Baptists?

[Goodbook]

In reply to OP
Yes i like baptist churches too. Believers baptism can encompass those whove come from other backgrounds, so for example, you say you are kind of charismatic belief well as long as you know that you have repented and were baptised and you follow the Bible, you believe the gospel of Jesus christ, most baptists churches wont turn you away.


The pastor of my baptist church says he came from an anglican and pentecostal background.
Some people come from presbyterian churches and got taught calvinism, ie. They were a child of God and it was preordained. But they hadnt heard the gospel in those churches, they heard it from the baptists.

Baptists are big on preaching the gospel. Salvation, and then sanctification (your daily walk, loving one another) is important and emphasised over all, the other doctrines that a church may adhere to in a baptist church. I find that is a different to other christian churches...that the baptists always go back to the bible and the basics.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

I don't think you are presenting Baptists quite right at all. Baptists did and do embrace beliefs different from other Christians. The belief in believers baptism varies with many Christian groups who practice infant baptism. The priesthood of believers belief varies from churches like the Orthodox churches, Catholic, Old Catholic, Episcopalian and others. Believing the Lord's supper is memorial only is another point of contention.

That you would suggest that I'm saying that Baptists don't embrace beliefs different from other Christians can only mean that I didn't communicate my point very well, and you think I would accept a logical impossibility: the Christian denominations are different from each other, so it would be impossible for Baptists to not embrace beliefs different from other Christians. Without re-reading my own post, I would like to clarify by reiterating that the point is not the sameness between Baptists and other denominations, but that the differences are generally the most acceptable to people from different denominations. Often what happens when people from two sides of an issue disagree is that one side is less concerned by the other's disagreement. Those who believe in paedobaptism are not offended by believer's baptism, but those who only accept believer's baptism find paedobaptism disagreeable. All protestants generally accept that the Lord's Supper is a memorial, so that isn't even an issue. Regarding charismatic gifts, you might find that the hypercharismatics are not the least offended by a more orderly church service, though they may not prefer it, but the cessationist is offended by the hypercharismatic service, and so on. Hence, everything that Baptists hold strongly is fundamental, being most agreeable to the core doctrines of any Bible-believing church (that excludes Catholics, who assign that authority to the priesthood, rather than the Bible).

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

But Arminians do tend to lean more on feelings, how the holy spirit is moving in them, or about how a portion of a verse touches them and speaks to them. This speaks nothing of what the beliefs stand for, except to show Arminians can follow mystical experiences. They ask "how does this verse speak to you?" or give you "5 steps to a better marriage" yet Scripture says nothing on these points.

I couldn't possibly disagree with you on that. It makes for a less verbose conversation between us, unfortunately. One thing I find common among them is this notion, summarized by a single sentence (often said):

Logically, the alternative is that men are nothing but preprogrammed robots....

It doesn't matter that a Calvinist tries to explain the complexity of a paradox, comparable to the idea of God being three but only one, or God being both divine but also human, of God casting judgement but also atoning for that sin, of all sin being equally damning though some are abominations and others are not. Everything boils down to the this or that false dilemma: either we believe in free will, or we believe we are robots. I'll give Arminians credit for one thing: they certainly do a stellar job of discrediting a view that their opponents don't even hold.

 

[mikedsjr]

I couldn't possibly disagree with you on that. It makes for a less verbose conversation between us, unfortunately. One thing I find common among them is this notion, summarized by a single sentence (often said):

Well, i do strive to work on my contentiousness, but it is a long work in progress. I have never claimed to be able to discuss subjects I have strong disagreements. In person, I would probably be silent. If i did speak up, it would probably be with heart palpitations pounding hard and nervousness to get my thought out properly without just outright offending someone. Even in life I just say what I think and I've been working to improve that for a long time. My wife reminds me a lot don't say anything that will embarrass her. I do stand by what i said.

