A Statement from the Calvinism Advisory Committee

[Revmitchell]

I think the entire book of Acts disagrees. Jesus said "GO". If God were to merely send people our way because they were divinely appointed, then we could just be a couch potato eating Twinkies.
There is nothing wrong with awaiting opportunities and speaking up when possible, but when that is the ONLY time someone decides to be a witness for Christ, that is NOT being obedient to the Great Commission. We are supposed to SEEK opportunities, not just sit and wait for them. Christ came to SEEK and save that which was lost.

No one said anything about sitting and waiting for anyone. That is your misrepresentation. Again it is all your personal preference.

 

[Bluefalcon]

I don't care to know what you believe...that's the point. That's why I'm in favor of separation from your type.

You're a bitter dude. Go edify the church by separating yourself from all of them.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

This is EXACTLY the point that I have made in other threads that Calvinism discourages evangelism. This is a description of LIFESTYLE EVANGELISM not SOUL WINNING. As much as I have disagreed with EWF, his question about "beating the streets" is exactly the type of evangelism that Paul and others did. They did not just live out their life waiting for an opportunity for God to send someone divinely appointed to salvation their way. They went "daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ" Acts 5:42.

But I do disagree with one statement from EWF that Mormons and JW's are the only ones that beat the streets. Independent fundamental Baptists do as well, it is somewhat of a trademark that identifies an IFB church.

Yes, I walk the streets & I talk to people, the shop keepers, the guys waiting to get picked up to do day labor, the people sitting on their front porches etc. As a boy I actually witnessed a Roman Catholic Priest do that....he would come into our home (We were a struggling family economically, my father had died when I was 12 YO & my older sister was Cerebral Palsy....so my mom could only work sporadically). This RC Priest would come over, sit at the kitchen table over coffee & converse with my mom over what our situation was....and this priest & later the Monsignor always helped. I try to emulate that.

Now I have a brother who is IFB.....I never saw him beat the street.....but maybe he has his own way of doing it.

My two biggest concerns at present is to establish a church that ministers to these folks & also learning Spanish so I can converse with that community in their own language....the Language can be a barrier.

BTW.... I'm a believer in DoG, however I am a Baptist & not a Calvie.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You're a bitter dude. Go edify the church by separating yourself from all of them.

How bout you take a long walk off a short pier.

 

[Rippon]

BTW.... I'm a believer in DoG, however I am a Baptist & not a Calvie.

You're a Baptist,but not a Calvinist? The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You're a Baptist,but not a Calvinist? The two are not mutually exclusive.

I dont sprinkle babies & I dont believe in sacraments & I do not subscribe to Covenant theology....but again, Im Credo & DoG. Bottom line, more old school.

 

[Bluefalcon]

I dont sprinkle babies & I dont believe in sacraments & I do not subscribe to Covenant theology....but again, Im Credo & DoG. Bottom line, more old school.

You're bitter. Are your converts also like you? What a "church" that would make. Glad you have one so all the others like you can separate from theirs and join yours and by doing so edify Christ's church.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You're bitter. Are your converts also like you? What a "church" that would make. Glad you have one so all the others like you can separate from theirs and join yours and by doing so edify Christ's church.

Glad to have helped.....have a nice day! :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Dale-c]

I dont sprinkle babies & I dont believe in sacraments & I do not subscribe to Covenant theology....but again, Im Credo & DoG. Bottom line, more old school.

That doesn't mean you are not a Calvinist.
A calvinist is one who believes the five points called either calvinism or tbe doctrines of grace .

John MacArthur is a good example of one who is a calvinist but not really reformed.

Also, do you really not believe in sacraments or just don't like the word? My church believes in two sacraments, baptism and tbe Lord's supper. Surely you do as well?

 

[Yeshua1]

Not every Calvinist is like him. I have Calvinists in my church. I am friends with Calvinists who are in leadership positions in the Founders Ministry. I am thankful that the SBC is at least trying to bridge the gap. There are lost people who need to be told the story of Jesus and we can all do it together.

Depends upon which kind of calvinist to a large degree!

As I hold to 5 point calvinism in regards to Sotierology, but also hold that arminians/non cals are just as saveda s i am, as its either the grace of God fully, or good works that save, so ALl sinners come thru Jesus!

I seeit that Dog explains and fits the biblical model best, but other views are viable IF they are not held just because "they are not calvinist!"

 

[Yeshua1]

You're a Baptist,but not a Calvinist? The two are not mutually exclusive.

taht all depends on how lossely one defines calvinist, as if you go by the strictly reformed view, NONE are unless thay hopld to entire system, of Covenant theology, A Mil etc along with Sotierology, my definition is that one holdingt o Sotierology of calvinistic/DoG qualifies as being one, as i see myself same as John MacArthur'leaking Dispy!"

