Living in peace

[MorseOp]

Considering some of the most recent in-house Baptist fights between Calvinistic Baptists and non-Calvinistic Baptists (Geilser vs. Mohler; James White vs. Ergun Caner; SBC vs. Founders Movement), is there the possibility of peace between both groups? If so, what would that peace look like? My personal opinion is that cooperation between both groups is not likely given the nature of the disagreement over soteriology. Could one form of peace simply be avoidance? You do your thing and I'll do mine? I tend more towards that solution. No animosity. No grudges. We just agree to disagree and move forward with the work of the kingdom trusting that God will bless in spite of our intramural squabbles. Of course persecution makes strange bedfellows. If there was mass persecution of the church in American you may see a willingness on both parts to find areas to agree on.

Thoughts?

 

[ktn4eg]

I'm inclined to believe that all this arguing over the fine points of soterology (while perhaps OK in some cloistered academic setting) does little to help us keep what should really be our priorities in this lost and dying world wherein we find ourselves.

Look, we've got people out there who are suffering from the disasterous effects of this sin-cursed world that are going to spend an eternity in hell while we argue and condemn folks who ought to be treated as brothers and fellow soldiers on the battle lines for the only solution God gave us in the Bible---the Gospel of Christ wherein we see the Son of God leaving His riches in glory and humbling Himself to bleed and die on the cross for us and subsequently rising from the grave to secure the salvation for those that He chose to love.

OK, so we've proven (at least to ourselves) that our views pro or anti Calvinism is the ONLY correct view that any rational person can have. How's that going to help some lost and dying soul strung out on drugs and alcohol?

I feel that sometimes we tend to lose sight of the forest for the trees and the little nuts lying on the ground underneath them. I can just visualize Satan and his demons cheering us on in the ring, knocking each other out.

Instead of shooting each other, isn't time we look outside our little bubbles that we call our "comfort zones" and see what's really happening in our world today?

Our society is, to use a well-worn saying, going to hell in a handbasket while some of us would rather spend our time and effort counting the number of angels on a pinhead.

Yep, I'm sure that kind of attitude is going to garner lots of "Well Dones" at the Judgment Seat of Christ.

(Getting off my soap box now.)

 

[MorseOp]

I'm inclined to believe that all this arguing over the fine points of soterology (while perhaps OK in some cloistered academic setting) does little to help us keep what should really be our priorities in this lost and dying world wherein we find ourselves.

Look, we've got people out there who are suffering from the disasterous effects of this sin-cursed world that are going to spend an eternity in hell while we argue and condemn folks who ought to be treated as brothers and fellow soldiers on the battle lines for the only solution God gave us in the Bible---the Gospel of Christ wherein we see the Son of God leaving His riches in glory and humbling Himself to bleed and die on the cross for us and subsequently rising from the grave to secure the salvation for those that He chose to love.

OK, so we've proven (at least to ourselves) that our views pro or anti Calvinism is the ONLY correct view that any rational person can have. How's that going to help some lost and dying soul strung out on drugs and alcohol?

I feel that sometimes we tend to lose sight of the forest for the trees and the little nuts lying on the ground underneath them. I can just visualize Satan and his demons cheering us on in the ring, knocking each other out.

Instead of shooting each other, isn't time we look outside our little bubbles that we call our "comfort zones" and see what's really happening in our world today?

Our society is, to use a well-worn saying, going to hell in a handbasket while some of us would rather spend our time and effort counting the number of angels on a pinhead.

Yep, I'm sure that kind of attitude is going to garner lots of "Well Dones" at the Judgment Seat of Christ.

(Getting off my soap box now.)

You make some valid points, but when it gets down to ministering together it gets very hard (if not impossible) to act contrary to one's beliefs. There are certain things I cannot compromise on because I believe those things are taught in scripture. I know we'd like to think that these differences won't come up, but they will.

 

[Tom Butler]

I'm inclined to believe that all this arguing over the fine points of soterology (while perhaps OK in some cloistered academic setting) does little to help us keep what should really be our priorities in this lost and dying world wherein we find ourselves.

Look, we've got people out there who are suffering from the disasterous effects of this sin-cursed world that are going to spend an eternity in hell while we argue and condemn folks who ought to be treated as brothers and fellow soldiers on the battle lines for the only solution God gave us in the Bible---the Gospel of Christ wherein we see the Son of God leaving His riches in glory and humbling Himself to bleed and die on the cross for us and subsequently rising from the grave to secure the salvation for those that He chose to love.

OK, so we've proven (at least to ourselves) that our views pro or anti Calvinism is the ONLY correct view that any rational person can have. How's that going to help some lost and dying soul strung out on drugs and alcohol?