It doesn't matter that a Calvinist tries to explain the complexity of a paradox, comparable to the idea of God being three but only one, or God being both divine but also human, of God casting judgement but also atoning for that sin, of all sin being equally damning though some are abominations and others are not. Everything boils down to the this or that false dilemma: either we believe in free will, or we believe we are robots. I'll give Arminians credit for one thing: they certainly do a stellar job of discrediting a view that their opponents don't even hold.

No. It doesn't boil down to free will or robots. As i said, I have much more of a LCMS Lutheran theological leaning in my past few years, though i still haven't quite let go of Calvinism. There are bad things you can find in Calvinist churches, like legalism, but what seems to rule the roost in Baptist churches is the mystical side of Arminianism. I honestly can't share my thoughts in Sunday School class about a Scripture text some of the time when they get on pre-programmed Bible study series for discussion because they inevitably take Scripture. I pick and choose where i speak in order not to offend those who love the series despite it being out of context of Scripture. They want to be pumped up instead of just read the Scripture as they are meant to be read. Did Jesus say "Follow Me" to Matthew because THAT's what Christianity is all about? Um no, that missing the point of the context. And that's what modern Baptist churches do with many Bible Study series they incorporate. However, I think i'm excited that our church is going to do the Gospel Project Series starting this fall. I can get into that one.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

It doesn't matter that a Calvinist tries to explain the complexity of a paradox,

Calling an explicit contradiction a “paradox” is inaccurate. From the earliest times, the Jewish people have believed and expressly taught that man has a free will. We find the teaching in the Old Testament beginning in Genesis 3:1-6, and we still find in Ecclesiasticus 15:14.

It was he who created humankind in the beginning,
and he left them in the power of their own free choice. (NRSV)

Although Ecclesiasticus is regarded by Protestants, including myself, to be an Apocryphal book and not inspired in the same sense as the 39 books in the Protestant Old Testament Canon, it is theologically sound and was included in the Old Testament Canon until it was removed during the Protestant Reformation. Indeed, the Book of Sirach is found in the Septuagint, the version of the Old Testament most often used by the first century Christians and the version most frequently quoted in the New Testament, and came to be known as the Liber Ecclesiasticus, meaning the Church Book, because it was extensively used by the very early church to teach moral behavior.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing in the Bible that supports the notion that God took away man’s free will when Adam sinned. Furthermore, there is nothing, absolutely nothing in the Bible that supports the notion that God created man without the ability to choose for himself between good and evil, between righteousness and sin, and between salvation and damnation. These notions are exclusively man-made teachings that expressly contradict the Bible.

Indeed, the Bible teaches that God loved all of humanity, and that He sent His only Son, Jesus, into the world that the world might be saved (subjunctive mood in both the Greek and the English) through Him.

John 3:16. “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.
17. “Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.” (NRSV)

Up until the 16th century, John 3:16-17 was universally understood to teach that God sent His only Son, Jesus, into the world that the world might be saved through Him, and that God did this because He loved the world. With the sole exception of the Universalists, this passage was further understood to teach that not perishing but having eternal life was conditional upon one believing in Jesus, and that some would choose to believe in Him—but others would not.

Beginning in the 16th century, however, this fundamental teaching of the Bible came under attack by Calvinists who interpreted the ‘world’ to be God’s elect. However, the word translated here as “world” is the Greek word κόσμος, and this word is NEVER used in the Bible or any other early Christian literature for a subset of humanity.

comparable to the idea of God being three but only one, or God being both divine but also human, of God casting judgement but also atoning for that sin, of all sin being equally damning though some are abominations and others are not.

There is nothing paradoxical about the Trinity or about “God casting judgement but also atoning for that sin.” Moreover, the Bible does NOT teach that all sin is “equally damning though some are abominations and others are not;” and the Early Church did not believe such a thing—see, for example, The Apocalypse of Peter.

Furthermore, the very large majority of Baptists hold to the historical interpretation of John 3:16-17, and very few of those who do not are familiar with the underlying Greek text and the relative historical lexicography.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

No. It doesn't boil down to free will or robots.

