# Help with Argument



## Scott (Aug 14, 2006)

I have been confident in Calvinism for a long time. I have just run accross an argument, though, that really challenges my views. Can anyone help me think through these issues? The argument/chart is below:








[Edited on 8-14-2006 by Scott]


----------



## msortwell (Aug 14, 2006)

Perhaps it would be helpful if you would offer a brief narrative explaining the intended message of the chart.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 14, 2006)

I don't get it.


----------



## Arch2k (Aug 14, 2006)




----------



## Scott (Aug 14, 2006)

Guys - look closer at the chart. Each part of calvinism (eg. total depravity) is one step closer to "obey not the gospel." What could be clearer? If you don't want to reach that last step, don't take the first. The argument seems clear.

(I was joking. It is silly).

Scott


[Edited on 8-14-2006 by Scott]


----------



## BobVigneault (Aug 14, 2006)

Excellent example of a 'non sequitur' or the one sola of the arminians 'sola adsurdum'.


----------



## Arch2k (Aug 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> I was joking. It is silly.



WHEW! You really had me going Scott!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 14, 2006)

Retarded!


----------



## Scott (Aug 14, 2006)




----------



## Cheshire Cat (Aug 14, 2006)

LOL, the funny thing was that people thought you were serious.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 14, 2006)

I'm surprised Infant Sprinkling isn't on the top. It's funny how the ignorant really laser in on that one too. I remember listening to a debate between James White and some Baptist Minister on the subject of Calvinism.

At one point, the Baptist made this argument against the Reformed faith:

"Calvin was most influenced by Augustine. Augustine was the first Roman Catholic and sprinkled Babies. Amen?"

I guess that argument resonated with some.


----------



## MW (Aug 14, 2006)

It seems to me that the picture, together with the verses quoted, is implying that Calvinism does not teach the necessity of obedience. It is regrettable that Calvinism is sometimes presented in that way. This should make us more careful to articulate the doctrines of grace as "unto good works."

Total depravity does not deny human duty.
Unconditional election ordains individuals to holiness and good works as well as eternal happiness.
Limited atonement purifies from all iniquity and makes zealots for good works.
Irresistible grace teaches us to deny worldly lusts and to live righteously. 
Perseverance of the saints enables the saints to continue steadfast unto the end.

Blessings!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 14, 2006)

Rev. Winzer,

I agree we should always be able to explain ourselves well but the person who drew that diagram had little interest in truth.


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 14, 2006)

The T-U-L-I-P isn't a slippery slope to infant baptism. Just look at me! I believe in the true ancient mode practiced by John the Baptist and the Apostles, namely credo-baptism by submersion.

Presbyterians


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 14, 2006)

It's not a slippery slope Ryan. Can't you see it's a step? You're stuck only halfway up the staircase. If you slipped and fell you'd be back at Total (Hereditary) Depravity.


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 14, 2006)

Actually, II Thessalonians 1:7-9, would apply to those who sever repentance from the Gospel, and do not obey the Gospel: those stoney ground hearers who receive the Word initially with joy and wither away, because they were never born of the Spirit. They depart from us; because they were never of us.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> Actually, II Thessalonians 1:7-9, would apply to those who sever repentance from the Gospel, and do not obey the Gospel: those stoney ground hearers who receive the Word initially with joy and wither away, because they were never born of the Spirit. They depart from us; because they were never of us.


That all sounds very intellectual but I don't see what you just said on the staircase.

Check and mate!


----------



## MW (Aug 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> The T-U-L-I-P isn't a slippery slope to infant baptism. Just look at me! I believe in the true ancient mode practiced by John the Baptist and the Apostles, namely credo-baptism by submersion.



Total Depravity includes infants. Election, redemption, regeneration and preservation must include infants, else no infant could be saved. If infants are partakers of the benefits signified and sealed by baptism then they should be partakers of baptism.

For what it's worth, Presbyterians are credobaptists, only we acknowledge baby belief. Presbyterians are also submersionists, only we acknowledge that a part stands for the whole.

[Edited on 8-15-2006 by armourbearer]


----------



## Larry Hughes (Aug 14, 2006)

Actually fundamentally we are not credobaptists. Under no circumstances would we ever rebaptize a Trinitarian baptizee. I've never seen a rebaptism in a Reformed church (assuming of course any previous baptism was Trinitarian). A point in fact in which we differ on adults too.


