Denied on basis of being a CredoBaptist

[heymikey80]

Many of us were, in fact, Arminians when we realized the truth of the doctrines of Grace. Were we unsaved until we did so?

I came to faith in Christ before I accepted the truth of free grace. Was I unsaved when I first believed?

You were saved when you believed. There's no additional demand for a specific doctrine of determinism.

 

[JustAsIam77]

You were saved when you believed. There's no additional demand for a specific doctrine of determinism.

Hear, hear..well said.

 

[twin1954]

You were saved when you believed. There's no additional demand for a specific doctrine of determinism.

Who has even implied that there was? My whole argument has never been that you must know or understand certain doctrines to be saved but the Scriptures are clear that you must know God in Christ to be saved. Man's ppoint of rebellion isnt against any of the attributes of God but one, His sovereign rule. Until you know Him as the Lord who rules you don't know Him.

 

[Anoetos]

You were saved when you believed. There's no additional demand for a specific doctrine of determinism.

I know, but some here seem to want to say, "Yes, but no".

 

[the particular baptist]

You were saved when you believed. There's no additional demand for a specific doctrine of determinism.

Isnt that Sandemanianism ?

Believe what ? And if one does believe, giving mental assent to two or three facts of the life, death, resurrection enough ?

What does John 17:3 mean ? Sandemanianism ? Giving mental assent to two or three gospel truths ?

 

[heymikey80]

Isnt that Sandemanianism ?

Believe what ? And if one does believe, giving mental assent to two or three facts of the life, death, resurrection enough ?

What does John 17:3 mean ? Sandemanianism ? Giving mental assent to two or three gospel truths ?

a reading of the post would have included the description of who's believed in, and mental assent is not belief. Mental assent is an opinion.

Anyone who reads my posts would've noticed this. The word for "believe" is "pisteuo". It is far more than mental assent.

But so is belief in a person. In English.

"If you look for evil in a man, expecting to find it, you certainly shall."

 

[JM]

...forget it.

 

[the particular baptist]

a reading of the post would have included the description of who's believed in, and mental assent is not belief. Mental assent is an opinion.

Anyone who reads my posts would've noticed this. The word for "believe" is "pisteuo". It is far more than mental assent.

But so is belief in a person. In English.

"If you look for evil in a man, expecting to find it, you certainly shall."

Wasnt looking for evil in your post Mickey, i apologize if that's what it communicated.

I was asking for clarification.

Is the jesus of free will work religionists the same Jesus of the Bible, the One Who reveals Himself in the heart and mind of every child of God? Is the "gospel according to the scriptures" the same gospel of free will work religionists ?

 

[heymikey80]

Wasnt looking for evil in your post Mickey, i apologize if that's what it communicated.

I was asking for clarification.

Is the jesus of free will work religionists the same Jesus of the Bible, the One Who reveals Himself in the heart and mind of every child of God? Is the "gospel according to the scriptures" the same gospel of free will work religionists ?

Reliance on Christ is the critical aspect of all Christianity. Arminians are not work-religionists all, they are factoring from a human perspective something that has been factored that way by believers for a long time.

If we were to require a particular view on our part, that would be works. And we would be required to meet its conditions -- not merely assent to it.

 

[the particular baptist]

Reliance on Christ is the critical aspect of all Christianity.

This as a stand alone statement is still vague and arbitrary. Which Christ ? What did He do, what did He accomplish ? To the freewiller, the Atonement of Christ is meaningless unless the sinner makes it effectual. His decision gives it power. His repentance and faith cause God to pardon them. That is free will work religion.

Arminians are not work-religionists all, they are factoring from a human perspective something that has been factored that way by believers for a long time.

Matthew 7 is clear that not all who think they are believers are. It matters nothing if someone says they know the Lord. It matters if the Lord knows them. Thats the only thing that matters. John 6 says that all God's people will be taught of Him.

If we were to require a particular view on our part, that would be works.

So a discerning ear with respect to a professing christian and John 17:3 is looking for works ?

A brother here pointed this out already and it seems no one gets the point. Men love a God of love, of grace. Men who whose minds are at enmity with God hate a God that does whatsoever He pleases, hate a God that is all powerful, hate a God that does everything after the counsel of His own will without getting permission from the almighty will of man. Based on their teeth grinding, vein bulging attitude towards the God of the Bible, and based on John 17:3, they do not know Him.

 

[lovemygod316]

To be a historic Calvinist you must adhere to the Synod of Dorth which means you must adhere to double predestination. In simple terms God has predestined some to salvation and predestined some to damnation. I know this is heresy to most Lutherans but it's just our historic position. There is lots of so called Calvinist out there that hold to variations of this, frankly it's not the historic position. I know I used to call myself a single predestination Calvinist, I was wrong and I was misinformed.

I haven't seen a formal definition to hypercalvinism. I know in several past controversies hypercalvinist have been defined as those who preach that we don't need to evangelize but God will save the elect on his own. I have seen other definitions that pop up as the denial of common grace but no confession or formal church government papers. I welcome to be corrected on this though.

Wow, this talk of predestination and double predestination is making my head spin, lol. I'm pretty new to Calvinism in general, but I recently "re" accepted Christ and was previously a Baptist, but I now think I would fit better in a Presbyterian church.

