

If a gospel which truly saves is taught, it is a body of Christ, no matte what denomination of name it has on it.

Actually in the NT they did not have names, they were called the church, or churches of rome, of Ephesus corinth etc etc.

Yea, I started as independent missionary Baptist.. now am fellowship bible baptist.
Very little difference between them..except I think bible baptist.. they are usually kjvo.

The missionary baptist church I was in..we could have taken the baptist name out of it, but it is familiar to people and also has a long history and distinctive teachings.

'Non protestant baptists ' is to challenge the idea that after the first churches it was only Roman Catholicism that had the christian faith.

This is what people usually think of with church history...with the early churches.. then Roman Catholicism..the Reformation split... and that's it.

They usually have baptists starting in the Reformation. But there were independent Christian churches that practiced only baptizing believers, only by immersion.. around b4 the RCC, around during the RCC ..that helped some of the Reformers, but didn't have to reform their own doctrine.

 

[JoshebB]

your joking right?

No, I am not kidding, and you just proved my point.

the woman who was bleeding and came behind and touched Jesus

Where does scripture explicitly state that occurred as a causal consequence of her volition as an unregenerate sinner?

The man who was dropped from a roof by his friends.

Where does scripture explicitly state that occurred as a causal consequence of his volition as an unregenerate sinner?

cornelius and his houshold

Where does scripture explicitly state that occurred as a causal consequence of his volition as an unregenerate sinner?

did jesus not say like the people in moses day we must believe, and those who do are no longer condemned.

Where does scripture explicitly state that occurred as a causal consequence of their volition as an unregenerate sinner?

its all over the place

No, it is not, and you abjectly failed to evidence that claim. What you did is post a bunch of references where the sinner's will is never mentioned.

God is at work in all of us.. Its the work of God we believe.

Yep, and yet synergists idolatrously argue the sinner's unregenerate will is causal to his/her salvation. They do so without any ability to provide even one single explicit statement from scripture.

can we get back to the op please. this is not a pro calvin thread. there are enough of these all over the chatroom

Yes, we can if and when you get back on topic. This op asserts claims about salvation relevant to water baptism and the Baptist viewpoint thereof. Any and all positions asserting a volitional causality to the baptized individual's salvation are wrong and no one has to be Calvinist to understand that. All that is needed is scripture. The problem is it is nearly impossible to say what I just said without someone else framing the discussion in polarized manner. I covered the whole spectrum so maybe you should take your axe and grind it on someone else's posts.

Or ignore mine.


A sinner's volition does not cause salvation and, as you correctly stated, God is at work in the person He saves and He is at work in that person for the purpose of their salvation. You just tried to answer a series of questions (even though you think they are off topic) and did not answer a single question correctly. I asked for explicit statements and got none. I allowed for the honest "no," and got subterfuge instead. So either give the specific questions asked another try or abide by your own position and do not respond further to off topic content.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Report my posts if you think they violate the tou. Otherwise, keep you own off-topic commentaries to yourself lest your own posts be reported for off topic content,

Go ahead and report my friend.

You have an attitude..

unnecessary bickering, and acting like a mod. When you get elected sheriff of the forum then you can tell others how to post. Until then, stow that dross.

lol.. wow I have hit a nerve haven't I?

Post #24 is relevant to this op and if the reasons thereof escaped you then it is best to ask. This op asserts a Baptist view of baptism relevant to salvation and makes additional claims, some of which are incorrect. The viewpoints, both correct and incorrect, expressed in the opening post are a result of soteriological orientation and the fact - the reality - is that within the Baptist Church (and its theological predecessors) soteriology is not monolithic.

its not a calvin thread.

Your not responding to the op. your defending calvinism, and when someone questioned calvinism, you went off the deep end trying to defend it.

you want to discuss the topic, feel free.. leave calvinism to calvin threads..

It is against the rules to take threads of topic..

 

[360watt]

No, I am not kidding, and you just proved my point.

Where does scripture explicitly state that occurred as a causal consequence of her volition as an unregenerate sinner?

Where does scripture explicitly state that occurred as a causal consequence of his volition as an unregenerate sinner?

Where does scripture explicitly state that occurred as a causal consequence of his volition as an unregenerate sinner?

Where does scripture explicitly state that occurred as a causal consequence of their volition as an unregenerate sinner?

No, it is not, and you abjectly failed to evidence that claim. What you did is post a bunch of references where the sinner's will is never mentioned.

Yep, and yet synergists idolatrously argue the sinner's unregenerate will is causal to his/her salvation. They do so without any ability to provide even one single explicit statement from scripture.

Yes, we can if and when you get back on topic. This op asserts claims about salvation relevant to water baptism and the Baptist viewpoint thereof. Any and all positions asserting a volitional causality to the baptized individual's salvation are wrong and no one has to be Calvinist to understand that. All that is needed is scripture. The problem is it is nearly impossible to say what I just said without someone else framing the discussion in polarized manner. I covered the whole spectrum so maybe you should take your axe and grind it on someone else's posts.

Or ignore mine.


A sinner's volition does not cause salvation and, as you correctly stated, God is at work in the person He saves and He is at work in that person for the purpose of their salvation. You just tried to answer a series of questions (even though you think they are off topic) and did not answer a single question correctly. I asked for explicit statements and got none. I allowed for the honest "no," and got subterfuge instead. So either give the specific questions asked another try or abide by your own position and do not respond further to off topic content.

Well, I separate salvation from water baptism completely.

Water baptism is the right response to salvation, but not salvation itself and not guaranteed to happen for every believer.

A 'true church' doesn't mean.. salvation is conditional upon water baptism. This is a key point that a body of believers is separate from the entity of ALL believers.

