Must we be calvinists?

[thomas15]

This is one of the key tactics recommended by the 'Founders' Calvinist Southern Baptist guys in their 'Quiet Revolution' guide to turning a Baptist church Reformed:

Interesting article Jerome. One thing sticks out in my mind, The writer goes on and on about the ills of his church, spiritual, financial, general mismanagement and so forth.

Then to wrap up the diagnosis section, he writes: "After much prayer and analysis, I concluded that the basic need of the people of the church was a solid doctrinal foundation. North Pompano Baptist, like many others, had absolutely no doctrinal foundation. The people were doctrinally illiterate, and by the time I got there, the superficial superstructure that remained was falling apart."

The writer (I have no idea who he is, maybe I should?) presents himself as "Mr. Problem Solver" but shouldn't he have at least, if nothing else known the doctrinal position and health of the church before (not after) accepting the call? He makes it sound (to me at least) that the church had no statement of faith and that this caught him off guard.

 

[MB]

This thread was motivated by (1) comments in the "let the best theology win" thread about calvinist pastors hiding thier beliefs, and (2) the recent threads attacking John Calvin and assuming that calvinists are simply the cult-followers of a murderous man.

Which leads me to my primary question, with a few corollary questions:

PRIMARY: Must a Baptist person who believes that 4 or 5 of the soteriological points of calvinism are correct, then identify himself/herself as a calvinist?

Don't you think he will do that the moment he tells anyone what he believes?
Seems to me it would be difficult to hide for long.

1. If a church asks a potential pastor, "are you a calvinist," would it be acceptable to the arminians who fear calvinist take-overs if the man said, "no, but I believe Calvin go some things righ; specifically, that there are scripture that lead me to believe that God did Elect those who would be saved before the foundation of the world. I also believe men must repent and believe in Christ." Would you say this man is being deceptive.

For me it would prove that he's a liar and could not be trusted, because a "No" answer would not be true. Though I've never met a Calvinist I was afraid of. They have come to our church all are welcome of course, but not all are welcome to try preaching there beliefs when they are different than ours. This would not be tolerated.

2. What if the man is a 4-point calvinist?

The answer would still be no

3. What if the man is not sure, but does believe in unconditional election because the divine foreknowledge views and the corporate election views do not hold water in his view?

I believe you are confused. Foreknowledge does not determine that men will be saved whether or not they want to be. God is all knowing but we aren't we still have to make the decision.

4. What if the man is full-on 7 pointer, double-predestination, supralapsarian, covenant theology...but does not baptize babies...and does not believe Calvin to be a good role model...must HE take the title calvinist?

He doesn't have to however if Calvinism is what he believes it will be given to him at sometime in his life.

The Calvinist here refer to me as Arminian though I do not agree with Arminianism. I tell them that but it makes no difference to them they don't care so why should I?.
MB

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Originally Posted by 12strings View Post
4. What if the man is full-on 7 pointer, double-predestination, supralapsarian, covenant theology...but does not baptize babies...and does not believe Calvin to be a good role model...must HE take the title calvinist?

No.... not unless he walks lock step with John Calvin should he take that as a Title.

If however his allegiance is to Christ as his Lord & Savior,,,,,then he should consider himself a Christian, period.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Me: "What, if any, responsibility does the individual have in salvation? Can a person know that they are saved?"

ITL.......I would asked you this in response & I'd like your answer, " Does any man or woman have access to the Lamb's Book of Life?"

 

[12strings]

Don't you think he will do that the moment he tells anyone what he believes?
Seems to me it would be difficult to hide for long.

For me it would prove that he's a liar and could not be trusted, because a "No" answer would not be true.

The Calvinist here refer to me as Arminian though I do not agree with Arminianism. I tell them that but it makes no difference to them they don't care so why should I?.
MB

So are you saying that if someone asked if you were an arminian, you could truthfully say no because you disagree with arminians on some points...but if someone asked me if I were a calvinist, I would be a liar and not to be trusted if I said no, though I disagree with Calvinism on some points?

Or are you saying that BECAUSE calvinists will not let you out of being called arminian, that you will not let those who agree with Calvin on election out of being called calvinist?

I believe you are confused. Foreknowledge does not determine that men will be saved whether or not they want to be. God is all knowing but we aren't we still have to make the decision.

I understand this, I was merely trying to say that one (me) could think that the individual Election before creation fits scripture better than either the corporate election view, or the view that God elected based on foreseen faith.

