By ALL means!

[JesusFan]

To use a term that is more contemporary with our time, I'll rephrase:

Spoken like a true Calminian!

...or one that holds to a hybrid system half-way between Calvinism and Arminianism.

Calminian Baptists
http://dannychisholm.blogspot.com/2007/10/calminian-baptists.html

(don't worry JF, you're not alone, I suspect you stand with the majority of Baptists today)

Excerpts from the above article:

“God is sovereign, and is Lord over all creation. Human beings also have free will and can decide to accept or reject the gospel. Yes, we are all sinners in need of a Saviour but are not predestined to salvation in the sense that we have no choice in the matter. The "logical" conclusion is that God predestines some to heaven while others to hell. This "double-edged" predestination is what I find particularly dangerous. I cannot imagine a loving God allowing persons to come into the world only to condemn them to hell. This is a difficult axiom to accept and is inconsistant with a loving God. God's sovereignty must be affirmed along with the freedom of humans to determine their own response to the gospel. This paradox is not logical, but it is biblical.”

“There is a paradox when dealing with God's sovereignty and Human freedom of choice. I affirm both to be true, yet there is a mystery involved when trying to reconcile them. I am choosing to live with the tension and trust God with the results.”



Here's the connection between 'Fullerism' and 'Calminianism':
http://www.voxdeibaptist.org/baptist_heritage_andrew.htm

Perhaps Fuller’s greatest contribution to Christianity was to free us from the shackles of philosophical theology. Because many could not see any consistency between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility they rejected one or the other. Fuller on the other hand, concluded that any lack of logic in such thinking was due to his own lacking, not God’s.

"The truth is, there are but two ways for us to take: one is to reject them both, and the Bible with them, on account of its inconsistencies; the other is to embrace them both, concluding that, as they are both revealed in Scriptures, they are both true and both consistent, and that is owing to the darkness of our understandings, that they do not appear so to us."


But, it does seem that Fuller was more Calvinistic than you are JF (from the same article):

".... Fuller also reminded fellow Baptists and all Christians that regeneration precedes faith not vice-a-versa.

"Man’s response to the invitation to repent and to come to Christ is not simply a wise human decision, a balancing of the arguments for and against, and thinking that those for are more cogent. The decision is itself a work of grace."


"

thanks!
Do hold to the fact that God does elect to eternal life all those chosen by Him to be saved and placed "In Christ" from Eternity past, BUT do not hold to God electing unsaved to go to hell, active act, they will go their thru oen voliation ...

Also think that regeneration/faith 2 sides of same coin in salvation process...

God does do an internal act of grace to make person "ready" and "able" to receive jesus, to exercise faith in Christ...

God sends the Holy Spirit to renew/regenerate his elect ones, and they exercise their faith in what they can now hear and respond to, the Gospel message "faith comes by hearing, by the word of God"

 

[kyredneck]

Wow.....Kyredneck..... Ole Danny indicates we are enemys to Baptists! More paranoia no doubt!

.....Ol' Danny is keeping right in line with the teaching of Andrew Fuller:

"Just as Fuller strove to make the Baptists respectable and clean them of what he called the dunghill of High Calvinism, so his modern fans are presenting him as their only hope in making Christianity a rational religion which even fallen man can comprehend and follow faithfully."
http://evangelica.de/articles/doctrine/why-i-am-not-a-follower-of-andrew-fuller/

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Then we're turning the churches over to the ..... oh well. At least we are remnants....we must go on. :jesus:

 

[Martin Marprelate]

.....Ol' Danny is keeping right in line with the teaching of Andrew Fuller:

"Just as Fuller strove to make the Baptists respectable and clean them of what he called the dunghill of High Calvinism, so his modern fans are presenting him as their only hope in making Christianity a rational religion which even fallen man can comprehend and follow faithfully."
http://evangelica.de/articles/doctrine/why-i-am-not-a-follower-of-andrew-fuller/

Don't believe everything you read from George Ella. Most Reformed Baptists are fans of Fuller (Michael Haykin, Tom Nettles, Robert Oliver etc.). Fuller was a very great man.

Steve

 

[kyredneck]

Don't believe everything you read from George Ella. Most Reformed Baptists are fans of Fuller (Michael Haykin, Tom Nettles, Robert Oliver etc.). Fuller was a very great man.

Steve

There's not a [uninspired] man alive or who has lived whose writings I believe totally, but Ella has made some convincing arguments against some of the [contradictory] teachings of Fuller. I happen to think John Gill was a very great man.

 

[Skandelon]

Whatever God wants it to accomplish.



Whatever God wants it to accomplish.




