Calvinists, why are you Calvinist?

[JM]

Let's not forget church government.

 

[Goodbook]

Oh ok. But when someone joins their church they need to have already been baptised. Which you would be if you are a baptist, so after that it shouldnt make a difference. They are hardcore calvinists. Calvinists would support infant baptism because they think you are predestined to be baptised anyway.


That i suppose is when all their tulips fall apart.

 

[JM]

Oh ok. But when someone joins their church they need to have already been baptised. Which you would be if you are a baptist, so after that it shouldnt make a difference. They are hardcore calvinists. Calvinists would support infant baptism because they think you are predestined to be baptised anyway.


That i suppose is when all their tulips fall apart.

Some Presbyterian churches would place a couple that refused to baptize their children under discipline. That's if they're member.

 

[royal priest]

"Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith without works; not unless we preach the sovereignty of God in his dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor, I think, can we preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the peculiar redemption which Christ made for his elect and chosen people; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation, after having believed. Such a gospel I abhor. The gospel of the Bible is not such a gospel as that. We preach Christ and him crucified in a different fashion, and to all gainsayers we reply, "We have not so learned Christ.”
― Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Baptist

 

[Goodbook]

Poor spurgeon, he was confused.

The gospel was here before john calvin was even born.

 

[Leevo]

"Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith without works; not unless we preach the sovereignty of God in his dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor, I think, can we preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the peculiar redemption which Christ made for his elect and chosen people; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation, after having believed. Such a gospel I abhor. The gospel of the Bible is not such a gospel as that. We preach Christ and him crucified in a different fashion, and to all gainsayers we reply, "We have not so learned Christ.”
― Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Baptist

You see Mr. Spurgeon, reformed Calvinism denies all Biblical concepts of God as good and loving, and replaces him with one that is a hate filled, wrath filled one.

 

[mikedsjr]

Oh ok. But when someone joins their church they need to have already been baptised. Which you would be if you are a baptist, so after that it shouldnt make a difference. They are hardcore calvinists. Calvinists would support infant baptism because they think you are predestined to be baptised anyway.


That i suppose is when all their tulips fall apart.

Why I am still a baptist has to do with family history. I find any group who rejects infant baptism is already inconsistent. But that's a topic for general theology forum.

You don't believe God predestines? You said you read the bible. So when you read, "those whom he predestined....", you just ignore the words or do you think the definition doesn't mean "determine in advanced by divine free will" as the Oxford dictionary defines it?

As I've learned through some teachers, there is a difference between prescriptive and descriptive linguistics(you would do better to look it up than have me explain it). This seems to be the barrier occurring when reading Scripture. There are different sides using different linguistics to define their theology. You can't come to the same conclusion with both methods in Scripture, or even a combination. Someone using descriptive linguistics is going to have a different interpretive outcome, than prescriptive, when reading both "...those whom he predestined..." or "...no one seeks God..." verses "...whosoever believes in him..." or "Abram believed God...". It's like the philosophical two story approach that controls the modern world. What is considered the absolute truth is placed on the bottom floor, while subjective truth is placed on the top. Arminians place narratives on bottom as proof, while Calvinist place narratives on top as conditionally understood in light of absolute truths.

 

[twin1954]

Not really. There is a major difference in beliefs on Baptism. Baptists believe in credobaptism(believer's baptism) and Presbyterians typically affirm pedobaptism(infant).

If it weren't for that main issue then I'd likely identify as Presbyterian.

There is a huge difference between Baptist Covenant theology and Presbyterian Covenant theology. Presbyterians use "necessary consequence" to arrive at infant baptism and it is an integral part of their theology. They view baptism as a continuation of circumcision and Baptists view it simply as a symbol of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Presbyterians hold to a sacramental view in which they believe that grace is imparted through the elements of both baptism and the Lord's Supper. I could never be a Presbyterian because of their Covenant theology and necessary consequence. Not to mention their church government and other reasons.

