An "Ax to Grind!"

[Reynolds]

Bro. Reynolds,

Why would your friend be a closet Calvinist? Why is he ashamed of the Gospel as he understands it?



rd

Because in this area, a Calvinist can't get a job in a SBC church. Its a question on every pulpit committees questionnaire.

 

[Iconoclast]

"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”,

they are accurate terms....you know I do not avoid such things.

as if non-Cals don’t preach an even broader scope of grace or aren’t a part of the reformed movement,

Surely they do not....and are not...at least in public...secretly they desire to be part of the movement

Better yet, another example is "Sovereign Grace" ("The" Doctrines of...)

everyone is forced to acknowledge these truths to some extent.

As if non-Cals don't believe God is sovereign along with His grace.

They really do not. They use the word in a limited watered down way.
you know this is a more truthful statement...don't you?

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.

of course...you had to work that in

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

oh no...you would find something...for sure.

 

[Iconoclast]

"Pastor_Bob,

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

that is an interesting observation do not be so hard on them...they are learning...

 

[agedman]

Because in this area, a Calvinist can't get a job in a SBC church. Its a question on every pulpit committees questionnaire.

I ran into that aa few times.

I sat in on the formation of one pulpit committee who wanted to put that as a question. I ask, what is it that you don't believe that they believe.

They didn't have a clue. One said, "We heard a former pastor speak against them," and that was enough.

Such is the shallowness of some churches.

Frankly, when a preacher preaches the Scriptures, and actually declares the counsel of God, one would be hard pressed to find objection. At the invitation, one presents the same truth: "Trust Christ." They both expect that those who respond will be lead to do so by the Holy Spirit, and both expect that it is totally the undeserved favor of God that gives such ability.

However, there is one internal difference. The non-cal hopes that person does not mess up some prayer or isn't given the correct Scriptures, or even some distraction prevents their free will from being exercised; while the cal knows that person wouldn't respond at all if it were not God giving both the willing heart and the ability.

The exception to both are those who come that are agenda driven hypocrites. Those who are weeds who mimic the wheat.

 

[agedman]

"Pastor_Bob,



that is an interesting observation do not be so hard on them...they are learning...

Ever learning is no guarantee of ever coming to the truth.

 

[Iconoclast]

Revmitchell,

When all of yall

is that all men everywhere?

]

 

[Reformed]

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.

Friend,

Do not sweat it. I prefer that a person does show their theological, Biblical, or historical ignorance. It reveals their level of understanding and allows me to make a decision on whether to engage with them or not. Especially entertaining are the ones who parade their ignorance as though it is worthy of some honor. They are actually doing you a favor; unwittingly but a favor nonetheless.

Lastly, keep a realistic view of message board theological debate. The goal is not to win the thread, it is to persuade people of the truth. Ignorant people are necessary obstacles to deftly maneuver around or to simply not engage with. There are many people who lurk in threads but read every word. They are the ones that are more likely to consider your words and search the scriptures to prove them true or false.

 

[Rhetorician]

Friend,

Do not sweat it. I prefer that a person does show their theological, Biblical, or historical ignorance. It reveals their level of understanding and allows me to make a decision on whether to engage with them or not. Especially entertaining are the ones who parade their ignorance as though it is worthy of some honor. They are actually doing you a favor; unwittingly but a favor nonetheless.

Lastly, keep a realistic view of message board theological debate. The goal is not to win the thread, it is to persuade people of the truth. Ignorant people are necessary obstacles to deftly maneuver around or to simply not engage with. There are many people who lurk in threads but read every word. They are the ones that are more likely to consider your words and search the scriptures to prove them true or false.

Dear "Reformed" Brother,

Who is to say I am not already doing what you have said and well written about? Some times people are guilty of what was said by a famous poet one time, "Me thinks the lady (person) protests too much!"

This may be difficult for some of those about whom you have referred above to follow, but surely they can figure it out.

sdg!

rd

 

[Revmitchell]

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

Ok well that is not how you stated it but if you are willing to reduce it to your opinion.