Well, it's possible that you know more of the different facets of the matter than I do (it wouldn't be hard to do). I only know what I've encountered here and at church, and I can't honestly say which of the attributes I find in others are the direct result of Arminian theology, except where it comes to matters of predestination. I know that when we pull out our Lifeways magazine to do a "Bible" study it's really a Lifeways study, garnished with a scripture here or there, and I know I'm not the first person to wonder why we don't just pull out a Bible and read it, but I can't say I've ever attributed it to Arminianism.

One thing I have noticed, and you seem to agree with, is the emotionalism. The subject of God's universal and unconditional love tends to come up as a secondary dispute between the two sides. If salvation is predestined, then it throws a wrench in the idea that God loves absolutely everybody, because all salvation, even the faith for salvation comes from God. The Arminian view holds that God calls out to everyone to come to him, because God loves everyone. Arminians chafe at the idea that God loved Jacob and hated Esau, and they would try to say that that verse doesn't really say what it says.

 

[Job8]

Well we are the only one found in the Bible, since John the Baptist.

Are you serious, or just saying this tongue-in-cheek? John the Baptizer was not a Baptist in the sense that we use the term. Indeed Christ called him the greatest of the prophets, and he was still under the Old Covenant. However the Landmark Baptists (if I am not mistaken) are under the delusion that they can trace their ancestry to John the Baptizer.

The term *Baptist* used to mean one who is a genuine born-again Bible-believing and Bible-practising Christian, whose sole authority for doctrine and practice is the Bible, and the only Bible is the KJB. However, the term has been diluted considerably in the recent past, and a lot of Baptist churches have accepted man-made teachings as Gospel truth. So one has to investigate even the Baptists today. There are Baptists and Baptists.

 

[Job8]

The Arminian view holds that God calls out to everyone to come to him, because God loves everyone. Arminians chafe at the idea that God loved Jacob and hated Esau, and they would try to say that that verse doesn't really say what it says.

Historically Baptists were neither Calvinistic nor Arminian, and believe that God offers salvation to all who will believe and repent, hence made the Gospel their top priority.

It is only very recently that some Baptists have begun to call themselves "Reformed Baptists", but Baptists were never a part of the Reformation. For more information on how the Reformers persecuted the Baptists and the Anabaptists, study the The History of Baptists by Thomas Armitage. Charles Haddon Spurgeon called himself a Calvinist, but when you read his sermons, he generally forgets all about his Calvinism.

As to God loving Jacob and hating Esau, it is certainly not illustrative of some being predestined for Heaven and others for Hell. God -- in His Divine foreknowledge -- saw that Esau would never be a true believer (Heb 12:16,17), and the nation that sprang from Esau (Edom) would be the bitterest enemy of Israel (and of God) throughout their history. Hence God hated Esau (Edom) and loved Jacob (Israel). As Scripture says of Christ "Thou hast loved righteousness, AND HATED INIQUITY" (Heb 1:9).

 

[twin1954]

Historically Baptists were neither Calvinistic nor Arminian, and believe that God offers salvation to all who will believe and repent, hence made the Gospel their top priority.

It is only very recently that some Baptists have begun to call themselves "Reformed Baptists", but Baptists were never a part of the Reformation. For more information on how the Reformers persecuted the Baptists and the Anabaptists, study the The History of Baptists by Thomas Armitage. Charles Haddon Spurgeon called himself a Calvinist, but when you read his sermons, he generally forgets all about his Calvinism.

As to God loving Jacob and hating Esau, it is certainly not illustrative of some being predestined for Heaven and others for Hell. God -- in His Divine foreknowledge -- saw that Esau would never be a true believer (Heb 12:16,17), and the nation that sprang from Esau (Edom) would be the bitterest enemy of Israel (and of God) throughout their history. Hence God hated Esau (Edom) and loved Jacob (Israel). As Scripture says of Christ "Thou hast loved righteousness, AND HATED INIQUITY" (Heb 1:9).

I think you need to take another look at the passage. Read it over until you see the context and the actual meaning. The statement by Paul that God loved Jacob and hated Esau was to illustrate his premise that God has chosen some and not others.