 

[High Fidelity]

There is a huge difference between Baptist Covenant theology and Presbyterian Covenant theology. Presbyterians use "necessary consequence" to arrive at infant baptism and it is an integral part of their theology. They view baptism as a continuation of circumcision and Baptists view it simply as a symbol of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Presbyterians hold to a sacramental view in which they believe that grace is imparted through the elements of both baptism and the Lord's Supper. I could never be a Presbyterian because of their Covenant theology and necessary consequence. Not to mention their church government and other reasons.

All good points.

I wasn't aware that Presbyterians held to a sacramental Lord's Supper. Maybe that's a case-by-case thing because of all denominations, I imagined Presbyterians would be least inclined to observe that.

 

[twin1954]

You see Mr. Spurgeon, reformed Calvinism denies all Biblical concepts of God as good and loving, and replaces him with one that is a hate filled, wrath filled one.

How so? As I see it sovereign election affirms the wondrous love of God and His goodness. Arminian theology is grounded and founded on the idea that God is obliged to give everyone a chance to believe and Calvinism believes God is not obligated to do anything for us. Arminians believe that man is responsible because he is sovereign over his own destiny and must make a choice and Calvinists believe that God is sovereign and determines who He will save not based on anything in man but because of His free and loving nature to save whom He will. Man is responsible because he has rebelled both in Adam and in his own sin and none of us deserve anything from God but His damnation.

 

[twin1954]

All good points.

I wasn't aware that Presbyterians held to a sacramental Lord's Supper. Maybe that's a case-by-case thing because of all denominations, I imagined Presbyterians would be least inclined to observe that.

No it is clearly taught in the WCF.

 

[JM]

Historically, there really isn't a HUGE difference in the theology of Particular Baptists and Presbyterianism. The differences came later. If you read the 17th century Baptists you'll see they believed in creedal and confessionalism, sacraments, etc.

The Reformed view of the sacraments is that one receives the grace of God by faith the same way we receive the grace of God in the preaching of the word. Baptists and Reformed Christians have been in agreement. The Arminian Baptists, via the Anabaptists, preferred the memorial view of the Lord's Supper.

We all use "necessary consequence" because we are logical beings. The infant baptist assumes a faulty premise when they equate the Mosaic Covenant of Works as being the same covenant as the New Covenant of Grace and this leads to false conclusion. Wrongly, the infant baptist tries to find a physical action for the New Covenant that relates to circumcision under the Mosaic Covenant. We must not allow an invalid conclusion to be formed from a faulty premise, this is what lead to infant baptism, not necessary consequence.

Relevant readings from the London Baptist Confession, 1689:

"...for the perpetual remembrance, and shewing forth the sacrifice of himself in his death, confirmation of the faith of believers in all the benefits thereof, their spiritual nourishment, and growth in him, their further engagement in, and to all duties which they owe to him..." 30.1

"...Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed..."

"...spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers..." 30.7

Keach on the Lord's Supper and it's benefits to believers. Notice, they are a manner to proclaim the Gospel.

A Baptist Catechism:

Q. 95. What are the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption?

A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption are His ordinances, especially the Word, Baptism, the Lord's Supper and Prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation. (Rom. 10:17; James 1:18; 1 Cor. 3:5; Acts 14:1; 2:41,42)


Q. 98. How do Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation?

A. Baptism and the Lord's Supper become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in him that administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them. (1 Peter 3:21; 1 Cor. 3:6,7; 1 Cor. 12:13)

Q. 107. What is the Lord's Supper?

A. The Lord's Supper is a holy ordinance, wherein, by giving and receiving bread and wine, according to Christ's appointment, His death is showed forth, and the worthy receivers are, not after a corporeal and carnal manner, but by faith, made partakers of His body and blood, with all His benefits, to their spiritual nourishment, and growth in grace. (1 Cor. 11:23-26; 10:16)