Whatever God wants it to accomplish.


Whatever God wants it to accomplish.



Whatever God wants it to accomplish.



Whatever God wants it to accomplish.

Nice dodge. What do you suppose God wants those means to accomplish that are not already accomplished through the effectual work of regeneration?

Having trouble answering that question, Luke?

 

[JesusFan]

Nice dodge. What do you suppose God wants those means to accomplish that are not already accomplished through the effectual work of regeneration?

Having trouble answering that question, Luke?

Doesnt one placing their personal faith in jesus Christ, after hearing the message of the Cross, actually prove/confirm that they were truely the elect of the Lord though?

that the Lord WILl and does do an inward work/change in heart/mind of man, enabling them to receive jesus, and that regeneration occurs at same time personal faith placed in jesus?

 

[Skandelon]

Once again you are confusing Calvin with Hypercalvin.

No I'm not, you are misunderstanding my question as I will explain...

Also, you say "once again" as if this there was another time I "confused" the two. Could you site that quote instead of making blanket accusations? Thanks.

All God's elect will be saved, but they will not be saved without someone preaching the Gospel to them.

I understand and even acknowledged that fact. I see the purpose accomplished through the preaching of the gospel to those who are elect of God, but what I've asked for the the purpose accomplished through the other means that is NOT accomplished only through Calvinism's "effectual work" of grace?

And that preaching is not a mere announcement of fact; we are to rebuke, exhort (2Tim 4:2) reason (Acts 17:2), persuade (Acts 18:4), even implore (2Cor 5:20). Why? Because it pleases God to save people that way (1Cor 1:21). God can convert people without all that stuff (Luke 6:27-8; Acts 9:3ff) but as a general view people are converted by the word and through preaching (James 1:18).

I couldn't agree more, but this is just a restatement of what we believe, its not an answer as to what those means actually accomplish that is not only accomplished through the inward effectual work of God (i.e. what some refer to as "regeneration" or "new birth").

We are also to take into account the situation of our hearers. When Paul was preaching to the Jews and 'Godfearers' in the synagogue, he quoted extensively from the OT (Acts 13:16ff), but that was wasted on those who didn't know the Scriptures, so to them he preached another way (Acts 14:15-18; 17:22ff). To the proud, he gave warning (Acts 13:40-41; 28:25ff) and to the weak and convicted he gave hope (Acts 16:31). But none of this worked for Paul (Acts 18:32) or will work for us unless Almighty God opens the heart of those who hear (John 6:44; Acts 13:48; 16:14; 2Cor 5:6 etc.).

I was in agreement with you all the way up to the part I emboldened. You presume that all these things you listed didn't work, quoting Acts 18:32 as a proof text, which doesn't exist (maybe just a typo?)

The point is that some people did come to faith after the use of these means so to claim that they didn't work is presumptuous and begs the question. If they don't work what was their purpose? Why did Paul bother becoming all things to all men if that wouldn't work? Why not just proclaim the truth and let God's effectual regenerative work do the rest?

Also, you say God must open the heart of those who hear but you seem to dismiss the possibility that its through these chosen means that God is opening their hearts and minds. Could God not use envy to open the mind of a hardened Jew? Why presume that these means are not useful in accomplishing these purposes? Why presume there must be another effectual/irresistible inward means when scripture never indicates there is?

It is exactly the same in sanctification. We are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, not although, but actually because God is working in us to will and to do of His good pleasure (Phil 2:12-13). Why do we need to do it when God is doing it for us? Because it pleases God.

Saying "because it pleases God" doesn't answer the question as to what purpose it serves. The gospel pleases God, but it also serves the purpose of informing and inviting the born again elect to faith. These other means, which you clearly acknowledge are used in scripture, serve no other purpose to speak of if Calvinism is true.

 

[Luke2427]

Nice dodge. What do you suppose God wants those means to accomplish that are not already accomplished through the effectual work of regeneration?

Having trouble answering that question, Luke?

No, and you know I am not.

God can use MEANS to bring about regeneration if he so chooses.

God can use the death of Stephen to awake the conscience of Paul, for example, if He so chooses.

God can use the kind act of another to turn one's thoughts to Christ to initiate the process of regeneration.

God can use whatever he wants to accomplish whatever he wants.

Next...

 

[Skandelon]

No, and you know I am not.

God can use MEANS to bring about regeneration if he so chooses.

God can use the death of Stephen to awake the conscience of Paul, for example, if He so chooses.

Apart from regeneration?

God can use the kind act of another to turn one's thoughts to Christ to initiate the process of regeneration.