To say that God hated Esau because He saw that he would never be a believer is to say that God reacts to what men do and therefore makes Him learn and be changeable.

 

[mikedsjr]

I agree. I'm not sure why we don't just pull out the Bible and read it either. Our Sunday School class just finished Romans doing that and I find it very beneficial and less of a means for conflict in what Scripture means.

Well, it's possible that you know more of the different facets of the matter than I do (it wouldn't be hard to do). I only know what I've encountered here and at church, and I can't honestly say which of the attributes I find in others are the direct result of Arminian theology, except where it comes to matters of predestination. I know that when we pull out our Lifeways magazine to do a "Bible" study it's really a Lifeways study, garnished with a scripture here or there, and I know I'm not the first person to wonder why we don't just pull out a Bible and read it, but I can't say I've ever attributed it to Arminianism.

One thing I have noticed, and you seem to agree with, is the emotionalism. The subject of God's universal and unconditional love tends to come up as a secondary dispute between the two sides. If salvation is predestined, then it throws a wrench in the idea that God loves absolutely everybody, because all salvation, even the faith for salvation comes from God. The Arminian view holds that God calls out to everyone to come to him, because God loves everyone. Arminians chafe at the idea that God loved Jacob and hated Esau, and they would try to say that that verse doesn't really say what it says.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I think you need to take another look at the passage. Read it over until you see the context and the actual meaning. The statement by Paul that God loved Jacob and hated Esau was to illustrate his premise that God has chosen some and not others.

To say that God hated Esau because He saw that he would never be a believer is to say that God reacts to what men do and therefore makes Him learn and be changeable.

God DOES react to what men do. When they do differently than He expected, He changes His mind about them—and changes His plans accordingly.

Jonah 3:10. And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not. (KJV)

Jonah 3:10. When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it. (NASB, 1995)

However, the Hebrew word translated as “repented” in Jonah 3:10 in the KJV does not mean to “relent;” it means to be sorry for one’s thoughts or actions, to be moved with pity and to have compassion upon others, to suffer grief over another’s loss, to repent of one’s thoughts or actions because of one’s compassion, or to change one’s mind because of one’s compassion. To “relent” comes close, but it misses the mark because it carries with it the connotations of giving in, letting up, slackening—connotations that the Hebrew word does not have.

Taking into consideration the context in which the word is used, a more accurate translation is that found in the New Revised Standard Version,

Jonah 3:10. When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil ways, God changed his mind about the calamity that he had said he would bring upon them; and he did not do it.

God did not give in, let up, or slacken in his punishment; God felt compassion for the people of the city (Nineveh) that He was about to overthrow, and He changed His mind. He did not overthrow Nineveh.

Please note also the following verses from the NRSV where the same Hebrew word is being translated,

Genesis 6:6. And the Lord was sorry that he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.

Exodus 32:12. “Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce wrath; change your mind and do not bring disaster on your people.
13. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants, how you swore to them by your own self, saying to them, ‘I will multiply your descendants like the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have promised I will give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.’”
14. And the Lord changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people.

1 Samuel 15:11. “I regret that I made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me, and has not carried out my commands.” Samuel was angry; and he cried out to the Lord all night.
35. Samuel did not see Saul again until the day of his death, but Samuel grieved over Saul. And the Lord was sorry that he had made Saul king over Israel.

Jeremiah 18:7. At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it,
8. but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it.
9. And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it,
10. but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it.

Jeremiah 26:3. It may be that they will listen, all of them, and will turn from their evil way, that I may change my mind about the disaster that I intend to bring on them because of their evil doings.
13. Now therefore amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the Lord your God, and the Lord will change his mind about the disaster that he has pronounced against you.
19. Did King Hezekiah of Judah and all Judah actually put him to death? Did he not fear the Lord and entreat the favor of the Lord, and did not the Lord change his mind about the disaster that he had pronounced against them? But we are about to bring great disaster on ourselves!"