 

[Luke2427]

Must we use the term Calvinist? Yes, because it is an effective way to communicate a theological position in shorthand.

1. Yes, this person should admit to bring a Calvinist, and yes, if he doesn't he is being deceitful.

This is why this is wrong. There are a THOUSAND different beliefs and philosophies ensconced under the umbrella of the SBC.

Should a man have to come to a pulpit committee and say, "WAIT! Before we go another step! You need to know that I don't believe the Pope is the anti-Christ!"

No.

That's silly.

If the church cares the church will ask. Then the pastoral candidate should answer honestly.

The fact of the matter is that the official position of the SBC is NOT non-cal. So there is no reason to identify oneself as Calvinist unless asked.

That is not even CLOSE to being deceptive.

The SBC is WIDE OPEN to Calvinism. It used to be largely a Calvinist movement (not exclusively, but largely).

 

[Mexdeaf]

The fact of the matter is that the official position of the SBC is NOT non-cal. So there is no reason to identify oneself as Calvinist unless asked.

That is not even CLOSE to being deceptive.

The SBC is WIDE OPEN to Calvinism. It used to be largely a Calvinist movement (not exclusively, but largely).

Truth.:wavey:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Truth.:wavey:

If this is indeed true, what then is the problem?

 

[Luke2427]

I agree completely with your post. I actually think some good could come from discussing Calvinism and Arminianism, if it could be kept objective, calm, mature, and non-accusatory.

What blatant hypocrisy!

This from someone who JUST got corrected by a moderator for calling someone a JACKASS.


I love these super-spiritual, "look how enlightened and warmly Christian I am" people!

Full of absolute bull.

You, and I don't mean JUST you- I mean most of the guys who do this lecturing us crud, are only warm when it suits you.

You just use these "lectures" as rungs of a ladder that you climb so that you can claim the spiritual high ground.

It is self-righteous, self-aggrandizing, empty rhetoric.

 

[Luke2427]

If this is indeed true, what then is the problem?

The only problem comes from those who are determined to purge the denomination of a theological system it has warmly embraced since 1845!

Calvinists are NOT the problem.

"Non-cals" determined to keep power are CLEARLY the problem.

 

[12strings]

Doesn't matter to me as long as they're saved. I don't see the word as having perjorative connotations. Why do Calvinists shy away from the label? Do Lutherans feel queasy being called Lutherans?

I'm glad you brought up lutherans...Since many of those who hold to DoG might actually say they think Luther's views on soteriology are formulated a bit better... could we not say we are Lutherans? If not, why not...One might say, well, we don't believe in consubtantiation, we don't baptize babies, we put the pulpit in the middle...but in soteriology...we are lutherans!

And yet, because of those differences...if anyone asks any "calvinist" Baptist if he is a lutheran, they don't expect a "yes" answer. And yet if one substitutes out Calvinist for lutheran...we expect that same baptist to readily admit to being a calvinist, or accuse him of being dishonest...even though he may have more in common with lutherans than historic Calvinists.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

You Got THAT Right!

Any reasonable Christian on this board or anywhere else has got to be on their last nerve of the continuing third grade temper tantrum between Calvinists and Arminians. There is nothing positive or edifying in any of the threads. Personally, I am sick to the point of throwing up at seminary graduates and other theological genuises declaring their side of the debate as inspired. None of you, either side, has a clue as to the inner mind of the Lord. You cherry pick verses to support your theories. Nothing is accomplished, nothing is learned.

I would urge the Baptist Board Administrators to ban any discussion of the subject, until supposed leaders of the Christian church grow up.

Realizing part of the problem is the life Calvin lead, and we have had threads ad nauseum over this subject, does not mean that those that choose to believe in God's sovereignty are murderers or thugs. It does not mean that those who believe in God's sovereignty agree with infant baptism, or a theocracy. It is a tragedy that such a man was given the name of the doctrine, but that is the way it is. No one on this board is going to change that.

It is quite obvious that both sides are not interested in learning or debating, as things like Calvins name or insults from the other side are being attached to the individual posters. Names like heretic, heresy, false doctrine, supporters of false doctrine are thrown around like baseballs.

The only purpose of these endless threads could be nothing but pure meanness and evil. From the outside, it appears the posts are made by, as said above, third graders that are not being monitered by their parents. Just the type of people we need leading local New Testement churches.

