Calvinist Baptist Talk

[BT]

BT, you're not a 0 point Calvinist...are you? You believe in once saved always saved, don't you? Do you believe that Christ died without a people to save in mind or did Christ died with those He "foreknew" in mind?

Yes I am a 0 point calvinist, because I do not believe in any of the points of calvinism as presented by calvinism. Once saved always saved is not a "calvinist" doctrine, and Preserverance of the saints doesn't exactly teach that, it teaches that the elect will perservere until the end. I believe that Christ died to become a (acceptable) propitiation for all men.

I am of the opinion that if you believe in one point of calvinism you pretty much have to believe in them all. It is a series of logical conclusions..

If Men are totally depraved (unable) then (T)
God must pick some of them to save personally (U)
Since only some are saved, the sacrifice of Christ is only for those (L)
Since the sacrifice is only for those then those must saved (I)
Those who are saved must make it to heaven (P)

So if T is true then U must be true and if U is true then L must be true and if L is true then I has to be true, and if I is true then P is a given.

So considering calvinism as a five-point system and understanding what each point means exactly. I can say that I do not believe in any of the five points....

 

[cygnusx1]

Yes I am a 0 point calvinist, because I do not believe in any of the points of calvinism as presented by calvinism. Once saved always saved is not a "calvinist" doctrine, and Preserverance of the saints doesn't exactly teach that, it teaches that the elect will perservere until the end. I believe that Christ died to become a (acceptable) propitiation for all men.

I am of the opinion that if you believe in one point of calvinism you pretty much have to believe in them all. It is a series of logical conclusions..

If Men are totally depraved (unable) then (T)
God must pick some of them to save personally (U)
Since only some are saved, the sacrifice of Christ is only for those (L)
Since the sacrifice is only for those then those must saved (I)
Those who are saved must make it to heaven (P)

So if T is true then U must be true and if U is true then L must be true and if L is true then I has to be true, and if I is true then P is a given.

So considering calvinism as a five-point system and understanding what each point means exactly. I can say that I do not believe in any of the five points....

I think you are a one point Calvinist and I think John Wesley would agree with me.................no need to respond , it's just a passing thought...
Peace Cygnus

 

[BT]

I think you are a one point Calvinist and I think John Wesley would agree with me.................no need to respond , it's just a passing thought...
Peace Cygnus

I think you are a Roman Catholic and I think that my dog barney would agree with me........... no need to respond, it's just a passing thought....
Faith BT

 

[cygnusx1]

I think you are a Roman Catholic and I think that my dog barney would agree with me........... no need to respond, it's just a passing thought....
Faith BT

 

[JM]

Once saved always saved is not a "calvinist" doctrine, and Preserverance of the saints doesn't exactly teach that, it teaches that the elect will perservere until the end.

At least we can agree that one point of calvinism is Biblical, but you're the first baptist I've talk to that would say he doesn't believe any of the points. Even my pastor, who you know, believes in four of them.

 

[tigersnare]

nevermind

 

[BT]

At least we can agree that one point of calvinism is Biblical, but you're the first baptist I've talk to that would say he doesn't believe any of the points. Even my pastor, who you know, believes in four of them.

I missed something.. how does "I do not believe in Perserverence of the Saints" which is the so-called "OSAS" of calvinism translate into

a) I am a 1 point calvinist
b) I agree that 1 point of calvinism is biblical
and
c) nevermind

 

[theseed]

Yes but that is kind of a play on words isn't it? On one hand we say that God is no respector of persons but at the same time we say that God has picked only certain people (the elect) for salvation. So if God has picked certain ones for salvation then is He not then a respector of persons in the sense of the elect and the non-elect. He has chosen some above others for some unknown reason...

Because he chose who would be saved, some how he is showing those people respect?

 

[theseed]

Yes but that is kind of a play on words isn't it? On one hand we say that God is no respector of persons but at the same time we say that God has picked only certain people (the elect) for salvation. So if God has picked certain ones for salvation then is He not then a respector of persons in the sense of the elect and the non-elect. He has chosen some above others for some unknown reason...

That unkown reason is his own glory. God has chosen the weak in this world to be strong in faith.

 

[BT]

Because he chose who would be saved, some how he is showing those people respect?

No he is not showing them respect, he is for some reason prefering them over others..

 

[BT]

That unkown reason is his own glory. God has chosen the weak in this world to be strong in faith.

His own Glory is the reason for all things. Election does not prove the verse that you've quoted, otherwise you'd have to say that the elect (Christians) are the weak in this world. Christendom is a diversity of peoples, rich and poor, great and weak, scholars and not, politicians and garbage men. That verse isn't right for your argument here. There are too many weak who are non-Christian and too many strong who are Christian.

 

[tigersnare]

Weak and Strong are completely relative, no place in this argument really.

 

[BT]

Weak and Strong are completely relative, no place in this argument really.

On this, we agree totally

 

[tigersnare]

On this, we agree totally

Actualy I meant your comment about weak and strong Christians in this world.

 

[JM]

I feel sad, this thread turned into a war over man's ability to choose his salvation.

 

[LondonsBurning]

How can you only see the legitimacy in one point?

Perseverance of the Saints is very Biblical. Read John 10. NOONE can snatch us out of the father's hand.

Unconditional election. Read Ephesians 1. Pretty clear. That's at least 3 (assuming you are saying Total Depravity is the point you agree with) THe others work to. You just need to know where to look.

 

[JM]

How can you only see the legitimacy in one point?

Perseverance of the Saints is very Biblical. Read John 10. NOONE can snatch us out of the father's hand.

Unconditional election. Read Ephesians 1. Pretty clear. That's at least 3 (assuming you are saying Total Depravity is the point you agree with) THe others work to. You just need to know where to look.

I agree with you, I just don't get how people miss it. They call it 'calvinism' and use this term to try and discredit Grace...the word 'calvinist' brings along a lot of hateful feelings, people will not listen to Biblical theology the word 'cavinist' is used.

 

[theseed]

God has chosen the weak in this world to be strong in faith. The passage superflously supports my position that God chooses people for his glory.

Also, God resist the proud but gives grace to the humble (Prov. 3.34, James 4.6?, 1 Peter 5.5).

 

[BT]

How can you only see the legitimacy in one point?

Perseverance of the Saints is very Biblical. Read John 10. NOONE can snatch us out of the father's hand.

Unconditional election. Read Ephesians 1. Pretty clear. That's at least 3 (assuming you are saying Total Depravity is the point you agree with) THe others work to. You just need to know where to look.

Perseverance of the Saints is not OSAS.

Listen, I wish calvinism was true (the doctrine of Grace) it would make my job a lot easier. Show me that calvinsim is true and I'll be a Calvinist.

Use Ephesians 1 and show me unconditional election. I have not said that I agree with ANY points of calvinsim.. I DO NOT AGREE WITH TOTAL DEPRAVITY/TOTAL INABILIITY hopefully that makes it clear.

So proceed to Ephesians 1.

 

[BT]

I agree with you, I just don't get how people miss it. They call it 'calvinism' and use this term to try and discredit Grace...the word 'calvinist' brings along a lot of hateful feelings, people will not listen to Biblical theology the word 'cavinist' is used.

I do not see how the calvinist can misunderstand the nature of God so much as to insert doctrine into the Bible and insist that it was always there. You are not using Biblical theology whether you choose to believe it or not.