Jeremiah 42:10. If you will only remain in this land, then I will build you up and not pull you down; I will plant you, and not pluck you up; for I am sorry for the disaster that I have brought upon you.

Compare the following verse from the NRSV where the same Hebrew word is being translated,

Ex. 13:17. When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them by way of the land of the Philistines, although that was nearer; for God thought, “If the people face war, they may change their minds and return to Egypt.”


Regarding the great care for the precise translation of Hebrew words in the Old Testament in the RSV, please see the following:

Metzger, Bruce M., Robert C. Dentan, and Walter Harrelson. The Making of the New Revised Standard Version of The Bible. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1991.

Bruce Metzger was the Chair of the translation committee and before his death was professor emeritus of New Testament at Princeton Theological Seminary; Robert Dentan was a Vice Chair of the translation committee and professor emeritus of Old Testament at General Theological Seminary; and Walter Harrelson was also a Vice Chair of the translation committee and professor emeritus of Hebrew at the Divinity School of Vanderbilt University.

 

[twin1954]

God DOES react to what men do. When they do differently than He expected, He changes His mind about them—and changes His plans accordingly.

Jonah 3:10. And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not. (KJV)

Jonah 3:10. When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it. (NASB, 1995)

However, the Hebrew word translated as “repented” in Jonah 3:10 in the KJV does not mean to “relent;” it means to be sorry for one’s thoughts or actions, to be moved with pity and to have compassion upon others, to suffer grief over another’s loss, to repent of one’s thoughts or actions because of one’s compassion, or to change one’s mind because of one’s compassion. To “relent” comes close, but it misses the mark because it carries with it the connotations of giving in, letting up, slackening—connotations that the Hebrew word does not have.

Taking into consideration the context in which the word is used, a more accurate translation is that found in the New Revised Standard Version,

Jonah 3:10. When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil ways, God changed his mind about the calamity that he had said he would bring upon them; and he did not do it.

God did not give in, let up, or slacken in his punishment; God felt compassion for the people of the city (Nineveh) that He was about to overthrow, and He changed His mind. He did not overthrow Nineveh.

Please note also the following verses from the NRSV where the same Hebrew word is being translated,

Genesis 6:6. And the Lord was sorry that he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.

Exodus 32:12. “Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce wrath; change your mind and do not bring disaster on your people.
13. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants, how you swore to them by your own self, saying to them, ‘I will multiply your descendants like the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have promised I will give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.’”
14. And the Lord changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people.

1 Samuel 15:11. “I regret that I made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me, and has not carried out my commands.” Samuel was angry; and he cried out to the Lord all night.
35. Samuel did not see Saul again until the day of his death, but Samuel grieved over Saul. And the Lord was sorry that he had made Saul king over Israel.

Jeremiah 18:7. At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it,
8. but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it.
9. And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it,
10. but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it.

Jeremiah 26:3. It may be that they will listen, all of them, and will turn from their evil way, that I may change my mind about the disaster that I intend to bring on them because of their evil doings.
13. Now therefore amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the Lord your God, and the Lord will change his mind about the disaster that he has pronounced against you.
19. Did King Hezekiah of Judah and all Judah actually put him to death? Did he not fear the Lord and entreat the favor of the Lord, and did not the Lord change his mind about the disaster that he had pronounced against them? But we are about to bring great disaster on ourselves!"

Jeremiah 42:10. If you will only remain in this land, then I will build you up and not pull you down; I will plant you, and not pluck you up; for I am sorry for the disaster that I have brought upon you.

Compare the following verse from the NRSV where the same Hebrew word is being translated,

Ex. 13:17. When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them by way of the land of the Philistines, although that was nearer; for God thought, “If the people face war, they may change their minds and return to Egypt.”


Regarding the great care for the precise translation of Hebrew words in the Old Testament in the RSV, please see the following:

Metzger, Bruce M., Robert C. Dentan, and Walter Harrelson. The Making of the New Revised Standard Version of The Bible. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1991.