----------



## MW (Aug 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Actually fundamentally we are not credobaptists. Under no circumstances would we ever rebaptize a Trinitarian baptizee. I've never seen a rebaptism in a Reformed church (assuming of course any previous baptism was Trinitarian). A point in fact in which we differ on adults too.



The term ana-baptism better describes one who re-baptises. Baptism is only administered on the basis of faith, in the case of both infants and adults. John the Baptist is the forerunner here as elsewhere, leaping in the womb to greet the Lord. As the tree is said to be in the seed, so faith is in the regeneration of infants. Hence paedobaptists are credobaptists in the proper sense of the term.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Aug 15, 2006)

"œpaedobaptists are credobaptists" in its proper sense, that´s helpful. 

However, there is one question that´s always confused me. We would never "œre" or "œana" baptize a person ever. Baptist on the other hand would. In the realm of the infant the Baptist most definitely would. Both would say that "œwe baptize on the basis of faith". "œBasis" being the operative term here and I think HERE is exactly where a LOT of confusion abounds. Infant baptism aside and considering adults only, and mode aside let us say for the sake of argument the following - same situation applied to both a Reformed Church and Baptist Church, same person:

A 30 year old makes a profession of faith, examination of the person´s profession is found to be as true as possible, and he shows forth fruits externally, whatever period of time satisfies you insert at this point. He is baptized in the church under your care by you by your mode (for the Baptist immersion and for the Reformed sprinkling or other). Then in two or more years he falls away completely and for the next 20 years shows all the signs of falling away. On the 21st year he returns completely in true repentance and faith. He is a broken man and again professes faith, and again from all examination and he shows forth repentance, faith and fruit. He even professes that 20 years ago he knows himself was a hypocrite. In other words from all external measures the best is done, and in the past by his falling away and from his own lips he did not possess faith 20 years ago.

Two questions to both a Baptist and Reformed, 

1. Do you re/ana baptize the person?

2.	If "œyes" why, if "œno" why not?

I´m a scientist and I´m not quibbling over terms here, I want you thinking on a much higher level, the principle by whatever name you label it is relevant not the name per se.

I´ve closed all the doors on external examination and fruit, "œyou´ve done the best we can both times examining the person", "œexternal evidences exist both times excepting the 20 year fall away". For all intensive purposes one must conclude that the first time no faith existed, as best as ALL involved, including the person can conclude. There´s no magic bullet. I´ve closed the door of the infant issue for the Baptist. I´ve closed the door for the mode issue. I´ve closed the door for "œanother church" issue. And I´ve even closed the door for "œanother pastor" issue. There are no doors left open.

1. Do you re/ana baptize the person?

2. If "œyes" why, if "œno" why not?

This should as nakedly as possible reveal the basis and validity of baptism and why the two camps differ and it should reveal why baptism is fundamentally VERY different on both sides, other than infants. It should reveal how each member from each side views baptism as adults and what it is and is not to them. 

Because if a Reformed just says, "œI baptize on basis of faith", then its no wonder the Baptist is confused and hears a problem from his side of the fence.

And please, this is not a polemic argument. I´d really like to hear a good simple and non emotional answers on this.

Grace and peace in Christ alone,

Larry


----------



## Puritanhead (Aug 15, 2006)

Baptismal arguments.


----------



## MW (Aug 15, 2006)

I would never rebaptise because the efficacy of the sacrament depends entirely upon the faithfulness of God. Man's faithlessness does not make the faithfulness of God of none effect. If we deny Him, He cannot deny Himself. That is why I believe there is such a thing as baby belief, and being cast on the care of God from the womb. Even if a person is baptised as an adult and professes 21 years later that he was playing the part of a hypocrite, he cannot make void the promises of God. His latter day repentance is owing to the faithfulness of God to His promise 21 years earlier.

It all comes down to seeing the sacrament as a visible oath of God, in which He swears by His own immutable Name, to be our God and our Guide unto death. Blessings!


----------



## Ken Abbott (Aug 17, 2006)

I'm late to the game here, Scott, but I don't think there's any argument being made here. This illustration is just an assertion that Calvinism and covenantal baptism lead to antinomianism and easy believism; the "artist" alleges that such is the wide road to hell.

The best approach to propaganda is to deal directly with the person who believes it.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Sep 3, 2006)

Rev. Matthew,

Another way to look at it is - that a Roman Catholic, Methodist and first baptist baptism is valid and true, while a second, third, fourth, etc..."baptism" is always false.


Ldh


----------

