Just visiting

[DeaconDean]

Dear friends, brothers, and sisters,

Here recently, I have come under attack from a Calvinist. In seminary, one of my professors made sure to give me a "Reformed Education". And, as a consequence, I realized that I had been adhering to Reformed theology all my life without even knowing it. Had it not for being raised a Baptist, I could have very well been a Presbyterian.

Anyhow, many of you know me, we have had lots of discussions, and I have learned a lot from ya'll, and hopefully, I have been able to pass on a few things too.

However, recently, most especially in one of my areas (Fundamentalists) and in GT, I have come under attack from a certain "Calvinist".

I guess I just don't know anything about "Calvinism".

It is with this in mind, that I am changing my "Icon" back to one of a "Baptist".

I will visit from time to time, but I don't its prudent of me to post here lest I get attacked here to.

I have enjoyed the fellowship here, and I hope it will continue.

Thank you for including this "village idiot" in your discussions. It is apparent that evidently, I don't know my butt from a hole in the ground when it comes to Reformed theology and/or my years of being a Fundamentalist.

With that in mind, I bid you a heartfelt goodbye, and a heartfelt thank you for bearing with all my shortcomings.

God Bless, and goodbye.

Till all are one.

 

[Radagast]

Here recently, I have come under attack from a Calvinist. In seminary, one of my professors made sure to give me a "Reformed Education". And, as a consequence, I realized that I had been adhering to Reformed theology all my life without even knowing it. Had it not for being raised a Baptist, I could have very well been a Presbyterian.

Anyhow, many of you know me, we have had lots of discussions, and I have learned a lot from ya'll, and hopefully, I have been able to pass on a few things too.

However, recently, most especially in one of my areas (Fundamentalists) and in GT, I have come under attack from a certain "Calvinist".

Sorry to hear that.

 

[Jonaitis]

You can be Reformed and Credobaptist, contrary to what many Presbyterians may try to tell you. There are a variety of covenantal and confessional views that fits within Reformed standards. Unless you're just Baptist with Calvinistic leanings.

 

[DeaconDean]

You can be Reformed and Credobaptist, contrary to what many Presbyterians may try to tell you. There are a variety of covenantal and confessional views that fits within Reformed standards. Unless you're just Baptist with Calvinistic leanings.

I would agree with 99% of what John Calvin taught, I just do not accept the "paedobaptism" he taught. I never have, and never will, accept "infant baptism".

Nor do I adhere to any "Confession" per se.

Dr. Jimmy Draper wrote:

A Creed is not a revelation of divine truth; it is not a rule of faith and practice,
but it is a help in both. Creeds have no authority over conscience.

They are useful, and, from a practical standpoint, are brief summaries of what we believe. But I will not be able to recite and/or swear by them.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Jonaitis]

I would agree with 99% of what John Calvin taught, I just do not accept the "paedobaptism" he taught. I never have, and never will, accept "infant baptism".

I don't think most "Reformed" folk agree that much with Calvin tbh. For an example, he didn't believe in a covenant of works with Adam federally representing the whole race of mankind. There are things, I believe, that are within Reformed standards that Calvin may never had originally adhered to.

But, I agree with you that I cannot accept it either, but based on how I see the substance/administration of the covenants. Ironically, Calvin in his Institutes admits that "baptizo" in the Greek means "immersion," but he tries to play it off as though the mode is unimportant to the practice.

Nor do I adhere to any "Confession" per se.

There are various views within a single confession. Have you ever heard of Modern Reformed Baptists? I could be mistaken, but they would hold to everything a Presbyterian holds to regarding covenant administrations, but with a Baptist interpretation, that fits within Reformed Standards. Advocates of this would be Greg Nichols, James White, and some others.

Dr. Jimmy Draper wrote:

A Creed is not a revelation of divine truth; it is not a rule of faith and practice,
but it is a help in both. Creeds have no authority over conscience.

Of course, matter of fact every Reformed document affirms this strongly. Just read the first chapter of the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith. It heavily expounds on what Jimmy Draper notes.

They are useful, and, from a practical standpoint, are brief summaries of what we believe. But I will not be able to recite and/or swear by them.

Who says you have to? There is such a thing as partial and strict subscribers. Although, if you deny most of it you would be outside of Reformed orthodoxy, but belief in what is true is what matters the most. Confessions are only suppose to be what you affirm to be the summary of the bible, not meant to impose authority.

 

[Jonaitis]

If you really feel compelled to take a step back and think about what you believe, I highly encourage it. You need to be sure of what is truth, not just agree with people who may sound good. May the Lord lead you in the direction he wants to bring you on.

Till next time, brother.

 

[DeaconDean]

Of course, matter of fact every Reformed document affirms this strongly. Just read the first chapter of the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith.

Are you aware that one of the first "Baptist" confessions in America is nothing more than the 2nd London Baptist Confession?

Compare the 2nd London Baptist confession with the 1742 Philadelphia Baptist Associations confession.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Let me explain further.

Unlike some denominations, the doctrine on "predestination" was taught, just not very often in Baptist circles.

While in seminary, and going through "Systematic Theology", I realized just how ignorant most Baptists (myself included) are on this subject.

It was then and there I spent the next 6 months "studying" this topic. (As well as the inter-connected topic: election)

Now my position has not changed since 2003 in this area.

A week ago, I was attacked by a "Calvinist" telling me just how wrong I am.

Fine, you say I don't know what I'm talking about...so be it. I will not argue.

As far as I'm concerned, this is "Burger King". Have it your way!

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Radagast]

I would agree with 99% of what John Calvin taught

What John Calvin wrote isn't terribly important. The definitive statement of the "5 points" of Calvinism is actually the Canons of Dordt, agreed to in 1618–1619 by delegates from the Netherlands, Scotland, England, Germany, and Switzerland.

 

[DeaconDean]

What John Calvin wrote isn't terribly important. The definitive statement of the "5 points" of Calvinism is actually the Canons of Dordt, agreed to in 1618–1619 by delegates from the Netherlands, Scotland, England, Germany, and Switzerland.

Yes, and there is nothing in the T.U.L.I.P. outline that I disagree with.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Radagast]

Yes, and there is nothing in the T.U.L.I.P. outline that I disagree with.

Well, in that case, the other guy must have misunderstood one of the articles in the Canons of Dordt. Did he indicate which one?

 

[JM]

Dispensationalists are not Reformed.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[DeaconDean]

Well, in that case, the other guy must have misunderstood one of the articles in the Canons of Dordt. Did he indicate which one?

Did you not participate in the thread "Predestination" in GT?

If you had/did, then you'd know who and what I'm talking about.

While the "U" in T.U.L.I.P. is correct, the other "doctrines" that are connected with them is where I am wrong. Or so it was said.

God Bless

Till all are one.