An "Ax to Grind!"

[Rhetorician]

To whom it may concern and all "who may have a dog in the fight!"

Dr. RC Sproul declared, "Theology should be done on the razor's edge!" My ax to grind and my bone to pick is this. All of you who are not "in the know" let me help you out here.

Many are calling those Baptists who believe in Particular Redemption "Calvinists" or "Calvies" or some other pejorative term. Please do not continue to show your theological, Biblical, or historical ignorance by using such tripe. Please refer to us as "Particular Redemptionist," "Historical Baptists," or "Reformed" (minded or leaning) Baptists.

When you, with a bad attitude, call us Calvinists you know not of what you speak, because;

First, I do not baptize babies,

Secondly, I do not sprinkle and call it baptism,

Third, I only baptist those who can make a confession of the Gospel and show personal proof or repentance,

Fourth, I do not believe the church and state should ever be together,

Fifth, I believe in a "free church" in a "free state."

Sixth, and many more things that I could mention.

You are welcome!

sdg!

rd

 

[Pastor_Bob]

First, when debating a Calvinist, there is one important rule to remember:
Calvinist = superior intellect
Non-Calvinist = ignorant

Second, would all Calvinists shun the doctrines that you listed above?

 

[canadyjd]

Well, unfortunately, this debate has been generally devided into two camps: Calvinists and Arminians. I dont know how many people believe supporters of the doctrines of grace hold to everything Calvin taught and the same with Arminius and those that generally follow his teachings.

I hereby ask that we change the terms and refer to these supporters as "Free Gracers" and "Free Willers" respectively.

What say you?

 

[Revmitchell]

To whom it may concern and all "who may have a dog in the fight!"

Dr. RC Sproul declared, "Theology should be done on the razor's edge!" My ax to grind and my bone to pick is this. All of you who are not "in the know" let me help you out here.

Many are calling those Baptists who believe in Particular Redemption "Calvinists" or "Calvies" or some other pejorative term. Please do not continue to show your theological, Biblical, or historical ignorance by using such tripe. Please refer to us as "Particular Redemptionist," "Historical Baptists," or "Reformed" (minded or leaning) Baptists.

When you, with a bad attitude, call us Calvinists you know not of what you speak, because;

First, I do not baptize babies,

Secondly, I do not sprinkle and call it baptism,

Third, I only baptist those who can make a confession of the Gospel and show personal proof or repentance,

Fourth, I do not believe the church and state should ever be together,

Fifth, I believe in a "free church" in a "free state."

Sixth, and many more things that I could mention.

You are welcome!

sdg!

rd

When all of yall quit calling us arminians, semi-pelagiusts etc then we will worry about what you all want to be called. Oh by the way add "ignorant" to that list.

 

[Rippon]

I don't take offence at being called a Calvinist. It's not an insult as far as I'm concerned, even if one uses as a weapon.

As Baptists our forebears used the term such as Carey, Booth, Gill, Boyce, Spurgeon and AWP. I see it as a need shorthand.

 

[tyndale1946]

Well, unfortunately, this debate has been generally devided into two camps: Calvinists and Arminians. I dont know how many people believe supporters of the doctrines of grace hold to everything Calvin taught and the same with Arminius and those that generally follow his teachings.

I hereby ask that we change the terms and refer to these supporters as "Free Gracers" and "Free Willers" respectively.

What say you?

Free Gracer's, Free Willers, Arminians, Calvinist, does it matter?... No my brethren this Is the only thing that matters!... Hang any label you want on anything else... Brother Glen

Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

 

[Yeshua1]

To whom it may concern and all "who may have a dog in the fight!"

Dr. RC Sproul declared, "Theology should be done on the razor's edge!" My ax to grind and my bone to pick is this. All of you who are not "in the know" let me help you out here.

Many are calling those Baptists who believe in Particular Redemption "Calvinists" or "Calvies" or some other pejorative term. Please do not continue to show your theological, Biblical, or historical ignorance by using such tripe. Please refer to us as "Particular Redemptionist," "Historical Baptists," or "Reformed" (minded or leaning) Baptists.

When you, with a bad attitude, call us Calvinists you know not of what you speak, because;

First, I do not baptize babies,

Secondly, I do not sprinkle and call it baptism,

Third, I only baptist those who can make a confession of the Gospel and show personal proof or repentance,

Fourth, I do not believe the church and state should ever be together,

Fifth, I believe in a "free church" in a "free state."

Sixth, and many more things that I could mention.

You are welcome!

sdg!

rd

Actual, many Presbyterians actually prefer to see us as particular Baptists, and not called reformed, as to them the historical Reformed theology was of the reformation, so infant baptism required to be officially labeled reformed!

 

[Reynolds]

To whom it may concern and all "who may have a dog in the fight!"

Dr. RC Sproul declared, "Theology should be done on the razor's edge!" My ax to grind and my bone to pick is this. All of you who are not "in the know" let me help you out here.