Bruce Metzger was the Chair of the translation committee and before his death was professor emeritus of New Testament at Princeton Theological Seminary; Robert Dentan was a Vice Chair of the translation committee and professor emeritus of Old Testament at General Theological Seminary; and Walter Harrelson was also a Vice Chair of the translation committee and professor emeritus of Hebrew at the Divinity School of Vanderbilt University.

You do realize that your first statement contradicts the Scriptures elsewhere don't you? The verses you give are all what are known as anthropomorphic statements. God describes His acts in human terms so that we can grasp it. But it in no way means that God changed His mind or reacted to man. If He reacts to man then He must change and learn. If that is the case then He can't really be trusted for He is as fickle as man is.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

God DOES react to what men do. When they do differently than He expected, He changes His mind about them—and changes His plans accordingly.

You do realize that your first statement contradicts the Scriptures elsewhere don't you?

No; of course I do not realize that my first statement contradicts the Scriptures—because it most certainly does not!

The verses you give are all what are known as anthropomorphic statements. God describes His acts in human terms so that we can grasp it.

They are known as anthropomorphic statements only by Calvinists and other people who do not like what the Bible tells us about God. Anthropomorphic statements are statements that describe יהוה (YHWH), a spiritual being, as a physical human-being as in Psalms 34:15,

The eyes of the Lord are on the righteous,
and his ears are open to their cry. (NRSV)

Calvinists, however, find it necessary to deny God’s very nature by telling us that God does not share with us our emotions—that is, the emotions that God really has and that prove that Calvinism is a fraud. However, His other emotions, such as love and hate, which do not prove that Calvinism is a fraud, Calvinists fully accept.

But it in no way means that God changed His mind or reacted to man. If He reacts to man then He must change and learn. If that is the case then He can't really be trusted for He is as fickle as man is.

Who has the authority to tell God that He can not change His mind—or is His “mind” merely an anthropomorphic term used in the Bible to help us “grasp” a mindless God? Is God merely a man-made robot programmed by Calvinists—or is God truly God with the ability to learn and to make decisions based upon what He learns? Who has the authority to tell us whether God changes his mind? My authority is not John Calvin—my authority is the word of God.

Genesis 6:6. And the Lord was sorry that he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.

Exodus 32:12. “Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce wrath; change your mind and do not bring disaster on your people.
13. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants, how you swore to them by your own self, saying to them, ‘I will multiply your descendants like the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have promised I will give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.’”
14. And the Lord changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people.

1 Samuel 15:11. “I regret that I made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me, and has not carried out my commands.” Samuel was angry; and he cried out to the Lord all night.
35. Samuel did not see Saul again until the day of his death, but Samuel grieved over Saul. And the Lord was sorry that he had made Saul king over Israel.

Jeremiah 18:7. At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it,
8. but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it.
9. And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it,
10. but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it.

Jeremiah 26:3. It may be that they will listen, all of them, and will turn from their evil way, that I may change my mind about the disaster that I intend to bring on them because of their evil doings.
13. Now therefore amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the Lord your God, and the Lord will change his mind about the disaster that he has pronounced against you.
19. Did King Hezekiah of Judah and all Judah actually put him to death? Did he not fear the Lord and entreat the favor of the Lord, and did not the Lord change his mind about the disaster that he had pronounced against them? But we are about to bring great disaster on ourselves!"

Jeremiah 42:10. If you will only remain in this land, then I will build you up and not pull you down; I will plant you, and not pluck you up; for I am sorry for the disaster that I have brought upon you.

Jonah 3:10. When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil ways, God changed his mind about the calamity that he had said he would bring upon them; and he did not do it.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

The eyes of the Lord are on the righteous,
and his ears are open to their cry. (NRSV)

If God does not see the righteousness of the righteous and respond to it, and if He does not hear their cry and respond to it, what more is He to us than an idol made of wood or stone? How far can one depart from Baptist theology and still accurately be called a Baptist?

