Another Question for Pastors

I think it's legitimate to ask if you hide anything when being interviewed or on your statement or whatever. That was the point that I was trying to make. I don't believe in the man-made doctrine of Calvinism, nor do I believe in the man-made doctrine of Arminianism. I do think both have part of it right and both have part of it wrong. (Which according to some would make me Calvinist for whatever wild reason.) But, I'm not going to hide that, and if asked, I will confront and/or back up my doctrinal stance on the subject scripturally.

I think that's the way you should present yourself, no matter what you believe.

For example, I think the Bible clearly teaches us that church is for saved people. (But, I would never turn away an unsaved person at the door, unless they are being disruptive or something.) If a church wants to "expand" to appeal to the world, I'm not going to be sneaky to get in there. I will simply tell them my views and tell them that they either need to accept that or find someone else who's willing to compromise to appeal to the world.

If a search comittee were to ask me if I'm a Calvinist, I'd answer "No". If they were to ask me if I'm Arminian, I'd answer "No". If they ask me to expound, I'll be happy to. If they want to know where I stand on the doctrine of election, I'll gladly answer that question. The last questionaire that I filled out for a church was 28 pages long.

 

I am not an open theist. Nowhere in anything I have ever written on the Baptist Board or anywhere else have I come anywhere near advocating that position.

Also, I did not attack Calvinists. I attacked both sides. Read what I said again, and interpret literally.

Also, I am not a hypocrite. I said exactly what I meant, and I live what I say, and I stand by it.

Oh, and by the way, Joseph, you are not a pastor and this thread is for pastors.

 

Stefan

You should conduct your op with actual interviews.

Call a couple of dozen pastors and ask them - although I think your kneck of the woods is not heavily 'calvinist'. That is from the few pastors from there that I have talked with.

I do pray that "the Calvinist ministers" do not "hide their position from the search committee". I would be hurt to hear that men of God were deceiving people about their doctrinal positions. I do pray that "the Calvinist ministers" are no more at fault than the non-"Calvinist ministers".

 

Joseph,

I will concede that Arminians do share some aspects of their beliefs with the open theists, but to say that they are one and the same is simply not true. I suspect that you already recognize that fact.

The greatest difference, among many, is the belief of open theists that the omniscience of God does not include foreknowledge of the outcome of individual free choices that have yet to be made.

To say that Arminians and open theists are the same because they may share a common belief, is like saying that Calvinists and Arminians are the same because they, too, share common beliefs.

 

Everything that does't agree with Joseph is offensive

BTW, Joseph, for one who tells another to get off their high and mighty horse, you sure have no problem sitting on one yourself spouting off calling everyone "heretics".

 

JohnofJapan said he could sign the Statement of Faith of Arlington Baptist College, which is a very calvinistic statement. It clearly proposes that regeneration preceeds repentance and faith. I don't think you can believe that and not be a calvinist. I wonder how many pastors and churches have such a statement, and yet they reject calvinism.

Many statements of faith are copies of the New Hampshire statement, which is fully monergistic/calvinistic.

If a search committee of such a church asks if a condidate agrees to the church's satement of faith, does he then have to label himself a "calvinist", or just answer the question as stated?

BTW, I am in agreement with the premise of the OP. I think "5-pointers" should be up-front with their convictions and let the chips fall.

 

While it's kind of you to want to claim me, J. D., I'm not a Calvinist. :smilewinkgrin: :smilewinkgrin: And I personally don't believe the ABC statement says what you think it does. :tongue3:

 

Well said, Dr. Bob.

 

Calvin might be hard pressed to agree . . .

And I don't think that ABC intended their statement of faith to be interpreted in 5 points.

 

While I was at BJU, 1970-1972, I knew a Presbyterian (my roommate) who would say the BJU statement of faith in chapel. When I asked him how as a Calvinist (we went around a few times on that :smilewinkgrin: ) he could honestly agree to it. His answer was that he simply had mental reservations. While I was baffled by his attitude in that respect, I get a little choked up as I remember this man and his kindness to me during a very difficult time--John R. Rice and Bob Jones Jr. were having their disagreement, and I had to scrunch down in my seat when Bob, Jr., preached on it in chapel.

