Must a Fundemental baptist be A calvinist?

I think they are afraid that we (Calvinists) are growing in numbers. I for one prefer the minority position.

 

You really don't see how comical your statements are. You claim that I know what the scriptures say, as if this could possibly be different from what they mean! That's a riot.

Your argument is that scripture does not mean what it says!

This is one of the dumbest and most illogical arguments I've ever heard, even from a Calvinist, which is saying a lot.

 

Since any fundamentalist Baptist accepts God's word, they cannot be Calvinists. Only a person who denies the truth of scripture can be a Calvinist. They use nullification tools, like "it does not mean what it says" or "what is in a parable cannot be used doctrinally" and so forth. I have never met any Calvinist who could defend the doctrine biblical, not one. They use strawman arguments, attack my qualifications and character, and a host of other logical fallacies. They assert logical impossiblities, such as God ordains whatsoever comes to pass, but is not the author of sin. A fundamentalist would support a simple doctrine and avoid incomprehensible absurdies.

 

Van,

I am not a fundamentalist, but I want you to know that the most strident supporters of the Innerancy of Scripture were us Reformed Theologians. The prime example of this viewpoint is B.B. Warfield. He wrote what almost every scholar called "the book" on innerancy of Scripture. His research and theological/philosophical defense of Scripture is considered by some to be one of the greatest theological works produced in America. Years later, both Fundamentalists and the Reformed use his works to defend Scripture against modernism. I could mention others, but to say we don't believe in Scripture is a mischaracterization of our beliefs.

Secondly, there were many fundamentalists who were reformed. The Bible Presbyterian Church, for instance, was completely founded as a fundamentalist denomination.

Finally, your understanding of reformed theology seems to misunderstand the nature of the discussion.

 

JF, you have got to learn the quote feature, your inability to do so is not a good argument for your side in these debates. The only reason I can read your posts is because you have the very annoying habit of ending nearly every sentence with an exclamation point.

When you want to quote someone, simply click on the Quote button. A response page will open with the previous poster's post already bracketed within a "start quote" [QU@TE] and an "end quote" [/QU@TE] (misspelling intentional).

Anyway, don't do anything to the previous poster's quoted post, leave it alone.

Now simply write your response AFTER the previous poster's quote, AFTER the "end quote" [/QU@TE].

If you could learn this it would be nice, then folks could read your posts.

 

You misunderstand, Van is not saying Calvinists believe scripture has error, he is saying how Calvinists interpret scripture is error, and I agree. You have to abandon all common sense and basic logic to believe Calvinism, as when Van said Calvinists believe God ordains and decrees all things that happen, yet is not the author of sin. That is a direct contradiction taken not from scripture, but human philosophy. It is absolutely illogical, yet Calvinists believe it. Or, they redefine words, sometimes in the same verse. Concerning sin, "all men" means 100% of men, but if it concerns the ability to believe or be saved, or God willing that all men be saved, Calvinists redefine "all men" to mean only the elect. This is totally inconsistent, yet Calvinists ignore this. In fact, they make elaborate arguments to explain away their own inconsistency interpreting scripture.

 

Reread his statement. He said the following:

We can discuss whether we believe the Bible or not, but I agree with Spurgeon in noting the greatest defense against the modernist's understanding of the Bible is the reformed position.

Finally, some of the attacks he mentions are not attacks against reformed theology, but attacks on hermeneutics agreed by both Calvinists and non-Cal's. I could have quoted hermeneutical principles from non-Cal's that agree with me on how we approach parables or the like, but he mixes it with mischaracterizations of our view that had me focus on the major elements, that being reformed believers have a very high view of Biblical Theology.

 

This is an example of the problem with the teaching of Calvinists. They rely on acedemics for their theology, not the Bible. Forget what Paul, John or Luke wrote, they think the 16th century Bible scholars were smarter than the authors of the Bible. I am starting to realize that Calvinists are the "intellectual Christians", and the rest of us are just plain ignorant.

BTW, We all acknowledge that the Bible was inspired by God Himself, can you show that any of your beloved 16th century to present books on Calvinism were inspired by God?


John

 

Yes, thank you. Now you can simply respond to the previous poster.

You see, everything inbetween a "start quote" [QU@TE] and an "end quote" [/QU@TE] will show up in a quote box when you finally post. So if you want to quote only a paragraph or sentence, enclose that sentence between a start quote and an end quote. Now type your response.

