Calvinism Chart

[webdog]

1. The gospel should be preached to all without discrimination.

The Gospel is "believe and you will be saved", salvation by grace through faith.

2. The gospel is preached to the nonelect for their condemnation; God is not "trying" to save them; therefore, I have some concerns with "well meant" offer.

I thought they stood in condemnation already?

3. God's love for the lost is at best a type of pity, but in no way is familial love.

He has pity for those He created to be?

4. God is not the author of paradox.

...yet according to your #2, "believe and you will be saved" is just that.

5. I believe in reprobation, but the inactive kind - i.e. God simply leaves sinners to their own destruction - Although He intends their reprobation, he does not directly cause their reprobation.

What is there to pity, then?

 

[Jerome]

It is obvious that Goundry is into Calvinism, but has not really looked into Arminian beliefs.

Bio of chart-maker Rev. Jonathan James Goudry:

his father at that time began pastoring in Boca Raton, Florida. At which time Jonathan enrolled at an Assemblies God bible school and graduated after two years. This became a catalyst to a vigorous study in the scriptures and church history, which eventually brought Jonathan to a reformed understanding of God’s Word. With this being the case Jonathan relinquished his credentials with Assemblies of God and transferred to the Southern Baptist, allowing him to minister without an immediate conflict of conscience and doctrine. Following this Jonathan relocated his life to Temecula, Southern California where served as an Elder at Reformed Baptist Church Great Oak Church for two years. In which time he was the co-host of the web radio show the Narrow Mind. Jonathan at the end of 2009 returned to Florida, to join ICI [his father's group] as Minister and Missionary.

Assemblies of God missionary kid, Southern Baptist, Reformed Baptist, now working under his father again.

Talk about theological whiplash!

 

[blackbird]

Back in seminary some professors encouraged us to read newspapers---to keep up with current events--etc, etc----and we were reminded that there was more to the newspaper than just the sports section

One of these days---it will dawn upon many of us that there's more to theology than reading and deciphering and defuseing calvin!!

:1_grouphug::1_grouphug:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Back in seminary some professors encouraged us to read newspapers---to keep up with current events--etc, etc----and we were reminded that there was more to the newspaper than just the sports section

One of these days---it will dawn upon many of us that there's more to theology than reading and deciphering and defuseing calvin!!

:1_grouphug::1_grouphug:

Defuse!?! Maybe you mean "Refuting"......Must not been a Calvinist Seminary. Right.

 

[J.D.]

Hello Webdog - long time since we sharpened iron (or, dulled the edges). See my responses in bold

The Gospel is "believe and you will be saved", salvation by grace through faith. No argument from me on that one!
I thought they stood in condemnation already? You are correct. To be more precise, I should have said that He multiplies their condemnation (indictment and proof of guilt) through the gospel.
He has pity for those He created to be?
...yet according to your #2, "believe and you will be saved" is just that.
What is there to pity, then? I don't see the paradox, if that what you mean. To relate to the OP (and the stated description of "high" Calvinsim), I am saying that pity is not the same as love. I believe God has pity for the lost, but not love. I don't know how to describe God's relationship to the lost beyond that. All I know is that it is not "love". I know you don't agree, as neither would many of my fellow Calvinists would not agree. But it's what I see when I read the Bible.

 

[Alive in Christ]

I have mentioned a few times on the website that I cant go the "calvinism" route.

This, posted by J.D....

1. The gospel should be preached to all without discrimination.
2. The gospel is preached to the nonelect for their condemnation; God is not "trying" to save them; therefore, I have some concerns with "well meant" offer.
3. God's love for the lost is at best a type of pity, but in no way is familial love.
4. God is not the author of paradox.
5. I believe in reprobation, but the inactive kind - i.e. God simply leaves sinners to their own destruction - Although He intends their reprobation, he does not directly cause their reprobation.

...is another *classic* example of why I find calvinism to be "wanting" from a theological point of view.

God has clearly told us that it is NOT His will that ANY should perish, but that ALL would come to repentance.

Of course we know that many will not respond to God as He calles them to Himself, and they will perish.

But that is NOT Gods doing...it is their fault...and NOT Gods will.

