Why is there a Resurgence of Reformed Theology?

[webdog]

An answer to the question: Are you saying any doctrine but reformed theology is "darkeness"? Posed by Webdog (here)

The reason for answering this question without Webdog engaging Robert Snow is this: Some friends, preacher4truth, to be specific, is being caused to stumble by my refusal to answer Webdog (see here). So, since he misunderstood my post and my refusal to answer and since I do not desire to be a stumbling block and since I do not desire to cause people to sin, I will answer Webdog's question.

Why go through so much nonsense to simply answer a mere question on what you meant? Why the games?

Of course, I am not "the" authority or even an authority on the BB. But, neither are you. And, as such, you have no right to demand an answer to any one of your questions and you have no expectation of such an answer.

The reason for my statement answering this question by stating "Why is there a resurgence in Reformed Theology? Because light is breaking into darkness. Soli Deo Gloria." (see here) is this: Robert Snow stated the exact antithesis to this (here) when he said:

I never claimed to be any authority on the BB. I also will not use such immature means in not answering a question. If I say something and there needs clarification on what I meant, I will not resort to "if you want an answer, you tell me what so-and-so meant by ______ this statement". I can care less what kind of discussion you are having with anyone else.

Now, consider what Paul calls contrary to sound doctrine:

[9] understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers,
[10] the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, (1 Timothy 1:9-10 ESV; emphasis mine)
​

So, for Robert Snow to say that Calvinsts do not hold sound doctrine is to call them "Lawless." "Murderers." "Sexually Immoral." "Liars." It is to call all Calvinists "non-believers."

And yet, Webdog and the other Arminian-types say nothing!

Why should I have to comment on what someone else says or means? Is the large font supposed to prove something? If you want to start another thread on "sound doctrine" and "spiritual darkness", be my guest.

So, it is fine for an Arminian to question the salvation of every Calvinist on this board and it seemingly gains hearty approval. Yet, when a Calvinist says something more cryptic that appears to question salvation, it is a crime. This is a perfect example of a double standard

I see...so if someone else does something wrong, that gives you permission to follow suit?

It simply will not do for Arminians to question a Calvinist's salvation and it simply will not do for a Calvinist to question an Arminian's salvation, though many Arminians do question the salvation of Calvinists all the time.

As do calvinists. I've had my salvation questioned numerous times here by a calvinist.

I in no way, shape, or form question the salvation of Arminians. Do I think their understanding is clear? No. Do I think there is a deficiency in their theology? Yes. Does that inclarity or deficiency mean that they are not Christians? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

First, is a "deficiency in doctrine" unsound doctrine? Second, you didn't answer the question about what "stepping out of darkness" means. I gave you how the Bible defines darkness, and you can say you don't question the salvation of the un-reformed, but based on your usage of the term, the Bible disagrees.

I have many, many Arminian friends who, frankly, are better Christians than I am. I hope their understanding becomes fuller and they bask in the Sovereignty of God. I hope the light of deeper theology breaks into the "darkness" of what I understand to be a superficial theology--even if these beloved Arminian brothers and sisters do not become Calvinists. But, are they Christians? Absolutely, and I am proud to call them my brothers and sisters in Christ--something many Arminian-types here seem not to be willing to do.

A word to the wise (both Calvinists and Arminians) should be sufficient.

Again, you don't state what "darkness" means...you just put it into quotes. Also, please stop with the accusations of "Arminian-types" questioning the salvation of you...like I said it goes both ways. Be somewhat consistent.

Here endeth the lesson.

What lesson...on how to avoid a direct question? You should run for congress

If you are going to plead to Scripture to prove "unsound doctrine" is questioning the salvation of calvinists, you better be just as consistent in your use of "darkness" in you questioning the salvation of the non.

 

[The Archangel]

Why go through so much nonsense to simply answer a mere question on what you meant? Why the games?
I never claimed to be any authority on the BB. I also will not use such immature means in not answering a question. If I say something and there needs clarification on what I meant, I will not resort to "if you want an answer, you tell me what so-and-so meant by ______ this statement". I can care less what kind of discussion you are having with anyone else.
Why should I have to comment on what someone else says or means? Is the large font supposed to prove something? If you want to start another thread on "sound doctrine" and "spiritual darkness", be my guest.
I see...so if someone else does something wrong, that gives you permission to follow suit?
As do calvinists. I've had my salvation questioned numerous times here by a calvinist.
First, is a "deficiency in doctrine" unsound doctrine? Second, you didn't answer the question about what "stepping out of darkness" means. I gave you how the Bible defines darkness, and you can say you don't question the salvation of the un-reformed, but based on your usage of the term, the Bible disagrees.
Again, you don't state what "darkness" means...you just put it into quotes. Also, please stop with the accusations of "Arminian-types" questioning the salvation of you...like I said it goes both ways. Be somewhat consistent.
What lesson...on how to avoid a direct question? You should run for congress

If you are going to plead to Scripture to prove "unsound doctrine" is questioning the salvation of calvinists, you better be just as consistent in your use of "darkness" in you questioning the salvation of the non.

Maybe you didn't read: I in no way, shape, or form question the salvation of Arminians. Do I think their understanding is clear? No. Do I think there is a deficiency in their theology? Yes. Does that inclarity or deficiency mean that they are not Christians? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

I abundantly explained that I do not believe "Darkness" in the way I used it was not intended to and did not mean unsaved.

The Archangel

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

What lesson...on how to avoid a direct question? You should run for congress

Webdog, I disagree with you on everything ... but I do admit that was a funny line...:tongue3: You otta be a comedian ! :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Dr. Bob]

Good thoughts. Interesting 3 main choices of people on the poll show what we "reformed Baptist types" have been saying for decades is still the thinking here.

Past the limit of pages, but appreciate all the comments.