Must a Fundemental baptist be A calvinist?

I think it is quite clear that Satan was very aware of Job beforehand. God had just asked Satan where he came from, and Satan answered from going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it. At this point God asked Satan if he had considered Job who was perfect and hated evil. So, I think this passage strongly implies Satan already knew about Job before he came before God.

I think there was competition and accusation from Satan against God happening here. Satan seems to delight that he had plunged all men into sin. He seems to imply that men loved him more than God. Why do I believe this? Because God responded there was still ONE MAN, Job, who loved and trusted God.

What was Satan's response? He asked God if Job feared God for naught. In effect, Satan was accusing God of buying Job's affection, but he was also accusing Job of loving God ONLY because God had put a hedge around him and blessed him.

This was a wicked accusation against both God and Job. Satan implied God was no better than himself and must bribe people to love him, and his people only loved him because they had been bribed. THIS is why God allowed Satan to afflict Job, to prove Satan wrong. And God did prove Satan wrong, in that Job said even if God should kill him, yet would he trust God.

I don't see anything suggesting God caused Satan's wicked thoughts here.

 

You move the point, whether or not Satan had thought about it, God still suggested it. God did put a hedge around him and later blessed him, but he also suggested Job for his trials. That is why God said, "Where were you when...", as God is not claiming he was innocent in all this, but that God controlled it all, but without evil. Satan could not do anything without God.

 

It is clear that Satan could not move against Job without God's permission, that is directly shown in the account, but there is nothing to indicate that God caused Satan's wicked thoughts or hatred toward Job as Calvin wrote. Jam 1:13-14 says God does not tempt ANY man to sin, but EVERY man is tempted when he is drawn away of his OWN lust and enticed.

It is true that God had put a hedge about Job, there are many promises in scriptures that God will protect believers who are obedient. There are no promises to those who are disobedient, so perhaps Satan is able to freely afflict disobedient believers and all unbelievers, at least to a degree. We see Satan caused fire to fall from heaven and a great wind that knocked down the eldest son's house. We see the Sabeans and Chaldeans come down against Job also, so it seems Satan has power over nature and even men to a degree. But we see God gave no specific instructions to what Satan could do, and there is no reason to believe God caused these things.

 

I do not think one has to sport a degree to be an excellent theologian no more than one has to sport a degree to be an excellent brain surgeon.

Neither does one have to be a brilliant theologian to be a fine preacher.

That's not the point.

Fundamentalism, as most of us are familiar with it, tends to be anti-intellectual.

To me, it is evil to be anti-intellectual.

People who do not love the deep things of God, people who do not want to plunge into the grand and comlex theological themes of Scripture, people who want everything at all times to be as simple as the ABC's, people who spurn seminary training and most forms of Christian scholarship- these people are guilty of, and I mean this literally, the worst crime in the universe.

Because the worst crime in the universe is to break the greatest law in the universe and the greatest law in the universe is to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, MIND and strength.

Joel Osteen and Rob Bell COULD NOT thrive in a deeper, more intelligent religious culture.

The ignorance that prevails in so many fundamentalist movements is THE PRMARY FACTOR that creates the shallow atmosphere where the ignorance which permeates the ministries of Osteen and Bell is able to thrive.

In other words if our religous culture was not so stupid, Rob Bell and Joel Osteen would be a nonfactor here.

It is no poorer hermeneutic that leads one to believe KJVonlyism than the hermeneutic that leads one to believe in universalism.

If we were too intelligent for KJVonlyism then we'd be too intelligent for universalism.

The stupidity that gives rise to one is of the same kind that gives rise to the other.

I already know what the retort will be to this post. "It was the Enlightenment that gave us German Higher Criticism and liberalism- it was not fundamentalism."

The answer to this retort is simple- the enlightenment took us from an intelligent hermeneutic and led us to a dumb one. Liberals are not bastions of theological genius. They are sources of spiritual idiocy- much like, imo, fundamentalism is today.

Fundamentalism is the new stupidity the church is forced to fight. Higher Criticism is the old stupidity we already fought and defeated.

We'll defeat this new stupidity before long as well.

But my contention is that it is our religious culture's lack of intelligence resulting from the success of much of fundamentalism that created the atmosphere of ignorance where Bell and Osteen are able to thrive.

 

Reply to Ruis,

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Calvinism is the most anti-intellectual theology on the block.

Scholarship does matter, but I would put it rightly dividing the word of Truth matters. Intellectual pretensions are the sum and substance of anti-intellectualism. For example, the argument from authority, a logical fallacy and therefore anti-intellectual, runs like this, "you should accept my view because I have gone to school and hold a degree in Theology or Greek studies, or Hebrew studies.