God gives saving "light" to "every "man"," (person) ...who "comes into the world".

 

[J.D.]

I have mentioned a few times on the website that I cant go the "calvinism" route.

This, posted by J.D....



...is another *classic* example of why I find calvinism to be "wanting" from a theological point of view.

Another example of why I spend much less time on Baptistboard than I used to and why I should continue to trend.

 

[J.D.]

By the way, it's interesting that at the time of this posting, there are 17 calvinists (of various stripes) and 17 other-than-calvinists. Looks like about 50% of BB is Calvinist. That's a pretty good representation.

 

[quantumfaith]

I have mentioned a few times on the website that I cant go the "calvinism" route.

This, posted by J.D....



...is another *classic* example of why I find calvinism to be "wanting" from a theological point of view.

God has clearly told us that it is NOT His will that ANY should perish, but that ALL would come to repentance.

Of course we know that many will not respond to God as He calles them to Himself, and they will perish.

But that is NOT Gods doing...it is their fault...and NOT Gods will.

God gives saving "light" to "every "man"," (person) ...who "comes into the world".

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Another example of why I spend much less time on Baptistboard than I used to and why I should continue to trend.

Right there with you brother. Has even caused me to rethink my position on Non Reformed Churches. The line has been drawn.

BTW you have other (Reformed) alternatives to this.... I will PM you.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

By the way, it's interesting that at the time of this posting, there are 17 calvinists (of various stripes) and 17 other-than-calvinists. Looks like about 50% of BB is Calvinist. That's a pretty good representation.

Correction....they bounced Luke yesterday.

 

[saturneptune]

Correction....they bounced Luke yesterday.

As of this writing, he has not been "bounced." Although I am not going to defend his posts, I did detect a willingness to learn and do better at the rules. I have seen others that were way beyond hope. For what it is worth, I hope the administrators will hold off this time and see if things improve. This has nothing to do with the side he takes, I believe he is just too fervent about his position, and is having trouble expressing that in a certain way that is civil. I do believe him to be sincere in what he believes and not a troublemaker. He just needs to be more tolerant of other views.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

As of this writing, he has not been "bounced." Although I am not going to defend his posts, I did detect a willingness to learn and do better at the rules. I have seen others that were way beyond hope. For what it is worth, I hope the administrators will hold off this time and see if things improve. This has nothing to do with the side he takes, I believe he is just too fervent about his position, and is having trouble expressing that in a certain way that is civil. I do believe him to be sincere in what he believes and not a troublemaker. He just needs to be more tolerant of other views.

He is a smart young man & will do well in life....I will stay in touch....he is a friend .... I wish him only the best.

 

[sag38]

JD, all I saw was someone with concerns about what you posted. It wasn't ugly. In fact, I too have some of the same concerns. That doesn't mean that I don't like you or Reformed folks. While I lean in thier direction I just don't fully agree with their conclusions or interpretation. Folks like me have been called "self-salvationists," told that "we don't understand (ie. you are ignorant), that we are denying what is clearly written in the Bible, had our salvation questioned, called Armenian when we clearly are not, etc. Yet, I haven't left to go to a place where everyone agrees with me. How would that help me to grow, to learn, to be challenged?

 

[glfredrick]

As of this writing, he has not been "bounced." Although I am not going to defend his posts, I did detect a willingness to learn and do better at the rules. I have seen others that were way beyond hope. For what it is worth, I hope the administrators will hold off this time and see if things improve. This has nothing to do with the side he takes, I believe he is just too fervent about his position, and is having trouble expressing that in a certain way that is civil. I do believe him to be sincere in what he believes and not a troublemaker. He just needs to be more tolerant of other views.

I see the same things... And, I suspect that we've all been guilty at times.

Along the way, I've also seen that people are very hesitant to identify with their position along the theological spectrum, as if by disavowing to realize that they actually have a position, they can escape the results of their position.

From another post:

...is another *classic* example of why I find calvinism to be "wanting" from a theological point of view.