Actually, there were quite a few Presbyterians at BJU in those days due to the Carl McIntyre/Bible Presbyterian connection. I'm sure the typical college student wouldn't think deeply enough to wonder about the statement he was parroting in chapel. However, surely a mature pastor before a search committee should be honest in the way that Dr. Bob has aptly laid out. I recall a BWM missionary here in Japan many years ago who told me he was a five pointer. I was much more disappointed that he dishonestly signed the BWM statement of faith every year than that he was a five pointer.

 

I'm not trying to "claim" you. I just want you to deal honestly with the statement. I've posted it before and you've read it. It says that repentance and faith are fruits of the new birth, wrought in the heart by the Holy Spirit. Words that could have come right from the pen of AW Pink. Now, do you agree that regeneration preceeds faith or not?

 

Well, I have to hand it to you, J. D., I missed that particular statement. And by the way, you did not post that particular statement from the ABC doctrinal statement, you merely stated what you thought it said. I went and read the doctrinal statement and dealt honestly with it, whatever you may think. I simply did not read it thoroughly enough.

My answer is that no, I do not agree that regeneration preceeds faith, so I would not be able to sign that doctrinal statement. I disagree with the whole concept of ordus salutis, as I believe I said when we talked about this before. It is all simultaneous in my Book.

 

Fair enough. But I did post that particular statement, you just assumed that I was reading something into it that wasn't there. Here is the post.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=840711&postcount=15

Now I will grant you that the current and perhaps past administration of AFB probably does not identify themselves as "calvinists", but this just proves my point in light of the discussion at hand. Is it enough just to ask a candidate if they "agree with the church's doctrinal statement"? No doubt hundreds, if not thousands, of churches use a form of this statement in their SOF, and yet they would probably reject any candidate who said "I believe no one believes until they are first quickened by the power of the Holy Spirit".

I guess what I'm trying to say is that churches are too inconsistent when it comes to the way they select pastors and missionaries. If the SOF/C&BL really matters, then churches shouldn't hire someone that is not in agreement with it. Likewise, if the SOF/C&BL doesn't really matter to the church, then don't drag it out after-the-fact and start hitting the new preacher over the head with it just because someone has decided that they don't like his selection of aftershave. !!

But I will disagree with some of my calvinist brothers in that I think someone that holds to the 5 points should know that they have a different world view than the typical baptist church today, and they should not wait to be questioned on it, but should rather come right out and assert their views. But that view reveals my prejudice toward the whole issue of unity vs separation among baptists. I don't think there can be unity between the C/non-C elements. I think the SBC will eventually split over the issue. The two sides were united against the common enemy of liberalism, and now that liberalism has been checked to some degree, the calvinism issue will become more and more the focus.

I hate to be so negative, but the reality is that both war and church splits are inevitable.

Did you hear about the guy marooned on a deserted island? He had built two churches - the one he attends, and the one he used to attend!

 

You caught me red handed, dead to rights. I'm guilty of carelessness. :tear: Hand down your sentence: 10 lashes with a wet noodle, incarceration in a 5-point prison!! I repent in dustcloth and ashes. raying:

Well said. This is an explosive issue, with the potential to split churches, so it needs to be handled by both sides with care and Christian grace.

:laugh: :laugh:

 

Looks like the best way to punish you is with these falling bricks I see around the BB these days. So here goes, read or not! :tonofbricks:

 

(Aside: little does J. D. know that this is the hardest head on the BB!! Doesn't hurt at all, heh, heh, heh. )

 

Openly state my position . . .

Well, since I consider myself more baptistic than I consider myself calvinistic, I am probably more open about my baptistic faith.

I am not trying to hide anything. I consider Baptists to be historically separatists and not calvinists (or armineans).

God bless

Wayne