Q. 108. What is required to the worthy receiving of the Lord's Supper?

A. It is required of them that would worthily (that is, suitably) partake of the Lord's Supper, that they examine themselves, of their knowledge to discern the Lord's body; of their faith to feed upon Him; of their repentance, love, and new obedience: lest, coming unworthily, they eat and drink judgment to themselves. (1 Cor. 11:27-31; 1 Cor. 5:8; 2 Cor. 13:5)

As you can see not much difference exists between Particular Baptists and Presbyterians. The early Baptists, those who emphasized believers baptism, had a lot more in common with Presbyterians than they did with Anabaptists.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Hammster]

Just curious. Have you investigated Arminian/Molinist theology and found too much fault with it? Is it just what you grew up in so you just accept it?

I was never disposed to either side over the other as we did not attend church growing up but upon my coming to faith I had to find my side of the argument and settled in the Arminian camp, was just curious as to why you all are in the camp your in...

I'm a reluctant Calvinist. When I first started here, I was a synergist. I argued repeatedly with Calvinists over in Soteriology.

The issue seemed that every proof text I had, when taken in context, usually said something different. So I started trying to find bigger sections of text to support my views. While there were some, it was never enough to make a solid argument. The last piece, and probably the biggest, was limited atonement. Jesus died for all, right? But if Jesus took the punishment for all sin, then God would be unjust for sending anyone to hell. Once that lightbulb came on, the rest fell into place.

 

[Hammster]

You see Mr. Spurgeon, reformed Calvinism denies all Biblical concepts of God as good and loving, and replaces him with one that is a hate filled, wrath filled one.

I thought you wanted civility?

 

[PrettyboyAndy]

I Just realized this!

The Arminian conception of gospel preaching is weak, because it depends on the preacher's personal ability and strength. - Therefore: People must hear to believe, so that must be contingent upon the preachers personality, ability, strength, voice tone, eloquence etc. - That obviously can not be the case!

The Calvinist, on the other hand, knows that God's Word will never fail to accomplish all that God desires it to accomplish.

"So will My Word be which goes forth from My mouth; it will not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it." Is. 55:11

 

[Leevo]

I thought you wanted civility?

I did but if my beliefs are going to be continually attacked, then I am going to defend them.

 

[Hammster]

I did but if my beliefs are going to be continually attacked, then I am going to defend them.

By disparaging other's beliefs?

 

[Leevo]

How so? As I see it sovereign election affirms the wondrous love of God and His goodness. Arminian theology is grounded and founded on the idea that God is obliged to give everyone a chance to believe and Calvinism believes God is not obligated to do anything for us. Arminians believe that man is responsible because he is sovereign over his own destiny and must make a choice and Calvinists believe that God is sovereign and determines who He will save not based on anything in man but because of His free and loving nature to save whom He will. Man is responsible because he has rebelled both in Adam and in his own sin and none of us deserve anything from God but His damnation.

Calvinist theology, where I find fault is where it says that man deserves hell because of his sin. I agree with that part, but where it goes wrong for me is when it says that we cannot do anything otherwise. So the concept of God in Calvinism makes God the one who causes the man to sin, and God punished said sinner based on the sinner not being able to do anything else than how God made said person... Also, it seems to ignore the several parts about God desiring "all" to be saved, and has to come up with a faulty explanation of the meaning of the word all...

 

[Leevo]

By disparaging other's beliefs?

Mine were several times, why should I not express my true opinions as well?

 

[Hammster]

Calvinist theology, where I find fault is where it says that man deserves hell because of his sin. I agree with that part, but where it goes wrong for me is when it says that we cannot do anything otherwise. So the concept of God in Calvinism makes God the one who causes the man to sin, and God punished said sinner based on the sinner not being able to do anything else than how God made said person... Also, it seems to ignore the several parts about God desiring "all" to be saved, and has to come up with a faulty explanation of the meaning of the word all...

"All" has two meanings. It's either every single item, or every kind. So context will determine which "all" is used. You cannot assume the meaning to fit your theology.