Free Will Baptist?

[aReformedPatriot]

You believe that one can lose their salvation?

Yep. Could be wrong though, I'll tell ya when I die and have fought the good fight and finished the race

 

[BT]

Yep. Could be wrong though, I'll tell ya when I die and have fought the good fight and finished the race

ROFL! I love it!

C'mon turn on your rep points!!!!

 

[aReformedPatriot]

ROFL! I love it!

C'mon turn on your rep points!!!!

Oh ok... just this once

 

[rural_preacher]

Kinda like folowing the Bible and trusting Jesus Christ as your Saviour and not being a Christian, huh?

Classifications aren't chosen, the're given based on what you belive. If you agree with Chuck Smith, then you are a four-point Arminian.

Praise God, I am a Christian! And, It's funny you would say I'm a "four-point Arminian", most people who know me would call me a "four-point Calvinist". I guess that's because I'm not either...I'm a Christian and a Biblicist. The Bible is the final authority for what I believe and practice. You left out an important part of what I said in the post you quoted:

This article does an excellent job of explaining the issue and I find myself agreeing to a considerable degree with it.

I did not state full agreement with it, nor did I state what parts agreed or disagreed with. I subject that article to the same standard that I use for everything else I read...the Word of God. I simply find that article to be a good answer to the whole calvin/arminian issue. It's not a perfect statement by any means...it's not the Word of God.

As a Bible-believing Christian, I accept the designation "baptist" because historically baptists have been churches that hold fast to the authority of God's Word above creeds and theological systems. And I also can't avoid the name "baptist" since I'm the pastor of baptist church.

 

[Bulldog]

Praise God, I am a Christian! And, It's funny you would say I'm a "four-point Arminian", most people who know me would call me a "four-point Calvinist".

I said that if you agree with Chuck Smith you're a four point Arminian. I know you don't like, but if you agree with four of the points, then it is hard to escape being a four oint Arminian, and the article you brought up is clearly four-point Arminianism. Here are the five points (four pint Arminianism accepts all but the last):

• Conditional Election: God has decreed to save through Jesus Christ, out of the fallen and sinful human race, those foreknown by him who through the grace of the Holy Spirit believe in Christ; but God leaves in sin those foreseen, who are incorrigible and unbelieving.

• Universal Atonement: Christ's death was suffered on behalf of all men, but God elects for salvation only those who believe in Christ.

• Free Will with Partial Depravity: Freedom of will is man's natural state, not a spiritual gift - and thus free will was not lost in the Fall. The grace of Christ works upon all men to influence them for good, but only those who freely choose to agree with grace by faith and repentance are given new spiritual power to make effectual the good they otherwise impotently intend.

• Resistible Grace: The grace of God works for good in all men, and brings about newness of life through faith. But grace can be resisted even by the regenerate.

• Uncertain Perseverance: Those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith have power given them through the assisting grace of the Holy Spirit, sufficient to enable them to persevere in the faith. But it may be possible for a believer to fall from grace

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism

I guess that's because I'm not either...I'm a Christian and a Biblicist.

So aam I...never stopped me from being a Calvinist.

I did not state full agreement with it, nor did I state what parts agreed or disagreed with. I subject that article to the same standard that I use for everything else I read...the Word of God. I simply find that article to be a good answer to the whole calvin/arminian issue. It's not a perfect statement by any means...it's not the Word of God.

Thank you, I am sorry for jumping to such a conclusion.

As a Bible-believing Christian, I accept the designation "baptist" because historically baptists have been churches that hold fast to the authority of God's Word above creeds and theological systems. And I also can't avoid the name "baptist" since I'm the pastor of baptist church.

Asbolutly. However, it's important to note that baptists aren't the only ones that hold to Sola Scriptura.

 

[rural_preacher]

So aam I...never stopped me from being a Calvinist.


Asbolutly. However, it's important to note that baptists aren't the only ones that hold to Sola Scriptura.

I agree. Biblical authority is the historical position of many groups. I didn't intend to make it sound like the exclusive possession of baptists.

But just because I agree with the Pope on pro-life issues doesn't make me a 1 point RC. No wait, I also agree with Catholics on the doctrine of the Trinity. Oh no, that makes me a 2 point RC! This is looking bad! I'm a baptist preacher, but I seem to also be a catholic...well at least 2 or 3 point catholic. How will I explain this to my people?!

I guess my point is, if you want to slap a label on me that is your freedom to do so. I have no desire to slap one on myself (except for those I already stated that do accept)...wow this whole thing is making my head spin!

Great...now I have to go preach...

 

[Matthan]

Anyone who does not believe completely in "Once Saved, Always Saved" simply does not believe what Jesus taught us in Scripture. They cannot have it both ways. Either Jesus was telling us the truth in John, chapter 3, or He was not. If He told us the truth, then OSAS is absolute. If He did not speak the truth, or if He did not speak ALL of the truth or the COMPLETE truth (as some might claim), then we cannot believe anything else that He spoke because it, too, might be incomplete. Personally, I think not.

Matthan

 

[rural_preacher]

Ephesians 1:13, 14
"In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory."

 

[Bulldog]

But just because I agree with the Pope on pro-life issues doesn't make me a 1 point RC. No wait, I also agree with Catholics on the doctrine of the Trinity. Oh no, that makes me a 2 point RC! This is looking bad! I'm a baptist preacher, but I seem to also be a catholic...well at least 2 or 3 point catholic. How will I explain this to my people?!

Okay, but there is no such thing as "the five points of Roman Catholicism". Such have, however, been defined for Calvinism and Arminianism

I guess my point is, if you want to slap a label on me that is your freedom to do so. I have no desire to slap one on myself (except for those I already stated that do accept)...wow this whole thing is making my head spin!

Okay.

 

[Ave Maria]

I was raised Southern Baptist.

 

[Beoga]

used to be, but not anymore