What kind of Baptist are you?

[van_s]

You are a Christian, what do you believe?

I believe the Word of God as recorded in the bible to be true in its entirety and is the final authority in my life.

I believe Jesus's followers like Paul were not calvinist nor arminian, they were Christ Followers, trusting in God's Word as their standard.

I also believe if you were to enter an elevator on the first floor with Paul you would know he was a Christian by the second floor.

 

[JM]

Van_S,

I believe the Word of God as recorded in the bible to be true in its entirety and is the final authority in my life.

What do you believe the word of God teaches? That's why we use confessions, creeds and fancy terms like Amyraldism, supralapsarian, eschatological, hypostatic, etc...it helps narrow down what we believe...but it doesn't assure salvation if that's what you're thinking...

​

I believe Jesus's followers like Paul were not calvinist nor arminian, they were Christ Followers, trusting in God's Word as their standard

I honestly do not know of a Calvinist or Arminian who would claim any different.

I also believe if you were to enter an elevator on the first floor with Paul you would know he was a Christian by the second floor.

Peace Van.
​

 

[atcfisherman]

I am a Christian period! I do not follow any man made belief system like calvinism or any other. I strictly follow the bible and it alone. Those other belief systems are man made well after the bible was completed, which is totally inspired by God through the men He chose to use.

I am amazed at how many people are willing to defend a certain theology that were started by mere men some 500 years ago, yet won't defend the bible directly w/o relying on these man made theologies.

Just use the bible and no other man's ideas! It is very simple! And that isn't an attack on anyone. I just notice a lot on here posting quotes from various men, but why not focus strictly on the bible and quote it? It's it all we need?????? It is for me!

 

[TimRout]

I am a Christian period! I do not follow any man made belief system like calvinism or any other. I strictly follow the bible and it alone. Those other belief systems are man made well after the bible was completed, which is totally inspired by God through the men He chose to use.

I am amazed at how many people are willing to defend a certain theology that were started by mere men some 500 years ago, yet won't defend the bible directly w/o relying on these man made theologies.

Just use the bible and no other man's ideas! It is very simple! And that isn't an attack on anyone. I just notice a lot on here posting quotes from various men, but why not focus strictly on the bible and quote it? It's it all we need?????? It is for me!

If you do not consider yourself a Baptist pre se, and seem to object to such denominational distinctions, then why do you employ a Baptist icon?

 

[mlqurgw]

I am a Christian period! I do not follow any man made belief system like calvinism or any other. I strictly follow the bible and it alone. Those other belief systems are man made well after the bible was completed, which is totally inspired by God through the men He chose to use.

I am amazed at how many people are willing to defend a certain theology that were started by mere men some 500 years ago, yet won't defend the bible directly w/o relying on these man made theologies.

Just use the bible and no other man's ideas! It is very simple! And that isn't an attack on anyone. I just notice a lot on here posting quotes from various men, but why not focus strictly on the bible and quote it? It's it all we need?????? It is for me!

If you followed the Bible you would be a Calvinist. The fact is you do have a theology and I will guarantee that it is the system that some man espouses. There are only 2 really: free will and free grace. One is true and is Scriptural and God honoring the other is false and honors man. No matter how much folks claim to not follow a man made system they have all been taught a system by some man. Can you honestly claim your pastor doesn't influence you in how you interpret the Scriptures? Is there really anyone who just gets their theology from the Bible without being influenced by a man? What you claim sounds good but it just doesn't fit reality. You got your theology from a man who got it from a man who got it from a man...

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

I am a Christian period! I do not follow any man made belief system like calvinism or any other. I strictly follow the bible and it alone. Those other belief systems are man made well after the bible was completed, which is totally inspired by God through the men He chose to use.

I am amazed at how many people are willing to defend a certain theology that were started by mere men some 500 years ago, yet won't defend the bible directly w/o relying on these man made theologies.

Just use the bible and no other man's ideas! It is very simple! And that isn't an attack on anyone. I just notice a lot on here posting quotes from various men, but why not focus strictly on the bible and quote it? It's it all we need?????? It is for me!