I guess I would have to say that I believe in double predestination, but only because God is omniscient and thus already knows who is going to accept Jesus and who isn't. But it is still the free will of each person whether or not to do so. It is the human that tries to discern God's will in all things, not the other way around.

As far as "hyper-Calvinism" and evangelism, I think we still have a duty to evangelize, because just as God already knows who is going to accept Jesus, He also knows who's witness it will be from, but WE do not.

 

[the particular baptist]

Case in point.

 

[JM]

Calvinists are often worried about being called hypers and go the other way becoming hyper evangelists. As if running around with Bible tracts is a gage on spiritual fitness.

 

[heymikey80]

This as a stand alone statement is still vague and arbitrary. Which Christ ? What did He do, what did He accomplish ? To the freewiller, the Atonement of Christ is meaningless unless the sinner makes it effectual. His decision gives it power. His repentance and faith cause God to pardon them. That is free will work religion.

Christ's "only believe" did not contain within it the easter egg of all the rest of theology.

Matthew 7 is clear that not all who think they are believers are. It matters nothing if someone says they know the Lord. It matters if the Lord knows them. Thats the only thing that matters. John 6 says that all God's people will be taught of Him.

That points out deception -- but the nature of the deception is not how close your theology is to the truth. Nor even how real miracles are.

So a discerning ear with respect to a professing christian and John 17:3 is looking for works ?

A critical ear with respect to people who are not yours, but Christ's, adds things to salvation that Christ did not add.

A brother here pointed this out already and it seems no one gets the point. Men love a God of love, of grace. Men who whose minds are at enmity with God hate a God that does whatsoever He pleases, hate a God that is all powerful, hate a God that does everything after the counsel of His own will without getting permission from the almighty will of man. Based on their teeth grinding, vein bulging attitude towards the God of the Bible, and based on John 17:3, they do not know Him.

Yes. That's based on Who you rely on. "I never knew you." People will always be building idols. There are hedges against this problem. But there is not another rule to add to prevent the problem from occurring. The Apostles told everyone to beware these kinds of issues. That didn't add to the condition of faith.

 

[the particular baptist]

Christ's "only believe" did not contain within it the easter egg of all the rest of theology.

John 17:3

That points out deception -- but the nature of the deception is not how close your theology is to the truth.

Yes indeed. What of the Mormon and the Russelite ? What of the free will worshiper ?

A critical ear with respect to people who are not yours, but Christ's, adds things to salvation that Christ did not add.

1John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God

Is this an encouragement, admonition, or commandment?

That didn't add to the condition of faith.

There is no condition at all, that is the point Mickey. A Lazarus that was rotting and dead and given life and brought out of the grave knows this. Similarly, a born of God, taught of God believers knows this. Knows it from experience too. The difference is as vast as Lazarus feeling himself come to life and walk out of the tomb, and the people watching, or only believing the facts of it upon hearing of it.

So people talk of their faith in Christ (as do i) and i listen, and hearing of "faith in Christ" one can try (1 John 4:1) that testimony of "faith" and see if it is free will worship or "God be merciful to me a sinner", faith. The one who has been brought by the Spirit to feel himself totally depraved, corrupt from the crown of his head to the soles of his feet, is the sinner who is made sensible to his poverty, hunger, thirst, captivity, blindness, and this sinner's faith is the faith of the Bible.

I dont expect the presbyterian brethren to agree with me, as their understanding of the mak up of the local church is different.

 

[heymikey80]

Not even Presbyterianism thinks of faith as solely assent. It's pretty clear from the Confession on Justification, which describes what saving faith is (11.2).

II. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.

 

[the particular baptist]

Not even Presbyterianism thinks of faith as solely assent. It's pretty clear from the Confession on Justification, which describes what saving faith is (11.2).

Pardon me, i didnt mean to communicate that in my comment of the presbyterian brethren.

What i meant by it is their/your understanding of the make up of the church to be, on earth, made up of regenerated and unregenerated people, while Baptists, or Strict Baptists, historically believed in and taught a regenerate membership, or baptized people upon a credible (1 john 4:1) profession of faith.

 

[Anoetos]

This is what I don't understand: we base membership upon exactly the same basis; baptized people with a credible profession of faith, so now, why is it that we are the ones with regenerate and unregenerate mixed together?

 

[the particular baptist]

This is what I don't understand: we base membership upon exactly the same basis; baptized people with a credible profession of faith, so now, why is it that we are the ones with regenerate and unregenerate mixed together?

How do you get credible profession of faith to see if there indeed is a work of grace .... from an infant ?

 

[heymikey80]

How do you get credible profession of faith to see if there indeed is a work of grace .... from an infant ?

God's promise is a bit more reliable than our examination.

And of course, our examination is often faulty, as is yours.

The church is thus made up of regenerate and unregenerate alike.

Hebrews 6:4-6 and Hebrews 10:26ff make something of a conundrum if the church is not composed of regenerate and unregenerate.

Oh, and many, many baptist churches don't leave it at that. I'm not welcome to become a member of baptist churches in my area.

'Makes the title of this post pretty ironic.