And have noticed a difference between reformed baptists holding to Cal, and baptist holding to cal!

 

[Yeshua1]

That would be the same as going to church with a Roman Catholic. I don't buy into Roman Catholism nor should I be tolerant to that type of doctrine. I'm respectful to them to a degree but I'm not having services with them...nor am I blending with that other type. No way, no how. I have my faith beliefs & they are welcome to theirs....that is as far as it goes.

most churches would hve some cals, some arms, some non either, some lost, some Kjv, some other versions though!

Would not be ALL anything, but jesus still commands us to keep the unity if at all possible!

 

[Bro. James]

What is the formula for unification of the apostate? There are many given over to strong delusion, believing a lie.

"Pray for them who despitefully use you" but, "Be not unequally yoked to unbelievers."

Christendom is permeated with "Wolves dressed like sheep".

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Yeshua1]

What is the formula for unification of the apostate? There are many given over to strong delusion, believing a lie.

"Pray for them who despitefully use you" but, "Be not unequally yoked to unbelievers."

Christendom is permeated with "Wolves dressed like sheep".

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

What is the prayer to be made for Christians who happen to disagree over doctrines/issues, but jesus death still atoned for them, despite their hang ups on each other?

Think paul and james both told us that we ALL have the same master to give account to , right? that we need to not have that spirit of pride and arogance, like we have 'all truth!"

 

[Bro. James]

The prayer: Lord, give us a burden for the lost and uninformed.

We are to be: " Wise as serpents and harmless as doves."

These traits work--even on Mars Hill. The Word does not return void.

We are supposed to be planting seed, not pursuing things which engender strife.

Reprove, rebuke and exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

Let the Holy Spirit convict of sin, righteousness and judgment to come.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Ed B]

That doesn't mean you are not a Calvinist.
A calvinist is one who believes the five points called either calvinism or tbe doctrines of grace .

Something tells me John Calvin would roll over in his grave if he knew that through the use of his name, the sum total of his Institutes has been reduced to five points. The Institutes is a huge tome and five points doesn't cover the historic "Calvinism" that John Calvin would agree with.


I highly doubt there is a single true Calvinist posting on this forum. For example, the rules do not allow pedobaptist to post on this forum and I have never read where anyone here agrees with Calvin on co-mingling church and state. I understand why the term is used. Traditionalists object to people using "Doctrines of Grace" to describe those who hold to TULIP, because Traditionalists hold to doctrines of grace too. But I agree with EWF that agreeing with T.U.L.I.P. does not make one a Calvinist. That would badly misrepresent what John Calvin believed.

John MacArthur is a good example of one who is a calvinist but not really reformed.

Also, do you really not believe in sacraments or just don't like the word? My church believes in two sacraments, baptism and tbe Lord's supper. Surely you do as well?

We have two ordinances. Since we do not believe that baptism or the Lord's Supper confer Grace to the participant, we do not recognize sacraments

 

[Luke2427]

Although we are committed to these central truths, we recognize that within them there are tensions:

God desires for all to come to repentance, yet not all do.
Humans are ruined by the Fall, yet required to respond in faith.
God is sovereign in salvation, yet individuals are still held responsible for their reception or rejection of the Gospel.
Southern Baptist identity has often been connected to Calvinism, yet has often significantly modified it.

These are just a few of the dynamics at work in Southern Baptist faith and practice. While these tensions can be a source of frustration, especially when we are uncharitable toward those with whom we disagree, they have also been a great benefit to us, reminding us that God’s ways are higher than ours, that no systematic construct can ever contain the fullness of Scriptural truth, that it is we and not the Bible who are subject to error, that we should approach the Word with both fidelity to the past and readiness for further reformation, and that it is better to live in the tensions of unanswered questions than to ignore or adjust some part of the whole counsel of God.

With a full recognition of the limitless wisdom of God’s Word and the limited wisdom of ourselves, we urge Southern Baptists to grant one another liberty in those areas within The Baptist Faith and Message where differences in interpretation cause us to disagree. For instance,

We agree that God loves everyone and desires to save everyone, but we differ as to why only some are ultimately saved.
While we all heartily affirm the article on election in The Baptist Faith and Message (Article V), we differ as to whether the response of faith plays a role in one’s election.
We agree that the penal and substitutionary death of Christ was sufficient for the sins of the entire world, but we differ as to whether Jesus actually substituted for the sins of all people or only the elect.
We agree that the Gospel should be proclaimed to everyone, but we differ as to whether or how every hearer will be enabled to respond.
We agree that everyone has inherited Adam’s hopelessly fallen sin nature, but we differ as to whether we also inherit his guilt.
We agree that men and women are sinners, but we differ about the effects of sin on the mind and the will.
We recognize the differences among us between those who believe that sin nullifies freedom to respond to the Gospel and those who believe that freedom to respond to the Gospel is marred but not nullified.
We agree that God is absolutely sovereign in initiating salvation, uniting the believer to Himself, and preserving the believer to the end, but we differ as to how God expresses His sovereignty with respect to human freedom.
We agree that the Holy Spirit working through the Gospel enables sinners to be saved, but we differ as to whether this grace is resistible or irresistible.
We agree on the necessity of regeneration that results in God-ordained, Christ-centered, Spirit-empowered obedience from the heart, but differ as to whether faith precedes regeneration or regeneration precedes faith.
We agree that most Southern Baptists believe that those who die before they are capable of moral action go to heaven through the grace of God and the atonement of Christ, even as they differ as to why this is so.