 

[jsimms615]

I don't get the point of some of the denominations. I am a Christian and charismatic I suppose is a good reason to have it as a different denomination within Christianity but baptist? I went to a baptist church for the longest time, I wasn't what I would call baptist but I enjoyed being with these ppl because they were really good ppl and showed a great love for God and others.

I was ordained as a deacon in a Baptist church in 2007 and then ordained as a minister a year later 2008. Historically I think there was some differences between the denominations, but as people switch back and forth the dividing lines seem less distinct now. What saddens me the most is the public way that Baptist have a tendency to tear each other apart and fight. There is also some big differences in the way decisions are made in churches such as whether it is up to a small group of elders or if the congregation as a whole gets a vote.

 

[miamited]

Hi all,

Well, since we've moved from just general 'baptist' information to discussion of 'election' vs. 'free will', I'll add my two cents worth. I believe the Scriptures. I believe they were given to men by God through His Holy Spirit and that there is no error in what they tell us is the truth.

I've long since been convicted that our error is in not understanding what 'election' or 'elect' is referring to in the Scriptures. When God created this realm He knew that there would have to be a price paid for our sin. He knew before the very first, "Let there be..." that man was going to sin. After all, we are lower than the angels and there is sin among their ranks. It seems that in every free will creature that God has made, there have been some who would choose sin over righteousness. But God speaks about there being an 'elect'. The Scriptures speak about God having made this 'election' before the foundations of the world were set.

When God speaks of the elect, I generally understand it as this:

In the beginning, God elected that those who would believe in the sacrifice and testimony of His Son and chose to follow the way of righteousness, would be given His promise of eternal life. For me, it doesn't mean that He 'elected' some individuals before they were born to be righteous, although yes, there have also been some of those. God obviously knew that John the Baptist would be righteous. The Scriptures tell us that he (John the baptist) would be filled with the Holy Spirit from birth. So, yes, I do believe that there are some few cases where God presses His will upon an individual to be born to accomplish His great plan, but I don't think that applies to most or any today. I don't think it applied to most even under the old covenant. There were a few, perhaps Elijah and possibly Moses, in whom God worked within them throughout their lives to see to it that they accomplished what they were born to accomplish and to do that which they were called to do. We also read that the 12 apostles seemed to be hand-picked by God to do all that they did and to be who they were.

Jesus, when praying to his Father mentions that he has lost none of those who were given to him except the one doomed to destruction. Indicating to me that those 12 were raised up to be that which they were to be by the Father. God works in mysterious and wonderful ways, but I've never been one to believe that the Scriptures teach us that everyone who will be saved were 'elected' individually before they were born, to be saved. I have always believed that for the vast majority of God's children, we will be saved because we made a conscious choice to do what Jesus has said that we must do. Believe and be saved.

God bless you all
In Christ, Ted

 

[mikedsjr]

There are parts of Scripture that seem to contradict other portions, yet they don't. Whether it is intelligent level, their bias, or traditional bias, we all interpret Scripture through a lens and needs to admit to this. Some are more close to the original meaning of the entire scope of Scripture than others. And some of a desire to fit Scripture together in a mesh to make sense over and must, in some way, deconstruct meanings of some portions to mean something different than intended.

I don't believe anyone is attempting to tell God he can't change his mind. God gave us his word and everything we need to know about God is there. Depending on how people believe about the Bible, People in here are making decisions as to what He says about Himself. Whether calvinist, arminian or something else, people are interpreting from a bias. That includes me.

No; of course I do not realize that my first statement contradicts the Scriptures—because it most certainly does not!

They are known as anthropomorphic statements only by Calvinists and other people who do not like what the Bible tells us about God. Anthropomorphic statements are statements that describe יהוה (YHWH), a spiritual being, as a physical human-being as in Psalms 34:15,

Calvinists, however, find it necessary to deny God’s very nature by telling us that God does not share with us our emotions—that is, the emotions that God really has and that prove that Calvinism is a fraud. However, His other emotions, such as love and hate, which do not prove that Calvinism is a fraud, Calvinists fully accept.

