Sign Up?

[Benjamin]

Good try my friend, but I rarely find that anger and acrimony are compatible with a Christ like life. So I'm gonna let you get away with this.




This time.



No, not option 3 either as it says "avoid conflict at all costs" and that doesn't represent what I think either. I believe instead that THIS conflict doesn't rise to the level of there needing to be such a statement in the SBC.

I believe that the truth of the mechanics of how God draws and causes us or allows us to respond is somewhere in the middle and neither Calvin nor Arminius had it all right or all wrong. There IS middle ground between the two as well as tension in the scriptures between the two. It is us humans that become dogmatic over this issue. God simply didn't say "believe in Christ and Calvin and be saved" any more than He said "Believe in Christ and Arminius and be saved". Believing in Christ is crux. Everything else is mere decoration. We forget we are to be like "little children". What little child would even ask these sorts of questions?

Well, to me the cost of presenting the Gospel as being genuinely offered to all men is one that is important enough for me to stand by my principles and put my name to my beliefs. All the Articles do is bring this subject to light. No shame in the truth for me.

This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
(1Jn 1:5)

 

[agedman]

Well, to me the cost of presenting the Gospel as being offered to all men is one that is important enough for me to stand by my principles and put my name to my beliefs.

Here, again, we see that the poster has taken a position in which no side would argue, but his attempt to present it as "higher ground" is actually an attempt to demean any who don't agree with his soteriological views in other posts.

All views that are not heretical desire to present the Gospel, and offer the Gospel to all men for no man knows who is to be saved and who is not.

The great commission is not benign but given to every believer to fulfill.

 

[webdog]

So rather than responding with Scriptures, you rely on ..... fluff.

Are you one who has a form of Godliness, but denies the power thereof?

To what is the "thereof" referring?

Fluff?! Did you not see the Scripture provided in the op?

 

[saturneptune]

What would you say is the cause of the decline of practical discipleship?

Kind of like a car dealer honoring a warranty after the purchase of a new car.

 

[saturneptune]

Correct Benjamin. To my dismay I am saddled with having to use terminolgy that is already in the marketplace in an effort to communicate in a meaningful way. Thanks for keeping it a secret between us:thumbs:

If I need philosophical expressions...I will call upon you.But since Ravi Zacahrias has not called me lately...I am good for now.
Any cal questions...feel free to call:type:

I have a Cal question, why are you on our side? Please, convert to Arminian.

 

[Benjamin]

Here, again, we see that the poster has taken a position in which no side would argue, but his attempt to present it as "higher ground" is actually an attempt to demean any who don't agree with his soteriological views in other posts.

All views that are not heretical desire to present the Gospel, and offer the Gospel to all men for no man knows who is to be saved and who is not.

The great commission is not benign but given to every believer to fulfill.

Here, again, my opponent demeans himself by not agreeing to the Articles simply designed to pin him down on whether or not he truly believes all men have the volition to “really” make that choice. Sorry, but, see, we no longer care about your continued arguments which you are so determined to make at every corner; we are cutting to the chase.

Our differences have been spelled out by whether one is willing to sign the Articles or not. We feel those differences are important and it seems the Calvinist find it demeaning to reveal where their beliefs actually lead and want to continue on with their endless arguments instead. Too bad! The Articles present simple statements of belief and if you can’t agree to them it demeans you? And that somehow supposed to be our fault?!? Here, again, sounds like you got something to hide to me.

 

[agedman]

Fluff?! Did you not see the Scripture provided in the op?

Sure, I saw the Scriptures.

But the point was that Benjamin has offered nothing of Scriptural support of his statements, rather choosing to demean and post fluff.

If he has a specific argument about the view in which he repeatedly belittles and considers it not scriptural, then he needs to post Scriptures to prove his point.

It is usually the Scriptures that the BB use to prove or disprove a view.

He cannot rely solely upon the fluff that he has posted and expect to gain favor toward his view - whatever that is.

 

[Iconoclast]

I have a Cal question, why are you on our side? Please, convert to Arminian.