Suggesting that you have found Calvinism "wanting" and it actually being "wanting" are two different things. Perhaps you have not fully grasped the theological package or perhaps you have come at it with a bias against it from the start. In either case, you might then see that the Reformed position is wanting. Mostly, what I find is that people who think so do that because they have some stereotypes about what the doctrine that they refuse to examine in light of the historical teaching of the church based on the Word of God. For instance, setting up the straw man argument of a deterministic God, then working to defeat that argument with the concept of free will, when the proposition that includes a deterministic God is not part of the Reformed position. There are, of course, other examples that one could examine on this subject.

God has clearly told us that it is NOT His will that ANY should perish, but that ALL would come to repentance.

But, you say what you say next...

Of course we know that many will not respond to God as He calles them to Himself, and they will perish. But that is NOT Gods doing...it is their fault...and NOT Gods will.

God gives saving "light" to "every "man"," (person) ...who "comes into the world".

Did God KNOW that they would not come? Then if so (and He DID know...) where is the issue? Can it be God's desire that all are saved, but also God's realization that all are not saved? Certainly. Do we not know that first because He revealed that in the Word?

John's gospel does indeed say that "light" came into the world and the world rejected that light. It goes on to say that all those who were not God's from the start rejected the light. But, all those who are saved by God are saved, not because of human will. So, arguing your position, but including human will as the distinguishing factor denies the Scriptures that say otherwise.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Interesting.

Given a sample of about three days or so, the poll suggests that the baptist board is right about 50% calvinistic.

That's actually pretty good, it seems to be about the norm these days for an SBC church. I think I'll fit in here.

:thumbsup:

 

[menageriekeeper]

Correction....they bounced Luke yesterday.

It doesn't say "banned" under Luke's name, so "they" didn't bounce him. What Dr. Bob said was "it's time for a vacation for a certain member". Since Osage hasn't been here long enough to know: vacation usually means a two week suspension, while said member cools off and cleans up his act.

Luke had no business posting that tirade yesterday. It was not only offensive to the member it was directed at, but it was offensive to every member on this board who happens to disagree with Luke. This is not "Luke's BB", this the BB and we shouldn't have to tolerate posts like this which are clearly against BB rules that have worked since the inception of the board.

I tend to agree with Saturn and GL that Luke could become a productive member of this board and had hoped recently that he was becoming just that. But yesterday he was way over the line.

'Nuff said, we are way off topic with this conversation.

 

[J.D.]

JD, all I saw was someone with concerns about what you posted. It wasn't ugly. In fact, I too have some of the same concerns. That doesn't mean that I don't like you or Reformed folks. While I lean in thier direction I just don't fully agree with their conclusions or interpretation. Folks like me have been called "self-salvationists," told that "we don't understand (ie. you are ignorant), that we are denying what is clearly written in the Bible, had our salvation questioned, called Armenian when we clearly are not, etc. Yet, I haven't left to go to a place where everyone agrees with me. How would that help me to grow, to learn, to be challenged?

It has nothing to do with ugliness - although that is a concern also. He didn't address my points, he just shot a broadside against Calvinism in general. I can't have a conversation like that. And then he added content after my response without marking the edit as added material. That's not ethical.

 

[pinoybaptist]

It doesn't say "banned" under Luke's name, so "they" didn't bounce him. What Dr. Bob said was "it's time for a vacation for a certain member". Since Osage hasn't been here long enough to know: vacation usually means a two week suspension, while said member cools off and cleans up his act.

Luke had no business posting that tirade yesterday. It was not only offensive to the member it was directed at, but it was offensive to every member on this board who happens to disagree with Luke. This is not "Luke's BB", this the BB and we shouldn't have to tolerate posts like this which are clearly against BB rules that have worked since the inception of the board.

I tend to agree with Saturn and GL that Luke could become a productive member of this board and had hoped recently that he was becoming just that. But yesterday he was way over the line.

'Nuff said, we are way off topic with this conversation.

NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

You mean somebody else took my "hothead" title from me, and I didn't know about it ?
(cleaning my floor so I can tantrum all over it !!).....

 

[webdog]

Interesting.

Given a sample of about three days or so, the poll suggests that the baptist board is right about 50% calvinistic.

That's actually pretty good, it seems to be about the norm these days for an SBC church. I think I'll fit in here.

:thumbsup:

There are those like myself that could not vote for either. If there was an "other" option, I'm sure it would be quite a bit less