These differences should spur us to search the Scriptures more dutifully, to engage in lively interaction for mutual sharpening and collective Gospel effectiveness, and to give thanks that what we hold in common far surpasses that on which we disagree. But these particular differences do not constitute a sufficient basis for division and must not be allowed to hamper the truly crucial cooperative effort of taking the Gospel to a waiting world. Southern Baptists who stand on either side of these issues should celebrate the freedom to hold their views with passion while granting others the freedom to do the same.

http://www.sbclife.org/mobile/wrapper.asp?ref=http://www.sbclife.net/Articles/2013/06/Sla5.asp

It is a good statement.

It probably will not deter the likes of Eric Hankins and Jerry Vines from vehemently trying to rid the SBC of Calvinism, though.

Their determination to take churches that are neutral on those issues and indoctrinate them against hiring young Calvinist ministers will not likely be swayed by any call for reason and respect.

These fellows would prefer if Spurgeon did not pastor in the SBC.

They literally would rather a neutral SBC church hire an incompetent Arminian pastor than to hire the likes of Charles Haddon Spurgeon.

 

[Rippon]

Something tells me John Calvin would roll over in his grave if he knew that through the use of his name,

It was coined in 1562,I think. Calvin did not like the term. It was meant to be a hateful slur.

the sum total of his Institutes has been reduced to five points.

Actually far from that. If some,or many are that info-deprived it's to their shame.

The Institutes is a huge tome and five points doesn't cover the historic "Calvinism" that John Calvin would agree with.

It covers a lot more than the Canons of Dort. But for a compact view of basic theology the Canons of Dort would be wonderful for one to study. It doesn't merely consist of 5 points.

I highly doubt there is a single true Calvinist posting on this forum. For example, the rules do not allow pedobaptist to post on this forum and I have never read where anyone here agrees with Calvin on co-mingling church and state. I understand why the term is used. Traditionalists object to people using "Doctrines of Grace" to describe those who hold to TULIP, because Traditionalists hold to doctrines of grace too. But I agree with EWF that agreeing with T.U.L.I.P. does not make one a Calvinist. That would badly misrepresent what John Calvin believed.

Do you believe that Spurgeon,Pink,Broadus,Carroll and others were calvinists? Of course they were! It's shorthand term. Most informed Christians know what it stands for.

We have two ordinances. Since we do not believe that baptism or the Lord's Supper confer Grace to the participant, we do not recognize sacraments

Do you agree with the 1689 Confession;otherwise known as the London Confession of Faith?

 

[Ed B]

First, to the original post... I like the tone and substance of the statement.

It covers a lot more than the Canons of Dort. But for a compact view of basic theology the Canons of Dort would be wonderful for one to study. It doesn't merely consist of 5 points.

But unfortunately for most people in Baptist Churches the term Calvinist and Calvinism has been reduced to five points, or worse, simply predestination. That is what I object to.

Do you believe that Spurgeon,Pink,Broadus,Carroll and others were calvinists? Of course they were! It's shorthand term. Most informed Christians know what it stands for.

Concur. It is shorthand and as such is incomplete and it is used because it is convenient and people don't like the look or sound of Zwingli-ist or Zwingli-ism.

Do you agree with the 1689 Confession;otherwise known as the London Confession of Faith?

Most of it. Would John Calvin be able to sign the 1689 London Confession? I think the answer is no.

 

[Rippon]

Concur. It is shorthand and as such is incomplete and it is used because it is convenient and people don't like the look or sound of Zwingli-ist or Zwingli-ism.

Bucerist would be more like it. Zwinglist doesn't quite cut it --the pronunciation and the theological bent. Calvin was more Bucerian than anything else. Yes,he was Augustinian and Pauline but...

Most of it. Would John Calvin be able to sign the 1689 London Confession? I think the answer is no.

You're right. But some very good Reformed men of today couldn't sign it either. But they would agree with the vast majority of it. Just as reformed Baptists can agree with the Westminster Confession of Faith for the most part. But the Savoy Declaration comes even closer to our way of understanding. The 1689 was modeled on the WCoF mediated by the Savoy.