Featured Being upfront

I'm reminded of an interview with a Japanese industrialist a few years ago..... he told the Americans that after the War (WW2) that Americans flooded the country with money, support & technology as well as the process of quality refinement in manufacturing. He then indicated a "Thanks" but note that we will not repeat your error in helping to make us a super power. There is no sharing of the wealth with those people. Sound familiar?

 

.....................

 

I am no historian, but I have read there have always been General and Particular Baptists, and that in England the General Baptists dominated.

Here is an article about the state of the SBC in 1925.

http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/pe...rn-baptists-strongly-calvinistic-in-1925.html

 

Yeah, that ilk were often a.k.a "Reformed Baptist" initially too.

Encylopedia of Louisville:

"During the late 1820s and early 1830s, Benjamin Allen and John Curl served as supply preachers for First Baptist Church. Their appreciation for Restorationism led to a schism (1831) As the majority, the Restorationists retained possession of the church property and records. The 1832 Louisville directory listed the "Old Baptist church" and the "Reformed Baptist Church," the latter the Restorationist congregation."

 

From what I have read, there were far more General Baptists in England than Particular.

As for the SBC, it was the same, there have always been both non-Cal and Cal Baptists, but the trend has been away from Calvinism.

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=3531

 

Okay. Time to weigh in. I am not concerned about being asked whether I am a Calvinist. I am going to tell them I am a Calvinist. I do not want to deal with questions about the content of my preaching. That "battle" should be had before I am called. I do not want to pastor an Arminian church unless that church calls me after full disclosure. And trust me, I will preach the doctrines of grace without apology and without asking for permission. Caveat Emptor.

 

"Let the preacher use his tongue as he wills, but by what show of right should a congregation support him while he is opposing their views of truth? There is the whole world for every earnest speaker to talk in, but for what reason is he to have possession of a pulpit dedicated to the propagation of dogmas which he glories in refuting? We have scarcely patience to expose so self-evident an absurdity. The whine concerning persecution is effeminate cant." —Charles Spurgeon, "Ministers Sailing Under False Colours"

 

Exactly. This is just what I've been saying.

 

This is an interesting idea. I don't wholly disagree with you...I am not committed to the idea that there should be a split in the SBC....but I don't think the world would end so to speak if it did...I think it's a suggestion worth considering.

I think you probably have a valid point here.

It does...I am throwing out the notion that it may have not been the best idea to have a relatively ambiguous Statement. Some complain about that very thing.

I cannot deny this...while I have seen some truly Calvinist Churches inexplicably adopt the same insanity, it is without a doubt a largely "Arminian" problem.

Yes.

I think I am beginning to see where you are coming from more clearly... It seems to me as though you believe that certain facets of the differing Theologies lend themselves to particular strengths and weaknesses.
Whether there is logical necessity or not, a by-product of Arminianism in it's day was a sense of evangelistic urgency and fervour, whereas a by-product of Calvinism in it's day was a staid detatchment.
Similarly, a by-product of the heavy influence of Arminianism today has been our tacit Satan-worship in those infernal "Heavenly Halloweens"....and the general sanity of Calvinism is required to rein us in lest we tatoo ourselves into oblivion...

So, the general sway generation by generation is perhaps a "good" thing inasmuch as the needs are different in different eras...and that the usefulness of "Arminianism" has largely run its course and that it is time for the Calvinists to rein us back in again............
Thus, theoretically, 80 years from now, when, under the Calvinist regime, we might become staid and somewhat cold again....it will be time for some fresh Arminian fervour and fire again.

If I understand you correctly.....I think you are onto something interesting and quite valid here. I am inclined to agree with you.

I don't know that they do "HAVE" to....I just simply wouldn't fear a peacable parting of ways IF that were the wisest course of action. I am not committed to the notion that it is the wisest course of action. I speak in sheerly Theoretical terms.

(editted to add):
Honestly...I am just being cautious of any attitude of Unity for it's own sake and at ANY cost....That seems to be the driving influence of our day and I loathe it. I know you would in NO way support such a notion: This is why I keep insisting that the "split" option remains open...I am not committed to the idea that it is the best course of action by any means.

 

Being up front covers many different areas besides the same, old tired subject of Calvinism and Arminianism. The local church usually has a pulpit committee that asks questions before presenting the candidate before the church, then the church asks questions and votes. That is when all these issues should be clearly understood. In all of the pastors I have seen come and go from our church, I never recall Calvinism or Arminianism being a question or an issue. We have people that believe both ways and it has not affected church unity one bit. It seems to be an issue isolated to a small minority on this board that seems to insist on discord.

If it were an issue, then the questioning process would solve the problem. For example, if a local church practices open communion, and a pastoral candidate practices closed and will try to change the church bylaws, the interview is over. There is no reason for surprises after a local church calls a pastor.

 

Why would an Arminian want to pastor a Calvinistic church, and why would a Calvinist want to pastor an Arminianistic church? I, being an Arminian, wouldn't take a pastorship of an Calvinistic church until I let them know full well how I view the word of God. If they felt comfortable with me, and vice versa, then fine. But as Brother Herald stated, I too, would preach the free will of man, and would not ask for their permission. I would also preach God's sovereignity, as well.

A lot of times, if a church with a differing view of their prospective pastor(s), if they choose to go that route, things could get messy in the long term. Church isn't about one being an Arm or Cal, but rather, a CHRISTian, seeking God's face, and doing what He has commanded us to do, and that is to preach the gospel, and make disciples. It is a place to worship Him, and to present the gospel to the lost, whereby they can be saved.


So I would take a pastorship of a Calvinistic church if I felt comfortable with them and vice versa, and I would be up front with my beliefs. I would not come in and do things covertly, but openly.

 

Brother, I didn't know you felt this way.....BTW, "cut and paste" is quite a fun hobby.......:laugh: :wavey: :love2: :tongue3:

 

They should be taught by WHOM?

[/QUOTE]

You have convinced me that Calvinist is a mistaken theology. And in my additional readings I am becoming convinced that parts of Calvinism is Gnostic in origin.

Blessings.

 

You have convinced me that Calvinist is a mistaken theology. And in my additional readings I am becoming convinced that parts of Calvinism is Gnostic in origin.

Blessings. [/QUOTE]

It goes beyond Gnosticism. To understand Calvinism, it is instructive to study the pagan background of its precursor, Augustine.

This man influenced both Roman Catholic and Reformed theology, and also Lutheranism, all of which I am adamantly opposed to.

 

That... is laughable. And thanks- I always like to start my mornings with humor.

 

Actually it is tragic that so many are following Gnostic beliefs and do not realize they are doing so.

There have been posts on this BB that basically have said:

"I can't wait until I die. My spirit will be free from this old body, free from this world!"

Separation the spiritual from the material is straight out of Gnostic beliefs.

 

Yes, you are correct. Augustine was active within a Gnostic group and he brought some of their beliefs into his "Christian" theology. Calvin was a great admirer of Augustine and picked up on those Gnostic beliefs, not realizing them for what they were and are.