I think you have the basic concepts of calvinism, arminianism, etc. as "man-made belief system" a bit confused.
Both camps are types of interpretations of the overall plan of God in the bible.
Based on the original texts. Yes they are man made thoughts and conclusions about what is written in a GOD breathed bible...but they are not man made in the sense you are suggesting IMHO.

So what makes you a Baptist? I see your icon is of one; I do not doubt your bible believing christianity for one second.

I just left the SBC, and I new what made me baptist back then(back then I actually voted in this thread for SBC), and I know now what makes me Presbyterian...after a LOT of study and listening and learning. I"m just curious about your background in regards to this OP.


Thanks for listening and any information you choose to share with us.

PS: Sorry to butt in here fellas since I've done the big switcheroo.

 

[atcfisherman]

If you followed the Bible you would be a Calvinist. The fact is you do have a theology and I will guarantee that it is the system that some man espouses. There are only 2 really: free will and free grace. One is true and is Scriptural and God honoring the other is false and honors man. No matter how much folks claim to not follow a man made system they have all been taught a system by some man. Can you honestly claim your pastor doesn't influence you in how you interpret the Scriptures? Is there really anyone who just gets their theology from the Bible without being influenced by a man? What you claim sounds good but it just doesn't fit reality. You got your theology from a man who got it from a man who got it from a man...

This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Here you are saying your choice of man made theology is the true one and the other is false. It is almost like you who are calvinist are worshiping him. Why not drop the man made theology and grasp the bible only?

Please understand what I am about to say. I apologize for my first several post. I didn't mean to ruffle some of your feathers. HOWEVER, when you can make claims like the one above that your choice of theology is the right one, then others can do the same and just because they do it doesn't mean they are attacking yours.

I was on another forum last year and it was ran by a church of christ group of moderators and if you disagreed with them and their personal choice of theology, they would say you were attacking them and they would erase your replies or ban you. I hope this isn't the same, but it seems that way.

The bottom line is, why not strive to get all your answers from the bible? Why even lay a claim to a man made theology? By calling yourself a calvinist is saying you are following the man Calvin. The scriptures say to follow Christ and Him alone. Just very simple and straight forward.

Also, is my views shaped by my church, my pastor and others? Yes! However, just because my pastor says something doesn't mean I accept it. I always refer back to the bible and check his references. We should all do this! I recognize that I am influenced that way and thus because I recognize it, I am willing to step back and seek the Holy Spirit and Bible for my only source of true guidance.

Why do I go to a baptist church? B/C they are the closest that I see that interprets the bible the way it should be. That doesn't mean everything they stand for is correct as the bible intended it to. That is why we must always refer back to the scriptures for our soul source, not a man made theology or ideology.

 

[TimRout]

This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Here you are saying your choice of man made theology is the true one and the other is false. It is almost like you who are calvinist are worshiping him. Why not drop the man made theology and grasp the bible only?

Please understand what I am about to say. I apologize for my first several post. I didn't mean to ruffle some of your feathers. HOWEVER, when you can make claims like the one above that your choice of theology is the right one, then others can do the same and just because they do it doesn't mean they are attacking yours.

I was on another forum last year and it was ran by a church of christ group of moderators and if you disagreed with them and their personal choice of theology, they would say you were attacking them and they would erase your replies or ban you. I hope this isn't the same, but it seems that way.

The bottom line is, why not strive to get all your answers from the bible? Why even lay a claim to a man made theology? By calling yourself a calvinist is saying you are following the man Calvin. The scriptures say to follow Christ and Him alone. Just very simple and straight forward.

Also, is my views shaped by my church, my pastor and others? Yes! However, just because my pastor says something doesn't mean I accept it. I always refer back to the bible and check his references. We should all do this! I recognize that I am influenced that way and thus because I recognize it, I am willing to step back and seek the Holy Spirit and Bible for my only source of true guidance.

Why do I go to a baptist church? B/C they are the closest that I see that interprets the bible the way it should be. That doesn't mean everything they stand for is correct as the bible intended it to. That is why we must always refer back to the scriptures for our soul source, not a man made theology or ideology.