I feel that sometimes we tend to lose sight of the forest for the trees and the little nuts lying on the ground underneath them. I can just visualize Satan and his demons cheering us on in the ring, knocking each other out.

Instead of shooting each other, isn't time we look outside our little bubbles that we call our "comfort zones" and see what's really happening in our world today?

Our society is, to use a well-worn saying, going to hell in a handbasket while some of us would rather spend our time and effort counting the number of angels on a pinhead.

Yep, I'm sure that kind of attitude is going to garner lots of "Well Dones" at the Judgment Seat of Christ.

(Getting off my soap box now.)

I think you've made a good point--we need to have our priorities straight.

I see no problem in debating Calvinism/Arminianism in forums such as this one. While we have differences--and they're not minor--when it comes to carrying the gospel to the lost, our appeal is essentially the same.

The message from the Calvinist is this: Repent, and trust Christ and Him alone for your salvation. Without Christ you are without hope.

The message from the non-Calvinist/Arminian is this: Repent, and trust Christ and him alone for your salvation. Without Christ you are without hope.

Now, we might use slightly different terminology in our appeals.

The non-Cal would likely say "Christ died for you."
The Cal would likely say, "Christ died for sinners just like you."

All the lost man hears is, he's a sinner; Christ died for sinners.

We really don't have to choose between arguing over soteriology and carrying the gospel to sinners.

Let's argue in here. Let's take our witness out there.

 

[mandym]

Considering some of the most recent in-house Baptist fights between Calvinistic Baptists and non-Calvinistic Baptists (Geilser vs. Mohler; James White vs. Ergun Caner; SBC vs. Founders Movement), is there the possibility of peace between both groups? If so, what would that peace look like? My personal opinion is that cooperation between both groups is not likely given the nature of the disagreement over soteriology. Could one form of peace simply be avoidance? You do your thing and I'll do mine? I tend more towards that solution. No animosity. No grudges. We just agree to disagree and move forward with the work of the kingdom trusting that God will bless in spite of our intramural squabbles. Of course persecution makes strange bedfellows. If there was mass persecution of the church in American you may see a willingness on both parts to find areas to agree on.

Thoughts?

It would lack arrogance, it would not include that one side insists they understand the other sides view but the other side does not understand thirr view. It would not include claiming that only one of the two views is the gospel. It would not include suggesting that a particular theologian of one side could defeat everyone else who disagrees with them.

 

[ktn4eg]

MorseOp--
I'm not saying we have to compromise what we might consider essential doctrines. We can parse each others statements or semantics and even debate over whether or not some particular point(s) is/are really essential in the grand scheme of things. Let's just keep our overall priorities in mind is what I'm pleading for....OK?

What concerns me is the tenor of some of the postings I've seen on BB over the years. Some (not ALL, of course) posts tend to characterize any individual(s) as heretical, out of God's will, or some such other derogatory epithet [All of which are violations of BB rules] who dares question some fine point the poster has tried to make.

Sort of "Shoot first, ask questions later, and take no prisoners" approach, if you know what I mean.

We can debate these things in an appropriate forum, but let's be civil in dealing with our siblings in Christ, always considering that perhaps some of them are still trying to grasp things about which we ourselves supposedly are better versed.

I hope that this makes sense to you, my friend.
------------------------------------
Tom--
Your point(s) are well taken. As I mentioned above to MorseOp, I'm merely pleading for some civility amongst our siblings in the Lord.

I can only speak from my simple layman's perspective---not having any seminary or other such advanced theological learning.

I still have some difficulty trying to define some of the terms that are thrown out for all to see (not to mention how opposing viewpoints might want to redefine these terms in order to color those terms more to their own liking.).

Anyway, I hope that you can see the point I'm trying to make. To me, dis-fellowshipping an individual who may disagree with what in reality is still a minor point (although it may seem major to you) doesn't seem to help very much.

Your response to my post would seem to me that you'd agree that there's a time and place for everything. We can debate here as long as its kept civil and goes no further than here on BB.

I believe you (and hopefully the rest of our BB siblings) will agree that our overall priorities ought to be those that are emphasized in the Gospels, and let's leave the other subjects to be debated in the spirit of Ephesians 4:29-32.
------------------------------------
Blessings to all of you my friends.

 

[MorseOp]

MorseOp--
I'm not saying we have to compromise what we might consider essential doctrines. We can parse each others statements or semantics and even debate over whether or not some particular point(s) is/are really essential in the grand scheme of things. Let's just keep our overall priorities in mind is what I'm pleading for....OK?

