Particular Baptists, Assurance, 5 point Calvinists, Missions, etc.
Here’s the thread to really get our blood pressure up …. Particular Baptists, Assurance, 5 point Calvinists, Missions, etc.
- Who’s a 5 pointer and why?
- Do you believe in evangelism? I mean practice it! You share the gospel (yes or no). And how often?
- Are you a 5 pointer and believe in missions?
Finally: What is your assessment as to what schools have a Calvinistic bent, allow it, forbid it, teach it, disavow it, etc.
Starting this thread because I thwared the discussion of this on the DBTS and remote training filing
- 9 views
Jim Peet:
- Is a 5 point Calvinist
- I believe in limited atonement (that Christ purchased the elect on the cross and the He accomplished something on the cross for the elect that He did not do for the un-elect)
- I strive to evangelize. The last time was Saturday when a Best Buy Geek Squad employee was at my house
- I am very public about my faith at work. People know I am a Christian. I pray for people.
- I take a public stand about Christian morals. Last night at dinner (I am at an off-site with co-workers in Charlotte) I told 2 co-workers that abortion was barbaric and murder!
- I believe in and support missions
- My detailed doctrinal statement is linked to in my signature. And I am public about the doctrines of grace there.
A little cartoon to start things off
Why I believe in missions / evangelism:
He told me to! Matthew 28:18-20
what is the difference btwn Reformed and Calvinist? or just what Reformed means? thanks
Anne,
Generally, people speaking of Calvinism are referring only to soteriology whereas reformed doctrine refers to a Calvinistic solteriology as well as a covenantal approach to the rest of scripture as well. For instance, I am Calvinistic in my soteriology but dispensational in approach to scripture as a whole.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Dave,
I wrestled with 1 John 2:2 at one time as well. Then I realized that the only way it could be speaking against limited atonement is if it taught universalism. Of course, universalism is thoroughly debunked in scripture, so 1 John 2:2 has to have some other understanding.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
I hope to soon address 1 John 2:2 but just have time for the 2 Peter 2:1 reference:
- Unusual language: δεσπότης (despotēs) (think English word ‘despot’) for “Lord” instead of κύριος (kyrios)
- MacArthur on: “This phrase exposes the depth of the crime and guilt of the false teachers. This unusual Greek word for “Master” or “Lord” appears 10 times in the NT and means one who has supreme authority, whether human authority or divine authority. Peter here warns that false prophets deny the sovereign lordship of Jesus Christ.”
- More from Mac: “they are probably claiming that they were Christians, so that the Lord had bought them actually and personally. With some sarcasm, Peter mocks such a claim by writing of their coming damnation. Thus, the passage is describing the sinister character of the false teachers who claim Christ, but deny his lordship over their lives.”
- ESVStudy Bible notes: “Peter apparently uses the language of redemption (“bought them”) here in the same way that he describes the counterfeit “salvation” of the false teachers at the end of ch. 2: that is, they claimed to be “redeemed” and “saved” because they were part of the church, but their apostasy showed that they were not truly believers”
My own conclusion: I wouldn’t use 2 Peter 2:1 as a proof text for unlimited atonement.
I heard someone say that everyone believes in Limited Atonement.
Some believe that God limits its application to His elect..
Some believe that man limits God’s desire with his will.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
this whole debate was settled c.1827 with papers like Kehukee Association Declaration of 1827. The whole Baptist movement in the US spilt between the Missionary Baptists and the Anti-Missionary (Primitive) Baptists.
Why are we re-hashing matters that have already been settled and spilt over?
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
another version:
Limited in Intent - only those God intended to save
OR
Limited in Application - only those who believe (ALL believers affirm this)
CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube
If participants in this discussion has acknowledged the historical roots of this discussion, I wouldn’t be so concerned. However, I do dislike discussions arising which ignore history. Many times a topic will come up and be treated as if it appeared ex nihlo. It would be good to remember Primitive\Old School\Anti-Missionary Baptists are alive and well in 2013. So, we are not looking at an historical artifact or fossil. One can look back and see how the movement developed over time.
[Dave Gilbert]…to “rehash” something, only to explain in detail my belief and why I have it. Rob: I’m not overly concerned about what a group of men sitting around debating theology came up with over 150 years ago, to be honest. What’s considered “settled” in some circles may still be at large in others…there are new believers being minted by the Lord every day, I think, and as far as I know, the “Doctrines of Grace” are still being “discovered” by them. ;)
SNIP
Dave.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
[Pastor Doug H]http://www.challies.com/theology/what-it-means-to-be-reformed
To add to this practically, I would also say that:
- Reformed churches typically practice a more liturgical style of worship, based on regulative principles
- Focus a lot on the 5 Solas
- Do not have a typical church covenant that you would see at an IFB church. They typically require members to affirm to a specific historic confession of faith to become a member.
- Almost always “elder led” instead of deacon-led, pastor led….
Discussion