This is the Baptist forum, and it is open to all Baptists -- both those who (like mlqurgw and me) hold a Calvinist hermeneutic, and those who take a different approach. And you are very much welcome here too. As long as you obey the RULES and adhere to our Baptist Statement Of Faith, you should have no trouble from our moderators. This forum, as with all Congregational Forums here at CF, is moderated by an ecumenical team representing a broad variety of denominations, traditions and faith groups. We evaluate all reports in plurality to help ensure objectivity. If there is anything we can do to help you feel more comfortable or better understand the culture and values of this site, don't hesitate to ask.

 

[atcfisherman]

Thank you for the reply Tim. If I have offended you , I too apologize.

 

[TimRout]

The bottom line is, why not strive to get all your answers from the bible? Why even lay a claim to a man made theology? By calling yourself a calvinist is saying you are following the man Calvin. The scriptures say to follow Christ and Him alone. Just very simple and straight forward.

Terms like "Calvinist", "Reformed", "Particularist" etc, are intended to encapsulate many complex doctrines into a simple, singular title. As a Bible believing Christian, I have derived certain theological beliefs from my study of the Scriptures. As I look out across the broad field of Christendom, I notice a great many who idenify with the faith, yet whose theologies are clearly inconsistent with the Word. It doesn't help that I call myself a "Christian" since they do also. So it has become necessary and helpful for me to use other words -- carefully selected adjectives -- that deliniate precisely what I mean when I say "I am a Christian".

Consequently, I don't just call myself a Baptist. I am a Conservative Evangelical Baptist. And since a lifetime of study in the Word has convinced me that the doctrines of grace are eminently biblical, I also utilize the title "Calvinist". Your claim that by employing the term Calvinist I am following the man Calvin...well...it suggests that you really don't understand my theology at all. I began with the Bible alone, and ultimately came to believe that the Bible indeed teaches the absolute sovereignty of God over all things. "Calvinist" is a name sometimes given to those who espouse this view.

 

[atcfisherman]

...........yet whose theologies are clearly inconsistent with the Word. It doesn't help that I call myself a "Christian" since they do also. So it has become necessary and helpful for me to use other words -- carefully selected adjectives -- that deliniate precisely what I mean when I say "I am a Christian".

This is the problem. You say you are right and others say they are right. But, in fact, that is your choice of doctrine that YOU CHOSE to believe that is in fact from a man named calvin. This calvinistic belief was not in the church before calvin's time. The bible was complete before it came around.

Others too have spent a life time studying God's word and see that their choice of doctrine are clearly consistent with the Word and that yours isn't. So, if they say that, you come back saying everyone is wrong but you. You are human too and pride is the down fall of men whom will not see the error or their ways. Could you be too prideful too? If you say no, then that answers the questions.

...Your claim that by employing the term Calvinist I am following the man Calvin...well...it suggests that you really don't understand my theology at all.

I do understand the theology and it goes down to the simple questions of why not strictly follow the bible and it alone? Why associate with a man whom was not one in the bible and whom is an addition to it's theology?

I began with the Bible alone, and ultimately came to believe that the Bible indeed teaches the absolute sovereignty of God over all things. "Calvinist" is a name sometimes given to those who espouse this view.

Again, this view didn't start until calvin's time. If you go back much earlier, there wasn't a debate about it b/c it wasn't a theology.

After seeing all your post, there is no way you will every admit that you could possible be wrong because your writings show you are too prideful. You aggressively say things like, "...they are cleary inconsistent with the Word..." or other verbiage like that. If we were all truly seeking the truth of God, we would never say we know everything, but always seek the truth from God Himself.

 

[mlqurgw]

...........yet whose theologies are clearly inconsistent with the Word. It doesn't help that I call myself a "Christian" since they do also. So it has become necessary and helpful for me to use other words -- carefully selected adjectives -- that deliniate precisely what I mean when I say "I am a Christian".