Who has the authority to tell God that He can not change His mind—or is His “mind” merely an anthropomorphic term used in the Bible to help us “grasp” a mindless God? Is God merely a man-made robot programmed by Calvinists—or is God truly God with the ability to learn and to make decisions based upon what He learns? Who has the authority to tell us whether God changes his mind? My authority is not John Calvin—my authority is the word of God.

 

[twin1954]

There are parts of Scripture that seem to contradict other portions, yet they don't. Whether it is intelligent level, their bias, or traditional bias, we all interpret Scripture through a lens and needs to admit to this. Some are more close to the original meaning of the entire scope of Scripture than others. And some of a desire to fit Scripture together in a mesh to make sense over and must, in some way, deconstruct meanings of some portions to mean something different than intended.

I don't believe anyone is attempting to tell God he can't change his mind. God gave us his word and everything we need to know about God is there. Depending on how people believe about the Bible, People in here are making decisions as to what He says about Himself. Whether calvinist, arminian or something else, people are interpreting from a bias. That includes me.

Simply put, a god who changes His mind can't be trusted.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I was ordained as a deacon in a Baptist church in 2007 and then ordained as a minister a year later 2008. Historically I think there was some differences between the denominations, but as people switch back and forth the dividing lines seem less distinct now. What saddens me the most is the public way that Baptist have a tendency to tear each other apart and fight. There is also some big differences in the way decisions are made in churches such as whether it is up to a small group of elders or if the congregation as a whole gets a vote.

Baptists “have a tendency to tear each other apart and fight” because very soon after our first Baptist churches were formed, a new and severely incorrect system of theology known today as ‘Calvinism’ was introduced to them and swallowed by them. This system of theology violently opposes not only the teaching of our earliest Baptist churches, but also the fundamental teaching of the Church as a whole.

Unlike most other churches, Baptist churches are largely, if not completely, autonomous. Therefore, they have no high-ranking church officials to protect them from aberrant doctrines and aberrational systems of theology. Consequently, Calvinism took over many of our early Baptist churches, but was kept out of most other established churches.

Moreover, other aberrational systems of theology, such as dispensationalism and KJOism, have taken over many of our Baptist churches, but have been kept out of other established churches. Furthermore, many aberrant doctrines, such as pretribulationism and midtribulationism, have taken over many of our Baptist churches, but have been kept out of other established churches. Autonomy gives our Baptist churches liberty—a good thing—but all too often, that liberty has been abused, resulting in doctrinal fights between those who advocate for the truth, and those who advocate for error.

 

[jsimms615]

Baptists “have a tendency to tear each other apart and fight” because very soon after our first Baptist churches were formed, a new and severely incorrect system of theology known today as ‘Calvinism’ was introduced to them and swallowed by them. This system of theology violently opposes not only the teaching of our earliest Baptist churches, but also the fundamental teaching of the Church as a whole.

Unlike most other churches, Baptist churches are largely, if not completely, autonomous. Therefore, they have no high-ranking church officials to protect them from aberrant doctrines and aberrational systems of theology. Consequently, Calvinism took over many of our early Baptist churches, but was kept out of most other established churches.

Moreover, other aberrational systems of theology, such as dispensationalism and KJOism, have taken over many of our Baptist churches, but have been kept out of other established churches. Furthermore, many aberrant doctrines, such as pretribulationism and midtribulationism, have taken over many of our Baptist churches, but have been kept out of other established churches. Autonomy gives our Baptist churches liberty—a good thing—but all too often, that liberty has been abused, resulting in doctrinal fights between those who advocate for the truth, and those who advocate for error.

I would agree with you that this liberty has been abused at times. From what I understand the idea that everyone in the congregation gets a vote came from the idea that the believer has the Holy Spirit inside of him or her and therefore is able, if being led by the Spirit, to help make decisions. This is assuming, of course, that every believer takes this responsibility seriously, which I don't believe is the case. I could go on and on, but I will not. I will say though, that I believe that there have been times when the church had a majority vote and were being misled by a group that were not being led by the Spirit.