You Baptists are like nailing jello to a wall!

Zoness said:

There are liberal arminian baptists? I seriously didn't know (can't believe) that

Click to expand...

Most Baptist I have met are arminian. The reformed are just loudest on the internet forums.

Welcome to the Baptist side of things, we have everything from Fred Phelps and his ilk to gay members although I have not seen a gay pastor yet I am sure there are some out there.

Just like Jesus pretty squashed what was believed by the religious of his time, so we must also do the same. I am lucky (not that there is such a thing as luck) enough to teach a Bible Study class with members ranging from practicing Catholics to died in the wool liberal Democrats, and everything in between. It is not Christians who make Christianity great, it is Christ, and that is why I am Baptist, I have heard so many fraudulent messages that say otherwise.

JacksLadder said:

Most Baptist I have met are arminian. The reformed are just loudest on the internet forums.

Click to expand...

It's not that we Reformed are so loud as much as the Arminians are so quiet.

Fosdick did more harm than good to Christianity. The only good thing to come from Fosdick is the writings of Machen.

Actually, I reject both Calvinism and Arminianism in favor of Biblical doctrine.

I have to agree on Fosdick not exactly doing great things for the Christian faith. The fundimentalism he opposed was not what is modernly thought of as fundimentalism, i.e., the don't smoke, drink, or dance crowd, but rather, he opposed the necessity of a certain group of doctrines as fundimentals of the faith.

Certain among these fundimentals, namely, the vicarious suffering of Christ on our behalf, His bodily resurrection, and second coming, are the Christian's hope and are the Christian Gospel. And these must be considered fundimentals. Without them, the faith has no point; we are all still dead men walking.

Vince53 said:

Actually, I reject both Calvinism and Arminianism in favor of Biblical doctrine.

Click to expand...

Because neither one contain biblical doctrine?

If you reject both Calvinism and Arminianism because they are extrabiblical doctrines, then the "biblical doctrine" you affirm must be a very unique doctrine if it contains neither Calvinism or Arminianism.

Ditto. All freewillism is semi-pelagian/arminianism, period.

Ummm...Then there is the third kind.

One who holds to neither Arminian or Calvinism.

(I think both camps are wrong)

BUT

As far as the pet goes...
All animal creatures have what the Hebrew calls a "Nepesh" or Soul.

And the Bible says, "The soul who sins shall die".

Ok...well your dog didn't defy his Creator by being something other than what he was created to be...therefore since that soul did not sin that dog shall live forever.

Perfect logic.

JohnDB said:

Ummm...Then there is the third kind.

One who holds to neither Arminian or Calvinism.

(I think both camps are wrong)

BUT

As far as the pet goes...
All animal creatures have what the Hebrew calls a "Nepesh" or Soul.

And the Bible says, "The soul who sins shall die".

Ok...well your dog didn't defy his Creator by being something other than what he was created to be...therefore since that soul did not sin that dog shall live forever.

Perfect logic.

Click to expand...

First you have to prove that dogs have a soul.

Vince53 said:

Actually, I reject both Calvinism and Arminianism in favor of Biblical doctrine.

Click to expand...

Calvinism is biblical doctrine.

b.hopeful said:

Hmmm....I know that Fosdick softened me to even consider the possibility that one day I could call myself a christian. He has become part of the fountain that renews me.

Click to expand...

Fosdick cannot soften your heart. Only Christ can, inspite of you reading Fosdick.

JohnDB said:

Ummm...Then there is the third kind.

One who holds to neither Arminian or Calvinism.

(I think both camps are wrong)

BUT

As far as the pet goes...
All animal creatures have what the Hebrew calls a "Nepesh" or Soul.

And the Bible says, "The soul who sins shall die".

Ok...well your dog didn't defy his Creator by being something other than what he was created to be...therefore since that soul did not sin that dog shall live forever.

Perfect logic.

Click to expand...

There are several presuppositions made to come to that conclusion.

mlqurgw said:

First you have to prove that dogs have a soul.

Click to expand...

That will be a piece of cake...

and I will be happy to oblige you the day you can somehow explain with logic why a hyper-calvinist holds a church service with an altar call.

JohnDB said:

That will be a piece of cake...

and I will be happy to oblige you the day you can somehow explain with logic why a hyper-calvinist holds a church service with an altar call.

Click to expand...

The day dogs & cats have a soul, pigs will fly.. you're jesting, no?

BTW, Give an example of Calvins interpretation of scripture that you disagree with..thanks!

JustAsIam77 said:

The day dogs & cats have a soul, pigs will fly.. you're jesting, no?

BTW, Give an example of Calvins interpretation of scripture that you disagree with..thanks!

Click to expand...

Still waiting for that explanation of HyperCalvinists having an altar call.

And besides...

I got a new job at a zinc mine. The sidework was good but there wasn't enough to keep me going with the unemployment. So...I really can't start the long long laundry list. I got a job that pays money...and bantering here on worthless points doesn't pay the bills.

But if you want the main reason...Look long and hard into the story in John about the man BORN blind and as to the "why's" of the conversation. (in other words it was a debate even then)
There is a lot more to that story than a surface reading can ever supply. There is a reason for every story, jot, and tittle in the Bible we have. None is extra superflous stories re-relating the same truths over and over again. And if all you can come up with is the flat reading and explanation by a calvinistic commentator...there is a reason for that. He is hiding the truth or doesn't want to acknowledge the truth.
This isn't even "fringe" knowledge...just ignored knowledge. THere is no controversy over this conversation...just a reason it is ignored.