This is the problem. You say you are right and others say they are right. But, in fact, that is your choice of doctrine that YOU CHOSE to believe that is in fact from a man named calvin. This calvinistic belief was not in the church before calvin's time. The bible was complete before it came around.

Others too have spent a life time studying God's word and see that their choice of doctrine are clearly consistent with the Word and that yours isn't. So, if they say that, you come back saying everyone is wrong but you. You are human too and pride is the down fall of men whom will not see the error or their ways. Could you be too prideful too? If you say no, then that answers the questions.

...Your claim that by employing the term Calvinist I am following the man Calvin...well...it suggests that you really don't understand my theology at all.

I do understand the theology and it goes down to the simple questions of why not strictly follow the bible and it alone? Why associate with a man whom was not one in the bible and whom is an addition to it's theology?


[

Again, this view didn't start until calvin's time. If you go back much earlier, there wasn't a debate about it b/c it wasn't a theology.

After seeing all your post, there is no way you will every admit that you could possible be wrong because your writings show you are too prideful. You aggressively say things like, "...they are cleary inconsistent with the Word..." or other verbiage like that. If we were all truly seeking the truth of God, we would never say we know everything, but always seek the truth from God Himself.

I think it is ridiculous when someone makes claims such as yours against us by using the very thing they are making claims against. You say we must believe you because you are right and we are wrong all the while saying we think we are right and won't see it your way. Just for your information Jesus, Peter, Paul and all the others were Calvinists.I can show that they were from the Bible if you actually would believe the Bible you claim to hold so dear. But no you want to holdd to man's theology that puts man in the driver's seat instead of God. And you make the Bible fit your theology while claiming that is what we do. As for understanding Calvinism you really don't have a clue. You have got what those who hate the truth of God have given you against it but I seriously doubt that you have ever read a theology book by an actual calvinist. I doubt you have ever even studied the writngs of calvinist to see what they believe. I have done so with those who believe in free will and made it a point to know what they believe and why. I build no straw men when I speak aganst free will you do nothing but build straw men. You do it because you actually know nothing of calvinism.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

...........yet whose theologies are clearly inconsistent with the Word. It doesn't help that I call myself a "Christian" since they do also. So it has become necessary and helpful for me to use other words -- carefully selected adjectives -- that deliniate precisely what I mean when I say "I am a Christian".

This is the problem. You say you are right and others say they are right. But, in fact, that is your choice of doctrine that YOU CHOSE to believe that is in fact from a man named calvin. This calvinistic belief was not in the church before calvin's time. The bible was complete before it came around.

Others too have spent a life time studying God's word and see that their choice of doctrine are clearly consistent with the Word and that yours isn't. So, if they say that, you come back saying everyone is wrong but you. You are human too and pride is the down fall of men whom will not see the error or their ways. Could you be too prideful too? If you say no, then that answers the questions.

...Your claim that by employing the term Calvinist I am following the man Calvin...well...it suggests that you really don't understand my theology at all.

I do understand the theology and it goes down to the simple questions of why not strictly follow the bible and it alone? Why associate with a man whom was not one in the bible and whom is an addition to it's theology?


[

Again, this view didn't start until calvin's time. If you go back much earlier, there wasn't a debate about it b/c it wasn't a theology.

After seeing all your post, there is no way you will every admit that you could possible be wrong because your writings show you are too prideful. You aggressively say things like, "...they are cleary inconsistent with the Word..." or other verbiage like that. If we were all truly seeking the truth of God, we would never say we know everything, but always seek the truth from God Himself.

Sorry but Calvin didn't just "come up" with this stuff...I want you to do me a favor...google the word "remonstrants" and look at one of the first 4 links...the TULIP idea and Doctrines of Grace as they are sometimes called are not made up...but a mear response to people in the Dutch church....it's called Calvinism now because for some reason people saw him as a major proponent of these answers to the remonstrants of the dutch church.
Calvin would be the LAST proponent of the Doctrines of grace being called Calvinism. Read the history of Arminianism and how that was "founded", it may answer some of your questions regarding how "calvinism" came about.