Now if you wish to quote the previous poster's second paragraph, or another sentence, again enclose that paragraph within a start quote and end quote.

An example:

[QU@TE]This is the first sentence or paragraph I want to quote.[/QU@TE]

Here is my response to that quote.

[QU@TE]This is the second sentence or paragraph I want to quote.[/QU@TE]

Here is my response to the second quote.

[QU@TE]This is the third sentence or paragraph I want to quote.[/QU@TE]

Here is my response to the third quote.

See how that works? Practice a few times and you will get it.

I had to intentionally misspell the word "QUOTE" above, else the quote function would have kicked in when I posted this.

 

John,

The problem is not with us, but with you. We turn to the Bible, but one of the reason I stopped debating this issue is evident already in this thread. People argue things against reformed theology that are not what we believe.

When I went to Liberty, I had a non-Cal professor who said that if you don't know the other side as good as your own, you don't understand it. The ignorance of our belief is rampant even in Seminary, but even my non-cal professor said we should be reading books we disagree with from the other side.

Your mischaracterization, as well, is one of those not rooted in the truth. I studied this issue for 6-7 years. It was precisely because of Greek Exegesis that I became a Calvinist. I read authors on both sides to understand what each believed, and I compared it to the Biblical text.

The problem, some on your side have so stereotyped our belief that it neither resembles nor can even closely resemble our own belief.

 

This is plain wrong, we understand you quite well, far better than you give us credit for. We simply disagree with your application or interpretation of scripture, or your highly illogical arguments.

You can't say as Luke does, that God controls every event that happens and say that he is not the author of sin. That is absurd.

According to some, if a person murders someone, that was God's eternal purpose. I believe I saw a quote from Sproul that said God put that murderous thought in the murderer's mind, and even prepared his victim to come along at the right time and place to be murdered.

Now how can you honestly deny that God is the author of sin if this be true?

You will say you do not agree with Sproul. Fine, but that is another problem, no two Calvinists agree 100%. So how can we accurately represent Calvinism?

 

Again, the arrogance of the "intellectual Christian" is demonstrated.

I do understand your beliefs, I also consider them false. I don't argue the scripture on here with Calvinists, because Calvinists would have to understand what and who was "predestined" and "elect". As long as you misrepresent the meanings of those two words in scripture, there is no sense in argueing with you.

And I agree with Winman, either God controls everything and every action, or He lets us choose our own way, it can't be both.

Once I heard a pastor talking about God's plan, and God's control of the Earth. He said some people think that the big bunch of leaves that blew in front of their car was predestined by God before time. Some even say it has a purpose or is a sign from God.

The pastor said that sometimes leaves blowing across the road are "just leaves blowing across the road".

God has not predestined everything. He did predestine the coming of Jesus, and He did predestine the establishment of the church, but He did not deny access to Jesus or the church to anybody. He gave them the choice, and when they seek Jesus and the church, the HS draws them even closer.

John

 

I heard a great sermon the other night by John Macarthur and he said the reason why God wants us to pray "Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven" is because God's will isn't being done on earth! The earth is filled with rebellion.
Great point.

 

John,

Again, you are misrepresenting our view. Secondly, it is not necessarily arrogance of intellectualism, but I am simply calling people to study the primary sources for yourself and study for yourself. I think the arrogance is on the other foot, where people think they have the wisdom in themselves not to study both sides of the issue or to delve deeply into writers in the past and present on both sides of this issue. To me, I would rather be intellectual and study both sides, than assume I know your beliefs (which you have demonstrated you do not know my beliefs) and pretend that I do.

 

Winman,

You say you understand my beliefs, but by reading your statements on my beliefs I can tell you that you do not. It is rather strange that on this thread people are attributing to us beliefs no reputable reformed scholar would believe.

Then you give a philosophical objection to our belief (the objection of God being the author of sin) without even exploring the philosophical answer this problem. You have made up your mind and really you don't care what we say (as you seem to state in your first paragraph) so it is a useless discussion. You have your mind made up and you don't care what we actually believe.

I would like a citation of Sproul's comments. I am not saying I disagree with Sproul, I am saying that you would not accept his or my explanation based upon your own words. You merely like attacking us and misrepresenting us.