Calvinism debate must be balanced

Baptist Standard ^ | A. J. Conyers

[Dr Warmoose]

So I assume the Baptists will disavow their earlier creeds (1689 in particular), the prince of the pulpit Charles H Spurgeon, and the brilliant scholar John Gill?

Or some live ones: John Piper, Thomas Nettles, R. Albert Mohler.

I get it. Jesus wants to reject most of Scripture now and use the faith bringing powers of Praise Teams, skits, psychobabble, parades and the all important Roller-coaster.

Southern Baptist R.I.P.

[Dr Warmoose]

No, God predestined those, who were to choose His grace, to the adoption and the benefits of it.

To show the fallacy in your thinking, remove the word "pre" from "predestined" and tell me if your argument changes. I submit that "destined" is the correct word for your brand of soteriology. Fortunately, God didn't destin, He predestined us, and thus you need to learn the difference between "predestined" and "destined". The former is according to decree, the latter is more like the snake-oil you're selling.

[Dr Warmoose]

On a side note: I can't speak for the "when" of foreknowledge...

Because it is not a "when" issue.

Matt 7:21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Is Jesus Christ, the Son of God, claiming He has no knowledge of them? I thought God knew everything. Therefore, it is foolish to take the idiom "to know" in the case of God's relationship to man, and make it an intellectual exercise. To "know" mean "to love".

Interesting passage in light of "ye that work iniquity":
Ps 5:5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

So when you have the phrase "Adam knew his wife Eve" and you have Christ knowing His bride the true church and you juxtapose that to the "workers of iniquity", and we have God hating "doers of iniquity", then you have the proper thesis-antithesis of love/hate (no gray zones) in God's relationship with His elect and God's non-existant relationship with the vessels of Wrath.

Jacob I loved, and Esau I hated.

[Jerry_M]

Southern Baptist R.I.P.

Not so fast!

I, for one, was encouraged to see that the materials promoting this year's SBC Lottie Moon Christmas Offering for International Missions spoke eloquently about the fact that this offering was needed as part of God's purpose.

The same materials presented the fact that God's purpose is the glorification of Himself, and that the missionary endeavor brings glory to Him as He seeks worshippers.

In other words, evangelism and missions are not the goal, but rather lead to the goal, the glory of God.

Don't bury the SBC yet, there are many knees who have not knelt to Baal.

[sinatorhellary]

The only time in the Bible the question "what must I do do be saved" is asked is answered: "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved."

Not quite right. The above is the answer to an unbeliever. Jews at Pentecost believed Jesus was "both Loerd and Christ", Paul upon his Damascus-road vision believed Jesus was "Lord". Both of these asked what they needed to do.

They were both told to be baptized (for the remission of their sins, to wash away their sins). Baptism precedes salvation also.

[BibChr]

Thanks, Steve; I enjoyed that.

Dan

[rwfromkansas]

Oh how cute. I sure love it when you Baptists deny your heritage and outright lie by saying Calvinism is anti-Baptist.

Nothing but a lie....not a "mistake." A LIE.

[rwfromkansas]

I am interested in knowing why you have chosen not to read the Greek and learn what "foreknow" means, choosing instead to believe it simply means to "know beforehand."

And furthermore, I am interested in knowing how you believe that "whom he foreknew" somehow can be biblically twisted into a "PERSON'S ACTION he foreknew," as in the accepting of God's offer of salvation. I do find that quite interesting that you can make such a leap from 'whom'...the person himself being known and understood completely by God....to simply the "person's action"....the one action of accepting Christ. You destroy the beautiful complexity of foreknowledge by making it simply seeing beforehand.

By destroying the complexity of foreknowledge, part of God, you destroy the COMPLEXITY AND BEAUTY OF GOD.

[rwfromkansas]

"Foreknow"-- according to multiple non-Reformed Biblical encyclopedias and lexicons, is almost synonymous with "foreordain."

The Arminians weaken God and weaken foreknowledge when they make it into simply "seeing beforehand."

Their contortion of foreknowledge is one way you can prove the Biblical laziness of Arminians/free willers.

They don't even bother to read Scripture to see what it means, but instead opt to use lots of eisegesis and make "foreknow" mean what they think it means at a casual glance.

What theological laziness.

[rwfromkansas]

Exactly. "Know" is used in Scripture as a euphemism for sex. Know does not simply mean "understand" in Scripture, but has lots of connotations of a deep love and intimate fellowship/connection between people.

[rwfromkansas]

It bothers me that John 3:16 has become the one verse that people use to describe Christ's sacrifice when there are many others that describe a lot more about what he did on that Cross for us than John 3:16. It is a nice verse, but not the best for truly laying out what happened fully at Calvary.

[rwfromkansas]

I am reading "Don't Waste Your Life" by John Piper. Uh oh, he is one of those Baptists...:) j/k

Anyway, John really stresses shining the light of Christ to the world every second of every day to spread Him to the lost.

It is an awesome book. And, it is written by a Calvinist (though one that does not accept our covenant theology's connection to baptism, but everything else is good).

[rwfromkansas]

I disagree.

Families are a covenant in Scripture; it would be presumptuous of us to break that covenantal relationship by not having infants baptized.

That does not mean that the infant will grow up to be saved of course. God sometimes chooses to have an unbeliever in a family. But, to get rid of baptism for everybody but professing believers, which Scripture says replaces circumcision essentially, is not right in my book. Of course, I could be wrong. This is not an issue that I spend a lot of time debating. But, I do think that the covenantal relationship of a family is very important.

When you go to a church that does not have infant baptism, there is a massive difference from those churches that do have infant baptism in the way that children are treated. They often have "children's church" and are shuttled away from the real worship with their families in churches that do not have infant baptism. Kids are treated as lesser children of God in such churches and the family is broken up in worship as if that element is not vital and Biblically covenantal.

In churches with infant baptism, the covenant of family is FIRMLY ESTABLISHED. There is no time in which the family is broken up as a covenantal body, especially not in worship. Yes, it can get annoying at times hearing babies cry during worship, but it also warms the heart and is a visible sign that the covenant that comes in the form of a family continues to this day, that all members of a family are equally important in the sight of God and equally worthy of approaching the throne of grace together.

[God is good]

Baptism precedes salvation also.

Psh. Yeah right.

[God is good]

Wow. So you believe that everyone, without distinction has been saved...

Uh, no. The sins of the world have been atoned for does not mean the free gift has been accepted by all. Think free will.

[God is good]

Here is the passage: Eph. 1:13-14 (ESV)
In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.---

So, when you heard the truth and believed you were given an inheritance. These verses instruct of the inheritance which is the result of the adoption, not salvation. Salvation was secured before the predestined inheritance was secured. The point is that the predestined inheritance is not predestined salvation. God knew who would chose Him, so He predestined the inheritance.

[Zechariah11]

Thank You Thank You Thank You

An outstanding piece. And you didn't even talk about their

....... eschatology (??????).........

. Let's see, are they a-mil, post-mil, or WHAT these days?

[Zechariah11]

Here is the rebuttal to that
.....FOREKNOWLEDGE, PREDESTINATION.......FOREKNOWLEDGE, PREDESTINATION
FOREKNOWLEDGE, PREDESTINATION
FOREKNOWLEDGE, PREDESTINATION
Sorry, but that is the extent of our theological discussions