Many are calling those Baptists who believe in Particular Redemption "Calvinists" or "Calvies" or some other pejorative term. Please do not continue to show your theological, Biblical, or historical ignorance by using such tripe. Please refer to us as "Particular Redemptionist," "Historical Baptists," or "Reformed" (minded or leaning) Baptists.

When you, with a bad attitude, call us Calvinists you know not of what you speak, because;

First, I do not baptize babies,

Secondly, I do not sprinkle and call it baptism,

Third, I only baptist those who can make a confession of the Gospel and show personal proof or repentance,

Fourth, I do not believe the church and state should ever be together,

Fifth, I believe in a "free church" in a "free state."

Sixth, and many more things that I could mention.

You are welcome!

sdg!

rd

I call people what they call themselves. Other than on this forum, I know of no particular Baptists who do not proudly wear the label Calvinist. My good friend who is a pastor of a SBC church and a closet Calvinist flashes other people he knows hold a similar doctrine a "C" hand sign. I pick on him about it a lot.

 

[Reynolds]

When all of yall quit calling us arminians, semi-pelagiusts etc then we will worry about what you all want to be called. Oh by the way add "ignorant" to that list.

Ignorant heads the list.

 

[rlvaughn]

Many are calling those Baptists who believe in Particular Redemption "Calvinists" or "Calvies" or some other pejorative term.

No doubt "Calvies" is a pejorative term, but many people -- both those who believe it and those who don't -- use "Calvinist" as simple shorthand for those who believe in the 5 points of TULIP, or doctrines of Sovereign Grace. Context will usually show whether it is pejorative.

 

[Revmitchell]

No doubt "Calvies" is a pejorative term,

Great, show me how you have no "doubt".

 

[Benjamin]

I see “Particular Redemption” as just another attempt to monopolize a theological term and/or avoid transparency, like the use of the term “Doctrines of Grace” and “Reformed”, as if non-Cals don’t preach an even broader scope of grace or aren’t a part of the reformed movement, Better yet, another example is "Sovereign Grace" ("The" Doctrines of...) as if non-Cals don't believe God is sovereign along with His grace. Particular Redemption is a doctrine associated with a “particular” Reformed tradition alright and that is undeniably one of the “five points of Calvinism” (limited atonement) which they merely set out to rename, IMO, to disguise their Determinist roots.

Tell you what, name it " "THE" Doctrine of Deterministic Redemption" and you'll get no argument from me.

 

[agedman]

A question must be ask, "What do you call those (as myself) who do not embrace all 5 points without modification."

For example. Limited atonement is (imo) error, but limited redemption is not. As John 1 states, God limits that ability to become His child. It is He that adds to the church and not by might or will of humankind.

There are those who desire to label "determinism" as if it were error, yet, those same refuse to recognize that a rejection of a determined purposeful God presents God as either distant and unapproachable as not really involved or even caring, and/or a God that lacks total control and awareness of all that has, is, and will transpire in His creation.

God is not human with intellectual bindings that forces conformity to worldly philosophies. He has no innate limitation to His knowledge of all matter and matters.

If it were not true, then Romans 8 could not stand as factual.

 

[TCassidy]

Non-Calvinist = ignorant

Well, Bob, you know yourself better than we do!

 

[Benjamin]

A question must be ask, "What do you call those (as myself) who do not embrace all 5 points without modification."

Weaselers.

 

[Reynolds]

A question must be ask, "What do you call those (as myself) who do not embrace all 5 points without modification."

For example. Limited atonement is (imo) error, but limited redemption is not. As John 1 states, God limits that ability to become His child. It is He that adds to the church and not by might or will of humankind.

There are those who desire to label "determinism" as if it were error, yet, those same refuse to recognize that a rejection of a determined purposeful God presents God as either distant and unapproachable as not really involved or even caring, and/or a God that lacks total control and awareness of all that has, is, and will transpire in His creation.

God is not human with intellectual bindings that forces conformity to worldly philosophies. He has no innate limitation to His knowledge of all matter and matters.

If it were not true, then Romans 8 could not stand as factual.

My guess is "ignorant."

 

[Rhetorician]

I call people what they call themselves. Other than on this forum, I know of no particular Baptists who do not proudly wear the label Calvinist. My good friend who is a pastor of a SBC church and a closet Calvinist flashes other people he knows hold a similar doctrine a "C" hand sign. I pick on him about it a lot.

Bro. Reynolds,

Why would your friend be a closet Calvinist? Why is he ashamed of the Gospel as he understands it? I must say that this is really disjunctive to me. Then what do I know in the grand scheme of things? I like what Dr. Bob says, "Jesus knows me this I love!"

sdg!

rd

 

[rlvaughn]

Great, show me how you have no "doubt".

Since it is my opinion, the fact that I stated it as my opinion is all the proof necessary that it is my opinion.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Well, Bob, you know yourself better than we do!

Very good.

 

[JPPT1974]

Well all denominations are different. But they have their own way. Of doing things like baptizing and preaching even. As long as they stick to the same God through Christ that is all that matters.