 

Van,

This is really a ridiculous statement. If you look at the scholarship that is out there throughout all of history, the most prominent and respected men are more often than not reformed. Even several of my professors in Seminary, non-calvinists, said that if you discount Calvinism then you have discounted some of the greatest scholars and theologians in Christian History. Mark Noll, who is a Lutheran (and the man I think is the greatest historian in the Christian realm today) said that the greatest academics and scholars in the 1700's were reformed congregationalists, in the 1800's changed to the Presbyterians. I would daresay that few will doubt the scholarship we brought in the 1600's and 1500's. Few will doubt B.B. Warfield's and Old Princeton's immense theological impact in the world. Stott, Packer, Schaeffer, Van Til, Bahnsen, and Lloyd-Jones are only a few that have made tremendous impacts in scholarship in the 20th Century.

Van, you truly have a huge weight of scholarship you will have to dispute. I trust you will find it difficult to truly find many non-reformed scholars who would agree with you. They may disagree with our views, but to say what you have said is contrary to all the evidence.

 

Just curious, as to whom that you would cite as authors comparable in NoN cal circles to those like Caivin/Augustine/Owens/Hodge/Erickson/Grudem et all?

The above is an argument from authority, the ol my daddy is bigger than your daddy so I win. Anti-intellectuals present logical fallacies rather rational aruments based on truth.

Yet another is the premise that since I am unable to study scripture directly from the Greek text, that invalidates my ability to cite those that do to refute Calvinism. Fiddlesticks.

It does not matter whether you clothe an idea with a well turned phrase, or broken English, what matters is whether what you express is true.

In closing, I believe a fundalmentalist could not be a Calvinist because a fundamentalist would be unwilling to nullify scripture after scripture to fit Calvinism into the text.

 

Reply to Ruis,

Scripture lights our path, not the incomprehensible absurdities of Calvinism.

 

What many Calvinists that post on this board cannot get their minds around is the possibility that all these committed Christians of the past, intellectual giants of their day, could be wrong in their understanding of scripture. Critical thinking requires challenging assumptions. So why assume the objective truth as expressed in scripture was most closely discerned by a subset of flawed men. Why not consider that when Jesus came, many of the well respected "experts" had so corrupted God's actual message they had made scripture "to no effect."

So rather than list many passages, or dozens of Calvinist scholars, why not start with one verse, Acts 13:48, or Romans 3:11, or Ephesians 1:4 and actually discuss it. To refuse to put Calvinism under the light is the apex of anti-intellectualism.

 

The dog hit by the rock howls the loudest! :laugh:

 

Best model? That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. In my opinion it is horrendous error with literally hundreds of verses that clearly refute it. It is not even close to what the Bible teaches.

And don't ask me to show all this scripture here, I and many others have been showing this scripture that refutes Calvinism for months. You never answer the scripture we have presented, you never refute it, you simply ignore it. Then you will say,

"Tihng you doN' tunDERstadn how dEpervd fallen man iS and is uNbale to coM eto cHrist!"

You will say this and never present a single verse of scripture to support it. If you seriously wanted to know the truth you would at least address the scripture we show and show why we are wrong, and then present scripture that supports your view.

You are not serious, this is just a game to you.

 

Do you see JF why I am pleading with you to consider the importance of a reverent, Christocentric, humble and intelligent hermeneutic?

Winman LITERALLY believes he has hundreds of verses that refute Calvinism. He is not being disingenuous. He REALLY believes that mess. He is that deluded.

But he is that deluded BECAUSE of this horribly flawed hermeneutic of his. But it is this SAME KIND of hermeneutic that you are defending in the ohter thread.

HOW you come to see what a passage says is every bit as important as if you are right about what you think it says- because being right on one passage is meaningless if your hermeneutic is going to lead you wrong on hundreds of other passages as it does with Winman.

Winman thinks that he and the Holy Ghost are all he needs to understand basically anything in Scripture- and who CARES if no other Christian in the history of the WORLD has ever seen it the way Winman does??? GOD speaks to Winman! And he thinks that he actually makes a point by just copying and pasting a bunch of verses that he thinks sounds like they support his viewpoint. Thinking people know this is a useless practice. Thinking people know that in order to make a point EXEGESIS is necessary- not just pasting a preponderance of Scripture. But it is this very flawed WAY OF THINKING that leads Winman to believe the way he believes.

It is this kind of madness that gave us every damnable heresy we battle today.

 

Jesus,

My statement was in response to him that our system was not scholarly. I was not using them to support my view, but to counteract the misunderstanding that we were not scholarly. Please keep it in that context.

 

Van,

I agree, but I was responding to your misunderstanding that we were not scholarly. Please do not misrepresent my rebuttal of that specific objection to make it what I was not trying to make it. Your assertion was ridiculous and I called it such and gave evidence to the contrary.

 

Again, these are ridiculous stereotypes. I spent about 5-6 years researching this issue, exploring the Biblical case for and against reformed theology. I can say that I disagree with people in the past, I do on many areas of theology. I, though, refute the fact that we are not scholarly as just a ridiculous statement.

I agree with those verses and believe they are great verses. Yet, the reason I don't argue it anymore is not because I am anti-intellectual (hey, I have three masters and am a professor), but because of the stereotypes that others have that makes it into a bash the Calvinist party instead of a real dialog.