 

[Aaron]

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

Calvin's articulation of theSovereignty of God is the most noted aspect of Calvin's works. That's why Predestination is called Calvinism. No one cares about his teachings on baptism, which, btw, any honest theologian would find compelling, even if one disagrees.

 

[Reformed]

Calvin's articulation of theSovereignty of God is the most noted aspect of Calvin's works. That's why Predestination is called Calvinism. No one cares about his teachings on baptism, which, btw, any honest theologian would find compelling, even if one disagrees.

Absolutely! I disagree vehemently with paedobaptism but I cannot help but be impressed by the level of scholarship Calvin and other paedobaptist Reformers invested their time in. Their work has helped me form my own opinion, albeit different than theirs.

 

[rlvaughn]

Ok well that is not how you stated it but if you are willing to reduce it to your opinion.

I didn't have to reduce it to my opinion, because that was how it was stated in the first place. No doubt (I do not doubt) is an expression of my opinion of the term "calvies" being used as pejorative. If it is not, you can say so, because you are the one using it.

 

[Revmitchell]

I didn't have to reduce it to my opinion, because that was how it was stated in the first place. No doubt (I do not doubt) is an expression of my opinion of the term "calvies" being used as pejorative. If it is not, you can say so, because you are the one using it.

It's not a pejorative. Not by me anyway. Further I see other similar terms such as "premills", "non-cals", "dyspies" etc. I never took them as a pejorative, nor have I seen anyone suggest them as such, nor do I understand why anyone would take calvies that way.

It seems to me that we live in a world of hypersensativity where everyone is looking to be offended so as to be able to accuse and discredit others with whom we disagree with. I find it disingenuous.

 

[rlvaughn]

I'm not a "calvie," neither am I offended by the term, but I did think that was the way you were using it. I don't have to be offended by something to think it is being used a certain way. Since you say you are not using it pejoratively, then I am willing to accept that.

 

[Rippon]

It's not a pejorative. Not by me anyway.

You have got to be kidding.

About a month or two ago you went out of your way to say Calvies in about a dozen or so posts addressed to Calvinists.

You knew it was against the rules but you disregarded that and did your own thing.

 

[HankD]

I ran into that aa few times.

I sat in on the formation of one pulpit committee who wanted to put that as a question. I ask, what is it that you don't believe that they believe.

They didn't have a clue. One said, "We heard a former pastor speak against them," and that was enough.

Such is the shallowness of some churches.

Frankly, when a preacher preaches the Scriptures, and actually declares the counsel of God, one would be hard pressed to find objection. At the invitation, one presents the same truth: "Trust Christ." They both expect that those who respond will be lead to do so by the Holy Spirit, and both expect that it is totally the undeserved favor of God that gives such ability.

However, there is one internal difference. The non-cal hopes that person does not mess up some prayer or isn't given the correct Scriptures, or even some distraction prevents their free will from being exercised; while the cal knows that person wouldn't respond at all if it were not God giving both the willing heart and the ability.

The exception to both are those who come that are agenda driven hypocrites. Those who are weeds who mimic the wheat.

Isn't the difference between C and A contained in the question - who made the choice?

Or - what determines "election" ? God's foreknowledge or God's decree/declaration?

Or something else maybe?

IMO, The fruit of the Spirit ought to be the test of salvation in addition (or maybe exclusively) to doctrinal beliefs.
It's difficult to fake the fruit of the Spirit.

 

[Reynolds]

You have got to be kidding.

About a month or two ago you went out of your way to say Calvies in about a dozen or so posts addressed to Calvinists.

You knew it was against the rules but you disregarded that and did your own thing.

Its an abbreviation. I have never taken it as an attempt at insult.

 

[HankD]

Hmm, so what should we call the

Calvinism & Arminianism Debate forum?

 

[Rippon]

Its an abbreviation. I have never taken it as an attempt at insult.

It's a studied insult, and you know it.

 

[Reynolds]

It's a studied insult, and you know it.

If I did, I would say I did. You calling me a liar?