What concerns me is the tenor of some of the postings I've seen on BB over the years. Some (not ALL, of course) posts tend to characterize any individual(s) as heretical, out of God's will, or some such other derogatory epithet [All of which are violations of BB rules] who dares question some fine point the poster has tried to make.

Sort of "Shoot first, ask questions later, and take no prisoners" approach, if you know what I mean.

We can debate these things in an appropriate forum, but let's be civil in dealing with our siblings in Christ, always considering that perhaps some of them are still trying to grasp things about which we ourselves supposedly are better versed.

I hope that this makes sense to you, my friend.

What you're saying makes perfect sense, but put me down in the "skeptical" category. In the abstract the Rodney King attitude of, "Can't we all just get along?" is laudable. But then, like you, I read the posts on this board and my heart grieves. I don't see the Spirit of Christ, I see the spirit of anger. I love honest and vigorous debate. The truth of God's word is worth contending for. But the manner in which the individual is torn down, along with their beliefs, is shameful. And it's not just on this board. The individuals I mentioned in the OP took their fights into the public arena. The intramural fight in the SBC between free will vs. Calvinism has both sides casting accusations against the other. This is the reason why I think it's best to go our separate ways. Bless each other's efforts to proclaim the gospel, but avoid all the rancor and destruction that has accompanied the debate.

 

[12strings]

I do think there is opportunity for the SBC to continue to work together, and hope it continues with some forgiveness given from both sides. Here are some tidbits that I think give hope:

1. Luke recently brought up the interesting case of Adrian Rogers, who took over his church from the former pastor, who was a calvinist. Neither seemed upset about that at the time. (example of the posibility of peace)

2. The current pastor at Bellveue Baptist is Steve Gains, who has spoken against Calvinism. His son is Grant Gains, a calvinist. I think this will happen more and more and force family members to get along. I hope for this as opposed to splitting families up. I think their care for the person will trump their differences.

3. My own church is a mix of Cals and non-cals. Mostly Calvinistic Pastors. Some Cal members, some not, many who don't know either way. We have had the same staff for the last 5 years, and are steadily growing, thanks in part to wise and loving leadership from our senior pastor.

4. FINALLY, the SBC is unique in the fact that it has NOT taken a position on this issue. Nearly every other denomination HAS stated a position on this. I think that gives the SBC a unique opportunity to foster cooperation between churches and individuals who don't agree on everything.

 

[Tom Butler]

Your response to my post would seem to me that you'd agree that there's a time and place for everything. We can debate here as long as its kept civil and goes no further than here on BB.

I believe you (and hopefully the rest of our BB siblings) will agree that our overall priorities ought to be those that are emphasized in the Gospels, and let's leave the other subjects to be debated in the spirit of Ephesians 4:29-32.

Of course, we don't always pick and choose the times to debate. The Affirmations and Denials document is a case in point. The non-Calvinists picked that fight in public, so it must be debated in public.

Some observers may have no clue as to what the debate is about, but in this case, the Calvinists didn't start it. And maybe a public discussion will be useful to the uninitiated.

 

[mandym]

Of course, we don't always pick and choose the times to debate. The Affirmations and Denials document is a case in point. The non-Calvinists picked that fight in public, so it must be debated in public.

Some observers may have no clue as to what the debate is about, but in this case, the Calvinists didn't start it. And maybe a public discussion will be useful to the uninitiated.

Hmmm...I am reminded of public statements like David Platt said on the sinners prayer. Never mind that he completely misrepresented it, it was a shot fired across the bow.

 

[MB]

Considering some of the most recent in-house Baptist fights between Calvinistic Baptists and non-Calvinistic Baptists (Geilser vs. Mohler; James White vs. Ergun Caner; SBC vs. Founders Movement), is there the possibility of peace between both groups? If so, what would that peace look like? My personal opinion is that cooperation between both groups is not likely given the nature of the disagreement over soteriology. Could one form of peace simply be avoidance? You do your thing and I'll do mine? I tend more towards that solution. No animosity. No grudges. We just agree to disagree and move forward with the work of the kingdom trusting that God will bless in spite of our intramural squabbles. Of course persecution makes strange bedfellows. If there was mass persecution of the church in American you may see a willingness on both parts to find areas to agree on.

Thoughts?

I think maybe this just might get people to be a little more willing to get along. This american Christians being harrased by Islamic's, click on the link
http://frontpagemag.com/2...ns-in-dearborn-michigan/
We just may need to unite to stand against this threat and it can only get worse.
MB

 

[humblethinker]

I think you've made a good point--we need to have our priorities straight.

I see no problem in debating Calvinism/Arminianism in forums such as this one. While we have differences--and they're not minor--when it comes to carrying the gospel to the lost, our appeal is essentially the same.