Sorry this post is messy, but I just quoted the entire thing.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[TimRout]

This is the problem. You say you are right and others say they are right. But, in fact, that is your choice of doctrine that YOU CHOSE to believe that is in fact from a man named calvin. This calvinistic belief was not in the church before calvin's time. The bible was complete before it came around.

In fact, you are gravely mistaken my friend. The issues raised by Calvin long predate him. Since you don't like people quoting from sources other than the Bible, I won't offend your sensibilities with thirty tons of Augustinian systematics. That said, the doctrines of grace flow straight from the pages of Scripture and I would be delighted to take our discussion into that realm if you wish.

Others too have spent a life time studying God's word and see that their choice of doctrine are clearly consistent with the Word and that yours isn't. So, if they say that, you come back saying everyone is wrong but you. You are human too and pride is the down fall of men whom will not see the error or their ways. Could you be too prideful too? If you say no, then that answers the questions.

Perhaps you are mistaking me for another person. When did I ever say to you that I am right and everyone else is wrong? I am hardly the supreme authority on all truth. Of course, I am thoroughly convinced that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and I am further convinced that the Bible teaches the doctrines of grace. But then...anyone who holds an opinion on anything, holds that opinion for a reason, and rejects other opinions for a reason. Again, perhaps it's time to take this matter into the realm of the Scriptures.

I do understand the theology and it goes down to the simple questions of why not strictly follow the bible and it alone? Why associate with a man whom was not one in the bible and whom is an addition to it's theology?

You seem to presuppose that I do not "strictly follow the Bible". Again, I reject your assertion that I am a follower of any man (including John Calvin). I am a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, and I recognize no authority but the Bible. Let us see if perhaps you exegetical skills match your strong accusations.

Again, this view didn't start until calvin's time. If you go back much earlier, there wasn't a debate about it b/c it wasn't a theology.

Well my friend, I assert that the doctrines of grace have their province within the Scriptures, and that's the earliest Christian theology source we have.

After seeing all your post, there is no way you will every admit that you could possible be wrong because your writings show you are too prideful. You aggressively say things like, "...they are cleary inconsistent with the Word..." or other verbiage like that. If we were all truly seeking the truth of God, we would never say we know everything, but always seek the truth from God Himself.

Fisherman, you're kinda new here so I'm going to let this one slide, but....

For future reference, you are not permitted to flame other members. Insisting that I'm too prideful is a boarderline flame. Let's keep it friendly. Ok?

And as to your concerns about Calvinism, I have started a new thread entitled "The Doctrines Of Grace" in which we may cheerfully discuss this matter in the context of the Word.

 

[atcfisherman]

...You say we must believe you because you are right and we are wrong all the while saying we think we are right and won't see it your way.

No, I am not saying that you are wrong and I am right. I am only a human just like you, but I know when to say I am wrong based on the bible, not your theology.

Just for your information Jesus, Peter, Paul and all the others were Calvinists.I can show that they were from the Bible if you actually would believe the Bible you claim to hold so dear. How can they be calvinistic when that theology wasn't even around until about 500 years ago? LOL That is funny!!! I dare you to show me, but I know what will happen. You will show me a small and full of scriptures and when I show you many more scriptures that refutes it, you will either a)get defensive b/c of pride or b) change the meaning of the scriptures. An example is when Tim said that the word "world" in the scripture about God not wanting anyone loss but ALL come to him, he tried to change the meaning to me the elect. IT IS CLEAR AS DAY!!!!!!


And you make the Bible fit your theology while claiming that is what we do. I have never try to make the bible fit my theology. Heck, I haven't even said anything too much about my theology. You just assume that because I am refuting the calvinistic man made theology that I am making mine up. There are more non-calvinist than calvinst. There is a reason! Because people read the bible and take it for what it says, not what a man whom developed a theology based on his views says.


As for understanding Calvinism you really don't have a clue. You have got what those who hate the truth of God have given you against it but I seriously doubt that you have ever read a theology book by an actual calvinist. Again, wrong! How do you know what I have read? Have you been to my house and looked over my shoulder at what I read? I truly understand the theology created by a man named calvin.