You can use the ignore button they tell me...so why don't you try it out.
You are own your own side evidently. You are looking to bait me,or whatever you think you are doing. Not sure what your issue or issues are.
Unless you have a scriptural concern to raise I am not interested in this last ten mysterious posts with your agenda.....if I want advise from you I will ask.
I post as I will...you do what you want,,,like this:

8 And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we be brethren.

9 Is not the whole land before thee? separate thyself, I pray thee, from me: if thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left.

 

[agedman]

Here, again, my opponent demeans himself by not agreeing to the Articles simply designed to pin him down on whether or not he truly believes all men have the volition to “really” make that choice. Sorry, but, see, we no longer care about your continued arguments which you are so determined to make at every corner; we are cutting to the chase.

Our differences have been spelled out by whether one is willing to sign the Articles or not. We feel those differences are important and it seems the Calvinist find it demeaning to reveal where their beliefs actually lead and want to continue on with their endless arguments instead. Too bad! The Articles present simple statements of belief and if you can’t agree to them it demeans you? And that somehow supposed to be our fault?!? Here, again, sounds like you got something to hide to me.

Benjamin,

My posts are for all to see.

I have hidden nothing of my views and usually post Scriptures to example why I hold a certain view.

You, however, have offered very little other than detraction and disparage in your posts.

If you have a view, then support it with specific Scriptures.

But, it is becoming more apparent that you have merely adopted what is ear tickling seems good, rather than a hearty investigation in which you can clearly state what exactly you believe and what Scripture support you use for that belief.

You want to rely upon the work of others, but where is your own work on a view that you hold?

For instance: I am Calvinistic thinking, but I did not read any of Calvin, nor his supporters to arrive at my statements of belief. It was some years before someone said, "You sound like a Calvinist," that I actually began to see that for centuries others have traveled the same road and come to the same conclusion that I hold.

Where is YOUR work?

Why not start with this first:
Can you show Scriptural support for your view that man in complete unregenerate state has the natural ability outside of any specific grace given by God to choose righteous?

 

[Luke2427]

Articles of Affirmation and Denial​

Article One: The Gospel​

We affirm that the Gospel is the good news that God has made a way of salvation through the life, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ for any person. This is in keeping with God’s desire for every person to be saved.

We deny that only a select few are capable of responding to the Gospel while the rest are predestined to an eternity in hell.

Genesis 3:15; Psalm 2:1-12; Ezekiel 18:23, 32; Luke 19.10; Luke 24:45-49; John 1:1-18, 3:16; Romans 1:1-6, 5:8; 8:34; 2 Corinthians 5:17-21; Galatians 4:4-7; Colossians 1:21-23; 1 Timothy 2:3-4; Hebrews 1:1-3; 4:14-16; 2 Peter 3:9

Article Two: The Sinfulness of Man​

We affirm that, because of the fall of Adam, every person inherits a nature and environment inclined toward sin and that every person who is capable of moral action will sin. Each person’s sin alone brings the wrath of a holy God, broken fellowship with Him, ever-worsening selfishness and destructiveness, death, and condemnation to an eternity in hell.

We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned. While no sinner is remotely capable of achieving salvation through his own effort, we deny that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel.

Genesis 3:15-24; 6:5; Deuteronomy 1:39; Isaiah 6:5, 7:15-16;53:6; Jeremiah 17:5,9, 31:29-30; Ezekiel 18:19-20; Romans 1:18-32; 3:9-18, 5:12, 6:23; 7:9; Matthew 7:21-23; 1 Corinthians 1:18-25; 6:9-10;15:22; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Hebrews 9:27-28; Revelation 20:11-15

Article Three: The Atonement of Christ​

We affirm that the penal substitution of Christ is the only available and effective sacrifice for the sins of every person.

We deny that this atonement results in salvation without a person’s free response of repentance and faith. We deny that God imposes or withholds this atonement without respect to an act of the person’s free will. We deny that Christ died only for the sins of those who will be saved.

Psalm 22:1-31; Isaiah 53:1-12; John 12:32, 14:6; Acts 10:39-43; Acts 16:30-32; Romans 3:21-26; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 3:10-14; Philippians 2:5-11; Colossians 1:13-20; 1 Timothy 2:5-6; Hebrews 9:12-15, 24-28; 10:1-18; I John 1:7; 2:2

Article Four: The Grace of God​

We affirm that grace is God’s generous decision to provide salvation for any person by taking all of the initiative in providing atonement, in freely offering the Gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit, and in uniting the believer to Christ through the Holy Spirit by faith.