The message from the Calvinist is this: Repent, and trust Christ and Him alone for your salvation. Without Christ you are without hope.

The message from the non-Calvinist/Arminian is this: Repent, and trust Christ and him alone for your salvation. Without Christ you are without hope.

Now, we might use slightly different terminology in our appeals.

The non-Cal would likely say "Christ died for you."
The Cal would likely say, "Christ died for sinners just like you."

All the lost man hears is, he's a sinner; Christ died for sinners.

We really don't have to choose between arguing over soteriology and carrying the gospel to sinners.

Let's argue in here. Let's take our witness out there.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

While the non-cal and cal may likely say to everyone what you propose, the cal thinks the non-cal may be just inaccurate while the non-cal thinks the cal may be disingenuous.

Though not necessarily the case, I think it would be reasonable and rational for anyone to understand the statement "just like you" to mean that I am in every relevant way "like" a sinner for whom Jesus died. And in this understanding presume that since you are invoking God's name that you would not inacurrately represent or knowingly allow me to think that I am not certainly included in your description of "sinners" for whom Jesus died.

But regardless, the non-cal can find consolation in this idea, "...The [others] preach Christ... not sincerely... But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice." It seems the cal can find consolation in that God sovereignly ordained that non-cals may preach inaccurately.

So, we can still love each other and as you say, "...argue in here. Let's take our witness out there."

 

[Yeshua1]

Of course, we don't always pick and choose the times to debate. The Affirmations and Denials document is a case in point. The non-Calvinists picked that fight in public, so it must be debated in public.

Some observers may have no clue as to what the debate is about, but in this case, the Calvinists didn't start it. And maybe a public discussion will be useful to the uninitiated.

IF we divide over this issue, than we as a people will be disobeying the clear command of jesus to strive to keep the unity of the Body!

is it harder to have jews/gentiles come together, or those who are saved to discuss theological issues?

lets remember THE sign jesus said will mark us out to the World...

Love for the bethren!

 

[MorseOp]

IF we divide over this issue, than we as a people will be disobeying the clear command of jesus to strive to keep the unity of the Body!

is it harder to have jews/gentiles come together, or those who are saved to discuss theological issues?

lets remember THE sign jesus said will mark us out to the World...

Love for the bethren!

Dividing over doctrine happens all the time. That's why there are denominations. We divide over baptism with our Presbyterian brethren, yet we still consider them in-Christ to the extent they preach the gospel. Division is sometimes necessary.

 

[Yeshua1]

Dividing over doctrine happens all the time. That's why there are denominations. We divide over baptism with our Presbyterian brethren, yet we still consider them in-Christ to the extent they preach the gospel. Division is sometimes necessary.

i am referring to say SBC dividing due to JUST the issue between cals and Arms!

 

[Tom Butler]

i am referring to say SBC dividing due to JUST the issue between cals and Arms!

You have to be more specific. The effort to divide the convention at this point are the non-Cals with the Affirmations and Denials document.

Let me clarify. SOME non-Cals. Many of them don't have a dog in this fight.

 

[Yeshua1]

You have to be more specific. The effort to divide the convention at this point are the non-Cals with the Affirmations and Denials document.

Let me clarify. SOME non-Cals. Many of them don't have a dog in this fight.

just stating that its would be OK biblically to divide on say baptism mode, nature of isreal vchurch, as we have presby/baptists, but NOT to divide within same groupp, such as SBC!

For cals/Non cals dont haveto divide over this issue of Sotierology, as we have examples through history of churches/groups/individuals able to "handle' both sides of this!

cals need to allow nons to have their place in the church, but non cals need to stop trying to boot the cals out!

 

[MorseOp]

Keep in mind that the SBC is not a denomination, it is an association of autonomous churches. I believe the Founders Movement churches would be better off breaking ties with the SBC. They can start another association of like-minded churches that cooperate together on church planting, missions, relief work etc. Gone would be the contentious in-fighting at the convention.

 

[MorseOp]

Do I need to offer any additional proof?

Anti-Calvinism scriptural food fight

 

[Tom Butler]

Keep in mind that the SBC is not a denomination, it is an association of autonomous churches. I believe the Founders Movement churches would be better off breaking ties with the SBC. They can start another association of like-minded churches that cooperate together on church planting, missions, relief work etc. Gone would be the contentious in-fighting at the convention.

I hope that doesn't happen.

Most SBC Calvinists I know are comfortable with the Baptist Faith and Message, and it is around that confession that both Calvinists and non-Calvinists should rally. We can have our little family disagreements, and quite easily join forces to carry the gospel to the uttermost parts of the earth.

As for me, I am a Southern Baptist Calvinist and I'm not going anywhere.