Kinda like the SDA ignoring the capitalized "Today" in Hebrews...or that Sabbath means cease and all former worship of God must cease in the manner in which the Jews were doing it. They love to ignore the fact that Jesus' cricifixion was the Sabbath day in which we rest.

Only Jesus the God/man was perfect. It is he that I follow. He alone is the Teacher. No one else can be in my book.

JohnDB said:

Still waiting for that explanation of HyperCalvinists having an altar call.

And besides...

I got a new job at a zinc mine. The sidework was good but there wasn't enough to keep me going with the unemployment. So...I really can't start the long long laundry list. I got a job that pays money...and bantering here on worthless points doesn't pay the bills.

But if you want the main reason...Look long and hard into the story in John about the man BORN blind and as to the "why's" of the conversation. (in other words it was a debate even then)
There is a lot more to that story than a surface reading can ever supply. There is a reason for every story, jot, and tittle in the Bible we have. None is extra superflous stories re-relating the same truths over and over again. And if all you can come up with is the flat reading and explanation by a calvinistic commentator...there is a reason for that. He is hiding the truth or doesn't want to acknowledge the truth.
This isn't even "fringe" knowledge...just ignored knowledge. THere is no controversy over this conversation...just a reason it is ignored.

Kinda like the SDA ignoring the capitalized "Today" in Hebrews...or that Sabbath means cease and all former worship of God must cease in the manner in which the Jews were doing it. They love to ignore the fact that Jesus' cricifixion was the Sabbath day in which we rest.

Only Jesus the God/man was perfect. It is he that I follow. He alone is the Teacher. No one else can be in my book.

Click to expand...

Hyper-Calvinists don't have alter calls. It is the exact opposite of what makes one a Hyper-Calvinist. Hyper-Calvinists believe that God saves His elect without the preaching of the Gospel. Show me one Hyper-Calvinist who has alter calls.

JustAsIam77 said:

Calvinism is biblical doctrine.

Click to expand...

If Calvinism is biblical doctrine, why don’t Baptists believe it?

Calvin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 4, Chapter 16, Part A

He, therefore, who would thoroughly understand the effect of baptism - its object and true character - must not stop short at the element and corporeal object, but look forward to the divine promises which are therein offered to us, and rise to the internal secrets which are therein represented. He who understands these has reached the solid truth, and, so to speak, the whole substance of baptism, and will thence perceive the nature and use of outward sprinkling. On the other hand, he who passes them by in contempt, and keeps his thoughts entirely fixed on the visible ceremony, will neither understand the force, nor the proper nature of baptism, nor comprehend what is meant, or what end is gained by the use of water. This is confirmed by passages of Scripture too numerous and too clear to make it necessary here to discuss them more at length. It remains, therefore, to inquire into the nature and efficacy of baptism, as evinced by the promises therein given. Scripture shows, first, that it points to that cleansing from sin which we obtain by the blood of Christ; and, secondly, to the mortification of the flesh, which consists in participation in his death, by which believers are regenerated to newness of life, and thereby to the fellowship of Christ. To these general heads may be referred all that the Scriptures teach concerning baptism, with this addition, that it is also a symbol to testify our religion to men.


3. Now, since prior to the institution of baptism, the people of God had circumcision in its stead, let us see how far these two signs differ, and how far they resemble each other. In this way it will appear what analogy there is between them. When the Lord enjoins Abraham to observe circumcision (Gen_17:10), he premises that he would be a God unto him and to his seed, adding, that in himself was a perfect sufficiency of all things, and that Abraham might reckon on his hand as a fountain of every blessing. These words include the promise of eternal life, as our Saviour interprets when he employs it to prove the immortality and resurrection of believers: “God,” says he, “is not the God of the dead, but of the living” (Mat_22:32). Hence, too, Paul, when showing to the Ephesians how great the destruction was from which the Lord had delivered them, seeing that they had not been admitted to the covenant of circumcision, infers that at that time they were aliens from the covenant of promise, without God, and without hope (Eph_2:12), all these being comprehended in the covenant. Now, the first access to God, the first entrance to immortal life, is the remission of sins. Hence it follows, that this corresponds to the promise of our cleansing in baptism.

If reason is listened to, it will undoubtedly appear that baptism is properly administered to infants as a thing due to them. The Lord did not anciently bestow circumcision upon them without making them partakers of all the things signified by circumcision. He would have deluded his people with mere imposture, had he quieted them with fallacious symbols: the very idea is shocking. I is distinctly declares, that the circumcision of the infant will be instead of a seal of the promise of the covenant. But if the covenant remains firm and fixed, it is no less applicable to the children of Christians in the present day, than to the children of the Jews under the Old Testament. Now, if they are partakers of the thing signified, how can they be denied the sign? If they obtain the reality, how can they be refused the figure? The external sign is so united in the sacrament with the word, that it cannot be separated from it; but if they can be separated, to which of the two shall we attach the greater value? Surely, when we see that the sign is subservient to the word, we shall say that it is subordinate, and assign it the inferior place. Since, then, the word of baptism is destined for infants why should we deny them the signs which is an appendage of the word? This one reason, could no other be furnished, would be amply sufficient to refute all gainsayers.