We deny that grace negates the necessity of a free response of faith or that it cannot be resisted. We deny that the response of faith is in any way a meritorious work that earns salvation.

Ezra 9:8; Proverbs 3:34; Zechariah 12:10; Matthew 19:16-30, 23:37; Luke 10:1-12; Acts 15:11; 20:24; Romans 3:24, 27-28; 5:6, 8, 15-21; Galatians 1:6; 2:21; 5; Ephesians 2:8-10; Philippians 3:2-9; Colossians 2:13-17; Hebrews 4:16; 9:28; 1 John 4:19

Article Five: The Regeneration of the Sinner​

We affirm that any person who responds to the Gospel with repentance and faith is born again through the power of the Holy Spirit. He is a new creation in Christ and enters, at the moment he believes, into eternal life.
We deny that any person is regenerated prior to or apart from hearing and responding to the Gospel.

Luke 15:24; John 3:3; 7:37-39; 10:10; 16:7-14; Acts 2:37-39; Romans 6:4-11; 10:14; 1 Corinthians 15:22; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 2:20; 6:15; Colossians 2:13; 1 Peter 3:18

Article Six: The Election to Salvation​

We affirm that, in reference to salvation, election speaks of God’s eternal, gracious, and certain plan in Christ to have a people who are His by repentance and faith.

We deny that election means that, from eternity, God predestined certain people for salvation and others for condemnation.

Genesis 1:26-28; 12:1-3; Exodus 19:6; Jeremiah 31:31-33; Matthew 24:31; 25:34; John 6:70; 15:16; Romans 8:29-30, 33;9:6-8; 11:7; 1 Corinthians 1:1-2; Ephesians 1:4-6; 2:11-22; 3:1-11; 4:4-13; 1 Timothy 2:3-4; 1 Peter 1:1-2; 1 Peter 2:9; 2 Peter 3:9; Revelation 7:9-10

There may be millions of people who could sign it in the sense that it represents their views.

The question is SHOULD they sign it in light of it's AIM?

It's aim is to define Southern Baptist beliefs as anti-calvinistic. It seeks to pretend that the non-cals are the "traditional" Southern Baptists and the Calvinists are stepchildren which the SBC tolerates as long as they know their place.

This does nothing but starts a fight that the SBC does not need.

Singing that document not only assents to the theology represented therein, but it also embraces the divisive motives which hurts the movement as a whole.

 

[Luke2427]

I have a Cal question, why are you on our side? Please, convert to Arminian.

This is not helpful.

 

[saturneptune]

You can use the ignore button they tell me...so why don't you try it out.
You are own your own side evidently. You are looking to bait me,or whatever you think you are doing. Not sure what your issue or issues are.
Unless you have a scriptural concern to raise I am not interested in this last ten mysterious posts with your agenda.....if I want advise from you I will ask.
I post as I will...you do what you want,,,like this:

It takes a lot of nerve to post a verse about no strife and post the way you do. I could care less about baiting you. I do care about an obnoxious spokesman for doctrines of grace and sovereignty. Dont ask for advise, most were here years before you arrived on the scene.

 

[saturneptune]

This is not helpful.

So sue me.

 

[agedman]

It takes a lot of nerve to post a verse about no strife and post the way you do. I could care less about baiting you. I do care about an obnoxious spokesman for doctrines of grace and sovereignty. Dont ask for advise, most were here years before you arrived on the scene.

I don't understand.

Do you have a personal problem with Icon that has spilled over to this thread?

Do you two have an actual disagreement upon the Scriptures, or is about the tone and tempo of posting that is the problem?

 

[saturneptune]

I don't understand.

Do you have a personal problem with Icon that has spilled over to this thread?

Do you two have an actual disagreement upon the Scriptures, or is about the tone and tempo of posting that is the problem?

It is all about tone. He draws sharp reponses from both sides by the wording of the posts, phrases such as "have you had too much caffine." In theory, theologically we are on the same side, but do not believe these kind of posts foster a good exchange of ideas, but bring out feelings of anger.

 

[Luke2427]

I don't understand.

Do you have a personal problem with Icon that has spilled over to this thread?