I didn't think so. See, you still must have regeneration to accomplish the purpose thus leaving the other means without any real purpose. They accomplish nothing to speak of, thus making such verses which speak of them as having accomplished something misrepresentative.

For example, when Jesus says, "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes."

Clearly, if Calvinism is true, the non-elect people of Tyre and Sidon would have never repented regardless of the number of miracles performed. Why? Because they would have never been regenerated. Clearly, Jesus acknowledges the ability of these means to convince a man. They have a purpose and they can accomplish that purpose in my system, but not in yours.

 

[Luke2427]

Apart from regeneration?

I didn't think so. See, you still must have regeneration to accomplish the purpose thus leaving the other means without any real purpose. They accomplish nothing to speak of, thus making such verses which speak of them as having accomplished something misrepresentative.

For example, when Jesus says, "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes."

Clearly, if Calvinism is true, the non-elect people of Tyre and Sidon would have never repented regardless of the number of miracles performed. Why? Because they would have never been regenerated. Clearly, Jesus acknowledges the ability of these means to convince a man. They have a purpose and they can accomplish that purpose in my system, but not in yours.

I'd respond and show you where you miss it, but I will not be moderated by you.

 

[Skandelon]

I'd respond and show you where you miss it, but I will not be moderated by you.

I don't moderate for doctrine, only for the breaking of the rules. The admins would edit me if I did otherwise. The board is actually to be self moderated as each person is able to report posts. We are just given the responsibility to actually go in and do the edits.

Your neglecting to answer for this reason is clearly an avoidance technique, especially in light of the fact that you have engaged in discussions with other moderators.

 

[Luke2427]

I don't moderate for doctrine, only for the breaking of the rules. The admins would edit me if I did otherwise. The board is actually to be self moderated as each person is able to report posts. We are just given the responsibility to actually go in and do the edits.

Your neglecting to answer for this reason is clearly an avoidance technique, especially in light of the fact that you have engaged in discussions with other moderators.

You know better. We just had this discussion in private.

[Snip - rules state that if you have a problem with a moderator you need to handle that through PMs. You can report problems to an Administrator]

 

[Skandelon]

You know better. We just had this discussion in private.

We are on the same playing field because I'm subject to your rebuke as well if I break the rules. You only have to report my post if they are in violation of the posting rules and a moderator (beside me) will be informed and can edit it. But, I think you will find that will not be necessary with me because I don't break the rules.

You would have no problems if you simply obey the rules. If you can't do that, then you may be right, you shouldn't debate me.

 

[Luke2427]

We are on the same playing field because I'm subject to your rebuke as well if I break the rules. You only have to report my post if they are in violation of the posting rules and a moderator (beside me) will be informed and can edit it. But, I think you will find that will not be necessary with me because I don't break the rules.

You would have no problems if you simply obey the rules. If you can't do that, then you may be right, you shouldn't debate me.

You're not subject to my rebuke. I cannot give you warning willy nilly as you have done me three times in one day.

 

[Don]

[snip - please handle concerns about moderation through PM, per the rules]

 

[Skandelon]

You're not subject to my rebuke. I cannot give you warning willy nilly as you have done me three times in one day.

I received several reports from other members Luke, there is nothing "willy nilly" about what I've done. There are also several public comments concerning your demeanor and inflammatory posts. You made a personal attack, which is against the rules. Just stick to addressing the subject and not the person and that won't be a problem.

I've sent you a PM and I advise you to stick to addressing these types of concerns there. I've also agreed to only report the posts that you write directed to me, in the same way you can report mine.

 

[Luke2427]

I received several reports from other members Luke, there is nothing "willy nilly" about what I've done. There are also several public comments concerning your demeanor and inflammatory posts. You made a personal attack, which is against the rules. Just stick to addressing the subject and not the person and that won't be a problem.

I've sent you a PM and I advise you to stick to addressing these types of concerns there. I've also agreed to only report the posts that you write directed to me, in the same way you can report mine.

Do you not have to obey these rules.

If I cannot address publicly what a moderator has done to me, why is it ok if a moderator addresses publicly what he has done to others?

Don had it right. I know you deleted his post, but he is not the only one who has reported to me that you are wrong in doing what you are doing.

 

[Skandelon]

Do you not have to obey these rules.

Yes, and if you feel that I have broken them you can report it, as I've told you again and again.

If I cannot address publicly what a moderator has done to me, why is it ok if a moderator addresses publicly what he has done to others?

I'm only trying to dispel the notion that I have treated you unfairly. No one has questioned whether or not you actually broke the rules, only if I should edit you when I'm in a discussion with you. We've come to an agreement on that point. I'm also letting people know how to properly handle moderating concerns.