About to hit the fan in the SBC

[Michael Wrenn]

Michael,
The roots of the SBC were calvinistic...not general baptists. If you are speaking of the roots of all baptists......John the baptist,and the Apostles were reformed baptists, by practice and teaching:thumbs::thumbs:
It was predestined that the general baptists you speak of did what they could under difficult circumstances, however the biblical teaching is and has always been calvinistic. Like in this current discussion, these people who wrote this misguided article have departed from truth and need to repent.

Well, you knew I would strongly disagree with you, so you need not have even addressed your post to me.

But good to talk with you again otherwise.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

It is an issue that does not merit much argument. It is sort of like the end times order of event debates, what difference does it make? As I posted above, there are non-Cals and Cals in our church, probably the majority non-cal, and we get along just fine. Tom Butler is a Cal in my church. I lean that way, but not with the intensity he has. We have no problems, nor does he have any problems with the non-Cals. Remember, I was brought up in a PCA church and did not become a Baptist until age 26. I have been a Baptist 35 years.

This is a subject that can be talked about in a civil manner, but this board refuses. I see a couple of fundamental problems. One is the name of the doctrine. They are doctrines of God's sovereignty and grace. Calvin is no model for anything. Aside from being involved in the murder of Michael Servetus, he supported infant baptism in his writings. Also, although he wrote of seperation of church and state, he became the ruler of a city-state theocracy. He also had many Catholic tendencies. If we just have to use a name, call it Augustiianism.

Another problem is the electronic yahoo cowboy, James White. Deciding SBC doctrine or policy is a serious matter, and not a circus, which is all his show is. He is there for money and ratings. He uses the Mormon church (which I detest) for the ends of those goals. Another entertainer, just like any Hollywood star, has no business setting doctrine. It should be done by reasonable, spiritually mature men of the local churches that belong to the SBC.

There is a vast difference in his approach to say the Mormon church and a person concerned about our faith. He uses Mormons for his personal enrichment and self attention. We oppose the Mormon church because it is a false doctrine about Jesus Christ. To be honest, this guy makes me sick. All he is going to do is flame the fires and drag our churches down. He needs to be treated by a united front of the SBC like yesterday's trash.

(See bolded part). Thank you. And yet there are baptists on here who defend Calvin and refuse to admit the truth about him. But some of these same people are eager to condemn the RCC for its persecution and murders.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Michal Wrenn posted...

Thank you. And yet there are baptists on here who defend Calvin and refuse to admit the truth about him. But some of these same people are eager to condemn the RCC for its persecution and murders.

I have read some despicable things about John Calvin.

Aparently he was a somewhat wretched human being. That might explain his bad theology

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Michal Wrenn posted...



I have read some despicable things about John Calvin.

Aparently he was a somewhat wretched human being. That might explain his bad theology

I was told he was quite a banjo player! :smilewinkgrin: And note: Apparently is spelled wrong! :godisgood:

 

[Iconoclast]

1. It does not surprise me that you would think that anyone could not hold up against "cals" in a debate. Your arrogance would not allow anything else.

2. I have no interest in trying to convince anyone that I can hold up to anything in a debate. It is just not a need within me.

3. I avoid much of the "cal" debates and issues because of the lack of honesty by the use of debate tactics rather than honest discussion.

4. There is no need for me debate James White. It would have no value or prove anything by anyone. Your suggestions of such is childish which is another quality you display quite frequently. 5. James White has no credibility except with "cals" like yourself. He has a poor reputation which is quite similar to Rush Limbaugh. He likes to provoke people. It has been referred to as a "confrontational style" on this board and I believe he does so needlessly. When one's argument is weak then often it gets supported with arrogance and sarcasm. Why would I want to engage such behavior. I do not do it on this board and James White is one of the worst offenders of them all.

]When one's argument is weak then often it gets supported with arrogance and sarcasm. Why would I want to engage such behavior.[/

You just did.I understand:thumbs:You cannot back up anything you say.Got it.

There is no need for me debate James White. It would have no value or prove anything by anyone

It would have no value because you add nothing to the discussion.Just take pot shots, and then retreat into your sanctimonious cave.

 

[Alive in Christ]

EWF posted...

I was told he was quite a banjo player!

I dont know anything about Calvins musical abilities, and dont care.

Its the murderings that sort of "bug" me.

And note: Apparently is spelled wrong!

It sure was, and you can be sure that there will be many many more mis-spellings in my posts. You can count on it.

This is a "discussion board, not a "spelling bee".

 

[Iconoclast]

I am about the fifth person you have done that to about the debate challange. Are you on some kind of ego trip to let the world know how much theology you understand? Or have you taken a side trip to the inner workings and mind of God?


The verses I offered show than those who labor in the word can be supported for their laboring spiritually,by being paid with money. reread it.

Ego trip???not really.....just answering your objection.Is it ok that I offered the scriptures that spoke to your objection? Am I allowed to know some theology without it being an ego trip?

 

[saturneptune]

I am about the fifth person you have done that to about the debate challange. Are you on some kind of ego trip to let the world know how much theology you understand? Or have you taken a side trip to the inner workings and mind of God?


The verses I offered show than those who labor in the word can be supported for their laboring spiritually,by being paid with money. reread it.

Ego trip???not really.....just answering your objection.Is it ok that I offered the scriptures that spoke to your objection? Am I allowed to know some theology without it being an ego trip?

Will you let it go, already. I apologized for the remarks some eight hours ago. All you are doing is confirming what I said.

 

[Tom Butler]

I don't find it necessary to defend Calvin in order to be a Calvinist.

My views are based on what I believe are scriptural truth, not Calvin truth.

What Calvin taught makes no difference to me. Attacking him cuts no ice with me.

 

[OldRegular]

I don't find it necessary to defend Calvin in order to be a Calvinist.

My views are based on what I believe are scriptural truth, not Calvin truth.

What Calvin taught makes no difference to me. Attacking him cuts no ice with me.

Well said Tom. I have tried to make that point in the past to no avail. Spurgeon said that Calvinism was a "nickname" for the Biblical Doctrine of Grace. On this forum it is all too often used as a pejorative.

 

[Tom Butler]

Well said Tom. I have tried to make that point in the past to no avail. Spurgeon said that Calvinism was a "nickname" for the Biblical Doctrine of Grace. On this forum it is all too often used as a pejorative.

I've even looked around for another name to describe Calvinists.

I suggested DoG (for Doctrines of Grace). All it got me was being called a Dirty DoG.

 

[jonathan.borland]

I've even looked around for another name to describe Calvinists.

I suggested DoG (for Doctrines of Grace). All it got me was being called a Dirty DoG.

How about "calvinissimus"? It has a superlative ring to it.

 

[Tom Butler]

How about "calvinissimus"? It has a superlative ring to it.

Is the plural of that "calvinissimi"? Is the female equivalent "calvinissima," and the plural "calvinissimae?"

Incidentally, we sort of have dueling threads on the subject. Be sure to check out SBC-Hatfields and McCoys or you might miss something.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Nah, let's just stick with dog.