I doubt you have ever even studied the writngs of calvinist to see what they believe. I have done so with those who believe in free will and made it a point to know what they believe and why. I doubt it because if you studied the bible for what it actually says, then you would see that your man made calvinistic theology doesn't totally line up.

 

[atcfisherman]

...........yet whose theologies are clearly inconsistent with the Word. It doesn't help that I call myself a "Christian" since they do also. So it has become necessary and helpful for me to use other words -- carefully selected adjectives -- that deliniate precisely what I mean when I say "I am a Christian".

This is the problem. You say you are right and others say they are right. But, in fact, that is your choice of doctrine that YOU CHOSE to believe that is in fact from a man named calvin. This calvinistic belief was not in the church before calvin's time. The bible was complete before it came around.

Others too have spent a life time studying God's word and see that their choice of doctrine are clearly consistent with the Word and that yours isn't. So, if they say that, you come back saying everyone is wrong but you. You are human too and pride is the down fall of men whom will not see the error or their ways. Could you be too prideful too? If you say no, then that answers the questions.

...Your claim that by employing the term Calvinist I am following the man Calvin...well...it suggests that you really don't understand my theology at all.

Sorry but Calvin didn't just "come up" with this stuff...I want you to do me a favor...google the word "remonstrants" and look at one of the first 4 links...the TULIP idea and Doctrines of Grace as they are sometimes called are not made up...but a mear response to people in the Dutch church....it's called Calvinism now because for some reason people saw him as a major proponent of these answers to the remonstrants of the dutch church.
Calvin would be the LAST proponent of the Doctrines of grace being called Calvinism. Read the history of Arminianism and how that was "founded", it may answer some of your questions regarding how "calvinism" came about.


Sorry this post is messy, but I just quoted the entire thing.

Just my 2 cents.

Hey NRB, I just wanted to say thank you for your post. You never got hostile, but posted a nice post. That is a problem with the others, they get agressive and defensive. If truely felt their beliefs were the entire gosple, then they would let it defend itself rather than get their pride all ruffled up and get defensive. Again, thanks for the polite response and I will check it out.

 

[atcfisherman]

quote from TimRout
"As long as you obey the RULES and adhere to our BAPTIST STATEMENT OF FAITH, you should have no trouble from our moderators. "

quote from TimRout
"For future reference, you are not permitted to flame other members. Insisting that I'm too prideful is a boarderline flame. Let's keep it friendly. Ok?"

With what you said above, how can saying that you might be too prideful a boarderline flame when this guy below says those who believe in God giving men free will are saying he is a midget???? This is a perfect example of how it isn't fair on this forum.

quote from MLQURGW
"Arminians believe God is thwarted by the will of men and that He desires all to be saved but can't actually save them without their permission. They make God to be a midget and a pygmy that has no real power or love."

 

[the particular baptist]

MLQURGW][/U]Arminians believe God is thwarted by the will of men and that He desires all to be saved but can't actually save them without their permission. They make God to be a midget and a pygmy that has no real power or love.

I see no problem with this assertion. Its perfectly accurate.

 

[TimRout]

With what you said above, how can saying that you might be too prideful a boarderline flame when this guy below says those who believe in God giving men free will are saying he is a midget???? This is a perfect example of how it isn't fair on this forum.

The difference is fairly simple. For the most part, a "flame" must be directed at a person or identifiable Christian religious community. Ron's comment was directed at an IDEA, not a person. You didn't say my theology was prideful. You said that I was prideful. Do you see the distinction?

 

[atcfisherman]

The difference is fairly simple. For the most part, a "flame" must be directed at a person or identifiable Christian religious community. Ron's comment was directed at an IDEA, not a person. You didn't say my theology was prideful. You said that I was prideful. Do you see the distinction?

Again, the difference is none. Ron's comment was not directed at an IDEA but directly at Arminian's theology. The real problem is because it agrees with you, you don't see it as a "flame."

Just as I have discovered, this forum is jaded towards a certain man made theology. Thus, you don't have to worry about me pointing out the problems. I won't be back!