SN, Since your comment was on Page 1 of this thread I will be honest and say that I haven't read all (up to now) 6 pages but I really don't think I need too. When I saw the title of the thread I already had a very short and concise answer in mind. That would simply be...(No)...we just need to be Bible-Believers. YOUR post is EXCELLENT and to it I will only add a hearty AMEN!
That (No) was my short and concise answer. To expand on that a bit...We are not called to be either Calvinists OR Arminians or ANYTHING other that Bible Believers. If what we embrace cannot be supported, in context, and for the most part from a literal stance, by the Word of God...WITHOUT adding too or taking from the text, then we must reject and turn from it. Bible-Believing Christians are to be people of faith...a narrow yet generous faith founded and grounded upon God's Word...not the ideas of men. Again SN...great post. Now...I'll try to go on and read the rest of the thread...even though I don't expect to be surprised by anything new. The real "Truth" is pretty simple....the problem is that our old fleshly nature will resist it until the grave or the "catching away"...whichever comes first! "Even so,come Lord Jesus"! Soon I hope!

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[Winman]

There is one question that tells you all you need to know;

Which comes first? Faith or Regeneration?

Or, you might ask if a man MUST be regenerated to have the ability to believe?

If a man answers that regeneration precedes faith, or that a person MUST be regenerated to have the ability to believe he is a Calvinist/DoG.

If the man believes faith precedes regeneration or answers that a man must first believe to be regenerated, then he is an Arminian or non-Cal.

 

[Luke2427]

There is one question that tells you all you need to know;

Which comes first? Faith or Regeneration?

Or, you might ask if a man MUST be regenerated to have the ability to believe.

If a man answers that regeneration precedes faith, or that a person MUST be regenerated to have the ability to believe he is a Calvinist/DoG. If the man believes faith precedes regeneration or answers that a man must first believe to be regenerated, then he is an Arminian or non-Cal.

Regeneration preceding faith is consistent with the Baptist Faith and Message- and the Scriptures for that matter.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Originally Posted by InTheLight View Post
Doesn't matter to me as long as they're saved. I don't see the word as having perjorative connotations. Why do Calvinists shy away from the label? Do Lutherans feel queasy being called Lutherans?


Because my allegiance is to Christ..... Not Luther, not Wesley, not the Pope, not Calvin, not Arminius, not Moses, not Puritanism, not Pelagius, not Augustine, etc, etc, etc. :jesus:

 

[Winman]

Regeneration preceding faith is consistent with the Baptist Faith and Message- and the Scriptures for that matter.

You sir, are a Calvinist or DoG. An Arminian or non-Cal Baptist would say a person must first believe to have spiritual life.

Jhn 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

The Arminian or non-Cal position is consistent with the word of God. You cannot show a single verse of scripture that supports regeneration before faith.

 

[Luke2427]

You sir, are a Calvinist or DoG. An Arminian or non-Cal Baptist would say a person must first believe to have spiritual life.

Jhn 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

The Arminian or non-Cal position is consistent with the word of God. You cannot show a single verse of scripture that supports regeneration before faith.

Yes I have showed them to you many times. Your mind must have the ability to drop memories that don't suit you.

 

[Winman]

Yes I have showed them to you many times. Your mind must have the ability to drop memories that don't suit you.

The difference between you and I is that I actually showed scripture that says "and that believing ye might have life".

You insist over and over you have shown scripture that says regeneration precedes faith, but you ALWAYS fail to actually show this scripture.

Fact is, there is not one verse of scripture that supports your position. It is IMPOSSIBLE for you to show even one verse that says regeneration precedes faith. You can't show it.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Choose Your Label!

No. :laugh:

Seriously, "Calvinists", "DOG", and "Arminians" are as varied as their heights, weights, hair color and favorite beverages.

I prefer DOG to Calvinist due to the charged nature of using the name.

If I have to be LABELED then just please keep it simple and call me a Christian or a Bible Believer. By the way.....DOG or "Doctrines of Grace" is simply the latest "buzzword" for Calvinists or those who call themselves "reformed" in their theology. I'll at least say that I RESPECT anyone who will be at least honest enough to identify themselves for what they believe...even when I can't agree with them.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[Mexdeaf]

The difference between you and I is that I actually showed scripture that says "and that believing ye might have life".

You insist over and over you have shown scripture that says regeneration precedes faith, but you ALWAYS fail to actually show this scripture.

Fact is, there is not one verse of scripture that supports your position. It is IMPOSSIBLE for you to show even one verse that says regeneration precedes faith. You can't show it.

John 6:63-65

1 Corinthians 2:11-14

Ephesians 2:5

Pretty clear to me.