Do you two have an actual disagreement upon the Scriptures, or is about the tone and tempo of posting that is the problem?

Right. It is distracting. Take it to the pm. It has nothing to do with the OP.

I figure it is one big fat misunderstanding.

I think both guys are solid. Somebody has said something along the way that has really rubbed the other the wrong way and they can't seem to shake it and wind up reading ALL of the posts of the that person through rage colored glasses.

You two are on the same team. Work it out, will you please?

 

[Iconoclast]

It takes a lot of nerve to post a verse about no strife and post the way you do. I could care less about baiting you. I do care about an obnoxious spokesman for doctrines of grace and sovereignty. Dont ask for advise, most were here years before you arrived on the scene.

8 And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we be brethren.

9 Is not the whole land before thee? separate thyself, I pray thee, from me: if thou wilt take the left hand, then I will go to the right; or if thou depart to the right hand, then I will go to the left.

I will stick with this. Your posts do not seem to be scripturally based.
What I posted to michael...was between him and I...we have an understanding. You are going off and I am not following you.
I speak for myself......you speak for yourself.

most were here years before you arrived on the scene

So what. You are not posting scripture much at all,You are setting yourself up as a judge.
Where have you posted anything scriptural?
Your comments are not helping with anything except to make you feel good. Put me on ignore...then you do not have to worry about it.

 

[Iconoclast]

Right. It is distracting. Take it to the pm. It has nothing to do with the OP.

I figure it is one big fat misunderstanding.

I think both guys are solid. Somebody has said something along the way that has really rubbed the other the wrong way and they can't seem to shake it and wind up reading ALL of the posts of the that person through rage colored glasses.

You two are on the same team. Work it out, will you please?

Sorry for the distraction...I posted James Whites program response to the SBc

saturn got twisted ,attacked James White? I answered so now he wants me to be arminian??? I am telling him to ignore my posts.

 

[saturneptune]

I will stick with this. Your posts do not seem to be scripturally based.
What I posted to michael...was between him and I...we have an understanding. You are going off and I am not following you.
I speak for myself......you speak for yourself.



So what. You are not posting scripture much at all,You are setting yourself up as a judge.
Where have you posted anything scriptural?
Your comments are not helping with anything except to make you feel good. Put me on ignore...then you do not have to worry about it.

What good is posting Scripture then misinterpreting it?

 

[Benjamin]

Benjamin,

If you have a view, then support it with specific Scriptures.

Where is YOUR work?

Why not start with this first:

Yeah, "Let's argue some more! Let's argue some more, where's your work, support it with scriptures!"

You guys just don't seem to be able to get the point, and that's the point of these Articles, We're tired of it, let's cut to chase. Did I not just finish answering your request of wanting to continue arguing about this?!?

Originally Posted by Benjamin
Here, again, my opponent demeans himself by not agreeing to the Articles simply designed to pin him down on whether or not he truly believes all men have the volition to “really” make that choice. Sorry, but, see, we no longer care about your continued arguments which you are so determined to make at every corner; we are cutting to the chase.

Our differences have been spelled out by whether one is willing to sign the Articles or not. We feel those differences are important and it seems the Calvinist find it demeaning to reveal where their beliefs actually lead and want to continue on with their endless arguments instead. Too bad! The Articles present simple statements of belief and if you can’t agree to them it demeans you? And that somehow supposed to be our fault?!? Here, again, sounds like you got something to hide to me.

For the record, my rebuttal of the doctrines of hyper-determinism would not have been nearly as mildly put. I am not here to settle this settle our differences between our doctrines in this tread! You know full well that isn't going to happen. Poke at me all you want and say I am not able to defend my position scripturally if you want! You know that to be a lie! You just want to fight some more. And there we have it! The point is we are not going to settle these differences and the attitude you are displaying here about "come on put up your fight, you can't" it is EXACTLY why it has come to the point where it is time to show you the door by revealing where your agenda leads!

We are no longer going to deal with your agenda. Instead we are going to put the cards on the table for all to see and are willing to bring transparency to the subject so informed decisions can be made by every one through simple observations of the issues at stake so they can make a choice. You don't want that..TOUGH!!!

It is obvious who is looking for peace and who wants to continue to fight.

The only way to peace with your kind is to put distance between us, you have given a great example why that is so!