Entry to the entity of all believers.. doesn't require water baptism.

Being in a true church..does require water baptism by immersion to believers only.

 

[MTMattie]

Nonsense.

More nonsense. This thread is not about the man. To the degree that Reformation/Protestant theology is relevant to this op it is the theology(-ies), not the man/men that is relevant. No ad hominems, please.

@JoshebB

I am not discussing him further. He has had enough time in my life.

You like him. You respect him. I am happy for you.

I dont.

Be blessed.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Yea, I started as independent missionary Baptist.. now am fellowship bible baptist.
Very little difference between them..except I think bible baptist.. they are usually kjvo.

The missionary baptist church I was in..we could have taken the baptist name out of it, but it is familiar to people and also has a long history and distinctive teachings.

'Non protestant baptists ' is to challenge the idea that after the first churches it was only Roman Catholicism that had the christian faith.

This is what people usually think of with church history...with the early churches.. then Roman Catholicism..the Reformation split... and that's it.

They usually have baptists starting in the Reformation. But there were independent Christian churches that practiced only baptizing believers, only by immersion.. around b4 the RCC, around during the RCC ..that helped some of the Reformers, but didn't have to reform their own doctrine.

I am sure there was.. God did not let his word go void. for 1500 years

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Well, I separate salvation from water baptism completely.

Water baptism is the right response to salvation, but not salvation itself and not guaranteed to happen for every believer.

A 'true church' doesn't mean.. salvation is conditional upon water baptism. This is a key point that a body of believers is separate from the entity of ALL believers.

Entry to the entity of all believers.. doesn't require water baptism.

Being in a true church..does require water baptism by immersion to believers only.

Amen

God gave many commands. water baptism is just one of them, we should obey them all. out of gratitude to a savior you saved us

 

[JoshebB]

Well, I separate salvation from water baptism completely.

Water baptism is the right response to salvation, but not salvation itself and not guaranteed to happen for every believer.

A 'true church' doesn't mean.. salvation is conditional upon water baptism. This is a key point that a body of believers is separate from the entity of ALL believers.

Entry to the entity of all believers.. doesn't require water baptism.

I completely agree.

Being in a true church..does require water baptism by immersion to believers only.

Hmmm.... the statement, "Water baptism is... not guaranteed to happen for every believer," contradicts the position "being in a true church require does require water baptism by immersion."

Are saved but not-baptized people not members of the Church?


Btw, be careful of the phrase "true church," so as not to commit the fallacy of the "no true scotsman." Appeals to purity have done more to divide the Church in the last 200 years than anything else (even the devil).

 

[JoshebB]

@JoshebB

I am not discussing him further. He has had enough time in my life.

Technically, that is not true.

To truly be free of someone's or something's influence is to be apathetic (absent pathos). That means every word of protest is an influence of antithesis.

Many, many years ago when I was a philosophy major, I happened upon a very minor existential philosopher named Gurdjieff. There's a story attributed to him that goes something like this: An American was staying at Gurdjieff's retreat outside of Paris and he was meditating in the gardens there when he saw Gurdjieff strolling. He rushed up to Gurdjieff in excitement and said, "Master! Master! I have great news! I have given up smoking!" Gurdjieff complimented and commended the man on his achievement and then reached into his shirt pocket, withdrew a pack of cigarettes and offered the man a cigarette. The American declined, repeating what he'd said, "No, I have given up smoking!"

"I know. I heard you. Now, please, have a cigarette. "

"No. I mean it. I've given up smoking."​

Withdrawing a cigarette for himself, Gurdjieff lit the cigarette and, again, shook the pack in the American's direction saying, "I am sure you do mean it. Here, have a cigarette."

"Oh! I know. I get it now. You're just testing me to see if I really mean it. No thank you. I'm not going to smoke any more ever."​

"No, this is not a test, Do please have a cigarette."

Now getting frustrated, the American raised the volume of his voice in protest, "No! I am NOT going to have another cigarette!"​

I am very pleased you are no longer in bondage to smoking. Now be free of the bondage of not-smoking.



The point of that absurd story being it does us no good to exchange one stronghold for another, even if the exchange is in favor of the antithesis of whatever we've abandoned. Freedom in Christ is not anti-Calvinist any more than it is anti-Arminian (nor anti-Catholic versus anti-Protestant, etc., etc.).

So please remember my handle and don't repeat that nonsense about you not being beholding to x. y. or z. God brought the messages of others into our lives for a reason and to deny the providence of our own lives is to deny God and that is not how you actually live your life, @MTMattie (at least not as I have observed from your posts). That can be posted to others, but not me. You have viewpoints that are your own, but they have inescapably been informed - either in thesis or in antithesis - by others who've walked the Christian path before us. Just post your views about the subject being discussed without all the unnecessary reference to what you do not do. That I can engage.

 

[360watt]

I completely agree.

Hmmm.... the statement, "Water baptism is... not guaranteed to happen for every believer," contradicts the position "being in a true church require does require water baptism by immersion."

Are saved but not-baptized people not members of the Church?


Btw, be careful of the phrase "true church," so as not to commit the fallacy of the "no true scotsman." Appeals to purity have done more to divide the Church in the last 200 years than anything else (even the devil).

Saved but not baptized..members of the Family of God and Kingdom. Not a local body of Christ.

 

[JoshebB]

Saved but not baptized..members of the Family of God and Kingdom. Not a local body of Christ.

????? Hmmmm.... Am I to understand that statement to say a person can be a member of the family of God and not be a member of Christ's body? Am I to read that sentence to say a "local" body of Christ" may not be a member of God's family?

Please come right out and answer those questions as directly as possible. Do not beat around the bush, delay, dodge, or obfuscate in any way.